Lol at this from Reddit too:
6 Likes
Firstly, I’d gladly weclome local removal from hi-sec.
Secondly, it’s called HIGH SEC. As in, HIGH SECURITY SPACE. Local chat is too powerful as an intelligence tool. It’s giving high levels of security to NO-SECURITY space.
5 Likes
That one shows a poor player, unable to get things done within the time limit and unable to change to different environments, or even worse unable to fit a cruiser correctly…
2 Likes
I think a Delayed Local Pop would be nice. Where you could vanish instantly or take anywhere from 5-30 seconds after you left one system to show up as gone in that system and the same 5-30 seconds to show up in the next system. Making it less predictable all around but giving you an added bit of security as a traveler and hunter, but not so much that you could be through the system already before you’re shown. It would still ping up that you’re in the area; however, your exact location of travel from one system to the next would be a bit more convoluted since people would have to actively be monitoring every intel channel.
1 Like
Theory here.
If all the PLEX are created (someone spends real dollar for it) by players then its bad for CCP as all those multiboxer/bots will buy less PLEX, PLEX goes cheaper , less ppl create PLEX with RL money , less profit for CCP - BAD for CCP
OTOH IF CCP actually create some PLEX from nothing as part of ISK sink and/or to boost playerbase, then CCP not loosing anything by multiboxer/bots unsubing.
Damn straight!
It’s important to note that people who plex their accounts don’t directly contribute any money to CCP. If fewer PLEXing nullbot accounts means the demand for plex drops by, say, 25%, will a similar amount of people still buy plex? In my opinion probably yes. Maybe even moreso, given that each plex will be worth less isk, so you’ll need to buy more plex to get the same amount of isk as before.
If that is true, CCP loses literally nothing if farmers who pay with plex leave.
I live exclusively in high sec, losing local wouldn’t be a loss.
1 Like
I think removing local from high sec might actually make it safer.
Hear me out.
As it stands now, you see everything. And everything is a ■■■■ of a lot of stuff. So much, in fact, that most people ignore it. Gankers would be out of business if this wasn’t true, for example.
If you got rid of local, people would start paying attention. And people paying attention are far more unlikely to become victims. Gankers would be begging to have local returned.
5 Likes
I’m not unsubbing. I’ll simply downgrade the expense of the ships I use for ratting in null (ie no more 2 bil machariels for smartbombing). I don’t own any of the truly big toys like rorqs and supers and never will (and boy am I glad I decided on that aged ago).
My objection to the idea of no local is based on the fact that is mechanically stupid to have no local in a place that still allows cynos and gates. Wormhole space works because of its restrictions on things like cynos and mass restrictions on holes.
The same way high sec without CONCORD wouldn’t work and would only serve to drive off players, so to will “surprise hotdrop/no warning at all because the cloaky guy logged off 2 weeks ago” nullsec.
It also stands to repeat history, where ccp nerfed things with the goal of creating conflict but ended up creating so much cooperation that blue donuts formed.
(From the linked DEV blog);
Expected consequences
- Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space
- In the longer run, there’ll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals
- Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec
- Coalitions will be marginally less stable
- Alliances will have to choose more carefully what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on (low truesec systems generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places).
The opposite of all the above happened btw. Because human beings cooperate when the cost of conflict is too high.
My last objection is that this is a repeat of fozzie sov. With fozzie sov ccp tried to turn null into low sec/fw space and failed. Now they are trying to turn it into"wormhole light" space. For the same reasons, this too will fail and end up being rolled back in some way. Null needs null solutions, not to be turned into other space.
12 Likes
HS PVE-only carebears be all like “here, take my blanket and lollipop, you’ll need it more than I do”
[sarcastic] God forbid CCP breaks up Nullsec into “Upper Nullsec” 0.0 through -.5 and “Lower Nullsec” -.6 through -1.0 where “Lower Nullsec” has this (misnamed) Delayed Mode permanently just liked w-space does. This would be a permanent extension of the current event for only those qualifying nullsec systems. [/sarcastic]
nobody keeps them from engaging now and they dont. Local is not an issue for them …
1 Like
Small does not equal blob fleet
I dont think your line of thought is very correct. If the service you buy gets too expensive, you dont spend more money to buy more of the service. You just dont buy it.
2 Likes
I support the null-local experiment, it’s worth a look, but I fear that Raven has it correct here.
EVE is stagnating, and a large portion of that stagnation is due to the fact that CCP has made a lot of bad design decisions over the years (going a long ways back, pretty much to the beginning). The player base that has stuck around are the ones who adapted to those systems and found something that ‘was worth paying for’ for them to do.
Everyone else has pretty much already left.
So, CCP really, desperately needs to make changes, because even the people who adapted to the current system are getting bored and leaving.
Unfortunately, CCP is following it’s usual M.O. and saying “let’s think up some sort of issue we have with the way players are “exploiting” our game, and then let’s attack that playstyle”.
It’s what I mean when I say that CCP has gotten locked into the mindset that PvP means “programmers vs players”.
You don’t ‘improve’ the game by attacking what players are doing. You improve the game by giving them better and more interesting choices of things to do. Then you might slap a little de-incentive on the old playstyles to nudge them out of their comfort zone. But if you just hammer their choice and don’t give them anything new and interesting to do, all you end up with is less players.
Which effectively sums up the last 9 years of EVE…
6 Likes
This… exactly this…
Dark gritty Eve was dark and gritty because me and my ilk made it so.
We weren’t nice, but there was a certain dark order to how we worked.
We were stomped out in exactly this fashion, one mechanical change at a time … until we all quit.
We still lurk and watch because pre-2012 Eve online is still the greatest PvP experience any of us have ever seen.
Can flipping was the mechanic that sustained my entire class of players. Crime watch made it so hard to do that flippers and baiters faded away over the next year or so after its introduction.
So yeah, I can see this argument. I can also see that fixing the stagnation is imperative, no matter how it’s done. And null is badly stagnant.
But highsec stagnation is the problem that’s really affecting the player base. That’s where all the players are.
If they rollback crimewatch and re-open the profession systems… I’ll fix the stagnation problem personally… in a T1 frigate.
Dear CCP, can flipping all by itself (and a re-opening of the profession systems to PvP) will re-engage PvP in highsec in the consensual nature of the can flip.
And it’ll be in T1 frigates (because the mechanic naturally encourages this level of flying ) so this generation of players can discover the magic of piracy and ship battles.
It will fix your stagnation problem, re-introducing predators to hate in a model where you get to see their hand before you fight them.
Consider this as a solution to the stagnation
Problem.
7 Likes
Brilliant post op. And this from someone who hates the removal of local. And who answered no to all your questions.
Be part of a corp in reality, not just have a flag to paint on your ship. If they don’t communicate find a home that does.
1 Like
This change will only really effect bots and smaller groups that can’t defend themselves properly with the foreknowledge of intrusion. Big groups like goons and test will absorb the losses while inventing new techniques and doctrines to combat the local shutout.
Will this make null bloc space more hollow? Will they have to stick to fewer systems to stay under a large enough umbrella leaving more systems empty? If so, that might be a big attraction for solo pve play.
It forces players to assess risk and make decisions.
Maybe they fly smaller, certainly they watch dscan more diligently.
It makes them play where they were grinding mindlessly.
I can’t see a negative regarding the engagement perspective. That they’re so furious about the increased risk isn’t really a detractor for me.
9 Likes