You are the one claiming the opposite. Burden is on you :
Either you have source for the statistical data you claim. Or this is as interesting as a child babbling.
Actually since you wanna claim that bullsh*t, the burden of proof goes to the person who first made the statement that multi-account players spend 1000’s of dollars to sub their accounts.
You’re an imbecile, take your fail troll replies somewhere else.
1 Like
I’ll chime in too on the OP side.
I like the fact they are around and are dangerous but HF they are tough when they land…I think the quantity is the real issue as once you chop their ‘fleet’ by 1/3 then your shields stop melting.
I don’t wanna claim anything. I tell you, the burden of proof is on you, because YOU claimed something that is not sourced and that people doubt about.
But yeah it’s basic communication skill to ask people where their data come from. Otherwise they can as well claim BS all they want, like you are doing all the time.
Look child, that is a monkey crying.
No need for you to cry because you opened your mouth and made a fool of yourself in your failed attempt to troll me. And now you’re doing it again, still claiming that burden of proof crap.
Seems your spiteful blinders are on way too tight since you obviously missed this:
The burden of proof lies with the person who made the initial claim, and is not upon others to disprove. The inability to disprove that initial claim does not make that claim valid, nor does that give it any credence whatsoever.
Burden of proof - RationalWiki
Burden of proof (also known as onus probandi in Latin) is the obligation on somebody presenting a new idea (a claim) to provide evidence to support its truth (a warrant). Once evidence has been presented, it is up to any opposing “side” to prove the evidence presented is not adequate.
Since no positive evidence is presented to verify the initial claim that multi-account players spend 1000’s of dollars each year to sub their accounts, you trying to dismiss my reply to that initial claim by insisting the burden of proof is upon me is just fallacious reasoning, a deceptive argument intended to troll me.
I’m done with you. Anymore of your unwarranted spiteful attacks upon me in these forums will be reported as harassment.
Why on earth would I lie about that? You want to know why not a year at a time? I didn’t want to hear the wife’s whinging at 3 large transactions when the spaced out 3 month charge showed up as one minor amount per month.
In the leadership of one of my corps alone there were two Brits (one with 3 accounts and another with 5), a Japanese fellow with 2 accounts, a father and son duo from South Africa with 2 accounts each, a fellow American with 2 accounts, plus my 2 (the third being separate from the corp to extract revenge or spai when necessary) ALL were paid with money and not plexed, In our corp we were the only multi-account players. My, admittedly small, sample is at odds with your position that the majority plex instead of pay real money.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove here or why you wanna keep kicking this sleeping dog subject that was posted months ago. I already said there’s always exceptions to the norm. I also said you’re right that I shouldn’t have made that initial statement sound so completely absolute.
Now I’ve always paid for yearly sub, ever since I started playing this game in 2008, Hell I did that on 2 accounts for a good 4 or 5 years, I know quite a few players who also ran 2 or 3 accounts. However I don’t consider that as multi-account player, especially since 2 accounts per player is generally accepted as normal game play operation.
Our admittedly small and unverified sample of cash subbed players running 2 or 3 accounts is just a drop in the Ocean compared to the amount of subbed players in this game that ran various multiboxing software and automated input programs. What I’m talking about is all the farms and bot accounts that supposedly ran rampant in this game for years. The amount of characters they operate all at the same time is in double digits. Those are the players who sub their accounts from PLEX bought with ISK, they definitely aren’t spending 1000’s of dollars a month to sub those accounts and if they are, then they definitely don’t know how to play the game.
So when I think of the term - Multi-account player - that’s who I think of, not players with a couple of accounts consisting of a main, a scout and or trade alt.
No.
You should just not claim fact when you have nothing to back that claim.
Taht’s why people ask you for your sources. If you don’t have source, it’s BS - literally what you complain people are doing.
“I don’t consider the literal definition of a multi account player as counting as a multi account player”
Those are by graphs CCP has shown at Fanfests a tiny tiny tiny percentage of EVE’s population. Something like 70% of players have only one account, and another 15 or 20% account for the 2 or 3 account players, from memory of the graphs.
So… your wild statement is addressed to a tiny portion of EVE’s player base since you have decided that your definition is wildly different from what the english language actually means.
1 Like
Show your proof or it never happened.
Your continual ignorance as to data presented at relatively recent fanfests makes it clear you aren’t actually a vet player.
For the actual graph outside the video.
For which video, I’ve given you the source, go locate it yourself, you aren’t worth spending that long on for me.
And then you complain about harassment ?
Which is you.
Harassment again. Just so you know,I don’t even read it, I know it’s worthless and just the expression of you being mentally challenged.
Look kid, a monkey is crying. Again and again.
YOU are the one who made a claim, so the burden of proof is on YOU. You can cry as much as you want, your claim is just BS. I don’t even consider the intrinsic validity of the claim, but the way you ask people to accept your “general BS” as truth. You’re just as stupid as sole kyst or other “killing people increases retention” idiots, claiming BS and not realizing that whichever way we look at it, it’s just complete nonsense.
As we degenerate into a bunch of name-calling yet again, this whole situation with roaming trig groups could be easily solved with a solid tear-through of the range check for these ships.
Yet again yesterday I had a trig group jump me while probe scanning in one of my systems (hisec this time), and yet again I got hammered by trigs that showed up in my overview but not on the screen. The overview showed me that these trigs were within 6km of me, but the reality was that they were parked some 130km away.
This is the same AI “feature” that will show you a group of trigs hovered around your station when they’re actually 130km+ from you in outer space; I posit to CCP that this has everything to do with how a trig gang determines where it is in space vs where its target is in space, and most possibly a failed encounter does not properly reset that range (edit: and reset the target).
How the heck does a nublette deal with this when even a vet as old as me has issues?
1 Like
That’s called a desync and is nothing to do with CCP and all to do with your internet connection.
Or them being on the far side of your station since stations are big and the undock is on one side.
It’s not my internet connection. My internet connection doesn’t calculate distance in the game, it only relays the output.
1 Like
Your pack of understanding of behind the scenes network connectivity and client behaviour doesn’t change the facts, you had a desync. In a lot of other games you would view it on the client side as rubber banding.
It’s not a desync, and it has nothing to do with internet connectivity, period. But you’re welcome to suffer with that theory if it makes you feel better 
1 Like
well it wasn’t him complaining about what sees to be classical desync, so I’d say You are welcome to suffer with that theory that it was not a desync 
Desyncs typically don’t survive log-outs, so it’s less a theory to suffer than a fact. And, since CCP just admitted in their No Down Time post that they’ve been lazy about artifact cleanup (they’re not alone), I think this case can rest so the fine forum trolls and ogres can move on to more fun things like…I dunno, defending someone for equating rubberbanding with bad/missing code in a game client.
1 Like
Dunno, bro so far You are the only person I see even encountering the problem 