Delay Local

[Dracvlad]

@Lena_Crews You certainly get it. Spot on analysis.

[Kobran_Ruthless_Vaidrich]

@Lena_Crews

I think you’re wrong.

The problem with removing or harming local is that it it benefits the large, well organized, well funded power-blocks.

So the “soft targets” that most hunters prey on will either join those powerblocks and be protected… or leave. The smaller, more vulnerable or less organized groups will be forced out because they don’t have the resources and numbers. And the reality is that those groups provide the targets in null sec.

The reality is that finding targets in the pre-PL invasion Providence is something that would be easier then making your way into Delve and fining killable targets even with a delayed local or no local at all. But without local, all PVE targets will be in protected places like Delve.

This is actually an argument I made a long time ago and may even be in this thread, or the “remove local from null” thread.

But remember the person I’m replying to doesn’t listen to anything I say so I’m not wasting more than 1 sentence on an explanation that will be ignored anyway.

[Teckos_Pech]

@Mingja

Ofc, supers have that enormous price tag, but it’s evident that VNI’s die a lot more than Supers I believe. I would say they are pretty safe.

Don’t forget a cyno. A super with a cyno and in the standing fleet that has active players in it is in less danger. Pop the cyno and in comes the calvary.

@Mingja

No, not at all. What I am saying is that both sides have to have a chance at victory (either by killing or by escaping) and that, since the odds are so hugely stacked against the PvE ship in an actual fight, escaping should be a reliable and relatively easy tactic.

And therein lies the problem of delayed local in NS. Since effective PvE usually means using a less than capable PvP ship. Thus delaying local makes escape a less successful option than with instant local. So the loss of information is the about the same for both the hunter and the PvE players, but the effect on behavior is asymmetrical. Delaying local helps the hunter, but hinders the PvE players ability to escape. This view is inherent in just about every single post by Salvos on this topic. Thus his claim of equity are misleading.

In fact, I agree with Ag3nt Jita that it could end up hindering the hunter. With such uncertainty there could be fewer PvE targets making hunnting such players less likely to be successful. It is not unlike hunting say deer. Then there is a change in the local environment and the deer either die off or leave. You can still go deer hunting, but your chances of success have gone way down.

People do not like uncertainty for the most part. Uncertainty is different than risk. Risk you can understand and mitigate. Uncertainty you don’t know and thus mitigation is much harder. Think of it this way, if we were to play a game where I rolled a 6 sided die and if it comes up a 6 you win. If it comes up a 1 I win. That game entails risk. You know the process. Now suppose we change the game. But now you don’t know how many sides the die has. Now there is uncertainty in that you cannot really make any probabilistic statements ex ante.

And some NS groups may be good at transforming uncertainty into risk. With a good cohesive culture they could develop a response to the increased uncertainty that lets the individual players feel like it is less of a problem. Yes I am talking about groups like Goons, PL, and such. If you have a cap ship umbrella then that uncertainty will matter less. So Goons, PL, etc. could see an advantage via this change. It is one thing to obtain an advantage via player effort, but quite another to get an advantage via dev fiat.

@Salvos_Rhoska

Its only afkers/bots/idiots you are catching.

So? Not catching the smart players is a good outcome from the overall health of the game. Working correctly.

@Salvos_Rhoska

Should good hunters not be capable of catching good prey?

Is that your argument?

Predators usually cull out the young, old, weak and sick. IG that would be the guy not in the standing fleet or the guy semi-AFK, or the guy who forgot to check the intel channel, etc. this is good. Those players are “doing it wrong” and suffer the consequences of their errors (and hopefully learn a lesson) and those “doing it right” enjoy greater rewards. That is balance.

Delaying local will upset this current situation. So that what was once “doing it right” no longer is “doing it right”. You will likely have fewer people “doing it right” in the new environment AND they will still escape. Those “doing it wrong” who cannot adapt will leave. So your argument fails.

Edit: typos

[Dracvlad]

Totally spot on analysis, hopefully Salvos will stop trolling this, but somehow I doubt it.

[Teckos_Pech]

I will offer congratulations to Salvos on one point. He has managed to unite several people who were locked in a sort of forever war in the AFK cloaking thread. That is an impressive accomplishment.

[March_rabbit]

@Salvos_Rhoska

@March_rabbit

what about non-sov 0.0 space?

20 seconds.
Also stated earlier in thread.

---

To save you the trouble:

HS: Instant Local intel.
LS: 10s delay on Local intel.
NPC NS: 20s delay on Local intel.
Player NS: 30 delay on Local intel.
WH: No Local intel.

You don’t like to (or cannot?) answer all given questions and pick one each time? What is it? Trying to make me forget what i was asking?

@March_rabbit

duration (30 seconds).

Questions are still unanswered. To make it clearer: why these numbers and not 2x or 50% of these values? Why NPC NS > LS and NPC NS < Player NS?

[Loki_Orkund]

@Mingja

@Loki_Orkund

But that’s a major factor isn’t it? How much boring effort are you putting in to make your farming safe? In 0.0, it’s almost zero.

Well… no. 0.0 has to be made safe and it’s not inherently safe.

You get 30+ seconds notification of any non-blue in your system. That’s what I mean by inherently safe.

It is rather safe because of the alliance power that sits in there.

… the alliance which gets most of its power from the grossly excessive reward/risk ratio in 0.0. Not to mention the bad game design which allows huge alliances to dominate for a decade or two…

What I am saying is that both sides have to have a chance at victory (either by killing or by escaping) and that, since the odds are so hugely stacked against the PvE ship in an actual fight, escaping should be a reliable and relatively easy tactic.

It’s contrary to the core most basic design principle of Eve but your opinion is not inherently wrong in game design. And you’ve come across as honest enough that I’m happy to call it a legitimate viewpoint.

But I will insist you are consistent. So you’ll be campaigning for return of Local in W-space, right?

It’s just up to you. If you are dissatisfied, you have all the tools in the world to do something against it.

Kinda need a whole battlefleet first…

It also happens all the time as ships die each and every day in 0.0.

True in HS too.

Sorry, but saying it’s inherently safe is just dishonest.

No, just a different definition of safe. You are completely safe from ganking because you get a permently onscreen 30+s warning of any non-blues.

There are days where you can not undock in PvE-Ships because everything is full of hostiles etc.

Same everywhere but HS.

and there are days where you have to spent 7+ hours in fleets.

At least that’s interesting. If you don’t like it, find a corp in LS or W-space.

[Ivan_Bloodguard]

Mess with local all you want. Predators will continue putting as much effort possible into getting kills, and prey will continue putting as little effort possible into staying safe. Juicy targets will keep popping, and tears will keep flowing.

[Mingja]

@Salvos_Rhoska

What you dont accept/understand/recognize, is that Instant Local Intel currently advantages the guy earning isk/minerals, at the deficit of the hunter trying to kill the PvE guy.

With a 30s delay on Local Intel in Player NS, that is naturalized, so that each have equity in chances to either hunt or PvE.

and what you don’t understand is that the PvE Guy is at a severe disadvantage should it come to a fight. His advantage is easy escape, Hunter’s advantage is an easy kill if he catches a target.

Now, remove the chance to escape and you have what exactly? Easy Kills without chance to escape ← how would THAT be fair?

What you are asking for is to severely hamstring the ability to escape for the target for no reason at all, both sides have their advantage at the moment and the hunter really shouldn’t get any more on top. If you think otherwise, argument why you feel it’s necessary that hunters have an easier time.

Cause what? 0.0 is save? Well, look at empyrical evidence and you’ll realize that is simply not true.

[Mingja]

@Loki_Orkund

You get 30+ seconds notification of any non-blue in your system. That’s what I mean by inherently safe.

Which is exxagerated. A ceptor/sabre can cross vast distances quite fast. You can catch a VNI if you have a basic understanding of how the anomalies are run. It happens all day. 30 seconds might not be enough too cause some ships really DO need 25+ and upwards.

Also, what you are describing is a help. Local doesn’t protect you from getting ganked. Local doesn’t prevent you from ganks. Local doesn’t prevent your system from getting sieged and it doesn’t prevent your stations from getting shot at.

Saying this help makes the space inherently safe is a bad argument. Sorry. Local gives you the option to escape when your hardly suited PvE ship is endangered by superior fitted ships and tactics in PvP.

Inherently safe would mean that you don’t have to worry, when in fact: you have to worry all the time.

It is also easy to shut down PvE and as much as you probably don’t like that, you can kill billions of isk with just one character. It just doesn’t produce the killmails, but camping a system when shutting down 3 supers is a billion isk per hour you “destroy”.

You just need to pose a signifcant threat for that and that is easy enough to do.

@Loki_Orkund

It’s contrary to the core most basic design principle of Eve but your opinion is not inherently wrong in game design.

sorry, but: WHAT?!

Engaging in fights you can win while avoiding fights you can not win is the kings discipline in EvE online for anything, really. It applies to solo, small gang and large fleet PvP. Why should this be a wrong tactic for PvE players when they are forced into PvP?

I mean, I don’t like good fight pickers because they “deny” me fights most of the time, but that is just part of the game. A core part of the game.

@Loki_Orkund

So you’ll be campaigning for return of Local in W-space, right?

I would campaign for a reward ratio that keeps W-Space and Null-Space balanced, with all things considered. That doesn’t include W-Space local by default, but hell - if it’s necessary, sure.

@Loki_Orkund

You are completely safe from ganking because you get a permently onscreen 30+s warning of any non-blues.

Again, not a really honest example. In worst case, you are looking at below 10 seconds. In best case, you have minutes of warning (which is needed with stuff like a rorqual). Then again, Local doesn’t prevent your stations from being shot and being forced to PvP.

If local would make you perfectly safe, you would never ever have to warp out. Yes, local does make it easy to escape but it should be easy to escape to begin with. PvE can be shut down without a single gun fired.

@Loki_Orkund

Kinda need a whole battlefleet first…

That is an Interesting argument. Why would you NOT need a fleet when your opponent needs numbers and ships too? If I would argue your way, I would say “well, then stop complaining about stuff you could change yourself”.

Yes, you need to up your game if you want to be a consistent threat for 0.0 dwellers. Guess what, that’s what you are supposed to do. After all, they’ve “Upped” their game by building an alliance that can defend the space and make it safe enough to live there constantly.

@Loki_Orkund

At least that’s interesting. If you don’t like it, find a corp in LS or W-space.

Well, how about you start to account for that in your “vastly exxagerated isk vs reward ratio” instead? I earn 150mil per hour and char, now take that and divide it by 2 for the time I spent not running them because of fleets necessary to protect the space?

Oops, I think I should go back to run incursions in highsec. Truth is: I enjoy that less. F*ck the better rewards there. Well, accounting for all things, they are probably as good there.

[Loki_Orkund]

@Mingja

Inherently safe would mean that you don’t have to worry, when in fact: you have to worry all the time.

That’s your definition. It’s not mine. I’ve been extremely clear about what I mean.

sorry, but: WHAT?!

Eve is designed around non-consensual PvP. I don’t think that’s going to change no matter how much you or I argue against it.

I would campaign for a reward ratio that keeps W-Space and Null-Space balanced, with all things considered. That doesn’t include W-Space local by default, but hell - if it’s necessary, sure.

Agree and even with Local, W-space would still lack:

1. The good moon goo.
2. Asset safety.
3. Always-available high ISK content with dumb AI.
4. Easy access to trade hubs.

And they’d still have to spend a vast amount of time doing tedious scanning and rolling.

For this, they:

1. Are harder to hunt by other corps.
2. Don’t have to counter supers or cynos.
3. Can roll holes for more safety.

Sounds pretty balanced to me. Both would need same access to Triglavian deadspace though.

And the disparity for Lowsec is far greater.

[Salvos_Rhoska]

@Lena_Crews

So the “soft targets” that most hunters prey on will either join those powerblocks and be protected… or leave. The smaller, more vulnerable or less organized groups will be forced out because they don’t have the resources and numbers. And the reality is that those groups provide the targets in null sec.

That’s a valid rebuttal.
Whether that possible result is good or bad for the game, is a matter of opinion.

Nonetheless, the original point, was that it would result in people leaving Player NS, is another matter altogether, and one I do not think a likely outcome.

[Mingja]

@Loki_Orkund

That’s your definition. It’s not mine. I’ve been extremely clear about what I mean.

So your definition is: “You can run away with some ships in most cases, so it’s safe”… Urm?

@Loki_Orkund

Eve is designed around non-consensual PvP. I don’t think that’s going to change no matter how much you or I argue against it.

Non-Consensual doesn’t mean “you can’t run away”. Non-Consensual means that others could force you into PvP and that’s not mutually exclusive. Infact, you could force the “perfectly safe” nullbears into PvP all day, every day. Provided you would be willing to put in the effort. You just choose to not bother with the effort needed.

@Loki_Orkund

Agree and even with Local, W-space would still lack:

The good moon goo.
Asset safety.
Always-available high ISK content with dumb AI.
Easy access to trade hubs.

And they’d still have to spend a vast amount of time doing tedious scanning and rolling.

For this, they:

Are harder to hunt by other corps.
Don’t have to counter supers or cynos.
Can roll holes for more safety.

Sounds pretty balanced to me. Both would need same access to Triglavian deadspace though.

And the disparity for Lowsec is far greater.

I don’t know enough about wormholes to assess the WH’s. In Lowsec however => sorry, but the Space offers quite good ISK/HR if you make it work. It’s not Nullsecs fault that players don’t manage to do what big alliances have already done in null.

[Salvos_Rhoska]

@Mingja

If you think otherwise, argument why you feel it’s necessary that hunters have an easier time.

Delayed Local, simply delays Local intel.
The mechanic works exactly the same as now, except it is delayed, and provides Local intel to everyone, simultaneously, once the delay has expired.

There is no rule that says a single PvEr should be able to escape, especially if they are not taking precautions, and even more especially if they are operating without corp/alliance support.

---

In EVE, as a PvP based game, the advantage should always be on the side of the player trying to initiate non-consensual PvP.

The less of an advantage they have to do so, the less PvP will occur.
That is bad.

Ofc this advantage has to be tempered with the reality that EVE also requires PvE to provide isk/materials/enjoyment for players too.

---

Your view seems to be that an equally aware/prepared PvEr should always escape an equally aware/prepared PvPer.

I dont agree with that view.

[Salvos_Rhoska]

@March_rabbit

Questions are still unanswered. To make it clearer: why these numbers and not 2x or 50% of these values? Why NPC NS > LS and NPC NS < Player NS?

I chose those numbers because they are relatively small, scale rationally and follow the sector security cascade from HS—> WHs.

Player NS and NPC NS are differentiated in the delay, because NPC NS is more limited as to player control of it and has smaller rewards.

The duration of the delay is up for discussion.
Those are just ones I found to be reasonable as implementing delay, but not so much that if would make Local intel irrelevant for too long.

PS: Sorry, didnt deliberately overlook the question.

[Mingja]

@Salvos_Rhoska

Your view seems to be that an equally aware/prepared PvEr should always escape an equally aware/prepared PvPer.

I dont agree with that view.

If you can’t win a fight because you are being forced into subpar ships for the task, you should have the option to run away from said fight, yes. This would simply not be the case with delayed local. It already is problematic for certain ships and the relatively known tactic called “login trap”.

But it’s nice to see you agreeing on your obvious Agenda: you want more easy targets and you are not even concerned with the reality in the game. I’ve been patient long enough, so I’ll enjoy your tears of a bad hunter from now on. I have a jar for them in Jita.

[Salvos_Rhoska]

@Mingja

If you can’t win a fight because you are being forced into subpar ships for the task, you should have the option to run away from said fight, yes.

Delayed Local has no effect on PvP mechanics between ships of type/fit x or y.

You are confusing a PvP engagement, with intel that may or may not lead to one.

If you dont take precautions as a PvEr, I dont think you should be able to readily escape an aggressor that manages to find you and hold you down long enough to destroy you, and whom has sufficient firepower to do so.

You seem to think you should be able to escape, in a subpar ship, as you state.
In dont agree at all.
If you arent taking precautions against potential PvP, precautions of many possible forms, you do not deserve to escape.

---

Login traps are a valid (if a bit stupid) tactic.
Its up to you to know how many enemies may potentially be waiting to login on your position/system, and immediate Local intel wont help you for that either, as you wont get any warning till they log in, and its already too late.

---

@Mingja

But it’s nice to see you agreeing on your obvious Agenda: you want more easy targets and you are not even concerned with the reality in the game.

Its not my Agenda, its EVEs basic, fundamental premise.

You are accusing me of wanting to make “hunting easier.”
I can just as well accuse you of wanting to keep “PvEing easier”.

@Mingja

I’ll enjoy your tears of a bad hunter from now on. I have a jar for them in Jita.

You will never get a single tear from me.

[Mingja]

@Salvos_Rhoska

Delayed Local has no effect on PvP mechanics between ships of type/fit x or y.

I haven’t said that to begin with. I’ve just said that the Hunter is already at an advantage because of different requirements for PvP and PvE. Hard to understand, but maybe you could try to.

@Salvos_Rhoska

If you dont take precautions as a PvEr, I dont think you should be able to readily escape an aggressor that manages to find you and hold you down long enough to destroy you, and whom has sufficient firepower to do so.

the precaution is to warp away when you see hostiles.

@Salvos_Rhoska

You seem to think you should be able to escape, in a subpar ship, as you state.

Correction: You should be able to escape because PvE requires subar fits. Thanks to the PvE fit, you are at a severe disadvantage to the hunter. Yes, you should have the option to escape such a situation. Since escaping is usually not possible once the hunter is on the grid, you need to warp off before that happens.

A cut in time to warp off is equivalent to making it easier for the hunter. That’s the gravity of the change you suggest.

@Salvos_Rhoska

You are accusing me of wanting to make “hunting easier.”

I can just as well accuse you of wanting to keep “PvEing easier”.

I want to keep the status quo, as it seems fair to me. A hunter can kill a PvE’er if he makes mistakes. If he doesn’t make mistakes, PvE player suffers losses in opportunity costs.

You want it easier than it is already. I want to keep it the way it is. Now, who is asking for a change to benefit himself?

Oh, that would be you.

@Salvos_Rhoska

You will never get a single tear from me.

Well…

[Salvos_Rhoska]

@Mingja

I’ve just said that the Hunter is already at an advantage because of different requirements for PvP and PvE.

You are confusing PvP fits with PvE fits.

@Mingja

the precaution is to warp away when you see hostiles.

If that is all you are doing, thanks to immediate Local intel, you are not taking effort for sufficient precautions.

@Mingja

You should be able to escape because PvE requires subar fits. Thanks to the PvE fit, you are at a severe disadvantage to the hunter. Yes, you should have the option to escape such a situation.

Post-delay to Local intel, you will still be able to warp off.
However if you are already PvEing in NS with no corp/alliance support, and no intel networks, and other precautions specific to “safely” PvEing regarding your fit and actions, you do not deserve to escape.

@Mingja

A cut in time to warp off is equivalent to making it easier for the hunter.

The hunter suffers the same loss in time in detecting whether you are in the system, with delayed Local.

@Mingja

A hunter can kill a PvE’er if he makes mistakes.

This, again, is false, and I strongly disagree with.

A successful PvP action against a PvEr should not depend on the PvEr making a mistake.

If anything, it should depend on the PvPer making the mistakes.

@Mingja

You want it easier than it is already.

You want it to stay as easy as it is for you, now.

[Mingja]

@Salvos_Rhoska

You are confusing PvP fits with PvE fits.

I most certainly do not, nope.

@Salvos_Rhoska

If that is all you are doing, thanks to immediate Local intel, you are not taking effort for sufficient precautions.

That might even be true, I just don’t feel that a change that positively impacts the hunter while negatively affecting the prey is a good change.

@Salvos_Rhoska

Post-delay to Local intel, you will still be able to warp off.

Just that I will have less time for it, making it easier for you.

@Salvos_Rhoska

The hunter suffers the same loss in time in detecting whether you are in the system, with delayed Local.

Never said anything else. Ofc the hunter suffers the same time, just that it’s not the point. The impact of such a change is the point, and that discussion is not about whether the local is provided for everyone at the same time.

If you said that “PvE will happen in non-public” places and will not be warpable for everyone without scanning" along with the local delay, then well => go for it, really. But such a change would be a bad one for the game.

@Salvos_Rhoska

A successful PvP action against a PvEr should not depend on the PvEr making a mistake.

What other metric do we have? Brought the proper ship for the job? Well, that’s not fair cause the fits are heavily influenced by the PvE-Demands to it. Counter fitting is what people do already (just that counter fit means “almost every PvP-Fit”).

Effort put in? Cause warping to an anomaly is hard for the hunter and Scram + F1 is difficult for the Hunter? Don’t be ridiculous. Provide other metrics please.