These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Gallowmere Rorschach
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#541 - 2015-04-05 01:17:25 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:

That is just the tip of the iceberg from the top of my head.


Your desperation to disqualify the data is ever more apparent.

Therein lies the problem. No matter how much data we are given on this subject, there will still be more questions. It creates this neverending loop where no amount of data will be sufficient.

But then, we already knew that to begin with. It's nice to see it shown front and center though.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#542 - 2015-04-05 01:23:48 UTC
Vector Symian wrote:
It is apart of the fear mongering Propaganda machine that is the NULL SEC POWERBLOCK! Shocked

we must leave them in fiery ruin to protect the chil..um..Noobelahs!! Twisted
You are certainly tenacious, Vector. I gotta give you that. With you at the helm, null stands no chance!

Keep fighting the good fight.

Mr Epeen Cool
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#543 - 2015-04-05 01:36:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
How many were looking to PVP?
How many were avoiding PVP?
How many defending space?
How many exploring?
How many in travel fits?
How many were bait?
How many were suicide attacking?
How many were ambushed?
...
...
[some questions also answered in the presentation]

That is just the tip of the iceberg from the top of my head.

In the end it doesn't matter which of those it was.

Because one of the strong messages of that part of the presentation was that a player that had a ship blown up (including all these particular ways and more) had a higher chance of continuing to play in month 4, compared to a player that had no pvp experience (the worst case being a player that had no pvp, joined no Corp and no activity** = 98% chance of leaving).

These are all good for player retention beyond the onboarding period.

** edited as per Dots post below. Originally I thought the 98% figure was someone who mined solo for that 1-3 months.
Dots
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#544 - 2015-04-05 01:41:48 UTC

Small correction Scip. The 98% figure is players who did nothing at all (no mining, no ship loss). Miners without ship loss is a 70-80% quit rate at Month 4.



Jen, a few pages ago you were asking for 3 month player data. Now you're adding a bunch of random questions to the list. Why would you move goalposts like that instead of responding to what's available?

everything is better with ᵈᵒᵗˢ on it

New Player Opportunities: a gallery
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#545 - 2015-04-05 01:44:34 UTC
Dots wrote:

Small correction Scip. The 98% figure is players who did nothing at all (no mining, no ship loss). Miners without ship loss is a 70-80% quit rate at Month 4.

Jen, a few pages ago you were asking for 3 month player data. Now you're adding a bunch of random questions to the list. Why would you move goalposts like that instead of responding to what's available?

Ah ok thanks.
Vector Symian
0 Fear
#546 - 2015-04-05 01:45:36 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Vector Symian wrote:
It is apart of the fear mongering Propaganda machine that is the NULL SEC POWERBLOCK! Shocked

we must leave them in fiery ruin to protect the chil..um..Noobelahs!! Twisted
You are certainly tenacious, Vector. I gotta give you that. With you at the helm, null stands no chance!

Keep fighting the good fight.

Mr Epeen Cool


Thankyou Master Epeen

*bows*
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#547 - 2015-04-05 01:47:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Epeen
Dots wrote:

Jen, a few pages ago you were asking for 3 month player data. Now you're adding a bunch of random questions to the list. Why would you move goalposts like that instead of responding to what's available?



You must be new here. Go back over some of his posting history.

~ed~ To be fair, they all do it. Moving goal posts is what most forum warriors do best. Second only to personal attacks and straw man arguments.

Mr Epeen Cool
Jenshae Chiroptera
#548 - 2015-04-05 01:58:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Mr Epeen wrote:
Moving goal posts
I am not moving goal posts. I haven't put up any "win" criteria or goal posts. I am simply pointing out that the statistics are not indepth enough or of a wide enough scope.

... and that is the whole purpose of this thread, why I started it.
CCP Rise put very little thought into a study and felt that was enough to then go and present it, with whatever agenda, he then added to it.

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
#549 - 2015-04-05 02:14:39 UTC
Dots wrote:

The "tree depth 2", the first image below is the tl;dr. It compares two extremes:

1. Most likely to stay in the game = ship victim + in a corp of X size (35% for NPC, 50% small/large corp, 55%medium corp)

And there is your data issue.
You are combining social factors which we all know contribute to staying with PvP factors then claiming PvP makes the difference.
While utterly discounting the possibility that the fact they engaged in PvP was because the social factors had already made them likely to stay and be more involved in the game.

Cause & effect order basically. You are claiming something that may be an effect as a cause.
Is it a nice metric that has an easy to find relationship, totally, but it doesn't mean that's the cause.

Nor that the lack of getting blown up is the cause of people quitting.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#550 - 2015-04-05 02:27:06 UTC
Gallowmere Rorschach wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:

That is just the tip of the iceberg from the top of my head.


Your desperation to disqualify the data is ever more apparent.

Therein lies the problem. No matter how much data we are given on this subject, there will still be more questions. It creates this neverending loop where no amount of data will be sufficient.

But then, we already knew that to begin with. It's nice to see it shown front and center though.


Jenshae Chiroptera's required level of evidence
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#551 - 2015-04-05 02:34:31 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Dots wrote:

The "tree depth 2", the first image below is the tl;dr. It compares two extremes:

1. Most likely to stay in the game = ship victim + in a corp of X size (35% for NPC, 50% small/large corp, 55%medium corp)

And there is your data issue.
You are combining social factors which we all know contribute to staying with PvP factors then claiming PvP makes the difference.
While utterly discounting the possibility that the fact they engaged in PvP was because the social factors had already made them likely to stay and be more involved in the game.

Cause & effect order basically. You are claiming something that may be an effect as a cause.
Is it a nice metric that has an easy to find relationship, totally, but it doesn't mean that's the cause.

Nor that the lack of getting blown up is the cause of people quitting.


Where did Dots claim anything? He posted a recap of the facts presented by CCP Quant. He did not post a single conclusion.

Go a head and post your evidence that disproves the facts that he posted (ie "Most likely to stay in the game = ship victim + in a corp of X size (35% for NPC, 50% small/large corp, 55%medium corp)).
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#552 - 2015-04-05 02:36:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
And there is your data issue.
You are combining social factors which we all know contribute to staying with PvP factors then claiming PvP makes the difference.
While utterly discounting the possibility that the fact they engaged in PvP was because the social factors had already made them likely to stay and be more involved in the game.

Cause & effect order basically. You are claiming something that may be an effect as a cause.
Is it a nice metric that has an easy to find relationship, totally, but it doesn't mean that's the cause.

Nor that the lack of getting blown up is the cause of people quitting.

Did you watch the presentation Nevyn?

The #1 factor whether someone stays in the game beyond the onboarding period is whether they died.
The size of the Corp they join is then #2 factor

It's not Dots inventing the relationship. It comes from the factors CCP have analysed the data to include (6 in total, also discussed in the presentation).

Just go and watch the presentation. It's all there.

There isn't causation there. It's a reporting of data. Irrespective of the cause, the the #1 factor is whether a player has their ship blown up.

That is the whole reason why CCP are trying to create an NPE (to bring it back to the stats that CCP Rise discussed) that provides rich experiences for players that will increase the retention. That way, players that would otherwise leave, will have a chance to experience something that encourages them to stay.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#553 - 2015-04-05 02:40:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
Moving goal posts
I am not moving goal posts. I haven't put up any "win" criteria or goal posts. I am simply pointing out that the statistics are not indepth enough or of a wide enough scope.

... and that is the whole purpose of this thread, why I started it.
CCP Rise put very little thought into a study and felt that was enough to then go and present it, with whatever agenda, he then added to it.


So you didn't look at CCP Quants presentation (linked in this thread also) at all. And somehow, CCP Rise decided to LIE in public for some nefarious reason?

Do you now, or have you ever owned a toon named "Dinsdale"? For that matter, where were you when Rise was making his presentation???
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#554 - 2015-04-05 02:41:56 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
And there is your data issue.
You are combining social factors which we all know contribute to staying with PvP factors then claiming PvP makes the difference.
While utterly discounting the possibility that the fact they engaged in PvP was because the social factors had already made them likely to stay and be more involved in the game.

Cause & effect order basically. You are claiming something that may be an effect as a cause.
Is it a nice metric that has an easy to find relationship, totally, but it doesn't mean that's the cause.

Nor that the lack of getting blown up is the cause of people quitting.

Did you watch the presentation Nevyn?

The #1 factor whether someone stays in the game beyond the onboarding period is whether they died.
The size of the Corp they join is then #2 factor

It's not Dots inventing the relationship. It comes from the factors CCP have analysed the data to include (6 in total, also discussed in the presentation).

Just go and watch the presentation. It's all there.

There isn't causation there. It's a reporting of data. Irrespective of the cause, the data is still correct.


IN order for that to happen, the persons questioning the data would need to 1st be interested in the truth. That's the major point of disconnect here.Twisted
Hengle Teron
Red Sky Morning
The Amarr Militia.
#555 - 2015-04-05 02:52:34 UTC
One step forward, two steps back.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#556 - 2015-04-05 04:50:47 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

IN order for that to happen, the persons questioning the data would need to 1st be interested in the truth. That's the major point of disconnect here.Twisted

No, the major point of disconnect is your continual denial that the data could possibly be anything other than 'Ganking is great for the game'.
It doesn't correctly measure play times, social connections or any of the other things & isolations of variables needed to reach that conclusion.

And yes, I did watch the presentation, there is a relationship between staying and having lost a ship to some form of PvP, sure. I'm not and never have denied that. But what the presentation did not establish is the nature of that relationship.

All I'm saying is the data & presentation do not support saying that ganking makes people stay in the game more. No more, no less.
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#557 - 2015-04-05 04:54:42 UTC
We are spending far too much time cleaning this thread.

Quote:
2. Be respectful toward others at all times.

The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.

3. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.

4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.

5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

Please follow our simple rules. Don't press that "POST" button if you cannot contribute constructively or within our rules. I have removed posts for the aforementioned violations, including those quoting them.

ISD Decoy

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department
Gallowmere Rorschach
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#558 - 2015-04-05 05:04:07 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

IN order for that to happen, the persons questioning the data would need to 1st be interested in the truth. That's the major point of disconnect here.Twisted

No, the major point of disconnect is your continual denial that the data could possibly be anything other than 'Ganking is great for the game'.
It doesn't correctly measure play times, social connections or any of the other things & isolations of variables needed to reach that conclusion.

And yes, I did watch the presentation, there is a relationship between staying and having lost a ship to some form of PvP, sure. I'm not and never have denied that. But what the presentation did not establish is the nature of that relationship.

All I'm saying is the data & presentation do not support saying that ganking makes people stay in the game more. No more, no less.

I don't recall anyone outright saying "ganking makes people stay longer". That being said, I'd be shocked beyond belief if it were to turn out that only people who engage in duels or come to the game with every intention of moving to low/null stay longer, while all (or even most) of those who are ganked, leave.

Personally, I see far more people ragequit over being scammed than ganked, but hey, there's anecdotal evidence for you.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#559 - 2015-04-05 05:07:28 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

IN order for that to happen, the persons questioning the data would need to 1st be interested in the truth. That's the major point of disconnect here.Twisted

No, the major point of disconnect is your continual denial that the data could possibly be anything other than 'Ganking is great for the game'.
It doesn't correctly measure play times, social connections or any of the other things & isolations of variables needed to reach that conclusion.

And yes, I did watch the presentation, there is a relationship between staying and having lost a ship to some form of PvP, sure. I'm not and never have denied that. But what the presentation did not establish is the nature of that relationship.

All I'm saying is the data & presentation do not support saying that ganking makes people stay in the game more. No more, no less.



And please point to the post in which I said ganking is good for the game (though it appears it may possibly be)

This data points to the case that the bleeding heart "omg , gankers are chasing people out of the game" is false. It's funny that you are dissenting against a set of conclusions no one is really making, and if you can't understand what people are saying, you should ask instead of assuming you know.
Kaely Tanniss
Black Lotus Society.
#560 - 2015-04-05 05:23:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaely Tanniss
Jenn aSide wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

IN order for that to happen, the persons questioning the data would need to 1st be interested in the truth. That's the major point of disconnect here.Twisted

No, the major point of disconnect is your continual denial that the data could possibly be anything other than 'Ganking is great for the game'.
It doesn't correctly measure play times, social connections or any of the other things & isolations of variables needed to reach that conclusion.

And yes, I did watch the presentation, there is a relationship between staying and having lost a ship to some form of PvP, sure. I'm not and never have denied that. But what the presentation did not establish is the nature of that relationship.

All I'm saying is the data & presentation do not support saying that ganking makes people stay in the game more. No more, no less.



And please point to the post in which I said ganking is good for the game (though it appears it may possibly be)

This data points to the case that the bleeding heart "omg , gankers are chasing people out of the game" is false. It's funny that you are dissenting against a set of conclusions no one is really making, and if you can't understand what people are saying, you should ask instead of assuming you know.


What the stats suggest, despite all the crying about gankers chasing people away, as stated previously, is that this is not the case. No one ever said (except maybe a few here that jump to conclusions) that these stats are the definitive conclusion. The study was too short and not detailed enough. What it suggests with the information gathered as of yet is that it is contrary to the belief of the carebears who think PvP chases people from the game.

What I do find rather interesting is how so many pretend to care about the people who quit the game "due to griefing". The funny thing is, most don't care one bit and only use it to futher their own agenda against something THEY don't like. "Oh I heard" is not by any means a definitive truth. Eve is not for everyone. If you don't like the way the game is played, why play it? If you are against something, at least make a stand and be honest about your motives being selfish and personal..rather than trying to use others to "prove your point" in an attempt to gain sympathy or support for your agenda or beliefs. You have a right to not like ganking or PvP...as much as those who like it have a right to do it to you. But again, it comes back to the question...if you don't like these things, why are you playing a game that essentially is all about the things you don't like? Roll

If I had a nickel for every time someone said women don't play eve, I'd have a bag of nickels to whack the next person who said it..