I’m not familiar with Logic in its technical application. I’m more likely to use the word ‘illogical’, especially when calling into question an action or argument which is counter-intuitive (an expression I also dislike). Sometimes I feel forced to use words which don’t precisely describe my intentions but which are commonly defined and understood.
The words I should use are ‘reason’, ‘reasonable’. I use them where I can, and I certainly use arguments in which their sense is implied.
I regret that this makes some comments difficult to dissect, but it is my sincerely held belief that I’m making the best attempt available to me. You, of course, are free to disagree.
The issue is that reason does not relate to logic.
It’s reasonable to feel happy in some circumstances, and sorrow in others, but this is not about logic.
Logic is a set of rules that allow to create assertions from other assertions and does not contradict itself. There are a lot of logics ^^ .
How would you describe the argument “1+1 is two, so ganking is bad for the game” ?
Then the next one is “1+1 is two, so ganking is good for the game” ?
Do you agree that they both pretend to be logic (because the “so” word), but fail at it, since there is no logical articulation between the first part and the conclusion in both cases ?
There could be a logical part that is missing, but we assume its absence in the context .
I guess it’s reasonable to assume (rather than logical to do so) that if activities in Highsec were enabled and facilitated which CCP was able to demonstrate to its own people were significantly harmful to its bottom line (or new player retention), then those activities would be nerfed or removed.
That’s a bit of a mouthful, even for me, but it may be closer to what I mean than the other.
While I like your post, I highly doubt CCP will implement any changes in that direction anytime soon.
I especially like the idea of a players personal Security level boosting Concord response time. Since it takes a long time to build up high security level there should definitely be a reward for doing that…
Having a real time ‘Outside Station View’ while docked should definitely be implemented. If it can be implemented for ‘Active Structure Defense’, then it can also be implemented for a casual look while docked…
OMG, not this BS again… That 2015 CCP Rice NPE presentation was basically debunked later when CCP Helmar went around doing the 2019 ‘Beyond the Friendship Machine’ presentation, specifically in the part about ‘The Magic Moment’ when new players experience their first ship loss.
Most new players are playing solo within their first month and without a community to back them when they have a devasting loss they usually just quit the game afterwards. Course CCP Helmar doesn’t come right out and say it’s due to being ganked because that would turn away even more players from trying out the game. However he does allude to it with this statement:
Devasting loss is really like… we… we now call it the magic moment. The… the moment you lose your first spaceship is the moment whether… either you have enough understanding of why it happened… or you have the social network to help you through it… then you play forever. If you don’t then you immediately quit and never come back.
Understanding why it happened, a ray of hope that you can respond and get back on your feet and get revenge, and social support. During the magic moment… that… is… what… makes… an elite Eve player.
The key phrase is ‘Get Revenge’, and FYI, he’s not talking about NPC’s.
@Sasha_Nemtsov The above reply also pertains to your post about CCP Rise… His presentation stats was for new players who were only 15 day’s old or less. Ironic how new players are actually considered to be 30 days old or less. Also his stats were based on those who answered CCP survey question of why they quit the game. I’m pretty sure those that quit due to ganking were actually pissed and more than likely didn’t answer CCP’s survey.
No they wouldn’t remove it… What they did was implement changes to the game making game mechanics tougher for gankers to operate.
I agree that it’s reasonable to assume that CCP would nerf an activity, had they sufficient proof of its negative and significant contribution to the game.
We can thus now call that a “fact”
What if the new formula was
response_time = (1.5- victim_ss/10) × old_time ? This would be a boost to suicide ganking in most cases, as unless player ss is 5 it would actually increase concord reaction time. Would that still be interesting ?
What if CCP actually changed to to 1.0 base (instead of 1.5) so that it would be a nerf to ganking, and later set it to 1.5 so that it becomes a boost to ganking ?
Yes, DMC, that is what they did, and still people are complaining that Highsec gankers have it too easy, that ganking of new players is ruining the game, that ganking is the #1 reason for EVE’s declining player base.
Hogwash, I say. Many of these people probably won’t be satisfied until the play style is nerfed into the ground, or removed entirely. With the gankers gone, Highsec can be the Paradise such folk seem to envisage.
CCP hasn’t yet reached the point of erasing Highsec ganking. But, let’s be honest; how many non-ganking folks would miss its absence?
You’re experienced in observing these issues; you’ve seen the trends, read the threads. I’ve done the same. Is it really possible that we could come to polar-opposite conclusions? Well, I guess it is possible.
To use your word, if you make ganking ‘tough’ enough, gankers will do what any player would do if you made his/her play style tough enough. Leave.
EVE is not, never has been, nor will it ever be a single-player game, no matter how bad you want it to be. If you want that, go play Elite, X4, or No Man’s Sky.
There are a few of those stations but not many. That’s the little risk you have to take when you dock at a station you know is going to be difficult to undock from. It’s called learning the game; something you would not do or do wrong if you had a Solo Mode for EVE.
Asks yourself a question :
is it suicide ganking that is a problem, or the total lack of balance that appears from being able to multibox several chars in order to have the same effective power as several BS but for a fraction of the cost ?
Yes, people don’t like to be in a situation where they can’t do ANYTHING because the game spoonfeeds an activity. This is why they ask the game to be changed.
‘Illogical’ is when you make sweeping statements like that but provide zero evidence that what you say is true.
Your ‘evidence’ in post after post is little more than verbal power play. You think that if you type ‘fallacious’ and ‘illogical’ and ‘wrong’ often enough then sheer force of will makes you right. But it doesn’t. It is tiresome debating with people whose stance is that they are the only logical person debating, because ( as Sasha even says ) it is almost by definition impossible to persuade such a person otherwise. Their entire stance is ’ I am logical…therefore everything I think must be right’.
So one actually ends up having an argument not about the topic, or data, or facts, or even the interpretation of such, but about just what level of religious zeal someone has for their own infallibility.
I can only assume that some contenders here must be in training for being the Pope.
I would argue that the sort of people who are deterred from Eve by PvP, often the very same ones who want PvP to be made ‘consensual’, are people who ought to leave Eve. We should not be bemoaning their loss or working out ways to ‘retain’ them. Rather, we should point such people to the door as soon as possible to prevent them hanging around like a bad smell and poisoning the game.
The real problem with the game is not PvP, or ganking, or scamming, or ‘toxicity’…it is the poisoners who don’t really enjoy the game, have never really enjoyed the game, but are determined to stick around and make sure nobody else does either.
What exactly was that sweeping statements that would require evidence ?
Yeah, none.
You are not debating. You are making stupid claims and then complain about being noticed.
Literally the opinion I have of you. Yet making such a claim would be a personal attack…
Again, no logical argument, just your own dogma, your beliefs and their infallibility.
With a bit of haughty stance “I have the moral high ground how dare you reject my authority”.
And where am I pretending that I know, exactly ? Or even that ganking does indeed affect “significantly and negatively new player retention” ?
I don’t, as that was not the point of my message.
My point was that CCP is not omniscient, and therefore the claim that they react to anything that has a bad effect on the game is wrong.
But for you, that is a “sweeping statements” that would require evidence …
So yes, that “level” of debating where you misrepresent the arguments ?
No wonder you find it “tiresome”, when your whole activity is make arguments up and ask people where is their evidence for this argument you just created.
