You are fooling noone, repeating liar.
2 Likes
You’re hardly a paragon of virtue when it comes to bending the truth.
Quoting CCP Rise when listing the findings of their study:
"People in the ‘ganked’ group were the most likely to stay subscribed…
…People who don’t die at all were the most likely to leave the game."
and lastly:
“Less than one percent of cancelled subscriptions cite player harassment or ship loss as a reason.”
LOL are these direct quotes also lies?
Nice try.
Now go and listen to the entire talk where they also say that they don’t know if ganking has anything to do with it. They actually say that one of the strongest indicators they found was social connection.
Because one could also say “People who stay subscribed get ganked more” from the data CCP developed and it would be equally true. Or even “People who play for more hours are more likely to get ganked at least once” which is also true from their data and blatantly obvious.
This is why a Correlation does not equal a causation, because a Correlation is a two way relationship with no direct indicator of if A causes B, or if B causes A, or if C causes both A & B.
4 Likes
Right, they only ever observed a correlation.
A correlation that is inconsistent with the carebear narrative.
MANNNNNNN, Bummer. 
Which…
A: Isn’t actually inconsistent because there are a number of ways the data could create the correlation yet still actually be ganking is a negative for retention. Note, this is not me saying ganking is a negative, just that the CCP study doesn’t actually eliminate that possibility.
B: Isn’t anything I’ve claimed, I’ve never said ganking drives people away, I’ve just said that the CCP study can not be used to claim ganking is good for the game, and that you are wrong in how you are attempting to interpret the study.
2 Likes
Oh, I know, I know.
You guys really don’t want this to be true, but it is.
You guys really don’t want CCP to have conclude their study, disconfirming the carebear narrative to their own satisfaction, but they did.
CHEW ON IT! CHEW ON THE FACTS! BWAAAHAHAHAHA
except CCP exactly said it’s not.
You are whinning that reality does not bend to your liking.
The cold harsh reality is : you are wrong.
Your opinion is BS. It’s been proven wrong.
And you don’t need to have CCP explain it to you, though they did. Just logically, your opinion is stupid.
Then you claim the facts, while you are distorting, rewording, what CCP said.
example :
No it’s not. The study was about another correlation. The study was tailored to try and find that correlation, with the minimum biases possible. So now if they notice something else in the study, it can totally be of the way the study was tailored (read : artifact). That’s still a possible field of work.
The only conclusion of their study is “we could not find that correlation”. Yes, there are interesting data that can lead to potential research. But claiming they are the conclusion of the study is BS.
They are out of context. So yes.
The moment you cite CCP for one thing, and the deduction you make contradicts what they say, then you know you are wrong.
So, you are wrong.
And when distorting facts to make them fit your opinion, you are a liar.
2 Likes
Hold on, everybody, I think Anderson is getting confused. I’m now only directly quoting the developer, but still he goes on and on.
I drop/concede all claims. The only claim I am now making is that these are the exact words of CCP Rise as he presented their findings at fanfest:
Yes, I know you’re struggling with this reality, Anderson, but we’ll get you through this, together. <3
You are. You are quoting out of context, and claim that this is the conclusion of the study. Therefore you are lying.
The quote you made was as an argument that killing people increases retention. While CCP actually explicitly stated that this interpretation is wrong. If you don’t understand that when you claim leads to a contradiction, then your claim are wrong, it means you are stupid.
You’re still confused, Anderson. The study was concluded at this point. These are their findings. Findings.
Try again, I believe in you.
Try again, but I believe you have some deficiencies so I bear no hope. This is still only findings in the context of the study. Out of this context, this means nothing.
This is interesting data, but that means nothing by itself, and can’t be used as an argument, as CCP already explained - which you would have already understood if you were not a blatant liar.
LOL I was curious as to how your head would spin when I stop making any claims and just start quoting the developer.
So I think we’ve reached an understanding here. Instead of the obvious conclusion any reasonably minded person would draw, that ‘Ganking is good for the game’, we gankers should just start posting these three finings of CCP.
and watch the carebears writhe like so many electrified earth-worms from the beginning of that Matthew Broderick Godzilla movie, remember that? 
Well CCP clearly stated that this conclusion is stupid.
So the only conclusion a reasonably minded person could draw, is that you are stupid.
But well, nothing new here.
DO YOU REMEMBER THE GODZILLA MOVIE FROM THE YEAR 2000?!?!?!?
Right, okay. So, luckily I’m NOT claiming that, I’m only claiming:
It would have been funny if somebody had asked CCP before the study: “What if the results show that ganking is good for the game? Will you believe it?”
Which is wrong, because out of context.
So, stupid, because any reasonably minded person knows that taking sentences out of context is stupid.
funfact : CCP stated that the result does not show that ganking is good for the game.
Wait a min, the exact quote is wrong, Anderson?
Just to clear things up, I’m in no way claiming that ganking is good for the game. I’m only claiming:
CCP Rise said that. Yep Definitely not that ganking is clearly good for the game. He did not say that.
Yes, it’s wrong, because it’s out of context.
And I did not say he did. You are failing again.