@Xuixien I’m sorry you are beeing harrassed in here. Clearly there is no point anylonger to try and discuss anything regarding the current state of eve online.
2 Likes
Yes I understand that perfectly, but I find the fact one player must do nothing but fast tackle is pretty boring and dull. You don’t need to explain to me why interceptors are used, as I said before its braindead obvious. You don’t get intellectual brownie points for obvious posts.
Without local, an enemy would know of you at 14AU out. Instead of the moment you jump gate. Also, a hunter would have no clue how many were in system with him. Again causing people to spend more time in space. I’m starting to wonder if you’ve once put thought in to why there are so many ‘waaah AFK cloaker’ threads.
Then I’m confused. Do you expect the target carrier or Rattlesnake to just sit in a Haven with his thumb up his ass while you burn slow battleships there?
Wrong. Plop a cheap citadel on each gate with an alt and you have a nice warning system. Or just park a capsule on the gate, give him a bounty, and go rat until you get a bounty notification.
Ironically, removing local would hurt AFK camping more than the ratters. AFK camping is meant to instill the fear of being hotdropped and not knowing whether the dude in local is AFK, or is secretly following you around in a cyno Tengu, waiting for you to slip up even a tiny bit, so that he can call in the cavalry. You see the red name in local, and you weigh the risk of ratting while he’s there. Do you rat and hope he’s AFK, or do you play PUBG and hope he gets bored and leaves?
2 Likes
Which is all a product of people developing their sandcastles, not an inherent flaw in the game that can be fixed by tampering with stats or what have you. No matter what CCP implement, people will find ways to circumvent it and you will be left with the dame status quo of large organisations defending their fields competently. The only difference would be that the game would be less wieldy, and then what?
Hahaha. Removing local would hurt AFK camping in the sense it wouldn’t be necessary anymore. I suppose the diehard afkers might be annoyed about losing local, if they exist.
Both placing citadels or pods serve as ways to generate content, or at least get more activity in space. I fail to see the issue here.
Wrong. AFK camping is a passive activity that requires you to be visible that strategically denies your opponent the use of his space. Think of it as a non-hidden camera at an intersection. Sure, it could be just for accidents / “smart lights” and not a speeding camera, but are you willing to take that chance?
Not in nullsec, no.
Interesting definition of “content”.
[quote=“Nolak_Ataru, post:144, topic:9488”]
It seems like a non-sequitur because you don’t really know what you’re talking about.[/quote]
And neither do you. LOL
I’ll acknowledge it when you can post an actual, intellectual-level post about it, instead of stupid reddit memey things like “your argument is ‘:becausereasons:’”
It’s basically a delayed chat at that point. You only show up if you talk.
Well at least we wouldn’t have to hear people whining about it anymore amirite.
1 Like
You took the time to look up my KB, but sadly you didn’t use that time to read the thread. I suggest you go do that. 
Yes. I don’t know what I’m talking about in regards to nullsec and hunting despite living in nullsec for the better part of 4 years, having been in GSF, TEST, and Black Legion, having owned and lost multiple ratting carriers and owned a supercarrier, having dropped my suicide fax on multiple tackled friendly carriers and supercarriers, and having spent countless hours discussing nullsec hunting/killing, ratting, and sov warfare. Please do continue to lecture to me like I’m some highsec carebear.
Removing local, if anything, hurts hunter/killers (which I note you are not) more than it hurts any ratters in a competent alliance, for three simple reasons:
- It becomes much harder for the HK to determine if a system is worth your time to scan down a target and tackle it.
- It becomes much harder for the HK / FC to weigh the risk/reward ratio if he wants to see if there’s a large number of active, docked players in a given constellation/region. The greater the number of players, the greater the risk of Triage being dropped, let alone hostile DPS carriers/supercarriers.
- Intel channels are still a thing, and will continue to be used. Instead of glancing at local, you’ll glance at your other screen (or use other methods that are not cache scraping) or your staggered window to look at the name of the hostile that just decloaked on the gate. One autolink later, and the entire region knows that Derpy McDerpface just entered VFK in a Claw ten seconds ago.
Here’s the part where you bury your head in the sand, pick out a single hyperbole that I wrote, and attack that in a strawman argument.
3 Likes
No, you don’t know what I’m talking about. I suggested altering Local to make ratting/mining more dangerous and you went on and on about how that won’t get alliances to “slug it out”, even though I never even mentioned alliance warfare, and a buncha other red herring/straw men things. Trololol.
So it’s either: “Remove Local so I can rek noobs” or “keep Local so I can rek noobs”. It’s either “you just want to remove Local so you can get easier kills” or “keep Local so I can get easier kills”.
Which is it people??? 
Wait so you’re saying I was right when I said it would make things riskier for both residents and roamers? Thanks!
Exactly! Active intel > passive intel.
You clearly didn’t read my post because I stopped talking about actual sov warfare and exclusively discussed hunting and killing ratters.
Please discuss the actual argument instead of one you made up in your mind. Nowhere did I express an opinion that local ought to be removed.
I said it’d be riskier for roamers and SAFER for residents. Please read everything I say as I am giving you the same courtesy.
Yeah, after I corrected you.
You just go on back and reread the thread. We got people saying “you just want Local removed so you can kill people easier” (you were one of those people, with your trolling comments about “super kills delivered on a platter” and “pay me 50bil and I’ll teach you how to HK”) and now you’re saying “removing Local would hurt hunting and roaming”. A herpaderpadoo.
I am, maybe you should try remembering what you’ve said.
You talked about introducing an ISK/material sink. As I pointed out, there’s no greater ISK/material sink in the game than that of two alliances in a full war.
Actually none of that is contradictory. I stated that you want local removed because you want easier kills. I didn’t say that removing local would actually get you easier kills. Look at this statement:
“I want to be better at PVP, so I bought myself a 200m SP PVP character.” The act of buying and using the character does not magically make you better at PVP as that’s more related to player skill than raw SP amount. You want X to occur, so you do Y, despite not knowing that Y does not lead to X.
1 Like
Cool dude! Feel free to start a thread about generating conflict and war then. 
And I’ve stated, repeatedly, that no, I don’t want Local modified so I can get easier kills, I want Local modified to bring the game to a healthier place.
“Please read everything I say as I am giving you the same courtesy.”. Top. Kek.
Maybe, IDK, if you wanted to have an actual discussion, like you seem to be maybe somewhat trying to do, you shouldn’t have opened up with some trolly nonsense. Kinda comin’ back to haunt you now. 
Yes because directly quoting someone is somehow a straw man, LOL
This thread has made my week. Thank you, @Xuixien. Am I still “blocked”?
As I said before, I’m the one who never gives up. So let’s try yet again! Let’s see if you can read my post through your “magical” block.
Maybe somebody that isn’t a null carebear like our illustrious OP and has actually some backbone could answer me.
Does removing local from null would make it easier to find fights and kill ratters/miners?
1 Like
Yet you have no proof, argument, evidence, hypothesis, or theory that it would do that. If you want to shitpost, Kugu is now open.
You were attacking a mis-construed or mis-represented argument of mine and acted like it was the actual discussion. What you’re now doing is an Ad Hominem fallacy where you attack me instead of my argument.
In a perfect world, yes. However, EVE is not a perfect world, so it would not.
1 Like
Thank you, Nolak. I mean no offense, but that was obvious.
Now, I’d love to hear our brave protagonist answer that.
And yet you have no proof, argument, evidence, hypothesis, or theory that removing Local would make NullSec safer for residents. If you want to shitpost, reddit is now open.
See I can do that too.
Yeah, an ad hominem, just like you did when you said “You just want Local removed so you can get easier kills”? Isn’t that also a straw man, as well as an appeal to motive? Pot, kettle, black?
Anyhow, I’ve given you enough chances so far, you’re clearly either a troll or just a hypocrite, and now I have to block you as you’re disrupting that actual discussion and just dragging it down to personal attacks and mudslinging. Buhbye!