it wasnt even a idea bud, it was a idotic statement.
1 Like
Earliest post I can find on Eve-search is 2007, 4 years into a 15 year old game could be considered to being fairly close to the beginning.
That I was wrong about Concord and the introduction date of canflipping doesnât alter my point. Everything else I posted is correct, and came after the Concord changes.
but given there playstyle hasent changed since prior to the introduction of can flipping
Is not correct. The current crop of gankers includes some of those that had their playstyles nerfed out of existence, mostly at the behest of people like you shouting think of the children.
Weak counter
Just like this
Youâre ag, anything you say is invalid
Wait he is actually ag? Once again, this explains all
Having alts in there has advantages 
But bigger inconvenientsâŚ
Such as having to watch clueless people try to do stuff, or having to listen to Thomas and his theories
1 Like
Btw CCP just buffed repeated ganking big time.
If you self-destruct after a gank as I do, when you get a new clone you have no timers. You can undock and go gank again immediately.
1 Like
I bet my stack of geckos that itâs unintended lol
(I have 153)
1 Like
Free Geckos best Geckos, the stuff people leave in belts and mission sites is ridiculous.
Sadly I bought most before my unplanned and forced departure in november/December
Price went up by 15m when I was done lol
I think so too. But as we all know, what is unintented and isnât decide players afterall (proved by ganker-lobby in several threads including this one).
So lets just abuse it till we can and see if CCP considers this to be an exploit or not.
This may be one of the bugs they fix rather fast
on the other hand, if you use skill booster and self-destruct you lose that effect as well soâŚ
also from what I tested it works only after suicide gank or maybe immediately after losing a ship? if you dock after a gank then undock and then self-destruct it wonât work
Where is the link of the results and break down of numbers from said study ? The reason I ask is I know several people who have quit due to ganking and ganking alone (if they were good at the game or it suited them, etc etc is an entirely different argument). So âifâ there was a study at all, it was flawed to say the least, because ganking does have a negative impact.
1 Like
OMG really?
We have to go round the argument again?? Did you just skip most of the thread thinking you were making a novel contribution with your friendsâ stories? Sure it had a negative effect on your friends. The study says that on the population of new players as a whole, it has a positive effect since those ganked are more likely to stay. Your anecdotes are just that, and your friends belong to the smaller fraction of quitters rather than the larger fraction of survivors. ToughâŚ
The study showed that on average people who have engaged in PvP within their first 15 days keep playing more than those who donât. Oddly enough, those that get ganked stay even more than those who engaged in consensual PvP. Scroll up, youâll see the video of CCPâs presentation. (How ridiculous that I even have to point to the video that is in this very thread??)
That you have a few anectodal people who left doesnât prove anything except that the retention rate isnât 100% which nobody ever claimed it was. Of course some people quit after getting ganked, but a larger fraction of them stay than the (potentially overly risk averse, safer) players who donât get ganked or engage in PvP. That study also is only about new players, looking at what happens in their first 15 days and then if they stay after. If your friends got ganked after playing longer than 15 days, they are just like some of the players not ganked in their first 15 days who are the most likely to leave according to the study. If you need a more detailed argument, see my posts above.
You cannot alter scientific conclusions on population statistics by adding a few anecdotes. Stop failing at science people! You can only disprove absolutes this way but this study never claims that absolutely nobody quits after getting ganked, only that they are less likely than players who have not gotten ganked.
1 Like
Or ganking has a positive impact. I have several friends who subbed after being ganked
1 Like
Do we have to go round this again?! no it dosent the study only covered the first 15 days of players subs, new players are usually considered players within 6 months.
sorry man i wasent using eve search i was playing when those mechanics changed the game.
and gankers haven changed at all, they where using catalysts back on 06, and there have been secondary changes, but nothing major, they still use an alt to scan and loot, they still undock when they scan someone they have enough catalists for. rince and repeat. you stop them getting into highsec unless they have a little better sec status (im only talking 9.9) you slow down the frequency of ganksâŚ
Do we have to go around this again? The study also includes data from the survey everyone gets when they unsub from the game and < 1% cite ship loss.
So nice that you are concerned about the game, but if >99% are quitting for other reasons and only <1% have a problem with losing a ship for whatever reason then maybe we should concentrate on the 99% to have an impact at all.
4 Likes
Mine somewhere else.
Really? After 6 months you should be pretty comfortable in eve and could well be able to fly any T1 ships with a mostly T2 fit. That doesnât strike me as new anymore⌠but if I start to say âvery new playerâ instead, will you be happy?
The point doesnât revolve around how long new players have played any ways. The one study we have shows no negative impact on the population of âvery new playerâ. A few anecdotes change nothing. Please ask CCP why they picked 15 days instead of 180 and ask them to do another survey. For now, Iâll assume that if clubbing poor clueless noobs doesnât make them quit, longer term, more hardened and more invested players wouldnât be much different. Of course, some will quit just like some noobs quit too. Of course we could do something about it but given that it is mostly CCP that would benefit from saving the clubbed players (more sub money), that they have the power (itâs their game, they can do whatever) but they donât do anything, I am inclined to think it is not something that should be fixed. You are free to have another hypothesis and I encourage you to test it or have it tested. There might even be a way by digging through zkill. If you want to change the conclusion, you do the work to disprove the current one.
Also, what Ima said above.
Man⌠I never thought Iâd agree with a code public face, let alone this often⌠X|
2 Likes