|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Hakawai
State War Academy Caldari State
94
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 19:31:36 -
[1] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:And look the game has become more safe. People like you have clamored for increased safety...and gotten it. And PCU has been declining.
And people like you keep whining for more and more changes to make the game safe. "Just one more nerf...."
People like you wanted war decs to become more expensive. Well you got that, and yet people like you still complain about war decs.
People like you complained about suicide gankers getting insurance payouts for the ships CONCORD blew up. CCP changed that and people still suicide gank. And people like you come back to the forums and whine yet again.
You speak of adaptation, but you fail to realize that the players too adapt and in ways you do not foresee and then you come back asking for more nerfs....and PCU continues to decline.
You don't even pause to consider: maybe the nerfs are the cause of the PCU decline. There's no evidence at all in your post to support either hypothesis ("nerfs good" vs "nerfs bad").
And as several other people have pointed out, it's highly unlikely any single minor matter like wardecs or suicide ganking is a major factor affecting in the number of subscriptions or active players.
Most new players' decisions to stay or leave will be based on their overall impressions of the game as they've experienced it. They'll hope for interesting activities, nice people to play with, limited "dead time", etc. And they will consider their necessarily limited impressions of the parts of the game they haven't directly experienced. Do they expect EVE to be interesting enough in the medium- and long-term to justify continued play?
Pretending it comes down to one or two minor factors is equivalent to suggesting EVE is a simple game ("Farmville in Space" perhaps?). But hardly anyone who finds their way to EVE is so naive. It's well known to be a complex PVP game with a high learning curve. And they enter the game knowing that destroyed ships are lost forever. But there's an important question any sensible person asks when starting any new and time-consuming activity: will it be worth the time it takes?
Wardecs deserve the focus they get not because they dominate the decision process, but because they reinforce the impression (not unjustified) that the game is strongly biased in favor of experienced, high ISK-income, well-connected, high SP players. Wardecs certainly look like CCP deliberately designed them to make it easy for experienced players in combat-effective Corps to make highsec hostile to rookies, before they've had a chance to learn the basics.
It's not a good message for CCP or experienced players to be delivering to rookies. |
Hakawai
State War Academy Caldari State
94
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 20:59:25 -
[2] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Hakawai wrote:
Pretending it comes down to one or two minor factors is equivalent to suggesting EVE is a simple game ("Farmville in Space" perhaps?).
Actually, my contention is that you and those like you want to turn the game into farmville in space. Which will not be good. Further, you and those like you grossly misunderstand things like risk and game mechanics. You assume the latter is what causes the former, and completely remove the player element. All this nonsense about "fun vampires". [...] I'm used to people here making stuff up to support crazy claims (like your earlier post I replied to), but this is unusual ... you're making stuff up to demonstrate that you have no idea what you're trying to say.
For next time, here's a more efficient solution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorem_ipsum
|
Hakawai
State War Academy Caldari State
94
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 07:41:28 -
[3] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Hakawai wrote:I'm used to people here making stuff up to support crazy claims ... I guess at least making stuff up to support a crazy claim is a step up from others, who just make crazy claims without any supporting material whatsoever. Cough...Hakawai posts...cough Find one then. Any post you like except an obvious "slap" in response to some unusually stupid or dishonest post.
I don't doubt you'll find plenty of material you don't agree with or don't like - but that's to be expected in your case.
OTOH I never lie in forums. This doesn't mean I never make mistakes of course - but I don't "spin" what I'm saying, and I never just make stuff up and present it as evidence.
BTW even when I have to "slap" someone I don't make anything up, but I've never found "fisking" to be useful, so such posts are accurate, but usually incomplete. |
Hakawai
State War Academy Caldari State
95
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 10:32:51 -
[4] - Quote
Keno Skir wrote: I'm pretty sure you're one of those "trolls" i've been hearing so much about. I could be wrong but i have seen you ignore some pretty decent supporting evidence in favour of continued opposition at any cost..
No you haven't.
But I certainly don't always respond to posts where the fiction/fact balance is too skewed towards fiction, and it isn't a suitable starting point for something I want to say anyway.
I don't necessarily react to traps either, even if they might be accidental - the rule is "if it looks like a trap is it one" (movie reference there for you (your occasional posts in your "grunting neanderthal" persona don't fool me into thinking you are one :)) |
Hakawai
State War Academy Caldari State
96
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 06:16:23 -
[5] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Also, everyone stop misquoting CCP. Ganking players does not make them stay longer. CCP noticed that players who stayed longer tended to be more likely to have had some kind of PvP yes, but correlation does not make for causation. Thanks for pointing this out. I questioned this a while ago and starting thinking I was the only person on these forums who can tell the difference between correlation and causation :)
I never did get a link to any useful source material, but someone (but IIRC one of the forums "unreliable narrators" so even if I remember correctly the numbers and context may be wrong :) said that they'd looked at a lot (80K?) of trials, and those that had "been killed by another player" before the end of the two-week trial were more likely to stay.
It's clearly not evidence that losing a T1/T1 frigate to a "fun-vampire" in a much stronger ship makes people stay. IMO the first thing to check would be whether an early PVP loss is a proxy for "social PvP" (e.g. trying stuff out with friends or members of the same Corp).
Nevyn Auscent wrote:End of the day socially engaging players is what makes them stay above any other factor. Indeed. |
Hakawai
State War Academy Caldari State
96
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 06:39:38 -
[6] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:You don't understand because you lack a basic understanding of economics. I'm no economist myself but I do understand that a monetary unit is directly related to the work required to buy something costing that monetary unit at the bottom end.
If the cost of battleships has doubled which it has but the time required to earn an isk has quadrupled which it has then its still twice as easy to buy one now than it was back then.
Given battleships are no longer used anyway that point is moot however it still translates to other ships. You can earn 60 million an hour in an anom easily, so it takes an hour to pay back a fit SB and still have 20 mill change. In the past it would take a lot longer to earn that back as well as significant investment repairing sec, remember work is cost too.
I don't think you're entirely stupid I think you're one of those people who refuse to understand because you equate conceding a point as an E-weakness and you're heavily invested in being an E-pirate.
Good luck with that :) There's a typo in this that should probably be fixed: you clearly meant "earn ISK four times as fast", or "earn ISK in a quarter of the time" or something similar.
The intended meaning is obvious to anyone who actually reads the post, but that's something you can safely assume here :) |
|
|
|