|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Hamshoe
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 12:22:00 -
[1] - Quote
Mythrandier wrote: I'm not wanting to jump to conclusions here, but your post comes across as someone who joined EvE knowing it was a harsh, pvp based game and now wants to make it safe and cosy.
It's become much less so over the years, and with good reason: the pure form was killing the game, to the point that the Devs felt they had to intervene actively.
Gate changes, tactical nerfs, gate guns, jump clones, sovereignty, all have conspired to make the EVEverse smaller and safer. Physical and production chokepoints lead to hydraulic empires and the oft lamented NAPfests. Note how major power shifts of late have been almost entirely "meta" events, the current game mechanics are all about safety and stagnation.
This is essentially a socially exclusive game, trust is the most valuable commodity. Combined with the continual reinforcement of established power, it's a real testament to the perceived potential that this game grows at all. |
Hamshoe
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 14:18:00 -
[2] - Quote
Polly Oxford wrote: Also insinuating that Devs are corrupt without any proof whatsoever is despicable.
Yes. It would be wholly unprecedented.
|
Hamshoe
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 20:14:00 -
[3] - Quote
Tippia wrote:It's not really blowing smoke GÇö it's extrapolating from known numbers with known properties (i.e. that highsec players are exclusive in terms of where their characters exist, whereas low/null players are not). It's the fact that we're not talking about mutually exclusive categories that let us arrive at that number and, even if that's still an estimate, we can at any rate say with absolute certainty that the actual proportion of highsec players is lower than 67%.
Ok, maybe not blowing smoke... how about "pulling it out of your special place that smells like yesterdays lunch"?
Unless of course you're defining your terms with the definite purpose of pretending to support your conclusion. There's a technical term for that.
|
Hamshoe
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 21:29:00 -
[4] - Quote
Tippia wrote:We can still say with complete certainty that the number is much larger than the 30% (actually 34.7%, but it's not as round and easy to remember). Why? Because we know for a fact that these people have alts in highsec, and we know for a fact that the GÇ£highsecGÇ¥ players do not have corresponding low/null alts, because that would mean they're not highsec players by very definition.
I think you're inflating your numbers by counting anyone who's ever been through a low/null system as "not highsec" and assuming an unfounded number of "low/null" alts.
Perhaps we should turn the definition around and count low/null as only those who never go into high sec? After all, just because your highsec doesn't mean you never pop through low.
Does CCP publish a definition of those terms/player types? Because I'm pretty unpersuaded by yours. |
Hamshoe
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 01:25:00 -
[5] - Quote
Tippia wrote:What we do know with absolute certainty is that the 70% highsec character population means that fewer than 70% of the players are highsec players.
No, we know that you define things that way and that the only actual data is a point in time snapshot.
That's the only "actual certainty" we have, all else is speculation.
Attempts to define it otherwise are deception. |
Hamshoe
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 04:11:00 -
[6] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Hamshoe wrote:No, we know that you define things that way and that the only actual data is a point in time snapshot.
That's the only "actual certainty" we have, all else is speculation. GǪbut the thing is, any way you define it, you arrive at the same conclusion, and most of them are much worse (from the Gǣsilent majorityGǥ perspective) than what I arrive at.
Yes, the reverse of your claim in equally valid (That being that anyone who does anything in high sec can be called a high sec player), and that has the neat property of demonstrating that your definition is without meaning. There's no actual distinction made. It's a pantomime argument.
Tippia wrote:]That's kind of my whole point: claiming that highsec players are a majority is a deception.
Well, you'll want to talk to CPP about that. You saw their data along with everyone else.
Unless it's the concept of "majority" that escapes you. |
Hamshoe
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 04:19:00 -
[7] - Quote
Tippia wrote:The simple fact remains, and your strawmen cannot change this fact: the 70% highsec character population means that fewer than 70% of the players are highsec players, to the point where they might not even be the majority (silent or otherwise) that they so often claim to be.
That's most certainly not a fact, it is your interpretation based on your definition which you have created to support your point.
There's a not so subtle difference.
So, if you're demanding apologies for lying... eh. |
|
|
|