| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 :: one page |
| Author |
Topic |
Cailais
Amarr
VITOC
Chain of Chaos
    |
Posted - 2008.04.26 17:53:00 -
[151]
 Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Cailais
If we think of the scanner perhaps it should detect not just individual elements (such as ships) but the combined effect of large numbers of ships in one location. For example, the scanner might act to detect 'mass signature' readings created by ships in close proximity to one another.
This is a brilliant idea!
Yes it is isnt it - anti blob too when you think about it.
C.
A new look at Local - IDEA |
Archbishop
Amarr
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 18:31:00 -
[152]
Quote:
1. The removal of local will not really change the solo dynamic negatively in 0.0. At the moment lone-players donÆt really move with perfect freedom Archie. Sure you can warp to outbound - but each time you jump through the gate you take the same risk you outline for the ôlocal-lessö scenario.
Agreed to a point although lets look at it a moment from the aspect of the stationary solo/small alliance player in a system. Lets say the ABC mining corp is out mining in 0.0 and has 3-4 mining ships or even a rorqual and 2 guys in ravens to defend against belt rats and they're just minding their own business. With the current local system if 10 pirates jump into system they'll be seen. With no local that warning is gone. Sure some proximity sensors might help and the two defending ravens could swap a high end weapon for a "scanner" to keep scanning but why then would this be any different from what we have now.
That's sort of the point I'm making here. With an improved sensor system it's really no different from current local. People are supporting a revamped sensor and map system to help aid the local "benefits" lost yet why even dump local if we're going to offer totally usable substitutes?
In the end that's the hidden point of my message. Either they'll be big changes or it isn't a change at all and I have to agree with some that CCP doesn't move in big steps. In the end I think the abandonment of 0.0 by alot of solo and small alliance players would happen, I believe we'd see alot more gatecamping and alot more ganking and in the end no real improvement.
I do agree with you Jade that local was never intended to become an early warning system. That's what's evolved though and thats what we've had for five plus years. While we can tweak it a bit, maybe make it so war declared enemies don't appear or something, in the end I just don't think it's wise to mess with.
Quote:
3. I donÆt think your previous points support this concept turning Eve into ôalliance onlineö û on the contrary I believe that reducing the perfect map intelligence and local monitoring functionality will reduce the ability of alliances to control and dominate space and will allow solo/small group players far greater opportunity to evade and exist in 0.0 without continual interference from sitting powers.
I will agree with you on dumping the map inteligence. Likewise I don't believe the map should be used for intel. Maps are for convenience not recon. When I'm driving down the highway and looking at a map it tells me theres a gas station at the next exit but it doesn't give me the price per gallon of gas. Yes dump the map intel and while they're at it make the map ONLY informational. Things like services are great but info like pilots in system, corp member locations, podkills, etc are only intel based. Who gives us that intel? It isn't realistic.
That said I'd support an alternative. What if (even without sovereignty) a corporation could deploy "spy satellites" that could monitor a system gate? You could only deploy a few of them per corp but you could put them where you believe your enemy is operating. They'd require maintenance and would shut down after awhile. It would require special skills to operate and the benefit would be more "realistic" then some all seeing map we can pull up.
Quote:
If we think of the scanner perhaps it should detect not just individual elements (such as ships) but the combined effect of large numbers of ships in one location. For example, the scanner might act to detect 'mass signature' readings created by ships in close proximity to one another.
This would be good. You could detect a 20 ship pirate gatecamp before you warp in on top of them at least.
Good discussion everyone!
Archie 
PIE WEBSITE & FORUMS |
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 19:24:00 -
[153]
Edited by: Kelsin on 26/04/2008 19:24:06
Originally by: Archbishop
Lets say the ABC mining corp is out mining in 0.0 and has 3-4 mining ships or even a rorqual and 2 guys in ravens to defend against belt rats and they're just minding their own business. With the current local system if 10 pirates jump into system they'll be seen. With no local that warning is gone. Sure some proximity sensors might help and the two defending ravens could swap a high end weapon for a "scanner" to keep scanning but why then would this be any different from what we have now.
This is a good example to work with. With local, the pirate scout jumps in, sees players in system, and starts hunting for them. The mining op sees someone pop into local, and knows something might be up.
With a scanner-based system the Pirate jumps into system and doesn't know if anyone is there and the mining op doesn't know anyone jumped into system. Now the Pirate starts searching for pings on his sonar. He gets a hit - but at the same time the mining op gets a ping too, and the game is on. They both have imperfect information.
Now in your example the mining op would actually do better to station their guards at the stargates leading into the sytem. Then when a pirate scout jumps in, they see him, but he still doesn't know where the mining op is located, and the battle becomes a system-wide situation with a front at the stargate while the mining op in the belt has to start making decisions about what action to take, as intel comes in from the front lines.
This sort of scenario is just more dynamic and has more possibilities than the current Local chat list. It's not that an improved scanner system would be either identical to local or just not as good - it's that an improved scanner has a wider range of dynamic possibilities than Local for how intel plays into conflict.
Your question about "If Local is just getting replaced by something that does the same thing, why bother replacing it?" is understandable - but the real reason Local needs to be replaced is not that intel is bad, it's that it's a static system.
Imagine Eve was a game with a single class of ships that are all fast and powerful. Then someone suggests getting rid of that single class of ships and instead introducing some ships that are light and fast but fragile, and other ships that are heavier and well-armored, but slower. The same question you raise could be asked then: "Why take away our ships that do everything if you're just replacing them with two different classes of ships that amount to the same thing?" The answer is to make the game more dynamic.
Replacing the static tool of Local with a more dynamic tool that can range from being superior to Local intel to inferior, depending on how it is used, will make the intel side of Eve more dynamic and more fun. That's what I'd like to see happen anyway.
|
Cailais
Amarr
VITOC
Chain of Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 11:06:00 -
[154]
Id agree here.
The current system is akin to being on a flat becalmed lake. The players 'view' is essentially limitless in terms of 'who' is there. However if we add storms, squalls of rain, mist and fog banks to this lake the picture changes and becomes more dynamic and requires more skill as a result.
C.
A new look at Local - IDEA |
Maidel
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 11:19:00 -
[155]
Originally by: Kelsin
This is a good example to work with. With local, the pirate scout jumps in, sees players in system, and starts hunting for them. The mining op sees someone pop into local, and knows something might be up.
But with this example you are showing that you need FAR more people to do the same op. Now I havent mined since '04 so please dont tell me im getting it wrong, im just using it as an example.
In the first instance you have a 3-4 miners and 1-2 guards + possibly a hauler or two. Thats max 8 people. Now if you remove local, you need someone one each gate, and in most average systems thats another two people so we are up to 10 and everyones profits decrease.
Now someone warps in, the scouts on the gate tell them someone ebil has appeared and they all get to a safe spot.
The game has become no more dynamic, the results are the same, accept you have just made the game a little less fun for everyone. 2 people have spent their evenings staring at a star gate, and the miners have made less money because of it. Now mineral prices will rise, pirates will start whining that their ships are more expensive...
you get my drift.
|
Max Torps
Gallente
eXceed Inc.
eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 12:08:00 -
[156]
Originally by: Maidel
But with this example you are showing that you need FAR more people to do the same op. Now I havent mined since '04 so please dont tell me im getting it wrong, im just using it as an example.
In the first instance you have a 3-4 miners and 1-2 guards + possibly a hauler or two. Thats max 8 people. Now if you remove local, you need someone one each gate, and in most average systems thats another two people so we are up to 10 and everyones profits decrease.
Now someone warps in, the scouts on the gate tell them someone ebil has appeared and they all get to a safe spot.
The game has become no more dynamic, the results are the same, accept you have just made the game a little less fun for everyone. 2 people have spent their evenings staring at a star gate, and the miners have made less money because of it. Now mineral prices will rise, pirates will start whining that their ships are more expensive...
you get my drift.
Or you introduce another mechanic. A perimeter beacon, spy satellite, call it what you want. But it gets dropped by a member of the mining gang at the star gate. That gang member can now go elsewhere in the system, maybe mine, maybe keep the rats away but he gets an alert as soon as someone enters that gate.
EvE blogspace, free! Max Torps CSM Candidate |
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 14:33:00 -
[157]
Originally by: Maidel
But with this example you are showing that you need FAR more people to do the same op. Now I havent mined since '04 so please dont tell me im getting it wrong, im just using it as an example.
In the first instance you have a 3-4 miners and 1-2 guards + possibly a hauler or two. Thats max 8 people. Now if you remove local, you need someone one each gate, and in most average systems thats another two people so we are up to 10 and everyones profits decrease.
Now someone warps in, the scouts on the gate tell them someone ebil has appeared and they all get to a safe spot.
The game has become no more dynamic, the results are the same, accept you have just made the game a little less fun for everyone. 2 people have spent their evenings staring at a star gate, and the miners have made less money because of it. Now mineral prices will rise, pirates will start whining that their ships are more expensive...
you get my drift.
Existing in 0.0 would indeed require more vigilance without Local, I don't deny that. But again, it's as though Battleships were great Ewar platforms, and then CCP introduces dedicated Ewar ships and downgrades the Battleships' Ewar potential - people might complain that they're just requiring them to have more pilots in a gang in order to use Ewar, but creating specializations in the end makes the game better, even if it's more "work".
If, in our mining op example, having "eyes" for the op was something advantageous then maybe Recon probes could be changed to act as those 'spy beacons' that Max brought up. The mining op could hire a CovOps pilot to keep probes up covering the gates to passively detect anyone entering the system and give an early warning to the mining op before the pirates know the op even exists.
|
Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 15:18:00 -
[158]
Any replacement of local needs to be well worked-out so that it does not shift balance around too much, but nevertheless manages to add excitement to the game for everyone.
One more idea for the pile.
How about being able to automatically detect certain warp signatures as well, with the chance of your ship detecting it increasing if the ship emitting the signature is heading straight towards you.
(makes sense from a science standpoint, warp drive emits FTL particles, if it heads straight to/away from you your scanner will detect abnormal amounts of those particles coming from the same direction)
-
I LOVE PVPers
I HATE griefers
Consider voting for me in the CSM elections. You are invited to look at my campaign website, where more information is available |
Cailais
Amarr
VITOC
Chain of Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 18:45:00 -
[159]
An interesting idea.
a: Pirate sits quietly at a belt ready to ambush his prey.
b: Miner sits at a belt, sees a warp drive spike on scanner - time to flee!
= works for both parties. Certainly worthy of consideration Anke'.
C.
PS: please someone fix these forums this has taken three attempts just to post a reply! 
A new look at Local - IDEA |
Maidel
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 18:52:00 -
[160]
Edited by: Maidel on 27/04/2008 18:59:44
Originally by: Cailais
PS: please someone fix these forums this has taken three attempts just to post a reply!
Ive given up... I had a long post and it wouldnt let me post it.
EDIT - now its let me post that, trying to see if I can get the other post posted, I cant be bothered to type it all out again but the gist was:
Quote:
Or you introduce another mechanic. A perimeter beacon, spy satellite, call it what you want. But it gets dropped by a member of the mining gang at the star gate. That gang member can now go elsewhere in the system, maybe mine, maybe keep the rats away but he gets an alert as soon as someone enters that gate.
If you do this, then what is the point, you have just removed local, onlt to replace it with something that acts just like local, but requires more effort.
Whats wrong with more effort you might ask? Fun. This is a game, its not a second job.
I will draw another comparason within this game. There was talk about people having cyno blockers up 23/7 in every system which CCP didnt like. They were talking about making it having to be refueled every 12 hours or similar.
That would have achieved nothing appart from making people feel this is a job rather than a game. It wouldnt have taken the cyno blockers down, it would have just caused the alliances to spend their entire lives fueling it - and making them hate the game for making them do it.
Removing local will cause the same if you replace it with a time consuming alternative - people will just do that alternative, hate the time consuming nature of it, get bored of eve and play less or leave. (yes thats rather extreme, but im just making my point)
If you want to make eve 'harder' remove local entirely. I wont be happy, it think it will be a griefers paradise. However the alternative is to remove local, replace it with a silly time consuming scanner system which will annoy people who will do it to try and stay safe, and nothing will change appart from everyone enjoying themselves less.
|
|
Cailais
Amarr
VITOC
Chain of Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 18:56:00 -
[161]
Originally by: Maidel
Originally by: Cailais
PS: please someone fix these forums this has taken three attempts just to post a reply!
Ive given up... I had a long post and it wouldnt let me post it.
Yeah its a pain - do what I do and copy the whole thing before you post it.
C.
A new look at Local - IDEA |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 19:29:00 -
[162]
Originally by: Cailais
An interesting idea.
a: Pirate sits quietly at a belt ready to ambush his prey.
b: Miner sits at a belt, sees a warp drive spike on scanner - time to flee!
= works for both parties. Certainly worthy of consideration Anke'.
C.
PS: please someone fix these forums this has taken three attempts just to post a reply!
How does the miner know the warp drive spike is not just his hauler coming back to the belt, leaving the belt, a friendly moving through the system, a friendly ratter in another belt.
etc etc etc etc.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
AKULA UrQuan
Caldari
STK Scientific
Black-Out
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 19:44:00 -
[163]
I like Jades's ideas on this matter. A lone hunter in say a battleship would have a snowballs chance of getting somewhere out in null space, if he knows his stuff. Meanwhile the, smart ratter/miner can hide off the beaten trail and be pretty safe. All the morons in the alliance will be huddled around the 3-4 systems with the best spawns and the best ore. Guess where the hunter(s) goes looking first?
 |
Scout McAlt
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 20:28:00 -
[164]
CSM's Take note
Local Soulution is SIMPLE
Anyone in local can warp to ANYONE with the rules....
1. You cannot warp to cov ops, perhaps probe em out with a long delay (which is long enough to catch afk cov ops)
2. Warping to a non-cov ops cloak ship puts you in grid at a random distace (distance to be balanced on test server)
3. You cannot warp to someone in deadspace. Probe em out as usual.
Bingo - Local is no longer stupid. If you see someone in local, you can get a fight out of them if its 0.0 rather than the current cloakfag tactics and afk intel bot tactics.
Also NERFS all isk farmers as well as all Intel Bots !
Think about it. Whats wrong with warping to anyone in local? Nothing and this will remove ALL NEVITIVE local problems as well.
|
Max Torps
Gallente
eXceed Inc.
eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 22:16:00 -
[165]
Originally by: Maidel
If you want to make eve 'harder' remove local entirely. I wont be happy, it think it will be a griefers paradise. However the alternative is to remove local, replace it with a silly time consuming scanner system which will annoy people who will do it to try and stay safe, and nothing will change appart from everyone enjoying themselves less.
You make a valid point in all honesty but the scenario I posted was is answer to a specific question about miners and what they could do to remain safe. The alternative there was to use either alts or mains dedicated to watching gates.
I think we need to peel this back and refocus on why people want to change local. Then discuss again encompassing all scenarios. I really do not think there is a one size fits all solution to this. Thanks for your point of view, it's extremely valid.
EvE blogspace, free! Max Torps CSM Candidate |
Cailais
Amarr
VITOC
Chain of Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 23:33:00 -
[166]
Originally by: Max Torps
Originally by: Maidel
If you want to make eve 'harder' remove local entirely. I wont be happy, it think it will be a griefers paradise. However the alternative is to remove local, replace it with a silly time consuming scanner system which will annoy people who will do it to try and stay safe, and nothing will change appart from everyone enjoying themselves less.
You make a valid point in all honesty but the scenario I posted was is answer to a specific question about miners and what they could do to remain safe. The alternative there was to use either alts or mains dedicated to watching gates.
I think we need to peel this back and refocus on why people want to change local. Then discuss again encompassing all scenarios. I really do not think there is a one size fits all solution to this. Thanks for your point of view, it's extremely valid.
I think Local has come to the fore for a number of reasons.
Obviously players dont want to get ganked by overwhelming numbers: the tactic of scouting ahead witha lone ship, whilst having a massive fleet a jump or two out is now well used and understood.
Warp Core Stabs, having been nerfed, provide little hope to players now (in fact virtually no one fits them compared to 2 years ago) - a factor exaccerbated by HICs.
So how does a player escape the gank? Well he cant - his only option is to run as soon as a hostile appears: even just one hostile because of the risk of further ships 'over the horizon'. BACON is a good example of the pressing need for immediate intel in this regard.
And this applies both ways: the scout can immediately see if its worth attempting a hunt in a given system.
So we have a stalemate: the hunters get fewer and fewer 'hunting kills' and so resort to gatecamping, hotdrops or logon traps typically utilising overwhelming force (blobs).
Even if both sides are pvp 'centric the fights dont occur as everyone is busy tallying up numbers in local to achieve superiority of numbers. Thats a cyclical effect with fleets growing and growing until one side 'looses' the tally and docks up, runs to a POS or just logs off for the night.
At least thats my view - others may disagree.
C.
A new look at Local - IDEA |
Mistress Alice
|
Posted - 2008.04.28 00:56:00 -
[167]
I say, Ban BACON, keep local and all you whiners about local out there, shut up cause you will whine when its gone and you keep getting ganked
|
Eval B'Stard
Minmatar
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.04.28 03:39:00 -
[168]
We've had local since the game began, why should we change something that is so established.
I really am sick of the NERF this NERF that, get rid of this, do this, don't do that attitude of the player base it really has gotten out of hand.
EVERYTHING in this game can be overcome, used to your advantage if you just think about how you play instead of crying about it.
It's so easy to get kills even with local if you just use a bit of common sense, this game has been dumbed down a lot in the last year or so it's not the game I signed on for, which is probably why I don't play as much as I used to anymore.
Get over yourselves and get on with the game, yes the GAME sheesh. |
Cikulisuy
Amarr
Infortunatus Eventus
|
Posted - 2008.04.28 05:08:00 -
[169]
agreed jade. i am so tired of not being able to kill anything because as soon as i enter local everyone and their mother warps out of the belt and cloaks.. or if i bring a gang of 5, the gang of 3 cloaks because they know i am a gang of 5 if they can at all count. this would also help to fix scouts in a station 5 jumps down the pipe rousing the blob as soon as we get close, so /signed
this out of all will remain, they have lived and have tossed; so much of the game will be gain, though the gold and the dice have been lost. |
Butzew
Volition Cult
The Volition Cult
|
Posted - 2008.04.28 14:28:00 -
[170]
what everyone forgets is that this is just a GAME and you are supposed to have fun, not make it complicated to be as
realistic as real life is. so ...
local as it is today:
you jump in sys, you know if there is hostiles in it and how much.
you dont know where in sys they are, what ship they are in, are they active or not, so you have to scan them and look for them.
removing local:
you jump in sys, you dont know if there is any1 there, but you scan the whole sys hoping there would be some1 to fight ...
now considering avarage play time is 2-3 hours per day (my guess) you can cover well over 20 jumps looking for fights. You may find some ... Removing local and making you scan all the sys you enter you would be able to cover maybe 10 sys, just maybe.
So removing local will in that way decrease your chance to find trouble (fight) (do PvP).
2. the lone rater/miner in 0.0.
this kind of player is PvE fitted, hostiles entering sys will be PvP fitted. Removing local will make that player spam "scan" button in order to survive. Hostile who entered sys looking for targets know that the most probable place to find one is in belts. That means that the player rating/mining will see the hostile on scan who is already warping to him, checking the belts, and wont have time to escape. Miner/rater will have even lower chances of survival if the hostile gang enters sys, the bigger the gang, less chance of survival as they can check belts in one sweep ...
Reading posts in this topic and others concernig removal of local i noticed its all about making your fleet invisible and undetected by enemy. IMO 0.0 isn't just about fleet vs fleet, and gate camps ...
I dont mind if local gets changed as long as there is some other early warning system that gives solo player equal chances of surviving as the hunter will have of finding/killing him.
PS: spelling :P
|
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.04.28 15:13:00 -
[171]
We're seeing a lot of the same comments popping up in relation to this issue. Personally I think it's just a misunderstanding of what is being suggested and why, so this is my take on clearing some of that up:
1) Misconception: Replacing Local is being suggested in order to favor one group or playstyle over another.
In truth, replacing Local is being suggested to increase dynamism in the intel aspect of the game. It's the difference between an RTS with a fog of war and one without - adding a fog of war doesn't shift the balance of power, it affects all parties equally.
The Pirate will be affected by the same limitations and have the same options to gather intel as the Miner or the Mega-Alliance member.
2) Misconception: If the balance of power will stay the same, why bother changing it at all? It's just more work!
Replacing local with a dynamic scouting/scanning intel system would be adding a new layer to the game. It opens up new weapons tools and tactics to be used in the intel battle that takes place prior to the combat battle. So although balance wouldn't be affected in a political sense, the possibilities for gaining and losing advantage would be widened and a more complex game resulting.
3) Misconception: The OP's proposal is to simply remove Local.
Many straw man arguments can be concocted centering around doomsday scenarios that would result from simply shutting off local tomorrow and seeing what happens. But what Jade asks in the OP's story is that we open our imaginations to the possibilities of trading our static Local intel for something more dynamic and layered, that can be as simple or as elegant or as complex as we can imagine. Let's not assume that players would be "forced to sit and hit scan every five seconds" when we can easily imagine a revamped scanner that automatically and constantly scans for us. Since the possibilities are wide open, let us not be deterred by 'what is' when we can concieve of a better 'what may be'.
|
Zaruda
Minmatar
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.04.28 16:01:00 -
[172]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
You will not succeed in making the game any harder than it currently is.
I can't help but respond to this. You actually believe the game is currently hard? I've been almost as long as you and essentially started over now but for a universe that is supposed to be brutal and unforgiving, they sure put in alot of get rich quick elements over the years.
Originally by: Hardin
I think the proposal as it stands could potentially lead to a dramatic decline in the number and quality of fights by encouraging ganking and blobbage.
While the more PvP oriented 'small gang' corps may go to the efforts outlined here I suspect that many groups will simply fall back on the old 'safety in numbers' philosophy.
While I can see where you are coming from Jade I think you are totally misreading how the majority of people play this game.
I don't think I am alone in having my jaw drop to the floor at this. Considering this is how every major group (including CVA) plays what do you mean by 'fall back'? This is being done already anyway. Short of a few players, I very rarely see any CVA 'come out to play' without significantly greater numbers on their side. I can understand this to a degree. People hate to lose and love to win. Having larger numbers reduces risk and effectively ensures the win but it also removes all semblance of tactical planning. Unfortunately, the state of Eve currently encourages and promotes this.
Originally by: Hardin
What will happen when a pilot is ganked by 10 enemies. Will his own alliance send just 10 people to respond when they have no clear idea how many enemies are in the area? Will they assume that the 10 pilots are merely an advance guard for another fleet 2 jumps away? While there is already a tendency to blobbage I can only see that being worsened by this proposal.
Yes they can dispatch scouts to scan all the surrounding systems (which could be a very large number of systems) but that takes time, organisation and will.
Yes, lets leave large regions of space controlled groups that have now become complacent, paranoid and lazy. That works much better.
While I'm not 100% behind all Jade's ideas, I do like the direction of the ideas. Some people say this particular idea prevents soloing in dangerous areas. Well gosh golly, what a thought. If I am going alone into a bad neighborhood that isn't patrolled at all by law enforcement, isn't it reasonable to expect a very high level of confrontation and danger? Go into that same place with a large group, the threat level lowers.
I do not believe I am the only one who misses the 'risk' from the beginning days of Eve. As the *****ing and moaning dragged on over the years, CCP made things far too easy and more forgiving and by doing so, took away from some of the themed elements. Now I am going to pick on Hardin and CVA some more as I have more experience with them (purely from an outside point of view) but they also make a good example. Here you have an alliance that appears, by just their own manpower, to be able to manage 100-150 players on average for an active fleet. Factor in their allies, you could see about 200-250 on average. Yet they maintain and control an ENTIRE region of systems that is quite large in size. Does that make any sense compared to the NPC empires? Yes, player driven ones are done in a different context but look how easy it is now to pull this off. You would expect large areas should be controlled by large alliances that have the manpower and organization to do so. However, items and ships now exist to make it feasible for groups to do this without much thought which make it feel alot like munchkin gaming. I see this idea as one extra step to recapturing some of the elements that made us want to join Eve.
|
LongTrucker
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 21:51:00 -
[173]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
This is a low sec/null sec proposal. There I'd advocate replacing local with constellation (delayed) chat where you only appear in the constellation chat window if you chat. People who want to chat can do, people who want to remain stealthy can do that too. In high sec the local situation should remain unchanged to properly illustrate the contrast between outlaw and policed regions.
No. Only in local chat of systems where official war is declared, the camouflage mode should be activate. With the prevention: "Attention, you in a zone of military actions. Systems of communications are blocked."
|
Dani Leone
Gallente
A Dark Cloud
Unaffiliated
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 23:03:00 -
[174]
Originally by: Zaruda
I do not believe I am the only one who misses the 'risk' from the beginning days of Eve. As the *****ing and moaning dragged on over the years, CCP made things far too easy and more forgiving and by doing so, took away from some of the themed elements. Now I am going to pick on Hardin and CVA some more as I have more experience with them (purely from an outside point of view) but they also make a good example. Here you have an alliance that appears, by just their own manpower, to be able to manage 100-150 players on average for an active fleet. Factor in their allies, you could see about 200-250 on average. Yet they maintain and control an ENTIRE region of systems that is quite large in size. Does that make any sense compared to the NPC empires? Yes, player driven ones are done in a different context but look how easy it is now to pull this off. You would expect large areas should be controlled by large alliances that have the manpower and organization to do so. However, items and ships now exist to make it feasible for groups to do this without much thought which make it feel alot like munchkin gaming. I see this idea as one extra step to recapturing some of the elements that made us want to join Eve.
I'm with you there, I was a member of the Reckoning Alliance for a few months and they controlled Cloud Ring for quite a while whilst never managing to get more than 80 or so in a given fleet.
It always struck me as rather bizarre that a smallish group could disproportionately control so much space, and Jump bridges certainly helped do it.
They made it far too easy to respond to distant threats with overwhelming force in a near instantaneous manner.
Removing local or reducing its utility as an intel tool in some way is more than justified to actually allow some form of real pvp and roaming gang action in the sovereign areas of 0.0 imho.
It'd be even nicer if Jump bridges were nerfed (maybe a 5x increase in the fuel usage :P ) and cov ops cynos were not affected by cyno jammers.
|
Ezekiel Sulastin
Central Research Nexus
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 23:59:00 -
[175]
Edited by: Ezekiel Sulastin on 05/05/2008 23:59:28
All I can see about removing local is that the risk aversion present in 80-90% of Eve players will go off the charts, leading them to either stay in hisec or work in ever-more-massive blobs to do anything once the balance of power shifts to the aggressor.
It could be great, but be real - 0.0 would remain the same alliance happyfest it is now (especially now that you get to have people dedicated to staring at gates all day, woo happyfun!), and lowsec would be even more desolate than it already is.
----
WTB Armor Nerf Hardener II, 10^100 isk OBO |
Iynara Maeral
Caldari
Voice of Reason
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 22:13:00 -
[176]
This is full of win and awesome. |
Shamharoth
Gallente
Beach Boys
BeachBoys
|
Posted - 2008.05.10 14:21:00 -
[177]
Edited by: Shamharoth on 10/05/2008 14:22:45
Edited by: Shamharoth on 10/05/2008 14:22:15
I am sorry if someone already said this before, but I ain't got time for reading through 6 pages of text, so let me just say: how about introducing rigs enhancing the on-board scanner, for example multiplying the range, increasing quality of the scan itself for expense of actual firepower and battle quality of the ship (whatever statistic would that be).
Also, the interface of the scanner would have to be much easier to manage and quickly change scan ranges, etc. Maybe pre-defined presets to the scanner should be introduced?
Anyway, way to go Jade! 
 |
Haalanii
|
Posted - 2008.05.10 14:57:00 -
[178]
Edited by: Haalanii on 10/05/2008 14:59:40
With intel being scarcer and thus more valuable I fear there will be few engagements not dictated by spies. There are few penalties one faces if caught by the organization one infiltrates, particularly so considering the existence of multiple accounts and alts. By making public knowlege the number and rough composition of the enemy fleet it is possible to make informed decisions without infiltrating other corporations. I have no doubt that spies will always exist, but do we really want to make them so valuable that they are an absolute necessity?
I suppose it all comes down to how good the scanning interface is. At the very least we need a HUD with a no-delay transition between a system map (configureable of course) that is capable of showing the location of all ships visible to members of your gang and a more robust scanner that has passive and active elements. It should also integrate broadcasts and have the ability to differentiate individual squads within fleets.
Thinking about the use of scanning also leads me to realize that there is room for "sensor jammer" ships that project a blackout field around them that cannot be penetrated by scans while a module is active. It wouldn't even have to be a new class of ship, I believe tha this would actually be a way to make black ops battleships more useful. To sustain the heavy demands of such a module fuel would be required.
While I'm ranting, I think cloaking should require fuel as well, at least for the vast majority of ships. Give the cov ops, recons and black-ops a special bonus that reduced fuel use 20/40/60/80/100% or just make the cloak they alone can fit not require fuel in the first place.
|
Skjorta
|
Posted - 2008.05.10 15:24:00 -
[179]
Removing local is usually suggested by people who want to AVOID fights.
Local is fine, pvp would dwindle so fast once people spent days searching completely empty systems for fights. Not all fights happen between large groups of people, when u can actually have covops watching the enemy fleet...thats just not the way it happens all the time.
One suggestion is to take cloaked ships out of local. If you want the surprise and stealth of no local, there you go. However, no local at all is a terrible idea. You still have to find the targets once you know you're in the right system....everybody acts as if local can give you a WTZ to them. Scan the belts and stations, drop probes...because you're having fun and actually hunting somebody. Not hunting in empty systems for hours and logging out of sheer boredom.
Fun story though :) You forgot the 2 hours of waiting it took for both sides to randomly jump into the same system hah
|
Lyta Reimalken
Minmatar
No Fear Buccaneers
|
Posted - 2008.05.10 16:39:00 -
[180]
Edited by: Lyta Reimalken on 10/05/2008 16:45:10
Originally by: Skjorta
Removing local is usually suggested by people who want to AVOID fights.
Local is fine, pvp would dwindle so fast once people spent days searching completely empty systems for fights. Not all fights happen between large groups of people, when u can actually have covops watching the enemy fleet...thats just not the way it happens all the time.
One suggestion is to take cloaked ships out of local. If you want the surprise and stealth of no local, there you go. However, no local at all is a terrible idea. You still have to find the targets once you know you're in the right system....everybody acts as if local can give you a WTZ to them. Scan the belts and stations, drop probes...because you're having fun and actually hunting somebody. Not hunting in empty systems for hours and logging out of sheer boredom.
Fun story though :) You forgot the 2 hours of waiting it took for both sides to randomly jump into the same system hah
This is just not the case.
Removing local is usually suggested by people who want fights.
As it is, fights dont happen as often as they could (should?) because we know what each other has. Consequence of which, either someone messes up and doesnt watch local, or the fights will be between largely equal numbers. Since if the defender has too many, the attacker wont attack, and if the attacker has too many, the defender will bug out.
Given that numbers are often not equal, lots of (potentially not unfair) fights wont happen.
From the point of view of someone trying to have small scale fights, im all in favour of an idea like this. Quite often I have looked at local and decided that the odds werent at least 50/50, and bottled a fight. In retrospect, I wish I hadn't, my best fights in eve have been outnumbered, fought with impetus and aggression and without fear of losing isk.
The more information I have, the less fights I feel confident of winning (due to finding myself with a perfect representation of the assets in play) and the less willing I am to engage. If I dont know what my enemy has, and he doesnt know what I have, I am going to have more fun finding out.
Knowing whats in local, knowing what the odds are before combat starts and having to do no work to do this (whilst knowing the exact same holds true for your opponent) is one of the things that can make eve combat boring.
People are very quick to see the negative implications of this lack of knowledge, that maybe they will lose ships or whatever, but I would be rather excited by the knowledge that my opponent is just as clueless as I would be, so sure, things will have to change, the scanner will need to be rethought, additions made, but on the whole I dont see how that could be a bad thing.
Right now the scanner is a pain to use, an RSI contributor and a wasted opportunity for adding some real 'feel' to intel gathering.
As it is, between the scanner and local you get a pretty perfect picture of whats going on in a place by pressing one button continually, i'd love the idea of deploying sensor drones to provide some early warning as to people approaching my location, or setting up a covops purely for intel gathering at extreme ranges or whatever. As it is most of what i'd want done can be achieved with a trial alt, a velator, local and the 360 scanner.
That sucks.
|
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |