EVE Search - Gallente are inferior pilots

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Intergalactic Summit

Gallente are inferior pilots

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Lady Skank Ban Evasion inc	Posted - 2010.11.24 17:40:00 - [1] Edited by: Lady Skank on 24/11/2010 17:44:43 A very interesting survey on capsuleer demographics was published recently detailing some official Concord records of ship destruction statistics which unsurprisingly prove Caldari are superior combat pilots to the Gallenteans. Caldari pilots accounted for 35.8% of all pod pilots and accounted for 38.3% of all recorded kills for only 36.5% of all recorded losses. Gallente pilots accounted for 20.5% of all pod pilots and accounted for 22.8% or all recorded kills but for 25.7% of all recorded losses So proportionally not only are Caldari more willing to engage in combat to defend their interests they are also more likely to be successful, Maybe its time for the Gallente to review their pacifist ways before they become overwhelmed by a horde of hardened Caldari veterans and I do not think offering them some organic Intaki peace crisps will help them much. The same statistics also prove that Minmatar are more successful combat pilots than Amarrians.
Lady Skank Ban Evasion inc	Posted - 2010.11.24 20:09:00 - [2] Originally by: De'Veldrin As Ms. Jenneth points out, without supporting data such as type of ship lost by race, we could also just as easily claim the Caldari are a bunch of cowards who spend all their time shooting at mining vessels and industrial ships so they won't actually risk taking a loss. Neither of these "facts" are supported by the available evidence. Considering all but one class of ship in the top twenty lost vessels is an Industrial ship and only 2,984 of those where lost its highly likely that those statistics reflect that all of the destroyed ships where at least in theory combat capable. Unless you are suggesting of course that the majority of Gallente undergo capsule training only to do the job that any Navy rookie should be capable of and shoot the crew piloted outlaw faction vessels yet fail miserably when they come face to face with another capsuleer?
Lady Skank Ban Evasion inc	Posted - 2010.11.24 21:23:00 - [3] Edited by: Lady Skank on 24/11/2010 21:25:03 Originally by: Dilaro thagriin while these statistics may be right... perhaps your thinking is a little skewed... lets see shall we... the statistics as you have shown them, show that, a larger force, has caused more casualties than a smaller one, and have lost less ships than the smaller one. you speak of proportions. but seem willing to take these points wholly out of context, just to make the caldari look better.... so yes, capsule tech was granted to the caldari first... woohoo... and you have more people who have become capsuleers... yay... but really, these statistics in no way prove the abilities of any of the capsuleer pilots in the cluster. all they show is ship loss. if you want to see who the best pilots are, may i suggest you arrange a fight where the numbers would be even, and the situation controlled?? if the point of your 'analysis' there was not just some nationalistic claim on how great the caldari are... though, i personally doubt it was anything more. fly safe ms Skank. I think you are mistaken as to exactly what the statistics show as its not about the raw amount of kills or losses its about the proportion, if you re-read them you and consider that the Gallente are responsible for a disproportionate amount of ship losses for the amount of Gallente pilots yet the Caldari proportionately get more kills and suffer less losses than Gallente pilots.
Lady Skank Ban Evasion inc	Posted - 2010.11.24 21:35:00 - [4] Originally by: Syn Callibri Originally by: Dilaro thagriin Psst.. Syn.. the first message within this particular IGS thread actually stated that our brave militia was performing better than the amarrians... and so they should. soon, we shall walk free of the valley. Pssst, Dilaro...it doesn't matter...the OP is drawing conclusions that aren't represented in the data. Besides, that part of it is common knowledge...we don't need "statistics" to figure that one out. The data is well..... the data and I cannot see how my conclusion is not represented by the data when all I have done is basically quoted that data and it shows that Gallente pilots on average tend to lose more ships and get less kills when coming face to face with another capsuleer. You can try and spin this anyway you want but its the truth, if you find the truth so offensive maybe you could convince fellow Gallenteans that they need to shape up and leave crewed pirate faction vessels alone and stop offering to meet enemies over a glass of wheat juice whilst swapping sandal recycling techniques and get some combat training.
Lady Skank Ban Evasion inc	Posted - 2010.11.24 21:54:00 - [5] Originally by: Dilaro thagriin she seems to think we're gallente.... odd that I thought Syn was based on her persistent white knighting, but I have edited my statement.
Lady Skank Ban Evasion inc	Posted - 2010.11.24 23:57:00 - [6] I really like the way people are trying to spin around hard data by attempting to muddy the waters with things that just don't matter as the numbers don't lie, they are what they are. Would you try to claim that 10 is less than 5? because that is what you are doing.
Lady Skank Ban Evasion inc	Posted - 2010.11.25 01:11:00 - [7] Originally by: snake driver Originally by: Lady Skank I really like the way people are trying to spin around hard data by attempting to muddy the waters with things that just don't matter as the numbers don't lie, they are what they are. Would you try to claim that 10 is less than 5? because that is what you are doing. They are not arguing the data. The data is what it is. They are arguing with your interpretation of the data by presenting alternate means by which the same data could be produced without dictating that the Gallente are inferior pilots. Never mind that the data is largely meaningless. It is to vague and free of context to draw conclusions from. The only assertions that can be made from the data are exactly what the data state: Caldari pilots have a greater ratio of killing hits (a largely meaningless statistic) relative to the number of pilots than the Gallente, while the Gallente have a greater ratio of losses (a slightly more meaningful statistic, but still worthless without greater context). These data are not sufficient to support your claim that Gallente are inferior pilots. That is all. Whether they actually are inferior is not my concern - they may very well be. But the limited and context-free data we have been provided does not necessarily support that conclusion. So Caldari are more likely to be at least involved in a kill, ok I can see that but the numbers are consistent and don't appear to be the result of any anomalies, surely if they where generated so randomly there would be no real pattern and include a huge variance with no consistency yet the two races that have the lowest proportion of losses have the highest proportion of final blows. Even disregarding kills you can see by losses alone that Gallente pilots account for a disproportionate amount of losses showing that they are more likely to loose a ship in combat and due to this fact it makes it more probable that the data regarding final blows is also accurate. This combination soundly support my conclusion.
Lady Skank Ban Evasion inc	Posted - 2010.11.25 02:53:00 - [8] Originally by: snake driver The data supports the following conclusions: Caldari pilots are more likely to fire the killing shot. Gallente pilots are more prone to being destroyed. The data do not give sufficient context to determine why this is the case - you are concluding that it is because the Gallente are inferior combat pilots. While this is a natural assumption, the fact that there are other possible explanations of the data means that more information is needed before such a conclusion can be drawn scientifically. So the people who die more frequently and destroy less ships are not performing worse in combat? if someone mines more ore in less time are they not better miners? if an industrialist can create more produce and reduce costs further are they not more successful? The only rebuttal anybody has come up with is to reply to clear and reliable data with anecdotes or spin, the statistics cannot be disputed so all anyone can do is try and claim that they mean nothing.
Lady Skank Ban Evasion inc	Posted - 2010.11.25 05:08:00 - [9] iyammarrok the statistics I quoted purely concern combat nothing else, the report contains many other topics like the details of the ship classes lost and the amount of ships constructed and flown but the case I present here covers only the proportional kills and losses. Perhaps you might pursue the document yourself before making assumptions as to its contents, you never know it may help you or anyone construct an argument instead of trying to rebut facts with anecdotes.
Lady Skank Ban Evasion inc	Posted - 2010.11.25 08:56:00 - [10] Originally by: Vladimir Norkoff Originally by: Lady Skank Caldari pilots accounted for 35.8% of all pod pilots and accounted for 38.3% of all recorded kills Gallente pilots accounted for 20.5% of all pod pilots and accounted for 22.8% or all recorded kills Silly troll, your math is fail. Caldari only kill a measly 7% more than their population. The Gallente however kill a stunning 11% more in proportion to their population. Which means pound for pound, Gallente are actually more effective. I tip my hat sir, someone was finally able to present an argument based on fact rather than opinion. Still you cherry picked only part of the picture. while the Gallente kill proportion is slightly more favourable than it initially appears what about the losses? my conclusion still stands, kills are only one measure of a pilots combat effectiveness and the proportion of losses is far greater for the Gallente.

Lady Skank Ban Evasion inc	Posted - 2010.11.26 00:17:00 - [11] Edited by: Lady Skank on 26/11/2010 00:22:03 Originally by: iyammarrok Originally by: Lady Skank iyammarrok the statistics I quoted purely concern combat nothing else whereas the report in question SPECIFICALLY states 'the data used for this analysis contains ALL SHIP KILLS throughout the [3 month period before this report was published]' now... ALL. SHIP. KILLS.... how is that not simple enough to understand?? i would like to ask how, all ship kills, which as i previously stated would contain mining vessels, haulers, freighters, capsules, shuttles, and all manner of other non-combat vessels, means only combat kills... let us define a combat kill.... that is when both sides are actively combat ready, and both participate in the combat. being shot AT does not count as active participation in a combat... in fact, if such a thing as passive combat existed, that would likely be it's definition. you seem to think that for it to count as a combat kill, only one side must be directly seeking combat. i have perused the document more than once, and unlike you, did more than skim read and take from that the information i wanted. if any others have not yet read the 'CONCORD' released document, then HERE it is. Remember the report lists the rankings of destroyed ship classes and industrial ships are a negligible fraction of all destroyed ships, therefore its easy to conclude that industrial ships have very little influence over the statistics because most of the common kills are combat capable vessels. Originally by: Vladimir Norkoff Originally by: Lady Skank I tip my hat sir, someone was finally able to present an argument based on fact rather than opinion. Still you cherry picked only part of the picture. while the Gallente kill proportion is slightly more favourable than it initially appears what about the losses? my conclusion still stands, kills are only one measure of a pilots combat effectiveness and the proportion of losses is far greater for the Gallente. Well I didn't want to speak ill of anyone, but sure we can address losses. Caldari die a mere 2% more in proportion to their population, while the Gallente die an amazing of 25% more than their population. Using "Lady Spank Logic"(tm) one can immediately determine that the reason for this is that Caldari are craven cowards and will flee at the merest hint of things turning bad. Gallente on the other hand will stay and fight to defend their interests, slaughtering their enemies until they themselves fall in a blaze of glory. Because after all, it's better to burn out than fade away. As wise people have said before the point of war is not to die gloriously for the state, its to make the other bastard die for his.
Lady Skank Ban Evasion inc	Posted - 2010.11.26 03:44:00 - [12] iyammarrok its you that needs to get over it, your spin is understandable of course being Gallente yourself.
Lady Skank Ban Evasion inc	Posted - 2010.11.26 09:56:00 - [13] Oh we are bringing myths into this now? the original source of that quote is unknown but its used a fair amount but I do not for one second believe it came from a mythical man from a mythical empire who fought a mythical war in a place that probably does not even exist. You seemed quite sensible until the Earth origin rubbish.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.