i lkke the optimism in your outlook although i fear you putting two origins with two different outcomes into one outcome.
expirience being abstracted into rule set increase the chance to counter act mistakes … there is step of meta analysid involved and some people have to be beaten with words to do meta analysis.
imho that is.
I’m sorry, that just doesn’t follow. Your comparison is for two insults that are on opposite ends of the scale, at worst carebear is comparable to being called a berk for doing something daft.
2 Likes
No, for the reson it may AS WELL be the opposite : people that WILL retain are more prone to get ganked 
player-on-player interaction is good for retention
That’s a logical fallacy. Its name is “Correlation does not imply causation”
Lets’ consider the following explanation. Please note I do not claim it is true, I just present it to you :
If people are more interested in the game,
- they will play more
1.a so statistically they will have more player interactions,
1.b which in turn implies more chances to get ganked. - they have longer retain time.
This is a possible explanation of your experiment. To me it makes exactly as much sense as the explanation your provided : it is plausible but it is not true. As you can see this explanation does not show any causation between retention and gank.
We can imagine several other explanations, however we can’t prove one explanation is true. Unless we make a randomized double-blind of course.
1 Like
Sorry, I’m not a native english speaker, I did not know of this scale of insults.
next time I meet cops in the street I can call them berks I guess ?
The scale of insults runs from something that could get you a good beating or even killed to what your mother would call you in public for doing something silly.
Berk isn’t something most people outside of the UK would even understand as insulting, let alone the degree of insult; I can say it in front of my mother.
It’s a shortened and polite form of Berkeley Hunt, which in turn is cockney rhyming slang for a word I definitely would not use in front of my mother, because she’d wash my mouth out with soap for doing so; and I’d let her, despite being in my mid 40’s and twice her size.
3 Likes
In the UK you certainly can. They get called that and much, much worse, but walk away in their pairs, discussing the weather.
To do more would involve them in so much paperwork that, honestly, it just isn’t worth it. Also, they too have a scaling system…
1 Like
Wat? 
1 Like
Anderson, I don’t think it’s helpful to give us lessons in logic; you’re clearly an intelligent young man and it does you credit that you grasp so well the intricacies of the various arguments. You have, however, lost me, because instead of answering the point you seem determined to give a lecture.
So here’s a lecture in return:
To put it simply, CCP Rise was (I think) attempting to answer the criticism by anti-gankers that suicide-ganking in Highsec discourages new players, and even makes them quit. This was on the basis that organisations like mine (the CODE.Alliance) deliberately target new players. We don’t, of course.
Now, CCP spokespersons rarely speak directly to an accusation like that. They seem to prefer a broader approach, citing carefully selected data and perfecting the tone and content of their speeches until it’s just out of reach of being the answer everyone was hoping for.
On this rare occasion, CCP Rise admitted that they just couldn’t substantiate the accusation, based on their own data. We gankers were understandably delighted. We know (because we have brains too) that he nowhere said ‘ganking is good for our bottom line’. But it was the first time that anti-gankers got told they were wrong; and they didn’t like it. They still don’t.
Only CCP knows whether or not suicide-ganking is harming Highsec or their income. You can bet your life that if it were really doing either, it would disappear overnight.
I hope I’ve been clear; I do tend to verbosity.
EDIT: Can someone provide him the link? @Black_Pedro?
1 Like
No, not entirely. Forming actual relationships is what is at the root of that. These do not even have to “good” relationships like say friendship (although that is indeed one of them). When I first started playing I met up with another player, we started doing some stuff together, we got killed in LS together and then he brought in a friend, and we formed a corporation, meet others, etc. Would I still be playing if it were not for those initial relationships? Maybe, but I am inclined to believe that I would not be.
I also look at large groups. Why do Goons seem to bounce back so well from adversity in the game while other groups crumble with less adversity? Goons have a resilient culture, IMO. They have built up “institutions” that help keep people in the game. They even help new players enter the game. Goons are very good with new players coming in from the SA Forums, and there is Karmafleet a “noob player” friendly corporation. Goons also have lots of support for these new players as well. Even just an FC noticing the “silly question” from a new bro and asking people to throw him some ISK (new players become billionaires that way quite quick).
No, it is not just a correlation I’m pretty sure there is more to it than that. CCP has been trying really hard to see if what some forum posters call griefing results in players leaving on net and they just can’t seem to find support for that claim. Players being isolated and not directly interacting with others on the other hand sure seems to be bad for retention.
Do you routinely play games you are not interested in? It may be true, but seems like there is a hidden assumption: people pick randomly which games to play.
In the US you can call them anything you like…in theory. Of course that won’t stop them from abusing their authority if they choose too.
Exactly. CCP Rise had an hypothesis. He tested it as best he could and found that not only were the results not supporting the hypothesis, they supported the hypothesis: player-on-player interaction, even negative, can be good for the game.
So, we have to, at the very least, reject the hypothesis: suicide ganking drives out new players.
And on top of it…not only was CCP Rise shocked…his entire team was shocked. They were expecting that the data and analysis would support the hypothesis.
Yes. In a day or two there will be a ding-a-ling to show up and tell us all that the analysis was flawed…horribly flawed. Of course they will have absolutely no argument based on data, statistics or anything else. In fact, I am very certain of this. It has always happened. Of course, that doesn’t mean it will, but my guess is it far more likely to happen than not.
I am reluctantly linking the presentation…usually when I do this is when to dopiness follows.
Edit:
If Lucas Kell were still posting I am absolutely certain he’d show up and tell us the study is horribly flawed based on statements that CCP Rise never made and Lucas made up out of whole clothe.
Edit II:
Also highly likely, the argument that the analysis is horribly, horribly flawed will rest on the “fun fact” CCP Rise gives at the end. The statistic that only 1% of people who leave the game cite ship loss as the reason. A long winded and drawn out post about how such surveys are useless…which is not the data CCP Rise used. At all.
1 Like
My point was stated in this exact sentence :
That’s a logical fallacy. Its name is “Correlation does not imply causation”
I then showed that this explanation, while plausible, is not true. It is not false either ; you can just neither affirm nor deny it.
Thank you, Teckos, I’m obliged to you.
Ah, Lucas Kell, now there was a forum warrior for whom getting it wrong became a whole other EVE career!
1 Like
Please remember than your own experience of an event does not confirm a statistical analysis on this event .
You are mixing two things : your feelings and a rigorous analysis.
You can NOT affirm anything general from only your own experience.
If you want to make a statistical analysis on a topic, you have to admit FIRST that your own opinion must NOT modify the outcome of the experiment.
Yeah…I suppose. You can always fall on that rather unhelpful Frequentist language of “fail to reject the null hypothesis”, but then again I’m more of a Bayesian and look at how the data supports competing hypotheses. The “suicide ganking drives out new players” hypothesis lost support with that study. Is it disproven? No, but you should be less inclined to believe it now…if you want to use logic and probability theory that is.
1 Like
Good thing I didn’t.
1 Like
No, it does not either.
This statistical analysis does not actually prove or invalidate any causation.
That’s exactly the meaning of “correlation does not imply causation” : it looks like a trend, but actually there is no direct relation between the two. And your own experience does not make a global relation true.
I did not say it proves or disproves anything. That you are willfully misreading my post is not my problem. It is your problem. Also, it suggest you do not understand Bayesian statistical analysis.
I did not say it did. You know for somebody who goes on about logic you put alot of words in other people’s keyboards. Might want to look into that as it makes you look bad.
Oh, and yes, the analysis, in a Bayesian framework, would lead the Bayesian to have less belief in the hypothesis: suicide ganking drives out new players.
1 Like
I know, Anderson. I’m not telling you what to do, only what would be helpful (to me, at least!).
I could say, for example, that EVE’s background music is very 80s, and hardly original. Everyone would understand that (though they might not agree with it; I’m just not a fan…).
I could also say that it was mostly in ABA form, with open-ended cadences, pithy melodic motifs, sporadic arpeggiation, and heavily dependent upon ostinato-like basslines - sending readers to their favourite ‘definitions’ site (if they could be bothered - which I doubt).
You’re making an important and worthwhile contribution to the discussion, Anderson; I just find it hard to follow.
Oh, and if you think you can do this you are lying to yourself…separate out your feelings/beliefs from a rigorous analysis.
1 Like
Bayesyan analysis (if you are talking about continuous truth values instead of boolean) still need to be proved.
And you can’t prove it without a rigorous analysis.
You just got done going on about how statistical analysis cannot prove something…now you are contradicting yourself. Which is it please?