The status of the yet-to-be-announced title

October 30, 2023

15 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Yeah, fake statistical analysis can definitely fool morons. But that is a different issue. Real statistics are invaluable.

Absolutely. But it's incredibly easy to come up with some statistical analysis that will show whatever you want it to show *to the untrained eye*. Whether that's a causal connection between pirates and climate change, or IL2 going down the gutter based on some graph about player counts. You don't even have to be a moron to be fooled by any means; just a lack of mathematical and scientific education or the willingness to consistently apply those is enough for me to convincingly prove that the moon is actually blue.

October 30, 2023

3 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

is enough for me to convincingly prove that the moon is actually blue.

Yeah sure lol. And the world is round I suppose. Ha!

October 30, 2023

5 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

You don't even have to be a moron to be fooled by any means

In order to trust statistics you need to know all variables. Or being presented them, ask yourself if the maker of them are benefiting by showing and convincing you about them. It is like everything else presented to you.
In some situations you should be sceptical

Statistics is just an easy way to show a lie or facts

October 30, 2023

11 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

You’d think.

Yes indeed. You don't think that trend chart is easy to understand? Timeline on a horizontal axis and number of players on vertical axis? What is difficult about it that would require sophisticated understanding about statistics?

October 30, 2023

7 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

But it's incredibly easy to come up with some statistical analysis that will show whatever you want it to show *to the untrained eye*. Whether that's a causal connection between pirates and climate change, or IL2 going down the gutter based on some graph about player counts.

Trained or untrained eye, I really don't get how it can be difficult to see from a trend chart if player amount has increased or decreased over a period of time. It is like looking at an equation of 3x=15 and saying that solving it requires sophisticated understanding of functions. Statistics can of course tell us a lot more about things, too, for example if pirates and climate change are correlated or independent, but you don't need to understand that when you look at a simple graph.

October 30, 2023

1 hour ago, Robli said:

Trained or untrained eye

The problem of the untrained eye is that is its obscenely confident projecting correlations in what it sees at that moment.

Aggregated data just tells you the answer to a very specific question, namely the question you aggregated the data for in the first place. It has no other use, unless you use it to on purpose mislead another pair of untrained eyes.

October 30, 2023

11 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

The problem of the untrained eye is that is its obscenely confident projecting correlations in what it sees at that moment.

JG27_Abaster's posted a graph, simple and clear data about player amounts in Steam playing IL2 BoX. I quote my first post about that matter: "We can speculate about the reasons and root causes, but data is data." For some reason I see that this data gets rejected because some people "know" that his data is somehow wrong and it would take deeper level of statistics to really understand that this data is wrong. Then there was a claim, that this is normal situation in gaming (without any data given) and google did not seem to support that. Still, some people are confident, that data at hand is wrong, because pirates and climate and higher level math, you know.

W. Edwards Deming said, "In God we trust, all others must bring data". Should I trust the data that JG27_Abaster brought or should I trust that somebody know the real truth without showing any data about it?

October 30, 2023

1 hour ago, Robli said:

Trained or untrained eye, I really don't get how it can be difficult to see from a trend chart if player amount has increased or decreased over a period of time. It is like looking at an equation of 3x=15 and saying that solving it requires sophisticated understanding of functions. Statistics can of course tell us a lot more about things, too, for example if pirates and climate change are correlated or independent, but you don't need to understand that when you look at a simple graph.

No-one is disputing that *on average* there are now less people online on a given moment, than in the summer of 2020. However it is implied that this decrease is much greater than could be reasonably expected during this period, and this is then taken further out of context to show that "players are leaving in droves" (itself a very subjective phrasing), that IL2 is at the end of its life cycle, and even that the current system of releasing collector planes is actively hurting IL2. It is these conclusions that I and some others object against.

But since you asked for difficulties interpreting the graphs you posted, here's a couple of things to think about:

- It isn't clear what exactly the Steamdb graph represents. Number of players within a given time period? Unique users within said period? Just Steam users? Total users including standalone?

- How does Steamdb gather their data? Is all relevant data even public? Do they have the complete picture?

- IL2 significantly markets their games in Russia, and also in China. Given that data collection can be... challenging in those countries, are these numbers included in the above graph?

- The other graphs you show are even less clear regarding what they represent and how it was measured. This makes the last three graphs you posted effectively worthless. Even worse, no source is provided. For all I know, they may be drawn during a five-year-old's art classes, or even worse, by someone with an agenda.

- You seem to have manually picked these graphs. This always leads to bias, whether consciously or not.

- Are these graphs applicable to the current hypothesis? Graphs about the number "global active gamers" will for a large part consist of, idk, FPS games or something; perhaps even mobile CandyCrush games. Can you just compare that with a combat flight sim and call it a day?

- When the graphs you come up with in retrospect don't show the desired trend for your narrative (the DCS graphs shows a very similar downward trend to IL2), you guys come up with other handpicked graphs that do follow your narrative. BIAS!

3 minutes ago, Robli said:

JG27_Abaster's posted a graph, simple and clear data about player amounts in Steam playing IL2 BoX. I quote my first post about that matter: "We can speculate about the reasons and root causes, but data is data." For some reason I see that this data gets rejected because some people "know" that his data is somehow wrong and it would take deeper level of statistics to really understand that this data is wrong. Then there was a claim, that this is normal situation in gaming (without any data given) and google did not seem to support that. Still, some people are confident, that data at hand is wrong, because pirates and climate and higher level math, you know.

W. Edwards Deming said, "In God we trust, all others must bring data". Should I trust the data that JG27_Abaster brought or should I trust that somebody know the real truth without showing any data about it?

Look at my points above and again try to tell me that "data is data". Your comment about whether or not you should simply trust JG27_Abaster's data without any further analysis or reflection shows you haven't understood anything of ZachariasX's comment:

26 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Aggregated data just tells you the answer to a very specific question, namely the question you aggregated the data for in the first place.

October 30, 2023

28 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

However it is implied that this decrease is much greater than could be reasonably expected during this period

There is no need to have "expectations", just take data as it is. If by "expectation" you mean that this is normal trend overall in gaming, then also post data about it. I have not seen such data and google search did not support that claim.

31 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

this is then taken further out of context to show that "players are leaving in droves" (itself a very subjective phrasing)

People have left. That is the objective evaluation, when looking at the graph posted by JG_Abaster. Don't know what is out of context for you about it.

37 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

- It isn't clear what exactly the Steamdb graph represents. Number of players within a given time period? Unique users within said period? Just Steam users? Total users including standalone?

It shows how many people are playing the game through Steam. You mean to challenge that this data from Steamdb is not relevant somehow?

41 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

- The other graphs you show are even less clear regarding what they represent and how it was measured. This makes the last three graphs you posted effectively worthless.

So, you believe that your secret data is better than data found from Steamdb and through google search? What is your data showing? Decline in gaming overall, but increase in BoX, outside Steam?

43 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Look at my points above and again try to tell me that "data is data". Your comment about whether or not you should simply trust JG27_Abaster's data without any further analysis or reflection shows you haven't understood anything of ZachariasX's comment:

Yes, I still tell you that data is data. I see that you attack the data from left and right, top and bottom, your "analysis and reflections" of whatever and use all kinds of fancy words that are used by demagogues, when they try to win an argument, but still the only data that I see about it here is posted by JG27_Abaster.

October 30, 2023

57 minutes ago, Robli said:

Yes, I still tell you that data is data. I see that you attack the data from left and right, top and bottom, your "analysis and reflections" of whatever and use all kinds of fancy words that are used by demagogues, when they try to win an argument, but still the only data that I see about it here is posted by JG27_Abaster.

You still don't get it, do you? It's not about the data, it's about the conclusions you draw from them. If your point was "hey guys, I've found something interesting: IL2 has less concurrently active users on Steam than 2 years ago, now let's all drool over this wonderful graph and get back to gaming", then that was fine. However, you use this data to support other claims for which this data is not representative. Again, read ZachariasX's quote:

2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Aggregated data just tells you the answer to a very specific question, namely the question you aggregated the data for in the first place.

Also you'd do well to remember where the burden of proof lies. I'm not making any claims about IL2 reaching the end of its lifetime or whether or not IL2's marketing/update strategy is working. I don't need to come up with evidence to support claims I'm not making.

Your use of a manually picked dataset that is taken out-of-context and compared with other manually picked datasets is similar to methods used by people to claim the earth is flat, climate change is a lie, or 5G radiation causes headaches. Without adhering to scientific principles, one can find data to prove literally everything. In fact, let's put my money where my mouth is and make good on my claim that I can proof the moon is actually blue (its actual tint is slightly reddish). Here you are:

Note that lower wavelengths are bluer. This graph clearly shows that the power density of moonlight is greater for lower wavelengths, ergo the moon is blue. Quod erat demonstrandum. Note that I haven't altered the shape of the graph or the axes in any way, and this is actual data.

However, I've taken a graph that at first sight seems related out of context and used it to support a claim that it's not meant to provide evidence for. Actually, what it represents is moonlight as perceived by our eyes; when the light intensity is weak, our eyes are more sensitive to blue light. Also note how it isn't immediately apparent that the data is not representative; unless you already know your eyes' colour sensitivity is nonlinear as well as know that this graph represents perceived rather than actual colour, you'd be forgiven for thinking my conclusion is proper. This is similar to how you take a graph about the number of concurrent users in Steam and use it to support unrelated claims.

Now give me one reason to believe your graphs are in fact representative for those claims?

Edited October 30, 2023 by AEthelraedUnraed

October 30, 2023

21 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

climate change is a lie

If you want to make a case about stats being cherry picked and used nefariously, you certainly picked the right topic AEthel !

Edited October 30, 2023 by Zooropa_Fly

October 30, 2023

41 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

You still don't get it, do you?

I get it. You don't like the data that JG27_Abaster posted and you don't have any data to post, so you throw a tantrum.

42 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

It's not about the data, it's about the conclusions you draw from them.

The conclusion from the data is that people have left. Simple as that. Your "conclusions" are different, so be it. Mine are based on presented data, you just "know".

46 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

However, you use this data to support other claims for which this data is not representative.

Why do you lie? I quote myself again: "We can speculate about the reasons and root causes, but data is data." I hope I do not need to quote myself for the third time.

47 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Also you'd do well to remember where the burden of proof lies.

Yes. If you claim that presented data is bad then burden of proof lies on you to present better data.

52 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Now give me one reason to believe your graphs are in fact representative for those claims?

How about you give me a good reason to doubt Steam data and trust that you "know" how things really are without posting any data?

The rest of your post is not worth replying to. It is common tactics of demagogues to start talking about irrelevant stuff, if they have nothing worthwhile to say about the topic at hand.

October 30, 2023

What is considered a “player” in this game? Is it somebody who simply has the game installed? Is it somebody who boots it up occasionally, plays it for a few minutes, and then quits? That’s what I did for a long time, but for all practical purposes, I had quit. It seems the most useful data to consider here is the total number of player hours.

October 30, 2023

1 hour ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Your use of a manually picked dataset that is taken out-of-context...

Sorry, could not resist. Very interesting to see how conclusion of people leaving based on a trend chart is "out of context", but BS about blue moon, climate change and 5G radiation is "in context". ?

October 30, 2023

2 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

What is considered a “player” in this game? Is it somebody who simply has the game installed? Is it somebody who boots it up occasionally, plays it for a few minutes, and then quits? That’s what I did for a long time, but for all practical purposes, I had quit. It seems the most useful data to consider here is the total number of player hours.

Steam just counts how often/how long a game is startet.

October 30, 2023

You guys know that this topic is not about statistics .. but about 25 pages full of no information about the next anouncement of the GB series.

Don't you?

October 30, 2023

And no we have a statistic discussion to add to all that

October 30, 2023

21 minutes ago, Robli said:

you throw a tantrum. [...] The rest of your post is not worth replying to. It is common tactics of demagogues to start talking about irrelevant stuff, if they have nothing worthwhile to say about the topic at hand.

Please don't go play ad hominem. That's just low.

48 minutes ago, Robli said:

The conclusion from the data is that people have left.

If only your conclusions would stop at that; then we wouldn't need to have this discussion.

The problem is that that's not everything you're claiming, is it? What you're claiming is that people are leaving faster than should be expected in the current world, that IL2 is at the end of its life cycle, and even that the current system of releasing collector planes is actively hurting IL2.

22 minutes ago, Robli said:

Yes. If you claim that presented data is bad then burden of proof lies on you to present better data.

That's just... hilarious?. You may want to read up on the burden of proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy). *You* are the one who uses a certain data set in support of your hypothesis, so *you* are the one who has to show the data set is applicable. I do not make any claims about the game, so I do not need to come up with any data. Simple as that.

Also, the fact that you think I claim the presented data is bad show you still haven't grasped what our point is. Once again, nobody here disputes the SteamDB data.

14 minutes ago, Robli said:

Sorry, could not resist. Very interesting to see how conclusion of people leaving based on a trend chart is "out of context", but BS about blue moon, climate change and 5G radiation is "in context". ?

The colour of the moon is about as relevant to this discussion as the graphs you came up with are. But that's beside the point. The point of my blue moon example was to show how easy it is to use data to prove whatever you want to proof, even things that are obviously false (such as the moon being blue). If with a one minute google search someone could come up with a graph that on its own convincingly shows that the moon is blue if you don't properly interpret the data, then how possibly can we trust your conclusions without properly interpreting your data? You're maintaining double standards:

- We should swallow your graphs about player numbers without further analysis and accept it as evidence supporting your hypotheses, while

- Other data presented at face value and showing the moon is blue should not be readily accepted.

Either you believe the moon is blue, or you believe data should not be taken at face value without proper analysis. You must pick one, you cannot choose both. Think carefully and tell me which of those two statements you picked.

October 30, 2023

2 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Now give me one reason to believe your graphs are in fact representative for those claims?

What I made was a general remark. Forgive me for reserving my mathematical persnicketyness for academic excursions about FMs.

October 30, 2023

6 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Please don't go play ad hominem. That's just low.

If only your conclusions would stop at that; then we wouldn't need to have this discussion.

The problem is that that's not everything you're claiming, is it? What you're claiming is that people are leaving faster than should be expected in the current world, that IL2 is at the end of its life cycle, and even that the current system of releasing collector planes is actively hurting IL2.

That's just... hilarious?. You may want to read up on the burden of proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy). *You* are the one who uses a certain data set in support of your hypothesis, so *you* are the one who has to show the data set is applicable. I do not make any claims about the game, so I do not need to come up with any data. Simple as that.

Also, the fact that you think I claim the presented data is bad show you still haven't grasped what our point is. Once again, nobody here disputes the SteamDB data.

The colour of the moon is about as relevant to this discussion as the graphs you came up with are. But that's beside the point. The point of my blue moon example was to show how easy it is to use data to prove whatever you want to proof, even things that are obviously false (such as the moon being blue). If with a one minute google search someone could come up with a graph that on its own convincingly shows that the moon is blue if you don't properly interpret the data, then how possibly can we trust your conclusions without properly interpreting your data? You're maintaining double standards:

- We should swallow your graphs about player numbers without further analysis and accept it as evidence supporting your hypotheses, while

- Other data presented at face value and showing the moon is blue should not be readily accepted.

Either you believe the moon is blue, or you believe data should not be taken at face value without proper analysis. You must pick one, you cannot choose both. Think carefully and tell me which of those two statements you picked.

Polonius said “brevity is the soul of wit”.

October 30, 2023

Say less look smart.

October 30, 2023

8 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

*You* are the one who uses a certain data set in support of your hypothesis, so *you* are the one who has to show the data set is applicable.

What are you talking about? I did not have any "hypothesis". Data graph was posted here and it started some kind of discussion. I said that "data is data" (need me quote myself again?). You are the one that is trying to deny the data that was presented, challenging Steam data credibility, talking about expectations, China, climate change, blue moon and all that. Now I somehow have the burden of proof about whatever data-contradicting "hypothesis" you have in your mind? If you choose to believe in your fantasies rather than the graph that JG27_Abaster posted, so be it. I won't lose any sleep over it.

October 30, 2023

2 minutes ago, Robli said:

What are you talking about? I did not have any "hypothesis". Data graph was posted here and it started some kind of discussion. I said that "data is data" (need me quote myself again?). You are the one that is trying to deny the data that was presented, challenging Steam data credibility, talking about expectations, China, climate change, blue moon and all that. Now I somehow have the burden of proof about whatever data-contradicting "hypothesis" you have in your mind? If you choose to believe in your fantasies rather than the graph that JG27_Abaster posted, so be it. I won't lose any sleep over it.

You still haven't told me your pick:

"Either you believe the moon is blue, or you believe data should not be taken at face value without proper analysis. You must pick one, you cannot choose both. Think carefully and tell me which of those two statements you picked."

Edited October 30, 2023 by AEthelraedUnraed

October 30, 2023

Data is data. If a simple trend chart makes you confused about a blue moon, then I can't help you here.

October 30, 2023

DISINFORMATION, the MOON is NOT BLUE!!!!!!

Everyone knows it's Blue Cheezse!! :lol:

October 30, 2023

11 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

You still haven't told me your pick:

"Either you believe the moon is blue, or you believe data should not be taken at face value without proper analysis. You must pick one, you cannot choose both. Think carefully and tell me which of those two statements you picked."

False dichotomy. Looks to me like the reason you think your chart “shows the moon is blue without further analysis” is because you yourself had trouble interpreting it. Don’t keep assuming that everyone else did, however, or I’ll have to get in touch with Dunning and Krueger.

