Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I have read a lot of threads about removing local, and how it is linked to cloaky afk.

This tread is not about if there is a problem or if there is not a problem nor is it linked to if there is a problem with cloaky afk.

I am not saying there is, or there is not a problem, but I would like for the people of EVE to be able to find out.

Why am I proposing an idea for which I have said there may not be a problem?

I have an idea as a means to find out.

I would like alliances with Sovereignty to be able to be able to either

A: pay a token amount for a solor system to opt out of having local chat. Added in the same way that alliances opt to allow jump bridges and cyno at a POS in the solor system.

Or

B: anchor an “inhibit local chat” module at a pos.
This would allow the eve community to see if there is any demand for regions of space that don’t have local.

If option A (pay Sovereignty bill) then would any alliance put their own people in the dark,

If option B (POS module) then could this be quite useful in attacking a solor system (set up a POS with “inhibit local chat” in the target solor system)?

Would this drive conflict? In hunting and eradicating these inhibit local POS?
Would it be in the defenders interest to enable the removal of local?
Would it be in the attacker’s interest to enable the removal of local?
Would the afk cloak ships go elsewhere?
Would the solor pilots carry on and get used to the new system or would there losses force a stop to the inhibition of local?
Would this be too powerful an attack tool?
Would it hurt the attackers more than the defenders?

Is option A(pay Sovereignty bill) a valid test of the removing local as it required the defenders to inhibit local?
Is option B(POS module) going too far reaching in forcing removal of local regardless of Sovereignty?
If option B(POS module) should it be restricted to null or null and low ?

Are there any other ways to test if players want the removal of local ?

Yes ! Do it in w-space and ask any wormhole resident if they like it :) Oh wait ..

he he ... well the only reason I have is that there are a lot many "get rid of local" threads, so I was trying to think of on idea to give the eve community the means to inhibit local, and if no one actually inhibits local then that will at least stop people posting a new "get rid of local" thread.

maybe not the best reason, but I don't think its ever going to get resolved.

yes I think I agree with you.

"If option A (pay Sovereignty bill) then would any alliance put their own people in the dark ?"

If you want a removal of local, go to W-space. Thank you.

Cloaked ships have no correlation with local, except that cloaky pirates constantly whine on how local gives them away. But that's not true. Jumpgates give them away. Maybe we should devise of a way, for cloaked ships to pass from system to system without using gates or cyno bridges. Yes, yes, that would be the best solution. Why not givem them the ability to fire it's weapons and activate modules while cloaked AND be invulnerable as well.

Not entirely true, if a player logs on a cloaked ship in a system, that player is still registered in local for everyone to see despite never going trough a gate.

It wouldn't be a bad idea tho, to have people register in local only when they wend trough a gate into a system or opted in (explicitly or by beans of chatting in local).

indeed, every post about afk cloakers is made by someone doing PvE in WH space.