Delay Local

What @Salvos_Rhoska said.

Even if it was risk free, why is that a problem for you?

To repeat that for you, since you obviously can’t be bothered to read what you’ve said yourself. You want to balance 0.0 with your definition of safe. I contested your definition of Safe. Then, at some point, you told me we can’t use my definition of safe.

That in itself is pretty confusing. YOU tried to stomp the discussion about safety yourself, by telling me that we can’t use mine because reasons.

to which I’ve said that I disagree. Since then, you didn’t respond to it anymore.

You want to balance 0.0. 0.0 is balanced by “build empire, burn empire”. You refuse to participate in “Burning down” so you refuse to be a part of the solution you demand.

It’s not refusal of the nerf, it’s refusal of the reasons brought up for it. You say 0.0 provides too much isk. After presenting your argument and your idea, I’ve demonstrated (twice) that we are within your proposed idea, even if we assume the space is much safer than it actually is.

If you are not interested in everything that NEEDS to be a part of this topic, why do you indulge in this discussion? That is a non-helpful approach and Agenda-Driven. To tell me that I don’t agree with nerfs is also outright WRONG, as I’ve said numerous times that I would (instantly) agree to a super nerf.

I’ve also agreed that Local is too easy to maintain, but that any solution to THAT specific problem should not disrupt the current balance that has been established and which is reasonable even by your standards of isk per hour if you disaccount the Supers.

That very much depends on everyone in the conversation to behave in a civil manor. A poorly argued statement without some sort of “documentation”, will in most cases be prone to being “personally attacked” because there is no argument that they can/could attack instead. That’s not saying that it does not happen anyway. Sometimes it can be better to just ignore people who are just attempting to troll or those who just want you to lose your temper (fueling the “fire”), and just stick to replying to those giving constructive criticism.

2 Likes

Troll post detected, note this:

Apply verification, match found on Loki Orkund

I have explained why this is a bad idea and the impacts that it would have in terms of balance within 0.0 space above in detail. That you (Loki) are unable to understand it and define it simplistically as “avoiding getting their farm nerfed.” is most laughable and is exactly what the ISD is referring to.

PS Note that I did not reply to Loki directly only to the ISD, because I don’t want to have a conversation with Loki as he is trolling.

PPS This is what Loki is unable to understand and why in the end he trolls

This is the answer…

1 Like

Actually no. I want to balance it according to reward/risk as I’ve stated at least half a dozen times now.
One of the core principle of Eve is non-consensual combat so anything else is just pissing in the wind. On another game, I might completely agree with you.

Here’s your statement again, my emphasis:

I said that the target should always have an option to escape. You said that that’s against the core mechanic of non-consensual pvp.

Now, you’ve proven smart enough one way or the other, so I’m guessing we’re talking about different things. For the sake of the thread, I’ll give it one last try.

Let’s imagine there’s a hypothetical version of Eve where every PvP is like the duelling option ie every player has to opt in. This is functionally the same as your “always have an option to escape” – at least that’s how I read it.

Now read my miner mod thread where I argue that ‘agency’ is an important consideration… ie ideally, the player should legitimately feel they have a chance to escape:

(Radical improvement to mining: the audible alert module)

This is different from 100% always being able to escape. It is about having a significant non-zero chance to escape because a) the attacker isn’t stupidly OP b) they might make a mistake c) you weren’t AFK because mining IS that boring.

0.0 is balanced by “build empire, burn empire”.

OK, you made an assertion here. You’re saying it’s balanced in terms of risk reward? Justify it. Show us how.

It’s not refusal of the nerf, it’s refusal of the reasons brought up for it. You say 0.0 provides too much isk.

I have literally never said that. My preference is to increase the risk to balance 0.0.

After presenting your argument and your idea, I’ve demonstrated (twice) that we are within your proposed idea, even if we assume the space is much safer than it actually is.

I replied to your first demonstration and you ignored it. You ignored it at least one more time just now.

You also ignored @March_rabbit’s suggestion. It implies your main intent is to shut down discussion of this ‘nerf local’ suggestion.

I will call you out on this evasion every reply from now on.

To tell me that I don’t agree with nerfs is also outright WRONG, as I’ve said numerous times that I would (instantly) agree to a super nerf.

For what it’s worth, I didn’t include you in those 4. I perhaps should have made that clear.

I wasn’t trying to pick “side” or saying that your right and he is wrong. I just read the last few posts that are in this thread, and don’t feel I have any/enough understanding of what this disscussion is really about (I don’t feel like spending hours on end reading all 1300-ish posts).

I just found his bold statement a bit exaggerated and I think it is probably primarily based on what’s been going on in this thread. Just because one thread may have gone a little bit off-course, does not make the entire Forums so.

1 Like

ISD, CCP, EVE player or what ever. Anyone who suggest that local is healthy for the game is either deluded or benefiting from the massive amount of botting and afk farming it encourages.

This statement is self evident and does not require any data or proof to back up. Anyone who refutes it is either deluded or directly benefiting from botting.

Please refrain from labeling everyone with your prejudice when you don’t even know who they are, or making accusations you cannot prove in any way.

Communication (Social Interaction) is a fundamental part of all MMO(RPG) which is the reason that chats exist at all, whether it is Local, Corp, Alliance, Guild or what ever they may be called. Can you even imagine what EVE, or any other MMO, would be like if you had no way of communicating with your fellow players? I can, they (players) might as well just be NPCs which would make the game little more than just a Single Player game

Local and Botting have little to do with each other, bots would still be present even if there were no local. The only reason that bots exist is because they (Game Currency websites) get/have customers, if they didn’t they would not be doing it. Likewise AFK-farming and local has just as little in common, if said “farmers” were indeed AFK (Away From Keyboard) they would be very easy to catch in any situation.

How is this “self evident”? If it does not require any data or proof to support it, It’s nothing more than Fiction.

4 Likes

There’s a belief on the forums that 0.0 bots dock up immediately the moment you enter the system. I can’t speak for its validity.

Re: my low opinion of these forums, my first ever comment was here.
At the time, anyone making a reasonable statement that argued for any nerf of cloaks got essentially bullied by 2-3 others (Main AFK cloaky thread)
2nd was this quite decent suggestion (like this thread, gets worse as it goes on): Radical improvement to mining: the audible alert module
3rd was this thread.
4th was this decent and uncontroversial suggestion. Better response than the others but still: "Dude, where's my ship?"

There was also an old thread where someone suggested that 0.0 was too big. He got insulted almost as much.

I’ve been in one thread where people weren’t personally attacking each other, making clearly bogus arguments or trolling in a non-humorous way.
Maybe it’s coincidence and I’m stumbling into controversy. But those threads are bad…

I think a lot of the “bad” atmosphere that you see, mainly in the Main AFK Cloaky thread, are carried over from the old forums. This could very well also have an influence on other threads with similar radical suggetions. There will always be people who like or dislike suggestions.

We do encourage Constructive Criticism above all else, you will get a lot further doing this than anything else. We also try improve the try our best to improve the atmosphere when ever we can. :hugs:

I’m very prone to doing just this, when Mining or Ratting, does this make me a “bot”. No, I’m only doing this because;

  1. Mining or PvE ships have small chance of defeating a well prepared “hunter”.
  2. I have limited ‘ship to ship’ PvP experience nor does it really interest me.
  3. to minimize my ship/ISK losses I’d rather dockup just to be safe or sit within the forcefield of a POS if I have to.

No matter how you look at it the “hunter” wins no-matter if he gets a kill or not. you could argue that EVE PvP have become too focused on KB efficiency. What if you could measure the ISK loss through activity disruption?

4 Likes

I think a significant contribution to the hostility to unpopular ideas is that CCP has, at times, referenced such ideas for unpopular game design choices that seemed to come out of “left field” in the past. Granted that doesn’t seem to be the case much anymore.

This thread hasn’t had anything useful said in it in a while. It just needs to be locked and remain locked. It’s literally down to a few people who refuse to look at the situation in terms of balance or understand human behavior. The fact that @Teckos_Pech has stuck it out as long as he has amazes me, I gave up days ago and only came back to report what I learned while at Fanfest from the round tables. Which is pretty much the only source that could possible matter - from the mouths of the devs themselves. Even then they just thought the idea of OA hacking was interesting, not that they’d do it. Nor that there were any plans to force delayed/removal of local at all at this point.

That seems to indicate to me that this discussion, what little existed, is pretty much over at this point and should be left to die.

1 Like

^^ Shocked at trying to get the thread locked after repeatedly losing the argument. /sarcasm.

Do tell. How many forum alts did you use today. :sunglasses:

He can’t. :sunglasses:

Only posts I report are the ones that makes personal insults, or which have nothing to do with topic (trash posts that just want to gish bury content)"

There is a degree of intentional and convenient misreading and misrepresentation of what other say going on, which is an annoyance, but valid form of forum warfare, albeit dishonest/cheap as far as debate goes

Thread is pretty healthy aside from those, imo.


The issue at the core here, is the age old war between PvP and PvE in EVE.

PvE wants maximum profit for minimum risk.
PvP wants maximum targets to blow up.


Pro-delay side sees immediate Local intel as too convenient a tool for PvErs to use to avoid PvP.

Anti-delay side doesnt want to lose that tool, which would require them to generate their intel actively themselves.

1 Like

Considering I’ve already stated I’m fine with removing local or delaying it given something like the Observatory array allowing players to claw back a similar level of intel…what were you saying about deliberate misreading? :stuck_out_tongue:

Read what I said again:
“Anti-delay side doesnt want to lose that tool, which would require them to generate their intel actively themselves.”

An OA with which you “claw back” similar level of intel, is requiring you to actively generate that intel yourself.

This misreading is, again, on your part.
Nice try though.

Your idea doesn’t generate more targets. If local was delayed why would I stay in null? If I wanted ISK I’d either move to W space or low sec since you basically turned null into W-space with bad rewards.

The problem here is how you view null space. You think null is built for hunters and it’s not. It’s sov space for fleet warfare. It will always be balanced around fleet warfare, not you.

There are also plenty of PVP targets in null, go fight those. You are not entitled to easily catch PVE ships just because you “PVP” (even though you actually don’t because you only want to kill PVE ships that can’t put up a fight) .

3 Likes