EVE Search - Mr Economist (Eyjog?) @ fanfest

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Mr Economist (Eyjog?) @ fanfest

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Hayaku Codolle	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:13:00 - [31] Originally by: Kalle Demos I havent seen it but chances are based on comments the guy is nervous or not keen on talking, but thats just based on the situation. Based on what I have seen from other speakers, I noticed that some DEV's mention had way more complex presentations but had to trim down the detailed information. Stuff like, how many plexes are out there, how many are used and where to go/stay is juicy information for RMT peeps. Last fanfest he his presentation was much more detailed and interesting, so I guess his information flow got under lock down. And for godsakes, he's an economist... not a evelopedia database.
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:30:00 - [32] Originally by: Akita T Payouts below market price don't do anybody any good. Yes it does... And I have no idea where you got the idea that insurance payouts below market price was in any way not intended or desirable.
Heathrow	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:44:00 - [33] It would be quite interesting to know exactly why EVE's economy is apparently in dire peril or on the verge of collapse. It's a shame then that all the comments in this thread with those implications fail completely to actually back them up. But then I'm out of the loop so by all means enlighten me. Why is the sky falling?
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:44:00 - [34] Damn i couldnt watch it , but considering past achivmnets of the CCP's economist i am sure the presentation sucked.
Mitchello Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2011.03.25 22:48:00 - [35] Originally by: Hayaku Codolle Originally by: Kalle Demos I havent seen it but chances are based on comments the guy is nervous or not keen on talking, but thats just based on the situation. Based on what I have seen from other speakers, I noticed that some DEV's mention had way more complex presentations but had to trim down the detailed information. Stuff like, how many plexes are out there, how many are used and where to go/stay is juicy information for RMT peeps. Last fanfest he his presentation was much more detailed and interesting, so I guess his information flow got under lock down. And for godsakes, he's an economist... not a evelopedia database. Which is bull. Folks have been collecting market data for estimates since ages, besides the market accumulated data over time gives more than enough data for anything from manipulation to whatever. Besides, CCP is smart, fearless and transparent, etc. As an economist who's job it is to run an R&S department and a virtual economy he should have an intrinsic familiarity, understanding, and solid factual knowledge readily available at any given time. Also, capping plex prices. RMT is going to love that.
Cailais Amarr Neo-Tech Solutions	Posted - 2011.03.26 00:43:00 - [36] Economics = pseudo "social" science. None of em have got the foggiest tbh. C. the hydrostatic capsule blog
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2011.03.26 01:03:00 - [37] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Originally by: Akita T Payouts below market price don't do anybody any good. Yes it does... And I have no idea where you got the idea that insurance payouts below market price was in any way not intended or desirable. Insurance payouts at (more or less) market price WERE intended. That was the whole point of insurance from the word go. The only relevant payout value however is 70% of payout, not 100% of it. It's only bad if 70% of payout is HIGHER than market prices. Or, in other words, it's only bad if the payout is above 142.8% of market price. Ok, ok, if you want to get technical, due to broker fees and sales taxes, it's a lightly different value, or if you also take laziness into account, the value might be reversed... but you get the gist of it The point is, you only REALLY have a BIG problem when it becomes more convenient/profitable to simply blow ships up instead of selling them on the market. Other than that, the higher the payout, the BETTER. Higher payouts for T1 ships means the cost of losing and replacing your lost ship is lower (down to just the cost of fittings in case of 70% payout equaling market price of that ship), so people are more likely to engage in more risky PvP combat while flying larger ships (just below capitals ; for capitals, the motivations change, but that story is much more complicated) which means manufacturers have something to do (produce new ships), miners have something to do (mine replacement minerals) and almost everybody's happy (possible exceptions being people that get suicide-ganked and people that try to inflict large amounts of ISK damage to enemies flying non-capital ships). _ Make ISK\|\|Build\|\|React\|\|1k papercuts _
Voogru Gallente Massive Damage	Posted - 2011.03.26 03:00:00 - [38] So CCP's lead economist is no different than all real world economists? That makes perfect sense. This was probably his economics teacher: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlVDGmjz7eM
Dani Nardieu Gallente	Posted - 2011.03.26 06:44:00 - [39] Originally by: Akita T LOWER payouts obviously have the opposite effect. People become less likely to want to risk combat, and number of destroyed ships goes down. Out of those that do engage in combat, a non-trivial percentage increasingly prefers to switch to faction/T2/T3 ships instead of using plain vanilla T1, increasing demand for them and sending their prices upwards too, until the increased prices feed back into demand lowering it enough for a new, higher-priced equilibrium. Out of all ship types, T2 ships will suffer the highest price increase, because their maximum possible supply is limited by moongoo availability, while the others can have their supply augmented. This means that moongoo bottlenecks become even more pronounced, and the value of bottleneck mineral moons skyrockets, making the big powerbloc owners tighten their grip even more on them, bringing more and more of their supercap fleet to bear. Oh, and since there's much less demand for basic T1 ships, supercaps would tend to become slightly cheaper, so more of them would get constructed. All in all, lower payouts trigger a more risk-averse behaviour and encourage blobbing. Obviously, the above are the worst/best case scenarios, but you get the gist of it... you can see it happening on a smaller scale already. So, no, Rakshasa, lower payouts really don't do anybody any good. REALLY. That's dumb. Lower payout: - discourages suicide ganking - discourages use of MASSIVE COMPLETLY FREE DRAKE AND ALPHA BATTLESHIP FLEETS FOR LITTLE TO NO LOSS IF THEY ALL DIE Also risk-adverse behaviour and less ships dieing increases prices wait what ? How the hell is there a bigger bottleneck if ships don't die ? Where are all those massive T2 fleets ?
Hayaishi Gallente Aperture Harmonics	Posted - 2011.03.26 07:50:00 - [40] I for one enjoyed his presentation. Would you folks have preferred if he had not done one at all? Or just read out the report like a children's bed time story?

Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2011.03.26 08:04:00 - [41] Edited by: Akita T on 26/03/2011 08:06:22 Originally by: Dani Nardieu That's dumb. Lower payout: - discourages suicide ganking - discourages use of MASSIVE COMPLETLY FREE DRAKE AND ALPHA BATTLESHIP FLEETS FOR LITTLE TO NO LOSS IF THEY ALL DIE First off, why in the world would we want to discourage suicide ganking ? If anything, it needs to be heavily encouraged, it doesn't happen nearly often enough. As for the second part - exactly, LESS COMBAT. And we DON'T like that. Besides, it's not like losing a ship even near insurance breakeven would be free... it still costs you in terms of rigs and modules... and we're quite far from that anyway, payouts are BELOW market price, so a whole frigging truckload below insurance breakeven. Quote: Also risk-adverse behaviour and less ships dieing increases prices wait what ? How the hell is there a bigger bottleneck if ships don't die ? Can't you bloody read ? In this case, T1 prices HAVE A TENDENCY TO drop, faction/T2/T3 prices HAVE A TENDENCY TO rise. Also, who said ships don't die ? They still die, but in different numbers (less overall) and proportions (whole lot less T1, slightly more faction/T2/T3). You have several types of people that contribute to the above: * people that USED to fly faction/T2/T3 ships and therefore will STILL fly them even if they go up in price and will just work more to compensate for the increase in price * people that USED to fly T1 ships that will SWITCH to faction/T2/T3 because, hey, if they lose a lot of cash anyway, they might as well fly a better ship * people that USED to fly T1 ships that will QUIT FIGHTING altogether because fighting just became too expensive for them. Quote: Where are all those massive T2 fleets ? What massive T2 fleets ? I wasn't talking about noticeably more than what you used to have, just SLIGHTLY more than what you used to have. And we USED to have massive HAC fleets not that long ago. Sniper fleets. Originally by: Hayaishi I for one enjoyed his presentation. Would you folks have preferred if he had not done one at all? Or just read out the report like a children's bed time story? Gee, wilkers, sir, you are asking if would I prefer fried marshmallows thrown on the ground or marshmallows thrown on the ground and stomped on ? Or that maybe I prefer no marshmallows at all ? Uh... I don't know... can't I just have normal marshmallows without the mud and stomping ? Please ? _ Make ISK\|\|Build\|\|React\|\|1k papercuts _
Lise Kahel	Posted - 2011.03.26 10:19:00 - [42] Originally by: Dani Nardieu - discourages use of MASSIVE COMPLETLY FREE DRAKE AND ALPHA BATTLESHIP FLEETS FOR LITTLE TO NO LOSS IF THEY ALL DIE Assuming people insure ships. I have never done it, I simply forget.
Morphisat Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering	Posted - 2011.03.26 10:55:00 - [43] The presentation was quite interesting I thought, why would an economist an amazing stage presence ?
Flynn Fetladral Caldari BlackSite Prophecy	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:01:00 - [44] Yeah I have to say, I found it one of the most interesting of the ones show on the live stream. Follow Flynn on Twitter
Hayaishi Gallente Aperture Harmonics	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:18:00 - [45] Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 26/03/2011 08:06:22 Originally by: Dani Nardieu That's dumb. Lower payout: - discourages suicide ganking - discourages use of MASSIVE COMPLETLY FREE DRAKE AND ALPHA BATTLESHIP FLEETS FOR LITTLE TO NO LOSS IF THEY ALL DIE First off, why in the world would we want to discourage suicide ganking ? If anything, it needs to be heavily encouraged, it doesn't happen nearly often enough. As for the second part - exactly, LESS COMBAT. And we DON'T like that. Besides, it's not like losing a ship even near insurance breakeven would be free... it still costs you in terms of rigs and modules... and we're quite far from that anyway, payouts are BELOW market price, so a whole frigging truckload below insurance breakeven. Quote: Also risk-adverse behaviour and less ships dieing increases prices wait what ? How the hell is there a bigger bottleneck if ships don't die ? Can't you bloody read ? In this case, T1 prices HAVE A TENDENCY TO drop, faction/T2/T3 prices HAVE A TENDENCY TO rise. Also, who said ships don't die ? They still die, but in different numbers (less overall) and proportions (whole lot less T1, slightly more faction/T2/T3). You have several types of people that contribute to the above: * people that USED to fly faction/T2/T3 ships and therefore will STILL fly them even if they go up in price and will just work more to compensate for the increase in price * people that USED to fly T1 ships that will SWITCH to faction/T2/T3 because, hey, if they lose a lot of cash anyway, they might as well fly a better ship * people that USED to fly T1 ships that will QUIT FIGHTING altogether because fighting just became too expensive for them. Quote: Where are all those massive T2 fleets ? What massive T2 fleets ? I wasn't talking about noticeably more than what you used to have, just SLIGHTLY more than what you used to have. And we USED to have massive HAC fleets not that long ago. Sniper fleets. Originally by: Hayaishi I for one enjoyed his presentation. Would you folks have preferred if he had not done one at all? Or just read out the report like a children's bed time story? Gee, wilkers, sir, you are asking if would I prefer fried marshmallows thrown on the ground or marshmallows thrown on the ground and stomped on ? Or that maybe I prefer no marshmallows at all ? Uh... I don't know... can't I just have normal marshmallows without the mud and stomping ? Please ? I'm sure you're familiar with the Permaband hit song "HTFU"? Why don't you go ahead and do it?
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:29:00 - [46] Originally by: Hayaishi I'm sure you're familiar with the Permaband hit song "HTFU"? Why don't you go ahead and do it? How clever and witty ! I was certainly not expecting that ! Pray tell, what exactly am I supposed to harden myself against again ? _ Make ISK\|\|Build\|\|React\|\|1k papercuts _
Rikki Sals Caldari	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:43:00 - [47] Aren't insurance payouts a pretty significant isk generator? Keeping them lower might help maintain a more "ideal" isk-to-stuff ratio. But I too would like to see the payouts adjusted more frequently, even if only to get a better idea of what their goals are.
Hayaishi Gallente Aperture Harmonics	Posted - 2011.03.26 11:44:00 - [48] Edited by: Hayaishi on 26/03/2011 11:46:08 Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Hayaishi I'm sure you're familiar with the Permaband hit song "HTFU"? Why don't you go ahead and do it? How clever and witty ! I was certainly not expecting that ! Pray tell, what exactly am I supposed to harden myself against again ? What I mean is that you should just take what he said and either accept it or ignore it. He's an economist, not the Messiah... If you don't like what they're doing/done, go run for CSM and tell them face to face, maybe then they will tell you (quite possibly again) why.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.03.26 13:11:00 - [49] Originally by: Rikki Sals Aren't insurance payouts a pretty significant isk generator? Third largest after bounties and mission rewards. àbut if that's a problem, reducing bounties and mission rewards would be a (far) better way to go. 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
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2011.03.26 18:56:00 - [50] Edited by: Akita T on 26/03/2011 19:01:29 Originally by: Hayaishi What I mean is that you should just take what he said and either accept it or ignore it. He's an economist, not the Messiah. Riiiiiiiight, and us (or, in this case, me) commenting about his lack of proper understanding of the EVE economy (with examples), you know, the one thing he's talking about all the time in an area where he's supposedly the expert... that's somehow not according to party policy and needs to be reprimanded ? Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Rikki Sals Aren't insurance payouts a pretty significant isk generator? Third largest after bounties and mission rewards, but if that's a problem, reducing bounties and mission rewards would be a (far) better way to go. To give the rest of you guys some idea, it's something around 78% bounties, 12% agent mission rewards (regular+bonus combined) and only around 10% insurance payouts (from which you need to subtract the insurance premiums, so more around 7% net). _ Make ISK\|\|Build\|\|React\|\|1k papercuts _

Centri Sixx	Posted - 2011.03.26 19:12:00 - [51] Edited by: Centri Sixx on 26/03/2011 19:12:58 Akita T, we do NOT need to encourage suicide ganking, but for a different reason. It inhibits people's desire to PvP by reinforcing the passivity of the victim. You wont increase suicide ganking that much, because there's a limited number of gankees (edit), and eventually they will move into less vulnerable aspects of play. But you will be reinforcing that PvP is something to avoid. Players are risk averse, and PvP only works when you encourage losing players to keep playing. I had an idea that you could do so by making PvP missions that rewarded players with points that worked towards cosmetic Incarna gear like clothes or costumes. Win or Lose, you get points, and that way even the bears have a goal to work forwards to. A PvP dailly, in other words.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.03.26 19:15:00 - [52] Originally by: Centri Sixx Akita T, we do NOT need to encourage suicide ganking Sure we do. There's far too little of that going on at the moment. On top of that, we need to see a lot more PvP going on in highsec through other mechanics as well, but that's a somewhat different discussion. 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
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2011.03.26 19:18:00 - [53] Well, to be fair, BLIND suicide ganking (the kind that right now makes up a majority of suicide ganks) could use a bit of discouraging. And the "who cares if my ship blows up, I have friends/alts to pick the wreck up" attitude is not very beneficial either. However, the "targeted" suicide-ganking (you know, the kind where you first get scanned to see if you're holding something valuable) needs to be encouraged. And if we could find a way to enable even to a small degree solo suicide ganking for profit, that would be even better. But... all of that is a whole different set of cans of worms, and nothing that can be easily solved just yet. Meanwhile, neither I nor any of my alts have EVER been suicide ganked. I repeat... I was not successfully suicide ganked even once. And I was carrying pretty heavy-duty loads at times, and there have been attempts (just none successful). To me that says there's nowhere near enough of a threat from suicide gankers, or at least not the right kind of threat. _ Make ISK\|\|Build\|\|React\|\|1k papercuts _
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.03.26 19:57:00 - [54] àI'd even go so far as to say that the shift towards blind ganking proves how rare ganks have become: people are now feeling so safe in highsec that some ships are made into gank targets simply because they are statistically highly likely to fit enough high-value mods. These ships are so valuable on average that you don't need to scan them (and, in fact, sorting through potential targets with scanning is a waste of time and manpower and thus reduces the efficiency of your ganking endeavour). I highly doubt that this value creep would happen if space wasn't truely (not just perceptually) far too safe. 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
Hakaru Ishiwara Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.03.26 20:11:00 - [55] Originally by: Dani Nardieu Originally by: Akita T ... REALLY. That's dumb. Lower payout: - discourages suicide ganking - discourages use of MASSIVE COMPLETLY FREE DRAKE AND ALPHA BATTLESHIP FLEETS FOR LITTLE TO NO LOSS IF THEY ALL DIE... This is not true at all from a practical standpoint. First of all, the smart suicide gankers pick their targets carefully, ensuring that the reward is greater than the loss. Those who gank for the shear pleasure of it could not care less if they just lost several million for giggles over a dead fleet of macks. Second, even IF the fleet pilot remembers to insure her ship, the insurance payout level has minimal impact on whether or not she participates in a fleet. The combination of null-sec ISK earning (for now) as well as various alliance reimbursement programs mitigate that blow to the wallet. And, tbh, many people simply forget to insure their ship hull, but still manage to make it into fleets with proper ships. Also, as others have stated above, the cost of rigs, modules and consumables (ammo, paste, etc.) ensure that a ship loss is not free even with a 100% payout on the hull.
Aineko Macx	Posted - 2011.03.26 20:23:00 - [56] Originally by: Christos Hendez "i wouldnt say it takes us years to acknowledge it - it takes us years to do something about it" CCP Economist when asked about tehcnetium and insurance fraud. That was me asking btw. In the round tables I raised the question again why CCP and especially the economics department ignore problems in upcoming changes spotted by players, also asking especially about the case of Tech. Paraphrasing the answer: That might be an intentional driver for conflict. We argued that this highly regionalized point resource is not working as intended and causing too much imbalance for both economy and 0.0 landscape. I pushed for at least a more equal demand for R64s. Then the Dr. agreed to bring up the issue with game design. ________________________ CCP: Where fixing bugs is a luxury, not an obligation.
Maplestone	Posted - 2011.03.26 21:47:00 - [57] If he is missing important trends, perhaps it would be best to suggest what statistics would be helpful indicators to be pulling from the database that would show good or bad trends that concern you?
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2011.03.26 21:52:00 - [58] Originally by: Maplestone If he is missing important trends, perhaps it would be best to suggest what statistics would be helpful indicators to be pulling from the database that would show good or bad trends that concern you? As if he haven't been doing just that almost ever since the first QEN has been out ? _ Make ISK\|\|Build\|\|React\|\|1k papercuts _
Strazdas Unstoppable	Posted - 2011.03.26 21:54:00 - [59] The guy is acting like a real economist (and i should know, i am one) - talks a lot but doesnt really say anything.
Maplestone	Posted - 2011.03.26 22:34:00 - [60] Originally by: Akita T As if he haven't been doing just that almost ever since the first QEN has been out ? I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you or you're misunderstanding me, but I think we have our wires crossed here. Pehaps I'm just missing some background of commonly discussed topics? If you feel the playerbase understands the economy better than he does, what indicator/lever do you suggest predicts/controls the outcomes CCP desires better than the ones being currently measured/used?



Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.