Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 .. 343 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
13
|
Posted - 2016.11.14 23:49:51 -
[7831] - Quote
Anyways,
I understand that it is gratifying to assume malice and self-interest.
But the fact of the matter is that pvp is very uncommon. To the point where even lethargic efforts place players like me and Sonya in the top quintile of pvp players.
This is a disaster.
A balance between end product production and kills would have to see kills treble from today's numbers (1 trillion destroyed, 3 trillion produced).
The only way to achieve a better balance is to enact measures that see players undock more often.
CCP can do some things: Replacing outside lotteries with very clever mining rats is one variant. Rats are obviously going to be killing more ships come tomorrow.
Players can joins some of the mining corps already, so we will see if that spills over to null-sec. Meaning of course that you can mine with your very own rat escort. Or you have a procedural small gang you can mine with, and a procedural back up fleet in case you are attacked.
That is what the doctors in this thread ordered, right? Of course you can pve for as long as you have back up.
The perception of safety, without being more safe.
It gives more pvp.
Safer pve is not my goal.
More ships undocked and vulnerable to pvp is my goal.
Because content.
I can incidentally claim independent discovery on the mining rat change that is coming in tomorrow. I raised that as an option a while back before my hiatus in this thread. Yay, me.
Procedural rats are incidentally also the way to lower bounty payouts. A wave of rats losing a battle could always warp off, then re-enter the chain of rooms the normal way like any decent human would. Destroying MTUs and rejoining their mates still fighting by entering through the accelerators.
For example. What fun.
Or why not let players blue to rats hang out at sites and wait for whatever comes? No need for rats to do blue on blue until they are attacked, right?
The opportunities are endless...But first we need players to undock a lot more often. To achieve that we need:
1. Nerfed afk cloaky camping (5 hour timer) 2. Buffed Local (alliance independent real time information).
Because content, silly.
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5511
|
Posted - 2016.11.15 01:12:03 -
[7832] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:
Well, I am still ranked 11540th most active pvp last 7 days (52kth/90 days, 162kth/alltime).
In other words you got some content...and no changes to the cloaking mechanic. Jinkies how'd that happen.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
13
|
Posted - 2016.11.15 01:22:21 -
[7833] - Quote
1. Peak time epic PvP (it does not get more epic that blowing up two citadels).
2. Found a pve player in a system that was not cloaky camped. The player screwed up and died.
When I said that player kills are 1/3 of what they should be for a better balance between production and losses, I did not say player kills = 0.
I meant that afk cloaky camping keeps players safe by keeping then snugly docked up. Nerf afk cloaky campers (with a 5 hour timer) and see more ships undocked in systems not cloaky camped to give more burning wrecks (or whatever wrecks will do tomorrow after the update).
Its all about creating the perception of safety. Null sec is never actually safe.
So:
Nerf afk cloaky camping (with a 5 hour timer) Buff local (with an alliance independent real time intelligence system) .... Profit (because content)
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
771
|
Posted - 2016.11.15 01:31:19 -
[7834] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Anyways,
I understand that it is gratifying to assume malice and self-interest.
But the fact of the matter is that pvp is very uncommon. To the point where even lethargic efforts place players like me and Sonya in the top quintile of pvp players.
This is a disaster.
A balance between end product production and kills would have to see kills treble from today's numbers (1 trillion destroyed, 3 trillion produced).
The only way to achieve a better balance is to enact measures that see players undock more often.
CCP can do some things: Replacing outside lotteries with very clever mining rats is one variant. Rats are obviously going to be killing more ships come tomorrow.
Players can joins some of the NPC mining corps already, so we will see if that spills over to null-sec. Meaning of course that you can mine with your very own rat escort. Or you have a procedural small gang you can mine with, and a procedural back up fleet in case you are attacked.
That is what the doctors in this thread ordered, right? Of course you can pve for as long as you have back up.
The perception of safety, without being more safe.
It gives more pvp.
Safer pve is not my goal.
More ships undocked and vulnerable to pvp is my goal.
Because content, silly
I can incidentally claim independent discovery on the mining rat change that is coming in tomorrow. I raised that as an option a while back before my hiatus in this thread. Yay, me.
Procedural rats are incidentally also the way to lower bounty payouts. A wave of rats losing a battle could always warp off, then re-enter the chain of rooms the normal way like any decent human would. Destroying MTUs and rejoining their mates still fighting by entering through the accelerators.
For example. What fun.
Or why not let players blue to rats hang out at sites and wait for whatever comes? No need for rats to do blue on blue until they are attacked, right?
The opportunities are endless...But first we need players to undock a lot more often. To achieve that we need:
1. Nerfed afk cloaky camping (5 hour timer) 2. Buffed Local (alliance independent real time information).
Because content, silly.
If safer PvE is not your goal you wouldn't be pushing for an environment where it's safer to do PvE. You'd be pushing for more of a WH or LS type environment. Where, you know, small gang PvP happens all the time.
Stop trolling please and tell us you're just a PvE-er who wants things to be easy. There are parts of the game that would give you what you want. sov null isn't it. Shoot me a message in game, I'd be more than welcome to train you into living in the parts of space that will give you the experience you want. I'm charitable like that.
Or you know, undock and start shooting people. Like you do maybe once/month. |
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
13
|
Posted - 2016.11.15 02:38:34 -
[7835] - Quote
I am glad you think you are good at something. Because written words are certainly not your friends.
Let me explain my position to you yet again. For I am charitable like that:
My goal is for more ships to undock in null sec because more undocked ships give more chances to kill ships in null sec.
Nerfed afk cloaky camping (5hr timer) and buffed local (independent real time information) achieve that goal.
Now that I have checked for June 2016 (its the month I found wh data for):
wh space 23000 ships destroyed 6000 pods destroyed
null sec 264000 ships destroyed 152000 pods destroyed
Yah, there is not much to be gained from hyping wormholes. Even doubling the kills there per month would not amount to anything other than a slight statistical anomaly (and if fights happen there all the time...then perhaps stop arming your ships with fireworks launchers...because very little is dying per day in wh space).
I do want it to be psychologically easier to undock and I certainly want it to be easier to catch ships.
Nerfing afk cloaky camping and buffing local are just tools to that end.
You should lay of the cool aid.
My suggestions are not worth the high drama and hyperbole.
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
2652
|
Posted - 2016.11.15 18:52:39 -
[7836] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:My goal is for more ships to undock in null sec because more undocked ships give more chances to kill ships in null sec.
Nerfed afk cloaky camping (5hr timer) and buffed local (independent real time information) achieve that goal.
...
I do want it to be psychologically easier to undock and I certainly want it to be easier to catch ships.
Nerfing afk cloaky camping and buffing local are just tools to that end. Let me start by saying (in case I hadn't point it out already) that you and I are generally in agreement that nullsec can get kind of dead and that having more ships undocked would generally be a good thing. Where we disagree rather mightily is what should be changed to accomplish that.
With that out of the way, ask yourself this: what kinds of nullsec pilots/ships dock up when there is a cloaked non-friendly in local? Certainly not defense fleets, roaming fleets, or generally most PvP-ers. It's the miners, the PvE-ers, the haulers, etc. who stay docked up. Why do they stay docked up? Because they're either not flying PvP fits, or they're flying alone, so they are vulnerable to being attacked, or possibly being hot-dropped, by said non-friendly.
Whether you realize it or not, your solution to the "too many docked ships in nullsec" problem, along with any form of nerf to AFK cloaking, overwhelmingly favors non-combat pilots. Your end goal, intentional or not, is to make nullsec safer for so-called "carebears."
If you want pilots to undock in the face of possible danger, they need to learn to deal with that danger instead of hiding from it.
If pilots will only undock in the total safety that an all-friendly local provides, they belong in Empire, not nullsec.
The problem is not with AFK cloaking, it's with pilots' reaction to it. This has never been untrue. If you want it to be psychologically easier for nullsec pilots to undock, teach them how to do it without being sitting ducks instead of teaching them to hide every time a non-friendly enters local and cloaks up.
AFK cloaking isn't broken. It never has been. Nullsec PvE pilots who want to maximize their ISK earning potential with none of the associated risk is though.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
I predicted FAUXs
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
13
|
Posted - 2016.11.15 20:11:30 -
[7837] - Quote
The chance of an undocked pve ship getting killed per hour will not change in any significant way.
afk cloaky campers are hideously inefficient hunters. Its inherent to afk.
The player is not around, or can't be arsed, or his back-up can't be arsed every time a ship undocks to pve in a cloaky camped system.
What increases is the number of hours a ship is undocked. So yah, if the isk/hr earning stays the same, then pve pilots will net more isk every month.
I am in favour of lower isk/hr revenue. Though preferrably in a targetted way that lowers the extreme earning outliers.
