These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

How many more players must we lose to bullying

First post
Author
Mr Mieyli
Doomheim
#1081 - 2017-04-06 00:18:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Mieyli
Even two pages ago I was pushing for changes I thought would bring more players into the game, and trying to minimise negative effects that come with that. Then I got thinking that even if CCP would change the game to attract new players it would be at the cost of lessening the things I do like about the game, and once those things are removed to attract players they can't be replaced again. I've accused people of a slippery slope mentality, but it is true that as new players come they will ask for new things, or fail to understand some core things about the game, the chase for new players could go on forever. In SWG they removed the complexity from the game, which (I assume) was one of the central reasons people liked it, in eve the central reason is personal freedom. It's just freedom doesn't always mean what people assume, you are equally free to fail. When you remove the core idea of your game to appeal to new players, you will appeal to no-one.

I would sorely like for CCP to have more revenue directed at eve, but as others have pointed out there is no guarantee extra income would be pumped back into eve anyway. Instead as Jenn has said the new player experience needs to set up exactly what eve is about, I feel starting in null would help with this, but I'm sure other steps would be needed. Like changing the damn name high-sec away from something that sounds secure.

This post brought to you by CCP's alpha forum alt initiative. Playing the eve forums has never come cheaper.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1082 - 2017-04-06 00:26:18 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
I visit an MMO site called "Massively OP". A few months ago that had an article on there about a Themepark MMO player being given the chance to try some Sandbox MMO experiences and then tell about them from his perspective. The result was predictable, the thempark guy noted many good things but he looked at it like a themepark guy and decried the "lack of direction", the "lack of good story telling" and other such things.

I mention this because a guy in the comments for that article hit the nail on the head about sandbox games (not talking about EVE specifically but it rings very true for EVE".

He said (paraphrasing), "a sandbox game is "like writing a book, or a play, or a cool song. Most people will NEVER do those things for themselves, most people are content to enjoy other people's works. And so it is in MMOs. Themepark players enjoy an intensely interactive and immersive story told to them by someone else, sandbox players more or less want to make their own story. Themepark players will ALWAYS out number sandbox players by a whole lot thus the game world will be mostly themepark, but that doesn't mean stop making sandboxes)."


Yes, that is very good. And it isn't just people who write books or songs, or the like. What I find interesting about the game is how it fits in with so much about economics. Both in the market an in how players behave. I wonder about things like, did the change to freighters lead to more ganking? After all the change lets players anti-tank their freighters and put more stuff in them at the same time. In a sense, one could argue it almost a buff to ganking. Less EHP means you lower the cargo value threshold for ganking, and the more stuff makes the target more enticing. And we see freighter pilots selecting the choices that make them more likely to be ganked, at least based on intuition.

"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
#1083 - 2017-04-06 00:54:35 UTC
Aynen wrote:


[snip]

I think that idealy the two types of players would form a symbiotic structure in which neither obstructs the other group's ability to enjoy the game in their own prefered way.
This is, of course, very hard to do. But to an extent, it has been happening in Eve all along. (more or less).
Take PVE players who stick to high-sec mostly as being the 'themepark' players, and the null-sec population as being the sandbox players. Currently, they co-exist in the game, but their relation is such that there's often animosity between the two.
Sandboxers would like to see more people come out of high-sec, while themeparkers don't see the appeal.
And on top of that, any new feature that comes out that caters to one group but not the other will, by the other, be seen as replacing a would-be feature for the other that the developers would otherwise have made.
So the current symbiotic relationship is strained at best.



You can't. EVE is a competitive game such that whatever you do it will have an effect on other players. Just about all of it. If you earn a bunch of loyalty points that will have effect on other mission runners if you turn them in and start selling the stuff you get. The effect will be through market prices. Same with ore, invention, moon mining, even running anomalies in NS. The current culture is if I'm in a given anomaly, you cannot come shoot the rats in that anomaly. Thus, anomalies are often first come first serve. No matter what you do you will have an effect.

"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
#1084 - 2017-04-06 00:57:38 UTC
Mr Mieyli wrote:
Even two pages ago I was pushing for changes I thought would bring more players into the game, and trying to minimise negative effects that come with that. Then I got thinking that even if CCP would change the game to attract new players it would be at the cost of lessening the things I do like about the game, and once those things are removed to attract players they can't be replaced again. I've accused people of a slippery slope mentality, but it is true that as new players come they will ask for new things, or fail to understand some core things about the game, the chase for new players could go on forever. In SWG they removed the complexity from the game, which (I assume) was one of the central reasons people liked it, in eve the central reason is personal freedom. It's just freedom doesn't always mean what people assume, you are equally free to fail. When you remove the core idea of your game to appeal to new players, you will appeal to no-one.

I would sorely like for CCP to have more revenue directed at eve, but as others have pointed out there is no guarantee extra income would be pumped back into eve anyway. Instead as Jenn has said the new player experience needs to set up exactly what eve is about, I feel starting in null would help with this, but I'm sure other steps would be needed. Like changing the damn name high-sec away from something that sounds secure.


Shocked

Holy ****.....

WTF, we can't have this kind of talk!

"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

Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1085 - 2017-04-06 02:28:13 UTC
Alexander Bor wrote:
Marcus Tedric wrote:
people play EVE as they would real life - if they could get away with it!


You are right.
That's how people deal with the absolute freedom given.

That's why the devs coded in consequences. Consequences which have been eroded by inflation and poor new dev decisions.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1086 - 2017-04-06 02:35:46 UTC
Dom Arkaral wrote:
This went from "Grr gankers you make people leave the game" to "ayy lmao let's talk about weed"

Time to lock it as everything else is the usual talk and it only goes in circles hahaha

You want it locked because you're afraid a dev with brains might notice it and CODE will have to actually PvP for once - I wouldn't worry about that.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1087 - 2017-04-06 03:46:56 UTC
Mr Mieyli wrote:
Even two pages ago I was pushing for changes I thought would bring more players into the game, and trying to minimise negative effects that come with that. Then I got thinking that even if CCP would change the game to attract new players it would be at the cost of lessening the things I do like about the game, and once those things are removed to attract players they can't be replaced again. I've accused people of a slippery slope mentality, but it is true that as new players come they will ask for new things, or fail to understand some core things about the game, the chase for new players could go on forever. In SWG they removed the complexity from the game, which (I assume) was one of the central reasons people liked it, in eve the central reason is personal freedom. It's just freedom doesn't always mean what people assume, you are equally free to fail. When you remove the core idea of your game to appeal to new players, you will appeal to no-one.

I would sorely like for CCP to have more revenue directed at eve, but as others have pointed out there is no guarantee extra income would be pumped back into eve anyway. Instead as Jenn has said the new player experience needs to set up exactly what eve is about, I feel starting in null would help with this, but I'm sure other steps would be needed. Like changing the damn name high-sec away from something that sounds secure.



No you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about, I mean just look at.....


....Wait....What? *reads post again*

WTF? Is this a trap? Where am I? WHY ARE YOU STARING AT ME!

*passes out*
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1088 - 2017-04-06 04:09:25 UTC
Mr Mieyli wrote:
Even two pages ago I was pushing for changes I thought would bring more players into the game, and trying to minimise negative effects that come with that. Then I got thinking that even if CCP would change the game to attract new players it would be at the cost of lessening the things I do like about the game, and once those things are removed to attract players they can't be replaced again. I've accused people of a slippery slope mentality, but it is true that as new players come they will ask for new things, or fail to understand some core things about the game, the chase for new players could go on forever. In SWG they removed the complexity from the game, which (I assume) was one of the central reasons people liked it, in eve the central reason is personal freedom. It's just freedom doesn't always mean what people assume, you are equally free to fail. When you remove the core idea of your game to appeal to new players, you will appeal to no-one.

