Sad that you and other undesirables have to huddle for warmth with such people because nobody can stand you IRL.
FO out of this thread if you can’t stay on topic, clown. Ralph was no-life forum trash as well. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
the nut is is starting to crack.
CONCORD are punitive, not preventative, how long have you played this game and not realised that?
I’d actually say that is one of the worst things about EVE.
Name them. I’m willing to bet the only person “you know” who ragequit over ganking is yourself.
That is largely an arbitrary distinction.
CONCORD is preventative of success by an ill prepared gank.
CONCORD prevents crimes that dont exceed the threshold to overcome CONCORDs punitive measures.
Or rather, they prevent the success of that crime, which obviously is the goal of that crime to achieve. The point of a robbery is to get the money and get out with it, not to commit the crime in and of itself.
It is too easy to recover Sec Status. This is where the problem has always been and will always be.
Its a valid question to ask:
-Do 3rd parties in HS have enough means to engage/intervene in a gank action before/during it?
There are four elements involved:
-The gankers
-The target
-CONCORD
-Other players
So far we have been talking largely only about the first 3, but not the fourth and arguably most important element.
I don’t know, but from the FanFest presentation it was losing a ship to another player. Those that lost a ship in a war had a higher chance of staying with the game and those that were criminally exploded the highest.
Yes, but here you are apparently still playing the game. You didn’t stay unsubscribed and depending on what windows CCP used for their metrics and how long you were unsubscribed before coming back, you could be part of the ganked-with-higher-retention category.
I get that losing a ship unexpectely might be unpleasant at the time, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t an experience that keeps players playing the game better that the alternative: mining or missioning for a few weeks or months alone and nothing happens.
Before that presentation, if someone told me that getting non-consensually exploded drove new players away, I would say that is plausible. However, if they also told me that having the tutorial send new players off to mine alone for a few weeks until they get bored and quit was losing players, I would say that is also plausible. Getting connected and finding your place is not easy, and even if getting exploded can take some players out of their comfort zone, it seems reasonable to me that experiencing some space violence might also capture the imagination of many of those new players better of what Eve can be than level 1 missions and silent Venture mining by themselves.
I don’t see why some people can’t seem to shake their preconceived notions that since being ganked feels bad, it must be bad for keeping new players. Sometimes feeling bad is better than feeling nothing at all like the countless new players that we have lost before they could form any connection to other players or realized the possibilities of the real interesting gameplay (AKA not highsec mining) the greater sandbox offers. Boredom claims them and while Eve may be just not the game for many of them, there still are a large number of potential long-term players we are likely losing because highsec and the NPE is too isolating.
You’ve got to be kidding me.
You cant be serious.
You should never have admitted this, even if its true.
You just committed forum seppuku.
My first loss as a noob was a Rupture/pod worth over a bil years ago to a Panther on my first gate entry into LS ever whilst clueless. Never occured to me to unsub.
Really? Even before security tags?
Ok then it follows that;
If its too easy/cheap to gank, and “shouldnt be allowed”
Then
Mining and industrial ships shouldnt have tank in the first place either, right?
I mean its not like they need it vs a 12 dps rat is it?
If you state a hypothesis like “ganking hurts new player retention” and then it turns out that 99% of them don’t even experience such a thing, but those who do are more likely to stay, then yes that completely falsifies that hypothesis.
Confirming or falsifying a hypothesis has nothing to do with prove. You don’t always go around proving stuff in science, you only state what is more likely and what is not.
The only place where the word “prove” means something is math and only because it is basically an artificial construct on top of axioms which are themselves only “very very likely to be true”.
another possible hypothesis is that sucide ganking and unsubbing correlate due to something lacking in game.
you guys crack me up. the griefing carebears keep it tight with you.
Ok
Just give me a moment, I have to find my composure, I suddenly lost it
Ok
Wat?
Ok
GENUINE TEARS CONFIRMED GUYS!!
Another possible hypothesis is that your mother hurts new player retention. So what?
You can state any amount of ridiculous hypothesis. The question is why should we take it serious?
Rod is trolling us.
Nobody can seriously be this salty about the loss of an autopiloted empty Mammoth in HS from ages ago. I refuse to believe that.
In anycase:
-As Black Pedro points out, Rod nonetheless returned to the game, despite unsubbing. This contradicts the theory players leave EVE permanently due to being ganked (although he ironically still supports that theory).
-If someones loss threshold is that low, I can say without reservation that EVE is not the game for them. It is inevitable, whether by their own mistake or aggression, or a mix of both, that they eventually will lose much more than an empty mammoth in autopilot, at a time.
Even station traders, otherwise immune to ship PvP get outplayed on the market, make bad decisions or accidentally set their prices wrong, resulting in loss.
To err, is human.
You WILL make mistakes that cause you loss in EVE.
Its inevitable.
Rod:
I think you would be doing your nerves and yourself a huge favor by simply going to play something else. If you thought that loss was bad, you will be in a world of pain later on.
To return to topic:
Should CCP implement changes that allow for more opportunity for the rest of HS capsuleers to intervene in ganks or engage known gankers pre-emptively?
So far we have discussed only the target, the gankers and CONCORD, whereas the largest population involved in this, is everyone else in HS.
Though 3rd player party intervention in a gank may hamper gank efforts, does it make a difference if PVP in HS is sourced from gankers against their targets, or other players against gankers?
Both are PvP, nonetheless.
not about being taken serious, more about pointing out that pulling in cause, corelation and logic into social situation discussion is something that is unlikely to be sttait forward.
a cause that may make player leave in case of suicide gank is the long time ro get another ship, a tendency to see space games the movi way - me is going to survive cause i’m the hero here - the way they look at high sec and punishable offences - killing is bad says the ten commandments and needs to be prevented punished - and so on.
what i was trying to point at is that there are numerouse factors that might make people unsub and suicide ganking might just make those factors visible by destroying the pink lovey dovey glasses some players have concerning eve.
What is LIKELY or not is not science, it is your opinion. Someone else will have another interpretation. And both of you wont be right.
So , no. Even when in the number correlate in the opposite way, you can not state that ganking hurts or not the new player retention just by looking at statistical retroactive data.
You can state any amount of ridiculous hypothesis.
What is ridiculous or not is not yours to decide. You HAVE to prove that. If you don’t, your affirmation is wrong.
if you consider that something is false because it does not suit your opinion, you are completely out of the topic.And adding about someone’s mother makes you wrong for making logical fallacies and personal aggressions.
Again : correlation is NOT causation. Even with a 100% correlation between two events, it does NOT mean one is the cause of the other.
And even with a 0% correlation in a data set, it does not mean there is no causation between the two.
You are saying you can deduce a causation from a correlation, so you are wrong. Really, it’s THAT simple.
I reckon there’s probably some physicists that would disagree there.
Likelihood is a deduction calculated off existing scientific evidence.
Science itself, as a method or body of data, is not concerned with likelihood.
Likelihood is something we deduce from the data, but is only as valid as the data it is deduced from.
Until we know “everything”, we cannot assume that deduction to be 100% true, as we dont have 100% data from which to draw an absolute deduction of likelihood.
Thanks, @yellow_parasol; what a shame. I really enjoyed his posts and the contribution he made in bringing Irish humour to the boards. I’m really quite downcast to hear that.