I stand corrected, Lugh; thanks.
1 Like
If the “account” is under 30 days old there should be no distinction. It is technically a “new account”.
If the poor gankers are deprived of a few kills because an account is new, regardless of whether it is a new alt or a new player - So be it.
Until the time comes when CCP finds a way to let new players know the realities of Eve outside the very basic PVE focused NPE, rookie system protections should be extended to all of highsec for the first 30 days.
Thanks for your reply. I fear though that your suggestion only raises further issues.
What about the alts of gankers themselves, or a new player determined to become a ganker? An effective ganker can be ready in no time, especially if skill injectors are used.
Guaranteeing immunity to such a group for 30 days throughout Highsec, in that they may only be killed by CONCORD during that time, closes off avenues of activity for the anti-ganking community, too.
Among other things, it has proved challenging to agree upon a definition of ‘a new player’. 30 days seems an arbitrary period, though perhaps you have come to that conclusion based on notions which seem to you to be justified and defensible.
I doubt whether most gankers would be fazed by what you suggest, but it would be a major variation to the rules of the game in Highsec, and as such needs further and deeper consideration than you may have allowed for.
If new players/alts are to be blanket ‘protected’ in Highsec, I think you will have to justify your proposal in some detail, Sgt Ocker.
Edit: Okay, for anyone who is curious, you can skip the tutorial. There will be a button at the bottom of the escape menu. Thanks to Aisha Katalen. 
1 Like
No.
The reality of EVE is that you are always vulnerable. The way to introduce new players to that reality is to make them always vulnerable.
You cannot accept this reality, so your suggestions are immaterial.
There is no justification. It destroys one of the core principles of EVE for no reason other than someone is salty about a stupid loss they took. This is a horrible idea and the day CCP implements it is the day this game finally gives up and dies.
1 Like
Hit escape, there’s a “skip tutorial” button at the bottom.
1 Like
You are not always vulnerable and CCP works hard on expanding the areas where you are not always vulnerable. You are completely safe in Abyss space from any interference. The first iteration of the SCC sites made it impossible to interfere with your ratting there if you just had 2 chars/mates with you. Certain events in the recent past also had hard limits on allowed chars per site so that interference was allowed to be minimal. Plus, areas like Poochven limit the number of interference options which again reduces vulnerability to interference.
And all of these are, rightfully, subject to a high degree of scrutiny and criticism from the community. So I really don’t see what kind of a point you could possibly be making with this statement.
Also, the idea that there is no difference between being instanced for 20 minutes and having a glowing beacon showing everyone where you are going to be when that time is up for ease of destruction, and being literally immune from all attacks for 30 days (or 43,200 minutes) is patently laughable.
Its obvious you guys cannot develop. Let the community develop and you guys program.
Simple really. Once a player commits an act of agression they lose protection. Unless something has changed, antigankers can’t agress gankers until they commit an act of agression without concord intervention anyway, so no change for them.
30 days is a reasonable time for new players to get a slight grasp on how Eve works.
It may help with new player retention - enough justification.
In 17 years, I’ve never been successfully ganked.
Ahhh, there it is - It will kill the game, Eve is dying. Which has been said so often it is just meaningless now.
Bottom line is CCP needs new blood with deep pockets.
If giving new players a month to get a handle on the game to decide whether they are willing to spend money on it and continue playing kills the game, then CCP is really doing something wrong.
30 day retention has always been pretty low, maybe it’s time to look at “why” and try something new.
Not too long ago players were free to pop newbs in starter systems - Changing that didn’t kill the game, maybe extending that protection further afield could help with player retention
1 Like
Thanks for responding, and for looking further than most posters with similar ideas. We’ll need to see whether the idea has traction.
I started a new Alpha the other day and was reading the Rookie chat. I forgot how small you feel as a new player at the beginning of the learning curve. And the people helping the new players…great. They were great.
2 Likes
Gankers are -5 and lower in most cases (except for those Tornado gankers that need to sit on gates and who keep their sec status up with tags) and thus can be engaged anywhere freely and without concord intervention. The problem is that they stay docked in stations or structures until they gank.
Without being exposed to the vulnerability that is core to the game’s mechanics, they never will. You’re setting newbros up to fail because you’re salty over a loss.
[Citation Needed]
Player retention at the cost of core game design is never justified.
■■■■■■■■.
[Citation Needed]
I agree with this. I’ve said many times now that I don’t think the problem is “new players” as such. It’s new players who have played the game for 2or3 months or longer and for whatever reason (location, luck, help from rookie chat) have not had a hostile encounter with other players. In the those 2-3 months of no hassle they get too comfortable. They start to believe everything they have been told about ganking is a myth. The start to believe they are 100% safe. The assumptions and behaviours become ingrained.
And then they get ganked and the result is complete outrage.
In short I think that CCP and the player base are both to blame in coddling new players. And in trying to protect “new players” are actually contributing to this falsehood of absolute safety.
CCP have said many times that players that suffer a loss early in their careers stick around longer.
So instead of protecting players for 30days and giving them a false eve we should be giving them some extra free frigates and sending them on missions into low sec.
Just a thought.
3 Likes
And again, these losses serve as a valuable filter for players who are actually interested in EVE, and those that aren’t. People who are going to rage and cry and QQ over a loss are not going to have a good time playing EVE and so should not expect to continue playing it. Those that take losses in stride and improve their gameplay are well suited for this game.
I’m tired of people taking losses and then demanding that the game change to suit them. No. This is not your game, go play something else.
EVE is not a game for everyone. It’s high time we all understood that.
2 Likes
I like that they are trying to pull the big heads with caps into Pochven. High sec new bros can’t get to it easily. Nothing sucks more than getting hot dropped in low-sec while just traveling from a to b in a T1 cruiser…
Hard disagree. Several times I’ve brought in real life friends to try Eve, and all the reasons they attritioned out were completely unrelated to high sec safety: poor UI, specifically how to go about fitting a ship and the multiple UIs and magical right clicking and the overwhelming simulation window, once given a ship how to know “what to do”, unclear goals, relative slow pacing of gameplay, basically all friction at “expressing themselves” in game and knowing how to apply their agency within it. Putting together the whole “What do I want to do? Why do I want to do it? How do I do it? How can I get equipped? Where do I go? Now how do I execute it? Now that I’ve done it, how can I get paid?” package up front is simply overwhelming. Most would rather play something else.
If on top of all that if CCP promised them a 30-day grace period, the questions I would have answered would have been formulated as “so after my 30-day period, what about X?” instead of the simple questions “what about X?”. While they stuck with the game, they got to actually live and breathe the danger of ganking in hi sec, and I think one friend I actually took our crap frigates through a gate being actively camped, and point and say “see, you’re literally not worth them hitting you right now, you live another day”.
Giving them a protection window would have instead given them the seed of doubt of would I have been ganked and was I safe enough and totally eliminates the qualia of having experienced a learning moment, and counterintuitively may actually harm the development of the player. Now there’s an artificial deadline for them to decide to drop the game.
Ganking ventures and T1 frigates of newbros is repugnant but you have done nothing to show how your proposed solution would actually help build better capsuleers.
1 Like