These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

PSA Null is safer than High Sec

Author
Salvos Rhoska
#61 - 2017-02-08 18:07:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Scialt wrote:

1. Of course. But I think removing local would make the fact I'm outnumbered more damaging to my operations. Don't get me wrong... I'd adapt... but it feels like in the end I'd be getting the short end compared to them... because they have numbers in their home system so some of which can be scouting for intruders while others do whatever they're doing.

As solo, you will always get the short stick. They own the space, they live there. But without Local ID, they have to d-scan and probe just as hard as you. This equalizes the situation, in your favor, as compared to Local ID.

2. That's good. I understand that if I was looking to gank someone instead of steal their stuff that would be a bad thing... but for me them running for their stations lets me pass on to the next system looking for a clear local easier. I love that behavior.

Im not sure what you mean with this.


3. True... but the organized alliances will have people/alts d-scanning and probing periodically. Their intel channels would be updated with ship types and location as new locals entered so they know what ships are supposed to be there. Will it be more effective than local? Of course not... but it will be better than what I can manage solo and thus they'll lose much less due to losing local than I will.

They would have to actively do so, instead of relying on free automatic Local ID intel. This may not mean much to you, but to them it means constant active effort. The advantage to you, is if they arent doing it, and dont have Local ID, you are undetected.


4. I'm using wormholes as entrances into null... so where I end up is pretty random.

Understood. But, again, you as a solo player interloping on any non-CONCORD space, will always be disadvantaged, numerically. My point was that if Local ID was removed from Player Sov, and you felt that didnt match your risk assessment, ypu could instead participate in NPC Sov, where Local ID would still persist.


I could see organized small fleets (such as the wormhole raiders) doing well with no local. Particularly in the parts of null that aren't mostly single alliance (say like Providence). But overall by taking away "easy" intel like local, you make it so the groups that can get intel through more difficult methods have an advantage.

It would mean intel requires effort, which is the gap in Player Sov vs NPC Sov. If a system is owned by a Player entity, should they also not do their own work to provide intel upon it? Especially since they can develop that system, whereas NPC Sov cannot?
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
#62 - 2017-02-08 21:04:16 UTC
Feels like I'm not getting my point across well.

All that I'm saying is that by making intel harder to gather (which is what removing local does), you make it so that a group with resources to spend on gathering intel will be hurt less than those who don't have those resources.

Yes, this will make it harder for null sec locals to know what's going on. But the difficulty for small gang/solo interlopers will be even greater.

Local is "free" intel. It's passive. You don't have a to work for it.

All other intel about who's in the system and what they're doing takes resources to gather. Specifically... effort from players. And those with more players will be able to gather that intel easier than those with fewer.

You seem to be focused on the sov-holders. Yes, this will make it harder for them... but it will be easier for them than for small groups and solo players. And in the end if you nerf me a lot and you nerf the other guy a little... you're essentially buffing the other guy.
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#63 - 2017-02-08 21:16:41 UTC
Torin Corax wrote:
For the most part, the more dangerous an area is perceived to be, the more careful people are likely to be in that area. Subsequently (with some exceptions) those that live in Null are safer because they are less complacent about their safety.

Far too many High sec dwellers simply refuse to take the most basic of precautions, subsequently they make pathetically easy targets for those that know how to play the game.

If you take a reasonable degree of personal responsibility for your own safety in high sec, you are damn near untouchable.


Finally somebody realizes that people play differently in different parts of the game and the idiotic comparisons most people do with various statistics are indeed idiotic.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#64 - 2017-02-08 21:35:11 UTC
Elmund Egivand wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Someone with that name should know better than to be a pathetic troll.

However, as usual - if you think this is true, jump in a ship and autopilot from highsec to nullsec. I'm sure you'll be fine once you hit null.


Is it ever safe to autopilot anywhere at all?


Yes, I've done it recently in HS. I use a noob ship or a shuttle when I do it. If I lose the ship...well it is just a shuttle or noob ship. I rarely if ever have an issue getting from point A to point B in HS.

This false claim that HS is some sort of blood bath is spread by the mendacious. If you are imprudent in HS yes, you will likely run into trouble sooner or later. But if you are prudent it will be later or never. Everyone whining about HS not being safe are players who were either caught being imprudent and/or don't like putting for the effort.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#65 - 2017-02-08 21:36:51 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Remove Local from Player Sov, and watch the dynamics correct themselves overnight.
This is the single, simple, obvious solution, and long overdue.

That Player Sov has Local is irrational considering the EVE sector safety cascade and associated mechanics.

There is NO reason why player controlled space should have Local.

Imo this is the most glaring oversight in EVE, as well as the most easily corrected, to return to the precepts of EVE.
It speaks to the greatest hypocrisy regarding Player Sov entitites, with the most access to the greatest wealth, arguing about risk.

I will vote for any CSM that advocates for removal of Local from Player Sov.

Make it happen.


You are assuming there is a problem in the first place. If NS or a part of NS is safer because the players living there have made it safer, then there is no problem. Working as intended.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#66 - 2017-02-08 21:39:30 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
That would be a disaster in multiple ways. It would chase the smaller groups completely out of null while letting bigger groups (Alliances like mine) run roughshod over everyone in a way that would make the old Blue donut look like a Blue Tic-tac.

No local doesn't work in a place that has gates and cynos. That's why it does work in Womrhole space. Even with those concessions made by CCP (ie not gates and no cynos), wormhole space is still the least lived in space (by population share) of all EVE space.

No local in null sounds great till you realize all it would do is recreate "the Dominion Effect" (ie the opposite of what is intended, The Dominion Sov system was supposed to help small groups, it did the opposite and created the blue donut and expanded the practice of "renting").


No.

1) It would incentivize/facilitate inter and intra-alliance rifts, as they can now operate without Local identification inorder to aggress the remainder.
2) It enables smaller groups to run operations in both their larger and smaller neighbors space without immediate detection.
3) It removes the current automatic intel down pipelines, requiring active monitoring at each section.
4) You are misrepresenting the "Dominion Effect". It is exactly free Local intel, which enables that effect, not vice versa.
5) Without free Local intel, borders become permeable.
6) Cynos are not relevant to the issue of Local, as a lit Cyno is broadcast universally regardless of Local.
7) It incentivizes smaller groups to join together and run operations on their larger/smaller opponents.

8) There is no rational justification, considering sector safety and mechanics in cascade, that Player Sov has free Local.
It is player owned, and player developed, for the greatest wealth and control of any system in EVE.
There is no reason why it should magically benefit from Local as well, as free essentially NPC sourced data.
This is especially true as compared to NPC Sov mechanics.

9) This notion that Local "protects" smaller orgs, is a fallacy.
The greatest beneficiary of Local in Player Sov is defacto the larger entities.
Due to Local, it is very difficult for smaller entities to aggress larger entities.
The larger entity, regardless of Local or not, can brute force a smaller entity whenever they choose to.

10) Larger entities benefit from Player Sov Local, more than smaller entities.


Or players would adapt to the new environment to make NS as safe as they possible can. As I said, it is not a problem is a part of NS is safe because the residents make it safe or more accurately safer. That is a feature not a bug.

I doubt you'll come around to my view, but I'm willing to bet most here share my view as do the Devs.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#67 - 2017-02-08 21:42:10 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Someone with that name should know better than to be a pathetic troll.

However, as usual - if you think this is true, jump in a ship and autopilot from highsec to nullsec. I'm sure you'll be fine once you hit null.



Wait are you trying to say hs is safer? Lol what game are you playing intel channels and bubbles let me afk rat in vni all damn day with 0 real threat

When you know who is hostile and have 0 penalty for shooting first life is a lot safer

Well then you should have no problem with the challenge.

Autopilot into catch, or into Syndicate from Orvolle (both provide direct access from highsec to nullsec which is the claim of this thread). If HS is more dangerous, then you should be perfectly safe once you're in null.

You either believe what you are saying and will do it, or you're full of ****.


go autopilot through niarjia in an industrial Roll


To be fair, that would be like you AFK ratting while not looking at local nor intel channels and without bubbles. You are comparing stupid play to smart play. Not valid comparison, IMO.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#68 - 2017-02-08 21:46:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Falin Whalen wrote:

the larger more experienced and organised groups would dominate under your back seat game development idea. What is it with you people, thinking that they got the one thing nobody has ever thought of , ever before, to "fix Null"? Hell, there have been calls to, "fix Null" by doing away with local, threads since at least 2009 and probably before. Null needs fixing, but IDK it might take a lot of little things that individually, on their own, might not seem like much, but play off each other synergistically, but the single great idea that will save Null is a myth perpetuated by dreamers and idiots.


1) Larger, experienced groups will dominate smaller inexperienced groups regardless, due to size and experience. Nice solipsism.


First off he did not write that. And as for why the larger, experienced groups might end up in the dominant position is that they have the people, the organization, knowledge and resources to take better advantage of no local relative to other groups while maintaining their own security. Yes, these groups already have these advantages, but the claim is that by removing local you'll be enhancing these advantages not weakening them. Basically, you could very well be giving the larger groups a relative buff....do they really need that?

Look, I am no fan of local, but if it is going to be removed, we need some in game method of establishing an intel network.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#69 - 2017-02-08 22:04:58 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:


I know your type, the "idea person", they type who thinks that outcomes can be engineered. They really can't , human nature (in this case, the human ability to group together for advantage and to use those advantages to keep other groups 'down') will beat any wizkid style game design ideas. It's why CCPs EVERY attempt to "open up null to small groups" has either failed or under performed.


Absolutely this. When you have something that exhibits spontaneous order and emergence you cannot treat it like an engineering problem.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Salvos Rhoska
#70 - 2017-02-09 08:09:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Remove Local from Player Sov.

Players will adapt.

Removing Local creates far more dynamics than its current existence restricts.

Local is a systemic, artificial mechanic that impairs spontaneous order and emergence.

Without Local, intel becomes a factor of player action, thus increasing dynamics, and "spontaneous order and emergence", to use your words.
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#71 - 2017-02-09 10:41:43 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Someone with that name should know better than to be a pathetic troll.

However, as usual - if you think this is true, jump in a ship and autopilot from highsec to nullsec. I'm sure you'll be fine once you hit null.



Wait are you trying to say hs is safer? Lol what game are you playing intel channels and bubbles let me afk rat in vni all damn day with 0 real threat

When you know who is hostile and have 0 penalty for shooting first life is a lot safer

Well then you should have no problem with the challenge.

Autopilot into catch, or into Syndicate from Orvolle (both provide direct access from highsec to nullsec which is the claim of this thread). If HS is more dangerous, then you should be perfectly safe once you're in null.

You either believe what you are saying and will do it, or you're full of ****.


go autopilot through niarjia in an industrial Roll

Here you go:

https://youtu.be/EsglLSVRXKc

Only included the autopilot section for Niarja and Madirmilire to keep it short, but the entire journey from Dodixie to Amarr was on autopilot.

Now go take a similar 17 jump autopilot route through nullsec and include HED-GP in the route.

Then we'll see whether your belief that nullsec is safer holds up....Roll (roll eyes emojis are easy. Put up or shut up).

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."

Geronimo McVain
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#72 - 2017-02-09 10:59:47 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:


Now go take a similar 17 jump autopilot route through nullsec and include HED-GP in the route.

Then we'll see whether your belief that nullsec is safer holds up....Roll (roll eyes emojis are easy. Put up or shut up).

HS is safer but compared to low I would say that Null is safer. In Low you simply don't find the well defended areas that you have in null. Maybe you can remove the local in Null and add a counter. So you have info that someone is in your system but no info about who he is until you found him. After that he would be in local until he leaves the system.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#73 - 2017-02-09 11:04:46 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Remove Local from Player Sov.

Players will adapt.

Removing Local creates far more dynamics than its current existence restricts.

Local is a systemic, artificial mechanic that impairs spontaneous order and emergence.

Without Local, intel becomes a factor of player action, thus increasing dynamics, and "spontaneous order and emergence", to use your words.


Fine, but why only from null? Why not lo and hi sec too? Don't those zones deserve all that increasing dynamics good stuff too?


Seriously though, local is a horrible wrong Intel tool, but dscan is even worse. Ccp should certainly look to remove local as an Intel tool, but not until dscan has been reworked into something that isn't fuelled by the agonised screams of RSI affliction.
Dscan will need to have a real-time (or at least auto refresh) mode, be tuneable, configurable and it will also need to be at least partially effective vs cloaked ships, otherwise covops cloaked Ships will be ridiculously OP.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Salvos Rhoska
#74 - 2017-02-09 13:51:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Malcanis wrote:

Fine, but why only from null? Why not lo and hi sec too? Don't those zones deserve all that increasing dynamics good stuff too?


1) Player Sov, specifically, because it is player owned. Where players own the space and can develop it, they should also be responsible for gathering their own intel.

2) Removal of Local ID from all sectors, would increase dynamics there as well. I actually would be ok with that.
If no one has Local ID, it ceases to be an issue for anyone.


BUT.
In the sector mechanics cascade, it is only Player Sov where the existence of Local ID is an outstanding "perk" that doesn't make sense.

This is made apparent by comparison to NPC Sov:
-Player Sov can be owned, developed, and has the same combat mechanics as NPC Sov, which cannot be owned or developed. Yet, irrationally, Player Sov additionally also has Local ID for free intel as well.

Thus it is specifically in the unique mechanics of Player Sov, where players can own/develop space, where Local ID is out of place.

It is also uniquely the sector where Local ID has the most pronounced dampening effect on dynamics.
Instead of players, in their owned space, generating their own intel, they dont need to cos Local ID does it largely for them.



3) As to d-scan issues, I agree the repeated clicking is just poor design and not doing any of our carpal tunnels any good. However, j-space is currently existing just fine without Local ID, so a precedent exists. This does not invalidate or block the proposal to remove Local ID from Player Sov.

4) As to cloaking, there is a lot to discuss there. But is secondary to the Local ID issue. Without Local ID in Player Sov, everyone would benefit/suffer equally from the potential of cloaked ships. The extent they can leverage that due to assets ofc will have an impact, but the fact remains that removing Local ID from Player Sov in principle is just as harmful/beneficial to everyone there. Equity is retained.

TLDR:
-It is exactly uniquely in Player Sov, where systems can be owned and developed, that free Local ID intel is the greatest systemic dampener on dynamics, and is most irrational.
-Player Sov, as player owned, should be responsible for its own intel. How they do that, is up to them.
-A game-wide removal of Local ID is a valid option, to promote dynamics everywhere, and removes the issue from the table.
-D-scan and Cloaking issues are secondary, and do not obstruct the above. They apply to everyone, equally.
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#75 - 2017-02-09 13:58:17 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:


Ah poor Shae, thinking that actual tangible evidence ever matters in what amounts to a discussion about 'feelings' Big smile. You can show these fine folks evidence all day long and it won't matter, they are emotionally set against what it is you are saying.
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
#76 - 2017-02-09 14:47:20 UTC
I'm not sure what you mean by "dynamics".

Earlier you were saying that having local gave an advantage to sov holders over interlopers. I've argued that doesn't feel like it's true and you've stopped trying to push that point so I'm thinking you might agree with me.

I don't think getting rid of local is bad necessarily... but it is a change that hurts the interlopers more than it hurts the locals... because locals will have an easier time setting up alternative intel gathering. If by "dynamics" you mean it will cause more pvp fights... you're probably right. But in general the locals will have better intel (since they'll have the intelligence infrastructure set up while interlopers will no longer have local for an easy intel option). The locals will likely be the ones who more often dictate if pvp happens... and they'll generally do that when the odds are in their favor in the conflict.

I'm not against the idea of not having local... I just think you're very mistaken if you think it will be more of a hindrance on locals as compared to visitors.

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#77 - 2017-02-09 14:49:24 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Malcanis wrote:

Fine, but why only from null? Why not lo and hi sec too? Don't those zones deserve all that increasing dynamics good stuff too?


1) Player Sov, specifically, because it is player owned. Where players own the space and can develop it, they should also be responsible for gathering their own intel.

2) Removal of Local ID from all sectors, would increase dynamics there as well. I actually would be ok with that.
If no one has Local ID, it ceases to be an issue for anyone.


BUT.
In the sector mechanics cascade, it is only Player Sov where the existence of Local ID is an outstanding "perk" that doesn't make sense.

This is made apparent by comparison to NPC Sov:
-Player Sov can be owned, developed, and has the same combat mechanics as NPC Sov, which cannot be owned or developed. Yet, irrationally, Player Sov additionally also has Local ID for free intel as well.

Thus it is specifically in the unique mechanics of Player Sov, where players can own/develop space, where Local ID is out of place.

It is also uniquely the sector where Local ID has the most pronounced dampening effect on dynamics.
Instead of players, in their owned space, generating their own intel, they dont need to cos Local ID does it largely for them.



3) As to d-scan issues, I agree the repeated clicking is just poor design and not doing any of our carpal tunnels any good. However, j-space is currently existing just fine without Local ID, so a precedent exists. This does not invalidate or block the proposal to remove Local ID from Player Sov.

4) As to cloaking, there is a lot to discuss there. But is secondary to the Local ID issue. Without Local ID in Player Sov, everyone would benefit/suffer equally from the potential of cloaked ships. The extent they can leverage that due to assets ofc will have an impact, but the fact remains that removing Local ID from Player Sov in principle is just as harmful/beneficial to everyone there. Equity is retained.

TLDR:
-It is exactly uniquely in Player Sov, where systems can be owned and developed, that free Local ID intel is the greatest systemic dampener on dynamics, and is most irrational.
-Player Sov, as player owned, should be responsible for its own intel. How they do that, is up to them.
-A game-wide removal of Local ID is a valid option, to promote dynamics everywhere, and removes the issue from the table.
-D-scan and Cloaking issues are secondary, and do not obstruct the above. They apply to everyone, equally.


Fixed gates and cynos work just fine in 0.0 therefore they'd be fine in w-space too.

By your logic.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Salvos Rhoska
#78 - 2017-02-09 14:59:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Scialt wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "dynamics".

Earlier you were saying that having local gave an advantage to sov holders over interlopers. I've argued that doesn't feel like it's true and you've stopped trying to push that point so I'm thinking you might agree with me.

I don't think getting rid of local is bad necessarily... but it is a change that hurts the interlopers more than it hurts the locals... because locals will have an easier time setting up alternative intel gathering. If by "dynamics" you mean it will cause more pvp fights... you're probably right. But in general the locals will have better intel (since they'll have the intelligence infrastructure set up while interlopers will no longer have local for an easy intel option). The locals will likely be the ones who more often dictate if pvp happens... and they'll generally do that when the odds are in their favor in the conflict.

I'm not against the idea of not having local... I just think you're very mistaken if you think it will be more of a hindrance on locals as compared to visitors.


By dynamics I mean increased surface area for interaction, cause and effect, from multiple angles, by multiple means.

Local ID gives locals a far greater advantage, than it does you as an interloper.
They have assets/organization onsite/nearby, and can simply hide when you show up.

