Enough is enough

[Arcon]

Because you were trying so hard to argue every point he made using pointless definitions and dead end points.

What points did he make? Seriously, tell me, if you know.

There would be absolutely no hard evidence with the McDonald example [..]

Of course, because it's a failed analogy. And I already explained why.

You're trying to win an argument [..]

I'm not. I explicitely stated that I can't, because I don't have proof.

Most you can do is accept it and tbh the majority do accept it and the majority like it.

Assumption without any evidence. That was the only point I was trying to make.

You're fighting a losing battle here in a thread that has nothing to do with Abyssea anyway.

You can't lose when you're right, regardless who agrees or disagrees.

[Zagen]

Of course, because it's a failed analogy. And I already explained why.

You mean the part where you added on to it thus changing the analogy?

You can't lose when you're right, regardless who agrees or disagrees.

Are you familiar with history? It's full of people who were right and still lost.

You're arguing Abyssea pushed people away without evidence (which you've admitted to) proving that was the sole reason. Everyone I know that "quit because of Abyssea" were people that had grown tired of the game and Abyssea was the straw that broke the camel's back, not the sole reason for them quitting. I can state factually at the time of it's release it was the sole reason for keeping 4 players (myself being one of them) from quitting.

[Yinnyth]

If I could, I would have done so in the beginning. If I could, I also wouldn't have said that I couldn't. If I wanted to actually make that argument, I would have. The reason I haven't (and I'm not sure why you think that I did) is precisely because I lack that information. Also, evidence can be coincidence.

You dismiss all coincidence which supports Abyssea being good for the game as:

That's precisely what I meant. No evidence to support that statement, just dubious and unsupported quantifications like "many think" or "most prefer" and things like that.

In fact, according to you:

Which is, again, precisely what I said. We can't prove anything either way. But since the only evidence we have is pointing to the opposite

You elevate trends which were set in motion years before Abyssea was a twinkle in Altana's eyes as "evidence". But anything which runs contrary to your current belief does not deserve that moniker.

In case I have not been clear enough about this, the thing I resent is not your viewpoint, it's your delivery of that viewpoint. You are attempting to monopolize the term "evidence" as anything which supports your beliefs, when in truth, declining server population does NOTHING to diminish the burden of proving that Abyssea was bad for the game. If it does not advance the claim, it is not evidence, and declining server populations do nothing to advance your claim.

[Arcon]

You mean the part where you added on to it thus changing the analogy?

The part his analogy missed, which is why it was a failed analogy. An analogy is supposed to accurately reflect the issue at hand, which his didn't.

Are you familiar with history? It's full of people who were right and still lost.

We have a different definition of losing. What do you think will happen to me if I lose? Will a mob come find me and silence me? How do you think I can lose in this?

You're arguing Abyssea pushed people away without evidence (which you've admitted to) proving that was the sole reason.

No, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that there's evidence supporting that, and that there's no evidence supporting the contrary.

[Yinnyth]

You're arguing Abyssea pushed people away without evidence (which you've admitted to) proving that was the sole reason.

Actually, the biggest thing I resent is that he's not willing to give up that term "evidence" when it comes to declining server populations. To date, he has maintained that this statistic is evidence, while refusing to give that status to any other information pertaining to this topic.

[Arcon]

You dismiss all coincidence which supports Abyssea being good for the game as:

I dismiss statements that are unquantified and unqualified. We know that population declined. We do not know that "many think" and "most prefer". That is something that people who don't have any proper arguments or do not know how to use their arguments properly say.

[Yinnyth]

I dismiss statements that are unquantified and unqualified.

What are your qualifications for deciding which statements are quantified and qualified?(ironic statement, not meant to be taken seriously) It is widely accepted that server populations have been in decline for years before Abyssea, during Abyssea, and after Abyssea. It is also widely accepted that Abyssea was wildly popular (did you ever run a /sea of Abyssea zones when they were freshly released? Crazy crowded.) Why is one widely accepted fact "evidence" and the other is "coincidence"?

Edit: Player decline is also:

1. Unquantified, because we don't have the exact numbers.
2. Unqualified, because it has not yet been successfully linked to Abyssea, and you yourself have admitted that it cannot be linked to Abyssea.

Yet you have not dismissed it the same way you have dismissed other statements.

[Jaall]

No, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that there's evidence supporting that, and that there's no evidence supporting the contrary.

I'd like to know what you think is evidence for people leaving due to Abyssea, please inform us with thy gracious wisdom. Also I'd like actual evidence please and not just speculation or opinion because that seems to be the point you're trying to make even if it is pointless to do so. My point is there is no evidence only speculation and opinion, of which mine are the opposite to yours and I've explained why, but you have yet to explain so here's your chance to prove yourself.

[Arcon]

It is widely accepted that server populations have been in decline for years before Abyssea, during Abyssea, and after Abyssea.

Yes. That would be one argument against the evidence that it related to Abyssea. It could be countered if we knew exactly how much it went down and if the slope increased or decreased during that time. Sadly, we don't have that information.

It is also widely accepted that Abyssea was wildly popular (did you ever run a /sea of Abyssea zones when they were freshly released? Crazy crowded.)

I did, there were quite often over 100 people in a zone, and often we had problems even finding EXP spots that were not taken. And I will admit that I did not consider this (I don't think it has actually been brought up before, at least not when I'm around), and it could actually be used as evidence if you knew one other factor, see below.

Why is one widely accepted fact "evidence" and the other is "coincidence"?

The other isn't coincidence. But it is unrelated to how much people liked the expansion if we can't relate it to the actual playerbase. If there are 5 million people who love an expansion and play it daily, it means nothing if the 100 million who hate it don't participate. Since we can't put the number of participants in relation to the number of actual players, we cannot assign a quality to that statement. It would be different if you had actual average online numbers from that time and compared it to average player density in the Abyssea zones. If you had that number and used it to argue for Abyssea, you would have evidence. And then I would counter that evidence by saying that you don't have to like the content to do it. I hated it and I still participated, because it was what I had to do to progress in a game I liked, and I applied that progress to content outside of Abyssea, such as beating AV and duoing sea NMs and similar things. That is an argument for why your evidence is invalid. Just like your statement about the constant decline for years would be an argument for why my evidence with total player numbers is invalid. Whether or not those arguments apply is up for discussion. The evidence isn't, because it's factual.

Edit: Player decline is also:

1. Unquantified, because we don't have the exact numbers.
2. Unqualified, because it has not yet been successfully linked to Abyssea, and you yourself have admitted that it cannot be linked to Abyssea.

It is quantified to a certain degree. We don't have exact numbers, but we can glean numbers from indirect sources, such as the previously mentioned FFXIAH database or average /sea all online numbers.

It is qualified. Qualified means we can assign an objective quality to it, and the quality is "downward", because the population after was less than the population before.

[Demon6324236]