OOC: Mathematics

Okay, a few ‘Eve is dying folks’ have been proclaiming the end of the word for a while now (like since the game started).  They do anything to prove how dead the game is . . . and keep playing with the rest of us anyways.

CCP did stop publishing their subscription numbers a few years back and then the sudden change to the industry standard of silence became proof, PROOF I say, of the imminent death of Eve.  Yet, here we are, still playing.  Funny, that.  Oh you can go places like http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility which I think is a really cool thing and see the active players for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

But it is fun to mess with numbers that we are given.  Well for me it is, sometimes. . . kinda, you know?

Now math is based on premises.  If the ‘givens’ are false then the conclusion is questionable.  So IF CCP lies about numbers then all of the following goes out the window and here is where we leave the pavement for a little off road mathing.

The givens come from CSM announcements of election for CSM9 and CSMx

CSM9 said the voter turnout was 31294  CSMX turnout was 36984

But Leeloo did tell us one more detail . . .

Eligible voters cast 36,984 votes, meaning that we have 15% increase since the last year’s election. We have also noticed a 3% turnout increase since last year and it’s a nice trend that we hope to keep for the next election as well. – CSM10 Voting results, CCP Leeloo

It is the turnout increase I want to look at.

31294/Pop9 = % turnout for the election last year, let us call that X  (and also A)  Pop9 is the eligible voters at the time of the CSM9 election

36984/Pop10 = % turnout for this year . . . which according to Leeloo is 1.03X a 3% increase.  (We will call this B because I like lots of letters in my math)  Pop10 is the elegible voters at the time of the CSMX election

If I divide B by A . . . 1.03X/X  I get 1.03 . . . the X is gone  Mathmagic, kids!

But THEN you do the fractions for B/A

36984/pop10/31294/Pop9  fraction divided by a fraction?  Invert and multiply.

B/A = 1.18 Pop9/Pop10 = 1.03  Move the Pops to the right, numbers to the left

1.18/1.03 = Pop10/Pop9 = 1.14 which seems to be about a 14% increase in the voting population this past year.

Now all of this has been done while I am recovering from a surgery and my brain is fuzzy.  Tell me where I ‘oh so obviously’ went wrong and feel free to show that those numbers are the death of Eve, not a sign of life.  And I also remind you that this is all based on the numbers as they were publicly announced.

I am proud to say that no NDA was broken in the making of this post

fly it like you won it.

m

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to OOC: Mathematics

  1. Dorian Reu says:

    And public math, too?!?

    My head hurts, but you showed your work, so….

  2. Helena Khan says:

    But, but, but…. you left out the quantum tinfoil effects in n dimensional string theory…!

    See! Proof I tell you! Proof!!!!

    🙂

  3. Catalina de Erauso says:

    I would be happier if those data could be compared to a historical series of cast votes versus voter turnout (thus could know the evolution of population and compare to server activity).

    Anyway I am happy that you made it to CSMX, Mike. Keep the good work!

  4. Hagu says:

    Isn’t it just simpler to use the CCP revenue? Isn’t the DUST and monocle revenue pretty insignificant?

    So the last numbers I saw, 2014 H1, revenue was down 527k, 1.5%. a/k/a flat.

    EVE will outlive me, but IMO the strongest argument for the EVE is dying crowd is that the Retained Earning being negative 5.4mm. No real hurry, but at some point they need to be profitable.

  5. Who cares about rational numbers, the thruthiness is, ‘eve is dying’!
    *And so are you apparantly, I received a bounty notification!*

  6. Jester says:

    Sorry, but your math is wrong right from step 1. B does not equal 1.03A. B = A + 0.03.

    Put another way, say I have a 50000 population. The first year, 5000 people vote. That’s a 10% turnout. The next year, 6500 people vote. That’s a 13% turnout, a turnout increase of 3%. But 10% * 1.03 = 10.3%, not 13%.

    Leeloo did not give enough information in public to determine a voting population increase/decrease. All we can do is draw a line of possible populations with a crossing point at 189633 ( (36983-31294)/0.03). If Pop9 Pop9. If Pop9 > 189633, Pop10 < Pop9. That line gets fuzzier depending on if "3%" equals "2.55%" or "3.49%".

    • Jester says:

      Heh, comments do not like less than signs. So replace the last paragraph with this:

      Leeloo did not give enough information in public to determine a voting population increase/decrease. All we can do is draw a line of possible populations with a crossing point at 189633 ( (36983-31294)/0.03).

      If Pop9 is less than 189633, Pop 10 went up. If Pop 9 is greater than 189633, Pop 10 went down. That line gets fuzzier depending on if “3%” equals “2.55%” or “3.49%”.

    • mikeazariah says:

      My problem is always in the translation of what a # increase means.
      One way has 3% increase IS 1.03(original) another way is the way you show which also fits the words. Mine ran through with one conclusion and yours (I think) runs out as a drop in overall population.

      But I have an issue with that. It means that when we say a big raw turnout 15% and a small rise in the turnout % means we are losing people or gaining them,

      I have fun tossing the euqations around and as a ruslt there was a lovely flurry of numbers tossed around on twitter. Good times had by all.

      m

      • Noizy says:

        But, I think most of us agree the number of subs is nowhere close to 146,000.

      • Jester says:

        Sorry Mike, but that’s just wrong, provably wrong.

        Year 1: 100000 voters. 35000 vote: 35% turnout.
        Year 2: 100000 voters, 36050 vote: 36% turnout.

        Only someone crazy would call that a 3% increase in turnout. But in that example, Y2 = Y1 * 1.03.

      • mikeazariah says:

        I am fairly sure I mention Liars damn liars and statisticians. Parsing english to math is always fun.

        m

      • Dan says:

        This may come late, but there is no crazy required. It’s exactly what a statistically trained person would call a three percent increase. Otherwise, you would refer to the increase as a three percentage point increase.

        35 to 36 ~ three percent increase
        35 to 38 = three percentage point increase

        Now the question is what do we believe the likelihood to be that a CCP employee reporting on CSM X knows that and is mindful enough to articulate it that way. That said, the fact that 1.15*1.03 yields the factual increase voter turnout this year over last year suggests that this is actually what’s going on here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s