These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Excessive Griefing

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#261 - 2016-10-21 04:49:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Mark Marconi wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
I am not sure why you are so obsessed with their statistic skills. It's not like this is some magic tool, it just basic math skills every software engineer learns.

Because the figures don't match his preconceived ideas.

The only logical conclusion in the face of compelling evidence contrary to a view, is to claim there may be something wrong with the figures.

Please show me this compelling evidence.

A simple statement of CCPs showing how they determined the sample, why they excluded factors such as recruit a friend and the raw data they used will be just fine. That is compelling evidence. Not because they said so.

I have not said something is wrong with the figures I have said the figures are useless because they cannot be proven to be statistically valid or not.

Yes, I'm sure the total issue is your lack of access to the primary data and not just CCP's conclusions.

If the figures supported your view, I'm sure you'd still be equally sceptical. Like, totally.
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#262 - 2016-10-21 04:59:32 UTC
Mark Marconi wrote:

All you have is faith and belief. You cannot show what you believe to be true, you are just trusting that it is.

Science is not about proving everything every time without a doubt. It is about saying what is more likely and what is not.

I tend to believe that a study conducted by people who have access to the data and a strong motivation to get it right is far more likely to be accurate than the gut feelings of a mad carebear without any data and a strong bias against gankers.

Evil RatKid
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#263 - 2016-10-21 05:11:26 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:


I tend to believe that a study conducted by people who have access to the data and a strong motivation to get it right is far more likely to be accurate than the gut feelings of a mad carebear without any data and a strong bias against gankers.

Yes it is more likely but again a probability is not a certainty and as the statistics have not been verified then they are meaningless.

Nor does their study have anything to do with ganking beyond the first 15 days of a player in EvE. So in relation to ganking mining barges, Industrials, exhumers, orcas etc.. it is completely irrelevant.
As I did not have any hand in the creation of this statistical product, my bias has nothing to do with the inability to verify the study that was undertaken.

Nor does the study even if correct have any correlation to anything outside of the field of the study. So it is completely meaningless after the first 15 days of a players life.

So my strong bias, as you put it about gankers ganking older players is in no way relevant to a study that has nothing to do with it.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.
Myles Wong
The One's Who Matter
#264 - 2016-10-21 05:12:52 UTC
This thread is still open?!?Shocked Can't wait for the chaos F2P brings.
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#265 - 2016-10-21 05:18:06 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
I am not sure why you are so obsessed with their statistic skills. It's not like this is some magic tool, it just basic math skills every software engineer learns.

Because the figures don't match his preconceived ideas.

The only logical conclusion in the face of compelling evidence contrary to a view, is to claim there may be something wrong with the figures.

Please show me this compelling evidence.

A simple statement of CCPs showing how they determined the sample, why they excluded factors such as recruit a friend and the raw data they used will be just fine. That is compelling evidence. Not because they said so.

I have not said something is wrong with the figures I have said the figures are useless because they cannot be proven to be statistically valid or not.

Yes, I'm sure the total issue is your lack of access to the primary data and not just CCP's conclusions.

If the figures supported your view, I'm sure you'd still be equally sceptical. Like, totally.

As I am not a player within the first 15 days of playing, it would really have little to do with the problems I have about gankers after that time period. My concern is the fact that it is unverifiable and that some people are using it as the basis for commentary outside of the specifics of the study.

So you have a study which may or may not be correct but no one can verify this, in relation to the first 15 days of play, while some people are then taking this unverifiable study and stating that it should therefore be used as a reason to effect all PvP within hi-sec. It is about as relevant as a study of 9 year olds driving cars and then using that as an argument for lowering the speed limit to 5 for everyone as that was the speed they were safest driving at.

It is people stating beliefs as facts. Little more.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#266 - 2016-10-21 05:19:15 UTC
Myles Wong wrote:
This thread is still open?!?Shocked Can't wait for the chaos F2P brings.

I presume alphas would have forum access and you are right.

They should not be called alpha clones, they should have called them Chaos clones.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#267 - 2016-10-21 05:23:10 UTC
Mark Marconi wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:

No you assume they are right, without knowing the facts of how they got their conclusions. That is no more scientific than religion. You have faith that they CCP, the creator is all knowing and all powerful.

And if the all knowing CCP had said ganking is bad, you would have disavowed your God.



Why would CCP say this after spending 5 years nerfing highsec PvP into the ground? They literally admitted that the last 5 years of changes were bad for the game. What can they possibly gain from that?

The inability to do statistics correctly, does not change the fact that people release figures as facts.

The statistics they released were done by a company with no prior history in statistics, with no published documentation.

Subsequently you can either have faith that they did them right or skepticism at the fact the results cannot be verified.

Faith is exactly that. The belief in something without proof. Also just the very basis they used for the general population, not the NPE for new players was flawed. To determine if ganking was harmful to subscriptions of older characters you would not go by peoples exit comments as to many of them would be non-responses.

You would analyze kill mails, vs play styles. For example the amount of time spent mining, which could be achieved by indexing the amount of minerals added to an account by the system in the case of mining of the amount of time an account spent in any type of ship, if that was unavailable, then ammunition destroyed and NPCs killed by an account.

There initial study into the NPE showed promise, it is just we cannot take the results as anything more than a belief as we cannot validate their figures and its not as if you can point to CCPs ability to get things right over the years.

Edit: Add to this the well known bias shown by some CCP Devs and the figures are automatically in doubt.


Given your own grasp on statistical analysis seems tenuous at best, and you are assuming the people at CCP have no background in statistics you really don't have much going for you here.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#268 - 2016-10-21 05:26:40 UTC
Mark Marconi wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

So you are saying they hand picked those 80,000 trial accounts?

I am saying we don't know how they got those 80,000 people. Subsequently we cannot determine the validity of the sample.



Well at least you finally got the right number now.

So, you are insinuating, without evidence, that CCP cherry picked those 80,000 accounts to prove a point that is bad for their business?

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#269 - 2016-10-21 05:27:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Marconi
Teckos Pech wrote:


Given your own grasp on statistical analysis seems tenuous at best, and you are assuming the people at CCP have no background in statistics you really don't have much going for you here.

And you are assuming they do.

That is the problem with these statistics assumptions. Unprovable assumptions.

I must admit this is like talking to Jehovah's Witnesses. Complete and undying faith in their God. In this case CCP.

Have you considered moving to Star Citizen, there are a lot of people like you over there. Complete undying loyalty, no matter what.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#270 - 2016-10-21 05:28:21 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
I am not sure why you are so obsessed with their statistic skills. It's not like this is some magic tool, it just basic math skills every software engineer learns.

Because the figures don't match his preconceived ideas.

The only logical conclusion in the face of compelling evidence contrary to a view, is to claim there may be something wrong with the figures.


Bingo.

People who often claim to be empiricists, data driven, etc. are those least likely to change their minds when presented with data that goes against their preconceived notions. "What this contradicts what I already believe!?!?! No that can't be right, the data must be bad, the analysis flawed, oh look something shiny!!!"

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#271 - 2016-10-21 05:29:11 UTC
Mark Marconi wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:


I tend to believe that a study conducted by people who have access to the data and a strong motivation to get it right is far more likely to be accurate than the gut feelings of a mad carebear without any data and a strong bias against gankers.

Yes it is more likely but again a probability is not a certainty and as the statistics have not been verified then they are meaningless.

Nor does their study have anything to do with ganking beyond the first 15 days of a player in EvE. So in relation to ganking mining barges, Industrials, exhumers, orcas etc.. it is completely irrelevant.
As I did not have any hand in the creation of this statistical product, my bias has nothing to do with the inability to verify the study that was undertaken.

Nor does the study even if correct have any correlation to anything outside of the field of the study. So it is completely meaningless after the first 15 days of a players life.

So my strong bias, as you put it about gankers ganking older players is in no way relevant to a study that has nothing to do with it.

So you do agree that for the timeframe of the first 15 days in the life of a player the study is more likely to be accurate than your plain gut feelings which is based on no data at all and a known strong bias against gankers?

Evil RatKid
Black Pedro
Mine.
#272 - 2016-10-21 05:30:29 UTC
Mark Marconi wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
I am not sure why you are so obsessed with their statistic skills. It's not like this is some magic tool, it just basic math skills every software engineer learns.

Because the figures don't match his preconceived ideas.

The only logical conclusion in the face of compelling evidence contrary to a view, is to claim there may be something wrong with the figures.

Please show me this compelling evidence.

A simple statement of CCPs showing how they determined the sample, why they excluded factors such as recruit a friend and the raw data they used will be just fine. That is compelling evidence. Not because they said so.

I have not said something is wrong with the figures I have said the figures are useless because they cannot be proven to be statistically valid or not.

I am afraid CCP is not going to show their work to you. There is no peer review process and those data are proprietary.

All you have is a lead developer's word in this. Rise asserted (both in that talk and on the forums) that being exploded by another player correlates positively with player retention and that almost no one cites ship loss when they quit. It also correlates positively with other things than PvP like social integration and interacting with the sandbox. CCP Quant also has shown that time spent subscribed is much higher for players who engage in PvP than those who play Eve solo and "level their Raven" who tend to quit faster.

You can accept these stated facts as true or you can decide that CCP is incompetent or straight-out lying. What you cannot do honestly is reject CCPs data and conclusions and replace it with your own made up facts to support your preconceived conclusion without having seen the data. If you think they are incompetent, or worse lying to you, why are you still subscribing to their game? Wouldn't it better to find some other game that is made by a developer you trust?

In any case, you are wasting you time on this. If you don't want to believe the facts, then don't. People discount facts and reality all the time for all sorts of reasons. I would just say though that you shouldn't expect the rest of us to get on board the denial train of some random forum alt instead of choosing to believe the people who both have access to the data and have a strong financial motivation to interpret it to the best of their abilities.


The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#273 - 2016-10-21 05:30:44 UTC
Mark Marconi wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
I am not sure why you are so obsessed with their statistic skills. It's not like this is some magic tool, it just basic math skills every software engineer learns.

Because the figures don't match his preconceived ideas.

The only logical conclusion in the face of compelling evidence contrary to a view, is to claim there may be something wrong with the figures.

Please show me this compelling evidence.

A simple statement of CCPs showing how they determined the sample, why they excluded factors such as recruit a friend and the raw data they used will be just fine. That is compelling evidence. Not because they said so.

I have not said something is wrong with the figures I have said the figures are useless because they cannot be proven to be statistically valid or not.


Thanks for proving Scipio correct.

You do realize you where going on and on about 8,000 players when in fact it was 80,000...right? And that they did not use a random sample. You do realize that the opposite of a random sample is a sample that is selected with a goal in mind--i.e. cherry picking the data.

So...why would CCP cherry pick the data?

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#274 - 2016-10-21 05:31:23 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
I am not sure why you are so obsessed with their statistic skills. It's not like this is some magic tool, it just basic math skills every software engineer learns.

Because the figures don't match his preconceived ideas.

The only logical conclusion in the face of compelling evidence contrary to a view, is to claim there may be something wrong with the figures.


Bingo.

People who often claim to be empiricists, data driven, etc. are those least likely to change their minds when presented with data that goes against their preconceived notions. "What this contradicts what I already believe!?!?! No that can't be right, the data must be bad, the analysis flawed, oh look something shiny!!!"

What data goes against my preconcieved notion? Maybe newbies in their first 15 days need to be ganked more.

As I have not been in that period of time and neither have 99% of the players of this game, it is hardly something I have a bias for.

As to the analysis being flawed that is easy, you test it like everyone does to prove it is valid. Oh wait you can't, you have to rely on belief.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#275 - 2016-10-21 05:33:27 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
I am not sure why you are so obsessed with their statistic skills. It's not like this is some magic tool, it just basic math skills every software engineer learns.

Because the figures don't match his preconceived ideas.

The only logical conclusion in the face of compelling evidence contrary to a view, is to claim there may be something wrong with the figures.

Please show me this compelling evidence.

A simple statement of CCPs showing how they determined the sample, why they excluded factors such as recruit a friend and the raw data they used will be just fine. That is compelling evidence. Not because they said so.

I have not said something is wrong with the figures I have said the figures are useless because they cannot be proven to be statistically valid or not.


Thanks for proving Scipio correct.

You do realize you where going on and on about 8,000 players when in fact it was 80,000...right? And that they did not use a random sample. You do realize that the opposite of a random sample is a sample that is selected with a goal in mind--i.e. cherry picking the data.

So...why would CCP cherry pick the data?

How funny when above you have actually quoted me saying 80,000 people.
As to a chery picked sample....Duh.

Please go back to your crayons.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#276 - 2016-10-21 05:37:12 UTC
Mark Marconi wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
I am not sure why you are so obsessed with their statistic skills. It's not like this is some magic tool, it just basic math skills every software engineer learns.

Because the figures don't match his preconceived ideas.

The only logical conclusion in the face of compelling evidence contrary to a view, is to claim there may be something wrong with the figures.


Bingo.

People who often claim to be empiricists, data driven, etc. are those least likely to change their minds when presented with data that goes against their preconceived notions. "What this contradicts what I already believe!?!?! No that can't be right, the data must be bad, the analysis flawed, oh look something shiny!!!"

What data goes against my preconcieved notion? Maybe newbies in their first 15 days need to be ganked more.

As I have not been in that period of time and neither have 99% of the players of this game, it is hardly something I have a bias for.

As to the analysis being flawed that is easy, you test it like everyone does to prove it is valid. Oh wait you can't, you have to rely on belief.


CCP's data, or are you just that dense.

Look, could CCP's data be "bad"? Sure. They could have just gotten a bad sample. Maybe they did, for some completely unfathomable reason, cherry pick the data.

But they have data and analysis and results. You do not like the results and have posted dozens of posts claiming that CCP are either incompetent or liars in an attempt to discredit the analysis.

I get it. Looking at data and saying, "Crap, I was wrong," is not easy. I know I have had a few times where I have had to do just that and it is not easy.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#277 - 2016-10-21 05:37:55 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:


I tend to believe that a study conducted by people who have access to the data and a strong motivation to get it right is far more likely to be accurate than the gut feelings of a mad carebear without any data and a strong bias against gankers.

Yes it is more likely but again a probability is not a certainty and as the statistics have not been verified then they are meaningless.

Nor does their study have anything to do with ganking beyond the first 15 days of a player in EvE. So in relation to ganking mining barges, Industrials, exhumers, orcas etc.. it is completely irrelevant.
As I did not have any hand in the creation of this statistical product, my bias has nothing to do with the inability to verify the study that was undertaken.

Nor does the study even if correct have any correlation to anything outside of the field of the study. So it is completely meaningless after the first 15 days of a players life.

So my strong bias, as you put it about gankers ganking older players is in no way relevant to a study that has nothing to do with it.

So you do agree that for the timeframe of the first 15 days in the life of a player the study is more likely to be accurate than your plain gut feelings which is based on no data at all and a known strong bias against gankers?

Yes it is more likely. If you have two horses in a race and one is more likely that could be 51% to 49% are you going to bet the farm on it being more likely?
As to gankers I have no feelings one way or the other as to their actions in relation to players within their first 15 days of play, if anything I lean towards the concept that new payers should be ganked more during those 15 days.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#278 - 2016-10-21 05:38:20 UTC
Mark Marconi wrote:

How funny when above you have actually quoted me saying 80,000 people.
As to a chery picked sample....Duh.

Please go back to your crayons.


Yes, after my lengthy post pointing out why your going on about CCP's incompetence was largely unfounded you shifted over to 80,000.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#279 - 2016-10-21 05:43:18 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
I am not sure why you are so obsessed with their statistic skills. It's not like this is some magic tool, it just basic math skills every software engineer learns.

Because the figures don't match his preconceived ideas.

The only logical conclusion in the face of compelling evidence contrary to a view, is to claim there may be something wrong with the figures.


Bingo.

People who often claim to be empiricists, data driven, etc. are those least likely to change their minds when presented with data that goes against their preconceived notions. "What this contradicts what I already believe!?!?! No that can't be right, the data must be bad, the analysis flawed, oh look something shiny!!!"

What data goes against my preconcieved notion? Maybe newbies in their first 15 days need to be ganked more.

As I have not been in that period of time and neither have 99% of the players of this game, it is hardly something I have a bias for.

As to the analysis being flawed that is easy, you test it like everyone does to prove it is valid. Oh wait you can't, you have to rely on belief.


CCP's data, or are you just that dense.

Look, could CCP's data be "bad"? Sure. They could have just gotten a bad sample. Maybe they did, for some completely unfathomable reason, cherry pick the data.

But they have data and analysis and results. You do not like the results and have posted dozens of posts claiming that CCP are either incompetent or liars in an attempt to discredit the analysis.

I get it. Looking at data and saying, "Crap, I was wrong," is not easy. I know I have had a few times where I have had to do just that and it is not easy.

Wrong. Wrong and Wrong.

I have stated that CCP have no background in statistical analysis and he findings are not verifiable. As to me being wrong, well as i have not stated that players in the first 15 days of play should not be ganked, it would be hard for me to be wrong.

Sometimes I am wrong. What I am stating is that we have no way to verify the findings of that study, which may or may not be wrong and subsequently we should not be calling it a fact.

In relation to ganking past 15 days the study did not cover that so it is completely irrelevant to the ganking of older player and so my being right or wrong in that regards is not even at issue. While those who used a study into those first 15 days to prove that ALL hi-sec ganking should be increased are wrong, as it is very much apples and oranges.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#280 - 2016-10-21 05:44:28 UTC
Mark Marconi wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:


Given your own grasp on statistical analysis seems tenuous at best, and you are assuming the people at CCP have no background in statistics you really don't have much going for you here.

And you are assuming they do.

That is the problem with these statistics assumptions. Unprovable assumptions.

I must admit this is like talking to Jehovah's Witnesses. Complete and undying faith in their God. In this case CCP.

Have you considered moving to Star Citizen, there are a lot of people like you over there. Complete undying loyalty, no matter what.


I think that what CCP did was construct what can be called a natural experiment in the literature. These are not without their problems, but they can help get around the problem of not having the counter-factual to some degree. So either:

1. Somebody at CCP is pretty bright.
2. They have some familiarity with academic articles that use these kinds of approaches.

And I have already admitted that maybe they are wrong on ganking. This is just one look at the issue, it is far from comprehensive, but it does go against your narrative. And I have been highly critical of CCP in other areas. So spare me this Bravo Sierra rhetoric about dogmatism.

Also, I'll point out that CCP Rise and the others working on that analysis were surprised by the results. That is, if anything, their prior beliefs were more in line with yours. But like good empircists when they got the results that challenged their prior beliefs they updated those beliefs.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online