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?
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 âwonât someone think of the childrenâ as a shield for that. So youâre going to have to do better than deflect if you want to prove my points wrong.
1 Like
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.
I could care less about protecting the children.
Since you do not wish to discuss responsibility for corps then we have nothing to discuss.
@ccp end this thread.
The question of responsibility is settled. CEOs have a responsibility to their members. If they fail in that responsibility, their members will probably leave. Thatâs 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 âall the new players being driven away by gankersâ. 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 couldnât handle. Donât pretend that just because you failed to counter, that discussion never happened, and the OPâs post is the only one in contention here. It remains a deflection away from the counterpoints I offered to your (wrong) assertions. Iâm not here to play rhetoric games, mate, Iâm here to clear up a misconception that YOU posted.
1 Like
The topic is responsibility. Not new player retention. First post. Lets ignore it shall we?
No, actually, responsibility is only part of the OPâs post, which is actually about whether or not wardecs drive new players from the game. Iâm 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 Iâve had front row seats to.
Iâm talking about player retention, which is what the OP is directly talking about. If youâre not addressing retention, then youâre not part of the conversation, itâs that simple.
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. Iâll just quote it so you can highlight it.
This is a problem thatâs been addressed before. This isnât the first time itâs 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, Iâm autistic, and even I can see what OP is talking about. But of course, Iâve 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 isnât about new players and their retention.
1 Like
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 donât want to answer. If you dodge it again then you really canât figure it out.
How do we add responsibility to corps?
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 didnât give a â â â â , if this isnât 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 youâre deflecting. Youâre an intellectually dishonest hack who isnât worth the spittle youâre flinging on your monitor in your emotional and childish attempts to get out of the fact that youâre just wrong. Grow up. Weâre done here.
That wasnât a solution. That was a potential buff.
Yes. I saw this ages ago.
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 canât afford it and your corp dies? Economic warfare. Caldari are supposed to be good at itâŚ
War exists in many formats. Currently war has only one requirement. 50 million per target unless youâre in null sec. The responsibility for attackers and defenders is none beyond this.
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 
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 dataâŚ
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 âdataâ 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 âi couldnt find people to play withâ
But as Blacklight said earlier,
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 factsâŚ
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.
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 âharderâ 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 doesnât mean I believe wardecs are an issue, though Iâd 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 âget bigger to be able to handle larger targetsâ for high sec corps, and makes it harder for a giant corp to bully small corps by at least hitting their wallet harder. But thatâs about the only change I want to see to wars and itâs 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 donât fight in highsec, the sub cap single target defences are weak as anything.
And since they canât 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 donât 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 âownedâ by a corp/alliance since itâs 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.
2 Likes
Sure.
OkayâŚ
According to CCP rise, none.
Unknown, but why create a character an never log in? And if they did, theyâd be in the never killed category and theyâd also lower the âstays with the gameâ metric. I donât see an issue here really.
Again, pretty much the same as the above.
Okay, WTFAYTA? The players that CCP Rise looked at were not just ânew playersâ. 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 âfun factâ that CCP Rise toswed in at the end.
About 1%, IIRC.
Yes we were.
Players stayed from all three categories. Those killed via ganks had the best metric for âstaying with the gameâ, 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).
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,
- 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.
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.
Considering your contradictory statements in your own post I think we know who is blah blah blahing.
1 Like
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 isnât 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, Iâm on board that ganking as a concept doesnât harm the game, Iâd argue that the way ganks happen isnât ideal, but ganking as an idea is good. Anyway, Wardecs certainly donât 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.
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.
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 Riseâs 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 ISNâT random? Or isnât random in the âright wayâ?
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 wouldnât that make the group who werenât killed in their first 15 days the highest retention group in the long term?
That was the initial Trial Account period. Granted, the analysis could be done with longer periods.
That CCP has shared with us.
Good question. I would be interested in seeing such results, but Iâm doubtful that CCP will share them with us.
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 subbedâi.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.
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.
1 Like