This is an interesting statistic, but it doesn’t provide any support for at least one “solution” I’ve seen suggested in these forums: change the game so non-beginners of all kinds are even more likely to gank newbies.
Correlations are a good source of hypotheses to test - and the results of such tests sometimes identify causes and/or significant factors.
OTOH addressing the statistic in the most direct way, which feels (incorrectly) like applying Occam’s Razor, frequently create larger problems that the one the statistic reflects
I think you’re the one imposing your opinion contrary to the indication of the data. The assertions I made earlier are consistent with the data and their presentation.
A 98% correlation is just correlation, but I’ve never encountered a correlation that high in my professional career which does not contain a clear (and usually obvious) causation. From a statistical standpoint, this is as black and white as it gets. At this level of correlation, I would feel comfortable that causation should be relatively easy to determine.
even considering that, I still only recommended an environmental adjustment to reduce the incidence of a scenario that is known to correlate with “quitting” at a 98% rate. This is still appropriate even if I have no idea why.
This is not only proper, but an obvious use of this statistic. Failure to respond to this statistic ina similar manner would strike me as silly to the point of negligent.
Your assumptions are not. They are just your opinion that you want to pass as “fact” while it’s not fact, it’s just “assumption” that fit your mind. It’s dishonest and in total opposition to making statistical analysis.
yes you did. Just right now.
Because a correlation is not single-way : A and B are correlated also means B and A are correlated. So if you assume there is a causation from A to B, then there is also a causation from B to A. And since A and B are not equals, you can’t have both causations at the same time. So there is a correlation from B to A of 98% that can’t be a causation.
And even your (lack of ) experience does not mean you are right. Just because there is a 99.999% correlation does not mean there is a causation. That’s what you don’t get, doing it this way is wrong intrinsically, and saying otherwise just shows you lack scientific education.
A correlation is NEVER a causation (unless proven so).
Assuming a correlation is a causation, as a knowledgeable basis, is ALWAYS an scientific failure.
Your arrogance is as remarkable as your hypocricy.
I’m implying inaction at this level of correlation is deeply silly.
My mathematics education is firm enough for me to say this in confidence regardless of your vitriolic response.
Statistics, as a field, would be useless if we were incapable of taking action on 98% correlations.
You are refusing to see that which is implied so strongly because you hate the idea of noobs being pvp’ed.
The correct course of action in this instance is to follow the correlation and continue to monitor (which is how we address the 2% absence of correlation).
Causation doesn’t even matter. We don’t need to know why… we know the scenario and we can avoid it entirely.
Your ignorance is as remarkable as your lack of self conscience.
I’m teaching you assuming causation at any level of correlation is a mistake.
watch this, it’s for children maybe you can understand it.
You have no scientific education. That’s one of the first things you learn when you do scientific work : this behavior of yours leads to being wrong 100% of the time.
Statistics are in the eye of the beholder.
And that’s why people know that statistics are actually useless.
And that’s why scientific papers relies on actual experience and not statistical data.
Watch the video, CCP explains why it’s useless.
You know NOTHING. At all.
You want to be right so much that you accept to be wrong.
You hypocrisy is so strong that you can’t even realize that you want things to be worst even for you or Eve.
You can affirm a carrot is a tomato as long as you want. You are only showing your lack of common sense and ability to make a correct discussion.
I think it shows how much people can be wrong if they believe that some archetypical PvP or PvE player exists, and his normal, average behaviors are able to be exploited, then building games around those types.
And then why we have constantly dropping numbers. Makes you think.
Let me tell you the fairytale of McLoudMouth FightClubber and Helpy Carebear.
A long time ago in a galaxy far far away McLoudMouth FightClubber rode on his bike. In his “I can do wut I wont!” attitude he drives over a sharp object.
More and more air inside the tire, totally fed up with his abuse, leaves the tire. Driving becomes difficult.
But then… out of nowhere, Helpy Carebear comes to help you. Helpy Carebear fixes the hole in the tire. McLoudMouth FightClubber, being all smug, says “Dude, you were going to fix the retention of air in the tire! What you did doesn’t really make the air come in, now does it?”. McLoudMouth FightClubber shouts angry words only cool people say and flails his arms wildly. A crowd gathers wondering what is going on.
Helpy Carebear asks “The tire is patched but needs more air now. Will everyone help blow some in?”. The crowd, disgusted by McLoudMouth FightClubber’s attitude shake their head and walk off. McLoudMouth FightClubber rages and stomps his feet saying “You Carebears are ruining society with your toxic attitude!” and punches Helpy Carebear in the stomach. Helpy Carebear finally just gives up and tries to find a less toxic person to help.
But by all means, blame CCP or whatever bike or tire manufacturer if it helps you cope with things.
It’s not useless. Just as saying that 80% of tree leaves are green in spring. It’s interesting for what it’s worth. But now you affirming that 80% of the tree leaves are extra terrestrial is just complete retard.
But yeah for most people (especially people who have no rigor but want to show a point… like you) statistical data is useless.
It’s useful to a degree, for example easier spread of wealth (insurance policies use them a lot), new market analysis, etc. But not for modeling interactions.
“my narrative” being ?
You are just saying carrots are tomatoes. Sorry for calling your ignorant, but that’s what you are.
Watch the vids or STFU. Nothing more to add, if you rather be a retard all your life at this point it’s up to you.
