Maybe people should watch the last few shows of The Exspanse season3 specially e13 Adabbon’s Gate.
The last 5 minutes explains what nullsec should be, a “another gold rush, with blood shed”, currently nullsec is like the UEO, managed by alliances serving only for the leaders benefit, the blackout is allowing those creative minds and the balls to crave portions of nullsec away from the mega corps, who as some have already said pulled forces back to better defend their controlled space. Even Talk in Stations and other youtube videos have more or less confirmed this.
Those quiting are very short sighted or have limited knowledge of EVE and what can be achieved.
The blackout will test alliance agreements,and we’ll see a few broken by those willing to test things.
We’ll also see merc groups taking advantage of the blackout to generate isk, by causing corps to hiring extra defense forces, the old tactic cause havoc to generate demand for services.
@Maekchu This isn’t directed at you so much as at the thread in general. Your quote (of somebody else’s quote) was just a perfect entry point.
soz
“with us” may actually be the more important part of that statement than the “get them to die” part. And, given the broader correlation that retention and player-player interaction seem to have, that would be a logical inference to make.
Players that are “retained” are, by definition, more likely to experience ship loss. That’s just how the world works. If I drive more, I’m more likely to be involved a car accident. If I I have a dog, I am more likely to be bitten by a dog. If I am not a doctor, I am orders of magnitude less likely to have killed a hospital patient. Similarly, if I fly my spaceship more, it is far more likely that someone comes along at some point and destroys it.
The relationship between retention is being posited to be ship-loss =>>> retention, but it is observed to be ship-loss = retention, and it may even be simply that ship-loss <<<= retention.
Where this has bearing on the thread is in the question of whether lower login counts =>>> lower revenue? lower botting =>>> lower login counts? less free information =>>> lower botting? etc., etc., etc.
What leads to what? What follows from what?
You are 15 years late to the party. 0.0-sec used to be like that. But similarly to RL time of lawless space and gold rush comes and goes. People build their castles and do not like to lose it to randoms so making bigger organizations is natural.
What you want it to artificially reverse human behaviour. Not gonna happen.
Agreed, but with the caveat that humans are, themselves, a force of nature. Sometimes cities are destroyed by tidal waves. Sometimes, cities are destroyed by tidal waves of people. Sometimes, it is a complete lack of water that destroys them. Sometimes . . .
You call unpredictable events in an anarchy status region “chaos”?
If you want “order” go to high sec,but demanding “order” in a (by design) chaotic environment is simply against the pure essence of eve as you call it…
This shows how much you were spoiled the last years…you simply can’t follow your own advise you give people who demand more casual “adapt or go away”…
Last 10+ or so years player controlled 0.0-sec was officially called “place where player built empires clash for power and dominance”. What you describe is NPC 0.0 space.
Slightly off-topic, and directed at nobody in particular given how crazy this thread is going, but I wanted to add a bit of my own experience to this topic:
Every friendship that I have formed in New Eden was forged at the business end of a weapon.
Whether it was ganking new-ish players and then teaching them how not to get ganked, besting a pair of T1 cruisers 2v1 in losec and getting recruited on the spot by the CEO of the pilots I blew up, or starting a highly entertaining series of 1v1 Thunderdome grudge matches on the old forums, everyone I know and/or trust in New Eden either earned that spot because I shot at them or they shot at me.
Anecdotes do not data make, but I’ve long felt that getting shot at, in the right context, is key to player retention. That’s how you forge bonds, and bonds are what keep people here. I started playing in 2006 with a few folks I knew out-of-pod. I was the only one who was PvP-oriented, and I’m the only one still playing (albeit very intermittently).
So bringing this around to the OP, I suspect that what this Blackout will do is drive overall player participation down, but the players who remain will be more tightly knit and dedicated to the game. I have limited data to support this, so this is just a hunch.
As usual, a certain crowd takes data that means next to nothing, and uses it to ‘prove’ their preferred viewpoint is correct.
First off, ‘illegal’ deaths are not the only deaths that count as harassment. Someone provoking a newbie into becoming suspect, then killing that newbie, certainly counts as harassment in my eyes - but is not included in this data point - other than to say that “13.5% of deaths were ‘legal’”.
Second, basing conclusions on a data point that comes from roughly 8-10 weeks worth of new accounts (at 10,000 per week, CCPs own estimate), that boils down to 1% of those players, that does not quantify the difference between them beyond “more likely, less likely, and least likely”, borders on statistical insignificance. Doggedly repeating that point every week for the next 4 years just shows how little the PvP-promoters have to work with.
Is ‘more likely’ 51%, ‘less likely’ 50%, and ‘least likely’ 49%? Without numbers it’s hard to tell the significance of the data.
Also as Anderson Geten pointed out, correlation does not imply causation, particularly when ‘self-selection bias’ of people who might be specifically attracted to PvP could be part of the result.
I would not go so far as to call you a liar, however like several other people on the forums, you do consistently represent this small bit of questionable data from 4 years ago as a ‘quotable fact’. This smacks of misrepresentation, to say the least.
Not data, a direct quote from the guy who had all the data.
Well I present it as a quote of an employee that counters the common carebear cries of ganking hurts retention. To say I’m misrepresenting something when I constantly provide the links and quotes while others do not is, well, misrepresentation, to say the least.
And that exactly is a lie.
It’s a lie because you take a sentence out of its context to make it mean something different from what it means, in the context.
It’s just like I said “I like to drink tea as much as you like to hammer your fingers” and you take only the “I like to drink tea” as a quote.
