Science needs people who provide different point of view. Mine involves different sample sizes.
5 Likes
This is what is wrong with eve but by fixing this you change the game entirely
Nice try at deflection and as per your usual troll persona, twist everything around and then portray it out of context. Please learn how to read before posting your delusional crap, nowhere did I suggest or state that newbies stay in starter systems for over a month.
That whole presentation from Rice was about the NPE being updated and explaining why new players weren’t subbing after doing the trial period which only lasted for 2 weeks. So yeah, I’ll bet the majority of those test subjects never did leave the starter systems or even complete all the Career Agents.
By the way, it takes longer than a few hours for brand new players to complete the Tutorial and all 5 Career Agents, especially while learning how to operate the User Interface.
That was supposedly based on people who filled out the little questionnaire when asked why they quit. In reality it was just another bullcrap statement in his presentation which he conveniently left out a lot of other pertinent facts such as the amount of canceled accounts during that time frame, amount of questionnaires sent out and the amount of replies they received. And since it wasn’t verified by a 3rd party independent survey service it doesn’t matter what the numbers were in that presentation.
Please stop posting your twisted lies as factual truth.
So angry because reality does not match with your views. I’m not sure why you always have to lie so much to try to make a point.
1 Like
Ok I will take it in consideration and I will see where it go from there
Don’t forget to update us on your adventures. Always quite nice to hear back from new players how their perception of the game changes 
Heh, typical fail response from a little carebear ganker. The majority of your replies in these forums are nothing but lies, constantly twisting and contorting statements which you then portray out of context. And when that fails, you then attempt to redirect attention from yourself with unsubstantiated accusations upon others.
1 Like
Thanks for sharing your tears DMC. But I will not wast my time to even try to discuss with such a dishonest person like you who has shown repeatedly that he lies at every occasion to push his little carebear agenda.
3 Likes
2 Likes
Ya know, I have no personal involvement in this whatsoever, but why don’t you take it out on him in the game?
Not trying to be malign towards you or him, I’m just legitimately wondering about that. You can find DMC at public roleplaying events. On Federation Day he was in Luminaire shooting fire works with the rest of the bunch.
I’ve got no idea what the freakin’ ■■■■ is going on with you people spending so much time hating each other on the forums, when you can way more effectively hate each other in the game! In the game no one can hide behind words and anyone who stays docked because of baddies outside still has to stay docked, or play on an alt.
I’m not personally involved, as I said, but what’s going on between people bashing each other on the forums is basically this:
Quite embarrassing, ain’t it so? That’s why people fight with fists in real life eventually instead of just stupidly throwing words at each other as if it meant anything at all. They beat each other up. ‘s how things worked successfully for millenia. The one with words submits to the one with fists. Violence is always a solution. Might not be the best one, yeah, but it’s definitely a solution and most often it’s the final solution, which is a-okay in EVE because it’s just a fuckin’ game. There’s so many fuckin’ ways of making people suffer and all the peeps around here do is writing stupid words of impotent rage that do nothing. Fuckin’ embarrassin’, I’d say.
Need an example? Look at Kane. What’d he do if he sees someone deserving ass-whoopin’? He seeks him out and whoops his ass! No wastin’ time on the forums, no wastin’ time typin’ words except “Hello there”, which ‘s all he fuckin’ needed and everyone knew what the ■■■■ was going to happen next.
Most tryhard forum warriors don’t even play the game tbh, so kinda hard to get back at them there 
1 Like
It’s not about being plausible. It’s about the interpretation of IMA being wrong. “correlation is not causation”, so opposing the idea that people getting ganked after 5days against the correlation “being ganked is in correlation with remaining on the game” is a stupid way of arguing.
Seriously, he really needs to go to school and learn what is logic, because this is just affirming ■■■■■■■■ “because it show I am right”.
I started the game in 2007 I think, got ganked in LS, did not understand why, thought the time spend to acquire the resources needed for another ship was not fun, and uninstalled. So yes it definitely happens.
Gave it another shot later on and it was ok this time.
I tried several times to mine and every time I get ganked before I make more money than my ship is worth. Note that I did not lose many ships, because they fail too - but this means for me this afk activity this is not worth it in HS.
8 Likes
Calm down random forum carebear. I’m not hating on anyone, I’m just having a good time forum PvPing my enemies. I can assure you that I also elite-PVP my enemies (there are plenty if theme everywhere) inside the game when I’m at home at the computer.
As for DMC, he is just another random carebear and there is simply no reason to talk to him because he lies all the time. But I don’t hate him and I don’t have an issue with him doing whatever he does in the game, I don’t think singling out and harassing people like you suggest is ok.
Now if he had a corp and would infuse his toxic attitude onto new players that would be a different story. But apart from his constant lying and pushing his carebear agenda on the forums he seems to keep to himself.
1 Like
While correlation can reflect a causal relationship, and often does, I don’t think Ima claimed that it was that simple. If anything, I did by saying it is plausible to me that having your ship explode to another player is more interesting (and more likely to have better player retention) than sitting in a belt, alone in the silence of space, refilling your Venture for weeks on end before you quit out of boredom. I think all Ima said is that correlation isn’t predicted by the common wisdom amongst Eve veterans that ganking in Eve drives away new players as CCP Rise described in that video.
Yes, but if nothing had happened for weeks or months on end but you running missions or mining alone, would you also have quit?
I have no doubt people quit after being ganked, or losing a ship in a war, or being scammed or whatever. But I am less sure that more people quit for those reasons than just are bored and drift away from the game before something interesting happens to capture their attention/imagination. My sense is that way, way more people either never get past the complicated UI and game mechanics or fail find any interactions with the greater game and see no goal or point to the simplistic PvE the NPE points them at, than quit over losing something in-game.
1 Like
nope.
That is just logically false, hence why people say “correlation is not causation”.
That is just false. Because you just don’t want to think of the hassle to get another ship, especially when you did not get the money back from investing in the first one.
Do you know why IRL we make criminals go to jail ? Because it is not fun to have your perspective shred by someone. So unless you lack any empathy, you can’t say that losing something is fun.
Sure it’s no fun to do the same job everyday. Yet I you lost your home/car/legs would it be fun ? This is just nonsense.
YES because a correlation is of no use by itself.
Really you should also go to school and learn how to analyze scientific data.
All you are saying when discussing this correlation is nonsense.
I mean, it’s not hard to understand that a correlation is ONLY a perceived relation between the occurrences, which does NOT mean any form of causation ! Your whole interpretation is one-sided to make it support your opinion, but really this is just ■■■■■■■■ ! It’s just a CHOICE you made to INTERPRET the correlation in a way, without any further evidence that this specific choice actually makes any sense.
Maybe, and maybe no, we don’t know and never will.
You know, with “if” we can make the earth round. Wait …
Other than that, maybe if I had a bit more time I would have talked to other people, I would have found something interesting, instead of being thrown away from the game - which is how I felt.
9 Likes
Lol. Practically every (all?) causal relationships have a very high correlation between cause and effect. My lights go on almost every time I press the switch - the events are very highly correlated. My car starts almost every time I turn the key - very highly correlated are the two events. People who get a sunburn correlate highly with people who sit in the sun for long periods of time without protection, and so on. Effects are highly correlated with their direct causes.
I, of course, accept this is how you feel, but your are far too confident extrapolating your experience and views onto everyone else.
The number of players who try Eve and don’t stay dwarf by orders of magnitude the number that get ganked as new player. There has to be more common experience of why people don’t stay with the game than being ganked and quitting. Maybe people just don’t like it. Or find it boring. Or too complicated. Fair enough, but you do not know why most people choose not to stick with the game.
I don’t know either, but I think it plausible that being exploded is more likely to capture someone’s interest than nothing happening because Venture mining alone is such terrible gameplay to force on a new player expecting giant space battles. That would explain the correlation CCP observed, but I can’t really say more than that with just a correlation to go on.
2 Likes
That is a very bad idea of what “correlation is not causation” means.
The thing is, correlations are commutative relations. That means, if you can observe a correlation between “I use swith” and “light appears”, if you accept that “I used switch"→” light appears", it also means "light appears"→ “I used switch”. Both causation are totally possible without further information.
Of course, you are considering the temporal parameter, that means that the second one is true. This is false.
If you have a correlation between A and B, you have two possibilities : there is, or there is no, causation between A and B. This leads to basically four cases :
- A implies B
- B implies A
- A equals B, ie 1. and 2. are both true : A→B and B→A
- there is a third parameters C, which is not observed, and not caused by A nor B, plus C→A and C→B .
Since the existence of a hidden parameter C can not be discarded ( you can’t prove something does not exist) by mere data observation (you need active data generation), affirming there is a causation when you observe a causation is 100% false.
Yet people , like you did, rather affirm the 1. is the only possible explanation, just because they are unable to admit that things they can’t imagine are able to produce effects they observe.
(and it’s funny because all your examples go in the 3.)
^THAT^ is what “correlation is not causation” means.
Also, no, not all events that have a causation relation translate into a correlation. The correlation is based on your observations, which may not be able to reveal that correlation.
for example, if in all your observation the light is ALWAYS on, then you can’t extract a correlation between “use switch” and “light”. another example, is if the sun light is too high and creates noise in your data.
So, to sum up:
Correlation does not imply causation
Causation does not imply correlation.
I am not. You are. This was just an EXAMPLE, which shows that if you say something like “this does not happen often”, then you need to have very good data because I’m sure it happened at least once. Because YOU are extrapoling your experience.
Also you’ll note I said “was ganked in LS” not “was ganked mining”, which means I am not talking about the CODE. ganking habit but the reason why people are driven away from the game.
9 Likes
Of course. That is obvious. It’s also not what I said.
Correlations often reflect underlying causation. Not always, and not definitively, but often, and if it isn’t direct, it usually hints at another underlying relationship. It’s plausible to me that being ganked is a direct cause of increased player retention as the alternate, not being ganked and left alone in a silent asteroid belt, seems a poor game experience unlikely to attract many players. Of the two options, I would predict one to have a higher retention rate and that might be what is reflected in CCP statistical study.
But my hypothesis is not proven by the correlation - that’s why I used the word ‘plausible’. No after-the-fact observational study will be able to prove causation. Please, feel free to disagree with my hypothesis, but you can’t use the fact that there is a correlation between the two as proof that being ganked isn’t a cause of increased retention. It very well still could be that ganking is the cause of increased retention, and to me seems the simplest explanation but I am willing to entertain other hypotheses as well.
it is exactly what you said :
and this is false.
source ?
I am not. I am saying your interpretation of this correlation is ONLY a possible interpretation, yet you use this as a factual knowledge. And this way of affirming things is a misuse of scientific data, that is, a lie.
The term “plausible” is a lie. I looked it up in dictionary and it implies a high probability, which requires some data analysis.
The correct term is “possible”. This one does not convey any meaning of probability, just the fact that this “causal” interpretation has not been proven false yet - just like the reciprocal causation interpretation.
9 Likes
Common sense? Ok how about wikipedia:
The conventional dictum that “correlation does not imply causation” means that correlation cannot be used to infer a causal relationship between the variables.[15] This dictum should not be taken to mean that correlations cannot indicate the potential existence of causal relations. However, the causes underlying the correlation, if any, may be indirect and unknown, and high correlations also overlap with identity relations (tautologies), where no causal process exists.
The emphasis is mine. Causal relationships can, and usually are correlative with their effects. This is practically self-evident. Just because something correlates with something else doesn’t mean it can’t be the cause of it as you seem to be asserting. In fact, it often is the cause of the other thing like in the examples I gave above.
I use plausible because I think it the most likely explanation for the observed correlation. Others won’t think that and might decide something else is more plausible. That’s just how things go when we don’t have all the data that we need to prove something.
Ok enough of this. The forum software is suggesting I stop bickering with you and I tend to agree with it. You can believe whatever you want.
o/
1 Like