Delay Local

I disagree. We want ISK flowing into the in game economy. Right now I would say things are balanced if sub-optimal.

This is incorrect. Currently the status quo gives the PvE players the comparative advantage. You note this yourself. See the first quote by you in this post. Now you want to change it so that the PvP player has the comparative advantage. This is true, IMO, in that all other methods of gathering intel are inferior since nobody uses them and ignoring local. So if the hunter has a comparative advantage it cannot be claimed the PvP player has a disadvantage.

Good. Agreement on this point at least.

That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the effects of this change.

That’s the problem.

No. It isn’t. The foolish and inattentive die. The prudent and attentive do not, aside from really bad luck. That is a reasonable outcome. Not if the current state is balanced which it is.

2 Likes

If you dont see the problem with PvE players having the advantage in a PvP game, which you agreed and stated they do above, well, I dunno what to say.

Maybe you have forgotten what EVE is.
A PvP game.

There it is.

Funny that you mention that I don’t define what save is, while it’s the thing you want to do in the exchange with me. You want to define safe all the time, you claim 0.0 is perfectly save.

Please, you really have to have a look at yourself.

When you only define combat as PvP, then you are correct. The reality of eve is though, that PvP doesn’t come in the form of combat all the time. Being hunted and running away is PvP too, so a big NO. Non consensual and “running away” aren’t mutually exclusive. Not at all.

Instead, you want CCP to reduce the effort. Which Is a legitimate view, just not a good one.

I’ve never said that I think Nullsec is perfectly fine, stop making crappy assumptions mate. I just think that you shouldn’t have players sandcastles smashed by God (CCP) just because someone doesn’t like the height of them even though he could smash them himself.

Nerfing Space is fine if it’s necessary, but based on your argumentation, you think it’s necessary to nerf 0.0 simply because you (and lowsec-players) are too lazy / anti-social to make the space less good / lowsec better.

The options are there, available for you to pick them up. You just cry for a nerf instead and you disregard the efforts players had to put in to make it as safe as it is. You literally removed the Effort out of the calculation and as convenient as that is for your little world and your little argument, it’s just not the proper thing to do. Particularly because nullsec was designed with exactly those points in mind.

Conquer the Space, make it usable and earn isk. You can’t just disregard that. In other words: Have a proper and honest conversation and maybe something good will come out of it.

1 Like

Delayed Local would require more effort from everyone, not less.

My post wasn’t aimed at you specifically. I.E. Not your Argument I was refering too.

I know.
However, my post was aimed at you, specifically, and that specific comment.

and your post doesn’t make sense at all in the context, sorry mate. To elaborate: He doesn’t wan’t to put in the effort to make 0.0 less safe, and is instead asking for a nerf from CCP.

He want’s to avoid the effort he could put in to make happen what he so desperately craves.

Then lets apply it to context and topic of this thread.

Do you think that if CCP implemented delayed Local, it would make the game require less or more effort than now?

For the hunter? Decrease, yes. PvE? Definately Increased.

Yes EVE is a PvP game and one strategy open to players is to elude those who are a threat. EVE is an ecosystem and we need players doing PvE and PvP. In fact my view is that a strictly PvP player is a rare thing. The vast majority also engage in some PvP.

Indeed. And much of the game is balanced around that. Change it and much of that will likely become unbalanced.

And your problem with that is what?

PS: You do realize that delayed Local also removes immediate Local intel from hunters too, right?

Let me bounce that question, because I’ve elaborated on that quite a few times for you already. Why do you think that would be a good thing?

Why is this a good thing for EVE, as a PvP game?

Answer if first, then bounce it.
Answering questions with questions is bad form.
Answer mine, and I will answer yours.

rolleyes

I think that’s a problem because the Hunter is already heavily advantaged. He’s got pretty good chances to catch the target because he knows where to look for them (in a lot of cases, a quick 5 AU Dscan will tell you EXACTLY where the prey is).

In addition to that already heavy advantage, the Hunter has the fitting advantage.
In addition to that, the Victim will lose Isk even if he doesn’t lose the ship (opportunity costs)
In addition to that, the Hunter usually get’s free DPS on the target (free allies), only partially true because the can switch.

In addition, the hunter is almost always free to disengage fromt he fight, should the odds be against him

For all those advantages the hunter has, the PvE’er only has the advantage of very good escape chances (it’s not foolproof) and the distinct chance that backup -might- arrive in time (chances increase the larger the ship is, very low in small ships).

Now, please tell me why you think it would be a good thing to ask the Prey for more effort and the hunter for less?

2 Likes

Yah, sorry.
Stopped reading right there.
Go roll your eyes at someone else.

Don’t act like a bitc* because I’ve now answered this question at least a dozen times for you… I’ve been patient with you even though you ask the same questions over and over.

2 Likes

In my experience, only bitc*es roll their eyes.
You didnt actually expect me to swallow that?

Remove it, and I will read your post.