Razorback auto health decay & concerns over DE's implementation of the event

[CuChulainnWD]

6 hours ago, VanLyrr said:

Will you let the man have his research? He is gathering data to back up his claims and who knows maybe he is right. There's no point in name calling or putting him down with a cynical condescending post. 

 

Although you have a good point with the extending of events, i liked that argument.

Awww but moooom. Really, people see what they want to see. OP and yourself included. No names were called. Yes ridicule was administered. Bad ideas deserve criticism and ridicule when they are being espoused as fact.

Sure the OP can collect his data. Great. But the only conclusion he can legitimately claim is that there is a decay rate. Not an artificial one. Correlation  does not equate causation. The OP failed science when he failed to apply some critical thinking.

OP did not take into account all of the variables. Instead OP claims possible malicious intent on DE's part. To what end? To incite mistrust, hysteria and salt?

TL;DR I criticized the ideas not the man. I piss on the salt mines. 

Edited September 6, 2017 by CuChulainnWD

[Hemmo67]

3 hours ago, Zahnny said:

Care to elaborate on why we should have no say?

not sure what u mean?

we do get asked for feedback and they use it how they best see fit

now should they write down EVERY LITTLE CHANGE for us, no i don't think it's needed

[VanLyrr]

No name calling mm, maybe not directly but you implied people are selfish; crybabies; paranoid. Wether you call it administering ridicule or namecalling, same shet.

The dude would be upset if all his efforts were in vain. I think that's all there is to it. So ye he gets anxious about the idea, he's just overthinking it. It is paranoid at worst maybe. 

Edited September 6, 2017 by VanLyrr

[CuChulainnWD]

Calling out actions and ideas as being selfish or foolish is distinct from calling out the individual as being as such. English does accommodate such distinction. There is no accounting for wrong interpretation.

[VanLyrr]

1 hour ago, CuChulainnWD said:

Calling out actions and ideas as being selfish or foolish is distinct from calling out the individual as being as such. English does accommodate such distinction. There is no accounting for wrong interpretation.

Well sorry for misinterpreting then.

[AgentSkye]

On 9/5/2017 at 9:27 PM, CuChulainnWD said:

-snip!-

There's also a lot of exaggeration and misinformation going around about the rate of decay and exactly when the peak time was for it. I've seen quite a few comments of 'more damage dealt on Monday than the previous 3 days combined', which is just simply not true. In fact, Monday was significantly slower than Sunday.

Another thing I've noticed is people tend to point out 'suspicious' sudden drops in Razorback health occurring at specific times when they were not playing the game. My only theory is that these people are suffering from Watched Kettle Syndrome.

Additionally, OP's data is rather abnormal in that it is not consistent with the behavior of the decay on other days, or even later the same day. In other words, it was a fluke.

Self-quote:

On 9/4/2017 at 10:46 PM, AgentSkye said:

Tangent's 15 hour observation period shows a time of highly unusual consistency. That consistency is the entire basis for the auto-decay theory. However, from my own observations, I can say with certainty that there is not a constant damage/decay rate of 1.4% per hour. Not that there isn't any auto-decay--that's inconclusive--but that it's not a constant 1.4%. Before Tangent's post, my early observations (Sunday) were casual and not recorded, but the rate seemed highly inconsistent, yet consistently higher than it is now. If we're assuming that there is auto-decay now, this could mean that there was none at the time, or that there was always enough player activity that it simply did not become apparent.

Today, I've been paying a bit more attention. For several hours now, I've been checking the Razorback status regularly, and I've seen everything from 1.0%/hr to 1.5%/hr except for 1.4%/hr. So if there is a constant auto-decay, it would have to be much lower than 1.4%/hr. I've seen some very significant dips below the average (which is around 1.2%/hr today). It would have to be, at most, 1.0% per hour plus player efforts. Probably less, really.

Although I applaud Tangent's data collection efforts, and the narrative Tangent provides may seem compelling, I'm guessing the 15 hour period of consistency observed was largely luck, and while it's remarkable for its length, it's not representative. Although I was not online shortly before Tangent's time period, nor during, I was online shortly after it, and I saw mostly 1.3%/hr. Which is further evidence of a downward trend that I've observed...

...so maybe the auto-decay is on a curve? But even then, the occasional significant dips show that, to reach these consistent numbers--which aren't really that consistent--we are still relying on remarkably consistent player effort. So then, to accept the idea of auto-decay, we must accept that the playerbase is adding a consistent number to it. And if we can accept the (very large, worldwide) playerbase producing fairly consistent numbers, then we have nothing left to support the idea of an auto-decay, because the idea of auto-decay came about due to skepticism regarding consistent decay being natural--which it must be, even if there's auto-decay.

That said, I certainly wouldn't be surprised if auto-decay is a thing (probably on a curve, but idk what the point of that is), but unless DE says something, it's unlikely to be confirmed. However, I suspect all the tinfoil hat people--and there are many--will always assume it to be so even if DE denies it.

Tl;dr: there is no constant 1.4% per hour decay; the data only seems to support there being any auto-decay if you already have the idea in your head and are looking for evidence to support it; otherwise, there's nothing even close to a conclusive yea/nay.

Tl;dr the tl;dr: we definitely don't know this for a fact

And then, for the last 11 hours of the Razorback Armada's life, the rate of decay randomly fluctuated between 1.0% per hour 1.3% per hour with no discernible pattern other than the slight downward trend; 1.3%/hr eventually stopped happening, so then it was 1.0 to 1.2%/hr.

Also, I just noticed the first couple hours of Tangent's observation have been removed from the OP, and although I may be wrong on this, I seem to recall an early -1.3% was included in that. Maybe it didn't fit the story?