|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Salvos Rhoska
1171
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 12:05:00 -
[1] - Quote
Agreed, it needs to happen, and I am confident it will.
Null sec has no right to automatic local data.
I think after it is removed, it could however be made possible for Sov holders to "buy" local data service, as facilitated by some kind of physical installation. ------------ |
Salvos Rhoska
1171
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 12:11:00 -
[2] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Bolded that part that makes 0.0 not wormhole space.
Its not NPC space either.
Why should you get the data for free? Who is paying for it? ------------ |
Salvos Rhoska
1171
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 12:13:00 -
[3] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Bolded that part that makes 0.0 not wormhole space.
Its not NPC space either. Why should you get the data for free? Who is paying for it? you don't pay for it in npc space either, try again.
The NPCs do. They run the space. They OWN the space.
Do you not understand the difference? Or is your false sense of carebear entitlment blocking your vision?
TRY AGAIN ------------ |
Salvos Rhoska
1171
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 12:30:00 -
[4] - Quote
Adding a separate Sov payed option of access to Local is not unreasonable. The assumption that it is a deserved "entitled" mechanic, however, is completely false.
There should be no Local in Null, without the Sov holders explicitly paying for that privilege and service, whether thtough constructed and maintained infrastructure, or by outsourcing it to the gate authorities for an ISK charge.
Make no mistake, post expansion, when Null can fairly be said to be more profitable, it is time to start re-evaluating and adjusting exactly what it is that Null is taking for granted. Be prepared to pay for every single inch of it.. ------------ |
Salvos Rhoska
1171
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 12:36:00 -
[5] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Adding a separate Sov payed option of access to Local is not unreasonable. The assumption that it is a deserved "entitled" mechanic, however, is completely false.
There should be no Local in Null, without the Sov holders explicitly paying for that privilege and service. which they already do; sov bills. so we're agreed local shouldn't be removed. good.
Lol.
Thanks for showing yourself to be a self-entitled carebear. How utterly disgusting.
Sov bills cover a license to run that space, not access to the additional Local service. Currently, it is "gratis". That has to change. ------------ |
Salvos Rhoska
1171
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 13:08:00 -
[6] - Quote
Look at the Nullbears crying.
My god, its disgusting. ------------ |
Salvos Rhoska
1171
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 13:15:00 -
[7] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:That's why you always end up in flame wars
You have me confused, with you.
If you think Null is not in need of major security and Sov overhauls, you are even more knee-deep in self-entitlement than was already obvious.
The risks you posted for Local, run both ways. They are equally an advantage, and a detractant, to both sides. As long as Local data is universally available to everyone in the system, it is a broken system.
Best way out of that, is to remove it. There is no rational reason why Null should have Local. ------------ |
Salvos Rhoska
1171
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:13:00 -
[8] - Quote
Part of having autonomy in Sov, is responsibility for defending it. That SHOULD include having to do your own intel and system reconnaisance.
Automated mail systems and a universal Local make sense in NPC space, but not in sectors where Sov is held by players.
Whining that you should have Local in Null, is no different than highseccers whining for faster Concord intervention. Both are based on automatic and essentially NPC based effects.
Stop crying for and trying to defend an automated system making Sov even easier
The tables are turning. Null will receive its deserved higher nominal profitability. Thereafter, its time to start adjusting, and in particular, removing NPC based and automated systems from Null and relegating them instead to player action.
You cant argue for wanting player autonomous systems on hand, but then tryi g to defend having automated non-players systems on the otherhand.
Its a fallacious hypocrisy. ------------ |
Salvos Rhoska
1171
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:22:00 -
[9] - Quote
Myriad Blaze wrote:But before you change these things you should better have good reasons and a good idea about what will probably happen after such a change. And you should question yourself whether you want those (long term) results.
Then how do you propose to fix Null and Sovs mechanics? ------------ |
Salvos Rhoska
1171
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:28:00 -
[10] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Because the game needs it to be the way it is, that's why.
The game does not want, or need, for the Null situation to be as it is.
How do YOU propose to fix Null and Sovs mechanics? You answered when I asked another poster, but you did not answer the actual question. You merely elaborated on how a solution should be created, whihc I agree with, but the false implication that you made, that this spexidic proposal has not been considered, was false and wrong. It has.
So, what are YOUR specific suggestions? ------------ |
|
Salvos Rhoska
1171
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:33:00 -
[11] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:
of course the game doesn't want or need it. it's not a sentient being and it's not controlled by skynet.
null sec being "broken" isn't the topic here, stop pretending it is.
Fallacious argument.
The game is populated by players. It is their wants and needs which are the issue. How to fix them, are the games issue.
Nice try though, albeit juvenile. ------------ |
Salvos Rhoska
1171
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:35:00 -
[12] - Quote
Andski wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Implying I have ever claimed so. It is however, one avenue for fixing the current status quo. No it's not. It's not even an alleyway leading to any of those avenues. Changing local will have zero effect on the status quo and it'll only affect how much people actually play in 0.0 outside of bloc-level warfare.
Contrdictory.
You state it will not affect the status quo, yet immedistely thereafter make an observation of how, indeed, it will affect it.
What are YOUR suggestions to fixing Null and Sov then? Be as specific as possible please. ------------ |
Salvos Rhoska
1171
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:36:00 -
[13] - Quote
Eugene Kerner wrote:Remove local everywhere!
Not a bad suggestion, imo. ------------ |
Salvos Rhoska
1171
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:40:00 -
[14] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote: actually it's not a contradiction, things that happen outside of bloc level content won't change the status quo. the status quo is defined at bloc level
Pathetic attempt.
Every change has repercussions throughout the system.
Furthermore, if we take your complaint as true, if removal of Local has so little effect in your eyes, then there is commensurately no harm in doing so. Nice faceplant. ------------ |
Salvos Rhoska
1171
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:42:00 -
[15] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
So, what are YOUR specific suggestions?
No suggestions [/quote]
Oh look. You didnt answer the question, or provide any suggestions. ------------ |
Salvos Rhoska
1172
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:49:00 -
[16] - Quote
Revman Zim wrote:If you are using SOV as a reason why local should be removed, then there is only ONE way to do it.
Once SOV is established in a system, ONLY those people that belong to that alliance or who are blue to them would have access to local. Anyone else would have no info at all unless someone typed something. It seems to me that the Alliance or Corporation that spent the time and resources to get sov should be the only ones who have access to it.
Any system that has NO sov holder would have NO intel for anyone since there would be no active intel gathering resouces.
Let the **** storm begin.
Not a bad suggestion.
But unfoetunately, two elements make this unworkable.
1) CFC will argue that this would make it evene easier for them to steamroll. 2) They would be right in saying so.
The Null situation is already so fked, and so entrenched, that everyone is waiting for a miracle to fix it. Any and all real sugfestions will be vetoed either by the part of Null which rightly knows they can ezploit theirncurrent hegemony even more effectively through the change OR by the part of Null hegemony who wants no compromise on the advantage they have earned in their majority position.
Its a hopeless deadlock. A Gordian Knot, which only drastic acrion can part. ------------ |
Salvos Rhoska
1172
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:52:00 -
[17] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
So, what are YOUR specific suggestions?
No suggestions Oh look. You didnt answer the question, or provide any suggestions. That's right, because i don't know. The fact that you think you do says volumes about who you are.
And it speaks volumes of you that you dont even try, and instead insult and harass those who do.
You are bringing nothing to the table.
Show some good faith. Make even ONE suggestion. Its ok to be wrong, but atleast attempt to contribute. ------------ |
Salvos Rhoska
1172
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:54:00 -
[18] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:1) CFC will argue that this would make it evene easier for them to steamroll. 2) They would be right in saying so. ...We'd have an easier time steamrolling in systems where we couldn't see local but the defenders could? Uh, yeah, sure. Not that this makes it a good suggestion. It's imbalanced too far in favor of the defenders. It'd make it marginally harder for us to take someone else's space, but it'd make it prohibitively hard for anyone else to take our space.
Yes. It would make it easier for you to defend your enormous empire.
Thanks for agreeing and proving my point. ------------ |
Salvos Rhoska
1172
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:59:00 -
[19] - Quote
@Andski and James: So what do YOU propose as a change then?
Show us what youve got.
Jur Tissant wrote:Null is already treacherous enough to travel through while having to dodge bubbles. Perhaps it should be an option in player-controlled systems but not in NPC null. I agree. The difference being in the nature of Sov, and player control. Players cant Sovereignly control NPC space, nor is that Sov control contested by other players, therrfore a degree of automation and NPC interference in that environment, as Local, is justified. ------------ |
Salvos Rhoska
1173
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 15:15:00 -
[20] - Quote
Cresswell Jones wrote:Salvos Rhoska please seek help for your learning delays. Your ideas are bad and you cannot engage in good faith discussion when presented with contradictory opinions, either out of inexperience or ignorance. I am not sure which at this point but it is probably both.
What are your suggestions then? ------------ |
|
|
|
|