EVE Search - Player feedback/vote results on the speed nerf

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Player feedback/vote results on the speed nerf

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.11 04:59:00 - [1] Edited by: BiggestT on 11/10/2008 05:07:09 Felysta Sandorn of Tri. started the 2 topics below since the suggestion of CCp's nano nerf. All credit goes to her, i just decided to give a current summary incase Felysta doesnt get around to it . For the nerf. Against the nerf. Over the space of several months, over 2200 people have voted and the results are in for the total as of 11 Oct. 2008: Approx. 1500 voted AGAINST while around 750 voted FOR the rounded figures show an exact 2:1 ratio of the votes, with twice as many ppl voting against the nerf than for. Therefore of the total voters, 2/3 are agaisnt and 1/3 are for. /end analysis IMO This shows CCP dont give two f*cks or a shit about the player base, they talk about trying to make a democracy out of EVE, but its a dictatorship. What democracy favours the party that only achieved 1/3 of the votes, while the other party achieved 2/3?? Thats just ludicrous how they completely ignore the view of the majority. We are the player base, we pay their salaries, we fund CCP. It is amazing how ignorant they are of their own customer preferences. Its obvious this nerf was a blunder, a total revamp is needed if they want to re-adjust speed, the current idea is total bogus. For all those arguing how we are all "whinging", that we should "adapt or die", that "EVE has always been changing", that means that the majority is wrong and your right (completely the incorrect view). since WHEN was it ever a good idea to go against the publics vote in favour of your own hair-brained ideas CCP?? DISCUSS Awesome EVE history Missiles ba-oom!
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.11 05:00:00 - [2] Reserved for updates Awesome EVE history Missiles ba-oom!
XFreedomX	Posted - 2008.10.11 05:06:00 - [3] What the vote showed is that of the entire player base only 2200 care enough to post, and only 1500 charactor are against the nerf. That 1500 charactor probably equal less then 500 accounts.
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.11 05:09:00 - [4] Edited by: BiggestT on 11/10/2008 05:09:18 Originally by: XFreedomX What the vote showed is that of the entire player base only 2200 care enough to post, and only 1500 charactor are against the nerf. That 1500 charactor probably equal less then 500 accounts. Thats an ignorant view of the data. So you think that only the ppl against the nerf voted, the results are representative of the whole population due to the large sample size. And assuming that the players agaisnt the nerf have 3 accounts while the others only have 1 is very inaccurate indeed Awesome EVE history Missiles ba-oom!
Murkon Salesgirl Amarr	Posted - 2008.10.11 05:12:00 - [5] You will be surprised to find that the majority of the player base rarely visit the forums, let alone pay attention to petition posts. Just so you know.. From previous MMO research, ~1% of players actively participate on the forums.
XFreedomX	Posted - 2008.10.11 05:13:00 - [6] Don't you have 3 character on one account? And if you are truely against the patch, why would you not vote against it with all 3?
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.11 05:16:00 - [7] Originally by: XFreedomX Don't you have 3 character on one account? And if you are truely against the patch, why would you not vote against it with all 3? Why bother? The majority have voted agaisnt it anyway. Awesome EVE history Missiles ba-oom!
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.11 05:17:00 - [8] Originally by: Murkon Salesgirl You will be surprised to find that the majority of the player base rarely visit the forums, let alone pay attention to petition posts. Just so you know.. From previous MMO research, ~1% of players actively participate on the forums. This is true, however remember that due to a larage sample size, the views of the playerbase are somewhat reflected accurately even by the smal proportion that vote, as each person has an equal and independant chance of being a "forum participant" Awesome EVE history Missiles ba-oom!
XFreedomX	Posted - 2008.10.11 05:17:00 - [9] Originally by: BiggestT Originally by: XFreedomX Don't you have 3 character on one account? And if you are truely against the patch, why would you not vote against it with all 3? Why bother? The majority have voted agaisnt it anyway. So you are in the I don't really care if they nerf camp.
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.11 05:18:00 - [10] Originally by: XFreedomX Originally by: BiggestT Originally by: XFreedomX Don't you have 3 character on one account? And if you are truely against the patch, why would you not vote against it with all 3? Why bother? The majority have voted agaisnt it anyway. So you are in the I don't really care if they nerf camp. No, i voted agaisnt, but i see no need in giving another 2 votes againts when the majority already have. Awesome EVE history Missiles ba-oom!
TZeer Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.10.11 05:20:00 - [11] Bad post I have 3 accounts, thats 9 votes. If I was hardcore anti nerf on something and some threw up a vote. No questions asked I would vote with all 9 possible characters. And tbfh, cruisers going the speed of intys is wrong, no matter how you look at it.
XFreedomX	Posted - 2008.10.11 05:20:00 - [12] Well, if I were you, I'd start voting because ccp is going thru with the nerf. Seriously....
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.11 05:23:00 - [13] Edited by: BiggestT on 11/10/2008 05:23:31 Originally by: TZeer Bad post I have 3 accounts, thats 9 votes. If I was hardcore anti nerf on something and some threw up a vote. No questions asked I would vote with all 9 possible characters. And tbfh, cruisers going the speed of intys is wrong, no matter how you look at it. There is little relevance, do you know much about statistics? Its true that no. votes doesnt necassarily = nmber of ppl and therefore that exact amount of views but realise this: You having more accounts to vote with in no way affects your decision upon the nano-nerf, so the data is still accurate Awesome EVE history Missiles ba-oom!
TZeer Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.10.11 05:28:00 - [14] People can vote all they want for all I care, cruisers going at speeds only frigates (T1/T2) and specialised ships (vaga) was supposed to reach is still wrong.
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.11 05:29:00 - [15] Originally by: TZeer People can vote all they want for all I care, cruisers going at speeds only frigates (T1/T2) and specialised ships (vaga) was supposed to reach is still wrong. I never said ANYTHING about speed being unbalanced or not, the fact is ppl dont want THIS nerf, they may want a nano-nerf, but THIS nerf is being voted agaisnt by the majority Awesome EVE history Missiles ba-oom!
TZeer Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.10.11 05:35:00 - [16] Originally by: BiggestT Originally by: TZeer People can vote all they want for all I care, cruisers going at speeds only frigates (T1/T2) and specialised ships (vaga) was supposed to reach is still wrong. I never said ANYTHING about speed being unbalanced or not, the fact is ppl dont want THIS nerf, they may want a nano-nerf, but THIS nerf is being voted agaisnt by the majority Have we seen any hard numbers from the testserver yet. Appart from the patch that got taken off the testserver?
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.11 05:38:00 - [17] Originally by: TZeer Originally by: BiggestT Originally by: TZeer People can vote all they want for all I care, cruisers going at speeds only frigates (T1/T2) and specialised ships (vaga) was supposed to reach is still wrong. I never said ANYTHING about speed being unbalanced or not, the fact is ppl dont want THIS nerf, they may want a nano-nerf, but THIS nerf is being voted agaisnt by the majority Have we seen any hard numbers from the testserver yet. Appart from the patch that got taken off the testserver? I think Liang had some stuff, wait for him to get on ;) Awesome EVE history Missiles ba-oom!
Wet Ferret	Posted - 2008.10.11 06:04:00 - [18] They really did kinda go overboard with the changes. But as they hinted at, the game engine does not support high speed well so they are probably going with that in mind. To me this means that they may or may not care what "the players" want but they need to do what's in the best interest of the game either way. But, yeah. These forums seriously need some indicator that the post has ended and the sig has started.
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.11 06:11:00 - [19] Edited by: BiggestT on 11/10/2008 06:11:56 Originally by: Wet Ferret what "the players" want Quote: but they need to do what's in the best interest of the game I thought that what the players want would be in the best interest of the game If its about their poor lil physics engine then, why not spend all that effort on nerfing in updating the engine instead? (Yes im aware that different divisions take care of nerfs/software but its still frustrating). I realsie that the players shouldnt always be asked for evey little thing, otherwise wed end up like swg. However for such a big thing like this, ud think their whole "democracy" ideal would hold a little higher on the agenda. Awesome EVE history Missiles ba-oom!
Aleus Stygian	Posted - 2008.10.11 06:18:00 - [20] Originally by: BiggestT Edited by: BiggestT on 11/10/2008 05:09:18 Originally by: XFreedomX What the vote showed is that of the entire player base only 2200 care enough to post, and only 1500 charactor are against the nerf. That 1500 charactor probably equal less then 500 accounts. Thats an ignorant view of the data. So you think that only the ppl against the nerf voted, the results are representative of the whole population due to the large sample size. And assuming that the players agaisnt the nerf have 3 accounts while the others only have 1 is very inaccurate indeed It is actually rather logical. The people who can afford the really juicy (or slim, however you wish to see it...) nano fits are the old-timers and the account-buyers, and I'd be willing to bet that out of all these alt-players and speed-**ers, the people most likely to have the vanity and egoism in them to post on the forum and/or rig a vote like that will be precisely the people opposed to the speed/nano nerf. Originally by:** Murkon Salesgirl You will be surprised to find that the majority of the player base rarely visit the forums, let alone pay attention to petition posts. Just so you know.. From previous MMO research, ~1% of players actively participate on the forums. As said. Originally by: Wet Ferret They really did kinda go overboard with the changes. But as they hinted at, the game engine does not support high speed well so they are probably going with that in mind. To me this means that they may or may not care what "the players" want but they need to do what's in the best interest of the game either way. This is what should be taken as the prime and main fact and intent, really. CCP has no incentive whatsoever to 'torture' us players. They want to attract more people and make more money off this game. Improvements come first, and if they do so at the expense of a relatively minor slice of the player base, consisting mainly of people who are generally seen as ruining the fun for others...
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.11 06:41:00 - [21] Edited by: BiggestT on 11/10/2008 06:42:13 Edited by: BiggestT on 11/10/2008 06:41:34 Originally by: Aleus Stygian Originally by: BiggestT Edited by: BiggestT on 11/10/2008 05:09:18 Originally by: XFreedomX What the vote showed is that of the entire player base only 2200 care enough to post, and only 1500 charactor are against the nerf. That 1500 charactor probably equal less then 500 accounts. Thats an ignorant view of the data. So you think that only the ppl against the nerf voted, the results are representative of the whole population due to the large sample size. And assuming that the players agaisnt the nerf have 3 accounts while the others only have 1 is very inaccurate indeed It is actually rather logical. The people who can afford the really juicy (or slim, however you wish to see it...) nano fits are the old-timers and the account-buyers, and I'd be willing to bet that out of all these alt-players and speed-**ers, the people most likely to have the vanity and egoism in them to post on the forum and/or rig a vote like that will be precisely the people opposed to the speed/nano nerf. I dont think so, thir would be just as high a number of players that would get annoyed at all those vets etc with cash and whine about them not having any counters, and wld hence support the nerf. Quote: Originally by:** Murkon Salesgirl You will be surprised to find that the majority of the player base rarely visit the forums, let alone pay attention to petition posts. Just so you know.. From previous MMO research, ~1% of players actively participate on the forums. As said. But remeber that there is a large sampel, size, so its therefore representative of the population, are you aware of these basic rules in statistics? And I already have explained these plz read up in future beforehand next time... Quote: Originally by: Wet Ferret They really did kinda go overboard with the changes. But as they hinted at, the game engine does not support high speed well so they are probably going with that in mind. To me this means that they may or may not care what "the players" want but they need to do what's in the best interest of the game either way. This is what should be taken as the prime and main fact and intent, really. CCP has no incentive whatsoever to 'torture' us players. They want to attract more people and make more money off this game. Improvements come first, and if they do so at the expense of a relatively minor slice of the player base, consisting mainly of people who are generally seen as ruining the fun for others... I hardly think this is a minor slice of the players at all unhappy with these changes, often ill chat to ppl in corp and on fleet ts etc when theres not much happening, and heaps of ppl are opposed to this nerf. This is represented by the overwhelming votes agaisnt the nerf. You cant put that to simply random voters that happen to spam vote, that all the forum users are wrong, or that the other view of voting is not high because less ppl wld tend not to spam vote when agreeing with the nerf etc. Awesome EVE history Missiles ba-oom!
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.10.11 06:43:00 - [22] The problem is not the fact that they want to nerf nanos, it's the fact that they're doing it with such massive overkill. The players have proposed countless focused alternatives, but CCP has just ignored them and forced through a massively unpopular game-breaking nerf. Why? One can only conclude that CCP just does not care about what the players think. And no, you can't have my stuff. MY ships weren't nerfed, so I'll continue to kill people with them until CCP finally points the nerf bat my way.
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.11 06:44:00 - [23] Originally by: Merin Ryskin One can only conclude that CCP just does not care about what the players think. And no, you can't have my stuff. MY ships weren't nerfed, so I'll continue to kill people with them until CCP finally points the nerf bat my way. Exactly this. My railboat setups will be great even if my missile boats get nerfed, but I'd still prefer this nerf be re-thought out Awesome EVE history Missiles ba-oom!
Aleus Stygian	Posted - 2008.10.11 06:54:00 - [24] Originally by: BiggestT I dont think so, thir would be just as high a number of players that would get annoyed at all those vets etc with cash and whine about them not having any counters, and wld hence support the nerf. Not quite. Those players are likely not the PvP vets and engaged forumites that go here. They are the people who spend more of their time mission-running in Empire to get shiny new ships than they do actually flying in lowsec, the ones who are quite content mining or ratting for their alliance and selling stuff, etc. These people aren't as horribly affected by all these nanoships because they think they have sufficient money and time and friends to 'protect' themselves, meaning to manage their losses and still make some really fat income. They're happy in their belts and in deadspace, and they aren't going to come around whining here because these 'miniscule' changes to the gameplay will largely not affect their fun too terribly. Originally by: BiggestT But remeber that there is a large sampel, size, so its therefore representative of the population, are you aware of these basic rules in statistics? And I already have explained these plz read up in future beforehand next time... Please don't try to 'get smart' with me. You'll hurt yourself. There's every reason, mainly from reviewing the comments made by players and by sampling player stats, to believe that the population on these forums is biased. And once again, as I said, the Empire ratters are playing their own game. They're not going to do more than maybe swap ships and keep on flying. They have fun for themselves, and thus likely feel no need to spew any gall about how their buffer-tanked Vindicator sucks *****s and was taken down by a Falcon and a pair of Interceptors. Originally by:** BiggestT I hardly think this is a minor slice of the players at all unhappy with these changes, often ill chat to ppl in corp and on fleet ts etc when theres not much happening, and heaps of ppl are opposed to this nerf. This is represented by the overwhelming votes agaisnt the nerf. You cant put that to simply random voters that happen to spam vote, that all the forum users are wrong, or that the other view of voting is not high because less ppl wld tend not to spam vote when agreeing with the nerf etc. I've stated my reasons to believe as I do. 'Random voters' don't come into it, because the people who feel targeted are the people who will respond. And when you add to that the fact that these people who feel targeted are the most likely to have multiple alts...
Kaileen Starsong Amarr Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2008.10.11 06:55:00 - [25] Originally by: Merin Ryskin The problem is not the fact that they want to nerf nanos, it's the fact that they're doing it with such massive overkill. The players have proposed countless focused alternatives, but CCP has just ignored them and forced through a massively unpopular game-breaking nerf. Why? One can only conclude that CCP just does not care about what the players think. It's good that they don't care about what playerbase thinks/wants because playerbase is biased by default. It's their world and they have their own vision of how it should be, if someone dislikes that - unsubscribe option is always available. On regards of the nerf - yeah, it's an overkill. But that's probably good in the end, there's been quite a stagnation for a while in the world of pvp, a drastic change will make it at least interesting, whether to discover new options or just to fly the old way in a new world.
XFreedomX	Posted - 2008.10.11 07:01:00 - [26] I think you can conclude that CCP... 1) Do not care about players who whin about the nerf but will not quit the game. 2) Do not care about players who votes one of their 3 available votes yet starts 3 thread and 20+ post whining about the nano nerf. 3) DO CARE about their paying customer base and future health of the game that is their lively hood. So really, enough of trying to incite the masses against CCP and be more constructive on what specifically like or do not like about the upcoming nerf then LET CCP do their work. PS: CCP can see the accounts of the people who post on the forum so I am sure they are aware of exactly how many account is against the nerf.
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.11 07:08:00 - [27] Edited by: BiggestT on 11/10/2008 07:09:15 Originally by: Aleus Stygian Originally by: BiggestT I dont think so, thir would be just as high a number of players that would get annoyed at all those vets etc with cash and whine about them not having any counters, and wld hence support the nerf. Not quite. Those players are likely not the PvP vets and engaged forumites that go here. They are the people who spend more of their time mission-running in Empire to get shiny new ships than they do actually flying in lowsec, the ones who are quite content mining or ratting for their alliance and selling stuff, etc. These people aren't as horribly affected by all these nanoships because they think they have sufficient money and time and friends to 'protect' themselves, meaning to manage their losses and still make some really fat income. They're happy in their belts and in deadspace, and they aren't going to come around whining here because these 'miniscule' changes to the gameplay will largely not affect their fun too terribly. But the misison runners/miners etc often tend to forum *** alot more due to alt+tabbing while missioning, mining, get bored and sit in station while on forum etc. These ppl wld tend to vote for nano nerf as they see it as an element of change, while they have no real reason to vote agaisnt the nano-nerf. Quote: Originally by:** BiggestT But remeber that there is a large sampel, size, so its therefore representative of the population, are you aware of these basic rules in statistics? And I already have explained these plz read up in future beforehand next time... Please don't try to 'get smart' with me. You'll hurt yourself. There's every reason, mainly from reviewing the comments made by players and by sampling player stats, to believe that the population on these forums is biased. And once again, as I said, the Empire ratters are playing their own game. They're not going to do more than maybe swap ships and keep on flying. They have fun for themselves, and thus likely feel no need to spew any gall about how their buffer-tanked Vindicator sucks *****s and was taken down by a Falcon and a pair of Interceptors. Oh ill hurt myself, oh no very scary, plz refrain from the lousy "im better than you" statements, im merely asking are you aware of statistical bias etc, if you are then i wont need to explain, and your eluding to some other factor, if not then i have to explain. OF COURSE the population on these forums is biased, every1 is biased! BUT the population on the forums is representative of the wider populace (Which is hence biased in the same way), measured with a large sample size; hence the vote results are not biased. And your point about the empire ratters points to the fact that the votes FOR the nerf are biased, as they lost their ships to nano's, heard about it somewhere etc and will hence vote for a nerf without any idea. Quote: Originally by:** BiggestT I hardly think this is a minor slice of the players at all unhappy with these changes, often ill chat to ppl in corp and on fleet ts etc when theres not much happening, and heaps of ppl are opposed to this nerf. This is represented by the overwhelming votes agaisnt the nerf. You cant put that to simply random voters that happen to spam vote, that all the forum users are wrong, or that the other view of voting is not high because less ppl wld tend not to spam vote when agreeing with the nerf etc. I've stated my reasons to believe as I do. 'Random voters' don't come into it, because the people who feel targeted are the people who will respond. And when you add to that the fact that these people who feel targeted are the most likely to have multiple alts... The people that feel targetted are also the ppl FOR the nano nerf as they are effected if it doenst go through and will hence want to get as much support for it as possible. And it is not hard for some1 to make many an alt whether old or young, just think of power of two promotions etc. Awesome EVE history Missiles ba-oom!
Vaal Erit Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.10.11 07:12:00 - [28] This is a terrible rant thread. The CSM is no way shape or form trying to turn EVE into a democracy. Contrary to your whining, CCP has stated in many nano threads that they are reading the feedback. They do care. Even hinting at the suggestion that a game should be designed and balanced by a forum poll is a ludicrous statement. Basing design decisions on a simple poll from some of your forum going playerbase would kill a game before you knew what was going on. Personally I feel that most people would support a smaller nerf on nano ships. I support a nano nerf and I am a nano-*** extroadinaire myself. If you want to give good constructive feedback when the speed changes are hopefully reintroduced on sisi, then I think that is wonderful. But posting a stupid poll doesn't help anybody As for your "statistics" it is pretty well known that people come to the forums to * and moan and whine. So it is logical to assume that a lot of people will come to *** and whine about the nerf and most of the people who agree with the nerf will not even bother, as why get into a fight when you have already won. -- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.11 07:13:00 - [29] Originally by: XFreedomX I think you can conclude that CCP... 1) Do not care about players who whin about the nerf but will not quit the game. 2) Do not care about players who votes one of their 3 available votes yet starts 3 thread and 20+ post whining about the nano nerf. 3) DO CARE about their paying customer base and future health of the game that is their lively hood. So really, enough of trying to incite the masses against CCP and be more constructive on what specifically like or do not like about the upcoming nerf then LET CCP do their work. PS: CCP can see the accounts of the people who post on the forum so I am sure they are aware of exactly how many account is against the nerf. O ho, very funny, i already said: I didnt need to do a multi-vote as the results are already weighted heavily in my view, whats the point? I have already tried beeing constructive and suggesting/agreeing/diagreeing with other possible methods. But if you listened to the dev blog, ull see theyve aco****ed for virtually nothing since they read the feedback from the test-server before it was removed, and have ignored any suggestions since. Awesome EVE history Missiles ba-oom!
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.10.11 07:21:00 - [30] Originally by: Vaal Erit This is a terrible rant thread. The CSM is no way shape or form trying to turn EVE into a democracy. Contrary to your whining, CCP has stated in many nano threads that they are reading the feedback. They do care. Then how the hell do you explain the live dev blog that essentially said "F*** YOU, we're doing it our way!"? The test patch generated vast amounts of constructive feedback including plenty of more focused alternatives, but CCP completely ignored all of it. Judging by the summaries posted, not a single change was made since the patch was put on SiSi. They may be reading the feedback, but they sure aren't doing anything with it.
XFreedomX	Posted - 2008.10.11 07:33:00 - [31] I do not think they ignored your suggestion, they probably considered it and decided it was not good. They were many problems pointed out to them and they've agreed to address atlest 3 that I know of. 1) Minmatar BS agility was hit too hard. 2) Missles are too effective after the nerf. 3) MWD reactivation delay is too much. Looks like they are listening, may be just not listing to you
Esmenet	Posted - 2008.10.11 07:34:00 - [32] Originally by: Vaal Erit The CSM is no way shape or form trying to turn EVE into a democracy. Contrary to your whining, CCP has stated in many nano threads that they are reading the feedback. They do care. Contrary to your whining ccp has not shown any signs that they are listening to the feedback. The silly live devblog was just a reptetition of what they said some months ago in the first speed devblog. They didnt even bother to adress the issue of blasterships becoming obsolete. If they cant be bothered to show that they care, why would anyone think they do.
Brother Welcome Amarr Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2008.10.11 07:51:00 - [33] Edited by: Brother Welcome on 11/10/2008 07:51:22 I'm for a speed nerf implemented so long as there is consideration toward the balance issues players have already raised. I didn't know about this vote until now, and haven't voted. Can I add mine now to the 'for's? Ah, and my alts of course. -vk
Warrio Southern Cross Incorporated Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2008.10.11 10:43:00 - [34] So you're into statistical data analysis hey? Count the number of dissatisfied/complaint threads on the forums. Count the number of satisfied/praise threads on the forums. From this, see if you can deduce whether people are more likely to come to forums if they have a complaint. Might well have yourself a skewed sample there chief. sXe
Washell Olivaw	Posted - 2008.10.11 11:28:00 - [35] Originally by: BiggestT Edit: alot of ppl are talking about low numbers that actually participate in the forums, but know this: Due to a large sample size, the views of the playerbase are somewhat reflected accurately even by the smal proportion that vote, as each person has an equal and independant chance of being a "forum participant" and i doubt theres any difference between the views of a forum poster and a non-forum poster (of course a statistical anylysis there would be good, though very unlikely to happen). From 20 questions journalists should ask about poll results: Quote: 10. Is this a dial-in poll, a mail-in poll, or a subscriber coupon poll? If the poll you are looking at is a dial-in. mail-in, or coupon poll, don't report the results because the respondents are self-selected. These pseudo-polls have no validity. Remember, the purpose of a poll is to draw conclusions about the population, not about the sample. In these pseudo-polls there is no way to project the results to any larger group. Scientific polls usually show different results than pseudo-polls. The 900-number dial-in polls may be fine for deciding whether or not Larry the Lobster should be cooked on Saturday Night Live or even for dedicated fans to express their opinions on who is the greatest quarterback in the National Football League, but they have only entertainment value. There is no way to tell who actually called in, how old they are, or how many times each person called. Never be fooled by the number of responses. In some cases a few people call in thousands of times. Even if 500,000 calls are tallied, no one has any real knowledge of what the results mean. If big numbers impress you, remember that the Literary Digest's non-scientific sample of 12,000,000 people said Landon would beat Roosevelt. The subscriber coupon polls are just as bad. In these cases, the magazine or newspaper includes a coupon to be mailed in with the answers to the questions. Again, there is no way to know who responded and how many times. These results are not projectable even to the subscribers of the publication that includes the coupon. Originally by: BiggestT IMO This shows CCP dont give two fcks or a shit about the player base, they talk about trying to make a democracy out of EVE, but its a dictatorship. What democracy favours the party that only achieved 1/3 of the votes, while the other party achieved 2/3?? Thats just ludicrous how they completely ignore the view of the majority. We are the player base, we pay their salaries, we fund CCP. It is amazing how ignorant they are of their own customer preferences. Its obvious this nerf was a blunder, a total revamp is needed if they want to re-adjust speed, the current idea is total bogus. 2 things: 1. A democracy doesn't mean the majority gets to vote on every decision. If it did, would taxes still be raised? 2. CCP always reserved the right to make the final decision. Period. In closing: There's only one way to vote when dealing with a commercial company. With your wallet. Originally by:* Signature Everybody has a photographic memory, some people just don't have film.
Brodde Dim Unseen University	Posted - 2008.10.11 11:37:00 - [36] No point in voting about it really. The majority of the players trust that CCP will fix the imbalances sooner or later. People who are afraid their easy mode pvp will be balanced are a lot more vocal. Few players care enough about the in game balance (not just about boosting stuff beneficial to themselfs) to argue about it on the forums.
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.10.11 11:58:00 - [37] A lot of constructive feedback was given in the feedback thread, if you can wade through pro-nano and anti-nano flaming. It was all completely ignored, however. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Ruciza Minmatar The Feminists	Posted - 2008.10.11 12:00:00 - [38] Originally by: Cpt Branko It was all completely ignored, however. Because it is stupid.
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.10.11 12:01:00 - [39] Originally by: Ruciza Originally by: Cpt Branko It was all completely ignored, however. Because it is stupid. NO U Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Ruciza Minmatar The Feminists	Posted - 2008.10.11 12:22:00 - [40] Edited by: Ruciza on 11/10/2008 12:24:29 Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Ruciza Originally by: Cpt Branko It was all completely ignored, however. Because it is stupid. NO U Merin used an interesting term the other day, the "current metagame". If you look at what the current metagame is, according to the forum, then there exist only about 20 pvp ships now, excluding capitals. The rest is useless and comedy in one way or another. After the speed nerf, about half of those 20 will be comedy too. What you guys want is to balance the game along the "metagame". Here's the hint: The metagame exists only on the metalevel in your brain, but not in the design documents of ccp.
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.10.11 12:29:00 - [41] Originally by: Ruciza What you guys want is to balance the game along the "metagame". You didn't read it, did you? Can't blame you, though. It is littered with anti/pro-nano flaming and so on. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.10.11 12:41:00 - [42] Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 11/10/2008 12:42:02 Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 11/10/2008 12:41:03 Haha, 2:1 and that is on the forums. Forums are filled with unhappy people. That tilts the vote towards contra nerf. Add the fact that speed has been fotm for so long a huge part of the player base is abusing it. That also tilts it towards contra nerf. In fact that the vote on the forum is 2:1 against the nerf is a huge indicator of how redicilously overpowered speed is. Those against are more then enough. If this nerf was truly frowned upon the pro nerf side would have lost by huge amount and not by a tiny 2:1. Nerf is coming and you better adapt. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage
Cornette Gallente Black Screen of Death HUZZAH FEDERATION	Posted - 2008.10.11 16:00:00 - [43] I don't mind the speednerf. What I do mind is the over the top nerfing of many things that tilts the game into a more static and "safer" game for the space holding alliances. You are happy of the nerf because Amarr are the FOTM-race, along with Caladari, and will be even better after, effectively leaving Minmatar and Gallente in the dust. Hm maybe I should train Caldari after all even if I not really want too. With the speed nerf I will sit safely in a falcon 200+ klicks away keeping you permajammed just to annoy you.
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.11 16:20:00 - [44] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 11/10/2008 12:42:02 Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 11/10/2008 12:41:03 Haha, 2:1 and that is on the forums. Forums are filled with unhappy people. That tilts the vote towards contra nerf. Add the fact that speed has been fotm for so long a huge part of the player base is abusing it. That also tilts it towards contra nerf. In fact that the vote on the forum is 2:1 against the nerf is a huge indicator of how redicilously overpowered speed is. Those against are more then enough. If this nerf was truly frowned upon the pro nerf side would have lost by huge amount and not by a tiny 2:1. Nerf is coming and you better adapt. Wow, so many people are saying this. You need to remember that the nano nerf stemmed from OTHERs complaining about nanoes being overpowered, when thye see that their resolve is in dispute, they will argue for a nano nerf. I lol'd at your adapt BS, i bet youd be singing a much different tune if ammar werent handed "most awesome" medals on silver platters. And besides, this nano nerf may skrew up missiles, but my railboats will be incredibly awesome so ill be fine. However im interested in fairness and balace which is in NO way reperesented in this nerf. Awesome EVE history Missiles ba-oom!
Heikki Gallente Wreckless Abandon G00DFELLAS	Posted - 2008.10.11 18:49:00 - [45] Originally by: BiggestT Edited by: BiggestT on 11/10/2008 05:25:48 2:1 ratio of the votes Thats actually surprising many who voted for the nerf; it might actually encourage CCP to implement it. You have to consider that CCP is used to seeing lot of whinage about nerfs, and then seeing people get used to changes, adapt, and even start to consider them fine. Also I'm pretty confident the sample is biased; it's polling every church goer in USA for the president, and declaring you won't need the elections since results are so clear. -Lasse
Red Thunder Most Wanted INC G00DFELLAS	Posted - 2008.10.11 19:02:00 - [46] dont know why people are calling this a whine thread....the guy is simply stating the fact that more people are against than for. Deal with it guys lol. oh and yes, the data is perfectly accurate, stop acting like sore losers and making up excuses to why you lost. Eagles may soar, but weasels dont get sucked into jet engines
Ashley Thomas Kiith Paktu Nex Eternus	Posted - 2008.10.11 21:08:00 - [47] as always though, people are quicker to complain than praise, so the numbers i see seem rather close to me
Warrio Southern Cross Incorporated Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2008.10.12 05:38:00 - [48] Originally by: Red Thunder you lost. We'll see sXe

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

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.