These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Is the Alpha clone a problem?

First post
Author
Salvos Rhoska
#181 - 2017-01-09 21:44:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
1) You are presuming that only CODE members gank, which is false.
2) You are presuming that all CODE affiliated players, use only characters in CODE corp, which is also false.

Incorrect.

I only showed the analysis for CODE. in that post. I have run the analysis for all ganking in highsec. I regularly run it for all ganking.

It doesn't matter how many times you state something over and over. Stating it doesn't make it true. The data so far shows a different situation.


Its not incorrect.

Your own submitted data shows a discrepancy between CODE and non-CODE ganker figures, both of which corroborate and support both of my points.

Furthermore you ignored my points on the factual state of the Alpha system promulgating and enabling the generation of an indefinite ite amount of 5mil SP Alpha gank toons, ad infinitum. (As was OPs concern and topic of this thread), so as to avoid the CCP policy on recycling characters inorder to avoid sec status loss repercussion.

Im beginning to have serious doubts about your vested interests in this issue.
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
#182 - 2017-01-09 21:56:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Your own submitted data shows a discrepancy between CODE and non-CODE ganker figures, both of which corroborate and support both of my points.

What? lol

There are no non-CODE figures in that data. It is only CODE. members presented there.

Salvos Rhiska wrote:
Furthermore you ignored my points on the factual state of the Alpha system promulgating and enabling the generation of an indefinite ite amount of 5mil SP Alpha gank toons, ad infinitum. (As was OPs concern and topic of this thread)

Nope. The theory isn't so far matched by the actual practice. If that changes, then it will be interesting and good to know, but currently the data overwhelmingly shows omega clones (from Weapon Type) are used in ganks.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Im beginning to have serious doubts about your vested interests in this issue.

That's ok. I don't care what doubts you have.

The great thing about the data is anyone can go and download it and analyse it independently. You don't need to take me word for any of it. Go analyse it yourself. The results will be the same, because none of it is changed by me.
Salvos Rhoska
#183 - 2017-01-09 22:01:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
You stated you follow ganking stats across the spectrum.

Present them then, if you wish to claim that both of my 1) and 2) points are incorrect

Such that you can demonstrate that
A) All ganking is done by CODE
B) All ganking is not done by alts of otherwise CODE registered members

You cant. There is no way.

As to the topic, and OPs issue, regarding Alphas providing an unprecedented opportunity to create an indefinite amount of ganking alts to 5mil maturity, and then abandon them so as to avoid sec status loss repercussions, and hence CCP policy against avoiding sec status repercussions, you have offered no counter-argument.
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
#184 - 2017-01-09 22:07:20 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
You stated you follow ganking stats across the spectrum.

Present them then, if you wish to claim that both of my 1) and 2) points are incorrect

Such that you can demonstrate that
A) All ganking is done by CODE
B) All ganking is not done by alts of otherwise CODE registered members

You cant. There is no way.

Oh god. I've already agreed that not all ganking is by CODE. It was just CODE. related data presented there because otherwise the data is extremely large and shows just the same outcomes.

But, nothing I present will be taken at face value, so there is no point providing any of it to you, when you can also go and download it and analyse it independently of me. Have at it. Don't take my word for it. Go look yourself and be assured by your own analysis of the data rather than mine.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#185 - 2017-01-09 22:08:33 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

Yet here you are, now, expecting explanations from others, when you refused others to ask for explanations.


Nope just you.


No. Its demonstrably just you.

As well as you ignoring on-topic posts and arguments.

If all you have left, is 3 word false responses, you are not far from defeat.
You are hull tanking with 1/3 left. Its over soon.


Oh no!

"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

Salvos Rhoska
#186 - 2017-01-09 22:10:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
So you present that my arguments are false, but refuse to provide evidence for it that you claim you have, and based on which you justify your position. That is a fallacy.

You furthermore still refuse to address the central topic, and OPs issue, regardiing the indefinite creation and incubation of 5mil free Alphas as throw-away alts for the purposes of bypassing CCPs policy against avoiding the repercussions of sec status loss.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#187 - 2017-01-09 22:13:06 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

As to the topic, and OPs issue, regarding Alphas providing an unprecedented opportunity to create an indefinite amount of ganking alts to 5mil maturity, and then abandon them so as to avoid sec status loss repercussions, and hence CCP policy against avoiding sec status repercussions, you have offered no counter-argument.


Actually no, this is your hypothesis for which you have no data and yet you label as fact.

"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

Salvos Rhoska
#188 - 2017-01-09 22:14:35 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:

Oh no!


Now you are down to 2 word responses, from 3.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#189 - 2017-01-09 22:15:21 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:

Oh no!


Now you are down to 2 word responses, from 3.


Yikes!

"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

Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
#190 - 2017-01-09 22:27:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
So you present that my arguments are false, but refuse to provide evidence for it that you claim you have, and based on which you justify your position. That is a fallacy.

You furthermore still refuse to address the central topic, and OPs issue, regardiing the indefinite creation and incubation of 5mil free Alphas as throw-away alts for the purposes of bypassing CCPs policy against avoiding the repercussions of sec status loss.

Not quite. The only thing you are wrong about is what you stated I presumed. I didnt presume those things at all. That was wrong.

As to what you've said about the theory of alphas, I have no problem with that. It seems obvious that theoretically it could happen because alphas are free and easy to roll. That may not be the only factor involved in deciding that an omega is better than an alpha though.

However, currently the data I have looked at doesn't show it happening in practice. If that changes in the future then that will definitely be interesting. Until then, it still remains that alphas aren't a 'griefing' issue and are not currently being used from what I can see from the data, as easy throw away alts. The data just doesn't show them being used that way.

But don't take my word for it, go download the data and confirm it for yourself. To paraphrase you from another thread, it's not my responsibility to do your homework. I dont have the fukcs to give you. Anyone else, probably.

But this is all going off topic, so I'm not going to go further down this rabbit hole. God luck with your analysis. It will just show the same thing.
Salvos Rhoska
#191 - 2017-01-09 22:38:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
None of which refutes that:

1l CODE are not the only gankers.
2) CODE involves non-corp participants in their activities

Your representation of CODE activity data is thus systemically unrepresentative interms of participation of non-corp members in CODE operations, much less the entirety of ganking in HS.

As interesting as your data is, it is not representative of the entirety of CODE ganking activity as supported by un-corp alts, nor of the totality of HS ganking.

The CODE corp tag on a participant, is arbitrary.

I am glad you acknowledge the systemic potential o free indefinite incubated 5mil SP Alpha alts as a means to avoid the sec status malus, and to avoid CCPs policy of restriction on avoiding repercussions of sec status loss.

There is no telling how many hundreds or thousands of gank alts have been created as Alphas, gaining SP everyday. waiting to be thrown away inorder to avoid sec status repercussions as a result of their activities.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#192 - 2017-01-09 22:58:46 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
None of which refutes that:

1l CODE are not the only gankers.
2) CODE involves non-corp participants in their activities

Your representation of CODE activity data is thus systemically unrepresentative interms of participation of non-corp members in CODE operations, much less the entirety of ganking in HS.


No, this is an empirical question and cannot be answered by theorizing. So go get the data and show he is wrong, or just shut up about it.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:
I am glad you acknowledge the systemic potential o free indefinite incubated 5mil SP Alpha alts as a means to avoid the sec status malus, and to avoid CCPs policy of restriction on avoiding repercussions of sec status loss.

There is no telling how many hundreds or thousands of gank alts have been created as Alphas, gaining SP everyday. waiting to be thrown away inorder to avoid sec status repercussions as a result of their activities.


Or that there might only be 7. Roll

"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

Salvos Rhoska
#193 - 2017-01-09 23:05:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Teckos Pech wrote:
Blah blah


My post was addressed to Scipio, not you.

Your attempt to proxy an argument via my discussion with Scipio, in which you are no part, will not work.

I am under no obligation to respond to you when your responses to my previous posts to you have demonstrably resulted in 3, and then 2 word, and then 1 word responses from you. (Not to mention numerous arguments you have outright ignored.)

In reciprocation, I owe you no more than that, and have now already delivered an exponential amount more.
Morgan Agrivar
Doomheim
#194 - 2017-01-09 23:07:06 UTC
Do you and Peckos want to be left alone?

Uh, I will show myself out....
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
#195 - 2017-01-09 23:08:48 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
I am glad you acknowledge the systemic potential o free indefinite incubated 5mil SP Alpha alts as a means to avoid the sec status malus, and to avoid CCPs policy of restriction on avoiding repercussions of sec status loss.

I also acknowledge the theoretical potential that I could throw and apple into the air and it won't come down, but will continue to go upwards forever.

Until it happens though, the theoretical potential doesn't mean much.
Salvos Rhoska
#196 - 2017-01-09 23:13:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
I am glad you acknowledge the systemic potential o free indefinite incubated 5mil SP Alpha alts as a means to avoid the sec status malus, and to avoid CCPs policy of restriction on avoiding repercussions of sec status loss.

I also acknowledge the theoretical potential that I could throw and apple into the air and it won't come down, but will continue to go upwards forever.

Until it happens though, the theoretical potential doesn't mean much.


You can posit that a thrown apple will continue to go upwards forever, but it would also require an explanation from you as to why and how it would do so.

I have provided a systemic explanation of how and why what I stated is real and possible.
You have not provided an explanation for why or how that apple would suddenly overrule the laws of physics.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#197 - 2017-01-09 23:23:23 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
I am glad you acknowledge the systemic potential o free indefinite incubated 5mil SP Alpha alts as a means to avoid the sec status malus, and to avoid CCPs policy of restriction on avoiding repercussions of sec status loss.

I also acknowledge the theoretical potential that I could throw and apple into the air and it won't come down, but will continue to go upwards forever.

Until it happens though, the theoretical potential doesn't mean much.


You can posit that a thrown apple will continue to go upwards forever, but it would also require an explanation from you as to why and how it would do so.

I have provided a systemic explanation of how and why what I stated is real and possible.
You have not provided an explanation for why or how that apple would suddenly overrule the laws of physics.


Because the apple is soooo important to the game.

I hope there is a Dev amusing himself reading this silly thread and our silly posts and next year in our Christmas goodies is Scipio's Quantum Apple.

"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

Salvos Rhoska
#198 - 2017-01-09 23:27:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Teckos Pech wrote:
Because the apple is soooo important to the game.

I hope there is a Dev amusing himself reading this silly thread and our silly posts and next year in our Christmas goodies is Scipio's Quantum Apple.


I see I have hit a nerve.

Interesting.

The apple is not the issue in this game. Nor did I posit it. Scipio did.

And again, no refutation of arguments made by me (and to another person, not you).
You disappoint me.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#199 - 2017-01-09 23:29:48 UTC
Hakawai wrote:

If you read the first reply to my post you'll have seen why I didn't take the trouble to carefully define "griefing".

The first thing an expert on self-justification does with an exact definition is to search Google for a definition that suits them better, and you're instantly involved in a stupid "dictionary war" which is a moderately effective way to derail a topic. I don't do that.



Instead you just make up whatever terms and definitions you like whole cloth, right? Roll

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#200 - 2017-01-09 23:40:44 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Because the apple is soooo important to the game.

I hope there is a Dev amusing himself reading this silly thread and our silly posts and next year in our Christmas goodies is Scipio's Quantum Apple.


I see I have hit a nerve.

Interesting.

The apple is not the issue in this game. Nor did I posit it. Scipio did.

And again, no refutation of arguments made by me (and to another person, not you).
You disappoint me.


No, no. You are totally right. I too demand that Scipio explain why that apple won't come back down? After all, he isn't claiming that it won't, but that it is at least a theoretical possibility and that...why yes, that is totally important. In a game. A game where the physics are based on being underwater.

Roll

"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