These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

so this is there real future for new players? gate camp?

First post
Author
Salvos Rhoska
#521 - 2017-02-20 09:22:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
The problem with Hakawai and some others, is they cant produce a list of concrete proposed changes, which we could discuss.

Its well and fine to argue how things "should be", but once the positions of participants on those have been delineated, we need something concrete inorder to progress.

Please present 3-10 concrete changes you want enacted.
The list doesnt need to be comprehensive nor exhaustively explained.

Atm this is like trying to grasp clouds. We need more substance, and to bring this down from the sky to the grit of the sandbox.
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#522 - 2017-02-20 09:37:37 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
The problem with Hakawai and some others, is they cant produce a list of concrete proposed changes, which we could discuss.

Its well and fine to argue how things "should be", but once the positions of participants on those have been delineated, we need something concrete inorder to progress.

Please present 3-10 concrete changes you want enacted.
The list doesnt need to be comprehensive nor exhaustively explained.

Atm this is like trying to grasp clouds. We need more substance, and to bring this down from the sky to the grit of the sandbox.


They can't because, and I'm giving them some credit here, they know they'll run face first into Malcanis' Law, and his more generalized principle. Trying to make design decisions based on some subset of players will ultimately be open to abuse by older and more experienced/wealthier players.

So instead they insult, snipe, and offer nothing concrete.

They are, in a word, useless.

"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

Hakawai
State War Academy
Caldari State
#523 - 2017-02-20 10:07:45 UTC
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Hakawai wrote:
In this particular forum, rational, well supported suggestions just generate a cascade of denial and attempts to shut down the discussion with rhetorical "dirty tricks".

Honestly, I've never seen that happen. I've seen it happen to poorly thought out ideas or ideas with an obvious agenda behind them but decent ideas that would improve the game, even in a small way are generally well received.

Quote:
IMO it's no place for suggestions.

That's what Features & Ideas is for.

A perfect example of the first point: the ridiculous "bistromath" posts regarding the calculation of the minimum cargo value of a ship to make it fair game for a suicide gank. Completely and obviously irrelevant to my post - neither of the two mist likely explanations for that behavior are flattering.
It's an example of a very common technique in here: look for anything, no matter how irrelevant, in a post you oppose, and try to turn that trivial thing into the "sub-thread of the moment". This thread is full of the examples of the same fallacy.

I know that people who do this often don't fully understand what they're doing - it's another piece of the gradual corruption of rational discourse via "truthiness" - but it sometimes works, people keep doing it, and it interferes with the real discussion


As for "Features and Ideas" - it makes your first paragraph look somewhat disingenuous. Or did you forget to add a smiley icon?
Salvos Rhoska
#524 - 2017-02-20 10:16:16 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Malcanis' Law, and his more generalized principle. Trying to make design decisions based on some subset of players will ultimately be open to abuse by older and more experienced/wealthier players.


Lets not go there again, here, nor into the esoterics of spontaneous order.

Malcani's Law can be used as a support for an argument, not as an argument in and of itself.

I am prepared to debate the validity of Malcanis' Law in a dedicated thread, but what is important here, as I said above, is something concrete, like a list of proposed changes.
Hakawai
State War Academy
Caldari State
#525 - 2017-02-20 10:16:47 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
The problem with Hakawai and some others, is they cant produce a list of concrete proposed changes, which we could discuss.

Its well and fine to argue how things "should be", but once the positions of participants on those have been delineated, we need something concrete inorder to progress.

Please present 3-10 concrete changes you want enacted.
The list doesnt need to be comprehensive nor exhaustively explained.

Atm this is like trying to grasp clouds. We need more substance, and to bring this down from the sky to the grit of the sandbox.

You want specific proposals here? And this crossed your mind immediately after I explained why I wouldn't provide any in this forum? I even left room for someone to consider out whether I have tangible objectives, and if so, what they might be.

BTW - I never deal directly with requests like yours in a toxic forum like this anyway. They are nearly always intended to be a trap - either an attempted diversion, or an attempted "time-waster" ("if you don't spend hours doing XXX everything you said must be wrong").

In this case you've provided an excellent additional example for my response to Hiasa Kite, so your post has been accidentally useful after all.
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#526 - 2017-02-20 10:21:05 UTC
Hakawai wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
The problem with Hakawai and some others, is they cant produce a list of concrete proposed changes, which we could discuss.

Its well and fine to argue how things "should be", but once the positions of participants on those have been delineated, we need something concrete inorder to progress.

Please present 3-10 concrete changes you want enacted.
The list doesnt need to be comprehensive nor exhaustively explained.

Atm this is like trying to grasp clouds. We need more substance, and to bring this down from the sky to the grit of the sandbox.

You want specific proposals here? And this crossed your mind immediately after I explained why I wouldn't provide any in this forum? I even left room for someone to consider out whether I have tangible objectives, and if so, what they might be.

BTW - I never deal directly with requests like yours in a toxic forum like this anyway. They are nearly always intended to be a trap - either an attempted diversion, or an attempted "time-waster" ("if you don't spend hours doing XXX everything you said must be wrong").

In this case you've provided an excellent additional example for my response to Hiasa Kite, so your post has been accidentally useful after all.


As I noted, Hakawai has, literally, nothing to offer except a general gripe.

"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

Salvos Rhoska
#527 - 2017-02-20 10:24:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Hakawai wrote:

You want specific proposals here? And this crossed your mind immediately after I explained why I wouldn't provide any in this forum? I even left room for someone to consider out whether I have tangible objectives, and if so, what they might be.

BTW - I never deal directly with requests like yours in a toxic forum like this anyway. They are nearly always intended to be a trap - either an attempted diversion, or an attempted "time-waster" ("if you don't spend hours doing XXX everything you said must be wrong").


I admit that I have only cursorily browsed through the most recent posts in this thread.

The reason it was cursory, is because I am looking for something concrete, not ideologies.

If you cannot produce0e substance for your position, by means of concrete proposed changes towards your purpose, there is nothing further to discuss here.

It is not a trap, to state that:
-Your ideological perspective is recognized and tabled.
-Please now substantiate your intent with concrete proposals of how to enact your purpose.

You are the one wasting our time by arguing in the clouds, rather than on the grit of the sandbox.

Put your money where your mouth is.
Submit a list of concrete changes you want, and they will be addressed on their merit.
Keno Skir
#528 - 2017-02-20 10:27:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Keno Skir
Hakawai wrote:
Multiple people in this thread have claimed that any moderately well informed and careful player who isn't as dumb as a rock will easily avoid any Gate Camp. They did so in the interest of selling a lie of course.


Hukawai i have a very simple question that could solve this without the need for all this back and forth. If someone made a video about how to get past gate camps, with lots of examples of different gate camps being avoided / broken through using different methods, would you then agree that they are a matter of skill and not 100% meat grinders? Would you also agree that with education a new player can employ several methods should they so choose?

EDIT - Nobody said you'd avoid ANY gate camp. But they can be avoided / broken through to the point they aren't a show stopping concern.
Yebo Lakatosh
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#529 - 2017-02-20 12:25:49 UTC
Hakawai wrote:
I don't use youtube at all.
Try again Mr Skir. P

Elite F1 pilot since YC119, incarnate of honor, integrity and tidi.

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#530 - 2017-02-20 13:39:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
At the risk of being accused of going off topic on a subtext I'd like to address the following:
Hakawai wrote:
A perfect example of the first point: the ridiculous "bistromath" posts regarding the calculation of the minimum cargo value of a ship to make it fair game for a suicide gank. Completely and obviously irrelevant to my post - neither of the two mist likely explanations for that behavior are flattering.
It's an example of a very common technique in here: look for anything, no matter how irrelevant, in a post you oppose, and try to turn that trivial thing into the "sub-thread of the moment". This thread is full of the examples of the same fallacy.

I know that people who do this often don't fully understand what they're doing - it's another piece of the gradual corruption of rational discourse via "truthiness" - but it sometimes works, people keep doing it, and it interferes with the real discussion
That ridiculous "bistromath" is based on years of collective knowledge and experience, and was in reply to the following somewhat overblown post by yourself, thus it's not irrelevant at all.

Hakawai wrote:
A new player in an industrial carrying 5 billion worth of stuff is "asking for trouble". IMO a fair target for "suicide ganking" or being attacking by a group or a much stronger ship in lowsec. Why? The short answer is EVE economics: the expected return to an attacker is (AFAIK) about 50% of the cargo value, so such a kill is worth 2.5 months of free play.

But what if the cargo is worth 200 million? I've seen a (claimed) "rage quit" in Rookie Help from someone who lost their entire net worth (about 200 mill) to a highsec suicide gank. 200 mill is generally considered to be under the economic "suicide gank" threshold, with good reason.

So in the first case a "suicide gank" seems to be 100% EVE-appropriate behavior, and we're not inclined to accept ignorance as an excuse. In the second case, on the evidence I'd go with bad behavior. It's equally game-legal , but you have to assume the ganker was a "fun-vampire" whose objective was to ruin the target's day, waste a lot of their **real** time (one hour of non-bot player = 1 hour of someones life), and it's quite likely the objective was the rage quit.
A newbie is very unlikely to have 5 billion to put in an industrial, 200 million is a little more likely but still very dubious.

The economic threshold for the profitability of a suicide gank is determined by how much the ganker stands to make vs how much the ganker stands to lose; which in turn is determined by the choices the would-be target makes, choices such as the ship and fit the target chooses to use, how much value the target chooses to haul, whether the target chooses to fly with friends or not, whether they choose to fly afk or atk etc.

Eve is a universe where choices have consequences, if people make stupid choices then others will take advantage of them and provide consequences for making those choices.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#531 - 2017-02-20 16:05:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Hakawai wrote:
It sounds like just another way to say "it's ok for us to treat new players as consumables if we feel like it".
It is, and there's nothing wrong with that; in fact it's considered to be a mainstay of the game.

CCP Falcon wrote:
The only way to grow is to voraciously consume what's around you, and its your choice whether that happens to be New Eden's abundant natural resources, or the other people who're also fighting their way to the top.



I don't know why people play competetive games while being emotionally opposed to competition.

But mainly I think Hakawai's real problem is this misplaced sympathy for new players that you get on this forum almost every day. People like this think they are helping new players by 'advocating for them". That aren't.

If you want to help new players, you personally teach them. The number one lesson is This:

"YOU (and only you) are accountable for your own experience, if that experience is bad it means you need to learn more. Blaming others for your bad experience might make you feel better for a few seconds, but it will lead you to making the same mistakes over again. In this game, personal responsibility is not a Saintly Trait, it is a Survival Trait."
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#532 - 2017-02-20 16:10:04 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
On the subject of your overblown post, a newbie is very unlikely to have 5 billion to put in an industrial, 200 million is a little more likely but still very dubious.


That's the thing isn't it? It's almost never actually about "new players". It's about older players who did something stupid, got killed , and then ran to the forums to complain about it. only they know their complaint will be rejected out of hand because they should have known better, so they use "new players" as a more acceptable stand in.

"I'm not concerned about me per se, but I wonder how this will affect the youth!". Twisted
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#533 - 2017-02-20 16:59:36 UTC
Won't somebody please think of the children?

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein

Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#534 - 2017-02-20 17:15:28 UTC
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Won't somebody please think of the children?



Samuel L Jackson voice:

"I tired of no one thinking of the mother ******* children on the mother ******* plane. And **** snakes too!"

/Samuel L. Jackson voice
2Sonas1Cup
#535 - 2017-02-20 17:20:13 UTC
I already suggested an idea to have jump bridges in highsec provided by certain NPC corps, like locator agents, that you could use to jump into a RANDOM nullsec system in the middle of nowhere in space where they're would be a cloaked NPC cyno.

This would most certainly ease the brainless and ******** f1 gatecamping mechanic.
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#536 - 2017-02-20 17:22:11 UTC
2Sonas1Cup wrote:
I already suggested an idea to have jump bridges in highsec provided by certain NPC corps, like locator agents, that you could use to jump into a RANDOM nullsec system in the middle of nowhere in space where they're would be a cloaked NPC cyno.

This would most certainly ease the brainless and ******** f1 gatecamping mechanic.


That would just feed people kills you know.
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
Already Replaced.
#537 - 2017-02-20 17:24:04 UTC
2Sonas1Cup wrote:
I already suggested an idea to have jump bridges in highsec provided by certain NPC corps, like locator agents, that you could use to jump into a RANDOM nullsec system in the middle of nowhere in space where they're would be a cloaked NPC cyno.

This would most certainly ease the brainless and ******** f1 gatecamping mechanic.


called a buddy with a blop.
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#538 - 2017-02-20 17:25:33 UTC
2Sonas1Cup wrote:
I already suggested an idea to have jump bridges in highsec provided by certain NPC corps, like locator agents, that you could use to jump into a RANDOM nullsec system in the middle of nowhere in space where they're would be a cloaked NPC cyno.

This would most certainly ease the brainless and ******** f1 gatecamping mechanic.

So, wormholes?

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein

Hakawai
State War Academy
Caldari State
#539 - 2017-02-20 18:58:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Hakawai
Jenn aSide wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Hakawai wrote:
It sounds like just another way to say "it's ok for us to treat new players as consumables if we feel like it".
It is, and there's nothing wrong with that; in fact it's considered to be a mainstay of the game.

CCP Falcon wrote:
The only way to grow is to voraciously consume what's around you, and its your choice whether that happens to be New Eden's abundant natural resources, or the other people who're also fighting their way to the top.



I don't know why people play competetive games while being emotionally opposed to competition.

But mainly I think Hakawai's real problem is this misplaced sympathy for new players that you get on this forum almost every day. People like this think they are helping new players by 'advocating for them". That aren't.

If you want to help new players, you personally teach them. The number one lesson is This:

"YOU (and only you) are accountable for your own experience, if that experience is bad it means you need to learn more. Blaming others for your bad experience might make you feel better for a few seconds, but it will lead you to making the same mistakes over again. In this game, personal responsibility is not a Saintly Trait, it is a Survival Trait."

This forum certainly makes me laugh a lot, but almost always for the wrong reasons.

Ammo is consumable - you use it and it's gone.
Ships vary, but some (like a ships used for highsec suicide ganking) are similar to ammo: destroyed on use.

But it seems the meaning of "consumable" is being is morphed as a result of my applying it to people /lol. I can only assume that a serviceable word, that's had a stable meaning for at least a century according to wikipedia, has suddenly been redefined by EVE old-timers because they're not comfortable with the implications of the thread title and the OP.

As ever, cognitive dissonance produces weird and sometimes paradoxical results /lol.

When I've used "consumable" with regard to new players it's the usual "pre-EVE-morph" dictionary meaning. It doesn't mean destroy a ship or a pod. It means do something that suggests to the player that the effort vs reward of EVE doesn't justify the time and effort required to get started in the game.

"You should leave the game" is a great suggestion for minimizing a new player's errors, but it's a stupid lesson to teach.

Is that really what CCP Falcon meant? Does CCP want players to casually drive other players from the game, thereby losing their subscription money?
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#540 - 2017-02-20 19:33:46 UTC
Hakawa wrote:


Is that really what CCP Falcon meant? Does CCP want players to casually drive other players from the game, thereby losing their subscription money?


You have not one shred of evidence that people are driven from the game by gate camps.

And even if you did, then what? Should CCP somehow make changes to EVE Online because some human beings over the age of 13 (EVE is rated 13 and up) can't deal with minor inconveniences in a video game ?

Like I said, if you care about 'new players' do 2 things, teach them and tell them to ask themselves if they truthfully believe that they have the mental disposition needed to enjoy and thrive in EVE Online. Because if they don't have that, no amount of nerfing people you don't like (gate campers) is going to help them.

In fact, trying to 'legislate away" gate campers with development changes would follow the same stupid script as the past. People whined about other people before, like "gankers". They pleaded with CCP for help rather than learning to outplay the gankers. CCP did so with EHP buffs to some ships and anchor rigs and buffing CONCORD and new rules etc.

The end result? Ganking got worse and spread to affect more people. Turns out that nerfing someone's playstyle in order to help hapless people who already had all the tools they needed to help themselves only serves to tick off and embolden the group that got 'nerfed'. You think "gate campers" will just say "whelp CCP nerfed us, i guess Ill go away now.

No they won't they will examine the game mechanics and find ways to keep doing what they are doing, just more so.




You may ask why I care, I don't gate camp and don't have a real horse in the fight. Well , let me tell you Hakawa. I find it irritating in a way i can't really describe to see the same BS happen over and over again. It annoys me in game and in real life that people (the supposed top of the food chain) just can't learn simple lessons.

I can't talk about real life stuff here because of the forum rules, luckily there are mroe than enough in game examples. One example was Dominion Sov which CCP claimed would "open up null to smaller groups" . The null haters rejoiced , thinking CCP was about to "fix null" and "break the power of the big coalitions. What actually happened is that those groups got stronger and null turned in to Renter-stan. Goons spent SIX YEARS punishing the game for CCP's mistake.

Or like the safety buffs I mention, before all that all you had to worry about were some bored Goons ganking in high sec or burning jita from time to time, but CCPs safety buffs CREATED CODE in the same way that [insert real life situation where invading people in the name of freedom creates a worse enemy than the one you just killed here].

It's the same with everything people keep complaining about from cloakcy campers to local in null...I could go on and on about the backfires. But what heats my hide more than anything is that you simply can't get some people to understand the basic concept and the even more basic truth. Which is this : You simply cannot game design your way out of human nature. You CAN adapt and defeat others (gate camps are easy to avoid and even beat), but not with game rules changes....