What’s funny is the analogy you used was basically Detroit, MI since the 80’s, lol
1 Like
I’m shocked that people still live in Detroit tbh.
1 Like
Isnt it Delta City yet?
1 Like
Nah it hasn’t even reached the Mogadishu stage yet.
During the first 5 minutes of the 2015 Fanfest, CCP Rise asked some questions leading into the topic of Suicide Ganking and new players with some statistics of a survey:
Checked 80,000 different users
Checked them for deaths in first 15 days
Checked their killers for deaths by Concord
Grouped them into Illegally killed, legally killed and not killed
Checked retention rate of each group
Group stats for first 15 days:
Not killed = 85.5%
Legally killed (WarDec, Duel, Faction War) = 13.5%
Illegally killed (Suicide Ganked) = 1%
He then said the retention rate for those groups were that players who died in their first 15 days are more likely to stay playing whereas players who didn’t die in their first 15 days are more likely to quit. He then added that less then 1% of account cancelations cited ship loss / harassment as reason for leaving.
Basically he made it seem like Suicide Ganking increases player retention. For years after that, the forum PvP/Ganker crowd has posted that presentation as fact.
However that presentation actually misrepresents and portrays stats incorrectly. Instead of the first 15 days, the study should have been the first 30 days which is the duration time for Rookie Chat in-game. Also he conveniently left out the stats for total amount of canceled accounts from the 80,000 and the amount of canceled accounts that actually submitted a reason for leaving. Could have also shown the percentage amount of cancelations for each of the 3 groups.
Anyway, years later after CCP Rise’s NPE presentation farce, CCP Hilmar actually stated facts and reasons for poor performance / new player retention in the 2019 Eve Down Under World Tour - Beyond The Friendship Machine.
The section pertaining to retention starts at 37:07 but the main point he cites is at 42:50 when a new player loses their ship for the first time, that’s ‘The Magic Moment’ of when they decide to stay or quit the game. If the player belongs to a Social group within the game, they are more inclined to stay after a devastating ship loss due to that group providing support in understanding why it happened, helping them to get back on their feet and lastly, to get revenge.
The key word in that statement is revenge. That study doesn’t pertain to Duel’s, War Dec’s, Faction Warfare or Day Tripping into Low, Null or W-Hole space. It is centered on new players with less than a week in the game who don’t belong to a Social group and are still primarily located in High Sec. Since the key word is revenge, that implies their devastating ship loss was due to non-consensual PvP.
2 Likes
Man I wish I could comment on this, but I dont want an argument 
I dont disagree with anything but the last sentence, so lets just leave it at that.
I hate social mores.
Well, I highly doubt he was referring to NPC’s.
I doubt that too
Wrong. That isn’t the data that shows that new players that die have the higher retention. It’s a much broader data analysis piece conducted by CCP Quant that looks through the “onboarding” period of 3 months:
The most important variable deciding on… on whether you were still playing in month 4 was whether you got your ship destroyed by another player.
That aligns perfectly with the second sentence you claimed was debunked:
Additionally, CCP Hilmar’s statements also didn’t debunk the first sentence. Dismissing actual factual statements from CCP and then claiming assumptions laid over the top of their words are facts doesn’t make for a solid argument, especially when matched by the also general statement of Rise:
We have tried and tried to validate the myth that griefing has a pronounced affect on new players - we have failed. The strongest indicators for a new player staying with EVE are associated with social activity: joining corps, using market and contract systems, pvping, etc. Isolating players away from the actual sandbox seems very contrary to what we would like to accomplish.
3 Likes
Yes you are wrong. In fact everything you just posted doesn’t even relate to what the initial convo was about.
The initial statement that started everything was a posting with the CCP Rise presentation which was claimed to prove that Suicide Ganking increased player retention, especially if it happened to new players.
Your understanding the word fact seems non-existent.
My post above contains the exact quote you claimed was debunked. It’s easy to scroll up and see.
You have a major problem with reading, the stuff you posted doesn’t even pertain to new players or suicide ganking.
But hey go ahead and continue twisting it around even more to support your viewpoint that suicide ganking increases new player retention.
I don’t see anything there that contradicts what was found in 2015. Like i said, Hilmar is saying that players that experience a loss are more likely to stick around if they have support.
It does not say ganking is a problem for new player retention.
1 Like
Hilmar’s presentation pertained to new players who had ‘Devastating Loss’ and no support group to help them understand why it happened, help them recoup and get revenge.
In my experience doing ransom wars, most of the new non-miner players who died ended up sticking around (in fact it kind of pushed them to find stronger organizations to join). The ones who usually permanently quit were one or more of the following:
- Exclusively miners
- Quit immediately upon declaration of war before giving it a shot
- Followed order to log off until the war went away (they almost never came back)
- Were older players and/or corporate leadership exposed to losses for the first time
Not a small sample size either (thousands of wars, of which at least hundreds were “productive”), and it was very easy to track people when the watch list was still a thing, even if the targets weren’t infiltrated.
The newer players were much more likely to push everyone to form up a fleet, resist, et cetera. That’s why I’ve always stuck to my theory that terrible carebear CEOs “corrupt the youth” so to say.
I’m finding these threads hilarious, though. It’s funny to observe people with huge victim complexes project their insecurities onto others, and assume that everyone else must be a victim, too.
4 Likes
But it doesn’t talk about how many players that is.
It doesn’t talk about how many players are sticking around longer because they got ganked and then had a support structure from other players.
It doesn’t talk about how many players leave without facing a magic moment.
1 Like
Well it’s quite easy.
If you really think first 30 day puppy protection would hurt the game PROOF it by trying it out ingame for a defined period of time(one year perhaps).
We can write a petition to ccp right away.
Don’t want to because ‘this is eve’?
Well than YOU are the problem here and not worth talking.
1 Like
Just what i said.
Don’t try to interpret things.
1 Like
If you could define exactly what that would entail, I promise to do my best to find ways that people would find an abuse or exploit for it.
1 Like
Thank you the detailed explanation of your postion and basis for it. The like I gave is well deserved.
1 Like