These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

How many more players must we lose to bullying

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Salvos Rhoska
#201 - 2017-03-30 07:10:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
If someone leaves due to being blown up, there is little we or CCP can do about that.

If you follow the Golden Rules, being destroyed hurts, but doesnt cripple you.
Also following the Golden Rules makes you less likely to be destroyed in the first place.

Imo the players that leave due to being blown up:
-Flew what they cant afford to lose.
-Flew stupidly without precautions.
-Misunderstand the nature of PvP in EVE, and are angry/dissappointed when it doesnt match their expectations.

Thats a fatal trifecta.
-First is a crippling material loss.
-Second is misplaced anger, which should be directed at oneself. People hate to blame themself.
-Third is coming up against having to accept things as they are, rather than how you want them to be.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#202 - 2017-03-30 07:10:58 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
he deliberately tried to tie in ganking as a reason so he could justify it as being a good thing. According to him only 1% of the 80,000 new players experienced ganking within the 15 days so that topic never even should have been brought up.

Rise is an employee at the company producing this game and his salary depends on a subscribers. Why should he have any motivation to spin this in a way which damages his own company. This just shows how dishonest you are in this discussions, you basically call him a liar just because you don't like the results of his study.

The reason why this even comes up is very clear and you just have to read this very thread to know why. It's because the vocal carebears pretend that ganking and wardecing is driving away new players ALL THE TIME. It would be foolish to not address those concerns when looking into the topic.

There would be no reason to bring this up if the carebears would stop to bring this myth up every 5min all around the forums.

DeMichael Crimson wrote:

Now I don't know how long you've been playing Eve but in 2012 there was a big problem of new players being ganked, scammed, baited and griefed. As such CCP made it perfectly clear to all players here on these forums that new players 30 days or younger were not to messed with. CCP changed the rules pertaining to new players and added more systems to the 'protected' systems list.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1192090#post1192090
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1476449#post1476449

That was about can baiting new players in the starter system and no one has any sympathy for that kind of people.

DeMichael Crimson wrote:

Since then new players are rarely messed with so a study done on the effects of Suicide Ganking on 15 day old new players is irrelevant, especially since most are still doing the Career Agents or the Level 1 SoE Epic Arc. If CCP was serious about doing a study on the effects of Suicide Ganking towards player retention within the game, they would have picked a different age group for the study.
...

I really don't care how you spin it, that fact was thrown in with the 15 day old player survey in an attempt to validate and justify suicide ganking within the game. Obviously there wasn't any percentage amount stated for players who quit within a specific time frame and out of those players who did quit what percentage of them actually gave a reason for quitting.

So when the invented problem did not surface on the < 15 day old players you state that they are not the right group and that CCP if they were honest should have looked at older player. And when I point out that they actually did that and that the problem still did not surface as well you just invent another reason why the study can be disregarded.

There is no amount of work CCP could have done to satisfy your requirements, because your requirements are dependant on the result which you obviously know is that ganking is a problem. Any other result must be wrong and there must be a flaw in the approach they took in analysing the data or they just analysed the wrong data.

That is just intellectually dishonest you are fooling only yourself and no one else.
DeMichael Crimson wrote:

First of all, if a survey is being done about new players then it should be conducted by a neutral 3rd party. The actual age group for new players is 30 days old or younger. And yes, I'm biased when someone tries to present a survey about NPE Tutorial as a factual study without divulging all of the facts and then piggy backs another topic (Ganking) on top of it in an attempt to justify it.

Lastly you really need to chill out posting remarks that berate and insult others. Anymore personal attacks directed towards me will be reported.

DMC

It is CCPs data and their game. They have every interest to get this right and fix real problems in player retention. There is no 3rd party required, your delusional claims that they are somehow biased towards an outcome is just laughable. In any case the outcome would be the same and you would still make up reasons why this new study does not satisfy your requirements since it got the same result you know in your gut feelings are wrong.

If my remarks about your intellectual dishonesty offended you, oh well, I point out a lie if I read one. If you can't handle that, maybe stop lying.

Evil RatKid
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#203 - 2017-03-30 07:22:08 UTC
Mr Mieyli wrote:
As far as I understood, a limited engagement is created when a player attacks you, and allows you to retun fire exempt from the normal penalties. In low this means you don't take gate fire for attacking someone under a limited engagement, and in hs if means concord don't show up. So when a limited engagement is created with the corp for you attacking their structure, they can 'return fire' on you and anyone else attacking the structure / repping. When they fire they are now free targets to the attackers as well and a full on brawl can break out without concord stepping in.

No, that is not how that works. If you are in a limited engagement with another person you can shoot them without concord intervention. There is no need for one side to shoot first. What you mean and Dracvlad pointed out is a suspect flag, but that is global and not limited to the corp. If you are suspect and someone fires on you you get a limited engagement with that person and then you can fire back.

Now the question is why do you think you are qualified to suggest changes to fundamental game system and why do you claim to know they are broken if you just demonstrated that you don't understand them. The change you proposed would have allowed anyone to completely wreck your corp members without wardec for free.

Evil RatKid
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#204 - 2017-03-30 08:16:31 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
They only included ganking in that study because it regularly comes up on the forums and elsewhere where people just assert out of thin air that ganking or wardecking is the main reason new players quit. Rise tried to find out why or why not people who play the trial subscribe. If the sentiment of so many players is that ganking has a big influence on that then it is obviously a good idea to try to figure out if there is some merit to that hypothesis.

Turns out there isn't and as we said for many years, if the carebears cry for more protection for new players they actually cry for more protection for themselves. New players don't have an issue with all that, since they still see EVE as a game and in games sometimes you lose stuff, that is pretty natural.

If the main point of the presentation was to ascertain why players don't subscribe after doing the trial period then he should have straight out said why. Instead of explaining how the NPE was very lackluster and which parts needed to be improved for various reasons, he deliberately tried to tie in ganking as a reason so he could justify it as being a good thing. According to him only 1% of the 80,000 new players experienced ganking within the 15 days so that topic never even should have been brought up.

Now I don't know how long you've been playing Eve but in 2012 there was a big problem of new players being ganked, scammed, baited and griefed. As such CCP made it perfectly clear to all players here on these forums that new players 30 days or younger were not to messed with. CCP changed the rules pertaining to new players and added more systems to the 'protected' systems list.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1192090#post1192090
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1476449#post1476449

Since then new players are rarely messed with so a study done on the effects of Suicide Ganking on 15 day old new players is irrelevant, especially since most are still doing the Career Agents or the Level 1 SoE Epic Arc. If CCP was serious about doing a study on the effects of Suicide Ganking towards player retention within the game, they would have picked a different age group for the study.

Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Also you seam to completely ignore the part where he mentioned that only <1% of people who quit the game in the survey they get if they unsubscribe about why they quit the game mention ship loss as a reason. That is pretty significant and this is actually for ALL players and not for < 15 days, since they are not subscribed.

So there may be a few people who quit because they are not comfortable losing ships, which in EVE online is actually something like a "consumable" in other games which is supposed to explode at one point. On the other hand there are 99% which quit out of completely different reasons and if people are concerned about people quitting that is the group they should probably focus their attention on and not the vocal crybabies who can't handle the game and project their shortcomings on everyone else.

I really don't care how you spin it, that fact was thrown in with the 15 day old player survey in an attempt to validate and justify suicide ganking within the game. Obviously there wasn't any percentage amount stated for players who quit within a specific time frame and out of those players who did quit what percentage of them actually gave a reason for quitting.

Ima Wreckyou wrote:

You are basically the anti-vaxxer guy of EVE online. What possible study could they present that will change your opinion? You are obviously very biased in your views and no matter how many facts they bring to the table you will immediately call BS because it goes against your established believe.

But don't worry, I don't try to convince you, I know perfectly well you don't have the intellectual honesty to admit you where wrong. All this discussions are basically to show other people who read it the complete disconnection of the carebear population with the realities of the game and their obvious intellectual dishonesty, which you perfectly demonstrated once again.

First of all, if a survey is being done about new players then it should be conducted by a neutral 3rd party. The actual age group for new players is 30 days old or younger. And yes, I'm biased when someone tries to present a survey about NPE Tutorial as a factual study without divulging all of the facts and then piggy backs another topic (Ganking) on top of it in an attempt to justify it.

Lastly you really need to chill out posting remarks that berate and insult others. Anymore personal attacks directed towards me will be reported.

DMC


Here here...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#205 - 2017-03-30 08:18:05 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Oh dear...
Dracvlad wrote:

Let me point it out for you so even you can get it:

Gankers have two major imbalances that enable them to have an easy life ganking freighters, the first is bumping the infinite no consequence point, the second is no consequence loot scooping through a DST into a freighter using a noob ship to scoop. On the other side the anti-gankers had the low EHP of the wreck. That was a sort of balance, but the emergent game play was getting players to actually gank the wrecks, because that was something that players who were focused on other areas did not train and could not afford to lose a character too.

The difference here is that there are multiple counters for the tactics ganker use. You can do various things to prevent or escape bumping. You can loot the wreck before the ganker loots the wreck, bump the DST, etc, while not easy they are at least possible.

Alphaing a wreck had no counter. It is not possible to prevent a cheap thrasher to completely destroy the wreck and all loot. It will be invincible for a few seconds when landing on grid and has lock and fired before it is possible to get a lock on the thrasher for everything else.

It is obviously still possible to kill the wreck. But you have to invest more than 1mil ISK. The only thing that changed was the increase in EHP, which the gankers had to deal with multiple times and we adapted. So if you want to obliterate the loot 20+ people worked for it is just reasonable to expect you to put in some effort and investment, the same way it is expected from the gankers.
Dracvlad wrote:

So if you look at that a kinda balance, the Anti-gankers were fail becuase they could not stop small fast ships from ganking and the gankers were fail because they could not stop a small fast anti ganker ship from ganking, perfect balance, except that you lot did not like it, so using high level contacts with CCP you nuked it.

So the question is why is the emergent gameplay of gankers protected when ganking, and why is the emergent game play of non-gankers when ganking is not protected.

That problem was there for years and you where not the first one to use it against gankers. You make it look like you had somehow just invented that and in came CCP with the nerf bat. That's not what happened.

The real reason for the change was the nuking of capital wrecks in nullsec without effort to prevent the enemy from getting their hands on the usually very valuable modules of capital ships. The effect on ganking was a side effect same as the damage control rebalance was a side effect on the EHP of freighters. We both got a nerf and had to invest more to get the same result.

The only difference is that for you it somehow broke your back and you did not recover since while CODE. was ganking Freighters the very next day with more firepower. HTFU


You made my point for me and ignored the questions. Thanks...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Bitter Lemming
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#206 - 2017-03-30 08:34:30 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:


You made my point for me and ignored the questions. Thanks...


He answered them clearly.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#207 - 2017-03-30 08:35:49 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:

The fact that they based 15 day old players as the research age is not a good reference point to use in validating or disproving any theories about player retention due to being killed early in the game. As I said earlier, most of those new players are either still doing the Career Agents or doing the Level 1 SoE Epic Arc and haven't really ventured out into the Eve Universe.

The main point of that test was to appraise how well the NPE was doing and to validate their work on making it better. The fact that they tried to involve ganking in it and to cite that getting killed early is the reason new players stay subbed is the BS propaganda. Like I said, 15 day old characters is not a good reference point when according to CCP a new player is someone who is 30 days old or younger.
Of course it is a good reference point. If the vast majority of players don't make it past 15-days, then you should focus at what happens during those 15 days to try to understand why they are not staying. Numerically, the small percentage that last 16 days but not 30 are irrelevant to the question, and they are probably quite tiny fraction compared to the 15 day cohort given the old trial period was mostly 14 days long. Further, you have no reason, other than perhaps wishful thinking for evidence to validate your own ideas, that 16-30 day quitters would be any different.

I completely and totally agree that this study says nothing to why early and mid-game players quit the game (although CCP has released other data on that) but to claim it is somehow "BS propaganda" is going a little too far. The numbers are the numbers, and they say that it is likely other causes - say terminal boredom from nothing happening during the trial, or an overly complex UI or game mechanics - that are driving players away. What it also does is directly refutes the constant "think of the children" claim veterans players like to make on behalf of new players while agitating for additional safety for themselves.

DeMichael Crimson wrote:
CCP isn't going to publish any research info that shows most new players quit due to being ganked. That's bad business and bad press which would turn a lot of potential customers away from even trying the trial. More than likely they continued working the numbers until they found favorable stats instead of having to admit there may be a problem..

