Monday, April 20, 2015

You profit from fixing my 'broken' PI spreadsheet

I occasionally get reports that my PI spreadsheet is broken.

Sometimes it is not working at all as I am fighting with Google itself, which is why it now is cached via

But generally it is because the prices are 'wrong'.  I get my prices daily from Eve Central, and take the average prices from Jita, Amarr, Dodixie, and Hek.  I primarily do my PI in a wormhole, and one trade hub is as good as the next, with a mild preference for Amarr (due to ~40% wormholes ending up close to there).

So, there are 2 ways the prices can be wrong.  Firstly my cache of prices can be 24 hours old.  Shrug, you can copy my spreadsheet and change the CacheBuster parameter on the main sheet at A2 to force a price refresh.

Secondly, my price is an average over 4 trade hubs (ignoring no price at all).  If one of those hubs has a price that is wildly wrong, then all pricing running from that will also be (less) wildly wrong.

As of writing this post, my spreadsheet is getting the 'wrong price' for livestock, with an average sell of 145,000 ISK/unit.  The Jita price sell price is 9,500 ISK/unit, and my average buy price is 7,000 ISK/unit.

Both Eve Central and my spreadsheet see the only sell order for Livestock in Hek as 550,000 ISK/unit which by anyone's account is overpriced, especially for a trade hub.  I have no intention of fixing my spreadsheet, as it is working as intended.

However, there is a good trade opportunity for those wanting to fix the data I retrieve, buying some livestock anywhere, getting red frog/push x to haul it, and selling livestock in Hek.  If you are so inclined, I also note that some of the other trade hubs are also missing sell orders for PI. 

  • Hek is missing Polyaramids, Silicate Glass, Ukomi Super Conductors
  • Dodixie is missing Synthetic Synapses
  • Rens is also missing a few items.

Yes, I could fill these gaps myself.  That would involve me spending more time in highsec.  If no one else does this inside of another week or so, I will get some stock sent to Hek, if only to fix my spreadsheet.

Two of the complaints I read about market trading are that there is no way to find things to trade, and how everything always is immediately undercut.  In the third biggest market in Eve ( Dodixie - ), for Synthetic Synapses at least, neither of these complaints are true.

Monday, April 13, 2015

Eve Pos planner update

The Eve Pos planner at has an update.

0.58 (2015.04.13)

  • Updated module inventory to match recent updates (removal of Medium Refinery Array and addition of Personal Hangar Array, Compression Array and Thukker Component Assembly Array)
  • More updates coming...

Re: eve pos planner
From: Qalten
Sent: 2015.04.13 05:26
To: DoToo Foo, 

Thanks for your e-mail regarding the IGB POS Planner. I've recently returned to EVE (apologies if you're receiving this reply long after you sent your mail) and will be updating the planner immediately to reflect the changes, and will be planning on adding interface improvements shortly.

Please feel free to make any suggestions or comments on what I can do to further improve the tool. I hope it's been helpful to EVE players over the years, and hopefully more to come!



Tuesday, April 7, 2015

FozzieSov - my perspective and confusion

Firstly, I think it is time for a sovereignty revamp.  There are some goals coming with the Fozzie Sov model that I am very much in favour of.
  • Harder for large renter organisations to hold vast territories of unused space.
  • Similarly easier for smaller organisations to take unoccupied systems in nullsec.
  • Simplifying structure setup.  No one that has ever set up a POS thinks it should be this hard and counter-intuitive.  I think this even when I personally have benefited that someone else failed to set their POS up correctly.
I understand that this is going to mean some changes.  Some may benefit, and I fully expect some to be harmed.  Before you pay too much attention to anyone's whining (including mine), please read .

Some things I like:  back into the structure
Instead, we want the user to make a conscious choice after it has been deployed, and decide if they want personal, corporation, alliance or public use. That’s right, we want those structures to be used for the wider audience, so if you wish to establish your own Market Hub somewhere, make it open to everyone and set your taxes to be shamelessly expensive go right ahead.

We will lose our forcefield, and to be honest I don't care. Before the WH groups all evict me (and we really should get that defector first), I care about what the POS forcefield allows.  We can see the overview and dscan while 'safe', and that there are no docking games because I can enter and leave safe space unless there are (clearly visible and destroyable with station guns) bubbles.  Allow me to check for safety, clear moorings and enter warp (unless there is a bubble) and I will be content.  This probably includes me wanting to swap from docked to moored and back again.

CCP is thinking about playing with fuel (Back into structure).  One point we are considering is to remove fuel requirements to online structures and move it as a requirement to operate service modules.  I want overall requirement for fuel to either stay static or even increase. Reducing total overall fuel requirements will have shockwaves through the market and even worse, will nerf my PI wormholes.

I don't understand when structure will be activated, deactivated, reinforced or captured, and when will it be destroyed?  Entosis links are used to wrest control. Politics By Other Means refers to capturing stations. But then Back into Structure refers to destruction of structures with special containers.  Maybe I am slow today, but I can't work out when something will be destroyed and when it will be captured.

I want there to be places that a small group can hold.  I am an industrialist and believe that in Eve, destruction is good for business.  However it is only good for me if it is someone else's stuff that gets destroyed.  If I am going to store billions of ISK of ship and loot, I really do want it to take more than 2 people for 1 hour to steal it from me.  It is common to have 2 to 3 pilots on sporadically over a couple of hours (eating meals, looking after kids etc).  It looks like a single pilot with 40 minutes up their sleeve could make everything vulnerable.  If so, that would cause me to consolidate and reach for more numbers than I have.  If it takes 4-5 well trained pilots to defend a class 1 or 2 wormhole for 4 hours/day, but it only support 2-3 medium skilled pilots running sites for that same time, then there is a problem.  There are always PI alts but ... PI alts are usually just that, possibly with POS gunning or the ability to fly a scanning ship.

Docking up in stations to hide is being strongly discouraged. Trolls can shut down services to cause fights, or simply to punish the AFK. (Politics by other Means)  Although reinforcing of Sovereignty structures may only occur during the owning alliance’s prime time window, station services can be disabled at any time through use of the Entosis Link for between 5 and 20 minutes (depending on occupancy levels).

Today, to bash out a large properly configured POS in a c1-c4 system requires either at least 2 weeks of building a capital, or a couple of squads of kitchen sink battleships (give or take, less required for well fit ships), over 2 days.  What I am trying to work out is what will it take to either disable my wormhole services, and possibly take my POS replacement away from me.  I think it is entirely proper that a well put together couple of squads, over 40 or so hours can evict us.  Similarly, 4 or 5 pilots consistently on over a couple of weeks with enough strength to cause us cower in stations would similarly be acceptable.  So I repeat myself : CCP Please do not let a single bored pilot with an hour to spare wait for us to go offline and reinforce our small corp wormhole stations by stealth.

I am currently spreading my time between wormholes and tending a nullsec market, and probably doing both badly. I spend large amounts of my in game time tending these, 

Market hubs are interesting and powerful places. I would love these to be scaleable, and available in wormholes.  Something small that that could take a set of PI buy/sell orders for my PI farming wormholes, up to something that can support the fleets of the largest alliances.   I do see that, with effort, station contents including market hubs, should be at least partially lootable.

Wormholes space is currently best space for a small group to set up shop.  When I first moved into wormholes, we had 3 or 4 of us set up a tower, bash out customs offices, and live out of our space.  This was exciting and stressful times.  I really was worried about that lone Drake taking out our just anchored tower.  Now I know what is required to knock one over, and it is more than that lone Drake.

I am worried that with Fozzie Sov, small corps setting up their first structures be able to be trolled out of existence by every passing 2 man gang.  Will the small corp wake up with all of their services offline because someone had 15 minutes of spare time while they were asleep?

There is a transition plan where existing structures will co-exist but without bonuses while new structures take over.  For me this works.

