These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Fix Null > Nerf Hi

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#361 - 2013-02-25 04:26:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Aren Madigan
Considering that 100/m trip can be done at any time within the time limit, costing them exactly zero opportunity, it can be ignored regardless. So numbers or stfu.

Tippia wrote:
Quote:
You're not losing any opportunity
Yes you are. You're losing the opportunity to build the exact same thing without incurring the 100M transportation cost.


You can transport it yourself, so the only cost that matters is jump fuel. Numbers or stfu
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#362 - 2013-02-25 04:42:11 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:
Considering that 100/m trip can be done at any time within the time limit, costing them exactly zero opportunity, it can be ignored regardless.
No, that does not remove the opportunity cost. It remains exactly the same.

Quote:
You can transport it yourself, so the only cost that matters is jump fuel.
Ok. So we can safely conclude, then, that you really don't understand the concept of opportunity cost, which kind of explains why you're having problems with the concept that rely on it and why you don't understand the need for an increased margin from highsec manufacturing. Shocked

Tell me, do you also think that minerals you mine yourself are free?

You have been given the numbers, and they're easy to check. The problem is that you don't understand where they go in the overall equation.
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#363 - 2013-02-25 04:49:25 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
Considering that 100/m trip can be done at any time within the time limit, costing them exactly zero opportunity, it can be ignored regardless.
No, that does not remove the opportunity cost. It remains exactly the same.

Quote:
You can transport it yourself, so the only cost that matters is jump fuel.
Ok. So we can safely conclude, then, that you really don't understand the concept of opportunity cost, which kind of explains why you're having problems with the concept that rely on it and why you don't understand the need for an increased margin from highsec manufacturing. Shocked

Tell me, do you also think that minerals you mine yourself are free?

You have been given the numbers, and they're easy to check. The problem is that you don't understand where they go in the overall equation.


Opportunity cost: involves costs of jobs you could be doing instead. You're not going to always have a JF contract so stfu and quit beating around the bush avoiding the subject. Numbers or stfu. If you continue to refuse to give the numbers, then I'm forced to assume you're afraid of what the math will show. All I care about for jump freighters is the fuel cost. The JF transporting is an extra and uncertain opportunity. Its different from minerals mined which is a consistant supply. Even looking at black frog, if you worked for them, you'd have plenty of time to do any jobs for them. I'm not going to count something that is both unreliable and not so time consuming that it'd significantly interfere with transporting your merchandise.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#364 - 2013-02-25 04:54:10 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:
Because frankly your economic/normal bullshit doesn't matter as long as the the amount of isk you have comes out to be more. You have more isk, that's all that matters in game terms, so numbers or stfu.


Dead wrong. If, doing activity X I can make 100 ISK with costs of 99 ISK and doing activity Y, I can make 100 ISK with cost of 5 ISK, which should I do? According to you, it doesn't matter, because either way the amount of ISK in my wallet comes out to be more.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#365 - 2013-02-25 05:03:13 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
Because frankly your economic/normal bullshit doesn't matter as long as the the amount of isk you have comes out to be more. You have more isk, that's all that matters in game terms, so numbers or stfu.


Dead wrong. If, doing activity X I can make 100 ISK with costs of 99 ISK and doing activity Y, I can make 100 ISK with cost of 5 ISK, which should I do? According to you, it doesn't matter, because either way the amount of ISK in my wallet comes out to be more.


Lets see... 100 - 99 = 1 / 100 - 5 = 95.... sooo if you can do X 95 times for every time you do Y, you start making equal money, with X having a significantly large investment, however if you have the money to invest and X approaches a number significantly greater than 95 times for every Y, then X is the way to go because that's what's making you more money. Its more of an investment with a lower percentage of returns, but you'd be making more money over the time frame.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#366 - 2013-02-25 05:03:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Aren Madigan wrote:
Opportunity cost: involves costs of jobs you could be doing instead.
…in other words:
· The 100M for the transport (including risk), when you could have done it in highsec instead.
· The 35k ISK/h/slot for the inconvenience and expense, when you could have done it in an NPC station instead.

Neither of which can be ignored unless you are fundamentally ignorant about what opportunity cost means.

These numbers and where they're from has already been provided. If you don't understand how to multiply material consumption by material cost, then just say so. If you don't understand how to calculate material consumption, then just say so. Just use chruker and EVE Central for data.

Quote:
All I care about for jump freighters is the fuel cost.
Then you're skipping a large portion of the cost, so you're already looking at the wrong number.

Quote:
The JF transporting is an extra and uncertain opportunity.
No, that is not what opportunity cost means.

Oh, and…
Quote:
100 - 99 = 1 / 100 - 5 = 95
Please stop abusing the equals sign. That is not what it means.
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#367 - 2013-02-25 05:06:03 UTC
Lets put it this way, Tippia... you have no JF contracts available at the time. You however have a shipment of your stuff that can be shipped. You're really going to add a 100m to its "cost" for an opportunity that doesn't exist at the time?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#368 - 2013-02-25 05:07:14 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:
Lets put it this way, Tippia... you have no JF contracts available at the time.
Irrelevant.

Quote:
You're really going to add a 100m to its "cost" for an opportunity that doesn't exist at the time?
Yes, because the opportunity not to incur that cost exists at all times.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#369 - 2013-02-25 05:07:21 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:
Opportunity cost: involves costs of jobs you could be doing instead. You're not going to always have a JF contract so stfu and quit beating around the bush avoiding the subject. Numbers or stfu. If you continue to refuse to give the numbers, then I'm forced to assume you're afraid of what the math will show. All I care about for jump freighters is the fuel cost. The JF transporting is an extra and uncertain opportunity. Its different from minerals mined which is a consistant supply. Even looking at black frog, if you worked for them, you'd have plenty of time to do any jobs for them. I'm not going to count something that is both unreliable and not so time consuming that it'd significantly interfere with transporting your merchandise.



Ok, here we go.

Manufacturing Hurricanes for a month under your proposal (assuming Nullsec slots are free and limitless) in Nullsec results in 81m ISK profit over what you would earn in HS. That's a return of .37% on your 24b capital.

A fully collateralized loan runs between 2 and 4%. That's 480m for less work.

Therefore, the Economic Profit you earned from Manufacturing Hurricanes in Nullsec was around -1.5%, or -400m ISK.


By the way, the assumption that the use of your time, effort, and capital is free, is an assumption that you're free to make in your personal efforts, not in an actual discussion. So I'm simply not going to humor your inane assertion that Opportunity Costs don't exist.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#370 - 2013-02-25 05:10:54 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Aren Madigan wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
Because frankly your economic/normal bullshit doesn't matter as long as the the amount of isk you have comes out to be more. You have more isk, that's all that matters in game terms, so numbers or stfu.


Dead wrong. If, doing activity X I can make 100 ISK with costs of 99 ISK and doing activity Y, I can make 100 ISK with cost of 5 ISK, which should I do? According to you, it doesn't matter, because either way the amount of ISK in my wallet comes out to be more.


Lets see... 100 - 99 = 1 / 100 - 5 = 95.... sooo if you can do X 95 times for every time you do Y, you start making equal money, with X having a significantly large investment, however if you have the money to invest and X approaches a number significantly greater than 95 times for every Y, then X is the way to go because that's what's making you more money. Its more of an investment with a lower percentage of returns, but you'd be making more money over the time frame.


What the hell... Those are the total revenues and costs available to you if you put all your efforts into one activity. That's what that construction means and has always meant.

You don't get to randomly multiply sides without any justification.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#371 - 2013-02-25 05:12:24 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:
Lets put it this way, Tippia... you have no JF contracts available at the time. You however have a shipment of your stuff that can be shipped. You're really going to add a 100m to its "cost" for an opportunity that doesn't exist at the time?


That is the market value of the Fuel, the pilot's time, and the Risk of Loss for the JF. So yes, that is the cost of using a JF.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#372 - 2013-02-25 05:17:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Aren Madigan
RubyPorto wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
Because frankly your economic/normal bullshit doesn't matter as long as the the amount of isk you have comes out to be more. You have more isk, that's all that matters in game terms, so numbers or stfu.


Dead wrong. If, doing activity X I can make 100 ISK with costs of 99 ISK and doing activity Y, I can make 100 ISK with cost of 5 ISK, which should I do? According to you, it doesn't matter, because either way the amount of ISK in my wallet comes out to be more.


Lets see... 100 - 99 = 1 / 100 - 5 = 95.... sooo if you can do X 95 times for every time you do Y, you start making equal money, with X having a significantly large investment, however if you have the money to invest and X approaches a number significantly greater than 95 times for every Y, then X is the way to go because that's what's making you more money. Its more of an investment with a lower percentage of returns, but you'd be making more money over the time frame.


What the hell... Those are the total revenues and costs available to you if you put all your efforts into one activity. That's what that construction means and has always meant.

You don't get to randomly multiply sides without any justification.


I have plenty of justification. You never said at what rate each could be done which is vital to what we're talking about. Oh I'm sorry it throws your assertions out the window, boo fricken hoo. Don't throw out numbers that don't capture the entire essence of what I'm saying next time. As for your hurricane calculations, toss me the numbers you used and I'll check it, not to mention I want to run some additional numbers through.

RubyPorto wrote:

That is the market value of the Fuel, the pilot's time, and the Risk of Loss for the JF. So yes, that is the cost of using a JF.


Well too fricken bad. You had no work at the time, that's the time to turn in your profits from other things. An opportunity cost isn't relevant unless you're actually giving up the opportunity.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#373 - 2013-02-25 05:25:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Aren Madigan wrote:
You never said at what rate each could be done which is vital to what we're talking about.
What you were talking about was “your economic/normal bullshit doesn't matter as long as the the amount of isk you have comes out to be more”, which he captured in full in his example. You were not talking about rates here — you were talking about revenue at the end of production.

Quote:
Well too fricken bad. You had no work at the time
Irrelevant. It's a cost regardless.

Quote:
An opportunity cost isn't relevant unless you're actually giving up the opportunity.
…and the opportunity you're giving up is doing the job without having to pay for the transport cost. And no, opportunity costs are always relevant when they exist (which they pretty much always do). Since you apparently keep thinking that the opportunity has anything to do with being able to fly the JF at the given time, you still haven't grasped what opportunity cost is.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#374 - 2013-02-25 05:26:07 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Aren Madigan wrote:
I have plenty of justification. You never said at what rate each could be done which is vital to what we're talking about. Oh I'm sorry it throws your assertions out the window, boo fricken hoo. Don't throw out numbers that don't capture the entire essence of what I'm saying next time. As for your hurricane calculations, toss me the numbers you used and I'll check it, not to mention I want to run some additional numbers through.


You were saying
Quote:
Because frankly your economic/normal bullshit doesn't matter as long as the the amount of isk you have comes out to be more. You have more isk, that's all that matters in game terms, so numbers or stfu.


Which is, frankly, idiotic. Because you're claiming that activity X (revenue of 100 with costs of 99) and activity Y (revenue 100, costs 5) are equivalently worthwhile. X and Y have no other differences besides their revenues and costs (Just like HS vs Null manufacturing... and literally every barrier-free economic activity, when you're including all economic costs.).



The numbers are the exact same I've been using for most of the thread (the ones that match your assertion of the value of the .5 manufacturing time multiplier).

440 Hurricanes in 1 month (@ .5 build time). That uses 24b in capital and earns 81m ISK more than that same month long batch would in HS (74k ISK/hr/Slot).

The absolute profit is irrelevant, as we're comparing HS manufacturing with Null manufacturing.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#375 - 2013-02-25 05:43:09 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
You never said at what rate each could be done which is vital to what we're talking about.
What you were talking about was “your economic/normal bullshit doesn't matter as long as the the amount of isk you have comes out to be more”, which he captured in full in his example. You were not talking about rates here — you were talking about gross profit at the end of production.

Quote:
Well too fricken bad. You had no work at the time
Irrelevant. It's a cost regardless.

Quote:
An opportunity cost isn't relevant unless you're actually giving up the opportunity.
…and the opportunity you're giving up is doing the job without having to pay for the transport cost. And no, opportunity costs are always relevant when they exist (which they pretty much always do). Since you apparently keep thinking that the opportunity has anything to do with being able to fly the JF at the given time, you still haven't grasped what opportunity cost is.


No, I was talking about net, you stupidly assumed I was talking about gross. Nowhere did I ever suggest that it was the gross before costs were taken into account, you want to pull something stupid like that? Its on you. And fine, sit around waiting on a contract when you could be doing something else. That's your problem, not someone else's. Sometime's truckers have to make use of what's available rather than waiting and praying. Sit around making 0 ISK for a few hours because you were too lazy, or the same amount you would have normally in high sec. Clearly that's the place for you.

RubyPorto wrote:
Which is, frankly, idiotic. Because you're claiming that activity X (revenue of 100 with costs of 99) and activity Y (revenue 100, costs 5) are equivalently worthwhile. X and Y have no other differences besides their revenues and costs (Just like HS vs Null manufacturing... and literally every barrier-free economic activity, when you're including all economic costs.).



The numbers are the exact same I've been using for most of the thread (the ones that match your assertion of the value of the .5 manufacturing time multiplier).

440 Hurricanes in 1 month (@ .5 build time). That uses 24b in capital and earns 81m ISK more than that same month long batch would in HS (74k ISK/hr/Slot).

The absolute profit is irrelevant, as we're comparing HS manufacturing with Null manufacturing.


First of all, they key word was MORE isk. Not the same. The multiplying example is the kind of thing I'm talking about, you're just trying to wiggle your way with stupid **** that makes no sense... anyways, ALL the numbers. Absolute profit is not irrelevant. Net profit is what matters. Additional costs to make a larger net profit is a risk. Part of the deal. Either way the result is going to be the same, nerf or buff, there will be some kind of margin of difference between cost and benefit. Anyways, if you won't give me all the numbers, I'll just use EVE- Central's Hurricane average and check into the jump fuel costs myself as well as PoS fuel costs based on the Caldari control tower.... give me a bit...
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#376 - 2013-02-25 05:58:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Aren Madigan wrote:
No, I was talking about net, you stupidly assumed I was talking about gross. Nowhere did I ever suggest that it was the gross before costs were taken into account
…aside from the bit where you said “your economic/normal bullshit doesn't matter as long as the the amount of isk you have comes out to be more” — in other word, if we ignore costs. Otherwise, normal and economic profit do matter.

Quote:
And fine, sit around waiting on a contract when you could be doing something else.
Still irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the timing of the transport — it has to do with the cost of it (which is fixed) and with the fact that you could do something else with your resources to yield the same result without incurring those costs. No matter how much you ramble on about the same irrelevancy, it's still a cost and it's still one you could have chosen not to incur.

Quote:
First of all, they key word was MORE isk. Not the same.
…and in the example, you come out with more ISK either way. It's just that one way actually includes the cost and one does not, and the difference between the two does matter, contrary to your claim.

Quote:
Absolute profit is not irrelevant.
Of course it is, since what we're discussing is the relative improvement from doing it one way over another. You know, that other opportunity?

Quote:
Additional costs to make a larger net profit is a risk.
Wrong way around. Risk is an additional cost, which rarely translates into larger net profit — that's part of the reason why people build in highsec. If you want to run the numbers yourself, you have to include that one, but good luck estimating it. Of course, you could use the estimate from those who do it professionally, but for some reason, that's apparently not good enough…
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#377 - 2013-02-25 06:37:52 UTC
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Akgf3dSr1suDdDNRNjJucHQ2OUFjc0c2SkdEaUdaNEE#gid=1

358m a month...

at 3 skills each, lets go high and say 40k isotopes...

16 millionish a trip...

440 hurricanes at 15,000 m3 packaged each... for 6,600,000 m3 total... 800,000 average per a trip sooo... 8 trips...

128 million for the trips

486m a month costs assuming all this

440 hurricanes cost... 50 million median for selling, 49.5 million production cost...

2.2 B - 486 m

1.714 B

geez, uneven number... lets see, without the increased speed, 293 hurricance, same margins...

1.465 B

Hmm... those POS prices really throw my overall idea out the window, don't they? Was thinking they were cheaper by quite a bit which is why I was using such rough estimates... if I took into account moongoo I could cut the cost in half to split between moongoo and production costs in theory if it was possible to setup a POS for both and with those numbers...

2.2B - 307m

1.893B still not a great difference...

If 5 people were allowed to produce at a POS at full production, making hurricanes...

440 x 5 = 2200, 500k profit each...

11B

640m trip cost + for argument's sake, the 358 million full POS cost

11B - 998m
approx 10B profit


1467 estimate for 5 high sec...
approx 7.3 B profit...

2.7 billion is a significant margin, though I do feel stupid for overstating it. I could be overstating the travel costs though, as its with 3 in each skill, going from the edge of the galaxy into the center of it.... for fun, lets assume they were plexing their accounts

7.5 B profit for null sec
4.8 B profit for high sec

...huh.. that actually brings it to my stated margins, though I'm not sure that's a good indicator. Probably not. In any case, I'll have to agree that the setup cost? Is a doozy... and I can't imagine there are nearly enough available jobs for POSs, that needs to be boosted, especially in null sec. Actually all the production disadvantages of null sec POSs definitely need to be removed. I'm beginning to see some of why a nerf is being asked for, but I can't really say for sure unless I figured out good numbers taking into account how a mineral increase in null sec could be applied. Could almost assume minerals in the immediate area of the station would be lower cost for that area if they set it up well.. or maybe not.

I'll also say this much... providing for corp mates a jump away at most instead of taking to Jita, GREATLY reduces the costs as well. Either way, the example does show just how absurd bringing finished goods from null sec into high sec is in its current state. Dear lord...
Merovee
Gorthaur Legion
Imperium Mordor
#378 - 2013-02-25 06:57:41 UTC
PS4 and Dust integration into the Null-sec sovereignty.

There I fixed it, bad news 2014. Lol

Empire, the next new world order.
Lin Suizei
#379 - 2013-02-25 06:57:51 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:
7.5 B profit for null sec
4.8 B profit for high sec


So why isn't nullsec an industrial utopia, filled with budding young industrialists protected by the Great Blue Donut?

Lol I can't delete my forum sig.
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#380 - 2013-02-25 06:59:37 UTC
Lin Suizei wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
7.5 B profit for null sec
4.8 B profit for high sec


So why isn't nullsec an industrial utopia, filled with budding young industrialists protected by the Great Blue Donut?


Maybe you should reread the entire conversation... this was math under the assumption of if they gave null sec a 50% speed increase to production.