Player Features and Ideas Discussion

People aren't rushing to Nullsec because there is no real incentive to do so. As it stands now I can do FW complexes for roughly double the isk as an individual pilot. L4's are comparable to what I can do in an anom but are relatively risk free. I don't see how removing local is going to fix that or cause a population boom.

If anything it's going to add another layer of crap I have to regularly deal with while living out in the wilds. Exactly how far do you think you are going to push the average ratter before he just says "**** this" and rolls a Tengu Alt or a FW to crap out isk in a much safer environment: Don't answer that because you don't know, but I do. We have extensive guides on our forums and wiki that teach our membership just how to do each of those things. The other major form of individual pilot income? Scamming people and telling lies about the bounty of nullsec.

Further deconstructing your whining about the politics of nullsec you fail to understand that the politics, the metagame and the narrative created by large alliances such as my own, the old Band of Brothers, IT Alliance, the HBC, and virtually every other SOV holding alliance (That aren't renters) are currently THE ONLY driving force to push individual players out into null.

I'm still holding out that someone is going to have some amazingly convincing argument on how making every day life harder in one of the most underpopulated areas of eve is somehow going to push people towards it. And don't give me that "Small gang pvp" spiel. You aren't going for "Small gang pvp" you want to effortlessly kill ratters with next to no chance of them surviving.

You want to push people into null? Give them a reason to actually LIVE in the space their sov occupies. Make them want to plant a flag and call it home. When they want new ships they should be buying them off a local market, provided by local suppliers, built out of local infrastructure which could be hit by... those small gangs everyone wants to see so much of. I won't even get into the argument that a higher density playerbase of people living in null will grant you the "Dumb ratter" kills you want just because it would become a "Target Rich" environment.

W-Space long ago answered the "Will removing local increase population density" argument. I don't know why people keep bringing it up.

I get it you're saying we're elitist because we let rookies participate freely.

Got it.

My fallacy huh?

You call us elitist for letting rookies come on live ops (the best possible training, better than any guide), you say using local for intel is a cop-out when until I explained it to you, you didn't even grasp the concept itself (despite arguing against it), you claim that the reason we need local is because it's easier for "elitists" who let rookies participate, and then when confronted with this fallacy, you claim I'm ignorant of my fallacies?

Laughable.

This is nonsense. The concept of loss was learned the first time I went AFK to pee in my brand new ratting drake that I had saved up for by scraping salvage off of rats other people older than me could actually kill. No I don't learn the concept of loss by getting a free rifter blown up. I learn the concept of loss by getting my personal ships blown up. My PVE ships aren't covered under any form of reimbursement, and all the special snowflake ships I love to fly so much in PVP are only partially covered. I've probably lost a billion isk in Vagabonds alone this year.



This isn't even an argument. It's like a word pissing contest that literally means nothing.



Elitist communities that don't welcome "New blood" to the nullsec community have a history in Eve online of getting their teeth kicked in by organizations that have a few extra newbies in rifters. The fact of the matter is the well trained null pilot is generally already out in null and has fairly polarized views on "Who's side" he would like to be on. Even the bitterest of highsec vets coming into nullsec for the first time are generally less prepared for the "Dangers" of nullsec than a two month old newbie who was recruited directly into that community.



This whole "Elitist" argument doesn't even make sense. Local doesn't make it easier for elite players, it makes it easier for everyone.



Nullsec literally works exactly nothing like lowsec. Anecdotal evidence being what it is... I'll post it anyways. Several Goonswarm and Test alliance players used to be part of a group called "Incursion Swarm" where we would follow lowsec incursions around in a gypsy train of cynoalts and carriers. Because I'm a big nerd I actually hate losing my cyno ships despite the fact that they are rarely expensive, so I'd generally fit them with a T1 cloak and mwd and those two items when paired in an effective little trick allow me to wander entirely invulnerable through lowsec. Meanwhile every single time I decided to bounce through syndicate I'd literally have to do the multi celestial bounce tango just to get myself safely through half the drag and stop bubbled to hell systems, and even then it wasn't unusual in a few systems to have all celestials covered in which case I'd either have to take my chance in a bubble burn, or hope I already had a tactical in system.

When we say bubbles change literally everything you do in nullsec, we aren't joking, and if you are in any way predictable bombs can ruin your day too, though I'd consider them nowhere near as game changing as the anchorable bubble, the dictor and the hictor.

If you don't believe me, go wander around syndicate for a few hours during primetime. As one of the most shat up regions in the game, especially at it's egress points, it's a perfect place to learn exactly how much you don't know about the safety of nullsec.

I thank you for explaining it to me. I understand it a whole lot better now but it does not change my stance on the topic.
Basically what you are saying is:

Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise
Conflict is created from local, no local forces everyone to hisec., therefore all conflict is in highsec.

Illicit major
All wormholers are ignorant of nullsec.
No elitist nullsecers are wormholers.
therefore, no elitist nullsecer is ignorant of nullsec.

And to top it all off for your arguement on how if local is removed and why you do not want to give it up.
Argument from ignorance

That may be the dumbest use of semantics (As well as improper use of most of those particular rules towards argumentation) that I've seen yet on this forum.

Part of the problem is both of you are utilizing the wrong words to describe what goes on in major fleet warfare. The biggest misused word is "driven". By and large the biggest driver of conflict in nullsec is the ever prevalent narrative that alliances create out of a mix of whole cloth and historical grudges.

We don't fight because local is there.

The word we should be using is "enabler". What local does is allow us to measure spikes and apply pressure to those points, and most importantly it allows us to do it quickly. There is, I think an assumption that in wartime we don't use "scouts" or that we're just hoping our fleets simply see eachother and local and bash our fleets together. We have an extensive scouting network and frankly so does the enemy who's first and foremost tool in finding an enemy fleet is ... local.

Once again lets get down to brass tacks and talk about what this is really about: Someone wanting to bang on ratters unmolested all day. How long do you think Christmas will last before the ratters go elsewhere? That going elsewhere won't drive the conflict to highsec. The main conflict drivers in null will remain as they always have: narrative. I could rattle off completely uninhabited chunks of sov space where no one appears to live because the ratting is terrible there; yet if you went to bash a pos there you'd be greeted by a 200 man fleet on the next timer.

On to the next point:

"All wormholers are ignorant of nullsec.
No elitist nullsecers are wormholers.
therefore, no elitist nullsecer is ignorant of nullsec."

What point are you even trying to make here? Because you are hilariously mistaken on the hows and why's of how nullsec and for that matter nullsec combat works.

"And to top it all off for your arguement on how if local is removed and why you do not want to give it up."

I honestly think you have no clue what the argument clauses you are linking mean.

I mean you can't even argue your point, so your playing these semantic "Gotchas" in hopes that it will somehow lend credence to your "side" of the argument. Hey maybe you can link the cute wikipedia article on that particular debate faux pas!

DELETED - mistake

Still waiting for the common sense and logic, because it hasn't happened yet. Just because you say it is so does not make it so.

You literally knew nothing about how local is used in null and, if you'd gotten your way and this thread had been locked, you would still know nothing about it despite yourself.

Talking down to you was easy, you were arguing from a position of ignorance, which is probably the source of your true dilemma.

I'm sorry but I can't take your argument seriously because you're arguing using absurdities.

All conflict is not in high-sec. Local is a tool that enables conflict in NULL-SEC.

The fallacy is yours alone for removing null-sec from the claim.

Still so laughable.