There we go again.
More proof of the above.
You could, you know, answer the questions. If you did, I could stop asking them.
2 Likes
More proof of the above.
Then link your answer, Salvos. Thatās all you have to do. You link your answerāan actual, substantive answer, not just more of the āLook! The AGENDA REVEALEDā¢ā nonsenseāand if Iām trolling, if I keep saying you havenāt answered, then youāve proven to everyone that Iām full of crap.
And thatās the worst case for youā¦ if you can do it. If you link your answer, and Iām not trolling, then we can go back to having the substantive discussion you claim you were trying to have.
So there you go: Either you make a fool of me, or we can get back to working on the problem. IF youāve answered.
ORā¦ you can keep deflecting and evading, and trying to make out like itās unreasonable to ask you to produce the answer you claim to have given after Iāve demonstrated a willingness to spend time going through the thread looking for it. And then I wonāt be the one youāre making look the fool.
Either way, Iāve got to be up in 5h, so Iām out for the night.
2 Likes
This is a lie. You just want to start the circus again.
Ive already told you Ive answered what you ask to others and in context in this thread. Read the thread.
As I said:
I am not Salvos.
You repeating that is just more of your attempt to play games.
You did not read my posts to others asking the same, and where those have already been answered in other posts Ive written regarding Social Corps.
I have already posted the answers to your questions. I dont need to repeat myself to you, compile or dig them up for you, again, just cos its you asking them now, again.
When you get back, how about you ask the Goon affiliated CSMs to come here and answer our, and your, questions, instead of you answering and spinning for them while they remain silent.
In this game of alts one becomes rather suspicious when a new poster happens to have a very similar style to another poster. The more that is written, the easier it is to match.
1 Like
The story about gank was what I always though is happening, and it doesnt show anywhere in such statistics for new guys CCP Rise presentedā¦ No wonder that presentation is controversial to this day.
Examine how āplayer retentionā is now coming into the spotlight.
Few factors may have bringed it again to CCP attention. PCU count, less people have converted to EVE players, less players were invited by recruitment program, overall rather poor numbers across the board, and PA bonus for certain goal that is every day farther from being achievable. Maybe one of those or few.
1 Like
Ill activate this trap with a stick.
Lets see if what I predicted and identified as the circus begins again.
The issue is players logging off while under wardec and never returning.
Wardecs do not relevantly apply in LS/NS/WH, only in HS.
Thus nothing is gained by allowing Social Corps into or in LS/NS/WH.
Its for small groups or solo HS players to continue PvE without wardecs, with their own Tag/identity, in HS.
Its not about adding benefit. Its about preventing abuse.
In the restrictions I posted, Suicide Gankers can form Social Corps, but they cannot turn off Green Safety, they cannot have members with <0.1 Sec status, and they cannot venture into <0.5 space.
If they want to commit criminal or suspect acts, they can still do so in a Player or NPC Corp.
The purpose of Social Corps is so small groups or solo HS players can PvE without wardecs, with their own Tag/identity, not to allow Suicide Gankers and pirates to use a Social Corps for their criminal and suspect flag causing activities, whilst wardec immune.
Now watch the circus I predicted and explained above, start all over again, for the upteenth time, as these agenda players again apply their tactics as I explained above, as they have before, when I answered the questions again, for the upteenth time.
First will no doubt be āyou didnt answer the questionsāā¦ again.
Second will be āWho said Social Corps are only for small/solo HS friends to PvE wihout wardec?ā
Third will be ālol ur Salvosā
Fourth āNPC Corp or Player Corp can already do it!ā which makes the Social Corp pointless.
Etc, etc.
Iām not going to blame your friend here as he was new, but he was clearly doing something wrong if he got ganked in a Venture. The ship is small (slow to lock), agile, and comes with built in warp stabilizers. It can escape from almost engagement in highsec by just clicking āwarpā or ājumpā before enough damage can be applied or even locked in most cases. If you asked me as an aggressor to catch a Venture in highsec that was actively trying to avoid me, I would be hard-pressed to come up with a cost-effective solution to catch one that didnāt involve sacrificing a much more expensive ship, or used a large fleet of people.
This is an issue Eve has always fought with, and any competitive game really has to deal with - how to get new players integrated into the competitive game. A veteran who knows the game is much safer than a newer player who is still figuring things out. Eve throws a new player into the same battle arena everyone else is playing in on almost day 1 with no protections. And, often on day 1, players are going to experience loss.
But that is completely intended. Ships are suppose to be built, used and then lost in this game. They are all disposable tools destined to explode in a pretty ball of fire. āTimeā is always going to be wasted in Eve. Ships are going to be lost that cost time or ISK to build, and really have to be to give any meaning to the other side of the game which is gathering stuff and building them. If some player canāt deal with a game that features permanent loss and that sometimes their ātime is wastedā, then it is not the ganker that is the problem, but the game itself.
CCP will not be able to change the game sufficiently to keep players with this mindset. Further, these stories of people quitting after losing something are never told alongside the stories of people quitting out of boredom after a few weeks of solo mining in highsec where nothing happens. CCP Riseās numbers donāt say that no one quits the game because they experience loss to another player in the first weeks - his numbers say that other causes, like boredom or confusion, are a much more common experience driving people away from the game.
Maybe there is some solution to better ease newer players into the idea of loss yet still keep the sense of excitement and meaning that keeps other people playing, but making highsec safer has the very real danger of boring even more players out of the game, or leaving them alone and unengaged to flounder along a solo mission or mining career before quitting. And that is not to mention the impact on existing subscribers who are inevitably lost with pretty much every significant change.
Highsec will never be made perfectly safe. There will always be crime and there always will be fights over player-owned structures. A nowhere is safe, full-time PvP game is the core idea of this game. That means new players will always, at some point, will enter the arena and there is the possibility they will lose something. Maybe a longer safe tutorial time would help improve player retention, but that comes with the dangers of not representing the real game, boring some players out of the game, and that most of the players you are trying to āretainā will still lose something on day 21 instead of day 1 and quit the same so it just delays the inevitable.
I think CCP has realized this fact: Eve isnāt for everyone and nothing they can do will change that. Besides, the bigger problem is getting people into the game - learning the mechanics and UI, and getting socially connected - than people quitting over losing something in a game about building and losing stuff.
2 Likes
Was he Suicide Ganked, or ganked via wardec?
Was it a legal or criminal gank?
If it was in LS, Social Corp wardec immunity would have been largely irrelevant anyways,
That is essentially āI am not going to do A but I will do Aā. 
What is the effect of that encounter anyway? Is CCP able to accept it any longer? I will not ask you or anyone of players if he accepts it, because CCP do not takes it into account. They wanted to rebalance things together with players and LOKI IS OP LIKE NEVER BEFORE.
If anyone knows what is the stance on ganking, like what CCP is talking behind doors?
CCP will do what they want.
It was a bribe. Ok, perhaps more accurately, a juicy reward dangled in front of players as part of their conditioning in the Skinner box that is Eve Online. CCP purposely opened the wealth faucets via the capital changes to get more people playing, and playing in nullsec. CCP wanted to drive player activity in the showpiece of their game after they had just revamped the sov system, and poured all sorts of goodies like easy ISK, minerals and boatloads of safety to make their players happy and keep pushing those levers.
Maybe it wasnāt as coldly calculated and premeditated as I present here, but that is effectively what they did. Off-grid boosting was a great change, and the Rorqual and the other capital ships needed a revamp, but what we objectively got has resulted in years of unbridled overproduction and powercreep in nullsec. This was made worse by the cash-grab - okay that is too loaded a term - the monetization-focused feature of Skill Extractors which has been efficiently leveraged by veterans to increase the power gap over starting players to a significant degree.
In highsec, we can at least give newer player groups some protection with social corps or something similar, and the mechanics keep them safe from constant capital hotdrops, but much of the content elsewhere is being squelched by the power gap. The game isnāt going to die, but I can totally see why newer players or groups might get turned off of the game given the current state of balance.
Iām not sure what CCPās next trick will be once the allure of all these big ships wears off and the veterans stop logging in and pushing those levers. I hope they have one.
1 Like
āUn-restricted Social Corpsā, right?
Veterans havent been paying to play EVE in years.
Instead they want to keep their advantage as great as possible, so they can exploit the PLEX new players introduce via recruitment and overall
Its hilarious that in the CSM minutes, CSM say they read mostly on the recruitment forum!
Hmmm! Wonder why!
I think thereās only so much CCP can do. I understand that gamers have changed and are much more āsoftā and ācasualā in a lot of cases, but I personally think that a lot of the features and attributes of Eve Online are some of the only defining ones that make the game worth playing.
āā
In what other game can you be the āvillainā and have the leniency to play the game within a rather loose set of rules and mechanics. This is a game where on the cover and in most of its marketing tells consumers of an experience of a dynamic world where YOUR actions matter and can shape the game. This isnāt for everyone, and throughout the years CCP has made changes that have strayed away from these defining principles. Itās still identifiable by those main traits, but have been toned downā¦ but the moment CCP goes full cash grab in an attempt to completely cater to people that donāt want to experience the core principles and features of the game, then thereās not much that actually makes it a very interesting game.
I think the state of the game is incredibly grim right now to be honest. @Dracvlad talks about an imbalance in Highsec, but I think itās even worse in Nullsec. I guess with the shift of power from passive ISK to active Rorqual farming and with the Imperium being the first and best to jump on it, itās set the game in a direction where unless thereās some BOB style upheaval then Goonswarm has won the game. Drac you say that Rorquals make good content, but what effect does that content actually have in the grand scheme of things. Has the game gone too far where you canāt kill Rorquals fast enough to overturn these mighty empires that players have built? I think CCP has failed us as players and consumers where one side has played the game so well that they are basically in a position where they canāt lose.
Just a #highsecgrieferbtw perspective on it. What do I know? 
Youāre one terrible liar Salvos
Or do you want us to call you @Norian_Rever?
Your veil is thinner than a hair lol
Translated, certain interests are much more soft and casual on people that play with them, like them, and a lot harder on those that dont and interfere with their privilege.
Its a double standard.
Objectivity was thrown out the window by powerful concerted subjective interests, and is now free-falling without a parachute, and soon to hit the ground.
Exactly.
You are biased as a #highsecgriefer.
You only care about whats good for you, not for the game.
lol
I am biased in the fact that I want to see CCP balance the game with its core values and defining features intact. I am admitting that itās very difficult to do because those values and features are the same things that have a high potential to push players away from the game. The game is not for everyone, and I donāt want it to be. If itās wrong to have that opinion, then I donāt care.
1 Like
Thats your perspective.
Thats the only one you care for.
Nobody believes you having any interests aside from those that advantage you in the above.
Its clear in all your posting.
The hashtag was sarcasm as thatās how Iām labeled by others. I donāt label myself as a griefer. If not wanting the game turned into a FarmVille space simulator with new added safety features makes me a āgrieferā then so be it.
I have already posted many times on my stance and how I think the game can be balanced in highsec. I think Iām rather fair. Seems you just have issues with my posting when I play ādevils advocateā and attempt to find solutions by examining both sides. @Dracvlad has seen first hand where Iāve evolved and started holding balanced considerations and opinions.
Please Salvos, do us a favor and post better.
1 Like
āLol I was only pretending to be a HS grieferā
You are a HS griefer.
There is nothing sarcastic about it and your posts here on these issues corroborate it.