WH anomalies are not spawned due to player investment. They’re naturally occurring. Static wormholes allow you to plunder a functionally infinite pool of these things, if the ones in your home hole are completed by someone else. You can’t even remotely compare WH anomalies to refineries.
This design requires eternal vigilance on the part of the structure haver. 23/7 monitoring of local is required. Local isn’t even really that relevant, since being on grid would be sufficient, so please stow the wormholer inferiority complex about immediate local chat.
And the current design of ninjamining the chunk after it’s exploded into a belt also requires active players in space, risking actual ships. This section means nothing, and the rough design element of the moongoo being at risk is already in play.
Your goal with this conversation is to try to create a run-around of the defensive mechanics for refineries, because you don’t seem to be able to hack it in k-space.
The resources are created by the structure. That’s why it benefit from a timer system where the ore will be available for anyone in space at that time to mine. I’d agree to make it always attainable if it didn’t require infrastructure to make it available. The gas cloud you say you have to be vigilant about don’t require you to set up an infrastructure for it to spawn.
I think I would have to reconsider joining a null alliance, if I knew I could be the space equivalent of an orc standing guard over a treasure chest in a 10’x10’ room.
Well it’s about 1 step over freighter escort since at least the enemy can’t just suicide alpha the rock making your protection completely irrelevant as they can a freighter.
WH anomolies and refinery ore belts are both resources. The ore belts require a refinery, WH anomolies require you to be living out there to truly benefit, which requires investment in citadels to live in. Just living in WH’s is a big investment in itself.
Both require investment, one can be consumed by others stealthily, the other can’t. Guess which is which.
I didn’t once complain about local, just pointed out that it’s a very useful tool to have. If I was unhappy about WH’s not having local I wouldn’t be living out there.
The design doea not require eternal vigilance unless you want to guarantee 100% of the spoils all to yourself. How much vigilance a group puts in would be balanced by how much loss you are willing to accept.
I really have doubts that there will be much mining of belts by anyone other than the belt owner. We’ll see on that one though. EvE players have a habit of coming up with unusual ways to exploit a situation.
My goal in this conversation is to create a means by which players can still realistically steal some of the resources as siphons previously allowed, and to create some content for smaller groups and/or solo players. I ‘hacked it’ in k-space for a long time and moved on.
Your goal with this conversation appears to be to try to beat me down with disparaging comments about how I choose to play the game. One of us is being constructive and the other obstructive.
Says the guy who is categorically dismissing the huge amount of work that goes into making an empire run. My vitriol is only due to the huge amount of vitriol you’ve expelled.
Vitriol? I’ve done nothing but point out perfectly valid mechanisms that are and will be used to control an area of space at a given time for a given period. Not once have I said this is bad, merely that it is possible. If I were in null I would do the same as it makes perfect sense.
Nor have I dismissed any work involved, quite the opposite. I’ve pointed out that this work makes for near-perfect control of a resource, and I believe there should be some way to steal from this as per siphons.
This would of course affect any moon mining we get to do in WH space and I’d be fine with that. Indeed we would be more open to it given the nature of the space we live in.
Your argument against the ability to realistically (important distinction) be able to steal some of the resources is that you should be entitled to all of it. I find this argument a poor one, no vitriol, just my honest assessment.
Seriously, how realistic is it to ninjamine under the guns of a citadel? All it takes is one lowly alt watching for miners. That’s assuming that larger groups won’t just put a rorq fleet out and hoover the belt as fast as possible. As I said we’ll see, but I don’t think it’s going to happen much.
If the structure has a guard, then it’s not ninjamining. By this logic, no one would ever have been able to use a siphon, because all it takes is one lowly alt gunning the pos to blow it up.
This is going in circles, you just said yourself that all it will take is one alt on the guns to stop any ninja mining. This is not a realistic possibility against anyone but the smallest entities that would try to moon mine.
You are of course simply trying to protect your alliance’s interests and I understand that, but I don’t agree with it and don’t believe there will be any realistic level of ninja mining.
Incorrect. A mechanic to steal exists. You’re, once again, translating an event that you perceive to have a high probability into a certainty. This is not how probability works, and it’s not how the world works.
Wrong again, you are trying to put words into my typing. I also didn’t mention probability, just possibility. I also have explained, with your own backing, why I believe it to be a low possibility (just one alt to discourage the stealing mechanic).
As I said we’ll see how it goes, but that’s just the way the world works I guess.
So, at first it was “not realistic” because there would always be a gunner, now it’s “a low possibility” that there will be a gunner? If there’s a low possibility of a gunner, that means the existing ninjamining design will work out great.
Every time he will try to ninja mine, there will be a gunner because :reasons:. People with gunning rights have nothing more interesting to do with their lives than posting alts in refineries anyway.
The only reason the argument is going in circles is because you continue to spout variants on the “a high occurrence of X means that it happens literally all of the time” fallacy. I refuse to allow this to play, so I will walk the argument back as often as needed until the point penetrates your skull.
