Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Windjammer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 18:45:00 -
[451]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 19/07/2008 15:29:15
Originally by: Ki An Gonna leave the rest of your replies, as most of it just falls into that "agree to disagree" cathegory, making it futile to discuss. However, I would like to make a point here that Faction fitted faction battleships does not fall into the "casual gamer" cathegory. A casual gamer just looking to run some missions would set up a normal raven with T2 mods on. This has a lot of advantages for the "casual gamer":
1. It does not cut into his bottom line. He has more liquid isk if he doesn't put it all on his ship. 2. It actually makes the missions more of a challenge. Not much of a challenge, but still a bit. 3. It does not attract suicide gankers.
A player flying a faction fitted faction BS should be the subject of suicide ganks. He has chosen to pimp his ride in order to flaunt his wealth. It should not come as a surprise that other people will want a piece of it.
This is where I believe you go wrong. A faction fitted faction battleship is the pinnacle of the casual gamers gaming, but it is nothing in the ranks of real pimp rides. He starts running missions in a lowly T1 ship with T1 fittings and as he earns money, he progresses in the game by improving his ship and running his missions ever faster. May not be your way of play, but I can assure you that this kind of playstyle is very rewarding to less aggressive mindsets. It took me two years to get slightly bored of it, and I still make occasional excursions into it. Certainly there should be a point at which the increase in 'wealth flaunting' by far outweighs the increase in mission efficiency and thus makes the ship a valid suicider target. But imho that point should NOT come as low as it currently does, where anything with two navy invuls will present 5 suicide Ravens with a worthwhile payday. Voiding concord insurance would pretty much put it at the perfect point imho, which is somewhere around 1 billion in fittings.
Okay, I see where you're coming from on this one. I was thinking of billions in modules, not millions. Those faction Shield Boosters can cost almost 2 billion for just the one module and that's what I was primarily thinking of.
Windjammer
|
Windjammer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 19:09:00 -
[452]
Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Windjammer I fail
Yes, I know.
Oh, there was more?
Originally by: Windjammer
to see how Ashen Angles' observation is flawed. I know people who sit in station with a trading alt and do this very thing. They make an insane amount of money doing it because they know how. Just to give you persepective, I know one who spent over a billion on a new pimped up Marauder and 2 days later he'd recovered the expenditure through trade. Windjammer
His observation is based on circular logic, much like yours and Anaalys or whatever the hell her name is. He lists how miners balance risk vs reward, but obviously doesn't realise that those points factor in for a suicide ganker too, you know, the ones who according to you guys are ubalanced when it comes to risk vs reward. It's so obvious a mistake that I am led to believe that he is either knowingly trying to twist his argument, or that he is completely and utterly stupid. Later posts of his has proven that the second is true.
People who devolve their arguments into allegations largely revolving around terms such as "stupid" and "dumb" shouldn't really be using terminology beyond their grasp such as "circular logic". It show's off their level of intellect. Paraphrasing Samuel Clemens, "....best not to open your mouth and remove all doubt".
Windjammer
|
feedrese
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 20:51:00 -
[453]
why not putting a non lootable wreck for when you are not on war against the target you destroy?wreck only lootable by the owner
|
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 21:01:00 -
[454]
Originally by: Windjammer
Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Windjammer I fail
Yes, I know.
Oh, there was more?
Originally by: Windjammer
to see how Ashen Angles' observation is flawed. I know people who sit in station with a trading alt and do this very thing. They make an insane amount of money doing it because they know how. Just to give you persepective, I know one who spent over a billion on a new pimped up Marauder and 2 days later he'd recovered the expenditure through trade. Windjammer
His observation is based on circular logic, much like yours and Anaalys or whatever the hell her name is. He lists how miners balance risk vs reward, but obviously doesn't realise that those points factor in for a suicide ganker too, you know, the ones who according to you guys are ubalanced when it comes to risk vs reward. It's so obvious a mistake that I am led to believe that he is either knowingly trying to twist his argument, or that he is completely and utterly stupid. Later posts of his has proven that the second is true.
People who devolve their arguments into allegations largely revolving around terms such as "stupid" and "dumb" shouldn't really be using terminology beyond their grasp such as "circular logic". It show's off their level of intellect. Paraphrasing Samuel Clemens, "....best not to open your mouth and remove all doubt".
Windjammer
Ah, I see. You're with Ashen on the whole "I'll just quote someone smarter than me and maybe I'll pass off as smart too" deal. The reason I continue to lable people stupid and dumb is because they make stupid and dumb arguments. Ashen, as an example, has continuously proven his lack of knowledge of game mechanics, his inability to find the glaring gaps in his own logic, and the lack of common sense enough to know when not to speak about something he doesn't know anything about. He has also shown his ulterior motive as a recurring suicide victim. What was it, five times?
You, on the other hand, don't even comment on what was actually written. Instead you call me out on my labelling people, even after I explained to you that said labelling is accurate.
tl;dr - read my ****ing post and comment on what was written, you *****.
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Ashen Angel
Minmatar AA Mining
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 21:22:00 -
[455]
Let see on the victim part: 5 attacks in about 2.5 years
Net loss 3 mil. whoopie do, I make more than that in an hour.
2 attacks right after undocking, no scan just passive targeter and attacks. (1 was actually empty) 1 attack using a warp to 0 on a covops and locking down the wrong target as my mack warps out..(again empty hauler) 1 attack because my overview loaded too damn slow (which they screwed up and tried to gank a t2 tanked hauler thinking it was the t1 version)
PS: nice reading comprehension skills when you can't count the fact it was 4 attacks, 1 of which was mainly an attack on the mack and not the hauler.
I go by what search shows when I use it. When there is no ccp post contradicting it, I go by what is posted.
So where are the links supporting your view, till I see them. I'll not waste more than a few moments to post if I even bother to reply to you.
|
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 21:49:00 -
[456]
Originally by: Ashen Angel Let see on the victim part: 5 attacks in about 2.5 years
Net loss 3 mil. whoopie do, I make more than that in an hour.
So why are you whining? You didn't lose anything. People you keep talking about really don't lose anything. Yet you keep dragging up losses like that as proof that suicide ganking needs a nerf. Boy, you dun gone make yerself silly yet 'gain.
Originally by: Ashen Angel
2 attacks right after undocking, no scan just passive targeter and attacks. (1 was actually empty) 1 attack using a warp to 0 on a covops and locking down the wrong target as my mack warps out..(again empty hauler) 1 attack because my overview loaded too damn slow (which they screwed up and tried to gank a t2 tanked hauler thinking it was the t1 version)
PS: nice reading comprehension skills when you can't count the fact it was 4 attacks, 1 of which was mainly an attack on the mack and not the hauler.
Nah, it's just that I prefer not to keep track on how many times you fail. 5 was a good enough guess.
Originally by: Ashen Angel
I go by what search shows when I use it. When there is no ccp post contradicting it, I go by what is posted.
Where did you find a CCP post claiming that was how it worked? Could it be that you didn't really search at all? Could it be that you actually thought it was like that and are no too embarassed to admit it? Yeah, gonna go with the easy answer on this one.
Originally by: Ashen Angel
So where are the links supporting your view, till I see them. I'll not waste more than a few moments to post if I even bother to reply to you.
What kind of links do you want? Links to more people telling you the same thing? Links to sites where fussy cartoon animals claim suicide is murder? What kind of links?
The links I asked of you multiple posts back, and which you have as of yet failed to deliver, support your claim that most people in this game are carebears like you. That should be an easy link to provide. You must have read it somewhere, so you should be able to link it.
There is a difference between a reasonable request and a bogus one. Mine is reasonable. Yours is bogus.
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Ashen Angel
Minmatar AA Mining
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 21:54:00 -
[457]
Edited by: Ashen Angel on 19/07/2008 21:53:50 The only whine i see is from you about this is a pure pvp game...and everyone is hiding in empire and npc corporations...and immune to most pvp...
If it was a pure pvp game, there would be no way for them to be anything but targets.
You want the info: go look for population statistics, compare the combat regions to the empire regions.
Look into the number of wardecs compared to the number of corporations.
Look at the numbers for factional warfare compared to the population numbers.
Go look at the numbers and come back and say that everyone is in for the PvP combat...
|
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 22:17:00 -
[458]
Originally by: Ashen Angel Edited by: Ashen Angel on 19/07/2008 21:53:50 The only whine i see is from you about this is a pure pvp game...and everyone is hiding in empire and npc corporations...and immune to most pvp...
Quit putting words - or anything for that matter - in my mouth. I have claimed that Eve is predominantly a PvP game. That is more or less a direct quote from a dev. CCP Wrangler. He's community manager now, and has posted in this thread. You can look it up.
Originally by: Ashen Angel
You want the info: go look for population statistics, compare the combat regions to the empire regions.
Translation: I can't provide a link, because the statistics I based my argument on doesn't exist. Instead I fell back on the economy report like the good carebear I am, and basically made up a bunch of stuff about what the numbers meant.
Originally by: Ashen Angel
Look into the number of wardecs compared to the number of corporations.
What does this hint to, oh wise one? (I don't really think you're wise. I think you're an idiot. I was merely pulling your leg.)
Originally by: Ashen Angel
Look at the numbers for factional warfare compared to the population numbers.
Again, what would this mean? Please provide analysis for your worthless ideas.
Originally by: Ashen Angel
Go look at the numbers and come back and say that everyone is in for the PvP combat...
Again with putting stuff (words) in my mouth. I never said that. It is evident by this very thread that a lot of people don't really enjoy PvP. My point is, was and shall continue to be, that those people should not determine how CCP balances their game. The people who don't want to PvP are in the minority. I can make this claim because I can look at numbers and actually analyze what they mean. Unlike you.
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Ashen Angel
Minmatar AA Mining
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 22:22:00 -
[459]
Show me the numbers that show the minority?
Come on mr links, lets see them.
Or is that an assumption on your part that contradicts the numbers CCP has come up with and shown to all because it doesn't suit you?
|
Avon
Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 22:36:00 -
[460]
Originally by: Ashen Angel
If it was a pure pvp game, there would be no way for them to be anything but targets.
But there isn't, therefore by your own arguement Eve is a pure PvP game.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
|
Ashen Angel
Minmatar AA Mining
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 22:45:00 -
[461]
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Ashen Angel
If it was a pure pvp game, there would be no way for them to be anything but targets.
But there isn't, therefore by your own arguement Eve is a pure PvP game.
You can't shoot a trader in a station.
And yet he can shake the very market.
You have industry, again something they never need to undock to do.
There are pure non-combat styles of play.
Not everyone is out shooting other players in combat.
quite a number never engage a target at all.
|
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 22:55:00 -
[462]
Originally by: Ashen Angel Show me the numbers that show the minority?
Come on mr links, lets see them.
Or is that an assumption on your part that contradicts the numbers CCP has come up with and shown to all because it doesn't suit you?
No, it's simple reason. Lets start by analyzing Econ Dev Blog 3.
In it there are numbers speaking of active characters within NPC and PC corporations. 195 000 characters are active in Player corps and somewhat more in NPC corps. The high amount of NPC corp members is interesting here, so lets delve deeper into that. The blog also makes comparisons about amount of skill points on average per character in the different kinds of corps. Interesting here is that the average amount of skillpoints for characters in NPC corporations is around 2.7 million, whereas characters in PC corporations have an average of around 13.5 million skillpoints. There are two conclusions one might draw from this:
1. A large number of the characters in NPC corps are new players with low amounts of skillpoints. 2. A large number of the characters in NPC corps are unskilled alts.
This shows quite clearly that the amount of players with their main character in an NPC corporation after some time in the game is pretty low. This lets you draw the conclusion that most people tend to gravitate towards the more unsafe player corps.
Also supporting this notion is how the most flewn ship in NPC corps is the Kestrel, a caldari frigate requiring little training. This again hints to new players and alts. In PC corps, the most flewn ship is the Raven, a bird that requires a lot more training.
Let's move on to the Quarterly Economic Newsletter, 4th Quarter 2007, which contains some interesting information.
During the last two weeks of Quarter 4 of 2007, 49% of all characters (not accounts or players) moved only through high sec space. Numbers you might have heard on the forums such as 80% and the like are wrong. The real number is 49%. That number is below 50%, so we have already established that less than half of Eve's characters stay in high sec all the time.
Now, let's break that figure apart by using reasoning and the numbers we have learned so far. We know that there are a high % of new players in the NPC corps. NPC corps make up more than half of Eve's characters. This means we will have a significant % of new players moving about, and those tend to stay in high sec. Let us say that 5% out of the 49% staying in high sec are new players. I think this is on the low end, but still close enough. Now we have 44% to account for.
We know from earlier reports that Eve has around 220 000 payed accounts. There are about 500 000 characters on those accounts. This means that there are on average more than two characters made per account. Of these characters, one character is designated as the main character. The others are alts. So, we have established that there are a lot of alts in the game. We know from common sense that the majority of players have an alt in an NPC corp to check prices, scout and the likes. This means that a lot of the characters in NPC corps and the 1-man corporations are alts. Especially market alts don't generally leave the system they are supposed to monitor, so a rough estimate is that out of the 44% remaining, around 20 or 30% are alts. This is also on the low side, but it doesn't matter.
We are now left with 14-24% of the total amount of CHARACTERS in the game that are unaccounted for. Amongst these are the players who don't like PvP and keep to high sec.
That's a minority.
Q.E.D
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Avon
Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 23:00:00 -
[463]
Originally by: Ashen Angel
You can't shoot a trader in a station.
And yet he can shake the very market.
You have industry, again something they never need to undock to do.
There are pure non-combat styles of play.
Not everyone is out shooting other players in combat.
quite a number never engage a target at all.
I didn't say combat, and neither did you - the term was PvP. Stop changing the parameters.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Ashen Angel
Minmatar AA Mining
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 23:20:00 -
[464]
Originally by: Ki An snip
Yes you have 49% that stay only in empire
Now did you consider mining operations into low sec & null sec. Many carebears will do so with the proper coverage.
You also have an unknown in the number of players that do cargo/travel runs through low sec space in order to reach point B from point A in order to save time.
Nor does it account for those that hop into low sec simply to drop off/pick up cargo for trade runs.
How do the skills break down, not just ships flown? Many industrialist have done missions to build up corporate standing for less tax on station refinery services. (I do them for just that reason)
Did they look into combat ships alone, or a break down of most common ship for that character?
And you are making an assumption in your reasoning that all accounts include a combat main, versus the possibility that some are industry oriented players with alts trained for industry or trade.
You use data that does not provide all the data needed.
The only ones with the full data set are the developers.
And they are taking steps to change things, that in some ways: A - make high security space safer (adjusting the cost/risk to reward of suicide attacks) B - adjust the wardec system due to it be a griefer tool at the moment (to quote them)
So from the stance of the developers there is a good portion of non-combat oriented interest in the game.
|
Ashen Angel
Minmatar AA Mining
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 23:22:00 -
[465]
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Ashen Angel
You can't shoot a trader in a station.
And yet he can shake the very market.
You have industry, again something they never need to undock to do.
There are pure non-combat styles of play.
Not everyone is out shooting other players in combat.
quite a number never engage a target at all.
I didn't say combat, and neither did you - the term was PvP. Stop changing the parameters.
Read the whole post, and quote the whole post.
Last line is the key there.
|
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 23:31:00 -
[466]
Originally by: Ashen Angel
Yes you have 49% that stay only in empire
Now did you consider mining operations into low sec & null sec. Many carebears will do so with the proper coverage.
Yes, I have considered those. They are by definition not carebears and not unaccustomed to danger. That's what living in low-sec and 0.0 means.
Originally by: Ashen Angel
You also have an unknown in the number of players that do cargo/travel runs through low sec space in order to reach point B from point A in order to save time.
Unknown as in not factoring in on this debate. Arguing about those is useless, but I think we can both agree that the percentage is not high enough to significantly alter my analysis.
Originally by: Ashen Angel
Nor does it account for those that hop into low sec simply to drop off/pick up cargo for trade runs.
Again, that is not worth debating as we have no statistics for it.
Originally by: Ashen Angel
How do the skills break down, not just ships flown? Many industrialist have done missions to build up corporate standing for less tax on station refinery services. (I do them for just that reason)
Spaceship command tops the list. Trade is at the bottom. This has nothing to do with anything though.
Originally by: Ashen Angel
Did they look into combat ships alone, or a break down of most common ship for that character?
All ships where taken into account. You know this, right? You have seen the document, right? RIGHT?
Originally by: Ashen Angel
And you are making an assumption in your reasoning that all accounts include a combat main, versus the possibility that some are industry oriented players with alts trained for industry or trade.
No, I don't. I am merely stating the facts that are there. The reasoning I apply is all based on the numbers. The point is that your claim that most players stay in high sec and don't like PvP is wrong. The numbers you have so desperately clung to clearly show it.
Originally by: Ashen Angel
You use data that does not provide all the data needed.
Then do your own analysis of the data. It is there for your perusal. I stand by my analysis, and I believe it to be close to accurate.
Originally by: Ashen Angel
The only ones with the full data set are the developers.
So now you change your tune from "The data shows us carebears to be in the majority" to "The data released in not complete. The secret data only the devs have access to shows carebears to be in the majority"? Seriously, dude, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously.
Originally by: Ashen Angel
And they are taking steps to change things, that in some ways: A - make high security space safer (adjusting the cost/risk to reward of suicide attacks)
Which is what we are arguing here. I have shown numerous times that it is not necessary. However, I understand why CCP would do this. If I had to read posts like yours every day I would do anything to stop it too.
Originally by: Ashen Angel
B - adjust the wardec system due to it be a griefer tool at the moment (to quote them)
And this proves what exactly?
Originally by: Ashen Angel
So from the stance of the developers there is a good portion of non-combat oriented interest in the game.
No, that is just something out of your ass again.
Look, I have shown you the numbers you didn't want to show yourself. I have broken it down for you. It is over. You lost the argument. Now you are just getting desperate, and it is pretty pathetic.
Lay it off.
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Windjammer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 23:35:00 -
[467]
Originally by: Ki An Ah, I see. You're with Ashen on the whole "I'll just quote someone smarter than me and maybe I'll pass off as smart too" deal. The reason I continue to lable people stupid and dumb is because they make stupid and dumb arguments. Ashen, as an example, has continuously proven his lack of knowledge of game mechanics, his inability to find the glaring gaps in his own logic, and the lack of common sense enough to know when not to speak about something he doesn't know anything about. He has also shown his ulterior motive as a recurring suicide victim. What was it, five times?
I used the quote to illustrate what you're doing, not to borrow the fame of Mr. Clemens.
I did not call you out on your labeling of people. I called you out on the exact terminology you used, i.e. "dumb" and "stupid". Honestly, I keep expecting you to break out in lete speak at any moment. I also called you out on your lack of knowledge with specific respect to the term "circular logic". You don't really have a firm grasp of it.
Your "logic" seems to lead you to conclude that anyone who has been suicide ganked has no valid argument against suicide ganking since they have been victims. The same "logic" could be used to say you have no valid argument against the planned changes since you are a beneficiary of suicide ganking. That is to say, your logic is no such thing. It's just a long list of rationlized self serving statements which in many cases do not even have a passing familiarity with logic.
Originally by: Ki An You, on the other hand, don't even comment on what was actually written. Instead you call me out on my labelling people, even after I explained to you that said labelling is accurate.
Your labeling is accurate because you say it's accurate? For your edification THAT is circular logic. Please make a note of it.
Originally by: Ki An tl;dr - read my ****ing post and comment on what was written, you *****.
And here you are revealed in all your intellectual superiority. Holy cow you have to be right. You can cuss and everything. I mean.....how could you be wrong if you know how to do that.
I have read a good many of your posts and I have to say that the majority of them leave me amazed. How is it possible for you to beleive you're making sense. Lately, however, I've started skimming them. It's just not worth my time to bother to read them when you've been reduced to childish name calling.
|
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 23:37:00 -
[468]
Originally by: Windjammer Idiocy
Stick to the topic, you ****ing ****.
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Windjammer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 23:39:00 -
[469]
Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Windjammer Idiocy
Stick to the topic, you ****ing ****.
Gosh, you're good.
Windjammer
|
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 23:41:00 -
[470]
Originally by: Windjammer Gosh, you're good.
Windjammer
Getting mad yet?
Perhaps you would like to strike me?
Or we could just continue the debate. I've just managed to prove that carebears are in the minority in Eve using the very numbers you carebears have been toting as the greatest proof that you are in the majority.
So, I guess you're screwed.
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
|
Ashen Angel
Minmatar AA Mining
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 23:54:00 -
[471]
Originally by: Ki An snip
Miners are carebears, having overwatch can mean hiring a merc corp. But the ones doing the mining are not combatants.
Actually it being unknown on several points, with no data means any statistical analysis is flawed and subject to be tweaked to suit the need of the person using it.
A good example is your refusal to consider the gaps in the data. Because you know there are traders and simply the curious that head to low/null.
One could argue the numbers just as easy with flawed data: The alts are on traders and industrialists monitoring the markets so the majority have no combat alts.
Hence why a far better examination is in order.
But go drink your milk and cookies. Maybe some day they will post the full data.
And we both know: They can look at the skills trained data on all the characters.
The traffic data has a variance due to: Mission runners (cargo, combat, and simply better agents taking mission runners into low sec; miners headed into low sec; traders headed into locations to drop off/pick up cargos; and transition systems between high sec locations)
The only whinge is yours, because they change the game to make it harder for the combat oriented players to have combat in high sec. It still leaves the option, but will make the costs associated with it higher.
If they wanted it to be a mostly pvp combat oriented game, things wouldn't be tweaked to make it harder to engage in grief style attacks (suicide attacks and the current wardec system)
|
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.07.20 00:08:00 -
[472]
It amazes me, Ashen, that even when you are confronted with the numbers - which you obviously hadn't seen despite using them to 'prove' your point - you still refuse to accept that you are wrong.
Originally by: Ashen Angel
Miners are carebears, having overwatch can mean hiring a merc corp. But the ones doing the mining are not combatants.
No, miners are not carebears by definition. Carebear, in this case, means someone who has no like for PvP. Just because someone mines does NOT mean they don't like PvP. I mine. I love PvP, so your assumption is already proved wrong.
Originally by: Ashen Angel
Actually it being unknown on several points, with no data means any statistical analysis is flawed and subject to be tweaked to suit the need of the person using it.
Listen to yourself. You have been using this data in your own arguments to prove the point that those that don't like PvP are in the majority in Eve. Now when you actually get to read what the data says, you backtrack all over the place, trying to dismiss the data as flawed and inaccurate.
Originally by: Ashen Angel
A good example is your refusal to consider the gaps in the data. Because you know there are traders and simply the curious that head to low/null.
I have considered all the gaps that are essential to my analasys. I cannot consider data which I don't have. For all I know, such data doesn't exist. If it does, it has not been presented to the players. With the data we have it is obvious that you where wrong. That is all that matters here.
Originally by: Ashen Angel
One could argue the numbers just as easy with flawed data: The alts are on traders and industrialists monitoring the markets so the majority have no combat alts.
Yes, most probably the alts are not combat alts. That is completely beside the point, however.
Originally by: Ashen Angel
Hence why a far better examination is in order.
Then ****ing perform one yourself! YOU toted this data as proof of your argument. I proved you where wrong using the data. YOU obviously have NEVER EVEN READ THE DATA!
Originally by: Ashen Angel
But go drink your milk and cookies. Maybe some day they will post the full data.
My God...
Originally by: Ashen Angel
And we both know: They can look at the skills trained data on all the characters.
Yes, and they have. Do you want me to post a complete list of the trained groups of skills? Ok:
1. Spaceship command 2. Gunnery 3. Missile launcher operations 4. Drones 5. Learning 6. Engineering 7. Electronics 8. Navigation 9. Science 10. Industry.
Those are the 10 most trained groups. The others are too small to read out accurately and weigh against each other. What the hell did you want this for anyway?
Originally by: Ashen Angel
The traffic data has a variance due to: Mission runners (cargo, combat, and simply better agents taking mission runners into low sec; miners headed into low sec; traders headed into locations to drop off/pick up cargos; and transition systems between high sec locations)
NO! NONONONO for ****'s sake... You cannot read that into the data. It's simply not there. Based on the data, we know that more than half of Eve's population regularly venture out of high sec. THAT IS ALL THAT IS IMPORTANT HERE! It proves that most people in Eve aren't people who dislike PvP. It doesn't mean more than half of the population engages in PvP either. IT JUST SHOWS THAT MORE THAN HALF OF THE POPULATION ARE ACTIVELY GOING INTO HIGH RISK AREAS AND AS SUCH, ACCEPT PVP AS A FACTOR!
continued...
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.07.20 00:11:00 -
[473]
Originally by: Ashen Angel
The only whinge is yours, because they change the game to make it harder for the combat oriented players to have combat in high sec. It still leaves the option, but will make the costs associated with it higher.
No! YOU ARE REFUSING TO ACCEPT WHAT THE DATA SHOWS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SHOW WHAT YOU WANT IT TO SHOW. By definition, that makes you deluded. You are also whining about it, making you a whiner.
Originally by: Ashen Angel
If they wanted it to be a mostly pvp combat oriented game, things wouldn't be tweaked to make it harder to engage in grief style attacks (suicide attacks and the current wardec system)
THEY ****ING AREN'T! Eve is a predominantly PvP game. Are you going to argue that too? Are you going to make me link you to the ****ing quote from CCP Wrangler that clearly states that it is? I am getting so fed up with you right now. You spend hours arguing and claiming that the evidence proves your point. When you are shown that it doesn't, you start spewing nonsense and claiming the data is inaccurate.
****ing get a grip, man.
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Mozetta
Minmatar Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.07.20 00:27:00 -
[474]
why are you even arguing this ashen? the data shows u were wrong. kian might be an ass about it but hes right.
|
Ashen Angel
Minmatar AA Mining
|
Posted - 2008.07.20 00:29:00 -
[475]
So where does it show pvp combat is the main focus?
Those skills show a predominant focus in ships skills at the top, followed by the support and industry skills.
Gunnery and missile skills are trained on mission runners, which don't always mean combat PvP.
Nothing shows the mains as combat pvp oriented either.
You claim the data to be ambiguous when used against you, and then scream it's hard facts when others poke holes in it when you use it.
I have an industrial character, yet I have more skill points in spaceship command than anywhere. I even have a huge amount in the gunnery and missile skills... but for missions and not pvp combat. (though I have the skills trained to be useful there)
And I do know the fastest way to get the skills for a transport character is the various soldier starting paths, which means high weapon skills...So all those non-combat hauler alts are in there.
And I know the quote, and I know they didn't say it was combat oriented PvP that they were focused on.
|
Ashen Angel
Minmatar AA Mining
|
Posted - 2008.07.20 00:30:00 -
[476]
Originally by: Mozetta why are you even arguing this ashen? the data shows u were wrong. kian might be an ass about it but hes right.
The data is statistics, which can be manipulated as needed most times to show what you want.
Especially when as he admits he is not even cosnidering the gaps in it because it wouldn't help his argument.
Plus I'm bored.
|
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.07.20 00:33:00 -
[477]
Originally by: Ashen Angel So where does it show pvp combat is the main focus?
Those skills show a predominant focus in ships skills at the top, followed by the support and industry skills.
Gunnery and missile skills are trained on mission runners, which don't always mean combat PvP.
Nothing shows the mains as combat pvp oriented either.
You claim the data to be ambiguous when used against you, and then scream it's hard facts when others poke holes in it when you use it.
I have an industrial character, yet I have more skill points in spaceship command than anywhere. I even have a huge amount in the gunnery and missile skills... but for missions and not pvp combat. (though I have the skills trained to be useful there)
And I do know the fastest way to get the skills for a transport character is the various soldier starting paths, which means high weapon skills...So all those non-combat hauler alts are in there.
And I know the quote, and I know they didn't say it was combat oriented PvP that they were focused on.
You know, I know I said you where stupid before. Now I don't even need to say it. I'm done here.
You were wrong. I was right. The empirical CCP endorsed data clearly show it.
Good night.
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Avon
Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.20 00:35:00 -
[478]
Originally by: Ashen Angel
Originally by: Mozetta why are you even arguing this ashen? the data shows u were wrong. kian might be an ass about it but hes right.
The data is statistics, which can be manipulated as needed most times to show what you want.
Especially when as he admits he is not even cosnidering the gaps in it because it wouldn't help his argument.
Plus I'm bored.
At least he went to the effort to present some facts tbh.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Mozetta
Minmatar Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.07.20 00:36:00 -
[479]
Originally by: Ashen Angel
Originally by: Mozetta why are you even arguing this ashen? the data shows u were wrong. kian might be an ass about it but hes right.
The data is statistics, which can be manipulated as needed most times to show what you want.
Especially when as he admits he is not even cosnidering the gaps in it because it wouldn't help his argument.
Plus I'm bored.
then why did u use it to back up ur arguments before? u cant just use something to back up ur arguments and then say its wrong when someone proves u wrong with the same data. if u r bored u shouldnt post here just to post. u r just makind the debate more hard to get into. i think that u really should think about accepting that u were wrong here and just move on.
|
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.07.20 00:42:00 -
[480]
Edited by: Ki An on 20/07/2008 00:42:26 Edited by: Ki An on 20/07/2008 00:42:01
Originally by: Ashen Angel
Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Ashen Angel So where does it show pvp combat is the main focus?
Those skills show a predominant focus in ships skills at the top, followed by the support and industry skills.
Gunnery and missile skills are trained on mission runners, which don't always mean combat PvP.
Nothing shows the mains as combat pvp oriented either.
You claim the data to be ambiguous when used against you, and then scream it's hard facts when others poke holes in it when you use it.
I have an industrial character, yet I have more skill points in spaceship command than anywhere. I even have a huge amount in the gunnery and missile skills... but for missions and not pvp combat. (though I have the skills trained to be useful there)
And I do know the fastest way to get the skills for a transport character is the various soldier starting paths, which means high weapon skills...So all those non-combat hauler alts are in there.
And I know the quote, and I know they didn't say it was combat oriented PvP that they were focused on.
You know, I know I said you where stupid before. Now I don't even need to say it. I'm done here.
You were wrong. I was right. The empirical CCP endorsed data clearly show it.
Good night.
Everyone in the game is involved in pvp, I'm asking for stats that show a bias towards player to player combat.
Instead you throw up statistics that have been used to show the opposite, and then claim they show your view.
And I point out the flaws and you scream and pout. And outright admit they lack information that does apply, but refuse to consider because it might hurt your argument.
My frickin' god...
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |