EVE General Discussion

It is, in my experience, more often than not the newer players who are keen to learn new things who will have the best attitudes, while the older ones who think they have nothing left to learn are the ones who will qq, when faced with the reality of EVE.

I probably got this popup.

I said in my post that I made some beginner errors. This would not have been the only one. It's not that interesting to find responses to such a post where the main content is "you made some beginner errors".


One issue for a new EVE player is that you get fed more bad information than good. After a while you stop paying attention to anything you can't verify immediately.

FWIW it was worse back then - my experience happened when Goonswarm and BoB were fighting, perhaps 6-12 months before BoB was disbanded. Back then there was a lot of deliberate misinformation being spread, even in the help channels - forum griefing if you like.

The game, then and now, is also full of weird "special cases" that experienced players know, and are impossible for beginners to process - you can't understand a weird special case until you understand the typical case.

After enough inaccurate information, disinformation, and incomprehensible special cases, you either have to spend really large amounts of time bored silly, checking every little detail, or you make assumptions, and sometimes the assumptions are wrong.

An example, since I'm nominally replying to a member of CODE: bumping. What rookie could imagine how powerful bumping can be? In some contexts It's a better PvP tool than any of the huge number of modules rookies are struggling to figure out. It "feels" like it should be an exploit, but AFAIK it's been officially approved by CCP.
Yet it's far from an unusual case - EVE's just like that. New players will take months to figure out all the details ... and make all kinds of beginners' errors as they do so.

What? Are you telling us you got this warning and either:

1. Did not read it, or
2. Read it and ignored it's implications?

First time I got that warning I decided not to jump.





Yeah, because BoB and Goons had a huge interest in misleading nubs to do things during the middle of a coalition level war.




Funny you should mention bumping. I actually started a thread on bumping as bumping was going to derail my thread on freighter ganking and risk. Of course none of the usual suspects have shown up in that thread. The standard "fix" to bumping for people like you and your kind is: just remove it. Which is nothing more than encouraging risk taking and imprudence. Of course, when some foolish freighter pilot gets ganked and his stuff taken without bumping you and your kind will be here mistakenly whinging about risk and reward.

Seriously, you and your kind are about as coherent as a slug. Your problem is you and those like you want CCP to solve your problems vs. solving them yourselves. Want to know the easiest and simplest way to address bumping: do not take on so much risk. That's it. Stop putting 8 billion ISK worth of cargo in your freighter. Put no more than 1 billion and to be safe make it 800 million. If you have to put more, use scouts and webbers maybe even consider a JF with an exit cyno. And some buddies who can gank the bumping ship if necessary. But nope, instead go crying to CCP about how awful it is that somebody is imposing consequences on those who are foolish enough to take on way, way too much risk.

This is a "dictionary argument" to some extent, but it does capture something interesting.

CCP is aware that it's possible to literally drive new players from the game by deliberately making it impossible for them to play it. In the limited areas that are designed to be (a) suitable for new players, and (b) almost useless for experienced players, CCP enforce behavioral rules to stop experienced players from driving the new ones from the game.

As the majority of this thread demonstrates, CCP do this because they must. There are enough EVE players who would infest the newbie systems just to make it impossible for them to even get started in EVE that the rule is necessary.

Those players are still here though - just constrained in the designated rookie zones. And they most definitely find places where it's game-legal to do exactly the same things, and they put a lot of their time into trying to annoy other players where it's practical to do so.


Is this suddenly good behavior just because it's simply not practical for CCP to enforce "reasonableness" rules on players? Of course it isn't. It's the same toxic behavior, but it can't be conveniently identified as such.

The people who do this kind of thing won't stop just because they're asked to. They do it because they enjoy it. The effect on their victims is the point, not an incidental side effect. Their kind of entertainment is nothing like the fun a combat pilot gets from participating in a nullsec territory skirmish.

So we can't do much about the perpetrators. But IMO there are a lot of facilitators too. Players have come to accept the crazy arguments the griefers have been injecting into discussions for at least a decade (about when I first did an EVE trail, and saw the same nonsense in these forums). Those players help the griefers by visibly accepting their behavior.

It will help If the facilitators stop defending the others. Fun-vampires are bad for everyone, because they do influence the game as perceived by newer players. That experienced players can get well-enough established and rich enough that they are effectively immune to griefing doesn't mean they are not indirectly response for it happening.

The study made no attempt to find "new players" in fact that would have undermined the purpose of the study.

What they did do was find a large number of players. Presumably selected randomly. Then they looked at that sample and categorized them into 3 categories:

1. Killed illegally--i.e. their killer(s) were in turn killed by CONCORD.
2. Killed legally--i.e. their killer(s) were NOT killed by CONCORD.
3. Not killed at all.

The sample contained people who would have played various lengths of time, including those who might very well have been playing the game still at the time of the study.

This allows them to look at the following:

How long did these players play the game | which category they fell into.

Players in category one (killed illegally) played the longest.
Players in category two played second longest.
Players in category three played the shortest duration.

The conclusion one would draw from this is that getting ganked when a player is 15 days old or less is not harmful to player retention...in fact it is beneficial.

So if there is a flaw in the study it could be that the players were not randomly selected...but that is pretty obvious--i.e. when presenting these results to just about anyone with even a passing familiarity with statistics would ask, "Is the sample random?"

As for finding alts, that is easy. Look for the oldest account. If, for example I wound up in that 80,000 sample you'd look at the accounts under my name...paid with the same credit card....and maybe even cross reference that with KB data if you wanted to be really thorough. You'd find out which account is my "main" account.

And just to be clear since straw man arguments are very popular....I am not saying anything should be changed about starter systems. I'm fine with what...24 systems being off limits to ganking out of something like...is it 7,000 solar systems.

It is amazing how good people are at dismissing studies that do not align with their preconceived notions. Confirmation bias is strong in EVERYONE. So much so they'll hold views that are literally contradictory.

You sound like any random Christian (or the vast majority of other religions). Refusal to admit the small potential chance you might be incorrect in anything sounds like pure denial. If you skim over content the second you realise it disagrees with you it's hardly surprising you have such a blinkered, one sided view on things

Imagine if two people in a debate had the same outlook. Discussion would cease...

So you switch between these players are better than their targets but have self-esteem problems to they are cheaters. Talk about trying to make others feel worse to make yourself feel better. You are the perfect case study in this dynamic.

And you have to remember that this is a game. Having your ship destroyed and then posting drivel on the forums is very much like, as one poster pointed out, landing on Park Place when another player put a hotel there and complaining about it. This is a competitive game. This is a sandbox game. As such things are going to happen that you may not have wanted to happen. But it is a game...getting upset to the point where you come here and argue to change the game that others are enjoying is extremely presumptuous and even arrogant. You are basically saying, "My way of playing the game, is the better way of playing the game."

Again, such irony.

The study does not conclude, validly, or reliably, what you have construed it to.

The bias and misrepresentation is entirely on your part.

The study does not differentiate between, or investigate, whether the new character is created by an existing vet, a returning noob, or a brand new first time player. Obviously, the alt of a vet wont care about being destroyed, a returning noob probably wont care, and a true newcomer is dependent on circumstances. If there is a corroborating study on what the % of new characters are created by the above categories of players, that would inform interpretation of these results, but there isnt.

The study also does not specifically investigate whether a character/player left the game due to early aggression. They may have left due to other reasons.

I dont expect the uninitiated into scientific method and statistical analysis to understand, but that exactly is where your deficiency in those capacities shows itself as bias, by concluding what is not represented in the data, in favor of your own personal interest.

You are a hack, a dilettante, trying to misrepresent data, dishonestly, towards your own bias and preference.
Furthermore, you are projecting your own shortcomings onto everyone else, as if you where not (demonstrably) committing it yourself.
Suddenly its "everyone", and not just you, which infact is the case.

I dont expect you to understand that. You cant. You are blind to the extent of your own bias, and because you are vulnerable on the methods of statistical analysis due to your ignorance of that, you project that onto others to avoid your own culpability.

I have made no personal attacks.

I have pointed out his bias and commensurate deliberate misrepresentation of data, towards his bias.
Its not personal, anymore than his bias is personal.

I edited my post to include an explanation, whilst you where posting this response.
The study does not validly or reliably confirm his biased and unrepresentative conclusion.

1) Argumentum ad publicum and non-sequitor. We are both addressing the same general audience. Techos bias is apparent from his misconstrued onclusions from a study which does not support them.

2) The study is fine, for what it is, but does not investigate or differentiate to the conclusion Techos drew from them.
One needs education in scientific method and statistical analysis, inorder to ascertain the validity, reliability of a study before drawing conclusions from its results.

3) Ad-hominem. The fact I have not QQed, is not a negative, though you present it as such. I did not lose a ship as a fresh player, yet I remained ingame, which refutes Techos and your false conclusion.

4) This is not my only character or account. Ive said that before, I know that is hard for an autist to understand as they lack theory of self and hence understanding of others as autonomous actors with their own history and motivations, but when stated as fact, you can, and have to, accept that.