EVE Search - CCP Rise newbie stats

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

CCP Rise newbie stats

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 1137	Posted - 2015.03.21 14:07:43 - [1] - Quote For newbies about 86% - don't die 13% - die legally 1% - die to ganks. Two things not analysed: - How many died in Low Sec? - How many died in their first battleship? CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Sipphakta en Gravonere 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 612	Posted - 2015.03.21 14:16:55 - [2] - Quote It's pretty clear from the stats presented that anti-gankers are killing Eve and CONCORD needs to be nerfed into the ground.
Ned Thomas Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave 1245	Posted - 2015.03.21 14:22:49 - [3] - Quote Wonder how many of that 14% that die wind up quitting? Also, what was the timeframe for "newbie" here? Don't get lost alone - Join Signal Cartel, New Eden's premier haven for explorers! Onward to Thera with Eve Scout
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 1137	Posted - 2015.03.21 14:22:53 - [4] - Quote Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote: It's pretty clear from the stats presented that anti-gankers are killing Eve and CONCORD needs to be nerfed into the ground. Concord is retribution, not protection. Tangent: I really, really, oh so love the weekend tourists in Null. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Benny Ohu Chaotic Tranquility Warp to Cyno. 4331	Posted - 2015.03.21 14:41:04 - [5] - Quote woopwoop posting alert reactors to power turbines to speed fire up the argument calibrators set phasers to outraged overheat keyboards reinforce the thread we got ten pages of bitter back and forth heading in ganking-related general discussion topic red posting alert initiated woopwoopwoopwoop
Luca Lure Obertura 35	Posted - 2015.03.21 14:43:16 - [6] - Quote Ned Thomas wrote: ..... Also, what was the timeframe for "newbie" here? 15 days. GÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇòGÇò The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.
Ned Thomas Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave 1247	Posted - 2015.03.21 14:49:23 - [7] - Quote Luca Lure wrote: Ned Thomas wrote: ..... Also, what was the timeframe for "newbie" here? 15 days. Hmm....would be more interesting to see stats on a 3 or 6 month timeframe. Don't get lost alone - Join Signal Cartel, New Eden's premier haven for explorers! Onward to Thera with Eve Scout
Sibyyl Gallente Federation 24004	Posted - 2015.03.21 14:51:06 - [8] - Quote Apparently there's this huge problem of newbies being griefed out of the game. If you read the NPC corp thread people are equating this 1% ganked statistic to the 90% that drops out of game. #afkleadership Gü+Gü+Gü+ -óß¦ªß¦ç-ó Gü+Gü+Gü+ EVE:Valkyrie pilot unmasked (her name is Ran)
Unsuccessful At Everything The Troll Bridge 20646	Posted - 2015.03.21 15:22:10 - [9] - Quote Sibyyl wrote: Apparently there's this huge problem of newbies being griefed out of the game. If you read the NPC corp thread people are equating this 1% ganked statistic to the 90% that drops out of game. So..1% of the time, they are griefed out every time? Wait.... so... does this mean that CCP is catering to the 1%? *Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?* Vote Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10!
Serene Repose 2430	Posted - 2015.03.21 15:59:43 - [10] - Quote Look. To do noob stats you have to consider - We get WoW refugees who think they're God's gift to gaming. They're gonna be real smart and head right off into null sec and show them wannabees what a real gamer can do! They click that warning pop up, jump into that system and last all of about five seconds. THEN, back they come to the starter system and beg for ISK. There's a lot of these ... people. Counting their losses is more of a mental health issue than a state of our game issue. Just thought I'd mention this. I'd add also you have to consider people doing the free trial are doing just that - trying out the game. If at the end of it they don't sub, that's not the same as losing a player. You can tell by Rookie Chat chatter most of them are in over their heads. The game requires way more thought than they planned on giving their new game. Another feature of EVE that makes it what it is - it requires commitment, and folks doing a free trial aren't as a rule committed to anything...yet. I roll three rookie toons once a year and do time in Rookie Chat answering questions and offering assistance. Most recently I did this two weeks ago. The telling comments are: "This is harder than I thought it was going to be." "This is going to take more time than I thought it would." These THREE things one must take into consideration if one intends to interpret statistics with regard to new players staying. It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to type on your keyboard and remove all doubt.

Elenahina agony unleashed Agony Empire 247	Posted - 2015.03.21 16:32:10 - [11] - Quote Here's the problem in a nutshell. Eve is not a game - it's a hobby. That requires a real shift in how you think about Eve itself, and how you approach your time investment in it. Not everyone can get over that hump. Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
Nexus Day Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau 1127	Posted - 2015.03.21 16:43:30 - [12] - Quote Yay, stats with no background. I love them because you can interpret them any way you want! Here we go! The stats are bad news. If newbies aren't dying to gankers one can surmise that they are not leaving stations or exploring much of EvE. This would mean the new player experience is extremely lacking to the point a new player doesn't stick around long enough to die to a ganker. They die to Concord in hi-sec, but never leave hi-sec. All of these are as supportable as any other guess as to what the stats mean. Lies, statistics and lies. This thread has so much content it may be 'Thread of the Year' and it is only January.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 1139	Posted - 2015.03.21 17:00:27 - [13] - Quote Serene Repose wrote: The telling comments are: "This is harder than I thought it was going to be." "This is going to take more time than I thought it would." And, we can't leave out, "This game is GREAT! I LOVE IT!". I like these. In Anarchy Online I used to log into the tutorial area and watch people: To exit the tutorial area you needed to use a teleport tower to the main land. To activate it you speak to an NPC outside, get a key card and use the key on the terminal panel next to the teleport door. I would see people bumping into the door, over and over again, then probably presuming that is as far as the free game goes they would sit down and log off forever. I loved it. I was standing right there. All they had to do was ask me, in local chat in private message or on the newbie channel. If I had seen them trying in another language I would have fired up Google translate. They wouldn't read up about it They wouldn't ask about it. I call these sort of mechanics "Darwin steps" and they help shape communities that I like playing games with when I am online. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
d0cTeR9 Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance 93	Posted - 2015.03.21 17:07:58 - [14] - Quote Those stats clearly show's that carriers and supercarriers are ruining the game. Also, the forums should be nerfed, too many people spend too much time on it, instead of in-game.
Marsha Mallow 2047	Posted - 2015.03.21 17:09:55 - [15] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: For newbies about 86% - don't die 13% - die legally 1% - die to ganks. Two things not analysed: - How many died in Low Sec? - How many died in their first battleship? What relevance do these last two statistics have? You do realise that newbro alliances like Hero/Gewns who pull members straight out to null will skew statistics of where rookies die first, right? Also, testing my new sig. Thanks for making me inhale coffee Benny, tyvm Benny Ohu wrote: fire up the argument calibrators set phasers to outraged overheat keyboards reinforce the thread
Herzog Wolfhammer Sigma Special Tactics Group 6472	Posted - 2015.03.21 17:10:53 - [16] - Quote Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote: It's pretty clear from the stats presented that anti-gankers are killing Eve and CONCORD needs to be nerfed into the ground. Anti gankers are merely protecting highsec commerce from null interdiction efforts. Perfectly in line with the concepts of the game. Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn Department 10 222	Posted - 2015.03.21 17:28:41 - [17] - Quote I only caught the tail end of that talk on the HD stream. But I doubt those statistics are correct. " They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. "-áRick. " Find out what ? "-áAbraham. " They're screwing with the wrong people. "-áRick. Season four.-á-á ' The Walking Dead. ' .
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 8038	Posted - 2015.03.21 17:40:32 - [18] - Quote Nexus Day wrote: Yay, stats with no background. I love them because you can interpret them any way you want! For the purposes of this soon-to-be threadnaught, it doesn't matter. CCP could tell us exactly what they mean down to the tiniest detail and there will still be arguments for days. You'll still have the usual suspects in here making it all about NPC corps, ganking, bumping, bluesec, wardecs, etc, etc, etc. I suspect this is a CCP troll. Anyway, I'm off to get the popper out of the cupboard. Shall I make a little extra? Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
sabre906 Old Spice Syndicate Intrepid Crossing 1676	Posted - 2015.03.21 17:50:03 - [19] - Quote Ned Thomas wrote: Luca Lure wrote: Ned Thomas wrote: ..... Also, what was the timeframe for "newbie" here? 15 days. Hmm....would be more interesting to see stats on a 3 or 6 month timeframe. On average, Eve player quits after 6 month. So there's some indirect stats.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2149	Posted - 2015.03.21 18:12:57 - [20] - Quote Unsuccessful At Everything wrote: Sibyyl wrote: Apparently there's this huge problem of newbies being griefed out of the game. If you read the NPC corp thread people are equating this 1% ganked statistic to the 90% that drops out of game. So..1% of the time, they are griefed out every time? Wait.... so... does this mean that CCP is catering to the 1%? if my math is correct, that means in reality, 9000% percent of players are quitting because of grieving.

Serene Repose 2431	Posted - 2015.03.21 18:34:55 - [21] - Quote Mr Epeen wrote: Nexus Day wrote: Yay, stats with no background. I love them because you can interpret them any way you want! For the purposes of this soon-to-be threadnaught, it doesn't matter. CCP could tell us exactly what they mean down to the tiniest detail and there will still be arguments for days. You'll still have the usual suspects in here making it all about NPC corps, ganking, bumping, bluesec, wardecs, etc, etc, etc. I suspect this is a CCP troll. Anyway, I'm off to get the popper out of the cupboard. Shall I make a little extra? Mr Epeen Yah. We have a lot of folks who don't really read. They run their eyes across the lines, but the words aren't registering pictures. And, we have a lot of people who think their opinion is fact and no other view but theirs has merit, so they just "reply," type their tirade, and disregard thereafter any question or challenge to their position...all the while claiming they're in a debate. The butter topping are folks who have no reading skills whatever. Couldn't understand any posts either way (if they tried) who avoid their self-inflicted frustration by (with misspellings Daniel Webster would load a musket over) just tell us all off for having too many words, and too many thoughts. Just go blow something up. "If you were busy shootin' sh*t you wouldn't be here typing all these big words just to make us look stupid." I'd cry for the future of humanity, but I have four kids competing with these people IRL and I anticipate a nice, well-funded old age, judging by the strength of the competition. I tell you what. Let's have these flashes of human brilliance dictate the design of something very complicated, intricate and aesthetically superior. Good idea? R i i i i i ght! It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to type on your keyboard and remove all doubt.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 708	Posted - 2015.03.21 18:34:56 - [22] - Quote Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote: I only caught the tail end of that talk on the HD stream. But I doubt those statistics are correct. I see, you will discount CCP's careful analysis of the relationship between ganking and player retention just because? You should really watch the whole talk when it comes online. Rise's whole point with that example is that sometimes your impressions/assumptions don't match reality like in this case. The cold hard facts say that non-consensual PvP isn't bad for player retention. In fact, the ganking of new players helps them engage with the game and makes them stay rather than the alternative of quitting in three months after levelling thier Raven in isolation. What we have now is scientific proof that the Code always wins, and James 315 is right. What an amazing time to be an Eve player.
Harrison Tato Yamato Holdings 324	Posted - 2015.03.21 18:59:53 - [23] - Quote Serene Repose wrote: I'd cry for the future of humanity, but I have four kids competing with these people IRL and I anticipate a nice, well-funded old age, judging by the strength of the competition. I tell you what. Let's have these flashes of human brilliance dictate the design of something very complicated, intricate and aesthetically superior. Good idea? R i i i i i ght! I wouldn't count my sheep just yet. My experience in the corporate world says that your kids will be getting coffee for the illiterate people you are complaining about.
Amarrchecko Hedion University Amarr Empire 14	Posted - 2015.03.21 19:11:59 - [24] - Quote Isn't it pretty safe to assume that most of the players who aren't even 15 days old yet are doing tutorial missions, level 1 missions, maybe level 2 missions? And NOT many of them are mining in ventures except in VERY high sec and/or in newb-protection systems, let alone in barges in .5-.7 systems? So yeah. Of course not many of them are dying to suicide ganks.
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4154	Posted - 2015.03.21 19:38:36 - [25] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: For newbies about 86% - don't die 13% - die legally 1% - die to ganks. For the purpose of those stats, what defines a 'newbie'? Are we talking 30-day trial accounts or 1-3 month active subscribers? I have to agree with the point Nexus Day made that without any frame of reference these numbers really don't mean anything. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
admiral root Red Galaxy 2531	Posted - 2015.03.21 19:39:38 - [26] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: For newbies about 86% - don't die 13% - die legally 1% - die to ganks. For the purpose of those stats, what defines a 'newbie'? Are we talking 30-day trial accounts, active player accounts <1 month, <3 months? I have to agree with the point Nexus Day made that without any frame of reference these numbers really don't mean anything. If you'd read the thread, you'd know the timeframe. +1 for 30 and / or 60 day stats to go with these. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff \| No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that. Sabriz for CSM
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4154	Posted - 2015.03.21 19:42:05 - [27] - Quote admiral root wrote: If you'd read the thread, you'd know the timeframe. Sorry, I missed that. In any event, my point still stands: Are these 15-day trial accounts or xx-day trial + 15-day active accounts? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16176	Posted - 2015.03.21 21:06:56 - [28] - Quote Facts are dumb and should be hated. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 1142	Posted - 2015.03.21 21:35:05 - [29] - Quote Harrison Tato wrote: Serene Repose wrote: I'd cry for the future of humanity, but I have four kids competing with these people IRL and I anticipate a nice, well-funded old age, judging by the strength of the competition. I tell you what. Let's have these flashes of human brilliance dictate the design of something very complicated, intricate and aesthetically superior. Good idea? R i i i i i ght! I wouldn't count my sheep just yet. My experience in the corporate world says that your kids will be getting coffee for the illiterate people you are complaining about. On this line of de-rail I am catagorically highly intelligent. Telling people that proves I am not clever. It is how you socialise and make networks that get you forward in the world. High academic achievements only help if you aim to be a professor. (.... and you want to stay away from academics if you are in the UK. The Vogons have taken over and are under pressure to keep producing so when you do come up with something a bunch of people co-sign or take over your work completely.) CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Hicksimus Xion Limited Resonance. 560	Posted - 2015.03.21 21:41:20 - [30] - Quote 15 days? They aren't even on the level of fetus let alone newbie. How about 2-3 months in when they can actually fly a ship that others want to kill? Or maybe even 6 months, give them time to join a player corp where some dickhead like me can locator agent them into the ground. 15 days......pointless. Recruitment Officer: What type of a pilot are you? Me: I've been described as a Ray Charles with Parkinsons and a drinking problem.

Hengle Teron Just Another Corp XIV 43395	Posted - 2015.03.21 21:50:24 - [31] - Quote 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.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 34989	Posted - 2015.03.21 21:55:48 - [32] - Quote Hengle Teron wrote: 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. Spot on I thnk Hengle. From the other stats, 50% of new players leave within the first month. If people subscribed that would automatically put them beyond 1 month, so that 50% is driven by people who don't subscribe and leave instead. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Demetri Dentrov Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 13	Posted - 2015.03.21 22:51:51 - [33] - Quote Ok, so I did not read CCP Rise's full explanation of this, (A quick google search didn't turn it up.) But I surmise the gist is that a lot of 15 day trial accounts quit without subscribing. And of the 15 day accounts in general, 86% don't die, and 14% do. The distinction between "legal" death and "ganking" is irrelevant, in that it's easily possible to be "ganked" legally. You thought the game was a "PvP" game and got "kill rights" on yourself, or you foolishly joined a player corp and got war decced. The more important question is what could you possibly do, from a cold start, in 15 days that would convince you to pay for the game? 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. There is no "noob PvP area" where you get free ships that only noobs can enter, for example. About the only actual thing you can do in those 14 days is mining in your free Venture, or level 1 missions... which probably haven't changed in 10 years. You're left to wander aimlessly in a "sandbox" while being told that big bad gankers are looking for you 24/7... (Which in reality, isn't all that true.) You can, and should... do the "Career missions" but then what? This may have flown a decade ago, but nowadays players have a LOT of choices. A new player in that formative first 15 days has two constant things shoved in their face every 10 minutes: "You don't have the skill needed for that!" or "You have no idea where that is." while at the same time not really giving you anything to do with the skills you DO have. You could argue that Eve isn't a game like WoW, where there is a clear path of what to do, and that's fine... but the blowback of that is that Eve simply won't appeal to the majority of players. So they quit after 15 days.
Kaely Tanniss Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 281	Posted - 2015.03.21 22:54:44 - [34] - Quote Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote: It's pretty clear from the stats presented that anti-gankers are killing Eve and CONCORD needs to be nerfed into the ground. Anti gankers are merely protecting highsec commerce from null interdiction efforts. Perfectly in line with the concepts of the game. Though I do agree with your statement that AG's are perfectly in line with the concepts of Eve, I disagree that AG's are protecting anything. Getting a concord-whored km is hardly protecting. It's almost like calling the police a crime prevention service when we know darn well they are a crime cleanup service. In order to "protect", the "victim" must survive. "Retribution" after the fact is hardly what would be considered protection in any form. If I had a nickel for every time someone said women don't play eve, I'd have a bag of nickels to whack the next person who said it..
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 34989	Posted - 2015.03.21 22:55:40 - [35] - Quote Demetri Dentrov wrote: 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. When was the last time you ran the full NPE? Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Demetri Dentrov Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 14	Posted - 2015.03.21 23:27:00 - [36] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Demetri Dentrov wrote: 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. When was the last time you ran the full NPE? 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.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 34989	Posted - 2015.03.21 23:31:45 - [37] - Quote Demetri Dentrov wrote: Scipio Artelius wrote: When was the last time you ran the full NPE? 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. Nice post. I agree with you that it's not a game for everyone, especially on the content end. It doesn't feed it to you beyond the NPE and initial epic arc. Content is what you create for yourself, or leverage off the gameplay of others (eg. from activities of each member of a Corp, etc.). Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Hengle Teron Just Another Corp XIV 43427	Posted - 2015.03.21 23:56:01 - [38] - Quote Demetri Dentrov wrote: Scipio Artelius wrote: Demetri Dentrov wrote: 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. When was the last time you ran the full NPE? 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. when you narrow it down like that, every mmo has only those two options: either farm or pvp
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 711	Posted - 2015.03.22 00:23:42 - [39] - Quote Kaely Tanniss wrote: The stats are skewed badly. They do not give any specifics that are important for any kind of valid analysis. If only 1% are dying to ganks..then why all the "outrage" about how gankers are "killing eve". Where and how are the others dying? 15 days is what they are considering a new player? Trial or subs? All questions these stats give no answers to. The stats that CCP Rise released are incomplete, but CCP has all the data. I am sure they also looked at 30 days or 90 days, trial and already subscribed, and did a similar analysis as there is no reason why they couldn't. I guess one could suggest Rise is cherry picking the numbers and that the picture is totally different if you look at a 90-day window say, but why would he do that? But the other number he gave in that talk is that also less than 1% of quitting players give "ship loss or harassment" as the reason for quitting. He wasn't explicitly clear, but that is presumable over all accounts of all ages. The myth that players leave the game because of ganking or so-called "griefing" is completely and utterly busted. Or at least if they do quit for that reason, they aren't telling CCP that when they unsubscribe.
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4160	Posted - 2015.03.22 00:38:31 - [40] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: The stats that CCP Rise released are incomplete, but CCP has all the data. I am sure they also looked at 30 days or 90 days, trial and already subscribed, and did a similar analysis as there is no reason why they couldn't. I guess one could suggest Rise is cherry picking the numbers and that the picture is totally different if you look at a 90-day window say, but why would he do that? Perhaps, but it's definitely being cherry-picked. I watched all of the presentations and the vast majority featured a lot more information and the dev specifically pointed out aspects of the data they weren't happy with. This really isn't any different than the scant information CCP Rise present on Battleships and Battlecruisers and how they were "ok". Lies, damned lies and statistics folks. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 1143	Posted - 2015.03.22 00:46:23 - [41] - Quote I wonder what it would be like if they had: - a starting area that is one system, - all newbies go there - obvious count down timer to 12 hours - limitless newbie ships - no security - teleport them to regular starting area when team is up. Essentially, newbies could fight other newbies in a free for all if they wished, jump right in and get a fell for combat. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Pilot Error Randomize Playboy Enterprises Dark Taboo 8	Posted - 2015.03.22 00:52:09 - [42] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote: I only caught the tail end of that talk on the HD stream. But I doubt those statistics are correct. I see, you will discount CCP's careful analysis of the relationship between ganking and player retention just because? My concern by the metrics he used is the little detail provided for said metrics. Of those 15 days and the 80,000 users. Is that 15 days play time or just 15 days from time of character creation. We dont know if they played for 1 hour the first day then quit the game, thus skewing any possible results. Anyway to figure out if they are an alt account, or possible rmt. How much time did they actually spend in space and not docked. Until those things are specified I wont hold the results up to any regard. I'm not against ganking, but the lack of details provided just puts a sour taste in my mouth. It almost seems more of a PR stunt to give newbies a sigh of relief then actual analysis of suicide ganking in relation to newbies. -You're not a pirate. You're a Griefing Carebear.
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4160	Posted - 2015.03.22 00:55:43 - [43] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: I wonder what it would be like if they had: - a starting area that is one system, - all newbies go there - obvious count down timer to 12 hours - limitless newbie ships - no security - teleport them to regular starting area when team is up. Essentially, newbies could fight other newbies in a free for all if they wished, jump right in and get a fell for combat. I like the concept - but rather than a single starting system, what about newbie "dojos" that are featured in the starter systems? These could be warble beacons which are restricted to trial accounts and frigates. There would be no CONCORD and no podding. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 8042	Posted - 2015.03.22 01:05:36 - [44] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: I wonder what it would be like if they had: - a starting area that is one system, - all newbies go there - obvious count down timer to 12 hours - limitless newbie ships - no security - teleport them to regular starting area when team is up. Essentially, newbies could fight other newbies in a free for all if they wished, jump right in and get a fell for combat. Interesting idea. It would never get past the stage where most of the forum regulars have a complete meltdown over it. Been a while since we've had a good old fashioned forum riot, however, and I'm always up for watching the drama queens go into 'EVE is dying' overdrive. Bet we'd even get some statue shooting out of it, once all the concussions from being hit in the head by the sky heal. I say go for it. Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
Carrie-Anne Moss Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 23	Posted - 2015.03.22 01:42:12 - [45] - Quote 15 days...... Ccp... are joking? Please name and shame person responsible for this waste of analysis ccp. Seriously 15day stats.... LOLWUT?? Report useful stats ccp, seriously.... like im scratching my head on this
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 712	Posted - 2015.03.22 09:44:26 - [46] - Quote Pilot Error Randomize wrote: My concern by the metrics he used is the little detail provided for said metrics. Of those 15 days and the 80,000 users. Is that 15 days play time or just 15 days from time of character creation. We dont know if they played for 1 hour the first day then quit the game, thus skewing any possible results. Anyway to figure out if they are an alt account, or possible rmt. How much time did they actually spend in space and not docked. Until those things are specified I wont hold the results up to any regard. I'm not against ganking, but the lack of details provided just puts a sour taste in my mouth. It almost seems more of a PR stunt to give newbies a sigh of relief then actual analysis of suicide ganking in relation to newbies. CCP has all this data. What makes you think CCP Rise and the team looking at why new players quit the game wouldn't look at it? Not only is that Rise's job, but that very job depends on the continued health of the game. Do you really believe he is trying to mislead the players? If so, to what end? CCP Rise is unequivocally clear: new players rarely (1%) get ganked and even if they do, they tend to stay longer in the game then those where nothing eventful happens during their first few weeks in game. Further, players unsubscribing rarely (<1%) cite ganking/ship loss/harassment as the reason for them quitting. I too would like CCP to eventually release all their data to satisfy our curiosity, but that is unlikely for competitive reasons. But for now I am content to believe CCP Rise and his team that suicide ganking isn't a problem at all for the new player experience.
flakeys Arkham Innovations 2762	Posted - 2015.03.22 10:10:26 - [47] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Pilot Error Randomize wrote: My concern by the metrics he used is the little detail provided for said metrics. Of those 15 days and the 80,000 users. Is that 15 days play time or just 15 days from time of character creation. We dont know if they played for 1 hour the first day then quit the game, thus skewing any possible results. Anyway to figure out if they are an alt account, or possible rmt. How much time did they actually spend in space and not docked. Until those things are specified I wont hold the results up to any regard. I'm not against ganking, but the lack of details provided just puts a sour taste in my mouth. It almost seems more of a PR stunt to give newbies a sigh of relief then actual analysis of suicide ganking in relation to newbies. CCP has all this data. What makes you think CCP Rise and the team looking at why new players quit the game wouldn't look at it? Not only is that Rise's job, but that very job depends on the continued health of the game. Do you really believe he is trying to mislead the players? If so, to what end? CCP Rise is unequivocally clear: new players rarely (1%) get ganked and even if they do, they tend to stay longer in the game then those where nothing eventful happens during their first few weeks in game. Further, players unsubscribing rarely (<1%) cite ganking/ship loss/harassment as the reason for them quitting. I too would like CCP to eventually release all their data to satisfy our curiosity, but that is unlikely for competitive reasons. But for now I am content to believe CCP Rise and his team that suicide ganking isn't a problem at all for the new player experience. In it's current form this data provides nothing of value.Error randomize is spot on with his assesment of it. Even if you do get the full data it still does not represent anything to ''the threat of empire ganking'' , not saying there is a 'threat'' though , as a 15 days old char hardly ever flies anything worthy of a gank and is more often docked or in the newbie zone then anywhere else.Now the ones who WE view as noobs , characters who are say a month or 3 old , they can fly something of value to be lost and also will be flying outside the newbie zones mostly. We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
James Vakarian Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave 0	Posted - 2015.03.22 10:24:07 - [48] - Quote Amarrchecko wrote: Isn't it pretty safe to assume that most of the players who aren't even 15 days old yet are doing tutorial missions, level 1 missions, maybe level 2 missions? And NOT many of them are mining in ventures except in VERY high sec and/or in newb-protection systems, let alone in barges in .5-.7 systems? So yeah. Of course not many of them are dying to suicide ganks. Edit - don't read into this that I think ganks are bad or anything. Training up my catalyst alts right now, actually. And probably even if 60-day-and-younger characters were considered instead of just 15, a majority still wouldn't have died (let alone been ganked). Just playing a bit of devil's advocate. I am not even a week old at this game yet, so I can speak of these statistics for both me and my roommate. here's the scoop: Newbs die. We die to Rats. We die to low sec gate camps. We die because we were low sec mining in a venture because, "we'll be okay, it is only 2 jumps from the tutorial area." We also die for looting yellow containers, because the first time we don't know, or because we think we can get away with it. Now, I'm not even a week old and I found a corp who has helped me get up and started. I may even venture into null now. will I beat all the PvP players out there when I do? No, because I learned from my mistakes. This thread is applicable to more than just EVE. The Souls games have a punishing community and steep learning curve too. I think the number of players who die is much, much, much higher than that. because is CCP counting all your guys' alts? If they are, some of you may not even play the character till they have better skills trained. which would drastically skew numbers. You also have players who can't/don't/won't finish tutorials. I finished mine in 2 days. I am uncertain if that's fast or slow. If the question is if high sec is safe, the answer is nowhere is safe if you play stupid. a week old and I already know this. Just some things to think about.
Serene Repose 2443	Posted - 2015.03.22 11:12:02 - [49] - Quote Harrison Tato wrote: Serene Repose wrote: I'd cry for the future of humanity, but I have four kids competing with these people IRL and I anticipate a nice, well-funded old age, judging by the strength of the competition. I tell you what. Let's have these flashes of human brilliance dictate the design of something very complicated, intricate and aesthetically superior. Good idea? R i i i i i ght! I wouldn't count my sheep just yet. My experience in the corporate world says that your kids will be getting coffee for the illiterate people you are complaining about. Never under estimate the power of a phd. It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to type on your keyboard and remove all doubt.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 712	Posted - 2015.03.22 11:12:11 - [50] - Quote flakeys wrote: In it's current form this data provides nothing of value.Error randomize is spot on with his assesment of it. Even if you do get the full data it still does not represent anything to ''the threat of empire ganking'' , not saying there is a 'threat'' though , as a 15 days old char hardly ever flies anything worthy of a gank and is more often docked or in the newbie zone then anywhere else.Now the ones who WE view as noobs , characters who are say a month or 3 old , they can fly something of value to be lost and also will be flying outside the newbie zones mostly. I don't know, even if you somehow discount the data regarding 15-day old players as not representative, the fact that "<1% of account cancellations cite ship loss or harassment" is pretty telling. People don't (at least in significant numbers) quit the game over suicide ganking in highsec. You can believe what you want though - humans are notorious for being unable to change their preconceived notions in the face of hard evidence. I am just glad that CCP is taking the time to look at the actual data rather than listen to who shouts the loudest before making game design changes. This approach is already paying dividends with increased player retention according to CCP Rise, which can only be good for the future game.

Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 23289	Posted - 2015.03.22 11:54:25 - [51] - Quote James Vakarian wrote: If the question is if high sec is safe, the answer is nowhere is safe if you play stupid. a week old and I already know this. Just some things to think about. You've learnt more in a week than some players have in years. Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12232	Posted - 2015.03.22 12:16:08 - [52] - Quote Gotta have a good laugh at the carebear apologists saying "These stats don't mean anything". Maintain that narrative, facts be damned. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
HazeInADaze Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic 88	Posted - 2015.03.22 12:35:52 - [53] - Quote What i think this means is that part of the tutorial should be a suspect timer in a stationless system.
Serene Repose 2449	Posted - 2015.03.22 13:25:23 - [54] - Quote Like I said, I just did the tutorial again. I saw nothing wrong with it. There was nothing unusual going on. The same amount of folks grasped the concept and ran with it as usual. The same amount of folks got swamped immediately and floundered till they got frustrated, as usual. The same amount logged and babbled having no intention to really play anything anyway. There was some beta test going on. The "opportunities" thing. It's supposed to be some new tutorial, and boy did it suck. There had to be fifty people stuck 'cause to proceed they had to buy a skill book to "inject" (apparently to learn how to right-click and inject a skill derp), however none of them had the money to buy a skill book to inject. We just got the locations of the actual career agents in each race's zone and sent these people there. Not a problem after that. There were a couple more places this "opportunities" thing got stuck, but I'm not going to try to recall them all. I had a paragraph on my clipboard, "Don't do the opportunities. They're bugged. Do the career agent tutorials." I'd spam rookie chat with that every ten minutes. CCP kind of blew that 30 days big time with regard to noobs. It may still be going on. You aren't going to get 100% subs off the trial. Sorry. Those folks deciding not to play isn't losing players, at the risk of repeating myself. If we're losing players it more than likely is in the gank in high sec department. It's difficult for people to understand they're going to pay their hard earned cash to be grieved by other players who haven't got the sense to find something to do other than gank helpless miners. Sorry. I'd say 80% of the general world population agrees with that. That this is in the game is where EVE gets it's sterling reputation as well, for being the gutter of gaming. Say what you want about it. Just don't be in denial when you do. It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to type on your keyboard and remove all doubt.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12233	Posted - 2015.03.22 13:32:32 - [55] - Quote Serene Repose wrote: If we're losing players it more than likely is in the gank in high sec department. My case in point. I hate to break it to you, but your narrative just isn't true. Quote: It's difficult for people to understand they're going to pay their hard earned cash to be grieved by other players who haven't got the sense to find something to do other than gank helpless miners. Sorry. I'd say 80% of the general world population agrees with that. That this is in the game is where EVE gets it's sterling reputation as well, for being the gutter of gaming. Say what you want about it. Just don't be in denial when you do. Except apparently, the people who get ganked are one of the highest retention rates. I need to think of a hashtag for this. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Serene Repose 2449	Posted - 2015.03.22 14:03:30 - [56] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: I hate to break it to you, but your narrative just isn't true. Yeah, I'm sure you do. I'm sure you do. I just pulled all that out of my @$$ right? You're the one who's correct, no doubt. Um hmmm. Dream on. It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to type on your keyboard and remove all doubt.
Vyl Vit 1131	Posted - 2015.03.22 14:07:20 - [57] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: I need to think of a hashtag for this. [edit: Oh, and the gutter of gaming is League of Legends, there is no disputing that. OMG! You're with CODE! NO WONDER!!! (never mind) http://lmgtfy.com/?q=circular+logic Paradise is like where you are right now, only much, much better.
Benny Ohu Chaotic Tranquility Warp to Cyno. 4339	Posted - 2015.03.22 14:12:42 - [58] - Quote for reference www.twitch.tv/ccp/b/639617004?t=197m00s
Pok Nibin Filial Pariahs 636	Posted - 2015.03.22 14:31:08 - [59] - Quote If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The right to free speech doesn't automatically carry with it the right to be taken seriously.
Thales Foo Jung Daan AL3XAND3R. 4	Posted - 2015.03.22 14:42:45 - [60] - Quote Something very wrong here, 100% of new players should be dying, as two of the misions at least DEMAND you die to show you how it works. So if they are not dying they are not doing the starter missions. Or does it mean Poddeath? Ganking and grief killing of player ships does not automatically mean poddeath. Without some qualified info this report is worse than meaningless.

Vyl Vit 1131	Posted - 2015.03.22 14:49:55 - [61] - Quote Thales wrote: Something very wrong here, 100% of new players should be dying, as two of the misions at least DEMAND you die to show you how it works. So if they are not dying they are not doing the starter missions. Or does it mean Poddeath? Ganking and grief killing of player ships does not automatically mean poddeath. Without some qualified info this report is worse than meaningless. Only if they take the advanced military tutorial. Paradise is like where you are right now, only much, much better.
Thales Foo Jung Daan AL3XAND3R. 4	Posted - 2015.03.22 14:53:04 - [62] - Quote Vyl Vit wrote: Thales wrote: Something very wrong here, 100% of new players should be dying, as two of the misions at least DEMAND you die to show you how it works. So if they are not dying they are not doing the starter missions. Or does it mean Poddeath? Ganking and grief killing of player ships does not automatically mean poddeath. Without some qualified info this report is worse than meaningless. Only if they take the advanced military tutorial. Exactly, If they have given up by this point, they are unlikely to have learned anything. I find it hard to believe that almost 90% of the new players have given up before even getting started. If so, we have a much bigger problem to address.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 714	Posted - 2015.03.22 14:58:49 - [63] - Quote Thales wrote: Vyl Vit wrote: Thales wrote: Something very wrong here, 100% of new players should be dying, as two of the misions at least DEMAND you die to show you how it works. So if they are not dying they are not doing the starter missions. Or does it mean Poddeath? Ganking and grief killing of player ships does not automatically mean poddeath. Without some qualified info this report is worse than meaningless. Only if they take the advanced military tutorial. Exactly, If they have given up by this point, they are unlikely to have learned anything. I find it hard to believe that almost 90% of the new players have given up before even getting started. If so, we have a much bigger problem to address. Umm. Did you guys watch the presentation? The statistics are for deaths (ship losses) to other players, not NPCs.
Tipa Riot Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 182	Posted - 2015.03.22 15:01:35 - [64] - Quote Thales wrote: Vyl Vit wrote: Thales wrote: Something very wrong here, 100% of new players should be dying, as two of the misions at least DEMAND you die to show you how it works. So if they are not dying they are not doing the starter missions. Or does it mean Poddeath? Ganking and grief killing of player ships does not automatically mean poddeath. Without some qualified info this report is worse than meaningless. Only if they take the advanced military tutorial. Exactly, If they have given up by this point, they are unlikely to have learned anything. I find it hard to believe that almost 90% of the new players have given up before even getting started. If so, we have a much bigger problem to address. If "not dying at all" also means they do not complete the tutorial, there is a bigger problem with NPE ... though I assume it's about dying to PvP action, but I don't know the source of the numbers. I'm my own NPC alt.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 1147	Posted - 2015.03.22 16:24:33 - [65] - Quote Serene Repose wrote: Harrison Tato wrote: Serene Repose wrote: I'd cry for the future of humanity, but I have four kids competing with these people IRL and I anticipate a nice, well-funded old age, judging by the strength of the competition. I tell you what. Let's have these flashes of human brilliance dictate the design of something very complicated, intricate and aesthetically superior. Good idea? R i i i i i ght! I wouldn't count my sheep just yet. My experience in the corporate world says that your kids will be getting coffee for the illiterate people you are complaining about. Never underestimate the power of the phd. I doubt these folks would be allowed in the same building. Come to think if it...they aren't! In the UK a PH.D generally makes you less employable. Better to put just your masters on your C.V. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Serene Repose 2454	Posted - 2015.03.22 16:54:01 - [66] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Umm. Did you guys watch the presentation? The statistics are for deaths (ship losses) to other players, not NPCs. Are you having trouble keeping up with the conversation, hon? It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to type on your keyboard and remove all doubt.
Serene Repose 2455	Posted - 2015.03.22 16:56:42 - [67] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: In the UK a PH.D generally makes you less employable. Better to put just your masters on your C.V. Welp. In the UK you hardly ever see that big yellow ball up in the sky! Come to where the living is. Come to South Florida. It's only going up to 85 F today! I guess that's 29.4 C. It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to type on your keyboard and remove all doubt.
Benny Ohu Chaotic Tranquility Warp to Cyno. 4341	Posted - 2015.03.22 17:05:24 - [68] - Quote Serene Repose wrote: Black Pedro wrote: Umm. Did you guys watch the presentation? The statistics are for deaths (ship losses) to other players, not NPCs. Are you having trouble keeping up with the conversation, hon? the people pedro quoted thought the stats in the op included npc deaths. pedro corrected them.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10289	Posted - 2015.03.22 17:47:43 - [69] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: [quote=Nexus Day]Yay, stats with no background. I love them because you can interpret them any way you want! Here we go! The stats are bad news. If newbies aren't dying to gankers one can surmise that they are not leaving stations or exploring much of EvE. This would mean the new player experience is extremely lacking to the point a new player doesn't stick around long enough to die to a ganker. They die to Concord in hi-sec, but never leave hi-sec. All of these are as supportable as any other guess as to what the stats mean. Lies, statistics and lies. This is a perfect example of how bias skews point of view. The above poster really believes their is a 'lot of ganking going on' and that there is a high chance of it, and also that such ganking is responsible for people leaving the game (which is the way the people who hate ganking try to magnify a personal dislike to the level of public crisis, the anti-afk cloak crowd does the same thing with their "cloakers make people stop playing and leave the game" when there is not evidence). The real truth to be glean from these newbie stats, and also by the fanfest presentation that revealed that only something like 3 million hit points worth of damage is done per day by CONCORD (which is nothing) is this: Ganking is actually very rare in High Sec and you pretty much have to be doing something greedy or stupid to encounter it unless you are "real life lottery odds" unlucky enough to encounter a 'luls gankers'. 2 weeks ago I suffered from my very 1st 'lulz' gank in high sec in which I lost a Minmatar Shuttle and an implantless pod (I light cynos with Jenn sometimes and so J/C into that clone. 1 such gank since I start playing EVE in June of 2007 (ie one such gank in almost 8 years). That means I'm like 2 weeks late on the standard high sec "run to the forums and declare exploit of something that is legitimate gameplay" way of thinking.
flakeys Arkham Innovations 2763	Posted - 2015.03.22 17:53:31 - [70] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: flakeys wrote: In it's current form this data provides nothing of value.Error randomize is spot on with his assesment of it. Even if you do get the full data it still does not represent anything to ''the threat of empire ganking'' , not saying there is a 'threat'' though , as a 15 days old char hardly ever flies anything worthy of a gank and is more often docked or in the newbie zone then anywhere else.Now the ones who WE view as noobs , characters who are say a month or 3 old , they can fly something of value to be lost and also will be flying outside the newbie zones mostly. I don't know, even if you somehow discount the data regarding 15-day old players as not representative, the fact that "<1% of account cancellations cite ship loss or harassment" is pretty telling. People don't (at least in significant numbers) quit the game over suicide ganking in highsec. . As said the data is too vague and EVEN if you would fill in the blank spots to accomodate your ''crusade to the defense of ganking'' then still you forget the part where a 15 day trial/player will at most be flying a T1 cruiser and as such would allways be of little value to be ganked. 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 as they fly stuff more worthy of a gank and that COULD give a vague idea as to the true '''threat'' ganking has on pushing newbro's out of the game.But then you are still dealing with a verry high amount of ''alts'' who will **** up your data research entirely. Don't get me wrong , i am not against ganking . Ganking in general doesn't ''make me hot or cold'' so i could not care less if CCP would do something to make ganking harder or easier.The data provided however is useless to stand as a point to use for or against it's effect . We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.

Serene Repose 2455	Posted - 2015.03.22 18:00:39 - [71] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: run to the forums and declare exploit of something that is legitimate gameplay" way of thinking. Exaggerate the point of view of others MUCH? The pro-ganking, "oh gee what if management listens to these people" crowd (firstly sure seems a bit nervous like they're not quite sure what they do is on the up and up) sure does kick up a dust storm then blame it on everyone else who tries to refute or correct their (from) way off to outlandish so-called data. Where there's smoke, there's fire? Or, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Whatever it may be, they're about as reliable for information on this subject as my dog is on does he really need to go outside, or is he just BORED? Usually he's bored, or he wants to survey his acreage from a hilltop. Not a lot of territorial pissing there...so maybe that analogy is a bit off. It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to type on your keyboard and remove all doubt.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10289	Posted - 2015.03.22 18:02:57 - [72] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Rise's whole point with that example is that sometimes your impressions/assumptions don't match reality like in this case. That's true in so many things, even in real life. People think a certain reaction to some horrific event is 'common sense' when in reality that reaction makes things worse.It even happens to developers which is why we sometimes see things aimed at retaining players pushing players away in many games not just EVE. I think it's because when people hate something, they demonize it and see no redeeming value in it (because if it had a single redeeming value, they couldn't hate it as much, and they want to hate it). Some people hate ganking, scamming, non-consensual pvp and a lot of other aspects of EVE so they automatically assume that those things are the causes of other bad things like people quitting. The irony here is that they believe these things make people quit but the fact that THEY THEMSELVES didn't quit should be proof enough that it doesn't work that way. It's like they suffer from a form of 'false-uniqueness' belief ie "ganking makes people quit, I hate it too but I didn't quit because Im better than them". In fact, the most probable truth of the matter is that ganking and such probably HELPS the game keep people (by causing the kind of emotional connection that hooks a person to a situation). This is why in sports many coaches and trainers will say that losing is way more valuable than winning for making a person want to get better and stay in that sport. It suggests that a main culprit in losing new players could be too much safety in high sec... I do, of course, realize that saying that to these "ganking is bad" types is the same as saying that eating some meat is ok and even good for a person to a Militant 'meat is murder' Vegan lol.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10290	Posted - 2015.03.22 18:08:05 - [73] - Quote Serene Repose wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: run to the forums and declare exploit of something that is legitimate gameplay" way of thinking. Exaggerate the point of view of others MUCH? The pro-ganking, "oh gee what if management listens to these people" crowd (firstly sure seems a bit nervous like they're not quite sure what they do is on the up and up) sure does kick up a dust storm then blame it on everyone else who tries to refute or correct their (from) way off to outlandish so-called data. Where there's smoke, there's fire? Or, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Whatever it may be, they're about as reliable for information on this subject as my dog is on does he really need to go outside, or is he just BORED? Usually he's bored, or he wants to survey his acreage from a hilltop. Not a lot of territorial pissing there... so maybe that analogy is a bit off. rofl, in typical fashion you reply to a post describing a bias with your own biased post. I'm exaggerating nothing as I never claimed everyone does it. But you know as well as I do (even if you ay not be honest enough to admit it) that from time to time there have been posts on this very forum from some freshly ganked person declaring that what happened to them is wrong and that all manner of evil should befall the people who in reality were just playing the game within it's rules. We get it, you don;'t like ganking and ANY bit of information that goes against your preconceived notion rankles you. Do't try to pretend it's a problem with someone else, rather the information presented in this tread should (for the person mature enough to understand it) begin a process of slef-evaluation that would eventually (after many decades) lead you to be less wrong about, well, everything you ever post about lol.
Serene Repose 2455	Posted - 2015.03.22 18:09:16 - [74] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: That's true in so many things, even in real life. People think a certain reaction to some horrific event is 'common sense' when in reality that reaction makes things worse.It even happens to developers which is why we sometimes see things aimed at retaining players pushing players away in many games not just EVE. So...it must be incumbent on YOU to guide the devs in the right direction despite themselves, and of course the "right" direction is always YOUR direction...'cause you have a "I'm always right" gene. envy envy envy Do you ever stop at some point, or can you swing this digital hammer into oblivion for us? It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to type on your keyboard and remove all doubt.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10290	Posted - 2015.03.22 18:15:40 - [75] - Quote flakeys wrote: Black Pedro wrote: flakeys wrote: In it's current form this data provides nothing of value.Error randomize is spot on with his assesment of it. Even if you do get the full data it still does not represent anything to ''the threat of empire ganking'' , not saying there is a 'threat'' though , as a 15 days old char hardly ever flies anything worthy of a gank and is more often docked or in the newbie zone then anywhere else.Now the ones who WE view as noobs , characters who are say a month or 3 old , they can fly something of value to be lost and also will be flying outside the newbie zones mostly. I don't know, even if you somehow discount the data regarding 15-day old players as not representative, the fact that "<1% of account cancellations cite ship loss or harassment" is pretty telling. People don't (at least in significant numbers) quit the game over suicide ganking in highsec. . As said the data is too vague and EVEN if you would fill in the blank spots to accomodate your ''crusade to the defense of ganking'' then still you forget the part where a 15 day trial/player will at most be flying a T1 cruiser and as such would allways be of little value to be ganked. 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 as they fly stuff more worthy of a gank and that COULD give a vague idea as to the true '''threat'' ganking has on pushing newbro's out of the game.But then you are still dealing with a verry high amount of ''alts'' who will **** up your data research entirely. Don't get me wrong , i am not against ganking . Ganking in general doesn't ''make me hot or cold'' so i could not care less if CCP would do something to make ganking harder or easier.The data provided however is useless to stand as a point to use for or against it's effect . Translation: when data doesn't say what I need it to say, it's vague. When it does, it's right! This is why discussion with other people (in real life as well as when about a game, see : Politics) is generally futile. You all know the truth, NO amount of data will convince people who are already convinced. CCP could flat out say ganking is good and present graphs and the same people would claim it's a lie, but a graph showing that ganking causes unsubs would be posted on 17 blogs within an hour. No, me personally, I don't defend ganking (it's not something I find fun so I don't do it). What I defend is the EVE way of gaming, the idea that interesting things should happen in a game, and that players in a sandbox should understand that some fool will always kick sand in your face and you should deal with that instead of running to mommy. Just as with AFK-cloaking, I've suffered only one gank in 8 years because I protected myself and for myself and prevented gankers from getting me. It's not the gankers fault that some players wouldn't know what self reliance and personal responsibility were if it bit them in the arse parts.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10290	Posted - 2015.03.22 18:20:11 - [76] - Quote Serene Repose wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: That's true in so many things, even in real life. People think a certain reaction to some horrific event is 'common sense' when in reality that reaction makes things worse.It even happens to developers which is why we sometimes see things aimed at retaining players pushing players away in many games not just EVE. So...it must be incumbent on YOU to guide the devs in the right direction despite themselves, and of course the "right" direction is always YOUR direction...'cause you have a "I'm always right" gene. envy envy envy Do you ever stop at some point, or can you swing this digital hammer into oblivion for us? This is just a bitter person's emotional reaction to being proved wrong, and it's unworthy of an adult. You keep trying to make it about me, when I'm simply commenting on the game same as you. This is one of those "people point on the doll where Jenn touched you moments". While such a reaction wasn't something I sought, it's hilarious nonetheless. For the record, the 'right direction' is the right direction, it has nothing whatsoever to do with what I personally want, If it were up to me there would be no high sec, but that would be wrong because high sec is a necessary evil (see what I can do that you can't serene? I can point to something that I don't like and see the good in it).
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 718	Posted - 2015.03.22 18:24:49 - [77] - Quote flakeys wrote: As said the data is too vague and EVEN if you would fill in the blank spots to accomodate your ''crusade to the defense of ganking'' then still you forget the part where a 15 day trial/player will at most be flying a T1 cruiser and as such would allways be of little value to be ganked. I am on no crusade. I am just repeating what CCP Rise said yesterday. I don't have access to CCP's internal data, nor have done any analysis myself. However, CCP Rise and his team DO have access to the data you say you need to be convinced, and I have no reason to believe he is trying to mislead me. If new players are of "little value" for gankers, then why do so many players believe that ganking of new players is a significant problem for player retention like the 80%+ of the audience in Rise's talk? I find it interesting that so many of them come here to the forums arguing for more nerfs to ganking to protect the new players, when you yourself admit that they are not especially desirable targets and Rise showed that they rarely get ganked. Further, Rise's data shows that isolating them from the sandbox is likely to decrease the chance for them to stay in the game. It's all very interesting.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10291	Posted - 2015.03.22 18:43:24 - [78] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: I am on no crusade. I am just repeating what CCP Rise said yesterday. I don't have access to CCP's internal data, nor have done any analysis myself. However, CCP Rise and his team DO have access to the data you say you need to be convinced, and I have no reason to believe he is trying to mislead me. That part is priceless. In the past, when I've suggested that certain imbalances exist or that things aren't as bad as some people claim, a standard retort has been "CCP has the Data". But as soon as CCP says something they don't like, it's "CCP must be wrong". This proof positive that some people are only interested in their own narrow beliefs and (sometimes) an agenda rather than the truth of the matter. This is not to say that CCP can't be wrong, they can, I just find it funny how some people's trust in CCP is conditional upon whether or not CCP validates their preconceived notions. Quote: If new players are of "little value" for gankers, then why do so many players believe that ganking of new players is a significant problem for player retention like the 80%+ of the audience in Rise's talk? I find it interesting that so many of them come here to the forums arguing for more nerfs to ganking to protect the new players, when you yourself admit that they are not especially desirable targets and Rise showed that they rarely get ganked. Further, Rise's data shows that isolating them from the sandbox is likely to decrease the chance for them to stay in the game. It's all very interesting. I think it's a couple of things. First, the anti-ganking crowd is a bunch of 'bleeding hearts' who display "think of the children' mentality instead of understanding that new players are (mostly) adults like they were when they started playing. The honestly 'feel sorry' for the perceived injustices that happen to new players and believe (naively but sincerely) that if that didn't happen those new players would be happier and stay longer. (It's for these types that the idea that ganking them might actually be helping them is anathema lol, as I mentioned earlier it's like showing a PETA member that some meat is good for humans lol) The second group os more sinister. They have been ganked in something expensive, didn't like how that made them feel at all, and went on a crusade to end this evil once and for all lol. They HATE gankers as people and their whining to CCP is actually meta-gaming" They are trying to meta-game that 'mean people' completely out of the game so they can crunch rocks or npcs in peace. Both of the above types are wrong, just one types is way more wrong that the other lol.
Aralyn Cormallen Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 906	Posted - 2015.03.22 18:48:40 - [79] - Quote Serene Repose wrote: So...it must be incumbent on YOU to guide the devs in the right direction despite themselves, and of course the "right" direction is always YOUR direction...'cause you have a "I'm always right" gene. envy envy envy Do you ever stop at some point, or can you swing this digital hammer into oblivion for us? That is a hilarious post to make by someone who has spent the past two pages disregarding CCP's comments and statistics. I mean, really?
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10297	Posted - 2015.03.22 18:55:14 - [80] - Quote Aralyn Cormallen wrote: Serene Repose wrote: So...it must be incumbent on YOU to guide the devs in the right direction despite themselves, and of course the "right" direction is always YOUR direction...'cause you have a "I'm always right" gene. envy envy envy Do you ever stop at some point, or can you swing this digital hammer into oblivion for us? That is a hilarious post to make by someone who has spent the past two pages disregarding CCP's comments and statistics. I mean, really? Yes really and the hypocrisy is unimaginable lol, but at least she did mention how massive my "Digital Hammer" was so that's a plus...

Seven Koskanaiken Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 1443	Posted - 2015.03.22 19:04:08 - [81] - Quote Thales wrote: Something very wrong here, 100% of new players should be dying, as two of the misions at least DEMAND you die to show you how it works. This can be solved by having them fly battleships which as we all know have 100% chance of dying to bombs.
Chewytowel Haklar Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 103	Posted - 2015.03.22 19:07:06 - [82] - Quote There are too many people scared out of their wits to enter null or wormhole space, but man they don't know the rush they are missing! :D I wonder how many just stick with mining or running missions over and over again only to get bored and leave? Don't they know there is a whole lot of political bs in this game? Hell seeing big battles or groups of ships isn't really that hard either if you are in the right spot.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 34998	Posted - 2015.03.22 19:27:42 - [83] - Quote flakeys wrote: 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... Why would anyone be trying to answer that question based on this data? It can't be extrapolated out to that. It's purely about the experience of new players, 50% of which don't move beyond the trial period and leave the game in the first month. That's it. Little more. Anecdotally, Rise did say that of those involved in combat, the retention is higher for those players and also showed the statistic on reasons reported for leaving the game (<1% report ship loss or harassment as the reason for leaving the game). Those would be more interesting to have more detail on, but the data presented can't be used to answer the question that people seem to be discounting it based on. "I don't believe it because it's the wrong data" is a slightly silly response. It's only the wrong data because it's being extrapolated out to answer a question it can't answer. That's not the fault of the data. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 1147	Posted - 2015.03.22 20:06:31 - [84] - Quote Serene Repose wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: In the UK a PH.D generally makes you less employable. Better to put just your masters on your C.V. Welp. In the UK you hardly ever see that big yellow ball up in the sky! Come to where the living is. Come to South Florida. It's only going up to 85 F today! I guess that's 29.4 C. ... but mosquitos and .... I lived in Africa - I actually like UK weather. Chewytowel Haklar wrote: There are too many people scared out of their wits to enter null or ... I am in one of the most busy parts of Null with loads of tourists coming through. All I can say to pretty much most of it is: Yawn. Only times my interest kicks in now is being logi on a Nightmare fleet and trying to keep our coalition from incurring that sort of loss. Fozzie Logic's Low Sec 2.0 is going to be really annoying and probably not worth keeping a SOV home. (My current tourist experiences magnified). Scipio Artelius wrote: "I don't believe it because it's the wrong data" is a strange response. It's only the wrong data because it's being extrapolated out to answer a question it can't answer. That's not the fault of the data. I don't trust the data because the scope is too narrow on time and no mention of considered factors. It looks like a rather simple query was run and got skewed results. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
flakeys Arkham Innovations 2764	Posted - 2015.03.22 20:26:52 - [85] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: flakeys wrote: Black Pedro wrote: flakeys wrote: In it's current form this data provides nothing of value.Error randomize is spot on with his assesment of it. Even if you do get the full data it still does not represent anything to ''the threat of empire ganking'' , not saying there is a 'threat'' though , as a 15 days old char hardly ever flies anything worthy of a gank and is more often docked or in the newbie zone then anywhere else.Now the ones who WE view as noobs , characters who are say a month or 3 old , they can fly something of value to be lost and also will be flying outside the newbie zones mostly. I don't know, even if you somehow discount the data regarding 15-day old players as not representative, the fact that "<1% of account cancellations cite ship loss or harassment" is pretty telling. People don't (at least in significant numbers) quit the game over suicide ganking in highsec. . As said the data is too vague and EVEN if you would fill in the blank spots to accomodate your ''crusade to the defense of ganking'' then still you forget the part where a 15 day trial/player will at most be flying a T1 cruiser and as such would allways be of little value to be ganked. 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 as they fly stuff more worthy of a gank and that COULD give a vague idea as to the true '''threat'' ganking has on pushing newbro's out of the game.But then you are still dealing with a verry high amount of ''alts'' who will **** up your data research entirely. Don't get me wrong , i am not against ganking . Ganking in general doesn't ''make me hot or cold'' so i could not care less if CCP would do something to make ganking harder or easier.The data provided however is useless to stand as a point to use for or against it's effect . Translation: when data doesn't say what I need it to say, it's vague. When it does, it's right! This is why discussion with other people (in real life as well as when about a game, see : Politics) is generally futile. You all know the truth, NO amount of data will convince people who are already convinced. CCP could flat out say ganking is good and present graphs and the same people would claim it's a lie, but a graph showing that ganking causes unsubs would be posted on 17 blogs within an hour. Now, me personally, I don't defend ganking (it's not something I find fun so I don't do it). What I defend is the EVE way of gaming, the idea that interesting things should happen in a game, and that players in a sandbox should understand that some fool will always kick sand in your face and you should deal with that instead of running to mommy. Just as with AFK-cloaking, I've suffered only one gank in 8 years because I protected myself and for myself and prevented gankers from getting me. It's not the gankers fault that some players wouldn't know what self reliance and personal responsibility were if it bit them in the arse parts. I think i was quite clear on my stance over the topic of ganking , it leaves me cold nor warm.As such the data can not say what i want to say as i have no favour towards a negative or positive outcome.I did not say the data was incorrect or not , i did say twice now that it is incomplete.With this amount of data or lack of data to be more precise it is utterly stupid to ''claim'' it has any relevance to the topic if ganking does or does not have an affect on newbies leaving the game. And then i am leaving the discussion what a newbie is out of it because if you ask me and a LOT of the playerbase if a 3 month old player is a newbie or not they will probably in most cases say that that is the case.BRAVE is seen as a newbie Alliance for example and i doubt the biggest amount of their playerbase is less then 15 days old.BUT as said that is a different discussion and also one that can be diiscussed about till the end of days because what is or is not a newbro really lies in the eye of the beholder. That is btw also the reason why most discussions fall into repition of ones own view on the matter , ESPECIALLY politics , as transparancy for FULL data is a rare case.And if you take into account things like diseases then the data will change frequently as our ways to accumulate said data is getting better every year. Be it futile or not though , discussions are a nice way to pass time.Something you of most people on GD should know as i see you going from one discussion to the other every night here . We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 34998	Posted - 2015.03.22 20:52:42 - [86] - Quote flakeys wrote: I did not say the data was incorrect or not , i did say twice now that it is incomplete. It's not incomplete at all. It's perfectly useful for the limited conditions it was used by Rise. Broadening beyond it's limited scope is the problem, not the data. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Beta Maoye 58	Posted - 2015.03.22 21:23:33 - [87] - Quote May be they should move newbie systems to low sec to improve the statistics.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2155	Posted - 2015.03.22 21:25:12 - [88] - Quote Thales wrote: Something very wrong here, 100% of new players should be dying, as two of the misions at least DEMAND you die to show you how it works. So if they are not dying they are not doing the starter missions. Or does it mean Poddeath? Ganking and grief killing of player ships does not automatically mean poddeath. Without some qualified info this report is worse than meaningless. He stated at the beginning "kills by players" and then broke it down into "not killed" "legally killed" and "illegally killed". For the specific instance of addressing noobie ganking as an issue the data shows the trend, although in a shorter period of time than I would like.
Sabriz Adoudel Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 4883	Posted - 2015.03.22 22:43:23 - [89] - Quote I expected newbie losses to rats (outside scripted losses) to be higher than that. Or is that PVP encounters only? I lost my first destroyer to rats and that's a pretty common thing. Shoot everyone. Let the Saviour sort it out. I enforce the New Haliama Code of Conduct via wardec ops. Ignorance of the law is no excuse - read about requirements for highsec miners at www.minerbumping.com
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 35000	Posted - 2015.03.22 23:12:50 - [90] - Quote Sabriz Adoudel wrote: I expected newbie losses to rats (outside scripted losses) to be higher than that. Or is that PVP encounters only? pvp encounters only Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari

Serene Repose 2458	Posted - 2015.03.23 00:44:57 - [91] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: This is just a bitter person's emotional reaction to being proved wrong, and it's unworthy of an adult. You keep trying to make it about me, when I'm simply commenting on the game same as you. This is one of those "people point on the doll where Jenn touched you moments". While such a reaction wasn't something I sought, it's hilarious nonetheless. For the record, the 'right direction' is the right direction, it has nothing whatsoever to do with what I personally want, If it were up to me there would be no high sec, but that would be wrong because high sec is a necessary evil (see what I can do that you can't serene? I can point to something that I don't like and see the good in it). Well, no one's ever said you don't have an over-active imagination. So, I'm "bitter" you say. You say it like you know it. However, we all know you couldn't possibly have a clue, and you say it any way. You've not proved me wrong ever on any issue, not once; never. You yourself know that, and yet you say you have...and then speak disparagingly about what you imagine is my emotional reaction...of course, you're "simply" commenting on the game (which is what I've been saying all along - stress "simply." But, you meant that word to stand for "innocently," did you not?) I point at you all the time Jenn and say "I don't like you...yet....good? Well, okay...you can type, sorta. I really don't need to remind those who are reading our little "t+¬te-+á-t+¬te" that one whose rhetoric is filled to the brim with ad hominem has surrendered his position at the outset. To remind you of that one would have to assume you knew it in the first place. Can I keep the doll? Oh yes. Any time you'd like to respond to a point I've made, rather than mischaracterize then claim you've responded, I'm waiting with waning interest. My ennui is turning to yawn-way. It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to type on your keyboard and remove all doubt.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10316	Posted - 2015.03.23 00:59:29 - [92] - Quote Serene Repose wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: This is just a bitter person's emotional reaction to being proved wrong, and it's unworthy of an adult. You keep trying to make it about me, when I'm simply commenting on the game same as you. This is one of those "people point on the doll where Jenn touched you moments". While such a reaction wasn't something I sought, it's hilarious nonetheless. For the record, the 'right direction' is the right direction, it has nothing whatsoever to do with what I personally want, If it were up to me there would be no high sec, but that would be wrong because high sec is a necessary evil (see what I can do that you can't serene? I can point to something that I don't like and see the good in it). Well, no one's ever said you don't have an over-active imagination. So, I'm "bitter" you say. You say it like you know it. However, we all know you couldn't possibly have a clue, and you say it any way. You've not proved me wrong ever on any issue, not once; never. You yourself know that, and yet you say you have...and then speak disparagingly about what you imagine is my emotional reaction...of course, you're "simply" commenting on the game (which is what I've been saying all along - stress "simply." But, you meant that word to stand for "innocently," did you not?) I point at you all the time Jenn and say "I don't like you...yet....good? Well, okay...you can type, sorta. I really don't need to remind those who are reading our little "t+¬te-+á-t+¬te" that one whose rhetoric is filled to the brim with ad hominem has surrendered his position at the outset. To remind you of that one would have to assume you knew it in the first place. Can I keep the doll? Oh yes. Any time you'd like to respond to a point I've made, rather than mischaracterize then claim you've responded, I'm waiting with waning interest. My ennui is turning to yawn-way. In all that emotional bs rambling you were making a point lol? On a side note, that stuff you are smoking is too strong, you need to ask for a lighter version till your system gets used to it. You'll thanks me for that advice one day.
Serene Repose 2461	Posted - 2015.03.23 01:09:08 - [93] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Serene Repose wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: This is just a bitter person's emotional reaction to being proved wrong, and it's unworthy of an adult. You keep trying to make it about me, when I'm simply commenting on the game same as you. This is one of those "people point on the doll where Jenn touched you moments". While such a reaction wasn't something I sought, it's hilarious nonetheless. For the record, the 'right direction' is the right direction, it has nothing whatsoever to do with what I personally want, If it were up to me there would be no high sec, but that would be wrong because high sec is a necessary evil (see what I can do that you can't serene? I can point to something that I don't like and see the good in it). Well, no one's ever said you don't have an over-active imagination. So, I'm "bitter" you say. You say it like you know it. However, we all know you couldn't possibly have a clue, and you say it any way. You've not proved me wrong ever on any issue, not once; never. You yourself know that, and yet you say you have...and then speak disparagingly about what you imagine is my emotional reaction...of course, you're "simply" commenting on the game (which is what I've been saying all along - stress "simply." But, you meant that word to stand for "innocently," did you not?) I point at you all the time Jenn and say "I don't like you...yet....good? Well, okay...you can type, sorta. I really don't need to remind those who are reading our little "t+¬te-+á-t+¬te" that one whose rhetoric is filled to the brim with ad hominem has surrendered his position at the outset. To remind you of that one would have to assume you knew it in the first place. Can I keep the doll? Oh yes. Any time you'd like to respond to a point I've made, rather than mischaracterize then claim you've responded, I'm waiting with waning interest. My ennui is turning to yawn-way. In all that emotional bs rambling you were making a point lol? On a side note, that stuff you are smoking is too strong, you need to ask for a lighter version till your system gets used to it. You'll thanks me for that advice one day. Thanks so much for proving my point for me. Have a nice day! It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to type on your keyboard and remove all doubt.
Sibyyl Gallente Federation 24035	Posted - 2015.03.23 01:27:16 - [94] - Quote Since a few of the usual suspects in this thread, including Veers want to live under the illusion that data has to agree with their opinions, let's write down what CCP said: CCP Rise: Raise your hand if you think suicide ganking exists? (most of the audience raises their hands) Raise your hand if you think anyone's ever quit EVE because of being suicide ganked? (not sure how many raised their hands) Raise your hand if you think NEW players get suicide ganked? (80-90% raises their hands) Rephrasing: Raise your hand if you think suicide ganking is a problem for new players? (~50% raises their hands) So this is a discussion that comes a lot for us [CCP] internally and you would think we would have a really clear idea, but what we face a lot is having a lot of data and limited ability to analyze it. This discussion comes up in NPE, and [CCP is aware that] the community often raises this question. Slide 1 (thanks Tora!). 80,000 users means individual people not accounts that are subscribed (CCP's language later leads me to believe trials were not looked at). Killers were checked for whether they were killed by CONCORD or other law enforcement agents to determine if the death was due to a gank. Slide 2. Note here that wardecs, Limited Engagements, etc. are legal kills (as expected). Interestingly CCP Rise characterizes these fights as ones where the victim chose to be involved. Ganks are 1% of these deaths, where victims were "killed against their will". Slide 3. CCP was surprised by these results. Myths: New players are pressured by more advanced players, harassed by them. CCP rise says specifically that people in the ganked group were most likely to stay subscribed, with people in the legally killed group 2nd most likely to stay subscribed. People who don't die at all were most likely to leave the game. Slide 4. Everyone should read this slide, seriously. CCP Rise's previous data along similar lines looked at subscriber data, not trial data. Source: EVE Fanfest 2015: Team Pirate Unicorn presentation #afkleadership Gü+Gü+Gü+ -óß¦ªß¦ç-ó Gü+Gü+Gü+ EVE:Valkyrie pilot unmasked (her name is Ran)
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10320	Posted - 2015.03.23 01:30:42 - [95] - Quote Sibyyl wrote: Since a few of the usual suspects in this thread, including Veers want to live under the illusion that data has to agree with their opinions, let's write down what CCP said: CCP Rise: Raise your hand if you think suicide ganking exists? (most of the audience raises their hands) Raise your hand if you think anyone's ever quit EVE because of being suicide ganked? (not sure how many raised their hands) Raise your hand if you think NEW players get suicide ganked? (80-90% raises their hands) Rephrasing: Raise your hand if you think suicide ganking is a problem for new players? (~50% raises their hands) So this is a discussion that comes a lot for us [CCP] internally and you would think we would have a really clear idea, but what we face a lot is having a lot of data and limited ability to analyze it. This discussion comes up in NPE, and [CCP is aware that] the community often raises this question. Slide 1 (thanks Tora!). 80,000 users means individual people not accounts that are subscribed (CCP's language later leads me to believe trials were not looked at). Killers were checked for whether they were killed by CONCORD or other law enforcement agents to determine if the death was due to a gank. Slide 2. Note here that wardecs, Limited Engagements, etc. are legal kills (as expected). Interestingly CCP Rise characterizes these fights as ones where the victim chose to be involved. Ganks are 1% of these deaths, where victims were "killed against their will". Slide 3. CCP was surprised by these results. Myths: New players are pressured by more advanced players, harassed by them. CCP rise says specifically that people in the ganked group were most likely to stay subscribed, with people in the legally killed group 2nd most likely to stay subscribed. People who don't die at all were most likely to leave the game. Slide 4. Everyone should read this slide, seriously. CCP Rise's previous data along similar lines looked at subscriber data, not trial data. Source: EVE Fanfest 2015: Team Pirate Unicorn presentation Ahhh, ain't that precious, Sibyyl (and Rise) still thinks actual information and evidence means something. That's so sweet
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12241	Posted - 2015.03.23 01:30:47 - [96] - Quote Sibyyl wrote: Since a few of the usual suspects in this thread, including Veers want to live under the illusion that data has to agree with their opinions, let's write down what CCP said: CCP Rise: Raise your hand if you think suicide ganking exists? (most of the audience raises their hands) Raise your hand if you think anyone's ever quit EVE because of being suicide ganked? (not sure how many raised their hands) Raise your hand if you think NEW players get suicide ganked? (80-90% raises their hands) Rephrasing: Raise your hand if you think suicide ganking is a problem for new players? (~50% raises their hands) So this is a discussion that comes a lot for us [CCP] internally and you would think we would have a really clear idea, but what we face a lot is having a lot of data and limited ability to analyze it. This discussion comes up in NPE, and [CCP is aware that] the community often raises this question. Slide 1 (thanks Tora!). 80,000 users means individual people not accounts that are subscribed (CCP's language later leads me to believe trials were not looked at). Killers were checked for whether they were killed by CONCORD or other law enforcement agents to determine if the death was due to a gank. Slide 2. Note here that wardecs, Limited Engagements, etc. are legal kills (as expected). Interestingly CCP Rise characterizes these fights as ones where the victim chose to be involved. Ganks are 1% of these deaths, where victims were "killed against their will". Slide 3. CCP was surprised by these results. Myths: New players are pressured by more advanced players, harassed by them. CCP rise says specifically that people in the ganked group were most likely to stay subscribed, with people in the legally killed group 2nd most likely to stay subscribed. People who don't die at all were most likely to leave the game. Slide 4. Everyone should read this slide, seriously. CCP Rise's previous data along similar lines looked at subscriber data, not trial data. Source: EVE Fanfest 2015: Team Pirate Unicorn presentation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FHEeG_uq5Y "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4191	Posted - 2015.03.23 01:32:36 - [97] - Quote Sibyyl wrote: Slide 4. Everyone should read this slide, seriously. Pretty sure that's what we're doing. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 8053	Posted - 2015.03.23 01:34:35 - [98] - Quote A for effort, Sibyyl. Sadly wasted though. You've been around here long enough to know that the regulars will only cherry pick the bits that validate their pet assumptions and rage. Like fundamentalists the world over, you'll never see an EVE forumvangelist let facts get in the way of a good rant. Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10322	Posted - 2015.03.23 01:38:04 - [99] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Sibyyl wrote: Since a few of the usual suspects in this thread, including Veers want to live under the illusion that data has to agree with their opinions, let's write down what CCP said: CCP Rise: Raise your hand if you think suicide ganking exists? (most of the audience raises their hands) Raise your hand if you think anyone's ever quit EVE because of being suicide ganked? (not sure how many raised their hands) Raise your hand if you think NEW players get suicide ganked? (80-90% raises their hands) Rephrasing: Raise your hand if you think suicide ganking is a problem for new players? (~50% raises their hands) So this is a discussion that comes a lot for us [CCP] internally and you would think we would have a really clear idea, but what we face a lot is having a lot of data and limited ability to analyze it. This discussion comes up in NPE, and [CCP is aware that] the community often raises this question. Slide 1 (thanks Tora!). 80,000 users means individual people not accounts that are subscribed (CCP's language later leads me to believe trials were not looked at). Killers were checked for whether they were killed by CONCORD or other law enforcement agents to determine if the death was due to a gank. Slide 2. Note here that wardecs, Limited Engagements, etc. are legal kills (as expected). Interestingly CCP Rise characterizes these fights as ones where the victim chose to be involved. Ganks are 1% of these deaths, where victims were "killed against their will". Slide 3. CCP was surprised by these results. Myths: New players are pressured by more advanced players, harassed by them. CCP rise says specifically that people in the ganked group were most likely to stay subscribed, with people in the legally killed group 2nd most likely to stay subscribed. People who don't die at all were most likely to leave the game. Slide 4. Everyone should read this slide, seriously. CCP Rise's previous data along similar lines looked at subscriber data, not trial data. Source: EVE Fanfest 2015: Team Pirate Unicorn presentation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FHEeG_uq5Y Dude, do you see the anti ganking types on here reacting like Vampires who just won an all expenses paid vaction....to the Sun
Sibyyl Gallente Federation 24036	Posted - 2015.03.23 01:40:29 - [100] - Quote Mr Epeen wrote: A for effort, Sibyyl. Sadly wasted though. You've been around here long enough to know that the regulars will only cherry pick the bits that validate their pet assumptions and rage. Like fundamentalists the world over, you'll never see an EVE forumvangelist let facts get in the way of a good rant. Mr Epeen Don't mind me, I'm a confused miner. rubs your shiny head #afkleadership Gü+Gü+Gü+ -óß¦ªß¦ç-ó Gü+Gü+Gü+ EVE:Valkyrie pilot unmasked (her name is Ran)

Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 23307	Posted - 2015.03.23 01:50:17 - [101] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Dude, do you see the anti ganking types on here reacting like Vampires who just won an all expenses paid vaction....to the Sun Some of them have spent so much time on their knees praying at the altar of "think of the children" that they see CCP Rise shattering their illusions as heresy of the worst kind. Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12241	Posted - 2015.03.23 02:00:52 - [102] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Dude, do you see the anti ganking types on here reacting like Vampires who just won an all expenses paid vaction....to the Sun Some of them have spent so much time on their knees praying at the altar of "think of the children" that they see CCP Rise shattering their illusions as heresy of the worst kind. I clicked on that fully expecting a 40k heresy reference. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 1147	Posted - 2015.03.23 02:05:05 - [103] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Dude, do you see the anti ganking types on here reacting like Vampires who just won an all expenses paid vaction....to the Sun Some of them have spent so much time on their knees praying at the altar of "think of the children" that they see CCP Rise shattering their illusions as heresy of the worst kind. I don't think I have ever been suicide ganked. I have been in High Sec corps under war decs. People jumping, leaving, logging off, quitting because they can't fight back. People getting into their first battleships then getting ganked in horrible T1 fits. So, yeah, the 15 days scope does not cover enough of the "newbie" stage for me to accept what they are saying. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10322	Posted - 2015.03.23 02:10:10 - [104] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Dude, do you see the anti ganking types on here reacting like Vampires who just won an all expenses paid vaction....to the Sun Some of them have spent so much time on their knees praying at the altar of "think of the children" that they see CCP Rise shattering their illusions as heresy of the worst kind. I don't think I have ever been suicide ganked. I have been in High Sec corps under war decs. People jumping, leaving, logging off, quitting because they can't fight back. People getting into their first battleships then getting ganked in horrible T1 fits. So, yeah, the 15 days scope does not cover enough of the "newbie" stage for me to accept what they are saying. Translation: My anecdotal evidence (where I don't understand that what I remember is shaded by my own personal biases) doesn't mesh with the actual evidence presented by CCP Rise, so he must be wrong. Did I miss anything? My Denial-ese is a bit rusty.
Steppa Musana Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 31	Posted - 2015.03.23 02:14:08 - [105] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: flakeys wrote: I did not say the data was incorrect or not , i did say twice now that it is incomplete. It's not incomplete at all. It's perfectly useful for the limited conditions it was used by Rise. Broadening beyond it's limited scope is the problem, not the data. Its not broadening it beyond its limited scope when the community here has made that connection. Theres even a thread in C&P with all the usual sperges using the data to claim new players don't quit the game due to non-consensual PVP or harassment. The whole thing just reaks of a response to the cries of players about retention in general, which was never about 15 day old players that are flying a Dragoon doing level 2s. Thats why its important to point out how terrible this "study" really is. It doesnt even mention how they took into account player alts, new players that barely played, and new players that came from autistlands like Reddit or SA. It ignores the cries about highsec wardec griefing and post-gank convo harassment hurting retention, something which tends to affect players worst that are 2-6 months old. And then to top it all off, he goes and cites a lack of player reports stating that they've quit because of this as a reason to believe it doesn't happen. Because when you rage quit a game the first thing you do is fill out a survey for them. Its a bad study, with bad conclusions, and even worse connections being made by the community. 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, because right now the hive mind of the griefer community has attached this study to thinking there antics dont cause players to quit. Bullshit.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 23307	Posted - 2015.03.23 02:20:04 - [106] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: I don't think I have ever been suicide ganked. I have been in High Sec corps under war decs. You and me both. Quote: People jumping, leaving, logging off, quitting because they can't fight back. Can't, or won't? There's a big difference, I got my first kill assist within 4 weeks of playing. Our Newbie corp got wardecced, because we were newbies some of our opponents thought that they'd be fine doing some PvE, we caught one of them doing so and blobbed his Domi in frigates, he got all kinds of butthurt about it. Quote: People getting into their first battleships then getting ganked in horrible T1 fits. Which proves the point that bigger isn't always better, especially if the player is clueless about fits and game mechanics. Quote: So, yeah, the 15 days scope does not cover enough of the "newbie" stage for me to accept what they are saying. I must admit I'd be interested to see the same study done over 30, 60 and 90 days, just to see if the stats change significantly. Kaarous Aldurald wrote: I clicked on that fully expecting a 40k heresy reference. Happy now? Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Seven Koskanaiken Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 1443	Posted - 2015.03.23 02:20:44 - [107] - Quote Time to bring back high sec awoxing.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 23310	Posted - 2015.03.23 02:28:01 - [108] - Quote Steppa Musana wrote: The usual derogatory claptrap and denigration of people I don't agree with If you want to be taken seriously try posting something that doesn't label people as autistic simply because they are from external gaming communities. The only thing you're succeeding in doing is making yourself look like a prejudiced fool. You use entirely too many words to say nothing of any value. Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 8056	Posted - 2015.03.23 02:32:56 - [109] - Quote Seven Koskanaiken wrote: Time to bring back high sec awoxing. Oddly enough, it never actually left. It's just that the risk averse all moved in to CODE corps once CCP deemed Awoxing should have some mild consequences along with a little effort to accomplish. Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10322	Posted - 2015.03.23 02:42:43 - [110] - Quote Steppa Musana wrote: Its a bad study, with bad conclusions, Ok, Prove it. Post a single piece of evidence of support what you believe. Show us the proof you used to come to your conclusions. The real truth is that this is what you are experiencing: Quote: The backfire effect occurs when, in the face of contradictory evidence, established beliefs do not change but actually get stronger. The effect has been demonstrated experimentally in psychological tests, where subjects are given data that either reinforces or goes against their existing biases - and in most cases people can be shown to increase their confidence in their prior position regardless of the evidence they were faced with. -- Did I miss anything? My Denial-ese is a bit rusty.[/quote] Translation: Even though nearly everyone in the carebear community agrees that endless wardecs and post-gank humiliation hurt player retention, they're all wrong and I'm right, because Rise posted a terrible study that doesn't address the players actually affected by wardecs and post-gank humiliation. Also, anecdotal evidence doesnt matter unless its when players fill out a survey about why they quit, and only then if it supports my initial bias.[/quote] The bolded part isn't just a mistake, its a LIE. Me, Jonah, Sybill and many others are PVE players and we don't agree with what you say at all, in fact, what Rise said confirms what many of us real pve jocks knew all along: The gankers and such are CONTENT that actually keeps good pve players in the game, they are the thing we use to make stuffing our wallets that much more enjoyable, they are part of what keeps us playing this game that doesn't have the best PVE, because besting people who are trying to stop US WHILE WE GET SPACE RICH IS THE GAMEfor real EVE pve players. So you take that weak minded BS and do something unpleasant with it, because now you know the truth, no matter how much you backfire on it.

Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 35000	Posted - 2015.03.23 02:49:17 - [111] - Quote Steppa Musana wrote: Scipio Artelius wrote: Broadening beyond it's limited scope is the problem, not the data. Its not broadening it beyond its limited scope when the community here has made that connection. Extrapolation is extrapolation, no matter who does it. Unless there is a validated basis to extrapolate, doing so is always dangerous. Saying extrapolation is not happening doesn't make any sense. Steppa Musana wrote: 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. Wrong. In the absence of the supporting data, it doesn't matter what I think. I can think whatever I like and imagine it to be true, but that doesn't make it true. So you can think someone else is willfully blind or stupid because they don't share your view on things. Again, just because that's what you think, it doesn't make it true. Steppa Musana wrote: If Rise did not intend to make this about new player retention on a larger scope, he needs to come out and clarify that BS he does. He isn't the one that has tried to imagine that this is somehow wrong because it doesn't reinforce and confirm someone else's bias, no matter which side of this endless debate they sit on. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 23312	Posted - 2015.03.23 02:52:55 - [112] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: BS he does. He isn't the one that has tried to imagine that this is somehow wrong because it doesn't reinforce and confirm someone else's bias, no matter which side of this endless debate they sit on. I think that CCP Rise knew exactly what reaction his presentation would get, hence his questions to the audience at the start and the overall tone of it. As a CCP employee he has to be impartial, and I think he did that admirably. Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Serene Repose 2462	Posted - 2015.03.23 03:01:51 - [113] - Quote Look who's taking scanty information and running with it like it's a revelation from on high. The most salient point made was (and of course you yourself say you missed this part) there is no conclusive information either way. There is no concrete evidence that "people" (as a category) who quit quit for a reason anyone can state. WHY? (That's just a three letter word, there.) Why? Because they didn't tell anybody and nobody asked them - as a category. Not enough data to claim there's a sample. YES, SOME of these players who quit have said why. Thousands of people have quit this game. Thousands of people were not asked why they quit. There is no sampling. There is no data. There is no conclusion. It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to type on your keyboard and remove all doubt.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 1148	Posted - 2015.03.23 03:04:33 - [114] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Quote: People jumping, leaving, logging off, quitting because they can't fight back. Can't, or won't? I am unsure how current mechanics work but you would think you are fighting a corp back then and suddenly it was an alliance. The corp would hop alliances and bait wars. Miners and mission runners tend to die like flies during the first war and they lose so badly they never want to PVP again. There is and always has been a lot of corps and alliances that haven't left the paddling pool and go around looking for easy kills with new, weak corps. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Vyl Vit 1133	Posted - 2015.03.23 03:05:24 - [115] - Quote Let that be a lesson to you! Never release a report where no conclusion was reached unless you state right up front, NO CONCLUSION WAS REACHED. It's there in the fine print, but selective reading sort of made it disappear for some, I guess. Paradise is like where you are right now, only much, much better.
Pok Nibin Filial Pariahs 643	Posted - 2015.03.23 03:08:40 - [116] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Dude, do you see the anti ganking types on here reacting like Vampires who just won an all expenses paid vaction....to the Sun Some of them have spent so much time on their knees praying at the altar of "think of the children" that they see CCP Rise shattering their illusions as heresy of the worst kind. What are you two on about? I know one of you insists he's operating with nothing but spotless integrity in this discussion, but reading that person's posts you see stuff like this. The report said they looked at the data and couldn't reach a conclusion. I think CCP should think twice before issuing another "report" like this. Tell us how the war against lag is working out....I mean, besides monkeying with the mechanics so "that many ships" don't gather in one spot again. The right to free speech doesn't automatically carry with it the right to be taken seriously.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10326	Posted - 2015.03.23 03:15:10 - [117] - Quote Serene Repose wrote: Look who's taking scanty information and running with it like it's a revelation from on high. The most salient point made was (and of course you yourself say you missed this part) there is no conclusive information either way. There is no concrete evidence that "people" (as a category) who quit quit for a reason anyone can state. WHY? (That's just a three letter word, there.) Why? Because they didn't tell anybody and nobody asked them - as a category. Not enough data to claim there's a sample. YES, SOME of these players who quit have said why. Thousands of people have quit this game. Thousands of people were not asked why they quit. There is no sampling. There is no data. There is no conclusion. And yet folks have been stating a conclusion ("griefing makes players quit!") for years on this forum. Those of us without the "think of the children" agenda have been saying that for years do, telling people "you have no proof of that". And yet they (erm, YOU) persisted. So the end result is that their is not enough evidence to draw a conclusion, but the evidence that does exist points in the direction of "griefing/ganking does not cause people to quit". You can stay in denial all you like, it's your life to waste as you please, but one day you will come to realize that not only where you lying to yourself, but you were lying to yourself over a video game (and if you'll do that over a trivial matter, what does that portend for the rest of your like experiences?).
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10330	Posted - 2015.03.23 03:22:52 - [118] - Quote Pok Nibin wrote: I know one of you insists he's operating with nothing but spotless integrity in this discussion, but reading that person's posts you see stuff like this. The report said they looked at the data and couldn't reach a conclusion. I think CCP should think twice before issuing another "report" like this. The report did exactly what it should have, proved that the people who were so sure about the effects of something they personally disliked were wrong. If greifing/ganking were as bad as the 'think of the children' crowd says, there would be conclusive evidence of the fact. As for 'spotless integrity', yes that's how I operate, because the day the need to lie about what happens in a video game (that matters not one bit in the grand scheme of things) is the day I stop playing all video games. I've said this before and I'll say it again, It's not my fault if some posters don't care for the truth in what we are discussing.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 555	Posted - 2015.03.23 03:24:02 - [119] - Quote The report shows nothing about the value of ganking/wardeccs/awoxxing, etc... All these things do is encourage social isolation and boredom in highsec.
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 8061	Posted - 2015.03.23 03:40:45 - [120] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: And yet folks have been stating a conclusion ("griefing makes players quit!") for years on this forum. Griefing very well may make players quit. Just not in the first fifteen days according to that presentation. Extrapolating anything more from that data is just speculation. And boy-o-boy, there's a lot of both pointless extrapolation and pointless speculation in this thread. Much as I predicted would happen way back on the first page. Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!

Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 23318	Posted - 2015.03.23 03:44:12 - [121] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: The report shows nothing about the value of ganking/wardeccs/awoxxing, etc... All these things do is encourage social isolation and boredom in highsec. In your opinion. Although I am in a one man tax evasion corp and mainly play solo I extensively socialise with others, including those that see the playstyle I partake in as that of prey. You on the other hand are a social pariah. Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10332	Posted - 2015.03.23 03:55:03 - [122] - Quote Mr Epeen wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: And yet folks have been stating a conclusion ("griefing makes players quit!") for years on this forum. Griefing very well may make players quit. Just not in the first fifteen days according to that presentation. Extrapolating anything more from that data is just speculation. And boy-o-boy, there's a lot of both pointless extrapolation and pointless speculation in this thread. Much as I predicted would happen way back on the first page. Mr Epeen That smacks of "hiding in the ambiguity", which is what happens in people find out that the thing they've been claiming can't be proved. It happens all the time, people make a claim about something they couldn't possibly know about (in this case, you'd have to personally know thousands of people to know exactly why they quit) a claim usually seated completely in their own biases, and when some authority (of people actually studying the situation) says "we don't know for sure, but signs point to no", all they here is "we don't know). Tel me honestly, if Rise had said the opposite (ie" we don't know for sure, but it looks like ganking does chase people from the game"), how would the people refuting his report in it's entirety be responding? Would they be saying "well we don't know"? lol Rhetorical question as you and I both know the answer. The real truth here is that the 'think of the children' posters are the "social justice" types and they've just been told that the gross injustice around which their entire personalities revolve hasn't been proven (as it would have if it were near as bad as they thought it was) and probably isn't even true at all. That's why the backfire effect I mention exists in the 1st place, it's a defense mechanism against a crushing reality.
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 8061	Posted - 2015.03.23 04:04:56 - [123] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Mr Epeen wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: And yet folks have been stating a conclusion ("griefing makes players quit!") for years on this forum. Griefing very well may make players quit. Just not in the first fifteen days according to that presentation. Extrapolating anything more from that data is just speculation. And boy-o-boy, there's a lot of both pointless extrapolation and pointless speculation in this thread. Much as I predicted would happen way back on the first page. Mr Epeen That smacks of "hiding in the ambiguity", which is what happens in people find out that the thing they've been claiming can't be proved. It happens all the time, people make a claim about something they couldn't possibly know about (in this case, you'd have to personally know thousands of people to know exactly why they quit) a claim usually seated completely in their own biases, and when some authority (of people actually studying the situation) says "we don't know for sure, but signs point to no", all they here is "we don't know). Tel me honestly, if Rise had said the opposite (ie" we don't know for sure, but it looks like ganking does chase people from the game"), how would the people refuting his report in it's entirety be responding? Would they be saying "well we don't know"? lol Rhetorical question as you and I both know the answer. The real truth here is that the 'think of the children' posters are the "social justice" types and they've just been told that the gross injustice around which their entire personalities revolve hasn't been proven (as it would have if it were near as bad as they thought it was) and probably isn't even true at all. That's why the backfire effect I mention exists in the 1st place, it's a defense mechanism against a crushing reality. I'll just respond to the underlined as the rest is moot. All I've claimed in this thread is that people are really good at twisting facts to suit their agenda. It can definitely be proved simply by reading the thread. As to you people with the agendas. You are welcome to try and prove you are not doing exactly what you are claiming everyone who doesn't agree with you is doing. I'll wait. Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10332	Posted - 2015.03.23 04:08:00 - [124] - Quote Mr Epeen wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Mr Epeen wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: And yet folks have been stating a conclusion ("griefing makes players quit!") for years on this forum. Griefing very well may make players quit. Just not in the first fifteen days according to that presentation. Extrapolating anything more from that data is just speculation. And boy-o-boy, there's a lot of both pointless extrapolation and pointless speculation in this thread. Much as I predicted would happen way back on the first page. Mr Epeen That smacks of "hiding in the ambiguity", which is what happens in people find out that the thing they've been claiming can't be proved. It happens all the time, people make a claim about something they couldn't possibly know about (in this case, you'd have to personally know thousands of people to know exactly why they quit) a claim usually seated completely in their own biases, and when some authority (of people actually studying the situation) says "we don't know for sure, but signs point to no", all they here is "we don't know). Tel me honestly, if Rise had said the opposite (ie" we don't know for sure, but it looks like ganking does chase people from the game"), how would the people refuting his report in it's entirety be responding? Would they be saying "well we don't know"? lol Rhetorical question as you and I both know the answer. The real truth here is that the 'think of the children' posters are the "social justice" types and they've just been told that the gross injustice around which their entire personalities revolve hasn't been proven (as it would have if it were near as bad as they thought it was) and probably isn't even true at all. That's why the backfire effect I mention exists in the 1st place, it's a defense mechanism against a crushing reality. I'll just respond to the underlined as the rest is moot. All I've claimed in this thread is that people are really good at twisting facts to suit their agenda. It can definitely be proved simply by reading the thread. As to you people with the agendas. You are welcome to try and prove you are not doing exactly what you are claiming everyone who doesn't agree with you is doing. I'll wait. Mr Epeen And there is that dishonest streak again. I made the mistake of giving you the benefit of the doubt again even after all these years of seeing with my own eyes how you tend to respond. I won't make that mistake again, so thanks.
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 8062	Posted - 2015.03.23 04:10:15 - [125] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Mr Epeen wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Mr Epeen wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: And yet folks have been stating a conclusion ("griefing makes players quit!") for years on this forum. Griefing very well may make players quit. Just not in the first fifteen days according to that presentation. Extrapolating anything more from that data is just speculation. And boy-o-boy, there's a lot of both pointless extrapolation and pointless speculation in this thread. Much as I predicted would happen way back on the first page. Mr Epeen That smacks of "hiding in the ambiguity", which is what happens in people find out that the thing they've been claiming can't be proved. It happens all the time, people make a claim about something they couldn't possibly know about (in this case, you'd have to personally know thousands of people to know exactly why they quit) a claim usually seated completely in their own biases, and when some authority (of people actually studying the situation) says "we don't know for sure, but signs point to no", all they here is "we don't know). Tel me honestly, if Rise had said the opposite (ie" we don't know for sure, but it looks like ganking does chase people from the game"), how would the people refuting his report in it's entirety be responding? Would they be saying "well we don't know"? lol Rhetorical question as you and I both know the answer. The real truth here is that the 'think of the children' posters are the "social justice" types and they've just been told that the gross injustice around which their entire personalities revolve hasn't been proven (as it would have if it were near as bad as they thought it was) and probably isn't even true at all. That's why the backfire effect I mention exists in the 1st place, it's a defense mechanism against a crushing reality. I'll just respond to the underlined as the rest is moot. All I've claimed in this thread is that people are really good at twisting facts to suit their agenda. It can definitely be proved simply by reading the thread. As to you people with the agendas. You are welcome to try and prove you are not doing exactly what you are claiming everyone who doesn't agree with you is doing. I'll wait. Mr Epeen And there is that dishonest streak again. I made the mistake of giving you the benefit of the doubt again even after all these years of seeing with my own eyes how you tend to respond. I won't make that mistake again, so thanks. Hmmm. Deflection. Interesting. Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 555	Posted - 2015.03.23 04:18:56 - [126] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: The report shows nothing about the value of ganking/wardeccs/awoxxing, etc... All these things do is encourage social isolation and boredom in highsec. In your opinion. Although I am in a one man tax evasion corp and mainly play solo I extensively socialise with others, including those that see the playstyle I partake in as that of prey. You on the other hand are a social pariah. Oh Jonah, welcome back friend. We have missed your 1 man personal attack and forum rule breaking show. Well played, sir.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 23319	Posted - 2015.03.23 04:21:40 - [127] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Oh Jonah, welcome back friend. We have missed your 1 man personal attack and forum rule breaking show. Well played, sir. Kindly point out where I've broken the forum rules or personally attacked you. I don't know anybody amongst my ingame friends, PvE and PvP players alike that would associate with you willingly, that makes you a social pariah as far as I'm concerned. Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10332	Posted - 2015.03.23 04:22:54 - [128] - Quote I won't be replying to you again after this, I promise you that (real promise, not an internet one lol), but: Mr Epeen wrote: I'll just respond to the underlined as the rest is moot. --snip-- Hmmm. Deflection. Interesting. You're unbelievable, and you should honestly be ashamed.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12241	Posted - 2015.03.23 04:40:56 - [129] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: That smacks of "hiding in the ambiguity", which is what happens in people find out that the thing they've been claiming can't be proved. The best part is that he immediately moves to demanding proof from other people, while maintaining his long standing lie. This Fanfest revelation is delightful. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Sibyyl Gallente Federation 24052	Posted - 2015.03.23 04:45:51 - [130] - Quote Let's talk about two points people have brought up. Quote: 1. The 15-day window is not long enough to speculate on negative effects ganking may have to player retention. We know that 40% of players <30 days are already missioning and mining. Likely the other 50% that quit too also have hit missioning and mining because it constitutes the bulk of NPE activities. These two activities are also 2 of the 3 big targets for ganking (the 3rd being hauling). Also, training into a Venture takes minutes (an easy accomplishment for a <15 day pilot). Why do we think the 1% gank kill ratio will change for players >15 days and <3-6 months? It doesn't make sense to me that this statistic would change. CCP kicks a player out of Rookie Chat after 30 days. Why would data for >1 month players be useful for this discussion? If these players quit because of ganking, is it possible that they are partially responsible for not reading up on a library of gank mitigation literature on the internet, or for not joining a community like Anti-Ganking and asking some questions? Quote: 2. CCP is only factoring in data filled out by the player when they manually unsubscribe (ie: reason for quitting). This is not enough to make any conclusion, because most players will just quit and not fill in a reason to let CCP know why they quit. 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. #afkleadership Gü+Gü+Gü+ -óß¦ªß¦ç-ó Gü+Gü+Gü+ EVE:Valkyrie pilot unmasked (her name is Ran)

Mr Epeen It's All About Me 8063	Posted - 2015.03.23 04:58:43 - [131] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: That smacks of "hiding in the ambiguity", which is what happens in people find out that the thing they've been claiming can't be proved. The best part is that he immediately moves to demanding proof from other people, while maintaining his long standing lie. This Fanfest revelation is delightful. Long standing lie? Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 35001	Posted - 2015.03.23 05:00:20 - [132] - Quote Sibyyl wrote: 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. Nope, you are perfectly correct as always. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Benny Ohu Chaotic Tranquility Warp to Cyno. 4348	Posted - 2015.03.23 05:14:48 - [133] - Quote Sibyyl wrote: Again, if I am misconstruing something here I hope someone will correct me. also people are making an enormous assumption when they suggest that most people don't fill in the form ... in response to a speech where ccp rise was talking about the dangers of making assumptions seriously, the stats in the op was given as part of a talk about how important it is to get good data
Scira Crimson Scira Crimson Corporation 9	Posted - 2015.03.23 07:01:32 - [134] - Quote Serene Repose wrote: Look. To do noob stats you have to consider - We get WoW refugees who think they're God's gift to gaming. They're gonna be real smart and head right off into null sec and show them "wannabees" what a real gamer can do! Why, all this talk about EVE being hard is the whining of people who suck at gaming. I'm a BIG DOG in WoW. I'll be one HERE, TOO. They click that warning pop up, jump into that system and last all of about five seconds. THEN, back they come to the starter system begging for ISK. There's a lot of these ... people. Counting their losses is more of a mental health issue than a state of our game issue. . You must be an extremly ignorant person and elitest. People like this are the most ugliest in EVE online. I did not play WoW, but I guess you are one of those who mock other people after they jump into a gatecamp and then say: "haha you noob, learn to EVE, blablabla" Not understanding that there are indeed questionable game mechanics which are plain unfair and beginner unfriendly.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 729	Posted - 2015.03.23 10:10:58 - [135] - Quote Benny Ohu wrote: Sibyyl wrote: Again, if I am misconstruing something here I hope someone will correct me. also people are making an enormous assumption when they suggest that most people don't fill in the form ... in response to a speech where ccp rise was talking about the dangers of making assumptions seriously, the stats in the op was given as part of a talk about how important it is to get good data This is one of the most interesting thing about this thread. CCP's Rise's talk was titled "Using Science to Help Newbros" where he was discussing the rational and empirical approach they are using to revamp the NPE. The entire point of him using the suicide ganking example was to show how the general assumption of the players (and perhaps even devs) that suicide ganking was bad for new players was wrong. Yet you have people here going on about how the the data is wrong or useless and how suicide ganking is a primary cause of new players leaving despite CCP Rise's directly saying this is not the case, and yet these deniers have no facts whatever. Basically they are taking the position that a lead CCP game designer is lying to them. Sure, there are some valid points been made that the few statistics presented don't tell the whole story. Perhaps players may leave the game some months after starting after getting ganked, or later when they hear of other players losing ships and deciding this game isn't for them (although CCP has this data). But certainly the data are compelling that isolating players from the sandbox is actually bad for player retention, and that the number of players 'rage-quiting' because they lost their stuff is so low it is not worth considering. So whether or not you think CCP Rise's analysis of true new players holds for the few-month-old players, this observation certainly throws cold water on the notion that we should be 'bubble-wrapping' the new players to isolate them from any conflict in the sandbox. Increasing safety in highsec decreases player interaction and as seen in Rise's data, that leads to players quitting at a higher rate. On reflection that makes perfect sense. CCP is not selling a single-player missioning game as evidenced by the amount of work (near zero) spent on improving missions over the last few years. Eve's real attraction is the sandbox and the player interactions that the sandbox facilitates so it makes no sense to isolate new players, or allow established players to isolate themselves from the sandbox. That friends is the path to boredom and another unsubscription. But some people are resistant to change their views and they will come here and deny the facts no matter how much data CCP provides. Thankfully that doesn't matter. CCP has the data and CCP will make the decisions to the future of the game.
ISD Decoy ISD Community Communications Liaisons 437	Posted - 2015.03.23 14:13:13 - [136] - Quote I have removed several off-topic, trolling, or disrespectful posts and those quoting them. Please stay on topic if you want to participate. Not every thread needs to dilute into poo flinging. Quote: 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. 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. 27. Off-topic posting is prohibited. Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster. ISD Decoy Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
flakeys Arkham Innovations 2766	Posted - 2015.03.23 15:18:42 - [137] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Mr Epeen wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: And yet folks have been stating a conclusion ("griefing makes players quit!") for years on this forum. Griefing very well may make players quit. Just not in the first fifteen days according to that presentation. Extrapolating anything more from that data is just speculation. And boy-o-boy, there's a lot of both pointless extrapolation and pointless speculation in this thread. Much as I predicted would happen way back on the first page. Mr Epeen That smacks of "hiding in the ambiguity", which is what happens in people find out that the thing they've been claiming can't be proved. It happens all the time, people make a claim about something they couldn't possibly know about (in this case, you'd have to personally know thousands of people to know exactly why they quit) a claim usually seated completely in their own biases, and when some authority (of people actually studying the situation) says "we don't know for sure, but signs point to no", all they here is "we don't know). Tel me honestly, if Rise had said the opposite (ie" we don't know for sure, but it looks like ganking does chase people from the game"), how would the people refuting his report in it's entirety be responding? Would they be saying "well we don't know"? lol Rhetorical question as you and I both know the answer. The real truth here is that the 'think of the children' posters are the "social justice" types and they've just been told that the gross injustice around which their entire personalities revolve hasn't been proven (as it would have if it were near as bad as they thought it was) and probably isn't even true at all. That's why the backfire effect I mention exists in the 1st place, it's a defense mechanism against a crushing reality. If you keep insisting on seeing this data as being complete then fine , let's pretend it is. From this perfect data we can see that of all the pilots 1 % got ganked.Of all the pilots1% stated they quit the game because of ship loss or harassment . There you go , so we can asses that everyone who got ganked did quit. Now tell me again this data is not incomplete enough to draw any decent conclusion as to what extent ganking has meaning on players leaving the game.You can twist and turn this data to how it suits your own view and as such it is incomplete data. We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10351	Posted - 2015.03.23 15:55:47 - [138] - Quote flakeys wrote: If you keep insisting on seeing this data as being complete then fine , let's pretend it is. Go back and link the post where I said anyhting about complete data. You know that's a lie right? Quote: From this perfect data we can see that of all the pilots 1 % got ganked.Of all the pilots1% stated they quit the game because of ship loss or harassment . There you go , so we can asses that everyone who got ganked did quit. Are you serious? you do know that one "1%" was pilots of the 80k group they studied and the other "1%" was about account holders who commented in the exit survey. You know those two things are different and that the actual numbers involved in each is wildly different right? I mean come on, either your trolling or {insert stuff here that, while true, might get me banned for saying it}. Quote: Now tell me again this data is not incomplete enough to draw any decent conclusion as to what extent ganking has meaning on players leaving the game.You can twist and turn this data to how it suits your own view and as such it is incomplete data. That's...truly unbelievable.
Commander Spurty Dimension Door We need wards. 1439	Posted - 2015.03.23 17:03:25 - [139] - Quote When I was a n00b, I jumped into low sec and died. That interaction, where I read the warnings and accepted the risk and paid dearly for it, that sealed the fate of my subscription (almost 10 years ago now). No one picked on me though. I'm 200% positive if I just lost my ship with zero warnings I'd be a level 55 Thunderclap wizard in another game. There are good ships And wood ships And ships that sail the sea But the best ships are Spaceships Built by CCP
Spurty Dimension Door We need wards. 1439	Posted - 2015.03.23 17:03:25 - [140] - Quote When I was a n00b, I jumped into low sec and died. That interaction, where I read the warnings and accepted the risk and paid dearly for it, that sealed the fate of my subscription (almost 10 years ago now). No one picked on me though. I'm 200% positive if I just lost my ship with zero warnings I'd be a level 55 Thunderclap wizard in another game. There are good ships And wood ships And ships that sail the sea But the best ships are Spaceships Built by CCP

Gaellia Bonaventure Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 2921	Posted - 2015.03.23 17:31:30 - [141] - Quote It's cute how people argue about an economic simulator. Bring your possibles.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 1152	Posted - 2015.03.23 17:40:37 - [142] - Quote Scira Crimson wrote: Serene Repose wrote: Look. To do noob stats you have to consider - We get WoW refugees who think they're God's gift to gaming. . You must be an extremly ignorant person and elitest. People like this are the most ugliest in EVE online. I am an elitist. I often rhetorically ask, "Do you believe in evolution?" then with some sort of agreement I follow on with, "Then why do we ensure that the dim and feeble not only live but also *breed? " The Internet, when it was young, was my erudite haven and with the advent of AOL and W.aste o.f W.eb it has become severly watered down. That said, I don't yell out at some newbie how clueless they are like some* people. (I can't think of an animal sufficient for this analogy). Most recently, some of the Brave players have received fits mailed to them unrequested along with a little guidance, they are probably not the best but they are a step up. There are some regular others though, who think they know best and are as big a jerk as they can be, whom I take every opportunity to rub every loss into their emotional wounds like salt. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp Vae. Victis. 6174	Posted - 2015.03.23 17:43:31 - [143] - Quote Scira Crimson wrote: Serene Repose wrote: Look. To do noob stats you have to consider - We get WoW refugees who think they're God's gift to gaming. They're gonna be real smart and head right off into null sec and show them "wannabees" what a real gamer can do! Why, all this talk about EVE being hard is the whining of people who suck at gaming. I'm a BIG DOG in WoW. I'll be one HERE, TOO. They click that warning pop up, jump into that system and last all of about five seconds. THEN, back they come to the starter system begging for ISK. There's a lot of these ... people. Counting their losses is more of a mental health issue than a state of our game issue. . You must be an extremly ignorant person and elitest. People like this are the most ugliest in EVE online. I did not play WoW, but I guess you are one of those who mock other people after they jump into a gatecamp and then say: "haha you noob, learn to EVE, blablabla" Not understanding that there are indeed questionable game mechanics which are plain unfair and beginner unfriendly. Btw.: Last time I lost my implants because I got smartbombed by one single Battleship. I wasnt in Pod only btw. Yes, I could have totally outplayed it. (Well, actually I could really have outplayed it, but its rather "outlamed" it by making annoying safe spots and slowboating) The game mechanics are fine, even for new players. What may be lacking is clear conveyance of what those game mechanics are to newer players. If they know, and still get destroyed, that's on them... not "unfair game mechanics". View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp Vae. Victis. 6175	Posted - 2015.03.23 17:49:44 - [144] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: flakeys wrote: If you keep insisting on seeing this data as being complete then fine , let's pretend it is. Go back and link the post where I said anyhting about complete data. You know that's a lie right? Quote: From this perfect data we can see that of all the pilots 1 % got ganked.Of all the pilots1% stated they quit the game because of ship loss or harassment . There you go , so we can asses that everyone who got ganked did quit. Are you serious? you do know that one "1%" was pilots of the 80k group they studied and the other "1%" was about account holders who commented in the exit survey. You know those two things are different and that the actual numbers involved in each is wildly different right? I mean come on, either your trolling or {insert stuff here that, while true, might get me banned for saying it}. Quote: Now tell me again this data is not incomplete enough to draw any decent conclusion as to what extent ganking has meaning on players leaving the game.You can twist and turn this data to how it suits your own view and as such it is incomplete data. That's...truly unbelievable. You see, he's leaving out the fact that to twist and turn those statistics you need to first be prepared to ignore the text that actually defines what those statistics are and how they were gathered. View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 1152	Posted - 2015.03.23 17:51:11 - [145] - Quote Ranger 1 wrote: The game mechanics are fine, even for new players. What may be lacking is clear conveyance of what those game mechanics are to newer players. If they know, and still get destroyed, that's on them... not "unfair game mechanics". The only time I have taken active vengence on someone in EVE was a newbie farmer. Day in and day out he would do it. (Not going to describe how because I don't want to spread this method around). A friend I later met and I tore his alliance apart and it was easy because it was where the maggots gather. However, years later he stil plays the game. I will probably take the opportunity to hunt and gank him at some point. Point being that the mechanics can't be too restrictive but they could do with some balancing. The sly have many opportunities that they tend to run with just one tactic where a full strategy could be devastating. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp Vae. Victis. 6175	Posted - 2015.03.23 18:03:45 - [146] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Ranger 1 wrote: The game mechanics are fine, even for new players. What may be lacking is clear conveyance of what those game mechanics are to newer players. If they know, and still get destroyed, that's on them... not "unfair game mechanics". The only time I have taken active vengence on someone in EVE was a newbie farmer. Day in and day out he would do it. (Not going to describe how because I don't want to spread this method around). A friend I later met and I tore his alliance apart and it was easy because it was where the maggots gather. However, years later he stil plays the game. I will probably take the opportunity to hunt and gank him at some point. Point being that the mechanics can't be too restrictive but they could do with some balancing. The sly have many opportunities that they tend to run with just one tactic where a full strategy could be devastating. Well, there are many ways to gank a newbie, however most of them rely on the fact that the new player doesn't have a good grasp of the game mechanics yet or how to avoid having it happen. That being said, whether new or a veteran, even armed with that knowledge many people are too lazy to take the easy steps necessary to avoid being ganked... and that's perfectly fine. That's just human nature, not an indicator that the game mechanics need to be revised. The only thing necessary is to make sure that the correct information is readily available to new players right off the bat, and that they are aware of exactly what things they need to know to survive and thrive... and where to learn it. View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 1152	Posted - 2015.03.23 18:43:24 - [147] - Quote Ranger 1 wrote: ... The only thing necessary is to make sure that the correct information is readily available to new players right off the bat, and that they are aware of exactly what things they need to know to survive and thrive... and where to learn it. I do agree up to a point, however, there is "information overload," which is why I suggested the newbie area. They will be messing about with people their own skill level, no penalties, free stuff, gives them a feel for the game's combat mechanics, whether that is getting wiped out or not is up to them. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Petre en Thielles Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 97	Posted - 2015.03.23 18:57:38 - [148] - Quote Ganking, awoxing, and the general brutal nature of the game is why I quit after a week the first time I tried to start playing. It is also a big part of the reason why I have now been playing for years, once I accepted/embraced EVE for what it is. Face it, if this was the type of game that wasn't complex/brutal enough to drive some people away, would we really still be playing?
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 1152	Posted - 2015.03.23 19:03:26 - [149] - Quote Petre en Thielles wrote: ... Face it, if this was the type of game that wasn't complex/brutal enough to drive some people away, would we really still be playing? Probably not. However, EVE isn't a sand box - it is a sand dune. Some kids have ropes and are trying to pull newbies to the top, some just watch them struggle and others throw sand down onto them and try cause avalanches. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Petre en Thielles Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 97	Posted - 2015.03.23 19:12:40 - [150] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Probably not. However, EVE isn't a sand box - it is a sand dune. Some kids have ropes and are trying to pull newbies to the top, some just watch them struggle and others throw sand down onto them and try cause avalanches. I understand what you are saying 100%, but in a way that is what makes it work so well. I remember like yesterday when the turning point was for me. I was bored with mining in my starter system, jumped in a rifter and flew to low sec for the first time. My heart was pounding, I was scared/excited....and I was blown up in about 2 minutes. No message from him, no mercy, just dead/podded. I immediately went back to 1.0 sec status mining. A week later, I was bored again, took a retriever into low sec and started mining. Second time ever in low sec. Yet again, I was destroyed in a few minutes. This time, however, the two guys who killed me sent me opened a channel and asked if I was new. When I said yes, they spent 45 minutes explaining the game, everything from simple renaming ships to d-scan to dotlan, etc...When they saw me listening, thanking them for the advice, they invited me to join their corp. They had to explain what a corp was.... That is when I was hooked. Seeing those two extremes of types of people in the game drew me in, and I have been playing for years since then. I know it is tough on new players, and we often forget how tough it is, but I am not sure I want it easier. Getting through the painful learning process is part of what makes it a great game.

Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10360	Posted - 2015.03.23 19:43:13 - [151] - Quote Petre en Thielles wrote: Ganking, awoxing, and the general brutal nature of the game is why I quit after a week the first time I tried to start playing. It is also a big part of the reason why I have now been playing for years, once I accepted/embraced EVE for what it is. Face it, if this was the type of game that wasn't complex/brutal enough to drive some people away, would we really still be playing? A lot of times people don't really understand even their own motivations (or they do and don't like them). I'm reminded of the old bad joke about the guy who was terrible to his wife despite her begging him to be better. For years he was a world class a-hole, and yet his wife stayed by his side (nagging a bit, but staying). One day he got into a accident and almost died, and in the hospital he realized what an A-hole he had been and pledged to himself to be a better husband. And when he got out, he did just that, he was a real husband and a real man for the 1st time in his life. And a week later his wife took her things and left while he was out buying her flowers, leaving him a note saying "you've been great this last week....but you're just not the man I fell in love with, bye". Without the harsh players and the gankers and scammers and CODE and Goons the most strident "space-social-justice" types would have no way to claim "good guy status" and would be gone to the next open world sandbox game just like that. I play Star Trek Online from time to time and all of the EVE refugees who "just couldn't take the a-holes no more!!" don't play sto anymore, but you see them in EVE lol.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 1152	Posted - 2015.03.23 19:58:29 - [152] - Quote - I have ganked gate campers. - I have hot dropped. Those are too easy and I scorn them. Before you say it is a bear thing: - I have killed hot droppers. The only time PVP really kicks in and I care is when it is a bunch of guys I like in a 10-15 vs 10-15 where the fight can go either way. Where your actions have measurable impacts on the outcome. If are clearly overwhelmed, I would rather warp off somewhere and self destruct to spite them. If we clearly are going to wipe them out then I get not satisfaction. So, NO. I could happily this game without the twits. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4203	Posted - 2015.03.23 20:08:35 - [153] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Some kids have ropes and are trying to pull newbies to the top, some just watch them struggle and others throw sand down onto them and try cause avalanches. Don't forget the ones trying to sell snowshoes to newbies. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Petre en Thielles Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 102	Posted - 2015.03.23 20:17:00 - [154] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: A lot of times people don't really understand even their own motivations (or they do and don't like them). I'm reminded of the old bad joke about the guy who was terrible to his wife despite her begging him to be better. For years he was a world class a-hole, and yet his wife stayed by his side (nagging a bit, but staying). One day he got into a accident and almost died, and in the hospital he realized what an A-hole he had been and pledged to himself to be a better husband. And when he got out, he did just that, he was a real husband and a real man for the 1st time in his life. And a week later his wife took her things and left while he was out buying her flowers, leaving him a note saying "you've been great this last week....but you're just not the man I fell in love with, bye". Without the harsh players and the gankers and scammers and CODE and Goons the most strident "space-social-justice" types would have no way to claim "good guy status" and would be gone to the next open world sandbox game just like that. I play Star Trek Online from time to time and all of the EVE refugees who "just couldn't take the a-holes no more!!" don't play sto anymore, but you see them in EVE lol. I will second this by using CODE as an example. I talk **** about them both on the forums and in game, but honestly I absolutely love to hate them. Hating them is a lot of fun, and I would be extremely disappointed if they weren't in the game.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 1152	Posted - 2015.03.23 20:21:25 - [155] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Some kids have ropes and are trying to pull newbies to the top, some just watch them struggle and others throw sand down onto them and try cause avalanches. Don't forget the ones trying to sell snowshoes to newbies. Hehehehehehee CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 555	Posted - 2015.03.24 04:06:27 - [156] - Quote The retention problems aren't due to lack of griefing or ganking, they are due to a lack of direction for new players. They drift in the game, try to make a corp, get wardecced into oblivion, and quit. There is no natural transition to incursions, L4s, etc...
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12261	Posted - 2015.03.24 04:12:59 - [157] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: The retention problems aren't due to lack of griefing or ganking, they are due to a lack of direction for new players. They drift in the game, try to make a corp, get wardecced into oblivion, and quit. There is no natural transition to incursions, L4s, etc... Literally everything you just said is false. The people who get ganked have the highest retention rates. So clearly, it's forcing new players into mining and missioning that is the true "griefing" here. Why do you hate new players? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 555	Posted - 2015.03.24 04:29:04 - [158] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: The retention problems aren't due to lack of griefing or ganking, they are due to a lack of direction for new players. They drift in the game, try to make a corp, get wardecced into oblivion, and quit. There is no natural transition to incursions, L4s, etc... Literally everything you just said is false. The people who get ganked have the highest retention rates. So clearly, it's forcing new players into mining and missioning that is the true "griefing" here. Why do you hate new players? Right now only the people looking for bloodshed and nullsec powerblocs stay in the game. The people who want collaborative play cant be in a highsec war due to wardeccs, and quit the game. So yes, the folks who like ganking (a small percentage), stay, while the multitudes looking for a functional highsec head for the exits.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10374	Posted - 2015.03.24 04:37:59 - [159] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: The retention problems aren't due to lack of griefing or ganking, they are due to a lack of direction for new players. They drift in the game, try to make a corp, get wardecced into oblivion, and quit. There is no natural transition to incursions, L4s, etc... Literally everything you just said is false. The people who get ganked have the highest retention rates. So clearly, it's forcing new players into mining and missioning that is the true "griefing" here. Why do you hate new players? Right now only the people looking for bloodshed and nullsec powerblocs stay in the game. The people who want collaborative play cant be in a highsec war due to wardeccs, and quit the game. So yes, the folks who like ganking (a small percentage), stay, while the multitudes looking for a functional highsec head for the exits. That's a lie. And I mean that, it's an actual intentional untruth, because YOU are here and look at the posters like you. And I'm here and while I am part of a null sec alliance, I'm mostly pve. Despite what you let yourself think, the divide isn't "killers and collaborative people", it's weak willed people (too weak to deal with competition and such, thus they quit) and stronger willed people (whether they pvp or not) who don't let anything stop them from getting what they want. This game should never try to cater to the weak willed types, it should remain a game that says "you can do as you wish, pvp, pve, industry, but you have to WANT it, this isn't your average hand holding "everyone is special and everyone gets an award" type game.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 555	Posted - 2015.03.24 04:44:40 - [160] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: That's a lie. And I mean that, it's an actual intentional untruth, because YOU are here and look at the posters like you. And I'm here and while I am part of a null sec alliance, I'm mostly pve. Despite what you let yourself think, the divide isn't "killers and collaborative people", it's weak willed people (too weak to deal with competition and such, thus they quit) and stronger willed people (whether they pvp or not) who don't let anything stop them from getting what they want. This game should never try to cater to the weak willed types, it should remain a game that says "you can do as you wish, pvp, pve, industry, but you have to WANT it, this isn't your average hand holding "everyone is special and everyone gets an award" type game. Well I almost quit out of boredom, after running L4s solo in a crummy maelstrom. The game offered no guidance about getting into incursions, group PvE, nullsec, etc... In fact the wardecc mechanics actively encouraged social isolation and boredom. Talk about broken. This game should not be just for those who seek to be part of nullsec politics. There should absolutely be the ability for new players to form a casual highsec PvE corp without getting beating into the ground by Marmite. The inability to do that leads to social isolation, boredom and quitting. We need a game for everyone, not just a few diehards.

Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 35047	Posted - 2015.03.24 05:00:51 - [161] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: The game offered no guidance about getting into incursions, group PvE, nullsec, etc... That's where other players come in to assist, because those are activities where there is no one pathway that can be spelled out. There are multiple ways into those activities and it just takes a bit of initiative, which the game rewards immensely because most players will welcome other people willing to do their bit to help/support. Taking initiative isn't something everyone does naturally. It takes effort for some people, but it's not up to the game to hold hands. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Benny Ohu Chaotic Tranquility Warp to Cyno. 4352	Posted - 2015.03.24 12:05:15 - [162] - Quote i can see that rise's point was completely lost on veers
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10375	Posted - 2015.03.24 12:21:38 - [163] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: That's a lie. And I mean that, it's an actual intentional untruth, because YOU are here and look at the posters like you. And I'm here and while I am part of a null sec alliance, I'm mostly pve. Despite what you let yourself think, the divide isn't "killers and collaborative people", it's weak willed people (too weak to deal with competition and such, thus they quit) and stronger willed people (whether they pvp or not) who don't let anything stop them from getting what they want. This game should never try to cater to the weak willed types, it should remain a game that says "you can do as you wish, pvp, pve, industry, but you have to WANT it, this isn't your average hand holding "everyone is special and everyone gets an award" type game. Well I almost quit out of boredom, after running L4s solo in a crummy maelstrom. The game offered no guidance about getting into incursions, group PvE, nullsec, etc... And that's a big point. You were someone who needed "guidance" in a sandbox. Sandbox games are ones where some level of initiative and self starting behavior is necessary, and since most people (especially gamers) don't have a lot of that (which is why most MMOs are directed 'themeparks'), they find themselves in your posistion. The problem is, rather than look inward at the problem, you and folks like you look outward to find out "where someone else failed". People who find a way to turn that attitude around end up much happier, in game and out. Quote: In fact the wardecc mechanics actively encouraged social isolation and boredom. Talk about broken. This game should not be just for those who seek to be part of nullsec politics. There should absolutely be the ability for new players to form a casual highsec PvE corp without getting beating into the ground by Marmite. The inability to do that leads to social isolation, boredom and quitting. We need a game for everyone, not just a few diehards. Nothing is stopping anyone from doing anything, even marmite, however any organization that gets big is going to be a target, because that's the game part of this game. And if you were honest with yourself, you'd know that without the Marmites and Goons and CODEs of EVE you wouldn't be here either. You need them every bit as much as they need targets as evidence by how much you post against them. "Crusaders" love to pretend that, if things were just 'right' everything would be ok, and they could kick back, and relax because there is no injustice , non inequality to be fought against. The real truth is that those things define the crusaders, without them, without an enemy to rally against, they have no reason to exist, they be soldiers without a war, cops without criminals. What's irritating about all that is that the crusader never ever realizes it and looks at those of us who are actually happy enough with the world (virtual or other wise) as the demented ones.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10375	Posted - 2015.03.24 12:28:11 - [164] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: The game offered no guidance about getting into incursions, group PvE, nullsec, etc... That's where other players come in to assist, because those are activities where there is no one pathway that can be spelled out. Exactly. Even more to the point, if he really believed what he was saying, he would ACT. he would form a group for the purpose of helping new players, he would teach them how to survive in the world of Marmites and Goons and whatever. But what he actually does is spends his time ranting on a fourm about how someone else (CCP) should do it while making internal excuses about how individuals like him can't do it (as if EVE university, RvB and Brave amongst others are illusions lol). Anyone else ever notice that the loudest 'think of the new players/little guy' advocates are also the least likely to actually help new players while folks like Goons are throwing new players into the null meat grinder thus aiding actual player retention? Hell, look at what Rise said, the people they studied stays longest if they got ganked (meaning people like CODE are more valuable to the game in terms of player retention that any number of Veers types are) I'd call that Irony but that word isn't strong enough to describe this situation lol.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10375	Posted - 2015.03.24 12:33:08 - [165] - Quote Petre en Thielles wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: A lot of times people don't really understand even their own motivations (or they do and don't like them). I'm reminded of the old bad joke about the guy who was terrible to his wife despite her begging him to be better. For years he was a world class a-hole, and yet his wife stayed by his side (nagging a bit, but staying). One day he got into a accident and almost died, and in the hospital he realized what an A-hole he had been and pledged to himself to be a better husband. And when he got out, he did just that, he was a real husband and a real man for the 1st time in his life. And a week later his wife took her things and left while he was out buying her flowers, leaving him a note saying "you've been great this last week....but you're just not the man I fell in love with, bye". Without the harsh players and the gankers and scammers and CODE and Goons the most strident "space-social-justice" types would have no way to claim "good guy status" and would be gone to the next open world sandbox game just like that. I play Star Trek Online from time to time and all of the EVE refugees who "just couldn't take the a-holes no more!!" don't play sto anymore, but you see them in EVE lol. I will second this by using CODE as an example. I talk **** about them both on the forums and in game, but honestly I absolutely love to hate them. Hating them is a lot of fun, and I would be extremely disappointed if they weren't in the game. That just means you and I have the ability to be honest about it. I've been fighting Goons since 2008. Though I can't take REAL credit, I will say that TEST and Goons were blue as blue could get....till I joined TEST , next ting you kow, Fountain War (lol and yes I know i had nothing to do with it, just personally find it funny as hell). My game experience would have been a lot less enjoyable without Goons or someone like them. The people who try to 'meta-game' away people they don't like (by lobbying CCP to change the game so that they will leave) are the same people who ignorantly believe that a soccer match would be so much fun if the other team didn't show up lol. in reality, a match where the other team doesn't show up is just called "practice'
Trajan Unknown Caldari Provisions Caldari State 5	Posted - 2015.03.24 12:57:40 - [166] - Quote This thread was a really nice read so far, thanks for the good reading time that helped me overcome downloading 13GB of EvE client. That being said, I like to totally 2nd that you need stuff like CODE because it spices up the game. I mean, hate the fact that you lost your hauler but don-¦t try to get rid of CODE. And no I am not someone who likes CODE I am rather disappointed since they never made me sweat during my relocate (close to 600jumps through high-sec) where I broke every rule of hauling at some point. Bad CODE! :D :P
Petre en Thielles Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 108	Posted - 2015.03.24 14:29:18 - [167] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: We need a game for everyone, not just a few diehards. "I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." Jenn aSide wrote: That just means you and I have the ability to be honest about it. I've been fighting Goons since 2008. Though I can't take REAL credit, I will say that TEST and Goons were blue as blue could get....till I joined TEST , next ting you kow, Fountain War (lol and yes I know i had nothing to do with it, just personally find it funny as hell). My game experience would have been a lot less enjoyable without Goons or someone like them. The people who try to 'meta-game' away people they don't like (by lobbying CCP to change the game so that they will leave) are the same people who ignorantly believe that a soccer match would be so much fun if the other team didn't show up lol. in reality, a match where the other team doesn't show up is just called "practice' What's the quote? "Without villains there can be no heroes?"
Aralyn Cormallen Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 913	Posted - 2015.03.24 14:43:17 - [168] - Quote Petre en Thielles wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: That just means you and I have the ability to be honest about it. I've been fighting Goons since 2008. Though I can't take REAL credit, I will say that TEST and Goons were blue as blue could get....till I joined TEST , next ting you kow, Fountain War (lol and yes I know i had nothing to do with it, just personally find it funny as hell). My game experience would have been a lot less enjoyable without Goons or someone like them. The people who try to 'meta-game' away people they don't like (by lobbying CCP to change the game so that they will leave) are the same people who ignorantly believe that a soccer match would be so much fun if the other team didn't show up lol. in reality, a match where the other team doesn't show up is just called "practice' What's the quote? "Without villains there can be no heroes?" Are we the baddies?
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10380	Posted - 2015.03.24 14:47:04 - [169] - Quote Petre en Thielles wrote: "I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." Truer words have never been typed, let alone spoken.
Serene Repose 2480	Posted - 2015.03.24 20:40:34 - [170] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Serene Repose wrote: Look who's taking scanty information and running with it like it's a revelation from on high. The most salient point made was (and of course you yourself say you missed this part) there is no conclusive information either way. There is no concrete evidence that "people" (as a category) who quit quit for a reason anyone can state. WHY? (That's just a three letter word, there.) Why? Because they didn't tell anybody and nobody asked them - as a category. Not enough data to claim there's a sample. YES, SOME of these players who quit have said why. Thousands of people have quit this game. Thousands of people were not asked why they quit. There is no sampling. There is no data. There is no conclusion. And yet folks have been stating a conclusion ("griefing makes players quit!") for years on this forum. Those of us without the "think of the children" agenda have been saying that for years do, telling people "you have no proof of that". And yet they (erm, YOU) persisted. So the end result is that their is not enough evidence to draw a conclusion, but the evidence that does exist points in the direction of "griefing/ganking does not cause people to quit". You can stay in denial all you like, it's your life to waste as you please, but one day you will come to realize that not only where you lying to yourself, but you were lying to yourself over a video game (and if you'll do that over a trivial matter, what does that portend for the rest of your like experiences?). When are you going to prove that load of bilge you keep typing? (I know it probably made all kinds of sense to you when you posted it.) I'm also betting a Cadillac against a Cooper Mini you completely lost track of what point I was making. It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to type on your keyboard and remove all doubt.

Pok Nibin Filial Pariahs 646	Posted - 2015.03.24 20:43:04 - [171] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Pok Nibin wrote: I know one of you insists he's operating with nothing but spotless integrity in this discussion, but reading that person's posts you see stuff like this. The report said they looked at the data and couldn't reach a conclusion. I think CCP should think twice before issuing another "report" like this. The report did exactly what it should have, proved that the people who were so sure about the effects of something they personally disliked were wrong. If greifing/ganking were as bad as the 'think of the children' crowd says, there would be conclusive evidence of the fact. As for 'spotless integrity', yes that's how I operate, because the day the need to lie about what happens in a video game (that matters not one bit in the grand scheme of things) is the day I stop playing all video games. I've said this before and I'll say it again, It's not my fault if some posters don't care for the truth in what we are discussing. It was a rhetorical question. I don't care what you think. You have NO proof ganking people makes them stay in the game. You also have NO PROOF ganking people doesn't make them QUIT. You're priceless. "If you torture people they'll love you." I'm not in an argument with you. I'm just reeling from how you think your "approach" to a discussion is so pristeen as to be above reproach. The right to free speech doesn't automatically carry with it the right to be taken seriously.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 739	Posted - 2015.03.24 21:20:44 - [172] - Quote Pok Nibin wrote: It was a rhetorical question. I don't care what you think. You have NO proof ganking people makes them stay in the game. You also have NO PROOF ganking people doesn't make them QUIT. You're priceless. "If you torture people they'll love you." I'm not in an argument with you. I'm just reeling from how you think your "approach" to a discussion is so pristeen as to be above reproach. Your issues with Jenn's tone aside, CCP Rise pretty much said both those things are true. He clearly said new players (<15 days) that are ganked are more likely to stay in the game than those not ganked. He also clearly said <1% of those unsubscribing tell CCP it is because of being ganked. That may not be absolute proof, but the word of a lead CCP developer is a close as anyone external is going to get without access to the proprietary data collected by CCP. You should try to put your preconceived notions aside and embrace science and rational thinking as was the subject of Rise's talk.
Sibyyl Gallente Federation 24113	Posted - 2015.03.24 21:31:51 - [173] - Quote People will hang onto their preconceived notions for dear life, even when presented the evidence otherwise. I had the same assumptions about "rookie" ganks as well but it is a special kind of delusion to see data and then completely disregard it because it puts your views into question. The arguments we see now are made with no sense of need to present any supporting data. It's as if someone's personal experience is the final answer to everything. It's dogma by definition. #afkleadership Gü+Gü+Gü+ -óß¦ªß¦ç-ó Gü+Gü+Gü+ EVE:Valkyrie pilot unmasked (her name is Ran)
Kaely Tanniss Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 283	Posted - 2015.03.24 21:32:08 - [174] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: That's a lie. And I mean that, it's an actual intentional untruth, because YOU are here and look at the posters like you. And I'm here and while I am part of a null sec alliance, I'm mostly pve. Despite what you let yourself think, the divide isn't "killers and collaborative people", it's weak willed people (too weak to deal with competition and such, thus they quit) and stronger willed people (whether they pvp or not) who don't let anything stop them from getting what they want. This game should never try to cater to the weak willed types, it should remain a game that says "you can do as you wish, pvp, pve, industry, but you have to WANT it, this isn't your average hand holding "everyone is special and everyone gets an award" type game. Well I almost quit out of boredom, after running L4s solo in a crummy maelstrom. The game offered no guidance about getting into incursions, group PvE, nullsec, etc... In fact the wardecc mechanics actively encouraged social isolation and boredom. Talk about broken. This game should not be just for those who seek to be part of nullsec politics. There should absolutely be the ability for new players to form a casual highsec PvE corp without getting beating into the ground by Marmite. The inability to do that leads to social isolation, boredom and quitting. We need a game for everyone, not just a few diehards. That is why the social aspect of the game is so important. You learn new things and do new things by having friends..by making yourself a part of the Eve community rather than alienating it. War decs teach new and old player a new path and new possiblities in Eve. It teaches that there is a lot more to Eve than shooting red X's and rocks. There is a plethora of options and possibilies available to ALL players of Eve if they are willing to search themout and be a part of something bigger than manufacturing isk. The game is about community...it is about fun. If you spend all of your time playing to make isk, it's just like a job. War is a part of life and a part of Eve. Little, if any, ever chose war. It is a fact of life and a fact of Eve every player needs to be prepared for. After all, you will not get stronger unless you face someone stronger. If your are risk averse, Eve may not be for you. To lose players that can't hack it in a game like Eve is not really a loss. To butcher the game to cater to those who can't hack it..is a loss. If I had a nickel for every time someone said women don't play eve, I'd have a bag of nickels to whack the next person who said it..
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 23347	Posted - 2015.03.24 21:53:25 - [175] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Well I almost quit out of boredom, after running L4s solo in a crummy maelstrom. The game offered no guidance about getting into incursions, group PvE, nullsec, etc... It's never too late to quit, can I have your stuff when you do? There's a reason it's called a sandbox game, unlike most games, Eve is not progression based, the game doesn't direct you to content, it's up to you to find it or make your own. Quote: In fact the wardecc mechanics actively encouraged social isolation and boredom. Talk about broken. This is your opinion, not a fact. I addressed this particular opinion elsewhere in this thread. If it was a fact then those people that socialise in public chat channels would be a figment of your imagination, which is worrying. Quote: This game should not be just for those who seek to be part of nullsec politics. There should absolutely be the ability for new players to form a casual highsec PvE corp without getting beating into the ground by Marmite. Good news, this is already the case. You're giving Marmite entirely too much credit, even if all the wardec corps, gankers, pirates and other belligerent undesirables of highsec declared peace and banded together it would still be possible for new players to form a casual highsec PvE corp without getting beating into the ground by Marmite. Quote: The inability to do that leads to social isolation, boredom and quitting. Your inability, not anybody elses. Quote: We need a game for everyone, not just a few diehards. If it attracts people such as yourself? No we don't. Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 156	Posted - 2015.03.24 22:02:56 - [176] - Quote Aren't those stats from the same person who said "these stats say Battleships are fine". Only for the reddit community to rip them apart to show something else.........funny thing stats.....specially when you already have an answer in mind and just need to mold the stats to fit.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 23348	Posted - 2015.03.24 22:05:43 - [177] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Aren't those stats from the same person who said "these stats say Battleships are fine". Only for the reddit community to rip them apart to show something else.........funny thing stats.....specially when you already have an answer in mind and just need to mold the stats to fit. Yeah, you didn't watch the presentation did you? CCP were as surprised at what the study revealed as at least 50% of the audience. Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Sibyyl Gallente Federation 24116	Posted - 2015.03.24 22:25:51 - [178] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Aren't those stats from the same person who said "these stats say Battleships are fine". Only for the reddit community to rip them apart to show something else.........funny thing stats.....specially when you already have an answer in mind and just need to mold the stats to fit. If you want to discredit Rise by throwing tomatoes, at least take the time to link the context. http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2xe2f0/are_battleships_really_irrelevant/ The people on Reddit make a good point that damage dealt, as a statistic on its own, is not a clear indicator of Battleships being the ships of choice for undocking. If you have an actual point to make about Rise's data in this thread, we are all waiting. #afkleadership Gü+Gü+Gü+ -óß¦ªß¦ç-ó Gü+Gü+Gü+ EVE:Valkyrie pilot unmasked (her name is Ran)
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 23348	Posted - 2015.03.24 23:09:15 - [179] - Quote [offtopic]Sibyyl I hope you took a screenshot of the red headed avatar you were sporting yesterday, it was cracking.[/offtopic] Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Sibyyl Gallente Federation 24116	Posted - 2015.03.24 23:27:29 - [180] - Quote Thanks Jonah. All my previous portrait experiments are linked in my sig. I think red Sibs is second or third row down.. #afkleadership Gü+Gü+Gü+ -óß¦ªß¦ç-ó Gü+Gü+Gü+ EVE:Valkyrie pilot unmasked (her name is Ran)

Ito Eto State War Academy Caldari State 4	Posted - 2015.03.24 23:59:30 - [181] - Quote CPP and fanfest's surprise is more of an reflection of confirmation bias than a reflection on the stats themselves. Young players (i would imagine) do not present a juicy enough target for most effective veteran gankers, you can harvest more tears from killing a barge than a velator with civilian miners on it. You can sit in quite heavily populated hisec systems for days and not see any suspects or crims, ganks are simply not as pervasive as they are presented, except in a few select systems. When they do happen they can be very high profile, kind of like real life media hysteria when a a child murder is committed, thankfully rare, but when it does happen, oh the wailing and gnashing of teeth! More relevant stats I'd like to see:- Value of last lost ship/assets lost prior to unsubscribing. All MMOs live off time/emotional investment if your investment is wiped out, it much easier to leave. Wardec status prior to, or during unsubscribing. Ive seen seen 2 ~20 man corps mass unsubscribe as a consequence of decs on newbro corps, which for many of the members basically meant drop corp or log-out for a week or longer with more persistent 'deccers. Unsubscribes at 3, 6 9 12 months. How long does it take for pilots to realize the perceived SP wall/pay-to-level mechanic. Are there viable methods to mitigate the SP wall without breaking eve or making it pay to win. Period since leaving a player corp and unsubbing. I think the "retention is poor in NPC corps" thing is a red herring, being in an NPC corp when unsubbing is a symptom not a cause. When I unsub I like to get my affairs in order and myself out of the corp to reduce disruption to my existing corp and my assets. I guess some are kicked from their corp due to inactivity/misconduct, then quit.
Lifelongnoob The Motley Crew Reborn 25	Posted - 2015.03.25 01:18:34 - [182] - Quote how many "newbie" accounts are actually new alt accounts for more experienced players.. hence why many dont die so easily
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 156	Posted - 2015.03.25 01:28:08 - [183] - Quote Lifelongnoob wrote: how many "newbie" accounts are actually new alt accounts for more experienced players.. hence why many dont die so easily As you can tell by the responses above the Rise groupies only have one thought....and that is what Rise tells them.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12276	Posted - 2015.03.25 01:33:30 - [184] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Lifelongnoob wrote: how many "newbie" accounts are actually new alt accounts for more experienced players.. hence why many dont die so easily As you can tell by the responses above the Rise groupies only have one thought....and that is what Rise tells them. Yeah, I certainly haven't been exceedingly critical of him a whole bunch of other times. But then there's you, who reject facts because they don't fit your narrative. That is a level of intellectual dishonesty that is rare to find in humans. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 1155	Posted - 2015.03.25 02:20:28 - [185] - Quote Hang on guys! I have this great idea on how to get some statistics on how bad technology is! Going to go ask the Amish what they think and hit them with a few quick questions, then run over to the next one, so I get their knee jerk answers. Going out and seeking weak targets to overwhelm will always be supported by the craven. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Ria Nieyli Nieyli Enterprises 33734	Posted - 2015.03.25 02:23:30 - [186] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Pok Nibin wrote: It was a rhetorical question. I don't care what you think. You have NO proof ganking people makes them stay in the game. You also have NO PROOF ganking people doesn't make them QUIT. You're priceless. "If you torture people they'll love you." I'm not in an argument with you. I'm just reeling from how you think your "approach" to a discussion is so pristeen as to be above reproach. Your issues with Jenn's tone aside, CCP Rise pretty much said both those things are true. He clearly said new players (<15 days) that are ganked are more likely to stay in the game than those not ganked. He also clearly said <1% of those unsubscribing tell CCP it is because of being ganked. That may not be absolute proof, but the word of a lead CCP developer is a close as anyone external is going to get without access to the proprietary data collected by CCP. You should try to put your preconceived notions aside and embrace science and rational thinking as was the subject of Rise's talk. Well, a lot of people get "griefed" out of the game due to the extremely poor theory of mind that the community exhibits. It oftentimes makes people reluctant to deal with the community and they leave in disgust. At the same time, only about 1% of people quit due to being ganked. Logical conlusion would be that ganking is not griefing. As an aside, a lot of people join after EVE was advertised as a traditional PvP oriented game to them. It's only normal that those of them that experience traditional PvP early on are more likely to stick around. The product was as advertised for them. Why do bad threads happen to good people?
beakerax Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 52	Posted - 2015.03.25 02:37:19 - [187] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: But then there's you, who reject facts because they don't fit your narrative. That is a level of intellectual dishonesty that is rare to find in humans. In my experience, that's around the normal amount.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10408	Posted - 2015.03.25 02:47:04 - [188] - Quote Serene Repose wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Serene Repose wrote: Look who's taking scanty information and running with it like it's a revelation from on high. The most salient point made was (and of course you yourself say you missed this part) there is no conclusive information either way. There is no concrete evidence that "people" (as a category) who quit quit for a reason anyone can state. WHY? (That's just a three letter word, there.) Why? Because they didn't tell anybody and nobody asked them - as a category. Not enough data to claim there's a sample. YES, SOME of these players who quit have said why. Thousands of people have quit this game. Thousands of people were not asked why they quit. There is no sampling. There is no data. There is no conclusion. And yet folks have been stating a conclusion ("griefing makes players quit!") for years on this forum. Those of us without the "think of the children" agenda have been saying that for years do, telling people "you have no proof of that". And yet they (erm, YOU) persisted. So the end result is that their is not enough evidence to draw a conclusion, but the evidence that does exist points in the direction of "griefing/ganking does not cause people to quit". You can stay in denial all you like, it's your life to waste as you please, but one day you will come to realize that not only where you lying to yourself, but you were lying to yourself over a video game (and if you'll do that over a trivial matter, what does that portend for the rest of your like experiences?). When are you going to prove that load of bilge you keep typing? (I know it probably made all kinds of sense to you when you posted it.) I'm also betting a Cadillac against a Cooper Mini you completely lost track of what point I was making. You weren't making a point, you were trying to sound 'pithy' and 'wise' on an spaceship forum lol. If you like to make a point, go ahead, I'm not stopping you.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10408	Posted - 2015.03.25 02:58:35 - [189] - Quote Pok Nibin wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Pok Nibin wrote: I know one of you insists he's operating with nothing but spotless integrity in this discussion, but reading that person's posts you see stuff like this. The report said they looked at the data and couldn't reach a conclusion. I think CCP should think twice before issuing another "report" like this. The report did exactly what it should have, proved that the people who were so sure about the effects of something they personally disliked were wrong. If greifing/ganking were as bad as the 'think of the children' crowd says, there would be conclusive evidence of the fact. As for 'spotless integrity', yes that's how I operate, because the day the need to lie about what happens in a video game (that matters not one bit in the grand scheme of things) is the day I stop playing all video games. I've said this before and I'll say it again, It's not my fault if some posters don't care for the truth in what we are discussing. It was a rhetorical question. I don't care what you think. You have NO proof ganking people makes them stay in the game. You also have NO PROOF ganking people doesn't make them QUIT. You're priceless. "If you torture people they'll love you." I'm not in an argument with you. I'm just reeling from how you think your "approach" to a discussion is so pristeen as to be above reproach. The truth is pristine and above reproach. No amount of lying or denial changes that. No amount of "you talk mean" changes it either. I know reading comprehension is hard for you, mainly because you aren't able to swallow your pride and admit when someone you don't like is right about something you don't want to believe (and you are not alone, there are at least a billion of you on earth). The truth is right here: Jenn aSide wrote: And yet folks have been stating a conclusion ("griefing makes players quit!") for years on this forum. Those of us without the "think of the children" agenda have been saying that for years do, telling people "you have no proof of that". And yet they (erm, YOU) persisted. So the end result is that their is not enough evidence to draw a conclusion, *but the evidence that does exist points in the direction of "griefing/ganking does not cause people to quit".* You can stay in denial all you like, it's your life to waste as you please, but one day you will come to realize that not only where you lying to yourself, but you were lying to yourself over a video game (and if you'll do that over a trivial matter, what does that portend for the rest of your like experiences?). What's both funny and frustrating is that for years the liars have been speaking as if THEY had any kind of proof (that they never presented), sure that 'ganking causes people to leave the game), and yet despite what Rise has said now at 2 fanfests, it's those of us who understand and believe in the truth who are somehow wrong and even bad lol.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 1155	Posted - 2015.03.25 03:38:36 - [190] - Quote Serene Repose wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: You can stay in denial all you like... When are you going to prove that load of bilge you keep typing? +1 Essentially, CCP Rise gets up on stage and says, "Look at these poorly constructed statistics." The problem being that there are so many obvious holes in it, before the data was collected, that we have to wonder what else is going on in the offices. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.

Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12277	Posted - 2015.03.25 03:41:18 - [191] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Serene Repose wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: You can stay in denial all you like... When are you going to prove that load of bilge you keep typing? +1 Essentially, CCP Rise gets up on stage and says, "Look at these poorly constructed statistics." The problem being that there are so many obvious holes in it, before the data was collected, that we have to wonder what else is going on in the offices. Go ahead and point out some of those "obvious" holes. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Ito Eto State War Academy Caldari State 7	Posted - 2015.03.25 03:51:44 - [192] - Quote "Go ahead and point out some of those "obvious" holes. " One huge one:- 15 days seems a bit of a suspect sample point to me, sub duration is 30days, minimum. Speaking just for me I would be more likely to let the sub run it's course to 30 days than actively cancel at 15. Various factors:- I paid my sub, might as well not waste the money. >effort< Does CCP cancel the account immediately and refund the difference in playtime, or let the sub run to 30 days/charge the full amount? Maybe I would be inclined to give it another go in the 30 days after cooling down, if I rage-quit a session. If the playtime was plex funded, the sub is fixed at 30 days. (are plex even considered as subs in the data?)
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 558	Posted - 2015.03.25 03:52:28 - [193] - Quote Kaely Tanniss wrote: That is why the social aspect of the game is so important. You learn new things and do new things by having friends..by making yourself a part of the Eve community rather than alienating it. War decs teach new and old player a new path and new possiblities in Eve. It teaches that there is a lot more to Eve than shooting red X's and rocks. There is a plethora of options and possibilies available to ALL players of Eve if they are willing to search themout and be a part of something bigger than manufacturing isk. The game is about community...it is about fun. If you spend all of your time playing to make isk, it's just like a job. War is a part of life and a part of Eve. Little, if any, ever chose war. It is a fact of life and a fact of Eve every player needs to be prepared for. After all, you will not get stronger unless you face someone stronger. If your are risk averse, Eve may not be for you. To lose players that can't hack it in a game like Eve is not really a loss. To butcher the game to cater to those who can't hack it..is a loss. Oh...and btw Veers...something special has happened. I'm sure you'll hear about it soon enough. I look forward to your shiptoasts about it...hehehe All wardecs do is encourage people to avoid players corps and stick to npc/1 man corps. How does that encourage social interaction? As CCP themselves admitted, the rational choice in highsec is to avoid being in a player corp. That is true even post-awoxxing, because of the constant threat of wardeccs. I'm curious what this "special" thing is - any hints?
Benny Ohu Chaotic Tranquility Warp to Cyno. 4362	Posted - 2015.03.25 04:21:05 - [194] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Pok Nibin wrote: It was a rhetorical question. I don't care what you think. You have NO proof ganking people makes them stay in the game. You also have NO PROOF ganking people doesn't make them QUIT. You're priceless. "If you torture people they'll love you." I'm not in an argument with you. I'm just reeling from how you think your "approach" to a discussion is so pristeen as to be above reproach. Your issues with Jenn's tone aside, CCP Rise pretty much said both those things are true. He clearly said new players (<15 days) that are ganked are more likely to stay in the game than those not ganked. He also clearly said <1% of those unsubscribing tell CCP it is because of being ganked. That may not be absolute proof, but the word of a lead CCP developer is a close as anyone external is going to get without access to the proprietary data collected by CCP. You should try to put your preconceived notions aside and embrace science and rational thinking as was the subject of Rise's talk. probably the simplest way to phrase this is that ccp is an authority, considering we're never going to have access to the information ccp does it's a formal fallacy but it's a strong enough premise in real-life practical thinking
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12279	Posted - 2015.03.25 04:40:20 - [195] - Quote Ito Eto wrote: 15 days seems a bit of a suspect sample point to me, sub duration is 30days, minimum. It's half of what a free trial is now. They wanted to see what effect the initial interactions had on new players, seems fine to me. It also seems like you're trying too hard to find something wrong, and fixating on the time period. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Remiel Pollard Against All Odds. 6542	Posted - 2015.03.25 04:48:01 - [196] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Kaely Tanniss wrote: That is why the social aspect of the game is so important. You learn new things and do new things by having friends..by making yourself a part of the Eve community rather than alienating it. War decs teach new and old player a new path and new possiblities in Eve. It teaches that there is a lot more to Eve than shooting red X's and rocks. There is a plethora of options and possibilies available to ALL players of Eve if they are willing to search themout and be a part of something bigger than manufacturing isk. The game is about community...it is about fun. If you spend all of your time playing to make isk, it's just like a job. War is a part of life and a part of Eve. Little, if any, ever chose war. It is a fact of life and a fact of Eve every player needs to be prepared for. After all, you will not get stronger unless you face someone stronger. If your are risk averse, Eve may not be for you. To lose players that can't hack it in a game like Eve is not really a loss. To butcher the game to cater to those who can't hack it..is a loss. Oh...and btw Veers...something special has happened. I'm sure you'll hear about it soon enough. I look forward to your shiptoasts about it...hehehe All wardecs do is encourage people to avoid players corps and stick to npc/1 man corps. How does that encourage social interaction? As CCP themselves admitted, the rational choice in highsec is to avoid being in a player corp. That is true even post-awoxxing, because of the constant threat of wardeccs. I'm curious what this "special" thing is - any hints? Spaceship violence is an integral part of what EVE Online is. If people don't like spaceship violence, or don't want it, then EVE is not for them, it's really that simple. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 558	Posted - 2015.03.25 04:49:50 - [197] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: Spaceship violence is an integral part of what EVE Online is. If people don't like spaceship violence, or don't want it, then EVE is not for them, it's really that simple. Cute idea, but false. Station traders face no violence. Scammers face no violence. Manufacturers face no violence. And experienced PvE players face virtually no violence. It's the new/casual players getting beaten down, not folks like me.
Unezka Turigahl Det Som Engang Var 673	Posted - 2015.03.25 04:56:29 - [198] - Quote Makes sense. Most noobs are probably going to stay in the NPC corp for the first two weeks and fiddle around with the noob missions and Sisters arc. So most won't get wardeced. And most 2 week old noobs won't be worth ganking. I suspect some of those legally killed noobs are actually alts of established players who are trying out new things, joining RvB, faction warfare, etc. Most two week old noobs who quit probably do so because they find the game boring or can't find any yellow exclamation marks telling them what to do. Players leaving due to ganks and wardecs and such are likely older players who have been repeatedly "victimized" and get fed up. At least that's been my experience with some high sec carebear corps I've had characters in. They've all fallen apart after the CEO finally figures out they don't like the game/players and quits.
Remiel Pollard Against All Odds. 6542	Posted - 2015.03.25 05:07:23 - [199] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: Spaceship violence is an integral part of what EVE Online is. If people don't like spaceship violence, or don't want it, then EVE is not for them, it's really that simple. Cute idea, but false. Station traders face no violence. Scammers face no violence. Manufacturers face no violence. And experienced PvE players face virtually no violence. It's the new/casual players getting beaten down, not folks like me. No, perfectly correct. Spaceship violence is the fundamental reason for EVE's existence. Spaceship violence is the fundamental reason for manufacturing and mining. Just as spaceship violence wouldn't exist without manufacturing and mining, so too would manufacturing and mining not exist without spaceship violence. As for scammers, they're just alts of toons trying to make some isk for spaceship violence. Really, Veers, for once, use a little brain capacity. Just a little, try to apply it to some actual reason and common sense. The bottom line is, EVE's core fundamental principles all revolve around spaceship violence. Everything else in the game is to facilitate said violence, as the game was always intended, as it always has been, and always will be. One need only be privy to the development of the game and the pre-alpha to understand this. Denial of that fundamental fact is merely a demonstration that you do not understand EVE, and any opinion you may have on something without understanding it is of zero value. Literally zero. Might as well try to be claiming that cars aren't fundamentally about transport because they have cup holders so they're equally useful as dining rooms. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Benny Ohu Chaotic Tranquility Warp to Cyno. 4363	Posted - 2015.03.25 05:11:37 - [200] - Quote Unezka Turigahl wrote: I suspect some of those legally killed noobs are actually alts of established players who are trying out new things, joining RvB, faction warfare, etc. rise said they're not alts, they're users in their first fifteen days in eve

Ito Eto State War Academy Caldari State 7	Posted - 2015.03.25 05:14:43 - [201] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Ito Eto wrote: 15 days seems a bit of a suspect sample point to me, sub duration is 30days, minimum. It's half of what a free trial is now. They wanted to see what effect the initial interactions had on new players, seems fine to me. It also seems like you're trying too hard to find something wrong, and fixating on the time period. Well you asked, I thought Id back it up with some thinking rather than trotting out some trite one liner. 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.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 35080	Posted - 2015.03.25 05:24:28 - [202] - Quote Ito Eto wrote: 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. 30 days is nothing yes, to those of us that subscribe to the game and get hooked on it. But CCP have been trying to find out why 50% of new players leave within the first month. Until recently, that basically meant 50% on new players didn't advance beyond the trial period of 15 days. One argument often thrown around in the community is that new players don't stay in the game because they are griefed out of it. So CCP went looking to try to validate that claim, at least for that 50%. So far, every time CCP have written something on it, they have been clear in the view that they aren't able to validate that claim at all. That's what those statistics show. That the 50% of new players that leave within the first month are not leaving because of ganks. There appears to be no substance to the claim that new players are being griefed out of the game, over the time period that CCP were interested in looking at. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Unezka Turigahl Det Som Engang Var 673	Posted - 2015.03.25 05:25:20 - [203] - Quote Benny Ohu wrote: Unezka Turigahl wrote: I suspect some of those legally killed noobs are actually alts of established players who are trying out new things, joining RvB, faction warfare, etc. rise said they're not alts, they're users in their first fifteen days in eve Ah, cool. Now I'm curious about this 13% and want to see another breakdown showing what these noobins were up to.
Benny Ohu Chaotic Tranquility Warp to Cyno. 4363	Posted - 2015.03.25 06:02:14 - [204] - Quote Unezka Turigahl wrote: Benny Ohu wrote: Unezka Turigahl wrote: I suspect some of those legally killed noobs are actually alts of established players who are trying out new things, joining RvB, faction warfare, etc. rise said they're not alts, they're users in their first fifteen days in eve Ah, cool. Now I'm curious about this 13% and want to see another breakdown showing what these noobins were up to. i haven't seen any statistics for three days now. when i close my eyes, i see graphs on the inside of the lids i need some percentages or i might lose my mind. who do i have to sleep with
Ito Eto State War Academy Caldari State 8	Posted - 2015.03.25 06:02:40 - [205] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Ito Eto wrote: 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. 30 days is nothing yes, to those of us that subscribe to the game and get hooked on it. But CCP have been trying to find out why 50% of new players leave within the first month. Until recently, that basically meant 50% on new players didn't advance beyond the trial period of 15 days. One argument often thrown around in the community is that new players don't stay in the game because they are griefed out of it. So CCP went looking to try to validate that claim, at least for that 50%. So far, every time CCP have written something on it, they have been clear in the view that they aren't able to validate that claim at all. That's what those statistics show. That the 50% of new players that leave within the first month are not leaving because of ganks. There appears to be no substance to the claim that new players are being griefed out of the game, over the time period that CCP were interested in looking at. Thanks for the historical context, most enlightening. Seems to me CCP should ask newbros in game how they feel about it, rather than when the player is cancelling, I doubt someone who is in the act of cancelling their sub is much interested in spending more time on the process than they have to. Not 10 minutes after first log in, as happened to my friend a couple of weeks back. I would imagine very few players will have an opinion while they are still trying to find the undock button. :) Some kind of low effort, multiple choice form after 10 hours of play.
Steppa Musana Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 35	Posted - 2015.03.25 06:33:13 - [206] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Ito Eto wrote: 15 days seems a bit of a suspect sample point to me, sub duration is 30days, minimum. It's half of what a free trial is now. They wanted to see what effect the initial interactions had on new players, seems fine to me. It also seems like you're trying too hard to find something wrong, and fixating on the time period. When people like James315 are posting articles about how their antics dont cause new players to quit, its important to point out the flaws in this data. Is James talking about 15 day old players? He's responding to his critics, the critics that say griefers makes players that can fly freighters, exhumers and Ravens quit. "It just goes to show 15 day old characters dont quit because of griefing" is a cover for the real intentions... defending griefing players in highsec that are older than 15 days. Thats the real intellectual dishonesty here. Pretending this whole thing isnt a stealth, "lalalala wardeccing corps for 3 months and humiliating players on a troll blog doesnt cause them to quit lalalala"
Ito Eto State War Academy Caldari State 8	Posted - 2015.03.25 06:44:50 - [207] - Quote Steppa Musana wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Ito Eto wrote: 15 days seems a bit of a suspect sample point to me, sub duration is 30days, minimum. It's half of what a free trial is now. They wanted to see what effect the initial interactions had on new players, seems fine to me. It also seems like you're trying too hard to find something wrong, and fixating on the time period. When people like James315 are posting articles about how their antics dont cause new players to quit, its important to fixate on how flawed it is to connect this data to that conclusion. Is James talking about 15 day old players? He's responding to his critics, the critics that say griefers makes players that can fly freighters, exhumers and Ravens quit. "It just goes to show 15 day old characters dont quit because of griefing" is a cover for the real intentions... defending griefing players in highsec that are older than 15 days. Thats the real intellectual dishonesty here. Pretending this whole thing isnt a stealth, "lalalala wardeccing corps for 3 months and humiliating players on a troll blog doesnt cause them to quit lalalala" I did gather from his rather adversarial method of address he was rather more interested in the form of his own words than any constructive or intelligent debate, I was just humoring the poor little mite. I would set him to ignore, but his tantrums are so entertaining. Though it did eventually reveal more interesting input from people such as yourself and Scipio.
Benny Ohu Chaotic Tranquility Warp to Cyno. 4363	Posted - 2015.03.25 07:22:17 - [208] - Quote Steppa Musana wrote: Good job, proving my point above. "There is a lack of evidence suggesting players killed in their first 15 days quit over it" in your mind suggests "highsec griefing does not cause players to quit". Are you religious by any chance? please explain what you're insinuating by that question, npc corp poster steppa musana
Ito Eto State War Academy Caldari State 8	Posted - 2015.03.25 07:38:00 - [209] - Quote Possibly that incorrect inference is a feature of religious dogmas.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16187	Posted - 2015.03.25 08:02:05 - [210] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Lifelongnoob wrote: how many "newbie" accounts are actually new alt accounts for more experienced players.. hence why many dont die so easily As you can tell by the responses above the Rise groupies only have one thought....and that is what Rise tells them. Yeah, I certainly haven't been exceedingly critical of him a whole bunch of other times. But then there's you, who reject facts because they don't fit your narrative. That is a level of intellectual dishonesty that is rare to find in humans. Um... "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"

Aralyn Cormallen Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 943	Posted - 2015.03.25 08:05:58 - [211] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Serene Repose wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: You can stay in denial all you like... When are you going to prove that load of bilge you keep typing? +1 Essentially, CCP Rise gets up on stage and says, "Look at these poorly constructed statistics." The problem being that there are so many obvious holes in it, before the data was collected, that we have to wonder what else is going on in the offices. When faced with a CCP employee, standing up on stage and presenting facts that argue towards a conclusion directly relating to customer retention, and therefore the success and profitability of the company, an employee who will have access to other facts, and therefore knows for sure whether the fact he is stating is an anomoly or representative of the general trend, I am going to personally go with the non-crazy option, and assume that the employee is not going to deliberately endanger his companies, and therefore his own, livelihood, in order that someone, somewhere, can win an arguement on the internet. I get that people get tunnel visioned, and naturally distrust "facts" that stand against their own beliefs, but come on people, CCP are about the bottom line, and at the end of the day being able to make a profit and pay their staff, not about winning internet points in forum arguements. On a corporate level (and in fact, any level) that **** does not matter. If the evidence said otherwise, there would be absolutely zero sane reason to "misrepresent" the facts.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 742	Posted - 2015.03.25 09:57:24 - [212] - Quote Steppa Musana wrote: When people like James315 are posting articles about how their antics dont cause new players to quit, its important to fixate on how flawed it is to connect this data to that conclusion. Is James talking about 15 day old players? He's responding to his critics, the critics that say griefers makes players that can fly freighters, exhumers and Ravens quit. "It just goes to show 15 day old characters dont quit because of griefing" is a cover for the real intentions... defending griefing players in highsec that are older than 15 days. Thats the real intellectual dishonesty here. Pretending this whole thing isnt a stealth, "lalalala wardeccing corps for 3 months and humiliating people's mains on a troll blog doesnt cause them to quit lalalala" I will not defend James 315 - he is more than capable do do that himself - but I will say that many here are quite happy to have this empirical data conclusively establishing that "griefing" of new players (<15 days) is not hurting player retention. For years, many have be saying that it is a major problem that new players are griefed out of the game, despite that fact that any ganker could tell you that this is not the case. Not only is ganking is so rare now (see: CCP Quant's presentation for real data on this) in general that you have to be incredibly unlucky to even run into a ganker, true new players are not at all an attractive target as they lack assets. Yet you had people coming here claiming that ganking was ruining Eve and new players need more safety to have a chance to get into the game. CCP Rise has looked at the data and conclusively put the final nail into this complaint. Ganking does not hurt true new player retention - if anything it helps it by getting players to engage with the sandbox. That is not intellectually dishonest at all. CCP is very keen on having players stay in the game beyond the trial period, and ganking is not a negative factor for why players don't continue with the game. Steppa Musana wrote: Do you want to know why people think what they think about griefing? Experience. You join a corp, and you watch as player after player gets frustrated with the griefing and quits. You watch CODE troll some regular in local and he never logs on again. You know for a fact in your experience a dozen players have quit over this. Then you meet a new friend, and they tell you that they also know a dozen players that quit over it. And that they know people that also say they know a dozen people that have quit over it. Why dont you talk to highsec carebears and see for yourself. You wont find anyone whos been around for awhile who couldnt give you a list of players that either stated they quit over griefing, or never logged in again after a bad experience. The anecdotal evidence is plenty. This argument is exactly why we need a rational examination of the data. Your anecdotes, even if true, do not come anywhere close to telling the whole story. CCP is trying to increase player retention (and ultimately profits), not make carebears stay with the game. James 315 himself may cause a dozen people to quit with his antics, but if he also causes two dozen to join/stay, then that is a net benefit for the game. I will admit this data does not address that issue, but that is not what CCP Rise was most concerned about. Getting players "over the hump" and into the game is a different issue than whether six months down the road some carebear realizes that this is not the game they want to play for whatever reason. It is of much greater concern for the NPE that a potential long-term customer who could be a good fit for the type of game Eve is quits before they can even get into the game, than if some player realizes a competitive sandbox game is not for them after they learn how to play. The first can be fixed simply by changing the NPE, the second cannot be fixed without changing the very core of the game CCP is selling. Eve is not a game for everyone. Making the NPE as accessible to new players to properly showcase the sandbox that New Eden is of paramount importance to get more new players into the game. CCP Rise has conclusively shown that ganking not only doesn't hurt, but actually helps get players into the game. This is just what the data says no matter what you or anyone else believes. As for highsec carebears, they have to remember they are playing a game built on the idea of "griefing" by a bunch of "griefers". If they choose to quit when they run into their first bit of adversity and suffer a gank loss or a wardec, well then perhaps they are not just the type that enjoys competitive sandbox game play and I am not sure CCP can or should do anything to keep that sort of player. That however is an issue separate from the effect of ganking on the NPE.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1976	Posted - 2015.03.25 10:32:08 - [213] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: CCP Rise has looked at the data and conclusively put the final nail into this complaint. Ganking does not hurt true new player retention - if anything it helps it by getting players to engage with the sandbox. That is not intellectually dishonest at all. CCP is very keen on having players stay in the game beyond the trial period, and ganking is not a negative factor for why players don't continue with the game. Actually the data says nothing of the sort. It presents some very bare bones statistics with no context for under 15 day accounts. We have no idea how many of those play 2 days, do 3 tutorial missions and never leave the newbie areas where ganking is illegal. We have no idea how many are spy accounts on a VPN so appear a totally new player while actually being a veteran. We have no idea about any of the surrounding controls on the data that would actually allow us to draw any conclusions at all from the data.
Ito Eto State War Academy Caldari State 12	Posted - 2015.03.25 11:02:22 - [214] - Quote It is probably unwise to conflate ganking and wardecs, their effects are very different, as is the scale of their application. Despite the superficial result of both activities resulting in waking up in your med clone. One causes short term discomfort, the other can be an effective ban on play for a week or more for smaller/social/newbro corps who have neither the agency or fiances to deal with the situation. Imagine a game mechanic that each week rolls a dice for a 1 in 10 chance of banning your corp from logging in for a week or auto disbands the corp, I defy anyone to find fun or content in that. 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.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 35084	Posted - 2015.03.25 11:12:45 - [215] - Quote Ito Eto wrote: 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. The issue of wardecs is included in the 13% that die legally. Sibyyl's post summarises what CCP Rise said, if you haven't watched it. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Ito Eto State War Academy Caldari State 12	Posted - 2015.03.25 11:31:23 - [216] - Quote Consider wardecs more like Afk cloakies, it is not the action itself that harms, it is the threat of action. Only one member of NewBro Corp needs to die to a WT, cry in corpchat and rage quit to spook his corpies. Yes in real terms maybe 13% die legally (though I am unsure which if any, other means of legal death are included in that 13%). The death of that 13% reaches out and touches another newbros x%.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 744	Posted - 2015.03.25 11:53:30 - [217] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Black Pedro wrote: CCP Rise has looked at the data and conclusively put the final nail into this complaint. Ganking does not hurt true new player retention - if anything it helps it by getting players to engage with the sandbox. That is not intellectually dishonest at all. CCP is very keen on having players stay in the game beyond the trial period, and ganking is not a negative factor for why players don't continue with the game. Actually the data says nothing of the sort. It presents some very bare bones statistics with no context for under 15 day accounts. We have no idea how many of those play 2 days, do 3 tutorial missions and never leave the newbie areas where ganking is illegal. We have no idea how many are spy accounts on a VPN so appear a totally new player while actually being a veteran. We have no idea about any of the surrounding controls on the data that would actually allow us to draw any conclusions at all from the data. We actually have no access to any of the data at all. But CCP Rise and his team do and they have looked thoroughly at this data to come up with the conclusion that he presented at Fanfest. They have access to this data you ask for and much, much more and it is very much in their interest to go through it carefully before making a public presentation of their conclusions or implementing any game changes. You are either calling CCP Rise and his team incompetent, or liars. He said, without any ambiguity, that suicide ganking has no negative effect on new player retention, rather that it actually increased it. If you want to hand-wave invented explanations and caveats based on no actual data of your own you can of course, but don't expect too many of the rational among us to get on board with your conspiracy theories.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10410	Posted - 2015.03.25 12:47:42 - [218] - Quote Aralyn Cormallen wrote: I get that people get tunnel visioned, and naturally distrust "facts" that stand against their own beliefs, but come on people, CCP are about the bottom line, and at the end of the day being able to make a profit and pay their staff, not about winning internet points in forum arguements. While true, all of it will continue to fall on deaf ears. We aren't arguing facts (well, half of us are lol), we're arguing worldviews, and worldviews never change because they come from a pretty deep place in people.The people discounting completely what Rise has said are people who need to believe in victimization, and that such victimization is real enough to push people out of this game.. Without that vicimtization, without the 'poor new player beset upon by the claws of griefer injustice that cannot survive without the slefless advocacy of the GDFPJ (General Discussion forum posters for Justice), what would they believe in? The hypocrisy of the matter is if what Rise said was slanted in the other direction (ie "we don't know for exact sure, but it looks like ganking new players pushes people out of the game and is bad") these exact same skeptics would instead don robes of purity and proclaim their enduring Loyalty to the Royal and Holy House of Rise, hallowed be thine neckbearded face lol (Just kidding Rise, love the beard bro, don't ever change ). The real truth is that Rise's information points to the fact that it isn't victimization that leads to losing people who try the game, it's other factors, like perhaps too much safety. It also indicates that new players do't need the help of these self appointed advocates. Rise's information also suggests that our ganking bros are too nice and need to get on the ball, because if they don't gank more noobs it means they don't love EVE enough to want people to keep playing. Now (for our justice seeking skeptic bros) stick that in your justice pipe and smoke it.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 1156	Posted - 2015.03.25 13:55:48 - [219] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: One argument often thrown around in the community is that new players don't stay in the game because they are griefed out of it.. 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. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 35087	Posted - 2015.03.25 14:03:47 - [220] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: 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. Not saying you are wrong as I don't have any data to know whether that is true, but are you saying that a high percentage of new players are dueled out of the game in their first 15 days? We know from CCP's data that 50% of players leave in the first month. Are you suggesting that this is because they a dueled and killed (within that 13% of losses) and therefore leave the game, when CCP have said that people in that group have a higher rate of retention than people who don't die in pvp? Am I understanding that correctly? Seems like clutching at straws, but that's just speculation on my part. I can't deny it's a possibility, just doesn't seem logical based on what has been said by CCP. So what are you basing that on? Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari

Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10412	Posted - 2015.03.25 14:09:02 - [221] - Quote Steppa Musana wrote: Do you want to know why people think what they think about griefing? Experience. You join a corp, and you watch as player after player gets frustrated with the griefing and quits. You watch CODE troll some regular in local and he never logs on again. You know for a fact in your experience a dozen players have quit over this. Then you meet a new friend, and they tell you that they also know a dozen players that quit over it. And that they know people that also say they know a dozen people that have quit over it. Why dont you talk to highsec carebears and see for yourself. You wont find anyone whos been around for awhile who couldnt give you a list of players that either stated they quit over griefing, or never logged in again after a bad experience. The anecdotal evidence is plenty. This is the only true thing I've ever seen you post, and as I suspected, the reason for that is that you know (deep down) that it disproves what you want (need really) to believe. Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence. It's 'feelings' tainted by bias. You talk about all the people you know 'greifed out of the game' but don't talk about the much higher number of people you must have encountered in the same period of time who got 'grief' and stayed. and YOU yourself are still here so obviously it must not be that bad. The part about why don't I talk to high sec carebears is funny. I'll bet any amount of isk you like that i've run more missions and been in more incursion fleets and have higher standings to more npc corps than any character you own. I'm IN high sec doing pve , most of the time at the same time I'm in null, because of this wonderful invention called ALTS (it's the newest thing, like 8 track tapes). I've probably trained more mission runners than you've ever met son. The real fact here is that people aren't near as squishy and victimish as you want them to be. Most of us who come into the game and stay here take out lumps and deal with the PVPrs and keep on moving. I've known very many people like you (my very 1st corp in the game, a mission running group, had a few) and they real truth of the matter is that you all are several times worse for keeping players in EVE than the worst ganker or scammer, because all you have to offer new players is fear.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10414	Posted - 2015.03.25 14:21:08 - [222] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: So what are you basing that on? You're just way too nice :) But as to the above question, the answer is usually "nothing of importance". That's another one of those ironies, it's the "Evidence Requirement Imbalance" that is present in most discussions between people. In other words, people don't need a lot (of ANY) evidence to form an opinion about something, but if you challenge that opinion they require Supreme Court level documentation and even then they won't change their opinion lol (the opinion tends to gets stronger in the face of counter evidence). So here you have a situation where people say "I know people who were griefed out of the game!" and expanding that to mean that gankers run new players away, then you have a Developer with miles and miles more information saying "for the subset of players we examined, there is no proof of that", and the end result is this thread lol. When I talk about certain game imbalances some of the exact same people have told me that "well, CCP knows best". It seems that for some people, CCP knowing best is mighty conditional upon whether CCP agrees with them or not
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 1156	Posted - 2015.03.25 14:44:16 - [223] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: ... are you saying that a high percentage of new players are dueled out of the game in their first 15 days? 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. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 35094	Posted - 2015.03.25 14:57:13 - [224] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Scipio Artelius wrote: ... are you saying that a high percentage of new players are dueled out of the game in their first 15 days? 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. It's almost 2am and I am guessing that my comprehension skills have deserted me, because that makes no sense to me. So far I haven't even seen 1 hole in Rise's stats for what he actually used them for, not what many people seem to imagine they can be used for. But, that post seems like a sign I need to go to bed. I'm normally ok with comprehension. Now I'm not so sure. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Sibyyl Gallente Federation 24122	Posted - 2015.03.25 15:07:42 - [225] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Scipio Artelius wrote: One argument often thrown around in the community is that new players don't stay in the game because they are griefed out of it.. 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. New people who PVP are more likely to stay in the game than people who don't PVP. People involved in non-consensual PVP are even more likely to stay in the game. Which part of that did you not understand? #afkleadership Gü+Gü+Gü+ -óß¦ªß¦ç-ó Gü+Gü+Gü+ EVE:Valkyrie pilot unmasked (her name is Ran)
Aralyn Cormallen Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 952	Posted - 2015.03.25 15:18:29 - [226] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: We are getting a bottom line of a premise that I do not agree with, without any the working out or break downs for me to pick holes in. Things that disagree with me should not be presented. Fixed your meaning there.
Reislier 99	Posted - 2015.03.25 15:20:05 - [227] - Quote I can reach through a hole in wall in dark and feel something warm, furry, and it moves. What can be? Maybe elephant.. or wolf.. a kitty.. my strange neighbor? A few statistics and perceptions mean nothing.. turn on light. Be nice. If nice not work, be civil. If civil not work, beat with iron pipe till bloody and still.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12281	Posted - 2015.03.25 20:55:47 - [228] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: No, I am pointing to another hole in CCP Rise's stats. For all your jaw flapping in this thread, you have not once pointed a hole in his stats. So come on, bigmouth. If it's so "obvious", you won't have a problem laying it out for us. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Kaely Tanniss Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 287	Posted - 2015.03.25 21:54:35 - [229] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Kaely Tanniss wrote: That is why the social aspect of the game is so important. You learn new things and do new things by having friends..by making yourself a part of the Eve community rather than alienating it. War decs teach new and old player a new path and new possiblities in Eve. It teaches that there is a lot more to Eve than shooting red X's and rocks. There is a plethora of options and possibilies available to ALL players of Eve if they are willing to search themout and be a part of something bigger than manufacturing isk. The game is about community...it is about fun. If you spend all of your time playing to make isk, it's just like a job. War is a part of life and a part of Eve. Little, if any, ever chose war. It is a fact of life and a fact of Eve every player needs to be prepared for. After all, you will not get stronger unless you face someone stronger. If your are risk averse, Eve may not be for you. To lose players that can't hack it in a game like Eve is not really a loss. To butcher the game to cater to those who can't hack it..is a loss. Oh...and btw Veers...something special has happened. I'm sure you'll hear about it soon enough. I look forward to your shiptoasts about it...hehehe All wardecs do is encourage people to avoid players corps and stick to npc/1 man corps. How does that encourage social interaction? As CCP themselves admitted, the rational choice in highsec is to avoid being in a player corp. That is true even post-awoxxing, because of the constant threat of wardeccs. I'm curious what this "special" thing is - any hints? Avoiding war decs is risk averse behavior..which goes back to the point of Eve not being for everyone. I understand not everyone "wants" to PvP..but everyone need to be able to and be prepared to..especially if they want to protect their interests. So many of the risk averse players like to compare Eve to rl..which has no bearing...but, to take a page from that book...so will I. No one wants to get mugged or robbed. No one wants to be involved or a victim of a violent crime or war. But it happens. You either take the necessary precautions to lessen the risk, or there is no one to blame but yourself for your choice not to take action. It's been said a million times before and I'll say it again...If you're not prepared to protect your interests and what you have, you do not deserve to have it. The way of Eve and the way of life: Devour to survive...so it is...so it's always been. No...no hints..I'm sure it will be quite clear soon enough. If I had a nickel for every time someone said women don't play eve, I'd have a bag of nickels to whack the next person who said it..
Mag's the united 19163	Posted - 2015.03.25 21:58:21 - [230] - Quote This thread proves one thing, it's not just a river in Egypt. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 871	Posted - 2015.03.25 22:00:25 - [231] - Quote Reislier wrote: I can reach through a hole in wall in dark and feel something warm, furry, and it moves. What can be? Maybe elephant.. or wolf.. a kitty.. my strange neighbor? A few statistics and perceptions mean nothing.. turn on light. The carebears had a theorie that ganking or otherwise killing newbies is bad for player retention. They spew this nonsense every thread without a single clue if it is true or not. Now CCP tried to verify the carebear theory and the prediction they make about player retention... And they did not get the results the carebear theory had predicted. In fact they got the complete oposite of the carebear prediction. This is s seriously strong indication that the carebear theory is wrong. Not even have they no data which supports their case, now there is even data against it. They never really had a strong case, but it is safe to say that it is completely falsified now There is no need to interpret something into the data. It just means the carebears are wrong and they made wrong assumptions, which isn't really surprising for most of us content creators. It is also not really surprising that some of them still don't get it. It's like CCP told them the easter bunny is not real, that probably hurts and the first reaction is denial. We also talking about a player group whos feelings get hurt by exploding spaceships in a game about exploding spaceships... it will probably take them a while to get over this revelation that they are wrong. the Code ALWAYS wins
Kaely Tanniss Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 290	Posted - 2015.03.25 22:08:20 - [232] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: Reislier wrote: I can reach through a hole in wall in dark and feel something warm, furry, and it moves. What can be? Maybe elephant.. or wolf.. a kitty.. my strange neighbor? A few statistics and perceptions mean nothing.. turn on light. The carebears had a theorie that ganking or otherwise killing newbies is bad for player retention. They spew this nonsense every thread without a single clue if it is true or not. Now CCP tried to verify the carebear theory and the prediction they make about player retention... And they did not get the results the carebear theory had predicted. In fact they got the complete oposite of the carebear prediction. This is s seriously strong indication that the carebear theory is wrong. Not even have they no data which supports their case, now there is even data against it. They never really had a strong case, but it is safe to say that it is completely falsified now There is no need to interpret something into the data. It just means the carebears are wrong and they made wrong assumptions, which isn't really surprising for most of us content creators. It is also not really surprising that some of them still don't get it. It's like CCP told them the easter bunny is not real, that probably hurts and the first reaction is denial. We also talking about a player group whos feelings get hurt by exploding spaceships in a game about exploding spaceships... it will probably take them a while to get over this revelation that they are wrong. Idk...history tells that it will just be spun in some other way to somehow suit their beliefs. Being in denial about being in denial is a powerful thing. You just can't make some people "get it" no matter how many times it's spelled out for them. Sad..but true. Somehow, no matter what facts are presented to them...carebears will continue to believe what has essentially been proven otherwise. Wait...what? What do you mean the Easter bunny isn't real? What will I tell my children....since facts are unacceptable. If I had a nickel for every time someone said women don't play eve, I'd have a bag of nickels to whack the next person who said it..
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 877	Posted - 2015.03.25 22:44:38 - [233] - Quote Kaely Tanniss wrote: Idk...history tells that it will just be spun in some other way to somehow suit their beliefs. Being in denial about being in denial is a powerful thing. You just can't make some people "get it" no matter how many times it's spelled out for them. Sad..but true. Somehow, no matter what facts are presented to them...carebears will continue to believe what has essentially been proven otherwise. Wait...what? What do you mean the Easter bunny isn't real? What will I tell my children....since facts are unacceptable. Yeah, now they will probably tell us that it is completely different for newbros older than 15 days because that data will completely invert after the 15 days mark. Does not matter that nothing at all indicates such a radical change, IT HAS TO BE... THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!! the Code ALWAYS wins
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 23366	Posted - 2015.03.25 22:44:45 - [234] - Quote Kaely Tanniss wrote: Wait...what? What do you mean the Easter bunny isn't real? What will I tell my children....since facts are unacceptable. Quote: GÇ£YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES. "So we can believe the big ones?" YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.GÇ¥ GÇò Terry Pratchett, Hogfather Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 1159	Posted - 2015.03.25 22:48:40 - [235] - Quote Kaely Tanniss wrote: ... risk averse behavior..which goes back to the point of Eve not being for everyone. I understand not everyone "wants" to PvP..but everyone need to be able to and be prepared to..especially if they want to protect their interests. ... Sometimes if I know the ship type of an enemy, I will stay in a mining belt, aligned to a safe spot and wait for them. Then when they land, I deliberately frustrate them and warp away. I might re-ship and kill them or I might not but as long as I annoyed them then I got a little petty satisfaction, probably as much petty satisfaction as I think they should get out of an easy kill ... but then they wouldn't be so motivated, would they? CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
admiral root Red Galaxy 2559	Posted - 2015.03.26 03:06:51 - [236] - Quote In related news, Gevlon Goblin has cornered the mobile goalposts market. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff \| No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that. Sabriz for CSM
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 560	Posted - 2015.03.26 03:42:46 - [237] - Quote Kaely Tanniss wrote: Avoiding war decs is risk averse behavior..which goes back to the point of Eve not being for everyone. I understand not everyone "wants" to PvP..but everyone need to be able to and be prepared to..especially if they want to protect their interests. So many of the risk averse players like to compare Eve to rl..which has no bearing...but, to take a page from that book...so will I. No one wants to get mugged or robbed. No one wants to be involved or a victim of a violent crime or war. But it happens. You either take the necessary precautions to lessen the risk, or there is no one to blame but yourself for your choice not to take action. It's been said a million times before and I'll say it again...If you're not prepared to protect your interests and what you have, you do not deserve to have it. The way of Eve and the way of life: Devour to survive...so it is...so it's always been. No...no hints..I'm sure it will be quite clear soon enough. I fail to see how rewarding people for staying in npc/1 man corps is good for the game. It is good for making highsec boring, and getting people to quit - which explains the poor retention numbers.
Benny Ohu Chaotic Tranquility Warp to Cyno. 4366	Posted - 2015.03.26 04:57:00 - [238] - Quote i should start logging into themepark games' forums to start complaining that newbies are leaving the game in droves because i can't pk them
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12287	Posted - 2015.03.26 05:00:30 - [239] - Quote Benny Ohu wrote: i should start logging into themepark games' forums to start complaining that newbies are leaving the game in droves because i can't pk them Oh, please do. Record it on a blog too, as an experiment. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Benny Ohu Chaotic Tranquility Warp to Cyno. 4367	Posted - 2015.03.26 05:07:34 - [240] - Quote the weatherman tells you it's going to be raining on tuesday evening, when you planned on going out do you a) send angry emails to the weather service complaining they must be wrong, asserting their analysis must be full of holes because the data wasn't presented on television in its entirety or b) bring an umbrella

Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12287	Posted - 2015.03.26 05:10:39 - [241] - Quote Benny Ohu wrote: the weatherman tells you it's going to be raining on tuesday evening, when you planned on going out do you a) send angry emails to the weather service complaining they must be wrong, asserting their analysis must be full of holes because the data wasn't presented on television in its entirety or b) bring an umbrella C. Stay home and drink. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 1162	Posted - 2015.03.26 10:15:02 - [242] - Quote Benny Ohu wrote: i should start logging into themepark games' forums to start complaining that newbies are leaving the game in droves because i can't pk them Clutches you side ways and pans arm across the horizon out ahead of us dramatically, painting an landscape of the imagination. Imagine if there were two corporation boards, one for mercenaries and one for "white knights". Then when once corp / alliance contracts another, the white knight corp / alliance agrees or refuses to join a war defending a bunch of newbies. At the end of the war, the newbie corp gets to rate the white knight corp and leave a comment. Just imagine giving the weak tools to get help? Shocking idea isn't it? CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10454	Posted - 2015.03.26 12:13:09 - [243] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Benny Ohu wrote: the weatherman tells you it's going to be raining on tuesday evening, when you planned on going out do you a) send angry emails to the weather service complaining they must be wrong, asserting their analysis must be full of holes because the data wasn't presented on television in its entirety or b) bring an umbrella C. Stay home and drink. D. Dig a tunnel to your destination from your basement, which not only lets you go out while staying dry, it lets you avoid those pesky angry ex-girlfriends an/or their husbands with whom you may have had some disputes D is how I do EVE
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12290	Posted - 2015.03.26 12:14:40 - [244] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Benny Ohu wrote: the weatherman tells you it's going to be raining on tuesday evening, when you planned on going out do you a) send angry emails to the weather service complaining they must be wrong, asserting their analysis must be full of holes because the data wasn't presented on television in its entirety or b) bring an umbrella C. Stay home and drink. D. Dig a tunnel to your destination from your basement, which not only lets you go out while staying dry, it lets you avoid those pesky angry ex-girlfriends an/or their husbands with whom you may have had some disputes D is how I do EVE That reminds me of a children's book. Something about a fox and a trio of bad guys, one short, one fat, and one lean. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 3250	Posted - 2015.03.30 19:20:37 - [245] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Benny Ohu wrote: i should start logging into themepark games' forums to start complaining that newbies are leaving the game in droves because i can't pk them Clutches you side ways and pans arm across the horizon out ahead of us dramatically, painting an landscape of the imagination. Imagine if there were two corporation boards, one for mercenaries and one for "white knights". Then when once corp / alliance contracts another, the white knight corp / alliance agrees or refuses to join a war defending a bunch of newbies. At the end of the war, the newbie corp gets to rate the white knight corp and leave a comment. Just imagine giving the weak tools to get help? Shocking idea isn't it? Ganker group creates a fake white knight corp. Ganker group creates several fake newbe corps (from alts) Ganker group war decs fake newbie corps Newbe corps give glowing reports of the fake white knight corp Gankers use their fake white knight corp, that now looks wonderful, to herd a few real newbie corps like lambs to the slaughter. Don't think it will happen? It already does. When a high sec corp gets a war dec, they also quickly get offers of assistance. A little research ( for those corps that actually do research) point to the potential allies being alts of the war deccers. Know a Frozen fan? Check this out Frozen fanfiction
Serene Repose 2526	Posted - 2015.03.30 19:35:57 - [246] - Quote Didn't we euthanize this thread? Or, was it cauterize? It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to type on your keyboard and remove all doubt.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1176	Posted - 2015.03.31 00:02:43 - [247] - Quote Serene Repose wrote: Didn't we euthanize this thread? Or, was it cauterize? Badly formed stats that make some of us question what CCP is doing? That can't be toppled by opinions. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12359	Posted - 2015.03.31 00:15:51 - [248] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: I wonder how many get "griefed out of the game" without actually being griefed. That is: They are in their starter corp. They talk to others about moving on. Others tell them its not worth it. They say that once in a player corp, you are vulnerable to wars, or jerks in your new corp. The new player stays in the NPC corp, socializing very little. Eventually, they leave Eve. They did not leave because of being griefed, they left because they did not want to be griefed. That's extremely damning of the people currently in NPC corps, that they would rather wet blanket new players out of the game than actually let them play for themselves. That's just goddamned shameful, is what that is. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 888	Posted - 2015.03.31 06:22:36 - [249] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: I wonder how many get "griefed out of the game" without actually being griefed. That is: They are in their starter corp. They talk to others about moving on. Others tell them its not worth it. They say that once in a player corp, you are vulnerable to wars, or jerks in your new corp. The new player stays in the NPC corp, socializing very little. Eventually, they leave Eve. They did not leave because of being griefed, they left because they did not want to be griefed. Ok, so the new carebear argument is that people quit because thei expect to experience somthing they did not actually experience, because other carebears told them the game is not word playing... in the light of the new data, which shows that if you gank a newbro that it is actually more probable that he will stay in the game, is it not reasonable to assume that the carebears who spew this nonsense are the real problem for player retention? the Code ALWAYS wins
Thora Zhubilai University of Caille Gallente Federation 14	Posted - 2015.03.31 11:10:10 - [250] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: [quote=Jenshae Chiroptera][quote=Benny Ohu] When a high sec corp gets a war dec, they also quickly get offers of assistance. A little research ( for those corps that actually do research) point to the potential allies being alts of the war deccers. Not really the "News of the day"...haha Hi all!

Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10496	Posted - 2015.03.31 11:15:02 - [251] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: Vincent Athena wrote: I wonder how many get "griefed out of the game" without actually being griefed. That is: They are in their starter corp. They talk to others about moving on. Others tell them its not worth it. They say that once in a player corp, you are vulnerable to wars, or jerks in your new corp. The new player stays in the NPC corp, socializing very little. Eventually, they leave Eve. They did not leave because of being griefed, they left because they did not want to be griefed. Ok, so the new carebear argument is that people quit because thei expect to experience somthing they did not actually experience, because other carebears told them the game is not word playing... in the light of the new data, which shows that if you gank a newbro that it is actually more probable that he will stay in the game, is it not reasonable to assume that the carebears who spew this nonsense are the real problem for player retention? Absolutely not! Why? Well, on the grounds that "this would not fit the narrative they hold dear, therefore your logic is invalid!". Sorry if my translation is sloppy, I haven't had an opportunity to actually use my Carebear-ese in 7 years since I stopped playing WoW
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1988	Posted - 2015.03.31 11:20:58 - [252] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: Ok, so the new carebear argument is that people quit because thei expect to experience somthing they did not actually experience, because other carebears told them the game is not word playing... in the light of the new data, which shows that if you gank a newbro that it is actually more probable that he will stay in the game, is it not reasonable to assume that the carebears who spew this nonsense are the real problem for player retention? Except the data doesn't show what you claim it does...... So lets quit spewing that nonsense also. Additionally a lot of them are scared by the potential of a gank because they do the maths, do the logic, and realise that if they want to do X activity in a reasonable fashion, they can't stop someone ganking them easily. And decide they aren't interested in that game play where they can't make an income without gank risk. Now a lot of those people may not be suited for EVE, so this may not be as big a problem as it appears anyway. But perceived risk is a big thing. Lets take a non highsec argument, AFK cloakies. 'But if they are AFK they aren't a risk' 'They might not have a cyno also, just a troll cloaky' etc. But the perceived risk is 'They are pretending to be AFK but actually watching, and do have a cyno' So the Null response is in most cases 'Don't undock to a Cloaky camper'. The Newbies response to this is identical to that pattern, except because they have so little invested in EVE, they respond by quitting instead.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10498	Posted - 2015.03.31 12:40:24 - [253] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: I wonder how many get "griefed out of the game" without actually being griefed. That is: They are in their starter corp. They talk to others about moving on. Others tell them its not worth it. They say that once in a player corp, you are vulnerable to wars, or jerks in your new corp. The new player stays in the NPC corp, socializing very little. Eventually, they leave Eve. They did not leave because of being griefed, they left because they did not want to be griefed. I would hope so. EVE is a harsh sandbox (well, most of it is anyways). If the idea of ganking or scamming or loss etc puts a person off to the point where they stop playing a game, that person should have avoided that game in the 1st place.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1178	Posted - 2015.03.31 13:03:24 - [254] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: .... since I stopped playing WoW Well, that explains a great deal. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10503	Posted - 2015.03.31 13:15:09 - [255] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: .... since I stopped playing WoW Well, that explains a great deal. Yea, I played WoW for 4 months 7 almost 8 years ago (after being dragged there by the guy who introduced me to EVE). I will now be committing Seppuku to atone. Anyone see where I left my sword?
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12366	Posted - 2015.03.31 13:39:58 - [256] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: .... since I stopped playing WoW Well, that explains a great deal. Yea, I played WoW for 4 months 7 almost 8 years ago (after being dragged there by the guy who introduced me to EVE). I will now be committing Seppuku to atone. Anyone see where I left my sword? You left your sword in the Caverns of Time. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Mag's the united 19208	Posted - 2015.03.31 13:59:40 - [257] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: .... since I stopped playing WoW Well, that explains a great deal. Check list: Helped kill a Titan? - Yes Helped kill a Super? - Yes Helped destroy a POS? - Yes Gang fights? - Yes Fleet fights? - Yes Killed hot droppers? - Yes Hot dropped? - Yes So, I have a basis for saying the following: Being 100% safe while AFK and cloaked? - Broken mechanic. Whole regions blanketed by AFK cloakers? - Clearly not working as intended. Remove Local from Null Sec? - Obviously a silly idea. AFK cloakers are play denial. Imagine warp disruption bubbles in High Sec and suicide gankers station camping people. It isn't just play denial for those being camped. It is play denial for real hunters that find the systems mostly empty because of cloakers, while the residents are playing their High Sec alts. You can say all you want, after doing even more in Eve. Doesn't make you right, or show you have a clue. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Eve Solecist Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 67	Posted - 2015.03.31 14:33:52 - [258] - Quote Mag's wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: .... since I stopped playing WoW Well, that explains a great deal. Check list: Helped kill a Titan? - Yes Helped kill a Super? - Yes Helped destroy a POS? - Yes Gang fights? - Yes Fleet fights? - Yes Killed hot droppers? - Yes Hot dropped? - Yes So, I have a basis for saying the following: Being 100% safe while AFK and cloaked? - Broken mechanic. Whole regions blanketed by AFK cloakers? - Clearly not working as intended. Remove Local from Null Sec? - Obviously a silly idea. AFK cloakers are play denial. Imagine warp disruption bubbles in High Sec and suicide gankers station camping people. It isn't just play denial for those being camped. It is play denial for real hunters that find the systems mostly empty because of cloakers, while the residents are playing their High Sec alts. You can say all you want, after doing even more in Eve. Doesn't make you right, or show you have a clue. I feel like adding something. Why do they play in highsec? Because it's safe. Why do they fear cloakers? Because it turns their "highsec" (rented null, but safe) into actual nullsec. Conclusion: They are cowards. Solution: Remove cowards and highsec. "Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote.
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 894	Posted - 2015.03.31 14:54:56 - [259] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Ima Wreckyou wrote: Ok, so the new carebear argument is that people quit because thei expect to experience somthing they did not actually experience, because other carebears told them the game is not word playing... in the light of the new data, which shows that if you gank a newbro that it is actually more probable that he will stay in the game, is it not reasonable to assume that the carebears who spew this nonsense are the real problem for player retention? Except the data doesn't show what you claim it does...... So lets quit spewing that nonsense also. Additionally a lot of them are scared by the potential of a gank because they do the maths, do the logic, and realise that if they want to do X activity in a reasonable fashion, they can't stop someone ganking them easily. And decide they aren't interested in that game play where they can't make an income without gank risk. Now a lot of those people may not be suited for EVE, so this may not be as big a problem as it appears anyway. But perceived risk is a big thing. Lets take a non highsec argument, AFK cloakies. 'But if they are AFK they aren't a risk' 'They might not have a cyno also, just a troll cloaky' etc. But the perceived risk is 'They are pretending to be AFK but actually watching, and do have a cyno' So the Null response is in most cases 'Don't undock to a Cloaky camper'. The Newbies response to this is identical to that pattern, except because they have so little invested in EVE, they respond by quitting instead. CCP Rise explicitely stated in his talk that the data shows that retention is higher for people who lost a ship and even higher form the 1% who lost it in a gank. Feel free to watch the video again if you still are in denial. Now this new carebear tactic is just gold, you basically changed your theory about why people quit to something you think they can't measure. But they did.. if that was really the case it would show in the survey about why people quit. Carebears are usually not the quiet types if it comes to whining why eve is dying. Everything they measured pointed in the direction that more interaction between players is good for retention and isolation is bad. There is not a shred of evidence that even remotely suports your side of the argument. the Code ALWAYS wins
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10505	Posted - 2015.03.31 15:02:00 - [260] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: CCP Rise explicitely stated in his talk that the data shows that retention is higher for people who lost a ship and even higher form the 1% who lost it in a gank. Feel free to watch the video again if you still are in denial. Now this new carebear tactic is just gold, you basically changed your theory about why people quit to something you think they can't measure. But they did.. if that was really the case it would show in the survey about why people quit. Carebears are usually not the quiet types if it comes to whining why eve is dying. Everything they measured pointed in the direction that more interaction between players is good for retention and isolation is bad. There is not a shred of evidence that even remotely supports your side of the argument. See the bolded part? If you think not having a shred of evidence means anything to certain people, well then I got some prime beach front property in Arizona that you just have to take a look at, I'll make you a great deal on it But more seriously, that's why i keep linking this here, because it describes what happens in these kinds of cases: people with zero evidence doubting the evidence of people with at least some supporting data. Apparently they all go to the church of "I know a dude who did that!" lol.

Mallory Crendraven Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2015.03.31 15:07:29 - [261] - Quote Sibyyl wrote: 1% ganked statistic to the 90% that drops out of game. Thanks for that link. That explains A LOT.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1650	Posted - 2015.03.31 15:17:24 - [262] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Vincent Athena wrote: I wonder how many get "griefed out of the game" without actually being griefed. That is: They are in their starter corp. They talk to others about moving on. Others tell them its not worth it. They say that once in a player corp, you are vulnerable to wars, or jerks in your new corp. The new player stays in the NPC corp, socializing very little. Eventually, they leave Eve. They did not leave because of being griefed, they left because they did not want to be griefed. That's extremely damning of the people currently in NPC corps, that they would rather wet blanket new players out of the game than actually let them play for themselves. That's just goddamned shameful, is what that is. I'm pretty sure the player who chat in NPC corps just don't know any better than flat out try to ruin it for others. The result is the same but I think it's a stretch to assume they willingly do so. I don't really remember seeing any counter argument when question were asked in my npc corp chat beside the war are dangerous and gankers are terrible narrative. The result is still the same tho, the wrong info is absorbed by the newbie and from there it's pretty bad...
Chewytowel Haklar Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 114	Posted - 2015.03.31 15:17:51 - [263] - Quote I look at it this way, the true cost of this game to a new player is potentially relative to the cost they are willing to pay to PLEX. If you loose a lot of ships, and your income via PVE isn't enough (which is likely the case for newer players like myself due to skill training times, intelligent/unintelligent skill planning, lack of skill focus cause new to game, etc) then you likely see PLEX as a way to get yourself back into the game. Yet, that success of avoiding ganks or to other activities is also likely tied into two things, do you have alts and do you have the right skills? Then there comes the fitting your ship intelligently part and being able to do that with the isk while also having the right skills. At first your options are very limited in what you can do, unless you are really good at gaming or finding creative solutions. On top of all of this we have the EVE learning curve, which I believe is proportional to isk spent in the first few months and up to the first year in EVE. If I am starting out I am likely to avoid those things that cause me to loose ships because my starting isk is low. I could by more PLEX, but I would have to keep buying lots of PLEX while already paying a sub on top of that. I won't be able to play for free like others in EVE who have mastered the art of playing for free. Thus the game can become very costly for a new player if they end up loosing plenty of ships to pve activities, ganking, and just experimenting with the various activities within EVE. Patience is also a factor as we have to wait for those skills to train up so we can get into that really cool mining barge, or exploration ship, or PI... and so on and so forth. I think that most avoid pvp because of these things, and those it does happen to also have to face facts with the costs and limitations of their single character. Of course I could easily use another character with a bantum and a griffin to help my own characters if I wanted to feel a bit more powerful in PVP, or I could even buy a ton of PLEX and get myself a high skill point character focused on what I want in EVE. Yet, that would require me spending hundreds for just that one character, and frankly that is where it is cost prohibitive for me. I'd perhaps then have to spend thousands on just this game if I didn't want to wait to have characters specialized in various roles if I didn't care to earn isk the old fashioned way. Hell, even running those incursions seems to take several months of proper skill training plus of course the isk to buy the ship and fit it up right. Anyway those are my random thoughts.
admiral root Red Galaxy 2577	Posted - 2015.03.31 15:25:59 - [264] - Quote Benny Ohu wrote: the weatherman tells you it's going to be raining on tuesday evening, when you planned on going out... LMFAO, since when are weathermen right? The answer is C) wear shorts and T-shirt and have plenty of chilled water on hand - it's gonna be a scorcher. Vincent Athena wrote: I wonder how many get "griefed out of the game" without actually being griefed. That is: They are in their starter corp. They talk to others about moving on. Others tell them its not worth it. They say that once in a player corp, you are vulnerable to wars, or jerks in your new corp. The new player stays in the NPC corp, socializing very little. Eventually, they leave Eve. They did not leave because of being griefed, they left because they did not want to be griefed. No, they leave because people perpetuate myths and lies, which some newbies simply believe rather than finding out the truth for themselves. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff \| No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that. A recent survey of applicants to CODE. corporations showed that 100% accepted James 315 as their saviour. You can't argue with facts.
Pohbis Neo T.E.C.H. 465	Posted - 2015.03.31 15:42:17 - [265] - Quote Can only recommend watching CCP Quant go a bit more in depth with the numbers. Data Science behind EVE
Jenshae Chiroptera 1181	Posted - 2015.03.31 22:24:34 - [266] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: Don't think it will happen? It already does. When a high sec corp gets a war dec, they also quickly get offers of assistance. A little research ( for those corps that actually do research) point to the potential allies being alts of the war deccers. Done right the really good ones would float to the top, like how Red Frog is known for their industrial work. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Dots Center for Advanced Studies 1	Posted - 2015.03.31 22:29:48 - [267] - 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 ß¦êß¦Æß¦ù-ó on it New Player Opportunities: a gallery
Jenshae Chiroptera 1181	Posted - 2015.03.31 22:36:04 - [268] - Quote Dots wrote: Red Frog uses NPC Corp alts for hauling, so I'm not sure wardeccing really applies to them. Edit: Grr, autocorrect Spies and suicide gankers do apply CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 566	Posted - 2015.04.01 03:56:34 - [269] - Quote 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.
Lienzo Amanuensis 67	Posted - 2015.04.01 04:23:12 - [270] - Quote Players leave the game because no one plays with them. Lots of people are just reticent to tug on anyone's shirt sleeve. Make eve voice an auto-on feature so that other players can automatically hear people, especially local traffic, like people on grid. Give them an Opportunity achievement the first time they mic up. Disable it to "listen only" if grid numbers go above twenty people. I wouldn't mind hearing some chatter from npcs, concord and billboards. The results will either be successful, or silly, or probably both. Honestly, what is there to lose.. other than a bit of innocence that's probably holding you back anyway. This is a themepark. It can only distract solo players for so long. Perhaps we could throw in a some co-op content in starter systems. Some kind of mini-incursion maybe? Cage match? Perhaps it could have dungeon mechanics where people had to be in a fleet in order to get inside. Perhaps we could start players in fleets when they join, or have an npc managed standing fleet in starting corps with no fleet roles. Perhaps the fleet boss could give people co-op missions while they are in space.

Dots Center for Advanced Studies 1	Posted - 2015.04.01 04:29:00 - [271] - 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 ß¦êß¦Æß¦ù-ó on it New Player Opportunities: a gallery
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 566	Posted - 2015.04.01 04:35:30 - [272] - Quote 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.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1381	Posted - 2015.04.01 04:36:19 - [273] - Quote 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. Source? I recall it said that those least likely to quit were those who engaged in a variety of activities, not PvP in particular. In contrast PvP only players were NOT amongst the longest lasting generally.
Dots Center for Advanced Studies 1	Posted - 2015.04.01 04:43:48 - [274] - 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 ß¦êß¦Æß¦ù-ó on it New Player Opportunities: a gallery
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 1916	Posted - 2015.04.01 04:58:09 - [275] - Quote I'm disturbed that more don't die tbh. My only enduring memory of my noobish days was dying after warping my Probe into a C5 Sleeper site. Then I realised I hadn't bookmarked the hole and had to self destruct. That's when I was hooked. Totally hooked by the countdown and knowing my poor implants were about to be scrapped. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 566	Posted - 2015.04.01 05:02:14 - [276] - Quote Dots wrote: 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? Because their PvE corp, along with 700 others, gets massdeced by marmite.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10517	Posted - 2015.04.01 05:05:13 - [277] - Quote Zappity wrote: I'm disturbed that more don't die tbh. My only enduring memory of my noobish days was dying after warping my Probe into a C5 Sleeper site. Then I realised I hadn't bookmarked the hole and had to self destruct. That's when I was hooked. Totally hooked by the countdown and knowing my poor implants were about to be scrapped. That's when most people were hooked. some folks will never understand that, even when they themselves got hooked in a similar way (as seen by the fact that they are still here lol).
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10517	Posted - 2015.04.01 05:08:56 - [278] - 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. Good. It means they didn't have what it takes. This game's PVE community doesn't need people like that, it needs "haw, take your best shot, Marmite" types. Most of us are like that (you'll never hear from most of them because they are too busy playing the game rather than complaining) Why you defend weakness and fecklessness (as if those are admirable personal attributes) in a videogame, I will never understand. Good players deal with the environment that exists.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1991	Posted - 2015.04.01 05:09:09 - [279] - Quote Double post.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1991	Posted - 2015.04.01 05:11:57 - [280] - Quote 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. Except you are using a biased sample set without isolating PvP factors from increased social factors. It is not PvP that causes people to stay in EVE, it is socialisation. The lack of socialisation in most of PvE is because of CCP's archaic PvE design that penalises co-operation and rewards solo play for incomes. You can produce 'CCP data sets' till the cows come home, but they are quick snaps with no in depth study on them, like you all are so fond of arguing yourselves when the CCP data doesn't match your views. But we all know it's the social aspect that keeps us here, and therefore that is where the focus should be. Not on 'Forcing everyone into PvP' more but on increasing social aspects in all area's of the game, which requires a significant overhaul of PvE in EVE on the same scale and level Sov is getting currently. And Jenn, attitudes like yours are exactly why a lot of people quit, especially newbies. 'Toughen up or wimp out' went out of being cool years ago, now that's harassment and bullying and is well recognised as negative social influence since it aims to stigmatise someone having problems and labels them as 'lesser' or 'bad'. It's not cool, it's not ok 'because it's the internet'. It's bullying, plain and simple.

Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1381	Posted - 2015.04.01 05:58:23 - [281] - Quote Dots wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: Source? I recall it said that those least likely to quit were those who engaged in a variety of activities, not PvP in particular. In contrast PvP only players were NOT amongst the longest lasting generally. Source 2014 Source 2015 All 3 of the activities Rise verbally notes under "Diverse" in 2014 are PVP activities. Only one of the 4 activities mentioned was PvP in the 2014 presentation. 2 if you include fleet involvement, but that doesn't explicitly mean PvP, but likely constitutes the bulk of it so we could count it as such. Considering you responded to a comment about wardecs trade needn't be counted and the last mention, chat involvement, was purely social. All "3" seems like a false statement concerning the subject at hand. The 2015 data works better assuming being a victim counts as "engaging" in PvP. That's a semantic argument I'd rather leave out but for the fact that there is still no proof of voluntary PvP activity and actually engaging being the stronger catalyst.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 770	Posted - 2015.04.01 06:28:45 - [282] - Quote Tyberius Franklin wrote: Dots wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: Source? I recall it said that those least likely to quit were those who engaged in a variety of activities, not PvP in particular. In contrast PvP only players were NOT amongst the longest lasting generally. Source 2014 Source 2015 All 3 of the activities Rise verbally notes under "Diverse" in 2014 are PVP activities. Only one of the 4 activities mentioned was PvP in the 2014 presentation. 2 if you include fleet involvement, but that doesn't explicitly mean PvP, but likely constitutes the bulk of it so we could count it as such. Considering you responded to a comment about wardecs trade needn't be counted and the last mention, chat involvement, was purely social. All "3" seems like a false statement concerning the subject at hand. The 2015 data works better assuming being a victim counts as "engaging" in PvP. That's a semantic argument I'd rather leave out but for the fact that there is still no proof of voluntary PvP activity and actually engaging being the stronger catalyst. Are you referring to new players or players in general? The slides you seem to remember were characterizing the overall retention rates for players of various types, while the OP here is referring to Rise's presentation on the NPE and how what new players experience in the 15 days influences whether they stay with the game. For that, CCP Rise is absolutely clear that having your ship blown up by another player, either legally or illegally, makes it more likely that you will stay with the game. As for more general stats, CCP Quant broke down player behaviour and showed that players who stay the longest are "professional" players who engage in both PvE and PvP and "aggressors" who primarily PvP, while "traditional" players who engage with the game as a solo PvE game stay the least by far. You can argue up-and-down as to why this is the case, but all the data suggest that players who engage in social, PvP play have higher initial retention rates, and stay with the game the longest. In particular, the solo "leveling my Raven" PvE playstyle is particularly bad for player retention, and thus the game, so CCP really needs to (and is trying to) steer people away from this playstyle and get them to engage in the sandbox with other players.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1381	Posted - 2015.04.01 07:01:06 - [283] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: Dots wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: Source? I recall it said that those least likely to quit were those who engaged in a variety of activities, not PvP in particular. In contrast PvP only players were NOT amongst the longest lasting generally. Source 2014 Source 2015 All 3 of the activities Rise verbally notes under "Diverse" in 2014 are PVP activities. Only one of the 4 activities mentioned was PvP in the 2014 presentation. 2 if you include fleet involvement, but that doesn't explicitly mean PvP, but likely constitutes the bulk of it so we could count it as such. Considering you responded to a comment about wardecs trade needn't be counted and the last mention, chat involvement, was purely social. All "3" seems like a false statement concerning the subject at hand. The 2015 data works better assuming being a victim counts as "engaging" in PvP. That's a semantic argument I'd rather leave out but for the fact that there is still no proof of voluntary PvP activity and actually engaging being the stronger catalyst. Are you referring to new players or players in general? The slides you seem to remember were characterizing the overall retention rates for players of various types, while the OP here is referring to Rise's presentation on the NPE and how what new players experience in the 15 days influences whether they stay with the game. For that, CCP Rise is absolutely clear that having your ship blown up by another player, either legally or illegally, makes it more likely that you will stay with the game. As for more general stats, CCP Quant broke down player behaviour and showed that players who stay the longest are "professional" players who engage in both PvE and PvP and "aggressors" who primarily PvP, while "traditional" players who engage with the game as a solo PvE game stay the least by far. You can argue up-and-down as to why this is the case, but all the data suggest that players who engage in social, PvP play have higher initial retention rates, and stay with the game the longest. In particular, the solo "leveling my Raven" PvE playstyle is particularly bad for player retention, and thus the game, so CCP really needs to (and is trying to) steer people away from this playstyle and get them to engage in the sandbox with other players. I never stated that being aggressed wasn't a contributor, so my position is in no way at odds with CCP's presentations on the matter from either a new player or long term player in that regard. To the initial question the resources you provided do shed considerably more light on the actual nature of my question, what was the source for PvP "aggressors" specifically being singled out as the type that stays. I realize it's not what the op was saying, but seemed to be what the person I replied to was insinuating. That said the analysis you gave leaves out the entrepreneurs who have notably less of a PvP presence while beating out aggressors in activity. The do it all's are unquestionably the most active, but the PvP focused are 3rd, not second. They are social, but not as aggressive. This isn't a plea for the soloist, as the 2 are not the same, but rather intended to be a point of contention with the idea that pvp activity alone is proportional to longevity among types of players. The data says that is NOT the case.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 770	Posted - 2015.04.01 07:33:23 - [284] - Quote Tyberius Franklin wrote: That said the analysis you gave leaves out the entrepreneurs who have notably less of a PvP presence while beating out aggressors in activity. The do it all's are unquestionably the most active, but the PvP focused are 3rd, not second. They are social, but not as aggressive. This isn't a plea for the soloist, as the 2 are not the same, but rather intended to be a point of contention with the idea that pvp activity alone is proportional to longevity among types of players. The data says that is NOT the case. It is proportional. Putting aside the "social" category which doesn't do much of anything but chat, the two categories that stay the shortest time with the game are the "traditional" and the "entrepreneur" categories (~24m) engage in the least amount of PvP, while the "professional" and "aggressor" categories stay the longest (>36m) engage in the most. That data doesn't say why that is the case, and I am dubious CCP has that much control over how people play (especially how much they play) except for perhaps during the NPE, but it is clear that players that seek out and engage in PvP stay 50% longer with the game then those that avoid it. Changing the tutorials from ones that funnel players into solo missioning and mining careers, to ones that helps get them into competent social PvP organizations is clearly now a priority for CCP.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1382	Posted - 2015.04.01 07:52:41 - [285] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: That said the analysis you gave leaves out the entrepreneurs who have notably less of a PvP presence while beating out aggressors in activity. The do it all's are unquestionably the most active, but the PvP focused are 3rd, not second. They are social, but not as aggressive. This isn't a plea for the soloist, as the 2 are not the same, but rather intended to be a point of contention with the idea that pvp activity alone is proportional to longevity among types of players. The data says that is NOT the case. It is proportional. Putting aside the "social" category which doesn't do much of anything but chat, the two categories that stay the shortest time with the game are the "traditional" and the "entrepreneur" categories (~24m) engage in the least amount of PvP, while the "professional" and "aggressor" categories stay the longest (>36m) engage in the most. That data doesn't say why that is the case, and I am dubious CCP has that much control over how people play (especially how much they play) except for perhaps during the NPE, but it is clear that players that seek out and engage in PvP stay 50% longer with the game then those that avoid it. Changing the tutorials from ones that funnel players into solo missioning and mining careers, to ones that helps get them into competent social PvP organizations is clearly now a priority for CCP. I don't think the socials bear being disregarded, nor should entrepreneurs. Keeping in mind they are still more populous and further tend to engage longer per session says something. Particularly it says there is something there people find to be worth doing, but isn't as inherently social. The more social activities tend to drive longevity, that we all agree on, but I'm not sold that the solution to retention woes lies in driving people towards one area of the game vs socializing the currently less social aspects. I'd actually be inclined to think the reason for the shorter retention in non-combat areas is the fact that socialization isn't pushed or further developed.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 770	Posted - 2015.04.01 09:15:13 - [286] - Quote Tyberius Franklin wrote: I don't think the socials bear being disregarded, nor should entrepreneurs. Keeping in mind they are still more populous and further tend to engage longer per session says something. Particularly it says there is something there people find to be worth doing, but isn't as inherently social. Disregarded from what? Obviously CCP should cater as best they can to all types of players. But when it comes to making decisions on how to spend limited development resources, and for redesigning the NPE, they would be crazy not to prioritize their efforts towards the activities that keep players in the game the longest. That data slide says that is social players and players who engage in PvP. Tyberius Franklin wrote: The more social activities tend to drive longevity, that we all agree on, but I'm not sold that the solution to retention woes lies in driving people towards one area of the game vs socializing the currently less social aspects. I'd actually be inclined to think the reason for the shorter retention in non-combat areas is the fact that socialization isn't pushed or further developed. You can make that argument - if only CCP made the solo PvE experience better more players would stay - but the data do not support that. More importantly, that is not the game CCP originally conceived of when they designed Eve, nor is a solo PvE missioning game or mining simulator what they are selling the game as. It is a competitive PvP sandbox so of course it makes sense for them to focus on the social (i.e. sandbox) and PvP aspects of the game. Perhaps, in fact it is likely, that some of that effort will be spent making PvE activities more social, but otherwise their best bet to increase player retention is to get more player exposed to the PvP playstyle. Some players won't like it and choose a to pursue more solo or peaceful activities in the game, but if the fraction of new players who try social PvP activities is increased, so may the number of players who choose that as an Eve career. Long term, that will translate into a significant increase in retention and player population. Right now, the NPE does a terrible job showing these aspects of the game and sets most players off on a solo, PvE-type career. Regardless, it doesn't matter what you or I think, it is only CCP that is has the complete dataset and it is CCP who will make the decisions on the future development of the game.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1382	Posted - 2015.04.01 10:05:58 - [287] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: I don't think the socials bear being disregarded, nor should entrepreneurs. Keeping in mind they are still more populous and further tend to engage longer per session says something. Particularly it says there is something there people find to be worth doing, but isn't as inherently social. Disregarded from what? Obviously CCP should cater as best they can to all types of players. But when it comes to making decisions on how to spend limited development resources, and for redesigning the NPE, they would be crazy not to prioritize their efforts towards the activities that keep players in the game the longest. That data slide says that is social players and players who engage in PvP. Tyberius Franklin wrote: The more social activities tend to drive longevity, that we all agree on, but I'm not sold that the solution to retention woes lies in driving people towards one area of the game vs socializing the currently less social aspects. I'd actually be inclined to think the reason for the shorter retention in non-combat areas is the fact that socialization isn't pushed or further developed. You can make that argument - if only CCP made the solo PvE experience better more players would stay - but the data do not support that. More importantly, that is not the game CCP originally conceived of when they designed Eve, nor is a solo PvE missioning game or mining simulator what they are selling the game as. It is a competitive PvP sandbox so of course it makes sense for them to focus on the social (i.e. sandbox) and PvP aspects of the game. Perhaps, in fact it is likely, that some of that effort will be spent making PvE activities more social, but otherwise their best bet to increase player retention is to get more player exposed to the PvP playstyle. Some players won't like it and choose a to pursue more solo or peaceful activities in the game, but if the fraction of new players who try social PvP activities is increased, so may the number of players who choose that as an Eve career. Long term, that will translate into a significant increase in retention and player population. Right now, the NPE does a terrible job showing these aspects of the game and sets most players off on a solo, PvE-type career. Regardless, it doesn't matter what you or I think, it is only CCP that is has the complete dataset and it is CCP who will make the decisions on the future development of the game. Again no, I'm not making any argument for soloist. I specifically said there was need to emphasize or create social aspects in other activities. Either that or accept that several areas of the game are effectively pitfalls for retention. Not amount of focusing on PvP in the NPE will fix that fact. You say the best way is exposure to PvP, I disagree since the longest runners aren't just PvP'ers, securing a larger population than the pure PvP'ers as well. I'd say the data says people with variety play more and stay longer. If you have reason to believe a PvP specific focus creates more of those I'd gladly hear it. I think we'll both agree that the current approach doesn't do well at that though. But to the idea that this isn't the game CCP wants, well if that is the case they need to change it rather than sweep it under the rug. I agree that the NPE is one sided, but making it one sided in the other direction creates the same pitfall we have now for a different set of players. Actually no, that's not entirely true; a number of non-pvp players still likely miss the thing they might be most interested in long term as the current NPE focus is on mission completion and hoping you understand what you are doing along the way with no idea how to continue down a particular path. Those players still miss out on a PvP focused NPE. So it begs the question, are they just getting rid of the mission influence or actually pushing players into PvP, and further if they are, are there so few non-pvp players, which the graphs suggest is a no, to justify not having equally easy to access paths to other aspects of the game.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12371	Posted - 2015.04.01 10:13:13 - [288] - Quote Tyberius Franklin wrote: So it begs the question, are they just getting rid of the mission influence or actually pushing players into PvP, and further if they are, are there so few non-pvp players, which the graphs suggest is a no, to justify not having equally easy to access paths to other aspects of the game. Where you go wrong here is in your assumption that new players start out one way or the other. That's not the right way of thinking about it. What's important is what they are exposed to. And right now, it's totally one sided, and paradoxically, to the path that makes people quit the most. That needs flipped on it's head. Will people who are dead set on PvE anyway not like that? Yep. Too damn bad, we tried it their way and it's proven to not work. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 772	Posted - 2015.04.01 10:49:06 - [289] - Quote Tyberius Franklin wrote: Again no, I'm not making any argument for soloist. I specifically said there was need to emphasize or create social aspects in other activities. Either that or accept that several areas of the game are effectively pitfalls for retention. Agreed. Increasing the social aspects of PvE would be good for the game. Tyberius Franklin wrote: Not amount of focusing on PvP in the NPE will fix that fact. You say the best way is exposure to PvP, I disagree since the longest runners aren't just PvP'ers, securing a larger population than the pure PvP'ers as well. I'd say the data says people with variety play more and stay longer. If you have reason to believe a PvP specific focus creates more of those I'd gladly hear it. I think we'll both agree that the current approach doesn't do well at that though. I quoted the reason above. "Socials" stay with the game (and don't PvP or PvE much), but of the other 4 categories, the two categories that do significant amounts of PvP stay 50% longer than the other two. That is clear evidence that PvPers stay longer with the game. Whether you can move people between these categories is another issue, but the goal of getting more new players into PvP-focused (or social) playstyles rather than PvE , Industrial or solo activities is an obvious strategy for CCP to take. Ignoring that data is just putting your head in the sand. Tyberius Franklin wrote: But to the idea that this isn't the game CCP wants, well if that is the case they need to change it rather than sweep it under the rug. I agree that the NPE is one sided, but making it one sided in the other direction creates the same pitfall we have now for a different set of players. Actually no, that's not entirely true; a number of non-pvp players still likely miss the thing they might be most interested in long term as the current NPE focus is on mission completion and hoping you understand what you are doing along the way with no idea how to continue down a particular path. Those players still miss out on a PvP focused NPE. I never argued for removing all mention of PvE from the tutorial. Players need to make a living so they need to understand about missions, mining, exploration, industry and so forth. But those are not the main attraction of the game, and never have been. They are resources/activities to fight over for the real focus of the game, the PvP sandbox. However, those can come after. The "carebear trap" of focusing only on your ISK/hour has the terrible effect of making players risk-averse to the point they are reluctant to ever PvP as it doesn't make them ISK and they remain a carebear for the rest of their shorter stay in Eve. Or worse, they join Eve because of the large fleet battles they see on the internet, but are told by some carebear in NPC corp chat they have to mine to make enough ISK before they can PvP so they spend three months training mining skills and mining solo before quitting out of sheer boredom. Get players into social, PvP groups and the PvE activities can come later. Tyberius Franklin wrote: So it begs the question, are they just getting rid of the mission influence or actually pushing players into PvP, and further if they are, are there so few non-pvp players, which the graphs suggest is a no, to justify not having equally easy to access paths to other aspects of the game. Why are you arguing players should be pushed towards parts of the game that have demonstrably less player retention? This isn't a discussion about how valid or what playstyle is "better" or an attack on your personal playstyle. You can play in the sandbox however you wish. However, CCP is trying to find ways to get players to stay with the game longer and the most obvious route is to get more new players socially engaged and participating in PvP. Arguing that they should ignore the data and still push players towards areas of the game, your areas of the game, where more people quit out of some idea of "fairness" is just selfish. What is the harm including in the tutorial an hour where players get a sample of different types of PvP? Worst case they learn they don't like it and can carry on a non-PvP path. Best case, is that a whole cohort of players who quit previously as they were never exposed to PvP, stay with the game and become long-term PvPing Eve players.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 733	Posted - 2015.04.01 11:13:58 - [290] - Quote I just saw the analysis as being a small subset of information with a very shallow analysis, but in itself correct, losing a Venture, what does that matter, its fun, and you CODE guys hanging on this make me all giddy with amusement... Ella's Snack bar

March rabbit Federal Defense Union 1578	Posted - 2015.04.01 11:19:47 - [291] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: What is the harm including in the tutorial an hour where players get a sample of different types of PvP? The problem here is PvP in Eve is not that easy to be found. Yes you can find lots of 'PvP' in 1 hour of your time but I'm not sure if this kind of 'PvP' will make you interested in the game. What you can do when you 'new, poor and skilless'? Just few examples of PvP i'm aware of: - gate camping - docking games - suicide ganking - hotdroping - suspect baiting - solo (lol) - fleet roams Some of them need time and proper organization, some of them need cool expensive ships + all of them need skills. Really new player can't even suicide gank somebody unless this is capsule or shuttle: lack of skills. If you get new players to fight other new players in their rookie ships you will only teach them how to "Unreal Tournament" without option to change weapons. No 'cool boys toys' would be available. I remember "Need for speed Underground" when right from the start they give you cool car with all the stuff to get taste of the game. And then they say: want this baby? Go and get it! Implementing something like this in Eve Online would be 'too difficult' i guess..... The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10520	Posted - 2015.04.01 12:49:30 - [292] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: You can produce 'CCP data sets' till the cows come home, but they are quick snaps with no in depth study on them, like you all are so fond of arguing yourselves when the CCP data doesn't match your views. But we all know it's the social aspect that keeps us here, and therefore that is where the focus should be. Not on 'Forcing everyone into PvP' more but on increasing social aspects in all area's of the game, which requires a significant overhaul of PvE in EVE on the same scale and level Sov is getting currently. This is the Nevyn Ausent level of required proof.. What even funnier in these discussions is that the people discounting other folks evidence are the same people who have none of there own. Zero, Zilch, Nada. Quote: And Jenn, attitudes like yours are exactly why a lot of people quit, especially newbies. 'Toughen up or wimp out' went out of being cool years ago, now that's harassment and bullying and is well recognised as negative social influence since it aims to stigmatise someone having problems and labels them as 'lesser' or 'bad'. It's not cool, it's not ok 'because it's the internet'. It's bullying, plain and simple. In one very simple paragraph you described not only what's wrong with a lot of (misfit and shouldn't even be playing this game) people in EVE, but also the thing that will eventually destroy Western Civilization. Congratulations, I award you the 1st Annual "Nevyn Auscent (and everyone else no matter their individual merits) is Awesome" Trophy. Enjoy (until the end of civilization as we know it at least).
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10523	Posted - 2015.04.01 13:15:54 - [293] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: Dots wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: Source? I recall it said that those least likely to quit were those who engaged in a variety of activities, not PvP in particular. In contrast PvP only players were NOT amongst the longest lasting generally. Source 2014 Source 2015 All 3 of the activities Rise verbally notes under "Diverse" in 2014 are PVP activities. Only one of the 4 activities mentioned was PvP in the 2014 presentation. 2 if you include fleet involvement, but that doesn't explicitly mean PvP, but likely constitutes the bulk of it so we could count it as such. Considering you responded to a comment about wardecs trade needn't be counted and the last mention, chat involvement, was purely social. All "3" seems like a false statement concerning the subject at hand. The 2015 data works better assuming being a victim counts as "engaging" in PvP. That's a semantic argument I'd rather leave out but for the fact that there is still no proof of voluntary PvP activity and actually engaging being the stronger catalyst. Are you referring to new players or players in general? The slides you seem to remember were characterizing the overall retention rates for players of various types, while the OP here is referring to Rise's presentation on the NPE and how what new players experience in the 15 days influences whether they stay with the game. For that, CCP Rise is absolutely clear that having your ship blown up by another player, either legally or illegally, makes it more likely that you will stay with the game. As for more general stats, CCP Quant broke down player behaviour and showed that players who stay the longest are "professional" players who engage in both PvE and PvP and "aggressors" who primarily PvP, while "traditional" players who engage with the game as a solo PvE game stay the least by far. You can argue up-and-down as to why this is the case, but all the data suggest that players who engage in social, PvP play have higher initial retention rates, and stay with the game the longest. In particular, the solo "leveling my Raven" PvE playstyle is particularly bad for player retention, and thus the game, so CCP really needs to (and is trying to) steer people away from this playstyle and get them to engage in the sandbox with other players. The problem here remains the same. You are exposing people to truths that directly counter what people want and need to believe. You are literally describing Dinosaurs to people who need to believe in fire breathing Dragons lol. The ironic thing is that I'm a pve centric player (that also likes to spend some time solo, as a 'vacation' from people in EVE) and I don't feel threatened in the least by the idea that pvp (even the 'harsh' stuff like ganking) and social interaction is the way to go to increase player retention. The main reason people are against the idea (despite the revealed facts) is the type of people retained. They don't like the "evil nasty PVPrs" the game already has, and the idea that the game could retain EVEN MORE (expanding the community as they say they want, just with the 'wrong people') is a nightmare to them.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12377	Posted - 2015.04.01 13:46:02 - [294] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: The main reason people are against the idea (despite the revealed facts) is the type of people retained. They don't like the "evil nasty PVPrs" the game already has, and the idea that the game could retain EVEN MORE (expanding the community as they say they want, just with the 'wrong people') is a nightmare to them. Fortunately, what they want has stopped mattering in a very real way. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1652	Posted - 2015.04.01 13:54:31 - [295] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Congratulations, I award you the 1st Annual "Nevyn Auscent (and everyone else no matter their individual merits) is Awesome" Trophy. Enjoy (until the end of civilization as we know it at least). But that trophy has an 8th place marking. How can my kid live through the knowledge that he is not the winner?
Jenshae Chiroptera 1186	Posted - 2015.04.01 14:07:58 - [296] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: I just saw the analysis as being a small subset of information with a very shallow analysis, but in itself correct, losing a Venture, what does that matter, its fun, and you CODE guys hanging on this make me all giddy with amusement... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYnzZ2rczSo March rabbit wrote: Just few examples of PvP i'm aware of: - gate camping - docking games - suicide ganking - hotdroping ... all of them need skills. ..... I guess the bar for that definition is lower with you. Veers Belvar wrote: ... highsec PvE corps because wars ... , new players will continue to shrug and quit in droves. This is a bad thing? EVE is here so many years later because it is niche and not a WoW clone. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1653	Posted - 2015.04.01 14:32:31 - [297] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: EVE is here so many years later because it is niche and not a WoW clone. You do realise it was absolutely impossible for EVE to be a WoW clone right?
Ito Eto State War Academy Caldari State 16	Posted - 2015.04.01 16:31:05 - [298] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: EVE is here so many years later because it is niche and not a WoW clone. Well unless your MMO is utter crap, most of them soldier on for years without major problems, now admittedly Blizzard have manage to hit a sweet spot on subs and retention with their behemoth, but many titles seem to do okay with a couple of 100k subs as shown in the graphs here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=416120. One problem is a lot of devs and players seem to think every MMO should be able to reproduce Blizzard's success. Its the same kind of fallacy that marketing leeches come up with when they tell dev teams "Were going to make a AAA game" without understanding that you can't intentionally make an AAA game, it's either has the magic appeal that it will garner AAA sales, or it doesn't. In a lot of ways CCP has been very lucky to have hit upon the right formula for EVE, given the level of success of their other titles. Many more experienced and highly rated devs have fared far worse in the MMO market, for example Bioware and Bethesda's efforts have not even got close to EvE despite huge IPs and top-flight developers. Maybe they should be happy with what they have and stop trying to blame NPE for failing force players a specific way, I don't think its reasonable to expect a bunch of tutorials to magically convert a PvE player Into a PvP player. As I've said before if they really cared about grabbing more of the pie, they need suck up thier "elite pvp" attitude and do something pretty radical. Like a consensual PvP server, or introducing social corps rather than trying to make Hisec/ NPC corps so toxic no one wants to stay in them (and consequently in the game). "Themepark" "Sandbox", these do not mean what you think they mean, EvE is as on rails as a freight train, and has as many attractions as Disneyland, but soundbites are easy, thinking is not.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12381	Posted - 2015.04.01 16:34:55 - [299] - Quote Ito Eto wrote: As I've said before if they really cared about grabbing more of the pie, they need suck up thier "elite pvp" attitude and do something pretty radical. Like a consensual PvP server, or introducing social corps rather than trying to make Hisec/ NPC corps so toxic no one wants to stay in them (and consequently in the game). Lol, wow. You need to warn people before you say something like that. I only have one lung, and I can't laugh that hard for that long. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Ito Eto State War Academy Caldari State 16	Posted - 2015.04.01 16:43:21 - [300] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Ito Eto wrote: As I've said before if they really cared about grabbing more of the pie, they need suck up thier "elite pvp" attitude and do something pretty radical. Like a consensual PvP server, or introducing social corps rather than trying to make Hisec/ NPC corps so toxic no one wants to stay in them (and consequently in the game). Lol, wow. You need to warn people before you say something like that. I only have one lung, and I can't laugh that hard for that long. Well it is April the first "Themepark" "Sandbox", these do not mean what you think they mean, EvE is as on rails as a freight train, and has as many attractions as Disneyland, but soundbites are easy, thinking is not.

Eve Solecist Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 97	Posted - 2015.04.01 16:47:41 - [301] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Ito Eto wrote: As I've said before if they really cared about grabbing more of the pie, they need suck up thier "elite pvp" attitude and do something pretty radical. Like a consensual PvP server, or introducing social corps rather than trying to make Hisec/ NPC corps so toxic no one wants to stay in them (and consequently in the game). Lol, wow. You need to warn people before you say something like that. I only have one lung, and I can't laugh that hard for that long. He's right, though. If we had a consensual pvp server, it would be full of worthless idiots who waste their time being proud of killing dumb AI that is no challenge. Of course CCP would remove the ability to PLEX on this server, though, because idiots don't need to think they can play easymode for free. It would fill CCPs pockets. All these degenerated weaklings have a right to play too, uninterrupted, on a seperate server, completely isolated from those who actually play the game. They could call it EVE ONLINE: ID 10 T. We would be rid of them. They would be happy, not realising how everyone laughs about them. CCP would make money. "Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote.
Mag's the united 19219	Posted - 2015.04.01 16:48:17 - [302] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: March rabbit wrote: Just few examples of PvP i'm aware of: - gate camping - docking games - suicide ganking - hotdroping ... all of them need skills. ..... I guess the bar for that definition is lower with you. There is no bar with that definition, no matter how much you wish it to be true. Player versus Player. This is why you'll never get Eve and the sandbox it is. You're so set on making the box your size only, to have it only fit your definition of what it should be. That you miss great swathes of what it is for others, or dismiss them entirely. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Dersen Lowery Drinking in Station 1514	Posted - 2015.04.01 16:52:42 - [303] - Quote Since the unfounded assumptions are flying free in this thread, I'll lead with this: None of Rise's conclusions surprised me at all. I even got a hopeful gleam in my eye when he observed that the safety was an obstacle between new players and what they wanted to do. So, with that out of the way: Sibyyl wrote: Let's talk about two points people have brought up. Quote: 1. The 15-day window is not long enough to speculate on negative effects ganking may have to player retention. Why do we think the 1% gank kill ratio will change for players >15 days and <3-6 months? It doesn't make sense to me that this statistic would change. It's not a question of whether that statistic (or the "legal kill" statistic) would change, but whether the context would change. If getting people in corporations is the best way to retain them, then corporations dissolving or otherwise falling apart might endanger retention, yes? I emphasize might, because we're firmly in the realm of hypotheses here. If true, there are some followup questions that are worth asking, and the explanation that "the corp died because it was wardecced" leaves out all the interesting ones: what were the points of failure? Were they necessarily all external, or were the most important ones internal? I've been in high sec corps that were wardecced, and we responded by consolidating, marshalling, planning, setting up fleets, and otherwise engaging people--to face nobody, as it turned out, but our leaders still did their best to make the experience educational and engaging for their members, and to give roles and guidance to its new players. I have ~anecdata~ to the effect that wardecs and griefing aren't intrinsically bad, but that's not enough. I'd like to see Rise, or someone else at CCP, settle the question, and in an actionable way that leads to increased retention. And they should absolutely be completely open-minded about where asking that question takes them, because they know now that they can be surprised. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. I voted in CSM X!
Jenshae Chiroptera 1188	Posted - 2015.04.01 16:59:34 - [304] - Quote Ito Eto wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: EVE is here so many years later because it is niche and not a WoW clone. One problem is a lot of devs and players seem to think every MMO should be able to reproduce Blizzard's success. Its the same kind of fallacy that .... On that note, I often say, "Waste of Web is so popular because it was the first MMO that ran on almost any machine and could be played by any idiot." (It also has a mass that sucks in a lot of innocent people by RL associations) CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 3256	Posted - 2015.04.01 17:00:28 - [305] - Quote A few things bother me about CCP Rise's stats. I know people who have quit eve right after losing a ship. My wife is one. But here is the issue: None of those losses were due to a gank, or griefing. None happened when the player was less than two weeks old. CCP Rise's stats are interesting, but he may not be looking in the right place to see if there really is a problem. I would like to know: How many stop playing right after a ship loss? How many stop playing right after, or during, a prolonged period of war decs? I hope we get to hear more about this.In the presentation, CCP did mention they were going to look at what happened to players just before they quit, to see if there were any patterns. Know a Frozen fan? Check this out Frozen fanfiction
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12384	Posted - 2015.04.01 17:01:37 - [306] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: A few things bother me about CCP Rise's stats. You know what bothers me? That heinous **** you said earlier, about how you consider it fine to grief people out of the game by spewing lies and misconceptions about PvP at them the moment you encounter them. That's about the most toxic mentality I have ever heard of. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1189	Posted - 2015.04.01 17:06:33 - [307] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: CCP Rise's stats are interesting, but he may not be looking in the right place to see if there really is a problem. I would like to know: How many stop playing right after a ship loss? How many stop playing right after, or during, a prolonged period of war decs? +1 CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 3256	Posted - 2015.04.01 17:07:20 - [308] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: ....More importantly, that is not the game CCP originally conceived of when they designed Eve, nor is a solo PvE missioning game or mining simulator what they are selling the game as. It is a competitive PvP sandbox so of course it makes sense for them to focus on the social (i.e. sandbox) and PvP aspects of the game. Actually, that is not what CCP says. This is what they say: CCP Ytterbium wrote: We often hear "EVE is a PvP game, PvE is secondary". To this we would like to respond that EVE is a sandbox and shouldnGÇÖt necessarily favor one side over the other. What you do with it is up to you: all player activities should feel as appealing and rewarding no matter which choice you take. Know a Frozen fan? Check this out Frozen fanfiction
Ito Eto State War Academy Caldari State 16	Posted - 2015.04.01 17:08:53 - [309] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Ito Eto wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: EVE is here so many years later because it is niche and not a WoW clone. One problem is a lot of devs and players seem to think every MMO should be able to reproduce Blizzard's success. Its the same kind of fallacy that .... On that note, I often say, "Waste of Web is so popular because it was the first MMO that ran on almost any machine and could be played by any idiot." (It also has a mass that sucks in a lot of innocent people by RL associations) There was a fair bit of prior art, such as Lineage and Everquest, which Blizzard shamelessly copied. Where, I believe, it got a massive leg up was large fanbase for Warcraft (the RTS) and utilizing familiar, comfortable western folk lore rather than bizzaro Asian folklore that many westerners have no historical memory of, or can't relate to. "Themepark" "Sandbox", these do not mean what you think they mean, EvE is as on rails as a freight train, and has as many attractions as Disneyland, but soundbites are easy, thinking is not.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1655	Posted - 2015.04.01 17:19:35 - [310] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Vincent Athena wrote: A few things bother me about CCP Rise's stats. You know what bothers me? That heinous **** you said earlier, about how you consider it fine to grief people out of the game by spewing lies and misconceptions about PvP at them the moment you encounter them. That's about the most toxic mentality I have ever heard of. Spinning what he said is pretty toxic TBH. He described a situation that probably happen in game, he didn't say he or anybody was good players for doing so especially if they know they are spreading false information.

Dersen Lowery Drinking in Station 1514	Posted - 2015.04.01 17:20:04 - [311] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: You can make that argument - if only CCP made the solo PvE experience better more players would stay - but the data do not support that. So you don't think that the fact that solo PVE players have played every predictable, decade-old mission to death long before they've run out of slots on their Raven for shiny modules is not a factor? I would argue that it is, but also that it wouldn't be enough. As Rise said in his 2014 presentation, a lot of people take the solo PVE route because it's where the old NPE points them; so in a real way, they're directed into a small and mostly neglected minigame within EVE, rather than being exposed to the game itself. That's a real problem which I'm glad they're tackling. But even the people who enjoy that minigame are probably long past tired of rescuing the Damsel, yes? And maybe they'd stick around longer if that part of the game didn't top out so quickly, or if the mechanics rewarded fleeting up with other people instead of punishing it. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. I voted in CSM X!
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 3256	Posted - 2015.04.01 17:21:14 - [312] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Vincent Athena wrote: A few things bother me about CCP Rise's stats. You know what bothers me? That heinous **** you said earlier, about how you consider it fine to grief people out of the game by spewing lies and misconceptions about PvP at them the moment you encounter them. That's about the most toxic mentality I have ever heard of. I never said it was fine. I said it happens, and its a problem. Know a Frozen fan? Check this out Frozen fanfiction
Jenshae Chiroptera 1189	Posted - 2015.04.01 17:26:47 - [313] - Quote Ito Eto wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Ito Eto wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: EVE is here so many years later because it is niche and not a WoW clone. One problem is a lot of devs and players seem to think every MMO should be able to reproduce Blizzard's success. Its the same kind of fallacy that .... On that note, I often say, "Waste of Web is so popular because it was the first MMO that ran on almost any machine and could be played by any idiot." (It also has a mass that sucks in a lot of innocent people by RL associations) There was a fair bit of prior art, such as Lineage and Everquest, which Blizzard shamelessly copied. Where, I believe, it got a massive leg up was large fanbase for Warcraft (the RTS) and utilizing familiar, comfortable western folk lore rather than bizzaro Asian folklore that many westerners have no historical memory of, or can't relate to. The point being that other MMOs existed before WoW but they either weren't so hardware compatible or required some brains to succeed in them. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 780	Posted - 2015.04.01 18:13:45 - [314] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: I would like to know: How many stop playing right after a ship loss? How many stop playing right after, or during, a prolonged period of war decs? In this same presentation CCP Rise clearly said that less than 1% of players cite ship loss or harassment as their reason for unsubscribing. You can claim that rage-quitters don't bother telling CCP why they are leaving, but again, the data shows that there is no evidence for the carebear narrative that players are griefed out of the game by gankers or wardeccers. Perhaps CCP Rise or Quant can look deeper into the statistics, or even have done so but not made that information public, but there is no reason to believe that wardecs or gankers are hurting player retention - if anything the data says the opposite is true. Vincent Athena wrote: Actually, that is not what CCP says. This is what they say: CCP Ytterbium wrote: We often hear "EVE is a PvP game, PvE is secondary". To this we would like to respond that EVE is a sandbox and shouldnGÇÖt necessarily favor one side over the other. What you do with it is up to you: all player activities should feel as appealing and rewarding no matter which choice you take. Actually it is. From the New Pilot FAQ: CCP wrote: 7 PVP (PLAYER VERSUS PLAYER) The essential core concept of EVE Online is that it is full time PvP in a sandbox environment. As has been mentioned in previous sections any player can engage another player at any time... Of course it is a sandbox and you don't have to seek out PvP, but it is very much a PvP game.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10528	Posted - 2015.04.01 18:18:24 - [315] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: CCP wrote: 7 PVP (PLAYER VERSUS PLAYER) The essential core concept of EVE Online is that it is full time PvP in a sandbox environment. As has been mentioned in previous sections any player can engage another player at any time... Of course it is a sandbox and you don't have to seek out PvP, but it is very much a PvP game. It's a shame that you have to point out that which is obvious. EVE is a sandbox pvp game , it's clear by the way that pvp is possible anytime a player is in space and much of the game's market involves direct competition with other players. I will never understand the denial about this basic truth of EVE Online. But I guess for some people, when you have a narrative you want to cling to, observable facts are things to be discounted.
Ito Eto State War Academy Caldari State 18	Posted - 2015.04.01 18:33:40 - [316] - Quote Well its a sandbox apart from all those rules everywhere, non player modifiable 'World', inability to build anything except built in per-defined modules and ships that have to be fitted in specific ways.... I guess throwing a thin veneer of role-play over your actions might be sufficient, but you might as well run around in Counterstrike pretending to be a Jihadi or a LEO. And no Game of Risk in space doesn't qualify either. Just because a marketing droid says something, does not make it factually so. Now Feed The Beast and Minecraft, they are games you can build a 100m long ***** in, and therefore qualify as sandbox. "Themepark" "Sandbox", these do not mean what you think they mean, EvE is as on rails as a freight train, and has as many attractions as Disneyland, but soundbites are easy, thinking is not.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10531	Posted - 2015.04.01 18:36:41 - [317] - Quote Ito Eto wrote: Well its a sandbox apart from all those rules everywhere, non player modifiable 'World', inability to build anything except built in per-defined modules and ships that have to be fitted in specific ways.... I guess throwing a thin veneer of role-play over your actions might be sufficient, but you might as well run around in Counterstrike pretending to be a Jihadi or a LEO. And no Game of Risk in space doesn't qualify either. Just because a marketing droid says something, does not make it factually so. Now Feed The Beast and Minecraft, they are games you can build a 100m long ***** in, and therefore qualify as sandbox. Even Wikipedia knows better than you on this issue.
Ito Eto State War Academy Caldari State 18	Posted - 2015.04.01 18:45:31 - [318] - Quote Free roam or Open world =/= sandbox. Jump-gates are just glorified loadscreens. No procedurally generated self extending world. "Themepark" "Sandbox", these do not mean what you think they mean, EvE is as on rails as a freight train, and has as many attractions as Disneyland, but soundbites are easy, thinking is not.
Mag's the united 19219	Posted - 2015.04.01 18:51:52 - [319] - Quote Ito Eto wrote: Free roam or Open world =/= sandbox. Jump-gates are just glorified loadscreens. No procedurally generated self extending world. A true sandbox game would be anarchy, therefore unplayable. That's why sandbox games such as Eve have certain rules. Also jump gates are there, to allow the game to run on a single shard. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1190	Posted - 2015.04.01 18:54:12 - [320] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Vincent Athena wrote: I would like to know: How many stop playing right after a ship loss? How many stop playing right after, or during, a prolonged period of war decs? In this same presentation CCP Rise clearly said that less than 1% of players cite ship loss or harassment as their reason for unsubscribing. Again. This is within a very narrow 15 days scope. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.

Ito Eto State War Academy Caldari State 18	Posted - 2015.04.01 19:01:02 - [321] - Quote Mag's wrote: Ito Eto wrote: Free roam or Open world =/= sandbox. Jump-gates are just glorified loadscreens. No procedurally generated self extending world. A true sandbox game would be anarchy, therefore unplayable. That's why sandbox games such as Eve have certain rules. Also jump gates are there, to allow the game to run on a single shard. Exactly my point. Afaik the only known Sandbox MMO is Second life, and then as you point out, only to a certain degree. As someone who currently admins a FTB server, it is pretty much anarchy unless you white-list the logins to trusted players, or lock all the nuclear weapons and magic down with scripts, and thus remove the sandbox. The acid test of a sandbox game:- Can you build a 100m long c@ck (preferably flying with lasers on it). Cue Thorax gifs. "Themepark" "Sandbox", these do not mean what you think they mean, EvE is as on rails as a freight train, and has as many attractions as Disneyland, but soundbites are easy, thinking is not.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1190	Posted - 2015.04.01 19:09:32 - [322] - Quote Ito Eto wrote: ... the only known Sandbox MMO is Second life ... MMO is short for MMOG Massive Multiplayer Online Game. Games have measure of successes, in EVE how big an empire you build, ISK you collect, ships you fly well, kills you gather, etc. Second Life has no objective that the player does not set for themselves and thus, it is a virtual world with games in it. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10531	Posted - 2015.04.01 19:22:18 - [323] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Black Pedro wrote: Vincent Athena wrote: I would like to know: How many stop playing right after a ship loss? How many stop playing right after, or during, a prolonged period of war decs? In this same presentation CCP Rise clearly said that less than 1% of players cite ship loss or harassment as their reason for unsubscribing. Again. This is within a very narrow 15 days scope. And what scope is the information you have that goes counter to what Rise said? You know that's a rhetorical question, for if simply points out that while the information we have is in some ways incomplete, it's infinitely more complete than the non-Data that many of you have formed your opinions around. It's like some religious person telling a scientist "your data on evolution is incomplete" while not understanding that they themselves have zero data.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1190	Posted - 2015.04.01 19:32:00 - [324] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Blah. There is data, which can be turned into information and there is propeganda. Guess which one you are clutching to your breast and screaming that it is the truth? CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Benny Ohu Chaotic Tranquility Warp to Cyno. 4388	Posted - 2015.04.01 19:33:06 - [325] - Quote are we assuming that ccp only looked at fifteen days and never thought of looking at a longer period of time or are we assuming that ccp looked at a longer period of time, saw data that disagreed with what they saw in fifteen days and decided to present the fifteen day data at fanfest anyway "after having redefined sandbox contrary to the popular understanding of the word, i find eve is not a sandbox"
Benny Ohu Chaotic Tranquility Warp to Cyno. 4388	Posted - 2015.04.01 19:38:31 - [326] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Blah. There is data, which can be turned into information and there is propeganda. Guess which one you are clutching to your breast and screaming that it is the truth? the data that was turned into information and presented on stage at fanfest is this a trick question
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10534	Posted - 2015.04.01 19:38:49 - [327] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Blah. There is data, which can be turned into information and there is propeganda. Guess which one you are clutching to your breast and screaming that it is the truth? Ok, Then show us all what you mean. I mean, you are always skirting over what I say, present some counter facts, show us why you think the way you do, the evidence you used to come to your conclusions.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10534	Posted - 2015.04.01 19:43:57 - [328] - Quote Benny Ohu wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Blah. There is data, which can be turned into information and there is propeganda. Guess which one you are clutching to your breast and screaming that it is the truth? the data that was turned into information and presented on stage at fanfest is this a trick question It's always a trick question when that question challenges someone's (for lack of a better word) 'Faith' lol. If the data suggested the opposite (ie "We don't know for sure, but our survey of 80,000 characters, looking at the 1st 15 days , suggests that ganking seems to chase people away from the game"), the EXACT same people would be on this forum, claiming it was gospel truth and demanding that CCP end non-consensual pvp gameplay in the name of ~~the children~~ player retention lol. Still, while their squirming wasn't the intention, watching them squirm around in denial is entertaining, especially when it's coming from the guy who started the thread.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1193	Posted - 2015.04.01 19:52:11 - [329] - Quote Benny Ohu wrote: are we assuming that ccp only looked at fifteen days and never thought of looking at a longer period of time or are we assuming that ccp looked at a longer period of time, saw data that disagreed with what they saw in fifteen days and decided to present the fifteen day data at fanfest anyway "after having redefined sandbox contrary to the popular understanding of the word, i find eve is not a sandbox" 15 days of played time. It has been pointed out and this is from the top of my head that: - To sit in a battleship takes 8 days minumum + misc skills + fittings, so that throws most of the newbies that quit after losing everything in one of those out of the window. - Newbies aren't worth ganking when they are too new. - Newbies getting into duels, seeing how feeble they are, how long they will take to get better and quit are under the "legally killed" group. - That 15 days covers a lot of trial players who weren't likely to stick around, they came on, had a look and quit. - They don't mention if this counts alt that aren't played again because they are forum ones. - This doesn't break down if they are throw away alt accounts used for scouting. So on and so forth. Taking the 15 days of people's play is too limited and ludicrous. That this was even used, even run through the database makes CCP look very questionable. That people are clutching onto it is even more ridiculous. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 784	Posted - 2015.04.01 20:10:55 - [330] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Taking the 15 days of people's play is too limited and ludicrous. That this was even used, even run through the database makes CCP look very questionable. That people are clutching onto it is even more ridiculous. It's not ludicrous at all. If you watched that presentation you can see that CCP Rise and his team are sifting through the data, running focus groups, and scientifically testing the opportunities system on new players in order to find what causes players to leave and what keeps new players in the game. A huge fraction of players who start the trial do not stay with the game. Understanding why that is, and therefore what can be improved makes perfect sense, and is what I would expect a competent game company to do. The 15-day time frame is perfectly fine for the stated goal of figuring out how to get more people to subscribe to the game from the trial. What is ridiculous is rejecting this hard data out of hand and replacing it with... no data to come to the conclusion that CCP is wrong somehow.

Benny Ohu Chaotic Tranquility Warp to Cyno. 4390	Posted - 2015.04.01 20:14:19 - [331] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Benny Ohu wrote: are we assuming that ccp only looked at fifteen days and never thought of looking at a longer period of time or are we assuming that ccp looked at a longer period of time, saw data that disagreed with what they saw in fifteen days and decided to present the fifteen day data at fanfest anyway "after having redefined sandbox contrary to the popular understanding of the word, i find eve is not a sandbox" Taking the 15 days of people's play is too limited and ludicrous. That this was even used, even run through the database makes CCP look very questionable. That people are clutching onto it is even more ridiculous. you're assuming that the limited example designed to demonstrate the importance of getting proper data at the beginning of a talk is the entirety of the data ccp collected is that correct or are we suggesting that ccp rise presented a conclusion he knew was false
Mag's the united 19220	Posted - 2015.04.01 20:32:32 - [332] - Quote Benny Ohu wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Benny Ohu wrote: are we assuming that ccp only looked at fifteen days and never thought of looking at a longer period of time or are we assuming that ccp looked at a longer period of time, saw data that disagreed with what they saw in fifteen days and decided to present the fifteen day data at fanfest anyway "after having redefined sandbox contrary to the popular understanding of the word, i find eve is not a sandbox" Taking the 15 days of people's play is too limited and ludicrous. That this was even used, even run through the database makes CCP look very questionable. That people are clutching onto it is even more ridiculous. you're assuming that the limited example designed to demonstrate the importance of getting proper data at the beginning of a talk is the entirety of the data ccp collected is that correct or are we suggesting that ccp rise presented a conclusion he knew was false e: and knowingly presented misleading data to support the false conclusion Why would they ever call him out for lying, when simply ignoring and denying the information is easier? Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
KIller Wabbit The Scope Gallente Federation 916	Posted - 2015.04.01 21:55:18 - [333] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: For newbies about 86% - don't die 13% - die legally 1% - die to ganks. Two things not analysed: - How many died in Low Sec? - How many died in their first battleship? How about how many of the 13% were tricked into a corp under war dec and then mowed down? How about how many were ganked in the next 15 days of their first month? CCP does know how tip toe around the stats. --- Signature ganked by CCP
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 23392	Posted - 2015.04.01 22:09:06 - [334] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Blah. There is data, which can be turned into information and there is propeganda. Guess which one you are clutching to your breast and screaming that it is the truth? So CCP Rise's presentation was propaganda? I'm pretty sure CCP leave propaganda to the marketing department to screw up. We're trusting CCP Rise's presentation to be an accurate reflection of the current state of affairs, as a CCP employee his factual presentation should be regarded as authoritative regardless of what it said. If it had said the exact opposite then I'm pretty sure that many among the criminal and merc elements in highsec would be looking to change their playstyle slightly to accommodate CCPs wish for newbie retention. They've got to be the right type of newbies obviously; we don't want to be invaded by people thinking it's WoW in space, they can get bent. Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1195	Posted - 2015.04.02 00:13:13 - [335] - Quote Benny Ohu wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Taking the 15 days of people's play is too limited and ludicrous. That this was even used, even run through the database makes CCP look very questionable. That people are clutching onto it is even more ridiculous. you're assuming that the limited example designed to demonstrate the importance of getting proper data at the beginning of a talk is the entirety of the data ccp collected. 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?" I then leads me to question how that person's thought processes work to begin with that they present that. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Pok Nibin Filial Pariahs 670	Posted - 2015.04.02 00:21:28 - [336] - Quote offers a new dead horse to beat upon The right to free speech doesn't automatically carry with it the right to be taken seriously.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1195	Posted - 2015.04.02 00:22:56 - [337] - Quote Pok Nibin wrote: offers a new dead horse to beat upon Thank you. I will use it as bait and keep shooting the vultures. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 35351	Posted - 2015.04.02 00:32:38 - [338] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: 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. Sure, if you take a single data point as the basis of a decision. If you took the data from 80,000 people all doing what they do and found that among those, the unhealthy ones were more likely to have a heart attack, that has significant value for decision making. Same here. If the data from 80,000 different users shows that those that remain the most isolated are the ones most likely to leave the game early, that has significant value to making decisions about the future of the game. If that data also shows that the population looked at also wasn't negatively impacted by ganking, that also has value for decision making. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Jenshae Chiroptera 1195	Posted - 2015.04.02 00:43:43 - [339] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: If you took the data from 80,000 people 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. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 35352	Posted - 2015.04.02 00:47:49 - [340] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Scipio Artelius wrote: If you took the data from 80,000 people 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. What? You don't believe a population study on the risk of heart attack is better than a single data point (it's the example you used. No one else invented it)? As to the CCP data. There is nothing wrong with it for the purpose it was used for by Rise. You have not once provided any reasonable argument as to why it is inadequate for the scope of its use in that presentation. Not one. That won't change after this many pages. It's just all circular at this point. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari

Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12388	Posted - 2015.04.02 00:53:03 - [341] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: You have not once provided any reasonable argument as to why it is inadequate for the scope of its use in that presentation. Yeah they have. They don't want it to be true. Oh, you said reasonable. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1195	Posted - 2015.04.02 00:56:05 - [342] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: What? You don't believe a population study on the risk of heart attack is better than a single data point (it's the example you used. No one else invented it)?. 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! CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 35352	Posted - 2015.04.02 01:00:07 - [343] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Scipio Artelius wrote: What? You don't believe a population study on the risk of heart attack is better than a single data point (it's the example you used. No one else invented it)?. 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! Go back and read your own example. They are your words. No one else's. It's your example. Here, I'll requote it for you: 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!" But even that aside, if you believe there are no children that have heart disease, you would be wrong. So even for that population, where the incidence is very low, a population study is better than an individual data point, for broad decision making. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Jenshae Chiroptera 1196	Posted - 2015.04.02 03:42:03 - [344] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Blah Are you deliberately being dense? The orginal example pertains to developers that run silly queries against the database. As to children having heart disease, is might be somewhat similar to newbies being "killed unlawfully" within 15 days. "Look mummy! I am eating mud!" "Why are you showing me this? Why are your proud of being so mentally deficient?" CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Lienzo Amanuensis 69	Posted - 2015.04.02 04:02:23 - [345] - Quote Well, I don't really think mechanics are at the heart of it, and looking at graphs of correlations or covariances probably doesn't tell us much. Mainly, I think it is the social element that makes or breaks a subscription. If we were to look at a mechanic, we might look at killboards, as many players are more afraid of them than they are of losing ships. They fear that if they lose the ship, they'll somehow "look stupid," and consequently don't "undock" or rather simply avoid engagement. We might make the hypothesis that the more they avoid engagement with other players, the more likely they are to leave the game. How do you address that? Perhaps a bit of judicious carebearism aimed at propping up the ego. One thing we might do with APIs is ascribe a record of losses to a corporate entity rather than individual players. Your record lives and dies by the lifespan of that corporation. European countries are big on scrubbing search history results these days, and maybe EVE could benefit in the long run by some player "bill of rights" as regards how they shape their persona. Some people really really like their killboards of course, and as such perhaps such APIs could be linked to a numerical character ID. If players want to register their IDs with that out of game killboard service, then they can do so. Their own records in their kill history will still be limited to corporate centric records, so even if they manually copy it out, they cannot manually force another player to exist on an out of game service. Alternately, if we find that players look for ways to circumvent this, then we allow players to cycle their keys, or give the option to issue them new ones when they join new corps. Ideally, these API tags would be multi-part tags, identifying both corporate identity as well as the individual, allowing those who do hold those kill mails to retain their record in categorical form. I know the purists are raging at this point. However, I will focus on one practical consideration, which is solo pvpers. Many of them like to look up their pending opponents as a form of free intel. Well, it probably isn't too obsequious to expect people to establish their reputations in the game, rather than out of it. Gaining intel on corporation habits and activity is more vague, but it injects more uncertainty into the equation. Is this a fair outcome? No. Grizzled old vets like me can't really be embarrassed by our shoddy and lackluster pvp performance. It's not that easy to be rid of us. However, I can see how it affects a range of intermediate players negatively. If anything, it errs a bit more on freedom and less on consequence. It takes the burden of PR consideration off of the shoulder of more timorous players, and puts it more squarely on the shoulders of specialized corporate flakkies and propaganda spinners. If not being able to wring the tear sponge for longer than a moment results in more risk taking behavior overall, I think we can all make the calculation of what is being gained versus what is being lost.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 790	Posted - 2015.04.02 05:49:49 - [346] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Scipio Artelius wrote: Blah Are you deliberately being dense? The orginal example pertains to developers that run silly queries against the database. Asking the question "how many new players leave after being exploded by another player" is a silly question to ask when trying to assess why new players don't convert from trial to subscriber? CCP formulated a hypothesis - that new players were not staying because they were being killed by existing players - and tested that by querying over 80 000 data points from their database. They examined the correlation between deaths to other players during the trial and retention rates to test this hypothesis. Surprisingly, they found not only was there no data to support this hypothesis, they found that deaths to other players had the opposite effect. Sure, this doesn't establish conclusively that one factor causes the other, but certainly it is not a silly question to ask nor a silly way to go about testing that hypothesis. The result is strong evidence that losing a ship to another player (during the trial) is not a predictor of whether a player will stay with the game. Therefore, CCP learned that this is not an area they need to fix and can focus their efforts on other aspects of the trial that do correlate with players not subscribing. Why is that so difficult to accept?
Mag's the united 19223	Posted - 2015.04.02 06:13:32 - [347] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Why is that so difficult to accept? Simple. Because it doesn't fit their narrative. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 35363	Posted - 2015.04.02 06:30:46 - [348] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Scipio Artelius wrote: Blah Are you deliberately being dense? No, I'm just naturally that way I guess. Quote: The orginal example pertains to developers that run silly queries against the database. Excuse me for being dense, but I still have seen no evidence, counter data or reasonable argument to demonstrate why the data presented as it was, was not relevant within the scope that it was used. My own denseness I'm sure, but maybe you could explain in simple terms why that data, presented as it was, was not relevant to the point Rise made? Even one reasonable counter argument. Not personal insults or anything, just the topic and the data presented for the purpose it was presented. I may be dense, but I am open minded, as I suspect are many people on the forum. Happy to see and understand why the data is wrong, if only it can be explained. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Azda Ja Green Skull LLC 3543	Posted - 2015.04.02 06:38:27 - [349] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Even one reasonable counter argument. Not personal insults or anything, just the topic and the data presented for the purpose it was presented. Now now Scipio, let's be reasonable here. "I only lose ships when I fly with Azda." - Barry Cuttlefish
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 23399	Posted - 2015.04.02 08:00:42 - [350] - Quote Azda Ja wrote: Scipio Artelius wrote: Even one reasonable counter argument. Not personal insults or anything, just the topic and the data presented for the purpose it was presented. Now now Scipio, let's be reasonable here. This is GD, being reasonable has no place here Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.

Eve Solecist Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 118	Posted - 2015.04.02 08:05:00 - [351] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Azda Ja wrote: Scipio Artelius wrote: Even one reasonable counter argument. Not personal insults or anything, just the topic and the data presented for the purpose it was presented. Now now Scipio, let's be reasonable here. This is GD, being reasonable has no place here Jonah, nice to see your scared face around again! "Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote.
Eve Solecist Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 119	Posted - 2015.04.02 08:10:47 - [352] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Scipio Artelius wrote: Blah Are you deliberately being dense? The orginal example pertains to developers that run silly queries against the database. Asking the question "how many new players leave after being exploded by another player" is a silly question to ask when trying to assess why new players don't convert from trial to subscriber? CCP formulated a hypothesis - that new players were not staying because they were being killed by existing players - and tested that by querying over 80 000 data points from their database. They examined the correlation between deaths to other players during the trial and retention rates to test this hypothesis. Surprisingly, they found not only was there no data to support this hypothesis, they found that deaths to other players had the opposite effect. Sure, this doesn't establish conclusively that one factor causes the other, but certainly it is not a silly question to ask nor a silly way to go about testing that hypothesis. The result is strong evidence that losing a ship to another player (during the trial) is not a predictor of whether a player will stay with the game. Therefore, CCP learned that this is not an area they need to fix and can focus their efforts on other aspects of the trial that do correlate with players not subscribing. Why is that so difficult to accept? 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. "Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote.
Eve Solecist Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 126	Posted - 2015.04.02 11:11:54 - [353] - Quote Well, I guess the truth has ended the thread of the degenerates. "Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 102	Posted - 2015.04.02 15:00:36 - [354] - Quote 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.
Dots State Protectorate Caldari State 5	Posted - 2015.04.02 17:49:29 - [355] - 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 ß¦êß¦Æß¦ù-ó on it New Player Opportunities: a gallery
Pohbis Neo T.E.C.H. 468	Posted - 2015.04.02 18:10:18 - [356] - Quote 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.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1202	Posted - 2015.04.02 18:59:18 - [357] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Scipio Artelius wrote: Blah Are you deliberately being dense? The orginal example pertains to developers that run silly queries against the database. Asking the question "how many new players leave after being exploded by another player" is a silly question to ask when trying to assess why new players don't convert from trial to subscriber? CCP formulated a hypothesis - Yes, a bad hypothesis. Why not simply asked newbies that are 15 day olds, "Why are you quitting?" CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12398	Posted - 2015.04.02 19:07:17 - [358] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Yes, a bad hypothesis. Why not simply asked newbies that are 15 day olds, "Why are you quitting?" He really is this ignorant, folks. What do you think the outgoing survey is for, may I ask? Just to ask them what kinds of Gummi Bears they enjoy? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 799	Posted - 2015.04.02 19:11:02 - [359] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Black Pedro wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Scipio Artelius wrote: Blah Are you deliberately being dense? The orginal example pertains to developers that run silly queries against the database. Asking the question "how many new players leave after being exploded by another player" is a silly question to ask when trying to assess why new players don't convert from trial to subscriber? CCP formulated a hypothesis - Yes, a bad hypothesis. Why not simply asked newbies that are 15 day olds, "Why are you quitting?" They did. And less than 1% of the new players said it was because of ship loss or harassment. Presumably CCP Rise and friends are using the other 99%+ of the answers to fix the NPE as we speak.
Dots State Protectorate Caldari State 5	Posted - 2015.04.02 19:27:38 - [360] - 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 ß¦êß¦Æß¦ù-ó on it New Player Opportunities: a gallery

Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 23408	Posted - 2015.04.02 19:31:19 - [361] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera[/quote wrote: Yes, a bad hypothesis. CCP are in a far better position to judge whether or not their study was valid than you are. Quote: Why not simply asked newbies that are 15 day olds, "Why are you quitting?" (I don't mean this directly. I mean look at wider factors rather than assume it is because of ganking.) I'd hazard a guess that they concentrated on ganking because "ganking drives away new players" appears to be a popular belief among their current subscribers, IIRC 80+% of the audience confirmed this belief when CCP Rise asked his opening questions. Player retention is very high on CCP's agenda, as such I would assume that they're looking at many factors, ganking included, that may drive prospective subscribers away. For example they already know that the NPE leaves a lot to be desired as evidenced by the work that they're doing to improve it. TL;DR give CCP some credit, they're not dumb and I have no doubt that the study into ganking was merely the tip of the iceberg. Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Concord Guy's Cousin State War Academy Caldari State 656	Posted - 2015.04.02 19:34:59 - [362] - Quote meh wrong thead ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries" NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
Eve Solecist Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 136	Posted - 2015.04.02 20:01:51 - [363] - Quote Guys! "Shooting by recruiting" is a practise that's older than me in this game and that's a few years by now. Read what is written, not what you want to read! I'll help you this one time, though no one is paying me for it. Quote: CCP formulated a hypothesis - that new players were not staying because they were being killed by existing players - and tested that by querying over 80 000 data points from their database. They examined the correlation between deaths to other players during the trial and retention rates to test this hypothesis. Surprisingly, they found not only was there no data to support this hypothesis, they found that deaths to other players had the opposite effect. It was CCP who wondered if it was true what carebears claimed. They checked, if it was true that a high amount of new players is being griefed out of the game by being ganked, or shot at in any other way. "80.000 data points" means nothing to you and me, but the amount of "points" means that, no matter what, they checked for quite a lot! They found, that, those new players who forcefully interacted with someone else ... ... were far more likely to stay longer in the game. This is connected to (and I am quoting CCP here, watch FF.) the fact that the more socially players are the ones who are staying. This comes also, but not only, from "shooting by recruiting". Now before you scream "yeah the more socially people" ... meep, no. New players are being formed. The environment always has a direct impact on it's inhabitant. An environment inhabiting interacting human beings makes all humans happy. If you "carebear" people actually had any friends from the other side ... ... (you hate the players, not the character) ... ... you would know that this is an actually very common thing. So ... it's no hypothesis. It never was, except for CCP when they looked for it. (the issue with "data" and why I keep saying that the NPE is a social engineering problem ... ... but HEY, WHY EVEN THINK ABOUT IT AND ASK, RIGHT?? cough ... ) And then, after analysing their 80.000 datapoints, they learned actual reality. That "shooting by recruiting" is a thing. It works. Isolation is bad. PewPew, in a game about PewPew ... ... where PewPew is a common and natural form of interaction ... (killing is just a means of communication.....) ... actually makes people want to stay and PewPew. Phew. And now, as this is finally written down by my fingers, I come back to my senses and realise that ... ... this post does not matter, even though there's not a single bit of untruthfullness in it. ... there will be new people, who will make new threads and come up with the same "ignorant idiocies". ... those who PewPew have no actual interest in "ending the debate" once and for all. (yeah it's doable) ... the forum's information overload degrades people's minds to instant reactions, with no actual pause for thought before a reply. (I dare you to start looking for it!) ... the really bad people are people like Basil and some in this thread and not those who shoot or scam them. ... smart people are a minority. kinks "Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote.
Eve Solecist Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 136	Posted - 2015.04.02 20:10:01 - [364] - Quote And "Dots" is the cutest name ever! =^_^= "Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1658	Posted - 2015.04.02 20:18:54 - [365] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Yes, a bad hypothesis. Why not simply asked newbies that are 15 day olds, "Why are you quitting?" He really is this ignorant, folks. What do you think the outgoing survey is for, may I ask? Just to ask them what kinds of Gummi Bears they enjoy? The red ones are obviously better. On a different note, what would possibly happen if someone made a ganking campaign just outside of newbie starter systems?
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 8249	Posted - 2015.04.02 20:26:38 - [366] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Yes, a bad hypothesis. Why not simply asked newbies that are 15 day olds, "Why are you quitting?" He really is this ignorant, folks. What do you think the outgoing survey is for, may I ask? Just to ask them what kinds of Gummi Bears they enjoy? The red ones are obviously better. On a different note, what would possibly happen if someone made a ganking campaign just outside of newbie starter systems? Apparently no new players would ever quit the game. Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
Unezka Turigahl Det Som Engang Var 686	Posted - 2015.04.02 20:28:13 - [367] - Quote Eve Solecist wrote: And "Dots" is the cutest name ever! =^_^= Dots is a Sibyyl knock-off. And a noob. Gank her out of the game!
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1658	Posted - 2015.04.02 20:30:25 - [368] - Quote Mr Epeen wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Yes, a bad hypothesis. Why not simply asked newbies that are 15 day olds, "Why are you quitting?" He really is this ignorant, folks. What do you think the outgoing survey is for, may I ask? Just to ask them what kinds of Gummi Bears they enjoy? The red ones are obviously better. On a different note, what would possibly happen if someone made a ganking campaign just outside of newbie starter systems? Apparently no new players would ever quit the game. Mr Epeen I'm pretty sure nobody said getting ganked gave you a 100% retention rate but what I wonder is if the retention rate of the ganked being much higher than non ganked much higher (did they give actual number or a definition of much higher?) because the sample is ~800 ganked player. If players were to push that 1% to let's say 5%, what people think the results would be. Can someone appeal a possible ban for "harassing newbies" with the "I was pushing your retention stats" argument while fowarding a pictures of the fanfest presentation?
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12400	Posted - 2015.04.02 20:38:58 - [369] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: The red ones are obviously better. On a different note, what would possibly happen if someone made a ganking campaign just outside of newbie starter systems? Personally, I've often wondered about the ramifications of the Venture Killing Contest. It's not absurd to suggest that it did more good than harm, and got people engaged and shaken out of the coma that is highsec mining. 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. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Dots State Protectorate Caldari State 6	Posted - 2015.04.02 20:45:15 - [370] - 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 ß¦êß¦Æß¦ù-ó on it New Player Opportunities: a gallery

Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12403	Posted - 2015.04.02 20:48:36 - [371] - Quote Dots wrote: 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? True, but not all of us are Space Jesus. Or, if you're going to go Sisko on me, Black Space Jesus either. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Paranoid Loyd 4483	Posted - 2015.04.02 20:51:08 - [372] - Quote *Black Wormhole Alien Space Jesus "Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata Fix the Prospect!!!
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1659	Posted - 2015.04.02 20:52:49 - [373] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Dots wrote: 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? True, but not all of us are Space Jesus. Or, if you're going to go Sisko on me, Black Space Jesus either. James kinda pretend to be space Jesus...
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12403	Posted - 2015.04.02 20:54:32 - [374] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: James kinda pretend to be space Jesus... James Tiberius Kirk did not pretend to be Space Jesus, he was. He came(to get down), he saw(many of aliens naked), and he conquered(all that booty). "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 103	Posted - 2015.04.02 21:02:05 - [375] - 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. For example: What ships were the new characters in? What systems did the ganks happen in, and how far from the starter system was it? Were the ganked characters ganked again? Was there a chat initiated between the ganker and gankee? Quote: 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). I dunno about anybody else, but I did not claim the data is wrong. I'm said that it doesn't support the conclusion that "ganking promotes higher player retention rates." The study shows two things. First, that only 1% of new players are ganked within their first 15 days, and from that we can conclude that CCP working to reduce ganking, like some suggest, will most likely not result in much if any increase in new character retention. 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.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16220	Posted - 2015.04.02 21:05:39 - [376] - Quote So is it just me or would it have been super helpful if Rise had run the data to 16 days, when all the newbies quit because they're getting ganked? "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Steppa Musana Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 39	Posted - 2015.04.02 21:07:13 - [377] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Scipio Artelius wrote: Blah Are you deliberately being dense? The orginal example pertains to developers that run silly queries against the database. Asking the question "how many new players leave after being exploded by another player" is a silly question to ask when trying to assess why new players don't convert from trial to subscriber? CCP formulated a hypothesis - that new players were not staying because they were being killed by existing players - and tested that by querying over 80 000 data points from their database. They examined the correlation between deaths to other players during the trial and retention rates to test this hypothesis. Surprisingly, they found not only was there no data to support this hypothesis, they found that deaths to other players had the opposite effect. Sure, this doesn't establish conclusively that one factor causes the other, but certainly it is not a silly question to ask nor a silly way to go about testing that hypothesis. The result is strong evidence that losing a ship to another player (during the trial) is not a predictor of whether a player will stay with the game. Therefore, CCP learned that this is not an area they need to fix and can focus their efforts on other aspects of the trial that do correlate with players not subscribing. Why is that so difficult to accept? Because that isn't the conclusion your ilk are going with. You might be an exception, but mostly your kind are using this as evidence that the griefing that occurs in highsec has a positive affect on player retention. Bull. Even in the scope of trial users... why are these players are staying more often? The study suggests that players shot in their first 15 days are more likely to stay, no argument. But does that mean shooting players in their first 15 days increases their chance of staying? Nope, even that lighter conclusion is unsubstantiated. It could be that new players getting shot are putting more time into the game. They like the game more, thats why they are staying. In liking the game more, they put more time into it, and there chance of being shot goes up. It could be that new players getting shot are more into that kind of gameplay. They put themselves at that risk because they dont care, or want to try it out. Its not shooting them that retains them, its there mentality. Shooting the person without that mentality will not help retain him. So theres really a lot of ways to look at the data, but you have to actually be honest and not self serving to get to that point. And your kind, you and a few others aside, are the most dishonest and self serving group in the game today.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12409	Posted - 2015.04.02 21:14:17 - [378] - Quote Steppa Musana wrote: Because that isn't the conclusion your ilk are going with. You might be an exception, and theres been a couple others, but mostly your kind are using this as evidence that the griefing that occurs in highsec has a positive affect on player retention. Nonsense. Tell me, what conclusion do you draw from "the people who get non consensually destroyed have by far the best retention rate", may I ask? I'm going to ignore the rest of your post, because it's just you making thin excuses for your purely emotional rejection of data that you don't want to believe to be true. Quote: And your kind, you and a few others aside, are the most dishonest and self serving group in the game today. Oh, the irony. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Paranoid Loyd 4486	Posted - 2015.04.02 21:18:28 - [379] - Quote Steppa Musana wrote: your kind You sound like a racist redneck. "Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata Fix the Prospect!!!
Eve Solecist Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 140	Posted - 2015.04.02 21:23:11 - [380] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Can someone appeal a possible ban for "harassing newbies" with the "I was pushing your retention stats" argument while fowarding a pictures of the fanfest presentation? One can appeal a ban with any reason. That doesn't mean one will get away with it. Obviously he'd had to prove this boost of retention rate, which he won't be able to if he just keeps ganking them. "Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote.

Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 23409	Posted - 2015.04.02 21:23:59 - [381] - Quote Steppa Musana wrote: Because that isn't the conclusion your ilk are going with. You might be an exception, but mostly your kind are using this as evidence that the griefing that occurs in highsec has a positive affect on player retention. Nonsense. They do claim stuff like this because it makes people like you froth at the mouth. Quote: Even in the scope of trial users... why are these players staying more often? The study suggests that players shot in their first 15 days are more likely to stay, no argument. But does that mean shooting players in their first 15 days increases their chance of staying? Nope, even that lighter conclusion is unsubstantiated. The study was to see if ganking and other PvP affected new player retention, your question of why people who get shot at stay longer is outside the limited scope of the study,in fact it'd be a whole new study. Quote: [It could be that new players getting shot are putting more time into the game. They like the game more, thats why they are staying. In liking the game more, they put more time into it, and there chance of being shot goes up. It could be that new players getting shot are more into that kind of gameplay. They put themselves at that risk because they dont care, or want to try it out. Its not shooting them that retains them, its there mentality. Shooting the person without that mentality will not help retain him. The right mentality is essential, I think that may be the first thing I've ever seen you post that I can agree with; looks like hell just froze over. Quote: So theres really a lot of ways to look at the data, but you have to actually be honest and not self serving to get to that point. And your kind, you and a few others aside, are the most dishonest and self serving group in the game today. Given your expertise in these matters... Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
admiral root Red Galaxy 2603	Posted - 2015.04.02 21:29:19 - [382] - Quote Steppa Musana wrote: mostly your kind are using this as evidence that the griefing that occurs in highsec... ...exists outside your mind. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff \| No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that. A recent survey of applicants to CODE. corporations showed that 100% accepted James 315 as their saviour. You can't argue with facts.
Eve Solecist Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 142	Posted - 2015.04.02 21:29:38 - [383] - Quote Do you actually do this IRL too? I mean ... this argueing with someone. It's like argueing about god and religion. Does god exist? Is ganking bad for new players? When different beliefs clash together, talking about what's true is the most nonsensical thing to do. 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. sighs maybe next month ... "Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote.
Eve Solecist Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 142	Posted - 2015.04.02 21:32:23 - [384] - Quote admiral root wrote: Steppa Musana wrote: mostly your kind are using this as evidence that the griefing that occurs in highsec... ...exists outside your mind. Of course there's griefing, but it's miniscule. There's always an ******* around somewhere, but carebears always believe that it's literally everywhere. I know one of these IRL too. Very smart person, but keeps falling for the hearsay, because he saw it happening once. "Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 23412	Posted - 2015.04.02 21:34:33 - [385] - Quote Eve Solecist wrote: Do you actually do this IRL too?[/url] Not empty quoting Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 8253	Posted - 2015.04.02 21:36:12 - [386] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Which makes perfect sense to me, EVE only really gets real once you realize that you can lose. Do tell. What have you participated in with any risk of losing? Awoxing? Miner bumping? You're not exactly an authority on any part of this game except taking advantage of unarmed opponents. Nothing wrong with that, of course. Just stop acting like you are something you're not. Be proud of who you are, Kaarous. There's no shame in being afraid to engage someone that might shoot back. Own your fear. Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
Eve Solecist Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 143	Posted - 2015.04.02 21:36:41 - [387] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Eve Solecist wrote: Do you actually do this IRL too?[/url] Not empty quoting I love that one! :D This one should be a thing here! "Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote.
admiral root Red Galaxy 2604	Posted - 2015.04.02 21:37:04 - [388] - Quote Mr Epeen wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Which makes perfect sense to me, EVE only really gets real once you realize that you can lose. Do tell. What have you participated in with any risk of losing? Awoxing? Miner bumping? You're not exactly an authority on any part of this game except taking advantage of unarmed opponents. Nothing wrong with that, of course. Just stop acting like you are something you're not. Be proud of who you are, Kaarous. There's no shame in being afraid to engage someone that might shoot back. Own your fear. Mr Epeen Says the forum alt. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff \| No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that. A recent survey of applicants to CODE. corporations showed that 100% accepted James 315 as their saviour. You can't argue with facts.
Paranoid Loyd 4489	Posted - 2015.04.02 21:39:50 - [389] - Quote Pots and kettles everywhere. "Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata Fix the Prospect!!!
admiral root Red Galaxy 2604	Posted - 2015.04.02 21:42:17 - [390] - Quote Paranoid Loyd wrote: Pots and kettles everywhere. I'd love a cup of tea, please. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff \| No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that. A recent survey of applicants to CODE. corporations showed that 100% accepted James 315 as their saviour. You can't argue with facts.

Paranoid Loyd 4489	Posted - 2015.04.02 21:42:52 - [391] - Quote admiral root wrote: Paranoid Loyd wrote: Pots and kettles everywhere. I'd love a cup of tea, please. One lump or two? "Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata Fix the Prospect!!!
Ria Nieyli Nieyli Enterprises 33789	Posted - 2015.04.02 21:43:34 - [392] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Steppa Musana wrote: Because that isn't the conclusion your ilk are going with. You might be an exception, but mostly your kind are using this as evidence that the griefing that occurs in highsec has a positive affect on player retention. Nonsense. Making people like you froth at the mouth is reason enough to make claims like this, even more so when a CCP case study appears to back it up. It appears to back it up to some people, but they're just misreading the data to suit their own views. I love statistics Why do bad threads happen to good people?
Hengle Teron Just Another Corp XIV 44655	Posted - 2015.04.02 21:43:43 - [393] - Quote The sky is green, I tell you. I saw it with my own damn eyes.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 35406	Posted - 2015.04.02 21:44:28 - [394] - Quote Eve Solecist wrote: 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. Often I'd agree with that sentiment. At other times, I think this forum is as much a part of the rich experience of Eve as the game itself is. I know personally I'm as connected to what happens here as I am to shooting someone in the face in game, so firing volleys from one trench to another entrenched player with neither giving ground in a debate/argument can still be enjoyable. Futile, but enjoyable. I also think 'flavour of the month' is a thing CCP listens to and makes changes to the game based on community outcry. So in the absence of everyone agreeing on something, both sides are just as important to express, even in the face of facts, just to ensure petty things don't become the target of the latest FOTM. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Paranoid Loyd 4489	Posted - 2015.04.02 21:44:36 - [395] - Quote Hengle Teron wrote: The sky is green, I tell you. I saw it with my own damn eyes. There's just an incursion in the system. "Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata Fix the Prospect!!!
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12415	Posted - 2015.04.02 21:45:41 - [396] - Quote admiral root wrote: Mr Epeen wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Which makes perfect sense to me, EVE only really gets real once you realize that you can lose. Do tell. What have you participated in with any risk of losing? Awoxing? Miner bumping? You're not exactly an authority on any part of this game except taking advantage of unarmed opponents. Nothing wrong with that, of course. Just stop acting like you are something you're not. Be proud of who you are, Kaarous. There's no shame in being afraid to engage someone that might shoot back. Own your fear. Mr Epeen Says the forum alt. No, I don't mind engaging the worthless anklebiter this once, even if he is making a false claim for credentials fallacy. Since I began playing EVE, I have engaged in fleet combat in nullsec as a line member. Quit that, then ended up rolling this guy as an alt, since my main was somewhat untenable thanks to a particularly bad doxx. This guy has been in faction warfare for a while, got out of that after winning the warzone with Fweddit. Then, in between helping out with missions, ran a bunch of fleet ops (logi, most often, since this guy is a Guardian pilot) with my old alliance, the ROC, in both low and null, as well as with their wormhole corp for a while. Quit that because poses made me want to pull out my fillings. In between, on alt accounts, I have been a fairly prolific awoxer and ganker, dabbling presently in highsec wars with this excellent and real life friendly corp in CODE. I also dabble in margin trade scams and some pretty awful marketing, since I speculate pretty damn badly. So I've done a large proportion of what EVE Online has to offer. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 119	Posted - 2015.04.02 21:56:24 - [397] - Quote Paranoid Loyd wrote: Hengle Teron wrote: The sky is green, I tell you. I saw it with my own damn eyes. There's just an incursion in the system. Hey! I saw you in Devoid looting wrecks off a gate. Stealer! ( -í° -£-û -í°)
Paranoid Loyd 4494	Posted - 2015.04.02 22:01:18 - [398] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: Paranoid Loyd wrote: Hengle Teron wrote: The sky is green, I tell you. I saw it with my own damn eyes. There's just an incursion in the system. Hey! I saw you in Devoid looting wrecks off a gate. Stealer! I saw you too, but I do the shooting not the looting. "Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata Fix the Prospect!!!
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 23414	Posted - 2015.04.02 22:18:18 - [399] - Quote Ria Nieyli wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Steppa Musana wrote: Because that isn't the conclusion your ilk are going with. You might be an exception, but mostly your kind are using this as evidence that the griefing that occurs in highsec has a positive affect on player retention. Nonsense. Making people like you froth at the mouth is reason enough to make claims like this, even more so when a CCP case study appears to back it up. It appears to back it up to some people, but they're just misreading the data to suit their own views. I love statistics Which part of CCP Rise saying that people who get ganked are the most likely group to stay, with people otherwise killed by other players the 2nd most likely group to stay, while people who don't die at all are most likely group to leave the game is ambiguous? CCP Rise's presentation doesn't go as far as explicitly stating that "highsec griefing" has a positive effect on player retention. However, the presentation he gave certainly seems to suggest that "highsec griefing" doesn't appear to be having a negative effect. Your use of griefing is inappropriate btw, the dictionary definition doesn't count when those activities are recognised and encouraged by the developer of a game, as is the case with Eve. Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Ria Nieyli Nieyli Enterprises 33790	Posted - 2015.04.02 22:29:44 - [400] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Ria Nieyli wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Steppa Musana wrote: Because that isn't the conclusion your ilk are going with. You might be an exception, but mostly your kind are using this as evidence that the griefing that occurs in highsec has a positive affect on player retention. Nonsense. Making people like you froth at the mouth is reason enough to make claims like this, even more so when a CCP case study appears to back it up. It appears to back it up to some people, but they're just misreading the data to suit their own views. I love statistics Which part of CCP Rise saying that people who get ganked are most likely stay, with people in the otherwise killed by other players 2nd most likely to stay, while people who don't die at all are most likely to leave the game is ambiguous? CCP Rise's presentation doesn't go as far as explicitly stating that "highsec griefing" has a positive effect on player retention., the presentation he gave certainly seems to suggest that "highsec griefing" doesn't appear to be having a negative effect. Your use of griefing is inappropriate btw, the dictionary definition doesn't count when those activities are recognised and encouraged by the developer of a game, as is the case with Eve. Where did I say griefing in my post? As for the other question: EVE is marketed as a PvP game, people come in expecting to experience some. Ergo, concordedly, vis-a-vis it would be expected that they stay if they do. I don't know why people are chestbeating about it so much. It's like reading about all the horrible scams that can occur in the game and how you can't trust anyone. Then you start to play and people warn you about the Goons because... they'll scam you. Well, duh? Why do bad threads happen to good people?

Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 23415	Posted - 2015.04.02 22:36:16 - [401] - Quote ^^ Sorry my bad, I derped and pasted where I should have copied, only the first paragraph should have been posted. Apologies Post edited. Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1202	Posted - 2015.04.02 23:27:13 - [402] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: James kinda pretend to be space Jesus... You get that also?! The way the CODE fanatics press The Order on people has me refering to them to other people as, "Space Jehovahs" or "SJ"s now. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 35417	Posted - 2015.04.03 00:21:17 - [403] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: The orginal example pertains to developers that run silly queries against the database. 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? Not empty quoting. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12423	Posted - 2015.04.03 00:22:37 - [404] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Scipio Artelius wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: The orginal example pertains to developers that run silly queries against the database. 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? Not empty quoting. Yes you are, they'll ignore it anyway. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1202	Posted - 2015.04.03 00:27:13 - [405] - Quote ] Scipio Artelius wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: The orginal example pertains to developers that run silly queries against the database. 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? The problem is that the data was run at all. Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Eve Solecist wrote: ... It was CCP who wondered if it was true what carebears claimed. They checked, if it was true that a high amount of new players is being griefed out of the game by being ganked, or ... Obvious flaw here. Ask 100 random carebears what determines new player and you will have 50 different answers. For the purpose of his presentation his definition is the only one that counts, our definitions are irrelevant. That said I'd be interested in seeing the results of any future studies done with extended timescales. Eve Solecist is making new definitions and a lot of guess work. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Concord Guy's Cousin State War Academy Caldari State 658	Posted - 2015.04.03 00:28:12 - [406] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Obvious flaw here. Ask 100 random carebears what determines new player and you will have 50 different answers. Ask 100 random carebears anything at all and the answer generally comes down to one or more of the following themes. Gankers are sociopaths in real life. Wardecs are unfair, people who do it are sociopaths in real life. Scammers are sociopaths people in real life. Leave me alone, I just want to PvE. Grr GoonsGäó Highsec should be safe. Other people suck. Occasionally we get an exceptional bingo-post from the likes of Veers that manages to combine all of the above in some far fetched fantasy that resembles Habbo on 'shrooms. ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries" NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12428	Posted - 2015.04.03 00:30:47 - [407] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: The problem is that the data was run at all. Told ya, Scipio. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
admiral root Red Galaxy 2610	Posted - 2015.04.03 00:33:25 - [408] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: The problem is that the data was run at all. People like you wanted to burn Galileo. I'm just saying. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff \| No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that. A recent survey of applicants to CODE. corporations showed that 100% accepted James 315 as their saviour. You can't argue with facts.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 23423	Posted - 2015.04.03 00:33:35 - [409] - Quote Darn it, bloody forums.. Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 35419	Posted - 2015.04.03 00:37:09 - [410] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: The problem is that the data was run at all. Told ya, Scipio. Seems so, unfortunately. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari

Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12433	Posted - 2015.04.03 00:39:33 - [411] - Quote admiral root wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: The problem is that the data was run at all. People like you wanted to burn Galileo. I'm just saying. That's actually a common misconception. Galileo was persecuted largely for his disobedience against a dictate, having made one of his books solely to make fun of the Pope after promising not to. It had little to do with his scientific views. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1202	Posted - 2015.04.03 00:40:48 - [412] - Quote admiral root wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: The problem is that the data was run at all. People like you wanted to burn Galileo. I'm just saying. Quote: A valid logical argument is one in which the conclusions follow from its premises, and its conclusions are consequences of its premises. If the premises are garbage throw out the rest. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
admiral root Red Galaxy 2614	Posted - 2015.04.03 00:42:14 - [413] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: admiral root wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: The problem is that the data was run at all. People like you wanted to burn Galileo. I'm just saying. That's actually a common misconception. Galileo was persecuted largely for his disobedience against a dictate, having made one of his books solely to make fun of the Pope after promising not to. It had little to do with his scientific views. Well, I learnt something today. \o/ No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff \| No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that. A recent survey of applicants to CODE. corporations showed that 100% accepted James 315 as their saviour. You can't argue with facts.
admiral root Red Galaxy 2614	Posted - 2015.04.03 00:43:10 - [414] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: If the premises are garbage throw out the rest. Says the head of what amounts to Eve's flat Earth society. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff \| No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that. A recent survey of applicants to CODE. corporations showed that 100% accepted James 315 as their saviour. You can't argue with facts.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12433	Posted - 2015.04.03 00:43:44 - [415] - Quote admiral root wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: admiral root wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: The problem is that the data was run at all. People like you wanted to burn Galileo. I'm just saying. That's actually a common misconception. Galileo was persecuted largely for his disobedience against a dictate, having made one of his books solely to make fun of the Pope after promising not to. It had little to do with his scientific views. Well, I learnt something today. \o/ At least someone did. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1202	Posted - 2015.04.03 00:48:27 - [416] - Quote admiral root wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: If the premises are garbage throw out the rest. Says the head of what amounts to Eve's flat Earth society. I look at the profile picture of your rather flat, table topped, looking head and have a good laugh. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1992	Posted - 2015.04.03 01:27:19 - [417] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: An 80,000 user sample size is not insignificant. Assuming that the users are unique and the last figure of 500,00 subs to be accurate to within 10%, that'd be a 14-17% sample of the overall population, better than pretty much any medical study. Quote: Eve Solecist is making new definitions and a lot of guess work. And you're not? Pull the other one, it's got bells on. Ignoring Jenshaes weird statement. Firstly an 80,000 person study is not a 14-17% sample of the overall population. Because it is a study which includes no longer active accounts who are not part of the 500,000 population, so to obtain an accurate percentage of the population you would have to know the total number of accounts who have been active at any time (including trials) in the time period of the study. not the number of current subs. Secondly, all the database query established is that there is a relationship between players who have been ganked in their first 15 days and players who have stayed more than 15 days. Ignoring all the stuff about 15 days being a terrible timeframe to take, we still have no idea of the nature of the relationship. So to say that 'Players stayed because they were ganked' is extrapolating the statistics to say something that we have no idea on. There are a multitude of other relationships that would also generate a similar view, but for vastly different reasons on which ganking is not the root cause, but simply a subsequent effect from the real reason those players have stayed longer. Basically, you all are inventing results from a study, and would get laughed out of any scientific establishment with your reaching for straws.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 23423	Posted - 2015.04.03 01:48:14 - [418] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Ignoring Jenshaes weird statement. Firstly an 80,000 person study is not a 14-17% sample of the overall population. Because it is a study which includes no longer active accounts who are not part of the 500,000 population, so to obtain an accurate percentage of the population you would have to know the total number of accounts who have been active at any time (including trials) in the time period of the study. not the number of current subs. If true, this is the first I've heard about it. Would you have a source for your information? Quote: Secondly, all the database query established is that there is a relationship between players who have been ganked in their first 15 days and players who have stayed more than 15 days. Ignoring all the stuff about 15 days being a terrible timeframe to take, we still have no idea of the nature of the relationship. So to say that 'Players stayed because they were ganked' is extrapolating the statistics to say something that we have no idea on. I've certainly not said that as far as I know, what I have said is that the data points to people who have been involved in ship to ship PvP being more likely to stay those who haven't. I hope CCP Rise actually takes the study further, both in time and depth to see if he and his team can come up with some sort of relationship, which as you rightly say is obscure or unknown at present. Quote: There are a multitude of other relationships that would also generate a similar view, but for vastly different reasons on which ganking is not the root cause, but simply a subsequent effect from the real reason those players have stayed longer. No doubt there is, a further study should be able to point to them, for example joining a competent corp, falling in with like minded folks etc will certainly influence player retention. Quote: Basically, you all are inventing results from a study, and would get laughed out of any scientific establishment with your reaching for straws. Have you seen the crap some people pass off as science these days? Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1206	Posted - 2015.04.03 02:43:42 - [419] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: If true, this is the first I've heard about it. Would you have a source for your information? Party 1, "I have studied the density of 80 000 granite pebbles to see if they are more dense than granite rocks. " Party 2, "That is a stupid study because granite is granite and on average they will have the same density under the same conditions." Party 3, "Where is your proof? Have you studied 80 000 granite rocks?" Party 2, "I do not need proof. It is evident that their study is based on a stupid idea to start off with." CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10548	Posted - 2015.04.03 03:44:18 - [420] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Basically, you all are inventing results from a study, and would get laughed out of any scientific establishment with your reaching for straws. How hard would that laughter be for people who were debunking a case study while having zero information of their own and never having even conducted one of their own? Because that's what's happening here lol. It's no coincidence that the 2 or 3 die hard deniers here are members of the same ideological camp. A camp that at it's base NEEDS non-consensual pvp to be a bad thing.

Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10548	Posted - 2015.04.03 03:46:08 - [421] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: If true, this is the first I've heard about it. Would you have a source for your information? Party 1, "I have studied the density of 80 000 granite pebbles to see if they are more dense than granite rocks. " Party 2, "That is a stupid study because granite is granite and on average they will have the same density under the same conditions." Party 3, "Where is your proof? Have you studied 80 000 granite rocks?" Party 2, "I do not need proof. It is evident that their study is based on a stupid idea to start off with." Fixed that for you.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1992	Posted - 2015.04.03 04:10:48 - [422] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: How hard would that laughter be for people who were debunking a case study while having zero information of their own and never having even conducted one of their own? Because that's what's happening here lol. It's no coincidence that the 2 or 3 die hard deniers here are members of the same ideological camp. A camp that at it's base NEEDS non-consensual pvp to be a bad thing. Its almost like.... A: you are delusional since I don't belong to that camp. B: know about case studies and eliminating variables and relationships not always meaning direct cause. C: you are emotionally over invested in 'proving' that ganking newbies is good for the game.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 35423	Posted - 2015.04.03 04:14:31 - [423] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: C: you are emotionally over invested in 'proving' that ganking newbies is good for the game. When has Jenn ever said that? Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 103	Posted - 2015.04.03 04:40:56 - [424] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Steppa Musana wrote: Because that isn't the conclusion your ilk are going with. You might be an exception, and theres been a couple others, but mostly your kind are using this as evidence that the griefing that occurs in highsec has a positive affect on player retention. Nonsense. Tell me, what conclusion do you draw from "the people who get non consensually destroyed have by far the best retention rate", may I ask? 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.
Dots State Protectorate Caldari State 11	Posted - 2015.04.03 04:53:18 - [425] - 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 ß¦êß¦Æß¦ù-ó on it New Player Opportunities: a gallery
Niobe Song Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 69	Posted - 2015.04.03 05:01:36 - [426] - Quote A ganked newbie can do one of several things. They can start an angry ranting forum thread and rage quit. We are probably better off without them. They can continue playing like they were playing and will probably get ganked again and again. Or they can learn from whatever mistake got them ganked in the first place and not get ganked again (or in some cases it might have just been bad luck and they were in the wrong place at the wrong time). I think CCP has done their best to strike a balance. They are not going to remove ganking completely. It is a legitimate part of the game. But from time to time they will rebalance things to make sure that ganking isn't too easy to do without repercussions for the ganker. I am a strong believer that NPE is cause for more newbies leaving than being ganked but it wouldn't be a bad idea to include information on A. how to gank or B. how to avoid ganks as part of the revised NPE.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 35423	Posted - 2015.04.03 05:05:27 - [427] - 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. It's not a bad conclusion and kind of matches what Rise said last year a little bit in the NPE vision presentation at Fanfest: https://youtu.be/sbHqFgn4SOw?t=993 After noting that CCP could really see that the current NPE pushes people towards solo/mission play, which is a good fit for some people, he continued with: "...we have this other small group of 5-10% that do move into a really wide range of experiences. They are trading with other players a lot, they are in corps much more often, they're talking in fleet chats more often, they're on pvp kills more often; and these people tend to stick with us. These people are all of you guys most likely [referring to the audience] and, you know, they love the game and they stay with the game for a long time. To us that says that the more we can do to get people having the kind of experiences that this group is having, the better off we will be, because obviously for them it's really rich and meaningful and it sticks with them for a long time..." It's kind of related to what you said, because whether the player is more engaged through their own motivation, or whether the game moves people into rich experiences, CCP clearly see advantages in changing the focus of the NPE. That's where the stats from this year are related to that. If it's true, as people in the community often claim, that ganking drives new players away from the game, than that's important for CCP to understand, because that would be far from the type of rich experience they are trying to develop in the NPE. This years stats showed that if anything, the non-consensual pvp is part of that rich experience. Not the whole thing, just part of what helps make eve rich, non-linear and unpredictable. Far from being something that drives new players (in the trial period) away from the game, ganking appears to be part of what helps make the gaming experience richer; as the players in that 1% group of ganked have a higher rate of retention and fit into that broader 5-10% of players that stick with the game long term. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Benny Ohu Chaotic Tranquility Warp to Cyno. 4398	Posted - 2015.04.03 05:37:48 - [428] - 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. But as I said, that's a hypothesis, just speculation as this point. All we can truly conclude from the data as presented at Fanfest is that ganking is not a significant contributor to low new-player retention rates. (That in no way means increased ganking will result in increased retention - perhaps it will, but concluding so from the data is incorrect.) ps - the exact words in the presentation, IIRC, was "slightly better," rather than "by far the best." this is a non-dumb thing being said, but you lose points for using the word 'thus' unironically Dots wrote: But doesn't Kirk teach us that the only way to beat the Kobayashi Maru is to cheat? read a star trek book a few years ago when there was nothing else to read, i remember his nephew beats the scenario legit maybe it was his second cousin i don't know frankly it's surprising kirk doesn't have more direct decendants, considering
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 899	Posted - 2015.04.03 06:24:22 - [429] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: An 80,000 user sample size is not insignificant. Assuming that the users are unique and the last figure of 500,00 subs to be accurate to within 10%, that'd be a 14-17% sample of the overall population, better than pretty much any medical study. Quote: Eve Solecist is making new definitions and a lot of guess work. And you're not? Pull the other one, it's got bells on. Ignoring Jenshaes weird statement. Firstly an 80,000 person study is not a 14-17% sample of the overall population. Because it is a study which includes no longer active accounts who are not part of the 500,000 population, so to obtain an accurate percentage of the population you would have to know the total number of accounts who have been active at any time (including trials) in the time period of the study. not the number of current subs. Secondly, all the database query established is that there is a relationship between players who have been ganked in their first 15 days and players who have stayed more than 15 days. Ignoring all the stuff about 15 days being a terrible timeframe to take, we still have no idea of the nature of the relationship. So to say that 'Players stayed because they were ganked' is extrapolating the statistics to say something that we have no idea on. There are a multitude of other relationships that would also generate a similar view, but for vastly different reasons on which ganking is not the root cause, but simply a subsequent effect from the real reason those players have stayed longer. Basically, you all are inventing results from a study, and would get laughed out of any scientific establishment with your reaching for straws. Friend! You carebears told us for a long time that ganking was a big deal for player retention. You where absolutely convinced that ganking drives new players away. You spew this nonsense on the forums in every thread... Now it seams to be the case that CCP had the same view for some time, but they where in the position to actually check because they have all the data of what happens and the survey answers if people quit. They tried to verify YOUR idea about whats happening and why people quit. The result was something completely different. The data shows that not only is ganking an insignificant factor for new player retention, it also shows that new player who actually get ganked are more likely to stay. This is directly from the talk, there is no need to interpret anything into this data. This are just simple facts. The facts say, and again this is directly shown by the data, that the carebears where wrong when they stated that ganking is bad for new player retention. The theory of the carebears was falsified with data which showed the opposite of what they expected. This is how science works. You make a hypothesis, then you try to falsify it with data. This happend and it shattered the carebear theory that ganking is bad for the game. Now if we are honest, we can never say that some data "proves" anything, in science nothing is set in stone. But it certainly favors the view that ganking gets people out of their isolation and drags them into the sandbox where the interesting stuff in eve is happening. the Code ALWAYS wins
Null Infinity Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 3	Posted - 2015.04.03 08:36:19 - [430] - Quote Ganking... You lot should try games like Dark orbit. It is where you get ganked as newbee. All the time, several times a day. You do not want to get ganked in Eve? Stay in high sec, do not fly ships with too expensive modules / cargo and do not play afk. Mining in procurer can be safe even with CODE in the system, cause they will lose more ISK, than they will kill if they hunt you. It is not ganking, what drives newbees out. It is repetitive PvE. Give more content for missions give more PvE activities for newbees (Incursions are not for newbees, trade is PvP), advertise already existing PvE diversity more (which newbee has idea about COSMOS missions, for example?), give more static low level WH ( up to C3 ) to dig into them (yes newbee dies there, but it is still more interesting than just jump into low sec gate or station camp)

Black Pedro Yammerschooner 803	Posted - 2015.04.03 08:37:32 - [431] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: That's where the stats from this year are related to that. If it's true, as people in the community often claim, that ganking drives new players away from the game, than that's important for CCP to understand, because that would be far from the type of rich experience they are trying to develop in the NPE. This years stats showed that if anything, the non-consensual pvp is part of that rich experience. Not the whole thing, just part of what helps make eve rich, non-linear and unpredictable. Far from being something that drives new players (in the trial period) away from the game, ganking appears to be part of what helps make the gaming experience richer; as the players in that 1% group of ganked have a higher rate of retention and fit into that broader 5-10% of players that stick with the game long term. Exactly. CCP is trying to understand why players who show enough interest in the game to download the client and start the trial choose to not subscribe. They decided to test the hypothesis believed by so many players on these forums, and in general, that non-consensual PvP was driving these potential new customers away. They found no correlation between retention and ship loss and, if anything, found data to support an alternative hypothesis: that richness and engagement that non-consenual PvP offers makes attracts the type of player that started the trial more likely to stay with the game. Now these correlations don't necessarily prove the effect (although the gankers-are-bad-for-new-player-retention hypothesis is looking very, very weak) but give strong support for CCP to experiment with putting more PvP into the new Opportunities NPE. Using the focus groups and the two-group comparison, CCP can determine whether exposure to PvP keeps players in the game longer or influences their engagement with it. I think part of the problem, and why we need these scientific, data-driven approaches is that everyone has different experiences and exceptions for the game. It is true that a non-zero number of players have left Eve because they were wardecced or suicide ganked. But it is also true that many players would not ever, or be still playing the game if these activities were not allowed at all. Studies like this can give some insight, but it is really difficult to conclusively tell what an effect of a change will be on player retention, let alone potential player retention, as player motivations are so diverse. You can't even ask them as most players will say they want things that are good for their particular playstyle even if it is bad for the game overall. For the NPE it is simpler as there is a very narrow experience that CCP can play around with the structure of it to see the effect on a very specific metric - conversion of trials to paid accounts. And on that metric data is clear: new players are not negatively affected by gankers. And further, this interesting finding that players seem to engage more with the game after PvP merits exploration by CCP.
Niobe Song Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 73	Posted - 2015.04.03 10:12:50 - [432] - Quote Make PvP part of the NPE.
Eve Solecist Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 148	Posted - 2015.04.03 10:15:08 - [433] - Quote Sheeesh .... what a day. Liked Scipios, Pedros and even Wreckyou's posts. I so hope this pointless, over half a decade old bullshit finally comes to an end. "Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 735	Posted - 2015.04.03 10:43:04 - [434] - Quote Well the analysis was on something that is not what people was talking about as the issue. Ganking had a major impact when people could choose a mining ship with a tank of a wet paper bag or choose an even more expensive mining ship with the tank of a wet paper bag. The impact was always on people who were fairly new, 7 month to a year, not newbies. These people had made a stretch to the Hulk and then found a single Catalyst came in and blew them up, which was often a major hit when it had taken them months of grinding to buy it and often they had over-stretched to do so. Since CCP finally and very late in the day after losing loads of miners gave people a choice to get in a tanked ship things have stabilised in that area. You often see newish players getting ganked in poor tanking mining barges with no tank, but they have people who tell them that the fit is wrong and they need to use a ship than can be tanked, that being gankers and anti-gankers Some will still rage and quit, but the majority learn the lesson and move on now, because CCP finally gave them a choice with tanky mining ships which I cannot emphasise enough. It is quite clear to me that Ganking of newbies is not an issue as a Venture is cheap and not such a shock to the system, that was never the issue and to think it was and to make such a fuss about it is so lame its side achingly funny... and at the same time a bit sad. This is not the reason you are looking for... Ella's Snack bar
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6680	Posted - 2015.04.03 10:46:53 - [435] - Quote Eve Solecist wrote: I so hope this pointless, over half a decade old bullshit finally comes to an end. No it won't. How silly can you be to say a thing like that on these here eveo forums. Unless you were being sarcastic. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Eve Solecist Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 150	Posted - 2015.04.03 11:02:48 - [436] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Eve Solecist wrote: I so hope this pointless, over half a decade old bullshit finally comes to an end. No it won't. How silly can you be to say a thing like that on these here eveo forums. Unless you were being sarcastic. Hey I said "I hope" ! If people actually pulled their **** together and stopped pointlessly argueing while pointing at CCP ... ... then we might have a chance! :p It's certainly doable! The issue is the PewPew crowd giving the idiots legitimasy by responding to their irrelevant opinions, hearsay and hate! We need more people like Harkonnen and HTFU! And what stopped CODE from turning into a highsec thought-police?? We have good reason to control the crowd all by ourselves and don't need CCP to do it for us! "Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1207	Posted - 2015.04.03 11:19:06 - [437] - Quote 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. Dracvlad wrote: Well the analysis was on something that is not what people was talking about as the issue.... Nevyn Auscent wrote: Basically, you all are inventing results from a study, and would get laughed out of any scientific establishment with your reaching for straws. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Ria Nieyli Nieyli Enterprises 33811	Posted - 2015.04.03 11:23:30 - [438] - Quote Niobe Song wrote: A ganked newbie can do one of several things. They can start an angry ranting forum thread and rage quit. We are probably better off without them. They can continue playing like they were playing and will probably get ganked again and again. Or they can learn from whatever mistake got them ganked in the first place and not get ganked again (or in some cases it might have just been bad luck and they were in the wrong place at the wrong time). I think CCP has done their best to strike a balance. They are not going to remove ganking completely. It is a legitimate part of the game. But from time to time they will rebalance things to make sure that ganking isn't too easy to do without repercussions for the ganker. I am a strong believer that NPE is cause for more newbies leaving than being ganked but it wouldn't be a bad idea to include information on A. how to gank or B. how to avoid ganks as part of the revised NPE. In the sandbox, you're part of the NPE as much as CCP's tutorial. I've given ISK and tips to less than week old players I killed when I used to live in a wormhole. Overall those were pretty content with getting ran over by me. Their little messages letting me know how well they're doing after our encounter warm my black, shriveled heart. But then there were some people that got pretty angry and abusive too. Those are just funny. Why do bad threads happen to good people?
bonkerss MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 5	Posted - 2015.04.03 11:45:52 - [439] - Quote The problem is: Most mmo players are addictive personalities. They want to get hooked and get rewarded every couple minutes. The average mmo player does not want to PLAY A GAME. He wants to get rewarded for doing irrelevant tasks and QUICK. Eve per default punishes you rather than reward you. Eve is a game that is only addictive for a very special breed of people. (probably sociopaths with a evil tendency:=) If you want to run a successful mmo in the year 2015 you have to hook the player and shower him with gifts and epic loots. The timeframe to achieve this in the year 2015 is probably 5 minutes. If you dont have epic loot within those 5 minutes, and in eve chances are that instead of getting any loot you end up in a pod, people will leave and not look back. If you want eve to have mass appeal you can forget it with the current game design!
Eve Solecist Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 152	Posted - 2015.04.03 11:51:35 - [440] - Quote bonkerss wrote: The problem is: Most mmo players are addictive personalities. They want to get hooked and get rewarded every couple minutes. The average mmo player does not want to PLAY A GAME. He wants to get rewarded for doing irrelevant tasks and QUICK. Eve per default punishes you rather than reward you. Eve is a game that is only addictive for a very special breed of people. (probably sociopaths with a evil tendency:=) If you want to run a successful mmo in the year 2015 you have to hook the player and shower him with gifts and epic loots. The timeframe to achieve this in the year 2015 is probably 5 minutes. If you dont have epic loot within those 5 minutes, and in eve chances are that instead of getting any loot you end up in a pod, people will leave and not look back. If you want eve to have mass appeal you can forget it with the current game design! Nobody wants these people around, though. They do not fit into the game, like, at all. They bring nothing but grief and ruin the game and when these mindless robots are done consuming they leave. While I agree that exploiting the mindlessness of these robots fills the wallets ... ... in the end it costs more to have them around. "Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote.

beakerax Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 64	Posted - 2015.04.03 12:16:44 - [441] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Well the analysis was on something that is not what people was talking about as the issue. we have always been at war with eastasia
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 736	Posted - 2015.04.03 12:33:21 - [442] - Quote beakerax wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Well the analysis was on something that is not what people was talking about as the issue. we have always been at war with eastasia Not the best English I could have used, lets try again: The issue with player loss to ganking was always those that were 7 months to a year old who had just got into a more expensive mining ship and it was especially bad when CCP ignored the fact that all their mining ships had the tank of a wet paper bag and their failure to address that was a major reason for that player loss. Quote that now! Ella's Snack bar
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 8262	Posted - 2015.04.03 13:10:51 - [443] - Quote Eve Solecist wrote: bonkerss wrote: The problem is: Most mmo players are addictive personalities. They want to get hooked and get rewarded every couple minutes. The average mmo player does not want to PLAY A GAME. He wants to get rewarded for doing irrelevant tasks and QUICK. Eve per default punishes you rather than reward you. Eve is a game that is only addictive for a very special breed of people. (probably sociopaths with a evil tendency:=) If you want to run a successful mmo in the year 2015 you have to hook the player and shower him with gifts and epic loots. The timeframe to achieve this in the year 2015 is probably 5 minutes. If you dont have epic loot within those 5 minutes, and in eve chances are that instead of getting any loot you end up in a pod, people will leave and not look back. If you want eve to have mass appeal you can forget it with the current game design! Nobody wants these people around, though. They do not fit into the game, like, at all. They bring nothing but grief and ruin the game and when these mindless robots are done consuming they leave. While I agree that exploiting the mindlessness of these robots fills the wallets ... ... in the end it costs more to have them around. That might be a little harsh. I think they contribute plenty in their brief stay. They provide us with easy targets. They give us entertainment with their entitlement rage (though nothing quite as good as bittervet tears). They provide a constant turnover so that we never get tired of seeing the same old people crying in local. There's room for all types in this game. It's just that while some obsessively give their life over to EVE, others are simply testing the waters. Who can say which is healthier, really? But at the end of the day, EVE is like any other MMO in these days of sound bites and 4 minute webisodes as the popular forms of entertainment. The retention rate of new players is abysmal. Doesn't mean CCP should stop trying. Casting a wide net means most will be unsuitable, but that's just the price to be paid for finding the small percentage that will stick around. And we get to have have some fun with those that won't be joining us for long. Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 35459	Posted - 2015.04.03 13:11:12 - [444] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: 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. Totally agree. It is good that you're the OP. If you ever run for CSM again, we'll just be able to link this whole thread as an example of your attitude towards CCP, rational discussion and how you will interact with the players that you will hope to represent. Win-win outcome. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12451	Posted - 2015.04.03 13:20:58 - [445] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: 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. Totally agree. It is good that you're the OP. If you ever run for CSM again, we'll just be able to link this whole thread as an example of your attitude towards CCP, rational discussion and how you will interact with the players that you will hope to represent. Win-win outcome. I'd rather vote for Xenuria, and I'm dead serious. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15550	Posted - 2015.04.03 13:20:59 - [446] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Not the best English I could have used, lets try again: The issue with player loss to ganking was always those that were 7 months to a year old who had just got into a more expensive mining ship and it was especially bad when CCP ignored the fact that all their mining ships had the tank of a wet paper bag and their failure to address that was a major reason for that player loss. Quote that now! We are still waiting for this to be shown to be true. Literally every single survey, graph and data point taken on this subject shows ganking does not make players quit. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 8262	Posted - 2015.04.03 13:26:54 - [447] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Literally every single survey, graph and data point taken on this subject shows ganking does not make players quit. In the first 15 days. Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 736	Posted - 2015.04.03 13:50:09 - [448] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Not the best English I could have used, lets try again: The issue with player loss to ganking was always those that were 7 months to a year old who had just got into a more expensive mining ship and it was especially bad when CCP ignored the fact that all their mining ships had the tank of a wet paper bag and their failure to address that was a major reason for that player loss. Quote that now! We are still waiting for this to be shown to be true. Literally every single survey, graph and data point taken on this subject shows ganking does not make players quit. Lets repeat the same answer I gave you last time: I joined an industrial, exploration organisation in Star Citizen, there was 30 peeple on TS, 8 had played Eve, 7 of them had left after the very example I detailed in my earlier post, the 8th did not get past his trial period, he wanted something a bit more shooty uppy. The sample is industrial players, a small subset of course, but a rather striking one at that. I guess you will come back with the same reply you did last time, so the dance continues... Ella's Snack bar
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12454	Posted - 2015.04.03 13:58:08 - [449] - Quote So, you're rejecting actual, painstakingly gathered data, and replacing it with... an anecdote. And not just any anecdote, one from Star Citizen, of all things. Bravo. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Nicolai Serkanner Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spaceship Parts Co. Brave Collective 326	Posted - 2015.04.03 14:09:11 - [450] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Not the best English I could have used, lets try again: The issue with player loss to ganking was always those that were 7 months to a year old who had just got into a more expensive mining ship and it was especially bad when CCP ignored the fact that all their mining ships had the tank of a wet paper bag and their failure to address that was a major reason for that player loss. Quote that now! We are still waiting for this to be shown to be true. Literally every single survey, graph and data point taken on this subject shows ganking does not make players quit. Lets repeat the same answer I gave you last time: I joined an industrial, exploration organisation in Star Citizen, there was 30 peeple on TS, 8 had played Eve, 7 of them had left after the very example I detailed in my earlier post, the 8th did not get past his trial period, he wanted something a bit more shooty uppy. The sample is industrial players, a small subset of course, but a rather striking one at that. I guess you will come back with the same reply you did last time, so the dance continues... Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ....... hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ... you can NOT be serious.

Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 104	Posted - 2015.04.03 14:09:47 - [451] - Quote Dots wrote: Your entire hypothesis focuses on 1% of the rookie population? Nope, my hypothesis focuses on both ganked and non-ganked newbies, which covers 100% of the rookie population.
Eve Solecist Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 156	Posted - 2015.04.03 14:21:01 - [452] - Quote Gee, I just noticed that I wrote "shooting by recruiting" and nobody even noticed. Fixed it now. -.- Need more sleep in SLEEP EAT CONQUER REPEAT. reads up on thread "Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote.
Eve Solecist Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 156	Posted - 2015.04.03 14:22:42 - [453] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Scipio Artelius wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: 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. Totally agree. It is good that you're the OP. If you ever run for CSM again, we'll just be able to link this whole thread as an example of your attitude towards CCP, rational discussion and how you will interact with the players that you will hope to represent. Win-win outcome. I'd rather vote for Xenuria, and I'm dead serious. Wow, that's .......... ..... that's ....... SHEEESH I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY! O: "Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 105	Posted - 2015.04.03 14:38:13 - [454] - Quote Niobe Song wrote: Make PvP part of the NPE. I'd love it if one of the new NPE Opportunities was "a) Join an NPSI fleet (and EVE Voice since such fleets needs quick communication from FC to members) and b) get blown up outside highsec." This could be accomplished by CCP advertising two or three such fleets daily in different timezones, or fewer depending on participation level, led by a CCP employee or officially recognized volunteer.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 105	Posted - 2015.04.03 14:45:17 - [455] - Quote [quote=baltec1Literally every single survey, graph and data point taken on this subject shows ganking does not make players quit.[/quote] 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?
Dots State Protectorate Caldari State 14	Posted - 2015.04.03 14:57:54 - [456] - 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 ß¦êß¦Æß¦ù-ó on it New Player Opportunities: a gallery
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 738	Posted - 2015.04.03 15:07:31 - [457] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: So, you're rejecting actual, painstakingly gathered data, and replacing it with... an anecdote. And not just any anecdote, one from Star Citizen, of all things. Bravo. Poor effort, the data is a small sub-set, and something I could analyse myself in about 5 minutes, expert level Excel and high level SQL and .Net programming skills for the win, the issue is of course what data was recorded. This is not the data you are looking for... Ella's Snack bar
Mara Pahrdi The Order of Anoyia 929	Posted - 2015.04.03 15:18:35 - [458] - Quote bonkerss wrote: The problem is: Most mmo players are addictive personalities. They want to get hooked and get rewarded every couple minutes. The average mmo player does not want to PLAY A GAME. He wants to get rewarded for doing irrelevant tasks and QUICK. Eve per default punishes you rather than reward you. Eve is a game that is only addictive for a very special breed of people. (probably sociopaths with a evil tendency:=) If you want to run a successful mmo in the year 2015 you have to hook the player and shower him with gifts and epic loots. The timeframe to achieve this in the year 2015 is probably 5 minutes. If you dont have epic loot within those 5 minutes, and in eve chances are that instead of getting any loot you end up in a pod, people will leave and not look back. To leave that sort of bullshit behind was the reason I joined EVE 4,5 years ago. Remove insurance.
Eve Solecist Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 158	Posted - 2015.04.03 15:20:28 - [459] - Quote Dots wrote: 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"). Sounds like he's just a hater and dismissable. A player who is six months into the game better know how not to get ganked. It makes no sense to assume that getting ganked drives away someone who has played months already. That would mean he actually didn't play at all, or so isolated that he can only blame himself. (choosing to play isolated is fine ... ... but being unable to accept that it's a multiplayer game ... ... where one can not always choose to play isolated ........... nope.) It would be logical to assume that the loss was what finally ended the decision-making process, which has started long before that gank anyway. "Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10557	Posted - 2015.04.03 15:22:33 - [460] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: How hard would that laughter be for people who were debunking a case study while having zero information of their own and never having even conducted one of their own? Because that's what's happening here lol. It's no coincidence that the 2 or 3 die hard deniers here are members of the same ideological camp. A camp that at it's base NEEDS non-consensual pvp to be a bad thing. Its almost like.... A: you are delusional since I don't belong to that camp. B: know about case studies and eliminating variables and relationships not always meaning direct cause. C: you are emotionally over invested in 'proving' that ganking newbies is good for the game. The last part is a lie. I don't care about who gets ganked or not. But in this instance I'm glad the insidious, fake, self righteous-for-no-solid-reason white knight types (that views players playing a game within that game's on rules as stated in the EULA as somehow 'evil') now have to face actual Data. You see, these 'space justice warriors' aren't pursing 'justice', they are pursuing a reason to see themselves as the noble good guys fighting the good fight against evil (must like the real life people who dress up like superheroes to go 'fight crime' at night mainly because their mental instability and previous criminal records prevent them from being actual police officers lol). Rise's data suggests that there is a seriously high chance that all the screeching about people leaving the game after being ganked or war decced is false. Hell, it suggests that pvp (including non-consensual pvp) might actually HELP the game. Well, I already knew that, I'm a PVE-centric player, but if it weren't for pvp types proving me content (in the form of being those really smart obstacles I have to learn how to avoid while filling my wallet up Indiana Jones style), I wouldn't be here, because EVE's pve by itself sucks.

Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10560	Posted - 2015.04.03 15:26:31 - [461] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: An 80,000 user sample size is not insignificant. Assuming that the users are unique and the last figure of 500,00 subs to be accurate to within 10%, that'd be a 14-17% sample of the overall population, better than pretty much any medical study. Quote: Eve Solecist is making new definitions and a lot of guess work. And you're not? Pull the other one, it's got bells on. Ignoring Jenshaes weird statement. Firstly an 80,000 person study is not a 14-17% sample of the overall population. Because it is a study which includes no longer active accounts who are not part of the 500,000 population, so to obtain an accurate percentage of the population you would have to know the total number of accounts who have been active at any time (including trials) in the time period of the study. not the number of current subs. Secondly, all the database query established is that there is a relationship between players who have been ganked in their first 15 days and players who have stayed more than 15 days. Ignoring all the stuff about 15 days being a terrible timeframe to take, we still have no idea of the nature of the relationship. So to say that 'Players stayed because they were ganked' is extrapolating the statistics to say something that we have no idea on. There are a multitude of other relationships that would also generate a similar view, but for vastly different reasons on which ganking is not the root cause, but simply a subsequent effect from the real reason those players have stayed longer. Basically, you all are inventing results from a study, and would get laughed out of any scientific establishment with your reaching for straws. Friend! You carebears told us for a long time that ganking was a big deal for player retention. You where absolutely convinced that ganking drives new players away. You spew this nonsense on the forums in every thread... Now it seams to be the case that CCP had the same view for some time, but they where in the position to actually check because they have all the data of what happens and the survey answers if people quit. They tried to verify YOUR idea about whats happening and why people quit. The result was something completely different. The data shows that not only is ganking an insignificant factor for new player retention, it also shows that new player who actually get ganked are more likely to stay. This is directly from the talk, there is no need to interpret anything into this data. This are just simple facts. The facts say, and again this is directly shown by the data, that the carebears where wrong when they stated that ganking is bad for new player retention. The theory of the carebears was falsified with data which showed the opposite of what they expected. This is how science works. You make a hypothesis, then you try to falsify it with data. This happend and it shattered the carebear theory that ganking is bad for the game. Now if we are honest, we can never say that some data "proves" anything, in science nothing is set in stone. But it certainly favors the view that ganking gets people out of their isolation and drags them into the sandbox where the interesting stuff in eve is happening. This is the honest truth of the matter. The 2 problems the people you are talking to here are: #1. The word CODE #2. The fact that if what you are saying is true, it destroys not only their belief system about a video game, but their entire real life reason for being.
Hengle Teron Just Another Corp XIV 44719	Posted - 2015.04.03 15:30:04 - [462] - Quote Or you can cry in Hek local to get everyone banned, when you get your retriever blown up.
Dersen Lowery Drinking in Station 1517	Posted - 2015.04.03 15:47:57 - [463] - Quote I have one beef with Rise's assumption that a ganked person is one who doesn't shoot back. Relatively early on, I was ganked a few times. Two of those times I didn't shoot back because I hadn't put guns on my Iteron Mark III. The other time I was in a brand-new, horribly fail-fit Myrmidon, and its drones were attacking and its guns were cycling when it got blown out from under me. It was still a gank, though, and a cleverly executed one. Given the general enthusiasm that Rise's newbies seem to have for trying to shoot things (the woman trying her damndest to shoot a billboard make me laugh out loud), I'd be surprised if the initial new player response to a gank attempt is anything other than shooting back, and if the 1% reflects their being either unaware (autopilot) or unable (shuttle, nerves) or just alpha'd off the field. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. I voted in CSM X!
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10564	Posted - 2015.04.03 16:00:50 - [464] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: 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. Totally agree. It is good that you're the OP. If you ever run for CSM again, we'll just be able to link this whole thread as an example of your attitude towards CCP, rational discussion and how you will interact with the players that you will hope to represent. Win-win outcome. Isn't this thread enough? I mean, he makes a thread where the overwhelming opinion is against him, which must obviously remind him of his recent election bid where the overwhelming super-majority of the electorate (not just 'null blocs', but low sec, wormhole space AND high sec) didn't even give him a second look. I don't say that to be mean to him, just to point out that a person who can be so demonstrably wrong all the time obviously must have built up some monstrously strong and fortress like ego defense mechanisms. This is why no amount of data, logic or evidence will ever matter (not just to this guy, but in real life in general), asking people to accept uncomfortable truths is like asking them to jump off a cliff.
Eve Solecist Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 159	Posted - 2015.04.03 16:04:22 - [465] - Quote I read that as "menstrously" and it still made sense. ^_^ "Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 110	Posted - 2015.04.03 16:20:31 - [466] - Quote Eve Solecist wrote: Dots wrote: 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"). Sounds like he's just a hater and dismissable. A player who is six months into the game better know how not to get ganked. It makes no sense to assume that getting ganked drives away someone who has played months already. That would mean he actually didn't play at all, or so isolated that he can only blame himself. (choosing to play isolated is fine ... ... but being unable to accept that it's a multiplayer game ... ... where one can not always choose to play isolated ........... nope.) It would be logical to assume that the loss was what finally ended the decision-making process, which has started long before that gank anyway. Request for clarification - who is the "he" who is "just a hater"? Me? (scratch head) If so, that's odd you think so. The post of mine in the above quote was simply a statement that I'd find data on the situation interesting. I made no assumption of any sort about what the data would be - which is why I said it'd be nice to have such data. Where do you see hate in that? If you meant somebody else by "he" then please disregard.
Tipa Riot Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 206	Posted - 2015.04.03 16:31:07 - [467] - 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? Yeah, 15 days or 3 weekends is really short for such kind of statistics ... but I don't know what the average actual trial period (the time to sub or quit) is, maybe it's 15 days. I'm my own NPC alt.
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 8266	Posted - 2015.04.03 16:43:57 - [468] - Quote Tipa Riot wrote: 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? Yeah, 15 days or 3 weekends is really short for such kind of statistics ... but I don't know what the average actual trial period (the time to sub or quit) is, maybe it's 15 days. Up until recently, the trial was two weeks. At that point the trial acct either stopped playing or kept playing. That's why the 15 day time span on this. CCP don't care about any of the stuff the ranters are going on about in this thread. They care about turning trials into subs. Period. Next year it will be based on a thirty day character since that's the new trial length and there will have been enough time passed to see if it made a difference in player retention. I do hope they will show the comparison at the next FF. That will be some interesting data and we should get at least one good threadnaught out of it. Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
Tipa Riot Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 206	Posted - 2015.04.03 17:08:00 - [469] - Quote Mr Epeen wrote: Tipa Riot wrote: 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? Yeah, 15 days or 3 weekends is really short for such kind of statistics ... but I don't know what the average actual trial period (the time to sub or quit) is, maybe it's 15 days. Up until recently, the trial was two weeks. At that point the trial acct either stopped playing or kept playing. That's why the 15 day time span on this. CCP don't care about any of the stuff the ranters are going on about in this thread. They care about turning trials into subs. Period. Next year it will be based on a thirty day character since that's the new trial length and there will have been enough time passed to see if it made a difference in player retention. I do hope they will show the comparison at the next FF. That will be some interesting data and we should get at least one good threadnaught out of it. Mr Epeen Ahhh you are right, the default was 14, but there were a lot of options to get more. The extension to 30 is a good thing to give new players more time to get to the fun stuff (I like Eli Stan's idea to have an opportunity to get into a NPSI fleet). I used a buddy invite and sub'ed after less than a week, but knew already from pre-reads and extensive YouTube consumption what to expect. I'm my own NPC alt.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 110	Posted - 2015.04.03 17:08:18 - [470] - Quote Mr Epeen wrote: Up until recently, the trial was two weeks. At that point the trial acct either stopped playing or kept playing. That's why the 15 day time span on this. CCP don't care about any of the stuff the ranters are going on about in this thread. They care about turning trials into subs. Period. Next year it will be based on a thirty day character since that's the new trial length and there will have been enough time passed to see if it made a difference in player retention. I do hope they will show the comparison at the next FF. That will be some interesting data and we should get at least one good threadnaught out of it. Mr Epeen Good points. Perhaps for the sake of clearer communications, we all should have been discussing "trial account conversion rate" rather than "new player retention rate." I mean, I've been here over a year, and I still consider myself a new player in many ways. The tactics to get somebody like me to stay might be quite different from the tactics to get somebody with a trial account to buy a sub.

Hengle Teron Just Another Corp XIV 44723	Posted - 2015.04.03 17:46:44 - [471] - Quote Well, if you watch the presentation, which is the basis of this threadnaught, you would know what they meant by new player. I think, it said something like 50% of trial accounts are not subbed. And they wanted to know, why those players choose not to sub. They heard from some players over and over, that ganking drives new players away, so they looked into that. And they found, that those claims have no basis. Then followed this thread, that tries to discredit that data, with no data of their own to base it on.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10569	Posted - 2015.04.03 18:04:52 - [472] - Quote Hengle Teron wrote: Well, if you watch the presentation, which is the basis of this threadnaught, you would know what they meant by new player. I think, it said something like 50% of trial accounts are not subbed. And they wanted to know, why those players choose not to sub. They heard from some players over and over, that ganking drives new players away, so they looked into that. And they found, that those claims have no basis. Then followed this thread, that tries to discredit that data, with no data of their own to base it on. Perfectly well said. I continue to marvel at how someone can form an opinion on mere feelings (ie I feel that ganking drives new players away") with zero evidence other than "I heard someone say that" or "someone I know quit after getting ganked". Then, when you present actual data that strongly suggests this isn't the case (or if it is, it can't be measured), all of a sudden it's "that can't be true, that was a stupid question to ask anyways!!". Even worse, in order to defend their original feelings based opinion, they start grasping at straws that turns that opinion from being merely 'mistaken' to 'irredeemably idiotic'.
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 8266	Posted - 2015.04.03 18:13:08 - [473] - Quote Hengle Teron wrote: Well, if you watch the presentation, which is the basis of this threadnaught, you would know what they meant by new player. I think, it said something like 50% of trial accounts are not subbed. And they wanted to know, why those players choose not to sub. They heard from some players over and over, that ganking drives new players away, so they looked into that. And they found, that those claims have no basis. Then followed this thread, that tries to discredit that data, with no data of their own to base it on. No one's discrediting the data. The fighting in here is over various peoples conclusions and speculations based off the data. Data is data. It's the interpretation of the data where the issues start. People on both sides of this come in to it with their entrenched dogmatic point of view and try to make the facts fit their preconceived ideas of how it should be. They spin a fantasy of extrapolated crap to justify their narrow minded perspective on how the game should be played. Nearly always focusing on the tiny little slice of this huge MMO that they single mindedly occupy all day long. They are right and the other 95% of the player base are wrong. It's their dance to prove it that keeps me reading threads like this. Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
Eve Solecist Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 160	Posted - 2015.04.03 18:31:34 - [474] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: Eve Solecist wrote: Dots wrote: 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"). Sounds like he's just a hater and dismissable. A player who is six months into the game better know how not to get ganked. It makes no sense to assume that getting ganked drives away someone who has played months already. That would mean he actually didn't play at all, or so isolated that he can only blame himself. (choosing to play isolated is fine ... ... but being unable to accept that it's a multiplayer game ... ... where one can not always choose to play isolated ........... nope.) It would be logical to assume that the loss was what finally ended the decision-making process, which has started long before that gank anyway. Request for clarification - who is the "he" who is "just a hater"? Me? (scratch head) If so, that's odd you think so. The post of mine in the above quote was simply a statement that I'd find data on the situation interesting. I made no assumption of any sort about what the data would be - which is why I said it'd be nice to have such data. Where do you see hate in that? If you meant somebody else by "he" then please disregard. Haven't checked your posting history. I took the post as it was. "Sounds like" isn't "Is a" and is much less than a "Seems to be". Your request isn't bad. It would be interesting! You know what would be even better? CONCORD's KillBoard. What matters. ^_^ kinks (: :) "Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 110	Posted - 2015.04.03 18:43:00 - [475] - Quote Eve Solecist wrote: Eli Stan wrote: Request for clarification - who is the "he" who is "just a hater"? Me? (scratch head) If so, that's odd you think so. The post of mine in the above quote was simply a statement that I'd find data on the situation interesting. I made no assumption of any sort about what the data would be - which is why I said it'd be nice to have such data. Where do you see hate in that? If you meant somebody else by "he" then please disregard. Haven't checked your posting history. I took the post as it was. "Sounds like" isn't "Is a" and is much less than a "Seems to be". Your request isn't bad. It would be interesting! You know what would be even better? CONCORD's KillBoard. What matters. ^_^ kinks (: :) Ah, so you DO think my post "sounds like" it was hateful. Would you mind explaining how? I've re-read my post in question a few times now and I'm just not seeing how it could be interpreted in that way. If you explain why it seemed to you like that, perhaps I can then use that information to better convey my tone and my point in the future... Anyway. Indeed, there have been times I wished I could see all the ships CONCORD destroyed. As it stands, we only get such information, AFAIK, if some other player whores in on the kill, or if the destroyed player has submitted their API, correct? Having the CONCORD API would be neat.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10570	Posted - 2015.04.03 18:45:58 - [476] - Quote Mr Epeen wrote: Hengle Teron wrote: Well, if you watch the presentation, which is the basis of this threadnaught, you would know what they meant by new player. I think, it said something like 50% of trial accounts are not subbed. And they wanted to know, why those players choose not to sub. They heard from some players over and over, that ganking drives new players away, so they looked into that. And they found, that those claims have no basis. Then followed this thread, that tries to discredit that data, with no data of their own to base it on. No one's discrediting the data. The fighting in here is over various peoples conclusions and speculations based off the data. Data is data. It's the interpretation of the data where the issues start. People on both sides of this come in to it with their entrenched dogmatic point of view and try to make the facts fit their preconceived ideas of how it should be. They spin a fantasy of extrapolated crap to justify their narrow minded perspective on how the game should be played. Nearly always focusing on the tiny little slice of this huge MMO that they single mindedly occupy all day long. They are right and the other 95% of the player base are wrong. It's their dance to prove it that keeps me reading threads like this. Mr Epeen That's a long winded way to say "they just want me to play their way", which is another false thing that people who think like you say (when they aren't claiming that ganking new players makes them unsub lol). Despite the propaganda from folks like CODE and Goons (which btw is funny as hell when kept in context, the guys that suicide ganked my empty pod a couple weeks ago sent me a mail claiming to be the "pod inspection service" lol), almost no one cares what other people do in the game. They care when that player complains about 'not being left alone' when they player chose to play an open world sandbox pvp game. That's why I PVE all day long (and all night if I'm on vacation and the wife is working) and no one cares, because I've taken precautions to make sure I can play the way I want without interference and if someone does try to interfere I don't get knotted up in a ball of angst and indignation. As for this thread it is not true that "It's the interpretation of the data where the issues start". This post perfectly describes the issue contained in this thread, and if you can look at the OPs posting in this thread (that he created) and say that he's only doing that because "It's the interpretation of the data where the issues start", that just proves that you have the same kind of "honesty deficit" that the OP has.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 110	Posted - 2015.04.03 18:46:47 - [477] - Quote Mr Epeen wrote: No one's discrediting the data. Indeed. I just went back and skimmed a few pages worth of the most recent posts in this thread, and I didn't find any examples of anybody claiming ganking is an issue preventing trial accounts from subbing. Dracvlad came the closest, but he was talking about characters aged 6 months to a year unsubbing. We have no data about that one way or an other - just various random anecdotes.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10571	Posted - 2015.04.03 18:54:33 - [478] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: Mr Epeen wrote: No one's discrediting the data. Indeed. I just went back and skimmed a few pages worth of the most recent posts in this thread, and I didn't find any examples of anybody claiming ganking is an issue preventing trial accounts from subbing. Dracvlad came the closest, but he was talking about characters aged 6 months to a year unsubbing. We have no data about that one way or an other - just various random anecdotes. People have been saying it for years.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1209	Posted - 2015.04.03 19:07:30 - [479] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Not the best English I could have used, lets try again: The issue with player loss to ganking was always those that were 7 months to a year old who had just got into a more expensive mining ship and it was especially bad when CCP ignored the fact that all their mining ships had the tank of a wet paper bag and their failure to address that was a major reason for that player loss. Quote that now! We are still waiting for this to be shown to be true. Literally every single survey, graph and data point taken on this subject shows ganking does not make players quit. Most of the rage quits I have seen where ratters. The miners seem to slip away more quietly and a bit slower after saying good bye to a few people or saying where they are going so that might skew the parameters a bit. As for the raging ratters that resign it is usually due to getting into their first battleship, over estimating its abilities then having their dreams and all their ISK blown up in one go. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10571	Posted - 2015.04.03 19:12:55 - [480] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Most of the rage quits I have seen where ratters. THERE IT IS! What have I been saying this entire time y'all? Not about rage quitting, about you forming opinions 'based on what you've seen". Quote: The miners seem to slip away more quietly and a bit slower after saying good bye to a few people or saying where they are going so that might skew the parameters a bit. As for the raging ratters that resign it is usually due to getting into their first battleship, over estimating its abilities then having their dreams and all their ISK blown up in one go. Out of the millions of people who have tried this game, how many did you observe? That's the entire point, you allow you beliefs to be formed from literally nothing. Then, when someone who has actual data (Rise) says something different you discount that information...because it runs counter to the belief your formed from literally nothing. I don't usually call "troll" (I give everyone the benefit of the doubt), but damn it this looks like one, because no one, and I mean no one intentionally posts things like this that overtly confirm an opposing viewpoint. Thanks btw

Jenshae Chiroptera 1209	Posted - 2015.04.03 19:16:30 - [481] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Thanks btw You are a complete numptie. It is rather obvious that I am talking from a personal perspective and was tempering what was said about miners rage quitting. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Milla Goodpussy Federal Navy Academy 222	Posted - 2015.04.03 19:18:51 - [482] - Quote this what happens when ccp hires players to be dev's. denial, deflect, never accept blame. unsubbing continues...
Jenshae Chiroptera 1209	Posted - 2015.04.03 19:23:19 - [483] - Quote Mr Epeen wrote: Doesn't mean CCP should stop trying. Casting a wide net means most will be unsuitable, but that's just the price to be paid for finding the small percentage that will stick around. Hence why I advocate some targetted marketing. (Also quoted to the OP) Dracvlad wrote: Quote that now! Done bonkerss wrote: Eve is a game that is only addictive for a very special breed of people. (probably sociopaths with a evil tendency:=) Personally I play EVE because it is a tad bit more challenging that most of the other online games and I find solo games a bit lacking in depth with the AI. I was under what is more and more becoming apparent, a misconception that the EVE community was of a calibre above average. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 112	Posted - 2015.04.03 19:27:35 - [484] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: People have been saying it for years. And CCP's data indicating otherwise came out a couple (?) weeks ago. So why are you concerned about what was said years ago? Worry about the now, which as far as I can tell from skimming this thread recently, doesn't have many, if any, people claiming that ganking prevents trial accounts from subbing. Plenty of supposition and anecdotes about what happens after a trial turns into a sub, yes, but we don't have any CCP-provided data on those situations, so just get used to such in the meantime.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12490	Posted - 2015.04.03 20:38:58 - [485] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: And CCP's data indicating otherwise came out a couple (?) weeks ago. So why are you concerned about what was said years ago? Because now that it's been conclusively disproved, that particular narrative needs stomped on until it's dead, then a little while afterward for good measure. People are still lying to newbies all across the game with this same nonsense. The only people who don't want the truth repeated are those who have dedicated themselves to a lie. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Eve Solecist Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 161	Posted - 2015.04.03 20:43:08 - [486] - Quote Is this still going on? I would like to vote for the honourable ISDs to declare the topic a dead horse ... ... so they finally stop beating it. Who's for it? "Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote.
Mia Keldarin Escadron leader La Ligue des mondes libres 3	Posted - 2015.04.03 20:52:41 - [487] - Quote So this is like a personal small scale poll i've come to note with a few friends of mine starting the game as fresh newbies. 8 entries, which is ridiculous compared to CCP data, but it matches perfectly what is described here. So i'll probably won't teach you anything, except maybe reasons why they subbed or not. My friends started playing between 2012 and 2015. I've personally been ganked a few times and here I am still playing Eve, though none of my friends have experienced that. Out of 8 new players : 62.5% = 5 were sponsored with buddy program thanks to one of my accounts. 25% = 2 bought the game via Steam platform, with ships addons. 12.5% = 1 started the game on his own. 25% = 2 are still playing. 25% = 2 more have subbed for a few months and quit. 50% = 4 couldn't stand more than the trial. One of my buddy invites and my friend who started on his own are still playing. So it's a 80% fail for my buddy invites, and a 100% fail for Steam, i'm sure that's irrelevant based on such few numbers. Now reasons people quit from trials : - Too complicated, too much rules that only experienced players know about. - There's NOTHING in tutorial that makes you ready for pvp (maybe that's why 40% of new players play solo/missions). - There's no reward to improve your ship or business doing missions except for tutorial (which is misleading people to think they're gonna earn stuff doing missions like in any mmo), just a few and useless amount of standing, isk, lp ... it's repetitive and broken. - How do i warp to something ????? (yep, one dude didn't even try more than 2 hours and made his decision already cause he thaught this was like Freelancer). ... and from subbed accounts : - It takes too much time to be good at something, learning game mechanics faster than the SP is going. Vets SP advantage was also a problem. - Death is one hell of an experience, and can be frustrating when you start the game. But because anyone can acess infos on how i died, i clearly don't want to be part of it anymore as i'm ashamed to be a noob. - Highsec is too large, too big to jump from gates to gates. It is not enjoyable and time consumming. There should be intertwined connections between regions to ease transport. And then far away from these populated areas, outland it is ! Where only sovs can embark on easy transportation. - I like the game, but it's boring, maybe i didn't find the right corp. Remind me later, when there's new things coming in the game. Why the last 2 friends still play Eve Online : - There's so much i can do, so much profit to make. I am in an awesome corp and I play for free. What else ? - Not like any of those stupid mmo's like WoW where your stuff rules over everything. - Economy, politics, industry, management, piracy, war ... Eve is real.
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 8271	Posted - 2015.04.03 20:59:47 - [488] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Eli Stan wrote: And CCP's data indicating otherwise came out a couple (?) weeks ago. So why are you concerned about what was said years ago? Because now that it's been conclusively disproved, that particular narrative needs stomped on until it's dead, then a little while afterward for good measure. People are still lying to newbies all across the game with this same nonsense. The only people who don't want the truth repeated are those who have dedicated themselves to a lie. It must be hard to type with how slippery your keyboard must be from all the froth spewing on it. Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12494	Posted - 2015.04.03 21:02:03 - [489] - Quote Mr Epeen wrote: It must be hard to type with how slippery your keyboard must be from all the froth spewing on it. Case in point. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 112	Posted - 2015.04.03 21:03:13 - [490] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Because now that it's been conclusively disproved, that particular narrative needs stomped on until it's dead, then a little while afterward for good measure. The horse is dead. Has been for a little while. Feel free to continue beating it if that makes you happy, though. :) Quote: People are still lying to newbies all across the game with this same nonsense. They are? I hadn't noticed. Have any data to illustrate where and how this is happening? Quote: The only people who don't want the truth repeated are those who have dedicated themselves to a lie. Or those interested in an engagine conversation that's not cluttered with comments beating a dead horse that's been laid to rest a while ago.

Eve Solecist Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 161	Posted - 2015.04.03 21:04:43 - [491] - Quote Mia wrote: ... Yeah but these people could be idiots, you know? Too complicated. What do they expect? An easy game, that lacks any depth of gameplay? There's no tutorial for PvP, because that makes no sense. To learn how to PvP, you go and PvP. Why should there be a reward for fitting a ship? lol Freelancer. All he had needed to do was point the mousecursor at one of the symbols in space ... and click. If they think they are learning the game faster than their SP are going up, then they do not really know what there is everything to learn. There's not enough information behind this. Unless, of course, he's a mindless instant gratification zombie. If he's ashamed of dieing, then he wants to come across big and strong. "Go back to WoW" on this one. It makes no rational sense to be afraid of dieing as a noob. He's a noob. What does he expect? (exactly .....) TL;DR: I'm sorry, but we wouldn't have wanted them anyway. These people need instant gratification, or a serious wakeup call and a dive into 80s and 90s gaming history. Thank you, that was interesting. ^_^ "Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote.
Hengle Teron Just Another Corp XIV 44728	Posted - 2015.04.03 21:05:26 - [492] - Quote Mia Keldarin wrote: - It takes too much time to be good at something, learning game mechanics faster than the SP is going. Vets SP advantage was also a problem. Is it really, or did you just dismiss your loss as a matter of SP? When in reality that player with more SP did also know more about what he was doing and how to better fit his ship?
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10575	Posted - 2015.04.03 21:06:01 - [493] - Quote Mia Keldarin wrote: So this is like a personal small scale poll i've come to note with a few friends of mine starting the game as fresh newbies. 8 entries, which is ridiculous compared to CCP data, but it matches perfectly what is described here. So i'll probably won't teach you anything, except maybe reasons why they subbed or not. My friends started playing between 2012 and 2015. I've personally been ganked a few times and here I am still playing Eve, though none of my friends have experienced that. Out of 8 new players : 62.5% = 5 were sponsored with buddy program thanks to one of my accounts. 25% = 2 bought the game via Steam platform, with ships addons. 12.5% = 1 started the game on his own. 25% = 2 are still playing. 25% = 2 more have subbed for a few months and quit. 50% = 4 couldn't stand more than the trial. One of my buddy invites and my friend who started on his own are still playing. So it's a 80% fail for my buddy invites, and a 100% fail for Steam, i'm sure that's irrelevant based on such few numbers. Now reasons people quit from trials : - Too complicated, too much rules that only experienced players know about. - There's NOTHING in tutorial that makes you ready for pvp (maybe that's why 40% of new players play solo/missions). - There's no reward to improve your ship or business doing missions except for tutorial (which is misleading people to think they're gonna earn stuff doing missions like in any mmo), just a few and useless amount of standing, isk, lp ... it's repetitive and broken. - How do i warp to something ????? (yep, one dude didn't even try more than 2 hours and made his decision already cause he thought this was like Freelancer). ... and from subbed accounts : - It takes too much time to be good at something, learning game mechanics faster than the SP is going. Vets SP advantage was also a problem. - Death is one hell of an experience, and can be frustrating when you start the game. But because anyone can acess infos on how i died, i clearly don't want to be part of it anymore as i'm ashamed to be a noob. - Highsec is too large, too big to jump from gates to gates. It is not enjoyable and time consumming. There should be intertwined connections between regions to ease transport. And then far away from these populated areas, outland it is ! Where only sovs can embark on easy transportation. - I like the game, but it's boring, maybe i didn't find the right corp. Remind me later, when there's new things coming in the game. Why the last 2 friends still play Eve Online : - There's so much i can do, so much profit to make. I am in an awesome corp and I play for free. What else ? - Not like any of those stupid mmo's like WoW where your stuff rules over everything. - Economy, politics, industry, management, piracy, war ... Eve is real. TL;DR EVE chased away non-self reliant, overly casual (for EVE) impatient people who don't like complexity, need to be hand held and 'given things like in other mmos' to keep playing. In other words EVE is working as intended?
Mia Keldarin Escadron leader La Ligue des mondes libres 3	Posted - 2015.04.03 21:20:08 - [494] - Quote Eve Solecist wrote: Mia wrote: ... Yeah but these people could be idiots, you know? Too complicated. What do they expect? An easy game, that lacks any depth of gameplay? There's no tutorial for PvP, because that makes no sense. To learn how to PvP, you go and PvP. Why should there be a reward for fitting a ship? lol Freelancer. All he had needed to do was point the mousecursor at one of the symbols in space ... and click. If they think they are learning the game faster than their SP are going up, then they do not really know what there is everything to learn. There's not enough information behind this. Unless, of course, he's a mindless instant gratification zombie. If he's ashamed of dieing, then he wants to come across big and strong. "Go back to WoW" on this one. It makes no rational sense to be afraid of dieing as a noob. He's a noob. What does he expect? (exactly .....) TL;DR: I'm sorry, but we wouldn't have wanted them anyway. These people need instant gratification, or a serious wakeup call and a dive into 80s and 90s gaming history. Thank you, that was interesting. ^_^ I understand that. But beyond saying they're just idiots, maybe we should start listening to the reasons why they quit and focus on what the other players like about the game. You may think that the game is doing just fine right now, but it's not. 50% is too much, if CCP wants more subscribers, then changes are to be made.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 114	Posted - 2015.04.03 21:49:53 - [495] - Quote Eve Solecist wrote: There's no tutorial for PvP, because that makes no sense. To learn how to PvP, you go and PvP. This is something CAS focuses on - helping newbies try PvP, I mean. (But it only happens every six weeks or so. So while it might help retain newly subscribed accounts, it's unlikely we're doing much to facilitate engaging trial accounts, unfortunately. Some, perhaps, if the timing is right, but not a whole lot I bet.)
Eve Solecist Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 162	Posted - 2015.04.03 21:50:59 - [496] - Quote Mia Keldarin wrote: I understand that. But beyond saying they're just idiots, maybe we should start listening to the reasons why they quit and focus on what the other players like about the game. You may think that the game is doing just fine right now, but it's not. 50% is too much, if CCP wants more subscribers, then changes are to be made. EDIT: i'm not saying they are right with such ideas, just pointing the fact that actual players are not the ones to be asked what changes can be made to lower that high percentage of CCP failure. The issue with this ... ... is that ... ... if CCP gave them what they wanted ... ... it would be a completely different game! Hey, that's EXACTLY what CCP is doing ..... They have DUST! Maybe they'll have LEGION as well! They will definitely LOVE Valkyrie! But you can be damn sure that they won't get EVE ONLINE ..... "Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote.
Eve Solecist Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 162	Posted - 2015.04.03 21:52:01 - [497] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: Eve Solecist wrote: There's no tutorial for PvP, because that makes no sense. To learn how to PvP, you go and PvP. This is something CAS focuses on - helping newbies try PvP, I mean. (But it only happens every six weeks or so. So while it might help retain newly subscribed accounts, it's unlikely we're doing much to facilitate engaging trial accounts, unfortunately. Some, perhaps, if the timing is right, but not a whole lot I bet.) Only happens every six weeks? Can you elaborate on that? Oh CAS ... and how's the Scope Project going? ^_^ "Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote.
Niobe Song Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 75	Posted - 2015.04.03 21:58:24 - [498] - Quote Eve Solecist wrote: Eli Stan wrote: Eve Solecist wrote: There's no tutorial for PvP, because that makes no sense. To learn how to PvP, you go and PvP. This is something CAS focuses on - helping newbies try PvP, I mean. (But it only happens every six weeks or so. So while it might help retain newly subscribed accounts, it's unlikely we're doing much to facilitate engaging trial accounts, unfortunately. Some, perhaps, if the timing is right, but not a whole lot I bet.) Only happens every six weeks? Can you elaborate on that? Oh CAS ... and how's the Scope Project going? ^_^ The organize large roams and encourage noobs to join but they only happen every 6 weeks or so.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 114	Posted - 2015.04.03 22:01:54 - [499] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: TL;DR EVE chased away non-self reliant, overly casual (for EVE) impatient people who don't like complexity, need to be hand held and 'given things like in other mmos' to keep playing. In other words EVE is working as intended? 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. Casual and impatient: Yeah, not a good fit for EVE. There's a slower ebb and flow, hurry up and wait, to EVE that I'd prefer not change. Complexity: Yep, complexity is a good thing. I hope CCP never makes an effort to simplify things. There's still stuff, over a year into the game, I am learning. Need to be hand held: One person's hand-holding is another person's teaching. It might sound to you the players who quit wanted somebody to hold their hand, but it sounds to me like they needed the right sensei. Being taught by other players, rather than reading wikis and blogs, is a GOOD thing because it keeps the newbies engaged with the community. And EVE is so complex that we ALL need teaching. Which is a good thing that we like, right?
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 35490	Posted - 2015.04.03 22:17:12 - [500] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: 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. I don't think self-reliant also has to mean non-social. It can just as easily refer to people that are self-motivated but very social. They don't require other people to generate content for them, but can easily be part of that, while also being the type of player that can generate things for others to do as well. From everything I have ever read of Jenn's posts, I'd be inclined to think that what she was referring to was more the self-reliant player that doesn't whinge when they face a problem, but who goes out and attacks the problem themselves to find a solution; whether solo or as part of a social group. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari

Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 115	Posted - 2015.04.03 22:20:20 - [501] - Quote Eve Solecist wrote: Only happens every six weeks? Can you elaborate on that? It's the CAS Combat Day, aka CCD. Happens every six weeks or so, as I said, depending of how we're feeling. It's a PvP roam of low and null sec organized by the CAS veterans who live in Syndicate. We typically get 100+ people in fleet at the start, but by the 14 hours mark of the event we're often down to 30 or so. 17 hours is the longest event I've been part of. The participants include the null-sec residents, CAS vets that live elsewhere and only engage in PvP during these events, and new players who have never PvPed before. (Each CCD I've been on, there's been at least one person who has gotten their very first killmail by being the final blow. That usually results in a pretty exciting exclamation over coms by the pilot.) Looking over the more recent events, we kill about a 100 hostile ships worth a total of 7 to 10 billion ISK each event. Not much when compared to big wormhole or sov null fights, sure, but pretty entertaining for a fleet full of mostly T1 frigs and cruisers. Oh, and the pipebombing. We almost always get pipebombed at least once. We whelp most of the fleet, blow up some of their battleships with what we have remaining, reship, then head out again. Great fun. We mostly advertise the events in the CAS corp channel, and some mailing lists set up for it, and word of mouth. Quote: Oh CAS ... and how's the Scope Project going? ^_^ I don't know - what is it? (Is that Anslo's thing? Didn't they go join some SOV alliance? I don't recall which one. Haven't heard anything about them in quite a while.)
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 115	Posted - 2015.04.03 22:23:04 - [502] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Eli Stan wrote: 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. I don't think self-reliant also has to mean non-social. It can just as easily refer to people that are self-motivated but very social. They don't require other people to generate content for them, but can easily be part of that, while also being the type of player that can generate things for others to do as well. From everything I have ever read of Jenn's posts, I'd be inclined to think that what she was referring to was more the self-reliant player that doesn't whinge when they face a problem, but who goes out and attacks the problem themselves to find a solution; whether solo or as part of a social group. Ah, sure - I guess I was thinking more along the lines of "loner" when I read "self-reliant." My bad.
Hengle Teron Just Another Corp XIV 44735	Posted - 2015.04.03 22:35:41 - [503] - Quote snipe
Dots State Protectorate Caldari State 21	Posted - 2015.04.03 22:55:07 - [504] - Quote Hengle Teron wrote: snipe I wondered how long it would take you to turn this thread into LAGL.. everything is better with ß¦êß¦Æß¦ù-ó on it New Player Opportunities: a gallery
Hengle Teron Just Another Corp XIV 44735	Posted - 2015.04.03 22:58:34 - [505] - Quote Dots wrote: Hengle Teron wrote: snipe I wondered how long it would take you to turn this thread into LAGL.. Then this thread would finally have a purpose.
Mia Keldarin Escadron leader La Ligue des mondes libres 5	Posted - 2015.04.03 23:00:45 - [506] - Quote Eve Solecist, can you filter that demagogy and complacency acting for a moment ? The issue here is not to please noobs, but to make them more likely to subscribe and introduce them to pvp and other mechanics. Sure, there's nothing like going for pvp to learn about pvp but this has a cost for rookies ... Why loosing money in pvp when tutorials gives rewards for pve and that's their first impression in the game. Then they tend to go for carebear missions, not for pvp, as they were misled to think that pve missions will provide safety, modules, ships, skills, isk .... How about a tutorial that rewards them for going into a noob arena to fight others ? Teaching them that safety doesn't exist, providing them ships, modules, skills, isk so they don't cry when they die ? Now why making a tutorial for pvp when there are corps that train newbies ? Because, it'll be great if it could be their first impression of the game, they could progressively learn what Eve is really about and get over that ridge once and for all. Any kind of conscious living being can be tamed with rewards anyway. A new player needs to feel that he's winning, that he's the boss at some point or he won't sub.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1211	Posted - 2015.04.04 00:23:30 - [507] - Quote Mia Keldarin wrote: Sure, there's nothing like going for pvp to learn about pvp but this has a cost for rookies ... Why loosing money in pvp when tutorials gives rewards for pve and that's their first impression in the game. . I got this far with your post and had a weird idea. 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 ... Main problem is alts with game knowledge and ISK to pimp their rookie ship ... but that could be argued to be a lesson in EVE also. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Eve Solecist Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 163	Posted - 2015.04.04 00:30:22 - [508] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: Formidable post. But why only every six weeks? What happens the rest of the time? Quote: I don't know - what is it? (Is that Anslo's thing? Didn't they go join some SOV alliance? I don't recall which one. Haven't heard anything about them in quite a while.) The Scope Project was some attempt to create a community out of The Scope. I believe they wanted to teach new players, next to other things. Last I checked they seemed to be on the failway, because all that was happening was a constant turnaround. Roams happened ... that's all I remember. I really thought you'd know, but maybe it failcascaded already? Haven't seen anything of their "overlord", forgothisname, for a longer while. "Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote.
Eve Solecist Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 163	Posted - 2015.04.04 00:33:51 - [509] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Mia Keldarin wrote: Sure, there's nothing like going for pvp to learn about pvp but this has a cost for rookies ... Why loosing money in pvp when tutorials gives rewards for pve and that's their first impression in the game. . I got this far with your post and had a weird idea. 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 ... Main problem is alts with game knowledge and ISK to pimp their rookie ship ... but that could be argued to be a lesson in EVE also. (Mission fizzles out if you change ships and the one in the rookie ship has it seek another opponent.) When your loss mail arrives then your opponent's kill mail also comes through, "They were flying this ship with this fit" I had this idea months ago. Not only is it meaningless if you post it here, it also simply will not work. It depends too much on too many factors. Like, for example, is it not possible to tell if both parties are really ready for it. There's no way to tell if both parties actually want it. And I also strongly believe that forcing interaction isn't the way to go. And besides all of that ... do you ever "PvP"? Because if not, your ideas would simply lack the base. "Ship combat" is being learned while it's being done. "Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote.
Eve Solecist Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 163	Posted - 2015.04.04 00:35:58 - [510] - Quote Mia Keldarin wrote: Eve Solecist, can you filter that demagogy and complacency acting for a moment ? The issue here is not to please noobs, but to make them more likely to subscribe and introduce them to pvp and other mechanics. Sure, there's nothing like going for pvp to learn about pvp but this has a cost for rookies ... Why loosing money in pvp when tutorials gives rewards for pve and that's their first impression in the game. Then they tend to go for carebear missions, not for pvp, as they were misled to think that pve missions will provide safety, modules, ships, skills, isk .... How about a tutorial that rewards them for going into a noob arena to fight others ? Teaching them that safety doesn't exist, providing them ships, modules, skills, isk so they don't cry when they die ? Now why making a tutorial for pvp when there are corps that train newbies ? Because, it'll be great if it could be their first impression of the game, they could progressively learn what Eve is really about and get over that ridge once and for all. Any kind of conscious living being can be tamed with rewards anyway. A new player needs to feel that he's winning, that he's the boss at some point or he won't sub. So you say it's not about pleasing noobs ... ... and then you waste tons of time writing about how noobs should be pleased. Do you ever "PvP" ? "Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote.

Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 35499	Posted - 2015.04.04 00:51:55 - [511] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: 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 ... I think there is some potential in that idea, but within the context of the new opportunities system. A player completing the NPE for the first time, could have an opportunity to mark themselves as available for a pvp opportunity and when another new player does the same, the game matches them up for a duel. That way, the game doesn't have to remember the state of different players and doesn't force the opportunity on either player. They select it when they want. There would be issues around timezones, players being logged in, region the players are located in, vets completing the NPE on an alt (not a bad thing anyway), completing the NPE after you've been in the game for a while and probably many more that could be thought of with a few minutes, but these could be managed if this was seen as something good. The advantage from a new player perspective is that, despite any other pvp encounter in the game, they would have a one-time opportunity to experience pvp when they feel they want to try it. The biggest limitation of the idea I can see though is how does that fit into the broader aims of CCP in terms of providing rich, social experiences for new players. If it is simply one solo player duels another solo player and then they each go their own way again, what has been gained in terms of the overall game experience? I'm not sure at this point, that much is gained other than a single pvp isolated and solo encounter. How can the opportunity be designed to promote both participants into more social play beyond that one encounter? Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Dots State Protectorate Caldari State 25	Posted - 2015.04.04 01:05:39 - [512] - 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 ß¦êß¦Æß¦ù-ó on it New Player Opportunities: a gallery
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1386	Posted - 2015.04.04 01:17:10 - [513] - Quote Dots wrote: 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. I can't really think of a way in which the tutorial can overcome that limitation. It can only progress you through things it can quantify, social interaction usually being more difficult in that regard. Honestly I'm still of the opinion that letting veterans initiate contact more easily is the best cure for the social ills plaguing the NPE (For instance, allow veterans into NPC corp chats without abandoning their current corps for recruiting/whatever purposes).
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 118	Posted - 2015.04.04 01:19:45 - [514] - Quote Eve Solecist wrote: Eli Stan wrote: Formidable post. But why only every six weeks? What happens the rest of the time? We restock replacement ships, do our normal null thing, get some sleep, go outside, go to work, that sort of stuff. Quote: The Scope Project was some attempt to create a community out of The Scope. I believe they wanted to teach new players, next to other things. Okay, yeah, I heard them mentioned a few times back when I first joined CAS. They were working on setting up something like CAS except for Scope. They'd join us every once in a while and fleet up. Then they moved to a sov alliance, and I really hadn't heard anything since. Quote: Last I checked they seemed to be on the failway, because all that was happening was a constant turnaround. Roams happened ... that's all I remember. I really thought you'd know, but maybe it failcascaded already? Haven't seen anything of their "overlord", forgothisname, for a longer while. Anslo? He struck me as being the sole driving force behind it. It's tough for a single person to maintain the momentum of running a group. That's one of the strong points for CAS - there are a number of folk who can be leaders, but nobody is trying to direct the whole group. We all coexist together in our little purple world, always on coms, helping eachother out as we can, doing our own thing when we want, and from time-to-time stepping up to lead some activity because that's fun too.
Dots State Protectorate Caldari State 25	Posted - 2015.04.04 01:28:26 - [515] - 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 ß¦êß¦Æß¦ù-ó on it New Player Opportunities: a gallery
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10583	Posted - 2015.04.04 01:28:47 - [516] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: 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. That's not what self reliant means at all. Most people in corps and alliances have a self reliant attitude, meaning that THEY TRY TO DO THINGS THEMSELVES BEFORE ASKING FOR HELP. The entitled, lazy player demands and expects 'help' without spending a single brain cell trying to figure out a problem for himself, as if other people exist only to do their bidding. Quote: Need to be hand held: One person's hand-holding is another person's teaching. It might sound to you the players who quit wanted somebody to hold their hand, but it sounds to me like they needed the right sensei. Being taught by other players, rather than reading wikis and blogs, is a GOOD thing because it keeps the newbies engaged with the community. And EVE is so complex that we ALL need teaching. Which is a good thing that we like, right? ' Hand holding is "I can't do anything at all unless you tell me how 1st" , like your friend who could figure out that warping is as simple as following the 1st rule of modern computer usage ("When in doubt, RIGHT CLICK"). A good student (or EVE player) will try to figure it out for themselves 1st, then after an acceptable amount of effort, ask for help. Besides, too much teach is bad.
beakerax Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 65	Posted - 2015.04.04 01:31:33 - [517] - Quote Dots wrote: The only other one tells you to sell something and buy something (I also don't see any real opportunity for interaction there). In Rise's 2014 presentation, one of the characteristics of the "isolated" players was that they didn't interact with the market very much. Which consistently blows my mind. I also see a lot of questions on the theme of "I need [skillbook/module/ship], where do I get that?" from brand new players. Reflexively checking the market isn't something they're in the habit of doing. ( I'm not disagreeing with you, these are just some thoughts that came to mind. ) Eli Stan wrote: Okay, yeah, I heard them mentioned a few times back when I first joined CAS. They were working on setting up something like CAS except for Scope. They'd join us every once in a while and fleet up. Then they moved to a sov alliance, and I really hadn't heard anything since. I think you are thinking of Scope Works, run by Anslo, which inexplicably joined TISHU but is now in Overload Everything. The Scope Project was possibly run by Vapor Ventrillian. As far as I know it fizzled out. beaten to the punch!
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10583	Posted - 2015.04.04 01:31:54 - [518] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: I play EVE because it is a tad bit more challenging that most of the other online games and I find solo games a bit lacking in depth with the AI. I was under what is more and more becoming apparent, a misconception that the EVE community was of a calibre above average. So, people disagree with you because what you believe is wrong, and people refrain from voting for you because (to put it politely and based off your own interview) your views are wrong, and somehow now there is a problem with the community, a community you wanted to represent. Aren't you just precious....
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10583	Posted - 2015.04.04 01:33:56 - [519] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Eli Stan wrote: 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. I don't think self-reliant also has to mean non-social. It can just as easily refer to people that are self-motivated but very social. They don't require other people to generate content for them, but can easily be part of that, while also being the type of player that can generate things for others to do as well. From everything I have ever read of Jenn's posts, I'd be inclined to think that what she was referring to was more the self-reliant player that doesn't whinge when they face a problem, but who goes out and attacks the problem themselves to find a solution; whether solo or as part of a social group. There goes Scipio, saying it better than I can. Exactly so. And I feel the same way about people in real life.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 118	Posted - 2015.04.04 01:34:28 - [520] - Quote Tyberius Franklin wrote: I can't really think of a way in which the tutorial can overcome that limitation. It can only progress you through things it can quantify, social interaction usually being more difficult in that regard. Honestly I'm still of the opinion that letting veterans initiate contact more easily is the best cure for the social ills plaguing the NPE (For instance, allow veterans into NPC corp chats without abandoning their current corps for recruiting/whatever purposes). Hmm... That's an interesting idea... Instead of putting all new players into a new-player-only chat which just perpetuates the isolation from the general player base, put them into a newbie chat that veteran players can join? During the trial period it's mandatory, but afterwards the newbie can elect to leave that chat. Call it "Ask A Vet" or something, with color coding indicating players who have subscribed. No linking of contracts, in order to help cut down on scamming. (Scamming being a perfectly fine thing later, but lets not skim off the trial accounts just yet...) Of course, this opens an avenue for vets to troll, but that's already possible in NPC corp chat, local chat, etc.

Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 118	Posted - 2015.04.04 01:37:05 - [521] - Quote Dots wrote: Are you guys confusing Anslo and Scope Works (SWCW) with Vapor Ventrillian? Quite possibly - I've never heard of Vapor Ventrillian, and with similar names (Scope Works vs Scope Project) we could each be talking entirely two different people and projects without realizing it.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 118	Posted - 2015.04.04 01:41:40 - [522] - Quote beakerax wrote: In Rise's 2014 presentation, one of the characteristics of the "isolated" players was that they didn't interact with the market very much. Which consistently blows my mind. That one caught my attention too, and puzzled me. It's very difficult to do anything in EVE if you never make use of the market. No purchasing of ships or ammor? No selling of loot and tags? Sounds like somebody who created a trial account, spent a few minutes in station doing who-knows-what, maybe a tutorial or two, then never logging back on...? Maybe instead of the "Earth..." backstory video as an intro, CCP should replace it with the "This is EVE" video.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1386	Posted - 2015.04.04 01:42:41 - [523] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: I can't really think of a way in which the tutorial can overcome that limitation. It can only progress you through things it can quantify, social interaction usually being more difficult in that regard. Honestly I'm still of the opinion that letting veterans initiate contact more easily is the best cure for the social ills plaguing the NPE (For instance, allow veterans into NPC corp chats without abandoning their current corps for recruiting/whatever purposes). Hmm... That's an interesting idea... Instead of putting all new players into a new-player-only chat which just perpetuates the isolation from the general player base, put them into a newbie chat that veteran players can join? During the trial period it's mandatory, but afterwards the newbie can elect to leave that chat. Call it "Ask A Vet" or something, with color coding indicating players who have subscribed. No linking of contracts, in order to help cut down on scamming. (Scamming being a perfectly fine thing later, but lets not skim off the trial accounts just yet...) Of course, this opens an avenue for vets to troll, but that's already possible in NPC corp chat, local chat, etc. On the subject of trolling, I would hope and believe that the player base at large would generate more good than ill even if it means a few of the most gullible/uninformed become examples for the rest. If that doesn't happen then it means we have a player base that largely lacks concern over molding new blood and keeping them in the game or views that NPE as a gauntlet to weed out the unworthy. Either way the player base can get what it wants out of the NPE and the social aspect is ostensibly solved.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1386	Posted - 2015.04.04 01:49:37 - [524] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: beakerax wrote: In Rise's 2014 presentation, one of the characteristics of the "isolated" players was that they didn't interact with the market very much. Which consistently blows my mind. That one caught my attention too, and puzzled me. It's very difficult to do anything in EVE if you never make use of the market. No purchasing of ships or ammor? No selling of loot and tags? Sounds like somebody who created a trial account, spent a few minutes in station doing who-knows-what, maybe a tutorial or two, then never logging back on...? Maybe instead of the "Earth..." backstory video as an intro, CCP should replace it with the "This is EVE" video. Eve was my first MMO, but as I contrast it to other MMO's I have played, few as they are, none have had a market like this one. It's typically vendors with set items and specific NPC's (class mentors and the like) or locations for anything you would need to advance your character in a specific way. The idea of a unified regional market for everything isn't something common in my MMO experience, so expecting everyone to naturally look for it may be unreasonable on some level. I do agree on the limitations it creates being a factor to cause someone to quit, but it happening doesn't seem far fetched to me at all.
Hengle Teron Just Another Corp XIV 44753	Posted - 2015.04.04 02:11:53 - [525] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: I can't really think of a way in which the tutorial can overcome that limitation. It can only progress you through things it can quantify, social interaction usually being more difficult in that regard. Honestly I'm still of the opinion that letting veterans initiate contact more easily is the best cure for the social ills plaguing the NPE (For instance, allow veterans into NPC corp chats without abandoning their current corps for recruiting/whatever purposes). Hmm... That's an interesting idea... Instead of putting all new players into a new-player-only chat which just perpetuates the isolation from the general player base, put them into a newbie chat that veteran players can join? During the trial period it's mandatory, but afterwards the newbie can elect to leave that chat. Call it "Ask A Vet" or something, with color coding indicating players who have subscribed. No linking of contracts, in order to help cut down on scamming. (Scamming being a perfectly fine thing later, but lets not skim off the trial accounts just yet...) Of course, this opens an avenue for vets to troll, but that's already possible in NPC corp chat, local chat, etc. There's this thing called the "help" channel, might be of interest to you.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1386	Posted - 2015.04.04 02:17:49 - [526] - Quote Hengle Teron wrote: There's this thing called the "help" channel, might be of interest to you. No, it's not. The traffic is too high to maintain any real conversation. There is also the fact that the channel isn't really made for prolonged interaction between individuals.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 118	Posted - 2015.04.04 02:43:29 - [527] - Quote Hengle Teron wrote: There's this thing called the "help" channel, might be of interest to you. You mean "English Help" channel? LOL, I never even was aware that existed until just now... (Such chat channels weren't anything I was aware of as a newbie, then once I joined a group I just used them to ask questions.) Sure, repurpose that and make trial accounts auto-join.
Hengle Teron Just Another Corp XIV 44753	Posted - 2015.04.04 02:53:36 - [528] - Quote they do auto join the help channel
Mia Keldarin Escadron leader La Ligue des mondes libres 8	Posted - 2015.04.04 02:57:39 - [529] - Quote Eve Solecist wrote: ... Yeah maybe i should write more about pleasing noobs, i get this exalted feeling when your sweating tears of rage and madness come down on your cheeks each time your trolling fails. And then we'll talk about the pvp experience i had with my indus toon so you'll laugh so hard that you'd eventually choked to asphyxia. "LoL" would be the last word you ever read =) Wouldn't it be nice ?
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 118	Posted - 2015.04.04 03:10:38 - [530] - Quote Hengle Teron wrote: they do auto join the help channel I thought that was the rookie help channel, that they're kicked out of after a while...? Anyway, thanks for the info, I didn't realize newbies were auto-joined to the English Help channel.

ISD Decoy ISD Community Communications Liaisons 450	Posted - 2015.04.04 03:16:44 - [531] - Quote I have removed a disrespectful and ranting post, along with one quoting it. If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all. Constructive discussions are encouraged -- but blatant flaming and disrespect will be removed. Quote: 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. ISD Decoy Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Eve Solecist Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 169	Posted - 2015.04.04 08:01:36 - [532] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: Hengle Teron wrote: they do auto join the help channel I thought that was the rookie help channel, that they're kicked out of after a while...? Anyway, thanks for the info, I didn't realize newbies were auto-joined to the English Help channel. I'm not sure he didn't actually mean that one, because you only get forced into rookie-help usually. Makes no sense to have a noob in two helpchats at once, too. That would only be confusing. "Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote.
Eve Solecist Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 169	Posted - 2015.04.04 08:06:56 - [533] - Quote Dots wrote: 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). Told him. As usual, people refused to listen to experience and rather believed they are so awesome they can do it themselves. Remind me to rub his failure in his nose. And why did my long post get removed? It was precise and to the point. "Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote.
Hengle Teron Just Another Corp XIV 44774	Posted - 2015.04.04 12:35:44 - [534] - Quote Fun fact: According to a rather popular theory, mankind populated the Earth by a series of incests.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12500	Posted - 2015.04.04 13:16:04 - [535] - Quote Eve Solecist wrote: Remind me to rub his failure in his nose. Be sure and link him a few of the articles on minerbumping featuring his penchant for failure. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Eve Solecist Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 171	Posted - 2015.04.04 13:19:25 - [536] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Eve Solecist wrote: Remind me to rub his failure in his nose. Be sure and link him a few of the articles on minerbumping featuring his penchant for failure. I don't read that crap. Didn't even know he tried with anti-ganking. What a fool. "Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote. "AND THIS IS WHY THE FEDERATION MUST BE DESTROYED!!" - Diana Kim
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15566	Posted - 2015.04.04 13:23:12 - [537] - Quote Hengle Teron wrote: Fun fact: According to a rather popular theory, mankind populated the Earth by a series of incests. It would explain a few things. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12500	Posted - 2015.04.04 13:27:35 - [538] - Quote Eve Solecist wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Eve Solecist wrote: Remind me to rub his failure in his nose. Be sure and link him a few of the articles on minerbumping featuring his penchant for failure. I don't read that crap. Didn't even know he tried with anti-ganking. What a fool. Yeah, he was the first one in fact. His sig might still have the link to his blog, where he advocated for miners and carebears to mass report Code members to try and get us all banned. Among other such things. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Eve Solecist Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 172	Posted - 2015.04.04 14:12:18 - [539] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Eve Solecist wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Eve Solecist wrote: Remind me to rub his failure in his nose. Be sure and link him a few of the articles on minerbumping featuring his penchant for failure. I don't read that crap. Didn't even know he tried with anti-ganking. What a fool. Yeah, he was the first one in fact. His sig might still have the link to his blog, where he advocated for miners and carebears to mass report Code members to try and get us all banned. Among other such things. * . . . * That's so stupid, it hurts. What a loser. "Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote. "AND THIS IS WHY THE FEDERATION MUST BE DESTROYED!!" - Diana Kim
Johan Civire The Lyran Empire 948	Posted - 2015.04.04 15:10:37 - [540] - Quote Rowells wrote: Unsuccessful At Everything wrote: Sibyyl wrote: Apparently there's this huge problem of newbies being griefed out of the game. If you read the NPC corp thread people are equating this 1% ganked statistic to the 90% that drops out of game. So..1% of the time, they are griefed out every time? Wait.... so... does this mean that CCP is catering to the 1%? if my math is correct, that means in reality, 9000% percent of players are quitting because of grieving. True or the (waiting for skill training to compleet for "beginners" are just to long) i guess. Grieving is fun. Like you are trolling the GN forums. Its the same no harm done. Just a little fun. But i guess like in real life people get upset easy.

Eve Solecist Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 178	Posted - 2015.04.04 16:18:35 - [541] - Quote To grieve. My grandma dies and I am sad. To grief. My grandma dies and I will make you suffer for it. One letter, so many possibilities of pushing people out of their comfort zone. (ssshhhhh ..... she's asleep right now.......) "Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote. "AND THIS IS WHY THE FEDERATION MUST BE DESTROYED!!" - Diana Kim
ISD Ezwal ISD Community Communications Liaisons 4276	Posted - 2015.04.04 16:34:42 - [542] - Quote I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. The Rules: 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. 27. Off-topic posting is prohibited. Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster. ISD Ezwal Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Hengle Teron Just Another Corp XIV 44780	Posted - 2015.04.04 18:04:43 - [543] - Quote True facts are not trolling. It was off topic, I give you that.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1213	Posted - 2015.04.04 18:13:53 - [544] - Quote Sibyyl wrote: If you read the NPC corp thread people are equating this 1% ganked statistic NPC corps high population is a result of broken war mechanics and corps not having enough value to new players. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Jade Blackwind Alexylva Paradox Low-Class 326	Posted - 2015.04.04 18:25:11 - [545] - Quote TBH, war mechanic isn't really "broken". But is is unfair, yes, and one-sided, like everything else in this game. Much like ganking and CODE harassing miners, it weeds out those who aren't ready or expects anything else. Is it for the better or for the worse? Probably, for the financial health of CCP as a company, it's for the worse. But the vocal minority loves it, so who cares. I personally have no problems with EVE PvP and never fly anything I can't throw away.
Nicolai Serkanner Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spaceship Parts Co. Brave Collective 327	Posted - 2015.04.04 20:23:20 - [546] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Thanks btw You are a complete numptie. It is rather obvious that I am talking from a personal perspective and was tempering what was said about miners rage quitting. lol ... you are trying to moonwalk out of your own grave you also dug yourself.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12508	Posted - 2015.04.04 20:25:04 - [547] - Quote Nicolai Serkanner wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Thanks btw You are a complete numptie. It is rather obvious that I am talking from a personal perspective and was tempering what was said about miners rage quitting. lol ... you are trying to moonwalk out of your own grave you also dug yourself. Look at their post history. An army of Zombie Michael Jacksons couldn't moonwalk their way out of that. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Nicolai Serkanner Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spaceship Parts Co. Brave Collective 329	Posted - 2015.04.04 20:29:06 - [548] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: [quote=Mr Epeen] I was under what is more and more becoming apparent, a misconception that the EVE community was of a calibre above average. Keep digging the grave deeper and deeper! The Eve community is of a calibre above average. It is you who isn't.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 752	Posted - 2015.04.04 20:30:02 - [549] - Quote Nicolai Serkanner wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: [quote=Mr Epeen] I was under what is more and more becoming apparent, a misconception that the EVE community was of a calibre above average. Keep digging the grave deeper and deeper! The Eve community is of a calibre above average. It is you who isn't. Says a numptie in Brave, lol Ella's Snack bar
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12510	Posted - 2015.04.04 20:32:02 - [550] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Says a numptie in Brave, lol There is no alliance ticker that has a monopoly on having a good attitude. Or a bad one. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.

admiral root Red Galaxy 2636	Posted - 2015.04.04 20:32:30 - [551] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Nicolai Serkanner wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: [quote=Mr Epeen] I was under what is more and more becoming apparent, a misconception that the EVE community was of a calibre above average. Keep digging the grave deeper and deeper! The Eve community is of a calibre above average. It is you who isn't. Says a numptie in Brave, lol Sir, I would like to congratulate you on your extremely thoughtful and constructive comeback at the previous poster. As soon as you do so, said congratulations will be despatched. Please ensure that someone over the age of 18 is available to sign for them. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff \| No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that. A recent survey of applicants to CODE. corporations showed that 100% accepted James 315 as their saviour. You can't argue with facts.
Nicolai Serkanner Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spaceship Parts Co. Brave Collective 330	Posted - 2015.04.04 20:44:26 - [552] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Nicolai Serkanner wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: [quote=Mr Epeen] I was under what is more and more becoming apparent, a misconception that the EVE community was of a calibre above average. Keep digging the grave deeper and deeper! The Eve community is of a calibre above average. It is you who isn't. Says a numptie in Brave, lol ohhhh ... you mean the alliance that started out with hundreds of fresh newbies who got massacred in HEK, went to low sec and got massacred in Rahadalon, moved to Barleguet and got massacred yet again ... the moved via Sendaya to Catch and with a little help from friend conquered the entire region. Then the fought PL supercap fleets and everytging else they could throw at them for over 6 months and they got massacred again and again ... and yet they still have over 14,000 members who love this game and learn and teach every day and are a main reason why people keep playing this game after their trial periods end ... yes we are WAY above average dude.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 752	Posted - 2015.04.04 20:45:43 - [553] - Quote admiral root wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Nicolai Serkanner wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: [quote=Mr Epeen] I was under what is more and more becoming apparent, a misconception that the EVE community was of a calibre above average. Keep digging the grave deeper and deeper! The Eve community is of a calibre above average. It is you who isn't. Says a numptie in Brave, lol Sir, I would like to congratulate you on your extremely thoughtful and constructive comeback at the previous poster. As soon as you do so, said congratulations will be despatched. Please ensure that someone over the age of 18 is available to sign for them. So says another numpty... Ella's Snack bar
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 752	Posted - 2015.04.04 20:50:31 - [554] - Quote Nicolai Serkanner wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Nicolai Serkanner wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: [quote=Mr Epeen] I was under what is more and more becoming apparent, a misconception that the EVE community was of a calibre above average. Keep digging the grave deeper and deeper! The Eve community is of a calibre above average. It is you who isn't. Says a numptie in Brave, lol ohhhh ... you mean the alliance that started out with hundreds of fresh newbies who got massacred in HEK, went to low sec and got massacred in Rahadalon, moved to Barleguet and got massacred yet again ... the moved via Sendaya to Catch and with a little help from friend conquered the entire region. Then the fought PL supercap fleets and everytging else they could throw at them for over 6 months and they got massacred again and again ... and yet they still have over 14,000 members who love this game and learn and teach every day and are a main reason why people keep playing this game after their trial periods end ... yes we are WAY above average dude. Looks like you are dying to be honest, that is a reduction in members... Ella's Snack bar
Benny Ohu Chaotic Tranquility Warp to Cyno. 4401	Posted - 2015.04.04 21:17:25 - [555] - Quote admiral root wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Nicolai Serkanner wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: I was under what is more and more becoming apparent, a misconception that the EVE community was of a calibre above average. Keep digging the grave deeper and deeper! The Eve community is of a calibre above average. It is you who isn't. Says a numptie in Brave, lol Sir, I would like to congratulate you on your extremely thoughtful and constructive comeback at the previous poster. As soon as you do so, said congratulations will be despatched. Please ensure that someone over the age of 18 is available to sign for them. isn't nikolai's post pretty much pulling an i know you are but what am i then again, isn't jenshae's post just a you all suck is this an actual ******* preschool
Nicolai Serkanner Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spaceship Parts Co. Brave Collective 331	Posted - 2015.04.04 21:32:09 - [556] - Quote Benny Ohu wrote: admiral root wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Nicolai Serkanner wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: I was under what is more and more becoming apparent, a misconception that the EVE community was of a calibre above average. Keep digging the grave deeper and deeper! The Eve community is of a calibre above average. It is you who isn't. Says a numptie in Brave, lol Sir, I would like to congratulate you on your extremely thoughtful and constructive comeback at the previous poster. As soon as you do so, said congratulations will be despatched. Please ensure that someone over the age of 18 is available to sign for them. isn't nikolai's post pretty much pulling an i know you are but what am i then again, isn't jenshae's post just a you all suck is this an actual ******* preschool Agreed. But it is Nicolai with a C.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 752	Posted - 2015.04.04 21:41:22 - [557] - Quote admiral root wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Nicolai Serkanner wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: [quote=Mr Epeen] I was under what is more and more becoming apparent, a misconception that the EVE community was of a calibre above average. Keep digging the grave deeper and deeper! The Eve community is of a calibre above average. It is you who isn't. Says a numptie in Brave, lol Sir, I would like to congratulate you on your extremely thoughtful and constructive comeback at the previous poster. As soon as you do so, said congratulations will be despatched. Please ensure that someone over the age of 18 is available to sign for them. You mean you would like to congratulate me for stooping down to his level, well he may be a numptie, you sir are a muppet! Ella's Snack bar
Jenshae Chiroptera 1216	Posted - 2015.04.04 23:30:52 - [558] - Quote Nicolai Serkanner wrote: ohhhh ... you mean the alliance that started out with hundreds of fresh newbies who got massacred in HEK, went to low sec and got massacred in Rahadalon, moved to Barleguet and got massacred yet again ... then moved via Sendaya to Catch and with a little help from friends conquered the entire region. Then they fought PL supercap fleets and everytging else they could throw at them for over 6 months and they got massacred again and again ... and yet they still have over 14,000 members who love this game, and learn and teach every day and are a main reason why people keep playing this game after their trial periods end ... yes we are WAY above average dude. ... or unable to see when to give up. Pandemic Legion played with Brave like a cat with mice. It didn't kick you all out right away - where would the fun be in that? "Digging graves," a strange phrase that is only applicable to those that care about public opinion. There are different ways to look at things: Personally, I have seen people rage quit after losing their first battleship. Logically, I know people quit for a multitude of other reasons. Logically, I would be more concerned about people quitting, between a month and a year old because they have invested more time in the game, so there must be stronger reasons for why they quit. Logically, I know that this study was ridiculous before it was even conducted. Personally, I stand by what I said, EVE is not full of people going, "Boost plz!," "Game only starts when you are in a Titan!" and so forth but I am coming across a lot of people who are rather average and continue to play EVE because they are too stubborn or full of themselves to give up, despite failing miserably and constantly for years. People who get stuck in their small groups of space jocks and space goths or what ever high school like cliques you want to parallel them with, doing that to the detriment of a larger group. Much like the forum trolls who run around in a group, you will see the same names attacking the same ideas. I can almost believe that they have an in game channel and link threads to each other; they are so quick to pounce. They do it blindly, without logic, without constructing something better; simply for the "forum PVP" to shoot someone down and flexing their feeble intellectual muscles in order to try feel better about themselves. I dismiss their opinions as irrelevant and more often than not scroll right past their posts, by looking at the profile images. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10598	Posted - 2015.04.04 23:37:23 - [559] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Nicolai Serkanner wrote: ohhhh ... you mean the alliance that started out with hundreds of fresh newbies who got massacred in HEK, went to low sec and got massacred in Rahadalon, moved to Barleguet and got massacred yet again ... then moved via Sendaya to Catch and with a little help from friends conquered the entire region. Then they fought PL supercap fleets and everytging else they could throw at them for over 6 months and they got massacred again and again ... and yet they still have over 14,000 members who love this game, and learn and teach every day and are a main reason why people keep playing this game after their trial periods end ... yes we are WAY above average dude. ... or unable to see when to give up. Pandemic Legion played with Brave like a cat with mice. It didn't kick you all out right away - where would the fun be in that? "Digging graves," a strange phrase that is only applicable to those that care about public opinion. There are different ways to look at things: Personally, I have seen people rage quit after losing their first battleship. Logically, I know people quit for a multitude of other reasons. Logically, I would be more concerned about people quitting, between a month and a year old because they have invested more time in the game, so there must be stronger reasons for why they quit. Logically, I know that this study was ridiculous before it was even conducted. Personally, I stand by what I said, EVE is not full of people going, "Boost plz!," "Game only starts when you are in a Titan!" and so forth but I am coming across a lot of people who are rather average and continue to play EVE because they are too stubborn or full of themselves to give up, despite failing miserably and constantly for years. People who get stuck in their small groups of space jocks and space goths or what ever high school like cliques you want to parallel them with, doing that to the detriment of a larger group. Much like the forum trolls who run around in a group, you will see the same names attacking the same ideas. I can almost believe that they have an in game channel and link threads to each other; they are so quick to pounce. They do it blindly, without logic, without constructing something better; simply for the "forum PVP" to shoot someone down and flexing their feeble intellectual muscles in order to try feel better about themselves. I dismiss their opinions as irrelevant and more often than not scroll right past their posts, by looking at the profile images. As I suspected
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12518	Posted - 2015.04.04 23:38:40 - [560] - Quote Did you just doxx yourself? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.

Jenshae Chiroptera 1216	Posted - 2015.04.04 23:42:54 - [561] - Quote 2015-04-04 21:41:22 UTC 2015-04-04 23:30:52 UTC 2015-04-04 23:37:23 UTC 2015-04-04 23:38:40 UTC "See how they run" CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 964	Posted - 2015.04.04 23:52:34 - [562] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Did you just doxx yourself? If so, he's even more awesome in my book, for nothing more than the Immortal Technique image.
Benny Ohu Chaotic Tranquility Warp to Cyno. 4402	Posted - 2015.04.04 23:58:55 - [563] - Quote Nicolai Serkanner wrote: Agreed. But it is Nicolai with a C. i am a grown adult and i am more than kapable of kopying down a name
Nicolai Serkanner Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spaceship Parts Co. Brave Collective 332	Posted - 2015.04.05 00:00:51 - [564] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Nicolai Serkanner wrote: ohhhh ... you mean the alliance that started out with hundreds of fresh newbies who got massacred in HEK, went to low sec and got massacred in Rahadalon, moved to Barleguet and got massacred yet again ... then moved via Sendaya to Catch and with a little help from friends conquered the entire region. Then they fought PL supercap fleets and everytging else they could throw at them for over 6 months and they got massacred again and again ... and yet they still have over 14,000 members who love this game, and learn and teach every day and are a main reason why people keep playing this game after their trial periods end ... yes we are WAY above average dude. ... or unable to see when to give up. Pandemic Legion played with Brave like a cat with mice. It didn't kick you all out right away - where would the fun be in that? "Digging graves," a strange phrase that is only applicable to those that care about public opinion. There are different ways to look at things: Personally, I have seen people rage quit after losing their first battleship. Logically, I know people quit for a multitude of other reasons. Logically, I would be more concerned about people quitting, between a month and a year old because they have invested more time in the game, so there must be stronger reasons for why they quit. Logically, I know that this study was ridiculous before it was even conducted. Personally, I stand by what I said, EVE is not full of people going, "Boost plz!," "Game only starts when you are in a Titan!" and so forth but I am coming across a lot of people who are rather average and continue to play EVE because they are too stubborn or full of themselves to give up, despite failing miserably and constantly for years. People who get stuck in their small groups of space jocks and space goths or what ever high school like cliques you want to parallel them with, doing that to the detriment of a larger group. Much like the forum trolls who run around in a group, you will see the same names attacking the same ideas. I can almost believe that they have an in game channel and link threads to each other; they are so quick to pounce. They do it blindly, without logic, without constructing something better; simply for the "forum PVP" to shoot someone down and flexing their feeble intellectual muscles in order to try feel better about themselves. I dismiss their opinions as irrelevant and more often than not scroll right past their posts, by looking at the profile images. Over your head ... wooooosh ... again.
Dots State Protectorate Caldari State 37	Posted - 2015.04.05 00:03:35 - [565] - 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 ß¦êß¦Æß¦ù-ó on it New Player Opportunities: a gallery
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10599	Posted - 2015.04.05 00:12:15 - [566] - Quote Dots wrote: 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. Dot still thinks logic, reason and actual measurable empirical evidence actually means something to these people. Southern U.S. Grandma voice Ain't that just precious! /Southern U.S. Grandma voice
Benny Ohu Chaotic Tranquility Warp to Cyno. 4402	Posted - 2015.04.05 00:16:34 - [567] - Quote Dots wrote: So as a continuation to what Eli, myself, and others were discussing, specifically Re: correlation is not causation. Y'all can take a crack at interpreting the data if you'd like. ok this is really confusing so i'm just going to assume this stuff backs up what i personally believe in
Benny Ohu Chaotic Tranquility Warp to Cyno. 4403	Posted - 2015.04.05 00:21:14 - [568] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Much like the forum trolls who run around in a group, you will see the same names attacking the same ideas. I can almost believe that they have an in game channel and link threads to each other; they are so quick to pounce. They do it blindly, without logic, without constructing something better; simply for the "forum PVP" to shoot someone down and flexing their feeble intellectual muscles in order to try feel better about themselves. I dismiss their opinions as irrelevant and more often than not scroll right past their posts, by looking at the profile images. the jenn aside crew's channel is only for top S++ level gd posters and there is a written open-browser exam with a postcount:likes ratio minimum applications are taken on the first of every month, cover letter and recommendation by a standing member are required
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10599	Posted - 2015.04.05 00:31:08 - [569] - Quote Benny Ohu wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Much like the forum trolls who run around in a group, you will see the same names attacking the same ideas. I can almost believe that they have an in game channel and link threads to each other; they are so quick to pounce. They do it blindly, without logic, without constructing something better; simply for the "forum PVP" to shoot someone down and flexing their feeble intellectual muscles in order to try feel better about themselves. I dismiss their opinions as irrelevant and more often than not scroll right past their posts, by looking at the profile images. the jenn aside crew's channel is only for top S++ level gd posters and there is a written open-browser exam with a postcount:likes ratio minimum applications are taken on the first of every month, ~~cover letter and recommendation by a standing member~~ Blood test and notarized declaration of allegiance are required Fixed
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12519	Posted - 2015.04.05 00:37:42 - [570] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Benny Ohu wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Much like the forum trolls who run around in a group, you will see the same names attacking the same ideas. I can almost believe that they have an in game channel and link threads to each other; they are so quick to pounce. They do it blindly, without logic, without constructing something better; simply for the "forum PVP" to shoot someone down and flexing their feeble intellectual muscles in order to try feel better about themselves. I dismiss their opinions as irrelevant and more often than not scroll right past their posts, by looking at the profile images. the jenn aside crew's channel is only for top S++ level gd posters and there is a written open-browser exam with a postcount:likes ratio minimum applications are taken on the first of every month, ~~cover letter and recommendation by a standing member~~ Blood test and notarized declaration of allegiance are required Fixed The bylaws also permit the blood test to be waived if you are willing to pledge the service of your firstborn child when they reach the age of eight. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.

Jenshae Chiroptera 1216	Posted - 2015.04.05 00:42:33 - [571] - Quote Dots wrote: 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. 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? How many quit after their ship blew up? How many quit after a social interaction? How many quit for real life reasons? Was that counting only active members in the corp? How much interaction did the older accounts have with the newer ones in that corps? That is just the tip of the iceberg from the top of my head. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Vector Symian 0 Fear 655	Posted - 2015.04.05 00:51:10 - [572] - Quote 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!!
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12519	Posted - 2015.04.05 00:52:03 - [573] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: That is just the tip of the iceberg from the top of my head. Your desperation to disqualify the data is ever more apparent. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 965	Posted - 2015.04.05 01:17:25 - [574] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: That is just the tip of the iceberg from the top of my head. Your desperation to disqualify the data is ever more apparent. 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.
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 8290	Posted - 2015.04.05 01:23:48 - [575] - Quote Vector Symian wrote: 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!! 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 There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 35538	Posted - 2015.04.05 01:36:05 - [576] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: 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. In the end it doesn't matter which of those it was. Because one of the strong messages of that part of the presentation was that a player that had a ship blown up (including all these particular ways and more) had a higher chance of continuing to play in month 4, compared to a player that had no pvp experience (the worst case being a player that had no pvp, joined no Corp and just mined = 98% chance of leaving). These are all good for player retention beyond the onboarding period. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Dots State Protectorate Caldari State 40	Posted - 2015.04.05 01:41:48 - [577] - 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 ß¦êß¦Æß¦ù-ó on it New Player Opportunities: a gallery
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 35538	Posted - 2015.04.05 01:44:34 - [578] - Quote Dots wrote: 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? Ah ok thanks. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Vector Symian 0 Fear 658	Posted - 2015.04.05 01:45:36 - [579] - Quote Mr Epeen wrote: Vector Symian wrote: 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!! 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 Thankyou Master Epeen bows
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 8293	Posted - 2015.04.05 01:47:32 - [580] - Quote Dots wrote: 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 must be new here. Go back over some of his posting history. ~ed~ To be fair, they all do it. Moving goal posts is what most forum warriors do best. Second only to personal attacks and straw man arguments. Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!

Jenshae Chiroptera 1216	Posted - 2015.04.05 01:58:57 - [581] - Quote Mr Epeen wrote: Moving goal posts 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. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1998	Posted - 2015.04.05 02:14:39 - [582] - Quote Dots wrote: 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) 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.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10601	Posted - 2015.04.05 02:27:06 - [583] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: That is just the tip of the iceberg from the top of my head. Your desperation to disqualify the data is ever more apparent. 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. Jenshae Chiroptera's required level of evidence
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10601	Posted - 2015.04.05 02:34:31 - [584] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Dots wrote: 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) 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. Where did Dots claim anything? He posted a recap of the facts presented by CCP Quant. He did not post a single conclusion. Go a head and post your evidence that disproves the facts that he posted (ie "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)).
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 35540	Posted - 2015.04.05 02:36:41 - [585] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: 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. 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 the #1 factor is whether a player has their ship blown up. That is the whole reason why CCP are trying to create an NPE (to bring it back to the stats that CCP Rise discussed) that provides rich experiences for players that will increase the retention. That way, players that would otherwise leave, will have a chance to experience something that encourages them to stay. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10603	Posted - 2015.04.05 02:40:12 - [586] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Mr Epeen wrote: Moving goal posts 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. So you didn't look at CCP Quants presentation (linked in this thread also) at all. And somehow, CCP Rise decided to LIE in public for some nefarious reason? Do you now, of have you ever owned a toon named "Dinsdale"? For that matter, where were you when Rise was making his presentation???
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10603	Posted - 2015.04.05 02:41:56 - [587] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: 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. 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.
Hengle Teron Just Another Corp XIV 44788	Posted - 2015.04.05 02:52:34 - [588] - Quote One step forward, two steps back.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2000	Posted - 2015.04.05 04:50:47 - [589] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: 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. 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.
ISD Decoy ISD Community Communications Liaisons 455	Posted - 2015.04.05 04:54:42 - [590] - Quote We are spending far too much time cleaning this thread. Quote: 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. Please follow our simple rules. Don't press that "POST" button if you cannot contribute constructively or within our rules. I have removed posts for the aforementioned violations, including those quoting them. ISD Decoy Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department

Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 967	Posted - 2015.04.05 05:04:07 - [591] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: 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. 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. I don't recall anyone outright saying "ganking makes people stay longer". That being said, I'd be shocked beyond belief if it were to turn out that only people who engage in duels or come to the game with every intention of moving to low/null stay longer, while all (or even most) of those who are ganked, leave. Personally, I see far more people ragequit over being scammed than ganked, but hey, there's anecdotal evidence for you.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10606	Posted - 2015.04.05 05:07:28 - [592] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: 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. 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.
Kaely Tanniss Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 323	Posted - 2015.04.05 05:23:51 - [593] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: 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. 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. What the stats suggest, despite all the crying about gankers chasing people away, as stated previously, is that this is not the case. No one ever said (except maybe a few here that jump to conclusions) that these stats are the definitive conclusion. The study was too short and not detailed enough. What it suggests with the information gathered as of yet is that it is contrary to the belief of the carebears who think PvP chases people from the game. What I do find rather interesting is how so many pretend to care about the people who quit the game "due to griefing". 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. "Oh I heard" is not by any means a definitive truth. Eve is not for everyone. If you don't like the way the game is played, why play it? If you are against something, at least make a stand and be honest about your motives being selfish and personal..rather than trying to use others to "prove your point" in an attempt to gain sympathy or support for your agenda or beliefs. You have a right to not like ganking or PvP...as much as those who like it have a right to do it to you. 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? If I had a nickel for every time someone said women don't play eve, I'd have a bag of nickels to whack the next person who said it..
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 35545	Posted - 2015.04.05 05:28:16 - [594] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: 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'. Where has Jeen said that? Or too many other people for that matter? That's a reversal of what most of us are saying. Not that ganking is great for the game, but that ganking is not the huge negative to player retention that is often claimed, at least within the context that it was used by CCP Rise for new players. The presentation by CCP Quant provides more data points, which are still valid irrespective of cause. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Vector Symian 0 Fear 684	Posted - 2015.04.05 05:36:01 - [595] - Quote As and official representative of the Free Armada and voted "guardian of the noobelahs" I feel it is my duty to respond A rising of the education required of new pilots can only be a good thing plus one from me... I would suggest thou that more freedom is given to them as to where they would like the new knowledge to be placed so they can more strongly focus on their intended destination. It might be a good idea to give them a speeded up skill queue for their first month so as to give them the best support on their remaining with this game The Free Armada o7
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10608	Posted - 2015.04.05 06:06:30 - [596] - Quote Kaely Tanniss wrote: 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. . 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. Quote: 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? 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.
admiral root Red Galaxy 2644	Posted - 2015.04.05 07:53:42 - [597] - Quote Dots wrote: Facts. I find myself troubled that this only covers a 3-month period, more specifically, that it doesn't tell us if everyone who gets their ship blown up (for whatever means) quits during month 4. TBH, I think CCP should just go ahead and give us stats going all the way back to 2003. That way, if they're telling the same story it'll be obvious that the fault is with what information is being collected. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff \| No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that. A recent survey of applicants to CODE. corporations showed that 100% accepted James 315 as their saviour. You can't argue with facts.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 754	Posted - 2015.04.05 09:23:42 - [598] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Kaely Tanniss wrote: 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. . 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. Quote: 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? 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. What a troll that was! Ella's Snack bar
Jenshae Chiroptera 1216	Posted - 2015.04.05 11:24:01 - [599] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Kaely Tanniss wrote: 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. . 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). How does your brain go from, "I think this study is not indepth enough," to, "paying ... to play a game they don't like"? Quote: 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" CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12526	Posted - 2015.04.05 11:39:52 - [600] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: That is just the tip of the iceberg from the top of my head. Your desperation to disqualify the data is ever more apparent. 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. Jenshae Chiroptera's required level of evidence It seems familiar somehow... "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.

Eve Solecist Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 254	Posted - 2015.04.05 11:45:41 - [601] - Quote lol this thread is still going. Stop talking to the monkeys already. The ability to speak does not make intelligent. "Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote. "AND THIS IS WHY THE FEDERATION MUST BE DESTROYED!!" - Diana Kim
Jenshae Chiroptera 1216	Posted - 2015.04.05 11:48:14 - [602] - Quote Eve Solecist wrote: lol this thread is still going. Stop talking to the monkeys already. The ability to speak does not make intelligent. It is only peanuts. If it keeps them distracted from other threads then I am performing a service. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Benny Ohu Chaotic Tranquility Warp to Cyno. 4403	Posted - 2015.04.05 12:06:52 - [603] - Quote i have no idea who solstice is referring to
Jenshae Chiroptera 1220	Posted - 2015.04.05 12:33:55 - [604] - Quote Benny Ohu wrote: i have no idea who solstice is referring to Exactly! However, it doesn't matter, I got to twist their post first. Nanananananananabananamanananana! CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 23447	Posted - 2015.04.05 12:55:28 - [605] - Quote Vector Symian wrote: It might be a good idea to give them a speeded up skill queue for their first month so as to give them the best support on their remaining with this game That actually used to happen, new characters got accelerated skill training up to a certain SP point. CCP changed that when they removed learning skills and rebalanced the character attributes to compensate IIRC. Newbies can now train skills faster than they could back then, removing allecerated training and 3 months of learning skills, that were required to increase your character attributes and thus pretty much mandatory, along with rebalancing character attributes is how CCP achieved that. Your suggestion reverses a previous decision made in the interests of balance. If it was to be implemented it wouldn't pass muster with the player base unless it came with some kind of penalty; say something like skills that are, for all intents and purposes, mandatory and time consuming. Malcanis's Law wrote: "Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of 'new players', that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players." The above applies here, if new characters got accelerated learning upto a set time or SP limit without penalty, older players would abuse the crap out of it and use their knowledge to create very effective specialist alts fast. Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 755	Posted - 2015.04.05 13:39:26 - [606] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Vector Symian wrote: It might be a good idea to give them a speeded up skill queue for their first month so as to give them the best support on their remaining with this game That actually used to happen, new characters got accelerated skill training up to a certain SP point. CCP changed that when they removed learning skills and rebalanced the character attributes to compensate IIRC. Newbies can now train skills faster than at any time in the past, removing allecerated training and 3 months of learning skills, that were required to increase your character attributes and thus pretty much mandatory, along with rebalancing character attributes is how CCP achieved that. Your suggestion reverses a previous decision made in the interests of balance. If it was to be implemented it wouldn't pass muster with the player base unless it came with some kind of penalty; say something like skills that are, for all intents and purposes, mandatory and time consuming. Malcanis's Law wrote: "Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of 'new players', that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players." The above applies here, if new characters got accelerated learning up to a set time or SP limit without penalty, older players would abuse the crap out of it and use their knowledge to create very effective specialist alts fast. Anyone who quotes Malcanis law should be ignored as a complete idiot, especially those that have no kills on the character they post or the corp they are in, who am I looking at.... Ella's Snack bar
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 23449	Posted - 2015.04.05 13:47:32 - [607] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Anyone who quotes Malcanis law should be ignored as a complete idiot Yet his premise has remained true, with very few exceptions. Quote: especially those that have no kills on the character they post or the corp they are in, who am I looking at.... What of it? I've never professed to play Eve for the ship to ship PvP. My PvP activities involve other areas of the game, where they do cross over into the realms of killboards and the like I take steps to not have those activities forced upon me, like not being stupid or afk. You must be getting desperate if you've resorted to judging the merits of others on the killboards because they disagree with you. Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 755	Posted - 2015.04.05 14:06:18 - [608] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Anyone who quotes Malcanis law should be ignored as a complete idiot Yet his premise has remained true, with very few exceptions. Quote: especially those that have no kills on the character they post or the corp they are in, who am I looking at.... What of it? I've never professed to play Eve for the ship to ship PvP. My PvP activities involve other areas of the game, where they do cross over into the realms of killboards and the like I take steps to not have those activities forced upon me, like not being stupid or afk. You must be getting desperate if you've resorted to judging the merits of others on the killboards because they disagree with you. List them, can you honestly say that the jump fatigue introduction really had that affect? I can't see your activties to be able to judge teh value of your words, just that C&P know you, big deal. You look at people who make statements to assess if they have had the experience that they talk about, all we see from you is lots of likes but that can be done by people who just agree with anything that a person posts or numerous accounts self liking himself like Kaauros. You could be a raving carebear for all I know, at this point the value of your posts to me are absolute zero, because you post with his alt who has done nothing in game, simple as. Ella's Snack bar
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 972	Posted - 2015.04.05 14:12:59 - [609] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Anyone who quotes Malcanis law should be ignored as a complete idiot, especially those that have no kills on the character they post or the corp they are in, who am I looking at.... Erm, are you serious? You can't be. You're ******* with us, right?
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 755	Posted - 2015.04.05 14:19:21 - [610] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Anyone who quotes Malcanis law should be ignored as a complete idiot, especially those that have no kills on the character they post or the corp they are in, who am I looking at.... Erm, are you serious? You can't be. You're ******* with us, right? Jump drive fatigue breaks that stupid law and its in your face mate... Ella's Snack bar

Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 23449	Posted - 2015.04.05 14:23:38 - [611] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: List them, can you honestly say that the jump fatigue introduction really had that affect? Was that aimed at newbies? Quote: I can't see your activties to be able to judge teh value of your words, just that C&P know you, big deal. You look at people who make statements to assess if they have had the experience that they talk about, all we see from you is lots of likes but that can be done by people who just agree with anything that a person posts Oh man you are getting all kinds of desperate; first killboards and now my like count, what's next? The fact that I don't PvP in the traditional sense doesn't mean that I am unfamiliar with it. To minimise losses I make it my business to know how it works, I have a few kills, I have a few losses, but not on this character, or any other character I currently own. Quote: or numerous accounts self liking himself like Kaauros. You should stop, you're making yourself look silly. Quote: You could be a raving carebear for all I know, at this point the value of your posts to me are absolute zero, because you post with his alt who has done nothing in game, simple as. I'm a bear yes, carebear? Nope. Any perceived value in my posts is subjective and entirely down to the reader, personally I couldn't give a monkeys what you think of my posting. I have alts, as do most, but this is my main. Before criticising the fact that I have done nothing of worth in game you should look at yourself and ask What have I done in game? Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 972	Posted - 2015.04.05 14:24:18 - [612] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Anyone who quotes Malcanis law should be ignored as a complete idiot, especially those that have no kills on the character they post or the corp they are in, who am I looking at.... Erm, are you serious? You can't be. You're ******* with us, right? Jump drive fatigue breaks that stupid law and its in your face mate... Interestingly enough, jump fatigue is what has allowed a certain sig in the CFC to be so successful. It also wasn't put in with the intent of helping new players along. So, what was that again?
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 755	Posted - 2015.04.05 14:27:12 - [613] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Dracvlad wrote: List them, can you honestly say that the jump fatigue introduction really had that affect? Was that aimed at newbies? Quote: I can't see your activties to be able to judge teh value of your words, just that C&P know you, big deal. You look at people who make statements to assess if they have had the experience that they talk about, all we see from you is lots of likes but that can be done by people who just agree with anything that a person posts Oh man you are getting all kinds of desperate; first killboards and now my like count, what's next? The fact that I don't PvP in the traditional sense doesn't mean that I am unfamiliar with it. To minimise losses I make it my business to know how it works, I have a few kills, I have a few losses, but not on this character, or any other character I currently own. Quote: or numerous accounts self liking himself like Kaauros. You should stop, you're making yourself look silly. Quote: You could be a raving carebear for all I know, at this point the value of your posts to me are absolute zero, because you post with his alt who has done nothing in game, simple as. I'm a bear yes, carebear? Nope. Any perceived value in my posts is subjective and entirely down to the reader, personally I couldn't give a monkeys what you think of my posting. I have alts, as do most, but this is my main. Before criticising the fact that I have done nothing of worth in game you should look at yourself and ask What have I done in game? I cannot find any kills on this main account of yours, nor in the corp that you are in, your value in any debate is zero. Ella's Snack bar
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 23451	Posted - 2015.04.05 14:29:46 - [614] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: I cannot find any kills on this main account of yours, nor in the corp that you are in, your value in any debate is zero. That would be because there aren't any, I never claimed otherwise. Next shocking revelation please. Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 973	Posted - 2015.04.05 14:30:07 - [615] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: You need to read that law again mate... Just did. Yeap, still applies. Jump fatigue was not implemented with new players even mentioned, let alone taken into consideration.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 755	Posted - 2015.04.05 14:31:31 - [616] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Dracvlad wrote: You need to read that law again mate... Just did. Yeap, still applies. Jump fatigue was not implemented with new players even mentioned, let alone taken into consideration. You have just won Eve mate, lol Ella's Snack bar
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 755	Posted - 2015.04.05 14:32:47 - [617] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Dracvlad wrote: I cannot find any kills on this main account of yours, nor in the corp that you are in, your value in any debate is zero. That would be because there aren't any, I never claimed otherwise. Next shocking revelation please. Enough said, anything you say is hot air. Ella's Snack bar
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12527	Posted - 2015.04.05 14:35:58 - [618] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Anyone who quotes Malcanis law should be ignored as a complete idiot, especially those that have no kills on the character they post or the corp they are in, who am I looking at.... Erm, are you serious? You can't be. You're ******* with us, right? Just as serious as he was when he suggested we substitute his Star Citizen anecdote for CCP's actual data. He went off the deep end a while ago. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 23454	Posted - 2015.04.05 14:36:56 - [619] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Dracvlad wrote: I cannot find any kills on this main account of yours, nor in the corp that you are in, your value in any debate is zero. That would be because there aren't any, I never claimed otherwise. Next shocking revelation please. Enough said, anything you say is hot air. You're entitled to your opinion. Now that we've established that you think I'm a worthless bag of hot air and that I think you're getting desperate. Can you stop derailing the thread? Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 755	Posted - 2015.04.05 14:38:19 - [620] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Anyone who quotes Malcanis law should be ignored as a complete idiot, especially those that have no kills on the character they post or the corp they are in, who am I looking at.... Erm, are you serious? You can't be. You're ******* with us, right? Just as serious as he was when he suggested we substitute his Star Citizen anecdote for CCP's actual data. He went off the deep end a while ago. Kaarous the man who does logi and joins CODE and has not one single kill on his killboard since joining them, what more can one say? Ella's Snack bar

Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12527	Posted - 2015.04.05 14:38:51 - [621] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Now that that's settled can you stop derailing the thread? Derailing the thread is what he's here to do. If the data becomes widely accepted, many of his beliefs are now a lie. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 755	Posted - 2015.04.05 14:39:15 - [622] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Dracvlad wrote: I cannot find any kills on this main account of yours, nor in the corp that you are in, your value in any debate is zero. That would be because there aren't any, I never claimed otherwise. Next shocking revelation please. Enough said, anything you say is hot air. You're entitled to your opinion. Now that that's settled can you stop derailing the thread? Derailing this thread, that is what you are doing, all I am doing is pointing out how fail in game you are! Ella's Snack bar
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 755	Posted - 2015.04.05 14:41:02 - [623] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Now that that's settled can you stop derailing the thread? Derailing the thread is what he's here to do. If the data becomes widely accepted, many of his beliefs are now a lie. Kaarous the man who does logi and joins CODE and has not one single kill on his killboard since joining them, what more can one say? 15 days newbies, lmfao, yeah proves everything that you ever said. Do you rep Catalysts by the way? Ella's Snack bar
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 977	Posted - 2015.04.05 14:41:50 - [624] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Kaarous the man who does logi and joins CODE and has not one single kill on his killboard since joining them, what more can one say? Did you actually read what you wrote before posting? Flies logi, and has no kills on board. What the hell's your point? o_O
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 755	Posted - 2015.04.05 14:44:36 - [625] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Kaarous the man who does logi and joins CODE and has not one single kill on his killboard since joining them, what more can one say? Did you actually read what you wrote before posting? Flies logi, and has no kills on board. What the hell's your point? o_O Mister brain of a newt, why would you join CODE if you are a logi pilot, he has said numerous times on other threads that he does not show up on kills because he flies logi, but he joins CODE that do not need logi, its all for effect, he never does anything in game, he just posts rubbish. Ella's Snack bar
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 23454	Posted - 2015.04.05 14:46:00 - [626] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Derailing this thread, that is what you are doing, all I am doing is pointing out how fail in game you are! How is that relevant to the thread? Why is my lack of killboard so important to you? Would you like to buy a weeks membership for the Jonah Gravenstein Fanclub, only 50 Million Isk from your nearest Concord agent? Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 755	Posted - 2015.04.05 14:49:37 - [627] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Derailing this thread, that is what you are doing, all I am doing is pointing out how fail in game you are! How is that relevant to the thread? Why is my lack of killboard so important to you? Would you like to buy a weeks membership for the Jonah Gravenstein Fanclub, only 50 Million Isk from your nearest Concord agent? You said this is your main and yet no kills and yet you talk as if you have 5000 kills, its sad, the same goes for Kaauros, he is a logi pilot flying with CODE who gank with catalysts and yet not a single kill is seen. Y A W N !!!!!!! Ella's Snack bar
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 23454	Posted - 2015.04.05 14:57:41 - [628] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Derailing this thread, that is what you are doing, all I am doing is pointing out how fail in game you are! How is that relevant to the thread? Why is my lack of killboard so important to you? Would you like to buy a weeks membership for the Jonah Gravenstein Fanclub, only 50 Million Isk from your nearest Concord agent? You said this is your main and yet no kills and yet you talk as if you have 5000 kills, its sad, the same goes for Kaauros, he is a logi pilot flying with CODE who gank with catalysts and yet not a single kill is seen. Y A W N !!!!!!! What of it? Am I as knowledgeable as someone with an active killboard and regular kills? No. Am I more knowledgeable than the average carebear? More than likely, as evidenced by this characters complete lack of presence on the killboards, despite my posting. Is this character my main? Yes, it's the one I use the most to play the game. I do have a NPC forum alt, but choose not to hide behind it unless it's a trolltastic or especially amusing, given his name, thing to do. Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Eve Solecist Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 261	Posted - 2015.04.05 15:03:48 - [629] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: 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. SHEESH, why didn't I realise?? slaps head It's SO obvious! O: I never considered it! :O The whole reason why they are here, is because they somehow draw their self worth from "helping the weak and victims". No ... from being seen as someone who "is helping the weak and victims". It's like the typical MMO player, who joins a game and always is the hero. At the same time they completely ignore how absolutely horrible it is to hate the player, not the character, and behave like sick monsters who should be locked away. It is not compatible to be a good person and at the same time behave like that! Like Basil, or that CSM wannabe up there. Like ... religious conservatives in the US of A. I am a good person, because what I do, like praising to god, makes me a good person. I will only be judged by god, thus I will try to do good things, but anyone else (especially those who disagree) do not matter and should **** off. Because I am the good person! I want to protect those who are weaker than me! Hypocrites! Wannabe good people. Actual sociopaths. Jenn ... you hit that spot on! Thanks! We really need a way to get rid of these monsters. They are dragging EVE and humanity down. "Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote. "AND THIS IS WHY THE FEDERATION MUST BE DESTROYED!!" - Diana Kim
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 755	Posted - 2015.04.05 15:04:14 - [630] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Derailing this thread, that is what you are doing, all I am doing is pointing out how fail in game you are! How is that relevant to the thread? Why is my lack of killboard so important to you? Would you like to buy a weeks membership for the Jonah Gravenstein Fanclub, only 50 Million Isk from your nearest Concord agent? You said this is your main and yet no kills and yet you talk as if you have 5000 kills, its sad, the same goes for Kaauros, he is a logi pilot flying with CODE who gank with catalysts and yet not a single kill is seen. Y A W N !!!!!!! What of it? Am I as knowledgeable as someone with an active killboard and regular kills? No. Am I more knowledgeable than the average carebear? More than likely, as evidenced by this characters complete lack of presence on the killboards. Is this character my main? Yes, it's the one I use the most to play the game. I do have a NPC forum alt, but choose not to hide behind it unless it's a trolltastic, or especially amusing given his name, thing to do. I don't want to be an arse about this (you used that word on me in another thread) but seriously mate it gets a bit tedious having people like you post like you do and yet in game you have done jack. And the same goes for Kaarous and Jenn. I am not saying that I am something special, very very far from that, but really... Ella's Snack bar

Eve Solecist Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 261	Posted - 2015.04.05 15:09:17 - [631] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: I don't want to be an arse about this (you used that word on me in another thread) but seriously mate it gets a bit tedious having people like you post like you do and yet in game you have done jack. And the same goes for Kaarous and Jenn. I am not saying that I am something special, very very far from that, but really... I'm a person who rather talks with people who have actual experience in what they are talking about. Most other times it's just empty words or hearsay. Jonah, though, no matter what he actually does (I forgot) over the course of years showed that he always knows what he says, actually thinks about what he says and does not engage in hypocrisy or lies, like the "good people" Basil or this wannabe CSM member. All in all, it is quite easy to establish who the really bad people are. "Talk" is exactly what they want. It only serves them and no one else. What we need is a reliably way to get rid of them. "Please do not file support tickets to ask if your support ticket will be answered soon." - Actual Quote. "AND THIS IS WHY THE FEDERATION MUST BE DESTROYED!!" - Diana Kim
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 755	Posted - 2015.04.05 15:11:09 - [632] - Quote Benny Ohu wrote: Dracvlad wrote: So droll + 1 you win Eve and all that... Ella's Snack bar
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 23454	Posted - 2015.04.05 15:15:17 - [633] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: I don't want to be an arse about this (you used that word on me in another thread) but seriously mate You failed at not being an arse about 3 pages ago, and I ain't your mate. Quote: it gets a bit tedious having people like you post like you do and yet in game you have done jack. And the same goes for Kaarous and Jenn. I am not saying that I am something special, very very far from that, but really... I don't like your posting either. I don't judge other people via the killboards, I judge them by the content, quality and knowledge present in their forum posts. Yours lack all three. So, what have you done in game? From where I'm sitting it appears to be, as you so eloquently put it, jack. My lack of achievement in game is irrelevant, I'm not playing Eve to achieve great things or have people admire my killboard, I'm doing it to have fun in a game where other players are obstacles to overcome and pretty much anything goes. Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 755	Posted - 2015.04.05 15:16:08 - [634] - Quote Eve Solecist wrote: Dracvlad wrote: I don't want to be an arse about this (you used that word on me in another thread) but seriously mate it gets a bit tedious having people like you post like you do and yet in game you have done jack. And the same goes for Kaarous and Jenn. I am not saying that I am something special, very very far from that, but really... I'm a person who rather talks with people who have actual experience in what they are talking about. Most other times it's just empty words or hearsay. Jonah, though, no matter what he actually does (I forgot) over the course of years showed that he always knows what he says, actually thinks about what he says and does not engage in hypocrisy or lies, like the "good people" Basil or this wannabe CSM member. All in all, it is quite easy to establish who the really bad people are. "Talk" is exactly what they want. It only serves them and no one else. What we need is a reliably way to get rid of them. And yet he has no killboard and neither does Kaauros and Jenn, their words are empty... Ella's Snack bar
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 755	Posted - 2015.04.05 15:17:58 - [635] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Dracvlad wrote: I don't want to be an arse about this (you used that word on me in another thread) but seriously mate You failed at not being an arse about 3 pages ago, and I ain't your mate. Quote: it gets a bit tedious having people like you post like you do and yet in game you have done jack. And the same goes for Kaarous and Jenn. I am not saying that I am something special, very very far from that, but really... I don't like your posting either. I don't judge other people via the killboards, I judge them by the content, quality and knowledge present in their forum posts. Yours lack all three. So, what have you done in game? From where I'm sitting it appears to be, as you so eloquently put it, jack. My lack of achievement in game is irrelevant, I'm not playing Eve to achieve great things or have people admire my killboard, I'm doing it to have fun in a game where other players are obstacles to overcome and pretty much anything goes. I judged you, the first time you came in and verbally attacked me I looked at your fail killboard where you have overcome jack, I have blown up a lot of pixels, you have not and that mate is the most basic assessment in this game! Ella's Snack bar
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 23456	Posted - 2015.04.05 15:27:32 - [636] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: looked at your fail killboard where you have overcome jack, I have blown up a lot of pixels, you have not and that mate is the most basic assessment in this game! Basic, and shallow. Your E-peen/killboard is like religion, it's fine to have one and be proud of it, but when you take it out and wave it in our faces as a way of judging others then there's a problem. Stop it, it's not important or relevant to anything other than your obsession with the size of the E-peens of others. Judge not, lest ye be judged. Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Hengle Teron Just Another Corp XIV 44809	Posted - 2015.04.05 15:31:08 - [637] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Derailing this thread, that is what you are doing, all I am doing is pointing out how fail in game you are! How is that relevant to the thread? Why is my lack of killboard so important to you? Would you like to buy a weeks membership for the Jonah Gravenstein Fanclub, only 50 Million Isk from your nearest Concord agent? You said this is your main and yet no kills and yet you talk as if you have 5000 kills, its sad, the same goes for Kaauros, he is a logi pilot flying with CODE who gank with catalysts and yet not a single kill is seen. Y A W N !!!!!!! on the other hand, whoring on concord lossmails makes someone
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 755	Posted - 2015.04.05 15:33:44 - [638] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Dracvlad wrote: looked at your fail killboard where you have overcome jack, I have blown up a lot of pixels, you have not and that mate is the most basic assessment in this game! Basic, and shallow. Your E-peen is like religion, it's fine to have one and be proud of it, but when you take out and wave it in our faces as a way of judging others then there's a problem. Stop it, it's not important or relevant to anything other than your obsession with the size of the E-peens of others. Its nothing to do with epeen, compare what I say to Garth Telkin for example, the man knows more than me, the last time we had a discussion on AFK cloaking I deferred to him because 1. He knew more than me about potential changes. and 2 because he had more experience than me in game and at a much higher level. It has nothing to do with epeen I cannot defer to or respect a character who has 0 kills. Ella's Snack bar
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 23456	Posted - 2015.04.05 15:34:12 - [639] - Quote Hengle Teron wrote: on the other hand, whoring on concord lossmails makes someone Saw that coming. Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 755	Posted - 2015.04.05 15:34:52 - [640] - Quote Hengle Teron wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Derailing this thread, that is what you are doing, all I am doing is pointing out how fail in game you are! How is that relevant to the thread? Why is my lack of killboard so important to you? Would you like to buy a weeks membership for the Jonah Gravenstein Fanclub, only 50 Million Isk from your nearest Concord agent? You said this is your main and yet no kills and yet you talk as if you have 5000 kills, its sad, the same goes for Kaauros, he is a logi pilot flying with CODE who gank with catalysts and yet not a single kill is seen. Y A W N !!!!!!! on the other hand, whoring on concord lossmails makes someone Thats for fun, keep looking, a couple of pages might do it if your attention span can stand it. Ella's Snack bar

Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 755	Posted - 2015.04.05 15:36:58 - [641] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Hengle Teron wrote: on the other hand, whoring on concord lossmails makes someone Saw that coming. Still zero kills on your page mate Ella's Snack bar
Hengle Teron Just Another Corp XIV 44811	Posted - 2015.04.05 16:02:45 - [642] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Hengle Teron wrote: on the other hand, whoring on concord lossmails makes someone Saw that coming. Still zero kills on your page mate EDIT As for me: Dracvlad which is my main 685 kills 82 losses My other PvP account 451 kills 21 losses who flies in conjunction with Dracvlad and would take his place for certain types of fleet ships if I was not dual boxing My dedicated blow anything up PvP account was about 2625 kills 857 losses, the majority of that was solo, I gave that account away to a friend in 2012. blowhard... now, do you want to repeat that to a GM or should we ?
ISD Ezwal ISD Community Communications Liaisons 4280	Posted - 2015.04.05 16:03:15 - [643] - Quote As this thread has gone severely off topic and now more resembles an E-peen swinging contest as opposed to an actual discussion on the original topic, I can only conclude that it has run it's course. Therefore, thread locked. ISD Ezwal Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.