What’s wrong with this source?
1 Like
It’s not a source adequate for what you claim.
I told you already. Learn to read.
Be more specific.
Why isn’t it an adequate source for activity and retention?
1 Like
You are the one making such a claim : you are the one who needs to prove it is relevant. Otherwise it’s not relevant.
Nowhere does eve-offline claim it has data bout retention. Therefore, by definition, it’s not relevant - until proven it is.
In order to be active, players will log in.
There is definitely a connection between being logged in and being active.
And there is definitely a connection between being logged in multiple times over a period and being retained.
Are you saying there is no relationship between log in data and activity and retention?
If not, what do you think ccp are talking about when they talk about player retention? When they talk about players ‘quitting’ what metric are they using?
1 Like
Gee, you two need to get a room 
2 Likes
Except that CCP was not talking about the global retention in the game, but the retention of a specific part of the players.
You can have the specific retention increase, and yet have the global retention decrease.
So no it’s not relevant.
Also you can have the retention increase for a part of the players, but the activity decrease globally.
example, the number of people coming in the game is divided by five, and the retention multiplied by two.
So when the csm and ccp say;
‘this is clearly affecting player retention’ you think they are talking about a minority of the playerbase?
1 Like
It’s not about thinking, it’s clearly stated that they are talking about the players that leave the game after being wardecced.
Read the source. You misunderstood already, read it again I’m afraid you keep reading it with a biased eye.
So either;
Wardecs were affecting enough of the population such that they needed to be changed in order to allow the game to grow…but that didn’t work and that’s why we didn’t see growth.
Or…your interpretation now seems to be;
Wardecs weren’t affecting overall player retention and that’s why changing them hasn’t resulted in any growth.
Correct?
The people who train me call this coaching.
I did not claim such a thing.
Read the source.
You are talking about something you did not even understand in the first place.
But you said the metrics ccp were looking at weren’t about overall player retention…
and it does not mean that wardecs weren’t affecting overall player retention.
it means : read the source.
But if they were, wouldn’t overall retention be affected by a successful change?
again
Apparently my interpretation is wrong. I’m sure you can prove why.
stop spoutting nonsense and just read the document.
At least you will have an idea what you are actually talking about.
So to summarise:
Data from 2015 is bad.
Hints at data in 2018 is good.
Wardecs are having a negative effect on overall retention, but successful nerfs to wardecs doesn’t have a positive effect on overall retention.
Looking at activity around wardecs and saying: ‘this is bad for retention’ doesn’t necessarily mean improving retention is the purpose of changing wardecs a couple months later.
Am i right?
That’s not a claim that is made, at least not in the way you use afterwards.
The claim that is made from the data, is that wardecs have an effect on the retention of people who are wardecced.
However, It does not mean that wardecs are the only variable that impacts on the global retention. Specifically, there is no claim about the part of the retention that is impacted by wardecs. Just : the effect of wardecs on the game is enough to make people believe they should be removed from the game. So your “but” that comes afterwards is irrelevant.
Also, retention is not claimed to be the only variable that affects activity.
Now, I don’t know if CCP had a clear, objective, measurable goal when doing this.
I’m just saying, if you don’t have relevant data, you can’t use other data and claim they are relevant.