These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Nerfs, and the coming of the second shard

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#381 - 2015-02-13 01:50:21 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

He won't do that, they never do, they aren't actually interested in the truth, which I'll say again is bewildering in the sense that this is a video game we are talking about. If they aren't willing to believe something in a video game that they could (but will not) test for themselves, I'd hate to see how they deal with real life.

Except if you are docking whenever a neutral enters system in null, for proper testing, you also must dock whenever a neutral enters system in high. Otherwise the high sec player is actually playing at a higher level of risk, and therefore under risk = reward, deserves more reward than the null player who never even undocks when a potential hostile is in system.
Now.... Try docking whenever a neutral is in system in high and see how much isk you make.



More 'mental gymnastics'. The SAFETY is THE REASON for the imbalance. The fact that you don't have to dock when a neutral enters local is the entire point. That's te same reason why high sec has incursion communities where as the places with 'more lucrative incursions' don't have ANY stable incursion running communities.

But all of that is moot, the point still stands, you could test this stuff for yourself, but you aren't interested in learning about EVE's overall pve isk/reward balance problems. That it makes personal sense to you to argue about something you don't actually care about (because if you did, you try to find out for yourself) is insane to me.
Ned Thomas
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#382 - 2015-02-13 01:57:32 UTC
So wait, in order to compare activities between lowsec and wormholes, would we have to remove local from lowsec and add gate guns to wormholes?
Paranoid Loyd
#383 - 2015-02-13 02:01:55 UTC
Ned Thomas wrote:
So wait, in order to compare activities between lowsec and wormholes, would we have to remove local from lowsec and add gate guns to wormholes?

Yes, that would be the proper scientific method according to Nevyn. Roll

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!
Ned Thomas
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#384 - 2015-02-13 02:04:43 UTC
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
Ned Thomas wrote:
So wait, in order to compare activities between lowsec and wormholes, would we have to remove local from lowsec and add gate guns to wormholes?

Yes, that would be the proper scientific method according to Nevyn. Roll


Science is f***in' weird.
Faylee Freir
Abusing Game Mechanics
#385 - 2015-02-13 02:06:03 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

He won't do that, they never do, they aren't actually interested in the truth, which I'll say again is bewildering in the sense that this is a video game we are talking about. If they aren't willing to believe something in a video game that they could (but will not) test for themselves, I'd hate to see how they deal with real life.

Except if you are docking whenever a neutral enters system in null, for proper testing, you also must dock whenever a neutral enters system in high. Otherwise the high sec player is actually playing at a higher level of risk, and therefore under risk = reward, deserves more reward than the null player who never even undocks when a potential hostile is in system.
Now.... Try docking whenever a neutral is in system in high and see how much isk you make.

Don't fly with killrights - Check
Don't make yourself a ganking target with epic ~pUrPlE~ loot - Check
Don't attack the frigate trying to bait you into agression - Check
Don't mission during wartime (unless you're a super cool bait guy yay) - Check

Woah! What did I just do there? Did I really take some necessary steps to reduce the amount of risk I'm taking while participating in an internet spaceship game? YES I DID!!!!!!!!!!!!

Neutrals in local can only do so much to you paired with your ability to minimize risks. You arguing that hisec has more risk than nullsec because neutrals in local is completely absurd. I'm not sure if you are up to snuff on your aggression mechanics, but any of those neutrals in nullsec can (and probably want) to shoot you without any sort of concord or navy stepping in. Follow the simple 4-step checklist I laid out previously and those ~SPOOKY~ neutrals in hisec are nothing more than kittens.

I've been told that when someone quits EVE to play World of Warcraft that the average IQ of both communities goes up. A lot of you people in this thread are REALLY trying hard to disprove that.

HTFU
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#386 - 2015-02-13 02:24:39 UTC
My point was that if you dock whenever a neutral enters local in Null Sec, you are playing to have zero risk.
The High Sec player who doesn't dock when a Neutral enters local is at risk of a suicide gank, even if they have taken all those other precautions, because you may still be ganked for LOLZ.

So comparing those two specific cases the High Sec player is actually undertaking more risk than the Null Sec player.

Obviously if the Null Sec player doesn't dock, then the Null Sec player is taking more risk since any Neut can shoot them at any time, and is also more likely to be hunting, but Null Sec is not always riskier than High Sec, it depends on how you respond to the situations.

Therefore you can't just blanket apply Risk vs Reward statements across entire levels of security space, you have to also look at the behaviour and assess how that changes both the level of risk and the level of reward.
Ned Thomas
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#387 - 2015-02-13 02:33:19 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Therefore you can't just blanket apply Risk vs Reward statements


Science is f***in' weird.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#388 - 2015-02-13 02:42:33 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
My point was that if you dock whenever a neutral enters local in Null Sec, you are playing to have zero risk.
The High Sec player who doesn't dock when a Neutral enters local is at risk of a suicide gank, even if they have taken all those other precautions, because you may still be ganked for LOLZ.

So comparing those two specific cases the High Sec player is actually undertaking more risk than the Null Sec player.

Obviously if the Null Sec player doesn't dock, then the Null Sec player is taking more risk since any Neut can shoot them at any time, and is also more likely to be hunting, but Null Sec is not always riskier than High Sec, it depends on how you respond to the situations.

Therefore you can't just blanket apply Risk vs Reward statements across entire levels of security space, you have to also look at the behaviour and assess how that changes both the level of risk and the level of reward.


That post is a ******* mess.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#389 - 2015-02-13 02:42:53 UTC  |  Edited by: La Nariz
Perfect solution to all of this, tie corporation tax rates to concord response time. 0 tax corporation means concord does not respond. 1% tax corporation means concord responds at 0.01*that systems response time, you get the idea. Then have a percentage of that tax taken by an npc entity based on the degree of safety. So someone using a green safety and with awoxing turned off would see virtually none of their taxes. However someone using a Yellow safety and awoxing enabled would lose much less tax income.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#390 - 2015-02-13 02:58:18 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
My point was that if you dock whenever a neutral enters local in Null Sec, you are playing to have zero risk.
The High Sec player who doesn't dock when a Neutral enters local is at risk of a suicide gank, even if they have taken all those other precautions, because you may still be ganked for LOLZ.

So comparing those two specific cases the High Sec player is actually undertaking more risk than the Null Sec player.

Obviously if the Null Sec player doesn't dock, then the Null Sec player is taking more risk since any Neut can shoot them at any time, and is also more likely to be hunting, but Null Sec is not always riskier than High Sec, it depends on how you respond to the situations.

Therefore you can't just blanket apply Risk vs Reward statements across entire levels of security space, you have to also look at the behaviour and assess how that changes both the level of risk and the level of reward.


It's almost not even worth it, I mean, it's not your intellect at fault, it's your personality that won't let you understand the situation.

The pve player in high sec is in gated DEADSPACE. If someone wants to come after him, they have to scan them down (which places scanable probes on your d-scan), go through a gate and land at a predetermined spot (that the mission runner can be far away from and usually is thanks to micro jump drives.

The guy in null who wants to kill someone...simply warps to the anomaly they are in. Period, end of. So it isn't just CONCORD, its' the fact that SOV null pve is done in OPEN sites that require no scanning while high sec pve is either down in sites that need to be scanned down or in incursion sites where the target has LOGI support in addition to CONCORD.

You would understand this (I use "you" in the general sense, as I honestly doubt personally that 'you' can) if you tried it for yourself. But you have devoted zero seconds to doing it for yourself, and yet you still argue.

Arguing from a point of extreme ignorance and sticking to it no matter how unreasonable it its? If my ex-wife wasn't deployed to somewhere with no easy internet access I'd swear you were her.
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#391 - 2015-02-13 03:02:54 UTC
The whole thread felt into the madness.

Unsubscribed.

"The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP
Ned Thomas
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#392 - 2015-02-13 03:19:17 UTC
Tiddle Jr wrote:
The whole thread felt into the madness.

Unsubscribed.


Oh come on. We hit madness on like page 3. We're at the point were we need to invent words to properly describe our surroundings.

This thread has descended into nurglebality.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#393 - 2015-02-13 05:04:25 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
My point was that if you dock whenever a neutral enters local in Null Sec, you are playing to have zero risk.
The High Sec player who doesn't dock when a Neutral enters local is at risk of a suicide gank, even if they have taken all those other precautions, because you may still be ganked for LOLZ.

So comparing those two specific cases the High Sec player is actually undertaking more risk than the Null Sec player.

Obviously if the Null Sec player doesn't dock, then the Null Sec player is taking more risk since any Neut can shoot them at any time, and is also more likely to be hunting, but Null Sec is not always riskier than High Sec, it depends on how you respond to the situations.

Therefore you can't just blanket apply Risk vs Reward statements across entire levels of security space, you have to also look at the behaviour and assess how that changes both the level of risk and the level of reward.


If you dock to avoid risk, then you're also avoiding any reward you might have gotten if you'd remained undocked. Therefore, risk/reward balance is working as intended. As for taking the risk of being ganked in high sec by a neutral vs attacked by a neutral in low/nul, you really need to learn a little something about statistical probability, because you are comparing two entirely different things here.

There is also a huge difference between 'playing to have zero risk' and risk mitigation. I suggest you learn it.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#394 - 2015-02-13 07:37:38 UTC  |  Edited by: La Rynx
Scipio Artelius wrote:

OP has moved to nullsec...


So we might actually meet there.
Still that changes nothing.
The sound of the OP suggests strongly, that he has more alts still in hisec.
so

:P

Bear

Remiel Pollard wrote:
Your assumption that I want easy kills?

Yes thats a valid assumption, cause there is hisec.
If you do not like whats happening, go to nullsec instead of trying to offend other players and playstyles and trying to pretend you are tough or superior.

Vic Jefferson wrote:
La Rynx wrote:

theme park, not a sandbox.



If one side of the sandbox gets crowded, you have to take measures.
It s only logical that those groups who want to build more peacefully and those who want to destroy, play on different sides.
And then there are the dicks who run around and insist to come over because it is a sandbox and it is OK to come over and **** of the other players, because they are not able to survive in the competetive area.

Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#395 - 2015-02-13 08:12:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
La Rynx wrote:


Remiel Pollard wrote:
Your assumption that I want easy kills?

Yes thats a valid assumption, cause there is hisec.
If you do not like whats happening, go to nullsec instead of trying to offend other players and playstyles and trying to pretend you are tough or superior.



Another assumption from someone that thinks kills are any easier to get in different 'secs' of space. From someone that's operated in all of them, I'm telling you high sec can be no different in regards to the difficulty of getting kills. In fact, if you know what you're doing in high sec, you can make yourself much harder to kill already than anywhere else. It is not even close to a valid assumption, it is just another tantrum from someone that doesn't understand EVE and has never left their own comfort zones in EVE.

And if you find facts offensive, that's your own problem, but what I find offensive is assumptions based on my character, assumptions that visit my intentions, especially from people that know literally nothing about me, such as yourself. Have you observed my in-game behaviour and playstyle to make such assumptions about me? No, of course you haven't, you're just throwing a temper tantrum against any perceived 'threat' to your own safety in a game that was never intended to be safe.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#396 - 2015-02-13 08:18:24 UTC
La Rynx wrote:
...because they are not able to survive in the competetive area.


The whole game is a competitive area. Literally the whole game. Any delusions to the contrary are your own.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#397 - 2015-02-13 08:22:16 UTC
La Rynx wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:

OP has moved to nullsec...


So we might actually meet there.
Still that changes nothing.
The sound of the OP suggests strongly, that he has more alts still in hisec.
so

:P

Bear


This was the full quote of your's in my reply:

La Rynx wrote:
LOL
OP, no EvE will not be a theme park, quite the opposite, there is nullsec. Thats where EvE happens!
But you cry for a good reason: YOUR easy and riskless kills will be nerfed so YOU have to grow up. Not the miners who play a style that CCP sells as valid playstile.
As long as nullsec exists, all your bragging and loadmouthing is ridiculous. YOU are the scrubs of EvE not the miners.

Sometimes, instead of just continuing a dialog, it's not bad to reconsider where your coming from and just accept that people and situations change.

Would have been much more classy to acknowledge and accept it than claim nothing changes and imply he has highsec alts, while claiming you live in nullsec yourself.

Great wherever you live. Hope you enjoy it. No need to go making claims about the OP you can't know are true either.
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#398 - 2015-02-13 08:47:55 UTC
La Rynx wrote:

If one side of the sandbox gets crowded, you have to take measures.
It s only logical that those groups who want to build more peacefully and those who want to destroy, play on different sides.
And then there are the dicks who run around and insist to come over because it is a sandbox and it is OK to come over and **** of the other players, because they are not able to survive in the competetive area.


I couldn't agree with that more - Hi Sec has literally salted the content fields of the entire rest oft he game by having safety and resources so out of synch with the risk present there. Clearly it is time to actually properly balance the various security sectors, and keep risk in line with reward. There are plenty of peaceful players in lawless space, and there would be even more if there was actually a compelling reason to live out there - doesn't it strike you as so very odd that people will have Hi Sec alts to generate income?

The only way you are going to actually see a more peaceful Hi Sec is if you actually make Low and NPC null worth living in, and Sov Null worth fighting for. I.E. they have to be more profitable on the personal, bottom up level, than you could reasonably make in Hi Sec. Until that happens, they will be empty, and antagonists, who are just as vital to a healthy, vibrant sandbox as everyone else, will have no where to actually hunt but Hi Sec.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
Josef Djugashvilis
#399 - 2015-02-13 08:55:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Josef Djugashvilis
*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

CCP have made it clear time after time, that hi-sec will stay pretty much as it is.

The fact that you are unhappy with what you see as the increasing hi-sec safety - too much isk - etc offered in hi-sec by CCP suggests, does it not, that you are on the losing side of this argument.

The more relatively few folk complain about the 'buffs' to hi-sec, the more it becomes obvious that CCP is not impressed by the 'make it harder' crew.

You need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Perhaps it is time for you to find another game more to your liking?

This is not a signature.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#400 - 2015-02-13 09:08:03 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:


The more relatively few folk complain about the 'buffs' to hi-sec, the more it becomes obvious that CCP is not impressed by the 'make it harder' crew.


Your logic would be impeccable if A) there was any correlation whatsoever, and B) you weren't conflating 'make it harder' with 'stop nerfing the inherent risk of logging on to EVE Online'.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104