These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Why Eve Can't attract new players, and has lost 20,000 so far.

First post
Author
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#241 - 2017-02-25 09:09:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:

I dont lose sleep over ganking either Im simply refuting Dark Pedros incorrect statement that ganking was intended and encoragedearly on in EvE. Devs didnt like it and they initially worked hard to reduce it.


Who gives a **** if it was intended or not. EVE is a game of emergence or spontaneous order--i.e. we will get things nobody intended. That is the goddamned point of the game. To get things nobody intends.

Did CCP intend pipe bombs? Probably not. Did they intend the "false POS" probably not. Did they intend rental empires? Did they intend something like Red Frog? Did they intend coalitions? There are lots of things in game that CCP did not intend...that is the nature of the game.

So your observation is pretty useless...kind of like you.

It was misinformation. Why make **** up?


My point is: who cares? Whether it was intended or not...it is what they got with an open classless system with few rules--i.e. a sandbox.

So maybe they thought it was a bit too much or too easy and they ratcheted up the difficult level...no need to take it past 11 and break the goddamn game. HS content sucks. PVE is boring. HS PvP is all but gone. Mass war decs and freighter ganking and a band of terrorists being subsidized to attack miners. That's 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

Black Pedro
Mine.
#242 - 2017-02-25 09:26:45 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:

Its clear from the screenshot hes replying to someone whinging about concord being beefed up - hes clearly referring to ganking I

Oveur clearly uses the term "piracy". Even if you interpret his use of piracy to mean all non-consensual PvP, he says CCP intends for piracy to be "not easy" in highsec. He didn't say "impossible" or "not allowed" or whatever you seem to be interpreting that as.

CCP has always intended for PvP, both consensual and non-consensual, to be possible in highsec, as long as you accept the consequences. That has always been how it works and how it was intended to work.

Your version of reality does not exist. Feel free to make the case that non-consensual PvP is currently "too easy" in highsec, but claiming that highsec was intended to be 100% free of non-consensual PvP, even by your beloved CCP Oveur, is a pure fabrication of yours.
Noobshot Elongur
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#243 - 2017-03-03 18:18:53 UTC
Ms GoodyMaker wrote:
Eve has lost over 20 thousand players in the years I have played this game, and it is sad to see.
The player base continues to tell CCP that the one thing that drives players away the most is CCP continuing to allow players to suicide kill other players in empire space, with little to no ramifications for their actions, while the players they kill take huge losses.

No one will continue to play under such circumstances, and the drop in population shows it.

Take CCPs position allowing suicide ganking in empire to continue to it's natural conclusion; no one will bother to contribute to the economy because it would just be destroyed, and everyone would sit around and suicide gank each other until there is nothing left.

All CCP has to do is disable people from being able to fire on each other in empire space without a war dec. Very simple, they already have the mechanic in the game - bombs don't work in empire, capitals can't jump to empire, etc. CCP, if you want to attract people to play this game, create a safe space for people to learn and play in safety, and then move out to null sec or take part in war decs when they are ready.

Dust514 is shutting down, your Valkyrie product is not going to have a good reputation either, when your preceeding product is hated by most of the gaming community.

Will the Council try to get across to CCP that the on going state of Eve-Online is glorified gang warfare, disgusting to all civilized people, and must change as outlined above, to continue to survive.

Times have changed, Eve-Online has to change to, or die.



Meh, your post is equivalent to screaming "There's a fire!" at a BBQ. If you can't take the challenge level of this game, I would suggest moving to games like hopscotch and tiddly winks. This game is and (If I have my way) will never be for the 4 button combo instant gratification player. This game involves patience, planning, and persistence so either adapt or die.
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#244 - 2017-03-03 20:25:54 UTC
Noobshot Elongur wrote:
Ms GoodyMaker wrote:
Eve has lost over 20 thousand players in the years I have played this game, and it is sad to see.
The player base continues to tell CCP that the one thing that drives players away the most is CCP continuing to allow players to suicide kill other players in empire space, with little to no ramifications for their actions, while the players they kill take huge losses.

No one will continue to play under such circumstances, and the drop in population shows it.

Take CCPs position allowing suicide ganking in empire to continue to it's natural conclusion; no one will bother to contribute to the economy because it would just be destroyed, and everyone would sit around and suicide gank each other until there is nothing left.

All CCP has to do is disable people from being able to fire on each other in empire space without a war dec. Very simple, they already have the mechanic in the game - bombs don't work in empire, capitals can't jump to empire, etc. CCP, if you want to attract people to play this game, create a safe space for people to learn and play in safety, and then move out to null sec or take part in war decs when they are ready.

Dust514 is shutting down, your Valkyrie product is not going to have a good reputation either, when your preceeding product is hated by most of the gaming community.

Will the Council try to get across to CCP that the on going state of Eve-Online is glorified gang warfare, disgusting to all civilized people, and must change as outlined above, to continue to survive.

Times have changed, Eve-Online has to change to, or die.



Meh, your post is equivalent to screaming "There's a fire!" at a BBQ. If you can't take the challenge level of this game, I would suggest moving to games like hopscotch and tiddly winks. This game is and (If I have my way) will never be for the 4 button combo instant gratification player. This game involves patience, planning, and persistence so either adapt or die.



Ms GoodyMake does have a point, but I'd argue the cause-and-effect are backwards. There is a huge amount of stuff being produced in game. HUGE. Go look at CCP Quandt's report for January. There was a massive surge in in-game production without a similar surge in destruction.

The decline, IMO, is related to changes to HS along the lines Ms GoodyMake is suggesting--i.e. Ms GoodyMake's suggestions will not help, but will exacerbate the downward slide.

"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

Darth Magic
Death Dealers.
#245 - 2017-03-05 16:09:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Darth Magic
While I enjoy ruthless mad play environments, it is also true that I enjoy building and learning.

It is extremely important that players have enough power to be safe in game during early stages. I think CCP is indeed missing a lot of nuance in their analysis of player behavior. It's basic human nature, people shy away from unsafe, even "tough guys".

---
LESS NEUTRALITY BUT MORE OPTIONS: (Safe Haven Revamp)

1) Eliminate NPC corporation safe havens. All Players would be placed into faction warfare corporations after one week of gameplay. Unless they join a player Corp.

2) Official Safe Havens: Player corps should be able to pay concord for immunity from wardec as long as they meet certain requirements:
*No outposts or citadels can be owned.
*No structures anchored.
*HQ must be in highsec.
*Average character skillpoint under certain threshold.

3*) The above could also be an individual player option. You get immunity in highsec up to a certain age or SP level, if the player chooses to activate this option, and anything up to 1 yr or a certain SP amount above the initial freebie will cost the player some amount of isk. (after that year or SP point, this option will no longer be available.)
---

This is just a basic outline for acheiving that kind haven for newbros that could help retention and gameplay. Harrassment that is "not harrassment per the rules" in Eve should be eliminated in highsec in order to make the game more enjoyable at the early, low sp and low knowledge point stages.

Will this make certain griefers upset? Sure. But who cares, be brave and fight someone who is interested.
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#246 - 2017-03-05 20:11:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Darth Magic wrote:
While I enjoy ruthless mad play environments, it is also true that I enjoy building and learning.

It is extremely important that players have enough power to be safe in game during early stages. I think CCP is indeed missing a lot of nuance in their analysis of player behavior. It's basic human nature, people shy away from unsafe, even "tough guys".


That is what HS is for. It is the safest space in the game, although it is not "safe" in the sense that if people want to and are willing to face the consequences they can still shoot you. People typically move around HS with little or no interference. This notion that ganking, especially of new players, is rampant is completely unsubstantiated bullshit. In fact, I'm going to go so far as to call it a lie. A blatant bald face lie.

Further, CCP has looked at new player ganking and here are the findings:

1. It is rare. About 1% of players are suicide ganked in their 15 days.
2. Those who are suicide ganked or even killed legally they tend to play longer than those not ganked at all.

Bottom line is that ganking, of new players is both rare and not detrimental.

Here is a presentation of the analysis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A92Ge2S8M1Y

I know many will try and trash the analysis, but please don't I'm tired of taking apart idiotic arguments from boneheads who know ****-from-shinola when it comes to statistics. For example, this was not a mother fecking survey. If you start talking about a survey you are a moron. If you think 80,000 is too small, you are a moron. If you think that debunking the analysis--i.e. some how coming up with a valid criticism of the analysis makes suicide ganking an issue for new players you are a moron.

Darth Magic wrote:
---
LESS NEUTRALITY BUT MORE OPTIONS: (Safe Haven Revamp)

1) Eliminate NPC corporation safe havens. All Players would be placed into faction warfare corporations after one week of gameplay. Unless they join a player Corp.

2) Official Safe Havens: Player corps should be able to pay concord for immunity from wardec as long as they meet certain requirements:
*No outposts or citadels can be owned.
*No structures anchored.
*HQ must be in highsec.
*Average character skillpoint under certain threshold.

3*) The above could also be an individual player option. You get immunity in highsec up to a certain age or SP level, if the player chooses to activate this option, and anything up to 1 yr or a certain SP amount above the initial freebie will cost the player some amount of isk. (after that year or SP point, this option will no longer be available.)
---

This is just a basic outline for acheiving that kind haven for newbros that could help retention and gameplay. Harrassment that is "not harrassment per the rules" in Eve should be eliminated in highsec in order to make the game more enjoyable at the early, low sp and low knowledge point stages.

Will this make certain griefers upset? Sure. But who cares, be brave and fight someone who is interested.


There are safe havens in the game, they are called starter systems. CCP takes a dim view of certain activities directed at new players in those systems. Engage in those activities after being warned off you will, in all likelihood, be banned.

Another place where you can go and avoid PvP is the test server. IIRC, there are designated PvP zones, but the rest of the systems are not--i.e. no PvP unless you consent.

And considering the analysis by CCP this notion of "safe havens" is exactly the wrong approach. It is the wrong approach because people who avoid PvP and player interaction in general....they tend to leave the game sooner than later. You have it backwards.

"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

Darth Magic
Death Dealers.
#247 - 2017-03-05 21:44:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Darth Magic
Teckos,

The video refers to an analysis of players under 15 days old. Enough said, your point is garbage. That's not where the ganking metagame is even played.

Anyway, back to the real point. My target is not the Ganking meta game here. If you read my proposal, it's clear that I'm referring to a new way of entering PvP and new way to give players control.

There is a sweet spot for Players who are finally getting it and starting to do new things. They begin to fly better ships and barges and exhumers and so on. There's a point of frustration where their rewards are not sufficiently high for their efforts. There's also a disconnect in the early stages from players and NPC corporations.

This is why I propose all players be forced into a type of faction warfare early on, forcing them to go player corps is that's not their thing. But also my idea is about enabling players who truly need safer learning environments to be immune from attack in early stages provided they pay the price.

I am for a significant revamp of FW also. As it is currently, it sucks and it's not attractive.
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#248 - 2017-03-06 15:59:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Ima Wreckyou
Darth Magic wrote:
The video refers to an analysis of players under 15 days old. Enough said, your point is garbage. That's not where the ganking metagame is even played.

You somehow think there is a problem with people not being save in the early stages of gameplay. Teckos showed you an analysis which basically concludes that people who get blown up are more likely to join. This is very relevant.

I'm not sure why people like you think isolating players for weeks or months from the real game is somehow something a real new player is looking for. Most of them probably get drawn to EVE because the hear about those epic universe shaping battles and not because they think it's an awesome game to mine in perfect safety. So why are you trying to keep them out of the real game?
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#249 - 2017-03-06 21:37:04 UTC
Darth Magic wrote:
Teckos,

The video refers to an analysis of players under 15 days old. Enough said, your point is garbage. That's not where the ganking metagame is even played.


Yes, new players. And the point still stands, those who are suicide ganked or even killed legally in their first 15 days stay longer than those who are not.

Darth Magic wrote:
Anyway, back to the real point. My target is not the Ganking meta game here. If you read my proposal, it's clear that I'm referring to a new way of entering PvP and new way to give players control.


This is a sandbox, a game of spontaneous order and emergence. The idea is that CCP does not control how people enter into PvP. Nor do the players always have control over this. That is the fundamental nature of the game.

Quote:
There is a sweet spot for Players who are finally getting it and starting to do new things. They begin to fly better ships and barges and exhumers and so on. There's a point of frustration where their rewards are not sufficiently high for their efforts. There's also a disconnect in the early stages from players and NPC corporations.

This is why I propose all players be forced into a type of faction warfare early on, forcing them to go player corps is that's not their thing. But also my idea is about enabling players who truly need safer learning environments to be immune from attack in early stages provided they pay the price.

I am for a significant revamp of FW also. As it is currently, it sucks and it's not attractive.


Sorry, but there is no nice way to say this....

You are coming of as an "expert" who knows what is best for everyone and you'll force everyone to do what you want because you know best...for everyone. Sorry, but I don't accept that view. I find it a view of unbelievable hubris. My view is let players explore the game and learn it as they see fit...not forcing them all into a one-size fits all experience.

"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

Duchess Ghanima Atreides
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#250 - 2017-03-07 02:04:00 UTC
ok, i will not try to argue whether i think sucide ganking or the actions of Bumbing intill your fleet comes along is allowed or not. i am not good with words and PV players will always argue, and CCP wants PVP actions. it is Simple. Have a 100% Vote in both Alpha and Omega accounts. 100% of the accounts for a 30 Day period. even give some type of award for voteing. and when you give the answer of who voted on what. give the answer of how many % voted based on how many total accutally voted, not how many total accounts polay eve. but ask all the accounts during that 30 nday period, ask how many players think succide ganking showed be allowed. Period. put it up to the player base. and since CCP claims that this is a PVP Game. then the PVP should vote and win. I petrsonally dont think Succide Ganking should be allowed. What % of the Total accounts on the record for a 30 day period. How many accounts want succide ganking not to be legal. of course we are going to argue whether it will be total accounts, one per account to be allowed to vote or one per real person (no matter how many accounts per that person) ius allowe3d to vote. that is another arguement all together.
and if some one want to try to put this in a better describale way, go for it. i will eve read it again and tell ya if that is what I mean to say.

thanks for reading this, and hopefully it will be treated with seriouness.
Maria Dragoon
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#251 - 2017-03-07 02:29:24 UTC
An yet high sec ganking is still ultimately left in rng hands as that cargo could self destruct.

Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated. Confucius

"A man who talks to people who aren't real is crazy. A man who talks to people who aren't real and writes down what they say is an author."

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#252 - 2017-03-07 05:22:28 UTC
Duchess Ghanima Atreides wrote:
ok, i will not try to argue whether i think sucide ganking or the actions of Bumbing intill your fleet comes along is allowed or not. i am not good with words and PV players will always argue, and CCP wants PVP actions. it is Simple. Have a 100% Vote in both Alpha and Omega accounts. 100% of the accounts for a 30 Day period. even give some type of award for voteing. and when you give the answer of who voted on what. give the answer of how many % voted based on how many total accutally voted, not how many total accounts polay eve. but ask all the accounts during that 30 nday period, ask how many players think succide ganking showed be allowed. Period. put it up to the player base. and since CCP claims that this is a PVP Game. then the PVP should vote and win. I petrsonally dont think Succide Ganking should be allowed. What % of the Total accounts on the record for a 30 day period. How many accounts want succide ganking not to be legal. of course we are going to argue whether it will be total accounts, one per account to be allowed to vote or one per real person (no matter how many accounts per that person) ius allowe3d to vote. that is another arguement all together.
and if some one want to try to put this in a better describale way, go for it. i will eve read it again and tell ya if that is what I mean to say.

thanks for reading this, and hopefully it will be treated with seriouness.


First off voting sucks. It is a terrible way to make decisions. There is nothing to say that voting will give a "good" outcome. There have been a number of people who have looked at this (link, link, link, link). Voting should be analyzed via game theory and one thing about game theory is that the optimal outcomes are never ensured. So even if the truly optimal answer is "more suicide ganking" there is no mechanism in voting to ensure this is the outcome.

Second many people who are the subject of suicide ganking have literally zero awareness of what is going on in the wider game. None. Even when Burn Jita is announced weeks ahead, even when people are sitting 1, 2, or 3 jumps from systems where ganks happen...here come the freighters, fat, dumb and often full of loot.

More over, even if the vote is: more suicide ganking, that will do nothing to stop the whiners. They'll be back here whining about how so-and-so was dumb and foolish and put 8 billion ISK in his freighter and clicked undock and flew through Uedama without a scout.

Additionally, the idea of voting and imposing a top down solution is antithetical to the philosophy of the game. This is a game that is an open, classless game--i.e. a sandbox. Players drive the game. If suicide ganking is an issue...players should find the solution. Don't overload your freighter, don't autopillock, use a scout, tank your freighter, use a webber, use standings, use local, stop being a doormat and letting everyone walk all over you. Jump in a combat ship with some friends and gank the bumping macherial. Use your combat ships to try and shoot the gankers, many of whom are -5 or lower in terms of security status. If they have kill rights activate those and shoot them.

Nope, by all means lets vote and remove all that potential content. Roll

One last thing, GTFO. Welcome to New Eden.

"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
#253 - 2017-03-07 09:22:32 UTC
Duchess Ghanima Atreides wrote:
ok, i will not try to argue whether i think sucide ganking or the actions of Bumbing intill your fleet comes along is allowed or not. i am not good with words and PV players will always argue, and CCP wants PVP actions. it is Simple. Have a 100% Vote in both Alpha and Omega accounts. 100% of the accounts for a 30 Day period. even give some type of award for voteing. and when you give the answer of who voted on what. give the answer of how many % voted based on how many total accutally voted, not how many total accounts polay eve. but ask all the accounts during that 30 nday period, ask how many players think succide ganking showed be allowed. Period. put it up to the player base. and since CCP claims that this is a PVP Game. then the PVP should vote and win. I petrsonally dont think Succide Ganking should be allowed. What % of the Total accounts on the record for a 30 day period. How many accounts want succide ganking not to be legal. of course we are going to argue whether it will be total accounts, one per account to be allowed to vote or one per real person (no matter how many accounts per that person) ius allowe3d to vote. that is another arguement all together.
and if some one want to try to put this in a better describale way, go for it. i will eve read it again and tell ya if that is what I mean to say.

thanks for reading this, and hopefully it will be treated with seriouness.

Its a given it shouldn't be allowed at the price its allowed today. Way to easy and risk free. Not allowed at all? It should be but it should be a gamble and the empty freighter killing were seeing everyday should be a rarity only for the very rich.

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..... :)

Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#254 - 2017-03-07 09:47:30 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Its a given it shouldn't be allowed at the price its allowed today. Way to easy and risk free. Not allowed at all? It should be but it should be a gamble and the empty freighter killing were seeing everyday should be a rarity only for the very rich.

Orchestrating a successful freighter gank has a lot more complexity than just simple F1 smashing when descending on the target. There are Logistics, people management, ship distribution, scouting, scanning, warp-in positioning, bumping, etc. And that does not even involve the additional steps and precautions and adjustments you have to take if AG tries to interfere.

To simply state "ganking is easy and should be more complicated/expensive" is not an argument for anything. It is a cheap attempt to misrepresent a game mechanic in order to make some equally silly "fix" seam valid.

There are tons of really simple game mechanics like mining in this game which deserve a lot more attention if you care to make ISK acquiring harder.
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#255 - 2017-03-07 18:16:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Duchess Ghanima Atreides wrote:
ok, i will not try to argue whether i think sucide ganking or the actions of Bumbing intill your fleet comes along is allowed or not. i am not good with words and PV players will always argue, and CCP wants PVP actions. it is Simple. Have a 100% Vote in both Alpha and Omega accounts. 100% of the accounts for a 30 Day period. even give some type of award for voteing. and when you give the answer of who voted on what. give the answer of how many % voted based on how many total accutally voted, not how many total accounts polay eve. but ask all the accounts during that 30 nday period, ask how many players think succide ganking showed be allowed. Period. put it up to the player base. and since CCP claims that this is a PVP Game. then the PVP should vote and win. I petrsonally dont think Succide Ganking should be allowed. What % of the Total accounts on the record for a 30 day period. How many accounts want succide ganking not to be legal. of course we are going to argue whether it will be total accounts, one per account to be allowed to vote or one per real person (no matter how many accounts per that person) ius allowe3d to vote. that is another arguement all together.
and if some one want to try to put this in a better describale way, go for it. i will eve read it again and tell ya if that is what I mean to say.

thanks for reading this, and hopefully it will be treated with seriouness.

Its a given it shouldn't be allowed at the price its allowed today. Way to easy and risk free. Not allowed at all? It should be but it should be a gamble and the empty freighter killing were seeing everyday should be a rarity only for the very rich.


This is so wildly misleading. The benefits that accrue to suicide gankers are due only and totally to the foolishness of players. Balancing the game on players foolishness and imprudence is just simply idiotic.

Oh, and outside of Burn events how many empty freighters are ganked? I mean truly empty? No double wrapped courier packages.

And yes, Burn events are an example of the "very rich" killing any and all freighters. It is subsidized by Goons, one of the richest alliances in game.

"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
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#256 - 2017-03-07 18:51:31 UTC
Seriously, does anybody think the following is reasonable?

"Some players are foolish and imprudent. They take huge risks, either knowingly or unknowingly. And when it becomes known these players have taken huge risks, other players seek to take advantage of this. This is bad. We need to change the game so that players are protected from their own foolishness and imprudence."--signed every anti-ganker everywhere in game

"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
#257 - 2017-03-08 02:54:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
Teckos Pech wrote:
Seriously, does anybody think the following is reasonable?

"Some players are foolish and imprudent. They take huge risks, either knowingly or unknowingly. And when it becomes known these players have taken huge risks, other players seek to take advantage of this. This is bad. We need to change the game so that players are protected from their own foolishness and imprudence."--signed every anti-ganker everywhere in game

The verifiable data (zkill) shows the above to be bullshite. The majority of ganks of freighters appear to be empty or near empty. The weapon of choice (stealth bombers) often costing more than the empty or near empty freighter. Not many have plastic wrap.

Disagree go check zkiill.

Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Its a given it shouldn't be allowed at the price its allowed today. Way to easy and risk free. Not allowed at all? It should be but it should be a gamble and the empty freighter killing were seeing everyday should be a rarity only for the very rich.

Orchestrating a successful freighter gank has a lot more complexity than just simple F1 smashing when descending on the target. There are Logistics, people management, ship distribution, scouting, scanning, warp-in positioning, bumping, etc. And that does not even involve the additional steps and precautions and adjustments you have to take if AG tries to interfere.

To simply state "ganking is easy and should be more complicated/expensive" is not an argument for anything. It is a cheap attempt to misrepresent a game mechanic in order to make some equally silly "fix" seam valid.

There are tons of really simple game mechanics like mining in this game which deserve a lot more attention if you care to make ISK acquiring harder.

Lol ganking a freighter is so easy some are multiboxing it. Again go check zkill but I'm sure you already know this.

Mining / missioning takes actual risk. They undock in valuable ships at least on their mains and have to deal with the constant threat of 40 year old preteens who appear to think they're IRL actual space pirates and devs who have no idea how to manage the game or decipher pie charts - yeah that big slice with 90% on it that's your potential PvE subscriber base. The 9% is PvP and the 1% or less are wan... Gankers

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..... :)

Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#258 - 2017-03-08 06:50:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Ima Wreckyou
Infinity Ziona wrote:

The verifiable data (zkill) shows the above to be bullshite. The majority of ganks of freighters appear to be empty or near empty. The weapon of choice (stealth bombers) often costing more than the empty or near empty freighter. Not many have plastic wrap.

Disagree go check zkiill.

Lol ganking a freighter is so easy some are multiboxing it. Again go check zkill but I'm sure you already know this.

There are maybe one or two guys in the entire game who are even able to multibox large numbers of gank chars to kill Freighters. To call something easy just because one guy is doing it successfully is just blatant trolling and has nothing to do with a real argument.

They are also not the ones who kill empty Freighters as you can see quite clearly on zkill. Kusion as an example (there isn't probably any other anyway) almost exclusively hits valuable ships.

The only reason why empty freighters are killed are:
- Big events like Burn Jita where people just gank everything for entertainment
- Big fleets with many people where you need to provide content to keep fleet cohesion

Those are very good reasons and unavoidable once you realise that EVE is actually played by people and they are here for entertainment. 20 people will not sit in station for hours just to wait for that one big 20bil ISK fish.

Infinity Ziona wrote:

Mining / missioning takes actual risk. They undock in valuable ships at least on their mains and have to deal with the constant threat of 40 year old preteens who appear to think they're IRL actual space pirates and devs who have no idea how to manage the game or decipher pie charts - yeah that big slice with 90% on it that's your potential PvE subscriber base. The 9% is PvP and the 1% or less are wan... Gankers

Highsec is so safe it probably takes less time to research how to make your chosen profession gankproof than it took you to write this troll post. CCP provided all the tools to make mining, missioning and hauling so save you are almost completely untouchable. A good PvE player has absolutely nothing to fear from a ganker, since he can completely avoid them with some simple steps which are pretty obvious and well known.

The only people who get ganked are people who are foolish and imprudent and don't invest any effort at all to protect their ships or belongings. It is not CCPs job or in any interest of the game to protect people who are simply just bad at the game especially since this is a multiplayer sandbox which even promotes and encourages piracy gameplay.
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#259 - 2017-03-08 06:58:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Seriously, does anybody think the following is reasonable?

"Some players are foolish and imprudent. They take huge risks, either knowingly or unknowingly. And when it becomes known these players have taken huge risks, other players seek to take advantage of this. This is bad. We need to change the game so that players are protected from their own foolishness and imprudence."--signed every anti-ganker everywhere in game

The verifiable data (zkill) shows the above to be bullshite. The majority of ganks of freighters appear to be empty or near empty. The weapon of choice (stealth bombers) often costing more than the empty or near empty freighter. Not many have plastic wrap.

Disagree go check zkiill.


Show your data. I've gone and looked and there are damn few I can find that are truly empty. I found 2 that were truly empty, but 1 was a war dec, the other was not a dec based on the ships used in the kill. I looked at obelisks from March 5-Feb. 28.

I can only conclude you are a liar.

"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
#260 - 2017-03-08 07:15:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:

The verifiable data (zkill) shows the above to be bullshite. The majority of ganks of freighters appear to be empty or near empty. The weapon of choice (stealth bombers) often costing more than the empty or near empty freighter. Not many have plastic wrap.

Disagree go check zkiill.

Lol ganking a freighter is so easy some are multiboxing it. Again go check zkill but I'm sure you already know this.

There are maybe one or two guys in the entire game who are even able to multibox large numbers of gank chars to kill Freighters. To call something easy just because one guy is doing it successfully is just blatant trolling and has nothing to do with a real argument.

They are also not the ones who kill empty Freighters as you can see quite clearly on zkill. Kusion as an example (there isn't probably any other anyway) almost exclusively hits valuable ships.

The only reason why empty freighters are killed are:
- Big events like Burn Jita where people just gank everything for entertainment
- Big fleets with many people where you need to provide content to keep fleet cohesion

Those are very good reasons and unavoidable once you realise that EVE is actually played by people and they are here for entertainment. 20 people will not sit in station for hours just to wait for that one big 20bil ISK fish.

Infinity Ziona wrote:

Mining / missioning takes actual risk. They undock in valuable ships at least on their mains and have to deal with the constant threat of 40 year old preteens who appear to think they're IRL actual space pirates and devs who have no idea how to manage the game or decipher pie charts - yeah that big slice with 90% on it that's your potential PvE subscriber base. The 9% is PvP and the 1% or less are wan... Gankers

Highsec is so safe it probably takes less time to research how to make your chosen profession gankproof than it took you to write this troll post. CCP provided all the tools to make mining, missioning and hauling so save you are almost completely untouchable. A good PvE player has absolutely nothing to fear from a ganker, since he can completely avoid them with some simple steps which are pretty obvious and well known.

The only people who get ganked are people who are foolish and imprudent and don't invest any effort at all to protect their ships or belongings. It is not CCPs job or in any interest of the game to protect people who are simply just bad at the game especially since this is a multiplayer sandbox which even promotes and encourages piracy gameplay.


So according to you its both extremely hard to set up a gank and only foolish over loaders of cargo get ganked AND at the same time gankers gank empty freighters out of boredom. Also in LaLaLand single pilots multibox freighter ganks not because its easy but because they are amazing and your fleets with 15 to 80 players depending on sec status still find it extremely taxing.

Time to get back to reality. Anything that can be multiboxed by a single player is trivial for a fleet.

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..... :)