Course we will never know for sure since the test wasn't done by a neutral 3rd party and more importantly, they used the wrong age parameters as a base for the research.
Why wouldn't they publish such data? I am sure if they found that gankers or wardecs were a problem they would have changed their development strategy and focused on building a safer or even safe space for new players to get their feet. Why do you assume them to be liars and/or irrational? I am not sure CCP would get much "bad press" for acknowledging an issue and working to correct it. It turns out though, that lack of safety isn't an issue for true new players and instead they focused their efforts on getting players connected with the Eve universe with scripted stories and understanding the game interface over the last few years. Seems logical to me.

CCP is never going to give their proprietary data to a "neutral third party" in order to satisfy the anti-ganking/wardec ideologues who don't believe them and who likely never will no matter whatever evidence they provide. They don't care what you (or I) think, at least when it comes to new players as we are not new players and our experiences of getting into the game are personal and may not reflect the aggregate. They are attempting to develop their video game to the best of their ability by looking at the total player behaviour and to identify likely bottlenecks in getting players engaged with the game.

I have no problem with people honestly and straight up asking CCP to give them a safe space. At least they are being honest and we can all eventually agree they are just playing the wrong game because there is not suppose to be a safe space in Eve by design. The real problem are those that come to the forums and claim a safe space is necessary, not for them of course but for "the children" (like the OP), or who come promising CCP's subscription numbers (and thus profits) will skyrocket if CCP would only provide for the carebears (which they aren't of course - they are rough-and-tumble space pirates like us who love Eve but just think that gutting the competitive game is somehow a good idea). They are being dishonest and manipulative trying to change the current game that I like to play into something else more suited to their tastes. That is not cool.

Play Eve how you want, but stop trying to change the fundamental core of the game to not be a full-time PvP sandbox. It is futile at this point. CCP has largely resisted such calls for almost a generation now. It isn't going to work.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Soel Reit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#208 - 2017-03-30 08:58:07 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Play Eve how you want, but stop trying to change the fundamental core of the game to not be a full-time PvP sandbox. It is futile at this point. CCP has largely resisted such calls for almost a generation now. It isn't going to work.


IKR Roll
we used to say the same things for free2play Cool
just wait and see what CCP is gonna pull out from the hat Cool

Soon™
CMDR-HerpyDerpy Hurishima
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#209 - 2017-03-30 09:14:19 UTC  |  Edited by: CMDR-HerpyDerpy Hurishima
Im a fairly new player, only 3 months in.
got killed from a trick, lost my machariel.
i have stayed, i have learned from my mistakes and am hoping to grow into a better player, but i do agree with what you have said here, i am not looking for a fight or an argument, nor am i trying to deny what you said i completly agree. (sorry i was tired when wrighting this, i can barely think)

o7
Jasmine Deer
Perkone
Caldari State
#210 - 2017-03-30 09:22:24 UTC
Warrior AgainstEvil wrote:


They say it doesn't happen until you make it happen. OP this is what we must do! We must form a group of alliances to help defend our space in high sec space against those who would chose to harm us.



Well that covers just about every one.

Just make it simpler.

Anyone who has more than 20 initiated and active non-mutual wardecs is obviously not getting enough content.
They can be wardecced for free. You're welcome.

Any sov holding alliance over a certain size can be wardecced for free by small corps or alliances.

Allow kill rights to extend to 60 days. I'm a casual player and don't have time to hunt or camp targets and need a bit of extra time to catch up with old friends.
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#211 - 2017-03-30 09:43:05 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
You made my point for me and ignored the questions. Thanks...

So if you don't like the answer you just pretend it was no answer and ignore the points raised?

Evil RatKid
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#212 - 2017-03-30 09:50:04 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
You made my point for me and ignored the questions. Thanks...

So if you don't like the answer you just pretend it was no answer and ignore the points raised?


No you actually made my point for me.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#213 - 2017-03-30 10:01:18 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
You made my point for me and ignored the questions. Thanks...

So if you don't like the answer you just pretend it was no answer and ignore the points raised?


No you actually made my point for me.

That you should stop crying about one nerf and adapt?

Evil RatKid
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#214 - 2017-03-30 10:15:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Black Pedro wrote:
Of course it is a good reference point. If the vast majority of players don't make it past 15-days, then you should focus at what happens during those 15 days to try to understand why they are not staying. Numerically, the small percentage that last 16 days but not 30 are irrelevant to the question, and they are probably quite tiny fraction compared to the 15 day cohort given the old trial period was mostly 14 days long. Further, you have no reason, other than perhaps wishful thinking for evidence to validate your own ideas, that 16-30 day quitters would be any different.


Most of the people I know that have quit (early on) out of those that I know that have tried it :s have spent between 2 weeks and however long it takes to a get moderately skilled mining barge up and running. Those that quit earlier in nearly every case its because it wasn't the game for them rather than relative to any experience while playing.

While just a small sample those that got ganked after that i.e. when they've had enough time to train up for a machariel tended to stick with the game while those that didn't make it that far before experiencing being ganked (in some cases multiple times) were much more likely to quit.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#215 - 2017-03-30 10:38:35 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
You made my point for me and ignored the questions. Thanks...

So if you don't like the answer you just pretend it was no answer and ignore the points raised?


No you actually made my point for me.

That you should stop crying about one nerf and adapt?


Actually just what a roaring hypocrite you are, I found it rather funny.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Soel Reit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#216 - 2017-03-30 10:46:20 UTC
♥Dracvlad♥Ima Wreckyou♥

boiz i wish you to be happy in your relationship ^^
you guys are so cute when you discuss between yourself Bear
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#217 - 2017-03-30 10:50:05 UTC
Gameplay =/= bullying. If actual bullying is going on, the forums are not the place to report it. File a ticket. But if someone shoots at you in game, that is gameplay, not bullying. This is a PVP game, and if you aren't prepared for the PVP environment that it offers, then that is on you.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Salvos Rhoska
#218 - 2017-03-30 10:53:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Leave the legit fresh noobs alone.
Let them grow before the harvest.

Or even recruit them.

Its just stupid and does all of us a disservice to gank them.

If you do it to teach them a lesson, fine.
But atleast send them back the value of their crap ship, no matter how much they rage.
Its a pittance afterall, and ganking them wasnt for profit anyways.
Lesson taught. Give them some carrot to go with that stick.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#219 - 2017-03-30 10:54:37 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Play Eve how you want, but stop trying to change the fundamental core of the game to not be a full-time PvP sandbox. It is futile at this point. CCP has largely resisted such calls for almost a generation now. It isn't going to work.

I'm not even going to respond to all the chest beating being done by you or Ima Weckyou. You and others keep ringing that old bell saying this is strictly a full-time PvP game. Sorry to disappoint you but it's not. It's a PvP / PvE Sandbox game. I've played MMORPG's that were indeed strictly PvP and Eve is not that, no matter how many times you and Ima Wreckyou claim it is.

The BS propaganda part was bringing in the topic of ganking and justifying it as a positive aspect for the new NPE Presentation when only 1% of the 80,000 new players with 15 days in-game had experienced it. 1% of 80,000 basically makes that topic irrelevant yet CCP Rise sure played it up as a very positive factor for the new NPE. Talk about being biased.

In fact I've been playing this game for almost 9 years now and I've never seen a new 'Rookie' player post on the forums claiming they've been ganked and loved it.

I never once posted a thread asking CCP to change things in this game nor have I ever used new players as an excuse to change things. I don't know where you and Ima Wreckyou get your info but you're barking up the wrong tree. Gotta say I'm sick and tired of all the PvP posturing and crybaby carebear insinuations.

For your information I've had over 13 gank attempts done on me and they all failed. I've also had about a dozen mission invasions done by loot thieves trying to instigate PvP action. Even had a Merc Corp paid to complete an Assassination contract on me, took them 2 weeks for their 6 Battleships to finally get me while I was engaged with NPC's at an exploration site.

Did I post threads in the forums complaining about it ?

NO.

Actually I'm kinda proud about it. I even got sweet revenge on the player who paid for the Assassination contract by having a friend sell him fake nonexistent 'Rage' chat logs for 3 bill ISK. Just goes to show I play this game my way and not how others say I should play. Personally I don't care about Killmails or doing PvP content in this game. I had my fill of PvP in a different space SyFy game long before I joined this game. What brought me to this game were Exploration videos made by a player named DNightmare.

Anyway, discussions in these forums almost always end the same way, in a Forum Flame War. As such I'm done with this thread.


DMC

'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
Salvos Rhoska
#220 - 2017-03-30 10:54:44 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Gameplay =/= bullying. If actual bullying is going on, the forums are not the place to report it. File a ticket. But if someone shoots at you in game, that is gameplay, not bullying. This is a PVP game, and if you aren't prepared for the PVP environment that it offers, then that is on you.


Lol, he is back.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent