Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Steffles
University of Caille Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 16:03:06 -
[361] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Steffles wrote:Galaxy Duck wrote:Tristan Valentina wrote: I would like to see more teaching about the weaknesses of highsec. It is advertised as very safe it really is not. Could you point me toward any of these advertisements? I hear that a lot "Highsec is advertised as safe" but never have I ever seen an advertisement for EVE to the effect of "Come try EVE, we have a totally safe area of the game where no one will ever bother you!" Seriously, can you cite any examples of this deceptive advertisement? Here you go. From the Horses MouthOriginal ThreadFrom the guy who was in charge of creating and growing EvE from the 1000 players it had when I started EVE Online to the 10's of thousands it had later. This is the way it was while it was gaining massive numbers of new players, why people joined up, and stayed, this is the way it was designed to be from the very beginning and this is the way it needs to go back to so that the numbers will start going up again. Very likely not going to happen but only because it looks very much like there is no one in charge that knows what they're doing. Well, regarding the Dev Post quite safe is not the same as completely safe. And if you read the post he is responding too it is quite clear CCP has made mechanics changes to make the game safe.
Quote:High security empire space is supposed to be quite safe. If you want piracy, go into areas where it is supported and encouraged, areas that are 0.4 and less. Don't complain that you can't pirate easily in 0.6, you aren't supposed to do it easily. That's the whole point of high security. Clearly what's he's saying, and he was the lead dev from its inception, is it was designed to be safe. It was not supposed to be easy to kill people in high sec. If you wanted to be hard to do. High sec piracy was not encouraged or supported by CCP.
Crucially he finishes with" That's the WHOLE point of high sec", my emphasis, as in it was designed NOT to be dangerous.
Makes the idiots that constantly spout BS about EVE always being as toxic as it is now and that the system we have now was designed from the start to be this way look like spaz's. As they are.
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
3043
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 16:32:24 -
[362] - Quote
pajedas wrote:And that my friends, is wrong thinking. More New Player Retention = Increased Revenues = Better Gaming Development. And whoever says that getting ganked right out of the gate is more likely to retain a new player is full of $hit. Well it is indeed a fact that people who get ganked in their first 15 days are more likely to subscribe. Here is a video where CCP talks about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A92Ge2S8M1Y
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5471
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 18:55:53 -
[363] - Quote
Steffles wrote: Clearly what's he's saying, and he was the lead dev from its inception, is it was designed to be safe. It was not supposed to be easy to kill people in high sec. If you wanted to be hard to do. High sec piracy was not encouraged or supported by CCP.
Crucially he finishes with" That's the WHOLE point of high sec", my emphasis, as in it was designed NOT to be dangerous.
Makes the idiots that constantly spout BS about EVE always being as toxic as it is now and that the system we have now was designed from the start to be this way look like spaz's. As they are.
And he considered it quite safe...safe when you could tank CONCORD. Safe when players (enough of them) could kill CONCORD (at least I have seen claims to that effect). Gate guns would not fire on you unless you engaged in aggression in range of said guns. And over time CONCORD has gotten stronger (they are now invincible, in effect) respond faster, and look at what has to be done to kill people in HS, you have to work in sizable groups or incur fairly substantial ISK losses. And the removal of insurance when killed by CONCORD has made ganking more costly. The changes to watch lists and war dec mechanics have made war decs hilariously easy to avoid.
And these things are basically relative. No section of the game has ever been designed to be totally safe. HS is the safest and it clearly is. The vast majority of players in HS do their stuff and do not get ganked. And if you take some moderate precautions your chances of getting ganked are going to be even less.
What people are complaining about are things that are easily seen. A big fat freighter getting ganked (because the player was imprudent). What we don't see are all the freighters going through Uedama and not being harassed. Everyone is talking only about what is seen and ignoring completely what is unseen. This is a flawed form of thinking. It was pointed out around 150 years ago by Frederic Bastiat. His point was basically the concept of opportunity cost. Everyone here gets that, but then they fail to get a similar concept when discussing ganking. All they do is look at the ganks and then whine because "there is not enough risk for the gankers" ignoring the fact that the ganked made choices (horribly bad ones) that in large part lead to them being ganked.
So, everyone who complains about ganking should log in and get in a ship and go sit in Uedama, say the Sivala gate, and watch how many freighters go through, then go look at zkill and see how many got ganked in the same period of time.
"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
5471
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 19:02:50 -
[364] - Quote
pajedas wrote:Let's break this down, shall we?
High: rising or extending upward a great distance
Security: the state of being protected or safe from harm
So, "High Secuity" translates to "safe", no matter how stupid you are.
Being "safe" does not mean absolutely safe. If you are stupid in the game you will, with high probability, get shot.
Further, we have 3 "areas" of the game in terms of safety. NS, LS, and HS (with w-space being a subset of NS for the purposes of this post). We can rank them in terms of safety as well, at least in terms of repercussions for acts of aggression.
HS > LS > NS.
Look, a "rising" level of safety. So the name HS is indeed reasonable and appropriate.
Now if we want to try and measure safety in some fashion we can't just look at ISK value destroyed, but ISK value destroyed relative to some other number. How many people are in HS vs. say NS or LS? If the number of HS dwellers is 2x NS and the ISK value destroyed is approximately the same, then I would say that on a per player/pilot basis HS has less ISK value destroyed and is indeed safer.
"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
|
Raca Pyrrea
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 20:17:07 -
[365] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:pajedas wrote:And that my friends, is wrong thinking. More New Player Retention = Increased Revenues = Better Gaming Development. And whoever says that getting ganked right out of the gate is more likely to retain a new player is full of $hit. Well it is indeed a fact that people who get ganked in their first 15 days are more likely to subscribe. Here is a video where CCP talks about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A92Ge2S8M1Y
Well without defining what "more likely" means and if it reaches statistical significance levels, it makes it only an inaccurate observation. CCP at ~1:44 says it too, that they only got limited ability to analyze this data |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
3044
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 21:32:46 -
[366] - Quote
Raca Pyrrea wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:pajedas wrote:And that my friends, is wrong thinking. More New Player Retention = Increased Revenues = Better Gaming Development. And whoever says that getting ganked right out of the gate is more likely to retain a new player is full of $hit. Well it is indeed a fact that people who get ganked in their first 15 days are more likely to subscribe. Here is a video where CCP talks about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A92Ge2S8M1Y Well without defining what "more likely" means and if it reaches statistical significance levels, it makes it only an inaccurate observation. CCP at ~1:44 says it too, that they only got limited ability to analyze this data I guess for some people it must be a serious challenge to understand what "more likely" means yes. Also even an inaccurate observation is better than no observation at all and an uninformed opinion based on a gut feeling.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5471
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 22:10:59 -
[367] - Quote
Raca Pyrrea wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:pajedas wrote:And that my friends, is wrong thinking. More New Player Retention = Increased Revenues = Better Gaming Development. And whoever says that getting ganked right out of the gate is more likely to retain a new player is full of $hit. Well it is indeed a fact that people who get ganked in their first 15 days are more likely to subscribe. Here is a video where CCP talks about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A92Ge2S8M1Y Well without defining what "more likely" means and if it reaches statistical significance levels, it makes it only an inaccurate observation. CCP at ~1:44 says it too, that they only got limited ability to analyze this data
No, not quite correct.
Okay, what his your hypothesis: That ganked newbies quit sooner. [strike]at a higher rate than players not ganked[/strike].
At the very least this tells us that we cannot reject the null hypothesis (that there is no difference between ganked and non-ganked newbies).
Think of it this way, suppose the confidence interval for ganked and non-ganked is (12,38) and (20,50) where the values are days. And that the mean values are 20 and 35. Clearly the means are not statistically significant in terms of their difference. The mean value for ganked players days is 35 which is inside the interval for non-ganked players. In this case, we fail to reject the null hypothesis and thus we do find support for the alternate hypothesis. Even if the confidence interval for ganked players were wider it would not help in that we'd still fail to reject the null. Because the mean value for the non-ganked players would be inside it.
Logically, the results from that presentation should quite clearly weaken your belief/support for the hypothesis that ganking new players leads to them quitting sooner than if they were not ganked. At worst it has no effect, at best a beneficial effect.
"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
|
Raca Pyrrea
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 22:21:07 -
[368] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote: Also even an inaccurate observation is better than no observation at all and an uninformed opinion based on a gut feeling.
neither is better if you want to interpret the observation, its only better though when you want to misinterpret it to further your agenda.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5471
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 22:23:00 -
[369] - Quote
Raca Pyrrea wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote: Also even an inaccurate observation is better than no observation at all and an uninformed opinion based on a gut feeling.
neither is better if you want to interpret the observation, its only better though when you want to misinterpret it to further your agenda.
Which you failed to do, IMO. Worst case interpretation ganking players in their first 15 days has no effect.
"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
|
pajedas
Special Activities Division
343
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 22:27:09 -
[370] - Quote
CCP skewed the results to fit their agenda. You can't convince me that they took the time to go through 160,000 kill mails one by one. They're always talking about how limited and valuable their time is.
You guys can think whatever you want.
I know that I'm right.
=ƒΙη To all the gankers out there...
=ƒΙη
|
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
71
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 22:39:12 -
[371] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Raca Pyrrea wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:pajedas wrote:And that my friends, is wrong thinking. More New Player Retention = Increased Revenues = Better Gaming Development. And whoever says that getting ganked right out of the gate is more likely to retain a new player is full of $hit. Well it is indeed a fact that people who get ganked in their first 15 days are more likely to subscribe. Here is a video where CCP talks about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A92Ge2S8M1Y Well without defining what "more likely" means and if it reaches statistical significance levels, it makes it only an inaccurate observation. CCP at ~1:44 says it too, that they only got limited ability to analyze this data I guess for some people it must be a serious challenge to understand what "more likely" means yes. Also even an inaccurate observation is better than no observation at all and an uninformed opinion based on a gut feeling. While I actually agree that CCP probably got it right in relation to ganking in the first 15 days and retention rates.
The statement "Also even an inaccurate observation is better than no observation at all and an uninformed opinion based on a gut feeling." is a complete pile of crap. Take the cold fusion experiments of the late 1980s. They received an inaccurate observation, that they had achieved cold fusion. Everyone's gut feeling was that this was wrong.
It turned out the equipment was malfunctioning. So NO an inaccurate observation is by its definition WRONG, while a gut feeling may be right. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5471
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 22:48:44 -
[372] - Quote
pajedas wrote:CCP skewed the results to fit their agenda. You can't convince me that they took the time to go through 160,000 kill mails one by one. They're always talking about how limited and valuable their time is. You guys can think whatever you want. I know that I'm right.
You use a computer program to do that. I prefer SAS as it is particularly good with large datasets.
I know, I go through over 60 million customer bills where I work for some of my simulations.
Edit:
You could use the players start date + 15 and sift through the data in terms of kills.
Where do you think zkill gets their data? From CCP.
"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
5471
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 23:24:39 -
[373] - Quote
Mark Marconi wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote: I guess for some people it must be a serious challenge to understand what "more likely" means yes. Also even an inaccurate observation is better than no observation at all and an uninformed opinion based on a gut feeling.
While I actually agree that CCP probably got it right in relation to ganking in the first 15 days and retention rates. The statement "Also even an inaccurate observation is better than no observation at all and an uninformed opinion based on a gut feeling." is a complete pile of crap. Take the cold fusion experiments of the late 1980s. They received an inaccurate observation, that they had achieved cold fusion. Everyone's gut feeling was that this was wrong. It turned out the equipment was malfunctioning. So NO an inaccurate observation is by its definition WRONG, while a gut feeling may be right.
Well, I'll go with John Tukey,
Quote:Far better an approximate answer to the right question, which is often vague, than an exact answer to the wrong question, which can always be made precise.--The future of data analysis. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 33 (1), (1962), page 13.
"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
|
Raca Pyrrea
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2016.11.05 23:39:23 -
[374] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Raca Pyrrea wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote: Also even an inaccurate observation is better than no observation at all and an uninformed opinion based on a gut feeling.
neither is better if you want to interpret the observation, its only better though when you want to misinterpret it to further your agenda. Which you failed to do, IMO. Worst case interpretation ganking players in their first 15 days has no effect.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5471
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 00:20:20 -
[375] - Quote
Raca Pyrrea wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:
Which you failed to do, IMO. Worst case interpretation ganking players in their first 15 days has no effect.
didnt even try to do. you cant compare between trials that logged didnt like the interface dint even undock and quit and those that made it to another system to get ganked.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
72
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 00:42:19 -
[376] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Well, I'll go with John Tukey, Quote:Far better an approximate answer to the right question, which is often vague, than an exact answer to the wrong question, which can always be made precise.--The future of data analysis. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 33 (1), (1962), page 13. Very true.
However an approximate answer is not an inaccurate answer. |
Steffles
University of Caille Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 01:21:32 -
[377] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Steffles wrote: Clearly what's he's saying, and he was the lead dev from its inception, is it was designed to be safe. It was not supposed to be easy to kill people in high sec. If you wanted to be hard to do. High sec piracy was not encouraged or supported by CCP.
Crucially he finishes with" That's the WHOLE point of high sec", my emphasis, as in it was designed NOT to be dangerous.
Makes the idiots that constantly spout BS about EVE always being as toxic as it is now and that the system we have now was designed from the start to be this way look like spaz's. As they are.
And he considered it quite safe...safe when you could tank CONCORD. Safe when players (enough of them) could kill CONCORD (at least I have seen claims to that effect). Gate guns would not fire on you unless you engaged in aggression in range of said guns. And over time CONCORD has gotten stronger (they are now invincible, in effect) respond faster, and look at what has to be done to kill people in HS, you have to work in sizable groups or incur fairly substantial ISK losses. And the removal of insurance when killed by CONCORD has made ganking more costly. The changes to watch lists and war dec mechanics have made war decs hilariously easy to avoid. And these things are basically relative. No section of the game has ever been designed to be totally safe. HS is the safest and it clearly is. The vast majority of players in HS do their stuff and do not get ganked. And if you take some moderate precautions your chances of getting ganked are going to be even less. What people are complaining about are things that are easily seen. A big fat freighter getting ganked (because the player was imprudent). What we don't see are all the freighters going through Uedama and not being harassed. Everyone is talking only about what is seen and ignoring completely what is unseen. This is a flawed form of thinking. It was pointed out around 150 years ago by Frederic Bastiat. His point was basically the concept of opportunity cost. Everyone here gets that, but then they fail to get a similar concept when discussing ganking. All they do is look at the ganks and then whine because "there is not enough risk for the gankers" ignoring the fact that the ganked made choices (horribly bad ones) that in large part lead to them being ganked. So, everyone who complains about ganking should log in and get in a ship and go sit in Uedama, say the Sivala gate, and watch how many freighters go through, then go look at zkill and see how many got ganked in the same period of time. Killing people in high sec has never been easier. Highsec is not safe, its extremely dangerous. I've lived in all areas of the game and by far the most dangerous is high sec.
As for freighters if someone wants to kill you you are dead. No amount of tank, inertial stabs, scouting, planning, webbing alt will help you because you cannot warp out when your scrammed or pointed and they don't align fast enough to avoid being locked and scrammed. After that its bump and gank till your dead.
To put it in perspective, the drop in required isk to gank a freighter is enormous, it used to be 30 or more battleships now its 30ish cats, or 7 stealth bombers. Very very cheap.
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
Violet Crumble
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
798
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 01:51:17 -
[378] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Killing people in high sec has never been easier. Highsec is not safe, its extremely dangerous. I've lived in all areas of the game and by far the most dangerous is high sec.
As for freighters if someone wants to kill you you are dead. No amount of tank, inertial stabs, scouting, planning, webbing alt will help you because you cannot warp out when your scrammed or pointed and they don't align fast enough to avoid being locked and scrammed. After that its bump and gank till your dead.
To put it in perspective, the drop in required isk to gank a freighter is enormous, it used to be 30 or more battleships now its 30ish cats, or 7 stealth bombers. Very very cheap. Where do you get this from? Highsec is extremely dangerous? You can't be serious.
As a industrialist/hauler who works in all areas of space, this doesn't in any way match the experience I have had in the last 3 years.
Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime
|
Avaelica Kuershin
Signal Cartel
291
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 02:13:12 -
[379] - Quote
Violet Crumble wrote:Steffles wrote:Killing people in high sec has never been easier. Highsec is not safe, its extremely dangerous. I've lived in all areas of the game and by far the most dangerous is high sec.
As for freighters if someone wants to kill you you are dead. No amount of tank, inertial stabs, scouting, planning, webbing alt will help you because you cannot warp out when your scrammed or pointed and they don't align fast enough to avoid being locked and scrammed. After that its bump and gank till your dead.
To put it in perspective, the drop in required isk to gank a freighter is enormous, it used to be 30 or more battleships now its 30ish cats, or 7 stealth bombers. Very very cheap. Where do you get this from? Highsec is extremely dangerous? You can't be serious. As a industrialist/miner/hauler who works in all areas of space, this doesn't in any way match the experience I have had in the last 3 years. So I would be great if you outline specific details and numbers that show this, because it's easy to show that it's not true.
What we are dealing with are anecdotes. Some here use one set of stories about how dangerous HS is, others here (myself included) have other stories about how safe HS is*. (Not that I'll go to Jita any time soon)
What CCP is dealing with is data. And it's quite clear from the monthly reports, just how much data.
*apart from camps and bubbles, most places are fairly safe if you're careful.
|
Steffles
University of Caille Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 02:13:53 -
[380] - Quote
Violet Crumble wrote:Steffles wrote:Killing people in high sec has never been easier. Highsec is not safe, its extremely dangerous. I've lived in all areas of the game and by far the most dangerous is high sec.
As for freighters if someone wants to kill you you are dead. No amount of tank, inertial stabs, scouting, planning, webbing alt will help you because you cannot warp out when your scrammed or pointed and they don't align fast enough to avoid being locked and scrammed. After that its bump and gank till your dead.
To put it in perspective, the drop in required isk to gank a freighter is enormous, it used to be 30 or more battleships now its 30ish cats, or 7 stealth bombers. Very very cheap. Where do you get this from? Highsec is extremely dangerous? You can't be serious. As a industrialist/miner/hauler who works in all areas of space, this doesn't in any way match the experience I have had in the last 3 years. So I would be great if you outline specific details and numbers that show this, because it's easy to show that it's not true. Its quite simple.
Living in what is arguably the most active pvp system in EVE (7rm-n0) I can tell immediately if there is a threat (nuetral) in system. I have 100+ people who will be in warp to me within seconds. The most dangerous part about warping to the threat is whether or not Ill be in time to kill the ganker before he's finished off by the defense fleet. You have a alliance wide network of eyes watching and warning is usually given when fleets or gangs are multiple systems away.
In less active system or bubble fekked dead ends you would be likely to see a nuetral once a day or not at all. You can afk rat or mine to your hearts content.
There are no war decs, no code dweebs, no insta-popping destroyers on your undock, no nuetral reppers, very few links alts and if there are you can easily probe those down with a good prober.
In high sec there is no warning if you are attacked. You cannot tell a hostile nuetral (ganker) from a non-hostile. There is no defense fleet. No alliance wide network of eyes. Neutral reppers are to be expected. Any smart true carebear is not in highsec, they are in null and this is the reason for that.
Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
|
|
Violet Crumble
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
798
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 02:29:17 -
[381] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Violet Crumble wrote:Steffles wrote:Killing people in high sec has never been easier. Highsec is not safe, its extremely dangerous. I've lived in all areas of the game and by far the most dangerous is high sec.
As for freighters if someone wants to kill you you are dead. No amount of tank, inertial stabs, scouting, planning, webbing alt will help you because you cannot warp out when your scrammed or pointed and they don't align fast enough to avoid being locked and scrammed. After that its bump and gank till your dead.
To put it in perspective, the drop in required isk to gank a freighter is enormous, it used to be 30 or more battleships now its 30ish cats, or 7 stealth bombers. Very very cheap. Where do you get this from? Highsec is extremely dangerous? You can't be serious. As a industrialist/miner/hauler who works in all areas of space, this doesn't in any way match the experience I have had in the last 3 years. So I would be great if you outline specific details and numbers that show this, because it's easy to show that it's not true. Its quite simple. Living in what is arguably the most active pvp system in EVE (7rm-n0) I can tell immediately if there is a threat (nuetral) in system. I have 100+ people who will be in warp to me within seconds. The most dangerous part about warping to the threat is whether or not Ill be in time to kill the ganker before he's finished off by the defense fleet. You have a alliance wide network of eyes watching and warning is usually given when fleets or gangs are multiple systems away. In less active system or bubble fekked dead ends you would be likely to see a nuetral once a day or not at all. You can afk rat or mine to your hearts content. There are no war decs, no code dweebs, no insta-popping destroyers on your undock, no nuetral reppers, very few links alts and if there are you can easily probe those down with a good prober. In high sec there is no warning if you are attacked. You cannot tell a hostile nuetral (ganker) from a non-hostile. There is no defense fleet. No alliance wide network of eyes. Neutral reppers are to be expected. Any smart true carebear is not in highsec, they are in null and this is the reason for that. Wardecs are not required in lowsec or null because everyone just shoots everyone in the face anyway.
Everything you wrote there about nullsec was either focussed on killing someone else, or preventing someone from killing you. Bubble wrapping gates is only needed because of the level of risk if they aren't wrapped.
I bet you watch local constantly, watch intel channels and have support available to assist if needed when in null.
In highsec, systems can be full of neutrals and not a single shot gets fired. You can fly straight gate to gate and most times don't even need to have local visible.
It's bonkers to think highsec is very dangerous.
At least you are right. It really is simple.
But if you really want to prove your point, jump in a freighter in highsec, set the destination to a random location in nullsec and then autopilot. After all, if you make it out of the very dangerous highsec, lowsec and nullsec should be all plane sailing for an autopiloting freighter.
Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime
|
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
142
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 02:40:10 -
[382] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Galaxy Duck wrote:Tristan Valentina wrote: I would like to see more teaching about the weaknesses of highsec. It is advertised as very safe it really is not. Could you point me toward any of these advertisements? I hear that a lot "Highsec is advertised as safe" but never have I ever seen an advertisement for EVE to the effect of "Come try EVE, we have a totally safe area of the game where no one will ever bother you!" Seriously, can you cite any examples of this deceptive advertisement? Here you go. From the Horses MouthOriginal ThreadFrom the guy who was in charge of creating and growing EvE from the 1000 players it had when I started EVE Online to the 10's of thousands it had later. This is the way it was while it was gaining massive numbers of new players, why people joined up, and stayed, this is the way it was designed to be from the very beginning and this is the way it needs to go back to so that the numbers will start going up again.
Yeah, that's an old forum thread.
I ask again: Can anyone point out an example of deceptive advertisement? |
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
142
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 02:47:43 -
[383] - Quote
pajedas wrote:CCP skewed the results to fit their agenda. You can't convince me that they took the time to go through 160,000 kill mails one by one. They're always talking about how limited and valuable their time is. You guys can think whatever you want. I know that I'm right.
Ah, yes. CPP secretly knows that gankers are the cause of their stagnant numbers and are hiding it because they want their business to fail! Ingenius! |
pajedas
Special Activities Division
343
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 02:54:58 -
[384] - Quote
Galaxy Duck wrote:pajedas wrote:CCP skewed the results to fit their agenda. You can't convince me that they took the time to go through 160,000 kill mails one by one. They're always talking about how limited and valuable their time is. You guys can think whatever you want. I know that I'm right. Ah, yes. CPP secretly knows that gankers are the cause of their stagnant numbers and are hiding it because they want their business to fail! Ingenius! Fact: Eve is failing. Fact: Management is at fault. Fact: Free is the bottom of the barrel.
But hey, as long as your little group is happy nothing else matters.
I started 2003.05.10 in 0.0.
Eve has gone from great to good to not so good.
They should definitely be taking advice from people that are too lazy to work for isk.
=ƒΙη To all the gankers out there...
=ƒΙη
|
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
143
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 03:04:08 -
[385] - Quote
pajedas wrote:Galaxy Duck wrote:pajedas wrote:CCP skewed the results to fit their agenda. You can't convince me that they took the time to go through 160,000 kill mails one by one. They're always talking about how limited and valuable their time is. You guys can think whatever you want. I know that I'm right. Ah, yes. CPP secretly knows that gankers are the cause of their stagnant numbers and are hiding it because they want their business to fail! Ingenius! Fact: Eve is failing. Fact: Management is at fault. Fact: Free is the bottom of the barrel. But hey, as long as your little group is happy nothing else matters. I started 2003.05.10 in 0.0. Eve has gone from great to good to not so good. They should definitely be taking advice from people that are too lazy to work for isk.
You're right, they should be taking advice from people who accuse them of being liars, or maybe the folks who think them too incompetent to do basic statistics!
Please continue to try and deflect from the fact that your logic is crap.
P.S. "working" for ISK if for carebears, and carebears are livestock. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5475
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 03:13:14 -
[386] - Quote
Steffles wrote:Violet Crumble wrote:Steffles wrote:Killing people in high sec has never been easier. Highsec is not safe, its extremely dangerous. I've lived in all areas of the game and by far the most dangerous is high sec.
As for freighters if someone wants to kill you you are dead. No amount of tank, inertial stabs, scouting, planning, webbing alt will help you because you cannot warp out when your scrammed or pointed and they don't align fast enough to avoid being locked and scrammed. After that its bump and gank till your dead.
To put it in perspective, the drop in required isk to gank a freighter is enormous, it used to be 30 or more battleships now its 30ish cats, or 7 stealth bombers. Very very cheap. Where do you get this from? Highsec is extremely dangerous? You can't be serious. As a industrialist/miner/hauler who works in all areas of space, this doesn't in any way match the experience I have had in the last 3 years. So I would be great if you outline specific details and numbers that show this, because it's easy to show that it's not true. Its quite simple. Living in what is arguably the most active pvp system in EVE (7rm-n0) I can tell immediately if there is a threat (nuetral) in system. I have 100+ people who will be in warp to me within seconds. The most dangerous part about warping to the threat is whether or not Ill be in time to kill the ganker before he's finished off by the defense fleet. You have a alliance wide network of eyes watching and warning is usually given when fleets or gangs are multiple systems away. In less active system or bubble fekked dead ends you would be likely to see a nuetral once a day or not at all. You can afk rat or mine to your hearts content. There are no war decs, no code dweebs, no insta-popping destroyers on your undock, no nuetral reppers, very few links alts and if there are you can easily probe those down with a good prober. In high sec there is no warning if you are attacked. You cannot tell a hostile nuetral (ganker) from a non-hostile. There is no defense fleet. No alliance wide network of eyes. Neutral reppers are to be expected. Any smart true carebear is not in highsec, they are in null and this is the reason for that.
In other words, NS is as safe as players make it. HS on the other is very safe irrespective of player effort (which is generally negligible).
Working as intended, IMO.
"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
|
pajedas
Special Activities Division
343
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 03:15:08 -
[387] - Quote
Lol. If you trust everyone you're more lost than I thought you were.
Running incomplete/partial data and pretending to have reached a conclusion. Rise had a hard time convincing himself, much less the audience that those numbers were accurate.
Ever heard of the tail wagging the dog?
Your signature sums it up, misspelling and all.
Thanks!
=ƒΙη To all the gankers out there...
=ƒΙη
|
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
143
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 03:37:26 -
[388] - Quote
Explain to everyone what would motivate CCP to lie about numbers pertinent to their bottom line. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5475
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 03:48:40 -
[389] - Quote
pajedas wrote:Lol. If you trust everyone you're more lost than I thought you were.
Running incomplete/partial data and pretending to have reached a conclusion. Rise had a hard time convincing himself, much less the audience that those numbers were accurate.
Ever heard of the tail wagging the dog?
Your signature sums it up, misspelling and all.
Thanks!
What? I never said trust everyone. And your saying the data used by CCP is incomplete or partial is based on nothing. I know the results are upsetting if you were of the belief that ganking new players made them quit in droves. But even if CCPs statistics are not statistically significant it means at worst ganking players less than 15 days old does not cause them to quit sooner, and it is quite possible it means exactly the opposite, they stay longer.
And I am not designing anything, so I'm not sure what you think my signature means, but it is a warning against hubris when trying to impose order on a system that is the product of spontaneous order and emergence, here is a longer quote,
Quote:The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. To the naive mind that can conceive of order only as the product of deliberate arrangement, it may seem absurd that in complex conditions order, and adaptation to the unknown, can be achieved more effectively by decentralizing decisions and that a division of authority will actually extend the possibility of overall order. Yet that decentralization actually leads to more information being taken into account.
It is a warning against the just so stories lots of people post here and in the features and ideas sub-forum.
If we do A it will lead to B, then C and finally D which will be awesome! That type of reasoning is, IMO flawed in that it fails to take into account the complexity of a process that is based on spontaneous order.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
72
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 05:37:49 -
[390] - Quote
Galaxy Duck wrote:
You're right, they should be taking advice from people who accuse them of being liars, or maybe the folks who think them too incompetent to do basic statistics!
Please continue to try and deflect from the fact that your logic is crap.
P.S. "working" for ISK if for carebears, and carebears are livestock.
The very fact that you consider a sample of 80,000 people to determine whether people actually stay longer or leave due to ganking a basic statistic, means you know nothing about statistics and should not really comment on it. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |