I can completely agree with that. Only I need to hear it from Salvos himself, or, in case he is a genius and he knows something we don’t, to get it explained by him. Everyone deserves a chance to be heard and to be understood.
Ramona, please…
Wtf do natural disasters or invading rats (which dont exist in EVE), have to do with this…
Your impression is wrong.
Sansha Incursions are exactly that. Also FOBs although I haven’t done much with FOBs yet (so much to do in EVE…).
Because they are things that could be introduced to add more risk?
Im afraid Im with some of the others, and I dont really see how simply removing these things (the Insurance and Asset Safety etc ) would make enough of a difference. Wasnt it like that (with the AS) before?
But like I keep saying, Ive never been in a NS group, so Im not sure what difficulties they face.
Do you think Delayed Local, no Asset Satefy, no Insurance and limited Watchlist would increase risk in HS?
If so, surely you can see it will do the same in Player NS.
Its a start, and changes security dynamics, especially in Player NS where CONCORD does not intervene. Delayed Local, of the 4 changes, is by far the most profound.
No, because we all sit in the same boat.
So it wont increase risk in your opinion.
Fine.
Good.
According to you, they wont increase risk.
Then you cant argue that as a reason not to institute Delayed Local, no Asset Safety, no Insurance and a limited Watchlist in Player Sov.
You are trying too hard to shill in your own interest, and stumbling over your own feet.
Oh, some of it increases risk, but because it increases it for everyone is there no relative difference among the players.
It’s like when you’re in a boat, rich and poor people all together, and you have water coming in. The entire boat only drops closer to the water line and everyone is more at risk of drowning.
You could change the colour of tritanium, only it wouldn’t have an effect on the rest of the game, but it would be a change in colour no less. It’s the same thing you do only with risk instead of colour.
You already seem to me to be a person who can understand simple sentences written in plain english. So, you tell me, in an objective honest sense, whether the simple sentence I wrote accused someone of being mentally-handicapped, or whether the simple sentence I wrote presented several options which applied?
If you say “it was the latter,” then what do you think explains this person’s apparent inability to understand a simple sentence? Reading-comprehension issues? Trolling? If I’m missing something, by all means add it to the list?
Or, you think it somehow describes me instead? I’d like to hear how.
You still dont get it.
The changes would apply to all Player NS, and by extension, all of EVE by repercussions.
Why are you against increased risk in Player NS, by means of reducing systemic safety/security mechanics there?
It only changes the space, it does however not change the players.
It’s like you’re at a race track and you change the road. The best car and driver will still win, because you’ve only changed the road.
It was a misquote, removed within seconds.
Oic. No harm no foul.
So you think Delayed Local, no Asset Safety, no Insurance and limited Watchlist wont “change the players”.
Fine.
I dont agree, but if you think that, then its not an impediment to these changes on your part.
You think they wont change as a result.
I think they will, by adapting dynamically, both within Player NS and externally by extension.
Oh, it surely will change players, but the weak will still remain weak and the strong players will remain strong. Those who have already managed to survive in null-sec against larger alliances will only continue to survive, while those who are having difficulties will then face even more adversity and fall more often than before. It’s like @Mai_Hantaka said:
Vs
Flip-flop.
It’s in the context. Like I said, the weak will stay weak. They adapt to the change, and thus they change, but they will stay weak compared to other players.
Thanks for conceding the other two points, I guess.