These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#81 - 2017-02-09 15:38:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
When it is removed, you, and they, will have to engage in more dynamic behavior to maintain safety.


Nope. That's what 'remove local' people tend to think, but that just means they don't understand human nature and history.

The history part is easiest to understand, and in fact i provided a link . And I quoted from it, like this!
Quote:
Expected consequences

Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space
In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals
Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec
Coalitions will be marginally less stable
Alliances will have to choose more carefully what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on (low truesec systems generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places)


CCP (you know, people who get paid to make games) actually though the above would happen. The opposite happened, people clumped together in the "good" ratting/mining systems making mutual support much much easier to do, which put a damper on the people who liked to solo hunt ratters who had been more spread out before these changes.

And as this change exacerbated to larger changes to brought by Dominion SOV, small alliances that were unable to merge with larger alliances and unwilling to rent from larger alliances got squeezed out of null altogether. It took CCP 8-9 months to fix null anoms (with the novel "EHP per isk" buff that made more types of anomalies viable), but the damage was done, Null sec went from a low population density area to a Desert with a few "Oasis" spots where everyone clumped together, most of that desert becoming "Rentistan".


Professional game developers did this, but the above quoted poster does not and cannot fathom the idea that his 'proposal' is bad. That brijng us to "human nature".

People don't respond to gerrymandering by DEVs. The "no local" people (many of whom tend to be hunter type PVPrs who honestly believe that no local will make their hunting efforts more fulfilling) don't understand that people will adapt in the same way they adapted to Dominion and the anom changes: We will group up, we will use our large IT departments, our large spy rings, and brute force to turn this supposed disadvantage of no local into our advantage. We'll make ALL of null (not just the good parts) look like c5/c6 wormhole space.

We'll forcibly absorb smaller alliances that get weaken by their members leaving because "freaking TEST/NC/PL/Goons appear out of no where every time I try to rat because I can't see them coming anymore". We'll require every one of our own ratting and mining fleets to have a cyno on grid so we can jump in those alts we left on that Titan in jump range if anyone lands on us (because we are RICH and can leave alts and Titans lying around like that).

We'll plant listening post alts (Eve has sound?) at every single gate in every pipe system. We'll line null with Citadels on gate grids everywhere just for this purpose. We'll ruin anyone who tries to make isk in null, while at the same time maintaining our invulnerable high sec incursion alts and our only slightly more vulnerable lvl 5 carrier mission blittzing alts that we already use when null space gets to hot (it's nice being rich as hell, ain't it).

If the quoted poster and anyone else wants to know what will happen, I encourage you to Goggle "Malcanis' Law", then live by what you learn from it.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#82 - 2017-02-09 16:40:49 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
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.



I know cynos don't work in jspace, you moop. The point is that accumulating a fleet in a wormhole is a major undertaking, while doing in k space us as simple as moving a cyno alt.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Zanar Skwigelf
Wormhoppers Inc.
#83 - 2017-02-09 16:44:48 UTC
If we are removing local because its free intel can we also remove all the information modes on the in game map and dotlan because its also free intel?

clicking NPC kills (24 hrs) on dotlan to see where the ratters are seems like a bigger abuse than local, since you are effectively getting local for an entire region with a single click.
Salvos Rhoska
#84 - 2017-02-09 16:50:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Jenn aSide wrote:
Snip


1) Larger, experienced entities will always benefit from any change more than individual smaller, less experienced ones.
This is systemic and based on potential to capitalize with said experience/assets.

2) The above is being leveraged as a Sword of Damocles dilemma, but it its not an excuse for refusing change.
What is good for the game overall, cannot be held hostage by the interest or threats of the greater power, over the lesser.

3) Though the interests of larger/experienced entities are better served by any change, they are proportionately as well served to more numerous smaller entities. Change brings adaptation and opportunity. The extant threat of brute force by a larger entity cannot be held as an excuse to deny more numerous smaller entities more opportunity from change, commensurately.

4) There is no rational reason, especially considering sector mechanics cascade, that Player Sov retains Local ID.
The only argument presented for it, is that larger entities will exploit lack of Local ID to greater effect than lesser ones.
This has not been substantiated, and cannot be, since the change has not happened, and there is no concrete evidence for it.
Inversely, j-space, without Local ID, is functional. Demonstrating that loss of Local ID has precedent and is sustainable.

5) Furthermore, it stands to reason that as Player Sov would become more permeable as a result of removal of Local ID, that the far more numerous smaller entities, as well as others provided the opportunity, could seriously fragment and interfere with current larger entities operations. To an effect quite opposite to the claims above.

6) Large Player Sov holders dont want to lose Local ID. They claim, its because they can leverage it better to the detriment of smaller entities. But is that true? Larger entities would have to invest far more heavily in intel, than smaller ones. Lack of Local ID would also promote internal fracturing of larger entities, as Corps/alts go rogue and exploit the opportunity provided by lack of blue/unknown identification through automatic Local ID.
Salvos Rhoska
#85 - 2017-02-09 16:55:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Malcanis wrote:
I know cynos don't work in jspace, you moop. The point is that accumulating a fleet in a wormhole is a major undertaking, while doing in k space us as simple as moving a cyno alt.


So?

In equivalence, j-space cannot be owned or developed to generate the revenue Player Sov does, nor benefit from asset safety, not to mention various systemwide effects and logistics problems.

J-space is not the issue here. The point was that j-space has managed without Local ID.



When a Cyno is lit in Player Sov, it is visible to all.
Removal of Local ID does not remove that.
Its furthermore entirely possible to pass a cloaked Cyno ship into Player Sov, even today.

Removing Local ID from Player Sov, does not affect any of the above.
Salvos Rhoska
#86 - 2017-02-09 16:58:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Zanar Skwigelf wrote:
If we are removing local because its free intel can we also remove all the information modes on the in game map and dotlan because its also free intel?

clicking NPC kills (24 hrs) on dotlan to see where the ratters are seems like a bigger abuse than local, since you are effectively getting local for an entire region with a single click.


I would be for that. However, only in regards to player owned space.
There is a huge difference between player owned space, and NPC space.

But I think too many self-interested persons would be against it for it to ever happen.
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
#87 - 2017-02-09 17:23:16 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Zanar Skwigelf wrote:
If we are removing local because its free intel can we also remove all the information modes on the in game map and dotlan because its also free intel?

clicking NPC kills (24 hrs) on dotlan to see where the ratters are seems like a bigger abuse than local, since you are effectively getting local for an entire region with a single click.


I would be for that. However, only in regards to player owned space.
There is a huge difference between player owned space, and NPC space.

But I think too many self-interested persons would be against it for it to ever happen.


I don't see the difference. To me as a solo player there really is no difference between soloing in NPC Null, SOV Null or Low Sec. I assume everyone in all of those places wants to blow up my ship and destroy my pod.

Can you explain to someone who isn't a sov holder what the huge difference is?

Salvos Rhoska
#88 - 2017-02-09 17:36:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Scialt wrote:
I don't see the difference. To me as a solo player there really is no difference between soloing in NPC Null, SOV Null or Low Sec. I assume everyone in all of those places wants to blow up my ship and destroy my pod.

Can you explain to someone who isn't a sov holder what the huge difference is?


LS has the least valuable sites, (albeit runnable with lesser ships) cannot be owned, has gate/station security against illegal action, no bubbles/smarbombs. Local ID. NPC stations are many.

NPC NS has more valuable sites, cannot be owned, everything is legal. Local ID. NPC stations are few, depending on region.

Player NS has the most valuable sites, can be owned and developed further for greater profit, everything is legal. Local ID. You will probably be unable to dock anywhere, except a few region/station exceptions.

Yes, many in all these sectors, especially Player NS, will want to blow up your ship as an interloper.
If they blow your pod in LS, however, they will suffer a big security status penalty.

If you PM me with what exactly it is you are doing in these sectors, I can advise you on which is most worthwhile to that end.
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
#89 - 2017-02-09 18:10:37 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Scialt wrote:
I don't see the difference. To me as a solo player there really is no difference between soloing in NPC Null, SOV Null or Low Sec. I assume everyone in all of those places wants to blow up my ship and destroy my pod.

Can you explain to someone who isn't a sov holder what the huge difference is?


LS has the least valuable sites, (albeit runnable with lesser ships) cannot be owned, has gate/station security against illegal action, no bubbles/smarbombs. Local ID. NPC stations are many.
NPC NS has more valuable sites, cannot be owned, everything is legal. Local ID. NPC stations are few.
Player NS has the most valuable sites, can be owned and developed further for greater profit, everything is legal. Local ID.You will probably be unable to dock anywhere,

Yes, everyone in all these spaces, especially Player NS, will want to blow up your ship as an interloper.
If they blow your pod in LS, however, they will suffer a big security status penalty.

If you PM me with what exactly it is you are doing in these sectors, I can advise you on which is most worthwhile to that end.


I understand the differences in rewards... there's a reason I head to null-sec.

So, are you saying that because of the greater rewards... local should be removed to make it harder for locals to extract those rewards and MUCH harder for interlopers to get them? While I understand the idea of making it more difficult to get bigger rewards... I'm not sure that changes that benefit those who are already large and prosperous over those who aren't is wise.

I like taking a wormhole into who knows where in null, finding an empty spot and siphoning off some good stuff before running back through womholes to my high-sec base. I'll accept losing that if you can show me the benefit of the change (and losing local will make that plan a lot less feasible for me). But so far I'm just hearing that it "isn't rational" or that it's a "sword of damocles" (which you're not really using right) or that "there is a huge difference".

I see losing local as a big negative for the solo-null player.... and bigger than any local corp or alliance negatives from the change. I'm sure null will survive without local... I just don't understand why you want to make null LESS accessible for those not holding sov.
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#90 - 2017-02-09 19:58:05 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
1: Remove Local from Player Sov.

2: Players will adapt.

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

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

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


I've numbered your responses so I can respond to each point.

1. Okay, not opposed to this out of hand.

2. Sure, to the extent that they can. Keep in mind that in systems with spontaneous order and emergence, some will adapt others will not (or cannot). The latter group will go "extinct"--i.e. leave the game. Everyone glosses over this point.

3. I agree it will change things, but the notion of "more" is not clear. Evolution is a process of spontaneous order and emergence and it is not clear that that process gives us "more" or that "more" might be very context dependent. After all, evolution does create "new" things (mutation and natural selection) but at the same time it eliminates too.

4. Not sure I agree with this fully. It is artificial just like all the other things CCP has put in the game, such as warping to zero. Does it impair spontaneous order and emergence or just push it in a different direction?

5. Without local intel would become dependent on player action true enough. But again, not sure it will "increase" anything like you are suggesting. It will add new things and eliminate old things.

Your 1-2-3 type thinking is rather...well...linear. Systems with spontaneous order and emergence often incorporate feedback loops which can make the process non-linear.

"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
#91 - 2017-02-09 20:06:47 UTC
Zanar Skwigelf wrote:
If we are removing local because its free intel can we also remove all the information modes on the in game map and dotlan because its also free intel?

clicking NPC kills (24 hrs) on dotlan to see where the ratters are seems like a bigger abuse than local, since you are effectively getting local for an entire region with a single click.


That is not free intel. You have to go to a website and look stuff up. Local is right there in the game all the time and actually will give you advance warning. Does Dotlan give advanced warning?

"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
#92 - 2017-02-09 20:12:11 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Snip


1) Larger, experienced entities will always benefit from any change more than individual smaller, less experienced ones.
This is systemic and based on potential to capitalize with said experience/assets.


No not always, but when this is true it should give you pause about such changes, IMO. You do not appear to be giving enough thought to the potential downsides. In fact, you have been almost steadfastly ignoring them or simply hand waving them away.

"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
#93 - 2017-02-09 20:19:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
I know cynos don't work in jspace, you moop. The point is that accumulating a fleet in a wormhole is a major undertaking, while doing in k space us as simple as moving a cyno alt.


So?

In equivalence, j-space cannot be owned or developed to generate the revenue Player Sov does, nor benefit from asset safety, not to mention various systemwide effects and logistics problems.

J-space is not the issue here. The point was that j-space has managed without Local ID.


Holy mother of God...yes, I believe what Malcanis is saying, it is managing because there are no gates nor cynos. In discussing this in the AFK cloaking thread some wormhole guys have argued that a connection opening up is similar to a covert cyno. You don't see it is there that easily and it can let through lots of Bad Guys™ or not. So not exactly the same, but similar. I think the big difference is that WHs has a very different intel process.

Now you might say "Ah-ha!" But careful there. As I noted when you change these kinds of things some players adapt others do not. So you could very well be driving players from NS while others adapt and stay. So all of your claims really go out the window of uncertainty. Might it work out like you say? Yeah. Might it blow up in your face? Yeah that could happen too. Your obstinate insistence that it won't despite previous examples of changes along with "just so stories" blowing up in the Dev's faces suggests the latter is indeed a real possibility.

To be clear here. I love reading about WH space. Sounds like lots of fun. But if you made NS more like that I'd likely be one of the non-adapters. Why? I just don't have the time to devote to that kind of play. All my reading of WH space suggests it is one of the more demanding areas of the game. I'd be one of the players that "can't adapt". Now, you might say, "So what?" But the point is how many adapters are their and how many non-adapters are their?

Another issue is maybe I'll adapt by moving to a corp/alliance that is part of a larger group. I might just bunk off to the Imperium where I have contacts. That way, I can get the benefits of the Imperium's efforts to adapt. You don't appear to give enough credit to the nature of how some of these group level adaptions work. I would argue they are like public goods or club goods. That is, their benefits, when provided, are enjoyed by all the players in that group irrespective of whether they actual contribute or not. Which again goes back to what Jenn aSide has been trying to get you to grasp. That the little guys will get really screwed over and in the end we could end up with large groups dominating the map again.

"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

Zanar Skwigelf
Wormhoppers Inc.
#94 - 2017-02-09 20:35:58 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:


That is not free intel. You have to go to a website and look stuff up. Local is right there in the game all the time and actually will give you advance warning. Does Dotlan give advanced warning?


Dotlan is delayed, but the in game map may or may not be (I'm not 100% sure on that).

My point is that he has been arguing for removing local because it is not a player built feature, yet the in game map has very powerful filters for determining where people are at in sov null.
Zanar Skwigelf
Wormhoppers Inc.
#95 - 2017-02-09 20:41:43 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:


To be clear here. I love reading about WH space. Sounds like lots of fun. But if you made NS more like that I'd likely be one of the non-adapters. Why? I just don't have the time to devote to that kind of play. All my reading of WH space suggests it is one of the more demanding areas of the game. I'd be one of the players that "can't adapt". Now, you might say, "So what?" But the point is how many adapters are their and how many non-adapters are their?



It won't be as time intensive as wh space since you can't roll an unwanted gate, but it will require more alts so that you can keep cloaked sabres on every gate, or maybe a t1 frigate cloaked on grid with the gate, in order to maintain "hole control" in sov null.
Salvos Rhoska
#96 - 2017-02-10 09:07:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Teckos Pech wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Snip


1) Larger, experienced entities will always benefit from any change more than individual smaller, less experienced ones.
This is systemic and based on potential to capitalize with said experience/assets.


No not always, but when this is true it should give you pause about such changes, IMO. You do not appear to be giving enough thought to the potential downsides. In fact, you have been almost steadfastly ignoring them or simply hand waving them away.


You ignored the rest of the points which directly indicate I have considered what the situation entails in terms of downsides.

Its blatantly false that you claim I ignore potential downsides or wave them off, when I demonstrably did the exact opposite.
Its there, in writing, in the numbered points you omitted in the quote and response above.
I addressed several of them and furthermore in the context of the current status quo, as compared to the outcome.



As to your arguments on non-linear systems, feedback-loops and the nature/pecularities of spontaneous emergence of order etc, they are self-defeating in a discussion exploring potential changes.

Your essential position, is that the results of any change is not 100% predictable, or 100% beneficial for everyone.
This is true, granted and consider it tabled.

But that a result of change is 100% predictable (in perpetuity) or 100% beneficial for everyone (in perpetuity), is practically an impossibility.

Thus it is not an argument against change, or against rationally weighing the predicable outcome and benefit to those concerned so far as is empirically possible.

By your own logic, you present that the outcome cannot be 100% predicted, and the benefit to ALL cannot be simultaneously 100% and equal.

So what?

Change in EVE has never been conditional to a 100% predicted outcome, or 100% benefit to everyone.

Infact I would argue that you making such a demand of change is irrational, unnatural (no such "change" that meets those criteria has ever existed, anywhere) and impossible.

Even the current status quo, as it stands now, without a change, is not 100% predictable or 100% beneficial to everyone!

Your position ignores that it is exactly change which causes adaptation, and hence itself creates the cascade that the outcome is not 100% predictable, and that not everyone will benefit 100% or equally.

In other words, you are putting the cart infront of the horse.
Such that the horse (represented as change), is blocked by the cart (represented as content).
This is irrational, because it should be the horse (change) that draws the cart (content).
In your position,the cart blocks the horse, and neither of them moves anywhere.
They stagnate.



The issue of Player Sov Local ID is not hinged on your personal views of what constitute "spontaneous order" etc.
You are merely describing (falsely, I add) the systems which underlie dynamics resultant of change.

You are not arguing the issue of Player Sov Local ID, itself.
You also are not arguing against a change.
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#97 - 2017-02-10 09:33:23 UTC
Zanar Skwigelf wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:


That is not free intel. You have to go to a website and look stuff up. Local is right there in the game all the time and actually will give you advance warning. Does Dotlan give advanced warning?


Dotlan is delayed, but the in game map may or may not be (I'm not 100% sure on that).

My point is that he has been arguing for removing local because it is not a player built feature, yet the in game map has very powerful filters for determining where people are at in sov null.


The in game map is delayed too. And it is not free. It is not something you can keep open all the time unlike local. Local you can have open all the time, is free, perfect, and even provides advanced warning.

To compare it to anything else is, IMO, intellectually dishonest.

Oh, and dotlan...is a player built feature.

"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
#98 - 2017-02-10 09:35:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Snip


1) Larger, experienced entities will always benefit from any change more than individual smaller, less experienced ones.
This is systemic and based on potential to capitalize with said experience/assets.


No not always, but when this is true it should give you pause about such changes, IMO. You do not appear to be giving enough thought to the potential downsides. In fact, you have been almost steadfastly ignoring them or simply hand waving them away.


You ignored the rest of the points which directly indicate I have considered what the situation entails in terms of downsides.


Actually, no I read them and I don't think they look at the downsides at all.

As for the rest of your post it is incomprehensible gibberish, IMO. You agree that a system with feedback loops is not easily predictable then go on to say that even though it is not predictable we should not change it. But that is the point, we have to be careful on these things. And your linear thinking is not very helpful when we have plenty of reason to think things are not linear.

Also I have not said that a change should be 100% equal, but that we should pause and consider if a change will unduly benefit those who already have substantial benefits. Do we really need to buff the game play of those who are already in a strong position? Maybe the answer is yes, but you have not made that case, 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

Salvos Rhoska
#99 - 2017-02-10 09:42:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Teckos Pech wrote:
Snip.


You are intellectually dishonestly misrepresenting the original premise, which was that the Map functions also are free and automatic.

That I can access that data through the ingame Map, or on a 3rd party platform, does not change that the data itself is free and automatic.I do not have to gather the data on the Map myself, it is provided free and automatically.

That I have to open up the Map and access the data, does not make it not-free or automatic.
I also have to have the Local channel open inorder to access Local ID data.
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#100 - 2017-02-10 09:46:33 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Snip.


You are intellectually dishonestly misrepresenting the original premise, which was that the Map functions also are free and automatic.


No they are not. The map function will give you things like players in system for the last 30 minutes and the like. That is not instantaneous nor is it giving advanced warning like local.

Quote:
That I can access that data through the ingame Map, or on a 3rd party platform, does not change that the data itself is free and automatic.


You don't have to go to a 3rd party website to use local. It is right there in game, and will give you advanced warning unlike any other source of intel.

Quote:
That I have to open up the Map and access the data, does not make it not-free or automatic.
I also have to have the Local channel open inorder to access Local ID data.


Actually it does. It means you have to take time to get that intel, unlike local. Having local "open" is a trivial one time cost. To compare it to checking a website is nonsense. It is like saying d-scan is instant free intel.

"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