I specifically said Asset Safety de-incentivizes aggression. Has nothing to with how rich X player is, or where they store Y stuff.
Citadel destruction is reduced merely to a strategic nuisance, and the only damage you cause to opponent is from cost/location of the Citadel loss itself, which is trivial considering the cost in time/effort to remove it.
The rest of their stuff there gets “magically” re-located.
Magical teleportation of stuff.
What an utterly retarded mechanic, espesially in a game like EVE.
CCP won’t gimp nullsec just on the cries of some scrubs who never lived in nullsec.Good thing we got the manpower to push our CSM forward and push our view not the Salvos view.
Worse thing they’ll do is gate anoms and nerf titans a bit
I see tons and tons of safety in highsec the ■■■■ you on about.Just because thousands of players strive to make their game safe and it works you have to cry about it.
Nullbears or not our opinion matters your doesn’t and never will not even when CCP pulls the plug because you aren’t worth anything to CCP they can’t market your gameplay you do nothing worth mentioning
Boiled down, the only difference between HS and Player NS, is cynos, caps, cost of system ownership (which enables development as investment), bubbles, and lack of CONCORD. Those lacking elements hamper HS, as much as they benefit HS. All that for far higher rewards in Player NS PvE/ores.
It doesnt make any sense that Player NS has access to Immediate Local, Asset Safety and Insurance, identical to HS.
Ofc Nullbears will never agree to Player NS security/safety nerfs, no matter how warranted they are, but its not up to you, its up to CCP.
You want as systemically safe/secure a Player NS as possible. Hell, you even got Watchlist, an age old universal core mechanic which facilitated PvP, removed cos you wanted more safety for your caps+…
I dont blame you for that. I expect no less. You like to farm all the rewards with minimum risk.
No doubt you will threaten to leave the game, like a spoiled/entitled child, instead of adapting.
But is that good for the game overall?
I think not.
yup, you’ve convinced me. null-sec is exactly the same as high-sec security wise. well except for needing to actually pay to maintain the space, hostile players having access to a wider variety of attack tools (you forgot mobile cyno inhibs btw, the hard counter to counter drops. giving attackers an extra edge) and lacking the systemic safety of concord guaranteeing destruction for unprovoked attack… yup… exactly the saaaame.
player action has absolutely no affect on it. and players should be actively prevented from working together, because heaven forbid co-operation should be a powerful tactic in a sandbox MMO.
seriously, you sound like the kid at the playground who’s upset that the “mean kids down the street” have a better sandcastle than they do, and keep kicking over theirs. but rather than getting some friends of their own to build a better sandcastle, wants the adults to come in and force the meanies to let you kick theirs over.
You sound like a spoiled/entitled brat that doesnt want his systemic safety/security mechanics removed from his corner of the sandbox, which prevent risk of someone showing up and stomping on his sandcastles.
I and others want to stomp on your sandcastles, but you hide behind Momma CCP’s systemic security/safety skirt.
You: Mooooooom, the bad people want to blow me up!.. CCP: Its ok, my dear little baby. I will protect you. Here, have some Immediate Local, Asset Safety and Insurance. Oh, and Ill also remove Watchlist. You: Thanks Momma. Now I can farm in peace and feel like a pro!
I keep asking you to explain exactly what safety mechanics exist in sov-null that don’t exist elsewhere. and so far you haven’t managed to name a single one.
so if there are no unique mechanics to sov-null that provide safety, (npc null has the exact same safety mechanics, in fact even more since they have npc stations that you can’t be locked out of giving you permanent access to any assets) and yet it is considerably more dangerous.
so… if other areas of the space all have the same safety mechanics or better, yet sov-null is safer, what is the difference other than the players living there?
and if its the players living there who are making it safer, then why punish them for it? this is an emergent sandbox, and so far its YOU who are asking for fundamental changes to the game mechanics because you don’t like how successful they have been with them.
I mean, if sov-null is SOOOOO systemically and mechanically safe, why don’t you have your own system out there? I mean the game mechanics give you perfect safety right since ccp has stacked them in nulls favor. hell if null is so safe, and it has nothing to do with the players, then why does anyone bother to rent?
The issue is why the safety/security mechanics of Immediate Local, Asset Safety and Insurance exist in Player NS identically to HS, though they are supposed to br polar opposites of systemic security/safety vs player autonomy/responsibility/reward.
because they exist everywhere else except WH’s (which are their own special snowflake) so why shouldn’t they exist, just because they are opposite ends of the spectrum doesn’t mean that they can’t have anything in common whatsoever. local intel, asset safety, and insurance are core game mechanics. and null is lacking all of the other safety features EXCEPT those core mechanics.
personally, i’m all in favor of them getting rid of local entirely, if they also get rid of all the other free intel you can get from the game map and dotlan, and while we’re at it, give me the ability to turn off all gates into the system at will, lets REALLY make it like WH space. would make life a hell of a lot safer for me.
I don’t think that it makes much of a difference in nullsec as people don’t generally accept an enemy or neutral structure in their space and will remove it, though since they adjusted the tethering mechanic this has become less of an issue.
FYI in Catch there is a system 9KOE in which an alliance called Simple Farmers has set up an absolute mass of Atrahus and have them all in the AU TZ and in that way they have de-incentivized their removal as I think there was 30+ last time I looked. I want to remove them, but our alliance leaders are like uggggh.
But think about this, a small to medium sized alliance could have a Fotizar as their HQ, we did for a while, that can be so easily taken down by any serious alliance, if you have your market hub and main staging there then it becomes too much of a instant win for any attacker who has total end game superiority. What will happen is that you will hand 0.0 on a golden platter to the Goons, it will make their win totally and utterly certain.
I know why you want it removed and there is a part of me that agrees with you, but in terms of the game itself I would much rather see those ships blown up in battles rather than drop lamely like this. Look at what happened with CO2 down south as an example. My lot were going oh good a nice in your face war, then it was oh dear, damn…
it won’t result in a riskier eve, if anything it will result in a safer eve.
delayed local just means we will put scouts on every in-gate. which means that instead of just knowing that you are in system, we will know you are in system AND what you are flying. (right now you can usually slip though as No Visual pings on intel channels) which means we can form better counters.
removal of asset safety will just mean either going back to the days of pos’s where we kept the majority of our assets in HS or low. or more likely, would just mean we would drop a bunch of extra citadels and spread out assets out. making taking space even more grindy. and, as was mentioned above, would make destroying any hostile citadels a MUCH larger priority, pushing out any smaller groups trying to gain a foothold (that currently may be left alone because its not worth the effort)
decoupling of insurance is just a bad idea in general, there are a TON of new players in null. and far more people than you would think who can barely afford doctrine fits as it is. insurance gets them back out into space leading to even more destruction. (although I have been in favor of removing insurance for capitals for a very long time. and i’m saying that as a capital pilot)
limited watchlist does what exactly? it made sense back when capitals and supers couldn’t dock anywhere. so if you saw a known cap or super pilot log in you KNEW they would be dropping that cap. these days you are no longer locked into your space coffin, and most cap pilots spend far more time out of those ships than they do in them. so the intel that you get from them is practically worthless. and as far as trying to catch a capital ship that may have logged in space goes, well if you are in a position to do that, then you really don’t need the watch list.
I have no problems with a riskier eve, but every single suggestion that you have made has been made before, bashed and theorycrafted to death, and won’t turn out the way you want it too.
Salvos and his delusional circle of highsec window lickers think everyone in null has a super and rorquals and swimming in isk.Truth is pretty far from it.
