EVE Search - Privateering License as a concept for ISk sinking/Eve income

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Crime and Punishment

Privateering License as a concept for ISk sinking/Eve income

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Bait'er De'Outlier Trans-Aerospace Industries 37	Posted - 2016.10.22 01:32:32 - [1] - Quote How about adding a "Privateering License" as a purchasable game mechanic? Suggestion for it: In game function - allows engagement in PVP with any character not in the activating character's corporation without CONCORD or gate/station guns intervention. Daily license rate of $1 or monthly license rate of $10. (or whatever CCP figures will work nicely) Applies whether free to play or subscription based. Allows one license for "Privateering" against members all of the other Eve corps, PC and NPC, except for members of the corporation the character is in when the license is activated. Activating the "Privateer License" is done on a per character basis. Once activated the "Privateer License" remains in effect for it's full duration, i.e. no "off switch" for it. Once the "Privateer License" is in effect the "Privateer" is set to "Suspect" status for the duration of the license. Engaging as the aggressor in non-wardec PVP generates security status loss as normal for the Privateer BUT CONCORD WILL NOT intervene against the Privateer unless the Privateer is attacking a member of their own corp or an NPC station/structure. The "Privateer" is still subject to Faction Police action based on security status/faction status. If the character the license is active for drops from a corporation the license switches automatically to the new corp and remains until the time runs out. "Privateers License" could be a commodity like PLEX, i.e. trade item, maybe a rare loot drop during special events etc. which yes means anyone in the game including their corpmates can potentially engage the "Privateer" freely or assist against them. *unless friendly fire is legal for said corp in which case no CONCORD intervention.
Paranoid Loyd 9723	Posted - 2016.10.22 01:44:01 - [2] - Quote Sounds like a well thought out waste of your time. "There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix Fix the Prospect!
Starrakatt Celtic Anarchy Complaints Department 593	Posted - 2016.10.22 02:35:07 - [3] - Quote I'd pay for the monthly fee, ohyes. Then I would go about eradicating freighters out of main systems and trade pipes, and Plex all my accounts with the fat loot. Even better, there would be no safe blingy mission runner left anywhere I'd operate. Sec status loss? Bah, vast income from phat loot would pay for the sec tags. No more NPC corp Freighters/Mission Runners would be safe anywhere. I'd sadistically wring my hands with glee, hunting down and punish the guys that ever jump corp or drop into NPC corp to evade Wardec, and that would be JUST. Multiply me by many, MANY more. <<< Net effect: Likely, the majority of players that create 1 man corps or stay in NPC corps would stop playing, as anyone paying the fee could (and would) wipe the floor with them, daring to interact with their scacred right of being left alone. Also, wrong subforum. Sneaky bastard. FETID now recruiting pvp pilots & corporations \| lowsec pvp & piracy - Join Run and Gun
xXuber-NitsheXx 19	Posted - 2016.10.22 03:10:47 - [4] - Quote Paranoid Loyd wrote: Sounds like a well thought out waste of your time. This is OA, you are clear and readable, out to you Loyd. Thieving pirates discuss INTEGRITY; Anarchist gankers give us LAWS; and Whoring merc's cry then blow off clients with INSULTS. Up is down and down is up in the C&P Forum.
Noragen Neirfallas Rabble Inc. Legio De Mortem 3196	Posted - 2016.10.22 04:09:30 - [5] - Quote This is just what eve needs. A good shove in the direction of pay to win... Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie ISD Max Trix favourite ISD '"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King-Griffin
Dark Lord Trump Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 153	Posted - 2016.10.23 16:49:39 - [6] - Quote The entire point of highsec is that you can't run up to someone and shoot them in the face without either a) getting CONCORDed or b) tricking them into shooting first. Do I think that hisec should be safe? No. That doesn't mean that you should be able to pay to turn it into lowsec. I'm going to build a big wall that will keep the Gallente out, and they're going to pay for it!
Pami Walker Risen from Ashes inPanic 0	Posted - 2016.10.24 02:54:12 - [7] - Quote Dark Lord Trump wrote: The entire point of highsec is that you can't run up to someone and shoot them in the face without either a) getting CONCORDed or b) tricking them into shooting first. Do I think that hisec should be safe? No. That doesn't mean that you should be able to pay to turn it into lowsec. I disagree, hi sec should be safe. If CCP is hurting for money, why is it that they allow their players to drive away thousands of possible subscribers each month. When people start playing, they do not understand aggression mechanics. The do not understand what a war dec means. Pretty much they do not understand much at all yet they are harvested to make pvp wannabes look good on the killboards. Is this solution simple, no not at all. But some one, some place needs to step and make a lot of people unhappy by changing some mechanics. How, i don't know. Maybe make industrial ships ungankable in 8,9,10 space. Maybe by not canceling aggressor status till your podded. Like i said, i do not know, however if eve wants to be a game for more people than the usual sociopaths and psychopaths, then it needs to step out of the darkness and into the light. Maybe a Privateer might be a start. It would allow them to shoot any one with an active weapons timer. Allow them to pod aggressors without penalty. I am not sure. I do know however that CCP is making a push to get more people involved with eve. It would just be sad if their efforts went to waste simply people the newbies quit cause they got ganked and didn't understand why. Especially when they get laughed at when they ask why.
Natural CloneKiller The Phoenix Rising Vendetta Mercenary Group 227	Posted - 2016.10.24 05:30:26 - [8] - Quote Bait'er De'Outlier wrote: How about adding a "Privateering License" as a purchasable game mechanic? Suggestion for it: In game function - allows engagement in PVP with any character not in the activating character's corporation without CONCORD or gate/station guns intervention. Daily license rate of $1 or monthly license rate of $10. (or whatever CCP figures will work nicely) Applies whether free to play or subscription based. Allows one license for "Privateering" against members all of the other Eve corps, PC and NPC, except for members of the corporation the character is in when the license is activated. Activating the "Privateer License" is done on a per character basis. Once activated the "Privateer License" remains in effect for it's full duration, i.e. no "off switch" for it. Once the "Privateer License" is in effect the "Privateer" is set to "Suspect" status for the duration of the license. Engaging as the aggressor in non-wardec PVP generates security status loss as normal for the Privateer BUT CONCORD WILL NOT intervene against the Privateer unless the Privateer is attacking a member of their own corp or an NPC station/structure. The "Privateer" is still subject to Faction Police action based on security status/faction status. If the character the license is active for drops from a corporation the license switches automatically to the new corp and remains until the time runs out. "Privateers License" could be a commodity like PLEX, i.e. trade item, maybe a rare loot drop during special events etc. which yes means anyone in the game including their corpmates can potentially engage the "Privateer" freely or assist against them. *unless friendly fire is legal for said corp in which case no CONCORD intervention. You waste time dreaming.
