Before this paragraph … All are your opinions . This last paragraph also but beside that… tells me how much you are out of context to analyse the and read the provided data … your opinions Based on nothing . If you read the details of thse researchs you can soo they measure the results by measuring / or gathering having about behavioral apects , decision making process actions . They do this because they want to see if it is related and with human behaviors in real life economic systems . It is not even hypotesis anymore. It was 12 years ago and hypotesis… not anymore
If you have nothing in your hand please stop pushing your personal opnions and beliefs here.
What happened your other half dozen of your posts in this thread?
Interesting , they all removed from the notification feeds too.
If you deleted them …
Why are you sending same stuff again you have wrote before ?
This made me remember an old argument in red donut … guy called DTM argued with me and claim that there is no compulsion loops in EvE. :)) it was funny…
I never delete posts? But then again I’m unsure of your reading comprehensions skill so
No matter how you try to fry the salami, all you are offering is opinion. No matter how many links you post, it is only data and opinions. You would have to do an entire other study, with data you don’t have, in order to prove your hypothesis, which you haven’t even clearly stated.
I’m sending the “same stuff” because it is exactly that. Its funny you’re trying the rubber/glue thing with opinions. Its cute. Its also wrong.
Their research is looking at specific points and datums in EVE, yes. However, you are then attempting to correlate their data and research in coincide with your own theory. That effort also needs to involve study and research, which you aren’t doing and don’t have access to all the data you need.
You are essentially trying to conduct a lit review right now. The fact that you have no idea seemingly what I am talking about right now makes me heavily doubt you have any formal training in this field.
Dear @ISD_Golem, @ISD_Buldath
IN this OP and thread I wanted to share some data and constructive feedback, the suggestion to CCP.
The nature of the subject requires specialisation to understand and this feedback was for CCP. And related administrative positions in CCP. As in the past, this platform pointed out to me by Dopamine to voice these. So I have voiced it.
Required terminology to understand and concept have many components that differ from daily usage of these words and concepts. And this makes it hard to grab the context for everyone who has no special in the area.
Please close the thread since it has served its purpose. I would like to say thanks to everyone who shared opinions and comments.
I have presented the context. And it is a well-researched subject. Research process requires evaluations about all my points to be evaluated in order to come these conclutions. Which means you need to read it . And to understand what you read, you need to learn the right meaning of the words in that academic terminology. Simple good examples are term “scarcity”, term “bias” , economic decision making process….
Every specialist can easily grab. And i did not expect people to understand who did not have special in the area. As i mentioned in title , the post is letter to CCP.
And that is the important part. Rest really does not matter in this case.
@Aisha_Katalen i remember your first post in this thread. And this.
Very positive, constructive and thanks for sharing your ideas. @Gix_Firebrand you too .
Factor "volunteer already mentioned in research and simply volunteer or not economic decision-making process and other valuables related.
Scarcity is a mechanics developers use in video games. It is a method. A strategy. And my post challenges that methodology. What mentioned Researches take the virtual games and virtual economies and compare them with real-life humans economical behaviours. parameters they are evaluating shows these behavioural patterns related.
Your statement is it is because it is not real life it is not because of scarcity.
There are scarcity experiments in Princeton university students by using a game.
""So, we decided to run a study with Princeton undergraduates, who nobody would say are unsophisticated. Working with Anuj Shah, we had them play a “Family Feud”-like computer game and randomly assigned them to be rich or poor in the amount of time they had to answer questions, giving the rich 50 seconds per round and the poor 15 seconds. Half of the participants were also given the option to borrow time, but every second they borrowed cost two seconds from the entire bucket of time they had available for the game.
We found that when people were rich with time they were very judicious, needed it less, and only very occasionally took a loan. But when they were time-poor, these sophisticated Princeton students grabbed these available loans to try and do well in the game and ended up making less money than the time-poor students who weren’t given the option to borrow. These students made the same mistakes that we observed among poor people.“”
This is one of the links I have shared in this thread. Did you read it? Scarcity is a mechanic Developers use in game design. As well as poverty real live life and death parameters are just under the name of the scarcity description but do not cover even %5 of the academic definition. But seem like covers the all people who does not study this are knows,
Also, I have mentioned already who I am in OP. Written straight clear by me. Why need these? ? Why you are trying to get this via grammatic and written language evaluation
