EVE General Discussion

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.

Holy ****.....

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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".