Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5407
|
Posted - 2016.10.20 21:49:07 -
[241] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Session 1 wrote:There is no risk (FOR THE GANKER) in highsec grief/gank play. It goes directly against what this CCP guy just said...
Funny that the ganker/griefers don't want there to be risk vs reward for them, just the "carebears". (wasting cheap ships is not real risk)
Ironic. Wrong. There's a risk that nothing will drop, there's a risk that the gank will fail, there's a risk that other players will interfere; that's 3 examples of the risks that gankers face straight off the bat. If you want to see increased risk or more consequences for gankers that go further than those provided by the game engine, then it is up to other players, which includes you, to provide more risk and consequences for them. It's a shame that most of their prey are too damn lazy, or too scared of "the lack of consequence" that Concord provides, to do so Eve is not a game that holds your hand while you play; on the off-chance that it does hold your hand, it is to steal your finger and wrist jewellery.
Yes it is amusing when they wail...there is no risk. But at the same time are unwilling to incur the consequences of CONCORD.
That in and of itself reveals that their position is entirely bankrupt.
And despite being shown that they can in deed change the risk vs. reward calculus of the gankers....instead of doing it, they simply repeat the claim: There is no risk, there is no risk. there is no risk, as if they were Dorothy and by repeating this while tapping their mouse on the desk will somehow solve the problem.
Lazy, ignorant, and arrogant. A very potent combo that keeps freighter gankers in the loot. Truly ironic.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5407
|
Posted - 2016.10.20 21:49:55 -
[242] - Quote
Session 1 wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Session 1 wrote:There is no risk (FOR THE GANKER) in highsec grief/gank play. It goes directly against what this CCP guy just said...
Funny that the ganker/griefers don't want there to be risk vs reward for them, just the "carebears". (wasting cheap ships is not real risk)
Ironic. Wrong. There's a risk that nothing will drop, there's a risk that the gank will fail, there's a risk that other players will interfere; that's 3 examples of the risks that gankers face straight off the bat. If you want to see increased risk or more consequences for gankers that go further than those provided by the game engine, then it is up to other players, which includes you, to provide more risk and consequences for them. Eve is not a game that holds your hand while you play; on the off-chance that it does hold your hand, it is to steal your finger and wrist jewellery. I said risk VS reward. Anyone can name millions of trivial risks. Try again.
Then change the reward.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
27001
|
Posted - 2016.10.20 21:53:07 -
[243] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Then change the reward. Or the ease of collecting it.
Civilised behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
New Player FAQ
Feyd's Survival Pack
|
Jagd Wilde
The Scope Gallente Federation
33
|
Posted - 2016.10.20 22:00:26 -
[244] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Then change the reward. Or the ease of collecting it.
everyone is operating under the assumption that ganking fat freighters is easy.
the guys that actually do it say it's not and the guys that never have, have no argument
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5408
|
Posted - 2016.10.20 22:01:06 -
[245] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Then change the reward. Or the amount of effort required to collect it.
Yes either way works or even better, both.
It is amazing the level of deliberate obtuseness.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
27001
|
Posted - 2016.10.20 22:05:18 -
[246] - Quote
Jagd Wilde wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Then change the reward. Or the ease of collecting it. everyone is operating under the assumption that ganking fat freighters is easy. the guys that actually do it say it's not and the guys that never have, have no argument Ease is relative.
In my defence my use of the word ease was referring to the morons that insist on autopiloting through a choke point with eleventy billion isk in a shitfit freighter.
Civilised behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
New Player FAQ
Feyd's Survival Pack
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
42
|
Posted - 2016.10.20 22:08:46 -
[247] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote: Not all opinions are equal.
My opinion is an informed opinion based on the study CCP provided. They invested time to actually look into the data and verify their initial assumption which was that ganking harms player retention. We can assume that CCP is a credible source and has a strong motivation of getting this right because this is actually a critical information for their business and they depend on it to make the right decisions.
Your opinion is a gut feeling based on nothing at all. You did not look into the data, you did not invest any time at all to verify your view or can present a credible source who did this and came to the conclusions you present here. You are the proverbial esoteric freak who thinks his weird idea of how the world works which he got from his last LSD trip is on the same level as the physicist's model which they acquired by actually investing time looking into how things work and weed out false ideas.
Why can you assume that a company with no statistical back ground is a credible source? Let me guess you are one of these people who buy things because they are advertised as new and improved or the best around. You believe what they have said because it is what you want them to have said. Nothing more. My opinion is exactly that my opinion but I do not hold up unproven statistics as if they are the bible either. And physicist's model? physicist's models are designed to test if a theory is false, not if it is true and it is not like there have not been numerous that were just plain out wrong. God I really hope you are some pimply teenager still at school. A model in physics is a whole body of theories. Theories and whole models are wrong all the time and the scientific method is used to find the ones which are wrong, by actually looking into things and test if the predictions they make survive reality. This was the point I tried to make. CCP like you had a theory about that people quit because of the mean gankers. Other than you they actually tested this assumption and the results are in the study they presented. They falsified the carebear theory. You are wrong, we where right. It's as simple as that. No you assume they are right, without knowing the facts of how they got their conclusions. That is no more scientific than religion. You have faith that they CCP, the creator is all knowing and all powerful.
And if the all knowing CCP had said ganking is bad, you would have disavowed your God.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18337
|
Posted - 2016.10.20 22:25:23 -
[248] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote: No you assume they are right, without knowing the facts of how they got their conclusions. That is no more scientific than religion. You have faith that they CCP, the creator is all knowing and all powerful.
And if the all knowing CCP had said ganking is bad, you would have disavowed your God.
Why would CCP say this after spending 5 years nerfing highsec PvP into the ground? They literally admitted that the last 5 years of changes were bad for the game. What can they possibly gain from that? |
Jagd Wilde
The Scope Gallente Federation
33
|
Posted - 2016.10.20 22:36:29 -
[249] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Fair comment, I didn't mean to insinuate that ganking fat freighters is a doddle; I've seen first hand the amount of planning and coordination required to do it successfully.
In my defence my use of the word ease was referring to the morons that insist on autopiloting through a choke point with eleventy billion isk in a shitfit freighter.
I can't stop or protect or fix or those guys.
why not have fun killing them?
edit:
in fact we should all be out there now on gank alts, burning highsec to the ground to prepare the soil for the new crop of Alpha clones. |
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
42
|
Posted - 2016.10.20 23:33:47 -
[250] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Mark Marconi wrote: No you assume they are right, without knowing the facts of how they got their conclusions. That is no more scientific than religion. You have faith that they CCP, the creator is all knowing and all powerful.
And if the all knowing CCP had said ganking is bad, you would have disavowed your God.
Why would CCP say this after spending 5 years nerfing highsec PvP into the ground? They literally admitted that the last 5 years of changes were bad for the game. What can they possibly gain from that? The inability to do statistics correctly, does not change the fact that people release figures as facts.
The statistics they released were done by a company with no prior history in statistics, with no published documentation.
Subsequently you can either have faith that they did them right or skepticism at the fact the results cannot be verified.
Faith is exactly that. The belief in something without proof. Also just the very basis they used for the general population, not the NPE for new players was flawed. To determine if ganking was harmful to subscriptions of older characters you would not go by peoples exit comments as to many of them would be non-responses.
You would analyze kill mails, vs play styles. For example the amount of time spent mining, which could be achieved by indexing the amount of minerals added to an account by the system in the case of mining of the amount of time an account spent in any type of ship, if that was unavailable, then ammunition destroyed and NPCs killed by an account.
There initial study into the NPE showed promise, it is just we cannot take the results as anything more than a belief as we cannot validate their figures and its not as if you can point to CCPs ability to get things right over the years. |
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
42
|
Posted - 2016.10.20 23:43:04 -
[251] - Quote
Jagd Wilde wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Fair comment, I didn't mean to insinuate that ganking fat freighters is a doddle; I've seen first hand the amount of planning and coordination required to do it successfully.
In my defence my use of the word ease was referring to the morons that insist on autopiloting through a choke point with eleventy billion isk in a shitfit freighter. I can't stop or protect or fix or those guys. why not have fun killing them? edit: in fact we should all be out there now on gank alts, burning highsec to the ground to prepare the soil for the new crop of Alpha clones. No need the Alpha clones will do that well enough. |
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
656
|
Posted - 2016.10.20 23:44:49 -
[252] - Quote
Dejavuncular.....auto correct is a bit hectic..
Here we go again.
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18339
|
Posted - 2016.10.21 00:06:27 -
[253] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote: The inability to do statistics correctly, does not change the fact that people release figures as facts.
The statistics they released were done by a company with no prior history in statistics, with no published documentation.
Subsequently you can either have faith that they did them right or skepticism at the fact the results cannot be verified.
So CCP can't do maths now? Its not hard to work statistics out and it certainly isn't faith. These are hard facts, that you don't like them means little.
Mark Marconi wrote: Faith is exactly that. The belief in something without proof.
So where is yours?
Mark Marconi wrote: You would analyze kill mails, vs play styles. For example the amount of time spent mining, which could be achieved by indexing the amount of minerals added to an account by the system in the case of mining of the amount of time an account spent in any type of ship, if that was unavailable, then ammunition destroyed and NPCs killed by an account.
Chances of a freighter being ganked stands at less than 0.20% per 1.8 million jumps. Or one freighter loss per 7 years of continual use. Now, this is a statistic worked out using what you just posted.
Mark Marconi wrote: There initial study into the NPE showed promise, it is just we cannot take the results as anything more than a belief as we cannot validate their figures and its not as if you can point to CCPs ability to get things right over the years.
Edit: Add to this the well known bias shown by some CCP Devs and the figures are automatically in doubt.
What bias? They have literally spend 5 years nerfing high sec PvP and then when the ran a study to prove ganking hurts sub retention they found the exact opposite is true. If there was going to be bias surly it would be in favour of the last 5 years of changes they made? |
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
42
|
Posted - 2016.10.21 00:26:12 -
[254] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
So CCP can't do maths now? Its not hard to work statistics out and it certainly isn't faith. These are hard facts, that you don't like them means little.
No they are NOT facts and no statistics is not easy. There are so many ways to make errors otherwise all statistics would be 100% right.
So from that you would believe the statistics that say smoking does not cause cancer, while believing that they do cause cancer. Or the famous 1990s online study that showed that 99% of all people owned computers with internet connections.
baltec1 wrote:Mark Marconi wrote: Faith is exactly that. The belief in something without proof.
So where is yours? I have only anecdotal evidence, however that is just as right as an unproven study. Which is why CCP need to get statistics Iceland in to help them. Then they could output things such as seasonally adjusted concurrent users, trend lines. The numbers of people who actually leave due to ganking using hard data.
The NPE study was a foot in the right direction. Especially given that CCP has such a horrible record in understanding their users (Incarna, POS's ect..). If they actually based their decisions on statistics this game would be a lot better and yes if they actually did a proper study into why people leave using actual data then they would know what to fix, rather than using anecdotal evidence themselves.
baltec1 wrote: What bias? They have literally spend 5 years nerfing high sec PvP and then when the ran a study to prove ganking hurts sub retention they found the exact opposite is true. If there was going to be bias surly it would be in favour of the last 5 years of changes they made?
No you are assuming the bias of all CCP staff is in the same direction, where it is well known that some CCP staff believe that ganking is good and that people just need to HTFU. It then depends on the bias of the person who stated that less than 1% of people stated that they left due to ganking, the bias of that person and the actual figures themselves. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18339
|
Posted - 2016.10.21 00:43:05 -
[255] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote: No they are NOT facts and no statistics is not easy. There are so many ways to make errors otherwise all statistics would be 100% right.
So from that you would believe the statistics that say smoking does not cause cancer, while believing that they do cause cancer. Or the famous 1990s online study that showed that 99% of all people owned computers with internet connections.
I believe statistics that hold up to scrutiny. You have yet to tell us what CCP has to gain from telling us ganking does not negatively impact player retention after nerfing it constantly for 5 years.
Mark Marconi wrote: I have only anecdotal evidence, however that is just as right as an unproven study. Which is why CCP need to get statistics Iceland in to help them. Then they could output things such as seasonally adjusted concurrent users, trend lines. The numbers of people who actually leave due to ganking using hard data.
What exactly is wrong with the data they used? Anyone else would be using the exact same data that CCP used.
Mark Marconi wrote: The NPE study was a foot in the right direction. Especially given that CCP has such a horrible record in understanding their users (Incarna, POS's ect..). If they actually based their decisions on statistics this game would be a lot better and yes if they actually did a proper study into why people leave using actual data then they would know what to fix, rather than using anecdotal evidence themselves.
They did.
They found that 85% of people that quit did so having done no PvP. That shows that removing PvP from highsec has not been a good thing because the PvE is not keeping people around.
Mark Marconi wrote: No you are assuming the bias of all CCP staff is in the same direction, where it is well known that some CCP staff believe that ganking is good and that people just need to HTFU. It then depends on the bias of the person who stated that less than 1% of people stated that they left due to ganking, the bias of that person and the actual figures themselves.
Why would CCP, in an official announcement on behalf of the company greenlight a staff member to say things on behalf of CCP that CCP do not agree with? |
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
42
|
Posted - 2016.10.21 01:17:10 -
[256] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: I believe statistics that hold up to scrutiny. You have yet to tell us what CCP has to gain from telling us ganking does not negatively impact player retention after nerfing it constantly for 5 years.
What scrutiny. Can you even point to anywhere that stated if they used a random sample or not.
Someone who does a statistic incorrectly, does not necessarily have to have something to gain. That is why statistics that are trustworthy publish their methodology and even the raw data if it is not confidentialised.
The NPE study was a very good start and it has produced a result they are working with. However that does not mean that the studies results are in any way correct. Also given that that particular study was only on the first 15 days of a characters life, you are using it to justify actions beyond those first 15 days.
baltec1 wrote: What exactly is wrong with the data they used? Anyone else would be using the exact same data that CCP used.
There is nothing wrong with the data they used but there is a huge question mark over HOW it was used. Raw data is exactly that, raw data does not make a statistic it is the basis to form statistics.
baltec1 wrote: They did.
They found that 85% of people that quit did so having done no PvP. That shows that removing PvP from highsec has not been a good thing because the PvE is not keeping people around.
No they didn't you keep going outside of the field of the study, which even if it was correct your extrapolation outside of the field of study is not.
They found that 85% of players who quit after having experienced no PvP within the FIRST 15 DAYS quit. What happens after those 15 days was not covered by the study except to say that their is a higher probability that people who did within the first 15 days are more inclined to stay longer. However they also failed to account for if the user was here via recruit a friend or a walk in, this would have massive alterations on the outcomes.
baltec1 wrote: Why would CCP, in an official announcement on behalf of the company greenlight a staff member to say things on behalf of CCP that CCP do not agree with?
I don't know if I would call the less than 1% an "official announcement" anymore than I would call a Devs going to twitter and posting an official announcement but either way if in the case of the first 15 days study, the results were false then CCP would be greenlighting something they believed to be accurate. Their belief that they did a good job does not make a statistic a statistic, which is why national statistics bureaus have to submit their work to the IMF, world bank etc.. for verification. As to the 1% thing as it was tacked in they may not have known or either way likely cared.
The statement Less than 1% of people stated ganking for their reason for leaving is not even a statistic, it was not studied, it was not measured or analyzed, it is a completely useless statement. After all as I have said previously, how many do not answer? How many put things that might indicate ganking without saying ganking, piracy for example?
You just do not know and given you do not know and cannot answer simple questions, you are working on faith. Merely a belief in what they said you wish to be true. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18339
|
Posted - 2016.10.21 01:45:42 -
[257] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote: What scrutiny. Can you even point to anywhere that stated if they used a random sample or not.
Someone who does a statistic incorrectly, does not necessarily have to have something to gain. That is why statistics that are trustworthy publish their methodology and even the raw data if it is not confidentialised.
The NPE study was a very good start and it has produced a result they are working with. However that does not mean that the studies results are in any way correct.
So you are saying they hand picked those 80,000 trial accounts?
Mark Marconi wrote: Also given that that particular study was only on the first 15 days of a characters life, you are using it to justify actions beyond those first 15 days.
It also looked at all responses of people leaving the game.
You still have not answered my question. What does CCP have to gain from pointing out PvP and more specifically ganking is good for player retention when they have spent the last 5 years nerfing it into the ground?
Mark Marconi wrote: There is nothing wrong with the data they used but there is a huge question mark over HOW it was used. Raw data is exactly that, raw data does not make a statistic it is the basis to form statistics.
Well, they found that out of 80,000 trial accounts 85% quit having done no PvP. They also found that less than 1% of people who quit say they left because they lost their ship to pvp. They also found that people take part in PvP play EVE for longer than people who do not.
So, how are they using this data wrong?
Mark Marconi wrote: No they didn't you keep going outside of the field of the study, which even if it was correct your extrapolation outside of the field of study is not.
I add it to all of the other evidence we have. The fact that EVE is falling in subs after years of nerfs to PvP, the fact that the easy to get into PvP is now gone, The fact that EVE grew at it fastest rate when there was a lot more PvP options available and so on.
Mark Marconi wrote: I don't know if I would call the less than 1% an "official announcement" anymore than I would call a Devs going to twitter and posting an official announcement but either way if in the case of the first 15 days study, the results were false then CCP would be greenlighting something they believed to be accurate. Their belief that they did a good job does not make a statistic a statistic, which is why national statistics bureaus have to submit their work to the IMF, world bank etc.. for verification. As to the 1% thing as it was tacked in they may not have known or either way likely cared.
So now CCP need to get the world bank involved before you believe them?
The only person dodging questions here is you. You still have yet to answer why CCP would want to do this when it flys in the face of the last 5 years of changes. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2960
|
Posted - 2016.10.21 04:25:40 -
[258] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote: The inability to do statistics correctly, does not change the fact that people release figures as facts.
The statistics they released were done by a company with no prior history in statistics, with no published documentation.
Subsequently you can either have faith that they did them right or skepticism at the fact the results cannot be verified.
What you do has nothing to do with scepticism but more with plain ignorance. Your assertion that they have "no prior history in statistics" is not only laughable it is just plain wrong. They have a whole department which analyses the in-game market and tries to predict the influence game changes will have.
I am not sure why you are so obsessed with their statistic skills. It's not like this is some magic tool, it just basic math skills every software engineer learns.
This has nothing to do with faith. We can trust CCP as they have every motivation to get this right. Their base assumption was the contrary of the result which is a strong indicator that there was no bias towards ganking.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
pajedas
Special Activities Division
320
|
Posted - 2016.10.21 04:33:59 -
[259] - Quote
Worst trolls and moderation I've seen in a while. Why ccp loves their little shank happy catalyst pilots is beyond me.
Hurry! Go cry to a moderator! Don't follow my sig down the rabbit hole (you might not make it out).
G¡É Who needs moderation? G¡É
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
42
|
Posted - 2016.10.21 04:35:26 -
[260] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: So you are saying they hand picked those 80,000 trial accounts?
I am saying we don't know how they got those 80,000 people. Subsequently we cannot determine the validity of the sample.
baltec1 wrote: It also looked at all responses of people leaving the game.
You still have not answered my question. What does CCP have to gain from pointing out PvP and more specifically ganking is good for player retention when they have spent the last 5 years nerfing it into the ground?
No it didn't look at all the people leaving the game. The study only looked at those 80,000 people. The only thing that looked at all the players leaving was the comment about less than 1% and that was not part of the study.
The validity of a study has nothing to do with whether someone has something to gain or not. Incorrectly done statistics are incorrectly done if someone has something to gain or not.
baltec1 wrote:Well, they found that out of 80,000 trial accounts 85% quit having done no PvP. They also found that less than 1% of people who quit say they left because they lost their ship to pvp. They also found that people take part in PvP play EVE for longer than people who do not.
So, how are they using this data wrong? Again wrong. They found that of those 80,000 people 85% had done no pvp in the first 15 days. Out of those 80,000 people they did find that those ganked within the first 15 days stayed longer.
They found that less than 1% of all people quitting listed ganking as their reason for leaving. How many people don't even answer? So is it 1% out of 10% who answer of is it 1% out of 50% who answer or is it 1% out of 90% who answer? That makes a huge difference. Did the search included non-consentual pvp, piracy, game mechanics etc.. you just dont know so that 1% is a useless garbage statistic.
baltec1 wrote: I add it to all of the other evidence we have. The fact that EVE is falling in subs after years of nerfs to PvP, the fact that the easy to get into PvP is now gone, The fact that EVE grew at it fastest rate when there was a lot more PvP options available and so on.
Except the falls in subscription relate to the timing of Incarna (no big surprise there), the release of crime watch and the rebalancing of destroyers and then the removal of Ice to anomalies. Not to pvp changes, excluding crime watch which did little.
Primarily what the study proved was that yes people in their first 15 days need to be ganked more. You cannot extrapolate it out to mean anything else because then it is just a guess.
baltec1 wrote: So now CCP need to get the world bank involved before you believe them?
The only person dodging questions here is you. You still have yet to answer why CCP would want to do this when it flys in the face of the last 5 years of changes.
No but an unprovable statistic is a belief, you are acting in a belief not a fact. You are representing this "fact" like people do with the bible.
As to dodging questions, I have dodged none. As I have said the results of a flawed study would mean that, they believe that is what the results are. We have no way to verify this study and even then you are going outside the bounds of this study to prove things that were not within the field of this study.
CCP have conducted no study to show that the pvp in Hi-sec needs to be increased, except in the case of the first 15 days of a person. Not even the first 15 days of an account just a person and as I said without knowing if those people were recruit a friends or walk ins, the study is very flawed from the get go.
|
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45203
|
Posted - 2016.10.21 04:36:24 -
[261] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:I am not sure why you are so obsessed with their statistic skills. It's not like this is some magic tool, it just basic math skills every software engineer learns. Because the figures don't match his preconceived ideas.
The only logical conclusion in the face of compelling evidence contrary to a view, is to claim there may be something wrong with the figures.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45203
|
Posted - 2016.10.21 04:38:27 -
[262] - Quote
pajedas wrote:Worst trolls and moderation I've seen in a while. Why ccp loves their little shank happy catalyst pilots is beyond me.
Hurry! Go cry to a moderator! Don't follow my sig down the rabbit hole (you might not make it out). Not so much trolling, but I agree on the moderation aspect.
Everything since page 4 should just be deleted. The OP has been forgotten long ago it seems.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
42
|
Posted - 2016.10.21 04:44:01 -
[263] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Mark Marconi wrote: The inability to do statistics correctly, does not change the fact that people release figures as facts.
The statistics they released were done by a company with no prior history in statistics, with no published documentation.
Subsequently you can either have faith that they did them right or skepticism at the fact the results cannot be verified.
What you do has nothing to do with scepticism but more with plain ignorance. Your assertion that they have "no prior history in statistics" is not only laughable it is just plain wrong. They have a whole department which analyses the in-game market and tries to predict the influence game changes will have. I am not sure why you are so obsessed with their statistic skills. It's not like this is some magic tool, it just basic math skills every software engineer learns. This has nothing to do with faith. We can trust CCP as they have every motivation to get this right. Their base assumption was the contrary of the result which is a strong indicator that there was no bias towards ganking. Motivation has nothing to do with accuracy or performance. Otherwise all races would be ties as all athletes would come first, all priests would be able to part seas and all little boys could fly.
Analysis of the in game market is economics, not statistics. Ability to do one does not mean you have the ability to do the other. Kind of like getting a brain surgeon to do your taxes.
The fact you believe software engineers can conduct statistical analysis, says a lot. I know why don't you go have your plumber tune you car.
So no CCP does not have a great deal of experience with statistics, if they did they would not blunder from mistake to mistake.
All you have is faith and belief. You cannot show what you believe to be true, you are just trusting that it is. |
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
42
|
Posted - 2016.10.21 04:47:23 -
[264] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:I am not sure why you are so obsessed with their statistic skills. It's not like this is some magic tool, it just basic math skills every software engineer learns. Because the figures don't match his preconceived ideas. The only logical conclusion in the face of compelling evidence contrary to a view, is to claim there may be something wrong with the figures. Please show me this compelling evidence.
A simple statement of CCPs showing how they determined the sample, why they excluded factors such as recruit a friend and the raw data they used will be just fine. That is compelling evidence. Not because they said so.
I have not said something is wrong with the figures I have said the figures are useless because they cannot be proven to be statistically valid or not. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
45203
|
Posted - 2016.10.21 04:49:47 -
[265] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:I am not sure why you are so obsessed with their statistic skills. It's not like this is some magic tool, it just basic math skills every software engineer learns. Because the figures don't match his preconceived ideas. The only logical conclusion in the face of compelling evidence contrary to a view, is to claim there may be something wrong with the figures. Please show me this compelling evidence. A simple statement of CCPs showing how they determined the sample, why they excluded factors such as recruit a friend and the raw data they used will be just fine. That is compelling evidence. Not because they said so. I have not said something is wrong with the figures I have said the figures are useless because they cannot be proven to be statistically valid or not. Yes, I'm sure the total issue is your lack of access to the primary data and not just CCP's conclusions.
If the figures supported your view, I'm sure you'd still be equally sceptical. Like, totally.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2960
|
Posted - 2016.10.21 04:59:32 -
[266] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote: All you have is faith and belief. You cannot show what you believe to be true, you are just trusting that it is.
Science is not about proving everything every time without a doubt. It is about saying what is more likely and what is not.
I tend to believe that a study conducted by people who have access to the data and a strong motivation to get it right is far more likely to be accurate than the gut feelings of a mad carebear without any data and a strong bias against gankers.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
42
|
Posted - 2016.10.21 05:11:26 -
[267] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
I tend to believe that a study conducted by people who have access to the data and a strong motivation to get it right is far more likely to be accurate than the gut feelings of a mad carebear without any data and a strong bias against gankers.
Yes it is more likely but again a probability is not a certainty and as the statistics have not been verified then they are meaningless.
Nor does their study have anything to do with ganking beyond the first 15 days of a player in EvE. So in relation to ganking mining barges, Industrials, exhumers, orcas etc.. it is completely irrelevant. As I did not have any hand in the creation of this statistical product, my bias has nothing to do with the inability to verify the study that was undertaken.
Nor does the study even if correct have any correlation to anything outside of the field of the study. So it is completely meaningless after the first 15 days of a players life.
So my strong bias, as you put it about gankers ganking older players is in no way relevant to a study that has nothing to do with it. |
Myles Wong
Mallaks Brown Grotto Raiders
33
|
Posted - 2016.10.21 05:12:52 -
[268] - Quote
This thread is still open?!? Can't wait for the chaos F2P brings. |
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
42
|
Posted - 2016.10.21 05:18:06 -
[269] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:I am not sure why you are so obsessed with their statistic skills. It's not like this is some magic tool, it just basic math skills every software engineer learns. Because the figures don't match his preconceived ideas. The only logical conclusion in the face of compelling evidence contrary to a view, is to claim there may be something wrong with the figures. Please show me this compelling evidence. A simple statement of CCPs showing how they determined the sample, why they excluded factors such as recruit a friend and the raw data they used will be just fine. That is compelling evidence. Not because they said so. I have not said something is wrong with the figures I have said the figures are useless because they cannot be proven to be statistically valid or not. Yes, I'm sure the total issue is your lack of access to the primary data and not just CCP's conclusions. If the figures supported your view, I'm sure you'd still be equally sceptical. Like, totally. As I am not a player within the first 15 days of playing, it would really have little to do with the problems I have about gankers after that time period. My concern is the fact that it is unverifiable and that some people are using it as the basis for commentary outside of the specifics of the study.
So you have a study which may or may not be correct but no one can verify this, in relation to the first 15 days of play, while some people are then taking this unverifiable study and stating that it should therefore be used as a reason to effect all PvP within hi-sec. It is about as relevant as a study of 9 year olds driving cars and then using that as an argument for lowering the speed limit to 5 for everyone as that was the speed they were safest driving at.
It is people stating beliefs as facts. Little more. |
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
42
|
Posted - 2016.10.21 05:19:15 -
[270] - Quote
Myles Wong wrote:This thread is still open?!? Can't wait for the chaos F2P brings. I presume alphas would have forum access and you are right.
They should not be called alpha clones, they should have called them Chaos clones. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |