These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#401 - 2015-04-03 00:21:17 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
The orginal example pertains to developers that run silly queries against the database.

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?

Not empty quoting.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#402 - 2015-04-03 00:22:37 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
The orginal example pertains to developers that run silly queries against the database.

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?

Not empty quoting.


Yes you are, they'll ignore it anyway.

"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.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#403 - 2015-04-03 00:27:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
]
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
The orginal example pertains to developers that run silly queries against the database.

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?
The problem is that the data was run at all.
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Eve Solecist wrote:
... 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 ...
Obvious flaw here. Ask 100 random carebears what determines new player and you will have 50 different answers.
For the purpose of his presentation his definition is the only one that counts, our definitions are irrelevant.

That said I'd be interested in seeing the results of any future studies done with extended timescales.
Eve Solecist is making new definitions and a lot of guess work.

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.
Concord Guy's Cousin
Doomheim
#404 - 2015-04-03 00:28:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Concord Guy's Cousin
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Obvious flaw here. Ask 100 random carebears what determines new player and you will have 50 different answers.
Ask 100 random carebears anything at all and the answer generally comes down to one or more of the following themes.

  • Gankers are sociopaths in real life.
  • Wardecs are unfair, people who do it are sociopaths in real life.
  • Scammers are sociopaths in real life.
  • Leave me alone, I just want to PvE.
  • Grr Goons™
  • Highsec should be safe.
  • Other people suck.

Occasionally we get an exceptional bingo-post from the likes of Veers that manages to combine all of the above in some far fetched fantasy that is a facsimile of Alice In Wonderland on 'shrooms, except not as good.

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

NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#405 - 2015-04-03 00:30:47 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
The problem is that the data was run at all.


Told ya, Scipio.

"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.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#406 - 2015-04-03 00:33:25 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
The problem is that the data was run at all.


People like you wanted to burn Galileo. I'm just saying.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#407 - 2015-04-03 00:33:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
The problem is that the data was run at all.
Please feel free to explain how you came up with this judgement.

An 80,000 user sample size is not insignificant. Assuming that the users are unique and the last figure of 500,00 subs to be accurate to within 10%, that'd be a 14-17% sample of the overall population, better than pretty much any medical study.

Quote:
Eve Solecist is making new definitions and a lot of guess work.
And you're not?

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#408 - 2015-04-03 00:37:09 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
The problem is that the data was run at all.


Told ya, Scipio.

Seems so, unfortunately.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#409 - 2015-04-03 00:39:33 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
The problem is that the data was run at all.


People like you wanted to burn Galileo. I'm just saying.


That's actually a common misconception. Galileo was persecuted largely for his disobedience against a dictate, having made one of his books solely to make fun of the Pope after promising not to. It had little to do with his scientific views.

"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.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#410 - 2015-04-03 00:40:48 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
The problem is that the data was run at all.

People like you wanted to burn Galileo. I'm just saying.
Quote:
A valid logical argument is one in which the conclusions follow from its premises, and its conclusions are consequences of its premises.
If the premises are garbage throw out the rest. Roll

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.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#411 - 2015-04-03 00:42:14 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
admiral root wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
The problem is that the data was run at all.


People like you wanted to burn Galileo. I'm just saying.


That's actually a common misconception. Galileo was persecuted largely for his disobedience against a dictate, having made one of his books solely to make fun of the Pope after promising not to. It had little to do with his scientific views.



Well, I learnt something today. \o/

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#412 - 2015-04-03 00:43:10 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
If the premises are garbage throw out the rest. Roll


Says the head of what amounts to Eve's flat Earth society.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#413 - 2015-04-03 00:43:44 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
admiral root wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
The problem is that the data was run at all.


People like you wanted to burn Galileo. I'm just saying.


That's actually a common misconception. Galileo was persecuted largely for his disobedience against a dictate, having made one of his books solely to make fun of the Pope after promising not to. It had little to do with his scientific views.



Well, I learnt something today. \o/


At least someone did.

"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.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#414 - 2015-04-03 00:48:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
admiral root wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
If the premises are garbage throw out the rest. Roll

Says the head of what amounts to Eve's flat Earth society.
I look at the profile picture of your rather flat, table topped, looking head and have a good laugh. Lol

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.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#415 - 2015-04-03 01:27:19 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:

An 80,000 user sample size is not insignificant. Assuming that the users are unique and the last figure of 500,00 subs to be accurate to within 10%, that'd be a 14-17% sample of the overall population, better than pretty much any medical study.

Quote:
Eve Solecist is making new definitions and a lot of guess work.
And you're not?

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Ignoring Jenshaes weird statement.
Firstly an 80,000 person study is not a 14-17% sample of the overall population. Because it is a study which includes no longer active accounts who are not part of the 500,000 population, so to obtain an accurate percentage of the population you would have to know the total number of accounts who have been active at any time (including trials) in the time period of the study. not the number of current subs.

Secondly, all the database query established is that there is a relationship between players who have been ganked in their first 15 days and players who have stayed more than 15 days.
Ignoring all the stuff about 15 days being a terrible timeframe to take, we still have no idea of the nature of the relationship. So to say that 'Players stayed because they were ganked' is extrapolating the statistics to say something that we have no idea on.
There are a multitude of other relationships that would also generate a similar view, but for vastly different reasons on which ganking is not the root cause, but simply a subsequent effect from the real reason those players have stayed longer.

Basically, you all are inventing results from a study, and would get laughed out of any scientific establishment with your reaching for straws.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#416 - 2015-04-03 01:48:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

Ignoring Jenshaes weird statement.
Firstly an 80,000 person study is not a 14-17% sample of the overall population. Because it is a study which includes no longer active accounts who are not part of the 500,000 population, so to obtain an accurate percentage of the population you would have to know the total number of accounts who have been active at any time (including trials) in the time period of the study. not the number of current subs.
If true, this is the first I've heard about it. Would you have a source for your information?

Quote:
Secondly, all the database query established is that there is a relationship between players who have been ganked in their first 15 days and players who have stayed more than 15 days.
Ignoring all the stuff about 15 days being a terrible timeframe to take, we still have no idea of the nature of the relationship. So to say that 'Players stayed because they were ganked' is extrapolating the statistics to say something that we have no idea on.
I've certainly not said that as far as I know, what I have said is that the data points to people who have been involved in ship to ship PvP being more likely to stay than those who haven't.

I hope CCP Rise actually takes the study further, both in time and depth to see if he and his team can come up with some sort of relationship, which as you rightly say is obscure or unknown at present.

Quote:
There are a multitude of other relationships that would also generate a similar view, but for vastly different reasons on which ganking is not the root cause, but simply a subsequent effect from the real reason those players have stayed longer.
No doubt there is, a further study should be able to point to them, for example joining a competent corp, falling in with like minded folks etc will certainly influence player retention, in the case of joining a corp it'd show up in the database.

Quote:
Basically, you all are inventing results from a study, and would get laughed out of any scientific establishment with your reaching for straws.
Have you seen the crap some people pass off as science these days?

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Jenshae Chiroptera
#417 - 2015-04-03 02:43:42 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
If true, this is the first I've heard about it. Would you have a source for your information?
Party 1, "I have studied the density of 80 000 granite pebbles to see if they are more dense than granite rocks. "
Party 2, "That is a stupid study because granite is granite and on average they will have the same density under the same conditions."
Party 3, "Where is your proof? Have you studied 80 000 granite rocks?"
Party 2, "I do not need proof. It is evident that their study is based on a stupid idea to start off with."

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.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#418 - 2015-04-03 03:44:18 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:


Basically, you all are inventing results from a study, and would get laughed out of any scientific establishment with your reaching for straws.


How hard would that laughter be for people who were debunking a case study while having zero information of their own and never having even conducted one of their own? Because that's what's happening here lol.

It's no coincidence that the 2 or 3 die hard deniers here are members of the same ideological camp. A camp that at it's base NEEDS non-consensual pvp to be a bad thing.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#419 - 2015-04-03 03:46:08 UTC
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#420 - 2015-04-03 04:10:48 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

How hard would that laughter be for people who were debunking a case study while having zero information of their own and never having even conducted one of their own? Because that's what's happening here lol.

It's no coincidence that the 2 or 3 die hard deniers here are members of the same ideological camp. A camp that at it's base NEEDS non-consensual pvp to be a bad thing.

Its almost like....
A: you are delusional since I don't belong to that camp.
B: know about case studies and eliminating variables and relationships not always meaning direct cause.
C: you are emotionally over invested in 'proving' that ganking newbies is good for the game.