| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mos7Wan7ed
   |
Posted - 2009.06.01 22:20:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Mos7Wan7ed on 01/06/2009 22:34:14
we have way too many stupid people out there that think taking local away from 0.0 is a good thing. i must to put this counter proposal up..
Below is a list of effects removing local will have for 0.0. please support it if you agree.
{Isk Making In 0.0} - everyone living in 0.0 has to do it when they aren't roaming...
[PROS]
>NONE
[CONS]
>need to keep scanner open and local scanned every few seconds while mining, ratting or plexing, witch can be imposable while plexing.
>trying to keep track of the friendly uncloaked and new hostile uncloaked ships from scanner results then noticing the difference, while trying to make isk.
>needing to leave isk making to get safe when a new ship is on scan regardless if its friendly because you can't tell the difference.
>querying alliance chat or intel channels to distinguish friend or foe (FOF) of the new local ship. (explained why its a con later)
{PVP in 0.0}
[PROS]
>on the pvp side of things, yes it makes pvp more interesting and easier for those that roam 0.0 to get kills.
>it will finally allow players to kill macro ratters.
[CONS]
>the small gang isn't going to know it's about to run into a blob while traveling so they wont leave until they have 20-30+ players in a blob.
>making ships that can't warp cloaked a big no no, it removes t1 ships from small roaming gangs as well.
>cloakers are hard enough to kill now. with no local to let you know they are in system they are going to be imposable to kill. so they will be the ship of choice for small gangs.
whats left? large t1 blobs, small gangs of roaming recons and bombers, big ineffective 23/7 0.0 gate camps, and cloaked hostile residents that only log on and kill a ship or two before local is too hot and cloak and idle or log.
{Risk Vrs Reward Imbalance}
>with more hostiles roaming 0.0 its riskier then WH space without local and the reward is less then WH space, so why live in 0.0?
{Imbalance Effects}
>more industrialist opt out of 0.0 and go to low sec and the high end mineral market implodes.
>more ratters and plexers opt out of 0.0 to WH space for more reward for less risk; faction mod prices implode.
>alliance chat or intel channels will have to replace local for FOF detection, all that FOF intel can be used to a alliance spies advantage. alliances OPT out of 0.0 for all the difficultly of losing ships in 0.0 due to spies that are tracking the alliance members movements, many hours sitting on fail gate camps to defend its space, and total number of hostile cloaked residents they can't catch or kill.
>for PvPers, fewer people in 0.0 equals longer roaming to find fewer people; that equals longer roams witch equal more risk of camps. PvPers opt out in 0.0 to PvP in WH or low sec space.
SO WTH, DO NOT REMOVE LOCAL FROM 0.0 NOOBS!!!!!
|
Mos7Wan7ed
|
Posted - 2009.06.01 22:20:00 -
[2]
supporting my thread
|
Frug
Repo Industries
|
Posted - 2009.06.01 22:25:00 -
[3]
 Quote:
[PROS] >NONE
We in the business call this a straw man
-
- - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - -
If you think I'm awesome say BOOO
BOOO!! - Ductoris
Neat look what I found - Kreul
Whisper/PrismX 4 emperor |
Rajere
No Trademark
|
Posted - 2009.06.02 02:51:00 -
[4]
Supported. Removing local from 0.0 is a huge buff to blobs and a huge nerf to everything else. Small gang pvpers who think it'll help them catch carebears ratting in 0.0 are dumb. Those risk averse folks will simply run lvl4s in highsec, while your small gangs will be bum rushed by blobs 3-10x your size that you won't know are there until it's too late.
The opinions expressed in my posts do represent my corp
--------------------------
NOTR
|
killerbitsch
|
Posted - 2009.06.02 10:44:00 -
[5]
|
Holy Lowlander
Lone Star Joint Venture
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.06.02 11:10:00 -
[6]
_______________
|
Omega87
Griefer-B-Gone
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.06.02 11:17:00 -
[7]
Supported.
------
"Nothing ventured, nothing ganked." - Me |
111010110
|
Posted - 2009.06.02 11:20:00 -
[8]
While I disagree with the feasibility of making isk in 0.0 on an player level, since it is so much easier and rewarding to make isk in empire with level 4's and 5's or even trading, I do think that Local should stay.
EVE isn't "submarines & sonar with a button every 30 seconds in space".
|
Mikayla Grey
|
Posted - 2009.06.02 11:24:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Frug
Quote:
[PROS] >NONE
We in the business call this a straw man
I'm sure you can find some good arguments to put there then.
Ratting is already less profitable than lvl 4's in most cases.
|
Dragon Greg
|
Posted - 2009.06.02 11:31:00 -
[10]
Heh, that touches on a fair point.
