Player Features and Ideas Discussion

its part of the reason, sure. And its not pride. If you feed the gankers all you'll get is more gankers. Mlst alliances frown pretty heavily on large volumes of pve losses for that reason. Too many gankers will halt pve, and a null alliance will struggle to maintain economic viability with a large reduction in pve.

but thats not the only reason, i mainly don't see a gameplay benefit to changing it. Its worked as it is this far, and i think a change to local is likely to lose at least a few players and a fair amount of pve alts. And i don't think anyone will be saying "hey, lets start playing eve. You can gank more miners in nullsec now"

Do you think it reasonable to demand 99% safety?

Sorry, sore winner...even worse. :P

Not every system in Eve has an outpost, yet they still get used.

Nerfing local is a solution looking for a problem.

Your problem is that CCP does not allow outposts in w-space, which is actually a very reasonable mechanic given the nature of w-space. The simple solution is to live in an outpost in k-space and day-trip into w-space. No different than the thousands of Eve players who currently live in an outpost system, but take trips into non-outpost k-space systems to run anoms, or complexes, or exploration, or Faction Warfare, or Incursions.

You are not so special that thousands of players have to have their game altered because you don't want to do what thousands of other players already do without complaint. There was even a guy in my corporation who would take month old newbees into wormholes to do PvE/PvP every day because wormholes are just that common and easy to come by. Every day they could experience the excitement of delayed local and yet be back in an outpost when they needed to log off.

Month old newbees from a corporation filled with terrible Eve players can do this. Why can't you?

The thing is any changes I can think of would either leave the system in an state of imbalance or just be a whole lot of work to achieve pretty much what we have now. When designing game mechanics you have to put aside whether you think something is a good or bad idea and simply ask yourself, "will this mechanic improve the experience for the player?". With the home field advantage, while they "should" have it as in they worked for sov, thus if anyone gets an advantage it should be them, I think the null blobs have enough advantages (an I'm in one of them). We own half of the universe. We don't need even more advantages to help use keep it, especially at the cost of content. If local were unavailable for an attacker, it's likely they would choose not to attack more often than they currently do.

The only reason that PVE players will evade is that it's impossible for a PVE player to defend themselves. Nikk likes to put forward the idea that we should have a guard in hostile space, which on paper is sound. Alliances should need to defend their PVE players directly. However when you break that down to gameplay, it would require people to sacrifice their gameplay to sit and watch a PVE player, only getting to have fun if someone engages. That's simply not a possibility, it would not attract anyone, since it's just no fun.

As it currently stands, a PVP player can come in and cause a PVE player to run. that PVE player can't PVE while the PVP player threatens them. It's at that point that home defense fleets form (if the target is not a nullified cloaker, thus impossible to catch) and go after the attackers. So as far as I see it, that part is balanced. If the PVP player challenges a PVE player, both sides have to lose out. The PVP player doesn't get the kill and the PVE player doesn't get the PVE rewards.

And yeah, from what CCP and the CSM have hinted, there will be a change, I just hopes it's soon. A lot of decisions will need to be made off the back of that.

Honestly, if it were like that it wouldn't change anything beyond making everything take more effort to get to the same place we are now. You'd still get the same complaints on the forum that it's "too powerful" since most of those complaints want local to be dropped back to the point that it allows an attacker free reign to get to a PVE player before they have a chance to react. If they are still given the chance to react, they sill evade and that's that. Anything outside of that is pretty much just "how do we want out time sink to work?".

So if someone PVEs in nullsec and works hard enough to get 99% safe you think they should be nerfed as no matter how hard they work they should not be able to get that way?

I would totally understand if we were talking about people putting in as little effort as they do in high sec to achieve safety in null, but we're not, not at all.
Aside from the infrastructure and support that goes into holding prepping and securing the space, PVE players have to be alert 100% of the time and well prepared to evac if required. If they are willing to do everything they need to do they should expect the same level of safety. But that's not the same amount of "risk".

So to clarify, null PVE players do work both harder and smarter to keep their safety.

Well they already have that buddy. People that work harder get more, that's already how the game works. The only difference you want is you want PVP to be forced into the lived of PVE players, because you personally think that would be more fun and more of a challenge. To most of us though, it would be a pointless waste of time.
Local showing a list of players does not suddenly mean that nobody in null has to work to achieve what they do. That's utterly ludicrous.

The irony...it kills me.

Yes, because one person having done it before, when they knew there were hostiles nearby means that people will surely be happy with doing nothing all day long.
Would you be willing to watch somebody mine for 12 hours knowing that it's likely to result in no kills, but you can't even look away for more than a couple of seconds? You AFK mine, so you don't even do the "watch someone mine stuff", even when its you doing the mining!

If you think that's a reasonable expectation for someone to turn their gameplay experience into staring at the screen doing nothing, then you seriously should not be involving yourself in discussion about game mechanics.

I like you Shepard.

Regardless of whether you actually play as you describe, you set a positive example in many ways.
An example I wish more would consider, particularly in your willingness to adapt by watching your PvE assets and ratting in PvP fits.

I think you deserve positive credit for that, just sayin.



Those not in blobs often seek a clearer advantage in a fight.
Blobs being less clear to both sides, with so many more variables present. The perception of risk is more distant, meaning more fights are joined willingly by both sides.
Front line ships, without a blob, are often easily intercepted, limiting the range they can effectively threaten into hostile space.

That is one of the reasons a cloaked ship is less effective by design. In order to be able to more easily avoid a fight, it is balanced to have fewer opportunities where it can recognize such an opportunity.
Sure, it can penetrate deeper into hostile space than a basic frontline vessel, but at this higher cost of being less able to challenge ships it can find there.

Some balance does exist, because of this.



Oh, you clever fellow. Life is not multiple choice on such convenient terms.
This is an indirect ad hominem, classifying myself and others as seeking undeserved advantage because we are lazy, and wish to avoid justified efforts on one hand.

On the other hand, you suggest we are seeking results which can only result in disaster. While objectively all can see this is simply your opinion of the results to be expected, you present them as if all know you must be correct, and already accept that.

1. Day tripping into a wormhole requires more of a time window for play than many players can reliably bring. We still seek a challenge, but as others decry in different areas, this time sink demand is a bad fit.
We need that outpost to bring closure to our game session, in order to feel comfortable playing. Like you, we pay to play, so expecting a positive game experience is reasonable.

2. I accept your opinion as being your view.
I reject your opinion as being recognized as the most probable outcome, as there is no evidence to support it with any significant context.
Framing it to paint myself and others as seeking to sabotage the game, or being so poorly informed that we would do this without meaning to, is an attempt to discredit our argument by suggesting we are foolish to make it at all.

You spin things as well as my marketing people do. Do you work in sales, by chance?