These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2012-06-08 09:28
  • First Forum Visit: 2013-01-29 22:41
  • Likes Received: 0

CCP Quant

Security Status 6.5
  • C C P Member since
  • C C P Alliance Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • Monthly Economic Report - May 2017 in EVE Information Center

    Sister Stetille wrote:
    I am by no means an economist but I do have a question. It looks like the value of itens destroyed in the last month is about 1T isk, but the insurance payouts were 5-6T isk. Is insurance paying more than what is destroyed or am I missing something?


    Value of destroyed items in the last month is about 1.1T/day, not a total for the month Smile

  • Monthly Economic Report - March 2017 in EVE Information Center

    Caleb Ayrania wrote:

    LOL that was another of those Wooosh jokes Quant :)


    Yeah I'm really trying hard now, never really managed to top my proudest oneSmile

  • Monthly Economic Report - March 2017 in EVE Information Center

    Caleb Ayrania wrote:
    @Quant

    In an ideal New Eden, the numbers regarding RAW resources like Asteroids, Gas, Ice, and Moon Materials, would be reported a lot more like prospecting in the real world. So the numbers we would get was how much is "spawned" and how much is remaining. Not how much is mined or by who.

    Before anyone say: well that is the "same thing just, do the math", the argument is that with such numbers you would get the estimated valuation of regions and not their current productivity and utilisation. Such valuation transperency would be a potential motivation for more dynamic conflict. It would also make it a lot easier for CCP to tweak the knobs regarding distribution, and create scarcety and shortages, that would mean less of the current horrible "self sufficiency" designs.

    The spawns would be "new discovered resources"..

    Designing in this direction and utilizing the MER as an actual game feature, would create a lot of emergent gameplay.

    Something along those lines also ties very well into the potential of using the upcoming ledger feature. Since that is fundamentally a prospecting tool.

    NB: As I asked Karkur at fanfest, it would also be a good time to give the scanning modules an overhaul and integrate them into something like a unified scanning UI. So your roid scanner, ship scanner, and cargo scanner, all had their results show in the scanner, in a "ledger like" format. Showing estimates on values, volumes, etc. These scans should/could be directly exportabla and sharable for intel purposes.

    Just my personal thoughts on the subject matter.


    It's an interesting proposal, I'll need to pick CCP Tuxford's brain on spawn mechanics to see if this is possible. That being said, is it really close to reality to report estimated total remaining amounts of raw resources? I've got a feeling the diamond industry (to name one) secretly disagrees Smile I guess we could compare mining output to the theoretical maximum volume that spawns to make an estimated "utilisation ratio" ?

  • Monthly Economic Report - March 2017 in EVE Information Center

    Rhivre wrote:
    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    Caleb Ayrania wrote:
    Quant are you intentionally trying to confuse people?

    You talk about the trade and then suddenly its about the mining data?

    HALP.. What data are you taking where?

    I hope you are taking the trade data and adding it to the system trade data "container" ?

    I think it will be an even weirder report if you add mining data to the trade tables?

    ShockedShockedShockedShockedShocked


    Um, his statements were perfectly clear, I asked a couple of different questions, one was about regional mining data and another was about the market data that Aryth was asking about.

    That's why there's an answer about Mining data and one about Citadels vs Station IDs.



    I think the confusion was this line in the Regional Trade Values bit
    Quote:
    I changed this join to join to the solarSystemID of the mining event instead, so the mining values are now properly assigned to solarsystems and regions in our data backend


    Ahhh, I was confused until I read over my post and saw I mixed mining into the trade section Shocked edited Big smile

  • Monthly Economic Report - March 2017 in EVE Information Center

    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    @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.



    The next economic report will have correct regional mining and trading figures Big smile

    The spike in money supply is due to a chunk of users coming back

    Outline of the discrepancy in the data :

    • Regional Trade value: The sql procedure that gathers these metrics in detail from the logs did an "inner join" on stationID to a table containing a list of known locations in the eve universe (static data), hence citadels were left out by effect of the inner join, I changed this join to join to the solarSystemID of the transaction instead, so the transactions are now properly assigned to solarsystems and regions in our data backend
    • Mining drones missing from Regional Mining Value: Back in the days before big data we logged (and still log) some events like mining into an sql table. The data job that gathered mining data aggregated by solarSystemID and oreTypeID took its data from this aforementioned sql table. Drone mining events are not logged into that one, but into our event log (big data), so I made a map/reduce job to replace the legacy sql code for getting the data.


    Edit: Please bring said cookies to the next player event we will both attend.

  • Monthly Economic Report - March 2017 in EVE Information Center

    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.

  • Monthly Economic Report - February 2017 in EVE Information Center

    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


  • 3 best feature additions to Eve since you started playing? in EVE Communication Center

    Go on, I'll be making a wordcloud out of this Big smile

  • Dev blog: Monthly Economic Report - December 2016 in EVE Information Center

    HandelsPharmi wrote:
    Tipa Riot wrote:
    nezroy wrote:
    Do Little wrote:
    I don't think we need to know which Citadels are responsible for the activity but it would be useful to know what contribution they are making to the economy - with a regional breakdown if possible but I'd be happy to see an overall number.


    Cat's already out of the bag though... if stupid unicode characters were the problem I think we can all guess precisely which citadels are responsible...

    Info is known already, just look here: https://www.adam4eve.eu/stats_structure_markets.php



    It does NOT show the ISK-volume of contracts.

    The Keepstar in Maila would be number one :)

    I will trade via contract a Ibis for 100B ISK to myself all days long and the volume would be 10T ISK / month ^^


    We wouldn't include contracts anyway Smile I was looking at total market trade volume, and as Tipa Riot said, that info is already available.

  • Dev blog: Monthly Economic Report - December 2016 in EVE Information Center



    This has now been fixed!

    http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/71808/1/5a_trade.balance.by.region_update.png

    http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/71808/1/5_trade.balance.m3.by.region_update.png

    http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/71808/1/1_regional.stats_update.png


  • Dev blog: Monthly Economic Report - December 2016 in EVE Information Center



    Shocked thanks for the heads up, I'll look into it first thing in the morning

  • Dev blog: Monthly Economic Report - December 2016 in EVE Information Center

    Rivr Luzade wrote:
    Usual question: Trade item value in citadels compared to stations?


    Funny story (bro), I added a graph for the top 20 trade stations/citadels and ran into unicode issues, since the citadels are all named something funny, and couldn't be arsed to figure it out... I'll give it a second try at some point soon (tm)

  • Dev blog: Monthly Economic Report - December 2016 in EVE Information Center

    Querns wrote:
    Was excavator mining amount reporting fixed for this month's stats?


    As far as i know the logging of mining by drones hasn't been fixed yet Sad


    Mierin Arthie wrote:
    Would it be possible to include PI in future updates?


    Yes it seems relatively trivial to add PI to the mix, I'll look into it

  • Dev blog: Monthly Economical Report - November 2016 in EVE Information Center

    Baldrick UK wrote:
    Quote:
    Market: markets currently have two taxes, transaction's tax, applied for sold items, and broker's fee for non immediate orders, which are set at 1.5% and 1% respectively. To create an environment more competitive for Citadels, we plan on increasing the transaction tax to 2.5% and the broker's fee to 5-6%. Players trading in citadels will still receive the transaction tax, but the broker's fee will be at the complete discretion of the owner. To avoid confusion for the owner, the broker relations skill will not affect player set broker's fee in Citadels.


    But on one of the support pages it states that the Transaction Tax has remained at 1.0% for Accounting Level 5 and that is confirmed by my characters who can all still get 1.00% Transaction Tax in NPC stations and Citadels.


    The following graph that you cite is compelling:Top sinks and faucets over time though recall that in February / March / April the Transaction Tax divided by Trade was still 1.00%, as expected. Since then, on this graph, there has been not notable shift in the Transaction Tax line through the summer and autumn or any sort of step that would indicate a sudden change in the Transaction Tax rate.

    Also, surely Trade by now would be back or close to February levels? On your data it is still about 39% below. However, if we assume the Transaction Tax rate is actually 1.00% of Trade (because the main traders have Accounting Level 5) then the actual Trade is at the same level as February.



    Sorry for the confusion. Transaction tax used to be 1.5% before skills, 0.75% at max skills, but is now 2% (1% at max skills). Patch notes

  • Dev blog: Monthly Economical Report - November 2016 in EVE Information Center

    Scotsman Howard wrote:
    CCP Phantom wrote:
    Our data wizard, CCP Quant, has compiled the latest Monthly Economic Report for November 2016.

    Enjoy the report!

    If you want to have a closer look at the numbers, you are welcome to consult the raw data (21 MB, zipped).


    Has there been any concern about the faucet/sink ratios? It would see we have been seeing more isk come into the economy lately, but if you were to add the "faucets" that are now going to player (brokers fees, jumps clones, etc.) the difference is a little better.

    It seems since CCP has turned many sinks into simply player-to-player transfers, we are heading toward inflation if this trend continues. It would probably become more significant once more people get indy arrays up and all those sinks go to players.

    Heck, could you just let us know that you feel comfortable with how the economy is progressing or that you are keeping on eye on things lol?


    https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=471995

    Quote:
    Market: markets currently have two taxes, transaction's tax, applied for sold items, and broker's fee for non immediate orders, which are set at 1.5% and 1% respectively. To create an environment more competitive for Citadels, we plan on increasing the transaction tax to 2.5% and the broker's fee to 5-6%. Players trading in citadels will still receive the transaction tax, but the broker's fee will be at the complete discretion of the owner. To avoid confusion for the owner, the broker relations skill will not affect player set broker's fee in Citadels.


    The following graph in the report shows the effect: Top sinks and faucets over time

  • Dev blog: Monthly Economical Report - November 2016 in EVE Information Center

    Amelia Fitzgerald wrote:
    Why is there a total mining value by region but no total bounty value by region breakdown?


    Good point, I'll add a bounty by region graph to the next release!

    Querns wrote:
    Hey, CCP Quant, did that mining drone logging thing mentioned on the first image in the devblog get fixed, or is it still outstanding? Did it affect the total mining amount by region graph too?


    https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=postmessage&t=502493&f=247&q=6737778

    It affects the total mining in that mining volume by drones is partially reported at best. Still not fixed because of development priorities

    Akrasjel Lanate wrote:
    Whats the new definition of a "active character" ?


    New definition of Active: Everyone who has logged in for the past 30 days.

    Scotsman Howard wrote:
    CCP Phantom wrote:
    Our data wizard, CCP Quant, has compiled the latest Monthly Economic Report for November 2016.

    Enjoy the report!

    If you want to have a closer look at the numbers, you are welcome to consult the raw data (21 MB, zipped).


    Has there been any concern about the faucet/sink ratios? It would see we have been seeing more isk come into the economy lately, but if you were to add the "faucets" that are now going to player (brokers fees, jumps clones, etc.) the difference is a little better.

    It seems since CCP has turned many sinks into simply player-to-player transfers, we are heading toward inflation if this trend continues. It would probably become more significant once more people get indy arrays up and all those sinks go to players.

    Heck, could you just let us know that you feel comfortable with how the economy is progressing or that you are keeping on eye on things lol?


    If you look at the isk float graph you can see that if anything we're doing better this year than any year before. This is mainly because of the citadel launch (tax changes, structure bpos seeded, etc.). Although bounties have been steadily increasing (and we're following that closely), then the sinks have been high enough to counter it so far.

    Rivr Luzade wrote:
    Same question as always: How valuable are market Fortizars around hubs compared to hubs themselves?


    I've considered adding a top trade hub list to the report, now the player-run tradehub in perimeter has surpassed Amarr and is in 2nd place after Jita 4-4

  • Monthly Economical Report - August 2016 in EVE Information Center

    Nevyn Auscent wrote:

    CCP Quant/Phantom.
    How will active Isk Delta be tracked with Alpha clones? Since in theory every account ever made suddenly will become active again.
    What metric will you use to separate out such accounts.


    Good question, we'll have to re-define active ISK. My current definition is something along the lines of: If an account has not been logged into for 30 days, it is inactive. This will present some discontinuity between the pre- and post-CSA economic reports, but lets see how this goes.

    Jafaar Amarr wrote:
    For clarification:
    Are the "Brokers Fees" purely NPC or is a lot of this ISK just going to Fortizar owners and the like?

    I am refering to ISK sinks and faucets page.


    Brokers Fees (ISK) going to Fortizar owners still remains in the economy(in the hands of players), i.e. those aren't sinks. The only sinks would be broker fees going to NPCs.

    Tsukino Stareine wrote:
    I asked in the last thread but think nobody was watching it. Which one represents the blue loot buy orders being fulfilled?


    This is a part of the Commodity (NPC Market), which also contains e.g. Overseers effects. I'll look into ways to break this up.


    Rivr Luzade wrote:
    How much in terms of item value was moved to safety after the destruction of the first couple of market Fortizars in Perimeter, Ashab, Niyabainen, New Caldari and other areas.
    What's the trade value/volume in the high sec market Fortizars compared to such in Low/Null sec?


    I might be able to add trade hubs to the reports... I ran into some unicode issues with their names though :)



    Epigene wrote:
    I would love to see some WH numbers:


    1. Kills in WH by class
    2. Production in WH over time by class
    3. Mining in WH including / excluding Gas
    4. Citadels installed / class



    Any chance we get a look at this?


    I'd love to include WH stats, but we have to find a proper way of doing it without breaking immersion, W-Space isn't under concord surveillance :)

  • Dev Blog: Introducing Clone States & the Future of Access to EVE in EVE Information Center

    Hendrick Tallardar wrote:
    So does this mean Free Trial links/referrals are going away?


    Nope, there will be a suitable replacement, stay tuned Smile

  • Monthly Economic Report - June 2016 in EVE Information Center

    Rhivre wrote:
    Hi CCP Quant!

    One question....are citadels included on this market data?

    Just asking because broker fees went from 18T to 11T, and Jita total market trade value went from 595T, 597T, 517T in March, April and May respectively, to 399T last month.


    They *should* be included, I'll get back with a confirmation on it. A drop like this could be explained by various factors. Way more people logged in when the expansion was released compared to today (more people are on vacation or outside Smile), we had an active war back then which is not so active now, citadels were originally very expensive then settled down with time, some part of trading is moving into 0% brokers fee citadels, etc. etc.

  • Monthly Economic Report - June 2016 in EVE Information Center

    naed21 wrote:
    In future reports, could WHs be added into the various region categories? Perhaps by size (c1-c6) or just w-space as a single region. It might not be very significant but the data isn't complete without it. : )


    I would really like to add wormholes to the report. However, first we'll have to come up with lore-reasons for why we have that data available, wormholes being out of concord's reach and all Big smile