EVE Search - Alphas and F2P Have Failed

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Alphas and F2P Have Failed

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Infinity Ziona Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 2581	Posted - 2017.03.12 11:44:51 - [181] - Quote Keno Skir wrote: Infinity Ziona wrote: Keno Skir wrote: Infinity Ziona wrote: Compared to the past piracy in highsec is at its easiest.. Nope sorry mate i think that's incorrect. Just because ganking is in the limelight right now doesn't mean by any stretch hisec is more dangerous now than in the past. Can mechanics were changed to support new players and limit piracy, neutral logistics was nerfed with suspect timers, everyone got a nice green safety button to prevent them getting into fights and all the publicity surrounding ganking in recent days means anyone who still gets ganked is either extremely unlucky or acting foolishly. Piracy is catagorically harder in hisec now than it used to be and less common. It is in fact perfectly safe enough for the average hisec PvE player to grind away billions of ISK mostly hassle free. I don't see your point aside from "some people in hisec are still able to be pee vee pee'd without their consent" which is the point of the game Its not incorrect it is correct. Its never been easier to pirate anywhere in EvE as it currently is in High Security. Piracy in high sec has not been nerfed its been buffed. When Infinity Ziona was a young pilot around the end of 2003 she went to low sat on a gate and killed people until she was -9. She then had to join Stain Alliance and spend 3 weeks grinding sec before she could go back to high sec. If I did the same thing with her today I could be back in high the same day. That's only one aspect of the difficulty reduction. Other things like 2003 battleship DPS coming out of cheap frigs like cats and SB are also significant factors as are accelerated ISK faucets making easily replaceable suicide fleets possible. Ganking in high in the early years was not easy which is why you had corps like Zombie getting banned for exploiting grids to do what happens on a daily basis today in Niarja Udaema Those are both strangely ganking specific (although you made out it was a lowsec thing). I can only assume you really just hate ganking and are using "piracy" as an alias for ganking specifically. Infinity Ziona wrote: Spoken like a true noob This makes you sound like a total dweeb The point is clear - to lose sec status which is not ganking specific its 1.0 through 0.1 sec specific it was much much harder to recover. A session of high sec ganking would have meant weeks in null chaining rats in belts. We didn't have easy mode sec loss sec gain, no on tap anoms or incursions or tags to buy. Its not dweebiness its that I understand the difference between now and then. How many people who started EvE do you know minef their first battleship in a thorax. There have been huge changes in the game you're incapable of understanding them because you didn't experience them. I did so have a thorough understanding. CCP Fozzie GÇ£We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGÇª in null sec anomalies. GÇ£* Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Keno Skir 1369	Posted - 2017.03.12 11:54:48 - [182] - Quote Infinity Ziona wrote: The point is clear - to lose sec status which is not ganking specific its 1.0 through 0.1 sec specific it was much much harder to recover. A session of high sec ganking would have meant weeks in null chaining rats in belts. We didn't have easy mode sec loss sec gain, no on tap anoms or incursions or tags to buy. Its not dweebiness its that I understand the difference between now and then. How many people who started EvE do you know minef their first battleship in a thorax. There have been huge changes in the game you're incapable of understanding them because you didn't experience them. I did so have a thorough understanding. I've been around pretty much as long as you Ziona so don't try to lord it here. I thought we were talking about piracy, but this is just another tired re-hash of the old ganking crutch. Ganking isn't really a big deal anyway as long as you don't read carebear whine threads. The VAST majority of freighters just go about their business in peace. Your understanding is blinkered. EDIT : Yes calling someone a noob for disagreeing with you is Dweeby, Sad, Salty & Butt-Hurt regardless if you've been playing longer than them, and even if you know more than them. <Gùï> 250,000 Bonus SP when you start an Alpha Clone HERE <Gùï> <Gùï> Contact me regarding my trusted Alliance Creation Service <Gùï>
Rroff Antagonistic Tendencies 1053	Posted - 2017.03.12 11:58:43 - [183] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: HS is relatively safe. It is not safe if you want to be a complete idiot. It is relatively safe for someone like myself with 1000s of hours and multiple characters into the game - I rarely get ganked unless I get complacent or someone takes their time to study and target me specifically. For many new players though that isn't the case - many are easy prey and fed on by the bottom feeders - 4 out of 5 people that I've tried to get into the game and have quit have cited being ganked, usually more than once, before they could understand the game being the primary reason and that is after I've tried to guide them around the main pitfalls. Personally though I'm not a big fan of making highsec too safe I like the potential and challenges that it can bring.
Keno Skir 1369	Posted - 2017.03.12 12:02:29 - [184] - Quote Rroff wrote: 4 out of 5 people that I've tried to get into the game and have quit have cited being ganked, usually more than once, before they could understand the game being the primary reason and that is after I've tried to guide them around the main pitfalls. So did you tell them to fit a solid tank and not to carry more than X amount in cargo? If you did tell them and they still got ganked is that really "them not understanding the game" or is it them ignoring advice and losing as a result? Sounds like you should help these people out, that you get into the game. If you educate them they won't be bottom feeder food anymore.. <Gùï> 250,000 Bonus SP when you start an Alpha Clone HERE <Gùï> <Gùï> Contact me regarding my trusted Alliance Creation Service <Gùï>
Soel Reit Dambusters 617 Sq 510	Posted - 2017.03.12 12:07:53 - [185] - Quote Rroff wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: HS is relatively safe. It is not safe if you want to be a complete idiot. It is relatively safe for someone like myself with 1000s of hours and multiple characters into the game - I rarely get ganked unless I get complacent or someone takes their time to study and target me specifically. For many new players though that isn't the case - many are easy prey and fed on by the bottom feeders - 4 out of 5 people that I've tried to get into the game and have quit have cited being ganked, usually more than once, before they could understand the game being the primary reason and that is after I've tried to guide them around the main pitfalls. Personally though I'm not a big fan of making highsec too safe I like the potential and challenges that it can bring. what kind of people run away after being killed once? looooooool like for real? exist people that give up after 1 try?
Rroff Antagonistic Tendencies 1053	Posted - 2017.03.12 12:11:48 - [186] - Quote Keno Skir wrote: So did you tell them to fit a solid tank and not to carry more than X amount in cargo? If you did tell them and they still got ganked is that really "them not understanding the game" or is it them ignoring advice and losing as a result? Sounds like you should help these people out, that you get into the game. If you educate them they won't be bottom feeder food anymore.. Always - but people will always do their own thing - you can lead em to water but you can't make them drink. Soel Reit wrote: what kind of people run away after being killed once? looooooool like for real? exist people that give up after 1 try? Some do - sadly more than once people have decided to undock with PLEX despite me telling them multiple times not to do that ever - when they see a month's subscription (or more) go down the drain having only played for a couple of weeks they usually quit.
Nicolai Serkanner Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 628	Posted - 2017.03.12 12:12:13 - [187] - Quote Milla Goodpussy wrote: the alpha and f2p plan failed it should be just free to play all the way and for increased skill training sub.. also gankers should be banned permanently for griefing of any kind and afk cloaking. Go away, you're talking bull poo.
Soel Reit Dambusters 617 Sq 511	Posted - 2017.03.12 12:16:08 - [188] - Quote Rroff wrote: Keno Skir wrote: So did you tell them to fit a solid tank and not to carry more than X amount in cargo? If you did tell them and they still got ganked is that really "them not understanding the game" or is it them ignoring advice and losing as a result? Sounds like you should help these people out, that you get into the game. If you educate them they won't be bottom feeder food anymore.. Always - but people will always do their own thing - you can lead em to water but you can't make them drink. Soel Reit wrote: what kind of people run away after being killed once? looooooool like for real? exist people that give up after 1 try? Some do - sadly more than once people have decided to undock with PLEX despite me telling them multiple times not to do that ever - when they see a month's subscription (or more) go down the drain having only played for a couple of weeks they usually quit. clearly people not adapt at eve and its law: the jungle law... better that they've gone eve is not a mainstream game adapt for all and never will be
Rroff Antagonistic Tendencies 1053	Posted - 2017.03.12 12:27:52 - [189] - Quote Soel Reit wrote: clearly people not adapt at eve and its law: the jungle law... better that they've gone eve is not a mainstream game adapt for all and never will be True on the last bit but ultimately it does need enough active and paying customers to keep the game going and funding updates of future content, etc.
Keno Skir 1372	Posted - 2017.03.12 14:23:09 - [190] - Quote Rroff wrote: Soel Reit wrote: clearly people not adapt at eve and its law: the jungle law... better that they've gone eve is not a mainstream game adapt for all and never will be True on the last bit but ultimately it does need enough active and paying customers to keep the game going and funding updates of future content, etc. But only people who can accept the core elements, the rest are chaff and rightly so. <Gùï> 250,000 Bonus SP when you start an Alpha Clone HERE <Gùï> <Gùï> Contact me regarding my trusted Alliance Creation Service <Gùï>

March rabbit Mosquito squadron The-Culture 2093	Posted - 2017.03.12 15:32:22 - [191] - Quote Soel Reit wrote: piemmed you milla! am i the only one that laugh so much when i read in the patch notes: Relaxed the throttling on giving orders to Fighter Squadrons. This should result in less occurrences of busy squadrons during high APM usage. and start imagining HIGH APM USAGE in a battle of 3k people in 10% TiDi? are the devs trolling or at what kind of game are they playing atm instead of eve? Heh... here you not having any ideas about ratting in a supercarrier? I will answer: supercarrier does Haven in like 5-6 minutes. And this is like 6-8 waves of NPC. And for each NPC ship you need to select fighter and give it a command. Lots of clicks... And with this patch they add whole bunch of additional clickfest to it: now you will need to order additional command to fighters to orbit something while they are finishing current target. Else new spawn of NPC can wreck some of fighters before you even lock new target..... The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Soel Reit Dambusters 617 Sq 513	Posted - 2017.03.12 16:26:46 - [192] - Quote March rabbit wrote: Soel Reit wrote: piemmed you milla! am i the only one that laugh so much when i read in the patch notes: Relaxed the throttling on giving orders to Fighter Squadrons. This should result in less occurrences of busy squadrons during high APM usage. and start imagining HIGH APM USAGE in a battle of 3k people in 10% TiDi? are the devs trolling or at what kind of game are they playing atm instead of eve? Heh... here you not having any ideas about ratting in a supercarrier? I will answer: supercarrier does Haven in like 5-6 minutes. And this is like 6-8 waves of NPC. And for each NPC ship you need to select fighter and give it a command. Lots of clicks... And with this patch they add whole bunch of additional clickfest to it: now you will need to order additional command to fighters to orbit something while they are finishing current target. Else new spawn of NPC can wreck some of fighters before you even lock new target..... oh you mean the same people that are frequently on the kb with supers etc?? or even titans like that fcon dude?? ohhh i see
March rabbit Mosquito squadron The-Culture 2093	Posted - 2017.03.12 18:25:46 - [193] - Quote Soel Reit wrote: March rabbit wrote: Soel Reit wrote: piemmed you milla! am i the only one that laugh so much when i read in the patch notes: Relaxed the throttling on giving orders to Fighter Squadrons. This should result in less occurrences of busy squadrons during high APM usage. and start imagining HIGH APM USAGE in a battle of 3k people in 10% TiDi? are the devs trolling or at what kind of game are they playing atm instead of eve? Heh... here you not having any ideas about ratting in a supercarrier? I will answer: supercarrier does Haven in like 5-6 minutes. And this is like 6-8 waves of NPC. And for each NPC ship you need to select fighter and give it a command. Lots of clicks... And with this patch they add whole bunch of additional clickfest to it: now you will need to order additional command to fighters to orbit something while they are finishing current target. Else new spawn of NPC can wreck some of fighters before you even lock new target..... oh you mean the same people that are frequently on the kb with supers etc?? or even titans like that fcon dude?? ohhh i see hm? We were talking about CCP, fighters and high APM.... The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Arthur Aihaken CODE.d 6027	Posted - 2017.03.12 18:39:35 - [194] - Quote I thought we were talking about CCP and F2P... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Soel Reit Dambusters 617 Sq 517	Posted - 2017.03.12 18:53:18 - [195] - Quote i'm lost :/ someone can give me a HS k162 pls? xD
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 6157	Posted - 2017.03.12 19:02:16 - [196] - Quote Infinity Ziona wrote: Spoken like a true noob: I clearly described the major buffs. Reduction in sec loss, addition in sec gains from PvE, sec gaining items, the isk faucets of anoms, moons, incursions easily offsets tag prices, buffing of wrecks so they can't be popped. As stated already having to spend 3 weeks in null to grind up made ganking much much harder. That was the only way to raise it reliably and it was slow as ****. Your comments about catalysts not being able to do what megas can do demonstrates why I generally laugh at your posts. Any EvE veteran knows cats do old mega damage. Or do you think we were undocking back then in 2016 megathrons? Also the insurance changes mean jack - dessies / SB are so cheap you do same DPS and lose the fitting costs of a Battleship without having to insure the battleship :) Isn't one of your mantras that sec status means little to nothing? How can a change to a mechanic that means nothing be either a buff or nerf? Moons are not ISK sources. And so what that there are ISK sources like anoms, mission and incursions? Just because there is a source of ISK does not mean using tags is trivial. Basically unless those players utilizing those ISK sources are the same one buying tags this point makes no sense. It is like the follow: A: Bob has it easy. B: Why? A: Because Mary is rich! B: What does that have to do with Bob? A: You are such a noob if you can't see it! B: Mary doesn't even like Bob though... How much does it cost to fix one's sec status. How much to go from -10 to 0? You keep pointing to having to go to NS to fix your sec status. But all tags have done is make that time fungible. Instead of spending the time, the player has the option to spend the ISK. Further, perhaps you haven't noticed but most -5 and lower players have adapted to having such a sec status. Removing tags won't change that. Further, removing tags might bring forth new adaptations like Goons and their sec status safaris. And the insurance change means it costs more to gank--i.e. it is harder. Further, it increases risk on any given gank. With no insurance and an unkind loot fairy any given gank can be for a loss, particularly if you are ganking a ship with say everything in a single stack, a single expensive item, or even a double warped package. In other words, the downside to ganking was quite low in the old days. And I used to do the calculations to determine the cargo value I could carry and be somewhat sure I'd not get ganked. It was 0.8-1 billion...not unlike today. "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 6157	Posted - 2017.03.12 19:09:20 - [197] - Quote Rroff wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: HS is relatively safe. It is not safe if you want to be a complete idiot. It is relatively safe for someone like myself with 1000s of hours and multiple characters into the game - I rarely get ganked unless I get complacent or someone takes their time to study and target me specifically. For many new players though that isn't the case - many are easy prey and fed on by the bottom feeders - 4 out of 5 people that I've tried to get into the game and have quit have cited being ganked, usually more than once, before they could understand the game being the primary reason and that is after I've tried to guide them around the main pitfalls. Personally though I'm not a big fan of making highsec too safe I like the potential and challenges that it can bring. It is called learning by doing or trial-and-error. You make a mistake and learn from that mistake. It is a self-correcting process. If you take away that process people cannot learn. They cannot learn that prudence trumps imprudence. It is a good thing when you think about it for awhile. And for new players the analysis by CCP suggests that when they are killed they tend to stay longer and that it is quite rare, at least for suicide ganks. Might want to have a chat with your friends if they are getting repeatedly ganked while still new. If it is true, then they are doing something very imprudent...repeatedly. "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 6157	Posted - 2017.03.12 19:11:23 - [198] - Quote Rroff wrote: Keno Skir wrote: So did you tell them to fit a solid tank and not to carry more than X amount in cargo? If you did tell them and they still got ganked is that really "them not understanding the game" or is it them ignoring advice and losing as a result? Sounds like you should help these people out, that you get into the game. If you educate them they won't be bottom feeder food anymore.. Always - but people will always do their own thing - you can lead em to water but you can't make them drink. Exactly. If they are going to be idiots in HS and then get ganked for it and not learn from it, I fail to see how that is my problem and not their problem. "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
Ramiel Wayfarer 5	Posted - 2017.03.12 20:45:17 - [199] - Quote All good things come to a end eventually, Eve online being one of them unfortunately....I will be sad to see the game end but it just isn't the same anymore, The 20-30 friends i roamed with never log in anymore and im the only one left, Alot of the game mechanics changed and made the game worse in my opinion, I still pay my subs and log in occasionally to do my training but that is it, I hope CCP pull there finger out and save eve i really do. Fingers Crossed Rami
Rroff Antagonistic Tendencies 1054	Posted - 2017.03.12 21:30:40 - [200] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: It is called learning by doing or trial-and-error. You make a mistake and learn from that mistake. It is a self-correcting process. If you take away that process people cannot learn. They cannot learn that prudence trumps imprudence. It is a good thing when you think about it for awhile. And for new players the analysis by CCP suggests that when they are killed they tend to stay longer and that it is quite rare, at least for suicide ganks. Might want to have a chat with your friends if they are getting repeatedly ganked while still new. If it is true, then they are doing something very imprudent...repeatedly. I'm not suggesting taking away that process but there is certainly some improvements to the way it unfolds in the early part of the game if the name is player retention - ultimately the figures tell a story no matter what romanticised version of it CCP comes up with or philosophical bs some players come out with. I've offered a lot of advice and support but there is only so much you can do when someone is faced with both the steep learning curve of Eve and possibly negative interactions with other players - those that have persisted have tended to be the ones that haven't been ganked early on - in some cases that might be because they are smarter, quicker on the uptake or more persistent but in some cases its just luck and/or the path they happened to chose avoided it. Teckos Pech wrote: Exactly. If they are going to be idiots in HS and then get ganked for it and not learn from it, I fail to see how that is my problem and not their problem. Well ultimately it comes down to whether Eve can afford to lose those players who take a bit longer to get upto speed than others - ultimately the game is in a much better places the more active and the more invested into it is. I'm not really a fan of the attitude of who should and shouldn't play the game, maybe their involvement in some parts of the game.

marVLs 761	Posted - 2017.03.12 22:43:08 - [201] - Quote I think it's time for starting to develop EVE Second with completely new technology and todays standards but it needs to be very ambitious project (like Star Citizen)
Austin Blythe School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 6	Posted - 2017.03.13 00:43:56 - [202] - Quote Sitting Bull Lakota wrote: EvE players, clearly, don't want safety. They've been leaving and new players aren't coming in to replace them. It's not because the current generation coming into online games has too short of an attention span to get into it. EvE is marketed as the cold, dark dystopian game where choices matter and you're never safe once you undock. That has become more false over the last 10 years. Compared to 2007 EvE, this game is bland and safe. You think accounts logged in are at low to middle five figures because new players log in for the first time and think, "Hmm, this doesn't feel as dangerous as I thought it would"? Nope nope nope. It's because it's old and niche. It's because of the way you control your ship. It's because the UI is a hot mess of windows. It's because the EVE universe is basically a network of instanced desktop wallpapers that you can fly around in. It's because almost everything takes so damn long. It's because of everything that makes that infamous learning curve graph so true. I still enjoy it, most of the time. But the number of people who'll enjoy this game in today's market is adequately reflected in the PCU.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 6173	Posted - 2017.03.13 02:58:51 - [203] - Quote Rroff wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: It is called learning by doing or trial-and-error. You make a mistake and learn from that mistake. It is a self-correcting process. If you take away that process people cannot learn. They cannot learn that prudence trumps imprudence. It is a good thing when you think about it for awhile. And for new players the analysis by CCP suggests that when they are killed they tend to stay longer and that it is quite rare, at least for suicide ganks. Might want to have a chat with your friends if they are getting repeatedly ganked while still new. If it is true, then they are doing something very imprudent...repeatedly. I'm not suggesting taking away that process but there is certainly some improvements to the way it unfolds in the early part of the game if the name is player retention - ultimately the figures tell a story no matter what romanticised version of it CCP comes up with or philosophical bs some players come out with. I've offered a lot of advice and support but there is only so much you can do when someone is faced with both the steep learning curve of Eve and possibly negative interactions with other players - those that have persisted have tended to be the ones that haven't been ganked early on - in some cases that might be because they are smarter, quicker on the uptake or more persistent but in some cases its just luck and/or the path they happened to chose avoided it. Teckos Pech wrote: Exactly. If they are going to be idiots in HS and then get ganked for it and not learn from it, I fail to see how that is my problem and not their problem. Well ultimately it comes down to whether Eve can afford to lose those players who take a bit longer to get upto speed than others - ultimately the game is in a much better places the more active and the more invested into it is. I'm not really a fan of the attitude of who should and shouldn't play the game, maybe their involvement in some parts of the game. No you are wrong. First off, new players should not be out there booming around in freighters. If they are they are being very imprudent and foolish and that should not be rewarded. Second, again looking at the CCP presentation new players who are suicide ganked or even killed legally tend to stay longer. There could be a type of selection bias here, but the evidence does not show that shooting new players is bad for retention. Third trial-and-error only works when you let players make errors. Remove the ability to make errors, or reduce the costs of making errors and they either are not a method for learning or they stop being errors. And interactions with other players is what seems to keep people engaged with the game. Both negative and positive interactions. At least that is my view. Trying to limit negative interactions means you limit interactions and on an arbitrary basis and in a way that may end up rewarding players being imprudent and foolish. Once that kind of protection ends it will likely be bad. A player wondering why his foolishness was not costly and suddenly now is costly? Just make it costly from the beginning. As for keeping players, if you decide that keeping players at any and all costs is the route to go I think you'll end up being ******. Eventually many of the current players will quite. I'd quite. My guess is Daichi, Jonah, Jenn, Torin, Nana, Cade, Scipio, Shae, Linus and many others would quit. You might keep some new players, but a large portion of the long time paying customers would walk. If HS became "locked at safeties green" I'd have to seriously reconsider my financial support for the game. That is some salty nonsense, it is simply a statement of fact. I like playing a game where no matter where I go or what I do there is an element of danger. Take that away and my interest is largely gone. Or let me put it this way: the idea of making the game safer appears to be costing CCP many long term players. And it does not seem to be resulting in many new subs/players. In fact, the professional ganking groups that have arisen and the HS terrorists that are CODE. maybe be exacerbating the problem....but that is entirely the result of CCPs own blinkered policies. "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
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3904	Posted - 2017.03.13 02:59:39 - [204] - Quote Austin Blythe wrote: I still enjoy it, most of the time. But the number of people who'll enjoy this game in today's market is adequately reflected in the PCU. Or you know, it's because MMO's in general are far less popular, and EVE probably has a larger percent of the MMO market than it did five or ten years ago. MOBA's are massively taking over what used to be the MMO market area. It's nothing to do with the tech level of EVE (which is great). Also, everyone stop misquoting CCP. Ganking players does not make them stay longer. CCP noticed that players who stayed longer tended to be more likely to have had some kind of PvP yes, but correlation does not make for causation. End of the day socially engaging players is what makes them stay above any other factor.
mkint 1582	Posted - 2017.03.13 03:07:02 - [205] - Quote marVLs wrote: I think it's time for starting to develop EVE Second with completely new technology and todays standards but it needs to be very ambitious project (like Star Citizen) This has been a dumb idea since people have been saying it since the year EVE came out. What they need to do is what they have been doing. Gradually replacing, piece by piece, the parts of the game that are developmental dead ends. What's up with people who don't understand how online gaming works? They seem to think everything needs sequels. Sequels are never for the consumer, they are so studios can sell you the same thing all over again without having to do anything new for it. And then dumbasses go ahead and pre-order because they don't understand how digital distribution works. Maxim 6. If violence wasnGÇÖt your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
Infinity Ziona Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 2585	Posted - 2017.03.13 03:15:32 - [206] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Rroff wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: HS is relatively safe. It is not safe if you want to be a complete idiot. It is relatively safe for someone like myself with 1000s of hours and multiple characters into the game - I rarely get ganked unless I get complacent or someone takes their time to study and target me specifically. For many new players though that isn't the case - many are easy prey and fed on by the bottom feeders - 4 out of 5 people that I've tried to get into the game and have quit have cited being ganked, usually more than once, before they could understand the game being the primary reason and that is after I've tried to guide them around the main pitfalls. Personally though I'm not a big fan of making highsec too safe I like the potential and challenges that it can bring. It is called learning by doing or trial-and-error. You make a mistake and learn from that mistake. It is a self-correcting process. If you take away that process people cannot learn. They cannot learn that prudence trumps imprudence. It is a good thing when you think about it for awhile. And for new players the analysis by CCP suggests that when they are killed they tend to stay longer and that it is quite rare, at least for suicide ganks. Might want to have a chat with your friends if they are getting repeatedly ganked while still new. If it is true, then they are doing something very imprudent. ] You don't understand because you lack a basic understanding of economics. I'm no economist myself but I do understand that a monetary unit is directly related to the work required to buy something costing that monetary unit at the bottom end. If the cost of battleships has doubled which it has but the time required to earn an isk has quadrupled which it has then its still twice as easy to buy one now than it was back then. Given battleships are no longer used anyway that point is moot however it still translates to other ships. You can earn 60 million an hour in an anom easily, so it takes an hour to pay back a fit SB and still have 20 mill change. In the past it would take a lot longer to earn that back as well as significant investment repairing sec, remember work is cost too. I don't think you're entirely stupid I think you're one of those people who refuse to understand because you equate conceding a point as an E-weakness and you're heavily invested in being an E-pirate. Good luck with that :) CCP Fozzie GÇ£We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGÇª in null sec anomalies. GÇ£* Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 6173	Posted - 2017.03.13 04:55:05 - [207] - Quote Infinity Ziona wrote: You don't understand because you lack a basic understanding of economics. I'm no economist myself.... What makes this totally ***** hilarious is...I am a *** economist. I would have thought my signature gave it away, but with you I guess not. Quote:** ....but I do understand that a monetary unit is directly related to the work required to buy something costing that monetary unit at the bottom end. If the cost of battleships has doubled which it has but the time required to earn an isk has quadrupled which it has then its still twice as easy to buy one now than it was back then. No dope it is twice as hard. Here let me help your stupid ass... Price of BS = 2x. Time required to purchase a BS = 4x. Then the time to buy has doubled: that is--4x/2x = (4/2)x = 2x. In other words it is twice as hard. You have it exactly backwards. Quote: Given battleships are no longer used anyway that point is moot however it still translates to other ships. You can earn 60 million an hour in an anom easily, so it takes an hour to pay back a fit SB and still have 20 mill change. In the past it would take a lot longer to earn that back as well as significant investment repairing sec, remember work is cost too. Sure, but you still have sunk 40 minutes of that hour into the SB. And while you are earning that SB you cannot be simultaneously ganking either. Quote: I don't think you're entirely stupid I think you're one of those people who refuse to understand because you equate conceding a point as an E-weakness and you're heavily invested in being an E-pirate. Your problem is you just can't see what you cannot see--i.e. you lack imagination. My post a few pages back on this describes your problem. I am not going to go over it again because that is casting pearls before swine. My guess is some at CCP are looking at this thread and between my posts and your posts they are going to side with me. Because CCP employees are not dumb....after all every time they have nerfed ganking they appear to have stealthed buffed it indirectly. As CCP Fozzie put it, every time they nerf something they like to buff something else to keep the balance. Why is it that the amount you can move without fear of gank now is about the same as it was in 2008? Here is a hint: CCP are not your friends. Every time you think they hand you a nerf, they are bending you over and ass ******* you in some other area of the game. Which is why you and dopes like you keep having to come back to the forums and whine and whine and whine. Perhaps if you focused on shoring up your game play vs. trying to have CCP cut everyone else's game play you'd end up better off. Oh who am I kidding you are the champion of morons and ignoramii. You'll always be here whining and complaining because you have nothing else. "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
Hakawai State War Academy Caldari State 96	Posted - 2017.03.13 06:16:23 - [208] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Also, everyone stop misquoting CCP. Ganking players does not make them stay longer. CCP noticed that players who stayed longer tended to be more likely to have had some kind of PvP yes, but correlation does not make for causation. Thanks for pointing this out. I questioned this a while ago and starting thinking I was the only person on these forums who can tell the difference between correlation and causation :) I never did get a link to any useful source material, but someone (but IIRC one of the forums "unreliable narrators" so even if I remember correctly the numbers and context may be wrong :) said that they'd looked at a lot (80K?) of trials, and those that had "been killed by another player" before the end of the two-week trial were more likely to stay. It's clearly not evidence that losing a T1/T1 frigate to a "fun-vampire" in a much stronger ship makes people stay. IMO the first thing to check would be whether an early PVP loss is a proxy for "social PvP" (e.g. trying stuff out with friends or members of the same Corp). Nevyn Auscent wrote: End of the day socially engaging players is what makes them stay above any other factor. Indeed.
March rabbit Mosquito squadron The-Culture 2094	Posted - 2017.03.13 06:30:24 - [209] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: I thought we were talking about CCP and F2P... Yeah, sorry. The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Hakawai State War Academy Caldari State 96	Posted - 2017.03.13 06:39:38 - [210] - Quote Infinity Ziona wrote: You don't understand because you lack a basic understanding of economics. I'm no economist myself but I do understand that a monetary unit is directly related to the work required to buy something costing that monetary unit at the bottom end. If the cost of battleships has doubled which it has but the time required to earn an isk has quadrupled which it has then its still twice as easy to buy one now than it was back then. Given battleships are no longer used anyway that point is moot however it still translates to other ships. You can earn 60 million an hour in an anom easily, so it takes an hour to pay back a fit SB and still have 20 mill change. In the past it would take a lot longer to earn that back as well as significant investment repairing sec, remember work is cost too. I don't think you're entirely stupid I think you're one of those people who refuse to understand because you equate conceding a point as an E-weakness and you're heavily invested in being an E-pirate. Good luck with that :) There's a typo in this that should probably be fixed: you clearly meant "earn ISK four times as fast", or "earn ISK in a quarter of the time" or something similar. The intended meaning is obvious to anyone who actually reads the post, but that's something you can safely assume here :)



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.