Not in a way you can use one instead of the other.
This is a decent attempt to analyze a fairly complex phenomenon. Measuring and extracting meaning from player activity is difficult because it is both highly varied and noisy. Some observations and examples of this:
-
Some players may have only one player corp that they actively participate in while others may have multiple such corps via alts. The latter may or may not have any overlapping membership in players.
-
Some players may spend some or a lot of their time using alts in NPC corps. They may be very active in playing with friends, fleet pvp, etc, but prefer to use NPC-corp alts to avoid any wardecc risks. They may also shift back and forth between using player-corp alts and npc-corp alts on an inconsistent, varying basis.
-
The nature of EVE game mechanics for ship loss means that most EVE players need to engage in some form of PVE / economic activity in order to fund their PVP. Only a minority subset of players are successful enough at PVP to avoid this on a long-term basis. How a given player conducts this fund-raising activity may be quite variable: some may do it through their main-alt while others may spread it across one or more other alts. Some players may not even have a clearly-measurable main-alt.
-
Real-life demands may be quite variable and inconsistent in their impact on player in-game activity. Although measuring across the entire player population helps reduce some of the noise, itās still difficult to measure trends over shorter-term periods of weeks or a few months. There are simply too many non-measurable external variables that impact how, when, and where players are able to play the game.
The complexity of the above activity analysis makes it challenging to identify causal relationships for player retention. Since Iāve never quit EVE, cancelled a subscription, etc, I donāt know whether CCP tries to do any surveys regarding why a given player leaves the game. Even if they do, I doubt that the survey participation rate is high. It may also not necessarily be consistent with the reasons that players leave as a whole.
Trying to understand why players increase or decrease their activity, leave or donāt leave the game, is at best a murky data science problem. One can look for outliers and try to respond to some of them, but I think it would be a mistake in most cases to make too much of a bet in altering the game based on any single outlier even if it looks strong.
2 Likes
I havenāt tried to do so, you on the other handā¦
Do you think new players will like the game better without PvP?
Thatās what Iām getting from you.
I can fly across highsec and not see a war fleet, or individual fights. I mean, that stuff is over.
Literally, I canāt remember the last time I witnessed PvP in highsec that I didnāt instigate.
Iām guessing noobs donāt even witness PvP anymore.
Should it just be removed from the game?
You did here.
If you talk about PvP, it would be nice if you would precisely write about what kind of PvP you think.
EVE is full of PvP, not only people shooting each other. But if you mean shooting at each other, I have seen PvP in high sec a lot in Jita and around it for few weeks already. I am not worried about lack of PvP in EVE.
Try quoting in full.
To wit.
That education being somewhat about how to care for your children, by not defecating in the drinking water for example. Education is a very important part of healthcare; Cholera in the UK in the 1830ās being an example of poor health education leading to disease.
I said education is correlated to a reduction in birth rate and you opposed this by saying education is a factor in healthcare. I thus say this is unrelated for one reasons that birth rate and healtcare are not linked in this context, and for reason two because the education you are talking about (learning HOW to poop) is not concerned by the articles I gave. Try learning to read.
Iām going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that English is not your first language. If you have trouble comphrehending what I have written I will happily explain it to you in simple terms.
Both are true, education is correlated to a reduction in birth rate, and education is a factor in healthcare.
I thus say this is unrelated for one reasons that birth rate and healtcare are not linked in this context
Except that they are, education is a primary driver of improved healthcare; sanitary toilet use meaning that people donāt die as often from waterborne disease caused by poor sanitation.
and for reason two because the education you are talking about (learning HOW to poop) is not concerned by the articles I gave.
WHERE to perform your toilet, not how. Furthermore infant mortality, which tends to correlate with higher than the norm birthrates to compensate is linked to poor healthcare and sanitation.
Try learning to read
Try taking your own advice.
you need to learn what birth rate means.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/birth-rate
The birth rate in a place is the number of babies born there for every 1000 people during a particular period of time.
I am well aware of what it means, in 1st world countries it is on the decline, in 3rd world countries it is higher than that in 1st world countries; the primary difference being advanced healthcare and education.
Try again.
No you have no idea, otherwise you would not say that birth rate and healthcare are linked to the point one can be used instead of the other.
eg like :
this post of yours makes zero sense, unless you have no idea what is birthrate.
Is more babies going to lead to a return to better than 2007 PCU numbers in Jan-Feb?
Otherwise wtf does this have to do with this topic at all?
3 Likes
1 Like
Which part do you not understand?
When less children die before adulthood, people have less children. In Niger the average amount of children a woman will give birth to is 7.1, in Europe it is 1.7; the former has less access to both education and healthcare than most countries in the latter. Ergo it seems that both education and healthcare are factors behind a declining birthrate.
I would guess that most women in Africa donāt want to be baby factories, or wouldnāt if they knew about contraception and hygienic practices; but due to the lower education and healthcare standards they donāt really have a choice if they want to see at least some of their kids reach adulthood.
In Europe most people see all of their children reach adulthood, not just a few; thus not being a baby factory is a choice, which is helped by education in terms of sexual health (contraception) and generally more hygienic practices.
NO. cf all the articles I gave you. You can have a high life expectancy AND high birth rate at the same time (that is population explosion). There is no historical correlation between the two - however there is historical correlation between women education and reduction in birth rate.
That was precisely the point of the articles I linked on previous posts.
Please learn to read.
Did you honestly expect it to?
The game is almost 16 years old m8
So WHO, The Lancet, The BMJ and several other respected authorities are wrong because you didnāt link to anything that contradicts your argument?
An example:
Author: Hanson LA; Bergstrom S; Department of Clinical Immunology and Paediatrics, University of Gothenburg and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital, Uppsala University, Sweden.Source: ACTA PAEDIATRICA. 1990 May; 79(5):481-9.
Abstract:
Employing historical and recent data, this study indicates that as infant mortality decreases, birth rates also decline. Industrialized countries with low infant mortality show low birth rates, while developing countries with high infant mortality exhibit the highest birth rates. But some developing countries, including Sri Lanka, China, and Costa Rica, have seen a decline in birth rates, following successful efforts at curbing infant mortality. Studies show that as infant mortality begins to decrease, fertility rates follow within 10 years. Many factors help explain this relationship, but one seems particularly important: breastfeeding. Breastfeeding substantially decreases infant mortality, leading to better birth spacing, thereby decreasing fertility. Breastfeeding accounts for as much as 75% of the variability in fertility, compared to less than 10% due to maternal nutrition. A rise in the education level of women also plays a significant role: it decreases infant mortality and fertility and increases breastfeeding, further lowering infant mortality and fertility. Other factors such as family size, modernization, and socioeconomic conditions clearly affect infant mortality and birth rates; however, it is difficult to weigh the extent of their impact. The relationship between infant mortality and birth rate could help explain why family planning efforts in countries with high infant mortality have not been very successful.
Socioeconomic conditions being access to healthcare and education amongst many other things.
Another:
Infant (and child) mortality is connected with fertility in two ways. Reductions in child mortality used to be regarded as a key trigger for the fertility transition (it reduces the ā demandā for children by improving the chances of survival to adulthood), and although this is no longer seen as a hard-and-fast causal link, there are analyses that strongly suggest that continuing high rates of infant and child mortality are significant barriers to fertility decline in Sub-Saharan Africa (e.g. Bongaarts 2008). Causation also runs in the other direction, as reductions in fertility contribute to falls in infant mortality by enabling parents to devote more time and resources to their children.
The latest estimates of infant mortality from the UN Interagency Group for Child Mortality Estimation (UN IGME) show that Sub-Saharan Africa is the region with the highest level of child mortality, with an infant mortality rate of 64 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2012 (Fig.1). Nearly half of all infant deaths round the world occur in Sub-Saharan Africa. There were 2.1 million deaths in the region in 2012.
however there is historical correlation between women education and reduction in birth rate.
I never said otherwise.
Back on topic.
The OP appears to be in the southern hemisphere, summer in the northern hemisphere is several months away, and that is the summer that most people refer to when discussing the concurrent user count.
yes, you exactly said they are linked.
Make up your mind.
No, YOU are wrong because you were affirming there is a causation from ālower infant childrenā to ālower birth rateā, without any source for this affirmation.
This is exactly as wrong as saying āwardec nerf have killed eve onlineā without any source.
and sorry, look at the fig 4 without the red line and tell me there is a ācertain correlation between fertility rate and infant mortality rateā
You did not specify what kind of PVP. New players slowly learn the ships, mechanics, space areas and things like that on their first character usually without alts. When you come to offer them elite PVP most of them will probably not like the perma wardec and choose to play a game with less limited sandbox choises as you will fight them if they are weak but instantly dock up if they appear to be nasty alts of experienced and well funded players. If all they see is cowards in their first experience itās dificult for them to talk to others about that awesome game they canāt play for a week because some delusional recruiter is wrecking their ships if they undock. Then uses alts to spy and will be able to have ships offline waiting to catch them with experience. Itās easy to drive new players out of the game. Yes, that might be how you select your corp mates but you are also deciding CCPās income and they had it with your attitude, taht is why you are complaining on the forums that you will be forced to actually PVP against more experienced players and somehow DO NOT LIKE THAT PVP. So even if they stayā¦ PVP does not look like the best future outlook, right?