Anyone thinking that there will not be losers out of the structures and sovereignty changes is foolish.  If the big boys are not screaming blue murder, then it will be the little player, but hearing discontent from some quarters to make me think that it might be OK. 

References :
* Back into structure :
* Politics by other means

Someone else I am watching for his take on the new mechanics for WH space is Trinkets Friend from  (NSFW) - especially his March 2015 posts.

Edit : Turamarth's post : 

If you have a blog post on this topic, add it as a comment.  I will turn it into a clicky link at the bottom of this post.

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

Cache of PI spreadsheet

I have created a Google Docs folder containing most recent PI price snapshots.  I will name the files with a "<YYYY-MM-DD> PI snapshot.pdf" format.  The first one is 2015-03-31 PI snapshot.pdf

I am fighting a losing battle with google and the Foo Eve PI spreadsheet.  It works fine for me, but  can't keep it working for everyone all the time, despite different caching strategies.  ( )

So ... I will really cache it, this time as a PDF, manually.  As it is manual, it will be updated when I remember to do so, hopefully weekly.

I have plans on fixing this permanently, possibly as a google app.  But for now, this will do.  Please magnify or download for your favourite PDF reader.

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

CSM conceptions and misconceptions

CSM (Council of Stellar Management) is a player representative body, voted in by the players themselves. 

The purpose of the CSM is to represent society interests to CCP. This requires active engagement with the player community to master EVE issue awareness, understanding, and evaluation in the context of the greatest good for the greater player base.

Notionally, they represent us, the players that voted them in.  In reality, CSM represent themselves.  Some work incredibly hard on the CSM, engaging both CCP and players alike; giving feedback to both groups.  Some ... don't.  This is just like real life, and maybe even real life politicians.

What the CSM are missing is a magic wand.  CSM can't please/fool all the players all the time.  By all means push your CSM representatives to deliver for you, but sometimes they just can't.  Usually for someone to be buffed, someone else will be nerfed.  Sometimes CCP will share with the CSM (or parts thereof), sometimes they won't.   Their roles are really what they make of them. 

Provided they have a pulse, occasionally turn up, and don't get banned in game, they will be able to see out their current term. 

This applies even when CSM representatives change allegiances. Corebexx in CSM 9, largely with his own efforts, 'encouraged' CCP to buff low end wormholes.  While he now is a turncoat, wearing the flag of another group is cause for those that care to carry out the will of Bob, it is not cause for him to give up his seat.

Sugar Kyle is a consummate diplomat on the CSM, as well as a strong workhorse.  This is regardless of whether she admits it (even to herself) or not.  Whether it be gathering feedback from many play-styles in Eve, mediating between vocal and boisterous groups, or providing a handhold in the new player experience, everywhere I look, I see Sugar working.  How she does this while still playing Eve and holding down a day job is beyond me.

Some see it their role to represent their constituency, yet discourage others from being involved. In response to the question "Why should my readers vote for you?" Sion answered "Because I'm a goon." (link , about 1/2 way down). These players should not be surprised when they get high support from their own 'base', but no support from elsewhere.  There is a reason Sion failed to get the second permanent seat.

Much has been made about the 2 permanent seats on the CSM, and I really don't understand why.  From can last up to 5 days and up to 10 members of the CSM will fly to CCP headquarters in Reykjavik, Iceland to participate in person. 

CSM representatives that are active and useful, especially those that have a large support base will be attending 2 or more summits.  Not to denigrate either Manfred or Sugar, and as a consolation for Sion, the value of being a 'permanent' representative is bragging rights, and the option of being obnoxious in some form and still get to go to all the summits.  Do not be surprised if this year there are more than 2 summits , There are at least two summits held each term...  If both Steve and Sion are not offered a spot at more than one summit, I will be astounded.

This year, some felt we had too many (100) candidates applying for CSM seats.  Of these, 75 passed the initial vetting process.  Even I had problems reading all the candidate statements. I think this is a wonderful problem to have. One of the recent CSM elections (I think it was CSM 8) had a pre-election endorsements round that was a bit of a farce.  31 of 35 candidates made it to the final election round.

I think (but do not know) that the primary reason for so many candidates was the removal of the  requirement to publish first life id's publicly.

There are options:
  • Most (first life) political systems use a deposit system to weed out the majority of troll candidates (Sometimes even this fails).
  • A rule could be added that a candidacy post with an arbitrary number of individual account public endorsement comments (50?) are required before an application is accepted.
  • CCP also have the option of going back to a qualifying round, but that is a hassle if it only knocks out 4 of 35 candidates. A qualifying round could be applied if there were over say 48 eligible candidates.

I am not convinced that under performing candidates are an issue.   If a candidate fails to get their message across, well that is merely an opportunity for improvement.  Get that name out there.  I know that some other bloggers (especially Gevlon) had a preference for some candidates that missed out (especially Lorelei).  Where was the guest post?  Where is the link to the blog?  Where was the blog during the campaign?  I also would not give up on Lorelei's spot just yet.  CSM 9 had a couple of 'casual' vacancies, and Lorelei is in a good spot to pick up a few extra votes if vacancies occur in CSM X. 

A couple of comments about the vote itself:
  • Eligible voters cast 36,984 votes, 15% increase on last year.  This is despite (or possibly even because of) some very negative press leading up to the vote
  • Wormhole voters, where did you go?  I know Corbexx did an outstanding job last year, but ... it is always better to have 2 candidates rather than one, as recent events have highlighted.
  • Voters who let their votes exhaust generally assist the larger coalitions.  There were many votes for medium and minor candidates that exhausted.  Candidates, make a voting ticket with other similar candidates and participate in voting exchanges (that is, recommend preferences to others if they do the same in return).  

Monday, March 23, 2015

Things to check when setting up in a wormhole

There are some things you should check when setting up in any wormhole.

My muse for this post is an unwanted POS that appeared in one of our wormholes.  It is gone now, cleansed with fire.  The loot fairy was unkind.

Getting access to a Foo corp wormhole is almost as easy as reading our recruiting page. Even simply doing PI in our wormholes (i.e. paying a small amount of tax) is generally enough to get me to chat rather than shoot.

Is it occupied?

You should check for a forcefield.  This means not only checking inner planets, but also all of the outer planets as well.  Have a look at the system information, or even the overview.  Make sure you have a dscan that covers every planet.   A forcefield means the system is occupied.  Any storage array (ship maintenance, corporate, personal or assembly) without a forcefield means it is time to pop a loot pinata.  Any POS that is coming online, anchoring or offline is a gank opportunity with a timer.  An offline POS with none of the above is (most likely) abandoned.

Be aware that if you move into an occupied system that the locals may be invested in defending.  If you are looking for a fight, maybe that's a good thing.  If you are looking for that fight, make sure you are ready for it.

Do you have spare scanning ships and pilots?

Far too many pilots only have one scanner in a wormhole.  This is what alts and other corp members are for.  There is no point in having 2B+ of assets in a wormhole that you can not get back to.  Pilots will almost always shoot pods in a wormhole, as it will generally take you that much for hostile pilots to return to the field.

Does your POS have defence?

A small POS should be treated like a glorified mobile depot.  It is disposable.
A preferably large POS should have a desired mix of short and medium weaponry, ECM, neuts and a (initially) balanced resist profile.  Others will promote the merits or disadvantages of Deathstar vs  Dickstar.
Guns should be scattered and not grouped together.  Attacking fleets love it when you group your guns as it makes it much easier to position your fleet.

No fuel means no defence, no access to POS.
No strontium clathrates means no reinforcement timer, and hostiles can grind you down in one sitting.

Will your POS shoot (only) the wrong people?

Outside of highsec, your POS generally should shoot neutrals.  That is, attack if standing is lower than 0.1.  Setting Attack if at war also is a good plan.  All the POS guns in the world don't do any good if they don't know they need to shoot.
POS have no idea about pilot standings; they only pay attention to corporate standings.  As far as I know (and partially tested), POS are aware of inherited corporation standings if you set an alliance to blue.

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

CSM X predictions

Now that CSM 10 voting has concluded and we are waiting for the results, here are my guesses as to what will happen with the vote.

If I recall correctly, successful candidates will be announced at Fanfest, March 19-21.

My first thing I will look for is the total vote itself.  Hearsay said that the vote is 30% higher than it was last year.  If this is true, without knowing where those votes are going will make prediction even harder.  I also see CSM voting as a proxy for player engagement, a weathervane.

Very Safe candidates

  • Sion + Endie.  Last year (and the years before), Goons have more than 2 quota.  Sion will get in, and 'his' vote will elect another.
  • Sugar Kyle.  She had 91% of a quota last year.  She is impressive, and is on the top of many ballots (where last year she was middle of the pack).  I think Sugar will get a quota in her own right, even if there is an increased vote.
  • Corbexx. Wormhole candidates had 1.6 quotas last year, spread roughly evenly across the field.  This year, Corbexx will get more of the vote, and I think will increase the total wormhole vote (in raw terms if not in quotas).  I think Corbexx will get a quota in his own right.
  • corebloodbrothers.  Provi block candidate from last year with well in excess of a quota.  He should also get a quota as well.

Safe candidates

  • Steve Ronuken.  Last year Steve was voted in at #6, close to a quota in his own right and received good preference flows.  Most surplus that Sugar Kyle has will flow to Steve.  Steve will also do better than average on transfers from other excluded candidates.

Marginal Candidates

  • Mike Azariah.  Mike was voted in last year at #8.  Highsec and visible via his blog, but lacking the endorsements of the candidates above.  I think he will still get in, but he might suffer from other similar candidates being too popular.
  • Cagali Cagali. Brave newbies should be able to elect a pilot, assuming their internal politics is going OK.  You had a CSM rep resign last year, which will hurt your motivation, but you have a higher base vote than RVB.

Incumbents ( or groups) I see struggling to be elected

  • Khador Vess. RVB have the numbers to vote, but last year, they didn't.  Mangala Solaris started the CSM 9 election with a poor personal vote, and was voted in on preferences from others.  This however is largely dependant on how motivated RVB is to vote for their own candidate.
  • Xander Phoena.  Last year, Xander more than doubled his personal vote from Goon preferences.  I am unsure as to his ongoing relationship with Gentlemen's agreement, but Goons wont be voting him in this time.

No hope

If all you did was submit an application to CCP, didn't bother with a post on CSM Campaigns thread , didn't bother with interviews until too late, you had better have a very motivated alliance behind you.    If you really want to be a candidate for CSM 11, start posting on the CSM campaign thread mid November and attend every interview/candidate questionnaire that you can.

Other notes.

There are many spots I have not filled into the mix.  Some are block candidates, but by looking at last year's CSM, not all block candidates did well. 

Some candidates are ranked 2 or 3 on some tickets, and as such won't initially make it.  Reserve candidates are good to have for groups.  I expect that this year, CSM will be have more inactive members booted, making casual vacancies, to be filled from these reserve spots. 

As this is a 14 seat STV election, spot 14 will be somewhat of a lottery.  I won't claim that luck is involved, but the result will look to many like luck.

Many bloggers are still talking about 2 permanent attendee spots.  I expect this to be irrelevant for CSM 10.

From can last up to 5 days and up to 10 members of the CSM will fly to CCP headquarters in Reykjavik, Iceland to participate in person.

Assuming all candidates attend at least one summit, 6 of them may attend both.  Given some CSM 9's ability to have drama or be inactive, I will not be surprised if some candidates fail to attend either summit.

In my opinion, this change is largely because a couple of CSM 9 members were stand-outs and both CSM and CCP would benefit from them attending every time they are available.

I seem to spend a bit of time posting replies to Rhavas' CSM posts (