Causes of these failures to convert: ??

@Teckos. There is one fatal flaw with the example statistic that people use about ganked players and player retention and that is that it can also be explained by "survivorship bias".

From Wikipedia:

Survivorship bias, or survival bias, is the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that "survived" some process and inadvertently overlooking those that did not because of their lack of visibility. This can lead to false conclusions in several different ways.

This is not to say that CCP are incorrect, it would need more data to determine the answer either way. So your point may be valid or it may not, but the argument based on ganking and retention needs a it more work to be conclusive.

None of this necessitates at change of mechanics and requires only letting new players know about things like the Eve Uni Wiki and other sources of information.

So you are proposing to just keep going because the player base is growing at an incredible rate?
Because it worked yesterday doesn't mean that it will work tomorrow. When the player base is going down you have to change something. What do you propose to change?

Undo the changes that have removed content from highsec?

Maybe the vets start to search for PvP content in low or Null?

I would say a reduction in player interaction in highsec has had an impact. If we look back what what was different back when the game was growing compared to now one standout thing is the level of safety has gone up but at the cost of reducing the amount of pvp. This game is built upon player interaction so it can't be a coincidence that the numbers staying has gone down as pvp options have been reduced.

For example mining. Today the risk to miners is next to zero, only CODE attack them and not in any meaningful way, its just random terrorist attacks. In the past you had a reason to attack them and the attacks were targeted which meant there was some skill involved with fitting and flying a barge. We had things like hulkageddon and the ice interdictions, Dracvlad will scream about their targeting of miners but these events created a lot of content in highsec for everyone including the miners.

The constant nerfs to highsec PvP has resulted in a lot of content being removed from highsec. Its not the only thing but it has to be significant. Basically, the bears screamed nerf, CCP listened and the bears then found the game boring because nothing exciting or challanging happens anymore.

I really don't identify with these nerfs - I actually no longer remember what changes were introduced. The removal of insurance from gank ships?

That was actually one of the smarter nerfs, even the most ardent ganker thought free battleships was a silly thing.

By far the biggest nerf was when CCP did the two barge balance passes. They effectively killed jetcan piracy, interdictions, hulkageddon and so on. They basically said miners are too stupid to be trusted to fit their own ships so did it for them and at the same time removed all the content that used to revolve around mining in highsec. We have also seen other changes such as increased tank on all ships, reduced concord response times and so on.

There is no arguing that we have lost a great deal of content from highsec over the last few years.

.The same issue in terms of buffing ganking by increasing the EHP of the freighter wreck from 500 EHP to 15,000 EHP.

I'm beginning to really appreciate this change.

You're continually crying like a stuck pig because of it. That's quite entertaining.

Anyway if you go on reddit there is a post where someone analyzes financial situation of eve and it proves that they are losing clients, raising profit cutting costs, everyone says it's not good.

I don't know if I can link reddit posts, maybe not ( and I don't want to be censored), but it proves that they need to carefully think why they are losing players...

Of course you would appreciate the change, but my issue is really that it removed a fun bit of gameplay for the AG players where they could be aggressive and the gankers had to defend against ganking themselves, which of course was too much for them. So they ran off and cried about it. But what annoys me is that CCP not knowing what was going on in hisec just blundered into making the change without thinking it through, then when they realised they buffed freighter EHP to balance out against it.

Personally I would like the two reversed.

But when you hear the gankers go on about the buff to freighters and Jump Freighters when the DCU II got made passive, just bear in mind that this was done to balance out against the freighter wreck EHP bufff (but you will not of courese) and in fact does not balance out at all in terms of gameplay. What got me to actually point it out was the numerous times I saw gankers whining about nerfs and including this in their whine.

So if a loser like you thinks it is entertaining that bothers me not. All I am interested in is showing the hypocrisy of gankers and their shrills, plus point out the balance issues around ganking of which this is one part.

And there you go.

Where exactly is the evidence to say ganking is a problem?

There is no arguing that we have lost a great deal of content from highsec over the last few years.

@Teckos. There is one fatal flaw with the example statistic that people use about ganked players and player retention and that is that it can also be explained by "survivorship bias".

From Wikipedia:

Survivorship bias, or survival bias, is the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that "survived" some process and inadvertently overlooking those that did not because of their lack of visibility. This can lead to false conclusions in several different ways.

This is not to say that CCP are incorrect, it would need more data to determine the answer either way. So your point may be valid or it may not, but the argument based on ganking and retention needs a it more work to be conclusive.

The DCU change from an active to passive module has been requested for years. One of the problems in changing this module was that they didn't want the module to be mandatory to have on every combat ship. Active DCU's sometimes lost out in cap warfare, so there was a real choice not to use one over a passive module. However, if they were made passive and kept the more than double EHP boost... what non suicide ship wouldn't take one? The illusion of choice is not a choice, so the debate raged on for some time.

Finally they decided what we have now. Give everyone a boost to hull resists, make the DCU passive, but have the module offer less in protection. In essence it offers about the same protection as before, but since all ships now have a better hull resist profile, there's now a real choice to use or not use the device.

Then someone noticed how this might affect freighters and other indies. CCP decided to implement it anyway.

CCP's spiel about buff/nerf balance was simple PR.

However, the decision to change hull resists was not made in response to the wreck issue. It was made much earlier... months, if not years, in design process.

The wrecks issue was spit out in a few weeks.

There is no big conspiracy.

--Gadget

I thought the definition of 'content' was stuff that CCP makes and inserts in to the game as activities or npcs or sites. That's their official stance anyway. What we as players do is play in the sandbox with the toys provided, nothing is true; everything is permitted.

CCP add the tools, we make the content. When CCP nerfs/removes the tools then they also nerf the content that can be created.

You create no content.

You simply play your char as anyone else does.

CCP add the tools, we make the content. When CCP changes the tools then they also change the content that can be created.

You create no content.

You simply play your char as anyone else does.

Back in 2012 my corp shut down all caldari ice mining in highsec for a month, caused a huge spike in caldari ice prices and everything associated with it. We killed something like 600 barges and went through over 1000 gank ships.

So in that month we provided content all across caldari space, for all miners in it, content for people trying to defend them, content for ship, ammo and mod producers, content for people playing the market and impacted people from the lowly miner in highsec to the titan pilot in null who ended up paying out the nose for their fuel.

All from 30 people in a single corp.

Just one man was responsible for the battle of Asakai, so yes we do infact make the content.

Back in 2012 my corp shut down all caldari ice mining in highsec for a month, caused a huge spike in caldari ice prices and everything associated with it. We killed something like 600 barges and went through over 1000 gank ships.

So in that month we provided content all across caldari space, for all miners in it, content for people trying to defend them, content for ship, ammo and mod producers, content for people playing the market and impacted people from the lowly miner in highsec to the titan pilot in null who ended up paying out the nose for their fuel.

All from 30 people in a single corp.

Just one man was responsible for the battle of Asakai, so yes we do infact make the content.

I'm sorry, but this is wrong. Examples of player created content are NS wars. There was nothing from CCP that lead to the Max and Max 2.0 campaigns. There was nothing from CCP that lead to the IT Alliance taking Fountain and then moving on to Delve, Querious and Period Basis. These were things players decided to do and made the game interesting, exciting and fun.

This is a game centered on players interacting with other players, that is where the bulk of the content comes from.