Whether Local exists or not, a carrier or other high value target should never fly without support/precautions. Nor for any other hull as to its need for support/precautions compared to its asset value.
The notion of solo carrier ratting is valid, but only when there is latent/nigh immediate support available even when deep in player sov far behind the front-lines.
In EVE, the value of an asset is directly in proportion to its risk when flown without support/precautions, The higher the value, the higher the risk, and the more precautions/support necessary to ensure that asset.
Removal of Local does not remove any of the above principles in Player Sov.
It merely enforces them.
Carriers dont âneedâ Local to rat in Player Sov.
What they do need, regardless of existence of Local, is support/precautions.
Removing Local does not change that.
First you say I said âyou canât predict changeâ (and refuse to link where I said it, because you canât, because I never have), then quote me making a predictionâŚ
Like I said, lets see what no local would look like in real time, on TQ. Talk to CCP (there are various ways to do this, run for and get elected to the csm, attend eve events and talk to devs, organize via in game events and things like this forum and reddit etc). Get them to do it. I want nothing more than to see it happen, because apparently thatâs the only way you can learn.
Ive been formally educated in critical thinking. Have you?
Nor am I alone in the view Local should be removed from NS. Its not just me.
Love how you post dumped concurrent, within seconds, of Jen.
As I said earlier. Alt detected.
Yes, you have, as referring to Jen, and claiming the rest are wrong based on lack of critical thinking skills, as set out before. You cant have it both ways.
Your post dumps have occurred largely congruent, within minutes, usually seconds, of Jens.
A) Hunters need advantage in EVE, or there is no incentive to initiate non-consensual PvP.
B) Map statistics are distinct from Local. Local tells you who is in the system. Map tells you what has happened in that system.
C) Hunters already see if there has been PvE activity in a system. There is PvE activity arguably in all systems. PvE activity in association with mining is tiny.
D) Hunters dont look at PvE activity levels primarily, they look at Map data on gate use/players active in system.
E) The need for d-scan use by non-PvP pilots in a system in the absence of Local, is matched by the need for d-scan use by hunters to establish their presence/location. Its +1-1=0. Furthermore hunters may need to use combat probes to further localize a potential target, whereas a local can instead rely solely on d-scan.
F) Local currently telegraphs the arrival of a non-friendly whilst they are still in transit to the system, allowing for ample time to initiate a warp to a safe before the hunter even arrives in-system. This is a huge disadvantage to hunters currently.
G) Even with Local, hunters STILL have to d-scan to find targets in the system. Local doesnt tell the hunter where the potential target is. Whereas potential targets in that system dont. They can just initiate warp to safe the 1-2secs the incoming unknowns gate transit is initiated and reported automatically to Local.
H) Even in the case of a WH- arrival, potential targets in the system dont have to d-scan. They see that an unknown arrived, automatically.
TLDR: The d-scan issue is nonsense. With Local, potential targets dont have to d-scan at all, ever Local datai forms them automatically, for free and with no effort. Hunters ALWAYS have to d-scan to find targets, whether Local exists, or not.
Iâll give you the full guide on why it wonât work.
PVE players want to make the most ISK with the least amount of effort.
This implies if you increase the effort too much in a certain area, they will have a high chance of moving to another area, some will stay, most will not.
Removing local means that smaller entities will not be able to operate, as they cannot defend themselves from bigger groups, and the members receive no warning that they are about to be attacked.
2 and 3 implies they will either (i) try to stay in their SOV and lose members who are tired of dying, (ii) Join a large alliance, (iii) move to low sec or high sec. All 3 scenarios favour the big groups and kill off the small groups, and (iii) simply implies less players in null sec.
I havenât had to do any mental gymnastics to make this point. Each point follows from the last and there is your outcome. Players move into the largest alliances, those large alliances kill off the small alliances by overfishing, and less players will be in null as a result and null will be about as stale as it can get.
Fine. So what. Most players do, whether they are PvE based or not.
Pressing d-scan every so often is not a significant effort.
They will receive as much warning as anyone else. Nobody has Local in Player Sov, if its removed. The costs/effort of maintaining player-based intel remain exactly the same for everyone post-change.
There you go with âimpliesâ again.
It wont cost a larger org anymore than a smaller one to defend their space, per system, than now.
The cost to watch the gates is the same for a large org, as a small one.
The less space, the less gates to watch.
As to WH interlopers, a large org will be just as unaware of their arrival as a small one, regardless of watching gates.
And here comes all the terrible, illogical counterarguments that have totally missed the point. I thought you had critical thinking skills, again just showing that you canât acknowledge anything that hurts your argument.
Iâm not engaging someone that wonât acknowledge they might be wrong. No matter how much people try to show you that you could be wrong, youâll never admit it.
I gave you watertight reasoning and you are still trying to argue the toss. just â â â â off
I think I get it now. When you say something would suck, you really mean that it would be harder to do donât you? I fully agree in that respect, only difference is Iâm well up for it.
Dscan. Both the Cynabal and Stiletto show on dscan, so you could have noticed them approaching / entering system like that. Additionally your intel network could have clocked them using in space tools such as Dscan rather than local and given you essentially the same result, just with player action instead of local chat. Dscan gives less reaction time I admit, but all that would take is a change of strategy. You must admit, the attackers would have to use Dscan to find you also and would have to use Dscan to check every system they went through to get to you. Itâs more challenging for everyone and I think many people would enjoy the new tactical depth that removal of local would provide.
That literally explains whatâs wrong with Nulsec. Why is Nulsec the easiest place to make ISK? Because the risk vs reward balance is screwed.
Will you acknowledge here that you might be wrong, so that I might better engage with you?
