These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Yebo Lakatosh
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#261 - 2017-01-10 15:30:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Yebo Lakatosh
Hakawai wrote:
Find it, quote it, make a sensible comment, and I'll respond.


You are right. This thread burns too fast, while including much-much chewing on semantics and "cherry picking" as you quite appropriately worded. I have to admit my lazyness of insta-jumping on the first small cherry that irked me a bit, essentially cutting myself off from the higher level chewing on semantics. But now that I better think of it, I'm not sure I'm ready to join.

Anyways, I feel 'griefing' is a recurring thread around here, and I doubt much new stuff was said on the topic in the last 6-8 years besides some specific cases. Not sure why I considered attempting to add to (or subtract from) this discussion in my great inexperience. May be that was the very reason.

Anyways, let me not derail (*giggles*) the thread any further. Just came to figure out how to be a problem as one of the new Alphas. P

Elite F1 pilot since YC119, incarnate of honor, integrity and tidi.

Yebo Lakatosh
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#262 - 2017-01-10 15:35:38 UTC
doublepost, disregard it

Elite F1 pilot since YC119, incarnate of honor, integrity and tidi.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#263 - 2017-01-10 15:39:36 UTC
Hakawai wrote:
Yebo Lakatosh wrote:
Hakawai wrote:
The first thing an expert on self-justification does with an exact definition is to search Google for a definition that suits them better, and you're instantly involved in a stupid "dictionary war" which is a moderately effective way to derail a topic. I don't do that.


Strange, to an outside observer it looks exactly what you are doing. Just the "they know who they are" sounds a more vague definition that what others who need one usually pick.

I was "catching up" on this thread, which had 5 or 6 new pages added since I last looked at it, and was tempted to point out that the majority of posts are coming from people who won't read each others posts carefully, or try to simulate rational arguments by "cherry picking".

Of course this is a waste of time ... but then I found this right at the end of the thread :)

If you read the whole thread, instead of just reacting to what you think is an easy target, you'd find that I actually defined griefing step by step, spread across several posts. I do this to discourage the whole irrational "dictionary attack" approach. In my experience the better and more detailed an uncomfortable definition is, the more likely it is to induce a flurry of fallacious responses - this turns a potentially interesting discussion into a free lecture in logic to people who don't believe in it in the first place :)

I did make a pragmatic definition of sorts after a while (page 7 or 8 I think). You'll know it when you see it. Find it, quote it, make a sensible comment, and I'll respond.


Yes, you did. You defined it so broadly as to be a useless 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

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#264 - 2017-01-10 16:10:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Yebo Lakatosh wrote:
Hakawai wrote:
Find it, quote it, make a sensible comment, and I'll respond.


You are right. This thread burns too fast, while including much-much chewing on semantics and "cherry picking" as you quite appropriately worded. I have to admit my lazyness of insta-jumping on the first small cherry that irked me a bit, essentially cutting myself off from the higher level chewing on semantics. But now that I better think of it, I'm not sure I'm ready to join.

Anyways, I feel 'griefing' is a recurring thread around here, and I doubt much new stuff was said on the topic in the last 6-8 years besides some specific cases. Not sure why I considered attempting to add to (or subtract from) this discussion in my great inexperience. May be that was the very reason.

Anyways, let me not derail (*giggles*) the thread any further. Just came to figure out how to be a problem as one of the new Alphas. P


"Griefing" is a problem for some players as they don't like how others choose to "sandbox". The restrictions on game play in this game are pretty limited. Don't make nasty comments in local or other chat channels, don't send abusive emails, don't gank or lure new guys into fights or scam in starter systems (I believe there are 8 out of thousands of systems) and that is pretty much it. Want to join a corp and rob them blind if you can? Allowed. Want to scam in Jita or anywhere else? Allowed. Want to set up a camp on a gate in NS/LS and try to kill anything that comes through? Allowed. All of these things can annoy certain players so much so that they post threads complaining about it. Funny thing is these things are also things CCP pretty much boasts about in their advertising.

There are videos on youtube glorifying these things. For example, the video titled Causality is about a guy who was lured into a gank and then to get revenge wormed his way into a position of power in the alliance his gankers were in. And eventually he took everything he could get his hands on causing the alliance to collapse. Hell when Band of Brother's fell, according to dear Hakawai here, that was perhaps the single most notable moment of griefing. Band of Brothers, BoB, feel to a turncoat. A player with access to the holding corporation for the Alliance was very unhappy, reached out to Goons and was told:

1. Boot all corps out of alliance--which he did.
2. Take anything not nailed down--which he did.
3. Disband the alliance--which he did.

Suddenly there was "wasted" time over 3 regions of space in an instant. Baby titans in build that died. POS all over the place suddenly on the brink of running out of fuel (owning sov gives one a significant savings on POS fuel). And they were invaded by a huge coalition lead by Goons. The amount of assets lost were huge. Griefing, according to this goofy definition, on massive scale. Massive amounts of time wasted.

"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

Yebo Lakatosh
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#265 - 2017-01-10 16:47:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Yebo Lakatosh
Teckos Pech wrote:
All of these things can annoy certain players so much so that they post threads complaining about it. Funny thing is these things are also things CCP pretty much boasts about in their advertising.


Amen to that.

I feel I'm suffering from a serious mental deffect: I love games where one can lose virtually unlimited amount of progress by being shot by another player. Naturally, I enjoy being on the delivering end of this process more than being on the receiving one. I even do a lot of research on how to do unto others what I don't want to be done unto me.

Guess that makes me a Griefer. Amen to that too - "griefing" has a lot less vowels than "unconsentual pvp".


But I'm positively puzzled about why people who have a vastly different mindset about this question play Eve. I mean that's the anecdotical epitome of a harsh, unfriendly game*. There is a joke where I'm coming from about the madman who keeps hitting his finger with a hammer. When he's asked about why he is doing that, he says "for it feels soo good when I miss".

Can't think of a better reason.

*because nobody knows Fallout Online. Eve feels Hello Kitty Adventure Island compared to that Blink

Elite F1 pilot since YC119, incarnate of honor, integrity and tidi.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#266 - 2017-01-10 18:30:34 UTC
Yebo Lakatosh wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
All of these things can annoy certain players so much so that they post threads complaining about it. Funny thing is these things are also things CCP pretty much boasts about in their advertising.


Amen to that.

I feel I'm suffering from a serious mental deffect: I love games where one can lose virtually unlimited amount of progress by being shot by another player. Naturally, I enjoy being on the delivering end of this process more than being on the receiving one. I even do a lot of research on how to do unto outhers what I don't want to be done unto me.

Guess that makes me a Griefer. Amen to that too - "griefing" has a lot less vowels than "unconsentual pvp".


But I'm positively puzzled about why people who have a vastly different mindset about this question play Eve. I mean that's the anecdotical epitome of a harsh, unfriendly game*. There is a joke where I'm coming from about the madman who keeps hitting his finger with a hammer. When he's asked about why he is doing that, he says "for it feels soo good when I miss".

Can't think of a better reason.

*because nobody knows Fallout Online. Eve feels Hello Kitty Adventure Island compared to that Blink


I like the cut of your jib! P

"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
#267 - 2017-01-10 20:06:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Yebo Lakatosh wrote:
Nah, it's not a mental defect, I hope not anyway, because I share it along with the majority of the people I socialise with in Eve.

Admittedly I'm not here to violence space canoes, I'm here to farm the universe and profit from the violencing of other people's space canoes, despite the efforts of all the "nasty people" out there who would like to relieve me of my stuff and dress up my corpsicle; that right there is my PvP.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Aegon the Dragonbane
War Were Declared
#268 - 2017-01-10 20:22:50 UTC
Bigger players pray on the smaller guy. Welcome to Eve.
Zoe Chu
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#269 - 2017-01-10 21:11:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Zoe Chu
Ima Wreckyou wrote:

If you pay attention to what he actually says during the presentation then you notice that they did look at older players too. There are two parts.

The main reason for the study was to find out if suicide ganking has a detrimental effect on the new players. The questions they asked themselves where "how wide spread is ganking for new players" and "what is the retention rate for never, legally and illegally killed new players". The answers where basically that it is a non issue despite the sentiment of the community and that it almost seams to have the complete opposite effect of what they expected.

