Oh hey: Knowledge that I can post on!

Highsec incursions did pay less, but the complete lack or risk allowed for fitting and optimization that made them pay out far more than a group doing lowsec incursions could make if they were to fit prudent to their situations due to the speed at which they could be run.

The name of the game in lowsec incursions was HAC's and T3's that way you were moderately nimble, well tanked and small sigged running with at least 3 logi's. This was pretty much how they had to be run in null and low because tangling with pirates wasn't something that "May" happen. It was something that simply was going to happen.

I didn't go to a single incursion where we didn't fight off a gang or lose members of the incursion group to gangs that successfully jumped us.

If we were to run the big Mach/Vindi etc etc etc gangs like the highsec people were: We'd have been murdered in very expensive ships due to the giant sigs.

Actually - it seems that this is the best accounting of players (as Dr E stated) that we're going to get.

Is there slop here? Yeah, but it gives an overall view of player locations. If players weren't on the toons doing whatever, they wouldn't be active in that space to be counted.

So, once again, we're either arguing semantics (who should be counted in which group) or arguing that the numbers aren't detailed enough, when in fact, there *is* enough information to at least make a reasonable guess...

But both 70% and 66% are still a "majority", and it's pretty clear that the presenter is talking in terms of players. The first charts are titled "Where in the world do people live?"

Unless you want to take it up with Dr EyjoG?

This is quite insightful. Quite insightful, indeed.

So what this means is that, typically, low and null Incursions pay less reward for their relative risk than high-sec Incursions?

Yeah, maybe they were hit too hard. But not in high-sec.

How would you differentiate between my Carrier pilot who spends most of his time in low and my subcap dude who spends most of his time in null (And admittedly sometimes low)? The only real way to find out of I'm a guy who likes roaming nullsec but makes my home in low is to ask me. I have ships spread all over hell so even looking at my primary accumulation of assets won't work. Especially since I still have most of my incursion staging crap in the bowels of lowsec.

Also the thought that CCP has a reporting tool competent enough to make these distinctions is laughable. We're talking about "Zee logs show nothing!" CCP here.

From my understanding if you discount combat losses and compared a straight "Isk per hour" assuming you were single boxing: Highsec incursions were making about 10-20M an hour more than those of us in lowsec with absolutely no risk. Bear in mind that my own knowledge of isk per hour in highsec is mainly second hand here. On average WE were netting about 90-100m an hour, mainly dependent on how many newbee's in hurricanes we were letting in :v

Well, it's a case of, if you can pull numbers out of your ass that are likely to be more accurate, be my guest, but until you do so, I think I'll just believe what the game's economist tells me, that 70-ish percent of PEOPLE play in High-Sec.

Somehow I think they are able to factor multiple accounts and all the rest of it into their calculations - I should think they probably have information about IPs and credit cards

Well, it's a case of, if you can pull numbers out of your ass that are likely to be more accurate, be my guest, but until you do so, I think I'll just believe what the game's economist tells me, that 70-ish percent of PEOPLE play in High-Sec.

Somehow I think they are able to factor multiple accounts and all the rest of it into their calculations - I should think they probably have information about IPs and credit cards

who'll say that both charts are counting characters, because that's what they always count and why he's comparing them: one shows all characters; the other shows non-newbie characters (newbie being defined as having less than 5M SP).

[quote=Barbelo Valentinian]They probably could, but they don't. If they did, they would have been able to present Gǣaccounts per playerGǥ stats along with the Gǣcharacters per accountGǥ stats they produceGǪ but the thing is that they never do.

n addition, it would still be methodologically unsound, since credit card + IP doesn't necessarily equates to GÇ£a playerGÇ¥.

Tippia, take from it what you will (hell, I know a hi-sec player who at one time ran 26 accounts, all in hi-sec - there will always be statistical flyers) the snapshots show a consistent trend - as you say, it would be a logistical nightmare to know where all the players are. But given a long enough time frame and the numbers remaining somewhat consistent year to year, character activity is the best information we have. vOv

To get back to the OP (and my point) Null sec'ers need to do a better job of recruiting and supporting new players if they want them to leave hi-sec.

Bottom line.

Yeah look: I know my way around a database, and I'm telling you right now that CCP does not have a nice pat query that is going to tell them that kind of information without some pretty ******* hefty guessing and interpretation. Mainly for the reasons I stated.

Once again.

I have two characters. One is sitting in lowsec: most of his assets are in lowsec.

The other is sitting in Nullsec: most of his assets are in nullsec.

Now lets pretend my alliance is one of those that floats between NPC null and Low.

Am I a nullsec player, or a lowsec player?

Surely common sense tells you that the type of player who'd go to the effort of hiding things that much is going to be relatively rare. It wouldn't bias the numbers that much, certainly not enough to change a substantial majority into a minority.

So the title of the chart, which refers to "People", is bollocks then?

I admire your ongoing defence of the PvP functionality of the game, but EVE does also have PvE "sand", and if the majority of players are playing with the PvE sand and not the PvP sand (except indirectly), then so be it.

Tippia, take from it what you will (hell, I know a hi-sec player who at one time ran 26 accounts, all in hi-sec - there will always be statistical flyers) the snapshots show a consistent trend - as you say, it would be a logistical nightmare to know where all the players are. But given a long enough time frame and the numbers remaining somewhat consistent year to year, character activity is the best information we have. vOv

Which are you more active on?

We've seen your hi sec community in action with the recent incursion nerf.

"We're a vital and relevant roleplaying community CCP and the bonds we've forged will endure through time"

--1 nerf later--

"ISK/hr for incursion not good enough I'm gonna solo level 4s again"

Yep. You guys totally have the drive, determination, and skill it takes to build a nullsec empire. You only complain about it because nullsec is too hard for you because it would require you to form real connections with other people and actually fight for something.

As luck would have it, the majority of players are playing with the PvP sand.

Apparently the survey results indicate that most people do two very naughty things.

1. play solo
2. are pve only.

In fact, only about 1/4 of all players are interested in the pvp aspects of the game.


This is unacceptable.
We obviously aren't trying hard enough to force them into lo sec.

Time to step up the ganking. They resist, but once they lose some hulks and are forced down they'll enjoy the game.

If 75 percent of players didn't sub for PVP and the devs estimate that 70 percent of characters reside in high sec, then the two numbers are close enough to know you're in the ballpark.

The devs have said repeatedly that the overwhelming majority of players live in high sec. You can try to spin that to mean what you want, and you're giving it such a sincere try that it's kind of heartbreaking. You just don't want to believe the facts.

Seventy percent is considerably lower than the QEN estimates. Those data were based on snapshots of actual players and where they were at given times, meaning players who were actually logged on and playing. That was my understanding, anyway. Since only one player can be logged on per account. then the two numbers were the same in terms of the QEN. I'm going by memory though and I could be wrong.

And your basis for that is ... ?

Apparently the survey results indicate that most people do two very naughty things.

1. play solo
2. are pve only.

In fact, only about 1/4 of all players are interested in the pvp aspects of the game.


This is unacceptable.
We obviously aren't trying hard enough to force them into lo sec.

Time to step up the ganking. They resist, but once they lose some hulks and are forced down they'll enjoy the game.

Now? The nullsec guy. But when Incursions didn't suck I was in lowsec most of the time. But all of that money was being funneled back into nullsec.

This is why that categorization is inherently broken. It pretends people don't bounce between the sec's on a regular basis.

You're expecting an EVE player to be able to read charts correctly? Really now.

Name activities that players can participate in that aren't PVP in Eve online.

Let's see.

1) Ship spinning
2) WiC (Walking in Closets)

Yep.

That's some compelling non-pvp content, let me tell you!

Sillyness :) having experienced players from many online games, i suggest eve actually supports some of the more well educated neck-beards of the world. Long as you stear well clear of general discussion..