EVE General Discussion

…or I can just ask CCP, who have the data and have run the statistical analysis as opposed to relying on anecdotal evidence.

I'm trying to find the exact presentation where it comes up, but the one strong correlation they found was that more drones = more likely to stick around. Oh, and just being exposed to PvP combat and other forms of player interactions in general — the more and the earlier, the more likely they'd get out of the mining/mission-bubble of isolation and start to get hooked on the game as a whole.

It's a game that is promoted as a PvP biased sandbox, being prepared for flight or fight in such a game is common sense.

Being a carebear is an attitude, not a playstyle. I mainly partake of "PvE" activities in Eve, yet I am not a carebear; because I take active precautions to minimise the chances of dying while doing so, instead of constantly asking CCP to do it for me because I want to do it semi afk or in relative safety.

Eve is only as safe as YOU make it for yourself.

Zkill is hilariously inaccurate prior to 2012 because the consolidation of evekill and zkill data didn't start until then. Even now it isn't fully consolidated with corp killboards that are hosted by 3rd parties.

Your data set is incomplete and thus inaccurate.

Pointing out a truth is not a deflection.

FYI The gallente ice interdiction is a matter of record, as are Hulkageddons 1 through 5. All of them took place when Eve had a higher average PCU than it currently does.

Baltec's claim of "my corp killed a bunch" is fact, as is his statement of player numbers being higher when the event he describes took place; what you're presenting is a conclusion based upon data that is known to be inaccurate.

So… PCU record in May 2013.
Exhumer stats show markedly higher losses in 2013.
Barge stats show slightly higher losses in 2013.

Stats before 2012 are incomplete, so for the growth period of Quantum Rise–Apocrypha, we'd have to start digging into corp-specifc evekill and battleclinic lists.

Was this what your links were supposed to show?

My problem is that I'm having a discussion with a troll. Nothing anyone says will shift your opinion that you are automatically right and so hard done by with all those mean newbies being allowed to live. HTFU.


No, the problem you have is that you want to maintain bad balance that keeps you in a position of power over rookie players. You don't want to put in the effort it takes to attack players who know what they are doing and you fear losing your pools of easy targets. It's pathetic really.


They haven't though, so that's fine.


Except of course the changes which have buffed gankers as well as the gradual improvement of player skills. Let's be clear here. Gankers hang around in the newbie areas of the game because they are too scared to actually risk anything of value, then they get better and better at what they do, then complain when CCP takes steps to reduce their advantage over the newbies. It's like a football team refusing to move up divisions so they can keep getting matches against easy wins. Grow a pair and move on, then you can stop crying about the mean newbies, they can stop being blown up every few minutes by bored vets for no real gain and perhaps CCP might consider introducing more risk.

Please provide verifiable evidence of this claim.

First off, this is not evidence, it's an anecdote.

Secondly, are you saying that in the recent Burn Amarr didn't do better? Over 200 freighters in a couple of days.

And hey, Tippia, I thought you were on the side of demanding evidence. baltec has made a claim and now needs to back it up with actual evidence, is that not right?

Or, as they say, “wrong”.

What made them easier?

…which the attacker also has to worry about, courtesy of the quirks of Leval 1 AI. You know, the thing that mission-runners were complaining about and claimed would ruin things forever, even though it had been a known and solved problem for years.

No. You're having a discussion with someone you can't bamboozle with simple rhetorics and fallacies. Since that's all you have, you grow frustrated and have to resort to ad hominems such as this to cover up your failure, and it's this continued and desperate reliance on bad-faith (or just plain bad) argumentation that is your problem.

…except for the changes in aggression; the multiple changes in response time; the changes in ownership flagging; the changes in AI (which in spite of their whinging works to their advantage); the changes in insurance — all of which made them harder, costlier, and less valuable to kill.

Meanwhile, gankers have seen no buffs to speak of. The one thing people try to point to as a buff was just them remaining at status quo in spite of a massive nerf directly aimed at them. Their not getting it worse is not the same being buffed.

So when you said “Here ya go, proof you are wrong”, you were just making flatulent noises, and now that your “proof” suggests the opposite of what you were claiming, you're attempting to cover up the smell with more BS, even though it's just more of the same thing.

I noticed. I also noticed that you did the job for him, and I'm asking if this was your intention?
You could also have pointed him to the 2008 QEN and Fanfest economy presentation, where they quote mining ship destruction rates in the hundreds per day for the most popular ships, as opposed to not seeing even the same numbers per month for most of them today. And remember, this was back when a good two thirds of these ships were laughably bad.

You know… this thing:
“450 Hulks per day were produced, outpacing destruction by a factor of 3 or 4” (meaning 100–150 Hulks were destroyed per day).

Or from here:
“During this same time period, an average of 17 Procurer mining barges were shot down per day”
“Looking at retriever losses reveals that 811 ships were shot down per week during Q1 2008” (116/day)
“At the same time, only 210 Covetors were destroyed on average per week, or 30 per day.”
“Some 17 Skiffs were destroyed per week, or about 2.5 per day.”
“The net increase in Mackinaws for Q1 2008 was 5,396, with 7,993 ships produced and 2,597 ships destroyed.” (29/day)
“In total, there were 14.777 new Hulks built during Q1 2008. Some 6.122 Hulks were destroyed” (67/day)

…this at a time when only two mining ships were worth flying: the Retriever and the Hulk, when the daily average user count was in the 25-30k region; and when the game as a whole was about to get a huge upsurge in population and activity.

Compare this to the stats you unfortunately dug up to disprove yourself: looking at the worst month for each in 2015, Procurer maxes out at 46/day, Retriever maxes out at 6.8/day, Covetor at 1.3/day, Skiff at 25/day, Mack at 3.1/day, Hulk at 1.7/day. Or, as an aggregate, in the olden days, 163 barges and 98.5 exhumers per day were lost; today, we're looking at 54.1 and 29.8 respectively.

What's my agenda?

Not to mention the flood of "save us CCP" threads by miners who just couldn't grasp the fact that their own refusal to fit a tank was the only problem. It was a golden age for threadnoughts.