CCP doesn't like being datamined. It I recall: high, null, wormholes, low is the order of where people live.

I love the idea but im not convinced of the validity. How do you define optimal behaviour? And how do you infer it from the correlation between number of players and the sec status of their home system?

I've never understood how comparisons can be made between Eve and real world behavior. In the real world we need to have access to resources such as food for our survival. But in Eve we don't need anything to survive. My character can sit and do nothing for a year and he will still be the same. Nothing will change. Eve is a game. The motivations that drive players have nothing to do with real life motivations. Players don't need to be concerned with optimal behaviors because there are no real consequences. I just don't see how the behavior of people in a game can be compared to their behavior in real life.

so, population wise, they live in Safe, safest, dangerous, camping-land? honestly first two should be switched (though honestly about null that is slightly LESS true after recent and hopefully future changes)

Well let's run the data and see if it agrees with your assumption. I personally don't care what the result is, I care about the reasoning behind it being what it is.

Being logged out for a year is analogous to hibernation or migration. Find me a player that literally does nothing and then convince me they make up then majority and your argument would hold. Furthermore as eve allows you to pay for game time with in game credit, there is your resource upon which the individual depends.

I didn't think I was making an argument. I just don't see any parallels between real life needs and "needs" in a game. Because I don't actually need anything in the game. I don't even have to play at all. If I don't satisfy my needs in real life (do nothing) I will die. If I do nothing in game my character does not die. Therefore my motivations for doing things in game are not comparable to my motivations for doing things in real life.

But I don't mean to try to disused you from your research. Only saying that I disagree that it is meaningful.

Separating the Human from the Cave Beast


my area of study, which is primarily animal behavior.


Go into Null.

Place an expensive module in a cargo can.

Remain cloaked and watch how many people investigate the can before someone loots it.

Create a statistical analysis based on how many approached compared to when the can was looted.

Those who do not loot are rational human beings. The one that loots the can is the irrational cave beast or the primary animal behavior that you are looking for.

Then stage other experiments where you place more expensive modules in a cargo can to see how many cave beasts you can lure to one spot at a time.

Then watch to see who attacks who for the dominance of the cave beast behavior of the group.

Continue your experiment until the systems you are conducting your experiment in are littered with wrecks and corpses. Enjoy the reward.

What did you establish based on your findings regarding animal behavior?

Game theory defines optimal behaviour, whether or not it truly is is irrelevant. Basically if the trend meets the criteria set out in my last post it would be considered optimal. The reason it's considered optimal is that it presumes that the distribution allows for greatest resource acquisition per individual (on average).

Imagine if you will a fish tank where twice as much food is deposited at one end than is the other. Come feeding time you would expect twice the number of fish to aggregate on the side with twice as much food. That is optimal and the example I've used is a famous experiment used to justify the existence of optimal foraging behaviours.

Separating the Human from the Cave Beast


my area of study, which is primarily animal behavior.


Go into Null.

Place an expensive module in a cargo can.

Remain cloaked and watch how many people investigate the can before someone loots it.

Create a statistical analysis based on how many approached compared to when the can was looted.

Those who do not loot are rational human beings. The one that loots the can is the irrational cave beast or the primary animal behavior that you are looking for.

Then stage other experiments where you place more expensive modules in a cargo can to see how many cave beasts you can lure to one spot at a time.

Then watch to see who attacks who for the dominance of the cave beast behavior of the group.

Continue your experiment until the systems you are conducting your experiment in are littered with wrecks and corpses. Enjoy the reward.

What did you establish based on your findings regarding animal behavior?

I see, but wont the results change depending on how you define your "resources"? Different players are after different things. Not everyone's resource they are foraging for is rats and asteriods. Large number of players forage for resources such as kills, tears or lore.

Either way, I'm looking forward to seeing the results. And let me know if you need anything wormhole related for this.

That's a very good point. Hunting for players can be viewed in two lights, on one hand it could be seen as a defensive/aggressive act aimed at protecting ones territory (or acquiring more) on the other it could be seen as resource acquisition akin to how a lion consumes prey. Again we must consider which is the norm and model according to that, less we exclude one of the two groups and focus our research on the other. I envisioned resources as being the 'wealth' of a system, that is the average total value of assets in that system, belts, anoms etc... Obviously that would be incredibly hard to map and thus I was relying primarily on security status to assume system wealth.

That type of question is exactly what is needed and is much encouraged, thanks!

As for the corpmatre who suggested academic channels, I am not familiar with this, could you elaborate?

so, population wise, they live in Safe, safest, dangerous, camping-land? honestly first two should be switched (though honestly about null that is slightly LESS true after recent and hopefully future changes)