It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Doing my calculations. If I refined and sold off my last haul of gems I could price them at 80g per and still turn a profit.
Are you accounting for opportunity cost there?If you could sell those comms for 65k, then you're basically spending 65k on the mine.
Some comms are fine-ish - stone is still doing okay (though many, myself included, stockpile the hell out of it because we'll be using it, dammit)
No, this is the mistake that I made in the beginning, and that I suspect some others still make. If you bought stone for 80 per, it doesn't matter if the stone market spikes to 150 per, you still only paid 80 for that stone. Recording market value instead of original cost in this example would massively inflate your perceived cost of mining whatever you produced with that stone, and that would absolutely make it look like everyone else was selling your product at a loss.
I'm trying not to get too pessimistic over it, but it feels broken. I don't presume that there's an easy fix to this, because there really isn't.
I don't understand this. I could have won 1,000,000 in the lottery but instead I took the ticket and made an origami duck with it. That duck is worth 1.000,00 gold or I'm out 1,000,000?(I'm not joking or trolling. Sorry)
Sena said:What you originally paid is meaningless, the only thing that matters is the current value, because of the opportunity cost of not selling the comms. For a simplified example (stripping away the mining aspect), say you bought 1000 stone for 50k gold in the past, but now it will easily sell for 100k. If I offer you 80k worth of gems at current market prices in exchange for your stone, by your reasoning, that would be a profit of 30k for you. But you could instead sell the stone for 100k. So regardless of what you originally paid for the stone, right now if you made that trade you would be losing value, instead of taking the trade you could sell the stone and buy 80k worth of gems and have 20k left over.
Nazihk said:Aerek's logic, applied to this situation, would be that it costs you nothing to choose the duck, because the ticket cost you nothing. In this example, though, it's pretty obvious that he is not correct and that the duck just lost you a million bucks.
Ahmet said:Now, that doesnt apply to the mining scenario because you cant possibly know what other opportunities youre passing up, but the lottery ticket is a really bad example that really shouldnt be applied to this scenario.
Aerek said:Aerek's logic says that you spent $1 for a lottery ticket and it's worth $1,000,000, but until you actually turn it in, there is neither $1,000,000 in your bank account, nor have you lost $1,000,000 by folding it into a duck. You could trade that ticket for a house worth $600,000. Did you "lose" $400,000? No, you never had $400,000. You spent $1 and through the conversion of assets got a $600,000 house, a $599,999 profit.
But they forget this is technically a sale and don't mark in their 'profit' of 2000g which they deduct from their mine cost.
I hate the phrase opportunity cost. We use potential profit as it's a hell of a lot clearer on what it means.Opportunity cost. Should only be factored in into the equation when you are considering to sell or not. Not into the calculations of mine cost.