Jumphole Overhaul

[SCEC]

It's not about realism. It's about maths. Yours being way off, as explained in the other thread.

No actually, you didnt explain anything you claimed, so please do it here.

Actually, he did with a bit of economics. As a third party to that dispute, I bet on economics explanation because it works and you can read real scientific papers on this "bottleneck" effect. Between some post on the Internet and economics theory proven by decades I would choose the latter.

He put up claims of conclusions from "math" and put up numbers without explaining how he arrived at the conclusions and numbers. You can read real scientific papers about microbiology too but that doesn't mean every unsubstantiated claim I make about this subject linking it to microbiology is automatically true, unless I can explain why it's true. So...

My proposal doesn't cut any content , just a few jump hole connections while rerouting others. "In return" for the removed connection, a connection that allows for farther (and thereby faster) travel across Sirius along "highways" is given, while making two systems that are intended to be emptied for the benefit of the "highway" systems and connections.

You've not demonstrated that at all. If you'd actually do the math, you'd fine that the increased chance of encountering another player along these highways is a negligible percentage increase because all haulers are randomly distributed along all equally profitable paths. Chance increases in the 10's percentage range, not the multiple 100's of percentage increase that you need to notice any effect. You're dramatically overestimating the efficacy of cutting paths.

So show me how you did the math, and how you arrived at "chance of encountering another player along these highways is a negligible percentage increase because all haulers are randomly distributed along all equally profitable paths. Chance increases in the 10's percentage range, not the multiple 100's of percentage increase that you need to notice any effect."

Neither do you provide a math. Whether your method works or not is a mere speculation until tried or simulated. As giving it a try would require to revamp the server, this solution is not efficient. Therefore, you are left with simulation, that would better be provided for the proposal to be convincing.

Otherwise, it is just a qualitative "method" of speculating whether it will bring upon the desired effect. There were cases when the devs added some developments to the story/game mechanics that did not pay off at all. This solution is not safe from the same fate. The argument is better be more convincing.

P.S. articles exist to verify the claims of random people online. If you, say, make a claim about microbiological explanation of the harmful effect of vaccines, there weill be plenty of articles to refute it as nonsense.

---

Spoiler

---

SCEC Info | SCEC Recruitment | SCEC Comm Channel | SCEC Discord

---

Signatures can't be larger than 700x250px and 1mb. ~Vex