# Wardecs are not the problem **URL:** \ **Category:** Player Features & Ideas\ **Created:** [February 19, 2018, 9:44pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/wardecs-are-not-the-problem/58337 "2018-02-19T21:44:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![MinerArt](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/minerart/32/33728_2.png) [@MinerArt](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/MinerArt)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2018, 3:05am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/wardecs-are-not-the-problem/58337/244 "2018-02-25T03:05:14Z")
> [@Remiel\_Pollard](#): > > I am not Solonius Rex, and my argument has nothing to do with anything I’m responsible for. What you are doing is called ‘shifting the goal posts’. It still is not a rebuttal of my points above, and as such, I accept your continued deference. Thank you for submitting the statement of shifting the goal posts. Now I continue to state responsibility time and time again and you discarded and decided that you win by discarding. Want to discuss responsibility? Or is the topic ended? > [@MinerArt](#): > > It never existed, and it never will. This is what people want because they will not face it. ---
**Author:** ![Remiel\_Pollard](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/remiel_pollard/32/242272_2.png) [@Remiel\_Pollard](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Remiel_Pollard)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2018, 3:07am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/wardecs-are-not-the-problem/58337/245 "2018-02-25T03:07:08Z")
Either explain what responsibility has to do with anything, or there is no discussion to be had about it. Additionally, the only thing that responsibility has to do with my points above is the failure for older players to take responsibility for their own failures, and use ‘won’t someone think of the children’ as a shield for that. So you’re going to have to do better than deflect if you want to prove my points wrong. ---
**Author:** ![MinerArt](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/minerart/32/33728_2.png) [@MinerArt](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/MinerArt)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2018, 3:09am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/wardecs-are-not-the-problem/58337/246 "2018-02-25T03:09:45Z")
> [@Remiel\_Pollard](#): > > Either explain what responsibility has to do with anything, or there is no discussion to be had about it. It is literally the first question in the thread. You confirm that there is the question by Solonius Rex in the thread and ignore it. > [@Remiel\_Pollard](#): > > Additionally, the only thing that responsibility has to do with my points above is the failure for older players to take responsibility for their own failures, and use ‘won’t someone think of the children’ as a shield for that. I could care less about protecting the children. > [@Remiel\_Pollard](#): > > So you’re going to have to do better than deflect if you want to prove my points wrong. Since you do not wish to discuss responsibility for corps then we have nothing to discuss. @ccp end this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Remiel\_Pollard](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/remiel_pollard/32/242272_2.png) [@Remiel\_Pollard](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Remiel_Pollard)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2018, 3:14am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/wardecs-are-not-the-problem/58337/247 "2018-02-25T03:14:43Z")
The question of responsibility is settled. CEOs have a responsibility to their members. If they fail in that responsibility, their members will probably leave. That’s been established for a very long time now, and I addressed it myself many times, including earlier in this thread. The responsibility of a CEO to his corp members has absolutely nothing to do with my points above, however, and remains a deflection and a shift of the goal posts in regards to my points about whether or not new players are driven away by specific features of the game. Let me reiterate: the game is still here, after more than 15 years of ‘all the new players being driven away by gankers’. If you have no argument against that point, then I accept your deference to it. My post was in response to your conversation about data gathered regarding new players leaving the game, a discussion that you were getting right into until I provided counterpoints that you couldn’t handle. Don’t pretend that just because you failed to counter, that discussion never happened, and the OP’s post is the only one in contention here. It remains a deflection away from the counterpoints I offered to your (wrong) assertions. I’m not here to play rhetoric games, mate, I’m here to clear up a misconception that YOU posted. ---
