How is that Eve blog list of yours

Many of us have our blog reading lists.  Some of us used Google reader, at least until the shutdown was announced (and coming soon).  I have moved to feedly.
 
My readership sources, in order are:

• Google
• www.evebloggers.com
• eveoganda.blogspot.com
• greeygoblin.blogspot.com
• www.ninveah.com

I get google links on the strength (or lack thereof) of my posts (though I also suspect google reader).

The next most important source of readers, is Eve Bloggers.  It's a great site, and has introduced many readers to my site, for better or worse.  The only problem is that the last blog list update that I can find on it is July 2012.  There is one site on that list that appears to be robot filled once/day.  There are new sites that should be on that list and are not (though I have submitted them on behalf of their authors).

Well, I can either complain, or do something about it.  I try not to indulge in pointless whining when there is something I can do.

So, I will (re) announce yet another blog roll.  http://foo-blogroll.blogspot.com.au/

I have added (almost) all the Eve bloggers list. I looked again at http://cognitiveindustries.com. I have added those that are on my current reading list (which is actually much more than I have on the right hand side of this blog).  I have even started hunting through other blogs that I read, and have added many more blogs.  I also need to go back over the list and find any additions.

I however, have not yet finished even a first pass of looking at other blog lists.  Every so often the blogger interface doesn't want to play nice.  Other times, first life interferes, or I just want to play Eve.

• 23 blogs with changes in the last 24 hours, plus
• another 32 blogs with changes in the last week, plus
• many more with older posts.

This is an open invite to leave your blog URL as a comment, either to this post or to the 'blogroll' website.  This post (read way down the bottom) gives the guidelines for inclusion.

If someone else wants to do a prettier job, or use/build a tool actually designed to handle this type of job, I am willing to point readers in your direction and/or come to an arrangement regarding the blogroll itself.

Breakdown of a wormhole vote part 2

Today's post is in response to Gevlon's post about the CSM; specifically exploring the exclusion rounds of the wormhole candidates : Cipreh and Ayeson.  This is also a follow up on yesterday's post.

Tldr;

• Random leakage normally doesn't matter, unless someone is already close to a quota
• Preferences clearly flowing in a direction do matter.
• Leakage happens when voting 'below the line'.  
• The wormhole 5 got the seats their vote allowed.

The analysis below pays no attention to where the votes originated from, merely looking at the result of these exclusions.  I also have not spent any time pulling apart the numbers on the null bloc candidates.


First of all I grabbed the votes from Trebor's analysis, grabbing the end of rounds (before and after) any two candidates are excluded.

I then look at the change in votes for all candidates as the candidate is excluded, both in raw terms and then in % of votes terms.

Numbers are available as either (crudely formatted) HTML below, or a google doc.

Exclusion of Cipreh

After this exclusion, 74% of Cipreh's votes remained within the wormhole group.

If you were to treat the WH group as a political party, they would prefer to retain more votes; but groups are leaking votes all over the place for many candidates.

The good news for the wormhole candidate is that the votes leak without strong preference flows to any set of candidates, with the 'preferred' non-wormhole candidate (Roc Weiler) only getting 0.9% benefit. 

I note that Ayeson,  got the least benefit (2.9%) of  the wormhole candidates from Cipreh's exclusion, and James Arget received the most benefit (10.2%)

Exclusion of Ayeson

After this exclusion, 58% of Ayeson's votes remained within the wormhole group.

This shows that Ayeson's supporters have a majority preference for other wormhole candidates, but only just a majority.

However, again the leakage is largely random with the preferred non wormhole candidate (Ali Aras) picking up 1.4%.   This compares to Nathan's 2.9% boost, and James 13.6% boost.

Common items from both exclusions

There is a high correlation between the strength of each candidate and the benefit they get from random leakage.  If you had a high vote before the exclusion, then you were likely to get more votes of the leakage.

When would this have mattered?

For this election, the random leakage would have only mattered if there was already a 'rival' candidate close to a quota. For example, if the quota was 2260 at the exclusion of Ayeson, then Ali would have been elected at that round.  However if a rival candidate was this close, they would have most likely been elected anyway.

In real life, I have however once seen this kind of leakage deliver a seat to a 'hostile' party.  It can happen, but not normally.

Below the line voting

This election was what we would call in Australia, 'below the line'. Read http://www.aec.gov.au/voting/How_to_vote/Voting_Senate.htm for a description of 'above the line' or 'below the line'.

In CSM 8, voters may have been given instructions on how to vote, but they had to select their their own candidates.  There will be leakage under these circumstances, but in the two excluded candidates I have looked at, there was no advantage to any candidate outside the wormhole group.

Now, if CSM bring in a 'simpler' form of voting, where, while notionally, votes are still STV, but you delegate the allocation of preferences to a group ticket ('above the line'), the leakage outside the ticket will be almost negligible.  In Australia, where the choice is given, the more candidates that someone has to vote for, the more likely they are to vote above the line, or not simply not cast a valid vote.

Leakage applies in both directions, both in and out.  Reduce one, and the other is generally reduced as well.

Real life comparison.

Even in real life, voters are notorious for not following ticket instructions.  Parties in Australia often will advise on who to send preferences to.  For 'below the line' elections, these are nearly as often disregarded as observed.  Party instructions matter, but voters will do their own thing.

Gevlon's claim that the WH group could get 3 candidates.

The wormhole group had less than 2 quota's of first preference votes. For them to have received a third seat would have taken an incredible flow from non-wh candidates, requiring over a quota of leaked votes from elsewhere.  While observations on previous elections are not laws to be followed, it would have been truly remarkable for that to occur.  Getting as close as they did was remarkable enough.

Initially, the wormhole group had 1.9 quotas; when Nathan Jameson was eliminated (the last eliminated candidate)  they had 2.4 quotas (or 1482 votes past the quota to elect the 2 seats they got)  The next candidate (Mike Azaria) had 0.9 quotas (or 2885 votes).  For the wormhole candidates to get the third spot, they have to get their third vote in front of Mike.  That is, pick up another 1404 votes.

There was a leakage from Cipreh of 154 votes, and a leakage for Ayeson of 311 votes; totalling 465 votes.  If the wormhole block had kept every single vote on their ticket, they still would have missed out on their third seat by 939 votes.

In my opinion, the wormhole candidates simply did not have the first preference votes to support a third seat, this time around, and had more than enough first preference votes to get the second seat.

[edit: see Gevlon's clarification below.  I may have misrepresented his position]

Table of results. (also available as a google doc)

	candidate	With Cipreh	Exclude Cipreh	Change	%change		With Ayeson	Exclude Ayeson	change	%change
	Ali Aras	2171	2178.64	7.64	0.35%		2211.83	2242.12	30.29	1.37%
	Artctura	709.85	712.9	3.05	0.43%		0	0	0
	Awol Aurix	670.11	670.19	0.08	0.01%		0	0	0
	Ayeson	716.41	737.46	21.05	2.94%		744.104	0	-744.1
	Banlish	1228.24	1229.32	1.08	0.09%		1626.97	1638.72	11.75	0.72%
	Chitsa Jason	1690.17	1847.8	157.63	9.33%		1862.99	1956.9	93.91	5.04%
	Cipreh	595.27	0	-595.27			0	0	0
	Corebloodbrothers	1498.03	1500.13	2.1	0.14%		1509.01	1510.42	1.41	0.09%
	Greene Lee	1688.69	1691.96	3.27	0.19%		1706.04	1718.71	12.67	0.74%
	James Arget	1667.35	1837.76	170.41	10.22%		1856.72	2108.31	251.59	13.55%
	Kaleb Rysode	608.22	610.03	1.81	0.3%		0	0	0
	Kesper North	2955.75	2960.49	4.74	0.16%		3305	3300	-5
	Korvin	2079.91	2084.01	4.1	0.2%		2096.63	2107.26	10.63	0.51%
	Malcanis	1788.24	1800.79	12.55	0.7%		1833.78	1852.72	18.94	1.03%
	Mangala Solaris	2787.69	2802.88	15.19	0.54%		2876.05	2905.38	29.33	1.02%
	Mike Azariah	1811.84	1814.77	2.93	0.16%		1840.66	1854.17	13.51	0.73%
	mynnna	3313	3309	-4			3305	3300	-5
	Nathan Jameson	1652.24	1744.18	91.94	5.56%		1770.37	1857.7	87.33	4.93%
	progodlegend	2357.46	2365.77	8.31	0.35%		2393.28	2401.29	8.01	0.33%
	PsychoBitch	713.9	718.96	5.06	0.71%		751.917	758.533	6.62	0.88%
	Psychotic Monk	1560.43	1566.7	6.27	0.4%		1599.92	1617.52	17.6	1.1%
	Ripard Teg	3313	3309	-4			3305	3300	-5
	riverini	900.26	904.75	4.49	0.5%		932.135	943.285	11.15	1.2%
	Roc Wieler	833.54	840.96	7.42	0.89%		863.783	874.074	10.29	1.19%
	Sala Cameron	1563.76	1564.84	1.08	0.07%		1892.33	1913.65	21.32	1.13%
	Sort Dragon	3299.07	3301.21	2.14	0.06%		3305	3300	-5
	Steve Ronuken	1307.12	1308.31	1.19	0.09%		1326.06	1337.05	10.99	0.83%
	Travis Musgrat	966.43	966.68	0.26	0.03%		979.716	980.886	1.17	0.12%
	Trebor Daehdoow	2187.45	2204.57	17.12	0.78%		2242.12	2258.39	16.27	0.73%
	Unforgiven Storm	970.69	973.11	2.42	0.25%		1298.45	1311.15	12.7	0.98%
	wormhole total	6321.45	6167.2	-154.24			6234.18	5922.91	-311.27
			retained	74.09%				retained	58.17%

PS.  Shameless ads for Eve posts are welcome, especially when on topic.  See tomorrow's post.

PPS.  I will not be writing about the CSM election for at least 2 days.  I have time to write posts such as these or time to play eve, but apparently not both.  Tomorrow's (non CSM) post is written and scheduled.  I also appear to fail terribly at writing short posts.

Breakdown of the wormhole CSM vote

Some background reading.

• Trebor's rerun of the vote
• Interstellar Privateer's csm-8 analysis

In Australia, where preferential elections (or STV) are common place, a preferred method of a 'quick and dirty' analysis is to look at first preferences, then see where they leaked in previous elections.  Now, we did not have previous elections to look at, but just counting first preferences is still useful.

Taking Trebor's quota of 3314, the wormhole candidates had a first preference total of 6207 votes; or 1.9 quotas.  Up front, this is as close to a guarantee of one wormhole candidate, and an exceptional chance of 2 seats.  Conventional Australian voting 'wisdom' would suggest 2 candidates; with little likelyhood of any other result.

Interstellar Privateer has suggested "The wormholers got lucky this time."  I disagree, thinking they got exactly the candidates that the 'first preferences' of the vote suggested.

For the wormhole candidates to get a third seat, there would have to be massive haemorrhaging from other candidates.  For these candidates to get less than 2, they would have to be exceptionally unpopular with 'out of bloc' voters.

My technical recommendation for wormhole candidates for CSM8 is to attract additional known candidates; anyone that can bring 200 votes.  If you recall, there was a mittani post suggesting "You have 3000+ votes worth of power to bring an outsized wormhole candidate list".  The wormhole primary vote was over double this.

For comparision, I took the 6 Null Bloc candidates from Poetic Stanziel nullsec bloc ballot post.  These six got 13106 first preference votes or just shy of 4 quotas.  Again, traditional analysis says they get 4 seats and no other result is likely.

Remember fellow voters; this is no longer 'first past the post' where we need to concentrate the vote in just one or two candidates.  Within reason, anyone that brings votes to a 'ticket' is valuable to that ticket.  Just be a little careful about attracting the 'wrong' votes, eg certain candidates that caused enough trouble to be removed from the candidate list.

There is value in suggesting a voting list order; with your 'strongest' candiates at the top of the list, and your weaker candidates lower down.  The wormhole candidates missed out on this, and could have done with some (informal) primary to suggest a consistent order.  That said, there is nothing wrong with using your own personal appeal, and on any candidate's personal ticket, putting themselves first.

• At a minimum, you should have sufficient candidates so that if everything goes your way you have everyone elected + 1 spare.
• At most, you should have one candidate for every seat.
• Everyone on your ticket should be capable of attracting votes in their own right.
• Apart from your 'own' name on top, agreeing on the order of names is to a bloc's benefit.

I style myself a bit of an amateur psephologist.  I know very little about 'first past the post' elections, but I do follow the local (preferential) elections and commentary fairly closely.

For the next election, we have some better analysis tools (assuming they keep the same voting system).

We know roughly the corp/alliance sizes of various factions, and rough readership of various blogs; and how that turned up in votes this time around.  We know where votes ended up, both in first preference and how those preferences played out.  We can use this to extrapolate likely winners.

There were surprises; for me they were: congratulations to Ali Aras for such a strong showing - better than many thought; and maybe consolations to Nathan Jameson who surprised some by not getting in. 

The has been a large degree of acceptance, with the only grumbling seeming to be either the mechanics of voting or a general cry that those that could organise voters got a few more seats.

This was going to be a quick and short reply to Intertsellar Privateer's post.  Umm... I don't seem to do quick and short very well.

Imagine a tower defense mini game in eve

I am not talking (just) about structure bashes.

Imagine a game where the defenders have a choice between resource yield and defensive ability; defenders also get to choose the delay before offensive retaliation - again trading resource yield vs delay in retaliation.

Now for the attackers, the smart ones will chose targets that have picked maximum resource yield, minimum defensive ability, and long delays before offensive retaliation.


I think there would be corporations formed to play such a game; both on the defensive and offensive sides.  As either defender or attacker, do it right and riches can be yours.

Of course, there will be some that say such mini games are not possible in Eve, but I disagree.

I would call such a mini game Caldari Ice Fields; or maybe the Niarja gauntlet.  I hear that some play 'catch the WH planet gooer'  (I might be at keyboard but after the umpteenth planet I am not always aware)

Now the trick is to extend this form of gameplay : i.e. afk 'tower defense' into other regions of space.  Possibly an drone that appears from a distance to be a mining drone but in reality is a long latency; high alpha retaliatory weapon.


Bashing AFK farmers has been popular lately. Dual meaning fully intended.

Fly well Kirith

Kirith, of the Inner Sanctum of the Ninvea, wanted some ISK. He had plans on doing single player PI in a wormhole. 

I contacted him, and decided that there we could come to a mutually satisfactory agreement.  I won't say how much he earned, but he posted this update a fortnight after he joined us.

We didn't chat much, apart from the odd Hi/Bye as he refreshed PI. 

He made his ISK, and has decided to concentrate on his 'murderous tendencies', and we parted on good terms.  I won't say what his plans are, but ... he's a blogger; they are not that hard to work out.

Kirith, I would love a final post on your experience with us; the good; the bad; and if needed, the ugly.  If you put it on your blog, I can't be accused of censorship.


That means we have an opening for another PI farmer.  We have an in wormhole PI buying program.  Oh for those that are interested; PI is entirely legitimate AFK farming.


I do moderate, but not excessive background checks.  We lock down player goods to divisions, and keep everything expensive locked up. 

If this sounds interesting, read this recruiting page.  Personally, I play on my 'evenings' (Eastern Australian Time), which is not the time that most of you play.  However, send 'Dotoo Foo' (or even Saissore Foo) an eve mail, if you want to chat.

The day the POS went dark

 Even if all you want to do is shoot stuff, the upcoming resource balancing changes should be significant.  Today, I am pulling out my crystal ball.

I have been reading some items on the upcoming fuel changes.

• http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/resource-shakeup-blog
• http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/resource-companion-blog
• http://themittani.com/news/great-fuel-crunch
• http://themittani.com/features/economic-implications-odyssey

From the shakeup blog : ... the maximum supply of ice from highsec (assuming that each belt is mined out completely five times a day) would provide approximately 80% of the game's ice needs. ...
highsec will still be a large exporter of ice products, being able to generate eight times the volume of isotopes used by highsec control towers.

I am unaware of the current amount of ice or ore mined outside of highsec (though I have read figures of 1% of ore in low).  I however expect that we will not see 100% utilisation of highsec ice fields.  If nothing else highsec suicide gankers will have valuable targets. 

I have read claims that there will be no more afk ice mining.  Mmm.  To me, it looks like a player needs to pay attention 2-3 times as often, in highsec at least. 

I expect that there will be an attempt to mine ice in lowsec.  There will definitely be null mined ice.  I have heard nothing about wormholes being able to mine the stuff (I can wish).


Upward pressures on ice prices, with :

• need to scan anomalies rather than bot to the same place every time.
• Some ice mining moving to low/nullsec and the potential of less botting there (though that might be a claim)

The obvious downward pressure on ice prices is the increased yield.

Some of your average highsec ... protected by concord miners are likely to be replaced with  null miners (though possibly alts of the same player).  New miners need new ships and fittings.  Slightly more ore consumed between now and Odyssey.

The links from the Mittani suggest that there will be demand for another 450 or so large caldari towers and modules. More PI demand as these get built.

There should also be a scramble in nullsec as the new profitable moons are fought over.

My crystal ball is murky as to what CCP mean when they say hisec can potentially supply 80% of the game's ice needs.  Are they referring to total demand of ice products, or to each isotope?

If CCP is restricting highsec by total ice, then I see Nitrogen Isotopes being in huge demand; with Caldari towers being the highsec research tower of choice as well as (as far as I know) the reactions tower of choice.   (The alternative is that CCP allows a lot more Caldari White glaze than the other racial ice types).

My crystal ball sees many Caldari towers going dark (possibly even ours), possibly replaced with other race's towers for cheaper fuel.  I also see a continued proliferation of abandoned (but otherwise sellable) POS.

Please note: This post is labelled speculative.  Let the trader beware.

The CSM 8 voting process broadside

I want to see the incoming CSM act as a player advocacy group.  Best wishes and support for them. I think they will need it.

An election process, should be free, fair and transparent.  Rules should be published well in advance, and only tinpot dictators ad the incompetant change the rules part way through.

Instead we have an example of how not to run an election.

In regard to the late change to who went to Iceland,  after candidates were called for is bad.  One candidate pulled out, claiming this as a reason.  While I agree that the number of votes gained during an election is a poor guide to who works hard, decide the rules (further) ahead of time.

I did like that CSM released the code for tallying the elections.  Delaying the start of the elections due to a lack of necessary website changes, ... well we know where the QA team efforts were not allocated. 

Telling candidates that they are not eligible, when they in fact are, is less than ideal.  Either that or CCP is changing the rules mid election again (which is also less than ideal).

Telling candidates that they qualified, then deciding they had not yet is potentially disastrous.  Were any candidates told they qualified, then missed out by a few votes to get to the threshold?  This is on top of the earlier confusion about the start dates.

There was the unfortunate position of a CSM candidate being disqualified due to publicly expressed beliefs.  While I find the beliefs being attributed to the candidate abhorrent, disqualifying him after they knew the qualifying round votes was manipulative.

Next time 

If CCP or even the incoming CSM wonders what can be done to increase participation.

First, update the rules so that they are clear, specifying who is eligible and who is not.

Have an internal dry run of the election before the due date so that any problems can be identified and preferably fixed ahead of time.

If problems happen, and they sometimes do, have contingency plans in place ahead of time.  If there is a delay to the start, then just shift everything back.

Double check before you tell candidates they have made it to the next round.  Once you have told
them, stick to what you said.


To CCP : If the CSM is not important, repeat the mistakes of this year.  If the CSM is important, then get it right.  Say what you will do. Do what you said.


Maybe I am being snarky, and just had a bad time in first life.  This post should be rightfully buried under the excitement of fanfest and before the announcement of the successful candidates, to be brought out again shortly before next CSM voting season.  I really hope not to see these issues next time around.