Curse

Nad · Jul 11, 2005, 07:08 PM // 19:08

PvEers are stuipd, thats all there is to this argument. I'm on my 3rd run through the game (yea gettin skills 400+ hours so far). During every mission I have a strong urge to punch my monitor and use the broken glass to stab my eye. Kids are just dumb.

CaptainGuru · Jul 11, 2005, 07:28 PM // 19:28

Before the next post comes out, I want to read something to you from girlfriend's college sociology-pyschology book. The word I want to read to you is cognitive dissonance and it applies to the people whom arguing with who keep asking that same question.

Cognitivie dissonance is when an unpleasant internal state that results when individuals notice inconsistency between two or more of their attitudes, or between their attitudes and their behavior.

In English, you guys will find faults, nay-say or gives doubts towards another person who opposing your ideas or opinions because what that person says maybe right or may have substance. Even though, I've given source to ask around or look up, you refuse to look only fuel your ignorances and faults on the argue so there is no point in arguing further.

Loviatar · Jul 11, 2005, 07:41 PM // 19:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nad

PvEers are stuipd, thats all there is to this argument. .

and i could say PVPers are arrogant selfish impatient rude little jerks pretending to be domenent alpha male/female

instead i will honestly wish your monitor well and you a pleasent day because i recognize that there are jerks in all walks of life and you may just have had the bad luck to run into more than your share.

from a PVERT

Askalon Pverts (AP)

Eder · Jul 11, 2005, 07:50 PM // 19:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainGuru

English, please.

Okay, I apologize for not writing in a way that's simple enough for you to understand me, if that's what you mean by "English, please". Here goes another try.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainGuru

50% play either pvp or pve. Now configuration is neither wrong or right because I contest there are more players in PvP than PvE and just as Spike can contest they are more players in 50 so it's safe to say it's 50/50.

So far, your argument is something akin to saying "There might be more cats than dogs on the Earth or vice-versa. Since I don't know the true ratio, it's safe to assume it's 50/50!"

(Next time you should consider using punctuation, by the way - as long as you're going to lecture people on writing in English... that wasn't a great example you set there.)

Now on to the second part of your argument:

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainGuru

Though, out of the 50% of pvers, 50% of the player are serious about pve and the other 50% players are a pve/pvp blend. With half the PvE players engaging in PvP, that would make the majority of pvpers a 75 percentage.

So, now you're saying something like "I just assumed that 50% of all pets on the Earth are dogs, but now I will assume that 50% of those dogs are also cats to a lesser extent. So, cats are actually 75% of the earth's population!"

Not only is your logic flawed, you also have no basis to make any of the assumptions you made. Statistics is a science, not an assclown making up random numbers and probabilities on the internet. Is my english clear enough for you now?

Loviatar · Jul 11, 2005, 07:58 PM // 19:58

[QUOTE=Eder]

Now on to the second part of your argument:

So, now you're saying something like "I just assumed that 50% of all pets on the Earth are dogs, but now I will assume that 50% of those dogs are also cats to a lesser extent. So, cats are actually 75% of the earth's population!"

QUOTE]

not only that

by the same logic you have to assume that 25 % of the *cats* have *dog* traits as well

that gives 25% real *dogs* and 25% real Cats* with 50% who dont know what they are

I LOVE IT

CaptainGuru · Jul 11, 2005, 07:59 PM // 19:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eder

So far, your argument is something akin to saying "There might be more cats than dogs...

I stop reading after this because you prove my point.

Eder · Jul 11, 2005, 08:07 PM // 20:07

Nobody understands what your point is, though, because you haven't made any sense whenever you've tried to "prove" anything up to this point.

Under Verse · Jul 11, 2005, 08:16 PM // 20:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainGuru

I stop reading after this because you prove my point.

As a professor of Business and well schooled in Stats, I find it hard to believe that you would continue to fall back on your ideas without showing your work. I have a complete understanding of the information that you provide both on the sites listed and through this thread. The problem that most of these ppl are having is that you are not backing it up right here for them. You want to bring the light to their eyes and minds but you are unwilling to provide them with the ability to see and understand. You give them quotes without providing the person that made the statement in first place.

With that over I will say this I play both PvE and PvP and enjoy both playing environments. I like opening up new areas in PvE and running long winnings in PvP and neither better than the other as far as I am concerned.

Now to speak for a moment on your statistical issues, provide the numbers and I can work them so that it shifts to either side. Percentages are only as good as the person who creates them. 4 out 8 is 50% either way you look at. I personally can make those numbers say that 75% play PvE and 25% play PvP just as you have said exactly the opposite. So you would hard pressed to prove your point in a statistical manner.

The idea is that the game is fun for all who play it and if you dont like it dont play it (although i doubt that will happen).

CaptainGuru · Jul 11, 2005, 08:32 PM // 20:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Under Verse

As a professor of Business and well schooled in Stats, I find it hard to believe that you would continue to fall back on your ideas without showing your work.

Nice to meet you, I'm former nursing assistant who is going for his degree in sociology for social working. One of the classes I happen to be taking is statistics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Under Verse

I have a complete understanding of the information that you provide both on the sites listed and through this thread. The problem that most of these ppl are having is that you are not backing it up right here for them. You want to bring the light to their eyes and minds but you are unwilling to provide them with the ability to see and understand. You give them quotes without providing the person that made the statement in first place.

I've already told them they can find the information in either WoW official website, ask in Gamefaqs.com Guild Wars forum (the chart was provided by a fellow player) and google.

If someone makes an agitation, I look up the information for myself if one can't be proivded. Or at least what we do on gamefaqs.com

With that over I will say this I play both PvE and PvP and enjoy both playing environments. I like opening up new areas in PvE and running long winnings in PvP and neither better than the other as far as I am concerned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Under Verse

I personally can make those numbers say that 75% play PvE and 25% play PvP just as you have said exactly the opposite. So you would hard pressed to prove your point in a statistical manner.

Nope, as I mention, I also based percentage information on the circumstance that game high end point is pvp, the object of the game is to collect skills, equipment and runes, the game is more skill based than equipment based allowing players to master a class without spending hours to figure out how the various way moves can be used and. (Thunderstorm, brb)

Under Verse · Jul 11, 2005, 09:04 PM // 21:04

Understandable, (the stats class as part of your degree), I have taken 4 stats class myself and teach a course similar to the one you were required to take I am sure. But this does not preclude my ability to make the numbers say what ever I want them to say. Your sale grids come from a competing game World of Warcraft, which leads one to believe that this information might not be altogether true were it applies to Guild Wars. As they would hope to down play the event in there favor. The reason for lose of players is very simple, they charge a monthly fee and Guild Wars does not. I have played both and I perfer Guild Wars.

Although numbers and Statistical information from those number can often be a good way to attempt to prove a point, it is not always the truth of the matter. Because of the time differences and difference in players on Tuesday compared to Saturday you nor anyone, outside of Arena Net, could provide the information that you are basing your claims upon. And even if you were provided with that information it would have to be provided in a statistical format of a specific of time and you information would only be valid for that specific time. In the end you are not truly providing facts to your argument you are only feeding those that are against your idea.

Setting aside all of the numbers that you provided here and on the other sites and just looking at the environment for one moment I would have to say that the idea is hard to define. I have seen times when Draknor (113 D), Ascalon (78 D), Lion's Arch (56 D), and so on and the arena's with only 20 or so districts. And I have seen it in complete reverse as well were the arenas have more districts. Keeping in mind that the districts are opened and closed based on the amount of people arriving and leaving a specific area. In the end though I have found that in any given time I can find more districts open in the PvE area then in PvP. Now some real information would be how many ppl it takes to cause the opening of a new district and what causes the closing of a district. Taking that into consideration we could then figure, very extremely roughly, how many persons were playing, but again only a specific time, day, and date.

Now it is not my intent to add fuel to the fire here or to in away take away from your argument. It is only my intent to try and help everyone understand a little better what you are saying and attempt to clear up the miss information and ideas. The information that you are providing is not wrong it is just tainted by the original provider in an attempt to help them survive in the gaming world.

In the end I do not believe that the Priest should be moved into PvP, however I do believe that Faction points should be increased as the Consecutive Wins build up (per Kill and Win).

Spike · Jul 11, 2005, 09:12 PM // 21:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eder

Nobody understands what your point is, though, because you haven't made any sense whenever you've tried to "prove" anything up to this point.

Captain guru has NO point (much like pvp) or makes any sense (much like most pvpers)

Icarium · Jul 11, 2005, 09:39 PM // 21:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainGuru

Why are you using absolute number when statistics is based on ratios, probability, rounding and percentages? Do you even know what you are arguing about anymore? I knew what I was arguing about in beginning. You see to have diverge from your own point, if there ever was one.

WHERE are you getting this from ? total sales will tell you just that, THE SALES . . .to guess at anything more . . . is just GUESSING

Again, I don't need to look the information up for you. When someone makes an agitation, I looked the information up myself. You're not a kid and I'm not your bulter so you need to information, look it up for yourself. I named the source find it your damn self. Unless you got proof that the information is false other than your opinion, you can't say someone else's information is false. Other than that you're suffering from a big case of the ostrich syndrome.

Yes. Yes you do need to look it up, why the hell should i have to scrounge the internet to back up your BS ? your argument is pathetic,and by spouting trash such as this your proving NOTHING . "ostrich syndrome" ?? huh? did this come out of your girl friends book as well ? was i diagnosed just now ?

lol
Whatever, im DONE with you . . i was only trying to get you to understand a simple truth, the more you browbeat, without backing it up, the more pathetic you look. The more pathetic you look the less credibility you have. Do you see where this is going? if Everybody comes to the conclusion that you have no idea what your talking about, then nobody will care what you have to say one way or the other about anything. you will see this when you make a post, and nobody responds. sad really

CaptainGuru · Jul 11, 2005, 09:48 PM // 21:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Under Verse

Understandable, (the stats class as part of your degree), I have taken 4 stats class myself and teach a course similar to the one you were required to take I am sure. But this does not preclude my ability to make the numbers say what ever I want them to say.

Process of elimination. It's a method use to get rid incosistencies when fighting the actual statistics of a group. As I said earlier, I based the information circustmance, but I was also going to say the number of posts favorable post to pvp compare to pve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Under Verse

Your sale grids come from a competing game World of Warcraft, which leads one to believe that this information might not be altogether true were it applies to Guild Wars.

If you read Spike's post, his information is based on the objective crowd (the crowd standing before him and several other districts), he didn't bother ask around, he didn't ask why they were so many people in the districts he explored. He only assumed everyone like PvE as much as he did and that he assume they were more people in pve and than pvp.

The sale configure was mentioned to let him know how players were playing and why he thought there were more people in pve. They are nearly million (if not a million already) players playing worldwide so they are going to be a lot of people in each district.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Under Verse

As they would hope to down play the event in there favor. The reason for lose of players is very simple, they charge a monthly fee and Guild Wars does not. I have played both and I perfer Guild Wars.

I didn't say WoW lost players. In fact, a lot of players in GW continue playing WoW. WoW had achieved 500 thousand players during beta, a million between late 2004/early 2005 worldwide. It lost 100 thousand players during the course of time and gain a million more when battlegrounds came out. Before battlegrounds came out, GW was selling higher than WoW, which had grabbed a million players of it's own. After battlegrounds came out, WoW regained the number 1 spot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Under Verse

Keeping in mind that the districts are opened and closed based on the amount of people arriving and leaving a specific area. In the end though I have found that in any given time I can find more districts open in the PvE area then in PvP.

The area with the most district in the game hands down is Tombs. (PvP area) During 16 districts and 12 during the night. (One Saturday it was 19 districts.)

In PvE, Kryta only had 6 districts (furtherest area in the game), but in pre-searing the districts were 12 at day and 10 at night.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Under Verse

In the end I do not believe that the Priest should be moved into PvP, however I do believe that Faction points should be increased as the Consecutive Wins build up (per Kill and Win).

That would be a good idea and I think the prices of the moves should be lowered if they don't raise the faction points.

Antonio Cappello · Jul 12, 2005, 01:27 AM // 01:27

Good job guys, you've managed to derail a perfectly good thread, drive off the OP, and turn the thread into a flame war. I expressed my opinion about the topic in my first post.

Man, this is the least civil forum I've ever seen.

CaptainGuru · Jul 12, 2005, 01:59 AM // 01:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antonio Cappello

Good job guys, you've managed to derail a perfectly good thread, drive off the OP, and turn the thread into a flame war. I expressed my opinion about the topic in my first post.

Man, this is the least civil forum I've ever seen.

Yeah all because two people didn't understand statistics.

Loviatar · Jul 12, 2005, 02:47 AM // 02:47

[QUOTE=CaptainGuru]

The area with the most district in the game hands down is Tombs. (PvP area) During 16 districts and 12 during the night. (One Saturday it was 19 districts.)

QUOTE]

you are kidding

i have seen PVE districts with 125+ districts

19???

Askalon city just a minute ago had 37 districts open (i looked didnt guess)

CaptainGuru · Jul 12, 2005, 04:10 AM // 04:10

[QUOTE=Loviatar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainGuru

The area with the most district in the game hands down is Tombs. (PvP area) During 16 districts and 12 during the night. (One Saturday it was 19 districts.)

QUOTE]

you are kidding

i have seen PVE districts with 125+ districts

19???

Askalon city just a minute ago had 37 districts open (i looked didnt guess)

Post Searing Ascalon has had up to 50 District open, but that's unavoid considering pre-searing/post searing Ascalon City are linked because they are both starting point.

RTSFirebat · Jul 12, 2005, 11:41 AM // 11:41

CaptainGuru is that anyone you not going to disagree with?

Spike · Jul 12, 2005, 03:08 PM // 15:08

Here is an example of how clueless captain guru really is

[QUOTE=CaptainGuru]
In PvE, Kryta only had 6 districts (furtherest area in the game) [end quote]

This is'nt even half way though the game. And kryta has 5 missions, 1 major city, 3 outposts and the temple of ages. Which if they only had 1 district for each of the 5 lanagues. That is still 50 districts. This is a VERY VERY LOW number as lions arch regually has at least 10 english districts or more. If europe has favour. Then the temple has about 20 districts for all lanaugues.

So based on the FACTS, We can see that kryta alone has at least three times as many districts for PVE as the biggest pvp area. This does NOT include the MANY MANY people that are in missions or doing quests. Which could be at least as many as are waiting in the towns and outposts. So its would be safe to say that pvpers are a minority and a VAST one at that.

CaptainGuru · Jul 12, 2005, 03:58 PM // 15:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainGuru

In PvE, Kryta only had 6 districts (furtherest area in the game) [end quote]

You know you can use the code to end quote right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spike

This is'nt even half way though the game. And kryta has 5 missions, 1 major city, 3 outposts and the temple of ages.

I didn't know Gates of Kryta had 5 mission, 1 majority, 3 outposts and ToA all rolled into it. Last time I checked, it only had one mission. I need to look at the place again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spike

Which if they only had 1 district for each of the 5 lanagues. That is still 50 districts. This is a VERY VERY LOW number as lions arch regually has at least 10 english districts or more. If europe has favour. Then the temple has about 20 districts for all lanaugues.

Refer to above.