You keep asserting this, but it’s wrong.
If you don’t know how to kill people in high sec by now, you’re just too stupid to participate in that aspect of the game. I’m sorry. Maybe go play in null or a wormhole. Alternatively, maybe you want others to believe this so that . . . why would you want people to believe this?
Jita is the most consistently violent system in New Eden. Explain.
Ganking and population density…
Now your comparing trying to play with your main under a kill right to getting ganked.
You’re getting more disingenuous with each post.
Being friends with someone might mean you don’t want to murder them in game.
But having that level of trust in the game meant players engaged eachother. If you can shoot me without getting concorded, I’m going to spend more time getting to know you and I’m not going piss you off over trivial crap. Actions will have consequences.
What I’m not going to do is spam invites to anyone and everyone, pay no attention to you or ignore you and only accept you into corp to skim corp tax off your earnings (see thread earlier with 20alt man).
Sometime ago CCP saw that corps were a great tool for player retention and then tried to get as many people in them as possible (wardec nerfs, awox nerfs etc). The problem was that they were a great tool for retention because running a corp meant you spent a lot of time managing your members and being diplomatic with other corps (read interaction). You had to be responsible. Accountable.
Taking away that responsibility and accountability turned the vast majority of corps in hi-sec into what we saw before. Alt corps or people who don’t know what they are doing hiring as many new players as possible because why not?
Why not get new players in to skim off their isk making? Don’t have to interact with them. Don’t have to give them content. Don’t have to keep them happy. What are they gonna do? Leave? No skin off the owners back.
And that’s what happens. See Naari_Naarian’s corp. And it’s not helping the npe at all. Quite the opposite instead.
If we made social corps with no friendly fire, no structures, no corp tax, no wardecs and were essentially npc corps with their own name, just exactly what it said on the tin. And then we made proper corps what they were, friendly fire, wardecs even if you don’t have a structure etc. There would be a clear separation for everyone to see between corps that were for Cassie McCasual and those that were for players that wanted to get into the thick of it.
Honestly, you’re going to see more engagement and retention in the latter. And at least the former wouldn’t be used to exploit noobs. And players will have a clear choice.
Apparently we start surveying corps and try to get to the bottom of things.
He said after discussing wardecs, ganking, ninja-salvaging and AWOXing with me for over two days…
It wouldn’t be if there was system outside of hisec that always had 2000 players in.
If you compared the deaths per traveller I’d expect you to find jitas violence level to be pretty tame.
*you’re
hahaha
No it doesn’t. It’s a video game. IT’S “JUST A GAME”. You don’t need to spend a lot of time determining if someone is trustworthy. You just take the risk and if they turn out to be a [expletive deleted], you give them the finger and move on.
This is not real life. People don’t behave the same way. Their economics is skewed toward experiencing, not survival. If I wanted to spend weeks trying to gain someone’s trust just to [expletive deleted] them, I’d become a pickup artist. What do you think people’s response is when they figure out that trusting in EVE is harder than trusting in real life?
Why would the person being recruited subject themselves to that, though?
Don’t tell me what CCP hf. saw, Daichi Yamato. Show me where they made a statement as to what they saw. You’re not their spokesman. I don’t believe you. I think you lack the intelligence to understand them and lack the moral compunction to tell a truth that is contrary to your interests.
Quote them.
Isn’t it interesting, though, how older players don’t fall for that as easily? I suspect it is not simply newer EVE players, but newer PEOPLE who fall for it.
If we just did exactly as you instruct, for the sake of the newbros, then New Eden would be a flourishing utopia. Why won’t CCP just think of the children newbros?
hahaha
WRONG! We do stupid things when we get angry, like opening our mouth and flapping our lips before we’ve invested the time and thought necessary to ensure that what comes out is reasonable and intelligible. For example:
For more examples, please see your previous posts.
The only reason 2000 players would gather in a system outside of high sec would be specifically to kill eachother and destroy things. So, yes, if a system consistently had 2000 people in it expressly for the purpose of killing eachother and destroying things, many more ships would be killed and much more infrastructure would be destroyed there than in Jita, a system in which 1000-2000 people consistently gather for a variety of purposes, primarily trading and commerce, and in which random, unsanctioned aggression is punished immediately and inevitably by a nigh omnipotent police force.
I agree with you. IF.
I think you are asserting that a higher population density leads to more ganking, which in turn is the primary method of violence in Jita.
I would not argue with that. That gives CCP a pretty clear goal to pursue should they wish to increase the level of violence in the cluster as a whole: increase population densities.
Do you agree?
Yes, as in nature, where there are more prey animals, you will have more predators. So whether it’s miners, haulers or runners, where you find these types you will also find more hunters. Hubs are focal points of NE and Jita is the busies so it would logically follow that you will find a lot of carnage there…
…on a simple level, yes, we need more players everywhere and if there were more, there would also be more BOOMs…which is a good thing. But this increase would be most likely linear in nature so if you doubled to population you should get doubles the booms.
I would say that CCP also needs to add more ways to go boom but that is a sticky topic of also off-topic here…the short version is that I agree with @Karak_Terrel
We had multiple nerfs to ganking and various other ways to screw with people in Highsec, some of them where completely removed. Highsec is a boring wasteland content wise.
I absolutely know how to kill the people in highsec. But the entry bar for that was raised higher and higher and what used to be a good starting profession where new players could mess with vets and steal their stuff, it’s now completely monopolized by CODE. and Pirate and a few other big entities who have the people or resources to do it.
The only playstile left in the part where new players start that is actually accessible for them is boring grindy PvE without any clear path how to get to the actual fun parts of the game.
Been there, done that, but that’s not the topic. Those are completely different playstiles and they are no substitute for the content Highsec offered. They are fun in their own way, but I like the more tricky possibilities Highsec offered than to simply pile more ships on eachother.
Jita is the center of all of trading for EVE, logically it is the focal point of what remains of piracy left in EVE.
And? Game’s are what you make of them.
Null sec and worm hole recruitment has similar properties to what I’m talking about and leadership spend time engaging there members.
No you don’t need to. And I’m not saying you have to. But the most successful and engaging corps in the game do!.
Wittingly? They don’t.
But players are unwittingly drawn into such corps and that’s the problem. See the above thread. The person didn’t know they were getting into a corp that was one guy and his alts.
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.
Are you talking about player age? Or how long they have been playing games in general?
Because neither are indicated by the people who join bad corps. Wonder where you got this idea from.
Project much?
You’ve been going off on tangents about my ‘leadership’ (whatever that was about) and ‘abuse’. You’ve been incoherent in parts and talking about how eve uni and brave needed the shelter from wardec nerfs, even though wardec nerfs haven’t done anything for these groups (infact the last wardec nerf just made them cheaper to dec). You didn’t even know eve uni were still active.
If either of us is shooting their mouth off without thinking, it’s you mate.
As for this:
Is correct. Getting ganked at anytime =/= flying around with a kill right that anyone can activate at any time.
Your attempt to say they are the same is further proof of not thinking things through (more like you are bring disingenuous to push your agenda).
So you admit you were wrong to say this?
It’s boring as…ragnarok.
They are still lost, the fact that it was not gameplay related since they never logged in doesn’t change that.
Maybe there is an issue with the process or the download.
They probably didn’t like waiting for the game to download. Maybe there should be some sort of interactive tutorial happening during the download that gives them some basic info about the game.
Anyway, those lost numbers don’t have anything to do with the fact that over 90% of new players quit within 7 days after First Login. Obviously some people don’t want to hear this but it appears to be attributed to the loss of their first ship. CCP hasn’t made any distinction on the specific cause, probably both PvP and PvE content that caused the loss of their ships.
As for the new players:
Maybe their ship was destroyed so quickly they didn’t even have time to react and just said F that.
Maybe they didn’t have ISK to replace it and decided not to spend time grinding and just said F that.
Doesn’t really matter why, what matters is the lack of knowledge to understand what happened and the lack of resource to get back going again. CCP must have some data info that corroborates that assessment because they’re now looking to implement this:
Most humans like easy more than they like hard.
Why is this so hard for us/them/everyone to understand? EVE will NEVER have huge numbers. It will also NEVER recover to its previous levels.
Enjoy what we have now and try to keep it running as long as possible…
Graphs are cool. Thumbs up.
“proactive grief counselling” 
…also - another function of the community taken over by npcs/the game…lovely…
The people who will quit will still quit…
Agree on those points. However, that is not to say that EVE couldn’t be made better, couldn’t retain more of the people it shovels through every month, and that CCP couldn’t do a (much!) better job of modifying the game to suit the kind of people who would actually be interested in playing it.
As opposed to tossing out changes apparently at random and blaming anything that doesn’t work on everything but the people who make the bad design decisions at CCP.
Yes very true with the caveat that while change is good, it’s only good if it retains the core concepts of EVE.
Making HS a crime-free zone for example would boost the numbers I bet BUT the cost in integrity of the core idea would be too high.
