Not quite.
The enviroment–i.e. the risk/reward parameters–are defined by CCP. Beyond that everything is up to the players.
Not sure why you are invoking subjectivity here other than people’s appetite for risk is subjective. But I don’t see how that changes anything at all.
So what? You might as well have simply replied with, “Purple.”
And so is the risk and the reward when it comes from players.
Well since I was replying to a post about 150 posts ago and not the OP I don’t see the issue here.
Wormholes may have an environment that makes mitigating risk more difficult, but that does not change the fact that players can mitigate that risk.
You keep invoking risk vs. reward as if it should be some set number and ignoring effort. If this were really true, why not just have CCP give us each 1 billion ISK a month.
Again risk vs. reward is not independent of effort. You keep ignoring this point.
Again…what tools would those be?
Oh…you mean the same tools everyone else has access too?
Boy that is a dumb idea. First off you are targeting a group of players due to their success. Can we just have PLs titans arbitrarily explode since they are pretty successful? When station traders reach 200 billion in ISK can some of their market orders simply disappear?
So you are saying there is nothing you can do in a wormhole to change the risk you face? The risk is set by CCP and nothing you do can change it?
For you maybe.
Your argument seems to be ‘since players can mitigate risk, all areas of space have the same risk/reward, convenience/reward, difficulty/reward, etc.’ Naturally, that is non-factual, and moronic. If you and others haven’t gotten that point by now, you never will, and I can no longer attempt to help you.
You are the one ignoring things. You believe that since risk can be mitigated by the player, highsec might as well be the same as a wormhole. Yet I doubt you would act on that belief and then demand that highsec get the same goodies as the wormhole (same quality of planets, same quality of rats, same quality of ore, etc). Basically, you make zero sense. None.
I’m sorry, no one can be this dumb. It just isn’t possible, not even on these forums. I think you’re just a troll, along with several others. Anyway, yeah, let me see you try to deploy these tools in highsec, or in a wormhole, or in npc null, or in lowsec.
Troll.
First off, this thread isn’t about goons or nerfing them, it’s about SOV Null. Some of you have asked for ideas, well here are some of mine:
If the goal is to try to re-distribute people to all areas of EvE by adding value to all areas:
Step 1: All Player built Citadels/Forts have a set reprocessing limit of 65%, no advantage in any area.
Step 2: Player Citadels/Forts can install a module that acts as follows:
a) If installed in Highsec, it reduces build requirements for t1 items/ships by 10 to 15%
b) If installed in Lowsec, it reduces build requirements for t2 items/ships by 10 to 15%
c) If installed in wormholes, it reduces build requirements tor t3 ships by 10 to 15%
d) If Installed in null, it reduces capital build requirements by 10 to 15%, and only SOV null can build supercaps
To make this work, you’re going to move a good deal of the lucrative moons into Lowsec, so that null can’t completely control the flow of goo needed for t2. You might even have to change t3 build requirements, so t3 can’t be dominated outside of wormholes. Note however you can always build anything in any area (except no caps in highsec, and no supercaps outside SOV null), but you’ll need more materials.
Step 3: Asset safety changed to: If your fort is destroyed, assets will transfer to:
Step 4: ALL non-fixed sites ( i.e. not belts) can ONLY be found with probes – they do NOT appear in space or Dscan ever, they have no indication in space period.
Step 5: Remove LOCAL from ALL NULL. Local only exists in high and low sec space, ever.
Step 6: Sanctums/other SOV sites work like sleeper sites – the more you farm them, the less likely they will spawn in your system – you need to move around, to find them. As one area gets farmed hard, they become more likely to be found in different areas. Instant conflict creators.
Step 7 (if farming in null still too lucrative), bounties reduced by 50%, with tags/items added, now you have to loot and move to market (teamwork needed) (if this is done you could make sites more lucrative than current).
You want to “win EvE”? You better be prepared to dominate all areas of EvE, not just null.
Asset safety is cancer, asking for even higher safety will only damage EvEs reputation even more than instanced pve with no consequences (the abyss).
Somehow I started playing in Felucca and ended up in Trammel, that’s when you really know EA is in charge.
No, that is your flawed interpretation.
I am saying that risk is based on player actions, not on CCP’s actions. CCP sets up the environment, but that is it. They aren’t making a player overload his freighter nor are they making other freighter pilots use a scout and/or webber.
No. This does not follow at all from what I wrote. This is your misunderstanding my argument. Risk is not a fixed thing, it is dependent on the players actions. If I am flying a freighter and another player is flying a freighter our risks can be different even if we are taking the same route through HS.
Me: I put 500 million ISK in cargo value in my tanked freighter and fly from A to B.
Other player: Puts 5 billion ISK in cargo value into his anti-tanked freighter and flies from A to B.
Clearly my risk is low, his risk is high. Why? Decisions we made. I have tanked my ship and limited the cargo value so it is not a very attractive target to gankers. The other player on the other hand has taken on quite a bit of risk.
You are completely missing my point and drawing a conclusion that bears zero relation to what I have written.
Because I am not making that argument. Not at all.
They are available to anyone in sov NS though. And it is much, much easier to mitigate risk in HS because of how CCP has created the environment. HS all you have to do is not be incredibly stupid and you’ll fave very little risk. Don’t put bling on or in your ships, don’t undock the expensive stuff during a war dec, and generally speaking you’ll be fine. The risks you face are minor at this point. To reduce one’s risk in sov NS to a commensurate level would require considerably more effort…hence the greater rewards.
Rewards are contingent on both risk and effort. Since risk can be reduced so easily in NS yes the rewards are lower and no you can’t upgrade systems.
I’ll say it for the 1000th time. NOBODY HERE is talking about overloaded freighters, scouts, or webbers. You are off on planet Mars talking about something entirely different than what this post is about.
Now you are contradicting yourself. First it was ‘CCP does nothing, player determines everything.’ Now you are saying CCP had a role in determining something in the game.
I’m pretty bored of playing with the trolls at this point. I’ll let others take over for now.
I notice you failed to respond to my question on this, but this highlights why you are wrong…
Yes, it is harder to mitigate risk in wormholes. But living there is a choice. Player can accept that increased degree of risk mitigation and move there and put forth more effort to reduce their risk to a level they find acceptable or they can stay in NS or even HS and expend even less effort for lower rewards.
Risk in game is largely based on your actions. Yes, CCP sets up the environment where managing your risk requires more effort in different parts of the game, but again you can do things to change the degree of risk you face. And since people have different subjective differences in terms of appetite for risk, people are going to put for different levels of effort.
Further, there maybe economies of scale. Two players working to mitigate risk is likely to be more effective than one player even one player using alts. And three is probably more effective than 2. Eventually there may be diseconomies of scale, but doesn’t seem the goons have reached that point.
For crying out loud it is to highlight my point that risk is dependent on the actions of players. That you refuse to see this is quite interesting.
No, I have been writing that “CCP determines the environment” which means they determine as Salvos has been putting the “risk paramters”. The mechanics for different parts of space give a different level of “base” risk if you will, then players do things to either enhance or reduce that risk.
So you’re trying to convince us that NS has lower rewards than wormholes? Lower consistent rewards? I’m not sure most people would agree with that statement. Most people I know living in wormholes, don’t rat in their system getting consistent 60 mil ticks in their supers’. I tend to have to move around, then there’s that whole need to loot and having to move it back to kspace where you can sell the blue loot - tends to cut down my isk per tick…
This post is about the first thing you said - the mechanics for different parts of space giving a different level of ‘base’ risk. This thread is NOT about what players decide to do, nor is it about what the consequences of their actions are, their effect on any risk in the game, etc.
If you truly believe that players determine all risk in the game, and CCP had nor has no role in it (you don’t believe that because you just stated above that different parts of space have different inherent ‘base’ risk irrespective of the player, so we finally agree), then you, without even knowing it, argued for far more draconian changes than I argued for. Because if all areas of space are the same, with only the player creating risk, then there is absolutely no reason for different areas of space to be treated differently by CCP, e.g. sov null getting the goodies they get as compared with everywhere else. You unknowingly argued for making all space the same, goodies-wise.
CCP screws everyone.
That’s how it is. That’s how it’s supposed to be. Case closed.
I think one of the biggest problems here, is that players assume it is something in the mechanics that makes one area of space safe or dangerous. but the greatest threat in eve has always been players. and so it is players who determine what areas of space are safe and which are dangerous.
HS has mechanically the most “safeguards” but as many people will attest to, it is one of the most dangerous areas of space, not because of any mechanics, but because players have made it that way.
null-sec and WH have the fewest mechanical safeties, and yet, they are among the safest places in the game. not because the mechanics make it that way, but because the players do.
no matter how much you change the mechanics, the players will always migrate to the areas of greatest reward, and use whatever mechanics are in place to make it as safe as possible for themselves. if you flipped the script, and made null-space worthless, and HS valuable. within a month you would see an exodus of players leaving null for high, and within 2 months new empires and control zones established giving their members as much if not more safety than they have now in null.
Rewards may be CCP created, but safety and risk are 100% the doing of the players. and the only way to change that, would be to take all player agency completely out of the game, which would gut the very thing that makes eve what it is. it would be not just pulling the plug, but putting a bullet right in its head.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Prior to about 5 years ago, there was no large migration of players into SOV null. Imagine that your only reliable source of income was ratting in belts and finding and running the occasional site. Imagine when there were no capital sized mining vessels, so you had to mine in hulks. Your big isk came from officer or faction spawns and their drops. Back then you lived in a POS, that caused you to lose everything stored there when it was destroyed. The market was almost non-existant in null. If you wanted a ship, you usually had to go back to highsec to buy it. Make no mistake, you could always make far more isks living in null. But it required real dedication, there were few (if any) casual null players. Highsec had drone loot, and much higher mission drops, so really didn’t need zydrine or mega from null. There was no TiDi, POS bashing was an incredible bore, there were no supercaps, you almost never saw anyone daring to rat in a capital, as the requirement to jump from belt to belt prevented you from being constantly aligned. I could go on and on and on…Null was mostly empty space, fighting with losec for the lowest player numbers.
Then CCP went in whole hog with the idea of massive fleet fights, and made it possible for casual players to live in null. They nerfed most other regions and/or buffed Null to obscene levels. And the results, many people moved out to null, their numbers surged, and the forgotten (or ignored) areas? Their ranks dropped FAR more than null gained. EvE, who used to boast about how they had one of the best records for keeping players (many players were long term), lost about 50% of their player base, and you don’t hear a peep about player retention. Your character is from 2016, I had already been playing EvE for 10 years at that point, and knew quite a few 2003 players who were still playing. CCP made it possible for null to build everything cheaper than any other area, they have the best spawns, sites, perfect intel (local), complete asset safety, you can make many billions without ever having to leave your system or loot a single wreck all the while being aligned to a fort/cit and up to speed in your ship so you can warp in an instant. People don’t flock to null because they can make more isk, they go there because they can make all that isk, with absolute minimum risk - because CCP upset the risk/reward balance that existed in EvE for it’s first 10 years. When it grew in player numbers every single year.
Your whole belief, that people would always flock to most isk in great numbers, completely goes against the history of EvE……
but your example proves my point completely, as you said, prior to them buffing the rewards of null-sec there was no mass migration there. people lived out there sure, because the rewards where still slightly better than elsewhere. then ccp buffed null, made the rewards much greater. and players followed the isk.
also this character may only be from 2016, but I’ve been playing since 08. so I do very much remember the way that things used to be.
null became more profitable so people flocked there, as people flocked there they set up more safety for themselves. if you nerfed null and buffed low-sec then people would head there or wherever else the greatest rewards can be had, and once in place they would find a way to make it safe for themselves. thats just human nature. and there is always safety in numbers.
the only way ccp could balance risk/reward the way people seem to want, is to completely remove the human and teamwork elements that create the safety. at which point, why even bother playing an mmo?
No, null remained just as profitable but risk was lowered significantly. The likelihood of you making a lot of isk between ship losses rose significantly. Bounties didn’t raise much if at all.
Really? Read my suggestions earlier. Only my last suggestion (which was conditional) actually would nerf the rewards in Null. The other ones raised the risk level, and not even above that in wormholes. If CCP had the guts to try those ideas, how many casual players would remain in null do you think? You could try teamwork all you want, but all it takes is one wormhole to open while your super isn’t aligned, and your chance of getting caught goes way up.
How about this, lets leave everything the same in SOV null, and only remove local and remove Asset safety. You could live under the same conditions found in any wormhole. Thus no nerf to the income, only a bump in risk. Lets see how the null population responds then…
so which one is it? did null become more profitable or less?