open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: ... and the cycle continues, or not?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.08.10 16:54:00 - [31]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 10/08/2010 19:50:11


So... apparently IER business practices accounted for roughly in between 13.5% and 21.5% of total BS manufacture mineral consumption... and BS manufacture is a pretty large chunk of the total mineral consumption.
Here's a few extracted tidbits...


"production of Tech I ships fell by around 8% in April and remained at that level through May. In June, however, after the implementation of the change, Tech I production fell by 13.5%"

"Prior to October 2009 over 1,400 ships were being self-destructed per day[...]In October[...]the number of self-destructed ships began to rise until it peaked in January and February, with over 2,500 ships being selfdestructed per day.[...]There was no increase in self-destruction following the release of the March 30 dev blog which announced the change. The average number of self-destructions at that point was actually a bit lower than at the beginning of the year, or around 2,150 ships per day. May 8 saw the beginning of a spike that raised the average to just under 2,600 ships per day, where players made use of the last days of the old insurance payouts. The spike lasted until the insurance changes were released
on May 26. After implementation, the figure dropped to just over 1,600 ships per day"

"These figures only show ships destroyed through the self-destruction mechanism. Not included are ships that are intentionally destroyed by the owner through other means, such as getting other players or CONCORD to do it."

"From the beginning of June 2009 to the end of June 2010, 777,455 ships were self-destructed. A total of 159,124 characters self-destructed at least one ship in that period. Of those, 7,453 ships, or nearly 1% of the total, were destroyed by the same character, and that character didn‘t even start until mid-January 2010."

Laughing

Bartholomeus Crane
Gallente
The Crane Family
Posted - 2010.08.10 16:55:00 - [32]
 

Edited by: Bartholomeus Crane on 10/08/2010 16:57:26
Sigh ...

Could the QEN next time report a valuation of all of these changes? Because the various drastic changes made have created havoc with the EVE market thus far, and there is no sign things will change for the better in the near future.

If find it thoroughly disheartening that so many changes were made to the market with CCP expressing no desire whatever of where it wants it to go. Why are you eliciting player responses to the market? Do you need us to tell you what is happening? Doesn't CCP have all the data to investigate this? Can't it make even a simple prediction of what effect these changes would have on the market? Not even in the most general terms?

Just look at the state the mineral market is in right now. You've added so many minerals to be mined, that with the glut of not-for-profit miners, not even mentioning macro-miners here, the drop in prices have created deflation already. And these are old numbers! And to top it off, you removed the last market mechanism that was keeping them somewhere around slightly profitable prices for for-profit miners: insurance.

So what we have now are mineral prices basically still in freefall until they reach the equilibrium where even not-for-profit miners won't want to part with them (macro-miners will still happily part with them though). Is that what you set out to achieve? Is that where CCP wanted the mineral market to go? Are you happy that the mineral prices are now in freefall, and that as a consequences low-end production (T1 ship and module production) has now lost even the tiniest margin it had? Is this good for the EVE economy? Because I can't really see how this is helping beginning miners or manufacturers out there. Sure, they hardly have to spend on minerals now, but with that comes an equal reduction in their sales, and as such in their margin. Tell me, what are new players supposed to do now?

What have all these changes really achieved? That we now have a totally unconstrained market? Is that what you set out to achieve? How does that help Norman Noobminer with his T1 mining laser frigate? And how does slashing the profit margin on T1 production have helped Nancy Noobrucer? What are you saying to these two noobs building castles in the sandbox? Forget about manufacturing until you can afford a T2 BPO (invention, outside of exceptions is equally worthless now), pitch a tent in Motsu and Dodixie, because in comparison nothing beats grinding missions in Empire now? Is that what you set out to achieve?

Listen, I can see how you wanted to do something about insurance. It was a strange subsidy keeping prices up artificially. No one likes that. I can even see that you wanted it coupled to mineral prices. But why for all that is holy did you increase mineral availability all over EVE at the same time (or even prior to that), and why in such a huge measure? With such huge availability of supply, and so many players not even mining them for profit in terms of man-hours spend mining them, what is to keep those prices, and as such the insurance prices for ships up? Shouldn't you be thinking about decreasing the mineral supply? Even if topically throughout EVE? Wouldn't that encourage competition and creative market manipulation more compared to just give everything whatever a miner could possibly ask for? Seriously! What was the thinking behind that?

Are you actively striving to destroy the first manufacturing experiences of new players in this game? Or is that just something that got lost along the way? What do you seriously think a new player, expecting to make at least some profit making things in EVE, will do if he encounters the current market situations around minerals and manufacturing? Do you seriously think he will stick around for months flying missions or playing the 0.1 game in Jita, until at one point, in the far future, he may possibly maybe compete in the market? Seriously: why? Have you made any predictions at all? Are you doing so now? Anyone?

Qoi
Exert Force
Posted - 2010.08.10 17:17:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: MailDeadDrop
Edited by: MailDeadDrop on 10/08/2010 16:28:53
Originally by: Qoi
Edited by: Qoi on 10/08/2010 16:12:51
Quote:
Amarr now has 18.3% of all characters, but had 15.6% back in 2007. Of all characters in EVE today, 35.7% are Caldari, 25.7% are Gallente and 19.8% are Minmatar



18.3+37.5+25.7+19.8
101.3
Laughing


That's 18.3+35.7+25.7+19.8
99.5 which is still outside the theoretical "numbers don't add up because of rounding" margins of 99.8 to 100.2. But not nearly as bad as Qoi paints it.

MDD
Edit: Ugh. Forgot the word "not", which is rather critical.


I knew that there must be a problem (Hel O'Ween already explained how), so i only double checked the numbers, not triple checked them. Thank you very much for your correction, i feel embarassed now Embarassed

Point and laugh please

Manfred Rickenbocker
Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2010.08.10 17:41:00 - [34]
 

Edited by: Manfred Rickenbocker on 10/08/2010 17:43:33
Ok, I think the time snapshot is still too soon to figure out the long term effects on both mineral prices (changed during insurance) and the former NPC goods (Changed during PI). Particularly for the latter, which I am interested in, we will have to wait until the market finds a new equilibrium once the stocks of former NPC-bought goods are exhausted or consumed. That said, I am also interested in a few other statistics (maybe for the next newsletter):

1) Price changes for POS fuels over time.
Uranium, Robotics, and Oxygen are good because Uranium and Robotics are the most complex, while plain Oxygen is the easiest. Might want to add Mechanical Parts in there because not only are they a fuel itself, but a component used in making Robotics too.

2) Numbers of active and offline POSes.
With the changes in fuel prices, people might not set up as many POSes. Plus, post Dominion sov changes, there is no more POS ping-pong. It would be extremely interesting to see how both PI and Dominions affected POS usage.

3) Price Changes and Market Volume for POS.
Additionally, since POSes are now player produced along with Sov structures and modules with PI, it would be nice to see how their average market prices as well. This, along with trading volume, probably saw a LOT of flux due to Dominions and PI.

4) Price changes in moon goo.
This is directly affected by player's ability and willingness to put up POSes and fuel them after the fuel price changes. This, and the potential unwillingness to use a POS solely for research, moon goo and reactions are the only viable way to fund them. It would seem that the price for goo would go up, but if players use PI and outpace demand (reduced POS numbers, etc) it would lead to interesting price fluctuations.

Ulviirala Vauryndar
Gallente
Vauryndar Dalharil
Posted - 2010.08.10 17:42:00 - [35]
 

Is it really that time of year again?

*sighs*

4N631
Posted - 2010.08.10 18:21:00 - [36]
 

Very Happy

Captain Greeneyes
Posted - 2010.08.10 18:27:00 - [37]
 

*ctrl+f "lag"*

No search results found.

Wow, I am really proud of you guys. Smile

Nice devblog btw. Very Happy

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2010.08.10 18:53:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Mynxee
Edited by: Mynxee on 10/08/2010 15:36:18
Originally by: Alekseyev Karrde
9% of pilots have scored a kill. This sounds very very low to me given the proportion of the server living in 0.0 and W space.


9% seems low to me, too. But on page 8, it states that there are 712K characters in EVE; 9% of that would be the 66K referenced on page 10 as having scored a kill. If this 9% stat truly means "all players who appeared on a killmail" it's a depressing statistic for a PvP-centric game.


Players have an average of 2+ characters per account. So, right there, half the characters are likely NEVER used for PVP. Then, you have second/third accounts which are cyno alts or industrial alts... with 2+ characters on those as well, further cutting the number. I'm not surprised it is so low. I have 4 active accounts, of those, only 2 characters have actively participated in PVP (which is to say some of the others have been ganked before). So, 20% of my characters have been on KMs, and I like PVP. Some people only carebear. 9% seems like a rational number to me.

iP0D
Posted - 2010.08.10 18:59:00 - [39]
 

This QEN thing, seriously.

Yeah, nice brochure. But come on, do you really need to handpick this selectively in order to paint an amenable picture? CCP, you really don't. Please, this just reinforces the pattern.

That population section is a joke. If this were a political office and we'd be looking for an approach "hey guys, we need stuff to support XYZ so get us a point in time and specific data that shows nice graphs supporting our claims" then it would be awesome.

Retention. Correlation between accounts and PCU graphs. Etcetera.

If these are the metrics you use internally, it is no wonder you are only seeing one part of the big (business) picture, again reinforcing the current situation.

I'm really starting to wonder if these are indeed the methods relied on, CCP please scroll back a few years in time and dive in for a while, and punch through the snapshot statistics.

wr3cks
Reliables Inc
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2010.08.10 19:03:00 - [40]
 

Credit where it's due; this one was better.

It contained a lot more interesting/usefulish information.

Also someone who plays the game obvs proofread this one, because there were no glaring oversights/mistakes like last time.

Vasali Tor
Posted - 2010.08.10 19:18:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: CCP Dr.EyjoG
One final bit of demographics: in Q2 of this year, 66,265 different characters scored a kill (i.e. destroyed a ship or pod) against another EVE pilot. In total, these 66,000+ characters destroyed ships owned by 170,000 thousand characters, with a total of 868,000 ships being destroyed. This means that about 24% of all EVE players had their ship destroyed by another player in Q2 of 2010, but 9% of all characters actually scored a kill. Talk about cannon fodder!


Way to reinforce the idea that this game is designed for gankers and the rest is just to get the victims to play...

And numbers on the relative values of the ships lost in W-space to PvP?

Dragon Greg
Posted - 2010.08.10 19:19:00 - [42]
 

Edited by: Dragon Greg on 10/08/2010 19:30:49
I'm not sure it is a good idea for me to comment on this QEN.

Yeah, the detail level is up, but it remains a glossy not very much in line with the principles of EVE. Understandable, but a shame.

But the selectiveness, the absence of relations, the absence of pattern mapping, the absence of touching on hiccups/issues players and communities predicted and went through, the absence .. sigh.

This is not an economics publication. It's a sales glossy. Yes it looks good, but it is simply out of touch with trends & events.

What really worries me, is that a lot of the flawed snapshot elements of the QEN can all too easily be linked to game changes (both through action and inaction). And then you pick only those points in time which are suitable to the desired perspective. Really, this is becoming more political science then economics or any other of the humane science applications.

It leaves me with a question for the good doctor Eyjo, do you really use these methodologies in data collection and/or analysis and/or reporting to the people internally? It is starting to look like this really is the case.


Quote:
It is safe to say that players have shown Planetary Interaction a great deal of interest from the very moment they could create their own colonies on June 8. There are over 60,000 planets across the EVE universe, and in mid-June around 30,000 of them had already been affected by Planetary Interaction. More than 630,000 command centers were bought in June. When monitoring the NPC-traded planetary items and the planetary export/import tax, we see that PI is having a significant impact on the EVE ISK supply.


No, that is not safe to say. You picked a point in time where people follow the normal pattern of coming back to have a look and test things out. Until you can engage in an observation over time with proper correlations for account status you can only safely make observations on the number of accounts engaged in checking out the expansion. You're making a common mistake you often see in Bank or Insurance brochures. But I guess this comes down to the nature of the product EVE pushing more for the technical analysis angle, as opposed to the sales / marketing angle.

On top of that, you then insert a statement which is suggestive. You monitor? That same day? Or over .. what .. time? You cannot make the statement of significant impact on the EVE ISK supply for a long, long time. This aside of inserting that statement, which makes it marketing. Not economics, not analysis, and bad marketing even since anyone with half an intelligence implant can observe these things better over time thanks to player initiatives like eve-metrics.com and other player created tools Shocked

Roosterton
Eternal Frontier
Posted - 2010.08.10 19:50:00 - [43]
 

Roosterton: King of bling

I would say something constructive about the newsletter, but it gives me an error message upon opening it... Sad

Virtuozzo
The Collective
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2010.08.10 19:57:00 - [44]
 

Edited by: Virtuozzo on 10/08/2010 20:00:05
Originally by: Roosterton
Roosterton: King of bling

I would say something constructive about the newsletter, but it gives me an error message upon opening it... Sad


Try a Google Docs upload.

PDF gets mercilessly stripped here :/ But this works.

If you want to say something constructive, you could always try the angle of "it's awesome, it has content, and stuff, you know explosions and excell, it is awesome, really" Cool


Wyke Mossari
Gallente
Posted - 2010.08.10 21:10:00 - [45]
 


Page 16
Quote:
While the ISK faucet diminished, so did the sink. NPC commodities represent a large part of the
sink and on June 17, trade with structures and planetary commodities was made completely playerdriven.
This caused a significant proportion of the ISK outflow decrease, which was somewhat offset by the new NPC products entering the market via Planetary Interaction.


This paragraph is confused, the last sentence is contradictory.

Quote:
It is safe to say that players have shown Planetary Interaction a great deal of interest from the very moment they could create their own colonies on June 8. There are over 60,000 planets across the EVE universe, and in mid-June around 30,000 of them had already been affected by Planetary Interaction. More than 630,000 command centers were bought in June. When monitoring the NPCtraded planetary items and the planetary export/import tax, we see that PI is having a significant impact on the EVE ISK supply.


PI is player to player trade, Import/Export duty and command centers are a sink not a faucet, it doesn't increase the ISK supply.

Page 17 Figure 4, the blue bar graph seems to be miss-labelled, taxes and service charges are an ISK sink but are shown with a positive balance. The net balance line should there fore reflect a total not an net balance.

Bomberlocks
Minmatar
CTRL-Q
Posted - 2010.08.10 21:15:00 - [46]
 

There are 340k active accounts on eve and 16k Primae, even though everyone received at least one? How was this calculated? Was it by people who activated the Primae and undocked with it? I have two accounts, assembled and undocked with one of those, and redocked immediately and never touched the second one.

Would it be wise to assume that this was a general case, where almost no one actually used the Primae, but at least assembled one to spin it in station?

Also, I spent half an hour last night scanning a courier bot network flying Bestowers around Minnie hisec, Just how many of these courier bot networks are there and how do they figure into the grand scale of things?

And, for a PvP game that values risk for reward, there is a depressing amount of people who don't risk anything in hisec.

The thing that astounds me is the increase in nullsec. I'm pretty sure that Nathan Richardson uses these numbers to justify his bling over bang theory.

Looks like the 18 months (at the least) are going to be a hard reality.

Lykouleon
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.08.10 21:56:00 - [47]
 

0/10

Too many bar graphs, not enough pie charts.

Dissapointing for a QEN :(

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2010.08.10 21:57:00 - [48]
 

Quote:
The largest faucet in EVE by far is bounty prizes. Each month players receive about 20 trillion ISK
in bounties for hunting rats. Agent mission rewards and time bonus rewards in June stacked up
to 3.3 trillion ISK. Another large faucet is insurance, but its scope dropped significantly with the
Tyrannis launch on May 26. Tyrannis introduced changes to the insurance system that made the
insurance valuation more dynamic. This meant the insurance system became less beneficial, which
led to a 70.6% drop in June insurance payouts.


Very interesting but, as usual, lacking most of the data for a comparison.

We get confirmation that insurance was a big faucet, but no information on how big.

Based on the number of self destructed ships (mostly BS) I would hazard an average of 160 billion/day, or as a monthly value, about 5 trillions. About 1/4 of the bounties payout and 150% of the mission payout.

And that only for self destructed ships.


868,000 ships destroyed in PVP in 3 months. Hard to guess the average payout as they go from noobships to titans. Lets hazard a very tentative 10 million insurance payout. That make 8.6 trillions in 3 months or about 2.8 trillions/month.

And we are still missing the NPC and CONCORD kills.

So, what was the insurance monthly payout? 5 trillions? 10? More?

And what was the amount from sales to NPC orders?

Quote:
The total ISK in EVE by the end of June was approximately 400 trillion ISK, but the growth of the
money supply in Q2 slowed down compared to the 10.4% Q1 increase. In April the money supply
increased by about 13 trillion ISK, but in June the increase was only 2.3 trillion ISK.
The money supply
in Q2 increased by 6.1%, which is significantly less than in Q1 and indicates EVE’s money supply
is gaining more stability.


Judging form this little piece the difference in the old insurance payout + the sales to NPC and - the items brought from NPC amounted at 10 billions.

I.E. the reduction in insurance payout (and I stress reduction) had a huge effect on the money flow in game.

My analysis could be wrong, but you should include this kind of data in the QUEN, not gloss the over with a phrase like "Another large faucet is insurance, but its scope dropped significantly with the
Tyrannis launch on May 26."
That phrase could mean that insurance payout could be any value between from 3 billions (less than agent mission rewards and time bonus rewards) to 19 trillions (just under bounty rewards).

It is hard to be more vague that this.


Bomberlocks
Minmatar
CTRL-Q
Posted - 2010.08.10 22:21:00 - [49]
 

Someone on another forum just told me that the ship stats are based on a snapshot taken on what ships players were in just before ONE downtime.

CCP, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

On the other hand it does explain the massive number of Bestowers. Bestower bot networks running 23/7 are currently all the rage, and seeing that CCP doesn't seem to care I wonder why more people don't set themselves one up.

Daisuke Aoki
Gallente
Syndicated Systems
ROMANIAN-LEGION
Posted - 2010.08.10 23:45:00 - [50]
 

The population distribution graph by system security type is comforting. I remember reading from someone on here that 90% of the players were supposedly in highsec with only 10% in nullsec, which seemed both scary, disappointing, and unrealistic to me.

53% highsec to 32% nullsec does indeed seem more realistic from what I notice in the game.

Glad to know Eve hasn't been *completely* overrun by carebears (at least not highsec-dwelling ones) Laughing

Tamasan
Gallente
BLACK LABEL INC
Malum Exuro
Posted - 2010.08.11 01:53:00 - [51]
 

Quote:
From the beginning of June 2009 to the end of June 2010, 777,455 ships were self-destructed. A total of 159,124 characters self-destructed at least one ship in that period. Of those, 7,453 ships, or nearly 1% of the total, were destroyed by the same character, and that character didn‘t even start until mid-January 2010.


Shocked

Being generous, it takes more than 3 minutes to self destruct 1 ship and to be ready to do another, if the ships are already insured and in the same station.

Start - In station, in the ship.
Undock - 10 seconds (being generous, low activity system, no lag)
Activate self destruct - 120 seconds
Session change before you can dock - 30 seconds
Dock - 10 seconds (again being generous, low activity system, no lag)
Session change before you can switch ship - 30 seconds
(Repeat)

200 seconds, or 3 minutes 20 seconds.
Times 7,453 ships destructed
1490600 seconds
24843 minutes
414 hours

17.25 days if it was done straight. (24 hour day, no downtime)

I suppose there might be slightly faster ways, loading up an Orca or carrier... but still!

Ix Forres
Caldari
Righteous Chaps
Posted - 2010.08.11 02:53:00 - [52]
 

It's interesting to read, but not mostly for the content, mostly for the incongruities and missing mentions. The QEN covers Q2 which is till the end of June.

So, where's the mention of fairly significant market changes like the cynojammer spike (click for graphs) and so on? What about PI impact on items that were not already unseeded? What about the huge disparity between Q1 and Q2 population stats (as Virt stated in eve-chaos IRC, 226k Caldari empire space characters, which is more than all Q1 nullsec characters combined, but Q2 also claims that almost half the characters ingame are in nullset- but with no actual movement whatsoever)?

While CCP publishing statistics and their take on it is interesting, I am concerned that this seems to be increasingly PR and marketing material, and not an actual economic report.

Aion Amarra
Minmatar
Real Nice And Laidback Corporation
Black Core Alliance
Posted - 2010.08.11 03:04:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: Tamasan
Quote:
From the beginning of June 2009 to the end of June 2010, 777,455 ships were self-destructed. A total of 159,124 characters self-destructed at least one ship in that period. Of those, 7,453 ships, or nearly 1% of the total, were destroyed by the same character, and that character didn‘t even start until mid-January 2010.


Shocked

Being generous, it takes more than 3 minutes to self destruct 1 ship and to be ready to do another, if the ships are already insured and in the same station.

*snip*


You forgot to math in a little time to actually insure the ship, too. Given I doubt someone just has 7500 ships in his hangar that are already insured.

RentableMuffin
Posted - 2010.08.11 03:32:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: Aion Amarra
Originally by: Tamasan
Quote:
From the beginning of June 2009 to the end of June 2010, 777,455 ships were self-destructed. A total of 159,124 characters self-destructed at least one ship in that period. Of those, 7,453 ships, or nearly 1% of the total, were destroyed by the same character, and that character didn‘t even start until mid-January 2010.


Shocked

Being generous, it takes more than 3 minutes to self destruct 1 ship and to be ready to do another, if the ships are already insured and in the same station.

*snip*


You forgot to math in a little time to actually insure the ship, too. Given I doubt someone just has 7500 ships in his hangar that are already insured.


you can do that during the session change timer!

Vir Hellnamin
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2010.08.11 05:10:00 - [55]
 

Edited by: Vir Hellnamin on 11/08/2010 05:10:02
Originally by: Mynxee

True...but iirc somewhere (maybe Q1 QEN?), it was stated that the average is two accounts per player.


I'd still like to see a histogram of account-counts per player. :)

Average is too easy to pull down to small number; median too, but that would tell something with average (taken same time).

Wonder if we could get the numbers/graphs some day? Pretty-please?

Ifly Uwalk
Caldari
Concentrated Evil
Posted - 2010.08.11 05:41:00 - [56]
 

shouldn't have taken the "ships flown" snapshot the day after Tyrannis was released... Rolling Eyes

Ifly

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2010.08.11 06:35:00 - [57]
 

Edited by: Venkul Mul on 11/08/2010 06:58:24

Originally by: Tamasan
Quote:
From the beginning of June 2009 to the end of June 2010, 777,455 ships were self-destructed. A total of 159,124 characters self-destructed at least one ship in that period. Of those, 7,453 ships, or nearly 1% of the total, were destroyed by the same character, and that character didn‘t even start until mid-January 2010.


Shocked

Being generous, it takes more than 3 minutes to self destruct 1 ship and to be ready to do another, if the ships are already insured and in the same station.

Start - In station, in the ship.
Undock - 10 seconds (being generous, low activity system, no lag)
Activate self destruct - 120 seconds
Session change before you can dock - 30 seconds
Dock - 10 seconds (again being generous, low activity system, no lag)
Session change before you can switch ship - 30 seconds
(Repeat)



I think you can cut 90 seconds leaving the ship after initiating self destruct and you will have the ship with the largest ship hangar available loading the BS in station, bringing them to the character and ejecting them. So no dock/undock timer for that character.

Naturally it require to do that in secured 0.0.

So:
1) Start - In station, in the ship.
2) Undock - 30 seconds
3) Activate self destruct and eject - 10 seconds
4) Session change before you can board another ship - 30 seconds
5) Self destruct and eject again - 30 seconds
Repeat 4) e 5)

So 1 ship every 60 seconds if your alt is fast enough bringing them.

Quote:
EVE’s accounts, with the aforementioned total of 712,000 characters ...
The characters reside within 28 Non-Player Character (NPC) corporations and 74,000 player-run corporations. The player-run corporations range in size from just one member to about 1,500 members.
...
Overall, just over 50% of all characters reside in player corporations



So we have 360.000 characters in 74.000 players corporations, average 4,8.

How many 1 men corps? 30.000?

Originally by: Daisuke Aoki
The population distribution graph by system security type is comforting. I remember reading from someone on here that 90% of the players were supposedly in highsec with only 10% in nullsec, which seemed both scary, disappointing, and unrealistic to me.

53% highsec to 32% nullsec does indeed seem more realistic from what I notice in the game.

Glad to know Eve hasn't been *completely* overrun by carebears (at least not highsec-dwelling ones) Laughing


Quote:
Most of the players are in high security space, with roughly 55% of players in that area in the beginning of the period but dropping towards 53% in June of 2010. Low security space declines by 1 percentage point, from 9% to 8%, and the share for null security space remains stable at 32%. Wormhole space started with 6% of the total population (at the launch of the feature in Apocrypha) and dropped down to 4% in the first few months thereafter, but then started increasing again and currently stands at 7%.
.......
Note that a previous paragraph in this chapter cited a w-space population share of 7%. The reason for the difference lies in different definitions of the figure. The 7% figure shows the average percentage of characters that are actually logged in at any time,



The difference is born by the different method used to gather the data, not a snapshot but an average over time of the time spend in the different security levels of space.

So cumulatively players spend 53% of the time in high sec, 8% in low sec, 32% in in 0.0 and 7% on WH.

This is one of the few data presented has they should presented. This way it cut any discussion about "I have 1 character in 0.0 and 3 in high sec, I should be counted as a 0.0 dweller". The players are counted for the time they spend logged in every area of space, not for the number of characters.

Odyessus
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2010.08.11 08:42:00 - [58]
 

i find the front picture of a KESTREL, amusing.

Louis deGuerre
Gallente
Malevolence.
Posted - 2010.08.11 11:26:00 - [59]
 

Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker
Edited by: Manfred Rickenbocker on 10/08/2010 17:43:33
Ok, I think the time snapshot is still too soon to figure out the long term effects on both mineral prices (changed during insurance) and the former NPC goods (Changed during PI). Particularly for the latter, which I am interested in, we will have to wait until the market finds a new equilibrium once the stocks of former NPC-bought goods are exhausted or consumed. That said, I am also interested in a few other statistics (maybe for the next newsletter):

1) Price changes for POS fuels over time.
Uranium, Robotics, and Oxygen are good because Uranium and Robotics are the most complex, while plain Oxygen is the easiest. Might want to add Mechanical Parts in there because not only are they a fuel itself, but a component used in making Robotics too.

2) Numbers of active and offline POSes.
With the changes in fuel prices, people might not set up as many POSes. Plus, post Dominion sov changes, there is no more POS ping-pong. It would be extremely interesting to see how both PI and Dominions affected POS usage.

3) Price Changes and Market Volume for POS.
Additionally, since POSes are now player produced along with Sov structures and modules with PI, it would be nice to see how their average market prices as well. This, along with trading volume, probably saw a LOT of flux due to Dominions and PI.

4) Price changes in moon goo.
This is directly affected by player's ability and willingness to put up POSes and fuel them after the fuel price changes. This, and the potential unwillingness to use a POS solely for research, moon goo and reactions are the only viable way to fund them. It would seem that the price for goo would go up, but if players use PI and outpace demand (reduced POS numbers, etc) it would lead to interesting price fluctuations.


I would also like to see more data on this. PI is having a massive effect on all POS-related production (except if you were one of the rich ones that bought 20 years supply of non-ICE POS fuel before PI came out). Robotics prices in particular are much higher already than in the blog.

Bomberlocks
Minmatar
CTRL-Q
Posted - 2010.08.11 11:52:00 - [60]
 

From the QEN, page 11, on ships in space:
Retriever 9,031 - 1.26% increase
Bestower 8,496 - 1.18% increase
Badger Mark II 8,326 - 1.16% increase

All of these ships can be trained by a rookie character within a couple of days with the 100% skillpoint training speed bonus.

Apparently, the ship use is taken from 1 snapshot of ships in space just before a downtime. There is no reference in the QEN to any methodologies used, or on what basis stats were gathered.

Experiment:
Sit on a gate in hisec and scan the Bestowers passing through. Take note of the pilots' name (you can also try to convo them), age and the ship fittings and cargo.

1. Note how almost all the Bestowers' pilots have names like "uhmfghjk" or some other random set of characters.
2. Note how they almost all have the same fittings: Expanded Cargo Holds and Inertia Stabilizers.
3. Note how they almost all have courier mission cargo.
4. Note how almost none of them will respond to a request to convo.
5. Note how most of the pilots are 14 days old or younger.

Result:
The Bestowers are part of an extremely large courier mission macro botnet running 23/7 on trial accounts.

This is only a small portion of all the macros, because there is almost certainly an equal number of macro botnets doing mining 23/7 and recently macros have started supporting PI which, due to the static nature of its UI, is an ideal macroing object.

Now, given how worthless, mining, running courier missions and PI are to an individual player, due to low isk/hour, and how extremely boring they are, I can only ask one question:

Why don't more people run macros? I mean, it's easier than, you know, actually playing the game. By running a macro, you game the play. Also, you get ISKies for free and if you're not too much of a gutless carebear, you get an endless resupply for ships lost in PvP.

Gonna try and do something about this sometime CCP?


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

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