Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Wow, that is an interesting statement to me. It tells me Lucas is loss averse rather than risk averse and in that case, null is probably not a place for him.



Two things first:

1. This is not an insult at all, at least it is not intended that way. It is merely an observation based on Lucas' written statement.

2. The reason I say Lucas is loss averse is because his statement focuses on the risk--i.e. the chance of avoiding loss. Also Lucas' statement completely ignores the rewards. In another discussion thread when suggesting a boost to the rewards to PvE in null if there is an increase in the risk of loss those statements have been met with considerable derision (and not just by Lucas, but others who oppose changing local).

Another way to put is a risk averse person would look at a change in the chances of a loss and redo the risk-reward calculus. If it still paid off to undock in null and do PvE they would (and to be sure some players who are in the margin* would also leave in this situation.). A loss averse person would likely just leave. Also, if the chances of loss changes for the worse and the rewards changes for the better, a risk averse person would once again redo the risk/reward calculus and then decide to undock or leave null. The loss averse player, if he decided to leave, would be less influenced by the increase in rewards.

That Lucas is focusing solely on the chances of avoiding a loss and thereby implicitly on the chances of a loss and ignoring any potential boost to PvE activities strongly suggests to me he is loss averse.

Now, I'd also say that null is not supposed to be home to loss averse players, IMO. Null is supposed to be home to players who accept the risks to gain the rewards. If the loss averse leave null...well too bad, but perhaps that is not where they should have been in the first place.

The above, again is not intended to be insulting, but to possibly help move the discussion along. If one group is loss averse and the other risk averse, then there is a very real possibility of the two sides simply "talking past each other".

*By at the margins, I mean those players who see the current risk/reward calculus as just sufficient to undock and an increase in the risk would lead them to at the very least relocate in null, or failing that to head for high sec. Again, no insult implied or intended. I am looking at behavior and not making any sort of qualitative statement about any player. I see this whole issue partly as a fascinating experiment in how people behave and don't consider any response any better or worse than any other response. In fact, I've known players in null who focus almost exclusively on PvE and have been very happy they do....because I don't have to do any of the things such players do (refilling Jump Bridges, importing stuff for the alliance, etc.).

Local is infallible in the sense that it always gives correct information, what information it gives and there is no way to directly counter it. This is most amusing when one looks over the anti-AFK cloaking threads because there the pro-local/anti-AFK cloaking players always complain that cloaks have no direct counter. It is then pointed out that neither does local and that local and cloaking devices provide indirect counters to each other. Local lets you know the cloaked pilot is there irrespective of the status of the cloaking module. The cloaking module lets the invader adversely effect the residents of a system also via local.

Also, your note above completely and totally supports what I wrote.

You claim: Local is an imperfect intel system (doesn't report ship type for example, doesn't report location, etc.)

Also we know that local gives an "advance warning" to pilots in a system. This has been demonstrated empirically and has been explained via client/server interactions. This is not even a claim, but really a fact.

So if we accept your claim and the fact that local provides advanced warning to residents local is an imperfect intel system that provides the residents with an advantage. Thus players will not have to die mechanistically in such a setting.

OK. With what you want PVP forced on them if they want to successfully PVE in null. You've said it yourself that if they don't want it they go back to high sec. That is the same ******* thing as forcing them to PVE. Saying to someone "you're not forced to PVP, but if you don't PVP you have to **** off back to highsec" is the same thing.

What you want you can already get. It's called wormholes. If you don;t like null as it is, how about YOU **** off, rather than suggesting we force everyone else to have to have their gamplay style stripped from them to save you a couple of jumps.

I'm fed up of listening to you telling us over and over that null players have no risk, do nothing to gain what they get and should be forced to do things your way. You're wrong buddy. Null PVE player work really hard, have to mitigate a lot of risks ad all to get only a fraction more income. If you don;t like it you can get your gameplay elsewhere. Stop presuming that your way is the right one and effectively trying to kill null.

You're whole post was TL;DR, so I'll just address this part.
Null PVE players, the large scale ones, need to be able to predict their levels of efficiency. If we can't we can't plan in advance. Without that, null PVE would not be able to keep up with the use of the products. It's really simple.
I honestly don't give a **** if you want to pretend you don;t understand and tell me whether or not you think I am suited to null. People like Nikk with their heads in the ******* clouds thinking we could run industry in null in ventures have no clue what they are talking about.

Honestly I get tired of listening to you guys rant on an on about **** that you clearly have zero experience with.

HOW?
how does a PVP player "do his thing" in PVE space? Or are you saying we should only PVE on the front line?

Seriously guy I don't have time to read your walls of nonsense text. Go learn about null mechanics, then come back ad tell me how PVP players will have a **** load of fun watching people mine.

Sigh.. I hate having conversations with nublets that have no idea about the mechanics they cry about. Maybe you should spend less time AFK mining in high sec and more time supporting your alliance.

Learn to read buddy, I never said anything was "fun" but noting the different interpretations two activities with similar outcomes.

PvP pilot enters system, PvE pilots dock up. That is success.

PvP pilots form up to defend PvE assets from a reported incoming hostile, hostile buggers off. A failure.

It is a double standard.

Edit: and if people form up to protect PvE, there is more than 1 pilot in fleet, not everyone has to stare at the screen all the time. So if you are going to do this, take shifts. That is your hyperbole.

Edit II: Nowhere did I say any of this was "fun". That was your interpretation of my posts. It is your failure at reading my posts.

Go back and read the thread Lucas. Shephard complained that the hostile is successful because they can deny the PvE pilot content without firing a shot...but run away at the slightest sign of resistance....and that he gets no kills. I found the post amusing. One the one hand it is bad that a hostile shows up and makes everyone dock up...with the implicit view that avoiding PvP while doing PvE is a good thing. But then when forming up for a bit of PvP there appears to be an implicit view that he was somehow guaranteed some PvP when the hostile decided to look for softer targets elsewhere.

In other words, I was noting what you note above. Somehow you got confused and thought I was implying fun in there somewhere when in fact there is no such implication....you read it into my post.



Nowhere did I say they had to do this. You cannot quote me on that. What I did say is that if one does decide to protect their PvE assets they wont have to sit there starring at the screen the entire time. That your statement to that effect is hyperbole. And given that you cry about others use of hyperbole you should clean up your own act first.

I was thinking of the activity, setting up a PvP reaction team while people PvE, as being somewhat similar to camping a gate. Not everyone stares at local 100% of the time when gate camping....like in EC-.



Stop putting words in my posts would be my first complaint.

Point to where I said standing guard over PvE pilots was "fun" (hint, you can't because I never did)?

You also imagine slights and insults where none actually exists. My noting you are displaying behavior that is more along the lines of loss averse vs. risk averse is not an insult. It would be like taking offense to somebody pointing you are male and not female.

Part of why my views on who is 'winning' is has to do with framing.

A single guy in a stealth bomber can have a very successful trip to nullsec if his goal is to simply disrupt PvE activity and not get killed.

A single guy in a stealth bomber can have a very bad time if his goal is to get an easy soft target, or anything approaching a fair fight. If he is patient, he can be rewarded. If he has so little time to play Eve, as Nikk complains about, he will not be very successful. A successful ambush takes time, and if you don't have the time, you better find something else to do.

On the flip side, the defenders can have a good time if their goal is just to make the hostile log off or leave the area. The most nonsense kitchen sink fleets can get the hostiles crying about how unfair we are as we chase them out of the region.

If you are in a home defense fleet and actually expect to get killmails, you are often setting yourself up for disappointment. Cloak/nullified T3's are very close to impossible to catch. Regular covops cloaks can be caught if you have a bunch of fast tackle and luck out on a decloak. The new interceptors need more the 2500 scan res if you want any hope of landing a point. Setting up bait takes a fair amount of intel, coordination, and risking the bait. Sometimes you just have to be happy with hearing the hostiles cry about how dishonorable you are as they run from your space.



What I personally want doesn't really matter. The bulk of my isk is made with a character that mostly sits in Jita, and Jita has an anti-local, having so much info it is unusable.

Some of this is just an example of what these levels of entitlement look like from the other side. People complain that PvE in nullsec has too little risk, but it is also a fact that covops cloaks are basically a "can't PvP me" button that can be used to make roaming nullsec a very low risk activity. I love my covops cloaks, but making it way harder to track me down while using one is game brakingly bad.

And keep in mind, I'm part of an alliance that can throw together 100+ player bomber gangs and fling them around with blops bridges in any time zone. Make local in all of nullsec delayed like wormholes, and you might as just hand over all of null to us and our allies. Bomber/Blops gangs would just be too powerful not to use.

I'd like to point out that some of those "people" were the CCP representatives talking to the CSM. Carriers are/were injecting too much isk into the game from their perspective...which is probably wider than, mine, Lucas' or yours, FWIW.

Also, regarding local we have CCP on record as saying they are disappointed in local as an intel mechanism and that it is so powerful.

The purpose of this thread is to propose alternatives, whine and complaining about the removal of local, is not really on topic.

You can probably find a wormhole in about a half hour at the most. They are very common. If you can't make time in your day for day-trips to wormholes, then Eve just might not be the game for you.

When I've had periods in life when I couldn't spend hours playing a complicated PC based MMO, I player FPS on consoles. Log in and be shooting people in minutes. But Eve is a slower paced game, and even the code behind it is very tolerant of lag and slower computers. It just is not built to be a twitch game with quick gratification.