That isn’t at all what I suggested. The mission chains that exist are 1,2,3, my suggestion was that one time you do the chain you get A, B1, C3 but the next time A, B3, C1 in any number of random permutations that can still make an interesting story. Like a Choose Your Own Adventure book, except the forks wouldn’t all be based on your choices.
1 Like
Based on?
What made you think that what they have is more than this, exactly their refined data they wanted to show us? Their viewpoint was pretty clear. Blame simplification?
1 Like
That’s an incredibly defeatist attitude. As for ‘making more sense’… here, let me be a bit clearer with you, so you maybe get the clue about how your presentation of arguments can work against getting what you want.
And let me be clear here: I agree with your goal—improvements in Highsec and PvE in general are needed and they are important to the long-term health of the game. That’s not just true from an economic perspective, but also from the perspective of the in-game ecosystem. Making things too reliant on a pure capsuleer economy means that if one part of that economy gets altered in a way that significantly changes the effort/risk/reward math, you run the risk of a cascading shock through the system that can have disastrous long-term effects.
My issue is with your methodology. The reason I take issue with your methodology is simple: as one of the most vocal participants in the thread, your posts will likely be noticed more than some others. You even touch on it when you say this:
This ignores the one state that’s most likely to prevent things from getting done: The possibility that you’re right, and they are the ones who are wrong and don’t understand why. You may consider that unlikely (I don’t know if you do or not), but time and again, we’ve seen exactly that scenario: CCP’s announced a plan for something, the players have said ‘Don’t do this. If you do this, here’s what will happen’. Then CCP does it, and the thing we said would happen… does, and CCP has to walk things back.
CCP’s devs are human. There’s a limited number of them. That means they may have all the data, but they don’t necessarily have a high enough number of individual brains working on any given problem to be able to see all the ramifications. We outnumber them by a lot. We’re more likely to see the consequences in the minutiae that we deal with every day than they are. If you see a problem that they don’t, the odds are good you’re right, even if you don’t have all the data.
However, when presenting your position, how you present it matters. If your methodology is flawed, your conclusions are easily dismissed. If I want your goals to be achieved, then I do not want your flawed methodology getting in the way of that happening.
To take a real-world parallel (without supporting either position, this is just a look at process): in the US, firearm safety advocates often throw around a lot of terms they’ve heard on news broadcasts or TV. They either use terms that have no actual meaning (‘Assault Weapon’ v ‘Assault Rifle’, for example), or misuse terms (calling external magazines ‘clips’). By doing this, they demonstrate a certain level of ignorance of the topic. As a result, their voices become easy to ignore by gun-rights advocates, because why would you pay attention to someone who can’t even take the time to get their talking points right? From there, it becomes easy to dismiss the conclusions as something being pushed by ignorant fools. The message is lost because the messenger is delivering it poorly.
How you present your points, how you attempt to persuade, matters at least as much as whether or not you’re right, when it comes to getting what you want.
CCP has every single bit of data that exists in EVE, including the logs that never show anything. If you think CCP is giving us all of the information about everything, I have one question for you:
How many accounts are currently subscribed?
5 Likes
But how does that connect to 30% professionals who engage largely in null sec travel?
How do you know they engage “largely” in null sec travel? How many gates does it take to be counted in that ‘nullsec travel’ item? What kind of percentage of your time do you have to spend in nullsec for that? Do you get counted if you’re a lowsec player cutting through 2 nullsec systems to get from lowsec to lowsec? We don’t know. CCP knows. CCP knows what their criteria was, and they have the data to produce far more granular results if they wanted.
1 Like
I don’t believe this is at all universal. But even if true, CCP cannot be held hostage by a few long-term players who dislike change, and thus probably shouldn’t be playing in an evolving work of science fiction with other players. Having your game’s PvE rewards balanced to incentivize 15-year old content over the newer, more interesting stuff you are developing just to placate a few old codgers does not make sense. Maybe if you had a massive and eternal player base, but even players that love running the old missions will quit the game eventually out of boredom or some other reason. Your best bet to attract and keep new players is to showcase the better content you think is more innovative and fun.
Maybe this all this new PvP isn’t that yet, but it seems to me CCP hasn’t really given it a chance with the current reward structure. The PvE rewards of this game need to be rebalance as a whole, or failing that, the new stuff has to be made more attractive to overcome that inertia to change you describe and attribute to parts of the player base. Those that really love running missions still can do so, but those that are looking for ISK will choose the new content and we can really see if it is better at retaining players than the old.
CCP categorized players, Null sec travel was not everything on this type of player. You travel null, you dont have to be null sec dweller exclusively, but its really indicative you like to be there for various reasons. Also explorers journey a lot in null.
I have removed some rather inappropriate remarks regarding members of the CCP Staff.
Keep it appropriate people.
~Buldath
5 Likes
No, it wasn’t, but then they released data that said ‘this is the behavior we see in this type of player’… again, without context. So it’s impossible to really draw conclusions past ‘here’s how we arbitrarily lumped people into types’.
1 Like
But they showed you. Context comes from this data. You can see it just like they see it.
Its player types, not who dwells where. If it would be, the numbers reported would be less than 30 % because 30% includes not only null sec dwellers who majorly stay in null ratting and watching local.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAAH
By your logic, if I show you a picture of a ferox, I’ve shown you everything I know about our fleet doctrines.
No, we’re not seeing the data as they see it. We see the data through the specific combination of filters they wanted us to look through. They don’t have to use those filters.
2 Likes
Since you seem to have a good grasp on the data CCP presented can you ELI5 the following:
I used to have 4 characters in Null, 2 in empire, and 1 in a class 4 WH. Whenever we were roaming null or doing structure fights, I would fire up one of my empire toons and either AFK missions/ station trade. My Null characters would often be cruising all over (sometimes 40 jumps without a fight 
) null space but my empire charaters would only run around a handful of jumps in highsec. Those characters never engaged in pvp.
Was I a ‘professional’, ‘traditional’, ‘aggressor’…or what??? Did only my Null movement count or was everything lumped together?? BONUS question: On the pie charts you just posted – was I counted as a Null player or as 4xnull player, 2 empire player, 1x WH player… THANKS!
I so badly want to be #30% and not a stoopid ‘traditional’
Your playstyle is there, and CCP should include all the areas of gamepley, without discrimination. Do you feel discriminated? Well, I see you like to discriminate ‘traditional’. Why? Did carebears stared at you “the wrong way”? 
1 Like
Where? I cant find it. Please point it out specifically. I am not too smarht
I see it, maybe you should play WoW then. 
Why cant you answer? I am just trying to learn from someone who has such incredible analytical skill! Don’t be like that!
NO, NO and just more NO. Stop trying to get existing content that works removed from the game just because you don’t like it.
Resource Wars failed for a number of reasons. The main one for me is I’m not a Miner and I have no desire to do mining. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised to find out the reason CCP keeps trying to force players into high sec mining is to provide easy targets for suicide ganks.
FoB’s and Drifters is content aimed at Fleet Ops with Logistic ships. If I wanted to do that type of content I’d join a Corp and do Sansha Incursions.
Level 4 Burners - never did like that content when it was first introduced and I still don’t like it. The whole idea of Burner missions should have been to resemble encounters against another player, not against some blinged out super AI NPC that requires a special ship fit just to complete. Most players don’t cruise around in ships fit with Deadspace Officer mods so if that content was to supposedly bridge the gap between PvE and PvP then CCP failed miserably once again.
Bottom line, recently CCP has been constantly trying to force players to engage in a specific style of gameplay that they don’t want to do. All that does is force players to exit the game much quicker. Trying to stop that with Alpha Clones and F2P doesn’t increase their profit margin. This game has been spiraling down for a while now and is quickly gaining speed to becoming vaporware. The ignorant viewpoints of CCP’s current management is what’s killing this game.
5 Likes
You are in minority as someone who have so much alts.
See this graph:
Your playstyle is counted many times as its spread across many alts. So your playstyle is there and as I said CCP should not discriminate. If you feel discriminated, please tell them. I am sure they will listen.
3 Likes
Wow you can deduce the number of people who have alts from that graph? That amaaazeballs!
Thanks! Here I was thinking that the average player had more than 2 characters! Man, sooo glad I could be corrected. I have been living a lie!