EVE General Discussion

I think Valkyrie will end up like Hearthstone.

Heartstone ended up with far more players than WoW and ended up earning more revenue.

http://www.pcgamesn.com/hearthstone-heroes-of-warcraft/hearthstone-is-outgrowing-world-of-warcraft-and-blizzard-are-fine-with-that

To which Blizzard realized they were on to something and shifted more of their efforts to F2P gaming with Heroes of the Storm etc etc.

The same will happen with EVE. The subscription model is a failing model. Blizzard has realized that and so has CCP.

EVE will still exist but it will be relegated to something they keep around for the lore much like WoW does. They won't shut it down, but rather it won't be their flagship title anymore.

Well I hope they integrate future games with Eve Online somehow.

Quote for posterity:

"Never in the history of consumer electronics, there's been a big hit product that couldn't be shared and experienced by others within 3 seconds of bragging about it"

Ahh Tippia, why don;t you tell me how it does work. It seems to me that if you had evidence that 62% aren't PvE players, you'd be able to slam dunk that dude. But as always you fall back to "It's up to everyone else to provide proof, which I will then ignore and demand more". It's always up to everyone else eh?

Stats like the "damage per day" stats at fanfest that showed that 72% of all damage done on a given day is against NPCs.

It's not being suggested that people don't do both, but people stomping in saying "PvE doesn't need to be good because EVE is a PvP game" should understand that the game is built around both too.

Oh, I see, so you can make blanket denials without any proof, and you can even just invalidate the graph that he is using as evidence without any further proof or explanation. That's not how it works mate. I'd say it's generally recognised as true that more PvE occurs in this game than PvP, so the burden of proof is on you proving that's not the case.

EVE is what CCP choose EVE to be. If tomorrow they change it to a car racing game, then that is what EVE is. When people like Jenn say "what makes the game what it is" what they mean is "what I like about the game".

I could do the same: what makes the game what it is is the intricate industry and trade system allowing us to turn a profit on building and reselling items.

See how that is just one opinion of the game, not an objective view of what EVE is?

Compare and contrast:
A: 62% of players are PvE:ers
B: Do you have anything to support that?
A: Yes! Here it is!
       alternatively
A: No, sorry, I'm just guessing
B: Oh, ok.

A: 62% of players are PvE:ers
B: Do you have anything to support that?
A: Prove that it's wrong.
B: Don't need to, since you haven't proven yourself right yet.

What A does in the latter case is a fallacy that is called “shifting the burden of proof”, often just referred to as “onus probandi”, which means that the one making a claim is the one that has to support it. Until they do, the claim can trivially be dismissed as untrue. There is no need to disprove something that is untrue — it proves itself. Absence of falsification is not proof that your right, especially not in the absence of anything to verify your stance, and trying to shift the burden of proof just means you're trying to cover up that no such verification exists while also implying that a lack of falsification proves something.

No. What I always do is ask for those who make some unproven claim to provide proof. If they do, we evaluate it; if they don't the claim is is ignored and the same demand for proof is repeated.

I know you get confused by this, largely because the latter happens so frequently and we almost never get to the evaluation stage. People generally can't provide that required proof, and instead just go on huge fallacy-cascades, often in the form of onus probandi or strawman fallacies (such as trying to make it seem as if I've made some kind of opposing claim).

Do you have a link to that? And how does that show that PvE is massive compared to all the kinds of PvP the game has on offer?

Yes, in the absence of evidence, blanked denials can be done without proof — that's the whole point of having proof. Doubly so in this case since the graph is specifically created to disprove the categorisation Indahmawar is trying to peddle.

the statistic isnt "62% are pve'ers", the statistic means 62% do pve, there is a distinct difference here, im a pvp'er but if im bored or rl poor ill simply run a few level 5's or ded's, that doesnt make me a pve'er it just means i do pve as well as pvp so i would also fall into that 62% statistic, however 100% of people do pvp so we should focus more on that.

except it's more like:
A: 62% of players are PvE:ers
B: Do you have anything to support that?
A: Yes! Here it is!
B: I do not accept that as valid. Find different evidence.
(those last 2 steps repeat ad infinitum)

You're also making the wild assumption that conventional wisdom does not support him, while I'd argue that people generally accept that more PvE occurs in game than anything else.

FTFY.

I think it's here. If not it's somewhere in there I think. What that shows is that where damage is applied, most of it is on NPCs. While it's not conclusive evidence, it certainly lends itself to the idea that more activities involve shooting NPCs than other players. And that's ignoring non-damaging forms of PvE like mining and exploration.

Fixed.

Conventional wisdom is not proof, so there's no need to assume anything about it.

Sorry, “mangled due to ignorance” does not start with an F. Try again.


Mining and exploration is not PvE, and what PvE parts there are to exploration would show up in that statistic. But you almost grasp the point I'm getting to: there is so many activities in the game that don't do any damage, including large part of PvP combat. Looking at HP chewed through is like trying to compare taking the bike or the metro to work, and concluding that the metro is better because you were only on it for 5 minutes… never mind the 20 minutes spent walking to and from the station and waiting for the darn thing to even show up. Oh, and let's not forget the other end: in terms of activity, the HP in PvP combat is effectively counted twice — there are two opponents, each generating HP for that stat, where as for NPCs, only one side is counted.

Quant tries to normalise the number in terms of stuff destroyed, which improves it a bit, but there's still that question of what counts as part of the activity and what does not. As for “more activities”, we don't need any HP statistics to show that — we can just look at the what to do list. We can now open the floor on a debate of what counts as “an activity”.

Well, i have also been discussing a lot with Vaerah Vahrokha. So it is not only Indahmawar, if you are looking for a stalker angle of something. The thing with Indahmawar, is she uses these 62% as leverage to push through her ideas. Just look at her sig.
"CCP Seagull: "EVE should be a universe where the infrastructure you build and fight over is as player driven and dynamic as the EVE market is now".
62% of players: "We're not interested. May we have Plan B, please?"
CCP Seagull: "What Plan B?"

The problem is that these 62% also includes people who might not agree with Indahmawar, and might not even be doing mostly PVE, based on all the uncertainties that Scipio Artelius highlighted. So when you these statistics to make claims that EVE is dying because CCP ignores 62% of the EVE population, it is mireading the data.

If you go back to the post with the 1.4m sales for E:D, I also asked her, what the point was with just throwing these data into the discussion, without bringing any context. Because there was no context, i took it as a "lol, there are 1.4 mill people playing ED because they care for PVE activties" post. Which was an misinterpretation, as she then replied to someone else, that this means there are a lot of players that EVE could have gotten their hands on.

This is an opinion, which is okay. The problem is in the insinuation that some of these people would have subscriped and been fine with the other parts of EVE, if just there was more PVE.

I assure you that when I want proof it is not because I can't articulate an opinion, but because in my line of work, you have to bring proof or say less. This is basically what I would like. If the data are unclear, keep it to simpler statements that does get you into troubles. Don't say "The decline in ACU is because CCP don't make enough new PVE features" in GD. Go to FI instead and argument for what PVE changes you would like. I am sure the state of PVE is a part of the decline but so are many other variables. And for example looking at ACU for the last 5 years it seems like that the rapid part of the decline coincides with the SOV changes.

regarding the drop the ACU, all your reasons are probably all true to some extend. i like that you did not only include one like many. It could also just be that people generally are online less than what they used to, but still subscribed. For example if everyone would play two hours a day, instead of four the ACU would drop. Which is my problem with the whole "EVE is dying" thing. Way too many use ACU as an measurement of subscribers, when in reality it is an convoluted function depending on if the players are online and how long.

With how many procent I think that play PVE. I would not speculate on it at all with the quality of the data available. It is futile to estimate something when you have no tools to do so. So I will refrain.

Btw. read Tippias replies, they illustrate very nicely the standards you would be hold to in academia, about burden of proof, if you want to publish anything scientific.