EVE Search - Melted nanoribbons drop reduced

All Channels

Missions & Complexes

Melted nanoribbons drop reduced

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
half san Minmatar	Posted - 2011.02.08 11:48:00 - [1] I am doing anomalies and radar/magnetometric sites in C5 WH space for last 4 mount, and I have too say that in last 2 mount drop of melted nanoribbons is reduced a lot. From my experience drop is reduced between 60-70%, a few days ago, we worked 2 core stronghold and 1 core garrison, and we salvaged only 9 Melted nanoribons. It is also the same in magnetometric/radar sites drop is reduced. My question is whether the reduction is announced somewhere by the CCP, or is it a bug in Incursion. I would appreciate that CCP answered my question. Fly safe.
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries	Posted - 2011.02.08 11:54:00 - [2] Post a spreadsheet from before with significant evidence of the previous drop rate and a new sheet with significant evidence of what you think the new drop rate is (i.e. nanoribbons per site, average nanoribbons, etc). Return with at least a sample size of say 100 (though preferably 500 or even 1000) and then we may have something to work with. Hint: basing a theory on 3 sites is foolish. Simply not enough data.
Dorn Val	Posted - 2011.02.08 12:00:00 - [3] Originally by: XXSketchxx Hint: basing a theory on 3 sites is foolish. Simply not enough data. I think he was just using those as an example -he did say that he's noticed a drop over the last two months...
half san Minmatar	Posted - 2011.02.08 12:03:00 - [4] Originally by: XXSketchxx Post a spreadsheet from before with significant evidence of the previous drop rate and a new sheet with significant evidence of what you think the new drop rate is (i.e. nanoribbons per site, average nanoribbons, etc). Return with at least a sample size of say 100 (though preferably 500 or even 1000) and then we may have something to work with. Hint: basing a theory on 3 sites is foolish. Simply not enough data. This is just an example, my experience is based on few hundred anomalies and sites, that we made in last 4 mount.
Valarre	Posted - 2011.02.08 12:04:00 - [5] well of course they've been reduced, ccp wants you to buy more plexs.
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries	Posted - 2011.02.08 12:12:00 - [6] Unfortunately general observation isn't good enough though. We all remember the time we did 10 sites in a row where we got no nanoribbons but seem to forget when we consistently got 4-7 per site (making numbers up here). People always stir up news about a bug in "drops, invention, escalation, etc" after a patch. There is rarely some sort of concrete evidence to back it. This post will simply serve as confirmation bias for others who do a few sites, get nothing and assume something is broken.
half san Minmatar	Posted - 2011.02.08 12:28:00 - [7] Originally by: XXSketchxx Unfortunately general observation isn't good enough though. We all remember the time we did 10 sites in a row where we got no nanoribbons but seem to forget when we consistently got 4-7 per site (making numbers up here). People always stir up news about a bug in "drops, invention, escalation, etc" after a patch. There is rarely some sort of concrete evidence to back it. This post will simply serve as confirmation bias for others who do a few sites, get nothing and assume something is broken. Unfortunately it seems to me that you do not have much experience in doing anomalies and sites in C5 and C6 WH space. My observation is based on facts, and the percentage is derived from drop obtained in the last few hundred sites/anomalies. Statistics never lie, and the sample is sufficient soo we can draw a reliable conclusion from it (drop is reduced).
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries	Posted - 2011.02.08 12:45:00 - [8] Originally by: half san Statistics never lie, and the sample is sufficient soo we can draw a reliable conclusion from it (drop is reduced). What sample? You have yet to show us any data.
SpankSkank	Posted - 2011.02.08 13:16:00 - [9] Originally by: half san <snip> Statistics never lie, <more snipping> Statistics can be made to show whatever you want them to show. 85.2% of statistics are made up right there on the spot. 64.7% of people believe them whether they're accurate statistics or not. -Todd Snider
half san Minmatar	Posted - 2011.02.08 13:23:00 - [10] Originally by: XXSketchxx Originally by: half san Statistics never lie, and the sample is sufficient soo we can draw a reliable conclusion from it (drop is reduced). What sample? You have yet to show us any data. Some people obviously do not know how to read, so they need things drawn.
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries	Posted - 2011.02.08 13:29:00 - [11] Originally by: half san Some people obviously do not know how to read, so they need things drawn. I'm sorry, but are you being intentionally daft? Are you requesting I draw you a picture? What evidence have you provided other than "well we have made observations of a few hundred sites and our conclusion is the drop rate was reduced?" Thats not evidence. Its a statement of general observation with nothing backing it. Show me a list of these "hundreds of sites" and the corresponding amount of nanoribbons you have gotten. A list pre patch and post patch. Otherwise, your "observations" are useless. The closest you have come to providing data is the mention of 3 sites providing 9 ribbons. Hardly sufficient at all.
half san Minmatar	Posted - 2011.02.08 13:38:00 - [12] And if hundreds of people from WH space observed that drop od melted nanoribbons is reduced, and my experience is the same. To me it is enough to get the conclusion that something is different then before in drop of melted nanoribbons in sites/anomalies.
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries	Posted - 2011.02.08 13:47:00 - [13] Originally by: half san And if hundreds of people from WH space observed that drop od melted nanoribbons is reduced, and my experience is the same. To me it is enough to get the conclusion that something is different then before in drop of melted nanoribbons in sites/anomalies. So uh...where are these hundreds of people? Sorry but your observations may be enough for you and a few other bug blaming players, but I can assure you that the majority of sensible people will see this as nothing more than some observed "bad luck" being confused as "reduced drop rate."
Oskari Hakkinen	Posted - 2011.02.08 13:49:00 - [14] The blue loots always more reliable lol..this sounds more like the post patch "invention sucess got nerfed" I pulled 18 ribbons from 4-5 C2 anoms so it cant all be bad
Gladni Jura	Posted - 2011.02.08 13:55:00 - [15] Originally by: XXSketchxx Originally by: half san And if hundreds of people from WH space observed that drop od melted nanoribbons is reduced, and my experience is the same. To me it is enough to get the conclusion that something is different then before in drop of melted nanoribbons in sites/anomalies. So uh...where are these hundreds of people? Sorry but your observations may be enough for you and a few other bug blaming players, but I can assure you that the majority of sensible people will see this as nothing more than some observed "bad luck" being confused as "reduced drop rate." Because obviously you have no idea what I am saying, but constantly twisting facts. It is not clear to me from whom you are instructed to do soo.
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries	Posted - 2011.02.08 14:00:00 - [16] Edited by: XXSketchxx on 08/02/2011 14:06:12 Originally by: Gladni Jura Because obviously you have no idea what he is saying, but constantly twisting facts. It is not clear to me from whom you are instructed to do soo. I'm getting that "alt of the op" feeling from this post. The structure of your text is unusually similar to the op's. And the point you are trying to make is just as illogical. To be clear, what "facts" am I twisting? To my knowledge there are no facts presented thus far in this thread by the op [you], only observations. And what am I confused about? I fail to see what I do not understand.
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries	Posted - 2011.02.08 14:05:00 - [17] Edited by: XXSketchxx on 08/02/2011 14:04:54 double post
half san Minmatar	Posted - 2011.02.08 14:09:00 - [18] Originally by: XXSketchxx Originally by: Gladni Jura Because obviously you have no idea what he is saying, but constantly twisting facts. It is not clear to me from whom you are instructed to do soo. I'm getting that "alt of the op" feeling from this post. The structure of your text is unusually similar to the op's. And the point you are trying to make is just as illogical. Now I see your experience and your knowledge, from someone that is mining and siting in Station/POS all day long.
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries	Posted - 2011.02.08 14:17:00 - [19] Edited by: XXSketchxx on 08/02/2011 14:17:13 Oh this is fun. Lets look at the progression of this thread. Op: [Post thread] CCP I am entitled to an answer as to why I am not getting as rich as I was. Me: Wheres your evidence? Op: Guys seriously this is based on hundreds of observations. Me: Yeah but...wheres your evidence? Op: You don't know what you're talking about, the statistics are sound, sample sizes good, derived percentage accurate. Sorry though, I can't actually share any of this info Me: Can I see some of that data? Op: You are stupid and can't read. Me: Sorry, did you show any evidence yet? Op: Well everyone else agrees with me Me: Who? Alt: Me! Op: You are just a stupid miner/station/POS sitter.
Gladni Jura	Posted - 2011.02.08 14:36:00 - [20] Originally by: XXSketchxx Edited by: XXSketchxx on 08/02/2011 14:17:13 Oh this is fun. Lets look at the progression of this thread. Op: [Post thread] CCP I am entitled to an answer as to why I am not getting as rich as I was. Me: Wheres your evidence? Op: Guys seriously this is based on hundreds of observations. Me: Yeah but...wheres your evidence? Op: You don't know what you're talking about, the statistics are sound, sample sizes good, derived percentage accurate. Sorry though, I can't actually share any of this info Me: Can I see some of that data? Op: You are stupid and can't read. Me: Sorry, did you show any evidence yet? Op: Well everyone else agrees with me Me: Who? Alt: Me! Op: You are just a stupid miner/station/POS sitter. Prove that I'm wrong that drop is same as before.
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries	Posted - 2011.02.08 14:41:00 - [21] Originally by: Gladni Jura Prove that I'm wrong that drop is same as before. So now your position is: "Drops have changed, I have seen this. I can't prove it but you can't prove me wrong either, thus, drops have changed." Great logical argument there champ. PS: Thanks for confirming the alt suspicion I had.
Salliene Gallente Paktu Sjet Armada Galactic System Lords Alliance	Posted - 2011.02.08 14:42:00 - [22] Okay since no one else is as smart as I am. I went into this game I play called EVE Online and pulled up the Market Screen. From there you can view the volume of an item traded for the past 6 months!! Based on 6 months of actual collected data and not just stuff I am remembering in my head, I can see that the average volume of Melted Nanoribbons has remained fairly consistent over the past 6 months. There has been a SPIKE in the past 2 months, meaning that there are most likely MORE Nanoribbons on the market, but that could be due to any reason and not a change in the overall drop rate. It should also be noted that the average PRICE for nanoribbons has slowly declined from around 6 millionish to around 4 millionish in that 6 month period, also indicating to me that there are more, not less, nanoribbons on the market. I hate to muddle this conversation with facts, but I thought some people might be interested.
half san Minmatar	Posted - 2011.02.08 14:48:00 - [23] Originally by: XXSketchxx Originally by: Gladni Jura Prove that I'm wrong that drop is same as before. So now your position is: "Drops have changed, I have seen this. I can't prove it but you can't prove me wrong either, thus, drops have changed." Great logical argument there champ. PS: Thanks for confirming the alt suspicion I had. Soo what if I reply from alt, I have nothing to hide. Yes you can't prove because only thing that you have is talk,talk,talk and spining you ship in POS/Station. Soo much experience.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.02.08 14:50:00 - [24] Originally by: Gladni Jura Prove that I'm wrong that drop is same as before. Simple: you have offered nothing that shows the drops have changed. Thus they haven't. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries	Posted - 2011.02.08 14:53:00 - [25] Originally by: half san Soo what if I reply from alt, I have nothing to hide. My sincerest apologies. Must have been a minor slip when you said "You have no idea what he is saying" implying that Gladni was in fact a different poster. Oh well I guess. Quote: Yes you can't prove because only thing that you have is talk,talk,talk and spining you ship in POS/Station. Soo much experience. I'm sorry I fail to see how these baseless assumptions are relevant to your position. Would you care to address the implications of the market data presented in this thread or perhaps provide your own data?
Contralto Rift Tech	Posted - 2011.02.08 15:09:00 - [26] I agree with the Op, I am seeing a consistent reduced drop of ribbons over the past month or two. A few months ago I received around 5 mill per ribbon in Jita, my last trip out I received 6.3 mill,(sold 300 at that price) actual return per Anom' hasn't changed much so I am not too bothered Tbh.
space alcapone	Posted - 2011.02.08 16:12:00 - [27] Originally by: XXSketchxx Originally by: half san And if hundreds of people from WH space observed that drop od melted nanoribbons is reduced, and my experience is the same. To me it is enough to get the conclusion that something is different then before in drop of melted nanoribbons in sites/anomalies. So uh...where are these hundreds of people? Sorry but your observations may be enough for you and a few other bug blaming players, but I can assure you that the majority of sensible people will see this as nothing more than some observed "bad luck" being confused as "reduced drop rate." One more is here and yes is reduced for sure i live in wh for 2 years too and i agree with half 100%
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries	Posted - 2011.02.08 16:26:00 - [28] Originally by: space alcapone One more is here and yes is reduced for sure i live in wh for 2 years too and i agree with half 100% 1 more person with no evidence is hardly sufficient to convince anyone that drop rates have reduced. Market data has shown a consistent supply. Now this could mean that more sites are being run to compensate for a decrease in drop rates. However this is a stretch. Prices have increased. If supply were decreasing I would concede the possibility of a drop rate reduction, following the logic that a drop in supply without a drop in demand results in a price increase. However, as supply has been consistent, I would argue that the price increase is more a result of demand increase, specifically for Tengus, potentially as a result of the SP reallocation. As MNR are an essential component to T3 construction, they would be largely affected by this. Still waiting on some actual data from those saying drop rates have been reduced.
Cambarus Thunderfury Blessed Blade of the Windseeker	Posted - 2011.02.08 16:34:00 - [29] This reminds me of when I used to live out in 0.0, and for that matter, every MMO I've ever played. With just about every single new patch that hits the server, SOMEONE is convinced that the company owning the game nerfed the RANDOM drop rate of something or other. These claims are usually backed up with very little, if anything at all, because the reality behind it is that if you go into a large portion of npc kills with the idea in your head that drop rates have reduced, it would take nothing short of a massive INCREASE to convince you otherwise, because suddenly all you're noticing are the bad kills. This is especially entertaining when it comes to something that has a particularly low drop/spawn rate to begin with (if I had a nickel for ever time I've heard someone complain that CCP nerfed the frequency of faction spawns...)
Jovan Geldon Gallente Lead Farmers Kill It With Fire	Posted - 2011.02.08 17:48:00 - [30] Ever since Incursion I've been pulling 3 Nanoribbons from every wreck, consistently. I'm not going to provide any evidence though, because that way it can't be disproved. Therefore, I am right, and anyone that wants figures is just a stupid miner/station trader.
Genji Onahara	Posted - 2011.02.08 18:13:00 - [31] Meh, sick of seeing these topics pop up. My corp used 4 man + salvager gangs & tracks the output of our ops in c3 to c5 wh, here's the data gathered from 522 sites over 3 months in a graph Here's the data I used I'm no mathmatician, but I'd say there's either no change or a slight rise in ribbon drops. Anyways the good isks comes from blue loot, the ribbons are just the icing on the cake. Obviously this in an alt post - and I won't give any specifics other than the above o/
Vivian Ramasita	Posted - 2011.02.08 18:29:00 - [32] Actually, the OP might be right. Emphasis on "might." I'm looking at price history for Melted Nanoribbons over the past 6 months in Heimatar. Between September 1 through November, the price remains steady and climbs slightly (from just under 5 mil to around 5.25 mil). Around December 1, though, the price of Melted Nanoribbons started climbing noticeably more sharply, going from 5.25 mil on December 1 to 6.75 mil February 1. In the past two months, the price has gone up six times as much as it did in the two months prior. Of course, this doesn't prove anything. Decreased supply could be the cause of the price increase, but so could increased demand, and looking at the numbers of sales in Heimatar it's hard to say which is going on at a glance. To the skeptics on this thread: Agreed, people often freak out about drop rates after patches. Your skepticism is cool and everything, guys, whatever. Just remember that sometimes it's a good idea to actually consider a point before dismissing it out of hand. Maybe the OP is right and you just haven't noticed? To the OP: It sounds like nobody else is really noticing a significant reduction in the drop rate of melted nanoribbons, so the burden of proof is on you, dude. The market data is out there. Go crunch the numbers and show us how you are right, or you're gonna get "You are crazy and a whiner" from 90% of people and "Huh whatever" from the remainder. Try to keep an open mind to the possibility that you could be wrong, and what you're experiencing is bad luck.
Genji Onahara	Posted - 2011.02.08 18:38:00 - [33] Originally by: Vivian Ramasita Actually, the OP might be right. Emphasis on "might." I'm looking at price history for Melted Nanoribbons over the past 6 months in Heimatar. Stopped reading there ... 1) Ribbon sales of any quantity worth measuring are done in Amarr and Jita. Not a marginal market. 2) in Dec, CCP announced Sleepers will begin neuting, prices rose, they're dropping again now that people have adjusted their setups 3) See my previous post
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries	Posted - 2011.02.08 18:44:00 - [34] Originally by: Vivian Ramasita Actually, the OP might be right. Emphasis on "might." I'm looking at price history for Melted Nanoribbons over the past 6 months in Heimatar. Between September 1 through November, the price remains steady and climbs slightly (from just under 5 mil to around 5.25 mil). Around December 1, though, the price of Melted Nanoribbons started climbing noticeably more sharply, going from 5.25 mil on December 1 to 6.75 mil February 1. In the past two months, the price has gone up six times as much as it did in the two months prior. If I'm not mistaken Tengu prices jumped up during this time as well. I don't have an Eve client here but I'd be curious to see if the other T3 did as well. If they did not, then this price increase is most likely a result of the SP reimbursement that came on December 14th. Quote: To the skeptics on this thread: Agreed, people often freak out about drop rates after patches. Your skepticism is cool and everything, guys, whatever. Just remember that sometimes it's a good idea to actually consider a point before dismissing it out of hand. Maybe the OP is right and you just haven't noticed? I'd just like to be clear that I have no problem with legit bug concerns. But these "last patch nefed X, Y, and Z" are quite frequent and almost always phantom problems. The op's utter refusal to provide evidence and decision to resort to baseless assumptions is rather childish and pretty much removes any validity in his concerns.
Vivian Ramasita	Posted - 2011.02.08 19:14:00 - [35] Originally by: Genji Onahara Originally by: Vivian Ramasita Actually, the OP might be right. Emphasis on "might." I'm looking at price history for Melted Nanoribbons over the past 6 months in Heimatar. Stopped reading there ... 1) Ribbon sales of any quantity worth measuring are done in Amarr and Jita. Not a marginal market. 2) in Dec, CCP announced Sleepers will begin neuting, prices rose, they're dropping again now that people have adjusted their setups 3) See my previous post 1) Word up to that. I don't have an alt in Jita. Also, i'm not the one crying nerf, so I didn't feel like it was appropriate for me to put any effort into actually validating that claim. 2) Actually yeah that totally makes the most sense. 3) Oh, look! Real data! And a helpful, constructive, thoughtful reply? On THESE FORUMS?? Sir or madam, thank you for blowing my mind. No seriously that's pretty cool.
Nadarius Chrome Celestial Horizon Corp.	Posted - 2011.02.08 23:43:00 - [36] Now if this were the Market Discussions forum, the first post would have been "2/10, poor manipulation attempt" and everyone would have moved on already.
Vardec Crom Executive Intervention Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.02.09 01:15:00 - [37] Originally by: SpankSkank Originally by: half san <snip> Statistics never lie, <more snipping> Statistics can be made to show whatever you want them to show. 85.2% of statistics are made up right there on the spot. 64.7% of people believe them whether they're accurate statistics or not. -Todd Snider You are right, statistics can me made to verify a certain point of view if the person interpreting the statistic wasn't given the means to verify its veracity. But, if a randomly chosen, independent sample that's neither too large nor too small is put to the test, it can reliably produce results that can be extrapolated to a population. It also really floors me when people come on here saying,"x only has statistical relevance when there are thousands of instances with which to extrapolate data." You could take a sample of 100-120 and construct a reasonable confidence interval. Of course you would need data from before you noticed the change in drop rate to compare it too. Then it's just a simple matter of determining whether or not the change can be accounted for by sampling variance.
Cambarus Thunderfury Blessed Blade of the Windseeker	Posted - 2011.02.09 04:03:00 - [38] Originally by: Vardec Crom You are right, statistics can me made to verify a certain point of view if the person interpreting the statistic wasn't given the means to verify its veracity. But, if a randomly chosen, independent sample that's neither too large nor too small is put to the test, it can reliably produce results that can be extrapolated to a population. It also really floors me when people come on here saying,"x only has statistical relevance when there are thousands of instances with which to extrapolate data." You could take a sample of 100-120 and construct a reasonable confidence interval. Of course you would need data from before you noticed the change in drop rate to compare it too. Then it's just a simple matter of determining whether or not the change can be accounted for by sampling variance. To be fair, every time I've seen people making such claims it's because someone has gone and posted how the 5 hours they spent ratting totally shows that there's been a decrease in faction spawns, or some other such absurd claims. If someone takes a decent sized sample and presents data only to be scorned, then sure, step in, but as it stands the OP literally has not posted even ONE set of numbers (note that you need a tally before AND after the patch to be able to make any sort of claim as to the difference between the 2) Basically what I'm saying is that the people bashing the OP's numbers for not being usable are right, and arguing against a group of people who who may at some other time make a certain claim is kind of pointless and looks like an attempt to add some semblance of credence to the OP, even if that was not the intention.
Flyinghotpocket House Theodoulos	Posted - 2011.02.09 06:28:00 - [39] Originally by: Genji Onahara Originally by: Vivian Ramasita Actually, the OP might be right. Emphasis on "might." I'm looking at price history for Melted Nanoribbons over the past 6 months in Heimatar. Stopped reading there ... 1) Ribbon sales of any quantity worth measuring are done in Amarr and Jita. Not a marginal market. you must be off the grid right now to actually have said that. Maybe you need to join minmatar or gallente militia and see how marketed is done then since your acess to jita and amarr is cut off. and no not everybody int his game uses alts. Also militia is not a minor part of the game so dont even try to rebuttle with that little statement.
Cambarus Thunderfury Blessed Blade of the Windseeker	Posted - 2011.02.09 07:26:00 - [40] Originally by: Flyinghotpocket Originally by: Genji Onahara Originally by: Vivian Ramasita Actually, the OP might be right. Emphasis on "might." I'm looking at price history for Melted Nanoribbons over the past 6 months in Heimatar. Stopped reading there ... 1) Ribbon sales of any quantity worth measuring are done in Amarr and Jita. Not a marginal market. you must be off the grid right now to actually have said that. Maybe you need to join minmatar or gallente militia and see how marketed is done then since your acess to jita and amarr is cut off. and no not everybody int his game uses alts. Also militia is not a minor part of the game so dont even try to rebuttle with that little statement. For the record I'm not genji, but I will step in and argue this anyway because I'm bored :D 1)The matari have the worst market hub in the game. 2)Even the gallente and amarr, whose market hubs are pretty decent, come nowhere near jita in terms of people/amount of stuff bought/sold. Because of this, if you're going to be quoting market numbers, you best be doing it in jita. Also, for the record, the militia most certainly IS a small part of the game. Compare it to nullsec, or even worse, highsec, to see just how small it is. The absolute number may SEEM big to YOU, but remember that there are alliances/coalitions running around crashing nodes with their fleets because they're so absurdly large that the server can't handle their fights, and then remember that highsec is more densely populated than nullsec (at least in the popular areas)
Cosquae Caldari Lollipops for Rancors	Posted - 2011.02.09 13:22:00 - [41] Since anecdotal evidence is worth squat, I present the following information. Do with as you will. Personally I wish my sampling size were larger but due to limited pre-incursion records and limited post-incursion WH ops, 89 is the best recorded and verified sampling size I can present currently. C3 Wormhole. Pre-incursion records: 43 sites run and recorded (of which 3 were mags/radar sites). 121 Melted Nanoribbons recovered. Average of 2.81 per site. Post-incursion records: 46 sites run and recorded (of which 3 were mags/radar sites). 114 Melted Nanoribbons recovered. Averate of 2.48 per site.
Vardec Crom Executive Intervention Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.02.10 02:54:00 - [42] Edited by: Vardec Crom on 10/02/2011 02:55:20 Originally by: Cosquae Since anecdotal evidence is worth squat, I present the following information. Do with as you will. Personally I wish my sampling size were larger but due to limited pre-incursion records and limited post-incursion WH ops, 89 is the best recorded and verified sampling size I can present currently. C3 Wormhole. Pre-incursion records: 43 sites run and recorded (of which 3 were mags/radar sites). 121 Melted Nanoribbons recovered. Average of 2.81 per site. Post-incursion records: 46 sites run and recorded (of which 3 were mags/radar sites). 114 Melted Nanoribbons recovered. Averate of 2.48 per site. Hmm, not the sampling method I would consider. I think the only way to get a good test of significance would be to record the proportion of successful salvages (to clarify: the number of salvages that yield a nanoribbon) per site. Then it's a simple matter of conducting a 2 sample hypothesis test to determine if the difference can be accounted for by sampling variance. There isn't enough information here to determine if the difference is statistically significant.
trjcquee	Posted - 2011.02.10 07:53:00 - [43] That's a good start, unfortunately I don't think 89 sleeper sites (with maybe a couple of dozen sleeper wrecks per site) is anywhere near a big enough sample size. 10 or maybe 100 times that number would be better, and even then maybe not enough. All this ignores the possibility that CCP's random number generator is any good. Without knowing any of the details, however, I would wager that it's not very good at all.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.02.10 09:24:00 - [44] The 6-month market graphs for Amarr, Dodixie, Jita and Rens. Go nuts. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Vardec Crom Executive Intervention Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.02.10 16:36:00 - [45] Originally by: trjcquee Edited by: trjcquee on 10/02/2011 08:02:07 That's a good start, unfortunately I don't think 89 sleeper sites (with maybe a couple of dozen sleeper wrecks per site) is anywhere near a big enough sample size. 10 or maybe 100 times that number would be better, and even then maybe not enough. All this ignores the possibility that CCP's random number generator is broken, in which case statistically meaningful comparisons are very hard to make. They like to re-invent the wheel, and if they did so with their RNG odds are it's very much broken. Lets say theres 20 wrecks per site. Thats 860 sample size pre-incursion, and 920 post-incursion. Since were working with sampling distributions, a sample just has to be large enough to satisfy the success/fail condition. In most cases its pn > 10 and qn > 10, where p is the proportion of successes, n is the sample size, and q is the proportion of failures. Even if the drop rate was 2% it would still be a sample with sufficient size. I will say it again. YOU DO NOT NEED A SAMPLE THAT CONSISTS OF TENS OF THOUSANDS OF TRIALS IN ORDER TO PROVE STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE. In fact, sample sizes that are too large are just as invalid as samples that are too small. A sample must satisfy the 10% condition (sample can't be more than 10% of the population) because of diminishing returns. I hope you realize a change in the RNG would produce results that are statistically significant, thats exactly what a change in drop rate means.
Vardec Crom Executive Intervention Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.02.10 16:40:00 - [46] Originally by: Tippia The 6-month market graphs for Amarr, Dodixie, Jita and Rens. Go nuts. Because the market has so many factors involved and that any number of these factors could produce a change in price, an increase in demand perhaps because of incursions for example, I wouldn't say it's proof positive. It certainly points to something going on though.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.02.10 16:44:00 - [47] Originally by: Vardec Crom Because the market has so many factors involved and that any number of these factors could produce a change in price, an increase in demand perhaps because of incursions for example, I wouldn't say it's proof positive. It certainly points to something going on though. Don't look at the price ù look at the volume. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
trjcquee	Posted - 2011.02.10 20:24:00 - [48] Originally by: Vardec Crom I hope you realize a change in the RNG would produce results that are statistically significant, thats exactly what a change in drop rate means. I agree with most of what you said, but I don't think drop rates are tweaked by changing the random number generator (OK, pseudo-random number generator). Python uses the Mersenne Twister natively. For drop rates or anything else, you would take the output between 0 and 1 and scale it appropriately. You would change the scaling to change the drop rate, not the RNG itself. There should be a way to test whether CCP is using Python's native random number generator or went with their own implementation. Not sure of how to test that, but if it could be tested with a reasonable number of trials the results might be interesting.
Cipher Jones Minmatar	Posted - 2011.02.10 20:49:00 - [49] Originally by: XXSketchxx Post a spreadsheet from before with significant evidence of the previous drop rate and a new sheet with significant evidence of what you think the new drop rate is (i.e. nanoribbons per site, average nanoribbons, etc). Return with at least a sample size of say 100 (though preferably 500 or even 1000) and then we may have something to work with. Hint: basing a theory on 3 sites is foolish. Simply not enough data. Or look at the market history. The price spike came well before the last expansion. I did not keep a spreadsheet but I was averaging 4+ and now am averaging 2+.
Nishachara Special Operations Corp Mortal Destruction	Posted - 2011.02.10 21:08:00 - [50] Imo... That what OP says is almost the same thing as i would state for example that winnings on lottery in the world have been reduced since new year and that the reason for it is that either lottery companies did something or Universe nerfed lottery :P Random IS random and thats all there is :P
Dorian Wylde	Posted - 2011.02.10 21:26:00 - [51] The drop rate has gone up for me based on my observations. There I just refuted your argument with the same amount of evidence. Random is random.
Vardec Crom Executive Intervention Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.02.10 21:37:00 - [52] Originally by: trjcquee Originally by: Vardec Crom I hope you realize a change in the RNG would produce results that are statistically significant, thats exactly what a change in drop rate means. I agree with most of what you said, but I don't think drop rates are tweaked by changing the random number generator (OK, pseudo-random number generator). Python uses the Mersenne Twister natively. For drop rates or anything else, you would take the output between 0 and 1 and scale it appropriately. You would change the scaling to change the drop rate, not the RNG itself. There should be a way to test whether CCP is using Python's native random number generator or went with their own implementation. Not sure of how to test that, but if it could be tested with a reasonable number of trials the results might be interesting. I don't have much experience with coding and certainly none with python, but I imagined drop rates to work like random numbers in statistics are used. For example, let's say nanoribbons have a drop rate of 10%, 0-9 would yield a nanoribbon on a successful salvage and 10-99 would yield nothing on a successful salvage. So to change the drop rate, you would change the numbers that would yield nanoribbons on a successful salvage. I think this is what I meant when I said change the RNG.
Sauron Bauglir	Posted - 2011.02.11 07:38:00 - [53] Anyone noticed Ony deep breathes more since Incursion?
Kacer Xenro Swords Horses and Heavy Metal	Posted - 2011.02.11 10:08:00 - [54] Edited by: Kacer Xenro on 11/02/2011 10:08:51 i call BS on the OP we're still pulling 50 nanoribbons from every sleeper sites on a regular basis. besides, nanoribbons arent where the real isk is at ;) you want the loot
Alpha Rynn	Posted - 2011.02.12 11:56:00 - [55] I'm going to have to agree with the drop rate reduction, as will all of my corp members. However, I can only verify this for c3 class systems. My corp farms our static c3 almost every day, and we average many hundreds of sites a month, so I'm not basing this on some small handful of samples. When we first moved into the hole in October, we were pulling in a rough average of 5 ribbons per site, with the min-max around 2-9. I'm not sure of the exact time the drop rate changed, because we've been shrugging it off to bad luck for a while, but for at least a month, we've been seeing a depressing number of sites with a 0 ribbon yield, and almost never more than 3. In fact, in the last hour, I've done 7 sites, and received 2 ribbons total. Of the 20 my corp did prior to my arrival, the total was 9 ribbons. If you want proof of the change, look at the market data over the last year; the average price fluctuated at about 5.25M until around November, when they shot up to 7m. The vol has stayed the same or increased, but that can be attributed to an increase in the number of people farming sleepers (3 months ago, it wasn't tough to find an empty hole. Now, we haven't seen an empty c3 in the last 30-40 we've visited). You can't attribute this price increase to an increase in demand, because none of the products that require nano ribbons have spiked in volume. I'll admit that before now, I haven't been logging exact drop rates, but the long-term overall yield difference is significant. We may just have **** luck, but it doesn't seem like that's likely.
Loraine Gess	Posted - 2011.02.12 12:28:00 - [56] Originally by: Alpha Rynn I'm going to have to agree with the drop rate reduction, as will all of my corp members. However, I can only verify this for c3 class systems. My corp farms our static c3 almost every day, and we average many hundreds of sites a month, so I'm not basing this on some small handful of samples. When we first moved into the hole in October, we were pulling in a rough average of 5 ribbons per site, with the min-max around 2-9. I'm not sure of the exact time the drop rate changed, because we've been shrugging it off to bad luck for a while, but for at least a month, we've been seeing a depressing number of sites with a 0 ribbon yield, and almost never more than 3. In fact, in the last hour, I've done 7 sites, and received 2 ribbons total. Of the 20 my corp did prior to my arrival, the total was 9 ribbons. If you want proof of the change, look at the market data over the last year; the average price fluctuated at about 5.25M until around November, when they shot up to 7m. The vol has stayed the same or increased, but that can be attributed to an increase in the number of people farming sleepers (3 months ago, it wasn't tough to find an empty hole. Now, we haven't seen an empty c3 in the last 30-40 we've visited). You can't attribute this price increase to an increase in demand, because none of the products that require nano ribbons have spiked in volume. I'll admit that before now, I haven't been logging exact drop rates, but the long-term overall yield difference is significant. We may just have **** luck, but it doesn't seem like that's likely. ITT: A guy who thinks he's a market guru spouts nonsense. You said it yourself, the volume remained roughly the same, meaning the price jump is the result of higher demand.
Corporal Punishment08 NosWaffle Nostradamus Effect	Posted - 2011.02.16 17:20:00 - [57] Originally by: XXSketchxx I'm sorry I fail I loled Over the course of a few months living in a C2, I had the fortune of observing SIGNIFICANT changes in nano ribbon drops. Sometimes I would run 3 sites in a row with 2 nano ribbons dropped total. Other times I would run 1 site and get 4 to 6. There would be good weeks and bad weeks. I based everything on a weekly basis because at the end of every week, I would take my stuff to empire, sell it, buy POS fuel and trek back to the wh. I was the only one living in the C2 for about a month or so, and was able to log on every day and run every anom that sprung up. Again, some weeks I would get tons of anoms, other weeks very few. This all leads me to believe that the trends are completely random, and don't fluctuate on a daily basis, but rather a weekly or even monthly basis. But again, this is all speculation. I didn't keep spreadsheets or any of that stuff, and there could've been people sneaking in to the WH, running sites, then leaving, no way of knowing (Pretty sure this didn't happen because I would scan first thing in the morning, 2 or 3 hours after dt, find all the sites, bm, then come home half way through the day, run all the sites I had bmed, then take off, and before bed, would scan again. Also, if you live in a wh, and log in, and are the first person in the wh that day, you get a message about the system still loading, and have to log in twice. This would always happen to me every day) Anyways, to sum up, I don't think things have changed on CCPs part, though I have heard some people say that things have changed. there will always be fluctuations in drops, and I don't think they change daily. I think there's a bigger picture. _____________________________________ Real men corpse tank.
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries	Posted - 2011.02.16 18:15:00 - [58] Originally by: Corporal Punishment08 Originally by: XXSketchxx I'm sorry I fail I loled Over the course of a few months living in a C2, I had the fortune of observing SIGNIFICANT changes in nano ribbon drops. Sometimes I would run 3 sites in a row with 2 nano ribbons dropped total. Other times I would run 1 site and get 4 to 6. There would be good weeks and bad weeks. I based everything on a weekly basis because at the end of every week, I would take my stuff to empire, sell it, buy POS fuel and trek back to the wh. I was the only one living in the C2 for about a month or so, and was able to log on every day and run every anom that sprung up. Again, some weeks I would get tons of anoms, other weeks very few. This all leads me to believe that the trends are completely random, and don't fluctuate on a daily basis, but rather a weekly or even monthly basis. But again, this is all speculation. I didn't keep spreadsheets or any of that stuff, and there could've been people sneaking in to the WH, running sites, then leaving, no way of knowing (Pretty sure this didn't happen because I would scan first thing in the morning, 2 or 3 hours after dt, find all the sites, bm, then come home half way through the day, run all the sites I had bmed, then take off, and before bed, would scan again. Also, if you live in a wh, and log in, and are the first person in the wh that day, you get a message about the system still loading, and have to log in twice. This would always happen to me every day) Anyways, to sum up, I don't think things have changed on CCPs part, though I have heard some people say that things have changed. there will always be fluctuations in drops, and I don't think they change daily. I think there's a bigger picture. Nice bait. What exactly was your point (other than you fail at reading comprehension).
Corporal Punishment08 NosWaffle Nostradamus Effect	Posted - 2011.02.16 19:51:00 - [59] Originally by: XXSketchxx Originally by: Corporal Punishment08 Originally by: XXSketchxx I'm sorry I fail I loled Over the course of a few months living in a C2, I had the fortune of observing SIGNIFICANT changes in nano ribbon drops. Sometimes I would run 3 sites in a row with 2 nano ribbons dropped total. Other times I would run 1 site and get 4 to 6. There would be good weeks and bad weeks. I based everything on a weekly basis because at the end of every week, I would take my stuff to empire, sell it, buy POS fuel and trek back to the wh. I was the only one living in the C2 for about a month or so, and was able to log on every day and run every anom that sprung up. Again, some weeks I would get tons of anoms, other weeks very few. This all leads me to believe that the trends are completely random, and don't fluctuate on a daily basis, but rather a weekly or even monthly basis. But again, this is all speculation. I didn't keep spreadsheets or any of that stuff, and there could've been people sneaking in to the WH, running sites, then leaving, no way of knowing (Pretty sure this didn't happen because I would scan first thing in the morning, 2 or 3 hours after dt, find all the sites, bm, then come home half way through the day, run all the sites I had bmed, then take off, and before bed, would scan again. Also, if you live in a wh, and log in, and are the first person in the wh that day, you get a message about the system still loading, and have to log in twice. This would always happen to me every day) Anyways, to sum up, I don't think things have changed on CCPs part, though I have heard some people say that things have changed. there will always be fluctuations in drops, and I don't think they change daily. I think there's a bigger picture. Nice bait. What exactly was your point (other than you fail at reading comprehension). If you fail to see my point, you obviously did not read my post. There's no need to jump at someone who agrees with you just because they found a small portion of one of your posts amusing when taken out of context, and drew attention to it. If I hurt your ego or feelings, that was not my intent. _____________________________________ Real men corpse tank.
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries	Posted - 2011.02.16 20:03:00 - [60] Originally by: Corporal Punishment08 If you fail to see my point, you obviously did not read my post. There's no need to jump at someone who agrees with you just because they found a small portion of one of your posts amusing when taken out of context, and drew attention to it. If I hurt your ego or feelings, that was not my intent. Its just cute to see someone call fail and then go on to contradict themselves. You said you noticed significant changes, but that there have been good weeks and bad weeks. You believe things are random but think theres a bigger picture. Sorry but whatever point you were trying to make was pretty unclear.
Corporal Punishment08 NosWaffle Nostradamus Effect	Posted - 2011.02.16 21:14:00 - [61] Originally by: XXSketchxx Originally by: Corporal Punishment08 If you fail to see my point, you obviously did not read my post. There's no need to jump at someone who agrees with you just because they found a small portion of one of your posts amusing when taken out of context, and drew attention to it. If I hurt your ego or feelings, that was not my intent. Its just cute to see someone call fail and then go on to contradict themselves. You said you noticed significant changes, but that there have been good weeks and bad weeks. You believe things are random but think theres a bigger picture. Sorry but whatever point you were trying to make was pretty unclear. lol k let me break it down for you. The main point from the op was that he believes CCP nerfed the nano-ribbon drops since Incursion. My post said there are good weeks and bad weeks, but that trends could go even further than a weekly basis (Bigger picture perhaps). I suppose the key word would be "Trends". I did not keep track of data, nor did I make a spread sheet. I stated it was all speculation on my part, from what I observed during my time in a C2, but that I do not think CCP nerfed Nano-ribbons. I did not call "Fail" on anyone or anything. Quote: You said you noticed significant changes, but that there have been good weeks and bad weeks This is not a contradiction. Good weeks and bad weeks would constitute "Significant changes" Quote: You believe things are random but think theres a bigger picture This was taken out of context, from two seperate paragraphs, regarding two different theories on two different subjects. I can see why you would be so confused, having just skimmed over my post and taking bits from here and there. Perhaps you should read something in its entirety, and be sure you fully understand, before posting a nonsensical response to something not even aimed at yourself. _____________________________________ Real men corpse tank.
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries	Posted - 2011.02.16 21:27:00 - [62] Originally by: Corporal Punishment08 lol k let me break it down for you. The main point from the op was that he believes CCP nerfed the nano-ribbon drops since Incursion. My post said there are good weeks and bad weeks, but that trends could go even further than a weekly basis (Bigger picture perhaps). I suppose the key word would be "Trends". Two weeks in a C2 is hardly enough to develop ôtrendsö of any sort. Quote: I did not keep track of data, nor did I make a spread sheet. I stated it was all speculation on my part, from what I observed during my time in a C2, but that I do not think CCP nerfed Nano-ribbons. You contradict yourself again. You said you noticed significant changes. Perhaps you are inexperienced to the point where to you one site yielding 1-2 ribbons and another yielding 4-6 constitutes ôsignificant changes.ö I took this to mean however that you noticed changes in average drop rates (what the discussion is about afterall). Quote: I did not call "Fail" on anyone or anything. Yes you did. Bad memory? Quote: This is not a contradiction. Good weeks and bad weeks would constitute "Significant changes" No they donÆt. They constitute random drops. If you look at the ôaverageö over a few months, youÆd see that it evens out pretty well (along with some of the data posted in this thread). Quote: I can see why you would be so confused, having just skimmed over my post and taking bits from here and there. Perhaps you should read something in its entirety, and be sure you fully understand, before posting a nonsensical response to something not even aimed at yourself.
Corporal Punishment08 NosWaffle Nostradamus Effect	Posted - 2011.02.16 23:11:00 - [63] Originally by: XXSketchxx Originally by: Corporal Punishment08 lol k let me break it down for you. The main point from the op was that he believes CCP nerfed the nano-ribbon drops since Incursion. My post said there are good weeks and bad weeks, but that trends could go even further than a weekly basis (Bigger picture perhaps). I suppose the key word would be "Trends". Two weeks in a C2 is hardly enough to develop ôtrendsö of any sort. Originally by: Corporal Punishment08 Over the course of a few months living in a C2 Originally by: Corporal Punishment08 I can see why you would be so confused, having just skimmed over my post and taking bits from here and there. Perhaps you should read something in its entirety, and be sure you fully understand, before posting a nonsensical response to something not even aimed at yourself. Eat troll, eat. You are so weak. _____________________________________ Real men corpse tank.
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries	Posted - 2011.02.16 23:26:00 - [64] Originally by: Corporal Punishment08 Eat troll, eat. You are so weak. Congrats on still not having a firm position on the subject. PS: look up the term troll before you use it like a moron
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.02.17 00:32:00 - [65] Aaaanywayà It looks like no-one can provide any kind of evidence to support the theory that the drops have been reduced. Randomness is random and if it one thing the patter-recognition machine we have on top of our necks can't handle, it's randomness. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Michael1995	Posted - 2011.02.17 08:01:00 - [66] Random number generator still random
Raid'En	Posted - 2011.02.17 15:13:00 - [67] Edited by: Raid''En on 17/02/2011 15:13:24 i heard often customers saying their drop rated lowered since months ago. i never saw change by myself, but seems it was loooong ago, before i was doing it so... maybe. but not recently. anyway nano price went up due to learning sp (giving way more tengu pilots, more demand for nano), and neut change (less nano farmed). ---------------- Wormhole Trading
Cipher Jones Minmatar	Posted - 2011.02.17 17:17:00 - [68] Originally by: Raid'En Edited by: Raid''En on 17/02/2011 15:13:24 i heard often customers saying their drop rated lowered since months ago. i never saw change by myself, but seems it was loooong ago, before i was doing it so... maybe. but not recently. anyway nano price went up due to learning sp (giving way more tengu pilots, more demand for nano), and neut change (less nano farmed). At best you can claim they went up on speculation of said causes, as they went up before any of it actually happened. The mineral market crashed in speculation of the insurance nerf anyway.
Riatsu	Posted - 2011.02.17 18:52:00 - [69] Edited by: Riatsu on 17/02/2011 18:54:26 It is true that you need a large sample size data to make a strong point on this subject, but even if you do, you would achieve nothing. IF the drop rate were indeed lowered, then it wouldnÆt affect the players that live in a WH since its market price will increase to keep the profit/time of farming nanoribbons constant. On the other hand if the drop rate has increased, then the market price will drop but you have much more to sell and therefore the profit/time will also remain constant. The only ppl who will be effect are the ppl who buy t3 ship as the ship price will change. However there is one exception to my statement. If the drop rate was lowered in specific classes of WH space (letÆs say from C5) and increased in specific classes (letÆs say from C2). There is a chance that the market volume will remain constant. But it would mean that players in C5 will suffer and ppl from C2 would gain. (this is highly unlikely the case since the chance of equal players living in each class of WH being the same or at least the amount of nanoribbons gathered from both holes being equal to the total gathered before any change in drop would be extremely unlikely unless intended by ccp) This is highly unlikely and unless you have sufficient data from all classes of WH then there is no point of this discussion since you profit should remain constant. I will quote myself here to clarify one point. ôIF the drop rate were indeed lowered, then it wouldnÆt affect the players that live in a WH since its market price will increase to keep the profit/time of farming nanoribbons constantö ((This is not 100% constant since less ppl will buy t3Æs this factor acts as a buffer but the standard deviation should be small)) On another note. The market data shows that the volume of nanoribbons has remained app constant which is a clear indication that the increase in price was due to a different variable. THIS IS SHINIGAMIE
Valerax Orion The Corsairs Total Comfort	Posted - 2011.02.18 08:42:00 - [70] The correct way to post this entire mess would have been: "I have noticed that over a series of anomolies, based off of what I can remember, that the drop-rates of melted nanoribbons has decreased and it appears to have only been since the incursion patches. Has anyone else noticed anything similar, and does this require investigation?" As opposed to "BUT I'M RIGHT. I KNOW I AM. YOU CAN'T TELL ME I'M NOT. I KNOW I AM. BUT I AM. REALLY. AM. LA LA LA LA."
Noferatu	Posted - 2011.02.18 13:30:00 - [71] Three days ago, I collected a jaw-dropping 15 ribbons from a single Outpost Frontier Stronghold. That's a record in my experience. But it only goes to show that for C3 systems, the possible drop-rate from a single anomaly is certainly (still) high.
Cantina Pinata	Posted - 2011.02.23 15:46:00 - [72] I think the following applies here: Random * generator = random. End of. Living in WH space makes you go nuts and see things that arent there. It's part of the paranoia experience of surviving in wh space. No, drop rate for sleeper salvage hasnt changed. It changed once to accomodate building the damn ships. It's been so long ago that I cant even remember which salvage item it was but my point is everybody noticed. Also, in my experience you can get between 0 to 38 from a c5 anom with a double escalation. 0?? yes 0, it has happened to me. Never got enough MNR's from a site to build 1 complete tengu with fotm subs. Note: I said, IN MY EXPERIENCE. Some people told me they got 60 + per site. In short: OP needs to take a break from the game.
Cipher Jones Minmatar	Posted - 2011.02.24 19:20:00 - [73] I got 59 ribbons from the last 22 sites for a 2.68 average. I will get some more info from corpies and post it, and my next 20+ sites. I have the aprox. number of NPC's also but i cant remember and left my notes at home. Those were class 1 sites including the mags and radars but not the gravs and ladars.
K'uata Sayus	Posted - 2011.02.24 19:44:00 - [74] This could all be cleared up if the OP would provide a copy of his birth certificate. EVERYONE SEEMS NORMAL UNTIL YOU GET TO KNOW THEM.
Zanetia Coralis	Posted - 2011.02.24 19:49:00 - [75] Originally by: XXSketchxx Originally by: Corporal Punishment08 Eat troll, eat. You are so weak. Congrats on still not having a firm position on the subject. PS: look up the term troll before you use it like a moron He's right, you are a troll. You don't bring anything to the arguement besides skepticism. When you want to discredit any form of information, you need to come up with some form of proof yourself. The op could have very easily come up with any chart with fake numbers and you would still not believe him. Market information means absolutely nothing since there could simply be more farmers at this point in time. Honestly, I don't really care what the truth is. However, it seems you have some motive to discredit him (or try) based on the repetitive posts you keep replying with.
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries	Posted - 2011.02.24 21:29:00 - [76] Originally by: Zanetia Coralis Originally by: XXSketchxx Originally by: Corporal Punishment08 Eat troll, eat. You are so weak. Congrats on still not having a firm position on the subject. PS: look up the term troll before you use it like a moron He's right, you are a troll. You don't bring anything to the arguement besides skepticism. When you want to discredit any form of information, you need to come up with some form of proof yourself. The op could have very easily come up with any chart with fake numbers and you would still not believe him. Market information means absolutely nothing since there could simply be more farmers at this point in time. Honestly, I don't really care what the truth is. However, it seems you have some motive to discredit him (or try) based on the repetitive posts you keep replying with. So you necro'd this thread to make wild accusations about what I may or may not do if the op actually presented some sort of data (re: he literally had none). What was your contribution to this thread exactly? (The burden of proof is not on me or anyone else being skeptic: it is on the people claiming there has been a change).
Vivian Ramasita	Posted - 2011.02.24 21:31:00 - [77] Holy crap, I can't believe you guys are still talking about this.
Holdout	Posted - 2011.02.24 21:46:00 - [78] I spent 30 minutes in a WH and got 22 MNR. The drop rate has been increased significantly.
shinigamie	Posted - 2011.02.27 22:18:00 - [79] Edited by: shinigamie on 27/02/2011 22:21:22 Edited by: shinigamie on 27/02/2011 22:20:19 Edited by: shinigamie on 27/02/2011 22:18:18 Originally by: Zanetia Coralis Originally by: XXSketchxx Originally by: Corporal Punishment08 Eat troll, eat. You are so weak. Congrats on still not having a firm position on the subject. PS: look up the term troll before you use it like a moron He's right, you are a troll. You don't bring anything to the arguement besides skepticism. When you want to discredit any form of information, you need to come up with some form of proof yourself. The op could have very easily come up with any chart with fake numbers and you would still not believe him. Market information means absolutely nothing since there could simply be more farmers at this point in time. Honestly, I don't really care what the truth is. However, it seems you have some motive to discredit him (or try) based on the repetitive posts you keep replying with. DonÆt be so emo Zanetia, although I know u mean well and your trying to protect some one that seems defenceless. But the OP made some massive statements that require sufficient evidence for it to hold any weight. As a mathematician I would have to 100% agree with sketch since what he is saying is as common sense as it gets to someone who is educated in statistics. if you are not a mathematician, there is no way youÆre going to understand why he requires a good sample data to determine if these statements hold any truth. In fact even if data was provided(and they were not made up) it does not mean itÆs enough to determine anything! Several statistical tests must be done just to determine if the sample data can be used let alone be conclusive! Such as Q tests, F tests, T tests, confidence interval and many more.... However I do stand by what I said in my last post. sorry this is riatsu
Chronnick Bladerunner	Posted - 2011.02.28 00:38:00 - [80] SAME HERE! A SIGNIFICANT drop in Nanoribbons has also been observed. I'd say 50--60% drop at least. WAS going to report it as a bug...til I read this forum..now I think its probably been done purposefully.
Substantia Nigra	Posted - 2011.02.28 09:31:00 - [81] Despite all the "prove it" and randomness debates, I'd been assuming that the melted drop had been nerfed a few months ago. Sure, I can go four sites and get none then get six from a site ... but overall in medium term my take seems to have fallen quite a bit. It's not a huge problem, since I figured it was probably happening to everyone and so if it's a stable longer-term phenomenon the prices would rise to compensate .... so I have been accumulating and have quite a collection in the can waiting for next sellup day. Reduced drop in the face of unchanged or increasing demand = better seller prices ... and I kinda like that :-)
Gankit Spankit	Posted - 2011.02.28 18:17:00 - [82] agreeing with the op and his wreathes of detailed data (but wont be checking back so feel free to go nuts again once im gone). been in wh's allmost a year and used to pull in 10 - 15 on average per site, but for the last few months we are lucky to get 4 or 5, a site the other day had 3 cap escalations and we pulled in 3 nanos.
khazak mokl Amarr Black Viper Nomads	Posted - 2011.02.28 20:25:00 - [83] We recently done C5 with the 2 carrier 2 dread capital ship escalations in out home system and got between 6 and 11 nanos per site which is way down on the usual. We havent run these though for a few months so I cant say if its a recent thing or not but last year when we ran them we were getting 30-40 a site with the 4 extra cap waves. Think were having bad luck with the RND or else somethings changed.
Kengutsi Akira	Posted - 2011.02.28 20:31:00 - [84] ask a question, get a flame war about nothing having to do with the question. Sounds like EVE ------------------------------------ "You know, my foot oughta vandilize your ass"
Chronnick Bladerunner	Posted - 2011.02.28 20:42:00 - [85] And THEN people making comments about the forum that has nothing to do with the op either. ^^^^
Commander TGK Gallente The Deep Space Armada	Posted - 2011.03.01 01:53:00 - [86] I'm hearing this more and more now, we need a CCP response. This needs to be fixed.
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries	Posted - 2011.03.01 01:57:00 - [87] Originally by: Commander TGK I'm hearing this more and more now, we need a CCP response. This needs to be fixed. Yeah I'm sure they'll respond immediately given the indisputable conclusions drawn from the extensive statistical evidence that has been presented in this thread.
Vardec Crom Executive Intervention Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.03.01 05:01:00 - [88] Originally by: XXSketchxx Originally by: Commander TGK I'm hearing this more and more now, we need a CCP response. This needs to be fixed. Yeah I'm sure they'll respond immediately given the indisputable conclusions drawn from the extensive statistical evidence that has been presented in this thread. So you're suggesting that we have to PROVE to CCP whether or not they changed it, as if CCP themselves didn't know? I don't understand. The community noticed an anomaly in drop rate, and it very well may be nothing, but the WH community would like a response from CCP be it a yes or no. Nobody likes stealth nerfs. Also, I'm not a statistician and have no desire to spend dozens of hours of my free time collecting and interpreting data to MAYBE find a statistically significant conclusion, that would likely be rejected by all the supposed stats majors who would reply, "NOPE. ONLY SAMPLE SIZES OF 1 TRILLION OR MORE ARE RELEVANT" while they themselves are simply parroting their equally delusional counterparts such as yourself.
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries	Posted - 2011.03.01 05:13:00 - [89] Originally by: Vardec Crom stuff The community didn't notice ****. A couple people saw a few sites weren't giving them what they perceived as "the usual" and cried about it on the forums. You see the same thing with exploration drops and invention all the time. When CCP nerfed NIMs they announced it and explained why. A stealth nerf to drop rates would be useless right now. There is no need for it. Additionally, no one said you need a trillion unit sample size nor did anyone say you needed to do hours of statistical data analysis. Hell all you need to do is keep track of wrecks salvaged and ribbons salvaged. Maybe per site as well. Is that really that hard? Apparently so. People only ever start to question these things when the drop rates are "reduced." When they're on a luck spree and getting ribbons out the ass, its "just good luck." And as for your "the WH community would like a response from CCP." Grow up. Your sense of entitlement is pathetic.
Vardec Crom Executive Intervention Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.03.01 05:23:00 - [90] Originally by: XXSketchxx Originally by: Vardec Crom stuff The community didn't notice ***. A couple people saw a few sites weren't giving them what they perceived as "the usual" and cried about it on the forums. You see the same thing with exploration drops and invention all the time. When CCP nerfed NIMs they announced it and explained why. A stealth nerf to drop rates would be useless right now. There is no need for it. Additionally, no one said you need a trillion unit sample size nor did anyone say you needed to do hours of statistical data analysis. Hell all you need to do is keep track of wrecks salvaged and ribbons salvaged. Maybe per site as well. Is that really that hard? Apparently so. People only ever start to question these things when the drop rates are "reduced." When they're on a luck spree and getting ribbons out the ass, its "just good luck." And as for your "the WH community would like a response from CCP." Grow up. Your sense of entitlement is pathetic. I thought it was very clear that I was being hyperbolic in saying 1 trillion sample size to highlight the fact that most people parrot the sample size fallacy whenever statistical evidence is presented. Secondly, I am not part of the wormhole community, but is a significant and growing proportion of the player base, and if a concern is raised I don't see why it's such a terribly difficult thing for a community manager to email a dev, "Were nanoribbon drop rates nerfed?" Dev: "yes/no" community manager: "ok". It's called transparency and communication, something a game community is certainly entitled to and a company rendering a service should be held accountable for. As far as attempting to maintaining a spreadsheet and then performing hypothesis tests to determine statistical significance? Yes, I would consider that too much work to prove/disprove a possible* stealth nerf, when a simple one word dev response would suffice.
Riatsu	Posted - 2011.03.01 06:03:00 - [91] Edited by: Riatsu on 01/03/2011 06:07:20 Edited by: Riatsu on 01/03/2011 06:05:57 Originally by: Vardec Crom Edited by: Vardec Crom on 01/03/2011 05:28:09 Originally by: XXSketchxx Originally by: Vardec Crom stuff The community didn't notice ***. A couple people saw a few sites weren't giving them what they perceived as "the usual" and cried about it on the forums. You see the same thing with exploration drops and invention all the time. When CCP nerfed NIMs they announced it and explained why. A stealth nerf to drop rates would be useless right now. There is no need for it. Additionally, no one said you need a trillion unit sample size nor did anyone say you needed to do hours of statistical data analysis. Hell all you need to do is keep track of wrecks salvaged and ribbons salvaged. Maybe per site as well. Is that really that hard? Apparently so. People only ever start to question these things when the drop rates are "reduced." When they're on a luck spree and getting ribbons out the ass, its "just good luck." And as for your "the WH community would like a response from CCP." Grow up. Your sense of entitlement is pathetic. I thought it was very clear that I was being hyperbolic in saying 1 trillion sample size to highlight the fact that most people parrot the sample size fallacy whenever statistical evidence is presented. Secondly, I am not part of the wormhole community, but it is a significant and growing proportion of the player base, and if a concern is raised I don't see why it's such a terribly difficult thing for a community manager to email a dev, "Were nanoribbon drop rates nerfed?" Dev: "yes/no" community manager: "ok". It's called transparency and communication, something a game community is certainly entitled to and a company rendering a service should be held accountable for. As far as attempting to maintaining a spreadsheet and then performing hypothesis tests to determine statistical significance? Yes, I would consider that too much work to prove/disprove a possible* stealth nerf, when a simple one word dev response would suffice. Also, it's certainly human nature to only notice when something goes wrong. Just because we wouldn't notice a stealth buff doesn't mean there wasn't a possible stealth nerf, thus it's superfluous to the argument at hand and proves nothing. A stealth nerf you say? Assuming u was correct in the sense that they did nerf the drop rate.. would you have rather they warned you?, if so all the traders will start to stock pile all the nanoribbons and further more increase the market price and completely kill the market! THIS IS EVE Where brains matters. And if youÆre stupid enough to think CCP should spoon feed you then you should play another game. Also I am pretty sure many ppl have the data required to put an end to this but they would be stupid to share it if they have + a brain since they could use this to their advantage and make allot of isk. Sharing the data would only increase their competition. (That is; assuming a change in drop rate has been implemented) sorry for bad spelling or english. THIS IS SHINIGAMIE
Vardec Crom Executive Intervention Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.03.01 16:28:00 - [92] Edited by: Vardec Crom on 01/03/2011 16:35:04 Originally by: Riatsu Edited by: Riatsu on 01/03/2011 06:07:20 Edited by: Riatsu on 01/03/2011 06:05:57 Originally by: Vardec Crom Edited by: Vardec Crom on 01/03/2011 05:28:09 Originally by: XXSketchxx Originally by: Vardec Crom stuff stuff I thought it was very clear that I was being hyperbolic in saying 1 trillion sample size to highlight the fact that most people parrot the sample size fallacy whenever statistical evidence is presented. Secondly, I am not part of the wormhole community, but it is a significant and growing proportion of the player base, and if a concern is raised I don't see why it's such a terribly difficult thing for a community manager to email a dev, "Were nanoribbon drop rates nerfed?" Dev: "yes/no" community manager: "ok". It's called transparency and communication, something a game community is certainly entitled to and a company rendering a service should be held accountable for. As far as attempting to maintaining a spreadsheet and then performing hypothesis tests to determine statistical significance? Yes, I would consider that too much work to prove/disprove a possible stealth nerf, when a simple one word dev response would suffice. Also, it's certainly human nature to only notice when something goes wrong. Just because we wouldn't notice a stealth buff doesn't mean there wasn't a possible stealth nerf, thus it's superfluous to the argument at hand and proves nothing. A stealth nerf you say? Assuming u was correct in the sense that they did nerf the drop rate.. would you have rather they warned you?, if so all the traders will start to stock pile all the nanoribbons and further more increase the market price and completely kill the market! THIS IS EVE Where brains matters. And if youÆre stupid enough to think CCP should spoon feed you then you should play another game. Also I am pretty sure many ppl have the data required to put an end to this but they would be stupid to share it if they have + a brain since they could use this to their advantage and make allot of isk. Sharing the data would only increase their competition. (That is; assuming a change in drop rate has been implemented) sorry for bad spelling or english. Absolutely if I was involved in Wormholes I would want to be warned about a change in drop rate, as sketch pointed out, they've done it with many other things. Would this cause market speculation? Sure, maybe, but thanks to EVE's market system and the immutable laws of supply and demand an equilibrium of price and supply would be reached. Just look at the Noctis in the first week it came out, or PI after the PI fix. The one thing CCP loves to do is shake things up. Also, supposing someone had collected and interpreted data properly and discovered a change in drop rate, would that give them an advantage? I don't think your argument about CCP not telling us about nerfs is relevant at all. It is a sandbox game, where you must discover things for yourself, but deliberate changes to the game system don't fall under that category. Statistically proving a change in code is completely arbitrary.
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries	Posted - 2011.03.01 16:34:00 - [93] Quote: as sketch pointed out, they've done it with many other things. Dude, my reference to invention, exploration drops, etc was in regards to people blindly speculating at "stealth nerfs." These people usually make these claims post-patch and after doing 10 invention jobs and failing all of them or running 3 DED 4/10s and not getting the best item. These results are thus their conclusive evidence that there was a stealth nerf (great sample sizes right?). It is in our nature to try and find patterns, and these people think that their misfortune cannot simply be random; it must be tied to a design change, likely with whatever recent patch. RNG can be a pain, but thats all this is: misinterpretation of the RNG.
Vardec Crom Executive Intervention Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.03.01 16:51:00 - [94] Originally by: XXSketchxx Quote: as sketch pointed out, they've done it with many other things. Dude, my reference to invention, exploration drops, etc was in regards to people blindly speculating at "stealth nerfs." These people usually make these claims post-patch and after doing 10 invention jobs and failing all of them or running 3 DED 4/10s and not getting the best item. These results are thus their conclusive evidence that there was a stealth nerf (great sample sizes right?). It is in our nature to try and find patterns, and these people think that their misfortune cannot simply be random; it must be tied to a design change, likely with whatever recent patch. RNG can be a pain, but thats all this is: misinterpretation of the RNG. I was referring to what you said about NIM's (No idea what those are) and how CCP announced it. Listen, I do not live in a Wormhole, I have no personal stake in this. There has been some good data in this thread though, particularly the person who had counted average nanoribbons over ~90 sites. 90 sites is more than enough to draw conclusions from when were talking about SAMPLING DISTRIBUTIONS. In fact, I could perform a hypothesis test on that data if I had either the complete list of data, or if he could provide the standard deviation of each data set. Then we could easily see if the change could be accounted for by sample variance, or if there is indeed sufficient evidence to accept a change in drop rate. I understand and have seen myself people attempt to extrapolate data from obscenely small sample sizes (ie. small enough to invalidate statistical inference) but in this case I'm willing to empathize.
Flyinghotpocket House Theodoulos	Posted - 2011.04.15 05:16:00 - [95] Originally by: Cambarus Originally by: Flyinghotpocket Originally by: Genji Onahara Originally by: Vivian Ramasita Actually, the OP might be right. Emphasis on "mig 1)The matari have the worst market hub in the game. 2)Even the gallente and amarr, whose market hubs are pretty decent, come nowhere near jita in terms of people/amount of stuff bought/sold. Because of this, if you're going to be quoting market numbers, you best be doing it in jita. Also, for the record, the militia most certainly IS a small part of the game. Compare it to nullsec, or even worse, highsec, to see just how small it is. The absolute number may SEEM big to YOU, but remember that there are alliances/coalitions running around crashing nodes with their fleets because they're so absurdly large that the server can't handle their fights, and then remember that highsec is more densely populated than nullsec (at least in the popular areas) 1) minmatar have the 3rd and 5th best market hub's in the game. If you wanna talk about worst hubs maybe you should go live in dodixie where its impossible to get minmatar equipment there. Also Militia is just as big as 0.0 if CCP fixed it the 21 THOUSAND people enlisted in the militia might reactivate.
Daneel Trevize Black Viper Nomads	Posted - 2011.04.15 09:39:00 - [96] Another anecdote to follow up Khaz's previous post. We're still seeing fewer nanos, e.g. we just did a c5 mag site with 1 cap spawn, got 5 nanoribbons in total. That's about as many as you'd be happy to get from a c3 anom (got 15 from 1 yesterday so they don't seem to have been slid down any scale).

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.