These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Why Eve Can't attract new players, and has lost 20,000 so far.

First post
Author
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#201 - 2016-12-06 21:53:43 UTC
Corewin wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:

Why don't you try it? Start from the ground up, don't go join code, but build your own organization. Lead gank fleets. You'll need scouts, bumbers, logistics guys to move ships and ammo into systems you plan on ganking in. Comms, and even a website might be a good idea. Oh, and a SRP might not hurt. You can do the latter manually, but alot of groups these days have moved over apps on their websites too.

This is another example of the seen vs. unseen. You see the gank and think, "That is so easy." But you do not see all the other stuff that went into setting up the gank.


I'm not talking about large scale gank networks. I'm talking about the simple mechanics of killing another player in High Sec and the outcome.

You have X number of Destroyers. Their combined DPS is capable of killing ships 1, 2 and 3. A target meeting that criteria is identified and you make your move. Target gets caught, damage is applied, target is downed. Hauler moves in, loots, and warps off.

Where is the deterrent? Concord only wraps things up. What is keeping a ganker from simply grabbing another ship and doing the same thing twice, if only in another system?


It is still a fairly large coordination problem. Again, you are looking at just the final result which is easily seen and ignoring everything up to that point. You have pretty much hand-waved away everything else involved.

As for deterrent...how about this: don't be a complete moron when loading up your preferred hauling ship?

Works for me.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Corewin
Rack City Syndicate
#202 - 2016-12-06 21:57:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Corewin
Teckos Pech wrote:

You are making a big mistake. The gankers income is not determined by the game environment like with miners or mission runners, but by the imprudence of the freighter pilot. The more imprudent the pilot the higher the ganker income. As such, it is not up to CCP to balance it. Ever.


Ok, so you see a high value freighter moving through High Sec and determine that it needs to die. Time to score a big pay day right?

I'm right there with you at this point.

So you get together your fleet and take it out. Sure you lost your ships. But man... the reward was enormous. Fantastic, seriously good for you, a well executed plan.

Unfortunately, with the risk of engaging in High Sec to catch that big fish, you've got to deal with the consequences. Right?

What are those consequences? Obviously there's no jail, but we have -10 security status and such. Yet even that doesn't deter someone from flying in High Sec and continuing to gank. And it isn't as if you can't lower your sec status relatively easily anyway.

So again, what are the consequences?
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#203 - 2016-12-06 22:24:43 UTC
Corewin wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:

You are making a big mistake. The gankers income is not determined by the game environment like with miners or mission runners, but by the imprudence of the freighter pilot. The more imprudent the pilot the higher the ganker income. As such, it is not up to CCP to balance it. Ever.


Ok, so you see a high value freighter moving through High Sec and determine that it needs to die. Time to score a big pay day right?

I'm right there with you at this point.

So you get together your fleet and take it out. Sure you lost your ships. But man... the reward was enormous. Fantastic, seriously good for you, a well executed plan.

Unfortunately, with the risk of engaging in High Sec to catch that big fish, you've got to deal with the consequences. Right?

What are those consequences? Obviously there's no jail, but we have -10 security status and such. Yet even that doesn't deter someone from flying in High Sec and continuing to gank. And it isn't as if you can't lower your sec status relatively easily anyway.

So again, what are the consequences?


You are again wrong. Horribly so. The idea of risk is a two way street. Why are you not asking yourself why are freighter pilots taking on so much risk? Why are they acting as if they were risk seeking and not risk averse or at the very least risk neutral.

Everyone acts like risk is a one side deal, it isn't. You are only looking at half the picture and saying something is wrong because the gankers faced such low risk for their payday. Well why is that? Some dummy put way too much cargo into their freighter and flew it stupidly. Why are you not asking, "Why was that player so damn dumb?"

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#204 - 2016-12-06 22:32:38 UTC
Let me try it this way....

The issue of balance around freighter ganking is in absolutely no way something CCP should be concerned with. The reason for this is it is something that is the result of player choices. Unless CCP is going to sit there and monitor freighter pilots cargo value and then ramp up and down CONCORD on the fly it is never going to work.

The consequences for the gankers are, relatively speaking, so low is because another player was a completely stupid player. Would you take all of your wealth and go gamble it on number 12 at a roulette table in a casino at Las Vegas? And if you did would you be justified in standing outside the casino railing against them that they took no appreciable risk in your stupid and foolish behavior?

Well, when you create a ginormous loot pinata why are you looking only at the ganker and not the doofus who overloaded his freighter making it such a tempting target?

If you are imprudent in this game there is quite often somebody or somebodies there to show you the error or your ways...and usually in not a very nice manner.

Working as intended. Be prudent and the problem is solved. Much like most of life both in and out of game.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#205 - 2016-12-06 22:48:49 UTC
Corewin wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:

Compared to other activities in Highsec like mission running, mining or freighting stuff around how much is the ISK/h and risk/reward out of wack? Show us some numbers please


It's High Sec. The implicit safety is gleaned directly from it's name. The balancing factor for High Sec based income strategies is to simply modify the returns those players get by remaining there and not venturing out.

Miner's enjoying too much reward vs the limited risk they face? Cut back on their yield. Adjust their cycles. Make materials harder to get in low risk areas. Etc

Mission runners? Cut back on bounty returns. Make mission agents pay out less.

Yes, they already have almost perfect safety compared to low and null and their rewards should be lowered.

Now if we look at the gankers which are at an extreme disadvantage compared to other PvP players in null and low because they face not only the other players defences but an invincible, all knowing, all powerfull police force which will grant them only a few seconds before vaporising their ships. So here the equation is obviously reversed and if you look at the fact that ganking is absolutely not profitable except for the rare Freighters which has too much ISK in his belly, ganking is clearly in need of a buff from a risk/reward point of view.
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#206 - 2016-12-06 23:14:42 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Corewin wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:

Compared to other activities in Highsec like mission running, mining or freighting stuff around how much is the ISK/h and risk/reward out of wack? Show us some numbers please


It's High Sec. The implicit safety is gleaned directly from it's name. The balancing factor for High Sec based income strategies is to simply modify the returns those players get by remaining there and not venturing out.

Miner's enjoying too much reward vs the limited risk they face? Cut back on their yield. Adjust their cycles. Make materials harder to get in low risk areas. Etc

Mission runners? Cut back on bounty returns. Make mission agents pay out less.

Yes, they already have almost perfect safety compared to low and null and their rewards should be lowered.

Now if we look at the gankers which are at an extreme disadvantage compared to other PvP players in null and low because they face not only the other players defences but an invincible, all knowing, all powerfull police force which will grant them only a few seconds before vaporising their ships. So here the equation is obviously reversed and if you look at the fact that ganking is absolutely not profitable except for the rare Freighters which has too much ISK in his belly, ganking is clearly in need of a buff from a risk/reward point of view.


Right ganking miners is not a profitable endeavor.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Black Pedro
Mine.
#207 - 2016-12-07 06:49:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Corewin wrote:
Unfortunately, with the risk of engaging in High Sec to catch that big fish, you've got to deal with the consequences. Right?

What are those consequences? Obviously there's no jail, but we have -10 security status and such. Yet even that doesn't deter someone from flying in High Sec and continuing to gank. And it isn't as if you can't lower your sec status relatively easily anyway.

So again, what are the consequences?
There are plenty of consequences. Repeatedly gank in highsec and quickly that character can no longer do anything else in highsec. Not only are they free to shoot by anyone, an infallible NPC police force starts following them around to the point they can't even sit in space in a ship unmolested. Literally all they can do is keep moving in small, fast ships to stay one step ahead of the faction police, and shoot for a brief period of time before another infallible NPC destroys them and essentially locks them out of the game for 15 minutes.

But you are missing the point. None of these consequences are suppose to prevent outlaws from acting as criminals. If CCP wanted that, they could lock outlaws out of highsec, or just put everyone's safeties to yellow in highsec. CCP has spent a huge amount of effort designing CrimeWatch to enable criminal and criminal game play to take place in highsec. The fact that criminals can still ply their trade in highsec is completely intentional. The game is designed so that the deck is increasingly shifted in favour of the innocent as a pirate moves from just naughty to a career criminal, but the system is not suppose to prevent criminals from operating. If it was, I would agree with you it fails at that, but it was not.

The game designers wanted the other players to serve as sources of risk in this game, and for nowhere to be 100% safe. They thought it would make the game more engaging and enable the player-driven stories they are trying to nurture. Nothing especially interesting happens if players can hide behind 100% safe NPC protection and still gather stuff. Everyone will just do that, only leaving the safe space to engaging in consensual honour fights or meaningless drunken roams, preventing the non-consensual fighting necessary for a competitive game.

Honestly, highsec has been made increasingly safe over the years to the point that any player can, with a small amount of effort and knowledge, be almost perfectly safe. And over this time highsec has been made much more lucrative, not less, to the point the risk vs. reward balance is seriously tilted away from leaving highsec probably to the detriment of the greater health of the game.

As for "effort" highsec ganking is certainly more risky, far less lucrative, and requires much more organization than almost all of the PvE activities that go on in highsec. Any chance at real profit comes only when another player makes a mistake. Sure, the act of turning your safeties off and shooting someone is easy, but doing it so that you actually kill your target and make a profit is much harder, especially as an outlaw. This is a sandbox though, and if someone wants to pay the cost and accept the consequence to shoot you in highsec, they can, and if you don't like it it is up to you to use all the advantages the game gives you to shoot them right back and enforce some player-driven consequences on them.
knobber Jobbler
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#208 - 2016-12-07 13:20:03 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Corewin wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:

Compared to other activities in Highsec like mission running, mining or freighting stuff around how much is the ISK/h and risk/reward out of wack? Show us some numbers please


It's High Sec. The implicit safety is gleaned directly from it's name. The balancing factor for High Sec based income strategies is to simply modify the returns those players get by remaining there and not venturing out.

Miner's enjoying too much reward vs the limited risk they face? Cut back on their yield. Adjust their cycles. Make materials harder to get in low risk areas. Etc

Mission runners? Cut back on bounty returns. Make mission agents pay out less.

Yes, they already have almost perfect safety compared to low and null and their rewards should be lowered.

Now if we look at the gankers which are at an extreme disadvantage compared to other PvP players in null and low because they face not only the other players defences but an invincible, all knowing, all powerfull police force which will grant them only a few seconds before vaporising their ships. So here the equation is obviously reversed and if you look at the fact that ganking is absolutely not profitable except for the rare Freighters which has too much ISK in his belly, ganking is clearly in need of a buff from a risk/reward point of view.


I've done my fair share of ganking with miniluv and there's no risk on the gankers end. Most of the gankers I know are stinking rich from it. You lose some cheap ships and get a bad sec status, that's all.
Corewin
Rack City Syndicate
#209 - 2016-12-07 16:51:47 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:

This is a sandbox though, and if someone wants to pay the cost and accept the consequence to shoot you in highsec, they can, and if you don't like it it is up to you to use all the advantages the game gives you to shoot them right back and enforce some player-driven consequences on them.

How many gank targets are capable of defending themselves? I may have been out of the game for a few years, but Mining Barges/Industrials/Freighters have not suddenly become PVP capable. High Sec ganking is purely to find victims that have as little means as possible to defend themselves, at minimal cost/danger and maximum gain because they determine every aspect of how an encounter will start and end.

Anything that happens as a result of such actions are merely an inconvenience that does nothing to prevent constant abuse of the current system. NPC police retaliation is based on an easily understood formula. Once someone has figured out how it works, moving around High Sec despite -10 security ratings is simple. Gankers complain about High Sec police, while simultaneously avoiding them to score kill after kill. You think it takes a pro to just cruise around High Sec like that? Of course not, any Joe Blow Alpha can do it as much as they like.

It really bugs me that I even have to talk about this, because overall, I think ganking should exist. My only real issue with it currently is the lack on consequences and counters. Freedom of movement despite garbage security status, targets that cannot defend themselves, and the ability to determine the time and place every engagement begins and ends. Downsides being, a lost ship, sec status (lol), and being pigeon holed into one particular occupation in High Sec (until they buy their way out). Sounds rough.
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#210 - 2016-12-07 17:50:21 UTC
knobber Jobbler wrote:
I've done my fair share of ganking with miniluv and there's no risk on the gankers end. Most of the gankers I know are stinking rich from it. You lose some cheap ships and get a bad sec status, that's all.

Miniluv ganks for profit and they only target valuable ships. Yet if you actually crunch the numbers and account for the people involved in a gank and the amount of time it takes to find such a valuable target, the ISK/h is extremely lower compared to a miner/mission runner whatever, not even accounting for security status loss and how easy it is for outsiders to screw with the gank and deny the loot.

The amount of logistics, preparation, scouting and waiting that goes into the whole gank has to be accounted for if you want to make an argument for how out of whack risk/reward in ganking is.

Tell me, why are all the ISK/h optimizers running missions and incursions if the easy and risk free ISK is in ganking?

Incidentally the same people who whine about how rich we get because we gank and want to nerf (non existing) profits are the same people who will ask for a ban of ganks who are not for profit because the consider it griefing and "just for tears".

I gank for 3 years or so now and my profits come not from ganking, which is a ISK sink for me, it comes from people making mistakes after the gank because they get angry.
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#211 - 2016-12-07 17:57:31 UTC
Corewin wrote:
I may have been out of the game for a few years, but Mining Barges/Industrials/Freighters have not suddenly become PVP capable. High Sec ganking is purely to find victims that have as little means as possible to defend themselves, at minimal cost/danger and maximum gain because they determine every aspect of how an encounter will start and end.

Yes they have. A proper fitted Skiff has the tank, speed and damage capabilities of a HAC and is able to mine at the same time. It takes a seriously large fleet to take one of this out in a suicide gank where you even lose much more ISK on the ganker side than the gankee. We are not even talking about ANY REWARD here except a killmail for which you sacrificed more ISK than it is worth.

The miner got all the tools to protect themselves and more and still people cry for more safety.

And you have now shown multiple times that you have absolutely no clue and just argue with your gut feelings.
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#212 - 2016-12-07 18:16:58 UTC
knobber Jobbler wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Corewin wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:

Compared to other activities in Highsec like mission running, mining or freighting stuff around how much is the ISK/h and risk/reward out of wack? Show us some numbers please


It's High Sec. The implicit safety is gleaned directly from it's name. The balancing factor for High Sec based income strategies is to simply modify the returns those players get by remaining there and not venturing out.

Miner's enjoying too much reward vs the limited risk they face? Cut back on their yield. Adjust their cycles. Make materials harder to get in low risk areas. Etc

Mission runners? Cut back on bounty returns. Make mission agents pay out less.

Yes, they already have almost perfect safety compared to low and null and their rewards should be lowered.

Now if we look at the gankers which are at an extreme disadvantage compared to other PvP players in null and low because they face not only the other players defences but an invincible, all knowing, all powerfull police force which will grant them only a few seconds before vaporising their ships. So here the equation is obviously reversed and if you look at the fact that ganking is absolutely not profitable except for the rare Freighters which has too much ISK in his belly, ganking is clearly in need of a buff from a risk/reward point of view.


I've done my fair share of ganking with miniluv and there's no risk on the gankers end. Most of the gankers I know are stinking rich from it. You lose some cheap ships and get a bad sec status, that's all.


So what? No really, so what? Some guy is foolishly imprudent and other players take advantage of it.

People look at the old ALOD (Awful Loss of the Day) articles at themittani.com and would laugh, this is no different. At all. If you fit your CNR with purple modules and then somebody notices and comes along and ganks that guy nobody says, "Oh boo-hoo no risk!" Everyone points and laughs.

This is literally the same damn thing.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#213 - 2016-12-07 18:21:05 UTC
Corewin wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:

This is a sandbox though, and if someone wants to pay the cost and accept the consequence to shoot you in highsec, they can, and if you don't like it it is up to you to use all the advantages the game gives you to shoot them right back and enforce some player-driven consequences on them.

How many gank targets are capable of defending themselves? I may have been out of the game for a few years, but Mining Barges/Industrials/Freighters have not suddenly become PVP capable. High Sec ganking is purely to find victims that have as little means as possible to defend themselves, at minimal cost/danger and maximum gain because they determine every aspect of how an encounter will start and end.

Anything that happens as a result of such actions are merely an inconvenience that does nothing to prevent constant abuse of the current system. NPC police retaliation is based on an easily understood formula. Once someone has figured out how it works, moving around High Sec despite -10 security ratings is simple. Gankers complain about High Sec police, while simultaneously avoiding them to score kill after kill. You think it takes a pro to just cruise around High Sec like that? Of course not, any Joe Blow Alpha can do it as much as they like.

It really bugs me that I even have to talk about this, because overall, I think ganking should exist. My only real issue with it currently is the lack on consequences and counters. Freedom of movement despite garbage security status, targets that cannot defend themselves, and the ability to determine the time and place every engagement begins and ends. Downsides being, a lost ship, sec status (lol), and being pigeon holed into one particular occupation in High Sec (until they buy their way out). Sounds rough.


Skiffs and procurors are very tough ships now. So tough that it costs more to gank them, alot more, than you'd ever hope to get in loot drops.

But aside from that you keep dodging the question I have been asking, why are you not wondering why freighter, industrial and other pilots are taking on so much risk? Why are you defending people who are risk seeking...and then finding the down side of that risk.

Seriously, if you are seeking some specific outcome....and you get it, you should be happy not upset.

You are completely muddled and wrongheaded in your thinking here. The counter is: don't be imprudent with your stuff. Which goes back to one of the most fundamental rules of Eve you have probably used yourself: Do NOT fly that which you cannot afford to lose. This goes for freighters, industrrials, etc.

And it bugs you because your, quite simply, wrong. Being imprudent in this game has always been punished and always should be. Stop trying to molly coddle the imprudent.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Corewin
Rack City Syndicate
#214 - 2016-12-07 19:31:47 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:

But aside from that you keep dodging the question I have been asking, why are you not wondering why freighter, industrial and other pilots are taking on so much risk? Why are you defending people who are risk seeking...and then finding the down side of that risk.

Seriously, if you are seeking some specific outcome....and you get it, you should be happy not upset.

You are completely muddled and wrongheaded in your thinking here. The counter is: don't be imprudent with your stuff. Which goes back to one of the most fundamental rules of Eve you have probably used yourself: Do NOT fly that which you cannot afford to lose. This goes for freighters, industrrials, etc.

And it bugs you because your, quite simply, wrong. Being imprudent in this game has always been punished and always should be. Stop trying to molly coddle the imprudent.


What risks are you taking by engaging non-combat ships in High-Security space? If a ganker sees a target they want to kill, there is literally nothing stopping them from completing that task by bringing the correct amount of DPS and picking the right time to attack. Repercussions are only faced after the fact, and even those are laughably insignificant. Rinse and repeat until you're bored, that is literally the only hard counter to that activity, self imposed of course.

You can kill other players who have no interest or expectation of PVP with impunity, you are literally the definition of imprudence. You don't care about the consequences of your actions because you've come to terms with the fact they'll literally do nothing to impede your gameplay. All risk, is front loaded on your victim. You profit off the fact that there is vitually zero risk on your end.
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#215 - 2016-12-07 20:15:03 UTC
Corewin wrote:


What risks are you taking by engaging non-combat ships in High-Security space? If a ganker sees a target they want to kill, there is literally nothing stopping them from completing that task by bringing the correct amount of DPS and picking the right time to attack. Repercussions are only faced after the fact, and even those are laughably insignificant. Rinse and repeat until you're bored, that is literally the only hard counter to that activity, self imposed of course.


You are still quite confused.

1. This is true for any and all ships in HS. Any ship in HS, with sufficient DPS can be ganked. Most are not because there is no profit in it. Most ships move around HS because people do not like losing more ISK than they generate.

2. The ships that do get ganked, by and large, are ships that are essentially loot pinatas. This is the result of player choice. Let me repeat that, that a ship is a loot pinata is a result of a player's choices.

3. By somehow ramping up the risk on those who would gank you are basically saying that players who are foolish and imprudent, so much so they are risk seeking in their actual behavior, should be protected.

Now please explain why you think 3 is justified when all that needs to happen is for those players to be less imprudent?

Quote:
You can kill other players who have no interest or expectation of PVP with impunity, you are literally the definition of imprudence. You don't care about the consequences of your actions because you've come to terms with the fact they'll literally do nothing to impede your gameplay. All risk, is front loaded on your victim. You profit off the fact that there is vitually zero risk on your end.


No. You have it exactly backwards.

A player can try to kill any other player in the game by:

1. Accepting the consequences.
2. Bringing enough DPS.

If I accept the consequences after sitting down and looking at the situation that is called being risk averse. Risk averse players are not imprudent.

You have it exactly upside down.

And you are just flat out and obstinately wrong that the risk is "front loaded on the victim". The risk was selected by the victim.

The victims are taking on too much risk by choice.

Again let me repeat that:

The victims are taking on too much risk by choice.

Nobody but the victim is putting too much loot onto/into their ship. That is a choice.

Really, you should stop talking about risk because you just do not understand how it works in this context. Risk is NOT imposed/taken on by the game environment but by player choices. One group of players is prudent (the gankers) the other group (the victims) are not. And stop trying to remove player interactions.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#216 - 2016-12-07 20:19:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
And again, can somebody explain to me why everyone is okay with a freighter pilot taking on a crap ton of risk and are then upset when that down side risk actually occurs? Why are all these anti-ganking people so keen on forgiving the freighter pilot who turned his ship into a loot pinata? Why isn't anyone here crying for those guys who lost dozens of PLEX while flying a shuttle? Why are you guys such a bunch of hypocrites?

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Black Pedro
Mine.
#217 - 2016-12-07 21:07:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Corewin wrote:
I may have been out of the game for a few years, but Mining Barges/Industrials/Freighters have not suddenly become PVP capable. High Sec ganking is purely to find victims that have as little means as possible to defend themselves, at minimal cost/danger and maximum gain because they determine every aspect of how an encounter will start and end.
As has been said above, Skiffs and Procurers are incredibly powerful (to the point people roam in them to seeking PvP) and completely uneconomical to gank. Simply flying one of them makes you 99.9+% immune to being ganked unless you put a PLEX in your hold or something foolish. That is an easy and accessible means to protect themselves so I don't know who you think can't do that.

And yes, gankers are choosing the engagements that favour them, just like everyone else does in this game. What is the problem with this? No one seeks a fight they cannot possibly win in this game: the smart choice is to evade, or change the equation so that the engagement is in their favour (reship, bring friends, etc.), Why do you think highsec should be any different? CCP doesn't.

You are intended to have to defend your ships in highsec. CCP has given players plenty of tools to do so. I have never been close to being ganked in highsec because I take the simple precautions to keep engagements in my favour. Gankers won't attack if they can't win, and thus I am near impervious in highsec.

Corewin wrote:
Anything that happens as a result of such actions are merely an inconvenience that does nothing to prevent constant abuse of the current system. NPC police retaliation is based on an easily understood formula. Once someone has figured out how it works, moving around High Sec despite -10 security ratings is simple. Gankers complain about High Sec police, while simultaneously avoiding them to score kill after kill. You think it takes a pro to just cruise around High Sec like that? Of course not, any Joe Blow Alpha can do it as much as they like.

It really bugs me that I even have to talk about this, because overall, I think ganking should exist. My only real issue with it currently is the lack on consequences and counters. Freedom of movement despite garbage security status, targets that cannot defend themselves, and the ability to determine the time and place every engagement begins and ends. Downsides being, a lost ship, sec status (lol), and being pigeon holed into one particular occupation in High Sec (until they buy their way out). Sounds rough.
When I am a criminal I cannot do anything else in highsec. I cannot mission. I cannot haul. I cannot scout. I cannot participate in a war. I cannot even engage in a consensual duel. I am a persona non grata and can only move about in a pod or fast-aligning ship. I have no protection, and you win any fight by simply scramming me and letting the facpo finish me off. I don't know what more "consequences" you can pile on me without locking me out of highsec and highsec crime completely.

I am all for a complete rethink of how CrimeWatch works. Fights between criminals, victims and law enforcement are one-dimensional and escalation is completely stifled by the current mechanics. If you have a problem with that and want to encourage CCP to think about that, then I am on your side. But if you are complaining that criminals exists, the prepared prey on the unprepared, that players serve as risk for imprudence, or that nowhere is 100% safe, then I have no time for this discussion. CCP intends for highsec to work this way. It has always been that way. CCP is not going to just straight out lock criminals out of highsec because crime offends your sense of honour.

Highsec is incredibly safe. Piracy of normal activities has been nerfed into unprofitability. Aside from undertanked miners, overloaded haulers, and autopiloters there is next to zero chance of being ganked in highsec and these risks can be almost completely mitigate with a few simple steps. This is part of the problem, as each nerf to ganking reduced the need to take these precautions in highsec, to the point that many players get complacent and fail to defend themselves but still get mad when another player calls them on their sloppy play and explodes them.

Some day CCP will get around to looking at criminal mechanics again and hopefully they will come up with something more engaging for all side, and one in which the conflict started by a criminal act can escalate into something more.
Kahdrin en Chasteaux
Inter-Planktonic Enterprises
#218 - 2017-01-03 16:31:19 UTC
As a miner/hauler myself, I don't see what the whining is about. To be fair, it has been well beyond a year since I played (eh, real life, you know?) but the principles are likely the same now as they have always been.

Hauling goods from one place to another is supposed to have some amount of risk to it. If there was no risk, the sense of immersion and realism would be gone. I could just spend all of my isk on a massive ship and expensive cargo and trade it all for more wealth in an endless and pointless cycle of monetary gain. Boring.

EVE has crafted an experience (carefully, I might add; they've balanced and rebalanced PVP so much throughout the years!) that forces someone like me to consider that risk. I have to factor in the cost of losing my cargo and ship into what I intend to do for the day or week. I have to have to be able to take the loss and still move forward. If I can't take the loss, that's on me, not the ganker. It would be MY fault that I spent all of my resources on one haul.
Borat Guereen
ARRAKIS Ltd.
#219 - 2017-01-26 22:18:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Borat Guereen
I have not caught up yet with the entire thread here, but I am responding to the OP title.

I believe the problem of retention is linked to the existence of anonymous alts allowing players to conduct griefing and hostile operations against other players, without having any drawbacks or risks connected to their asset producing pilots. This also applies to activity like cloaky camping, spying, stealing or scamming.

To that end, I propose in my CSM campaign to provide an economical benefit to those players willing to link their accounts publicly together, so that the griefers and gankers, spies, scammers thieves and afk campers, would suffer an economic loss from choosing to insulate their main accounts from their griefing accounts.

The psychological thought that you can be griefed by someone more powerful than you without having any ways to get back at them or them not losing anything when undertaking this griefing is what imho drives retention down.

Candidate for CSM XII

Erebus 'TheChin' Sundance
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#220 - 2017-02-01 23:07:40 UTC
Corewin wrote:

Nothing especially interesting happens if players can hide behind 100% safe NPC protection and still gather stuff. Everyone will just do that
Nope, pretty sure they wouldn't! ...But a lot would, precisely because it is actually fun for them. Even though people keep telling them it isn't.

Perchance, from some exotic side effect the meaningless tunnel vision a gameplay directed entirely on the upsetting off a new player fresh into our beloved game induces, possibly Thickasshiteitus or Dumbasfuckementia, you may have missed the broad spectrum of gameplay options that are also available, including but not limited too, low sec, null sec, and let us not forget ol'scarry McWeary... wormholes.

However, It would make:

*1 - a lot of players happy (sh*t no! happy eve players? surely not)

*2 - More people play and subscribe to EVE online!

(dare I relate to the OP in this now hijacked let's defend the poor ickle gankers post)