These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

why do players stay in npc corps?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1401 - 2015-06-08 19:15:10 UTC
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:

and yes the points stands, care to share your feelings on that once more.


Certainly. Counter to the assertions of some, including in this thread, ganking in general does not cost subs. And that's the end of it.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
#1402 - 2015-06-08 19:23:57 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:

and yes the points stands, care to share your feelings on that once more.


Certainly. Counter to the assertions of some, including in this thread, ganking in general does not cost subs. And that's the end of it.


to say it costs none is a lie and you know it.

so you're not willing to go into what you think a carebear is? i wonder why Roll
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1403 - 2015-06-08 19:25:32 UTC
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:

to say it costs none is a lie and you know it.


Net, obviously. And as before, regarding new players, as per the link I provided.



Quote:

so you're not willing to go into what you think a carebear is? i wonder why Roll


A carebear is someone who opposes the existence of non consensual PvP. Typically, they do so out of selfishness as they would stand to benefit from the removal of such.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#1404 - 2015-06-08 19:26:10 UTC
The existence of ganking also creates subs.
Ivant Sumboodi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1405 - 2015-06-08 19:35:08 UTC
Ruminating on "carebears" ls literally 10 yrs ago tech. look at the population right now and be a real person.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1406 - 2015-06-08 19:36:15 UTC
Ivant Sumboodi wrote:
Ruminating on "carebears" ls literally 10 yrs ago tech. look at the population right now and be a real person.


You mean the population that goes lower and lower, while highsec gets safer and safer?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Ivant Sumboodi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1407 - 2015-06-08 19:38:17 UTC
The population that is smaller, and safer in nullsec and all have incursion hisec alts.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1408 - 2015-06-08 19:40:46 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Ivant Sumboodi wrote:
Ruminating on "carebears" ls literally 10 yrs ago tech. look at the population right now and be a real person.


You mean the population that goes lower and lower, while highsec gets safer and safer?


Did CCP map where those player no longer logging in were from/were doing in game before vanishing?
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
#1409 - 2015-06-08 19:41:02 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


A carebear is someone who opposes the existence of non consensual PvP. Typically, they do so out of selfishness as they would stand to benefit from the removal of such.


your idea of a carebear is a strange one.

there is no such thing as non consensual PVP in EVE, you undock your open to being shot at regardless of what space you're in.
only the very new players don't fully get this. by that logic a carebear is a newb.
that's not a carebear Roll

try again.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1410 - 2015-06-08 19:43:30 UTC
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


A carebear is someone who opposes the existence of non consensual PvP. Typically, they do so out of selfishness as they would stand to benefit from the removal of such.


your idea of a carebear is a strange one.

there is no such thing as non consensual PVP in EVE, you undock your open to being shot at regardless of what space you're in.
only the very new players don't fully get this. by that logic a carebear is a newb.
that's not a carebear Roll

try again.






Actually, a lot of people never get this. It's one of the issue with this game.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#1411 - 2015-06-08 19:46:01 UTC
A carebear then is someone who doesn't acknowledge that by undocking they are consenting to PVP.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1412 - 2015-06-08 19:46:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Ivant Sumboodi wrote:
Ruminating on "carebears" ls literally 10 yrs ago tech. look at the population right now and be a real person.


You mean the population that goes lower and lower, while highsec gets safer and safer?


But dag nabbit, that should work the other way around. What should happen is that CCPs buffs to safety in EVE should have meant more 'new players' didn't get griefed out of the game but 'bad people' leave because they can't 'grief' new players, resulting in higher revenue for CCP, resulting further in more 'stuff' for all of us who play now because obviously a company making more money means that company gives customers it already has more stuff...just like how cell phone and cable companies always give existing customers the same deals they do new customers!!

I mean, it can't be possible that CCP made the game safer, making it boring for people who don't need to be cuddled and protected while not enticing more 'carebears' to come play. It's almost as if all the safety buffing DEVALUED the experience for the 'good guy' players (previously, surviving in EVE was a point of pride, now safeties and pop ups do all the work for you, yay) while enraging the 'bad guy' players enough to make them adapt and keep on being bad. That simply cannot be, it's almost like things work the opposite of what people expect, with up being down and gankers being player retention agents!

CCP must have not done it right. Perhaps the answer is even more safety! Yea, that will do it, if CCP will just keep digging that hole deeper, it will work and thousands of new players will join and sub and we'll get the 'better stuff' we've been waiting for for years. It has to work!



hashtag screw your sarcasm meters Twisted
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
#1413 - 2015-06-08 19:48:09 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


A carebear is someone who opposes the existence of non consensual PvP. Typically, they do so out of selfishness as they would stand to benefit from the removal of such.


your idea of a carebear is a strange one.

there is no such thing as non consensual PVP in EVE, you undock your open to being shot at regardless of what space you're in.
only the very new players don't fully get this. by that logic a carebear is a newb.
that's not a carebear Roll

try again.






Actually, a lot of people never get this. It's one of the issue with this game.


ah now come on,, not a lot,, i'd say a few who are lucky enough to have not been shot at or just don't notice what's going on in local.
i'd think most after 6 months know well they can be shot at no matter where they are.
i've met a few over the years that didn't get it. but most know better after a while.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1414 - 2015-06-08 19:49:47 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
A carebear then is someone who doesn't acknowledge that by undocking they are consenting to PVP.


Someone gets the point.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1415 - 2015-06-08 19:50:37 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


Except that, per CCP themselves, doing it just for lulz increases net retention of new players. Those involved in PvP combat are an order of magnitude more likely to resub.


Kaarous,

I think there might be a bit of an endogeneity problem here. For example if you are using some sort of logistic regression model to look at this you might have a model like this:

R = a + b*(PvP)

Where R is your probability of re-subbing (and in your data it is either a 0 or a 1) and PvP is also dichotomous (0 for no PvP, 1 for PvP). In this case noting that people who are more likely to resub their account because they PvP are people who like to PvP or to put it differently they came to Eve to PvP. The plentiful opportunities means they have a higher probability to stick around. People who don't like PvP, but try out Eve...yeah, they'll likely leave.

So, should the game be changed for those who don't like PvP to try and keep them subscribed? And is there something to discuss about people who want to PvP, but find the NPE insufficient for them to run up Eve's rather steep learning curve?

Personally, I don't want to change the game to keep non-PvP oriented players in game. The edge case PvP players...yeah I think one could make an argument there for some changes.

Lastly, trying to get those not interested in PvP to PvP to try increase subscriber retention probably wont work. So forget about that case altogether.

What do you think?

"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
#1416 - 2015-06-08 19:50:52 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
The existence of ganking also creates subs.


Was just thinking this.

Yeah, a guy who dislikes PvP gets ganked...sure he might quit. But could that ganking also lead to 1 or more new subs? If so, then a larger view of things needs to be considered.

"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
Ivant Sumboodi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1417 - 2015-06-08 19:53:00 UTC
it's not about making HS safer necessarily, but not making some HS careers so so so much better than all of Industry combined. And having CODE nolifes convinced that they have better things to do.


This fixes EVE completely.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1418 - 2015-06-08 19:53:22 UTC
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


A carebear is someone who opposes the existence of non consensual PvP. Typically, they do so out of selfishness as they would stand to benefit from the removal of such.


your idea of a carebear is a strange one.

there is no such thing as non consensual PVP in EVE, you undock your open to being shot at regardless of what space you're in.
only the very new players don't fully get this. by that logic a carebear is a newb.
that's not a carebear Roll

try again.



I can be both against non-consensual PvP (note, I am not) and still undock my ship. You can argue that undocking means you are giving implicit acceptance to non-consensual PvP, but I can still oppose it.

"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
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1419 - 2015-06-08 19:56:52 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Ivant Sumboodi wrote:
Ruminating on "carebears" ls literally 10 yrs ago tech. look at the population right now and be a real person.


You mean the population that goes lower and lower, while highsec gets safer and safer?


But dag nabbit, that should work the other way around. What should happen is that CCPs buffs to safety in EVE should have meant more 'new players' didn't get griefed out of the game but 'bad people' leave because they can't 'grief' new players, resulting in higher revenue for CCP, resulting further in more 'stuff' for all of us who play now because obviously a company making more money means that company gives customers it already has more stuff...just like how cell phone and cable companies always give existing customers the same deals they do new customers!!

I mean, it can't be possible that CCP made the game safer, making it boring for people who don't need to be cuddled and protected while not enticing more 'carebears' to come play. It's almost as if all the safety buffing DEVALUED the experience for the 'good guy' players (previously, surviving in EVE was a point of pride, now safeties and pop ups do all the work for you, yay) while enraging the 'bad guy' players enough to make them adapt and keep on being bad. That simply cannot be, it's almost like things work the opposite of what people expect, with up being down and gankers being player retention agents!

CCP must have not done it right. Perhaps the answer is even more safety! Yea, that will do it, if CCP will just keep digging that hole deeper, it will work and thousands of new players will join and sub and we'll get the 'better stuff' we've been waiting for for years. It has to work!



hashtag screw your sarcasm meters Twisted


It's kinda hard to get new players out of the "feature" you think they were pushing with more safety when you keep advertising the game as harsh... If the increased safety was supposed to attract new players, the whole move was shot dead in the womb by advertising the opposite.

You can't expect new player to know the game was made less harsh just because.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1420 - 2015-06-08 19:57:15 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


A carebear is someone who opposes the existence of non consensual PvP. Typically, they do so out of selfishness as they would stand to benefit from the removal of such.


your idea of a carebear is a strange one.

there is no such thing as non consensual PVP in EVE, you undock your open to being shot at regardless of what space you're in.
only the very new players don't fully get this. by that logic a carebear is a newb.
that's not a carebear Roll

try again.



I can be both against non-consensual PvP (note, I am not) and still undock my ship. You can argue that undocking means you are giving implicit acceptance to non-consensual PvP, but I can still oppose it.


Opposing something is fine. Paying for a video game that enshrines the thing you oppose is stupid. Playing EVE while opposing non-consensual pvp is like playing WoW while harboring a rabid hatred of elves, orks and all such fantasy creatures.