Dear EVE, here is why I say goodbye


(Teckos Pech) #103

Yup. And it is there on purpose. Have you considered that was the intent all along? For game balance purposes.

The problem with this type of thinking is that it assumes some sort of 1-v-1 type of scenario. Yes, the older more experienced players is always going to have an advantage, even if the new player was gifted with 160 million SP.

And the point of the game is a sandbox. If there is a player bothering you go get friends. This is not a game of solo players beating each other up, it is a game between groups of players.

This notion of the SP wall is killing the game and driving away players is just ridiculous. It is a narrative that simply cannot explain the past.

You can watch the presentation here.

You can skip to the 2:15 mark to get pretty close to the start of the discussion of their methods. Although you’ll miss where Rise asks the audience questions about suicide ganking, suicide ganking new players, etc.

So here are the numbers (I was at work earlier and couldn’t watch the youtube video):

80,000 accounts, Rise indicates they eliminated alt accounts, but does not explain how.
They grouped that 80,000 into three categories:

  1. Killed illegally in their first 15 days–i.e. their killer was in turn killed by CONCORD
  2. Killed legally–e.g. a war dec
  3. Not killed in their first 15 days.

The percentages are:

  • 85.5% not killed in their first 15 days.
  • 13.5% killed legally in their first 15 days.
  • 1% killed illegally in their first 15 days.

So, first conclusion: suicide ganking of new players is not a wide spread and common event.

Then the looked retention, and the results are opposite of the intuitive view:

Killed illegally are the most likely to stay subscribed.
People killed legally are slightly less likely to stay subscribed.
People not killed at all are the least likely to stay subscribed.

Now, after this CCP Rise provides another statistic that is separate from the analysis. Of the reasons those leaving the game cite for leaving, <1% cite ship loss. Many people look at this and go completely nuts over it and proclaim the entire analysis rubbish because of reasons while failing to note that it was just a side fact/statistic that CCP Rise tossed in there.

And keep in mind that even CCP Rise and his team found these results surprising.

My guess is that what we’d find if we could conduct a more detailed and thorough study is that player interaction in general tends to improve retention. That getting into a player run corp. Getting voice comms, doing things together and working towards common goals will help people stay in the game. And yes, sometimes that will include “adversity” like dealing with a war dec, or if you go to NS a war, being evicted and so forth.


(Teckos Pech) #104

Yes, I read it. You don’t think it is worth it. However, that is for you based on your own personal subjective valuations. Just because you think it is not worth it does not mean that others think the same way?

And yes, going for implants first is sensible from an optimization stand point, but still once you’ve done that buying a small injector may still be reasonable to some players.

What in the feck? Seriously?

Here you are moaning and groaning about 165 million ISK…and now you are babbling on about a ship that costs 8.5-9 fecking billion ISK? And that it will take 65 days to train for?

So…you are going to somehow make 8.75 billion ISK, plus 100 million ISK for the JF skill book, and 75 million for the racial freighter skill book, and 40 million ISK for the jump drive skill books…all in 65 days!!! I’m sorry, but wut? You were just going on about how getting 165 million ISK in a month is no easy task and 200-300 million is even more difficult, but in a bit over 2 months you manage to scrape up about 9 billion? Do I understand this part of your screed?

BTW, I just checked in with my Jita/Perimeter price checker/seller alt and for him, he has crap skills, and it would take him 112.5 days or so to park is pod in a JF.

I’m just not getting this complaint. It is going to take you not quite 4 months to get into a ship you won’t be able to buy for more like a year (assuming your ability to earn ISK scales up with skills and at an impressive rate).

A better example would be a dread, there the cost is closer to 1.6 billion, which you can possibly affird, once skills are factored in, in say 7-8 months.

Seriously, you can’t fly a ship in 1-2 months that will take you months if not years to save for…that is driving players away, the extended training time.

Holy crap…:roll_eyes:


(Patti 'Potato' Patrouette) #105

HI

Not reading the whole thread, sounds like you gave all your stuff away/biomassed and then found the early game boring, because as you say you know all the mechanics etc…

New players need this time to learn those mechanics and its not boring, in 2009 when I last played there was still a huge skill gap with new players, people stayed, I mean you gave your riches away so you aren’t excited about getting frig 5 or whanot but others are.

PS. Did a similar thing but only had a 30mil sp char, and unlike you I do not know the game inside out on an elite level, so building a char from the ground up was/is still fun (and challenging), plus if you make your isk from interacting with other players not PVE the skies the limit really and you don’t need that many skills- I mean I’m making good isk not trillions but I’m happy (and I could buy ALOT of injectors if I wanted to) BUT of course **I don’t have a complete grasp of the mechanics on an expert level **
If I did I might be bored so…

So perhaps OP should read ‘don’t biomass you will regret it, and people wont have much sympathy for you when you try to get the game dumbed down to compensate for your error’.


(Keno Skir) #106

So you’re saying it’s probably only worth it if you want to fly capital ships or freighters? Interesting…

Why would you train it to 4 if you don’t want to fly capitals or freighters?

All skills are time sinks, that’s how this works. You’re complaining about the amount of time sink specifically, which is purely opinion.

That sounds like a pretty accurate description.


(Sindara T'Soni) #107

It’s not an insignificant sum by any means, but it’s achievable in a handful of days.

I think it’s important to note, that as genuine new players, we don’t actually want skill injectors to ‘cheat’ our way to more SP in the first place. At least I don’t. I am trying to enjoy the entire game not reach an unrealistic goal in as little time as possible.

I think that’s where the OPs post falls apart, and where attempts to link what he wants with what genuine new players want / what genuine new players can afford is all a bit of a farce.

He wants everything he had before and he wants it now and will never again be able to start fresh on a new character with a new players mentality.

The new player experience (complete with learning curve and wanting to explore every aspect of the game as you go) counteracts the disappointment of not being able to fly a Titan on day 1. You accept the game for what it is if you are made of the right stuff and you accept that you are in this for the long term, and you enjoy the ride as you go. The OP is not able to do this because he is not new. He is a kid who has dropped his ice cream on the pavement having a tantrum until he gets a new one.

Genuine new players are still enjoying the first one.


(Donnachadh) #108

Statistics can be made to support any conclusion you want, all you have to do is carefully select the source for those statistics, the portion of those statistics you use or the process used to analyze them. Now to your assumption that I do not like them you are wrong, I neither like nor dislike the conclusions drawn I simply do not trust them and I do not trust them because we are not given enough information.

You seem to be seriously confused between skepticism and calling someone a liar. One can be skeptical of and even question the results of a study without stating or implying that someone or an organization is a liar. Perhaps this link will help you understand the difference. Skepticism. Specifically to this situation definition 2a is most applicable.

Watch the video and you will believe, I wish everyone that told me that had given me a dollar I could take a nice vacation and spend their money. You see Teckos it was that very video that created my skeptical attitude on this specific issue. You look and believe without reservation, as one who deals with statistics on a daily basis I understand where, why and how statistics can be twisted to support many different conclusions so I am skeptical from the start and there is not enough information in that video to warrant anything but skepticism.

An interesting side to this whole thing is you and many others steadfast belief that this video is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Again I am skeptical because we studied a phenomenon common to people everywhere in a class I took years ago. Essentially it comes down to this, one can stand in front of screens full of fake data and speak words written by a speech writer as if they were scientific fact and as long as that fake data and the conclusions put forth by that speech writer sound plausible and they prove or support a point that the audience believes a vast majority of them will never actually question whether the data presented or the conclusions drawn are true. The whole birther conspiracy surrounding President Barrack Obama is a perfect example of this in action.

Thank you for pointing our yet another reason why I am so skeptical of the conclusion presented in the video. Again as one that deals with statistics on a daily basis CCP went to broad spectrum in their study, in other words they tried to prove or disprove to many different aspects of what may cause a player to stay or leave the game in a single study. Based on the evidence presented in the video the conclusions drawn serve as nothing more than to point to areas where further study should be done if one really wants to get to the truth.

An understanding of statistics is not needed for one to be skeptical of a self serving video posted by a game company, a video that claims to prove something the vast majority of those attending the event believed was true before they even set foot in the building. If CCP wants to know the real truth about this issue they would hire a company that specializes in these types of studies and then simply ask that company to determine what are the factors that cause players to leave and what are the factors that keep people in the game.

Probability theory, now that is another one that really does us no good here since the probabilities determined are affected by the data used to establish them. As a short example we will use 1,000 players that were ganked in the first 15 days.
If all 1,000 of them left the game then probability theory would tell us that everyone who was ganked in the first 15 days will leave the game.
Turn that around and use 1,000 players that all stayed in the game after a gank and probability theory would tell us that all players who were ganked will stay in the game.

See that is the problem with all these theories they are affected by the data used and that brings me right back to one of the sources of my skepticism toward that video, we simply do not know enough about the accounts chosen or details of how the study was actually conducted.


(Teckos Pech) #109

I am quite well aware of this. What you are saying is, in fewer words, is that CCP Rise and CCP in general are liars. That they are deliberately lying and misleading players. And no I am not confused about calling someone a liar. I am outright stating it. You are stating that CCP Rise and his team deliberately picked a sample that gave them the answer they were looking for and that CCP Rise was lying that he and his team were shocked by the answers they got. Because that is what CCP Rise said. He said, more or less, “We were shocked by these results…that it is important to validates one’s assumptions.” Granted I’d have said beliefs vs. assumptions, but I’m a bit of a stickler for terminology.

But to what end? That players who are ganked in their first 15 days are leaving droves…but for some reason CCP wants the rest of us to believe otherwise? Please explain this view to me and the rest of us here. Why is it in CCP’s interest to lie to us about players leaving and hide that fact and mislead us?

I was recommendig that the person go to the actual source of the statements vs. taking my (potentially) faulty memory of the presentation.

Again, you should be utilizing the principle of charity here, IMO. Or if you really think CCP has an ulterior motive explain it. If you can’t, sorry I am going to conclude you have nothing of substance to add.

Of course not. I am a Bayesian. I do not believe that statistics can give us an objective truth. That statistics provides evidence/support for our beliefs.

From the link,

The Bayesian interpretation of probability can be seen as an extension of propositional logic that enables reasoning with hypotheses, i.e., the propositions whose truth or falsity is uncertain. In the Bayesian view, a probability is assigned to a hypothesis, whereas under frequentist inference, a hypothesis is typically tested without being assigned a probability.

So, I felt, prior to CCP Rise’s presentation that ganking was not a problem. His work provides evidence that further supports that belief. That is my posterior probability is now higher because of his work. Does it mean I think that it is an objective truth? No, but it is better than what if/just so reasoning that is all to frequently used on these forums.

I too work with data on a daily basis. In fact, we have around 5 million customers. And for us we find that about 5,000 is a pretty good sample size. We often go bigger because people want to “drill down” that is they’ll say, “What about this subset?” And so we go grab say 50,000 so that we know we have a pretty good number of people in that subset too.

Overall from CCP Rise’s presentation we can conclude that about 12,000 people were killed in their first 15 days and that they were more likely to stay subscribed than those not killed. Those numbers are big enough, statistically speaking.

Wow…if you do have books on statistics I suggest you get them out and re-read. Sorry to be so harsh, but this is just nonsense. You have confused statistics with probability theory. The two are connected, but not as you imply.


(Keno Skir) #110

Oh my god dude, if you’re ever short of people to fly with there’s room on my boat (under the brack). Perfect attitude to take :shipitparrot:


(Donnachadh) #111

I am not calling anyone a liar, that is your personal interpretation of my comments.
I question the way the data set was generated, I question how it was reviewed and I question the results obtained. If you think that means I am calling them liars that is your problem to deal with not mine.

Charity is reserved for those who deserve it or need it, a game company I pay a subscription fee to every month does not need nor do they deserve charity from me or anyone else.

Motive, well CCP is a company that produces a game, a game where you are not supposed to be safe anywhere. It seems to me that this is motive enough to release a video that supposedly proves this basic tenant of the game to be true.


(Keno Skir) #112

The Principal of Charity has already been explained and i’m pretty sure you realize that’s not what he meant.


(Teckos Pech) #113

Short of going out and grabbing say dozens of such data sets, doing the analysis on each of them and finding at least one that gives the answer they wanted…then yes, you are coming pretty damn close to saying they are liars.

Wut? Okay, so to “prove this point that you are not safe” CCP basically lied so as too…justify having players quit when they otherwise wouldn’t…and lose money…and put their income stream in jeopardy.

Sorry, that is just silly. Not buying it.

Oh, and the principle of charity is nothing more than treating the other person’s statements as sincere and honest–i.e. that they are not lying. It is what polite adults do.


(Gregor Noobius) #114

Agreed, there is so much to do and try in the game, but having to actually wait months just for a few skills to train is pretty ridiculous. Especially for new players. The game requires a lot of actual skill. They should focus on that and less on the fake skills.


(Wander Prian) #115

To be able to try something, you only have to train for a few hours, days at maximum. You do not need perfect skills to be able to test something out.


(Boldly Gone) #116

Newbie skills don’t take months.
Lvl V of any factor 1 skill is done in 4 days. In my three months I skilled 8 skills to V. All of them factor one, they are basic. Additionally I skilled up to Battleships (well, very basically, can’t afford them anyway yet) and Mining Barges, Rockets and Lasers, and also completed the EveUni Basic plan. From now on, most skills take more than a day, but many give access to some new Lvl1 skills which still don’t take hours.


(Donnachadh) #117

I want to thank you for this, until I read your post I missed that Teckos had used the term “principal of charity” and not simply the word “charity”, as they say my bad and apologies to Teckos.

And yet he is still incorrect I am and always have applied this with regards to this situation.
Principal of Charity does not prevent one from questioning results, or how those results were arrived at. The principal of charity is at a basic level simply accepting what someone has said BEFORE you start to question it, and once you start to question looking at the arguments on all sides with an unbiased mind / attitude. Based on the information presented in the video I have never debated the conclusions drawn, what I have done from the very first time I watched the video is question how the entire study was conducted. Why yes I am glad you noticed, by questioning the data and how the study was done it does call into question the results, but I find myself back at the same point I have been trying to make with Teckos. To question does not mean you are calling a company or anyone that works for that company a liar, it is, was and always will be an acceptable form of seeking more information.

Despite what some may claim I do have an open mind on this specific topic. Personal experience tells me that CCP is wrong, that non-consensual PvP is a significant factor in player retention. And yet I also accept that my personal experiences are quite limited when compared to the game as a whole so I am compelled to accept that CCP may be correct, and that gets us to the core of the problem. To Teckos and many others this video confirms what they personally believe so they are inclined to accept it without question. On the other hand because the conclusions drawn do not fit with my personal experiences I question, I look with that un-biased attitude / mind set for absolute proof of what CCP states, instead of finding the proof all I end up with is more questions just few follow.

If you want to know what factors have caused players to leave the game you need to study those who have left, not those that stayed.
Did they actually send surveys to players, or did they simply look at game / account data and yes this could make a difference. Some short thoughts here.
Players who witnessed a gank (even though they were not the targets) and left because they cannot believe / do not want to play a game where that is acceptable.
On the other side there is the possibility that someone was ganked and left the game, not because of the gank but because of a change in their lives that occurred at the same time.
Either of these and many others could have a significant impact on the results of a study such as this.

Perhaps that is precisely what they did and the 80,000 accounts is simply part of the narrative given as part of a fan fest keynote. Which brings us back to my first post there is insufficient supporting information given to prove the claims made. No that does not mean CCP is lying, it simply means that for those of us that doubt there is insufficient information given to remove that doubt so we continue to neither say they are lying, likewise we refuse to blindly accept that they say is true.

Perhaps you should apply this principal of charity to me. I stated an opinion, not once have you sought to understand me or what caused me to form those opinions. Instead you have accused me of calling CCP liars from your first response and you continue to do so. One has to ask if this principal of charity is so important to you, why do you not apply it to me? is it because I do not share your opinion? or is it simply that you only think that others should apply it?

No matte what your answer I have reached the limit on the number of time this forum will allow me to respond to you so it matters little.


(Teckos Pech) #118

I believe you are sincere in your position…but your position is a rather unseemly one: that CCP are deliberately misleading us.

Consider that it is possible that CCP “got a bad data set” that just happens to show the results it does by chance. However, this is rare, and some of the results support this. Consider that the killed illegally and killed legally have similar effects. That suggests the result is probably true. Is it 100%, no, but it is morel likely true than un-true. Further, getting a bad data set is just bad luck.

If I generate 10,000 data sets each with 500 observations and then fit say a simple time trend model to the data I would expect 500 of those data sets to show a statistically significant trend. But given they are a product a pseudo-random number generator those 500 mean nothing. The same thing can happen with an actual data set. This is not lying this is just having bad luck, misfortune. You can say you still don’t believe the result, but the weight of evidence is running against you. You are displaying what a Bayesian would call dogmatism. This evidence should, at least until we get further information, move your prior probabilities. Clinging to an hypothesis that is becoming less likely and when you don’t have your own data is not very persuasive.

So yes, I am applying the principle to you, but I’m pointing out that your position is not only not very reasonable it is rather unappealing.

BTW, doing this:

That is not just lying, it is what lies behind Samuel Clemens (aka Mark Twain, although Clemens attributed it to Benjamin Disraeli) statement, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” In academics it would be considered fraud and the end of that researchers career. Last guy that did something like this is no longer teaching history at Emory University and instead tending bar.

So I have applied the principle of charity, it is just that your position is not very nice.


(Teckos Pech) #119

Yes, everyone should be hopping into a dreadnought inside 5 days. :roll_eyes:


(Teckos Pech) #120

No, no, no!

You must be butthurt about not being able to use a ship in game that, ISK wise, will take you months if not years to buy. Please, stop being rational, it is so 1950s.


(Elarian Francis) #121

What you people are not realizing is this:

It takes you a MONTH! to make 200-300m isk.

It takes me only 2 HOURS to make 200-300m isk!

That is the difference between ‘old’ players and ‘new’ players.
The new player can grind a month to afford 1 injector. an old player can get 10 injectors for his alts without breaking a sweat.

P.S I am the OP. I added a new section “My Earlier Experience with EVE”, aimed at those saying “you need more time to learn the game” and “bla bla bla injectors”.


(Wander Prian) #122

New players also usually fly cheaper ships with less expensive equipment and they also require less skills to fly. Brand new players usually can play comfortably with less ISK than the veteran. Those 200 million a month might seem a small amount to you, but for a new player that can be more than enough.