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.

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.

"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...

The point is, you don't have accurate data. CG is the only one who has the data to make the conclusions you're attempting to. The game has been dying since implementation because of what they are observing.....going on 4 years now.

"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.

@ScummerAntilles

Look, idiography is valid, and you can publish papers based on it, but you can't validly generalize from an idiographic subject (individual or group) to a larger population.

That's why you work hand in hand with the people who study demographics of the entire population to which you would like to generalize. You compare your cohort to the larger population and look at where your demographic variables differ from that of the total pop. then you crunch the numbers and analyze how your cumulative or average measurements would change if your cohort's demographics matched the general population. Only then can you truly, validly generalize.

I'm not doubting your ability to practice careful or systematic observation, but without weighting the cohort to match the population (or at the very, very least randomly sampling - which going only by your guild membership does not do) your conclusions are on quite shaky ground.

You **might** be right about the population at large. But it's also true that you might be wrong about the pop at large. It could be that there are more new players than ever and a larger percentage of new players are spending money than ever. It might be that these games have fairly natural lifespans where after two or three years people just start drifting away and looking for something new even if the game is good and healthy. In that case, your cohort might have actually lasted a bit longer than normal (which could be easily explained by your excellent efforts to run a good and helpful guild that therefore improves player experience) before hitting a wall in the last 6 months.

Now, I personally am having less fun in the game. I'm also playing more casually. I don't see how I can maintain my old level of play and still progress meaningfully quickly towards competence in LS Geo TB, and that's discouraging. But I can't play the Sith raid every time, and even if you play, the rewards of g12 salvage are woefully insufficient unless you're in the top 3, which requires not just active play but luck. I can finish first in HSTR (and have) but there are at least 2 people I can't outscore, and so if they are available and actively playing the raid for a max score, the best I can finish is 3rd, and I'm usually down around 5th.

All that means that my g12 toons can't progress to g13 with reasonable speed. It's discouraging. It's frustrating. It's not fun. So I get it. But I'm not an average player. I'm at 5M gp and with the exception of a single, continuous, 5-6 month break, I've been playing almost since the game started. It's now 3 years without a break for me, and with progress slowing I don't really know if I'll still be playing in another 6 months. Maybe, but maybe not. The failure to progress in new and interesting ways is making things a lot less fun.

But if I were only a year into the game? With so much content to look forward to trying? I might be having a lot MORE fun than actual-me had when starting this game 4 years ago.

In short, it's only a bout of hubris that would allow me to think that my experience was average. It's normal, in the sense that others are having it and I'm not a freak for experiencing this. But it's not average.

So, sure, tell us your observations. Write up an article about your guild experience if you want. I'm sure you can get it through peer review.

But let's not pretend that we know your experience generalizes across the game until we have some other studies with some other methodologies that support that conclusion.

"ScummerAntilles;c-2041652" wrote:

"Nihion;c-2041643" wrote:

"ScummerAntilles;c-2041639" wrote:
It is so sad when people who play games measure whether a community or fun or the game's health by corporate profits.

I'm an officer in a large guild family. Turnover is worse than ever. Almost nobody is having fun. Every couple of weeks there is a new straw that broke the camel's back for another group of our members. A huge portion of people are just holding on hoping something changes soon, others are just becoming increasingly casual.

You can't tell me that isn't the case because that is what I actually see constantly with my own two eyes.

This tells me however much money they are making, it could be far more. I know whales that are done spending because they bought GAS and second round FTP have beat them to 7* 7 relic.

Just to chip in, (my specialty) your max guild sample size is 50 people on a constant. I think this year is going to be better because of the slowness they are withstanding.

Take another read.

I'm an officer in a family of guilds that is spread out and organized around people's goals in the game and GP. My sample size is hundreds.

LMK when I should stop believing my own constant experience and what should be obvious to everyone actively involved in this community: that CG is leaving money on the table and less and less people are finding the game actually fun.

With all due respect, social scientist, your first post did not indicate that your sample size was larger than a guild, nor did you state real evidence or your qualifications in your first post, but you may be right. I just noticed that at first you were just a person with a statement.

With all that said, we still have little reason to be believe that you are what you say you are or that you have the sample and data that you say you have. So far it’s mostly statements, whereas I see a graph at the top of this thread that shows a significant boost in profits in a time where less content is being produced. What that shows me is that the game itself may be dying out, but the Star Wars name is gaining a larger audience, which inspires the appeal of this game. I assume you are in a guild community with committed whales or members, and while they may be dipping down, what I can see is a wider, newer community is spending more. This would be in line with the shock hype of Mando, the Rise of Skywalker ending the saga, and the Hyperdrive bundle allowing for that increase. This is what I’m seeing, with the evidence and reasoning presented.

You are probably a real social scientist, and you could very well be right. If you demerit the graph, or present your own evidence, I may believe you. Either way, your move.