Originally by: Odetta Harpy

---

no, just no.
null sec alliances get enough people raiding their space, local makes it possible to defend against them.

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

Originally by: Odetta Harpy

---

no, just no.
null sec alliances get enough people raiding their space, local makes it possible to defend against them.

---

wait wut?

So, no more claiming 100+ systems that you really don't have the resources to defend?

No more insta-blob because of a local spike, thus encouraging small-scale PvP with roaming patrol gangs?

require active attentiveness to those allainces while operating in lawless space?


god, yes, this is HORRIBLE.

---

Originally by: Lord Eremet

---

Edited by: Lord Eremet on 27/03/2009 19:13:20
I support this idea,

On the conditions that:

1) We get scanning tools that make local unneeded in 0.0.

2) Local stays in low-sec and npc-0.0 but in delayed mode (You only show up 30 seconds after you jumped into system or when you start moving).

3) Hisec no change at all.

Doh forgot to klick the support icon


/Erem

---

Originally by: Kilostream

---

The only time I would support ships being able to jump into "regular" space and not appear in local is covert ops-class ships that enter via covert cynosural field (i.e. if they enter via jump gate they appear in local)

---

Originally by: Fahtim Meidires

---

Originally by: Kilostream

---

The only time I would support ships being able to jump into "regular" space and not appear in local is covert ops-class ships that enter via covert cynosural field (i.e. if they enter via jump gate they appear in local)

---

This.

---

Originally by: Kilostream

---

No.

Why?

Because in "normal" space entry and exit to the system is governed by jump gates, which broadcast the info on a system-wide basis (which is why you can gank someone somewhere, fly to another gate and still be denied permission to jump until your aggro is clear)
This information is available to all ships within the sphere of influence of those gates hence jumping into system leads to your appearance in local.

W-Space is accessed through unstable fractures that are not connected to any technological equipment that will broadcast this information - this is why you only see another player when they open comms by talking, you probe them out, scan them down or get visual contact on the same grid.

The only time I would support ships being able to jump into "regular" space and not appear in local is covert ops-class ships that enter via covert cynosural field (i.e. if they enter via jump gate they appear in local)

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

Originally by: Kilostream

---

No.

Why?

Because in "normal" space entry and exit to the system is governed by jump gates, which broadcast the info on a system-wide basis (which is why you can gank someone somewhere, fly to another gate and still be denied permission to jump until your aggro is clear)
This information is available to all ships within the sphere of influence of those gates hence jumping into system leads to your appearance in local.

W-Space is accessed through unstable fractures that are not connected to any technological equipment that will broadcast this information - this is why you only see another player when they open comms by talking, you probe them out, scan them down or get visual contact on the same grid.

The only time I would support ships being able to jump into "regular" space and not appear in local is covert ops-class ships that enter via covert cynosural field (i.e. if they enter via jump gate they appear in local)

---

funny, because when you jump from w-space to k-space you instantly appear on local

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

Originally by: Kilostream

---

Things & stuff

---

funny, because when you jump from w-space to k-space you instantly appear on local

---

Originally by: Kilostream

---

That, my friend, is a good point that I had not previously considered.
By my own logic I'd have no choice but to support the notion that ships entering regular space from W-space through a wormhole would not appear in local until a w-space-like condition had been met - if someone made a specific thread about that, I'd give it a thumbs up.

---

Originally by: kieron

---

The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.

---

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

One thing for certain, local nerf would be a serious deterrent to chinese farmer operations in 0.0

right now they occur on massive scale

---

Originally by: Wet Ferret

---

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

One thing for certain, local nerf would be a serious deterrent to chinese farmer operations in 0.0

right now they occur on massive scale

---

Of all the players in this game, the china/macro farmers are the least likely to be bothered by endless, monotonous, constant directional scanner clicking for intel.

And for us legitimate players? Well we hate your poorly thought out idea.

---

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

I already said there won't be the need for constant scanner clicking.

And even with real time scanner update, it's already a big step plus to being able to gank them

---

Originally by: Maraleith

---

A simple scenario to demonstrate why this should not be proceeded with.

You have a mining op going on in an ice belt with 10 people, an orca and a rorqual. You have scouts out and all is well. You think you are safe and that you have prepared well, but all of a sudden, 20 covert ops (force recons, black ops etc ) appear from nowhere and you start screaming as your well planned and executed little op gets torn to pieces.

Much puiblic ridicule is heaped on your shoulders by whoever.

Podded and annoyed at being bounced, you scream at the scouts, "where was my warning?" and they yell back, "we saw nothing."

Then it dawns on you. Logonski by one character; covert cyno and you were stuffed. And despite all your preparations, you really stood no chance what so ever.

Small problem perhaps anyone?

Until an instant scanning system is implemented that warns of hostiles in system AND does not drive people to distraction, proceed no further.

---

Originally by: Maraleith

---

A simple scenario to demonstrate why this should not be proceeded with.

You have a mining op going on in an ice belt with 10 people, an orca and a rorqual. You have scouts out and all is well. You think you are safe and that you have prepared well, but all of a sudden, 20 covert ops (force recons, black ops etc ) appear from nowhere and you start screaming as your well planned and executed little op gets torn to pieces.

Much puiblic ridicule is heaped on your shoulders by whoever.

Podded and annoyed at being bounced, you scream at the scouts, "where was my warning?" and they yell back, "we saw nothing."

Then it dawns on you. Logonski by one character; covert cyno and you were stuffed. And despite all your preparations, you really stood no chance what so ever.

Small problem perhaps anyone?

Until an instant scanning system is implemented that warns of hostiles in system AND does not drive people to distraction, proceed no further.

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Why you people never search for a previous version of the same thread?

It was stated by the Developers that a auto updating scanner is not a acceptable solution as 50K scanners updating every 2-3 second across all of EVE (with all the information gathering that they will do) will add a unacceptable strain to the server, with consequent lag, crashes and so on.

---

Originally by: Razin

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Why you people never search for a previous version of the same thread?

It was stated by the Developers that a auto updating scanner is not a acceptable solution as 50K scanners updating every 2-3 second across all of EVE (with all the information gathering that they will do) will add a unacceptable strain to the server, with consequent lag, crashes and so on.

---

You need to read that again more carefully. What the devs said is that the 'current' directional scanner on autorepeat is bad for the server. This statement was in answer to a "just put an autorepeat on the directional scanner" suggestion.

Obviously the number of possible results/parameters the on-board scanner produces in auto mode would need to be reduced, among other changes.

---

Originally by: Efrim Black

---

More importantly , we're not proposing an auto-repeating scanner. Only a buff to combat scanning, and or probes.

A wise man once said, you want to find someone...use your eyes.

---

Originally by: Razin

---

"....with a delayed Local every ship needs to have the innate ability to acquire this intel (in circumstances mainly limited by range) without having to deploy anything, fit any additional modules, or spam button presses.

---

Originally by: glitterbomb

---

This is why you need ships in your op to protect your mining ships.
It would mean you need to be more on your toes. instead of having a scout 2 jumps down the pipe to give you warning. it makes the game somewhat more exciting then sitting there watching your mining lasers mindlessly and without any worry.
Its 0.0 space, it only makes sence. local should be removed from game completeley

---

Originally by: Esmenet

---

Originally by: glitterbomb

---

This is why you need ships in your op to protect your mining ships.
It would mean you need to be more on your toes. instead of having a scout 2 jumps down the pipe to give you warning. it makes the game somewhat more exciting then sitting there watching your mining lasers mindlessly and without any worry.
Its 0.0 space, it only makes sence. local should be removed from game completeley

---

The problem with that is the extreme boredom of sitting watching nothing to "scout" for hours. Its the most ******ed gameplay ever.

Simply speaking in such a situation attackers have all the advantages, and no drawbacks. Attackers dont have to wait. And lets not get started on cloaks that would be extremely overpowered in such a place.

All you do is force the few that actually live in 0.0 to get a iskmaking alt in empire along with the rest of you. It would be fun to run around in my recons in 0.0 but no way am i gonna do any ratting or mining in such a scenario. Then i'll stick to missions.

The only way removing local would make sense is if there is some sort of replacement tool for local that would give some of the same info.

---

Originally by: Efrim Black

---

Originally by: Esmenet

---

Originally by: glitterbomb

---

This is why you need ships in your op to protect your mining ships.
It would mean you need to be more on your toes. instead of having a scout 2 jumps down the pipe to give you warning. it makes the game somewhat more exciting then sitting there watching your mining lasers mindlessly and without any worry.
Its 0.0 space, it only makes sence. local should be removed from game completeley

---

The problem with that is the extreme boredom of sitting watching nothing to "scout" for hours. Its the most ******ed gameplay ever.

Simply speaking in such a situation attackers have all the advantages, and no drawbacks. Attackers dont have to wait. And lets not get started on cloaks that would be extremely overpowered in such a place.

All you do is force the few that actually live in 0.0 to get a iskmaking alt in empire along with the rest of you. It would be fun to run around in my recons in 0.0 but no way am i gonna do any ratting or mining in such a scenario. Then i'll stick to missions.

The only way removing local would make sense is if there is some sort of replacement tool for local that would give some of the same info.

---

Heres an idea, because I've been thinking on this for awhile. If we were to come up with some science skills relating to communications networks and interfacing, that would stand as a nice compromise.

It would be some extra lvl V's to train, but the idea is only the people with the right training can manipulate the comm-networks to use them for intel. Eh? The bonuses could also extend to anyone they are commanding in a Fleet. This would allow small 0.0 corps to have one hacker-scout to watch local while he plays, he keeps the gate campers and sentinels informed?

Just throwing it out there.

---

Originally by: Drake Draconis

---

Very Intriguing.

I'd like to see someone expand on this.

Reading the back stories on Fluid Comm's always Raised the question...wheres the comm hackers?

---

Originally by: Efrim Black

---

Heres an idea, because I've been thinking on this for awhile. If we were to come up with some science skills relating to communications networks and interfacing, that would stand as a nice compromise.

It would be some extra lvl V's to train, but the idea is only the people with the right training can manipulate the comm-networks to use them for intel. Eh? The bonuses could also extend to anyone they are commanding in a Fleet. This would allow small 0.0 corps to have one hacker-scout to watch local while he plays, he keeps the gate campers and sentinels informed?

Just throwing it out there.

---

Originally by: Razin

---

IMO any skill-based solution will just mean an additional required timesink. Everyone will train the new skills and we'll be back to the current situation.

---

Originally by: Efrim Black

---

Well...no. Because if you lower the bonus enough, to say 10 non-speaking people shown on local, and you make the pre-requisites hard enough, then even if everyone trained up, it would still be harder to see who was where.

---

Originally by: Efrim Black

---

While the idea of cloaked sigs is novel, it would have to be impossible to pin down any of the signals - or cloaking would be pointless.

---

Originally by: Efrim Black

---

Originally by: Razin

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Why you people never search for a previous version of the same thread?

It was stated by the Developers that a auto updating scanner is not a acceptable solution as 50K scanners updating every 2-3 second across all of EVE (with all the information gathering that they will do) will add a unacceptable strain to the server, with consequent lag, crashes and so on.

---

You need to read that again more carefully. What the devs said is that the 'current' directional scanner on autorepeat is bad for the server. This statement was in answer to a "just put an autorepeat on the directional scanner" suggestion.

Obviously the number of possible results/parameters the on-board scanner produces in auto mode would need to be reduced, among other changes.

---

More importantly , we're not proposing an auto-repeating scanner. Only a buff to combat scanning, and or probes.

A wise man once said, you want to find someone...use your eyes.

---

Quote:

---

I already said there won't be the need for constant scanner clicking. And even with real time scanner update, it's already a big step plus to being able to gank them

---

Originally by: Razim

---

Obviously the number of possible results/parameters the on-board scanner produces in auto mode would need to be reduced, among other changes.

---

Originally by: Maraleith

---

A simple scenario to demonstrate why this should not be proceeded with.

You have a mining op going on in an ice belt with 10 people, an orca and a rorqual. You have scouts out and all is well. You think you are safe and that you have prepared well, but all of a sudden, 20 covert ops (force recons, black ops etc ) appear from nowhere and you start screaming as your well planned and executed little op gets torn to pieces.

Much puiblic ridicule is heaped on your shoulders by whoever.

Podded and annoyed at being bounced, you scream at the scouts, "where was my warning?" and they yell back, "we saw nothing."

Then it dawns on you. Logonski by one character; covert cyno and you were stuffed. And despite all your preparations, you really stood no chance what so ever.

Small problem perhaps anyone?

Until an instant scanning system is implemented that warns of hostiles in system AND does not drive people to distraction, proceed no further.

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Originally by: Razin

---

Obviously the number of possible results/parameters the on-board scanner produces in auto mode would need to be reduced, among other changes.

---

There is nothing obvious in this. So you want to reduce the information you get from the scanner and remove local at the same time.

Some other nice idea?

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

simple, scanning sends out a ping. you can passively scan, say 3au, and actively scan the 14 or whatever.

so when you scan, you can also be pinpointed.

problem solved.


so those covops exposed themselves scanning down your position.

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

Edited by: Vincent Gaines on 28/03/2009 22:44:10

Originally by: Maraleith

---

A simple scenario to demonstrate why this should not be proceeded with.

You have a mining op going on in an ice belt with 10 people, an orca and a rorqual. You have scouts out and all is well. You think you are safe and that you have prepared well, but all of a sudden, 20 covert ops (force recons, black ops etc ) appear from nowhere and you start screaming as your well planned and executed little op gets torn to pieces.

Much puiblic ridicule is heaped on your shoulders by whoever.

Podded and annoyed at being bounced, you scream at the scouts, "where was my warning?" and they yell back, "we saw nothing."

Then it dawns on you. Logonski by one character; covert cyno and you were stuffed. And despite all your preparations, you really stood no chance what so ever.

Small problem perhaps anyone?

Until an instant scanning system is implemented that warns of hostiles in system AND does not drive people to distraction, proceed no further.

---

simple, scanning sends out a ping. you can passively scan, say 3au, and actively scan the 14 or whatever.

so when you scan, you can also be pinpointed.

problem solved.


so those covops exposed themselves scanning down your position.

---

Originally by: Razin

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Originally by: Razin

---

Obviously the number of possible results/parameters the on-board scanner produces in auto mode would need to be reduced, among other changes.

---

There is nothing obvious in this. So you want to reduce the information you get from the scanner and remove local at the same time.

Some other nice idea?

---

I wrote about reducing the amount of info from ship's scanner when in auto-mode. This seemed obvious to me to allow it to work in real time over ranges of several AU and not overwhelmingly stress the server.

The manual scan may retain all it's current functionality.

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Originally by: Razin

---

I wrote about reducing the amount of info from ship's scanner when in auto-mode. This seemed obvious to me to allow it to work in real time over ranges of several AU and not overwhelmingly stress the server.

The manual scan may retain all it's current functionality.

---

So after removing local you give less informations if someone don't use the scanner actively, see that as balanced and think that people will not use it actively.

Don't work that way. You will get some new player doing that error, but the largest part of the people will be pinging the scanner constantly.

And you will be still giving less information on a passive scan. Less than the current scanning system and less than active scan.

Removing the information gathering system can be some PvPers wet dream as they think to get tons of kills that way, but the results will be more blobbing and less kills as people will become even more paranoid and stay in high sec, not the reverse.

---

Originally by: Chinwe Rhei

---

I am strongly against it.

This will not help PvP. It will get some poor random sobs jumped while mining or ratting yes, but actually finding a fight with your enemies will be made harder since you can't tell reasonably quickly where hostiles are unless they're literally on the same grid as you are.

---

Originally by: Razin

---

Are you intentionally trying to be obtuse?

The 'auto-updating' directional scanner does not need to see anything but manned ships. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to have real-time updates on unoccupied ships, asteroids, wrecks, POS structures, and all the other crap that the current directional scanner can scan for. All of that can be left for the manual scan that will presumably be left as a sub-function of the new ship's scanner.

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

1) you haven't definite your "less information" before this post.

2) most of the posters suggest a range reduction in passive mode and that is the best way to make the scanner useless.

3)I would very much want to see other things beside manned ships, for example probes, drones, maybe wrecks (it will give me an idea what the other guy is doing), cans (same reason as wrecks), unmanned ships if identified as such.

The function of a scanner is to get an idea of what is happening, not simply to know "there are 3 pings".

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

1) you haven't definite your "less information" before this post.

2) most of the posters suggest a range reduction in passive mode and that is the best way to make the scanner useless.

3)I would very much want to see other things beside manned ships, for example probes, drones, maybe wrecks (it will give me an idea what the other guy is doing), cans (same reason as wrecks), unmanned ships if identified as such.

The function of a scanner is to get an idea of what is happening, not simply to know "there are 3 pings".

---

If you don't understand what we've said then just say so.

1) What are you asking?

---

Quote:

---

2) Read again- you misunderstand

---

Quote:

---

One idea that may contribute is to tie this in with system scanners on a POS. The current system scanner is essentially redundant since in home systems there will be many ships in space, many of those idling in a pos. Perhaps changing the system scanner to show local in a system to the sov holders and their allies would help with this. Rational would be the scanner automatically scans and updates local with all the pilots in space.

---

Quote:

---

Passive scans ..... You have a more limited scan range, say -50%, and you cannot activate any weapon groups/modules while in passive mode.

---

Quote:

---

simple, scanning sends out a ping. you can passively scan, say 3au, and actively scan the 14 or whatever.

---

Quote:

---

More importantly , we're not proposing an auto-repeating scanner. Only a buff to combat scanning, and or probes.

---

Quote:

---

3) ok

As to your last part, it's the same interface. Only actively scanning makes you more visable, thus the "ping" reference.

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

2) most of the posters suggest a range reduction in passive mode and that is the best way to make the scanner useless.

---

2) Read again- you misunderstand

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

2) most of the posters suggest a range reduction in passive mode and that is the best way to make the scanner useless.

