These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Market Discussions

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123
 

Implications for the proposed Technetium changes.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Crouching Woman Hidden Cucumber
#41 - 2012-07-25 13:10:45 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Bumping with an update to the plan

After evaluating the market reactions and the estimates from experienced players we now feel comfortable accelerating our planned implementation these reactions. We're going to have them start at 10/1 ratios and re-evaluate from there.


Thank you, not just for changing the process to what I believe is closer to the balance that eve needs but for actually listening to players.

If thinking through the consequences, listening to player feedback and implementing carefully rather than just going all in become defining features of all patches all I can say is, awesome. WTB more CCP Fozzies.


Sorry for the mild derail, not everyday we get to celebrate dev excellence. Back on topic with the new 10:1 ratio which should have a meaningful, but not game-breaking impact on prices, it seems CS might become a more cost effective option for some gang PVP roles as they should end up a fair bit cheaper than tier 3 BS. I know they still have their drawbacks but it'd be nice to see the class utilized more.
Callduron
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#42 - 2012-07-25 14:14:23 UTC
Thanks Fozzie, +1 like for you.

I write http://stabbedup.blogspot.co.uk/

I post on reddit as /u/callduron.
Captain CarlCosmogasm
Cosmogasm
#43 - 2012-07-25 16:55:12 UTC
I do modestly follow the Jita moon goo market. Pre-technetium alchemy announcement, cobalt seemed to be over produced. The volume of cobalt traded seems to have been about 1/10th the volume that was needed to make the volume of crystalline carbonide traded. Also cobalt was relatively dirt cheep compared to the other racial metals. I assume from the numbers that players who harvest cobalt tend to operate full crystalline carbonide chains and that there is so much more cobalt produced than platinum used that it became as cheep as it was, 500 isk.

Also as others have pointed out in the proposed platinum technite alchemy, the competitive ratio between cobalt and technetium is 10:1.

What hasn't been mentioned, but is probably understood, is the large demand on fullerides and nanotransistors in T2 manufacturing and the large demand on crytalline carbonided from gallente and ore t2 manufacturing. If we hypothetically replace all the technetium used to produce the required amount of platinum technite to full fill market demand with cobalt, EVE would need to produce 50 to 100 times the amount of cobalt it now produces as I can see from my loose interpretation of the market numbers. Statistically if r8s are 4 times more common that r32s then cobalt can only compete or replace about 1/10th the demand on technetium - I don't know if this is correct.

Is there enough cobalt to effectively drive down the cost of technetium?

If there isn't enough cobalt to effectively replace technetium, or a good portion of it, in the fulleride and nanotransitor chains, then cobalt will spike to about 15k to match an 80k technetium price (last time I compared values).

For the T2 Gallente manufacturer, prepare for crystalline carbonide to settle around 250.
TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
#44 - 2012-07-25 21:45:45 UTC
Captain CarlCosmogasm wrote:
I do modestly follow the Jita moon goo market. Pre-technetium alchemy announcement, cobalt seemed to be over produced. The volume of cobalt traded seems to have been about 1/10th the volume that was needed to make the volume of crystalline carbonide traded. Also cobalt was relatively dirt cheep compared to the other racial metals. I assume from the numbers that players who harvest cobalt tend to operate full crystalline carbonide chains and that there is so much more cobalt produced than platinum used that it became as cheep as it was, 500 isk.

Also as others have pointed out in the proposed platinum technite alchemy, the competitive ratio between cobalt and technetium is 10:1.

What hasn't been mentioned, but is probably understood, is the large demand on fullerides and nanotransistors in T2 manufacturing and the large demand on crytalline carbonided from gallente and ore t2 manufacturing. If we hypothetically replace all the technetium used to produce the required amount of platinum technite to full fill market demand with cobalt, EVE would need to produce 50 to 100 times the amount of cobalt it now produces as I can see from my loose interpretation of the market numbers. Statistically if r8s are 4 times more common that r32s then cobalt can only compete or replace about 1/10th the demand on technetium - I don't know if this is correct.

Is there enough cobalt to effectively drive down the cost of technetium?

If there isn't enough cobalt to effectively replace technetium, or a good portion of it, in the fulleride and nanotransitor chains, then cobalt will spike to about 15k to match an 80k technetium price (last time I compared values).

For the T2 Gallente manufacturer, prepare for crystalline carbonide to settle around 250.


Maybe the thought of a changing market will first outgrow the real demand / ask patterns of the market. Technetium will be stocked up atm and will have a long effect on prices after the change, people have stocks for current production. The fast supply chains in game will start to compete sooner as the average producer. But out of own interest will keep prices up. Maybe the amount of cobalt brought to market will be adjusted in the said times... who knows.

"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X

"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron

-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-
Kara Books
Deal with IT.
#45 - 2012-07-26 01:47:05 UTC
I believe they dont want a repeat of the First cartels that held monopolies over Tech 2 years back when, like the goon leadership is clearly pushing for right now.

their simply adding the ability to make stuff you want, completely from scratch
Crafting
and a Cap on the amount of ISK that one could squeeze out of the population per unit.


Heck, might as well make it useful and interesting right?
whaynethepain
#46 - 2012-07-26 04:54:44 UTC
Na, it's gonna go the other way I imagine.

OTEC will tighten their grip on Tec moons, while people figure holding 20 Cobalt moons still doesn't make up for a Tec moon and there will be less competition for the Tec moons, because there is these reactions coming.

OTEC products will increase in demand, as per increased T2 module and ship consumer trends.

OTEC can then suspend all Tec sales, while the market demand for Tec increases with speculations, sending prices to a record high, as traders struggle with demand, ready for OTEC to cash in on at will.

Then a Jita-Ehad can be called to Gank anything made of or carrying Tec, funded by the OTEC doctrine ship replacement scheme, and simple traders will be forced to push the price of Tec up again, trying to recoup losses and fuel prices and renewed demand.

Sure a few people will be able to sell their meagre Tec stocks for a month or two while OTEC waits for the right price, OTEC can then purposely drive down the Tec price to the bare minimum market value, or below, perhaps over stretching some small reactor corps to bankruptcy.

Getting you on your feet.

So you've further to fall.
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Crouching Woman Hidden Cucumber
#47 - 2012-07-26 06:57:21 UTC
whaynethepain wrote:
Na, it's gonna go the other way I imagine.


If they had the level of control you imply they would be better set up to do this now.


Your argument seems to be supply increasing will somehow increase prices?
Mister Tuggles
Dickhead Corner
#48 - 2012-07-26 11:21:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Mister Tuggles
If Tech moons had been properly spread out through New Eden this never would have been a problem. But hell, at least after 3 years they finally decide to nerf the Goons isk faucet so that is always a plus. Now they will have to employ double the bots to farm their NPC's in Sov.
whaynethepain
#49 - 2012-07-26 12:15:40 UTC
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:
whaynethepain wrote:
Na, it's gonna go the other way I imagine.


When they get the level of control you imply they will be better set up to do this soon.


Your argument seems to be supply increasing will somehow increase prices?


Somehow you missed the relevant bit. Now I must Gank you, but firstly, I will elaborate and reiterate.

It would be wise to include an exponential increase in market demand to your equation. And much speculation.

My argument is that OTEC will simply fuel another war to keep demand high.

Yay.

Getting you on your feet.

So you've further to fall.
Captain CarlCosmogasm
Cosmogasm
#50 - 2012-07-26 14:31:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain CarlCosmogasm
tl;dr

There are 4x as many cobalt moons than technetium moons, but you need 10x cobalt to replace technetium.

Technetium = 0.9x Fuel Block + 10x Cobalt. (assuming a large pos with 2 platinum technite reactions)

What will the price of Cobalt become?
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2012-07-26 15:39:30 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Bumping with an update to the plan

After evaluating the market reactions and the estimates from experienced players we now feel comfortable accelerating our planned implementation these reactions. We're going to have them start at 10/1 ratios and re-evaluate from there.

[/b]


Do you not think the time to "talk to experienced players" was before you posted the blog in the first place? Anyone with a basic understanding of spreadsheets online could have told you guys the final price.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Desmont McCallock
#52 - 2012-07-27 08:04:34 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Bumping with an update to the plan

After evaluating the market reactions and the estimates from experienced players we now feel comfortable accelerating our planned implementation these reactions. We're going to have them start at 10/1 ratios and re-evaluate from there.

New versions of the reactions are:

- 100 Titanium + 100 Vanadium -> 1 Unrefined Vanadium Hafnite -> 20 Vanadium Hafnite +  90 Vanadium
- 100 Cobalt + 100 Platinum -> 1 Unrefined Platinum Technite -> 20 Platinum Technite + 90 Platinum
- 100 Scandium + 100 Chromium -> 1 Unrefined Solerium -> 20 Solerium + 90 Chromium
- 100 Scandium + 100 Cadmium -> 1 Unrefined Caesarium Cadmide -> 20 Caesarium Cadmide + 90 Cadmium

- 100 Evaporite Deposits + 100 Atmospheric Gases -> 1 Unrefined Hexite -> 20 Hexite

- 100 Atmospheric Gases + 100 Tungsten -> 1 Unrefined Rolled Tungsten Alloy -> 20 Rolled Tungsten Alloy + 90 Tungsten 
- 100 Evaporite Deposits + 100 Titanium -> 1 Unrefined Titanium Chromide -> 20 Titanium Chromide + 90 Titanium
- 100 Hydrocarbons + 100 Scandium -> 1 Unrefined Fernite Alloy-> 20 Fernite Alloy + 90 Scandium
- 100 Silicates + 100 Cobalt -> 1 Unrefined Crystallite Alloy -> 20 Crystallite Alloy + 90 Cobalt

What about consistency Mr CCP Fozzie? Either keep all alchemy reactions on a 20:1 or switch all to 10:1 ratio.
Jarnis McPieksu
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2012-07-27 08:51:51 UTC
Desmont McCallock wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Bumping with an update to the plan

After evaluating the market reactions and the estimates from experienced players we now feel comfortable accelerating our planned implementation these reactions. We're going to have them start at 10/1 ratios and re-evaluate from there.

New versions of the reactions are:

- 100 Titanium + 100 Vanadium -> 1 Unrefined Vanadium Hafnite -> 20 Vanadium Hafnite +  90 Vanadium
- 100 Cobalt + 100 Platinum -> 1 Unrefined Platinum Technite -> 20 Platinum Technite + 90 Platinum
- 100 Scandium + 100 Chromium -> 1 Unrefined Solerium -> 20 Solerium + 90 Chromium
- 100 Scandium + 100 Cadmium -> 1 Unrefined Caesarium Cadmide -> 20 Caesarium Cadmide + 90 Cadmium

- 100 Evaporite Deposits + 100 Atmospheric Gases -> 1 Unrefined Hexite -> 20 Hexite

- 100 Atmospheric Gases + 100 Tungsten -> 1 Unrefined Rolled Tungsten Alloy -> 20 Rolled Tungsten Alloy + 90 Tungsten 
- 100 Evaporite Deposits + 100 Titanium -> 1 Unrefined Titanium Chromide -> 20 Titanium Chromide + 90 Titanium
- 100 Hydrocarbons + 100 Scandium -> 1 Unrefined Fernite Alloy-> 20 Fernite Alloy + 90 Scandium
- 100 Silicates + 100 Cobalt -> 1 Unrefined Crystallite Alloy -> 20 Crystallite Alloy + 90 Cobalt

What about consistency Mr CCP Fozzie? Either keep all alchemy reactions on a 20:1 or switch all to 10:1 ratio.


Uh, all "old" alchemy reactions are 5:1. Have been for a long time.
Desmont McCallock
#54 - 2012-07-27 09:07:12 UTC
OK, you got me there Jarnis. This explains the number I see in EVEMon. Couldn't wrap my head around why it was so.
Never the less, my question still remains about ingame consistency. IMO, all alchemy reactions should have the same ratio.
Ravenclaw2kk
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#55 - 2012-07-27 13:34:18 UTC
Desmont McCallock wrote:
OK, you got me there Jarnis. This explains the number I see in EVEMon. Couldn't wrap my head around why it was so.
Never the less, my question still remains about ingame consistency. IMO, all alchemy reactions should have the same ratio.


Obviously to balance the prices. If they make the ratio the same, the price of some of the other moon goo types would plummet.
Desmont McCallock
#56 - 2012-07-27 13:38:36 UTC
So where is the harm to that? I thought deflation (in general) is the goal.
Ravenclaw2kk
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#57 - 2012-07-27 15:59:47 UTC
decreasing the price of T2 items, won;t necessarily fuel deflation. Best way to do that would be to add more sinks
Ohh Yeah
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#58 - 2012-07-28 07:31:07 UTC
Mister Tuggles wrote:
If Tech moons had been properly spread out through New Eden this never would have been a problem. But hell, at least after 3 years they finally decide to nerf the Goons isk faucet so that is always a plus. Now they will have to employ double the bots to farm their NPC's in Sov.


If tech moons had been properly spread out, we wouldn't have to babysit the majority of our towers located on the complete opposite side of the map from where we're deployed.

Boy that really would make things terrible for us.
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#59 - 2012-07-28 22:49:56 UTC  |  Edited by: corestwo
Mister Tuggles wrote:
If Tech moons had been properly spread out through New Eden this never would have been a problem.


You're quite wrong about how it "wouldn't have been a problem". Dyspro and Prom were "properly spread out" and they eventually got up into the 180k+/unit range before CCP fixed them, for exactly the same reason - they were the bottleneck.

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo
Ethilia
Freelance Excavation and Resistance
#60 - 2012-08-31 04:12:14 UTC
Given how much cobalt there is, the drop in fuel prices, and the current price of platinum technite. Who is buying technetium when reacting it is a massive lose in value?!?
Previous page123