Local Comms Blackout - Discussion Thread - Part Deux!

[Shipwreck_Jones]

@Teckos_Pech

First, blackout had a positive effect on me economically because it slowed inflation and caused prices of things like MPTC’s to drop.

Now, based upon longitudinal data from the MER, it may have had a negative impact on production, but it’s impossible to say so without doing any sort of statistical analysis. After all, production had fallen during the same time period during the previous two years, and it had already been falling since well before the blackout was announced.

Moreover, it seemed to have a negligible impact on the consumer price index.

Now, this is not to say that the Blackout was necessarily a good thing, or that it didn’t have an effect on players or the economy. Indeed, if this chart is any indication, it had a huge impact on some players.

But to say that people are economic idiots in the face of what appears to be mixed evidence from the MER means that either you know even less about economics than I do, or this economic disaster talk is a bad faith argument.

Blackout wasn’t an “unmitigated economic disaster.” What it was an increase in risk for some players, and they threw a fit about it as a result.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. We all say we want Eve to be more dangerous, and that we want more content drivers. That CCP should take botting seriously, and deal with with inflation. But the moment they adjust our risk or income, we throw a fit. Because the truth of the matter is that we don’t want Eve to be more dangerous, we want it to be more dangerous for the other guy.

In fact, here’s a video of CCP Rise on TiS saying that players are quite risk adverse when it comes to their PvE. Which is a rather tactful way of saying that players are actually a bunch of hypocritical bitches.

Now, this is not meant to put anyone down. I’ve been in the same boat. I am quite risk adverse in my PvE, and I’ve gotten mad at CCP for negatively impacting my income. But I’m starting to realize that the problem is not that CCP is destroying the game. The problem is that we a significant problem with NIMBY and horse blinders when it comes to CCP fixing problems, and our knee jerk reaction is to complain rather than adapt.

[Ikki_Phoenix]

The issue with CCP and blackout has nothing to do with the supposed NIMBY, but with the fact blackout was poorly thought out, poorly communicated and hell, poorly executed. No one in their right state of mind would even dream of alienating a huge part of their player base for the sake of “testing” and getting data. Not without a way to counter that said blackout. And I think there are enough people on this thread and the original that have said a blackout with some type of counter would be ok. But a straight blackout like they did this past summer? Next time they pull that type of crap will be the last time they will all have a job…

[Merin_Ryskin]

@Ikki_Phoenix

And I think there are enough people on this thread and the original that have said a blackout with some type of counter would be ok.

IOW, “I’m ok with removing my important PvP avoidance tool, but only if there’s a counter that lets me get it back and not suffer any additional risk”.

NIMBYism is 100% correct. But you’re right about one thing: introducing it as a test was a huge mistake. It told all of the risk-averse nullbears and RMT botters that CCP was listening to feedback and they could get their PvP avoidance tool back if they complained enough. And so that’s exactly what happened. CCP should have just made it a permanent change and told the players who are too weak to cope with the fact that PvP exists to go back to WoW.

[Shipwreck_Jones]

Well, I do agree with you on some points.

I think they were surprised by the scope and degree of the negative reaction, so you could say it was poorly thought out to a certain extent.

I also think think that they did a bad job of communicating with players, which made it easier for negativity to take over. Take the war dec changes for example. They negatively impacted content availability for a lot of players, but negative outcry was quite muted. Personally, I think that’s because CCP did an excellent job convincing us that (1) there was a problem, (2) they understood it, and (3) they had the solution. This, in turn, gave players some perspective outside of their own demographics and playstyles, increased community confidence in CCP, and gave plenty of ammunition for the white knights.

Now, contrast that blackout, where CCP was just like, “here’s a thing. we’re collecting data. okay, byeeeee.” And to make matters worse, they did it immediately following Drifter Invasion, which had shaken confidence in CCP’s ability to make positive changes (on a side note, I heard somewhere that Drifter Invasion was an [ill conceived] attempt to deal with citadel spam).

So yeah, I think CCP did make some mistakes. But I don’t think they deserve all of the blame on this one. Blackout made Eve more dangerous, seriously hurt botters, and was even attracting old vets back to the game. Unfortunately, nullbears (and probably more than a few botters) did everything they could to sabotage it.