I would sorely like for CCP to have more revenue directed at eve, but as others have pointed out there is no guarantee extra income would be pumped back into eve anyway. Instead as Jenn has said the new player experience needs to set up exactly what eve is about, I feel starting in null would help with this, but I'm sure other steps would be needed. Like changing the damn name high-sec away from something that sounds secure.


There are a lot of things that could make EVE 'better' but better for who? I can think of quite a few things that would make it better for me personally but I've only ever made two suggestions on F&I because none of my other ideas, after thinking on them very carefully, really either fit with the game's core nature, or they just weren't balanced. I can't remember what both of those ideas were, the first one was really good, functional, and had a fair bit of support on F&I but the second one I remember clearly even though it wasn't the important one and was more of a joke than anything: have Morgan Freeman do the voice for Aura (I still want this, joke or not). Both ideas, however, were things that I wanted, for me, and only me, because I don't speak for anyone but myself.

Instead of thinking about what would attract new players, think instead about what you want in the game. Just you. If no one else out there shares your tastes, which I doubt, then it won't matter. But this "please think of the children" nonsense.... no one buys it. No one believes you have spoken for a vast number of people who all want the same thing. You're not showing us any quantitative data to prove it, you're just asserting that this is what people want, and then a whole bunch of people tell you, "but we're people too and we don't want this so I don't know where you got this idea that you can speak for me," people who've played the game for years and know what it is, and you spend a good 40 pages insisting that they're wrong, and you know what they want better then you.

So I'm glad that you finally reached this point where you've realised your mistake, because it's a pet hate of mine when people think they can speak for me and what I want. It's so infantalising. In any case, you're coming around and that's good to see. You'll learn, in time, that we were all new once, and yet we're still here, after struggling through a game that was much harder then it is now. Believe it or not, the game is gradually leaning more towards as much mass appeal as possible without breaking its core principles, and has been going that way for a while now. A lot of us have had to adapt to that, and it's trying, but a lot of us also understand that if it can be done right, without killing what makes EVE unique in the process, then it should be done. I'm entirely on board with that.

And no one except the most zealous actually has a problem with the game trying to do this either, as long as EVE itself isn't made the sacrificial lamb to achieve it. You have to realise, in the end, that if EVE is changed into something else, something it's not, for the sake of mass appeal, then it's already dead. It either stands on its own merits, or it dies on them. Whether that death is the result of servers being switched off or because it gets changed into something else, it still dies. Frankly, I don't see that happening any time soon, and the fear mongering of IZ and ilk doesn't change the fact that CCP just spent a bucketload of money updating their servers, something I don't think they'd do if the game was dying.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1089 - 2017-04-06 04:22:03 UTC
Mr Mieyli wrote:
Even two pages ago I was pushing for changes I thought would bring more players into the game, and trying to minimise negative effects that come with that. Then I got thinking that even if CCP would change the game to attract new players it would be at the cost of lessening the things I do like about the game, and once those things are removed to attract players they can't be replaced again. I've accused people of a slippery slope mentality, but it is true that as new players come they will ask for new things, or fail to understand some core things about the game, the chase for new players could go on forever. In SWG they removed the complexity from the game, which (I assume) was one of the central reasons people liked it, in eve the central reason is personal freedom. It's just freedom doesn't always mean what people assume, you are equally free to fail. When you remove the core idea of your game to appeal to new players, you will appeal to no-one.

I would sorely like for CCP to have more revenue directed at eve, but as others have pointed out there is no guarantee extra income would be pumped back into eve anyway. Instead as Jenn has said the new player experience needs to set up exactly what eve is about, I feel starting in null would help with this, but I'm sure other steps would be needed. Like changing the damn name high-sec away from something that sounds secure.

No it wouldn't "lessen the things you like" about EvE unless you like the counterstrike aspect of EvE.

Eve was never designed or meant to have consequence free log in and quick gank a few random people in highsec.

It does as designed with Safe Space (high sec) - do a EvE Search on dev posts prior to 2006 and search for the term "Safe Space".

There were ways to kill in high sec sure - War Decs being the primary mechinism, however there was a 24 hour delay for those who wished to leave, there was also cost involved.

The other method was of course suicide piracy however it was very costly with guns that could not be tanked (at the time) and ship firepower much less than today. The security loss was more extreme and it took significant amounts of time to recover. I spent 1 afternoon solo camping a gate in Rancer and made -9 without podkilling which caused me to spend a month in null chaining belt rats.

If you like EvE harsh it was harsh for the ganker. It was harsh for the carebear too. There was no megacyte or zydrine outside of null, no officers, only mining scordite plag or missioning belt ratting. The low sec null seccer was rewarded with riches the highseccer wasnt able to access.

The only real change you will see in highsec if CCP makes the change to reimpose harshness on high sec gankers is more players in high. Those players of course will eventually filter into low or null. The more carebears in high the more competition and the more filtering into the lower sec areas.

Do you honestly believe the removal of gankers will have any real negstive effect on gameplay for anyone other than gankers? For most at an individual level the change will only be in longevity of the game and more development of EvE. The majority of null seccers don't even go to highsec except to get something from Jita. The majority are not hung up on what some guy they don't know is doing in a blinged out marauder on his 5000th run of Worlds Collide - apart from the fact he's contributed a few thousand dollars to CCP for sub's n Plex / Aurum.

The gankers are basically obsessed with a non-issue or are simply exploiting a loophole in the harshness to get easy skilless and safe kills.


CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Ioci
Bad Girl Posse
#1090 - 2017-04-06 04:44:27 UTC
I'm an original carebear in EVE Online. Started in 2005 and tried several times to do the NBSI thing, tried to be the tough as nails guy and just couldn't bring myself to do it. Still, it wasn't the players, the 'bullies' that pushed me away. Truth be told, they were few and far between. I understood the NBSI doctrine and I even appreciated the hooligan antics of CODE.

Why I really stopped logging in was the hostile attitude of CCP. They never made me feel welcome. They never treated me like a customer. The saw me (in my eyes) as a cow, to be milked. A "scrub". A whale. I expected that from Goons, -A-, Code. I played the arch nemesis game but I couldn't do that with CCP.

CCP Side, set up Team Carebear, welcome us back. Buff hi-sec. We can't fall back any further than high sec and we need to be able to build there to take the fight to the 'bullies'. Learn the power of underdog. It's as old as time.

'Mean ole bullies' of EVE? Keep the rivalry alive. If we ever get any teeth, you will be what we come looking for. And grr Goons.

R.I.P. Vile Rat

Spurty
#1091 - 2017-04-06 04:47:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Commander Spurty
Alasdan Helminthauge wrote:
CCP's own survey has showed that new players who have been ganked are more likely to stay than those who mine all days in peace.

Let's pick you as you threw this one out there. You stuck your neck out.

If you accept 100% of people replied to the question, then maybe. That's impossible however.

I would bet money that many of those that left, never read that email / filled out that form. I'd bet that as I can produce five people who want nothing to do with the game and any such communication was redirected to the trash can, long ago.

I'm one of those that stayed as I got ganked. I'm not the majority. I would not bat an eyelid at blapping jita (entire system and contents) from the game. I would keep playing if jita vaporized (no heads up, just gone 15 seconds from you reading this),.

I wouldn't bat an eye if all your stuff went "poof". Every alt, every main, all that stuff you think is safe in a station somewhere .. gone. I'd still play while you undocked in your ibis heading to the belts. Them tears of yours .. delicious.

You see, you don't listen. You just regurgitate and well, we will come for you eventually.

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP

Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1092 - 2017-04-06 04:58:12 UTC
Commander Spurty wrote:
Alasdan Helminthauge wrote:
CCP's own survey has showed that new players who have been ganked are more likely to stay than those who mine all days in peace.

Let's pick you as you threw this one out there. You stuck your neck out.

If you accept 100% of people replied to the question, then maybe. That's impossible however.

I would bet money that many of those that left, never read that email / filled out that form. I'd bet that as I can produce five people who want nothing to do with the game and any such communication was redirected to the trash can, long ago.

I'm one of those that stayed as I got ganked. I'm not the majority. I would not bat an eyelid at blapping jita (entire system and contents) from the game. I would keep playing if jita vaporized (no heads up, just gone 15 seconds from you reading this),.

I wouldn't bat an eye if all your stuff went "poof". Every alt, every main, all that stuff you think is safe in a station somewhere .. gone. I'd still play while you undocked in your ibis heading to the belts. Them tears of yours .. delicious.

You see, you don't listen. You just regurgitate and well, we will come for you eventually.

The survey never showed that and it only surveyed characters 14 days or younger. An analogy would be surveying 1 to 15 years olds as to whether they've quit trading stocks because they lost money trading pork bellies and then concluding pork bellies are super safe investments.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1093 - 2017-04-06 05:02:48 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:

No it wouldn't "lessen the things you like" about EvE unless you like the counterstrike aspect of EvE.

Eve was never designed or meant to have consequence free log in and quick gank a few random people in highsec.


Well good thing it is not consequence free then. That the consequences are less than the rewards is not CCP's problem, it is the problem of those players/pilots who created those rewards.

Quote:
It does as designed with Safe Space (high sec) - do a EvE Search on dev posts prior to 2006 and search for the term "Safe Space".


Nope. Even that screen shot you clutch to your breast like a protective talisman says "Nope." It references the word "piracy" that is exactly what suicide ganking is in game...the EVE version of piracy.

Quote:
pi·ra·cy
ˈpīrəsē/Submit
noun
the practice of attacking and robbing ships at sea.


There we go, but we replace sea with space. And where do you find ships carrying valuable cargo....why in HS along the...trade routes. So, HS suicide ganking is really nothing more than piracy. Everyone here, but you, can see it. I suspect you see it, but since it goes against your agenda you deny it over and over again.

Quote:
There were ways to kill in high sec sure - War Decs being the primary mechinism, however there was a 24 hour delay for those who wished to leave, there was also cost involved.


You mean like Zombie in the Yulai incident who killed people with smart bombs....for which he was not banned. He was banned for evading CONCORD and ignoring a directive from CCP staff to cease his evasions of CONCORD.

Every argument you muster is weak, hollow and vapid. You lie, distort, misrepresent and mislead...in just about every single post.

Quote:
The other method was of course suicide piracy however it was very costly with guns that could not be tanked (at the time) and ship firepower much less than today. The security loss was more extreme and it took significant amounts of time to recover. I spent 1 afternoon solo camping a gate in Rancer and made -9 without podkilling which caused me to spend a month in null chaining belt rats.


Yes, AKA suicide ganking. And oddly enough CCP has somehow managed to keep the cargo value threshold fairly constant. And oh boo-hoo, so CCP decided the effects of criminal actions were too severe. They adjust stuff all the time.

"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

Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#1094 - 2017-04-06 05:04:33 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Which is why the "EVE needs more players" folks confound me.
You are confounded by real life. Nothing else.

In real life a company needs cash flow to stay in business.

More players =
More cash flow =
More developers =
a better game

You want to go back to 10k peak players online? Make "Jenn's Empty Space MMO" and have a great time. Good luck even keeping a server up, let alone creating content.

Mr Epeen Cool


Except it can also be:

More players => more cash => more developers => develop a new game

which is exactly what CCP has done.

Are you implying they've done nothing for this game as well?

Mr Epeen Cool


Why is that anymore rediculous than your assumption that they will plow it all into this game? But that money that was plowed into Dust and World of Darkness....pretty much gone, and gone with it whatever they could have done for this game with more developers, etc.


The underlined. Please show where I said that.

Read what the words are saying, not what you want them to be saying. Emulating the Jenn style of posting doesn't suit you.

Mr Epeen Cool


Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1095 - 2017-04-06 05:08:23 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
The only real change you will see in highsec if CCP makes the change to reimpose harshness on high sec gankers is more players in high. Those players of course will eventually filter into low or null. The more carebears in high the more competition and the more filtering into the lower sec areas.


Except for CCP's analysis of 80,000 accounts that showed that when a player is suicide ganked or engages in combat within the first 15 days they stay longer than those who don't. In short, the empirical evidence is against you too.

Oh, and yeah, again that analysis was not a survey.

Quote:
Do you honestly believe the removal of gankers will have any real negstive effect on gameplay for anyone other than gankers? For most at an individual level the change will only be in longevity of the game and more development of EvE. The majority of null seccers don't even go to highsec except to get something from Jita. The majority are not hung up on what some guy they don't know is doing in a blinged out marauder on his 5000th run of Worlds Collide - apart from the fact he's contributed a few thousand dollars to CCP for sub's n Plex / Aurum.


First off, again CCP's analysis would say, "Yes." Because players who interact with others via combat stay in the game longer.

Second, gank fleets will have anywhere from 12-40 players. Remove ganking and how many of those players will leave to try an keep one player who, generally speaking, is adamantly opposed to interacting with others in game. These players literally will block you if you try to warn them there is a bumping macherial waiting for them up ahead. They deserve to die. Repeatedly until they learn their lesson...or yeah, quit....for being bad.

Anyone doing Worlds Collide for the 5,000th time should probably consider going outside.

"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
#1096 - 2017-04-06 05:09:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Mr Epeen wrote:


More players =
More cash flow =
More developers =
a better game



Underlined it in your quote dude. I suppose your "a better game" could be some completely different game than EVE.

"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
#1097 - 2017-04-06 05:13:56 UTC
Ioci wrote:
I'm an original carebear in EVE Online. Started in 2005 and tried several times to do the NBSI thing, tried to be the tough as nails guy and just couldn't bring myself to do it. Still, it wasn't the players, the 'bullies' that pushed me away. Truth be told, they were few and far between. I understood the NBSI doctrine and I even appreciated the hooligan antics of CODE.

Why I really stopped logging in was the hostile attitude of CCP. They never made me feel welcome. They never treated me like a customer. The saw me (in my eyes) as a cow, to be milked. A "scrub". A whale. I expected that from Goons, -A-, Code. I played the arch nemesis game but I couldn't do that with CCP.

CCP Side, set up Team Carebear, welcome us back. Buff hi-sec. We can't fall back any further than high sec and we need to be able to build there to take the fight to the 'bullies'. Learn the power of underdog. It's as old as time.

'Mean ole bullies' of EVE? Keep the rivalry alive. If we ever get any teeth, you will be what we come looking for. And grr Goons.


No. Buffing HS has already happened. For example, the idea of having to set up a POS to do manufacturing, or research, or invention? No more. Every station that has facilities has an infinite number of slots for whatever you want to do. Standings? Gone for just about everything but missions. Mining has been rebalanced and now many rocks you can mine in HS make more ISK than back 6 or 7 years ago. Hell I recall Nocxium selling for a fraction of what it does today.

You have had your buffs, no put on your big boy pants and play, or don't.

"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

Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#1098 - 2017-04-06 05:20:29 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:


More players =
More cash flow =
More developers =
a better game



Underlined it in your quote dude. I suppose your "a better game" could be some completely different game than EVE.
Still not seeing where I said all the money gets plowed into this game. I'd simplify it further, but it would hurt to write the whole thing in one syllable words.

Mr Epeen Cool
Mr Mieyli
Doomheim
#1099 - 2017-04-06 05:23:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Mieyli
Infinity Ziona wrote:
[quote=Mr Mieyli]Do you honestly believe the removal of gankers will have any real negstive effect on gameplay for anyone other than gankers?


Ganking is a playstyle, and sure I may feel it could do with some changes for player interaction reasons, but plenty in this thread have spoken up in it's defense, so it can't be flat out removed. If it was this change would negatively affect these people's enjoyment of the game, making it measurably worse to them for all future time, in the hope that new players who wanted something different than eve would join and find as much enjoyment or more than the players you disappointed. This is not guaranteed. Next even if more players did join, the extra revenue would not somehow bring back ganking for them, the thing they enjoyed, so what use is the extra revenue to them anyway? CCP could just use it for nicer pizzas for their guys when they're overtime with the servers.

Now saying all of that, if ganking is here to stay this changes the meaning of what high-sec really is. Sure it has the most protection mechanics, but it is quite risky if you're hauling or mining or whatever. Often times quiet parts of null would be safer. Considering this I think highsec should simply be renamed to empire. Empire is literally at the centre of the game, if course it will be busy, and think for a moment how safe New York City, or Hong Kong are. A lot will be thinking, what's in a name, well a name sets your expectations. If you are new and hear high security, you think safe, wrongly of course. This false expectation can only lead to disappointment down the line, and surely we want to avoid disappointed players if possible. Starting in null would also say to them, join a group pronto, eve is a group game, if you want to grow then other people are how you will do it.

This post brought to you by CCP's alpha forum alt initiative. Playing the eve forums has never come cheaper.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1100 - 2017-04-06 05:26:13 UTC
Commander Spurty wrote:
Alasdan Helminthauge wrote:
CCP's own survey has showed that new players who have been ganked are more likely to stay than those who mine all days in peace.

Let's pick you as you threw this one out there. You stuck your neck out.

If you accept 100% of people replied to the question, then maybe. That's impossible however.

I would bet money that many of those that left, never read that email / filled out that form. I'd bet that as I can produce five people who want nothing to do with the game and any such communication was redirected to the trash can, long ago.

I'm one of those that stayed as I got ganked. I'm not the majority. I would not bat an eyelid at blapping jita (entire system and contents) from the game. I would keep playing if jita vaporized (no heads up, just gone 15 seconds from you reading this),.

I wouldn't bat an eye if all your stuff went "poof". Every alt, every main, all that stuff you think is safe in a station somewhere .. gone. I'd still play while you undocked in your ibis heading to the belts. Them tears of yours .. delicious.

You see, you don't listen. You just regurgitate and well, we will come for you eventually.


Okay, before you post you should actually know what you are talking about.

1. It was not a fecking survey. CCP picked (presumably at random) 80,000 accounts. They then check those accounts fof the following:

--Killed illegally in their first 15 days; i.e. their killer was in turn killed by CONCORD.
--Killed legally in their first 15 days; i.e. their killer was NOT killed by CONCORD.
--Not killed at all.

What they found was:

--About 1% were killed illegaly; i.e. suicide ganking of players less than 15 days is rare.
--About 14% were killed legally.
--85% were not killed at all.

So, what do we know from this. Most new players (less than 15 days old) are not killed.

But CCP did not stop there, they also who looked at who stayed in game the longest:

--Those killed illegally stayed the longest.
--Those killed legally stayed almost as long.
--Those not killed at all left the soonest.

2. Now you can say 80,000 is not alot. However, I work for a company where we have over 5 million customers. We routinely use samples of 50,000 because that is more than sufficient to give us an idea of what the "population" is "doing". In fact, 50,000 is way, way too big. We pick 50,000 so that when somebody comes back and says, "What about this subset of customers?" We have a large enough sample so that that subset is also a reasonable random sample.

3. Now, it is possible all of CCP's efforts are for nothing--i.e. they are just wrong. After all in most statistical analysis the analyst relies on something called a p-value. The p-value is is the probability, given that the null hypothesis is true, we'd observe data as we did with that probability. Most analysts use a p-value of 0.05 or 5%. So there is a chance CCP is wrong assuming they are doing standard vanilla frequentist statistical analysis...which they probably are as Bayesians are much more rare, IMO. Still that does not make ganking bad. If CCP is wrong we simply return a state of ignorance. Is ganking good? We don't know. Is ganking bad? We don't know. That "we don't know" does not transmogrify into "ganking is bad".

"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