The state of the game...

"ScummerAntilles;c-2041669" wrote:
I am literally a social scientist, you are talking about the method in which data is collected. In this case, I collected it over years of experience, observation, and commitment to knowing how the game is being perceived because I have made managing a guild in this game a major hobby. You are calling data anecdotal because a person collected it, rather than a person designing a collection system. At the end it is all a human collection system. Except in my case, variables examined aren't limited to "total cash spent aggregate" nor does my position posit that the measure of a community's health is whether the designers made money.

I don't think you really understand how data works and what constitutes good data.

If you collected data, then let's see your data. Numbers. Actual quantifiable information and not just "it's bad because I'm not enjoying it."

Anything less makes you a liar.

"Jarvind;c-2041671" wrote:

"ScummerAntilles;c-2041669" wrote:
I am literally a social scientist, you are talking about the method in which data is collected. In this case, I collected it over years of experience, observation, and commitment to knowing how the game is being perceived because I have made managing a guild in this game a major hobby. You are calling data anecdotal because a person collected it, rather than a person designing a collection system. At the end it is all a human collection system. Except in my case, variables examined aren't limited to "total cash spent aggregate" nor does my position posit that the measure of a community's health is whether the designers made money.

I don't think you really understand how data works and what constitutes good data.

If you collected data, then let's see your data. Numbers. Actual quantifiable information and not just "it's bad because I'm not enjoying it."

Anything less makes you a liar.

I was kind enough to explain to you, in the post you quote, if you were a good enough reader that conflating "data" and "quantification" is a pretty clear indicator that you don't know what data is or how it is used to assess reality.

Plato's Republic is a book. I can see X trends in how people rely to Y stimulus, based on what they say. When I mix this chemical with that chemical, it smells like vanilla. If you think those kinds of measures or statements aren't data... wow... please stop speaking with a voice of authority.

You can't convince me I don't know what I know and now that I'm not actually my own profession with some lazy smug understanding that I am literally paid to disabuse people of when I train them on how to use data and what it is.

If you want me to go further on this I will require you to pay me, this is my trade and I don't work for free.

If you are trying to argue most people are enjoying the game right now I feel sorry for you. I'm glad it gives you comfort that CG made a lot of money...

Too be fair Marquee packs have doubled. So where even a year ago normal Marquee packs and such were 9.99, they are now 19.99. So really if there was the same amount of people making purchases as it was a year ago, the $ should be doubled, not just a little over. Money is not success in business. Any business person will tell you 5 people paying $5 is much better than 1 person paying $30. Yes it is less on paper, but more foot traffic means more chances for purchased. I'd be much more interested to see a "foot traffic" report. How many people are logging in today compared to a year or two ago?

"ScummerAntilles;c-2041669" wrote:
I am literally a social scientist, you are talking about the method in which data is collected. In this case, I collected it over years of experience, observation, and commitment to knowing how the game is being perceived because I have made managing a guild in this game a major hobby. You are calling data anecdotal because a person collected it, rather than a person designing a collection system. At the end it is all a human collection system. Except in my case, variables examined aren't limited to "total cash spent aggregate" nor does my position posit that the measure of a community's health is whether the designers made money.

I don't think you really understand how data works and what constitutes good data.

I have no problems with a person designing a data collection system as well as the data, but it still needs to be done in a methodical, quantifiable, and consistent manner to actually stand up to scrutiny and peer review. As a social scientist, you should know that.

"SamAccountX;c-2041680" wrote:

"ScummerAntilles;c-2041669" wrote:
I am literally a social scientist, you are talking about the method in which data is collected. In this case, I collected it over years of experience, observation, and commitment to knowing how the game is being perceived because I have made managing a guild in this game a major hobby. You are calling data anecdotal because a person collected it, rather than a person designing a collection system. At the end it is all a human collection system. Except in my case, variables examined aren't limited to "total cash spent aggregate" nor does my position posit that the measure of a community's health is whether the designers made money.

I don't think you really understand how data works and what constitutes good data.

I have no problems with a person designing a data collection system as well as the data, but it still needs to be done in a methodical, quantifiable, and consistent manner to actually stand up to scrutiny and peer review. As a social scientist, you should know that.

All data is qualitative. This is one of the first rules of data. A question like health of a community or an ongoing shared experience is not a quantitative question, and attempts to make it so require a qualitative evaluation of what health even means before you can try to (and why you would add this step, I don't know - I mean you could if you think numbers help answer the specific question... but do you need this step for *this* question?) take human experience, translate that into a quantitive measure, and then re-translate that into a qualitative conclusion that answers the question.

I don't know - do you just totally dismiss the findings when the methods are surveys, interviews, or anything that can't go through the alchemy of translation to numbers then retranslation back to qualitative assessment?

BTW a long direct relationship with 300+ gamers from a position to assess the experience of those gamers is significant.

"Unknownhost;c-2041608" wrote:
Dunno about dying but is cg repeating the same mistakes over and over then harping about how great they are doing?

Yes. A simple yes. This year had more hurt feelings than ever too but I'm guessing there's no chart for that XD

Hurt feelings = profit

So why not do more?

New movie + new advertising of swgoh + new players + hyperbull bundle + return of gas event = higher revanue. I'd be more more interested to see "retaining player" stats in March maybe.

"ScummerAntilles;c-2041677" wrote:

"Jarvind;c-2041671" wrote:

"ScummerAntilles;c-2041669" wrote:
I am literally a social scientist, you are talking about the method in which data is collected. In this case, I collected it over years of experience, observation, and commitment to knowing how the game is being perceived because I have made managing a guild in this game a major hobby. You are calling data anecdotal because a person collected it, rather than a person designing a collection system. At the end it is all a human collection system. Except in my case, variables examined aren't limited to "total cash spent aggregate" nor does my position posit that the measure of a community's health is whether the designers made money.

I don't think you really understand how data works and what constitutes good data.

If you collected data, then let's see your data. Numbers. Actual quantifiable information and not just "it's bad because I'm not enjoying it."

Anything less makes you a liar.

I was kind enough to explain to you, in the post you quote, if you were a good enough reader that conflating "data" and "quantification" is a pretty clear indicator that you don't know what data is or how it is used to assess reality.

Plato's Republic is a book. I can see X trends in how people rely to Y stimulus, based on what they say. When I mix this chemical with that chemical, it smells like vanilla. If you think those kinds of measures or statements aren't data... wow... please stop speaking with a voice of authority.

You can't convince me I don't know what I know and now that I'm not actually my own profession with some lazy smug understanding that I am literally paid to disabuse people of when I train them on how to use data and what it is.

If you want me to go further on this I will require you to pay me, this is my trade and I don't work for free.

If you are trying to argue most people are enjoying the game right now I feel sorry for you. I'm glad it gives you comfort that CG made a lot of money...

I would like to read all of those published scientific papers out there based on the kind of "data" you present in this thread. Imagine a real scientist proposing a theory with "well in my group of a few hundred online friends, the sentiment of the group feels negative to me. Based on this very concrete data, i propose that the entire population of players of the game has an overall negative sentiment"

Sorry, but what you provided is not good data. It may be a data point, and if you had tracked the things proposed in this thread (a legitimately great idea btw) you would have many data points. But as it is, you have a single anecdotal piece of information that is really no better than me saying the game is great because we have gotten more incoming recruits this month than the past few combined.

"Baby_Yoda;c-2041711" wrote:
The game will die once the SW content ends.

So after Mandalorian rip.

Non sensical.

"ScummerAntilles;c-2041683" wrote:

All data is qualitative.

Ok, this just isn't true. A lot of it is, to be sure, but that is just as foolish as saying all data is quantitative, there is such a thing as objectivity. As for the rest of it:

"ScummerAntilles;c-2041683" wrote:

This is one of the first rules of data. A question like health of a community or an ongoing shared experience is not a quantitative question, and attempts to make it so require a qualitative evaluation of what health even means before you can try to (and why you would add this step, I don't know - I mean you could if you think numbers help answer the specific question... but do you need this step for *this* question?) take human experience, translate that into a quantitive measure, and then re-translate that into a qualitative conclusion that answers the question.

I don't know - do you just totally dismiss the findings when the methods are surveys, interviews, or anything that can't go through the alchemy of translation to numbers then retranslation back to qualitative assessment?

BTW a long direct relationship with 300+ gamers from a position to assess the experience of those gamers is significant.

I mostly agree with you, but quantitative data can be a component in helping answer this question as it will have qualitative connotations, just as the qualitative data does. Also I will believe research properly carried out, one person saying they have been told by a few people that a lot of people are unhappy and so everyone must be is not research. That's hearsay and confirmation bias and you should know that.