[Shipwreck_Jones]

Well, I saw in another thread a guy proposed adding blackout capability to certain ships (like recons and blackops). And I’ve heard CCP Fozzie (iirc) discuss inteleejense gathering structures for sovereign null. So, there are some knobs that could be adjusted to tweak balance between PvE’ers and hunters. I don’t know what that particular balance should be, but I think it can be tweaked.

Oh yeah, and I agree with you on saying it was a test. Besides complaining, it probably also led to a lot of players trying to wait it out, rather than adapt.

[Herzog_Wolfhammer]

Were it up to me:

• Each ship has a “transponder” similar to IFF mode 2 that the players can switch on and off.
• If you switch it off, you don’t appear in local. But if you do it in low and highsec, you get suspect flagged.
• Do it in null and … nothing happens, because bots don’t deserve anything.

[Teckos_Pech]

@Shipwreck_Jones

First, blackout had a positive effect on me economically because it slowed inflation and caused prices of things like MPTC’s to drop.

Holy crap…this is so stupid.

“I benefited there for all must benefit” is the stupidest argument around. Economics does not look at what happens to one individual but what happens to the entire economy of which you are just a tiny part.

There is no longitudinal data in the MER so STFU about that. No really. Longitudinal data would be data at say the customer account level over time. That is almost sure confidential and CCP is not sharing it. So seriously STFD and STFU.

Blackout caused the CPI to go down. Also the money supply was dropping precipitously. Again…STFU until you know what you are talking about.

Seriously…phuck of until you’ve completed you undergraduate degree and done some graduate work or read a few more advanced economics texts or something.

[Shipwreck_Jones]

@Teckos_Pech

“I benefited there for all must benefit”

I never said, nor implied that. In fact, I went on to say in the same post that blackout likely affected people by reducing incomes and increasing risk for nullbears. The reason I brought it up was because, you said that blackout was an “unmitigated” economic disaster. I was pointing out that mitigating evidence existed.

@Teckos_Pech

There is no longitudinal data in the MER so STFU about that.

Longitudinal data is data involving measurements over time. The MER containts data, and much of it is over time.

@Teckos_Pech

Blackout caused the CPI to go down.

First, blackout might have caused the CPI to go down, but we really can’t say for certain without using statistics in an attempt to control for confounding variables. Second, the decrease wasn’t anything larger than what we’ve seen before. Third, was that really a bad thing? Seriously. Now, I know that a high rate of deflation can encourage people to delay purchases, which can lead to further deflation, but (A) the deflation was mild, and (B) most players seemed to have no idea that it was happening.

@Teckos_Pech

Also the money supply was dropping precipitously.

Yeah, I saw that too. But, (A) blackout wasn’t capable of taking money out of the economy, and (B) that dip started at least a month before blackout began. Blackout, by itself, probably would have curtailed growth in the money supply, but the decrease had to be due to something that could actually destroy money (such as banning botting accounts). Either which way, blackout didn’t cause it. So, how exactly does slowing the growth in the money supply a bad thing?

@Teckos_Pech

Seriously…phuck of until you’ve completed you undergraduate degree and done some graduate work or read a few more advanced economics texts or something.

lol

[Teckos_Pech]

@Shipwreck_Jones

Longitudinal data is data involving measurements over time. The MER containts data, and much of it is over time.

No, it is time series data. Longitudinal data on the other hand tracks the same sample through different points in time. So if you had a random sample of accounts and tracked those over time then you’d have longitudinal data. Further, the data is visible by individuals in the sample as well as by time. We don’t have that.

@Shipwreck_Jones

First, blackout might have caused the CPI to go down, but we really can’t say for certain without using statistics in an attempt to control for confounding variables.

It is widely considered true that changes in the money supply drive changes in inflation as captured by various price indices along with other things. The causation is derived from the theory, not merely looking at correlations in the data. The correlations in the data are consistent with the implications of the theory. So, it is generally believed, for now, that changes in the money supply cause changes in inflation.

@Shipwreck_Jones

Second, the decrease wasn’t anything larger than what we’ve seen before. Third, was that really a bad thing?

Yes, deflation is bad. If the money supply is collapsing then prices will not be far behind and so will consumption and then production.

@Shipwreck_Jones

Now, I know that a high rate of deflation can encourage people to delay purchases, which can lead to further deflation, but (A) the deflation was mild, and (B) most players seemed to have no idea that it was happening.

It was the trajectory of the money supply that was the problem. IIRC, an entire years worth of growth in the money supply was wiped out in several weeks. That’s bad. Letting it go is bad.

@Shipwreck_Jones

Yeah, I saw that too. But, (A) blackout wasn’t capable of taking money out of the economy, and (B) that dip started at least a month before blackout began.

Of course it can. You have to understand how CCP determines the money supply. If players simply stop logging in CCP considers that ISK gone (this includes bans). Removed from the money supply. If you look at the MERs you can see this with the active ISK delta which accounts for the players simply leaving the game and thus the economy and essentially taking their ISK with them. It isn’t like the ISK in one’s wallet is going to be lent out or spent.

As for the drop in June, as you note there are other things that can affect the growth rate of the money supply. For example, Goons were deployed in the north during that time. And yes, the deployment had implications for economic activities in Delve. But when Goons returned home and blackout began the growth rate continued it’s downward trend.

You should look at the details here. There is a big change in sources (faucets) from June to July. June also had a pretty large ISK delta. By August the ISK sinks outstripped the ISK sources and the ISK delta was 3 times larger than July. And it is also possible that what we observed in June was influenced by say bans. How much of that activity took place in June? In fact, in looking at the MERs for 2019 it looks like quite a bit of the was in April-June if the active ISK delta is an indicator (Note the active ISK delta is high in January too).

So we see a collapse in the money supply and a drop in the velocity during July-September.

But sure…it can’t be blackout.

@Shipwreck_Jones

So, how exactly does slowing the growth in the money supply a bad thing?

It depends. If you slow it below the growth of the real sector you get deflation and too much of that is bad.

And gee…look at that big drop in July.

[Merin_Ryskin]

So, I am confused here: why exactly are we supposed to care about the total value of the economy over our individual wealth and power? If less ISK is being generated but that ISK is going to the people who deserve it and not to zero-skill 23/7 AFK farmers why is this a bad thing?

[Shipwreck_Jones]

Okay, I initially wrote 1800 words over two posts, I wasn’t sure if you were going to respond, and I seriously doubt anyone would want to read my wall of text. So, here’s the best TLDR that I can come up:

1. Blackout probably had economic consequences (especially for certain player groups), but it couldn’t have been an “unmitigated” disaster if there were people who were benefiting economically from it.
2. Even if blackout was causing severe economic damage, CCP possesses an unparalleled ability to intervene in their virtual economy because of their ability to essentially alter reality.
3. The peculiarities of virtual economy prevent real world economic theories from having the same explanatory power over a virtual economy:
   • Players behave differently in a virtual economy than they do in real life (they don’t have needs, can’t lose their house, can’t ruin their credit rating, they’re ultimately playing to have fun, etcetera).
   • The Devs essentially have the power to alter reality, thus they can make interventions that would be impossible in real life.
   • The mechanics of our virtual economy differ in notable ways from real economies (for example, there is a much greater degree of career mobility within Eve than in real life, players effectively print money, and CCP has to control the money supply indirectly by tweaking rewards, difficulty, risk, and other mechanics).
4. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and what you said (blackout was an unmitigated disaster and that anyone who disagreed was an idiot) was an extraordinary claim as it left no room for nuance or debate.

If you’d like to continue our discussion, great. If not, I hope you’re having fun.

[Teckos_Pech]

@Shipwreck_Jones

Blackout probably had economic consequences (especially for certain player groups), but it couldn’t have been an “unmitigated” disaster if there were people who were benefiting economically from it.

I suggest you go study both the Great Depression and the Great Recession. Both had one thing in common. Really, really stupid monetary policy where they did not respond collapsing consumption spending/money supply.

@Shipwreck_Jones

Even if blackout was causing severe economic damage, CCP possesses an unparalleled ability to intervene in their virtual economy because of their ability to essentially alter reality.

Sure, but they cannot easily bring back a player that has walked away in disgust.

@Shipwreck_Jones

The peculiarities of virtual economy prevent real world economic theories from having the same explanatory power over a virtual economy:

This is ■■■■■■■■. Supply and demand work in game just as they do out of game. Every dipshit makes this argument then turns around and appeals to supply and demand like an incoherent ■■■■-for-brains.

@Shipwreck_Jones

Players behave differently in a virtual economy than they do in real life (they don’t have needs, can’t lose their house, can’t ruin their credit rating, they’re ultimately playing to have fun, etcetera).

Actually no, they don’t. The entire problem with blackout is many players behaved quite rationally. When the risk went way up, they simply stopped creating ISK. You can see it in the Goddamned graph you linked back upstream.

@Shipwreck_Jones

The Devs essentially have the power to alter reality, thus they can make interventions that would be impossible in real life.

They cannot bring back players who have walked away in disgust.

@Shipwreck_Jones

The mechanics of our virtual economy differ in notable ways from real economies (for example, there is a much greater degree of career mobility within Eve than in real life, players effectively print money, and CCP has to control the money supply indirectly by tweaking rewards, difficulty, risk, and other mechanics).

Actually no. You have to skill into new careers which create a definite time sink…not unlike real life. Granted you might speed up the process via skill injectors, but only by using ISK which comes with an opportunity cost.

@Shipwreck_Jones

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and what you said (blackout was an unmitigated disaster and that anyone who disagreed was an idiot) was an extraordinary claim as it left no room for nuance or debate.

ISK creation going from 1.6 trillion toi 0.6 trillion is not enough for you? The ISK supply in game going back about 1 year in time…still not enough? I don’t know what other evidence can convince you besides a punch in the nose.

[Xialis]

@Teckos_Pech

ISK creation going from 1.6 trillion toi 0.6 trillion is not enough for you?

Eve has too much ISK, so if this is the metric you’re measuring by, the Blackout decreasing the supply of ISK would be a success.
Minerals are/were over abundant which should have driven down costs of things, yet a battleship costs twice as much as before.
How? Because the even more abundant ISK faucets drove the value of ISK down even more.

One thing that is different from reality that almost all of these “but the economy will tank” alarmists don’t seem to get is that a constantly growing stable economy is boring. It’s nice in the real world, no wars over resources, everything calm in the lands of plenty.

So, yes, ruin the careful systems players have built up, trash the economy, let us fight over what’s left. Those that can deal with change the best will have the advantage.

[Shipwreck_Jones]

Hey man,
saw you’re reply. I’ll respond as soon as I can. Right now, I’ve been dealing with Youtube BS. I’ve been trying to upload a 42 minute video, and it got flagged as being unfriendly to advertisers. Unfortunately, youtube doesn’t actually tell you where the offending section(s) are. So, I’ve had to break up the video int smaller and smaller chunks until I figure out what’s actually the problem. It’s been especially annoying (and time consuming), because I have such a long video, multiple offending segments, and an offending segment that appears to only get flagged sometimes.

FYI, youtube doesn’talways flag pictures showing a lot of skin (because I’ve gotten away with it before), but sometimes it acts like a puritan grandma. Also, it appears that it was a silhouette of a growing hard-on that was what was sporadically getting flagged.

Hopefully, I’ve finally got it figured out, but I’m not holding my breath.

[DeMichael_Crimson]

Wow OK, I think that was TMI…

[Shipwreck_Jones]

Lol. It wasn’t my skin. It was pictures of celebrity cleavage. It’s a long opinion piece whiteknighting CCP. So I was trying everything I could to make it as entertaining as possible, and keep people watching -which included a random tangent where I just like, “have some bewbs!”

[Onictus]

@Teckos_Pech

ISK creation going from 1.6 trillion toi 0.6 trillion is not enough for you? The ISK supply in game going back about 1 year in time…still not enough? I don’t know what other evidence can convince you besides a punch in the nose.

Hilariously, that situation is significantly better than “resource distribution” where the isk just isn’t there. There is no risk vs reward equation, just a small fraction of the previous potential.

Hope you noobs are happy.

[Shipwreck_Jones]

Dog, I don’t know if I’m being unclear, you have poor reading comprehension skills, are arguing in bad faith, or if you’re just so convinced that I’m a brain-dead idiot that you automatically assume that the most idiotic way that my comments could possibly be interpreted must be the correct interpretation. Trust me, I don’t need your help saying anything stupid… because, I can accomplish that all on my own.

Now, to clarify, I am not saying that Eve’s virtual economy is so fundamentally different from a real world economy that real world economic theories have no explanatory power, or that they are not useful in helping us to understand what’s going on. What I am asserting, however, is that Eve’s virtual economy is sufficiently different from real world economies that real world economic thinking needs to be adjusted in order to account for those differences.

