CODE?


(Anderson Geten) #101

It’s not about choosing. It’s about using the correct terms for the correct things ; and the study you are using does not PROVE anything. Again the affirmations you make are only yours and not backed by the study you are talking about. So the myth saying that harassment make people leave has still to be busted.

You are affirming that 2+2=5.

You don’t need to wait. You already made a fool of yourself, affirming that 2+2=5.


(Galaxy Pig) #102

Okay man, the study doesn’t prove anything. It just exhibits a correlation that is consistent with one hypothesis but not another. I don’t know what affirmations you are talking about. Whatever you say the study says is what I say it says.

NOW WHAT DO YOU HAVE???

Your turn. Stop trying to dodge the fact that we have something whereas you have nothing.

Present your data, Anderson. We’re all STILL waiting, @Anderson_Geten


(Anderson Geten) #103

I have the fact that you affirmed the correlation as a causation. This is enough to show that you are wrong, and that you have no idea how to do proper statistics nor logic.

This is lies. This is taking a sentence out of its context.
CCP did not write this exact sentence. CCP made a presentation of a study, in which they exhibited a correlation. The post extracting that sentence out of its context is a plain lie. And everybody with a functional brain knows this. Only CODE. monkeys fail to understand this basic notion.


(Galaxy Pig) #104

Well let me clear that up for you.

I affirm no such thing.

I affirm only that we have a study that exhibits a correlation.

NOW WHAT DO YOU HAVE???

Show us some data. @Anderson_Geten

Just admit you don’t have anything, Anderson. You’d save more face than with this ridiculous tap-dancing you’re doing.


(Anderson Geten) #105

Then I agree with you on that particular point. Do I need data to agree with you on that ? Usually when I agree with someone, unless it’s an interesting demonstration I just don’t say a thing. So when it’s a tautology, I rather not even consider noting it.

The things that are say are lies, are the interpretations people affirm as fact.
To take a previous post,


(Galaxy Pig) #106

Okay, so given a data point that exhibits a correlation that is consistent with one competing hypothesis but not another, and given NO OTHER INFORMATION (since carebears have repeatedly failed to provide any) which of the two competing hypotheses should one tentatively hold to?

I wonder what a scientist would say…

LOL this really isn’t that hard. The only reason anyone would disagree with this is because of deep underlying butthurt that prevents them from seeing something so obvious (proving that they in fact do not know how to logic).

My whole goal here was to point out the fact that we have something and the carebears have nothing, which I believe I’ve thoroughly demonstrated. Thank you, @Anderson_Geten for assisting me.


(Anderson Geten) #107

none.
As I said before, the correlation does not depend on the reality, but on the way you built your study. It’s used as a hint, so you can follow with further pro-active studies.
That’s what a scientist says. That’s how science works. That’s why stupid people jump to conclusions when wise people know that knowledge needs time.

What you are doing in this one is an argument from ignorance

The only reason you would take a correlation as a causation is

and that, anybody with the minimal amount of scientific knowledge knows about this.

The truth is , you are so butthurt about this that you are claiming wrong things, when everybody is telling you they are wrong. You are claiming that 2+2=5 and that anybody who does not agree with you is “butthurt”.

Really, you are making a fool of yourself.


(Maekchu) #108

Yes, that is indeed my opinion. Which is why I wrote “I believe”. But is my opinion less valid than a PvE’ers? Is my loss of subscription not at least the same value as a loss of subscription from a PvE’er?

I wrote in the wardec feedback thread, that I sometimes feel like CCP are a bunch of headless chicken stamping out fires all over the place. What I want, is for them to focus and come to an objectively made conclusion.

If they feel that PvE’ers are the best bet for the future of eve, then I want them to clearly communicate this to their customers, so we can make decisions based on that.

I don’t really take sides here. I value PvP’ers and PvE’ers equally. I just personally tend to enjoy PvP more. If PvE is the future of eve, then I just want to get this clearly communicated and improvements made in this area. However, as a current customer, I’m just expressing my lack of enjoyment of the current PvE systems. I don’t see how this expression is devalued, just because I have expressed that I find PvP enjoyable. Can you only enjoy PvE, if I despise non-consensual PvP?

Let me clarify, that it is also my opinion, that PvP is what makes eve unique. It is an opinion made based on past experiences and articles. Basically, people love reading about the political intrigues and big battles in eve. These incidents have even made it to the mainstream media. The asset destruction, creates real feelings which people go to great lengths to satisfy. This is what builds the world and what makes eve exciting.

I accept your opinion, that you find PvE the driver for player retention. But honestly, it doesn’t matter whether I accept your opinion or not. What matters is what CCP thinks. Which is why I say, they have to make a choice of where they want to take the game. I’m blaming CCP for being indecisive and not communicating clearly what their goal with eve is. Nothing more.


(Galaxy Pig) #109

Okay, so given one hint, and NO OTHER HINTS, no tentative hypothesis should be held? pffflol do you hear yourself?

You again try to put words in my mouth by claiming I’m affirming things that I’ve clearly stated I’m not, this reeks of desperation.

You don’t know what an argument from ignorance is, let me help you:
An argument from ignorance is when someone argues that it must be X “because what else could it be?!?” I hope this helps you understand.

Let’s just ask everyone else what they think:

Which is better, you guys?

  1. One data point that only exhibits a correlation

OR

  1. Absolutely nothing, zip, nada, diddly, jack, squat, and zilch

??? Super hard question.


(Anderson Geten) #110

Given this context, no affirmation can be given on a general state.
Given this context, affirming that this correlation is actually a causation is a PLAIN lie.

Again, argument from ignorance. Read the article.

That’s exactly what you are doing.

argument ad populum ?

Anyway you have zero knowledge of logic.


(Galaxy Pig) #111

AGAIN trying to claim that I’ve done any such thing. Really desperate, now. I think the fact that you retreating to this exposes a lot.

TLDR: The carebears have nothing to present. Only dismassal of the little data there is available because they don’t like the story it tells, again very telling.

I’ll tap out now, through tap-dancing with clowns.


(Anderson Geten) #112

you did here :

You affirmed here that an hypothesis that goes with the hint should be hold as true.
So you affirmed that the correlation should be used as a causation.


(Galaxy Pig) #113

Tentatively held, do you know what that word means?

This is silly, what am I doing with my life??? Trying to explain such simple things to people on the internet?!?!? AHHHH

P.S. Oh, Anderson, I just checked your in-game avatar, nice bounty, bro!
315! Woo!


(Anderson Geten) #114

That means that you want to hold an affirmation as being either true of false, based on arbitrary opinion. Which you can’t logically do until you have proven this affirmation as being true in the context (or as being part of the context).

That is, an argument from ignorance. “I don’t know and I feel like it is true, so it must be true”.
No. You don’t know. You can’t hold one specific hypothesis as true, nor false, unless you also consider the opposite hypothesis.


(Galaxy Pig) #115

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Highsec carbear…


(Anderson Geten) #116

argument ad hominem ?

YOU
ARE
WRONG

And not because you are in CODE.
Not because of your gameplay.

You are wrong because you are not able to put 2+2 together.
Your affirmation, that you CAN logically hold an hypothesis as true because of hints, is wrong.
Your affirmation, that there are not hint saying this hypothesis is false, is also wrong (other people than me have given some).

Therefore, the whole article which was cited here, is ■■■■. It is based on fallacious arguments, that affirm something false because this something pleases the writter’s opinion.
CCP did not prove that killing players increases retention. They did not affirm anything like that. People who affirm that, you included, are liars. And you resolve on insulting people when you are proven wrong.


(Galaxy Pig) #117

I rest my case.


(Anderson Geten) #118

corrected.


(Buoytender Bob) #119

With this talk by CCP Rise always being quoted by a certain section of the EVE player base, I decided to try to look closer at exactly what they reported to find. However, CCP has refused over 2 years of tickets by players and requests by CSM members to release more info. No how many times you want to deny it, CCP has not proven cause and effect in regards to PvP ship loss and player retention. CCP Rise did not tie it together and even he admitted that the feedback from players who left was less than accurate; that most players who left refused to fill out a form evaluation of the game. Occam’s Razor would lead us to go with the simplest solution to a puzzle: That players who are self confident and aggressive seek out activities and risks that have a higher chance of ship loss, but are themselves resistant to suffering detrimental effects (wanting to quit the game) because the conflict and struggle are why they are playing the game.
So, the CODE players are correct in that the game was designed and the devs are biased around a PvP environment. That the “best” (in terms of staying power verses adversities) are those risking the most and likely suffering the most property casualties; i.e., losing ships through PvP. These players crave excitement and get this reward by engaging in riskier activities. However, CCP failed to proof that losing ships through PvP increased the general player retention rate as a whole. It is likely to suspect that the new data mining tools and ability has begun to reveal that some of CCP’s most cherished held beliefs may in fact be in error. Yet, until CCP is far more free with the new data, we all have to make educated guesses based on what information we do have.


(Elsebeth Rhiannon) #120

This is a good question but it is not the one I commented on this thread; I merely explained the statistical point. And that point is that survivor bias needs to be taken into account. The data does not say what the interpretation linked implies it says. It also does not say the opposite. And it certainly does not say anything about what CCP should value.