These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#101 - 2017-02-10 09:59:24 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


The issue of Player Sov Local ID is not hinged on your personal views of what constitute "spontaneous order" etc.
You are merely describing (falsely, I add) the systems which underlie dynamics resultant of change.


What is particularly hilarious is that until this thread you have pretty much never used the terms "spontaneous order" and "emergence". You have pretty much picked them up from my posts and you are, if anything, applying them inappropriately and in an vain attempt to give your position a false patina of your ideas adhering to the notion of a sandbox.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Salvos Rhoska
#102 - 2017-02-10 11:29:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Teckos Pech wrote:
Actually, no I read them and I don't think they look at the downsides at all.

As for the rest of your post it is incomprehensible gibberish, IMO. You agree that a system with feedback loops is not easily predictable then go on to say that even though it is not predictable we should not change it. But that is the point, we have to be careful on these things. And your linear thinking is not very helpful when we have plenty of reason to think things are not linear.

Also I have not said that a change should be 100% equal, but that we should pause and 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? Maybe the answer is yes, but you have not made that case, IMO.


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)
Salvos Rhoska
#103 - 2017-02-10 11:39:36 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Snip.


You are intellectually dishonestly misrepresenting the original premise, which was that the Map functions also are free and automatic.


No they are not. The map function will give you things like players in system for the last 30 minutes and the like. That is not instantaneous nor is it giving advanced warning like local.

Quote:
That I can access that data through the ingame Map, or on a 3rd party platform, does not change that the data itself is free and automatic.


You don't have to go to a 3rd party website to use local. It is right there in game, and will give you advanced warning unlike any other source of intel.

Quote:
That I have to open up the Map and access the data, does not make it not-free or automatic.
I also have to have the Local channel open inorder to access Local ID data.


Actually it does. It means you have to take time to get that intel, unlike local. Having local "open" is a trivial one time cost. To compare it to checking a website is nonsense. It is like saying d-scan is instant free intel.


1) Whether the data is instantaneous or not, is not relevant to the FACT that it is free and automatic. All data in EVE is delayed to one extent or another, due to transfer of data between server and client. NO data is instantaneous in EVE.

2) Whether I have to go to the Map for the data, or keep Local open for Local ID data, does not change that it is free and automatic. The fact I have to access that data ingame, does not change that it is free and automatic. I dont have to go to an EVE bank to check my current isk balance either. The fact I have to click my wallet, does not change that that data is delivered to me free and automatically.

4) You attempt to split hairs now in whether the time required to access that data is trivial, or "costful in time".
You are being disingenous, and are false.

No data in EVE is instantaneous.
All data in EVE requires you to access it. None of it is magically telepathically delivered to your brain.

That you have to have a window open, or enter search commands to access data, does not change that the data is FREE AND AUTOMATIC.
Salvos Rhoska
#104 - 2017-02-10 11:51:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Teckos Pech wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


The issue of Player Sov Local ID is not hinged on your personal views of what constitute "spontaneous order" etc.
You are merely describing (falsely, I add) the systems which underlie dynamics resultant of change.


What is particularly hilarious is that until this thread you have pretty much never used the terms "spontaneous order" and "emergence". You have pretty much picked them up from my posts and you are, if anything, applying them inappropriately and in an vain attempt to give your position a false patina of your ideas adhering to the notion of a sandbox.


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".
Salvos Rhoska
#105 - 2017-02-10 12:24:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Techos Pech: To demonstrate that you are misapplying and misusing these concepts when you, alone, habitually spam them everywhere, and that I am using them correctly in response to you.



Spontaneous order "is typically used to describe the emergence of various kinds of social orders from a combination of self-interested individuals who are not intentionally trying to create order through planning".

In Game Theory on spontaneous order, "Hayek notably wrote that "a game is indeed a clear instance of a process wherein obedience to common rules by elements pursuing different and even conflicting purposes results in overall order."".

Removing Local ID from Player Sov, in no way shape or form curtails or removes the emergence of spontaneous order.

It does the opposite,it increases it, by removing an artificial automatic mechanism which currently obviates the need for Player Sov to gather its own intel by means of self-interested individuals forming social orders (such as gate scout/camp schedules).

Local ID in Player Sov supresses the emergence of spontaneous order, by means of an artificial mechanic.
(That Player Sov should not have. Its their space. They, and they alone, should be responsible for gathering intel within it).

From Hayek's observation, we can deduce that in removing Local ID from Player Sov, this constitutes a change in common rules specific to Player Sov (and everyone there, equally), to the result of spontaneous order emerging to fill the gap, on the part of all elements pursuing different and even conflicting purposes, thus resulting in overall order.

You are categorically misapplying the concept of spontaneous order, to the removal of Local ID from Player Sov.

The emergence of spontaneous order is enabled by removal of Local ID from Player Sov, not vice versa, as you utterly falsely claim.



Even the Anarchist perspective on spontaneous order, supports the above conclusion.
(As well as being closest ideologically to the essentially unrestricted sandbox nature of EVE.)
This perspective posits that social order is inflicted by elites to suppress the emergence of spontaneous order.

In the context of our discussion here, this is extremely relevant and on point, and utterly damning of your misapplication of the concept of spontaneous order in this and other threads.

You posit that the elites of this game, as the larger more powerful entities, and their interests should be considered FIRST, insofar as how any change (in this case removal of Local ID from Player Sov), due to them potentially getting the greatest buff to their already significant position.

This is absolutely the opposite of the concept whereby emergent spontaneous order occurs, in all three perspectives and definitions above.

This is why I, accurately, described the situation as a Sword of Damocles.

The elites suppress the emergence of spontaneous order, by forcing social order. The means to reduce this suppression, is by removing the game means of those elites to suppress spontaneous order, in a game system.

In this case, that means Local ID in Player Sov, which as automatic information, removes the potential/requirement of emergent spontaneous order regarding intel on their own space.

Inversely, removing Local ID from these elites (and yes, owning Sov is elite), creates potential for emergent spontaneous order not only in the entities own intel activities, but for subversion by entity internal interests, as well as other all other entities with contrary interests to them.



TLDR:
-Removing Local ID from Player Sov:
--Reconciles that Player Sov should be responsible for its own intel.
--Increases, greatly, the potential for emergent spontaneous order, internally and externally.
--Is fair and equal to all Player Sov owners, and anyone within it, as it is a common rule
--Opens up huge avenues for emergent content.
--Allows for more surface area for dynamics both within and without Player Sov, by conflicting interests.



PS: Before anyone tries to accuse me of gish posting, I point out that each of my posts here is in a 1:1 response ratio to each of Teckos' own posts addressed to me, exempting this one, which is a culminating conclusion on his false repeated use of this terminology in this thread and others.

Your move, Teckos.
Lets see if you can walk your talk.
I doubt it.
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#106 - 2017-02-10 19:56:36 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


1) Whether the data is instantaneous or not, is not relevant to the FACT that it is free and automatic. All data in EVE is delayed to one extent or another, due to transfer of data between server and client. NO data is instantaneous in EVE.


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.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#107 - 2017-02-10 20:20:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Pretty sure I did not say removing local would remove spontaneous order or emergence.

And as for increasing spontaneous order and/or emergence, I noted that changing the environment in which players participate this claim is dubious. Once you change the environment some forms of play will be eliminated, and (hopefully) new forms will appear. We saw this with the shift from Dominion Sov to Aegis (?) Sov. The way people used to play sov warfare changed. The old way was eliminated and new ways emerged. And it was spontaneous in that no Dev had to do it--i.e. the players themselves did it.

Spontaneous order and emergence is already going on. When people say ‘sandbox’, they are basically saying spontaneous order and emergence. These are actually things that people study in relation to things like evolution, economics, and other fields of inquiry. If you read the quote by Hayek (BTW, it is hilarious you are quoting Hayek to me) and more of his work the implication is that the structure of the game will affect the resulting order. Change the structure you change the resulting order. Further, the results are not necessarily more spontaneous order and emergence, but different spontaneous order and emergence. Removing local is changing the structure of the game. This will disrupt the old way of doing things and lead to new ways. Is that “more”? IDK. It will be different is all we can say with certainty. Will it be good or bad? Again, the honest answer we really don’t know for sure. However, in looking at past attempts to “fix” things the suggested outcomes have often failed to materialize.

Why is that? It is as Jenn aSide has written about. These are people we are talking about and they respond to changes in the games structure. If the change is bad they’ll look for ways to minimize that adverse impact. If it is good they’ll look for ways to enhance that positive impact. And we have lots and lots of people doing that. So the idea that one person can think of all the things these thousands, even tens of thousands, of players will come up with in response to a change is exactly the problem Hayek was pointing out in the Fatal Conceit which is where you got your Hayek quote from. And that is the problem you have. You think you have figured it all out, but it is far more likely you have not.

Regarding anarchy…

Uhhh, no. The elites that anarchists and Hayek (who was not an anarchist, BTW) refer to are bureaucrats and politicians who use force and threats of violence to achieve their goals in directing society (this would be changing the structure/rules of the game) and in particular the economy. That is, it is politicians and bureaucrats who change the structure of the “games” that people are playing. Hayek’s argument is that no bureaucrat or politician can have sufficient information about how people will react to their diktat’s and policies to make diktats and policies that will lead to a better outcome rather than simply letting those people figure things out for themselves. Thus one should be very careful at changing the structure of the game with the intent of making people better off as it is likely to be a fool’s errand, especially when done in a targeted way.

In the context of the game EVE, the bureaucrat and politician is replaced with….the Devs. They are the “elites” that Hayek and those who hold views similar to him are referring to. People who can impose their views on the game, change its structure. No large organization of players can do this. Goons cannot remove local. Goons cannot change other mechanics. Nor can PL, NC. or any other player organization. Only the Devs can do it, only the Devs have that power. The Devs would be the “elites” that Hayek, et. al. are referring to in this context.

And all of this is essentially encapsulated in Malcanis’ Law and his more generalized principle, IMO. Malcanis’ conclusion is to not focus on changes that target sub-groups of players. But to make changes that are simply "good for the entire game". He cited several examples such as the removal of learning skills and tiericide as changes that are aimed at making the game better and not targeting particular sub-groups of players. I would also add the changes to training skills—i.e. the skill queue. There was no disproportionate benefit to anyone with that change. Your change targets a particular sub-group of players, NS sov holders.

Oh, and you might actually want to, you know, read Hayek before you grab a quote you think supports you views from a quick google search you’ve done. You are so far off base it is absolutely hilarious.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Salvos Rhoska
#108 - 2017-02-11 09:51:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Teckos Pech wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


1) Whether the data is instantaneous or not, is not relevant to the FACT that it is free and automatic. All data in EVE is delayed to one extent or another, due to transfer of data between server and client. NO data is instantaneous in EVE.


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.
Salvos Rhoska
#109 - 2017-02-11 14:06:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
1) "Pretty sure I did not say removing local would remove spontaneous order or emergence."

Good. Then we agree removing Local ID from Player Sov would not remove emergence of spontaneous order.



2) "Once you change the environment some forms of play will be eliminated, and (hopefully) new forms will appear."

New forms of spontaneous order WILL emerge to fill the gaps, and existing ones will adapt (or die).
That is the entire premise behind spontaneous order. It always occurs and fluxes. When an environment undergoes change, order within it also changes.



3) "a game is indeed a clear instance of a process wherein obedience to common rules by elements pursuing different and even conflicting purposes results in overall order." -Hayek.

Removing Local ID from Player Sov does not contradict Hayek's observation above.
This is because the "common rules", though changed, remain common to everyone in Player Sov.
Thus elements pursuing different and even conflicting purposes in that changed, but common rule environment, still results in overall order.

The rules remain common to all in Player Sov in this change, they continue pursuing different and even conflicting purposes resulting in overall order, and as in 1), we agree that removing Local ID from Player Sov will not remove emergence of spontaneous order as a result.



4) "So the idea that one person can think of all the things these thousands, even tens of thousands, of players will come up with in response to a change is exactly the problem Hayek was pointing out in the Fatal Conceit which is where you got your Hayek quote from. And that is the problem you have. You think you have figured it all out, but it is far more likely you have not."

This is erroneous in several ways:
- Neither you, nor I, can think of what tens of thousands of players will come up with.
-This is not an argument against a change. No change in EVE has ever been with perfect foresight of what tens of thousands of players will do.
-I dont think I have figured it all out.
-Do you think you have?
-Hayek does not state that perfect foresight of all possible outcomes is necessary for a change in a games system, infact he points out that is impossible, and that spontaneous order will occur regardless.



5) "Regarding anarchy…"

-I know Hayek is not Anarchist. I did not state otherwise.
-I was describing the Anarchist perspective on the concept of spontaneous order..
-You are wrong in claiming Devs constitute the Elites, as applied to this GAME, from this perspective.
-Proof positive of this, is in that Devs can alter the virtual reality of the game, in ways no ingame entity can.
-IRL, no politician, bureaucrat or elite can alter the laws of physics which govern the behavior of the natural universe.
-The elites in EVE can no more change the rules of the virtual reality, than IRL elites can change the laws of physics.
-Thus in the Anarchist perspective in the context of EVE, elites are defined as powerful ingame entities, NOT Devs.
-Thus, according to this ideological perspective on spontaneous order, it is the elites in EVE, as ingame entities, that attempt to suppress emergence of spontaneous order, inorder to maintain the status quo in their own interest.
-The reason this Anarchist perspective, alongside Hayek's observation on games specifically, is so significant is:
---EVE is, in large part, an anarchist system when considering its lack of rules/constraints that otherwise would suppress emergent spontaneous order.
---This perspective, indicates that the elites ingame in EVE have a vested interest in resisting change in games systems as they would result in unpredictable and dangerous incidence of spontaneous order, against their interest in maintaining the status quo.



6) "And all of this is essentially encapsulated in Malcanis’ Law and his more generalized principle, IMO. Malcanis’ conclusion is to not focus on changes that target sub-groups of players. But to make changes that are simply "good for the entire game"

This is a false representation of Malcani's Law.

Malcani's Law specifically reads as:
- "Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of ‘new players’, that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players."

The removal of Local ID from Player Sov, is NOT "proposed on behalf of 'new players'.
Thus Malcani's Law does not stand in obstruction to this proposal.

Furthermore, it is demonstrable that any number of changes by CCP are not "simply good for the entire game."
As just one example, Rorq changes where not implemented for the " good of the entire game."

They where implemented for the good of Rorqs, and more specifically, only those players operating in sectors where Rorqs can be flown, and/or have the skills/wealth/safety to fly them. It was not "good for the entire game" It was good for a specific "sub-group of players", and inversely, through emergent spontaneous order, those that prey on Rorqs, whom also constitute another "sub-group of players". That is just two "sub-groups of players", not the "entire game".

Your fallacious extension of an originally misrepresented invocation of Malcani's Law to begin with, to try and tie CCP's hands to only making changes that are "good for the entire game", is not justified, or even possible.



7) Salvos' Law:
"No change can be good for everyone."



8) I have not seen you make even one argument as to why Local ID should not be removed from Player Sov.
If you have them, please submit a numbered list of them, and I will address them.
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#110 - 2017-02-11 21:19:09 UTC
Do you know what Malcanis' more general principle is? Seems to me you don't.

Quote:
"Any change that is made to privilege a specific group in an open, classless game will invariably be to the greater benefit of older, richer, more experienced players"emphasis in the original


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,

Quote:
"[A] game is indeed a clear instance of a process wherein obedience to common rules by elements pursuing different and even conflicting purposes results in overall order." -Hayek.


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,

Quote:
What is the problem we wish to solve when we try to construct a rational economic order? On certain familiar assumptions the answer is simple enough. If we possess all the relevant information, if we can start out from a given system of preferences, and if we command complete knowledge of available means, the problem which remains is purely one of logic. That is, the answer to the question of what is the best use of the available means is implicit in our assumptions. The conditions which the solution of this optimum problem must satisfy have been fully worked out and can be stated best in mathematical form: put at their briefest, they are that the marginal rates of substitution between any two commodities or factors must be the same in all their different uses.

This, however, is emphatically not the economic problem which society faces. And the economic calculus which we have developed to solve this logical problem, though an important step toward the solution of the economic problem of society, does not yet provide an answer to it. The reason for this is that the "data" from which the economic calculus starts are never for the whole society "given" to a single mind which could work out the implications and can never be so given.--emphasis in the original


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]

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#111 - 2017-02-11 21:49:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
[continued...]

When you note that neither of us can figure out all the possible strategies players will attempt in dealing with a change like removing local that is true...but it also applies to the Devs as well. How many of them would be involved in such a decision/discusion? Five...maybe 10? Lets be generous and assume they consult the CSM too and put the number at 30. Now who is more likely to hit on a winning strategy, 10,000 players or 30? Yes, the 30 could hit on the winning strategy I am not denying that, I am asking how likely that is going to happen a priori. My money would always be on the 10,000. In the long run I'd win far more often than I'd lose.

And no this is not an argument against any and all change, what it is is saying, that one needs to be careful with change. When I was looking at all the changes Greyscale wanted to make I was like, "Jesus, forget about Goons 'ruining the game'* this guy will do it just fine." He wanted to make life in NS as horrible as possible to break up the large power blocks. Groups like Goons and PL would likely fare far better than the small groups. Again, Greyscale's over all vision ran head long into Malcanis' generalized principle causing irreparable brain damage. Fortunately Greyscale is off ruining some other game.

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. Note that with previous such events spontaneous order and emergence did not stop everywhere but for many life forms it did...they died out. That has been Jenn aSide's view and that of several others, IMO. I agree with them, it is too much. This is why I prefer local be removed iff there is a mechanism in place for players to claw back that intel.

Scialt also raises a good point about solo players as well. So there'd have to be some sort of change, IMO, that would let them handle such a large change as well. I have no ideas on that one though.

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.

And note, I said the burden in on you due to my claim that this kind of a change is a fat tailed event. Fat tailed events are bad. To see what I mean go look at the Financial Crisis and how much wealth was lost to that. Trillions and trillions of dollars.

*I know it is not that the "Goons want to ruin the game," but that "They want to ruin your game."

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Salvos Rhoska
#112 - 2017-02-12 09:44:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
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.
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
#113 - 2017-02-12 09:58:02 UTC
What is this thread about?

With or without local, null is mechanically, more hazardous than highsec.

Each player/corp/Alliance makes their own safety by controlling the risks associated with the hazards around them. In that regard, I agree that for some people null is safer than highsec in the end, because a lot of people in highsec don't manage any of the risks at all. They expect CCP to do it. Nullsec players are generally much more concerned with controlling the risks themselves.

However in a situation where a highsec player and a nullsec player are equally competent in controlling risks, highsec is far safer.

Local is fine too. Doesn't need to go anywhere in my view.
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#114 - 2017-02-12 10:06:01 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


[snip]



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).

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Salvos Rhoska
#115 - 2017-02-12 10:39:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Teckos Pech wrote:
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).


That is ironic, since it is you that has been dogmatic, relying on your personal bastardization of Malcani's Law by adding terms, hinging your position on your personal interpretation of Hayek and the concept of Spontaneous Order, and making unsubstantiated claims that removing Local ID from Player Sov is equivalent to an Extinction Level Event.

I offered to return the discussion to pragmatic (NOT DOGMATIC) debate on the concrete implications/elements of the proposed change..

You refused.

As is typical of dogmatists like you, you cannot substantiate your position except for repeating your own "beliefs", rather than discussing pragmatics.

It is you that cannot be swayed by evidence or counter-argument, because your "belief" is so self-serving that to address issues pragmatically would invariably reveal that, as they pull your dogmatic beliefs down from your ivory tower in the clouds, to the reality of the grit on the ground.

You drew discussion of this change into pages worth of esoteric academic discussion during which you expressed your dogma. It was my mistake to follow you down that rabbit-hole. I enjoyed the chase, and wanted to see if there was something you knew, that I didn't. Turns out, there wasn't. Quite the contrary. You are so set in your own dogmatic beliefs that you cant handle debate on those either.

I offered to discuss the pragmatic aspects of the proposed change.
To drop the dogmatic, in favor of the pragmatic.
The SECOND I proposed that, you refused and folded.

I think that makes it clear which of us is a dogmatist, and whom isnt.