| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Allaria Kriss
Minmatar
Elipse Inc.
    |
Posted - 2008.04.23 16:09:00 -
[61]
A bit of a ramble ahead, since I have a migraine disrupting my train of thought. It's not related to this, promise.
Removing Local would require huge changes to other systems; as such it could not be done in the foreseeable future without the risk of causing massive subscriber defection. Here's why:
Getting fights in 0.0 is hard enough. Right now, the map and Local are the only ways of even knowing if anyone's in a system at all, and for alliances that control more than one system, this allows them a quick way to know where to respond to. Removal of this intelligence provides them with only one alternative that can provide a similar level of security.
Gate-camping. Lots of it.
Without Local or the map, alliances that are serious about security will just form enormous capital-supported bubble-dropping gate-blobs on entrances into their territory and gank the pants off anyone that enters. It's a remarkably simple solution that does nothing to improve the game, and as a matter of fact just makes it worse. About the only thing that can survive such a gate-blob would be roaming nano-gangs, which are already widely-seen as being far too common. All this will accomplish is to make 0.0 even more inaccessible except to the very experienced and the very rich, and will make alliance security take even longer and be even more boring. Not everyone wants to dedicate their life to claiming virtual space.
The funny thing is, the people this would screw over the most are smaller alliances, who will have no hope of holding any space whatsoever (They already don't have a prayer against the modern death-star POS towers), since they can't always be available to fend off attacks from larger groups bent on stealing their space (As with this change they won't even know they're there until they start firing at a tower, and by then there's no time to scramble a large enough defense force), while larger alliances can afford to amputate access to their space with the above tactic while still having the capacity to respond to anything that slips past.
Adding new modules that benefit the defender overlook the fact that defenders already have massive advantages while taking it away from the people who need it; this would simply make gatecamping more tenable as it would be easier to stumble into one for the people just starting out in low-sec. EC-P8R is camped enough already even with the map and Local, thank you. Adding specialized ships with special modules simply assures that every gang will have one or two of these ships and nothing will effectively change.
Mustn't forget the effect on low-sec, either. This would also make gate-blobs and station-camps more common there, as most pirates will not search every single system with scan probes just for the possibility of finding a mission Raven which is already nearly impossible to detect even if you know where it is.
Changing Local means that the benefits of reduced intel will mostly be reaped by large, well-entrenched alliances with strong intel networks and by roving nanogangs (Capable of escaping gatecamps) in populated low- or no-sec space. I'm just cynical enough to point out that you and your alliance historically fall into the latter category.
As for cloaked ships, cloaking makes you invisible for a reason - So nobody can find you. That's the whole point of cloaking. The devices are expensive and require a good bit of training to use, and carry hefty penalties on non-specialized ships. They're fine as is.
All in all, reducing intelligence makes warfare more static and uninteresting when no side wants to take risks. What I see a lot of people proposing is a return to the 'trench warfare' tactic of the World Wars, only in space. As a predominantly high-sec carebear with eyes on eventually moving out to low-sec and no-sec, I don't want to have to gather an army and fight the Battle of the Somme just to mine some crokite. How would you address these new problems?
|
Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 16:40:00 -
[62]
 Originally by: Allaria Kriss
Gate-camping. Lots of it. Without Local or the map, alliances that are serious about security will just form enormous capital-supported bubble-dropping gate-blobs on entrances into their territory and gank the pants off anyone that enters. It's a remarkably simple solution that does nothing to improve the game, and as a matter of fact just makes it worse. About the only thing that can survive such a gate-blob would be roaming nano-gangs, which are already widely-seen as being far too common. All this will accomplish is to make 0.0 even more inaccessible except to the very experienced and the very rich, and will make alliance security take even longer and be even more boring. Not everyone wants to dedicate their life to claiming virtual space.
I'd counter by saying without the map intel and absolute intelligence tool of local you will have a situation where a space claiming alliance wants to "secure" its space will have to split its forces amongst many gates and choke points and will become more vulnerable to "feints" "fake attacks" "hit and run" and black-ops deployment deeper into its territory. Take away absolute information and risks need to be taken, it becomes far less effective to "blob" since intruders will simply attack on different fronts.
Quote:
The funny thing is, the people this would screw over the most are smaller alliances, who will have no hope of holding any space whatsoever (They already don't have a prayer against the modern death-star POS towers), since they can't always be available to fend off attacks from larger groups bent on stealing their space (As with this change they won't even know they're there until they start firing at a tower, and by then there's no time to scramble a large enough defense force), while larger alliances can afford to amputate access to their space with the above tactic while still having the capacity to respond to anything that slips past.
This is a common hobby-horse argument any time a change impacting alliance life in 0.0 is proposed "the small alliances will fair worse!" - but I really don't buy it. Reduced information means opportunity for everyone and makes space bigger once again. It becomes scary for everyone. Large alliances cannot afford to permacamp all the entrances to their space with limited information and no local. Hotdrops are dangerous, they involve risk. Fake attack happens and counter hot drop is made? That means another entrance is open and undefended. Small alliances slip through the gaps and take advantage of the fact their presence is no longer immediately highlighted on the map for everyone to see.
CSM Election Manifesto 2008 |
Koro Kar'Amarr
Amarr
Viziam
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 16:45:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Allaria Kriss
Getting fights in 0.0 is hard enough. Right now, the map and Local are the only ways of even knowing if anyone's in a system at all, and for alliances that control more than one system, this allows them a quick way to know where to respond to. Removal of this intelligence provides them with only one alternative that can provide a similar level of security.
Gate-camping. Lots of it.
Ok, so youve removed local and map intel and have completely ignored the suggestions to replace how that info is gathered.
Are organised gangs with scouts into 0.0 / lowsec such a bad thing? or should we all be making our way solo VS AI in this game.
Is intel (sensor POS arrays, etc) becoming an asset that has to be worked at by your alliance, defended by them, implimented by them a bad thing?
Would being harder to locate in low sec due to less intel really deter people from going there? or would more people fancy their chances?
Options are a good thing, more involvement is a good thing, less important things automated and requiring player input is a good thing. Sure, youll have to be paying attention to your scanner if you venture into low sec for some high reward activities, but you wont be a shining beacon on the map for all to see either.
I think putting intel gathering into the hands of the players is such a cool prospect, if youre organised and wily you'll have the element of suprise against your enemy, if youre disorganised then youll be walking into traps left right and centre until you change that.
Rather than looking at the map / local and getting specific numbers of an incoming blob and meeting it with a matching blob, guerilla warfare is going to become alot more attractive.
I think changes to this aspect of EvE opens up way too many cool avenues to be ignored.
|
Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 16:51:00 -
[64]
Quote:
Adding new modules that benefit the defender overlook the fact that defenders already have massive advantages while taking it away from the people who need it; this would simply make gatecamping more tenable as it would be easier to stumble into one for the people just starting out in low-sec. EC-P8R is camped enough already even with the map and Local, thank you. Adding specialized ships with special modules simply assures that every gang will have one or two of these ships and nothing will effectively change.
You forget that the gate campers rely on map and local information too. It'll be MUCH MUCH easier to attack gate camps with benefit of surprise with no local warning for the campers. Jump in a "victim" empty industrial to get aggression. Jump in a counter gate-camp gank fleet from another gate thats moved into position from another entrance. Current system the campers see local bloom and all de-aggress and jump out. This way we get a chance for engagements happening from imperfect knowledge and this in turn will make gate camping itself more hazardous, involving more pvp and consequentially giving more opportunity for blockade runners and travels to slip through the gaps into deeper 0.0 and protective obscurity.
Quote:
Mustn't forget the effect on low-sec, either. This would also make gate-blobs and station-camps more common there, as most pirates will not search every single system with scan probes just for the possibility of finding a mission Raven which is already nearly impossible to detect even if you know where it is.
Well I'm not a pirate but I already search most systems I send gangs through with 'ceptor patrols and scanning on the chance of finding -10 hostile NSBI'ers. The diligent and the cunning will benefit - the lazy and uncreative will find it more difficult. Lacking map intel on dead ships will put the onus on locals to band together and report the presence of hostile camps - lacking map intel will make it easier to surprise those camps and scatter and destroy them.
Quote:
Changing Local means that the benefits of reduced intel will mostly be reaped by large, well-entrenched alliances with strong intel networks and by roving nanogangs (Capable of escaping gatecamps) in populated low- or no-sec space. I'm just cynical enough to point out that you and your alliance historically fall into the latter category.
Well cynical or not - I will tell you that I (and SF) historically use whatever technology we find appropriate to fight back against superior numbers and blob fleets. Blackops, ceptor gangs, nano, ew superiority, hot drops, remote repping battleships, cloaked recon patrols ... whatever whatever. We'll adapt and make use of whatever technology exists to allow us to fight back. The game has changed many many times in our lifespan as an alliance/corp and we always make the best of the situations. What I can tell you is limited intel does not benefit centralized systems of control and the giant alliances will find it more difficult to patrol and control their space. Instead of being spoon fed free lunch from the map screen and local updates they'll have to go out and patrol and thats a good thing for the game.
CSM Election Manifesto 2008 |
Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 16:53:00 -
[65]
Quote:
As for cloaked ships, cloaking makes you invisible for a reason - So nobody can find you. That's the whole point of cloaking. The devices are expensive and require a good bit of training to use, and carry hefty penalties on non-specialized ships. They're fine as is.
I think you should re-read the OP and look specifically at the mention of cloaking devices there and in follow up posts. You've missed the point really. It would not be possible for people to "find" cloaked ships with the scanner in my proposal - just that people should know they "are out there - somewhere".
CSM Election Manifesto 2008 |
Koro Kar'Amarr
Amarr
Viziam
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 17:07:00 -
[66]
'Fog of war' is quite a staple in RTS games, the element of suprise and ability to outsmart an opponent make for alot more excitement and options rather than just clashing head on with everything you have.
I know EvE isnt an RTS, but alliance warfare shares alot of parallels with it. While an effort is made to gather intel on real threats, it opens up the chance for lone opportunists to go about their business.
|
Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 17:20:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Koro Kar'Amarr
'Fog of war' is quite a staple in RTS games, the element of suprise and ability to outsmart an opponent make for alot more excitement and options rather than just clashing head on with everything you have.
I know EvE isnt an RTS, but alliance warfare shares alot of parallels with it. While an effort is made to gather intel on real threats, it opens up the chance for lone opportunists to go about their business.
Agree, as Danton said a page ago - restrict available information makes the game bigger. Uncertainty and unknown disposition of enemy forces will make for more chance and meeting engagements sure, but it'll be much easier for those that want to "go deep" and hide to do just that. I'd believe that restricting map tools/local will lead to more conflict between groups out "looking for trouble" (because neither will know the precise advantage/size of the other) but will make it more difficult to find people who don't want to be found. And thats how deep 0.0 should be.
CSM Election Manifesto 2008 |
Allaria Kriss
Minmatar
Elipse Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 17:23:00 -
[68]
Some points.
Hit and run, and feints, already work pretty well. That's why you hear about nanogangs every time you turn around - They are the ideal in hit and run and they're already doing just fine. Feints are commonly used by larger alliances when attacking POS's, since 50 people in frigates do not equal 50 people in battleships and capitals waiting to hotdrop on your POS while you're chasing said frigates. As for Black Ops, they can't do anything as it is, anyway. A recon-based gang can already do what it wants in most 0.0 space without needing a large, expensive, vulnerable Black Ops tender. These changes wouldn't affect their ability to do that.
Next point. Small alliances will fare worse with any change to intelligence for one simple reason - Larger alliances have more people and thus more people they can dedicate to intelligence-gathering. An alliance of 1000 people can easily afford to dedicate 20 highly-experienced pilots to scouting and recon, while that might be half the people that a smaller alliance has online at any given time - They can't afford to take such measures. Plus, smaller alliances have a harder time pulling off feints and sneak attacks because they often don't have the people to do so. If you have 40 people online, and you need 30 to launch a serious attack, you only have 10 to feint with, whereas your defender, who benefits from interior lines as well as numbers, has 80 people available and can counter both fleets with a group of 40. Of course, even if you slip through undetected, there's no guarantee you'll find anything before you get spotted, since your intel is worse than that of the controlling alliance.
Onto what Koro said. Intel in the hands of the players does make low-sec more dangerous because of one simple rule of piracy. The only thing that making targets harder to find would mean is that people looking for targets will go to places where targets are most likely to be found - Gates and stations. That's why, historically, pirates plied known trade routes between major ports - They knew they would find ships there. Same goes for EVE, only in EVE you can't catch the ships in transit so you need to catch them at port. Making it harder to find ships off the trade lanes will increase piracy on the trade lanes.
Back to Jade. Gatecampers, ones with half a brain anyway, don't rely on Local at all. An alt in a newbship, or better, something that cloaks, sitting on the other side of the gate they're camping is a far more effective early-warning system than the map or the directional scanners, since you not only get the advantage of knowing what's coming, but also who they are and what ships they're in. The map and Local have nothing to do with it.
Most people will not scan systems as-is because it's usually a waste of time. Removing Local will make it a genuine waste of time - Would you be so keen on checking a system that MIGHT have a ship in it, or would you rather limit it to systems you KNOW have ships in them? I hate to agree with a Goon, especially this one, but Goumindong has a point when he says restricting intel reduces fights, because he's right. The only thing more painful than flying around in a gang for three hours without finding a target is flying around in a gang for three hours looking for possible targets that may not even exist.
I'm not going to argue the cynicism point, simply because that's a personal opinion. However, limited intel strongly benefits from centralization, as that way everyone knows what intel is available rather than some people having some parts of it and not being able to put two and two together. That's why militaries require soldiers to report, so that an intelligence specialist or command officer can put all the various reports together and get a good idea of what's going on. Alliances with the experienced manpower to dedicate to central intelligence are in a much better position than alliances that can't.
|
Torik Tavitas
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 17:43:00 -
[69]
Local as a game mechanic is just awful.
However, it has been in the game forever and as such an equilibrium has built up around it. It defines how miners, ratters, pirates, high sec players, low sec players, 0 sec players, solo players, corp players, small alliance players and mega alliance players operate in this game. Yanking it out will have repercussions to every playstyle in the game.
I believe that local should be replaced with a proper sensor and intelligence gathering system. However, I am not really invested in the status quo so I don't really care which way they equilibrium shifts due to such a change. Naturally people who feel that it will shift in a direction that is disadvantagous to them will oppose it whether for good reasons or bad ones. You just won't escape it.
|
Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 17:43:00 -
[70]
Allarria Kriss,
In response:
1. Nano-gangs in the current environment are another item of discussion altogether really. I have my own opinions as to why nano-gang has become the primary mobile force in 0.0 warfare and it has a lot to do with the gradual spread and empowerment of POS equipment/jump bridge/hotdrop with full map intel and local monitoring. Black Ops ships provide a covert portal to a covert cyno that doesnÆt appear on the map.
2. Your point of Large vs Small alliances doesnÆt really work since the ratio of alliance size doesnÆt map directly on the potential game impact of local removal and making the landscape much bigger through limited intel. If you have 40 people online you can make a roving gang of quiet competent capability û at the moment you plunge that into large alliance space youÆll be scouted and countered and hotdropped on through jump bridges. Without local chat and reduced map options you have a far greater chance of penetrating enemy borders and finding an enemy gang that has not been configured precisely to counter you.
3. Gatecampers rely on local. Sorry Allaria, but thatÆs just the case. Yes they run alts in systems around û but those alts are watching local û often by the time a force lands on the gate its too late. The clever ones are watching local/scanners/+the map for blobs also. Trust me on this: IÆve fought these people for a long long time.
4. Re the restricting local / reducing fights. ItÆs just an incorrect assessment. People play this game for fun they want fights. Roving pvp gangs want action. At the moment the problem is that itÆs too easy to pick and choose your perfect fight. If you have a gang of 10 people out and you meet 15 (from your scout intel watching local) you might think the better of it and run. (if you meet 20-30 you definitely will) û but without local you arenÆt suddenly going to lose all desire for pvp combat in eve û youÆll still be out looking for trouble and watching the scanners but it will be more difficult of judge the odds and numbers in advance. Opting out of engagement on first comparison of local numbers will no longer be an option.
5. Re the big alliance thing and intel, if you have a huge multi region alliance with 500 people in chat the current state of the game allows them to see precisely where an incoming group is and track its movement through local scouts. They can see ninja ratters/ rogue miners / where npcs are dying, where jumps have occurred, they can focus their whole strength on the precise point of incursion. Limited intelligence means that imperfect intel traces will need to be investigated properly by intelligent scouts and patrollers and groups will have to be split up. In no way can this be construed an advantage foe a large regionally distributed power over a smaller focused territorial entity with restricted critical focus.
|
|
Hugh Ruka
Caldari
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 17:58:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Allaria Kriss
Some points.
And what will be the difference ?
1. small alliance vs large alliance. well in the current situation, both have the same intel gathering (local) just the large alliance can throw more material into actual combat. that will be the case with or without local, so this is non-argument.
2. hit and run - nano - they are there because it is so easy to avoid combat with map and local. you need to be fast to catch somebody. also they are best at disengaging when things turn south (i.e. local jumps too much with reds).
3. so the smart gate campers in lowsec already have scouts at the other gate, without local, nothing will change for them. again non-argument
As you correctly mentioned, the reason for lowsec gate and station camps is the nature of lowsec (no bubbles). Absence of local will have realy no effect on that.
I can only agree with the waste of time scanning an empty system in place of just looking at local. But that's one minor annoyance. Now you have to work for your targets. Big problem, pirates have to find targets and not just wait for them ...
--- SIG ---
Goumindong for CSM. |
Allaria Kriss
Minmatar
Elipse Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 18:12:00 -
[72]
Jade: You're contradicting yourself now.
But before I get to that part, I'll reply to the other points.
#1 - Nanogangs are a problem for a thousand different reasons that have already been beaten to death. I was just mentioning one that was relevent.
#2 - "Your point of Large vs Small alliances doesnÆt really work since the ratio of alliance size doesnÆt map directly on the potential game impact of local removal and making the landscape much bigger through limited intel." - Put that in English, please. A communications expert like you should not be posting something so incomprehensible. I will try to respond anyway. More players = more people available = more coverage = better intel = win. All your proposal does is put off the hotdropping of the small alliance's fleet until somebody runs into them and reports them.
#3 - Gatecampers rely on Local because Local is there. If you remove it, they will simply use alt scouts like most of them already do. They will just need more of them.
#4 - It's been proven statistically time and again that, while most people play EVE for fun, they are not looking for PvP. All that your proposal means is that it is even harder for these people who are looking for PvP to find each other, and all roving gangs will catch are the occasional ratter or miner, not anything challenging like another fleet.
#5 - Larger alliances can easily control more space than smaller alliances because larger alliances have fewer chokepoints per system than smaller alliances controlling less space. Some of their systems and constellations 'cover' others - Sending someone to guard an apartment block is just as productive as sending someone to guard an individual apartment, except that the guard can now protect many more apartments. Most space is the same way - Regions have very few entry points per system compared to individual components of those regions. That point aside, most people already will not engage a force if they don't have good intel on it - Simply knowing how big a force is tells you nothing. It could be 100 frigates, it could be 100 Titans. You'd better go look before you suit up for a hotdrop, eh?
Your contradiction: You want people to have more fun PvPing, but make having fun harder to do by making fights, especially good fights, harder to find. You encourage blob warfare and gatecamping by making PvP riskier (Most PvPers are risk-averse, so the greater the risk, the bigger the blob) while limiting the chance that a small roving gang (Which will show up only as a tiny blip in Local or on the map and thus probably be ignored) will have of finding opponents. I for one fail to see how making PvP harder to find will make PvP more fun; if anything I think it'll be more of a pain in the arse. I don't want to have to fly around for an hour scanning four systems just to gank a ratter in an Enyo.
Hugh: That's precisely my point. Removing Local has no impact on most of these things, so I don't see how it's going to make any difference.
|
Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 18:25:00 -
[73]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 23/04/2008 18:26:24
Allaria, most of your post is just repetition of the previous one so I'm not going over old ground. Its easy to play quote wars contradicting each other endlessly but with such a gulf of understanding between the core concepts we'll agree to disagree where views are incompatible and move on. Just a couple of points to close on:
Originally by: Allaria Kriss
#4 - It's been proven statistically time and again that, while most people play EVE for fun, they are not looking for PvP.
Since I'm talking in this thread specifically about 0.0 and lowsec where actual pvp combat is prized by the player base I'm going to take your comment with a pinch of salt and just roll my eyes at the notion of such statistics.
Quote:
Your contradiction: You want people to have more fun PvPing, but make having fun harder to do by making fights, especially good fights, harder to find.
The notion of the "good fight" is by definition a subjective one. A "good fight" tends to be something that has the advantage in your favour. To the other guys its as "bad fight". Currently knowing the numbers in local exactly its too easy to decide against non "good fights" ie ... where the numbers are roughly even or against you. Not knowing that intelligence in advance will lead to more genuinely objective "good fights" (which are not in the numerical advantage of either side necessarily) but ends up in a battle that could go either way.
In any case, we've argued back and forth on the issue and we're disagreeing on interpretation not fact (statistics or otherwise) so we'll leave it there. Thanks for responding to the thread though!
CSM Election Manifesto 2008 |
Hugh Ruka
Caldari
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 18:32:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Allaria Kriss
Hugh: That's precisely my point. Removing Local has no impact on most of these things, so I don't see how it's going to make any difference.
But you are the one disgreeing with local removal and putting up non-arguments where the absence or presence of local has no impact.
Try one reasonable argument where removal of local will have a huge impact (I have one, ninja/solo mining as those ships depend on very early warning or protection).
I can see only positives IF a resonable and effective replacement is implemented. That's one BIG IF. I am all for local removal when that IF is solved. Until then it is up for discussion.
--- SIG ---
Goumindong for CSM. |
Allaria Kriss
Minmatar
Elipse Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 18:40:00 -
[75]
Here's the end-all argument, then, Hugh.
If removing Local has no impact, why remove it? CCP did it once by accident and there was open revolt. Do you think they're going to make that mistake again?
I don't think they will unless they have a very, very good substitute for it waiting in the wings. Thus, I, like you, am against Local removal until there's a well-planned practical alternative that's been well-tested and ready to go. Which there isn't right now. So that makes me against Local removal at this point in time.
|
Hugh Ruka
Caldari
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 18:52:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Allaria Kriss
Here's the end-all argument, then, Hugh.
If removing Local has no impact, why remove it? CCP did it once by accident and there was open revolt. Do you think they're going to make that mistake again?
I don't think they will unless they have a very, very good substitute for it waiting in the wings. Thus, I, like you, am against Local removal until there's a well-planned practical alternative that's been well-tested and ready to go. Which there isn't right now. So that makes me against Local removal at this point in time.
Because local creates perceived problems:
1. people scream for cloak nerfs
2. BACON
3. cloaked rat farmers
4. logoff tactics
etc. etc. etc.
These are all there because of local. And you are against local removal at this point because there is no alternative solution - I do agree that's my stance too. But you are agreeing against local removal as such, not agains the solution voiced by Jade. That's a principal difference.
--- SIG ---
Goumindong for CSM. |
Torik Tavitas
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 18:55:00 -
[77]
Here is my reason for removing local:
It is really bad UI implementation. To me at least staring at a list of names, waiting for it to change is not my idea of 'playing the game' and it has an uncanny resemblence to what raiding in WoW is like. There is no skill involved but it is just an exercise in endurane to see how long you can stare at the same list before your eyes gloss over.
|
Allaria Kriss
Minmatar
Elipse Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 18:58:00 -
[78]
Edited by: Allaria Kriss on 23/04/2008 18:59:47
Jade hasn't voiced a solution. Jade has reposted the same ideas that have been doing the rounds of these forums for months. I want to see something original, not the same old dead horses.
Edit: Torik: How would this be any different from any other system that would be implemented? People will check for new hostiles as frequently as possible when in hostile territory.
|
Koro Kar'Amarr
Amarr
Viziam
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 19:10:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Allaria Kriss
I want to see something original, not the same old dead horses.
After you, please! since you are so intent on attempting to rubbish the suggestions people are trying to build here.
|
Rawr Cristina
Caldari
Naqam
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 19:19:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
But the big thing is that removal of local and some in game map statistics tools in order to make 0.0 space big and scary and spacious again û a place where anything can happen and its possible to stage ambushes, to evade patrols, to find surprise-battles and where intelligence-gathering and successful recon plays a vital role. Makes non-concord unrestricted space an open environment of danger and possibility û and will make for some excellent space conflict and drama.
Anyone who votes the removal of local gets a + in my book.
Now about those cheap Cerbs... 
...
 |
|
Sergio Ling
Veto.
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 19:32:00 -
[81]
Jade, I've never been a massive fan, but you're far and away the best candidate. You have my votes.
_
 |
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 19:40:00 -
[82]
Great discussion - I'd love to see the perfect information of Local replaced with something where recon within a system is a tactical advantage.
|
Mangold
Einherjar Rising
Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 19:59:00 -
[83]
Great post.
Nerf local now!
....and while you are at it make stations destructable or let the attackers pillage them.
|
Allaria Kriss
Minmatar
Elipse Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 20:03:00 -
[84]
Edited by: Allaria Kriss on 23/04/2008 20:03:52
Originally by: Koro Kar'Amarr
Originally by: Allaria Kriss
I want to see something original, not the same old dead horses.
After you, please! since you are so intent on attempting to rubbish the suggestions people are trying to build here.
Have a quick attempt at making something new. This one's even thought-out and detailed. It took me all of half an hour. Have fun flaming.
Step one: Make similar intelligence tools available.
Your turn?
|
Koro Kar'Amarr
Amarr
Viziam
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 20:26:00 -
[85]
Wasnt a flame dear, you just seemed very counter constructive. To be honest it doesnt even require new ship types but that never hurts. The systems are already in place in EvE, map data, local logs, scanners. All that needs to change is how they are accessed and who has access.
Take a look at any contemporary strategic game and info gathering / fog of war features in it. Knowing what your opponent is up to at all times makes for a very unexciting strategy game.
But since youve taken the time to conceptualise a new ship type I'll go have a look. :)
|
Torik Tavitas
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 20:53:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Allaria Kriss
Edit: Torik: How would this be any different from any other system that would be implemented? People will check for new hostiles as frequently as possible when in hostile territory.
Obviously any replacement system that would require people to keep staring at a display would be just as bad. Any workable solution would have to involve automated scanning and proximity alerts. This would then have to be balanced out with equipment sensivity, range, signature and power usage issues. ie. a scanner setup that could detect people at the other side of the solar system would give out a ton of false positives, eat up most of your power and make you detectable by people with much weaker setups.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 21:24:00 -
[87]
I have not read every post but have seen some references to this so I will reiterate hoping for some clarification:
In general I think Local is a problem but the solutions so far seem lacking.
1) While I like the notion of bringing skill back to scanning I am not keen on the idea of having to spam a scan button while mining/ratting in dangerous space. Just not a good game mechanic. As some have noted there needs to be an automated system in place but how far does that go before you are essentially back to local?
Further, when I am in low sec or 0.0 knowing who just jumped in is very helpful to me as a miner/ratter/missioner. Even if I have a 100% "someone is there" buzzer not knowing who it is means I will be running for a POS/station/SS every time the thing goes off. The only alternative is to have a large gang with me if I ever want to go into dangerous space and that simply is not possible most times. So, removing Local, to me, would effectively block me out of doing anything in low/no sec on anything short of a large(ish) gang basis.
2) Added to #1 above is the removal of map info. Often when people get ganked at gates and complain here they are told it is their own fault for not checking the map (even though the map is a lagged and imperfect tool for this it is better than nothing). Without that info I am utterly at the mercy of gate camps. Use scouts...fine...still does not sound like a gameplay improvement except for the pirates.
Again, in a general sense I like the notion of info warfare, fog of war, general uncertainty and so on. As a practical matter though I am not seeing how this improves much.
--------------------------------------------------
"Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
|
Roland Thorne
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 00:25:00 -
[88]
I'll bring up an idea for discussion that could replace local.
Just go back to basics: have a pinnable window that functions as a real-time radar screen, one that maybe looks like a shrunk version of Homeworld's 3-d navigation interface. Put a radial button in the corner that switches between "Active" and "Passive" scanning. "Active" scanning would bring much better results, but it would make you easily detected. "Passive" scanning would be reliant on other energies illuminating or reflecting off of someone else; such as someone using an active scanner nearby other ships, which would be illuminated at great range for a sensitive passive scan (which could be affected by special modules fitted in the highs, lessening the chance that a cloak could also be fitted including any firepower). The strength of the passive return would of course be affected by each ship's sig radius, giving an aggressive and large fleet extra presence in system. If there is no active scanning within range of a passive receiver, all ships would only be illuminated by perhaps the level of their powergrid, or their proximity to a star or other source of energy. The level of passive return would dictate how much information is received on the ship-type and general location, signified by the size, color, and clarity of the blip on your screen. Pilots would be unknown until close contact is made.
Even though active scanning would make you clear to any passive viewer, the benefits of it would be enormous for the aggressor. Though they would be unable to warp to their contacts, they would know exactly where they were, what they were flying, and who was flying it. Though they would have a shorter range then passive scanning, and they are unable to detect cloaked ships, they would know instantly when and where that ship was if they uncloaked, and they could position themselves to trap the contact, and send probers to find him. The range of this active scanning should be short, maybe 10 - 15 AU, with skills or fittings available to improve it.
Hum... (shrug)
Any thoughts or improvements?
oh, and btw... the reason I think cloaked ships should be left alone is because they are already limited greatly in firepower. You can't do much even with a recon without support.
|
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 01:00:00 -
[89]
Jade,
Every time I read, you inspire.
It's a pretty sure thing you'll be getting my votes.
Bandures > tommy you like a cowboy harry ) |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Trinity Nova Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 01:45:00 -
[90]
I think cloaked ships should show up as unknowns/undifferentiated from a rat or a cosmic annomoly on the scanner and thus not trigger the proximity alarm.
Otherwise i feel it would disadvantage cov ops/recon players too much.
Zombie Apocalypse Guitar-Wielding Superteam |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |