Perhaps a specific example may help…
Do they do stuff in noob systems? Rookie chat?
More than that.
The reason awox was removed was so that vets weren’t afraid to hire noobs that might be awoxers.
But that wouldn’t suit his narrative.
You were supposed to say what they do to exploit them.
They missed the point why corps lead to better retention though.
It wasn’t because recruiters were spamming invites to anyone and everyone. Or providing zero guidance and support to the players they recruited.
It was exactly because care was taken during recruitment. Because time was spent developing every new member. And corps that were detrimental to the npe didn’t get very far.
I’d be interested to see what player retention in corps was like in 2010 compared to today.
And like with wardecs, they were warned this would happen.
Lol “people who awox shouldnt get hired”
Yeah dont marry an adulterer, either
1 Like
Oh man. This is actually going to be easy.
You have no idea what you’re talking about, and what you’re saying is pure conjecture, because you have no actual first-hand experience leading, or being part of, any sort of piracy-oriented organization.
I was one of the first members of the Privateers. At our peak we weren’t even responsible for just 5% of all wars in the game. And we had thousands of members.
Today, Hell Dawn, WeR4, and P I R A T are responsible for over 85% of all outgoing wars. I actually kept track of the war board in-game for a while recently, and it was really easy to see.
So, once again, you have no idea what you’re talking about, and what you’re saying is pure conjecture, because you have no actual first-hand experience leading, or being part of, any sort of piracy-oriented organization.
You have no idea what you’re talking about, and what you’re saying is pure conjecture, because you have no actual first-hand experience leading, or being part of, any sort of piracy-oriented organization.
Being willing to PvP (in any of its combat forms) is the definition of a “PvPer.”
So, once again, you have no idea what you’re talking about, and what you’re saying is pure conjecture, because you have no actual first-hand experience leading, or being part of, any sort of piracy-oriented organization.
I have nothing to protect. That gameplay doesn’t exist anymore. Blanket wars aren’t my thing, and targeted wars for extortion and mercenary work are no longer practical, so I’m finding other things to do.
Also, I have no need to lie. Lying is a coward’s folly.
Starting wars to bash structures (that don’t even drop player loot) is fundamentally un-fun. And the purpose of piracy isn’t just to “get fights” (although this is fine, sometimes), but to make some kind of living. A gameplay style revolving around fights in which you are sometimes victorious and don’t get much for the effort, and are sometimes defeated and lose quite a lot, is self-defeating and downright nonsensical.
So, once again, you have no idea what you’re talking about, and what you’re saying is pure conjecture, because you have no actual first-hand experience leading, or being part of, any sort of piracy-oriented organization.
Actually, yes, including mining. One of the first things I did when I started playing was join a friend’s low-sec alliance, and later a 0.0 alliance in the southern regions (Omist, I think?), and mining was one of our primary income streams. Except we actually actively defended our ops, and chomped at the bit to engage any aggressors, instead of crying on the forums about “griefers” not letting us suck our rocks in peace.
Welp, that was pretty easy. Didn’t even work up a sweat. 
4 Likes
Can you provide evidence, as in names of any of these Doomheimed characters and/or any of the invites?
I’m not refuting your claims. Rather I would like to see confirmation.
I feel like it was just yesterday you were saying that if you make a claim you should back it up with evidence, or you’ve got nothing.
I’m just inviting you to be more specific about how null blocs exploit new players.
Yes definitely. Just as described.
It wasn’t just corps that increased player retention. It was how corps were run and how recruitment policies were selective.
I didn’t say they created them. But i will say they made it worse.
More players may be in corps quicker now. But a much greater proportion of those corps are of terrible quality.
That leadership will spam recruitment without giving a damn about the players they are recruiting. Skim corp tax from them and misinform them about the game.
You were bad before but you’re being more disingenuous than usual. When people said wars will get worse, what do you mean? Who said wars would get worse and how?
I don’t not believe you. And I’m no friend of null blobs either.
But i haven’t seen the behaviour you describe. And i don’t know how far you’d stretch the definition of ‘exploit new bros’. You say they do stuff in rookie chat…but what?
Exposure.
A needle is easier to find if there isn’t a hay-stack.
SICO and ICANP hoovered up a disproportionate number of new players recently. Both were shown to have terrible management.
Uh huh…
Where did we change the goal posts?
1 Like
Just a daily reminder that the CEO of Sico is running for CSM and added a bunch of corps to his alliance explicitly for the purpose of voting.
Prove it? I’m not going to conduct a massive survey for a forum post argument.
My proof is my first-hand involvement with this sphere of gameplay. I deal with a whole lot of similar players, and I know exactly how we judge each other; you, on the other hand, don’t.
ISK efficiency trumps everything. In fact, when we spot someone padding their board with mass frigate kills, we mock them mercilessly.
You would know all of this, if you were involved. Maybe you should involve yourself, even if only for academic purposes. You would quickly come to understand why what you’re saying right now is drivel.
It proves firsthand experience with the system, which is more than you have. My knowledge comes from seeing and doing, and your knowledge comes from inferring according to your own sense of morality. The two can’t be compared.
I’m not sure if there’s anywhere I can pull actual war stats from. This was possible a long time ago, but no longer. Right now, all we have access to is the list of “recent wars” in-game. I followed that list for a few weeks recently, to get up to speed with the current situation and war mechanics. What I saw was that those three groups I mentioned were responsible for upwards of 90% of all wars.
Has that number gone down…from what, exactly? From the amount of wars that were conducted in the past? That’s a resounding “yes,” as the rate of all new wars being declared is lower than just what Marmite was responsible for by iitself as recently as five years ago.
And you can’t declare war on anyone who doesn’t have structures in space, so that’s a ridiculous question to ask.
Still better than anything you’re able to offer.
Threatening to nuke a major trade hub would be all risk and no reward. It’s not like I would get any of the items inside. Even if I successfully do it, they can just put another one up, and the effort I would have to expend to take it down would exceed the difficulty of replacement considerably.
Things just don’t work the way you imagine them to. Once again, if you had firsthand experience, you’d know this.
I already explained this to you and don’t want to do it again.
Wouldn’t be surprised if it’s Naari_Naarian
Then feel free to publicly state that you:
- have experience with the high-sec war system
- have initiated and engaged in wars
- have dealt with multiple other players who did the same as allies and enemies
- and have generally engaged in non-consensual PvP as an aggressor in a quantity sufficient to attain at least a moderate degree of experience
- name at least one such group you were a part of
Also, while I can’t speak for every group, as I said before, I was a member of a whole lot of them. Pretty much every major one until about 2017, at least. Yes, there will always be outliers - I never argued against that. That’s why I say "most*.
My apologies, then. I have only recently come back from a break, and don’t know the functionality of that new system. I’ll explore it later, but won’t be able to do it in time for this thread. As far as I know, though, the in-game war board reports all new wars, so having followed that for a few weeks, I’d imagine that the sample is fairly reliable.
It seems that they have reduced the number of wardecs in general, which is the expected outcome of implementing a change like the structure requirement for wars. However, the percentage of blanket wars out of all wars declared seems to have gone up considerably.
But the outcome appears to be more negative this way. In the past, wars were more personal, and on a smaller scale, which meant that defenders often did fight back. Today, all I see happening is the blanket war groups camping pipes and major hub stations. I’m no longer seeing fights, just ganks.
The system has definitely become less dynamic and fun.
Having a structure requirement for wars is fine in itself.
The issue is that the system is full of holes. For example, you can use a 1-man shell corporation to administer the structure(s), and while that structure is vulnerable, all of your normal members are safe from the war. And this isn’t just something that precious carebears that we must protect and coddle at all costs can take advantage of.
It’s just not a good system all around.
You’re still approaching PvP entirely from the “gudfite” perspective. EVE isn’t an arena, or at least it’s not an arena for everyone. Being a pirate entails, and necessitates, more than just getting fights for “content.” Fighting has to make financial sense, too. Most of the opportunities available with regard to attacking structures provide little financial incentive. Meanwhile, ambushing a player can always result in a ransom.
Feel free to explain how and why, then.
Is that what they put in rookie chat and noob system local?
Cause I’d consider that bad form. It’d be surprising that ccp allowed that.
I don’t think the hay-stack was as big then as it is now. I try to keep in touch with the new npe with new characters. And i believe that it’s harder to find a good corp today than it was when i started.
So many corps are dishonest in their adverts, inactive and lead by idiots.
Another interesting statistic for ccp to look at would be the turnover of corporations and how many corps players go through before they settle.
If you really wanna know, do some asking around or join them yourself.
SICO are quite notorious now. Bring em up in local and you’ll get the odd ‘oh those guys’ and ‘yeah i used to be in that corp’
And i was part of ICANP which had a fail cascade when junior leadership got fed up of propping up the corp alone and unsupported, and especially got fed up with the cult BS.
ICANP was spamming recruitment despite the wardec, and provided no warning nor assistance to their new members. It was not interested in what it could do for new players. And entirely focused on using them as a lobbying group whilst taking corp tax.
SICO also had a number of AWOXes recently that they are sweeping under the rug.
Are we also counting the 5 orcas they managed to lose in a single day because not a single one of them mentioned their orca was going down, neither in discord or in any eve related chat channel?
There’s a lot that “doesnt happen” when it definately has going on.
Exactly. So shitty corps will be inundated with Awoxers and they will either have to learn their lesson and actually vet and choose who to accept, which will decrease the spams, or they will lose ships.
a). If they are actual scam corps, then, yeah, they do care. Imagine having someone who constantly joins and kills other corp members while discussing in length how bad the corp is and how they should move to another corp. The point of scam corps that recruit new players is so that they can milk them, and human beings at large tend not to care about things that dont happen to them or affect them directly, i.e. starving children in africa versus yourself starving because you cant afford food. Just joining a corp and spamming that this place sucks isnt going to leave a large impact. Going around killing those players and explaining why this corp sucks and this is a good reason why, does.
b). Semi decent corps will already be able to deal with this. Theres a reason why groups like Brave Newbies and, previously, EVE uni were doing just fine even before the friendly fire off button. They had no problems recruiting and holding players, no problems dealing with Awoxers.
c) remember, I said beyond a certain size. Small corps wont be affected. Its only corps that go beyond a certain limit, that get bloated by mass recruiting and blind accepting of players, that will suffer.
Im also okay with forgoing this friendly fire off system for larger corps if they set their taxes to 0%. But if you are a large corp, with 1+% taxes, then yeah, friendly fire on.
Then do it.
Also, I didn’t ask you to name your character(s), just a single group you were a part of.
Because I’m playing the game, not managing web code. As far as I can tell, being an ESI expert isn’t necessary for me to draw conclusions about the game itself, especially when I have in-game data.
Regardless, I’m not falling into this debate trap of being called out into performing many hours of professional data analysis to bolster an argument which you’ll then say you didn’t even bother to read anyway.
Saying that “the sky is blue” doesn’t necessitate citing multiple scientific papers. When I look at the in-game war board, and see that out of the roughly 30-40 new wars declared each day, three groups are responsible for close to nine-tenths of them, that should be good enough, because it is easily verifiable.
When I read the blogs with regard to these new gameplay mechanics, they stated that their goals were to create meaningful engagements in wars, and not to affect the number of wars. CCP isn’t stupid enough to say that they want to reduce player conflict in a blog, which an explicit desire of decreasing war numbers would convey.
Also, while it’s true that most of the wars before the changes were of the blanket type, the proportion to the total was still less.
Why do I need to state it when it’s so easily verifiable in game? There are about 40 new wars declared every day (at least there were when I kept track a few months ago), and you can easily see how many of them the three primary groups are responsible for.
In the past, that board scrolled so fast, that it changed entirely every two hours. Which is in line with your argument (which I agree with) that overall, the amount of wars has gone down. The difference is that in the past, there were more than three big groups doing it. I can’t quantify this for you without doing tens of hours of work going through every known high-sec war group’s war history.
Wars, by their nature, and with a very small number of exceptions, aren’t something that a defending party desires. The losing party to a war (and in EVE, that usually happens to be the defender) will end up being negatively affected. The concept of the “defender kill” becomes a red herring, in this case. Just because there are more defender kills today (enabled by the additional combat utility that structures provide), doesn’t mean that the defenders aren’t as negatively impacted as they were before.
They did police themselves. It’s just that for carebears, any amount of nonconsensual PvP is too much, so the amount of crying done was always the same.
And yes, it would probably have been better to scrap the system entirely. Of course, they’d have to compensate for the lack of destruction elsewhere, such as by nerfing high-sec income. Otherwise, the market would start to inflate.
Your suggestion is “big” PvP. While there’s nothing inherently wrong with that, in order to be able to accomplish something like this, I would need a large group of people. I’m not going to be able to do this by grabbing a friend and rolling up in two Leshaks.
And that’s my issue with the new system: it eviscerates small, personal engagements. Decreasing the amount of wars in general is not the same as decreasing the amount of large-scale blanket wars. You’re probably happy with any change that decreases wars in any shape or form, though, which is why I wanted some example of your wardec credentials. I find it hard to believe that any person who did high-sec wars would want wars to be removed.
By definition, “blanket” wars don’t discriminate against the type of player on the receiving end.
Holy shitballs. You sure know how to hijack a thread.
You guys have fun.
2 Likes
But your claim is that these people are “neckbeards” and “incels” and grief newbies because they enjoy hurting people. How exactly is giving them an in-game objective going to change their behavior? Or are you going to take back all of the things you have said about them and take the position that they are legitimate players playing the game in a normal and rational way, and therefore subject to normal incentives within the game?
And, aside from the “griefers”, if the goal people have is killboard stats and CCP has no control over killboards how is giving an alternative objective going to change anything? They’re already ignoring alternative targets right now because they only care about the killboard stats, what exactly is giving them even more alternatives going to do?