| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
   |
Posted - 2010.07.29 10:52:00 -
[1]
From the CSM 5 summing meeting minutes:
"A presentation and discussion about the EVE economy was postponed when this session dragged into the evening and it was decided to adjourn for the day."
From the following sections of the minutes the presentation and discussion on the EVE economy was never done during the meeting.
I think that CCP should send to the CSM for review at least the presentation that was prepared for that meeting.
There are several questions about the tools and the informations CCP use to evaluate the situation of EVE economy with some serious doubt about an inadequate information gathering system.
I, at least, would like to see some information on what CCP know and how they gather and elaborate the data.
|
Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.07.29 12:05:00 -
[2]
Supported. Correctly balancing the EVE economy is of the utmost importance.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Marlenus
Ironfleet Towing And Salvage
|
Posted - 2010.07.29 13:58:00 -
[3]
Don't agree. At this point I think CSM may need to turn into a one-issue broken record on the issue of game development priorities and all the "we'll just push out the framework of the feature and then finish it later" features in the game. If CCP continues to stonewall on this problem until after Dust and Incarna, there may not BE an economy to balance.
------------------
Ironfleet.com |
Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.07.29 19:46:00 -
[4]
That's a depressingly good point.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.07.30 12:03:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Marlenus
Don't agree. At this point I think CSM may need to turn into a one-issue broken record on the issue of game development priorities and all the "we'll just push out the framework of the feature and then finish it later" features in the game. If CCP continues to stonewall on this problem until after Dust and Incarna, there may not BE an economy to balance.
I see it as part of the game development priorities.
If you don't know what is happening in the game developing and fixing it become a guesswork and every change you make make it even more of a guessing game.
Look the insurance/mission loot changes.
The original dev blog stated something on the tune of "the loss in revenue for the mission runners will be partially compensated by an increase in the value of the minerals in the remaining loot".
Something should have convinced CCP that the mission loot plus the drone alloys where inputting a lot of minerals in the game, a quantity so large that removing part of the mission loot and reworking the drone alloys would cause a shortage and increase minerals prices even with the insurance changes.
That didn't happened.
So somewhere they failed in the data gathering.
It could be that they underestimated the number of ships self-destructed for the insurance, overestimated the reprocessed minerals including in the count the modules used for mineral compression or overestimated the effect of the drone alloys changes.
What is important is that CCP made a change to the game using unreliable data and conclusions.
Now we have PI and CCP will be tweaking it on some data gathered in some way. There is a large risk of false informations and conclusions as the effect of the stockpiles and reprocessing exploits is far from finished.
I think now that you see why I feel that for the CSM and the EVE players it will be important to know the non-exploitable part of how the data are gathered and elaborated, to eventually suggest better tools and corrections for the development of the game.
|
iP0D
|
Posted - 2010.08.01 12:26:00 -
[6]
Edited by: iP0D on 01/08/2010 12:28:53
That's becoming a bit of a common theme isn't it? Data gathering, processing, analysing, repeatedly each of the 3 turns out to be flawed, resulting into consequences and trends players signal long before CCP does. This independant of CCP's communicative and decision level capability to act on events and trends accurately and proactively.
It's as if CCP's economical viewpoint is one of the old school of externalised perspective, combined with data point / snapshot methodology, leading to situations where patterns and trends that players see / follow / push from an internalised / immersed perspective cannot be captured or even be properly mapped out over time and thus can barely be engaged on proactively - or even just correspondingly.
It's as if the perspectives, methodology and processing objectives visible in the QEN are pretty much what CCP - by analogy - relies on internally to base decisions on. That is pretty scary. Even more scary then what became visible in the CSM Minutes in regards to business metrics and the interalised perspective of CCP Management.
|
Hairy Bum
|
Posted - 2010.08.02 03:11:00 -
[7]
You seem to forget that the way the CSM is comprised, if it has nothing to do with fleet fights and lag, it's really not worth mentioning  .
If you want something else in this game other than 0.0 lagfests, then this is not the game for you.
|
Delilah Wild
|
Posted - 2010.08.29 04:51:00 -
[8]
I'd like to support Venkul's suggestion here. The economic dimension of Eve is as important as any other. It would be good to learn more about what CCP plans for the economic environment in the future.
Delilah
|
Vuk Lau
|
Posted - 2010.08.29 11:07:00 -
[9]
EVE economy issues were raised inside many other discussions. Also regarding the comment about the line up of CSM, judging by the amount of isk, some delegates have (or had) we have more then few economy experts here.
|
sermokala
|
Posted - 2010.08.31 18:21:00 -
[10]
From what I hear though it is very easy to make a lot of isk from ratting in your capital or at least enough to seem big for a mear pvper.
It would be nice to see a article talking about the economic impact of PI introduction. I have noticed how it has made things cost a lot more on the pos fuel and t2 production lines. it would also be nice for the devs to lay out some of there longer term ideas for PI. personally I wouldn't be surprised if something that they put in soon would take part in t3 production as such t2 is about moon goo.
I do say though I really enjoy reading the quorate economic report very good read for those long nights of mining.
|
Vuk Lau
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 09:43:00 -
[11]
We requested devblog related to PI and all shiny numbers about it (hopefully there will be blue graphs as well). Hopefully it will see the light of the day soon(tm).
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |