EVE General Discussion

Another strong finding in this study is that cities from Latin America (Brazil, Costa Rica,
Mexico, El Salvador) and Spain were all above the mean in overall helping, and on average
were more helpful than the other international cities. This difference can be attributed to the
importance of the cultural script of simpatia (in Spanish) or simpatico (in Portuguese) in
Latin American and Hispanic cultures (Rodrigues & Assmar, 1988; Triandis et al., 1984).
These terms, which have no equivalent in English, refer to a range of amiable social quali-
ties—to be friendly, nice, agreeable, and good-natured (i.e., a person who is fun to be with
and pleasant to deal with). Helping strangers is also part of this script. Simpatia and simpa-
tico emphasize prioritizing amiable social behaviors as compared with, for example, empha-
sizing achievement and productivity.
This explanation in terms of simpatia is of course merely suggestive in that it is
correlational. Other explanations are possible. All the simpatia cultures have primarily
Roman Catholic populations. Furthermore, these are societies that are cultures of honor. It is
plausible that cultural traits associated with Roman Catholicism or the friendliness deriva-
tive of honor cultures may be the crucial variable that accounts for the higher rates of helping
among Hispanic cultures. 

source: http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/Manuscripts/Levine%2520et%2520al%2520helping.pdf

We conducted a Procrustes Factors 
Analysis for all scales, including 
prevention focus (cautiousness, 
dutifulness), self-regulation strength 
(impulse control), need for structure, 
and self-monitoring ability. For the 
personal need for structure scale, the 
normative EFA revealed that, as 
expected, the 8 items loaded cleanly 
onto two factors: desire for structure 
and response to lack of structure. 
When the cultural samples were 
subjected to procrustes rotation, the 
identity coefficient for the desire for 
structure factor exceeded the .90 
cutoff for all 33 countries, but the 
identity coefficient for the response to 
lack of structure factor only met the 
.90 cutoff for 17 countries. 

The data showed that 
Southern Asian and Confucian Asian 
nations are the tightest (M = 11.69, SD
= 0.62 and M = 8.64, SD = 1.84
respectively) and Eastern European 
nations are loosest (M = 3.60, SD = 
1.65). Nordic/Germanic European (M
= 6.04, SD = 2.21), Latin European
(M = 5.87, SD = 1.80), Anglo (M = 
5.09, SD = 1.30), and Latin American 
(M = 4.78, SD = 2.11) nations are in 
the mid-range.

source: http://server1.tepper.cmu.edu/Seminars/docs/Gelfand_paper.pdf

No, there are truly no cultural differences ....

Just how drunk are you today?

So:

Jill X says something that supports Chunk's argument and that blows right past and they continue arguing about something irrelevant.

*Sigh*

Get a convo you two.

Cultural differences are nothing. We have people in the same country murdering themselves for a dime, like in Mexico, like in Syria, like in a bunch of other countries, everyday someone there cant stand other people so much they must destroy them.

And on this accent I hope we will end this dispute about cultural and other differences and get back to pondering about the WIS, and when it will happen, and in what form.

I think the closest we will come will be with the new supposed PC game replacing DUST.

... and then suddenly, flick of the switch, once EvE is running we shed our cultural and individual differences and behave all exactly in the same way.

Except:

Cultural impacts exist, certainly. This is why there is not, and will never be, a Spanish uberalliance based on language, like "the Russians". 

Americans, Germans, Japanese, French ... all of them have car manufacturers. Cars are all the same: some wheels, an engine, steering wheel ... right ? No different design philosophies, engineering habits ... right ? People all over the world have the same tastes and buying habits ... right ? No Italian design fluff, no american love for pick-up trucks ... right ?



Sure a miner is a miner, a mission runner is a mission runner and so on.

But does this automatically mean that they don't use different tactics or react the same to outside stimuli ?

Have you ever driven a car in Italy, where red lights are just a suggestion ?
Have you driven a car in Paris, where you better give way to cars with visible scratches ?
Have you driven a car in the Netherlands, where priority is given to bicycles ?



And the point of the linked studies was that you find more individuals of one kind in one country than in another country. They found helpful people all over the world, but more of them in some countries ...

Do you think that a person who loves interacting with people and another person who hates interacting with people, both change how they react to people whe they start playing EvE ? Even if both start let's say mining ... Don't you think that the first one will end up socializing in some way and the second one isolating himself ?

You now pick one of them at random and say he's the model for how all miners are. But he's not because the other miner is the exact opposite. That's my point: your empirical evidence is skewed. ... and that is before we consider the other statistical fallacy that I pointed out in my other post that you ignored so far (see the Hite vs McKinsey example).

To make it clearer:
In the case of this sociable and isolating miners, CCP says that they didn't find more sociable or more isolating miners. Therefore the degree of sociability doesn't play a role in choice of profession (mining).
It says nothing about how one may prefer mining fleets.
It says nothing about how one uses more voice-comms.
It says nothing about how one writes more to the forum.
It says nothing about how much either of them reads the forum.
It says nothing about how each miner reacts to getting ganked.
... etc.

Statistics: They don't have to be made up or even wrong to be misleading.
Statistics: Where interpretation is as much of a science as actually creating them.
Statistics: They don't lie, but they don't tell all of the truth either.
Statistics: How can you not love statistics ?

That would be *** (walking on planets)
or RoP (running on planets)
... possibly GoP (gunning on planets)

edit: Now I'm curious to know why that specific order of letters warrants being censored.

edit2: "...pejorative slur used to describe..." Ok, I get it.

Jill Xelitras
and
Indahmawar Fazmarai

Please, can you two just wipe your posts and mail each other?
We are not interested and rather you two don't get this thread locked.

Probably wanted outright ownership and I don't blame them for that.

What you are calling PvE is input PvP (resources and corps) which has a friendly edge and nobody dies very often for it, but all the large fleet battles are actually done in contest for those input resources and control, which is PvP at the largest concept. CCP Falcon was pretty clear on this but I had to have that pointed out to me before I got that. It was a learning experience so I'm passing it on here.

I like your breaking it up into thirds, because that is probably fairly close to the truth, but it's really: gathering, creation, destruction. In game terms this is: Mining/Salvage, Industry/Research, Combat (read: ships blowing up... lots of them).

When you look at the game this way, and realize that competition exists across that entire spectrum, it's far easier to understand why things are built the way they are and where the balance headaches come into play. CCP is trying to maintain that balance for everyone and one change in on place, especially at the front end or back end can have dramatic issues on the other aspects.

Give them some credit, they are trying to keep the balance and I know from personal game design experience, it's really, really hard and you will never please everyone.

Assuming Chunks is right, that still wouldn't matter too much.
Yes, High Sec needs improvement, if only because it is the first impression that new players have of EVE.

However, the dreams are to one day fly a Titan or lead fleet in Null or own a Class 6 worm hole and such. PVP dreams in a PVP centric sandbox.
The people that are here for PVE will never have enough content to keep them happy for more than a few years. Null already has an average account life span of five years.
Just look at how people burn through content on other games.

We could throw in some randomisation and some procedurally created content. Modularise mission components and shuffle them. There are ways to spice things up.

However, I would start by putting new players in a Null Sec like system for an hour or two with a variety of frigates that have modules and the skills to fly them.
Mission 1: Go fight another new player.
No penalties, no losses, nothing goes out to kill boards but for a few hours it is like they are on the test server and can just shoot people.

After that they get teleported to their starting system.

Give them a big juicy bite of the pie so they will want to bake one and get that back again.

@Chunks, try the test server, lose 50 ships. If you mail me I will even give you some half decent fits to try. You might find you have been keeping pure for nothing.