EVE General Discussion

Actually without being able to study there methodology that is about all you can say and even that might be stretching it.

But hey you seem to believe that anyone can perform a statistical study if they are determined enough.

Just kill the little bugger and be done with it, this isn't high school, you millennials need to toughen up and fight back.

Which is well done for them and I do hope they learn more and create better studies in the future. A full study into ganking might be very helpful to guide their future thinking, same as getting players to Null or even if they want to and will allow the use of resources properly, rather on those who can vote to get people on the pretty much now useless CSM or scream the most on the forums.

My narrative on the ganking of miners is one thing which this study has neither proved nor disproved. I believe that we have lost large numbers of subs who are Hi-sec primarily, being miners and industrialists. Not primarily Null characters who use Hi-sec to gain isk or a break. As you can see this study did not go near my assumptions at all.

To be honest I hope they do some how increase the ganking on new players as that may help their subscription rate and god knows they need it.

My problem is those that are taking this study as if to prove that all of Hi-sec ganking needs to be increased and calling it a fact. It is a very limited study that CCP may or may not have gotten right.

As to the Jehovah's Witnesses that was not so much aimed at you. That would be for those who keep using the word "fact", for an unprovable study. It is what it is, a concept, an idea.

Without putting your own credentials in public for all to see, why would CCP even think you are at all capable of studying their methodology?

I see very similar things all the time. People, unhappy with inconvenient information try to dismiss it because they personally haven't had the opportunity to verify it, even though quite often they aren't capable of making a reasonable judgement about it anyway.

It's everyone's right of course to place trust or not, where information can't be verified, just as we commonly do in situations where we can actually verify information but choose not to. However as a private company, CCP are under no obligation to release that information to its customers. They've told us what they believe to be the truth and for their business decisions, that's what counts. You can refuse to believe it, but so what?

You don't make decisions for CCP anymore that I do. So what we individually believe or not is irrelevant. It only matters what CCP believe about their data.

Ah damn. There I am all sucked into this totally off topic rubbish.

@OP: How did it work out for you. Did that other miner griefer get his just desserts?

Well...if that sample was indeed randomized then you could very well be wrong.

As I pointed out, when you want to use a sample to determine some summary statistics for a population you do not need 80,000 if your total population is say a few million. You could probably do well with say 1,000. But when you want to break that sample down into smaller sub-groupings, unless you want to use stratified sampling, you should increase your sample size.

Maybe 80,000 isn't enough to answer your questions, but we'd need to see what those sub-groupings looked like.

And yes, this analysis should make you less strident in your claims, IMO. It does suggest that being exposed to PvP leads people to stay longer. Is that true of HS miners? Good question, but if it were me, and being the good Bayesian I am, I'd have to move more towards "ganking is not detrimental" than further away....and so should you.

In relation to newer characters I agree, and this would naturally have a flow on effect to characters as they got older. As to older characters I have my beliefs which I am happy to fight for but cant say I agree that it needs to be increased.

After all does ganking in the first 15 days led to a player who is more concerned about losses later in the game, does this then follow that those players would be less effected by ganking later in their game lives.

And what would be the net effect of increasing ganking on a population that cannot deal with the current level of ganking? Does CCP need a OPE, Older Player Experience in game guide, to show people how to tank etc..

Yes the sub-groupings would be interesting.

Excuse me, but aren't you making an assumption that NOBODY at CCP understands statistics?

Did you not write,



Link

You are the one making an assumption.

Here let me help you out here. I work for a utility. We have lots of engineers, linemen, and even customer service reps....but also alot of people who are very familiar with statistical analysis. We use plain old vanilla regression models, time series models, monte carlo simulations, bayesian probabilities, non-linear regression, and that is just the stuff I've been involve with.

My point is, which apparently went right over your head, that while CCP are not a government statistical agency, that does not mean there are not people at CCP capable of doing good solid statistical analysis.

No that is how you start things like the anti-vaccination movement.


Quite easily, after you go past a field of a statistical study the conclusions become unreliable. In this case for example you are extremely unlikely to lose 6 billion in cargo in a freighter in your first 15 days of play but you can afterwards or a 200 million hulk or an industrial full of cargo worth hundreds of millions.

As to the less than 1% that is a complete just statistic as we do not know he number of non-respondants or the number of similar statements that were not included. That really is of completely no use what so ever.

Yes, I am very aware of the issue with causation, but there was no claims of causation by CCP. They merely reported the statstical findings and noted that they were surprised by a number of findings and that one cannot rely too much on their preconceived notions. In the presentation CCP Rise did some informal polling of the audience and I'm guessing many in the audience were surprised by the findings too.

Was it a definitive analysis of ganking? No. But it is pretty much the only analysis of ganking I'm aware of, and it points to the direction of ganking not being a problem for players less than 15 days old.

Again, if your initial belief is that ganking is bad, this should move you away from that view at least to some degree. In fact, if your initial view is "Ganking is Bad" then this result, if true, should do more to move your posterior beliefs because it would be "more surprising" to you than to someone who felt "Ganking is Not Bad".

Three pages of stats chat that boil down to " since CCP came up with an answer I disagree with, they must have done their sums wrong"