Dont worry about that. My feelings where not hurt.
That channel is more noisy hat these boards. and beset by antipaths you dont yet even realize are there to fk you up.
You still dont get, that you are being trolled all the time.
Think about why people are there. Do you genuinely believe they are all there for YOU?
I think I got the impression you should have got a long time ago,
You are being played. I respect you. Dont let them fool you.
Well if we want to stay on topic more perhaps we should begin analysis of the risk and costs related to each piece of the game.
Undocking (cost) in your ship (risk) allows you to go about in space (benefit) for whatever purpose you wish.
Corps have to rent an office (cost) and can be war decced (risk) to enjoy their chat and hangars that multiple people can access (benefit).
Going to low sec you lose the benefits of Concord retribution (cost) and you can fire on anyone you can (benefit) but they sure as heck can do the same to you (risk).
Placing a citadel of any format (risk) has needs to be fueled (cost) but can make things cheaper in both item creation, improve refinement, or even give you moon mining capability (benefit).
I understand war allows you to fire on a specific group of people without Concord joining in (benefit) and needs 50m ISK to be declared (cost) but what is it missing that would balance it?
Nothing. The risk is the defending players shooting back and acquiring unlimited allies at absolutely no cost. If players choose not to be a risk, thatâs on them.
HehâŚinteresting, hadnât thought of that one.
See⌠thatâs a thing I consider broken. Unlimited allies without being in an alliance at no cost. This is benefit without cost or risk.
Joining an alliance is supposed to give you allies as a benefit, a cost of what was it⌠10m a month per member of the alliance? And the risk that the alliance isnât there to actually help you but to screw you over instead.
Is that our problem since basically this does not actually happen at this time?
And your whine is on topic?
Lol
This is somewhat interesting tbh. Didnât expect nullsec people to use locators.
I just wonder how little (or how much) of the population even uses locators right now
âAlliesâ in a war are not the same as allies in an alliance. Different alliances can ally together against an aggressor. Just as there can be multiple aggressors against one corp. This allows players to balance the tables. It also allows players on either side to overwhelm their opponent if their opponent does not think/try to balance the tables. This is no different from the rest of EVE. Every lone target you go after in low cruiser size or bigger has the potential to be a cyno bait.
EVE isnât balanced the way other games are because EVE puts the balance in the hands of the players. Think of EVE as that room in the Matrix with rows and rows and rows of guns. One guy can go in there and grab any gun he wants, but he can only only hope to carry a certain amount of firepower before heâs overloaded. If he wants to take more, he has to get friends to carry and use it. EVE is the unlimited guns, the people who use them are the players. The more players, the more firepower.
Itâs not broken, itâs just the nature of the freedom that EVE gives us. It really is a choice not to take any more people with you, and only carry the guns that you can carry yourself. If you end up finding yourself against an opponent that you cannot hope to take down due to the choice you made to limit yourself to only what you can carry, that is on you.
While there is nothing against two groups working together against a third this would be a benefit without cost also.
Each attacker has to put the same risk and cost on the board. Not a single defender has to put any cost on the board.
Balance isnât put in the hands of the players. What they risk and the costs of doing such is. There is absolutely no balance in a battleship scrambing a shuttle. There is absolutely no balance in a titan super weapon firing on a small cluster of frigates. But those are the risks the shuttle pilot took and the frigate cluster took.
Nothing in eve requires balance beyond risk, cost, and benefits.
Going it alone is a risk with the only cost being your time but no benefits.
Going with friends is less of a risk but requires each pilot to put a bit of risk on the table for the benefit of not flying alone.
Pulling out 30 battleships alone because you can has the cost on the computers you use rather than in the game (plus all that omega subscription) and has the risk that you wonât be fast enough to work all those things alone.
Risk
Cost
Benefit
Everything in eve has it and some of that is broken. Some people donât want that fixed. Others people want more broken for their benefit.
And as you say:
You are over-simplifying. EVE is not that simple.
The cost to the defender is a war in high sec, and the inconvenience of a situation they didnât choose to be in. They can choose how to deal with it, but only the aggressor can choose to apply that situation. Thatâs why it costs the aggressor isk, because it costs the defender the inconvenience.
Learn to think outside the box. There are many kinds of costs, many kinds of risk, many kinds of benefit, not all of them obvious.
Thatâs the risk they chose when they made a corp. This is accounted for.
They accept THAT risk under the condition that they donât have to pay for it. Each war is its own new inconvenience for someone that doesnât want it, even if they are entirely capable of fighting it, and even if they agree to the terms of creating a corp.
This is you declaring that any possible risk is not a risk. There has never been any guarantee you can win a fight or even if a fight will ever happen. A corp might never get wardeced, or it might be war decced by a different group every week, or it might be in a war all the time forever, or it might never need to be war decced because everything about it is in null sec.
This is a risk that is squarely on the shoulders of the people making or joining a corp.
Which is exactly why âa corp might get deccedâ is not a risk you take when you make a corp.
Also, Iâm not declaring any such thing, donât put words in my mouth. Step back, take a breath, and try to avoid getting emotional about this. Iâm explaining how dynamic risk vs benefit really is. Youâre oversimplifying it. The whole post earlier where you outlined a bunch of risks and costs and benefits for various activities in EVE wasnât even a baseline for all the dynamic complexity you left out. Because sometimes, the risk, the benefit, and the cost, are not even mutually exclusive.
Then you are under the impression that war dec is not a risk for what reason?
Do you consider making a corp zero risk?
Do you have anything to say other than it is not a risk?
Put your own words out there then.
I never said a war dec is not a risk.
Making a corp âthat might get deccedâ can be a risk, but it doesnât have to be.
Getting wardecced might be a risk, but it doesnât have to be.
Buying a house is a risk, but it doesnât have to be.
Itâs all about the decisions you make when you do these things, and the measures you take, or donât, to mitigate the risk.
Youâre oversimplifying things, and Iâm trying to help you understand the dynamics, but youâre only reading bits and pieces of what Iâm saying and responding to them as if the rest of the context isnât even there. Read my posts in their entirety, or thereâs no conversation to be had.
Yes, for me, a wardec is not a risk. I live in lowsec. Fun fact: the only corp Iâve ever been in a wardec with that actually came to lowsec to fight me was a highsec carebear corp.
For me, creating a corp is not a risk, because wardecs are not a risk. Wardecs are not a risk because I choose what I undock in, which means Iâm choosing what Iâm willing to lose, and losing that is not a risk to me, because Iâve already accepted it as lost when I undock it.
Which is why Iâm never taking a risk when I do anything in EVE. Itâs almost like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in a way: once you accept and understand the risk, itâs not really a risk anymore. But also, it is, because you still have something to lose, even if you already consider it lost.
So for me, a war is both a risk and a benefit, just like any PVP fight, because I just enjoy fighting. Winning or losing is irrelevant to me. All I care about is a damn good fight. There is no risk in that. The fight is its own reward. The real risk, for me, is that when I go looking for a fight, Iâll find a blob instead, and I wonât really get a fight out of that, just a lossmail. Itâs a waste. I donât mind losing a ship, especially to a good fight, but I do get a little salty when there is no fight, just a lossmail.
This is what makes risk and benefit considerations much more dynamic and complex than youâre allowing for, because at the end of the day, the value of the risk and the benefit is different for literally everyone. For you, for me, everyone. Risk and benefit are not black and white.
It is a risk for any corp in the game that they may become war decced. Do not convert âfighting in spaceâ to âwardecâ as they are not equal objectives. If the players are in an NPC corp you canât war dec them. This doesnât stop you from fighting them it just puts more risk if theyâre in high sec.
Discarding a risk because you donât consider it a risk of sizeable proportions DOES NOT make that risk zero.
Low sec has the option to fire on anyone without CONCORD blowing up your ship. This does not make low sec a wardec. You didnât declare war. You donât have to. Thatâs the risk of low sec.
Nul sec anyone can fire on anyone at any time with the only consequences being what the players bring to the table. This does not make nul sec a wardec either. Go to high sec and youâre still not in a corp that is wardecced? You still get the benefits of Concord.
So are you done putting apples into oranges and calling them bananas?
For the larger groups, spy networks are faster and more convenient.
Sure, but it hadnt even occurred to these two that Locator Agents can have unlimited range. Its not a tool for exclusively HS use. I find it concerning that things as basic as this need to be explained to them. Neither are noobs. They should have figured this out themselves when the discussion moved towards Locator Agent changes.
Teckos is in AM0K. Heâd never even need to use one ever. Goons spies are far more immediate, targeted and with no delay.
So no surprise really.
You dont need to defend them.
Its showing, that neither of them had ever even considered this utility of Locator Agents. Even a brief and superficial consideration of Locator Agents using ones brain, and perhaps reading what Locator Agents are, should immediately have availed them of this.
I think this is typical of them both., and why they have difficulty understanding many of the topics they participate in. They lack the foundational understanding to understand what is being discussed, such as in this case, potential changes to Locator Agents to better enable hunting.