**Author:** ![MinerArt](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/minerart/32/33728_2.png) [@MinerArt](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/MinerArt)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2018, 3:17am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/wardecs-are-not-the-problem/58337/248 "2018-02-25T03:17:09Z")
> [@Remiel\_Pollard](#): > > The responsibility of a CEO to his corp members has absolutely nothing to do with my points above, however, and remains a deflection and a shift of the goal posts in regards to my points about whether or not new players are driven away by specific features of the game. The topic is responsibility. Not new player retention. First post. Lets ignore it shall we? ---
**Author:** ![Remiel\_Pollard](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/remiel_pollard/32/242272_2.png) [@Remiel\_Pollard](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Remiel_Pollard)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2018, 3:20am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/wardecs-are-not-the-problem/58337/249 "2018-02-25T03:20:42Z")
No, actually, responsibility is only part of the OP’s post, which is actually about whether or not wardecs drive new players from the game. I’m paying plenty of attention, mate. It is ENTIRELY about retention, and finding the reasons why new players leave. The argument is that part of what makes them leave is irresponsible CEOs that recruit new members and teach them the wrong thing about the game, which gives them the wrong expectations and the wrong attitude to survive and enjoy it. Then, by proxy, they become disillusioned and depart, or find someone who can teach them what the game is really about. This is demonstrably true, by the way. There are many examples of exactly this happening, some of which I’ve had front row seats to. I’m talking about player retention, which is what the OP is directly talking about. If you’re not addressing retention, then you’re not part of the conversation, it’s that simple. ---
**Author:** ![MinerArt](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/minerart/32/33728_2.png) [@MinerArt](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/MinerArt)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2018, 3:22am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/wardecs-are-not-the-problem/58337/250 "2018-02-25T03:22:03Z")
> [@Remiel\_Pollard](#): > > No, actually, responsibility is only part of the OP’s post, which is actually about whether or not wardecs drive new players from the game. Where exactly does he care about new players, old players, or flying robots farming for ages. You seem to have read something I have not. I’ll just quote it so you can highlight it. > [@Solonius\_Rex](#): > > I dont understand the whining thats going on about wardecs. > > The problem isnt wardecs, the problem is the corporation you are in. > > You join a crap corporation with a shitty CEO who only cares about exploiting his members for profit and cares little about anyone else. Then a wardec hits and he goes afk cause why bother helping his corpmates? > > Whatever happened to responsibility? You should not be a CEO of a corp if you dont know how to run it. And knowing what to do when a Wardec hits, is part of knowing how to run a Corp. > > We dont need a wardec nerf, we need a corporation creation nerf. We need to stop stupid people from creating crap corporations for little to no risk to themselves. We need accountability. We need responsibility. > > Discuss…? ---
**Author:** ![Remiel\_Pollard](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/remiel_pollard/32/242272_2.png) [@Remiel\_Pollard](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Remiel_Pollard)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2018, 3:25am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/wardecs-are-not-the-problem/58337/251 "2018-02-25T03:25:00Z")
This is a problem that’s been addressed before. This isn’t the first time it’s cropped up. He is obviously talking about new players because they are the only ones who are easily hooked into terrible corporations. Vulnerable newbs with no friends just looking for someone to fly with and learn from. Nobody who has experience gets roped into bad corps unless their intention is to awox/claim it for themselves. You are naive if you cannot read what he is addressing in the OP. I mean, I’m autistic, and even I can see what OP is talking about. But of course, I’ve also seen this conversation many times before. This entire thread went up as a reaction to another one calling out wardecs as a problem and blaming them for the departure of new players. They went up around the same time. You are only fooling yourself if you think this isn’t about new players and their retention. ---
**Author:** ![MinerArt](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/minerart/32/33728_2.png) [@MinerArt](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/MinerArt)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2018, 3:30am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/wardecs-are-not-the-problem/58337/252 "2018-02-25T03:30:56Z")
> [@Remiel\_Pollard](#): > > This is a problem that’s been addressed before. This isn’t the first time it’s cropped up. He is obviously talking about new players because they are the only ones who are easily hooked into terrible corporations. This is where you insert your opinion in. His primary situation was either responsibility for corps, OR ending the people making the corps in the first place. I have ZERO ISKS given on retention or losses of new players or old. But lets ask the question you don’t want to answer. If you dodge it again then you really can’t figure it out. How do we add responsibility to corps? ---
**Author:** ![Remiel\_Pollard](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/remiel_pollard/32/242272_2.png) [@Remiel\_Pollard](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Remiel_Pollard)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2018, 3:33am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/wardecs-are-not-the-problem/58337/253 "2018-02-25T03:33:09Z")
I addressed giving corporations more responsibility earlier on in the thread, linking to a possible solution I had a long time ago. My recent posts here have been in response to your very long-winded attempts to discredit data about new player retention. If you didn’t give a ■■■■, if this isn’t about new players and/or their retention, why go to so much effort? The truth is, you know this is about new players and their retention, and now you’re deflecting. You’re an intellectually dishonest hack who isn’t worth the spittle you’re flinging on your monitor in your emotional and childish attempts to get out of the fact that you’re just wrong. Grow up. We’re done here. ---
**Author:** ![MinerArt](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/minerart/32/33728_2.png) [@MinerArt](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/MinerArt)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2018, 3:44am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/wardecs-are-not-the-problem/58337/254 "2018-02-25T03:44:51Z")
> [@Remiel\_Pollard](#): > > I addressed giving corporations more responsibility earlier on in the thread, linking to a possible solution I had a long time ago. That wasn’t a solution. That was a potential buff. > [@Remiel\_Pollard](#): > > I’ve been saying for a long time now, high sec corporations have no real reason to exist. Most people make them because they think they’re making a ‘guild’ and don’t understand the responsibilities are different on EVE. Yes. I saw this ages ago. > [@Remiel\_Pollard](#): > > Corporations need a reason to exist, they need incentives that discourage rolling or leaving them, and CEOs need (as OP stated) more accountability to their members. A while back, I suggested granting bonuses to members of corps based on the amount of time the corp was around, and the amount of time a member stayed in the corp. I think a lot of people misunderstood exactly how this would work, but basically, it was an idea I ripped from Black Desert Online that I’m sure, with a little balancing for the nature of EVE, and some polish, would work great. However, not many people liked this idea. They called it 'too unbalanced in favour of larger/older corps. The problem with that is, the larger/older corps already have an insurmountable advantage over new ones, so it would make absolutely no difference. So why not just put something forward which does not give bonuses or negatives for the duration of your corp existence? Why not put that requirement on war? Why not make a requirement for corps to move out of npc stations or keep paying higher and higher costs until you can’t afford it and your corp dies? Economic warfare. Caldari are supposed to be good at it… War exists in many formats. Currently war has only one requirement. 50 million per target unless you’re in null sec. The responsibility for attackers and defenders is none beyond this. ---
**Author:** ![Lugburz](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/lugburz/32/517736_2.png) [@Lugburz](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Lugburz)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2018, 5:27am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/wardecs-are-not-the-problem/58337/255 "2018-02-25T05:27:50Z")
> [@Blacklight\_Wans](#): > > Not everyone who plays Eve is able to, or is interested, in belonging to a major corp. It’s not them that war decs affect the most, it’s the small corps. And those are the people this game loses if the current system continues. My thoughts exactly, im an allsec player though mostly null. (PvP) And im not posting on an alt so you can actually see my killboard 🙂 > [@Remiel\_Pollard](#): > > He is obviously talking about new players because they are the only ones who are easily hooked into terrible corporations. Vulnerable newbs with no friends just looking for someone to fly with and learn from. Nobody who has experience gets roped into bad corps 100% with you that newbs are easily led into bad corps that have no real intention of interacting with them; just look at recruitment threads, most of its bs. AAANNNDD finally the data… Data is only as good as its source; Im sorry, but if ccp havent DIRECTLY CONTACTED people who have left the game and asked what the issues were the ‘data’ your all talking about may as well be the paper i wipe my ass with. Thats not to say they wont gain data at the moment that may adher mostly along the lines of ‘i couldnt find people to play with’ But as Blacklight said earlier, > [@Lugburz](#): > > Not everyone who plays Eve is able to, or is interested, in belonging to a major corp And if there are arent plenty of active small corps recruiting via forums and recruitment channels because lets be honest here, theyre used to find easy targets… I know economics is hard and its even harder to correlate data in the proper manner without having cold hard facts… like who anne deieuleveut or dark engraver are - both of which have stated they have been in wars; well to be frank its damn obvious theyre not posting on their mains. ---
**Author:** ![Nevyn\_Auscent](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/nevyn_auscent/32/255124_2.png) [@Nevyn\_Auscent](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Nevyn_Auscent)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2018, 6:14am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/wardecs-are-not-the-problem/58337/256 "2018-02-25T06:14:17Z")
> [@Remiel\_Pollard](#): > > They were a newbie at a time when the game was even harder. The game was not harder 5-10 years ago, The game was different, players faced a different environment with a different set of challenges. Pretending it was ‘harder’ is just patting yourself on the back while automatically putting down anyone who started since some arbitrary point you have in your head, and is part of what can make a game have a toxic community. Now this doesn’t mean I believe wardecs are an issue, though I’d quite like to see cost be based on attackers size rather than defenders size, and then pay a relative fee to add people to a corp with aggressive war decs to match the fee they would have paid, as this provides a counter pressure to the ‘get bigger to be able to handle larger targets’ for high sec corps, and makes it harder for a giant corp to bully small corps by at least hitting their wallet harder. But that’s about the only change I want to see to wars and it’s tiny. What we need are actual carrots for high sec corps. Upwell structures in highsec are if anything more vulnerable than low/null/wh upwell structures since they come with vastly weaker defence due to not having any area of effect weaponary, and the best single target weapons of upwell structures are against capitals… which they don’t fight in highsec, the sub cap single target defences are weak as anything. And since they can’t be taken down to avoid a wardec, which was the whole argument given at the time POS refining was changed to give highsec weaker refining, they should get equal statistics in those areas. I don’t believe we would see highsec coated in goon/pl/nc etc structures because wardecs on them would be able to be waged without capitals coming into it, but would also pull hordes of people out of their null areas to defend them, so it would make more sense to keep them where the large groups can use their capitals to cover them anyway at that point. Find a few more carrots that rely on corp membership, and make some changes like making moon mining in highsec actually ‘owned’ by a corp/alliance since it’s actually created by them, and you have a situation where corp membership has real benefits and leaving a corp as soon as it is wardecced will impose some actual costs. Then you will see a lot more people fighting to keep those carrots, because the cost of docking up or dropping corp becomes more than the cost of fighting and loosing a ship or two for a draw. However if you try and impose it as an actual penalty, you will just have a lot of people feeling victimised, so it has to be in the form of carrots for the corp, that can be lost. ---
**Author:** ![Teckos\_Pech](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/teckos_pech/32/375283_2.png) [@Teckos\_Pech](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Teckos_Pech)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2018, 6:31am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/wardecs-are-not-the-problem/58337/257 "2018-02-25T06:31:31Z")
> [@MinerArt](#): > > sigh… > > Data is data. If you start with conclusion before you even have data then your results will always be incorrect. Sure. > [@MinerArt](#): > > Igloos are terrific formats of low cost house building for Eskimos and thus should be used. Data shows that all Eskimos using igloos have low cost housing. Conclusion successful. Change location to the Sahara. PROCESS FAILURE as the igloo melts before it is buil Okay… > [@MinerArt](#): > > So we start with data. How many of these new players are alts? According to CCP rise, none. > [@MinerArt](#): > > Now of these remaining players how many people never logged in? Unknown, but why create a character an never log in? And if they did, they’d be in the never killed category and they’d also lower the “stays with the game” metric. I don’t see an issue here really. > [@MinerArt](#): > > Now how many of these never left station? Again, pretty much the same as the above. > [@MinerArt](#): > > Now you have a base of new players. Okay, WTFAYTA? The players that CCP Rise looked at were not just “new players”. They were players. Then they looked at them to see if they were killed in their first 15 days, the old Trial Account period. So some of them could be new, some of them could have been 8 year veterans. _YOU_ are assuming these are new players. This is a rookie mistake lots of people make when trying to criticize the presentation. But hey, at least you did not conflate the analysis with the “fun fact” that CCP Rise toswed in at the end. > [@MinerArt](#): > > Without discarding the whole how many of these players were ganked (killers were hit by concord) as a percentage of the whole? About 1%, IIRC. > [@MinerArt](#): > > I’m sorry… we weren’t given that. Yes we were. ---
**Author:** ![Teckos\_Pech](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/teckos_pech/32/375283_2.png) [@Teckos\_Pech](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Teckos_Pech)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2018, 6:40am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/wardecs-are-not-the-problem/58337/258 "2018-02-25T06:40:51Z")
> [@MinerArt](#): > > Then of the whole how many players stayed? Players stayed from all three categories. Those killed via ganks had the best metric for “staying with the game”, those killed legally the second best, and those not killed at all came in last place. Now granted no specific numbers were given, but then again FanFest presentations are not usually like what you might see at a meeting of the American Statistical Association (although I wish they were). > [@MinerArt](#): > > What were we given? > > 80,000, deaths in first 15 days, Concord invoked. This is a sorting method used in the video linked ages ago. Admit it, you never watched the presentation. This is just flat out wrong. Of the 80,000 about 1% were ganked, Those killed legally was about 13.5% the rest were not killed at all, so using these estimates we can say, 1. 8,000 or so were ganked. 2. 10,800 or so were killed legally 3. And about 61,200 were not killed at all. In their first 15 days. > [@MinerArt](#): > > This 80,000… 85.5% had no deaths, 13.5% had deaths, and 1% had concordokens happen. Then… we don’t get the data about the retention but a conclusion of the data. You are now contradicting yourself here. You just got done saying that 80,000 had deaths in their first 15 days. And no. Of the 1% _their killers were CONCORDED_ not them. > [@MinerArt](#): > > Blah blah blah topic derailment blah blah put information in mouth blah blah avoid responsiblity. > > /topic Considering your contradictory statements in your own post I think we know who is blah blah blahing. ---
**Author:** ![Nevyn\_Auscent](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/nevyn_auscent/32/255124_2.png) [@Nevyn\_Auscent](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Nevyn_Auscent)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2018, 6:52am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/wardecs-are-not-the-problem/58337/259 "2018-02-25T06:52:02Z")
> [@Teckos\_Pech](#): > > Players stayed from all three categories. Those killed via ganks had the best metric for “staying with the game”, those killed legally the second best, and those not killed at all came in last place. Now granted no specific numbers were given, but then again FanFest presentations are not usually like what you might see at a meeting of the American Statistical Association (although I wish they were). To be statistically fair, that third group includes the player who got 10 minutes into the game, got bored, and never got beyond the first NPE mission. So… a player who never left the starter system because they quit after 10 minutes obviously isn’t getting ganked, and I would suspect a lot of players fit that sort of description. Which would badly throw the metrics involved if they were too large of a proportion. Now, I’m on board that ganking as a concept doesn’t harm the game, I’d argue that the way ganks happen isn’t ideal, but ganking as an idea is good. Anyway, Wardecs certainly don’t impact on that sort of gameplay, because wardecs are almost all affecting characters older than that 1 month also, even if the odd under 1 month gets caught. ---
**Author:** ![Teckos\_Pech](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/teckos_pech/32/375283_2.png) [@Teckos\_Pech](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Teckos_Pech)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2018, 6:55am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/wardecs-are-not-the-problem/58337/260 "2018-02-25T06:55:45Z")
I will also add that CCP Rise and his team were surprised by the results. They noted that there was the tremendously powerful narrative: New players are being ganked in droves and driven from the game! Yet what do we see is that about 1% are killed where their killer was in turn killed by CONCORD. And then, those very same players had the best retention metric. Yes, it is possible that every single one of those people who were ganked were actually killed in LS and their killer foolishly jumped back into HS and was in turn killed by CONCORD, but given that this would have to happen about 8,000 times it strikes me as unlikely. Very, very unlikely. > [@Nevyn\_Auscent](#): > > To be statistically fair, that third group includes the player who got 10 minutes into the game, got bored, and never got beyond the first NPE mission. So… a player who never left the starter system because they quit after 10 minutes obviously isn’t getting ganked, and I would suspect a lot of players fit that sort of description. Which would badly throw the metrics involved if they were too large of a proportion. Does it? Maybe what needs to happen is CCP should be striving to have them interact with other players. Not necessarily have them ganked, but engage in the social aspects of the game. That is the gist of CCP Rise’s other quote in this thread: social interaction is good for retention. Further, WTH? When you grab a random sample that is precisely what you are going to get. Now you are complaining about a sample that ISN’T random? Or isn’t random in the “right way”? ---
**Author:** ![Drago\_Shouna](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/drago_shouna/32/350651_2.png) [@Drago\_Shouna](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Drago_Shouna)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2018, 10:59am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/wardecs-are-not-the-problem/58337/261 "2018-02-25T10:59:55Z")
> [@Teckos\_Pech](#): > > Of the 80,000 about 1% were ganked, Those killed legally was about 13.5% the rest were not killed at all, so using these estimates we can say, > > 8,000 or so were ganked. > 10,800 or so were killed legally > And about 61,200 were not killed at all. > > In their first 15 days. This is why I have always had an issue with Rises presentation. Firstly 15 days is far too small of a window to draw conclusions from. Secondly it has never been expanded on in any way. IE, what was the status of those identified accounts 3 months in, 6 months, a year? How many from each group are still here? If just 1% from each group are still subbed wouldn’t that make the group who weren’t killed in their first 15 days the highest retention group in the long term? ---
**Author:** ![Teckos\_Pech](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/teckos_pech/32/375283_2.png) [@Teckos\_Pech](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Teckos_Pech)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2018, 11:26am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/wardecs-are-not-the-problem/58337/262 "2018-02-25T11:26:57Z")
> [@Drago\_Shouna](#): > > Firstly 15 days is far too small of a window to draw conclusions from. That was the initial Trial Account period. Granted, the analysis could be done with longer periods. > [@Drago\_Shouna](#): > > Secondly it has never been expanded on in any way. That CCP has shared with us. > [@Drago\_Shouna](#): > > IE, what was the status of those identified accounts 3 months in, 6 months, a year? Good question. I would be interested in seeing such results, but I’m doubtful that CCP will share them with us. > [@Drago\_Shouna](#): > > If just 1% from each group are still subbed wouldn’t that make the group who weren’t killed in their first 15 days the highest retention group in the long term? So, we have groups 1, 2 and 3 where 1 is killed illegally, 2 is killed legally and 3 is not killed at all. With 1% of those still playing by groups being 80, 108 and 612 respectively. Seems to me that group 3 wins here. It is probably that the retention metric is based on length of time subbed–i.e. the average or median amount of time the players were subbed. It could also be the percentage of players still subbed. Like I said, I wish the results were presented in a more formal way, or that a whitepaper was written up and put out for those of us who are number dorks. ---
**Author:** ![Mayhaw\_Morgan](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/mayhaw_morgan/32/412682_2.png) [@Mayhaw\_Morgan](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Mayhaw_Morgan)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2018, 2:53pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/wardecs-are-not-the-problem/58337/263 "2018-02-25T14:53:27Z")
> [@Teckos\_Pech](#): > > With 1% of those still playing by groups being 80, 108 and 612 respectively. Seems to me that group 3 wins here. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to at least explain WHY 80 players retained is better than 621 players retained or even just better than 102 players retained. [Previous page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/wardecs-are-not-the-problem/58337.md?page=12) [Next page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/wardecs-are-not-the-problem/58337.md?page=14)