I see that it’s another reply to me, but I’m not watching it, Salvos.
I’m calling it a placebo. What you want is a change to make you feel good about something, but without any real consequence for EVE.
Maybe we all need to start smoking (again) to make sense of your words.
That word doesnt mean, what you think it means.
You are avoiding the issue/topic.
Tobacco is not psychoactive.
Trying to focus on me smoking it, and not the topic, is a massive faceplant.
Do you, or not, agree that instituting Delayed Local, no Asset Safety, no Insurance and limited Watchlist in Player NS would increase risk there?
Just FYI.
Sorry, I would like to have this discussion, but not in video form, not with someone who is shoving cigarette after cigarette in their face, and over a placebo effect. You cannot see it for what it is, that’s ok, it just makes me a little bit sad as I had hoped to get a bit more depth out of this conversation.
So cos I smoke, Im not rational, and you cant answer my questions, nor discuss with me.
How convenient.
Gtfo.
This is just an excuse to get around answering.
I already did answer it and I said that in parts it does. And I’ve asked you why we need it, and who wants it, and your response was “to stomp out castles”. To which I then asked how that’s going to work, at which you point went silent. Remember this?
Already answered above.
The less systemic safety/security, the more opportunity/incentive for aggression.
Which only helps the strong to become stronger, and the weak to become weaker. We’ve been over this, too.
Wrong.
It helps everyone to aggress in/into Player NS, whether strong or weak.
Adding risk does not help those who are risk averse. If anything you’d have to make null-sec into high-sec for high-sec players to go there.
Ofc not.
Are you being deliberately stupid?
The whole point is to increase risk in Player NS.
How do you still not understand this?
Are you even reading or just making it up?
Which you explained with:
And I’m saying it doesn’t help those who already avoid the conflict.
It’s like you’re thinking that if only we made null-sec riskier then suddenly high-sec will rise up to the challenge and show everyone how tough high-sec really is.
Its not supposed to help those that avoid conflict in Player NS.
Its specifically to increase risk in Player NS.
Its like you havent read anything said here.
But why does it need this? Why do you want null-sec alliances to dig themselves in deeper?
See this:
A castle with a moat around it. Null-sec alliances use the risks of current null-sec to their advantage.
What you want is to make the moat deeper so it’s riskier. Who do you think will profit from this?
Why do you think Player NS needs Immediate Local, Asset Safety, Insurance and no Watchlist, to operate?
These are superfluous risk mitigating systemic safety/security measures that are not necessary in Player NS.
Local intel can be provided by scouts.
Asset Safety by not losing a Citadel.
Insurance via SRP.
Limited Watchlist works both ways.
So those who don’t already live in null-sec have it easier to challenge the existing space holders.
Wat.
Its exactly the opposite.
My proposal makes it easier for everyone to challenge Player NS.
It will always be an uphill fight for those who want to go into null-sec and to take it over. How much of an uphill fight it will be depends on how steep the hill is.
You’re trying to make the hill steeper, not flatter.
You don’t think high-sec players would flock immediately into null-sec if you were to make it all like high-sec? Of course they would.
So why do you there think it would make it easier when null-sec becomes tougher?
How the fk would I be making Player NS like HS, if Player NS is Delayed Local, no Asset Safety, no Insurance and limited Watchlist reapplied?
Its the OPPOSITE, as at this moment, Player NS shares the same Immediate Local, Asset Safety, Insurance as HS does, identically.
I’m not saying that your suggestions do that.
I’m saying that if you were to make it like high-sec then you’d see high-sec players venturing into it. So when you can understand this, then how come you think making null-sec harder would have a similar effect?
/facepalm.
Player NS is ALREADY NOW like HS, identical infact, in regards to Immediate Local, Asset Safety and Insurance.
I am proposing the OPPOSITE, so that Player NS would have Delayed Local, no Asset Safety and no Insurance.
Can you finally, please, understand?