You mean the survey they ask all players when they unsub?
3 Likes
“15 days” is with in the trial period. They do not need to subscribe. Which means, the metrics rae Corrupted at best, Bogus worst case.
Further more, did you see the option in there that says “i left because i did not die?”, “I left because i got suicide ganked” I must of missed it.
So then you are saying Ganking isnt
Losing a ship
Being Harassed
An Imbalance in the game
or the Game being too Difficult?
And they do provide a text box where you are totally free to write
GANKING in big letters if you like, though actual reasons are probably better than slang.
Still nothing stopping people from telling CCP it if they want.
2 Likes
No, it is perfectly acceptable to suicide gank a < 15 day old player outside the starter system in which they probably reside for under a day.
This is pre alpha, so it was pretty trivial to see for CCP if they sub after the 15 days or not.
If you had watched the video you linked you would have seen that they actually looked at the SURVEY they send to every player that unsubs and the reason they give for unsubbing. The amount of players that cite “ship loss” or “harassment” is < 1%.
Go read the rules next time before you join a discussion ok. This is perfectly fine outside the starter system.
Call me surprised, the delusional ultra carebear disregards the study that completely shatters his views. Who would have guessed that?
Also looks like CCP’s game does better than yours. Wonder why.
They did as I already said. But now you will just invent another reason why you can’t accept the result that doesn’t align with your ideology.
1 Like
Thanks for proving my point.
NO field in there is for “Dying to suicide attackers”
“lost a ship” could be dying to rats, which means the METRICS ARE CORRUPTED (at best).
“player harassment” while this could include suicide ganking etc, is also corrupted.
None of these, or the collection of them result in ccp knowing “15 days not dying == more play time” etc so forth.
Your grasping at straws here, and your only proving that ccp is lying about these metrics.
You must be shrooming.
So your current fable is that CCP massage the figures by not providing a way to report that Ganking is a reason for leaving, yet oh look a text box to provide more details.
So if some one quits due to ship loss from a rat, what do they do, hmm? how do they communicate that? Because according to you, its impossible.
2 Likes
And yet its also the basis of your argument.
1 Like
Did this thread get hijacked somewhere along the line?
1 Like
I dont think so. If they are in the 30 day initial trial period, i think you will get a boot to the head for suicide ganking them, regardless of where you do it.
[quote=“Karak_Terrel, post:270, topic:181117”]
The amount of players that cite “ship loss” or “harassment” is < 1%.
Not dying to a player does not mean the reason for staying is not dying for them. Just as dying to a player does not mean the reason they left was dying to that player.
Lol. This is cute. I am a null pvper, and i have been since my third day in eve, which btw, was in 2003. I have never once focused my game on pve in this game. I have always been a pvper, and always will be.
My positions are for the betterment of the game, those that make up over 80% of its population, not us 20% that run around killing people all day.
Eve is a joke in comparison to other games. It’s best time has had no more then 65 and some change online. Do you really want to compare that to the 13.5 million that wow has which has been the desired game to own for the entire industry? give me a break. Eve, and ccp could not dream of having such numbers or success.
While we are on the topic, this game has been a ■■■■ show from the start. Lead by someone who does not have any form of ability to see the disastrous effects of catering to “niche” oriented playerbases.
Because its a lie.
Wait lets think about this. Eve has lost what, a few million players over the years. Are you trying to tell me that they created overhead and went through and read everyone one of these?
get out of here with your lies. The metric is bogus and we both know it, no amount of forum alt spam from you, or any of the other devs will change it, hellmar.
So you are now saying its impossible for them to know why players left, but you seem to know?
Based on what?
1 Like
Prove the metrics, or s hut up. Its that simple. You beat around the bush with horrible bad field options, then cop it out to 3.5 million players writing in and being read by someone.
No one at any studio has that much time, especially devs.
Right back atcha, big lad.
2 Likes
Let’s generalize: I am going to provide proof for the general argument “forcing competitive type of play on players who do not enjoy competitive type of play may lead them to stop playing a game”.
First, let’s define griefing from the perspective of a new highsec resident, who mistakenly believes they are relatively safe in highsec:
“In current literature, grief play in Massively Multi-player Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs) refers to play styles where a player intentionally disrupts the gaming experience of other players.” R1
This definition includes suicide ganking from a new EVE player’s perspective, because 1) they are not expecting it and 2) even if they were expecting it, it disrupts the gaming experience of a player who does not want to have anything to do with competitive type of play.
If the griefing turns into cyberbullying, more tragic outcomes are possible:
“To make matters worse, since online games are very popular in the younger generation [5], instances of cyberbullying can cause far reaching problems. In general, cyberbullying is associated with depression, anxiety, and has been shown to result in drastic actions such as suicide in several well publicized cases [6]. With the amount of time and energy players invest into games, victims of toxic behavior are likely to feel emotional effects that persist to the real-world.” R2
If a player is dead because they killed themselves, they cannot play the game, which makes my point. Note that the word “bully” is in the title of this thread. Let’s continue.
In “The Identification of Deviance and its Impact on Retention in a Multiplayer Game”, the authors assert:
“As predicted, players in the more competitive ranked matches were associated with higher toxicity indexes than players in normal matches. Thus, even though a more competitive attitude is the norm for players playing the ranked game mode, players were exhibiting more deviant behavior than players in
normal mode matches.” R3
Which means, the more competitive you are as a player, the higher the likelihood that you will display deviant behavior, such as griefing and bullying. Or in other words, griefers and bullies come from the pool of competitive players.
In the same paper, the authors argue:
“Match length was a significant predictor of players below level 30 taking an extended break from (or quitting) the game (β = −.150, p < .011). A high toxicity index of teammates was also a stronger predictor for driving these players to quit (β = −.351, p < .049). However, a player with a higher toxicity index was more likely to continue playing (β =.640, p < .017), and players with a higher level (who had played more matches over-all) were also less likely to leave (β = .394, p < .002). Playing with friends had a smaller impact, but increased long-term retention (β = .069, p < .003). A player’s level and their teammate’s toxicity had an interaction effect which suggests that higher level players were more resilient to toxic teammates (β = .618, p < .016).” R3
This was a large study, with a significant data set: 2.5 million players playing 18.25 million matches across three months. One of the conclusions of the study, as stated above, is that players up to the moderate level of 30 (out of max 50 levels) tended to quit the game in the long term, if they were exposed to toxic behavior such as griefing and bullying, provided they did not normally display these behaviors themselves.
I will post some other study about player types and how competitive play (i.e. PvP) is only a part of online play later on.
References
R1. Foo, C. Y., and Koivisto, E. M. I. Defining grief play in MMORPGs: player and developer perceptions. In ACE (2004).
R2. Kwak, H., Blackburn, J., & Han, S. (2015, April). Exploring cyberbullying and other toxic behavior in team competition online games. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3739-3748). ACM.
R3. Shores, K. B., He, Y., Swanenburg, K. L., Kraut, R., & Riedl, J. (2014, February). The identification of deviance and its impact on retention in a multiplayer game. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing (pp. 1356-1365). ACM.
1 Like
Yeah, you are simply wrong. The newbie protection is only in the starter system and some system from the systers epic arc. If they wander out of those systems they are fair game.
So if you make a study and actually look at the number then we can’t make a connection. But if we pull stuff out of our asses like you then the connection becomes clear?
How many other games are there that are still running after 16 years? How many other MMOs that are where the carebear heaven you seek have already been shutdown since?
EVE is an absolute success.
So CCP lies to themselves about important business decision becuase why? They where looking into this topic exactly because it came up frequently by people like you and because they wanted to check if the idea that suicide ganking is bad for retention has merit.
But what they found is that not only are people like you wrong, but the reality suggests it is completely the other way around and more conflict means more players.
This isn’t supper surprising for anyone who can think clearly and separate a game from reality. New players are not chlidren but gamers looking for ab exciting game to play. If you present them with action and combat, even if they lose they are more likely to have a more interesting time than if you present them a bring endless grind where nothing ever happens.
Somehow people like you can’t separate a a game from reality and that is the real issue here.
3 Likes
They are not lying to themselves, they are well aware of what the truth is, they lie to players to peddle a concept. You believe it because its from them, that does not make it true the best part is they are not required to prove it to you out side of some vague statements.
Things like suicide ganking have never benefited a game, Never. And they NEVER WILL.
It go’s against the very basic fundamental of our nature as a species, which is why it cannot be true, on a fundamental level.
They lie to you, and the rest of the population for one reason. Can you guess?
Money. It’s as simple as that.
The question remains is, It the money via some purchased item in the shop, or is it because they dont want to shell out the money to fix it. Probably the ladder, but who knows.
In all the years this game has been around, how many people have complained about this mechanic? How many people before the end of last year were complaining about being trapped in the stations?
And you really want us to believe that those aspects of game play are some how magically beneficial to the game? When historically… And fundamentally they have proven other wise?
Get out of here with this nonsense.
Whats super interesting is that ccp passes eve off as “real life in a video game”. I am more then capable of separating the two and have no issues between them. That does not change who or what we are as individuals, and a species, just as it does not change the fundamental way we are a species (in this age) conduct ourselves. In fact, I often reference to this mentality being strongly voiced on forums by a select few which i term “the boomer egotistical crowd”.
So hang on let me just get this straight;
Apparently, CCP lies in order to maintain a customer base and make $$$ because if they told the truth, this would make them less $$$.
But also, apparently, if CCP admitted the truth and changed the game to remove ganking they would also make $$$ and the game would expand.
Is that whats being said here?
4 Likes
This thread is frustrating to read on so many levels.
I think it’s mostly fair to say, generally, that people don’t like getting suicide ganked. No, I don’t have statistics. I mean, by definition it’s getting killed by a player more experience than you in a situation where you expect to be relatively safe and generally represents a significant loss for a newer player.
That being said, I think it’s ridiculous to say that’s the reason EVE has retention issues. My understanding is that ganking has been around pretty much since the beginning, which means rate of subscription have risen and fell despite ganking being a constant. That has to mean that, if ganking is a reason new players leave, it’s not a primary one. I actually think CCP conducting a survey to find out the impact would be interesting, although I doubt it will happen any time soon.
Still, as CCP is a business, they have literally NO reason to keep a game mechanic in a game if they have reason to believe they’re losing players because of it. I’m sorry, but that’s just plain nonsense. If anything can be said about established businesses, it’s that they are generally consistent. If removing ganking resulted in bigger paychecks, I feel confident that ganking would be gone.
So I kind of disagree with both sides of this argument. No, ganking isn’t something that “keeps” players in the game. While I understand the study (although I could not watch the video at this time, but will when able), I think there are too many variables to state anything conclusively. But also, no, ganking isn’t the reason EVE has retention problems, and arguing something about human nature and whatever else isn’t compelling.
Looking at the survey–if I had to guess–lack of stated goals would be a bigger retention issue. That’s just baseless speculation 
2 Likes
You think they lie to the players to peddle a concept instead of changing the game into a direction they know would earn them more money? Must be a different CCP you are talking about.
Yeah it does not make sense if you are incapable of separating a computer game from reality. If you can do that it makes actually sense.
How do they make more money by lying and making sure as you say that new players quit and don’t become paying costumers? If there was ANY hint at all that suicide ganking is bad for player retention they would switch it off tomorrow.
People cry about all sorts of things. That does not mean that they are right. That is why CCP actually conducted the study to make sure if the loud minority that always cries is right, Turns out your where wrong.
Again, CCP looked at it in more than one study and found that players who get killed early on are more likely to stay.
I present actual references to material where CCP looked into this exact topic and what have you shown so far? You have just gut feelings and some suspicions. You have been show repeatatly that your assumptions are wrong. Can’t deal with that? Tough luck, I’m not going anywhere.
2 Likes
This has given me an idea.
Ill buy a whack of Catalysts and a whack of Procurers, lets say 100m of each and put them up for sale in a starter system
The first stack to sell out is the winner.
Unless someone can think of a more balanced pair of ships to run with?
1 Like