“significant” + “necessary” increase => exponential. Problem ?
Your words not mine.
2 Likes
I think CCP wants to find a good balance for everyone.
But that kind of change is always difficult in multiplayer games. And I think it would be exceptionally difficult to find a good balance in EVE, even with perfect information about what influences players’ decisions.
EVE itself “self-selects” for a certain kind of gamer. EVE players have selected again from that smallish pool. What’s left isn’t exactly a monoculture, but it’s a smallish proportion of all potential gamers.
CCP has finally decided to go after other kinds of player. In so doing they are much more likely than e.g. “that other game” would be to lose a majority of their “old timers”.
BTW I think it’s possible to grow EVE and keep the old-timers, but I don’t know if CCP and their new owners are capable of doing it.
1 Like
I’m a little unsure of war hq as a mechanic. It definitely eliminates “small team” as neither 100m isk nor station bashing is a small team activity.
Any small aggressor will lose its station to mercs every couple war decs… which is expensive.
It gives a clear mechanic for defense in a war, but my initial feel is that most corps are going to have their stations in holding corps.
When war is declared, it will be between an aggressor vs a station.
My assumption is that this will become a game of “pay the ransom” or “hire the merc”.
Both parties of which will, on both sides, be whichever few large-fleet entities remain (it may actually push out the existing ship fighting mercs and replace them with money fleets from null).
Someone is going to be sending around fleets of 25 triglavian battleships for station bashing… and pretty much everyone else will be paying them to either attack or defend…
I suspect in short order you will still have 5 or less entities declaring war, as it was before.
PvP in highsec in smaller ships than that… not likely to happen very often.
I agree it is salvageable or I wouldn’t be here.
Sadly, the nuances that had thousands of us addicted are so many years gone that they’re forgotten.
I don’t think any of those mechanics will be reintroduced.
In fact. I honestly don’t think anyone at CCP understands highsec warfare/crime…
I think they want it to be there, and not overwhelming… but they keep making decisions that make the entities that do it unstoppable.
I’d be fine with the projected mechanics if there were a “bread and butter” fighting mechanic to give low level entry into PvP for large numbers of players on a casual basis.
Then you could do crime or bar fights all day with a war now and then.
The fun of that would make it hard to maintain the overwhelming fleets of the central mercs… etc…
Who cares.
Name a single change that had the desired effect in this regard.
A.
Single.
One.
2 Likes
Well there are these:
We still have significant room to improve in this area, but the December changes which ensured that both sides of every war must have a vulnerable structure somewhere in space to defend have caused a clear improvement. We have seen a significant rise in the percentage of non-mutual wars that get at least one pvp kill in a given day.
we consider the recent increase in the percentage of new players (not including alt accounts) joining a corporation in their first three days to be a good sign.
Activity per war is better. But we likely have less wars and i imagine they are even more concentrated into the big war groups than before.
2 Likes
You’re in your own universe at this point…
You have defined the term “exponential” correctly, but your application of it is horrible. Nothing Daichi has said implies there “must be” exponential growth. ■■■■■■■ read…
And your application of the word ‘significant’, given that this is a conversation of statistical principles, is the worst you have done in this entire thread. Statistical significance is established through any one of a number of different available hypothesis tests.
Example:
You’re either wandering into topics you don’t understand, or you’re being incredibly disingenuous and biased. Please just stop.
Not the word he used, and can’t be used in the context.
You are either wandering in topics you don’t understand, or … well whatever.
And yes, the terms he uses implies there must be an exponential growth.
Your terms, not mine, were that there should be a constant significant increase.
You don’t think believing to CCP and CSM experience and logic is possible? 
Since 2011. Some think its from 2013, but record set there was just because CCP made an event and wanted to beat previous record from 2011. Some people got a t-shirt in game.
This is a reply to your the post that starts
I won’t copy in the whole thing because I’ve noticed you’re a “stateful” poster ) i.e. you remember what you said 
I never got to the point that I was able to find any entertainment in highSec PvP, but I’ve always liked the idea in principle.
FWIW I think (and have for a long time - around 5 years) that new player introduction could readily be improved, but to do so with minimal negative side-effects would also require the participation of established players.
I don’t mean as babysitters either IMO the only way to find designs that work for everyone is if everyone somehow participates in the process. I can’t imagine a way to make it happen though.
On the other hand CCP finally seems to have their eye on the ball. My earlier impressions have been that they reacted to justified complaints, and did as little as possible to deal with them. Unsurprisingly, this just provides additional experimental evidence for the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Now they seem to have a rational objective, which, if I’m right about their earlier motivation, is a big improvement.
Never said ‘constant significant increase’ anywhere.
Why don’t you quote me.
1 Like
This is one of the dumbest arguments you’ve come up with all thread.
That’s a pretty high bar, given the number of dumb arguments you’ve posted, but this one seriously is on its own level.
1 Like
From sudden surge in communications from CCP I think they had to give some very bad looking tax report in Iceland.
So its not only numbers, but also money vanishing.
And even wardeck changes did not help them much. A lot of people resigned after the war of goons with PL, PL members resigned and they now play rocket league.
1 Like
I suggest a reset of the statistics discussion. Right now you’re all wrong (more or less) …
… but it hardly matters because the content has been forgotten.
xxx - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth - xxx
Here are two true statements:
- Measurements of total activity in EVE (e.g. sum of the hours played by all characters) will not show anything useful about new player retention, due to obvious “signal to noise” issues.
- If data is available, measurements of the activity of new players might provide useful insight
The latest graphs provided by Daichi Yamato are interesting, but not definitive. In a month or so it’s likely they’ll have useful information.
Note that they are “7-day moving averages”, which has a smoothing effect, and implies a delay of 3.5 days.
Where did that come from?
they give tax reports around this time in Iceland, the previous one I got was like that.
CCP falcon have seen the recent mood in event thread and on reddit, its all about how CCP wants to be seen now. That they care. PR stuff. They want us to stay. But the truth is, they have only so much people as before and the pace of updates will be the same as before.
I may be wrong, but nothing I have seen makes me think so.
This thread has run its course and is now generating more moderation reports than actual valuable discussion.
Closed.
1 Like