Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Wrong. And this has been demonstrated as fact.

Resident using local (for free) sees the hostile enter system before the hostile even loads grid.

Hostile entering system sees neutral, but is waiting for the jump gate tunnel effect to finish, load grid, and...the neutral is on his way to a safe tower.

Not the same, everyone does not get the same benefit.

Bull. You see the new local before you even finish the tunnel, so both sides see local at about the same time. It's not local that means you can't stop warping, that's gate mechanics for you. Not to mention that if you are on the other side of the gate, and I as a PvE player come through, I encounter the EXACT SAME THING.

So yes, all players get the same benefit. All players on the receiving end of the gate see local a fraction of a second before the person entering local can warp, but has still seen you on local. This is the same regardless of which side is a PvP player.

1. No. I will clarify this for you, since you wish to debate details.
A mistake is something that gives OVER a 50% chance of ship loss. A hostile does not need to make a superior effort to catch such a ship, only an average effort that should not have succeeded otherwise.
How do we define this chance, percentage wise? That is specific to your area. You need to customize your efforts to have better than a 50% chance to beat previous known efforts by hostiles.
With so many undefinable aspects to EVE, this comes down to putting yourself into the hostile's perspective, and anticipating their tactics to the best of your abilities.

As to a T1 hauler in null being a mistake, (unless you are hauling below 10k m3), this ship is the most cost effective option in most cases, and fitted properly gives a manageable risk profile. For enough cargo to justify more than a few trips, you probably want to consider something capable of jumping, which also should require help from others to properly manage.

2. No. Quite simply the game is more complex than you imply. Tic-Tac-Toe assumes enough details to be a bad analogy.
The first assumption is that you will encounter an opponent evenly matched to stalemate your efforts, and not have the results decided by degree of mismatch between the two sides.
Do you fit for speed and or stealth? This often beats brute force defenses.
Do you plan for ambushes, and try using scouts? This usually requires an opponent to bypass the scout.
Do you plan for raw power, and use a convoy? This normally beats any force of lesser raw power, but is more demanding of group effort as well.
There is no single best plan that always wins, as a counter exists to each of these.
And this is just for moving supplies and materials.

3. It is only a draw if both sides refuse to commit to risk. Tic-Tac-Toe has limitations often forcing this result.
As with any scale of responsibility, the side with more options also bears more responsibility for this, as they must reject more choices in favor of risk avoidance.
The ease by which both sides know when to avoid risk often fosters such mutual caution.

Great start with the arbitrarily chosen 50% and lead of into babbling nonsense to finish it up. Beautiful stuff. As for the T1, it's definitely a bad choice. I'll even quote you here: "Using a ship you cannot afford to lose, or in a way likely to cause loss.". You see flying a T1 hauler through nullsec would definitely be considered flying in a way likely to cause loss. That's why blockade runners were made. Blockade runners are impossible to catch when flown properly and with a scout.

Sure, the game is more complex than tic-tac-toe, but the outcomes fit. In a one on one if both side act perfectly, nobody wins (since if one side would lose, the correct choice is don;t engage). There are simply not enough random elements in EVE to create any situation except one like this.
I don't really have enough time to go into massive detail right now as I have to drive home :D

Even the example I gave, a blockade runner would not survive, let alone where it had been scouted by an opponent able to use more discretion in their choices.

Blockade runners do not have the nullifier subsystem, so the hictor would still catch it.

Unless your scout was some ship able to beat down the hictor fast enough, that hauling ship is still toast.
If your scout was something that brute force oriented, why would you assume an ambush that well thought out would engage without compensating for it?
(You know they had to have eyes on target well enough to ID the second ship as a hauler already, the first ship being PvP capable would not surprise them)

Bockade runner is now lost, as is the cargo, and the ISK value of the total loss is a lot higher too.

In your opinion your arguments are sound.

Such as staying docked, use hictors at the undock to hold down the fleet as they undock. Start anchoring bubbles. Remaining docked has a clear disadvantage.

That argument needs work, IMO.

Yes, but an advantage that can be taken away since intel infrastructure is no longer beyond the players reach.

Not only that, but I am pretty confindent those ships will get hit again by the nerf bat.

There is an effective way to fight...bring more people. No, this isn't an argument for blobbing, but just showing up with 5 guys in PvP fit ships to rat will prevent the hot drop (at least the covert ops variety). In this case you don't have to evade, but you may not actually fight...which according to some martial philosophies is the highest level of skill....winning and not fighting.

Uhh, best of luck stopping a blockade runner. I've jumped scoutless into a dictor bubbled gate camp, and still got out without a scratch. You have to be very unlucky or very stupid to lose a blockade runner.

So to balance the need for 5 PvP guys in PvE, I take it 5 PvE guys will be required for PvP ships to be effective too then?
Fair's far and all that.