I see people having problem with the 15 days time frame.

It is the logical choice.

Because there are a lot of trial accounts, that do not subscribe.

If ganking would drive them away, it's only that 15 days time frame when that gank could have happen.

People starting a new game have an expectation of a cadenced presentation, one that provides content that is level specific for them.

Eve has none of that.

Last October.

I did, I think, 80% of the Career missions, I don't recall if I did more than a few level 1 missions in the first 15 days... Interestingly, i was "illegally ganked" in that time frame (Mining in a .5 system in my free Venture. LOL) So I guess that makes me a "1%er"

What I realized during the 15 days is that I've been to all the "different" kinds of system (In any really meaningful terms... If you've been to one system with planets, asteroid belts, stations, and people that will kill you, you've been to essentially all of them.) and that there were only 2 real jobs.... make isk or gank. There IS a third choice, be a soldier in the Null Sov game. I made a couple billion isk in a few months, I don't have any interest in ganking, and I'm no one's on demand defense shield.

Instead of quiting after 15 days, and not being a broke teenager, I subscribed and then started 2 other accounts so I could multi-box (It's fairly clear that there is considerable advantage in doing that.) I ran out of content at about the 3 month point. So I think I put far more effort into trying to give the game every benefit of the doubt than the majority of people would.

It's not a bad game, far from it. Some of the mechanics are quite inspired, and there is a satisfying aspect to the complexity of many of them. It just isn't for the majority of people.

The data is useless in it's current shape and it is useless when given fully if you want to use it to see if players do leave the game because they have been ganked.For that you would need the data of 1 to 6 month old characters...

I did not say the data was incorrect or not , i did say twice now that it is incomplete.

I expected newbie losses to rats (outside scripted losses) to be higher than that. Or is that PVP encounters only?

Its not broadening it beyond its limited scope when the community here has made that connection.

You have to be willfully blind or just stupid to not think consistent wardecs on carebear corps doesnt hurt retention of those members, or that someone being humiliated on a blog due to a convo after a gank doesnt ruin their motivation to keep playing.

If Rise did not intend to make this about new player retention on a larger scope, he needs to come out and clarify that

Actually, CCP is factoring in:

• 80,000 individual players (which translates to potentially multiple alts + multiple accounts)
• Whether the player stopped playing (not just unsubscribed)
• Whether there was an illegal or legal PVP on these 80,000 players
• The reason given for unsubscribing

Again, if I am misconstruing something here I hope someone will correct me.

The game offered no guidance about getting into incursions, group PvE, nullsec, etc...

30 days is nothing in EvE, you barely will have the SP to make a poorly fit t1 cruiser, let alone discover more than one career path effectively.

Unfortunately the data seems rather narrowly focused on ganking with no mention of the cancelled account's wardec status. I am coming to agree with Nevyn Auscent that the data provided is rather useless in the context of retention. At best, a well meaning but flawed data study, at worst a distraction and PR exercise.

One of those figures that people are latching onto is the "legal kills" and one scenarios is where newbies are spammed duel requests.

*Splat*

Then they realise how long they are going to be so feeble and decide it isn't worth dying all the time.
There are definitely break points in EVE.

The 15 days one with trial accounts if full of a lot of other reasons than ganking. As everyone in this thread has repeatedly said.

No, I am pointing to another hole in CCP Rise's stats.

Basically, he is saying "There is 365 days in a year and we go around the sun" okay .... and ....?

What happens in this 365 days?
Are there seasons?
What is the pattern over a decade?
Is there a moon going around the Earth?
Is there any variance such as a leap year?

We are getting a bottom line from a weak premise without any of the working out or break downs of those stats. It should not have even been presented.

Example:
Someone goes and eats loads of junk food, takes no exercise, almost dies of a heart attack and proclaims, "You see! I was right about healthy eating and training!"

Then I think, "Well obviously. That was plainly stupid to begin with; why did you just waste everyone's time?" It then leads me to question how that person's thought processes work to begin with that they present that.

It doesn't matter if the data is from one person, 80 000 or twenty million. It is useless if you ask the wrong questions of the wrong people.

Let's go and ask 80 000 kids that are five years old about the heart attacks they have had. I am sssuuuuure they have had loads of them!

Are you deliberately being dense?

The orginal example pertains to developers that run silly queries against the database.

You take the facts.
You stick them somewhere.
When an ******* comes along, you point at the facts and tell him to shut up.

No discussions.
No argueing.
No debate.


Facts and HTFU.

Maybe you could explain in simple terms that even a dense person like me can understand, why that data presented as it was, was not relevant to the point Rise made?

Told ya, Scipio.

C: you are emotionally over invested in 'proving' that ganking newbies is good for the game.

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.

It is so good being the OP because I can link to the sane posts in a long thread from the very first post, ones such as these.

Non-self reliant: Don't we *want* such players? The self-reliant player doesn't interact with others, right? CCP says such players are more likely to quit.

What if the game checks if there are two newbies online and their next mission is to kill each other? They get kill rights, they see where each other are, they have a time limit, so one can hide if they want but their rookie ship will be replaced ...

How many were looking to PVP?
How many were avoiding PVP?
How many defending space?
How many exploring?
How many in travel fits?
How many were bait?
How many were suicide attacking?
How many were ambushed?
...
...
[some questions also answered in the presentation]

That is just the tip of the iceberg from the top of my head.

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?

And there is your data issue.
You are combining social factors which we all know contribute to staying with PvP factors then claiming PvP makes the difference.
While utterly discounting the possibility that the fact they engaged in PvP was because the social factors had already made them likely to stay and be more involved in the game.

Cause & effect order basically. You are claiming something that may be an effect as a cause.
Is it a nice metric that has an easy to find relationship, totally, but it doesn't mean that's the cause.

Nor that the lack of getting blown up is the cause of people quitting.

No, the major point of disconnect is your continual denial that the data could possibly be anything other than 'Ganking is great for the game'.