These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

We want to help ccp bring more players into eve!

First post
Author
Remiel Pollard
Shock Treatment Ministries
#141 - 2016-08-18 08:18:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Serene Repose wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Your asserted experience was the basis of your premise. And it's not me dismissing you, it was you dismissing you. You said it yourself, my anecdote can be dismissed. So can yours. If yours stands, then so does mine, it really is that simple. If you have a problem with that, take it up with basic logic, or at least try to learn some first.

No blanks were fired either, dear, and no, dismissing your assertions of experience is no different from dismissing mine. If your 'argument' is that my dismissal of you means you're hitting the mark, then I can do the same and say your dismissal of me means the same thing. Neither is true, of course, and I explained in no uncertain terms why your argument can be dismissed as easily as you dismissed mine. Last I checked, that's the complete opposite of 'firing blanks'.

Uh...right...I lost you at accusing me of saying things I've related I've been told.


Let me break this down in really simple steps and terms for you.

1. You posted an essay about how one abridged conversation you had with someone in another game about EVE (your anecdote) means that no one ever talks about EVE in other games and therefore EVE has an image problem. ie, your based a definitive conclusion on your personal experience.

2. I then posted my own personal experience (my anecdote) which contradicted your conclusion.

3. You dismissed my anecdote as if it was somehow less from your own (news flash: neither anecdote had any validity towards a conclusion to begin with).

4. I pointed out your failure of rational thinking.

5. You threw a hissy at me 'firing blanks'

Now we're at the point where you try to worm your way out of it by attempting to defame me as a person with various accusations such as lying (I never said you lied, I said your conclusion was flawed - believe it or not, your experience and mine are not mutually exclusive, they're just not enough to base a conclusion around). In my initial post, where I went over my contradictory experience, I never dismissed your experience, I dismissed your conclusion.

For the record, I don't have a 'side' except rational and consistent discourse. I'm pretty sure though that anyone with one seventeenth of a brain cell can see clearly enough who's been rational and consistent here just fine without you aiding them, but they'll appreciate you digging yourself deeper just to make things loud and clear if you so insist.

The mature thing to do at this point would be to realise where you've gone wrong and own it. I know that won't happen though so please continue to thrash about in rhetorical failure.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#142 - 2016-08-18 08:27:27 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Serene Repose wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Lucy Lollipops wrote:
- retention rate is better for ganked/killed/haressed/scammed players ( and it's magically proved by CCP )

There was nothing magic about it. This isn't Harry Potter.

CCP have put various bits of evidence out over the last couple of years that show a correlation between being blown up against your will and higher retention, both of new players who then subscribe and subscribed players who then stay around.

Just plan normal evidence I'm afraid. Magic is awesome and all, but this falls short of that.
And of course you have a source on this load of bollux people say in this forum but ... fail to attribute. Waiting patiently. Thank you very much! Big smile


Link one

Link two

link three
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#143 - 2016-08-18 08:27:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Herzog Wolfhammer
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

It may not be the exact same thing, but remember what this thread is about, right?

thats precisely why im pulling you up on it.
its not even remotely in the same ball park ,
is extremely disrespectful to those of us who may have sufferd or had someone close to us suffer and you know it.

this is a game ,
regardless of whatever qualifiers or context you use it is never acceptable to publicly take the **** out of someones real trauma by making that comparison and i am ashamed for us every time i see it.





Don't try to pull that SJW crap on me. "Somebody might get upset so you can't say that".

You want to censor me go ahead and use the report button like CODE. does.

But remember, you wanted to censor me. And what's the first avenue of someone who can't handle a debate? You know what that is.



Don't dismiss it as "SJW crap" just because you have no legitimately rational counterargument to the rational criticism of your **** analogy. No one wanted to censor you, we were just pointing out how disgusting it is for you to belittle real physical trauma by putting it in the same category as exploding space pixels. We don't have to pretend that trauma is anything but what it actually is, or change the definitions of words, or engage in any "SJW" tactics, for this to remain true. In essense, your analogy was a hollow one as a result, a meaningless one, which has no point, and as long as you're hopping around on your moral high-horse out-grouping everyone, then you'd better be damn well ready for the criticism of your own failure to practice what you ******* preach.




Look, NOTHING is going to make me agree with you or anybody like you. Ever. So give it up, skippy. You are wasting your time.

EDIT: I can deal with you exactly the same way all those people who don't play this game deal with your kind.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Remiel Pollard
Shock Treatment Ministries
#144 - 2016-08-18 08:36:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

Look, NOTHING is going to make me agree with you or anybody like you. Ever. So give it up, skippy. You are wasting your time.



You say that like it's something virtuous to refuse to change your mind under any circumstances, when in fact, this is actually your problem. Your refusal to acknowledge or consider ideas that oppose your own are why you'll never learn anything new, and why you'll only end up limiting your ability to expand your intellect.

Anyone can be wrong. Whether or not you agree with me is completely irrelevant to whether or not I'm right. If you can't accept that, then why are you accusing anyone of using SJW tactics?

I'm never going to give up countering misinformation or that bullshit you were swinging earlier about **** being on the same level of trauma as losing pixel spaceships. Never. It's not a waste of time at all, because other people aren't just like you mate. There are lots of people out there that are open to reason, open to being wrong and learning new things, and love alternate points of view from the ones they're fed by the single-minded (dare I say religious) thought processes that you're practicing.

The other fun thing about you is that, while you're running around accusing other people of being SJW, you sit there and say things like "people like you" as if we're some kind of collective. There are no people like me, mate. There's just me.

Tumblr called, Herzog. They want their cringe back.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Remiel Pollard
Shock Treatment Ministries
#145 - 2016-08-18 08:40:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

EDIT: I can deal with you exactly the same way all those people who don't play this game deal with your kind.


No mate, you can't deal with me at all. You've made it quite evident that rational, consistent discourse are beyond your critical faculties, so until you do something about that, you'll never have the slightest idea how to deal with me besides hurling chidlish invectives or pretending I don't exist.

Neither actually deals with me, though. It just makes me stronger. I'm still waiting for you to actually say something that addresses what I've said, rather than what kind of person I am.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#146 - 2016-08-18 08:47:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Shae Tadaruwa
Serene Repose wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Lucy Lollipops wrote:
- retention rate is better for ganked/killed/haressed/scammed players ( and it's magically proved by CCP )

There was nothing magic about it. This isn't Harry Potter.

CCP have put various bits of evidence out over the last couple of years that show a correlation between being blown up against your will and higher retention, both of new players who then subscribe and subscribed players who then stay around.

Just plan normal evidence I'm afraid. Magic is awesome and all, but this falls short of that.
And of course you have a source on this load of bollux people say in this forum but ... fail to attribute. Waiting patiently. Thank you very much! Big smile

Yes, of course I can provide the sources.

It's not like they haven't been talked to death over the last couple of years.

Baltect posted some above, but I'll go get them and post them for you as you are either too lazy or too incompetent to also keep abreast of what has been presented.

I'll edit them back into this post.

Edit 1:

CCP Rise FanFest 2015: Using Science to Help Newbros

That focuses mainly on new players in the period before they have subscribed.

Edit 2:

CCP Rise Fanfest 2014: NPE Vision

This focuses on players that have subbed. Covers 'rich experiences' which includes activities aside from pvp, which is great.

Edit 3:

Quote from CCP Rise in the NPE Thread on this forum

More links as I find them.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."

Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
#147 - 2016-08-18 08:52:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Nana Skalski
baltec1 wrote:
Serene Repose wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Lucy Lollipops wrote:
- retention rate is better for ganked/killed/haressed/scammed players ( and it's magically proved by CCP )

There was nothing magic about it. This isn't Harry Potter.

CCP have put various bits of evidence out over the last couple of years that show a correlation between being blown up against your will and higher retention, both of new players who then subscribe and subscribed players who then stay around.

Just plan normal evidence I'm afraid. Magic is awesome and all, but this falls short of that.
And of course you have a source on this load of bollux people say in this forum but ... fail to attribute. Waiting patiently. Thank you very much! Big smile


Link one

Link two

link three

It feels like you are very dogmatic about that.
What if they are wrong. Maybe not entirely, but the situation is more complex and their conclusions are slightly off.
Dogmata are bad.
Issue is only they can do research (even when that are only poor attempts) because only they have the data.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#148 - 2016-08-18 08:57:49 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Nana Skalski wrote:

It feels like you are very dogmatic about that.
What if they are wrong. Maybe not entirely, but the situation is more complex and their conclusions are slightly off.
Dogmata are bad.
Issue is only they can do research (even when that are only poor attempts) because only they have the data.


The situation isn't complex, its the fix that is the complicated bit. Its no coincidence that as the game has become safer the rate of growth has fallen. This does not mean we should remove concord but it does mean changes are going to have to be made to your level of CCP protection. For example, with the upcomming barge changes we should demand that CCP remove the pre fitting mantra they have and give us the options to do it for ourselves.
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
#149 - 2016-08-18 08:58:08 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:


Don't try to pull that SJW crap on me. "Somebody might get upset so you can't say that".

You want to censor me go ahead and use the report button like CODE. does.

But remember, you wanted to censor me. And what's the first avenue of someone who can't handle a debate? You know what that is.


im far from a social justice warrior herzog,
i am however fairly disappointed with you and giving you a piece of my mind.

nowhere have i said "Somebody might get upset so you can't say that",
and nowhere am i calling for anyone to be censored.

im having a go at you over it because i thought better of you,
you are making a fool out of yourself by saying such a ridiculous thing and you should know better,
you are at least as intelligent and articulate as i am so im having a hard time just brushing it off as you being thick.

cop on , you are making the entirety of the ag, no , all of us look stupid by flinging such malice around over a game .
Remiel Pollard
Shock Treatment Ministries
#150 - 2016-08-18 09:03:46 UTC
Nana Skalski wrote:

It feels like you are very dogmatic about that.
What if they are wrong. Maybe not entirely, but the situation is more complex and their conclusions are slightly off.
Dogmata are bad.
Issue is only they can do research (even when that are only poor attempts) because only they have the data.


It's a good thing feelings don't define reality then.

What you're seeing here is data that wholly supports at least one definitive conclusion - that PVP and ganking are not driving new players away like so many claim on the forums. More people are leaving if they AREN'T experiencing PVP early, which means the data also supports a fair hypothesis that new players who are engaged or introduced to PVP early on are more likely to stick around, although the data alone does not definitively prove this. I can say I agree with this conclusion based on my experience of training a fair few new players myself for PVP.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Tristan Agion
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#151 - 2016-08-18 09:17:25 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
CCP have put various bits of evidence out over the last couple of years that show a correlation between being blown up against your will and higher retention, both of new players who then subscribe and subscribed players who then stay around.

While that is interesting, I wouldn't put too much stock into it. First, it's really hard to control biases here, and correlation is not causation. For example, a more active player is presumably more likely to subscribe and more likely to be blown up. This does however not mean that they are subscribing because they are being blown up.

Second, even assuming that being blown up is at least part of what makes people sign up, this does not necessarily answer the actual question for CCP - namely how to make the number of subscriptions grow. For example, let's say you want to publish a magazine on garden gnomes and you need 100 subscribers to make printing it profitable. You get 30 subscribers. Now you ask your subscribers why they subscribed, and 80% of them reply that they really liked the discussion of different garden gnome hats in your first issue. You conclude that the way to get 100 subscribers for your garden gnome magazine is to fill it with discussions of garden gnome attire. Is that correct?

No, of course it isn't. Perhaps you have learned something there about how to retain the few subscribers that you already have. But you have not necessarily learned anything about how to attract all those people who have not so far subscribed. Perhaps many of them couldn't care less about garden gnome attire. It could even be that there are many people who were on the fence about subscribing, but are totally turned off by the new emphasis on garden gnome couture. You just don't know, not from polling the people that have subscribed...

I hope the analogy is clear. If EVE needs more subscribers to be sustainable, then CCP needs to care about attracting new players to the game. That task is not identical with keeping current subscribers happy, and what attracts new players in significant numbers need not be what has attracted those already playing. In fact, if "business as usual" and "more of the same" is not working, then it is likely that CCP's overall strategy in game design and marketing for EVE has to change substantially. At which point it is not a question of making existing subscribers happier, but rather of not offending them so much that they leave while one is changing course to gain subscribers by other means.
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#152 - 2016-08-18 09:30:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Shae Tadaruwa
Tristan Agion wrote:
First, it's really hard to control biases here, and correlation is not causation. For example, a more active player is presumably more likely to subscribe and more likely to be blown up. This does however not mean that they are subscribing because they are being blown up.

You know what the difference is between your presumption and CCP's analysis? Presumption.

You and I can presume whatever we like, but unless either of us have data to measure against, our presumptions are absolutely no value. They certainly can't be used to argue against data that is on the table. To do so is idiotic.

Of course, nowhere did I claim causation, however correlation is still a very powerful decision making tool in business; and correlation rarely exists without some causation as well (there are notable exceptions to that).

Actually, there is a rather good recent article that mirrors my view on that issue:

https://medium.freecodecamp.com/if-correlation-doesnt-imply-causation-then-what-does-c74f20d26438#.l0iygab6k
As for the rest of it, it's been talked to death for ages. Don't read more into my statement above than what I wrote. It's not magic at all. CCP have put evidence out over the last couple of years demonstrating a correlation between being blown up and staying longer. The evidence is there (and still being posted above).

Of course, idiots will still say it's all bollocks, because it doesn't fit their bias. But that's what idiots do. Ignore inconvenient facts.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."

March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#153 - 2016-08-18 09:46:14 UTC

The girl on the last picture in pretty but where are results of this 'science'? You know: numbers like they provided on two other pictures?

I'm sure if they have nice numbers they would show it? But they didn't?
Instead they made pretty wide conclusion which would be happily accepted by players on Fan-Fest. PR you know....

It would be really interesting to see real data they have collected.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#154 - 2016-08-18 09:54:39 UTC
March rabbit wrote:

The girl on the last picture in pretty but where are results of this 'science'? You know: numbers like they provided on two other pictures?

I'm sure if they have nice numbers they would show it? But they didn't?
Instead they made pretty wide conclusion which would be happily accepted by players on Fan-Fest. PR you know....

It would be really interesting to see real data they have collected.


So you are saying CCP are lying?
Solecist Project
#155 - 2016-08-18 10:10:46 UTC
March rabbit wrote:

The girl on the last picture in pretty but where are results of this 'science'? You know: numbers like they provided on two other pictures?

I'm sure if they have nice numbers they would show it? But they didn't?
Instead they made pretty wide conclusion which would be happily accepted by players on Fan-Fest. PR you know....

It would be really interesting to see real data they have collected.

You make no sense.
Stop ignoring reality, please.

They increased security in highsec for years ...
... and they made a push for a society of "lawfull" behaviour.
Now you make it look like they actually favour the ganker/pvp crowd.

That does not make any sense.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia

Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
#156 - 2016-08-18 10:46:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Nana Skalski
Quote:
It's a good thing feelings don't define reality then.


I was talking about his (and not only his) dogmatic stance. You seem to be genuinly convinced that ganking in first 14 days have good results on player staying with the game.

When this is only 1 percent of the whole that was ganked in this 14 days. It is very poor sample. What about the rest 99 percent that could have been ganked after that time? Where are statistics about that?

Else: how do you search for more meningfull data?

And: what players write when they resign can only be a peak of the iceberg.
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#157 - 2016-08-18 10:56:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Shae Tadaruwa
Nana Skalski wrote:
Quote:
It's a good thing feelings don't define reality then.


I was talking about his (and not only his) dogmatic stance. You seem to be genuinly convinced that ganking in first 14 days have good results on player staying with the game.

When this is only 1 percent of the whole that was ganked in this 14 days. It is very poor sample. What about the rest 99 percent that could have been ganked after that time? Where are statistics about that?

Else: how do you search for more meningfull data?

And: what players write when they resign can only be a peak of the iceberg.

CCP have also posted their findings about subbed accounts.

The best summary they've provided I'm still looking for as it was a while ago. I'll keep looking though.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."

Alhira Katserna
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#158 - 2016-08-18 10:57:55 UTC
My 2 cents.

- NPC Corps need some rework

- Getting new player into good corps needs to be worked on.

- Wardecs need to be drastically limited, maybe to 3 per alliance.

Most newbros start in Highsec, not that many start the game with the intention to immeditely join a specific Nullsec/Lowsec newbro alliance. They wander around, make the opportunities and carrier agents and slowly start to get a grip of the game.

Inevitably they will want to join a corp to do somethig specific like mining, mission running, etc... Now there is the problem: There are many corps out there and a fair number is just plain bad, really really bad. A new member has of course no way to tell this. Now there are 3 possible ways how this can go. First is they are some time in this corp when they realize this is a bad one and they need to find another. Second is they get a wrong picture of eve due to the corp and leave the game. Third (which is unfortunately the most likely) they land in a corp (which doesn´t necessarily need to be a bad one) which is wardecced. Now they possibly get killed over and over by one or multiple corps and are in many cases not able to recieve good info on how to counter it or work with the tips they got. They decide "f*** this game" and go.

Well, possibility 3 is to a degree conterable: Drastically limit wardecs so 1 ally/corp cannot have more then 100 allies/corps wardecced like it is today.
Next that needs work is sorting out bad newbro corps. Generally achieved when advertising good ones and imo ccp should find a way to achieve this via ingame mechanics although i haveno clue how to do this. Maybe rework the newbie friendly tag so it is only markable when you do some certain things.

Last but not least: Guide them. I wonder how many of those who debatte here have just sat down one day in Arnon on the SOE station undock and convo`d newbros. I did and when i started the game someone there also convo'd me and gave me some general tips. And today i still remember when my wallet flashed once after undocking and i saw someone sending me a few million ISK. Upon asking he told me he just robbed a large alliance and wants to spread some of the ISK to newbros. All this 3 years ago. This game is remarkable and the people in it also. We cannot do something about making the game more remarkable but we certainly can do something to make the players remarkable.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#159 - 2016-08-18 10:59:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Oh look what a surprise, this thread has devolved into the same dozen people rehearsing the same old "bears vs ganker" rubbish that litters every thread in these forums.

And people wonder why the devs prefer to interact with the community on reddit. What a mystery.

ISD, start doing your damb jobs and put a stop to this crap wrecking every single thread in GD.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#160 - 2016-08-18 11:04:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Shae Tadaruwa
Alhira Katserna wrote:
My 2 cents.

- NPC Corps need some rework

- Getting new player into good corps needs to be worked on.

- Wardecs need to be drastically limited, maybe to 3 per alliance.

1 and 2 I completely agree with, however if 2 happens, 3 is not required.

Corps/Alliances like Eve-Uni, Horde, Brave, etc. that are very new player friendly, operate under permanent wardec and still manage to have thriving newbros.

That's because they actively help their new players and understand how to avoid any issues from wardecs. They have good CEOs and good leadership.

Good Corps are never threatened by wardecs and view them in some cases, as a great way to teach their new players.

So the positive side of the second suggestion means you don't need that third one at all. More limitations in the mechanics are not required. Tools to find the good corps are.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."