October 30, 2023

October 30, 2023

You can pretty much "prove" anything you want with statistics by what you include, and what you don't include in your data sampling. Unfortunately not all statistics are created on a level playing field. Advertisers and marketers frequently play fast and loose with the data they select to perform thier statistical analysis. However, statistical analysis performed honestly, and without data manipulation can be very insightful and meaningful. Unfortunately, that is often not the case when dealing with marketing, and subjects dealing with opinions, and those representing a predetermined preference.

Edited October 30, 2023 by RNAS10_Mitchell

October 30, 2023

13 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

Yeah sure lol. And the world is round I suppose. Ha!

Well it is obvious it is without corners . But can you imagine some people believe it is spherical?! Preposterous!!!

October 30, 2023

If the world was flat, cats would have pushed everything off the edge of it by now.

October 30, 2023

100% of people who drink water will die! Conclusion!? Water is poisonous to humans.

October 30, 2023

43 minutes ago, R33GZ said:

100% of people who drink water will die! Conclusion!? Water is poisonous to humans.

Wrong example. Actually, water poisoning exists. And it is fatal

October 30, 2023

Drink any water throughout your life and you will still die... work it out!

October 30, 2023

1 hour ago, R33GZ said:

100% of people who drink water will die! Conclusion!? Water is poisonous to humans.

It is, if you drink enough of it.
Funny enough water mixed with alcohol isn’t. I have many times been drinking enough of beer and have never died

October 30, 2023

20 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

It is, if you drink enough of it.
Funny enough water mixed with alcohol isn’t. I have many times been drinking enough of beer and have never died

A perfect example of Survivor’s Bias!

October 30, 2023

11 hours ago, Robli said:

Yes indeed. You don't think that trend chart is easy to understand? Timeline on a horizontal axis and number of players on vertical axis? What is difficult about it that would require sophisticated understanding about statistics?

It’s very easy to understand - that’s what makes your posts so unintentionally ironic.

October 30, 2023

If your stock portfolio falls back to 2019 levels, you wouldn’t necessarily consider that a great trend, would you?

October 30, 2023

1 hour ago, SeaSerpent said:

If your stock portfolio falls back to 2019 levels, you wouldn’t necessarily consider that a great trend, would you?

That’s a bit of a non-sequitor.

Let me insert more of an “apples to apples” analogy.

If I was a TV station manager and my ratings dropped to pre Super Bowl levels after the Super Bowl, would I consider that a downward trend?
No

Would I come to a conclusion that many people must have burned their TV sets, thereby not watching my channel now?

No

But why? “data is data” after all.

?

Why? Because I take outside information into account. I know that for a period, an unusual event was happening that spiked my ratings. So now, after the fact - back on trend is OK with me.

October 30, 2023

Well, maybe the next big pandemic will come around, lol, and the developers will concurrently make something so spectacular that it outsells Bodenplatte, which brought in a lot of people who were not interested in LaGGs and Yaks. Maybe. ?

Would you believe that people were “burning their TV sets”, if they were actually on forums, saying that they were burning their their TV sets? People -do- become bored with something after a while, and move on, believe it or not. And maybe they come back, or maybe they feel they’ve been there and done that, and have become engrossed in something else.

October 30, 2023

11 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

Well, maybe the next big pandemic will come around, lol, and the developers will concurrently make something so spectacular that it outsells Bodenplatte, which brought in a lot of people who were not interested in LaGGs and Yaks. Maybe. ?

Would you believe that people were “burning their TV sets”, if they were actually on forums, saying that they were burning their their TV sets? People -do- become bored with something after a while, and move on, believe it or not. And maybe they come back, or maybe they feel they’ve been there and done that, and have become engrossed in something else.

People telling stories on the internet are not nearly as reliable as statistical data.

The status of the yet-to-be-announced title

Recommended Posts

AEthelraedUnraed

ST_Catchov

Lusekofte

Robli

Robli

ZachariasX

Robli

AEthelraedUnraed

Robli

AEthelraedUnraed

Zooropa_Fly

Robli

Guest deleted@83466

Robli

JG27_Steini

76IAP-Black

Lusekofte

AEthelraedUnraed

ZachariasX

Guest deleted@83466

AndyJWest

Robli

AEthelraedUnraed

Robli

Ghost666

Guest deleted@83466

BlitzPig_EL

RNAS10_Mitchell

Koziolek

LukeFF

R33GZ

Koziolek

Trooper117

Lusekofte

Guest deleted@83466

Gambit21

Guest deleted@83466

Gambit21

Guest deleted@83466

BraveSirRobin

Browse All

Activity