Oh, and enjoy your gaslighting. I’m going to watch CCP Bee’s weekly Live2feed stream now. I’ll come back when you’ve fed the actual data into your
and figured out why your sample size calculator is the wrong tool for this one. Confidence ? What are you on about. A person has or does not have x active accounts. That person is put in the 1 account or 2 accounts or 3 accounts or 4 accounts etc basket. Confidence limits are not in play ! You cannot extrapolate back from a basket that had a few occupants, at the edge of the distribution, to recreate the whole graph ! Get it ? Good !
Didn’t get it ? How unfortunate. Come back next summer.
Again you miss the point…so eager are you to score a point…that my entire argument was that the majority of players are not multiboxing. So why are you arguing and hurling insults when even your own version of the stats makes that exact point ! I mean…in your version of the stats 80% of players have just 2 accounts or less.
But that was exactly the point I was making…that you cannot get an extreme skew to multiple accounts out of a 2.6 average.
You’ve spent half a dozen posts ‘disagreeing’ by making exactly the point I’ve made. Par for the course on the forums !
The ‘number of accounts a player has’ is simply not the same thing as ‘the number of accounts a player has that are online at the same time’. There is no direct correlation. Not everyone with multiple accounts even does multiboxing at all, or even does it a large portion of the time. I only multibox around 10% of the time.
So you cannot draw any direct inference between accounts increasing and account logins. The fact that people have more accounts does not automatically mean they will be logging them in simultaneously more often.
Majority of the EVE players don’t eve play anymore. Or they play occassionally, infrequently, shorter periods of time.
Meanwhile players who multibox tends to spend really lot of time in game. Most gankers for example play daily for about 4-8 hours. The Homefront farmers are also active for long periods of time judjung my observations. Miners who multibox typically play even longer since they play semi-afk or they are straight botting.
The websites for MMO recommendation still claims EVE is played by milions of players. I don’t know who feeds them this information if CCP or what, but if there really are even 1.000.000 unique players who play in various times of year/month/week/day, and there are only 28000 players online at a given time at best, it means that the majority of the players are casuals and they do not show in PCU. And if these players have only one account, then that makes the average number of accounts that players have so low.
My argument is that multiboxing usage is raising. And if number of players online is stable or in decline it logically means that the actual number of players is declining. I did not see any argument which would disprove this other than - “you can’t know that!” and “you have no data for your claim”.
Yes I have no data, I am simply using logic and what I see around me in my alliance. The numbers of omega subscribed accounts are only raising. I went from 1 to 5 after CCP stopped alpha ganking, several newbies that we recruited went from 1 account to 5+ once they realized this is what it takes to make profit. So during 24 month period, our alliance gained at least 20 omega accounts. But no real player, all of them were already playing, just on one or two omega accounts.
Solipsists believe in an extreme form of skepticism about the external world: namely, that anything “external” doesn’t really exist. Everything is an aspect of their own mind. From this point of view, everyone in the game is just another version of yourself. Population of the game is always 1, unless you stop playing it, then the whole game ceases to exist. In the mind of the solopsist, they are creating reality around themselves to entertain themselves with a false reality.
Why would that make any difference ? If 8 out of 10 cats prefer Whiskas, that’s true whether you have all 10 million cats or a sample of 100,000 of them.
That is statistical cherry picking…a known fallacy. That these groups are online for a long time does not negate other groups or individuals also being online for a long time.
You are the one making a claim…it is thus incumbent upon you to provide evidence that it is true, not on the other side to provide evidence it isn’t. If someone argues that bigfoot exists, it is up to them to prove they do. Skeptics don’t have to do or prove anything.
But it works both ways. I used to Alpha gank for the Absolute Order AO10 corp. After the changes I converted one of the Alphas to Omega…but I rarely log in my other Alphas now. The net effect of lots of people doing likewise would be that the number of active accounts per player would actually fall…and would be less than ‘accounts per player’ figure.
Because it influences the gaming experience. Statistic doesn’t work by just counting the averages, you would have to count actual “manhours on scene” to make a difference.
Lets say you have a boxing gym in which 100 athletes train. 90 or them are average joes, nice, calm, supportive and helpful. 10 guys are highly trained, rude, aggressive and brutal. If the 90 each visit the gym 2 times a month for an hour but the 10 brutes are there every day for 8 hours bullying other people, the owner could still claim “whats the deal, 90% of our dudes here are nice guys!” - statistically absolutely correct. But we all know how the experience in that gym would be if the 101th customer would try it out a few times - he probably wouldn’t come back and claim “thats a horrible place” - and that would match his personal experience a 100%, despite 90% of the other guys being actually nice. Because the brutes absolutely dominate the scene with their sheer presence.
Same goes for EVE, if the “average player” has 2.6 accounts but a majority of those numbers are 1-account dudes who barely log in once a month and the 10% powerplayers with 5+ accs is what you actually see most of the time you undock because they play for hours daily, then this does influence what new players that test the game will think about it. I wouldn’t wonder if lots of them will come to the decision they don’t want to compete in that kind of multibox (money-eating or ISK-grinding) environment and just leave. In my opinion mass-multiboxing is one of the reasons why EVE has it so hard to keep new players in the game and I believe that CCPs approach to just look at how much money those multi-accounters bring them (short term) is a bit short-sighted looking at the whole picture. Of course it can’t be proven that you would get more single-account subscriptions if EVE would look a lot more “social” instead of seeing mass-boxers on every corner, unless you would test it. But that test would be financially risky because you would have to restrict massboxing for quite a long time to see an effect. And thats something no business company will probably do, because today short-term safe earnings are much higher valued than long-term benefits that would pay off over years. They just look better on paper and you can justify your own paycheck as a manger much more easy.
So, the only hope I personally have is that CCP begins to focus on solo- and cooperation-content in future developments and intentionally makes new content a lot harder to multibox by enforcing “activity” (clicking & decision making) on each of the involved chars.
Thats a pretty dumb reply, on the level of creationists that claim “nobody has disproven god”. Some things simply can only be proven if you do them. If you are not absolutely braindead you should be able to understand by my argument and if you still reply in such a way, you are just trolling.
You’re the one making a claim. Where’s your evidence that claim is true ?
All I see is your own personal opinion wrapped up in a typical ‘think of the poor noobs !’ wrapping that people always use as if it adds credence. There’s zero evidence provided that noobs are any more affected by multiboxing than anyone else.
Look how many times your post contains ‘let’s say’…‘if’…‘probably’…‘if’…‘in my opinion’…‘i believe’…‘it can’t be proven’… and you then think you are making a solid case ??
First, I have explained to you (with a simple example so even not-so-clever people can understand it) why this statistical “average” value is completely unusable. I can bring other examples if you want, but the case is pretty clear. Every insurance company and every large business company use statistics on a lot more sophisticated and detailed level than just “averages”, because they are just misleading.
I think you even know that, thats why you have chosen to ignore that part.
Second, I didn’t make any claim I need to prove. I stated an opinion, based on a decades-long experience how things work, not only in other RL businesses but also in gaming from my perspective. Can that opinion be wrong? Sure. Can I “hard prove” my beliefs? Of course not, that is why humanity has invented “science”, you have to experiment and double-check the results over and over if they match your theory before you can call something “proven”. But you and I know that nobody can do that because none of us is in a position to do such experiments with the EVE Online playerbase. So your attack based on “it’s not proven!” is quite ridiculous. I mean, nobody has “proven” that a human would lose a fistfight against a T-Rex, but I believe (!) so based on my experience and logical skills. Would you still argue that this assumption has to be nonsense because I can’t prove it!?
No…you haven’t. You’ve just tried to circumvent it with a load of hypothetical waffle…to which you’ve now added a fight with a T Rex. Meanwhile the data remains the actual data.
We can…but you just ignore the data ! For example there was a pie chart showing that only 1% of noobs who leave within the first 2 weeks were ganked. Actual data. But just totally ignored by the ’ ganking makes vast numbers of noobs leave’ brigade.
And it’s the same with the ‘2.6 accounts per player’ data. It doesn’t fit the narrative of some, so they just ignore it, or contrive vastly skewed graphs or relate their ‘personal experience’ that somehow defies the actual data…and so on.
Even the player count graph gets deliberately sawn off to try and visually make any ‘fall’ appear more dramatic. It’s quite clear that there are those with a particular narrative that they’ve gotten for this reason or that…and to hell with whatever limited data we do actually have.
Unfortunatly “data” is completely useless without proper interpretation. Which you seem to be completely unable of. Looking at “averages” is pretty much the most unscientific and hilarous way to interpret any data.
I do not know if Euler, Newton and Gauss were violent men, but they would probably gang up and beat you up if you would ever argue for any cause with “averages”. Yes, thats how stupid your point is. (attention, just for you: thats not actually true, I can’t prove that. )
)