To get our much wanted ganks we need targets in space. That means having it worthwhile to have people use space. That means it has to be competitive with alternate sources of income and/or there has to be a need for local input of resources in 0.0.
Prior to the big peak in level 4 and 5 missions, the introduction of the drone regions, and the general population growth in empire to a point where mission loot yielded more resources then any mining in 0.0 could do there were plenty people in space. You always had ganks, and people had to defend if they did not want to see their spac burned.
Local did not negatively impact this at all, and with todays changes in scanning, black ops and all that it would be even easier to gank around regardless of Local. As long as space were used ...
Hint: why do people adore CVA even when they gank the **** out of the every day :P
|
|
|
Mister Xerox
|
Posted - 2009.06.02 11:42:00 -
[11]
Introduce Local Immediate for everywhere...
OR
give ships active area scanners that do not require constant spamming of the scan button.
More logical scanning mechanics.
The ability to scan down covert ships.
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.06.02 12:00:00 -
[12]
no
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep.
I am always here.
Watching.
Waiting.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
it does get progressively longer.
|
Mos7Wan7ed
|
Posted - 2009.06.02 12:04:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Mos7Wan7ed on 02/06/2009 12:05:47
Originally by: RedSplat
no
almost a full page before the first troll.. =\
care to explain your response or are you restricted to two letter words?
|
Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic
|
Posted - 2009.06.02 12:33:00 -
[14]
No. As a member of a small, independat 0.0 corp I do not like the current Local mechanism instantly broadcasting my presence in a system.
Local now is a trigger for blobs to form. It's an unrealistic and drastically overpowered intell tool.
~ Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic |
Mos7Wan7ed
|
Posted - 2009.06.02 13:04:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Mos7Wan7ed on 02/06/2009 13:06:04
Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri
No. As a member of a small, independat 0.0 corp I do not like the current Local mechanism instantly broadcasting my presence in a system.
Local now is a trigger for blobs to form. It's an unrealistic and drastically overpowered intel tool.
removing local is only beneficial to those that don't make isk mining, ratting or plexing in 0.0.
so your living in 0.0 and you replace your ship losses from isk generated from 0.0 and...
>your ok with insuring all corp members keep ship scanners open at all times running 360 max range and are willing to click refresh on it every 30 seconds, then report any miscellaneous ships in your intel channel.
>You sure all of your corp members can quickly tell friend or foe from a list presented to them by the ship scanner as friendly ships come and go from the system your in.
>your ok keeping 23/7 gate camps up and fully manned to catch incoming hostiles that you couldn't see or possibly predict.
>your sure your corp has the ability to kill recons gangs that log in to your systems and tackle a alliance member before you know he is in system and can catch/kill him before your corp takes losses, or the hostiles warp, cloaks, and logs.
>your corp can keep a spy free FOF channel that will always be open and all players are willing to report there system changes in with ship type and ship name.
Because that is what will be REQUIRED to keep a relatively safe space for your corp members.
|
Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic
|
Posted - 2009.06.02 13:07:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Mos7Wan7ed
Edited by: Mos7Wan7ed on 02/06/2009 13:05:06
Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri
No. As a member of a small, independat 0.0 corp I do not like the current Local mechanism instantly broadcasting my presence in a system.
Local now is a trigger for blobs to form. It's an unrealistic and drastically overpowered intel tool.
removing local is only beneficial to those that don't make isk mining, ratting or plexing in 0.0.
I don't agree. A very large % of our income comes from 0.0 rats and changing local to Delayed Mode would be very beneficial for us.
~ Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic |
Mos7Wan7ed
|
Posted - 2009.06.02 13:21:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri
Originally by: Mos7Wan7ed
Edited by: Mos7Wan7ed on 02/06/2009 13:05:06
Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri
No. As a member of a small, independat 0.0 corp I do not like the current Local mechanism instantly broadcasting my presence in a system.
Local now is a trigger for blobs to form. It's an unrealistic and drastically overpowered intel tool.
removing local is only beneficial to those that don't make isk mining, ratting or plexing in 0.0.
I don't agree. A very large % of our income comes from 0.0 rats and changing local to Delayed Mode would be very beneficial for us.
this thread is against complete removal.
you can't secure your space for you members if you have no idea if you even have hostile in it. delayed is just as bad as no local because it doesn't take 5 minutes for gang th travel through a system, or a cloaked ship that enters a new local to scan down and tackle a ship. so if your corp truly lives in 0.0 its a boon for pvp but a curse for isk making.
|
Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic
|
Posted - 2009.06.02 13:34:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Mos7Wan7ed
so if your corp truly lives in 0.0 its a boon for pvp but a curse for isk making.
So you keep saying. Repetition doesn't make it any more true though.
~ Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic |
Arrador
|
Posted - 2009.06.02 15:08:00 -
[19]
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.06.02 15:17:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Mos7Wan7ed
Edited by: Mos7Wan7ed on 01/06/2009 22:47:59
we have way too many stupid people out there that think taking local away from 0.0 is a good thing. i must to put this counter proposal up..
Below is a list of effects removing local will have for 0.0. please support it if you agree.
{Isk Making In 0.0} - everyone living in 0.0 has to do it when they aren't roaming...
[PROS]
>NONE
Yeah, I can see you're making a fair and balanced assesment of the situation there 
|
|
|
Mos7Wan7ed
|
Posted - 2009.06.02 21:40:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Mos7Wan7ed
Edited by: Mos7Wan7ed on 01/06/2009 22:47:59
we have way too many stupid people out there that think taking local away from 0.0 is a good thing. i must to put this counter proposal up..
Below is a list of effects removing local will have for 0.0. please support it if you agree.
{Isk Making In 0.0} - everyone living in 0.0 has to do it when they aren't roaming...
[PROS]
>NONE
Yeah, I can see you're making a fair and balanced assesment of the situation there
i know what your thinking and it isn't a pro.. you can't say that when hostiles enter system they will not see someone already in system so its a pro for them. the reason is because neither will the person already in the system, so it can't be called a pro because there is no advantage on either side. Even if there was, the advantage would be for the hostile because he will hit refresh on his scanner in local before he even uncloaks.
as for pvp i already said yes for pvp its interesting prospect for setting up drag bubbles, gate camps, and other interesting new styles of pvp. but in the process it puts the risk side right up there with WH space without the benefit of sleepers and gas clouds.
|
Mos7Wan7ed
|
Posted - 2009.06.03 10:02:00 -
[22]
in the other threads talks of removing local is leading to the need to redesign the scanner, then different ship scanning modes that will effect range and accuracy, having some fof detection built in. With the current scanning system removing local is a BAD IDEA PERIOD. that much i think everyone can agree on.
my problem with revamping the scanner is that I can't see a modification of the scanning system that people would agree with that wouldn't in one step replace a window called local to a window called scanner that cloaked ships can avoid being on. if that is how it is going to be, then save CCP some coding time and just ask them to allow cloaked ships to disappear off of local after a few seconds of cloaking? witch is essentially what removing local would do. i think in that light it is a no go for a lot of people that think removing local is a good idea.
the only players pushing this are ones that do not have a stake in 0.0, or the ones that do think that some how this will remove macro ratters. macro ratters are really aren't a threat because if you enter the system the macro warps the ship off and cloaks he isn't going to uncloak and engage you in his ratting macro raven. 0.0 macro makes as much as a lvl 4 macro and thousands more in empire then the handful that operate in 0.0. this does nothing to combat them.
you guys gotta wake the hell up and realize that removing local dramatically shifts the risk vrs reward of 0.0. this will hurt every entity in 0.0.
its not only larger hostile alliances that gain an edge over smaller alliances, low sec pirates eve over will take pleasure in raiding your space like they do low sec but at a whole new level. their risk goes down without local and their reward goes up compared to low sec so it makes an ideal playground when they are not popping freighters in low sec..
|
Solo Player
|
Posted - 2009.06.03 14:08:00 -
[23]
No. Local is an obvious artefact of game design and strains credibility and immersion in the game world. Introduce useful scanners if you really need that kind of help against those pesky bandits.
|
Laminar Septimar
German Kings
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 22:42:00 -
[24]
|
Yahrr
The Tuskers
|
Posted - 2009.06.16 02:42:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Yahrr on 16/06/2009 02:43:14
Originally by: Mos7Wan7ed and edited by Yahrr
We have many people out there that think taking local away from eve is a good thing.
I edited it for you and randomly insulting people is not needed.
Anyway, take a look at the other topic out there (http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1034883). I'm sure you know it already as you made a post there yourself. If you read the other pages then you see numerous possible solutions to almost all your cons (and your pros lol) which are already implemented in the game just not yet in combination with a delayed local.
What's up with this "counter proposal"? I don't see anything proposed here.  |
Dr BattleSmith
PAX Interstellar Services
|
Posted - 2009.06.16 03:32:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Dr BattleSmith on 16/06/2009 03:35:19
3rd party apps usually point the way.
BACON was popular, worked well, it freed up people so they could both work AND play eve.
This allows people to participate without having their eyes 100% focused on local for hours on end.
BACON met the users requirements.
Instead of removing local, make it better, make it flash red and Eve grab window focus when hostiles enter system.
In-game alerts to negative standing encounters would be a usability boon.
However history has shown us CCP has zero interest in usability. Only sinks.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |