This is definitely the first time this idea had been brought up. A sov upgrade to give you local? That's too original.

Perhaps a forum search wouldn't go amiss...

This is definitely the first time this idea had been brought up. A sov upgrade to give you local? That's too original.

Perhaps a forum search wouldn't go amiss...

Yes the sov upgrade has been suggested,

I like the idea of using beacons to interface with that upgrade to create blindspots in the system. That in itself is noteworthy and that is the part of the idea I support, these beacons would need to be destructable. Much like bubbles... also have different sizes to cover different ranges.

As a obvious part of the system only people blue to the owning alliance will have access to this local network. Giving the advantage to the defenders.

- maybe "Local chat beacon" Tech II can do that and placed in solar systems with very low security (-1.0); and can be limited to show local chat with detected players in that system only for owners and allies.
- If so, make them easily hackable by attackers so they can access the local chat intel.
Maybe the guy who will hack the local chat beacon will receive a data sheet with codes which can be duplicated and shared to his corp or/and alliance to have acces on the local chat in that system on that particular beacon.

What if:

- you make local chat beacons (which authenticate, detect and show every player in - LOCAL chat - of the current solar system) to be an upgrade which can be purchased and can be anchored in your newly conquered solar systems

- you need to place more than one of this local chat beacons in a solar systems, in order to have a good coverage so you can detect and authenticate automatically any player in that solar systems. This have some flaws because there will be blind spots where you cannot be detected thus you can "disappear from local chat" as you left the solar system.

- you could scan with your covert ops frigate for some blind spots in a solar system, where you can warp in that area and disappear from local, because the local subspace beacon don't have coverage in certain areas (like behind planets, certain space clouds, etc).

- Black Ops ship will have the native ability to see the coverage of the local chat beacons on map and be able to warp to blind spots in order to disappear from local chat for some serious guerrilla action.

Why not go to a wormhole if you want to spend all day scanning systems with cov ops ships and warping to gank people?

Wormholes have very little pvp and the pvp they have is rarely what anyone would consider a good fight. The lack of local has allot to do with that.

I am fairly certain the wormhole pilots would not agree with you.

There is more to a good fight than running across someone making horrible choices. People making bad choices in wormholes soon find themselves outside the WH in a med clone.

The people who are cunning or clever tend to have the choice on whether to stay. Quite an effective filter, really.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but they are not entitled to thier own facts. Fact is wormholes have drastically less pvp per pilot and per system than low and null sec.

But what you consider is a bad choice is your opinion. What you call good choices is probably what I would call tedious risk aversion for fear of losing your ship. @ 90% of eve thinks that makes for boring gameplay so they stay out of wormholes.

I am concerned by this.

Why replace local? It's an essential tool for any pilots in Eve. By fundimentally changing it you fundimentally change everything, and create and even bigger barrier to movement from High Sec to Null Sec.

Additionally any update that boosts defense that also doesn't boost offense is something to be avoided. The balance of power in null sec needs to be fluid. Without that then the end game just falls apart.

....
The reality of the situation is that outside of wormholes .....

We are now in the part of "nerf local thread" where lots of carebears tell us how pvp works and why nerfing local will only make pvp (something they don't actually do) better.

Ad hominem, got it.

I must be a carebear, so anything I say must be clueless garbage. For someone interested in facts, you seem quite ready to jump onto assumptions when it suits your needs.

I would respect your view more if you just stated you disagree. You are entitled to your opinion.
Taking cheap shots discredits your argument more than you realize.

I do not consider calling someone a carebear an attack. Its just that you play the game different than pvpers.

Local has significant flaws. You can choose to ignore them, but this doesn't make them go away.

The whole AFK cloaking aspect many people keep crying about. The funny part of it, it doesn't actually require a cloak to do this.
You just need local.

You can be anywhere in a system. If you can find one of the multiple ways to make it too hard for others to track you down, seeing your name in local is all it takes to paralyze many systems.

There is no 'you' defined in this context.

Your assumption that I lack PvP experience because I disagree with you is my point.
You have no way of knowing what I know about the game. Don't make assumptions so quickly.

Is this you?

http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=43276

More specifically, that is one of my alts.

...... I have no interest in providing details on alts, ....

There are ways to manage AFK cloaking, it can be problematic but it's it's a question of uncertainty for a few people some of the time and uncertainty for almost all people almost all the time. I don't view this as fixing the problem, but merely shifting the burden from one group to another.

I'm sure you don't.

Like I said, lots of "lets nerf local" threads filled with posters with similar killboards to yours telling everyone how pvp works and how nerfing local will improve pvp. I think allot of pvpers just get tired of explaining how local helps people find good fights, avoid blobs, and generally leads to more pvp. But whatever carry on.

Lets keep away from personal attacks and actually talk about the thread, your attempts to derail the OP by selecting particular aspects of Nikk's threads are an obvious and childish way of changing the subject.

You disagree and you use WH's as an example of how no local decreases PVP. But you are just taking one aspect of WH's and applying the answer you want to hear as a conclusion. When I look at the data I see something completely different, WH's have major barriers to PVP that I will list.

- No local means that PVP engagements take dedicated effort to find targets. (your only point)

- Nonstatic/collapsing entries into systems prevents quick reinforcements

- Lack of stations to provide medical clones for quick reshipping

- Extreme difficulty of logistics to replace lost ships quickly

- Lack of population due to the difficulties of living in a WH

- Lack of targets due to corps not being online (many corps only play during one TZ, this means that you may find an inhabitated WH but all the natives are offline)

- No cyno fields to allow for hotdrops

Have a nice day,

Gerrick