Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The problem is you are spouting nonsensical gibberish and completely failing to respond to actual criticisms or responses to what you have written. Your standard response is a snooty, “You just don’t grasp the concept I am spouting.”

Or you spout something like this:



First off, you basically admit that some level of implicit threat is good, part of what I have been saying. So it makes me wonder…who is having the comprehension problem. Second of all, WTFAYTA with volatility? And what does that have to do with the difficult of defining the chance of an undesirable outcome. To quote Inigo Montoya, I don’t think you know what that word (volatility) means. At least in how you mean it. A volatile situation is one where things can change quickly and for the worse. Having a hard time quantifying risk may or may not be volatile. For example, if I have a hard time quantifying risk…the underlying probability might be large or small which in turn would correspond to larger or smaller risk. Risk is a function of the probabilities and what is at stake. For example, if I am not sure if a gate is clear, if I undock in a velator and jump through the risk is low even if the probability is high I’ll get ganked, because a velator is nearly worthless. Or, to put it differently, even with a probability of 1, the risk is low because 1*0=0.

Or you belch forth this gem,



I’m sorry, but you were the one who stated that enduring implicit threats are horribly bad game design. And when you get caught out like this you then say, “Oh, well yeah. You see, I’ve evolved in my thought process and now I think ‘this’.” Removing implicit threats…or any threat is to reduce risk. Reducing implicit threats or any threats is to reduce risk. Pardon the f*ck out of me for reading your posts and actually taking your word at face value.

And yet again you vomit this onto the forums,



But we don’t even know if AFK cloaking is even causing any player attrition. It might make people leave a ****** alliance that can handle goobers cloaked in ventures (Hell, I’d leave too). But that does not mean they are leaving the game. And there are more risks in this game than just AFK cloaking. Risks and threats and the follow through on those risks and threats—i.e. PvP—is what makes this game so interesting for so many of us. Reducing that, in fact, could be one reason why players are leaving. Seriously, AFK cloaking is a small niche part of the game when one considers all the things they can do…but it is the problem with player retention?

And here you completely failed to grasp the point,



I am not saying having an NPC escort will not reduce risk. What I’m saying is that reduction in risk should be done by the players. Form your own damn escort, don’t go crying to CCP like a little girl with a skinned knee asking them to protect your stuff.

So here we have you contradicting yourself and basically expressing a shallow understanding of what is being discussed. Then you take a superior tone in your posts as if everyone else here but you is a blithering idiot. However, I think that most of us realize who the blithering idiot is.

Nothing. I'm thinking Jerghul is writing his posts using one of those post-modernist rhetoric generators.

Your semantic theories about the use of deconstructionist methods while discussing the hyperrealist view of force projection from an imperialist perspective is just flat out disingenuous.

And that time too, your argument was shot until there was nothing but a giant hole left of it. Then you reposted it without a care in the world. It is very disrespectful towards your collocutors.

You haven't actually ran any gas sites or Arkonor belts, have you? Imagine those neutralizer batteries and towers and shenannigans were on your side, why, you'd simply warp in a Prospect and start mining away I presume?

Wrong again. So much wrong. Must ... restrain ... myself

Actually, since you're blue to the rats now I guess you don't need to hack firewalls or scan down relic sites either? I mean, being good chums they'll provide you with bookmarks and access codes - problem solved!

How about this novel idea then? Every hour you're logged in and not playing one of the other games in your Steam library, CCP pays you 20 mil ISK. For purpose of player retention and all. Would that be satisfactory?

Feel free to use the report function so moderators can review the last few pages of this thread if you feel the way I classified your argument was in any way hurtful (really, no angel faces?)

Ahhh. Wrong type of thinking, I’m afraid. Games of chance have very well defined probabilities and probability distributions. Here we don’t.

A player cloaked in a system is either AFK or he is not. When he is AFK the threat level is zero. When he is not the threat level is not zero. As for other people in the system the probabilities are completely subjective. For a player who defaults to docking up and logging or going AFK himself he has, implicitly, set the probability of not being AFK to 1. This is typically what Mike does, for example. In the past, when faced with the problem I looked the name in local up, looked up the corporation, etc. And set a probability much lower. Low enough that I undocked and ratted away. So while your concept of volatility might be useful, I’m just not seeing it.

Further, I still don’t see a problem. This is the kind of thing that makes the game more challenging if not even fun. Knowing that you are defeating the AFK cloaker (if his goal is to deny resources) by ratting in a fleet and getting even more resources…that is good game play. My alliance did this on a deployment to Outer Ring. The locals pretty much docked up so we’d undock in PvP fits, our scanner would scan down various sites and we’d run them in our PvP ships, about 10-15 of us. We’d burn them down surprisingly fast and the idea was we’d get something, the locals wouldn’t and we had fun doing. And even though this was their staging system they never tried to mess with us they showed up in local, but there we were PvEing away.

Sure. In some cases it can be high, in others not so much. I think you forgot a very popular word in the English language, ‘can’. It can have a big psychological impact. But back when I was ratting with an AFK camper in system with me in Cloud Ring…apparently it wasn’t big enough.


Other than that you have nothing to back it up with, and noting that there are other things a player can do in game. That is the beauty of things like jump clones. “Oh, system camped, nobody else on…damn, I’ll JC into HS and run missions or incursions, or…[insert other activites].”



Translation: Everything you've written is speculation piled on top of too small a sample--i.e. pretty much useless.



Yes, I know. I even said that, and it is still ****** game design as it is something the players should do. If a miner is facing too much risk…then find a way to deal with it. Get more people out there with you. Don’t ask CCP to hold your hand.

I defined the impact as something that caused to high player attrition. Thus firmly delegating it to devs to quantify and make calls. Its a big numbers game, so they will get it right (statistics has a way of dealing with "can").

I actually did a decent analysis based on uncertain premise. Which is why you keep returning to the premise. Which we know is weak as we do not have the data. Note my use of we. Anecdotal evidence changes nothing.

Yes, I think we have grasped that you are not fond of PvE-PvP integration. I think we also know I find it intriguing. Yay us and our differences in opinion.

Edit
Incidentally, I am inviting you to consider why you think a few belt rats blue to a miner amount to "holding hands" in any meaningful sense of the word (I defined the example in a way that voids the isk/hr counterargument).

The answer I think you will find rests in the uncertainty it creates for the would be attacker. Or it amounts to transferring implicit risk from the miner to the attacker.

Do you feel deterred? Do you think it would amount to a statistical deterrent where pvp pilots would avoid systems where rats are being paid ransoms by sov holders?

Assuming that which should be proven is just sloppy thinking. No point to read any further as it all hinges on an unsupported claim.

Further, why was player attrition "high" back in 2009 or 2010...you know that stretch of time you were in an NPC corp, and probably not playing the game?