Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Celestine Santora
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 14:18:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Margret Putnam Why not make it so the owners of the 0.0 system can see local, while non owners can't. In NPC space no one can see local since the owners are NPC's.
That way the defenders get some nice intel, which they should (They would know who warped into system) while attackers/neuts would be blind.
This is the best solution IMO and really gives more meaning to who holds sov in a given area.
Besides, I remember hearing something lore-wise that local is controlled by the stargates in and out logging people or something like that. If an alliance holds sov, don't they control the stargates too? They should be allowed to mess with the local mechanics. And for that matter, people entering a system through means other than stargates (wormholes, cyno, etc etc) shouldn't appear in local. Conversely, people entering a wormhole from kspace should remain as local "ghosts" for say 15 minutes since no stargate detected them leaving.
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 14:35:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Razin
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2 Ratting/mining in lo sec/0.0 doesn't just require effort "to stay awake". If you've ever done it you'll know you have to keep tabs on who's already there doing what, who's coming in, who's leaving, who's probing, how close are they, and be aligned and ready to jet out. Have you tried mining while staying aligned? If you don't think that takes skills then you need to tell me how you're doing it. Oh,and on top of all that micromanage whatever else it is your doing. If you're mining, keep an eye on your cargohold so as not to mine more than you can carry (ie dump), etc. Any miner worth his salt knows what I'm talking about.
Come on, thatÆs a pretty lame excuse for not paying attention. The worst you can have for ækeeping tabs on localÆ in 0.0 is if the list of blues is longer than your screen height. But then, if you have that many participating in your farming op surely you can spare someone dedicated to watching local/scouting. Most of the time, however, you are in the system alone (especially when you rat), and seeing local increase even by one becomes second nature.
Once you see local increase you can initiate warp. There is no subcapital ship that can not warp away before being in danger in this situation.
What exactly is lame about it? Have you ever tried mining in lo sec or 0.0 outside alliance ops times? I strongly suggest you try it before simply dismissing it as 'lame'. Even ONE red/neutral in local is enough to disrupt your plans. Nevermind that without local you are now forced to smash a button until your fingers are swollen and bloodied. There's a reason why lo sec mining isn't popular. And the same applies to missioning. Pirates can easily find out which are the the lo sec mission hubs and it's not like you can take your agents with you to a quiet no-man system. Yes, there are systems with crappy lo sec agents in it. But then, what's the point? Might as well go back to hi sec and work with better agents there.
Making lo sec and 0.0 even more hostile to "carebears" isn't going to improve the gameplay of lazy pirates. Actually it may for the first few weeks, until they adapt and stop going there to die. Then we'll be back on the forums for CCP to nerf carebears again in some form that allows lazy gankers to kill a few more players for free. And then it'll be back to the forums to whine on yet some other way for CCP to provide them with easy kills. Funnily enough, when carebears adapt by building their strength in numbers, then we have the whines on blobbage.
And yes, higher numbers are needed for players which are more versatile with their playstyle and lack experience in PVP versus a group of PVP players who only exclusively PVP and have most of their SPs invested in PVP. And it really is nothing to brag about.
Grief a PVP'er. Run a mission today! |
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 14:36:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Celestine Santora
This is the best solution IMO and really gives more meaning to who holds sov in a given area.
This is a really bad idea. Local should be available to everyone or no-one. Giving the 'local intel' advantage to the sov holder will severely unbalance the already defender-heavy sov system.
Originally by: Celestine Santora Besides, I remember hearing something lore-wise that local is controlled by the stargates in and out logging people or something like that.
BS. The Empyrean Age novel clearly states showing up in local is controlled from each individual ship. Not that this matters any. ...
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 14:45:00 -
[34]
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2 What exactly is lame about it?
Your excuse for not being 100% safe is your inability to pay attention to a simple list with pictures. That is lame (in case youÆve lost track of what I was responding to).
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2 Nevermind that without local you are now forced to smash a button until your fingers are swollen and bloodied.
You are deliberately trolling. This was discussed ad nauseum in the other thread.
The current local is auto, so why shouldnÆt the new d-scan function that provides this info?????
...
|
Spurty
Caldari D00M. Northern Coalition.
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 14:55:00 -
[35]
Ops idea is only of many I proposed months ago.
I support it.
Don't want to see who is in local? Make it a sov. Mod.
No you can't have it both ways you ***fots. Either everyone can or no one can.
Just like cyno jammers
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 15:11:00 -
[36]
Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2 on 30/08/2010 15:14:27
Fine, let's go the ad hom route. I can play this game too :)
Originally by: Razin Your excuse for not being 100% safe is your inability to pay attention to a simple list with pictures. That is lame (in case youÆve lost track of what I was responding to).
How's about YOUR inability to work to kill your prey? Here you are *****ing, whining, and crying to CCP to serve you kills in a platter. Here you are begging CCP to give the attacker greater advantages simply because you lack the skills and imagination to kill your prey. Tell me, is all of your alliance this lazy and unimaginative?
Originally by: Razin You are deliberately trolling. This was discussed ad nauseum in the other thread.
The current local is auto, so why shouldnÆt the new d-scan function that provides this info?????
Becuase the OP didn't implement it in his idea. So I'm not going to assume that every time some "OMG nurf local!!1" fanboi decides to post a new thread on the subject he's actually supporting an auto scanner. It just goes to show that you're only interested in having local removed with nothing else being explicitly discussed, because according to you "well, the OP is in favor of an autoscanner, why wouldn't he be" .
If you enjoy the removal of local so much, go to WH space. You wouldn't need to whine anymore on the subject. The beauty of Eve is that it offers something for everyone. Well, except to those with envy and jealousy that insist in CCP making the game unplayable for everyone but themselves. So I can see why you would have a problem with this.
Grief a PVP'er. Run a mission today! |
Psymn
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 15:24:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Razin
Originally by: Celestine Santora
This is the best solution IMO and really gives more meaning to who holds sov in a given area.
This is a really bad idea. Local should be available to everyone or no-one. Giving the 'local intel' advantage to the sov holder will severely unbalance the already defender-heavy sov system.
While i agree, that would be a step in the wrong direction, it is also the case that in most military actions, the defending role is the easiest.
Making attacking the easiest role would make it impossible to develop in null. Its not like pirates are going to limit themselves to a certain number of easy kills then go somewhere else, they will bleed any potential kills dry before bothering to look any where else.
Defending should be easier than attacking, this imbalance is actually balanced. Anything else is whine.
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 15:32:00 -
[38]
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2 How's about YOUR inability to work to kill your prey? Here you are *****ing, whining, and crying to CCP to serve you kills in a platter. Here you are begging CCP to give the attacker greater advantages simply because you lack the skills and imagination to kill your prey. Tell me, is all of your alliance this lazy and unimaginative?
Do quote me where I am ô*****ing, whining, and cryingö. I am simply pointing out a faulty and unbalanced game mechanic and how it could be fixed, with all the associated replacement tools and compromises.
IÆm also not generalizing, so thatÆs a game all your own.
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2 Originally by: Razin You are deliberately trolling. This was discussed ad nauseum in the other thread.
The current local is auto, so why shouldnÆt the new d-scan function that provides this info?????
Becuase the OP didn't implement it in his idea. So I'm not going to assume that every time some "OMG nurf local!!1" fanboi decides to post a new thread on the subject he's actually supporting an auto scanner.
Can you not read man? I bolded the relevant part of my post for you (to make it easy to notice among other text). ...
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 15:46:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Psymn
Originally by: Razin
Originally by: Celestine Santora
This is the best solution IMO and really gives more meaning to who holds sov in a given area.
This is a really bad idea. Local should be available to everyone or no-one. Giving the 'local intel' advantage to the sov holder will severely unbalance the already defender-heavy sov system.
While i agree, that would be a step in the wrong direction, it is also the case that in most military actions, the defending role is the easiest.
Making attacking the easiest role would make it impossible to develop in null. Its not like pirates are going to limit themselves to a certain number of easy kills then go somewhere else, they will bleed any potential kills dry before bothering to look any where else.
Defending should be easier than attacking, this imbalance is actually balanced. Anything else is whine.
I agree there should be a compromise; however the current state of 0.0 is ample evidence that defending is too easy against all but overwhelming odds, and that something needs to be done about the status quo.
Delayed local for everyone in 0.0 would go hand in hand with any kind of additions of small gang/solo targets in sov warfare. Even within the current state of sov affairs delayed local would allow small gangs looking to disrupt æindustrial activitiesÆ to penetrate hostile alliance space without accumulating a snowball of intel alerts, as anyone watching local on their route is automatically a scout.
...
|
Psymn
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 15:58:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Psymn on 30/08/2010 16:05:41 Edited by: Psymn on 30/08/2010 16:04:05 Edited by: Psymn on 30/08/2010 15:59:06
Originally by: Razin
Originally by: Psymn
Originally by: Razin
Originally by: Celestine Santora
This is the best solution IMO and really gives more meaning to who holds sov in a given area.
This is a really bad idea. Local should be available to everyone or no-one. Giving the 'local intel' advantage to the sov holder will severely unbalance the already defender-heavy sov system.
While i agree, that would be a step in the wrong direction, it is also the case that in most military actions, the defending role is the easiest.
Making attacking the easiest role would make it impossible to develop in null. Its not like pirates are going to limit themselves to a certain number of easy kills then go somewhere else, they will bleed any potential kills dry before bothering to look any where else.
Defending should be easier than attacking, this imbalance is actually balanced. Anything else is whine.
I agree there should be a compromise; however the current state of 0.0 is ample evidence that defending is too easy against all but overwhelming odds, and that something needs to be done about the status quo.
Delayed local for everyone in 0.0 would go hand in hand with any kind of additions of small gang/solo targets in sov warfare. Even within the current state of sov affairs delayed local would allow small gangs looking to disrupt æindustrial activitiesÆ to penetrate hostile alliance space without accumulating a snowball of intel alerts, as anyone watching local on their route is automatically a scout.
Like i said, that sounds like whine to me. All other arguments aside, the result of removing peoples ability to see someone entering system would be devastating. There are already boat loads of pirates that get regular kills every day with local as it is. Removing it will mean that mediocre pirates are elevated to being able to secure kills more easily while skilled pirates will be unstoppable.
Imagine if pirates didnt need to scout a system out but could warp in 5 cheap gank fit bs and popped up in a mining op and insta pop an industrial cap ship and a handful of hulks.
As it is now, they have to tip-toe into system and bring in gank when the time is right. This is a fair as it can be, asking industrial/pve toons to take billions of isk losses just you pirates can get easy and pointless kills is... pathetic?
You only have to look at that guy who hacked local to emit him, and his kb to see that removing local will result in an unacceptable imbalance. Delaying local is the same as removing it.
Finally, i dont understand the problem, you now complain about intel, its like pvp pirates want easy risk free kills and also want to avoid any possibility of a coordinated retaliation to their pirate activity.. lol. Why not come clean and admit you dont want pvp eve style, what you want is closer to pve than i think you realise.
|
|
Khorkrak
Gallente Middleton and Mercer LLP Circle-Of-Two
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 16:08:00 -
[41]
Yes of course using a chat channel as an intel tool to determine who is where is an absolutely ******ed game mechanic. It should never have been there in the first place.
It's been this way forever and people are used to it, they've adapted and become reliant and accustomed to this stupidity. Therefore, changing it would be worse than keeping it as is. This goes for all game mechanics. Unless there's an unbelievably unbalanced issue, bug or exploit then in general things should never be "fixed".
Instead fix the real bugs, add some real content and features and move on.
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 16:32:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Psymn You only have to look at that guy who hacked local to emit him, and his kb to see that removing local will result in an unacceptable imbalance. Delaying local is the same as removing it.
Finally, i dont understand the problem
The above quote very succinctly demonstrates why you need to learn some EVE game mechanics before involving yourself in discussions such as this one. Nice talking to you.
...
|
Mathhew Kane
Minmatar Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 16:34:00 -
[43]
As OP for this topic, I declare this thread is now about Lag.
Thank you. -------------------------------------------------- Loyalty is simply slavery of ones own choosing. If ever you have the choice, Choose your master well."
My Step Father, Isikile Kane.
|
Ocih
Amarr The Program Controlled Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 17:37:00 -
[44]
I support this thread. We need more gate camping in null. |
Jimmmy Jones
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 18:32:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Mathhew Kane
Yeah, cause being a member of E-M totally ruins my carebear credentials don't it?
No, based off of everything I saw EM do back when I was living in MH, being a memeber of EM could only improve your carebear credentials. Was always amusing to see 14 of you get butchered by a 4-5 man pirate fleet already under gategun fire :P
|
Rexthor Hammerfists
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 18:45:00 -
[46]
Local replaced by a system that doesnt leave anyone blind but rewards skill and knowledge in an interesting way would be very nice. I have fiddled alot with both the universe and system map lately, and especially the universe map unflattened is a beauty to look at and also fun to interact with when looking for which systems are in range for leapfrogging blackops.
Giving players a tool that is fun to use, not a frustrating mousekiller and doesnt obsolete any pve in 0.0 while rewarding experienced scouts and maybe also cov ops and similar "techy" ships, would breathe some life into the otherwise all so same eve universe. -
|
Mathhew Kane
Minmatar Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 18:49:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Jimmmy Jones
Originally by: Mathhew Kane
Yeah, cause being a member of E-M totally ruins my carebear credentials don't it?
No, based off of everything I saw EM do back when I was living in MH, being a memeber of EM could only improve your carebear credentials. Was always amusing to see 14 of you get butchered by a 4-5 man pirate fleet already under gategun fire :P
Ok I'm kinda new at this whole forum warrior thing, but is this the point where I vehemently disagree with your assessment of my Alliance and threaten to pod you in game for retelling an event that may or may not have happened or do I have to troll you first? Or are they both the same thing?
If someone with more experience could help me out? Thank you.
Also...Lag sucks! FIX IT NOW! -------------------------------------------------- Loyalty is simply slavery of ones own choosing. If ever you have the choice, Choose your master well."
My Step Father, Isikile Kane.
|
Jimmmy Jones
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 18:57:00 -
[48]
Midjuly, last year, a 12-14 man EM gang of mainly frigs/crusiers/BC jumped in and engaged a 5 man Hic/RR BS/drake gang, half the EM frigs popped because they aggro'd the oe pirate withotu GCC and got popped by gateguns, and the rest promptly got wasted by the rest of the well fit, well trained pirate fleet.
Only time EM was ever of any use tbh, and that was only in amusement :)
You guys never busted up a gatecamp at us primetime I ever saw, and you blagh blagh no pvp or we redlist you policy made MH into a den of carebears with no experience, a fat breeding ground for piracy and the like. I would say that the policy of EM caused more piracy than it ever prevented.
|
Erick Odin
Amarr Local-Spike
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 21:27:00 -
[49]
If we had a place without Concord and local it would be so awesome!
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 21:44:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Erick Odin If we had a place without Concord and local it would be so awesome!
And on a different subject, I hear CCP is planning to add wormholes next year.
Grief a PVP'er. Run a mission today! |
|
Mr SmartGuy
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 21:47:00 -
[51]
http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance/Electus_Matari/stats
yeah... rrright. Like you ever lived and owned assets (stations) in 0.0 and have the right to ask for removal of local in nullsec.
|
Meat Bucket
Crush Kill Destroy
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 21:48:00 -
[52]
Local is dumb, nerf it.
|
Sergeant Spot
Galactic Geographic BookMark Surveying Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 21:58:00 -
[53]
As said before
CCP has spent years, and tons of effort on getting 0.0 to be (among other things....) the home of player run empires that at least try and exert some actual level of "useful" control, however incomplete that control may be, on their space.
If you want CCP to flush all that down the toilet, justify your position. But don't just try and get rid of local.
Play nice while you butcher each other.
|
Psymn
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 23:15:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Razin
Originally by: Psymn You only have to look at that guy who hacked local to emit him, and his kb to see that removing local will result in an unacceptable imbalance. Delaying local is the same as removing it.
Finally, i dont understand the problem
The above quote very succinctly demonstrates why you need to learn some EVE game mechanics before involving yourself in discussions such as this one. Nice talking to you.
Oh, you mean that the guy who did that exposed the absolute reversal of balance of which your suggestion of delaying local would bring about... he was functioning under the exact conditions you are advocating...
|
Splastastic
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 23:29:00 -
[55]
Here's some original thoughts on local in 0.0
According to that damned RP thing, local channel is a broadcasted channel on somekind of a communication beacon. When you enter a wormhole, the connection to that beacon is lost, because the wormhole system is far away.
I will propably get corrected here, but I assume that concord (or some equivilant goverment-like entity) is in control of putting up and managing said beacons. If this is somewhat correct, we could also assume it costs alot of money to keep them operational (random RP/story fluff).
Here's the idea I think might benefit everybody: In response of neglected 0.0 systems, concord (or other entity) has decided to remove the comm. beacon from less-used 0.0 systems. If a system is never used for anything but passing by once in a while or killing a single rat and moving on, the activity index is non-existant.
If the system is heavily ratted/mined/fought over/traveled/other relative activities, concord will reinstate the comm beacon, if said activity is kept.
If you put down a station, the station will work as a "releif beacon" for concord controlled ones and automaticly link in to the comm network (aka, local will always be shown).
This would disable local in less used system while keeping ratters and renters happy in a system/constellation and less used systems are left to rot.
Good/bad? you can disregard the RP/story stuff, it's just to show how it would work with the backstory.
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2010.08.31 00:35:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Razin on 31/08/2010 00:36:55
Originally by: Psymn
Originally by: Razin
Originally by: Psymn You only have to look at that guy who hacked local to emit him, and his kb to see that removing local will result in an unacceptable imbalance. Delaying local is the same as removing it.
Finally, i dont understand the problem
The above quote very succinctly demonstrates why you need to learn some EVE game mechanics before involving yourself in discussions such as this one. Nice talking to you.
Oh, you mean that the guy who did that exposed the absolute reversal of balance of which your suggestion of delaying local would bring about... he was functioning under the exact conditions you are advocating...
With the "slight" difference that he was the only one enjoying being absent from local - exactly the situation I am advocating against. ...
|
Psymn
|
Posted - 2010.08.31 07:02:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Psymn on 31/08/2010 07:04:19 Edited by: Psymn on 31/08/2010 07:03:26 Lol, theres other ways on top of local to see if a system is populated. The attacking party wouldnt need local to know people are there. This would leave the attackers in the same situation as monkey, knowing there were people there, while those people would be completely unaware they were being stalked. Unless you are also advocating the complete removal of all intel tools from the map, published km's, streamed system stats, intel channels and regular chat windows too no doubt.
Removing local would advantage only those on the attack, trying to skew that simple fact is going to fail. Im not averse to pvp, its just there is a lot more going on in null that cannot tolerate a sustained advantage to pirate activities such as removing local.
You can say i dont understand mechanics but the irony is that you are the one suggesting a change that will never happen and would never work, im just trying to explain that to you. Though i know you already understand, your suggestion is to increase pvp, thats not a bad goal but your plan would destroy far too much to be taken seriously.
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2010.08.31 13:51:00 -
[58]
Edited by: Razin on 31/08/2010 13:52:45
Originally by: Psymn Lol, theres other ways on top of local to see if a system is populated. The attacking party wouldnt need local to know people are there. This would leave the attackers in the same situation as monkey, knowing there were people there, while those people would be completely unaware they were being stalked. Unless you are also advocating the complete removal of all intel tools from the map, published km's, streamed system stats, intel channels and regular chat windows too no doubt.
That makes no sense. The ôother waysö are delayed and inaccurate. The Monkeysphere was able to hide himself from local while receiving localÆs immediate intel benefit regarding his targets. This is drastically different from delayed local for *everyone*. If you canÆt see this IÆm afraid I canÆt help you.
Originally by: Psymn You can say i dont understand mechanics but the irony is that you are the one suggesting a change that will never happen and would never work, im just trying to explain that to you. Though i know you already understand, your suggestion is to increase pvp, thats not a bad goal but your plan would destroy far too much to be taken seriously.
ItÆs not my plan, itÆs CCPÆs. CCP ZuluÆs and CCP OveurÆs, to be more precise. If youÆre interested, read this thread and see what IÆm advocating and read some quotes from CCP Zulu.
Edit: added link to thread ...
|
RuleoftheBone
Minmatar Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2010.08.31 15:31:00 -
[59]
Edited by: RuleoftheBone on 31/08/2010 15:32:11 Lookit all the lolnullsec alliance alts going boohho don't touch my local wah wah wah.
Funny how even the noobiest of noob WH residents don't complain and manage to even thrive with no local bull**** "lolintel" tool.
What a bunch of ridiculous straw men the pro-local types throw around. Too bad the concept of no local has been proven and will come eventually. Then all your **** fit ratting boats belong to me rofl
**edit**actually those **** fit rat boats belong to me anyway. since even with stupid local nobody pays attention
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.08.31 15:44:00 -
[60]
Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2 on 31/08/2010 15:46:57
Originally by: RuleoftheBone Lookit all the lolnullsec alliance alts going boohho don't touch my local wah wah wah.
Actually, the ones doing the boohoo crying are the no-local lazy PVPers. Get it right :).
Quote: Funny how even the noobiest of noob WH residents don't complain and manage to even thrive with no local bull**** "lolintel" tool.
You know what's even funnier? That there is WH space for all those that don't like local, yet here you are still *****ing and whining to have it removed everywhere else because that's how lazy and jealous you are.
Quote: What a bunch of ridiculous straw men the pro-local types throw around. Too bad the concept of no local has been proven and will come eventually. Then all your **** fit ratting boats belong to me rofl
u mad? yep, u mad. I know that local WILL eventually be removed. But you know what? You're still gonna be mad because it won't come in the form you think it will. In other words, there will still be people flying what you call "fail" ratting boats and you'll still be whining that you can't kill them. You'll still be whining for CCP to give you targets cuz you can't kill them based on what you think are your "super killin'" skills.
And let's pretend for a minute that CCP will remove local AND give a greater advantage to the predator. I wonder how long it would take you to cry and whine some more that targets are dissapearing faster than you can kill them. How long before you're back on the forums crying that targets are still not flocking towards your guns?
Quote: **edit**actually those **** fit rat boats belong to me anyway. since even with stupid local nobody pays attention
If they did you wouldn't be spilling tears about local, now would ya ;).
And whatever happened to Veto? You seem so bitter and so full fail it's hard to imagine this is the same Veto from a few years ago.
Grief a PVP'er. Run a mission today! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |