These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#441 - 2015-04-03 13:10:51 UTC
Eve Solecist wrote:
bonkerss wrote:
The problem is: Most mmo players are addictive personalities. They want to get hooked and get rewarded every couple minutes. The average mmo player does not want to PLAY A GAME. He wants to get rewarded for doing irrelevant tasks and QUICK. Eve per default punishes you rather than reward you. Eve is a game that is only addictive for a very special breed of people. (probably sociopaths with a evil tendency:=)

If you want to run a successful mmo in the year 2015 you have to hook the player and shower him with gifts and epic loots. The timeframe to achieve this in the year 2015 is probably 5 minutes. If you dont have epic loot within those 5 minutes, and in eve chances are that instead of getting any loot you end up in a pod, people will leave and not look back.

If you want eve to have mass appeal you can forget it with the current game design!

Nobody wants these people around, though.
They do not fit into the game, like, at all.

They bring nothing but grief and ruin the game
and when these mindless robots are done consuming they leave.

While I agree that exploiting the mindlessness of these robots fills the wallets ...
... in the end it costs more to have them around.


That might be a little harsh.

I think they contribute plenty in their brief stay. They provide us with easy targets. They give us entertainment with their entitlement rage (though nothing quite as good as bittervet tears). They provide a constant turnover so that we never get tired of seeing the same old people crying in local.

There's room for all types in this game. It's just that while some obsessively give their life over to EVE, others are simply testing the waters. Who can say which is healthier, really?

But at the end of the day, EVE is like any other MMO in these days of sound bites and 4 minute webisodes as the popular forms of entertainment. The retention rate of new players is abysmal. Doesn't mean CCP should stop trying. Casting a wide net means most will be unsuitable, but that's just the price to be paid for finding the small percentage that will stick around.

And we get to have have some fun with those that won't be joining us for long.

Mr Epeen Cool
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#442 - 2015-04-03 13:11:12 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
It is so good being the OP because I can link to the sane posts in a long thread from the very first post, ones such as these.

Totally agree.

It is good that you're the OP. If you ever run for CSM again, we'll just be able to link this whole thread as an example of your attitude towards CCP, rational discussion and how you will interact with the players that you will hope to represent.

Win-win outcome.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#443 - 2015-04-03 13:20:58 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
It is so good being the OP because I can link to the sane posts in a long thread from the very first post, ones such as these.

Totally agree.

It is good that you're the OP. If you ever run for CSM again, we'll just be able to link this whole thread as an example of your attitude towards CCP, rational discussion and how you will interact with the players that you will hope to represent.

Win-win outcome.


I'd rather vote for Xenuria, and I'm dead serious.

"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.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#444 - 2015-04-03 13:20:59 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:


Not the best English I could have used, lets try again:

The issue with player loss to ganking was always those that were 7 months to a year old who had just got into a more expensive mining ship and it was especially bad when CCP ignored the fact that all their mining ships had the tank of a wet paper bag and their failure to address that was a major reason for that player loss.

Quote that now!


We are still waiting for this to be shown to be true.

Literally every single survey, graph and data point taken on this subject shows ganking does not make players quit.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#445 - 2015-04-03 13:26:54 UTC
baltec1 wrote:


Literally every single survey, graph and data point taken on this subject shows ganking does not make players quit.


In the first 15 days.

Mr Epeen Cool
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#446 - 2015-04-03 13:50:09 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


Not the best English I could have used, lets try again:

The issue with player loss to ganking was always those that were 7 months to a year old who had just got into a more expensive mining ship and it was especially bad when CCP ignored the fact that all their mining ships had the tank of a wet paper bag and their failure to address that was a major reason for that player loss.

Quote that now!


We are still waiting for this to be shown to be true.

Literally every single survey, graph and data point taken on this subject shows ganking does not make players quit.


Lets repeat the same answer I gave you last time:

I joined an industrial, exploration organisation in Star Citizen, there was 30 peeple on TS, 8 had played Eve, 7 of them had left after the very example I detailed in my earlier post, the 8th did not get past his trial period, he wanted something a bit more shooty uppy.

The sample is industrial players, a small subset of course, but a rather striking one at that.

I guess you will come back with the same reply you did last time, so the dance continues...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#447 - 2015-04-03 13:58:08 UTC
So, you're rejecting actual, painstakingly gathered data, and replacing it with... an anecdote.

And not just any anecdote, one from Star Citizen, of all things.

Bravo.

"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.
Nicolai Serkanner
Incredible.
Brave Collective
#448 - 2015-04-03 14:09:11 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


Not the best English I could have used, lets try again:

The issue with player loss to ganking was always those that were 7 months to a year old who had just got into a more expensive mining ship and it was especially bad when CCP ignored the fact that all their mining ships had the tank of a wet paper bag and their failure to address that was a major reason for that player loss.

Quote that now!


We are still waiting for this to be shown to be true.

Literally every single survey, graph and data point taken on this subject shows ganking does not make players quit.


Lets repeat the same answer I gave you last time:

I joined an industrial, exploration organisation in Star Citizen, there was 30 peeple on TS, 8 had played Eve, 7 of them had left after the very example I detailed in my earlier post, the 8th did not get past his trial period, he wanted something a bit more shooty uppy.

The sample is industrial players, a small subset of course, but a rather striking one at that.

I guess you will come back with the same reply you did last time, so the dance continues...


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ....... hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ... you can NOT be serious.
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#449 - 2015-04-03 14:09:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Stan
Dots wrote:
Your entire hypothesis focuses on 1% of the rookie population?


Nope, my hypothesis focuses on both ganked and non-ganked newbies, which covers 100% of the rookie population.

Dots wrote:
If the gank data was an anomaly, or pure coincidence as you seem to be implying, we would see a PVP = players leaving EVE data point somewhere.. and we haven't.


I am NOT saying the correlation between player retention and PvP (whether consensual or gank) is a coincidence. I'm suggesting a theory that being ganked is a result of an engaged newbie, rather than a cause of an engaged newbie.

Anecdote time - a little over a year ago I started playing EVE for the first time. It was also my first MMO ever, so I approached it much like a single-player game. Tell you what, I got pretty bored very quickly. Then I found the CAS group, made initial contact for a jump clone, decided to stick around for some social activity, and ended up having a very fun PvP career so far. In my individual situation, being the victim of a random gank of my Venture wouldn't have led to any engagement with EVE at all, no more than being blown up by a rat would - but the fact that I was out in space flying around meant I was an available target if anybody so chose. If I had been ganked but hadn't found CAS, I would have ended up in the "ganked and quit" category.

Anyway, to try and summarize my takeaways from the Fanfest presentation:
- Ganking does not harm new player retention, and therefore does not need to be nerfed in regards to new players, and CCP does not need to make highsec any safer or some such.
- CCP needs to figure out how to get newbies more engaged with both the game and the players therein. How that can best be accomplished, I don't know.
Eve Solecist
Shitt Outta Luck - GANKING4GOOD
#450 - 2015-04-03 14:21:01 UTC
Gee, I just noticed that I wrote "shooting by recruiting" and nobody even noticed.

Fixed it now. -.-


Need more sleep in SLEEP EAT CONQUER REPEAT.


*reads up on thread*
  • 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
#451 - 2015-04-03 14:22:42 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
It is so good being the OP because I can link to the sane posts in a long thread from the very first post, ones such as these.

Totally agree.

It is good that you're the OP. If you ever run for CSM again, we'll just be able to link this whole thread as an example of your attitude towards CCP, rational discussion and how you will interact with the players that you will hope to represent.

Win-win outcome.


I'd rather vote for Xenuria, and I'm dead serious.

Wow, that's ..........

..... that's .......


SHEEESH I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY! O:
  • 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
#452 - 2015-04-03 14:38:13 UTC
Niobe Song wrote:
Make PvP part of the NPE.


I'd love it if one of the new NPE Opportunities was "a) Join an NPSI fleet (and EVE Voice since such fleets needs quick communication from FC to members) and b) get blown up outside highsec." This could be accomplished by CCP advertising two or three such fleets daily in different timezones, or fewer depending on participation level, led by a CCP employee or officially recognized volunteer.
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#453 - 2015-04-03 14:45:17 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Literally every single survey, graph and data point taken on this subject shows ganking does not make players quit.


Unfortunately, the only data we've been presented (as far as I know) is about players 15 days or younger. I'm interested in seeing what data CCP has about players 6 months, a year, and two years into the game. What are the relative retention rates for the three categories - that is, not destroyed, legally destroyed, and suicide ganked?
Dots
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#454 - 2015-04-03 14:57:54 UTC

Eli Stan wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Literally every single survey, graph and data point taken on this subject shows ganking does not make players quit.


Unfortunately, the only data we've been presented (as far as I know) is about players 15 days or younger. I'm interested in seeing what data CCP has about players 6 months, a year, and two years into the game. What are the relative retention rates for the three categories - that is, not destroyed, legally destroyed, and suicide ganked?


6 month/1 year players have access to mining and hauling vessels with large EHPs. These players would also have no excuse for not knowing the game's rules. In order to be ganked within an optimistic 15-20 second window (extended slightly by CONCORD pull), these players have to not be paying attention and completely disengaged from the game.

That is to say that likely these players would have quit anyway (in line with your "hypothesis").

everything is better with ᵈᵒᵗˢ on it

New Player Opportunities: a gallery
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#455 - 2015-04-03 15:07:31 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
So, you're rejecting actual, painstakingly gathered data, and replacing it with... an anecdote.

And not just any anecdote, one from Star Citizen, of all things.

Bravo.


Poor effort, the data is a small sub-set, and something I could analyse myself in about 5 minutes, expert level Excel and high level SQL and .Net programming skills for the win, the issue is of course what data was recorded.

This is not the data you are looking for...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#456 - 2015-04-03 15:18:35 UTC
bonkerss wrote:
The problem is: Most mmo players are addictive personalities. They want to get hooked and get rewarded every couple minutes. The average mmo player does not want to PLAY A GAME. He wants to get rewarded for doing irrelevant tasks and QUICK. Eve per default punishes you rather than reward you. Eve is a game that is only addictive for a very special breed of people. (probably sociopaths with a evil tendency:=)

If you want to run a successful mmo in the year 2015 you have to hook the player and shower him with gifts and epic loots. The timeframe to achieve this in the year 2015 is probably 5 minutes. If you dont have epic loot within those 5 minutes, and in eve chances are that instead of getting any loot you end up in a pod, people will leave and not look back.

To leave that sort of bullshit behind was the reason I joined EVE 4,5 years ago.

Remove standings and insurance.
Eve Solecist
Shitt Outta Luck - GANKING4GOOD
#457 - 2015-04-03 15:20:28 UTC
Dots wrote:

Eli Stan wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Literally every single survey, graph and data point taken on this subject shows ganking does not make players quit.


Unfortunately, the only data we've been presented (as far as I know) is about players 15 days or younger. I'm interested in seeing what data CCP has about players 6 months, a year, and two years into the game. What are the relative retention rates for the three categories - that is, not destroyed, legally destroyed, and suicide ganked?


6 month/1 year players have access to mining and hauling vessels with large EHPs. These players would also have no excuse for not knowing the game's rules. In order to be ganked within an optimistic 15-20 second window (extended slightly by CONCORD pull), these players have to not be paying attention and completely disengaged from the game.

That is to say that likely these players would have quit anyway (in line with your "hypothesis").


Sounds like he's just a hater and dismissable.

A player who is six months into the game better know how not to get ganked.
It makes no sense to assume that getting ganked drives away someone
who has played months already. That would mean he actually didn't play at all,
or so isolated that he can only blame himself.

(choosing to play isolated is fine ...
... but being unable to accept that it's a multiplayer game ...
... where one can not always choose to play isolated ........... nope.)


It would be logical to assume that *the loss* was what finally ended the decision-making process,
which has started long before that gank anyway.
  • 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. -
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#458 - 2015-04-03 15:22:33 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
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.


The last part is a lie. I don't care about who gets ganked or not.

But in this instance I'm glad the insidious, fake, self righteous-for-no-solid-reason white knight types (that views players playing a game within that game's on rules as stated in the EULA as somehow 'evil') now have to face actual Data.

You see, these 'space justice warriors' aren't pursing 'justice', they are pursuing a reason to see themselves as the noble good guys fighting the good fight against evil (must like the real life people who dress up like superheroes to go 'fight crime' at night mainly because their mental instability and previous criminal records prevent them from being actual police officers lol).

Rise's data suggests that there is a seriously high chance that all the screeching about people leaving the game after being ganked or war decced is false. Hell, it suggests that pvp (including non-consensual pvp) might actually HELP the game. Well, I already knew that, I'm a PVE-centric player, but if it weren't for pvp types proving me content (in the form of being those really smart obstacles I have to learn how to avoid while filling my wallet up Indiana Jones style), I wouldn't be here, because EVE's pve by itself sucks.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#459 - 2015-04-03 15:26:31 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
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.

Friend! You carebears told us for a long time that ganking was a big deal for player retention. You where absolutely convinced that ganking drives new players away. You spew this nonsense on the forums in every thread...

Now it seams to be the case that CCP had the same view for some time, but they where in the position to actually check because they have all the data of what happens and the survey answers if people quit.

They tried to verify YOUR idea about whats happening and why people quit. The result was something completely different. The data shows that not only is ganking an insignificant factor for new player retention, it also shows that new player who actually get ganked are more likely to stay. This is directly from the talk, there is no need to interpret anything into this data. This are just simple facts.

The facts say, and again this is directly shown by the data, that the carebears where wrong when they stated that ganking is bad for new player retention. The theory of the carebears was falsified with data which showed the opposite of what they expected. This is how science works. You make a hypothesis, then you try to falsify it with data. This happend and it shattered the carebear theory that ganking is bad for the game.

Now if we are honest, we can never say that some data "proves" anything, in science nothing is set in stone. But it certainly favors the view that ganking gets people out of their isolation and drags them into the sandbox where the interesting stuff in eve is happening.


This is the honest truth of the matter. The 2 problems the people you are talking to here are:

#1. The word CODE

#2. The fact that if what you are saying is true, it destroys not only their belief system about a video game, but their entire real life reason for being.
Hengle Teron
Red Sky Morning
The Amarr Militia.
#460 - 2015-04-03 15:30:04 UTC
Or you can cry in Hek local to get everyone banned, when you get your retriever blown up.