Assembly Hall

Incorrect. I can veto the idea because it's badly thought out, has absolutely no proof that it will not cause enormous issues, and has been stated by someone who has given clear evidence that they have no experience with the mechanic, on top of the fact that the existing mechanics work perfectly well and get used every single day. It's like a medical student half way though university suggesting a new and ill through out method for performing a triple bypass while pointing at the patients stomach saying "the heart's around there someowhere".

Change in the way you think it's going to happen is not inevitable. There's every possibility that local will remain as is forever.

The fact that it not only exists but that cloaks and local are used in daily activities show they work well enough. The only evidence towards the removal of local is wormhole space which is desolate. You've shown no reason to believe that changes to null in the same way wouldn't make null even worse due to fixed gates and power projection, and you haven't even fired a guess at how it would work with 4000 people in a system.

I'm all for a well thought out change to be put forward, but to this date all of the ideas put forward have been thought out from one maybe 2 angles at best. There are a LOT of mechanics in nullsec which will need to be considered if any change is to happen, and honestly I think it would not be worth the development time. The value it would add simply isn't there. 99% of the playerbase would gain nothing but extra clicks.

Lol, of course it's my opinion as what you and Maria have stated is yours. At no point have I stated otherwise. My opinion is just educated with first hand experience of most null mechanics rather than being from one or two points of view with little to no consideration for how it might affect others. Your opinion is not gospel purely because you have it.

It's simple. You haven't got a clue about most null mechanics, which not only have you evidenced, but you've all but admitted, so it's understandable that your ideas are not well thought out. You've yet to explain a single one of the other null mechanics and how they would fit it, the ONLY thing you've looked at is how it might affect a cloaker that hunts people (which you claim not to be), and one of those cloakers has explained himself in this thread why you were wrong (which again you ignored). Come back when you have half a clue what you are talking about. Or in fact stick around now, because no CSM member is going to champion your idea while you are displaying repeatedly that you haven't thought it through.

A single dev stated his personal opinion. No devs were "complaining". And there are plenty of examples (which I have given) of ideas that devs have been for an against which have not gone their way. It's not a case that anything that pops into a single developers head will get put into the game eventually, development simply doesn't work that way.

Where does what statistic come from? That null works as is or that wormholes space is empty?

And LOL. Most people seem to be in fleet, therefore knowing what is in the system the are attacking/defending is irrelevant eh? LOL. Are you trying to prove even further that you have NO CLUE AT ALL about null mechanics?

Again, LOL. You mean how could sovereignty or supercapital construction work in a wormhole environment? Not well You haven't considered ANY mechanics. You want to strip out local and you want to dump in some arbirtrary system for people to click to be able to gain the same intel, and you haven't even considered how people that actually live in null every day would react. You only look from your point a view, a passer by in null.

And effort will involve clicks or keypresses. How do I know? Because those are the two methods of input in EVE online, and you want to add extra input to gain the same output.

Lets do a check list here.

A: Called him out for his stupid comparision to medical community way of suggesting ideas, and a gaming community to suggesting ideas.

Quickly changes tactics saying I don't have a clue about null mechanics. (Check)

B: Still going on about a single dev opinion, still ignores the fact that if it was only a single dev's opinion, then he would of most likely been told not to post things like that again, which not only has he posted on twitter, which right in the same twitter comments, the other person stated another dev has talked about it during alliance tournaments, so we have two confirmed devs, and, the possibility of other devs agreeing because they havn't been told to stop talking about it. Also, ignores the fact that Dev, or developers opinions greatly matter when it comes to the subject of change because they are the ones that... You know, come up with concepts, artwork, sounds, write the code for such change, and ectra.

C: Makes claims that wormhole space is empty, and thus reason for not providing change. However, the recent expansion quickly disproves this theory as if it never used, why further expand upon it?

D: Makes another claim about me not taking into account of other mechanics with this brand spanking new mysterious idea that I never posted. Continues to place post ****, and provides no backing facts or stats on this idea that I posted(not don't know what seeing I have yet to post an idea) that this idea would increase current clicking and button pressing.

E: Calls me a Kid, despite the fact that I have done my utmost best to respect him as an adult, he doesn't seem to want to return the favor.

F: Again, attacks an idea that I have never posted. I want to know what this idea he droning on about.

G: Makes another 99% of the population of an entire system, again, I would like to know where he gets these stats from. Please, links? A table? A chart? Some data?

H: Sure, devs are allowed to opinions, however, when being a developer means you have more power, it also means that the gaming community will hold your word at a higher standard then some random person that is posting on their forums.

ok a few things to shoot from the hip,
Some of these ideas come from this thread, some from others, and some from in game discussion.

Proposed changes - these are ideas not complete proposals.
We make these assumptions.
Stations and gates are connected. regardless of space sec.
other than where specified - actively cloaked ships are not reported.
pilot aggression status Unless specified is not reported.
1. Local take the form of other system channels where it only shows those who choose to speak
2. the auto scan system already in place, scan times to be set by pilot. shows in tab - (keep in mind some things will be described later)
a. hi sec - black box reports to DED and concord record of pilots in system, sec status, aggression status. ship class. ship board computer populates standings as set by pilot.
b. Low sec - black box reports to DED and concord record of pilots in space, sec status, shipboard computer populates standings as set by pilot.
c. Null sec - NPC space black box reports to DED only record of ship class, and corporation of pilots in system. Shipboard computer populates standings as set by pilot. If an ESS is deployed information as if in Low sec is reported to the corp/alliance/standings as set by deploying pilot.
d. Null sec - Sov space - Black box DED reports to DED record of ship class in space and corporation of pilots in system.Shipboard computer populates standings as set by pilot. Sentry reports for sov holders. If an ESS is deployed information as if in Low sec is reported to the corp/alliance/standings as set by deploying pilot.
For non sov holders, only ship class is reported. unless a gate sentry is deployed.
Wormhole space will stay the same.

New deployable modules and ship modules.
Gate sentry - only deployable in SOV space - tied to gate is it anchored on. only anchorable within 15k of a gate. Give reports of all pilots who use the gate, or comes in range of gate to corp/alliance/standings as set by deploying pilot. if multiple gates in system multiple sentries need to be deployed. us usable by both sov holders and non sov holders, so it can spy on you.
(I have not found a viable interface for this)
gate sentry decoy - can be deployed by hostile to jam gate sentries. also works as a regular gate sentry for deploying pilot.
Active cloak detection array - This is a deployable that must be part of the POS system. it anchors similar to a gun or jump beacon. senses ship emissions and Emits variable bands of energy to detect cloaked vessels.
(personally I would prefer this be a deployable connected with a combat probe scanner)

Modules
Signature decoy - Dependant on skills, fits a hi slot, emits ship emission and alters DED Concord signal to broadcast a ship type of the Blue print copy loaded - each cycle uses on run.
Signature scanner - dependant on skills, fits in hi slot, direct counter to signatur Decoy - processes reports and compares to sensor array to determine validity of reported data.

This is the main idea, take several of the good ideas suggested, along with other things that are already in the works by ccp. incorporate them to change things to make more challenging game play.

I have not considered the watch list - That is an interesting idea, however there needs to be a major trade off.
consider block warfare - Hi sec warfare, Hi sec ganking.
Watchlist is invaluable to entities that do not have the power projection, defenses, of larger entities.
Watchlist gives them idea of impending danger to take appropriate steps. currently watchlist does not tell you what system a pilot is in or if they are active or not.
Logging in all super pilots has changed fleet objectives - in both directions
logging in as a war target has caused disruption ect.

what would be the trade to have the ability to remove your activity from watchlist?

your suggestions to changes to D scan are acceptable and is along the same lines as the detailed Idea of scanner improvements not mentioned in the above post.
Thank you for your valuable input.

This change is quite one sided. Most null groups couldn't care less who the individual pilot is, all they care about is the colour of their tag, so for sov holding groups this would barely have an impact. For non-sov holders though, it would mean that they can't find the basic information they need to assault a system. Basically you would be giving defending sov holders an intel advantage as well as all of the other advantages they have. I'm in a large enough group that it wouldn't really matter to me, but smaller null groups would take this change hard.

What is the benefit of the idea? A lot of the resistance to these ideas has always been that the ideas aren't there for a gameplay benefit, they are just there because certain people think that local intel should only be obtained through input. Combining these ideas together in one megathread doesn't suddenly add purpose, so to many people these ideas will still come across as "more clicking for the sake of clicking" rather than being designed to fulfill a gameplay need of a given group.

If the idea is to remove AFK cloakers, then keep it simple. Stop people being able to go AFK without getting logged out, and tada, problem solved.

On a side note, why is this in Assembly Hall? This isn't a proposal for a CSM to back, it's just another F&I discussion thread that's not in F&I, probably so it can avoid being noticed by as many members of the community.

Nikk thank you for putting the link, The d-scan related ideas came from your post.
in addition what do you think about the deployables? I would really value your input on those.
The modules have been talked about in several places. I have not put details to them either.

Also when I put my finished proposal together for the intel package, I plan to reference your threads related to it.

What do I trade to give up watch-list, well of course, I would give up watch list itself. Losing watch-list means that the aggressive entity also loses the ability to keep track of when the defensive entity. So Watch-list in this case is it own balancer.

Again, I'm attempting to provide a feed back, that I don't care if a change is put through or not, I'm simply stating that if a change has to be made, then far many more steps must be added then just adding a tool that gives defensive entity to hunt afk cloakers, as with the many above arguments. Cloaking and, in some cases, hot dropping(which is a semi-stretch, seeing local is reporting the hot dropper) is the only balancing factor to local's omni-potent always reporting intel.

I love how Lucas glosses over details, particularly when devs have repeatedly pointed out they cannot predict emergent gameplay.

The whole bit about implying how AFK cloaking was intended by devs... priceless.

I like how it is implied in the past that devs planned local to include faction standings, rather than giving it to everyone as a reaction to a third party app that one group had developed.
Because, you know, they can see the future, and know how everything WILL be used.

Which wildly conflicts with any dev commenting otherwise, of course.

The last part, which acknowledges the stalemate existing, but implies that this is intended rather than emergent... just wow.

This thread has run it's course. In so many circles chasing it's own tail I might add, it has made me a bit dizzy....

Thread locked.