You realize that Goons are benefiting from immediate Local intel the most atm?
Makes Delve even more impenetrable.
Heh, friendly controlled Null Sec can be some of the safest space in the game to PVE, depending on the organization you are in. Friendly controlled Low Sec is pretty safe as well.
PVE in Hi Sec can just be annoying.
Some people in my alliance join in with PL drops, you would be surprised. They are damn good at defending themselves and there is a lot of them, they would do that without local. Of all the groups in nullsec they would be able to deal with it the easiest and thus the gap would get widerâŚ
That is what you have to deal with and catch up withâŚ
And small gangs:
And they can do this in all TZâs
I hate doing hisec missionsâŚ
Whoâs saying it wonât survive? It will as power blocks with the randoms or small operators having most likely left due to the change in risk/reward or having joined the big boys. How are you getting your pvp kills when you now face an organized force and of course most likely can drop caps on you? Youâve claimed eve is a pvp game and want to give the advantage to the pvper. You also claim that that you believe NS will adaptâŚwhich would mean youâre right back where you started. The only difference seems to be a lack of choice ( forced into big block or leave) which seems like a bad move.
1 Like
You dont see it yet, but that is already what is happening thanks to immediate Local intel.
Might be too little too late, but better late than never.
That late just reinforces their advantage, just like the nerfs to the Rorqual did to those trying to catch upâŚ
You still havenât explained how your change reverses this. You think âNS will adjustâ somehow means that they all break up into micro corps? You literally stated before to those that said they would leave NS to group up, whether itâs getting gate watchers or get organized. This leads to getting bigger in size as presumably PVPers arenât staying solo as they need to adjust to bigger gangs of PVErs
Alrighty.
Iâm signing out of this discussion.
I have no vested interest in Player NS.
I tried, but people dont/wont see the long-term, past short-term benefit.
Ill be back when necessity finally makes this a reality you have to deal with, albeit it might be too late then, again.
GL to you all with your PvE farming.
Enjoy it while it lasts.
There is no benefit to those who enjoy fleet PVP, which is what null sec is designed around. Delayed local has zero benefit for a player like me.
I donât want to farm at all, this is what you donât understand. You seem to think I love to PVE and want to spend all my time doing it.
The reality is I would rather CCP give me infinite ISK so I never have to PVE again and I can actually spend all my time whelping capitals.
So please stop calling for changes that hinder my ability to PVP.
It is not just that Salvos, in any case that beef is with supers⌠and botsâŚ
Not my problem or concern anymore.
GL.
PS: Dont hesitate to PM me, if you want a second opinion.
And even if botting is 100% dependent on local, I think itâs retarded to think if local went away botting ends. If botting is profitable whether it be for ingame buying or RMTing, botters will find a new way to operate.
Please can you not use the word retarded, incorrect would do.
I donât disagree with your statement, but I also found that a lot of players who want a delayed or no local used botting as a reason, and I find that adjusting such a key mechanism to deal with botting which hurts real players to be seriously wrong. I am being punished because someone bots, CCP should be policing them betterâŚ
Supers would also be less affected by the change because smart bombs and a certain number of points of warp immunity will still offer them a lot more protection.
Salvos has gracefully stepped away as the subject has been well and truly thrashed to death.
Ive stepped away, because you guys are dead-set on your own demise.
Mark my words, you will regret immediate Local intel in Player NS continuing.
â>
The demise is coming, however it would be accelerated with your proposal.
Balancing it by risk/reward either means increasing the risk or reducing the reward. If you want to reduce the rewards for the given risk, it should have a reason and the one reason youâve defined so far is that you feel that 0.0 is too safe for those numbers.
You absolutely want to balance 0.0 with your definition of safe (thatâs just fine in a discussion), but you donât wanna hear conflicting oppinions (i.e. my oppinion on it) and you donât take them into consideration.
On top of that, you absolutely ignore the âeffortâ in it, which is part of the design of 0.0 too. I consider that to be not fair and detrimental to the discussion.
