Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Letrange
Minmatar Chaosstorm Corporation Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.02.20 21:13:00 -
[31]
Re: the shuttle thing. As I recall the trit price did jump for large volume purchases in certain regions above the magic number for a little bit. But the price jump was very short lived. This means that the use of shuttles to complete orders would have been regional not game wide. What we really need is to compare the "trit reserves" vs the trit price and see if how the sudden use of shuttles affected the trit reserve. The trit reserve representing the total amount of tritanium available for purchase on the market. I suspect that the use of shuttles was regional - so that any region where the price hit above 3.6 would have gotten hit by the shuttle sourced tritanium. This might help explain why only about 5% of the trit on the market seemed to have been shuttle based.
As an aside I'd sure like it if one could filter the market panel by security standing (i.e. filter out the low sec sales or the high sec ones).
|
Cpt Fina
Mutually Assured Distraction
|
Posted - 2008.02.20 22:15:00 -
[32]
Interesting read. Thanks
|
Blind Man1
Caldari Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.02.20 22:56:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Blind Man1 on 20/02/2008 22:56:38
Originally by: MotherMoon
Originally by: Zuiki what's the hell is THIS ??
must resist urge
surely you did not think it was a templar, an amarr fighter drone used by carriers?
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
|
Posted - 2008.02.20 23:15:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Fastercart 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.
indeed
although i thought people went over it like a million times, that to close range pvp it was a buff, to everything else (<- missions go here) it was a nerf.
|
Supreme Feather
|
Posted - 2008.02.20 23:41:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Supreme Feather on 20/02/2008 23:43:52
Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton
Originally by: Fastercart 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.
indeed
although i thought people went over it like a million times, that to close range pvp it was a buff, to everything else (<- missions go here) it was a nerf.
I really disagree, reason for launcher to drop in price was as all the mission runners (and caldari farmers) had to sell their siege launcher and buy cruise launchers. Which only does one thing: Siege launcher's will drop as everyone places them on market for less than the guy next to and buy cruiser launchers. Also do not miss this is the arb launchers. It is obvious that the arb cruise launcher would be grapped from the market instantly and as they cannot be build the price will increase. It has nothing to do with it being a nerf or not - and certainly not a proof of any of the two. Theres simply more mission runners and farmers using long range than short range raven-PVPers.
Signature: I only take direct trade or Item Exchange after autions please (to prevent scams). When ever I sell or buy! |
Crovan
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 01:17:00 -
[36]
Originally by: LancerSix 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?
I don't know why I continue to dignify this torpedo nonsense with a response, but meh.
TL;DR version: torps were not nerfed.
For the umpteenth time, torpedoes were not nerfed. Their mechanics were changed to render them a PvP weapon. Cruise missiles have been the better choice for most high sec activities (i.e. mission running) for about a year or so, anyway, due to the move from BS heavy missions to cruiser and BC heavy missions.
I have an alt with reasonable skills in missiles (still T1 mind you). She can fly a Raven that deals over 800 DPS. Please explain to me how a 100% boost in damage per second can in any way be conceived as a nerf. Sure, you have to MWD to get close, but so do most of the other PvPers out there. Torpedoes were not nerfed. You made the correct correlation between the Trinity patch and the price drop, but for the wrong reasons. The prices fell because of a lack of PvE utility. PvE focused players seemingly vastly out-number the pvpers, judging by the numbers the QEN gives us. Broaden your perspective, and the market changes take on a different light. This isn't "voting with their wallets." That concept is largely inapplicable in the real world, let alone EVE. What this represents is simple reaction based on individual playstyles and a revaluing of the cost and benefit of a certain weapon system based on gameplay changes.
Bitter Old Noob: An EVE Online Blog |
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 01:29:00 -
[37]
I am amazed that yet again the numbers show how severely slanted EVE is towards "encouraging" (for lack of a better word) people to stay in Hi Sec space. Or perhaps discouraging people from low/null sec is more appropriate.
Either way I would think CCP would really want to grease the wheels to get people moving about a bit more. I am making no opinions here on how that could be accomplished but will say I think it should be a primary goal for CCP (in the end we are talking about more fun which is what this is all about).
Also consider how many of those low sec visits were people merely transiting low sec. I rarely go low sec and when I do it is all about getting in and out ASAP (because I have no desire to remain even though I often could). Add in null sec dwellers transiting low sec to go slum in hi sec for whatever reason as well. In the end I suspect even that pathetic 11% number in low sec is inflated some.
|
Letrange
Minmatar Chaosstorm Corporation Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 02:03:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h I am amazed that yet again the numbers show how severely slanted EVE is towards "encouraging" (for lack of a better word) people to stay in Hi Sec space. Or perhaps discouraging people from low/null sec is more appropriate.
Either way I would think CCP would really want to grease the wheels to get people moving about a bit more. I am making no opinions here on how that could be accomplished but will say I think it should be a primary goal for CCP (in the end we are talking about more fun which is what this is all about).
Also consider how many of those low sec visits were people merely transiting low sec. I rarely go low sec and when I do it is all about getting in and out ASAP (because I have no desire to remain even though I often could). Add in null sec dwellers transiting low sec to go slum in hi sec for whatever reason as well. In the end I suspect even that pathetic 11% number in low sec is inflated some.
Well they are consistent anyways. The draw of 0.0 is supposed to be the attraction of the greater profits to be had there. So as the tech 2 market heats up that'll make the draw of 0.0 even stronger and as more of the population gets higher in SP and feels less insecure they'll slowly get more people in 0.0. After all nothing is stopping you from forming an alliance and building it up to the point where you can move into 0.0. Yes, I'm aware that that's easier said than done. You also missed the fact that that they counted populations at down time. So usually most transients are gone from low sec by then.
|
N1fty
Amarr Galactic Shipyards Inc HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 05:47:00 -
[39]
The BBC have picked up on this story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7256069.stm --
|
Bund
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 06:01:00 -
[40]
The "ships introduced in Trinity" graph on page 17 shows what a catastrophic design failure the introduction of T2 capital ships was. Go back to the drawing board for the production requirements for the Jump Freighter. It's a joke.
|
|
Vio Geraci
Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 06:46:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Mark Lucius 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.
You grossly misunderstand the scope of the slant towards empire. Digital is absolutely correct, most players should be out of empire, and they aren't. The previous economics blog made the population disparity quite clear.
Unfortunately, making 0.0 and lowsec more profitable in raw isk would seem to run counter to the general trend of CCP's attempts to monitor the economy, and making empire less profitable would cause a serious uproar in the player base. Sticky.
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 07:33:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Supreme Feather Edited by: Supreme Feather on 20/02/2008 23:43:52
Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton
Originally by: Fastercart 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.
indeed
although i thought people went over it like a million times, that to close range pvp it was a buff, to everything else (<- missions go here) it was a nerf.
I really disagree, reason for launcher to drop in price was as all the mission runners (and caldari farmers) had to sell their siege launcher and buy cruise launchers. Which only does one thing: Siege launcher's will drop as everyone places them on market for less than the guy next to and buy cruiser launchers. Also do not miss this is the arb launchers. It is obvious that the arb cruise launcher would be grapped from the market instantly and as they cannot be build the price will increase. It has nothing to do with it being a nerf or not - and certainly not a proof of any of the two. Theres simply more mission runners and farmers using long range than short range raven-PVPers.
yes they changed torpedoes and that in no way caused the mission runners to drop their torps (huge over supply) and go running to cruise missiles (huge demand)....
i honestly thought that i wouldn't have to expand on my point at all.....
|
Matthew
Caldari BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 09:28:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Gamer4liff 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
I doubt he's talking about material efficiency here. As the Dr's focus is largely macro, rather than micro economics, he's probably commenting on the efficiency of the market as a whole. Which relates a lot less to the material use of an individual blueprint, and far more to the ability of the market to expand supply to meet demand.
There were a significant number of T2 goods who's price was almost completely unrelated to the material cost of production before invention, and entirely limited by the blueprint supply. Invention has increased the efficiency of the market by allowing demand to stimulate growth in that blueprint supply.
Yes, as the ability to supply T2 items increases, demand for T2 components is rising, which is leading to rising component prices. However, for the highest value, highest volume T2 items, which will have the biggest effect on the price indexes, these component costs were almost irrelevant before invention anyway. Yes, the material costs have gone up, but the market prices have still gone down.
The hole that you're missing is the cost of time on the blueprints. Practically no-one ever factors this into their calculations, but it is crucial to understand this situation. Pre-invention, time on those blueprints was extremely valuable, and it was this that actually constituted the majority of the T2 profit margins. With invention increasing the supply of blueprints, the value of time on a bp has been falling, more than offsetting the increasing material costs for many items.
tl:dr version: An invented bpc is far more efficient than no blueprint at all.
Of course, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be monitoring the situation with T2 component prices. Demand is increasing, and the ability of the market to expand supply to meet this demand is an important element of continuing health in the T2 market.
Figure 17 is the real concern in this regard, as it shows volume flat-lining in the last quarter, in the face of continued exponential growth in price. This suggests that the market may be reaching a maximum supply state. Left unaddressed, this could lead to a distortion of the market similar to the original limited BPO situation, where the majority of the profit gets focussed into the supply-limited part of the chain.
It would have been useful to have quantity as well as price on Figure 12, so that a similar assessment can be done. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 10:21:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton
Originally by: Supreme Feather Edited by: Supreme Feather on 20/02/2008 23:43:52
Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton
Originally by: Fastercart 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.
indeed
although i thought people went over it like a million times, that to close range pvp it was a buff, to everything else (<- missions go here) it was a nerf.
I really disagree, reason for launcher to drop in price was as all the mission runners (and caldari farmers) had to sell their siege launcher and buy cruise launchers. Which only does one thing: Siege launcher's will drop as everyone places them on market for less than the guy next to and buy cruiser launchers. Also do not miss this is the arb launchers. It is obvious that the arb cruise launcher would be grapped from the market instantly and as they cannot be build the price will increase. It has nothing to do with it being a nerf or not - and certainly not a proof of any of the two. Theres simply more mission runners and farmers using long range than short range raven-PVPers.
yes they changed torpedoes and that in no way caused the mission runners to drop their torps (huge over supply) and go running to cruise missiles (huge demand)....
i honestly thought that i wouldn't have to expand on my point at all.....
I hope I never say anything that dumb
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 10:58:00 -
[45]
Im interested to see the high vs low-sec ratio.
And im sorry, but unless CCP actually filtered the data, they are broken.
Anybody have have lived in low-sec like i do, will know that the infestation of macro-haulers is really bad. They outnumber the amount of players by A LOT. I wouldnt be surprised if + of the jumps made in low-sec were done by macro haulers.
Maybe Dr Eyjo would care to comment on that?
|
Daan Sai
HAZCON Inc
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 11:01:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Blind Man1 Edited by: Blind Man1 on 20/02/2008 22:56:38
Originally by: MotherMoon
Originally by: Zuiki what's the hell is THIS ??
must resist urge
surely you did not think it was a templar, an amarr fighter drone used by carriers?
Surely you mean it is an Amarr station (stored server side) that can contain Amarr carriers, which may use Templars, an Amarr fighter drone.
[sorry for spam, but it was too much to resist.]
But yeah, and awesome graphic. I haven't seen that station in game, but it almost looks as it should a candidate for a Titan class ship model.
|
Mark Lucius
Kinetic Vector Black Star Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 11:56:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Vio Geraci You grossly misunderstand the scope of the slant towards empire. Digital is absolutely correct, most players should be out of empire, and they aren't. The previous economics blog made the population disparity quite clear.
Unfortunately, making 0.0 and lowsec more profitable in raw isk would seem to run counter to the general trend of CCP's attempts to monitor the economy, and making empire less profitable would cause a serious uproar in the player base. Sticky.
According to this QEN the numbers without alts would be something like 70%-10%-20% (hi-lo-null), but compared to the previous it shows that mainly the empire activity dropped when removing the alts, meaning that the alts are generally in Empire....contributing to the market. Most regions don't have a proper market for the non-combatants to contribute to and they have no incentive to start one either since everybody buys in Empire anyway. It seems like a partially player-created problem to me. ---
|
Darth Felin
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 12:56:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Daan Sai
But yeah, and awesome graphic. I haven't seen that station in game, but it almost looks as it should a candidate for a Titan class ship model.
This is Blood Raider Battlestation btw.
Thank you for great writeup doc
|
Ishina Fel
Caldari Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 12:56:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Ishina Fel on 21/02/2008 12:58:46
Originally by: Mark Lucius
According to this QEN the numbers without alts would be something like 70%-10%-20% (hi-lo-null), but compared to the previous it shows that mainly the empire activity dropped when removing the alts, meaning that the alts are generally in Empire....contributing to the market. Most regions don't have a proper market for the non-combatants to contribute to and they have no incentive to start one either since everybody buys in Empire anyway. It seems like a partially player-created problem to me.
It is indeed a very player created problem.
It is in the very nature of the game that EVE is dangerous. You want to maximize predictability. If, for example, you wage a 0.0 war, then you'd do well to estabilish a highsec base nearby. This gives you the ability to set a staging area where the enemy can't come to disrupt you without hiring some empire mercenaries - which hurts their funds.
The risk vs. reward ratio isn't necessarily skewed because rewards are too high, but rather because the risk is so low. I would very much think that even if living in empire was less profitable, nearly all trade and production would still be centered there. Because people want to sit back a moment and relax while piecing their new ship together before *****.ing their knuckles and heading out into the fray once more.
Also: 0.0 tradehubs can never exist until everyone sets everyone blue, because if this condition is not met, there will be too many players who can never reach the potential hub (they get shot down on the way or simply don't dare). Thus, by the mere definition of 0.0 space, nearly all economic activity except for self-production and price-gouging opposing alliances with alts is doomed to fail.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today! |
Hugh Ruka
Caldari Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 14:09:00 -
[50]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist 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.
Hi DC
I guess you are not looking at all the issues. Having lived in all parts of security systems, I can tell you that the RL and ingame logistics involved in 0.0 or even lowsec operation is too much for the casual gamer. It was once stated, that the average lifespan of the casual character is 6-9 months. This is not enought for the casual gamer to grow addicted to the game in a way that encourages 0.0 presence.
Most of the highsec inhabitants are basicaly single-player minded folks in a multiplayer environment (mission runners, miners etc.). On the other hand, lowsec or 0.0 operation needs a different kind of attitude. Cooperation and regular or planned activities are the rule here (mining, PvP, POS siege, fleet ops, you name it). Many people are not willing to sacrifice their free time to a game universe (however good the game might be). They view the game as a relaxing experience after work (or whatever previous activity). Instant access to game features is the only thing interesting (get a mission, warp to a belt ...).
I would say the QEN is about right on the 19% 0.0 population and I view that as a good portion of the playerbase. Considering what is involved in 0.0 logistics, that is a very good number. I actualy expected about 15-16% tops there.
Originally by: Aravel Thon
Originally by: Nith Batoxxx Hi my alt just leanred to fly the ferox...............
I am so so terribly sorry...
|
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 15:02:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 21/02/2008 15:06:32
Originally by: Hugh Ruka I would say the QEN is about right on the 19% 0.0 population and I view that as a good portion of the playerbase. Considering what is involved in 0.0 logistics, that is a very good number. I actualy expected about 15-16% tops there.
Personally I do not view that as a "good" portion of the playerbase.
Simply open the map at anytime you care too. The vast majority of EVE solar systems are wholly uninhabited, most of low sec is empty and hi sec is overcrowded. So 2/3 of the subscribers access maybe 1/5 of the available solar systems.
I would never expect null/low sec to be quite as populated as hi sec but I think the imbalance here is too much and blindingly apparent. So few having a hammer lock on so much just does not seem a healthy way for EVE to evolve. Of course the devil is in the details and how to best open things up a bit more has been a matter of player debate for ages. This thread is not the place for those discussions but I do think the numbers make the case rather well that it could use improvement and should be looked at.
Of course I could be wrong but I'd be rather shocked to hear a Dev look at this and say, "Nope, all is well, this is exactly how we envision things for EVE and will not change a thing."
|
Altaree
Red Frog Investments Blue Sky Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 15:10:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Altaree on 21/02/2008 15:14:24 I have a couple of comments about this great report! 1) Did the power of 2 promotion have a noticeable impact on the number of subscribers or are all subscribers sharing a credit card counted as one subscriber for your calculations. I know quite a few people who took advantage of this offer.
2) To balance the traffic flow that was reported, how do people feel about adding a southern high sec route? Right now, to go from ours to amarr you have to go near jita unless you want to save 3 jumps by running ammake.(good luck!)
3) Can a GUP/region be calculated as a way to compare the various regions? I would be interested to see this comparison. I would also be interested in seeing how isk and items flow around the game.
4) Why is the price of isogen staying so low compared to the other mins?
5) To those that want more people to go to 0.0: What facilities do you have that generate isk that are not in some way limited by that number of players that can use them? Missions are an unconstrained resource. As many players as the system can support can run an agents missions. Agents don't just give out 1 mission a minute. Those pirate stations are nice but I am not bring out a 1B+ mission ship for 20Misk mission.
Blue Sky |
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 15:16:00 -
[53]
On another note I wonder if these numbers argue for increasing mineral supplies in the roids and particularly moon mining.
For roids I remember being able to mine a veld roid for 20+ minutes before popping it and huge scord roids laying about. Nowadays I am popping roids very, very fast comparatively. Sure there is still enough if you keep moving around but it is like dwindling fish stocks in the oceans. It takes more work/time to achieve the same results and this predictably translates to higher prices. This can be even more true of hi ends. Ultimately the supply is fixed (whatever is in the roids coupled with the respawn).
I am on the fence on this one since I dislike the notion of centralized fiddling rather than letting the market determine the outcomes but this is a game and not real life. As more people enter EVE and supplies remain static the end result is higher prices all around.
Where I really would like to see some change is in Moon Mining. Something low sec should get some better materials accessible and overall production increased. Some of the mechanics for this are already in place...just needs to be enabled. Other things like moving what mats are where would be more of a chore.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 15:22:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Altaree 4) Why is the price of isogen staying so low compared to the other mins?
Just my WAG...
I am guessing this is due to Omber being accessible in hi sec and people falling over themselves to mine it because it is a "higher" end ore. I cannot count how many new players I am showing the mining ropes to who will absolutely favor mining Omber to anything else because it is valuable even though I show them the math that puts Scord as actually more profitable to mine on a time/isk basis. Doesn't matter...they dive after it like it is mana. As such I expect the supply of isogen remains high (and you can also get a good supply of it via exploration...you are still usually better off mining Scord though).
|
Alz Shado
Ever Flow
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 15:49:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Alz Shado on 21/02/2008 15:50:02 And once again, nothing is mentioned about what is actually *done* with our tax money, those many billions of isk that are nickel and dimed from our wallets for every market transaction. Is there no accountability in this administration? Will they not fess up to the massive pork that's keeping these corrupt Forgean politicians in power?
The author of this "Report" makes mention of the massive traffic congestion through key areas, and yet the Perimeter Transit Authority does nothing but casual maintenance of their crumbling warpgate infrastructure. No new highway lanes have been built in years, despite the urban sprawl that The Forge is becoming.
As taxpayers we deserve to know where our money is going. When the councilmen take their private jump freighter to private meetings out-of-region, they're wasting millions of your hard earned dollars. When they talk of boosting Concord's responsiveness, all the while cutting back their overtime pay and clone benefits, they're making your space less safe. Murders committed by anonymous "Alts" go unpunished, while organized crime blooms beneath their very noses! Have you talked to your son or daughter about the dangers of Drop and other illegal "Boosters"? It's never too early to start!
In conclusion, we should demand more transparency from these leaders, who tax-and-spend on worthless vanity projects and private capital fleets while neglecting the poor middle class podpilots who make this economy run. Build more highways! Hire more police! Pressure the Amarr government to abolish slavery! And end the use of public funds for these fat cat's "Reelection" campaigns!
Thank you.
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 16:03:00 -
[56]
Very interesting read, as always. Glad to see better breakdowns of the demographics, looking at who stayed in hi sec, who ventured into low and hi sec, etc. The jumps information is also pretty neat.
In a way, the demographic information is a lot more heartening than I thought: less than half of characters stay in hi sec. The rest go into low sec and 0.0 at least occasionally.
|
Cabadrin
Caldari Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 16:23:00 -
[57]
Excellent as usual. I really enjoy these and hope we continue getting them every quarter. _______________________________________________
|
Trypho
Minmatar Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 16:25:00 -
[58]
Good read, I love this stuff ---
[ EVEZone.nl ] |
Veng3ance
Multiversal Enterprise Inc. Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 17:46:00 -
[59]
Good read, very interesting material!
Nice job.
|
Gamer4liff
Caldari Metalworks THE INTERSTELLAR FOUNDRY
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 18:26:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Matthew words
I would agree in the context of market efficiency that Invention dramatically helped in this respect but I still read the initial section on invention, stating that it uses decryptors to become "efficient" somewhat a misnomer, as I believe efficient in that context is referring to the ME level of the given BPC.
I still find serious fault however with the assertion that the majority of T2 is made by inventors, and the assertion in the report that invention has led to cheaper manufacturing costs.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |