These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Is the Alpha clone a problem?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#161 - 2017-01-09 18:40:45 UTC
Hakawai wrote:

Griefing is all about wasting someone's time. Annoyane due to being griefed is due to two very normal human responses:

  • Annoyance at the time that has been wasted
  • The common, but perhaps not 100% logical, annoyance that someone has done something negative to you, and you've been unable to respond


Then practically everything in EVE is griefing and we are all griefers. In fact, with this definition it becomes a meaningless concept...so this is really a thread complaining about nothing.

Suppose a player is on his way to a trade hub with a bunch of stuff he invented. He gets unlucky and his ship is blown up and his T2 mods are either destroyed or scooped as loot by whomever blew up his ship. Now all that time the player spent inventing those modules, the time spent acquiring the resources to do the invention and build the modules, the time spent moving said resources. The time spent to acquire the transport ship he was using, etc. All that time wasted. Irrespective of how this player died (gate camp in LS, NS, or even a wardec or a ganking) this player has been, by the above definition, griefed. And the player(s) that did this to the player are griefers. It does not matter if they killed the player legally or illegally (i.e. they did or did not incur a criminal timer).

PvPers in NS: Griefers
PvPers in LS: Griefers
Gankers in HS: Griefers
Wardeccers in HS: Griefers

You are even a griefer if you make me spend more time looking for a belt. If I get there and you just hoovered up all the ice or ore, now I have to spend time not doing what I want. Many things in game becomes griefing with this definition.

"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
Salvos Rhoska
#162 - 2017-01-09 18:45:59 UTC
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#163 - 2017-01-09 18:47:38 UTC
Zoe Chu wrote:
One big reason that EVE is struggling with new blood, and it is something that will drive off new players. This that the mechanics of the game allow others to force their idea of how the game should be played on other players.


Please explain the years of growth in EVE when the game had these things that supposedly drives off players.

"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
Salvos Rhoska
#164 - 2017-01-09 18:51:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Teckos Pech wrote:
Zoe Chu wrote:
One big reason that EVE is struggling with new blood, and it is something that will drive off new players. This that the mechanics of the game allow others to force their idea of how the game should be played on other players.


Please explain the years of growth in EVE when the game had these things that supposedly drives off players.


Oh, now you expect people to provide explanations.

Remember what you did when I asked Scipio for one?

Remember when you misquoted me out of context, regarding the incumbency of someone who has had their questions answered, to reciprocate answers?

Its important to remain consistent, Techos. You cant have it both ways at once.

I was done with this thread, but you decided to pull me back in by name.
Fine. Lets rock.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Salvos Rhoska
#165 - 2017-01-09 19:26:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
As I have already specifically explained:

Yes, Alphas make throw-away alt generation for purposes of action considered "griefing" by some, much easier. Additionally they also generate SP for free till they have incubated ready for use.

Before you had 15 days worth of SP and gametime on a trial.
Now you can have 10, 100, or 1000 Alphas, all generating SP to 5 mil, indefinitely.

Use one, suffer sec/standing status loss, abandon.
Use next one.
Rinse, repeat.

Before it was not allowed to recycle alts, so as to avoid consequences of sec status loss.
This still applies, but is avoided by the Alpha system accounts.
The CCP restriction applied to alts recycled on one account, whereas Alpha accounts are all individual accounts.
No recycling occurs, when you abandon one Alpha account after sec loss, and instead use another Alpha account.

It remains to be seen what will happen when the vast majority of Alphas created at or near the date of the inception of this new system, reach 5mil SP maturity. (I cba to calculate the exact day).

Heuristically, it stands to reason that EVE will suddenly be flooded with throw away alts, from that day forward, and activities considered as "griefing" by some, will take a dramatic upswing and remain so almost indefinitely, depending on how many Alpha alts they have bothered to incubate at inception of Alphas, or thereafter, for those activities.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Salvos Rhoska
#166 - 2017-01-09 19:54:40 UTC
As to the definition of what constitutes griefing, this is anomalous and not defined in EVE, for purposes of EVE.

As far as I can ascertain, CCP has no stated definition for it, for purpose of this game.
CCP acts on issues of harassment and other rule violations, but "griefing" is not technically among them.

Even this forums spell-checker does not recognize "griefing" as a word.

Many new players to EVE, have difficulty understanding the nature, systems and rules of this particular virtual universe.
There is a great deal of behavior that is allowed in EVE, that is not allowed in games many of these players are familiar with.

You can call them griefing, as an emerging concept in MMOs, but its an empty statement, at this time, in EVEs internal context.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#167 - 2017-01-09 19:58:27 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Zoe Chu wrote:
One big reason that EVE is struggling with new blood, and it is something that will drive off new players. This that the mechanics of the game allow others to force their idea of how the game should be played on other players.


Please explain the years of growth in EVE when the game had these things that supposedly drives off players.


Oh, now you expect people to provide explanations.


Nope, just the reasonable ones.

"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
Salvos Rhoska
#168 - 2017-01-09 20:01:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Teckos Pech wrote:
Nope, just the reasonable ones.


Who are you to adjudicate and define whether someone can ask for an explanation of what someone else has stated, as "reasonable".

There was nothing unreasonable in my asking Scipio for an explanation of his stated opinion.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#169 - 2017-01-09 20:04:08 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

Oh, now you expect people to provide explanations.


Nope, just the reasonable ones.


Who are you to adjudicate and define whether someone can ask for an explanation of what someone else has stated, as "reasonable".

There was nothing unreasonable in my asking Scipio for an explanation of his stated opinion.


Well let me see....he wrote something, you and Dracvlad got on his case. In post #101 in this thread he has indicated what his core views are, yet you insist it does not and kept on badgering him to answer your question.

Yeah, you are the epitome or reasonableness.

"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
Salvos Rhoska
#170 - 2017-01-09 20:10:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Teckos Pech wrote:
Well let me see....he wrote something, you and Dracvlad got on his case. In post #101 in this thread he has indicated what his core views are, yet you insist it does not and kept on badgering him to answer your question.


I asked him to explain his stated opinion.
You then went on a 2 page long tirade of insults and proxy engagement about it, though it didnt even concern you, and was addressed to another individual and their statement.

Now you again try to put me and Drac into the same "basket of deplorables", for purposes of simplifying and avoiding responding to either of us as individuals. I already called you on this. Read the thread.

His "indications" of "core views" are not relevant, nor a matter for you to answer for.
I did not ask for explanation of his "core views", which is a subjective summation on your part anyways.

My request for an explanation, was on a specific stated opinion.
I asked him, specifically, individually, for an explanation, on that statement.
Not you. You cannot answer for him.

Yet here you are, now, expecting explanations from others, when you refused others to ask for explanations.
That is hypocritical. As I said, you can't have it both ways.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Yeah, you are the epitome or reasonableness.

Thank you!
Im glad you recognize that.

Also I LOVE that you ignored all of my ontopic relevant posts here, instead choosing this failed attempt to defend your own actions and presumption of adjudicating which request for explanation is reasonable, or not, especially considering your own demonstrated behavior.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Zoe Chu
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#171 - 2017-01-09 20:10:44 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Zoe Chu wrote:
One big reason that EVE is struggling with new blood, and it is something that will drive off new players. This that the mechanics of the game allow others to force their idea of how the game should be played on other players.


Please explain the years of growth in EVE when the game had these things that supposedly drives off players.


What are you smoking? EVE has had some growth overt the years but with the rise of suicide ganking it has seen a drastic fall off in players. It is a broken risk vs reward system that is driving players to quit.

http://massivelyop.com/2016/04/12/ccps-2015-finances-included-large-revenue-losses-for-eve-online/
http://massivelyop.com/2015/04/19/eve-evolved-how-many-subscriptions-does-eve-have/
https://www.engadget.com/2016/11/16/eve-online-is-now-free-to-play/


You want a good example of what I'm talking about with loss of capital? It was the loss of all his investment that drove him off.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=507109&find=unread

The game is built to allow people to manage their risk/reward. Lowest risk/lower reward = High sec, Higher risk/higher reward = Low Sec, and finally highest risk and reward = null. Null also requires much greater teamwork than high sec if you want to maintain those rewards. Suicide ganking completely breaks that system, low risk/cost to ganker(s) high cost to the ganked. The rise of suicide gankers as a population has corresponded with the decline in EVE players.

Not all players are space rich, the loss of their main means of production/income or significant portion of their wealth/assets will cause most to quit. Especially if the cause is outside the risk management system laid out in the game's foundations. Yeah, yeah, don't fly what you can't afford to lose. So a hauler should wait to fly a freighter (cheapest Charon is currently 1,244,499,895.50 ISK) until you can just say "meh, this one got suicide ganked let be buy ten more." Really? Insurance is ridiculous, especially on T2 hulls like exhumers. You take your freighter or exhumer into low/null sec unescorted you deserve what happens. Suicide ganking is outside that risk management system, no war dec necessary, no notice of being a target until it is too late.

It costs the ganker a pittance comparatively and they biomass the character after the negative status becomes burdensome. Training a new ganker character only takes a few weeks if that. The change to Thermodynamics as a given skill which used to take some investment to obtain is part of the issue. A ganker alt can literally be created in 16 minutes. Create a Gallente alt, train Gallente Destroyer I, that's it. You can train more if you like, 9 days to a T2 blaster fit, 20 days with no remap or implants.

Broke. Ass. System. And it is killing the game.
Salvos Rhoska
#172 - 2017-01-09 20:38:19 UTC
With the Alpha system, it is now easier than ever to create throw-away alts for HS ganking.

You can now create 10/100/1000 Alphas, sit on them whilst they incubate, and come out the other end with that many 5mil SP characters with which to avoid repercussions of sec status loss, and the CCP policy against recycling alts to avoid sec status loss repercussions.

So the answer to OPs question, is a categorical "yes".

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#173 - 2017-01-09 21:08:42 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

Yet here you are, now, expecting explanations from others, when you refused others to ask for explanations.


Nope just you.

"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
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#174 - 2017-01-09 21:19:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Zoe Chu wrote:
It costs the ganker a pittance comparatively and they biomass the character after the negative status becomes burdensome.

This gets mentioned quite often when it comes to ganking. CODE. and other gankers always deny it.

Looking at the data just for CODE., overwhelmingly they gank with experienced characters that are outlaw and they don't appear to biomass them at all.

Taking the last 1000 ship kills (1013 to keep the analysis to whole days) in highsec by CODE.:

https://puu.sh/tgPEV/6b7bf967f5.png

There are a total of 72 members of CODE. that have been involved.

62 (86%) are outlaw status
10 (14%) are not outlaw

Of those 62 outlaws, they appear 1768 times on the 1013 ship kills (ie. most ganks are not solo). The non-outlaw characters appear on just 48 of those ship kills.

They are overwhelmingly ganking with outlaw characters and the names are fairly consistent running the analysis as a time series, rather than limiting it to the number of kills.

If this continues, which I suspect it will, it will suggest that the answer to the OPs question will most likely be no, even when looking at 'griefing' as being an action rather than a mindset. That isn't based off sec status, but weapon type used. Alphas can't use T2 turrets, but the analysis also shows that T2 guns are used almost always, confirming the continued use of omega clones.

Interestingly, for the 1013 ship kills, they also managed to kill the pod a very high percentage of the time.

If you look at just mining barges in that group, it's >90% of the time that the pod gets killed too. Either there is still a lot of AFK play going on when mining, or players don't know they can warp after their ship is killed. If it's AFK play, then they deserve everything that happens. If it is a lack of knowledge, then we should probably encourage more miners to be in effective player Corps where they'll learn how not to die in the first place and how to save their pod if they do.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#175 - 2017-01-09 21:26:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Zoe Chu wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Zoe Chu wrote:
One big reason that EVE is struggling with new blood, and it is something that will drive off new players. This that the mechanics of the game allow others to force their idea of how the game should be played on other players.


Please explain the years of growth in EVE when the game had these things that supposedly drives off players.


What are you smoking? EVE has had some growth overt the years but with the rise of suicide ganking it has seen a drastic fall off in players. It is a broken risk vs reward system that is driving players to quit.

http://massivelyop.com/2016/04/12/ccps-2015-finances-included-large-revenue-losses-for-eve-online/
http://massivelyop.com/2015/04/19/eve-evolved-how-many-subscriptions-does-eve-have/
https://www.engadget.com/2016/11/16/eve-online-is-now-free-to-play/


You want a good example of what I'm talking about with loss of capital? It was the loss of all his investment that drove him off.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=507109&find=unread

The game is built to allow people to manage their risk/reward. Lowest risk/lower reward = High sec, Higher risk/higher reward = Low Sec, and finally highest risk and reward = null. Null also requires much greater teamwork than high sec if you want to maintain those rewards. Suicide ganking completely breaks that system, low risk/cost to ganker(s) high cost to the ganked. The rise of suicide gankers as a population has corresponded with the decline in EVE players.

As for your link he got scammed. Scamming is allowed, and a good rule of thumb is the same as IRL, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. And don't put ALL your ISK at risk. Or if you are at least diversify. Seriously, lets review this:

1. Put all your ISK at risk.
2. Upside is what? 20% 30%?
3. Downside is what? 100%.

Why would you put your ISK at risk? Maybe that guy saw a way to make what he thought was easy ISK and got burnt. To a certain extent scams like that, IRL and in game, work because the victim was...well...a tad greedy.

So again, given that scams, corp theft, ganking, and all the rest have been in game since forever....why did the game grow initially?

Not all players are space rich, the loss of their main means of production/income or significant portion of their wealth/assets will cause most to quit. Especially if the cause is outside the risk management system laid out in the game's foundations. Yeah, yeah, don't fly what you can't afford to lose. So a hauler should wait to fly a freighter (cheapest Charon is currently 1,244,499,895.50 ISK) until you can just say "meh, this one got suicide ganked let be buy ten more." Really? Insurance is ridiculous, especially on T2 hulls like exhumers. You take your freighter or exhumer into low/null sec unescorted you deserve what happens. Suicide ganking is outside that risk management system, no war dec necessary, no notice of being a target until it is too late.

It costs the ganker a pittance comparatively and they biomass the character after the negative status becomes burdensome. Training a new ganker character only takes a few weeks if that. The change to Thermodynamics as a given skill which used to take some investment to obtain is part of the issue. A ganker alt can literally be created in 16 minutes. Create a Gallente alt, train Gallente Destroyer I, that's it. You can train more if you like, 9 days to a T2 blaster fit, 20 days with no remap or implants.

Broke. Ass. System. And it is killing the game.





Wow that is alot of assumptions.

First off, a big chunk of those losses stem from things like, IIRC, write-offs, from things like DUST and that Vampire stuff.

Suicide ganking has always been a Thing™ in that I have always calculated my risk to suicide ganking since about mid 2009--i.e. back when the game was growing. Back then people did it in battleships because of insurance.

As for risk, you are wrong and we already had that discussion. Your side...well, you didn't lose as nobody showed up for the discussion. Since I don't expect you read that thread I will summarize it:

The low risk for gankers is only possible due to the freighter pilots taking on excessive amounts of risk by choice. If you do something incredibly risky...you should not be outraged when things go south...after all you took on too much risk.

Edit:

I have not looked at the data, namely because I don't want to go dig up data from 2010 or the like, but where is the evidence that ganking is more common?

"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
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#176 - 2017-01-09 21:28:41 UTC
Zoe Chu wrote:
What are you smoking? EVE has had some growth overt the years but with the rise of suicide ganking it has seen a drastic fall off in players.
I would love to see evidence of this, with actual numbers and graphs etc.

If anything it's a rarer occurrence now than it was when the subs were climbing, back in those days you could suicide gank in what amounted to free battleships thanks to insurance.

What has changed is the increased use of social media and propaganda to spread the word.





In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Salvos Rhoska
#177 - 2017-01-09 21:29:12 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

Yet here you are, now, expecting explanations from others, when you refused others to ask for explanations.


Nope just you.


No. Its demonstrably just you.

As well as you ignoring on-topic posts and arguments.

If all you have left, is 3 word false responses, you are not far from defeat.
You are hull tanking with 1/3 left. Its over soon.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Maekchu
Doomheim
#178 - 2017-01-09 21:35:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Maekchu
Zoe Chu wrote:
Yeah, yeah, don't fly what you can't afford to lose. So a hauler should wait to fly a freighter (cheapest Charon is currently 1,244,499,895.50 ISK) until you can just say "meh, this one got suicide ganked let be buy ten more." Really?

Yes. A hauler should indeed wait to fly a freighter until the person would be able to replace a loss.

Doesn't matter if the ship is 10m or several billions. The golden rule is to always be able to replace those losses.

It can hardly be CCPs fault or a matter of balance, when people get impatient and put all their eggs in a single basket, just to lose that basket when they jump the next system. People are greedy, impatient bastards and it's hardly something CCP would be able to fix with a patch.
Salvos Rhoska
#179 - 2017-01-09 21:36:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Scipio Artelius wrote:


If this continues, which I suspect it will, it will suggest that the answer to the OPs question will most likely be no, even when looking at 'griefing' as being an action rather than a mindset.


1) You are presuming that only CODE members gank, which is false.
2) You are presuming that all CODE affiliated players, use only characters in CODE corp, which is also false.

As I explained three times over, the generation of throw-away alts, per the Alpha system, is easier, more SP potential, and avoids the CCP policy on recycled alts so as to avoid repercussions of sec status loss.

There is no way of knowing how many thousands of alts have potentially been created for purposes of HS ganking, to avoid sec status loss repercussions, whilst incubating into 5mil SP toons.

When those incubated Alphas mature and hit the scene, it is rational to deduce HS ganking will reach an all time high, as Alpha accounts are cycled to avoid sec status repercussion.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#180 - 2017-01-09 21:42:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
1) You are presuming that only CODE members gank, which is false.
2) You are presuming that all CODE affiliated players, use only characters in CODE corp, which is also false.

Incorrect.

I only showed the analysis for CODE. in that post. I have run the analysis for all ganking in highsec. I regularly run it for all ganking.

It doesn't matter how many times you state something over and over. Stating it doesn't make it true. The data so far shows a different situation.