open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: War is the engine that drives
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Author Topic

CCP Fallout

Posted - 2010.11.12 12:35:00 - [1]
 

CCP Dr.EyjoG's newest dev blog announces the new Quarterly Economic Report for the third quarter of 2010. Read the blog and get the QEN here.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2010.11.12 12:41:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Venkul Mul on 12/11/2010 12:56:59
First.
Real comments later


A couple of remarks:

1) why the list of pilot race of the killer against pilot race of the target? It would have been much more relevant the racial type of the ship used by the killer and the racial type of the ship lost.
The racial type of the pilot is practically meaningless in EVE.

2) Please, give us separate lists for ships in use: combat and non combat.

Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
Posted - 2010.11.12 12:46:00 - [3]
 

\o/

Mashie Saldana
Minmatar
Veto Corp
Posted - 2010.11.12 12:55:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Mashie Saldana on 12/11/2010 13:37:39
IAC. Crying or Very sad

Edit - Was a good read.

Figure 30 is incorrect, shows Heavy Missile Launcher II instead of PLEX.

Alara IonStorm
Caldari
Posted - 2010.11.12 13:09:00 - [5]
 

Economic Data!

Time to Celebrate, Everyone do the Wave!

\o\\o//o/

For Economics!

I am gonna enjoy this!

Vir Hellnamin
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2010.11.12 13:12:00 - [6]
 

Figure 30 - caption is about PLEX while figure is about Heavy Missile Launcher II?

Douchie McNitpick
Free-Space-Ranger
Posted - 2010.11.12 13:12:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Douchie McNitpick on 12/11/2010 13:15:03
Great, more statistically irrelevant snapshot data that can't cover fluctuations over a day or even a week.

Quote:
"As in previous editions of the QEN, this data comes from a single snapshot of the EVE universe at the end of the quarter."


lol.

Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2010.11.12 13:30:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Cailais on 12/11/2010 13:45:40
Saved from another turgidly boring day at work by the good Dr EyjoG and his department of economic gnomes!

C.

Edit: EVE lost 20,000 subscribers over the summer?!? Ouch. That's the equivalent of around $300k in lost revenue per month. Sad


Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
Posted - 2010.11.12 13:38:00 - [9]
 

Yaaaaay

About Mesale
Posted - 2010.11.12 13:51:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Cailais

Edit: EVE lost 20,000 subscribers over the summer?!? Ouch. That's the equivalent of around $300k in lost revenue per month. Sad


Wish that was the case, but they artificially inflated sub numbers with cheap deals. They lose revenue when existing players quit, not when the super-cheap deals they were offering only drag in people for one month.

Louis deGuerre
Gallente
Malevolence.
Posted - 2010.11.12 13:51:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Louis deGuerre on 12/11/2010 14:03:04
EDIT : This was too easy.

Durnin Stormbrow
Posted - 2010.11.12 14:09:00 - [12]
 

3rd quarter QEN delivered during 3rd quarter earnings season?ShockedExclamation

Much improved over the 6+ month wait we used to have.
/applaud CCP

Virtuozzo
The Collective
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2010.11.12 14:18:00 - [13]
 

Quote:
Realizing that a long-term price increase was taking place, one which would likely create a short term shortage of Nocxium, some enterprising traders played a clever market manipulation. By buying up large parts of the Nocxium available they ensured that a serious shortage of Nocxium was created – or, rather, that the foreseeable shortage was greatly amplified. This took much of the market by surprise, with many a lamentation heard from manufacturers of Tech I goods. This is market PvP at its finest.


Razz


Abyssal Angel
Caldari
The Collective
B O R G
Posted - 2010.11.12 14:18:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Abyssal Angel on 12/11/2010 14:18:14
I'm usually a fairly happy-rainbows-butterflies-and-unicorns-type-of-guy at least when I'm given something enjoyable to read.

The QEN is lacking, and it's lacking in several areas, and while I won't belittle the work gone into creating it, nor the well meaning of it, I'm disappointed from a scientific and a gamer and an old time EVE player point of view.

Firstly, the QEN, is 57 pages, but amounts to only 16 "normal pages" in the written content (copy everything into word"really everything" except pictures, but the text in the picture). Those 16 normal-pages are based of a word count of 9.6xx divided by 600 on a normal-page. This is fairly standard practice when calculating the actual volume of a written paper.

That EVE is a vast and immersed place, I think most people would agree with, and I find myself oddly empty, and not informed very much beyond what I could've digested and guessed at from just looking at the pretty pictures.

I hope that the level of analysis could be of a higher degree, as the EVE community time and again have proven to hunger/yearn/lust for more detailed data/analysis/feedback on all topics, be that purely technical computer related or pixels and pretty pictures related.

I would end my post, on a slightly cheerier note; one that urges Dr. Eyjólfur Guđmundsson, CCP, to use perhaps less space on poster ads in the scientific paper itself and more on indepth and higher quality, or even more quantity of analysis of the figures presented.

I would dearly enjoy and I know others who share that feeling, for him to get more in-depth, more personal, more "involved".

I'm sorry for the sour grapes, but this QEN did very little to stir me where stirring is pleasant.

With regards

Abyssal Angel

Alara IonStorm
Caldari
Posted - 2010.11.12 14:21:00 - [15]
 

Hi I think I may have found a Fault on Page 49

Originally by: Q3
Figure 30: PLEXes continue to be very popular and in Q3 the volume traded increased by 11%, reaching over 80.000 total trades in September. The popularity of PLEXes has increased in every single quarter since they launched, and Q3 didn´t change that. In Q3 PLEX activations increased by 7% compared to Q2, but at the same time more PLEXes are being created than activated. The increased interest in PLEXes led to a rise in both prices and volume traded (6.6% and 11%, respectively) compared to Q2.

The Picture above this is labeled Heavy Missile Launcher II's

CCP Thomas

Posted - 2010.11.12 14:42:00 - [16]
 

We are aware of the mix-up with figure 30 and it has been noted, sorry about this.

Una Achura
Posted - 2010.11.12 14:43:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: "QEN, page 27"

Prices of planetary commodities probably won’t change drastically until the release of Incursion, but what effect that expansion may have remains to be seen.



So... Anticipated price-reduction from improved UI, or more extensive changes?

Mynxee
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2010.11.12 14:50:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Mynxee on 12/11/2010 15:04:55
As always, the QEN is beautifully presented. Smarter folks than myself can judge the quality of the data but a couple of things:

I would like to see a section at the beginning of the QEN called Key Trends which shows a consistent data set from one issue to the next for certain key statistics (for example, null, low, high, and wh space populations trends and differences).

Quote:
Page 10, first para:

The distribution shows clearly how characters progress within EVE, where pilots move from high security space to low security space and then finally into null security space as their skills and experience grow.


Lot of questionable assumptions in that blanket statement, in my opinion. Plenty of us (including my two 52M+ SP characters) will never go the null sec route. Conversely, a lot of new players head straight to 0.0 because they have contacts or take the initiative to get there. The assumed "progression" doesn't apply for either of these situations. Also...I suggest that you can't compare ship losses to skillpoints and make accurate assumptions about effectiveness. Low SP characters often serve as tacklers; they die a lot by design. However, that is no indication of their effectiveness or lack of it. They might very well be instrumental to the success of encounters even though dying every time. Of course, these days with bubbles and probing dictors, there seems to be less and less room for old-style tackle tactics--and more requirement for greater SP to employ newer tactics. For that and lots of other important null sec roles, pilots with far fewer than two years' worth of SP can be extraordinarily effective--even if they are losing ships in the process.

Also, players...if there is stuff you'd like to see in the QEN or reported in devblogs, please post about Statistics We'd Love to Know in this thread.


Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies
Joint Venture Conglomerate
Posted - 2010.11.12 14:54:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Jackie Fisher on 12/11/2010 14:54:01
So after years of us much maligned Caldari being labelled as carebears it turns out that Gallente and Amarr are the true carebear races.

Clearly the Drake and Raven need a PVE boost.Razz

Dierdra Vaal
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2010.11.12 15:10:00 - [20]
 

it seems CCP omitted Omist when they divided 0.0 into sectors?

Splastastic
Posted - 2010.11.12 15:22:00 - [21]
 

Table 12, shows frigates and destroyers destroyed, but also an Aeon. I didn't know the Amarr supercarrier was re-classified as an T1 Frigate/Destroyer Razz

Shasz
Angels of Anarchy
Posted - 2010.11.12 15:23:00 - [22]
 

Quote:
The overall least flown ship type which is actively available (e.g. not a tournament reward or other limited-availability ship) was the Scythe Fleet Issue, with only 5 being piloted at the time of the snapshot.


Yes! This makes our Scythe Fleet Issue kill far more rare and valuable than a Titan kill. I demand Battleclinic reformulate their points again!

:)

Manfred Rickenbocker
Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2010.11.12 15:33:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Manfred Rickenbocker on 12/11/2010 15:54:31
It has been some time since the release of Planetary Interaction. Is it possible to produce statistics an analysis on game mechanics that were affected by this? It would be nice to know a couple of things:
1) The number of players actively participating in PI
2) The prices for things like starbase fuel and structure costs (based on PI requirements)
3) The number of deployed starbases (historical) due to fuel cost changes
4) Changes in moon-goo prices relative to these

Some other fun statistics:
1) % of systems actually occupied pre and post Dominion changes
2) Number of sov-holding alliances pre and post Dominion changes
3) Amount of money over time spent on sovereignty upkeep

Edit: Thank you in advance if you do produce those statistics.

CCP Diagoras


C C P Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.12 15:40:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Dierdra Vaal
it seems CCP omitted Omist when they divided 0.0 into sectors?


That would seem be my fault. It isn't listed due to an error on my part, however Omist is included in the numbers for the South East sector.

CCP Dr.EyjoG

Posted - 2010.11.12 15:56:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker
Edited by: Manfred Rickenbocker on 12/11/2010 15:33:11
I has been almost a year since the release of Planetary Interaction. Is it possible to produce statistics an analysis on game mechanics that were affected by this? It would be nice to ....... Just


Planetary Interaction was released in June. We expect to have some information about PI in the next QEN, Q4 2010, with six months worth of data. So good suggestions - look forward to the last QEN of this year.

CCP Diagoras


C C P Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.12 16:13:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul

2) Please, give us separate lists for ships in use: combat and non combat.



I've divided them for you. Ships in combat classes, top 10 flown at the time of the snapshot:
  1. Drake 16,639

  2. Kestrel 11,102

  3. Rifter 10,358

  4. Hurricane 7,565

  5. Catalyst 7,028

  6. Raven 6,910

  7. Condor 6,762

  8. Probe 6,607

  9. Cormorant 6,558

  10. Executioner 6,176


Ships in non-combat classes, top 10 being flown at the time:
  1. Hulk 17,195

  2. Bestower 8,204

  3. Retriever 7,940

  4. Badger Mark II 7,857

  5. Orca 6,907

  6. Iteron Mark V 5,688

  7. Mammoth 5,140

  8. Mackinaw 5,084

  9. Primae 4,576

  10. Badger 3,846


Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
Posted - 2010.11.12 16:21:00 - [27]
 

Very interesting reading. Just one question regarding the starbases. The QEN says that in May a maximum of 216 starbases were destroyed in highsec. But how much is that in comparison? How many starbases are around?

Aineko Macx
Posted - 2010.11.12 16:23:00 - [28]
 

Most interesting QEN today. Only minor complaints Cool

Ofc course after reading it the biggest question that remains is how CCP plans to deal with the imbalance between ISK faucets and sinks, other than implementing mechanics that promote the removal of PLEXes from the system...

CCP Diagoras


C C P Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.12 16:30:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Gnulpie
Very interesting reading. Just one question regarding the starbases. The QEN says that in May a maximum of 216 starbases were destroyed in highsec. But how much is that in comparison? How many starbases are around?


We don't have the number that were active at that time to hand right now, but I can give you the number for approximately 30 seconds ago on Tranquility. At this moment there are 29,052 starbases in space. Of those, 23,000 are online.

Mynxee
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2010.11.12 16:32:00 - [30]
 

Why do you lump low and high sec population into one "Empire" number? I want to see them broken out as separate numbers.

Also, I'm not very savvy regarding balancing of ISK sinks/faucets, but:

Quote:
QEN3, Figure 5: The graph shows the development of bounty prize payouts and the percentage change in each quarter. In only a year the bounty payout increased by 64%, pushing the money supply further up.


Quote:
Hilmar, page 4, October CSM Meeting Minutes: "The EVE economy has been mismanaged in the past according to Hilmar and as it stands now there is too much money in the system, thus all future changes to it have to be done in a careful and considerate manner."


And yet now we have another PvE feature coming that will add more ISK to the economy. I wonder if it is assumed ships lost in the attempt to put down an Incursion are going to be a sufficient ISK sink to offset that?



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