Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Krixtal Icefluxor
Bison - Ammatar Thunder Thundering Herd
375
|
Posted - 2012.03.19 11:16:00 -
[31] - Quote
* Damsel In Distress * ....... again. At least she gets rescued 4500 times a day....at RANDOM OMG He Spent His Free-áAURUM ! God is simply-áthe very extraordinary power of the Universe to organize Itself as percieved. -á-á- Lee Smolin "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity" |
Cyniac
Twilight Star Rangers Black Thorne Alliance
176
|
Posted - 2012.03.19 15:37:00 -
[32] - Quote
Even though on this my anecdotal evidence seems to align fairly well with that of Crimson - I agree entirely with Tippia's assertion that this is at best, anecdotal.
So let me put this in another way.
What kind of data (that us mortal players) can be gathered which would be the best to show things one way or the other? I'm willing to invest some time in gathering said data and see what happens. |
Prokonsul Piotrus
Prokonsular Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.19 17:01:00 -
[33] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:That edit was made by Piotrus on April 30, 2009. "In game, my nickname is Prokonsul Piotrus." I've sent an in-game mail to see if he can provide some clarity.
Thanks for the eve-mail notification.
If you look at edit history, you'll note at http://www.eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=Agents&diff=prev&oldid=38114 that I just merged this from a now-deleted page on Guide:Agents
Unfortunately, even through I am an admin at eve wiki I seem to be unable to view the history of the Guide:Agents. Weird, but I have not been active there for a while. All I can say at this point is that I suspsect somebody else added it to the Guide:Agents page at some point (I am pretty sure it was not my discovery), and I just merged it while organizing the entries on agents on that wiki. It is a 2009 or older piece of information, and at this point I am not familiar enough with EVE to be sure if it is still accurate. It most likely was accurate around 2009, or at least somebody thought i was and nobody challenged it till now.
Btw, the http://eve.grismar.net/wikka.php?wakka=AgentLevelAndQuality/history entry is from 2010 so it was likely copied from eve-wiki. I cannot find another source for it.
You may want to see who are the current active admins on eve-wiki, and ask them if they can see the deleted history of Guide:Agents, and thus can trace the author of that claim. |
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1299
|
Posted - 2012.03.19 22:45:00 -
[34] - Quote
Cyniac wrote:Even though on this my anecdotal evidence seems to align fairly well with that of Crimson - I agree entirely with Tippia's assertion that this is at best, anecdotal.
So let me put this in another way.
What kind of data (that us mortal players) can be gathered which would be the best to show things one way or the other? I'm willing to invest some time in gathering said data and see what happens.
Anecdotal Evidence is merely casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis.
Obviously there is very little info available and CCP has not released any Official statements regarding this subject. I posted what little info there is available that supports this 'Anecdotal Evidence' which was immediately dismissed by some players claiming it as more unfounded assertions. Yet they still can't post any links providing support to their contradictions which makes their statements nothing more than Hearsay Evidence.
I have sent a petition to CCP asking them to clarify this issue once and for all. I'll post their reply asap. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5701
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 13:26:00 -
[35] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:Obviously there is very little info available and CCP has not released any Official statements regarding this subject. I posted what little info there is available that supports this 'Anecdotal Evidence' which was immediately dismissed by some players claiming it as more unfounded assertions. Yet they still can't post any links providing support to their contradictions which makes their statements nothing more than Hearsay Evidence. We can provide exactly the same evidence as you can, and provide exactly the same kind of support you can. The difference is that we are not trying to prove anything GÇö you are. We are simply stating that there is nothing to suggest that we should deviate from the null hypothesis (that there is no link).
You are the one trying to claim there is a connection, so the only one who has to provide any kind of evidence is you. Until you do, we don't need to do anything but remind you that you have none and that you cannot really go about and claim that there is such a connection the way you do. Us doing anything at all beyond that is just a courtesy GÇö absolutely nothing is required of us until you provide something to disprove (should we even have any desire to do so).
Calling people trolls because they don't buy your departure from the null hypothesis with anything backing it up just makes you look like you prefer this to be a matter of faith (complete with persecution of those who don't automatically hold the same beliefs) rather than of actual knowledge. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1299
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 16:21:00 -
[36] - Quote
Tippia wrote:We can provide exactly the same evidence as you can, and provide exactly the same kind of support you can. The difference is that we are not trying to prove anything GÇö you are. We are simply stating that there is nothing to suggest that we should deviate from the null hypothesis (that there is no link).
What a load of manure. You've been constantly trying to prove I'm incorrect with every single post you make in this thread. Please post this so called evidence of yours proving that my statement is incorrect and I will gladly retract my statement and claim you're right.
Tippia wrote:You are the one trying to claim there is a connection, so the only one who has to provide any kind of evidence is you. Until you do, we don't need to do anything but remind you that you have none and that you cannot really go about and claim that there is such a connection the way you do. Us doing anything at all beyond that is just a courtesy GÇö absolutely nothing is required of us until you provide something to disprove (should we even have any desire to do so).
More lies, where is this so called rule written that says the burden of proof is on me? Also you were the one who started it with your claim that mission offers are totally random with this post:
Tippia wrote:cyndrogen wrote:Have the agents mission assignments been changed? I think after the previous update agents started offering only certain types of missions while previously there was a greater variety. No, it's just random, and the human mind really dislikes it. So yes, you're imagining things. Not that you're getting those missions over and over again, but that it has any meaning or that it signifies any change. It's just the roll of the die.
Since you insist on stating your viewpoint with no supporting evidence then I have every right to state my viewpoint without providing evidence. It seems you don't understand how a debate works since I already posted links showing support for my statement. Now it's your turn to post links showing support for your statement. That's called point and counterpoint which is otherwise known as a debate.
Tippia wrote:Calling people trolls because they don't buy your departure from the null hypothesis with anything backing it up just makes you look like you prefer this to be a matter of faith (complete with persecution of those who don't automatically hold the same beliefs) rather than of actual knowledge.
You are trolling due to constantly writing long drawn out posted replies ranting about how I'm wrong and yet you can't provide any evidence whatsoever to support your claim. So far all I've seen is a bunch of hearsay being presented as fact with a few players trying to give credence to your statement. I could also get players to post in this thread and give credence that supports my statement but I'm not going to waste anymore of my time with your bullshit.
More importantly, I see you conveniently overlooked my last statement: "I have sent a petition to CCP asking them to clarify this issue once and for all. I'll post their reply asap." |
stoicfaux
798
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 16:50:00 -
[37] - Quote
Personally, I'm insulted by Tippia's continuance of this "debate."
Tippia, are you implying that the rest of us are too stupid to know that DeMichael Crimson's arguments are weak-sauce? That we need to be continually reminded about anecdotal evidence, unsupported/unverifiable/potentially-out-of-date sources, or about such concepts as "proving a negative" or the burden of proof?
Hrmph.
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
Kira Deschain
Minmatar Death Squad Broken Chains Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 20:10:00 -
[38] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote: More lies, where is this so called rule written that says the burden of proof is on me?
Dude, it has been known since ancient Greece. Seriously....
"semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
Also, kinda have to agree with Stoicfaux on this whole "debate".... |
cyndrogen
Occultum Scientia
36
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 20:26:00 -
[39] - Quote
Aggressive Nutmeg wrote:I believe missions are allocated randomly. But since I don't have access to the game mechanics, I'm really only guessing based on my experience and knowledge of probability. I keep a database of all missions run for various L4 agents. There's over 300 mission records in this database and I don't see any pattern emerging in terms of frequency or order.
Perhaps some agents draw a subset of missions from the overall pool and perhaps there is a weighting system in place to make some missions slightly more likely than others. I just don't know.
One thing's for sure, the primitive human mind has evolved to look for patterns. This might be a useful attribute in caveman days - where we needed to detect patterns in the migration of animals, weather patterns, etc - but it's useless when dealing with randomly generated events.
For example, I had a feeling that the offering of faction missions became less likely the more you work with a particular agent OR the more you decline such missions. But when I look at the data, this does not seem to be the case. What the data does show is that the offering of faction missions is usually clumped - ie. when you decline a faction mission you are frequently offered another faction mission either immediately or one mission later.
I believe this conflict in the human mind is the main cause of problem gambling, for example. There are people who really do believe in 'luck' and they think they see patterns in the cards, dice or reels that simple aren't there. We have evolved this way.
Only mathematics - specifically probability and standard deviation theory - will get you closer to understanding the puzzle that is Eve agent mechanics.
Here's the distribution of missions awarded to my main missioning character. I can't see a pattern:
A Fine Wine2 Angel Extravaganza10 Assault, The7 Attack of the Drones8 Blockade, The10 Buzz Kill9 Cargo Delivery4 Damsel in Distress, The15 Downing The Slavers (2 of 2)7 Dread Pirate Scarlet12 Duo of Death9 *Exploited Sensitivities8* Gone Berserk7 *In the Midst of Deadspace (1 of 5)7* Infiltrated Outposts6 Intercept The Saboteurs9 Massive Attack5 Materials For War Preparation6 Mordus Headhunters, The8 Pirate Invasion11 *Pot and Kettle (1 of 5)5* Recon (1 of 3)5 Recon (2 of 3)5 Recon (3 of 3)5 Right Hand of Zazzmatazz, The8 Rogue Drone Harassment (Lvl 4)7 Rogue Slave Trader, The (1 of 2)7 Score, The4 Serpentis Extravaganza10 Serpentis Spies, The7 Shifting Rocks2 Shipyard Theft1 Silence The Informant6 *Smash the Supplier6* Smuggler Interception13 Stop The Thief6 *Surprise Surprise8* Transaction Data Delivery2 Unauthorized Military Presence6 Vengeance15 Worlds Collide6
* denotes declined faction missions
Thank you for posting this it confirms my belief that DPS (dread pirate scarlet) is indeed offered less often now.
Before I was running DPS almost daily from an agent in a 0.7 system, I would get that mission sometimes TWICE in a single day but those days are over. I am lucky if I get that mission now once a week.
Also is it better to get 2k LP missions or 5k lp mission??? I can usually get through a 2k LP in under 20 minutes maybe 15 if the gates are not far apart. So technically I'm better off running 2k LP missions since I can net higher LP per hour where as DPS can take me 45 minutes up to an hour to net 5k LP....
My average in highsec is about 17 million an hour. With DPS however that average doubles, but then again I don't get to play that mission as often anymore. |
Borun Tal
Border Zone Combat
57
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 20:59:00 -
[40] - Quote
1. If there's nothing worth looting/salvaging, blitz them. 2. If there's stuff worth looting/salvaging, do it. 3. LP is LP
What's the problem? Go run missions for another faction, do some exploration, hit up some Incursions, etc... Why you people insist on whining when there's so --expletive deleted-- much to do in this game baffles me. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5712
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 21:48:00 -
[41] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:What a load of crap. You've been constantly trying to prove I'm incorrect with every single post you make in this thread. No. I've constantly tried to make you provide evidence to support your claim and said that, in absence of any such evidence, the null hypothesis is left unchallenged.
Quote:More lies, where is this so called rule written that says the burden of proof is on me? Onus probandi. It's only been in place for the last 3,000 years or so. You make the claim that there is a connection GÇö you prove it. In the absence of proof, I'm free to say that we have no proof (because it's your responsibility to provide it, and you haven't). You are providing me with all the evidence I need to keep saying that it's random by not showing that there is indeed a connection between mission offers and various independent variables. While you're at it, maybe you should look up the word GÇ£lieGÇ¥ as well.
Should you provide such evidence, we come to the next step, when I would have to provide counter-evidence or show flaws in your proposed mechanic if I want to maintain that the null hypothesis still holds trueGǪ but why would I want that at that point?
Quote:You are trolling due to constantly writing long drawn out posted replies ranting about how I'm wrong and yet you can't provide any evidence whatsoever to support your claim. GǪevidence that I don't have to provide since I'm simply arguing that we have nothing to challenge the null hypothesis. It takes a while to explain to you what you need to do since, apparently, the simple explanations aren't sufficient. Explaining to you what your argument is lacking is not trolling GÇö it's education. Just because you don't like these explanations doesn't make it trolling.
stoicfaux wrote:Personally, I'm insulted by Tippia's continuance of this "debate."
Tippia, are you implying that the rest of us are too stupid to know that DeMichael Crimson's arguments are weak-sauce? That we need to be continually reminded about anecdotal evidence, unsupported/unverifiable/potentially-out-of-date sources, or about such concepts as "proving a negative" or the burden of proof? No such implication, insinuation, or insult is intended GÇö it's all aimed at DMC, since he's struggling with these very fundamental concepts.
Speaking of whichGǪ DMC, might I suggest an introductory course in rhetorics and argumentation analysis? They would really help you. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Cyniac
Twilight Star Rangers Black Thorne Alliance
179
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 22:17:00 -
[42] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Onus probandi. It's only been in place for the last 3,000 years or so. You make the claim that there is a connection GÇö you prove it.
This principle is correct - however it is not unreasonable to ask before starting to gather the information to prove or disprove something to ascertain what kind of information is needed.
What kind of proof would you find to be conclusive (or at least indicative) on how agents work?
I personally think that there are two factors which need to be looked into:
1) Does the relative standing to an agent affect the type of missions which the agent grants?
2) Does the mission running history of an agent affect the type of missions which the agent grants? (Specifically the missions which are successfully completed or those which are rejected - in practice both effects can be looked at simultaneously at least initially).
Here is how I think it ought to be tested.
Take two toons which have never run any missions.
Send them to the same agent.
Start having them run missions - only does faction missions and declines pirate missions. The other only does pirate missions and declines faction missions.
Record the missions which are being offered vs the standings of the character. See what happens.
Simple right? If you see differences in the missions being offered then that is probably indicative of an underlying mechanism. Once standings get high enough (say 9.0 or above) deliberately bomb the standings with that agent and repeat to see the kind of missions being offered.
However having written all that down it makes me tired just to go about it right now but hey it's a project. |
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1299
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 04:24:00 -
[43] - Quote
Tippia wrote: more ranting Do you or anyone else have any Statistical Evidence or an Official Statement from CCP for verification of this so called 'Null Hypothesis'? It doesn't matter how many characters you get to post here on your behalf, it's all hearsay until someone provides positive evidence to back up your statement. I already posted links providing support to my statement yet you obviously can't provide any links at all to support your viewpoint. Probably because there isn't any available.
stoicfaux wrote:Personally, I'm insulted by Tippia's continuance of this "debate."
Tippia, are you implying that the rest of us are too stupid to know that DeMichael Crimson's arguments are weak-sauce? Yet nobody has provided any substantial evidence to dispute my statement.
stoicfaux wrote:That we need to be continually reminded about anecdotal evidence, unsupported/unverifiable/potentially-out-of-date sources, I'd rather go with Anecdotal Evidence than Hearsay Evidence. Hearsay Evidence is nothing more than unsubstantiated rumors that are unverified. As for the links I posted being out-of-date, check the date at the bottom of their page.
stoicfaux wrote:or about such concepts as "proving a negative" or the burden of proof? First of all, Tippia was the one who started this with her statement that agent mission offers are totally random with nothing affecting them so the 'Burden Of Proof' actually falls on Tippia. Since this isn't a Legal Proceeding I don't have to show any proof. However I did provide links to back up my statement yet no one else has posted any proof to negate those links.
Bottom line: CCP is the only one who can resolve this issue and when they do reply to the petition with a statement regarding this subject, then someone can claim they are correct. Until that time, I'm not going to waste any more of my time on this thread unless someone can post undisputed evidence in support of one side or the other. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5725
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 08:42:00 -
[44] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:Do you or anyone else have any Statistical Evidence or an Official Statement from CCP for verification of this so called 'Null Hypothesis'? The null hypothesis is what the null hypothesis always is: that there is no connection between anything. It is not there to be verified GÇö it's there to be falsified (by you).
Quote:Yet nobody has provided any substantial evidence to dispute my statement. No-one has to until you provide any substantial evidence to dispute it. Until you provide something to support it, it's false by default.
Quote:I'd rather go with Anecdotal Evidence than Hearsay Evidence. And I'd rather go with actual evidence. So how about you cough some up?
Quote:First of all, Tippia was the one who started this with her statement that agent mission offers are totally random with nothing affecting them so the 'Burden Of Proof' actually falls on Tippia. Since this isn't a Legal Proceeding I don't have to show any proof. However I did provide links to back up my statement yet no one else has posted any proof to negate those links. I started by stating the null hypothesis GÇö no connection. The burden of proof for this is nil since it isGǪ wellGǪ the null hypothesis. Its role is to be falsified (still by you). You most certainly have to show proof if you want to argue against this default state. The links you provided didn't contain any such proof GÇö just more unfounded and unproven claims (which they even admitted). They are exactly the GÇ£hearsayGÇ¥ evidence you've just said you would rather not use.
Quote:Bottom line: CCP is the only one who can resolve this issue No. You can also resolve this issue, but for some reason you choose not to GÇö just like every other time this has come up GÇö and instead keep espousing your faith as solid fact, calling people who point out that you have nothing to stand on trolls. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
259
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 10:29:00 -
[45] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote: First of all, Tippia was the one who started this with her statement that agent mission offers are totally random with nothing affecting them so the 'Burden Of Proof' actually falls on Tippia.
You really should take a statistics course at Republic University. Assuming something is random is what you do until you have evidence to support the contrary.
Anyway, people make poor decisions every day by over-interpreting random data. Even scientists do that. Randomness is a hard thing to cope with for humans since we are not programmed to do so. We are programmed to find patterns and we will find them every where.
But here is what you can do (if you don't want to take the statistics course). Just switch agentand now your brain will start looking for evidence that you were indeed right, that the mission distribution has indeed changed. You will feel better since you did something to improve your situation but most likely you will just continue to run the same distribution of missions again and again and again ... |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |