Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Hinrika
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.02.20 14:11:15 -
[1] - Quote
So can anyone here explain to me why there is a local channel in nullsec and lowsec? You can just see anyone who enters the solarsystem, even if he is cloaked or doesn't say a word? It's not realistic and removes alot of the fun from the game, having a safe haven for carebears.
I like wormholes, why can't K-space be like wormholes? It makes more sense and adds excitement and dangers. |
Bjorn Tyrson
EVE University Ivy League
211
|
Posted - 2017.02.20 14:15:53 -
[2] - Quote
Much as I prefer w-space. And I regularly joke about the chaos that removing local would cause. Actually removing local woulf take away one of the few things that makes life in wormholes unique. Variety in types of space and the different play styles that it offers is what makes the game fun, and allows different players to find areas that they prefer operating in. |
Taurean Eltanin
The Tuskers The Tuskers Co.
133
|
Posted - 2017.02.20 14:18:09 -
[3] - Quote
It's a legacy decision. Keep in mind there was no w-space when the game released. I'm not sure that they would make that same call if the game were released again today.
As it is, changing it would cause a fundamental shift in the way things work, which would be very disruptive. I suspect changing the relevant coding would also be a challenge.
Edit: There is so much that can be done with this.
It would make total sense for low sec to have no local channel, but perhaps in FW space there is a forced local that captures everyone except pilots from the controlling militia. And null sec would have no local channel by default, but sov holders could install some kind of comms array that creates a forced local channel, which would be part of their defense network. That would make for some interesting game-play variations.
If you like reading about low sec piracy or wormhole pvp, you might enjoy my blog.
|
Wolfgang Jannesen
The Evesploratory Society
52
|
Posted - 2017.02.20 14:41:14 -
[4] - Quote
Local is a phenomenal tool for Intel gathering. I'm firmly against any changes to it, Pirates entering a system are just what I'm looking for, and knowing how many Blues are in system versus neutrals and reds is essential when moving fleets through null.
So I see why you're complaining, but this is a tool everybody can use, not just a resource for avoiding pirates. |
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
309
|
Posted - 2017.02.20 14:46:16 -
[5] - Quote
Hinrika wrote:So can anyone here explain to me why there is a local channel in nullsec and lowsec? You can just see anyone who enters the solarsystem, even if he is cloaked or doesn't say a word? It's not realistic and removes alot of the fun from the game, having a safe haven for carebears.
I like wormholes, why can't K-space be like wormholes? It makes more sense and adds excitement and dangers.
Regarding local in low. I understand the reasoning, but don-¦t agree.
I like the local in Lowsec quite alot as I am not there to use time hunting down people, enjoying the unknown... I am there for a fast fight in my limited time.. local in low is one of the best matchmakers as you know who is there, who is willing to fight when you enter system. If I had to post in local everytime I entered a system "anyone up for a fight?" and hope someone answer without feeling they give up too much intel it would reduce my enjoyment of the game.
Also I use local quite often for being social. It is hard being social if you don-¦t know who (if any) is in system. And generally local is pretty active in the FW zones, so I assume I am not the only one greeting old friends/frienemies.
See FW lowsec as the battle arenas of EVE. Easy to find fights or arrange with little effort, and getting actions fast. Just because that is not your thing, it does not mean it is bad. The information makes this playstyle possible
Also why would you remove a niche area fitting the playstyle of a relative big group of players, just to fullfill a need you can already get fullfilled somewhere else? Don-¦t shrink the sandbox, plz.
"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
|
Cade Windstalker
843
|
Posted - 2017.02.20 14:53:16 -
[6] - Quote
This has been discussed ad infinitum for half a decade now. Just flat removing local isn't a good idea, it removes the ability for players to control space they own and if you can't do that then what's the point? Based on comments CCP has made on some of the new structures and around the whole "remove local/no don't" issue it seems like any changes to local as an intel mechanic would coincide with the addition of additional intel mechanics and tools to effectively replace it. |
Zanar Skwigelf
Boa Innovations Brothers of Tangra
72
|
Posted - 2017.02.20 15:23:13 -
[7] - Quote
Hinrika wrote: It's not realistic
I'm sorry your "space submarines that can fly faster than light" game is not realistic.
Hinrika wrote:removes alot of the fun from the game.
for you. It adds a lot of fun for other people. Specifically, Black Ops hotdroppers that want to make sure they don't get counter dropped, and people that want to have gudfights (as mentioned above) |
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
59199
|
Posted - 2017.02.20 16:40:52 -
[8] - Quote
Taurean Eltanin wrote:It's a legacy decision. Keep in mind there was no w-space when the game released. I'm not sure that they would make that same call if the game were released again today.
As it is, changing it would cause a fundamental shift in the way things work, which would be very disruptive. I suspect changing the relevant coding would also be a challenge.
Edit: There is so much that can be done with this.
It would make total sense for low sec to have no local channel, but perhaps in FW space there is a forced local that captures everyone except pilots from the controlling militia. And null sec would have no local channel by default, but sov holders could install some kind of comms array that creates a forced local channel, which would be part of their defense network. That would make for some interesting game-play variations. Except for a few little changes, I think your idea is on the right track..
High Sec and Low Sec are controlled by the Empires so those systems would have local channel showing everyone in system.
Null Sec Sov systems would have limited local. All members of the Alliance holding Sovereignty in those systems would be cloaked. All other players would show up in local channels.
Factional Warfare systems would also have limited local. All members of the Faction controlling those systems would be cloaked. All other players would show up in local.
W-space systems would remain the same with no local.
DMC
'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
|
Jenn aSide
shinigami miners Test Alliance Please Ignore
15186
|
Posted - 2017.02.20 17:10:37 -
[9] - Quote
Hinrika wrote:So can anyone here explain to me why there is a local channel in nullsec and lowsec? You can just see anyone who enters the solarsystem, even if he is cloaked or doesn't say a word? It's not realistic and removes alot of the fun from the game, having a safe haven for carebears.
I like wormholes, why can't K-space be like wormholes? It makes more sense and adds excitement and dangers.
It works the way it does out of nessecity. Wormholes work with no local because their are no gates and no cynos. Null with no local would be a nightmare.
With no local all I'd do is set a cloaky dictor on a gate, wait for someone to come thourgh (and if it's a scout, let it pass), and as soon as the target jumps (and i'd know, because I'd have a cloaky alt on the other a side of the gate, I'd decloak, light my cyno, pop my bubble and bring in my alliance mates in Carriers and Faxes and smoke whatever poor soloing idiot who just came into my trap.
the above doesn't work as well now in null because local exists. People think no local in null would be this great thing, but they haven't paid attention to 14 years of EVE online experience that proves that people will take a supposed disadvantage and turn it into an advantage that screws YOU over even more.
|
2Sonas1Cup
252
|
Posted - 2017.02.20 17:14:08 -
[10] - Quote
I really hate it, it's such an anti-fun and game breaking mechanic, some people even quit eve because of this. And no I'm not joking. |
|
Nicolai Serkanner
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
615
|
Posted - 2017.02.20 18:02:10 -
[11] - Quote
|
Neuntausend
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1579
|
Posted - 2017.02.20 20:29:26 -
[12] - Quote
I am not opposed to the idea to remove/delay local in a similar fashion to how it works in wormholes - at least from a gameplay perspective. However, you can't really claim that it doesn't make sense. Almost every system in known space belongs to somebody, be it a player alliance or an NPC faction. Why would the owner of a system not know who entered their space, be it through the gates or by lighting a bright signal torch that can be seen from everywhere in the system? And knowing who enters or leaves the system, why would they not be able to broadcast it system wide. The only exception I could see would be covert cyno jumps, although even in that case I would assume that the systems infrastructure would be able to pick up some sort of jump drive signature at least.
No, it's not "realistic", as it would require FTL communication, which is a thing that cannot exist as far as we know. However if we wanted to follow this logic, we'd have to remove FTL travel and delay probing and directional scanning as well as any communication in the game depending on the distance. Eve would be a rather tedious game if it was realistic. Just imagine - sublight travel, freefall mechanics, even the gun recoil would matter. Firing the broadside of a Naglfar would send it into a spin, and as funny as that would be, I think the novelty would wear off quickly.
Don't look for realism in an online spaceship game, is what I'm trying to say. |
Kaivarian Coste
Stellar Supply
110
|
Posted - 2017.02.20 20:34:56 -
[13] - Quote
Local is free, effortless intel, and should be abolished, at least in null sec. Or at least put it on a delay of 5 mins or something.
+1 |
JackknifedII
The Congregation No Handlebars.
105
|
Posted - 2017.02.20 20:42:03 -
[14] - Quote
Stargates log people coming in and going out. Therefore Local.
Wormholes have no stargates. Therefore no local.
Minmatar....we are generally unpleasant to be around....
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC81MDW6dFa41VdNTt-pTl1Q
Always recruiting
|
Gretek Moergyn
Non-Sedentary T U A R E G
3
|
Posted - 2017.02.20 21:11:53 -
[15] - Quote
Hinrika wrote:So can anyone here explain to me why there is a local channel in nullsec and lowsec? You can just see anyone who enters the solarsystem, even if he is cloaked or doesn't say a word? It's not realistic and removes alot of the fun from the game, having a safe haven for carebears....
I guess I'm the only one who is sick of the stupid and insulting name "carebear." If you want respect, how about showing some respect? |
Hinrika
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2017.02.20 21:12:40 -
[16] - Quote
JackknifedII wrote:Stargates log people coming in and going out. Therefore Local.
Wormholes have no stargates. Therefore no local.
That logic is flawed. If that was true, coming into a system through a wormhole would result in not showing up in local. |
March rabbit
Mosquito squadron The-Culture
2073
|
Posted - 2017.02.20 21:47:58 -
[17] - Quote
Hinrika wrote:JackknifedII wrote:Stargates log people coming in and going out. Therefore Local.
Wormholes have no stargates. Therefore no local. That logic is flawed. If that was true, coming into a system through a wormhole would result in not showing up in local. Yea, that's the one of good ideas. For sure you, entering system through wormhole, should not see local too.
Additionally, cloaked ships should not be able to access d-scan.
Additionally, in sov-0.0 owners of system should be able to disable local for others while having information about people entered the system through gates. They own the system don't they?
Lots of things can be made 'logical' and 'realistic' but game-wise most of them better be forgotten and never tried to implement.
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
707
|
Posted - 2017.02.21 03:50:35 -
[18] - Quote
Gretek Moergyn wrote:Hinrika wrote:So can anyone here explain to me why there is a local channel in nullsec and lowsec? You can just see anyone who enters the solarsystem, even if he is cloaked or doesn't say a word? It's not realistic and removes alot of the fun from the game, having a safe haven for carebears.... I guess I'm the only one who is sick of the stupid and insulting name "carebear." If you want respect, how about showing some respect?
triggered.
Just Add Water
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1523
|
Posted - 2017.02.21 03:58:22 -
[19] - Quote
Gretek Moergyn wrote:I guess I'm the only one who is sick of the stupid and insulting name "carebear." If you want respect, how about showing some respect? If the shoe fits.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
451
|
Posted - 2017.02.21 03:59:08 -
[20] - Quote
The Constellation channel is a thing too.
I'd be interested in seeing that become the nullsec default. |
|
Salvos Rhoska
2251
|
Posted - 2017.02.21 07:38:58 -
[21] - Quote
Local is justified in LS and NPC Sov, as they are not player owned.
Local is not justified in Player NS, as it is player owned, and they should be responsible for gathering their own intel.
Its a convenient crutch and free NPC based intel that they are reluctant to relinquish, because they realize it puts their activities there at risk. They try to argue against removing it, by threatening to use the change to eliminate smaller entities.
(Lack of Local in j-space, although not player owned, is justified due to the lack of gates and wh mechanics.)
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
3627
|
Posted - 2017.02.21 07:54:00 -
[22] - Quote
Local is the perfect intel tool for bots. There are systems where half the people log when I jump in. On the other hand CCP could probably use our alliance as a Bot detector by now.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
47106
|
Posted - 2017.02.21 08:01:00 -
[23] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Local is not justified in Player NS, as it is player owned, and they should be responsible for gathering their own intel. The gates across the cluster are owned and operated by NPCs, even in sov null. |
Salvos Rhoska
2253
|
Posted - 2017.02.21 08:19:22 -
[24] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Local is not justified in Player NS, as it is player owned, and they should be responsible for gathering their own intel. The gates across the cluster are owned and operated by NPCs, even in sov null.
And?
At the least, access to Local intel in sov null should come at a cost. However that would come with loud yells of Malcanis' Law, stating larger entities can better afford it.
Explain to me, what rationale is there that Player Sov, as player owne-Å and operated, should have free Local?
(inb4 it protects the weak from the strong)
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
47107
|
Posted - 2017.02.21 10:00:38 -
[25] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Local is not justified in Player NS, as it is player owned, and they should be responsible for gathering their own intel. The gates across the cluster are owned and operated by NPCs, even in sov null. And? At the least, access to Local intel in sov null should come at a cost. However that would come with loud yells of Malcanis' Law, stating larger entities can better afford it. Explain to me, what rationale is there that Player Sov, as player owne-Å and operated, should have free Local? (inb4 it protects the weak from the strong) Read the whole post instead of the first line.
I don't really care what stupid crap you want to go on with. Crying that there's no justification at all is rubbish. |
Eternus8lux8lucis
Primus Inc. LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
1284
|
Posted - 2017.02.21 10:08:24 -
[26] - Quote
The reality of why local does exist is for the facilitation of finding and escaping in a PvP centric gaming world. Without the facilitation of aggressor/aggressed it will be a very bland game and much more cat and moue much akin to a Silent Hunter submarine simulator in its entirety looking for kills.
The Lore guys are right it is an IFF issue that we must log ourselves and our ships masses and types, akin to an Aircraft carriers catapults needing to dial in the ship type to fling it across the required space with the right energy levels.
That being said delaying local in some areas and giving an advantage to different areas and players would be interesting. Id even suggest using a variance like the 1.08 sig/sensor strength formula to give shorter or longer delays. Making the arrays basically be one tick system scanners. Then tbh Id have them be forced to be anchored on grid to the gates, likely within 100-150kms, to work effectively.
Sov null gets the arrays, NPC null gets a short delayed local for everyone as does low sec. And High is left as it is.
Honestly my only concern is that Sov null needs to not get much safer through this and there must be effective counterplay there.
I also like the WH delay idea both ways tbh. Lore could be something like subspace signals and recalibrations take time to be redone after being ripped through a WH. Limiting dscan range on a WH to K-space jump would be interesting too especially if K-space local takes a while to update after a jump. Again I would use the 1.08 + mass for the update. The more mass passing through on a jump the faster it would update. So a single ship is the slowest, a large fleet is the shortest.
Have you heard anything I've said?
You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?
That's right.
Had to end sometime.
|
Lukka
11
|
Posted - 2017.02.21 11:14:46 -
[27] - Quote
There is also the issue of power projection in null sec. A long term cloaked camper would be virtually undetectable in null sec and can drop half of Eve on your operation in a heartbeat.
Removing local in null would make the space unusable for all except the very largest alliances. |
Jenn aSide
shinigami miners Test Alliance Please Ignore
15196
|
Posted - 2017.02.21 13:33:59 -
[28] - Quote
Lukka wrote:There is also the issue of power projection in null sec. A long term cloaked camper would be virtually undetectable in null sec and can drop half of Eve on your operation in a heartbeat.
Removing local in null would make the space unusable for all except the very largest alliances.
I try to tell people that, I'm IN on of those largets alliances that can drop Capital Ships on anyhting that decides to roam though our space. but you can't tell people that, because they automatically assume that anyone who supports something that exists is somehow selfishly supporting a status quo they benefit from. Because they think that, they can't see the WARNINGS people are trying to give them.
In short, it's DOMINION SOV all over again. I love telling this story because it's a cuationary tale not just for players of EVE Online, but for people in general.
When CCP announced and described the Dominion Sov system and stated it's goal as "oppening up null to smaller groups and making space more dynamic", there was instant opposition to it. Much of that opposition came from people who were members of Goonswarm (but they weren't the only ones).
People who hate goons saw Goons telling people that Dominion Sov would be a mistake because those high hit point structures would not cause smaller groups to come, but rather it would entice people to join ever larger groups to make the 'sov grind' more bearable (in much the same way the old POS based sov system Dominion was supposed to replace did). But the anti-goon folks just weren't listening, they didn't trust Goons so anyhting a Goon said must be a lie.
So CCP implemented Dominion Sov, A game that already had Coalitions developed MEGA-COALITIONS, lots and lots of people blued each other (because being blue and easily grinding down millions of hit points is less annoying than not being blue), and the Goons that no one trusted spent half a Decade punishing people for not listening to them when they were telling the turth.
Well, it's like that with local in null. When we try to tell people that getting rid of local in null will make null LESS hospitible to small groups than it is now (in the way that C5/C6 woromholes are, only worse), they don't listen. They think it will be great.
I actually wanty CCP to get rid of local in null for a month, because it's like parents and children. Anyone who has ever been a parent knows that you can tell your kid all day about something, but at some point the only way to break through their know-it-all stubbornness and ignorance is to SHOW them their folly.
|
Wolfgang Jannesen
The Evesploratory Society
58
|
Posted - 2017.02.21 13:40:22 -
[29] - Quote
There are a lot of strong assumptions about reactions to being able to see Local, and they're all assumptions. You've all been playing this game for over a decade being able to see who's in null, where's all your data from that removing local is going to encourage / discourage small gang / big gang pvp?
If you don't want to show up on local, get in a Wormhole, a thread like this comes through Player Features and Suggestions weekly, and nothing gets changed, Working as intended, |
Hilti Enaka
State War Academy Caldari State
127
|
Posted - 2017.02.21 13:43:10 -
[30] - Quote
I think removing local would certainly make the argument low and null sec space is far more dangerous. Currently High Sec is more dangerous with the ganking, alt support etc.
Local in low and null just means people are "intelled" making this BS argument about risk vs reward mute. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |