The mining ship mystery could be easy to solve: have you played Skiffs Online?
1 Like
It’s no mystery. Several reasons (including miners selecting better ships for the area they are going to mine) are in my post.
So I totally agree with you.
That helps explain a drop, but doesn’t change it or diminish how significant the difference is.
Again no, please watch it again it seams you missed that part completely.
This are completely different things. There is an analysis of 80k players which are all <15 days and they group them and count how many in those groups subscribe.
Then there is the cancellation survey which only concerns >15day characters since they actually subscribed at one point and there for are able to cancel. This is presented at the end of the talk about the analysis as an additional fact. It has nothing to do with the 80k sample from the first analysis. Go watch it again if you don’t believe me.
Yes, and as much as back then we should talk about the REAL reasons why the majority of players quit. Yet in every thread about this topic there are always countless carebears claiming that ganking is the reason and that nerfing it more will solve the issue. THIS is what I try to refute, what CCP refuted 2014/2015 ago every time people come with this falsified claim as they did in this thread again.
So if we now all agree that ganking is not the main cause, in fact that it was shown to have no effect at all, can we discuss what the real issue is?
3 Likes
Real world changes. Now is much less time to spend in game that need lot of time.
Recent CCP decisions that start ruining game.
Community that seams to stop doing they own content and get bored.
2 Likes
Ok found it.
So over 2 years ago they said that they were looking into it but we still don’t have an answer to what they found.
Someone at CCP will have a full count of what players clicked when they filled in the leaving survey, they can probably filter out those who just cancelled a recurring sub as well and only use those that have been unsubbed for more than say, 2 months.
Why they won’t publish it is anyones guess, maybe they like reading threads like this while throwing popcorn at the screen and laughing at how wrong we all are 
4 Likes
That graph posts a raw number: How many were killed over time. What’s missing is how many were flown over time. The true metric would be a ratio of kills vs. flown over time.
PCU and the Rorqual changes probably factor heavily in that decline. The depressed ore and mineral market likely caused quite a few people to permanently dock up.
1 Like
Yep. If you want to go do a different analysis, go for it.
The graphs presented (and additional data not directly shown but also recorded) was enough to address the original comment I quoted.
It doesn’t need to be made more than it is. Ganking is down significantly, for a whole host of reasons and much more than PCU decline accounts for.
1 Like
i’m bookmarking these, if i may? 
@Ima_Wreckyou and @Scipio_Artelius, thanks! forum bookmarks, they’re actually useful! 
They now cater to people who follow lower instincts. Not pissing off these customers, at this point, is useless. They will always complain, because they feel entitled to it. Instead, CCP should change course and do the same cultural change back to where it was. Takes years, but that’s okay. Unscrewing highsec content creation would be a start.
Yes, my fault. i was being sarcastic. they milk these, so from their POV it’s a bad thing. from my POV they can do whatever the hell they want, including leaving, as long as CCP fixes highsec and doesn’t flood it with consumers as well.
i disagree with CCP not communicating the game’s game (heh) properly, btw. That has been an issue in the past, but the New Player FAQ and 8 Golden Rules changed that. Complainers apparently either don’t read it, or don’t care.
i don’t know what to make of this part?
I say FCs don’t create content, because they seek content. Roaming fleets are the attempt of finding content (= others who do the same thing), not creating any. BigFleetPingFCs are like shepperds shepping (i made that word up 
) the sheep to the field. They, too, don’t create content.
you could argue that the FC creates content for the individual fleetmembers, but that’s a rather narrow POV, ignoring the world around them. which is how they see it, i’d guess.
tangentially related:
damn, out of coffee. 
PS: on my phone. no good post.
Definately this. Suicide gankers should have faced real consequences for ganking in high sec, and been pushed to pvp in low and null. EVE was a girefers paradise. It is hard to enjoy the game when you need to scout everywhere you go with a second account just so some grief monkey doesn’t screw you over.
6 Likes
NOLIFE! i’ve been wondering when you will show up!
welcome back! 
For those who are new to the forum game: certain people start pulling out their alts. Some alts are more vicious than others and often they intentionally begin arguing with people, or themselves, just so they can keep the discussion under control.
fascinating how history repeats itself again.
2 Likes
yeah and theres no point playing
1 Like
After playing going on 9 years now a lot of it is redundancy. Do the same things in the same ships over and over. There are new things to be sure that I’ve only scratched at that I could do but it is a big investment in time, ISK and learning curve. It’s a huge mental thing to overcome making 80M-100M ISK per hour back down to 1M-5M ISK per hour. I mostly sign on to talk to my friends I’ve made on TS and may or may not undock. There are less and less of my friends on anymore and I find myself logging on less and less. Honestly I think I’m about done myself. I’m slowly selling off many of my assets that I don’t fly or use anymore and buying PLEX with the proceeds. If nothing changes for the better for me I will probably relocate to HS and sign off before the year is out and only sign in occasionally to see what’s what.
6 Likes
I agree that the core players got older and have now less time than before. This trend is common in every MMO.
But CCPs reaction to this trend seams extremely silly to me. I mean even with little time it was completely viable to smash a POS of an enemy. I looked into the whole Citadel timer thing and there is no way in hell I could participate in removing one. Even without family or gf, if you simply have a job this content is out of reach and again something to cross off the list. Also what would be the motivation to cripple your whole schedule for a week when the defender has an automagic asset safety function and you get nothing out of it anyway. For whom did they create this content?
7 Likes
Nice analysis. Though if we consider the likely possibilities, doesn’t this indicate a change to more awareness like gankers have been saying that miners should have for ages.
The mining barge rebalance actually dropped the EHP of Covetors/Hulks slightly, what it did do was give other options for miners that were practical to use, rather than so much worse at mining that it was a joke to even consider them.
The Damage control change pretty much only reversed that EHP nerf on max yield fitted Covetors/Hulks, since unless you fitted for hull buffer you didn’t have that much hull to start with, and it made no difference on anyone who did actually fit a DCU to their barge.
Taking the above two things into account, it means that a target switch by gankers was a choice in response to some of the miners choosing to fit for tank now that they had options, and not because of CCP simply giving all miners more EHP, which is the ‘smarter’ behaviour they always claimed to want to see in miners, it’s just miners never used to have any other viable options (& the options still suck because it’s all in hard coded hull stats, not one hull that can be fitted three or more different ways, but they do at least exist now)
Which means it’s not a CCP mechanical change impacting on ganking directly, so much as players making a choice to be less gankable, CCP just provided new options that allowed players to have that choice.
In saying that, I’ve been calling for a while for a much longer gank timer, as I don’t believe the current short gank timer is fun gameplay, though industrial type ships would need a rebalance to allow better tank fitting if players chose, though it should be in the form of PG/CPU & slots to allow players to ignore tank in favour of other things if they wish. Longer gank timer = more player interaction time = better in most cases (& probably more retention since CCP’s data indicates that player interaction time is the key to retention). Also for Concord spawns to be replaced with a ‘deathray’ mechanic so that smart bombs become a viable gank mechanic rather than the spawning lag of concord crippling everyone on grid and resulting lag meaning they don’t do damage.
On the topic of Dynamic PvE not being content, whoever it was that posted that, quite frankly, learn what you are talking about. Dynamic PvE means you can’t use guides, you have to know how to fit your ship and to have situational awareness. Assuming that the dynamicness went the whole way to NPC’s being dynamically created. This then means that PvE & PvP skills overlap, and because you can’t use perfectly optimised fits knowing that ‘insert mission’ has only 500DPS max, and you can kill 3 things to drop it to 250 DPS fast so you only need 260 DPS tank aligned perfectly to a single damage type., you have to use fits that resemble PvP fits more. Once you are doing that it means you actually have chances to win engagements in PvP with a PvE ship, and suddenly things get more dynamic overall.
2 Likes
They created it for people who wanted to own stuff and blow other people’s stuff. Unfortunately the whole thing didn’t withstand sanity checks and has become just overview clutter.
My own idea of highly customizable cosmetic and indestructible “space houses” (only functions: docking, storage and fitting), limited to one per account and authomatically stored (for a prepaid fee) after 6 months of inactivity, would had made happy a lot more people, for a lot more time, paying a lot more money. And whoever was interested in citadels and other pew pew structures still could have them… maybe 20% less graphically awesome due to the development of the “space houses”, but that wouldn’t be detrimental of them at all.
In every step, CCP had a chance to do more for the majority and less for the minoritary “core” players. They didn’t, and so they let the farm burn to save the barn… as with everything since Incarnageddon and the Rubicon downturn
6 Likes
You do know Citadels are exactly what that ‘core’ has been asking for right, destructible stations in Sov space to actually allow really blowing up peoples stuff. CCP have been actually doing most of these changes for the core crew, who just then discover what they asked for wasn’t what they wanted to start with.
I don’t know why people think this. For years people told CCP this, CCP responded with drifters and burner missions and mining fleets and shipyards etc.
Almost no one likes this kind of thing, the lions share of PVE done in EVE is STILL missions and anomalies. People who do PVE do it for isk or (as in my case) because we like EVE’s version of PVE and it lets us tinker with fits and tactics like mad scientists. The “dangerous PVE” is unappealing because eventually you have to settle on the few fits and tactics that let you not die to ridiculous NPC dps.
How much more PVE does CCP have to create that people don’t do before people learn that it’s not that kind of PVE that PVE players like?
3 Likes
This is again that kind of conventional wisdom that fails in reality. It sounds good to people who aren’t in to PVE and who think the problem is the fits involved, but it’s all wrong.
1st off, “dynamic PVE” is just another way of saying “I better boringly omnitank my ship because I don’t know what’s coming at me”. It’s why Wormhole PVE, Incursions and Drifters all devolved quickly into a narrow set of fits and tactics, because when you have overpowered npcs, experimenting with fits anywhere except on sis goes right out the window.
That ability to experiment without dying ‘for real’ is part of the draw to the PVE people actually do, like missions and anomalies. Well that and isk.
On top of that, the whole “if pvp ships can survive pve the world will be a better place” thing is nonsense. A well fit PVE ship can already survive a pvp encounter. Key words are well fit, instead of the min/maxed crap noobs come up with.
CCP wastes it’s time trying to provide “high level” pve. Look at dotlan maps, look at the mission hubs and dead end null sec systems with good truesec. People who want ‘dynamic experiences’ where you don’t know what’s going to happen next are called PVPrs, if PVE players wanted that, well, we’d be PBPrs too.
2 Likes