Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dornier Pfeil
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 18:10:12 -
[61] - Quote
Bubba Freedom wrote:That "study" you refer too is already generally agreed by most of the player base to be toilet water, not to mention you can't get a new player out to null and have them be productive. We are killing off our player base either way you look at it. Ganking in high sec is pretty much the worst you can do. When you complain about markets and lack of hauling, or sell prices being too high and buys too low, that's all because you or your friends killed off the last few shipments of that item someone was hauling. You and the rest of your corp/alliance are one of the main reasons for the issues we have right now. Your lack of control and common sense is duly noted as low. The fact is I'm not being counter productive as the option would still exist by expanding the safety function. Heck for all I care make it red or green, put a 24 hour timer on going red and make it so you can shoot all red in high sec. But then again that puts code at a little disadvantage doesn't it because they can't hide behind concord till they find an easy kill.
First Bolding: Define productive. I have the same problem with you I have with the pvp'ers who think the only part of the game that matters is ship on ship pew pew. If a new player is out in null they very likely have been taken in by people who can help them with hardware to fly in consistent with their skill level until they have skilled up to productively supporting themself. It's not like T1 f/d/c are horribly expensive.
Second Bolding: If your understanding of the game is so good then how come you don't know CODE. can't hide behind CONCORD if they are -10.0? And for those few who are not red blinkies you can always wardec them. Or did your massive understanding miss that too? To misquote a certain American president, "BE THE POLICE YOU ARE LOOKING FOR!". I hear these people are looking for help.
Bubba Freedom wrote:Yes there are things you can do to avoid ganks, I do them all, ask the guy that spent two hours hunting me in low yesterday, the issue is in high,
Then how did you get station-camped in Jita? It's not like they have bubbles.
edited to save posts. |
Dornier Pfeil
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2016.09.04 19:22:16 -
[62] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Bubba Freedom wrote:That "study" you refer too is already generally agreed by most of the player base to be toilet water, not to mention you can't get a new player out to null and have them be productive. The biggest alliances currently in nullsec in EVE are composed of only new players. Yes they are very effective and valuable players and they actually experience the game for what it is, a competitive massive multiplayer sandbox game. You simply oppose this study because it does not fit into your concept about your constructed problem. You oppose a study with a sample size of 80'000 players with your gut feelings and think you know better.You sir are a troll and this thread is reported for redundancy and trolling. Have a nice day
Then it should be fair to say you support the study precisely because it comports with the bias you have. Just today's NYT had a piece discussing a paper that demonstrated how acceptance bias imbues us. Even real scientists are having problems demonstrating that their studies are reliable and say what is claimed they are saying. If trained scientists, disinterested, dispassionate, objective, are having trouble proving things then why should we accept CCP's conclusions. They are hardly a model of disinterest.
I have to support OP. CCP demonstrated a correlation, not a causation. The most likely cause was simply that the kind of players who are most likely to stay are also the kind of players who are most likely to go out into the big, bad, cruel world where they can get shot in the face.
OP is still a twit. |
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
405
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 03:58:16 -
[63] - Quote
Let's take Bubbies idea to its logical conclusion. Why should ships be invulnerable to players, but still vulnerable to NPCs?
When safety is set to green, player ships should be 100% impervious to damage. This will surely get lots of former players to return. |
Rawmeat Mary
Celtic Anarchy Complaints Department
137
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 07:30:34 -
[64] - Quote
Rawketsled wrote:Let's take Bubbies idea to its logical conclusion. Why should ships be invulnerable to players, but still vulnerable to NPCs?
When safety is set to green, player ships should be 100% impervious to damage. This will surely get lots of former players to return. After a few months, thousands upon thousands of invulnerable Yield/DPS/Warp Speed Officer and A-types fit PVE ships EVERYWHERE.
Woohoo win.
'If they take the ship, they'll rape us to death, eat our flesh, and sew our skins onto their clothing.
And if we're very, very lucky, they'll do it in that order.'
Yeah, we're like that.
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2770
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 07:58:34 -
[65] - Quote
Dornier Pfeil wrote:Then it should be fair to say you support the study precisely because it comports with the bias you have. Just today's NYT had a piece discussing a paper that demonstrated how acceptance bias imbues us. Even real scientists are having problems demonstrating that their studies are reliable and say what is claimed they are saying. If trained scientists, disinterested, dispassionate, objective, are having trouble proving things then why should we accept CCP's conclusions. They are hardly a model of disinterest. I have to support OP. CCP demonstrated a correlation, not a causation. The most likely cause was simply that the kind of players who are most likely to stay are also the kind of players who are most likely to go out into the big, bad, cruel world where they can get shot in the face. OP is still a twit. You are looking at this the wrong way. Science works through falsification. You form a Hypothesis and calculate some predictions, then you check with facts if your hypothesis survives reality.
CCP had a hypothesis, just like the OP and many other carebears. Let's call it "The Carebear Hypothesis". Like OP, those carebears stated for years that the decline in numbers has a direct correlation with people like us driving players away from EVE with nonconsensual PvP. In fact they said that even before the decline. People like the OP are crying about this on the forums from day one when EVE was in beta.
Some people at CCP where also believers in "The Carebear Hypothesis", but they where in the unique position to verify/falsify the claim with actual data from new players who left the game. So they did and the presentation of CCP Rise shows the results. "The Carebear Hypothesis" was completely obliterated. The facts clearly show that the correlation OP and his carebear friends construct is false. The trend it shows is completely inverted to what carebears tell you, in fact the people who where on the receiving end of nonconsensual PvP where the most likely to stick around. This is the complete opposite of "The Carebear Hypothesis".
By the way, CCP also looked at the reason players stated about why they quit and did not just present a correlation. Less than 1% cited ship loss or harassment as the reason they left EVE.
I am just using the same study to remind the OP that the basis for his whiny thread is wrong. I am not the one making claims here and who constructs a correlation, but clearly the OP is and it is a correlation which has been shown to be wrong already.
And yes it only shows 80'000 players in their first 15 days. But OP was talking about new players and those are the player represented in the study. Obviously the next thing the carebear crowd is saying is that after the 15 days the data would show the complete opposite or like OP here, just completely disregard the study and pretend it is just wrong. They have no basis to claim this, it is completely absurd. They listen to the same gut feeling which already betrayed them and just try to spin some new carebear hypothesis.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3005
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 08:59:51 -
[66] - Quote
while i think OP is off his rocker i would like to point out even when ccp told us about that study they admitted the same size was far to small to draw any real conclusions from.
personally weather or not ganking is causing ppl to leave it doesn't bother me i would rather a game die with its identity then live on as a shell (not that i think ganking is going to cause the death of eve)
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
976
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 14:46:51 -
[67] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:CCP had a hypothesis, just like the OP and many other carebears. Let's call it "The Carebear Hypothesis". Like OP, those carebears stated for years that the decline in numbers has a direct correlation with people like us driving players away from EVE with nonconsensual PvP. In fact they said that even before the decline. People like the OP are crying about this on the forums from day one when EVE was in beta. Snipped a bunch out here to save forum space and because it is not needed. To everything you have stated in this post I could point to the flaws in the review process, flaws that render the results nearly worthless as proof of either side of the argument.
So 1% left because non-consensual PvP that tells us nothing. To be able to put that into perspective we need to know how many of the 80,000 actually left a reason why they quit. If all 80,000 left reasons why they quit and only 1% mentioned non-consensual PvP the numbers tell us that non-consensual PvP is not a problem with player retention. On the other hand if only 800 players mentioned a reason why they quit and all 800 of them stated non-consensual PvP was one of the reasons they quit the numbers tell a radically different story.
In the end there are far to many questions on how the review was done, to many questions like the ones above left unanswered for the review to be worth anything. But the real question is simply this, even if (please note I said IF) the review had proven that non-consensual PvP was a major factor in player retention do you really think CCP would have mentioned it even in a dev blog much less make it part of a keynote speech at a player gathering?
Considering all things possible the survey and the results drawn from it are far from scientific and they prove nothing other than they are great marketing hype for CCP and continue to perpetuate a theory that do this day remains unproven. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2771
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 15:08:28 -
[68] - Quote
I guess sometimes reading is just really hard. Or maybe people can't see the difference between fact checking an already existing claim and drawing conclusions from a study.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
713
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 15:30:51 -
[69] - Quote
Ima, I'm a little short on cash and I don't mine so there's no point..... but can I please get a permit now please?
I'm sold. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2771
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 15:37:01 -
[70] - Quote
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:Ima, I'm a little short on cash and I don't mine so there's no point..... but can I please get a permit now please?
I'm sold. Did you read the Code and are you ready to accept James 315 as your Saviour?
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
713
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 15:37:48 -
[71] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Can't you just wait for this game to go F2P you'll get 10,000 nerds making threads like this per day. Should make alpha accounts force to watch a video explaining to them they can be killed anywhere in this game.
I think this is a good idea. Rather than the NPE 'opportunities', one well done video should do the trick. |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
713
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 15:43:44 -
[72] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Brokk Witgenstein wrote:Ima, I'm a little short on cash and I don't mine so there's no point..... but can I please get a permit now please?
I'm sold. Did you read the Code and are you ready to accept James 315 as your Saviour?
mumblemumblemumble DON'T RUB IT IN
Yes I read some parts of it and then there was some hearsay. Some personal observation. Some chit chat on the forums..... How about we take it slow for our first date and maybe go blow up some botters before sharing a ring, a commitment? I'm not quite ready for matrimony under the sacrament of James just yet |
DrysonBennington
Eagle's Talon's
296
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 16:39:44 -
[73] - Quote
Zhilia Mann wrote:As mostly an explorer and industrialist: no. Destruction and lack of safety are integral to the game. If that means we lose a player here and there, so be it.
As long as it isn't you that is lost who really cares right? As long as someone else is losing then its okay.
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2771
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 17:34:36 -
[74] - Quote
This thread is complete now
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
716
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 17:37:47 -
[75] - Quote
Praise Jammmmzzz nah, still can't do it- need more practice LOL |
Netan MalDoran
Last Garrison
243
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 18:10:13 -
[76] - Quote
Bubba Freedom wrote: you're looking at a two day old character that replaced one that couldn't't get out of pita due to station camps
Im going to assume you meant to type 'Jita', if so, what the hell was wrong with your char? I can sit on the Jita undock for hours and no one would care to touch me. Were you undocking in untanked freighters with a couple trillion in cargo????
"Your security status has been lowered." - Hell yeah it was!
Falcon's truth
|
Solecist Project
32980
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 18:28:45 -
[77] - Quote
DrysonBennington wrote:Zhilia Mann wrote:As mostly an explorer and industrialist: no. Destruction and lack of safety are integral to the game. If that means we lose a player here and there, so be it. As long as it isn't you that is lost who really cares right? As long as someone else is losing then its okay. If you want to stop High Sector ganking go into Null Space and find a Neutral friendly region like Providence where CVA lives. There are the occasional Reds that come into system but if you dock up and deny them a target they go elsewhere. The problem with High Sector Gankers is that there are targets everywhere and do not dock up because there is not a network that keeps track of CODE. The only way to defeat CODE is to establish a constant network in and around the systems they gank from those who run missions and mine in the systems on a constant basis. Broadcasting in local that CODE is in system and is ganking will also help keep pilots informed and aware that gankers are in system. If a gank occurs and the gank was not a result of CODE simply set all of the pilots involved with the gank and their corporation if they have one to - Red status. The next time they come into the system the system can be alerted to be on the lookout for them. It takes a non-trivial amount of effort taking you seriously ... ... when your brain outputs something like this:
"If you want to stop High Sector ganking go into Null Space and find a Neutral friendly region like Providence where CVA lives. There are the occasional Reds that come into system but if you dock up and deny them a target they go elsewhere."
For the equally unaware: moving to null does not stop highsec ganking.
That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3010
|
Posted - 2016.09.05 18:39:51 -
[78] - Quote
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:Caleb Seremshur wrote:Can't you just wait for this game to go F2P you'll get 10,000 nerds making threads like this per day. Should make alpha accounts force to watch a video explaining to them they can be killed anywhere in this game. I think this is a good idea. Rather than the NPE 'opportunities', one well done video should do the trick.
you kidding? look at the videos they have
very little that actually explains anything important but they did take the time to explain how to use the NES
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Julie Oppenheimer
State Protectorate Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 20:27:25 -
[79] - Quote
Had to log in at work to reply because this thread is ridiculous...
Full disclosure: this isn't my main. But now on to the real message.
I think I am one of the carebears you claim to want to protect and I strongly disagree with what you're putting forward. For the record, I've been playing this game since about mid 2012, I have never really PvP'd and most of what I do now is run missions, incursions, and industry in highsec. I also take the odd adventure to low/null/WH to explore or huff gas.
Ganking (whether in highsec or otherwise) is part of what makes Eve Online the game that it is today. It's not like other games where it's only about maximizing and optimizing to make money or do whatever PvE activity floats your boat, Eve Online is about working for what you have (ignoring PLEX) and Eve Online is about permanent loss. Permanent loss makes you think about what you're doing and it fuels the economy. Can you begin to imagine what would happen to the economy alone if you made people un-gankable in highsec?
You are proposing to essentially really dumb down this game. I'm a fan of making people think and I think games have been dumbing down far to much (Eve included to some extent) so I enjoy this game as a last bastion of games that weed out people who can't use their heads, people that aren't patient, people who expect stuff handed to them on a silver platter. One of the main reasons I love Eve is because it tends to discourage simpletons from playing. I don't want people who want to be able to just jump in and be the best at what they want and have no negative consequences; I'd rather CCP go bankrupt that cater to those people on the level that you are asking for. (Btw, props to CCP for having the balls not to give in so far).
If you're changes were implemented, you'd probably get a large surge of new players and then it'd drop off to next to nothing as there would no longer be anything that differentiated this game from any other game.
As a carebear, I'd quit Eve Online if what you propose were implemented. There are plenty of MMO's that offer what you are asking for, Eve Online not having these things is what makes it unique and it's why I love this game. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5199
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 23:14:32 -
[80] - Quote
Dornier Pfeil wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Bubba Freedom wrote:That "study" you refer too is already generally agreed by most of the player base to be toilet water, not to mention you can't get a new player out to null and have them be productive. The biggest alliances currently in nullsec in EVE are composed of only new players. Yes they are very effective and valuable players and they actually experience the game for what it is, a competitive massive multiplayer sandbox game. You simply oppose this study because it does not fit into your concept about your constructed problem. You oppose a study with a sample size of 80'000 players with your gut feelings and think you know better.You sir are a troll and this thread is reported for redundancy and trolling. Have a nice day Then it should be fair to say you support the study precisely because it comports with the bias you have. Just today's NYT had a piece discussing a paper that demonstrated how acceptance bias imbues us. Even real scientists are having problems demonstrating that their studies are reliable and say what is claimed they are saying. If trained scientists, disinterested, dispassionate, objective, are having trouble proving things then why should we accept CCP's conclusions. They are hardly a model of disinterest. I have to support OP. CCP demonstrated a correlation, not a causation. The most likely cause was simply that the kind of players who are most likely to stay are also the kind of players who are most likely to go out into the big, bad, cruel world where they can get shot in the face. OP is still a twit.
No. Even though there is an issue with replication in science in general, you are committing a serious error of logic to assume that the CCP study is therefore flawed. It might be, but the only way to know for sure is to replicate the study. Also, the causation is inferred from the analysis because people listed their cause for leaving.
Further, the OP is also making an argument via popularity, "most of the player base think...." Really? Has there been a poll somewhere? Yeah, didn't think so.
Ganking has been in the game since day 1. Ganking was even easier earlier in the game's history. Yet the game's population grew. Can the OP explain that? No? Hmmmm....
How about this hypothesis the OP is using the decline in players as a ploy to try and gin up support for a position absent the decline in players he'd likely never get?
"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
|
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5199
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 23:18:04 -
[81] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:while i think OP is off his rocker i would like to point out even when ccp told us about that study they admitted the same size was far to small to draw any real conclusions from.
personally weather or not ganking is causing ppl to leave it doesn't bother me i would rather a game die with its identity then live on as a shell (not that i think ganking is going to cause the death of eve)
Uhh...what?
Where I work we have 5.2 million customers. We routinely use sample sizes of 50,000 and it is fine.
CCP has nowhere near 5.2 million customers, a sample of 80,000 is probably sufficient.
"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
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5199
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 23:20:37 -
[82] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:
So 1% left because non-consensual PvP that tells us nothing. To be able to put that into perspective we need to know how many of the 80,000 actually left a reason why they quit. If all 80,000 left reasons why they quit and only 1% mentioned non-consensual PvP the numbers tell us that non-consensual PvP is not a problem with player retention. On the other hand if only 800 players mentioned a reason why they quit and all 800 of them stated non-consensual PvP was one of the reasons they quit the numbers tell a radically different story.
Uhmmm...it has been awhile since I watched that presentation, but I was under the impression all 80,000 have left, so your entire argument here, if my memory is correct, is just wrong.
Damn, now I'll have to go watch it again.
"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
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
732
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 23:23:10 -
[83] - Quote
Oh Teckos ... how easily you allow yourself to be baited. You didn't think for a second OP was serious, did you? |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5199
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 23:28:17 -
[84] - Quote
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:Oh Teckos ... how easily you allow yourself to be baited. You didn't think for a second OP was serious, did you?
Actually, bad mouthing that study is not that uncommon. Maybe it is flawed and a replication would be good, but the usual assertion is 'It's junk and everyone knows 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
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
732
|
Posted - 2016.09.06 23:35:28 -
[85] - Quote
I'm among those who don't put much stake into said study myself, not because of the number of samples but rather what was sampled: do 15 day old players get ganked? No. Because they have nothing worth ganking, and most people shy away from rookies in rookie systems to not incur the wrath of the almight mjolnir.
But then again, I also couldn't give two hoots and a holler IF someone were to leave due to getting blown up. Because it's advertized on the box - it's just that kind of game and if you don't like it- fine. EvE is not for everyone and I'd rather not play with evergrumps.
I don't care about losing certain players, therefore said study is only of marginal interest to me. It may be true. It may not be true. The question only CCP can answer, and every man has a right to decide for himself, is: do we want to alter the game to cater to said crowd, or not? Regardless of what the study may indicate.
And this is where you and I meet again I believe, albeit following a different route. |
Kenneth Fritz
DND Industries FUBAR.
8
|
Posted - 2016.09.07 10:00:43 -
[86] - Quote
I don't usually do this but, No, just No. I've lost billios of ISK to hisec ganks and random null interlopers. While frustrating and, at times, infuriating I realize that it is simply a very small part of a very big game. Also getting away wouldn't feel as awesome as it does on the rare ocasion you can if the threat weren't so very real.
Who's your end of the world buddy?
|
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
isd community communications liaisons
7236
|
Posted - 2016.09.07 18:48:25 -
[87] - Quote
Quote:Forum rules17. Redundant and re-posted threads will be locked.As a courtesy to other forum users, please search to see if there is a thread already open on the topic you wish to discuss. If so, please place your comments there instead. Multiple threads on the same subject clutter up the forums needlessly, causing good feedback and ideas to be lost. Please keep discussions regarding a topic to a single thread.
Thread closed.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |