These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Why do we no longer get any economic blogs, stats, or jack from CCP anymore?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#21 - 2012-10-10 05:31:19 UTC
Massively wrote:
CCP cancels EVE's Quarterly Economic Newsletters

by Brendan Drain on Jul 26th 2011 3:00PM


Quote:
EVE Online: Incarna on PC was released on Tuesday 21 June 2011.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#22 - 2012-10-10 05:42:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
…and the fact remains: last QEN came out in 2010, covering Q4 of that year, after which they stopped making them.

The time it took for the public to realise this isn't particularly relevant to the time it actually happened. Had there been a Q1 and Q2 2011 QEN and a lot of anticipation for a Q3 one (which would have covered the “bad” spot), then you might have a point. There weren't, so you don't.

The chronology is, and always will be:
Last QEN → Incursion → Incarna.

Attributing the last point as the cause of the first means you're attributing CCP with miraculous precognitive powers that would have made the last point never happen to begin with.

So yeah, no. Incarna was not the reason for ditching the QENs.
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#23 - 2012-10-10 06:05:56 UTC
Tippia wrote:
…and the fact remains: last QEN came out in 2010, covering Q4 of that year, after which they stopped making them.

The time it took for the public to realise this isn't particularly relevant to the time it actually happened. Had there been a Q1 and Q2 2011 QEN and a lot of anticipation for a Q3 one (which would have covered the “bad” spot), then you might have a point. There weren't, so you don't.

The chronology is, and always will be:
Last QEN → Incursion → Incarna.

Attributing the last point as the cause of the first means you're attributing CCP with miraculous precognitive powers that would have made the last point never happen to begin with.

So yeah, no. Incarna was not the reason for ditching the QENs.


The previous years 1st quarter QEN was not published until June either. Or the year before. Year before that q1 wasn't released till October.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#24 - 2012-10-10 06:26:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Cipher Jones wrote:
The previous years 1st quarter QEN was not published until June either. Or the year before. Year before that q1 wasn't released till October.
…and the Q4 2010 one was released in early April — almost a full quarter before Incarna was released, so if your theory is correct, we should also have seen a Q1 2011 or even a Q2 2011 QEN before they shut it down.

We didn't, because they shut it down before Incarna. If you want to blame Incursions, then go ahead — at least that could be made to fit the chronology with a bit of lag-tweaking.

But no, Incarna was not the reason for ditching the QENs.
Hrothgar Nilsson
#25 - 2012-10-10 06:30:10 UTC
I didn't play while Dr. Eyjo wrote the quarterly reports, but I've read past ones and would love to see them brought back.

I've... seen things you people wouldn't believe...

Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion...
Esan Vartesa
Samarkand Financial
#26 - 2012-10-10 06:53:52 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Cipher Jones wrote:
The previous years 1st quarter QEN was not published until June either. Or the year before. Year before that q1 wasn't released till October.
…and the Q4 2010 one was released in early April — almost a full quarter before Incarna was released, so if your theory is correct, we should also have seen a Q1 2011 or even a Q2 2011 QEN before they shut it down.

We didn't, because they shut it down before Incarna. If you want to blame Incursions, then go ahead — at least that could be made to fit the chronology with a bit of lag-tweaking.

But no, Incarna was not the reason for ditching the QENs.


Now you're just being obtuse.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#27 - 2012-10-10 06:57:56 UTC
Esan Vartesa wrote:
Now you're just being obtuse.
Yes. Pointing out that the chronology of events doesn't support his assertion is “obtuse”.

…if by “obtuse” you mean “correct and contradicting it”.

But sure, looking closer at it, it kind of builds a case for how Incursions made them give up QENs since it would have risked revealing the drop in population that the expansion caused (which was known anyway at that point).
Esan Vartesa
Samarkand Financial
#28 - 2012-10-10 07:02:21 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Esan Vartesa wrote:
Now you're just being obtuse.
Yes. Pointing out that the chronology of events doesn't support his assertion is “obtuse”.

…if by “obtuse” you mean “correct and contradicting it”.

But sure, looking closer at it, it kind of builds a case for how Incursions made them give up QENs since it would have risked revealing the drop in population that the expansion caused (which was known anyway at that point).


Why, exactly, are you contorting yourself so painfully to maintain that QENs weren't discontinued as a result of the pre/post Incarna fiasco?

It was pointed out that the QENs were, prior to that point, as much as 2 quarters behind. You're purposefully dismissing that fact, and pretending that the chronology doesn't work.

It plainly does.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#29 - 2012-10-10 07:05:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Esan Vartesa wrote:
Why, exactly, are you contorting yourself so painfully to maintain that QENs weren't discontinued as a result of the pre/post Incarna fiasco?
Because I have this strange fondness for debunking hare-brained theories that contradict facts (in this case by claiming that later events caused earlier ones).

Quote:
It was pointed out that the QENs were, prior to that point, as much as 2 quarters behind.
…and that would be relevant if the numbers they supposedly wanted to cover up fell within a period that was two quarters back in time. As it is, it didn't. Or if it did, then the numbers they wanted to avoid sharing were those that resulted from Incursion.

To cover up Incarna, they would have had to stop the Q3 QEN. As it was, they stopped before the Q1 QEN (and they actually provided economy numbers for Q2 and Q3).
Esan Vartesa
Samarkand Financial
#30 - 2012-10-10 07:12:21 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Esan Vartesa wrote:
Why, exactly, are you contorting yourself so painfully to maintain that QENs weren't discontinued as a result of the pre/post Incarna fiasco?
Because I have this strange fondness for debunking hare-brained theories that contradict facts (in this case by claiming that later events caused earlier ones).


Bull.

The time it takes to create the QENs (up to 2 quarters apparently) doesn't negate the fact that they have access to the data from day 1. If I'm putting out quarterly reports 2 quarters behind, and am handed the latest data for the quarter just ended, and it's so terrible that we don't want to publish it, I'm not going to bother publishing the previous 2 outstanding reports that aren't so bad.

That way, apologists like you can pretend that it wasn't cancelled because of the bad data. Also, apparently these reports are SO HARD to create that it takes 6 months, and I'm lazy.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#31 - 2012-10-10 07:23:45 UTC
Esan Vartesa wrote:
Bull.
Nope. Fact.

Quote:
The time it takes to create the QENs (up to 2 quarters apparently) doesn't negate the fact that they have access to the data from day 1.
There's a difference between having access to it and being able to interpret it. Also, by the time the Q1 QEN should have gone out, even with the delay, the data for Incarna wasn't exactly in yet…

Quote:
If I'm putting out quarterly reports 2 quarters behind, and am handed the latest data for the quarter just ended, and it's so terrible that we don't want to publish it, I'm not going to bother publishing the previous 2 outstanding reports that aren't so bad.
Why not? Seems like you have a nice buffer of time to come up with a reason to stop publishing data and to counter the stream of negativity by showing that, no, the game is going strong according to your data.

Quote:
Also, apparently these reports are SO HARD to create that it takes 6 months, and I'm lazy.
…except that they did it in three and that by shifting the reporting model, they could get data out sooner. Again, the inconvenient fact is that the period skipped (January to May) covered Incursions, not Incarna. They did publish data for June — the month Incarna came out. So between Incarna — which happened after the cancellation — and Incursions — which happened before — which one is more likely to be a cause for the cancellation (assuming without proof that the expansion-related numbers are even relevant, rather than the workload)?
Mithrantir Ob'lontra
Ixion Defence Systems
#32 - 2012-10-10 07:38:21 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
when was the last QEN? when was CCP Diagoras' last tweet? when was the last DEV blog about the economy?
PLEX prices are are exploding... FW tier 5 Monty Haul campaigns are occuring more then once a week... & what else is happening? heck if I knowQuestion
The silence is deafeningCry
Is there a reason the state of the economy has beeen silenced from CCP since summer onQuestion

I can hypothesize for the PLEX prices.

First of all inflation.
Secondly the supply has fallen, thus everyone is selling PLEX at the highest price he can get.
When more and more people depend on PLEX to keep their accounts subscribed, the demand is rising.
Due to the real world economic state less people are willing to spend money for GTC, and those who do expect to get something good for their money.
Esan Vartesa
Samarkand Financial
#33 - 2012-10-10 07:43:25 UTC
OK Tippia, you've proven once again that all it takes to win an argument here is to be the most stubborn person in the room, facts be damned.

The fact that you've sought recourse in the "shifting the report model" garbage is laughable, since it was so painfully transparent as a "we're not cancelling the QENs, we're changing them into... uh, we're not sure yet. Here's a tiny sliver of data, lets pretend this is good enough, ok?" and then do that randomly 2 or 3 times and then stop.

The pathetic data they released for the Incarna period was purposefully lacking in context, which the old QENs provided, and didn't allow one to compare to previous periods because it was "NEW IMPROVED DATA".

But you win, because apparently you're more invested in the lie than I am in convincing you otherwise. I can only hope that others reading this aren't quite so willfully ignorant.
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#34 - 2012-10-10 09:06:10 UTC
Esan Vartesa wrote:
OK Tippia, you've proven once again that all it takes to win an argument here is to be the most stubborn person in the room, facts be damned.

The fact that you've sought recourse in the "shifting the report model" garbage is laughable, since it was so painfully transparent as a "we're not cancelling the QENs, we're changing them into... uh, we're not sure yet. Here's a tiny sliver of data, lets pretend this is good enough, ok?" and then do that randomly 2 or 3 times and then stop.

The pathetic data they released for the Incarna period was purposefully lacking in context, which the old QENs provided, and didn't allow one to compare to previous periods because it was "NEW IMPROVED DATA".

But you win, because apparently you're more invested in the lie than I am in convincing you otherwise. I can only hope that others reading this aren't quite so willfully ignorant.


I was wrong about how many people left and the damage it caused at first and I admit that. They even made a little chart (thanks Liang and co.) to illustrate it.

So once I was schooled I noticed CCP only releases sub data in the QEN and to MMOData.net. I said they wont release ANY sub numbers till they are at least back on the uptick. And that's exactly what happened. Co-incidence? Lol.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it
Xolve
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#35 - 2012-10-10 09:41:34 UTC
You know what this forum needs?

Less whiny Darth Nefarious posts.
The Old Chap
Doomheim
#36 - 2012-10-10 13:28:58 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Cipher Jones wrote:
The previous years 1st quarter QEN was not published until June either. Or the year before. Year before that q1 wasn't released till October.
…and the Q4 2010 one was released in early April — almost a full quarter before Incarna was released, so if your theory is correct, we should also have seen a Q1 2011 or even a Q2 2011 QEN before they shut it down.

We didn't, because they shut it down before Incarna. If you want to blame Incursions, then go ahead — at least that could be made to fit the chronology with a bit of lag-tweaking.

But no, Incarna was not the reason for ditching the QENs.


Hmmm... so lets work this out... Q1 2011's QEN should have been released a full quarter after the 2010 Q4 one. But you state that Incarna was launched "almost a full quarter after Q4 2010. Which WOULD place it after the Incarna launch.

Spookily close, don't you think?

Look into my eyes...   and tighten that sphincter, kid.
Skippermonkey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#37 - 2012-10-10 13:56:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Skippermonkey
I'd prefer to read an Akita T QEN any day of the week compared to the dribble that the 'good old doctor' ever posted

The Dr. stopped posting QENs and nothing of value was lost

just one easily found example - https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1167074#post1167074

COME AT ME BRO

I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#38 - 2012-10-10 15:26:06 UTC
Mithrantir Ob'lontra wrote:
I can hypothesize for the PLEX prices.

First of all inflation.
Secondly the supply has fallen, thus everyone is selling PLEX at the highest price he can get.
When more and more people depend on PLEX to keep their accounts subscribed, the demand is rising.
Due to the real world economic state less people are willing to spend money for GTC, and those who do expect to get something good for their money.


Number of PLEXs introduced into EVE appears to have remained steady ( although to be honest I am relying this on some information garnered out of the Market Discussion sub forum because CCP appears to have an economic blackout for the past 5months )
I doubt EVE population has increased substantially except in the number of FW alts but again I'm working out of an info vacuum for this claim.
Lack of verifyable STATS about the economy are making it tougher & tougher to post here in the forums concerning the market because now we have to worry about being censored/edited for rumors lol... 
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Previous page12