I think you’re getting stuck in the predator/prey paradigm, but that is just one mode of conflict. And, I also don’t believe you are understanding the predator/prey dynamic in its fullest sense.
“Predator” is just another word for “parasite”. An efficient parasite can subsist in a place with fewer potential hosts. Conversely, a resistant host can mass higher population densities without drawing higher concentrations of predators/parasites. In other words, it’s not so simple as “more zebras = more lions”. If the zebras in question are more fit or have some special attribute or adaptation, they may not be preyed upon by lions at as high a rate as normal zebras. But if the lions are faster or smarter or something else, they may be able to live in an environment with fewer or only the more fit zebras available to prey upon.
Consider the desire these supposed PVPers are expressing; they want more weak zebras. They aren’t asking for more zebras in total. And on the other hand, the zebras in this scenario, newbies, carebears, non-combat specialists, rarely express a need for better tools to fight their attacker. They more often seem to object to the fact that they are being attacked at all or they want tools to be able to evade attack rather than counter-attack.
Beyond that asymmetrical interaction, there is the potential for more symmetrical dynamics, where lions are competing with hyenas or wild dogs or leopards. In this perspective, more hyenas does not yield more lions, either. The lions and hyenas are fighting for dominion. This is the mode people are thinking of when they say that null is too safe. The lions and hyenas have come to an understanding rather than endlessly warring for more and better access to resources. Eventually, any game scenario with a fixed number of participants and relatively stable victory conditions arrives at an equilibrium. How do you break that up?
You can try giving entrants (read: newbros) an advantage but then Malcanis’ Law kicks in and the established players and groups adapt to acquire and exploit this advantage while newbros become oldbros and lose this advantage.
The way nature handles this is with disruptive adaptation, with war. Entrants have incentive to behave aggressively and the means to deter preemption. Established participants have incentive to work toward harmony in order to preserve the efficiency of their operation. But in EVE, a hyena cannot kill a lion. EVE is an RPG, where playing and leveling up yields compounding advantage, higher attributes, better equipment, refined procedures, redundant capabilities, and cooperative networking with others. The lions in high sec won’t die to a reasonable exertion of the hyenas.
On the plains of the Serengeti, a young, pissed off hyena can inflict a mortal wound on an old lion. In EVE, a pissed off noob cannot really harm a veteran player. Hence, you have gatecampers in safety suit Proteuses and super blappy Lokis on the Jita undock suppressing entire classes of gameplay. It’s not that there’s more people in high sec and it is not CONCORD. You could make it null security and the hyenas would still die to lions while the lions tanked long enough to calling reinforcements or just get away. There just wouldn’t be any hyenas there unless they were really new or really stupid.
EVE forces new players to be zebras, but zebras win by running away, maybe all the way to World of Warcraft. The new players that try to be hyenas just get put down.
You don’t get double the violence if the violence is one sided. What you get is one side turtling up completely and the other side having to go to greater and greater lengths just to find engagement.
It’s like saying lumberjacks fight trees and so doubling the number of lumberjacks and trees doubles the amount of fighting. That’s true, but if you double the number of lumberjacks, then it doesn’t matter that there are more trees. The forest is being cut down at the same rate as before and in the same amount of time, there is nothing left for the lumberjacks to do, just the same as before you doubled everything.
Just spare me your lies. You’re not going to convince me that ganking was nerfed because I actually play the game. High sec is not a boring wasteland. YOU are a boring wasteland.
What was the starting entry bar? What was it raised to?
Why not Delve? Why not Aridia? Why not Niarja? Why not Rancer? Why not Khanid? Why not Providence?
Why pick a 0.9 security system where according to you, there is no content and it is a boring wasteland? Can you answer that question?
Sorry but if you need to write that much to explain your point then you are not explaining your point.
That’s totally not what I said.
Did you not even read the quote? “there would also be more BOOMs”…I have no idea what you are going on about…
Let me try again.
Nobody wants to be prey animals.
Prey animals that don’t die to predators don’t draw predators.
That is contrary to what Karak Terrel is saying, which is that high sec is an inhospitable place to engage in aggression. Which is it? Jita is an oppressive police state where any deviation is punished instantaneously or Jita is a lawless wonderland for people who want to prey upon others? Pick one.
So, but more zebras, more lions, or more hyenas?
Why is more destruction an outcome CCP should tailor gameplay to produce? Why is more booms good?
Violence is not a linear process. It occurs in different modes and from a simple kinetic standpoint, a doubling of speed quadruples the force. That’s just physics.
Why should a doubling of population double the destruction?