These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Missions & Complexes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Radar sites were nerfed after patch, Why?

Author
Powie XIII
Pollock Industries
#21 - 2011-12-15 09:12:38 UTC
Just quit exploring and go back to missions where rewards are more consistent. Less competition for me. You don't deserve the loot if you don't work hard for it.

In short, just quit already.

“They see me trollin', they hatin'”

Sul Glass
Fat Dragon Mining Co.
Darwinism.
#22 - 2011-12-15 09:37:36 UTC
I support/endorse the services offered in the above reply.

Sul
VIP Ares
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#23 - 2011-12-15 09:51:13 UTC
Four sites is really not enough to make such conclusion. Sorry.

http://www.balex.info/index.php/pilot_detail/47623/

FlameGlow
Perkone
Caldari State
#24 - 2011-12-15 10:28:09 UTC
Magnetos are a definite improvement though, finally T2 salvage drops not 1-2 pieces per site
To boost radars CCP need to do only one thing really - make the interfaces a consumable in invention(to last maybe 100 invention runs or so), instead of one-time purchase.
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#25 - 2011-12-15 11:03:54 UTC
Emperor Salazar wrote:
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Funny how whenever someone posts a thread like this, it's always the same few characters posting negative sarcastic replies with no proof to contradict the claims of the OP.

I agree with the OP and see no reason to do 100, 1000 or even a million Radar sites.. 10 sites is more than enough to ascertain a basic conclusion.

Since the expansion there is indeed a big difference in the amount of loot gained and the amount of cans holding loot in the Radar sites.. Basically it's now about 1/3rd that has loot whereas before the expansion it was about 2/3rds that would have loot.

This is something that's easily noticed and doesn't require completing 1000's of sites to confirm.





Funny how whenever someone posts a thread like this, its always the same character white knighting them...And try reading the op. He didn't do 10, he did 4, with 3 out of 4 cans being empty. Pretty standard. Additionally, its not on us to contradict the OP. Its on the OP to provide substantial evidence that there might be an issue for us to take him seriously and consider the possibility that there is something wrong. None of us want exploration to be broken. Thus, if there is a serious and evident problem, we will address it. Unfortunately, most of the time its people like the op with evidence like 3 out 4 cans in 1 site. You really think thats valid reason to come to the forums complaining about a possible nerf?

Also, lol at your anecdotal "1/3" post patch and "2/3" pre patch observations.


Funny how whenever someone posts a thread like this, its always the same character troll posting them... And try actually reading the reply, I never said he did 10 sites. Additionally, 3 out of 4 cans being empty in a Radar site may be the standard now, but it surely wasn't that way before the expansion. Besides that, you have said many times that you don't bother with Radar sites so it's not on you to contradict others when you have no substantial evidence to prove otherwise.

As for my saying that only 1/3rd of cans contain loot, that's an average estimation due to checking 15 cans and only 5 contained loot. That equals to 1/3rd.

Tippia wrote:
That's because the OP never provides any proof himself — just a completely insignificant sample that tells us exactly nothing.

The sarcasm comes from the fact that this abject failure to understand even the basics of random distribution keeps showing up, no matter how often people explain it. It's particularly warranted in this case since the OP comes back and explains that he has no interest in understanding the issue and thus refuses to provide any proof to actually support his silly claim.


What's silly is people saying they know for a fact that CCP hasn't reduced the amount of cans containing loot and rationalize it with the pretense of random distribution 'working as intended' when there's actually a noticeable decline.

Please inform us what you think a significant sample size is?


Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#26 - 2011-12-15 11:24:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Funny how whenever someone posts a thread like this, its always the same character troll posting them correcting...
That's not funny — it's just logical. People who understand probability and statistics try to explain it to those who don't.
Quote:
What's silly is people saying they know for a fact that CCP hasn't reduced the amount of cans containing loot and rationalize it with the pretense of random distribution 'working as intended' when there's actually a noticeable decline.
Good thing that no-one is doing that then (neither saying that it's “working as intended”, nor showing that there is a noticable decline). That leaves the OP's failure at basic statistics — and those defending it — as the only silliness in this thread.
Quote:
Please inform us what you think a significant sample size is?
How many different sites are there?
How many cans do each of them have?
How many of each have you run before the patch?
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#27 - 2011-12-15 11:57:41 UTC
Nice of you to post all that other nonsense while sidestepping the most important question.

DeMichael Crimson wrote:

Please inform us what you think a significant sample size is?


Obviously your answer shows you have no idea.

Tippia wrote:
How many different sites are there?
How many cans do each of them have?
How many of each have you run before the patch?



Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#28 - 2011-12-15 12:08:33 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Nice of you to post all that other nonsense while sidestepping the most important question.
So you have no data, I take it?
Or maybe you just didn't want your “question” answered?

How many different sites are there?
How many cans do each of them have?
How many of each have you run before the patch?

If you can't answer those, then we'll go for the standard n — 2,000.
Rubinia Valeska
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2011-12-15 14:11:04 UTC
Dont listen to Tippia.
Radar sites are useless now, do not do them, just filter them out.
See it as positive thing, you gain a mid slot.

hf

RV out
Havegun Willtravel
Mobile Alcohol Processing Units
#30 - 2011-12-15 15:02:44 UTC
As mentioned by numerous others your handful of sites can't be considered proof of a nerf.

If it helps at all I've run about two dozen since Crucible dropped and I've cleared over 100 mil. I still get the occasional empty can or 2 but I'm still getting my usual loot drops to. So just keep at it.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#31 - 2011-12-15 15:25:59 UTC
Rubinia Valeska wrote:
Dont listen to Tippia.
Radar sites are useless now, do not do them, just filter them out.
See it as positive thing, you gain a mid slot.
Yes. Listen to this man… Blink
Plyn
Uncharted.
#32 - 2011-12-15 16:43:42 UTC
Or people could just work together. The OP's statement isn't a conclusion, it's a hypothesis.

How about....

Instead of flaming each other when NEITHER side has enough evidence, you combine your evidence and create a result. Every time you run a radar site for the next however long, post the truesec of the system you were in, the number of cans that had stuff, the number of cans that didn't have stuff, and the approximate value of the loot. You can even use alts if you're worried about people knowing your habits. In under a week's time you will have thousands of records from all different areas, and THEN you guys can start arguing about what the numbers mean.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#33 - 2011-12-15 17:19:44 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
I agree with the OP and see no reason to do 100, 1000 or even a million Radar sites.. 10 sites is more than enough to ascertain a basic conclusion.


No, it's not.

When I'm prowling for wormholes, I stop for any radar, ded 4/10s, and Watch sites I find. Since I started exploration a year ago, I can remember multi-day runs of bad luck where I found almost nothing, followed by multiple days making over 200 million isk an hour.

Run 10 Gurista Scout Outposts and you'll decide a "good" drop is worth about 50-70 million. Run 40 more and you'll probably score two C-Type medium shield boosters, each worth 400+ million.

Think of it as rolling dice: The odds of rolling any given pair is 1 in 36. If you roll the dice 100 times and never get a pair of 1s, do you call the dice broken? You need a sample size of 1000+ to effectively generate numbers that match the statistical predictions. It's the same with the coin-flipping analogy someone else used: you don't flip the coin twice and declare it broken. You flip it twenty times and see if the pattern is consistent.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#34 - 2011-12-15 17:31:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Plyn wrote:
The OP's statement isn't a conclusion, it's a hypothesis.
That might be sensible if the statement had been made in the form of a hypothesis.

Just one problem: it wasn't. The OP is demanding explanations and rectification for a situation that he claims is true, without a shred of evidence to back that claim up and without any reason to even believe it to be true to begin with. That's not how you form hypotheses, nor how you pursue them.

Hell, he even categorically denies the possibility that it is anything other than fact and emphatically states that it simply cannot (or must not) be proven false. If it is no longer falsifiable, it is no longer a hypothesis. At best, it could be construed as maths-hostile fundamentalism… P
Dztrgovac
#35 - 2011-12-15 18:31:39 UTC
First to op. No hisec radars have most certainly not been nerfed they might have actually been buffed a little bit.

Pseudorandom numbers are random. In my rather limited exploration history I've found entire 10 sites. 5 Last year, then account expired and 5 in last 10 days since I ressubed after Crucible. Though I've also done couple of static 1/10s but those are not exploration and generally dropped loot.

Last year I though a bad drop was a dead-space passive EM armor hardener or a small remote rep. Now, out of 5 DED sites I've done only a single one dropped any dead-space loot. A very discouraging streak of bad luck. But its just random. When there is couple of thousand (maybe couple dozen thousand) people doing exploration ; all hitting the same pseudoRNG (computers are deterministic, true RNG is impossible) generator day after day short or even ling-ish streaks of very good or very bad luck are to be expected.

If 10,000 sites are done each day by couple thousand players not a single one of them will have data to have a good picture of how exactly goes the loot distribution curve. Even if you ran exploration for a year or two you will still have access to several hundred, maybe a thousand datapoints. Considering wast number or loot options that might still be not enough to be able to tell anything about exact distribution curves.
Emperor Salazar
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#36 - 2011-12-15 18:41:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Emperor Salazar
ITT some people took a probability and statistics class and some people did not

oh and ♥ u Tippia
Emperor Salazar
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#37 - 2011-12-15 18:53:44 UTC
Plyn wrote:
Or people could just work together. The OP's statement isn't a conclusion, it's a hypothesis.

How about....

Instead of flaming each other when NEITHER side has enough evidence, you combine your evidence and create a result. Every time you run a radar site for the next however long, post the truesec of the system you were in, the number of cans that had stuff, the number of cans that didn't have stuff, and the approximate value of the loot. You can even use alts if you're worried about people knowing your habits. In under a week's time you will have thousands of records from all different areas, and THEN you guys can start arguing about what the numbers mean.



Hell I'd be all for this. I would love to see a giant damn database recorded. Unfortunately this would require explorers to work together (hint: most enjoy solo play/working alone) and sharing data. It would also require an immense amount of trust.

The reason we flame people like the OP is because they have a tiny bad run and immediately decide the game is broken and its time to come to the forums to rage post about how CCP is unfair and exploration is no longer worth doing. The burden of proof in these discussions is on the OP in order to generate a valid discussion. As I said in another post, none of us want exploration to be broken, and thus if there is reasonable evidence of a problem, then we will address it with concern. Unfortunately, people like the OP never present this. They provide anecdotal observations because they are e-mad, thus the responses we see in this thread.

People white knighting them does not help.
Citizen Smif
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#38 - 2011-12-15 18:56:11 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Nice of you to post all that other nonsense while sidestepping the most important question.

DeMichael Crimson wrote:

Please inform us what you think a significant sample size is?


Obviously your answer shows you have no idea.

Tippia wrote:
How many different sites are there?
How many cans do each of them have?
How many of each have you run before the patch?





The defending side seemed ignorant before but this quote just really shows your mathematical ignorance. It's ludicrous to assume that probability can be determined from 10 samples. Perhaps if the chance of loot was 50%+ then it would be unusual but it's not. Even then 10 wouldn't be enough (40 would be a good number).. You need a much higher sample than 10.. 500 would be a good preliminary and 1000 would be fairly reliable.
Dztrgovac
#39 - 2011-12-15 19:18:05 UTC
Its really sad that doe to competition any effort to create a nice little loot DB, even if it was just "dropped deadspace/faction" "didn't drop" entry, would be futile. People are too afraid do reveal trade secrets and sufficient number of people would enter false data to make entire thing useless.

Though I think it hurts more when someone in a hurry for cash undercuts on contracts by 15% then just sharing your finding stats.

One thing that amazed me in WOW was that even rarest and most expensive stuff got hard numbers on drop chance just days after being added into game. Loot tables were fully compiles for nearly everything. Most MMOs have that.


EVE... Well two years ago just posting about DSP tricks on EVEO forums would have caused wars and IRL beatings. So maybe things are improving a little bit.
Emperor Salazar
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#40 - 2011-12-15 19:26:14 UTC
Dztrgovac wrote:
Its really sad that doe to competition any effort to create a nice little loot DB, even if it was just "dropped deadspace/faction" "didn't drop" entry, would be futile. People are too afraid do reveal trade secrets and sufficient number of people would enter false data to make entire thing useless.

Though I think it hurts more when someone in a hurry for cash undercuts on contracts by 15% then just sharing your finding stats.

One thing that amazed me in WOW was that even rarest and most expensive stuff got hard numbers on drop chance just days after being added into game. Loot tables were fully compiles for nearly everything. Most MMOs have that.


EVE... Well two years ago just posting about DSP tricks on EVEO forums would have caused wars and IRL beatings. So maybe things are improving a little bit.



We'll get there eventually. Personally I love the people that undercut my loot. In a rush to get isk or something? Demand rarely changes and I know the prices people will pay when supply drops a bit. So I just leave my stuff up there and in time it sells.