These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

Monthly Economic Report - March 2017

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
CCP Phantom
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1 - 2017-04-21 18:28:36 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
The Monthly Economic Report for March 2017 is ready for you. The MERs contain a wealth of information about the economy in EVE. There is something for everyone: industrialist, traders, speculators, and just interested pilots can enjoy these reports.

If you want to have a closer look at the numbers, you are welcome to dig into the raw data (27 MB, zipped) for yourself!

Additionally, CCP Quant recaps the Economic Roundtable discussion from Fanfest and answers several questions in this MER (e.g. Future of regional stats, ideas about financial instruments).

Don't hesitate to review the previous reports here.


A quick reminder about the terms we use in the economic reports.

Mineral Price Index (MPI)
The Mineral Price Index (MPI) shows the price changes in all eight minerals used to produce ships and other items in EVE. The weight of each mineral in the index changes each month is based on the relative trade values of the previous month.

Primary Producer Price Index (PPPI)
The Primary Producer Price Index consists of manufacturing items used for the production of other manufacturing items at the secondary stage. Manufacturing items used for the production of final consumer goods are excluded. The index includes such item groups as ore, moon materials, planetary commodities, sleeper relics, and items used in invention.

Secondary Producer Price Index (SPPI)
The Secondary Producer Price Index contains production materials and other production items that are used in the manufacturing of consumer goods, i.e. goods included in the Consumer Price Index.

Consumer Price Index (CPI)
The Consumer Price Index measures the overall price changes of consumer products. This is not limited to consumables such as fuel, ammunition or PLEX, but also includes assets such as ships, modules, implants and starbase structures. In summary, anything that is not primarily used to produce other goods is included in the index, which contains over 4000 individual items.

CCP Phantom - Senior Community Developer
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#2 - 2017-04-21 18:46:31 UTC
VERY happy to see the bit about Liquid Ozone in this MER. It doesn't necessarily mean anything will be done about it, of course, but the fact that the LO3 problem is even recognized is great news. Hopefully it'll spur someone to act on it.

The person who asked for that data may have very well been me, but I don't remember if I asked for it to be in the MER specifically.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
EDENCOM DEFENSIVE INITIATIVE
#3 - 2017-04-21 19:25:11 UTC
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#4 - 2017-04-21 19:25:39 UTC
Quote:
On paper, it would also be pretty cool to be the first video game to implement financial instruments into a living virtual economy. An obvious next step would be to allow players to bundle bonds of default-prone players together into subprime bond packages with triple A rating with complete absence of any regulation! #eveisreal

I laughed about that. Very dark, very dark. Pirate

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2017-04-21 22:45:42 UTC
I have brought this up at the CSM level. But some of this data won't match what a player will believe is reality. Or possibly better put, it won't mean what you think it does.

Going to try to get with Quant around some of this as the data isn't accurate unless he is doing something that ignores a huge portion of the data around markets. The more we inspect with our data the more we think there is something really wrong.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Cade Windstalker
#6 - 2017-04-22 02:37:45 UTC
@CCP_Quant, the regional mining figures don't appear to have been included in this report, is this intentional, an oversight, or a result of issues getting the drone data (incluing Rorqual figures) into there?

Also, there's a large spike in the Money Supply that seems to correspond to the recent patch. Is this a result of a change in market activity and the balance of sinks and faucets, or a result of a number of characters suddenly becoming active again?


Aryth wrote:
I have brought this up at the CSM level. But some of this data won't match what a player will believe is reality. Or possibly better put, it won't mean what you think it does.

Going to try to get with Quant around some of this as the data isn't accurate unless he is doing something that ignores a huge portion of the data around markets. The more we inspect with our data the more we think there is something really wrong.


Any chance you can elaborate on which bits of the data you think are weird/off or just speak more generally to what sort of issues you're talking about here?

If you'd rather not spread speculation before talking with Quant I fully understand.
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2017-04-22 06:43:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Tipa Riot
The bounties are way out of control. The only answer is to have the bounties scale with system activity like the industry index, less bounty in constellations with high activity. Maybe also a regional soft cap, hence penalize big groups with lots of farmers. But I don't think the CSM will like that ...

... another measure to make ratting more dangerous, remove bounties altogether and replace with tags.

I'm my own NPC alt.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#8 - 2017-04-22 09:37:25 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Any chance you can elaborate on which bits of the data you think are weird/off or just speak more generally to what sort of issues you're talking about here?

If you'd rather not spread speculation before talking with Quant I fully understand.

I assume he's talking about the market figures like Total Trade Value by Region. I may or may not interpret these figures wrong, but it is very hard to believe that Delve, a region with over 20,000 residents, only has a TTV of 405B, while Deklein, a region with maybe 5-10,000 residents has a TTV of 765B, or Curse, a region that's practically dead by comparison, as a TTV of 662B. Something appears to be off with these figures or my interpretation of these figures being the combined value of all sell orders and buy orders on the market is wrong.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2017-04-22 15:18:02 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Any chance you can elaborate on which bits of the data you think are weird/off or just speak more generally to what sort of issues you're talking about here?

If you'd rather not spread speculation before talking with Quant I fully understand.

I assume he's talking about the market figures like Total Trade Value by Region. I may or may not interpret these figures wrong, but it is very hard to believe that Delve, a region with over 20,000 residents, only has a TTV of 405B, while Deklein, a region with maybe 5-10,000 residents has a TTV of 765B, or Curse, a region that's practically dead by comparison, as a TTV of 662B. Something appears to be off with these figures or my interpretation of these figures being the combined value of all sell orders and buy orders on the market is wrong.


Correct. Our current working theory is Quants #s only are tracking outposts not Cits. I can assure you that Delve isn't 405. It is so laughably off nothing else makes sense.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Rhivre
TarNec
Invisible Exchequer
#10 - 2017-04-22 15:52:23 UTC
Aryth wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Any chance you can elaborate on which bits of the data you think are weird/off or just speak more generally to what sort of issues you're talking about here?

If you'd rather not spread speculation before talking with Quant I fully understand.

I assume he's talking about the market figures like Total Trade Value by Region. I may or may not interpret these figures wrong, but it is very hard to believe that Delve, a region with over 20,000 residents, only has a TTV of 405B, while Deklein, a region with maybe 5-10,000 residents has a TTV of 765B, or Curse, a region that's practically dead by comparison, as a TTV of 662B. Something appears to be off with these figures or my interpretation of these figures being the combined value of all sell orders and buy orders on the market is wrong.


Correct. Our current working theory is Quants #s only are tracking outposts not Cits. I can assure you that Delve isn't 405. It is so laughably off nothing else makes sense.


405b isnt even the daily trade value in Delve, so I assume it is without citadels, which makes it kind of pointless for nullsec ^^

Fluffy Bunny Pic!

Circumstantial Evidence
#11 - 2017-04-22 17:09:32 UTC
Tipa Riot wrote:
The bounties are way out of control. The only answer is to have the bounties scale with system activity like the industry index, less bounty in constellations with high activity. ....
I always thought it odd that Pirate Detection Arrays allow you to "find" a nearly infinite number of pirates; surely "they" would get the idea over time that a particular system is getting too hot and slowly "move their operations elsewhere." But, player ships-in-space activity should be rewarded.

Bounty tags is an interesting, if inconvenient idea; the iHub could be the tag dispenser, since it is doing all the "finding."
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2017-04-23 11:26:31 UTC
Rhivre wrote:

405b isnt even the daily trade value in Delve, so I assume it is without citadels, which makes it kind of pointless for nullsec ^^

That would maybe also explain the decline of trade volume in the trade hub regions as an artifact of not counting in cit trade ...What?

I'm my own NPC alt.
Rhivre
TarNec
Invisible Exchequer
#13 - 2017-04-23 14:15:25 UTC
Tipa Riot wrote:
Rhivre wrote:

405b isnt even the daily trade value in Delve, so I assume it is without citadels, which makes it kind of pointless for nullsec ^^

That would maybe also explain the decline of trade volume in the trade hub regions as an artifact of not counting in cit trade ...What?


Yep, there is a few hundred T missing from the forge too

Fluffy Bunny Pic!

Lieutenant Berrendo
Tecate Rojo
#14 - 2017-04-23 17:25:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Lieutenant Berrendo
REGARDING ASSET BACKED SECURITIES ( pawning):

This seems like a pretty significant feature. Because Pawning is the ugly step-sister of gambling, it brought to mind something else I EXPECTED from CCP considering you banned 3rd party Gambling sites.

Introduce IN-GAME GAMBLING:

When you banned 3rd party gambling like; SOMER, IWANTISK, EVE-BET and EOH POKER I bet you lost alot of subscribers who played the game simply because they could gamble isk.

