Decide for yourself whether CCP has coddled Player NS, or not.
Imo, its clear they have, as risk/reward influenced by safety/security mechanics that should not be in place there, and too long overlooked.
Please explain in detail why you think that.
Dont ask me to repeat myself, or I will be accused of/reported for spamming by shills in doing so.
But is that the same thing as “screwing over” everyone else?
Does it actually matter to a HS codedodger, a Low Sec Yarrrman or a WHing scanner how many supers Jonny Bee owns?
I’m thinking you’re just being hateful and hate it that others in null-sec have success and you sit sorry in high-sec.
And no, I have read your comments and I have yet to see detailed explanations why you think there is a problem. None of your suggestions make sense other than being random. As if you hadn’t got a clue what you’re doing.
So I’m asking you to bring explanations. I’m curious as to what your goals are.
1 Like
I absolutely hate using this device, but it “depends”.
The interconnectivity of all of EVEs sectors, via alts, disparate Corps and advantage in each along a supply/production chain/web is incalculable.
But this is about whether Player NS has been coddled, and if risk/reward is balanced there. I think it isnt, which has led to Player NS stagnation both internally and from restricted influence from outside Player NS.
So do you feel this topic’s title is incorrect?
Should it be more specifically about NS having it good rather than us having it bad?
This may be another point I have failed to account for in my dealings with the author.
Note this is more a rhetorical question as youve explained how neither circumstance is exclusionary of the other but does not require it either.
Think that if you wish, but its not true.
No, the title/topic engages the question if Player NS has been unduly coddled, such that risk/reward there are too far mitigated by systemic safety/security mechanics that should not exist there.
Its not about what players have done there, its about CCP having made it possible by not curtailing systemic safety/security there, sufficiently.
Perhaps you’re in denial over it. I don’t really care, but until you explain yourself can one only assume it’s emotional.
If not then you should have the ability to rationally explain your thinking.
Ive explained myself several times above, already.
Im not going to repeat myself to rehash them, nor make my post subject to spam reports by belligerents.
I dunno, “CCP screws everyone but big nullsec cartels” would suggest the activity on CCP’s side is to damage the non-big nulsec cartel people.
But Im just being a pedant now.
I suppose I can see how that could mean actively helping Jonny Bee and as such sticking it to the rest of us.
No, you haven’t. You only say what you think is wrong without saying why you think it’s wrong. You say what you want to change, but when I showed you how it’s of no consequence did you only go silent.
And no, I do hope you’re not going to repeat yourself. I actually want you to say something new and original. Something that anyone can understand.
1 Like
Ask yourself, how do you reconcile, in risk/reward, that Player NS has the same security/safety mechanics as Immediate Local, Asset Safety and Insurance as its polar opposite HS? Ask yourself why Watchlist was removed.
Scroll up and address the posts where I have already answered your query.
I cant reinvent my previous statements as “new and original”.
But dont all those things affect all areas equally?
WHs dont have IL or AS but they have other things going for them instead.
Is Insurance different somewhere else?
They do not.
Immediate Local, Asset Safety and Insurance affect Player NS very differently than HS
No, you haven’t. I’ve asked you how “no insurances” is going to work out. You kept silent and didn’t respond. Remember?
1 Like
Ok, I thought they worked the same way in each Sec level.
Explain how.