These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

so this is there real future for new players? gate camp?

First post
Author
The Ninja KiiD
Perkone
Caldari State
#501 - 2017-02-19 00:02:28 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
The Ninja KiiD wrote:
I WAS NOT at war!
The API begs to differ.

You currently have 2 active wars, both of which started in the last couple of days.



WTF, you are correct. Shows that it happened yesterday.

I saw ZERO notification of a wardec...

No biggie, i had formed the corp just as a way to avoid tax.
Will leave the corp.

TY for the info. I recently returned and am very rusty.
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#502 - 2017-02-19 06:30:45 UTC
The Ninja KiiD wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
The Ninja KiiD wrote:
I WAS NOT at war!
The API begs to differ.

You currently have 2 active wars, both of which started in the last couple of days.



WTF, you are correct. Shows that it happened yesterday.

I saw ZERO notification of a wardec...

No biggie, i had formed the corp just as a way to avoid tax.
Will leave the corp.

TY for the info. I recently returned and am very rusty.

FYI, if you want you can reform your corp. It costs 50mil to declare war on a corp but only ~1.5mil to create a new one. You can have your tax-free status, just be careful of war decs in the future.

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein

h4kun4
Gang Bang Pandas
#503 - 2017-02-19 11:43:42 UTC
tldr;

@ OP - thats how the game works, if you don't like it, don't go to lowsec or play something else. To all who agree with OP, please be more salty, it's fun reading that... lets me know I'm doing well.
Hakawai
State War Academy
Caldari State
#504 - 2017-02-19 12:12:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Hakawai
Akane Togenada wrote:
Hakawai wrote:
I'm not sure where you're going with the rest of the quoted text. Is that a suggestion that Gate Camps are justified because they provide a better social environment than normal play? That it's ok to induce reactions like the OP's with 0.5-0.4 Gate Camps because either the players can't find something less destructive as a focus for social activities, or the game doesn't offer any other alternatives?

It sounds like just another way to say "it's ok for us to treat new players as consumables if we feel like it".


To me gatecamps are justified because it is a valid form of gaming that does a valuable service to EVE by discouraging auto-piloting and by blowing s*it up thus increasing demand for said s*it on the market. It feels much like the ganking of AFK miners that groups such as CODE specializes in and which is a huge boon to all serious non-AFK miners.

0,5-0,4 Gates are dangerous and even if you get past the gate such a system is most likely more dangerous then deep low since Pirates are opportunists that prey on the unwary.

I also think it's a bad idea to tell others how to play an MMO, if they get their jollies by blowing up unwary travellers then that's perfectly fine. I'd also add that personally I would find the game boring as **** if there where no 'baddies' out there to catch me.

Finally yes new players like me are consumables just like the rest of the players.

Thanks for a reasonable post on this - it's one of very few from "the opposition" that makes sense.

I don't agree of course, and you haven't changed my mind - but that won't surprise you :)

I'm not going to address the "being killed is educational" part of your post, because while it's sometimes true, 0.5-0.4 gate camps are a perfect example that sometimes, it's the the worst kind of knowledge that's imparted (at least for people who'd like to see more new players in EVE).s

I believe there's an important distinction based on context between many activities in EVE. I made a list of sorts elsewhere, but I'll just rework one example I used earlier in this thread. By way of introduction: as I observed in an earlier post, you can't prove anything with scenarios of isolated examples. But if you resist the temptation to pretend they are proof, they can be useful support to an analysis.


A new player in an industrial carrying 5 billion worth of stuff is "asking for trouble". IMO a fair target for "suicide ganking" or being attacking by a group or a much stronger ship in lowsec. Why? The short answer is EVE economics: the expected return to an attacker is (AFAIK) about 50% of the cargo value, so such a kill is worth 2.5 months of free play.

But what if the cargo is worth 200 million? I've seen a (claimed) "rage quit" in Rookie Help from someone who lost their entire net worth (about 200 mill) to a highsec suicide gank. 200 mill is generally considered to be under the economic "suicide gank" threshold, with good reason.

So in the first case a "suicide gank" seems to be 100% EVE-appropriate behavior, and we're not inclined to accept ignorance as an excuse. In the second case, on the evidence I'd go with bad behavior. It's equally game-legal , but you have to assume the ganker was a "fun-vampire" whose objective was to ruin the target's day, waste a lot of their **real** time (one hour of non-bot player = 1 hour of someones life), and it's quite likely the objective was the rage quit.

Let's take it a small step forward - imagine someone sufficiently menacing and capable stops you from entering a park, or a shop, or your place of employment, by blocking the entrance, just because they think it's amusing, apply that to 0.5-0.4Gate Camping, and consider the message it conveys to the naive new players (who are implied in this thread to be the only normally intelligent players caught in 0.5-0.4 Camps)


Now we're past "Some Gate Camps make good in-game sense" into "some Gate Camps have significant negative consequences". In the case of 0.5 - 0.4 gate camps, it's sends some tangible signals to new players who are caught in the camp:

  • There are choke points between highsec and lowsec (not at all obvious to a new player)
  • Players choose to make Gate Camps at these players, and don't hesitate to destroy low-value ships (i.e. probable newbie ships)
  • And a bonus: if they were to read this very thread, they'd learn that anybody with a moderate amount to EVE experience would know where and how to check there was a Gate Camp - i.e. that they are only considered to be effective for trapping and destroying new players' ships.


I'm not sure of the OP learned about the third point, but if he asked in the Help Channel it would have been explained (more or less politely depending on whether it was a fun-vampire doing the explaining or not).


How should a new player react to the presence of significant player-managed, CCP-supported barriers to entering lowsec? They can still enter of course, but the effect you'd expect is that fewer new players bother with lowsec. For example it clearly reduces the net ISK/hour for solo players of missioning or mining in lowsec. The ISK may be there, but the risk of ship loss means cheaper (and hence less efficient ships) less valuable cargo, while the and the disruption to travel affects the denominator of the ISK/hour calculation.


I think making lowsec less accessible is stupid for CCP, for old-timers who'd like the game to attract new players, and even for fun-vampires, who could expect more (though less one-sided) fights if they weren't so keep to limit access to the areas that are designed for their peculiar style of entertainment.
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#505 - 2017-02-19 12:37:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Hiasa Kite
Hakawai wrote:
I'm not going to address the "being killed is educational" part of your post, because while it's sometimes true, 0.5-0.4 gate camps are a perfect example that sometimes, it's the the worst kind of knowledge that's imparted (at least for people who'd like to see more new players in EVE).

Agreed. Well, almost.

Death is the game telling you that you've done something wrong. The reason I partially agree with you is because it does nothing to hunt what was at ng or could've been improved. Did the target die because of lack of tank? Stabs? Would a scout help? Was the victim a suspect for looting something he though was safe to loot?

All that can happen is the victim reads about EVE and the game mechanics as much as possible in the hopes he'll stumble on something or he asks for advice. That said, it's not like he might know who to turn to or what questions to ask. How many active players are even using the official forums NCQA? How many even know they exist?

The harshness of EVE is what makes it great: You f+&k up, you lose your stuff. I think it'd be better if those who do screw up get pointed in the right direction for help.

Quote:
But what if the cargo is worth 200 million? I've seen a (claimed) "rage quit" in Rookie Help from someone who lost their entire net worth (about 200 mill) to a highsec suicide gank. 200 mill is generally considered to be under the economic "suicide gank" threshold, with good reason.

So in the first case a "suicide gank" seems to be 100% EVE-appropriate behavior, and we're not inclined to accept ignorance as an excuse. In the second case, on the evidence I'd go with bad behavior. It's equally game-legal , but you have to assume the ganker was a "fun-vampire" whose objective was to ruin the target's day, waste a lot of their **real** time (one hour of non-bot player = 1 hour of someones life), and it's quite likely the objective was the rage quit.

200mil ISK is way above the gank threshold for standard T1 Indies.

Quote:
Now we're past "Some Gate Camps make good in-game sense" into "some Gate Camps have significant negative consequences".

Unless the victims ask for help. Shouldn't the solution to the problems you describe be teaching people how to survive in EVE rather than taking away the new to survive in the first place?

Quote:
How should a new player react to the presence of significant player-managed, CCP-supported barriers to entering lowsec? They can still enter of course, but the effect you'd expect is that fewer new players bother with lowsec. For example it clearly reduces the net ISK/hour for solo players of missioning or mining in lowsec. The ISK may be there, but the risk of ship loss means cheaper (and hence less efficient ships) less valuable cargo, while the and the disruption to travel affects the denominator of the ISK/hour calculation.

Combine that with the fact LoSec offers very little of what's available elsewhere in abundance and you've got low populated space.

Quote:
I think make lowsec less accessible is stupid for CCP, for old-timers who'd like the game to attract new players, and even for fun-vampires, who could expect more (though less one-sided) fights if they weren't so keep to limit access to the areas that are designed for their peculiar style of entertainment.

What do you suggest?

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein

Akane Togenada
Doomheim
#506 - 2017-02-19 13:18:05 UTC
Hakawai wrote:


But what if the cargo is worth 200 million? I've seen a (claimed) "rage quit" in Rookie Help from someone who lost their entire net worth (about 200 mill) to a highsec suicide gank. 200 mill is generally considered to be under the economic "suicide gank" threshold, with good reason.

So in the first case a "suicide gank" seems to be 100% EVE-appropriate behavior, and we're not inclined to accept ignorance as an excuse. In the second case, on the evidence I'd go with bad behavior. It's equally game-legal , but you have to assume the ganker was a "fun-vampire" whose objective was to ruin the target's day, waste a lot of their **real** time (one hour of non-bot player = 1 hour of someones life), and it's quite likely the objective was the rage quit.


I'm no expert on hauling but 200 mil in a T1 Industrial (that's the ship a Rookie would use) sounds way to much. A Nereus fitted for bulk hauling in high-sec will only have around 15.000 EHP and carrying 200.000.000 worth of stuff in it would mean a ratio of around 130.000 ISK/EHP.

I'm no expert on hauling but a more experienced player can probably tell what a good ISK/EHP ratio would be.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#507 - 2017-02-19 13:52:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Akane Togenada wrote:
[I'm no expert on hauling but 200 mil in a T1 Industrial (that's the ship a Rookie would use) sounds way to much. A Nereus fitted for bulk hauling in high-sec will only have around 15.000 EHP and carrying 200.000.000 worth of stuff in it would mean a ratio of around 130.000 ISK/EHP.

I'm no expert on hauling but a more experienced player can probably tell what a good ISK/EHP ratio would be.
I tend to use Eve Uni's rule of thumb for hauling which is about 3000 isk/EHP, in your example of a 15k EHP Nereus I would haul no more than 45-50 million in cargo.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Torin Corax
Game of Roams
#508 - 2017-02-19 13:56:57 UTC
Hakawai wrote:



I'm not going to address the "being killed is educational" part of your post, because while it's sometimes true, 0.5-0.4 gate camps are a perfect example that sometimes, it's the the worst kind of knowledge that's imparted (at least for people who'd like to see more new players in EVE).s


I largely disagree with this. Every loss is educational to those capable of examining the loss critically.
The important point is that a loss is an incentive to seek out knowledge, at least it always was for me. Nobody in Eve knows everything, sometimes in order to know what questions to ask requires a catalyst (no pun intended here).
When I first started playing ganking newbies while they were actually doing the tutorial was commonplace, it's how I lost my first ship. It was definitely an eye-opener and encouraged me to go learn as much as I could about ganking in high sec so as not to fall foul of it again. I actually appreciate that loss, as I learned a lot from it.

Hakawai wrote:

But what if the cargo is worth 200 million? I've seen a (claimed) "rage quit" in Rookie Help from someone who lost their entire net worth (about 200 mill) to a highsec suicide gank. 200 mill is generally considered to be under the economic "suicide gank" threshold, with good reason.


As mentioned by a previous poster 200mil in a T1 hauler, particularly if said hauler is poorly fit, is a financially viable gank.

Absolutely it's a harsh lesson, and I can understand why the player in question might be upset, but ultimately it's the challenge of bouncing back from a loss like that which is central to Eve.
Every "old-timer" was a new player at some point. Most of them/ us have taken a hit that we weren't expecting....but we're still here, we bounced back and learned an important lesson on the way.
Most importantly I enjoyed the experience. I love the fact that I'm playing a game in which stuff like this can happen to me...it's exhilarating.

Hakawai wrote:

Let's take it a small step forward - imagine someone sufficiently menacing and capable stops you from entering a park, or a shop, or your place of employment, by blocking the entrance, just because they think it's amusing, apply that to 0.5-0.4Gate Camping, and consider the message it conveys to the naive new players (who are implied in this thread to be the only normally intelligent players caught in 0.5-0.4 Camps)


New players are not the only people caught in camps, although in certain areas they most likely do make up the bulk of the "victims".
However, killing newbies is not the only reason to camp gates. In the past I lived in low sec and conducted business there, as did many of my friends. Protecting business interests was a prime reason for setting up camps. Mining ops, anchoring, missions etc.All these activities were "defended" by the camp. Low sec can be tricky to make decent isk in, if you have the ability to blockade (for want of a better word) a system it can become a lot easier to do.

I grant you, this is not perhaps a common reason for camping, but it is certainly viable and something I used to be involved in on a regular basis.


Hakawai wrote:

Now we're past "Some Gate Camps make good in-game sense" into "some Gate Camps have significant negative consequences". In the case of 0.5 - 0.4 gate camps, it's sends some tangible signals to new players who are caught in the camp:

  • There are choke points between highsec and lowsec (not at all obvious to a new player)
  • Players choose to make Gate Camps at these players, and don't hesitate to destroy low-value ships (i.e. probable newbie ships)
  • And a bonus: if they were to read this very thread, they'd learn that anybody with a moderate amount to EVE experience would know where and how to check there was a Gate Camp - i.e. that they are only considered to be effective for trapping and destroying new players' ships.




1) There is a warning when you jump into low sec for the first time (every time assuming you don't disable the warning). Deliberately ignoring the warning and jumping in regardless is extremely bad decision making. The lesson you learn here is not a minor one, it has bearing on many aspects of Eve (see Contract scams)....ignoring any warnings, or disregarding any information in Eve is a very bad idea. In this case a loss to a camp is a very important lesson indeed and could save considerable hardship later on.

2) Low value ships...perhaps. But you might be interested to know that cyno ships are often low value and disposable ships piloted by relatively new alts. Various organizations in low sec may have very good reason to keep cynos out. Again, not saying this is common, but it is a consideration.

3) Camps trap the unwary regardless of age and experience. Careless veterans in shiny ships are what the campers love. Everybody makes mistakes, gate camps punish those mistakes.


Quote:
How should a new player react to the presence of significant player-managed, CCP-supported barriers to entering lowsec? They can still enter of course, but the effect you'd expect is that fewer new players bother with lowsec. For example it clearly reduces the net ISK/hour for solo players of missioning or mining in lowsec. The ISK may be there, but the risk of ship loss means cheaper (and hence less efficient ships) less valuable cargo, while the and the disruption to travel affects the denominator of the ISK/hour calculation.


There are a large number of high/ low boundaries that are rarely, indeed never, camped. If the front door is guarded, try the back door.
I refuse to believe that every new player is an idiot, those that are not will quickly learn to take advantage of the tools available to them. These new players will thrive, these new players are the ones who will stay. These are Eve players.



Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#509 - 2017-02-19 19:53:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Hakawai wrote:
But what if the cargo is worth 200 million? I've seen a (claimed) "rage quit" in Rookie Help from someone who lost their entire net worth (about 200 mill) to a highsec suicide gank. 200 mill is generally considered to be under the economic "suicide gank" threshold, with good reason.



This needs more context. It depends on what is needed to gank the ship with 200 million in cargo. If it required 20 million in gank ships (e.g. 2 catalysts) then no, if it is not unreasonable and the person moving that 200 million was imprudent and paid for it.

Also, some people play the numbers: Gank all iteron Vs hoping to hit the jackpot. Although this is more typical with blockade runners since you cannot scan them.

A key point to remember is that often times the amount of risk you are exposed to is based on your choices. If you put 200 million ISK into a ship that can be ganked by 20 million in gank ships...you made a mistake.

I do not understand why I have to keep writing this over and over and over.

Edit: And once again, it is the case that so long as I am willing to accept the consequences I can shot anyone anywhere in game. That has been the nature of the game pretty much from day 1. So even if somebody is out to gank just for laughs, well...that is allowed too. However, generally speaking that is not that common, IMO. People like to claim it is some sort of epidemic scale of game activity, but there literally no attempt to back up these hysterical claims with even a shred of evidence other than, "Oh, I saw a guy in rookie chat rage quit...."

Hakawai wrote:
Let's take it a small step forward - imagine someone sufficiently menacing and capable stops you from entering a park, or a shop, or your place of employment, by blocking the entrance, just because they think it's amusing, apply that to 0.5-0.4Gate Camping, and consider the message it conveys to the naive new players (who are implied in this thread to be the only normally intelligent players caught in 0.5-0.4 Camps)


Seriously? You dump on people for using in-game anecdotes, but then you pull this kind of idiocy? You are going to seriously compare make-believe to reality? Really? So when two NS entities go to war it is literally like Russia and the U.S. lobbing nukes? Roll

"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
#510 - 2017-02-19 20:07:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Akane Togenada wrote:
[I'm no expert on hauling but 200 mil in a T1 Industrial (that's the ship a Rookie would use) sounds way to much. A Nereus fitted for bulk hauling in high-sec will only have around 15.000 EHP and carrying 200.000.000 worth of stuff in it would mean a ratio of around 130.000 ISK/EHP.

I'm no expert on hauling but a more experienced player can probably tell what a good ISK/EHP ratio would be.
I tend to use Eve Uni's rule of thumb for hauling which is about 3000 isk/EHP, in your example of a 15k EHP Nereus I would haul no more than 45-50 million in cargo.


Here you go, a nice handy rule of thumb to use to avoid being suicide ganked.

What Jonah and Akane are telling you is this: if you play imprudently it will end up costing you and you have nobody to blame but yourself because you made an imprudent decision.

Now you can say, "Blaming the victim....!!!" No. You know that EVE is a harsh place. That other players can and will take advantage of your poor decisions. Given this knowledge making an imprudent decision is entirely on you.

And remember: This. Is. A. Game.

Comparing it to real life is foolish. This is a form of escapism. After a crap day at work, listening to the stupidity on the news, and finally having some time in the evening you can log into a game and escape reality. And if you are unwilling to accept the harsh environment that is EVE....there are plenty of games out there, go find a cute, cuddly and warm 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

Hakawai
State War Academy
Caldari State
#511 - 2017-02-20 05:38:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Hakawai
Teckos Pech wrote:

[...]
Seriously? You dump on people for using in-game anecdotes, but then you pull this kind of idiocy? You are going to seriously compare make-believe to reality? Really? So when two NS entities go to war it is literally like Russia and the U.S. lobbing nukes? Roll

You keep directing silly stuff like this at me. FYI you went over my limit for irrational posting a long time ago. I don't even scan the majority of your posts to see if they're relevant or not. Of course I don't set rules for the forum: by all means post whatever CCP allows - just don't assume I feel obliged to read everything that quotes one of my posts or otherwise refers to me.

And since you'd otherwise respond with multiple defensive posts:

  1. This one caught my eye because it was the last in the thread, and the nonsense above was the final paragraph
  2. I explained the conditions for the use if examples and scenarios in (a) the earlier post you refer to and (b) the one you quote. I have no reason to repeat the explanation - I doubt you'd "listen", and I doubt anyone interesting needs it to be repeated.
Hakawai
State War Academy
Caldari State
#512 - 2017-02-20 05:57:07 UTC
Hiasa Kite wrote:
[...]
What do you suggest?

In this particular forum, rational, well supported suggestions just generate a cascade of denial and attempts to shut down the discussion with rhetorical "dirty tricks". IMO it's no place for suggestions.

So lets look at it another way: what actions might, given time, have a positive effect?

Posts in "General Discussion" (GD) might be on the list, but not for reasoned discussions on possibilities for motivating newer players to stay with EVE Online. In fact any use of GD has a significant potential to backfire:

  • It exposes information on player behavior that you'll never see in a CCP advertisement
  • Attempts to get anything done in here induce "sabotage" by destructive "forum-PVPers". "Some people just want the world to burn, even if they will be incinerated with it".
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#513 - 2017-02-20 06:02:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Hakawai wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:

[...]
Seriously? You dump on people for using in-game anecdotes, but then you pull this kind of idiocy? You are going to seriously compare make-believe to reality? Really? So when two NS entities go to war it is literally like Russia and the U.S. lobbing nukes? Roll

You keep directing silly stuff like this at me. FYI you went over my limit for irrational posting a long time ago. I don't even scan the majority of your posts to see if they're relevant or not. Of course I don't set rules for the forum: by all means post whatever CCP allows - just don't assume I feel obliged to read everything that quotes one of my posts or otherwise refers to me.

And since you'd otherwise respond with multiple defensive posts:

  1. This one caught my eye because it was the last in the thread, and the nonsense above was the final paragraph
  2. I explained the conditions for the use if examples and scenarios in (a) the earlier post you refer to and (b) the one you quote. I have no reason to repeat the explanation - I doubt you'd "listen", and I doubt anyone interesting needs it to be repeated.



Irrational posting is trying to draw parallels to IG and IRL. It. Is. A. Game. People can be the bad guy...or the good guy, or just a guy trying to build an industrial empire or whatever. It. Is. A. Game.

Your IRL "just so stories" are complete bullshit. Of course if somebody is waylaying you to your job you call the authorities and deal with them. But that is not how things are in this video game we are talking about. If you feel a need to call "the authorities" to deal with the "bad guys" in game there is a word for that: friends. Go get some buddies and ruin their day.

Don't come here whining to CCP to have them crap on the bad guys. Man up and do it yourself or get out of ****town.

"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
#514 - 2017-02-20 06:12:14 UTC
Hakawai wrote:
Hiasa Kite wrote:
[...]
What do you suggest?

In this particular forum, rational, well supported suggestions just generate a cascade of denial and attempts to shut down the discussion with rhetorical "dirty tricks". IMO it's no place for suggestions.

So lets look at it another way: what actions might, given time, have a positive effect?

Posts in "General Discussion" (GD) might be on the list, but not for reasoned discussions on possibilities for motivating newer players to stay with EVE Online. In fact any use of GD has a significant potential to backfire:

  • It exposes information on player behavior that you'll never see in a CCP advertisement
  • Attempts to get anything done in here induce "sabotage" by destructive "forum-PVPers". "Some people just want the world to burn, even if they will be incinerated with it".


So when he asks what you suggest you whine about how mean everyone is to you and suggest nothing. Roll

"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

Hakawai
State War Academy
Caldari State
#515 - 2017-02-20 06:15:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Hakawai
Torin Corax wrote:

[...]
Hakawai wrote:

Let's take it a small step forward - imagine someone sufficiently menacing and capable stops you from entering a park, or a shop, or your place of employment, by blocking the entrance, just because they think it's amusing, apply that to 0.5-0.4Gate Camping, and consider the message it conveys to the naive new players (who are implied in this thread to be the only normally intelligent players caught in 0.5-0.4 Camps)


New players are not the only people caught in camps, although in certain areas they most likely do make up the bulk of the "victims".
[...]

But what if your paragraph started "new players are not the only one caught in 0-5-0.4 Gate Camps"?

Multiple people in this thread have claimed that any moderately well informed and careful player who isn't as dumb as a rock will easily avoid any Gate Camp. They did so in the interest of selling a lie of course - IIRC it started as resistance to a comment that Campers could readily distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable targets. But in so doing they claimed that 0.5-0.4 Gate Camps aren't aimed at newbies, implying that the ones who are caught up in this fine EVE activity are just small scale "collateral damage".

As usual, making stuff up on the spot leads to revealing contradictions /lol.

Of course I doubt even CCP could readily collect statistics on the immediate effects on player actions of 0.5-0,.4 Gate Camps, but the range of activities is clear enough ...

... some will see it in advance and use alternative routes (wasting time but less likely to lose their ship). Others see it, and proactively will choose another in-game activity, or log off. Some will lose a ship or two - and of those not all will leave the game as the OP says they did.

But a lot of the newbies, regardless of how they are directly affected, will "connect the dots" that the OP did: 0.5-0.4 Gate Camps demonstrate that the game (players and CCP) is hostile towards newbies in unnecessary and stupid ways (discouraging new(ish) player from entering lowsec is stupid). Most won't react as OP did (drama / "swan song" / ragequit), but the knowledge will stay with them.
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#516 - 2017-02-20 06:17:17 UTC
Hakawai wrote:
In this particular forum, rational, well supported suggestions just generate a cascade of denial and attempts to shut down the discussion with rhetorical "dirty tricks".

Honestly, I've never seen that happen. I've seen it happen to poorly thought out ideas or ideas with an obvious agenda behind them but decent ideas that would improve the game, even in a small way are generally well received.

Quote:
IMO it's no place for suggestions.

That's what Features & Ideas is for.

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein

Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#517 - 2017-02-20 06:24:26 UTC
Hakawai wrote:
But a lot of the newbies, regardless of how they are directly affected, will "connect the dots" that the OP did: 0.5-0.4 Gate Camps: the game (players and CCP) is hostile towards newbies in unnecessary and stupid ways (discouraging new(ish) player from entering lowsec is stupid). Most won't react as OP did (drama / "swan song" / ragequit), but the knowledge will stay with them.

That's just it, though. Newbies are no more discouraged from entering LoSec than anyone else. In the first few hours of play, you'll not have many options to break through a camp without assistance. Once cloaking and high speed manoeuvring are trained up though, that's your biggest and widest reaching restriction dealt with. Beyond that you've got more specialised solutions in the form of instant alignment and CovOps. The rest of your toolset is available to anyone, regardless of skill point or ISK investment.

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#518 - 2017-02-20 08:20:31 UTC
Hakawai wrote:
Torin Corax wrote:

[...]
Hakawai wrote:

Let's take it a small step forward - imagine someone sufficiently menacing and capable stops you from entering a park, or a shop, or your place of employment, by blocking the entrance, just because they think it's amusing, apply that to 0.5-0.4Gate Camping, and consider the message it conveys to the naive new players (who are implied in this thread to be the only normally intelligent players caught in 0.5-0.4 Camps)


New players are not the only people caught in camps, although in certain areas they most likely do make up the bulk of the "victims".
[...]

But what if your paragraph started "new players are not the only one caught in 0-5-0.4 Gate Camps"?

Multiple people in this thread have claimed that any moderately well informed and careful player who isn't as dumb as a rock will easily avoid any Gate Camp. They did so in the interest of selling a lie of course - IIRC it started as resistance to a comment that Campers could readily distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable targets. But in so doing they claimed that 0.5-0.4 Gate Camps aren't aimed at newbies, implying that the ones who are caught up in this fine EVE activity are just small scale "collateral damage".

As usual, making stuff up on the spot leads to revealing contradictions /lol.

Of course I doubt even CCP could readily collect statistics on the immediate effects on player actions of 0.5-0,.4 Gate Camps, but the range of activities is clear enough ...

... some will see it in advance and use alternative routes (wasting time but less likely to lose their ship). Others see it, and proactively will choose another in-game activity, or log off. Some will lose a ship or two - and of those not all will leave the game as the OP says they did.

But a lot of the newbies, regardless of how they are directly affected, will "connect the dots" that the OP did: 0.5-0.4 Gate Camps: the game (players and CCP) is hostile towards newbies in unnecessary and stupid ways (discouraging new(ish) player from entering lowsec is stupid). Most won't react as OP did (drama / "swan song" / ragequit), but the knowledge will stay with them.


The OP kept doing the same thing over and over despite it having the same outcome. If you kept trying to do something and kept getting slapped down...when would you stop and reconsider your approach/startegy/etc.?

"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

Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat
Snuffed Out
#519 - 2017-02-20 08:33:49 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Hakawai wrote:
Torin Corax wrote:

[...]
Hakawai wrote:

Let's take it a small step forward - imagine someone sufficiently menacing and capable stops you from entering a park, or a shop, or your place of employment, by blocking the entrance, just because they think it's amusing, apply that to 0.5-0.4Gate Camping, and consider the message it conveys to the naive new players (who are implied in this thread to be the only normally intelligent players caught in 0.5-0.4 Camps)


New players are not the only people caught in camps, although in certain areas they most likely do make up the bulk of the "victims".
[...]

But what if your paragraph started "new players are not the only one caught in 0-5-0.4 Gate Camps"?

Multiple people in this thread have claimed that any moderately well informed and careful player who isn't as dumb as a rock will easily avoid any Gate Camp. They did so in the interest of selling a lie of course - IIRC it started as resistance to a comment that Campers could readily distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable targets. But in so doing they claimed that 0.5-0.4 Gate Camps aren't aimed at newbies, implying that the ones who are caught up in this fine EVE activity are just small scale "collateral damage".

As usual, making stuff up on the spot leads to revealing contradictions /lol.

Of course I doubt even CCP could readily collect statistics on the immediate effects on player actions of 0.5-0,.4 Gate Camps, but the range of activities is clear enough ...

... some will see it in advance and use alternative routes (wasting time but less likely to lose their ship). Others see it, and proactively will choose another in-game activity, or log off. Some will lose a ship or two - and of those not all will leave the game as the OP says they did.

But a lot of the newbies, regardless of how they are directly affected, will "connect the dots" that the OP did: 0.5-0.4 Gate Camps: the game (players and CCP) is hostile towards newbies in unnecessary and stupid ways (discouraging new(ish) player from entering lowsec is stupid). Most won't react as OP did (drama / "swan song" / ragequit), but the knowledge will stay with them.


The OP kept doing the same thing over and over despite it having the same outcome. If you kept trying to do something and kept getting slapped down...when would you stop and reconsider your approach/startegy/etc.?


“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results” - Albert Einstein

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#520 - 2017-02-20 08:47:04 UTC
Lan Wang wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Hakawai wrote:

But what if your paragraph started "new players are not the only one caught in 0-5-0.4 Gate Camps"?

Multiple people in this thread have claimed that any moderately well informed and careful player who isn't as dumb as a rock will easily avoid any Gate Camp. They did so in the interest of selling a lie of course - IIRC it started as resistance to a comment that Campers could readily distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable targets. But in so doing they claimed that 0.5-0.4 Gate Camps aren't aimed at newbies, implying that the ones who are caught up in this fine EVE activity are just small scale "collateral damage".

As usual, making stuff up on the spot leads to revealing contradictions /lol.

Of course I doubt even CCP could readily collect statistics on the immediate effects on player actions of 0.5-0,.4 Gate Camps, but the range of activities is clear enough ...

... some will see it in advance and use alternative routes (wasting time but less likely to lose their ship). Others see it, and proactively will choose another in-game activity, or log off. Some will lose a ship or two - and of those not all will leave the game as the OP says they did.

But a lot of the newbies, regardless of how they are directly affected, will "connect the dots" that the OP did: 0.5-0.4 Gate Camps: the game (players and CCP) is hostile towards newbies in unnecessary and stupid ways (discouraging new(ish) player from entering lowsec is stupid). Most won't react as OP did (drama / "swan song" / ragequit), but the knowledge will stay with them.


The OP kept doing the same thing over and over despite it having the same outcome. If you kept trying to do something and kept getting slapped down...when would you stop and reconsider your approach/startegy/etc.?


“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results” - Albert Einstein


I believe I pointed this out several pages ago. What does it say about Hakawai that she is still banging on the same thing again and again...?

"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