Once again, for clarification, I am disputing your assertions that (A) blackout was an unmitigated economic disaster, and (B) that the proof of that was the observed downward trends in the price indexes and the dramatic falls in bounties and the money supply. This does not mean that I am not saying that blackout didn’t have any negative effect on the economy, or that it didn’t have a large negative effect on the earning of several careers. What I am saying, however, is (1) that the impact was far from calamitous, (2) that you are failing to account for (or even acknowledge the existence of) the peculiarities of Eve’s virtual economy, and (3) even had the economic impact started to become a serious problem, CCP had an enormous ability to intervene thanks to their ability to essentially alter reality.

And… how to put this delicately… I do honestly think that you are smart, and probably a hell of a lot more knowledgeable about economics than I am, but I’m also starting to seriously suspect that your emotional investment in this subject is interfering with your ability to examine the issue objectively.

Anyway, feel free to dispute my actual assertions –in fact, I’m sure to get some things wrong and to not even know about others. However, this is going to be a painstakingly slow discussion if you insist on attacking positions that I don’t actually hold.

Hopefully, I’ve finally made my overall position clear. With that out of the way (hopefully), let’s look at a few of your arguments.

[Shipwreck_Jones]

First, I maintain that people act differently within a virtual economy because I know that I certainly act differently within a virtual economy. Of course, I realize that that is anecdotal data, so I could be wrong, but I also find it rather improbable that I’m some sort of unique snowflake. Now, for clarification, I am not saying that players act completely differently in a virtual economy, or that an understanding of how actors behave in a real world economy isn’t extremely useful for understanding how actors behave in a virtual economy –what I am saying are that there are sufficient differences that need to be accounted for.

For example, as I’ve grown older, I have become extremely responsible with my money in real life. I decided a while back that I was sick of living paycheck to paycheck, not having money for things like car repair, not saving for my retirement, and having all my money evaporate on frivolous BS (i.e. going to clubs, eating out, and an unnecessary amount of clothes). However, in Eve, I am a hell of a lot looser with my money. I make impulse purchases, have spent an unjustifiable amount of isk on skins, take unnecessary risks just for fun, and make decisions with potential financial ramifications that would literally cause me severe psychological discomfort in real life. In fact, I act a hell of lot more like a late teens/early 20’s version of me, than the middle aged version of me –financially speaking, of course.

Now, an example of how this is relevant can be found when it comes to runaway deflation. It is my understanding that in real life, deflation can lead to further deflation (and severe economic consequences) because people will delay purchases when they believe they can stretch their money further by doing so. However, in Eve, I couldn’t care less. I’m not going to stop trying to have fun in my video game because I believe that I can save 5% on a PvP ship by waiting a week –I’m just going to buy it.

That being said, I’m sure that there are many speculators out there that would try to profit from changes in prices, and that there are players who will delay major purchases (such as of caps) because of substantial price differences. However, I’m willing to bet that the strength of positive feedback forces on deflation would be diminished by many players giving a much greater prioritization to fun, over fiscal responsibility, in their video game.

Does that make sense?

In fact, you seem to hold two incongruous opinions when it comes to this matter. For example, you have asserted (within the same post) that (1) players chose to stop creating ISK because of blackout, and that (2) people don’t act differently in a video games. But, didn’t they have the luxury of choosing to stop making isk because this is a video game? In real life, people have to eat, pay the mortgage, can’t decide if and when they want to show up for work (and keep their job), and so on. In a video game, they can not only quit working without negative consequences, they can literally just stop playing.

Well, I guess you can do the same thing in real life, but, for obvious reasons, “winning life” is probably less appealing.

[Shipwreck_Jones]

Now that I think about it, I better clarify my final point.

Technically, yes, people are free to quite working whenever they want in real life. But, do they actually have the ability to chose when one of the options has unacceptable negative consequences?

For example, many people in real life will continue to work jobs that they know pose significant long term health concerns, because they feel like they have no other choice. In real life, the choice for many individuals is between working and providing for their families -which, for many, is no choice at all. In video games, however, the choice is between working and being able to buy digital toys.

Thus, the lack of significant negative consequences in video games is what truly gives so many players the ability to chose not to work.

Does that make sense?