Wow, I’m surprised you can even fit that grossly over-inflated head of yours into the beehive. Maybe when you reach adolescence you’ll begin to see there’s more to this world than just you and your flawed opinion.
Do you really believe CCP doesn’t market or support other styles of gameplay? Look at twitch some time, Do you think CCP doesn’t want people like Zarvox or Bjorn advertising their game because they aren’t involved in TiDi fests in null? Next time I get a chance, I’ll ask Zarvox, how many times CCP has asked him to stop streaming since he isn’t promoting “marketable” gameplay. Using your logic, CCP should be furious that a GM dared to move capitals and super capitals into Yulai and actually allowed the “unmarketable” people, who don’t matter, to even scratch their paint. Maybe next time the GM’s should move a bunch of brand new, day-old, players into null and allow a bunch of Titans to DD them in their rookie ships. That probably would have validated your view…
If you know what you are doing your risk is minimal to be quite honest. But again this highlights my point, even with station trading you can mitigate risk.
Really, why is it so hard for people to accept that a player’s behavior changes the risk they take? It is not some fixed thing. In NS risk is X and always X. Some seem to get it, the rest are like, “Nope, CCP determines risk and there is nothing players can do!”
Yeah, lets ignore effort.
Hmmm…who do you think will adapt best to these…
A large group with a culture known for adapting and moving with the changes in the game maybe? Oh and a large group with a good culture towards new ideas from players within that group will likely fair even better…and in this case having more players and more ideas will likely help that group find innovative solutions to the above nerfs.
You seem keep forgetting that we are not talking about automatons, but individuals who can and will react/adapt to these changes.
NS also has no mechanics that punish spontaneous aggression. There is no CONCORD, no faction police, no gate guns, no sec status loss, etc. for shooting another ship. This behavior is curtailed in HS.
Yes, and if I recall correctly you were an extremely vociferous defender of this. IIRC you likened it to “stalking”. So seeing you write the above is quite interesting.
Sheesh…
Seriously Salvos why is NS safer? Sure there is some overlap in terms of mechanics (asset safety, local, etc.) There are differences as has been noted. Those differences make NS riskier than HS if a player in NS behaves just as he would in HS.
In HS a player logs in. Talks to his agent. Gets a mission, gets the appropriate ship and hits undock, warps to the mission site, maybe jumping a gate or two in the process, runs the mission, comes back and gets the mission rewards.
Now…how would you do it in NS? You are in NPC NS. Are you going to it exactly like the above? Or are you going to…
Look at local before you undock?
Maybe position some scouts?
Maybe be on comms with others in your group so you can benefit from their scouts?
Are you going to use a different ship/fit?
In other words, your behavior is different. If you do the above you will face less risk than if you don’t.
This should be obvious to anyone…but apparently not you and some others.
Now, suppose you have a big alliance. And you have lots of systems and people ratting. Might you not encourage people to be on comms? That people with alts use them for intel in spotting roaming hostiles, and yet others with alts to be in backup/support ships…maybe even the occasional titan sitting on a keepstar to bridge in some of the sub-cap support ships. Would you encourage people ratting in blingy/larger fits to use fits with a cyno so said help can arrive quickly?
Or are you just going to be a fool and tell everyone, rat just like you run missions in HS. Forget intel channels, comms, and all of the stuff noted above. In fact, close local. Undock blindly.
I don’t expect you to answer because the answer is something you seem completely desperate to avoid admitting.
I would also add that one should be cautious about punishing players who expend effort to reduce risk. It can look like punishing people for doing the prudent thing. If there is a problem try to appeal to their desire for game balance and such.
I’ll add that decoupling insurance in NS just points out how people do not grasp the point of insurance. The point of insurance is to reduce the impact of losing one’s ship–i.e. it is to promote PvP not reduce it. So by removing it you could end up reducing PvP and thereby making NS safer. Please note I said could.
Further, what kind of group is more likely to be able to adapt well to such a change? A group like Goons or some small alliance that does not have the same logistics and culture? So this could actually be a benefit for Goons.
This has already been explained by Dracvlad, Bjorn and IIRC Whitehound…but I’ll join the dog pile.
It depends on how groups/players react/adapt. If a group like Goons is able to take advantage of their numbers and alts and put people on most of the key gates in NS, if they ramp up their capital umbrella/response fleets, and maybe a few things I haven’t thought of…it could lead to less risk.
You keep on ignoring effort and how people and groups will respond to changes. It might work…but it might not work. Or it might work for some but not others. In fact, it could make Goons and say PL safer, and make everyone else less safe.
Asset safety removal sounds great…if nobody reacts/adapts. Depending on how they react/adapt this could make things more risky…or not…or mixed, greater risk for some less for others.
In short you appear to be thinking: Given how players play currently if we change these things and players do nothing to adapt risk must go up.
Okay sure. But you have also noted ITT that players adapt. That adapting is going to be to claw back some, all of or even more of the extra risk you are trying to inject into the game.
This is not a physics problem…it is a people problem and people do not like risk and will look for ways to reduce it. They always have and likely always will.
I’m not trying to troll you, but a serious question, is English your first language? I ask this because I certainly never said or implied that player actions do not effect risk. If you somehow understood that from my statements, well you understood them wrong.
This statement though is directly opposite to what you said above and is probably what most people don’t agree with. CCP does create risk, players do also. Lets take a simple example. Before Rorquals were created (and then modified to be good at mining), we all mined null (you in sov null, me in wormholes) in hulks. Even after Rorquals were created, we didn’t mine in them, they sat at the POS and provided boosts (off grid) and were used to compress the ore. Without a doubt, player actions (and inactions) effected safety. However, lets face it, if a single stabber caught you in your hulk, you were probably dead unless help was very close by. Then CCP buffed the mining capabilities of the Rorqual to actually compete with that of a hulk. That Rorqual had no worries if a stabber appeared in local, and as we both know has much greater tanking capabilities than any hulk, allowing much longer response times for fleets to jump in and save it (and lets face it, a stabber can’t break a competent tank on a Rorqual anyway).
Since those changes to the Rorqual had nothing to do with player actions, and yet those changes made it somewhat safer (note I did not say it was safe) to mine in null. Those changes were made by CCP, thus in this case it was CCP who lowered the risk to miners. So it is your statement that “The Devs do not create risk”, that I don’t agree with. However if you just miss-spoke when translating to English, I can easily see how that could happen.
If you believe that both CCP and players have an effect on risk, then sure I’m not disagreeing with that.
I am American so I have to wonder what in the ■■■■ is your educational background? Do you understand anything at all about risk? I mean at all? Every one has been saying CCP sets the risk. Which implies that player actions have no impact. Seriously if you are an English speaker go back and read my ■■■■■■■ posts with a ■■■■■■■ open mind…jettison your ■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■ and read what I wrote. Is anything ■■■■■■■ shocking from the stand point of “players actions influence the player’s risk?” The answer is mother ■■■■■■■ no. So I have to ask…are you an English speaker or just ■■■■■■■ stupid?
Do you speak English? Nasar got it. Whitehound got it. Mingja got it. Bjorn got it.
FFS…I have said for at least 3-4 post something along the lines of CCP creates the environment and that implies that CCP creates the “base” level of risk…
Go back read my posts that are interspersed through out that last 300 posts. I am merely saying that player action has an effect on the risk they take. Further, that CCP cannot make any player take a risk they are not willing to take. For example, CCP created the war dec mechanics, yes? The answer is yes by the way, if you disagree, simply GTFO…really STFU and GTFO. Now, suppose I do not want to deal with that risk what can I do? How about not undock or drop to an noob corp. There I have totally removed the war dec risk. Is that possible in game. Yes. Seriously…learn to goddamn ■■■■■■■ read.
Sorry if you are butthurt over my rather strenuous response…but this ■■■■ is ■■■■■■■ basic.
Really f—ing basic.
What you do in game determines the level of risk you face. Why is this mother f—ing hard?
Yes…CCP creates the environment. What does this mean.
Suppose a player can take action “a”.
What is the risk in NS vs. HS if a player takes the same action in both NS and HS. I would argue the risk is:
RNS(a) > RHS(a).
