Not at all. Unless of course youre going to edit my comment to say:
You are completely right. Your comment is utterly unrelated to mine, because i never said that CODE only ganks miners.
Code ganks everyone that doesnt put the effort into protecting their ships and assets. You can choose to fly whatever ship you want in this game, and you can also choose not to autopilot and/or go AFK and not make yourself a weak target. If you lose your ship, most of the blame and/or responsibility is on you.
we dont need any kind of nerf. people are people and will cry and whine over the stupidest crap. responsibility is key in this game as you said. but the problem isâŚthat to many people dont want to be responsible. they want someone to hold their hands and coddle them telling them that its ok. honestly there is nothing you can do.
You sure?
Nerf and buff is relative to what the stick does to you. Unless youâre Irelia.
Buffed defenders under war dec by giving them a way to end the war violently.
Nerfed attackers under war dec by giving them a requirement to start war.
Letâs play a thought game.
What would happen if in Lord of the Rings NOTHING HAPPENED when the one ring was destroyed?
no, you just are not able to understand what he said.
Since when ?
Tell me exactly when he said that âbeing ganked INCREASES retentionâ. He does not exactly formulate this idea. He says âpeople who die stay longerâ. But correlation is not causation.
Now, lets go back to what I wrote, that you claimed was, and I quote:
Are you ready? I want you to be ready for this. Cause this is like the third time youve done this.
Here, let me put them side by side.
Again? Sure.
Maybe its just me. Maybe they just sound so similar to me, that they basically mean the same thing. But heres the proof that your reading comprehension skills are severely lacking. Thanks for playing though.
Since the time i wrote "New Players.
Want me to quote myself again? That seems to be the only way i can make you remember what i actually wrote.
Or you know. Maybe they died because they stuck around longer and put more hours in. Thus more chances to die happened.
Ccpâ s look at that did zero to isolate any of the factors. All ccp did was provide a basic test of if dying caused newbies to quit. Specifically newbies of course and not the 90 day character whoâs earned some stuff.
Anyway. Wardecs are fine just as they are. A longer skill tree to corps I wouldnât mind. Maybe the 5 basic leadership skills first then corp.management. so people realise itâs a bit more serious than a social club.
The problem is there are no significant benefits for a high sec Corp who arenât mercs. Structures are coming pre needed with weaker defence also compared to other areas of space. Itâs the carrots to make fighting for a high sec corp worth while that is lacking. Not the stick.
Youâre right, he says âpeople in the ganked group are the most likely to suscribe afterwardâ.
While you say ânew players who were ganked stuck around longer.â (people who die stay longer is a mix of both) .Which implies a causation (temporal and logical) from âbeing gankedâ to âstuck around longerâ. This implication was not present in the video.
As expressed above, there are many other explanations.
I had to look up when you started using this, so maybe I was wrong and you were specifically talking about new players from the beginng. Thanks for your efforts. So for you when a new player is mining, it is stupid, when an old player is mingin, the activity becomes less stupid ? But still also boring and tedious ?
This is the greatest flaw in a metric of data collection in this game.
Take all characters 90 days or less. See who lost a ship. Ignore how many actually got ships worth piloting. Ignore how many people quit because game is not their style. Ignore if anything was ever earned by these pilots. Did the people who lost a ship remain?
Itâs not really a question. Itâs a metric of useless data. But people latch on to âedgyâ things easily.
Lets get the data that would matter.
How many of these people earned a frigate?
How many of these people never left the system they started in and thought the game was dull?
Nope⌠would prove something other than what you want the data to prove. This is why CCP has started releasing information on what is going on in systems. They want us to do their metric analysis for them.
WellâŚ
The war needs to last as long as the Structure timers then. Simple as that. Can you imagine though. 
Sorry Anderson, but your quote was just a handy way to begin to organize this post:
@Hiasa_Kite @Solonius_Rex To elaborate on this point a little more, it is entirely possible that the people who die early and often do so because they are more engaged by the game and are trying out more scenarios, thus exposing themselves to greater failure. I seem to recall a mention that they did not look into which security bands the players were dying in, high, low, null, or wormholes. You tend to die more being the aggressor, but it is that rewarding experience as the aggressor that probably is one of EVEâs advantages over other games, so of course it would retain more of those type of player. That would mean that, for that particular cohort, being aggressive, even if this lead to oneâs ship being destroyed, was one of those ârichâ experiences that seem to be the key to player retention. And, people not losing ships may simply indicate that the players were not very engaged to begin with or werenât the kind of player who would seek out such an experience and who really just didnât want to play a game like EVE.
Does PVP lead to player retention or does player retention lead to PVP? Do all players keep playing longer if they PVP or do the players who are distinctly interested in PvP keep playing longer? Are non-PVP players not worth keeping or does the game just not do a good job of keeping them?
I think these and other questions remain unanswered.
No highsec merc corp has any of that, though many will argue âbut we fly blingy shipsâ mostly these remain docked if an opposing force of equal size and strength shows up. Often with even less.
This is why there are so many ânerf wardecksâ topics/posts, the system has been abused by these few groups for far too long, i would say some of the larger groups are actually easier to avoid and dont tend to permadeck people but there are other groups that will, for no other reason than they can and they like seeing people quit or destroying corps; at some point you have to ask is this really good for the growth of the game? if your answer is yes your economic prowess is seriously lackingâŚ
So⌠your advocating everyone join the same corps? Again, this is neither good for content or growth of the game, in order to see growth we need to see competition; not monopolies - again, economics.
I would say that a change needs to come about for highsec decs and merc âcontractsâ, im not entirely sure what exactly but in my imaginings:
*less ability to dec whoever you please with no risk to yourself other then the isk it costs to dec some decent suggestions have been based around capture the flag type games like a structure in space a decking/defending corp have to kill/capture
*some sort of actual contract system where targets actually have to be met for payouts, a list of which would likely be extensive but i also imagine it may actaully work in favour of a working wardeck corp.
There are probably other viable suggestions and it would likely be a mix of all these that would make highsec decs less âgreifingâ and more âmercenaryâ.
Greifing is basically tantamount to piracy, except piracy involves plunder - which is a fully understandable motivator; no empire would really want this sort of behaviour on their doorstep but whilst piracy is understandable, killing for fun is not; in game terms that doesnt really equate to much except that greifers dont often dec corps that may actually provide good content, just those that are easy prey.
Mercenary work however, though often frowned upon, is often a useful and necessary tool.
Actually if you are referring to CCP Riseâs presentation at FanFest this is not quite true. They were killed in HS. How can we know this? Because the looked the following types of player death?
How did they determine if someone was killed illegally? They looked to see if the killer was in turn killed by CONCORD. Where does CONCORD kill players? HS.
Actually CCP Rise had another post on the forums that addresses this.
We have tried and tried to validate the myth that griefing has a pronounced affect on new players - we have failed. 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.âLink; emphasis added.
In other words, it is not just PvP, it is players being engaged with the game beyond the game itselfâi.e. other players.
Click the link in my post you quoted. It starts at 4m10s.
Indicators for players staying but none for why players quit? its one thing to ask current customers why theyve stayed but how does ccp ask player who have quit; why?
If one were to be entirely scientific about the data collection, wouldnt you require both sets of data?
also, no dev or isd has ever asked me why ive stayed ingame 
War dec for 10 man corp to dec 5 man corp 50 milâŚfine
War dec for 2000 man corp to dec 5 man corp 50 mil⌠not so fine
There should be an obvious problem here allowing massive groups of people to dec extremely smaller groups for the same price as everyone else.
The intent is to get larger groups to start fighting larger groups, that much is obvious. Until you carrot and stick approach and make it so these people are inclined to act in this way they wont.
It would be much simpler to just make corps that have 10x more people (on a monthly average) to the corp they are decing to have to pay 10x more (500 mil) to dec them. Make corps that have 100x more people on average than the corp they are decing pay 100x more for the wardec, or 5 billion. Of course anyone who has been decced by a smaller corp shouldnât face these fines for at least a month.
At least TRY to get things moving in the right direction, instead of talk talk talk and do nothing, you have mastered that for over 10 years.
I think theres also an issue with corps decking other corps that are massively under par of the decking corp, for example high sp highly active âpvpâ corps decking (in effect) nubcorps where most members may be less than a month old.
Please review my proposal:
Here is my proposal:
Wardec vs Watchlist:
Wardec and Watchlist should remain separate.
Purchasing Wardec enables legal conflict.
Purchasing Watchlist enables, well, Watchlist.
You dont need to buy a Wardec to buy a Watchlist, or vice versa.
Reasons for this:
Wardec mechanics:
Wardec costs:
Watchlist mechanics:
Individual character Watchlist:
âPurchased through the Bounty interface.
âUnlimited in number.
â24hrs in duration.
â Target is not informed, nor receives Watchlist on purchaser.
â NPC Corp members cannot access this service.
Corp-wide Watchlist:
âPurchased through Wardec interface (even if not currently at war)
âUnlimited in number.
â24hrs in duration
âTargets are not informed of being watchlisted (largely to reduce spam mail)
âIs individual per character, per purchase.
âIf character swaps Corp during this duration, they lose the Watchlist data.
âNPC Corp member characters cannot access this service.
Watchlist costs:
Individual character Watchlist:
âCost is reduced scalar to the amount of Bounty on the target.
âCost will not drop below 1million isk.
Corp-wide Watchlist:
âEVE calculates the difference between Watchlist purchaserâs Corp data and their target Corp data.
â Such that the greater the difference, the less it costs for smaller Corp members vs larger Corps, and the more it costs for larger Corp members vs smaller Corps.
Addendum:
Only Omega members count towards the Wardec limit/costs and Corp-Wide Watchlist cost.
This is to prevent Alpha alt spamming to inflate Corp membership for these purposes.
The current meta stifles any new group from being able to establish and prosper, forcing new player into joining existing groups. The CSM highlight that war declarations in their current form result in many new players disengaging. If CCP decides on this feedback to iterate the mechanic in the interest in allowing growth in the player base through greater retention, that must surely be a good thing as these newer corporations will eventually expand beyond the protected boundaries, or their members will move on to find bigger challenges.