What are they going to do? If they nerf ratting across the board, then there is still going to be the disparate result you are observing. Further, players are not stupid, they will respond to incentives created by changes CCP makes. If they nerf ratting they’ll switch to another activity that makes them ISK.
I am not saying do nothing, but if something is going to be done it should probably be thought through a bit.
The parameters of risk/reward are determined by CCP.
Whether and how players engage in that risk/reward system, is up to them.
CCP makes the system.
Players decide what to do within it.
You are conflating the two.
On the topic of China investmens in Africa, just come back in 10 years and see how do they fare.
There is one cultural trait Chinese share with most African countries: build, then let rot. Things in Africa rot very fast and upkeep is no joke, but neither African nor Chinese are inclined to spend money and effort upkeeping stuff… So, let’s wait 10 years and we’ll see what’s left of those investments.
(And better don’t get started on what do Chinese people think of black people)
That is why this thread exists, to give CCP some ideas about what we think about their game.
That goes without saying and is obvious.
Nobody is proposing they draw a random change out of a hat.
Of course, and they will have to adapt to new environment. If it will reward destruction, and will not reward avoidance of destruction, people will start fighting, even infighting.
Without change, there is no need for further adaptation.
I’m sorry, but no. The Devs do not create risk. Players create risk for themselves by their actions. For example over loading a freighter a player takes on more risk. A player ratting when intel is reporting a hostile gang in the area is taking on more risk. Risk is largely a result of player choices and behavior.
The Devs can create the environment, but player actions determine both risk and reward. Goons have developed a strategy in Delve that has allowed them to maximize the value of their region.
The environment is determined by CCP, but risk and reward are largely determined by players and the strategies they employ. To put it differently, if CCP determines risk/reward then player strategy would have no effect at all. Clearly the latter is not true, so the former must be in doubt.
No, you just aren’t thinking as per usual.
What was @zluq_zabaa whining about regarding me and @Jenn_aSide injecting our political values into the game…holy ■■■■…
Yes, and most of the ideas are dumb, like “CCP determines the risk”. That is simply a daft notion. Suppose I do not undock…what is my risk? Zero. What if CCP ramps up the rats combat abilities, makes local delayed like in WHs, etc. what happens to my risk? Nothing so long as I stay docked. Risk is determined by the players and what the strategies they employ. CCP creates the environment, but CCP has zero control over the strategies that players employ and those strategies will determine risk.
No, but you clearly do not understand that risk is based on what the players do. Is Delve more or less risky than other parts of NS? If the answer is yes, why? Maybe because of what the players are doing?
Exactly, which is why risk is not up to CCP. It is up to the players. The players who impose risk and players using various strategies to mitigate risk.
Look, if CCP determined risk then players could not mitigate. Players could not change risk other players face. This is clearly not true.
Okay let me help you guys out…
Scenario 1:
A guy wants to rat in NS in his carrier. He has alts and he puts them in the adjacent systems so he can see any incoming hostiles as he rats in his carrier.
Is this player taking on more risk or is he mitigating risk?
Answer: Mitigating risk.
Scenario 2:
Guy use PLEX to get a pile of ISK and use that ISK to bling fit his CNR for ratting.
Is this player taking on more risk or mitigating his risk?
Answer: taking on more risk.
Scenario 3:
Guy put cargo expanders on his charon and stuffs 11 billion ISK into it and undocks and sets destination X and clicks autopilot.
Is this player taking on more risk or mitigating risk?
Answer: taking on a butt load or risk.
Conclusion: Player actions and strategies determine the risk said player faces. Sure CCP sets up the environment, but players determine risk based on their decisions and choices. To deny this is to deny that player choices and decisions have any meaningful role in playing the game. We might as well just use a pseudo random number generator to determine outcomes at that point.
All I had in mind was creating environments that promote taking risks and rewarding it.
CCP is creating risk by hands of players in certain environments.
And if CCP doesnt react to people adapting like you have noticed
Goons have developed a strategy in Delve that has allowed them to maximize the value of their region.
Then CCP must lose this and game will became like Serenity server.
What is the risk that a jumpgate gets blown up?
Who made it so?
Players can’t do sheete that CCP hasn’t decided and coded beforehand.
Players might use the tools, but CCP decides what tools would you have and what they do and how and when.
So there’s no risk if the tool isn’t used, but neither is if the tool doesn’t exist.
As I noted before, if Goons are getting superior rewards for superior strategy, nerfing that will likely have a deleterious effect on everyone and could still leave Goons with a relatively superior position.
One thing I have noticed in fighting against and later fighting with Goons is that they know how the game works and they work every angle. Way back in the day in reading about grid-fu I was reading a document written by Goons.
If you are going to try and nerf just Goons that is simply bad game development. If you try and simply make it harder to earn ISK/resources in general because of Goons you’ll nerf everyone not just Goons. And could quite possibly leave Goons with a relative superior position.
If you really honestly believe that the success of Goons in Delve highlights a problem for NS, then a more thoughtful approach to a solution is necessary and in 292 posts there has been ■■■■ all in terms of thought full solutions.
About these rewards proposed by CCP.
Asset safety. Why is it different in null than in wormholes???
Your nihilistic nonsense is noted and dismissed. Unless CCP is going to start implementing some sort of a random mechanic process you’ve got nothing here.
Asset safety in DELVE and all of NULL, remove it. Full loot PvP open world.
Caps, nerf to the ground. Remove local.
Anomalies number determined by amount of players fighting and losing stuff around the system, mining belts too.
Ok, so pointing that software doesn’t does what it isn’t coded to do is “nihilistic nonsense” to you… you don’t come here to be taken seriously, do you?
Lets make null great again by making it hard for everyone again.
That does not determine risk though. It sets the environment. Players then determine the degree of risk they are willing to face by their actions and strategies.
If you don’t see this then further interaction with you is pointless. You clearly think player behavior and actions play no role in the risk players face/take on. This is patently untrue.
Well, wormholers complained to not get loot drops, thus the mechanic was adapted to their interest. They asked higher risk and higher reward and CCP obliged.
When? When was it “hard”? I submit you are suffering from the “great old golden days of yore” syndrome.
Was it great when Sov was determined by the number of large POS on moons? Outposts and stations were indestructible? When doomsdays were AoE? What exactly made NS great back in the day? Dominion Sov that let the power blocks hold vast swaths of “buffer” systems and/or renter systems?