EVE General Discussion

Wardecs are not required in lowsec or null because everyone just shoots everyone in the face anyway.

Everything you wrote there about nullsec was either focussed on killing someone else, or preventing someone from killing you. Bubble wrapping gates is only needed because of the level of risk if they aren't wrapped.

I bet you watch local constantly, watch intel channels and have support available to assist if needed when in null.

In highsec, systems can be full of neutrals and not a single shot gets fired. You can fly straight gate to gate and most times don't even need to have local visible.

It's bonkers to think highsec is very dangerous.

In highsec I can go wherever I like without much risk. Are you telling me, that if you aren't a goon, you can just go easily AFK rat in Delve? Or go rat easily in Tribute, Fountain, Deklein, etc. even if you don't own that space?

Yeah sure.

But if you really want to prove your point, jump in a freighter in highsec, set the destination to a random location in nullsec and then autopilot. After all, if you make it out of the very dangerous highsec, lowsec and nullsec should be all plane sailing for an autopiloting freighter.

At least you are right. It really is simple.

Ah, yes. CCP secretly knows that gankers are the cause of their stagnant numbers and are hiding it because they want their business to fail! Ingenius!

You're right, they should be taking advice from people who accuse them of being liars, or maybe the folks who think them too incompetent to do basic statistics!


Please continue to try and deflect from the fact that your logic is crap.








P.S. "working" for ISK if for carebears, and carebears are livestock.

Lol. If you trust everyone you're more lost than I thought you were.

Running incomplete/partial data and pretending to have reached a conclusion. Rise had a hard time convincing himself, much less the audience that those numbers were accurate.

Ever heard of the tail wagging the dog?

Your signature sums it up, misspelling and all.

Thanks!

What? I never said trust everyone. And your saying the data used by CCP is incomplete or partial is based on nothing. I know the results are upsetting if you were of the belief that ganking new players made them quit in droves. But even if CCPs statistics are not statistically significant it means at worst ganking players less than 15 days old does not cause them to quit sooner, and it is quite possible it means exactly the opposite, they stay longer.

And I am not designing anything, so I'm not sure what you think my signature means, but it is a warning against hubris when trying to impose order on a system that is the product of spontaneous order and emergence, here is a longer quote,



It is a warning against the just so stories lots of people post here and in the features and ideas sub-forum.

If we do A it will lead to B, then C and finally D which will be awesome! That type of reasoning is, IMO flawed in that it fails to take into account the complexity of a process that is based on spontaneous order.

Every time I quit, I lie and put the option that I'm qutting due to lost ship even though while mining I have never been ganked.

Yes but it cannot be called basic statistics.

Basic statistics are things such as a sample of a couple of hundred fun size packs of M&Ms and what the mean and median number of Red M&Ms for each pack.

As to the rest as I said before it is probable that CCP got it right or more specifically didn't get enough wrong to matter.

Why am I suddenly reminded of this scene?

Indeed.

And pirating has essentially been deleted as a profession in highsec. After all the nerfs to ganking, especially the insurance removal, it is not profitable to shoot another player for their stuff anymore or make a living at it. Only the most outrageously bling fit ship, or overloaded hauler can be shot and the pirate make a profit. Players can still shoot each other if they are willing to pay the cost as fits the general premise of the game, but there is a strong disincentive to do so.

Highsec is not safesec and never was suppose to be, but it certainly seems to fit CCP's design goals to be a very safe space where pirates generally cannot operate. This is in direct contrast to the other spaces where you can shoot pretty much anything and make a profit at it, thus being easy-mode zones for piracy.

Highsec hands free safety to the player enabling solo and casual play, probably to their long-term detriment for developing as an Eve player. But certainly, it is completely disingenuous to claim that highsec is inherently more dangerous than the other spaces. At best it is more dangerous than the piece of space you have carved out and are spending effort to defend for yourself, but even that isn't really true as if you spent a similar amount of effort securing a system in highsec, you would be literally invulnerable.

So, I'd also say that it is working as intended.

It is also understandable that you react that way. You want to interpret the "study" your way regardless of its flaws.
The 'study' including only trials will misrepresent data of new players as many trials never commit to the game anyway. Also to consider that the 15-day trial has nothing in stake to loose while a subscribed couple of months old has more at stake to loose from a gank.
As far as interpreting the "more" or "less" likelys of the 'study': if for example a 6% of ganked joined the game vs only a 4% non-ganked joining, although it makes it more likely in favor of the ganked it still is totally insignificant difference.Taking the example in the extreme, say a 90% of the ganked joining vs 10% of the non-ganked joining will give 720 ganked people vs 6800 non-ganked people that joined the game afterwards. In fact one can then say that a lot of more people join the game that never have been ganked during trial. How about interpreting that as "a connection between ganking and new players quitting"?

There are so many factors that contribute to deciding to join the game before one even gets the chance to be ganked that its counterproductive to try to connect ganking to it with this set of data.

To make it clear I am neither a proponent of safe-heaven high-sec nor a proponent of a gank-heaven high-sec.