These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Wardec balancing

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#161 - 2016-01-20 22:59:39 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

"People who die play longer."

Yes, they have. Stop projecting your own dishonesty onto their statements. Just because you don't like what they have to say doesn't make it any less of a fact.

Or to present an alternate hypothesis supported by exactly the same data.
People who were already staying and therefore played longer take more risks and therefore die more.

That's the issue with CCP's presentation, they haven't actually isolated cause and effect, simply linked two things which have a relationship. And you and others keep trying to use it as evidence of cause and effect, rather than just an interesting relationship.
Remember their figures include that guy who played 15 minutes, couldn't even work out how to fit his ship, and quit without ever leaving the newbie system as 'no PvP therefore no retention' and give no indication of how many hours each type of person invested into the game either. To pull up two of the issues with their analysis.

Certainly interesting data points and food for more thought and investigation, but not proof of anything at all, though a strong indicator about a couple of data points relating to accounts under 30 days. But they don't even do things like isolate suicide ganking properly. Since a better question about if ganks drive people away would be 'What percentage of players stop playing within 2 (or insert other short timeframe) hours of gameplay after being suicide ganked or witnessing one in their location.
Though I do agree it would likely still be in the minority. But note the important difference about 'witnessing'.

Anyway, it's all way off the topic of these silly 'wardec proposals' that really need locking and throwing in the trashcan for at least a year so the meta has time to start to settle after Citadels.


There is a correlation <> causation issue at play there, but the actual salient point is really that there ISN'T a causative effect, or even a correlation, between people getting pewpewed and people leaving.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#162 - 2016-01-20 23:01:04 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

Or to present an alternate hypothesis supported by exactly the same data.
People who were already staying and therefore played longer take more risks and therefore die more.


I don't believe so.

They stated they isolated specifically new players, accounts who were not alts, and therefore people that were brand new to the game.

They then stated that those who died were much more likely to subscribe past the trial period.

I'll still reiterate. "People who die play longer." That's CCP's emphatic, not mine.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#163 - 2016-01-20 23:01:14 UTC
Also:

CCP Rise wrote:

We have tried and tried to validate the myth that griefing has a pronounced affect on new players - we have failed. The strongest indicators for a new player staying with EVE are associated with social activity: joining corps, using market and contract systems, pvping, etc. Isolating players away from the actual sandbox seems very contrary to what we would like to accomplish.


"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#164 - 2016-01-20 23:03:18 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Also:

CCP Rise wrote:

We have tried and tried to validate the myth that griefing has a pronounced affect on new players - we have failed. The strongest indicators for a new player staying with EVE are associated with social activity: joining corps, using market and contract systems, pvping, etc. Isolating players away from the actual sandbox seems very contrary to what we would like to accomplish.




And let's not leave out the context of this. He was responding to a player who, like Joe, categorizes all PvP as griefing.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#165 - 2016-01-20 23:06:04 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

Anyway, it's all way off the topic of these silly 'wardec proposals' that really need locking and throwing in the trashcan for at least a year so the meta has time to start to settle after Citadels.


With this I concur..

Honestly, the only reason I seem to be getting caught up in these threads is to yell at Kaarous.
Not because I disagree with him, but more because he uses personal attacks and other means of attacking the individual as opposed to providing any sort of relevant argument.
His personal favorite seems to be calling people liars despite no evidence of such claims, even if he may be write on them being wrong...

For the rest of the people against changes to wardecs, I have a lot of respect for you, even if we do disagree, as y'all provide notable arguments that are well spoken and typically done so without the need for personal attacks or calling everyone a liar anytime they state something you don't agree with.

In an entirely opinionated and personal experience related thread, you can't exactly call someone a liar without providing evidence of such claims.
Lann Shahni
The Happy Grasshoppers
#166 - 2016-01-20 23:06:55 UTC
Again kinda moving off topic!

and we can debate CCP's inten and oppion til we are blue in the head, and we will never know,
unless they state in black and white in no uncertain threms!

CCP plz do, i would realy like to read that! lol
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#167 - 2016-01-20 23:06:59 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

I don't believe so.

They stated they isolated specifically new players, accounts who were not alts, and therefore people that were brand new to the game.

They then stated that those who died were much more likely to subscribe past the trial period.

I'll still reiterate. "People who die play longer." That's CCP's emphatic, not mine.

It may be a quote by a CCP Dev. However the data they presented does not actually allow you to say this as fact.
All they did was establish relationships, not cause and effect, and the fact that they targeted new accounts doesn't make my hypothesis above invalid. Since it's entirely possible for one new player to play longer than another new player, even in the first 30 days.

So, stop trying to peddle the bad data, accept that it's simply an interesting relationship, and that yes, it does show that most likely ganks & PvP are not negative factors. But beyond that, that entire presentation didn't really establish anything solid, it just presented a bunch of interesting relationships.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#168 - 2016-01-20 23:07:41 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

Honestly, the only reason I seem to be getting caught up in these threads is to yell at Kaarous.


Quoted, and reported for trolling.

You hung yourself with your own rope, there.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#169 - 2016-01-20 23:08:58 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Also:

CCP Rise wrote:

We have tried and tried to validate the myth that griefing has a pronounced affect on new players - we have failed. The strongest indicators for a new player staying with EVE are associated with social activity: joining corps, using market and contract systems, pvping, etc. Isolating players away from the actual sandbox seems very contrary to what we would like to accomplish.




And let's not leave out the context of this. He was responding to a player who, like Joe, categorizes all PvP as griefing.


I have not categorized all pvp as griefing.
i was actuallly the one to state that comment refers only to griefing and has no ties to decs nor any other aspect of Eve, and that I DO NOT consider ganking or wardecs to be griefing...

However, that comment helps to show the scewed (can't seem to spell that word properly) nature of the video, as each one of the social aspects of Eve has an effect on retention outcomes.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#170 - 2016-01-20 23:11:28 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:

Honestly, the only reason I seem to be getting caught up in these threads is to yell at Kaarous.


Quoted, and reported for trolling.

You hung yourself with your own rope, there.


That comment in no way represents that I was trolling.

However, it does show that I seem to get caught up in debate with you... Mostly because you provide no merit to the argument and actually seem to hinder the efforts of those on your side in the way that you address the conversation and those involved.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#171 - 2016-01-20 23:11:34 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

I have not categorized all pvp as griefing.


Oh, my bad, just all non consensual PvP, anything that doesn't fit your skewed, dishonest, self serving definition of a "fight". After all, anything you disapprove of doesn't count as fighting, no sir.

Roll

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#172 - 2016-01-20 23:26:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:

I have not categorized all pvp as griefing.


Oh, my bad, just all non consensual PvP, anything that doesn't fit your skewed, dishonest, self serving definition of a "fight". After all, anything you disapprove of doesn't count as fighting, no sir.

Roll


Nope.. Still haven't made that claim either.
I've actually claimed quite the contrary and stated that I see the need for wardecs, and that I often laugh at ganks, AND that they are in no way considered griefing, but are tools to which a griefer can use.

Oh, and 'skewed'.. No idea why I couldn't get that right, lol... Never been too good at spelling, lol.

Also, my definition of "fight"
Quote:
take part in a violent struggle involving the exchange of physical blows or the use of weapons


Is exactly what the dictionary describes it as.
Shooting at a target that cannot fight back, I define as an attack.
(Having issues copying that definition on a cell phone, but you can look it up.)
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#173 - 2016-01-20 23:32:47 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

Nope.. Still haven't made that claim either.


You lie.

It was in the middle of your "why don't wardeccers die for real?" rant.


Joe Risalo wrote:

You claims are that it hinders small entities. Those small entities are not there to have a fight.. They are not there to stop the expansion of an entity by reducing their trade capabilities. They're not even there to have a war.

They are there solely to get kills wih as little risks as possible.


You despise non consensual PvP, you've made that quite clear. You think killing the weak and the unprepared is not fighting, and you've said as much before this what's more.

Fortunately for every real player, what you like isn't relevant to anything.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Lann Shahni
The Happy Grasshoppers
#174 - 2016-01-20 23:33:33 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:

I have not categorized all pvp as griefing.


Oh, my bad, just all non consensual PvP, anything that doesn't fit your skewed, dishonest, self serving definition of a "fight". After all, anything you disapprove of doesn't count as fighting, no sir.

Roll


Nope.. Still haven't made that claim either.
I've actually claimed quite the contrary and stated that I see the need for wardecs, and that I often laugh at ganks, AND that they are in no way considered griefing, but are tools to which a griefer can use.

Oh, and 'skewed'.. No idea why I couldn't get that right, lol... Never been too good at spelling, lol.

Also, my definition of "fight"
Quote:
take part in a violent struggle involving the exchange of physical blows or the use of weapons


Is exactly what the dictionary describes it as.
Shooting at a target that cannot fight back, I define as an attack.
(Having issues copying that definition on a cell phone, but you can look it up.)


Joe you are like a walking dictionary, i like that!
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#175 - 2016-01-20 23:39:32 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Lann Shahni wrote:


all the tatacis and advice you have given i knew loong before going i to this,


If that were really the case, you likely wouldn't have found yourself on the receiving end of a wardec at all.

Furthermore, you wouldn't have said things like this:

Quote:
I don't know if that is the intention with the wardec system, but I think it's sad, and crusing system for any starting or small corp, making it nearly impossible for them, because of constant wardec


The tactics in question almost trivialize the threat from war targets. You claim to be familiar with these tactics, yet also complain that a war dec makes life "nearly impossible" for a small corporation.

How is that so?

Can you provide any specific examples of how your current wars, in which you have, thus far, suffered absolutely no losses at all, have made life "nearly impossible" for your corporation?

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Lann Shahni
The Happy Grasshoppers
#176 - 2016-01-21 00:13:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Lann Shahni
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Lann Shahni wrote:


all the tatacis and advice you have given i knew loong before going i to this,


If that were really the case, you likely wouldn't have found yourself on the receiving end of a wardec at all.

Furthermore, you wouldn't have said things like this:

Quote:
I don't know if that is the intention with the wardec system, but I think it's sad, and crusing system for any starting or small corp, making it nearly impossible for them, because of constant wardec


The tactics in question almost trivialize the threat from war targets. You claim to be familiar with these tactics, yet also complain that a war dec makes life "nearly impossible" for a small corporation.

How is that so?

Can you provide any specific examples of how your current wars, in which you have, thus far, suffered absolutely no losses at all, have made life "nearly impossible" for your corporation?


First hinding away in remote place, is not all that effective, it's not rocket sience, so most do it,
but growing number corp based on high wardec, or diminishing number of corps, leads the pvp corps to look further out, a predator will go where there pray is!
Will pvp'er stop PVP if can't find target within 5 jumps of a trade hub, or will look further out?

secondly, the learn to defend you self, or just get PVP players to join, you do know that most corp form slowly, taking time to build and requete members, and PVP players join PVP corps!
and getting attacked again again, whit little else to the hide or run for the hills as tattics are devestaing to morale, after few rounds of that, even if you are succesfull, turtle or leave corp, and reform, you lose most players to the large safe corps, and your left whit you and your irl freinds, and you go like, ahh lets do some mission or fatctional WF instead!

as i said again and again and again, it's not that corp should not be attacked, it's healthy to band togetther against a common enemy, if it's not time and time and time and time again, and you a chance to figth back in some small way!
is that completly unreasonable?
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#177 - 2016-01-21 00:21:30 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

You lie.

It was in the middle of your "why don't wardeccers die for real?" rant.

Hmm.. Nope,'still didn't claim that wardecs are griefing. Matter of fact, I have denounced those claims by others, regardless on their opinions of wardecs, when I have noticed such claims and/or cared to comment.

So again,'calling someone a liar with no real proof.

Quote:
Joe Risalo wrote:

You claims are that it hinders small entities. Those small entities are not there to have a fight.. They are not there to stop the expansion of an entity by reducing their trade capabilities. They're not even there to have a war.

They are there solely to get kills wih as little risks as possible.


You despise non consensual PvP, you've made that quite clear. You think killing the weak and the unprepared is not fighting, and you've said as much before this what's more.

Fortunately for every real player, what you like isn't relevant to anything.


Nope.. Still don't despise non-consensual pvp, nor does that statement support the ganking claim you've made.

That statement is there solely to display what the intent of those individuals is, which you have even supported by making the statement that 'wardecs are there solely to remove CONCORD'.

You might not know this, but non-consensual pvp can happen in places other than HS.
If you're chasing a war target and happen to dive into lowsec and get blipped by a gate camp, you weren't exactly consenting to that; though, you can argue the semantics of 'leaving HS is consenting to pvp'.

The premise of that quote, went in context of my statements and likely the comment you pulled that quote from, is that I don't care about the small wardec entities, just as you don't care about the small care ear entities, if they are unable to defend themselves.
They're didn't start a wardec with a major alliance because they can win; they started the dec because they cannot lose, thus they can kill targets of opportunity with relative immunity, as they can flee from counter-aggression and are often times popping targets that are incapable of holding them on the field l, allowing escape to be quite easy.

If they're not willing to have a fight, I do not support them.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#178 - 2016-01-21 00:35:38 UTC
Lann Shahni wrote:


First hinding away in remote place, is not all that effective, it's not rocket sience, so most do it,
but growing number corp based on high wardec, or diminishing number of corps, leads the pvp corps to look further out, a predator will go where there pray is!


So, wait, in the same breath you're going to tell me that there are:
-A growing number of corps "Based on high wardecs"
-A diminishing number of corps

While that's certainly not an impossible scenario, I think I would like to see some empirical data to support this statement.


Quote:
Will pvp'er stop PVP if can't find target within 5 jumps of a trade hub, or will look further out?


Here is the killboard summary for Marmite: https://zkillboard.com/alliance/1680888152/topalltime/

They are just shy of a staggering quarter million kills recorded.

Every single one of their "top 10 systems" is either a trade hub, or on a "highway" route between trade hubs. Of their 249,161 kills, 170,362 of them have been recorded in these top 10 systems. That is, 68% of their kills have been recorded in 10 systems, and the remaining 32% have taken place elsewhere in the almost 8000? odd systems in Eve.


Can I assume, at this point, that your claims are not even anecdotal, but 100% speculative in nature?

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#179 - 2016-01-21 00:46:26 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

If they're not willing to have a fight, I do not support them.


All that typed out, only to confirm at the end that you just want your selfish, dishonest idea of what a "fight" is to be the only way to play.

Pathetic.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Lann Shahni
The Happy Grasshoppers
#180 - 2016-01-21 00:51:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Lann Shahni
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Lann Shahni wrote:


First hinding away in remote place, is not all that effective, it's not rocket sience, so most do it,
but growing number corp based on high wardec, or diminishing number of corps, leads the pvp corps to look further out, a predator will go where there pray is!


So, wait, in the same breath you're going to tell me that there are:
-A growing number of corps "Based on high wardecs"
-A diminishing number of corps

While that's certainly not an impossible scenario, I think I would like to see some empirical data to support this statement.


Quote:
Will pvp'er stop PVP if can't find target within 5 jumps of a trade hub, or will look further out?


Here is the killboard summary for Marmite: https://zkillboard.com/alliance/1680888152/topalltime/

They are just shy of a staggering quarter million kills recorded.

Every single one of their "top 10 systems" is either a trade hub, or on a "highway" route between trade hubs. Of their 249,161 kills, 170,362 of them have been recorded in these top 10 systems. That is, 68% of their kills have been recorded in 10 systems, and the remaining 32% have taken place elsewhere in the almost 8000? odd systems in Eve.


Can I assume, at this point, that your claims are not even anecdotal, but 100% speculative in nature?


in the case of Marmite, i belive they are specialized in camping trade ways and hubs, wardecing any they think migth be likely to come their way and lot others for good measure!
i think it's cool hey been able to keep it up for so long!
i don't realy agree whit system that allows them to wardec half of the players in high sec!
but that is not theire faulth!