These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

I invite you
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2015-06-13 07:06:18 UTC
I invite all players to open their maps and view a few statistics. Go to the "E" at the top of your in-game toolbar. Click on the map icon without the Beta symbol. On the stars tab on the World map window, click on statistics.

No select the pirate/police ships destroyed in the last 24 hours. This statistic will show how many NPCs have been blown up in the last 24 hours. It is important because the ships that blow up in null are obviously not police and have some sort of bounty attached. It could also mean someone was running missions and had a faction mission, but obviously not in the most remote parts of null.

Next choose the statistic for "ships destroyed in the last 24 hours". This will show the player ships that have been destroyed in the last 24 hours.

There, now you have data for talking points when discussing the various sec zones in EVE Online.For example, someone could say that high sec trade hubs are more dangerous than most null sec systems and be correct according to the data.
Deimos UK
Doomheim
#2 - 2015-06-13 07:09:21 UTC
I found this really informative (not trolling / been sarcastic)

I had no idea you could use the map in this may. Very useful indeed.

I think I may need to know google what the map can and cant' do as I have very little experience of using it!
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#3 - 2015-06-13 07:21:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Aza Ebanu wrote:
There, now you have data for talking points when discussing the various sec zones in EVE Online.For example, someone could say that high sec trade hubs are more dangerous than most null sec systems and be correct according to the data.

Ship loss statistics don't only measure pvp. They measure all ship loss, including losses to Concord, losses to rats (eg. look at starter systems regularly and they often show high rates of ship loss because new players die to rats).

It is very difficult to compare say kills in Jita to kills in nullsec systems because there's no normalisation of the numbers to account for population movement.

How many people visit Jita in a 24 hour period, versus how many visit a specific nullsec system (and there is no equivalent major nullsec hub, so even nullsec players that want to buy many things end up coming to highsec)?

So trying to say that highsec is more dangerous than nullsec also needs a clear understanding of what you mean by danger. If you are just going by raw ship loss, then highsec is where the population is.

How many of those deaths in highsec were:

1. Concord killing a fleet of catalysts that killed 1 other ship
2. Duels
3. Losses by players to NPCs

Is there more ship loss in highsec? Yes
Is it really dangerous to be in highsec? Um, no it isn't.
Pops Tickle
Tickle Industries
#4 - 2015-06-13 07:22:35 UTC
Aza Ebanu wrote:
I invite all players to open their maps and view a few statistics. Go to the "E" at the top of your in-game toolbar. Click on the map icon without the Beta symbol. On the stars tab on the World map window, click on statistics.

No select the pirate/police ships destroyed in the last 24 hours. This statistic will show how many NPCs have been blown up in the last 24 hours. It is important because the ships that blow up in null are obviously not police and have some sort of bounty attached. It could also mean someone was running missions and had a faction mission, but obviously not in the most remote parts of null.

Next choose the statistic for "ships destroyed in the last 24 hours". This will show the player ships that have been destroyed in the last 24 hours.

There, now you have data for talking points when discussing the various sec zones in EVE Online.For example, someone could say that high sec trade hubs are more dangerous than most null sec systems and be correct according to the data.

Failsafe logic according to some folks around here: Tradehubs are more dangerous than all of nullsec. Now please excuse me, I need to drive my head against a wall.

CCP Rise wrote:

"We have tried and tried to validate the myth that griefing has a pronounced affect on new players - we have failed."

Source
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#5 - 2015-06-13 07:24:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
Aza Ebanu wrote:
I invite all players to open their maps and view a few statistics. Go to the "E" at the top of your in-game toolbar. Click on the map icon without the Beta symbol. On the stars tab on the World map window, click on statistics.

No select the pirate/police ships destroyed in the last 24 hours. This statistic will show how many NPCs have been blown up in the last 24 hours. It is important because the ships that blow up in null are obviously not police and have some sort of bounty attached. It could also mean someone was running missions and had a faction mission, but obviously not in the most remote parts of null.

Next choose the statistic for "ships destroyed in the last 24 hours". This will show the player ships that have been destroyed in the last 24 hours.

There, now you have data for talking points when discussing the various sec zones in EVE Online.For example, someone could say that high sec trade hubs are more dangerous than most null sec systems and be correct according to the data.


As a matter of fact, most PvP happens where most characters are logged in, aka highsec. Now bear in mind that according to other statistics we know from CCP's mouth, the average EVE player:

- stays in highsec (73% of characters logged in)
- barely does any PvP (62% of individual subscribers)
- primarily engages in PvE (50% of individual subscribers)

And compare that with the development work being done by CCP for the last four years. Exclude all transversal developments (quality of life and shiny, which benefit every player) and ask yourself:

How much effort has gone into highsec and PvE, compared to the rest of space and activities? Does it look like high security space and PvE are CCP's top priority in order to retain the top percentile of their subscribers?

Or does it look as if CCP was applying the 20/80 rule in order to neglect as many subscribers as possible?

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
Dark Opaque Theme
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6 - 2015-06-13 07:26:26 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Is it really dangerous to be in highsec? Um, no it isn't.


Hell yes it is. Because NBSI doesn't work.
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#7 - 2015-06-13 07:40:23 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Aza Ebanu wrote:
There, now you have data for talking points when discussing the various sec zones in EVE Online.For example, someone could say that high sec trade hubs are more dangerous than most null sec systems and be correct according to the data.

Ship loss statistics don't only measure pvp. They measure all ship loss, including losses to Concord, losses to rats (eg. look at starter systems regularly and they often show high rates of ship loss because new players die to rats).

It is very difficult to compare say kills in Jita to kills in nullsec systems because there's no normalisation of the numbers to account for population movement.

How many people visit Jita in a 24 hour period, versus how many visit a specific nullsec system (and there is no equivalent major nullsec hub, so even nullsec players that want to buy many things end up coming to highsec)?

So trying to say that highsec is more dangerous than nullsec also needs a clear understanding of what you mean by danger. If you are just going by raw ship loss, then highsec is where the population is.

How many of those deaths in highsec were:

1. Concord killing a fleet of catalysts that killed 1 other ship
2. Duels
3. Losses by new players to NPCs (often the starter systems show quite high numbers of loss because new players die to rats)

Is there more ship loss in highsec? Yes
Is it really dangerous to be in highsec? Um, no it isn't.

Oh there are plenty of possibilities. One thing is certain, there is a whole lotta PVE going on in null sec. More PVE than PVP it looks like.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#8 - 2015-06-13 07:47:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Aza Ebanu wrote:
Oh there are plenty of possibilities. One thing is certain, there is a whole lotta PVE going on in null sec. More PVE than PVP it looks like.

So what?

People are doing things in Eve. Why is that an issue?

It also matches what CCP have said about bounty payments in nullsec. There is a lot of it.

On the issue of more PvE than PvP, that doesn't follow from those statistics and even if it did, who cares. Why is it important that people in nullsec are ratting? Is that not a valid playstyle for someone in nullsec?
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#9 - 2015-06-13 07:54:12 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Aza Ebanu wrote:
Oh there are plenty of possibilities. One thing is certain, there is a whole lotta PVE going on in null sec. More PVE than PVP it looks like.

So what?

People are doing things in Eve. Why is that an issue?

It also matches what CCP have said about bounty payments in nullsec. There is a lot of it.

On the issue of more PvE than PvP, that doesn't follow from those statistics and even if it did, who cares. Why is it important that people in nullsec are ratting? Is that not a valid playstyle for someone in nullsec?

Oh not at all my friend. I just want as many players to know as possible. I don't have any ill intentions about the information. The example is something that you could derive from the stats. For example, it could also be derived that null sec could use some more incentives for PVP...
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#10 - 2015-06-13 07:56:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Aza Ebanu wrote:
For example, it could also be derived that null sec could use some more incentives for PVP...

Yeah sure. Isn't that what the sov changes are hoping to do?

Like, isn't more pvp one of the major reasons CCP are making changes in null? Haven't nullsec players been calling for changes to bring about more reasons to fight?

As to more PvE than PvP, I can only use my example, but it wouldn't be the way I see it. I run combat sites occasionally. I hate PvE, but it's needed both for ISK and for sec status (because of lowsec pvp). So 1 combat site takes me maybe an 40-60 minutes to run a rated DED site and I kill somewhere on the order of 60-80 rats. The rest of the time, I pvp. Do I kill 60-80 ships a week (or lose that many). Nowhere near it. But I don't PvE more than I PvP.
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#11 - 2015-06-13 08:00:16 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Aza Ebanu wrote:
For example, it could also be derived that null sec could use some more incentives for PVP...

Yeah sure. Isn't that what the sov changes are hoping to do?

Like, isn't more pvp one of the major reasons CCP are making changes in null? Haven't nullsec players been calling for changes to bring about more reasons to fight?

As to more PvE than PvP, I can only use my example, but it wouldn't be the way I see it. I run combat sites occasionally. I hate PvE, but it's needed both for ISK and for sec status (because of lowsec pvp). So 1 combat site takes me maybe an 40-60 minutes to run a rated DED site and I kill somewhere on the order of 60-80 rats. The rest of the time, I pvp. Do I kill 60-80 ships a week (or lose that many). Nowhere near it. But I don't PvE more than I PvP.

Well theyy could create the content for it themselves, but maybe you are right. Maybe they need the devs to hold their hand to get them to have "richer experiences". But I can only speculate on the data. Who knows, maybe the risk adverse carebears discovered this data longtime ago and joined null sec corps...

The data doesn't say so I guess we will never know...
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#12 - 2015-06-13 08:04:36 UTC
Aza Ebanu wrote:
Well theyy could create the content for it themselves, but maybe you are right. Maybe they need the devs to hold their hand to get them to have "richer experiences". But I can only speculate on the data. Who knows, maybe the risk adverse carebears discovered this data longtime ago and joined null sec corps...

The data doesn't say so I guess we will never know...

Yeah sure, whatever knocks your socks off and gives you a hard on I guess.

We always need division in the community, so having opinions about other people's playstyle is a good way to drive it. Tit-fot-tat is one of the best ways to encourage others to keep knocking your own style of play whenever it comes up.
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#13 - 2015-06-13 08:06:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Aza Ebanu
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Aza Ebanu wrote:
Well theyy could create the content for it themselves, but maybe you are right. Maybe they need the devs to hold their hand to get them to have "richer experiences". But I can only speculate on the data. Who knows, maybe the risk adverse carebears discovered this data longtime ago and joined null sec corps...

The data doesn't say so I guess we will never know...

Yeah sure, whatever knocks your socks off and gives you a hard on I guess.

We always need division in the community, so having opinions about other people's playstyle is a good way to drive it. Tit-fot-tat is one of the best ways to encourage others to keep knocking your own style of play whenever it comes up.

Do you really have to get that explicit?

It's just data after all, people can form their own conclusions based off of it.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#14 - 2015-06-13 08:10:09 UTC
Aza Ebanu wrote:
Do you really have to get that explicit?

Butthurt too?

Ok, sorry if I upset anyone's sensibilities.

What I like the most out of this thread is the conclusion that highsec ganking is a dangerous activity. Not the risk free pvp that it's often derided as. That's great. I'm not a ganker myself, but glad you are giving gankers some recognition for the risks they take.
Pops Tickle
Tickle Industries
#15 - 2015-06-13 08:11:45 UTC
There is an undertone of hypocrisy in your post, making me doubt your honesty. Your posting history reveals what you are about. Believing that people will somehow not add 1 and 1 together is quite insulting. Of course there is a hidden meaning behind this!

CCP Rise wrote:

"We have tried and tried to validate the myth that griefing has a pronounced affect on new players - we have failed."

Source
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#16 - 2015-06-13 08:12:03 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Aza Ebanu wrote:
Do you really have to get that explicit?

Butthurt too?

Ok, sorry if I upset anyone's sensibilities.

What I like the most out of this thread is the conclusion that highsec ganking is a dangerous activity. Not the risk free pvp that it's often derided as. That's great. I'm not a ganker myself, but glad you are giving gankers some recognition for the risks they take.

Uhm because most of those kills are from high sec gankers right?... Maybe they are carebears with teeth!
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2015-06-13 08:14:48 UTC
Pops Tickle wrote:
There is an undertone of hypocrisy in your post, making me doubt your honesty. Your posting history reveals what you are about. Believing that people will somehow not add 1 and 1 together is quite insulting. Of course there is a hidden meaning behind this!

Not really. Have you ever considered there are players who have never used the map before. That they could gather useful details about their beloved EVE Online with real in-game statistics. If you think you could of done a better job, why didn't you? Don't get mad at me for doing the best I can with what I have.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#18 - 2015-06-13 08:17:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Aza Ebanu wrote:
Uhm because most of those kills are from high sec gankers right?... Maybe they are carebears with teeth!

No, because those kills include losses to Concord as well.

If you look at the homepage of zkillboard, Concord is the #1 most killing Corporation in the game each week (almost always unless there is a huge fight somewhere):

http://www.zkillboard.com

So gankers lose lots of ships and those stats are part of the stats claimed to show that highsec is dangerous.

So ganking is a dangerous thing and clearly not risk free pvp.

If you look at top Alliances too, it usually shows nullsec alliances as the most pvp active in the game, with a couple of highsec and lowsec Alliances often in the list too.
Igor Nappi
Doomheim
#19 - 2015-06-13 08:29:09 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:

nullsec alliances as the most pvp active in the game,


Nullblobs generate a lot of killmails (including endless stream of POS mods Lol) but you shouldn't mistake that for actual PVP.

Furthermore, I think that links must be removed from the game.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#20 - 2015-06-13 08:32:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Igor Nappi wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:

nullsec alliances as the most pvp active in the game,


Nullblobs generate a lot of killmails (including endless stream of POS mods Lol) but you shouldn't mistake that for actual PVP.

Sure, happy to completely agree. In the same way, raw loss numbers aren't proof of highsec danger.

I'd describe it differently in relation to Alliances in that nullsec is dominated by Alliances (sov is 100% Alliance based) so it's natural that Alliances in null will sit at the top of Alliance kill stats, whereas highsec has more Corporations that can never appear there because they aren't part of an Alliance at all. But stats can be used for lots of things no matter how limited they are and it's easy to misrepresent their significance.

That kind of seems to be what this thread is about.
123Next pageLast page