These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc
#801 - 2012-07-27 03:31:43 UTC
Also, snipe
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc
#802 - 2012-07-27 03:40:42 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
I took a moment to review the actual math behind plat tech alchemy, and I'm posting my findings below.

:siren: MATH TIME :siren:

The prevalence of cobalt and platinum dictates that, over time, plat tech alchemy will go to fuel cost. CCP Fozzie said as much in the devblog announcing the change.

Here is a pos block worksheet, where I've artificially set the price of isotopes to 600 isk per unit. All other pos block ingredients (primarily planetary interaction items) are not expected to move significantly due to this patch, so I'm using current prices (pulled from eve-central) for them.

I must stress that the isotope isk per unit figure is very conservative -- with the advent of 80k EHP skiffs and 27k EHP hulks, mining ice in high sec is completely safe and will be inundated by bots inside of a month. If ice falls to 400 or 500 isk per unit, it will not surprise me in the least. 600 isk was chosen due to being the average price for isotopes before the GSF Gallente Ice Interdiction.

Worksheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AukS-t3ALI3ZdFVQWWtyYjl2R2NlYzFlQlRWMFJCUmc#gid=1 (Ignore the block cost column, it's just pulling the current pos block cost from eve-c. Column B is the important part.)

A fuel block costs 11,824 isk based on that sheet. A non-faction, medium pos doing a single PT alchemy reaction in sov space will consume 15 fuel blocks per hour, 10 platinum per hour, and 100 cobalt per hour. There is enough cobalt in eve to safely discard the cost of the cobalt, as attempting to ship it in any reasonable quantity incurs more fuel cost than is profitable to export. Platinum is currently 3,505.81 isk in Jita, but we'll increase the price of platinum by 20% to account for a sixth use of platinum being added to the game, to 4,206.97 isk.

Costs:
* 15 fuel blocks: 177,360 isk
* 100 cobalt: free
* 10 platinum: 42,069.70 isk

Subtotal: 219,429.70 isk
Divide by 20 to get 10,971.49 isk per unit of plat tech


Now, working backwards, we consider technetium. The same medium tower in sov space doing a non-alchemy plat tech reaction.

The breakeven point for plat tech is 10,971 isk per unit. The simple reaction produces 200 plat tech per hour, so total isk grossed is 2,194,297 isk per hour.

Costs:
* 15 fuel blocks: 177,360 isk
* 100 platinum: 420,697 isk
* 100 technetium: 100X

Subtotal: 598,057 + 100X

With some simple algebra,

598,057 + 100X = 2,194,297
100X = 1,596,240
X = 15,962.40 isk per unit of technetium


So yeah, right now neodymium is 22,000 isk per unit, and it's likely to rise some after patch

and this is a CONSERVATIVE number based on an arguably optimistic value of 600 isk / unit on topes


Quoting this for the new page~
Wibla
Tactical Narcotics Team
#803 - 2012-07-27 03:44:05 UTC
Haquer wrote:
Also, snipe


Touché, good sir!

Well, it's going to be interesting to see how ****** up the market will be after this patch if this goes through unchanged.

Massive deflation ahoy.

Sell your topes today, because the ice belts will be overrun on patch day Pirate
Jarin Arenos
Card Shark Industries
#804 - 2012-07-27 03:44:25 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Everything most people are basing their opinions on is largely based off of southern bloc posters who are frustrated at recent failures which they're unable to attribute to their coalition leaders.

Everyone I know is mostly basing their opinions on Mittens and CFC public gloating over OTEC's income.

But I'm not CCP Soundwave, so what do I know?
Werst Dendenahzees
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#805 - 2012-07-27 03:49:40 UTC
Now excuse us while we tighten our stranglehold around the next outrageous moneymaking gimmick.
Scud Maximillion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#806 - 2012-07-27 04:12:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Scud Maximillion
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:

While we realize this will be a multi stage release, the boredom of 0.0 wont make it until some november release, we need MORE things to drive conflicts NOW not later, and taking the last thing left out isn't really the best idea.


I completely agree that some space being better than other space is good game design.
But the game doesn't need 180k tech to have conflict. Tech is now only 5x the value of the second best moon instead of 11x. The profit there isn't disappearing, it's moving to other activities that people can get involved in.
Arguing that we need 100k+ tech so the moons will drive conflict is like saying we need remote AOE doomsdays so that CSAAs will drive conflict. Sometimes game balance is just game balance.



Can identify these activities please?

Surely you don't mean a bunch of POS's. That is hardly a group activity. Are there real group activities planned?
Werst Dendenahzees
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#807 - 2012-07-27 04:13:54 UTC
The greatest minds of EVE, with the resources of the greatest alliance, in one channel.


Be aware that any CCP-induced game mechanics change is at best a temporary setback for them. At worst, it becomes the lynchpin of their next master plan.
Ione Hawke
Darkness Industries
#808 - 2012-07-27 05:07:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Ione Hawke
Grath Telkin wrote:

*snip*
Ione Hawke wrote:

It is my impression that at the moment tech is a major reason why alliances avoid conflict.

Your impression is wrong, people fight over the moons, this week alone there have been daily fights over tech moons. Your just listening to the one side crying loudest because they didn't have the foresight that the other side had.

Ione Hawke wrote:
It makes perfect sense to form a technetium cartel,

Right, its player driven content, you know, what EVE is allegedly built around, only, for the entire summer CCP's main goal seems to be to undo all of the player driven content in EVE, from Incursions, to Hulkageddon, to the Tech Cartel.

Ione Hawke wrote:
It is also obvious that other non-tech alliances pose no threat. Will there be an coalition that does in half a year? In a year perhaps? I wonder, is complete stagnation in null during this period, while otec banks isk, good for the game?

*snip* we are pro, they suck at eve.*snip*


Ok, you did some nice selective quoting there. Certainly you won't call Nulli/BL skirmishing and grabbing a tech from Goons a credible threat to your monopoly, do you? I merely argued that tech/otec prevents conflict *at this moment*.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#809 - 2012-07-27 06:22:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Grath Telkin
Ione Hawke wrote:


Ok, you did some nice selective quoting there. Certainly you won't call Nulli/BL skirmishing and grabbing a tech from Goons a credible threat to your monopoly, do you? I merely argued that tech/otec prevents conflict *at this moment*.


Way to move your goal posts, now it needs to be a credible threat?


No other group in eve has the organizational skills that the CFC has, so there is no such thing as a credible threat to a group that can mobilize 3 full fleets of people at the drop of a hat. Whats next, nerf the size of alliance and the length of your standings list?

That wasn't selective quoting, that was addressing the points, people said nobody attacks the tech, or even takes the tech, which is an outright lie, the moons are under a fairly constant attack from one group or another.

You should come out and say what you really want, which is a nerf to the organizational skills of the OTEC group, because thats what you keep losing to.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Ruiryu
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#810 - 2012-07-27 06:31:50 UTC
I think it is funny you guys are crying this hard over a change because it devalues all your cartels strangle hold on EVE.

HTFU and learn to adapt to the change.
Sigras
Conglomo
#811 - 2012-07-27 06:48:56 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
with isotopes at 600 (which is a very conservatively high number) tech will be at 40k within a month

Cry me a river, now you only make 2.5 billion isk a month times 100 OTECH moons WAH WAH WAH!
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#812 - 2012-07-27 06:51:27 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
I took a moment to review the actual math behind plat tech alchemy, and I'm posting my findings below.

:siren: MATH TIME :siren:


Your assumptions are:

POS Fuel ~ 11k ISK
Cobalt ~ 0 ISK
Platinum ~ 4k ISK

But you left out, "nothing more profitable to do with that POS."

The cost of Cobalt only becomes 0 ISK when the reaction is taking place in the POS where the cobalt is being harvested, at which point the cost of the Cobalt becomes the fuel cost of running the moon harvester. You're obviously not using that POS for anything else in the meantime, since you have a harvester, reactor, a coupling and a silo hanging around.

If Cobalt really is worth 0, why aren't you harvesting the other moon material that the moon offers instead?

Perhaps your POS monkeys have nothing better to do with their time than earn a few thousand ISK/hr?

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Sigras
Conglomo
#813 - 2012-07-27 07:14:33 UTC
I love how everyone is talking about the sudden drop in isotope prices because of "ungankable mining barges" (which btw are all worse at mining ice than the mackinaw currently is) and nobody is taking into consideration the additional PI costs that are going to be associated with 1000 towers going up and being blown up.

Consider this with just additional tower use in general as isotope prices go down, and youre looking at much less effect


as for Promiscuous Female's earlier numbers:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Costs:
* 15 fuel blocks: 177,360 isk
* 100 cobalt: free
* 10 platinum: 42,069.70 isk

Subtotal: 219,429.70 isk
Divide by 20 to get 10,971.49 isk per unit of plat tech


you realize this is based on someone who is running a tower at cost? why would ANYONE put this tower up and go through all the work of fueling it to make NOTHING?

You have to assume if im running a POS, especially out in 0.0 im going to want at least 200 million a month to cover the cost of jumping fuel out, product back and putting up with all the hassle

200,000,000 / 30 days / 24 hours / 20 units per hour = 13,888.88 isk per unit of PT

Youre also not counting the increase in demand for T2 once the prices stop being so ridiculous. Math only works when you account for all the factors.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#814 - 2012-07-27 07:17:07 UTC
So what happened to the ring mining idea? I assumed groups were going o be able the head into null/low sec and mine moon materials from planet rings.

That would have added additional game play and a more interesting/profitable activity for the miners out there who are willing to risk their ships for a bigger reward.

One step forward, two steps back.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#815 - 2012-07-27 07:33:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Ganthrithor
Sigras wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
with isotopes at 600 (which is a very conservatively high number) tech will be at 40k within a month

Cry me a river, now you only make 2.5 billion isk a month times 100 OTECH moons WAH WAH WAH!


Yes I agree let's rebalance the game everytime someone does something that inconveniences you. OH WAIT that's what CCP has been busy doing.

I like how a bunch of crying miners can whine their way into 85k ehp mining barges and people like you will whine your way into the nerfing of every valuable resource in the game so that you and your buddies won't have to feel so bad about how poor you are, but when I complain to CCP about how your awful alliance uses borderline exploits like resetting POS passwords to fling your jump freighters out of grapecaged POSes nothing is done about it. I guess that's EVE 2012 for you.

Speaking of which, what awful space are you guys renting these days? (Don't lie, I'll know!)

Also, there's no H in OTEC. The more you know!
Thomas Kreshant
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#816 - 2012-07-27 07:33:07 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
So what happened to the ring mining idea? I assumed groups were going o be able the head into null/low sec and mine moon materials from planet rings.

That would have added additional game play and a more interesting/profitable activity for the miners out there who are willing to risk their ships for a bigger reward.

One step forward, two steps back.


They said ring mining would be some time after they make the new POS system replacement, only one set of game designers so their focus is on the new POS system and as pretty much everyone who's ever played eve and used a POS wants them scrapped/overhauled etc that's the priority.
Vera Algaert
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#817 - 2012-07-27 08:14:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Vera Algaert
There will always be a bottleneck for as long as the number of moons of each type is static & limited and people love T2.

The difference with Technetium is not the fact that it is limiting T2 production but that (mostly thanks to Akita who spelled out such a thing for the first time) everyone (moon miners and traders) knows that Technetium is the bottleneck moon mineral, so the potential for price gouging that is inherent for any bottleneck gets actually used.

Alchemy doesn't change anything fundamental - it just makes it harder to determine the current bottleneck as it varies with the prices of moon minerals.
As long as Technetium is cheaper than X ISK, Technetium is the bottleneck, once it gets more expensive than X ISK tech alchemy kicks on and some other moon mineral becomes the next bottleneck and so on.

For the first few months prices might change a lot (due to speculation, territorial conflicts, increased mining of low-end moon minerals, ...) as the binding bottleneck constantly changes but eventually players will figure out a bottleneck moon mineral that has limited availability and considerable room for price gouging until a different restriction kicks in (which also makes it resilient against smaller supply side shocks) and push around moon mineral prices to get into that equilibrium.

All this change does is to make it harder to know which mineral price you can safely increase up to which point - it doesn't change anything fundamental about how bottlenecks for T2 production work (as dynamic and unlimited supply like ring mining would).

So stop whining and improve your spreadsheets.

.
Chanina
ASGARD HEAVY INDUSTRIES
#818 - 2012-07-27 08:30:13 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
Sigras wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
with isotopes at 600 (which is a very conservatively high number) tech will be at 40k within a month

Cry me a river, now you only make 2.5 billion isk a month times 100 OTECH moons WAH WAH WAH!


Yes I agree let's rebalance the game everytime someone does something that inconveniences you. OH WAIT that's what CCP has been busy doing.

I like how a bunch of crying miners can whine their way into 85k ehp mining barges and people like you will whine your way into the nerfing of every valuable resource in the game so that you and your buddies won't have to feel so bad about how poor you are, but when I complain to CCP about how your awful alliance uses borderline exploits like resetting POS passwords to fling your jump freighters out of grapecaged POSes nothing is done about it. I guess that's EVE 2012 for you.

Speaking of which, what awful space are you guys renting these days? (Don't lie, I'll know!)

Also, there's no H in OTEC. The more you know!


Don't forget the point where players cry around because a relative small group of titans could counter a 2k+ fleet ...
wait, who wanted that? never mind.

you want conflict drivers, i like them too and hopefully there is something in the pipelines but ring mining is behind pos revamp so we have to wait for that one. Bringing a bit more balance in income of 0.0 groups is good. the more money the people have the more they want to blow stuff up and don't worry about loosing something.

RvB shows that pretty well. If your enemies have more ships to fight you, you don't have to hang around to shoot structures. Much more fun to shoot spaceships than i-hubs.
Hammer Legion Member
Doomheim
#819 - 2012-07-27 08:52:19 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Hammer Legion Member wrote:
Did Technetium @ 200k ever do what your predicting?.


Yes actually, virtually every big fight up north over the past 5 months has been over a tech moon, and there have been TONS of fights over those moons. Everybody wanted a shot at those moons and just about everybody took a shot, Including AAA doing a field trip north from the the far southern half of the game to fight over them.


im sure you had to giggle a cple times when u wrote that....

since creating of OTEC how many serious Fights over Tech have there been? Except a super short ~A~&Co attempt there was no real fight in the north since all these alliances set each other blue JUST over Tech.

Grath Telkin wrote:

No other group in eve has the organizational skills that the CFC has


hahaha....I wonder if you would have said the same about the NC or even GBC who also had this insane special skill of setting things blue.

Ohh Yeah wrote:
Hammer Legion Member wrote:
Moon Goo will always stay director-level income

im flattered

well, the person your paying Tech Tax to, could be....Although Gratz you finally got a moon just when they become worth ****Big smile

regards, HML
Lucas Quaan
Dark Enlightenment
Project 2025.
#820 - 2012-07-27 09:28:03 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Powers Sa wrote:

So you're shooting for 80k per unit prices?


One of the goals up until the beginning of phase two is for Tech to continue being the best moon in the game by a large margin.

Dare we hope that phase two will finally bring a restructuring of the T2 production chain?

On the-place-that-should-not-be-mentioned, Zagdul made the reasonable suggestion that racial moon-goo be more closely connected to racial production instead of one of them being a global bottleneck and I, for one, support that idea. If nothing else than for the fact that it actually makes sense compared to what we have now.