These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

PSA Null is safer than High Sec
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Salvos Rhoska
#21 - 2017-02-06 10:22:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Remove Local from Player Sov NS.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
radkid10
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2017-02-06 14:34:31 UTC  |  Edited by: radkid10
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Someone with that name should know better than to be a pathetic troll.

However, as usual - if you think this is true, jump in a ship and autopilot from highsec to nullsec. I'm sure you'll be fine once you hit null.

you might think he's trolling but he's absolutely right


Caterpil wrote:
I'm sure those nullsec folks will disagree. After all we hear all the time how they can't even undock if there is an AFK cloaked frigate in local. Thats got to mean there's some sort of massive threat right?...

Right?....

that's ******* CVA they're a bunch of cowards

people getting riled up about 1 cloaky pilot they need to grow some balls they have the numbers to kill any threat to comes to them


Jenn aSide wrote:
Torin Corax wrote:
For the most part, the more dangerous an area is perceived to be, the more careful people are likely to be in that area. Subsequently (with some exceptions) those that live in Null are safer because they are less complacent about their safety.

Far too many High sec dwellers simply refuse to take the most basic of precautions, subsequently they make pathetically easy targets for those that know how to play the game.

If you take a reasonable degree of personal responsibility for your own safety in high sec, you are damn near untouchable.


Well said, even if the op is pure troll bait.

Must of us know it is a stupid idea, the place with no law enforcement (where the only safety comes from the actions of actual flesh and blood people working together) somehow being 'safer' than the place where magical space police fall out of the sky if someone spits at you. High Sec partisans cling to the idea, because that lie is the only thing that justifies their beliefs in their own heads.

Concorde doesn't protect you from losing your ship friends do that's why 0.0 is a better place to live for safety
Salvos Rhoska
#23 - 2017-02-06 15:29:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Remove Local from Player Sov, and watch the dynamics correct themselves overnight.
This is the single, simple, obvious solution, and long overdue.

That Player Sov has Local is irrational considering the EVE sector safety cascade and associated mechanics.

There is NO reason why player controlled space should have Local.

Imo this is the most glaring oversight in EVE, as well as the most easily corrected, to return to the precepts of EVE.
It speaks to the greatest hypocrisy regarding Player Sov entitites, with the most access to the greatest wealth, arguing about risk.

I will vote for any CSM that advocates for removal of Local from Player Sov.

Make it happen.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#24 - 2017-02-06 15:40:16 UTC
radkid10 wrote:

Concorde doesn't protect you from losing your ship friends do that's why 0.0 is a better place to live for safety


I'm sorry but that just a dumb way to think about it. My Friends aren't on 23.5/7 and then magically appear without me haivng to say a single word on comms or in Chat.

And Yes CONCORD can prevent the loss of your ship in the same way people can, if you do the math right and fit to tank however many seconds it takes for them to appear. This is what I do with all my high sec hauling and playing ships, and my losses to high sec ganks in the almost 10 years I've played are 2 shuttles and one implantless pod.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#25 - 2017-02-06 15:44:53 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Remove Local from Player Sov, and watch the dynamics correct themselves overnight.
This is the single, simple, obvious solution, and long overdue.

That Player Sov has Local is irrational considering the EVE sector safety cascade and associated mechanics.

There is NO reason why player controlled space should have Local.

Imo this is the most glaring oversight in EVE, as well as the most easily corrected, to return to the precepts of EVE.
It speaks to the greatest hypocrisy regarding Player Sov entitites, with the most access to the greatest wealth, arguing about risk.

I will vote for any CSM that advocates for removal of Local from Player Sov.

Make it happen.


That would be a disaster in multiple ways. It would chase the smaller groups completely out of null while letting bigger groups (Alliances like mine) run roughshod over everyone in a way that would make the old Blue donut look like a Blue Tic-tac.

No local doesn't work in a place that has gates and cynos. That's why it does work in Womrhole space. Even with those concessions made by CCP (ie not gates and no cynos), wormhole space is still the least lived in space (by population share) of all EVE space.

No local in null sounds great till you realize all it would do is recreate "the Dominion Effect" (ie the opposite of what is intended, The Dominion Sov system was supposed to help small groups, it did the opposite and created the blue donut and expanded the practice of "renting").
Salvos Rhoska
#26 - 2017-02-06 16:03:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Jenn aSide wrote:
That would be a disaster in multiple ways. It would chase the smaller groups completely out of null while letting bigger groups (Alliances like mine) run roughshod over everyone in a way that would make the old Blue donut look like a Blue Tic-tac.

No local doesn't work in a place that has gates and cynos. That's why it does work in Womrhole space. Even with those concessions made by CCP (ie not gates and no cynos), wormhole space is still the least lived in space (by population share) of all EVE space.

No local in null sounds great till you realize all it would do is recreate "the Dominion Effect" (ie the opposite of what is intended, The Dominion Sov system was supposed to help small groups, it did the opposite and created the blue donut and expanded the practice of "renting").


No.

1) It would incentivize/facilitate inter and intra-alliance rifts, as they can now operate without Local identification inorder to aggress the remainder.
2) It enables smaller groups to run operations in both their larger and smaller neighbors space without immediate detection.
3) It removes the current automatic intel down pipelines, requiring active monitoring at each section.
4) You are misrepresenting the "Dominion Effect". It is exactly free Local intel, which enables that effect, not vice versa.
5) Without free Local intel, borders become permeable.
6) Cynos are not relevant to the issue of Local, as a lit Cyno is broadcast universally regardless of Local.
7) It incentivizes smaller groups to join together and run operations on their larger/smaller opponents.

8) There is no rational justification, considering sector safety and mechanics in cascade, that Player Sov has free Local.
It is player owned, and player developed, for the greatest wealth and control of any system in EVE.
There is no reason why it should magically benefit from Local as well, as free essentially NPC sourced data.
This is especially true as compared to NPC Sov mechanics.

9) This notion that Local "protects" smaller orgs, is a fallacy.
The greatest beneficiary of Local in Player Sov is defacto the larger entities.
Due to Local, it is very difficult for smaller entities to aggress larger entities.
The larger entity, regardless of Local or not, can brute force a smaller entity whenever they choose to.

10) Larger entities benefit from Player Sov Local, more than smaller entities.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#27 - 2017-02-06 16:13:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
That would be a disaster in multiple ways. It would chase the smaller groups completely out of null while letting bigger groups (Alliances like mine) run roughshod over everyone in a way that would make the old Blue donut look like a Blue Tic-tac.

No local doesn't work in a place that has gates and cynos. That's why it does work in Womrhole space. Even with those concessions made by CCP (ie not gates and no cynos), wormhole space is still the least lived in space (by population share) of all EVE space.

No local in null sounds great till you realize all it would do is recreate "the Dominion Effect" (ie the opposite of what is intended, The Dominion Sov system was supposed to help small groups, it did the opposite and created the blue donut and expanded the practice of "renting").


No.

1) It would incentivize/facilitate inter and intra-alliance rifts, as they can now operate without Local identification inorder to aggress the remainder.
2) It enables smaller groups to run operations in both their larger and smaller neighbors space without immediate detection.
3) It removes the current automatic intel down pipelines, requiring active monitoring at each section.
4) You are misrepresenting the "Dominion Effect". It is exactly free Local intel, which enables that effect, not vice versa.
5) Without free Local intel, borders become permeable.
6) Cynos are not relevant to the issue of Local, as a lit Cyno is broadcast universally regardless of Local.
7) It incentivizes smaller groups to join together and run operations on their larger/smaller opponents.

There is no rational justification, considering sector safety and mechanics in cascade, that Player Sov has free Local.
It is player owned, and player developed, for the greatest wealth and control of any system in EVE.
There is no reason why it should magically benefit from Local as well, as free essentially NPC sourced data.


lol, those bullet points seem familiar.

https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/those-anomaly-changes-in-full/

Quote:
Expected consequences

Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space
In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals
Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec
Coalitions will be marginally less stable
Alliances will have to choose more carefully what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on (low truesec systems generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places)




It wouldn't work the way you think it would, the exact same way that Dominion, the Anomaly nerf and the Incursion Income nerfs didn't.

what would happen is that Big groups (who already make APPs for wathicng Intel channels would just develop somehting that would create wormhole like "listening post" alts. Ie alts with sound turned on at border gates where you would get a sound notificaiton that someone is jumping in.

And that part about detection doesn't work either. Detection isn't the problem in null, it's getting in and out, and even with wormholes and jump capable ships/bridges, most movement is via chokepoints called gates. Control the Gates , control the space for the msot part, which is why Wormholes don't have them by design.

I know it's fun to play amateur game developers, but we aren't, what we have to rely on is past game experiences and what the Devs tell us at places like fanfest. CCP has actually considered local mechanics many times and have thus far decided to leave them alone because they know how established groups would take supreme advantage of the situations.



It's like how Goons TOLD everyone that Dominion was a bad idea and that if CCP went through with it they would use tose mechanics to screw over everyone. No one believed them....until they did it. Well im part of a group that would easily turn local-less Null Sec into a nightmare for you and anyone else smaller than Goons/PL/NC the exact same way that a few large groups DOMINATE C5/C6 wormhole space.

Trust me, it's not a good idea.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#28 - 2017-02-06 16:17:40 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Someone with that name should know better than to be a pathetic troll.

However, as usual - if you think this is true, jump in a ship and autopilot from highsec to nullsec. I'm sure you'll be fine once you hit null.



Wait are you trying to say hs is safer? Lol what game are you playing intel channels and bubbles let me afk rat in vni all damn day with 0 real threat

When you know who is hostile and have 0 penalty for shooting first life is a lot safer

Well then you should have no problem with the challenge.

Autopilot into catch, or into Syndicate from Orvolle (both provide direct access from highsec to nullsec which is the claim of this thread). If HS is more dangerous, then you should be perfectly safe once you're in null.

You either believe what you are saying and will do it, or you're full of ****.


go autopilot through niarjia in an industrial Roll

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Salvos Rhoska
#29 - 2017-02-06 16:23:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Jenn aSide wrote:
Trust me, it's not a good idea.


Trust me, it is.

The primary beneficiary of free Local intel, in addition to complete system control and development, are large entities.

Furthermore, Goons are no longer relevant, as a result of their cascade of bad decisions.
Furthermore, anything a Goon says, is always circumspect and self-interested.

There is no reason, considering the sector mechanics of EVE, that PLAYER OWNED sov should benefit from NPC based free Local intel.

J-Space dwellers are surviving, even without Local in addition to their inability to develop or own their space, as further compounded by severe logistic restraints.

Meanwhile Player Sov entities are developing systems for even greater profits, own it, control it and still also benefit from Local.

Further proof positive of the irrationality of Local in Player Sov, is in comparison to NPC Sov.
They are otherwise identical in terms of mechanics, EXCEPT players cant own NPC Sov, nor can they develop it.

If NPC Sov thus has the same mechanics as Player Sov, but lacks the ability to own it or develop it, why then does Player Sov additionally retain Local?

The sensible conclusion, is Player Sov should not have Local.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Nakovi Kitsune
No Pressure.
#30 - 2017-02-06 17:29:13 UTC
Local is for cowards
Lulu Lunette
Savage Moon Society
#31 - 2017-02-06 17:50:32 UTC
Nullsec is where the game is at. The trick is to find cool people to fly with

@lunettelulu7
Falin Whalen
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2017-02-07 05:14:20 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Trust me, it's not a good idea.


Trust me, it is.


In your head it may seem like a good logical idea, but once it is out of your head and in the hands of others your good and logical idea goes out the window.

Jenn is right on this. Mclannis's Law would rear it's head yet again, and the larger more experienced and organised groups would dominate under your back seat game development idea. What is it with you people, thinking that they got the one thing nobody has ever thought of , ever before, to "fix Null"? Hell, there have been calls to, "fix Null" by doing away with local, threads since at least 2009 and probably before. Null needs fixing, but IDK it might take a lot of little things that individually, on their own, might not seem like much, but play off each other synergistically, but the single great idea that will save Null is a myth perpetuated by dreamers and idiots.

"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka 
Salvos Rhoska
#33 - 2017-02-07 06:52:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Falin Whalen wrote:

the larger more experienced and organised groups would dominate under your back seat game development idea. What is it with you people, thinking that they got the one thing nobody has ever thought of , ever before, to "fix Null"? Hell, there have been calls to, "fix Null" by doing away with local, threads since at least 2009 and probably before. Null needs fixing, but IDK it might take a lot of little things that individually, on their own, might not seem like much, but play off each other synergistically, but the single great idea that will save Null is a myth perpetuated by dreamers and idiots.


1) Larger, experienced groups will dominate smaller inexperienced groups regardless, due to size and experience. Nice solipsism.

2) "you people", lol. Nice presumption.

3) I have nowhere stated it is an original idea, or conceived by me. Nice dishonesty.

4) Nowhere have I said I have any intent to "save" NS. Again, dishonest.

5) Removal of Local is a "little thing" which is very simple to implement. It can be synergistic with other "little things", as you put it.

6) In the cascade of sector mechanics and their peculiarities, it is not rational that Player Sov has Local.
NPC Sov is otherwise identical to Player Sov, except it cannot be owned and hence developed.
It is rational for Local to exist there.
It is not rational for Player Sov, which can be owned and developed,with otherwise identical mechanics, to also have it.

Was this your best shot?
Pathetic.
Next!

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Zanar Skwigelf
HIgh Sec Care Bears
Brothers of Tangra
#34 - 2017-02-07 15:54:45 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


1) Larger, experienced groups will dominate smaller inexperienced groups regardless, due to size and experience. Nice solipsism.

2) "you people", lol. Nice presumption.

3) I have nowhere stated it is an original idea, or conceived by me. Nice dishonesty.

4) Nowhere have I said I have any intent to "save" NS. Again, dishonest.

5) Removal of Local is a "little thing" which is very simple to implement. It can be synergistic with other "little things", as you put it.

6) In the cascade of sector mechanics and their peculiarities, it is not rational that Player Sov has Local.
NPC Sov is otherwise identical to Player Sov, except it cannot be owned and hence developed.
It is rational for Local to exist there.
It is not rational for Player Sov, which can be owned and developed,with otherwise identical mechanics, to also have it.

Was this your best shot?
Pathetic.
Next!



So if we remove all NPC development from Player SOV, that means the gates are gone also. You realize that right? Pretty sure the nullbears would be glad if the only way to move around is jumping and wormholes, thanks to cyno jammers and bubbles.

Also, not sure about other areas of NPC null, but drone lands have systems where people park alts to watch the gates. Some do it as advance notice that neuts are in nearby systems, others do it to know exactly what ships the neuts are flying.

The reason why people make the argument that small groups will be more hurt by removing local is that they have fewer alts to maintain "gate control" than the large entities. Not to mention that even more gates would be bubbled to death, especially in the pipes. An alt parked on grid with a 200km bubble ring will give us the same intel we have now.
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#35 - 2017-02-07 15:59:41 UTC
The logical conclusion of this argument is that CONCORD and faction police should be removed from highsec as that would make it safer.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#36 - 2017-02-07 16:04:51 UTC
Falin Whalen wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Trust me, it's not a good idea.


Trust me, it is.


In your head it may seem like a good logical idea, but once it is out of your head and in the hands of others your good and logical idea goes out the window.

Jenn is right on this. Mclannis's Law would rear it's head yet again, and the larger more experienced and organised groups would dominate under your back seat game development idea. What is it with you people, thinking that they got the one thing nobody has ever thought of , ever before, to "fix Null"? Hell, there have been calls to, "fix Null" by doing away with local, threads since at least 2009 and probably before. Null needs fixing, but IDK it might take a lot of little things that individually, on their own, might not seem like much, but play off each other synergistically, but the single great idea that will save Null is a myth perpetuated by dreamers and idiots.


Just needed to highlight this.

Quote:
Jenn is right on this.


I showed what you wrote it to my wife, after the "who the **** is Jenn" part was settled, she still disagrees with the sentiment...oh well i tried . :)


But yea, you will never get "I have a brilliant and never before seen idea" types to accept that their idea not only won't work, but would actually do the opposite of what they think it would. Not even reality (ie implementing the idea so they can SEE it fail) is enough most time. This is because if it works in their heads, they develop a faith that it will work for real and nothing can convince them otherwise.

That's why beyond a couple posts, I don't bother.
Scialt
Corporate Navy Police Force
Sleep Reapers
#37 - 2017-02-07 16:05:19 UTC
I don't think null is safer than high sec.

But I do think the dangers of Null are overstated a bit. While I've mainly used wormholes as my entry point into Null (thus avoiding many of the gate camp issues), it feels like much of Null is pretty empty. You also have Providence where there are intel channels and a NRDS policy and it seems like you only die if you aren't paying attention.

So while it's definitely not safer... it does feel like it's not as dangerous as many make out as well.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#38 - 2017-02-07 16:18:37 UTC
Scialt wrote:
I don't think null is safer than high sec.

But I do think the dangers of Null are overstated a bit. While I've mainly used wormholes as my entry point into Null (thus avoiding many of the gate camp issues), it feels like much of Null is pretty empty. You also have Providence where there are intel channels and a NRDS policy and it seems like you only die if you aren't paying attention.

So while it's definitely not safer... it does feel like it's not as dangerous as many make out as well.


Exaclty how do you think people are "making it out" to be? I haven't seen anyone say "man, as soon as you jump a gate into null your ship explodes, it's that dangerous!" lol.

The truth is that Wormhole space is the most dangerous, Null (sov and npc) and low are usually tied for second, and high sec is hands down the safest place in the game (not totally safe as high sec partisans tend to want it to be, but with CONCORD and safeties you pretty much have to suck at video games to die there).

That's the measurable and prove-able truth of the matter, but the 'null is safer' types go on feel not fact. So because they once mined in null and didn't get instantly kill and then one day in high sec they got ganked by some CODE guys, they 'feel' like null is safer and all evidence to the contrary doesn't exist.
The Bigpuns
United Standings Improvement Agency
#39 - 2017-02-07 16:59:42 UTC
Just out of curiosity, whats the current breakdown of population by security level looking like these days?
Scialt
Corporate Navy Police Force
Sleep Reapers
#40 - 2017-02-07 20:45:34 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Scialt wrote:
I don't think null is safer than high sec.

But I do think the dangers of Null are overstated a bit. While I've mainly used wormholes as my entry point into Null (thus avoiding many of the gate camp issues), it feels like much of Null is pretty empty. You also have Providence where there are intel channels and a NRDS policy and it seems like you only die if you aren't paying attention.

So while it's definitely not safer... it does feel like it's not as dangerous as many make out as well.


Exaclty how do you think people are "making it out" to be? I haven't seen anyone say "man, as soon as you jump a gate into null your ship explodes, it's that dangerous!" lol.

The truth is that Wormhole space is the most dangerous, Null (sov and npc) and low are usually tied for second, and high sec is hands down the safest place in the game (not totally safe as high sec partisans tend to want it to be, but with CONCORD and safeties you pretty much have to suck at video games to die there).

That's the measurable and prove-able truth of the matter, but the 'null is safer' types go on feel not fact. So because they once mined in null and didn't get instantly kill and then one day in high sec they got ganked by some CODE guys, they 'feel' like null is safer and all evidence to the contrary doesn't exist.




The stories a high sec player hears about null is one of gate camps, roaming gangs hunting down intruders, cynos of red fleets being dropped on your head and constant paranoia needed to avoid attacks.

And while those things do exist... a lot of null is quiet and empty. When I took a wormhole into null the first time (in a Probe)... I went through 7 systems hitting data and relic sites before seeing another player. I of course freaked out, ran back to my wormhole entrance as quick as I could and went back to high sec.... but that showed me that careful exploitation of null through wormholes was not as tricky as I had thought it would be.