These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

Small AAR
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Silvetica Dian
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#21 - 2014-04-04 11:51:23 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
The market is always right. Demand increased as people began to realise how good they are which affects prices. Economy 101, HTFU etc.


If the market was always right then climate change, habitat loss, water pollution and soil degradation would be much less of a problem.
The market is good at cost and useless for value.

Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#22 - 2014-04-04 13:42:52 UTC
Silvetica Dian wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
The market is always right. Demand increased as people began to realise how good they are which affects prices. Economy 101, HTFU etc.


If the market was always right then climate change, habitat loss, water pollution and soil degradation would be much less of a problem.
The market is good at cost and useless for value.


I'd say that the people who buy these AAR at current prices pretty much agree to the cost being low enough compared to their value.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#23 - 2014-04-04 21:43:05 UTC
The supply is just outstripped by demand.

frigs die a lot.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#24 - 2014-04-05 07:46:24 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
Silvetica Dian wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
The market is always right. Demand increased as people began to realise how good they are which affects prices. Economy 101, HTFU etc.


If the market was always right then climate change, habitat loss, water pollution and soil degradation would be much less of a problem.
The market is good at cost and useless for value.


I'd say that the people who buy these AAR at current prices pretty much agree to the cost being low enough compared to their value.

That's a pretty useless comment - the statement is true but it doesn't necessarily mean that the current cost is 'right'. Supply is artificially regulated by the spawn rate that CCP imposes. So there is certainly room for argument that the price should be lower (increase spawn rate) to encourage frigate PvP.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Kosetzu
The Black Crow Bandits
Northern Coalition.
#25 - 2014-04-05 09:51:41 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
Silvetica Dian wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
The market is always right. Demand increased as people began to realise how good they are which affects prices. Economy 101, HTFU etc.


If the market was always right then climate change, habitat loss, water pollution and soil degradation would be much less of a problem.
The market is good at cost and useless for value.


I'd say that the people who buy these AAR at current prices pretty much agree to the cost being low enough compared to their value.

That's a pretty useless comment - the statement is true but it doesn't necessarily mean that the current cost is 'right'. Supply is artificially regulated by the spawn rate that CCP imposes. So there is certainly room for argument that the price should be lower (increase spawn rate) to encourage frigate PvP.

Then what about those who make them? Go back to making 300 isk per module? To be honest too much of the market has been crashed by overeager market PvPers that doesn't see the build cost when they crash the prices.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#26 - 2014-04-05 09:56:10 UTC
Kosetzu wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
Silvetica Dian wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
The market is always right. Demand increased as people began to realise how good they are which affects prices. Economy 101, HTFU etc.


If the market was always right then climate change, habitat loss, water pollution and soil degradation would be much less of a problem.
The market is good at cost and useless for value.


I'd say that the people who buy these AAR at current prices pretty much agree to the cost being low enough compared to their value.

That's a pretty useless comment - the statement is true but it doesn't necessarily mean that the current cost is 'right'. Supply is artificially regulated by the spawn rate that CCP imposes. So there is certainly room for argument that the price should be lower (increase spawn rate) to encourage frigate PvP.

Then what about those who make them? Go back to making 300 isk per module? To be honest too much of the market has been crashed by overeager market PvPers that doesn't see the build cost when they crash the prices.

Increase small drops, decrease medium and large so it all balances out.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Syrias Bizniz
some random local shitlords
#27 - 2014-04-05 10:16:21 UTC
Zappity wrote:



Actually, if people started looting a lot more, you'd see a lot more blueprints in circulation.
Cause, behold, they drop for example from 0.0 beltrats. Those drops even have 25/50 runs.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#28 - 2014-04-05 11:50:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Gregor Parud
Zappity wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
Silvetica Dian wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
The market is always right. Demand increased as people began to realise how good they are which affects prices. Economy 101, HTFU etc.


If the market was always right then climate change, habitat loss, water pollution and soil degradation would be much less of a problem.
The market is good at cost and useless for value.


I'd say that the people who buy these AAR at current prices pretty much agree to the cost being low enough compared to their value.

That's a pretty useless comment - the statement is true but it doesn't necessarily mean that the current cost is 'right'. Supply is artificially regulated by the spawn rate that CCP imposes. So there is certainly room for argument that the price should be lower (increase spawn rate) to encourage frigate PvP.


No, why would explorers or manufacturers care for "encouraging frigate PVP through selling for less profit", you're just using it as a (not so) veiled excuse because you find them to be costly. As long as people are willing to buy a product for a given price they thus agree that the price (cost) is worth the item (value).

If you want those prices to drop you can always start doing exploration or ratting.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#29 - 2014-04-05 11:59:51 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
Silvetica Dian wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
The market is always right. Demand increased as people began to realise how good they are which affects prices. Economy 101, HTFU etc.


If the market was always right then climate change, habitat loss, water pollution and soil degradation would be much less of a problem.
The market is good at cost and useless for value.


I'd say that the people who buy these AAR at current prices pretty much agree to the cost being low enough compared to their value.

That's a pretty useless comment - the statement is true but it doesn't necessarily mean that the current cost is 'right'. Supply is artificially regulated by the spawn rate that CCP imposes. So there is certainly room for argument that the price should be lower (increase spawn rate) to encourage frigate PvP.


No, why would explorers or manufacturers care for "encouraging frigate PVP through selling for less profit", you're just using it as a (not so) veiled excuse because you find them to be costly. As long as people are willing to buy a product for a given price they thus agree that the price (cost) is worth the item (value).

If you want those prices to drop you can always start doing exploration or ratting.

It was not intended to be veiled. I meant that CCP should encourage PvP, not explorers. Or are you certain that CCP got the right values the first time they set the loot tables? You would not see such skewed results between the sizes if so.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Derath Ellecon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2014-04-05 12:03:58 UTC
Zappity wrote:
That's a pretty useless comment - the statement is true but it doesn't necessarily mean that the current cost is 'right'. Supply is artificially regulated by the spawn rate that CCP imposes. So there is certainly room for argument that the price should be lower (increase spawn rate) to encourage frigate PvP.


About as useless as this. There is plenty of frigate PVP these days. Not everyone "needs" this module. And there is nothing wrong with having some modules that give some benefit for those willing to pay.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#31 - 2014-04-05 12:21:10 UTC
Derath Ellecon wrote:
Zappity wrote:
That's a pretty useless comment - the statement is true but it doesn't necessarily mean that the current cost is 'right'. Supply is artificially regulated by the spawn rate that CCP imposes. So there is certainly room for argument that the price should be lower (increase spawn rate) to encourage frigate PvP.


About as useless as this. There is plenty of frigate PVP these days. Not everyone "needs" this module. And there is nothing wrong with having some modules that give some benefit for those willing to pay.

Sure, those are called faction modules. AAR, however, is basically a prerequisite for active armour fits. The high cost just increases the barrier to entry for no good reason other than an underestimate of popularity, or perhaps a need for a nerf.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#32 - 2014-04-05 12:27:35 UTC
Zappity wrote:
It was not intended to be veiled. I meant that CCP should encourage PvP, not explorers. Or are you certain that CCP got the right values the first time they set the loot tables? You would not see such skewed results between the sizes if so.


Sounds to me like "waaah market PVP, not faaaaiiiir!". Are you sure you're a pvper?
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#33 - 2014-04-05 12:41:59 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
Zappity wrote:
It was not intended to be veiled. I meant that CCP should encourage PvP, not explorers. Or are you certain that CCP got the right values the first time they set the loot tables? You would not see such skewed results between the sizes if so.


Sounds to me like "waaah market PVP, not faaaaiiiir!". Are you sure you're a pvper?

I am all sorts of things. I PvP (mostly solo in small ships), I build T2 and occasionally T1 modules and ships, and I quite successfully trade on the market. I have a good understanding of both sides of this debate - do you?

I also have a considerable stockpile of SAARs which I bought when I figured the prices were heading up. I actually have more of a personal interest in seeing them rise even higher. But I would prefer that noob frigate PvP remains as affordable as possible.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#34 - 2014-04-05 13:28:59 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
Zappity wrote:
It was not intended to be veiled. I meant that CCP should encourage PvP, not explorers. Or are you certain that CCP got the right values the first time they set the loot tables? You would not see such skewed results between the sizes if so.


Sounds to me like "waaah market PVP, not faaaaiiiir!". Are you sure you're a pvper?

I am all sorts of things. I PvP (mostly solo in small ships), I build T2 and occasionally T1 modules and ships, and I quite successfully trade on the market. I have a good understanding of both sides of this debate - do you?

I also have a considerable stockpile of SAARs which I bought when I figured the prices were heading up. I actually have more of a personal interest in seeing them rise even higher. But I would prefer that noob frigate PvP remains as affordable as possible.


I'm sure that lowering the cost of a pvp frigate by a few 100k (assuming saar) for everyone else is a genuine concern of yours.
Derath Ellecon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2014-04-05 14:06:58 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Derath Ellecon wrote:
Zappity wrote:
That's a pretty useless comment - the statement is true but it doesn't necessarily mean that the current cost is 'right'. Supply is artificially regulated by the spawn rate that CCP imposes. So there is certainly room for argument that the price should be lower (increase spawn rate) to encourage frigate PvP.


About as useless as this. There is plenty of frigate PVP these days. Not everyone "needs" this module. And there is nothing wrong with having some modules that give some benefit for those willing to pay.

Sure, those are called faction modules. AAR, however, is basically a prerequisite for active armour fits. The high cost just increases the barrier to entry for no good reason other than an underestimate of popularity, or perhaps a need for a nerf.



Bull. I am willing to bet isk there are plenty of ppl who successfully PVP without the SAAR.

And the difference from T2 to SAAR on my little incursus bumps the price from 8.2m to a whopping 9.5m. If people are unwilling to put that additionatl 14% into their ship they probably cannot even afford frigate PVP.
King Fu Hostile
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#36 - 2014-04-05 16:16:34 UTC
Kosetzu wrote:
Last I checked most of the Ancillary reppers weren't worth making even if you randomly got the BPC as you got more profit from selling the minerals directly.


You need glasses, or a calculator

probably both
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#37 - 2014-04-05 19:53:52 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
The market is always right. Demand increased as people began to realise how good they are which affects prices. Economy 101, HTFU etc.


Basicly this. The only way CCP effects prices is through setting the materials to make something. From looking at the blueprint it takes the same as the plain T1 repper. So this is either caused by not enough people making them or a huge demand for them.

Or could be some rich player is buying mass quantities for low and selling for high... Market PVP... Welcome to Eve!
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#38 - 2014-04-05 20:23:31 UTC
IIshira wrote:
...So this is either caused by not enough people making them...

Why? Your logic is incomplete.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#39 - 2014-04-06 04:25:08 UTC
Zappity wrote:
IIshira wrote:
...So this is either caused by not enough people making them...

Why? Your logic is incomplete.


Please elaborate.... If it takes the same materials as the T1 armor repper so if it's not high demand or low supply that's causing the price going up what is it? To my knowledge the only item CCP alters the market price on is PLEX. This is for obvious reasons to ensure they're making enough RL money.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#40 - 2014-04-06 04:28:45 UTC
IIshira wrote:
Zappity wrote:
IIshira wrote:
...So this is either caused by not enough people making them...

Why? Your logic is incomplete.


Please elaborate.... If it takes the same materials as the T1 armor repper so if it's not high demand or low supply that's causing the price going up what is it? To my knowledge the only item CCP alters the market price on is PLEX. This is for obvious reasons to ensure they're making enough RL money.

The blueprint.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Previous page123Next page