Did CCP secretly nerf Emerging Conduit as of today?

[Merin_Ryskin]

@Anderson_Geten

That’s called being cautions. It’s the basis of any serious research or reasoning.
When you don’t know, you don’t know. Claiming otherwise is stupid, and only makes an idiot of you. That’s why you are spoutting so much BS : you are not used to acknowledge your own ignorance.

Sorry, I stopped reading once you insulted someone because your arguments are now invalid. You have nothing to say but insults, go away and stop being rude.

[Anderson_Geten]

@Daichi_Yamato

It’s not caution to deny everything that doesn’t suit your narrative

It is.
Whenever it’s not proven, you can’t claim it as true.
Discussions allow people with different opinions to realize where their mistakes and thus, have a better opinion (not necessarily change opinion).

@Daichi_Yamato

I’d be more inclined to believe you were being cautious if you could offer an alternative explanation that makes some sense.

Well that is YOUR issue. You are the one sticking your head in the sand now.
What you are doing is an argument by ignorance.

@Daichi_Yamato

If not, I’m going to Occam Razor it.

BS.
You are just claiming that the only correct interpretation is the one that fits your narrative.
That’s stupid.

[Merin_Ryskin]

@Anderson_Geten

You are just claiming that the only correct interpretation is the one that fits your narrative.

Then provide an alternative explanation for “we found the numbers concerning” followed immediately by a nerf to the ISK/hour.

[Anderson_Geten]

@Merin_Ryskin

Then provide an alternative explanation for “we found the numbers concerning” followed immediately by a nerf to the ISK/hour.

You sure like to cry a lot.

[Anderson_Geten]

@Merin_Ryskin

Yes, we know you are an excellent example of why incest is illegal. Now go play in traffic.

You sure like to cry a lot.

[Daichi_Yamato]

@Anderson_Geten

You are just claiming that the only correct interpretation is the one that fits your narrative.

I’ve just asked you for an alternative. And now you’re getting defensive.

[Merin_Ryskin]

Note the purpose of this exercise: Anderson is one of those useless trolls who views online discussion as some weird masturbatory e-sport. They aren’t interested at all in constructive discussion, they just lurk on the forums waiting for some minor nitpick they can jump on and declare victory over. Notice the two things that have been demonstrated here:

1. Their hypocrisy. When someone insults them it’s an excuse to dismiss everything they said and declare victory. When they insult someone it’s “justified” and they still win. There’s no consistent belief in the virtue of politeness, only the temporary convenience of politeness as a weapon and means of declaring victory.

2. Their inane nitpicking. We have a statement from CCP that the numbers were concerning, followed immediately by a nerf to the ISK/hour of the sites. It’s very obvious to everyone but Anderson that the “numbers” in question were obviously the ISK/hour, as that was what they nerfed in response to their concerns. But does the hypocrite provide an alternative explanation for the CCP quote, justifying their claim that ISK/hour is not the only reasonable interpretation? Of course not. They aren’t interested in discussion, they’ve just decided that an opponent quoting anything but the 100% explicit word of god is not sufficient and therefore they get to declare victory.

Now watch the rest of this debacle as Anderson continues to evade and insult and make excuses for why they don’t have to provide anything resembling an argument or explanation of their own. At no point will they ever admit defeat, at best they will get bored of this thread and find another one to masturbate over.

[Anderson_Geten]

@Daichi_Yamato

I’ve just asked you for an alternative. And now you’re getting defensive.

False, and false.

You claimed that NOT accepting an interpretation that fits your narrative is “sticking the head in the sand”. I told you that you are wrong, and it’s the opposite : accepting an arbitrary interpretation because it fits you narrative, IS sticking your head in the sand.

There is nothing defensive in that explanation.
I already linked you the wikipedia page about argument by ignorance.
That’s factually what your position is : a fallacy. Note that this does not mean that CCP did not actually imply isk/h. It means that affirming it, in the current situation, is wrong. There is a difference between

@CCP_Sledgehammer

I did not anticipate the subsequent snowballing of botting and min-maxing

and

@Daichi_Yamato

It was also the disproportionate isk/hour people were making.

especially there is no notion of isk/h in the first one.
Maybe, CCP did not even look at the isks at all. Which is an implicit requirement in your post.

[Merin_Ryskin]

Now once again we get a demonstration of the hypocrite’s dishonesty. Note the selective quoting of the CCP statement that was provided, focusing on one partial sentence and ignoring other parts of the statement that provide more explanation. This part of the CCP statement makes it very clear:

The numbers that we started to see in that period became cause for great concern and a decision was made to space out their respawn timer more and tweak the survey database drop rate.

Note that CCP explicitly states that the “numbers” were cause for concern, and the response to that concern was to nerf the ISK per hour generated from the sites.

A reasonable and honest person would accept this quote as a statement of CCP’s opinion, or at least provide an alternative explanation for what “numbers” were of concern if not ISK/hour and why nerfing the ISK/hour would be a reasonable response to that alternative concern.

Someone who only cares about winning the forum argument e-sport would ignore this part of the statement from CCP in favor of quoting something less direct, and insist that because the exact words “ISK per hour” were not explicitly used we can’t know what CCP meant.

It should be very obvious which of these two people Anderson is.

[Daichi_Yamato]

@Anderson_Geten

You claimed that NOT accepting an interpretation that fits your narrative is “sticking the head in the sand”.

You’re rejecting the most obvious and logical reason because you don’t like it and provide no alternatives…

[Anderson_Geten]

@Daichi_Yamato

You’re rejecting the most obvious and logical reason because you don’t like it and provide no alternatives…

no.
I’m rejecting the affirmation that, because YOU consider it the most obvious and logical reason, then it can be considered it as the SOLE logical reason.

I am not rejecting that reason : I am not affirming anywhere, that CCP did not consider isk/h at all.
Just because your argument is invalid, does not mean that your position is invalid.
Maybe CCP actually looked at the isk/h and thought it was “disproportionate”. That’s what means “I don’t know”.

Still, you argument, that “this is true because I can’t think of anything else” is a fallacy.

[Merin_Ryskin]

“The numbers that we started to see in that period became cause for great concern and a decision was made to space out their respawn timer more and tweak the survey database drop rate.”
-CCP

“LOLOLOLOLOL WE HAVE NO IDEA WHY THEY DID THIS LOLOLOLOLOL”
-You, a massive hypocrite

[Anderson_Geten]

@Daichi_Yamato

Exactly.

The rewards of level 4’s weren’t the problem and weren’t changed.

And the reward from EC was almost not changed. Instead, the completion time was artificially increases by 9min.

@Daichi_Yamato

Consumption rate and isk/hour are part of the same thing.

But still they are not the same thing.

[Merin_Ryskin]

@Anderson_Geten

And the reward from EC was almost not changed. Instead, the completion time was artificially increases by 9min.

“The numbers that we started to see in that period became cause for great concern and a decision was made to space out their respawn timer more and tweak the survey database drop rate.”
-CCP

Also, rewards only make sense in terms of ISK/hour and extending the completion time reduces ISK/hour. It is very clear what CCP did and why they did it.

[Anderson_Geten]

your quote does not contradict anything from what I wrote.

@Merin_Ryskin

It is very clear what CCP did and why they did it.

BS.
Again and again.
You have no idea what you are talking about.

The only thing that is clear, is that you sure like to cry a lot.

[ISD_Buldath]

Thats enough.

The topic question has been answered as the release notes have been posted. Closed.

1. Specifically restricted conduct.

The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to courteous when disagreeing with others.

In order to maintain an environment where everyone is welcome and discussion flows freely, certain types of conduct are prohibited on the EVE Online forums. These are:

Trolling
Flaming
Ranting
Personal Attacks
Harassment
Doxxing
Racism & Discrimination
Hate Speech
Sexism
Spamming
Bumping
Off-Topic Posting
Pyramid Quoting
Rumor Mongering
New Player Bashing
Impersonation
Advertising