| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Dots
Center for Advanced Studies
1
   |
Posted - 2015.03.31 22:29:48 -
[1] - Quote
Red Frog uses NPC Corp alts for hauling, so I'm not sure wardeccing really applies to them.
Edit: Grr, autocorrect
everything is better with ߦêߦÆߦù-ó on it
New Player Opportunities: a gallery
|
Dots
Center for Advanced Studies
1
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 04:29:00 -
[2] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:until its safe to be in a highsec PvE corps because wars have been nerfbatted, new players will continue to shrug and quit in droves.
Players who don't engage in PVP with other players are most likely to leave the game. This trend is consistent with data from both 2014 and 2015 Fanfest presentations.
Your statement is the opposite of what is known for a sample set of tens of thousands of unique individuals.
everything is better with ߦêߦÆߦù-ó on it
New Player Opportunities: a gallery
|
Dots
Center for Advanced Studies
1
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 04:43:48 -
[3] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Dots wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:until its safe to be in a highsec PvE corps because wars have been nerfbatted, new players will continue to shrug and quit in droves. Players who don't engage in PVP with other players are most likely to leave the game. This trend is consistent with data from both 2014 and 2015 Fanfest presentations. Your statement is the opposite of what is known for a sample set of tens of thousands of unique individuals. Sure, because the current game environment is awful for them. Highsec PvE players have no way to band together in a player corp without being forced into wars. Result - quitting.
How does someone get forced into a war (by definition, a PVP activity) if they have not engaged in a fight?
everything is better with ߦêߦÆߦù-ó on it
New Player Opportunities: a gallery
|
Dots
State Protectorate
Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 17:49:29 -
[4] - Quote
Eli Stan wrote:Eve Solecist wrote:For those who don't want to read through...
He says that CCP checked if recruiting by shooting was a thing ...
... noticed that it was ...
... noticed that it actually WORKS ...
... as it has for manymanymany years.
If only the degenerates realised that they have no ground to speak. Was there a causal relationship established? I thought it was that the players who "got" EVE were more likely to fly around and therefore get shot, not that players who got shot were more likely to "get" EVE.
They are less likely to leave EVE if the conflict is mutual. They are least likely to leave if nonconsensually shot at. Which is to say these two groups are more likely to keep playing than players who aren't shot at at all.
everything is better with ߦêߦÆߦù-ó on it
New Player Opportunities: a gallery
|
Dots
State Protectorate
Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 19:27:38 -
[5] - Quote
Pohbis wrote:Dots wrote:They are less likely to leave EVE if the conflict is mutual. They are least likely to leave if nonconsensually shot at. Which is to say these two groups are more likely to keep playing than players who aren't shot at at all. Correlation does not imply, causation GÇô which is what was asked for.
Correlation is a prerequisite for causation. Did either yourself or Eli have any input as to how the data can more exactly pinpoint causation? It's really simply to throw tomatoes all day long, but it just seems more like people are willfully ignoring the 80,000-large sample set because it interferes with their beliefs.
I've yet to see a critic of Rise's study explain in specific terms what is missing or incorrect in the data (and I don't mean creative offtopic analogies).
everything is better with ߦêߦÆߦù-ó on it
New Player Opportunities: a gallery
|
Dots
State Protectorate
Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 20:45:15 -
[6] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Besides that, you know what part of the existing tutorial I approve of? The one that blows up your ship and sends you home in a pod. I've had more new players latch on about that than anything else in the whole tutorial.
Which makes perfect sense to me, EVE only really gets real once you realize that you can lose.
But doesn't Kirk teach us that the only way to beat the Kobayashi Maru is to cheat?
everything is better with ߦêߦÆߦù-ó on it
New Player Opportunities: a gallery
|
Dots
State Protectorate
Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 04:53:18 -
[7] - Quote
Eli Stan wrote:
My conclusion - actually, more of a hypothesis in need of further data to test - would be thus: People who are out doing stuff in EVE are more likely to stick with EVE, and a consequence of being out doing stuff is that being ganked in a possibility; people who don't do much in EVE in their first 15 days are unlikely to be ganked; therefore, being ganked is a result of being engaged with EVE, rather than being engaged with EVE is a result of being ganked.
Your entire hypothesis focuses on 1% of the rookie population?
Quote:Dots wrote:
Correlation is a prerequisite for causation. Did either yourself or Eli have any input as to how the data can more exactly pinpoint causation?
I have some thoughts about stuff possibly worth looking at, but I can't say whether they'll return any meaningful results.
I agree, it would be interesting to know what these 15-day old rookies were doing with their time in EVE to begin with.
Quote:Second, it shows that the 1% who were ganked were more likely to be retained - but we can't say whether that's because of the gank or for some other reason.
The PVP = retention correlation is supported by more than one data study by CCP. The ganks themselves are noise in the FF2015 data, due to how few there are, but the retention data for those who were ganked do not conflict with the data for people involved in consensual PVP.
If the gank data was an anomaly, or pure coincidence as you seem to be implying, we would see a PVP = players leaving EVE data point somewhere.. and we haven't.
everything is better with ߦêߦÆߦù-ó on it
New Player Opportunities: a gallery
|
Dots
State Protectorate
Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 14:57:54 -
[8] - Quote
Eli Stan wrote:baltec1 wrote:Literally every single survey, graph and data point taken on this subject shows ganking does not make players quit. Unfortunately, the only data we've been presented (as far as I know) is about players 15 days or younger. I'm interested in seeing what data CCP has about players 6 months, a year, and two years into the game. What are the relative retention rates for the three categories - that is, not destroyed, legally destroyed, and suicide ganked?
6 month/1 year players have access to mining and hauling vessels with large EHPs. These players would also have no excuse for not knowing the game's rules. In order to be ganked within an optimistic 15-20 second window (extended slightly by CONCORD pull), these players have to not be paying attention and completely disengaged from the game.
That is to say that likely these players would have quit anyway (in line with your "hypothesis").
everything is better with ߦêߦÆߦù-ó on it
New Player Opportunities: a gallery
|
Dots
State Protectorate
Caldari State
21
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 22:55:07 -
[9] - Quote
I wondered how long it would take you to turn this thread into LAGL..
everything is better with ߦêߦÆߦù-ó on it
New Player Opportunities: a gallery
|
Dots
State Protectorate
Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 01:05:39 -
[10] - Quote
I think you guys have hit the nail on the head.
None of the New Player Opportunities (see my sig!).. not a single one has anything to do with interacting with other players. You can point to the one Opportunity that tells you to open a chat or a private convo, but these station spinning activities isn't real EVE interaction (really!). The only other one tells you to sell something and buy something (I also don't see any real opportunity for interaction there).
Just like the old tutorial, the Opportunities are showing players how to do stuff completely alone.
everything is better with ߦêߦÆߦù-ó on it
New Player Opportunities: a gallery
|
Dots
State Protectorate
Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 01:28:26 -
[11] - Quote
Are you guys confusing Anslo and Scope Works (SWCW) with Vapor Ventrillian? SWCW recently reached 1 trillion ISK destroyed and is part of OE. SWCW was the PVP arm of Scope for a while, and there is a bit of history there. Scope was also much more active at that time.
Vapor seems like he's moved on from his empty promises in the anti-ganking realm to even bigger promises he won't be able to keep with null (of course Vector is Vapor's alt).
everything is better with ߦêߦÆߦù-ó on it
New Player Opportunities: a gallery
|
Dots
State Protectorate
Caldari State
37
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 00:03:35 -
[12] - Quote
So as a continuation to what Eli, myself, and others were discussion, specifically Re: correlation is not causation. Y'all can take a crack at interpreting the data if you'd like.
From EVE Fanfest 2015: Data Science behind EVE by CCP Quant:
- 15:35 CCP is looking at what behavior during a player's months 1-3 (referred to as "onboarding period") contributes to them staying subscribed in month 4.
- "The most important variable in deciding on whether you still play in month 4 was whether you got your ship destroyed by another player.. followed by the size of the corporation you joined"
- Here are the graphs. When you look at the trees below, dark grey is players that quit, white is players still playing. So more white patches is better. "Yes" is to the left of the graph.
The "tree depth 2", the first image below is the tl;dr. It compares two extremes:
1. Most likely to stay in the game = ship victim + in a corp of X size (35% for NPC, 50% small/large corp, 55%medium corp)
2. Most likely to leave = ship never blown up + mining (70-80% of the time these people leave the game)
Tree depth 2
Tree depth 3
Tree depth 4
- 20:20 Starting a person in Ship Hangar vs. Captains Quarter, there was "absolutely no difference" to player retention.
- 20:36 New Opportunities is "really promising, showing players far more likely to stick with the game".
Also, here is a big version of types of players vs. game activities.
everything is better with ߦêߦÆߦù-ó on it
New Player Opportunities: a gallery
|
Dots
State Protectorate
Caldari State
40
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 01:41:48 -
[13] - Quote
Small correction Scip. The 98% figure is players who did nothing at all (no mining, no ship loss). Miners without ship loss is a 70-80% quit rate at Month 4.
Jen, a few pages ago you were asking for 3 month player data. Now you're adding a bunch of random questions to the list. Why would you move goalposts like that instead of responding to what's available?
everything is better with ߦêߦÆߦù-ó on it
New Player Opportunities: a gallery
|
| |
|