Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Captain Tardbar
Sunken Ships
1169
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 05:54:24 -
[391] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Galaxy Duck wrote:
You're right, they should be taking advice from people who accuse them of being liars, or maybe the folks who think them too incompetent to do basic statistics!
Please continue to try and deflect from the fact that your logic is crap.
P.S. "working" for ISK if for carebears, and carebears are livestock.
The very fact that you consider a sample of 80,000 people to determine whether people actually stay longer or leave due to ganking a basic statistic, means you know nothing about statistics and should not really comment on it.
Every time I quit, I lie and put the option that I'm qutting due to lost ship even though while mining I have never been ganked.
Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?
Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5476
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 06:07:22 -
[392] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Galaxy Duck wrote:
You're right, they should be taking advice from people who accuse them of being liars, or maybe the folks who think them too incompetent to do basic statistics!
Please continue to try and deflect from the fact that your logic is crap.
P.S. "working" for ISK if for carebears, and carebears are livestock.
The very fact that you consider a sample of 80,000 people to determine whether people actually stay longer or leave due to ganking a basic statistic, means you know nothing about statistics and should not really comment on it.
Not this again...80,000 is a very large sample, IMO.
We have over 5 million customers and we often use samples of 50,000. And even then that is quite large, but we go that big so if people come back and want various subsets we can be reasonable confident that the subsets are themselves representative of the subset population.
"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
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
72
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 06:14:07 -
[393] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Galaxy Duck wrote:
You're right, they should be taking advice from people who accuse them of being liars, or maybe the folks who think them too incompetent to do basic statistics!
Please continue to try and deflect from the fact that your logic is crap.
P.S. "working" for ISK if for carebears, and carebears are livestock.
The very fact that you consider a sample of 80,000 people to determine whether people actually stay longer or leave due to ganking a basic statistic, means you know nothing about statistics and should not really comment on it. Not this again...80,000 is a very large sample, IMO. We have over 5 million customers and we often use samples of 50,000. And even then that is quite large, but we go that big so if people come back and want various subsets we can be reasonable confident that the subsets are themselves representative of the subset population. Yes but it cannot be called basic statistics.
Basic statistics are things such as a sample of a couple of hundred fun size packs of M&Ms and what the mean and median number of Red M&Ms for each pack.
As to the rest as I said before it is probable that CCP got it right or more specifically didn't get enough wrong to matter. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
3044
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 08:31:52 -
[394] - Quote
If AG would invest the time they cry on the forums and make up stuff to convince themselves that the representative study CCP created is wrong into the actual game, maybe they would actually not fail all the time continuously without ever making a difference.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
72
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 08:54:33 -
[395] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:If AG would invest the time they cry on the forums and make up stuff to convince themselves that the representative study CCP created is wrong into the actual game, maybe they would actually not fail all the time continuously without ever making a difference. Why am I suddenly reminded of this scene?
Quote:Scene: A lecture room at the university.
Leonard: So, if any of you are considering going into experimental physics, my door is always open. Once again, IGÇÖm sorry that the demonstration didnGÇÖt quite work out, but now we know what happens when you accidentally spill peach Snapple into a helium neon laser. Short answer isGǪ donGÇÖt. And now to tell you about the theoretical physics department is Dr. Sheldon Cooper. Dr. Cooper?
Sheldon (off): Forget it.
Leonard: Excuse me. Sheldon, we both agreed to do this.
Sheldon (off): ItGÇÖs a waste of time. I might as well explain the laws of thermodynamics to a bunch of labradoodles.
-- The Big Bang Theory |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
3044
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 09:14:44 -
[396] - Quote
I think it is understandable they react that way. You can see the same reaction if you wave a study that shows that there is probably no connection between vaccines and autism to a bunch of anti-vaccine crackpots.
In this case it is a study that shows that there is probably no connection between ganking and new players quitting and voila, almost the same excuses and non-arguments about why the study is wrong and why their gut feeling is more relevant and how this is all just a big conspiracy.
Good job AG, you are basically the anti-vaccination movement of EVE
Lets call them "the anti-content movement". I think that is an accurate name.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2897
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 09:45:20 -
[397] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Steffles wrote:Violet Crumble wrote:Steffles wrote:Killing people in high sec has never been easier. Highsec is not safe, its extremely dangerous. I've lived in all areas of the game and by far the most dangerous is high sec.
As for freighters if someone wants to kill you you are dead. No amount of tank, inertial stabs, scouting, planning, webbing alt will help you because you cannot warp out when your scrammed or pointed and they don't align fast enough to avoid being locked and scrammed. After that its bump and gank till your dead.
To put it in perspective, the drop in required isk to gank a freighter is enormous, it used to be 30 or more battleships now its 30ish cats, or 7 stealth bombers. Very very cheap. Where do you get this from? Highsec is extremely dangerous? You can't be serious. As a industrialist/miner/hauler who works in all areas of space, this doesn't in any way match the experience I have had in the last 3 years. So I would be great if you outline specific details and numbers that show this, because it's easy to show that it's not true. Its quite simple. Living in what is arguably the most active pvp system in EVE (7rm-n0) I can tell immediately if there is a threat (nuetral) in system. I have 100+ people who will be in warp to me within seconds. The most dangerous part about warping to the threat is whether or not Ill be in time to kill the ganker before he's finished off by the defense fleet. You have a alliance wide network of eyes watching and warning is usually given when fleets or gangs are multiple systems away. In less active system or bubble fekked dead ends you would be likely to see a nuetral once a day or not at all. You can afk rat or mine to your hearts content. There are no war decs, no code dweebs, no insta-popping destroyers on your undock, no nuetral reppers, very few links alts and if there are you can easily probe those down with a good prober. In high sec there is no warning if you are attacked. You cannot tell a hostile nuetral (ganker) from a non-hostile. There is no defense fleet. No alliance wide network of eyes. Neutral reppers are to be expected. Any smart true carebear is not in highsec, they are in null and this is the reason for that. In other words, NS is as safe as players make it. HS on the other is very safe irrespective of player effort (which is generally negligible). Working as intended, IMO. Indeed.
And pirating has essentially been deleted as a profession in highsec. After all the nerfs to ganking, especially the insurance removal, it is not profitable to shoot another player for their stuff anymore or make a living at it. Only the most outrageously bling fit ship, or overloaded hauler can be shot and the pirate make a profit. Players can still shoot each other if they are willing to pay the cost as fits the general premise of the game, but there is a strong disincentive to do so.
Highsec is not safesec and never was suppose to be, but it certainly seems to fit CCP's design goals to be a very safe space where pirates generally cannot operate. This is in direct contrast to the other spaces where you can shoot pretty much anything and make a profit at it, thus being easy-mode zones for piracy.
Highsec hands free safety to the player enabling solo and casual play, probably to their long-term detriment for developing as an Eve player. But certainly, it is completely disingenuous to claim that highsec is inherently more dangerous than the other spaces. At best it is more dangerous than the piece of space you have carved out and are spending effort to defend for yourself, but even that isn't really true as if you spent a similar amount of effort securing a system in highsec, you would be literally invulnerable.
So, I'd also say that it is working as intended.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Steffles
University of Caille Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 11:49:44 -
[398] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Steffles wrote:Violet Crumble wrote:Steffles wrote:Killing people in high sec has never been easier. Highsec is not safe, its extremely dangerous. I've lived in all areas of the game and by far the most dangerous is high sec.
As for freighters if someone wants to kill you you are dead. No amount of tank, inertial stabs, scouting, planning, webbing alt will help you because you cannot warp out when your scrammed or pointed and they don't align fast enough to avoid being locked and scrammed. After that its bump and gank till your dead.
To put it in perspective, the drop in required isk to gank a freighter is enormous, it used to be 30 or more battleships now its 30ish cats, or 7 stealth bombers. Very very cheap. Where do you get this from? Highsec is extremely dangerous? You can't be serious. As a industrialist/miner/hauler who works in all areas of space, this doesn't in any way match the experience I have had in the last 3 years. So I would be great if you outline specific details and numbers that show this, because it's easy to show that it's not true. Its quite simple. Living in what is arguably the most active pvp system in EVE (7rm-n0) I can tell immediately if there is a threat (nuetral) in system. I have 100+ people who will be in warp to me within seconds. The most dangerous part about warping to the threat is whether or not Ill be in time to kill the ganker before he's finished off by the defense fleet. You have a alliance wide network of eyes watching and warning is usually given when fleets or gangs are multiple systems away. In less active system or bubble fekked dead ends you would be likely to see a nuetral once a day or not at all. You can afk rat or mine to your hearts content. There are no war decs, no code dweebs, no insta-popping destroyers on your undock, no nuetral reppers, very few links alts and if there are you can easily probe those down with a good prober. In high sec there is no warning if you are attacked. You cannot tell a hostile nuetral (ganker) from a non-hostile. There is no defense fleet. No alliance wide network of eyes. Neutral reppers are to be expected. Any smart true carebear is not in highsec, they are in null and this is the reason for that. In other words, NS is as safe as players make it. HS on the other is very safe irrespective of player effort (which is generally negligible). Working as intended, IMO. Yeah nah. You simply like your fictional version so much you'll stick to it no matter what. I like fantasy too but only in novels.
