Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ditra Vorthran
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 05:20:00 -
[1] - Quote
There's been a lot of threads (or were before the Inventory Patch) calling for the removal of Local.
The question whether or not local should or shouldn't be removed isn't the real question. Removing local is merely one facet of a larger problem.
That problem is the balance between Predator and Prey.
Bonuses to the Prey side: - Local: an instant intel tool that shows who is in the system - D-scan: easy to use (if annoying) intel tool that is free with every ship you purchase
Bonuses to Predator side: - Ships: strong, cheap, easy to train, and easy to replace - cloaking devices: a module that costs no cap, that can be active forever, and effectively halts activity by prudent Prey - default warp in points at asteroid belts: predators are given free warp to points making searching for prey a near mindless task
Prey are given a *huge* advantage with Local, knowing instantly when a potential hostile enters a system. It makes it virtually certain that if someone arrives in local, that the attentive Prey will escape harm, making it very difficult and frustrating for the Predator to hunt. This also negates some of the benfits of cloaking devices.
On the other hand, Predators also have several advantages. The ability to kill a ship that costs (at the time of this writing) 1600% more than the Preys with a fraction of the training time. Free warp to points so Predators have to do virtually no work in hunting for their prey. Cloaking devices that allow someone to grief for long periods of time with no risk.
(As an aside, I find it amusing that Predators scorn Prey for supposedly wanting to play a game virtually AFK with no risk of harm, then advocate the ability for one person to grief an entire star system for hours if not days at a time...while AFK, at no risk. But I digress.)
Prey is given an enormous initial advantage, but once that advantage is removed, it all shifts to the Predator.
What do you replace local with? What is put in place to create a more balanced system between Predator and Prey? This can be addressed in a few different ways:
1) Remove Local.
2) Change D-scan. Spamming D-scan for 4 hours is not fun. - Replace it with a mid slot module called 'Active Proximity Scanner' or something. The basic theory is that any ship passing within a certain range (dependant on skill) would give a warning to the pilot. This gives the attentive Prey a chance to escape while not requiring him to constatly spam D-Scan. It also gives a swift Predator a chance to catch said Prey. Or something to that effect.
3) Cloaking devices requrire charges of some sort. - It would allow covops pilots the ability to stay cloaked for decent periods of time, but not make it overpowered. It would also allow covops to create combat fits, as opposed to something like requiring it to use cap, which would force covops to fit solely for cap regen. It also forces the pilot to choose between combat flexibility vs. stealth operations and harassment (ammo vs. cloak charges), or something in between.
4) Remove default warp to points in asteroid belts - Make asteroid belts scanable via probes and your system scanner. Both Predator and Prey now have to work for their money.
Obviously the suggestions above are not a be-all, end-all list, nor are the ideas final. This is merely my attempt to answer the balance of Prey vs. Predator if Local were removed. |
Seraph IX Basarab
Vengance Inc.
7
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 05:50:00 -
[2] - Quote
Stop whining about covops, they are fine. "something killed me" is not a reason to complain. |
Peter Raptor
Plutonian Army
180
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 06:01:00 -
[3] - Quote
The ONLY defence against cov ops for the prey is local, no "scanner module" would even pick out a cov ops, without local, cov ops take over the game, and your idea would break the game, thanks for coming and back to the drawing board Evelopedia;-á
The Amarr Empire, is known for its omnipresent religion -áGÇá-á-á |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
875
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 06:05:00 -
[4] - Quote
Peter Raptor wrote:The ONLY defence against cov ops for the prey is local, no "scanner module" would even pick out a cov ops, without local, cov ops take over the game, and your idea would break the game, thanks for coming and back to the drawing board lol lov2covops I guess. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd |
bongsmoke
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 06:10:00 -
[5] - Quote
Posting in remove local thread 7,453,029
No thanks, move to wormhole for your play style concerning local and just forget about the rest of the nonsense. |
Brooks Puuntai
Nomadic Asylum Alliance 99000802
617
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 06:11:00 -
[6] - Quote
Agreed. Even making it so expanded probe launchers can only be fitted to Cov-Ops or Cov-Ops T3, would help balance the predator >prey imbalance with removing local. |
Ditra Vorthran
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 06:13:00 -
[7] - Quote
Peter Raptor wrote:The ONLY defence against cov ops for the prey is local, no "scanner module" would even pick out a cov ops, without local, cov ops take over the game, and your idea would break the game, thanks for coming and back to the drawing board
Actually, it would pick out covops, but it would do so at a shorter distance than a ship without a covops ship. The effect could be modified for the relevant skills needed to operate the respective modules.
To illustrate, a non-covops frigate would be detected at 10 AUs while a covops would be detected at 5 AUs all skills being equal. If the Covops pilot had a skill of 4 and the other pilot had a [insert needed skill here] skill of 2, that would get shortened to say 3 AUs. These aren't actual numbers but just to illustrate the point.
An array of different mods/rigs could be created to really fill out a covops vs. counter-covops role, and make things much more interesting than "Hurr...me have cloak...me win..."
Thank you for reminding me about that little loophole...I remember thinking of that as I was writing the post, but it fell through the cracks. :P |
Beef Knuckleback
Pawnstars INC The Fendahlian Collective
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 06:15:00 -
[8] - Quote
Add an implant or module - implant would make the pilot invisible in Local until they speak; module would "cloak" them in local while the module is active (auto-disable if they speak in Local etc).
Make it a high-slot module so all the 1337 PVPers have to choose between stealth and neuts. Or make it a midslot so 1337 PVPers have to choose between stealth and tackle.
The rest of the game is Rock Paper Scissors - Local should be no different. |
Ditra Vorthran
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 06:17:00 -
[9] - Quote
Brooks Puuntai wrote:Agreed. Even making it so expanded probe launchers can only be fitted to Cov-Ops or Cov-Ops T3, would help balance the predator >prey imbalance with removing local.
That was another idea a friend and I had. If you're using probes while cloaked, you're absorbing and emitting radiation in order control those drones. That should (supposedly) be detectable and tracable back to the point of origin.
Not saying that something like that would be easy, mind you, but that's the point. Things should be *hard*, but not impossible. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
389
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 06:23:00 -
[10] - Quote
The underlying question to all of these discussions is: what level of warning is appropriate for a ratter or miner of an incoming hostile? Too low ("just remove local completely") and the effect is to move all moneymaking activity to the safety of highsec, since nobody wants to play a game where their only role is to be a helpless victim over and over. Too high ("Give hulks buit-in WCS, introduce an anti-cloak module"), and the gankers give up in frustration since it becomes impossible to ever catch a target.
Once everyone realises that the solution is somewhere in the middle ground maybe we'll stop getting the same old entrenched positions shouted out in 20 different threads a day (just kidding, that will never happen). Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
|
Vera Algaert
Republic University Minmatar Republic
150
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 06:27:00 -
[11] - Quote
I loath thinking what roams would look like without local.
Soon people would abandon cheap hulls in space and put large numbers of ships inside POS shields and you would spend five minutes per system trying to figure out if any target is nearby. No more "system is clear" - "jump and warp outgate" or "free burn unless scout says otherwise". |
Brooks Puuntai
Nomadic Asylum Alliance 99000802
617
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 06:34:00 -
[12] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:The underlying question to all of these discussions is: what level of warning is appropriate for a ratter or miner of an incoming hostile? Too low ("just remove local completely") and the effect is to move all moneymaking activity to the safety of highsec, since nobody wants to play a game where their only role is to be a helpless victim over and over. Too high ("Give hulks buit-in WCS, introduce an anti-cloak module"), and the gankers give up in frustration since it becomes impossible to ever catch a target.
Once everyone realises that the solution is somewhere in the middle ground maybe we'll stop getting the same old entrenched positions shouted out in 20 different threads a day (just kidding, that will never happen).
Ideally you would want it balanced, or possibly favoring the prey. Since if you remove the prey you will also remove the predator. What would be a good way to gauge reactions and spur ideas is to hold a event for say a week and "turn off" local in NPC null. WH space just isn't a good enough example due to its lack of static beacons/entry points.
|
Peter Raptor
Plutonian Army
180
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 06:36:00 -
[13] - Quote
Ditra Vorthran wrote:Peter Raptor wrote:The ONLY defence against cov ops for the prey is local, no "scanner module" would even pick out a cov ops, without local, cov ops take over the game, and your idea would break the game, thanks for coming and back to the drawing board Actually, it would pick out covops, but it would do so at a shorter distance than a ship without a covops ship. The effect could be modified for the relevant skills needed to operate the respective modules. To illustrate, a non-covops frigate would be detected at 10 AUs while a covops would be detected at 5 AUs all skills being equal. If the Covops pilot had a skill of 4 and the other pilot had a [insert needed skill here] skill of 2, that would get shortened to say 3 AUs. These aren't actual numbers but just to illustrate the point. An array of different mods/rigs could be created to really fill out a covops vs. counter-covops role, and make things much more interesting than "Hurr...me have cloak...me win..." Thank you for reminding me about that little loophole...I remember thinking of that as I was writing the post, but it fell through the cracks. :P
Yeah but then covops is totally useless, its not covops any more, its just "coveops-as-long-as-your-not-within-5AU-of-an-Awesome-Scanner". Evelopedia;-á
The Amarr Empire, is known for its omnipresent religion -áGÇá-á-á |
Ditra Vorthran
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 06:43:00 -
[14] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:The underlying question to all of these discussions is: what level of warning is appropriate for a ratter or miner of an incoming hostile? Too low ("just remove local completely") and the effect is to move all moneymaking activity to the safety of highsec, since nobody wants to play a game where their only role is to be a helpless victim over and over. Too high ("Give hulks buit-in WCS, introduce an anti-cloak module"), and the gankers give up in frustration since it becomes impossible to ever catch a target.
Once everyone realises that the solution is somewhere in the middle ground maybe we'll stop getting the same old entrenched positions shouted out in 20 different threads a day (just kidding, that will never happen).
Exactly. It's about balance, not who should have the "I WIN" button. My ideas aren't perfect, but they represent the best I've seen between the blanket "Remove Local!" crowd and the carebears. |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1068
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 06:45:00 -
[15] - Quote
Don't remove local, its too ballsy and CCP would never dare do it.
I'd like to see them break local again though, so it gives a list of everyone in local but this list was devalued by random false entries of people not in local. That way with a bit of work, you can find out who is there, and you'd see a new person entering, but some people would grow complacent and ignore it.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
malcovas Henderson
Smoking Minerals Syndicate Cannabis Legionis
63
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 07:34:00 -
[16] - Quote
It is not a question of what removing local fixes, but more of what removing local breaks. Used correctly, local is a very powerful intel source for both hunter and prey.
In Hi sec local is not used by many as an intel source, this is why gankers succeed. On the other hand. In low/null, local is used as the first line of defence for the prey, and the first lndication of whats going on for the hunter. If the hunter is roaming he will still need to locate potential prey, and find better intelligence other than what local is offering. Local will tell him the numbers he is looking for. Empty system... move along.
Station dwellers will be alerted to the arrival of a potential victim, with the local. They still have to work out what they are up against, where and to where. Without local it would make it very hard for a solo hunter to find prey like this. Forcing him to roam or sit a gate hoping someone lands in his bubble that he can kill. This makes he very suceptable to fleets.
Defenders use the local as a means to know when they are safe and when they are potetially not safe. Removing the local will remove that. Forcing Corperations and Alliances to increase their numbers, to be able camp each gate and WH. If they didn't, then Hi sec could be the only option for them.
To me removing Local only benefits the hunter in a cloaky. Removing it breaks more than it fixes. This is why it's a bad idea.
o7 |
Brooks Puuntai
Nomadic Asylum Alliance 99000802
617
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 08:38:00 -
[17] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote:It is not a question of what removing local fixes, but more of what removing local breaks. Used correctly, local is a very powerful intel source for both hunter and prey.
In Hi sec local is not used by many as an intel source, this is why gankers succeed. On the other hand. In low/null, local is used as the first line of defence for the prey, and the first lndication of whats going on for the hunter. If the hunter is roaming he will still need to locate potential prey, and find better intelligence other than what local is offering. Local will tell him the numbers he is looking for. Empty system... move along.
Station dwellers will be alerted to the arrival of a potential victim, with the local. They still have to work out what they are up against, where and to where. Without local it would make it very hard for a solo hunter to find prey like this. Forcing him to roam or sit a gate hoping someone lands in his bubble that he can kill. This makes he very suceptable to fleets.
Defenders use the local as a means to know when they are safe and when they are potetially not safe. Removing the local will remove that. Forcing Corperations and Alliances to increase their numbers, to be able camp each gate and WH. If they didn't, then Hi sec could be the only option for them.
To me removing Local only benefits the hunter in a cloaky. Removing it breaks more than it fixes. This is why it's a bad idea.
o7
This is all based off of perception. What you seem to think removing local will break others think it will fix. Lets go through your examples.
High-sec Local: This is highly used as a intel source for people in wars. A defender can look at a system and see many war targets, which means they will dock up. Risk Aversion =Bad
Station Dwellers:
This goes both ways. Someone in station sees local spike they will either dock up or stay docked. This is again risk aversion. For the hunter the use of alts is highly common already, having a cloaky alt at gates to see who is entering, so really in this situation it only really effects the prey.
Defenders: Corps/Alliances will already try and increase their numbers irregardless. This is a common human ideology where safety is in numbers. So removing local will not increase or decrease the amount of people corporations try and recruit. It is however used probably more so from the preys aspect on when to engage and when not to. Many time have I seen "Local spike in system X 50+" then "We don't have enough to counter everyone safe up".
This is what many see as a failure of the current local and its ability to provide easy intel that is used to avoid fights. While removing local can cause a reduction in possible fights in certain situations, however in more cases then not it will still improve the possibly of fights.
Make no mistake that a blanket removal of local would be a bad idea for all involved. However removing local while improving on other aspects(directional, probing, sov upgrades, etc) would be needed to balance things out. This is what this thread is about. |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
743
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 08:42:00 -
[18] - Quote
If you remove local, less people will go to null sec, the people you prey on. Less people will be 'out and about' doing their day to day stuff. PvP will be harder and take longer to find.
It's a dumb idea.
Imagine this:
Formup an 6-10 man roaming gang to go hunting for another 6-10 man roaming gang. Every system you go into, you need to drop probes.
do this... all night, across 30-40 jumps (average roam).
A list of fixes for the new inventory
Dual Pane idea clicky |
Tiberius Murderhorne
Amarrian Retribution Amarr 7th Fleet
10
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 08:46:00 -
[19] - Quote
removing Local gives a massive advantage to older players while crippling newer ones...
just stop it! local is part of eve, if you don't like it get in a hole!
Amarr Faction War - We are Recruiting! - Come Join the Amarr! We Are Out Numbered but that has never stopped us before! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=913884#post913884
|
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
79
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 08:52:00 -
[20] - Quote
removing local? No thanks. I do not want this game to be called "dscan" instead of eve. Imagine how boring this game would be. I would have had to dscan 4 times already while i typed this piece of text. EVE would become the laughing stock of all the MMO's. Local works as intended. Nothing broken in it. So it needs no fixing. If you want no local, then go to there >> wormhole.
I will vote however to remove you from game! |
|
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1071
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 10:37:00 -
[21] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote:(Local is) the first lndication of whats going on for the hunter. If the hunter is roaming he will still need to locate potential prey, and find better intelligence other than what local is offering. Local will tell him the numbers he is looking for. Empty system... move along. Actually for a competent hunter, it really isn't that important.
I hunt targets in low sec quite a bit, and whilst local was broken numerous more or less empty systems contained 20-30 people in local. However a competent hunter will already have the radars, mags and combat sites scanned out. Similarly a competent hunter will look at where the belts are, warp to a celestial within d-scan range and check them.
Also checking for wrecks on d-scan, knowing what various wreck names mean (are they missioning, running a combat site, mag site etc) and knowing the area helps. Especially knowing the area, there are quite a few people that when my neutral alt jumps in to system I know exactly what they'll be doing before I even hit directional.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
Cierejai
State Protectorate Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 11:15:00 -
[22] - Quote
The point of this is to prevent people from entering low-sec?
I don't understand.
Oh now I get it, low sec would only be gate to gate traffic. So just keep that but lose everything else?
Good idea.
|
Welsige
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
71
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 12:02:00 -
[23] - Quote
Bad idea. ~ 10.058 ~
Free The Mittani |
Lustralis
Tiny Holdings
8
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 12:05:00 -
[24] - Quote
You missed something in the predator argument: Predator always knows pretty much where his targets will be. The exception is WH space of course, and this shows the system for what it is: d-scan spamming FTW. Who wants to do that? I don't (unless I'm in a WH). If you could have some auto-scanning/alert system, even a module, that would help, but it would be pretty much compulsory to fit, so it's not really a solution. Might as well have an auto-scan setting on d-scan and an alarm system, so you can set an alarm to fire when d-scan detects something from your overview settings.
|
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
3
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 12:12:00 -
[25] - Quote
Peter Raptor wrote:The ONLY defence against cov ops for the prey is local, no "scanner module" would even pick out a cov ops, without local, cov ops take over the game, and your idea would break the game, thanks for coming and back to the drawing board
Nope because local is More important to the HUNTER! THe hunter get into a system and immediately knows if it needs to look somewhere else or not.
AFK cloaking is useles wihout local because you cannot make psicological presusre.
A cloakign ship cannot find you unless it deploy probes that you CAN SCAN! Or if you stay at an incredbly stupid place!
Local should be delayed. You enter system you only see stuff in system after 5 minutes and you only appear in local after 5 minutes. That would in fact help more the smart preys than the hunters, but would help a lot the hunters against the stupid preys. |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
79
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 12:24:00 -
[26] - Quote
Seishi Maru wrote:Peter Raptor wrote:The ONLY defence against cov ops for the prey is local, no "scanner module" would even pick out a cov ops, without local, cov ops take over the game, and your idea would break the game, thanks for coming and back to the drawing board Nope because local is More important to the HUNTER! THe hunter get into a system and immediately knows if it needs to look somewhere else or not. AFK cloaking is useles wihout local because you cannot make psicological presusre. A cloakign ship cannot find you unless it deploy probes that you CAN SCAN! Or if you stay at an incredbly stupid place! Local should be delayed. You enter system you only see stuff in system after 5 minutes and you only appear in local after 5 minutes. That would in fact help more the smart preys than the hunters, but would help a lot the hunters against the stupid preys.
full of nonsence would describe that post |
Aerich e'Kieron
Snuff Box
10
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 13:18:00 -
[27] - Quote
Quote: If you remove local, less people will go to null sec, the people you prey on. Less people will be 'out and about' doing their day to day stuff. PvP will be harder and take longer to find.
and this
Quote: Formup an 6-10 man roaming gang to go hunting for another 6-10 man roaming gang. Every system you go into, you need to drop probes.
Explain to me please, how that is -not- incentive for the "prey" to be there. There are other points to be made in regards to a removed local, but do I even have to explain how that isn't logical?
It's too good. In fact, it's so good that it is of detriment to both parties. The prey know too soon and easily of a threat. And thus they are able to warp off, cloak, dock, whatever. The predators know too soon and easily that a potential target is in system. And thus can relatively quickly make their way through many systems in search of the prey.
Regardless of your opinion on a potential solution for this, can we not agree that the situation as-is, is not ideal? And that both the hunter and the hunted will need to give up some of the functionality of this in order facilitate a better system? The proper solution to this will inherently have pros and cons for both types of people involved.
You can spot the eventualities of the system as it is. It's no wonder people complain about afk-cloakers, and it's no wonder people complain about local being overpowered.
-People using the system want security, and local chat gives them that. So much so, that they can effectively reason it's better to not bother ratting or mining while some unknown threat is in system.
-The afk-cloakers are a counter to the powerful ability of local chat.
The outcome ends in a stalemate that no-one enjoys.
Unfortunately, both parties will need to relinquish something in order for things to improve. "Prey" will need to cope with a system that is not as reliable and will need to take more risk in their activities. "Predators" will have to deal with a far greater amount of time spent in search of the "prey".
Basically, removing local can potentially work. Although some kinks with the abilities of covert ops combats ships may need to be hammered out.
ALSO, you can use this measure to figure out what type of player a person is based on their position on this issue!
|
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
79
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 13:37:00 -
[28] - Quote
Local does not hurt anyone. People still get caught on the daily basis rating or mining all the time and it works as intended. What hurt you is NAP. Get your corp to remove NAP and then all you got is a Rich Target Environment "RTE". PEW PEW
Hunting down ratters/barges is not pvp. I bet most "real pvpers" will tell you that. If the prey wants to pvp vs you, they will bring the fight to you also.
Eitherway its very easy to catch anyone and you rarelly need scaning probes to catch someone. Dont blame the tools for your bad dscan skills. There are thousands of people out there that have been doing pvp ever since the game was released and are Gods. If you cant do it, then you are just bad at it and give your the carrer
Lookup tutorials like eve-is-easy, sard caid stream etc. Dont blame the tools, blame your skills! Now, please post more tears! |
Aerich e'Kieron
Snuff Box
11
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 15:41:00 -
[29] - Quote
^ I'll have to assume the less-than-subtle parts of that post aren't directed at me.
Quote:People still get caught on daily basis rating or mining all the time and it works as intended. ^Their getting "caught" is merely their own suicide. We're talking about the functionality of the local chat here, and had they known or bothered to heed some basic information that is clearly available to them. They would be impossible to catch. With the purpose of making my point simplistic, if you're afraid of being caught, you can simply warp off while ratting, or mining, when a new person enters local. And this doesn't always drastically impede the activities of the individual. Hence people complaining over afk-cloakers.
Now ofc, doing something like I just described would probably really suck, but it would work. Albeit it would slow things down, the whole idea is about putting yourself at risk, for rewards. And technically, you don't have to put yourself at risk to do these things(in these areas), because of local.
Quote:Hunting down ratters/barges is not pvp. I bet most "real pvpers" will tell you that. ^ It depends on how you're defining pvp. But also, this incites "real pvp". Some people enjoy camping gates, some bombing pods, some suicide ganking, and others enjoy the challenge or display of dominance with winning a fight. There are more. Pvp is a flexible term anyway, most of these are just variations.
Quote:If the prey wants to pvp vs you, they will bring the fight to you also. ^ Dangerous thinking there.. slippery slope.
*Edit: I actually am curious as to why I'm playing an advocate here. I have no strong opinions on this and think it's probably alright as is lol. But damnit! I'm gonna argue! |
Lord Zim
697
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 16:28:00 -
[30] - Quote
Aerich e'Kieron wrote:^Their getting "caught" is merely their own suicide. It doesn't take many seconds of inattention at the wrong time to get caught.
Aerich e'Kieron wrote:Now ofc, doing something like I just described would probably really suck, but it would work. Sounds like a good change, then. Let's do it, it's not like EVE isn't famous for being a cockstabby game after all.
Aerich e'Kieron wrote:Albeit it would slow things down, the whole idea is about putting yourself at risk, for rewards. And technically, you don't have to put yourself at risk to do these things(in these areas), because of local. Again, it doesn't take many seconds of inattention at the wrong time to get caught. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |