Hope you’re not referring to that 2015 CCP Rise presentation. It’s not only outdated, it’s misleading due to being based on unverified incomplete info.
And if you know others have linked it to me when you just joined this forum on June 3, 2021 means that you’re just another forum posting alt created in an attempt to backup and add some sort of credibility to your main character…
Sample size is just one aspect, another aspect is amount of time. Portraying an incomplete analysis on limited info makes the results inaccurate. Claiming it as factual truth is nothing more than a con job.
“…the most important variable deciding on whether you were still playing in month 4 was whether you got your ship destroyed by another player… …so losing your ship was good… …which is amazing. I actually thought it was the opposite…”
That doesn’t mean it’s causal, but is actionable.
The whole presentation is worth watching and it’s been posted multiple times, but I’m sure the deep analysis done by CCP will be dismissed again, because the outcome doesn’t match the right narrative.
lol, nice job on moving the goal posts. The discussion was about new player retention, not players with 4 months in game.
Basically a new player would be 30 days or less time playing the game. That’s based on Rookie Help chat being available to the character for only 30 days.
The discussion had the CCP Rice presentation as proof that suicide ganking was good for new player retention. Since that analysis in the presentation was based on new players with 2 weeks time in game instead of 30 days or less time in game, that makes the results inaccurate.
But hey, go ahead and keep posting that BS with your forum posting alts, I’m sure there will be some people here foolish enough to believe it.
If you watch the presentation, CCP Quant explains that the first 3-months is what CCP consider the onboarding period. The 4th month is what they look at to see if new players stay with the game (ie. the most important variable [determining if a new player was still playing in month 4] was whether they had their ship destroyed by another player).
But like above, the information, which directly addresses the post you made earlier, is dismissed because it doesn’t say what you want it to.
Doesn’t matter how many times you say that, you’re still spouting BS based on stuff from 2015. In the 2019 world tour, CCP presented various graphs that look at 90 days for player retention, not 120 days.
Um, that’s what CCP Quant presented too. The first 3-months is 90 days. It’s the same data.
It’s the same analysis (and likely extended beyond the earlier period through to the comments made by Hilmar).
Nothing Hilmar said, contradicted with that analysis, which irrespective, is just a direct response to what you asked for.
Hey, but keep dismissing the stuff you don’t like and extrapolate into imaginary conclusions on stuff you do like, because that’s what we’ve come to expect; and just like CCP’s data analysis findings have been consistent across the years, so are the dismissals of it.
That’s also still consistent with CCP’s earlier analysis and CCP Quant discusses the poor retention in his presentation.
So what?
The conclusions haven’t changed and CCP have been quite open about how crap EVE is at retaining new players. Nothing Hilmar presented in those slides is different to what they’ve presented previously.
Maybe there’s some other nugget of gold you have showing the analysis is completely different?
Talk about moving the goal posts. You asked for proof of the statement tat CCP found that getting blown up was associated with higher retention rates. When provided that direct proof, dismissed and predicated and now talking just about retention (and there are lots of reasons for that).
TLDR of Hilmar’s talk posted earlier in this thread. Retention rate is pretty ■■■■■■■ bad. First ship loss is an extremely important event on a players future engagement with the game. If the player understands what happened and has social support, then the likelihood of them continuing to play is pretty high. With understanding of the mechanics, the loss creates an emotional response that drives the player to further pursue the game. Where the loss happens is irrelevant, what is important is the victims understanding of what occured.
I quite agree but unless CCP comes out and says being ganked leads to increased retention in the same way that going on a roam into Syndicate and losing a ship does, the arguments will continue.
Smarter individuals understand that the sec is irrelevant, cause if you don’t understand the mechanics, then your understanding of what happened is equally missing, whether you lost the ship in highsec or nullsec. In the same vein, with understanding of the mechanics the emotions built by the loss are still present no matter the sec.
But let the arguments continue. Nothing else going on in GD anyways… Threads about the best female clothes? Narh, just give me the same old rehashed discussions, so I can get my daily EVE forum fix.
Thanks a lot, mate! Having watched just first few minutes one will get reliably convinced that suicide ganking is of negligible effect on new player retention (unless it gets rampant as hell, of course)
