I expect someone that makes personal remarks (“go to highsec where you belong or play another game entirely”) to make a little bit of research about said person. Geez, at least look up the alliance, because mine is totally a nullsec renting one.
And the argument isn’t “look at me I’m elite”, it’s “no, I don’t live in null”.
People who think removing local from null tend to be the folks who think that their gameplay experience would improve because people couldn’t get away from them so easily. That means they don’t understand how people really work.
It would just mean more people defensively clustering together, people planting alts on gates with the sound turned way up to hear gate activations and it would mean fewer people using null for wealth gathering (the same way anom changes pre-2012 just shifted people towards high sec incursions and lvl 4 missions). it would mean that 'hunters" would have even less to hunt and would get baited and killed more.
I kind of hope it happens that CCP does something with local in null, so that the people who have blamed local for their failures in null would then be able to get an understanding of the fact that it wasn’t local thwarting them, it was their own lack of skill and/or patience.
Dude put your money where your mouth is instead of making empty claims.
Keep going, you’ve almost got 1/8th of the differences figured out…
Read “appeal to motive fallacy” wikipedia page I posted. That sorts you post out pretty well, moving on…
hah, looks like I hit a little too close to home.
The fact is removing local from null ion a game designed from scratch with universal local chat is a bad idea, and one that won’t yield the benefits people who always propose it think it will.
In the same way Dominion Sov was supposed to help small groups but ended up forcing people into ever larger coalitions, and the same way that the null anom nerfs were supposed to spur conflict but ended up creating rental empires (where again the big groups got richer instead of having to go to war), likewise removing local from space that has GATES and where CYNOS can be activated would be almost blindingly stupid…And would benefit larger groups even more than regular local does now.
Which again is why I actually hope it happens. I’m old enough to know that simply warning people that their idea is stupid doesn’t work, you need to be able to show them, and the only real way to do that is for CCP to screw up local chat in null so that they anti-local people can see how badly this would screw THEM (but not the people they want screwed).
See wikipedia article. Thanks. 
I know this is off topic, but I believe there is no topic. This is a thread for people to hurl insults and quote wilkepedia in times of dire need. Again you don’t like local, you can minimize, or go to wh space if you want to challenge yourself.
I was apparently blocked by the OP for shooting down each argument he had for his idea, but his thread tells me he is not someone I’d associate with in any case 
Dude put your money where your mouth is instead of making empty claims.
Coming from the person who wants to remove local with questionable reasons… Also, for f**ks sake, go ahead and provide your examples. If you want to get into rhetoric, read about the burden of proof. You are the one who wants change, you are the one who bears the burden of proof.
For the nullsec differences, same thing, you want change, don’t go around posting smug answers when your opinion is the unpopular one (notice that I didn’t say wrong). I have other things to do than to pull out answers from your a*s when you are the one who proposes something.
Still waiting for yours. 
didn’t read my post /10
Again, burden of proof. I’m out.
Asked for examples. “NO U! Bla bla bla “burden of proof”, -runs away with tail between legs.-”
Give me one mechanism created by cloaky camping that isn’t a loss for all parties.
Still waiting for yours
Yeah I didn’t expect you to put your money where your mouth is with your bold claims. Several mechanisms" lol sure… 
“I can point out several meaning important mechanisms!”
Okay do that then.
“NO U! BECAUSE REASONS! BURDEN OF PROOF!”
lol
Wait do you mean the “mechanisms” by which your INTEL BOT NETWORK works? 
People that write posts like yours always come from the same background. Renter trash and / or downright terrible pilots.
You know why only these whine about AFK cloaking? Because it’s a non-issue for everyone else. I don’t need to look up in what sort of trash alliance you are when you write a whine post like that.
I’ll tell you the same thing I always tell people like you. If your crapheap of an alliance is unable to defend your space from something as laughable as a afk cloaker, then your alliance has no business being in nullsec. Plain and simple.
If the major part of your alliance is capable of handling afk cloakers but you are not, then the problem is entirely you.
In either case, your whining about afk cloaking isn’t justified. It’s up to you to utilize the tools available and defend yourself, not to CCP.
[quote=“Armark_Bether, post:216, topic:9488”]
Coming from the person who wants to remove local with questionable reasons… Also, for f**ks sake, go ahead and provide your examples. If you want to get into rhetoric, read about the burden of proof. You are the one who wants change, you are the one who bears the burden of proof.[/quote]
I’m perfectly fine with the status quo. It is you that wants afk cloakers gone without any other changes.
For your last point, I didn’t say anything about breaking afk cloaking unilaterally. I said it needs to die or get a counter, because there are none at the moment.
Why does it need to get a counter ? It all comes back to meaningful gameplay options for both parties : https://youtu.be/BRBcjsOt0_g?list=PLhyKYa0YJ_5BkTruCmaBBZ8z6cP9KzPiX
For the first one, I’m not living in null precisely because I don’t want to deal with ■■■■ like afk cloakers. That’s true, that’s my preference, and if you’re not okay with my opinions, I don’t care and so should you. I’m just saying it’s objectively not healthy for the game.
And, to wrap up on this, I don’t think speaking about afk cloakers is even relevant as I don’t see how removing local will do anything to them, except making them more powerful as they are.
@Xuixien First off, I do not appreciate being accused of breaking the EULA/TOS a single bit. If you have anything backing that claim, fill out a support ticket and get me banned. I’ll ask you to edit that part and take the appropriate actions instead.
For the mechanisms :
Also, if you think removing local would remove perfect intel, think about a cloaky scout sitting on one gate of a pipe system. If this isn’t perfect, unilateral intel I wonder what it is.
I have to question the premise that members of a sov holding alliance should be on the same footing as trespassers in their space. The effort that it takes to obtain and maintain sov should translate into clear advantages. I see no reason why less risk shouldn’t be one of those advantages that makes sov valuable enough to fight for.
There a at least half a dozen. They just require effort, something that the whining anti-afk-cloaker crowd doesn’t want to put in.
It will remove them entirely. AFK cloaking is nothing but a symptom to the real problem, which being instant, risk-free, uninterruptible and effortless intel in the form of local.
Logging out and later logging back in after having passed that scout? Or wormholes?
Those are the first two things that come to mind that break your argument.
What effort is there in backroom deals and blobbing?
Yep, let’s make the most risk-free space even more safe.
Clearly friendships are overpowered, but the only ones you can remove from the game are your own.
Yeah. Sov already comes with a very long list of advantages. 100% safety for every non-retard is among them. It really doesn’t need more and it absolutely doesn’t need safety guaranteed with even more in-game mechanics than there already are.
I wasn’t advocating more. Reading is fundamental.