Thread re-opened. Please stop insulting each other.
2 Likes
This is a ridiculous question.
Nobody has stated they dont want people to earn isk.
1 Like
I donāt need your permission to respond to a post on a public forum.
Its a fact that no-one has stated they dont want people to earn isk, as was the false premise of your question.
1 Like
Nope
Not true
Any group in a C6 makes more isk/hr/ member than any null group 
Derp. You want to change the risk via a mecanics change but not the rewardsā¦and yet you see no issues here. Just wow at the level of cognitive dissonance.
1 Like
You have zero evidence to back up this claim. The MERs are at the monthly level not daily or hourly. Youād need the latter to substantiate your claim.
Yes it varies. It varies for a bunch of reasons. It is a multivariate process. But your suggestion is not going to be variation but a level change, likely permanent until there is another mechanics change.
Yes, most likely a lower one. Overall the in game economy will shrink. We will have less stuff. And the stuff we do have will become relatively more valuable. That will in turn likely engender less PvP.
You cannot make a big change like this in the EVE ecosystem without it having an impact in many if not all areas of the game.
OMG. Homeostasis is totally the wrong concept. Economies like ecosystems are never in homeostasis. They are, if anything, far from equilibrium. That is they are dynamic systems moving towards an equilibrium but never getting there. When CCP makes a mechanics change it moves that target equilibrium.
For example Dominion sov and anomalies. CCP had to tinker and tweak those repeatedly. They even revisited them with Fozzie sov. CCP looks at the effects of changes through out the game or at least try to. Yet even they usually get it wrong and have tweak, tinker and adjust because they cannot anticipte all of the things players will do with such changes. And here you are insisting none of this will happen.
Homeostasisā¦Jesus Chris.
This kind of statement is laughable. Why should two very different areas of the game have the same population densities? For example, aggression in LS causes a loss of sec status. The mineral resources are much lower. You canāt build super caps. The ratting is generally inferior. But nope the population densities should be the same.
2 Likes
You clearly donāt understand things. Yes there are rewards for 0.0 ratting. But you want to inject tremendous uncertainty without changing the rewards thus ISK generation will go down. Mineral production will go down. Yes the price increases will provide some counter to those reductions, but the claim it will completely offset the reduction or even be greater than the reduction is almost surely false. Because such increases could be had now even with instant local. Nothing is stopping people from implementing the methods to gather intel in a delayed local environment right now.
@ISD_Eshtir. Firstly, thanks for jumping in. I wish I shared your optimism but I count 3 comments that are clear trolling already.
Itās mostly impossible to have a proper conversation on these forums. This thread was OK until about 600 comments in but after that it was mostly @Salvos_Rhoska getting baited by four people who will say anything to avoid getting their farm nerfed. Most sane people are avoiding this thread for obvious reasons.
And since this is the only/merged thread for this vital discussion of the future of Eve, CCP are a) wasting usersā time b) denying themelves important input. Itās a fact these days that the best games are the ones where the developers listen to the players with the good ideas.
It seems moderators donāt have the tools to do their job properly and as such, BS and trolling are way above critical mass. My guess is internal politics are to blame but just in case this can get to anyone with a say in such mattersā¦
I donāt recognise the forum software but I strongly recommend 2 measures:
- Temporary bans for anyone flouting the rules. This is standard on every other forum.
- Being able to ignore a user in software.
Regardsā¦
Even if it was risk free, why is that a problem for you?
To repeat that for you, since you obviously canāt be bothered to read what youāve 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 canāt 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 canāt use mine because reasons.
to which Iāve said that I disagree. Since then, you didnāt respond to it anymore.
You want to balance 0.0. 0.0 is balanced by ābuild empire, burn empireā. You refuse to participate in āBurning downā so you refuse to be a part of the solution you demand.
Itās not refusal of the nerf, itās refusal of the reasons brought up for it. You say 0.0 provides too much isk. After presenting your argument and your idea, Iāve 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 donāt agree with nerfs is also outright WRONG, as Iāve said numerous times that I would (instantly) agree to a super nerf.
Iāve 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 ādocumentationā, will in most cases be prone to being āpersonally attackedā because there is no argument that they can/could attack instead. Thatās 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 āfireā), 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 āavoiding getting their farm nerfed.ā 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 donāt 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 answerā¦
1 Like
Actually no. I want to balance it according to reward/risk as Iāve 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.
Hereās your statement again, my emphasis:
I said that the target should always have an option to escape. You said that thatās against the core mechanic of non-consensual pvp.
Now, youāve proven smart enough one way or the other, so Iām guessing weāre talking about different things. For the sake of the thread, Iāll give it one last try.
Letās imagine thereās 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 āalways have an option to escapeā ā at least thatās how I read it.
Now read my miner mod thread where I argue that āagencyā is an important considerationā¦ 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 isnāt stupidly OP b) they might make a mistake c) you werenāt AFK because mining IS that boring.
0.0 is balanced by ābuild empire, burn empireā.
OK, you made an assertion here. Youāre saying itās balanced in terms of risk reward? Justify it. Show us how.
Itās not refusal of the nerf, itās 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, Iāve 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_rabbitās suggestion. It implies your main intent is to shut down discussion of this ānerf localā suggestion.
I will call you out on this evasion every reply from now on.
To tell me that I donāt agree with nerfs is also outright WRONG, as Iāve said numerous times that I would (instantly) agree to a super nerf.
For what itās worth, I didnāt include you in those 4. I perhaps should have made that clear.
I wasnāt trying to pick āsideā or saying that your right and he is wrong. I just read the last few posts that are in this thread, and donāt feel I have any/enough understanding of what this disscussion is really about (I donāt 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 whatās 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 donāt 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 didnāt they would not be doing it. Likewise AFK-farming and local has just as little in common, if said āfarmersā were indeed AFK (Away From Keyboard) they would be very easy to catch in any situation.
How is this āself evidentā? If it does not require any data or proof to support it, Itās nothing more than Fiction.
4 Likes