EVE Online is a game with complex economic activity that often mirrors real-world economic systems. The similarity is so pronounced that CCP even hired its own Lead Economist, Dr. Eyjólfur Guðmundsson, to examine the in-game markets in detail. Each quarter, the economist and his team of researchers publish the EVE Quarterly Economic Newsletter (QEN). The report provides a timeline of market indices and major economic changes over the past several months. This quarter's report focuses on the effect of the insurance changes that came with the Tyrannis expansion. It also has a special segment on ISK sinks and faucets, and their changes following the release of planetary interaction.
Before Tyrannis, the insurance payout on a tech 1 ship was calculated based on the ship's NPC base value -- a value set in 2003 that has never been updated. This combined with changes to mineral distribution to produce a strange scenario in which ships could be self-destructed for profit. With a vast oversupply of minerals on the market, mineral prices were pushed firmly against the price floor created by the insurance system. It became profitable to build, insure, and then self-destruct certain battleships.
In May, the insurance prices dropped by around 30% to restore the cost of losing tech 1 ships in combat. This in turn has caused mineral prices to fall, seeking a new equilibrium price based on market laws. In the QEN, Dr. Eyjo provides interesting statistics on the number of ships self-destructed since October 2009 and what that did to the overall mineral prices. In a special segment on ISK sinks and faucets, the economist explains the fine balance between ISK flowing into the game and ISK flowing out. This is particularly important with the recent release of Planetary Interaction, which removed the ISK sinks from some NPC-sold trade goods and replaced them with player-based supply mechanisms
Reader Comments (7)
Posted: Aug 11th 2010 11:35AM ScottishViking said
Because ship insurance rates are determined on a set percentage rating. Tying insurance rates to market prices of minerals would be an enormously complicated process, where insurance rates would vary wildly depending on where you insured your ship. CCP's direction with Insurance may be slow but they're taking the right steps here.
Reply
Posted: Aug 11th 2010 11:58AM Brendan Drain said
That's actually a solution I suggested years ago, and I think it would work for Tech 1. What CCP are essentially doing is making insurance based on market prices of the minerals that go into the ship. It's a good idea, but manual balancing is tricky.
My ideal insurance system for tech 1 ships would involve you paying a monthly premium for an insurance contract that covers all your tech 1 ships. When they're destroyed, your insurance company would deposit 70% of the minerals required to build the ship into your insurance station. That removes mineral prices from the equation entirely, ensuring that every single ship gives you 70% of its build cost back on destruction. This is equivalent to paying a 30% premium and getting 100% back, but it removes mineral prices as a problem so no manual adjustments are ever required.
One of the major downsides would be that the demand for minerals would drop by up to 70% almost immediately. Another is that it might not work so well on tech 2 and 3 ships, where a lot of the cost is in invention and reverse engineering blueprints and the waste produced by invented blueprints. However, having seen the results of CCP's balancing attempt on insurance, it doesn't seem to be faring that much better. The new system doesn't adequately cover tech 2 or 3 as promised, and it'll need constant adjustment as mineral prices fluctuate.
Reply
My ideal insurance system for tech 1 ships would involve you paying a monthly premium for an insurance contract that covers all your tech 1 ships. When they're destroyed, your insurance company would deposit 70% of the minerals required to build the ship into your insurance station. That removes mineral prices from the equation entirely, ensuring that every single ship gives you 70% of its build cost back on destruction. This is equivalent to paying a 30% premium and getting 100% back, but it removes mineral prices as a problem so no manual adjustments are ever required.
One of the major downsides would be that the demand for minerals would drop by up to 70% almost immediately. Another is that it might not work so well on tech 2 and 3 ships, where a lot of the cost is in invention and reverse engineering blueprints and the waste produced by invented blueprints. However, having seen the results of CCP's balancing attempt on insurance, it doesn't seem to be faring that much better. The new system doesn't adequately cover tech 2 or 3 as promised, and it'll need constant adjustment as mineral prices fluctuate.
Posted: Aug 11th 2010 12:21PM ScottishViking said
I don't think it "removes mineral prices from the equation entirely" so much as put them a step back from the equation. But the true mineral costs are all factored in there somewhere -- the question is, who is absorbing the costs? And yes, as you mention, mineral prices would nosedive. Miners would be on the real outs with this concept, but manufacturers would obviously love it. The problem is, all the money that miners are currently making would be lost to the new insurance system, and you wouldn't necessarily see a corresponding jump in ship prices. So most of the money "to be made" on this new system would just disappear, except in overhead costs by the manufacturers.
I think CCP's system is imperfect, but with the appropriate number of adjustments, it can work. But it does actually require fiddling.
Reply
I think CCP's system is imperfect, but with the appropriate number of adjustments, it can work. But it does actually require fiddling.
Posted: Aug 11th 2010 2:19PM (Unverified) said
Old insurance system acted as a buffer for minerals to prevent them falling in value. With new system, its only natural mineral prices would go down. Only thing holding mineral prices right now is the insurance pay itself.
As for the insurance to pay percentage of the mineral cost, I don't think CCP can do this without some of the giant entities abusing this to their own ends. Even though EVE market is huge, it is prone to mass manipulation, has happened before, will happen again.
Sometimes I think removing insurance altogether and making some changes to trit dependence, would bring back the risk vs reward mining once again. Would be interesting where the prices would balance out.
Reply
As for the insurance to pay percentage of the mineral cost, I don't think CCP can do this without some of the giant entities abusing this to their own ends. Even though EVE market is huge, it is prone to mass manipulation, has happened before, will happen again.
Sometimes I think removing insurance altogether and making some changes to trit dependence, would bring back the risk vs reward mining once again. Would be interesting where the prices would balance out.
Posted: Aug 11th 2010 2:26PM Brendan Drain said
Well it's not possible to abuse it since it's impossible to make a ship for less than 100% of the minerals that go into it. No matter what the price of minerals on the market, getting a percentage back on destruction can't produce more value than went into the system for any given set of prices. It can't be manipulated.
The current insurance system, on the other hand, relies on the economist manually changing things. If players were to manage to manipulate the statistics he uses (say through long-term price manipulation on minerals), he might inadvertantly play into the manipulator's hands by assuming the market price was reached through normal market forces.
Thankfully, I don't think that's going to be a problem. The sheer number of players trading in Jita alone is sufficient to put a huge downward pressure on upward price manipulations, making it unimaginably costly to keep them going for months on end. And since the insurance price tweaks are bound to be infrequent, it'd be almost impossible for any market manipulator to make an impact on the insurance changes without wasting hundreds of billions.
Reply
The current insurance system, on the other hand, relies on the economist manually changing things. If players were to manage to manipulate the statistics he uses (say through long-term price manipulation on minerals), he might inadvertantly play into the manipulator's hands by assuming the market price was reached through normal market forces.
Thankfully, I don't think that's going to be a problem. The sheer number of players trading in Jita alone is sufficient to put a huge downward pressure on upward price manipulations, making it unimaginably costly to keep them going for months on end. And since the insurance price tweaks are bound to be infrequent, it'd be almost impossible for any market manipulator to make an impact on the insurance changes without wasting hundreds of billions.
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.
Featured Stories
The Daily Grind: What dead game would you play in a second if it revived?
Posted on Feb 12th 2012 8:00AM
The most popular posts
in the last 7 days
- WoW loses another 100,000 subscribers 151 comments
- The Daily Grind: What's the highest sub fee you'd pay? 85 comments
- BioWare kicks off Star Wars: The Old Republic Q&A Fridays 72 comments
- Earthrise shutting down today 69 comments
- Star Trek Online unpacks Cardassian mystery boxes 60 comments






