These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

The problem with removing local

First post
Author
Sigras
Conglomo
#1 - 2013-08-16 23:34:22 UTC
Several people have suggested that local is a large intel problem in 0.0 and needs to be removed.

I have not made up my mind about that, but in all the proposals, Ive found one major glaring flaw that needs to be addressed if any progress is to be made toward removing local.

Cloaking ships

This is not to be confused with the AFK cloaking issue because it isnt; in fact removing local would be the perfect solution to AFK cloaking; nobody would ever waste their time AFK cloaking in a system because nobody would know that they are there.

The problem is that without local there would be literally no way for anyone to know that a cloaked ship was in the system. It would be a piece of cake for a cloaked ship to use its directional scanner to triangulate a ship location; use the wormhole probe trick to get a warp in, warp on top of him, decloak, cyno, bridge, bubble all before a battlecruiser sized ship can warp off

Even if you made cloaked ships able to be probed out (which you should never do) this would be ridiculous because you would have to constantly have probes out and spam the scanner button and the D-scan . . . which is an idiotic solution needless to say.

So before we talk about removing local, we need to come up with a concurrent change for cloaking.

Thoughts?
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#2 - 2013-08-16 23:43:43 UTC
Yes, many of agree that if there was no local chat then (and only then) could a "hard counter" to cloaking be introduced.

Also...
Sigras wrote:
Even if you made cloaked ships able to be probed out (which you should never do) this would be ridiculous because you would have to constantly have probes out and spam the scanner button and the D-scan . . . which is an idiotic solution needless to say.

If us low-sec and wormhole dwellers can do it... so can you!

edit: also... ffs... this AGAIN??
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#3 - 2013-08-16 23:56:15 UTC
Gimme a S!

Gimme a E!

Gimme a A!

Gimme a R!

Gimme a C!

Gimme a H!

WHATS THAT SPELL?!??!

SEARCH!

See also:

søg

zoeken

hanapin

etsiä

rechercher

forschen

kutat

leita

ricercare

探す

찾다

søke

پژوهیدن

procurer

искать

buscar

Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?

Aliventi
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry.
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
#4 - 2013-08-17 00:44:36 UTC
Heaven forbid you should put some effort in to making a intel network to track individuals who enter and exit your Sov to keep track of cloakies and their potential locations. Also, Risk vs. Reward. A single cloaked ship can't do much damage. Your intel network should see their gang coming. If they fit a cyno then you should PvP fit your ship to kill the cyno. Now can we stop having these whine threads about how lazy and uncreative y'all are about countering ships without your effortless perfect intel system?
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#5 - 2013-08-17 00:49:51 UTC
Needs to be more ways to gather detailed intel, without making it a dreadful task like having alts on gates. This would help alleviate these problems and pave the way for a smooth transition into a local-less nullsec.
Sigras
Conglomo
#6 - 2013-08-17 00:54:25 UTC
Aliventi wrote:
Heaven forbid you should put some effort in to making a intel network to track individuals who enter and exit your Sov to keep track of cloakies and their potential locations. Also, Risk vs. Reward. A single cloaked ship can't do much damage. Your intel network should see their gang coming. If they fit a cyno then you should PvP fit your ship to kill the cyno. Now can we stop having these whine threads about how lazy and uncreative y'all are about countering ships without your effortless perfect intel system?

so every ship that should ever be flown in 0.0 should always be PvP fit to take out whatever limitless number of ships can come through a cyno bridge?

That has got to be one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard.

Also you do realize that people need to sleep and go to work right? You can have a 9000 man alliance and still have systems where you're alone. I was recently in fountain and went for entire constellations without seeing another pilot. You want every entrance gate and every possible wormhole into your space covered 24/7 not to mention the possibility that someone has been cloaked in that system before and has just not logged that character in?

Is that really your solution?
M1k3y Koontz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2013-08-17 01:00:47 UTC
CCP hasn't removed local in nullsec. People have been calling for it for years. People have been opposing it for years. CCP has remained silent.

CCP will never removal local in nullsec. They will never comment on removing local because they realize it is a bad idea to do so (one side would get majorly pissed off, probably the fools who think that nullsec is equatable to wormhole space in any way other than they both allow bubbles and bombs).

This topic can die in peace. Permanently.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.

Aliventi
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry.
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
#8 - 2013-08-17 01:45:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Aliventi
Sigras wrote:
so every ship that should ever be flown in 0.0 should always be PvP fit to take out whatever limitless number of ships can come through a cyno bridge?

That has got to be one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard.

Also you do realize that people need to sleep and go to work right? You can have a 9000 man alliance and still have systems where you're alone. I was recently in fountain and went for entire constellations without seeing another pilot. You want every entrance gate and every possible wormhole into your space covered 24/7 not to mention the possibility that someone has been cloaked in that system before and has just not logged that character in?

Is that really your solution?

It is only idiotic in your opinion because you don't want to do it. If you are so scared of a ship finding you and lighting a cyno why don't you make your ship able to kill the cyno before anything can make it through the bridge? That is not idiotic. That is common sense. If you are faced with the choice of modifying your fit to kill a cyno frig/ratting in groups or losing your ratting ship I think we both know the choice you will make. Unless of course you are an idiot...

Branch. 3 Alliances own sections of Branch. Those 3 alliances are part of the same coalition which means they would co-operate and share intel. Combined they can field over 5500+ pilots. If you were to attempt to actively use all 94 systems in Branch you would only need 13 pilots to keep track of all the entrances and bottlenecks. If you decide to use fewer than those 94 systems then the number of pilots keeping eyes drop also. Under the assumption you wish to use all 94 systems it would take ~.0024% of those alliances total member count to keep all 5500+ safe. Even if you swap pilots every 4 hours you would still only use ~.0142% of the total member count. I hardly think that is too much to ask....

You are advocating for perfect safety. By the Risk vs. Reward tenant of Eve Online you shouldn't have perfect safety for the amount of reward you are getting in nullsec. Highsec doesn't even get perfect safety and that is supposed to be one of the safest areas in Eve. The only reason to die right now in nullsec is you blatantly ignored your perfect effortless intel source. Because of this local makes nullsec safer than highsec. With local you get perfect safety.

I am not advocating for the removal of local because I want cheap easy kills. As a person who frequently roams nullsec to find targets to kill, I can say local is game breaking because for no effort 100% of the time the people I am trying to kill know I am there. They live and enjoy perfect safety in what was intended to be an inherently unsafe place.

I want local gone because I want Eve to be the battle of skill it should be. If local were removed it would take a minor amount of work to gain back the intel local once gave you in a slightly less perfect form. I gain the chance to exploit vulnerabilities in these intel networks to bring back risk to nullsec. As a carebear you would gain the ability to to actually hide from me. Seeing as local isn't announcing you are there anymore than than it is announcing I am there, I will have to spend time looking for you. And you may never appear on D-scan. You may appear on D-scan with a bunch of POS and I will assume you are POSed up. You may appear then vanish off D-scan and I don't know if you warped away or logged out. Which means I am probably not going to try a log on trap. Removing local doesn't make it easier to find and kill you. It make it harder.

So sure. A cloaky ship may come in and get the better of you. Welcome to Eve Online. Go back to highsec if you want to be more safe. Or if you want to stay where it is more dangerous take it upon yourself to make you more safe. Safety should never be handed to you on a platter like it is now. I am not asking for much. I just want things to be a little bit more balanced than they are now and for Risk vs. Reward to be restored in nullsec.
Xequecal
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#9 - 2013-08-17 01:49:07 UTC
Aliventi wrote:
It is only idiotic in your opinion because you don't want to do it. If you are so scared of a ship finding you and lighting a cyno why don't you make your ship able to kill the cyno before anything can make it through the bridge? That is not idiotic. That is common sense. If you are faced with the choice of modifying your fit to kill a cyno frig/ratting in groups or losing your ratting ship I think we both know the choice you will make. Unless of course you are an idiot...


Ok, what about covert cynos bringing in a bunch of stealth bombers which then warp to you cloaked, uncloak, insta lock you, and kill you? Your "intel network" is worthless when they can all be sitting in a deadend system a whole region away.
Aliventi
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry.
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
#10 - 2013-08-17 02:28:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Aliventi
Xequecal wrote:
Ok, what about covert cynos bringing in a bunch of stealth bombers which then warp to you cloaked, uncloak, insta lock you, and kill you? Your "intel network" is worthless when they can all be sitting in a deadend system a whole region away.

That isn't true. Cov Ops cynos can only be fit to a limited number of ships. If your intel network is in place that cyno ship had to have jumped through gates to get to you. If your intel network missed that ship you need to go back and reevaluate your intel network. At worst your intel network should be able to tell you the pocket of systems that cyno is in. If your intel network is saying "don't rat in that pocket" and you do you deserve to die.

If your intel network happens to miss the cyno then I would recommend not ratting solo and bring a logistics ship along. Be aligned out. Even a stealth bomber takes some time to lock a BS. Bait out the BlOps gang and warp/cyno in with some arty ships and logi. A little creativity can go a long way.
Xequecal
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#11 - 2013-08-17 02:35:45 UTC
Aliventi wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
Ok, what about covert cynos bringing in a bunch of stealth bombers which then warp to you cloaked, uncloak, insta lock you, and kill you? Your "intel network" is worthless when they can all be sitting in a deadend system a whole region away.

That isn't true. Cov Ops cynos can only be fit to a limited number of ships. If your intel network is in place that cyno ship had to have jumped through gates to get to you. If your intel network missed that ship you need to go back and reevaluate your intel network. At worst your intel network should be able to tell you the pocket of systems that cyno is in. If your intel network is saying "don't rat in that pocket" and you do you deserve to die.

If your intel network happens to miss the cyno then I would recommend not ratting solo and bring a logistics ship along. Be aligned out. Even a stealth bomber takes some time to lock a BS. Bait out the BlOps gang and warp/cyno in with some arty ships and logi. A little creativity can go a long way.


"Don't rat solo?" That's hilarious. Bring logistics along to help basic ratting?

All your series of proposals will do is completely destroy nullsec income generation as everyone goes back to doing level 4s on alts because it's far better ISK/hour when you don't have to deal with all the bullshit.
Aliventi
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry.
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
#12 - 2013-08-17 02:43:15 UTC
Xequecal wrote:
"Don't rat solo?" That's hilarious. Bring logistics along to help basic ratting?

All your series of proposals will do is completely destroy nullsec income generation as everyone goes back to doing level 4s on alts because it's far better ISK/hour when you don't have to deal with all the bullshit.

I am giving you ideas on how to increase your safety in a local-less nullsec. If you don't like them then feel free to come up with your own. If local is removed no one is stopping you from ratting without and intel network or any other measures to increase your chance of survival. Another wonderful thing about Eve: Choices and consequences.

If you want the reward without the risk then please do go back to highsec.
Rayzilla Zaraki
Yin Jian Enterprises
#13 - 2013-08-17 02:46:31 UTC
Dealing with local is no easy task. Removing it hurts the social nature of the game, even though most of what I see in local lately is trolls and corp ads spamming all over the place.

I had mulled the thought of making local dependent on NPC stations. If there are no NPC stations in a system, there would be no local. However, that runs counter to how we know something like it should actually work if we were all on radios talking to each other and not typing as it would probably be in real life.

Another thought would be to make the avatars in the chat window time out. If they are not actively chatting, they don't appear. If they choose to say something then their avatar persists for a period of time. This kind of mimic Ham or CB radio. You don't know if someone is on unless you ask and if they respond it is broadcast to everyone on the channel.

Maybe a combination of both?

Just a thought.

Gate campers are just Carebears with anger issues.

Aliventi
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry.
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
#14 - 2013-08-17 02:52:09 UTC
Rayzilla Zaraki wrote:
Dealing with local is no easy task. Removing it hurts the social nature of the game, even though most of what I see in local lately is trolls and corp ads spamming all over the place.

I had mulled the thought of making local dependent on NPC stations. If there are no NPC stations in a system, there would be no local. However, that runs counter to how we know something like it should actually work if we were all on radios talking to each other and not typing as it would probably be in real life.

Another thought would be to make the avatars in the chat window time out. If they are not actively chatting, they don't appear. If they choose to say something then their avatar persists for a period of time. This kind of mimic Ham or CB radio. You don't know if someone is on unless you ask and if they respond it is broadcast to everyone on the channel.

Maybe a combination of both?

Just a thought.

The issue at hand is not chat or the social aspect of the game. Local is designed for chat, not effortless perfect intel. If you want it to work like WHs where when you chat you appear that is fine with me. Chat away in local. Be my guest. If you chat you have made the decision to reveal yourself and get to deal with the consequences. That is fine with me.
Xequecal
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#15 - 2013-08-17 03:07:10 UTC
Aliventi wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
"Don't rat solo?" That's hilarious. Bring logistics along to help basic ratting?

All your series of proposals will do is completely destroy nullsec income generation as everyone goes back to doing level 4s on alts because it's far better ISK/hour when you don't have to deal with all the bullshit.

I am giving you ideas on how to increase your safety in a local-less nullsec. If you don't like them then feel free to come up with your own. If local is removed no one is stopping you from ratting without and intel network or any other measures to increase your chance of survival. Another wonderful thing about Eve: Choices and consequences.

If you want the reward without the risk then please do go back to highsec.


No, this is really simple math. As long as (Level 4 income per hour per player) > (Nullsec income per hour per player) - ((Chance of losing ship per hour) * (Value of ship)) then people will go back to level 4s. Removing local is almost guaranteed to result in L4s being more lucrative.

Adding a logi cuts your income in half. He's not sitting there boosting you for free.

Right now local makes intel easy. You look at local and report on who is traveling through your systems. Maybe you hit d-scan when you see them in local to see what ship they're in. Instead, you want to make an "intel network" based on people actively watching every entrance gate to your region. Emphasis on actively watching because covops can slip past in seconds. Who the hell is actually going to spend their play time sitting on some random border gate watching who and what comes through it? This is totally unreasonable and ridiculous. Expecting people to arrange for alpha ships to wait around as backup just so they can go rat is even more ridiculous.

Local is the ONLY defense PvErs have against blackops BS bridging stealth bombers in through covert cynos. No proposed method of nerfing AFK cloaking would have any effect on this tactic without making cloaks completely useless. The bombers aren't even expensive and have absurd GTFO ability, you don't set them back much even if you do manage to pop some.

No local works in wormholes precisely because you can't bridge a bunch of crap into the system, combined with the fact that the WH rats are about an order of magnitude more valuable than nullsec anoms.
Sigras
Conglomo
#16 - 2013-08-17 03:23:33 UTC
Aliventi wrote:
Sigras wrote:
so every ship that should ever be flown in 0.0 should always be PvP fit to take out whatever limitless number of ships can come through a cyno bridge?

That has got to be one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard.

Also you do realize that people need to sleep and go to work right? You can have a 9000 man alliance and still have systems where you're alone. I was recently in fountain and went for entire constellations without seeing another pilot. You want every entrance gate and every possible wormhole into your space covered 24/7 not to mention the possibility that someone has been cloaked in that system before and has just not logged that character in?

Is that really your solution?

It is only idiotic in your opinion because you don't want to do it. If you are so scared of a ship finding you and lighting a cyno why don't you make your ship able to kill the cyno before anything can make it through the bridge? That is not idiotic. That is common sense. If you are faced with the choice of modifying your fit to kill a cyno frig/ratting in groups or losing your ratting ship I think we both know the choice you will make. Unless of course you are an idiot...

you do realize that there are cruisers that can fit covert ops cloaks right? lets hop on the test server, I want to see how many ships you need to kill my covert ops proteus before the hammer falls . . . That said, even an arazu can field a substantial tank and it can tackle you as well.

Aliventi wrote:
Branch. 3 Alliances own sections of Branch. Those 3 alliances are part of the same coalition which means they would co-operate and share intel. Combined they can field over 5500+ pilots. If you were to attempt to actively use all 94 systems in Branch you would only need 13 pilots to keep track of all the entrances and bottlenecks. If you decide to use fewer than those 94 systems then the number of pilots keeping eyes drop also. Under the assumption you wish to use all 94 systems it would take ~.0024% of those alliances total member count to keep all 5500+ safe. Even if you swap pilots every 4 hours you would still only use ~.0142% of the total member count. I hardly think that is too much to ask....

You're forgetting about wormholes and people already in that space. There would be literally no way to find people in covert ops cloaked ships unless theyre moving from system to system, there'd not even be a way to tell if anyone was there for sure. Honestly . . . its like you dont even play this game . . .

Aliventi wrote:
You are advocating for perfect safety. By the Risk vs. Reward tenant of Eve Online you shouldn't have perfect safety for the amount of reward you are getting in nullsec. Highsec doesn't even get perfect safety and that is supposed to be one of the safest areas in Eve. The only reason to die right now in nullsec is you blatantly ignored your perfect effortless intel source. Because of this local makes nullsec safer than highsec. With local you get perfect safety.

its ironic that you bring this up because YOU are the one advocating a mechanic with "perfect safety" a cloaking device provides perfect safety; unless youre an idiot, it is extremely difficult to be caught once you cloak, especially with a covert ops cloak.

I on the other hand am advocating counterable play. This is the idea that you should be able to play around things in the game. The game should not just happen to you; there should never be something in game that happens with no warning and no possible avoidance . . . like . . . say someone:
1. logs into the system because hes been there for 6 months waiting
2. cloaks
3. triangulates your position with d-scan
4. uses the WH probe trick to get you in one scan (if necessary IE youre not at an anom or hidden belt)
5. decloaks
6. launches cyno
7. ???
8. profit
There would literally be no avoiding that which does not make a skill based game; that makes a luck based game. A skill based game means that you, using skill can see something coming, and using skill you can avoid it.
Solutio Letum
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2013-08-17 03:42:40 UTC
simple, dont let cloaked ships dscan
Robbie Robot
Exiled Kings
Pain And Compliance
#18 - 2013-08-17 04:12:11 UTC
Aliventi wrote:
Sigras wrote:
so every ship that should ever be flown in 0.0 should always be PvP fit to take out whatever limitless number of ships can come through a cyno bridge?

That has got to be one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard.

Also you do realize that people need to sleep and go to work right? You can have a 9000 man alliance and still have systems where you're alone. I was recently in fountain and went for entire constellations without seeing another pilot. You want every entrance gate and every possible wormhole into your space covered 24/7 not to mention the possibility that someone has been cloaked in that system before and has just not logged that character in?

Is that really your solution?

It is only idiotic in your opinion because you don't want to do it. If you are so scared of a ship finding you and lighting a cyno why don't you make your ship able to kill the cyno before anything can make it through the bridge? That is not idiotic. That is common sense. If you are faced with the choice of modifying your fit to kill a cyno frig/ratting in groups or losing your ratting ship I think we both know the choice you will make. Unless of course you are an idiot...

Branch. 3 Alliances own sections of Branch. Those 3 alliances are part of the same coalition which means they would co-operate and share intel. Combined they can field over 5500+ pilots. If you were to attempt to actively use all 94 systems in Branch you would only need 13 pilots to keep track of all the entrances and bottlenecks. If you decide to use fewer than those 94 systems then the number of pilots keeping eyes drop also. Under the assumption you wish to use all 94 systems it would take ~.0024% of those alliances total member count to keep all 5500+ safe. Even if you swap pilots every 4 hours you would still only use ~.0142% of the total member count. I hardly think that is too much to ask....

You are advocating for perfect safety. By the Risk vs. Reward tenant of Eve Online you shouldn't have perfect safety for the amount of reward you are getting in nullsec. Highsec doesn't even get perfect safety and that is supposed to be one of the safest areas in Eve. The only reason to die right now in nullsec is you blatantly ignored your perfect effortless intel source. Because of this local makes nullsec safer than highsec. With local you get perfect safety.

I am not advocating for the removal of local because I want cheap easy kills. As a person who frequently roams nullsec to find targets to kill, I can say local is game breaking because for no effort 100% of the time the people I am trying to kill know I am there. They live and enjoy perfect safety in what was intended to be an inherently unsafe place.

I want local gone because I want Eve to be the battle of skill it should be. If local were removed it would take a minor amount of work to gain back the intel local once gave you in a slightly less perfect form. I gain the chance to exploit vulnerabilities in these intel networks to bring back risk to nullsec. As a carebear you would gain the ability to to actually hide from me. Seeing as local isn't announcing you are there anymore than than it is announcing I am there, I will have to spend time looking for you. And you may never appear on D-scan. You may appear on D-scan with a bunch of POS and I will assume you are POSed up. You may appear then vanish off D-scan and I don't know if you warped away or logged out. Which means I am probably not going to try a log on trap. Removing local doesn't make it easier to find and kill you. It make it harder.

So sure. A cloaky ship may come in and get the better of you. Welcome to Eve Online. Go back to highsec if you want to be more safe. Or if you want to stay where it is more dangerous take it upon yourself to make you more safe. Safety should never be handed to you on a platter like it is now. I am not asking for much. I just want things to be a little bit more balanced than they are now and for Risk vs. Reward to be restored in nullsec.

This intel you suggest has one person on a entrance gate? Cloaked, I assume, and they just count who comes in? I don't see how this actually makes anything remotely safe in nullsec. In fact, I don't see it providing a meaningful amount of intel, by itself. It seems to me you'd want people also on the gates one jump in, just so you can see about where they are going to, and maybe get an interdiction fleet up.

Or do you suggest the gate camp tackle and destroy all incoming ships? I'm sure you know that some cov-ops can fit a BS size tank, have cloaks so you won't catch them in a large ship, and can fit probes.

Seriously, if you want to jump into a system and PVP with people where there is no local, go do wormhole. It is fun.
Aliventi
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry.
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
#19 - 2013-08-17 04:12:47 UTC
Sigras wrote:

you do realize that there are cruisers that can fit covert ops cloaks right? lets hop on the test server, I want to see how many ships you need to kill my covert ops proteus before the hammer falls . . . That said, even an arazu can field a substantial tank and it can tackle you as well.

You're forgetting about wormholes and people already in that space. There would be literally no way to find people in covert ops cloaked ships unless theyre moving from system to system, there'd not even be a way to tell if anyone was there for sure. Honestly . . . its like you dont even play this game . . .

its ironic that you bring this up because YOU are the one advocating a mechanic with "perfect safety" a cloaking device provides perfect safety; unless youre an idiot, it is extremely difficult to be caught once you cloak, especially with a covert ops cloak.

I on the other hand am advocating counterable play. This is the idea that you should be able to play around things in the game. The game should not just happen to you; there should never be something in game that happens with no warning and no possible avoidance . . . like . . . say someone:
1. logs into the system because hes been there for 6 months waiting
2. cloaks
3. triangulates your position with d-scan
4. uses the WH probe trick to get you in one scan (if necessary IE youre not at an anom or hidden belt)
5. decloaks
6. launches cyno
7. ???
8. profit
There would literally be no avoiding that which does not make a skill based game; that makes a luck based game. A skill based game means that you, using skill can see something coming, and using skill you can avoid it.

Oh please. Spare me these pitiful antics. You should see a cloaking Proteus or Arazu coming through your intel network. You as well as I know that an Arazu is not going to be soloing. If you are dumb enough to know an Arazu is coming and continue to rat you deserve to die. As far as wormholes scan them down and collapse them. WHers do all the time to control their space. You can too. And you accuse me of not playing the game...

Welcome to Eve Online. The game happens to you sometimes. Let me educate you as to what non-consensual PvP is. You know that thing highsec and you seem to hate but makes Eve unique? Suicide ganking, cloaked ship decloaks and points you the light a cyno, smartbombing BS on a lowsec gate that kills pods, etc. These are all things that happen without your consent. If you are advocating the removal of one you may as well be advocating the removal of all non-consensual PvP. Here is something you clearly missed: you consent to PvP, like it or not, when you undock. Learn to live with it. It is one of the things that makes Eve great. Don't like it? WoW is that way --->

And yes. A cloak does provide a ship near perfect safety. But do you know the difference between a cloaked ship and you ratting or mining? The cloaked ship isn't making isk. Which means the risk (read: none) matches with the reward (read none). Oddly... cloaks are balanced when it comes to risk vs. reward. Whereas currently with local your reward (Read: standard nullsec payouts) doesn't match up with the risk (Read: none).
Aliventi
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry.
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
#20 - 2013-08-17 04:19:43 UTC
Robbie Robot wrote:

This intel you suggest has one person on a entrance gate? Cloaked, I assume, and they just count who comes in? I don't see how this actually makes anything remotely safe in nullsec. In fact, I don't see it providing a meaningful amount of intel, by itself. It seems to me you'd want people also on the gates one jump in, just so you can see about where they are going to, and maybe get an interdiction fleet up.

Or do you suggest the gate camp tackle and destroy all incoming ships? I'm sure you know that some cov-ops can fit a BS size tank, have cloaks so you won't catch them in a large ship, and can fit probes.

Seriously, if you want to jump into a system and PVP with people where there is no local, go do wormhole. It is fun.

One person on each in gate cloaked. One person in each bottleneck system. If a person jumps in you report it to the intel channel, or perhaps make an out of game tracker, and you instantly know that the section of systems between the in gate and the next bottle-neck are compromised. You have lots of warning to get safe. If you ignore this and die, again, you deserve it. From there you just keep track of their movements. I am sure y'all who value your safety will find the most efficient way to accomplish this with great results.
123Next pageLast page