Jeronimο

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.

Various TruckersMP-related cabin accessories are available in the game since your suggestion was created. Recently, we also released the TruckersMP logo that you can apply as an accessory to your trailer and you can haul the TruckersMP logo as cargo on a flatbad; check out the news article about it! // Completed

There are paint jobs available in the game since October 2020, and recently we released "TruckersMP"-branded paint jobs (and cargo), including exclusives for Patrons! // Completed

You can access the dev announcements through the new launcher that we released in November 2022! You can download the new launcher here. // Completed

The no collision zone was removed along with the rework of Duisburg city. For more information, check this blog. // Completed

We are continuously monitoring demand, as announced earlier in this blog. We have taken note of the current player distribution across Simulation 1 and 2, and will be making adjustments soon. In the light of those intentions, I will accept your suggestion. // Accepted