All Posts by murphys123

One can only hope.

He added a great deal to a great show.

Originally posted by demren

People expecting that this will be anything close to Daoc is gonna be even more pissed. :P

Not exactly true. People who get pissed about video games technically don't count because they aren't real people.

Fantastical

The SWG "vets" who post on this site are an amazing bunch. First, they credit their relentless campaigning against SOE with the dismal state of SWG without acknowledging the simple fact that the NGE sucked so people quit playing. The overwhelming majority of those who currently play and who use to play have no idea about their little crusade. Then they proclaim it was their activism that inspired Bioware to create a Star Wars MMO and without them the development would have never begun, and now this. I played SWG pre cu and enjoyed it very much, the sand-box design was amazing, but the game itself was an unbalanced and broken turd that only gained a base due to the communtiy and the freedom the game allowed. So forgive me when I say that I hope Bioware makes a game in which over half of the stuff actually works.  

Originally posted by oblivionate

I would in no way mind CoH 2.

If they can pull off everything they promised for CoH during it's development phase, plus more, and more diversity of missions at launch, I'm all for it.

I agree

Coh developed by Cryptic--CO developed by Cryptic and yet somehow they are similar..hmm

I can't figure it out, but apparently you have broken the code.

Can't wait

Hmm, I really have no idea what to make of this.

Originally posted by Mahni

Originally posted by murphys123

Yes, by voluntary I am implying that the people who participated "chose" to do so. May have been too broad a term and self-selecting may be a better term for it, but I wasn't expecting someone so well-versed to read my point. I have done a fair bit of research in the world of academia and cringe to think what would happen if I ever used data from an internet poll. I guess that is what motivated me to post in the first place.

We are completely on the same page - sorry for nit-picking and sorry for the derail.

No worries, cheers.

Originally posted by Mahni

 

Originally posted by murphys123

Originally posted by Mahni

 

Originally posted by murphys123

Funny, I just commented on this type of polling in another thread. This poll is comprised of a voluntary sample which makes it null and void in the realm of statistics. The numbers are meaningless no matter what they suggest.

Sorry murphys123, but a small nit-picky point: The fact that the sample was "voluntary" has no bearing on the validity of the poll (when was the last time you saw a compulsory poll?).  You may have mean to say that the poll may not be valid because the sample may not be representative.

 

Have you ever taken any form of statistics course in college? This is one of the most basic concepts taught in the subject. The fact that it is voluntary makes it not representitive of the population from which it was sampled. You cannot have a voluntary sample that is representative, so I am not sure what your disagreement is.

It's the word "voluntary" that I'm having an issue with.  If you meant to say that the sample may not be representative because of selection bias because the sample was self-selecting, then I whole-heartedly agree - it's not a *random* sample and is likely to be biased.  It really is a nit-picky point, and largely a semantic one.  There aren't many compulsory samples (U.S. Census gets close), but plenty of ones where participants are randomly sampled *and* voluntarily participate in, with or without compensation.  Replace voluntary with self-selecting, and there is no issue.

 

I've taken a few statistics courses in college, yes.  From basic stats and analytical demography through analysis of variance, regression, bayesian stats, and structural equation modeling.  Though my focus is on factorial designs such as analysis of variance and related models (MANOVA, ANCOVA).  Ph.D. from NYU in Cognitive Psychology with a specialization in Quantitative Psychology.  That means specialization in statistics.  I've taught statistics to undergrads and masters students.  Latest job was statistical analyst and researcher.

I wasn't trying to humble you in any way with my post to you, and I apologize if you took any offense - it was not meant.  I read these forums because I'm an avid gamer, though if you go and look at the first post I ever made to these forums, you might see that it is posts related to statistics that motivate me to chime in.  It's because of my background that I sometimes feel compelled to correct what are often minor issues that are more semantic than anything else.  I agree with your primary concern that the sample may not be representative.

 

Yes, by voluntary I am implying that the people who participated "chose" to do so. May have been too broad a term and self-selecting may be a better term for it, but I wasn't expecting someone so well-versed to read my point. I have done a fair bit of research in the world of academia and cringe to think what would happen if I ever used data from an internet poll. I guess that is what motivated me to post in the first place.

Originally posted by Mahni

 

Originally posted by murphys123

Funny, I just commented on this type of polling in another thread. This poll is comprised of a voluntary sample which makes it null and void in the realm of statistics. The numbers are meaningless no matter what they suggest.

Sorry murphys123, but a small nit-picky point: The fact that the sample was "voluntary" has no bearing on the validity of the poll (when was the last time you saw a compulsory poll?).  You may have mean to say that the poll may not be valid because the sample may not be representative.

 

Have you ever taken any form of statistics course in college? This is one of the most basic concepts taught in the subject. The fact that it is voluntary makes it not representitive of the population from which it was sampled. You cannot have a voluntary sample that is representative, so I am not sure what your disagreement is.

Funny, I just commented on this type of polling in another thread. This poll is comprised of a voluntary sample which makes it null and void in the realm of statistics. The numbers are meaningless no matter what they suggest.

Originally posted by Salvatoris

Originally posted by randomt

AoC awarded an 85% Gamespot rating means... that gamespot's reviewers dont really play games and dont know what makes AoC not stand out as far as mmorpgs go

Funny.... Gamespot gave the game and 85, and the their average user review is only 84.  Those know-nothing hacks gave it a whole extra percentage point better than the people playing it.  Worthless, out of touch, unethical shills that they so clearly are.  There must be a bunch of professional reviewers running it's average up on this site too.  ;)

Please don't take my post as taking sides one way or another, as I have not played AOC enough to have any sort of  informed opinion other than a simple, "I think the graphics are great." I just thought I would point out that referencing the average user review on Gamespot has no validity whatsoever. If you have ever taken any form of Statistics, you would know that one of the core fundamentals of polling is that voluntary samples are considered worthless and carry no weight. There may as well be a randomly generated number there, because it would be just as meaningful. However, the official review seems to be pretty positive...I may have to give the game a chance, eh?

Cool, the AOC argument has officially gone plaid.

I think he is referring to the way things "look," not the quality of the graphics...at least I hope that is what he is saying, because the graphics in AOC are pretty sweet imo. I personally don't like the way the avatars look at all, but have no complaints about the graphics. I havent really played enough to comment beyond that.

Originally posted by AmazingAvery

There are some massive zones in the game. Its kinda hard to appreciate the size of them unless traversed. In the mean time here are some connections to help you out:

There is answering a question.....and then there is really answering a question.

Yeah, I haven't really spent enough time playing LOTRo to pass any sort of valid judgement, but the developers really do seem to take care of their product. I am impressed by what they are trying to do and also with the LOTRo community as a whole--good people.

Originally posted by bverji

I am not being disingenious. I think it's obvious that you are attempting a bait and switch after being called on your trolling. You are now trying to make it look like you had a legitamate complaint and a reasonable prespective, but from your original 2 posts it's clear they were nothing more then shut up I am tired of hearing posts. But, keep those arms twirling.

I think the state in which SOE/SWG is significan't as is peoples anger/digust with them and the current state of the game dur to that response. As long as they are presenting what they believe/feel in a construtive manner. If you disagree that a post or posts are constructive then fine post why, but don't just make a general post, as you have,  doing nothing but insulting people because they are posting.

Ok, label me as you wish, but any person can sift through this forum and find a plethora of threads/posts that are beyond unconstructive. Most of which are posted by the same handful of people who have taken their frustration to the extrreme, which is who my argument is directed at (that should have been obvious). You are fencing with me based on a broad argument that encompasses everyone who posts anything negative here, constructive or unconstructive, which is how you are being disingenious. Instead of acknowledging any validity in my argument (one glance through these threads and one can see it), you choose to simply critique the manner in which I presented it in order to discredit me. You have a point in that I was a bit harsh, which is why I took the time to clarify my point. I did not back pedal as you claim, as I stand by my original argument.

Originally posted by bverji

Originally posted by murphys123

Yeah, you are right. I guess it is just me. All of these threads are filled with objective and constructive criticism. There are no people who frequent this forum with ill intent, and it was wrong of me to suggest that there is. I am completely misguided and I would like to personally thank you for your insights that have set me free.

And if that is your position then fine make a constructive argument aimed at a specific response. It's perfectly fine to respond to someone's post pointing out how you think their thinking is flawed. However, don't come into a thread titlled "SOE screwd up swg and now no one plays" and cry foul. Claiming everyone should just grow up and move on because you are innocently being subjected to their rants. Your sarcasm dosen't hide the fact that you were looking to troll. 

As for suggesting that you were just attempting to say that the thread should be moved to the vet forum, That isn't anywhere close to telling people they should grow up and move on. Instead of backpeddling ,because younow  realise you were in the wrong, just take your chiding and move along.

Ok, so just to clarify, your position is that there is no issue here to be addressed at all? You feel that the day to day postings in this fourms are fine (other than mine of course). And, I should stop visiting here if I dont like what I see?