These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Why In the World is The Excavator Mining Drones Still Obsuredly Priced
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#141 - 2017-02-21 23:21:28 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
I have repeatedly said that the minerals have value (on the market), but that their cost of acquisition if done yourself is zero, ergo:free.
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
If you by "free" mean that mined minerals is free of tax then yes.
Free of tax and free of cost.

Ok, If your minerals are free, can you mine them and build a raven with them? Then sell it to me for 30 mil?

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Zakks
CSR NAVY
Citizen's Star Republic
#142 - 2017-02-22 00:10:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Zakks
Neuntausend wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
I have repeatedly said that the minerals have value (on the market), but that their cost of acquisition if done yourself is zero, ergo:free.

No, it is not. If the time and resources spent to acquire the ore were actually without value, there would not be the slightest reason for the ore to have any market value at all. If it actually was free, everyone could just grab all the ore they want. Nobody would ever need to buy ore, because they could just get it for free.

But they can't get it for free, which is why they are willing to pay money for it.

Just imagine the following situation: In front of your local grocery store there's a stand where they hand out samples of a new soda pop for free. Next to that stand there's a guy who takes those samples and tries to sell them for a dollar each. Do you think he will sell any? He won't. Because they are actually free, and there's no reason to pay money for them.


The guy with the free pop doesn't even need to go to the grocery storeBlink

Nobody has yet addressed the logistical moving of materials to/from market. That is opportunity cost right there.
Atomic Virulent
Embargo.
#143 - 2017-02-22 00:29:27 UTC
Dark Lord Trump wrote:
How exactly is confiscating blueprints going to help? All that's going to do is leave a massive black mark on CCP's record, and increase the price further as blueprints leave circulation.



BWAHAHAHAAAA! CCP and blackmarks involving blueprints. THAT has NEVER happened before....
Atomic Virulent
Embargo.
#144 - 2017-02-22 00:32:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Atomic Virulent
Don't be silly. The market is not nearly as player driven as the lie they propogate. If the market were as legitimate as some would have us all believe then there wouldn't be so many modules/items (T2 for example) that are less expensive than the sum of the parts to produce them.. much less the skills/infrastructure involved in producing them.

It's almost like CCP has an agenda to catalyze mass purchases of PLEX to trade in-game for ISK. CCP would NEVER do anything that sketchy...
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#145 - 2017-02-22 01:51:53 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
What is the difference in value between minerals mined by me and buyed by me on market?

None.

If you mine minerals that sell for 10m, or buy minerals for 10m, or steal minerals that sell for 10m, you have 10m of minerals.

Even if you personally for whatever pants-on-head reason don't value the minerals, that still doesn't make them without a market value.

What it costs you to harvest minerals:

* Skill training time
* Equipment costs: purchase of mining ship and fittings (possibly also including insurance, repairs, crystal & drone replacement)
* Time to mine (including travel time)
* Time to reprocess (time to haul ore to refinery)
* Reprocessing tax

The last three being a recurring cost, and the ones most commonly referred to. Your time investment being the majority. Time is ISK.

The instant the ore is harvested, it has value. There is nothing you can do to change that.
Neuntausend
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#146 - 2017-02-22 01:58:44 UTC
Zakks wrote:
Nobody has yet addressed the logistical moving of materials to/from market. That is opportunity cost right there.

That is very true, like the issue with the market fees and tax. However, like those fees, transport fees are very, very low. Just put up a courier contract with peanuts for a reward, and somebody will take it - the space truckers seem to be quite desperate.

Just all those little fees don't make the bulk of the mineral price. Most of it comes from the fact that miners need a reward for the time they invested in mining them, otherwise there would not be a reason for them to do it.
Economo 3000
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#147 - 2017-02-22 02:03:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Economo 3000
Atomic Virulent wrote:
Don't be silly. The market is not nearly as player driven as the lie they propogate. If the market were as legitimate as some would have us all believe then there wouldn't be so many modules/items (T2 for example) that are less expensive than the sum of the parts to produce them.. much less the skills/infrastructure involved in producing them.

It's almost like CCP has an agenda to catalyze mass purchases of PLEX to trade in-game for ISK. CCP would NEVER do anything that sketchy...


You're trying too hard to make an apples to apples comparison.

What you need to do is consider EVE PLAYERS' time preference, value scales, and the significance to them of judgment errors when making a sale/purchase... not try to transfer the way they feel about those things in the real world concerning the real market directly into Eve's market.

Players of a game are going to tend to have value scales prioritizing whatever they think is fun much more highly than what they think is necessary, are going to tend to have a stronger time preference (they don't usually want to have fun next year... they want to have fun now), and are going to be less willing to put a lot of effort into making market decisions so as to reduce their error.

Those differences between the real world and New Eden go a long, long ways to explaining some of the seemingly-dumb **** you see on the market in game.
Bjorn Tyrson
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#148 - 2017-02-22 02:18:11 UTC
Atomic Virulent wrote:
Don't be silly. The market is not nearly as player driven as the lie they propogate. If the market were as legitimate as some would have us all believe then there wouldn't be so many modules/items (T2 for example) that are less expensive than the sum of the parts to produce them.. much less the skills/infrastructure involved in producing them.

It's almost like CCP has an agenda to catalyze mass purchases of PLEX to trade in-game for ISK. CCP would NEVER do anything that sketchy...


That is player driven actually. With multiple causes.

1) looting. Not every module t2 of otherwise is being sold as a direct result of manufacturing. Someone pops someone else. and loots them. They are more likely to go for a quick sell them bother figuring out the exact material cost... after all the only thing they spent on it was their ammo.

2) "if I mine it then it's free" you might be surprised at exactly how common and widespread this belief is. And not only with newbie industrialists. And since they didn't "spend anything" on the materials they price it however the hell they want. Regardless of the value of those minerals.

3) from your complaints it sounds like you are a HS industrialist. And yes. Having spent almost 5 years doing HS industry it can be very hard to compete. Especially solo. Those infrastructure costs you mentioned. Well the benefits for having that infrastructure only increase as you move out towards nul. Not only are the bonuses to material costs improved. But the secondary benefits of having a pos or citadel become more important. And thus more valuable.
Neuntausend
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#149 - 2017-02-22 02:18:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Neuntausend
The reason why there are so many modules being sold on the market for less than the sum of their parts is not that the market is secretly being manipulated by CCP, but the lack of basic business sense in some of the players. There are many idiots (for lack of a euphemism) that do not value the time spent mining their own ore and consider ore mined "free". The last few pages of this thread prove that they exist, and this topic comes up surprisingly frequently. And as you can also see in this thread, it's next to impossible to teach them the value of their own time and effort. And as long as they are around, you will see this phenomenon on the market.

Then there's the "undercutting game". All that is needed to drive prices down in some cases is one manufacturer who sells below cost price, and people who just happen to have a couple of those modules lying around, maybe they looted them from a battlefield or found them while cleaning out their hangars will start undercutting each other to sell their **** quickly. They don't know what went into making them or what they are actually worth - they just look at the market, and try selling for less than what the lowest seller is asking.
mkint
#150 - 2017-02-22 03:02:16 UTC
Neuntausend wrote:

Then there's the "undercutting game".

I did this on accident once. I was a rookie and really really dumb. I was hanging out in Amarr space near a storyline agent that wanted raw Kernite. It was going for around 600 isk per unit making it better than most nullsec ores at the time. Me being dumb, I undercut by too much and, on my own, knocked 1/3 of the value off it for everyone else before I realized what I was doing. Don't be like me. Either be patient or be willing to play the .01 isk game.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
Cade Windstalker
#151 - 2017-02-22 04:03:24 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
You only "lost" it compared to another choice that you did not make, and which hence never became real.

This speaks to the fact what the concept of opportunity cost is, as part of the assessment process BEFORE making a choice.

Not retrospectively, as you apply it. Its a tool, a calculation, of cost, not an actual cost, despite its name.

The irony here, is that I have been accused of unduly focusing on the "cost" part of opportunity cost, whereas its you that does so, as the "cost" of an opportunity you chose NOT to pursue.

If you chose the course of using 100mil in value to manufacture a product worth 90m, that is your own stupid choice.
You then clearly failed the opportunity cost analysis beforehand, in that you choose that.


No, actually, you had 100m in assets and turned it into 90m in assets. This is literally the definition of a loss in accounting and economic terms. Just because you had 100m in assets and not raw cash doesn't mean you didn't sustain a loss.

Bad econ troll is bad...
Salvos Rhoska
#152 - 2017-02-22 08:24:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
You only "lost" it compared to another choice that you did not make, and which hence never became real.

This speaks to the fact what the concept of opportunity cost is, as part of the assessment process BEFORE making a choice.

Not retrospectively, as you apply it. Its a tool, a calculation, of cost, not an actual cost, despite its name.

The irony here, is that I have been accused of unduly focusing on the "cost" part of opportunity cost, whereas its you that does so, as the "cost" of an opportunity you chose NOT to pursue.

If you chose the course of using 100mil in value to manufacture a product worth 90m, that is your own stupid choice.
You then clearly failed the opportunity cost analysis beforehand, in that you choose that.


No, actually, you had 100m in assets and turned it into 90m in assets. This is literally the definition of a loss in accounting and economic terms. Just because you had 100m in assets and not raw cash doesn't mean you didn't sustain a loss.

Bad econ troll is bad...


You had x minerals, and chose to turn them into item z.
You cant make item z, without that x minerals.

You didnt lose 100mill, or 10mil.
It cost you x minerals, and you gained item z.

Ofc it is fiscally stupid to turn 100mil in value of assets, into 90mil (unless you have a motive other than isk value).

But you didnt sustain a loss.
You simply chose to make one choice, instead of another.

You cant lose that which you would have gained had you made another choice.
You didnt make that other choice, thus never gained what it would have offered, nor lost it.

Opportunity cost is an analysis you make of options, before deciding on action.
It is not retrospective or retroactive

If I make the choice to spend my vacation in Florence rather than Moscow, I do not "lose" what I might have experienced had I chosen to go to Moscow instead, nor does not choosing Moscow, cost me anything. As a result of my choice, only the chosen Florence option will cost me what that option entails. Any loss I incur there, will be a result only of that option.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Salvos Rhoska
#153 - 2017-02-22 08:51:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
I have repeatedly said that the minerals have value (on the market), but that their cost of acquisition if done yourself is zero, ergo:free.
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
If you by "free" mean that mined minerals is free of tax then yes.
Free of tax and free of cost.

Ok, If your minerals are free, can you mine them and build a raven with them? Then sell it to me for 30 mil?


Yes, I could.

But I would be stupid of me to do so., due to the value of the minerals and the supply/demand on ravens.

But that does not change that if I mined the minerals myself, they cost me 0isk, and are hence free to me.

I could, alternatively, purchase the minerals from the market, with isk, at roughly equivalent value to what my self-mined minerals would have had, and produce the raven from those instead. As the value of minerals is determined by the market, its largely interchangeable whether you buy them, or mine them.

However if I buy them, I have to pay isk, and I incur fees and am subject to a market value in flux.

This still, however, does not change the fact, that if I do mine them myself, I get them for 0isk, ergo:free.

So yes, I could mine the minerals myself, produce a raven, and sell it to you for 30mil.
My only cost would be refinement/production/sales fees. The remainder would be pure profit.
(Albeit far less than if I instead sold it at market value)

Alternatively, I could buy the minerals to produce the raven, and sell it to you for 30mil.
But then I would be concretely taking a loss, as I have spent isk on it.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#154 - 2017-02-22 10:46:19 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
So yes, I could mine the minerals myself, produce a raven, and sell it to you for 30mil.
My only cost would be refinement/production/sales fees. The remainder would be pure profit.
(Albeit far less than if I instead sold it at market value)

Why far less? Your minerals are free so you gain 30 mil netto by your logic.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Scialt
Corporate Navy Police Force
Sleep Reapers
#155 - 2017-02-22 13:32:23 UTC
Zakks wrote:
Neuntausend wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
I have repeatedly said that the minerals have value (on the market), but that their cost of acquisition if done yourself is zero, ergo:free.

No, it is not. If the time and resources spent to acquire the ore were actually without value, there would not be the slightest reason for the ore to have any market value at all. If it actually was free, everyone could just grab all the ore they want. Nobody would ever need to buy ore, because they could just get it for free.

But they can't get it for free, which is why they are willing to pay money for it.

Just imagine the following situation: In front of your local grocery store there's a stand where they hand out samples of a new soda pop for free. Next to that stand there's a guy who takes those samples and tries to sell them for a dollar each. Do you think he will sell any? He won't. Because they are actually free, and there's no reason to pay money for them.


The guy with the free pop doesn't even need to go to the grocery storeBlink

Nobody has yet addressed the logistical moving of materials to/from market. That is opportunity cost right there.


It's actually most often referred to as "freight-in-cost"
Scialt
Corporate Navy Police Force
Sleep Reapers
#156 - 2017-02-22 13:38:23 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
I have repeatedly said that the minerals have value (on the market), but that their cost of acquisition if done yourself is zero, ergo:free.
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
If you by "free" mean that mined minerals is free of tax then yes.
Free of tax and free of cost.

Ok, If your minerals are free, can you mine them and build a raven with them? Then sell it to me for 30 mil?


Yes, I could.

But I would be stupid of me to do so., due to the value of the minerals and the supply/demand on ravens.

But that does not change that if I mined the minerals myself, they cost me 0isk, and are hence free to me.

I could, alternatively, purchase the minerals from the market, with isk, at roughly equivalent value to what my self-mined minerals would have had, and produce the raven from those instead. As the value of minerals is determined by the market, its largely interchangeable whether you buy them, or mine them.

However if I buy them, I have to pay isk, and I incur fees and am subject to a market value in flux.

This still, however, does not change the fact, that if I do mine them myself, I get them for 0isk, ergo:free.

So yes, I could mine the minerals myself, produce a raven, and sell it to you for 30mil.
My only cost would be refinement/production/sales fees. The remainder would be pure profit.
(Albeit far less than if I instead sold it at market value)

Alternatively, I could buy the minerals to produce the raven, and sell it to you for 30mil.
But then I would be concretely taking a loss, as I have spent isk on it.


Again... you miss the fact that material acquisition is a different profit center than manufacturing.

You have a profit on your manufacturing. It's measured as the sales price - cost of raw materials and manufacturing expenses (and you should also subtract cost of transporting the goods to market as well).

You have a separate profit from mining.

You may make enough profit off mining to offset a loss on manufacturing if you sell the final product at a price that's too low... but that doesn't change the fact you're manufacturing at a loss.

I've explained this several times and you simply refuse to accept that the way you determine the profitability of manufacturing is based on the market price of raw materials... not based on what you paid to acquire them. You may get minerals for free... but you're STILL manufacturing at a loss. You're borrowing from your mining profits to cover a manufacturing loss. You CANNOT judge profits for your manufacturing by assuming a 0 cost for raw materials. You're stealing from your mining profits.
Scialt
Corporate Navy Police Force
Sleep Reapers
#157 - 2017-02-22 14:26:42 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
I have repeatedly said that the minerals have value (on the market), but that their cost of acquisition if done yourself is zero, ergo:free.
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
If you by "free" mean that mined minerals is free of tax then yes.
Free of tax and free of cost.

Ok, If your minerals are free, can you mine them and build a raven with them? Then sell it to me for 30 mil?


Yes, I could.

But I would be stupid of me to do so., due to the value of the minerals and the supply/demand on ravens.

But that does not change that if I mined the minerals myself, they cost me 0isk, and are hence free to me.

I could, alternatively, purchase the minerals from the market, with isk, at roughly equivalent value to what my self-mined minerals would have had, and produce the raven from those instead. As the value of minerals is determined by the market, its largely interchangeable whether you buy them, or mine them.

However if I buy them, I have to pay isk, and I incur fees and am subject to a market value in flux.

This still, however, does not change the fact, that if I do mine them myself, I get them for 0isk, ergo:free.

So yes, I could mine the minerals myself, produce a raven, and sell it to you for 30mil.
My only cost would be refinement/production/sales fees. The remainder would be pure profit.
(Albeit far less than if I instead sold it at market value)

Alternatively, I could buy the minerals to produce the raven, and sell it to you for 30mil.
But then I would be concretely taking a loss, as I have spent isk on it.


Getting things for free does not mean they aren't recorded as revenue.

The closest thing in the real world to "free stuff" is called a "gift in kind". In the case of a tangible, useable asset (which minerals would be considered), it gets recorded as revenue at "fair market value".

So if someone gave your company a car, you'd record that is revenue based on something like the kelly blue book value of the vehicle... even if you were not planning on reselling it.

Translating that to mining... as soon as you mine the ore/minerals... the value of that ore is recorded as REVENUE at market value (and thus has an impact on your profit at the time you collect it). If you then dispose of those minerals (either by manufacturing or sale of the minerals) and get more or less than the value you recorded the minerals at... it is recorded as an additional profit... or LOSS.

LOSS.

It's a LOSS if you make something for less than the market value of the minerals.

Get it?
Cade Windstalker
#158 - 2017-02-22 14:30:37 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
You had x minerals, and chose to turn them into item z.
You cant make item z, without that x minerals.

You didnt lose 100mill, or 10mil.
It cost you x minerals, and you gained item z.

Ofc it is fiscally stupid to turn 100mil in value of assets, into 90mil (unless you have a motive other than isk value).

But you didnt sustain a loss.


Yes, you did. In economics or accounting this would be noted as a loss.

As you are clearly not an accountant, or an economist, can you take the word of the half a dozen people in this thread, some with significant and applicable real life experience in these fields, and stop trying to argue out of select pages of a dictionary?
mkint
#159 - 2017-02-22 15:08:43 UTC
Scialt wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
If you by "free" mean that mined minerals is free of tax then yes.
Free of tax and free of cost.

Ok, If your minerals are free, can you mine them and build a raven with them? Then sell it to me for 30 mil?


Yes, I could.

But I would be stupid of me to do so., due to the value of the minerals and the supply/demand on ravens.

But that does not change that if I mined the minerals myself, they cost me 0isk, and are hence free to me.

I could, alternatively, purchase the minerals from the market, with isk, at roughly equivalent value to what my self-mined minerals would have had, and produce the raven from those instead. As the value of minerals is determined by the market, its largely interchangeable whether you buy them, or mine them.

However if I buy them, I have to pay isk, and I incur fees and am subject to a market value in flux.

This still, however, does not change the fact, that if I do mine them myself, I get them for 0isk, ergo:free.

So yes, I could mine the minerals myself, produce a raven, and sell it to you for 30mil.
My only cost would be refinement/production/sales fees. The remainder would be pure profit.
(Albeit far less than if I instead sold it at market value)

Alternatively, I could buy the minerals to produce the raven, and sell it to you for 30mil.
But then I would be concretely taking a loss, as I have spent isk on it.


Getting things for free does not mean they aren't recorded as revenue.

The closest thing in the real world to "free stuff" is called a "gift in kind". In the case of a tangible, useable asset (which minerals would be considered), it gets recorded as revenue at "fair market value".

So if someone gave your company a car, you'd record that is revenue based on something like the kelly blue book value of the vehicle... even if you were not planning on reselling it.

Translating that to mining... as soon as you mine the ore/minerals... the value of that ore is recorded as REVENUE at market value (and thus has an impact on your profit at the time you collect it). If you then dispose of those minerals (either by manufacturing or sale of the minerals) and get more or less than the value you recorded the minerals at... it is recorded as an additional profit... or LOSS.

LOSS.

It's a LOSS if you make something for less than the market value of the minerals.

Get it?

get it? He didn't even read it! But seriously, he doesn't bother to even read the things he's arguing against. Known troll. Picks a stance, cherry picks minutia in any post to argue against, fabricates context that doesn't exist so he can have the argument he wants to be having rather than argue what has been actually said, all for the sake of being unpleasant. It doesn't matter that he's wrong. It doesn't matter that every post he's ever made on these forums is wrong. He just needs people to talk at him to feel like he's a person, so will say anything dumb. So... this thread is probably ready to die, as does every other thread he ruins.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
Scialt
Corporate Navy Police Force
Sleep Reapers
#160 - 2017-02-22 15:17:15 UTC
mkint wrote:

get it? He didn't even read it! But seriously, he doesn't bother to even read the things he's arguing against. Known troll. Picks a stance, cherry picks minutia in any post to argue against, fabricates context that doesn't exist so he can have the argument he wants to be having rather than argue what has been actually said, all for the sake of being unpleasant. It doesn't matter that he's wrong. It doesn't matter that every post he's ever made on these forums is wrong. He just needs people to talk at him to feel like he's a person, so will say anything dumb. So... this thread is probably ready to die, as does every other thread he ruins.


While this is likely true, it's important to show when people put forward blatantly incorrect stances like his.

Not to change his mind... but rather so other readers aren't drawn in by the ideas he puts forward.

Everyone... minerals have a market value. That market value is part of the cost to manufacture a product, regardless of how you get the minerals. If you sell a product for less than the cost of raw materials and manufacturing costs... you're manufacturing at a loss.