So… let’s talk about what we would replace null local with?
Make it so you can’t mix covops cloak/dscan immunity with cynos, so no dscan-immune cyno ships?
What would hunters do about this? Simple: use two covops. One’s a cloaky scout (maybe a stealth bomber for insta-decloak-lock), and the other is something fast with the cyno. And… we’re right back where we started. The only difference is the hunter needs another alt.
Another option would be to make cyno ships eat fuel for everything that comes through, so no dreadbombing from only a frigate cyno.
Counter? You’ll need a hauler-oriented ship instead to dreadbomb because of the sheer amount of fuel it would take. And… we’re back to “just” needing another alt: one would be for a covops to drop the indy, and one would be for a blockade runner to drop the bigger things, with maybe a DST (for standard cloak) or JF to carry more fuel for future drops because nobody wants to just drop once per day before having to resupply.
Anyone got any better ideas that don’t get stupidly complex?
Any group should get out of 0.0 if they cannot hold their space or defend ratters, no matter what size.
The changes suggested will make it easier for smaller groups to get into null as long as it makes it more difficult for larger groups to live in null.
I’m surprised actually, maybe you’re not as risk averse as you talk. That said, you choose not to use the tools available to you. You can’t complain when you get caught ratting. You can’t say null isn’t 100% safe when you voluntarily choose to ignore the tool you’re given to make it 100% safe.
And your problem with being at 75% of top speed while running sites is what? Remember, you can PvE while being active, and not only when AFK-netflixing.
Smaller alliances are always going to be the ones that suffer the most from removing things like intel. Having intel means players in small corps can be self sufficient in null as most of the time not enough people are going to be online at the same time to provide sufficient intel.
Like I’ve said before, unless hotdropping is completely removed so that scouting a gate can provide 100% accurate intel of who is in the system and large fleets can’t just magically appear on grid, removing local will just kill any chance small alliances have of existing in null and you will be left with only the large entities.
There are arguments for and against which balance each other out in validity.
There are agendas on both sides which cancel each other out in volume.
Its like perceiving the same coin from its two different faces, and arguing which face is a truer representation of the coin.
By all means, continue to argue it though. Via its implications, its probably one of the most important questions in EVE. Near perfect ideological dichotomy.
I would argue that the validity of the remove local camp is rather suspect as their predicted outcomes don’t follow a logical path.
I can’t see any reason why removing local only would result in more PVE’ers to kill. I was a PVE’er for 5 years so I understand that those pilots tend to go to the places where it’s easiest to earn ISK. Removing local makes is substantially harder to earn ISK, and it’s questionable if it would even be profitable at all as I think it would be very hard to PVE for 6+ hours without getting killed where I live in providence, which is the absolute minimum amount of time it would take to break even on a ship capable of earning a decent amount of ISK.
If local was removed today and I was still doing PVE, personally I would move to low sec to earn ISK because it seems like the most sensible thing to do in my eyes. What reason would I possibly have to try and PVE in null?
When I PVE it’s to earn as much ISK as I possibly can in the shortest space of time so that I can do other things. I’m not interested in making the game harder for myself and taking on unnecessary risk when I’m trying to earn ISK, and removing local is not going to change my mind on that.
I also know I’m not the exception to the rule, which is why the remove local camp would be sorely disappointed if local did ever get removed, because I guarantee they wouldn’t find a single soul to kill.
If there were no people to kill, there would be nobody hunting there after a short while, which would leave a nice empty space for PvE to return. Eventually balance would be achieved and there would be both PvE and hunters in the area.
To guarantee one extreme or the other makes you seem silly, since “No PvE” and “No Hunting” are the two things that are certain not to happen.
The whole problem with the “remove local” thought that I see is this:
“How do hunters find people to attack?”
Look, we can conceive of what local residents would do to try to compensate for no local. The intel channels would still exist, but their info wouldn’t be as accurate due to needing to use d-scan and gate watching and other methods.
In an area like Providence where systems are heavily populated, maybe it would help hunters… because they are going to know that there are ratters and miners in almost every system.
But when I take wormholes to get deep into null in a covops to look for relic sites… I often go through 10+ systems without seeing a soul (or only seeing one for a brief period). It would take minutes to warp around using D-scan to cover some of the larger systems just to determine if a ship is in system… let alone if that ship is occupied. Something that would have taken seconds with local (to see if another live player is present) would take minutes for the hunter to confirm.
The main concern I have is this would make it harder to get PvP for the hunter… because it will take him a lot longer to determine if a system has anyone to hunt in it.
That or all hunters would go to Providence. Which wouldn’t help the safety of dank isk coming from Null… as providence is far from the main cause of the isk faucet.
Even if null was empty of hunters, I as a PVE player am not really interested in PVEing without the ease of watching local. I’m not interested in spamming D’scan constantly or worrying if there is a cloaker about to hotdrop on me, so I wouldn’t move back. PVE players who do want to do that are already in wormholes doing it. It’s no secret that wormholes are high reward but most PVE players simply can’t be bothered with it, the reward is not attraction for the effort. Hence you would not see the return of PVE to null.
You know that when I say that I mean a sharp decline, it’s a shame that people like you feel the need to take stuff literally that is obviously not meant to be, just to discredit what I say.
I’ve fully supported this idea since I first heard about it. I’ve done a little time in NS and it was too predictable. The idea of NS should be in the form of a “Neighborhood” Security space. Certain people own certain parts of the neighborhood but you don’t exactly know everyone in that part of the neighborhood until you introduce yourself.
I think it would add a very necessary element to NS, which is to always be aware of your surroundings.
Exactly, there is a thing called risk tolerance. everyone has it. if the risk, perceived or otherwise, outweighs the potential reward, then very few people are going to do it. we saw that with the drifter incursions, the risk was there, the challenge was there, but the reward wasn’t enough to make enough people interested.
One of the largest risk factors in null space is cyno and blops drops. and there are really only 2 ways to counter those. 1) out escalate the fight. 2) avoid the fight through intel.
With the existence of cloaks and d-scan immune ships rendering d-scan of limited use, local is the only reliable source of intel people have. and with no way to shut down gates the way you can roll a wormhole, you can’t keep the same level of system security as you can in J-space.
removal of local would case the risk factor to spike beyond 99% of peoples risk tolerance levels, driving them out or forcing them into the big blue doughnut of the mega-alliances who would be the only groups capable of providing the cap superiority for protection. yes that would eventually lead to an increase in ship prices as null ores become scarcer, but between reduced destruction of ratcaps and rorquals, and massive stockpiling, any appreciable increase could take years to balance out the rewards to the point of tempting people back.
A balance would be found EVENTUALLY, but the question is, would the game be able to survive a functionally dead null-sec until then? and are the (very few) benefits of removing local worth the time, effort, and risk involved?
There is more to that than simple “nobody hunts => it’s good idea to try to PVE in there”.
Don’t forget about perfect intel: map statistics and ADM levels. As soon as someone starts to do PVE in there it’s visible to anyone interested.
So it’s not that hunters will be blindly roaming space and prey will hide in forests… It will be more like: “there is activity in system XXX-XX. Let’s go there!”.
So while i support your POV (there will still be some hunt and some PVE) i think the balance will be more like with Incursions and suicide ganks: once tried nobody ever touches it.
You said “I guarentee you will not find a single soul to kill” and that you think Nulsec will just be empty if there is not local. I don’t need to discredit you, you’re doing fine as is.
You really think that when I said that I meant every single player without exception?.. I mean come on, don’t be ■■■■■■■ stupid. You know that’s not meant to be taken as literally as that.
Seeing as you have such a hard time understanding what I’m saying I’ll spell it out.
Removing local will make it substantially more risky to PVE in null, to the point at which I doubt it’s even profitable, and even if it is possible, very very unlikely to be profitable enough to take on that risk. Removing local will make it harder than WH space to PVE, and with less reward. On this point alone the vast majority of PVE players will simply move to low sec, leaving hunters in null very little to hunt.
Then we are probably going to have exactly the same discussion about removing local from low sec, so just forget the idea of removing local. It won’t work.
Have you even been reading this conversation? What’s the topic of this thread?
It gives large alliances a bigger advantage than them having 100% accurate intel networks thanks to local going out 20-30 systems, with no way of interrupting that?
It’s easy to find smaller groups willing to put the effort into surviving without local, it would be much harder to maintain a large group.
So you are just confirming what I’ve been saying, most people in null are simply too risk averse. That’s been my point. Let’s break the standard of null being glorified HS from a risk point of view. That alone is one of the bigger problems with the game right now.