These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Dev blog: Building better Worlds

First post First post First post
Author
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1661 - 2014-04-24 14:49:43 UTC
Soldarius wrote:

How will this new system interact with CSAAs? Can someone put 10 titans in build for only a modest increase in cost? CCP really needs to be on the ball with this change and make sure no fringe cases slip through the cracks.

Currently it is possible to put two CSAAs on the same tower. It is generally thought to be a completely idiotic idea and every titan builder who is not an incorrigible moron will have one CSAA per tower.

The same "exactly how many eggs do you want to stuff in that basket" issue will probably be the same: wouldn't you rather have ten pos with one titan each than one pos with ten titans?

Titan building goes sequentially because of components: you use all your component bpos at once to build the components for a titan as fast as possible, then install that titan, then move on to the next. There's no extra effort to do it at a second pos instead of reusing your original pos. Your component build speed determines how many towers you need (divide titan hull time build by component build time, add one: you need that many towers to hit your maximum rate of production with no doubling-up of titans in any pos).

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1662 - 2014-04-24 14:51:26 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Thanks for the replies, so POS were a viable option but at cost and risk of destruction. Isn't that the risk/reward balance in action though? I thought POS's had bonuses in null compared to lo (and obviously you can't even use many of the modules in high).

In terms of renting moons I assume this is via a POS located at the moon. I'm guessing the renting systems are pretty deep inside whichever null alliance owns them to be safe?

POS in nullsec get a fuel consumption bonus and can anchor certain mods (moon mining, reactors) that you can't anchor in highsec. None of those 0.0-only modules are useful for research/industry (aside from moon mining and reacting, the one current 0.0 industry).

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Kun'ii Zenya
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#1663 - 2014-04-24 15:13:04 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Thanks for the replies, so POS were a viable option but at cost and risk of destruction. Isn't that the risk/reward balance in action though? I thought POS's had bonuses in null compared to lo (and obviously you can't even use many of the modules in high).

In terms of renting moons I assume this is via a POS located at the moon. I'm guessing the renting systems are pretty deep inside whichever null alliance owns them to be safe?


One of the main bonuses of a POS in Sov null is the fuel savings (25% IIRC). Some labs/arrays also had bonuses over stations, IIRC, but it has been awhile since I did invention and manufacturing.

Back when I did HS invention (and why do it in null when you have more security risks plus the hassle of logistics) I used a POS for copying, inventing, and improving BPOs. Manufacturing was all done in station and there was no issue at all finding vacant slots. Copying, invention and improving BPOs (e.g. ME research) was not feasible due to congestion. That is I'd have to wait forever to try and get that stuff done in station...and I was far more than 1-2 jumps from Jita.

Going forward, it might be the case that one wont even need a POS. Sure you might have what is essentially a 14% tax on your ME, PE, and copying jobs, but keep in mind that running a small POS in empire is going to run you 108 million isk+ every 30 days. Even if you do face the 14% "tax" if it is less than 108 million you are coming out ahead (and that is assuming a small tower suited your needs, if you were running a large tower then the amount of isk you spent was substantially higher). And lets be clear hear, nobody knows how fast these things will scale. Will all ME slots basically become infinite but with the 14% "tax"? Maybe, or the underlying mechanic could result in the tax being, on average, 5%.

And as I noted there are additional potential cost reductions here. Granted it wont show up in a freaking ledger (damn accountants) but not having to log in an fuel your tower is a good thing. Not having to buy fuel and scrounge for charters another good thing (and the latter represents a reduction in risk too as you wont be out there booming around in a freighter with fuel blocks or PI stuff in your cargo hold and risk getting ganked). Heck, if it turns out you can move everything to a station you would even substantially reduce the risk of war decs (if you no longer have a tower and turtle up for the dec, then there is nothing for them to shoot at) which is another benefit.

There is so much hand wringing here by the HS people it really is hard not to take an attitude of contempt towards them....

For example most of them have an almost irrational fear of null. Not living there, but that they somehow run the entire show and that this change will drive all S&I to null. But as I noted above what these changes may do is shift S&I from POS's into stations. If the tax that S&I people face is less than the cost of running a POS or two then you move into station, take down the POS (recovering that fixed investment, BTW) and chug along on your merry way.

Where they face the biggest threat, IMO, is the increased competition...in HS! With the removal so slot limitations AND the removal of POS standings requirements it opens up S&I to ALOT more players....in HS. Now the only barrier to entry are skills which is not much of a barrier.

Granted increased S&I in null will increase competition for HS S&I guys, but null has that annoying problem of crappy markets and logistics. I might make a pile of T2 tracking enhancers...but now what? Unless my alliance is going to buy them in bulk from me or there is huge demand where I live (bahahahahahahaha) chances are I'll want to move them to a trade hub. Get out the JF, extra expense of fuel, extra time moving crap around, etc. And as noted, there might be 1-2 outposts within 4-5 jumps with slots, so I could be hitting that 14% alot sooner than in HS. And yeah, while null is often pretty darn boring and safe, that one time it isn't and you are in a 6.5 billion JF..... And lets ignore the office issue as well. Outposts and stations have a limited number of offices, if one is not free then I don't have the benefit of common hangars to share stuff between alts/partners in my S&I work.

Nope, in HS there will be a huge sucking sound as all industry suddenly shifts forever to null. GMAFB Roll
Flay Nardieu
#1664 - 2014-04-24 15:28:47 UTC
Another option the summer foam bat beating removes:

Under current system a corp with a POS in high-sec can make Lab slots available to other corporations in an Alliance either free or with some cost. However it is only remote no material jobs it restricts things to general ME/PE research also the alliance corp has to have a office in the system and BP's in a corp hangar in addition to researchers having access to a wallet division.

The process could be vastly improved, but it does offer alternatives to high-sec (or low) alliances feeling a research slot crunch and forms a definite form of cooperative intergrated groups.

The proposed change of removing the remote job from an office, removing restrictions on anchoring, and taxing work at a POS create nothing but more issues. It will however cripple actual functioning aspect of a flawed system, promote even more solo person micro corps and POS spamming.

Also as stated by dozens of posts already it makes it less likely to defend a POS assets; which not suprisingly improved more defense oriented permanent POS sets as defense measures to protect POCO's particularly in systems with one or no stations.

Many parts of the planned changes as stated produce at best a zero-net gain at worse a negative-net gain for anybody anywhere operating a POS.

All this rot about is Risk vs Reward completely ignores the Commitment : Reward ratio that exists.

Another thing completely overlooked is in starter systems it is nigh impossible to complete the S&I career mission involving manufactering in bonus isk period (or at all) due to bloat of jobs in those systems*, sure it will open slots now but at the density of use in those systems it would break a new player's wallet.


*note: In a previous post I had stated that I had seen rare occasions of manufactoring slot max loads in my travels, I didn't happen to recall this particular scourge until later, it has been quite some time since I actually operated out of a newbie system or done career missions.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#1665 - 2014-04-24 15:30:57 UTC
it'll certainly be interesting to see how this plays out, my guess is there will be what I previously jokingly called the 'Laziness Event Horizon' about 4-5 jumps out from the trade hubs where the extra cost will balance against the intrinsic laziness in people who don't want to travel further. I toyed with calling it the 'Brown ring of Arsedness' but the thought of that being quite a mouthful put me off my lunch.

The sucking sound will be the souls leaving the bodies of those who choose to move to null of course ...

I definitely look forward to the changes as it gives me a whole order of magnitude more stuff to learn. Whether I think they are right or wrong (from my perspective of course) or I agree with the push to move people to null is entirely separate to that.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1666 - 2014-04-24 15:56:40 UTC
Flash Phoenix wrote:

Any item could be made in null sec, perhaps just not much profit or worth the effort. The null sec high profit / high risk items should not be just capital items or items that only old players with high skill points can make or acquire.


It is a market driven economy. Prices adjust to costs. If price is too much above cost, more people will start producing. If price is below cost, people stop producing.

Flash Phoenix wrote:

High Risk and High Profit its such a simple deal and has game content.


Simple in theory, but has proven to be a beotch to actually implement. As I stated yesterday, I've spent roughly equal amounts of time in null and high sec in my years of playing EVE. I've lost far more mining barges and exhumers to high sec gank than I have lost in hull.

Flash Phoenix wrote:

This industry balance deal is such a mess when all we need is some new content and game play.


The new content is either limited, meaning tightly controlled and rented out (officer spawn) for huge money, meaning higher profits for the masters than the people actually exploiting the content....

Or it is unlimited, and the relatively safety of null means prices crash, or ISK creation explodes and CCP is forced to nerf to stop the inflow of new ISK.


Null ABC ores were envisioned as being way more profitable than high sec. The problem is, so many of them are mined in relative safety, that it crashed the prices to the point that they are about the same profitability of high sec ores. In fact, to get ABCs to respawn, we have to mine out an entire ore cluster, including rocks that are at or below the average high sec mining profitability.

Now calcualte how much time we sit in a POS or in station because there is a non-blue within half a doen jumps... or the REAL killed of null profitability, the cloaky camper...

You end up with null sec mining that is no more, and frequently less profitable than high sec, despite the intentions of CCP that the ABCs would be more profiatble.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1667 - 2014-04-24 16:35:28 UTC
Flay Nardieu wrote:
The more I hear of this discussion the more I'm convinced that everyone is getting screwed with expected change.



CCP is creating an ISK sink, plain and simple. ISK comes in, ISK has to go out. It doesn't really go out when a mission runner buys ammo or mods, because that ISK (other than small market fees and tiny slot fees) just goes to another player.

So now, some % of that ISK will actually leave the game, in the form of higher slot fees.

People are not going to manufacture at a loss. Initally, prices will go up to match higher costs.

The mission runners will see profitability go down (higher ammo costs, lower melt loot prices). Some will park their missioning ships and go mining instead (as it will be more profitable than missioning). Then price of minerals will fall until mining again matches profitability of missioning. Once equalibrium is reached.


It is, in fact, because everyone is getting screwed, that no one is really getting screwed. The market will adjust and go on.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1668 - 2014-04-24 16:45:20 UTC
manufactured items tend to stabilize around a certain small profit over cost. there are many factors that go into how large that margin is (how liquid the market is, the cost of each item, the build time, etc), and demand is one of those factors that plays into that small margin

but that small margin is a small margin over cost so we're discussing something that can alter prices about 3% as much as the cost of the actual inputs

in other words it's about two orders of magnitude less relevant than input costs, or "basically irrelevant"

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1669 - 2014-04-24 16:52:11 UTC
demand essentially dictates the price of items produced at a constant supply or is a byproduct of something else (e.g. rat drops, nobody rats more if suddenly meta 2 mods double in price, and moon goo which is basically produced at a constant rate unless its so worthless nobody bothers to mine the full supply)

demand heavily impacts items that are produced in a specific proportion (moon goo again, minerals mined from cyclable 0.0 mining anoms, salvage) due to the 'bottlenecking effect' : when the demand for those items is in a proportion noticably different from the proportion they are produced in, the most in-demand items capture all of the value while the less demanded items become worthless

when it comes to manufacturing however demand is essentially irrelevant most of the time: demand will affect supply and that plays out when demand suddenly changes (forcing lower supply or higher supply and creating dramatic margin shifts until it moves) but in the absence of sudden demand shifts the market will have settled to a small profit and the price is dictated by cost

change cost, change price in a nearly 1:1 ratio permanently

change demand, you change price for a short time but it will still tend to settle back at cost+% and as soon as that short time is over demand is essentially irrelevant

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1670 - 2014-04-24 16:52:37 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
manufactured items tend to stabilize around a certain small profit over cost. there are many factors that go into how large that margin is (how liquid the market is, the cost of each item, the build time, etc), and demand is one of those factors that plays into that small margin

but that small margin is a small margin over cost so we're discussing something that can alter prices about 3% as much as the cost of the actual inputs

in other words it's about two orders of magnitude less relevant than input costs, or "basically irrelevant"



Yep. My spreadsheets are based on priofit/hr (mostly dirvn by input costs divided by manufacturig time). I do include a small market liquidity multiple. How long I'm going to sit on the output, and how many times I'm going to have to adjust my price in the penny wars of the trade hub, are inputs.

Building the most popular ammo type for a region, then putting the ammo up for sale in the main missioning hub, I'm assured quick turn.


Though, the other thing I notice is that more than half my "manufacturing profit" is really trade and transport profit. Buying below market, selling above, and getting the bought mins to manufacture point and manufactured goods to sell location... Factor that in, and manufacture profits are stupid, stupid thin.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1671 - 2014-04-24 17:07:18 UTC
Weaselior wrote:

when it comes to manufacturing however demand is essentially irrelevant most of the time: demand will affect supply and that plays out when demand suddenly changes (forcing lower supply or higher supply and creating dramatic margin shifts until it moves) but in the absence of sudden demand shifts the market will have settled to a small profit and the price is dictated by cost


Correct. Manufacturing is the middle man that passes the supply/demand pricing mechanism from end user to input supplier. Supply/demand effect sale price of the finished good, and that same supply/demand pushed the price right through manufacturing, to the manufacturing input.
Kun'ii Zenya
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#1672 - 2014-04-24 17:28:25 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
manufactured items tend to stabilize around a certain small profit over cost. there are many factors that go into how large that margin is (how liquid the market is, the cost of each item, the build time, etc), and demand is one of those factors that plays into that small margin

but that small margin is a small margin over cost so we're discussing something that can alter prices about 3% as much as the cost of the actual inputs

in other words it's about two orders of magnitude less relevant than input costs, or "basically irrelevant"



Yep. My spreadsheets are based on priofit/hr (mostly dirvn by input costs divided by manufacturig time). I do include a small market liquidity multiple. How long I'm going to sit on the output, and how many times I'm going to have to adjust my price in the penny wars of the trade hub, are inputs.

Building the most popular ammo type for a region, then putting the ammo up for sale in the main missioning hub, I'm assured quick turn.


Though, the other thing I notice is that more than half my "manufacturing profit" is really trade and transport profit. Buying below market, selling above, and getting the bought mins to manufacture point and manufactured goods to sell location... Factor that in, and manufacture profits are stupid, stupid thin.


Ok, let me try this....

Price is determined by the intersection of supply and demand. Your posts, and Weaselior's, pretty much all admit this.

With regards to the various price changes that will result from these changes to industry, I'm arguing they wont be as horrible as some are claiming because, both the demand and supply side will eat part of whatever cost increase there is.

Further, to the extent that there is more competition on the supply side that will also mitigate price increases if there are any.

Could this cause a potential death spiral in the market? Yeah, but even when we had a huge mistake such as with techneitum that did not occur. There was not a death spiral when T2 items were just based off of BPOs. Nor was there a death spiral when T2 BPOs were nerfed hard with invention. All three of these resulted in significant changes to the markets.

The claims of disaster in this thread are most likely overwrought and foolish.

Will it mean updating and reworking spreadsheets, the death of some industries, and changes in the game? Yes. But hey, that stuff happens, HTFU and adapt...or not.

Is that reasonable LHA Tarawa and Weaselior?

And another part of the reason I made my comment about price being determined by supply and demand, were bonehead statements like the Nestor price going up by 200 million. And the resulting decimation of that market. Players quitting in en mass and cat's trying to breed with dogs.

The only way that could happen is if the demand for Nestors is price inelastic. But then guess what? The quantity of Nestors demanded wont change due to the price. Its inelastic, perfectly so...and as a result the same number of Nestors will be bought irrespective of the price.

In other words, comments are being made by people who did not sit through econ 101...or if they did they forgot it all or did badly in the class.
Kun'ii Zenya
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#1673 - 2014-04-24 17:30:15 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Weaselior wrote:

when it comes to manufacturing however demand is essentially irrelevant most of the time: demand will affect supply and that plays out when demand suddenly changes (forcing lower supply or higher supply and creating dramatic margin shifts until it moves) but in the absence of sudden demand shifts the market will have settled to a small profit and the price is dictated by cost


Correct. Manufacturing is the middle man that passes the supply/demand pricing mechanism from end user to input supplier. Supply/demand effect sale price of the finished good, and that same supply/demand pushed the price right through manufacturing, to the manufacturing input.


Wrong.

No demand. No price.

No supply. No price.

Heck no demand or no supply, then no market and no price.

Thus, to say demand is irrelevant is just a erudite as saying supply is irrelevant.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1674 - 2014-04-24 17:49:31 UTC
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:

Ok, let me try this....

Price is determined by the intersection of supply and demand. Your posts, and Weaselior's, pretty much all admit this.


BUT, in EVE manufacturing, supply is 100% determined by the availability of the inputs to manufacturing. If there is a bottleneck to manufacturing, such as limited BPO/BPC, then the cost of the finished item is immediately passed through the manufacturing process to the limited input.

If there is not a bottleneck, such as items for which BPCs are easily available from NPC, then the price is set by input costs, mineral, salvage, etc. Supply quickly adjusts to meet demand if the price strays slighlty above or below the thin profit above cost.


Do not believe me? Look at the Cynabal that was bought up earlier. Check the cost of input, including the BPC. You will see that the manufacturing profit is super thin, with the supply/mechanism that determines the price of the ship, is immediatly and directly passed through manufacturing to the bottleneck BPC limitation.

Flay Nardieu
#1675 - 2014-04-24 17:56:15 UTC
After going back to the EDITED first post an aspect that is proposed is remote running of jobs from containers. To that I say Kudos, brilliant, and about time. However not likely to change BP security issues especially if in a POS anybody who can remove the container in it's entirety can throw it in a personal hangar wait till an audit log reaches the point where you can repackage the container and bang repack it and and have it's contents.

The continued indication to have a tax levied on any POS no matter where is BS there is already associated cost operating a POS as it is, seriously is there gonna be a little customs agent audits maybe Scottie the Docking Clone has a cousin named Richard the Customs Agent Clone?

Removing standing restrictions in high-sec... it makes no sense there is no risk to losing a POS if every war-dec a corp packs up shop without worrying... "wait with those new guys we added we won't be able to reset it..."

Back to the BP must be in POS to use thing, it would stifle everything except POS structure fabrication since those HAVE to be done at a station or outpost. Transport of BP to and from trade hubs is bad enough, more than once I've had a ship ganked on undock at Jita with a several hundred mill un-researched BPO in the hold.

Dev's keep rethinking it, there some Good, a lot of bad, and way to much Ugly at the time of this post
Kun'ii Zenya
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#1676 - 2014-04-24 18:16:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Kun'ii Zenya
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:

Ok, let me try this....

Price is determined by the intersection of supply and demand. Your posts, and Weaselior's, pretty much all admit this.


BUT, in EVE manufacturing, supply is 100% determined by the availability of the inputs to manufacturing. If there is a bottleneck to manufacturing, such as limited BPO/BPC, then the cost of the finished item is immediately passed through the manufacturing process to the limited input.



Regarding manufacturing and supply in Eve, I don't disagree.

As for passing along costs...here, let me explain how I was doing invention:

Like you I had spread sheets.
Like you I had all sorts of data in there, various prices for all of my inputs, and so forth.
I also had an expected price variable in there that I'd sell the finished product at.

Now if my costs went up, but the prices on the market did not I faced essentially 2 choices:

1. Sell at the existing prices and take less profit (losses were rare thankfully).
2. Wait and see if the cost increase showed up in the prices.

The problem with 2 is a bit more subtle in that by holding my stock to see if the price moves in my favor I have isk tied up that I couldn't put back into invention.

And even if the price goes up, some people buying those goods may no longer buy them at that price. Maybe they can switch from Minmatar to Amarr and avoid paying the higher price. Maybe they just don't have the isk at that time to buy the good.

So even with 2 I may not be able to recover all of the unexpected cost increase.

I guess I'm trying to say is that when I did invention I was more of a price taker for my final product. I could list it a cost + 25%, but somebody can always under cut my price. There are enough buyers and sellers in most T2 markets that the price* is determined by a bunch of people buying and selling. That you engage in price changing behavior with your own goods (i.e. the 0.01 isk war stuff) you too see yourself as a price taker too...more or less. Yes? No?

*Actually there is no single price, but a range of prices based on a bunch of sell and buy orders and people trying to undercut or outbid the competition. In this regard the supply-demand model is wrong.
Albert Spear
Non scholae sed vitae
#1677 - 2014-04-24 18:25:16 UTC
Based on the discussion and time to reflect on the issues about POS and blueprint locking, I see two consequences - I don't know if they are intended or unintended.

1) Many industrialists with significant libraries of BPOs will move to single player corporations. Since they can not lock the blueprints down, and they can't use them from station on a POS, they will have no choice but to move out of multi-player corporations into single player (multi-toon) in most cases corporations to protect their library of high value prints. This may lead to an increase in solo player activity or it may lead to a number of alliances being created between solo-player corporations. Only time will tell. I suspect that industry as an activity will increasingly be done as solo play with little player to player interaction.

2) The number of corporate offices in stations will decline. Since the office can't be used to hold blueprints in safety anymore, many people will decide that it is far better to forgo the cost of the office. This becomes increasingly true if many of the corporations that are industry focused become single player corporations. The need for an office disappears.

Based on prior CCP posts on their goal of most social play, I have to wonder if this is in the spirit of those goals, or not.

It will be interesting anyway to see how this plays out over the next year. I for one am evaluating whether I stay in a multi-player corporation or not. I am also evaluating the future of the miner/industrialist role in Eve. It will be interesting to see about this time next year what the percentage of full time mining/industry players is.
Kun'ii Zenya
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#1678 - 2014-04-24 18:35:39 UTC
Albert Spear wrote:

1) Many industrialists with significant libraries of BPOs will move to single player corporations. Since they can not lock the blueprints down, and they can't use them from station on a POS, they will have no choice but to move out of multi-player corporations into single player (multi-toon) in most cases corporations to protect their library of high value prints. This may lead to an increase in solo player activity or it may lead to a number of alliances being created between solo-player corporations. Only time will tell. I suspect that industry as an activity will increasingly be done as solo play with little player to player interaction.


Maybe. Keep in mind one reason people use POS currently is due to congestion in stations. That is going to change. If that means you can do away with the POS you can still lock the BP (I think, I thought that was a question answered by a Dev, but I could be wrong) and use it in station. So, if the price of doing stuff in station is not prohibitive (i.e. you still need the POS) then what you are predicting may not come to pass.
Sunrise Aigele
Pemberley Enterprises
#1679 - 2014-04-24 18:44:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Sunrise Aigele
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:
Thus, to say demand is irrelevant is just a erudite as saying supply is irrelevant.


There is a category of joke that illustrates the idea that something can be true, and useless.

In EVE, everything that can be manufactured is a commodity. The only exceptions, broadly, would be items manufactured from loyalty point stores, because loyalty points are odd (e.g., why the Nestor is so incredibly expensive despite low demand: because its price is set by the LP->ISK conversion rate achieved by Sisters Core Scanner Probes).

In a commodity market, there is no innovation in the product, only in the ways in which the product can be made in greater quantity and at lesser expense per unit. Demand is fairly reliable. Margins are low enough that although demand is technically significant, it pales in significance to cost. Your statement becomes more true when there is a disruption (a major new fleet meta, or a rebalance), but it quickly settles back down to business as usual, because the most significant variable by an order of magnitude is input cost. That is how you know you are dealing with commodities.

I could argue that demand as constrained by buyer logistics is the only significant form: how many people here have swallowed a 50% markup on some kind of 1MN Afterburner rather than go 5 jumps out for a 2% markup, only because the real cost is so low that the markup amounts to mere thousands of ISK? Contrary to an alarming number of people in this thread, the hauling you do is not free (I am not considering carriers or jump freighters, clearly). How much is your time worth? That opportunity cost will set the premium you are willing to pay relative to the number of jumps you would have to make to avoid paying the premium.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1680 - 2014-04-24 18:56:53 UTC
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:

Regarding manufacturing and supply in Eve, I don't disagree.

As for passing along costs...here, let me explain how I was doing invention:

this entire story is you discovering return on capital over time is different than profit per unit, and is important (this is, incidentally, why low-demand markets stabilize at higher profits per unit)

it is not relevant to our discussion on price. it is you realizing that your invention business is about earning a percentage return on your money and that a loss on a unit may be preferable to keeping the isk tied up making no money for a long period of time.

the entire story is the short period when demand changes and the market has not yet stabilized, something I've alluded to many times in my posts and you seem to have not understood. if you hold onto your units you can be assured you will sell them eventually at the new cost+%: that just might be a stupid decision because you spend so long making no return on that amount that you wind up with a lower roi than if you'd taken a loss immediately and reinvested in more profitable enterprises.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.