This. He either arguing in bad faith or bad at the game 
1 Like
These are not mutually exclusive either.
1 Like
it is 6 seconds
1 Like
The 2019 presentation is titled “The Friendship Machine” and the citations I gave you were on the topic of “how to best retain newbies”. That is a topic you brought up in a quest to justify nerfing ganking, and the citations I gave you are from CCP in 2019 and not the 2015 presentation. You then were stuck on the 2015 numbers after completely ignoring my post citing the 2019 presentation in the first place. So when I re-affirmed my 2019 citation, you pretended to spring your trap of “a-ha, I was still talking about the 2015 presentation, got-em!”. Please actually read my original post. Your immediate reply ignored it entirely. So I reaffirmed it. And now you’re trying to pretend it wasn’t about my original post at all.
I know you’re stuck on the 2015 ganking numbers for some reason, but when you bring up a totally new justification like “but think of the newbies” and I bring in original, recent, authoritative citations that directly address your newfound cause, please do try to engage. There are whole categories of solutions that address the “newbie retention” problem that don’t have to deal with the topic of ganking at all!
That’s kind of my point: the most effective ways to retain newbies have nothing to do with ganking. That’s also similar to Scipio’s point (Scipio, please feel free to correct me if I misrepresent you): if “retaining newbies” is the objective, there are far more effective ways whose rates of success are much larger than your <1% “sounds like a damn good cause” that don’t involve “touch ganking”. So it seems really weird to skip things that result in 150% increase in 30-day login (source: CCP) retention metric to go straight to your <1% one.
That’s why you get accused of a “nerf ganking” agenda: you’re going out of the way to try to cherrypick metrics that justify your end-goal, instead of letting the data honestly guide you. You’re getting caught out.
It is OK to say “oh wow that’s new data thanks I’ll need time to digest it” instead of “oh no this might undermine my position time to pull out the ‘but I wasn’t talking about that presentation but this one instead’ and try to save face”, the former is how constructive discussions happen, the latter is what you’re doing and why other people here are suggesting you are arguing in bad faith.
1 Like
Again, incorrect, you specifically in that post pointed to high sec and ganking. The 2019 presentation did not address that, which is why I thought you were talking about the 2015 one. You love jumping to conclusions about people. Here is where you stated that:
The 2019 presentation and that spot in specific was talking about fleets and dying with people in corps and groups.
I didnt bring up a totally new justification, that has always been there. And yes there are other categories of solutions but that doesnt mean you get to ignore this one.
I am not skipping anything, CCP is already working on those. You are the one skipping this one! My conversations with Scipio (which I have found the most enlightening one here.) are also where I have pointed out that my concerns are mostly with venture ganking and that other ganking is being grouped in by association despite those not being the problem people are mad about.
I have specifically stated that it seems like we do need to Nerf Ganking. What I contest is not that, what I contest is people saying I want to eliminate it, which again i’ve stated several times, that is not my goal because I have done it myself in the past and I recognize that it serves a very important purpose in this games economy. Also, I have not cherry picked metrics. I am pointing to metrics that actually exist like everyone ■■■■■■■ else here in this thread including you. I’m not getting caught out on anything, im presenting a different side of the argument and you’re just taking it in a strange way.
This is again a mischaracterization you try to place on me. It’s also massively hypocritical because if thats the position you are taking you have done the exact same thing in this thread with regards to data. People suggesting this of me are responding as such because they dont want their positions undermined.
This specifically is wholly untrue. When you used the other presentation to present and state that high sec destruction leads to better newbie retention, it was incorrect and was the wrong presentation. I pointed that out correctly.
You need to realize you have quoted and attached misrepresenting, I won’t say straw mans, because I dont think its entirely intentional, but definitely this painted picture of them in your mind. Multiple times and not just me.
The numbers presented by scipio literally contest this objectively.
Or you’re just filled with spite against me? Yeah it’s definitely that.
LOL no bro. It ain’t my fault you tried to test Scipio and then quafed around and found out,
Then you can’t even quafe up and take it like a Jovian.
lol yes. Found out what that my position was still right? Damn, how dare I. No you just like to try to get everyones goat. That’s pretty obvious.
Not true.
He’s hasn’t tried to get mine.
No they don’t,
The number of Ventures killed isn’t objectively a measure of how easy or difficult the ship is to gank, it’s more so a measure of how well its flown.
The Venture is a difficult ship to catch (not only ganks, but also in wars, etc.) when flown well. Unfortunately there are a lot of incompetent and/or lazy people who never learn how to fly it well (and the new players among those are likely to be incompetent and that’s ok, no one will be great straight away). Unfortunately, too many assume that there was nothing else they could have done, because accepting responsibility for a loss is harder than just blaming someone/something else.
Did you have an answer to this:
2 Likes
Yes the same answer as before that was answered before in circles. And the numbers provided do show that there could be a problem, I disagree on that not being the case when examining them. And how well it is flown is a bit pedantic when talking about newer players.
The fact that you had to type up a wall of text to essentially say “no, you’re wrong, let me put words in your mouth” is you essentially doubling-down on not wanting to have a conversation.
OK. Let me retry the whole conversation from the top. Forget everything we’ve been discussing so far. Clean slate. Here’s some questions for you to answer:
Are you concerned for newbie retention?
If so, would you accept ways that best retain newbies?
If so, are you for newbies fleeting up and suffering loss to other players – which CCP in its 2019 presentation (1st slide I cited) showed is the most effective retention mechanism?
Would you agree with CCP that the “hook” that gets people retained to Eve Online is suffering a critical loss (2nd slide I cited)?
Would you believe that “ganking” is a mechanism for suffering a critical loss?
Are you for removing ganking entirely, or nerfing it until it is ineffective, and how would that help newbie retention given the prior CCP presentation?
Just trying to find your slippery line. Please be very clear with your statements.
Yes you are right that it was answered in circles, instead of just answered.
If you know it is a significant number of players that leave as a result of their Venture being ganked, what is that number?
To know it’s significant, you must know what it is. Surely.
2 Likes
Cept it wasn’t. And he had the data to prove it.
It’s ok bro
ROFL. So no proof other than you disagree.
Dang man. At least take the beating like a man.
No it isn’t, especially as your the one who said it was introduced and is an easily gankable ship. It objectively isn’t. My argument is if you spent 1/3 of the time you spend on the forums complaining about gankers actually in the game explaining to new players what align times and dscan mean you might actually make a measurable difference in the lives in some new players and increase retention. I know that takes actual effort in the real world though.
2 Likes
That won’t solve anything. In fact, it will make them quit when you tell them they mustn’t AFK mine.
I am killing Ventures recently a lot, because CCP nerfs to ganking forces me to, and I can tell you that every single one I ganked, and it was over 20, was AFK. The convo invites, hate emails and killrights were always happening 10-15 minutes after they got ganked.
BTW I tried to gank some ventures in lowsec around Isanamo when there were no targets, but without any success. They instantly warped away when I shown up in local or at least after I arrived at belt.
But highsec, all of them AFK mining.
1 Like
Yep. Low sec miners are hard to catch, cause they are actually at keyboard LOL.
why do you think eve was never able to grow in 20 years of its history? the disqualifying reason is not the design of the game, its the repulsive community that you meet in the game
1 Like
True that.
But recently there have been a number of afk miners wandering into low sec.
And guess what happens when you blow them up?
You guessed right. RL death threats, lewd language. All the wholesome goodness you have come to expect from our outstanding highsec denizens.
3 Likes