These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Mynnna for CSM8

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#161 - 2013-03-26 14:22:12 UTC
mynnna wrote:

Yes, specifically, I'm using the wrong unit of time; I meant per hour. This was already covered, as you'd have seen if you hadn't scrambled to hit post as soon as you saw the error. Blink
Reading the thread from the start. Blink
I didn't know you had errored, I expected as an official candidate for an alliance you were trying to 'protect' a important asset of that alliance.
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#162 - 2013-03-26 14:26:00 UTC
Malcanis wrote:

It's just amusing to me that people who know little or nothing about 0.0 and rant on about tech moons are apparently unaware that a busy mission hub generates about as much wealth as a couple of hundred tech moons
You are correct that mission hub traders claim to make billions per day. You are incorrect to compare activity by an individual with passive activity of a corp or alliance. Or any passive activity.

IMO
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#163 - 2013-03-26 14:26:32 UTC
Nah, we're happy to take advantage of it, but "tech moons are idiotic" has been the official stance of Goonswarm for a very long time. I was merely boiling their income down into an easily recognizable form in an effort to help correct misconceptions about them. Blink

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#164 - 2013-03-26 14:36:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Bi-Mi Lansatha
mynnna wrote:
Nah, we're happy to take advantage of it, but "tech moons are idiotic" has been the official stance of Goonswarm for a very long time. I was merely boiling their income down into an easily recognizable form in an effort to help correct misconceptions about them. Blink
My conception/misconception is passive incomes are not all that desirable... maybe to supplements a players income, but it should never be a major source. The fact the Alliances/Corp have a passive income is just wrong.
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#165 - 2013-03-26 14:52:25 UTC
mynnna wrote:
...but "tech moons are idiotic" has been the official stance of Goonswarm for a very long time...
Would you like to elaborate on how you would correct this situation?
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#166 - 2013-03-26 18:43:55 UTC
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
mynnna wrote:
...but "tech moons are idiotic" has been the official stance of Goonswarm for a very long time...
Would you like to elaborate on how you would correct this situation?


Well, "The moon problem" is an amalgamation of two ideas.

Idea 1: One type of moon being so much more valuable than the rest is dumb, especially when it's not even "supposed" to be the rarest class of moon; the fact that it's regional is even worse

and

Idea 2: Top down income is dumb, and alliances should depend on actually using their space instead of grabbing a bunch of moons and oh yeah, all the space that happens to be around them.

Now, the first problem is fairly easy to fix, all things considered. The reason why Tech is so much more valuable than anything else is because it's bottlenecked - the market wants more of it than can actually be supplied. Alchemy is a relief valve, which is why Tech is only in the mid 70s now instead of 160k-200k/unit like it used to be, but even so. Addressing that, though, is easy - it's just a matter of tweaking how it's used, which means adjusting usage in the Tech II components. Ideally you bottleneck all R64s very aggressively and bottleneck R32s very lightly. Then, you use alchemy (tweaking usage and values as necessary) as a relief valve. Some alchemy reactions use R32s (which will further bottleneck them), some use lower classes of materials (which will add usage to them and give them some value), but the idea would be that, in the end, R64s are more valuable than everything (though not necessarily equally valuable), R32s are next (again, not necessarily equal) and so on. There are, of course, other ways to do it, but the advantage to this approach is that it's something they could do right now. It wouldn't require any new assets or new code or anything - just a careful analysis of how many moons are in the game, what actually gets mined, and how much gets used... for the older players, CCP would essentially do what Akita T did way back in the day around the time they nerfed dyspro and prom (he compared estimates of usage against estimates of consumption and called Tech going sky high long before it did), except CCP should have perfect info.

As to the second problem... I am, honestly, not sure how much I agree that it's a problem. While I'm a big proponent of bottom up income, I'm not sure I want to replace all forms of top down income. If they are kept around as top down, then the trick - and it's quite a trick - is to balance them so their value makes them worth having within your boundaries, but not so worth having that you can sprawl your boundaries out and take a bunch of space you won't otherwise use just to get the moons. That being an exceedingly hard target to hit is probably the single largest argument for doing away with them and replacing them with another source.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#167 - 2013-03-26 19:53:53 UTC
mynnna wrote:
...CCP would essentially do what Akita T did way back in the day around the time they nerfed dyspro and prom (he compared estimates of usage against estimates of consumption and called Tech going sky high long before it did), except CCP should have perfect info.

CCP has better info, but it is limited by their ability to ask the right questions and extract the right information. Given that there are a lot more players doing econometric modelling than there are devs in CCP Research and Statistics, the law of large numbers means that some of those players will be smart enough to ask themselves the right questions and overcome the disadvantage of imperfect information.

The same goes for just about anything related to EVE. This is why I often tell people that "no game design survives contact with the players" Twisted

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#168 - 2013-03-26 19:56:38 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
mynnna wrote:
...CCP would essentially do what Akita T did way back in the day around the time they nerfed dyspro and prom (he compared estimates of usage against estimates of consumption and called Tech going sky high long before it did), except CCP should have perfect info.

CCP has better info, but it is limited by their ability to ask the right questions and extract the right information. Given that there are a lot more players doing econometric modelling than there are devs in CCP Research and Statistics, the law of large numbers means that some of those players will be smart enough to ask themselves the right questions and overcome the disadvantage of imperfect information.


Well, I'd be happy to help them ask the right questions if it's necessary when the time comes. Big smile
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
The same goes for just about anything related to EVE. This is why I often tell people that "no game design survives contact with the players" Twisted


*coughs*

I happen to be particularly familiar with that idea. Twisted

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#169 - 2013-03-26 20:04:36 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:


The same goes for just about anything related to EVE. This is why I often tell people that "no game design survives contact with the players" Twisted


This is especially true for EVE and underlines the absolute necessity for CCP to stay in close contact with the playerbase.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#170 - 2013-03-26 21:43:11 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
[This is especially true for EVE and underlines the absolute necessity for CCP to stay in close contact with the playerbase.

