These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

"That" time of year again.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
King Aires
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#41 - 2016-01-10 13:55:43 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Nice try. But no Tippia. CCP's numbers solidly place 'High Sec' players in the majority.

No, they don't, for the very very very simple reason that they have never counted players. The numbers you're suggesting don't exist. The best they've ever been able to do as far as figuring out anything about actual players is a long-term trend estimate of 1.5 accounts/player, with no ability of telling how those accounts are distributed.

They have only ever counted characters parked in a given section of space at the time (and yes, this includes characters not being logged in) for the simple reason that this is all they can count. People then get confused about the difference between characters and players, forgetting that such a thing as alts exist (on average 3 per account).

The only facts we have — character distribution, average characters per account, average account per player — actually point to higsec being a minority. It just comes inherent with the simple fact that alts are a thing and that so few characters sit in highsec. When CCP themselves they tried to filter out “junk” characters that could conceivably just be some single-purpose alt, the shift away from highsec was pretty drastic. This isn't a matter of buzzwords; it's a matter of actually understanding what the data covers and not making the boneheaded assumption that counting characters is even remotely the same as counting characters.

At the end of the day, in order for highsec to be a majority, you're going to have to show that non-highseccer on average have an non-highsec:highsec alt ratio higher than 3:1. In other words, with an average number of alts per player being 3, a significant portion of them would have to not have any alts in highsec at all. You could approach this with numbers (which we don't have) or with some wishy-washy gut feeling… but guess what? The gut feeling is that the ratio is actually much lower than that; that most of them do have a highsec alt or five. If we go by anecdotal and individual data points, we often get ratios in the 1:2–1:4 range, but we can dismiss those as not being representative since any ratio lower than 1:2 would mean there are no highseccers at all. Blink



Two things wrong with this. CCP knows pretty accurately from unique email accounts to IP addresses to linked accounts how many actual players they have. Whether they release that info to us is another story. The trend of accounts per unique player has gone up over the years, I believe it used to be as low as 1.2 and is now over 1.5. So you can blow that theory of yours out of the water right now.

Next we have the problem of self-identification. Here is the states we have people who self-identify as "Independent" because they don't like the political parties. But history shows us certain groups of "Independent" voters always vote one way or another.

Basically, you can claim to be a Null Sec'er all you want, but if 7 of 8 of your accounts and a majority of your time is spent in High Sec which category do you think CCP would quantitatively drop you in? All data ever given to us is that either Players in High Sec are the vast majority, characters in High Sec are the vast majority or just the amount of time people spend in High Sec is the vast majority.

So roll the semantics dice and tell me why Null Sec CFC makes up more than three-fourths of the CSM?
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#42 - 2016-01-10 14:29:20 UTC
King Aires wrote:

So roll the semantics dice and tell me why Null Sec CFC makes up more than three-fourths of the CSM?

It's because the CSM is representative of the people who vote, not of the people who play the game.

Changing things to magically stratify the CSM based on a mystical calculation that places individual characters into buckets based on "is in the Imperium" and "is not in the Imperium" will just lead to us gaming the system to put our candidates in anyways, by deploying puppets into the "is not in the Imperium" bucket.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#43 - 2016-01-10 14:45:34 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Once again, the unproven and rather silly notion that there is a “highsec majority” (to say nothing of the outright laughable idea of there being a coherent highsec affiliation that sits in opposition of some equally coherent nullsec affiliation) is bandied about.



The best proof that there isn't a highsec majority is that they never manage to get more than 1 - at most - "high sec" guy voted in to the CSM. Obviously "true" hisec players are therefore a minority, and a small minority at that.

The alternative hypothesis - that "true" high sec players are actually a majority, but that they're collectively so stupid, ignorant and uninvolved with the game that between the "62%" they represent, they can't out-organise and outvote the - what is it we're told now now? 10%? that some people say are nullsec players is, of course, completely implausible.

I refuse to give any credit to such a disrespectful and unfounded hypothesis that slanders my fellow players, and people, like the OP, who advance it should be ashamed for themselves for putting out such bigoted dogwhistle style implications.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Jenshae Chiroptera
#44 - 2016-01-10 14:57:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Lucas Kell wrote:
...Voting supports the majority. If you guys don't vote enough for the people that the "majority" want then yes, null sec groups who do vote and do know who they want will get their own way. ...
I found last year that most of High Sec doesn't know that a CSM even exists or what it does.

CCP does not make a big enough song and dance.
They could put up a notification like down time upon log in or they could stick it like a MoTD in Local chat.

How can a vote represent a majority when the majority doesn't know the vote even happens?
Malcanis wrote:
The best proof that there isn't a highsec majority ...
The alternative hypothesis - that "true" high sec players are actually a majority, but that they're collectively so stupid, ignorant and uninvolved with the game....
Even better, I found someone else saying it a year ago:

Seven Koskanaiken wrote:

Most people don't vote for CSM because they don't know it exists.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
King Aires
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#45 - 2016-01-10 15:08:48 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
...Voting supports the majority. If you guys don't vote enough for the people that the "majority" want then yes, null sec groups who do vote and do know who they want will get their own way. ...
I found last year that most of High Sec doesn't know that a CSM even exists or what it does.

CCP does not make a big enough song and dance.
They could put up a notification like down time upon log in or they could stick it like a MoTD in Local chat.

How can a vote represent a majority when the majority doesn't know the vote even happens?


Probably because in the grand scheme of things the CSM is worthless. It needs to be dismantled completely.

I mean proof that we lost members this year because of NDA breach, misconduct and inattention and no one but Reddit Meme makers gave a crap.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#46 - 2016-01-10 15:53:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
King Aires wrote:
Two things wrong with this. CCP knows pretty accurately from unique email accounts to IP addresses to linked accounts how many actual players they have. Whether they release that info to us is another story. The trend of accounts per unique player has gone up over the years, I believe it used to be as low as 1.2 and is now over 1.5. So you can blow that theory of yours out of the water right now.

Then do so. How does an increase in accounts per player blow my theory out of the water, should it ever happen? And no, CCP does not know how many players there are — if they did, they wouldn't have such problems giving a very specific number of accounts per player. Look at the numbers they released when they finally were able to offer a guesstimate that statistic — it's a range with a lower bound and an upper bound, with 1.5 being the mid point. This has been stable, and hasn't gone up much, over the years.

Or, to quote CCP Quant:
CCP Quant wrote:
I have in front of me an interval of the number of accounts per player in EVE Online. "An interval? You mean you don't know?" you may ask... well email isn't a proper player identifier since back in the days we comically blocked attempts at making accounts on existing email addresses :) This is why we have to do some guesswork for estimating the upper limit, with the accounts per unique email being the lower one.

So no. They do not know very accurately, and it cannot be deduced from unique email accounts and IP addresses (especially not the last one).

Quote:
Next we have the problem of self-identification. Here is the states we have people who self-identify as "Independent" because they don't like the political parties. But history shows us certain groups of "Independent" voters always vote one way or another.
…and that is exactly why the supposed highsec majority does not exist and why arbitrarily creating classifications with fixed ratios is a fundamentally ignorant and bone-headed idea.

At the end of the day, CCP has no way to ever determined algorithmically or through data-mining where you “belong”, and none of the stats actually show anything that would give a useful answer. What we can say with some certainty is that it would require a hugely unrealistic distribution of non-highseccers' alts for the self-proclaimed highseccers to be a majority.

Quote:
So roll the semantics dice and tell me why Null Sec CFC makes up more than three-fourths of the CSM?
Because they're organised and because they represent the voters. No die-rolling necessary.

Now, you said there were two things wrong with what I said. Which two things were that?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#47 - 2016-01-10 16:03:55 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
The alternative hypothesis - that "true" high sec players are actually a majority, but that they're collectively so stupid, ignorant and uninvolved with the game that between the "62%" they represent, they can't out-organise and outvote the - what is it we're told now now? 10%? that some people say are nullsec players is, of course, completely implausible.

I refuse to give any credit to such a disrespectful and unfounded hypothesis that slanders my fellow players, and people, like the OP, who advance it should be ashamed for themselves for putting out such bigoted dogwhistle style implications.

Beyond that, assuming this hypothesis is actually accurate, it also raises an immediate question: what's the problem?

If these players are that stupid, ignorant, and uninvolved with the game, then so what if they're not represented? By very definition, they don't care, don't notice, and ultimately don't understand what's going on in the game and have no valuable insight or input into where it should be going. Their input is, at best, worthless; at worst downright erroneous and destructive.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#48 - 2016-01-10 16:06:30 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
The alternative hypothesis - that "true" high sec players are actually a majority, but that they're collectively so stupid, ignorant and uninvolved with the game that between the "62%" they represent, they can't out-organise and outvote the - what is it we're told now now? 10%? that some people say are nullsec players is, of course, completely implausible.

I refuse to give any credit to such a disrespectful and unfounded hypothesis that slanders my fellow players, and people, like the OP, who advance it should be ashamed for themselves for putting out such bigoted dogwhistle style implications.

Beyond that, assuming this hypothesis is actually accurate, it also raises an immediate question: what's the problem?

If these players are that stupid, ignorant, and uninvolved with the game, then so what if they're not represented? By very definition, they don't care, don't notice, and ultimately don't understand what's going on in the game and have no valuable insight or input into where it should be going. Their input is, at best, worthless; at worst downright erroneous and destructive.



That's racist.


There, I said it.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#49 - 2016-01-10 16:14:41 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
That's racist.


There, I said it.

Lol
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#50 - 2016-01-10 16:25:27 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Once again, the unproven and rather silly notion that there is a “highsec majority” (to say nothing of the outright laughable idea of there being a coherent highsec affiliation that sits in opposition of some equally coherent nullsec affiliation) is bandied about.


Apparently you missed a important presentation by CCP during Fanfest 2015.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#51 - 2016-01-10 16:29:24 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Once again, the unproven and rather silly notion that there is a “highsec majority” (to say nothing of the outright laughable idea of there being a coherent highsec affiliation that sits in opposition of some equally coherent nullsec affiliation) is bandied about.


Apparently you missed a important presentation by CCP during Fanfest 2015.


…which in any way relates to what I said… how?
Max Fubarticus
Raging Main
Bullets Bombs and Blondes
#52 - 2016-01-10 16:30:43 UTC
Elise Randolph wrote:
No offense, but this is the most pseudo-intellectual bullshit that I've read this year.


Hmmm... Actually I think mine are slightly more intellectually challenged than this.Shocked

Max

Civil discourse is uniquely human. After all, when is the last time a pride of lions and a herd of water buffalo negotiated SOV over a watering hole? Never. Someone either gets their ass kicked or eaten. At the end of the day someone holds SOV.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#53 - 2016-01-10 16:41:46 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
(...)
- Why are you voting for that person?
- Is the CSM influence more gradual and insidious?
- Is the CSM too full of peacocks or selfish agendas to be taken seriously by CCP?
- Is CSM largely a lobby group?
- How can the whole process be improved?
- Are these questions too late?


- I'll vote people who I know what they've done as CSM. It is unlikely that I bother to read about the other 70, 80 or 150 candidates unless I know them from before being candidates
- I think that the CSM haves little influence in what they want and zero in what CCP doesn't wants
- I don't think that individualities make much difference unless they're like some of CSM X and crap all over the place for the next CSM
- as I said, the CSM haves zero influence in what CCP doesn't wants, so far for lobbying
- improve the process? It depends on what is the CSM supposed to be and do. I don't think CCP knows what they want the CSM for; it was born as a PR move in a customers-to-company trust crisis and as far as I know another trust crisis, this time company-to-customers, has shot it dead. If CCP wants customer feedback to guide their development process, they don't need a CSM. That's why CCP is the only company that haves a CSM whereas other companies have other and often better ways to get useful feedback from their customers.
- asking what to do is never late, if there's to be a CSM 12, or that CSM still is anything like what we have now. If CSM is shut down or reshaped, new questions will be needed.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#54 - 2016-01-10 16:45:00 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Once again, the unproven and rather silly notion that there is a “highsec majority” (to say nothing of the outright laughable idea of there being a coherent highsec affiliation that sits in opposition of some equally coherent nullsec affiliation) is bandied about.


Apparently you missed a important presentation by CCP during Fanfest 2015.


…which in any way relates to what I said… how?


Those are subscriber archetypes based on the ingame activity of their accounts over time. Look at what they do, where, and how many there are of each.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#55 - 2016-01-10 16:49:30 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
The alternative hypothesis - that "true" high sec players are actually a majority, but that they're collectively so stupid, ignorant and uninvolved with the game that between the "62%" they represent, they can't out-organise and outvote the - what is it we're told now now? 10%? that some people say are nullsec players is, of course, completely implausible.

I refuse to give any credit to such a disrespectful and unfounded hypothesis that slanders my fellow players, and people, like the OP, who advance it should be ashamed for themselves for putting out such bigoted dogwhistle style implications.

Beyond that, assuming this hypothesis is actually accurate, it also raises an immediate question: what's the problem?

If these players are that stupid, ignorant, and uninvolved with the game, then so what if they're not represented? By very definition, they don't care, don't notice, and ultimately don't understand what's going on in the game and have no valuable insight or input into where it should be going. Their input is, at best, worthless; at worst downright erroneous and destructive.



That's racist.


There, I said it.


I lul'd

But I also brought up another possibility. The one that probably makes Fazmarai sit up at night unable to sleep: There is a high sec majority, and they agree with US rather than the self proclaimed spokesmen of PVE and High Sec.

Just the thought of that is freaking delicious. Twisted
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#56 - 2016-01-10 16:52:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Those are subscriber archetypes based on the ingame activity of their accounts over time. Look at what they do, where, and how many there are of each.

There is no “where”; the “how many” counts logged activity (i.e. accounts online), not players; there is no coherent majority that holds one particular view in one particular part of space — it's all a smear of activities, with the largest portion of players doing just about everything. Oh, and it holds exactly zero data on the topic of what these accounts want in terms of game changes.

So, again, it relates to what I said… how? At best, that last bit absolutely annihilates the silly notion that the supposed “highsec majority,” with any kind of shared single vision of the game, even exists.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#57 - 2016-01-10 16:53:56 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Once again, the unproven and rather silly notion that there is a “highsec majority” (to say nothing of the outright laughable idea of there being a coherent highsec affiliation that sits in opposition of some equally coherent nullsec affiliation) is bandied about.


Apparently you missed a important presentation by CCP during Fanfest 2015.


…which in any way relates to what I said… how?


Those are subscriber archetypes based on the ingame activity of their accounts over time. Look at what they do, where, and how many there are of each.


And this is what Fazmarai has pinned his entire thought process on. The idea that lots of people are like him, and they (like him) are the downtrodden, forgotten and oppressed minority. which is odd because in a video game where everyone pays (in some form) for access, a "downtrodden, forgotten and oppressed" anything isn't even possible lol.

Fazmarai has done this because he wants certain things from the game (things the game and CCP have never really promised) and yet knows that if he just tells the truth and says "I would like this to be this way" he'll get dismissed easily. So he relies on the od politicians trick of "but the people demand and deserve!" to try to get his point across...

...And still gets easily dismissed lol. I call that irony.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#58 - 2016-01-10 17:02:10 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:


CCP does not make a big enough song and dance.
They could put up a notification like down time upon log in or they could stick it like a MoTD in Local chat.


I'd love to see this also. Mainly because I love seeing people like this live in miserable denial.

CCP would make a pop up telling people about the voting, telling people about the csm, giving links and such. An the end result would be no different, because the "high sec majority" that is SO oblivious to the CSM in this age of easy access to information is the same "high sec majority" that will just click away that pop up and keep mining/mission running lol. Of those few who did vote, they'd end up voting for null sec candidates anyways, because most high sec folk don't hold the bitter prejudices against null that the self proclaimed spokes people do.

The fact that the voters roundly and absolutely rejected you in your bid for CSM will not be solved by CCP intervention. It wasn't some conspiracy that keep you off the CSM Jenshae, it was you.
King Aires
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#59 - 2016-01-10 17:14:58 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:


CCP does not make a big enough song and dance.
They could put up a notification like down time upon log in or they could stick it like a MoTD in Local chat.


I'd love to see this also. Mainly because I love seeing people like this live in miserable denial.

CCP would make a pop up telling people about the voting, telling people about the csm, giving links and such. An the end result would be no different, because the "high sec majority" that is SO oblivious to the CSM in this age of easy access to information is the same "high sec majority" that will just click away that pop up and keep mining/mission running lol. Of those few who did vote, they'd end up voting for null sec candidates anyways, because most high sec folk don't hold the bitter prejudices against null that the self proclaimed spokes people do.

The fact that the voters roundly and absolutely rejected you in your bid for CSM will not be solved by CCP intervention. It wasn't some conspiracy that keep you off the CSM Jenshae, it was you.



Why do I feel you are really an anchor on Fox News. I swear you just keep repeating talking points and narratives of things you have convinced yourself to be true but have little basis in reality.

At least Tippia is creative and has style.
Goatman NotMyFault
Lubrication Industries
#60 - 2016-01-10 17:22:18 UTC
I really couldnyt care less about this, but i should really run for a Place in CSM just as a protest.... And should it begin snowing in hell and i won a Place, i would do my best to try to change the game in directions that would **** off most of the old grumpy vets that refuses to leave EVE (Yeah those that try to keep EVE so they wont loose anything of their own goods.)


VOTE GOAT FOR CSM. SEE EVE CRASH AND DIE IN FLAMES!!