Did players who saw the early clue stay longer? A comparison that fools you

It is tempting to compare players who saw a helpful scene with those who did not, and to conclude the scene keeps people. But people who leave early never get the chance to see it, which quietly rigs the result. This entry shows who must be left out of the comparison.

Why this works

Two groups can only be compared if both had the same chance. Players who quit before the scene could not have seen it, so leaving them in the not-seen group makes the scene look magical. Compare only people who got there.

When not to use it

Wrong as a final verdict, because curious players choose optional scenes themselves and differ from the rest. To learn whether the scene helps, show it to a random half of the players. Do not trust small groups.

In the full entry

• What to build, step by step
• Starting values and the reason for each
• 3 common mistakes and the fix
• 22 lines of example code with 3 checks that pass
• How your AI shows you that it works

Say this to your AI

Use the Spielerando entry "Did players who saw the early clue stay longer? A comparison that fools you" (read_entry vn-clue-seen-quit-comparison) in my game. Build it step by step, and show me how you checked that it works.

Or skip this and connect the MCP: your AI then finds all of this by itself.Connect the MCP