These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Every year, there are less users playing, why??

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Paranoid Loyd
#961 - 2016-08-04 01:19:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Paranoid Loyd
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Well one of my corp mates got ganked in a T2 fitted T3D and it had no tank as it was a kiting ship and they did not make a profit out of that. Working as intended...

Seems more like lying as usual.
It is known that is a straight up lie.

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!
Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#962 - 2016-08-04 01:44:01 UTC
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:
@ Loyd: The entire conversation came up because baltec was whining (once again) about how unprofitable ganking mining barges is, and how it is unbalanced compared to any other t2 fit ship. This was a clear attempt to gather pity and, presumably, to convince CCP that they should take pity on the gankers and nerf mining barge hp... Otherwise it would seem to be utterly random and I don't know why you would even be talking about it - let alone defending it so adamantly.
Again, in the context of what I posted, nothing Baltec said is relevant. I was not arguing about that , I was pointing out disingenuous posting after confirming facts. If you can't separate that context from this, you are simply not being objective and the conversation can't possibly be productive.

Well then perhaps I mistakenly lumped you in with some others - in which case I apologize.

As I say, I've hung out (in game) with quite a few gankers - and I know most of them do not wish to be seen as victims and are not trying to get pity or anything of the sort.

This makes it all the more annoying however when the vocal minority on the forums continually whines about nerfs and how hard this or that is about ganking in the modern EVE etc... And ultimately Baltec (among others) seems to be posting more and more along those lines lately.

But as I say yes, I shouldn't have lumped you in with them - thus far your posts have not gone that way for the most part.



That being said - I'm not sure this conversation ever had any chance of being productive... 95% of the people talking (on all sides) have their heads shoved so far up their own ***es they can't even read what anybody else is writing anymore. Possibly including myself at times P But nobody here is going to convince anybody else to change their current viewpoints...Everyone is just yelling at each other venting frustrations at this point. As usual.

The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal.

Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)
Paranoid Loyd
#963 - 2016-08-04 02:28:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Paranoid Loyd
Oh trust me I'm not saying some gankers are not whiners, I've collected my fair share of ganker tears, I'm not even saying Baltec shouldn't be perceived as a whiner, but the difference between the gankers you are trying to lump Baltec in with is that he knows what he is talking about. He might not get every fact exactly right and when numbers are quoted they can always more or less be disputed with cherry picked examples, but the difference between most of the whiners and Baltec is he actually does his homework and has experienced the changes from both sides of the coin, and it shows. Unless you truly understand ganking in and out from both sides you really can't tell and most of the people who dispute what he says do not know whether or not he is on point and try to discredit him when they in reality have no idea what they are talking about, operate 99% off hearsay and/or have only experienced one side of the coin.

Dirty Forum Alt wrote:
That being said - I'm not sure this conversation ever had any chance of being productive...
I was speaking about our conversation (you have the ability to at least try to be objective), I gave up hope a long time ago about a thread like this actually being anything besides a vent.

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#964 - 2016-08-04 02:41:42 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Galaxy Chicken wrote:
I checked in on this thread when it was only a few pages long and was disappointed that it had not yet descended into "gankers are killing EVE!!1 abloo, abloo bloo"

I'm glad to see that this thread has matured.


Actually its not what I was saying mate, I was talking about he lack of balance with gankers making it so casual hisec get fed up and leave the game. There will still be people like you running around. Will be interesting to see just how the "content" develops when it is only players like you. Will be damn funny to watch actually...


I think you must have missed the part where CODE was (allegedly?) being sponsored by goons to do the dirty work. Hundreds of billions later, if not trillions, you can hardly quantify that as casual. It shows a degree of organisation and efficiency that is a rare beast in these parts.

Crying on behalf of highseccers everywhere is useless, they're the most disjointed and weak non-group out there. Like trying to codify all gazelles on the savannah as belonging to the same herd instead of the truth that most of them belong to nothing and nothing is their lot in life.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#965 - 2016-08-04 04:47:03 UTC
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:
@Teckos: I thought you didn't approve of idiocy? And yet here you are applauding people who have supposedly done the math and determined that they could be getting (by their own numbers) 50 million isk in *pure profit* ganking the hordes of idiots in literally any t2 fit ship other than a mining ship....Yet they are so stupid they choose to gank *the only idiots in EVE* whom they actually lose money ganking...Rather than leaving them to the bumpers (who don't have to spend a single isk on the endeavor - but still prevent them from mining)... Why is this particular brand of idiocy Teckos approved?


Where am I applauding or approving?

And I don't approve of idiocy, but I'm also not going to stop someone from being an idiot if they insist on it. I do think that if somebody insists on being an idiot they have no right to come here and demand changes and have those demands acted upon.

"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
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#966 - 2016-08-04 05:16:12 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
I don't know man. Couple of pages ago he claimed a catalyst can solo HACs and strategic cruisers.
Then he doubled-back and said it had to be failfit; proceeded to assert anything sub-battleship with cargoextenders and T2 mods is profitable to gank- also false.

Not one to give up easily, he then come up with "AHA! But how about this Tornado- that's profitable right?" and while I don't disagree it's perhaps profitable (if you don't take :opportunity cost: into account, amirite?), it's not nearly as profitable as he claimed it to be. Like one eighth.

Now if you insist to take a notoriously no-tank ship and insist I fit it expensive on purpose, I don't even know what he's arguing. But it's nowhere near "anything below battleship", that's for sure. And he sure as hell won't be soloing it either.

From such a big name (the man has a doctrine named after him for crying out loud), member of the infamous Pandemic Legion, I was expecting less bullsht. I know some of you are here for popcorn but imagine for a second someone here didn't know any better and bought it all, hook line and sinker?

I don't argue when facts or personal experience support the claim, but I had to call him out on this. It's just false. All of it. You can dance around the subject some more but that won't make it true. Back to the basics: IF it were profitable YOU WOULD DO IT. Simple as that. It's a load of baloney.

You didn't expect me to formulate an argument in his place did you? Those are his goalposts that keep throttling around. Slippery devils they are, those ECCM nano goals.


The loot drop for a tornado with t2 guns and mods is about 25 million on average. You can expect to spend 10 million on thrashers. So you could make a small profit by ganking them. It isn't super awesome, but it could be at least self-sustaining. If they are using meta guns you'll loose out.

Now, if you were to gank my mining alt in a skiff, you simply cannot make a profit, IMO. You could do it but with catalysts you'd need 15 of them. That is doing to cost you 120 million ISK which is not quite 4x the expected loot drop.

A half-assed fit skiff is not wroth ganking. Even a skiff without a tank won't be profitable.

This is why when I looked for skiff ganks for July 26 I found precisely...zero.

"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
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#967 - 2016-08-04 05:49:03 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:

A half-assed fit skiff is not wroth ganking. Even a skiff without a tank won't be profitable.

This is why when I looked for skiff ganks for July 26 I found precisely...zero.


Nor did we find any zealots, eagles, huginns, hurricanes, tornadoes or omens ganked (to name a few). Over several days. AT ALL.

What was ganked, were mackinaws, retrievers, covetors, T1 industrials, an exequror, a venture, a crucifier, a handful of freighters and to my surprise even a rokh.

The target selection speaks volumes, really: profit has very little to do with it. Sometimes the loot fairy smiles, true. Your point?
Gadget Helmsdottir
Gadget's Workshop
#968 - 2016-08-04 05:58:54 UTC
I think the current exchange rate is 1 tear for 102157689 ISK.
It fluctuates though.

--*Banker Gadget








*not a banker

Work smarter, not harder. --Scrooge McDuck, an eminent old-Earth economist

Given an hour to save New Eden, how would respected scientist, Albertus Eisenstein compose his thoughts? "Fifty-five minutes to define the problem; save the galaxy in five."
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#969 - 2016-08-04 06:16:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
It is so amusing to see them ask me to link a kill mail when they know I cannot link it due to forum rules

As for those dingbats saying 30m dropped, well we were talking about T2 fit, so if you stake the 25m value of the Nanite Repair Paste out of the value dropped it is 4.2m.

And this is the issue with gankes and ganker aligned players you spin so much you get so dizzy, then you come out with less than smart one liners that anyone with a brain can see is rubbish.


Brokk, when I detailed this freighter wreck EHP buff, I did so mainly because they the gankers were crying about the buff to the freighter EHP due to the DCU II adjustment which cannot be used on freighters in any case. They completely ignored the freighter wreck buff. And of course they would because of how they went about it. One of the reasons for engaging with these people is to show their bull, they get a buff to their trade but still call nerf.

Also they seem to think I want to make it safe for stupid people, nope, its all about game balance so its not such an easy cake walk for them due to reasons I posted earlier in the thread.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#970 - 2016-08-04 06:40:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Shae Tadaruwa
Dracvlad wrote:
It is so amusing to see them ask me to link a kill mail when they know I cannot link it due to forum rules.

Doesn't matter, what anyone asks for. You never link evidence of any kind anyway. Forum rules have nothing to do with it. Lack of evidence is why you don't link anything.

You just lie and squeal your tears all over the place.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
Paranoid Loyd
#971 - 2016-08-04 06:52:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Paranoid Loyd
Right Drac you say I'm twisting the story, the evidence is right on the killmail, you brought that fit into the discussion, it doesn't work without the green afterburner so if that qualifies as a T2 fit you are completely ignoring the fact that it cost 25 mil and could have just as easily dropped. The amount of paste he was carrying was certainly questionable if you are a penny pincher but if you're not, it's not really that unreasonable and is also part of the fit. The fact of the matter is, it was a profitable gank.

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#972 - 2016-08-04 07:11:21 UTC
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
Right Drac you say I'm twisting the story, the evidence is right on the killmail, you brought that fit into the discussion, it doesn't work without the green afterburner so if that qualifies as a T2 fit you are completely ignoring the fact that it cost 25 mil and could have just as easily dropped. The amount of paste he was carrying was certainly questionable if you are a penny pincher but if you're not, it's not really that unreasonable and is also part of the fit. The fact of the matter is, it was a profitable gank.


That was the only one to hand, it had no tank and was largely T2 fit, the fact is that had it been a T2 AB that would be about 2.4m.

The fact is that the T2 fit would not have given a profit, and I have always said it is the cargo that matters, and you just agreed with me on that subject. There is nothing wrong in making profit from the cargo, but to expect to make a profit from a T2 fit ship is just wrong.

It was profitable due to the cargo, simple as that.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#973 - 2016-08-04 07:55:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:

A half-assed fit skiff is not wroth ganking. Even a skiff without a tank won't be profitable.

This is why when I looked for skiff ganks for July 26 I found precisely...zero.


Nor did we find any zealots, eagles, huginns, hurricanes, tornadoes or omens ganked (to name a few). Over several days. AT ALL.

What was ganked, were mackinaws, retrievers, covetors, T1 industrials, an exequror, a venture, a crucifier, a handful of freighters and to my surprise even a rokh.

The target selection speaks volumes, really: profit has very little to do with it. Sometimes the loot fairy smiles, true. Your point?


But how often do HACs run around with no tank?

I believe the criteria that baltec used was you fit the zealot with a t2 fit and then filled the lows with cargo expanders...wow...you found no kills like that. That tells us....what I don't have a clue, but probably not what you think it does.

Anyhow, such a zealot would have, on average a 5.5 million loot drop with an EHP (with my skills) of 9,059. So yeah, a ship like that could be easily ganked by a single catalyst....and not make a profit if we look at just the modules.

But comparing it to say the skiff, it has a **** tank out of the box, with a half ass tank, and with the best tank you could fit on a zealot with implants, boosts, and anything else you can think of in looking at EHP. Compared to the skiff it does not have anywhere near the same tank....which I believe was baltec's primary point. One could argue that sig tanking is a possibility with the zealot, but EHP wise there does seem to be alot more tank on skiffs than what is considered a fairly tanky HAC. Baltec's point that the skiff has been pretty much "pre fit" to have an awesome tank is not without some basis. Maybe he is still wrong--i.e. the skiff should have that kind of a tank.

"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
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#974 - 2016-08-04 08:10:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Teckos Pech wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:


Not really, it's just being specific and sticking with what the gaming industry has considered game content to be for several years now.


Sure. We can break it down, IMO, as content provided by CCP--e.g. missions.

Then there is content the players provide such as a fight between two or more players. What players do provide different levels of content for others.

Quote:
DLC (downloadable content) and content expansions are stuff the developers add to the game. Players simply use/interact with that content, they are not content creators. The closest thing to content creation in Eve is the development of third party apps.


By this narrow definition the bulk of the Eve patches have very little content. CCP has not seeded a single citadel for example. When a "new ship is added to the game" it is not added by CCP, not literally. The blueprint is, or a process to get a blueprint copy, but it takes a player to actually introduce these new ships.

So yes, you have a limited view of "content". If you are looking for "content" from CCP yes you'll be disappointed and leave. But then again this was never the game for you.


You miss the point. There is already a word for players fighting each other... it is called "fighting" so why do eve players feel the need to call it creating content. All they are doing is playing the game using the in-game content provided by CCP. Is a chess player creating content simply be moving the pieces around the board?!

I agree that ccp have created very little content over the last few expansions. The last set of expansions can be described as polish/improvement of existing content and features. By simply adding citadels and ships to the game, CCP add the content.

It is stupid to describe what CCP add and what players add as both being content. It is just your oversimplification of the word due to a limited vocabulary. By your definition even chatting to someone in local is content... which is really dumb.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#975 - 2016-08-04 08:19:51 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:


But how often do HACs run around with no tank?

I believe the criteria that baltec used was you fit the zealot with a t2 fit and then filled the lows with cargo expanders...wow...you found no kills like that. That tells us....what I don't have a clue, but probably not what you think it does.

Anyhow, such a zealot would have, on average a 5.5 million loot drop with an EHP (with my skills) of 9,059. So yeah, a ship like that could be easily ganked by a single catalyst....and not make a profit if we look at just the modules.

But comparing it to say the skiff, it has a **** tank out of the box, with a half ass tank, and with the best tank you could fit on a zealot with implants, boosts, and anything else you can think of in looking at EHP. Compared to the skiff it does not have anywhere near the same tank....which I believe was baltec's primary point. One could argue that sig tanking is a possibility with the zealot, but EHP wise there does seem to be alot more tank on skiffs than what is considered a fairly tanky HAC. Baltec's point that the skiff has been pretty much "pre fit" to have an awesome tank is not without some basis. Maybe he is still wrong--i.e. the skiff should have that kind of a tank.


Thats exactly my point and what this conversation is about. Once again the usual suspects are moving goalposts and changing arguments as I show facts to try and confuse the conversation. Its no wonder I have to keep on posting the same things over and over when these people ignore what was posted and decide to go off on a tangent because they simple cannot keep within the context of the argument.

So lets bring this back to what I said, the barge lineup is poorly balanced because CCP decided to pre fit barges which means they are both out of whack with each other and the rest of the ships in EVE. Yes, you can profitably gank most T2 fitted subcaps below battleships if they fit like miners do (no tank) which is partly why the skiff and procurer are out of whack.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#976 - 2016-08-04 08:24:05 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:

It is stupid to describe what CCP add and what players add as both being content. It is just your oversimplification of the word due to a limited vocabulary. By your definition even chatting to someone in local is content... which is really dumb.

So sorry the burst your bubble but you are nothing but a player




CCP didn't bring the interdictions, players did. CCP didn't organise and run burn jita events, players did. CCP didnt turn around and say ok we are now going to run the fall of the Imperium, players did that.

This is a sandbox game, the whole idea behind it is that players make the content and they can be more than "just another player".
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#977 - 2016-08-04 08:36:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
baltec1 wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:

It is stupid to describe what CCP add and what players add as both being content. It is just your oversimplification of the word due to a limited vocabulary. By your definition even chatting to someone in local is content... which is really dumb.

So sorry the burst your bubble but you are nothing but a player




CCP didn't bring the interdictions, players did. CCP didn't organise and run burn jita events, players did. CCP didnt turn around and say ok we are now going to run the fall of the Imperium, players did that.


Non of that is in-game content - it's player activity/event.

Content is physical (in a digital world scene), it is something that exists irrespective of what a person does with it.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#978 - 2016-08-04 08:37:06 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:


You miss the point. There is already a word for players fighting each other... it is called "fighting" so why do eve players feel the need to call it creating content. All they are doing is playing the game using the in-game content provided by CCP. Is a chess player creating content simply be moving the pieces around the board?!


No, I got your point. You are using a very narrow definition. Yes, fighting can lead to content in this game. It makes the game interesting and fun, that is content at its most simple form. Further, Eve is not like chess in that in chess, there isn't much to do other than "fight" and it is not a game that will give you surprises like you can find in other games. In chess there is nothing hidden. You know where all of your opponents pieces are. In a game with where things can be hidden you can have outcomes that were not anticipated. Consider the two games:

1. In chess you know everything about your opponent and he knows everything about you. In Eve that is probably not true.
2. In chess there are predefined movements and you each tack turns. In Eve there are no predefined movements and you can and often do act simultaneously.
3. There is not much room for innovation in chess. In Eve if you do something nobody has thought of before you can gain an advantage.

And here is an example in game, anti-ganking. There is nothing in the game to point to this kind of an outcome. Yet some players have responded to the act of ganking by working together in an attempt to counter ganking. It is an example of spontaneous order.

Another example is Eve Uni. There was no mechanic that would assure or prevent players from coming up with such a thing in game.

Another was Hulkageddon. There were not mechanics or anything from CCP that would have lead to players organizing such a competition.

Eve is about spontaneous order. Chess is not.

"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
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#979 - 2016-08-04 08:38:35 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:

It is stupid to describe what CCP add and what players add as both being content. It is just your oversimplification of the word due to a limited vocabulary. By your definition even chatting to someone in local is content... which is really dumb.

So sorry the burst your bubble but you are nothing but a player




CCP didn't bring the interdictions, players did. CCP didn't organise and run burn jita events, players did. CCP didnt turn around and say ok we are now going to run the fall of the Imperium, players did that.


Non of that is in-game content


Sure was content for me....in game. I was at several Burn Jita events. I fought in the war that brought down the Imperium. So yeah, it sure was content 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
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#980 - 2016-08-04 08:42:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Teckos Pech wrote:

Non of that is in-game content


Sure was content for me....in game. I was at several Burn Jita events. I fought in the war that brought down the Imperium. So yeah, it sure was content for me.[/quote]

No it was an entertaining activity for you.

Keep calling it content all you like but it is not that.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...