Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
TehKab
Lost Souls Inc X-PACT
|
Posted - 2007.04.22 06:12:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Cipher7
And no to cloakers being removed from local too, they already sit in systems afk 24x7 with no way to remove them.
Having invisible people flying around ganking everybody is stupid.
I was a cloaker in Planetside.
There is no downside to the cloaker playstyle, all you gotta do is wait for someone to be alone or get careless.
Meanwhile you're cloaked, you can get up and have a sandwich.
Where's the downside? Where's the risk/reward?
There is none.
Really? i seem to remember a little thing called Darklight Vision
|
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express Frontier Trade League
|
Posted - 2007.04.22 08:10:00 -
[32]
What most folks fail to realize is the fact that removing local would give some folks a greater advantage than others.
I look at it as a transponder system that you can't turn off. It lets folks know that your insystem.
The game would have to send this information even if it wasn't displayed in order to be able to interact with the environment.
If you turned local off, someone would just write a hack that let them see it. Its just better to allow all have access to it even if it takes away some tactical advantages.
Galactic Express Recruitment Post Thoughts expressed are mine and |
eLLioTT wave
Art of War Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.04.23 12:24:00 -
[33]
My ideal fix to local: Change to constellation / Regional.
You can still count who is in the same cons. but you won't know what system they're in.
But how could we ever survive if we can't check local to see where baddies are!??!?
Oh wait, we have scouts and scanners and stuff 0.o!
Imagine having to work with other players to survive in dangerous areas....
How much cooler would fleet fights be if you could cloak half your fleet, let the enemy think you are half your numbers then uncloak all when they attack :)
|
Roshan longshot
Gallente Ordos Humanitas FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.04.23 12:35:00 -
[34]
Ok so local is bad? Well its better then nothing and that is what we would have if turned off.
You cant tell me with all the tech these ships repesent, that they have no sensor capabilty?
I think local should be removed, and a nice sort of graphic display added. One that follows along with overview settings so when war targets or unfriendly ships come in, the pilots are alerted.
Free-form Professions, ensure no limetations on professions. Be a trader, fighter, industialist, researcher, hunter pirate or mixture of them all.
[i]As read from the original box.
|
Captain Thunk
Captain Morgan Society
|
Posted - 2007.04.23 12:40:00 -
[35]
Originally by: eLLioTT wave My ideal fix to local: Change to constellation / Regional.
You can still count who is in the same cons. but you won't know what system they're in.
But how could we ever survive if we can't check local to see where baddies are!??!?
Oh wait, we have scouts and scanners and stuff 0.o!
Imagine having to work with other players to survive in dangerous areas....
How much cooler would fleet fights be if you could cloak half your fleet, let the enemy think you are half your numbers then uncloak all when they attack :)
Based on the principle that in Eve most people will always follow the path of least resistance. What will happen is, people who don't want to fight (the majority of Eve) will avoid the edge systems to constellations. The second a hostile rears his piratey head, they'll be off to a POS/Station - it would infact make the 'intelligence tool' much stronger, they can guarantee themselves x jumps before the hostile is even in their system. The hostiles numbers will be revealed (unless they manage to engineer a fight on a constellation border, which will be unlikely) allowing the defenders the opportunity to ensure 10 times the number are sent to deal with them.
I support this idea whole heartedly, we have to remember that not everyone wants to get shot, why stop nerfing now?
Captain Thunk See this hook? variable speed and five alternate attatchments baby. |
Druadan
Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.04.23 13:40:00 -
[36]
Nice idea, OP. I like it. What I would say is if you turn local on to see who's in there and then quicky turn it off so you disappear, have a delay, say two minutes, between you closing local and you disappearing from local, unless you leave the system during that delay, when you will instantly leave local 'cause you're not in the system anymore. __________________________________________________
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire |
Zee Zen
|
Posted - 2007.04.23 13:56:00 -
[37]
What's the problem with local? I'm relatively new and have never questioned it's existence or considered it a problem.
The idea that the gates to/from a system record passage makes sense and there is no 4th wall problem. I guess cyno fields could be an exception, but there is probably a logical explanation there as well?
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc. INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.04.23 13:57:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Druadan Nice idea, OP. I like it. What I would say is if you turn local on to see who's in there and then quicky turn it off so you disappear, have a delay, say two minutes, between you closing local and you disappearing from local, unless you leave the system during that delay, when you will instantly leave local 'cause you're not in the system anymore.
ok, so the pirate in system B jumps in to system A, moves back to gate. Activates local in system A, sees who is there. Then jumps out again to system B, removing him from local. Approaches back to gate again, jumps into A again and goes looking for unsuspecting targets.
Local is a tool which is needed due to the absence of any decent scanning equipment.
For example, the very concept of probes is stupid. Why would a tiny little probe which you drop out of a ship have any better scanning ability than the huge ******* sensors you could fit on a battleship or a carrier? If you can make a tiny probe scan out hostiles within 20au, a battleship or a carrier should have inbuilt equipment doing the same within a 100au range, pinpointing every ship with only marginal error for distance.
Removing local is an option, but then you would need to give ships REAL sensors/radar, and not the pathetic excuse that probes, or even worse, the directional scanner currently is. signature removed - please contact us to find out why (include the URL of your sig) - Jacques([email protected]) |
Wild Rho
Amarr Imperial Shipment
|
Posted - 2007.04.23 14:00:00 -
[39]
But without local 0.0 would be dangerous.....oh wait!
|
T'Laar Bok
m3 Corp
|
Posted - 2007.04.23 14:20:00 -
[40]
As CCP has no love for miners removing local would be the best way for them to eliminate mining from the game. Its only a matter of time.
|
|
Kw4h
Dragon's Rage Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.04.23 14:36:00 -
[41]
Originally by: MrDisposable Eve favors attackers enough already.
I completely agree on that. I also agree on removing cloaked ships from local, though, make cloaked ships less of an I-win icon. Right now people can sit in local, be afk, and randomly look at their screen to pick off easy targets. When they can't handle it, they warp off and cloak, and the whole process starts again. I think that while you are cloaked, you should get at least some restrictions on your ship when you are NOT using a covert ops cloak II. For example, not being able to use the scanner, or in this case, not being able to see local players. Battleships with cloaks are not intended to be used as scouts. Cloaks for battleships are designed for hiding. Same goes for any ship other than the recon and covert ops ships.
Furthermore, with the upcoming constellation tools, perhaps give the owner of the constellation the advantage of seeing everyone in local. That means: you see cloakers when they're cloaked, and you will also see people in local that have it turned off. That way, when you're invading in somebody's space, you don't have the stealth advantage, whereas in normal space and 'normal' pvp, you will have those options.
I think this pretty much covers my view on this. Tell me if I missed something. _ Planet Sight Wallpaper - EvE map |
Xeovar Stoner
M. Corp M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.04.23 14:51:00 -
[42]
I also think removal of local a matter of time, time necessary to develop tools that could replace functions of local in a better way.
Tools like: 1) scanner would not be on demand (click) but should keep scanning around and report new contacts. 2) active/passive scanners - active giving better range and accuracy but making ship using them visible to others from way bigger distance. 3) switchable IFF beacons, so people could choose to identify themselves or not 4) warning sound if there is a ship in scanner approaching you that has not a friendly IFF turned on. 5) rts/fog of war support for fleets - why in distant future we have to rely on voice/text comms to report hostiles, while today fleet commanders have a display showing ANY movement within sensor range of ANY fleet member ? why cant it work like that in eve ? 6) sensor probes you can leave in other places that would temporarily add some scan coverage 7) and ofc system/constellation defenses, including on gate scanners/iff identifying sentries, etc.
To put some of those in context, lets give an example:
local got removed but we got some of the above toys.
A small gang is roaming around hostile occupied constellation. They have a few ships plus a covops scout.
Fleet commander instead of watching animations have opened a tactical (constellation) map. He sees nearby systems, with indicated number of his ships, plus a reported (automatically, from all ships in fleet in scanners) contacts - grouped by IFF sigs into friendly/unknown. He can zoom in to any system around and see drawn sensor coverage provided by his ships. When a covops pilot jumps into new system, new data start flowing to FC who now knows that there is nothing in scout's scan range from the gate. At this stage he can give a few orders to scout - he either can stay decloaked and use active scan to check bigger area, or he cloak and warp around to look for hostiles, or he can warp around dropping sensor probes - all has pluses as minuses as actively scanning covops will be visible to prety much everyone, flying around and scanning helps keep low profile, but its not too effective due to flight time and scan range and finally scan probes can be detected so its not as low profile as staying cloaked and not using probes.
Lets take a brief look the oponents of the gang. Lets say covops scout jumped into a system with some basic defenses such as sensor tower at the gate. The brief moment it takes to recloak and warp is enough for the sensor tower to identify the ship, check iff and issue warning on alliance chat about a neutral entering protected territory. At this moment an npcer in the same system hits warp knowing that he cant detect the covops and runs to dock. Another alliance member, luckily sitting in the system covops jumped from, immediately starts deploying probes and positioning himself in the system to check if there are hostile fleets - he doesnt use active scanners to avoid detection, but decides that probes are safe and should allow quick location of the gang. He also joins a quickly formed gang, and his FC immediately starts to see coverage in system and the moment gang is detected gets a summary of their fleet composition...
etc, etc, etc...
what would you say if the warfare looked like that ? I would say bingo, bring it on -- "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival. "
|
Kahor
Minmatar Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.04.23 15:03:00 -
[43]
I've got that great idea, remove local in 0.0 in no npc owned space only, and gives back local to the alliance holding sovereignity and anyone they have at a certain standing (+10 ?).
Make it like an option from people that have sovereignity, to remove access to local for all people below a certain standing (it means they still show up on local but can't SEE the local themself).
Make 0.0 under npc sovereignity local work for everyone.
Am I not a genius ?
Yes indeed I am.
---------------- An eye for an eye make a whole world blind. *snip*, do not evade the word filter with your sig. Email [email protected] for more information. -HornFrog |
Sheriff Jones
Amarr Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.04.23 15:59:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Sheriff Jones on 23/04/2007 15:55:22 Here he comes, flying down the highway, in his silly noob ship, singing all the waaaaaaay...hey hye i'm a sheriff, i like to sheriff around!...
Umm...anyways, now that i got your attention, here's my "fix" for the "broken" local:
I introduce to you...The Communication Scrambler!
medium slot/rig/whatnot.
Hides your communication signature, effectively hiding you from public communication channels.
Basic working is like the bestest cloaking deviceses.
|
Jimer Lins
Gallente Sanctuary
|
Posted - 2007.04.23 16:34:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Mecinia Lua What most folks fail to realize is the fact that removing local would give some folks a greater advantage than others.
I look at it as a transponder system that you can't turn off. It lets folks know that your insystem.
The game would have to send this information even if it wasn't displayed in order to be able to interact with the environment.
If you turned local off, someone would just write a hack that let them see it. Its just better to allow all have access to it even if it takes away some tactical advantages.
Not sure that's correct; I believe your client only has to be updated with other vessels if they're on the same grid. My client doesn't need to render or know where your ship is if you're 22 AU away.
I kind of like the idea of removing local, although it should come with another change: Removal of static asteroid belts and complexes and replacing them with exploration sites.
This would mean that the major problem of removing local, which is that miners and plex runners have to go to a known, warpable location in system while those seeking to "interfere" with them are much more mobile, giving them the advantage.
Remove asteroid belts and static complexes and you put everyone on much more even footing if local is gone or made "recent speakers (an idea I kind of like). Pirates would have to work to find targets instead of noting a mining char in local and warping to each belt, and miners/missioners would have to find their own belts and/or hire someone to do it.
Dynamic content ftw, in my opinion. Static spawns of anything always leads to bad things.
Sanctions, embargoes and blockades- discuss PVP with ISK! |
Presidente Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.04.23 17:46:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Presidente Gallente on 23/04/2007 17:47:46 Edited by: Presidente Gallente on 23/04/2007 17:46:21
Originally by: Trina Polaris Horrible Idea.
This only advantages people who are sitting in a hostiles station system etc. The scanner doesn't tell you whether it is a hostile or friendly ship, let alone if it is currently being piloted.
Given this, people infiltrating a system (say a gang of six) will always have the upper hand because they know their on numbers and what ships they are flying. If they go into an outpost system, they can assume any other ship is hostile. On the flip side, residents of the system won't ever know they have arrived and won't know that the ships they see on scanner are hostile.
I also don't like the idea. After gate camping [it's painful but fine to me] we end up in system camping. Local off or limited will scare away all solo pilots from low-sec. On the other side from realism pov it would make sense to have no local. But even with local the game is thrilling enough and it gives a fair chance to deal with the risk or a gang who's after you.
Local is important. If CCP will change that some day I will accept if we have fair alternatives to prevent the risk of beeing +blind and an easy prey˝.
Pres G +++ JOIN PAP +++ |
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron
|
Posted - 2007.04.23 17:48:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Xeovar Stoner I also think removal of local a matter of time, time necessary to develop tools that could replace functions of local in a better way.
Tools like:
...lotsa good stuff...
etc, etc, etc...
what would you say if the warfare looked like that ? I would say bingo, bring it on
Indeed. To make things even more interesting add to that environmental effects like radiation, gravity, line-of-sight, etc. that would interfere with scanning, targeting, warping, etc.
However, CCP will give us "heat" instead. ...
|
Adaris
Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.04.23 18:09:00 -
[48]
its all good saying remove cloaked ships from local, and personally I'd like to see that happen, but what do you do when ever alliance (whatever) in the game starts to use that as a tactic to move into battlepositions. Cloaking devices on any other ships than cloaking ships (cov ops recon) really should not be allowed IF they are going to remove cloakers from local. How does it make sense if you have (fictional obviously) a 300 man gang in BS etc all cloaked in your system and you don't know about it? A BS should not be able to cloak period. Nor any other ship in my opinion. Its not designed for that. Its designed for direct combat/ support etc, not tip toe cloak and dagger tactics ffs. Bring out Black Ops ships (better more capable cloaked specific ships for combat) instead of allowing BS etc to cloak. And in particular if they wipe them from local, then it really becomes (insert whine) unfair to a degree. lol * * * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euZ0j7vtKEQ
|
Dregann
Amarr Trading Company
|
Posted - 2007.04.23 18:17:00 -
[49]
Constellation chat FTW
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron
|
Posted - 2007.04.23 18:31:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Dregann Constellation chat FTW
Constellation chat that shows everyone in the constellation is just another magic recon tool with a slightly different use (arguably even more powerful than the current Local implementation). The idea is to avoid god-like omniscience quality in in-game scanning tools. ...
|
|
TheEndofTheWorld
|
Posted - 2007.04.23 19:04:00 -
[51]
Idea #542421
Local shows numbers, but not who. Saying anything in local will make you appear until logoff/session change whatever.
Complete removal of local would ruin the game tbh. 0.0/lowsec ratting isn't rewarding(at least atm) enough to lose ships daily.
|
Jawas
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.04.23 20:17:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Elmicker It'd also force you to put up a pos in every single system you'll ever operate in. Do you have any idea how time and isk-intensive that'd be?! Operating sovereignty poses in outpost systems is bad enough, but having to put up, fuel and defend a large POS (smalls + meds are far too easily destroyed) in every single system you use is just absurd.
And so they should do. You should never be able to hold a larger area than you can readily defend. Many alliances hold bottlenecks and systems beyond are left empty which is a waste IMO when there are many other new players wanting a home in 0.0 but not as part of an existing alliance. More corps in 0.0 means more PVP and more alliances means more wars. Think of it as an investment for better game play in the future rather than the 'dog in a manger' attitude that alliances currently have. Some players don't want to be carebears but are forced into it by alliances that tell them to join or leave 0.0 and stay in highsec. If you had to defend each and every system by forcing you to have a POS in it, that would free up so much of 0.0 for new players to populate.
For that reason, I'd go along with the sov idea and only allow local to show true entries if it was a sov system. Anything else shows only those who choose to be shown in local so you can remain invisible to anything short of a probe. Along with the idea of belts that have to be probed for and respawn in a different location each DT, it would help in making players actually work for their kills and making 0.0 inhabitable for new players.
-- Sig design in training: Remaining time 30 years 20 days, 4 hours, 10 mins, 15 seconds. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |