New players have no reason to Sub and keep playing

That doesn’t seem to jive with the newly created player data:


It seems that more new characters than ever are still being created. Do you think they are mostly alts? Or people that try Eve now that we have Alpha accounts but don’t finish the NPE? Or maybe they are going directly to nullsec?

I mean, I agree there is some issue as that increase in new characters created doesn’t seem to be producing an increase in concurrent player counts. So more people are trying but less are subscribing?

Too bad CCP Quant left. It’s probably a subject the might not want to talk too much about, but it would be nice to learn more about where new players are getting hung up.

What is that correlation? How long more thay stayed subscribed and why? Was it really about ganking or something else? These are all questions that were not answered, ever. Also I think the larger group should be included, not 80000 but 800000, to diminish the influence of standard deviation.


Dude. CCP Quant, a trained data scientist helped perform this analysis. The sample size was clearly large enough, and while all the criteria and parameters were not divulged, there is no reason to question they did this properly. You have to believe them either incompetent or deceitful to discount their conclusions, especially given it is totally in their best interests to get it right and identify what are problem areas for player retention.

There is a positive correlation with experiencing space violence and staying with the game. The cohort that was exploded had higher retention (probably means conversion to becoming a payed subscriber from the trial that existed at the time) than those that didn’t. As people have alluded to, there are multiple explanations for that correlation, but at a minimum the data shows us that ganking of new players is: 1) rare, in that it happens very infrequently to new players, and b) does not appear to have a negative effect on those players staying with the game.

And if we are going to argue statistics, the standard deviation doesn’t change with increased sample size - it is a measurement of the typical variation from the mean value of data set. The standard deviation of a sufficiently sampled dataset will not change with increased sampling. But let’s not argue statistics given we don’t even have the complete methods of how they did the study.

1 Like

While we can have qualms about the statistical methodology, why would CCP “maliciously” misrepresent data? They are a business, they would love to have more paying customers and to milk the existing player base more. That is fine and how it should be. Yes, it could be that they got it wrong but even without a deep understanding of statistics it is easy to understand that, armed with only anecdotal evidence and a very small data set, our perception is clearly more likely to be wrong than theirs.

As far as being a new player is concerned, having played solo on and off for more than 10 years, I can fairly say that I have been a noob three times: 10, 6 and 2 years ago.

Why did I quit 10 years ago? The game was just too unforgiving for semi casual play. Learning learning skills, moving probes one by one, forgetting said probes, forgetting to insure clones, etc… I felt I was playing against the game mechanics rather than against or with other players. CCP has addressed that issue nicely imho: they kept most of the complexity but dropped the infuriating parts.

Why did I quit 6 years ago? A mix of boredom, lack of understanding of some game mechanics and “off-grid” everything that seemed something unfair I could do nothing against, some lack of content for solo play. Again, something that has decently be addressed by CCP imho.

As far as the present is concerned, I do, like everyone, have my pet peeves. But on the whole, I think the game has improved a lot on the whole. Yes, a lot of the recent additions have been mostly useless, pointless or simply boring. But there are, imho, less opportunities to be unfairly treated by the game and the game mechanics. While you can be unfairly treated by other players :slight_smile: :slight_smile: there always seems to be a way around that (except possibly for the ever lasting bumping issue, but CCP has begun to address that).

It is very possible (and fairly easy) to avoid being ganked in hs. While super proliferation may indeed feel “unfair” if you just got "Nyx"ed in a drake, there are tons of ways to avoid being put in that situation (including killboards btw). Being ganked in HS is a minor issue (again IMHO): I think that this is good that you can’t feel 100% safe there, that you may have to travel and pay attention a bit and, in any case, I feel that noobs who can’t take that low level of risk aren’t a good fit for the game anyway.

There are solutions around many of the problems you encounter and the ability to be creative about them is my main source of Eve pleasure.

And while I am at it, my current peeves would be

  • structure proliferation (which is slowly being addressed, at least some steps have been taken in the correct direction) space shouldn’t look like a junkyard.
  • the emergence, more than ever, of a big, unmatched and unchallenged, economic power. That, in itself, is too be expected in a game that favors emergent behavior and real world like politics/empire building. That’s, in a way, impressive to watch, but may have reached a tipping point (just my perception).
  • that abyssal stuff which is essentially “loot boxes” in disguise. (Very clever from CCP’s point of view - the loot box part being several steps away from the act of payment). If it ends up being a success, this brings Eve closer to a pay to win lottery and removes part of the analytical aspect of the game (squeezing optimal tight fits out of standard parts) to favor unexpected mods that are the products of a chain of lottery like steps. Note: while I do wish it ultimately fails because it changes the nature of Eve as I see it, I understand it is only my opinion.

But anyway, the relatively rare new player blowing up and quitting because he has not learned from his mistake is probably totally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things…

1 Like

I think we should.

I dont argue that standard deviation would change, but the influence on a larger sample would be different.
If the standard deviation is high, it would mean the subscribtion times can be spread along the player population in a very random manner, and if we take 1% from that population and look up the data points, it can influence the conclusion. This randomity and in effect influence can be diminished if we get larger population and 1% grows from 800 to 8000.

1 Like

I have loads of fun with just one sub and I live in a wormhole. If you die in hs while mining afk it’s literally your fault. If you undock anywhere in the game, don’t pay attention and die it’s your fault. If you refuse to learn from mistakes and practice critical thinking skills by all means uninstall. This game is about patience and determination. People who like the game don’t want to make it easy like other cookie cutter games. If eve dies then it dies, stop catering to crying scrubs.

No it is not a fact, hi FAILED on that big time, just like hi failed on all “ship balances” last few years.

His failure, among others, lead to today Eve state and I am sorry that I spend my money on it :frowning:


It’s a statistical fact. There is a positive correlation, unpredicted by their original hypothesis that ganking was driving away new players, between those that were ganked and those that subscribed. Even they were surprised which Rise conveyed by use of this slide:

But I am more interested in why you think the efforts at ship balancing have failed? I mean maybe they have, I am no expert, but it seems that most of the ships they touched are at least better off than before. Some things stand out, like maybe the Retribution, as a little off the charts, and definitely somethings, like Svipuls, took too long to address, but largely people seem happier with the ships that have been rebalanced.

Actually, no need to answer, I am not sure why I even wasted the time typing this. Just cut your losses and move on and find a game that makes you happier.

1 Like

I would call 1% of all new players getting ganked a very high rate myself. especially since that group includes players who never left a protected system therefore should never be yanked without it being a bannable offence.
Considering they have so little of value, that 1% is actually shockingly high.

However yes. let’s not argue statistics over the study. It was interesting, showed that CCP do analyse their player data (which should have been obvious anyway but it made it far more visblle), and created 101 interesting follow on questions. that in usual CCP fashion never got openly answered, nor another matching study done to compare numbers 3 years on.

Statistical errors are a fact too, false positives and false negatives. :wink:

Hey look

It’s another one of these threads


Keep us posted if you have something substantial to criticise the study or the method they used instead of some wild guess and feelings.

I already linked a second video by CCP Quant which shows that they do this things all the time. You must have missed it.

Lol, that can only come from ultra-carebear DMC. Only you would suggest new players stay for over a month in the protected newbie systems. In reality most of them probably move out once they are done with the tutorial agents, which is probably only a few hours after they started to play.

I’m sure we have mentioned this about a hundred times, but in that very same video he mentions that they looked at reasons ALL subscribed players give when they quit and < 1% of ALL PLAYERS cite ship loss as the reason.

I’m sure you know this. Kinda impossible you missed it, so I guess you are just lying like always


I criticized the data sample as being small and standard deviation of subscription time could have effect on conclusion, and they were seeking a binary conclusion. False positive error can certainly arise.


Please elaborate about why exactly the sample is too small. Please show us your math.

1 Like

First CCP should show theirs.

I have no math as I have no data. I did not see CCP calculating anything to dive into the numbers. I have only doubts, I just describe the factors that could have influenced the result of studies. If you think CCP statement should not be questioned, than this is not science at all.

Doubts of mine, and other people could be extinguished only with CCP bringing the more extensive studies, doing peer review and providing data on their research and actual methodology in detail, providing calculations, standard deviation, data on all those players subscription times, etc.


Why is that a requirement? It seems you have already done the math and came to the conclusion that the sample is too small and I would really like to see the numbers so I can finally stop talking about this study because you have shown us conclusively why it is bad.

I love this particular thread for showing that ganking and wars are only a tiny part of how newbies die

Kinda dismisses most of the arguments here against those

1 Like

Been playing a short while less than you, but the experience is similar if a little less intense.

Have to agree, if my own thinking is at all indicative, that the draw of Eve for new players is community engagement, player engagement. There are lots of space games and building games and open-world games, but rookies hear the stories and want to fly in the big battle, or strong-arm the local market, or truck the spacelanes between empires. There are better single-player experiences that don’t require a sub fee, but the reason to stick around is the people. Ultimately we just want to waste time together on the internet.

I can understand when OP sees a problem with griefing since one could argue the player engagement in having your mining ship exploded is exceedingly one-sided. While I can’t speak to the maths used or factors weighted in various player and CCP studies, I find it erroneous to claim that new players are singular in their desire that the game to be played in a particular way. A sandbox is a realm of possibility.

1 Like

To defend their claim, to extinguish doubts. But I doubt they will come out with details, CCP Quant is not working in CCP anymore. Dont know if there even is a person able to do what he have done.

I cant do that. First of all, CCP made claims, did not show their “math”, and I did not come to the conclusion that sample is too small. I came to conclusion that it may have meaning and it may be too small for the actual study. Because of standard deviation.

If you really want all your doubts (if you have any) extinguished, I think you should bother CCP devs about that…

…if you really like to see more than they provided, because we have only that.

I think all doubts are justified when it comes to statistics because of decisions that someone can make. That is why important is to scrutinize the results. More people having doubts and scrutinizing - that is called science.


Lol, seriously? So how did you come to this conclusion:

Gut feelings?

1 Like