| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Burnharder
Tiny Industries
    |
Posted - 2008.03.20 19:05:00 -
[301]
Edited by: Burnharder on 20/03/2008 19:06:13
 Originally by: Razin
Still donÆt see any working argument against removing Local intel.
That's because the argument against its removal is one of balance. It is not true that all parties are equal without local, because much content is static and therefore the hunter has a head start in knowing where to look. This is the fundamental objection I have to the removal of local. It hasn't been answered so far - to answer it, you must suggest that all content is made dynamic (moon minerals, asteroid belts, asteroid types, complexes, agent locations).
Secondly, you need to provide a passive alternative that is almost as good (that also does not stress the server). It must be passive (not module, or anchorable based either) because otherwise it will be compulsory (much as Avon's WTZ idea would have been) and there is no difference between a compulsory module and a global system much as local is today.
It must not be chance based either - because removal of the certainty players might get from excersising skill in game in this respect will prevent them from making rational judgements about risk - and force an exodus to the least risky areas of the game (as if that hasn't happened already).
Finally, it must give players a fighting chance. It is no good receiving a passive alert 4 seconds before an arrival if in order for me to escape it takes me 10 seconds to reach warp velocity.
Anything that does not take the above into account will result in a large increase in risk and a consequent further emptying of those parts of the map that are already risky, but where the player is able to effectively mitigate that risk through skill and/or common sense, ie. low sec.
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron
Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 20:01:00 -
[302]
Originally by: Burnharder
Edited by: Burnharder on 20/03/2008 19:06:13
Originally by: Razin
Still donÆt see any working argument against removing Local intel.
That's because the argument against its removal is one of balance. It is not true that all parties are equal without local, because much content is static and therefore the hunter has a head start in knowing where to look. This is the fundamental objection I have to the removal of local. It hasn't been answered so far - to answer it, you must suggest that all content is made dynamic (moon minerals, asteroid belts, asteroid types, complexes, agent locations).
The hunter still has many places to look, and the new Local would warn of someone new arriving into the system. In addition, one of the devblogs talked about all the asteroid belts moving to the exploration part of the game mechanics (one of the reasons sited was the lag created by all the static belts). However, changing all content to be dynamic would be overkill.
Originally by: Burnharder
Secondly, you need to provide a passive alternative that is almost as good (that also does not stress the server). It must be passive (not module, or anchorable based either) because otherwise it will be compulsory (much as Avon's WTZ idea would have been) and there is no difference between a compulsory module and a global system much as local is today.
As mentioned before, CCP has stated in the latest live devblog that one of the conditions for nerfing Local is the deployment of a new and improved shipÆs scanner that combines the functionality of the current scanner and the Local channel at a reduced range.
Originally by: Burnharder
It must not be chance based either - because removal of the certainty players might get from excersising skill in game in this respect will prevent them from making rational judgements about risk - and force an exodus to the least risky areas of the game (as if that hasn't happened already).
The current shipÆs scanner is not chance based, and neither is the current Local. I donÆt see why this would change when the functions are merged. Up to CCP, though.
Originally by: Burnharder
Finally, it must give players a fighting chance. It is no good receiving a passive alert 4 seconds before an arrival if in order for me to escape it takes me 10 seconds to reach warp velocity.
YouÆd get your first alert when someone new enters the system. Time enough to lineup and warp if the scanner shows something scary approaching.
Originally by: Burnharder
Anything that does not take the above into account will result in a large increase in risk and a consequent further emptying of those parts of the map that are already risky, but where the player is able to effectively mitigate that risk through skill and/or common sense, ie. low sec.
Regardless, the nerfed Local will result in more risk and a different, more varied, game play. That would be the point of the whole endeavor.
...
 |
Burnharder
Tiny Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 20:15:00 -
[303]
Originally by: Razin
Regardless, the nerfed Local will result in more risk and a different, more varied, game play. That would be the point of the whole endeavor.
Then one would fully expect to see an increase in the "why is low sec always empty?" threads subsequently.
With respect to seeing that someone has entered local - just how useful is that in, say, a 0.1 system, where people are constantly passing through? I'm only interested in seeing if some nerfarious character has joined the fray, not simply a number going up or down.
If I have time to escape - a reasonable amount of time, from a reduced range scanner, then that is fine. If I only see him when he's almost on top of me, covert ops or not, then that is just one more reason for me not to undock for business there (and to head back to high sec).
Really, if it isn't *as good as* local for intel in these cases, it's just another low sec nerf.
|
Avon
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 20:36:00 -
[304]
Originally by: Burnharder
Then one would fully expect to see an increase in the "why is low sec always empty?" threads subsequently.
But if local isn't an intel tool then you won't actually know if low sec is empty, will you?
Ah-ha, gotcha!
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron
Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 20:41:00 -
[305]
Originally by: Burnharder
Originally by: Razin
Regardless, the nerfed Local will result in more risk and a different, more varied, game play. That would be the point of the whole endeavor.
Then one would fully expect to see an increase in the "why is low sec always empty?" threads subsequently.
With respect to seeing that someone has entered local - just how useful is that in, say, a 0.1 system, where people are constantly passing through? I'm only interested in seeing if some nerfarious character has joined the fray, not simply a number going up or down.
If I have time to escape - a reasonable amount of time, from a reduced range scanner, then that is fine. If I only see him when he's almost on top of me, covert ops or not, then that is just one more reason for me not to undock for business there (and to head back to high sec).
Really, if it isn't *as good as* local for intel in these cases, it's just another low sec nerf.
You are forgetting the additional time the hunter needs to scan for the 'new dynamically spawned belt' where the miner/ratter is doing his thing. If, for example, the hunter needs to be within the miner/ratter scan range to do this, that's the reasonable warning you are looking for.
CCP stated time and again that they are working on content to make low-sec more attractive. Who knows, this new content may be enough to balance the new risks.
Here is today's post from CCP game design:
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
If/when we do revisit Local, cloaked ships and the general intel-gathering arena, it will likely be as a complete package, with the aim of creating an integrated set of mechanics. This will mean changes for established mechanics, but they'll be changes to rather than changes from.
With regards to concerns about Local,, the reason we haven't just removed it or flipped it into delayed mode is that the role it provides - being able to see who's around - is critical to many elements of gameplay and isn't covered sufficiently by other existing tools. We're aware that sitting there hitting "scan" on the directional scanner every five seconds isn't a good substitute, which is why we're waiting until we can improve those tools before we change anything.
...
Looks reasonable to me.
...
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 20:49:00 -
[306]
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Burnharder
Then one would fully expect to see an increase in the "why is low sec always empty?" threads subsequently.
But if local isn't an intel tool then you won't actually know if low sec is empty, will you?
Ah-ha, gotcha!
Originally by: Death Kill
Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
Rhaegor Stormborn
Volition Cult
The Volition Cult
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 20:53:00 -
[307]
Originally by: Burnharder
Originally by: Razin
Regardless, the nerfed Local will result in more risk and a different, more varied, game play. That would be the point of the whole endeavor.
Then one would fully expect to see an increase in the "why is low sec always empty?" threads subsequently.
With respect to seeing that someone has entered local - just how useful is that in, say, a 0.1 system, where people are constantly passing through? I'm only interested in seeing if some nerfarious character has joined the fray, not simply a number going up or down.
If I have time to escape - a reasonable amount of time, from a reduced range scanner, then that is fine. If I only see him when he's almost on top of me, covert ops or not, then that is just one more reason for me not to undock for business there (and to head back to high sec).
Really, if it isn't *as good as* local for intel in these cases, it's just another low sec nerf.
Local should be an intel tool. Plain and simple.
Volition Cult Recruitment Post |
Turin
Eternity INC.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 21:07:00 -
[308]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Turin
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Stupid forums ate my original post.
tl;dr version: was watching the dev interviews during the 5th Alliance Tournament. Oveur says "when the chat becomes an intel tool, it's a problem". Well, quite frankly, local has *always* been an intel tool since it has existed. If it's that fundamental of a problem, change it already.
Swap local/constellation chat functionality: force players to appear in constellation chat, and only appear in local if they speak. Problem solved. Minimum of coding. No new stuff required.
You guys (the devs) can't use the excuse that you don't like to make radical changes to the game: you removed instas and introduced WTZ. Can't get much more radical than that.
It's high time you removed local. It breaks so many things currently, and is partly responsible for many of the problems we currently have: the Jita situation, massive blob warfare, complete lack of stealth/sneak attacks, ISK farmers... the list goes on.
The dev team asks for constructive posts over and over. I submit that this post is entirely constructive, as I've stated the problem, and the solution, and the factors that contribute to the problem and how the solution would resolve the issue.
Thanks in advance, looking forward to constellation chat.
Well, shy of going into huge details here, as plenty of others have done. Ill just say this.
Your idea sucks, and I would never support it. I believe EVE needs to be played the way I like it to be played, and I personally think every one else should have to play in that same fashion. See what I did there?
Which is why hopefully Oveur and the dev's vision of the game is more coincident with my ideas than yours.
I can't stop you from being a loser. See what I did there?
Ah. nice. I love when people resort to personal attacks. Obviously I must have hit some kinda bone with you. Your tears are the honey in my tea. I attacked your idea. Not you. Thankfully for both of us, I am pretty sure the Devs vision more match mine than yours. For this I am thankful since your vision.... isnt very good. I did indeed see what you did there, but you shouldnt have bothered. It was a pretty lame attempt.
_________________________________
 |
Grim Vandal
Burn Proof
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 22:28:00 -
[309]
Originally by: Avon
Ignore Oveur, he tends to turn his back on his convictions if there is the slightest moan.
Shame really.
Sadly this. After this blog I thought OMFG god bless OVEUR cuz he will all save us true evelers however he ****.ed us in the ass. I am sorry to say so but that is it. And it will happen again. If anything the map gets probably boosted to be even more accurate.
backstabbing this is ... a shame
Greetings Grim |
Hyperforce99
Infinite Covenant
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 23:28:00 -
[310]
Edited by: Hyperforce99 on 20/03/2008 23:28:50
Originally by: Grim Vandal
Originally by: Avon
Ignore Oveur, he tends to turn his back on his convictions if there is the slightest moan.
Shame really.
Sadly this. After this blog I thought OMFG god bless OVEUR cuz he will all save us true evelers however he ****.ed us in the ass. I am sorry to say so but that is it. And it will happen again. If anything the map gets probably boosted to be even more accurate.
backstabbing this is ... a shame
if with that quote you are refering to oveur not liking insta's your forgetting that together with warp to 0 we also got interdictors, heavy interdictors and recon ships that have long range tackling capabilities. So people can now be stopped easier from the other side of the gate. Bubble also still draw people away from warp to 0 points on the incoming side.
but i'm trailing off, back to the thread and massive whine about local.
---------------------------------------------
Somewhere beyond happyness and sadness, I need to calculate what creates my own madness o/ |
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 00:49:00 -
[311]
Edited by: Avon on 21/03/2008 00:49:50
Originally by: Hyperforce99
if with that quote you are refering to oveur not liking insta's your forgetting that together with warp to 0 we also got interdictors, heavy interdictors and recon ships that have long range tackling capabilities. So people can now be stopped easier from the other side of the gate. Bubble also still draw people away from warp to 0 points on the incoming side.
Unfortunately the 'solution' only foucused on the PvP aspects of WTZ, and totally ignored the other aspects which it was a perfect time to address.
We could have had something in place which would have expanded Eve, adding regionalisation, populating under-populated systems, and encouraging more smaller trade hubs.
What we got was a smaller Eve, with less diversity, less interest, and a couple of extra toys for PvP'ers to play with outside of hi-sec space.
 Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
ceaon
Porandor
Imperium Aeternum
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 03:14:00 -
[312]
my 0,02 isk
i like the idea only who speak show on local
put /signed if u are agree
BC one |
Marcus TheMartin
Deadly Addiction
Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 03:18:00 -
[313]
Originally by: ceaon
my 0,02 isk
i like the idea only who speak show on local
put /signed if u are agree
/signed accomplishes nothing (like posting about it but what ever)
 |
Bellum Eternus
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 05:14:00 -
[314]
Originally by: Turin
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Turin
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Stupid forums ate my original post.
tl;dr version: was watching the dev interviews during the 5th Alliance Tournament. Oveur says "when the chat becomes an intel tool, it's a problem". Well, quite frankly, local has *always* been an intel tool since it has existed. If it's that fundamental of a problem, change it already.
Swap local/constellation chat functionality: force players to appear in constellation chat, and only appear in local if they speak. Problem solved. Minimum of coding. No new stuff required.
You guys (the devs) can't use the excuse that you don't like to make radical changes to the game: you removed instas and introduced WTZ. Can't get much more radical than that.
It's high time you removed local. It breaks so many things currently, and is partly responsible for many of the problems we currently have: the Jita situation, massive blob warfare, complete lack of stealth/sneak attacks, ISK farmers... the list goes on.
The dev team asks for constructive posts over and over. I submit that this post is entirely constructive, as I've stated the problem, and the solution, and the factors that contribute to the problem and how the solution would resolve the issue.
Thanks in advance, looking forward to constellation chat.
Well, shy of going into huge details here, as plenty of others have done. Ill just say this.
Your idea sucks, and I would never support it. I believe EVE needs to be played the way I like it to be played, and I personally think every one else should have to play in that same fashion. See what I did there?
Which is why hopefully Oveur and the dev's vision of the game is more coincident with my ideas than yours.
I can't stop you from being a loser. See what I did there?
Ah. nice. I love when people resort to personal attacks. Obviously I must have hit some kinda bone with you. Your tears are the honey in my tea. I attacked your idea. Not you. Thankfully for both of us, I am pretty sure the Devs vision more match mine than yours. For this I am thankful since your vision.... isnt very good. I did indeed see what you did there, but you shouldnt have bothered. It was a pretty lame attempt.
My ideas are both elegant and practical, artistic even. So many people agree with me that the avalanche of approval drowns your obtuse twaddle into oblivion.
See what I did there? Don't get recalcitrant with me. Know your role and shut your hole.
Bellum Eternus
[Vid] L E G E N D A R Y
[Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I |
Grendelsbane
Noir.
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 06:21:00 -
[315]
If CCP had created a sensor/EWar scheme that was actually effective, coherent, and comprehensive, we could just do away with mandatory local/constellation and be done with it.
|
Burnharder
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 10:32:00 -
[316]
Originally by: Razin
You are forgetting the additional time the hunter needs to scan for the 'new dynamically spawned belt' where the miner/ratter is doing his thing. If, for example, the hunter needs to be within the miner/ratter scan range to do this, that's the reasonable warning you are looking for.
CCP stated time and again that they are working on content to make low-sec more attractive. Who knows, this new content may be enough to balance the new risks.
Yea, I read that stuff about new dynamic content. That is fine. If the hunter needs time to scan down such content, that is no use to me if I don't know he's there doing the scanning. We'd need a passive mechanism to alert me that I'm being scanned, otherwise we are back at square 1, with me hitting my scanner button every few seconds looking for probes.
But the issue of truely dynamic content (ie. no fixed locations for anything) is one that cannot be ignored. If I want to hunt, I vastly increase my chances of finding someone because I know which systems that content is in. It would certainly generate more interest from us "static" players if we had to hunt for content - ie. it would be worth more to us when we found it - and we wouldn't feel like sitting targets 95% of the time, because we'd have to move around as much as the hunter.
I doubt they'd be able to do it, but large scale game changes like this should be trialed in some chosen constellation, to see how it goes. I can imagine it causing an unholy, unbalanced, nerf-tastic experience if it were foistered onto players overnight.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the removal of local - I'm against just removing local. I guess what it is replaced with is up for discussion.
|
Celeste Coeval
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 11:31:00 -
[317]
Originally by: Burnharder
Originally by: Razin
You are forgetting the additional time the hunter needs to scan for the 'new dynamically spawned belt' where the miner/ratter is doing his thing. If, for example, the hunter needs to be within the miner/ratter scan range to do this, that's the reasonable warning you are looking for.
CCP stated time and again that they are working on content to make low-sec more attractive. Who knows, this new content may be enough to balance the new risks.
Yea, I read that stuff about new dynamic content. That is fine. If the hunter needs time to scan down such content, that is no use to me if I don't know he's there doing the scanning. We'd need a passive mechanism to alert me that I'm being scanned, otherwise we are back at square 1, with me hitting my scanner button every few seconds looking for probes.
But the issue of truely dynamic content (ie. no fixed locations for anything) is one that cannot be ignored. If I want to hunt, I vastly increase my chances of finding someone because I know which systems that content is in. It would certainly generate more interest from us "static" players if we had to hunt for content - ie. it would be worth more to us when we found it - and we wouldn't feel like sitting targets 95% of the time, because we'd have to move around as much as the hunter.
I doubt they'd be able to do it, but large scale game changes like this should be trialed in some chosen constellation, to see how it goes. I can imagine it causing an unholy, unbalanced, nerf-tastic experience if it were foistered onto players overnight.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the removal of local - I'm against just removing local. I guess what it is replaced with is up for discussion.
So your ok with changes as long as your objections are noted and part of the overall design then?
Originally by: Death Kill
Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
Burnharder
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 11:42:00 -
[318]
Originally by: Celeste Coeval
So your ok with changes as long as your objections are noted and part of the overall design then?
Of course. I don't have a philosophical objection, it's simply a case of whether or not the changes will make life harder (hence I move to reduce that risk, probably to high sec), easier (which I would obviously not object to), or about the same (the same, but different, if you see what I mean). Any solution that requires some compulsory module/deployable (because everyone will need it, regardless of whether it is actually a pre-requisite to play), would be no different to having local, so why change it?
|
Celeste Coeval
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 11:45:00 -
[319]
Originally by: Burnharder
Originally by: Celeste Coeval
So your ok with changes as long as your objections are noted and part of the overall design then?
Of course. I don't have a philosophical objection, it's simply a case of whether or not the changes will make life harder (hence I move to reduce that risk, probably to high sec), easier (which I would obviously not object to), or about the same (the same, but different, if you see what I mean). Any solution that requires some compulsory module/deployable (because everyone will need it, regardless of whether it is actually a pre-requisite to play), would be no different to having local, so why change it?
Well good, because constructive objection is what this thread is lacking tbh. Hopefully CCP takes this into account, I also don't want a scan spam issue. I think we should give CCP some credit in it's ability to overhaul this to everyones liking, even if it takes some folks longer to come round:)
Originally by: Death Kill
Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
Burnharder
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 12:01:00 -
[320]
Originally by: Celeste Coeval
Well good, because constructive objection is what this thread is lacking tbh. Hopefully CCP takes this into account, I also don't want a scan spam issue. I think we should give CCP some credit in it's ability to overhaul this to everyones liking, even if it takes some folks longer to come round:)
If you've read my posts above, you'll see that all of my objections have been constructive. 
|
|
Depp Knight
Evolution
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 13:00:00 -
[321]
I am all for local being removed, but only if there is a new scanning system in place. Till then, I will vote for local to stay.
|
Marcus TheMartin
Deadly Addiction
Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 13:03:00 -
[322]
Originally by: Depp Knight
I am all for local being removed, but only if there is a new scanning system in place. Till then, I will vote for local to stay.
a new scanning system would have to take account for people who are running multiple accounts with a covert ops alt on a gate with the sound turned up being auto notified of gate activations
|
TheEndofTheWorld
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 13:22:00 -
[323]
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Kerfira
This is basically pretty close to what it should be. An alert/smart player (and this is not equivalent to 'willing to spam the scan button every 5 seconds') should only be gankable by a smarter player.
None of my suggestions included button spamming, and yet they advocate a replacement to local.
I even thoughtfully made local less effective as system security rating drops so that the impact on the most anti-risk players would be minimal.
The main problem I have with local is that the information it provides bears no relation how much effort a player puts in to remaining hidden.
I ship sitting on a gate has to accept that they are likely to be detected as being in the system .. but some guy cloaked 100AU from the nearest celestial object should not be revealed as being in the system.
It is the same with all covert operations. Why would people invest much in cool game features such as covert cynos and black-ops jump-bridges, when they will instantly appear in local anyway, thus revealing their presence?
Oh, I agree with you about what the 'game reality' problems with local are, and I'm not arguing against sensible solutions to that (in fact I'd like if it happened).
But as I said I AM arguing against the people who just want local removed without any other changes. I believe that the balance between hunter and prey is basically correct right now, with the problem being too few prey because of other factors (like easy high-sec resource generation). That's why I also think that a change in how local works has to be accompanied by changes/balancing to how a lot of other things in EVE work.
You do know that a good 0.0 ratter/miner has no risk at all. It is impossible to die, if you watch local and get to a safe/pos when there is a neutral/hostile in pos. I have seen both sides of 0.0, all those high-end systems are overfarmed, everyone fights for rats and well there are a lot of miners. When even a single hostiles comes within 5jumps-10jumps, all those alliance alts see a random person in local, start notifying intel-chats and everyone docks up/cloaks/packs up their mining op.
What are all those 30+ active players doing in outpost systems? Farming, ratting, mining - however, the defense measures(mainly local) against hostiles are too great, and to lose a ratting ship you generally have to be very new or afk. Losing ratting ships in alliances isn't considered normal, it is considered stupid and usually a lot of bitter whining is involved. I have even seens ratting bans and kicks due to losing ratting ships.
I agree, plain removal of local would be too much, but having a actively used 0.0 gistii tanked hulk/navy raven ever since they were realeased is too much/safe.
|
Lo3d3R
MAFIA
|
Posted - 2008.03.22 01:35:00 -
[324]
Do not use the name "Oveur" in vain  .
___________________
Sexy Time:  |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.22 03:35:00 -
[325]
Edited by: Goumindong on 22/03/2008 03:35:21
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=729912&page=2#40
 |
Aaron Mirrorsaver
R.E.C.O.N.
Black-Out
|
Posted - 2008.03.22 03:48:00 -
[326]
they could do like the game dark space, anyone familiar with it knows what i mean.
add a fog of war, and make ships able to warp to anywhere within a solar system.
in darkspace you could click on a point not at a gate or planet and have the ship warp to it.
in eve the only place for ships to meet in combat is a celestial object, if local is to change you need to have the entire solar system has a field of movement.
C.E.O.
Go Hard, or go Home.
|
xVorenuSx
Rulers Of Mankind
Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.22 03:48:00 -
[327]
Wow , last week it was everyone get out of empire and move to 0.0. This week it is kill local so none of the people will move out there. Why would a miner go to to null if he has to be camped at a belt. Enemy comes in travels the belts. Kills the miner, miner goes back to high sec. end of story there. I wont blame them. Constellation showing enemy movements ? Maybe it will work maybe not. I guess for that to work you would have to pay attention to where the constellation edges are for that to have any effect and then stay away from them. Or you could be running for cover from a guy thats 5 jumps away and not even heading in your direction.
It will be interesting to see what the devs come up with if anything to assist the industrialists in 0.0.
From a pvp perspective I like the idea of no local. From a cov-ops perspective, no local and I are married and we have 3 kids and are living happily ever after.
Just trying to be objective.
|
Kerfira
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.03.22 09:47:00 -
[328]
Originally by: TheEndofTheWorld
Originally by: Kerfira
My post
You do know that a good 0.0 ratter/miner has no risk at all. It is impossible to die, if you watch local and get to a safe/pos when there is a neutral/hostile in pos.....
So a smart and alert guy has a (very) good chance of escaping???? Oh, buhu!!!
I have nothing against people who're smart and alert being more or less impossible to kill. It seems quite fair to me that the intelligence of the player determines whether he's caught or not, not some randomness factor.
A smart player can still be caught, but it requires the same amount of dedication on the part of the hunter. The alert ratter spends hours watching local to escape in those few seconds when hostiles jump in. This to me indicates that the hunters should be prepared to leave a cov-ops in system cloaked for those same hours until the (less) smart player decides the cov-ops afk and goes ratting anyway. Maybe picket the whole surrounding systems with cov-ops w. covert cynos at the gates ready to jump a gang of recons in when he moves out....
Your argument reeks all too much of wanting easy kill and 'oh its unjust that I can't kill all I see'...
But, as I said, there are problems with local, but I just don't see them as serious as they're made out to be (except in a realism sense). We still get plenty of kills on less smart/alert players when roaming, which is how it should be. Life in 0.0 should be darwinian.
I like the solution of relating the information currently given by local to sovereignty and pos modules, as I think people should be mostly safe in their own area...
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.22 14:00:00 -
[329]
Originally by: xVorenuSx
Edited by: xVorenuSx on 22/03/2008 04:40:30
Wow , last week it was everyone get out of empire and move to 0.0. This week it is kill local so none of the people will move out there. Why would a miner go to to null if he has to be camped at a belt. Enemy comes in travels the belts. Kills the miner, miner goes back to high sec. end of story there. I wont blame them. Constellation showing enemy movements ? Maybe it will work maybe not. I guess for that to work you would have to pay attention to where the constellation edges are for that to have any effect and then stay away from them. Or you could be running for cover from a guy thats 5 jumps away and not even heading in your direction.
It will be interesting to see what the devs come up with if anything to assist the industrialists in 0.0.
From a pvp perspective I like the idea of no local. From a cov-ops perspective, no local and I are married and we have 3 kids and are living happily ever after.
Just trying to be objective.
**Edit** someone mentioned that you should have to hunt down someone for pvp and actually look. Whats the chance that you spend the time to look and end up just finding your own corp mates?
You like many others in this thread think that local removal = nothing to replace it. That is not the case.
Originally by: Death Kill
Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
xVorenuSx
Rulers Of Mankind
Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.22 17:25:00 -
[330]
Originally by: Celeste Coeval
You like many others in this thread think that local removal = nothing to replace it. That is not the case.
Well, greyscale commented about removing local. Please enlighten me on what they want to replace it with. I seem to have missed it in the dev blog. All i heard was a if the enemy decides to talk in local he will give away the fact that he is there. Then option 2, spamming system scanner.
Maybe your special and have information that is separate\hidden from all but the devs about the special replacement tool. Please only include an answer that is confirmed from the devs as new modules and auto update scanners are all just player talk so they don't count yet. You have specified it will be replaced by something as fact and I am dying to hear what it is.
|
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |