Pirat and Marmite and some before them sure,
Its always been a thing to some degree.
The last two years though the number of mercs that don’t have plummeted.
Lads keep asking asking for the watchlist back because they relied upon it not be hub humping degenerates.
A lot of us know its not coming back but would like a balanced Intel gathering alternative.
True, but I can’t see new ones unless they added me too. I have lots of former corp/alliance mates who did not add me, but I added them (e.g. some were directors, so knowing when they logged in was helpful). In other words, the set of people I can interact with shrunk after the change.
Stalker!!! [j/k]
Seems to me there is a quite a lot of “space” between those two poles…
I’ve watched that video several times and even transcribed that part in prior discussions.
CCP Rise said they looked at people who were killed and their killer was in turned killed by CONCORD. That was the filtering at least for those killed illegally. His description of those killed legally was killed via war decs, duels or via a flag. It could include LS and even NS, but given they were looking at players less than 15 days old…the subset who were not in HS is probably pretty small and were likely alt characters which CCP Rise said they managed to exclude.
The number of players who are in the ‘don’t’ category would have plummeted regardless.
Just because they didn’t hump hubs doesn’t mean that they were not lazy degenerates who don’t think they should have to put forth effort. There were plenty of lads looking for zero effort paydays.
So the only real question is why the lads are not putting forward alternative intel tool proposals…but prefer to revise history to justify their whining.
cough
And they humped the hubs
We are , just not here because every time it comes up we end up fighting fires that erupte in threads like this every time.
I’ve been concise and consistent with this throughout the last two years.
I don’t like the situation currently.
I’m not asking for the watchlist back.
I’m willing to work for my intel.
It’s a target that can be destroyed but where would you fit the service module required to declare war?
My thinking is that if they don’t count, then all the HS POCO’s will be in shell corps that do not own Upwells. Making them effectively immune to removal.
–Gadget needs some room to build
Reverse it. Being in a corp does not make you immune to being war deced. Declaring war requires a stake in the system. For me this would be a citadel module per war.
So lets put this in perspective, since you seem to have a hearing problem as well, and completely ignored the first part of the video.
First, CCP rise asks the audience Three questions. Well, four.
“Raise your hands if you think suicide ganking exists”
“Raise your hands if you think anyones ever quit eve because of suicide ganks”
" Raise your hands if you think new players get suicide ganked"
" Riase your hand if you think suicide ganking is a problem for new players"
Its interesting how CCP rise specifically asks the second question, dont you think? And yet your previous comment, and ill quote again:
Is clearly false.
Now, we can discuss whether CCP rise is implying that Ganking causes retention or not, but thats not what im arguing. The whole point of my argument was to show that social interactions within the game cause retention. This is counter with mining, because of how one can go AFK, and how most do go AFK during mining in hisec, especially with new players.
Thanks for the non-apology.
MIning will always be boring and tedious unless they change the mechanics. But for new players, it would be stupid for us to recommend or even suggest this as way to begin. Its possibly the easiest way to make isk, but its also the least interactive. Its the least engaging.
Im a ganker. I am a part of Code. I gank from time to time. I usually keep to miners. And I understand why people get angry at me for telling them not to AFK.
No. He said that more people who were ganked stayed longer. This does not make it an equal percentage of the whole.
1% does not make 100% true because it’s 1%.
Lets elaborate this a bit. Out of the 1% this was 10 players and 9 remained. This results in a massive 90% retention ratio. This would also leave 990 players in the other side of the matrix. If 10 of them stayed that’s a sickening 1%. But if 100 stayed that’s still a sickening 10%.
Actually, they sorta did. They checked if the aggressors were killed by law enforcement agents and concord, and if they were killed illegally. That pretty much removes null and wormholes.
Again, this is sorta kinda answered by CCP rise. He stated:
The strongest indicators for a new player staying with EVE are associated with social activity: joining corps, using market and contract systems, pvping, etc. Isolating players away from the actual sandbox seems very contrary to what we would like to accomplish.
Its the social activity, including PVP, that are the strongest indicators as to whether a new player will stay or leave.
If you podkill someone in low sec who is not flagged, and then you jump to high sec with your criminal flagging, CONCORD will kill you. I’ve seen it happen more than once.
If you start with “all characters that lost ships within 15 days of their creation”, there are a lot of different ways to whittle that down to “individual players with ship losses in high sec within 15 days of their primary character’s creation”. Honestly, I just don’t see how you can get there without sifting through a very large amount of data, which is exactly what CCP Rise mentions in the presentation as being something they are only really beginning to undertake.
To start, you’d have to qualify only characters that could be reliably inferred to be unique, individual players.
They would have to remain in high sec or their travel outside of high sec would have to be rated, to make it a “fair” comparison with players who had more dangerous habits.
So, if they did that, then you are dealing with a special sub-set of all new players. And, that will skew your data in some direction. Which direction and how far? Who knows?
How do you suppose they managed to do this so reliably? This isn’t exactly a ‘hard’ science. There are different ways of looking at the same data to learn different things, and the data often doesn’t say what we think it says. Do you think they can look at two characters and know, definitely, whether they are related, letalone belong to the same real-world person? And, if they can’t, if even 1% of the “new bros” they looked at were actually alts, wouldn’t that skew their data in some direction? Which direction and how far in that direction?
Yet this is, almost verbatim, what CCP said.
He says, and this is a direct quote from the video:
Backwards. People WHO die, play longer"
You keep claiming that CCP rise is not implying this, yet we are by stating almost verbatim, the exact same thing he says. And you see what I did there? I capitalized the WHO, which should be fair play since you basically did the same to my post.
I think its disingenuous for you to claim that we are making the implication, while CCP rise is not.
Well, no, ill use this.
Even though youre ignoring the fact that i said its tedious and boring in the same sentence, and yet tedious is a synonym of boring. But im fine with going with either 1, 2 or 3 from that definition of dictionary.com.
And yes, people can do these things without being stupid themselves. Jobs are a great example of doing something that people can describe as stupid and dull, and yet they do it because they get paid to. Even if the system is broken, and theres a better way to do it, people still follow the rules because they were ordered to. Just because you do something boring or stupid, doesnt make you yourself boring or stupid.
Well, no, there are almost no scenarios where you would have killed a player, and then been killed by Facpo/concord, unless you were in hisec. Even the scenario you described, where a pirate slips up and enters hisec with a criminal timer, is still in hisec, and still needs to kill a new player. And honestly, what percentage of people do think would die to facpo/concord like that? How likely is it that a pirate kills someone in lowsec, then immediately jumps into hisec only to be killed by facpo?
You’re calling it “social activity”, but I don’t think Mr. Rise or CCP are calling it that. I seem to recall (<- this is why I prefer text communication over voice) they used the term “rich experience” and at least in a previous presentation, some non-social things like killing an NPC and interacting with the market were included to illustrate what they meant.
Furthermore, PVP often occurs in the context of PWP. Players who want to destroy other players have a higher need for cooperation and will often seek out others to play WITH to accomplish their goals. So, that leads to another question: Is it the PVP or is it the PWP that PVPers are perceiving as “rich”?
It’s a good thing Resource Wars has been shelved or we might find out an answer to such an important question.
On the one hand, you are sure that there are “almost no scenarios . . .” while on the other hand you don’t know how likely it is. For my part, I don’t know how likely that one scenario is to occur nor can I definitively say how many different scenarios there are in which someone could destroy another player in low sec and then be interdicted by NPC police in high sec as a result. But I know it happens. Is it a significant amount? Over what timeframe? Did CCP Rise happen to mention the span of time they looked at? Was it the last year, the last 10 years, the entire lifespan of the game so far? 80,000 players sounds like a long time. There may have been mechanics changes in the middle of that.
The bottom line is that we just can’t know the true effect non-PVP or consensual PVP or non-consensual PVP or even non-consensual non-PVP has on player retention. There are hints, clues, inferences we can make, etc. But it’s not settled.
I think thats where the “More likely” part comes in.
What theyre talking about is within their respective percentages. I dont even understand what youre saying, because no one here is suggesting that those 9/10 players who remained, somehow makes it 90/100 for all the new players. Were talking about how the people who were ganked illegally, stayed and subscribed at a higher rate than those that didnt die.
To compare what im saying to something more easier, lets compare it to the per-capita mortality rate comparisons between countries. Theres a reason why we use that instead of pure numbers, because each country has different population sizes. So instead, they use per capita numbers, because that allows you to compare directly between other countries based on the percentage and not the outright numbers.
Actually, theres a direct quote from CCP rise where he states that PVP is a social activity.
Well, no. And this always seems like a losers argument to me.
Do I know how many people die each year in Canada from Auto-erotic asphyxiation? No.
Do I know how many people die each year in Canada from Automobile Accidents? No.
And yet I know, almost as a certainty, that more people die in car accidents than they do from auto-erotic asphyxiation.
I have no idea how many pirates kill new players at stargates, and just happen to be next door to, or a couple systems next to hisec and get themselves blown up by concord. Im sure the number isnt zero. But Im also almost certain that the number is nearly insignificant to the number of new players being killed in hisec by groups like Code. I would know, im one of them. And its only reinforced by looking at the Killboard and checking to see if people died to concord and where they died.
No one is saying that this is absolutely the case. But all the evidence seems to point towards this.
80k is maybe 1 - 2 months. Eve offline should have new accounts made.