These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

i am disappointed in null sec people. (TL:DR talking about local chat.) read first post.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#601 - 2012-11-12 11:28:12 UTC
Nar Zandev wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Nar Zandev wrote:
TL;DR The fact remains that NULL would have at least 4.2 more pvp in it if there would be no local.

This is the part you have no evidence for.


Nar Zandev wrote:


From those 2 years with WHs in it, at least half was consumed with the process of populating those systems, so the conflict was almost none. But for the sake of argument, let`s say that 1.5 years were used in that survey, so 60% of that time.

We also know that null sec pop=4.5 x wh pop. So let`s make the numbers.

N kills=W * 20/4.5 * 60%= aprox. 2.5 x w kills (wh has 2.5 less kill ratio per occupant than null).

But if we count the population density (there are 1.4 more null sys than wh, that means null density=4.5 * 1.4 = 6.3 WH density) we will have

Nkill = Wkill * 1/6.3 (density) * 2.5 (the above no) * 60%

That means, based on pupulation distribution, the WH = 4.2 * N MORE PVP. That means that for every ship killed in null, there would be 4 in WH, if there would be the same population and density.



I am sorry if you missed that.

But you have agreed with me for these 2 parts of the problem. From both your posts.
I have explained with real number, based on CCP statistics and known facts, furthermore I have detailed the problem so that a 7 year old could understand it. I haven`t made up the numbers, and the solving is rather easy.

The fact remains, based on math, NULL would have 4.2 more PVP if there would be no local.

James Amril-Kesh wrote:
The only thing you can say with these numbers is that wormhole space has more kills per capita for its population density than you would expect if all the mechanics were equal. One mechanic in this case that isn't the same is local, but your argument fails to show that local is the cause of this because it's one of a very large number of mechanics that separates wormhole space from nullsec, including but not limited to the sovereignty system, differences in PVE/PVP, logistics, wormhole inability to utilize clones, and mass limitations. If everything were equal between nullsec and wormhole space EXCEPT for local, then you'd have a case, but you don't, because all you've shown is a correlation (and a very weak one at that) with no causal link.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Signal11th
#602 - 2012-11-12 11:33:20 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Nar Zandev wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
[quote=Nar Zandev]TL;DR The fact remains that NULL would have at least 4.2 more pvp in it if there would be no local.

This is the part you have no evidence for.


[quote=Nar Zandev]

From those 2 years with WHs in it, at least half was consumed with the process of populating those systems, so the conflict was almost none. But for the sake of argument, let`s say that 1.5 years were used in that survey, so 60% of that time.

We also know that null sec pop=4.5 x wh pop. So let`s make the numbers.

N kills=W * 20/4.5 * 60%= aprox. 2.5 x w kills (wh has 2.5 less kill ratio per occupant than null).

But if we count the population density (there are 1.4 more null sys than wh, that means null density=4.5 * 1.4 = 6.3 WH density) we will have

Nkill = Wkill * 1/6.3 (density) * 2.5 (the above no) * 60%

That means, based on pupulation distribution, the WH = 4.2 * N MORE PVP. That means that for every ship killed in null, there would be 4 in WH, if there would be the same population and density.






Who says EVE is getting borinzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster!
Nar Zandev
Epidemic Inc.
#603 - 2012-11-12 11:40:09 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:


The only thing you can say with these numbers is that wormhole space has more kills per capita for its population density than you would expect if all the mechanics were equal. One mechanic in this case that isn't the same is local, but your argument fails to show that local is the cause of this because it's one of a very large number of mechanics that separates wormhole space from nullsec, including but not limited to the sovereignty system, differences in PVE/PVP, logistics, wormhole inability to utilize clones, and mass limitations. If everything were equal between nullsec and wormhole space EXCEPT for local, then you'd have a case, but you don't, because all you've shown is a correlation (and a very weak one at that) with no causal link.


All the other plus sigh (+) mechanics are in favor for null sec pvp (isk/risk etc). And with all these mechanics there is still less pvp in NULL than in WH, based on statistics. That means the only negative factor (-), which is the local, weight more than all those surplus factors (+) that you have in null.

Local saves your as***, you know it, and you strive to maintain it, as a real highsec bear. It`s only natural. You are too afraid to lose it, cause then you would be forced to do some real, sometimes incognito pvp. And there would be some loss for you. No matter there will still be passive moonpoo to save your sh**.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#604 - 2012-11-12 11:40:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Nar Zandev wrote:
The fact remains, based on math, NULL would have 4.2 more PVP if there would be no local.

You're assuming everything except local is the same, it isn't. You're assuming the circumstances between the kills are the same, they aren't.

You're making the classical "hurr statistics" mistake, and you should feel bad.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#605 - 2012-11-12 11:41:15 UTC
Nar Zandev wrote:
Local saves your as***, you know it

Tell me how local saves my ass in a fleet fight.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#606 - 2012-11-12 11:41:43 UTC
Or it saves my as***, whatever the **** that is.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#607 - 2012-11-12 11:46:07 UTC
Nar Zandev wrote:
All the other plus sigh (+) mechanics are in favor for null sec pvp (isk/risk etc).

Would you care to go through each one separately and explain why, including mechanics that are different between nullsec and wormhole space that weren't mentioned in my post.?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Nar Zandev
Epidemic Inc.
#608 - 2012-11-12 12:12:18 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
You're assuming everything except local is the same, it isn't. You're assuming the circumstances between the kills are the same, they aren't.

You're making the classical "hurr statistics" mistake, and you should feel bad.


James Amril-Kesh wrote:

Would you care to go through each one separately and explain why, including mechanics that are different between nullsec and wormhole space that weren't mentioned in my post.?


Ok, at least you are convinced that based on gross numbers, I am correct.

Factors that favor NULL PVP. (+)

Stargates, ISK/risk for every individual, Cyno, ability to blob and travel in large numbers, ability to fast travel between different systems from your alliance, stations, clones, years of building numbers and connections, friendship and don`t forget the massive passive income from moons etc. (ships less expensive)

Negative factors for NULL PVP. (-)
Local and maybe some other minor stuff.

Factors in favor WH PVP (+)
ISK income from sleepers (which is less regarding isk/risk comparing with null), Local

Negative factors for WH PVP (-)
WH mass, C1,C2, C3 restrictions, no clones and all the other stuff mentioned for null (+)
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#609 - 2012-11-12 12:15:02 UTC
Nar Zandev wrote:
ISK/risk

ahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahha

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Nar Zandev
Epidemic Inc.
#610 - 2012-11-12 12:18:04 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Nar Zandev wrote:
ISK/risk

ahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahha


I know I`ve seen you somewhere, with that expression... yeah...

say aahaah http://bloggerman.deviantart.com/art/Say-aah-2-196993025

Waiting, waiting...
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#611 - 2012-11-12 12:28:26 UTC
Tell us more how ISK/risk favors nullsec over wormholes, please.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Nar Zandev
Epidemic Inc.
#612 - 2012-11-12 13:11:40 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Tell us more how ISK/risk favors nullsec over wormholes, please.


I have only indirect data for this, unfortunately CCP doesn't want us to know how rich are the null sec alliances. C1(350sys). avarage isk/h 20-40 mil, C2(500sys). 40-60 C3(500sys) 90-120 C4(500) 120-200 C5(500) 120-200 C6(100) 200+ = on average 100 mil isk/h if it were an even distribution of ppl. But we know that C5-C6 have less occupancy, that means you on average you may produce 100mi isk/h. But ofc this is not the case. The number is 10-20% lower, but for the sake of argument I`ll keep it like that.
Other factors for my assumption, the ability to field a large number of titans, supercarriers by nullers. Also there are lots of testimonies that state some players can loose a 4 bil ship every week and they won`t even feel it. This and some other indirect data.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#613 - 2012-11-12 19:47:25 UTC
Nar Zandev wrote:
I have only indirect data for this, unfortunately CCP doesn't want us to know how rich are the null sec alliances.

:tinfoil:
This also has nothing to do with our individual income.

Nar Zandev wrote:
C1(350sys). avarage isk/h 20-40 mil, C2(500sys). 40-60 C3(500sys) 90-120 C4(500) 120-200 C5(500) 120-200 C6(100) 200+ = on average 100 mil isk/h if it were an even distribution of ppl. But we know that C5-C6 have less occupancy, that means you on average you may produce 100mi isk/h. But ofc this is not the case. The number is 10-20% lower, but for the sake of argument I`ll keep it like that.

Your numbers seem a bit low to me, but they work just fine. I'd like to go ahead and ask you what you think the average isk/hr is for a ratter in nullsec.

Nar Zandev wrote:
Other factors for my assumption, the ability to field a large number of titans, supercarriers by nullers.

You're also assuming, rather incorrectly, that these supercapitals were paid for by null ratting. You also seem to be under the impression that moon mining factors into individual income. It doesn't, at all.

Nar Zandev wrote:
Also there are lots of testimonies that state some players can loose a 4 bil ship every week and they won`t even feel it. This and some other indirect data.

I'm sure a few people have said this, but they don't make that money from ratting. In fact it's highly doubtful they made that money in nullsec at all. In any case these people are outliers.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#614 - 2012-11-12 19:48:32 UTC
Wait, wait, whoa there. You think we'll use titans, supercarriers etc to protect ratters, and that we can lose 4 billion isk ships and not even feel it?

Lord Zim wrote:
ahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahha

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Alundil
Rolled Out
#615 - 2012-11-12 20:06:51 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
statistically, wormhole space is the safest place next to highsec

who knew that making stargates collapsible by ratting carriers would make space far, far safer?



That's only true if you're in C5/6 though. Those, from a "roam" perspective are fairly safe I think. Relatively invasion safe? No. Not at all, go C3 and lower for that.

But C5/6 safety is attainable via collapsing gates yes. It's a lot riskier in the lower class holes because well lol_Orcas getting trapped or interrupted and killed.

I'd prefer a WH style local in 0.0 but I think the suggestion in OP is not a bad compromise.

I'm right behind you
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#616 - 2012-11-12 20:13:01 UTC
Alundil wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
statistically, wormhole space is the safest place next to highsec

who knew that making stargates collapsible by ratting carriers would make space far, far safer?



That's only true if you're in C5/6 though. Those, from a "roam" perspective are fairly safe I think. Relatively invasion safe? No. Not at all, go C3 and lower for that.

But C5/6 safety is attainable via collapsing gates yes. It's a lot riskier in the lower class holes because well lol_Orcas getting trapped or interrupted and killed.

I'd prefer a WH style local in 0.0 but I think the suggestion in OP is not a bad compromise.

Congratulations for not reading any of the thread where we explained several times why WH style local is an absolutely terrible idea.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#617 - 2012-11-12 20:15:11 UTC
Nar Zandev wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Tell us more how ISK/risk favors nullsec over wormholes, please.


I have only indirect data for this, unfortunately CCP doesn't want us to know how rich are the null sec alliances. C1(350sys). avarage isk/h 20-40 mil, C2(500sys). 40-60 C3(500sys) 90-120 C4(500) 120-200 C5(500) 120-200 C6(100) 200+ = on average 100 mil isk/h if it were an even distribution of ppl. But we know that C5-C6 have less occupancy, that means you on average you may produce 100mi isk/h. But ofc this is not the case. The number is 10-20% lower, but for the sake of argument I`ll keep it like that.
Other factors for my assumption, the ability to field a large number of titans, supercarriers by nullers. Also there are lots of testimonies that state some players can loose a 4 bil ship every week and they won`t even feel it. This and some other indirect data.



I'd actually completely agree with you for CCP to remove null local if they actually take away wh's and put gates instead.

This would make everyone happy. You because you'd not be bored with null local and me because I could jump whatever fleet size n to your system, camp it for entire weeks until you cry at ccp large number of players shouldn't be able to travel that easy, kick your ass out of there and send you right to your old safe basement in high or low sec.

Playing with numbers it's cool, playing with words it's cool, play the game it's better to realise and understand differences in between 2 different areas of the game that have nothing in common but the fact those are populated with pod pilots flying space ships.

You're happy with your relative safety thanks to depletable gates, I'm happy with the relative safety of my local when I'm the hunter or when I'm the prey.
The hole point being that if you really want null to become like wh without local then there's no reason why you should keep such and advantage of depletable gates.

I don't get it why this is so hard for you guys to understand.

brb
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#618 - 2012-11-12 20:23:13 UTC
Yea, some people can't understand why null and WH are different because of how you access them. null (and low) sec needs local because of how the game works right now, to remove local you need to change a lot of things (like bubbles being able to cover most null sec gates, probing, the click fast scanner that is the counter to probing, being able to locate asteroid belts simply by right clicking and anomalies with a 10 second ship scan ect ect).

At the end of the day, even though I don't believe it would work (gates/easy access to null systems means roams are possible), part of my thinks ALL null sec should have been like wormhole space to begin with IE no gates unless the locals who live there build them (like they do stations) and gates could be destroyed (with considerable sustained effort).
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#619 - 2012-11-12 20:26:06 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
and gates could be destroyed (with considerable sustained effort).

Supercap+dread blob laughs at your "considerable sustained effort".

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Alundil
Rolled Out
#620 - 2012-11-12 20:39:50 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Alundil wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
statistically, wormhole space is the safest place next to highsec

who knew that making stargates collapsible by ratting carriers would make space far, far safer?



That's only true if you're in C5/6 though. Those, from a "roam" perspective are fairly safe I think. Relatively invasion safe? No. Not at all, go C3 and lower for that.

But C5/6 safety is attainable via collapsing gates yes. It's a lot riskier in the lower class holes because well lol_Orcas getting trapped or interrupted and killed.

I'd prefer a WH style local in 0.0 but I think the suggestion in OP is not a bad compromise.

Congratulations for not reading any of the thread where we explained several times why WH style local is an absolutely terrible idea.



LOL - you're quite welcome. Having come from WH living primarily I've gotten used to it and actually kind of like it. But also note (in a nod to your nod about reading and comprehension et al) I didn't say or espouse any plan to alter the status quo. I merely stated what I might prefer.

I'm right behind you