EVE Search - Can we now have local 0.0 removed please?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Can we now have local 0.0 removed please?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 .. 14 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2009.06.22 05:17:00 - [331] Neutrino Sunset, it isn't proper to claim that WH design would be simply extended to all of 0.0 without any scanner improvement. CCP already hinted that a nerf to local would have to be accompanied with boost to scanners. And as I said, the simplest and most effective boost, at least one of the many additional boosts, is the auto-scan feature.
Spurty Caldari Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2009.06.22 05:23:00 - [332] Ephemeron, you are correct on the concept, but implementation will bring the SQL servers to their knees :( CCP should indeed go very very very slowly with this if it happens. They will certainly not be able to test it out (properly) until it hits TQ.
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2009.06.22 05:59:00 - [333] Originally by: Spurty Ephemeron, you are correct on the concept, but implementation will bring the SQL servers to their knees :( CCP should indeed go very very very slowly with this if it happens. They will certainly not be able to test it out (properly) until it hits TQ. There's no real need for scanner info to use SQL queries. Fortunately, getting scan info does not involve creation, modification, or destruction of real game objects.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.06.22 06:12:00 - [334] Originally by: Descrambled I know about all those other reasons but I also attribute this inflated economy to ths game being overrun with macro I.e. I know the reasons but prefer to invent mine. Originally by: Descrambled And that is cool you are willing to hassle the macroers but not everyone is so noble. Some will surely get smart and stick to systems that have jumpbridges they can use to bypass camps. They can also dock at a local POS then use a quick frigate to bypass the camps. Then grab a ratter ship in another system Jumpbridges use is not free for all. To use them require to be friendly with the owning Alliance. If the macro users are "friends" of alliance owning the territory the problem is one of widespread cheating, not of local/no local.
Neutrino Sunset Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Tread Alliance	Posted - 2009.06.22 06:49:00 - [335] Originally by: Ephemeron Neutrino Sunset, it isn't proper to claim that WH design would be simply extended to all of 0.0 without any scanner improvement. I didn't. You said CCP would never implement a local change that would force people to scan manually, if not for game design reasons then for server performance reasons. I haven't said that they would necessarily use the wspace model in 0.0, but if they do choose to implement a different model it will presumably be for reasons other than server load issues or horrid gameplay mechanics since they have already implemented that solution in wspace and are apparently satisfied with it from both a server load and gameplay perspective. How is implementing an auto scan feature on its own any kind of solution to arriving at a workable no local implementation for 0.0 when it doesn't detect cloaked ships at all, which are already the pirate's gankmobile of choice? Unless of course retaining the ability for anyone to earn a living in 0.0 is not a desirable objective.
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2009.06.22 07:43:00 - [336] It is my opinion that cloaked ships should not appear in local or on any built-in ship scanner It is also my opinion that 0.0 is biased too much in favor of the defenders and farmers. The fact that we see so many macro farming Ravens in 0.0 is proof that it is too easy. Any change to local should shift the balance slightly toward attackers and raise the bar on personal skill level required to operate successfully. I think most people wouldn't mind if empire local was unchanged, those who can't stomach the increased difficulty can stay in empire. A sign of successful implementation would be a significant decrease in the macro farmer Ravens in 0.0, CCP can easily verify that.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.06.22 08:13:00 - [337] Ephemeron, I think there is a slight error in your post, this is the correct version: "A sign of successful implementation would be a significant decrease in the character presence in 0.0, CCP can easily verify that." Where character include both regular players and macro users.
Neutrino Sunset Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Tread Alliance	Posted - 2009.06.22 08:18:00 - [338] Originally by: Ephemeron The fact that we see so many macro farming Ravens in 0.0 is proof that it is too easy. This statement is logically equivalent to the statement: 'The fact that there are so many players cheating and using bots, is proof of the fact that the game is too easy for those players not cheating and using bots.' Could you explain how this is so, because on face value such an assertion would appear to be baseless. Originally by: Ephemeron A sign of successful implementation would be a significant decrease in the macro farmer Ravens in 0.0, CCP can easily verify that. Would 0.0 being not only devoid of macroers but also devoid of anyone else trying to earn a living ratting or mining in 0.0 also be a sign of a successful implementation? Would nobody flying anything in small gangs in 0.0 other than cloaking ships also be a sign of a successful implementation? If having no local and no way to detect cloaked ships would merely 'raise the bar on personal skill level required to operate successfully'. Could you enumerate the skill based techniques which would still allow solo or small gangs of ratters and miners to operate successfully?