If Local ID is removed from Player Sov, they will have to invest far more heavily into accruing their own intel.
You may perceive that as being disadvantageous to you if they start patrolling their space with more concerted effort, whereas now you show up in a cloaky ship they run and hide. But it means they are investing in generating their own intel with effort.

I understand your concern, but the solution is adaptation. That you, as a solo cloaky interloper into Player Sov, which is naturally defended and organized, might suffer some disadvantage compared to now, is part of the price. Its their space which they have fought for, conquered, defended and developed. Obviously you as a solo interloper are at a disadvantage.

If they dont bother with intel/security effort post-removal of Local ID, you will be as safe as now in Player Sov.
Before they automatically knew you are there. After, they wont know you are there unless they take effort to ascertain your presence.

Per my proposal, you can also instead operate in NPC NS, where Local ID would continue to operate, where players cannot own the space, and which frankly is safer even now for your purposes and certainly after removal of Local ID from Player Sov. It may not be as lucrative for some activities, but the risk is less.

Frankly, you have been enjoying the flip side of the Player Sov Local ID coin. Local ID provides advantage to both aggressor and defender. When it is removed, you, and they, will have to engage in more dynamic behavior to maintain safety.
Salvos Rhoska
#79 - 2017-02-09 15:17:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Malcanis wrote:
Fixed gates and cynos work just fine in 0.0 therefore they'd be fine in w-space too.

By your logic.


1) J-space doesnt have fixed gates. It also doesnt have Local ID. See what I mean?
2) Cynos dont work in j-space, because you cant create a wormhole, through a wormhole.
Also, Cynos create an artificial wormhole within limited AU range.
The distance between j-space systems (and back to k-space) is enormous.

Are you talking about lack of Local ID, in reference to d-scan and combat probe functionality?

As I said, j-space has done just fine without Local ID, relying on scouting, d-scan and probing.

This is not an obstruction to removing Local ID from Player Sov.
Player Sov owners can, and should, take effort to accrue their own intel, in their owned space.
There is no rational reason why they should benefit from Local ID, especially compared to NPC Sov.
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
#80 - 2017-02-09 15:23:22 UTC


So... you do understand that this puts the interlopers at MORE of a disadvantage than locals.

"Its their space which they have fought for, conquered, defended and developed. Obviously you as a solo interloper are at a disadvantage."

But you also say this: "Local ID gives locals a far greater advantage, than it does you as an interloper."

Do you see how the argument you're making is confusing? If Local ID gives locals a far greater advantage... removing it should make it easier for me as an interloper. But you also concede that it actually puts me at more of a disadvantage.

Both of those can't be true.

"If they dont bother with intel/security effort post-removal of Local ID, you will be as safe as now in Player Sov.
Before they automatically knew you are there. After, they wont know you are there unless they take effort to ascertain your presence."

The issue is the interloper has a very easy counter to locals knowing they are present... the cloak.

The only realistic way to find someone who is cloaked... is to wait until they are uncloaked. Local with a cloak equipped gives the interloper the same protection locals have with stations... the ability to become virtually 100% safe when someone dangerous enters the system.

Without local... yes you can still cloak. But you have much more trouble finding out if you NEED to or if it's safe to run a site or rat. Locals will have intel channels set up and people scouting for intruders. Right now we're essentially on even footing with local... I can cloak when I see them... they can station up when they see me. Without local the problem is they will be much more likely to spot me before I spot them... 20 pairs of eyes looking instead of just one.

Removing local is a buff to the group with numbers in system... which nine times out of ten is the local corps (unless a big gang comes for a fight). Eve generally benefits the side with bigger numbers a ton already. I'm not sure we really need more changes that help the big guys crush the little guys.

If it happens, I'll adapt. I just feel like you have the wrong idea about the impact. While it will make the large population alliance locals a little less secure, it will make small number interlopers a lot less secure. While it might create more PvP... it will undoubtedly have many more cases where large local gangs kill small number outsiders than the reverse.