They were doing a lot more than that. Nearly everyone who was a small group, that I knew, were staking off-pipe pockets. Staying out of trade hubs and Motsu was ridiculously lucrative. Between watch lists, a few alts and a couple buddies they were eating well with little to no effort. In fact they laughed at people like me who were AWOXing because it took 3x more work.
There has never been anything but the smallest contingent who only did high effort targeted work. And losing watchlist was losing a convenience. Not something they relied upon.
Which is why I said the âladsâ were revising history. You do realize that you can advance a revisionist history concisely and consistently right? Moreover, since it was clear that we were talking about the âladsââŚwhy are you so concerned to tell me that in the first place? Talk about red herringsâŚ
The strongest indicators for a new player staying with EVE are associated with social activity: joining corps, using market and contract systems, pvping, etc. Isolating players away from the actual sandbox seems very contrary to what we would like to accomplish.
Not really a problem, and i explained right beneath that why.
Also, no one is saying that ganking is as straight forward as CTRLQ + F1 so not sure what you mean by âStraw manâ.
Yes, unlikely events are more prone to being statistically insignificant. Doesnt take a genius to figure that out, does it.
And with regards to, as per your example, newbies who ganked, they wouldnt be placed in any category. That, or they would be in the âLegal deathâ category. Either way, they arent in the âGankedâ category for sure, since the âVictimâ per se doesnt get concorded along with the agressor.
What? I donât even know what this means. Of course you present things you find out about the data.
What does this mean? What X what is Y and why was it ignored? This strikes me as saying, âThe data is faulty, because the data is faulty.â Nice circle you got there.
Inaccurate how? This is nonsense. If you assume the data is inaccurate and canât even articulate it to some degree youâll be considered completely unserious.
A: âI think the data ia innacurate.â
B: âHow so?â
A: âI donât know Iâm just assuming itâŚso, why bother doing the analysis.â
B: âHmmmâŚokay, youâre fired.â
Because there is often a story that is oft repeated and it goes basically like this: War decs drive out new players and why the PCU is declining. If we got rid of them thereâd be lots more players!
Of course this story has absolutely no data or analysis to support itâŚnot even data assumed to be inaccurate. All it has is a massive amount of whine and no cheese. However, what we have heard from CCP is that social interactions, which include war decs, have a positive correlation with retention. Is it proof of causation? No. However, I would argue that players provide a more varied and challenging environment than NPCs can.
People in this position have always had an option, though. If your Corp is finding wardecs to be an unbearable nuisance, simply invite all the members into a private chat room and disband Corp. You now have the social experience of being in a corp but none of the associated risks.
Iâll add that some people want somewhere to âbelongâ, a way to indicate which club theyâre in. Thatâs fine and why I think âsocial corpsâ should have a place in EVE.
The point I was making is you are pushing for a automated activity instead of working for your kill. I donât see this as far from botting, a different automated activity used to bypass something you were supposed to do in game.
It is not at all like botting. If anyting autopilot is closer to botting.
Watchlist was only useful if you were at your keyboard to see the information, that is it was only useful for ATK play, not AFK play that screwed up the economy.
Your attempt to do a guilty by association is a douche bag move. Especially since guys like Ralph want that functionality back but not exactly the watchlist. If it entails more effort, fine. But to use that kind of an association just reflects on how weak your position is, IMO.
Watchlist was just used as a stalker list period. It had a negative effect of people stop logging on period.
No more needs to be said in its defense, its not coming back.
By the way the fact you cant âhuntâ people without a computer telling you when someone has logged on because you are too lazy and then act like you are helping everyone is kind of sad.
âThe strongest indicators for a new player staying with EVE are associated with social activity: joining corps, using market and contract systems, pvping, etc.â
I donât know why he referred to using the market and contract systems as a social activity. I do know that plenty of people join 1 man corps and plenty of corps have very little âsocial activityâ. I find it interesting that you remembered a 2 year old post.
Were you one of those 34 likes? #echochamber
Right. Not really a problem . . . because you said so.
And I didnât say anyone was saying that.
Did I do it right?
Yes, your house is statistically unlikely to burn to the ground. Who needs a fire department?
You are statistically unlikely to be in a car accident. Who needs seat belts?
Your country is statistically unlikely to be invaded or suffer civil unrest. Who needs a military or police?
Who cares about statistically unlikelihoods like . . . uhhhhh . . . catching HIV or cancer? We should just ignore that silly stuff and focus on food and sports.
Thank you for your pedagogy, but can you wake me up when we get to your point?
HmmmâŚI donât see the word need in my last post.
Yes, because players stalk each otherâŚshocking I know in a PvP oriented game.
Now if you mean stalking in the sense of harassment there are options for that and you should also be arguing against locator agents as well, IMO.
I didnât say it couldnât be done. But as can be seen it is a great way for burn out and instead players turn to mass war deccing instead and then we get all the bitching and whining about that.
Really, your position is sounding more and more pathetic and weak.
sighâŚ
Data is data. If you start with conclusion before you even have data then your results will always be incorrect. 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 built.
So we start with data. How many of these new players are alts?
Now of these remaining players how many people never logged in?
Now how many of these never left station?
How many of these never left system?
Now you have a base of new players.
Without discarding the whole how many of these players were ganked (killers were hit by concord) as a percentage of the whole?
Apparently it was enough to keep the game running, because here we are.
At the end of the day, the research being discussed was conducted to find out what sort of effect ganking had on people leaving or staying. The research isnât perfect, but itâs not inconclusive either, because itâs backed up by a few things. The most primary of which is the fact that everyone here who has been here for more than five years was a newbie once. They were a newbie at a time when the game was even harder. And yet, here they are. Somehow, they stuck around.
Conclusion: game isnât for everyone, and people are going to quit. This shouldnât need research to figure out, because itâs true for every game ever, and especially for niche games such as EVE.
Youâre asking the wrong questions, anyway. You should be asking, what is it that made them want to stick around. And you should be asking them, the newbies, because when I do, their answers are always interesting. My favourite one was: âbecause you blew me up so fast, I want to learn how to do thatâ. So I taught him.
That is a faulty conclusion. Youâre discarding the players who continued to play before this data was collected. You are also discarding the alt accounts of these players.
So out of these 80,000 players we donât know how many were alts, how many never undocked, how many never left the system they started in, or the total of the people who lost ships in any format.
Somehow thru magic the conclusion is that because we are here we are right.
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.
This 80,000⌠85.5% had no deaths, 13.5% had deaths, and 1% had concordokens happen. Then⌠we donât get the data about the retention but a conclusion of the data.
How many of these 85.5% never played 15 days?
How many of these 13.5% died in low sec?
Of this 1% how many remained was given as âhigherâ than the 85.5% and the 13.5% but neither is presented as a total.
AND THIS STILL has zero points in what I have asked ages ago. The topic. The thing we are fully choosing to ignore.
It never existed, and it never will. This is what people want because they will not face it.
I knew you were going to say that. What I didnât expect was for you to directly contradict something I just explained to you. No, alts were accounted for. I did not âdiscardâ them at all.
And no, itâs not a faulty conclusion. Iâll tell you why. It doesnât take a genius, or any kind of data at all, to see that the game is 15 years old, despite all the claims of people being driven away by ganking and other such nonsense. The âthink of the newbiesâ spiel is as old and tired in this game as it is any other, because itâs very rarely the newbies themselves saying it, but the vets who are annoyed at some mechanic or another that gets on their nerves. Meanwhile, there are more than enough people who were all newbies once, who are newbies now, all of which work with or around that mechanic just fine, without a problem.
You think those variables you wrote down up there werenât or arenât accounted for. They are. Itâs that simple. But you donât need data. Just talk to the newbies yourself, not the older players using them as a shield for their own failure to adapt.
I saw when you started replying, and you did not have enough time to read and register my argument. Now you are just throwing a childish tantrum, throwing your hands on your ears and literally screaming âblah blah blah I canât hear youâ
Well, sorry mate, but that nonsense is not an argument against my point, and I will consider your failure to rebut as deference to it.
I am not Solonius Rex, and my argument has nothing to do with anything Iâm responsible for. What you are doing is called âshifting the goal postsâ. It still is not a rebuttal of my points above, and as such, I accept your continued deference.