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.06.22 08:30:00 - [339] Originally by: Neutrino Sunset Originally by: Ephemeron The fact that we see so many macro farming Ravens in 0.0 is proof that it is too easy. This statement is logically equivalent to the statement: 'The fact that there are so many players cheating and using bots, is proof of the fact that the game is too easy for those players not cheating and using bots.' Could you explain how this is so, because on face value such an assertion would appear to be baseless. I think that such a statement is true on the face of it. If the game is easy enough that bots can compete with players, then by definition it is too easy. If the game was difficult and unpredictable enough that human ratters, miners & marketers have a large advantage over bots then we'd see many fewer bots. Currently mining, ratting and to a great extent missioning reward inhuman patience far more than they do intelligence or skill. We see bots proliferating in these activities. Q.E.D.
Neutrino Sunset Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Tread Alliance	Posted - 2009.06.22 08:59:00 - [340] Bots can complete with players in a wide range of tasks. In FPS games bots are generally superior than players due to reflex response times. In MMOs bots are superior to players due to stamina and patience. In neither case does that mean that 'by definition' the games are too easy. The PvE grind in MMOs being particularly mind numbing is symptomic of the fact that to reduce the potential for cheating most game decisions need to be made on the server side, which given the vast numbers of people playing at once on a single server cluster reduces the complexity of the decisions that can be made and hence drastically restricts the sophisication of NPC AI. Arguing that is shouldn't be this way is like arguing that gravity shouldn't pull things downwards. This is the way it is, and it is within the limitations of this environment that solutions must be found to things like implementing workable gameplay mechanics and deterring the use of bots. Making certain aspects of the game overly difficult for human players purely on the grounds that it might deter those using bots is not likely to be in line with the priority order of the developers of the game. That order is likely to be something like this: Make the game as engaging and enjoyable as possible. Make the game as balanced as possible. Achieve the above in such a way as to minimize the potential for cheating. The reasons for the priorities being in this order is simple. If they go to such lengths to minimize cheating that the game is no longer fun then they will have failed to meet the one priority that trumps all those listed above. Namely the one which goes: Increase subscriptions and make more money.

Descrambled Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2009.06.22 13:09:00 - [341] Edited by: Descrambled on 22/06/2009 13:11:16 Originally by: Neutrino Sunset Originally by: Ephemeron The fact that we see so many macro farming Ravens in 0.0 is proof that it is too easy. This statement is logically equivalent to the statement: 'The fact that there are so many players cheating and using bots, is proof of the fact that the game is too easy for those players not cheating and using bots.' Could you explain how this is so, because on face value such an assertion would appear to be baseless. Originally by: Ephemeron A sign of successful implementation would be a significant decrease in the macro farmer Ravens in 0.0, CCP can easily verify that. Would 0.0 being not only devoid of macroers but also devoid of anyone else trying to earn a living ratting or mining in 0.0 also be a sign of a successful implementation? Would nobody flying anything in small gangs in 0.0 other than cloaking ships also be a sign of a successful implementation? If having no local and no way to detect cloaked ships would merely 'raise the bar on personal skill level required to operate successfully'. Could you enumerate the skill based techniques which would still allow solo or small gangs of ratters and miners to operate successfully? I like that you make Intelligent arguments. However, people are saying the devs would not take away God mode (aka Local) without a new scanner system. New tactics for pvp will emerge. Such as, it will become even more viable to employ Blackops to get the drop on enemy gangs and so forth. You will also be able to surprise enemy gangs a bit easier and run them off. Another viable strategy will be to put 1 or 2 tacklers on the gate and hide rest of gang. Once other gang jumps in you can nail them. Right now, you cannot hide allied forces too well because Local grants god mode. So what gangs do is send out scout and they simply use Local to acquire Intel. You would think cloaks would hide players from Local but that doesn't work either Earlier you said that you could not see how this would improve gang vs gang pvp. I think you're wrong. It will FIX it to be even better. Will open up new Tactics I'm not can say anything about ratters under this new system. Yes, they might get farmed way too easy due to lack of God mode (aka Local). They could use a bit more danger however since many ratters probably never have died. To be honest and frank, the ratter in me is sort of terrified at the thought of no more supernatural awareness. The pvper in me is excited however, because now we would see much more interesting fights between gangs
Descrambled Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2009.06.22 13:24:00 - [342] Edited by: Descrambled on 22/06/2009 13:32:43 Originally by: Neutrino Sunset Originally by: Ephemeron Neutrino Sunset, it isn't proper to claim that WH design would be simply extended to all of 0.0 without any scanner improvement. I didn't. You said CCP would never implement a local change that would force people to scan manually, if not for game design reasons then for server performance reasons. I haven't said that they would necessarily use the wspace model in 0.0, but if they do choose to implement a different model it will presumably be for reasons other than server load issues or horrid gameplay mechanics since they have already implemented that solution in wspace and are apparently satisfied with it from both a server load and gameplay perspective. How is implementing an auto scan feature on its own any kind of solution to arriving at a workable no local implementation for 0.0 when it doesn't detect cloaked ships at all, which are already the pirate's gankmobile of choice? Unless of course retaining the ability for anyone to earn a living in 0.0 is not a desirable objective. Don't cloakies suffer a targeting delay after decloak? Why can't you already be aligned to safespot this way when he appears you can initiate warp. The targeting delay after deactivating cloak merely needs to be long enough to allow the fully aligned Battleship / BC / Miner to escape I always rat fully aligned. Of course being a Domi pilot even if a hostile gets into my belt I can hit them with ECM drones which has saved my bacon Now if they take away ECM I could imagine ratting becoming much much more scarrier Cloakies will become a much bigger threat though and like you pointed out, the rats are no help when jumped either. Which makes sense, but it's no help.... Yeah several force recons can ruin a ratters day though 0.0 might become unbareable for PVE for many I'd assume
Razin The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2009.06.22 14:05:00 - [343] Originally by: Spurty Originally by: Ephemeron CCP already hinted that a nerf to local would have to be accompanied with boost to scanners. And as I said, the simplest and most effective boost, at least one of the many additional boosts, is the auto-scan feature. Ephemeron, you are correct on the concept, but implementation will bring the SQL servers to their knees :( Considering volumes of evidence and counterarguments you've provided on the subject, you are clearly wrong about this.
Descrambled Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2009.06.22 14:28:00 - [344] Wait a second I confused myself- it wont matter if its several recons because you should be fully aligned while ratting anyway. I'm just unsure how long it is before an Arazu, etc can target you after they decloak. Isn't it at least 10 seconds? Isn't this plenty of time for a fully aligned BS to escape. Correct me if I am wrong here. It will be 1 week before I can get into an Arazu
Neutrino Sunset Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Tread Alliance	Posted - 2009.06.22 15:55:00 - [345] The sensor recalibration time for a cov ops cloak is 10 seconds. Cloaking lvl V reduces it to 5 seconds. Fighting while aligned at full speed is not an option for short ranged turret boats, or for miners. Normally if the target is aligned a recon will bump it as he decloaks, tackling it and calling in the troops is then pretty straightforward.
Neutrino Sunset Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Tread Alliance	Posted - 2009.06.22 16:04:00 - [346] I have some bad news for you Descrambled, it looks like ECM drones are about to get hit with the nerf hammer. http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1056041 I think some people took exception to the fact that other people were able to use them to escape being ganked.
wtbrandomnamegenerator	Posted - 2009.06.22 17:04:00 - [347] Originally by: Neutrino Sunset I have some bad news for you Descrambled, it looks like ECM drones are about to get hit with the nerf hammer. http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1056041 I think some people took exception to the fact that other people were able to use them to escape being ganked. To stop anybody else believing your bias, i'll post what the dev ACTUALLY SAID for the reason that the drones are getting fixed. It actually has NOTHING to do with gankers, but I guess we shape the facts to fit our arguments (or form outright lies to twist the facts in your case): Quote: The heavy Wasp EC-900's have 2 points of strength to all sensor types and a 20 second duration, equivalent to un-bonused Tech 1 multispectral jammers. Unlike the capacitor thirsty multispectral jammers they do not require any energy. Further more due to their small signature radius, once their victims gain the ability to target again, it takes quite a long time to acquire a lock in order to neutralize them. Most of the time you're facing multiple ECM Drones, which can be quite tricky to target and destroy, it becomes quite annoying. Electronic warfare doesn't really work properly against them, nor does small amounts of damage as the pilot is always able to scoop the drones and redeploy them. In some ways the drones are superior to targeted ECM jammers, as the drones operate even though you yourself are being target jammed. Smartbombs are able to counter them quite well, however this tactic only works while piloting larger ships that can field large smartbombs.
Razin The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2009.06.22 17:28:00 - [348] Originally by: Neutrino Sunset Fighting while aligned at full speed is not an option for short ranged turret boats, or for miners. Normally if the target is aligned a recon will bump it as he decloaks, tackling it and calling in the troops is then pretty straightforward. You don't need to be aligned at full speed to warp instantly. Ships warp at the point when their speed reaches 75% of their maximum speed. This means you can time your ship to see how fast you need to be going to warp 5 seconds after initiating warpdrive. For mining ships that have a very low top speed to begin with this will be slow enough that they will be able to keep mining while staying aligned and at speed almost continuously. A farming raven will have absolutely no problem staying aligned and at 75% speed while fighting NPCs. If you are farming in a short range turret boat then you are taking your fate into your own hands. These are fairly newbie concepts. If you don't understand them perhaps you have no business posting in a thread with a relatively complex subject matter.
Neutrino Sunset Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Tread Alliance	Posted - 2009.06.22 18:12:00 - [349] Originally by: wtbrandomnamegenerator To stop anybody else believing your bias, i'll post what the dev ACTUALLY SAID for the reason that the drones are getting fixed. Actually there was another thread where people were asked to vote for what they wanted fixing/nerfing next. http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1051722 ECM drones scored highly with many people, with some folks complaining about people using them to escape. Everything the dev said was subsequent to that. This was just an off the cuff remark primarily indended for Descrambled since he brought up ECM drones, no real need for you to go flying into attack mode again. Originally by: Razin You don't need to be aligned at full speed blah blah blah ... These are fairly newbie concepts. If you don't understand them perhaps you have no business posting in a thread with a relatively complex subject matter. Did you miss my point that the recon will simply bump the target out of alignment prior to tackling it or was that point invalid in some way? How does this hypothetically aligned miner get the ore into his jetcan wiseguy? You should probably lay off making disparaging remarks about other peoples understanding until you are at least able to follow the discussion and respond with something pertinant to the points being discussed.
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2009.06.22 18:33:00 - [350] As as counter balance to nerfed local in 0.0, I'd be supportive of increased bounty of all belt rats - a slightly greater reward for slightly greater risk. Overall, local nerf with scanner improvement does not represent major increase of risk for people who learn to use the game tools effectively. It is a major increase of risk only for those who do not learn new tactics. As someone who makes most of his money ratting in 0.0, I don't anticipate any problems continuing ratting.

Descrambled Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2009.06.22 18:44:00 - [351] Originally by: Neutrino Sunset I have some bad news for you Descrambled, it looks like ECM drones are about to get hit with the nerf hammer. http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1056041 I think some people took exception to the fact that other people were able to use them to escape being ganked. Oh snap then it will be time for me to pay closer attention Thanks bout the cloak delay post as well.
Omarvelous Destry's Lounge Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2009.06.22 19:36:00 - [352] Originally by: baltec1 Or we can have local set like WH space and people can manualy scan as they currently do. He's right. If you're ratting/plexing in 0.0 you should have to scan manually to protect yourself. It's done in wormholes - no reason it can't be done in 0.0. For that matter I'd like to see it in all of the game - traps, and scouting would become a lot more fun.
Razin The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2009.06.22 19:41:00 - [353] Originally by: Neutrino Sunset Did you miss my point that the recon will simply bump the target out of alignment prior to tackling it or was that point invalid in some way? The 'point' about being bumped is banal, goes without saying, and applies to just about everyone playing EVE (aside from those who stay docked and 0.0 farmers) under current Local. With delayed 0.0 Local the farmers will have to accept some risk of this also happening to them. What was the point of mentioning this? Originally by: Neutrino Sunset How does this hypothetically aligned miner get the ore into his jetcan wiseguy? The miner will have to optimize efficiency vs. safety. The rest is game mechanics. Originally by: Neutrino Sunset You should probably lay off making disparaging remarks... You've already been told that you should probably stop twisting facts and manufacturing evidence to prop up your arguments. I was simply trying to be less 'disparaging'.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.06.22 20:00:00 - [354] Originally by: wtbrandomnamegenerator Originally by: Neutrino Sunset I have some bad news for you Descrambled, it looks like ECM drones are about to get hit with the nerf hammer. http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1056041 I think some people took exception to the fact that other people were able to use them to escape being ganked. To stop anybody else believing your bias, i'll post what the dev ACTUALLY SAID for the reason that the drones are getting fixed. It actually has NOTHING to do with gankers, but I guess we shape the facts to fit our arguments (or form outright lies to twist the facts in your case): Quote: The heavy Wasp EC-900's have 2 points of strength to all sensor types and a 20 second duration, equivalent to un-bonused Tech 1 multispectral jammers. Unlike the capacitor thirsty multispectral jammers they do not require any energy. Further more due to their small signature radius, once their victims gain the ability to target again, it takes quite a long time to acquire a lock in order to neutralize them. Most of the time you're facing multiple ECM Drones, which can be quite tricky to target and destroy, it becomes quite annoying. Electronic warfare doesn't really work properly against them, nor does small amounts of damage as the pilot is always able to scoop the drones and redeploy them. In some ways the drones are superior to targeted ECM jammers, as the drones operate even though you yourself are being target jammed. Smartbombs are able to counter them quite well, however this tactic only works while piloting larger ships that can field large smartbombs. forgetting a crucial part: Originally by: CCP Nozh Ok, Do I understand the problem correctly? How would you like to see this fixed? These are the questions you should be answering. Discuss! Nice calling other people biased when you are much more biased. Neutrino has linked the thread so anyone could look what Nozh was saying, while you have purposefully cut away what wasn't supporting your position.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.06.22 20:05:00 - [355] Originally by: Razin You don't need to be aligned at full speed to warp instantly. Ships warp at the point when their speed reaches 75% of their maximum speed. This means you can time your ship to see how fast you need to be going to warp 5 seconds after initiating warpdrive. For mining ships that have a very low top speed to begin with this will be slow enough that they will be able to keep mining while staying aligned and at speed almost continuously. Mining ships have a slow acceleration, and what matter is how fast you accelerate to the needed speed, not how high is the needed speed. So barges/exhumers being slow don't help at all. The difference between acceleration and speed is a even more newbie concept.
Razin The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2009.06.22 20:23:00 - [356] Originally by: Venkul Mul Originally by: Razin You don't need to be aligned at full speed to warp instantly. Ships warp at the point when their speed reaches 75% of their maximum speed. This means you can time your ship to see how fast you need to be going to warp 5 seconds after initiating warpdrive. For mining ships that have a very low top speed to begin with this will be slow enough that they will be able to keep mining while staying aligned and at speed almost continuously. Mining ships have a slow acceleration, and what matter is how fast you accelerate to the needed speed, not how high is the needed speed. So barges/exhumers being slow don't help at all. The difference between acceleration and speed is a even more newbie concept. You're confused. The miner's low intrinsic speed helps to stay within optimum of his rock while being aligned for the longest possible time before having to adjust alignment. ...
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.06.22 21:31:00 - [357] Originally by: Razin Originally by: Venkul Mul Originally by: Razin You don't need to be aligned at full speed to warp instantly. Ships warp at the point when their speed reaches 75% of their maximum speed. This means you can time your ship to see how fast you need to be going to warp 5 seconds after initiating warpdrive. For mining ships that have a very low top speed to begin with this will be slow enough that they will be able to keep mining while staying aligned and at speed almost continuously. Mining ships have a slow acceleration, and what matter is how fast you accelerate to the needed speed, not how high is the needed speed. So barges/exhumers being slow don't help at all. The difference between acceleration and speed is a even more newbie concept. You're confused. The miner's low intrinsic speed helps to stay within optimum of his rock while being aligned for the longest possible time before having to adjust alignment. And you haven't piloted a mining ships in years. Test your idea before speaking of it like it was the "final solution" for mining in 0.0. Originally by: Razin I haven't mined since 2004 so I'm not entirely sure, but I'm thinking the miner's current work load shouldn't be too high to allow for some additional speed and direction management once in a while.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.06.22 21:34:00 - [358] Originally by: Venkul Mul Originally by: Razin Originally by: Venkul Mul Originally by: Razin You don't need to be aligned at full speed to warp instantly. Ships warp at the point when their speed reaches 75% of their maximum speed. This means you can time your ship to see how fast you need to be going to warp 5 seconds after initiating warpdrive. For mining ships that have a very low top speed to begin with this will be slow enough that they will be able to keep mining while staying aligned and at speed almost continuously. Mining ships have a slow acceleration, and what matter is how fast you accelerate to the needed speed, not how high is the needed speed. So barges/exhumers being slow don't help at all. The difference between acceleration and speed is a even more newbie concept. You're confused. The miner's low intrinsic speed helps to stay within optimum of his rock while being aligned for the longest possible time before having to adjust alignment. And you haven't piloted a mining ships in years. Test your idea before speaking of it like it was the "final solution" for mining in 0.0. Originally by: Razin I haven't mined since 2004 so I'm not entirely sure, but I'm thinking the miner's current work load shouldn't be too high to allow for some additional speed and direction management once in a while. Just to expand on that: 180 seconds at 75m/s are 13.500 meters. The range of a stripminer is 15.000 meters. You don't want to bee to near any asteroid or you will risk to get struck. Combine that in a belt full or asteroids and look what is the result.
Razin The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2009.06.23 00:36:00 - [359] Originally by: Venkul Mul Just to expand on that: 180 seconds at 75m/s are 13.500 meters. The range of a stripminer is 15.000 meters. You don't want to bee to near any asteroid or you will risk to get struck. Combine that in a belt full or asteroids and look what is the result. A radial course is not the most efficient for this purpose. If you try a tangential course you will find that your travel distance is almost doubled. That's almost 6 minutes before adjustment is needed. Just some basic geometry. ...
Neutrino Sunset Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Tread Alliance	Posted - 2009.06.23 02:33:00 - [360] Originally by: Razin Originally by: Neutrino Sunset Did you miss my point that the recon will simply bump the target out of alignment prior to tackling it or was that point invalid in some way? The 'point' about being bumped is banal, goes without saying, and applies to just about everyone playing EVE (aside from those who stay docked and 0.0 farmers) under current Local. With delayed 0.0 Local the farmers will have to accept some risk of this also happening to them. What was the point of mentioning this? I'd have thought the point was blatently obvious. Under the current syste you cannot get bumped out of alignment without at least knowing that there is a potential hostile in local. Under a system of no/delayed local and no cloaking/scanner changes you could be bumped out of alignment without having the slightest chance to detect your attacker, so it would apply in a different and more undefendable way with no local than it does currently. Are you following how this is relevant to a discussion about the different amounts of risk incurring ratting/mining with different local chat mechanics now? Originally by: Omarvelous Originally by: baltec1 Or we can have local set like WH space and people can manualy scan as they currently do. He's right. If you're ratting/plexing in 0.0 you should have to scan manually to protect yourself. It's done in wormholes - no reason it can't be done in 0.0. For that matter I'd like to see it in all of the game - traps, and scouting would become a lot more fun. What about these two reasons? 1. Unlike wpsace scanning would provide no protection in 0.0 because hostiles do not need to use probes to scan for the belts, therefore you cannot scan for the probes and the scanner does not detect cloaked ships. 2. The game mechanic of having to manually spam the same button every 10 seconds for the entire time you are logged on is so little fun it makes it not worth playing the game.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 .. 14 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.