These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Privateering License as a concept for ISk sinking/Eve income

First post
Author
Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#41 - 2016-10-31 15:58:55 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
NO to the OP idea, we do not need an unrestricted killing license for high sec and that is exactly what this would become.

It is good to see that both sides of ganking / war decs versus player retention argument continues with blinders firmly in place as usual. The data given at fan fest proves nothing with regards to ganking / war decs and there affects on player retention positive or negative. I could go on for pages with the reasons why but most of you would not believe me even if I did and to be honest this neither the place nor the time to go into them.

But do you have hard data (preferably collected from a reputable source) to go with your pages of ramblings?

Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Noragens basically the Chribba of C&P - Zimmy Zeta

Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop

ISD Buldath favorite ISD

'"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King Griffin

Lan Wang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#42 - 2016-10-31 16:38:12 UTC
allowing -10.0 players to sit in jita popping wardeccers sounds great

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#43 - 2016-10-31 19:24:23 UTC
Sitting Bull Lakota wrote:
Remove faction police from highsec. <-5.0 Players could travel freely in highsec with their hard earned perma-pvp flags. They could engage eachother anywhere and be valid targets for the rest of highsec's population.

That would open highsec up to more violence without making it overly dangerous for those who don't wish to partake.

It's my general opinion that both faction police and faction navies have an overall negative affect on the game. They do literally nothing other than prevent PVP by harassing players that would otherwise be targets for other players.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#44 - 2016-10-31 20:16:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Donnachadh wrote:
NO to the OP idea, we do not need an unrestricted killing license for high sec and that is exactly what this would become.

It is good to see that both sides of ganking / war decs versus player retention argument continues with blinders firmly in place as usual. The data given at fan fest proves nothing with regards to ganking / war decs and there affects on player retention positive or negative. I could go on for pages with the reasons why but most of you would not believe me even if I did and to be honest this neither the place nor the time to go into them.


The analysis at fanfest supports the claim that ganking is not bad for new players. In fact, it suggests exactly the opposite.

You are correct that it proves nothing, but here is the thing, you can't prove claims like that. Proofs take place in mathematical and pure logic systems. When it comes to empirical work and hypotheses, you cannot prove them like you would a mathematical theorem. Instead, what you do is look at the evidence and evaluate the relative validity of different hypotheses.

For example, the hypotheses:

H1: Ganking is bad for new players.
H2: Ganking is not bad for new players.

Then you'd evaluate the efficacy of these hypotheses relative to the data. A very common way of doing this is problematically, that is we'd evaluate the probabilities:

Pr(H1|E) and,
Pr(H2|E).

Further, if we not that H2 is the negation of H1, we can re-write it as,

Pr(H1|E),
Pr(~H1|E).

And we can make use of Bayes theorem,

Pr(H1|E) = P(E|H1)*Pr(H1)/Pr(E).

That is how likely is the evidence, E, given that H1 is true. And Pr(H1) is the initial subjective probability that H1 is true, which should not be either 0 or 1.

Thus, given that H1 is true, ganking is bad for new players, how likely is it that we'd see that players who are ganked stay in game the longest our of all the players in the sample? We should expect such evidence to be unlikely--i.e. small. Thus, the left hand side should decline in value.

Conversely we'd expect P(E|~H1) to be higher, thus, irrespective of your initial prior probability of H1, you should move more towards accepting ganking is not bad for new players. If you refuse to accept this without some valid reason there is a word that describes you: dogmatist.

In short, barring some sort of big blunder on CCP's part, of which we have not a shred of evidence to support this, after that fanfest presentation people should be less inclined to view ganking in a negative light when it comes to new players. If you want to continue to hold onto your initial beliefs despite this evidence you are simply being dogmatic in your views.

"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

cpu939
Eternal Darkness.
The Initiative.
#45 - 2016-10-31 20:18:27 UTC
if we have this could we also get the Anti-Privateering License where by no one in eve can loak and fire on you in say highsec
Morgan Agrivar
Doomheim
#46 - 2016-10-31 21:54:49 UTC
cpu939 wrote:
if we have this could we also get the Anti-Privateering License where by no one in eve can loak and fire on you in say highsec

No.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#47 - 2016-10-31 22:25:53 UTC
Morgan Agrivar wrote:
cpu939 wrote:
if we have this could we also get the Anti-Privateering License where by no one in eve can loak and fire on you in say highsec

No.


How about no to both.

"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

Morgan Agrivar
Doomheim
#48 - 2016-11-02 21:10:34 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Morgan Agrivar wrote:
cpu939 wrote:
if we have this could we also get the Anti-Privateering License where by no one in eve can loak and fire on you in say highsec

No.


How about no to both.

Agreed. How difficult is it to understand that this game is a PvP game? If I can lock up an 'innocent' ship in highsec and cycle guns quickly and blow up that ship before CONCORD shows up, don't you think the devs designed it that way and that is what they wanted?

Now I know ganking has been nerfhammered into the ground but the basics of it is still around. CCP doesn't want conflict to stop occuring in highsec or they would have already removed it. Conflict is good and keeps the circlulation going and the paranoia at a certain level to ensure the person at the keyboard is alive.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#49 - 2016-11-02 21:35:16 UTC
Morgan Agrivar wrote:

Agreed. How difficult is it to understand that this game is a PvP game? If I can lock up an 'innocent' ship in highsec and cycle guns quickly and blow up that ship before CONCORD shows up, don't you think the devs designed it that way and that is what they wanted?

Now I know ganking has been nerfhammered into the ground but the basics of it is still around. CCP doesn't want conflict to stop occuring in highsec or they would have already removed it. Conflict is good and keeps the circlulation going and the paranoia at a certain level to ensure the person at the keyboard is alive.

Congratulations, you have won the 'failing to understand sarcasm & trolling' award of the day.
You are attacking someone making an obviously stupid suggestion to highlight how stupid the OP's suggestion was.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#50 - 2016-11-02 21:44:02 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
...Maths blurb...


I haven't seen the presentation and haven't the time to watch it. Could you summarize the stats in numbers please:

How many new players per month?
How many stay in game?
How many who stayed were ganked?
How many who left were ganked?
How many who stayed said it was because they were ganked?
How many who left said it was because they were ganked?

That would give a clear view of whether ganking is toxic or not.

To be clear I am neither pro or anti ganking, just interested in the numbers.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#51 - 2016-11-02 22:43:31 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:


To be clear I am neither pro or anti ganking, just interested in the numbers.

Don't think CCP gave out actual numbers.
To summarise what I recall from the video.

CCP said that those that stayed to 30 days tended to have engaged in some form of PvP more than those who left.
I don't recall them splitting out the types of PvP to show any trend towards ganking.
I also don't recall them doing any analysis of hours played, what the average trend of hours to first PvP experience was, or isolating any form of conditions.

Basically it was a meaningless statistic they touted since they didn't actually compare appropriately. Since they included all the people who played 30 minutes then never came back in the group who 'left & didn't PvP'. And we have no idea how big any of those groups are.

They also didn't look at the 2-3 month range of players who are probably where the bigger losses to ganking are, since that's where someone has scrapped together enough to be really worth ganking if they really are new, but often hasn't learnt about ganking yet.

But yes, it's unlikely that ganking as a general act actually causes any relative harm to the community. Toxic behaviours inside the ganking community might, but there is a toxic subgroup in pretty much all the play styles who take things too far.
Deckel
Island Paradise
#52 - 2016-11-03 00:00:04 UTC
There is only one additional target that I think this so called privateer license could realistically open up. Currently even without performing any hostile actions, if a pilot has a security rating less than -5 they can be attacked on sight. What the privateer license should open up is pvp access to the pilots that have a security status less than 0 as well.

Paying for a so called privateer license would then open up a range of new targets that can be hunted in high sec.

For this system it may be necessary to purchase multiple licenses as security ratings are based upon empire standings within the 4 factions, so naturally each faction would manage their own privateers.
Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#53 - 2016-11-03 00:12:23 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:


To be clear I am neither pro or anti ganking, just interested in the numbers.

Don't think CCP gave out actual numbers.
To summarise what I recall from the video.

CCP said that those that stayed to 30 days tended to have engaged in some form of PvP more than those who left.
I don't recall them splitting out the types of PvP to show any trend towards ganking.
I also don't recall them doing any analysis of hours played, what the average trend of hours to first PvP experience was, or isolating any form of conditions.

Basically it was a meaningless statistic they touted since they didn't actually compare appropriately. Since they included all the people who played 30 minutes then never came back in the group who 'left & didn't PvP'. And we have no idea how big any of those groups are.

They also didn't look at the 2-3 month range of players who are probably where the bigger losses to ganking are, since that's where someone has scrapped together enough to be really worth ganking if they really are new, but often hasn't learnt about ganking yet.

But yes, it's unlikely that ganking as a general act actually causes any relative harm to the community. Toxic behaviours inside the ganking community might, but there is a toxic subgroup in pretty much all the play styles who take things too far.

How about you watch it before spouting nonsense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A92Ge2S8M1Y

Now we can all argue on what wasn't there but lets face it they quite clearly lay out the % of those who were engaged in legal and illegal PvP and than stated which group had higher retention. People who canceled accounts cited ship loss as their reason for leaving >1% of the time

Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Noragens basically the Chribba of C&P - Zimmy Zeta

Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop

ISD Buldath favorite ISD

'"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King Griffin

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#54 - 2016-11-03 01:00:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
...Maths blurb...


I haven't seen the presentation and haven't the time to watch it. Could you summarize the stats in numbers please:

How many new players per month?
How many stay in game?
How many who stayed were ganked?
How many who left were ganked?
How many who stayed said it was because they were ganked?
How many who left said it was because they were ganked?

That would give a clear view of whether ganking is toxic or not.

To be clear I am neither pro or anti ganking, just interested in the numbers.


Okay going by memory here.....

They went in and got a sample of 80,000 players, so as to exclude alts.
CCP then went a categorized them into three categories:

Killed illegally in their first 15 days (e.g. ganked)
Killed legally in their first 15 days (war dec, dual, etc.)
Not killed in their first 15 days.

They found that,

1% were ganked.
14% killed legally.
85% were not killed at all.

Then they looked at how long players stayed with the game in the three categories:

Longest playing: Those who were ganked.
Second longest: Those killed legally.
Shortest: Those not killed at all.

So, at the end of the day, the notion that ganking causes newbros to bail on the game does not fit at all with that presentation.

"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

Morgan Agrivar
Doomheim
#55 - 2016-11-03 01:07:00 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Morgan Agrivar wrote:

Agreed. How difficult is it to understand that this game is a PvP game? If I can lock up an 'innocent' ship in highsec and cycle guns quickly and blow up that ship before CONCORD shows up, don't you think the devs designed it that way and that is what they wanted?

Now I know ganking has been nerfhammered into the ground but the basics of it is still around. CCP doesn't want conflict to stop occuring in highsec or they would have already removed it. Conflict is good and keeps the circlulation going and the paranoia at a certain level to ensure the person at the keyboard is alive.

Congratulations, you have won the 'failing to understand sarcasm & trolling' award of the day.
You are attacking someone making an obviously stupid suggestion to highlight how stupid the OP's suggestion was.

Seriously, your trolling skills have a lot to be desired. I am sure you can show your anger in a more constructive way, kid.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#56 - 2016-11-03 01:09:28 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:


[snip]

Basically it was a meaningless statistic they touted since they didn't actually compare appropriately. Since they included all the people who played 30 minutes then never came back in the group who 'left & didn't PvP'. And we have no idea how big any of those groups are.


Actually, I don't know if this is true or not. But two thoughts,

The categorizing was for those killed or not killed in the first 15 days. So their sample might have been over those players who stayed at least that long.

If they didn't put that restriction in there, then yes, with random sampling you can get this kind of outcome. And yea, if that guy left after 30 minutes and did not lose a ship...yeah, he'd likely be counted as not being killed.

Quote:
They also didn't look at the 2-3 month range of players who are probably where the bigger losses to ganking are, since that's where someone has scrapped together enough to be really worth ganking if they really are new, but often hasn't learnt about ganking yet.


The question they were looking at was, "Is ganking bad for the new player," in terms of retention time in game, and there the presentation said, "No."

"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

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Wild Geese.
#57 - 2016-11-03 02:41:27 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:


To be clear I am neither pro or anti ganking, just interested in the numbers.

Don't think CCP gave out actual numbers.

Yes they did.


80,000 new players (the genuine kind, not alts) were sampled.

Their first 15 days were looked at.

They checked to see if these players had died in some fashion during this time.
If they had, they were split into two groups:
- wardecs / aggression shenanigans / outside high-sec
- suicide ganked

What they found was:
85% were not molested in any way
14% were killed via Wardecs, aggression shenanigans, and/or outside high-sec
1% were ganked


This is where things get kinda murky.

The presenting DEV explained that people who were suicide ganked tended to have higher subscription rates.
This was followed by the group that was killed in some "mechanically legal" fashion.
The group that had the lowest retention rate were the ones who were never killed in ship-on-ship violence.


Beyond this, the DEV only presented one other number:

Only 1% of account cancellations cite suicide ganking as the reason.



To be honest... the DEVs could have (and should have) gone much further. The time window they gave was too short (something like 2 months would have been better) and they should have produced some actual numbers regarding retention...

But now that I think about it... newbie retention numbers for any MMO will drive any laymen up the wall. If I recall correctly from a DEV (at another company) that I spoke to... MMOs aim to retain 20% of the newbies that come in. But often fall WAY short of that. Anything higher is simply unrealistic.
Iain Cariaba
#58 - 2016-11-03 03:17:38 UTC
Gou Litvyak wrote:
Since you were also there and didnt understand anything at all, let me put it to you simply.
Ganking newbies makes the majority of them quit, the few who dont quit stay because the content is meaningful. A ship is a ship, when you lose it its lost. It sets a value on their assets unlike meaningless items in other games. That is why the handful of ganked newbies stay.


That is what was presented on fanfest, when you gank a newbie that player will nearly always be confused, find out he/she lost the ship, be angry, quit and uninstall to never come back. The few who dont, dedicate to EVE.

You can glorify ganking all you want, that doesnt change what was said, it just changes what you think was said that day.

I'd highly suggest you go watch that again, as you got it wrong. Just to clarify, though, I went and looked up the conclusion slide from that presentation. Focus your attention on the last line.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Wild Geese.
#59 - 2016-11-03 04:05:29 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Iain Cariaba wrote:
I'd highly suggest you go watch that again, as you got it wrong. Just to clarify, though, I went and looked up the conclusion slide from that presentation. Focus your attention on the last line.

I'll do one better and link the actual clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A92Ge2S8M1Y&feature=youtu.be&t=1m29s

And for those of you leery of long videos; you only need to watch about 5 minutes of the clip from 1:29. Not the whole thing.
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
#60 - 2016-11-03 04:46:29 UTC
So... for a fee, effectively remove CONCORD for everyone but the holder. Nix any thought of that being available to an Alpha clone. Seriously... they want the full Monty, they can pay for it.


In the end, however, you might as well ask that CCP remove CONCORD completely. Lets be fair and egalitarian here. Twisted

Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.