The reason for this may be (and this is my opinion) that it suddenly introduces a mortal enemy into the world of the new player which gives it meaning and a goal to reach for revenge in an otherwise rather bleak surrounding of missions which get repetitive after two hours and staring at rocks while shooting them with lasers. There may be other factors which play a part in the outcome. But no matter what the reason is, the finding was that ganking new players makes it more likely they subscribe at the end of the 15 day trial period.

The second part got only mentioned in one sentence. They looked at all the reasons ALL the players state when they unsubscribe (trial members can not unsubscribe). And the result was that only ~1% state ship loss and harassment as a reason.

So, there may be a few people who actually quit because of ganking. But the study shows that they could not find any shred of evidence for that and that at least in the first 15 days the effect of ganking was more in the direction of retaining the players instead of driving them away.

They started from the very same position you are at, they expected that ganking is detrimental to retention. This "carebear hypothesis" was proven wrong when they actually looked at the evidence. This is how science works.

Now you come along and start all over with the very same wrong assumptions and completely ignore that people actually looked at this with more than just a whim and a gut feeling and proved those assumptions wrong. Also you don't even bring any evidence with you, just your personal feelings and an uninformed opinion.

What you did is point out that EVE is declining, and then construct a correlation with ganking out of thin air. A correlation which has shown to be absent already in the cited study.

There are a ton of reasons why EVE was declining and we can speculate all day what the reason was. But one thig is sure, because CCP actually checked: It ain't ganking


Their methods were really not very scientific, he even admits to having more data than they can process. They used player feedback when they unsubbed, this got them 1% but really isn't very accurate. How many who just quit and didn't say anything? What about those who have other issues that combined with rebuilding their losses is just not worth it? Their "study" is limited to about 4 minutes of the 36 minute video, like I said very poor attempt. In fact, I'd almost say it was deliberate self delusion.
Zoe Chu
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#270 - 2017-01-10 21:21:33 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
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.


You know it is impossible since CCP stopped releasing that information a few years ago. Another important point is how many accounts belong to the same person, no info is available on that either. I'd gladly show you if the info was available.

SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#271 - 2017-01-10 21:25:09 UTC
Zoe Chu wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
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.


You know it is impossible since CCP stopped releasing that information a few years ago. Another important point is how many accounts belong to the same person, no info is available on that either. I'd gladly show you if the info was available.



So you don't actually have any data or empirical evidence to support your claims at all, but you... what? Just know it in your heart? Roll

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#272 - 2017-01-10 21:35:48 UTC
Zoe Chu wrote:


Their methods were really not very scientific, he even admits to having more data than they can process. They used player feedback when they unsubbed, this got them 1% but really isn't very accurate. How many who just quit and didn't say anything? What about those who have other issues that combined with rebuilding their losses is just not worth it? Their "study" is limited to about 4 minutes of the 36 minute video, like I said very poor attempt. In fact, I'd almost say it was deliberate self delusion.


No. The 1% leave due to ship loss is from the unsubbing process it was not part of the analysis.

The analysis is fine except that no mention of the sample being random or not. Assuming a random sample, 80,000 is more than sufficient.

"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
#273 - 2017-01-10 21:40:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Double post...could have sworn the forum ate my first attemp....

"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

Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#274 - 2017-01-10 23:03:49 UTC
Zoe Chu wrote:
Their methods were really not very scientific, he even admits to having more data than they can process. They used player feedback when they unsubbed, this got them 1% but really isn't very accurate. How many who just quit and didn't say anything? What about those who have other issues that combined with rebuilding their losses is just not worth it? Their "study" is limited to about 4 minutes of the 36 minute video, like I said very poor attempt. In fact, I'd almost say it was deliberate self delusion.

Look, it may not be perfect, but they at least try to verify their assumptions by looking at the data. You on the other hand have only a gut feeling and wild guesses based on assumptions you have no shred of evidence for.

Guess which position is more scientific?
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#275 - 2017-01-10 23:34:54 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Zoe Chu wrote:
Their methods were really not very scientific, he even admits to having more data than they can process. They used player feedback when they unsubbed, this got them 1% but really isn't very accurate. How many who just quit and didn't say anything? What about those who have other issues that combined with rebuilding their losses is just not worth it? Their "study" is limited to about 4 minutes of the 36 minute video, like I said very poor attempt. In fact, I'd almost say it was deliberate self delusion.

Look, it may not be perfect, but they at least try to verify their assumptions by looking at the data. You on the other hand have only a gut feeling and wild guesses based on assumptions you have no shred of evidence for.

Guess which position is more scientific?


Yup. That response is all too common. "What it doesn't coincide with my prior beliefs!?!? Well, the study must be flawed! See, I'll come up with this reason and that reason, and there....now I don't have to go through the painful process of changing my beliefs."

"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

Hakawai
State War Academy
Caldari State
#276 - 2017-01-11 00:15:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Hakawai
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Zoe Chu wrote:
Their methods were really not very scientific, he even admits to having more data than they can process. They used player feedback when they unsubbed, this got them 1% but really isn't very accurate. How many who just quit and didn't say anything? What about those who have other issues that combined with rebuilding their losses is just not worth it? Their "study" is limited to about 4 minutes of the 36 minute video, like I said very poor attempt. In fact, I'd almost say it was deliberate self delusion.

Look, it may not be perfect, but they at least try to verify their assumptions by looking at the data. You on the other hand have only a gut feeling and wild guesses based on assumptions you have no shred of evidence for.

Guess which position is more scientific?

Studies based on input from self-selected participants are not very useful. The only certain thing about the data is that it is affected more by the self-selection pattern than by whatever you're trying to understand.

(by the way Zoe Chu & Ima Wreckyou - not trying to directly agree or disagree with either of your posts, but this is partly intended to be a comment (of sorts) on both).


Here's a true story that might put the "perils of griefing" into perspective:

I've tried EVE a few times, and each time I've stooped playing after a few trials because it stopped being fun. This was due to multiple factors though. I remember the first time quite clearly, because the decision was triggered by being ganked, but not actually caused by it. FWIW the key factors were:


  • The beginner income problem. It was much worse there, but it's still there now. You get to a point where if you're unlucky (e.g. an unfortunately-timed gank) you can take a hit requiring a few days to a week or two's grinding to get your ship back
  • If you start solo it's far too difficult to find a good Corp. This isn't entirely CCP's fault, and it exists in all the MMOs I've tried, but in EVE it's a bit worse. You learn early that you really can't trust most other players, so any proposal to join a Corp has to be assumed to be something you don't yet understand, but will waste a lot of your playing time.
  • I headed into 0.4 in a cruiser representing most of my net worth looking for better L3 mission income, and assuming somehow 0.4 was just a little worse than 0.5 space, rather than being infested with griefers /lol. I got ganked by lowlifes, and judged it would take too long to get set up again (as per the first point).


Anybody who actually reads that will notice I made beginner errors. But that isn't the point - beginners always make errors, especially in EVE. At the time I was making too little to buy the next round of skill books, so I was genuinely faced with way too much grinding to get back on track. I stopped playing instead, as I've stopped playing several other games when I judged there was too much grinding and not enough fun.

To the point again: what might I have told CCP about this?

Some people might go with griefing, but that wouldn't be accurate: being ganked was the trigger but not the cause of my leaving.

I considered writing a version of this post, but I couldn't contextualize the overall situation easily due to lack of knowledge and experience - the very thing that make those (now obvious) mistakes possible. And of course gaming companies rarely pay attention to that kind of input - most likely it would be a lot of work with neither feedback nor any expectation that it would have any effect.


  • I don't believe this pseudo-study that suggests "ganking doesn't matter" for a second. I don't think ganking is the main cause of people leaving either, but I do think it's a significant factor in the decision(s), and an indicator of other issues
  • I have no respect for anyone who makes games harder for new players, and not much for facilitators (whether in-game or in the forums). EVE has a lot of both, and they are very visible to new players - IMO they contribute to making new players mistrust other players and the game, and they are a moderately likely trigger for the kind of thing that happened to me the first time I trialled EVE.
Maekchu
Doomheim
#277 - 2017-01-11 00:39:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Maekchu
Hakawai wrote:

  • The beginner income problem. It was much worse there, but it's still there now. You get to a point where if you're unlucky (e.g. an unfortunately-timed gank) you can take a hit requiring a few days to a week or two's grinding to get your ship back
  • If you start solo it's far too difficult to find a good Corp. This isn't entirely CCP's fault, and it exists in all the MMOs I've tried, but in EVE it's a bit worse. You learn early that you really can't trust most other players, so any proposal to join a Corp has to be assumed to be something you don't yet understand, but will waste a lot of your playing time.
  • I headed into 0.4 in a cruiser representing most of my net worth looking for better L3 mission income, and assuming somehow 0.4 was just a little worse than 0.5 space, rather than being infested with griefers /lol. I got ganked by lowlifes, and judged it would take too long to get set up again (as per the first point).


  • Income problem? It's pretty easy to make a few mil to get yourself started at first. Sounds more like you don't know how to make money in this game. Are you by chance a highsec miner? You also don't seem to understand, that you need to fly what you can afford to lose. If you can't replace it, then don't fly it. But people are greedy, impatient bastards and it's hardly something CCP would be able to fix with a patch. The EvE economy is build on the ability for assets to leave the system. With their newest iteration of their tutorial, CCP are even stressing this part more than ever, since it ends with you losing your ship no matter what. Ships are expendable and keeping them safe is something you need to learn. It is also something that is very possible in highsec and highsec definitely doesn't need more buffs to keeping assets safe.
  • It is easier than ever to find a newbie friendly corp. To me it sounds like your own paranoia is keeping you from interacting with other people. But given, that it sounds like you are a grade A carebear, then your mindset doesn't really surprise me.
  • So because you went into lowsec with no clue, it somehow is the fault of the "lowlifes"? Yeah, keep blaming everyone else than yourself. In addition, you didn't fly what you could afford to lose, as pointed out in my first point.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#278 - 2017-01-11 01:03:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Zoe Chu wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
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.


You know it is impossible since CCP stopped releasing that information a few years ago. Another important point is how many accounts belong to the same person, no info is available on that either. I'd gladly show you if the info was available.

Any claim that subs have risen or fallen is speculation as is the current number of subs, but that's not the point I was making.

Historically, player PCU was higher when the game was more dangerous, that trend is easy to prove as the information is public domain; both for the PCU and the various mechanics that have made the game safer.

Sub numbers are also available up to a point and they roughly correlate with the PCU in the relevant time period; the average account per subscriber is 1.5 IIRC, and has been for some time.

Killboard data is also available, you'll be looking for kills where the antagonist died to Concord around the same time, pre 2012(ish) data is incomplete though.

Bear in mind that it now generally takes several gankers to kill something big, there will be several deaths to Concord for every sizeable kill, it's a common pitfall to assume that 1 Concord kill = 1 suicide gank.

Your claim is that sub numbers have fallen because of the rise of suicide ganking, I'm disputing it on 2 points.

  • There is no evidence that sub numbers have fallen beyond a historical rough correlation with PCU, which last time I looked was on the rise.
  • What rise in suicide ganking?

If anything it's gone down because it now takes a well organised structure, numbers, a decent supply chain and serious funding/SRP to kill something worthwhile unless someone does something exceedingly dumb, which is why it's pretty much the domain of MiniLuv and the New Order these days.

What has risen is the publicity it gets, gankers are media savvy and they play the metagame too, hence Minerbumping, the propaganda etc. Their aim is not to ruin the game, it's to ruin your game if they catch you being lazy, greedy or dumb; most of what they preach is common sense btw.


Where's Helicity when you need her? Pirate

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#279 - 2017-01-11 03:18:38 UTC
Hakawai wrote:



Studies based on input from self-selected participants are not very useful. The only certain thing about the data is that it is affected more by the self-selection pattern than by whatever you're trying to understand.

(by the way Zoe Chu & Ima Wreckyou - not trying to directly agree or disagree with either of your posts, but this is partly intended to be a comment (of sorts) on both).


Here's a true story that might put the "perils of griefing" into perspective:



I like the segue from "whinging about a lack of scientific rigor" right into, "Meaningless n=1 anecdote."

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Morgan Agrivar
Doomheim
#280 - 2017-01-11 03:53:03 UTC
The whole time I played, I have always had a backup ship when I went out and purchased a new ship and fittings, just in case I did lose that ship. I never sold the previous one I had so I could help pay for a new one. It was my backup. I had one for when I mined in the beginning, one when I was scanning and exploring and one for missioning.

When PvPing, I made sure I had three hulls with all the fixings available where I was doing the pewpew. I was always worried in losing my ship and not having a way to recover.

I still do it to this day...minus the stupid mining ship. Screw mining... Lol