You are going to great lengths to quibble and nitpick with the data. With this view you should believe literally nothing that is empirical ever. So don’t believe the result, problem is your nihilistic approach leaves you with nothing. And you never ever will.
1 Like
Data we don’t see and data we can’t actually confirm being treated as gospel has this issue.
1 Like
This is true of just about every data set at least to some degree. If you go download say US GDP data from FRED or the BEA all of these problems exist in that data, so you can’t use it, can’t trust it, and any statements about what that data pertains too cannot be believed. Either you gather the data yourself or you have this problem. And even if you gather the data yourself you can still make mistakes and then were are you…pretty much stuck.
RICH EXPERIENCE!
Do you see the problem here?
Also, this is something of a straw man, since this is not the only scenario worth considering. Ganking isn’t always as straight-forward as Ctrl+Q → F1.
Perhaps you missed the part where Mr. Rise mentions the need to validate assumptions. You are assuming that statistically unlikely events like being podded in low sec and your attacker being interdicted by NPC police in high sec are “insignificant”, but what are your criteria for judging what is and is not significant? Are you assuming this is the ONLY statistically unlikely event that would skew the data? Maybe there are others. Maybe some of the CONCORDed players were also newbies. Were THEY more likely to quit?
If you already know what is going on and have all the answers, then please fill the rest of us in. Why should CCP have to even look at data when you seem to know all the answers already?
I’m guessing that 80k or so is new characters, while the 80k CCP Rise mentions is unique players. I’m not sure he even says “new” players. Many of them could have been returning players.
You all are quibbling with the data. I’m just telling you what it might not or DOESN’T say.
The data doesn’t say that PVPers are better than PVEers.
We have a number from a few years ago of an average of 1.5 characters per player. Which means the vast majority of players have only 1 character. Was released on Twitter by one of their stats people.
So it’s probably fair to say that new characters and new unique players actually have decent correlation and values.
It’s certainly not a large time window.
I’m not quibbling with the data. I work with data every day and I have to assume the data is accurate. Otherwise it is a never ending rabbit hole that one can disappear down and never come back from. I’m granting the same degree of trust here with CCP. I’ll also note I don’t see any upside to CCP for cherry picking or providing even misleading numbers.
Actually I don’t think so. Think about the results (wording might be off given I’m going by memory):
- That players killed illegally were most likely to stay with the game.
- Those killed illegally stayed a slightly less likely to stay with the game.
- Those not killed at all were the least likely.
How do you measure this with only new characters? My guess is the 80,000 accounts are a random selection of all accounts including ones that were no longer active. Then the accounts were grouped by killed illegally, legally, and not killed at all. The metric they used to determine the results is not clear either.
I really wish they had presented the findings more rigorously. Tells us how they picked the 80,000 accounts. Tell us the metric they used to determine their findings. Was there any kind of statistical tests done? Present those results as well.
Wow…okay.
1 Like
Watch this Yes Minister - How to make a survey say what you want and then think about the questions CCP Rise asks.
Look at the changes CCP Rise is known to have supported in the game and who has benefited most. It is hard to believe that the latest round of citadel and sovereignty changes are planned as much as it they are deliberate in assisting the large null security power blocks to dictate how the landscape is defined.
Do not be fooled by the presentation of CCP Rise, it only serves the status quo. The current war declaration mechanic hasn’t been changed since 2012 and is long overdue for an iteration.
2 Likes
Well no… if I gathered the data myself I wouldn’t present anything based on the data gathered. There isn’t any need to honey coat anything. X percent of the player base was Y which was basically ignored in this dataset due to it not being applicable. But new player retention needs to know how many new players existed as a base. This number is not given even as a percentage. But we can go with a statement ages old…
So we are left with a myth that people assume rather than discuss the topic of the thread. Accountability for corps.
So how do we make a corp accountable for it’s actions? Or do we discuss something else again? It seems putting your fingers in your ears and saying “I’m right because I say so.” is the most popular opinion.
No you don’t. You can also assume the data is INaccurate. That’s a little more dangerous to do, but it can also help you to understand your data or lack of data better.
The problem is not normally in the data, though. It’s in the minute inferences, the tiny leaps of faith that we make ABOUT the data and what it is telling us. In this instance, CCP Rise says that some players get ganked AND those players continue to play longer than a control group of players who do NOT get ganked. But what many of you are inferring is that some players continue to play longer BECAUSE they get ganked. That’s not what he said.
Here’s an interesting chain of inference we could engage in that might entertain you: Players who get ganked continue to play EVE longer → Players who get ganked are more likely to fly mining ships and haulers → Players who fly mining ships and haulers tend to be PVEers → PVEers tend to continue to play EVE longer. 
Your guess is as good as mine.
I don’t believe wars affect new player retention too much,its perhaps the sense of not really geting anywhere for your invested time,EVE is pretty damn dull and boring most of the time.I only stuck through it in the early days because I wanted really badly a spaceship game that had lots of ship variety.
Why are we stuck on retention? Why are we stuck on what some people assume is dull and others don’t? Why are we not on topic?
Because accountability for corps doesn’t exist and people are afraid of it.
Because you can’t create accountability for corps in a fair and balanced way for all parties?EVE’s sandbox doesn’t support all your crazed ideas of fairness it’s.a jungle filled with rabbid animals act like it.
Oh I wasn’t after fair. I was after risk being equal.
So we either create risk and accountability for both sides of the coin or neither.
You’ll never get equality either when the game promotes disproportionate engagements so I don’t really understand what you hope to achieve?
Promote vs allow. Two different points.
What do i hope to achieve? Risk. A thing war in this game has nothing of.
There is risk in wardecs for the party issuing aswel however it seems these days complaining is way easier.
Back when I was really newish to this game I took those 24h before a corp war went live to prepare my corp against a superior group both in skills and experience.I didn’t go to the forums to cry fault or ask CCP to change the game,I spent my time diging up enemy fits,potential numbers,names,making fits for my corpmates to use and when the fight took place we won hands down.I always saw adversity in this game as a challenge to improve myself and so did alot more players back then.When eve vets tell you it was a different time,it was because we all as a community were better.
Arguing about semantics to try to make a point, not being able to stop without having the last word, absolute incapacity to admit either being wrong or that the opposing opinion can have merit.
This is a never ending circle of ‘LALALALALALA!! I can’t hear 'cause I’m right’ thing.
You guys should read this, this and this.
Of course if I’m right posting this won’t change anything, because of course, one can’t be wrong isn’t it?
Valid point. The sides I see are “corps need accountability” and “not my corp, only others need accountability” with some “you are wrong because I said so” being thrown in the mix.
I don’t think discussion will happen anymore. I’ll just have to be satisfied that nobody wants to add risk to themselves to put risk on others. Same old same old.
Thank you @Creepy_Goatman
Let’s take a guess. You had to fly to Jita in your capsule with no warp to 0 bookmarks, up hill, in the space snow, both ways, while constantly taking fire from enemy players?
And did you win the war? It was probably because you’re so awesome. I’ll bet you fought Leviathans and Tengus and Proteuses in just your Rifters and Merlins.
Sure thing, gramps. Did they even HAVE Tengus back then?
I’ve been out of the game for three years now, been giving some thought to returning. This thread makes me wonder, however, if anything has changed since I left.
Let me note that I was in Eve from the start, went through the ups and downs, the nerf bats to certain ships and skills, et cetera. What finally drove me from the game was a combination of the war decs and the nerfs to small corp viability. The changes to what we used to call player owned stations meant that it was pointless to continue mining and manufacturing outside of null sec; hi sec ops became profitless. But that’s an argument for another thread.
The war decs, on the other hand, meant that small corps like mine faced two challenges: one, being war deced and available as targets by a newbie in hi sec who could spam us with cheap ships and force my corp members to have to either stay docked or fly with escorts.
From what I’ve seen in this discussion, some of you believe that should apply to everyone in hi sec, i.e hi sec should be removed so no one is safe. Hence war decs. That argument seems to ignore the fact that not everyone wants to live in low or null sec. But, I’m sure the low and null sec advocates will respond that this isn’t a game in which you should be allowed to play without consequences (see above posts about how this is a pvp game first and foremost).
Others of you believe that war decs should be confined, restricted, and controlled. A few have suggested, indirectly, that war decs should not apply to hi sec. But CCP had good reason to allow for war decs on targets in hi sec. Otherwise, hi sec would be carebear land. There should always be some element of risk in hi sec.
But there shouldn’t be the ability to make hi sec the same as low or null sec simply because pirates in a one or two person corp can war dec anyone, and as many as they want, without consequence. This happened to me enough times three years ago that I began to wonder why I’d invested nearly twelve years into this game, only to have someone who had played less than three months derail my efforts.
War decs should certainly apply to corps who operate out of low and null sec. You know the risks when you leave hi sec. I am not advocating for hi sec to be immune. But casual players, who pay most of the bills for this game, and who always have, need to know they’re not going to lose everything, or have to stop playing for months, because of some idiot who simply war decs every corp they find on a random list who hasn’t been involved in a fleet action recently.
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.
2 Likes