These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Monthly Economic Report - February 2017

First post
Author
Dreamer Targaryen
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#21 - 2017-03-09 12:45:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Dreamer Targaryen
I am guessing the difference between the mining-graph (graph#0) from january and february can be explained by finally accounting for the mining-drone-data.
Yet, the graph showing the mining-value by region (graph#3) shows no significant differences between them. (Jan vs. Feb.) Additionally graph#0 shows an approximately average mining-volume of 1.75t/day resulting in almost 50t isk worth of mining during februar. Comparing that to graph#3, the number only adds up to 20.085t for the entire month (assuming I haven't made a mistake copying the numbers). Checking the ProducedDestroyedMining.csv, which might include wormholes, I get a total of 22.446t for the entire month.

My question is:
If you have the actual mining-volume data (as used in graph#0), why is it not used for the regional data and why is the correct data not in the ProducedDestroyedMined.csv, especially since that seems to be the file that is used to create graph#0?
Rogue Integer
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#22 - 2017-03-10 17:58:40 UTC
Another thanks here for including the regional data!
Cade Windstalker
#23 - 2017-03-14 17:11:48 UTC
Dreamer Targaryen wrote:
I am guessing the difference between the mining-graph (graph#0) from january and february can be explained by finally accounting for the mining-drone-data.
Yet, the graph showing the mining-value by region (graph#3) shows no significant differences between them. (Jan vs. Feb.) Additionally graph#0 shows an approximately average mining-volume of 1.75t/day resulting in almost 50t isk worth of mining during februar. Comparing that to graph#3, the number only adds up to 20.085t for the entire month (assuming I haven't made a mistake copying the numbers). Checking the ProducedDestroyedMining.csv, which might include wormholes, I get a total of 22.446t for the entire month.

My question is:
If you have the actual mining-volume data (as used in graph#0), why is it not used for the regional data and why is the correct data not in the ProducedDestroyedMined.csv, especially since that seems to be the file that is used to create graph#0?


Seconding this, the only thing I can think of that accounts for the difference in mining amounts here is the Rorqual, considering that's almost 30t that's missing from February, and it's not in the regional data.

Any chance of a CCP response to this?
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
#24 - 2017-03-17 16:28:20 UTC
No Bonus graph Cool

Eve online is :

A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online

D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification

http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg

http://bit.ly/1egr4mF

CCP Quant
C C P
C C P Alliance
#25 - 2017-04-05 14:46:57 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Dreamer Targaryen wrote:
I am guessing the difference between the mining-graph (graph#0) from january and february can be explained by finally accounting for the mining-drone-data.
Yet, the graph showing the mining-value by region (graph#3) shows no significant differences between them. (Jan vs. Feb.) Additionally graph#0 shows an approximately average mining-volume of 1.75t/day resulting in almost 50t isk worth of mining during februar. Comparing that to graph#3, the number only adds up to 20.085t for the entire month (assuming I haven't made a mistake copying the numbers). Checking the ProducedDestroyedMining.csv, which might include wormholes, I get a total of 22.446t for the entire month.

My question is:
If you have the actual mining-volume data (as used in graph#0), why is it not used for the regional data and why is the correct data not in the ProducedDestroyedMined.csv, especially since that seems to be the file that is used to create graph#0?


Seconding this, the only thing I can think of that accounts for the difference in mining amounts here is the Rorqual, considering that's almost 30t that's missing from February, and it's not in the regional data.

Any chance of a CCP response to this?


Sorry the late response, The mining data is fixed for the line graph but not for regional breakdowns Sad


Cade Windstalker
#26 - 2017-04-05 18:07:04 UTC
CCP Quant wrote:
Sorry the late response, The mining data is fixed for the line graph but not for regional breakdowns Sad




No worries on the late response, just glad to get a response at all. Thanks for the confirmation! Big smile
Armstrong Juarez
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#27 - 2017-05-20 01:33:40 UTC
Querns wrote:
Hrm. I thought the regional granularity was going away. Was this forgotten?

Previous page12