Assembly Hall

What empty freighters? Aside from Burn events where are we seeing this? You keep saying this, but I don't see much evidence of it.

How much stuff moves around HS vs. is ganked or killed in a wardc? How many players move around HS vs. being ganked or killed in a wardec?

Most players move around HS unmolested. Most haulers move around HS unmolested. In fact, I'd say tens of trillions move around for every trillion that died in a gank or a war dec over the course of a month. That is HS PvP is not some overwhelming ubiquitous thing that is stifling game play.

But we see or hear about those who get killed because we keep track of them via killboards like zkill. So you are reacting to what you see, but ignoring what you can't see (or see so easily). Go sit in Uedama and watch how many freighters go through without a problem. Do it for an hour. My guess is you'll be surprised.

The shark analogy is interesting in that it depends on the behavior of the shark. If it sticks around and is territorial no. That would be foolish and imprudent....and most people who are ganked are imprudent and foolish.

Similarly if you undock your freighter and there is a war dec you are being very imprudent and foolish.

Using your analogy not only was there a shark attack...you can still see the shark swimming around and yet go in the water anyways.

You must keep in mind that risk is not something that the game comes along and imposes on you out of the blue. Chances are if you find yourself in a very risky situation it is because you did something to "bring" that risk down on you. If you look at freighter suicide ganks (i.e. excluding war decs) for example most of them have way too much cargo value. Even the ones that have low cargo value you should check to see if they have a double wrapped courier package. Those often get ganked based on the premise: if they double wrapped it, it must be valuable. In other words, these players took actions that increased their risk.

Edit:

The takeaway is this: be prudent and your risk of a suicide gank is actually quite small. In a war dec again the idea is prudence. Do not undock in your marauder or whatever expensive ship you have. In times of war dec it is even more important to follow EVE's number one rule: do not fly anything you cannot afford to lose.

So if you are prudent and learn the game mechanics you'll be quite safe in HS. You won't be 100% safe. But all you have to do is be faster than the other guy when the bear is chasing you. The new player will have to learn this and the best way is by doing it...learning by doing. Trial and error...and flying ships you can afford to replace.

No Teckos, you are wrong. It is closer to 500T or 1 000T ISK that move around highsec for every 1T that is lost in highsec, not 10T ISK. This is according to CCP Quant's numbers. For example, last month 1 917 T ISK worth of goods moved in or out of The Forge while only 2.69 T ISK (0.14%) was destroyed. In Domain, it was 1 299 T ISK transported and only 1.44 T ISK (0.11%) lost. And those destruction numbers are losses due to all things, including NPCs, not just wars and criminals.

Highsec is incredibly safe as a whole. By any objective or subjective criteria the chances of you losing something are minuscule in almost every situation. I get that for whatever reason, some carebears have convinced themselves that highsec is a warzone where there is a ganker or wardeccer behind every asteroid, but it really isn't the case. Those crime numbers would be the envy of any jurisdiction and show how much the mechanics favour the highsec denizen over the aggressor.

Now I also get that those losses probably disproportionately fall on the newer players. Once players figure out the mechanics, the only way to lose something in highsec is to be incredibly unlucky, or become complacent or greedy/imprudent. Most of those economic numbers reflect veteran players operating in near complete safely and with impunity to attackers, while the losses fall to those with less understanding of the game mechanics (or the just bad/lazy/greedy). That is however, how a competitive game is suppose to work.

I am not sure how CCP can ever reconcile the fact that some players find losing stuff "non-consensually" a 'slap in the face' (or worse, even just the chance they could lose their stuff) with the fact Eve Online is a full-time, PvP sandbox game where you consent to PvP when you undock. That will indeed turn off some players. Even after they have nerfed piracy to near zero in highsec, and made wardecs completely consensual for the individual player, there are still players who won't accept any risk that they will lose their stuff no matter how lazily they play the game, or that it is not possible to be 100% safe no matter how much effort they make to be left alone. These players are just simply playing the wrong game. They won't be happy no matter what CCP does short of Trammelizing the game.

I don't think CCP can or will nerf highsec risk much more. We are pretty much at peak safety. Heh, maybe I am wrong on that as I thought that last week and then CCP came up with the insta-PLEX travel hanger. I wonder if the PCU will track lower after this anti-content safety buff like it seems to have with all the others? I mean, I think this hanger probably is a good idea for new players and maybe thus overall, but it will come at yet another cost to player activity in the game by removing a profession (PLEX hauler) and some player-driven stories over large losses in PLEX that drove interest and engagement with the game. I guess time will tell.

It would be nice if CCP actually added something to the game to create content and activity instead of just deleting conflict drivers and making things safer and safer as seems to have preferred development activity over the last 5-7 years. Such content drivers might actually turn around the falling player numbers.

No. That is creating the environment we play in. Yes, CCP made it possible to suicide gank other players in HS. They also made it harder to kill players than in LS and especially NS. But that is not "risk". Risk is based almost entirely on the player's actions.

For example, If I put 700 million ISK work of cargo into my tanked freighter and use a scout and manually pilot I'll likely be fine. On the other hand if I were to put 7 billion into an anti-tanked freighter and not use a scout my actions have caused me to face considerably more risk. Note in both instances the game environment is the same, but it is my actions that dictate the level of risk I am taking on.

Risk is a function of player actions. Behave imprudently and you'll have more risk. Behave prudently you'll have lower risk.

Edit: And using your mining barge example. The miner made choices that affected his risk. He went for a covetor when he could have gone for a procuror with a solid tank. The former is easy to gank solo, the latter cannot be ganked solo.

Choices...this game is all about choices.

What does that matter to a new player? In regards to the OP.

They see a Twitch/YouTube vid, or they see EVE is free on steam. (I would wager most new folk passing through EVE's doors lately come from steam, followed closely by accidentally stumbling on media news.)

They don't know anyone and they have a small idea what EVE entails. It's in space. It's a sandbox...ooooh.

They are unlikely to have any concept of any in game value, Or what High sec or low sec is. They don't yet know of the great data wizard CCP Quant.

They choose Gallente apparently because of the soon to be removed empire lore text 'The only true democracy in New Eden'

They do the NPE and think, ooooh this is pretty, this is actually jolly good fun, I might play this.

They look at the sub fee to go OMEGA POWER! ...Then ask in rookie or starter corp "Can a new player get a PLEX in a month" OR "What do I need to do to make enough for a PLEX each month" ...common theme.

"Missions" someone says, "work up to lvl 4's" ...will take time, and skill points... "Exploration" another says, but they can't scan anything good down and when they do someone else jumps in, nails the site and leaves... "Join a Null sec corp" another announces, "Can make all the monies and win at eve." but, "Don't trust anyone" and, "Don't fly what you can't afford to loose!" "Wormholes" someone bellows, "Ninja Gas clouds" "bookmark the entrance" "Don't talk in local" "Warp out right away if you see sleepers, or anyone else"

...sleepers, gas clouds, bookmarks... er...

They think about it, about all the options available to them in this darkly oppressive alternate reality... and go mining. In high sec.

They get ganked.

They realize, with a cold shiver, they have no control over their stuff. At any moment anything they have worked towards can be violently taken away. That in effect, the time they put into the game has no value, and as such appears unvalued by the very creators. That If they did sub, they would essentially be paying for this unwelcome outcome. Why bother investing any time at all in it?

They leave.

They directly leave, they don't pass GO. They simply go play another game, and they certainly don't bother filling in the why did you leave questionnaire. Thus providing CCP with zero useful feedback.

I love this narrative. It is like a ghost story told around the camp fire, or an urban legend that is passed from one generation of teenagers in town to the next based on no evidence or on no facts. It sounds plausible and resonates emotionally with Eve players, yet completely misses the big picture.

Ok here is my version of the tale, likely much more reflective of the average gamer who attempts Eve:

"They think about all the exciting options in this dystopian, war-torn universe CCP has built and they decide they first need to to gather some resources and perhaps train some skills before they head out on their exciting adventure... so they go mining. In highsec.

They mine for some days in a silent belt in highsec... and nothing happens. They keep going, perhaps upgrading their mining ship after a few weeks and still, nothing happens. Now they are getting a little antsy. The player-driven battles over space or industry they heard about are not apparent to them so they start to question why they are spending so many hours staring at a mining laser for no real reason. Perhaps at this point they just stop logging in, or maybe they switch to missioning as at least here there are some explosions.

Now a few months later, they are sitting in their Raven still having no interactions with the greater sandbox then other perhaps selling/buying a few things on the market, and finally it dawns on them: Eve is a terribly boring game. They gave it a try, but nothing happened. No opponent materialized and no greater goal appeared to them. They spent months playing but saw no massive fleet fights nor any of the machinations of the industrialist of New Eden for control of the markets. Just a few other silent miners in the belts, and spent a lot of time interacting with repetitive NPC agents. Why bother wasting any more time or money on this snoozefest?

They leave.

They directly leave, they don't pass GO. They don't come to the forums and whine about how they were ganked, or how unfair the game is. They simply leave for another game more interesting than Eve's current highsec solo experience. The only evidence of their presence and their weeks and months of boredom is buried deep in the game logs, found only when someone like CCP Rise or CCP Quant goes looking."

