This is circular.
“It exists, because it exists”
Wtf is wrong with you today.
This is below your niveau.
And lol at “bitching”.
Are you mad or something?
Certainly seems so as you threw civil discussion out the window the second you realized your strawmen are being burned left and right.
So far your arguments have been only:
No.
The arguments, which can be referenced are:
Whether you want to accept that or not is up to you. Go read the Lore as to why I answered the original question I replied to, which asked why should sov null have local.
And it’s because of those two things.
Now, your entire argument so far has been:
Post your evidence that shows it is not the intent of sov null to have any game provided intel/information.
Until then, it’s just your usual ■■■■■■■■. Just because you write it, doesn’t make it true and especially when it comes to mechanics and how EVE works, there’s a pretty good chance it’s false.
As there is no connection between Local and Sov, there is no obstacle to removing Local from Sov. You faceplanted really hard on that one.
Lore is mutable. Its a very weak argument. EVE is changed constantly in ways that evolve its lore inorder to improve its content.
Wrong again. There is an obstacle, discussed by CCP Fozzie just a couple of weeks back; and nothing at all to do with sov, because sov and local have nothing to do with each other. They are not related mechanics.
I don’t personally care if local is there or not, but removing it isn’t going to happen. There is a very deliberate reason it is there and also supported by the game Lore.
Now post that non-existant evidence that it is not intended for sov null to gain any intel from the game.
Go look at delve and tell me it’s safe. Once you realize the large number of whales getting murdered there, you might start realizing that the security we get in null is not because of local since local is still up in Delve right now but because players are providing that security. Hell even where most of us are there to provide the security, people still get killed despite local, intel channels, standing fleets and cap escalation response.
If other area of space want to be secure, they can all provide that as long at the players are willing to work together. Too bad working together seem to be frowned upon in HS where an unkillable hot-drop like responsive fleet is provided for free.
a biased and poorly thought through proposal
I feel like High sec’ should have local 100% of the time, but Low sec it should go on the fritz.
So basically Local should should blink on and off at random intervals like there was some infrastructure outage happening. It would add a fun dynamic. You could then have even more infrastructure outages in Null (even less time with a functioning Local)…and obviously there no infrastructure in WH.
Could make for interesting gaming opportunities?
I stopped reading here. I call ■■■■■■■■ on your argument. Mining and ratting is dangerous AF in a WH. If you like it so much go live in one.
If nullsec is made harder and more risky than it currently is, then by the same token wormholes would have have to be made exponentially harder on the order of having to build capitals in the wormhole to do anything in a C1 and nothing short of the extremely insane would be able to do A C5 or C6 without incurring hefty losses each site.
It cracks me up how the alleged benefits of removing local keep shifting with the arguments being made but in every case they’re some third-order effect that will come about after the removal of local activates some Rube Goldberg sequence of hypothetical play style changes.
If you’re using goons as your only example to back up your theory, I suggest finding other alliances to use as example. Many other smaller alliances don’t have this problem. Why? Fewer people means fewer stupid people total in the alliance. Smaller alliance, likely means less sov held, therefore intel is easier to get a handle on.
If whales are dying in delve, it’s not because there’s not enough security in null, delve specifically. There is more than enough security in null, they just chose to ignore it. Why? Because they feel like they’re safe. If they felt unsafe, I wonder how that would impact their carebear activities. Would they pay more attention to intel if null sec local was changed against their favor? I say yes, most likely.
Actually they really are dying there because there’s not enough security. You might want to follow Eve news outside of AT updates.
As far as the strong arm of their jackdaw fleets, they may not be present right now because goons are on deployment. As far as goons jumping to a goon rorq cyno to save it goes, there would of course be less of that because goons are deployed.
But as far as intel goes, there’s still plenty of that to go around. There’s enough to keep a half-wit carebear safe. If only they paid attention to intel channels.
Yeah those intel channels that are manned by actual players. We reduce the risk by sharing the whole load across a large entity but it’s all player generated security. Removing local would only mean we push our man power advantage some more by parking alts on gates and looking at traffic. It would be absolute terrible gameplay but somehow, a lot of people think it’s the next best thing since sliced bread to make the game even more AIDS to play.
Do any of the local whiners have any idea how secure you could be in high-sec if you put the same amount of collective effort a null entity put into securing itself? The only reason why people keep getting ganked all the time in HS is because of the atrociously low amount of effort they are willing to put into protecting themselves because they expect the game to do it for them. In null, players use the tool they have to do the job of protecting themselves.
I hate to inform you but removing local will NOT solve any issues as you allude to, there are many ways for corps/alliances/coalitions that have some of the most secure means to communicate and tracking of those wandering around in nulsec. I have seen for a fact that even at an alliance level, intel is just as efffective and seeing who pops in local and have witnessed countless counter measures employed up to and including a pod taxi ride home.
Your arguments to remove local is based on the facts of “risks and rewards” yes, but the over riding factor here is thru use of intel channels and voice programs far exceeds your wish to remove local.
I think its valid to predict that removing Local from Player Sov will result in aggregate increase in ship destruction as unwary/careless pilots are engaged.
I dont see how that result would be a bad thing.
It depends of willingness of hunters to properly scout the system when they don’t know if anyone is in there at all.
You know: you look at d-scan and see ships there. They might be ratting/mining or they might be POSed. Currently if you see 1 person or nobody in local you just pass this system. Without local you would need to spend considerable more time and effort in each system.
Yes, it would slow scouting in most systems. Systems that are known for ratting and mining would still be quick, but overall, especially for roaming fleets, it would be slow.
Aside from that, null already has the highest levels of player caused destruction of any security region. There doesn’t need to be a fixation on ‘there needs to be more’. If people want more destruction, they are free to go create it.
Those idiots already get engaged. Gameplay where I have to mash the d-scan key every damn tick is complete garbage. The only way to prevent this would be to post alts on gates and listen for gate fire sound and report the traffic at which point, those who have the manpower advantage would be much more able to share that stupid load of “work” to do than anyone else.
Do you really think the game in null has to be pushed toward putting alpha account on all gates?