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
Raca Pyrrea
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 12:06:37 -
[399] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote: In this case it is a study that shows that there is probably no connection between ganking and new players quitting and voila,
It is also understandable that you react that way. You want to interpret the "study" your way regardless of its flaws. The 'study' including only trials will misrepresent data of new players as many trials never commit to the game anyway. Also to consider that the 15-day trial has nothing in stake to loose while a subscribed couple of months old has more at stake to loose from a gank. As far as interpreting the "more" or "less" likelys of the 'study': if for example a 6% of ganked joined the game vs only a 4% non-ganked joining, although it makes it more likely in favor of the ganked it still is totally insignificant difference.Taking the example in the extreme, say a 90% of the ganked joining vs 10% of the non-ganked joining will give 720 ganked people vs 6800 non-ganked people that joined the game afterwards. In fact one can then say that a lot of more people join the game that never have been ganked during trial. How about interpreting that as "a connection between ganking and new players quitting"?
There are so many factors that contribute to deciding to join the game before one even gets the chance to be ganked that its counterproductive to try to connect ganking to it with this set of data.
To make it clear I am neither a proponent of safe-heaven high-sec nor a proponent of a gank-heaven high-sec.
|
Lan Wang
C.Q.B Snuffed Out
3615
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 14:38:47 -
[400] - Quote
i say ban all ganking and see how the carebears react, nobody will buy your stuff and the game will just become pointless
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Loyalist to Angel Cartel
|
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
72
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 18:06:16 -
[401] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:I think it is understandable they react that way. You can see the same reaction if you wave a study that shows that there is probably no connection between vaccines and autism to a bunch of anti-vaccine crackpots.
In this case it is a study that shows that there is probably no connection between ganking and new players quitting and voila, almost the same excuses and non-arguments about why the study is wrong and why their gut feeling is more relevant and how this is all just a big conspiracy.
Good job AG, you are basically the anti-vaccination movement of EVE
Lets call them "the anti-content movement". I think that is an accurate name. Actually the anti-vacc movement just like the climate deniers use poorly done, non-peer reviewed studies to prove their points. It is not so much as they point to flaws in reputable studies as they ignore them in favour of the studies that state what they want.
They just "believe" the study by a single person or group is "better" and it is belief rather than evidence that causes these problems. It has nothing to do with actual problems in a reputable study because they just ignore those studies without ever having examined them.
The anti-vacc studies normally include an undefined sample type and unknown methodology that makes it easy to lead from cause to effect.
Its like the old saying: If you dont use this dish washing liquid 9 out of 10 doctors say you will be killed by wild elephants. It just takes a while to find the right 9 doctors. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5480
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 05:10:00 -
[402] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:I think it is understandable they react that way. You can see the same reaction if you wave a study that shows that there is probably no connection between vaccines and autism to a bunch of anti-vaccine crackpots.
In this case it is a study that shows that there is probably no connection between ganking and new players quitting and voila, almost the same excuses and non-arguments about why the study is wrong and why their gut feeling is more relevant and how this is all just a big conspiracy.
Good job AG, you are basically the anti-vaccination movement of EVE
Lets call them "the anti-content movement". I think that is an accurate name.
Okay, this is an interesting direction in the discussion.
To be clear, the initial research into vaccines and autisms was:
1. Totally fruadulent 2. Done with a monetary reward in mind. 3. Was totally unethical (i.e. the researcher in charge was struck from the British Medical Registry). 4. To date there has been absolutely no research supporting the hypothesis.
We see something similar with AG. The one attempt my CCP to study the effects of ganking on new players in constantly and continuously rubbished...without a single valid argument. People keep coming and arguing their pet theory based on their intuition (which is fine, but ideally such theories should be checked against actual data) and in the end we get a cult like group much like the anti-vaxxers and their support for Andrew Wakefield.
The CCP analysis at worst shows that ganking of players in their first 15 days HAS NO EFFECT ON THOSE PLAYERS STAYING IN GAME. In fact, the analysis suggests, THAT GANKED NEW PLAYERS STAY IN GAME LONGER THAN NON-GANKED PLAYERS.
All arguments to the contrary are based on beliefs that have literally no evidence behind them. None.
Now, maybe ganking a player who has been in game for 2 or 3 years and was imprudent and stuffed 5 billion in his charon and then flew it through Uedama an got ganked might be more inclined to quit. But then again whose fault is that? Those who ganked him, or the dumb sheet who put 5 billion in his freighter and flew through Uedama?
Giving a total pass to the dumb sheet freighter pilot is well dumb sheet. IMO, of course.
"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
5480
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 05:34:08 -
[403] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Steffles wrote:Violet Crumble wrote:Steffles wrote:Killing people in high sec has never been easier. Highsec is not safe, its extremely dangerous. I've lived in all areas of the game and by far the most dangerous is high sec.
As for freighters if someone wants to kill you you are dead. No amount of tank, inertial stabs, scouting, planning, webbing alt will help you because you cannot warp out when your scrammed or pointed and they don't align fast enough to avoid being locked and scrammed. After that its bump and gank till your dead.
To put it in perspective, the drop in required isk to gank a freighter is enormous, it used to be 30 or more battleships now its 30ish cats, or 7 stealth bombers. Very very cheap. Where do you get this from? Highsec is extremely dangerous? You can't be serious. As a industrialist/miner/hauler who works in all areas of space, this doesn't in any way match the experience I have had in the last 3 years. So I would be great if you outline specific details and numbers that show this, because it's easy to show that it's not true. Its quite simple. Living in what is arguably the most active pvp system in EVE (7rm-n0) I can tell immediately if there is a threat (nuetral) in system. I have 100+ people who will be in warp to me within seconds. The most dangerous part about warping to the threat is whether or not Ill be in time to kill the ganker before he's finished off by the defense fleet. You have a alliance wide network of eyes watching and warning is usually given when fleets or gangs are multiple systems away. In less active system or bubble fekked dead ends you would be likely to see a nuetral once a day or not at all. You can afk rat or mine to your hearts content. There are no war decs, no code dweebs, no insta-popping destroyers on your undock, no nuetral reppers, very few links alts and if there are you can easily probe those down with a good prober. In high sec there is no warning if you are attacked. You cannot tell a hostile nuetral (ganker) from a non-hostile. There is no defense fleet. No alliance wide network of eyes. Neutral reppers are to be expected. Any smart true carebear is not in highsec, they are in null and this is the reason for that. In other words, NS is as safe as players make it. HS on the other is very safe irrespective of player effort (which is generally negligible). Working as intended, IMO. Yeah nah. You simply like your fictional version so much you'll stick to it no matter what. I like fantasy too but only in novels.
Okay, so you tell us how safe NS where you live is...then back track totally. Great way to shoot your credibility in the foot.
"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
|
Exaido
Fire Over Light
45
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 05:59:15 -
[404] - Quote
This still going... Is there a TL/DR? |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5482
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 06:19:29 -
[405] - Quote
Exaido wrote:This still going... Is there a TL/DR?
Well, my TL:DR would be:
1. Stop making HS less dangerous. 2. Look at reintroducing danger/risk into HS. 3. Ignore the anti-ganking people as they have a stunted view. 4. Encourage more Player-on-Player interaction.
Note for that last one it need not be PvP. A player getting into an active corp, or with an active group of players is more likely to stay than otherwise.
No, I have no good ideas for that. That is part of emergence and it is hard to plan/design.
"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
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
3047
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 06:29:31 -
[406] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:I think it is understandable they react that way. You can see the same reaction if you wave a study that shows that there is probably no connection between vaccines and autism to a bunch of anti-vaccine crackpots.
In this case it is a study that shows that there is probably no connection between ganking and new players quitting and voila, almost the same excuses and non-arguments about why the study is wrong and why their gut feeling is more relevant and how this is all just a big conspiracy.
Good job AG, you are basically the anti-vaccination movement of EVE
Lets call them "the anti-content movement". I think that is an accurate name. Actually the anti-vacc movement just like the climate deniers use poorly done, non-peer reviewed studies to prove their points. It is not so much as they point to flaws in reputable studies as they ignore them in favour of the studies that state what they want. They just "believe" the study by a single person or group is "better" and it is belief rather than evidence that causes these problems. It has nothing to do with actual problems in a reputable study because they just ignore those studies without ever having examined them. The anti-vacc studies normally include an undefined sample type and unknown methodology that makes it easy to lead from cause to effect. Its like the old saying: If you dont use this dish washing liquid 9 out of 10 doctors say you will be killed by wild elephants. It just takes a while to find the right 9 doctors. So what you say is that you are even worse than the anti-vacc movement, since you don't even have a fake study?
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
72
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 06:31:29 -
[407] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Exaido wrote:This still going... Is there a TL/DR? Well, my TL:DR would be: 1. Stop making HS less dangerous. 2. Look at reintroducing danger/risk into HS. 3. Ignore the anti-ganking people as they have a stunted view. 4. Encourage more Player-on-Player interaction. Note for that last one it need not be PvP. A player getting into an active corp, or with an active group of players is more likely to stay than otherwise. No, I have no good ideas for that. That is part of emergence and it is hard to plan/design. I would have gone with
1. New players need to be ganked more, player retention or not people will at least learn to be more paranoid and it does less harm at the start than when they have been playing for years. 2. Increase the danger/risk to gankers in HS, make anti-pirates a thing again. 3. Most people on these forums speak out of self interest, have no idea how to discuss a topic or reason and just fall back on emotive statements. 4. Encourage more Player-on-Player interaction. 5. Beware the players who seem to think CCP is God. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
3047
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 06:43:49 -
[408] - Quote
Oh dear. The topic was that some AG spew the old lie that new players never subscribe because of ganking, and that is exactly what the study shows. We did not discuss anything else. However the study doas take into account all the reasons given by ALL EVE PLAYERS when cancelling their subscription and people who cite ship loss are <1%.
The counter arguments so far from AG are:
- CCP faked their own study because they want to damage their own business - Math is hard
And then you ask yourselves why no one is taking you for full.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
72
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 06:49:38 -
[409] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Oh dear. The topic was that some AG spew the old lie that new players never subscribe because of ganking, and that is exactly what the study shows. We did not discuss anything else. However the study doas take into account all the reasons given by ALL EVE PLAYERS when cancelling their subscription and people who cite ship loss are <1%. The counter arguments so far from AG are: - CCP faked their own study because they want to damage their own business - Math is hard And then you ask yourselves why no one is taking you for full. Actually it was ganking was mentioned less than 1% of the time, while not stating how many are not answered at all and all the other things that make that less than 1% a completely useless factoid.
Other arguments have included: -a large number of people on these forums are better suited to the position of court jester, than they are having an intelligent discussion -CCP probably did manage an incomplete study on ganking in the first 15 days reasonably. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
3047
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 07:02:16 -
[410] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Oh dear. The topic was that some AG spew the old lie that new players never subscribe because of ganking, and that is exactly what the study shows. We did not discuss anything else. However the study doas take into account all the reasons given by ALL EVE PLAYERS when cancelling their subscription and people who cite ship loss are <1%. The counter arguments so far from AG are: - CCP faked their own study because they want to damage their own business - Math is hard And then you ask yourselves why no one is taking you for full. Actually it was ganking was mentioned less than 1% of the time, while not stating how many are not answered at all and all the other things that make that less than 1% a completely useless factoid. Other arguments have included: -a large number of people on these forums are better suited to the position of court jester, than they are having an intelligent discussion -CCP probably did manage an incomplete study on ganking in the first 15 days reasonably. No it was actually ship loss and not ganking. So you disregard this figure because there may be people who did not answer the question at all or incorrectly. Judging by this forums the minority who can't handle exploding spaceships in a game of exploding spaceships are pretty vocal about it, so what is the reason they of all people should remain silence on the one occasion where CCP actually may listen?
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
|
Steffles
University of Caille Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 08:58:08 -
[411] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Mark Marconi wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Oh dear. The topic was that some AG spew the old lie that new players never subscribe because of ganking, and that is exactly what the study shows. We did not discuss anything else. However the study doas take into account all the reasons given by ALL EVE PLAYERS when cancelling their subscription and people who cite ship loss are <1%. The counter arguments so far from AG are: - CCP faked their own study because they want to damage their own business - Math is hard And then you ask yourselves why no one is taking you for full. Actually it was ganking was mentioned less than 1% of the time, while not stating how many are not answered at all and all the other things that make that less than 1% a completely useless factoid. Other arguments have included: -a large number of people on these forums are better suited to the position of court jester, than they are having an intelligent discussion -CCP probably did manage an incomplete study on ganking in the first 15 days reasonably. No it was actually ship loss and not ganking. So you disregard this figure because there may be people who did not answer the question at all or incorrectly. Judging by this forums the minority who can't handle exploding spaceships in a game of exploding spaceships are pretty vocal about it, so what is the reason they of all people should remain silence on the one occasion where CCP actually may listen? Characters less than 15 days old. Given less than 15 day old characters don't have much isk they likely don't get ganked as much as players who have lots of its.
It's the equivalent of concluding armed robberies are at all time lows because a survey of hobo's found the hobo population doesn't report many armed robberies.
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
Ria Nieyli
46908
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 09:27:20 -
[412] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:I think it is understandable they react that way. You can see the same reaction if you wave a study that shows that there is probably no connection between vaccines and autism to a bunch of anti-vaccine crackpots.
In this case it is a study that shows that there is probably no connection between ganking and new players quitting and voila, almost the same excuses and non-arguments about why the study is wrong and why their gut feeling is more relevant and how this is all just a big conspiracy.
Good job AG, you are basically the anti-vaccination movement of EVE
Lets call them "the anti-content movement". I think that is an accurate name. Okay, this is an interesting direction in the discussion. To be clear, the initial research into vaccines and autisms was: 1. Totally fruadulent 2. Done with a monetary reward in mind. 3. Was totally unethical (i.e. the researcher in charge was struck from the British Medical Registry). 4. To date there has been absolutely no research supporting the hypothesis. We see something similar with AG. The one attempt my CCP to study the effects of ganking on new players in constantly and continuously rubbished...without a single valid argument. People keep coming and arguing their pet theory based on their intuition (which is fine, but ideally such theories should be checked against actual data) and in the end we get a cult like group much like the anti-vaxxers and their support for Andrew Wakefield. The CCP analysis at worst shows that ganking of players in their first 15 days HAS NO EFFECT ON THOSE PLAYERS STAYING IN GAME. In fact, the analysis suggests, THAT GANKED NEW PLAYERS STAY IN GAME LONGER THAN NON-GANKED PLAYERS. All arguments to the contrary are based on beliefs that have literally no evidence behind them. None. Now, maybe ganking a player who has been in game for 2 or 3 years and was imprudent and stuffed 5 billion in his charon and then flew it through Uedama an got ganked might be more inclined to quit. But then again whose fault is that? Those who ganked him, or the dumb sheet who put 5 billion in his freighter and flew through Uedama? Giving a total pass to the dumb sheet freighter pilot is well dumb sheet. IMO, of course.
That research is a bit bunk since it discounts the massive amounts of players that just leave. You know, EVE has less than stellar retention rates. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
3047
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 09:36:57 -
[413] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Steffles wrote: No it was actually ship loss and not ganking. So you disregard this figure because there may be people who did not answer the question at all or incorrectly. Judging by this forums the minority who can't handle exploding spaceships in a game of exploding spaceships are pretty vocal about it, so what is the reason they of all people should remain silence on the one occasion where CCP actually may listen?
Characters less than 15 days old. Given less than 15 day old characters don't have much isk they likely don't get ganked as much as players who have lots of its.. There are two parts to the study, the part about how many subscribe after the 15 day trials and the part about the subscription cancellation reason. The subscription cancellation reason is about ALL Eve players and not just the <15 day old characters. The <15 day old chars are even excluded there since they don't yet have a subscription to cancel.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
3047
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 09:38:10 -
[414] - Quote
Ria Nieyli wrote:That research is a bit bunk since it discounts the massive amounts of players that just leave. You know, EVE has less than stellar retention rates. No, it actually does not. Read the comment above
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers EVEolution.
515
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 09:46:57 -
[415] - Quote
well i have to say personally i've known more players that quit over socket loss than being ganked. the reasons why people quit are varied and always related to a few isues rather than the one.
it's unfair to ignore the fact that there are a lot more games out there now than there was 5 years ago. so much choice so little time.
everyone quits a game at some stage, it's the naural order of things, people come and play,, some leave and some stay, those that stay will last a long time or a short time so why waste your time chasing shadows where there's none?
still not many suggestion on improving the game, just the usual screams for personal choice on mechaincs in the game.
is this thread about improving the game for new people or vets? |
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
73
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 09:53:36 -
[416] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
is this thread about improving the game for new people or vets?
Depends on who you ask. The perspective will be completely biased and the suggestion probably complete crap, you know like the CSM now
All in all I just hope CCP learn to make and use statistics properly to govern what they do to the game and stop listening to the players except when we scream (usually when CCP ignores the players) because self interest clouds the thoughts of so many. |
Steffles
University of Caille Gallente Federation
23
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 10:09:52 -
[417] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
is this thread about improving the game for new people or vets?
Depends on who you ask. The perspective will be completely biased and the suggestion probably complete crap, you know like the CSM now All in all I just hope CCP learn to make and use statistics properly to govern what they do to the game and stop listening to the players except when we scream (usually when CCP ignores the players) because self interest clouds the thoughts of so many. Yeah the CSM is a major problem. Naturally any voting system where alliance leadership can instruct alliance members to vote for their candidate is going to come with a huge dose of bias.
The election process should consist of selecting candidates from WH, NPC Null, Null, High and Low security organizations. The final selection of those candidates should be based on experience, knowledge and capability and be selected by either the previous CSM or CCP not just on the sizes of the alliances fielding candidates and the number of dodgy votes they can spam with alts and members.
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
Ria Nieyli
46913
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 10:12:31 -
[418] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Ria Nieyli wrote:That research is a bit bunk since it discounts the massive amounts of players that just leave. You know, EVE has less than stellar retention rates. No, it actually does not. Read the comment above
You literally say that those people aren't included in the statistic. Que? I mean, you say that I'm wrong, then proceed to agree with me. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
3047
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 10:25:02 -
[419] - Quote
Ria Nieyli wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Ria Nieyli wrote:That research is a bit bunk since it discounts the massive amounts of players that just leave. You know, EVE has less than stellar retention rates. No, it actually does not. Read the comment above You literally say that those people aren't included in the statistic. Que? I mean, you say that I'm wrong, then proceed to agree with me. Please read again and notice the part where I talk about that there are two parts of the study, one which talks about trial accounts (<15 day players) and one about subscribers who quit (> 15 day players).
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2899
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 10:37:43 -
[420] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:All in all I just hope CCP learn to make and use statistics properly to govern what they do to the game and stop listening to the players except when we scream (usually when CCP ignores the players) because self interest clouds the thoughts of so many. They are trying. The talk that is causing so much teeth-gnashing in this thread was called "Using Science to Help Newbros" after all. The stuff coming out from CCP Quant and perhaps CCP Ghost recently shows CCP is making an effort toward a more evidence-based approach to developing the game, rather than making decisions based on which influential players are whispering in their ear, or the gut feeling of some developer.
The reality is though that even with access to the massive collection of data CCP has, it is very difficult to untangle cause and effect, and even if you gain some insight, it doesn't necessarily tell you how to make a good sandbox game. They can formulate a specific hypothesis and test it (like "do new players quit because they get ganked?") but whatever answer the data supports, they still need to build an engaging and entertaining space game. It's not just a matter of reading a book on game theory, looking at the logs, and boom - add a feature that will cause the PCU to spike two-fold.
CCP has a vision for Eve Online, and the best they can do is stay true to that vision. Arguably, and forgive me for drifting into personal opinion here, the changes that have caused the most problems for the game have been ones where CCP has strayed too from that original vision of a PvP sandbox in pursuit of more mainstream appeal, although certainly the have also made mistakes in execution of many core ideas along the way.
But Eve is still here and will be for the foreseeable future, and as long as CCP Seagull is in charge, it will continue to be a single-universe, everyone-vs-everyone, sandbox game where player-driven content is the primary goal. That means ideas like in the OP are not going to happen. If you are looking for a solo/casual space game where you can grind and build in peace, there are several of those types of games out but they are not Eve Online.
In Eve Online, all players, from the newest of the new to the 13-year veteran, from the most peaceful industrialist to the most blood-thirsty pirate, have to deal with the fact that other players can influence their game play without their explicit consent. If you don't agree to that, or just can't handle that, you really are just setting yourself up for unhappiness if you continue to play this game.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |