EVE General Discussion

1) I clearly demonstrated consideration of several downsides to several parties. I also considered our co-posters concern that loss of Local ID makes it less safe for him to operate solo in enemy Player Sov, cos he cant tell if he is alone.

Its a ridiculous and blatant lie from you to claim I did not consider and demonstrate downsides.

Even despite the FACT they are recorded in my post, do you really think I am so simple, as to not recognize that every change has repercussions, positive and negative?

2) Your only rebuttal to the change, has been that its results cannot be 100% predicted, and that they will not 100% benefit everyone equally.

That is a ridiculous premise and condition to set as a requirement for a change.
No change, EVER, in EVE has had 100% predictable outcomes, or 100% equal benefit to everyone.

3) Such as in the example of our co-poster:
- If Local ID is removed from Player Sov, he will no longer be able to ascertain if he is alone in the system. HOWEVER, that same downside is shared by the system locals, whom also will not be able to ascertain if they are alone in the system. HOWEVER, he is an interloper in Player owned space that they have invested in, and chooses to enter it solo and outnumbered. It is only natural that the more numerous, established and invested locals have advantages he does not. Removing Loca ID does not change any of those.

4) " consider if a change will unduly benefit those who already have substantial benefits. Do we really need to buff the game play of those who are already in a strong position?"

I have addressed this issue of the inherent advantage of larger/experienced groups vs smaller/less experienced groups earlier at great length. It is a Sword of Damocles situation where change is blocked/refused by the threat of dropping the blade.

"Do not change, or we will destroy you".
This renders the system stagnant, and holds change hostage to the interests of more powerful interests.

This is the antithesis of the spontaneous emergence etc which you claim to endorse.

5) You have not demonstrated how removing Local Id from Player Sov:
-Would benefit larger entities, beyond merely their size/assets natural advantage.
-Would not increase dynamics and spontaneous emergence of order.
-Would not benefit smaller entities in Player Sov.
-That it is rational, that Player Sov has Local Id, whereas they should be responsible for their own intel in space they uniquely own (especially as compared to NPC Sov)

This, again, is blatantly false as well as misrepresentation.

1) I have used this terminology specifically, and exclusively, with you in previous threads. This is by no means the first instance.

2) The reason I use it, is because you are the only one, out of thousands of posters, that uses this terminology.

3) The reason I use it with exclusively YOU, is to address YOU according to your own terminology, which NO-ONE ELSE uses.

4) As well as you being the only one that uses this terminology, you are the one misapplying their actual meaning and definition.

5) Its become pathological for you. You throw this jargon around everywhere, trying to hide behind its misapplication instead of addressing the actual topics.

6) The hilarious thing here, is when I demonstrated that you are misapplying these concepts and terms, and using them as a solipsistic shield, you called it "gibberish".

Nope, local will always give advanced warning.

This can be tested and proven by the following:

Put an alt in a system, have another alt "jump in" to the system with the first alt. The first alt will see the second alt in local before the second alt even loads grid. If you are watching local you will know somebody is there before they can do anything in game.

You are just simply wrong on this.

You are wrong again.

The data is still not instantaneous, it must transfer between client and server to be displayed.
Even your example shows that the Local data to the incoming ship is even further delayed than that of the locals.

It is also still free and automatic.

That the locals receive the data before the incoming player, is not a problem, its just due to client/server infrastructure.
Furthermore the incoming ship benefits from gate cloak far longer than this delay.

Do you know what Malcanis' more general principle is? Seems to me you don't.



Thist is pretty much how everyone uses "Malcanis' Law" now. They have swapped out new players for "specific group" Most people were able to see how the law could be more broadly applied.

So your proposal fits under the generalization of Malcanis' Law. So you are off base on that.

I am going to next address your claim that something will have to emerge. Again I disagree the Devs could nerf something so hard there is no room for adaptation. I'll use an analogy, if Russia, China and the U.S. and everyone else launched all their nukes would there be "room" for adaptation by humans? No, probably not. We'd die out, as would most if not all life on the planet. It is conceivable that there is a change so severe enough nothing could adapt. Granted, I don't think this would happen with removing local, but it would be a "big" change for many.

As for who the elites are, there is no way to put this other than you are quite simply wrong. Here is your Hayek quote again,



Who can change the "common rules" like the presence of local? Goons? No. PL? No. Malcanis? No. Me? No. You? No. All NS players? No. The Mittani? No. A Dev? Yes!

The Devs are the elites. If you had read Hayek you would realize very, very quickly that Hayek is incredibly skeptical of the ability of politicians and bureaucrats to govern the lives of the populace. Initially it was centralized planning which he delivered a stunning critique of his article "The Use of Knowledge in Society" which appeared in the American Economic Review in 1945. You can read the article for free here.

Here are the first two paragraphs,



This is basis for Hayek's knowledge problem faced by any central planer/panning board. There is just no way for them to know enough to make decisions better than the people in various settings. So who would be the central planners? Politicians and Bureaucrats, people with the power to make sweeping changes to the "game"--i.e. the economy in the case of this particular article. Now in game, who would have analogous power? The Devs. You point out that the Devs could "alter physics" in game while a politician IRL cannot. True, but a politician can force you do whatever he wants, and if you resist hard enough you will be killed...even in peaceful democracies. So while politicians do not have the same power as the Devs (thank god) they are indeed the elites.

And we have heard this knowledge problem articulated, in a way, by CCP. Basically, "We have lots of data...too much data." There is so much data it is hard to analyze. And of course, when they do try to use some of that data (e.g. their attempt to look at the effect of suicide ganking) people come crawling out from under rocks to claim it is horribly flawed. Mainly because it does not agree with their prior beliefs (preconceived notions). And ironically since it does not agree with their prior beliefs they still maintain that the Devs should impose their preferred top down solution to suicide ganking.

So Hayek was clearly opposed to centralized planning and preferred to leave things to the people. Interestingly though, this would on it's own lead to smaller scale centralized planning--e.g. firms. A firm is typically a hierarchical entity where the decisions go from the top down. However, this degree of centralization is limited, at least in part, to the extent that transactions costs make it feasible for the firm to expand. That his, higher transactions costs, bigger firms. Lower transactions costs smaller firms. There is undoubtedly a similar effect in game as well which is why we see alliances and coalitions get big or shrink.

[continued]

1) Malcani's Law is what it is.
As to the generalization of that Law, it is just that, generalization.
The further you generalize it, the less specific it becomes, and hence less accurate or valid.

You have changed several key terms and specifics of the Law..
It ceases to be a Law thereafter, and becomes an interpretation

I retort with my own law:
-"No change is good for everyone"

(PS: Malcanis himself has indicated he would be ok with removal of Local ID from ALL sectors (or Player Sov, depending on reading), on the condition that D-scan and perma-cloaking are addressed in conjunction)

2) Your "nuclear exchange" example is rescinded by your own admission that removing Local ID from Player Sov will not kill the game.

3) Politicians, bureaucrats, elites cannot change the laws of physics which govern the real world.
Devs can alter the virtual physics that govern this game.
Thus your comparison and interpretation of Hayek fails on the fact that this is a virtual environment which can be changed.
Devs are not an "elite", they are Gods insofar as this games virtual environment.
There is no known equivalent in the real world, unless you believe in entities changing the laws of reality.
Elites in EVE are equivalent to Elites IRL, ergo, those who are stronger/most capable of enforcing their own interests within a system.

4) We will have to agree to disagree on what Hayek's meaning is, and how we interpret it.
It is an academically interesting discussion, but not a debate which will conclude whether Local ID should, or should not, be removed from Player Sov. Same goes for your advocacy of an extended version of Malcani's Law, vs my view only the original is valid.

5) As I said, neither you, nor I, can accurately predict the actions of tens of thousands of players.
And neither can CCP. But that has not prevented them from making changes.
It is not a pre-condition for change,

6) Ofc, all change must be considered carefully before implementation.
No argument there from me.

7) "As for the argument why simply removing local is not good is that it is a very big change to the environment. It is, IMO, like earth getting hit by an asteroid, and ELE."

You equate removing Local ID from Player Sov, with an Extinction Level Event.
That is some pretty big hyperbole, and imo grossly overstating the repercussions.

As a proponent of removing Local ID from Player Sov, I have to justify and substantiate my position.
However, the same applies to you, as an antagonist of the proposal.
You above claim it is a big change, equivalent to an ELE.
You are going to have to back that up.

8) "This is why I prefer local be removed iff there is a mechanism in place for players to claw back that intel."

Good! Now we are getting somewhere.
In my view, Player Sov can claw that intel back by patrolling their own space and gates.
Cloaked ships present a problem, but as I said to Scialt, the changed rule applies to everyone.
Neither interlopers, nor locals, can be entirely certain they are alone in that system.
It is a mutually shared and equal advantage/disadvantage.
The rules remain common for everyone in Player Sov.

9) "Basically, from the game perspective I look at this change as a potential fat tailed event for the game. If you are right not much happens, if you are wrong, it is horribly wrong. And following Taleb et. al. it is up to you to prove that it is not a fat tailed event. And that you have not done in the slightest. And since you don't have access to CCPs data I doubt you can."

This is again, solipsism. You and your perspective on the potential of this change dont have access to CCP's data, either.
I cant anymore prove it wont be a fat fail, than you can prove it will be. That is why we discuss and explore it, rather than jumping to conclusions to quash discussion on it, as you are attempting to do.

10) "And note, I said the burden in on you due to my claim that this kind of a change is a fat tailed event."

You made the claim it will be a fat fail event. Not I.
You have to substantiate your claim, not me.

Yes, I have to defend my position, and I have done so.
Ive debated with you about Spontaneous Order, Malcani's Law, etc.
But if you make claims, you too have to defend your position.

So far I have seen no pragmatic or ontopic justification for your claim, except referencing oblique esoterics such as your version of Malcani's Law, your view on the concept of Spontaneous Order, and your view that removing Local ID from Player Sov is an Extinction Level Event without recourse for adaptation.

---

We need to get to the meat here.
We are getting lost in academic debates, rather than discussion of the proposal pragmatically.

-I have stated meat and potatoes justifications throughout this thread for my proposal, and concrete examples of repercussion.
-These have become buried behind the subsequent academic discussion.

I propose the following:
-You post your concrete justifications for why removing Local ID from Player Sov should not be done.
-Thereafter I will post my concrete justifications for why removing Local ID from Player Sov should be done, independently of yours.
-We then know each others position, concretely, and you can make a rebuttal against mine, after which I will rebut yours.

The reason I ask you to go first, is I have already given much of my concrete justification previously throughout this thread, whereas from you, Ive only seen academic arguments of various theories/laws. You havent provided any pragmatic substance.

Is this acceptable?

If you insist, I can go first, but considering that I gave due time and consideration to your academic arguments which you introduced, I would hope you will reciprocate that to me now, fairly, by giving due time and consideration to my request to return to pragmatic discussion of the proposed change.

You are wrong on just about every count. You know nothing about Hayek and the only reason you found that quote is because of google.

I've laid out why you are wrong and I have pretty much nothing left to say so I'll just let my previous comments stand and stop replying knowing you are fundamentally wrong and that no amount of evidence or counter argument will sway you from you position (you are completely and totally dogmatic).