I am sure a handful of people have left the game after being ganked and not bothered to fill out the questionnaire. But I am convinced that the sterile and lifeless place much of highsec has become has bored many-fold more potential Eve players out of the game, many of whom also leave quietly, or perhaps even tell CCP their game is "boring". Probably most of them wouldn't even articulate it as such, and just attribute their inability to get into the game as something wrong or incompatible with them, even though they just never found the more exciting or fun bits that they might have really enjoyed. Really though, the problem is showing these new players the real potential of the game through the backdrop of an overly safe and unrepresentative-of-the-rest-of-the-game place like highsec.

Eve Online is a complex and unique game that will always have trouble getting players engaged with the full game. However, making highsec completely safe would not do anything to help the game long-term. As CCP Rise said:

"We have tried and tried to validate the myth that griefing has a pronounced affect on new players - we have failed... Isolating players away from the actual sandbox seems very contrary to what we would like to accomplish."

Yes, you can lose stuff in New Eden. But it is so, so, so much easier to make stuff in modern Eve Online that in almost any situation losses are inconsequential, even for new players. If you cannot handle losing a fraction of a percent of your net worth under any circumstance however, Eve Online might not be the game for you.

The most glaring problem with your idea is it is an obviously zero-sum change that would delete much of the space that thousands of players use every day. Why should CCP take away 75% of lowsec and give it to you? Don't you think that might have a negative impact on the players that do log in to fight and PvE in lowsec today? I mean, it's not like highsec is overcrowded. I make a point of visiting the more obscure corners of highsec and the vast majority of systems once you get away from the trade hubs have only a couple pilots in them at any time or are empty.

Further, have you ever entered lowsec? Aside from the faction warfare stuff, the general missions and mining gameplay is near identical to the rest of Empire space. Sure, you have level 5 and some higher end ore but it basically is the same as highsec. If you want to run missions or mine you already can perfectly well in highsec. I don't think slightly increasing the number of systems where players can mine or mission with CONCORD protection is going make anyone stay playing Eve much longer. The gameplay would be near identical and they can already do it in the 1200 or so systems in highsec. Removing most of lowsec as an accessible PvP space and home of Faction Warfare would cause people to leave however. It would seem to me if you really want that content, it would be better to ask CCP to add that content back to highsec than delete most of lowsec to give it to you.

I do find it amusing that you accuse others of "bombarding" you with rhetoric about how the game should work when it is you asking for radical changes to the game as it doesn't conform to your narrow view of how a PvP game should work. Many of us actually like Eve the way it is, as does CCP apparently. I am not sure where you get your hubris to tell everyone else how they should play or design an open-world PvP sandbox game. By all means, share what you are looking for in a game, but you also need to realize how and why Eve was designed this way, and that CCP has stuck with this vision for almost 15 years, and that it is an MMO that other people like to play in its current form.

If a new player is busy trying to earn a PLEX, I'm sorry he is doing it wrong. If you were to buy a sub for an entire year it costs $10.95 vs. $19.95 for a PLEX. Grinding for a PLEX is going to be very costly in terms of leisure time forgone, especially for a new player. Such a player is, literally, setting himself up for failure.



First off, this is a competitive game. No matter what you are in competition with other players. You will always be in competition with other players even if you are never ganked.

That is suppose you want to mine. And further suppose you are never, ever ganked. You are still in competition with other players who are mining and buying minerals, and those who are engaged in arbitrage of minerals between regions. The point is, if you define PvP as competition it is everywhere in EVE. You cannot avoid it. Ever.

Now if you want to avoid ship-to-ship PvP fine. Go for it, but given the nature of EVE if another is determined that you experience such PvP you are going to experience it.

So get used to it.

And yes, the analysis suggests that those who interact with other players vs. being isolated in their own solar system never interacting stay substantially longer with the game.



That is possible, but you are omitting that those killed legally stay almost as lone, on average, as those ganked. The implication is pretty clear: player-on-player interaction is good for retention. That is treating the game as a console game and having no interaction is bad for retention.



Of course those who left probably outnumbered those who stayed. Those who were ganked and killed legally were about 15% of the sample. Thus 85% were not suicide ganked or killed legally. So it is reasonable to conclude those who left was larger...but those who left were predominantly those who were not suicide ganked or killed legally. In other words, you don't know how to interpret the data yourself.

I have cut off the rest as it the usual mealy-mouthed nonsense about "Some players do not like PvP." Fine, then GTFO. This is a competitive MMORPG. No matter what you are going to do you are going to come into conflict/competition with other players. Be it via the market, trying to suck up all the ice before the other guy, or shooting him in the face. That is the core nature of the game. Either you grasp that or you get out of f***town.