The data wasn’t that specific.
Ok, that’s a thing then. If you see this, Larrikin, (now that you’ve been mentioned), can you run a query on those accounts to get that data? Knowing just that—what kind of players (beyond ‘demoralized’) we’re talking about can significantly impact the feedback and ideas for how to retain them.
No, we don’t. There is no upside to losing. This was always the message - loss is meaningful. You cannot create a game where everything has an upside. You cannot have upsides without downsides, or it all becomes meaningless. Only with loss and hardships does success and winning become so much more, and this is what makes the fascination of this game.
You only talk about wanting a realistic way of winning, but what you mean is to win against all reason, because winning can only be realistic, when losing has an actual downside to it.
Have no downsides makes winning unrealistic.
There’s a significant difference between ‘an upside’ and ‘no downside’. What he’s talking about is a way to make fighting back feel worthwhile, nothing more.
While he’s at it, how about indication the effect of attacker corp AND alliance size vs defender’s corp size on player retention following a WD?
Also, the effect of defender’s size alone on retention.
No, there isn’t. For a pedant perhaps, but most players aren’t pedantic. If loss has an upside then you may even find players who are purposely going to exploit this. But it certainly doesn’t make winning realistic, and chances are it ruins fights for the winners.
Rather do I suspect Brisc Rubal is trying to salvage his image. He keeps pursing what I can only describe as idiocy. War has always been a means to an end, am means to suppress an enemies’ activity. And it is working as intended. Yet he still keeps trying to turn this around.
No, not for pedants. Here’s an example: Two teams play a football game. One team wins, the other team loses. It’s a voluntary thing, neither side is professionals, just a bunch of people playing a game.
Did the losing team enjoy the game? Was it worth playing, even though they lost? That’s an upside. An upside doesn’t have to erase the ‘you still lost’, or any of the downsides that come with that, but it does provide the motivation to keep playing after the loss.
1 Like
In the end? It would be.
In the long run? Yeah, ultimately, because the game is our toy, too, just like it’s everyone else’s. But we’re talking about the short-sighted reaction there. 
as long as we both recognise that, good
m
You want an upside to losing? Then take it as a lesson for having done something wrong.
Only when the data shows that a large number of repeated wardecs against the same targets has caused them to stop playing the game then it warrants to put a limit on how often one can wardec the same corporation in a certain amount of time. But that’s about it.
And if the data doesn’t show any signs of it then there is no reason why we ever would need to control how players fight their fights. Their freedom of how they choose to play the game should always come first. Not some idiotic plan of how someone thinks war should or shouldn’t be.
Clearly, that’s not working. So people are suggesting ways to provide other upsides that don’t eliminate or overshadow the loss, from ‘you get to feel like you achieved some goals’ to just ‘make fighting back more fun by making it less lopsided’.
Why are you opposed to that? Why do you consistently frame things in a way that appears to indicate that your fun has to come at someone else’s expense? That if they’re not miserable, you won’t enjoy it, so neither would anyone else?
2 Likes
War is working as intended and to those who don’t want war have we already suggested social corps. The lesson is then working as intended. In some cases you could say is it working too well when it means they stop playing EVE. Their lesson then will be that they’re not cut out for it.
But how do you teach someone to pick themselves up after they’ve lost? EVE doesn’t really teach this, but players seem to bring it in from the outside, meaning they’ve learned it elsewhere in life, and just handle the game better than others. Some will learn it through copying others, but how do you teach it to those who never had the chance to learn it?
The new player experience tries to convey the meaning of loss, but doesn’t really succeed at it. At least the last time I went through was it just buggy and left me frustrated only to abandon it. And an NPC just isn’t the same as a real player. I could imagine mini-pvp arenas, that are mandatory for new players to go through, as a means to teach them to pick them up, but once they’re past their first experience does it only get harder to teach someone this.
If you consider ‘stop playing’ to be ‘too well’, then you are demonstrably wrong. A system intended as part of a game is never working ‘too well’ when it drives people out of that game.
The first step is to give them a reason to want to. And that’s precisely what you keep objecting to.
The thing is that people talk about the risk that war deckers run, well after someone talked about Faylee’s losses I went and had a look at the killboard of a number of war deckers, most notably those in PIRAT and a couple of others that I know of.
But lets take Khromius who was the CEO of Vendetta and who is now in PIRAT, he has 11,057 kills and 79 losses… He has three losses in 2018, two in 2017 one was a shuttle, three in 2016 one was a shuttle, zero losses in 2015, 2014 and 2013 and the number of kills 1041 kills in 2018 so far, 1,700 kills in 2017, 2,600 in 2016, 1,950 in 2015, do I have to keep going through this, do you get the picture.
Now if anyone tells you that being a hisec blanket war decker is taking risk, just quote this back to them.
And I see Amah Tesero which is Dom Arkaral is typing away now that I posted something, so seeing as he wants to continue stalking me and accusing me of harassing him, as if. But what about him? 767 kills and 8 losses. I thought it amusing to compare a fail war decker to those that are real killers as he was obviously replying to this post with just Khromius on it, and yes he did, lol, but back to the real meat on the bone so to speak.
Natural Clonekiller, 11,004 kills and 524 losses, this one takes more risk by the way, but up until most of 2018 had no losses, but then had one in August and four in September. Three of those four losses were outside hisec. So all in all the risk is really minimal.
2 Likes
Lmao
Khromius is the type of guy that only undocks if he has enough neutral logi to save him
The vast majority of deccers don’t care if they lose ships
You try to compare a fat apple to a bunch of oranges here, and despite you trying to put all of us (past and current) in the same basket, you fail miserably
You should stop falsely accusing me of being him.
I’m going to start filing in tickets if you persist…
The problem with that is the you may have to eliminate the reason for why they even started playing EVE before you can give them a reason for wanting to get back to it.
When you have players coming to EVE who only ever played PvE games, where they always could find a way to win over an NPC and get some reward along the way, then you do have a problem. They have been trained to follow this to the point that when they don’t succeed at every step then something about the game must be wrong.
How do you get a player to understand that another player is just as good and able to win as oneself is, when all they ever learned is that they are superior and the hero in their story?
And that’s something to watch out for. But none of the things you’ve attacked would do that. Not one of them.
Well, first, you find this mythical player who’s never lived in a world outside of a themepark MMO, never had any family or friends, has never learned the basic hard-wired primate empathy response…
… and then you strangle them in their sleep, because at some point they’ll logoff to go and murder everyone around them.
Fortunately, they don’t exist. So you don’t have to. But it’s a lovely straw man you’ve made. Maybe he can hook up with a lion, a robot, and a girl from Topeka, some day.
While on the subject of people running from others, what do you nullseccers do if you’re against unsurmountable odds and have no friends to come help you?
Do you go out knowing that you’ll die, or do you stay docked like you accuse highsec wardeccers of doing? 
1 Like