EVE General Discussion

If ganking was causing players to quit then why was the EVE population rising at it fastest rate when ganking was far easier than today?

Why is it that as safety in highsec has gone up we have seen player retention falling?

Because it was a younger game still in it's natural growth cycle. You're literally stating that you think masses of people only stayed playing this game because gankers exist, and you provide absolutely no evidence to that.

Why is it global temperatures are increasing as the number of pirates is diminishing? Two completely unrelated statistics and the desperation of people to draw causal links where none exist, that's why.

Want some advice? Arguing with Lucas isn't going to get you anywhere. You can throw all the facts you want in his face. You can show him indisputable evidence. He's still going to keep arguing for his narrow-minded point of view and will try to proof you wrong.

What facts and what indisputable evidence, I have seen none, nothing, zero. If you are relying on that 1% comment then I have a courier contract to a citadel you can do for me...

I want to see more balance brought to ganking so it's less of an extreme problem,

Actually it turns out if you interact you play longer, that doesn't have to involve shooting or being shot, simply being in a player corp extends playtime. This is why one of the other things I believe CCP should be looking at is the ridiculous state of wardecs that effectively renders highsec corps unusable. Additionally, PvP doesn't require ganking. They've added citadels in an effort to boost conflict and I imagine they will add more methods of generating conflict going forwards. while I see ganking as something that should stay in game it should by no means be the primary driver for highsec conflict.

What's this 'improve HS' BS?

Why is that even a measure?

Pirates go where the money is. If you want gankers to move to low, null and WH space then you have to move the trade lanes to low, null and WH space.

No. Because just about everyone is risk averse.

When a player moves a titan he just does not jump around willy nilly. He scouts, and lights a cyno and jumps at the very last second. In other words he is mitigating risk.

If I have to move a couple billion ISK that takes up 2,500m3 I get out the crane. It is fast, can cloak, and is nearly impossible to catch. Of course I am being risk averse.

Risk aversion provides the challenge in the game. Stalking that guy moving his titan, spending days even weeks...that is becuase of risk aversion.

Do you just randomly fit stuff to your ships? No? Why you are risk averse. Isn't that bad? (Rhetorical question)

Risk aversion is a feature not a bug.

If you know you can get ganked and if you know you will be more likely to be ganked with 8 billion in your obelisk, and you know that not having a scout increases your risk...you are risk seeking. In which case when you get ganked. Congratulations you found the risk you were looking for.

If a player engages in risk seeking behavior in game and only in game, well good on him (no really he has found a relatively benign release for that behavior). Out of game, I pitty the person's family and loved ones as such people are often highly destructive.

In a game like this, your level of risk is at least partly in your hands.

Do I dislike gankers? No. They serve a useful purpose, they impose risk on those who are seeking it on purpose or through ignorance.

So because you can't force people to play smart you penalize those who do. Yes, a brilliant strategy.

How is that evidence of anything? The CCP presentation noted a few things. First, half of the crowd though ganking was a cause of new players quitting. Second, the results of their analysis said otherwise. Third, check your assumptions.

You still believe the first, you are not grasping their results as baltec notes (when 85.5% left the game earlier and have not engaged in PvP you want to focus on the less than 1% who cite ship loss as the reason), and you are not revisiting your assumptions.

And ganking is easy? Let me see we have a group of people who have set up comms, logistics to get the ships where they need to be, bumpers, scouts, etc. vs. some guy not using even another person.

1. Yes, I'm sure that people that interact stay longer. However, interaction is not going to have you staying for very long. Of the people I have started out with (about 10 of us) only 2 have stayed and those 2 actively sought out PvP. The rest did not and in fact sought to avoid it.

2. No PvP does not require ganking, but ganking is a form of PvP. And based on the analysis by CCP those ganked stayed the longest of all groups in their study.

3. Citadels are proving to reduce conflict in some ways, look at using citadels to move capitals and even super capitals.

4. Ganking is one of the few remaining forms of conflict for HS.

Is it just me or is this alot like those statistics that Gevlon Goblin posts on his website? Drawing nonsensical conclusions from two statistics with a dubious connection.

I didn't say it was a rise. Are yo uactually reading before you ragepsot or are you just mashing your fists into your keyboard while chowing down on cheesy poofs? HS PvP combat went down 12%, HS jumps went down 23%, therefore the amount of HS PvP combat went down at a lower rate and thus as a relative statistic, the amount of PvP per jump went up. What that shows is the more PvP there is per player, the less players there are, and since you seem to think correlation and causation are the same, more PvP causes less activity.