Its a philosophical choice. If you want more ships undocked in space, then you will also have more ships undocked in space doing pve.
You caught the point of local needing a buff (alliance independent real time information)?
For example that any system jump within x gates gives a toggable newsfeed flash "6 neuts in xx-x (3 jumps)". Something like that (its just a conceptual outline of what I am thinking of).
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
2653
|
Posted - 2016.11.15 21:16:16 -
[7838] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:The chance of an undocked pve ship getting killed per hour will not change in any significant way.
afk cloaky campers are hideously inefficient hunters. Its inherent to afk. That depends on how you define efficiency. You're correct that they are lousy at killing ships, but they're quite effective at killing income.
Income denial is a valid form of gameplay. Never forget that.
Jerghul wrote:Its a philosophical choice. If you want more ships undocked in space, then you will also have more ships undocked in space doing pve. I'm all in favor of more ships being undocked and doing PvE, but there must still be some risk associated with it to balance the potential rewards. It's the lack of absolute safety that things like AFK cloaking provides that keep the high incomes balanced.
Jerghul wrote:You caught the point of local needing a buff (alliance independent real time information)?
For example that any system jump within x gates gives a toggable newsfeed flash "6 neuts in xx-x (3 jumps)". Something like that (its just a conceptual outline of what I am thinking of).
I did, and I actually agree with you that local in nullsec should probably change. I rather like your implementation as well for that matter. I just don't see the need to link that change with anything to do with cloaking mechanics. I see them as two separate mechanics.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
I predicted FAUXs
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
13
|
Posted - 2016.11.15 21:44:00 -
[7839] - Quote
Income denial is indeed a valid form gameplay. But not 0 effort, 0 risk income denial. I am not using hyperbole here. Afk cloaky camping is 0 effort, 0 risk.
Maintaing the viability of income denial is the main reason why I think afk cloaky camping should be tempered, and not terminated (so a 5 hour timer. Not a device that can scan down cloaked ships).
I maintain that the risk per hour remains the same. Its the overall income that would increase as the result of pve ships being undocked more often and for longer periods of time. I am not adverse to adjusting bounties (through weighted towards targeting high revenue generating outlier ratting strategies).
Yah, I tried arguing for quite some time that changes to local is a distinct and separate discussion from afk cloak camping. Deserving perhaps its own thread. Poster here did not agree, so I went with the flow. In a contrarian way. But still.
I kind of liked the standing aware element of it. Just the kind of newsflash you get in combat anyway (damage 658), but with real time information in nearby systems. So unavailable if you are docked up (to add another element to why undocking is good).
You may have missed the portion of the discussion, but the pvp portion of EvE is disasterously low. Very little effort is required to become a top quintile pvp'er (measured by activity). I see the need to treble ships killed in the game (for better balance between production and destruction is the reason I chose that threshold).
Its quite upsetting frankly. EvE data sort of like sausages. The less you know about whats in them, the better.
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
772
|
Posted - 2016.11.15 23:35:13 -
[7840] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:I am glad you think you are good at something. Because written words are certainly not your friends.
Let me explain my position to you yet again. For I am charitable like that:
My goal is for more ships to undock in null sec because more undocked ships give more chances to kill ships in null sec.
Nerfed afk cloaky camping (5hr timer) and buffed local (independent real time information) achieve that goal.
Now that I have checked for June 2016 (its the month I found wh data for):
wh space 23000 ships destroyed 6000 pods destroyed
null sec 264000 ships destroyed 152000 pods destroyed
Yah, there is not much to be gained from hyping wormholes. Even doubling the kills there per month would not amount to anything other than a slight statistical anomaly (and if fights happen there all the time...then perhaps stop arming your ships with fireworks launchers...because very little is dying per day in wh space).
I do want it to be psychologically easier to undock and I certainly want it to be easier to catch ships.
Nerfing afk cloaky camping and buffing local are just tools to that end.
You should lay of the cool aid.
My suggestions are not worth the high drama and hyperbole.
Today I learned no local chat is the only reason people use wormholes.
Thank you, person who has admitted to never have been inside one.
because content. |
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5518
|
Posted - 2016.11.16 00:38:06 -
[7841] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:The chance of an undocked pve ship getting killed per hour will not change in any significant way.
Ahhh how wonderful assumptions are....
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
13
|
Posted - 2016.11.16 03:05:16 -
[7842] - Quote
Don't be silly, little gander.
I regularly use wormholes to occator to high-sec. Its the safest thing since sliced toast. Always empty you see.
Technically, its the constant whaming the d-scan button to compensate for lack of local that causes people to leave wh space.
Cheer up, little miss discontent.
I am not suggesting the end of the world.
"Ahhh....."
You are still failing@sarcasm, friend.
Protip; if you have to use emoticons to denote "look at me, I am doing sarcasm", then you are doing it wrong.
My 5 hour timer suggestion only tempers afk cloaky camping somewhat, so the impact is pretty marginal to start off with. Include afk cloaky camping's hideous inefficiency in generating kills per hour, and presto...
My statement becomes a probable outcome.
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5518
|
Posted - 2016.11.16 06:15:42 -
[7843] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Don't be silly, little gander.
I regularly use wormholes to occator to high-sec. Its the safest thing since sliced toast. Always empty you see.
Technically, its the constant whaming the d-scan button to compensate for lack of local that causes people to leave wh space.
Cheer up, little miss discontent.
I am not suggesting the end of the world.
"Ahhh....."
You are still failing@sarcasm, friend.
Protip; if you have to use emoticons to denote "look at me, I am doing sarcasm", then you are doing it wrong.
My 5 hour timer suggestion only tempers afk cloaky camping somewhat, so the impact is pretty marginal to start off with. Include afk cloaky camping's hideous inefficiency in generating kills per hour, and presto...
My statement becomes a probable outcome.
No, you are talking about making a number of changes all of which have effects that many suspect will likely work at cross purposes. For example you have talked about how changing cloaking will lead to more ships in space (maybe), but lowering bounties to counter the effects of too much ISK entering the economy which will reduce the number of ships in space.
Presuming that even CCP will be able to estimate the necessary changes to things like bounties is something that is highly unlikely. That kind of statistical precision is rarely possible in such social science type settings. You are basing falling into the trap of hubris. That this kind of thing can be fine tuned to get the type of outcome you desire. Such empirical work has been tried in the past with far, far greater consequences and the results have been less than stellar.
Additionally there is another issue I brought up, but in your arrogance you didn't even notice it.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
13
|
Posted - 2016.11.16 07:02:12 -
[7844] - Quote
The discussion evolves. That is the nature of discussions.
I am talking about one change: Give cloak modules a 5 hour timer. Preferably by introducing a command burst charge type ammunition requirement.
The expected effect is a reduction in the number of systems camped in null sec at any given time. This translates to increased numbers of ships undocked in null sec at any given time.
I favour reducing total bounty payments slightly primarily by targeting outlier high isk ratting schemes. I would prefer procedural solutions (less rats die because they adapt to ratting techniques. The also corresponds with an expectation that more ships would die in pve due to rats being smart).
I expect stable or reduced total monthly bounty payments. Which is currently way too high. So the impact does not need to surgical in nature for as long as its within a give or take single digit trillion range per month.
I expect somewhat more ship losses, but no where near the trebling of current numbers to give balance between production and destruction. This to is not an exact science because ship losses currently are way too low. Any increase is dandy.
I expect somewat more pvp. Which also does not need to be defined beyond noting that today's numbers also are way too low.
You are again making the mistake of wanting to overspecify variables when it is not required. Be carefull with that. It leads to decisionmaking paralysis.
More ships will die, there will be more pvp, bounties will remain stable or fall.
Which is good because
Way too few ships die, there is way too little pvp, and bounties are way too high.
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
Wander Prian
Art Of Explosions Hole Control
314
|
Posted - 2016.11.16 10:13:17 -
[7845] - Quote
More ships won't die. The amount will stay the same. It's the same people who ignore local that ignore AFK-cloakers.
Wormholer for life.
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
13
|
Posted - 2016.11.16 14:28:19 -
[7846] - Quote
Thank you for sharing your opinions. They are always welcomish!
Ship deaths are a function of undocked ships, not the function of imaginary personality traits.
This due to human error. Everyone screws up sometimes.
But to use your terms. People can ignore local a lot more frequently than they ignore afk cloaky campers. afk cloaky camping relies on habituation, and that by definition takes time. Ignoring local relies on things like biobreaks and kitttens on youtube. Which happen all the time.
The local buff simply is a poor mirror of what alliance intel channels and 3rd party applications do. Don't worry. I was thinking it a gate flash entry trigger thing. Not an in-system head count, nor a wormhole entry counter.
You might say it relies on habituation. But a ratter warping off every time a red or neut jumps into a neigbouring system is never going to get much ratting done at all.
So its fine. A good tool to help people who want to find fights....find fights.
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
772
|
Posted - 2016.11.16 17:22:14 -
[7847] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Don't be silly, little gander.
I regularly use wormholes to occator to high-sec. Its the safest thing since sliced toast. Always empty you see.
Technically, its the constant whaming the d-scan button to compensate for lack of local that causes people to leave wh space.
Cheer up, little miss discontent.
I am not suggesting the end of the world.
"Ahhh....."
You are still failing@sarcasm, friend.
Protip; if you have to use emoticons to denote "look at me, I am doing sarcasm", then you are doing it wrong.
My 5 hour timer suggestion only tempers afk cloaky camping somewhat, so the impact is pretty marginal to start off with. Include afk cloaky camping's hideous inefficiency in generating kills per hour, and presto...
My statement becomes a probable outcome.
So you really think no local is the only reason people live in WHs? Again, spend some time in them first. We can keep ignoring your ideas that make ratting and mining in sov null even safer than it is today.
because content. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5520
|
Posted - 2016.11.16 17:40:51 -
[7848] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:The discussion evolves. That is the nature of discussions.
I am talking about one change: Give cloak modules a 5 hour timer. Preferably by introducing a command burst charge type ammunition requirement.
Translation: I'll ignore all the other things I've said that actually undermine my claims and just continue posting smug and arrogant nonsense.
Okay, thanks.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
5520
|
Posted - 2016.11.16 17:45:28 -
[7849] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Jerghul wrote:Don't be silly, little gander.
I regularly use wormholes to occator to high-sec. Its the safest thing since sliced toast. Always empty you see. So you really think no local is the only reason people live in WHs? Again, spend some time in them first. We can keep ignoring your ideas that make ratting and mining in sov null even safer than it is today. because content.
I love Jerghul's argument here. "I've spent time in wormholes, I use them to move stuff to HS. That is like saying you know what it is like living in Detroit because you periodically drive through. What utter nonsense.
I've gone through wormholes on fleets to cut down the number of jumps. Do I know what life is like in WHs as a result? Hell no.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
13
|
Posted - 2016.11.16 17:52:07 -
[7850] - Quote
You are very welcome, dearest friend!
fail@sarcasm, again.
You suck at it if you need to use emoticons. Just rephase or delete any text you feel the need to support with an emoticon. It will help you write better. If writing better is a goal you have.
I responded to your concerns. Too bad the response fell out of your selective quotation somehow.
Edit Response to "never been in wormholes". Been there. They are deader than any flogged horse in this thread. As demonstrated by actual statistics for june of 2016 earlier.
You probably should not take responses to hyperbole as a serious point. Doing that makes you look silly.
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
|
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
773
|
Posted - 2016.11.16 17:59:36 -
[7851] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:I love Jerghul's argument here. "I've spent time in wormholes, I use them to move stuff to HS. That is like saying you know what it is like living in Detroit because you periodically drive through. What utter nonsense.
I've gone through wormholes on fleets to cut down the number of jumps. Do I know what life is like in WHs as a result? Hell no.
Yep. And the ironic thing is if he actually lived in a wormhole he would get the exact content he is looking for. My main PvP character lives in WHs, and you get small gang fights daily, very easily. WHs are the only part of space where people go out of their way for decent fights.
I can't tell you how many times we run across another group and actually talk first before fighting. One WH group saying "wait here, give me 20 minutes to get more people online so we have a decent fight" is extremely common, and 9/10 times both sides honor that since we want good fights, not just overwhelming numbers to gank someone (not that we don't mind doing that also).
What's my point? The people who truly want small gang PvP can get it easily and daily. Just move out of null. That's not what null was designed for. |
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
13
|
Posted - 2016.11.16 18:12:25 -
[7852] - Quote
Statistics show that pvp levels in wormholes is 10% of that in nullsec. As demonstrated in june 2016 statistics.
Wormhole space cannot contribute significantly to increasing PvP in EvE. The baseline there is way too low.
Even significant percentage increases in wormhole pvp would not contribute meaningfully to overall increases in pvp in EvE.
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
774
|
Posted - 2016.11.16 19:06:00 -
[7853] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:Statistics show that pvp levels in wormholes is 10% of that in nullsec. As demonstrated in june 2016 statistics.
Wormhole space cannot contribute significantly to increasing PvP in EvE. The baseline there is way too low.
Even significant percentage increases in wormhole pvp would not contribute meaningfully to overall increases in pvp in EvE.
Today I learned you think WH corps only fight other WH corps in WHs. |
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
13
|
Posted - 2016.11.16 19:37:43 -
[7854] - Quote
The lesson is that PvP in wormhole space is less than 10% of PvP in null-sec. It draws no destinction between corporations involved.
Ask your parents for help if you have trouble understanding this.
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
Wander Prian
Art Of Explosions Hole Control
315
|
Posted - 2016.11.16 20:05:52 -
[7855] - Quote
Jerghul, I'm a bit confused by your statements.
You seem to think that the nullbears aren't safe enough already, yet the number of bounties paid is so high that CCP is thinking of doing something to keep the economy balanced
You talk on and on about human errors, yet your solutions decrease the chances of the errors happening by increasing the amount of intel given to players for free that is always accurate instead of making the players be in charge of collecting the intel, which would make it possible for human errors to happen. (Oh, and CCP is on record for saying they want to decouple the intel off local and also to increase the things that are in the hands of players instead of given to them for free.)
You have a serious case of wanting to have the cake and eat it too. You cannot say you are after content, when you are decreasing the amount of places where human error is possible. It would appear what you are after is that nullsec turns even more safer than it currently is. You want to PVP when it suits you, not to have PVP happen to you when you least expect it. You want to be able to choose between PVP and PVE which is not how Eve works.
Wormholer for life.
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
13
|
Posted - 2016.11.16 20:14:04 -
[7856] - Quote
"I am a bit confused"
Indeed!
I am quite impressed by your inability to understand the argument I am making.
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
Wander Prian
Art Of Explosions Hole Control
315
|
Posted - 2016.11.16 20:17:13 -
[7857] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:"I am a bit confused"
Indeed!
I am quite impressed by your inability to understand the argument I am making.
So I'm correct in assuming that you want a PVP/PVE -button added so you can do either whenever you want in peace?
This is not world of warcraft.
Wormholer for life.
|
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
13
|
Posted - 2016.11.16 20:28:38 -
[7858] - Quote
That would be incorrect.
Afk cloaky camping does not make pve unsafe. It makes pve not happen.
Which is fine to a certain degree (hence my arguing for afk cloaky camping to be tempered, not destroyed).
Tempering afk cloaky camping will certainly lead to ships undocking more often, and spending more time in space when undocked.
This in turn will increase total PvE revenue as the total ship hours of PvE will increase.
Which is why I have argued for changing net bounty payments in some manner before changing afk cloaky camping. I pre-empted the CCPs keynote speech where this was mentioned in Las Vegas, but that is nothing to brag about. Anyone who can read the monthly economic rapports knew about there being issues with bounties.
What people seem to be missing is the huge inbalance between production and destruction in EvE. The data is interesting because it shows pretty clearly that ship losses should at least treble to give a greater degree of harmony and avoid rediculous levels of asset accumulation (its long past the point were "fly only what you can afford to lose" sets very few practical limitations on the ships players can fit and fly).
More ships have to die.
Tempering afk cloaky camping plays a part in that.
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
776
|
Posted - 2016.11.16 20:29:00 -
[7859] - Quote
Jerghul wrote:The lesson is that PvP in wormhole space is less than 10% of PvP in null-sec. It draws no destinction between corporations involved.
Ask your parents for help if you have trouble understanding this.
Today I learned you are still confused by the fact that many corps live in WH space and do PvP outside of it. You do realize WHs open up to k-space, yeah? And I also learned that you think the only reason people are attracted to WHs is a lack of local.
Christ....given that laughter is the best medicine, at least thank you for trying to cure the world with what you say |
Jerghul
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
13
|
Posted - 2016.11.16 20:30:17 -
[7860] - Quote
Sure they do. Because wormhole mechanics suck for the purposes of PvP.
This is why a change to local has to be careful in giving wormhole denizens an advantage when they enter null-sec.
I have you covered in my suggestion that the reporting system ("4 neuts entered xx-x (3 jumps away") should be gate triggered and not be a headcount of ships in the system, or ships entering through wormholes.
" We have been doing a lot of challenging old assumptions of late, and often with delightful results. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be..."
-Team Game Of Drones (Dec 2015)
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 .. 343 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |