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 <-- tl;dr. click this!
Tree depth 3
Tree depth 4

Also, here is a big version of types of players vs. game activities.

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

Your desperation to disqualify the data is ever more apparent.

It is apart of the fear mongering Propaganda machine that is the NULL SEC POWERBLOCK!

we must leave them in fiery ruin to protect the chil..um..Noobelahs!!

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?

You are certainly tenacious, Vector. I gotta give you that. With you at the helm, null stands no chance!

Keep fighting the good fight.

Mr Epeen

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?

Moving goal posts

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)

Therein lies the problem. No matter how much data we are given on this subject, there will still be more questions. It creates this neverending loop where no amount of data will be sufficient.

But then, we already knew that to begin with. It's nice to see it shown front and center though.

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.

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.

I am not moving goal posts. I haven't put up any "win" criteria or goal posts. I am simply pointing out that the statistics are not indepth enough or of a wide enough scope.

... and that is the whole purpose of this thread, why I started it.
CCP Rise put very little thought into a study and felt that was enough to then go and present it, with whatever agenda, he then added to it.

Did you watch the presentation Nevyn?

The #1 factor whether someone stays in the game beyond the onboarding period is whether they died.
The size of the Corp they join is then #2 factor

It's not Dots inventing the relationship. It comes from the factors CCP have analysed the data to include (6 in total, also discussed in the presentation).

Just go and watch the presentation. It's all there.

There isn't causation there. It's a reporting of data. Irrespective of the cause, the data is still correct.

IN order for that to happen, the persons questioning the data would need to 1st be interested in the truth. That's the major point of disconnect here.

2. Be respectful toward others at all times.

The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.

3. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.

4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.

5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

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'.
It doesn't correctly measure play times, social connections or any of the other things & isolations of variables needed to reach that conclusion.

And yes, I did watch the presentation, there is a relationship between staying and having lost a ship to some form of PvP, sure. I'm not and never have denied that. But what the presentation did not establish is the nature of that relationship.

All I'm saying is the data & presentation do not support saying that ganking makes people stay in the game more. No more, no less.

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'.
It doesn't correctly measure play times, social connections or any of the other things & isolations of variables needed to reach that conclusion.

And yes, I did watch the presentation, there is a relationship between staying and having lost a ship to some form of PvP, sure. I'm not and never have denied that. But what the presentation did not establish is the nature of that relationship.

All I'm saying is the data & presentation do not support saying that ganking makes people stay in the game more. No more, no less.

And please point to the post in which I said ganking is good for the game (though it appears it may possibly be)

This data points to the case that the bleeding heart "omg , gankers are chasing people out of the game" is false. It's funny that you are dissenting against a set of conclusions no one is really making, and if you can't understand what people are saying, you should ask instead of assuming you know.

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'.

The funny thing is, most don't care one bit and only use it to futher their own agenda against something THEY don't like. .

But again, it comes back to the question...if you don't like these things, why are you playing a game that essentially is all about the things you don't like?

Facts.

Freakin well said. Notice how many who espouse the "non-consensual pvp chases people away" line are also people who claim to speak for some mystical "silent majority" that somehow hates the same things they do...but never says anything about it and doesn't quit playing lol. As a PVE-centric player I resent that they pretend to speak for me, I can speak for myself.


I've always believed that a lot of the 'activism' (but by no means all) by the most vocal bleeding hearts types isn't an attempt to help 'new players', but rather a weak 'metagaming' attempt to rid the game of the types of people they don't like by manipulating CCP into creating a game situation that would push them away.

I say not all, because there are actually "justice warrior" types who aren't actually doing it for selfish reasons, but rather they are misguided enough to believe that one can be 'victimized' in a video game and their (the justice warrior's) sense of self is wrapped around being the 'white knight' that stands up for the 'little guy' and stands up to the 'bullies', even when there are no bullies and the little guys are telling the white knights to F off lol.

Whether Self interested liars or fatally misguided wanna-be do gooders, the result is the same: Madness.




Because people like that are crazy. Being honest here, I DELIGHT at pointing out to these types that not only are they playing a game they don't like, but they are PAYING in some fashion to play a game they don't like. That Jenshae character that started this thread and accuses CCP Rise of an 'agenda' is paying CCP Rises salary every month LOL.

I've asked people time and again why they aren't playing games like Star Trek Online (that doesn't even allow any of the stuff that they claim to not like in EVE plus has avatar play and non-crap PVE) and it's always some lame excuse.

The same people claim whatever new game is coming will kill EVE and they will leave and never come back (which is ANOOTHER ATTEMPT at metagaming CCP into changing the game to suit them, in the same way some people tell their lover that they will leave if they don't straighten up, but never do lol). The list so far includes SWTOR, SWG, Black Prophecy and others that they threatened would kill CCP (so CCP better wake up!!) lol.

The supreme irony of it all is if CCP changed the game in a way that these 'change advocates' say they want, the most likely outcome is that they would hate it (like they do STO, because in STO their are no victims to champion for) and would leave. Ultimately, these people are just reverse-gankers, they exist in EVE rather than in other games because this is where the 'victims' are.

Freakin well said.
(Crazy melodrama)
(Still more crazy melodrama): ... these types that not only are they playing a game they don't like, but they are PAYING in some fashion to play a game they don't like. That Jenshae character that started this thread and accuses CCP Rise of an 'agenda' is paying CCP Rises salary every month ....(even more crazy melodrama).

Me, "I don't think enough apple saplings have been planted."
One group, "Yes! Clearly red apples are the best."
Another group, "LISTEN! LISTEN! I have been telling you all for years that green apples are the best. Now it is obvious! LOL"