But noone ever talked about 100% success rate with escaping. Iâve said there always needs to be a way to avoid a fight, not that you should have an insta-teleport back to the station once someone looks at you the wrong way. Local, at the moment, provides the opportunity to escape for ships that can warp out in time and for pilots that put in the attention and it is not a 100% sure thing that your ship will survive. Surely, you can see that this works in practice too. Ratting ships die all the time in 0.0.
I get what you are saying, but thatâs not the reality though. A duel is something both parties have to agree on. Hunters vs PvE in 0.0 is: You can deny the duel only if you catch the message in time. Small, but very, VERY imporrtant difference.
But you already have a significant chance of dying in 0.0 as prooven by empyrical evidence.
It is you that exxagerated the rather small chance of getting catched into a âperfectly and inherently safeâ. Thatâs the reason why I call you dishonest btw.
Again, by the numbers that you provided earlier: You suggested that ISK per hour should be about 150mil in 4 hours, + 50 million for the ârisk factorâ.
Thatâs about 50 mil per hour in highsec with a risk of 1 and 100mil isk per hour in 0.0 (that alone would cause a significant nerf for both, highsec and wormholes btw.). To further use this little suggestion of yours: this essentially means that wormholes and highsec are too safe.
So, in the end, you feel that eve is not dangerous enough. Thatâs Ok, really, but then you really have to look at all spaces and not just nullsec, which for some reason, is your only focal point.
Now, letâs do the math for a carrier that runs 150 mil per hour => 600 mil per 4 hours. That would require a risk level of 9.
Now, Iâve followed up with a simple fact: you canât have those numbers constantly and from personall experience, I can say that Iâve spent about 100 hours in the last 4 months defending the 0.0 space that I am living in. Roughly the same time Iâve had to earn isk (not that I used every hour of it, but for the sake of the argument, I wonât count that).
So, in the end, Iâve earned about 75 mil per hour (150/2) which amounts to 300 mil in 4 hours. Thatâs a risk level of 3.
Ofc, you could say that âbro, you canât count it like thatâ and you could argue that âeffort put inâ should not be a balancing factor for the numbers, but the reality of the situation is: if you want to nerf nullsec because it provides too much isk (because isk is and should always be related to the risk) or because it is too safe, then you not only have to nerf all the other spaces as well (or make them more risky), you would also have to completely ignore one of the other core principles in eve aswell (âEffortâ).
This quite simple math that doesnât even mention alot of the other factors for the sake of simplicity shows rather clearly that there is a lot more to it than you see at the first glance, and I donât think that disaccounting for them is the proper way to find a good solution. It appears to be a knee-jerk attempt to fix something that you feel is broken without considering everything and attempts to do just that usually end in utter disaster.
I know for sure that cutting everyoneâs income by 50% as a part of your suggestion would upset quite a lot of people, but Iâll leave it up to you to draw your assumptions from that.
and I donât recall any of it. The vague thing that I remember is the ârattlesnakeâ being to high already and that might look true at the surface, but I hope that this little exercise provided a little more insight into that. If Iâve missed anything about that: I am sorry, let me know and Iâll get back to you on that.
Just:
do this and repeat the point please. Thank you. 
Ok, thank you for the clarification.
PS: Donât get me wrong, I am not looking into âwinning the argumentâ. I am interested in a honest discussion about it that considers all parties involved. Itâs pretty obvious that there are a ton of factors which arenât even mentioned (like: Multiboxing and more expensive ships etc) but focussing on just one and disregarding all the others is not exactly the kind of discussion we should have.
2 Likes
Loki doesnât want discussion. At all. Dracvlad nailed it he is largely trolling, IMO.
Edit: By the way nice attempt to quantify risk across security sectors. A bit simplistic, but you note that. And starting simple and adding complexity is possible. Just donât expect a constructive response.
Edit II: PredictionâŚthis post will end up hidden by a certain participant using alts. 
2 Likes
Maybe ISDs should start reporting people who flag others they disagree with, and Falcon can finally being putting an end to these fascist tendencies around here.
Also: Renters are trash, more news at 11.
2 Likes
Thereâs no such thing in PvE, only PvP. In PvE, youâll get 15s warning of any cyno, 25s of them scanning down and warping to you.
In my remake, you still get 40+s. Since when is that instant?