---

2) Read again- you misunderstand

---

Seeing how the 2 post about reduce range when in passive mode are yours (-50% range and 3 AU) can you care to explain how that will make the passive mode useful?

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

if you're not using the scanner, and it's just sitting there, exactly what would it matter, other than a quick glance?

See, you want to have everything simple and easy, and handed to you. You want to get a full picture of the situation without any work. As you posted above, you want to know FOR SURE based on scan results if some ships are manned or not, or what changes have taken place. Hell, let's just make a huge system-wide map that shows everyone's position and what they're doing.


No, a scanner should essentially say, "x ship is roughly y AU/km away and in z direction with n% accuracy.


I've posted the interface will not change. But if this would be a local replacement, with the scanner constantly being on the main UI, then unless hunting for someone actively then reduce the range and add some mystery.

stop wanting to play the game on easy mode.

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

[Because there is people like you that want to get a "easy ganker" mode.

---

Quote:

---

3 au passive range is laughable.

It will not detect any probe (but then probably you don't want probes detected), it will detect a ship that is already warping to your position and only a pair of seconds before it drop on you.

Coupled with a refresh cycle of some seconds it mean it will miss a ship warping to you at least 75% of the time.

That mean that passive scanning is totally useless.

At that point we return to step one.

Mash the scan button every 2 seconds and kill the server and find the scanner made useless by lag.

You don't want a replacement to the local system, you want what you dream is a "get plenty of kills" system.

But the effect of a change like that would be exactly the same of the change of the probing system with Kali.

A pair of week of easy ganking of mission runners, then years of cries in forum "where are all the low sec missionrunenrs, force them to run in low sec, we don't have target".

You will not get more easy pickings, you will simply increase the number of empty systems and cloaked ships.

Maybe you think that cloak on line will be a beautiful game, I think it will be a total waste of bandwidth.

---

Originally by: Kilostream

---

No.

Why?

Because in "normal" space entry and exit to the system is governed by jump gates, which broadcast the info on a system-wide basis (which is why you can gank someone somewhere, fly to another gate and still be denied permission to jump until your aggro is clear)
This information is available to all ships within the sphere of influence of those gates hence jumping into system leads to your appearance in local.

W-Space is accessed through unstable fractures that are not connected to any technological equipment that will broadcast this information - this is why you only see another player when they open comms by talking, you probe them out, scan them down or get visual contact on the same grid.

The only time I would support ships being able to jump into "regular" space and not appear in local is covert ops-class ships that enter via covert cynosural field (i.e. if they enter via jump gate they appear in local)

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

Here's a thought. passive scan range 14 AU, active is 25 AU.

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

Suddenly nothing changes, except we get an auto scanner that broadcasts the location.

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

You see, here's where people like you have a huge problem.

You say, nope that won't work. So instead of finding a way to fix it here and there, you throw everything out.

....

Local does nothing to prevent anyone from getting ganked. Oh wait, that's unless you use it as a batsignal when to run, hide, and log out.

because when you run to station you can't do anything. you can't scan where he/she is. For all you know they're cloaked and AFK.

Local does absolutely nothing right now but give a false sense of security. Enhance scanning, by benefiting those that want to be found and those that don't.

make it so stealth has a purpose.

make it so hunting down people takes work.

make it so there's no insta-broadcast of who's in space.

make it so alliances can't take 100 systems with 30 people.

make it so 0.0 industrialists have to actually be cautious, instead of parking a scout 2 jumps up.

it's a joke, and I'm an industrialist.

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Scanner don't broadcast the location. It give number of presences in range.

---

Quote:

---

And there are those like you that offer one sided solutions and then get all offended when people shot them down.

You want it changed, your job is to offer functional solution, I don't see much reasons to change, my job is to shot down unworkable solutions.

I have suggested some idea, you fell they are overpowered and shot them down, good, you are doing your part of the job, but don't pretend that your suggestion have no flaws.

All your argument have a value if you offer a a workable solution, but most of your suggestion so far have been about removing a strong intelligence tool and giving in exchange a tool suffering from myopia.

---

Originally by: Jason Edwards

---

I'm so disturbed right now by how many people have 0.0 alliances in their name and support this.

The reality is that 0.0 space would be forced into becoming capship stationgames far more then it already is. The system wouldnt be defendable. The only people left ratting or mining in 0.0 would be farmers.

---

Originally by: Souvera Corvus

---

Originally by: Kilostream

---

No.

Why?

Because in "normal" space entry and exit to the system is governed by jump gates, which broadcast the info on a system-wide basis (which is why you can gank someone somewhere, fly to another gate and still be denied permission to jump until your aggro is clear)
This information is available to all ships within the sphere of influence of those gates hence jumping into system leads to your appearance in local.

W-Space is accessed through unstable fractures that are not connected to any technological equipment that will broadcast this information - this is why you only see another player when they open comms by talking, you probe them out, scan them down or get visual contact on the same grid.

The only time I would support ships being able to jump into "regular" space and not appear in local is covert ops-class ships that enter via covert cynosural field (i.e. if they enter via jump gate they appear in local)

---

What this guy said.

So no.

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

Originally by: Jason Edwards

---

I'm so disturbed right now by how many people have 0.0 alliances in their name and support this.

The reality is that 0.0 space would be forced into becoming capship stationgames far more then it already is. The system wouldnt be defendable. The only people left ratting or mining in 0.0 would be farmers.

---

lol


Why, becase you can't park an alt 2 jumps up the pipe to see if local pops?

Or because those super-alliances might find it's fairly difficult to defend that much unused space without an instant intel tool?

No, there would be no farmers, as they wouldn't be able to run and log as soon as someone enters local.

---

Originally by: Jason Edwards

---

I'm so disturbed right now by how many people have 0.0 alliances in their name and support this.

The reality is that 0.0 space would be forced into becoming capship stationgames far more then it already is. The system wouldnt be defendable. The only people left ratting or mining in 0.0 would be farmers.

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

Speak for yourself.

Pro-tipÖ: Ratting can be done with other ships than lolfit ravens warping to belt-markers at 0Km and staying stationary until the last rat is dead.

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

No, there would be no farmers, as they wouldn't be able to run and log as soon as someone enters local.

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Really? I doubt it.

Just a thought, but a possible set up that will work for rattlers:
- raven with extended probe launcher instead of cloak (sure, it will have CPU problems, they it will not be so hard for ratting);
- drop a combat probe, max range, filter ship only
- and smash the scan button forever
- war to a safespot when the probe detect someone.

Boring as hell, but probably anyone working for a sweatshop would get a macro doing it for him and automatically recalling the drones and warping him when someone was detected.

---

Quote:

---

It would work even for normal players too. The only drawback is that they will hate smashing the scan button every few seconds.

---

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

How about this:

the people who want to keep local will have an option to always appear in local. But those of us who don't want to show up in local, we won't show up unless we speak.

Everybody gets what they want!

And you have no right to make me show up in local against my will.

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

It would work even for normal players too. The only drawback is that they will hate smashing the scan button every few seconds.

---

Thank you for finally agreeing with me- actively scanning to replace local.

---

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

How about this:

the people who want to keep local will have an option to always appear in local. But those of us who don't want to show up in local, we won't show up unless we speak.

Everybody gets what they want!

And you have no right to make me show up in local against my will.

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Look several posts above and you will see why active scanning is not a good solution (short answer: server load).

---

Quote:

---

Unless you want to reduce active scanning targets (the filters almost certainly change what is shown, not what is detected by the scan).

And that hypothesis is with a 220 CPU probe launcher. Put that in every ship if you can.

---

Originally by: Doctor Penguin

---

The solution hit me.

Remove player lists in local, place them in Constellation instead. You then know exactly who is in the Constellation, but not in your local system.

---

Originally by: Naomi Knight

---

Stupid idea.
0.0 is already too empty ,who the hell will do ratting or mining,if they can get nearly as much isk/hour in supersafe empire doing missions, if this no local will be implemented? Noone.
Then who do you want to attack with your small roaming gangs? possibly noone will be there to be your target or maybe another pvp gang.
But because you wont be able to know their numbers for sure you can be eaily out numbered (lots of them can be cloaked). One side will surely bring in more numbers to achieve victory --> blobbing. So there wont be small fleets only some larger fleets without targets.
And the usuall high end moon blob wars in 1-2 systems thats all.

If you want to increase the risk(what this proposal will do) in 0.0 okay but then increase the gain too especially for the average 0.0 players and not for some rich alli leaders with moons. What ccp should do is greatly increase asteroid mining income in 0.0 and reduce the stupid jump transfer possibilities like jump bridges.
Also there should be possible stacionary target for small gangs like pos shooting/station service shooting for huge gangs ,where they can hurt the enemy even if the enemy doesnt want to fight back.

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Look several posts above and you will see why active scanning is not a good solution (short answer: server load).

---

It can be modified/streamlined

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Unless you want to reduce active scanning targets (the filters almost certainly change what is shown, not what is detected by the scan).

And that hypothesis is with a 220 CPU probe launcher. Put that in every ship if you can.

---

YES!

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Reducing the informations. Two times, one removing local, the other nerfing active scanning.

You seem to love the thought of nerfing active scanning.

---

Quote:

---

Maybe you missed it totally, but most ships under the BS class would be crippled putting in a extended probe launcher.

You think all ships need a increase in CPU by 220 points?

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

How about this:

the people who want to keep local will have an option to always appear in local. But those of us who don't want to show up in local, we won't show up unless we speak.

Everybody gets what they want!

And you have no right to make me show up in local against my will.

---

Perfect, on the same vein you have no right to attack me against my will. Same logic.

So you get your little instance with all the people that will refuse local and play with them.

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

Quote:

---

Maybe you missed it totally, but most ships under the BS class would be crippled putting in a extended probe launcher.

You think all ships need a increase in CPU by 220 points?

---

No, the idea of ships having to constantly scan, hell every ship being wary. Those that don't risk being caught unaware.

maybe that involves having someone in gang constantly probing. They could give him a name... you know, like a member of a crew... what's that name, of those people that, you know... watch radar or sonar, to make sure no hostiles are around?

But to you having someone do that is asking too much.

You either want to have an excuse not to play eve outside of beginner mode, or you're trolling.

I never thought people were so lazy theat they'd fight tooth and nail to keep thier precious instant-intel magic tool

---

Quote:

---

Nice, now you want people to move always in group and always have a guy playing picket ship with a cov ops to scan for possible hostiles.

I want WOW stile raiding too? Mandatory mass operations?

This game is meant to be playable even alone. So why you are trying to impose group playing?

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Nice, now you want people to move always in group and always have a guy playing picket ship with a cov ops to scan for possible hostiles.

I want WOW stile raiding too? Mandatory mass operations?

This game is meant to be playable even alone. So why you are trying to impose group playing?

BTW: you are putting the lie to your words "believe me when I say I'm not offended, and also when I say my ideas have flaws- I even state several posts above that any ideas of mine have issues and need to be fleshed out a bit." Every time I point the flaws in your ideas you resort to ad hominem attacks.

Grow a bit.

---

Originally by: Caffeine Junkie

---

Unbalanced, huge boost for attackers, bad for defenders.

While I will admit the local=intel aspect is an ongoing issue, simply removing it is not the answer.

---

Originally by: Caffeine Junkie

---

Unbalanced, huge boost for attackers, bad for defenders.

While I will admit the local=intel aspect is an ongoing issue, simply removing it is not the answer.

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

ad hominem attacks? Because by your posts, you have implied:

1) you prefer solo in an MMORPG

---

Quote:

---

2) you dislike PvP

---

Quote:

---

3) you see the removal of local as a severe threat to your safety, and are thus against it.

---

Quote:

---

So when I thus imply that your resistance to either removing or creating delayed local is due to the fact that you want it, not for any reasons specified by yourself, but because of your own personal preference regarding your general fear and unwillingness to even have a possibility of PvP.

