These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 
Author
E-2C Hawkeye
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#81 - 2013-05-08 06:04:25 UTC  |  Edited by: E-2C Hawkeye
This is as close as your ever going to get to admitting you were wrong.
E-2C Hawkeye
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#82 - 2013-05-08 06:07:19 UTC  |  Edited by: E-2C Hawkeye
Quote:
This would be a clear example of you refusing to accept that not only could you be wrong but that in FACT you were wrong yet you cant acknowledge or admit it.
…aside from the whole acknowledging that there might be merit to some of it, but that it's still problematic, you mean?

This part.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#83 - 2013-05-08 06:11:37 UTC
Meryl SinGarda wrote:
What do you mean nerf highsec?


Best firstpost ever Big smile

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#84 - 2013-05-08 06:14:55 UTC
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Concurssi Mellenar wrote:
I've only ever heard talk of subscriber counts, not accounts.
In The Butterfly Effect video, a phrase that goes something along the lines of "your actions could touch the lives of more than 300000 people in 230 countries". People, not accounts. And that video was made some time ago.
These days, I've heard talk of there being 500000 subscribers. Not accounts.
Welcome to marketing. The numbers are always accounts, not people. Mainly because there's no reliable way of counting actual people — at best, you can generalise numbers from polling data (which will have a significant self-selection bias among those with more accounts).

E-2C Hawkeye wrote:
Any one that plays sees the server population. Weekends it can reach 50kish. Most times the op is correct ~25k.
…except that this would assume that every last player is always online 23.5/7. So no, the OP is ridiculously incorrect.


Even if you take that number at its highest and double it not even taking in account for alts you still fall far short. I have been on all hours of the night on the weekends and I don’t see the magic spike for those who are in different time zones. Unless the population numbers at log in are inaccurate.

Does the server feel heavy populated to you? Most times I wounder with those 25k if half are alts or afk even.

In the end its still just a number. The number means nothing to mean. What matters to me is the feel of the server.

What’s ridiculous is your endless insatiable need to always be correct . Try stepping off your high horse now and then.


If you assume that the average account is logged in for 20 hours a week, than that means that 500,000 x (20/168) = 59524 people.

Knock off 20% for the part of the 500k that are on the chinese server and you get about 48k.

OK maybe it looks like the average account is logged in for 16 or 17 hours a week. I find that pretty plausible.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#85 - 2013-05-08 06:19:05 UTC
Tippia wrote:
…in fact, at an average online count of 39k or more ever since Retribution across both TQ and Serenity, that's 6.5 million account-hours per week, or just over 13 hours per week per account. To me, that actually sounds rather high and would suggest that the number of accounts is much higher than a mere 500k (but then, those online-hours would include not just a bunch of trail accounts that aren't counted among the 500k, but also a bunch of 23.5/7 bots that bring the hour count up).

So yeah, no. 500k almost sounds too small a number.



I'm told that just about all the 23.5/7 bots have been Darwined, and most of the surviving bots run a much more intermittent activity cycle these days.

Perhaps you should assume that there are 15 or 20,000 AFK cloakers instead Cool

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#86 - 2013-05-08 06:45:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:
This is as close as your ever going to get to admitting you were wrong.
Nope.

So are you ever going to address the facts and figures, or are you just going to keep trolling? Are you going to provide some reasoning why you prefer unfounded, unreasonable, and counter-factual guesses to actual data? Or are you just going to keep going after me because it's all you can still try (and fail just as much at)?

Malcanis wrote:
I'm told that just about all the 23.5/7 bots have been Darwined, and most of the surviving bots run a much more intermittent activity cycle these days.

Perhaps you should assume that there are 15 or 20,000 AFK cloakers instead Cool
…or at least 1900 Jita-local spammers. P
Josefine Etrange
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#87 - 2013-05-08 07:44:39 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Defying wrote:
Once again you are wrong.
Prove it.


Has been proven countless times, and than again, the error margin may big enough so that you start complaining that it is not "reliable" ;-)

btw, as a rule of thumb, 20% of your user base will login at peak times, so with peak of 63k we should have about 315,000 active accounts on tranquility, which leaves 195,000 accounts for china. Sounds very reasonable for me, but feel free to disagree.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#88 - 2013-05-08 09:48:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Josefine Etrange wrote:
btw, as a rule of thumb, 20% of your user base will login at peak times, so with peak of 63k we should have about 315,000 active accounts on tranquility, which leaves 195,000 accounts for china. Sounds very reasonable for me, but feel free to disagree.
I haven't heard about that rule of thumb, but that + alts (unless they consider alts as separate users?) should lead to closer to 400k (or slightly above) for TQ, and another 100k:ish for Serenity, which neatly coincides with the ratios of online population, and with pretty much all other estimates.

So that means we've shown 500k to be entirely plausible through three different methods by now.
Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#89 - 2013-05-08 10:37:54 UTC
CCP should create a "EVE is dead" Forum so that all the moaners can post to their hearts' content in there. That forum would remain alive because there's always someone with something to 'prove' that EVE is dead and that the rest of us must take their heads out of the sand.

In the meantime, the rest of us will continue to play EVE.

Forward the next decade !



Rarize Urkan
EVE Corporation 98582134
#90 - 2013-05-08 12:17:04 UTC
Any final aprox number or persons playing eve? I don't have the time to read everything posted.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#91 - 2013-05-08 12:17:14 UTC
Josefine Etrange wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Defying wrote:
Once again you are wrong.
Prove it.


Has been proven countless times, and than again, the error margin may big enough so that you start complaining that it is not "reliable" ;-)

btw, as a rule of thumb, 20% of your user base will login at peak times, so with peak of 63k we should have about 315,000 active accounts on tranquility, which leaves 195,000 accounts for china. Sounds very reasonable for me, but feel free to disagree.


By whose rule of thumb? Where is this rule derived from? Which games? I have never seen this rule cited anywhere else.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#92 - 2013-05-08 12:27:06 UTC
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:


I am not the one that has to always be right. Most things are a matter of perspective.


This is where you fail and i do mean fail. Just like that cry of "you just have to be right", saying "Most things are a matter of perspective" is something that is ONLY said by people who tend to be wrong but tend to not be able to take responsibility for being wrong.


Quote:

I am certainly not mad at other peoples perspectives. Things wont change until you change the way you look at things. I am happy with my current level of education or lack of even. I am happy I don't excel at trolling, should this be your standard for measuring your perceived intelligence.

If I were as smart as I really want to be, I certainly wouldn't waste my time with you or your troll friends.

What does bother me is the the clear pattern that yourself and the trolls like you demonstrate in thread after thread that you dislike or don't agree with. You continue to troll the topic to the point it becomes locked.

I would ask CCP and the moderators to lock less threads and send more trolls on vacation


And yet YOU (shocker lol) have had more attention from moderators than any of us had. And everyday you are in the exact same conflict, usually with people who think factually and reasonably.

Despite all of that, you can't internalize the simple fact that the common theme in all of these discussions is YOU? Have you ever stopped for a single second and though "hmmm, it might be my approach to posting that elicits that response"? If you had any ability to be honest with yourself, I believe you'd see what soooo many others (including me) are able to see about what you post.

You remind me of the divorced old rich lady who used to live down the street from me. My mother almost died laughing when she told us that the old lady told her "you know, I'm starting to think that after 9 divorces...it just might be me that's the problem". Even 20 years later I can recall the tears in my mothers eyes as she laughed as hard as she's ever laughed in shear astonishment.

If you ever can bring yourself to accept that most of the problem her is you, I to will laugh...in astonishment.



Back on topic, the game is fine, what you FEEL about the server is provably incorrect. Stop saying funny isht like that and people will stop laughing at you.


Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#93 - 2013-05-08 12:29:14 UTC
Josefine Etrange wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Defying wrote:
Once again you are wrong.
Prove it.


Has been proven countless times, and than again, the error margin may big enough so that you start complaining that it is not "reliable" ;-)

btw, as a rule of thumb, 20% of your user base will login at peak times, so with peak of 63k we should have about 315,000 active accounts on tranquility, which leaves 195,000 accounts for china. Sounds very reasonable for me, but feel free to disagree.


Point of order! Saying "it's been proven countless times" is not only NOT proof, but it tend to supports tthe other side of the argument (because it displays the fact that you CAN"T prove it).
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#94 - 2013-05-08 12:32:02 UTC
Tippia wrote:


So are you ever going to address the facts and figures, or are you just going to keep trolling? Are you going to provide some reasoning why you prefer unfounded, unreasonable, and counter-factual guesses to actual data? Or are you just going to keep going after me because it's all you can still try (and fail just as much at)?


He'll have to keep trolling, because that's his last line of (ego) defense. If you're like me, you simply count his (and people like him) descent into blathering madness as a victory :) .
Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#95 - 2013-05-08 12:40:11 UTC
Josefine Etrange wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Defying wrote:
Once again you are wrong.
Prove it.


Has been proven countless times, and than again, the error margin may big enough so that you start complaining that it is not "reliable" ;-)

btw, as a rule of thumb, 20% of your user base will login at peak times, so with peak of 63k we should have about 315,000 active accounts on tranquility, which leaves 195,000 accounts for china. Sounds very reasonable for me, but feel free to disagree.


I think you just sucked that rule of thumb from someplace other than your thumb. Cite a decent article on your rule of thumb, otherwise it's just your uninformed opinion and that does not qualify as a "rule of thumb".
The Slayer
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#96 - 2013-05-08 12:45:38 UTC
Yes because every single one of WoWs vaunted "12 million players" was a unique individual person, they didn't count second accounts in THAT picture no sir. Same with League of Legends and their x million players claims, they sure don't count smurf accounts or alts!

This is how MMO companies count "people", the number of monthly accounts logging in, or the number of monthly accounts PAYING THEM. They don't care if one person is logging in 100,000 of those accounts, its still 100,000 accounts.
Concurssi Mellenar
Doomheim
#97 - 2013-05-08 12:45:40 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Welcome to marketing. The numbers are always accounts, not people. Mainly because there's no reliable way of counting actual people — at best, you can generalise numbers from polling data (which will have a significant self-selection bias among those with more accounts).

Quote:
no reliable way of counting actual people
What about credit card details? As I understand it, every account has credit card details tied to it, so just adjust for duplicate accounts that way.

He who controls the veld, controls the universe.

The Slayer
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#98 - 2013-05-08 12:46:20 UTC  |  Edited by: The Slayer
Concurssi Mellenar wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Welcome to marketing. The numbers are always accounts, not people. Mainly because there's no reliable way of counting actual people — at best, you can generalise numbers from polling data (which will have a significant self-selection bias among those with more accounts).

Quote:
no reliable way of counting actual people
What about credit card details? As I understand it, every account has credit card details tied to it, so just adjust for duplicate accounts that way.


I pay 3 of my accounts with plex and they have no card data associated with them. Anyway why does it matter? If CCP start telling us how many actual PLAYERS they have do you think every other MMO company will follow in their footsteps and stop counting active accounts? I think not.
I Love Boobies
All Hail Boobies
#99 - 2013-05-08 13:12:34 UTC
Reading this thread has made me lose a few IQ points, which I cannot afford to lose. Some of the stuff stated in here is just so damn ridiculous, you cannot help just sitting here, staring at your screen, thinking... wtf did I just read?
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#100 - 2013-05-08 13:18:11 UTC
Concurssi Mellenar wrote:
As I understand it, every account has credit card details tied to it, so just adjust for duplicate accounts that way.


You understand it wrong.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal