open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked Quarterly Economic Newsletter, 4th Quarter 2007 by Dr.EyjoG
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic

CCP Navigator


C C P
C C P Alliance
Posted - 2008.02.15 15:13:00 - [1]
 

Dr Eyjo presents the 4th Quarterly Economic Newsletter. This blog focuses on price levels, evaluating total production and other snapshots. Everything you want to know about markets, minerals and big ships. Inflation and Deflation are discussed in depth along with Mineral Price Index and Consumer Price Index - everything a producer needs to know.

With the possibility of a real world global recession, Dr Eyjo also examines the effects of real world economics in the New Eden economy.

Enough of my ramblings and enjoy the Doctor showing you the money! Please leave your comments and, as the newsletter is quite long, please reference the page or portion you are refering to when replying Smile

Quarterly Economic Newsletter, Quarter 4


Batolemaeus
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2008.02.20 10:35:00 - [2]
 

A nice read. Now i just have to read it several more times to actually understand it..

Daan Sai
Polytrope
Posted - 2008.02.20 10:44:00 - [3]
 

Thanks Dr Eyjo, looks great. It is so cool that CCP has a system that even warrants an economics expert, and then actually get one.

Daan Sai
Polytrope
Posted - 2008.02.20 11:05:00 - [4]
 

Page 16 Figure 10.

Looks like Eve has voted with its wallets - Big thumbs down to the Trinity torpedo changes!

Non Zero
Solipsism Syndrome Consulting
Posted - 2008.02.20 11:27:00 - [5]
 

Thank you for one more report.

Its been more than half a year.
Do you have any influence or suggestions to improve the in-game tools which are used on day to day basis?

LancerSix
Regeneration
Posted - 2008.02.20 11:49:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: LancerSix on 20/02/2008 12:00:35
Originally by: Daan Sai
Page 16 Figure 10.

Looks like Eve has voted with its wallets - Big thumbs down to the Trinity torpedo changes!


Indeed, torps and more importantly their launchers have been essentially nerfed out of existence. I think basing the analysis off of Arbalest launchers is a bit misleading. If you want to see a massive price drop off, check out the second best T1 (ZW-2100 or whatever). Those have gone absolutely through the floor.

I would love to see a graph of not the price of Cruise/Torpedo ammunition, but rather the quantity produced across space. Price has an artificial floor in that they can always be reprocessed into minerals if the mineral market gets pricey. But quantity on the other hand more accurately represents usage. Also, the data for just sales in the hubs is also probably rather misleading since a large amount of ammo is manufactured and consumed in 0.0 by ratters, who have all but stopped using torpedos.

I just find it very interesting that we can see balance changes come through economically.

Now, will the Eagle price jump up to meet the rest of the HACs?

Spoon Thumb
Khanid Provincial Vanguard
Vanguard Imperium
Posted - 2008.02.20 12:04:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Spoon Thumb on 20/02/2008 12:06:51

Good stuff, but do the figures show the services industries within eve, where isk is often exchanged via direct transfer after the completion of said serviec (e.g. For mercenary contracts, 0.0 "rent", POS lab services in Empire etc)?

Edit: also fleeting mention to 0.0 events affecting prices? In real economies there is much speculation with news of political events affecting futures. Any chance or indication that for some things like moon minerals, people are starting to buy and sell purely speculatively?

Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2008.02.20 12:27:00 - [8]
 

"This was the net effect of an attribute change that reduced torpedo range but increased the rate of fire (ROF), suggesting that the majority of pilots prefer range over ROF in combat."

This is fundamentally wrong.

In most people's eyes, the Raven is the one true PVE battleship. As such, people torpedo-spammed the ever loving **** out of NPCs, taking advantage of their considerable range and power. With the torpedo change, even though their damage output has been increased, everyone involved with PVE has switched to cruise missiles, as the raven cannot fit an afterburner without compromising it's tank (the weakness of shield tanks). As a result of this, people have been essentially forced to use cruise missiles in Player versus Environment activities in order to hit targets which, routinely, hover outside the maximum range corridor of the Trinity edition torpedo.

Galimiy Portret
Exploration Inc.
Posted - 2008.02.20 13:01:00 - [9]
 

Do I hear Urlen suicide ganking?

Jameroz
Echoes of Space
Posted - 2008.02.20 13:01:00 - [10]
 

Thanks for this!

Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
Posted - 2008.02.20 13:08:00 - [11]
 

Some nice information here. Though what really caught my eye is Page 16, Figure 9. Assuming the baseline of around 200,000 shuttles are those actually used as shuttles, that leaves 1.4 million shuttles bought solely to refine into trit. Assuming perfect refine skills, this would yield 3.5 billion units of trit.

Page 7 Figure 3, and the accompanying text on Page 8, suggests that total traded volume of trit in October was approx 650 billion units. So we can say that caldari shuttles were at least 0.5% of total tritanium supply in October. As the traded volume of trit is likely to be higher than the actual volume produced, and this is looking at only one of the 4 shuttle types, the actual contribution of shuttle refining is likely to be more significant than this.

Converting this into a mining equivalent, 3.5 billion units of tritanium would require 3.5 million refine batches of veldspar, or 1,165,500,000 units of veldspar. As mining rate is determined by volume, rather than unit count, we convert this to a mined volume of 116.55 million m3 of mining.

Taking a typical covetor setup of Strip Miner I's, assuming full skills and neglecting hauling time, gives an output of 970m3 per minute, implying that the purchase and refining of shuttles was used to replace approximately 2000 player-hours of mining within the month of October.

Interestingly, Figure 3 indicates that the trade volumes of tritanium were pretty much static between September and October. That, coupled with the price increase and use of shuttles, suggests that demand had grown and was outstripping supply at this point.

Traded tritanium volumes then grow significantly in November and December, indicating that supply has responded to the increased demand. That prices have dropped back, and shuttle use has returned to normal, suggests that this supply increase was sufficient for the market. It also suggests that, in this instance, shuttle-supplied tritanium served to bridge the time delay between demand and supply, rather than as a long-term price supression mechanism, as has been observed in the past.

It would certainly be interesting to see versions of Figure 9 going back to points in Eve's history where trit prices have been at the cap price for extended periods of time, and include coupling arrays as well as all 4 types of shuttle.

Alternatively, a per-day version of Figure 9 for October, as I suspect we'd find the peak in prices and shuttle purchases occured for a relatively short period, late in October, and the true extent of it's effect during those days is being masked by being viewed at a whole-month level.

PDP11
Posted - 2008.02.20 13:37:00 - [12]
 

Any chance of publishing Gross User Product or tax collected down at the Region level or have every station 'publish' its own audited statistics?

Levrin Atischa
Posted - 2008.02.20 13:55:00 - [13]
 

A nice read again. Like these reports a lot. Nice to see the shifts in ship/module use and the effect some of the introduction of new ships have.

Poco Curante
Blueprint Haus
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2008.02.20 14:02:00 - [14]
 

I definitely appreciate the effort that goes into these reports and there is good information in them.

However the most significant and sophisticated part of the economy is as yet not measurable. I'd like to hear a meta report on what tools have been identified that the devs can put in place to track that activity to further qualify these reports.

Of course the side effect/bonus of such tools is they can track the underground economy, e.g. isk sellers etc.

Treenara Mazouk
Phoenix Propulsion Labs
Firmus Ixion
Posted - 2008.02.20 14:02:00 - [15]
 

As always very interesting, and great timing by the way! Very Happy

Clone 1
Posted - 2008.02.20 14:03:00 - [16]
 

Really looking forward to the next QEN to see the effect that T2 battleships and JFs had on the T2 components, and price fluctuations of those components caused by carrier changes to logistical methods.


MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
Posted - 2008.02.20 14:15:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: MotherMoon on 20/02/2008 14:22:13
Edited by: MotherMoon on 20/02/2008 14:16:45
winVery Happy

can I just say that looking at active jumps is a beutiful way of better finding real characters in eve.
faction warfare, riiiiiiiiight. this year sure.

Zuiki
Iron Hands
Red Alliance
Posted - 2008.02.20 17:47:00 - [18]
 

what's the hell is THIS ?? Shocked

MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
Posted - 2008.02.20 17:49:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Zuiki
what's the hell is THIS ?? Shocked


must resist urge

Haradgrim
Systematic Mercantilism
Posted - 2008.02.20 17:52:00 - [20]
 

Some very interesting info, very interesting indeed.

Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
Posted - 2008.02.20 18:57:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Galimiy Portret
Do I hear Urlen suicide ganking?


mission hub -> jita pipeline

Gamer4liff
Caldari
Metalworks
Majesta Empire
Posted - 2008.02.20 19:06:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: Gamer4liff on 20/02/2008 19:28:38
Quote:

of Trinity, the massive graphics
and world content expansion that included the release of blueprints
for new types of starships.


Er, that's not exactly the best way to say that, it makes it sound as if BPOs were seeded for the ships.

EDIT: Also, I don't suppose the issue of rising T2 component prices and the rarity of moon materials could be addressed sometime more in-depth?

EDIT2:

Quote:
This
overall increase in primary producer price was fueled by increases in
the price for prototypes, datafiles, and datacores. All of these items
are required to obtain efficient blueprints through invention.


Invented BPCs are many things, but I wouldn't call them "efficient".

EDIT3:

Quote:

With yet another increase in demand around the
release of Trinity, prices for datafiles and datacores rose again,
increasing the production cost for Tech II primary producers.


I would like to see the proof that inventors are now the "primary" source of T2.

EDIT4:

Quote:

This marks the beginning of a new period in EVE. The effects
of invention have now been fully materialized through lower
production costs for Tech II items. The supply of Tech II items has
thus increased considerably over the past 12 months. With the
introduction of Trinity, new Tech II ships increased the demand
for Tech II components and modules.


I would like to highlight the fact that the influence of invention, and moreover the new ships have driven UP the cost of T2 manufacturing because invented blueprints are inefficient and require more materials. Because of the enormous incentive to invent the new ships, and the lack of T2 BPOs as a baseline, people used many inefficient blueprints for production, which is both inefficient consumption, and consumption that has driven the cost of T2 components to new heights.

Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
Posted - 2008.02.20 19:19:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: dev blog
This was the net effect of an
attribute change that reduced torpedo range but increased the rate
of fire (ROF), suggesting that the majority of pilots prefer range
over ROF in combat.


mission running isn't combat Twisted Evil

its like comparing boxing to golf....

hell golf isn't even right to use, theres changing conditions in golf

Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
Posted - 2008.02.20 19:22:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Daan Sai
Page 16 Figure 10.

Looks like Eve mission running has voted with its wallets - Big thumbs down to the Trinity torpedo changes!


Fixed. In other words, so what?


Serenity Steele
Dynamic Data Distribution
Posted - 2008.02.20 19:33:00 - [25]
 

Thanks Dr Eyjo, was very interesting to see the charts show an impact between game changes and volumes sold. Damn shame that all the noobies know now Wink


Fastercart
Gallente
Ornery Cantankerous Curmudgeons
Posted - 2008.02.20 19:44:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: Fastercart on 20/02/2008 19:48:32
Page 5, 5th paragraph,
Quote:
However, the Kestrel frigate jumped up from third place to replace the Raven battleship as the most flown ship by the end of Q4, dropping the Raven to second place overall.

I know you explained the place changes, but I think a table or figure with the current rankings should have been included.

I loved Figure 10 though. Now we have some evidence that the Torp change was, in fact, a nerf and not a buff.

/me wish he had stocked up on cruise items before Trinity.

Edit: Figure 16 should have hard numbers for Jump Freighters since we can't see their bars.

Mark Lucius
Final Agony
B A N E
Posted - 2008.02.20 19:55:00 - [27]
 

Once again an interesting read.

Good to see that the buff to torpedoes had a positive effect on the undervalued cruise missiles too. Very Happy

DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
Posted - 2008.02.20 20:11:00 - [28]
 

Once again, my intuitions are validated.

I've had my pulse on the game for all five of these years, and what the biggest issues are. In the past it was related to balance, but of the last year or two its been something completely different.

This is of course, only my opinion; but I consider the fact that the majority of EVE players are in high sec broken. I think high sec should be for low end mining, trade, and newbies who are learning the ropes. I don't think people should be living there on a permanent and full time basis.

It basically says to me, that EVE does not have enough appeal in its end game. Removing the source of income from high security empire, agents, would in essence kill subscription numbers - assuming everything else is left alone.

Mark Lucius
Final Agony
B A N E
Posted - 2008.02.20 20:40:00 - [29]
 

Edited by: Mark Lucius on 20/02/2008 20:41:57
Originally by: DigitalCommunist

This is of course, only my opinion; but I consider the fact that the majority of EVE players are in high sec broken. I think high sec should be for low end mining, trade, and newbies who are learning the ropes. I don't think people should be living there on a permanent and full time basis.

It basically says to me, that EVE does not have enough appeal in its end game. Removing the source of income from high security empire, agents, would in essence kill subscription numbers - assuming everything else is left alone.


Some of the non-combat endgame can be done in Empire, so you would right when you say it will kill subscriptions if it all gets moved out of there. This QEN could be taken in saying that it's all the alts in Empire that provide a big part of the Empire market, making it unattractive and unnecessary for anyone to move from there, especially the ones not interested in combat.

onikage hirigawa
Posted - 2008.02.20 20:52:00 - [30]
 

I think the use of shuttles for tritanium leads directly to a change which would improve the economy. NPC economic sinks should react to supply/demand.

Of course this would have to apply to all sinks... a heavily used mission running agent should offer lower rewards, shuttle prices should fluctuate, etc.


Pages: [1] 2 3

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only