So you should introduce the gambling that people want: lotteries, slots, probably black jack and maybe poker. Also tournament betting.

The code for these things is simple. It would also justify a purpose for Captains Quarters and walk in Stations.

Furthermore, all the isk the aforementioned gambling sites raked in would translate to ISK SINK for CCP.

And although I may be one of the few who is mentally observant enough to have noticed CCPs efforts to redistribute EVE wealth, this gambling idea goes right along with that concept.

Obviously with Gambling, the House always wins, so what are you waiting for?

As for me I want to say I was never a big gambler, although I spent hours playing EOH Poker and Put in hundreds of billions into EVE-BET. EVE-Bet wasn't simply a game of chance.

For me though the real bonus, isnt the isk sink or catering to your players who had an alarming propensity for gambling, it is to see some functionality added to Walk in Stations.

Introduce it at EVE-Vegas for style points. Thank me later CCP.

--- Attendee of the 2013 EVE Vegas ---
Emiko P'eng
#15 - 2017-04-23 19:37:55 UTC
Lieutenant Berrendo wrote:
REGARDING ASSET BACKED SECURITIES ( pawning):

Introduce IN-GAME GAMBLING:

Just Google 'Online gambling laws' for various countries the UK and US being the main ones

You will never get gambling back into EVE unless you want to persuade a lot of thick politicians that there is a difference between a game that Kids can play that has gambling in it and Gambling sites that the laws are trying to keep Kids out of and I for one bet CCP is not willing to get onto the wrong side of the Law.

Plus, even if you got over that hurdle, then the local gambling commissions and tax departments would be interested in a game that can swap in game money for real and vice-versa (Even if it is banned by CCP's rules) that has gambling inside, the conclusion might be that the game is attempting to flout or circumvent their rules and regulations on gambling.

So stories like this wont help your cause Man Convicted Of Wire Fraud, Bilking EA Of $16 Million Worth Of FIFA Coins

So once again CCP is playing on the safe side.

Finally, some countries / states are attempting to ban all online gambling full-stop. In which case Gambling in EVE could be perceived as an attempt at a work around a total ban.

CCP is taking the easier route, banning it keeps the Lawyers bills at bay and possibly their staff out of jail.

Personally, I would support them in keeping gambling out of EVE.
Cade Windstalker
#16 - 2017-04-23 20:45:20 UTC
Aryth wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Any chance you can elaborate on which bits of the data you think are weird/off or just speak more generally to what sort of issues you're talking about here?

If you'd rather not spread speculation before talking with Quant I fully understand.

I assume he's talking about the market figures like Total Trade Value by Region. I may or may not interpret these figures wrong, but it is very hard to believe that Delve, a region with over 20,000 residents, only has a TTV of 405B, while Deklein, a region with maybe 5-10,000 residents has a TTV of 765B, or Curse, a region that's practically dead by comparison, as a TTV of 662B. Something appears to be off with these figures or my interpretation of these figures being the combined value of all sell orders and buy orders on the market is wrong.


Correct. Our current working theory is Quants #s only are tracking outposts not Cits. I can assure you that Delve isn't 405. It is so laughably off nothing else makes sense.


Okay, yeah, that makes sense.

I dunno, given the issue with the Rorquals it's possible that the script that generates those doesn't take Citadels into account.

Actually looking at the data from right before Citadels dropped (last March, ironically) and comparing that to this March's report I'm almost positive you must be correct.

Even ignoring Null Sec numbers the values for The Forge don't add up, and looking back on Econ reports before March reinforce this.
Lieutenant Berrendo
Tecate Rojo
#17 - 2017-04-24 03:55:16 UTC
Emiko P'eng wrote:
Lieutenant Berrendo wrote:
REGARDING ASSET BACKED SECURITIES ( pawning):

Introduce IN-GAME GAMBLING:

Just Google 'Online gambling laws' for various countries the UK and US being the main ones

You will never get gambling back into EVE unless you want to persuade a lot of thick politicians that there is a difference between a game that Kids can play that has gambling in it and Gambling sites that the laws are trying to keep Kids out of and I for one bet CCP is not willing to get onto the wrong side of the Law.

Plus, even if you got over that hurdle, then the local gambling commissions and tax departments would be interested in a game that can swap in game money for real and vice-versa (Even if it is banned by CCP's rules) that has gambling inside, the conclusion might be that the game is attempting to flout or circumvent their rules and regulations on gambling.