Noragen Neirfallas Rabble Inc. Legio De Mortem 3208	Posted - 2016.10.24 05:36:10 - [9] - Quote Pami Walker wrote: Dark Lord Trump wrote: The entire point of highsec is that you can't run up to someone and shoot them in the face without either a) getting CONCORDed or b) tricking them into shooting first. Do I think that hisec should be safe? No. That doesn't mean that you should be able to pay to turn it into lowsec. I disagree, hi sec should be safe. If CCP is hurting for money, why is it that they allow their players to drive away thousands of possible subscribers each month. When people start playing, they do not understand aggression mechanics. The do not understand what a war dec means. Pretty much they do not understand much at all yet they are harvested to make pvp wannabes look good on the killboards. Is this solution simple, no not at all. But some one, some place needs to step and make a lot of people unhappy by changing some mechanics. How, i don't know. Maybe make industrial ships ungankable in 8,9,10 space. Maybe by not canceling aggressor status till your podded. Like i said, i do not know, however if eve wants to be a game for more people than the usual sociopaths and psychopaths, then it needs to step out of the darkness and into the light. Maybe a Privateer might be a start. It would allow them to shoot any one with an active weapons timer. Allow them to pod aggressors without penalty. I am not sure. I do know however that CCP is making a push to get more people involved with eve. It would just be sad if their efforts went to waste simply people the newbies quit cause they got ganked and didn't understand why. Especially when they get laughed at when they ask why. Please provide the proof that goes with this line of thinking about potential new customers quitting because of xyz. I eagerly await your response and proof. PS CCP collected statistics given at fanfest about player retention would be a good place to start your search. Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie ISD Max Trix favourite ISD '"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King-Griffin
Crack Spawn Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 25	Posted - 2016.10.24 06:05:19 - [10] - Quote Pami Walker wrote: Dark Lord Trump wrote: The entire point of highsec is that you can't run up to someone and shoot them in the face without either a) getting CONCORDed or b) tricking them into shooting first. Do I think that hisec should be safe? No. That doesn't mean that you should be able to pay to turn it into lowsec. I disagree, hi sec should be safe. If CCP is hurting for money, why is it that they allow their players to drive away thousands of possible subscribers each month. When people start playing, they do not understand aggression mechanics. The do not understand what a war dec means. Pretty much they do not understand much at all yet they are harvested to make pvp wannabes look good on the killboards. Is this solution simple, no not at all. But some one, some place needs to step and make a lot of people unhappy by changing some mechanics. How, i don't know. Maybe make industrial ships ungankable in 8,9,10 space. Maybe by not canceling aggressor status till your podded. Like i said, i do not know, however if eve wants to be a game for more people than the usual sociopaths and psychopaths, then it needs to step out of the darkness and into the light. Maybe a Privateer might be a start. It would allow them to shoot any one with an active weapons timer. Allow them to pod aggressors without penalty. I am not sure. I do know however that CCP is making a push to get more people involved with eve. It would just be sad if their efforts went to waste simply people the newbies quit cause they got ganked and didn't understand why. Especially when they get laughed at when they ask why. If you remember Freelancer old Microsoft space game new york system was a no shoot zone NO PvP maybe noob systems, birth systems should be same? just a thought..

Noragen Neirfallas Rabble Inc. Legio De Mortem 3208	Posted - 2016.10.24 06:07:25 - [11] - Quote Crack Spawn wrote: Pami Walker wrote: Dark Lord Trump wrote: The entire point of highsec is that you can't run up to someone and shoot them in the face without either a) getting CONCORDed or b) tricking them into shooting first. Do I think that hisec should be safe? No. That doesn't mean that you should be able to pay to turn it into lowsec. I disagree, hi sec should be safe. If CCP is hurting for money, why is it that they allow their players to drive away thousands of possible subscribers each month. When people start playing, they do not understand aggression mechanics. The do not understand what a war dec means. Pretty much they do not understand much at all yet they are harvested to make pvp wannabes look good on the killboards. Is this solution simple, no not at all. But some one, some place needs to step and make a lot of people unhappy by changing some mechanics. How, i don't know. Maybe make industrial ships ungankable in 8,9,10 space. Maybe by not canceling aggressor status till your podded. Like i said, i do not know, however if eve wants to be a game for more people than the usual sociopaths and psychopaths, then it needs to step out of the darkness and into the light. Maybe a Privateer might be a start. It would allow them to shoot any one with an active weapons timer. Allow them to pod aggressors without penalty. I am not sure. I do know however that CCP is making a push to get more people involved with eve. It would just be sad if their efforts went to waste simply people the newbies quit cause they got ganked and didn't understand why. Especially when they get laughed at when they ask why. If you remember Freelancer old Microsoft space game new york system was a no shoot zone NO PvP maybe noob systems, birth systems should be same? just a thought.. They are... baiting in newbro systems is grounds for a ban Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie ISD Max Trix favourite ISD '"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King-Griffin
Gou Litvyak Random inactiva corporation 4	Posted - 2016.10.24 09:40:05 - [12] - Quote Noragen Neirfallas wrote: PS CCP collected statistics given at fanfest about player retention would be a good place to start your search. Yeah that is leaving out the fact that the ganking/griefing caused more players to leave initially, but the few who stayed stayed longer(which was the point). In the end it hurts player retention on the big scale.
Noragen Neirfallas Rabble Inc. Legio De Mortem 3208	Posted - 2016.10.24 09:48:16 - [13] - Quote Gou Litvyak wrote: Noragen Neirfallas wrote: PS CCP collected statistics given at fanfest about player retention would be a good place to start your search. Yeah that is leaving out the fact that the ganking/griefing caused more players to leave initially, but the few who stayed stayed longer(which was the point). In the end it hurts player retention on the big scale. Excellent sounds like you have a good argument to go on. Please post the evidence to go with this undoubtedly easily proven fact Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie ISD Max Trix favourite ISD '"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King-Griffin
Gou Litvyak Random inactiva corporation 4	Posted - 2016.10.24 10:42:50 - [14] - Quote You never even looked at the sources you refer to, did you? Reminds me of political discussions, where people refer to documents but none reads them, and base their opinions of what they imagine the sources say. What was said at fanfest was that the amount of players who got ganked, and stayed, dedicated to EVE long term. That does not mean that all ganked players stay, that wasnt even part of what was presented. Most newbies who got ganked permanently left EVE on the spot, the stats focused on the few who didnt.
Noragen Neirfallas Rabble Inc. Legio De Mortem 3209	Posted - 2016.10.24 11:12:40 - [15] - Quote Gou Litvyak wrote: You never even looked at the sources you refer to, did you? Reminds me of political discussions, where people refer to documents but none reads them, and base their opinions of what they imagine the sources say. What was said at fanfest was that the amount of players who got ganked, and stayed, dedicated to EVE long term. That does not mean that all ganked players stay, that wasnt even part of what was presented. Most newbies who got ganked permanently left EVE on the spot, the stats focused on the few who didnt. But thats not how things correlate. Even if the few who stayed never got griefed/ganked, they would have dedicated to EVE anyways. I did watch it all. I was quite involved with a rather large group of fresh faced newbros at the time so I was rather intrigued. However I am still waiting for your evidence for the section I highlighted in bold. Or could it be you are kinda not really drawing your information from a quotable source. I find this is often the case and was hoping things would be different here Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie ISD Max Trix favourite ISD '"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King-Griffin
Gou Litvyak Random inactiva corporation 4	Posted - 2016.10.24 11:23:34 - [16] - Quote Since you were also there and didnt understand anything at all, let me put it to you simply. Ganking newbies makes the majority of them quit, the few who dont quit stay because the content is meaningful. A ship is a ship, when you lose it its lost. It sets a value on their assets unlike meaningless items in other games. That is why the handful of ganked newbies stay. That is what was presented on fanfest, when you gank a newbie that player will nearly always be confused, find out he/she lost the ship, be angry, quit and uninstall to never come back. The few who dont, dedicate to EVE. You can glorify ganking all you want, that doesnt change what was said, it just changes what you think was said that day.
Noragen Neirfallas Rabble Inc. Legio De Mortem 3209	Posted - 2016.10.24 11:31:19 - [17] - Quote Gou Litvyak wrote: Since you were also there and didnt understand anything at all, let me put it to you simply. Ganking newbies makes the majority of them quit, the few who dont quit stay because the content is meaningful. A ship is a ship, when you lose it its lost. It sets a value on their assets unlike meaningless items in other games. That is why the handful of ganked newbies stay. That is what was presented on fanfest, when you gank a newbie that player will nearly always be confused, find out he/she lost the ship, be angry, quit and uninstall to never come back. The few who dont, dedicate to EVE. You can glorify ganking all you want, that doesnt change what was said, it just changes what you think was said that day. I'm not the one misunderstanding here. It was presented with those who were not killed as a comparison. Those who were killed had a much higher retention rate than those who weren't. Go back and watch it on youtube Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie ISD Max Trix favourite ISD '"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King-Griffin
Lan Wang C.Q.B Snuffed Out 3585	Posted - 2016.10.24 11:34:29 - [18] - Quote i guess i could buy one of these and just sit in jita in my smartbomber popping everything +1 Loyalist to Angel Cartel Your killboard reads like a "how to get farmed 101" - Noah Reese
Bagatur I GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 77	Posted - 2016.10.24 11:44:53 - [19] - Quote it already exists and it is free. just move out of highsec.
Merchant Rova Pathway to the Next 60	Posted - 2016.10.24 16:15:02 - [20] - Quote Please dear lord let this thread be a joke. "The laws of the Federation were written for the good of the many. Not the good of the Gallente nor the good of the Caldari. Hopefully, we can help them remember this." -Fronte Belliare

Galaxy Duck Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing 80	Posted - 2016.10.24 19:17:28 - [21] - Quote Yeah dude, I'm a suicide ganker and even I can see that this idea is no good. Thanks for trying, though.
Areen Sassel 142	Posted - 2016.10.25 00:31:19 - [22] - Quote Galaxy Duck wrote: Yeah dude, I'm a suicide ganker and even I can see that this idea is no good. Thanks for trying, though. I wonder if we should have a standardised response form to these. Semi-seriously, in the hope people would read it and see all the other failure modes, some of which I fell into myself early on. Something like: Your idea: [X] enables someone to aggress anyone they like in high-sec without CONCORD --- [ ] provided they are willing to drop 100,000 on the target's bounty first [ ] is the "just one more nerf" to highsec aggression which will make everything right [ ] provides a zone of perfect safety which vets will immediately move their operations into when practical --- [ ] vets and bot armies, rendering it in fact useless for newbros wanting to mine [ ] does not in fact provide more incentive to hunt people's bounties [ ] makes it practical for me to collect my bounty with an alt [ ] requires us to have working locator agents [ ] contains fundamental misunderstandings of the aggression mechanics as follows: --- [ ] -5 and below are free targets anyway so who cares --- [ ] capsuleers in question aren't normally undocked anyway except on their way to a gank --- [ ] no matter how noble your cause, provoking CONCORD puts a killright on you, too [ ] would result in constant CONCORDOKKEN from accidental bumping --- [ ] would then mean Alice can easily contrive for Bob to bump her and thus get CONCORDed [ ] neglects to consider that undocking is consent to PvP [ ] consists primarily of armchair psychoanalysis of people you have never met [ ] is to make industrials combat-equal to warships presumably thus leaving us wondering what warships are for [ ] was previously tried in [year] and didn't work then Any more suggestions, oh C&P?
Morgan Agrivar Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 598	Posted - 2016.10.25 02:25:59 - [23] - Quote When I did solo highsec wardecs, I killed quite a few newbies. A couple of them dropped corp right after I killed them but most of them did not. Now is it the fault of the ganker/war target in where the newbies are not prepared for ganks/wars? The answer is no for both. In regards to ganking, I do believe that something in the New Player Experience should bring the art of ganking up so they are aware of it. A brand new player just starting up would have no clue playing...unless he joins a player run corporation. If the newbie is part of a player-run corporation and gets ganked or killed during a war, then it falls solely on the CEO of that bad corporation. You cannot comprehend how many kills I got just because the CEO did not prepare (or even tell) his members for the war that I declared on them. In one instance, I killed an afk Venture and pod 15 seconds after the war started. I sat 6km off of her while she mined cloaked in a Hound while waiting for the war to start for 12 minutes. When I got a kill on a newbie, I always messaged them afterwards to see if they were made aware of the war. Not one knew about it, or what it even meant. I would send some isk their way to recoup their loss and give them tips about what happens during a war and how to protect themselves. Is that my job as their enemy to tell them how to protect themselves? Most highsec corporations are full of fail, you know... TL;DR: If the newbie is in a player-run corporation, it is the fault of the CEO they got ganked/killed in a war. Most highsec player corporations are BADLY run... YC 117 New Eden Capsuleer's Writing Contest Submission - "Heartache"
Mike Adoulin Adolescent Radioactive Pirate Hamsters 1895	Posted - 2016.10.25 13:47:02 - [24] - Quote Morgan Agrivar wrote: TL;DR: If the newbie is in a player-run corporation, it is the fault of the CEO they got ganked/killed in a war. Most highsec player corporations are BADLY run... ^^^^^^ This a thousand times over. Everything in EVE is a trap. And if it isn't, it's your job to make it a trap...:) You want to know what immorality in EVE Online looks like? Look no further than Ripard "Jester" Teg. Chribba is the Chuck Norris of EVE.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode ISD Community Communications Liaisons 7244	Posted - 2016.10.27 22:16:30 - [25] - Quote Thread has been moved to Player Features and Ideas Discussion. ISD Dorrim Barstorlode Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Noragen Neirfallas Rabble Inc. Legio De Mortem 3211	Posted - 2016.10.27 23:59:29 - [26] - Quote ISD Dorrim Barstorlode wrote: Thread has been moved to Player Features and Ideas Discussion. A thread got moved out of crime and punishment to die??? Today was a good day Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie ISD Max Trix favourite ISD '"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King-Griffin
Viktor Archangel Conoco. Caldari Armed Forces. 3	Posted - 2016.10.28 05:25:47 - [27] - Quote Aha Hahahaha, oh God I needed that laugh OP. CCP: hey guys wanna kill everyone in highsec and not worry about silky wardecs/Concord? Extremely small minority: yeah buddy, let us elite pvp CCP: just pay us 1 dollar and start shaving off those highsec subscriptions today! Ahahahahaha
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5428	Posted - 2016.10.28 19:50:37 - [28] - Quote Gou Litvyak wrote: Noragen Neirfallas wrote: PS CCP collected statistics given at fanfest about player retention would be a good place to start your search. Yeah that is leaving out the fact that the ganking/griefing caused more players to leave initially, but the few who stayed stayed longer(which was the point). In the end it hurts player retention on the big scale. Your evidence of this is what exactly? "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 5428	Posted - 2016.10.28 19:55:10 - [29] - Quote Gou Litvyak wrote: You never even looked at the sources you refer to, did you? Reminds me of political discussions, where people refer to documents but none reads them, and base their opinions of what they imagine the sources say. What was said at fanfest was that the amount of players who got ganked, and stayed, dedicated to EVE long term. That does not mean that all ganked players stay, that wasnt even part of what was presented. Most newbies who got ganked permanently left EVE on the spot, the stats focused on the few who didnt. But thats not how things correlate. Even if the few who stayed never got griefed/ganked, they would have dedicated to EVE anyways. Wrong. What was said was that: 1. Players who lost a ship illegally (i.e. were ganked) in their first 15 days played the longest. 2. Players who lost a ship legally (e.g. a war dec) in their first 15 days played second longest. 3. Players who did not lose a ship in their first 15 days played the shortest time. As you can see, you claim that ganked players left quickly is not supported by the claims put forth by CCP. Now, the analysis was not a definitive or comprehensive analysis of ganking, but it does point towards ganking not being the issue with regards to player retention at least early on for players. Second CCP analysis contradicts exactly your claim that newbies who are ganked quit on the spot. And you have no data, no analysis, but a load of made up Bravo Sierra. "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 5428	Posted - 2016.10.28 19:56:19 - [30] - Quote Gou Litvyak wrote: Since you were also there and didnt understand anything at all, let me put it to you simply. Ganking newbies makes the majority of them quit.... No, that is exactly the opposite of what CCP Rise said during that presentation. "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 5428	Posted - 2016.10.28 19:59:13 - [31] - Quote Morgan Agrivar wrote: TL;DR: If the newbie is in a player-run corporation, it is the fault of the CEO they got ganked/killed in a war. Most highsec player corporations are BADLY run... Any player corp that brings in new players should tell them the following: 1. You will lose your ship. 2. You will eventually get podded. 3. Get used to it, this is EVE. 4. And keep in mind, you can shoot back. Heck you can even shoot first in various contexts. "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 5428	Posted - 2016.10.28 20:05:25 - [32] - Quote Viktor Archangel wrote: Aha Hahahaha, oh God I needed that laugh OP. CCP: hey guys wanna kill everyone in highsec and not worry about silky wardecs/Concord? Extremely small minority: yeah buddy, let us elite pvp CCP: just pay us 1 dollar and start shaving off those highsec subscriptions today! Ahahahahaha Yes, because making HS safer and safer has lead to a boom in subscriptions...oh...wait. Never mind. "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
Corraidhin Farsaidh Farsaidh's Freeborn Singularity Syndicate 2094	Posted - 2016.10.28 23:18:00 - [33] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: ...What was said was that: 1. Players who lost a ship illegally (i.e. were ganked) in their first 15 days played the longest. 2. Players who lost a ship legally (e.g. a war dec) in their first 15 days played second longest. 3. Players who did not lose a ship in their first 15 days played the shortest time. As you can see, you claim that ganked players left quickly is not supported by the claims put forth by CCP. Now, the analysis was not a definitive or comprehensive analysis of ganking, but it does point towards ganking not being the issue with regards to player retention at least early on for players. Second CCP analysis contradicts exactly your claim that newbies who are ganked quit on the spot. And you have no data, no analysis, but a load of made up Bravo Sierra. I'm not sure I buy that interpretation of the stats. Those that were ganked were probably taking risks and most likely to stay in the game anyway, likewise for those engaging in wardecs. Those that didn't put themselves in those positions very possibly simply didn't like the game. What would need to be published is the feedback from players who left the game as to why they did so. Anything else is speculation. Note: I'm not arguing why people stay or leave, I'd just like the raw data, not interpretations of it.
elitatwo Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance 1441	Posted - 2016.10.28 23:44:22 - [34] - Quote There must be something wrong with the coloration of the danger levels in New Eden nowadays. Red: very easy Dark to bright orange: medium Green to yellow: very hard Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them. This is the law
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5431	Posted - 2016.10.29 07:50:15 - [35] - Quote Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: ...What was said was that: 1. Players who lost a ship illegally (i.e. were ganked) in their first 15 days played the longest. 2. Players who lost a ship legally (e.g. a war dec) in their first 15 days played second longest. 3. Players who did not lose a ship in their first 15 days played the shortest time. As you can see, you claim that ganked players left quickly is not supported by the claims put forth by CCP. Now, the analysis was not a definitive or comprehensive analysis of ganking, but it does point towards ganking not being the issue with regards to player retention at least early on for players. Second CCP analysis contradicts exactly your claim that newbies who are ganked quit on the spot. And you have no data, no analysis, but a load of made up Bravo Sierra. I'm not sure I buy that interpretation of the stats. Those that were ganked were probably taking risks and most likely to stay in the game anyway, likewise for those engaging in wardecs. Those that didn't put themselves in those positions very possibly simply didn't like the game. What would need to be published is the feedback from players who left the game as to why they did so. Anything else is speculation. Note: I'm not arguing why people stay or leave, I'd just like the raw data, not interpretations of it. Now you are making stuff up out of whole clothe vs. relying on what was stated in the presentation "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 5431	Posted - 2016.10.29 07:57:52 - [36] - Quote To be quite honest I find the responses to CCP's look at ganking of new players a bit annoying. 1. CCP don't know how to do statistical analysis, thus the results are garbage. 2. The results are not statistically invalid for :reasons: 3. Tell some just so stories to explain the behavior of hundreds even thousands of players. 4. New players who are ganked quit right on the spot and thus are not in the data set. How about you just listen to the presentation and accept that the results are just what they are? Either that or kindly have a nice cup of STFU about data and evidence, because after listening to all these Bravo Sierra reasons why that analysis was "seriously flawed" I am left to conclude that those making such claims will not be moved be any amount of data or analysis. You are dogmatic buffoon and whining about data is nothing more than an attempt to hide your dogmatism behind lies. It really comes across as this, "What?!?!? Nooooo!!!! My preconceived notions!!!!!" "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
Rivr Luzade Viziam Amarr Empire 2775	Posted - 2016.10.29 08:50:23 - [37] - Quote One way or another, whether you believe in CCP's data or not, this idea in itself is utter garbage. There's no need to argue about it at all and doing so is wasted time. End of story. What's more annoying than the suggestion itself is that people keep getting this thread up to the top every day since it got moved here... UI Improvement Collective My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Noragen Neirfallas Rabble Inc. Legio De Mortem 3219	Posted - 2016.10.29 10:51:18 - [38] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: One way or another, whether you believe in CCP's data or not, this idea in itself is utter garbage and absolutely redundant because we already have 4/5 of the game designated as areas where you can engage anything you like freely and without or just minor limitiations. There's no need to argue about it at all and doing so is wasted time. End of story. What's more annoying than the suggestion itself is that people keep getting this thread up to the top every day since it got moved here... So you decided to give it a friendly bump? Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie ISD Max Trix favourite ISD '"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King-Griffin
Sitting Bull Lakota SBL Co 189	Posted - 2016.10.31 11:20:32 - [39] - Quote Remove faction police from highsec. <-5.0 Players could travel freely in highsec with their hard earned perma-pvp flags. They could engage eachother anywhere and be valid targets for the rest of highsec's population. That would open highsec up to more violence without making it overly dangerous for those who don't wish to partake.
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 1043	Posted - 2016.10.31 14:44:09 - [40] - Quote NO to the OP idea, we do not need an unrestricted killing license for high sec and that is exactly what this would become. It is good to see that both sides of ganking / war decs versus player retention argument continues with blinders firmly in place as usual. The data given at fan fest proves nothing with regards to ganking / war decs and there affects on player retention positive or negative. I could go on for pages with the reasons why but most of you would not believe me even if I did and to be honest this neither the place nor the time to go into them.

Noragen Neirfallas Rabble Inc. Legio De Mortem 3224	Posted - 2016.10.31 15:58:55 - [41] - Quote Donnachadh wrote: NO to the OP idea, we do not need an unrestricted killing license for high sec and that is exactly what this would become. It is good to see that both sides of ganking / war decs versus player retention argument continues with blinders firmly in place as usual. The data given at fan fest proves nothing with regards to ganking / war decs and there affects on player retention positive or negative. I could go on for pages with the reasons why but most of you would not believe me even if I did and to be honest this neither the place nor the time to go into them. But do you have hard data (preferably collected from a reputable source) to go with your pages of ramblings? Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie ISD Max Trix favourite ISD '"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King-Griffin
Lan Wang C.Q.B Snuffed Out 3599	Posted - 2016.10.31 16:38:12 - [42] - Quote allowing -10.0 players to sit in jita popping wardeccers sounds great Loyalist to Angel Cartel Your killboard reads like a "how to get farmed 101" - Noah Reese
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 4513	Posted - 2016.10.31 19:24:23 - [43] - Quote Sitting Bull Lakota wrote: Remove faction police from highsec. <-5.0 Players could travel freely in highsec with their hard earned perma-pvp flags. They could engage eachother anywhere and be valid targets for the rest of highsec's population. That would open highsec up to more violence without making it overly dangerous for those who don't wish to partake. It's my general opinion that both faction police and faction navies have an overall negative affect on the game. They do literally nothing other than prevent PVP by harassing players that would otherwise be targets for other players.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5442	Posted - 2016.10.31 20:16:44 - [44] - Quote Donnachadh wrote: NO to the OP idea, we do not need an unrestricted killing license for high sec and that is exactly what this would become. It is good to see that both sides of ganking / war decs versus player retention argument continues with blinders firmly in place as usual. The data given at fan fest proves nothing with regards to ganking / war decs and there affects on player retention positive or negative. I could go on for pages with the reasons why but most of you would not believe me even if I did and to be honest this neither the place nor the time to go into them. The analysis at fanfest supports the claim that ganking is not bad for new players. In fact, it suggests exactly the opposite. You are correct that it proves nothing, but here is the thing, you can't prove claims like that. Proofs take place in mathematical and pure logic systems. When it comes to empirical work and hypotheses, you cannot prove them like you would a mathematical theorem. Instead, what you do is look at the evidence and evaluate the relative validity of different hypotheses. For example, the hypotheses: H1: Ganking is bad for new players. H2: Ganking is not bad for new players. Then you'd evaluate the efficacy of these hypotheses relative to the data. A very common way of doing this is problematically, that is we'd evaluate the probabilities: Pr(H1\|E) and, Pr(H2\|E). Further, if we not that H2 is the negation of H1, we can re-write it as, Pr(H1\|E), Pr(~H1\|E). And we can make use of Bayes theorem, Pr(H1\|E) = P(E\|H1)*Pr(H1)/Pr(E). That is how likely is the evidence, E, given that H1 is true. And Pr(H1) is the initial subjective probability that H1 is true, which should not be either 0 or 1. Thus, given that H1 is true, ganking is bad for new players, how likely is it that we'd see that players who are ganked stay in game the longest our of all the players in the sample? We should expect such evidence to be unlikely--i.e. small. Thus, the left hand side should decline in value. Conversely we'd expect P(E\|~H1) to be higher, thus, irrespective of your initial prior probability of H1, you should move more towards accepting ganking is not bad for new players. If you refuse to accept this without some valid reason there is a word that describes you: dogmatist. In short, barring some sort of big blunder on CCP's part, of which we have not a shred of evidence to support this, after that fanfest presentation people should be less inclined to view ganking in a negative light when it comes to new players. If you want to continue to hold onto your initial beliefs despite this evidence you are simply being dogmatic in your views. "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
cpu939 Eternal Darkness. Blades of Grass 106	Posted - 2016.10.31 20:18:27 - [45] - Quote if we have this could we also get the Anti-Privateering License where by no one in eve can loak and fire on you in say highsec
Morgan Agrivar Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 630	Posted - 2016.10.31 21:54:49 - [46] - Quote cpu939 wrote: if we have this could we also get the Anti-Privateering License where by no one in eve can loak and fire on you in say highsec No. YC 117 New Eden Capsuleer's Writing Contest Submission - "Heartache"
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5443	Posted - 2016.10.31 22:25:53 - [47] - Quote Morgan Agrivar wrote: cpu939 wrote: if we have this could we also get the Anti-Privateering License where by no one in eve can loak and fire on you in say highsec No. How about no to both. "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
Morgan Agrivar Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 631	Posted - 2016.11.02 21:10:34 - [48] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Morgan Agrivar wrote: cpu939 wrote: if we have this could we also get the Anti-Privateering License where by no one in eve can loak and fire on you in say highsec No. How about no to both. Agreed. How difficult is it to understand that this game is a PvP game? If I can lock up an 'innocent' ship in highsec and cycle guns quickly and blow up that ship before CONCORD shows up, don't you think the devs designed it that way and that is what they wanted? Now I know ganking has been nerfhammered into the ground but the basics of it is still around. CCP doesn't want conflict to stop occuring in highsec or they would have already removed it. Conflict is good and keeps the circlulation going and the paranoia at a certain level to ensure the person at the keyboard is alive. YC 117 New Eden Capsuleer's Writing Contest Submission - "Heartache"
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3703	Posted - 2016.11.02 21:35:16 - [49] - Quote Morgan Agrivar wrote: Agreed. How difficult is it to understand that this game is a PvP game? If I can lock up an 'innocent' ship in highsec and cycle guns quickly and blow up that ship before CONCORD shows up, don't you think the devs designed it that way and that is what they wanted? Now I know ganking has been nerfhammered into the ground but the basics of it is still around. CCP doesn't want conflict to stop occuring in highsec or they would have already removed it. Conflict is good and keeps the circlulation going and the paranoia at a certain level to ensure the person at the keyboard is alive. Congratulations, you have won the 'failing to understand sarcasm & trolling' award of the day. You are attacking someone making an obviously stupid suggestion to highlight how stupid the OP's suggestion was.
Corraidhin Farsaidh Farsaidh's Freeborn Singularity Syndicate 2094	Posted - 2016.11.02 21:44:02 - [50] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: ...Maths blurb... I haven't seen the presentation and haven't the time to watch it. Could you summarize the stats in numbers please: How many new players per month? How many stay in game? How many who stayed were ganked? How many who left were ganked? How many who stayed said it was because they were ganked? How many who left said it was because they were ganked? That would give a clear view of whether ganking is toxic or not. To be clear I am neither pro or anti ganking, just interested in the numbers.

Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3703	Posted - 2016.11.02 22:43:31 - [51] - Quote Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: To be clear I am neither pro or anti ganking, just interested in the numbers. Don't think CCP gave out actual numbers. To summarise what I recall from the video. CCP said that those that stayed to 30 days tended to have engaged in some form of PvP more than those who left. I don't recall them splitting out the types of PvP to show any trend towards ganking. I also don't recall them doing any analysis of hours played, what the average trend of hours to first PvP experience was, or isolating any form of conditions. Basically it was a meaningless statistic they touted since they didn't actually compare appropriately. Since they included all the people who played 30 minutes then never came back in the group who 'left & didn't PvP'. And we have no idea how big any of those groups are. They also didn't look at the 2-3 month range of players who are probably where the bigger losses to ganking are, since that's where someone has scrapped together enough to be really worth ganking if they really are new, but often hasn't learnt about ganking yet. But yes, it's unlikely that ganking as a general act actually causes any relative harm to the community. Toxic behaviours inside the ganking community might, but there is a toxic subgroup in pretty much all the play styles who take things too far.
Deckel Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance 10	Posted - 2016.11.03 00:00:04 - [52] - Quote There is only one additional target that I think this so called privateer license could realistically open up. Currently even without performing any hostile actions, if a pilot has a security rating less than -5 they can be attacked on sight. What the privateer license should open up is pvp access to the pilots that have a security status less than 0 as well. Paying for a so called privateer license would then open up a range of new targets that can be hunted in high sec. For this system it may be necessary to purchase multiple licenses as security ratings are based upon empire standings within the 4 factions, so naturally each faction would manage their own privateers.
Noragen Neirfallas Rabble Inc. Legio De Mortem 3228	Posted - 2016.11.03 00:12:23 - [53] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: To be clear I am neither pro or anti ganking, just interested in the numbers. Don't think CCP gave out actual numbers. To summarise what I recall from the video. CCP said that those that stayed to 30 days tended to have engaged in some form of PvP more than those who left. I don't recall them splitting out the types of PvP to show any trend towards ganking. I also don't recall them doing any analysis of hours played, what the average trend of hours to first PvP experience was, or isolating any form of conditions. Basically it was a meaningless statistic they touted since they didn't actually compare appropriately. Since they included all the people who played 30 minutes then never came back in the group who 'left & didn't PvP'. And we have no idea how big any of those groups are. They also didn't look at the 2-3 month range of players who are probably where the bigger losses to ganking are, since that's where someone has scrapped together enough to be really worth ganking if they really are new, but often hasn't learnt about ganking yet. But yes, it's unlikely that ganking as a general act actually causes any relative harm to the community. Toxic behaviours inside the ganking community might, but there is a toxic subgroup in pretty much all the play styles who take things too far. How about you watch it before spouting nonsense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A92Ge2S8M1Y Now we can all argue on what wasn't there but lets face it they quite clearly lay out the % of those who were engaged in legal and illegal PvP and than stated which group had higher retention. People who canceled accounts cited ship loss as their reason for leaving >1% of the time Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie ISD Max Trix favourite ISD '"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King-Griffin
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5461	Posted - 2016.11.03 01:00:13 - [54] - Quote Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: ...Maths blurb... I haven't seen the presentation and haven't the time to watch it. Could you summarize the stats in numbers please: How many new players per month? How many stay in game? How many who stayed were ganked? How many who left were ganked? How many who stayed said it was because they were ganked? How many who left said it was because they were ganked? That would give a clear view of whether ganking is toxic or not. To be clear I am neither pro or anti ganking, just interested in the numbers. Okay going by memory here..... They went in and got a sample of 80,000 players, so as to exclude alts. CCP then went a categorized them into three categories: Killed illegally in their first 15 days (e.g. ganked) Killed legally in their first 15 days (war dec, dual, etc.) Not killed in their first 15 days. They found that, 1% were ganked. 14% killed legally. 85% were not killed at all. Then they looked at how long players stayed with the game in the three categories: Longest playing: Those who were ganked. Second longest: Those killed legally. Shortest: Those not killed at all. So, at the end of the day, the notion that ganking causes newbros to bail on the game does not fit at all with that presentation. "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
Morgan Agrivar Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 631	Posted - 2016.11.03 01:07:00 - [55] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Morgan Agrivar wrote: Agreed. How difficult is it to understand that this game is a PvP game? If I can lock up an 'innocent' ship in highsec and cycle guns quickly and blow up that ship before CONCORD shows up, don't you think the devs designed it that way and that is what they wanted? Now I know ganking has been nerfhammered into the ground but the basics of it is still around. CCP doesn't want conflict to stop occuring in highsec or they would have already removed it. Conflict is good and keeps the circlulation going and the paranoia at a certain level to ensure the person at the keyboard is alive. Congratulations, you have won the 'failing to understand sarcasm & trolling' award of the day. You are attacking someone making an obviously stupid suggestion to highlight how stupid the OP's suggestion was. Seriously, your trolling skills have a lot to be desired. I am sure you can show your anger in a more constructive way, kid. YC 117 New Eden Capsuleer's Writing Contest Submission - "Heartache"
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5461	Posted - 2016.11.03 01:09:28 - [56] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: [snip] Basically it was a meaningless statistic they touted since they didn't actually compare appropriately. Since they included all the people who played 30 minutes then never came back in the group who 'left & didn't PvP'. And we have no idea how big any of those groups are. Actually, I don't know if this is true or not. But two thoughts, The categorizing was for those killed or not killed in the first 15 days. So their sample might have been over those players who stayed at least that long. If they didn't put that restriction in there, then yes, with random sampling you can get this kind of outcome. And yea, if that guy left after 30 minutes and did not lose a ship...yeah, he'd likely be counted as not being killed. Quote: They also didn't look at the 2-3 month range of players who are probably where the bigger losses to ganking are, since that's where someone has scrapped together enough to be really worth ganking if they really are new, but often hasn't learnt about ganking yet. The question they were looking at was, "Is ganking bad for the new player," in terms of retention time in game, and there the presentation said, "No." "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
ShahFluffers Ice Fire Warriors Escalating Entropy 10814	Posted - 2016.11.03 02:41:27 - [57] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: To be clear I am neither pro or anti ganking, just interested in the numbers. Don't think CCP gave out actual numbers. Yes they did. 80,000 new players (the genuine kind, not alts) were sampled. Their first 15 days were looked at. They checked to see if these players had died in some fashion during this time. If they had, they were split into two groups: - wardecs / aggression shenanigans / outside high-sec - suicide ganked What they found was: 85% were not molested in any way 14% were killed via Wardecs, aggression shenanigans, and/or outside high-sec 1% were ganked This is where things get kinda murky. The presenting DEV explained that people who were suicide ganked tended to have higher subscription rates. This was followed by the group that was killed in some "mechanically legal" fashion. The group that had the lowest retention rate were the ones who were never killed in ship-on-ship violence. Beyond this, the DEV only presented one other number: Only 1% of account cancellations cite suicide ganking as the reason. To be honest... the DEVs could have (and should have) gone much further. The time window they gave was too short (something like 2 months would have been better) and they should have produced some actual numbers regarding retention... But now that I think about it... newbie retention numbers for any MMO will drive any laymen up the wall. If I recall correctly from a DEV (at another company) that I spoke to... MMOs aim to retain 20% of the newbies that come in. But often fall WAY short of that. Anything higher is simply unrealistic. How did you Veterans start?
Iain Cariaba 3227	Posted - 2016.11.03 03:17:38 - [58] - Quote Gou Litvyak wrote: Since you were also there and didnt understand anything at all, let me put it to you simply. Ganking newbies makes the majority of them quit, the few who dont quit stay because the content is meaningful. A ship is a ship, when you lose it its lost. It sets a value on their assets unlike meaningless items in other games. That is why the handful of ganked newbies stay. That is what was presented on fanfest, when you gank a newbie that player will nearly always be confused, find out he/she lost the ship, be angry, quit and uninstall to never come back. The few who dont, dedicate to EVE. You can glorify ganking all you want, that doesnt change what was said, it just changes what you think was said that day. I'd highly suggest you go watch that again, as you got it wrong. Just to clarify, though, I went and looked up the conclusion slide from that presentation. Focus your attention on the last line. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. I couldn't have said it better. Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
ShahFluffers Ice Fire Warriors Escalating Entropy 10814	Posted - 2016.11.03 04:05:29 - [59] - Quote Iain Cariaba wrote: I'd highly suggest you go watch that again, as you got it wrong. Just to clarify, though, I went and looked up the conclusion slide from that presentation. Focus your attention on the last line. I'll do one better and link the actual clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A92Ge2S8M1Y&feature=youtu.be&t=1m29s And for those of you leery of long videos; you only need to watch about 5 minutes of the clip from 1:29. Not the whole thing. How did you Veterans start?
Petrified Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 426	Posted - 2016.11.03 04:46:29 - [60] - Quote So... for a fee, effectively remove CONCORD for everyone but the holder. Nix any thought of that being available to an Alpha clone. Seriously... they want the full Monty, they can pay for it. In the end, however, you might as well ask that CCP remove CONCORD completely. Lets be fair and egalitarian here. Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5463	Posted - 2016.11.03 04:54:46 - [61] - Quote ShahFluffers wrote: To be honest... the DEVs could have (and should have) gone much further. The time window they gave was too short (something like 2 months would have been better) and they should have produced some actual numbers regarding retention... But now that I think about it... newbie retention numbers for any MMO will drive any laymen up the wall. If I recall correctly from a DEV (at another company) that I spoke to... MMOs aim to retain 20% of the newbies that come in. But often fall WAY short of that. Anything higher is simply unrealistic. Yes, this was not a comprehensive analysis of ganking and its effects on players. But something like this could be expanded. I would have liked to see how the determined retention rates. Was it an average? What about other summary statistics, and what about interval estimates. If the interval estimates for player retention between the ganked and the never killed contain the point estimate of the two groups well...then the point estimates are indistinguishable. Another take away, is that it isn't just ganking, but more likely player interaction. I would not be surprised that players who join player run corporations and alliances do better too in terms of staying with the game. "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
John Yatolile Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 4	Posted - 2016.11.03 17:28:42 - [62] - Quote Gou Litvyak wrote: Noragen Neirfallas wrote: PS CCP collected statistics given at fanfest about player retention would be a good place to start your search. Yeah that is leaving out the fact that the ganking/griefing caused more players to leave initially, but the few who stayed stayed longer(which was the point). In the end it hurts player retention on the big scale. Good riddence Also ganking in newbro systems is bannable if I remember, but carebears need their Jita As long as you have a brain, you shouldn't be murdered as a newbro in the current state of the game Don't afk mine, don't autopilot, don't move expensive stuff (that newbros without brains shouldn't have anyway) easy If they get in a wardec then whatever corp they joined should have briefed them already Stupid is not a treatable disease in any way other than erradication
Corraidhin Farsaidh Farsaidh's Freeborn Singularity Syndicate 2095	Posted - 2016.11.03 18:00:46 - [63] - Quote OK, thanks for the replies folks. Looks to me like ganking isn't in a bad place necessarily right now, but this may be indicative that they should investigate how to retain more of the people who don't want to PvP, alongside how to entice them into trying it in some form.
Morgan Agrivar Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 633	Posted - 2016.11.04 00:17:15 - [64] - Quote Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: OK, thanks for the replies folks. Looks to me like ganking isn't in a bad place necessarily right now, but this may be indicative that they should investigate how to retain more of the people who don't want to PvP, alongside how to entice them into trying it in some form. Unfortunately, this is a PvP game. People are going to encounter PvP whether they like it or not. What needs to be done with newbies is getting them ready for it. If they know it is a PvP game, then they can learn to protect themselves. The newbies who join a player run corporation is the responsibility of the CEO, which most likely is a newbie themselves with a couple of months of experience, thinking they know the game. A wardec occurs and they have no clue what to do. I got so many newbie kills when I did highsec wardecs it wasn't even funny. They had no clue what was going on because the CEO and all of the directors were newbs themselves and had no clue. I still stand by the statement that most highsec corporations are badly run and the newbies are better off not being in them at all. They learn the game the wrong way and get bad habits that are hard to break, and believe me I tried to help some of these corps learn how to protect themselves...only for them to ignore me and go do their own thing...and fail badly. Now, in regards to CCP, 85.5% of new players under 15 days old don't experience PvP at all. Only 1% of them get ganked, which in the grand sense of Eve Online is actually small. Newbies dying isn't really an issue in regards to retention. I think it is more the lack of gameplay. I think they need to put in a few more missions and maybe make them more interactive. I think they definately need to make mining more interactive to deter afk mining that is prevalent in the game. I think they need to fix locater agents so mercs can go back to focused wardecs and let blanket wardecs drop. This could be a start... YC 117 New Eden Capsuleer's Writing Contest Submission - "Heartache"
Corraidhin Farsaidh Farsaidh's Freeborn Singularity Syndicate 2095	Posted - 2016.11.04 03:34:46 - [65] - Quote Morgan Agrivar wrote: ... Now, in regards to CCP, 85.5% of new players under 15 days old don't experience PvP at all. Only 1% of them get ganked, which in the grand sense of Eve Online is actually small. Newbies dying isn't really an issue in regards to retention. I think it is more the lack of gameplay... If only 1% are ganked then you can not use ganking as a reason why < 15 day old characters choose to quit or choose to stay. If it's that low a % then it's effectively a non-issue. I agree that the NPE should address wars and ganking in some way, and that a corp CEO is responsible for teaching new players how to PvP, mitigate risks or outright avoid combat if need be. All the tools are there already and some of the best adrenaline rushes I had early on were crashing lo-sec gatecamps in a stabbeb nereus whilst fetching PI. In terms of mining the current system should be left as is. I'd still like to see comet mining anomolys though for active mining options.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5468	Posted - 2016.11.04 08:09:21 - [66] - Quote Morgan Agrivar wrote: Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: OK, thanks for the replies folks. Looks to me like ganking isn't in a bad place necessarily right now, but this may be indicative that they should investigate how to retain more of the people who don't want to PvP, alongside how to entice them into trying it in some form. Unfortunately, this is a PvP game. People are going to encounter PvP whether they like it or not. What needs to be done with newbies is getting them ready for it. If they know it is a PvP game, then they can learn to protect themselves. The newbies who join a player run corporation is the responsibility of the CEO, which most likely is a newbie themselves with a couple of months of experience, thinking they know the game. A wardec occurs and they have no clue what to do. I got so many newbie kills when I did highsec wardecs it wasn't even funny. They had no clue what was going on because the CEO and all of the directors were newbs themselves and had no clue. I still stand by the statement that most highsec corporations are badly run and the newbies are better off not being in them at all. They learn the game the wrong way and get bad habits that are hard to break, and believe me I tried to help some of these corps learn how to protect themselves...only for them to ignore me and go do their own thing...and fail badly. Now, in regards to CCP, 85.5% of new players under 15 days old don't experience PvP at all. Only 1% of them get ganked, which in the grand sense of Eve Online is actually small. Newbies dying isn't really an issue in regards to retention. I think it is more the lack of gameplay. I think they need to put in a few more missions and maybe make them more interactive. I think they definately need to make mining more interactive to deter afk mining that is prevalent in the game. I think they need to fix locater agents so mercs can go back to focused wardecs and let blanket wardecs drop. This could be a start... I would say that the key to players staing in game longer is player interaction. Logging in and interacting with just NPCs is not going to be fun for very long for most people. And PvP is one form of interaction. Why ganked players stay the longest? No idea. Maybe after being ganked there is quite a bit of latitude on what you can do in game and they can pursue directions they did not think were possible....IDK, I'm just babbling. But more player interaction strikes me as the way to secure the future for the game. "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
Morgan Agrivar Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 637	Posted - 2016.11.04 13:23:51 - [67] - Quote Well Teckos, I can see where you are coming from but usually positive player interaction is what keeps people together. The problem is how quickly that devolves when mistrust is one of the cornerstones of this game. Paranoia is another. This is a game where just joining a corporation involves background checks more stringent than the FBI does. Mistrust and greed fuel the dissolution of alliances, just for some game currency that has no real value outside of it. Scams take place on a daily basis with no thought of consequence for the victim. This game is a HTFU game, with little to no empathy for those who have just discovered it. As I have said before in another thread, alpha clones will mostly be alts of returning or veteran players and I doubt we will actually see more new players coming into this game. When someone asks me about Eve Online, the first thing that comes out of my mouth is 'Eve Online is not for everyone', and I stand by that. I love this game because it is so harsh. It is that unforgiving. People come into these forums and complain about it and we just laugh at them, since I guess it was much harder and harsher way back when. I have only played for a bit over three years and I have seen it become much easier to not interact with others and wish to be left alone and much, much harder to create content in order to 'enrich' the experience of others. I also laugh when I see the forum posts of 'Eve is dying'. It is not dying, it is just stagnant right now. And a privateering license will not correct that. YC 117 New Eden Capsuleer's Writing Contest Submission - "Heartache"
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5468	Posted - 2016.11.04 19:33:00 - [68] - Quote Morgan Agrivar wrote: I have only played for a bit over three years and I have seen it become much easier to not interact with others and wish to be left alone and much, much harder to create content in order to 'enrich' the experience of others. I think that might be the key. Not that Eve should be impossible for solo, but that CCP should be looking to encourage more interaction. Problem is it is easy to say that vs. doing it. The whole idea of Sov is to get people to interact. You need to cooperate to take/hold sov, and you need to not cooperate to have warfare. People complained about the old systems (using POS, then sov structures, and now Fozzie sov). Which one was best? IDK, but if we looked at the Eve Offline numbers....I'd say the POS sov system. Of course, that is not the best metric...so maybe not. "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


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.