EVE General Discussion

Okay, this is an interesting direction in the discussion.

To be clear, the initial research into vaccines and autisms was:

1. Totally fruadulent
2. Done with a monetary reward in mind.
3. Was totally unethical (i.e. the researcher in charge was struck from the British Medical Registry).
4. To date there has been absolutely no research supporting the hypothesis.

We see something similar with AG. The one attempt my CCP to study the effects of ganking on new players in constantly and continuously rubbished...without a single valid argument. People keep coming and arguing their pet theory based on their intuition (which is fine, but ideally such theories should be checked against actual data) and in the end we get a cult like group much like the anti-vaxxers and their support for Andrew Wakefield.

The CCP analysis at worst shows that ganking of players in their first 15 days HAS NO EFFECT ON THOSE PLAYERS STAYING IN GAME. In fact, the analysis suggests, THAT GANKED NEW PLAYERS STAY IN GAME LONGER THAN NON-GANKED PLAYERS.

All arguments to the contrary are based on beliefs that have literally no evidence behind them. None.

Now, maybe ganking a player who has been in game for 2 or 3 years and was imprudent and stuffed 5 billion in his charon and then flew it through Uedama an got ganked might be more inclined to quit. But then again whose fault is that? Those who ganked him, or the dumb sheet who put 5 billion in his freighter and flew through Uedama?

Giving a total pass to the dumb sheet freighter pilot is well dumb sheet. IMO, of course.

This still going... Is there a TL/DR?

So what you say is that you are even worse than the anti-vacc movement, since you don't even have a fake study?

Oh dear. The topic was that some AG spew the old lie that new players never subscribe because of ganking, and that is exactly what the study shows. We did not discuss anything else. However the study doas take into account all the reasons given by ALL EVE PLAYERS when cancelling their subscription and people who cite ship loss are <1%.

The counter arguments so far from AG are:

- CCP faked their own study because they want to damage their own business
- Math is hard

And then you ask yourselves why no one is taking you for full.

No it was actually ship loss and not ganking. So you disregard this figure because there may be people who did not answer the question at all or incorrectly. Judging by this forums the minority who can't handle exploding spaceships in a game of exploding spaceships are pretty vocal about it, so what is the reason they of all people should remain silence on the one occasion where CCP actually may listen?

That research is a bit bunk since it discounts the massive amounts of players that just leave. You know, EVE has less than stellar retention rates.

No, it actually does not. Read the comment above

Depends on who you ask. The perspective will be completely biased and the suggestion probably complete crap, you know like the CSM now

All in all I just hope CCP learn to make and use statistics properly to govern what they do to the game and stop listening to the players except when we scream (usually when CCP ignores the players) because self interest clouds the thoughts of so many.

You literally say that those people aren't included in the statistic. Que? I mean, you say that I'm wrong, then proceed to agree with me.

They are trying. The talk that is causing so much teeth-gnashing in this thread was called "Using Science to Help Newbros" after all. The stuff coming out from CCP Quant and perhaps CCP Ghost recently shows CCP is making an effort toward a more evidence-based approach to developing the game, rather than making decisions based on which influential players are whispering in their ear, or the gut feeling of some developer.

The reality is though that even with access to the massive collection of data CCP has, it is very difficult to untangle cause and effect, and even if you gain some insight, it doesn't necessarily tell you how to make a good sandbox game. They can formulate a specific hypothesis and test it (like "do new players quit because they get ganked?") but whatever answer the data supports, they still need to build an engaging and entertaining space game. It's not just a matter of reading a book on game theory, looking at the logs, and boom - add a feature that will cause the PCU to spike two-fold.

CCP has a vision for Eve Online, and the best they can do is stay true to that vision. Arguably, and forgive me for drifting into personal opinion here, the changes that have caused the most problems for the game have been ones where CCP has strayed too from that original vision of a PvP sandbox in pursuit of more mainstream appeal, although certainly the have also made mistakes in execution of many core ideas along the way.

But Eve is still here and will be for the foreseeable future, and as long as CCP Seagull is in charge, it will continue to be a single-universe, everyone-vs-everyone, sandbox game where player-driven content is the primary goal. That means ideas like in the OP are not going to happen. If you are looking for a solo/casual space game where you can grind and build in peace, there are several of those types of games out there but they are not Eve Online.

In Eve Online, all players, from the newest of the new to the 13-year veteran, from the most peaceful industrialist to the most blood-thirsty pirate, have to deal with the fact that other players can influence their game play without their explicit consent. If you don't agree to that, or just can't handle that, you really are just setting yourself up for unhappiness if you continue to play this game.