CCP should seriously consider removing Local from Null

Why not both? :parrotdad:

I loath exploits as much as anyone that plays the game fairly does but coding exploits out of the game often doesnt work, if local is removed those exploiters will just sit a cloaky camper on gates leading up to them, give people access to their broadcast and now the only people getting a heads up that an attack is coming are the those people using exploits. So, your idea hurts people playing fairly and gives people using exploits an even bigger advantage relative to those of us that play the game fairly.

More importantly, local-less nullsec exists in game itā€™s called wormholes.

Amen on the Dscan thing. really in ships like this wit this kind of tech would you not expect auto alerts from D rather a completely manual process? Seems kind of goofy to me.

Local is a safety crutch that does not belong in player owned space.

It breaks the inter-sector security cascade.

In player owned space, players should be responsible for their own intel.

1 Like

I still think the end result of this is to nerf hunters. Much of null-sec is unoccupied for most of the day. While I think residents would find ways to pass intel and create a less effective but still useful intelligence netā€¦ I think hunters wouldnā€™t have a good replacement way to check if targets are in system. I see a lot of wasted hunting time.

I think the end result is even more of the hunting gameplay would move to Providenceā€¦ where you are much more likely to have targets in any given system (and often newer, less competent targets to boot due to the NRDS policy welcoming lots of first time null residents).

I suppose I have a personal stake as I reside in Providenceā€¦ Iā€™d prefer some hunters go elsewhere rather than all of them being in my back yard. But I donā€™t see it being good for all of null (or all of eve) either if the result is to concentrate this type of content in one region.

1 Like

Anyone can be or become a hunter, at any time.
Or the inverse, as a a non-hunter.
Its impossible to account for that.

The problems with Local in player NS are:

1 -Existing player intel systems already know whom is friendly, based on community exchange.

2 -The arrival into system is telegraphed in Local while they are in transit, before arrival.
Or, in case of cyno based arrival, as in point 1), you immediately know an enemy force has arrived in system.

3 -That player sov is the ultimate in player control over the game environment without rule restrictions, alongside commensurate capacity to develop that space for greater reward.

4 -ā€œMuch of null-sec is unoccupied for most of the dayā€
The ā€œdayā€ is a relative term in a global environment, and where some players play throughout the night/day.
Any and all player owned space is responsible for its own defence and intel.

5 -Compare the player Sov systems to NPC NS. There, everyone has to deal with bubbles/cynos etc, but without the capacity to develop the systems or ā€œownā€ them. The outstanding issue, is Local. It makes sense in NPC sov, but not in player sov.

It feels like you missed what I was saying.

Iā€™ll try it again. Null sec owners/sov holders will still have intel networks. It will be slower and less completeā€¦ but theyā€™ll still often have warning (even if that warning comes after the first attack on someone in their network).

The issue is the ā€œinvaderā€ or ā€œhunterā€ or ā€œnon localā€ā€¦ whatever you want to call themā€¦ they donā€™t have local intel anymore either. They also donā€™t have a replacement for itā€¦ because their intelligence web is back in their home systems (if they have one).

So the ā€œinvaderā€ have to spend way more time searching for players to attack because their ā€œinvading intelā€ is completely gone with local removed. On the flip side the defenderā€™s intel is only nerfed. So the invader comes out behindā€¦ spending minutes to determine if a system has a potential target instead of knowing immediatelyā€¦ while the defender is only partially nerfed because a cloaked guy at a gate noticed the red coming through on his overview a few systems before and fed that to the intel network for the locals.

I believe the end result is those looking for fights will generally go to systems where they know vulnerable targets will be but might have holes in their intelligence network. Thereā€™s one place that fits that billā€¦ Providence.

I donā€™t think relegating the vast majority of non-political pvp to a single region of null-sec is a great idea. But thatā€™s how this feels like it would go at the moment.

it would be an annoyance for locals in null. It would be a huge detriment to anyone wanting to hunt localsā€¦ aside from Providence.

1 Like

You could just as well find targets in NPC Sov, where Local would be retained.

The issue with player sov, is they should cover their own intel of whom has trespassed into their systems, rather than it being automatic via Local.

1 Like

Which I believe would end up making player sov MORE safe since the invaders would get nerfed MORE since they donā€™t have alternative intel options like the locals do.

If thatā€™s your goalā€¦ fine. But this thread has seemed to indicate that the goal is to make null less safe for residents, not more so.

Aside from Providence of course. Providence with their NRDS setup would be completely screwed.

I think its pretty hard to argue that less intel doesnt directly translate into less safety.

You can hunt is much less system in a given time frame if you have to scan the system to know if there are target to kill. Null is littered with huge system where you canā€™t just pop d-scan and get a full idea.

If you dont want local go to a WH bud

Yes, there are pros/cons on both sides.

Still, as I said, given the nature of intel, its hard to argue that less intel wouldnt mean less safety.

Per my hunting analogy, its a matter of opinion whether there is more equity in that the animals in the forest receive an automatic update on an incoming hunter, or whether the hunter receives an automatic update on potential prey in that forest.

Furthermore:
-Local telegraphs the arrival of an enemy before they even arrive.
-Its stupidly easy just to dock up, even before they arrive.
-Yes, hunters have to reciprocally d-scan extensively to ascertain targets, but inversly, locals must also d-scan to ascertain hostiles unless their org has a gate scout.
-Hostiles can also enter via WHs, which no gate scout will detect.

Imo, the equity is retained sufficiently for both sides by the removal of Local.
Both will have to more actively d-scan and gather intel inorder to achieve their goals.

TLDR:
-For aggressors it becomes harder to find targets.
-For defenders, it becomes harder to detect aggressors.
Equity is served, on both sides.

But that seems like a scenario where neither the hunter or the defender is happierā€¦ so why make the change? If nobody benefits than it seems silly to change it.

Thats a valid point, and one that struck me immediately after posting the above.

I suppose it:
-A Rationalizes the security cascade.
-B Creates more ā€œspaceā€ for emergent content.
-C If nothing else, concretely fixes the outstanding issue that the arrival of a gate transiting potential hostile is telegraphed well in advance of their arrival.
-D Enables attacks from WHs.
-E Forces NS entities to patrol their entry points, or risk surprise hotdrops.

Compromise is often defined as a solution that makes nobody happy.

I dont see that it would harm NS, just change it whilst still maintaining equity for both aggressor and defender.

I guess its kind of like choosing between eating an apple or an orange.
In this case, I think NS would be better off eating the orange.

There is map statistics publicly available about activity of given systems. This gives almost real-time intel to hunters. Donā€™t you think this feature combined with no-local gives hunters too much of upper hand?

A- Since map data is a universal intel, and not sector/system specific, I dont see any reason to remove it from NS. Notably, however, WHs dont have this.

B- As I discussed with the poster above, lack of local would already make it more difficult for hunters to find a potential target in a system, regardless of map stats.

C- Its incumbent on someone running content in an NS system that registers on the map stats, to be aware that they are drawing attention, and thus plan/prepare accordingly.

D- Especially with the impending moon mining changes, I think its more important than ever for NS entities to secure their access points/intel channels, proactively.

E- As this is a PvP based game, I think it is a given that inorder to create circumstances for PVP, the advantage should always slightly favor the aggressor. If it was inverted, and defenders had the advantage, it would not be equitable to engage/initiate non-consensual PVP.

The current system works fine, always has. Nothing to discuss.

might aswell just get rid wormhole space then as well lol

Why?

We are talking about sector mechanics, not removing sectors from EVE.