That’s interesting, Dryson. What is the carrot? What the stick?
I didn’t at any time feel forced to go to Nullsec. That was ages ago now. I liked it not. Has something changed? Are our new players not able to make up their own minds, based upon the information available to them?
Nice chair and popcorn you have there. Do you happen to have a permit to use them? Because it would be terribly bad if something happened to them. 
Btw I’m sure @Aiko_Danuja will support your idea with her entire alliance (Eve Who - Safety.) for the small fee of 1 bil ISK, that is less than a mil ISK per vote, prime deal. You can achieve the change you want in no time with such support behind your idea. 
Citadels have this function already, and without an overview, it’s not very useful.
You and your effort to have a picture of my chair turned over is astounding. 
Thanks but it only took like half a minute using an online tool, could have taken like 5 seconds but the online tool was messy. Since I posted this image earlier I just copied it from my previous post so now it actually only took like 5 seconds as it should. 
Dream on…
EvE as it is now… is just there to collect ur isk…
While I am sure you believe all stations you can undock and dock right back up at, last time I checked this was not true. Unless something has changed over the years there are plenty of stations where the second you undock you are outside the circle barrier and driving away from the station and within seconds of undocking are past the .5km redock.
I have also pointed out years ago about the fact we are in super advanced stations that don’t have a way to see outside until you are outside, like my house now has, without the furturism.
This is called a kickout station.
see Jambe's EVE Kickout Station Guide
So yes people claiming that out look is useless are talking from their ass.
No, but CCP does, and they released a study they did once, back before the days of Alphas. Their study showed the exact opposite of OP’s claim. Players who kept to the “safe areas” quickly got bored and left where players who engaged in PvP, whether consensual or not, were likely to subscribe.
As opposed to what?
Every lowsec corp seems to be Blops or FW focused.
Every highsec corp is a toxic sh!tshow full of risk averse Dryson clones.
Wormholes aren’t a good environment for new players without a couple million SP.
What does that leave? 
I’ll say it again. Have the tutorial storyline dump the new player directly into FW, give them half a dozen basic frigates to lose learning, and let them learn PvE after they learn PvP. This will generate a whole batch of players trained to fly smart before they’re trained to fly loot pinatas. Plus, it will emphasize the fact that this is a PvP game first and foremost. Ingrain it in their heads early.
Source required.
As opposed to letting people make their own choices.
You know, like a sandbox game.
No, this will force people out of the game.
People that are needed to make an interesting game, even when the xenophobic folks like you can’t stand them and are willing to force them out of the game “because they have different opinion on how to enjoy the game”.
CCP Rise:
“We have tried and tried to validate the myth that griefing has a pronounced affect on new players - we have failed… Isolating players away from the actual sandbox seems very contrary to what we would like to accomplish.”
Quoted on James 315’s Minerbumping blog.
Original Forum location, here.
This and that are not the same thing :
The absence of proof is not the proof of the absence
What’s more, IIRC the study he talks about was a retrospective analyzis of people stopping being active, which proves nothing at all.
Finally, a presentation by a CCP member literally explained this interpretation was wrong.
Citation required.
There is another clip out there somewhere, but I lack the interest to look for it. One of the reasons for this is that, in my experience, no amount of evidence (not necessarily ‘proof’) has ever persuaded people holding your opinion to change their minds.
I don’t say that you are obstinate, Stefnia, only that it would be near impossible to convince you otherwise, without the kind of backing we both know is unlikely to fall into the hands of random players like us.
Perhaps the most conclusive evidence that ganking new players (for instance) does not harm EVE’s player retention enormously, is that CCP still permits it, facilitates it and devotes design-time in considering its impact on Highsec with every change in that hallowed region. Were it not so, we’d be flying about in a quagmire of chaos. Such is not the case.
citation provided : https://youtu.be/h-jfvjMoe9Y?t=1101
Because I know your arguments are wrong.
They are illogical. They are important for you only for the reason they allow you to pretend you are right.
They are fallacious.
For example
No it does not.
There is no logical link between “CCP allows it” to “it does not harm the game”. It’s actually a stupid argument, as it can also be applied to anything that CCP then forbid or nerfed, eg rorqual online.
So you have a lot of those fallacious argument, that you call “evidence” but are only a pretense of justification, and then you deduce it’s the most likely to be correct.
That’s another fallacy. Just because you have a lot of fallacious arguments for it, does not mean anything about your opinion.
And I’m not even saying that ganking is bad ! I’m saying, your arguments are wrong. They don’t have the logical chaining that you believe they have, which makes them stupid, so even if you are right in that ganking is good for the game, you are right for the wrong reasons, which is the same as being wrong because this validates an illogical argument as logical.
Would totally enjoy option 1 if we could have at least one day to do our little bit of mining 
once a month!
Thanks for providing the link, Stefnia.
It does support my view that, even if some players decided that EVE is too tough for them, others will regard it as a spur to greater effort.
It doesn’t negate what CCP Rise wrote, in one important element. CCP was not able to prove that ganking new players was a significant disincentive for them to continue with the game. You could have worked this out for yourself.
As I suggested, above, if ganking significantly and negatively affected new player retention numbers - CCP would get rid of it rather quickly, and without apology.
They haven’t done so (yet). @Altara_Zemara and others have said it again and again: I’ll repeat it (not that repetition will achieve much…).
The incidence of ganking genuinely new players in Highsec is low enough that CCP doesn’t seem concerned by it. It doesn’t matter what carebear perceptions describe; carebears are not sitting in the Design chair.
This thread is heading for the bin, I fear…
O but there is, Stefnia. If CCP allowed an activity which demonstrably harmed the game (as they saw it), that would be illogical.
Whenever I’ve challenged you in the past, I knew when you were becoming distraught when you characterised my explanations, comments, etc., as ‘stupid’. It’s a good word, but mightily overused.
I’m prepared to consider any argument you put forth, if you do so in a reasonable manner, Stefnia. What I’m not prepared to do is to put up with vagaries like:
I’m sure the folks still sufficiently awake to read this will recognise what’s going on here. No further comment.
No. This is illogical.
Ganking can affect significantly and negatively new player retention without CCP being able tyo realize it.
The observable incidence.
What’s more it’s not only new players.
There are people who come back from null sec, forget about HS difference in rules and lose too much to enjoy the game.
You are totally right that local perception does not logically allow to generalize. Though “carebears” is an insult. What you meant is “suicide-ganking adverse”, I believe.
The issue here is demonstrably . This is a term that you added.
When you pretend to use logic, but your argument do not contain a logical form, then your argument is stupid. That’s the definition : which lacks logic.
I’m not saying that you ARE stupid, I’m not saying your opinion is stupid : I’m saying that the argument that you present does not have the logic quality that you believe it has.
Not every post must be logical, but when you pretend that CCP proved that ganking does not hinder the game, this is the domain of logic and the absence of logic in your argument makes your assertion stupid. Maybe you made a mistake. Maybe you merged two different arguments (each of them correct) together. Maybe you are using a different meaning for the terms used.
When we are in the domain of demonstrations, we need to articulate our arguments with logic, the lack of which makes and argument stupid.
I’m very sorry that you can’t accept your mistakes.
Do you accept that saying “rorqual online was a good thing for the game, as CCP did not have nerfed it” is a stupid argument ?
If no, how would you call that argument which has a pretense of logic but lacks any actual form of logic ?
If yes, why can’t you accept that the argument that you presented before has the same flaws ?
Input broadcasting with ganking is fairly rampant. The fact that this often goes unreported (or even banned) further exacerbates it. Why? You can be banned simply for inadvertently reporting someone that turns out to not be input broadcasting - so why would you take the risk?
This is neither an argument for or against ganking; merely an observation.
