| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Qaedienne
   |
Posted - 2009.06.05 04:39:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: Krathos Morpheus
I loled with this tiny bit of false propaganda: Quote:
After the highly successful launch of this new expansion
T3 successful? I can't decide if laugh or cry...
I think the expansion was a success. T3 production needs to be fixed, but WH's are an excellent addition. |
Bad Bobby
Ugly Toys
Zzz
|
Posted - 2009.06.05 06:49:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Qaedienne
I think the expansion was a success... WH's are an excellent addition.
That's my opinion.
Granted that T3 ships aren't as common as CCP wanted them to be, but they are exactly as common as I wanted them to be. That is to say... I'm alright jack. |
Krathos Morpheus
Gallente
Legion Infernal
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.06.05 07:18:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Krathos Morpheus on 05/06/2009 07:21:32
Originally by: Qaedienne
Originally by: Krathos Morpheus
I loled with this tiny bit of false propaganda: Quote:
After the highly successful launch of this new expansion
T3 successful? I can't decide if laugh or cry...
I think the expansion was a success. T3 production needs to be fixed, but WH's are an excellent addition.
I'm not talking about the expansion, I think it's great (or it could be in the future). I'm talking about how it has not been an "highly successful launch".
Not in economics, the first area I think of when speaking on QEN, nor in mechanics and problems. The most you can tell is that it has been successful because the EVE world still goes on, but thats a pretty low scale to measure it, and to be able to say highly successful you should expect the database to get lost or something like that.
I think that an highly successful launch should have included epic missions (actually it is just epic mission), all new features working (just remember the queue making us lose skills) and when said in an economic context like this one, I surely expect a "successful launch" having any oportunity to get aimed prices on the new toys and an "highly successful launch" to get those prices getting closer and closer. I expect all issues gets resolved given time (the queue works great now), but it is pretty disturbing the lack of interest, effort or acknowledgement shown with the t3 price problem. Two patches has come out since the release and all they have done is reduce the number of sites. I really hope they don't take years to fix it. |
Krathos Morpheus
Gallente
Legion Infernal
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.06.05 07:35:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Bad Bobby
Originally by: Qaedienne
I think the expansion was a success... WH's are an excellent addition.
That's my opinion.
Granted that T3 ships aren't as common as CCP wanted them to be, but they are exactly as common as I wanted them to be. That is to say... I'm alright jack.
I classify that opinion in the same bag as "EVE is 0.0", "EVE is pvp", "All pvp guys should thank us producers for allowing them to play", "High sec must be 100% safe", "Salvaging in broken, it lets players steal for free", "Faction Wars guys should not complain about their problems and go to 0.0 instead", etc.
It has no value for me because it doesn't look at the big picture and it is based only in the feeling that everyone should play EVE the way you like. |
Alex555
|
Posted - 2009.06.05 11:49:00 -
[35]
no single word about a hulk  |
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2009.06.05 12:37:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Clair Bear
So the useful bits of information from this report were:
There are 300,000 active accounts and 660,000 characters. There were 29 t3 cruisers made in march.
Did I miss any other pertinent data?
Put me in the camp that after correlating the same I wanted to either Laugh or Cry. |
Mahke
Aeon Of Strife
Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2009.06.05 23:33:00 -
[37]
I'm just glad CCP finally realized what everyone else did a while ago that inflation actually was occurring in a non-trivial amount.
*crosses fingers for alchemy that's more economically impactful or the like* |
Caleb Ayrania
Gallente
TarNec
Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.06.06 06:17:00 -
[38]
Hmm a bit like a mcD meal..
Shortly (r)eating after I felt hungry again...
- Money is Love -
Sometimes it just gets bend the wrong ways.
Feed your Brain:
Innovation Thread |
Cor Aidan
Imperium Forces
Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.06.06 13:38:00 -
[39]
I have to admit I'm in the crowd that feels that QEN_Q1-2009 doesn't really have much useful information.
The one set of information I really want to see that was partially in one of the early QEN, that would really give a picture on health of the economy:
1. Total isk (in wallets plus in escrow) at a snapshot point
2. Total mineral,LP,salvage,moon-mineral equivalent wealth in the system at the snapshot point.
3. Creation and destruction rate of isk and wealth.
To further elaborate what I mean by number 2 above:
Wealth can be measured for purposes of comparison by taking into account the raw "building block" cost of items. For simplicity I'll just focus on minerals here. Pilots have either isk or ships/modules/ore/minerals. All modules, ores, and ships have a certain conversion from their mineral composition. So the wealth of the system could easily be measured by simply the aggregate sum of the mineral compositions for all goods. Isk and goods in escrow should be counted toward the total wealth, so putting something on the market does not remove from the measurement. To account for distribution effects the counts can be weighted.
So for instance say the universe consists of a single Executioner frigate. This has a mineral composition of 2,752 tri, 2,510 pye, 130 mex, and 2 iso. (perfect reprocess composition, not build composition). Say the factor on each mineral grade is 4 like the base price scaling - remember this is just a metric not a reflection of value - so the 'wealth' of the universe could be 15,000 mineral units. Now say someone mines 333 units of veldspar; the perfect refine equivalent is 1000 units of tritanium, so there is a wealth value of 1000 - the universe wealth increases to 16,000. Now say that veldspar is refined at 90%, so we actually only get 900 tri; the universe wealth drops to 15,900.
Add in things like simple number of salvage-component equivalent, LP equivalent, moon-mineral equivalent, etc. and the universe has a meaningful, objective wealth metric.
So we can track the change of that wealth number over time against isk over time, and see if we really are improving the economy (wealth growth rate exceeds population growth rate) and if there is inflation/deflation pressure (isk growth rate compared to wealth growth rate).
To account for isk velocity, rather than pure isk, you could compare traded isk growth rate versus wealth growth rate instead. (People who stockpile billions actually help fight inflation.)
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |