These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: Tech is fine l2p

First post First post
Author
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#581 - 2012-07-21 00:30:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Akita T
Quick calc, "initial draft" tech alchemy is 10 Plat Tech = 100 cobalt + (100-95=)5 platinum + 1h of fuel for 3000+tf (which would be 20 fuel blocs or around 350k ISK).
So that's 1 PT = 10 cobalt + 0.5 plat + 35k ISK for fuel (the old alchemy 20:1 tech:cobalt replacement ratios)
Plat Tech used to sell for around 92k ISK lately, but it will almost certainly be falling.

Cobalt used to sell for ~500 but it recently spiked to over 3k, Platinum was around 2.5k and now it's around 4.5k, so that's 30k from Cobalt, barely over 2k from Platinum, 35k from fuel, making PT cost 67k to manufacture.
Add in at least 100m ISK/mo per reactor profit to make it start worth bothering with (7,200 units/reactor/month), so another 14k minimum, and you're looking at a 81k price for PT down from the previous 92k trade level.
Not a lot less, but still noteworthy.
That would cap tech price at around 145k-155k or thereabouts. Assuming Cobalt/Platinum or fuel block prices would not spike, and assuming people would be willing to accept a mere 100m per month from a reactor. So, maybe, tech price won't be going down much in the long run, but it won't go up more as it could have if there was no tech alchemy at all.
Depends how long they'd keep the reactions at that level.

And of course, they could bring the replacement ratios further down from 10 Cobalt and 20 fuel blocks more in line with other current alchemy numbers (2.5 Cobalt and 5 fuel blocs and just 3.5k minimum added expected minimum profit, so the new 5:1 alchemy), which would make it much cheaper (assuming cobalt and platinum would NOT spike even further in price, to a mere 22k per unit of PT). That would cap tech to a negligible price compared to the current level, probably below 40k per unit.
Of course, in that case, I expect both cobalt and platinum to go up more, and I also expect people to want more monthly profit from reactors than a measly 100m/mo/reactor, so before any further changes, we might as well still see tech over 60k per unit (or even a bit higher) even with the VASTLY buffed alchemy reactions.
Depends how much it takes them to implement OTHER changes on top of just alchemy.
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#582 - 2012-07-21 00:52:47 UTC
you're valuing cobalt, a worthless mineral found in much greater abundance than people willing to run alchemy towers, at market price
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#583 - 2012-07-21 00:53:32 UTC
sorry: not market price, "speculative bubble price"
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#584 - 2012-07-21 01:00:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Akita T
I'm ballparking it at "worst mildly likely case scenario" price.
Besides, it's not like you can have a lot of cobalt hitting the market unless it's profitable to mine cobalt moons, so that makes, what, 10 blocks for 100 cobalt, or something like 1700 minimum cobalt price for barely breaking even if you only find cobalt on a moon ? You'll probably see it at around 2k, give or take.
2k, 3k, that's at most 10k lower PT, or at most 20k lower tech.
Sure, you can find other junk to extract to mitigate that, but I'm still expecting cobalt prices to be at least a 2k per unit or thereabouts.
If they buff the alchemy from 20:1 to 5:1, that just lowered cobalt's importance by a factor of 4, so, meh, even less actual price impact, now barely 2.5k lower PT or at most 5k lower tech.
For all we know, it could be platinum that rises up and goes bananas price-wise instead anyway.
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Perkone
Caldari State
#585 - 2012-07-21 01:04:03 UTC
Was wondering when you'd pop up here, Akita.

No sig.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#586 - 2012-07-21 01:06:02 UTC
Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote:
Was wondering when you'd pop up here, Akita.

Busy week with RL work. Still kinda' busy, but on a break because most of the other colleagues are sleepin'.
Highauger's animated corpse
Jove Observation And Neutrality Negotiations Act
#587 - 2012-07-21 02:39:27 UTC
Ha ha ha I like this OP. Raver, calling it
Rachel Silverside
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#588 - 2012-07-21 04:08:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Rachel Silverside
Lilliana Stelles wrote:
Generating elements from other elements?

Cold fusion, or is spacewizard now a viable profession?
steave435
Perkone
Caldari State
#589 - 2012-07-21 04:20:13 UTC
Akita T wrote:
Quick calc, "initial draft" tech alchemy is 10 Plat Tech = 100 cobalt + (100-95=)5 platinum + 1h of fuel for 3000+tf (which would be 20 fuel blocs or around 350k ISK).
So that's 1 PT = 10 cobalt + 0.5 plat + 35k ISK for fuel (the old alchemy 20:1 tech:cobalt replacement ratios)
Plat Tech used to sell for around 92k ISK lately, but it will almost certainly be falling.

Cobalt used to sell for ~500 but it recently spiked to over 3k, Platinum was around 2.5k and now it's around 4.5k, so that's 30k from Cobalt, barely over 2k from Platinum, 35k from fuel, making PT cost 67k to manufacture.
Add in at least 100m ISK/mo per reactor profit to make it start worth bothering with (7,200 units/reactor/month), so another 14k minimum, and you're looking at a 81k price for PT down from the previous 92k trade level.
Not a lot less, but still noteworthy.
That would cap tech price at around 145k-155k or thereabouts. Assuming Cobalt/Platinum or fuel block prices would not spike, and assuming people would be willing to accept a mere 100m per month from a reactor. So, maybe, tech price won't be going down much in the long run, but it won't go up more as it could have if there was no tech alchemy at all.
Depends how long they'd keep the reactions at that level.

And of course, they could bring the replacement ratios further down from 10 Cobalt and 20 fuel blocks more in line with other current alchemy numbers (2.5 Cobalt and 5 fuel blocs and just 3.5k minimum added expected minimum profit, so the new 5:1 alchemy), which would make it much cheaper (assuming cobalt and platinum would NOT spike even further in price, to a mere 22k per unit of PT). That would cap tech to a negligible price compared to the current level, probably below 40k per unit.
Of course, in that case, I expect both cobalt and platinum to go up more, and I also expect people to want more monthly profit from reactors than a measly 100m/mo/reactor, so before any further changes, we might as well still see tech over 60k per unit (or even a bit higher) even with the VASTLY buffed alchemy reactions.
Depends how much it takes them to implement OTHER changes on top of just alchemy.


You make the mistake of assuming that you have to have someone mine it, bring it to wherever to sell and then bring it back somewhere to react on a different tower. Simply put a medium POS on a cobalt moon and buy some plat, and run the reaction right there on the moon while mining.
That may sound like a "minerals I mine myself are free" argument, but the difference is that doing that cuts out the cost of acquiring the cobalt since you don't need an extra tower consuming fuel for it, while also cutting out all the work required to run that tower and haul stuff to and from it, so unlike the mining scenario you perform less work by acquiring it yourself instead of more work.
Cobalt is so cheap that it's not even worth mining+hauling (yes, some do it, but those are the same people that would be willing to run plat tech alchemy without profit, just like they now run cobalt mining without profit), so you can't even argue opportunity cost.
Therefore, the only math needed was described a few pages ago:

steave435 wrote:
With current prices, running a medium POS with a simple reactor on a Cobalt moon would cost ~360k for the fuel and ~30k for the platinum each hour, for a total of 390k. That produces 10 plat tech, so to break even, plat tech price wouldn't have to be higher then 39k/unit, roughly equivalent to a regular tech price of 70-75k.

The profit scales up very slowly though as tech price goes up, even with the pre-anouncement plat tech price at 90k you'd only be making 85m/week, but it's still profit beyond the 40k/unit mark, and even lower if you can get the stuff you need trough buy orders instead of getting it from sell orders.
Since cobalt moons are so common though, any individual could easily set up a few moons without support from a corp or alliance, so despite the low profit margin, you'd still have a fair number of people doing it if price gets too high.


That's based on a the inflated plat price of 6k, so with a normal price you'd make a profit even earlier.
HAMBER BOGAN
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#590 - 2012-07-21 04:22:06 UTC
Feligast wrote:
HAMBER BOGAN wrote:
3) Take post nerf tech and spread it out throughout null sec, not bunched up in one place.

I personally would like option 3.


So essentially, you're saying it's not fair we fought, held, defended, fueled, scooped, and politicked our way to tech holding. It should be taken away from us by the Devs and given to alliances that refuse to do that, amirite?



No. I used to be in CFC and spent my 3 week christmas holiday taking branch.

If the tech is spread out, then it means there will be more medium sized coalitions holding 1 or 2 regions, not half the entirety of null sec. And eve region would have their own fun, not just the borders of goons and everyone else.

Goons have proven they are the best at this game, grats, you win at eve, and yea, you guys are having fun. But I believe it would be a lot more fun if you have a bunch of ******** alliances/coalitions running around derping all over the place trying to take tech moons and having good fights that aren't always blobbed into tidi.
I think once you have experienced that too, then you would see it as a lot more fun too.

Either way, CFC's days are numbered.

Best Bogan

EVE Down Under - Australian EVE Community www.evedownunder.com

mjgvjbk
Wombo United
#591 - 2012-07-21 05:11:47 UTC
Should be able to moon mine hi end minerals from empire, don't see why 0.0 has to have everything maybe even let the low end moon goo be available from hi sec ?

Just a thought Blink
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#592 - 2012-07-21 05:13:11 UTC
mjgvjbk wrote:
Should be able to moon mine hi end minerals from empire, don't see why 0.0 has to have everything maybe even let the low end moon goo be available from hi sec ?

Just a thought Blink


Yeah hiseccers should be able to mine tech moons with their invincible towers that they tear down during the 24 hour wardec warning and reanchor with a new corp

Also you can already mine moons in empire, just that it has to be 0.1-0.3

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration

Glacies Regina
State War Academy
Caldari State
#593 - 2012-07-21 06:30:14 UTC
Oh the tears Straight

Oh the mega corps Roll

oh the very epic nature of Shocked

Someone is going to rage quit Evil



Can i get this super sized
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#594 - 2012-07-21 07:47:45 UTC
Glacies Regina wrote:
Oh the tears Straight

Oh the mega corps Roll

oh the very epic nature of Shocked

Someone is going to rage quit Evil



Can i get this super sized


nobody's crying over a nerf that's basically been inevitable since 2009

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration

Malarkey
Twisted Creations
#595 - 2012-07-21 09:23:37 UTC
I'm sorry, but I don't think this goes far enough.

It will mean that a few more moons become attractive and viable enough to mine, but these will all soon be taken but rarely fought over.

I would suggest expanding the number of available moons to include Class 4 systems. (I never really understood why it had to be Class 3) and I agree with previous posts calling for moon goo to be available through PI.
From Ua
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#596 - 2012-07-21 12:28:47 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Wocka Wocka!

Remember that if you like this change you should hit the "like" button on this post. I need to know if this is the kind of work the community is looking for. ;)

Laura Craft Cypher
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#597 - 2012-07-21 12:46:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Laura Craft Cypher
Quote:
Most of these reactions will sit unused at any given time, and that is by design. Alchemy will kick in as a pressure valve in case prices of any moon mineral spike. As long as prices remain low there is no need to bypass the original mineral.


Until some jack-ass like myself comes along while prices are low and continues pressing the "pressure valve".

So what happens then?

You would think that the prices would keep going down until they reach the minimum price of the materials and taxes that went into creating the product. Right?

Wrong....

They would continue to plummet for so long as players continue to pump capital into the market and force the price down.

Over "X" amount of duration and practice, this sets a new standard.

Now with a new standard set. There is nothing to prevent the events that took place and forced the market prices up in the first place from happening again.

Alchemy will only buy time. As the current standard goes away and the new standard becomes the current standard which sits in place of the old standard. Basically, "one cycle".

So how long is, "one cycle"?
One cycle is as long as it takes for those with an industrious mind-set to calculate the numbers and re-stage events.

Prices may go down during the interim, while those that understand EVE is nothing more than a "Unit and ISK Generator" and scramble to regain control. They will eventually regain control and put the prices where they want them. It is just a matter of time.
Inspiration
#598 - 2012-07-21 14:03:35 UTC
Who says fuel prices will remain the same if more towers are put on cobalt moons?

The cost is sure to go up and we will see price rises as will be the demand for new towers. And given the likelihood that current towers will not be taken down, multiple classes of items will go up in price without solving ANYTHING of the original problem!

This CCP is what you get for playing communist!

FAIL in the power of two!


Time to abort this change right here and now and also kill of the past alchemy introduction, just axe it already!

I am serious!

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#599 - 2012-07-21 14:10:06 UTC
That word, "communist", I don't think you know what it means.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#600 - 2012-07-21 14:10:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Akita T
steave435 wrote:
stuff

True, it's possible.

Let's say you want to get the absolute LOWEST value technetium is likely to settle down at.

So, let's downvalue cobalt back down to previous negligible levels of 500 ISK and assume platinum hovers at only around 5k and with a very pathetic 100m/mo/reactor (be it regular reaction of alchemy reaction, although it's more work to do an alchemy reaction than a regular reaction due to the extra refine and refill step).
1 "regular" non-alchemy PT should be 0.5 tech + 0.5 plat + 0.1 fuel cube + 700 ISK for 100m ISK/mo/reactor profit.
1 tech = 2 PT - (plat+0.2 fuel cube+1.4k ISK), give or take, so in other words, 1 tech = 2 * alchemy PT - 8.8k, roughly.
Let's make that 1 tech = 2 * PT - 9k.

A) for 20:1 alchemy
1 alchemy PT = 5k cobalt + 2.5k plat + 35k fuel + 14k profit = 56.5k ISK
1 tech = 105k ISK minimum

B) for 10:1 alchemy
1 alchemy PT = 2.5k cobalt + 2.5k plat + 17.5k fuel + 7k profit = 29.5k ISK
1 tech = 50k ISK minimum

C) for 5:1 alchemy
1 alchemy PT = 1.25k cobalt + 2.5k plat + 8.75k fuel + 3.5k profit = 16k ISK
1 tech = 23k ISK minimum


Mind you, we're talking negligible platinum price hike from current semi-speculated levels (unlikely but conceivable), lack of hike in fuel block costs (possible, but not certain), cobalt bottoming out to barely pre-speculation frenzy levels (also unlikely, but borderline possible), and a HORRIBLY LOW returns on work expended on the alchemy reactions.
So, those are quite literally the rock-bottom prices at which you would be crazy to sell at, with actual prices most likely well above that.
The previous post was closer to the other extreme, more of a top price in each scenario, whereas this is a bottom.