/facepalm…
Their actions are causing the attrition.
Ofc they are responsible for their own actions which have caused that.
Now its CCPs responsibility to fix that.
No. You need to get off your high horse. The responsibility for the player numbers is entirely in CCP’s hands.
Not only do you not understand this, but you want to use it to antagonise entire groups of players here.
They have not closed down your game play, most of your kills are on nullsec alliances anyway and as far as I can see there is no change there.
And the balance being such you will then push CCP to nerf ganking.
Actually you are going to give that to them on a plate, not a smart move.
But we’re all evil space terrorists!!!11eleventhy
What will the space police do when more people die? 
2 Likes
Do you have any evidence that ganking hurts player retention other than anecdotes? It’s an important question because you seem to base your expectations that nothing will change on that.
1 Like
Which is why they need to to stop the attrition, by fixing the mechanics whereby CODE, PIRAT and Marmite are causing loss in player retention, which is hurting CCPs fiscal income and bottomline.
This isnt rocket science. Its blatantly obvious and clear.
1 Like
Of course he doesn’t
When’s the last time he had proof to back up his words? 
Ganking is not suicide ganking.
Ganking involves wardec in HS, Suicide Ganking does not.
@Ima_Wreckyou doesn’t this exact line remember you of some banned idiot? 
2 Likes
That sentence makes no sense whatsoever. What I have said is pretty evident, if you want to go in that direction then go ahead, but when your playstyle gets nerfed you can only blame yourselves, of course you will try to blame the dreaded and much feared carebear…
What makes no sense? To ask if you have any evidence for ganking hurting retention other than anecdotes?
1 Like
Can’t see any anecdotes above, must be in your fevered imagination. CCP has the data, you should go ask them?
Ganking is legal.
Suicide ganking is not.
You are confusing two different mechanics.
I wasn’t talking about that. Obvously has this and other threads around the topic grown and contains lots of thought on this.
What it doesn’t need is Salvos Rhoska antagonising others here on the forum with his usual ignorant statements. I don’t see any good coming from it when you continue with it under a different name. You’re now even repeating the nonsense on “ganking” vs. “sucide ganking”. Please don’t fall back into your old patterns of “salvoshing” threads.
So you have no evidence at all that ganking hurts retention and just assume it to be true and that is where you base your whole reasoning on that the situation will not improve?
I was. Dunno what you are talking about.
Don’t feed the troll plz. just ignore him
Ganking and Suicide Ganking are not the same thing.
They are mechanically different.
It is a word commonly used in online video games, usualy used in an MMORPG. Ganking is the process in which a group of charecters gang up on one or more players that do not have a chance to defend themselves […]
I wouldn’t know your experience. But mechanically, highsec has been made safer and safer since 2009 with the insurance nerf, CrimeWatch 2.0, buffs to industrial EHP and so forth. Objectively, based on real metrics, highsec also has the least amount of ganks since verified killmails appeared on the API:
But this thread is about wars, not criminals, and there I might agree with you, although I am currently in the process of collecting that data over time to see for myself. It seems like that today you are more likely to receive a wardec than back in 2009 and thus have your free CONCORD safety removed for a week. If there is any problem here at all impacting on player activity, it is this: wars are more common today than in the past and for a combination of reasons, not undocking or not logging in is one of the favoured metas to deal with them.
Again, there was no noticeable bump in player numbers after the mining barges we rebalanced in the summer of 2012. I’m not saying that these ships didn’t need a rebalancing, but there is no evidence adding a mining ship with a battleship-sized tank did anything to player activity.
Increasing the difficulty to engage in player interactions in this sandbox does not increase player numbers, or at least I see no evidence that it does. Yet, various camps constantly call for it always promising CCP untold new players (and revenue) if they do yet it never materializes.
It’s not an assumption. The data are clear - after the multiple intended buffs to highsec safety there is no detectible bounce in player numbers in the PCU. It’s just data, and you can interpret it as you want, but I see no example of where making highsec safer has increased player numbers. But I will remember your line and use it the next time someone claims without evidence that player retention numbers will skyrocket and CCP will become filthy rich if only they make the game just a little bit safer.
1 Like