These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CCP Rise newbie stats

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Seven Koskanaiken
Shadow Legions.
SONS of BANE
#81 - 2015-03-22 19:04:08 UTC
Thales wrote:
Something very wrong here, 100% of new players should be dying, as two of the misions at least DEMAND you die to show you how it works.


This can be solved by having them fly battleships which as we all know have 100% chance of dying to bombs.
Chewytowel Haklar
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#82 - 2015-03-22 19:07:06 UTC
There are too many people scared out of their wits to enter null or wormhole space, but man they don't know the rush they are missing! :D I wonder how many just stick with mining or running missions over and over again only to get bored and leave? Don't they know there is a whole lot of political bs in this game? Hell seeing big battles or groups of ships isn't really that hard either if you are in the right spot.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#83 - 2015-03-22 19:27:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
flakeys wrote:
The data is useless in it's current shape and it is useless when given fully if you want to use it to see if players do leave the game because they have been ganked.For that you would need the data of 1 to 6 month old characters...

Why would anyone be trying to answer that question based on this data? It can't be extrapolated out to that.

It's purely about the experience of new players, 50% of who don't move beyond the trial period and leave the game in the first month.

That's it. Little more.

Anecdotally, Rise did say that of those involved in combat, the retention is higher and also showed a statistic on reasons reported for leaving the game (<1% report ship loss or harassment as the reason for leaving the game).

Those would be more interesting to have more detail on, but the data presented can't be used to answer the question that people seem to be discounting it based on.

"I don't believe it because it's the wrong data" is a strange response. It's only the wrong data because it's being extrapolated out to answer a question it can't answer. That's not the fault of the data.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#84 - 2015-03-22 20:06:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Serene Repose wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
In the UK a PH.D generally makes you less employable. Better to put just your masters on your C.V.
Welp. In the UK you hardly ever see that big yellow ball up in the sky! Come to where the living is. Come to South Florida. It's only going up to 85 F today! I guess that's 29.4 C.
... but mosquitos and .... I lived in Africa - I actually like UK weather.
Chewytowel Haklar wrote:
There are too many people scared out of their wits to enter null or ...
I am in one of the most busy parts of Null with loads of tourists coming through.

All I can say to pretty much most of it is:

*Yawn.*

Only times my interest kicks in now is being logi on a Nightmare fleet and trying to keep our coalition from incurring that sort of loss.

Fozzie Logic's Low Sec 2.0 is going to be really annoying and probably not worth keeping a SOV home.
(My current tourist experiences magnified).
Scipio Artelius wrote:
"I don't believe it because it's the wrong data" is a strange response. It's only the wrong data because it's being extrapolated out to answer a question it can't answer. That's not the fault of the data.
I don't trust the data because the scope is too narrow on time and no mention of considered factors.

It looks like a rather simple query was run and got skewed results.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
flakeys
Doomheim
#85 - 2015-03-22 20:26:52 UTC  |  Edited by: flakeys
Jenn aSide wrote:
flakeys wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
flakeys wrote:
In it's current form this data provides nothing of value.Error randomize is spot on with his assesment of it.

Even if you do get the full data it still does not represent anything to ''the threat of empire ganking'' , not saying there is a 'threat'' though , as a 15 days old char hardly ever flies anything worthy of a gank and is more often docked or in the newbie zone then anywhere else.Now the ones who WE view as noobs , characters who are say a month or 3 old , they can fly something of value to be lost and also will be flying outside the newbie zones mostly.


I don't know, even if you somehow discount the data regarding 15-day old players as not representative, the fact that "<1% of account cancellations cite ship loss or harassment" is pretty telling. People don't (at least in significant numbers) quit the game over suicide ganking in highsec.
.


As said the data is too vague and EVEN if you would fill in the blank spots to accomodate your ''crusade to the defense of ganking'' then still you forget the part where a 15 day trial/player will at most be flying a T1 cruiser and as such would allways be of little value to be ganked.

The data is useless in it's current shape and it is useless when given fully if you want to use it to see if players do leave the game because they have been ganked.For that you would need the data of 1 to 6 month old characters as they fly stuff more worthy of a gank and that COULD give a vague idea as to the true '''threat'' ganking has on pushing newbro's out of the game.But then you are still dealing with a verry high amount of ''alts'' who will **** up your data research entirely.

Don't get me wrong , i am not against ganking . Ganking in general doesn't ''make me hot or cold'' so i could not care less if CCP would do something to make ganking harder or easier.The data provided however is useless to stand as a point to use for or against it's effect .


Translation: when data doesn't say what I need it to say, it's vague. When it does, it's right!

This is why discussion with other people (in real life as well as when about a game, see : Politics) is generally futile. You all know the truth, NO amount of data will convince people who are already convinced. CCP could flat out say ganking is good and present graphs and the same people would claim it's a lie, but a graph showing that ganking causes unsubs would be posted on 17 blogs within an hour.


Now, me personally, I don't defend ganking (it's not something I find fun so I don't do it). What I defend is the EVE way of gaming, the idea that interesting things should happen in a game, and that players in a sandbox should understand that some fool will always kick sand in your face and you should deal with that instead of running to mommy. Just as with AFK-cloaking, I've suffered only one gank in 8 years because I protected myself and for myself and prevented gankers from getting me.

It's not the gankers fault that some players wouldn't know what self reliance and personal responsibility were if it bit them in the arse parts.


I think i was quite clear on my stance over the topic of ganking , it leaves me cold nor warm.As such the data can not say what i want to say as i have no favour towards a negative or positive outcome.I did not say the data was incorrect or not , i did say twice now that it is incomplete.With this amount of data or lack of data to be more precise it is utterly stupid to ''claim'' it has any relevance to the topic if ganking does or does not have an affect on newbies leaving the game.

And then i am leaving the discussion what a newbie is out of it because if you ask me and a LOT of the playerbase if a 3 month old player is a newbie or not they will probably in most cases say that that is the case.BRAVE is seen as a newbie Alliance for example and i doubt the biggest amount of their playerbase is less then 15 days old.BUT as said that is a different discussion and also one that can be diiscussed about till the end of days because what is or is not a newbro really lies in the eye of the beholder.

That is btw also the reason why most discussions fall into repition of ones own view on the matter , ESPECIALLY politics , as transparancy for FULL data is a rare case.And if you take into account things like diseases then the data will change frequently as our ways to accumulate said data is getting better every year.



Be it futile or not though , discussions are a nice way to pass time.Something you of most people on GD should know as i see you going from one discussion to the other every night here Blink.

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#86 - 2015-03-22 20:52:42 UTC
flakeys wrote:
I did not say the data was incorrect or not , i did say twice now that it is incomplete.

It's not incomplete at all. It's perfectly useful for the limited conditions it was used by Rise.

Broadening beyond it's limited scope is the problem, not the data.
Beta Maoye
#87 - 2015-03-22 21:23:33 UTC
May be they should move newbie systems to low sec to improve the statistics. Twisted
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#88 - 2015-03-22 21:25:12 UTC
Thales wrote:
Something very wrong here, 100% of new players should be dying, as two of the misions at least DEMAND you die to show you how it works.

So if they are not dying they are not doing the starter missions.

Or does it mean Poddeath? Ganking and grief killing of player ships does not automatically mean poddeath.

Without some qualified info this report is worse than meaningless.

He stated at the beginning "kills by players" and then broke it down into "not killed" "legally killed" and "illegally killed".

For the specific instance of addressing noobie ganking as an issue the data shows the trend, although in a shorter period of time than I would like.
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#89 - 2015-03-22 22:43:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Sabriz Adoudel
I expected newbie losses to rats (outside scripted losses) to be higher than that. Or is that PVP encounters only?

I lost my first destroyer to rats and that's a pretty common thing.


Edit: Well it's been answered since, it's PVP kills only.

Is aggression in lowsec that triggers a sentry gun response considered 'legal' or 'illegal'? I expect that's a good part of the numbers. I was shot as a rookie on the docking ring of a lowsec station I bought skillbooks at (oops) but survived.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#90 - 2015-03-22 23:12:50 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
I expected newbie losses to rats (outside scripted losses) to be higher than that. Or is that PVP encounters only?

pvp encounters only
Serene Repose
#91 - 2015-03-23 00:44:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Serene Repose
Jenn aSide wrote:
This is just a bitter person's emotional reaction to being proved wrong, and it's unworthy of an adult. You keep trying to make it about me, when I'm simply commenting on the game same as you.

This is one of those "people point on the doll where Jenn touched you moments". While such a reaction wasn't something I sought, it's hilarious nonetheless.

For the record, the 'right direction' is the right direction, it has nothing whatsoever to do with what I personally want, If it were up to me there would be no high sec, but that would be wrong because high sec is a necessary evil (see what I can do that you can't serene? I can point to something that I don't like and see the good in it).
Well, no one's ever said you don't have an over-active imagination. So, I'm "bitter" you say. You say it like you know it. However, we all know you couldn't possibly have a clue, and you say it any way. You've not proved me wrong ever on any issue, not once; never. You yourself know that, and yet you say you have...and then speak disparagingly about what you imagine is my emotional reaction...of course, you're "simply" commenting on the game (which is what I've been saying all along - stress "simply." But, you meant that word to stand for "innocently," did you not?)

I point at you all the time Jenn and say "I don't like you...yet....good? Well, okay...you can type, sorta. I really don't need to remind those who are reading our little "tête-à-tête" that one whose rhetoric is filled to the brim with ad hominem has surrendered his position at the outset. To remind you of that one would have to assume you knew it in the first place.

Can I keep the doll? Big smile

Oh yes. Any time you'd like to respond to a point I've made, rather than mischaracterize then claim you've responded,
I'm waiting with waning interest. My ennui is turning to yawn-way.

We must accommodate the idiocracy.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#92 - 2015-03-23 00:59:29 UTC
Serene Repose wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
This is just a bitter person's emotional reaction to being proved wrong, and it's unworthy of an adult. You keep trying to make it about me, when I'm simply commenting on the game same as you.

This is one of those "people point on the doll where Jenn touched you moments". While such a reaction wasn't something I sought, it's hilarious nonetheless.

For the record, the 'right direction' is the right direction, it has nothing whatsoever to do with what I personally want, If it were up to me there would be no high sec, but that would be wrong because high sec is a necessary evil (see what I can do that you can't serene? I can point to something that I don't like and see the good in it).
Well, no one's ever said you don't have an over-active imagination. So, I'm "bitter" you say. You say it like you know it. However, we all know you couldn't possibly have a clue, and you say it any way. You've not proved me wrong ever on any issue, not once; never. You yourself know that, and yet you say you have...and then speak disparagingly about what you imagine is my emotional reaction...of course, you're "simply" commenting on the game (which is what I've been saying all along - stress "simply." But, you meant that word to stand for "innocently," did you not?)

I point at you all the time Jenn and say "I don't like you...yet....good? Well, okay...you can type, sorta. I really don't need to remind those who are reading our little "tête-à-tête" that one whose rhetoric is filled to the brim with ad hominem has surrendered his position at the outset. To remind you of that one would have to assume you knew it in the first place.

Can I keep the doll? Big smile

Oh yes. Any time you'd like to respond to a point I've made, rather than mischaracterize then claim you've responded, I'm waiting with waning interest. My ennui is turning to yawn-way.


In all that emotional bs rambling you were making a point lol?

On a side note, that stuff you are smoking is too strong, you need to ask for a lighter version till your system gets used to it. You'll thanks me for that advice one day.
Serene Repose
#93 - 2015-03-23 01:09:08 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Serene Repose wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
This is just a bitter person's emotional reaction to being proved wrong, and it's unworthy of an adult. You keep trying to make it about me, when I'm simply commenting on the game same as you.

This is one of those "people point on the doll where Jenn touched you moments". While such a reaction wasn't something I sought, it's hilarious nonetheless.

For the record, the 'right direction' is the right direction, it has nothing whatsoever to do with what I personally want, If it were up to me there would be no high sec, but that would be wrong because high sec is a necessary evil (see what I can do that you can't serene? I can point to something that I don't like and see the good in it).
Well, no one's ever said you don't have an over-active imagination. So, I'm "bitter" you say. You say it like you know it. However, we all know you couldn't possibly have a clue, and you say it any way. You've not proved me wrong ever on any issue, not once; never. You yourself know that, and yet you say you have...and then speak disparagingly about what you imagine is my emotional reaction...of course, you're "simply" commenting on the game (which is what I've been saying all along - stress "simply." But, you meant that word to stand for "innocently," did you not?)

I point at you all the time Jenn and say "I don't like you...yet....good? Well, okay...you can type, sorta. I really don't need to remind those who are reading our little "tête-à-tête" that one whose rhetoric is filled to the brim with ad hominem has surrendered his position at the outset. To remind you of that one would have to assume you knew it in the first place.

Can I keep the doll? Big smile

Oh yes. Any time you'd like to respond to a point I've made, rather than mischaracterize then claim you've responded, I'm waiting with waning interest. My ennui is turning to yawn-way.


In all that emotional bs rambling you were making a point lol?

On a side note, that stuff you are smoking is too strong, you need to ask for a lighter version till your system gets used to it. You'll thanks me for that advice one day.
Thanks so much for proving my point for me. Have a nice day! Big smile

We must accommodate the idiocracy.
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#94 - 2015-03-23 01:27:16 UTC

Since a few of the usual suspects in this thread, including Veers want to live under the illusion that data has to agree with their opinions, let's write down what CCP said:

CCP Rise:

  • Raise your hand if you think suicide ganking exists? (most of the audience raises their hands)
  • Raise your hand if you think anyone's ever quit EVE because of being suicide ganked? (not sure how many raised their hands)
  • Raise your hand if you think NEW players get suicide ganked? (80-90% raises their hands)
  • Rephrasing: Raise your hand if you think suicide ganking is a problem for new players? (~50% raises their hands)
  • So this is a discussion that comes a lot for us [CCP] internally and you would think we would have a really clear idea, but what we face a lot is having a lot of data and limited ability to analyze it. This discussion comes up in NPE, and [CCP is aware that] the community often raises this question.
  • Slide 1 (thanks Tora!). 80,000 users means individual people not accounts that are subscribed (CCP's language later leads me to believe trials were not looked at**). Killers were checked for whether they were killed by CONCORD or other law enforcement agents to determine if the death was due to a gank.
  • Slide 2. Note here that wardecs, Limited Engagements, etc. are legal kills (as expected). Interestingly CCP Rise characterizes these fights as ones where the victim chose to be involved. Ganks are 1% of these deaths, where victims were "killed against their will".
  • Slide 3. CCP was surprised by these results. Myths: New players are pressured by more advanced players, harassed by them. CCP rise says specifically that people in the ganked group were most likely to stay subscribed, with people in the legally killed group 2nd most likely to stay subscribed. People who don't die at all were most likely to leave the game.
  • Slide 4. Everyone should read this slide, seriously.



**CCP Rise's previous data along similar lines looked at subscriber data, not trial data.


Source: EVE Fanfest 2015: Team Pirate Unicorn presentation

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#95 - 2015-03-23 01:30:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Sibyyl wrote:

Since a few of the usual suspects in this thread, including Veers want to live under the illusion that data has to agree with their opinions, let's write down what CCP said:

CCP Rise:

  • Raise your hand if you think suicide ganking exists? (most of the audience raises their hands)
  • Raise your hand if you think anyone's ever quit EVE because of being suicide ganked? (not sure how many raised their hands)
  • Raise your hand if you think NEW players get suicide ganked? (80-90% raises their hands)
  • Rephrasing: Raise your hand if you think suicide ganking is a problem for new players? (~50% raises their hands)
  • So this is a discussion that comes a lot for us [CCP] internally and you would think we would have a really clear idea, but what we face a lot is having a lot of data and limited ability to analyze it. This discussion comes up in NPE, and [CCP is aware that] the community often raises this question.
  • Slide 1 (thanks Tora!). 80,000 users means individual people not accounts that are subscribed (CCP's language later leads me to believe trials were not looked at**). Killers were checked for whether they were killed by CONCORD or other law enforcement agents to determine if the death was due to a gank.
  • Slide 2. Note here that wardecs, Limited Engagements, etc. are legal kills (as expected). Interestingly CCP Rise characterizes these fights as ones where the victim chose to be involved. Ganks are 1% of these deaths, where victims were "killed against their will".
  • Slide 3. CCP was surprised by these results. Myths: New players are pressured by more advanced players, harassed by them. CCP rise says specifically that people in the ganked group were most likely to stay subscribed, with people in the legally killed group 2nd most likely to stay subscribed. People who don't die at all were most likely to leave the game.
  • Slide 4. Everyone should read this slide, seriously.



**CCP Rise's previous data along similar lines looked at subscriber data, not trial data.


Source: EVE Fanfest 2015: Team Pirate Unicorn presentation



Ahhh, ain't that precious, Sibyyl (and Rise) still thinks actual information and evidence means something. That's so sweet Twisted

Edit to add bolded part: High sec is too safe lol.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#96 - 2015-03-23 01:30:47 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:

Since a few of the usual suspects in this thread, including Veers want to live under the illusion that data has to agree with their opinions, let's write down what CCP said:

CCP Rise:

  • Raise your hand if you think suicide ganking exists? (most of the audience raises their hands)
  • Raise your hand if you think anyone's ever quit EVE because of being suicide ganked? (not sure how many raised their hands)
  • Raise your hand if you think NEW players get suicide ganked? (80-90% raises their hands)
  • Rephrasing: Raise your hand if you think suicide ganking is a problem for new players? (~50% raises their hands)
  • So this is a discussion that comes a lot for us [CCP] internally and you would think we would have a really clear idea, but what we face a lot is having a lot of data and limited ability to analyze it. This discussion comes up in NPE, and [CCP is aware that] the community often raises this question.
  • Slide 1 (thanks Tora!). 80,000 users means individual people not accounts that are subscribed (CCP's language later leads me to believe trials were not looked at**). Killers were checked for whether they were killed by CONCORD or other law enforcement agents to determine if the death was due to a gank.
  • Slide 2. Note here that wardecs, Limited Engagements, etc. are legal kills (as expected). Interestingly CCP Rise characterizes these fights as ones where the victim chose to be involved. Ganks are 1% of these deaths, where victims were "killed against their will".
  • Slide 3. CCP was surprised by these results. Myths: New players are pressured by more advanced players, harassed by them. CCP rise says specifically that people in the ganked group were most likely to stay subscribed, with people in the legally killed group 2nd most likely to stay subscribed. People who don't die at all were most likely to leave the game.
  • Slide 4. Everyone should read this slide, seriously.



**CCP Rise's previous data along similar lines looked at subscriber data, not trial data.


Source: EVE Fanfest 2015: Team Pirate Unicorn presentation



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FHEeG_uq5Y

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Arthur Aihaken
Kenshin Academia.
Kenshin Shogunate.
#97 - 2015-03-23 01:32:36 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:
  • Slide 4. Everyone should read this slide, seriously.
    • Pretty sure that's what we're doing.

    I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
    Mr Epeen
    It's All About Me
    #98 - 2015-03-23 01:34:35 UTC
    A for effort, Sibyyl.

    Sadly wasted though. You've been around here long enough to know that the regulars will only cherry pick the bits that validate their pet assumptions and rage. Like fundamentalists the world over, you'll never see an EVE forumvangelist let facts get in the way of a good rant.

    Mr Epeen Cool
    Jenn aSide
    Worthless Carebears
    The Initiative.
    #99 - 2015-03-23 01:38:04 UTC
    Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
    Sibyyl wrote:

    Since a few of the usual suspects in this thread, including Veers want to live under the illusion that data has to agree with their opinions, let's write down what CCP said:

    CCP Rise:

    • Raise your hand if you think suicide ganking exists? (most of the audience raises their hands)
    • Raise your hand if you think anyone's ever quit EVE because of being suicide ganked? (not sure how many raised their hands)
    • Raise your hand if you think NEW players get suicide ganked? (80-90% raises their hands)
    • Rephrasing: Raise your hand if you think suicide ganking is a problem for new players? (~50% raises their hands)
    • So this is a discussion that comes a lot for us [CCP] internally and you would think we would have a really clear idea, but what we face a lot is having a lot of data and limited ability to analyze it. This discussion comes up in NPE, and [CCP is aware that] the community often raises this question.
    • Slide 1 (thanks Tora!). 80,000 users means individual people not accounts that are subscribed (CCP's language later leads me to believe trials were not looked at**). Killers were checked for whether they were killed by CONCORD or other law enforcement agents to determine if the death was due to a gank.
    • Slide 2. Note here that wardecs, Limited Engagements, etc. are legal kills (as expected). Interestingly CCP Rise characterizes these fights as ones where the victim chose to be involved. Ganks are 1% of these deaths, where victims were "killed against their will".
    • Slide 3. CCP was surprised by these results. Myths: New players are pressured by more advanced players, harassed by them. CCP rise says specifically that people in the ganked group were most likely to stay subscribed, with people in the legally killed group 2nd most likely to stay subscribed. People who don't die at all were most likely to leave the game.
    • Slide 4. Everyone should read this slide, seriously.



    **CCP Rise's previous data along similar lines looked at subscriber data, not trial data.


    Source: EVE Fanfest 2015: Team Pirate Unicorn presentation



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FHEeG_uq5Y


    Dude, do you see the anti ganking types on here reacting like Vampires who just won an all expenses paid vaction....to the Sun Twisted
    Sibyyl
    Garoun Investment Bank
    Gallente Federation
    #100 - 2015-03-23 01:40:29 UTC

    Mr Epeen wrote:
    A for effort, Sibyyl.

    Sadly wasted though. You've been around here long enough to know that the regulars will only cherry pick the bits that validate their pet assumptions and rage. Like fundamentalists the world over, you'll never see an EVE forumvangelist let facts get in the way of a good rant.

    Mr Epeen Cool


    Don't mind me, I'm a confused miner.

    *rubs your shiny head*

    Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.