These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Black Pedro
Mine.
#341 - 2015-04-02 05:49:49 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Blah
Are you deliberately being dense? The orginal example pertains to developers that run silly queries against the database.

Asking the question "how many new players leave after being exploded by another player" is a silly question to ask when trying to assess why new players don't convert from trial to subscriber?

CCP formulated a hypothesis - that new players were not staying because they were being killed by existing players - and tested that by querying over 80 000 data points from their database. They examined the correlation between deaths to other players during the trial and retention rates to test this hypothesis. Surprisingly, they found not only was there no data to support this hypothesis, they found that deaths to other players had the opposite effect.

Sure, this doesn't establish conclusively that one factor causes the other, but certainly it is not a silly question to ask nor a silly way to go about testing that hypothesis. The result is strong evidence that losing a ship to another player (during the trial) is not a predictor of whether a player will stay with the game. Therefore, CCP learned that this is not an area they need to fix and can focus their efforts on other aspects of the trial that do correlate with players not subscribing.

Why is that so difficult to accept?

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Mag's
Azn Empire
#342 - 2015-04-02 06:13:32 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Why is that so difficult to accept?
Simple. Because it doesn't fit their narrative.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#343 - 2015-04-02 06:30:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Blah
Are you deliberately being dense?

No, I'm just naturally that way I guess.

Quote:
The orginal example pertains to developers that run silly queries against the database.

Excuse me for being dense, but I still have seen no evidence, counter data or reasonable argument to demonstrate why the data presented as it was, was not relevant within the scope that it was used.

Maybe you could explain in simple terms that even a dense person like me can understand, why that data presented as it was, was not relevant to the point Rise made?

Even one reasonable counter argument. Not personal insults or anything, just the topic and the data presented for the purpose it was presented.

I may be dense, but I am open minded, as I suspect are many people on the forum. Happy to see and understand why the data is wrong, if only it can be explained.
Azda Ja
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#344 - 2015-04-02 06:38:27 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:


Even one reasonable counter argument. Not personal insults or anything, just the topic and the data presented for the purpose it was presented.

Now now Scipio, let's be reasonable here.

Grrr.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#345 - 2015-04-02 08:00:42 UTC
Azda Ja wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:


Even one reasonable counter argument. Not personal insults or anything, just the topic and the data presented for the purpose it was presented.

Now now Scipio, let's be reasonable here.
This is GD, being reasonable has no place here Twisted

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Eve Solecist
Shitt Outta Luck - GANKING4GOOD
#346 - 2015-04-02 08:05:00 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Azda Ja wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:


Even one reasonable counter argument. Not personal insults or anything, just the topic and the data presented for the purpose it was presented.

Now now Scipio, let's be reasonable here.
This is GD, being reasonable has no place here Twisted

Jonah, nice to see your scared face around again!
  • All incoming connection attempts are being blocked. If you want to speak to me you will find me either in Hek local, you can create a contract or make a thread about it in General Discussions. I will call you back. -
Eve Solecist
Shitt Outta Luck - GANKING4GOOD
#347 - 2015-04-02 08:10:47 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Blah
Are you deliberately being dense? The orginal example pertains to developers that run silly queries against the database.

Asking the question "how many new players leave after being exploded by another player" is a silly question to ask when trying to assess why new players don't convert from trial to subscriber?

CCP formulated a hypothesis - that new players were not staying because they were being killed by existing players - and tested that by querying over 80 000 data points from their database. They examined the correlation between deaths to other players during the trial and retention rates to test this hypothesis. Surprisingly, they found not only was there no data to support this hypothesis, they found that deaths to other players had the opposite effect.

Sure, this doesn't establish conclusively that one factor causes the other, but certainly it is not a silly question to ask nor a silly way to go about testing that hypothesis. The result is strong evidence that losing a ship to another player (during the trial) is not a predictor of whether a player will stay with the game. Therefore, CCP learned that this is not an area they need to fix and can focus their efforts on other aspects of the trial that do correlate with players not subscribing.

Why is that so difficult to accept?

For those who don't want to read through...

He says that CCP checked if recruiting by shooting was a thing ...
... noticed that it was ...
... noticed that it actually WORKS ...
... as it has for manymanymany years.

If only the degenerates realised that they have no ground to speak.
  • All incoming connection attempts are being blocked. If you want to speak to me you will find me either in Hek local, you can create a contract or make a thread about it in General Discussions. I will call you back. -
Eve Solecist
Shitt Outta Luck - GANKING4GOOD
#348 - 2015-04-02 11:11:54 UTC
Well, I guess the truth has ended the thread of the degenerates.
  • All incoming connection attempts are being blocked. If you want to speak to me you will find me either in Hek local, you can create a contract or make a thread about it in General Discussions. I will call you back. -
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#349 - 2015-04-02 15:00:36 UTC
Eve Solecist wrote:
For those who don't want to read through...

He says that CCP checked if recruiting by shooting was a thing ...
... noticed that it was ...
... noticed that it actually WORKS ...
... as it has for manymanymany years.

If only the degenerates realised that they have no ground to speak.


Was there a causal relationship established?
I thought it was that the players who "got" EVE were more likely to fly around and therefore get shot, not that players who got shot were more likely to "get" EVE.
Dots
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#350 - 2015-04-02 17:49:29 UTC

Eli Stan wrote:
Eve Solecist wrote:
For those who don't want to read through...

He says that CCP checked if recruiting by shooting was a thing ...
... noticed that it was ...
... noticed that it actually WORKS ...
... as it has for manymanymany years.

If only the degenerates realised that they have no ground to speak.


Was there a causal relationship established?
I thought it was that the players who "got" EVE were more likely to fly around and therefore get shot, not that players who got shot were more likely to "get" EVE.



They are less likely to leave EVE if the conflict is mutual. They are least likely to leave if nonconsensually shot at. Which is to say these two groups are more likely to keep playing than players who aren't shot at at all.

everything is better with ᵈᵒᵗˢ on it

New Player Opportunities: a gallery
Pohbis
Neo T.E.C.H.
#351 - 2015-04-02 18:10:18 UTC
Dots wrote:
They are less likely to leave EVE if the conflict is mutual. They are least likely to leave if nonconsensually shot at. Which is to say these two groups are more likely to keep playing than players who aren't shot at at all.
Correlation does not imply, causation – which is what was asked for.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#352 - 2015-04-02 18:59:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Black Pedro wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Blah
Are you deliberately being dense? The orginal example pertains to developers that run silly queries against the database.

Asking the question "how many new players leave after being exploded by another player" is a silly question to ask when trying to assess why new players don't convert from trial to subscriber?

CCP formulated a hypothesis -
Yes, a bad hypothesis.

Why not simply asked newbies that are 15 day olds, "Why are you quitting?"
(I don't mean this directly. I mean look at wider factors rather than assume it is because of ganking.)

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.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#353 - 2015-04-02 19:07:17 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Yes, a bad hypothesis.

Why not simply asked newbies that are 15 day olds, "Why are you quitting?"


He really is this ignorant, folks.

What do you think the outgoing survey is for, may I ask? Just to ask them what kinds of Gummi Bears they enjoy?

"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.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#354 - 2015-04-02 19:11:02 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Blah
Are you deliberately being dense? The orginal example pertains to developers that run silly queries against the database.

Asking the question "how many new players leave after being exploded by another player" is a silly question to ask when trying to assess why new players don't convert from trial to subscriber?

CCP formulated a hypothesis -
Yes, a bad hypothesis.

Why not simply asked newbies that are 15 day olds, "Why are you quitting?"

They did. And less than 1% of the new players said it was because of ship loss or harassment.

Presumably CCP Rise and friends are using the other 99%+ of the answers to fix the NPE as we speak.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Dots
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#355 - 2015-04-02 19:27:38 UTC

Pohbis wrote:
Dots wrote:
They are less likely to leave EVE if the conflict is mutual. They are least likely to leave if nonconsensually shot at. Which is to say these two groups are more likely to keep playing than players who aren't shot at at all.
Correlation does not imply, causation – which is what was asked for.


Correlation is a prerequisite for causation. Did either yourself or Eli have any input as to how the data can more exactly pinpoint causation? It's really simply to throw tomatoes all day long, but it just seems more like people are willfully ignoring the 80,000-large sample set because it interferes with their beliefs.

I've yet to see a critic of Rise's study explain in specific terms what is missing or incorrect in the data (and I don't mean creative offtopic analogies).

everything is better with ᵈᵒᵗˢ on it

New Player Opportunities: a gallery
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#356 - 2015-04-02 19:31:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Jenshae Chiroptera[/quote wrote:
Yes, a bad hypothesis.
CCP are in a far better position to judge whether or not their study was valid than you are.

Quote:
Why not simply asked newbies that are 15 day olds, "Why are you quitting?"
(I don't mean this directly. I mean look at wider factors rather than assume it is because of ganking.)
I'd hazard a guess that they concentrated on ganking because "ganking drives away new players" appears to be a popular belief among their current subscribers, IIRC a large percentage of the audience confirmed this belief when CCP Rise asked his opening questions.

Player retention is very high on CCP's agenda, as such I would assume that they're looking at many factors, ganking included, that may drive prospective subscribers away. For example they already know that the NPE leaves a lot to be desired as evidenced by the work that they're doing to improve it.

TL;DR give CCP some credit, they're not dumb and I have no doubt that the study into the effects of ganking on new player retention was merely the tip of the iceberg.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Concord Guy's Cousin
Doomheim
#357 - 2015-04-02 19:34:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Concord Guy's Cousin
meh wrong thread

ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"

NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
Eve Solecist
Shitt Outta Luck - GANKING4GOOD
#358 - 2015-04-02 20:01:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Eve Solecist
Guys!

"Recruiting by shooting" is a practise that's older than me in this game
and that's a few years by now.

Read what is written, not what you want to read!
I'll help you this one time, though no one is paying me for it.

Quote:
CCP formulated a hypothesis - that new players were not staying because they were being killed by existing players - and tested that by querying over 80 000 data points from their database. They examined the correlation between deaths to other players during the trial and retention rates to test this hypothesis. Surprisingly, they found not only was there no data to support this hypothesis, they found that deaths to other players had the opposite effect.


It was CCP who wondered if it was true what carebears claimed. They checked, if it was true that a high amount of new players is being griefed out of the game by being ganked, or shot at in any other way. "80.000 data points" means nothing to you and me, but the amount of "points" means that, no matter what, they checked for quite a lot!


They found, that, those new players who forcefully interacted with someone else ...
... were far more likely to stay longer in the game.

This is connected to (and I am quoting CCP here, watch FF.) the fact that the more socially players
are the ones who are staying. This comes also, but not only, from "recruiting by shooting".

Now before you scream "yeah the more socially people" ... meep, no.
New players are being formed. The environment always has a direct impact on it's inhabitant.
An environment inhabiting interacting human beings makes all humans happy.



If you "carebear" people actually had any friends from the other side ...
... (you hate the players, not the character) ...
... you would know that this is an actually *very common thing*.


So ... it's no hypothesis. It never was, except for CCP when they looked for it.
(the issue with "data" and why I keep saying that the NPE is a social engineering problem ...
... but HEY, WHY EVEN THINK ABOUT IT AND ASK, RIGHT?? *cough* ... )

And then, after analysing their 80.000 datapoints, they learned actual reality.

That "recruiting by shooting" is a thing.

It works.

Isolation is bad.


PewPew, in a game about PewPew ...
... where PewPew is a common and natural form of interaction ... (killing is just a means of communication.....)
... actually makes people want to stay and PewPew.


Phew.




And now, as this is finally written down by my fingers, I come back to my senses and realise that ...

... this post does not matter, even though there's not a single bit of untruthfullness in it.
... there will be new people, who will make new threads and come up with the same "ignorant idiocies".
... those who PewPew have no actual interest in "ending the debate" once and for all. (yeah it's doable)

... the forum's information overload degrades people's minds to instant reactions,
with no actual pause for thought before a reply.
(I dare you to start looking for it!)


... the really bad people are people like Basil and some in this thread
and not those who shoot or scam them.


... smart people are a minority.



*kinks*
  • All incoming connection attempts are being blocked. If you want to speak to me you will find me either in Hek local, you can create a contract or make a thread about it in General Discussions. I will call you back. -
Eve Solecist
Shitt Outta Luck - GANKING4GOOD
#359 - 2015-04-02 20:10:01 UTC
And "Dots" is the cutest name ever! =^_^=
  • All incoming connection attempts are being blocked. If you want to speak to me you will find me either in Hek local, you can create a contract or make a thread about it in General Discussions. I will call you back. -
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#360 - 2015-04-02 20:18:54 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Yes, a bad hypothesis.

Why not simply asked newbies that are 15 day olds, "Why are you quitting?"


He really is this ignorant, folks.

What do you think the outgoing survey is for, may I ask? Just to ask them what kinds of Gummi Bears they enjoy?


The red ones are obviously better.

On a different note, what would possibly happen if someone made a ganking campaign just outside of newbie starter systems?