Delay Local

[Salvos_Rhoska]

@Teckos_Pech

Yes, and you want to make it permanent.

It was a bugged chat were some got Local, and others didnt.
Not the same as delayed Local.

@Teckos_Pech

The counter factual

We cant predict player behavior.
Delayed Local isnt going to stop people from generating isk.

[Teckos_Pech]

@Salvos_Rhoska

It was a bugged chat were some got Local, and others didnt.
Not the same as delayed Local.

The effect is the same though. when things like this happen people often default to the worst case scenario.

What you are suggesting is that we’d have less people to hunt. This is what I have been saying. @Ag3nt_Jita has been saying it. @Nasar_Vyron has been saying it. You insistence that it is somehow different is totally unpersuasive. People do not like too much uncertainty.

@Salvos_Rhoska

We cant predict player behavior.

Actually in this case we can. With too much uncertainty they’ll leave. They won’t inject as much ISK, as much minerals, etc.

@Salvos_Rhoska

Delayed Local isnt going to stop people from generating isk.

I didn’t say stop, I said will there ISK generating be enough. You really have a reading comprehension problem. I say enough, and you say “there will be some.” Great, but will it be enough?

The current environment is reasonably balanced. We have enough ISK generation, we have enough mineral generation. Things look reasonably decent based on the MERs. Maybe that is misleading, but you ave provided no evidence of such. Instead you provide nothing but bald faced assertions based on nothing.

[Mingja]

@Loki_Orkund

Again, where did I say your definition of safe wasn’t allowed?

Uhm:

@Loki_Orkund

You don’t get to define what safe means.

@Loki_Orkund

“implied” = I didn’t say it.

Just that you did. 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. That is the equivalent of saying “If you can always run away, it’s completely avoiding non-consensual PvP”.

If you can’t remember what you’ve said yesterday, start a career in politics but stop being dishonest here.

@Loki_Orkund

Do we need to define what balance means?

Appearantly, I need to. You can build an empire and someone else can destroy it. Not balanced?

@Loki_Orkund

No we didn’t. You might want to read my reply.

May I quote you on this one?

@Loki_Orkund

If I put this to a formula, it would be something like:

Avg ISK earned in 4 consecutive hours = 150m + (50 * danger)

… where currently, danger for HS = 1 and W-space = 5.

I earn 150 mil per hour in a carrier. For every hour I have to earn isk, I have to spent one hour in fleets.

= 75 per hour, which would be totally fine at a risk level of 3 and only very slightly above it at risk level 2. So, Carriers and below are fine, supers aren’t. BY YOUR DEFINITION. That’s when I use your calculation for the risk level, not mine.

Again, stop being dishonest and please, start to remember what you’ve said before.

[Salvos_Rhoska]

@Teckos_Pech

The effect is the same though. when things like this happen people often default to the worst case scenario.

Its not the same.
The chat bug broke Local intel in ways a properly implemented delayed Local will not.

@Teckos_Pech

Actually in this case we can. With too much uncertainty they’ll leave. They won’t inject as much ISK, as much minerals, etc.

Iirc, PCU took a nosedive, but isk/material generation barely missed a beat.

@Teckos_Pech

I said will there ISK generating be enough.

It will be self-regulating, as you states above.

[Teckos_Pech]

@Salvos_Rhoska

Its not the same.

The chat bug broke Local intel in ways a properly implemented delayed Local will not.

Yes, it is the same. People will face uncertainty that is not easily overcome. To pretend it will have no effect is idiotic…in the extreme.

@Salvos_Rhoska

Iirc, PCU took a nosedive, but isk/material generation barely missed a beat.

Because it was for a short period. Extend it for an entire month and see what the effects would be.

@Salvos_Rhoska

It will be self-regulating, as you states above.

Yes, but at a lower level ding-dong. Jesus, can you not apprehend what I am saying. If they amount of ISK and minerals change it will likely be what econometricians call a “unit root” change–i.e. a permanent shift downwards. To avoid this things like rat bounties and mining would have to be totally rebalanced.

[Salvos_Rhoska]

@Teckos_Pech

Yes, it is the same.

Its not the same.
It was a bug that came unannounced, and broke Local in a way that was not fair to anyone.

It resulted in Local intel working seemingly randomly for some players, but not others.
This was a problem for both PvPers and PvErs, because they had no idea if others had Local intel, and themselves may not have had it.

As a consequence, people chose not to risk either until the bug was fixed.
They ceased operations till the mistake was fixed.

Delayed local would would not do what the bug did.
Everyone would get Local intel, once the delay expires.

@Teckos_Pech

Because it was for a short period.

IIRC, ISK and mineral generation for the duration of the bug barely budged.

@Teckos_Pech

To avoid this things like rat bounties and mining would have to be totally rebalanced.

You presume it is something to be avoided or remedied.
The isk and mineral generation quotient varies constantly, even now, and always will.

ISKmineral generation will self-regulate to a new standard.
If people farm less isk, isk value wil increase.
If people farm less minerals, mineral value will increase.

The higher either rises, the more incentive players will have to generate them.
Thus homeostasis is maintained.

[March_rabbit]

@Loki_Orkund

There’s a bit of a debate about whether we’re talking about non-consensual PvE/mining risk, or are we including battles? We should probably look at both measures.

Combined is easier to measure. Risk could be measured in terms of a) poddings per flight hour b) ship losses per flight hour and c) isk lost in killmails/structure loss per flight hour.

To exclude most big battles, you could either look for 5+ ships lost in one system within 10 mins or just look at median results.

Rewards are a bit more obvious – people talk about them all the time on here.

So if we were to go by your formula, poddings should by x times higher than HS, ships lost y times higher and ISK lost z times higher, where the mean of x, y and z = 5.

Now, rewards should be linear with skill level and SP requirement too. For that reason, I don’t think we should take Highsec results too seriously.

So CCP should measure all these things in 0.0, W-space and Lowsec. CCP should be able to say that median non-newbie players can make eg 50m ISK per hour per char multiplied by the risk factor (according to definition), regardless of the space they’re in.

They also need to look for disparity between say Goons and smaller corps. They also need to look for particular ships making too much isk.

Likewise, this measure of risk should be significantly higher in 0.0 than Lowsec, not withstanding alleged effort by corporations.

This is all standard game balancing methodology. There is nothing even vaguely contentious here.

Well… That was nice start.

Okey, i got your idea. Now the question:

@Loki_Orkund

To exclude most big battles, you could either look for 5+ ships lost in one system within 10 mins or just look at median results.

How would you force it if players don’t visit given system and don’t kill stuff in there? Mechanically blowing ships and pods?

Don’t forget: it is players who provide risk. Not the game mechanics. Mechanics can make it easier or harder but at the end you need players to actually do and attack other players.

[Salvos_Rhoska]

Its been suggested that some elements of universal map data should be removed, in conjunction with a delayed Local being implemented in those sectors.

Its been argued that is because PvPers can see the data there, and identify the presence of potential targets there.

That is true, that the map data can be used for that.

BUT.

It overlooks that universal map data also informs PvE players to find systems that arent being farmed out, have less player explosions, etc.

---

Universal map data is distinct from Local intel.
Neither provides the data the other provides.
Universal map data, is well, universal, and useable by all everywhere, in whatever way they can think to use it.

Local intel, however, is system specific, and requires presence there, and provides data on whom exactly is there, in a way universal map data does not and cannot.

---

The OA proposal by CCP included a map data scrambling effect/function.

[Loki_Orkund]

@Mingja

@Loki_Orkund

Again, where did I say your definition of safe wasn’t allowed?

Uhm:

@Loki_Orkund

You don’t get to define what safe means.

Yes, you don’t get to define it for everyone else, which is what you were trying to do.

Personally quite happy for you to use yours.

Get it yet?

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.

Yep, it is.

@Mingja

@Loki_Orkund

Do we need to define what balance means?

Appearantly, I need to. You can build an empire and someone else can destroy it. Not balanced?

Can you speak in English instead of don’t-quote-me-on-this passive aggressive wiffle-waffle?

What the actual f*** are you saying?

Again, stop being dishonest and please, start to remember what you’ve said before.

You’re being the most dishonest person in the thread at the moment, and considering it’s got 3 people who refuse to countenance any kind of nerf to 0.0 and a troll, that’s saying something.

You refuse to engage with my reply to the last time you made this argument.
I’m not interested in any other conversation with you.

[Loki_Orkund]

@March_rabbit

How would you force it if players don’t visit given system and don’t kill stuff in there? Mechanically blowing ships and pods?

I’m confused by your question – unless you’re implying people will stop farming ISK in 0.0 for some reason.

Can you rephrase it, please?

[Kobran_Ruthless_Vaidrich]

@Loki_Orkund

I’m confused by your question – unless you’re implying people will stop farming ISK in 0.0 for some reason.

Of course people will stop farming. I lived in provi and stopped farming because there was too much activity for it to be worth my time.

Wheres the incentive to PVE in null with delayed local?

[Loki_Orkund]

@Kobran_Ruthless_Vaidrich

Of course people will stop farming. I lived in provi and stopped farming because there was too much activity for it to be worth my time.

Where did you go? Another part of 0.0 presumably based on your obvious bias.

Wheres the incentive to PVE in null with delayed local?

If 0.0 gets too hot for you, go to LowSec (which might need increased ISK opportunities under this formula).

Your white boy privilege doesn’t extend to Eve. There’s no entitlement to risk free ISK-printing.

[Kobran_Ruthless_Vaidrich]

@Loki_Orkund

Where did you go? Another part of 0.0 presumably based on your obvious bias.

I didn’t go anywhere I said I stopped.

@Loki_Orkund

If 0.0 gets too hot for you, go to LowSec.

Me and everyone else too, which is why your idea sucks balls.

@Loki_Orkund

You’re not entitled to risk free ISK-printing.

Why do you care how much ISK I earn? Surely you want me to have ISK so I can buy ships to PVP with don’t you?

[Dom_Arkaral]

@Kobran_Ruthless_Vaidrich

Wheres the incentive to PVE in null with delayed local?

Let’s multiply bounties by 1000

[Salvos_Rhoska]

@Kobran_Ruthless_Vaidrich

Wheres the incentive to PVE in null with delayed local?

The greatest isk and resource rewards in all of EVE, provided you do it right.

Is that not enough for you?

[Loki_Orkund]

@Kobran_Ruthless_Vaidrich

@Loki_Orkund

If 0.0 gets too hot for you, go to LowSec.

Me and everyone else too, which is why your idea sucks balls.

Scroll up. It’s not my idea but it’s a great starting point, which I’ve shown will balance 0.0 with W-space and will go some way to balancing 0.0 with LS and HS too.

As the cost of losing ships will be much greater, it will also nerf the bigger PvE ships without nerfing them in PvP. Mingja showed this was necessary.

Some of the nerf could be diverted on to huge corporations/alliances but I haven’t seen a good suggestion for that yet.

Lots of 0.0 corps moving out will be a sign that the areas are now balanced. The population densities of 0.0, and LowSec should be roughly the same. W-space may be inherently sparse because that is the main safety mechanism.

[Kobran_Ruthless_Vaidrich]

@Salvos_Rhoska

The greatest isk and resource rewards in all of EVE, provided you do it right.

Is that not enough for you?

Except thats not true at all.

[Salvos_Rhoska]

@Kobran_Ruthless_Vaidrich

@Salvos_Rhoska

The greatest isk and resource rewards in all of EVE, provided you do it right.

Is that not enough for you?

Except thats not true at all.

It is true.

Look at Delve/Goon metrics.

They are doing it “right”, and getting astronomically rich in the process.

[Kobran_Ruthless_Vaidrich]

@Loki_Orkund

Scroll up. It’s not my idea but it’s a great starting point, which I’ve shown will balance 0.0 with W-space and will go some way to balancing 0.0 with LS and HS too.

As the cost of losing ships will be much greater, it will also nerf the bigger PvE ships without nerfing them in PvP. Mingja showed this was necessary.

Some of the nerf could be diverted on to huge corporations/alliances but I haven’t seen a good suggestion for that yet.

Lots of 0.0 corps moving out will be a sign that the areas are now balanced. The population densities of 0.0, and LowSec should be roughly the same. W-space may be inherently sparse because that is the main safety mechanism.

You still haven’t answered why you don’t want people to earn ISK.