Jeronimο

I'm not going to share all the questions here as that has no relevance. It may or may not have gotten lost in translation if you completed the survey through one of the translated versions; the question I quoted comes directly from the original (English) survey. Anyway, this topic was temporarily reopened to gather feedback since I noticed a few users indicated the questions were too generic; after that, the topic will be archived again. Certainly can. It's also a typical CSAT (satisfaction) question. In addition, another (CES) question was included to gauge feedback on how easy or difficult it is to use that system. Furthermore, users were asked what they would change or improve. Besides, there are plenty of means through which user feedback is acquired. Hence, all in all, it is certainly possible to interpret the findings and draw conclusions. If something majorly stands out, there is always an opportunity to follow up on it, as we have done in the recent past. Generally, one also wants to avoid paralysis by analysis, which favours generalising where applicable rather than overanalysing things. If there is a desire to get into the nitty gritty of the report systems we utilise, it would be better to host a targeted survey rather than utilising the Community Survey for that.

So to come back to your idea of "gathering demographic and psychographic data, and assesses various user experience metrics". I would then simplify the question to: "Do you agree with the concept of reporting offenses?". And eventually have a second one saying "Do you agree with the concept of bans?". Your question is asking people if they like the current reporting system, which, as I said, can be interpreted in many different ways. Thanks. I'd like to point out that the question was "How would you rate our web report system?", which is not the same as agreeing or liking, but you are correct that it is not completely unambiguous. For instance, one may rate is based on their experience with the reporting form, whereas others may rate it by how reports are handled by our team. While it may not be ideal to exactly pinpoint specific issues, it does provide an overall indication as to how that system is perceived by users, which is in line with the aim of the survey. A (very) long list of questions is to be avoided as survey research shows that for every additional question that is added to the list, the participation rate drops. Thanks, good questions indeed. I'll take note of them!

Yes, all five winners were contacted and have received their prizes in the meantime!

The Community Survey is designed to gather demographic and psychographic data, and assesses various user experience metrics. In short, it allows for the review of the community health and aids in the identification of any leads to guide future decision-making. Note that the Community Survey 2022 was aimed to gauge overall sentiments within the community, whereas yhe threefold (mini-)surveys in February followed up on the results from the Community Survey and were targeted at specific topics. I am interested to hear what questions you would suggest asking in future editions, as well as how you would utilise the results and for what purpose. If you have concrete ideas, feel free to share them. Keep in mind that the number of questions is limited to avoid survey fatigue and that the intended results must be actionable.

Earlier this year, a new server (Simulation 2) was introduced to cater to the apparent widespread needs of users to not be limited by a speed limit (see this blog). In addition, for all ATS-based servers and ETS2-based servers (except Simulation 1), the speed limits were increased to 150 kmh (93 mph), which is virtually limitless. Was this update this not known to you guys, is 150 kmh/93 mph not sufficiently high for you, or are you asking for the 110 kmh limit that applies to Simulation 1 to be increased c.q. removed because that is by far the most popular server? Setting local speed limits was considered earlier this year, but appeared difficult to achieve. Currently, road speed limits take priority over 'zone' speed limits (e.g., a city counts as a zone), however, the roads are not always properly defined in the game (by SCS) and so it is possible that you can be hit by a city speed limit on a road that it technically shouldn't apply to. There is a workaround for it, but that quickly becomes a 'maintenance nightmare' for our development team – which could halt progress elsewhere. Fortunately, those zone speed limit issues are usually quite short of duration, so all in all it shouldn't cause that much of an inconvenience. Although it is very understandable that it is not an ideal situation.

We have increased the slots for Simulation 1 to 4,000 players now, in accordance with the demand we have measured over the past 3 weeks.

We have increased the slots for Simulation 1 to 4,000 players now, in accordance with the demand we have measured over the past 3 weeks.

We have increased the slots for Simulation 1 to 4,000 players now, in accordance with the demand we have measured over the past 3 weeks.

That is absolutely fine I fear this discussion has derailed a bit. I tried to provide the background information that you were seemingly looking for, albeit it is progressively shifting to an off-topic discussion. Some raised a hypothesis earlier in response to the project update, which I then tested based on actual data and statistical models that I had readily available. Generally, though, if you make a claim, the burden of proof is on your end; it is not up to me (or anyone else for that matter) to disprove it. The graph that is being dissected right now was made 1.5 years ago and merely provided a visual representation of the daily influx of reports per day in the aforementioned period, and the inversion you highlighted has nothing to do with this project update nor was it investigated to look for an explanation as it was (and still is) irrelevant for the topics at hand.

The burden of proof is always on the side of the party making a claim. Could be. I do not have data at my disposal with which we could determine such maturity levels through time. Like I said, there were a few comments arguing against the change on the basis of what the community was like before Road to Simulation was initiated. Interesting one indeed. I cannot explain that inversion, nor have I (or anyone else) tried to look for an explanation anyway. Could also be an anomaly in the data for all we know. It's all speculation unless we would have more information available.

What's your source? Anecdotal evidence is considered the least certain type of information and cannot be used to validate or invalidate evidence. "What I'm trying to say is that you can't take for granted what you observed 4 years ago." Absolutely. This also implies that some of the comments of people advocating against this change on the basis of how the community was like before Road to Simulation can thus not be taken for granted either. We do not track the data you suggested, but it would be great to have it. Correct, for the whole year. The image was part of a section devoted to the period in which COVID-19 resulted in many lockdowns globally, to indicate what effect it had on our servers and game moderation; COVID-19 lockdowns across Europe were most prominent in 2020 and the first half of 2021, hence why those date ranges were selected for this graph. It's a data visualisation choice to support the story that the section aimed to address. Correct. Yes, despite the drop in concurrent players (as that is what the image you posted displayes), we had a record number of reports that year – mainly because of the extraordinary influx of reports in the first five months (as you can see in the graph above). With regard to your second comment, the number of reports were communicated in the blog and a graph was used to visualise the influx of reports across the aforementioned COVID-19 period to display the dynamics over time. As mentioned to the point above, data visualisations are picked to support the story that you try to tell.

Sound like reasonable hypotheses indeed, it may increase the likelihood of accidents happening and thus could increase the number of reports. What I tried to exemplify with my message is not to talk about likelihoods or chances of something happening, instead I tried to test the hypothesis that not having the Road to Simulation policy lead to more reports with two simple metrics: having Road to Simulation (yes or no) and the number of web reports (integer). I also added playtime as a control variable (numeric) as I already knew playtime and the number of web reports are traditionally highly correlated. The data range included the variables per day for roughly the last 4.5 years. No relation between the type of policy and number of web reports could be found through logistic regression, though a strong relation could be found between playtime and the number of reports through linear regression. To my knowledge we have not published the number of reports over time, with the exception of this blog that I wrote last year about a few insights from 2020-2021: https://truckersmp.com/blog/264

The known phenomenon of joining the server with most players, as it is interaction with other players that many users are ultimately after.