Player Features and Ideas Discussion

First Bolding: Define productive. I have the same problem with you I have with the pvp'ers who think the only part of the game that matters is ship on ship pew pew. If a new player is out in null they very likely have been taken in by people who can help them with hardware to fly in consistent with their skill level until they have skilled up to productively supporting themself. It's not like T1 f/d/c are horribly expensive.

Second Bolding: If your understanding of the game is so good then how come you don't know CODE. can't hide behind CONCORD if they are -10.0? And for those few who are not red blinkies you can always wardec them. Or did your massive understanding miss that too? To misquote a certain American president, "BE THE POLICE YOU ARE LOOKING FOR!". I hear these people are looking for help.



Then how did you get station-camped in Jita? It's not like they have bubbles.

edited to save posts.

Let's take Bubbies idea to its logical conclusion. Why should ships be invulnerable to players, but still vulnerable to NPCs?

When safety is set to green, player ships should be 100% impervious to damage. This will surely get lots of former players to return.

You are looking at this the wrong way. Science works through falsification. You form a Hypothesis and calculate some predictions, then you check with facts if your hypothesis survives reality.

CCP had a hypothesis, just like the OP and many other carebears. Let's call it "The Carebear Hypothesis". Like OP, those carebears stated for years that the decline in numbers has a direct correlation with people like us driving players away from EVE with nonconsensual PvP. In fact they said that even before the decline. People like the OP are crying about this on the forums from day one when EVE was in beta.

Some people at CCP where also believers in "The Carebear Hypothesis", but they where in the unique position to verify/falsify the claim with actual data from new players who left the game. So they did and the presentation of CCP Rise shows the results. "The Carebear Hypothesis" was completely obliterated. The facts clearly show that the correlation OP and his carebear friends construct is false. The trend it shows is completely inverted to what carebears tell you, in fact the people who where on the receiving end of nonconsensual PvP where the most likely to stick around. This is the complete opposite of "The Carebear Hypothesis".

By the way, CCP also looked at the reason players stated about why they quit and did not just present a correlation. Less than 1% cited ship loss or harassment as the reason they left EVE.

I am just using the same study to remind the OP that the basis for his whiny thread is wrong. I am not the one making claims here and who constructs a correlation, but clearly the OP is and it is a correlation which has been shown to be wrong already.

And yes it only shows 80'000 players in their first 15 days. But OP was talking about new players and those are the player represented in the study. Obviously the next thing the carebear crowd is saying is that after the 15 days the data would show the complete opposite or like OP here, just completely disregard the study and pretend it is just wrong. They have no basis to claim this, it is completely absurd. They listen to the same gut feeling which already betrayed them and just try to spin some new carebear hypothesis.

Snipped a bunch out here to save forum space and because it is not needed.
To everything you have stated in this post I could point to the flaws in the review process, flaws that render the results nearly worthless as proof of either side of the argument.

So 1% left because non-consensual PvP that tells us nothing. To be able to put that into perspective we need to know how many of the 80,000 actually left a reason why they quit.
If all 80,000 left reasons why they quit and only 1% mentioned non-consensual PvP the numbers tell us that non-consensual PvP is not a problem with player retention.
On the other hand if only 800 players mentioned a reason why they quit and all 800 of them stated non-consensual PvP was one of the reasons they quit the numbers tell a radically different story.

In the end there are far to many questions on how the review was done, to many questions like the ones above left unanswered for the review to be worth anything. But the real question is simply this, even if (please note I said IF) the review had proven that non-consensual PvP was a major factor in player retention do you really think CCP would have mentioned it even in a dev blog much less make it part of a keynote speech at a player gathering?

Considering all things possible the survey and the results drawn from it are far from scientific and they prove nothing other than they are great marketing hype for CCP and continue to perpetuate a theory that do this day remains unproven.

Ima, I'm a little short on cash and I don't mine so there's no point..... but can I please get a permit now please?

I'm sold.

I think this is a good idea. Rather than the NPE 'opportunities', one well done video should do the trick.

As long as it isn't you that is lost who really cares right? As long as someone else is losing then its okay.


If you want to stop High Sector ganking go into Null Space and find a Neutral friendly region like Providence where CVA lives. There are the occasional Reds that come into system but if you dock up and deny them a target they go elsewhere.

The problem with High Sector Gankers is that there are targets everywhere and do not dock up because there is not a network that keeps track of CODE.

The only way to defeat CODE is to establish a constant network in and around the systems they gank from those who run missions and mine in the systems on a constant basis. Broadcasting in local that CODE is in system and is ganking will also help keep pilots informed and aware that gankers are in system.

If a gank occurs and the gank was not a result of CODE simply set all of the pilots involved with the gank and their corporation if they have one to - Red status. The next time they come into the system the system can be alerted to be on the lookout for them.

Praise Jammmmzzz nah, still can't do it- need more practice LOL

It takes a non-trivial amount of effort taking you seriously ...
... when your brain outputs something like this:

"If you want to stop High Sector ganking go into Null Space and find a Neutral friendly region like Providence where CVA lives. There are the occasional Reds that come into system but if you dock up and deny them a target they go elsewhere."

For the equally unaware: moving to null does not stop highsec ganking.

Had to log in at work to reply because this thread is ridiculous...

Full disclosure: this isn't my main. But now on to the real message.

I think I am one of the carebears you claim to want to protect and I strongly disagree with what you're putting forward. For the record, I've been playing this game since about mid 2012, I have never really PvP'd and most of what I do now is run missions, incursions, and industry in highsec. I also take the odd adventure to low/null/WH to explore or huff gas.

Ganking (whether in highsec or otherwise) is part of what makes Eve Online the game that it is today. It's not like other games where it's only about maximizing and optimizing to make money or do whatever PvE activity floats your boat, Eve Online is about working for what you have (ignoring PLEX) and Eve Online is about permanent loss. Permanent loss makes you think about what you're doing and it fuels the economy. Can you begin to imagine what would happen to the economy alone if you made people un-gankable in highsec?

You are proposing to essentially really dumb down this game. I'm a fan of making people think and I think games have been dumbing down far to much (Eve included to some extent) so I enjoy this game as a last bastion of games that weed out people who can't use their heads, people that aren't patient, people who expect stuff handed to them on a silver platter. One of the main reasons I love Eve is because it tends to discourage simpletons from playing. I don't want people who want to be able to just jump in and be the best at what they want and have no negative consequences; I'd rather CCP go bankrupt that cater to those people on the level that you are asking for. (Btw, props to CCP for having the balls not to give in so far).

If you're changes were implemented, you'd probably get a large surge of new players and then it'd drop off to next to nothing as there would no longer be anything that differentiated this game from any other game.

As a carebear, I'd quit Eve Online if what you propose were implemented. There are plenty of MMO's that offer what you are asking for, Eve Online not having these things is what makes it unique and it's why I love this game.