Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I can, with as much or more validity, say that highsec missions and mining negatively effect EVE player retention. (And I'd probably be right, given CCP's own numbers on the matter) And since highsec has more population, the effect on retention would be decidedly more pronounced.

So should we have CCP "look into" deleting highsec?

But of course you'll try to handwave that away.

Its more outside the scope of discussion (see thread title) than something I would be dismissive of without knowing in detail what you were speaking of. I probably would argue for less intrusive interventions than "deleting highsec" if I were ever to become involved in such a debate and decided your position had some merit.

Dotlan can give you anecdotal evidence, but nothing conclusive.

Perhaps the best way to convince yourself one way or the other is to simply try the technique yourself the next time you are involved in a null-sec sov war. Just chose a system you know an alliance is using as their main base, then see what happens to activity in that system, and what happens to their member count (you can follow up individual pilots too on zkill).

However, you would only convince yourself. Hence my thinking devs should pull the relevant data and see if there is grounds for concern.

Like all of us here, I come to the table armed with opinion fuelled by anecdotal evidence.

I do however believe that the analytical argument is solid enough to warrant closer examination by CCP developers (who can generate robust data).

See, you, I and anyone else can "claim" whatever we want about sub numbers, unsubs, and all that ****.

But absolutely nothing you say creates any kind of imperative for study on CCP's part. First of all, they already track unsubs and the reasons for such. And they have repeatedly told a number of people to get bent for peddling precisely this kind of alarmism. (Falcon is on record for doing that a lot recently, in fact)

Not only will they do nothing, they should do nothing.

Not ulterior at all, you and Mike have both stated your goals. See my post above.

again with the "removal of content" ..... how comes nobody else experiences a non-blue in local as game-stopping, insurmountable, massively OP? I don't hear wormholers complaining, nor NPC space dwellers, nor lowseccers, or in fact anybody anywhere. Except ONE very specific group of people.

I cannot help but wonder why.

I know what you're trying to say, and I've wondered the same thing. Go read the bloody thread and you'll discover we've narrowed it down to SOLO PVE players in DEEP SOV NULLSEC.

What you are bringing to the table is entirely new information to me, and I find this information in contradiction with what I've personally seen out there. So before we go any further with that, you do understand a fair dose of scepticism is in order?

If what you claim is true -- more to the point: if the sov holders you refer to were not trying to PvE all by their self --, then I must assume they did try to go about their business with backup fleets and baiting tactics and gatecamps and PvP-capable ships and counterdrops and every other suggestion offered thus far. And yet, despite all this, they got hotdropped repeatedly, lost expensive stuff and found these 'counters' to be still insufficient? Further more, it is also implied that the same group of people on either side (eg. 38 guys on one team, 22 guys at the other end of the cyno in the other team) would probably have won that same war if it hadn't been for the cloaky camps?

On top of that, you assert that the cloakers were indeed camping around the clock, mostly AFK except when on the prowl? (after all, if they were dropping at random times day and night, they weren't AFK now, were they?)

If this is true, then we have a problem. Yet I don't think this is the case. Anecdotal evidence is just fine -- but please do elaborate on who was targeted, what this alliance tried to counter / dismiss the threat, and how this eventually led to the constellation dying, players unsubbing and the remainder of the alliance shamefully retreating in shambles. Sound a bit dramatic to me, but that's what you would investigate is it not?

I am open to listen to whatever new elements you bring to this discussing, and I hear what you try to say. It's just that I ain't buying any of it UNLESS you start telling us precisely what happened, how, where, how many etc.

Until then, the whole 190 pages before you stand testament to ONE guy in a desolate wasteland, with no alliance to back him up, unable to undock... all because of one neut. Go read it. You might change your mind -- I know I have. Look, I'm trying to hear you out, I really am; but you've got to give us something to work with. Nowhere else did anyone perceive neuts in system (maybe not cloaked, but docked up ... same effect, really) even remotely unbalanced. WHY is this a problem only in sovspace? Why don't you just drop a couple of Archons and save the day?

I don't know what staging systems you have in mind, but close to home we have a couple of those, and I'll turn into a tomato right here and now if there ain't between 60-100 guys in local. Why don't they rush to aid their unfortunate friend? Ill prepared? AFK? Didn't train Cynosural Fields to at least level 1? Didn't bring PvP equipment along when they claimed the constellation? (cowards?) ... I don't know man. It's your case to present so I'll leave you to it and I promise I will read it with an open mind.

Have a nice day,

Jerkoff,

Yeah a red in local is a red...but if he is cloaked in a venture he is about as threatening as a 90 year old in a rascal. If these pantywaists can't at least try and call a possible bluff they deserve what they get.

Jergens-Hand-Lotion*,

There you go again, that AFK cloaking not only leads to less people being online, but that they quite. But you have no evidence of this. I have already pointed out that a player who is PvP oriented has the option of leaving a ****** group of players and finding one that wont buckle under the stress of some impotent cloaked ventures. The die hard carebear can always retreat toHS and run missions and mine there. Personally I find the claim risible.

"Oh no...AFK cloakers killed my alliance! I must quit the game."

vs.

Finding a better alliance that can handle such a challenge,
Just settling into HS and making do with that.

Yep....load of horseshit in an attempt to get a self-serving change pushed through.

*Can you guys learn to spell my name right for a ******* change?

Jetblue,

I'd like to see an actual example of the use of this awesome sov war mechanic of AFK camping. Not like I haven't asked before.