|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

March rabbit
Mosquito Squadron The-Culture
1838
|
Posted - 2016.08.01 09:40:35 -
[1] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: Fun fact.
As the game has become safer the rate of growth has declined.
... EVE was growing at its fastest rate back when ganking was much much easier.
Is it correlation or coincidence?
for example in past: - there was not fozzie-fatique - there was no t3ds - exploration was different - there was not 'c00l new icons' - ...
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|

March rabbit
Mosquito Squadron The-Culture
1838
|
Posted - 2016.08.01 11:04:15 -
[2] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:March rabbit wrote:baltec1 wrote: Fun fact.
As the game has become safer the rate of growth has declined.
... EVE was growing at its fastest rate back when ganking was much much easier.
Is it correlation or coincidence? for example in past: - there was not fozzie-fatique - there was no t3ds - exploration was different - there was not 'c00l new icons' - ... Doesn't really matter. Ganking does not negatively impact sub numbers. And again. Where are proofs? One could say that ganking negatively impacts sub numbers and other factors hide it by positively impact these. So when there is less these 'other factors' ganking becomes major factor and sub numbers start to decrease.
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|

March rabbit
Mosquito Squadron The-Culture
1838
|
Posted - 2016.08.01 11:35:09 -
[3] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:March rabbit wrote:baltec1 wrote:March rabbit wrote:baltec1 wrote: Fun fact.
As the game has become safer the rate of growth has declined.
... EVE was growing at its fastest rate back when ganking was much much easier.
Is it correlation or coincidence? for example in past: - there was not fozzie-fatique - there was no t3ds - exploration was different - there was not 'c00l new icons' - ... Doesn't really matter. Ganking does not negatively impact sub numbers. And again. Where are proofs? One could say that ganking negatively impacts sub numbers and other factors hide it by positively impact these. So when there is less these 'other factors' ganking becomes major factor and sub numbers start to decrease. I'd say it's up to you to prove ganking does have an impact given that subs were rising at their fastest rate while ganking was much easier. So this is anecdotal evidence. Thanks.
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|

March rabbit
Mosquito Squadron The-Culture
1840
|
Posted - 2016.08.02 09:34:28 -
[4] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote: Rubbish, it makes it a bit harder that is all, it creates consequences, like other people in the game have mate.
Yes it makes it harder by making it near impossible. Tell me, what other activity in highsec has the same level of punishments as ganking? I dunno. Maybe that one with the same effects on other players? I'm talking about .... hm ....
OOps.... 
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|

March rabbit
Mosquito Squadron The-Culture
1842
|
Posted - 2016.08.04 11:07:12 -
[5] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:So we are going to ignore the fact that CCP also calls it player made content? Not taking sides here. Just pointing that in many circumstances players agree that CCP's opinion is wrong.
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|

March rabbit
Mosquito Squadron The-Culture
1846
|
Posted - 2016.08.07 08:43:34 -
[6] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote: Players are what make EVE interesting. If you log in to be entertained by missions or mining...damn...not sure what to say to that.
Sandbox?
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|

March rabbit
Mosquito Squadron The-Culture
1846
|
Posted - 2016.08.07 10:34:22 -
[7] - Quote
Solecist Project wrote:March rabbit wrote:Teckos Pech wrote: Players are what make EVE interesting. If you log in to be entertained by missions or mining...damn...not sure what to say to that.
Sandbox?  The point is that it's not interesting and he is right. What kind of argument is "sandbox?" anyway? the "people do what they like" thing is complete hogwash, because it's a catchall for every single one out there, completely dismissing the initial influence that pushes into certain directions. Arguments using "individuality" more often than not lack any depth, meaning and consideration. People don't just do what they like, they learn what they like and then stick with it or try something else. Many just stick with the initial activity that gave them a reward. This is a situation caused by ccp themselves, who pushes people into restricting pve and mining, which does not even offer anything interesting that makes the game and worse pushes people into isolation because it encourages isolated solo-play which ccp admitted is not so great from a retention perspective. the sad part is that it's not afk mining (mining with three accounts in covetors and an orca is fun though, always busy!) they like, it's that they like the easy rewards combined with watching netflix/etc. That's simply not how a game should be played, or will you argue that watching TV is part of the sandbox experience? ^_^ ... and we back to 'they play the game wrongly'?
What about: - these 'non-players' provide materials for others to build stuff - these 'non-players' provide targets for gankers - these 'non-players' provide market for traders/manufacturers - these 'non-players' provide competition to others for asteroids - ... ?
In reality each person can find something he enjoys in the game. And if it is not Counter-Strike in space (and let's be honest most of 'pvp'-crowd plays exactly this game inside Eve) then nothing wrong here.
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|

March rabbit
Mosquito Squadron The-Culture
1855
|
Posted - 2016.08.12 08:14:00 -
[8] - Quote
Wanda Fayne wrote:There is one thing not mentioned anywhere in this over-bloated thread.
Nowhere do I see anyone ask simply, "What can I do to make this game better?" The reasons are simple: - every person has his own vision of what is better EVE. - Who you want people to ask this question to? - Why opinion of that one worth more that opinion of any other one? - every player already does something to make the game better. How do they do it? By having payed accounts thus giving money to developers.
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|

March rabbit
Mosquito Squadron The-Culture
1872
|
Posted - 2016.08.22 12:39:48 -
[9] - Quote
Maekchu wrote:Sunshyn LaBlond wrote:As long as CCP continues to force terrible mechanics on us, and allow RMT'ers and gambling site owners to dominate the game, it's going to be a hard sell to get anyone interested in playing. Cause a gambling site owner that financed a major war, has any influence on the common EvE player just flying around space doing some pew. /sarcasm That post of yours stink of jealousy. It might be because he is not happy with being 'common EVE player just flying around space doing some pew'.
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|

March rabbit
Mosquito Squadron The-Culture
1875
|
Posted - 2016.08.23 19:23:04 -
[10] - Quote
Maekchu wrote:March rabbit wrote:Maekchu wrote:Sunshyn LaBlond wrote:As long as CCP continues to force terrible mechanics on us, and allow RMT'ers and gambling site owners to dominate the game, it's going to be a hard sell to get anyone interested in playing. Cause a gambling site owner that financed a major war, has any influence on the common EvE player just flying around space doing some pew. /sarcasm That post of yours stink of jealousy. It might be because he is not happy with being 'common EVE player just flying around space doing some pew'. Then he should probably put some effort into not being the 'common EvE player flying around space doing some pew'. It's a sandbox. In EvE there is no 'grind to lvl100, roll some legends and roflstomp some puppies, while the whole server is in awe of your e-peen'. It's like how people want to be rich and famous in real life, but doesn't really want to put in any effort and then they blame the 'system' cause they cannot achieve their goal. But again, it's so much easier just to ask for nerfs and stuff instead of putting in some effort. If you mean 'everyone should get his own out-of-game casino' then i don't like it (hint: read all the quotes and not only the last).
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
|

March rabbit
Mosquito Squadron The-Culture
1901
|
Posted - 2016.09.27 04:45:36 -
[11] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Keko Khaan wrote:So yea you go adapt as much you want i did too by unsubbing. Adapting would require that you change the way you play, not playing at all is running away. it's still adapting. Not the way YOU (and CCP) would like but it is.
For example: you came to cinema to watch something spaceship starwars related. And suddenly at some point spaceships turned to dogs and you find yourself watching some christmas film. Now you could 'adapt': try to enjoy it or leave and get your enjoyment somewhere else.
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|

March rabbit
Mosquito Squadron The-Culture
1902
|
Posted - 2016.09.27 09:56:02 -
[12] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:March rabbit wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Keko Khaan wrote:So yea you go adapt as much you want i did too by unsubbing. Adapting would require that you change the way you play, not playing at all is running away. it's still adapting. Not the way YOU (and CCP) would like but it is. For example: you came to cinema to watch something spaceship starwars related. And suddenly at some point spaceships turned to dogs and you find yourself watching some christmas film. Now you could 'adapt': try to enjoy it or leave and get your enjoyment somewhere else. Quitting is not adapting, it's quitting. It's semantics. You are talking from the game POV. Me - about POV of customer.
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|

March rabbit
Mosquito Squadron The-Culture
1910
|
Posted - 2016.09.30 05:43:46 -
[13] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Arcelian wrote: "Wow someone just blew up everything I've worked for over the past two weeks! Awesome!" * re sub*
I just don't see that happening.
Yet it does, you missed out the concept of revenge. "Wow someone just blew up everything I've worked for over the past two weeks! Gonna hunt that mofo down and kill his ass!" *sub* Worked for me, inherited 2 of his corpses from my first character; took me a year, revenge is a dish best served cold. You have watched too much of Hollywood movies when you were child.... Not many people really ready to spend effort for 'revenge'. Else we would have completely different world 
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|

March rabbit
Mosquito Squadron The-Culture
1910
|
Posted - 2016.09.30 05:50:06 -
[14] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote: In short, when ganking was easier the game grew the fastest. Coincidence? Maybe, but I'm inclined to think not.
- Eve had 'easier ganking' - Eve had not t3 destroyers (coincidence?) - Eve had no SP trading (injectors/extractors) - Eve had different carriers - Eve had no jump fatique and SOV was about shooting structures - .... - Eve had learning skills 
It's just an example of what had changed for last years. You (and some others) are inclined to connect decline of subscriptions to nerfs of ganking ignoring all other changes. You know for sure: this is not the way science can be? 
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|

March rabbit
Mosquito Squadron The-Culture
1910
|
Posted - 2016.09.30 08:18:25 -
[15] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:March rabbit wrote:Teckos Pech wrote: In short, when ganking was easier the game grew the fastest. Coincidence? Maybe, but I'm inclined to think not.
- Eve had 'easier ganking' - Eve had not t3 destroyers (coincidence?) - Eve had no SP trading (injectors/extractors) - Eve had different carriers - Eve had no jump fatique and SOV was about shooting structures - .... - Eve had learning skills  It's just an example of what had changed for last years. You (and some others) are inclined to connect decline of subscriptions to nerfs of ganking ignoring all other changes. You know for sure: this is not the way science can be?  You forgot the training queue of 24 hours, the unlimited training gueue as well.  The removal of learning skills was a good thing. Now instead of training a horribly boring set of skills, people can move one. SP trading has been in the game and was known as character trading. And seriously, players online stopped growing in 2011 because at some point in the future T3 destroyers were going to be in the game? The game, in terms of characters online, stopped growing around 2011. It wasn't until mid 2013 that the trend became negative. Most of your list post dates this change in trend. This list was given as indication that there was many changes in the last years. I'm pretty sure you got it tho.... 
Not sure if it would help if i or some other will really spent effort and compile list of changes which were made exactly in 2011. You will still decline all of it and continue with 'only nerf to ganking matters'....
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|

March rabbit
Mosquito Squadron The-Culture
1910
|
Posted - 2016.09.30 08:41:15 -
[16] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:March rabbit wrote:You (and some others) are inclined to connect decline of subscriptions to nerfs of ganking ignoring all other changes. I think that's a little bit the reverse of the normal argument. It normally goes something like this: Post A: Ganking is killing Eve (and all the various versions of that theme) Post B: Eve was growing when ganking was easier/more common.etc. Post B is rarely used as justification for why numbers are now falling. It's mostly used as a counter to carebear whiners who claim ganking is the reason for the decline, ignoring all other changes. Even in your example B is hardly a good argument about A. Let's talk math: F = X - Y
Here: F - is growth of population X - some 'positive' factors Y - ganking
If X is bigger than Y then we have positive result. If Y is bigger than X then we have negative result.
Now we can translate your posts to this system: Post A: F gets lower because of Y. Post B: in past F was positive and Y was bigger.
Is post A correct? Yes, the bigger gets Y the lower gets F if X does not change. Is post B correct? Yes, for any value of Y we can find X so F will be bigger than currently. Does post B counters A? Nope. As long as X is staying outside of formula we cannot connect any changes in values of Y and F.
So at the end i don't support "ganking kills Eve". And i don't support "Eve was growing when ganking was easier/more often/etc". Former is just personal opinion. Latter is incorrect statistically.
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|

March rabbit
Mosquito Squadron The-Culture
1918
|
Posted - 2016.10.01 23:52:24 -
[17] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote: Lets try a thought experiment.
Suppose CCP, in their infinite wisdom (now stop laughing and go with it) decide to just simply ban ganking. They make CONCORD response times 1 second in every system, they buff the freighter EHP 100x, and also will permaban anyone still trying to or even succeeding at ganking. It is now gone for good.
Gankers lose content right? What do you think they are going to do? Start mining? Run missions? Probably not. Some might go back to HS after biomassing gank alts (after extracting any surplus SP), but some of them will likely leave.
... and now we can recall some people saying that 'most' or 'many of' gankers are alts of nullseccers. I don't remember who did say this but it is usually being said as answer to "code has no balls to fight ships with guns" as "LoL, these are alts of nullseccers who pvp's all day and night".
And having this in mind what will all these 'alts' do? Yeah. It really does not matter actually. Because all these mythical "nullseccers who pvps all day and night" will still do their stuff.
Yes, AG people could lose their content. But overall it does not look like big loss already is it?
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|

March rabbit
Mosquito Squadron The-Culture
1919
|
Posted - 2016.10.02 08:59:15 -
[18] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:March rabbit wrote:Teckos Pech wrote: Lets try a thought experiment.
Suppose CCP, in their infinite wisdom (now stop laughing and go with it) decide to just simply ban ganking. They make CONCORD response times 1 second in every system, they buff the freighter EHP 100x, and also will permaban anyone still trying to or even succeeding at ganking. It is now gone for good.
Gankers lose content right? What do you think they are going to do? Start mining? Run missions? Probably not. Some might go back to HS after biomassing gank alts (after extracting any surplus SP), but some of them will likely leave.
... and now we can recall some people saying that 'most' or 'many of' gankers are alts of nullseccers. I don't remember who did say this but it is usually being said as answer to "code has no balls to fight ships with guns" as "LoL, these are alts of nullseccers who pvp's all day and night". And having this in mind what will all these 'alts' do? Yeah. It really does not matter actually. Because all these mythical "nullseccers who pvps all day and night" will still do their stuff. Yes, AG people could lose their content. But overall it does not look like big loss already is it? I imagine that some gankers in HS are alts, some are mains. What is the break, no freaking idea. But undoubtedly some would leave with an additional round of nerfing. As has happened with previous rounds of nerfing. Yes, like some others left when died afk lvl4 farming, when multiboxing was nerfed. Some will leave in November when OGB will be removed (my alt already sold all SP from leadership in preparation to this event). I can imagine every nerf (or like some like to call it 'need to adapt again') leads to some people leaving the game.
Teckos Pech wrote: Go back and look at the EvE Offline data. Look at when the war between Goons/the Imperium vs. IWI started. Logins started trending up. When Goons bailed and headed south...oh look the trend changed. It is now heading back up, but most likely that is seasonality.
Bottom line: IMO PvP is what drives logins. Having been in NS/LS for almost 8 years I can tell you that when we have a war, or PvP on a regular basis people log in. When we don't they don't.
It's very known fact. Hype when big 0.0 sec war or huge battle always leads to people resubscribe or new people come. When it stops - many leave again. I resubscribed to take part in Casino War too. But was like 2 months late and didn't see anything interesting But yeah, i have returned from year of vacation.
Teckos Pech wrote: So don't be so glib dismissing the removal of ganking. I don't think you completely understand the situation...you are too narrow minded.
You have drawn a picture when gankers are mains and nerfing ganking will lead to many quits. I have pointed that some people (need to say from pro-ganking team) say that ganking characters are mainly second alts of "real players". This makes "many quits" very unbelievable. At least it would be closer to multiboxer nerfs when people close their auxiliary alts.
So yea.... "narrow minded" 
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
|
|
|