Warfare & Tactics

Says the guy whos killboard is full of high sec ganks.

Did someone post in here, instead of removing local from 0.0, to add it to WH space?

Someone run a locator agent on him and gank him into oblivion please.

I think you are referring to this data.

The relevant excerpts:

Null Sec PVP losses: 7,061,988

Wormhole Space PVP losses: 377,786

Looks like you are right! At first blush but lets dig a bit deeper.

The information in this blog is limited to kills that have taken place since the new kill report system was introduced in the Trinity expansion on December 5th, 2007, up until very early in the morning of November 29th, 2011.

Thing is, there were no wormholes at the time of the trinity expansion so those figures need to be corrected for the fact that nullsec data has been collected for longer. In fact it covers 1455 days of nullsec data vs only 985 days of wormhole data.

Lets leave the nullsec losses value alone and correct the wormhole loses proportionately so...

377.786 * 1455/985 -> 558049 losses in WH extrapolated to trinity expansion release.

The other thing you've mentioned is the fact that you are looking at losses per pilot I think that's the right approach too but these figures don't give us that data. However QEN 4-2010 (latest available) does tell us that the population of nullsec was 76999 pilots vs 16846 pilots in WH space so lets correct for that too.

558049 * 76999/16846 -> 2550707 losses in WH extrapolated to Trinity expansion and normalized to null player population.

Now... the last factor you might want to take into account is the fact that you have more nullsec systems than wh systems so you have to correct for that if you want to know how often a given pilot will get a fight in a given system. There are 2499 WH systems and 3294 nullsec systems. So...

2550707 * 3294/2499 -> 3 362 156 losses in WH space, extrapolated to the Trinity expansion and normalized to relative population size and number of systems in null vs WH space. Comparing the numbers:

7 061 988 losses in nullsec
3 362 156 losses in WH space

Roughly you have half as many losses in WH space as you do in nullsec. Thing is - virtually all WH action is going to be small gang action. Yes, sometimes small gangs can roll over a mining fleet but you are still talking about small gangs, not blobs or large fleet engagements.

Do you really think that half of all PVP losses in nullsec happen because of small gang action? I don't. Now that's a somewhat subjective opinion as we don't have any data to support it either way, but I think you will find that many people have the impression that a lot of those losses are related to blobs and large scale fleet engagements.

Now to address the other issue:



Looks pretty empty doesn't it? I can insert a usual disclaimer protesting that battleclinic data is not accurate (it isn't) but this is my main and to all intents and purposes the data on battleclinic is "good enough" for the following analysis. (though I also have other chars but nevermind that now)

Recall what I mentioned above:



Let me expand on this - my interest in PVP is evasion - I fly in hostile space (either in NPC null or in the null space held by hostile alliances) doing my thing (exploration mostly). Been doing it for months now in null - and it's been a long time since I was last caught. Why? Not because people have not tried, but simply because I have the perfect intel tool (local) to prevent anyone from ever catching me. That simple.

Given that we are not discussing the intricacies of combat (how to kill a ship or whatever) but actually whether or not an engagement will actually take place, based on available intel, my experience allows me to authoritatively back the statements that I've made let me put it to you one more time:

Local is broken. It provides too much intel, too easily, making it harder for small gang engagements (such as those which develop in WH space) to take place. This will primarily affect the amount of small gang action primarily because large fleets are used mainly to attack and/or defend static targets. (You know... sov units, POS, all that jazz).

I'm quite happy to hear any arguments which would change this, but I've not yet heard any.

Cyniac

If I were to provide data to you that shows low sec and null sec get more pvp per person than wormholes, even if we only include the time after wormholes have been around, would you agree local is fine?

Cyniac you can avoid pvp all you want in wormholes too. Its not that hard to avoid pvp anywhere in eve.

That would indeed go some way to convincing me, in particular if you could filter out static combat situations (defence/attack of structures).

I'd be really happy if you could argue the case from both sides, i.e. explain perhaps better why the changing of local with a different form of intel gathering would actually be a problem for you.



Sure, I could just stay docked up. The thing is not avoiding PVP but doing something productive while avoiding PVP, that is significantly harder in a WH than it is in nullsec, but I agree, avoiding PVP is not that terribly difficult.

First of all, Umadbro?
Secondly, I don't derive any sort of fun in chasing botters and I strongly believe it's up to CCP to fix that issue. I'm aware of how much instability they can cause in the eve economy and I guess it's understandable if you need such an advantage in order to prey on such people/things.
There's already more than enough ways to take advantage of "lazy idiots and carebears" but I guess it's the risk involved that's proven to be too much of a hassle for the likes of you that are hard working and quick to prey on such weaklings.

I've always though that Local should be a Sov upgrade module and should be left up to the Sov Holder to pay for. Likewise, Local can then be jammed out (like a cyno-jammer) in contested areas...

Cloakies should never appear in local anyways, it goes against reason that whatever is "detecting" their presence in Local can't be used to locate them, unless it is a function of gate travel keeping a head count which could be unreliable if there are WH's in the system.

As a Game Mechanic, Local is what's broken.

(Edit: Sov Holders should also be allowed to turn off/password Stargates as well, and depend upon jumpgate networks if they choose... but that's a different thread)

First: not seeing how this would nerf blobs... it would make it easier for roams to find targets since gatecamps wouldn't run as soon as local increased more that 1, but that wouldn't end the sheer unkillable entity that is the drake blob with shield resistance bonuses and a fleet booster with a siege warfare mindlink and logi.




Second: If you want W-Space to stay unique then drop the remove local support garbage. W-Space is W-Space because it has no local. Nullsec is K-Space because it has local. All its going to do to nullsec is help the roamer looking for the easy kill, nothing more. It wouldn't even nerf bots because they can already spam the d-scanner far more efficiently than a person could (I don't know about you but after about 5 minutes my fingers is hurting.)



I would like to add in, how many Nullsec solar systems are there and how many W-Space systems are there?
I have a rather hard time navigating doltan, im not sure if its up there.

Simple, make local a sov upgrade that requires extra up-keep. Depending on the level of the sov the local is delayed > instant

Sov 1 : delayed 10 minutes
Sov 2: delayed 5 minutes
Sov 3: delayed 2 minutes
Sov 4: delayed 15 seconds
Sov 5: Instant

This would work just fine, it would solve the botting problem because face it, botters occupy miltiary 5 systems that have nothing else and botting corporations cant all clusterfuk in the one system or they would make no money.

Or just make it depending on the true sec status, if local is delayed or not.