So stories like this wont help your cause Man Convicted Of Wire Fraud, Bilking EA Of $16 Million Worth Of FIFA Coins

So once again CCP is playing on the safe side.

Finally, some countries / states are attempting to ban all online gambling full-stop. In which case Gambling in EVE could be perceived as an attempt at a work around a total ban.

CCP is taking the easier route, banning it keeps the Lawyers bills at bay and possibly their staff out of jail.

Personally, I would support them in keeping gambling out of EVE.


We are talking about monolpoly money smart guy.
CCP Quant
C C P
C C P Alliance
#18 - 2017-04-24 11:38:58 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Quant
Aryth wrote:
I have brought this up at the CSM level. But some of this data won't match what a player will believe is reality. Or possibly better put, it won't mean what you think it does.

Going to try to get with Quant around some of this as the data isn't accurate unless he is doing something that ignores a huge portion of the data around markets. The more we inspect with our data the more we think there is something really wrong.


Now after a few people raising concerns on this, I took a deep dive into the numbers and the eve metrics backend was indeed resolving the regionIDs of transactions with a stationID, which doesnt resolve to Citadels! This means that the regional trade value numbers have been missing citadels from the start! Total trade value is not affected though, only the regional breakdown.

Thanks for raising the issue!

On the regional mining graph, I removed it temporarily because the underlying data doesnt include drone mining, again only the regional breakdown numbers are wrong.
mkint
#19 - 2017-04-24 13:01:49 UTC
Lieutenant Berrendo wrote:
Emiko P'eng wrote:
Lieutenant Berrendo wrote:
REGARDING ASSET BACKED SECURITIES ( pawning):

Introduce IN-GAME GAMBLING:

Just Google 'Online gambling laws' for various countries the UK and US being the main ones

You will never get gambling back into EVE unless you want to persuade a lot of thick politicians that there is a difference between a game that Kids can play that has gambling in it and Gambling sites that the laws are trying to keep Kids out of and I for one bet CCP is not willing to get onto the wrong side of the Law.

Plus, even if you got over that hurdle, then the local gambling commissions and tax departments would be interested in a game that can swap in game money for real and vice-versa (Even if it is banned by CCP's rules) that has gambling inside, the conclusion might be that the game is attempting to flout or circumvent their rules and regulations on gambling.

So stories like this wont help your cause Man Convicted Of Wire Fraud, Bilking EA Of $16 Million Worth Of FIFA Coins

So once again CCP is playing on the safe side.

Finally, some countries / states are attempting to ban all online gambling full-stop. In which case Gambling in EVE could be perceived as an attempt at a work around a total ban.

CCP is taking the easier route, banning it keeps the Lawyers bills at bay and possibly their staff out of jail.

Personally, I would support them in keeping gambling out of EVE.


We are talking about monolpoly money smart guy.

Because Valve and EA have had so much luck in paying their lawyers and gambling-related legal fees in monopoly money. Roll

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
salacious necrosis
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2017-04-24 13:16:20 UTC
Two thoughts on the Asset Backed Securities idea.

First, Quant didn't say it explicitly, but I'm curious if you imagine the mechanic to be exclusively between players (brokered by game rules) or a new type of source/sink? That is, you could provide a facility which escrows assets for cash and interest, where the cash is a new source and interest becomes a new sink. Or, you could escrow assets with cash supplied by players, with interest payments going back to players. The latter would easily become a way to formalize loans between players, possibly with competition on rates depending on how it was strucutred. If you made these loans tradeable or transferable assets (which could therefore ALSO be an ABS), then you're a step or two away from a Collateralized Debt Obligation where the fun really begins!

Second, I agree all of this is niche, but it may be a way to fill perhaps a larger gap for serious market players, which is the inability to short sell. For those that don't know, this is a way to borrow an asset, sell it in the hopes of buying it back at a lower price, then pocket the difference. I'm sure Quant has been asked about this before, it's a way to profit on a market downtrend. There's nothing preventing you from doing this now, except it requires trustworthy borrowers, etc. We could get there if players had the ability to loan their assets in exchange for interest payments (aka borrow fees) with the loaned assets then becoming available for short sellers who would need to escrow cash and make interest payments. This is sort of the inverse of the asset backed security where a player wants to tie up an asset in exchanged for a loan.

Just some crazy thoughts on a Monday morning.

Use EveKit ! - Tools for EVE Online 3rd party development
123Next page