I suggested that you go try Provi to see lots of ships getting blown up, I also told you I live in Catch which is also very active, you only read what you think you read. This Provi suggestion was because you were saying that nullsec was safe.
Did I say I was an expert in WH’s? When can I expect the mail with all your advice and tips, however never I guess, because you are the definition of hot air and generalisation.
Don’t fall into the trap that so many do in terms of WH space, the issue in nullsec is cyno’s and what can be hot dropped on you, that is why the balance works in WH space, that and hole control, but this is why the balance works with local as it is in nullsec.
CCP have talked about using OA’s for local in nullsec, however there are quite a few problems in terms of this, the most important to bear in mind is server load in terms of big fights as there has to be checks applied. I also think hunters will hate it as they will not have local while the defenders will.
Lack of cynos is compensated for by the fact caps in WHs are trapped and can only be sourced locally, as well as Asset safety restriction to Citadels in the same system. Furthermore WH cannot be developed as NS can.
This brings down the practical engagement size threshold in WHs, whereas in NS there is no limit.
Cynos are a separate issue to Local.
Even if WHs had Local, they still could not have cynos.
The inverse is not true of NS.
Furthermore if WHs had Local, there would be almost no opportunity for non-consensual PvP of players ships.
This is all about local in nullsec and the simple fact that any ship can be fitted with a cyno and some can be fitted with covert cyno’s and that ship can drop a ton of stuff on you bypassing your defences. This cannot be done in WH space, so having no local works in terms of balance, but due to hot drops via cyno, which is instant and massive and allows no real intel as such, you have to have a balance against it otherwise it would be even more OP than it is in nullsec.
Cynos are most definitely linked to why local is so necessary in nullsec, they are not a separate issue, because you have to look at this as a balance issue, without cyno’s I would be happy to have no local, but that would destroy a whole area of game play, doing hot drops is fun and is also part of the large fleet part of the game. Which is why this whole remove local discussion is really a waste of pixels as CCP will not remove local in K-Space, though they are likely to modify it in some way.
But do bear in mind that they have to be careful in terms of server load. Also I am not ignoring the gripe that WH players have of not coming in via gates, but this would require server checks and logically one would have to put an ID range on the gates, which will screw up major fleet fights, and that aspect removed some parts of the game, such as Invulnerability Fields having passive resists if the ship was neuted out, that required server checks.
Im seeing two arguments against removing Local:
Would make NS PvE too dangerous, and result in people moving to LS.
Would make running a small group too dangerous in face of larger groups.
Was there more?
Yes and no, add this to your list:
3 Would make Cyno’s too OP and destroy the risk and reward balance in nullsec
Mmmm…
But shouldnt risk/reward be at its greatest magnitude in player NS?
As a point of reference, the enormous isk bounty revenue from NS seems to indicate the risk/reward balance is/was already pretty screwed.
The risk would be too great for the reward because cyno’s are too OP and with no local it would be too easy.
At this point you can say that CCP changed the sov system to enable smaller entities to operate in nullsec, removing local would change that so they could not, which is why CCP will not remove local period. But they will tinker with it and the OA was one of their plans for local. I have not heard anything about this for a while, but if they did that it would make roaming even more difficult.
Yes, however that is only the case in Fortress Delve, Deklin and DRF space, it is kinda like the Rorqual issue in that someone started multi-boxing 60 of them in Delve so CCP nerfed them, in doing so they gave a massive advantage to the early maximises and screwed everyone else.
Removing the local will just kill other areas of space, my alliance which has a TZ superiority would be able to deal with it, however many would not.
Nvm 5chars.
Ill add my rebuttal to the 3 points later this evening.
Thank you for keeping a civil and constructive format.
Bear in mind that we have had the grinding period, but now there are people throwing massive cap fleets around and this is fun and a lot of ISK will be lost.
Hope you are correct, but that is not really representative of the Local issue in and of itself. Massive fleet battles would invariably occur even without Local.
Furthermore, ships blowing up doesnt directly translate to isk destruction. If the underlying isk generation continues underneath the ship combat, it treats only a symptom, not the cause.
It all goes back to the previous massive and highly stupid Tech imbalance that enabled three alliances to gain such a massive advantage, everyone is playing catch up, and of course those groups are adding to their advantage.
Lets take PL and NCDOT., in my opinion they are a bit lazy and not so much into grinding so seeing people like Test start to gather that level of a cap fleet threatens them so they have to come cull it before it threatens their fun, which is going to happen soon, they are also concerned that Test might be getting close to Goons
Goons are different, at some point they will have a Super home defence fleet and a full Super offensive fleet and they will be dropping Keepstars as their offensive first move. Will be fun to watch…
We are talking really end game, many of us are stacking up capitals to be able to fight, I had a dread loss recently it was Platinum insured, so it cost 486m for insurance, got paid 1.6bn, but the fit was worth 1bn, so I lost 1.486 bn, it does add up .
EDIT: It is representative of the local issue because this is the player Empire game part of Eve, and people like Sonya and Keno just don’t get it, or more likely just post based on what they want for their own enjoyment.
Sorry, maybe my coffee hasn’t kicked in yet, but I don’t quite understand where the isk destruction happened in this example.
486bn was the insurance cost, I got 1.6bn so 1.12bn back, I did not loot my wreck, so that cost me about 1.6bn in ISK, we tried to kill a super.
FCON did loot it so they gained some ISK, but ISK was destroyed.
If all you PVP in are crappy little frigates and destroyers than yes you can earn more ISK than you need in null. However if you want to field a dreadnaught to help protect your space than you need to carrier rat for like 15 hours without interruption. There is nothing enormous about ISK generation in null unless you are in one of the big coalitions so you can safely rat in supers or mine in roquals, and I think using a big coalition as your yardstick is a stupid thing to do.
It seems to me the pilots who want to remove local from null don’t actually understand anything about how null works. Nobody who understands the cost of fielding ships in null would say something as stupid as ISK generation is too high.
You keep ignoring the actual question, and you keep misrepresenting the state of nullsec without local as the state of nullsec with local.
Oh my god dude.
CCP said ISK generation in NUL was way to high, they provided evidence too.
Do you think they are referring to somewhere like providence or somewhere like Delve? I’ll give you a clue, it’s Delve. Why Delve? Because goons are mining in rorquals and supercarrier ratting. Who is going to be affected by removing local? Not goons. There goes your ISK generation argument.
I doubt Keno will get that point…