Assembly Hall

I have noted your opinion many times, that you refuse to consider anything that would represent a change to the current game mechanics in this context.

You state you believe that far more 'strictly farming' style PvE players exist, than 'farm & fight' style PvE players.

But your line about 'commercial suicide to take a fully working feature and nuke it for one of your biggest market groups', that really does assume far more than we have reason to believe.

To begin with, fully working? If the quoted devs are against it, and hoping to find alternatives, that makes it improvised or simply a work-a-round at best.

You don't look for a replacement to a system that meets your needs exactly the way you envisioned, which I feel should be the implied meaning for fully working, in this context.

I have no problem with the idea of changing some mechanics about, but local is simply not one of them. I don't see the benefit in taking a system which has worked for so long and stamping on it just because some gankers want easier kills, especially when it would mean a complete revamp of 20 other systems at the same time.

And yes, in null, more farm pilots exist than "farm & fight", especially since there's very rarely anything that qualifies as a fight. People get ganked, there's no fighting involved. If local were removed and replaced with some other system, that would not change. People would simply have to do more prerequisite stuff just to get a chance to play the part of the game they like. How about we add in a PVE minigame before people are allowed to online their turrets?

PvP players are always happy to force PvE players to have to play their way, but would flip out if the tables were turned.

Yes, the quoted devs are against it, and much like how some devs were for WiS, and some devs were for loot spew, that doesn't mean change and it doesn't mean it's the only dev opinion. Officially CCP have made no remarks about it, only a couple of devs stating their personal views. The fact of the matter is that local was designed the way it works, and it has worked that way for a long time. You can't say it's broken just because you like it. It's not a bug, it's a feature that was written into the game.

I don't look for a replacement because I don't see any benefit in changing it beyond making it easier for cloakers to sneak up on people. I wouldn't consider that as a positive change.

An opinion is something that lacks a foundation of provable aspects, with which to verify it with.
It is most commonly associated with statements that may be sincerely held, but lack this foundation otherwise.

You can say local is not broken and should therefore remain untouched.
We have no proof of this point. Claiming it as a fact fails, since this test cannot establish a foundation for it.

A developer DOES post public comments, as quoted above, citing an interest to have options to replace this with.

Can you give us anything solid to support your argument, beyond statements which we cannot provide a foundation for?

The ONLY statements we have from CCP either admit we have local right now, (admission of status quo is not meaningful, but observational for context), or point out they want something better.

It could be equally pointed out that ANY game aspect for which a better replacement can be found, is therefore suspect and should be considered.

Your effective response that it should not be considered, needs something stronger than we are showing in favor of this.

Can you help us on this point?

I am sorry, Lucas, but I am not representing gankers.
Nor am I pushing to give these types of players undue advantage, as you seem to imply.

Your continued claims that this will mysteriously benefit hostiles in space foreign to them, perhaps, is one of the points that would need clarification.

Could you please address these:

How does a 'ganker' know a target is specifically present, in order to be hunted?
(Are you using the game map for recent activity here, or could you be implying awoxxers provide this to them?)

Why would the intel channel not be significant in granting local forces an advantage?
(Are you suggesting players do not change or adapt, and would not be expected to scout or report from gate camps?)

Why would a 'ganker' hot-drop a target, if they could bring in the same forces beyond scan range and surprise their target directly?
(I would find it conflicting to expect a target to persistently scan, but noone else who might contribute to an intel channel)

You are assuming the ideas here would have this effect.
I am still waiting for you to demonstrate this point, beyond simply making the claim itself.


You make it sound so simple to reach this system, just described.
Are they not forced into using cloaked ships here, or some other means of bypassing a gate camp?

I believe it will take significant effort to penetrate a system in sov null, where these targets exist.
To ignore this as a time sink, and how this ages the intel they used to pick the system, I believe should be kept as a consideration.


Actually, I treat it as a game. I expect that a player cannot get out of the game more than they put into it, and you are defending something that keeps player efforts quite low.

It also sounds misleading to me, suggesting things will be harder, as it implies a level of significant difficulty exists already.
I mined in null quite extensively. Noticing a new name appear on local's list or hearing an intel channel report was a trivial thing.

Being able to avoid these threats became equally trivial, as I had made no significant effort for which to reward.
The difficulty in getting something, be it a bowl of soup, shelter from the storm, or protection from a threat, is what gives the thing it's value.
That which took no effort, is replaced equally with no effort, and thus has no value in game.



A cloaky T3 has two failings:

Price: These ships are expensive. Replacing them is no trivial task for many, so many avoid using them for that reason.

Compromised: Having the cloaking system in place, along with very likely the nullifier for gate camp avoidance, leaves little fitting room for both DPS and tanking.
In order to "rip 99% of PvE" as effectively as you suggest, they would probably not have room for a meaningful tank.

And most of all, let's not forget players adapt and change.
How long do you believe it would take, for players to figure out a half billion ISK cruiser was poking their alliance, before they organized a response?

This is interesting, I never would have thought I would be compared to a ganker. hmmm lets look at something here.

It has been skirted but lucas brought it to light. Targets are found by map reporting, api ect. hmmm where does that information come from? .... think hard now ..... you almost have it ... Yes! it comes from local

Local was intended from the first to be just a chat channel where you had to speak to be seen.
you also have constellation and regional chats. most close them out early on in the game. Both of these channels work as intel as well. a delayed response yes but can be used.

all the stat reporting is why Local has not gone away or been changed. CCP has a large piece of work to redo where all the collected data comes from. now back to the little black boxes.

If Concord stopped reporting local intel from ships. there would be no api checks, no map trends exct. oh and by the way, the map is a minimum of 30 min out of date on a good day.

As a PVE pilot, I would not mind seeing would be gankers Not see me in local and give me a few seconds more to dock or run or fight! However to be fair, the intel we use needs to be changed. It needs improvement.

I think this is we well researched and written article http://evenews24.com/2014/08/22/tuppence-and-tinfoilwip2/

I am not tipping the favor in gankers, right now you can get in an interceptor, and run 10 systems in less than 8 minutes, D scan only the ones who have someone in local, If local was not there, they would have to do multiple scans in each system and could take up to thirty minutes.
Easily as I do now my scouts will be watching gates, to see if anyone jumps through. this is not a made up mech, I have used it in high sec to wh to null as it is more reliable than Local intel combined with intel channels.

Lucas you say it is not broken, and I believe that you believe it is not. You like it because it is what you know. you are comfortable with it, it is familiar to you. I believe you fear change.

Lack of change = boring and in the the gaming industry Boring = commercial suicide

? have you played other games? why did you leave? do you have a business degree? or do you work for a electronic arts development company? What makes you so qualified that you can make a confident statement as commercial suicide.
I mean Incarna did not kill EVE, CCP will do what it can and listen to the player community before changes happen.

The proposals for change that have been made are wide and varying. and yes many favor the gankers,
Nikk and I both PVP but have a solid foundation in PVE and Industry. We want both sides to have better intel.
We also want to game the intel. would it be nice to see gankers come in and see a .. lets say omni potent T3 cruiser instead of a hulk? .. to be honest I think I would be safer in the hulk but I am trying to get through to you.

It is far easier to say this is not the issue or that its not broken, than to say, ok I have read your idea and I do not think it will work because of this. Or I like the idea but I think this aspect would make it better.
you have wasted many minutes of my time, and the time of others to state.

Lucas Kell = I believe its not broken, don't change it. or I will rage quit and take as many pilots as who will listen with me.
in all your walls of text broken down that is all you have to say.

and a bit of advice, before you state such strong opinions maybe you should make sure they are based on solid facts.
One example is you apparent lack of knowledge about T3's. They can be very overwhelming to a low skilled pve player. As a general rule they are not the best solo hunters when faced with multiple opponents.

that leads me to another observation, I am guessing you participate in solo game play? Most of your arguments appear to suggest a total lack of support from other players. And yes that would make you a majority of the players in EVE. However that demographic has a high turnover of pilots who do not stay in eve anyway. I would suggest if you really love this game and want to be in Null as you say that you look at getting in with a good corp in a decent alliance. A trip to EVE university may be a good step.

I wish you the best of luck in your EVE career and I hope that you continue to play for years to come.
WIth that being said, unless you have something of substance or see something we have missed please refrain from posting the same old "its not broken" or " I do not want change" arguments.
Thank you

LOL. I've explained time and again why I think your idea would be bad. You and Nikk are looking at this from a single point of view, refusing to even accept that other points of view may exist. I have to ask, have you even considered what large scale combat would be like, with the complete inability to even remotely see who's got what in a combat system? Seems to me like that hasn't even crossed your mind.

From my point of view, after taking in all of the ideas that have been presented over the years, and looking at the state of the game over the same time period, my idea is to not change local or cloaks. They both work fine as is. Your suggestion that my idea is invalid simply because I don't believe a change is required is idiotic.

And nowhere did I say I'd rage quit. But you nuke null PvE, and there's plenty of accounts that would become completely irrelevant.

Lol? Like what lack of knowledge? They are extremely versatile, powerful and can refit in space. Nearly every null ratting build would be annihilated by them in short order, and flown correctly they are virtually uncatchable.

And yes, they would probably get into a bit of trouble against multiple PvPers, but then they get to choose who to engage, don't they?

Generally speaking, most ratters are at the very most in small groups in null. Being supported by even a single PvP player would put your overall efficiency at less than high sec, and flying a massive group of PvE players is like screaming "HEY COME GANK ME!" at the top of your voice. And regardless, the design decisions will need to factor around small groups at most, otherwise you're basically asking for CCP to stamp a minimum membership count on null sec.

I tell you what, I'll continue to say what the **** I like wherever and whenever I want. This is a discussion forum, not an "OP decides what opinion is and isn't valid" forum. I'm not going to just go away because you don't like that I disagree with your insane ideas to destroy nullsec by tuning it into wormhole space. I tell you what, why don't you just move to WH space? That way you get what you want and us real nullsec players can continue to play the game we like.

ok I am unsure as to why this was not made simple enough.

1. I have never stated that local is broken.
2. If you read dev blogs over the past years and CSM minutes on the subject of local, working as intended. yes,
3. The same pull for the API check does feed all the sources I mentioned. over the last year and a half, CCP is making changes on the back end.
3. THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT LOCAL !!!!
since I think you have a hard time reading my post I will say it again.

THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT REMOVING LOCAL

There are many many threads about local and intel. All that was supposed to be discussed here was how it affects cloaking and afk gameplay.
we have discussed different methods of changing how we get intel.

Lucas Kell, this is especially for you, you are grandstanding, do you want me to look that word up for you?
It does not matter what our qualifications are, we both are stating an opinion. I tend to reference where I get my information and use valid sources. I have yet to see you actively reference anything.
You look at the headlines of post, quoting them, maybe you should try reading them first?
You are deliberately trying to derail this thread, for subject matter that while discussed here, is not what this thread is about.
You are a forum lurker, that does not mean because you have lots of post and likes that you know what you are talking about.
And yes, everyone can tell from just reading your post. what you know and don't know. post all you want.
I for one am blocking you. therefore I will not have to waste my time with you.

Here a damn fact for you, a Dev would also like to see the system changed so that intel was it on separated mechanic. I honestly Think I linked this before http://i.imgur.com/cYPye.jpg

IT IS CLEARLY A FACT THAT DEV(s) ARE CLEARLY UNHAPPY WITH THIS CURRENT SET UP, THAT IS CLEARLY A FACT AND THAT THEY ALSO WANT TO SEE IT REMOVED FOR GOOD INTEL TOOLS. THIS IS ALSO A FACT.

You opinions are annoying, you reference nothing. You carry no proof with you, not even links, all you are is all talk, and no action, nor proof. Anything else you will like to say pretty boy?

You have passed us the torch of "show your proof" to us, now that we did, we have passed it back to you... However, it seems like the flame of that torch has gone out with your touch.

The first line is funny, considering the context that you are asking for proof of something that requires testing in live conditions to establish.
Now, add to that the idea that we have players complain that "X has ruined the game", on such a frequent basis, that it has the meme about having all their stuff as a given reply.

And Lucas, that second line?
You are notorious for cherry picking post elements, and not just for shorter replies.

Many times in the past, I have seen you asking for an explanation which had already been given.

Can you simply give us a concrete point as an objection, rather than a blanket statement implying we have to read your mind and guess what you object to?

A simple "Please no change", posted once, is a rational reply.
Otherwise, please specify an objection which can be answered directly.