That is if a player takes the same action in both HS and NS the risk in NS is greater (note this is stark contrast to what people have claimed I have written back upstream–e.g. @Beast_of_Revelations–however this is not the case, this is a bastardized reading of what I have actually been writing). But, taking the same action NS and HS is not optimal. In HS parking alts in nearby systems, getting on comms, etc. are largely going to be a “waste” in that because of the the difference in mechanics that kind of precaution in HS is generally wasted. That is you could be using those alts to do things that provide a greater benefit. In other words, players in NS and HS behave differently…they take different actions based on different strategies. In NS a player knows he faces greater risk “out of the box” and so employs different strategies. When a player is in an alliance that also realizes this and is willing to let players come up with new ideas and pursues a trial-and-error process could find a strategy that is very effective.
So…now suppose Salvos comes along and says, “NS is safer than HS!” That is less people mining in NS die than in HS. Why is that? Well if risk is decreasing as a function of effort/actions/strategies then maybe the actions of the player in NS are such that they more than reduce the excess risk. That is,
RNS(a’) < RHS(a).
Notice that on the left hand side of the inequality we have a’. That is a different level of action or, effort. Suppose that a’ = 10*a. That is the null player is putting for 10 times the effort of the HS player. Is it shocking that “NS is safer than HS in this case?” Maybe…but maybe not.
What many people in this thread are arguing is that,
RNS(a’) > RHS(a) for any and all a’.
That is, no matter how much effort or what actions a NS player takes they should always face more risk than a HS player.
Does that seem reasonable to you? It does not seem reasonable to me. If a NS alliance figures out a way to expend effort and take actions to reduce their risk even below HS levels…good for them. Effort and thinking up strategies are not “free”.
Another way to put it is…nobody asks what does it “cost” Goons to obtain the top slots in the MERs month-after-month? If other alliances are not willing to incur those costs…then why in the Hell should they get those benefits.
And just because the MERs do not show those costs does not mean they are not there.
Please…go read some Claude-Frédéric Bastiat, in particular, That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen. That essay is one of the first known explications of the concept of opportunity cost…a fundamental concept in EVE. It is why the “minerals you mine are not free”. Most EVE players get it when it comes to minerals…but they fail to apply it elsewhere.
Edit:
Prediction: @Beast_of_Revelations will show up and argue that I have said risk is the same across different sectors of space. This is not the case. What I have been arguing is that player actions/strategies/effort may have made some parts of NS safer than HS.
Prediction II: Salvos will show up and argue complete gibberish…to which I have nothing to say as it is complete gibberish…hopefully Salvos is enjoying the waning days of summer up there in the Nordic region…
That Immediate Local, Asset Safety and Insurance continue to exist there reduce risk in an environment that has greatest material rewards, and should be the pinnacle of player autonomy/responsibility without interfering/mitigating safety/security mechanics.
You are confusing CCP set parameters, with player choices made within them:
As to how well/badly Goons or anyone else would adapt to Delayed Local, no Asset Safety or Insurance and a limited Watchlist, well, thats up to them and subjective.
Question Salvos. Do you actually play the game and if yes what are you doing? You seem extremely invested in trying to nerf other peoples gameplay and the question is why. Have you actually been in nullsec and experienced this issues you are talking and feel so strongly about?
so true. but it is what exactly must be changed in this game if eve want to survive.
monitoring online, ring kisser online… where the f. is true eve online.
Some 100 posts back there was “null will be even safer with delayed local, scouts will be on all gates”… well, I call BS:
1.) If you wanted that extra safety it would be doable now. Almost nobody does it, as this is a HUGE hassle to set up on all gates, and leads to a notable drop of income.
2.) People can get in the system in a cloaked ship. Makes cloakies significantly more powerful and versatile.
3.) If you make A) local show only rough number of people as I suggest (ie 1-4, 5-10, 11-25 etc) and B) disable gate effect so you would not see people jumping through… nearly arbitrary number of cloaked ships will be able to enter deep in the space without any advance warning whatsoever.
4.) If you also nerf cynos so it takes a while before cyno is active and another while before ships jumping through are combat operational -> cloaked ships can enter deep in the hostile space and screw up various carebearing operations before the defenders can magically summon gazillions of ships.
(Assuming just delayed with total number in local, natives will simply require everyone to hail upon entering the system or proclaim them suspect/hostile = same result as now just with slightly more hassle, so I believe rough numbers are of high importance, enabling people to sneak in un(ac)counted.)
As for asset safety - you could set up asset safety to have some sort of insurance mechanics.
Each player can have up to say 1B of insured stuff in M structure, 10B in L and 100B in XL, plus corps have 10x as much. Random stuff up to the insured value is covered by safety mechanics. The other stuff can be destroyed or drops. Insurance obviously costs and stuff can be insured only when the structure is not vulnerable. Estimated ISK value is taken for this insurance instead of the material value (to make expensive faction modules expensive to insure). Priority to save stuff = fitted ships and their cargo, followed by other ships and modules, followed by stuff on the market.
I find this solution somewhat neat, as it:
offers a huge isk sink by all that insurance,
gives a nice reason to bash structures in hopes stuff will drop,
hurts poorer players less than the rich ones. They will be able to insure everything and their insurance can be cheaper if they have just a bit of stuff.
(now, this will give a sizeable benefit to the NPC null, as those stations are indestructible. So, make those stations destructible too. A huge NPC defense force spawns should the stations be attacked, so it wouldn’t be a trivial loot piñata. Maybe add ability for everyone to gift NPCs a station equal or better to the destroyed one in the same place to have the station proclaim the same and recover lost agents. Or perhaps give agents module to the player station - requiring station being free for all and in the NPC space for the module to work)
That is, no matter how much effort or what actions a NS player takes they should always face more risk than a HS player.
Does that seem reasonable to you? It does not seem reasonable to me. If a NS alliance figures out a way to expend effort and take actions to reduce their risk even below HS levels…good for them. Effort and thinking up strategies are not “free”.
The problem is, that was how EvE was setup when it was created. You didn’t get more isk in null because you need more work to make it safe. You got more isk, because of the greater risk. You could never make it as safe as highsec (and you still can’t).
Then CCP, in it’s effort to get people into null, changed the equation such that it was possible to achieve a much greater level of safety in SOV null then ever originally intended, all the while actually increasing the rewards there. You are looking at it from one side (you know how hard you have to work out there, and believe the increased payment is a reward for your work). Most here are trying to look at the whole picture, and are asking CCP to do that also (and I think they are).
Are the rewards available in null appropriate for the current risk? You and other players that live there obviously answer yes. All the rest of EvE apparently says no, as player losses in the rest of space far outnumber the gains in SOV null over the last 5 years or so. CCP went ‘all in’ on the dream of a mass exodus into SOV null by making the ‘carrot’ bigger and the ‘stick’ smaller, instead they reaped a mass exodus from the game.
So when looking at the results, CCP dropped the ball because their decisions have resulted in a much smaller EvE. Only CCP can decide if they are happy with this result. You are saying they should be overjoyed, I’m not convinced they should be.
To answer your question risk in null should ALWAYS be greater than risk in highsec, because the rewards are significantly greater. And I believe risk IS greater. For example, for all it’s ship losses, you hardly ever get podded in highsec since you never have to worry about bubbles. So if we call player action to reduce risk ‘modified risk’, the argument (and it is an argument, since I doubt you will ever change your opinion) can be stated: is the ‘modified risk’/reward in SOV null balanced with the ‘modified risk’/reward in the rest of EvE? Well, of course it isn’t since CCP shifted it to entice more people to move out there. Look at their comments over the years since rubicon, they thought there would be a small drop in player count, but overall most of their player base would wind up in SOV null. They were wrong.
But enough, your esoteric comments about how we should define risk and your attempts to derail this discussion aside, CCP will ultimately have to decide if they are happy with the direction they have taken EvE. I look at events like: letting CCP Seagull go, the decision to let alpha’s train more skills, the abandonment of Serenity, Layoffs in CCP (and not just their non-EvE people - like their security team and pr people), the near constant development of skins to prop up revenue, as an indication that they don’t see the glass as half-full. You can be certain of one thing, CCP will never allow one group to control all of EvE. They know the second all conflict stops, the game stops. They will always change the game to promote meaningful conflict. Time will tell, but if CCP ever decides to reverse course away from their rubicon plan, the crying on these forums and reddit will be something special.
