But it can reasonably be argued it’s all PvP as everything you do impacts others, at the very least through available resources, just how much PvP any given activity is is simply a matter of degree.
1 Like
This is what I wanted to say. Yellow Parasol seams to always (every time I see his posts) try force us to statement that only PvP fights create content in game and affect events in EVE world. For me this is 100% wrong.
6 Likes
He is correct that it’s a major part of the game as currently combat PvP accounts for all of the destruction in game and drives production.
The PvE activities need to become more risky to also drive destruction to a degree. It’s losses that make the market turn, not resource gathering.
There also needs to be an improvement in how newer players are enticed into higher risk areas.
1 Like
Yep, make people who won’t all day long avoid stupid gankers, just enjoy game with friends unable to play.
Yes, this will put more demand on market but also make players who don’t want to be part of main PvP stop playing.
4 Likes
Great post! So fluid! 
The study itself is being backed up by history. Shooting by recruiting works, injecting adrenaline works. EVE grew through player2player interaction, increasing retention. Retention was a player thing, not a CCP thing.
I don’t see your point. All these individual points can be condensed into a few (because of sameness), which then further can be boiled down to the essentials (motivations).
If CCP properly communicated, they’d lose out on short-term customers.
We are at a situation where CCP made those who happily created content left the game. CCP took the potential of BRAVE and KarmaFleet onto the next level and targetted the nullbear (the masses), causing a significant increase of consumers. Evidenced: many don’t play unless there’s a big-fleet-ping, many mostly care about farming and many only ever undock when there’s an FC around for smaller fleets. RvB has lots of these as well. They (wrongly) call FCs “content creators”, which i’d call abuse of the term.
These are a gigantic amount of individuals who all share a need for content. No point in addressing the individual level, when the problem is cultural. No point in addressing the individual, when the individual isn’t aware of the reason of his complaint.
Example: if people want more wars to happen, they should start igniting them. The amount of complaining people is big enough for it’s own alliance. (Now we see war happening, but this will end again eventually and then people will go offline again, or go back farming.)
The jungle needs to attract creators again, because the consumers aren’t reliable long time customers and they die way too fast. The individual level doesn’t matter as much as most individuals would like to believe.
If it does, i’d like to know how, so i can address the points. “Not playing for survival”, btw, isn’t available as option. It’s a fundamental part of the experience.
I’m on my tablet. Beats the phone, still bad compared to a keyboard and proper monitor.
I strongly suggest not using terms which will cause confusion, then, especially for those who don’t know better. That’s why I picked the jungle analogy.
PvP is a trigger word. Getting rid of the seperation of PvP and PvE would be helpful, especially for those who can not see beyond.
Easy. Let players do it. Incentives are for consumers. Bait for the baitable. Therefore they’re not a good approach towards fixing the problem. 
1 Like
Again you miss the point.
1% of 80,000 is 800…which means that less than 800 are retained after getting killed “illegally”.
If they retain even 20% of those it would mean 160 players keep playing.
How many of the remaining 79,200 were retained? I’ll bet it was more than 800…but.
To have a 20% retention rate in this group would mean 15,840 keep playing, and as we all know, that isn’t happening and why quoting %'s always favours the smaller group.
So, to my question…if less than 1% quote ganking or ship loss as a reason for quitting, what exactly are the remaining 99% quoting as a reason for quitting?
3 Likes
Passive aggressive.
Well then they stop playing. Good. Quality > Quantity. They’re not entitled to their safe space, for that they can play X. EVE is a jungle. If you don’t want to survive, then you die.
Deal with it? vOv
Can you just simple ignore my posts and don’t starts conversations with me? I already said that your view of how people need to pay EVE is wrong to me. And I don’t want to start argue with you about why you force people trying to play sandbox game to play it way you want.
If you don’t like miners, traders etc. who don’t take part in main PvP quit EVE. Because no one will change whole game just to make more practice targets for you.
7 Likes
Good, because we’re not engaging in discussions or arguments, especially because you don’t actually have any. No. I’m simply pointing out mistakes you make and how your individualistic viewpoint is flawed. You make the mistake to believe that everything is just opinion and viewpoint, ignoring that when facts, and logic based on these facts are being added into it, then that’s not even remotely comparable to your individualistic, angry drivel.
TL;DR, because you need it:
EVE is jungle. You die. Your selfish viewpoint of the game doesn’t matter for the big picture.
PS: You reading things into my posts (not liking miners etc.), just shows how the conversations here are apparently too challenging for you to take part in, because i never wrote or implied anything about them. That’s just your selfish bias reading things into my posts.
1 Like
But not everyone in jungle must be predator to be part of it, live in it and create it.
1 Like
They have to.
The game’s a jungle. You can’t play the game without playing. You have to be willing to survive and take care of that yourself, otherwise you do what you do now and complain about the game being a jungle.
No one is being forced to do anything. You chose to play in the jungle! As such, you chose to play for survival, else the jungle kills you!
LOL, stop that ■■■■■■■■!
You can’t kill me. You can destroy my ship, pod, implants or somehow steal isk. But you can’t force me to quit because you want this. You can “kill” my ship day by day and I will still be buying new ones and play way I enjoy it.
I don’t play for survival because I don’t have to. I play to enjoy time with my friends. If you want you can stay and make your jungle, maybe this is what you enjoy and EVE give you opportunity to do it. But stop forcing others play that way. They aren’t you!
8 Likes
Well…
- not able to actually understand my posts
- continuously projecting his anger onto me
- angry
- defensive
Okay then, whatever man and Good Luck with that approach. 
PS: remember not to complain when the gankers and wardeccers attack you in their jungle, where you chose to be around.
1 Like
R.I.P EvE Online, what was once a brilliant game, now ruined by CCP’s incompetence.
PS: It was fun while it lasted. until they fix what wasn’t broken in the first place. i shall not be returning to this game.
2 Likes
No, once again you answer without actually watching or understanding the video. The survey is based on ALL players who unsubscribed and not on the 80k sample.
They did not say what the top 10 reasons where or whatever. The point of the whole thing was to show whether or not ganking and ship loss causes players to quit the game. Not only did it not confirm that view, it completely obliterated the whole assumption that this is the main cause.
I agree that it would be interesting to see the top 10 reasons why people quit. It would shine some light on the very topic we are discussing in a way no one of us can do.
The only light it DID shine was over that one simple question “is ganking and harassment the main cause of players quitting EVE” and the answer was a resounding “NO”. This we know now.
The sad part here is obviously that this never stopped the carebears to still spread this falsified assumption as you can see in this very thread.
1 Like
My point is that it won’t be easy to make the players happy (or whatever the equivalency in Eve is for that) again, even if you do the right adjustments that should bring the game back on the right track in the longer term. Simply, because most people will refuse to see the big picture and keep concentrating on how they feel about their little part of the game.
It could be said that even CCP forgets about the big picture from time to time. They cater smaller groups with so called ‘content’ (the kind where you already stated that it won’t last), adjust mechanics to be more accessible with low numbers (like SOV) and make things easier and safer in general.
If you turn this development around, you most likely won’t see any change in community feedback at all. “They got buff, we got nerf.”
How to solve this?
Good first step would be not to piss off your community every other week and address the obvious issues early and openly. Afterwards, communicate the current vision of Eve (because right now the vision looks like “low effort/high income”).
You make this sound like a bad thing. It’s still far better than alienating their core long term players.
Failed expectations are one of the worst things you can do to a new player. Looking at recent steam reviews, “free to play” seems to be doing that a lot.
Short and very pessimistic interpretation (as observed many times in the past):
Big-fleets: obligation
Farming: because they are logged in out of habit anyway
FC: takes over thinking and makes eligible for SRP
Sometimes, FCs really are content creators, when they actually have done some organization beyond forming a fleet and yelling on comms. However, it depends on how you define content. “Fills your gaming experience with life” would be ok for me.
2 Likes
It’s based on exactly 80k accounts and what happened in their first 15 days, not the whole player base. He states quite clearly at the beginning 80k unique accounts, not alts.
Agreed that it’s not the main cause, but it’s still a reason some quit. Which is why I have always been sceptical about that presentation, why didn’t they put the top reasons players quit? Would CCP find them embarrassing?
What we have to remember as well is that the presentation was based at the very latest on 2014/2015 reasons, what we’re now talking about is the last 2 years and I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the player base has dropped since the announcement of the removal of POS’s and the introduction of Citadels and Engineering Complexes, effectively killing off a way of gaming that a lot of players enjoyed.
2 Likes
You do same thing.
2 Likes
Actually, there are two aspects to this:
- CONCORD kill graph reflects an increase the number of ships required to gank effectively
- Change in target selection as a result of (1); and
- Gank losses in highsec are down, more than the PCU trend.
Here is the graph of Barge loss in highsec since 1 January 2014, until today:
That is from all causes (ie. ganking, wardecs, NPC, duels). Pulling the ganking out alone (not graphed separately, only summarised in dataframe form), the shape matches this pattern.
So:
In the first half of 2014, there were on average ~860 barge losses per week in highsec.
In the first half of 2017, there were on average ~340 barge losses per week in highsec.
That’s 40% of the destruction of barges now compared to the same period 3 years ago.
From eve-offline:
In the first half of 2014, the PCU averaged 41K
In the first half of 2017, the PCU averaged 35K
Those numbers look wrong, but the data is straight off eve-offline.
So the PCU in the first half of this year is about 85% of the same period in 2014, yet barge loss is only 40% of what it was.
Exhumers match a similar trend.
Freighter losses (including bowhead) in highsec (from all causes) hasn’t changed over the time period, but the number are much, much lower than for the mining ships to begin with:
Jump freighters are a similar pattern to freighters, but much lower numbers again.
The data for CONCORD kills includes an increased number of gank ships required to gank, whether from buffs (eg. damage control, mining barge rebalance, better fitting by players, more use of tank in lower status highsec systems, etc.), and a change in target selection away from lower value targets to more high value targets, which also require more gank ships to kill than the mining ships do.
Overall though, the total loss of mining ships is way down on what it was and the total amount of ganking being done is way down as a result, looking at comparative periods 3 years apart.
Its not a perfect analysis, but the huge difference is obvious even as a first approximation.
7 Likes