Do you think that sample of 80,000 trial accounts enables you to make judgements on the entire account base? I don’t!!! Do you understand segmentation and sample matching?
As for the feedback, it was put in place after they buffed the mining ships so that ship and fitting choice mattered, timing being critically important, they put this in place because they suddenly realised that they had lost a lot of subbed hisec casual players which had been hidden by the influx of people from major 0.0 battles.
In any case it hardly matters because at this point in time with the current account base ganking does not cause significant numbers of people to de-sub.
My guess it was 80,000 accounts out of any and all accounts–i.e. currently active accounts and also inactive accounts.
Also, 80,000 is a very large sample. Where I work we have over 5 million customers and when we grab a random sample we’ll grab 50,000. And even that is probably too big if you are just wanting to look at the average customer. We select 50,000 because inevitably somebody will come along and say, “What about this sub group, or that sub group?” And by picking 50,000 we are pretty confident that taking a subset of the sample will still be reasonably representative of that subset too.
Correct. However, that is a number that should be viewed with some skepticism in that it is self-reported. One possibility is that when a person rage quits they ignore that kind of thing. Another possibility is that those who rage quit utilize that kind of thing more. I’m inclined to go with the first scenario over the second.
For the first one maybe the formula for cost should be a function of both the number of players in the deccing corp and the corp being decced. That is a mass war deccing corp with 300 people should pay more when deccing smaller corps that when you have a mass war deccing corp with 30 people.
As for the rest…might be worth trying them.
And I agree with this too.
You are correct to note that the study did not address ganking in general, but that has nothing to do with the sample size.
If we wanted to look at ganking in general we’d likely need to do some sort of logit/probit regression model. That way we could add a number of explanatory variables such as the amount of time the person has been playing, their RL age (if available to CCP), type of loss, ISK value of the loss, etc.
The accounts were most definitely not trial period accounts. The accounts were classified as to whether or not they were killed during their “trial period” (first 15 days).
And as noted with additional data we could look at ganking in general and get an idea of what is the probability a player quits after being ganked and given various conditions.
They were not trial accounts though. You are reasoning from a faulty premise.
I never said anything about the sample size it was the CODE poster who was hung up on it.
The context is that those players started playing Eve with a trial period and whether they stayed longer having been blown up during the trial period as compared to those that were not blown up during that period.
So to be precise it was purely an exercise in checking the affect of people who were ganked in their trial period. And that was never the issue in terms of the player loss due to ganking during what I call the “wet paper bag tank period!”
I don’t need to link to articles as I did a lot of data analysis in the past. CCP Rise said that people who were ganked in their trial period were likely to stay longer then those that were not, that has never been disputed by me or any AG player. But certain players came out and said that it proved that ganking was beneficial for the game based on this analysis which was crazy talk extrapolation.
Personally I think ganking adds to this game, however one has to get the balance right, war decs add to the game and they have to be properly balanced based on the environment and the player base in play.
This is what he always says. At some point in the past, he ran all the numbers and compiled all the proof of his crackpot conspiracy theories and posted it to the forums. The fact that nobody knows where this treasure trove of conclusive evidence is hidden is not his problem. All assertions made by Dracvlad are thus declared to be well supported, hard facts, and everyone should get off his back about this whole ‘proof’ thing.
This is surprisingly true. After DZC got rid of our wardecs more players crawled back and were intrested in how PVP works. What are the best options for them to get a versatile training? I did give them a "CareBear BasicPVP " introduction but to prevent them from being killed over and over and being salty about it without reason, what would they do best?
However with a retention rate of less than 20% players who actually stay around long term I am sure a lot of topkek conclusions can be gotten out of those numbers.
Yeah? Well you aren’t the only one reading this thread, hence the links.
It certainly has been disputed though. Being in AG or not is not very important to me, I just think the analysis was good in terms of the limited question that was being asked.
Sorry that was not meant as an insult towards you.
The only thing I disputed was people immediately saying that ganking has been proved as good for the game. Currently with the right balance for yield and tank on mining ships I think ganking is good for Eve. However previously when all the mining ships had the tank of a wet paper bag I thought that ganking was very bad for player retention and hence for the game due to there being no choice for those that wanted tank.
The analysis was good in that it answered the question about new players leaving because they were ganked, my replies were always that CCP were looking at the wrong selection, their focus should have been on miners who were six months to a year into the game, but by the time CCP Rise did that study the changes to mining ships had already hit and the issue had been balanced.
So in other words it is a non-argument and just a trolling point by CODE players…
My view is that that study supports the overall contention that what is good for retention is player-on-player interaction…of all kinds. And yes, the study does not mean there should be more ganking of new players or more ganking in general. Extrapolating much beyond this is most likely a mistake.
Ganking is a wonderful part of EvE.
We routinely run across interesting people while hunting and destroying targets. We have made many new friends doing this, and a far more diverse group than we did with other activities in EvE.
EvE is conflict in motion.
Also, we still see a lot of familiar faces from our killboards. It is always good to hear about their stories; a few even began from the day we were both introduced to each other. We also don’t mind the short, four letter word heavy, stories some tell us from time to time as well.
Hasn’t that always been the test? In fact, it seems like a pretty fundamental test of intelligence. I imagine that all the hominids who declined to acknowledge the crocodiles in the river were eaten, leaving the more scientifically inclined to worry about asteroid strike.
To add to my earlier post. You can’t specify ganking in the drop down list when they ask you for some feedback as to why you’re cancelling your sub. You can write a few sentences in the cancellation section.
So lets say a player is repeatedly ganked and losses battleships every time and is tired of the mad cycle, on the cancellation form he may select player harrasment, and then select lack of time, he might also add comments saying he doesnt like the time it takes to gain a battleship and then losing it quickly. He has not put anything about ganking, so the question must be how does someone search if a cancellation was due to ganking? In my opinion it seems difficult to search for data on ganking using the cancellation feeback form recordset.
I would find a way to query the game data, and my search parameter would be;
FIND Subscritions WHERE Value = Inactive
FIND Losses for inactive subscriptions where player lost a ship in 0.5 systems and above where the pilot was not at war and where the ship was not destroyed by an npc rat.
A query like this one is what would be required to find data on ganking, I don’t think any other method would work.
You’d want to look for players who are both inactive and active, and where they suffered a ship loss in HS and their killer is in turn also killed by CONCORD.
This way we’d have people who were ganked and stayed and who were ganked and then left. We might want to not the time between the gank and leaving as well.
As I already explained, the presentation had two parts, one about 80k trial accounts and one about player feedback when people unsubscribe (which are not trial accounts, because they have no subscription in the first place). And yes, both together show absolutely no evidence that ganking is a problem.
Do you have a source for that claim?
Again, do you have a source for that claim?
Not sure why you are so up in all arms if I just cite the presentation they made and their conclusion and mind you I only said that it FALSIFIES the claim that ganking is a huge problem and drives players away and not in any way that ganking has a positive influence.
Well as Teckos pointed out it was tracking 80,000 trial accounts comparing those that had been ganked in their 15 day trial period and those that had not. So you can only say that from this analysis people who were ganked in the trial period were not affected by gank, which to be honest is not a surprise to anyone.
In terms of the reason, the request for reasons is at is in fact fairly recent and was not in place during the wet paper bag period, please prove me wrong, you can’t.
The proof that they had in fact lost a lot of subbed hisec miners is that they actually changed the mining ships to give tank options, why would they do that if ganking was a benefit? Was it because someone asked, or that the penny finally dropped rather late in the day.
Anyway you are trolling yet again, this thread is about war decs not your simple minded extrapolation of CCP Rise’s analysis of the impact of ganking on people while in trial accounts and how it affected them in terms of staying in the game.
(a) Ganking went through major changes due to tieracide (increase in t1 cruiser and destroyer firepower) and introduction of ABCs. Those impacted the relevance of the original barge / exhumer line.
(b) because during tieracide they wanted to remove the situation where there were 2 or 3 progression ships within the same tech/skill (especially 1-2-3 skill ships where some ships had a usefulness horizon of hours), and increase the distinctiveness and usefulness of roles.
(c) the procurer is relevant generally to lower skilled players and particularly to small gang nullsec (ie npc nullsec), it is not by any means a solution purely for ganking, and since it a competent battlefield ship, any wardecced organisation that is organised around defending itself can actually field them in highsec. From a thread point of view, they are the mining ship that is relevant as an undocked entity during a war.
Whilst I agree lots of analysis of that study is axe grinding, CCP didn’t just decide there was too much ganking, they changed a whole lot of things.
Lol, no this is not how that works. You make that claim so the burden of prove is on you.
They changed the mining barges do to tiericide where before there was supposed to be a progression where you had the procurer as the starter barge, then the retriever and finally the covertor as the best performing ship. They removed the tiers and created new specialized roles for tank, cargo and yield instead.
Again, please provide some evidence that this had anything at all to do with ganking.
It seams when it comes to CCP Rises study there is never enough evidence and every little point hints at deception and a bad analysis, but when it is an argument which supports your narrative then you can just make stuff up out of thin air with any evidence at all and that’s somehow fine with you. This is seriously dishonest.
I think you will find the DPS of destroyers was buffed before tieracide. In any case this is all about CODE players derailing threads with their cries for relevance. From this point on I am going to ignore their pathetic bait posting, I used to find it fun to correct them, but they are just so boring.
As for the Procurer, the last couple of war decs I had in hisec I used that to mine every day during the war dec, if you pick the right systems and are aware of the tricks that some use you are pretty safe. PS I used it because it was cheap and was effective against gankers.
We also don’t mind the short, four letter word heavy, stories some tell us from time to time as well.