Ad hominem? no. I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your real reasons behind this debate. As you first said of me, how I "just want easy ganks" which was the first "attack" anyway, without realizing I'm a hisec miner who 'bears 90% of the time.

As such, you take things, such as how you replied to me, and instead are resorting to straw man arguements.

---

Quote:

---

but I'll bite, this one time.

yes, there should be one person scanning constantly. standing guard. being vigilant in unsafe territory. you can refuse to do it, at your peril.

---

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

Quote:

---

Nice, now you want people to move always in group and always have a guy playing picket ship with a cov ops to scan for possible hostiles.

I want WOW stile raiding too? Mandatory mass operations?

This game is meant to be playable even alone. So why you are trying to impose group playing?

---

That sounds like something only the most carebear people would think of doing.

The type of people who really want to keep local chat.

btw, I play alone most of the time, and I really want some kind o nerf to local chat

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

I don't preferr, but I play solo too, not only as part of a blob. And I wanto to be able to play solo even in the future.

---

Quote:

---

Inexact, I found most of it [PvP] incredibly boring, some small action if fun, but most of it is big group with ista win (for one side or the other) and so no fun at all.

---

Quote:

---

I see the removal of local without a workable alternative as a big threat. All your alternatives are not workable.

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

no, just removing it without an improved scanner would be bad. I believe most agree with this.

improving the scanner, or having an option to actively or passively scan, is an option.

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

Enhance the scanner.

---

Quote:

---

No, you take one thing I say, have done nothing but develop irrelevant conclusions. An example will be shown below.

Quote:

---

Sure, but that is not you were saying.

You where saying that having the need to put a 220 CPU module on a ship to scan the system was fine.

That rule out as solo ship almost any ship below BS and will degrade performance for almost all ships.

---

YOU, sir, brought out using the 220 prober as a scan tool. It was your idea- not mine. I said "YES" to actively scanning. I said "YES" to having a person dedicated to keeping an eye out.

I said "YES" to the following example put out by you:

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

People need to know more informations to try to guess what they are doing. So if I lose local with his friend/not friend display I need to have more informations by the scanner to compensate.

For example if I am in high sec and see:

Orca
Pod A
Pod B
Pod C
Unmanned combat ship 1
Unmanned combat ship 2
Unmanned combat ship 3

and then it change to

Orca
Manned combat ship 1
Manned combat ship 2
Manned combat ship 3

as a miner I can suspect I am in trouble even if I don't see that there are 3 red flashing guys in system.

A useful feature to add to an active scanner if local is removed, is the detection of friendly transponders.

I.e. I actively scan and send out a signal.
All friendly (blue) pilots transponders reply and the relative ships are identified as allied, the others simply as not identified.

---

Not once did I disagree with you there. It's part of enhancing the ship's base scanner.

You suddenly come out with using the combat probe launcher out of thin air, and from that point on run away with it.

From the very first post in which I addressed you in this thread, I politely asked you to read what I wrote. You instead wish to push an argument with a position against what you stated you wanted yourself.

---

Quote:

---

Ask people that want to do small group/solo PVP what they think of the need of having a 220 CPU extended scanner as an indispensable piece of equipment.

---

Quote:

---

The current directional scanner is not a solution because it will be an excessive burden for the server. But your solutions to that always include nerfing it into uselessness.

---

Quote:

---

So at the end we return always to the same point, you want local removed and don't want any form of alternative, working, information gathering system.

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

simple, scanning sends out a ping. you can passively scan, say 3au, and actively scan the 14 or whatever.

so when you scan, you can also be pinpointed.

problem solved.


so those covops exposed themselves scanning down your position.

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

Enhance the scanner. Scanner sends out a 10-second cycle ping when it's opened, and the window can be made smaller- in fact, if you remove the local window that people have up separately, you instantly have room to place it.

From there on, you can have 2 options, active and passive scan

Active scan sends out a ping which signals itself to other players running both and active and passive scan.

Passive scans are useful when cloaked in a covops. You have a more limited scan range, say -50%, and you cannot activate any weapon groups/modules while in passive mode.

An option, to steal from Freespace- is to have a scanner able to detect a "hostile configuration" which can determine if the ship on scan is set positive or negative based on standings.

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Seeing how the 2 post about reduce range when in passive mode are yours (-50% range and 3 AU) can you care to explain how that will make the passive mode useful?

---

if you're not using the scanner, and it's just sitting there, exactly what would it matter, other than a quick glance?

See, you want to have everything simple and easy, and handed to you. You want to get a full picture of the situation without any work. As you posted above, you want to know FOR SURE based on scan results if some ships are manned or not, or what changes have taken place. Hell, let's just make a huge system-wide map that shows everyone's position and what they're doing.


No, a scanner should essentially say, "x ship is roughly y AU/km away and in z direction with n% accuracy.


I've posted the interface will not change. But if this would be a local replacement, with the scanner constantly being on the main UI, then unless hunting for someone actively then reduce the range and add some mystery.

stop wanting to play the game on easy mode.

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

Quote:

---

3 au passive range is laughable.

---

You see, here's where people like you have a huge problem.

You say, nope that won't work. So instead of finding a way to fix it here and there, you throw everything out.

Here's a thought. passive scan range 14 AU, active is 25 AU.

Suddenly nothing changes, except we get an auto scanner that broadcasts the location.

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

Of course this doesn't work for cloaked, so instead I had a thought last night, with "ghost" images, random blips or such. This would need more thought as to houw it's implemented. But I do agree, removing local without making it possible to detect that someone might be cloaked nearby is too overpowering for covops/recons/black ops

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Really? I doubt it. [about reducing farming ratters]

Just a thought, but a possible set up that will work for rattlers:
- raven with extended probe launcher instead of cloak (sure, it will have CPU problems, they it will not be so hard for ratting);
- drop a combat probe, max range, filter ship only
- and smash the scan button forever
- war to a safespot when the probe detect someone.

Boring as hell, but probably anyone working for a sweatshop would get a macro doing it for him and automatically recalling the drones and warping him when someone was detected.

---

Macros input commands, how they respond to dynamic data is not known, and cloak means no-show-up

Quote:

---

It would work even for normal players too. The only drawback is that they will hate smashing the scan button every few seconds.

---

Thank you for finally agreeing with me- actively scanning to replace local.

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Look several posts above and you will see why active scanning is not a good solution (short answer: server load).

---

It can be modified/streamlined

Quote:

---

Unless you want to reduce active scanning targets (the filters almost certainly change what is shown, not what is detected by the scan).

And that hypothesis is with a 220 CPU probe launcher. Put that in every ship if you can.

---

YES!

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

Quote:

---

Maybe you missed it totally, but most ships under the BS class would be crippled putting in a extended probe launcher.

You think all ships need a increase in CPU by 220 points?

---

No, the idea of ships having to constantly scan, hell every ship being wary. Those that don't risk being caught unaware.

maybe that involves having someone in gang constantly probing. They could give him a name... you know, like a member of a crew... what's that name, of those people that, you know... watch radar or sonar, to make sure no hostiles are around?

But to you having someone do that is asking too much.

You either want to have an excuse not to play eve outside of beginner mode, or you're trolling.

I never thought people were so lazy theat they'd fight tooth and nail to keep thier precious instant-intel magic tool

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

Originally by: Caffeine Junkie

---

Unbalanced, huge boost for attackers, bad for defenders.

While I will admit the local=intel aspect is an ongoing issue, simply removing it is not the answer.

---

no, just removing it without an improved scanner would be bad. I believe most agree with this.

improving the scanner, or having an option to actively or passively scan, is an option.

---

Quote:

---

YOU, sir, brought out using the 220 prober as a scan tool. It was your idea- not mine. I said "YES" to actively scanning. I said "YES" to having a person dedicated to keeping an eye out.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Unless you want to reduce active scanning targets (the filters almost certainly change what is shown, not what is detected by the scan).

And that hypothesis is with a 220 CPU probe launcher. Put that in every ship if you can.

---

YES!

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

I said "YES" to the following example put out by you:

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

People need to know more informations to try to guess what they are doing. So if I lose local with his friend/not friend display I need to have more informations by the scanner to compensate.

For example if I am in high sec and see:

Orca
Pod A
Pod B
Pod C
Unmanned combat ship 1
Unmanned combat ship 2
Unmanned combat ship 3

and then it change to

Orca
Manned combat ship 1
Manned combat ship 2
Manned combat ship 3

as a miner I can suspect I am in trouble even if I don't see that there are 3 red flashing guys in system.

A useful feature to add to an active scanner if local is removed, is the detection of friendly transponders.

I.e. I actively scan and send out a signal.
All friendly (blue) pilots transponders reply and the relative ships are identified as allied, the others simply as not identified.

---

Not once did I disagree with you there. It's part of enhancing the ship's base scanner.

You suddenly come out with using the combat probe launcher out of thin air, and from that point on run away with it.

From the very first post in which I addressed you in this thread, I politely asked you to read what I wrote. You instead wish to push an argument with a position against what you stated you wanted yourself.

---

Quote:

---

See, you want to have everything simple and easy, and handed to you. You want to get a full picture of the situation without any work. As you posted above, you want to know FOR SURE based on scan results if some ships are manned or not, or what changes have taken place. Hell, let's just make a huge system-wide map that shows everyone's position and what they're doing.

---

Originally by: Doctor Penguin

---

I'd say that one guy in the gang being required to be in a dedicated probing ship would be a fantastic addition to the game - more jobs to do and learn to be good at.

It would also nerf safespotters who don't cloak up more.

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Originally by: Doctor Penguin

---

I'd say that one guy in the gang being required to be in a dedicated probing ship would be a fantastic addition to the game - more jobs to do and learn to be good at.

It would also nerf safespotters who don't cloak up more.

---

But to work it require a gang.

So you thing that running around in a gang should be mandatory in low sec/0.0?

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Your suggestions:

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

simple, scanning sends out a ping. you can passively scan, say 3au, and actively scan the 14 or whatever.

---

I.e. exchange a system range passive tool (local) with a 3 AU range passive tool

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

Here's a thought. passive scan range 14 AU, active is 25 AU.

---

Quote:

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

Active scan sends out a ping which signals itself to other players running both and active and passive scan.

Passive scans are useful when cloaked in a covops. You have a more limited scan range, say -50%, and you cannot activate any weapon groups/modules while in passive mode.

An option, to steal from Freespace- is to have a scanner able to detect a "hostile configuration" which can determine if the ship on scan is set positive or negative based on standings.

---

Passive scan 50% range. Maybe even limited to cov ops? you arenÆt much clear here.

---

Quote:

---

This [regarding a post about having a scanner as part of the UI, and what it should basically entail] is agreeing with my example in post 71? for you agreeing with a suggestion mean saing ôstop wanting to play the game on easy modeö?

And again reducing the range.

---

Quote:

---

Ad hominem attack (not the first) but at least you seem to accept the idea that the passive scan should have a good range and suggest that it will give range to detected items.

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

Of course this doesn't work for cloaked, so instead I had a thought last night, with "ghost" images, random blips or such. This would need more thought as to houw it's implemented. But I do agree, removing local without making it possible to detect that someone might be cloaked nearby is too overpowering for covops/recons/black ops

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Quote:

---

YES! [regarding a how to deal with server load and macros that push the scan button all the time, one option was to just use probes]

---

And here we see where the discussion about the probe launcher started. You put emphasis on that yes.

---

Quote:

---

And beautiful argument about running gang and not going around solo as the system to cover the drawbacks of the extended probe launcher.

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

I see a large yes to force people to use the extender probe launcher.

---

Quote:

---

Not once did I disagree with you there. It's part of enhancing the ship's base scanner.

You suddenly come out with using the combat probe launcher out of thin air, and from that point on run away with it.

---

Quote:

---

And your yes was:

Quote:

---

See, you want to have everything simple and easy, and handed to you. You want to get a full picture of the situation without any work. As you posted above, you want to know FOR SURE based on scan results if some ships are manned or not, or what changes have taken place. Hell, let's just make a huge system-wide map that shows everyone's position and what they're doing.

---

To me it seem a NO.

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

And that hypothesis is with a 220 CPU probe launcher. Put that in every ship if you can.

who said that, me or you? .01 ISK says "NOT ME!"

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines
my god, this is getting annoying.

I say I want a buffed scanner.
I say I want local nerfed.
I say I want a UI passive scanner that is not as strong as the active scanner.
I say I want the active scanner to show an active scan on passive scanners.
I say if you want instant intel, get a buddy in a covops frig or whatever.
[/quote

---

Something that opposition to this also doesn't understand is that this doesn't discourage individuals in low-sec and 0.0, it encourages it. Based on the population layouts in the map screen, you can feel safe in most systems with lower populations.... 5 people can no longer guard an entire constellation.

I'd love to see the CSM push this so I can go out into 0.0 without being crippled by the all-knowing localspy.

Originally by: Doctor Penguin

---

I'd say that one guy in the gang being required to be in a dedicated probing ship would be a fantastic addition to the game - more jobs to do and learn to be good at.

---

Originally by: Esmenet

---

Originally by: Doctor Penguin

---

I'd say that one guy in the gang being required to be in a dedicated probing ship would be a fantastic addition to the game - more jobs to do and learn to be good at.

---

I'm impressed. You managed to make ratting even more mindnumbingly boring (a feat i thought would be near impossible) and at the same time make it even less valuable compared to just doing missions. Good stuff.

---

Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri

---

I'd rat away in 0.0 with no local, relying on my trusty directional scanner to spot incomming hostiles any day of the year before I'd ever consider running missions. To each thier own I suppose.

---

Originally by: CCP Whisper

---

Originally by: Wameiri Rahai

---

why stop at wormhole space?
can't you do that for nullsec, leaving only empire and low-sec as now.

---

We will not do that without:
a) having a mechanic available that can be used to gather the same sort of intel local currently gives you.
b) ensuring that this mechanic does not totally wang the server when someone deploys more than one of these in a system.

To be honest, from my point of view server performance takes priority over shiny scanning feature. It does no-one any good for us to introduce something as a knee-jerk reaction and then watch the server buckle under the load of several thousand scanning buoys, IFF transponders, radar transmitters, AWACS drones or any of the hundred suggestions we have already gotten on how to implement this.

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

All the argument between Grimes and me

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

But to work it require a gang.

So you thing that running around in a gang should be mandatory in low sec/0.0?

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

While this post don't explicitly say that the directional scanner alone will degrade server performance I think that it can be taken as a granted.

---

Originally by: CCP Mitnal

---

I don't sleep.
I am always here.
Watching.
Waiting.

---

Originally by: Ben Derindar

---

The current system is fine, as it provides both options for 0.0 inhabitants. If you like local, go live in known 0.0. If you don't, go live in a wormhole.

/Ben

---

Originally by: Scatim Helicon

---

First off, the premise in the OP is flawed. Wormhole space is a completely different arena to New Eden space, Sleepers are designed to encourage (loosely speaking) pvp-esque fittings and small gang work to take them on, which means in theory a sleeper ratting group that gets jumped by gankers has at least some chance of getting out alive or fighting back. The fittings required to run L4 missions or rat 0.0 belts, let alone mining ships are completely different from PvP/Sleeper setups, and leave the pilot a sitting duck to any ganking ship that finds them.

---

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

Originally by: Ben Derindar

---

The current system is fine, as it provides both options for 0.0 inhabitants. If you like local, go live in known 0.0. If you don't, go live in a wormhole.

---

That's not quite fair. If you want to make even options, then make HALF of the 0.0 regions with local, and half without. Then people go real options. 0.0 NPC regions should be split as well.

---

Originally by: Ben Derindar

---

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

Originally by: Ben Derindar

---

The current system is fine, as it provides both options for 0.0 inhabitants. If you like local, go live in known 0.0. If you don't, go live in a wormhole.

---

That's not quite fair. If you want to make even options, then make HALF of the 0.0 regions with local, and half without. Then people go real options. 0.0 NPC regions should be split as well.

---

Well, wormhole space is 0.0 as well.

But seriously, would the differences between wormhole space as it is now, and known 0.0 with the same delayed local mechanic, be so great?

/Ben

---

Originally by: Justice Forever

---

one of the rules of war is know where your enemy is

Not supported

---

Originally by: Yonker

---

They get get rid of local as soon as poses in sov holding systems can track enemies.

I.e. If you own the space you can actively see who is in your space(like current local), if not you have to probe or scout the old fashioned way.

---

Originally by: Yonker

---

They get get rid of local as soon as poses in sov holding systems can track enemies.

I.e. If you own the space you can actively see who is in your space(like current local), if not you have to probe or scout the old fashioned way.

---

Originally by: Just fearless

---

NOO!!!

---

Originally by: Kralin Ignatov

---

it is a great idea, but current tools and battle models do not allow for such changes to occur just yet. If CCP gaves us tools to identify which ships in system are actually piloted, and which ones are friendly / hostile, then yes.

---

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

That skews the balance too much in favor of defenders and mega alliances - they already have a lot of advantages. The local nerf should primarily benefit the small guy.

It does make sense to let POS modules that improve intel, but it shouldn't be just like current local. And those POS modules shouldn't be hiding in POS shields

---

Originally by: Scatim Helicon

---

The net result? Small to mid scale combat consists entirely of recon gangs stumbling around blindly in the darkness and occasionally bumping accidentally into each other.

---

Originally by: Holy Lowlander

---

no...

I think there is a reason why most of the people suggesting this don't have one of the bigger 0.0 alliance/corporations under their name while posting ...

---

Originally by: Vincent Gaines

---

Originally by: Odetta Harpy

---

no, just no.
null sec alliances get enough people raiding their space, local makes it possible to defend against them.

---

wait wut?

So, no more claiming 100+ systems that you really don't have the resources to defend?

No more insta-blob because of a local spike, thus encouraging small-scale PvP with roaming patrol gangs?

require active attentiveness to those allainces while operating in lawless space?


god, yes, this is HORRIBLE.

---