Because every other argument on either side on “is ratting in null dangerous” will eventually come down to this one statement.
I see 950b in VNI losses almost all from ratting in null as proof that risk exists. (by the way… I love how you cut the fact I was flat out stating that there were non-ratting losses in the list with your long rebuttal and killmail links)
Thousands of ratters are killed every week. Not just the VNI’s either, but the percentage of use for that ship is so strongly weighted toward PvE that it’s a good measure. 9 of the first 10 nullsec losses I looked at had NPC damage.
I think that is evidence that there is enough risk. Others believe it’s not. No amount of data will change their mind… mainly because they’re failing at catching the ratter.
They’re also not providing data other than personal experience that the risk is low. So instead of attacking the evidence of someone who is actually providing data… perhaps those thinking the risk is too low can spend some time gathering evidence to support their view.
I was just warning of being careful with extrapolations of your very limited sample. FFS.
Nor yours it appears. Heck even pointing to methodological flaws does not dissuade you from claiming there is sufficient risk based on partial data and incomplete analysis.
Pointing out the data is insufficient at answering the question is attacking the “evidence” and is not attacking you personally.
Edit:
Just to be clear…
Your sample is limited. It is from what? One day. What happens if you pick just one day when a fleet of 30 or 40 VNIs is welped in a PvP fight? That can skew your sample. Now going through 5 pages of kills to make sure that did not happen is asking a bit much. Another possibility is “seasonality” in the data. You went and looked on day that is in the “middle” of the week. In which case maybe ratting VNI losses are too low relative to the average (or too high maybe). Hence the caution about using your limited sample for such extrapolations.
[T]he systems are too intertwined to touch one without the other.
how about this:
If cloaked: Doesn’t show up in local.
If uncloaked: Shows up in local.
This opens up the possibility to have a stealthy fleet somewhere without it being detectable with vanilla things (probes, local and Dscan).
This would follow
While he is absolutely safe from you, you are absolutely safe from him and hence there’s no reason to whine about him being there.
But: Cyno+Cloaky warp would then possibly need to be reworked. If you had a gating fleet, sure, that’d balance out the removed safety of being able to see cloaked people in local.
So, this would mean that bombers would be the most viable tackling option in such situations. I think this suits their role fairly well.
The planned observatories could then make it possible to see cloaked individials in local and maybe “observed” logged off people who logged off during the last 24-48 hrs(it’s an observatory after all) in some sort of log.
Those observatories could then maybe be hacked via modules and provide the log for enemy fleets as well. The “Covert Ops” frigates would now have the option to live up to their name.
Who’s talking about removing local? Local would still be functioning the way it used to. It even provides more intel to you than before, you just have to utilize it correctly.
This means that the risk/reward aspect is not affected in the way you named it by the suggestion I provided.
Delaying local or hiding cloaked pilots from local(which is stupid, because you are registered to local once you press jump on the other side…) increases risk, so rewards have to be increased too
First of all, it is possible to hide people from local (see the recently exposed local code and the GM hiding algorithm).
Secondly, the risk is not increased because, as the commentators before me already said, a cloaked individual cannot aggress you so you do not run the risk of getting tackled.
Once there is a risk (= somebody decloaks), you see them in local and by knowing that, you effectively gain the security you now see as gone.
But the point is: You’re still as safe as you currently are because you actually know that there’s no threat right now and even if so, you can easily kill it (drones vs. bombers on subcap scale, super/fax umbrella and smarties on capitals).
A cloaky warpy cyno wouldn’t be possible and any other ship besides a bomber has a lock-on delay.
So, unless you were afk ratting, you’d be able to warp out in the same manner as you are currently able to. Elaborate please which risk aversion mechanics you see mitigated.
So you are saying that a cloaky dropper that is not even shown in local, but he can see everyone that is not cloaked is not a threat. lol. Look dude i have nothing agaist you, but this will not work. If you play with local in any form, you have to increase the rewards too.
Yes. In their cloaked state, they are not a threat. But once they decloak, they are and that’s why they should be shown in local once they decloak. They’d have to decloak every once in a while when changing position (dropper = cyno), so even if they were trying to go after you, you would notice.
In fact, you are always aware of all possible threats (a cloaked player cannot harm you whilst cloaked, thus they are not a threat whilst they maintain that state) and the risk you face is always known to you.
With the observatory, you’d even have a tool to know whether there is sb cloaked in system since it could act like a “local bot”, meaning it logged all pilots being present in system. And you aren’t cloaked when you log off, so you would always show up in the log.
Well, you must have missed EvE: Vegas because Falcon (I think it was him) showed that they will come, but far off in the future.
So, what makes you so sure about thinking that local would not be changed?
Related to this:
cptbooniecrab: @CCP_Rise is there a patch planned for fixing cloaky campers like maybe a new probe type to scan them down or a timer on how long you can be cloak its one of the few things in the game that there is no counter to
CCP_Rise: @cptbooniecrab cloaky campers is always a tough question – I think when the structure team gets to working on observatories and other intel focused structures we will reevalute cloaky camping and see if we want to make changes, which means sometime early next year I guess
Well, you are thinking of the current chat issues, but you leave out that we had a transition from one chat backend to another. It’s basically like changing the motor of a car and trying to replace your old engine with a new one which has different guts.
Let me tell you though that this is not related to the change I proposed because it would not require a change in the chat backend but an expansion of the character-hiding algorithm, which is already present in the form of how Game Masters are hidden from chats.
From this it follows that a change of local chat in the manner I suggested would not have the implication you currently fear.
Well, you have to elaborate why you think it is a bad idea This is a debate, you have to provide some foundation you want base your statement on.
The idea I suggested is a priori not causing any implications in regards of the issues you named.
I expect fortified constellations only for ratting and you can be sure they will dock up if someone spots you on the way to their farming place. Hunting ratters will not be a common thing anymore and the forums will be flooded with “BRING BACK LOCAL!!!” topics. What a nice future
But this is already the case today Think of Near3/Taco and intel channels. Where would you see the difference to the future and how would it be linked to the idea I proposed?
This is a debate, you have to provide some foundation you want base your statement on.