It's the main reason I encourage devs to go to the community as early as possible.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#171 - 2013-03-26 21:44:04 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
[This is especially true for EVE and underlines the absolute necessity for CCP to stay in close contact with the playerbase.

It's the main reason I encourage devs to go to the community as early as possible.


They have to actually listen to the community though. Lol

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#172 - 2013-03-26 22:20:38 UTC
mynnna wrote:
They have to actually listen to the community though. Lol

Hey, you can lead a dev to forums, but you can't make him sync.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#173 - 2013-03-26 23:13:51 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:


The same goes for just about anything related to EVE. This is why I often tell people that "no game design survives contact with the players" Twisted


This is especially true for EVE and underlines the absolute necessity for CCP to stay in close contact with the playerbase.


That makes me wonder why CCP engages the winners of popularity contests rather than some actual average players. Twisted

Picking 1/1000th of player names each six months (between expansions) and asking them to hold a chat interview with a poller (preferably in their language) probably would be a wise move to understand what players do and why, rather than figure from server stats and have Mr. Congeniality 2013 tell CCP how relevant are the opinions of the friendly friends who voted him. P
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#174 - 2013-03-26 23:29:24 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
That makes me wonder why CCP engages the winners of popularity contests rather than some actual average players. Twisted

Demonstrating that you are able to endure getting multiple buckets of sh*t dumped on you and still perform serves as a quality filter. It's also good practice for what you need to do after getting elected. TwistedTwistedTwisted

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery
None ofthe Above
#175 - 2013-03-26 23:33:30 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:


The same goes for just about anything related to EVE. This is why I often tell people that "no game design survives contact with the players" Twisted


This is especially true for EVE and underlines the absolute necessity for CCP to stay in close contact with the playerbase.


That makes me wonder why CCP engages the winners of popularity contests rather than some actual average players. Twisted

Picking 1/1000th of player names each six months (between expansions) and asking them to hold a chat interview with a poller (preferably in their language) probably would be a wise move to understand what players do and why, rather than figure from server stats and have Mr. Congeniality 2013 tell CCP how relevant are the opinions of the friendly friends who voted him. P


Your criticism would be valid if CCP Devs never engaged in conversation on the forums, twitter and other media.

Since they do, it's not.

CSM is ONE of the tools they use to keep in touch with the userbase. Could they do better? Sure, always room for improvement. But your strawman falls down as factually incorrect.

To get back to topic:

Mynnna, look forward to seeing you on the council as I respect your economic wisdom, but think no one outside of the CFC and or allies and pets should vote for you. Please don't view my lack of endorsement of you as personal. As we both know, STV will of course mean any additional votes for you will fall predominately to your mates and crowd out other viewpoints.

And hopefully you'll be more careful about your units of measure in your economic analyses while serving.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#176 - 2013-03-26 23:47:10 UTC
None ofthe Above wrote:
Mynnna, look forward to seeing you on the council as I respect your economic wisdom, but think no one outside of the CFC and or allies and pets should vote for you. Please don't view my lack of endorsement of you as personal. As we both know, STV will of course mean any additional votes for you will fall predominately to your mates and crowd out other viewpoints.

And hopefully you'll be more careful about your units of measure in your economic analyses while serving.

You're not the only one who holds that view. I don't mind. ;)

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#177 - 2013-03-27 07:42:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Scatim Helicon
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
That makes me wonder why CCP engages the winners of popularity contests rather than some actual average players. Twisted


Because, as 5 minutes spent in General Discussion will tell you, the average Eve player is dumber than a sack full of bricks.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#178 - 2013-03-27 07:57:56 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:


The same goes for just about anything related to EVE. This is why I often tell people that "no game design survives contact with the players" Twisted


This is especially true for EVE and underlines the absolute necessity for CCP to stay in close contact with the playerbase.


That makes me wonder why CCP engages the winners of popularity contests rather than some actual average players. Twisted

Picking 1/1000th of player names each six months (between expansions) and asking them to hold a chat interview with a poller (preferably in their language) probably would be a wise move to understand what players do and why, rather than figure from server stats and have Mr. Congeniality 2013 tell CCP how relevant are the opinions of the friendly friends who voted him. P


They do engage with average players. Some of them very average indeed - see the Tracking Enhancer nerf thread for a topical example.

Your question is an example of the false dichotomy fallacy: that they have to choose between one OR the other, and can't use either method when it is appropriate.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#179 - 2013-03-27 07:58:29 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
[This is especially true for EVE and underlines the absolute necessity for CCP to stay in close contact with the playerbase.

It's the main reason I encourage devs to go to the community as early as possible.


They have to actually listen to the community though. Lol


Listening isn't a synonym for agreeing.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#180 - 2013-03-27 11:32:03 UTC
mynnna wrote:
As to the second problem... I am, honestly, not sure how much I agree that it's a problem. While I'm a big proponent of bottom up income, I'm not sure I want to replace all forms of top down income. If they are kept around as top down, then the trick - and it's quite a trick - is to balance them so their value makes them worth having within your boundaries, but not so worth having that you can sprawl your boundaries out and take a bunch of space you won't otherwise use just to get the moons. That being an exceedingly hard target to hit is probably the single largest argument for doing away with them and replacing them with another source.
I like your answer. You recognize there is an issue, but also no easy solution. Very wise.

Sincerely, thank you for your response.