Where are new characters getting killed?

Eight days after I started playing I joined a corp, 20 days after playing I lost my first ship to a war dec, a terribly fitted Osprey. I would not have been in that list…

7 day players means nothing, a new player is for me someone up to 6 months old.


@Kannibal_Kane , @Salvos_Rhoska both of ye should be in the war discord.


@EveDataRules would you mind doing one for 30 days and 90 days too?

I don’t quite know how much work that would be, but many of us would love to see the differencedifferences (if any) in those time periods.



Agreed, and as we both agree, the wardec stat is low and well within sustainable limits.

@EveDataRules would it be possible to do this for 30 and 90 day marks?


Sign me up. EVE mail me the details.

Please re-invite.
Previous one expired, and I’m currently waiting for Discord to finally send me my fking login details again. Ill make a new account soon if necessary.

Let me break it down for you all with regards to the op, 70.2% of new players go into low-sec and get ganked. 4.8% of new players just get ganked. 2.8% of new players get wardecced and then ganked. 16.7% of new players go into null-sec and just get ganked. 5.6% of new players go into wormhole space and get ganked. What is the general theme of the graph? Ganking plain and simple. I play this game not because it is easy, but because it is hard.

1 Like

The truth emerges. Interesting stuff here… VERY INTERESTING.

He did provide the kills so you can audit them yourself. I just did though so of the 29 players of less than 7 days that were ganked:

1 was mining in a Retriever (without a permit)
2 were mining in Ventures (without permits)
1 was a cyno alt
8 were in Ventures mining as part of the same multibox mining fleet, likely abusing alpha accounts
2 were in corvettes carrying something minor of value
15 were in empty pods/corvettes likely auto piloting through danger systems and killed by highsec gate campers

So basically the majority of those killed lost nothing but perhaps the time to respawn, and the remaining ones were killed gathering resources in lower security status systems as the game is intended to work, yet still these losses happened once every few days in all of New Eden. If anything, highsec still seems too safe for its own good to me.


I picked seven days so i was able to see where players are going within the very early stages of development resulting in losses.

Really was little surprise as the new player experience steers them to faction warfare with no player support.

I will run these again tonight with 30 and 90 days if the db cluster will handle it. I also want to see if I can squeeze in losses from the new NPCs and old NPCs to compare.


Thank you very much, I do appreciate this.


Do you have the exit surveys?

I’d like to see the info that supports your statement.

–Skeptical Gadget

You’ll need this, statements like that are generally contaminated by the contents of the orifice they’re pulled from.


God dammit I was going to make this snide comment.


I have a question. Why is the assumption somebody gets killed so they quit? Jesus if some filthy no good wardeccer didn’t kill me in my first week of actually playing I’d have probably quit tbh


Holy crap you post that and then Salvos shows up and poops on the data. Specifically the gankiing part which he then uses to complain is too high. Funny how this works. CCP Rise shows <15 day old players ganked at 1% is wrong. 4.8% from a much smaller sample is wrong but true and therefore way too high. Like I said holy crap. Next we’ll get a complaint because a random sample is random. Oh wait that already happened. :yum:

Although I don’t want to give complainers ammo, N might be a tad small. Thus statistics like ganking could be misleading in that we just got an unfortunate small sample.


Yeah whatever the actual number is just put ganked after it and you’ve hit the nail on the head.

Just to expand on the point about sample size. There is a tendency to reason as follows:

Wow! I got this interesting result with a small sample. Imagine what it would be like in a bigger (ie better sample)!

Problem when you get that bigger sample the effect/result disappears or is much smaller. When you have a small sample yes it is “easier” to miss things. It is also “easier” for unusual things to show up too.

We see this all the time in epidemiology. You’ll get a study saying eat X and you double your risk of cancer!!!1!!!11!! No causal pathway is suggested. Or they grab multiple possible pathways (it could be this, it could be that, or this entirely different pathway!!!). Then another study comes along saying eat X it is good for you. And all these are are correlations. Usually with no attempt to control for confounding factors (eg Smoking).

This usually the case when the effect you are looking at is also small. For example a type of cancer may have an incident rate of 1% in the population. Finding something that has an effect on that is also small relative to the population. So the power of your statistical tests will also be low. You can try to improve things by increasing your sample size (eg CCP Rise using 80,000 accounts which is more than 2 orders of magnitude higher than the number of accounts here).

My point is absolutely look at the data but keep in mind things like sample size, effect size and statistical power. And no, having lots and lots of data is not necessarily better. If you have lots of observations with lots of variables the finding significant correlations with standard test levels (eg 5%) is “too easy”.

1 Like

Awesome! Any chance we could get stats per HS Empire region? I’d love to see if there are differences in the new player experience between Gallente, Amar, Minmitar, and Caldari.