Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
129
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 06:29:00 -
[1] - Quote
Get rid of local, all secs. It fixes almost everything. You would have to work to locate a target. You would have to work to avoid a target. There would be risk in high sec. There would be risk in all secs.
Freighters could be caught during a war dec. Freighters could get through during a war dec.
You would still have Concord retaliation in high sec. You could still be camped though if you break the camp it would be harder to hunt you down. Certainly no worse that what we have now but with compelling gameplay.
It would solve cloaky camps people complain about. It would give a point to cloaks people complain about.
It would make neutral alts almost irrelevant. Though not 100%. It would certainly make playing with one account a lot less of a disadvantage. Sure you might lose a few alt account subs, but you would gain many more subs by having more compelling gameplay. What good is a scout profession when they're revealed as soon as they enter system?
The changes the expansion are bringing aren't going to revitalize low sec or null sec and its certainly not going to promote or fuel war. Quite the opposite.
The devs and the playerbase talk a lot about EVE being hardcore, but as of yet i'm not really seeing the hardcore aspect to the game.
The game is a boring campfest. Removing local removes that to a large degree.
To my ultra Orthodox carebear players, uncle Caliphy isn't throwing you under the bus. The threats you worry about occuring with this change would actually be resolvable by a merc corporation. If you are decced and you hire a merc the merc cannot sneak up on the enemy with everything displayed for them. They may be able to make your tormentors life a little more difficult but in most cases can't force a fight under those conditions. With no local they could. If you are camped by a griefdec and you hire a reasonably sized merc to help you the griefer will never see them coming. It's win/win.
Even null entry points would be camped far less. Lets see the thirty man bubble camp consistently do it when a 150 man roaming gang warps in on them and they never see it coming.
Local is holding EVE back. Period. Get rid of it and let EVE become great. |
Alara IonStorm
2204
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 06:33:00 -
[2] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote: It would solve cloaky camps people complain about. It would give a point to cloaks people complain about.
Uncloak aliegned, tap bomb, warp to safety. No time to get reinforcements on grid to help or even lock targets.
Hurray for 100% Safe uncounterable attacks. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
129
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 06:36:00 -
[3] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote: It would solve cloaky camps people complain about. It would give a point to cloaks people complain about.
Uncloak aliegned, tap bomb, warp to safety. No time to get reinforcements on grid to help or even lock targets. Hurray for 100% Safe uncounterable attacks.
Then nerf bombs. Change them. Make them super powerful torpedoes that can only hit capitals. It would be a small sacrifice, and im a dedicated cloaky kind of player, for the greater good of the game.
But also remember that even if that were the case no local means that for that to occur a scouting operation would have had to occured as well. |
Mallak Azaria
xX-Crusader-Xx Luna Sanguinem
81
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 06:39:00 -
[4] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote: It would solve cloaky camps people complain about. It would give a point to cloaks people complain about.
Uncloak aliegned, tap bomb, warp to safety. No time to get reinforcements on grid to help or even lock targets. Hurray for 100% Safe uncounterable attacks.
This is pretty much how it works now, even with local.
|
Ditra Vorthran
State War Academy Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 06:40:00 -
[5] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:You would have to work to locate a target.
That might work if you removed all default warp points for asteroid belts from the system menu. At the same time, make asteroid belts scanable via core probes. Otherwise, if you just remove local, it gives everyone the equivalent of a cloaking device until they're practically on top of you. |
Alara IonStorm
2204
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 06:42:00 -
[6] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote: But also remember that even if that were the case no local means that for that to occur a scouting operation would have had to of occured first. Maybe it would be a well earned uncounterable attack.
No you don't need a scouting operation. No Local take 5 Ships into a Sanctum and and wait or just check them all.
Caliph Muhammed wrote: Then nerf bombs. Change them. Make them super powerful torpedoes that can only hit capitals. It would be a small sacrifice, and im a dedicated cloaky kind of player, for the greater good of the game.
Nerf one of the best Anti Blob weapons in the game for this? How about instead go to wormhole space.
You wanna remove Local you gotta make cloak ships detectable and huntable to some degree.
|
Vyl Vit
Cambio Enterprises
474
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 07:03:00 -
[7] - Quote
You could even make folks appear in local only when they use it - like the NPC corp channel. One wrong move and the jig is up. Anyone with any sense has already left town. |
Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
1469
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 07:15:00 -
[8] - Quote
This OP is filled with "no" and seasoned with "unsubstantiated fail".
Grow some balls.
Biomass yourself. |
Ziranda Hakuli
Relativity Holding Corp AAA Citizens
50
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 08:00:00 -
[9] - Quote
this thread again worded what looks like the same old one that got squashed cause some idiot has no idea how to read the lore and why it is there and it is not in WHs?
Please biomass the toon now and save yourself the headaches down the road |
Botleten
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
288
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 08:01:00 -
[10] - Quote
If this were implemented, it would increase the danger of living in nullsec. You would need to balance this in some way, through increasing the defensive ability of nullsec dwellers. I would agree to removing local if it was instead replaced with an automated intel network based on sovereignty that automatically reported all violations of alliance space by a non-friendly entity, making instantly available to everyone in the alliance and blue to the alliance the intruder's ship type, location, kill history, and profile link. |
|
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
773
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 08:02:00 -
[11] - Quote
I have balls. They are on your chin.
|
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
130
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 13:12:00 -
[12] - Quote
Ziranda Hakuli wrote:this thread again worded what looks like the same old one that got squashed cause some idiot has no idea how to read the lore and why it is there and it is not in WHs?
Please biomass the toon now and save yourself the headaches down the road
Lore lol. The games a snoozefest. |
Benny Ohu
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
122
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 13:28:00 -
[13] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:kitty poo
Never touch kitty poo, by the way, there's a type of parasite egg that can move from the poo to your brain. I saw it on TV.
Ziranda Hakuli wrote:this thread again worded what looks like the same old one that got squashed cause some idiot has no idea how to read the lore and why it is there and it is not in WHs?
Please biomass the toon now and save yourself the headaches down the road
There's actually a game attached to the lore, you should check it out |
Ban Bindy
Bindy Brothers Pottery Association
141
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 13:29:00 -
[14] - Quote
This is the 500th post like this I've read. |
Medarr
ZeroSec
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 13:33:00 -
[15] - Quote
Ban Bindy wrote:This is the 500th post like this I've read.
but but... I like my localintelIseeyoubeforeyourgridloadsandicanwarpoftosomepos local..... savy?
Also QFT |
Benny Ohu
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
122
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 13:38:00 -
[16] - Quote
"Savvy", capiche? |
Ohanka
The Lone Patrol Tactical Narcotics Team
41
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 13:59:00 -
[17] - Quote
You are one of the stupidest to have ever lived. |
Derrick Munroe
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
64
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 14:06:00 -
[18] - Quote
If you don't like local, go to wormhole space. Nobody's going to change the game on account of one mechanic you don't like. |
Gorki Andropov
Kerensky Initiatives
509
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 14:28:00 -
[19] - Quote
You're going to love my balls. |
Karn Dulake
Souls Must Be Trampled The.Alliance
760
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 14:33:00 -
[20] - Quote
I understand completely
And as my current wartarget you sat on a gate two jumps from me while you obvious alt lolled around trying to find me.
The Vindy was not bad but you should rethink the fitting on the tengu.
And as you are currently docked up in a station as im missioning i started to wonder if you will ever come out to play.
And you wardec me my Sociopathic friend I dont normally troll, but when i do i do it on General Discussion. |
|
St Mio
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
795
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 14:37:00 -
[21] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:kitty poo Never touch kitty poo, by the way, there's a type of parasite egg that can move from the poo to your brain. I saw it on TV. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasmosis |
Lucy Ferrr
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 14:38:00 -
[22] - Quote
Ziranda Hakuli wrote:this thread again worded what looks like the same old one that got squashed cause some idiot has no idea how to read the lore and why it is there and it is not in WHs?
Please biomass the toon now and save yourself the headaches down the road
You realize the game is made to be fun and then the lore is written around that, not the other way around. The lore doesn't actually make sense the way it is, if gates record everyone who comes through and puts them in local why do people that jump into system via other methods than gate show up in local (jump drive, medclone jump, etc)? Doesn't go with the lore. Maybe you should actually learn the lore yourself before you come to the forums being a douche.
I am so in support of this idea. Local chat is making PvP more stagnant than any other mechanic in Eve. In a sandbox that is advertised as hardcore and unforgiving I don't see why we need an auto infallible intel tool. In a game of skill like eve, scouting should take more skill than the ability to count heads in local. If you have a roam, and you don't use proper scouts a larger fleet should be able to gank and kill you. Now days you don't need proper scouts because you can see a local spike clear as day. Local chat makes pvp'ers lazy and unskillful. We shouldn't have to live in a WH to not have our hands held in Eve. If I wanted someone to hold my hand I would play WoW, yet I am hear so CCP please stop holding our hands. |
NickyYo
StarHug
112
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 14:44:00 -
[23] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Get rid of local, all secs. It fixes almost everything. You would have to work to locate a target. You would have to work to avoid a target. There would be risk in high sec. There would be risk in all secs.
Freighters could be caught during a war dec. Freighters could get through during a war dec.
You would still have Concord retaliation in high sec. You could still be camped, though if you break the camp it would be harder to hunt you down. Certainly no worse that what we have now but with compelling gameplay.
It would solve cloaky camps people complain about. It would give a point to cloaks of which people complain about.
It would make neutral alts almost irrelevant. Though not 100%. It would certainly make playing with one account a lot less of a disadvantage. Sure you might lose a few alt account subs, but you would gain many more subs by having more compelling gameplay. What good is a scout profession when they're revealed as soon as they enter system?
The changes the expansion are bringing aren't going to revitalize low sec or null sec and its certainly not going to promote or fuel war. Quite the opposite.
The devs and the playerbase talk a lot about EVE being hardcore, but as of yet i'm not really seeing the hardcore aspect to the game.
The game is a boring campfest. Removing local removes that to a large degree.
To my ultra Orthodox carebear players, uncle Caliphy isn't throwing you under the bus. The threats you worry about occuring with this change would actually be resolvable by a merc corporation. If you are decced and you hire a merc the merc cannot sneak up on the enemy with everything displayed for them. They may be able to make your tormentors life a little more difficult but in most cases can't force a fight under those conditions. With no local they could. If you are camped by a griefdec and you hire a reasonably sized merc to help you the griefer will never see them coming. It's win/win.
Even null entry points would be camped far less. Lets see the thirty man bubble camp consistently do it when a 150 man roaming gang warps in on them and they never see it coming.
Local is holding EVE back. Period. Get rid of it and let EVE become great.
Local in null sec should be removed and that is all.
(SERVICE) Need a project coding? (PHP & Javascript) https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=101893&find=unread |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
131
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 18:02:00 -
[24] - Quote
Karn Dulake wrote:I understand completely
And as my current wartarget you sat on a gate two jumps from me while you obvious alt lolled around trying to find me.
The Vindy was not bad but you should rethink the fitting on the tengu.
And as you are currently docked up in a station as im missioning i started to wonder if you will ever come out to play.
And you wardec me my Sociopathic friend
Yeah right. You logged out all yesterday. Talk is cheap sir. Your killboard shows exactly what you're made of. But don't you worry my killers aren't going to let up. I'll be logged in 23/7 for the duration of us hunting you. Welcome to EVE offline. You tell the story yourself, we were coming after you. |
adam smash
University of Caille Gallente Federation
67
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 18:13:00 -
[25] - Quote
Title... "fuel war" etc... called marketing... they did a war dec fail change... now its fuel for war or whatever... called MARKETING...
Also lol @ no local... what do you idiots not understand about most of eve players are IN hs... TBH the only FIX is to remove low and null rofl... |
Micheal Dietrich
Standards and Practices
463
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 18:22:00 -
[26] - Quote
Ban Bindy wrote:This is the 500th post like this I've read.
Does he win a prize? |
Morganta
Peripheral Madness The Midget Mafia
1199
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 18:22:00 -
[27] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote: It would solve cloaky camps people complain about. It would give a point to cloaks people complain about.
Uncloak aliegned, tap bomb, warp to safety. No time to get reinforcements on grid to help or even lock targets. Hurray for 100% Safe uncounterable attacks.
forget for a moment that bombs glide at a fairly slow speed for 30k before exploding.... more than enough time for an aligned ship to hit the warp button
The American public's reaction to the change was poor and the new cola was a major marketing failure. The subsequent reintroduction of Coke's original formula, re-branded as "Coca-Cola Classic", resulted in a significant gain in sales, leading to speculation that the introduction of the New Coke formula was just a marketing ploy |
Niko Takahashi
United Starbase Systems
52
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 18:23:00 -
[28] - Quote
Fully support the op. Local is for chicken *****. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
812
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 18:25:00 -
[29] - Quote
Luv2chat in local Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
131
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 18:38:00 -
[30] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Luv2chat in local
Good point, so take the OP instead as "showing up in local completely voluntary for all secs". |
|
Helena Russell Makanen
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
44
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 20:08:00 -
[31] - Quote
Gogela wrote:I have balls. They are on your chin.
Thought they were raisins and ate 'em.... natural mistake.
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
396
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 20:12:00 -
[32] - Quote
of course the fact that you're not getting ratter KMs is most certainly not because you're awful at PvP, you're the best pvper in the universe and nothing holds you back except that big bad local window eh |
Scien Inkunen
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
43
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 22:27:00 -
[33] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Get rid of local, all secs. It fixes almost everything. You would have to work to locate a target. You would have to work to avoid a target. There would be risk in high sec. There would be risk in all secs.
........
The game is a boring campfest. Removing local removes that to a large degree.
.......... Get rid of it and let EVE become great.
Quit.
And careful with the balls - ship seats are not to comortable. Read the "Fart file" and you will understand the meaning of life ! |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
1504
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 23:31:00 -
[34] - Quote
Technically you don't really "grow" balls as if to create balls that were not previously there though I have known women who have "honorary balls" awarded for heroic deeds in RL.
I can see where the OP is going, but don't think things will get there. |
Duvida
The Scope Gallente Federation
80
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 01:48:00 -
[35] - Quote
So, what's up with W-space? I thought that's where the 'no-local' pvp was? |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
427
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 02:12:00 -
[36] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Ziranda Hakuli wrote:this thread again worded what looks like the same old one that got squashed cause some idiot has no idea how to read the lore and why it is there and it is not in WHs?
Please biomass the toon now and save yourself the headaches down the road Lore lol. The game is a snoozefest. HTFU. What headache? Boredom doesn't bring headaches. It brings nausea. Also, alt-sh.it poasting reciting nerd memes is for terribaddies. Proof in this thread. The main ones retorting snarky have killboards that smell of kitty poo. I won't mention names but you know who you are. Peace to those with constructive criticism. Nerfing local will *not* work until they change static routes through null sec, which they have in WH space. With static routes it just becomes a matter of parking an alt on a gate (w or w/o bubbles...)
Little more work for no appreciable gain.
CCP have already said that some kind of change to local is in the works. Where it's at in the production que, I have no idea.
Not everyone with a great kill-board is a "good-poster", and not all those with a poor kill-board are "bad-posters" - it's the mind behind the keyboard that is important, and killboards don't measure that.
Just fyi...
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
401
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 02:49:00 -
[37] - Quote
Asuri Kinnes wrote:CCP have already said that some kind of change to local is in the works. Where it's at in the production que, I have no idea.
CCP has a reputation for hamfisting almost every change initially and leaving the fix on the backburner for several expansion cycles, so you can see why some of us have serious reservations about changing local eh |
Peter Raptor
Plutonian Army
159
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 02:59:00 -
[38] - Quote
Keep local for eva, save people's fingers from breaking cos they tapped dscan a quintillion times every time they play for 5 minutes. What a ludicrous game eve would become with out local.
And PLEASE dont suggest some great new dscanner to replace local, cos then you'll just get local back under a new name, defeats the purpose utterly Evelopedia;-á
The Amarr Empire, is known for its omnipresent religion -áGÇá-á-á |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
402
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 03:02:00 -
[39] - Quote
wormholers seem to believe that spamming the dscan button is the height of gameplay in eve online vOv eh |
Degren
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
317
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 03:04:00 -
[40] - Quote
Every time someone says to grow some balls I think of one of three things:
"Lol, video games require ~balls~"
Or I picture myself with four or more *********.
Or I picture a vagina with some *********.
None of these are pleasant thoughts. Please stop. :) |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
403
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 03:07:00 -
[41] - Quote
but the best part is when hisec miners, who feel entitled to unearned safety, bleat about nullsec being ~too safe~ despite that "safety" being the product of secured space occupied by players who dare communicate the relatively vague positions of hostiles within their space
people working together in a multiplayer game is indeed disgusting eh |
Sugar Kyle
The humbleless Crew Capital Punishment.
9
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 03:24:00 -
[42] - Quote
Local, in high sec has a single, useful feature that has nothing to do with risk and reward. It lets people see that other people are also playing the game and helps to decrease how 'alone' people feel. Even if people never interact, they know that there are 30 other people in that mission system as well.
Also, considering how much high sec local is ignored in general...
|
Antisocial Malkavian
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
100
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 03:30:00 -
[43] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:but the best part is when hisec miners, who feel entitled to unearned safety, bleat about nullsec being ~too safe~
This one bleats that if highsec were safe Id be out. I LIKE the danger in the game I also never tank my hulk
I also wouldnt qq to CCP if I ever lost one (which I havent)
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2317/JKES0811.17.1 Bees That Drink Human Tears -- ITS SCIENCE!!! |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
404
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 04:25:00 -
[44] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:but the best part is when hisec miners, who feel entitled to unearned safety, bleat about nullsec being ~too safe~ This one bleats that if highsec were safe Id be out. I LIKE the danger in the game I also never tank my hulk I also wouldnt qq to CCP if I ever lost one (which I havent)
for every hisec miner that accepts the occasional loss, there are 100 more who think that they should be immune to all nonconsensual PvP eh |
Endeavour Starfleet
819
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 04:31:00 -
[45] - Quote
Oh look another fool who lost his chance at a big gank from his AFK cloaking and now wants local gone.
Local is needed in normal sec space. Go to wormholes if the big bad local is too much for you. Except you just want more free ganks. |
Ziranda Hakuli
Relativity Holding Corp AAA Citizens
53
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 08:09:00 -
[46] - Quote
Maybe you have not heard there OP that there is a reason for the local. partly due to what many have said so i keep this simple for you seeing you need it 1> Each system is connected to a stargate unless you are in a WormHole 2> Stargates connect you to the local communication system...ie local 3> Worhmholes have no stargate.
get the picture. removal of local will not happen
|
Benny Ohu
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
122
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 08:13:00 -
[47] - Quote
Ziranda Hakuli wrote:Maybe you have not heard there OP that there is a reason for the local. partly due to what many have said so i keep this simple for you seeing you need it 1> Each system is connected to a stargate unless you are in a WormHole 2> Stargates connect you to the local communication system...ie local 3> Worhmholes have no stargate.
get the picture. removal of local will not happen
There's a game connected to the lore, though
I know, right? |
Slow P Oke
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 08:13:00 -
[48] - Quote
HEY GUYS DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THE MITTANI AT FANFEST? |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
961
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 08:23:00 -
[49] - Quote
I'm going to give Slow P Oke a rare badge of NPC corp poster approval |
R0me0 Charl1e
Aliastra Gallente Federation
14
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 08:26:00 -
[50] - Quote
Slow P Oke wrote:HEY GUYS DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THE MITTANI AT FANFEST? Yes, yes I did, The Mittani is a ******* wizard! I didn't believe it myself at first but the proof is there. |
|
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
135
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 10:07:00 -
[51] - Quote
Ziranda Hakuli wrote:Maybe you have not heard there OP that there is a reason for the local. partly due to what many have said so i keep this simple for you seeing you need it 1> Each system is connected to a stargate unless you are in a WormHole 2> Stargates connect you to the local communication system...ie local 3> Worhmholes have no stargate.
get the picture. removal of local will not happen
You seem unsure. Find it necessary to project reaffirmation? I think the devs are running out of ideas for compelling gameplay features. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3878
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 10:22:00 -
[52] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote: It would solve cloaky camps people complain about. It would give a point to cloaks people complain about.
Uncloak aliegned, tap bomb, warp to safety. No time to get reinforcements on grid to help or even lock targets. Hurray for 100% Safe uncounterable attacks.
You've actually never done this, have you?
(Hint: a single bomb isn't much threat to anything) Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Elena Melkan
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
17
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 10:48:00 -
[53] - Quote
I heard that if you eat lots of yogurt, your balls will grow. |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
68
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 11:16:00 -
[54] - Quote
bottom line is this, lots will refuse to work for anything, i say local should go also, it does fix lots and make for much better game play, we all know the feeling in WH space (well some of us), CCP got it perfect in WH space in my opinion, it feels like there is always someone watching you, even when they are not. so you adjust your gameplay to it and it does make it more exciting. scouts must be used.
OP has a point, all who disagree with him refuse the idea of having to work for a kill or intel. to me that's just lazy, and in EVE, lazy is how at least 70% of the population are.
so imagine local was gone tomorrow.
we'd have to use scouts,, oh noes !
we'd have to create groups to gather intel in covert ops ship,, the thoughts of it !
we'd have to be alert to dangers everywhere and work as a team within corps,, oh the horror of it all !
yup, people are lazy and want most everything handed to them on a plate.
OP i support you.
i believe local will be removed one day, the sooner the better. |
Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
507
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 11:31:00 -
[55] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Get rid of local, all secs. It fixes almost everything. You would have to work to locate a target. You would have to work to avoid a target. There would be risk in high sec. There would be risk in all secs.
Freighters could be caught during a war dec. Freighters could get through during a war dec.
You would still have Concord retaliation in high sec. You could still be camped, though if you break the camp it would be harder to hunt you down. Certainly no worse that what we have now but with compelling gameplay.
It would solve cloaky camps people complain about. It would give a point to cloaks of which people complain about.
It would make neutral alts almost irrelevant. Though not 100%. It would certainly make playing with one account a lot less of a disadvantage. Sure you might lose a few alt account subs, but you would gain many more subs by having more compelling gameplay. What good is a scout profession when they're revealed as soon as they enter system?
The changes the expansion are bringing aren't going to revitalize low sec or null sec and its certainly not going to promote or fuel war. Quite the opposite.
The devs and the playerbase talk a lot about EVE being hardcore, but as of yet i'm not really seeing the hardcore aspect to the game.
The game is a boring campfest. Removing local removes that to a large degree.
To my ultra Orthodox carebear players, uncle Caliphy isn't throwing you under the bus. The threats you worry about occuring with this change would actually be resolvable by a merc corporation. If you are decced and you hire a merc the merc cannot sneak up on the enemy with everything displayed for them. They may be able to make your tormentors life a little more difficult but in most cases can't force a fight under those conditions. With no local they could. If you are camped by a griefdec and you hire a reasonably sized merc to help you the griefer will never see them coming. It's win/win.
Even null entry points would be camped far less. Lets see the thirty man bubble camp consistently do it when a 150 man roaming gang warps in on them and they never see it coming.
Local is holding EVE back. Period. Get rid of it and let EVE become great.
I read this more than once and remain convinced that you tapped-in to my thoughts and drained them for your own use. In other words, you ganked my brain and looted it!!
Your post is full of win as far as I am concerned. Get rid of Local. Everywhere. Amen to that.
The universe is an ancient desert, a vast wasteland with only occasional habitable planets as oases. We Fremen, comfortable with deserts, shall now venture into another. - STILGAR, From the Sietch to the Stars. |
Alara IonStorm
2220
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 12:37:00 -
[56] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:
You've actually never done this, have you?
(Hint: a single bomb isn't much threat to anything)
No I have been bombed though and it isn't a single bomb I am worried about, it is five. It isn't even bombs it is Alpha you can just Falcon Jam a single and Alpha them with Torps and be gone before anyone can rescue you. Any baiting defense is impractical because you can't bait 99% of PvE Spots indefinitely with a cloaked counter fleet that will probably only catch one guy. Unless you are one grid it is pretty much a 100% victory for the cloakers who have free reign to attack.
Without Local you can indefinitely hide a fleet camping belts and anoms. Completely undetectable fleets will kill solo nullsec PvE completely. Null Sec population will empty.
Their are better ways to remove local that won't kill null sec and all start with cloak mechanics. |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
427
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 13:19:00 -
[57] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:wormholers seem to believe that spamming the dscan button is the height of gameplay in eve online vOv
Which is what you would get *right now* with removing local... D-scan is your friend in WH's, but good scouts are worth 100 button mashers.
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
Xeln Quuzg
The Unknown Bar and Pub
3
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 13:51:00 -
[58] - Quote
Sugar Kyle wrote:Local, in high sec has a single, useful feature that has nothing to do with risk and reward. It lets people see that other people are also playing the game and helps to decrease how 'alone' people feel. Even if people never interact, they know that there are 30 other people in that mission system as well.
Also, considering how much high sec local is ignored in general...
interacting with other players is the only reason i care about local. it may not be used much, but i have actually met people; made contacts; gotten/given tips, info, etc; and been thoroughly entertained by hilarious conversations in local.
this has nothing to do with risk/reward/intel/etc, but it just seems that eve is already an antisocial game and removing local will make it even more so. |
Jame Jarl Retief
Corps Diplomatique Terrestrienne
88
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 14:15:00 -
[59] - Quote
Sugar Kyle wrote:Local, in high sec has a single, useful feature that has nothing to do with risk and reward. It lets people see that other people are also playing the game and helps to decrease how 'alone' people feel. Even if people never interact, they know that there are 30 other people in that mission system as well.
Also, considering how much high sec local is ignored in general...
This. This is pretty much the only reason I feel iffy about removing local. Having said that, a new player will be looking at two other tabs, namely newb corp and the help channel (which will remain for the first 30 days, with thousands of people in it). So I feel the impact of the loss of local would be minimal.
I think I actually support removal of local everywhere, even high sec. I mean, if you think about it, local is a pretty ridiculous thing to have. Like picture WoW, where every zone has a local that shows all players, including enemies. That would just be nuts. Instead of having eyes on the back of your head and constantly keeping a lookout for someone sneaking up on you, you just keep an eye on local and see if any enemy shows up? Even "lolcarebear" WoW didn't do that, but "hardcore" EVE does? Silly, just silly.
And local need not be totally removed. It can just be changed to work like W-space. Until you speak up, you don't show up. So high-sec players can still talk if they want to. Even though I hardly see it happen even in busy systems. |
Bootleg Jack
Potters Field
82
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 14:48:00 -
[60] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote: It would solve cloaky camps people complain about. It would give a point to cloaks people complain about.
Uncloak aliegned, tap bomb, warp to safety. No time to get reinforcements on grid to help or even lock targets. Hurray for 100% Safe uncounterable attacks.
And one bomb kills everything.
And bombs dont take forever to reload/cycle.
And bombs don't weigh so much a frigate can only carry 1-2 in its hold.
Before you cry about a thing, try it, it is anot so easy as it sounds. I'm an American, English is my second language... |
|
Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
38
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 16:24:00 -
[61] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Alara IonStorm wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote: It would solve cloaky camps people complain about. It would give a point to cloaks people complain about.
Uncloak aliegned, tap bomb, warp to safety. No time to get reinforcements on grid to help or even lock targets. Hurray for 100% Safe uncounterable attacks. Then nerf bombs. Change them. Make them super powerful torpedoes that can only hit capitals...
We went from "it fixes almost everything" to "ok, maybe it doesn't" pretty quickly.
That's not a good sign. |
Karn Dulake
Souls Must Be Trampled The.Alliance
763
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 16:29:00 -
[62] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Karn Dulake wrote:I understand completely
And as my current wartarget you sat on a gate two jumps from me while you obvious alt lolled around trying to find me.
The Vindy was not bad but you should rethink the fitting on the tengu.
And as you are currently docked up in a station as im missioning i started to wonder if you will ever come out to play.
And you wardec me my Sociopathic friend Yeah right. You logged out all yesterday. Talk is cheap sir. Your killboard shows exactly what you're made of. But don't you worry my killers aren't going to let up. I'll be logged in 23/7 for the duration of us hunting you. Welcome to EVE offline. You tell the story yourself, we were coming after you. Aside from you, i've not seen one member log on from your 8 man alliance. You're by yourself man, you can't mission in peace no more. I know it sucks.
You are one complete baddass and its scary to think that im being stalked by a self diagnosed Sociopath.
So i picked a random highsec system when the deck started and you have sat in a station in that system for 23 hours a day ever since.
You really should run a trace on me and you would quickly know that i operate almost entirely in lowsec which is where i am now.
I would fight you but you just sit logged into a highsec system all day.
Come to lowsec and dont worry i let everyone know that you are a sociopath. Im sure that they will give you the respect you deserve.
At the moment its like you have declared war on canada and set up shop in a hotel in France and are now asking Canada to surrender.
Work harder sociopath. I am scared out of my mind but ive yet to see you in local I dont normally troll, but when i do i do it on General Discussion. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
144
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 16:34:00 -
[63] - Quote
Karn Dulake wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Karn Dulake wrote:I understand completely
And as my current wartarget you sat on a gate two jumps from me while you obvious alt lolled around trying to find me.
The Vindy was not bad but you should rethink the fitting on the tengu.
And as you are currently docked up in a station as im missioning i started to wonder if you will ever come out to play.
And you wardec me my Sociopathic friend Yeah right. You logged out all yesterday. Talk is cheap sir. Your killboard shows exactly what you're made of. But don't you worry my killers aren't going to let up. I'll be logged in 23/7 for the duration of us hunting you. Welcome to EVE offline. You tell the story yourself, we were coming after you. Aside from you, i've not seen one member log on from your 8 man alliance. You're by yourself man, you can't mission in peace no more. I know it sucks. You are one complete baddass and its scary to think that im being stalked by a self diagnosed Sociopath. So i picked a random highsec system when the deck started and you have sat in a station in that system for 23 hours a day ever since. You really should run a trace on me and you would quickly know that i operate almost entirely in lowsec which is where i am now. I would fight you but you just sit logged into a highsec system all day. Come to lowsec and dont worry i let everyone know that you are a sociopath. Im sure that they will give you the respect you deserve.
Karn we know where you are. Your ability to equip a cloak and sit in a 0.4 isn't impressive. We can do it to. But here is where our plan differs from your idea of how are plan should be. We know you wanjt to mission in High sec. And we know sooner or later you will become numb to our presence. Even if it takes months. And it will be that one time when you become numb that you will pay a heavy price and the video will be posted endlessly everytime you post as a tribute to your incessant trashtalk.
That being said. We know where we stand and we really have nothing to discuss. |
Alara IonStorm
2220
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 17:47:00 -
[64] - Quote
Bootleg Jack wrote:Alara IonStorm wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote: It would solve cloaky camps people complain about. It would give a point to cloaks people complain about.
Uncloak aliegned, tap bomb, warp to safety. No time to get reinforcements on grid to help or even lock targets. Hurray for 100% Safe uncounterable attacks. And one bomb kills everything. And bombs dont take forever to reload/cycle. And bombs don't weigh so much a frigate can only carry 1-2 in its hold. Before you cry about a thing, try it, it is anot so easy as it sounds. It isn't just bombs as I said four posts above you.
Alara IonStorm wrote:Malcanis wrote:
You've actually never done this, have you?
(Hint: a single bomb isn't much threat to anything)
No I have been bombed though and it isn't a single bomb I am worried about, it is five. It isn't even bombs it is Alpha you can just Falcon Jam a single and Alpha them with Torps and be gone before anyone can rescue you. Any baiting defense is impractical because you can't bait 99% of PvE Spots indefinitely with a cloaked counter fleet that will probably only catch one guy. Unless you are one grid it is pretty much a 100% victory for the cloakers who have free reign to attack. Without Local you can indefinitely hide a fleet camping belts and anoms. Completely undetectable fleets moving from belt to anom will kill solo nullsec PvE completely. Null Sec population will empty. Their are better ways to remove local that won't kill null sec and all start with cloak mechanics. |
Karn Dulake
Souls Must Be Trampled The.Alliance
764
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 17:51:00 -
[65] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Karn Dulake wrote: You are one complete baddass and its scary to think that im being stalked by a self diagnosed Sociopath.
So i picked a random highsec system when the deck started and you have sat in a station in that system for 23 hours a day ever since.
You really should run a trace on me and you would quickly know that i operate almost entirely in lowsec which is where i am now.
I would fight you but you just sit logged into a highsec system all day.
Come to lowsec and dont worry i let everyone know that you are a sociopath. Im sure that they will give you the respect you deserve.
Karn we know where you are. Your ability to equip a cloak and sit in a 0.4 isn't impressive. We can do it to. But here is where our plan differs from your idea of how our plan should be. We know you want to mission in High sec. And we know sooner or later you will become numb to our presence. Even if it takes months. And it will be that one time when you become numb that you will pay a heavy price and the video will be posted endlessly everytime you post as a tribute to your incessant trashtalk. That being said. We know where we stand and we really have nothing more to discuss. The war won't end until you die or we grow bored enough of EVE in general to unsub. No one else cares about our conflict but us. You wanted my attention and i'm giving it to you. Stop whining, stop talking back and forth needlessly. If you can kill me then do it. Ive been killed before, ill die again in the future. That's EVE. But don't get caught slippin, like we aint trippin'. Cok back and get those bullets to zippin'. You know what im saying? Man we aint playin'... its nuthin' to get the homies to warp through there kay'n.
This is terrifying to me. I used to run level 4 missions but i got bored of them so now i play around in lowsec as its a much more exciting game to me. But thank you for denying me access to level 4 missions.
Is there anything else that your diabolical mind can deny me in game. I suppose that my long term plan of mining veldspar is out of the window. I dont normally troll, but when i do i do it on General Discussion. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
145
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 17:57:00 -
[66] - Quote
Malphilos wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Alara IonStorm wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote: It would solve cloaky camps people complain about. It would give a point to cloaks people complain about.
Uncloak aliegned, tap bomb, warp to safety. No time to get reinforcements on grid to help or even lock targets. Hurray for 100% Safe uncounterable attacks. Then nerf bombs. Change them. Make them super powerful torpedoes that can only hit capitals... We went from "it fixes almost everything" to "ok, maybe it doesn't" pretty quickly. That's not a good sign.
Not even. Because bombs dont have to be changed one bit. Nothing A stated is any different from how it is now. But I didn't feel like arguing about 1 point that sidetracks an entire paragraph. |
Karn Dulake
Souls Must Be Trampled The.Alliance
764
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 18:02:00 -
[67] - Quote
Why dont you grow some balls and come out and fight me and you dont even have to bring all of your friends with you I dont normally troll, but when i do i do it on General Discussion. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
145
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 18:07:00 -
[68] - Quote
Karn Dulake wrote:Why dont you grow some balls and come out and fight me and you dont even have to bring all of your friends with you
Never. You have a destiny with a most unfair gank. There will no 1v1s, no even odds and no good sportsmanship. Go play checkers chump. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6955
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 18:07:00 -
[69] - Quote
Has anyone quoted Betty White yet? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Shift-click does nothing GÇö why the Unified Inventory isn't ready for primetime. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
145
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 18:11:00 -
[70] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Has anyone quoted Betty White yet?
No, I don't think so. Care to enlighten us? |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6955
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 18:16:00 -
[71] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Tippia wrote:Has anyone quoted Betty White yet? No, I don't think so. Care to enlighten us? GÇ£Why do people say GÇÿgrow some ballsGÇÖ? Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding.GÇ¥ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Shift-click does nothing GÇö why the Unified Inventory isn't ready for primetime. |
veritas primus
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 18:17:00 -
[72] - Quote
**Changes Implemented**
**In the News today CCP folds up shop, player base fell to an all time low of 4000 griefers, thanks for the fish" |
veritas primus
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 18:18:00 -
[73] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Tippia wrote:Has anyone quoted Betty White yet? No, I don't think so. Care to enlighten us? GÇ£Why do people say GÇÿgrow some ballsGÇÖ? Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding.GÇ¥
LOL...I now have Ramen coming out my nose...thanks for the grief. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
145
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 18:19:00 -
[74] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Tippia wrote:Has anyone quoted Betty White yet? No, I don't think so. Care to enlighten us? GÇ£Why do people say GÇÿgrow some ballsGÇÖ? Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding.GÇ¥
Hahahahaha that's funny! |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
145
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 18:21:00 -
[75] - Quote
veritas primus wrote:**Changes Implemented**
**In the News today CCP folds up shop, player base fell to an all time low of 4000 griefers, thanks for the fish"
Prove it. You have an agenda and a strawman, thats about it. I could start rallying people who want local gone but I don't. The argument stands on its own. If no real improvement comes i'll vote with my wallet. |
Duvida
The Scope Gallente Federation
80
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 18:43:00 -
[76] - Quote
So, what is keeping you from W-space? |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
145
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 18:45:00 -
[77] - Quote
Duvida wrote:So, what is keeping you from W-space?
Needing a POS. The logistics. The fact that your targets are limited to what comes into the wormhole to see the effect. No access to markets. No access to missions. Needing more than self online to do anything. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3888
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 18:55:00 -
[78] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Malcanis wrote:
You've actually never done this, have you?
(Hint: a single bomb isn't much threat to anything)
No I have been bombed though and it isn't a single bomb I am worried about, it is five. It isn't even bombs it is Alpha you can just Falcon Jam a single and Alpha them with Torps and be gone before anyone can rescue you. Any baiting defense is impractical because you can't bait 99% of PvE Spots indefinitely with a cloaked counter fleet that will probably only catch one guy. Unless you are one grid it is pretty much a 100% victory for the cloakers who have free reign to attack. Without Local you can indefinitely hide a fleet camping belts and anoms. Completely undetectable fleets will kill solo nullsec PvE completely. Null Sec population will empty. Their are better ways to remove local that won't kill null sec and all start with cloak mechanics.
It's amazing the way 1 AFK guy in a cloaky can suddenly become 5 (or 6 if we're adding a Falcon here). Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Karn Dulake
Souls Must Be Trampled The.Alliance
764
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 18:56:00 -
[79] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Duvida wrote:So, what is keeping you from W-space? Needing a POS. The logistics. The fact that your targets are limited to what comes into the wormhole to see the effect. No access to markets. No access to missions. Needing more than self online to do anything.
This guy has a mind like a steel trap so dont ever go against him.
he is currently at the start of a wardec against me that is likey to last for several months.
his strategy is to sit in a station in highsec for 23/7 while i live in lowsec and the fringes of Null
I dont know how long im going to be able to take that without begging for forgiveness I dont normally troll, but when i do i do it on General Discussion. |
Alara IonStorm
2221
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 19:10:00 -
[80] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Alara IonStorm wrote:Malcanis wrote:
You've actually never done this, have you?
(Hint: a single bomb isn't much threat to anything)
No I have been bombed though and it isn't a single bomb I am worried about, it is five. It isn't even bombs it is Alpha you can just Falcon Jam a single and Alpha them with Torps and be gone before anyone can rescue you. Any baiting defense is impractical because you can't bait 99% of PvE Spots indefinitely with a cloaked counter fleet that will probably only catch one guy. Unless you are one grid it is pretty much a 100% victory for the cloakers who have free reign to attack. Without Local you can indefinitely hide a fleet camping belts and anoms. Completely undetectable fleets will kill solo nullsec PvE completely. Null Sec population will empty. Their are better ways to remove local that won't kill null sec and all start with cloak mechanics. It's amazing the way 1 AFK guy in a cloaky can suddenly become 5 (or 6 if we're adding a Falcon here). It never was 1 AFK Guy, I don't know where you are getting that from.
This is not a thread about AFK Cloaking it is a thread about removing Local. As in you can move cloak fleets into Sanctums and Belts and 1 Volley people with no effort and no real chance of a defense.
That is my problem with removing local. Cloaks become a 99% Victory button against solo Null Sec PvE.
|
|
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
145
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 19:12:00 -
[81] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote: This is not a thread about AFK Cloaking it is a thread about removing Local. As in you can move cloak fleets into Sanctums and Belts and 1 Volley people with no effort and no real chance of a defense.
That is my problem with removing local. Cloaks become a 99% Victory button against solo Null Sec PvE.
Working as intended. Whats the opposite? You never die to a fleet because you are told where they are each and every time you participate in an activity. Its garbage gameplay. |
Alara IonStorm
2221
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 19:18:00 -
[82] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Alara IonStorm wrote: This is not a thread about AFK Cloaking it is a thread about removing Local. As in you can move cloak fleets into Sanctums and Belts and 1 Volley people with no effort and no real chance of a defense.
That is my problem with removing local. Cloaks become a 99% Victory button against solo Null Sec PvE.
Working as intended. Whats the opposite? You never die to a fleet because you are told where they are each and every time you participate in an activity. Its garbage gameplay. Compared to you always die it is way better then the opposite and it would be garbage gameplay.
I am not saying don't remove local, I am saying make a counter to cloaks.
|
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
145
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 19:20:00 -
[83] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote: Compared to you always die it is way better then the opposite and it would be garbage gameplay.
I am not saying don't remove local, I am saying make a counter to cloaks.
I'm not against that. But the counter would be there already. Sure there would be ambushes, thats good gameplay, but you wouldn't be visible in local. So the cloaker would have to be as patient as you were at determining whether an area was safe or not.
The 5 cloaker ambush at an anom would also risk having a 10 cloaker ambush reveal right near them. |
Alara IonStorm
2221
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 19:23:00 -
[84] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote: I'm not against that. But the counter would be there already. Sure there would be ambushes, thats good gameplay, but you wouldn't be visible in local. So the cloaker would have to be as patient as you were at determining whether an area was safe or not.
No they wouldn't really. Just warp to 2 or three points in the system and run a D-Scan then check the Sanctums, Havens and Belts. Can be done in three-five minutes.
Next Systems 0 threat to getting detected. At least with Local you know 8 or 9 guys are in the area. Without it you are chum with 0 chance of rescue and they warp off home free.
Making Cloak Ships appear on the D-Scan with an unknown ship tag is at least a start in a localess environment. |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
427
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 19:25:00 -
[85] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote: If no real improvement comes i'll vote with my wallet. Not soon enough.
Apparently OP knows jack about wormholes. You have access to markets every day - and solo play is perfectly feasible - just takes a tiny bit of effort.
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
145
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 19:26:00 -
[86] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote: I'm not against that. But the counter would be there already. Sure there would be ambushes, thats good gameplay, but you wouldn't be visible in local. So the cloaker would have to be as patient as you were at determining whether an area was safe or not.
No they wouldn't really. Just warp to 2 or three points in the system and run a D-Scan then check the Sanctums, Havens and Belts. Can be done in three-five minutes. Next Systems 0 threat to getting detected. At least with Local you know 8 or 9 guys are in the area. Without it you are chum with 0 chance of rescue and they warp off home free. Making Cloak Ships appear on the D-Scan with an unknown ship tag is at least a start in a localess environment.
No it wouldnt. It would mean completely negating the purpose of removing local to begin with. The bear wants safety in essence. A way to determine whether anyone is there whatsoever so they can avoid the danger completely. That's what needs fixing. Guarenteed safety. It needs to go. A destroyer that can perhaps track a cloaked object with reasonable bad efficiency, not impossible, but not auto, thats acceptable. Click a dscan and know whether the system is safe or not, no. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
145
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 19:29:00 -
[87] - Quote
Asuri Kinnes wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote: If no real improvement comes i'll vote with my wallet. Not soon enough. Apparently OP knows jack about wormholes. You have access to markets every day - and solo play is perfectly feasible - just takes a tiny bit of effort.
Not without logistics. If it were that great and oh so easy everyone would be there but their not and it isn't. Thanks for your opinion though. |
Alara IonStorm
2222
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 19:32:00 -
[88] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote: No it wouldnt. It would mean completely negating the purpose of removing local to begin with. The bear wants safety in essence. A way to determine whether anyone is there whatsoever so they can avoid the danger completely. That's what needs fixing. Guarenteed safety. It needs to go.
But you can not replace it with guaranteed destruction. Besides the fact that you are supposed to secure that space for a semblance of safety you can not make it impossible to defend yourself or escape or PvE down their will empty out and you need that to fund your personal / corp warfleet and help pay for sov.
I would rather have what we have now then no local and no change to Cov Ops. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
145
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 19:33:00 -
[89] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote: No it wouldnt. It would mean completely negating the purpose of removing local to begin with. The bear wants safety in essence. A way to determine whether anyone is there whatsoever so they can avoid the danger completely. That's what needs fixing. Guarenteed safety. It needs to go.
But you can not replace it with guaranteed destruction. Besides the fact that you are supposed to secure that space for a semblance of safety you can not make it impossible to defend yourself or escape or PvE down their will empty out and you need that to fund your personal / corp warfleet and help pay for sov. I would rather have what we have now then no local and no change to Cov Ops.
Guarenteed safety is guarenteed when you know something is out there. Guarenteed destruction is a farce. There may not be anything there, hence no guarentee, and whats there you may be able to kill. Again no guarenteed destruction. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
824
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 19:35:00 -
[90] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote: Guarenteed destruction is a farce. There may not be anything there, hence no guarentee, and whats there you may be able to kill. Again no guarenteed destruction. As long as you aren't evading CONCORD.
Come to think of it, CONCORD should shout in local when they blow someone up. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd |
|
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
145
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 19:38:00 -
[91] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote: Guarenteed destruction is a farce. There may not be anything there, hence no guarentee, and whats there you may be able to kill. Again no guarenteed destruction. As long as you aren't evading CONCORD. Come to think of it, CONCORD should shout in local when they blow someone up.
Fair point, that is a form of guarenteed destruction. |
Alara IonStorm
2222
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 19:39:00 -
[92] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Alara IonStorm wrote: I would rather have what we have now then no local and no change to Cov Ops.
Guarenteed safety is guarenteed when you know something is out there. Guarenteed destruction is a farce. There may not be anything there, hence no guarenteed destruction, and whats there you may be able to kill. Again no guarenteed destruction. Sure not completely but Horseshoes and Hand Grenades are enough.
You are not guaranteed a kill but you can pop most Sanctum and belt ratting Battleships before help in D-Scan Range can arrive.
Simple fact is that this would be a disaster compared to a current system most people are relatively happy with. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
145
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 19:43:00 -
[93] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Alara IonStorm wrote: I would rather have what we have now then no local and no change to Cov Ops.
Guarenteed safety is guarenteed when you know something is out there. Guarenteed destruction is a farce. There may not be anything there, hence no guarenteed destruction, and whats there you may be able to kill. Again no guarenteed destruction. Sure not completely but Horseshoes and Hand Grenades are enough. You are not guaranteed a kill but you can pop most Sanctum and belt ratting Battleships before help in D-Scan Range can arrive. Simple fact is that this would be a disaster compared to a current system most people are relatively happy with.
People aren't happy with the current system. Hence im here posting why i'm not. You are hence your here. You aren't representing the majority and I won't claim to do so either. The particular ship type or its purpose in being there is irrelevant to the core gameplay of EVE needing a change to make it more compelling. Right now in this game not a single soul should die unless they decide to. That's not hardcore. Thats inane. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
148
|
Posted - 2012.05.23 02:48:00 -
[94] - Quote
Bump for discussion and because a gui doesn't make camping any less tedious of an activity in a "hardcore" game. Click , shift click, bah. All trivial sh!t when at the core of the game stealth is an impossibility and death is completely voluntary. |
Merovee
Gorthaur Legion Of Mordor
13
|
Posted - 2012.05.23 03:39:00 -
[95] - Quote
hi-sec should remain the same. low-sec, show corpies , allies and blues when you jump into a system and anyone who jumps in after you. nul-sec, show corpies , allies and blues when you jump into a system.
|
Flakey Foont
129
|
Posted - 2012.05.23 03:40:00 -
[96] - Quote
Maybe next time! |
Dawn Flare
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
41
|
Posted - 2012.05.23 06:02:00 -
[97] - Quote
Just noticed this is my in-game log....
05:32:54svc::gameuinoticeI am now AFK after being idle for 601 seconds. 05:35:11 svc::gameuinoticeI am no longer AFK after being idle for 736 seconds.
Client already knows you are afk, and as a conscious choice does nothing with the info |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
151
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 07:21:00 -
[98] - Quote
Another boring day of EVE. Doesn't appear many are logged on after releasing a new expansion. I don't think its d3 either. I think its because the game is getting tired and the expansions are mediocre. This last one gave us new missile graphics and a fail corp mercy button. I know its free but you should pay us for sticking around in game so you can keep up the appearance x-thousand of players are playing. In reality most of them are afk in station.
|
Phill Esteen
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 07:34:00 -
[99] - Quote
this thread isn't really about local, is it?
maybe you and Karn should consider marital counselling |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
152
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 07:59:00 -
[100] - Quote
Phill Esteen wrote:this thread isn't really about local, is it?
maybe you and Karn should consider marital counselling
Karn is irrelevant to the purpose. Killing him won't shut him up, its in his genetic makeup to talk crap while anonymous. He does on the forums what he hasn't been able to do in life. That being said local makes every single attempt at engagement a nauseating campfest. My corp wardecs for sport and local makes the process inane. Especially when the game is "hardcore pvp". Its fraudulent, honestly. It's anything but.
Each kill on my killboard over the last few months came from painstaking amounts of tedium. Unnecessary camping that is purely do to a braindead implementation of local chat. I want it changed as do many people in EVE. It is strangling the life out of the game. |
|
Tiberius Murderhorne
Amarrian Retribution Amarr 7th Fleet
10
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 08:22:00 -
[101] - Quote
why not make eve into a single player game while your at it??
seriously move into a worm hole... and stop posting about removing local.... Amarr Faction War - We are Recruiting! - Come Join the Amarr! We Are Out Numbered but that has never stopped us before! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=913884#post913884
|
Elistea
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
71
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 08:47:00 -
[102] - Quote
Yet another fail topic... |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
153
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 10:59:00 -
[103] - Quote
Tiberius Murderhorne wrote:why not make eve into a single player game while your at it??
seriously move into a worm hole... and stop posting about removing local....
Not a chance in hell. I pay my 15 bucks like the rest of the playerbase and im going to voice my opinion. I believe the rules are a once a day bump per topic, right? So once per day im going to bring the issue I care about to the forefront.
And if you don't like it well thats just too bad. You (the keep local at all cost crowd) won't be silencing this issue any longer. |
Frying Doom
171
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 11:07:00 -
[104] - Quote
Local should be killed off in Null space only.
It is meant to be a dangerous place. At the moment it's just boring. Liven it up and get rid of Local. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
154
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 11:09:00 -
[105] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Local should be killed off in Null space only.
It is meant to be a dangerous place. At the moment it's just boring. Liven it up and get rid of Local.
No it needs to be removed in all secs. Null is challenging enough and to remove it only there would make high sec too lucrative.
And local breaks many of the things EVE boasts as features. From piracy to war, to stealth and freighting.
Local makes the entire player versus player experience, defensive and offensive, a boring & mediocre campfest. |
Frying Doom
171
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 11:14:00 -
[106] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Local should be killed off in Null space only.
It is meant to be a dangerous place. At the moment it's just boring. Liven it up and get rid of Local. No it needs to be removed in all secs. Null is challenging enough and to remove it only there would make high sec too lucrative. And local breaks many of the things EVE boasts as features. From piracy to war, to stealth and freighting. Removing from hi-sec will only be helpful if you are at war with someone. If your looking to gank someone they cant tell your there till its too late and null is hugely profitable as it is. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
155
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 11:21:00 -
[107] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Local should be killed off in Null space only.
It is meant to be a dangerous place. At the moment it's just boring. Liven it up and get rid of Local. No it needs to be removed in all secs. Null is challenging enough and to remove it only there would make high sec too lucrative. And local breaks many of the things EVE boasts as features. From piracy to war, to stealth and freighting. Removing from hi-sec will only be helpful if you are at war with someone. If your looking to gank someone they cant tell your there till its too late and null is hugely profitable as it is.
Dying is a feature of EVE. You are not meant to choose whether you die in each and every circumstance in game. I assure you almost everyone would choose to abstain. So what happens is what we have here. One side of a war eventually succumbs to pure boredom and takes a chance. Because up until absolute boredom sets in the game is a campfest.
Long duration griefdecs exist in large part because it takes EONS to kill anyone with local ever present.
Ive got level 5 cloaking trained and do you know in not one situation of our wars have I ever had a real use for it. Killing someone comes down to camping a system or two out and praying they don't have a neutral alt and that the gate you camp is the one they come charging through. That's it. The reverse of that being null, where no one does anything unless they have a blob large enough to lower the likelyhood of running into a bigger blob or are hot dropping. Perhaps very large alliances have a slightly different experience but by and large thats EVEs pvp with local.
And if removing hisec local will only help in a war than the obvious reverse of that statement is that removing hisec local will only hinder you during a war. Why should you get free intelligence? |
Frying Doom
171
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 11:32:00 -
[108] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote: And if removing hisec local will only help in a war than the obvious reverse of that statement is that removing hisec local will only hinder you during a war. Why should you get free intelligence?
My main point is the basis of the sec status as how it was originally set up
Hi-sec = Safest Lo-sec = less safe Null sec = Dangerous and lawless Wormholes = Insanely dangerous.
Any alterations to the system should follow this pattern. But I do agree wars are boring as hell and with the new ability to call in an infinite number of allies to help the defenders will probably become rare.
Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Paintchk
Revenent Defence Corperation Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
17
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 11:34:00 -
[109] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Alara IonStorm wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote: It would solve cloaky camps people complain about. It would give a point to cloaks people complain about.
Uncloak aliegned, tap bomb, warp to safety. No time to get reinforcements on grid to help or even lock targets. Hurray for 100% Safe uncounterable attacks. Then nerf bombs. Change them. Make them super powerful torpedoes that can only hit capitals. It would be a small sacrifice, and im a dedicated cloaky kind of player, for the greater good of the game. But also remember that even if that were the case no local means that for that to occur a scouting operation would have had to of occured first. Maybe it would be a well earned uncounterable attack.
They do 300 or so damage. Nerfing them would make them worthless......I demand BUFF!!!!!!!! =D |
Paintchk
Revenent Defence Corperation Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
17
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 11:36:00 -
[110] - Quote
Another bitching forum. *Takes shot* |
|
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
155
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 11:45:00 -
[111] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote: And if removing hisec local will only help in a war than the obvious reverse of that statement is that removing hisec local will only hinder you during a war. Why should you get free intelligence?
My main point is the basis of the sec status as how it was originally set up Hi-sec = Safest Lo-sec = less safe Null sec = Dangerous and lawless Wormholes = Insanely dangerous. Any alterations to the system should follow this pattern. But I do agree wars are boring as hell and with the new ability to call in an infinite number of allies to help the defenders will probably become rare.
Safest is relative, Concord doesn't prevent only punish. Removing local wouldn't change a thing about hisec outside of knowing each and every time when to undock and when to camp up when dealing with a hostile faction. You would actually have a better chance of escape and avoiding the attacker because they would have to actively hunt you down in system. That requires a dedicated scanning ship and depending on the amount of people in the system a relatively long period of time.
You would also see a drastic cutback in the average ship sized used in combat due to the increased risk of the unknown by each party. |
Merovee
Gorthaur Legion Of Mordor
15
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 14:18:00 -
[112] - Quote
I don't Know. Playing since 03 maybe has something to do with it. But I just move around as I please in Hi and low without a care in the world. Sure I scout with alts check the maps and know where the hop spots are but that's from playing the game of hard knocks. All I'm saying the gank squads are lazy bunch and are easy avoided with a little effort. |
Karn Dulake
Souls Must Be Trampled The.Alliance
795
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 14:21:00 -
[113] - Quote
OP is this why you sit in a station all day even though you personally wardeced me.
You sit on the forums holding court with your sociopathic vision of EVE that can only be envisioned by your high IQ I dont normally troll, but when i do i do it on General Discussion. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
157
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 14:41:00 -
[114] - Quote
Merovee wrote:I don't Know. Playing since 03 maybe has something to do with it. But I just move around as I please in Hi and low without a care in the world. Sure I scout with alts check the maps and know where the hop spots are but that's from playing the game of hard knocks. All I'm saying the gank squads are lazy bunch and are easy avoided with a little effort.
Then losing local wouldn't be a big issue to you. Right? Good. Because its a real big issue to just about every "feature" in this game.
Covert Ops, Black Ops, Hauling freight, General war. Piracy, Invasion, Defense, Mining, so on and so forth. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
165
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 19:01:00 -
[115] - Quote
Just got off the batphone with "Chaos Theory" and "Emergent Gameplay". They fully support getting rid of local. They are not pleased and have unsubbed. |
Doctor Benway Kado
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
54
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 19:23:00 -
[116] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Just got off the batphone with "Chaos Theory" and "Emergent Gameplay". They fully support getting rid of local. They are not pleased and have unsubbed. Really? That's funny, I saw him ganking hulks just the other day. |
DelBoy Trades
Trotter Independent Traders.
383
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 19:27:00 -
[117] - Quote
CCP will never do it purely because their revenue would be dashed in half overnight. Damn nature, you scary! |
Mistress Lilu
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
133
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 20:02:00 -
[118] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Get rid of local, all secs. It fixes almost everything. You would have to work to locate a target. You would have to work to avoid a target. There would be risk in high sec. There would be risk in all secs.
Freighters could be caught during a war dec. Freighters could get through during a war dec.
You would still have Concord retaliation in high sec. You could still be camped, though if you break the camp it would be harder to hunt you down. Certainly no worse that what we have now but with compelling gameplay.
It would solve cloaky camps people complain about. It would give a point to cloaks of which people complain about.
It would make neutral alts almost irrelevant. Though not 100%. It would certainly make playing with one account a lot less of a disadvantage. Sure you might lose a few alt account subs, but you would gain many more subs by having more compelling gameplay. What good is a scout profession when they're revealed as soon as they enter system?
The changes the expansion are bringing aren't going to revitalize low sec or null sec and its certainly not going to promote or fuel war. Quite the opposite.
The devs and the playerbase talk a lot about EVE being hardcore, but as of yet i'm not really seeing the hardcore aspect to the game.
The game is a boring campfest. Removing local removes that to a large degree.
To my ultra Orthodox carebear players, uncle Caliphy isn't throwing you under the bus. The threats you worry about occuring with this change would actually be resolvable by a merc corporation. If you are decced and you hire a merc the merc cannot sneak up on the enemy with everything displayed for them. They may be able to make your tormentors life a little more difficult but in most cases can't force a fight under those conditions. With no local they could. If you are camped by a griefdec and you hire a reasonably sized merc to help you the griefer will never see them coming. It's win/win.
Even null entry points would be camped far less. Lets see the thirty man bubble camp consistently do it when a 150 man roaming gang warps in on them and they never see it coming.
Local is holding EVE back. Period. Get rid of it and let EVE become great. get rid of local, what you a retared imp with a limp on his right leg and a broken yellowed tooth.
|
Mfume Apocal
Origin. Black Legion.
472
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 20:08:00 -
[119] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Ziranda Hakuli wrote:this thread again worded what looks like the same old one that got squashed cause some idiot has no idea how to read the lore and why it is there and it is not in WHs?
Please biomass the toon now and save yourself the headaches down the road Lore lol. The game is a snoozefest. HTFU. What headache? Boredom doesn't bring headaches. It brings nausea. Also, alt-sh.it poasting reciting nerd memes is for terribaddies. Proof in this thread. The main ones retorting snarky have killboards that smell of kitty poo. I won't mention names but you know who you are. Peace to those with constructive criticism.
Can I have your stuff?
|
Musashi IV
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 20:10:00 -
[120] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Get rid of local, all secs. It fixes almost everything. You would have to work to locate a target. You would have to work to avoid a target. There would be risk in high sec. There would be risk in all secs.
Freighters could be caught during a war dec. Freighters could get through during a war dec.
You would still have Concord retaliation in high sec. You could still be camped, though if you break the camp it would be harder to hunt you down. Certainly no worse that what we have now but with compelling gameplay.
It would solve cloaky camps people complain about. It would give a point to cloaks of which people complain about.
It would make neutral alts almost irrelevant. Though not 100%. It would certainly make playing with one account a lot less of a disadvantage. Sure you might lose a few alt account subs, but you would gain many more subs by having more compelling gameplay. What good is a scout profession when they're revealed as soon as they enter system?
The changes the expansion are bringing aren't going to revitalize low sec or null sec and its certainly not going to promote or fuel war. Quite the opposite.
The devs and the playerbase talk a lot about EVE being hardcore, but as of yet i'm not really seeing the hardcore aspect to the game.
The game is a boring campfest. Removing local removes that to a large degree.
To my ultra Orthodox carebear players, uncle Caliphy isn't throwing you under the bus. The threats you worry about occuring with this change would actually be resolvable by a merc corporation. If you are decced and you hire a merc the merc cannot sneak up on the enemy with everything displayed for them. They may be able to make your tormentors life a little more difficult but in most cases can't force a fight under those conditions. With no local they could. If you are camped by a griefdec and you hire a reasonably sized merc to help you the griefer will never see them coming. It's win/win.
Even null entry points would be camped far less. Lets see the thirty man bubble camp consistently do it when a 150 man roaming gang warps in on them and they never see it coming.
Local is holding EVE back. Period. Get rid of it and let EVE become great.
Do you want me to flip my mac on its back so you can get a better shot? Why dont they just take away any shields and armor for high sec players. This way you pirates can make easier kills!! |
|
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
168
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 21:09:00 -
[121] - Quote
Removing local is a two way street. You won't be present either. Sure, you'll have to turn off your bots and actually play but you should be doing that anyway. |
Avid Bumhumper
Furian Necromongers
60
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 21:11:00 -
[122] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Get rid of local, all secs. It fixes almost everything. You would have to work to locate a target. You would have to work to avoid a target. There would be risk in high sec. There would be risk in all secs.
Freighters could be caught during a war dec. Freighters could get through during a war dec.
You would still have Concord retaliation in high sec. You could still be camped, though if you break the camp it would be harder to hunt you down. Certainly no worse that what we have now but with compelling gameplay.
It would solve cloaky camps people complain about. It would give a point to cloaks of which people complain about.
It would make neutral alts almost irrelevant. Though not 100%. It would certainly make playing with one account a lot less of a disadvantage. Sure you might lose a few alt account subs, but you would gain many more subs by having more compelling gameplay. What good is a scout profession when they're revealed as soon as they enter system?
The changes the expansion are bringing aren't going to revitalize low sec or null sec and its certainly not going to promote or fuel war. Quite the opposite.
The devs and the playerbase talk a lot about EVE being hardcore, but as of yet i'm not really seeing the hardcore aspect to the game.
The game is a boring campfest. Removing local removes that to a large degree.
To my ultra Orthodox carebear players, uncle Caliphy isn't throwing you under the bus. The threats you worry about occuring with this change would actually be resolvable by a merc corporation. If you are decced and you hire a merc the merc cannot sneak up on the enemy with everything displayed for them. They may be able to make your tormentors life a little more difficult but in most cases can't force a fight under those conditions. With no local they could. If you are camped by a griefdec and you hire a reasonably sized merc to help you the griefer will never see them coming. It's win/win.
Even null entry points would be camped far less. Lets see the thirty man bubble camp consistently do it when a 150 man roaming gang warps in on them and they never see it coming.
Local is holding EVE back. Period. Get rid of it and let EVE become great.
Incompetent griefers? Very sad.....
My Tinfoil hat has been sugically implanted, so no,it is not for sale..... |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
168
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 21:13:00 -
[123] - Quote
You quoted the original post to post a worthless 4 word post and im incompetent? Thanks for the bump I guess, but quote spam makes baby Jesus cry. |
bongsmoke
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
39
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 21:17:00 -
[124] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote:This OP is filled with "no" and seasoned with "unsubstantiated fail".
Grow some balls.
Biomass yourself.
This
Shame soo many threads like this one are full of pure fail. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
169
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 21:19:00 -
[125] - Quote
bongsmoke wrote:Asuka Solo wrote:This OP is filled with "no" and seasoned with "unsubstantiated fail".
Grow some balls.
Biomass yourself. This Shame soo many threads like this one are full of pure fail.
Like his killboard, lol. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
455
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 21:36:00 -
[126] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote: And if removing hisec local will only help in a war than the obvious reverse of that statement is that removing hisec local will only hinder you during a war. Why should you get free intelligence?
My main point is the basis of the sec status as how it was originally set up Hi-sec = Safest Lo-sec = less safe Null sec = Dangerous and lawless Wormholes = Insanely dangerous. Any alterations to the system should follow this pattern. But I do agree wars are boring as hell and with the new ability to call in an infinite number of allies to help the defenders will probably become rare.
so you want nullsec to be more dangerous than wormholes? lol eh |
Pok Nibin
Viziam Amarr Empire
182
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 21:49:00 -
[127] - Quote
It takes a CCP to lock intelligent threads and let one with this title ride. Says it all. Yes, we respect you, CCP. Sony's gonna love you. Don't fight it.-á Rejoin your Amarrian patriarchs.-á You know you want to. |
specializt
Angry Angels Constructions The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 21:54:00 -
[128] - Quote
bombers are certainly not "uncounterable" - in fact, bombing-runs are pretty dangerous because anyone can just fire up the MWD, overload tthe disruptors aaand the little bomber is gone with a few hits ... without even being able to to do noticeable damage. In reality, you cant break a camp with bombers, even if you bring 10 of them to the field - the second after you launch the bomb, the campers jump through and laugh about your ultra-slow and not-so-powerful-at-all bomb. After 30 seconds, they'll jump back and maybe tackle one of the slower guys.
Not having local will terminate 99,99999% of the industrial complex of EvE Online. No (noticeable) mining anymore, no transports -- which results in a degrading market, isolation of nullsec and lowsec and ultimately making the game unplayable because every 12yo camper / gankerkiddie now has the chance to pwn everyone with zero effort. If your whole gamestyle depends on ganking, camping and the likes EvE Online certainly is the wrong game for you - go play some MMORPG which is built around PvP ... its pretty common to wear NO ARMOR AT ALL in these games because everyone gets ganked the moment they leave the safe place. And now you might as well guess which type of game is the most unsuccessfull ..... exactly : the one which has no limiting (and harsh) regulations whatsoever. |
Lord Zim
710
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 22:02:00 -
[129] - Quote
Huh. Another "I'm having some problems ganking efficiently enough so I need some more help in stacking the deck in my favour" thread. Interesting. |
Serene Repose
Perkone Caldari State
775
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 22:02:00 -
[130] - Quote
No thanks, OP. I'll pass on growing those. I don't want anything dragging me DOWN. I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility toward every form of tyranny over the mind of man.-á |
|
snake pies
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
32
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 22:33:00 -
[131] - Quote
remove local? only if you remove cloaking ability altogether |
specializt
Angry Angels Constructions The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 23:02:00 -
[132] - Quote
snake pies wrote:remove local? only if you remove cloaking ability altogether alternatively, they could turn the local into a REAL local - which would show you players within ... lets say about 300km or so, since you cant lock targets at that range ganking would remain the same BUT noone could ever be sure about enemys in the system. On an additional, positive side it would make system-camping useless - which would **** off about 30% of the playerbase hence enhance my experience :-) |
Karn Dulake
Souls Must Be Trampled The.Alliance
795
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 23:10:00 -
[133] - Quote
OP is a douche. He is currently in a war with me and wont undock.
Ive even come back from lowsec to highsec to fight him and he never undocks.
Easy to see that this is another change that he wants in his favour.
I dont normally troll, but when i do i do it on General Discussion. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
171
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 23:55:00 -
[134] - Quote
Look at all the terribaddies squirming when they have their easy mode questioned. The same few posters with sandy vaginas repeating the same vacuous diatribe.
Look it up, cretins.
I do appreciate you guys giving my words their due attention. |
Lord Zim
710
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 00:00:00 -
[135] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Look at all the terribaddies squirming when they have their easy mode questioned. The same few posters with sandy vaginas repeating the same vacuous diatribe.
Look it up, cretins.
I do appreciate you guys giving my words their due attention. Sounds like you need to undock about it. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
171
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 00:02:00 -
[136] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Look at all the terribaddies squirming when they have their easy mode questioned. The same few posters with sandy vaginas repeating the same vacuous diatribe.
Look it up, cretins.
I do appreciate you guys giving my words their due attention. Sounds like you need to undock about it.
Keep on believing Karn if you want. If I tell you exactly how much of a fail candyass pansy you are when you're in a 8000 man alliance what on earth makes you think Karn could ever put fear into me. You are a silly lemming. |
Blabb3r M0uth B11tch
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 00:02:00 -
[137] - Quote
It never ceases to amaze me the people in this game that can't ever seem to be satisfied with finding things to kill. Now we have a new term "Prey", and "Predators" lol Sounds a little like child p0rn to me, but who am I, just an observer in this battle of the royal about who should have the advantage over who.
Let me recant a very important fact about EvE to all the Predators Here. There happens to be a very large sect of family, and others that play eve more for social impact of the game, than anything else. Friends that gather to Mine, run Missions, Incursions and the such. These people are interested because they can build things, build an empire so to speak, visit with there friends, and have fun. There really have no interest at all in getting ganked, or destroyed, or even fighting. Just having there good time in there own way. OK, you may think it's lame, But what about em.
Bottom line is this, there are other games, and maybe, just maybe, that's where they belong? I wonder how CCP would really feel, if they did succeed in making virtually all of the space in the game so dangerous for these type of players, that they simply up and moved on to other things, other games, where they can find something they like.
My guess, CCP might be disappointed in the results. I'm certain it would result in major lost subscriptions. I would guess it wouldn't be the type players that just ganked some poor unsuspecting fools freighter with everything they own in the game. That end up selling all there stuff and buying plexes with the isk to play on. But the players they will most likely loose are the fools with the freighter that got destroyed, that actually paid for his subscription with a credit card. I've seen it, they basically say screw this and never come back to the game. Good riddance I guess. I personally don't think CCP wants this, even if you do..
Bottom line, there are an over abundance of things to kill in the land of EvE, If you can't find them, your first step should be to look in a mirror.
CCP will leave local alone, it's there for a purpose, and it serves it well. Simple fact is if CCP changed it, I'm certain not even they feel warm and fuzzy about the consequences.
PS. Thought I would add my post for your viewing pleasure
|
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
171
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 00:06:00 -
[138] - Quote
Blabb3r M0uth B11tch wrote:It never ceases to amaze me the people in this game that can't ever seem to be satisfied with finding things to kill. Now we have a new term "Prey", and "Predators" lol Sounds a little like child p0rn to me, but who am I, just an observer in this battle of the royal about who should have the advantage over who. Let me recant a very important fact about EvE to all the Predators Here. There happens to be a very large sect of family, and others that play eve more for social impact of the game, than anything else. Friends that gather to Mine, run Missions, Incursions and the such. These people are interested because they can build things, build an empire so to speak, visit with there friends, and have fun. There really have no interest at all in getting ganked, or destroyed, or even fighting. Just having there good time in there own way. OK, you may think it's lame, But what about em. Bottom line is this, there are other games, and maybe, just maybe, that's where they belong? I wonder how CCP would really feel, if they did succeed in making virtually all of the space in the game so dangerous for these type of players, that they simply up and moved on to other things, other games, where they can find something they like. My guess, CCP might be disappointed in the results. I'm certain it would result in major lost subscriptions. I would guess it wouldn't be the type players that just ganked some poor unsuspecting fools freighter with everything they own in the game. That end up selling all there stuff and buying plexes with the isk to play on. But the players they will most likely loose are the fools with the freighter that got destroyed, that actually paid for his subscription with a credit card. I've seen it, they basically say screw this and never come back to the game. Good riddance I guess. I personally don't think CCP wants this, even if you do.. Bottom line, there are an over abundance of things to kill in the land of EvE, If you can't find them, your first step should be to look in a mirror. Yes, we can always go find random pvp. But thats just random. The issue with local is targeted pvp and its amateur inhibition of it. CCP will leave local alone, it's there for a purpose, and it serves it well. Simple fact is if CCP changed it, I'm certain not even they feel warm and fuzzy about the consequences. PS. Thought I would add my post for your viewing pleasure
|
Lord Zim
710
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 00:20:00 -
[139] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Keep on believing Karn if you want. If I tell you exactly how much of a fail candyass pansy you are when you're in a 8000 man alliance what on earth makes you think Karn could ever put fear into me. You are a silly lemming. You're the one who has absolutely no kills outside of hisec, and wants to remove local to make it even easier to gank people (as if it was impossible now; it isn't), and is at least providing no outward clue as to whether you've put any thought whatsoever into what the impact will be for all groups other than the ganker. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
171
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 00:24:00 -
[140] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Keep on believing Karn if you want. If I tell you exactly how much of a fail candyass pansy you are when you're in a 8000 man alliance what on earth makes you think Karn could ever put fear into me. You are a silly lemming. You're the one who has absolutely no kills outside of hisec, and wants to remove local to make it even easier to gank people (as if it was impossible now; it isn't), and is at least providing no outward clue as to whether you've put any thought whatsoever into what the impact will be for all groups other than the ganker.
Why would I go to nullsec with 12 people? Nullsec is just the areas you can declare sovereignty in. Its not the "pvp" zone in EVE. I have zero reason to ever go out there and contribute to the success of an alliance that doesn't give a care in the world about its members. Your case as you weaseled your way into one of the very few successful ones is the exception not the standard.
Your whole premise is that any pvp outside of nullsec (where your alliance is the undisputed king of said description) is ganking and griefing. And because of that dimwitted viewpoint anyone with a shred of intelligence views your inane whines and plea to the ignorance of others for what it is. |
|
Lord Zim
710
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 00:26:00 -
[141] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Why would I go to nullsec with 12 people? Nullsec is just the areas you can declare sovereignty in. Its not the "pvp" zone in EVE. I have zero reason to ever go out there and contribute to the success of an alliance that doesn't give a care in the world about its members. Your case as you weaseled your way into one of the very few successful ones is the exception not the standard. What about the effect on lowsec? NPC nullsec? Hisec? None of these places are where you "declare sovereignty", and all of them are "pvp zones". |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
171
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 00:28:00 -
[142] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Why would I go to nullsec with 12 people? Nullsec is just the areas you can declare sovereignty in. Its not the "pvp" zone in EVE. I have zero reason to ever go out there and contribute to the success of an alliance that doesn't give a care in the world about its members. Your case as you weaseled your way into one of the very few successful ones is the exception not the standard. What about the effect on lowsec? NPC nullsec? Hisec? None of these places are where you "declare sovereignty", and all of them are "pvp zones".
No local would fix all secs. You are so beyond clueless I, are you autistic? I ask because no matter what's said to you, you ignore it and repeat the same misguided questions as if anyone reading what you write doesn't recognize the absurd logic you use.
http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Study. Learn. Your average paragraph covers so many mentioned, listing them individually would be considered spam. |
Lord Zim
710
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 00:33:00 -
[143] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:No local would fix losec. You are so beyond clueless I, are you autistic? Who were talking about "fix"? I was asking you about the effect your "no local" change would have on people in lowsec, nullsec (all nullsec, tbh, not just NPC, but you seem to have some weird notion that nullsec is just somewhere you claim sov, and that's it, there's .. no PVP there? I've no idea what gave you that idea) and hisec. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
171
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 00:39:00 -
[144] - Quote
Fallacy: False Dilemma
Also Known as: Black & White Thinking.
Description of False Dilemma A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning":
Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false). Claim Y is false. Therefore claim X is true. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because if both claims could be false, then it cannot be inferred that one is true because the other is false. That this is the case is made clear by the following example:
Either 1+1=4 or 1+1=12. It is not the case that 1+1=4. Therefore 1+1=12. In cases in which the two options are, in fact, the only two options, this line of reasoning is not fallacious. For example:
Bill is dead or he is alive. Bill is not dead. Therefore Bill is alive. Examples of False Dilemma
Senator Jill: "We'll have to cut education funding this year." Senator Bill: "Why?" Senator Jill: "Well, either we cut the social programs or we live with a huge deficit and we can't live with the deficit."
Bill: "Jill and I both support having prayer in public schools." Jill: "Hey, I never said that!" Bill: "You're not an atheist are you Jill?"
"Look, you are going to have to make up your mind. Either you decide that you can afford this stereo, or you decide you are going to do without music for a while."
|
Lord Zim
710
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 00:47:00 -
[145] - Quote
Don't want to answer that question, then. I can only think of two reasons:
1) You have absolutely no clue what the effect on the population in hisec, lowsec and nullsec (both NPC and claimable) would be, and don't want to expose this fact, or 2) You know exactly what the effect will be, but as long as it becomes easier to gank you don't care.
For some reason I'm going to go out on a limb and just assume it's 2). |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
171
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 00:57:00 -
[146] - Quote
You have no clue of the effect either. Nothing more than pessimistic projection and yet you demand proof of me that you can't provide.
I can answer any question you want me to Zim but having a conversation with you is tedious.
Its not a matter of being unable to but not wanting to. |
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
2191
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 00:59:00 -
[147] - Quote
Throwing my 2 ISK worth into this topic.
Empire controls 2 areas of space, high security and low security. Players showing up in Local chat channels is intel provided by Empire Factions. Null security is controlled by Alliances and as such they have to provide their own intel. Null security systems need to be patrolled by the Alliances controlling SOV for intel.
High security local chat channel shows everyone. Low security local chat channel shows Criminals and War Targets. Null security local chat channel shows Alliance and Allies controlling SOV. Wormhole local chat channel shows no one.
All local chat channels show players who speak and as long as that player remains in that system, that player's intel is available in Local chat.
EDIT:
NPC Null security local chat channel would be like Wormhole local chat channel. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
171
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 00:59:00 -
[148] - Quote
Fallacy: Burden of Proof
Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")
Description of Burden of Proof Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:
Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X. In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).
Examples of Burden of Proof
Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system." Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury." Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"
Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers." Jill: "What is your proof?" Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."
"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."
|
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
171
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 01:03:00 -
[149] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:Throwing my 2 ISK worth into this topic.
Empire controls 2 areas of space, high security and low security. Players showing up in Local chat channels is intel provided by Empire Factions. Null security is controlled by Alliances and as such they have to provide their own intel. Null security systems need to be patrolled by the Alliances controlling SOV for intel.
High security local chat channel shows everyone. Low security local chat channel shows Criminals and War Targets. Null security local chat channel shows Alliance and Allies controlling SOV. Wormhole local chat channel shows no one.
All local chat channels show players who speak and as long as that player remains in that system, that player's intel is available in Local chat.
Why should hisec be safe? Safer, sure, and it is because the punishment for criminal aggression is guarenteed destruction. Local when utilized prevents any chance whatsoever of conflict, and all the lore in the world doesn't justify it. Its stale and stagnant gameplay. |
Lord Zim
710
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 01:09:00 -
[150] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:You have no clue of the effect either. Nothing more than pessimistic projection and yet you demand proof of me that you can't provide.
I can answer any question you want me to Zim but having a conversation with you is tedious.
Its not a matter of being unable to but not wanting to. So when I say that initially, in hisec, of those who does notice that the corp is now at war, even fewer will bother to undock, that's just a "pessimistic projection"?
And when I say that some of the people who are currently making a living in lowsec will probably stop doing so, that's just a "pessimistic projection"?
And when I say that some (or a sizeable portion) of the people who are currently mining and ratting in nullsec will probably go back to hisec to make a similar amount of isk for vastly less effort, that's just a "pessimistic projection"?
Or do you actually assume that everyone'll just go "oh hey I get the wormhole experience without actually going to wormholes" and just trundle along as if nothing happened?
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Local when utilized prevents any chance whatsoever of conflict Tons of killmails, in all security levels, would suggest otherwise. |
|
hank boar
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 01:12:00 -
[151] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Get rid of local, all secs. It fixes almost everything. You would have to work to locate a target. You would have to work to avoid a target. There would be risk in high sec. There would be risk in all secs.
Freighters could be caught during a war dec. Freighters could get through during a war dec.
You would still have Concord retaliation in high sec. You could still be camped, though if you break the camp it would be harder to hunt you down. Certainly no worse that what we have now but with compelling gameplay.
It would solve cloaky camps people complain about. It would give a point to cloaks of which people complain about.
It would make neutral alts almost irrelevant. Though not 100%. It would certainly make playing with one account a lot less of a disadvantage. Sure you might lose a few alt account subs, but you would gain many more subs by having more compelling gameplay. What good is a scout profession when they're revealed as soon as they enter system?
The changes the expansion are bringing aren't going to revitalize low sec or null sec and its certainly not going to promote or fuel war. Quite the opposite.
The devs and the playerbase talk a lot about EVE being hardcore, but as of yet i'm not really seeing the hardcore aspect to the game.
The game is a boring campfest. Removing local removes that to a large degree.
To my ultra Orthodox carebear players, uncle Caliphy isn't throwing you under the bus. The threats you worry about occuring with this change would actually be resolvable by a merc corporation. If you are decced and you hire a merc the merc cannot sneak up on the enemy with everything displayed for them. They may be able to make your tormentors life a little more difficult but in most cases can't force a fight under those conditions. With no local they could. If you are camped by a griefdec and you hire a reasonably sized merc to help you the griefer will never see them coming. It's win/win.
Even null entry points would be camped far less. Lets see the thirty man bubble camp consistently do it when a 150 man roaming gang warps in on them and they never see it coming.
Local is holding EVE back. Period. Get rid of it and let EVE become great.
Problem solved stay out of high sec and enjoy all of this in 0.0 real simple isn't it that it is already there yet hords of folks fail to see 0.0 as everything they ask for best of all gank all you want and no sec loss :)
|
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
171
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 01:22:00 -
[152] - Quote
Quote:So when I say that initially, in hisec, of those who does notice that the corp is now at war, even fewer will bother to undock, that's just a "pessimistic projection"?
We have to have a drab game because the least of us are so stupified as to not even know they are in war? This is going to blow your mind Zim, but those idiots deserve to die. Darwin.
Quote:And when I say that some of the people who are currently making a living in lowsec will probably stop doing so, that's just a "pessimistic projection"?
Yes because you have no proof whatsoever merely , pessimistic projection.
|
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
171
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 01:22:00 -
[153] - Quote
Quote:And when I say that some (or a sizeable portion) of the people who are currently mining and ratting in nullsec will probably go back to hisec to make a similar amount of isk for vastly less effort, that's just a "pessimistic projection"?
Risk versus reward. If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen. But more to the point you have no proof, just pessimistic projection.
Quote:Or do you actually assume that everyone'll just go "oh hey I get the wormhole experience without actually going to wormholes" and just trundle along as if nothing happened?
I don't really care. Thats like asking if Titans should be removed because those without them don't care for them. It comes down to preference I suppose. I'm not representing your side of the fence though im representing mine. Caliph Muhammed wrote:Local when utilized prevents any chance whatsoever of conflict
Quote:Tons of killmails, in all security levels, would suggest otherwise.
Mostly random save for large scale conflicts between mutually accepting parties. Anyone who wishes to avoid conflict in EVE can do so with trivial ease do to local. And this comes with the cost of war being raised and no means whatsoever to enfore the conflict that was paid for. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
171
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 01:26:00 -
[154] - Quote
Removing local still offers no guarenteed form of conflict, but it does go a long way in allowing it to occur non consentually. |
Lord Zim
710
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 01:27:00 -
[155] - Quote
So in other words, you believe there'll be absolutely no change in active population in either hisec, lowsec or nullsec (NPC or conquerable) if local is removed. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
171
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 01:31:00 -
[156] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:So in other words, you believe there'll be absolutely no change in active population in either hisec, lowsec or nullsec (NPC or conquerable) if local is removed.
Not much, no. The veterans that make EVE what it is will adapt and have more fun than they ever did before and the fruits that play a pvp game while trying to remain passive will cry and whine while still logging in to feel the adrenaline of surviving in the ensuing chaos. |
Katja Faith
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
121
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 01:32:00 -
[157] - Quote
1. So remove local. I would just about guarantee the vast majority of the player base couldn't care less. I couldn't care one damn bit. But then, I know what I'm doing outside high. 2. Make any neutral participation in combat a VALID TARGET for all parties. THAT will end neut repping real damn fast. Screw the "flagging" non-sense: make them red for anyone to shoot.
ps: I should run for CSM. But then, I know what a complete farce it is and how much it's laughed at outside the large alliances that stack the deck. |
Lord Zim
710
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 01:46:00 -
[158] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Lord Zim wrote:So in other words, you believe there'll be absolutely no change in active population in either hisec, lowsec or nullsec (NPC or conquerable) if local is removed. Not much, no. The veterans that make EVE what it is will adapt and have more fun than they ever did before and the fruits that play a pvp game while trying to remain passive will cry and whine as always while still logging in to feel the adrenaline of surviving in the ensuing chaos. So the fact that at least nullsec turned more or less into a wasteland within a month after CCP nerfed anoms is, to you, not an indication as to what'd happen if CCP removed local?
The anom nerf was, after all, just a reduction in payouts, so people got less of a reward for their effort than they would get if they just went back to hisec and did L4s or incursions. So take the fact that rewards aren't currently that much above L4s, and add the fact that you'd end up having to have cloaky scouts watching every gate in the system, and wormholes, and you'd still have to hope there are no-one who have been cloaked for hours or logged in in the system, and combine that with the fact that most people are more risk averse than they are against grinding, and you're really thinking it'll be "not so big a change"? |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
171
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 01:50:00 -
[159] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Lord Zim wrote:So in other words, you believe there'll be absolutely no change in active population in either hisec, lowsec or nullsec (NPC or conquerable) if local is removed. Not much, no. The veterans that make EVE what it is will adapt and have more fun than they ever did before and the fruits that play a pvp game while trying to remain passive will cry and whine as always while still logging in to feel the adrenaline of surviving in the ensuing chaos. So the fact that at least nullsec turned more or less into a wasteland within a month after CCP nerfed anoms is, to you, not an indication as to what'd happen if CCP removed local? The anom nerf was, after all, just a reduction in payouts, so people got less of a reward for their effort than they would get if they just went back to hisec and did L4s or incursions. So take the fact that rewards aren't currently that much above L4s, and add the fact that you'd end up having to have cloaky scouts watching every gate in the system, and wormholes, and you'd still have to hope there are no-one who have been cloaked for hours or logged in in the system, and combine that with the fact that most people are more risk averse than they are against grinding, and you're really thinking it'll be "not so big a change"?
Did Swarm space become a wasteland or did less rewarding alliances become desolate? I'd wager the people who left didnt really want to be there to begin with and were only there because they had a secure spot to exploit an undue reward.
I'm not sure how removing local completely in all secs relates to an anom nerf. |
specializt
Angry Angels Constructions The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 01:53:00 -
[160] - Quote
Blabb3r M0uth B11tch wrote: Bottom line is this, there are other games, and maybe, just maybe, that's where they belong?
Have this small hint : EvE Online is not and never will be a PvP-game. Maybe it WAS one back in the days - i dunno, i had more important stuff to do back in the old days. But on every other aspect you're just about right. Removing us will both shrink and harm the universe, not to mention the financial impacts on CCP ;-). We are the freaking backbone of this game - you go ahead and try to walk with broken legs ... feel free to try.
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Look at all the terribaddies squirming when they have their easy mode questioned. The same few posters with sandy vaginas repeating the same vacuous diatribe.
Look it up, cretins.
Caliph Muhammed wrote: And without the pvpers the economy stagnates and dies
Caliph Muhammed wrote: contribute to the success of an alliance that doesn't give a care in the world about its members
Yep, someone who either bought his account or missed like 90% of the game during all these years is really upset about nothing here ... thats what we call a "troll", kids - now go ahead and laugh about the guy who actually claims that PvP is the main thing in EvE Online. Thats in so many ways hilarious - i dont even know where to start.
Oh and : please stay in highsec, nublet - its actually a good thing that you dont know shite about EvE. Enjoy flipping burgers at McDonals and cans in EvE while google'ing cool words and being an internet-superhero. I really hope you have fun while doing so. Dont bother trying to troll or attack me - i wont even read it. |
|
Lord Zim
710
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 01:55:00 -
[161] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:I'm not sure how removing local completely in all secs relates to an anom nerf. Simple. People are more risk averse than they are grind-averse, if nullsec got heavily depopulated because of an increase in grinding, just imagine what'd happen when you increase risk and grind at the same time. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
173
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 01:57:00 -
[162] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:I'm not sure how removing local completely in all secs relates to an anom nerf. Simple. People are more risk averse than they are grind-averse, if nullsec got heavily depopulated because of an increase in grinding, just imagine what'd happen when you increase risk and grind at the same time.
HTFU. That blanket statement could be used to justify anything. We could remove all pvp in EVE under that one. If nullsec collapsed entirely tomorrow EVE would be just fine. And pioneers from hisexy would head on out there to fill the vacuum.
Nullsec is the lawless boondocks of New Eden. Its a great addition to the game but its not its lifegiving breath.
Remove hisec and the same can't be said. Unless of course you're delusional enough to believe the "pubbies" in their humble hundred(s) man alliance without outside infrastructure are going to pay 15 a month to be permacamped in station (if there is one) by 8000 man alliances. |
Lord Zim
710
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:04:00 -
[163] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:HTFU. That blanket statement could be used to justify anything. We could remove all pvp in EVE under that one. I'm just telling you exactly what the effects would be from removing local. If people wanted to be somewhere without local, they'd be in wormholes already, where the rewards are actually in line with the added risk/effort required to stay safe.
Caliph Muhammed wrote:If nullsec collapsed entirely tomorrow EVE would be just fine. And pioneers from hisexy would head on out there to fill the vacuum. I didn't say "nullsec would collapse", we'd still be out there and shooting anyone trying to take over our space, there just would be less people who rat or mine there, and as such less people to actually gank while roaming. vOv |
Ris Dnalor
Black Rebel Rifter Club
308
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:04:00 -
[164] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Luv2chat in local Good point, so take the OP instead as "showing up in local completely voluntary for all secs".
make it so you only show up after you've typed spmething in the channel ... |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
173
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:06:00 -
[165] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:HTFU. That blanket statement could be used to justify anything. We could remove all pvp in EVE under that one. I'm just telling you exactly what the effects would be from removing local. If people wanted to be somewhere without local, they'd be in wormholes already, where the rewards are actually in line with the added risk/effort required to stay safe. No, you're telling me your agenda biased opinion on what would happen, and to be honest you haven't the understanding of the game or human nature to make the assertion. Caliph Muhammed wrote:If nullsec collapsed entirely tomorrow EVE would be just fine. And pioneers from hisexy would head on out there to fill the vacuum. I didn't say "nullsec would collapse", we'd still be out there and shooting anyone trying to take over our space, there just would be less people who rat or mine there, and as such less people to actually gank while roaming. vOv
Did you just admit to ganking? You dirty little hypocrite you. |
specializt
Angry Angels Constructions The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:08:00 -
[166] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:if nullsec got heavily depopulated because of an increase in grinding, just imagine what'd happen when you increase risk and grind at the same time.
I guess highsec would be overpopulated, sites were extremely boring (if available) and missions were the new, best thing - grinding in nullsec would be like trying to fly a 10/10 without Z0MGT3 ... massive balance-shifts would come, ultimately creating a carebear-Eve with even less action, less PvP and a world-of-shitecraft feeling everywhere. |
Lord Zim
710
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:18:00 -
[167] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:No, you're telling me your agenda biased opinion on what would happen, and to be honest you haven't the understanding of the game or human nature to make the assertion. Whereas you do?
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Wormholes require logistics and a level of commitment most find unappealing. You say commitment: what do you mean by that?
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Did you just admit to ganking? You dirty little hypocrite. =p If by "ganking" you mean "fly in alliance/coalition fleets in defense of our space", then yes. If by "ganking" you mean "roam around for ratters to kill", then no. |
Frying Doom
185
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:19:00 -
[168] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:I'm not sure how removing local completely in all secs relates to an anom nerf. Simple. People are more risk averse than they are grind-averse, if nullsec got heavily depopulated because of an increase in grinding, just imagine what'd happen when you increase risk and grind at the same time. So in another words you couldn't hack it if Null actually became hard like it was meant to be.
Might I suggest Hello Kitty Online for all you hard nullsec types (that just seem to want low risk isk) it might give you the safe feeling your looking for. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
173
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:32:00 -
[169] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:No, you're telling me your agenda biased opinion on what would happen, and to be honest you haven't the understanding of the game or human nature to make the assertion. Whereas you do? Caliph Muhammed wrote:Wormholes require logistics and a level of commitment most find unappealing. You say commitment: what do you mean by that? Caliph Muhammed wrote:Did you just admit to ganking? You dirty little hypocrite. =p If by "ganking" you mean "fly in alliance/coalition fleets in defense of our space", then yes. If by "ganking" you mean "roam around for ratters to kill", then no.
Yes I will assert I have an understanding of human nature. I pay very close attention to words people write and the way there text statements sound when spoken. I was being a little facetious though. The game itself isn't hard to learn for anyone willing to "learn".
Because somehow when your awe inspiring mega fleet encounters a fleet 1/10th its size its more challenging than 5 on 10,15, or 20? |
Lord Zim
710
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:35:00 -
[170] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:So in another words you couldn't hack it if Null actually became hard like it was meant to be. Don't you worry, I'd "hack it" just as well in nullsec as I do today even if local was removed.
Frying Doom wrote:Might I suggest Hello Kitty Online for all you hard nullsec types (that just seem to want low risk isk) it might give you the safe feeling your looking for. Fresh coming from the guy who skipped corp because of a tiny wardec. |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
458
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:35:00 -
[171] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:So in another words you couldn't hack it if Null actually became hard like it was meant to be.
Might I suggest Hello Kitty Online for all you hard nullsec types (that just seem to want low risk isk) it might give you the safe feeling your looking for.
Coming from a guy who dodges wardecs that IS pretty funny. eh |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
173
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:38:00 -
[172] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:So in another words you couldn't hack it if Null actually became hard like it was meant to be. Don't you worry, I'd "hack it" just as well in nullsec as I do today even if local was removed.
Then its settled. If a risk averse nullbear such as yourself can make it, local is absolutely an unnecessary game retarding protection. |
bongsmoke
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
39
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:39:00 -
[173] - Quote
Why cant threads like this just die? Or just moved to an area of space where no one can see it? Oh wait.... |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
458
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:40:00 -
[174] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Then its settled. If a risk averse nullbear such as yourself can make it, local is absolutely an unnecesary game retarding protection.
How does local protect you? eh |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
173
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:41:00 -
[175] - Quote
bongsmoke wrote:Why cant threads like this just die? Or just moved to an area of space where no one can see it? Oh wait....
Is there a particular reason you don't wish people to see honest discourse? |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
173
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:42:00 -
[176] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Then its settled. If a risk averse nullbear such as yourself can make it, local is absolutely an unnecesary game retarding protection. How does local protect you?
Because all nonconsentual pvp can be avoided by docking up at the sight of another player in system. People could still dock up obviously but they wouldn't have a neon sign and a ringside bell telling them when to do so. |
Pok Nibin
Viziam Amarr Empire
182
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:43:00 -
[177] - Quote
Though much was spoken, nothing was said. Don't fight it.-á Rejoin your Amarrian patriarchs.-á You know you want to. |
Lord Zim
710
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:44:00 -
[178] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Yes I will assert I have an understanding of human nature. If you do, then you're pretty good at hiding it.
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Because somehow when your awe inspiring mega fleet encounters a fleet 1/10th its size its more challenging than 5 on 10,15, or 20? I can provide you a broom if you require more straws to grasp. I'd love to see where you get the "1/10th its size", since most of the fleets we engaged were between 200 and up towards 900.
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Then its settled. If a risk averse nullbear such as yourself can make it, local is absolutely an unnecessary game retarding protection. I don't live in null, I join fleets in null. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
458
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:45:00 -
[179] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Because all nonconsentual pvp can be avoided by docking up at the sight of another player in system. People could still dock up obviously but they wouldn't have a neon sign and a ringside bell telling them when to do so.
So local automatically warps you to the station and docks you up? eh |
specializt
Angry Angels Constructions The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:46:00 -
[180] - Quote
Quote:risk averse nullbear Nice contradiction.
|
|
Frying Doom
185
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:47:00 -
[181] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Frying Doom wrote:So in another words you couldn't hack it if Null actually became hard like it was meant to be.
Might I suggest Hello Kitty Online for all you hard nullsec types (that just seem to want low risk isk) it might give you the safe feeling your looking for. Coming from a guy who dodges wardecs that IS pretty funny. Is that the best come back you have. I get you guys to war dec an inactive corp and move on so you waste your money and look like a pile of incompetent boobs and all I get is I dodged a war dec.
Yeah I did dodge it. It was aimed at me you missed like so many of Goonswarms ideas it was pure FAIL.
You guys are having a good year. 1) 10,058 wasted votes you got out meta gamed on. 2) Burn Jita as a leadership exercise just showed that Null needs changes if you can just walk away for a weekend. Imagine the Roman army in lawless space like Britain in say 72 AD. What do you think would have happened if the legionaries buggered off to London for a weekend. You showed very well Null is too safe. 3) You have shown the whole game you are a bunch of school yard bullies with your "They argued with me, lets war dec them" mentality. 4) Shown to everyone that you are just a bunch of carebears that love to hide in your null sec castles using locall to run away like scared children when ever you can't out number the enemy 5 to1 or more. 5) You are easily tricked into wasting money on war decing inactive corps.
Goonswarm have lost your way, you were one Great, now you are a Great joke Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
173
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:47:00 -
[182] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Yes I will assert I have an understanding of human nature. If you do, then you're pretty good at hiding it. Caliph Muhammed wrote:Because somehow when your awe inspiring mega fleet encounters a fleet 1/10th its size its more challenging than 5 on 10,15, or 20? I can provide you a broom if you require more straws to grasp. I'd love to see where you get the "1/10th its size", since most of the fleets we engaged were between 200 and up towards 900. Caliph Muhammed wrote:Then its settled. If a risk averse nullbear such as yourself can make it, local is absolutely an unnecessary game retarding protection. I don't live in null, I join fleets in null.
I love winning. You're shooting blanks Zim. You have no real discourse, no worthwhile counter opinion. Convoluted rhetoric is your peak. Im done for the night, ill be on tomorrow sometime to bring this issue again to the forefront. Convoluted might be giving you to much credit though. Remedial is probably a better fit.
Remedial 2. (Social Science / Education) denoting or relating to special teaching, teaching methods, or material for backward and slow learners |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
458
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:50:00 -
[183] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:5) You are easily tricked into wasting money on war decing inactive corps.
Hi we're holding a cooking contest with 45 billion ISK in prizes, we're funding Hulkageddon and we dropped 100 billion ISK on giving Tornadoes to a bunch of bored goons to celebrate things. If you think that wardec fees are anything resembling a "waste of money" for us you're pretty wrong.
You are absolutely clueless about nullsec gameplay, having lived in hisec the whole time you've played the game save for a few months you spent in a dying alliance that couldn't hold its own despite having a lot more supercapitals, a similar sized coalition and funny little events occurring in their favor like the bubbles disappearing from their supercapital staging tower. Your attempts to participate in this discussion only show how little you know - you only want local removed because you want to join the chorus around ~something~ and hey you might as well argue with teh gooniez about how risk averse they are when you dodge wardecs, lest anybody interrupt your peaceful mission running. eh |
specializt
Angry Angels Constructions The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 03:01:00 -
[184] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote: You are absolutely clueless about nullsec gameplay, having lived in hisec the whole time you've played the game save for a few months you spent in a dying alliance that couldn't hold its own despite having a lot more supercapitals, a similar sized coalition and funny little events occurring in their favor like the bubbles disappearing from their supercapital staging tower. Your attempts to participate in this discussion only show how little you know - you only want local removed because you want to join the chorus around ~something~ and hey you might as well argue with teh gooniez about how risk averse they are when you dodge wardecs, lest anybody interrupt your peaceful mission running.
Indeed. I think ze goonays need to gank in mission-sites in high sometime ... you guys got a few tornados left after the last project, yes? How about it? |
Frying Doom
185
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 03:09:00 -
[185] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Frying Doom wrote:5) You are easily tricked into wasting money on war decing inactive corps. Hi we're holding a cooking contest with 45 billion ISK in prizes, we're funding Hulkageddon and we dropped 100 billion ISK on giving Tornadoes to a bunch of bored goons to celebrate things. If you think that wardec fees are anything resembling a "waste of money" for us you're pretty wrong. So your saying war dec fees are too cheap and should be scaled comparing the size of the aggressor to the size of the defender. What would you recommend as a fair price for a 9089 man alliance decing a 4 man corp, besides pathetic of course?
Richard Desturned wrote:You are absolutely clueless about nullsec gameplay, having lived in hisec the whole time you've played the game save for a few months you spent in a dying alliance that couldn't hold its own despite having a lot more supercapitals, a similar sized coalition and funny little events occurring in their favor like the bubbles disappearing from their supercapital staging tower. Your attempts to participate in this discussion only show how little you know - you only want local removed because you want to join the chorus around ~something~ and hey you might as well argue with teh gooniez about how risk averse they are when you dodge wardecs, lest anybody interrupt your peaceful mission running. Well besides the insults I have spent alot more time than than in Null but left because it was BORING. I want local removed, Sov changed and Jump drives nerfed because Null is a stagnant sore on EvE. Oh and as usual for your failed quotes I don't run missions either.
On the war dec we differ and this is probably why you like lord Zim don't seem to understand balance. You would consider a war of 9089 to 4 balanced, I however do not. Null is unbalanced and boring, how many opinions do you need before you see you are only speaking of your own interests. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Blabb3r M0uth B11tch
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 03:15:00 -
[186] - Quote
Please keep going, this is so cool. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
458
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 03:17:00 -
[187] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:So your saying war dec fees are too cheap and should be scaled comparing the size of the aggressor to the size of the defender. What would you recommend as a fair price for a 9089 man alliance decing a 4 man corp, besides pathetic of course?
Wardecs would still be cheap for us because ~80 tech moons~
Frying Doom wrote:Well besides the insults I have spent alot more time than than in Null but left because it was BORING. I want local removed, Sov changed and Jump drives nerfed because Null is a stagnant sore on EvE. Oh and as usual for your failed quotes I don't run missions either.
On the war dec we differ and this is probably why you like lord Zim don't seem to understand balance. You would consider a war of 9089 to 4 balanced, I however do not. Null is unbalanced and boring, how many opinions do you need before you see you are only speaking of your own interests.
Or you can admit that you are risk-averse and you want local removed because you don't want the enemies knowing that you're moving through their space because it's too hard to come up with tactics to mitigate local. You don't want nullsec to be hard, you want it to be hilariously easy for one side (see the idea you agreed with about showing only members of the sov-holding alliance in local) and completely broken for anybody who wishes to do anything in that space without being surrounded by 60 friendlies.
You don't care about balance, you care about getting easy kills. You dodged that wardec despite the easy opportunity to get a few kills out of it, while inviting everyone in the game to assist you (and get stuck at war with us, 'heh') because you cannot fight your own battles. This is why you ditched BTA, this is why you asked everyone to come to your aid. eh |
Lord Zim
710
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 03:20:00 -
[188] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:I love winning. You're shooting blanks Zim. You have no real discourse, no worthwhile counter opinion. Convoluted rhetoric is your peak. Im done for the night, ill be on tomorrow sometime to bring this issue again to the forefront. Convoluted might be giving you to much credit though. Remedial is probably a better fit. Funny, you're the one avoiding the topic as hard as you can, not me. |
Frying Doom
185
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 03:27:00 -
[189] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Frying Doom wrote:So your saying war dec fees are too cheap and should be scaled comparing the size of the aggressor to the size of the defender. What would you recommend as a fair price for a 9089 man alliance decing a 4 man corp, besides pathetic of course? Wardecs would still be cheap for us because ~80 tech moons~ Frying Doom wrote:Well besides the insults I have spent alot more time than than in Null but left because it was BORING. I want local removed, Sov changed and Jump drives nerfed because Null is a stagnant sore on EvE. Oh and as usual for your failed quotes I don't run missions either.
On the war dec we differ and this is probably why you like lord Zim don't seem to understand balance. You would consider a war of 9089 to 4 balanced, I however do not. Null is unbalanced and boring, how many opinions do you need before you see you are only speaking of your own interests. Or you can admit that you are risk-averse and you want local removed because you don't want the enemies knowing that you're moving through their space because it's too hard to come up with tactics to mitigate local. You don't want nullsec to be hard, you want it to be hilariously easy for one side (see the idea you agreed with about showing only members of the sov-holding alliance in local) and completely broken for anybody who wishes to do anything in that space without being surrounded by 60 friendlies. You don't care about balance, you care about getting easy kills. You dodged that wardec despite the easy opportunity to get a few kills out of it, while inviting everyone in the game to assist you (and get stuck at war with us, 'heh') because you cannot fight your own battles. This is why you ditched BTA, this is why you asked everyone to come to your aid.
I left BTA because they are a great alliance and I thought it was crappy that they got war dec'd because you were after me.
Like I have said before if you want safe in EvE try Hi-sec or more to your pace Hello Kitty.
As to the cost of war decs now you are saying you get too much isk from you tech moons. You keep saying Null should not be made more dangerous then keep giving reasons why it should be.
As to the war dec you got made a joke move on.
Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1017
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 03:32:00 -
[190] - Quote
lol forced to quit alliance, forced to quit own corp in the face of a wardec |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
458
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 03:36:00 -
[191] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:As to the cost of war decs now you are saying you get too much isk from you tech moons. You keep saying Null should not be made more dangerous then keep giving reasons why it should be.
Oh, you mean tech moons are risk-free? It's not like anybody can form up a fleet to take them right off of your hands, no siree.
But you're digressing here - why should nullsec be more dangerous than wormholes for only a fraction of the rewards? eh |
Jake Warbird
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1224
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 03:37:00 -
[192] - Quote
Came expecting new methods in agriculture, left slightly disappointed. |
Lord Zim
710
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 03:40:00 -
[193] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Like I have said before if you want safe in EvE try Hi-sec or more to your pace Hello Kitty. Good thing you didn't run away from a wardec screaming like a little girl, or this comment would look pretty ironic.
Frying Doom wrote:As to the cost of war decs now you are saying you get too much isk from you tech moons. You keep saying Null should not be made more dangerous then keep giving reasons why it should be. If only we did say that nullsec should be made more dangerous by, oh I dunno, making systems easier to take and lose, or for stations to be destructible.
If only... |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
458
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 03:43:00 -
[194] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:making systems easier to take and lose, or for stations to be destructible.
those aren't meaningful changes to the "hurf blurf nerf local" crowd because the only meaningful changes are the ones that help them pad their killboards more easily eh |
Frying Doom
185
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 03:54:00 -
[195] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Like I have said before if you want safe in EvE try Hi-sec or more to your pace Hello Kitty. Good thing you didn't run away from a wardec screaming like a little girl, or this comment would look pretty ironic. Frying Doom wrote:As to the cost of war decs now you are saying you get too much isk from you tech moons. You keep saying Null should not be made more dangerous then keep giving reasons why it should be. If only we did say that nullsec should be made more dangerous by, oh I dunno, making systems easier to take and lose, or for stations to be destructible. If only... You got made to look like fools move on, you war dec'd an inactive corp.
Oh and I do agree Sov needs to be changed amongst other things. I notice you seem to skip over the parts you cannot argue with or miss read them. You have had alot of people tell you are loosing the argument so I suppose you should be given points for stubbornness. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Lord Zim
710
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 04:05:00 -
[196] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:You have had alot of people tell you are loosing the argument so I suppose you should be given points for stubbornness. I've been told I've lost the argument by you and Caliph. You ran away from a wardec screaming like a little girl, Caliph just wardecs hisec pubbies and ganks them, and keeps averting the topic.
You'll excuse me if I take both your proclamations of victory with a pinch of salt. |
Frying Doom
185
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 04:23:00 -
[197] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:You have had alot of people tell you are loosing the argument so I suppose you should be given points for stubbornness. I've been told I've lost the argument by you and Caliph. You ran away from a wardec screaming like a little girl, Caliph just wardecs hisec pubbies and ganks them, and keeps averting the topic when I start pushing him a little. You'll excuse me if I take both your proclamations of victory with a pinch of salt. As I'm not a hi-sec resident I couldn't care about your war dec. Said it before, will say it again you guys are a joke and as noted in above posts have clearly shown for the whole of eve that Null is safe and Boring.
If you only think its us 2 saying your arguments fall flat keep reading.
As shown Goonswarm want a nice safe null sec. Keep up your complaining you really look like you only want to keep your easy lives in Null no matter what the cost. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
458
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 04:26:00 -
[198] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:As shown Goonswarm want a nice safe null sec. You do too.
eh |
Frying Doom
185
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 04:35:00 -
[199] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Frying Doom wrote:As shown Goonswarm want a nice safe null sec. You do too. No more exciting and changeable not stagnant and boring. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Lord Zim
710
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 04:42:00 -
[200] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Frying Doom wrote:As shown Goonswarm want a nice safe null sec. You do too. No more exciting and changeable not stagnant and boring. Such a pity "your" changes would cause it to be stagnant and boring on a daily basis, then. |
|
Frying Doom
185
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 04:45:00 -
[201] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Frying Doom wrote:As shown Goonswarm want a nice safe null sec. You do too. No more exciting and changeable not stagnant and boring. Such a pity "your" changes would cause it to be stagnant and boring on a daily basis, then. It is now. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
459
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 04:47:00 -
[202] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:It is now.
"it's already stagnant and boring let's make it worse" eh |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
906
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 04:48:00 -
[203] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Frying Doom wrote:It is now. "it's already stagnant and boring let's make it worse" Easily done ! Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
20
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 04:51:00 -
[204] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Frying Doom wrote:As shown Goonswarm want a nice safe null sec. You do too. No more exciting and changeable not stagnant and boring. Such a pity "your" changes would cause it to be stagnant and boring on a daily basis, then. It is now.
It is for you maybe. I'm sorry you are bad at Eve Online and have no friends to help you out.
The rest of us are shooting stuff, getting blown up, making news and getting paid.
Sucks to be you I guess. |
Frying Doom
185
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 05:21:00 -
[205] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
It is for you maybe. I'm sorry you are bad at Eve Online and have no friends to help you out.
The rest of us are shooting stuff, getting blown up, making news and getting paid.
Sucks to be you I guess.
No actually just like alot of players I gave up Null as a bad joke and moved on. You guys complain about Nulls low population and then complain if anyone wants to improve it. You only seem able to throw insults and complain like little children. I feel sorry for you. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Keno Skir
131
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 05:44:00 -
[206] - Quote
I would have to work much harder at EvE if there was no local. I would have to totally revise my tactics if there were no local..
I think i would actually really love it if there were no local :) The Apostle : I want a kangeroo Captain Kirk : Silly Austrians Sarmatiko : Let me guess: you're from US? Captain Kirk : Yeah Riverside IA - why? |
Elena Melkan
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
17
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 08:20:00 -
[207] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
It is for you maybe. I'm sorry you are bad at Eve Online and have no friends to help you out.
The rest of us are shooting stuff, getting blown up, making news and getting paid.
Sucks to be you I guess.
No actually just like alot of players I gave up Null as a bad joke and moved on. You guys complain about Nulls low population and then complain if anyone wants to improve it. You only seem able to throw insults and complain like little children. I feel sorry for you. I don't get your thinking. You would like to make living in nullsec harder in terms of removing local... so more people would move there?
One has to admit that there are plenty of players in null who enjoy lazy and casual gameplay. They do enjoy rather safe areas where they can rat, plex or mine to fund their PvP activity (or, most of it, as many alliances have ship replacement programs anyway). Currently, many players who live in highsec are afraid of null, because they think it's dangerous gate camp land with endless hostile roams coming to get you and blow up your expensive faction fit PvE ship. They are avoiding the idea of moving there, by setting some goals to achieve first (in terms of SP, mostly). Now, if you removed the main intel provider of nullsec, would that increase the chance that these scared little folks would move down from the safety of highsec to the new, shiny "spam directional scan to win and hope not to die" nullsec?
People who live in nullsec and hold their own sov are already doing work to keep it, and to keep it as safe as possible for the alliance residents to live and profit up there. Yes, you can of course make everything harder for people. I don't deny it, it would be fun most of the time. But would it really attract more people to move and to live in nullsec? |
Raptors Mole
The Kairos Syndicate Transmission Lost
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 09:46:00 -
[208] - Quote
Compromise.......
1.The head of Concord Communications gets caught via a phone hacking scandal in bed with several pirate/fringe faction heads. The scandal causes communications infrastructure to collapse.
Hi Sec GÇô Comms is now provided by faction police/Navy (Maybe a FW component) and the delay is dependent on the security of the system. 1.0 GÇô 0.5 has a 10 second incremental drop in a ship registering in local.
Lo Sec GÇô 0.4 -0.1 1 min incremental drop in registering in local. (Maybe a FW component)
Null GÇô 15 to 30min, (maybe a Sov Component), or no local unless you engage the ships comms.
2.At a wild Gallente party scientists having a larf set off an EMP Pulse using a System gate as the power source. This decloaked 4 sneaky Amarr spy ships which were in system. This tech was rapidly rolled out rendering current cloaks obsolete wherever there is a power system huge enough to pulse regularly. The gate can charge and pulse every 5 mins (or insert time here/relate to Sec level)) decloaking all within 10 AU (or other distance here/relate to sec level) and/or every time someone jumps through.
3Minmater ingenuity soon came up with a counter to this. Made from old refrigerator parts and gaffer tape, an active cloak force field projector soon hit the New Eden market. This field is able to deflect the pulse particles around the ship. It does however need fuel (insert PI /player made fuel) to power it giving it a limited time to hide before needing to refuel. Due to shielding problems though it cannot be used in conjunction with a Cyno generator in anything smaller than a Battleship, in fact it could only be made to work effectively in a Black Ops BS Hull.
.........So in short.
-Local gets nerfed, or removed unless you choose to use it. -Cloaks loose utility but still retain limited use. (unaffected in WH space, or by a very limited range POS module) -No more AFK Cloaky potential Cyno lighting bastage ruining everyoneGÇÖs plexing/mining pleasure (and way of making ISK for many) in Null.
So, What is my motivation for posting.....Well WH space has no local and it is a thriving community of ISK making players, pew pew happy players, or both.
Why wonGÇÖt the above ideas work as a compromise?
I moved to WH space straight from Hi Sec so am used to no local, it didnGÇÖt take long to adjust to this. During roams (Both group and solo) of Low and Null I am always amazed at how few people there are in the vast majority of systems. I donGÇÖt have experience of Null/Sov Politics and warfare which is why this post is phrased as a question.
Something does need to change as Hi Sec should be a training ground for most before they head out to do something more interesting/immersive seeking to make their fortune thereby prolonging their sub paying career. Hi Sec industrialists, peeps who have limited play time, those who have found their niche and enjoy it will never leave Hi Sec GÇô this is understandable.
On a side note it would be interesting to run a poll on how long a player remained in Empire before heading out to pastures unknown though. Me, it was about 6 months, but then I am a slow learner and Eve is such a huge complex game.
Fire away,
Raptors
|
Frying Doom
185
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 10:05:00 -
[209] - Quote
Elena Melkan wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
It is for you maybe. I'm sorry you are bad at Eve Online and have no friends to help you out.
The rest of us are shooting stuff, getting blown up, making news and getting paid.
Sucks to be you I guess.
No actually just like alot of players I gave up Null as a bad joke and moved on. You guys complain about Nulls low population and then complain if anyone wants to improve it. You only seem able to throw insults and complain like little children. I feel sorry for you. I don't get your thinking. You would like to make living in nullsec harder in terms of removing local... so more people would move there? One has to admit that there are plenty of players in null who enjoy lazy and casual gameplay. They do enjoy rather safe areas where they can rat, plex or mine to fund their PvP activity (or, most of it, as many alliances have ship replacement programs anyway). Currently, many players who live in highsec are afraid of null, because they think it's dangerous gate camp land with endless hostile roams coming to get you and blow up your expensive faction fit PvE ship. They are avoiding the idea of moving there, by setting some goals to achieve first (in terms of SP, mostly). Now, if you removed the main intel provider of nullsec, would that increase the chance that these scared little folks would move down from the safety of highsec to the new, shiny "spam directional scan to win and hope not to die" nullsec? People who live in nullsec and hold their own sov are already doing work to keep it, and to keep it as safe as possible for the alliance residents to live and profit up there. Yes, you can of course make everything harder for people. I don't deny it, it would be fun most of the time. But would it really attract more people to move and to live in nullsec? And your ideas to get more players into null and make it more fun are?
Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
82
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 10:29:00 -
[210] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Alara IonStorm wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote: It would solve cloaky camps people complain about. It would give a point to cloaks people complain about.
Uncloak aliegned, tap bomb, warp to safety. No time to get reinforcements on grid to help or even lock targets. Hurray for 100% Safe uncounterable attacks. Then nerf bombs. Change them. Make them super powerful torpedoes that can only hit capitals. It would be a small sacrifice, and im a dedicated cloaky kind of player, for the greater good of the game. But also remember that even if that were the case no local means that for that to occur a scouting operation would have had to of occured first. Maybe it would be a well earned uncounterable attack.
nerf bombs too? why not nerf everyting so that you can actually get some kills since you are so bloody bad at it and you have to relly on wardecking high sec industrialist to win at eve I tell you what needs nerfing, YOU posting in forum The thread is called Grow some balls, i say to you, Grow a spine! |
|
Elena Melkan
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
17
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 11:40:00 -
[211] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote: And your ideas to get more players into null and make it more fun are?
I think null is not that bad as it is right now. Removing local would make getting players to move there only more difficult, unless you added some other ways to gather reliable intel to make people feel more safe. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
459
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 11:40:00 -
[212] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:And your ideas to get more players into null and make it more fun are?
they certainly don't involve making the game unplayable for anybody who isn't in a fleet eh |
Frying Doom
185
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 12:21:00 -
[213] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Frying Doom wrote:And your ideas to get more players into null and make it more fun are?
they certainly don't involve making the game unplayable for anybody who isn't in a fleet So your constructive ideas to get more people into Null are? Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Lord Zim
712
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 12:26:00 -
[214] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:So your constructive ideas to get more people into Null are? By not making it worse, for one. |
Sebastian N Cain
Aliastra Gallente Federation
133
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 12:28:00 -
[215] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote: No more exciting and changeable not stagnant and boring.
Such a pity "your" changes would cause it to be stagnant and boring on a daily basis, then. It is now. It is for you maybe. I'm sorry you are bad at Eve Online and have no friends to help you out. The rest of us are shooting stuff, getting blown up, making news and getting paid. Sucks to be you I guess. Well, i prefer to getting blown, making out and getting laid. And it-¦s not being me that sucks... "You either need less science fiction or more medication."
"Or less medication and more ammo!" |
JitaPriceChecker2
State War Academy Caldari State
170
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 12:39:00 -
[216] - Quote
CCP just should add 0.0 regions on the verge of existing one that have no local, are connected via normal stargates and where cyno works. OF course it should be rich with resources.
That would be perfect test if no local works in normal space ( it works perfectly in w-space ) |
JitaPriceChecker2
State War Academy Caldari State
170
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 12:40:00 -
[217] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Frying Doom wrote:And your ideas to get more players into null and make it more fun are?
they certainly don't involve making the game unplayable for anybody who isn't in a fleet
All hail solo ratters ??? |
RDevz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
99
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 12:41:00 -
[218] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Frying Doom wrote:And your ideas to get more players into null and make it more fun are?
they certainly don't involve making the game unplayable for anybody who isn't in a fleet So your constructive ideas to get more people into Null are?
Nullsec requires changes to make it more populous. This is a change to nullsec. This change is therefore good, and will make nullsec more populous.
Without local, I'll probably still live in nullsec, but if you think I'd ever do an anomaly that any roaming cloaky ship can arrive in with absolutely no warning, you're wrong. I'd move money-making to an alt in a one-man highsec corp, and L4 mission instead. For the record, I count seeing scan probes on D-scan as giving me appropriate warning, although I'm loathe to even so much as hint that anything that would result in one mashing D-scan 720 times per hour would be a good idea to implement.
~10,058~ |
JitaPriceChecker2
State War Academy Caldari State
170
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 12:43:00 -
[219] - Quote
RDevz wrote:
Without local, I'll probably still live in nullsec, but if you think I'd ever do an anomaly that any roaming cloaky ship can arrive in with absolutely no warning.
This is where you fail.
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
459
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 12:46:00 -
[220] - Quote
JitaPriceChecker2 wrote:That would be perfect test if no local works in normal space ( it works perfectly in w-space )
yeah because aside from no local wormholes are 100% identical to k-space eh |
|
Lord Zim
712
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 12:47:00 -
[221] - Quote
JitaPriceChecker2 wrote:This is where you fail. I'm sure an NPC alt which hasn't even logged in to make an avatar has much relevant to say about how it is to live in nullsec. |
specializt
Angry Angels Constructions The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 13:08:00 -
[222] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:JitaPriceChecker2 wrote:This is where you fail. I'm sure an NPC alt which hasn't even logged in to make an avatar has much relevant to say about how it is to live in nullsec.
Yes, but has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
82
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 13:09:00 -
[223] - Quote
the only way to populate 0.0 is to change 0.0 sanctums or something similar. Prior the huge sanctum nerf, there were people everywhere in 0.0. Some idiots said that the sanctums should be nerfed and it wouldnt interfeer with numbers too much. I argued against it, that it would change numbers drastically.
Now look at us. Removing local is gonna do nothing for numbers in 0.0. More than 30% left 0.0 cos of that stupid nerf. And thats an under estimation. I belive the numbers are much higher. The only things thats gonna change it is to boost 0.0 isk bonus which always atracts players in the thousands. Keep nerfing 0.0 and less and less people are gonna want to be there. It simply too much effort and headache for the small and medium entities with almost no reward.
I know if local gets nerfed even less people are gonna be in 0.0 and most just go to highsec and run level 4s. Not to mention all those entities wouldnt have to pay rent. Removing local result will just make 0.0 a dump. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
179
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 13:20:00 -
[224] - Quote
Pathetic From: ****** To: Caliph Muhammed
INBOX
you are one pathetic son a bi.tch. Sociopath piece of dogturd. Just biomass yourself, make the game a better place.
Cu.nt.
Fanmail =) |
JitaPriceChecker2
State War Academy Caldari State
170
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 13:22:00 -
[225] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:JitaPriceChecker2 wrote:That would be perfect test if no local works in normal space ( it works perfectly in w-space ) yeah because aside from no local wormholes are 100% identical to k-space
Learn to read you goon tard
JitaPriceChecker2 wrote: CCP just should add 0.0 regions on the verge of existing one that have no local, are connected via normal stargates and where cyno works.
|
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
82
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 13:24:00 -
[226] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Pathetic From: ****** To: Caliph Muhammed
INBOX
you are one pathetic son a bi.tch. Sociopath piece of dogturd. Just biomass yourself, make the game a better place.
Cu.nt.
Fanmail =)
you fan mail kinda has a point. With your use of language and how you have refered to others in this thread and in the previous thread. You are one very angry person. Its not surpsiring you got hate mail. I am surprisd you did not get it before speaking how you have been speaking to others. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
179
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 13:27:00 -
[227] - Quote
I understand completely. If you need to vent feel free. Send me a mail with your expressed feelings and I promise to hold them forever and cherish them, like love letters. |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
83
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 13:29:00 -
[228] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:I understand completely. If you need to vent feel free. Send me a mail with your feelings and I promise to hold them forever and cherish them, like love letters.
rofl. I am much more smooth than i apear. I dont fall into that trap. All i said, was thats is deserving. Not that i feel the same way |
Karn Dulake
Souls Must Be Trampled The.Alliance
798
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 13:30:00 -
[229] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Pathetic From: ****** To: Caliph Muhammed
INBOX
you are one pathetic son a bi.tch. Sociopath piece of dogturd. Just biomass yourself, make the game a better place.
Cu.nt.
Fanmail =)
Reasons why this email only exists in your own imagination.
1. People are arguing with each other they mainly see you as an irritation 2. No one is calling you Sociopathic but yourself. I dont normally troll, but when i do i do it on General Discussion. |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
83
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 13:33:00 -
[230] - Quote
Karn Dulake wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Pathetic From: ****** To: Caliph Muhammed
INBOX
you are one pathetic son a bi.tch. Sociopath piece of dogturd. Just biomass yourself, make the game a better place.
Cu.nt.
Fanmail =) Reasons why this email only exists in your own imagination. 1. People are arguing with each other they mainly see you as an irritation 2. No one is calling you Sociopathic but yourself.
+1 ROFL i love part 2. I bet somewhere in that brain there is a neuron that is telling him, you are a sociopath! I bet that much is true. |
|
Mindseamstress
Jovian Labs Jovian Enterprises
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 13:39:00 -
[231] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Get rid of local, all secs. It fixes almost everything. You would have to work to locate a target. You would have to work to avoid a target. There would be risk in high sec. There would be risk in all secs.
Freighters could be caught during a war dec. Freighters could get through during a war dec.
You would still have Concord retaliation in high sec. You could still be camped, though if you break the camp it would be harder to hunt you down. Certainly no worse that what we have now but with compelling gameplay.
It would solve cloaky camps people complain about. It would give a point to cloaks of which people complain about.
It would make neutral alts almost irrelevant. Though not 100%. It would certainly make playing with one account a lot less of a disadvantage. Sure you might lose a few alt account subs, but you would gain many more subs by having more compelling gameplay. What good is a scout profession when they're revealed as soon as they enter system?
The changes the expansion are bringing aren't going to revitalize low sec or null sec and its certainly not going to promote or fuel war. Quite the opposite.
The devs and the playerbase talk a lot about EVE being hardcore, but as of yet i'm not really seeing the hardcore aspect to the game.
The game is a boring campfest. Removing local removes that to a large degree.
To my ultra Orthodox carebear players, uncle Caliphy isn't throwing you under the bus. The threats you worry about occuring with this change would actually be resolvable by a merc corporation. If you are decced and you hire a merc the merc cannot sneak up on the enemy with everything displayed for them. They may be able to make your tormentors life a little more difficult but in most cases can't force a fight under those conditions. With no local they could. If you are camped by a griefdec and you hire a reasonably sized merc to help you the griefer will never see them coming. It's win/win.
Even null entry points would be camped far less. Lets see the thirty man bubble camp consistently do it when a 150 man roaming gang warps in on them and they never see it coming.
Local is holding EVE back. Period. Get rid of it and let EVE become great.
Oh what you are talking about is going back to the way it was in 2003... I admit the game was more fun back then but unfortunately, it turns out the majority didn't so CCP took out the nerf bad in favor of carebearism. Note that the number of players went up sharply from an all time low of 3k per day. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
179
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 13:41:00 -
[232] - Quote
Mindseamstress wrote: Oh what you are talking about is going back to the way it was in 2003... I admit the game was more fun back then but unfortunately, it turns out the majority didn't so CCP took out the nerf bad in favor of carebearism. Note that the number of players went up sharply from an all time low of 3k per day.
You forget the part about having no Concord. Slightly different than no local. Convenient you forgot that. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
459
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 13:53:00 -
[233] - Quote
JitaPriceChecker2 wrote:Learn to read you goon tard
did I upset you eh |
malcovas Henderson
Smoking Minerals Syndicate Cannabis Legionis
67
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 13:55:00 -
[234] - Quote
The only reason I can see as to why the OP wants the removal of local, Is to have the total advantage of killing his industrialist War Targets.
Hell I even believe, though Wormholes have no local, the Op has never been in one. Why?. He is going in totally blind.
If remove local, then lets remove locator agents. Make you WORK for your kills. Good luck finding a WT 60 jumps away, and you don't know where they are.
07 |
Frying Doom
189
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 13:56:00 -
[235] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:JitaPriceChecker2 wrote:Learn to read you goon tard did I upset you I don't think you did, I believe it was a factual statement that you seem unable to read at present. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
180
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 13:58:00 -
[236] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote:The only reason I can see as to why the OP wants the removal of local, Is to have the total advantage of killing his industrialist War Targets.
Hell I even believe, though Wormholes have no local, the Op has never been in one. Why?. He is going in totally blind.
If remove local, then lets remove locator agents. Make you WORK for your kills. Good luck finding a WT 60 jumps away, and you don't know where they are.
07
And when you check the OPs killboard you see battleships and battlecruisers and not one hulk. 1 major industrial kill from a freighter in hi sec.
But even if the assumption were true. So what? Do industrial ships have a right to safety? |
malcovas Henderson
Smoking Minerals Syndicate Cannabis Legionis
67
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 14:09:00 -
[237] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
And when you check the OPs killboard you see battleships and battlecruisers and not one hulk. 1 major industrial kill from a freighter in hi sec.
But even if the assumption were true. So what? Do industrial ships have a right to safety?
No ship has the right to safety, but every ship has the right to a chance of survival. |
Lord Zim
712
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 14:10:00 -
[238] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:And when you check the OPs killboard you see battleships and battlecruisers and not one hulk. 1 major industrial kill from a freighter in hi sec. http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=12904924 http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=12846201 http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=12831134 http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=12732083 http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=13154012 http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=13089585 http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=12928381
As one guy said earlier, "that's not PVP"
Caliph Muhammed wrote:But even if the assumption were true. So what? Do industrial ships have a right to safety? One problem with this question: it's not related to what malcovas asserted: all you want is to have the total advantage of killing your wartargets. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
181
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 14:15:00 -
[239] - Quote
Yeah I did forget the Orca. But no hulks, I dont suicide gank miners and any industrials that were targeted were by chance. When you have two camp for hours on end you have to take what you can get. Any of those with zero combat skill could have left the war but they chose not to. |
Lord Zim
712
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 14:24:00 -
[240] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:I dont suicide gank miners What's the matter, afraid you should lose a ship?
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Any of those with zero combat skill could have left the war but they chose not to. If they even saw that they were at war to begin with, or even understood what that meant. |
|
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
183
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 14:29:00 -
[241] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:I dont suicide gank miners What's the matter, afraid you should lose a ship? Caliph Muhammed wrote:Any of those with zero combat skill could have left the war but they chose not to. If they even saw that they were at war to begin with, or even understood what that meant.
None of which matter to the point. Nothing your presenting has any bearing on local being the one feature in EVE that contradicts and makes the whole game a campfest.
You can point to a dead hulk and say that its unfair hulks should never die. Its all just hot air. |
specializt
Angry Angels Constructions The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 14:30:00 -
[242] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote: If remove local, then lets remove locator agents. Make you WORK for your kills. Good luck finding a WT 60 jumps away, and you don't know where they are.
Now lets not exagerrate it - locator agents should be REALLY EXPENSIVE, but not unavailable - the current price is next to inexistent which makes stalking, ganking and being a child in general really easy. Spotting a target should be an effort --- hence, cost a lot of iskies (more than 100M per use i guess) |
malcovas Henderson
Smoking Minerals Syndicate Cannabis Legionis
67
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 14:38:00 -
[243] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Yeah I did forget the Orca. But no hulks, I dont suicide gank miners and any industrials that were targeted were by chance. When you have to camp for hours on end you have to take what you can get. Any of those with zero combat skill could have left the war but they chose not to.
Thomas Kart was a miner that died, but he also started the war and refused to undock in anything but a mining ship. We had a chance to kill him and we did. The greater point is Zim industrialist, save for capital ships, and miners don't provide fun kills. That's our perspective.
I checked the KB's for your Corperation. Over 10% of kills were indies. Take into that, Pods, the figure goes higher than 30%. That said. It's a war. and as such any Indy caught is fair game. It's only the pilots fault for being out in an Indy.
It doesn,t answer how removing local doesn't give you an OP advantage in Hi, and balances everything
o7
|
malcovas Henderson
Smoking Minerals Syndicate Cannabis Legionis
67
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 14:42:00 -
[244] - Quote
specializt wrote:malcovas Henderson wrote: If remove local, then lets remove locator agents. Make you WORK for your kills. Good luck finding a WT 60 jumps away, and you don't know where they are.
Now lets not exagerrate it - locator agents should be REALLY EXPENSIVE, but not unavailable - the current price is next to inexistent which makes stalking, ganking and being a child in general really easy. Spotting a target should be an effort --- hence, cost a lot of iskies (more than 100M per use i guess)
No let exagerrate it. If OP wants an uncounterable mechanic. Then by christ make him work for it. Remove local, locator agents got to go aswell.
o7
|
Lord Zim
712
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 14:42:00 -
[245] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:None of which matter to the point. Nothing your presenting has any bearing on local being the one feature in EVE that contradicts and makes the whole game a campfest. "makes the whole game a campfest" is your assertation, presumably because it's the only way you can get kills. vOv |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
184
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 14:43:00 -
[246] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Yeah I did forget the Orca. But no hulks, I dont suicide gank miners and any industrials that were targeted were by chance. When you have to camp for hours on end you have to take what you can get. Any of those with zero combat skill could have left the war but they chose not to.
Thomas Kart was a miner that died, but he also started the war and refused to undock in anything but a mining ship. We had a chance to kill him and we did. The greater point is Zim industrialist, save for capital ships, and miners don't provide fun kills. That's our perspective.
I checked the KB's for your Corperation. Over 10% of kills were indies. Take into that, Pods, the figure goes higher than 30%. That said. It's a war. and as such any Indy caught is fair game. It's only the pilots fault for being out in an Indy. It doesn,t answer how removing local doesn't give you an OP advantage in Hi, and balances everything o7
My killboard is 10% industrial? I doubt it. I wont deny that if a war target is in a industrial I won't blast him into oblivion but I don't target industrialist as a primary means of PVP. What my corp members do on their own is just that, their own.
None of which lend a shred of credibility to the argument against the removal of local. |
Selinate
906
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 14:46:00 -
[247] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Alara IonStorm wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote: It would solve cloaky camps people complain about. It would give a point to cloaks people complain about.
Uncloak aliegned, tap bomb, warp to safety. No time to get reinforcements on grid to help or even lock targets. Hurray for 100% Safe uncounterable attacks. This is pretty much how it works now, even with local.
Was about to say. I don't see why people think bombers are going to be WTF powerful with local removed. It will be practically the same as before... |
Selinate
906
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 14:49:00 -
[248] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:wormholers seem to believe that spamming the dscan button is the height of gameplay in eve online vOv
D-Scan is a horrible click fest mechanic on it's own that needs to be changed to something better and/or different. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
185
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 14:50:00 -
[249] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:None of which matter to the point. Nothing your presenting has any bearing on local being the one feature in EVE that contradicts and makes the whole game a campfest. "makes the whole game a campfest" is your assertation, presumably because it's the only way you can get kills. vOv
Zim you're a moron. You want so bad to be the guy taken seriously on the forums, in the conversations, making points. But your not up to the job. Thats the truth, it is what it is. Stop spamming my thread with assumptions and irrelevant tripe. |
Lord Zim
712
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 14:51:00 -
[250] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:My killboard is 10% industrial? I doubt it. I wont deny that if a war target is in a industrial I won't blast him into oblivion but I don't target industrialist as a primary means of PVP. What my corp members do on their own is just that, their own. And you counted PODS as industrial as well? Bias much?
None of which lend a shred of credibility to the argument against the removal of local. Actually, I'd say none of this is lending a shred of credibility to the argument for the removal of local. |
|
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
185
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 14:53:00 -
[251] - Quote
Thats because no matter what is said the only counter you ever present is "blah blah no it isn't."
Seriously go find a new thread, stop spamming this one. |
Selinate
906
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 14:53:00 -
[252] - Quote
FFS, if local was removed then maybe, JUST MAYBE, the cov ops cloak subsystem for the Legion might be half-decent in K-space...
It's useable now, but only under certain cirumstances and barely at that, mostly just for running through camps... |
malcovas Henderson
Smoking Minerals Syndicate Cannabis Legionis
67
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 14:57:00 -
[253] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
My killboard is 10% industrial? I doubt it. I wont deny that if a war target is in a industrial I won't blast him into oblivion but I don't target industrialist as a primary means of PVP. What my corp members do on their own is just that, their own. And you counted PODS as industrial as well? Bias much?
None of which lend a shred of credibility to the argument against the removal of local.
I didn't say your KB's. I said your Corps. Pods were not counted as indies, but as non combat ships. Making the total for your Corps kills of "non combat ships" at about 1 in 3.
Reguardless as to whether or not, you personally shoot indies, your corp do. Removing local gives your Corp, and others like them, that same advantage as you are looking for.
As for creditability for argueing against the removal of local. Balance is the only reason for not removing it. It gives the agressor to much, and takes away much more from the prey.
o7 |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
185
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 15:01:00 -
[254] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:
My killboard is 10% industrial? I doubt it. I wont deny that if a war target is in a industrial I won't blast him into oblivion but I don't target industrialist as a primary means of PVP. What my corp members do on their own is just that, their own. And you counted PODS as industrial as well? Bias much?
None of which lend a shred of credibility to the argument against the removal of local.
I didn't say your KB's. I said your Corps. Pods were not counted as indies, but as non combat ships. Making the total for your Corps kills of "non combat ships" at about 1 in 3. Reguardless as to whether or not, you personally shoot indies, your corp do. Removing local gives your Corp, that same advantage as you are looking for. As for creditability for argueing against the removal of local. Balance is the only reason for not removing it. It gives the agressor to much, and takes away much more from the prey. o7
It makes nonconsentual targeted pvp an impossibility. **** the victim. It makes EVE suck. Having a mechanism that completely removes stealth and scouting from the game, suprise attacks and endless other often hyped features isnt balance. Its ******* weak. |
Selinate
906
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 15:01:00 -
[255] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote:
As for creditability for argueing against the removal of local. Balance is the only reason for not removing it. It gives the agressor to much, and takes away much more from the prey.
o7
No it doesn't. Roaming gangs and pirates have to find the miners/plexers/etc. just as well as the miners/plexers/etc. have to be on active lookout for the gangs and such.
FFS this is how it happens in wormholes and it really just does not give the "aggressor" an advantage at all... |
malcovas Henderson
Smoking Minerals Syndicate Cannabis Legionis
67
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 15:04:00 -
[256] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
It makes nonconsentual targeted pvp an impossibility. **** the victim. It makes EVE suck. Having a mechanism that completely removes stealth and scouting from the game, suprise attacks and endless other often hyped features isnt balance. Its ******* weak.
Here is an Idea for you. Why dont you WD, other WD'ing Corps. With the new Combat UI, it shouldn't be to hard to find agressors.
o7 |
Lord Zim
712
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 15:06:00 -
[257] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:It makes nonconsentual targeted pvp an impossibility. Odd, killboards all over the eve universe seems to prove that it's very possible right now.
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Having a mechanism that completely removes stealth and scouting from the game, suprise attacks and endless other often hyped features isnt balance. Its ******* ********. As usual, you've absolutely no idea (or rather, you completely ignore) the end result on "the other guy", because you're so focused on making your own game too easy. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
185
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 15:08:00 -
[258] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:It makes nonconsentual targeted pvp an impossibility. Odd, killboards all over the eve universe seems to prove that it's very possible right now. Caliph Muhammed wrote:Having a mechanism that completely removes stealth and scouting from the game, suprise attacks and endless other often hyped features isnt balance. Its ******* ********. As usual, you've absolutely no idea (or rather, you completely ignore) the end result on "the other guy", because you're so focused on making your own game too easy.
Welcome to ignore idiot. |
Lord Zim
712
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 15:11:00 -
[259] - Quote
I guess the truth hurts. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
460
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 15:12:00 -
[260] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:It makes nonconsentual targeted pvp an impossibility. **** the victim. It makes EVE suck. Having a mechanism that completely removes stealth and scouting from the game, suprise attacks and endless other often hyped features isnt balance. Its ******* weak.
you still don't understand balance and you only want easy-mode PvP
I think we've already established this conclusion several times in this discussion and it's a fact you're not willing to accept. eh |
|
Lord Zim
712
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 15:13:00 -
[261] - Quote
Careful, he'll "ignore" you too. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
185
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 15:14:00 -
[262] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:It makes nonconsentual targeted pvp an impossibility. **** the victim. It makes EVE suck. Having a mechanism that completely removes stealth and scouting from the game, suprise attacks and endless other often hyped features isnt balance. Its ******* weak. you still don't understand balance and you only want easy-mode PvP I think we've already established this conclusion several times in this discussion and it's a fact you're not willing to accept.
We havent established anything other than local removes everything listed in the original post and that goonswarm has slipped up and recruited some seriously carebear players.
Your premise that because local exists its therefore balanced is silly. But it isn't worth in depth discussion. Lets just say under that logic a change was never needed in EVE in its entire existence.
Notice the OP is in double digit likes, growing everyday. The rest of the posts? Nothing worth mentioning. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
460
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 15:15:00 -
[263] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:We havent established anything other than local removes everything listed in the original post and that goonswarm has slipped up and recruited some seriously carebear players.
People who only want easy-mode killmails are worse than the carebears. eh |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
185
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 15:17:00 -
[264] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:We havent established anything other than local removes everything listed in the original post and that goonswarm has slipped up and recruited some seriously carebear players. People who only want easy-mode killmails are worse than the carebears.
Calling something easymode doesn't win the argument.
Also, if you're big on challenges leave the 8000 man alliance and help the lessers fight against it.
And having to camp for hours-months to kill a specific person doesn't equate to challenge. It equates to bad design and implementation of which the devs have already made clear. |
Malachi256
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 15:20:00 -
[265] - Quote
As someone who only plays occasionally, and who avoids pvp entirely, I think local is one of the most immersion breaking features of this game.
Default player listings in local absolutely need to be removed. Give us something else to act as an early warning system, but good grief, get rid of local. Nothing like watching a chat channel to remind me that this is a sub-par space MMORPG. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
185
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 15:22:00 -
[266] - Quote
Malachi256 wrote:As someone who only plays occasionally, and who avoids pvp entirely, I think local is one of the most immersion breaking features of this game.
Default player listings in local absolutely need to be removed. Give us something else to act as an early warning system, but good grief, get rid of local. Nothing like watching a chat channel to remind me that this is a sub-par space MMORPG.
Kudos to you good sir. Someone able to see past self interest and make a clear and concise point. |
Lord Zim
712
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 15:22:00 -
[267] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:We havent established anything other than local removes everything listed in the original post Except we've established that it also unbalances everything in favor of the attacker and puts an extraordinary burden on the shoulders of the victim to have one cloaked scout hanging out on each gate and wormhole going into a system, and he'd still have to hope someone didn't log out a few hours or days prior.
Caliph Muhammed wrote:and that goonswarm has slipped up and recruited some seriously carebear players. You heard it here first: having a grasp on "game balance" means "carebear", regardless of the fact I've killed more ships on this char than he has on his, and I haven't used this char offensively for 3 years. |
Lord Zim
712
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 15:23:00 -
[268] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:the 8000 man alliance Psst: it's over 9000. |
malcovas Henderson
Smoking Minerals Syndicate Cannabis Legionis
67
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 15:23:00 -
[269] - Quote
Selinate wrote:
No it doesn't. Roaming gangs and pirates have to find the miners/plexers/etc. just as well as the miners/plexers/etc. have to be on active lookout for the gangs and such.
FFS this is how it happens in wormholes and it really just does not give the "aggressor" an advantage at all...
I don't do WH's as a rule, But I have watched personally, Corperations completely annihilate WH dwellers. The mechanics for the WH is far different to Null/lo or Hi. It has less Hostile trafic for a start. You can control the exits, by closing them down, A proper run WH, can have no Hostiles indefinately. |
Ban Bindy
Bindy Brothers Pottery Association
153
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 15:29:00 -
[270] - Quote
CCP has already claimed local is going to be replaced by another kind of function, though I haven't read anything about it in a year or more. Local as we know it is going away, but what replaces it will probably have some of the same functions. This might have gotten scrapped when Walking in Stations was abandoned, though.
As for breaking the immersion, there's no immersion in this game to speak of.
I wouldn't care about losing local chat, that's for sure. Nothing more annoying in the game. I don't think getting rid of local is the solution to a lot of problems, though. It will hurt PVP as much as it helps. It's already hard enough to find fights, especially with null sec and low sec empty most of the time.
Of course, OP has taken the position that he knows best and certainly knows more than all the rest of us put together. That makes him perfect for Eve. |
|
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
185
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 15:31:00 -
[271] - Quote
Ban Bindy wrote:CCP has already claimed local is going to be replaced by another kind of function, though I haven't read anything about it in a year or more. Local as we know it is going away, but what replaces it will probably have some of the same functions. This might have gotten scrapped when Walking in Stations was abandoned, though.
As for breaking the immersion, there's no immersion in this game to speak of.
I wouldn't care about losing local chat, that's for sure. Nothing more annoying in the game. I don't think getting rid of local is the solution to a lot of problems, though. It will hurt PVP as much as it helps. It's already hard enough to find fights, especially with null sec and low sec empty most of the time.
Of course, OP has taken the position that he knows best and certainly knows more than all the rest of us put together. That makes him perfect for Eve.
Alienation is lame. I said nothing of the sort but i'm not going to accept inane contentless posts as a counter to mechanics problems that can be easily pointed out and shown to be flawed. |
JitaPriceChecker2
State War Academy Caldari State
170
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 15:39:00 -
[272] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote:
I don't do WH's as a rule, But I have watched personally, Corperations completely annihilate WH dwellers. The mechanics for the WH is far different to Null/lo or Hi. It has less Hostile trafic for a start. You can control the exits, by closing them down, A properly run WH, can have no Hostiles indefinately.
This post shows you have no clue about wormholes.
Incoming wormholes can come at any moment and you cant find them until someone opens them first to your system
|
specializt
Angry Angels Constructions The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 15:40:00 -
[273] - Quote
Ban Bindy wrote:vast amount of fantasy
uh ... im sorry to burst your bubble but neither was WoS "abandoned" nor will local go away. Ever. In fact, before CCP does this they might as well shut down the servers. Walking on stations IS ALREADY HERE if you havent noticed it, the extension which enables players to actually meet each other is an absurdly complex task, thats why we dont see any progress - you can be assured that a whole (sub-)team works on it every day, software development is much more complex than i can describe. |
Selinate
906
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 15:50:00 -
[274] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote:Selinate wrote:
No it doesn't. Roaming gangs and pirates have to find the miners/plexers/etc. just as well as the miners/plexers/etc. have to be on active lookout for the gangs and such.
FFS this is how it happens in wormholes and it really just does not give the "aggressor" an advantage at all...
I don't do WH's as a rule, But I have watched personally, Corperations completely annihilate WH dwellers. The mechanics for the WH is far different to Null/lo or Hi. It has less Hostile trafic for a start. You can control the exits, by closing them down, A properly run WH, can have no Hostiles indefinately.
Bullshit.
We have no control over the exits until we know they exist. Also, all wormholes have some sort of static that almost always invariably connects to another system with hostiles.
You've seen corporations completely annihilate WH dwellers? what, the 3 man corps that sets up a pos and just makes oodles of isk for a while and then abandons it? Good for them, that is SUCH a difficult task (sarcasm).
Has less hostile traffic. Lmao. My corp was just raided a weeks ago while running C5 sites when a wormhole popped open in the middle of us running it, and a hostile corp came in and completely destroyed our fleet, with cap ships included. We've done the same sort to other corps too. Your understanding of WH's is so lacking. |
Phill Esteen
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
27
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 16:00:00 -
[275] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Notice the OP is in double digit likes, growing everyday. The rest of the posts? Nothing worth mentioning.
OP also has a ton of Facebook friends and if you are argue with him they are all going to de-friend you. |
specializt
Angry Angels Constructions The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 16:09:00 -
[276] - Quote
Phill Esteen wrote: OP also has a ton of Facebook friends and if you are argue with him they are all going to de-friend you.
OHNOES! Now i need to participate in social-fail-"networks" in order to be un-"friend"ed I guess ill lose my job and die shortly afterwards - being flamed by teens & preteens sure as hell is awful ... |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
71
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 16:10:00 -
[277] - Quote
Phill Esteen wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Notice the OP is in double digit likes, growing everyday. The rest of the posts? Nothing worth mentioning. OP also has a ton of Facebook friends and if you are argue with him they are all going to de-friend you.
welcome to the social network, ffs for someone who plays a game like eve you're still working on how a social network works ?? come on lol,, you for real ? |
Solj RichPopolous
GaNgBANGurD3aD
5
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 16:17:00 -
[278] - Quote
Simple Fix. Remove local and overhaul the scanner into something that resembles radar in an actual spaceship. The scanner is about the only thing in EVE that has not been changed much if at all since release in 05. No local but if I open up my scanner (and yes have it autoscan) ships will appear with the same color tagging system thats already in place for local. This alone adds so much more immersion to EVE imho.
Theres not alot of work involved in intel with this game which is why it starts to seem so small so fast. |
specializt
Angry Angels Constructions The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 16:21:00 -
[279] - Quote
Solj RichPopolous wrote:Simple Fix. Remove local and overhaul the scanner into something that resembles radar in an actual spaceship. No local but if I open up my scanner (and yes have it autoscan) ships will appear with the same color tagging system thats already in place for local. This alone adds so much more immersion to EVE imho.
This will also overload the servers with scan-requests, making EvE yet again even more of an lagfest. |
Lord Zim
714
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 16:23:00 -
[280] - Quote
specializt wrote:Solj RichPopolous wrote:Simple Fix. Remove local and overhaul the scanner into something that resembles radar in an actual spaceship. No local but if I open up my scanner (and yes have it autoscan) ships will appear with the same color tagging system thats already in place for local. This alone adds so much more immersion to EVE imho. This will also overload the servers with scan-requests, making EvE yet again even more of an lagfest. It'll be an anti-blob incentive feature. |
|
Solj RichPopolous
GaNgBANGurD3aD
5
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 16:23:00 -
[281] - Quote
specializt wrote:Solj RichPopolous wrote:Simple Fix. Remove local and overhaul the scanner into something that resembles radar in an actual spaceship. No local but if I open up my scanner (and yes have it autoscan) ships will appear with the same color tagging system thats already in place for local. This alone adds so much more immersion to EVE imho. This will also overload the servers with scan-requests, making EvE yet again even more of an lagfest.
They said having actual missiles in game would lag it out as well but they figured a way to overcome. Where theres a will theres a way. "We have the technology." |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
71
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 16:25:00 -
[282] - Quote
specializt wrote:Ban Bindy wrote:vast amount of fantasy uh ... im sorry to burst your bubble but neither was WoS "abandoned" nor will local go away. Ever. In fact, before CCP does this they might as well shut down the servers. Walking on stations IS ALREADY HERE if you havent noticed it, the extension which enables players to actually meet each other is an absurdly complex task, thats why we dont see any progress - you can be assured that a whole (sub-)team works on it every day, software development is much more complex than i can describe.
you sir haven't a ******* clue about anything the devs are doing, there is a very small team working on it, working hmmm, more like investigating the idea of WoS, listen till i clue you in on something, my mate has just finished college, his chosen profession is game development, for his final year they had to produce a game, within 6 months with a team of 8 people,, yes bro,, 8 people, they had a working game, yes hard to believe isnt it, a motivated team of just 8 people designed animated, sound produced, beta tested and hell, got a working title online. (i can't go into detail because they intend to now sell the tittle to another software development house)
if CCP wanted WoS they'd have it years ago, it is just not at the top of their to do list, CQ was a half arsed effort to shut people like you the **** up, very much a ,, hey here ,, you can walk now, now stfu kinda response to people who don't get, that EVE is a FiS game with the potential of becoming a both world enviroment game, but guess what numb nuts, almost 10 years have passed since EVE was born kicking and screaming into the gaming world, the closet you got to WoS is a ******* weak stuck in CQ effort.
as far as your, EVE will die if CCP statement if CCP never gives you WoS, here's my evidence, 10 years running numb nuts, yes surprise surprise, the game is still here. you are right on one point you made, well half right software development is complex, so complex you haven't a clue where to begin describing it.
btw, sorry to burst your bubble |
Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
389
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 16:27:00 -
[283] - Quote
If I grew some balls, that would make me a Hermaphrodite.
Maybe CCP could name a ship like that.... Tengu, Loki.. Hermaphrodie... |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
71
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 16:35:00 -
[284] - Quote
Miilla wrote:If I grew some balls, that would make me a Hermaphrodite.
Maybe CCP could name a ship like that.... Tengu, Loki.. Hermaphrodie...
hey hey hold the phone !
Hermaphrodite. derived from the Greek Hermaphroditos a combination of the names of the gods Hermes (male) and Aphrodite (female) Recently, the word intersex has come into preferred usage for humans, i do hope you are human since the word hermaphrodite is considered to be misleading and stigmatizing, as well as "scientifically specious and clinically problematic. still i give you a +1, was a funny shite moment.
so yea, if you grew balls that would make you intersexual. tehre fixed it for you,, and gave you +1. and liked
|
specializt
Angry Angels Constructions The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 16:37:00 -
[285] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:something guess what, child : nobody cares about your friends and what you think the world might look like. Its actually kinda funny to be told how my job (software-developer) works - by a kid .... but have it your way.
Quote:software development is complex, so complex you haven't a clue where to begin describing it.
Cute. |
Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
390
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 16:38:00 -
[286] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:Miilla wrote:If I grew some balls, that would make me a Hermaphrodite.
Maybe CCP could name a ship like that.... Tengu, Loki.. Hermaphrodie... hey hey hold the phone ! Hermaphrodite. derived from the Greek Hermaphroditos a combination of the names of the gods Hermes (male) and Aphrodite (female) Recently, the word intersex has come into preferred usage for humans, i do hope you are human since the word hermaphrodite is considered to be misleading and stigmatizing, as well as "scientifically specious and clinically problematic. still i give you a +1, was a funny shite moment. so yea, if you grew balls that would make you intersexual. tehre fixed it for you,, and gave you +1. and liked
I prefer the term... Futanari... also more pleasing, in which case, Incarna WIS better have staircases and some kitten hats for the NEX store. |
Mirima Thurander
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
287
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 16:43:00 -
[287] - Quote
no need to read this thread its going to be full of null bears, telling you how bad you are at eve.
or
its going to be full of null bears telling you thats a GREAT idea as soon as they get something JUST AS GOOD to replace local. I love the the smell of victory in the morning. It smells like... Blood, vomit and burning flesh.
|
Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
390
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 16:43:00 -
[288] - Quote
Mirima Thurander wrote:no need to read this thread its going to be full of null bears, telling you how bad you are at eve.
or
its going to be full of null bears telling you thats a GREAT idea as soon as they get something JUST AS GOOD to replace local.
Maybe we should call them Nullphrodites? |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
83
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 16:45:00 -
[289] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:We havent established anything other than local removes everything listed in the original post and that goonswarm has slipped up and recruited some seriously carebear players. People who only want easy-mode killmails are worse than the carebears.
+1 |
Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
390
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 16:48:00 -
[290] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:We havent established anything other than local removes everything listed in the original post and that goonswarm has slipped up and recruited some seriously carebear players. People who only want easy-mode killmails are worse than the carebears. +1
I think people who want to turn Eve into something it wasn't and isn't is killing Eve. It is suppost to be a harsh universe, take that away and it is no longer Eve and it becomes MineCraft or WoW. Unfortunately given the financial situation CCP are in, it looks like they will turn Eve into something it isn't/wasn't... a carebear heaven. Well I guess it is going to happen if that brings in more money to them, we can't fight it because we are in the minority. Eve as we knew it as a harsh universe has reached its end of life. |
|
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
83
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 16:50:00 -
[291] - Quote
specializt wrote:Solj RichPopolous wrote:Simple Fix. Remove local and overhaul the scanner into something that resembles radar in an actual spaceship. No local but if I open up my scanner (and yes have it autoscan) ships will appear with the same color tagging system thats already in place for local. This alone adds so much more immersion to EVE imho. This will also overload the servers with scan-requests, making EvE yet again even more of an lagfest.
+1 |
Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
390
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 16:53:00 -
[292] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:specializt wrote:Solj RichPopolous wrote:Simple Fix. Remove local and overhaul the scanner into something that resembles radar in an actual spaceship. No local but if I open up my scanner (and yes have it autoscan) ships will appear with the same color tagging system thats already in place for local. This alone adds so much more immersion to EVE imho. This will also overload the servers with scan-requests, making EvE yet again even more of an lagfest. +1
So you want the classic Elite scanner in the HUD for the current game grid you are on? Baiscally that would be a visual representation of the overview we have now. Visually pleasing but also not practical for game play (clicking targets etc) but WOULD give you added information on their location (ABOVE or BELOW and visually their range away and not just in KMs).
Like this... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c4/BBC_Micro_Elite_screenshot.png
But this won't scale well for full local, such as in Jita or so on. What about also Scanner Jammers, a new weapon to jam the overview... could have fun with that :) |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
83
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 16:56:00 -
[293] - Quote
My point remains the same removing local is not gonna increase numbers in 0.0! On the contrary is gonna reduce them. Provide an insentive to make 0.0 really worth (like prior the big sanctum nerf) going for small and medium entities and we are back in business. Keep ignoring the problem and blaming it on YOUR bad skills, the problem will only get worst. |
Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
391
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 16:58:00 -
[294] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:My point remains the same removing local is not gonna increase numbers in 0.0! On the contrary is gonna reduce them. Provide an insentive to make 0.0 really worth (like prior the big sanctum nerf) going for small and medium entities and we are back in business. Keep ignoring the problem and blaming it on YOUR bad skills, the problem will only get worst.
So, are you saying delayed local is preventing people populating W-space?
|
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
83
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 17:04:00 -
[295] - Quote
Miilla wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:My point remains the same removing local is not gonna increase numbers in 0.0! On the contrary is gonna reduce them. Provide an insentive to make 0.0 really worth (like prior the big sanctum nerf) going for small and medium entities and we are back in business. Keep ignoring the problem and blaming it on YOUR bad skills, the problem will only get worst. So, are you saying delayed local is preventing people populating W-space?
i dont know why are you speaking of wh. I will tell you again. You cant compair a wh system to a 0.0 system. With or without local you cant compare them. They are so different. The amount of traffic you get on a gate is much large and you you dont have scan a million signatures. How of then do you hear a wh is lost to an invading force? Now how oftendo you hear someone loses a system? WH is the safest area in eve. |
Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
392
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 17:08:00 -
[296] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:Miilla wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:My point remains the same removing local is not gonna increase numbers in 0.0! On the contrary is gonna reduce them. Provide an insentive to make 0.0 really worth (like prior the big sanctum nerf) going for small and medium entities and we are back in business. Keep ignoring the problem and blaming it on YOUR bad skills, the problem will only get worst. So, are you saying delayed local is preventing people populating W-space? i dont know why are you speaking of wh. I will tell you again. You cant compair a wh system to a 0.0 system. With or without local you cant compare them. They are so different. The amount of traffic you get on a gate is much large and you you dont have scan a million signatures. How often do you hear a wh is lost to an invading force? Now how oftendo you hear someone loses a system? WH is the safest area in eve just cos you need to spot it and the opening lasts very little time. You may have heard those crazy ppl that decided to invade some other wormhole. They had to scan and collapse almost 2000 whs. Dont compare whs to 0.0 there is nothing similar nothing
So you want nullsec to remain easy mode. Ok. I can understand that. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
187
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 17:13:00 -
[297] - Quote
Solj RichPopolous wrote:Simple Fix. Remove local and overhaul the scanner into something that resembles radar in an actual spaceship. The scanner is about the only thing in EVE that has not been changed much if at all since release in 05. No local but if I open up my scanner (and yes have it autoscan) ships will appear with the same color tagging system thats already in place for local. This alone adds so much more immersion to EVE imho.
Theres not alot of work involved in intel with this game which is why it starts to seem so small so fast.
Good post. |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
83
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 17:14:00 -
[298] - Quote
Miilla wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:Miilla wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:My point remains the same removing local is not gonna increase numbers in 0.0! On the contrary is gonna reduce them. Provide an insentive to make 0.0 really worth (like prior the big sanctum nerf) going for small and medium entities and we are back in business. Keep ignoring the problem and blaming it on YOUR bad skills, the problem will only get worst. So, are you saying delayed local is preventing people populating W-space? i dont know why are you speaking of wh. I will tell you again. You cant compair a wh system to a 0.0 system. With or without local you cant compare them. They are so different. The amount of traffic you get on a gate is much large and you you dont have scan a million signatures. How often do you hear a wh is lost to an invading force? Now how oftendo you hear someone loses a system? WH is the safest area in eve just cos you need to spot it and the opening lasts very little time. You may have heard those crazy ppl that decided to invade some other wormhole. They had to scan and collapse almost 2000 whs. Dont compare whs to 0.0 there is nothing similar nothing So you want nullsec to remain easy mode. Ok. I can understand that.
yeah and suicide ganking is not easy mode right? Not that i care anyways, cos i have been on the receiving end. I hav done them and realise after 60 kills that its too easy and its making me lose interest in eve, so i quit suicide. But just the fact that it is easy mode.
|
Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
392
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 17:17:00 -
[299] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:Miilla wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:Miilla wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:My point remains the same removing local is not gonna increase numbers in 0.0! On the contrary is gonna reduce them. Provide an insentive to make 0.0 really worth (like prior the big sanctum nerf) going for small and medium entities and we are back in business. Keep ignoring the problem and blaming it on YOUR bad skills, the problem will only get worst. So, are you saying delayed local is preventing people populating W-space? i dont know why are you speaking of wh. I will tell you again. You cant compair a wh system to a 0.0 system. With or without local you cant compare them. They are so different. The amount of traffic you get on a gate is much large and you you dont have scan a million signatures. How often do you hear a wh is lost to an invading force? Now how oftendo you hear someone loses a system? WH is the safest area in eve just cos you need to spot it and the opening lasts very little time. You may have heard those crazy ppl that decided to invade some other wormhole. They had to scan and collapse almost 2000 whs. Dont compare whs to 0.0 there is nothing similar nothing So you want nullsec to remain easy mode. Ok. I can understand that. yeah and suicide ganking is not easy mode right? Not that i care anyways, cos i have been on the receiving end. I hav done them and realise after 60 kills that its too easy and its making me lose interest in eve, so i quit suicide. But just the fact that it is easy mode. What you need? 1 week of training time right? Dont make me speak about easy mode plz. Frantically you should be the last peorspn who should be talking about easymode
U MAD? |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
83
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 17:21:00 -
[300] - Quote
Miilla wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:[quote=Miilla]
yeah and suicide ganking is not easy mode right? Not that i care anyways, cos i have been on the receiving end. I hav done them and realise after 60 kills that its too easy and its making me lose interest in eve, so i quit suicide. But just the fact that it is easy mode. What you need? 1 week of training time right? Dont make me speak about easy mode plz. Frantically you should be the last peorspn who should be talking about easymode U MAD? i am smooth. I just felt that you were being a hypocrite. So i thought its nice to rub stuff on a hypocrite |
|
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
187
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 17:21:00 -
[301] - Quote
Mirima Thurander wrote:no need to read this thread its going to be full of null bears, telling you how bad you are at eve.
or
its going to be full of null bears telling you thats a GREAT idea as soon as they get something JUST AS GOOD to replace local.
You are so right. But now is the time to begin taking the forums back and leading the game to a better future. EVE is a game with too much potential to allow it to become a mediocre theme park MMO.
The first step to doing that is through discussion. Defending our points and such. It certainly is a monumental task but I don't think its a hopeless one. The devs already acknowledge local is a problem and decshields became a priority when people began stating their opinions about it.. |
Doc Severide
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
99
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 17:24:00 -
[302] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote:This OP is filled with "no" and seasoned with "unsubstantiated fail".
Grow some balls.
Biomass yourself. Yeah, get rid of local, nerf bonbs, whine whine... How about learn to play??? These "get rid of local" fools are tiring. Go play something else... |
Miss Whippy
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
259
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 17:24:00 -
[303] - Quote
I would only support removing local if the directional scanner was made automatic. As much as you have to check D-Scanner now, you'd have to check it constantly. That would quickly get very old; this idea needs to be balanced out with making DScanning less laborious.
However, I don't know how much server load this would add; my gut feeling says it would be a lot. But without that, as much as I like the idea of removing local, this needs to be the compromise. All the same, simply automating the D-Scanner in its current form would create huge server load, but I believe CCP has the ability to find an elegant solution to this problem. That is one area where CCP really shine, and it often goes unsung. UI Iteration isn't enough, we need to start from scratch |
Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
392
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 17:27:00 -
[304] - Quote
Miss Whippy wrote:I would only support removing local if the directional scanner was made automatic. As much as you have to check D-Scanner now, you'd have to check it constantly. That would quickly get very old; this idea needs to be balanced out with making DScanning less laborious.
However, I don't know how much server load this would add; my gut feeling says it would be a lot. But without that, as much as I like the idea of removing local, this needs to be the compromise.
I guess you have never lived in Wspace then. Scared much?
History lesson for you... They limited the directional scanner from use as often as you like to every few seconds for this very reason, server loading. Not going to happen.
Adapt. Go live in W-space for a week or few. A populated one. |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
71
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 17:27:00 -
[305] - Quote
specializt wrote:xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:something guess what, child : nobody cares about your friends and what you think the world might look like. Its actually kinda funny to be told how my job (software-developer) works - by a kid .... but have it your way. Quote:software development is complex, so complex you haven't a clue where to begin describing it. Cute.
if you're going to quote me do it right, or don't quote me at all thank you very much, you'd think someone who's working in our trade would understand that, and hey, less of the kid thing.
i grow tired of idiot weekend warriors playing hardball behind a monitor. would you speak that way to me face to face ? before you answer that, let me remind you i've been to fanfest and seen just how friendly tuff guys like you become when there isn't a few hundred miles or network infrastructure and a monitor protecting them.
this is just a game remember, also i might point out that this is a forums about a game, if you really can't hold a discussion without getting your knickers in a knot then please feel free to not reply, it's real easy, count to 10 and say, no i wil not hit reply. i don't expect a reply, i expect you to count to 10. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
187
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 17:28:00 -
[306] - Quote
Miss Whippy wrote:I would only support removing local if the directional scanner was made automatic. As much as you have to check D-Scanner now, you'd have to check it constantly. That would quickly get very old; this idea needs to be balanced out with making DScanning less laborious.
However, I don't know how much server load this would add; my gut feeling says it would be a lot. But without that, as much as I like the idea of removing local, this needs to be the compromise.
If its made to do the same exact thing local does automatically thats not a compromise. It can be made automatic but not infallible. |
Lord Zim
715
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 17:34:00 -
[307] - Quote
Miilla wrote:So you want the classic Elite scanner in the HUD for the current game grid you are on? Baiscally that would be a visual representation of the overview we have now. Visually pleasing but also not practical for game play (clicking targets etc) but WOULD give you added information on their location (ABOVE or BELOW and visually their range away and not just in KMs). Like this... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c4/BBC_Micro_Elite_screenshot.pngBut this won't scale well for full local, such as in Jita or so on. What about also Scanner Jammers, a new weapon to jam the overview... could have fun with that :) But I'm all for delayed local as we have in W-space. The only immediate chat should be in F12 help, private / custom channels, corp / aliance channels etc. The problem with this idea is that, first of all, it'll put an extra load on the servers. Secondly, if it's limited to, say, 15 AU, you'll still have a problem being able to get any warning at all that there's someone actually hunting you until you see him land on your overview (it all depends on how lucky he is with your scan cycles, but we're still talking about a few seconds of warning). If it's solar system-wide, then it's either just a f.ex 2s delayed copy of today's local (which would probably be cheap enough, since it'd probably just be a snapshot of the solar system's users), or it would actually be an elite directional scanner-lookalike, in which case you'd have to calculate coordinates at every refresh, which wouldn't scale very well when looking at large fleet fights. |
Miss Whippy
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
260
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 17:39:00 -
[308] - Quote
Miilla wrote:Miss Whippy wrote:I would only support removing local if the directional scanner was made automatic. As much as you have to check D-Scanner now, you'd have to check it constantly. That would quickly get very old; this idea needs to be balanced out with making DScanning less laborious.
However, I don't know how much server load this would add; my gut feeling says it would be a lot. But without that, as much as I like the idea of removing local, this needs to be the compromise. I guess you have never lived in Wspace then. Scared much?
Not scared enough to go hiding in W-Space where I'll barely ever be bothered.
But that doesn't mean you're not an idiot. It is moronic to compare W-Space with everywhere else. You can't cyno or bridge into W-Space, you can't quickly bring in huge fleets and nor is it desirable for risk of getting stuck. The risk of someone even finding your system and bothering to even look in it are low - it's simply not worth the effort. I rarely even bother to check a wormhole out any more, it is boring and it's exceedingly rare to find anyone even currently logged on in it.
But still, carry on thinking you're super hard core in your nice and cosy little system thinking that your genius is saving your from constantly being ganked, and not because you hide a way in a system that very rarely (if ever) gets camped, let alone ganked. UI Iteration isn't enough, we need to start from scratch |
specializt
Angry Angels Constructions The Kadeshi
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 17:39:00 -
[309] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:or it would actually be an elite directional scanner-lookalike, in which case you'd have to calculate coordinates at every refresh, which wouldn't scale very well when looking at large fleet fights.
No additional calculations were necessary, the EvE-universe already has 3 coordinates, all of which always have to be processed - your GPU would have to render a small UI-element but thats about it ... i guess since threedimensional calculations are what GPUs are built for it would actually IMPROVE performance in fleetfights
|
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
71
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 17:39:00 -
[310] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Miss Whippy wrote:I would only support removing local if the directional scanner was made automatic. As much as you have to check D-Scanner now, you'd have to check it constantly. That would quickly get very old; this idea needs to be balanced out with making DScanning less laborious.
However, I don't know how much server load this would add; my gut feeling says it would be a lot. But without that, as much as I like the idea of removing local, this needs to be the compromise. If its made to do the same exact thing local does automatically thats not a compromise. It can be made automatic but not infallible.
i think that's a good idea, but it should not show up cloaked ships, for that you would need to actualy use a specialist ship with a module designed to locate said cloaked ships ( not easy like current probes are ) also i'd think D scans range should be effected by the angle used, 360% drops the range by 75% of current strenght and so on down to a scan angle of 45, beyond that the range increases by 15% per 10 angle dropped. |
|
Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
392
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 17:39:00 -
[311] - Quote
specializt wrote:Lord Zim wrote:or it would actually be an elite directional scanner-lookalike, in which case you'd have to calculate coordinates at every refresh, which wouldn't scale very well when looking at large fleet fights. No additional calculations were necessary, the EvE-universe already has 3 coordinates, all of which always have to be processed - your GPU would have to render a small UI-element but thats about it ... i guess since threedimensional calculations are what GPUs are built for it would actually IMPROVE performance in fleetfights
Yeah but the information explosion for expanding it to include LOCAL and not just the GRID you are on would just make it useless and a pixel BLOB. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
790
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 17:41:00 -
[312] - Quote
But... if local is removed how would I watch scammers spam? |
Miss Whippy
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
260
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 17:41:00 -
[313] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Miss Whippy wrote:I would only support removing local if the directional scanner was made automatic. As much as you have to check D-Scanner now, you'd have to check it constantly. That would quickly get very old; this idea needs to be balanced out with making DScanning less laborious.
However, I don't know how much server load this would add; my gut feeling says it would be a lot. But without that, as much as I like the idea of removing local, this needs to be the compromise. If its made to do the same exact thing local does automatically thats not a compromise. It can be made automatic but not infallible.
Of course; local tells you everyone who's in system, D-Scanner only tells you who's near you, unless they are cloaked of course.
Auto DScan cannot instantly reveal everyone in system, that is why it IS a compromise. UI Iteration isn't enough, we need to start from scratch |
Miss Whippy
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
260
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 17:42:00 -
[314] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:But... if local is removed how would I watch scammers spam?
System chat? Maybe we could have a spammers channel. UI Iteration isn't enough, we need to start from scratch |
specializt
Angry Angels Constructions The Kadeshi
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 17:42:00 -
[315] - Quote
Miilla wrote: Yeah but the information explosion for expanding it to include LOCAL and not just the GRID you are on would just make it useless and a pixel BLOB.
indeed - i guess two different views would be needed, just like switching between directional and system-scan |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
187
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 17:42:00 -
[316] - Quote
ok, good stuff. |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
71
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 17:44:00 -
[317] - Quote
specializt wrote:Miilla wrote: Yeah but the information explosion for expanding it to include LOCAL and not just the GRID you are on would just make it useless and a pixel BLOB.
indeed - i guess two different views would be needed, just like switching between directional and system-scan
how about it looking like a list instead of a graphic. |
Miss Whippy
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
260
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 17:44:00 -
[318] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Miss Whippy wrote:I would only support removing local if the directional scanner was made automatic. As much as you have to check D-Scanner now, you'd have to check it constantly. That would quickly get very old; this idea needs to be balanced out with making DScanning less laborious.
However, I don't know how much server load this would add; my gut feeling says it would be a lot. But without that, as much as I like the idea of removing local, this needs to be the compromise. If its made to do the same exact thing local does automatically thats not a compromise. It can be made automatic but not infallible. i think that's a good idea, but it should not show up cloaked ships, for that you would need to actualy use a specialist ship with a module designed to locate said cloaked ships ( not easy like current probes are ) also i'd think D scans range should be effected by the angle used, 360% drops the range by 75% of current strenght and so on down to a scan angle of 45, beyond that the range increases by 15% per 10 angle dropped.
No, cloaking is fine. Removing local is a means to making cloaking truly fulfil its role. UI Iteration isn't enough, we need to start from scratch |
Neftaran
Eternal Profiteers Empire
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 17:44:00 -
[319] - Quote
Never going to happen. |
Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
395
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 17:45:00 -
[320] - Quote
I vote for any CSM member who gets local delayed, they get my vote for free. |
|
Lord Zim
715
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 17:59:00 -
[321] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:i think that's a good idea, but it should not show up cloaked ships, for that you would need to actualy use a specialist ship with a module designed to locate said cloaked ships ( not easy like current probes are ) also i'd think D scans range should be effected by the angle used, 360% drops the range by 75% of current strenght and so on down to a scan angle of 45, beyond that the range increases by 15% per 10 angle dropped. The thing about hiding cloaked ships from the mechanic which'll warn someone who's actually paying sufficient amounts of attention, is that it'll shift the chosen ship of use for roaming, to cloaked ships such as T3s etc.
As to the specialized ship for detecting cloaked ships, would that be usable to not only detect that there is a cloaked ship, but also where? |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
71
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 18:04:00 -
[322] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:i think that's a good idea, but it should not show up cloaked ships, for that you would need to actualy use a specialist ship with a module designed to locate said cloaked ships ( not easy like current probes are ) also i'd think D scans range should be effected by the angle used, 360% drops the range by 75% of current strenght and so on down to a scan angle of 45, beyond that the range increases by 15% per 10 angle dropped. The thing about hiding cloaked ships from the mechanic which'll warn someone who's actually paying sufficient amounts of attention, is that it'll shift the chosen ship of use for roaming, to cloaked ships such as T3s etc. As to the specialized ship for detecting cloaked ships, would that be usable to not only detect that there is a cloaked ship, but also where?
but hasn't the chosen ships in a lot of cases already changed to SBs and so on ?
and yes, i'd agree that the specialized ship should be able to detect and locate, but it shouldn't be too easy. also i's say that the specialized ship should be able to fire a tag at the enemy ship, so it can't cloak again for a period of time, say an hour, that way a moving cloaked ship is pretty safe to a point, atleast until it's caught and tagged. again once it's moving it's still going to be hard to kill, a good pilot will jump from SS to SS without the danger of being caught. for hours. |
Lord Zim
715
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 18:09:00 -
[323] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:but hasn't the chosen ships in a lot of cases already changed to SBs and so on ? Mainly just for AFK cloaking.
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:and yes, i'd agree that the specialized ship should be able to detect and locate, but it shouldn't be too easy. also i's say that the specialized ship should be able to fire a tag at the enemy ship, so it can't cloak again for a period of time, say an hour, that way a moving cloaked ship is pretty safe to a point, atleast until it's caught and tagged. again once it's moving it's still going to be hard to kill, a good pilot will jump from SS to SS without the danger of being caught. for hours. What you're going to end up with, if you go down that path, is a metric fucktonne of whining from some WHers who'll claim very loudly that any change which'll make cloaked ships detectable (let alone locateable) will make WHs safer than hisec.
But what are the base distances? How often will the list be updated? |
Mra Rednu
Black Watch Guard
22
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 18:33:00 -
[324] - Quote
Solj RichPopolous wrote:Simple Fix. Remove local and overhaul the scanner into something that resembles radar in an actual spaceship. The scanner is about the only thing in EVE that has not been changed much if at all since release in 05. No local but if I open up my scanner (and yes have it autoscan) ships will appear with the same color tagging system thats already in place for local. This alone adds so much more immersion to EVE imho. Theres not alot of work involved in intel with this game which is why it starts to seem so small so fast.
Please don't ever ask CCP to overhaul the d-scan, sure it not been changed since '05 but it bloody works so leave it be, there plenty of broken things for them to fix without breaking one of those things that works.
As a fairly casual pvp'er i would hate the removal of local, how many hours would be wasted looking for targets to hunt, each system has to be scanned and how would you pick up a wt from one of the many ships on scan.
Seriously you want people to scan each and every gate, belt, anom, mission site, visit every station the list is long before you can tick that system off you're list for not having a wt in........ but someone may of logged in or jumped in on one of the gates you can't see, so how long do you scan a system for ?
If local was removed you'd get more frustrated high sec pvp'ers like you're self, too scared to go in a WH, Lowsec or Nullsec because of some lame logistical excuse or for an unseen, presumed menace ( like finding people who are willing and able to shoot back ) , relying on a ever growing army of neutral's scouts to find their victims it will basically be like the suicide ganker providing a warp in, plus about as close to pvp as that is.
On that note I take it you'll also be asking for CCP to make it so all alt's on all the players accounts must be in the same corp, so the hunted have a chance to see themselves getting scouted out or expect them to have all the warnings taken away without being willing to give up something you're self ? |
bongsmoke
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
45
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 18:45:00 -
[325] - Quote
Neftaran wrote:Never going to happen.
Never, agreed.
The point for removal is moot, and wont even be considered by ccp. |
Elena Melkan
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
17
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 19:08:00 -
[326] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Solj RichPopolous wrote:Simple Fix. Remove local and overhaul the scanner into something that resembles radar in an actual spaceship. The scanner is about the only thing in EVE that has not been changed much if at all since release in 05. No local but if I open up my scanner (and yes have it autoscan) ships will appear with the same color tagging system thats already in place for local. This alone adds so much more immersion to EVE imho.
Theres not alot of work involved in intel with this game which is why it starts to seem so small so fast. Good post. I agree, that would be actually a neat idea! I could imagine a radar similar to Battlestar Galactica's DRADIS for example. A radar you could keep on all the time when you are doing your thing in the system, and when someone enters the range it will appear as an icon in the radar screen. It should have certain range perhaps, not anything like getting data from the whole system. Maybe giving icons in different color depending on the standing you have to that pilot. But anyhow, would this make bomber gangs overpowered, if in cloaked ship they wouldn't appear on the radar at all? Or would they be marked as "unidentified" or something similar? |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
84
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 19:56:00 -
[327] - Quote
not gonna happen specially with dust 514 coming out. Its too dangerous and prawn to massive unsubscribes. You can bet your butt this this would lead into a brawl. CCP wont even come close to anything that could stur the nest specially with dust being very weak atm. This is wthout mentioning all the issues that was ignored with those changes. You got 0 chance. Infact you got a higher chance of wining the lotto atm than that. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
20
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 20:19:00 -
[328] - Quote
Mra Rednu wrote:
If local was removed you'd get more frustrated high sec pvp'ers like you're self, too scared to go in a WH, Lowsec or Nullsec because of some lame logistical excuse or for an unseen, presumed menace ( like finding people who are willing and able to shoot back ) , relying on a ever growing army of neutral's scouts to find their victims it will basically be like the suicide ganker providing a warp in, plus about as close to pvp as that is.
Wow, a pubbie I kind of agree with.
It should be clear by now, the ones that need to grow some "balls" (although I think the vagina analogy is more apropos) are the guys who want local gone, but are too scared to go the the region of the game that already has no local. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
187
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 23:17:00 -
[329] - Quote
Local is for amateurs. Both hunters and prey. Speaking as if things are set in stone when CCP has already acknowledged local on the menu of things to modify is a pathetic attempt at discouraging dissenting viewpoints. So we can have an open discussion about how to improve the system or you can view the thread in general discussion everyday. But no longer will it be an issue that a few people enforce their will or opinion down the throat of everyone. If you're positive that it won't be changed and have no real interest in discussing it other than throwing out snide remarks feel free to skip over the thread. I mean afterall your positive it will never happen.
Me myself im positively willing to discuss it everyday. And sooner or later those that agree with me will do the same. |
Simetraz
State War Academy Caldari State
256
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 23:22:00 -
[330] - Quote
OP wormhole space is that way ---->>>>> |
|
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
187
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 23:24:00 -
[331] - Quote
Simetraz wrote:OP wormhole space is that way ---->>>>>
Hellokittyonline that way -----------> |
Simetraz
State War Academy Caldari State
256
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 23:30:00 -
[332] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Simetraz wrote:OP wormhole space is that way ---->>>>> Hellokittyonline that way ----------->
So do they have no local as well ? Well I guess you should that game instead of EVE.
|
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
187
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 23:32:00 -
[333] - Quote
Simetraz wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Simetraz wrote:OP wormhole space is that way ---->>>>> Hellokittyonline that way -----------> So do they have no local as well ? Well I guess you should that game instead of EVE.
Im not going anywhere. Im going to begin a lobby to change EVE into the game it advertises itself as. And if you don't like that feel free to create your lobby to counter it. But it would appear politics are the only form of communication the community listens to. So slowly but surely ill siphon like minds to the idea and we're going to go from there. And if you don't like that maybe you need a new game to play. |
Karn Dulake
Souls Must Be Trampled The.Alliance
799
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 23:37:00 -
[334] - Quote
I really thought that this thread would have been locked by now I dont normally troll, but when i do i do it on General Discussion. |
Lord Zim
715
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 23:40:00 -
[335] - Quote
So you say want an "open and mature discussion" start a thread with "grow some balls", harp on and on about how the only way to fix things is to remove local in its entirety, throw a hissy fit when people point out the fact you're blatantly ignoring the negative effect it'll have on literally all sec levels, call them names and try literally every trick in the book to drive them away, and still manage to continue to spout the following:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Local is for amateurs. Right. You should hire a communications officer if you ever get into politics. |
Simetraz
State War Academy Caldari State
256
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 23:45:00 -
[336] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Simetraz wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Simetraz wrote:OP wormhole space is that way ---->>>>> Hellokittyonline that way -----------> So do they have no local as well ? Well I guess you should that game instead of EVE. Im not going anywhere. Im going to begin a lobby to change EVE into the game it advertises itself as. And if you don't like that feel free to create your lobby to counter it. But it would appear politics are the only form of communication the community listens to. So slowly but surely ill siphon like minds to the idea and we're going to go from there. And if you don't like that maybe you need a new game to play.
Actually I remember a time when Local had no pretty colors and no standings at all. All standings where controlled by a separate website. And I found no joy in that system at all.
I so have zero interest in sitting by a gate all day just so I can tag someone as they enter a system.
If people want to fight they will come out and fight. I have no interest playing hide in seek.
EVE already has a no local section and I don't see the masses streaming there to enjoy that utopia.
And of course the first place that will see no local will be null. And I don't the null alliances crying up a storm like they normally do if there is a mechanic they really want or don't like.
If anything by past rants and raves I here crickets for no local.
|
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
188
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 23:51:00 -
[337] - Quote
Simetraz wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Simetraz wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Simetraz wrote:OP wormhole space is that way ---->>>>> Hellokittyonline that way -----------> So do they have no local as well ? Well I guess you should that game instead of EVE. Im not going anywhere. Im going to begin a lobby to change EVE into the game it advertises itself as. And if you don't like that feel free to create your lobby to counter it. But it would appear politics are the only form of communication the community listens to. So slowly but surely ill siphon like minds to the idea and we're going to go from there. And if you don't like that maybe you need a new game to play. Actually I remember a time when Local had no pretty colors and no standings at all. All standings where controlled by a separate website. And I found no joy in that system at all. I so have zero interest in sitting by a gate all day just so I can tag someone as they enter a system. If people want to fight they will come out and fight. I have no interest playing hide in seek. EVE already has a no local section and I don't see the masses streaming there to enjoy that utopia. And of course the first place that will see no local will be null. And I don't the null alliances crying up a storm like they normally do if there is a mechanic they really want or don't like. If anything by past rants and raves I hear crickets for no local.
Wormholes require a skillset and a level of commitment and effort most people don't bother with. Im one of them. There are too many other things I like to do in EVE that a wormhole makes tedious. So I reject your argument that because everyone doesn't jump in a wormhole that local doesnt neuter every other forementioned feature EVE hypes and fails to live up to.
And a side point your premise that if people don't want to fight they should be able to endlessly avoid it (by having infallible intel) goes against NON CON SEN TUAL pvp.
Next~ |
Frying Doom
192
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 23:53:00 -
[338] - Quote
Karn Dulake wrote:I really thought that this thread would have been locked by now Why would they lock a good thread like this one.
I myself are for the removal of local in null.
I believe that empire space both Hi- and low sec should have Local. It is empire space formed of trillions of citizens and an economy size to match.
Null is at best formed by groups of thousands of people they are not an empire but just alliances. Their Economies pale by comparison.
The removal of local from Null will make surprise attacks by people well surprising. It will give covert ops ships a real function in the game, the ability to sneak into enemy space undetected. It would remove a lot of gate camps(who will gate camp if you don't know in advance you are about to get jumped by a larger force.
Some people have stated that they want Null space to be even safer for them all I can say is that Null is meant to be tough lawless space and just because you pay Sov it should still be dangerous. Much like a Roman garrison on a frontier was or a fort in the United states. You made your encampment to make things safer than they were to start but they were never as safe as in a city. This change will mean that like forts in history, defenses will have to be mounted in specific places by corps in Null sec not just spread out, they will have to pick there battles. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Lord Zim
715
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 23:55:00 -
[339] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Wormholes require a skillset and a level of commitment and effort most people don't bother with. Im one of them. Scan for wormholes, run dscan all day erryday? |
specializt
Angry Angels Constructions The Kadeshi
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 00:01:00 -
[340] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Wormholes require a skillset and a level of commitment and effort most people don't bother with. Im one of them. Scan for wormhole entrances and run dscan all day erryday?
AND ganking miners, carebears, nublet-PvP corps without much effort or reward. That sure are some mad "skills" and unspeakable amounts of "commitment"
girls_laughing.png
We usually annoy the WH-bears until they decide to leave us alone ... these kids are easy, compared to the more common null-actions - and these words come from a hopeless miner |
|
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
188
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 00:05:00 -
[341] - Quote
specializt wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Wormholes require a skillset and a level of commitment and effort most people don't bother with. Im one of them. Scan for wormhole entrances and run dscan all day erryday? AND ganking miners, carebears, nublet-PvP corps without much effort nor reward. That sure are some mad "skills" and unspeakable amounts of "commitment" girls_laughing.png
Appealing to ridicule. My confidence grows. The dissenters strongest weapon they can wield is snarky paragraphs full of fallacies. The truth will win out. It always does.
That being said, hauling fuel, pos operation, limited piracy, limited targets, scanning skills (of which I actually have) are just a few reasons wormholes aren't for many. For me updating market orders pickups deliveries and such would be more hassle than I care to endure. |
Frying Doom
193
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 00:07:00 -
[342] - Quote
specializt wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Wormholes require a skillset and a level of commitment and effort most people don't bother with. Im one of them. Scan for wormhole entrances and run dscan all day erryday? AND ganking miners, carebears, nublet-PvP corps without much effort or reward. That sure are some mad "skills" and unspeakable amounts of "commitment" girls_laughing.png So the POS fuels, ammunition, modules, stations to allowing clone jumping and known paths back to trade hubs as well as anything you might need appear magically when ever needed? Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
310
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 00:08:00 -
[343] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Local is for amateurs. You set up that strawman real soft and knocked it with just one blow.
Impressive. That is the way to win any argument. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
189
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 00:09:00 -
[344] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Local is for amateurs. You set up that strawman real soft and knocked it with just one blow. Impressive. That is the way to win any argument.
If you mean having no local hinders the activities I mentioned your misguided. No local has zero to do with me not caring for wormholes. |
specializt
Angry Angels Constructions The Kadeshi
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 00:12:00 -
[345] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote: So the POS fuels, ammunition, modules, stations to allowing clone jumping and known paths back to trade hubs as well as anything you might need appear magically when ever needed?
We got like 2 or 3 guys who do that (myself included) because its not a big job at all - even in large quantities.
|
Mors Sanctitatis
Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
482
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 00:15:00 -
[346] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Get rid of local, all secs. It fixes almost everything. You would have to work to locate a target. You would have to work to avoid a target. There would be risk in high sec. There would be risk in all secs.
Freighters could be caught during a war dec. Freighters could get through during a war dec.
You would still have Concord retaliation in high sec. You could still be camped, though if you break the camp it would be harder to hunt you down. Certainly no worse that what we have now but with compelling gameplay.
It would solve cloaky camps people complain about. It would give a point to cloaks of which people complain about.
It would make neutral alts almost irrelevant. Though not 100%. It would certainly make playing with one account a lot less of a disadvantage. Sure you might lose a few alt account subs, but you would gain many more subs by having more compelling gameplay. What good is a scout profession when they're revealed as soon as they enter system?
The changes the expansion are bringing aren't going to revitalize low sec or null sec and its certainly not going to promote or fuel war. Quite the opposite.
The devs and the playerbase talk a lot about EVE being hardcore, but as of yet i'm not really seeing the hardcore aspect to the game.
The game is a boring campfest. Removing local removes that to a large degree.
To my ultra Orthodox carebear players, uncle Caliphy isn't throwing you under the bus. The threats you worry about occuring with this change would actually be resolvable by a merc corporation. If you are decced and you hire a merc the merc cannot sneak up on the enemy with everything displayed for them. They may be able to make your tormentors life a little more difficult but in most cases can't force a fight under those conditions. With no local they could. If you are camped by a griefdec and you hire a reasonably sized merc to help you the griefer will never see them coming. It's win/win.
Even null entry points would be camped far less. Lets see the thirty man bubble camp consistently do it when a 150 man roaming gang warps in on them and they never see it coming.
Local is holding EVE back. Period. Get rid of it and let EVE become great.
I'm glad you think so.
I think that you would benefit from reading the thread in my signature: Intelligence shouldn't be free. Please let me know what you think of it. Intelligence shouldn't be free. -á Mining, reloaded. -á-áADDICTED. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
189
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 00:15:00 -
[347] - Quote
specializt wrote:Frying Doom wrote: So the POS fuels, ammunition, modules, stations to allowing clone jumping and known paths back to trade hubs as well as anything you might need appear magically when ever needed?
We got like 2 or 3 guys who do that (myself included) because its not a big job at all - even in large quantities.
Kudos, but it has zero to do with infallible intelligence and the gamedulling issues that comes along with it. |
Lord Zim
716
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 00:16:00 -
[348] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:specializt wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Wormholes require a skillset and a level of commitment and effort most people don't bother with. Im one of them. Scan for wormhole entrances and run dscan all day erryday? AND ganking miners, carebears, nublet-PvP corps without much effort nor reward. That sure are some mad "skills" and unspeakable amounts of "commitment" girls_laughing.png Appealing to ridicule. My confidence grows. The dissenters strongest weapon they can wield is snarky paragraphs full of fallacies. The truth will win out. It always does. That being said, hauling fuel, pos operation, limited piracy, limited targets, scanning skills (of which I actually have) are just a few reasons wormholes aren't for many. For me updating market orders pickups deliveries and such would be more hassle than I care to endure. So something which takes a normal person a few hours a week is "too much hassle", but your idea of "fair and balanced" is something which meant that one guy either had to have one cloaky alt for each gate (and keep an eye on all of them at the same time), or he has to get the same amount of guys to watch the gates for him, and make no isk while doing so. And then he still had to hope nobody'd pulled a logoffski.
Fair and balanced. |
Lord Zim
716
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 00:17:00 -
[349] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:So the POS fuels, ammunition, modules, stations to allowing clone jumping and known paths back to trade hubs as well as anything you might need appear magically when ever needed? It's not a huge job if you're not bad at eve. |
Frying Doom
193
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 00:18:00 -
[350] - Quote
specializt wrote:Frying Doom wrote: So the POS fuels, ammunition, modules, stations to allowing clone jumping and known paths back to trade hubs as well as anything you might need appear magically when ever needed?
We got like 2 or 3 guys who do that (myself included) because its not a big job at all - even in large quantities. Apologies if your corp description needs updating but it says your a 0.0 corp not a WH corp.
Angry Angels Constructions is a German-speaking Corp., which has currently settled in 0.0 space (Feytabolis). Primarily, we deal with PvP Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
|
specializt
Angry Angels Constructions The Kadeshi
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 00:24:00 -
[351] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:specializt wrote:Frying Doom wrote: So the POS fuels, ammunition, modules, stations to allowing clone jumping and known paths back to trade hubs as well as anything you might need appear magically when ever needed?
We got like 2 or 3 guys who do that (myself included) because its not a big job at all - even in large quantities. Apologies if your corp description needs updating but it says your a 0.0 corp not a WH corp. Angry Angels Constructions is a German-speaking Corp., which has currently settled in 0.0 space (Feytabolis). Primarily, we deal with PvP
Yep, and now you may start the thinking-process .... i know its hard for carebears to imagine what life in null is but --- have this hint :
- without industrial efforts, your alliance / corp will run dry within weeks
- without PvP efforts, you will receive free b.uttsecks within weeks
Might as well try it sometime, you will be surprised |
Frying Doom
193
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 00:27:00 -
[352] - Quote
specializt wrote:Yep, and now you may start the thinking-process .... i know its hard for carebears to imagine what life in null is but --- have this hint :
- without industrial efforts, your alliance / corp will run dry within weeks
Might as well try it sometime, you will be surprised What does any of that have to do with Worm Holes? The point was made that there is a lot more involved to living in WH than the lack of local. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
189
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 00:27:00 -
[353] - Quote
All of which have nothing to do with the OP. If you want to live in a wormhole feel free. |
specializt
Angry Angels Constructions The Kadeshi
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 00:30:00 -
[354] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote: What does any of that have to do with Worm Holes?
Except for the WH-drones : just about everything, the tasks in WH are identical to the tasks in null. |
Lord Zim
716
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 00:34:00 -
[355] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:All of which have nothing to do with the OP. If you want to live in a wormhole feel free. "I don't want to live in a wormhole because I'm too lazy to do something which'll take a few hours every week, tops, but I want everyone else to have to do a lot more work just to stay safeish, even in hisec. It'll be FUN! (for me)" |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
190
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 00:48:00 -
[356] - Quote
I went to adjust my market orders in the .01 environment. Its a good thing i'm not in a wormhole or i'd have to find a way to get in and out every 5 minutes to do it!
|
Lord Zim
716
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 00:52:00 -
[357] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:I went to adjust my market orders in the .01 environment. Its a good thing i'm not in a wormhole or i'd have to find a way to get in and out every 5 minutes to do it! So market alts are illegal? |
Frying Doom
193
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 01:01:00 -
[358] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:I went to adjust my market orders in the .01 environment. Its a good thing i'm not in a wormhole or i'd have to find a way to get in and out every 5 minutes to do it! So market alts are illegal? Your point hardly makes your case that Wormholes are only avoided by lazy people if you are now saying that people in Wormholes need have market alts to be able to easily access markets. Doesn't sound as simple as you seemed to believe a few minutes ago. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
463
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 01:04:00 -
[359] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Im not going anywhere. Im going to begin a lobby to change EVE into the game it advertises itself as
you already have the intellectual paragon known as Frying Doom with you good luck m8 o7 eh |
Mocam
EVE University Ivy League
122
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 01:05:00 -
[360] - Quote
specializt wrote:Frying Doom wrote: What does any of that have to do with Worm Holes?
Except for the WH-drones : just about everything, the tasks in WH are identical to the tasks in null.
Not really and sure as hell not the same way.
- Your front door doesn't change so you can find a path there from any k-space area in the game. - You can set a destination point and simply "follow the dots" to that place - but not in W-space. - Cyno's don't work so you can't just bounce to a spot with a JF, bridge in/out with other ships - so on and so forth. - You can't decide that your front door is pointing at too dangerous a spot so you collapse it. - Entering a gate, you appear "OFF" the gate at range. Entering a WH, you are in click-out range of the entrance/exit; so camps? ...
etc.
WH life is both more and less dangerous than other parts of the game. That "no local" is just one aspect of it and if they normalized the rules for WH space and null - the game would play radially different.
No - removal isn't a solution, not without some form of replacement. |
|
Shaampoo
Fweddit
47
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 01:07:00 -
[361] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Alara IonStorm wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote: It would solve cloaky camps people complain about. It would give a point to cloaks people complain about.
Uncloak aliegned, tap bomb, warp to safety. No time to get reinforcements on grid to help or even lock targets. Hurray for 100% Safe uncounterable attacks. Then nerf bombs. Change them. Make them super powerful torpedoes that can only hit capitals. It would be a small sacrifice, and im a dedicated cloaky kind of player, for the greater good of the game. But also remember that even if that were the case no local means that for that to occur a scouting operation would have had to of occured first. Maybe it would be a well earned uncounterable attack. So remove one element from the game and then break another mechanic but it is cool because you can now gank war targets easier
|
Lord Zim
716
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 01:07:00 -
[362] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:I went to adjust my market orders in the .01 environment. Its a good thing i'm not in a wormhole or i'd have to find a way to get in and out every 5 minutes to do it! So market alts are illegal? Your point hardly makes your case that Wormholes are only avoided by lazy people if you are now saying that people in Wormholes need have market alts to be able to easily access markets. Doesn't sound as simple as you seemed to believe a few minutes ago. So uh, you're actually going to say that using a market alt is hard work? Or complex? |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
190
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 01:09:00 -
[363] - Quote
Mocam wrote:specializt wrote:Frying Doom wrote: What does any of that have to do with Worm Holes?
Except for the WH-drones : just about everything, the tasks in WH are identical to the tasks in null. Not really and sure as hell not the same way. - Your front door doesn't change so you can find a path there from any k-space area in the game. - You can set a destination point and simply "follow the dots" to that place - but not in W-space. - Cyno's don't work so you can't just bounce to a spot with a JF, bridge in/out with other ships - so on and so forth. - You can't decide that your front door is pointing at too dangerous a spot so you collapse it. - Entering a gate, you appear "OFF" the gate at range. Entering a WH, you are in click-out range of the entrance/exit; so camps? ... etc. WH life is both more and less dangerous than other parts of the game. That "no local" is just one aspect of it and if they normalized the rules for WH space and null - the game would play radially different. No - removal isn't a solution, not without some form of replacement.
Sure it is. And no you don't need a replacement. I didnt hear a reason for local needing to stay but assuming you carry the EVE UNI agenda im sure I can figure it out.
Isn't Decshield enough protection as is? If it isn't what on earth are teaching anyone? You didn't teach me anything and I do just fine. As do most. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
190
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 01:10:00 -
[364] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Im not going anywhere. Im going to begin a lobby to change EVE into the game it advertises itself as you already have the intellectual paragon known as Frying Doom with you good luck m8 o7
And you have 10000 wasted political votes and a never ending public outcry against your alliances overrepresentation on the CSM . It would appear we both have an uphill climb. |
Frying Doom
193
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 01:14:00 -
[365] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:I went to adjust my market orders in the .01 environment. Its a good thing i'm not in a wormhole or i'd have to find a way to get in and out every 5 minutes to do it! So market alts are illegal? Your point hardly makes your case that Wormholes are only avoided by lazy people if you are now saying that people in Wormholes need have market alts to be able to easily access markets. Doesn't sound as simple as you seemed to believe a few minutes ago. So uh, you're actually going to say that using a market alt is hard work? Or complex? So your now agreeing with me about the Jump drive Nerf as you are saying you only need easy access to a market alt and not direct access to a market hub with any character. Care to go one better and agree about the removal of Local while we are here? Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
463
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 01:16:00 -
[366] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Sure it is. And no you don't need a replacement. I didnt hear a reason for local needing to stay but assuming you carry the EVE UNI agenda im sure I can figure it out.
Isn't decshield enough protection as is?
Yeah I hear Eve University is heavily invested in nullsec with all of that sovereignty they hold eh |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
191
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 01:18:00 -
[367] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Sure it is. And no you don't need a replacement. I didnt hear a reason for local needing to stay but assuming you carry the EVE UNI agenda im sure I can figure it out.
Isn't decshield enough protection as is? Yeah I hear Eve University is heavily invested in nullsec with all of that sovereignty they hold
No, but they are heavily invested in making EVE a happy safe place in hisec so they can pretend to actually teach people something other than camp up during wars as not to encourage aggression. |
IbanezLaney
The Church of Awesome
21
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 01:23:00 -
[368] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Get rid of local, all secs. It fixes almost everything. You would have to work to locate a target. You would have to work to avoid a target. There would be risk in high sec. There would be risk in all secs.
Freighters could be caught during a war dec. Freighters could get through during a war dec.
You would still have Concord retaliation in high sec. You could still be camped, though if you break the camp it would be harder to hunt you down. Certainly no worse that what we have now but with compelling gameplay.
It would solve cloaky camps people complain about. It would give a point to cloaks of which people complain about.
It would make neutral alts almost irrelevant. Though not 100%. It would certainly make playing with one account a lot less of a disadvantage. Sure you might lose a few alt account subs, but you would gain many more subs by having more compelling gameplay. What good is a scout profession when they're revealed as soon as they enter system?
The changes the expansion are bringing aren't going to revitalize low sec or null sec and its certainly not going to promote or fuel war. Quite the opposite.
The devs and the playerbase talk a lot about EVE being hardcore, but as of yet i'm not really seeing the hardcore aspect to the game.
The game is a boring campfest. Removing local removes that to a large degree.
To my ultra Orthodox carebear players, uncle Caliphy isn't throwing you under the bus. The threats you worry about occuring with this change would actually be resolvable by a merc corporation. If you are decced and you hire a merc the merc cannot sneak up on the enemy with everything displayed for them. They may be able to make your tormentors life a little more difficult but in most cases can't force a fight under those conditions. With no local they could. If you are camped by a griefdec and you hire a reasonably sized merc to help you the griefer will never see them coming. It's win/win.
Even null entry points would be camped far less. Lets see the thirty man bubble camp consistently do it when a 150 man roaming gang warps in on them and they never see it coming.
Local is holding EVE back. Period. Get rid of it and let EVE become great.
I think what you are looking for is called a wormhole.
I don't see how this solves gate camping - they would just wait for gate flashes as that would be the easiest way to get targets. If a big fleet drop on them - they simply jump the gate. Gate camping would increase with no local. Fix this **** See Sea Pea. |
Snow Burst
RED.OverLord
11
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 02:08:00 -
[369] - Quote
sooooooooooooooo your saying you want the entire game to be an hour of probing out people to go fetch your ship to find theyve moved off? no local in wh space works because its the whole point and adds a different play style not everyone wants to play in wh's There Is A 90% Chance All Of What You Just Read Is Wrong, Inaccurate Or Just Me Being Controversial In Some Way.-áOr By Some Chance It's Completely Right In Every Way... At Least To Me :3 |
Lord Zim
716
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 02:40:00 -
[370] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:I went to adjust my market orders in the .01 environment. Its a good thing i'm not in a wormhole or i'd have to find a way to get in and out every 5 minutes to do it! So market alts are illegal? Your point hardly makes your case that Wormholes are only avoided by lazy people if you are now saying that people in Wormholes need have market alts to be able to easily access markets. Doesn't sound as simple as you seemed to believe a few minutes ago. So uh, you're actually going to say that using a market alt is hard work? Or complex? So your now agreeing with me about the Jump drive Nerf as you are saying you only need easy access to a market alt and not direct access to a market hub with any character. Care to go one better and agree about the removal of Local while we are here? So to sum up your and Caliph's position on local so far, you blatantly refuse to accept my assertation that the active population of nullsec, lowsec and probably to a lesser degree hisec will go down if the risk or effort needed to stay safe increases dramatically, and yet you've no problems with explaining away not being in a wormhole with, and I quote, "For me updating market orders, pickups & deliveries etc, would be more hassle than I care to endure." ... when it's a matter of making a simple alt and sticking him in jita with a freighter or orca, and then spend a few minutes every now and again updating orders or activating autopilot and doing something else for a few more hours.
I ... see. |
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1027
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 02:45:00 -
[371] - Quote
Snow Burst wrote:sooooooooooooooo your saying you want the entire game to be an hour of probing out people to go fetch your ship to find theyve moved off? no local in wh space works because its the whole point and adds a different play style not everyone wants to play in wh's nah he doesn't really want any changes, Caliph is just a guy whose experience with pvp is a handful of highsec wardecs trying to build himself an image of something that he isn't while Frying Doom is merely poorly repeating trolls from NPC corp shiptoasters of EVE-gd past because he's butthurt about goons calling him out on his creepy whiteknighting of Issler Dainze during the CSM7 elections, but he doesn't really grasp game mechanics that well so he does a bad job of it. Anyways that's the past 17 pages of this thread all summed up for you, ban npc corps. |
Grumpymunky
Super Monkey Tribe of Danger
174
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 03:01:00 -
[372] - Quote
Elena Melkan wrote:I heard that if you eat lots of yogurt, your balls will grow. Trying that now. So far it hasn't affected them, but it does make my poo come out softer. Post with your monkey. |
Frying Doom
193
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 03:04:00 -
[373] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Snow Burst wrote:sooooooooooooooo your saying you want the entire game to be an hour of probing out people to go fetch your ship to find theyve moved off? no local in wh space works because its the whole point and adds a different play style not everyone wants to play in wh's nah he doesn't really want any changes, Caliph is just a guy whose experience with pvp is a handful of highsec wardecs trying to build himself an image of something that he isn't while Frying Doom is merely poorly repeating trolls from NPC corp shiptoasters of EVE-gd past because he's butthurt about goons calling him out on his creepy whiteknighting of Issler Dainze during the CSM7 elections, but he doesn't really grasp game mechanics that well so he does a bad job of it. Anyways that's the past 17 pages of this thread all summed up for you, ban npc corps. Oh so that is what you are so but hurt about, I managed to get a candidate with little chance elected while 10,058 people couldn't get their's.
Oh and I wouldn't be in an NPC corp if your CEO would accept the application or are you just a bunch of goonswarm pets afraid of a wardec? Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Frying Doom
193
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 03:09:00 -
[374] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:So to sum up your and Caliph's position on local so far, you blatantly refuse to accept my assertation that the active population of nullsec, lowsec and probably to a lesser degree hisec will go down if the risk or effort needed to stay safe increases dramatically, and yet you've no problems with explaining away not being in a wormhole with, and I quote, "For me updating market orders, pickups & deliveries etc, would be more hassle than I care to endure." ... when it's a matter of making a simple alt and sticking him in jita with a freighter or orca, and then spend a few minutes every now and again updating orders or activating autopilot and doing something else for a few more hours.
I ... see. My and Caliph's position are different he wants local removed completely where as I find it just a crutch for null sec players who want free intel.
Ok it is very weird to use a quote when you are the only person who has said the quote and then too use it for the basis for your argument.
I must ask when you look around do you see padded walls? Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1027
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 03:12:00 -
[375] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:, I managed to get a candidate with little chance elected lol |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
192
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 05:07:00 -
[376] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Snow Burst wrote:sooooooooooooooo your saying you want the entire game to be an hour of probing out people to go fetch your ship to find theyve moved off? no local in wh space works because its the whole point and adds a different play style not everyone wants to play in wh's nah he doesn't really want any changes, Caliph is just a guy whose experience with pvp is a handful of highsec wardecs trying to build himself an image of something that he isn't while Frying Doom is merely poorly repeating trolls from NPC corp shiptoasters of EVE-gd past because he's butthurt about goons calling him out on his creepy whiteknighting of Issler Dainze during the CSM7 elections, but he doesn't really grasp game mechanics that well so he does a bad job of it. Anyways that's the past 17 pages of this thread all summed up for you, ban npc corps.
And yet when I bothered to do it I make it look so fuc.king easy. Trust me I abstained most of my eve career because solo pvp was an exercise in monotony. It had nothing to do with ability. And none of that has any bearing on local being a elementary school level safety net for a game that fraudulently claims to be hardcore.
http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=15867656 Theres one of your kills, I thought it it the first impressive one on the list. Then I saw it was so many people on one ship it bordered ridiculous. And you put a whopping 93 damage on the kill. Im sure if I sift thru ill find you to be a great big KM *****.
Why don't you tell us all exactly why the pussies in EVE need local. |
Benny Ohu
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
129
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 05:37:00 -
[377] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:I managed to get a candidate with little chance elected I suppose it's possible some of the voters you drove away from Issler went to Darius, but they probably voted for Mittani instead. vOv |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
192
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 05:41:00 -
[378] - Quote
ITT alot of distractions and rhetoric but no real arguments as to why EVE needs local chat, an immersion breaking feature thats detrimental to almost every feature the game boasts. The sum of the anti argument is that the most dullard of the population will quit if its removed. Thats it. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1029
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 05:46:00 -
[379] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=15867656 Theres one of your kills, I thought it the first impressive one on the list. Then I saw it was so many people on one ship it bordered ridiculous. And you put a whopping 93 damage on the kill. Im sure if I sift thru ill find you to be a great big KM ho, I stopped after just three because its all the same format. You doing almost nothing just enough to get on the mail. Your pvp experience consists of joining the biggest blob you can find and pretending that in doing so you're elite. /facepalm Why don't you tell us all exactly why the pussies in EVE need local instead. Ah yes that time I (the lone prober in fleet) probed down the vital warp-in needed for a combined Brick-Cascade-SOLAR FLEET armada to warp down on a bunch of Team Tech caps for an epic capital ship battle against Raiden and co, blasting in and tackling dreads.
I suppose my dps was rather low. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
192
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 05:52:00 -
[380] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=15867656 Theres one of your kills, I thought it the first impressive one on the list. Then I saw it was so many people on one ship it bordered ridiculous. And you put a whopping 93 damage on the kill. Im sure if I sift thru ill find you to be a great big KM ho, I stopped after just three because its all the same format. You doing almost nothing just enough to get on the mail. Your pvp experience consists of joining the biggest blob you can find and pretending that in doing so you're elite. /facepalm Why don't you tell us all exactly why the pussies in EVE need local instead. Ah yes that time I (the lone prober in fleet) probed down the vital warp-in needed for a combined Brick-Cascade-SOLAR FLEET armada to warp down on a bunch of Team Tech caps for an epic capital ship battle against Raiden and co, blasting in and tackling dreads. I suppose my dps was rather low.
If you were really the prober that found it, its excusable I don't hate. But if you werent and still hopped on that kill for 93 damage thats kb ho'ing. I'll take your word you did as you stated. |
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1029
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 06:00:00 -
[381] - Quote
anathema pvp best pvp: http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=15035646 |
Frying Doom
193
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 06:12:00 -
[382] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:Frying Doom wrote:I managed to get a candidate with little chance elected I suppose it's possible some of the voters you drove away from Issler went to Darius, but they probably voted for Mittani instead. vOv Well if they voted for mittens I'm sure they could cry with the rest of the people who did.
Bit of a side track so back to the regular feature "Local Must Die" The PG version, so Its Null local only Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
914
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 06:19:00 -
[383] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=15867656 Theres one of your kills, I thought it the first impressive one on the list. Then I saw it was so many people on one ship it bordered ridiculous. And you put a whopping 93 damage on the kill. Im sure if I sift thru ill find you to be a great big KM ho, I stopped after just three because its all the same format. You doing almost nothing just enough to get on the mail. Your pvp experience consists of joining the biggest blob you can find and pretending that in doing so you're elite. /facepalm Why don't you tell us all exactly why the pussies in EVE need local instead. Ah yes that time I (the lone prober in fleet) probed down the vital warp-in needed for a combined Brick-Cascade-SOLAR FLEET armada to warp down on a bunch of Team Tech caps for an epic capital ship battle against Raiden and co, blasting in and tackling dreads. I suppose my dps was rather low. If you were really the prober that found it, its excusable I don't hate. But if you werent and still hopped on that kill for 93 damage thats kb ho'ing. I'll take your word you did as you stated. Hey, we here in the CFC jump into fights that have nothing to do with us just to get on the killmails.
It's fair and square for your rifter to shoot one bullet at the titan before dying just to get on its killmail. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd |
Mra Rednu
Black Watch Guard
22
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 06:27:00 -
[384] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Sure it is. And no you don't need a replacement. I didnt hear a reason for local needing to stay but assuming you carry the EVE UNI agenda im sure I can figure it out.
Isn't decshield enough protection as is? Yeah I hear Eve University is heavily invested in nullsec with all of that sovereignty they hold No, but they are heavily invested in making EVE a happy safe place in hisec so they can pretend to actually teach people something other than camp up during wars as not to encourage aggression.
You've not decced Eve uni have you ?....... |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
194
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 06:40:00 -
[385] - Quote
Mra Rednu wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Sure it is. And no you don't need a replacement. I didnt hear a reason for local needing to stay but assuming you carry the EVE UNI agenda im sure I can figure it out.
Isn't decshield enough protection as is? Yeah I hear Eve University is heavily invested in nullsec with all of that sovereignty they hold No, but they are heavily invested in making EVE a happy safe place in hisec so they can pretend to actually teach people something other than camp up during wars as not to encourage aggression. You've not decced Eve uni have you ?.......
Nope. But we don't have hundreds of men either, were at about 8 solid players pretty much t3 or better. We are in talks about creating an alliance to bolster the size of corporations or alliances we can engage, but we do seek out targets with far greater numbers than we have. Its about the only way to ensure a decent number of targets are available.
I don't know if you have ever really tried recruiting worthwhile people in EVE but it's a very time consuming process. |
Mocam
EVE University Ivy League
123
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 08:38:00 -
[386] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Mocam wrote:specializt wrote:Frying Doom wrote: What does any of that have to do with Worm Holes?
Except for the WH-drones : just about everything, the tasks in WH are identical to the tasks in null. Not really and sure as hell not the same way. - Your front door doesn't change so you can find a path there from any k-space area in the game. - You can set a destination point and simply "follow the dots" to that place - but not in W-space. - Cyno's don't work so you can't just bounce to a spot with a JF, bridge in/out with other ships - so on and so forth. - You can't decide that your front door is pointing at too dangerous a spot so you collapse it. - Entering a gate, you appear "OFF" the gate at range. Entering a WH, you are in click-out range of the entrance/exit; so camps? ... etc. WH life is both more and less dangerous than other parts of the game. That "no local" is just one aspect of it and if they normalized the rules for WH space and null - the game would play radially different. No - removal isn't a solution, not without some form of replacement. Sure it is. And no you don't need a replacement. I didnt hear a reason for local needing to stay but assuming you carry the EVE UNI agenda im sure I can figure it out. Isn't decshield enough protection as is?
Ummm... the decshield stuff is history these days - the changes got rid of it. Using game mechanics like that was even with the old insurance scam stuff used to fund suicide gankers - it needed to go but while available, you'd be a fool not to use it.
I'm a member of the uni - for a small group like your "short bus friends" that may not mean much but if you think "the uni" expresses my opinions or I agree with management on all points. You should probably try joining a larger group to see just how diverse opinions are. I *DO* follow rules of a larger group but my opinions are my own.
You also don't seem to know much about the uni - try reading a bit. The same info that our members agree to before joining, while in the uni, etc... is available from the wiki.
Read - honestly, it doesn't hurt that much and you might learn a bit more about the group vs just assumptions that many goofs have on what they are about. "tight rules!" - bet on it and get the hell out when they bind - but we'll give options on where you can go that won't rob you nor blow you up for lulz as you exit. See our "work fair" forum for "honorable" groups to join upon leaving the uni - WH, Lowsec pirates, Nullsec groups, mining corps, etc.
As for my opinions on this "local" junk:
Removal of the intel from local - I've been a fan of that for a very long time but not without the availability of other tools to replace it. Sensor changes, scanner changes... whatever but that functionality is needed.
The key being balanced play and 7 out of 10 chars in highsec does *NOT* need to be fluffed up any more by removal of local without some way to address the intel it offers. People need the ability to operate in space for more than just PvP and should be traveling through all types of space a lot and they don't.
That "7 out of 10" in highsec points to something being wrong with the design - especially when over half of them are probably alts to "dangerous space" dwellers. It should be *MORE* profitable to not be there than sitting in that safe space but roadblocks shut down traffic ... PvE being about using "fixed locations" to operate out of vs PvP ... so on and so forth.
Until they find ways to fix this population & traffic imbalances - all your suggestion will down is reduce uses of dangerous space -AND- increase the cancellation of accounts.
There are fewer devs employable with fewer accounts. I'd prefer more minds involved in finding & fixing underpinning issues than fewer. The brain power i see expressed here by the PvP types, shows they have no clue how to fix the problems without costing devs their jobs. "Just let us kill them all until they quit!" brilliant...
tl;dr: Fix the other things that keep 7 out of 10 in highsec and the rest will sort itself out. Until that is addressed, the rest means little to nothing. You won't grow those portions of the game by removing safeties from the few who operate there non-PvP focused. They'll just stop and that means LESS combat targets. |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
71
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 08:41:00 -
[387] - Quote
specializt wrote:Frying Doom wrote: What does any of that have to do with Worm Holes?
Except for the WH-drones : just about everything, the tasks in WH are identical to the tasks in null.
not exactly true, but close, in WH space, you don't show in local if you don't type in local. so,,,, if you are covert op, you are actualy, covert ! crazy yea. also being a scanner/prober becomes a valued job, not just an alt char to find exits and sites then logged off.
this is why a lot of us think making the local channel like WH space would be a good idea. i can name a few reasons why this would be a good thing.
1: covert op ships are doing what they are ment to do, finally.
2: scanning and probing becomes a need at all times pilots job and not a hang on till i log on my alt for a minute or two.
3: afk cloakers get the sack,, why,, because they are now useless as a trolling/griefing tool.
4: it builds team work within a squad/fleet.
none of these things are a bad thing. fear of all local channels becoming like WH space is not a bad thing. like always some pilots want the game handed to them on a plate. for those that would say it would be impossible to locate and kill a target,
how about if location agents got a boost ? more accurate, took less time to locate/re-use ?
my interest in this is obvious i guess, i'd ike to see covert operations being covert, at the moment they are only 100% covert in WH space. |
Phill Esteen
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
27
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 09:51:00 -
[388] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Anyways that's the past 17 pages of this thread all summed up for you, ban npc corps.
Supported, members of NPC corps contribute nothing to this game |
Snow Burst
RED.OverLord
24
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 10:10:00 -
[389] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Snow Burst wrote:sooooooooooooooo your saying you want the entire game to be an hour of probing out people to go fetch your ship to find theyve moved off? no local in wh space works because its the whole point and adds a different play style not everyone wants to play in wh's nah he doesn't really want any changes, Caliph is just a guy whose experience with pvp is a handful of highsec wardecs trying to build himself an image of something that he isn't while Frying Doom is merely poorly repeating trolls from NPC corp shiptoasters of EVE-gd past because he's butthurt about goons calling him out on his creepy whiteknighting of Issler Dainze during the CSM7 elections, but he doesn't really grasp game mechanics that well so he does a bad job of it. Anyways that's the past 17 pages of this thread all summed up for you, ban npc corps. rofl sounds bout right There Is A 90% Chance All Of What You Just Read Is Wrong, Inaccurate Or Just Me Being Controversial In Some Way.-áOr By Some Chance It's Completely Right In Every Way... At Least To Me :3 |
Lord Zim
717
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 10:18:00 -
[390] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:1: covert op ships are doing what they are ment to do, finally. Unless there's a counter, then cloaked ships just became even more overpowered against ratters and miners.
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:3: afk cloakers get the sack,, why,, because they are now useless as a trolling/griefing tool. The only thing that's removed from the equation is the fact that people see them, what it's been replaced with is the need to assume that there's always 1 or more cloaked ship in a system or on the way, and as such you've got to have 1 alt (or 1 person) sitting cloaked on grid with each gate and wormhole in system, with the sole purpose of staring at that gate to see who comes and who goes. And they still have to assume that at any point in time someone can log on from, say, the day before. And since they're cloaked, they can pick and choose the time of the engagement, and all it takes is for one guy to be inattentive or be left alone for a few seconds, and pop he goes.
This all works in wormholes because there are limits to how many entries there are to a system, and the rewards are massively higher than in nullsec, so for those who decide to go to wormholes, they've weighed the risk vs reward and gone "yes, I think I want me some of that". People in null, low and hisec haven't had to add this variable to the equation, and if they have to, a lot of them will move, which'll render a lot of what "remove local" people wants moot, because there'll be even fewer people to actually hunt.
"Remove local" proponents such as Caliph keeps claiming that my point about people leaving f.ex nullsec is false has himself stated, on the record, that he has weighed up the work he has to put in to stay in wormholes, and decided that it wasn't for him, and it wasn't even the huge amount of work his "final solution to the local problem" would entail; no, it was just the fact he would have to roll a market alt to buy/sell stuff, or the few hours every now and again he'd have to spend to keep a POS fuelled, bring in a bit of ammo etc etc etc.
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:none of these things are a bad thing. fear of all local channels becoming like WH space is not a bad thing. like always some pilots want the game handed to them on a plate. for those that would say it would be impossible to locate and kill a target,
how about if location agents got a boost ? more accurate, took less time to locate/re-use ? What mechanics does this target have at his disposal to mitigate the risk? |
|
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
200
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 10:23:00 -
[391] - Quote
Decshield isn't gone, its been made the default. Sell that propaganda to a fool. As for the devs losing their jobs if they dont turn eve into a carebear heaven, what a crock. If the devs keep releasing mediocre patches as expansions every 6 months while at the same time leaving the game the campfest it is they wont have any pvpers left but those in alliances. Your carebear demographic isnt what keeps EVE alive. And shooting red Xs only lasts for so long. My subs up on the 30th, not a single aspect of the expansion makes me want to resub. Will I? Maybe. I like the company of my friends but long term its doubtful. It has nothing at all to do with be challenging and everything to do with being a mediocre sub par experience.
Out of curiousity whats the cost for decing euni now per week? |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
71
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 10:36:00 -
[392] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:1: covert op ships are doing what they are ment to do, finally. Unless there's a counter, then cloaked ships just became even more overpowered against ratters and miners. xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:3: afk cloakers get the sack,, why,, because they are now useless as a trolling/griefing tool. The only thing that's removed from the equation is the fact that people see them, what it's been replaced with is the need to assume that there's always 1 or more cloaked ship in a system or on the way, and as such you've got to have 1 alt (or 1 person) sitting cloaked on grid with each gate and wormhole in system, with the sole purpose of staring at that gate to see who comes and who goes. And they still have to assume that at any point in time someone can log on from, say, the day before. And since they're cloaked, they can pick and choose the time of the engagement, and all it takes is for one guy to be inattentive or be left alone for a few seconds, and pop he goes. This all works in wormholes because there are limits to how many entries there are to a system, and the rewards are massively higher than in nullsec, so for those who decide to go to wormholes, they've weighed the risk vs reward and gone "yes, I think I want me some of that". People in null, low and hisec haven't had to add this variable to the equation, and if they have to, a lot of them will move, which'll render a lot of what "remove local" people wants moot, because there'll be even fewer people to actually hunt. "Remove local" proponents such as Caliph keeps claiming that my point about people leaving f.ex nullsec is false has himself stated, on the record, that he has weighed up the work he has to put in to stay in wormholes, and decided that it wasn't for him, and it wasn't even the huge amount of work his "final solution to the local problem" would entail; no, it was just the fact he would have to roll a market alt to buy/sell stuff, or the few hours every now and again he'd have to spend to keep a POS fuelled, bring in a bit of ammo etc etc etc. xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:none of these things are a bad thing. fear of all local channels becoming like WH space is not a bad thing. like always some pilots want the game handed to them on a plate. for those that would say it would be impossible to locate and kill a target,
how about if location agents got a boost ? more accurate, took less time to locate/re-use ? What mechanics does this target have at his disposal to mitigate the risk?
good points, to which i shall answer with the following.
1: to counter cloaked ships a specialised ship & mods is needed, at the moment there is no counter in WH space to cloaked ships. i agree there needs to be a counter to cloaked ships.
2: if they are there cloaked and afk and can't be seen at all then they are indeed useless as a trolling/griefing tool, me personally, i'd like to be able to locate and pop afk cloaked ships.
3: if in a fleet use the agents also to watch for your enemies locations also use scouts to watch for apporching targets, if alone, use agents to locate your enemy also, keep moving, sitting stil makes you an easy target.
i'm not up for remove local and make cloaked ships god ships, im' up for make local like wh local, but balance it all off, local is horrible, it doesn't make for better game play, it makes for oooohhh look reds in local, never undock, don't jump in, super safe local channel saves the day,, where's the counter to that ? |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
200
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 10:41:00 -
[393] - Quote
Cloaking OP versus ratter and miners. Really think about the stupidty in that remark. Curse you for quoting him.
A mining isn't a combat ship so I would hope that it is a stronger combat option. As for ratters what on earth type of ratter has a ship that covert ops dps can manhandle? If he means more than 1 then the ratter should die.
What utter rubbish. Its that plea to ignorance that is so prevalent in MMOs especially pvp centric ones and even moreso ones with a non combat class that leads to the mediocre gameplay we have now.
If you choose a non combat profession and die in combat, hey genius, its working as intended. |
Snow Burst
RED.OverLord
27
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 10:46:00 -
[394] - Quote
cloakers = "im watching u" "o.o" *uncloaks fires bomb cloaks again* "x-x" ":3" love cloakies lol There Is A 90% Chance All Of What You Just Read Is Wrong, Inaccurate Or Just Me Being Controversial In Some Way.-áOr By Some Chance It's Completely Right In Every Way... At Least To Me :3 |
Lord Zim
717
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 11:52:00 -
[395] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:good points, to which i shall answer with the following. Now, see, you seem to have an attitude to the game I can work with.
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:1: to counter cloaked ships a specialised ship & mods is needed, at the moment there is no counter in WH space to cloaked ships. i agree there needs to be a counter to cloaked ships. I'm a bit torn on this one, because it would have an impact on WHs, and I wouldn't necessarily want to impact them just to tick off the "remove local" checkbox.
However, if we presume that there'll be added a ship (or a module, I've no idea what CCP are thinking at this point) for hunting cloaked ships, then there's the question of how that should work. System-wide, or within, say, 15AU. The problem with the former is that you again ruin the whole "cloaked ships are covert" idea, and the problem with the latter is you end up with f.ex having to have a cloaker hunter following every ratter around and being very, very diligent absolutely all the time, and still only getting a few seconds warning as the cloaked ships are about to land on you.
It's a tough balancing act, and what makes it worse is that the guy doing the anti-cloaking thing would most likely be unable to make money himself so he'd either have to fleet up (which would cut the payout for the guys ratting, if we're talking about mining then there's no mechanic for automatically making sure it's worth his time), or they'd have to agree on a wage for his job. Also, keep in mind that we're talking about a job which'd most likely be even more boring than shooting red crosses and mining, and it probably won't take much before the thoughts "why don't I do L4s instead, and have a much more relaxing time?" pop up. So, it's a tough balancing act.
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:2: if they are there cloaked and afk and can't be seen at all then they are indeed useless as a trolling/griefing tool, me personally, i'd like to be able to locate and pop afk cloaked ships. I won't deny that I've often wanted to have a tool for hunting down people who do absolutely nothing except log in, press cloak, and then leave the client in the background.
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:3: if in a fleet use the agents also to watch for your enemies locations also use scouts to watch for apporching targets, if alone, use agents to locate your enemy also, keep moving, sitting stil makes you an easy target.
i'm not up for remove local and make cloaked ships god ships, im' up for make local like wh local, but balance it all off, local is horrible, it doesn't make for better game play, it makes for oooohhh look reds in local, never undock, don't jump in, super safe local channel saves the day,, where's the counter to that ? The problem with this question is that it's a pretty hard nut to crack. On the one hand you need to be able to function without spending all your life in the game just to try to keep everything safeish (and still **** up from time to time), on the other hand there's being able to glance at local and see if there are reds or not (and still **** up from time to time), or ask in intel if it's clear (and get bad/outdated intel from time to time, or no intel because nobody's there, and **** up).
Add to all this the fact that most alliances have spies in most other alliances, and the problem of "getting a fleet's location" isn't really the huge problem that it once was.
Caliph Muhammed wrote:A mining ship isn't a combat ship so I would hope that the covops is the stronger combat option. As for ratters what on earth type of ratter has a ship that covert ops dps can manhandle? If he means more than 1 then the ratter should die. Spoken like someone who has absolutely no clue on how to use f.ex a purifier to kill a ratting/plexing ship. Or, he knows, he just wants us to believe it's impossible. Given how most of the killmails of his I've seen (2+ T3's vs a single BS), I'm inclined to believe he honestly doesn't know. |
Lord Zim
717
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 11:54:00 -
[396] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:BTW wtf is a ratter? Is that just another way of describing the phenomenon of the player using the highest DPS ship they've trained for and hunting belt rats or is there a special ship/skillset that ive overlooked that makes it somehow less capable of being rigged for pvp and pve? I personally think its a codeword for "Miners With Guns." Huh. So he really doesn't know the difference between a PVE-fitted ship and a PVP-fitted ship? |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
200
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 12:08:00 -
[397] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:BTW wtf is a ratter? Is that just another way of describing the phenomenon of the player using the highest DPS ship they've trained for and hunting belt rats or is there a special ship/skillset that ive overlooked that makes it somehow less capable of being rigged for pvp and pve? I personally think its a codeword for "Miners With Guns." Huh. So he really doesn't know the difference between a PVE-fitted ship and a PVP-fitted ship?
Yeah in capable hands a warp disruptor. I know that post punched hard but if you want to avoid it don't respond at all. Stop trying to alienate me. In case you havent figured it out yet it doesn't work. And in most cases the people you draw for support aren't any more up for the job than you are. |
Lord Zim
717
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 12:12:00 -
[398] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Yeah in capable hands a warp disruptor. I know that post punched hard but if you want to avoid it don't respond at all. Stop trying to alienate me. In case you havent figured it out yet it doesn't work and in most cases the people you try and draw for support when you have your ass handed to you aren't anymore up for the job than you are. So you're going to go on record and claim that the only difference between a PVE-fitted ship, and a PVP-fitted ship, is the addition of a warp disruptor? |
Aedan Vals
FREE GATES HUN Reloaded
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 12:12:00 -
[399] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote: Grow some balls [...] im a dedicated cloaky kind of player
oh OP, you make me laugh.
|
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
200
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 12:14:00 -
[400] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Yeah in capable hands a warp disruptor. I know that post punched hard but if you want to avoid it don't respond at all. Stop trying to alienate me. In case you havent figured it out yet it doesn't work and in most cases the people you try and draw for support when you have your ass handed to you aren't anymore up for the job than you are. So you're going to go on record and claim that the only difference between a PVE-fitted ship, and a PVP-fitted ship, is the addition of a warp disruptor?
Im going to go on the record and state that I can do l4s in a ham fitted buffer tank ship just fine. Im going to go on record and say I can then go to the belts and kill rats just as easily. Again on the record i'll take that same ship and do ok in pvp with it. And all with a warp disruptor fitted. Its a privilege of minimizing my ship choices to one race and maxing out my support skills.
Some people need ravens to do level 4s. We have fun with three man groups of pre-buff assault frigates. Havent did any post buff.
When you ask me do I understand, absolutely. So much in fact I often avoid the perpetual myths people circulate for either a lack of the vocabulary/understanding to correctly describe a phenomenon or an agenda. |
|
Lord Zim
717
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 12:25:00 -
[401] - Quote
Funny how you avoided talking about plexes. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
200
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 12:27:00 -
[402] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Funny how you avoided talking about plexes.
We didn't talk about c5s either. You mentioned ratters and miners. Did you mention Plexes? Funny how you didn't yet you ask me whether I did. Need more time to eek out more tripe or have you tired of having your ass handed to you? |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
86
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 12:43:00 -
[403] - Quote
have a cookie! this thread is just a competition between 5 or so people for who is the worst poster and has the worst ideas. I must say, the competition is very tight |
Lord Zim
717
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 12:47:00 -
[404] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Funny how you avoided talking about plexes. We didn't talk about c5s either. You mentioned ratters and miners. Did you mention Plexes? Funny how you didn't yet you ask me whether I did. Need more time to eek out more tripe or have you tired of having your ass handed to you?
I did, actually:
Lord Zim wrote:Spoken like someone who has absolutely no clue on how to use f.ex a purifier to kill a ratting/plexing ship.
But hey, thanks for going on record, since it shows just how out of touch with nullsec you actually are. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
201
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 12:49:00 -
[405] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Funny how you avoided talking about plexes. We didn't talk about c5s either. You mentioned ratters and miners. Did you mention Plexes? Funny how you didn't yet you ask me whether I did. Need more time to eek out more tripe or have you tired of having your ass handed to you? I did, actually: Lord Zim wrote:Spoken like someone who has absolutely no clue on how to use f.ex a purifier to kill a ratting/plexing ship. But hey, thanks for going on record, since it shows just how out of touch with nullsec you actually are.
If nullsec is so full of carebears like you EVE is an even bigger fraud than I first thought. But we both know you dont represent anyone but yourself.
And you didnt mention plexing ( or rather the purifier)until after I replied. Zim you fail. Bottomline is if you didnt weasel your way into Goonswarm you'd be in hisec getting punked on the regular. |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
86
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 12:52:00 -
[406] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: But hey, thanks for going on record, since it shows just how out of touch with nullsec you actually are.
ofcource he is ouf of touch with 0.0. All he does is wardecking corps in high sec and some low sec gate camping. |
Lord Zim
717
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 12:52:00 -
[407] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:If nullsec is so full of carebears like you EVE is an even bigger fraud than I first thought. But we both know you dont represent anyone but yourself. Okay. Go to nullsec and do a plex in your version of a PVE fitted ship, then.
I'll just be over here, waiting for the lossmail.
Caliph Muhammed wrote:And you didnt mention plexing until after I replied. Zim you fail. So, uh, when I said "a ratting/plexing ship" , that was me "not mentioning it"? |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
201
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 12:53:00 -
[408] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:Lord Zim wrote: But hey, thanks for going on record, since it shows just how out of touch with nullsec you actually are.
ofcource he is ouf of touch with 0.0. All he does is wardecking corps in high sec and some low sec gate camping.
And all you do is alt post on a bitchass npc corp alt. Hows my taint smell? Your in the thread irrelevant as ever sniffing it as much as you can. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
468
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 12:54:00 -
[409] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:If nullsec is so full of carebears like you EVE is an even bigger fraud than I first thought. But we both know you dont represent anyone but yourself.
And you didnt mention plexing until after I replied. Zim you fail.
Since when is nullsec a "PvP-only" zone? eh |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
201
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 12:55:00 -
[410] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:If nullsec is so full of carebears like you EVE is an even bigger fraud than I first thought. But we both know you dont represent anyone but yourself. Okay. Go to nullsec and do a plex in your version of a PVE fitted ship, then. I'll just be over here, waiting for the lossmail. Caliph Muhammed wrote:And you didnt mention plexing until after I replied. Zim you fail. So, uh, when I said "a ratting/ plexing ship" , that was me "not mentioning it"?
Zim I don't die unless I choose to. Its that simple. And anyone with a IQ over 100 could say the same thing if they wanted and it would be true. Wormholes the exception. |
|
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
201
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 12:56:00 -
[411] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:If nullsec is so full of carebears like you EVE is an even bigger fraud than I first thought. But we both know you dont represent anyone but yourself.
And you didnt mention plexing until after I replied. Zim you fail. Since when is nullsec a "PvP-only" zone?
Funny, I thought Hisec was PVE only? Laugh. /facepalm |
Lord Zim
717
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 13:02:00 -
[412] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Zim I don't die unless I choose to. Its that simple. And anyone with a IQ over 100 could say the same thing if they wanted and it would be true. Wormholes the exception. Okay then. Take the same fit you'd use to PVP or do WH sleeper rats with, and go up against a plex, then. Let's see how well that goes for you.
PS: warping out is for pussies. |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
86
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 13:04:00 -
[413] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:Lord Zim wrote: But hey, thanks for going on record, since it shows just how out of touch with nullsec you actually are.
ofcource he is ouf of touch with 0.0. All he does is wardecking corps in high sec and some low sec gate camping. And all you do is alt post on a bitchass npc corp alt. Hows my taint smell? Youre in the thread irrelevant as ever sniffing it as much as you can.
you should report the big bady npc alt that touched you. Here have a cookie for your sociopath rage! |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
201
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 13:05:00 -
[414] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Zim I don't die unless I choose to. Its that simple. And anyone with a IQ over 100 could say the same thing if they wanted and it would be true. Wormholes the exception. Okay then. Take the same fit you'd use to PVP or do WH sleeper rats with, and go up against a plex, then. Let's see how well that goes for you. PS: warping out is for pussies.
So high end pve in one area of the game means the rest of the game has to suck so they won't feel gimped?
The answer to your convulted question zim is how many of my ships and friends would I take along with me to do it. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
201
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 13:11:00 -
[415] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:garbage
Nah no need. I feel great posting under my main expressing myself as I wish. Scurry back under the dumpster cockroach. |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
86
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 13:26:00 -
[416] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:garbage Nah no need. I feel great posting under my main expressing myself as I wish. Scurry back under the dumpster cockroach. Lol. Actually cockroche. /Smug Winning!
you must think you are inteligent do you? Too bad your post do not reflect any else but the sociopath in you WWOOOOOSSSSAAAA |
Opertone
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
126
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 13:27:00 -
[417] - Quote
suported you're my hero |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
202
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 13:27:00 -
[418] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:garbage Yeah thats why the OP likes keep going up and you're still bravehearting behind an alt. |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
86
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 13:35:00 -
[419] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:garbage Yeah thats why the OP likes keep going up and you're still bravehearting behind a alt.
poor you. my heart is almost bleeding for you |
Zosius
Silver Octopus Infernal Octopus
3
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 13:43:00 -
[420] - Quote
I support idea that local should not register people via wormholes or atleast get delayed. Now every time you jump in, all farmers park before you move fromsession cloak. Should same mechanics apply for cov ops cyno. This would add so much fun and null with low would actually have risk involved. |
|
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
87
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 13:55:00 -
[421] - Quote
Zosius wrote:I support idea that local should not register people via wormholes or atleast get delayed. Now every time you jump in, all farmers park before you move fromsession cloak. Should same mechanics apply for cov ops cyno. This would add so much fun and null with low would actually have risk involved.
that depends on what you mean with "covert ops cyno". I guess you dont mean a regular cyno in a covert ops ship? If you get black ops also involved it could get very messy. One of the reasons why CCP has not changed in many years black ops is cos they are "OP". If you bring them into the game, it could add more serious issues to an already "OP" ships...I ould say this needs to have to be looked really deeply. |
specializt
Angry Angels Constructions The Kadeshi
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 13:57:00 -
[422] - Quote
after reading this thread, i know support the idea of closing down WHs permanently, moving the players to crowded nullsec-places ( --> food for the animals) and dropping the T3-loot in 10/10 with a much lower droprate from now on. It would be marvelous ... |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
87
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 14:00:00 -
[423] - Quote
specializt wrote:after reading this thread, i know support the idea of closing down WHs permanently, moving the players to crowded nullsec-places and dropping the T3-loot in 10/10 with a much lower droprate from now on. It would be marvelous ...
rofl. if there is one thing we already have prooved that in eve, you cant force people to do anything. people will always do as they pleased. you close down wh people will go to high sec, you close down high sec people will go to low sec, you close down lowsec people will stop signing in . I think its one of those self preservation inbuild mechanism in the human race spceially since eve is real for some ! |
Lord Zim
717
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 14:11:00 -
[424] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:The answer to your convoluted question zim is how many of my ships and friends would I take along with me to do it. So let's see if I've got this right. Most people who are running plexes in nullsec (at between 50 and 75m/hour) are currently running them in PVE-fitted ships (which according to you isn't necessary). But to do the same job in a PVP-fitted ship, you'd have to bring more people, which splits the reward between two (or more) people, so we're down to less isk/hour than L4s. Which means we'd both be better off having a L4 char in empire for when we need to do some isk-making.
Then we add your local changes (or rather just the removal thereof, since you never come up with anything other than "REMOVE LOCAL EVERYWHERE!!!!!!!!!"), and we have to add a char or a guy on each gate to watch for roaming gangs, which further degrades the isk/hour figure, making L4s even more attractive.
Which brings me back to my assertation of a few days ago: just removing local will depopulate null and lowsec even further, and make the use of NPC corps or neutral alts even more prevalent in hisec during warsdecs. Which'll mean less people to shoot out in null and lowsec, and even less effective wardecs in hisec.
Unless, of course, you're going to keep harping on about how "I'm wrong" and "the population would increase", in while totally ignoring all the empiric evidence which has been shown just the last year or so alone, f.ex through what happened in null after the anom buff (people moved out to nullsec), after the anom nerf (people moved back to hisec to do L4s), and also given what happened to incursions after the incursion nerf (incursions are apparently somewhat deserted now, compared to when they were choc full, just because the isk/hour went down). |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
87
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 14:19:00 -
[425] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:The answer to your convoluted question zim is how many of my ships and friends would I take along with me to do it. So let's see if I've got this right. Most people who are running plexes in nullsec (at between 50 and 75m/hour) are currently running them in PVE-fitted ships (which according to you isn't necessary). But to do the same job in a PVP-fitted ship, you'd have to bring more people, which splits the reward between two (or more) people, so we're down to less isk/hour than L4s. Which means we'd both be better off having a L4 char in empire for when we need to do some isk-making. Then we add your local changes (or rather just the removal thereof, since you never come up with anything other than "REMOVE LOCAL EVERYWHERE!!!!!!!!!"), and we have to add a char or a guy on each gate to watch for roaming gangs, which further degrades the isk/hour figure, making L4s even more attractive. Which brings me back to my assertation of a few days ago: just removing local will depopulate null and lowsec even further, and make the use of NPC corps or neutral alts even more prevalent in hisec during warsdecs. Which'll mean less people to shoot out in null and lowsec, and even less effective wardecs in hisec. Unless, of course, you're going to keep harping on about how "I'm wrong" and "the population would increase", in while totally ignoring all the empiric evidence which has been shown just the last year or so alone, f.ex through what happened in null after the anom buff (people moved out to nullsec), after the anom nerf (people moved back to hisec to do L4s), and also given what happened to incursions after the incursion nerf (incursions are apparently somewhat deserted now, compared to when they were choc full, just because the isk/hour went down).
Caliph is only interested in killing. Zim, he does not trully cares about numbers in eve. If he did we would realise that removing local will only encourage more people to do level 4s in high sec. He thinks tha if local get removed, all of a sudden he is gonna be in killing people by the millions XD. He does not understand that the soution is not to handycap eve back to 2003. He does not undestand that bait works better than nerfing back to the stone age. |
Solj RichPopolous
GaNgBANGurD3aD
7
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 15:11:00 -
[426] - Quote
Mra Rednu wrote:Solj RichPopolous wrote:Simple Fix. Remove local and overhaul the scanner into something that resembles radar in an actual spaceship. The scanner is about the only thing in EVE that has not been changed much if at all since release in 05. No local but if I open up my scanner (and yes have it autoscan) ships will appear with the same color tagging system thats already in place for local. This alone adds so much more immersion to EVE imho. Theres not alot of work involved in intel with this game which is why it starts to seem so small so fast. Please don't ever ask CCP to overhaul the d-scan, sure it not been changed since '05 but it bloody works so leave it be, there plenty of broken things for them to fix without breaking one of those things that works. As a fairly casual pvp'er i would hate the removal of local, how many hours would be wasted looking for targets to hunt, each system has to be scanned and how would you pick up a wt from one of the many ships on scan. Seriously you want people to scan each and every gate, belt, anom, mission site, visit every station the list is long before you can tick that system off you're list for not having a wt in........ but someone may of logged in or jumped in on one of the gates you can't see, so how long do you scan a system for ? If local was removed you'd get more frustrated high sec pvp'ers like you're self, too scared to go in a WH, Lowsec or Nullsec because of some lame logistical excuse or for an unseen, presumed menace ( like finding people who are willing and able to shoot back ) , relying on a ever growing army of neutral's scouts to find their victims it will basically be like the suicide ganker providing a warp in, plus about as close to pvp as that is. On that note I take it you'll also be asking for CCP to make it so all alt's on all the players accounts must be in the same corp, so the hunted have a chance to see themselves getting scouted out or expect them to have all the warnings taken away without being willing to give up something you're self ?
Lol check my kill board. Been in wh low and most frequently null. With small gang action not blobbing. I'm actually in hi sec atm to give this new merc stuff a try. But I find myself roaming low sec to fill in the gaps (check yesterday). Killing noob gankers solo. Especially those who chronically run MWDs. |
Mr Bigwinky
4U Services Inc. Talocan United
230
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 15:56:00 -
[427] - Quote
Derrick Munroe wrote:If you don't like local, go to wormhole space. Nobody's going to change the game on account of one mechanic you don't like. Don't listen to this guy, you're not welcome.
Sincerely, Wormhole Space Welcome to EVE online, here's your rubix cube, go F*** yourself GÖÑ |
specializt
Angry Angels Constructions The Kadeshi
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 16:18:00 -
[428] - Quote
there is only 1 place for people who want to get rid of local : highsec, asteroid-belts ... in the role of gankerkiddies, that is |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
207
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 19:47:00 -
[429] - Quote
Look at the replies. Pathetic. You guys got owned and you have no comebacks just more drivel. Why not just admit some of you are too idiotic to play without local? |
Snow Burst
RED.OverLord
60
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 19:48:00 -
[430] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Look at the replies. Pathetic. You guys got owned and you have no comeback except even longer paragraphs of complete drivel. Why not just admit most of you are to idiotic to play without local? and you posted. derp There Is A 90% Chance All Of What You Just Read Is Wrong, Inaccurate Or Just Me Being Controversial In Some Way.-áOr By Some Chance It's Completely Right In Every Way... At Least To Me :3 |
|
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
88
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 20:18:00 -
[431] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Look at the replies. Pathetic. You guys got owned and you have no comebacks just more drivel. Why not just admit some of you are too idiotic to play without local?
i love how he goes bananas out of the blue. Why dont you admit you are too stupid to pvp, neverming you ever pvping in 0.0 |
Snow Burst
RED.OverLord
60
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 20:23:00 -
[432] - Quote
safe to say hell never get into a 0.0 pvp alliance/corp now lol There Is A 90% Chance All Of What You Just Read Is Wrong, Inaccurate Or Just Me Being Controversial In Some Way.-áOr By Some Chance It's Completely Right In Every Way... At Least To Me :3 |
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
161
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 20:24:00 -
[433] - Quote
I am a proponent of removing at least the cloaked from the free intel coming over local... however I believe haivng a local system in empire makes sense from the stand point of the lore and havng a region some what friendlier to new players.
[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/OldST.jpg[/IMG] |
Snow Burst
RED.OverLord
60
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 20:25:00 -
[434] - Quote
Barbara Nichole wrote:I am a proponent of removing at least the cloaked from the free intel coming over local... however I believe haivng a local system in empire makes sense from the stand point of the lore and havng a region some what friendlier to new players.
wait so your saying get rid of cloakies? lmao fail There Is A 90% Chance All Of What You Just Read Is Wrong, Inaccurate Or Just Me Being Controversial In Some Way.-áOr By Some Chance It's Completely Right In Every Way... At Least To Me :3 |
Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 20:29:00 -
[435] - Quote
I don't acutally know what the complaint about local is, so....
What if it didn't display a list of people in local? Or is that what people are asking for? Would make sense if you didn't show up in local if your cloaked though. I don't know, that just seems like a no brainer to me.
But I honestly don't know what's going on. I just saw balls and had to click the thread.... |
Snow Burst
RED.OverLord
60
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 20:31:00 -
[436] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:I don't acutally know what the complaint about local is, so....
What if it didn't display a list of people in local? Or is that what people are asking for? Would make sense if you didn't show up in local if your cloaked though. I don't know, that just seems like a no brainer to me.
But I honestly don't know what's going on. I just saw balls and had to click the thread.... the complaint is by fail noobs who cant adapt to null sec pvp so they shud be ignored There Is A 90% Chance All Of What You Just Read Is Wrong, Inaccurate Or Just Me Being Controversial In Some Way.-áOr By Some Chance It's Completely Right In Every Way... At Least To Me :3 |
Mire Stoude
Capital Industries Research And Development Fidelas Constans
9
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 20:35:00 -
[437] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Alara IonStorm wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote: It would solve cloaky camps people complain about. It would give a point to cloaks people complain about.
Uncloak aliegned, tap bomb, warp to safety. No time to get reinforcements on grid to help or even lock targets. Hurray for 100% Safe uncounterable attacks. Then nerf bombs. Change them. Make them super powerful torpedoes that can only hit capitals. It would be a small sacrifice, and im a dedicated cloaky kind of player, for the greater good of the game. But also remember that even if that were the case no local means that for that to occur a scouting operation would have had to of occured first. Maybe it would be a well earned uncounterable attack.
Shocking that a "dedicated" (AFK) cloaker would support removing local. |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
88
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 20:37:00 -
[438] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:I don't acutally know what the complaint about local is, so....
What if it didn't display a list of people in local? Or is that what people are asking for? Would make sense if you didn't show up in local if your cloaked though. I don't know, that just seems like a no brainer to me.
But I honestly don't know what's going on. I just saw balls and had to click the thread....
The guy cant pvp. He "pvp" in high sec. I said that in quotes cos i believe he said that what he actually does is gate camping. But puting that a side, he does not pvp in 0.0 and he comes in gets angry and insults everyone that has an opinion different from him and request local to b removed and on top of that he even says that SB bombs need to be nerfed just so that he could have no local. |
Blabb3r M0uth B11tch
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
11
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 20:45:00 -
[439] - Quote
OK, I have a question directed directly at CCP. I admit it, I'm really, really stupid. So much so that I really have no interest in PVP what so ever. But I do like to mine and mission run. Not real big on being a clay pigeon for the Professional High Sec PVP pilots either. Stupid, but not that stupid. My question is this, since I'm stupid, (I have money, but stupid just the same) Should I just go play Sim City, and forget all about EvE? |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
89
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 20:50:00 -
[440] - Quote
Blabb3r M0uth B11tch wrote:OK, I have a question directed directly at CCP. I admit it, I'm really, really stupid. So much so that I really have no interest in PVP what so ever. But I do like to mine and mission run. Not real big on being a clay pigeon for the Professional High Sec PVP pilots either. Stupid, but not that stupid. My question is this, since I'm stupid, (I have money, but stupid just the same) Should I just go play Sim City, and forget all about EvE?
shouldnt that be your decision instead of CCPs, after all its your time and money? |
|
Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 20:51:00 -
[441] - Quote
Blabb3r M0uth B11tch wrote:OK, I have a question directed directly at CCP. I admit it, I'm really, really stupid. So much so that I really have no interest in PVP what so ever. But I do like to mine and mission run. Not real big on being a clay pigeon for the Professional High Sec PVP pilots either. Stupid, but not that stupid. My question is this, since I'm stupid, (I have money, but stupid just the same) Should I just go play Sim City, and forget all about EvE?
I know I'm not CCP or anything, but I personally think you're just a blabber mouthed *****. Anyways...
I still have no idea what the problem is, but... I wouldn't mind if local was scaled down to not be as "powerful a tool" for scouting. I mean, don't remove local, just remove the untintended benefits of it. Seems like people are always looking at thing from either one extreme or the other.
Some want local removed. Others say no. How about just making it so you can use local to tell if it's friend or foe in the system? You know, restrict it to a text messaging type service, with no functionality beyond that. If you send a PM to an individual in local and respond then you can use that message to get information about that person, and they can do the same to you.
I don't really see why you should be able to use local to parse each individual to see if they're in an unfriendly corp, have low sec standing, or anything other then to chat. At the same time, that doesn't mean get rid of it.
Or am I seriously missing something here? |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
346
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 20:51:00 -
[442] - Quote
i dont get why grow balls? the are weak and sensitive... if anything you should say grow a vagnina.... those things take a pounding... Betty white 2012... PLEX FOR PIZZA!
TECH iii MINNING SHIPS! |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
89
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 20:54:00 -
[443] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:i dont get why grow balls? the are weak and sensitive... if anything you should say grow a vagnina.... those things take a pounding... Betty white 2012... ROFL |
Blabb3r M0uth B11tch
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
12
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 21:08:00 -
[444] - Quote
I'm of an opinion of this. HIgh Sec PVP isn't even about the PVP aspect of the game. My opinion is there are a few players out there that feel CCP is encroaching on there ability to absolutely ruin someones day. IE, it's not about PvP at all, but just making people miserable period, and your desperate desires to do so.
Believe it or not, there are actually very successful pirates that operate in 0.0 on a daily basis. I totally respect those guys and gals.
My personnel feelings is you high sec people, fighting for the right to be able to ruin peoples day in high sec, are nothing more than players that just can't make the grade. Nothing more, nothing less.
Like I said, the low sec, and 0.0 pirates, flourish and get my salute. Tank your high sec Hulks people. It's that simple.
PS Natsett Amuinn I would support removing local in 0.0. It would be more interesting for sure. Maybe even low sec. In high sec, NFW. |
Lord Zim
718
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 21:11:00 -
[445] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Look at the replies. Pathetic. You guys got owned and you have no comebacks just more drivel. Why not just admit some of you are too idiotic to play without local? You might've look like less of a sore loser while saying that if you hadn't just gotten owned hard by me, just sayin'. |
Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 21:17:00 -
[446] - Quote
Blabb3r M0uth B11tch wrote:I'm of an opinion of this. HIgh Sec PVP isn't even about the PVP aspect of the game. My opinion is there are a few players out there that feel CCP is encroaching on there ability to absolutely ruin someones day. IE, it's not about PvP at all, but just making people miserable period, and your desperate desires to do so.
Believe it or not, there are actually very successful pirates that operate in 0.0 on a daily basis. I totally respect those guys and gals.
My personnel feelings is you high sec people, fighting for the right to be able to ruin peoples day in high sec, are nothing more than players that just can't make the grade. Nothing more, nothing less.
Like I said, the low sec, and 0.0 pirates, flourish and get my salute. Tank your high sec Hulks people. It's that simple.
PS Natsett Amuinn I would support removing local in 0.0. It would be more interesting for sure. Maybe even low sec. In high sec, NFW.
A local that allows you to tell if it's friend or foe, gives you a false impression of the EVE universe.
I don't want local to be removed. Do some people want it removed all together? I don't agree with that.
They should remove the ability to extract informatin out of it. I don't use the list in my chat, except for intel chanell.
Chat should open you up. Have a broadcast chanell that only reaches so far as well. |
Blabb3r M0uth B11tch
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
12
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 21:28:00 -
[447] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn #432, I actually do like your idea at he end of that post. Problem is the friend & foe thing, is exactly what the high sect people are wanting to get rid of. Keep the Friend and Foe ID, get rid of everything else. I'm cool
Oh and sorry about being a BIG Mouth 6itch. But I do intend to stay that way. |
Frying Doom
198
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 21:57:00 -
[448] - Quote
The best reason for the removal of Local is Goonswarms current war decs, possibility of ganking me ect... Not living in Hi-sec I don't much worry about war dec's but I do have to worry about being attacked.
This is not much of a problem for me if the ganker was someone in the Goonswarm its self. Why? because with local I have plenty of warning that they are now in the same system as me.
I fully believe in the removal of local from Null sec, Null has become to safe too boring(and apparently kind of poor relatively but thats for another discussion) An auto updating D-scan makes alot more sense than a free intel device, that no one is paying for. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Mindseamstress
Jovian Labs Jovian Enterprises
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 22:10:00 -
[449] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Mindseamstress wrote: Oh what you are talking about is going back to the way it was in 2003... I admit the game was more fun back then but unfortunately, it turns out the majority didn't so CCP took out the nerf bad in favor of carebearism. Note that the number of players went up sharply from an all time low of 3k per day.
You forget the part about having no Concord. Slightly different than no local. Convenient you forgot that.
Not really, you'd been popped before local even loaded :-P |
Snow Burst
RED.OverLord
70
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 22:11:00 -
[450] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:Blabb3r M0uth B11tch wrote:I'm of an opinion of this. HIgh Sec PVP isn't even about the PVP aspect of the game. My opinion is there are a few players out there that feel CCP is encroaching on there ability to absolutely ruin someones day. IE, it's not about PvP at all, but just making people miserable period, and your desperate desires to do so.
Believe it or not, there are actually very successful pirates that operate in 0.0 on a daily basis. I totally respect those guys and gals.
My personnel feelings is you high sec people, fighting for the right to be able to ruin peoples day in high sec, are nothing more than players that just can't make the grade. Nothing more, nothing less.
Like I said, the low sec, and 0.0 pirates, flourish and get my salute. Tank your high sec Hulks people. It's that simple.
PS Natsett Amuinn I would support removing local in 0.0. It would be more interesting for sure. Maybe even low sec. In high sec, NFW. A local that allows you to tell if it's friend or foe, gives you a false impression of the EVE universe. I don't want local to be removed. Do some people want it removed all together? I don't agree with that. They should remove the ability to extract informatin out of it. I don't use the list in my chat, except for intel chanell. Chat should open you up. Have a broadcast chanell that only reaches so far as well. your the standout from goonswarm then lol There Is A 90% Chance All Of What You Just Read Is Wrong, Inaccurate Or Just Me Being Controversial In Some Way.-áOr By Some Chance It's Completely Right In Every Way... At Least To Me :3 |
|
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
89
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 22:18:00 -
[451] - Quote
Snow Burst wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote:Blabb3r M0uth B11tch wrote:I'm of an opinion of this. HIgh Sec PVP isn't even about the PVP aspect of the game. My opinion is there are a few players out there that feel CCP is encroaching on there ability to absolutely ruin someones day. IE, it's not about PvP at all, but just making people miserable period, and your desperate desires to do so.
Believe it or not, there are actually very successful pirates that operate in 0.0 on a daily basis. I totally respect those guys and gals.
My personnel feelings is you high sec people, fighting for the right to be able to ruin peoples day in high sec, are nothing more than players that just can't make the grade. Nothing more, nothing less.
Like I said, the low sec, and 0.0 pirates, flourish and get my salute. Tank your high sec Hulks people. It's that simple.
PS Natsett Amuinn I would support removing local in 0.0. It would be more interesting for sure. Maybe even low sec. In high sec, NFW. A local that allows you to tell if it's friend or foe, gives you a false impression of the EVE universe. I don't want local to be removed. Do some people want it removed all together? I don't agree with that. They should remove the ability to extract informatin out of it. I don't use the list in my chat, except for intel chanell. Chat should open you up. Have a broadcast chanell that only reaches so far as well. your the standout from goonswarm then lol
lol thats exactly what i thought. I also pictured him with his ass facing in the wind
|
Snow Burst
RED.OverLord
72
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 22:28:00 -
[452] - Quote
being a model goonswarm is like taking a dump in a sea of **** itll standout but it doesnt make a diff of how people think about u lol There Is A 90% Chance All Of What You Just Read Is Wrong, Inaccurate Or Just Me Being Controversial In Some Way.-áOr By Some Chance It's Completely Right In Every Way... At Least To Me :3 |
Mra Rednu
Black Watch Guard
22
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 22:49:00 -
[453] - Quote
Solj RichPopolous wrote:Mra Rednu wrote:Solj RichPopolous wrote:Simple Fix. Remove local and overhaul the scanner into something that resembles radar in an actual spaceship. The scanner is about the only thing in EVE that has not been changed much if at all since release in 05. No local but if I open up my scanner (and yes have it autoscan) ships will appear with the same color tagging system thats already in place for local. This alone adds so much more immersion to EVE imho. Theres not alot of work involved in intel with this game which is why it starts to seem so small so fast. Please don't ever ask CCP to overhaul the d-scan, sure it not been changed since '05 but it bloody works so leave it be, there plenty of broken things for them to fix without breaking one of those things that works. As a fairly casual pvp'er i would hate the removal of local, how many hours would be wasted looking for targets to hunt, each system has to be scanned and how would you pick up a wt from one of the many ships on scan. Seriously you want people to scan each and every gate, belt, anom, mission site, visit every station the list is long before you can tick that system off you're list for not having a wt in........ but someone may of logged in or jumped in on one of the gates you can't see, so how long do you scan a system for ? If local was removed you'd get more frustrated high sec pvp'ers like you're self, too scared to go in a WH, Lowsec or Nullsec because of some lame logistical excuse or for an unseen, presumed menace ( like finding people who are willing and able to shoot back ) , relying on a ever growing army of neutral's scouts to find their victims it will basically be like the suicide ganker providing a warp in, plus about as close to pvp as that is. On that note I take it you'll also be asking for CCP to make it so all alt's on all the players accounts must be in the same corp, so the hunted have a chance to see themselves getting scouted out or expect them to have all the warnings taken away without being willing to give up something you're self ? Lol check my kill board. Been in wh low and most frequently null. With small gang action not blobbing. I'm actually in hi sec atm to give this new merc stuff a try. But I find myself roaming low sec to fill in the gaps (check yesterday). Killing noob gankers solo. Especially those who chronically run MWDs.
lol wtf you talking about, i only picked out the part about the d-scan, then went on to expand about the op, sorry if it looked like anything else was aimed at you, but was just a way to make a point about leaving the d-scan alone. |
Frying Doom
198
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 22:50:00 -
[454] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote:Blabb3r M0uth B11tch wrote:I'm of an opinion of this. HIgh Sec PVP isn't even about the PVP aspect of the game. My opinion is there are a few players out there that feel CCP is encroaching on there ability to absolutely ruin someones day. IE, it's not about PvP at all, but just making people miserable period, and your desperate desires to do so.
Believe it or not, there are actually very successful pirates that operate in 0.0 on a daily basis. I totally respect those guys and gals.
My personnel feelings is you high sec people, fighting for the right to be able to ruin peoples day in high sec, are nothing more than players that just can't make the grade. Nothing more, nothing less.
Like I said, the low sec, and 0.0 pirates, flourish and get my salute. Tank your high sec Hulks people. It's that simple.
PS Natsett Amuinn I would support removing local in 0.0. It would be more interesting for sure. Maybe even low sec. In high sec, NFW. A local that allows you to tell if it's friend or foe, gives you a false impression of the EVE universe. I don't want local to be removed. Do some people want it removed all together? I don't agree with that. They should remove the ability to extract informatin out of it. I don't use the list in my chat, except for intel chanell. Chat should open you up. Have a broadcast channel that only reaches so far as well. You hit the nail on the head. Null Local should not tell anyone who is in the system unless they are broadcasting at which point they are fair game.
I would even goes so far as to say anyone radiating command links like Fleet assistance modules should probably show up as well as the signal radiates through a whole system and would be as easy to hide as a mountain. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
209
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 23:38:00 -
[455] - Quote
Make the game a mysterious and true space experience. The baddies can adapt or be replaced by a more worthwhile demographic. |
malcovas Henderson
Smoking Minerals Syndicate Cannabis Legionis
67
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 23:48:00 -
[456] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote: You hit the nail on the head. Null Local should not tell anyone who is in the system unless they are broadcasting at which point they are fair game.
I would even goes so far as to say anyone radiating command links like Fleet assistance modules should probably show up as well as the signal radiates through a whole system and would be as easy to hide as a mountain.
The one thing you fail to understand. This is only your opinion. It can be right, or it can be wrong. On the same principal, I am happy with the way local behaves. Right or wrong, thats my opinion. The fact remains, local is in the game, and your opinion as this stands, is not that of CCP's atm.
Everytime you log into the game, you agree to play the game as it stands. That also includes playing with local, in hi/low, null sec. Moaning about something you have already agreed upon is bordering on the hypocritical. Sure, feel free to offer suggestions. Nothing wrong in that, but to argue against mechanics of a game, that the makers have deemed appropriate, and lets be fair, the majority of players seem to want in the game. Proves that there is chance of your opinion being wrong, rather than right.
o7 |
Frying Doom
198
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 00:06:00 -
[457] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote:Frying Doom wrote: You hit the nail on the head. Null Local should not tell anyone who is in the system unless they are broadcasting at which point they are fair game.
I would even goes so far as to say anyone radiating command links like Fleet assistance modules should probably show up as well as the signal radiates through a whole system and would be as easy to hide as a mountain.
The one thing you fail to understand. This is only your opinion. It can be right, or it can be wrong. On the same principal, I am happy with the way local behaves. Right or wrong, thats my opinion. The fact remains, local is in the game, and your opinion as this stands, is not that of CCP's atm. Everytime you log into the game, you agree to play the game as it stands. That also includes playing with local, in hi/low, null sec. Moaning about something you have already agreed upon is bordering on the hypocritical. Sure, feel free to offer suggestions. Nothing wrong in that, but to argue against mechanics of a game, that the makers have deemed appropriate, and lets be fair, the majority of players seem to want in the game. Proves that there is chance of your opinion being wrong, rather than right. o7 I am always willing to assume my ideas are right, wrong, laughable, insane, completely demented or worse.
But the one thing that the history of this game has taught us is: If you don't fight for your ideas they will never happen (and then CCP will do something even crazier). I will not tell you your opinion is wrong, it's your opinion, your perspective so how can it be wrong. It may differ from my opinion but I own mine as well. I will tell you if I believe predictions you make are wrong, or if I believe you are just talking out your butt.
And just because the game is the way it is now does not mean I or anyone else should not argue for change. BTW I prefer not to use the words Majority on the forums as most of the games players never come here and don't know what we are arguing about. We are all Lobby groups here all with specific view points, no one here should ever believe they are with or against the majority of EvE players on any point, that way leads to madness.
By your argument no one should have complained about Incarna, they all logged in, all agreed to the EULA and TOS and got shafted. Are you implying everyone who was pissed over their computers blowing up and the ability to buy $70 monicles should have been happy instead as this was CCP's view for the future? Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Lord Zim
718
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 00:12:00 -
[458] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote: Make the game a mysterious and true space experience. The baddies can adapt or be replaced by a more worthwhile demographic. Wormholes are thaddaway -------------> |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
209
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 00:16:00 -
[459] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote: Make the game a mysterious and true space experience. The baddies can adapt or be replaced by a more worthwhile demographic. Wormholes are thaddaway ------------->
Zim go away. Shoo! You have no constructive arguments to add to the thread just spam. Your opinion is so dull and inane to read on every single page that you should be embarrassed for forcing the public to have to sift through it. You won't be the reason local goes or stays. Believe it.
Wormholes have no relevance to issue at hand bar giving you something you believe deflects the issue. |
Lord Zim
718
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 00:19:00 -
[460] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Zim go away. Shoo! You have no constructive arguments to add to the thread just spam. Your opinion is so dull and inane to read on every single page that you should be embarrassed for forcing the public to have to sift through it. You won't be the reason local goes or stays. Believe it. I'm providing far more factual information to this thread than you've done. |
|
malcovas Henderson
Smoking Minerals Syndicate Cannabis Legionis
68
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 00:27:00 -
[461] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote: I am always willing to assume my ideas are right, wrong, laughable, insane, completely demented or worse.
But the one thing that the history of this game has taught us is: If you don't fight for your ideas they will never happen (and then CCP will do something even crazier). I will not tell you your opinion is wrong, it's your opinion, your perspective so how can it be wrong. It may differ from my opinion but I own mine as well. I will tell you if I believe predictions you make are wrong, or if I believe you are just talking out your butt.
And just because the game is the way it is now does not mean I or anyone else should not argue for change. BTW I prefer not to use the words Majority on the forums as most of the games players never come here and don't know what we are arguing about. We are all Lobby groups here all with specific view points, no one here should ever believe they are with or against the majority of EvE players on any point, that way leads to madness.
By your argument no one should have complained about Incarna, they all logged in, all agreed to the EULA and TOS and got shafted. Are you implying everyone who was pissed over their computers blowing up and the ability to buy $70 monicles should have been happy instead as this was CCP's view for the future?
Thats just it, they didn't log in. By doing so they didn't agree to anything. Also if you had read my post properly, suggestions are a viable source of input, against something. Especially when the voice of the majority (lets say forum dwellers) is against it too.
o7 |
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
14
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 00:28:00 -
[462] - Quote
The fact that you repeatedly dismiss people who point out that wormholes have everything you are asking for sort of belies your claim that you want EVE to "grow some balls". If I didn't know better, I'd think you were some kind of highsec shitheel who wants easy-mode ganks. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
209
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 00:33:00 -
[463] - Quote
Wormholes do not have access to everything i'm after. They have no access to local market hubs, freighter traffic worth mentioning, nor can I find a select target I may be after unless they so happen to come through one of 2500 I may be in. I'll stop dismissing points when one is actually made.
And the whole youre hisec you're this or that is juvenile at best. I could say if you're nullsec youre an irrelevant ***** to the alliance leader. It would fit most. |
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
14
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 00:35:00 -
[464] - Quote
I'll take that an admission that you are in fact just a risk-averse "pirate" looking for easy-mode ganks. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
209
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 00:37:00 -
[465] - Quote
Milton Middleson wrote:I'll take that an admission that you are in fact just a risk-averse "pirate" looking for easy-mode ganks.
You can take it however you want. I have no doubts you have no intention of actually thinking about the points being made. You're another of the narrowminded cretins that can't hack it in a hardcore & visceral game. (Of which EVE isn't atm)
And like many of the midget minded troglodytes, when an argument is presented to you in which your intellect can't overcome you resort to labeling, alienation and assumptions.
Thanks for your opinion though, contemplate how much i'm going to ponder on it. |
malcovas Henderson
Smoking Minerals Syndicate Cannabis Legionis
68
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 00:45:00 -
[466] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Wormholes do not have access to everything i'm after. They have no access to local market hubs, freighter traffic worth mentioning, nor can I find a select target I may be after unless they so happen to come through one of 2500 I may be in. I'll stop dismissing points when one is actually made.
And the whole youre hisec you're this or that is juvenile at best. I could say if you're nullsec youre an irrelevant ***** to the alliance leader. It would fit most.
I'm hisec because I choose to be and nothing else matters to that point. And it has no relevance on the gamebreaking, immersion destroying, amateur function we call local chat.
Acually WH's do offer you exactly what you are after. NO LOCAL. You dont need to live in a WH to hunt in a WH. Agueing that there is no Tradehubs is a moot aguement with this fallicy of yours. You argue that if your "Prey" cant see you, they they dont dock up. The reverse of this is. If you cant see them you have to work for your kills. The only difference between WH's and Hi with no local, is you cannot use your valued Locator agent for WH's. Hell you dont even have to WD, WH dwellers.
The only reason YOU do not want to go into WH's is possibly that you are scared that you may actually meet REAL PvPer's and fail.
o7 |
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
17
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 00:50:00 -
[467] - Quote
A self-diagnosed sociopath is hurling florid verbiage at me in an attempt to divert attention away from the discrepancies between what he claims to want and what his suggestions and in-game activities reveal about his genuine desires. I am mortified.
Literally anything in EVE would be more hardcore and visceral than what you are doing right now. Miners and mission-runners take more risks than you do. So for you to claim that I or anyone else can't hack in a really hardcore game is utterly risible. |
Frying Doom
198
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 00:54:00 -
[468] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote: Thats just it, they didn't log in. By doing so they didn't agree to anything. Also if you had read my post properly, suggestions are a viable source of input, against something. Especially when the voice of the majority (lets say forum dwellers) is against it too.
o7
So now you are saying peoples computers started to fry because they thought about incarna.
By that idea we would have a suggestion box on the eve site and the forums would just be Role playing and market checks and CCP could "mediate" them to their hearts content. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
209
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 00:57:00 -
[469] - Quote
Milton Middleson wrote:A self-diagnosed sociopath is hurling florid verbiage at me in an attempt to divert attention away from the discrepancies between what he claims to want and what his suggestions and in-game activities reveal about his genuine desires. I am mortified.
Literally anything in EVE would be more hardcore and visceral than what you are doing right now. Miners and mission-runners take more risks than you do. So for you to claim that I or anyone else can't hack in a really hardcore game is utterly risible.
Not a hulk kill on my killboard and any industrials you might find were by happenstance that they undocked in war in that ship.
Try again, harder. Only this time use something you can validate and prove.
All of which have no relevance on whether local is breaking/hindering everything I mentioned in the OP.
Also Im curious as to how you know my sociopathy is self diagnosed? Trust in Karn the lonely teenaged "Jewish-American" who pretends to be a professional by quoting summaries he read on a website? |
Frying Doom
198
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 01:00:00 -
[470] - Quote
Milton Middleson wrote:A self-diagnosed sociopath is hurling florid verbiage at me in an attempt to divert attention away from the discrepancies between what he claims to want and what his suggestions and in-game activities reveal about his genuine desires. I am mortified.
Literally anything in EVE would be more hardcore and visceral than what you are doing right now. Miners and mission-runners take more risks than you do. So for you to claim that I or anyone else can't hack in a really hardcore game is utterly risible. A persons play style does not dictate his actual personality (see all the arguments made around The Mittani's playing style). Because someone wants change to a particular part of this game may in no way mean that they are just trying to line their own pockets.
Some people may actually see beyond there own selfishness and actually care about the game and would like to see its population grow rather than just stagnate or drop. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
|
malcovas Henderson
Smoking Minerals Syndicate Cannabis Legionis
69
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 01:02:00 -
[471] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:malcovas Henderson wrote: Thats just it, they didn't log in. By doing so they didn't agree to anything. Also if you had read my post properly, suggestions are a viable source of input, against something. Especially when the voice of the majority (lets say forum dwellers) is against it too.
o7
So now you are saying peoples computers started to fry because they thought about incarna. By that idea we would have a suggestion box on the eve site and the forums would just be Role playing and market checks and CCP could "mediate" them to their hearts content.
Oh WOW!!!!, Did I really say "peoples computers started to fry because they thought about incarna"? Really?. Oh my oh my oh my. How silly of me. What I really meant to say was "Thats just it, they didn't log in. By doing so they didn't agree to anything"
vOv |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
209
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 01:06:00 -
[472] - Quote
Go ahead ignore my post. I would too when everything you claim I am is proven false by an api from the begining of the characters creation on Bclinic and EvEkill. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
21
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 01:17:00 -
[473] - Quote
He uses his PvP character for all his market work. He wants hardcore and dangerous gameplay, but also wants casual and unrestricted access to markets. There are over 2000 systems in the game that offer the feature he desires, but he chooses not to use them for reasons that are often contradictory or uninformed.
|
Lord Zim
718
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 01:19:00 -
[474] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:I'll stop dismissing points when one is actually made. Let's see if you can provide us with a proper, factual dismissal of these points:
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:The answer to your convoluted question zim is how many of my ships and friends would I take along with me to do it. So let's see if I've got this right. Most people who are running plexes in nullsec (at between 50 and 75m/hour) are currently running them in PVE-fitted ships (which according to you isn't necessary). But to do the same job in a PVP-fitted ship, you'd have to bring more people, which splits the reward between two (or more) people, so we're down to less isk/hour than L4s. Which means we'd both be better off having a L4 char in empire for when we need to do some isk-making. Then we add your local changes (or rather just the removal thereof, since you never come up with anything other than "REMOVE LOCAL EVERYWHERE!!!!!!!!!"), and we have to add a char or a guy on each gate to watch for roaming gangs, which further degrades the isk/hour figure, making L4s even more attractive. Which brings me back to my assertation of a few days ago: just removing local will depopulate null and lowsec even further, and make the use of NPC corps or neutral alts even more prevalent in hisec during warsdecs. Which'll mean less people to shoot out in null and lowsec, and even less effective wardecs in hisec. Unless, of course, you're going to keep harping on about how "I'm wrong" and "the population would increase", in while totally ignoring all the empiric evidence which has been shown just the last year or so alone, f.ex through what happened in null after the anom buff (people moved out to nullsec), after the anom nerf (people moved back to hisec to do L4s), and also given what happened to incursions after the incursion nerf (incursions are apparently somewhat deserted now, compared to when they were choc full, just because the isk/hour went down). |
Frying Doom
198
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 01:23:00 -
[475] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote:Frying Doom wrote:malcovas Henderson wrote: Thats just it, they didn't log in. By doing so they didn't agree to anything. Also if you had read my post properly, suggestions are a viable source of input, against something. Especially when the voice of the majority (lets say forum dwellers) is against it too.
o7
So now you are saying peoples computers started to fry because they thought about incarna. By that idea we would have a suggestion box on the eve site and the forums would just be Role playing and market checks and CCP could "mediate" them to their hearts content. Oh WOW!!!!, Did I really say "peoples computers started to fry because they thought about incarna"? Really?. Oh my oh my oh my. How silly of me. What I really meant to say was "Thats just it, they didn't log in. By doing so they didn't agree to anything" vOv No I said it caused people computers to fry.
So the basis of your argument seems to be that people should have used suggestions to complain about incarna with out ever having used the product in question?
Once again we are back to beliefs. I believe that if you haven't even logged into the game you really shouldn't complain about it. Bit like going into a new restaurant and asking to speak to the manager because the food is utter crap, before you have even ordered. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Lord Zim
718
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 01:27:00 -
[476] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:So the basis of your argument seems to be that people should have used suggestions to complain about incarna with out ever having used the product in question?
Once again we are back to beliefs. I believe that if you haven't even logged into the game you really shouldn't complain about it. Bit like going into a new restaurant and asking to speak to the manager because the food is utter crap, before you have even ordered. "I want a game about spaceships" *gets an expansion about virtual pants which costs more than real pants*
Gee. I wonder how one could possibly complain about incarna without ever having used it. It boggles the mind. |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
982
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 01:32:00 -
[477] - Quote
My signature says it all really.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Frying Doom
198
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 01:34:00 -
[478] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:So the basis of your argument seems to be that people should have used suggestions to complain about incarna with out ever having used the product in question?
Once again we are back to beliefs. I believe that if you haven't even logged into the game you really shouldn't complain about it. Bit like going into a new restaurant and asking to speak to the manager because the food is utter crap, before you have even ordered. "I want a game about spaceships" *gets an expansion about virtual pants which costs more than real pants* Gee. I wonder how one could possibly complain about incarna without ever having used it. It boggles the mind. Was the Nex price list ever published by an EvE dev blog?
Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Lord Zim
718
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 01:38:00 -
[479] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:So the basis of your argument seems to be that people should have used suggestions to complain about incarna with out ever having used the product in question?
Once again we are back to beliefs. I believe that if you haven't even logged into the game you really shouldn't complain about it. Bit like going into a new restaurant and asking to speak to the manager because the food is utter crap, before you have even ordered. "I want a game about spaceships" *gets an expansion about virtual pants which costs more than real pants* Gee. I wonder how one could possibly complain about incarna without ever having used it. It boggles the mind. Was the Nex price list ever published by an EvE dev blog? I don't know, I'm not going to bother spending time finding out. You know why? Because there's this thing called "reading the negative press in other news outlets".
Which, I presume, is a place where it's more likely that more people actually read about the expansion than in a devblog. |
Kimmi Chan
Black Rebel Rifter Club
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 01:40:00 -
[480] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Also Im curious as to how you know my sociopathy is self diagnosed? Trust in Karn the lonely, teenaged, "Jewish-American" who pretends to be a professional by quoting summaries he read on a website?
I'm sorry but what does the fact that he is a Jewish American have to do with anything? You should be very careful here as I or others may see this as being anti-Semitic and harassment of another player.
I think the reason that you are not getting the responses that you like is a result of you being confused.
Earlier in this very thread you made this claim:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Currently in EVE not a single soul should die unless they choose to. That's not hardcore. Thats inane.
I think this is a statement based on some players "risk-averse" mentality.
Further in the thread you made this claim directed towards Lord Zim:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Zim I don't die unless I choose to
So you don't die unless you choose to but don't want other people to have that choice?
The gist of this entire diatribe of yours in no different than carebear whining. You want something to make the game better for YOU without regard for its effects on others.
While I do not in any way agree with the opinion you have presented here, I do recognize and respect your right to that opinion.
Enjoy your day.
|
|
Lord Zim
718
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 01:46:00 -
[481] - Quote
What's more hilarious is if you push him on why he's not using wormholes, he starts whining about how hard it is to update his market orders from within the wormhole, how much work it is to deal with POSes etc, only to turn around and basically demand that the entirety of the eve universe must do much more work to even have a modicum of chance to even get back to a station intact, for absolutely no increase in reward. |
Frying Doom
198
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 01:57:00 -
[482] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:So the basis of your argument seems to be that people should have used suggestions to complain about incarna with out ever having used the product in question?
Once again we are back to beliefs. I believe that if you haven't even logged into the game you really shouldn't complain about it. Bit like going into a new restaurant and asking to speak to the manager because the food is utter crap, before you have even ordered. "I want a game about spaceships" *gets an expansion about virtual pants which costs more than real pants* Gee. I wonder how one could possibly complain about incarna without ever having used it. It boggles the mind. Was the Nex price list ever published by an EvE dev blog? I don't know, I'm not going to bother spending time finding out. You know why? Because there's this thing called "reading the negative press in other news outlets". Which, I presume, is a place where it's more likely that more people actually read about the expansion than in a devblog. So taking hearsay rather than facts. The media quite often get things wrong. I personally wouldn't like to base an argument entirely on hearsay I had read of a news outlet.
Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
211
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 02:20:00 -
[483] - Quote
Kimmi Chan wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Also Im curious as to how you know my sociopathy is self diagnosed? Trust in Karn the lonely, teenaged, "Jewish-American" who pretends to be a professional by quoting summaries he read on a website? I'm sorry but what does the fact that he is a Jewish American have to do with anything? You should be very careful here as I or others may see this as being anti-Semitic and harassment of another player. I think the reason that you are not getting the responses that you like is a result of you being confused. Earlier in this very thread you made this claim: Caliph Muhammed wrote:Currently in EVE not a single soul should die unless they choose to. That's not hardcore. Thats inane. I think this is a statement based on some players "risk-averse" mentality. Further in the thread you made this claim directed towards Lord Zim: Caliph Muhammed wrote:Zim I don't die unless I choose to So you don't die unless you choose to but don't want other people to have that choice? The gist of this entire diatribe of yours in no different than carebear whining. You want something to make the game better for YOU without regard for its effects on others. While I do not in any way agree with the opinion you have presented here, I do recognize and respect your right to that opinion. Enjoy your day.
In Karns numerous trolls he made sure to invoke his jewishness on many occasions. I merely highlighted what he wanted everyone to know.
I don't die unless I choose to because local makes not dying trivially easy. Do I really need to elaborate on that point? I mean really?
Yes, I have no problem upsetting people who's gameplay revolves around keeping the game of EVE a **** poor attempt at being a hardcore game when its in fact a softcore campfest. May they all quit and be replaced by people who would make the game fun and worthwhile instead of the tedious shitpile it currently is.
Labeling my "diatribe" carebear whining may work when you're preaching to the choir but anyone with a shred of intellect, like the almost 50 people who have liked it so far know different. Your "diatribe" is no different than the rest of the candyass scrub muffins trying to defend their position without evidence save for you choose words that give you a softer demeanor. |
Frying Doom
198
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 02:22:00 -
[484] - Quote
Hear Hear :) Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Kimmi Chan
Black Rebel Rifter Club
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 02:34:00 -
[485] - Quote
Mors Sanctitatis wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Get rid of local, all secs. It fixes almost everything. You would have to work to locate a target. You would have to work to avoid a target. There would be risk in high sec. There would be risk in all secs.
Freighters could be caught during a war dec. Freighters could get through during a war dec.
You would still have Concord retaliation in high sec. You could still be camped, though if you break the camp it would be harder to hunt you down. Certainly no worse that what we have now but with compelling gameplay.
It would solve cloaky camps people complain about. It would give a point to cloaks of which people complain about.
It would make neutral alts almost irrelevant. Though not 100%. It would certainly make playing with one account a lot less of a disadvantage. Sure you might lose a few alt account subs, but you would gain many more subs by having more compelling gameplay. What good is a scout profession when they're revealed as soon as they enter system?
The changes the expansion are bringing aren't going to revitalize low sec or null sec and its certainly not going to promote or fuel war. Quite the opposite.
The devs and the playerbase talk a lot about EVE being hardcore, but as of yet i'm not really seeing the hardcore aspect to the game.
The game is a boring campfest. Removing local removes that to a large degree.
To my ultra Orthodox carebear players, uncle Caliphy isn't throwing you under the bus. The threats you worry about occuring with this change would actually be resolvable by a merc corporation. If you are decced and you hire a merc the merc cannot sneak up on the enemy with everything displayed for them. They may be able to make your tormentors life a little more difficult but in most cases can't force a fight under those conditions. With no local they could. If you are camped by a griefdec and you hire a reasonably sized merc to help you the griefer will never see them coming. It's win/win.
Even null entry points would be camped far less. Lets see the thirty man bubble camp consistently do it when a 150 man roaming gang warps in on them and they never see it coming.
Local is holding EVE back. Period. Get rid of it and let EVE become great. I'm glad you think so. I think that you would benefit from reading the thread in my signature: Intelligence shouldn't be free. Please let me know what you think of it.
Mors posted this on Page 17. With a link to his thread - Intelligence shouldn't be free.
He also asked you to give him some feedback on it. It was actually a decent read and I like the potential it presents. I, like Mors, am curious about what your thoughts are on this concept. The idea the Recon hulls would be used for... recon was very compelling.
+1 Mors - some good food for thought.
|
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
211
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 02:36:00 -
[486] - Quote
Perhaps I will. But i'm happy with EVEs gameplay as is save for local chat. Its game breaking, immersion wrecking, amateur and needs to go. |
malcovas Henderson
Smoking Minerals Syndicate Cannabis Legionis
71
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 02:47:00 -
[487] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
In Karns numerous trolls he made sure to invoke his jewishness on many occasions. I merely highlighted what he wanted everyone to know.
I don't die unless I choose to because local makes not dying trivially easy. Do I really need to elaborate on that point? I mean really? Choice in that context isn't a desire but a matter of common sense. I would LOVE to die. But as it stands i'd have to be braindead to do so without allowing it to happen.
Yes, I have no problem upsetting people who's gameplay revolves around keeping EVE a **** poor attempt at being a hardcore game when its in fact a softcore campfest. May they all quit and be replaced by people who would make the game fun and worthwhile instead of the tedious shitpile it currently is.
Labeling my "diatribe" carebear whining may work when you're preaching to the choir but anyone with a shred of intellect, like the almost 50 people who have liked it so far know different. Your "diatribe" is no different than the rest of the candyass scrub muffins trying to defend their position without evidence save for you choose words that give you a softer demeanor.
You dont die, unless you choose. Well let me think why. Is it because when you WD, and they come to fight, you run and squeal back to the station? Is it because you never go into Null or WH's?. Is it because you only "Prey" is PVE.
You make me laugh, you really do. You have no experience in null, yet you seem to think you have all the answers to fix it. You have no experience in WH's, but seem to think It's mechanics are suitable to all of EVE. Your "prey" seems to be non PvP'ers, and you wonder why you cannot be killed.
Seriously dude. You have not even touched the tip of the iceberg of this game. PVP wise. Take what your OP thread Title says and practice what you preach. You want PVP without Local. then go to WH's. As I said you dont have to live in a WH to enter it. Go and see what removing local means. Then come back when you have experienced it. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
211
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 03:17:00 -
[488] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote:
Major posting error there. Ill respond later. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
211
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 03:25:00 -
[489] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote:
You dont die, unless you choose. Well let me think why. Is it because when you WD, and they come to fight, you run and squeal back to the station? Is it because you never go into Null or WH's?. Is it because your only "Prey" is PVE.
You make me laugh, you really do. You have no experience in null, yet you seem to think you have all the answers to fix it. You have no experience in WH's, but seem to think It's mechanics are suitable to all of EVE. Your "prey" seems to be non PvP'ers, and you wonder why you cannot be killed.
Seriously dude. You have not even touched the tip of the iceberg of this game. PVP wise. Take what your OP thread Title says and practice what you preach. You want PVP without Local. then go to WH's. As I said you dont have to live in a WH to enter it. Go and see what removing local means. Then come back when you have experienced it.
Yes, Depends, No & No. That's for the first paragraph.
The second you're basically going on a rant, talking out of your rectum while making assumptions. It comes down to "If you abstain from NULL your ability to form a coherent sentence and argument is an impossibility." Im guessing you're about 17?
The third appears to be where you pretend you're the leader of some major alliance and that pvp or EVE in general changes somehow when you step through the next stargate. I suppose it does to a degree, in the sense that there are larger swarms of baddies waiting to gatecamp than the gate previous.Or that they can use bubbles and bigger ships to make it easier. I dont recall mentioning null exclusively but be assured whatever change I recommended for it would be infinitely better than one you could muster.
Its not rocket science Einstein. If it were, you wouldn't be out there. |
malcovas Henderson
Smoking Minerals Syndicate Cannabis Legionis
71
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 03:45:00 -
[490] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:malcovas Henderson wrote:
You dont die, unless you choose. Well let me think why. Is it because when you WD, and they come to fight, you run and squeal back to the station? Is it because you never go into Null or WH's?. Is it because your only "Prey" is PVE.
You make me laugh, you really do. You have no experience in null, yet you seem to think you have all the answers to fix it. You have no experience in WH's, but seem to think It's mechanics are suitable to all of EVE. Your "prey" seems to be non PvP'ers, and you wonder why you cannot be killed.
Seriously dude. You have not even touched the tip of the iceberg of this game. PVP wise. Take what your OP thread Title says and practice what you preach. You want PVP without Local. then go to WH's. As I said you dont have to live in a WH to enter it. Go and see what removing local means. Then come back when you have experienced it.
Yes, Depends, No & No. That's for the first paragraph. The second you're basically going on a rant talking out of your rectum making assumptions. It comes down to "If you abstain from NULL your ability to form a coherent sentence and argument is an impossibility." Im guessing you're about 17? The third appears to be where you pretend you're the leader of some major alliance and that pvp or EVE in general changes somehow when you step through the next stargate. I suppose it does to a degree in the sense there are larger swarms of baddies waiting to gatecamp than the gate previous and that they can use bubbles and bigger ships to make it easier. Its not rocket science Einstein. If it were you wouldn't be out there.
You can form any opinion. Opinions gained from experience, are more valued than Waffle from someone who never has. You should never delude yourself, that you opinions matter if you have never experienced. You scoff at the opinions of those that have at least some experience in these areas. whose is the mature one here?
Your third answer evades the whole question. Is that because you don't have a viable answer. WH's give you EXACTLY what you want. Yet you still REFUSE to acknowledge them as a completely viable source, for your playstyle. I can only imagine why this must be so. My best guess is that you still want soft targets to be your "Prey". If this is the case then your whole thread has not been for the good of EVE, but the benefits to yourself only.
o7
|
|
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
211
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 03:48:00 -
[491] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote: You can form any opinion. Opinions gained from experience, are more valued than Waffle from someone who never has. You should never delude yourself, that you opinions matter if you have never experienced. You scoff at the opinions of those that have at least some experience in these areas. whose is the mature one here?
Your third answer evades the whole question. Is that because you don't have a viable answer. WH's give you EXACTLY what you want. Yet you still REFUSE to acknowledge them as a completely viable source, for your playstyle. I can only imagine why this must be so. My best guess is that you still want soft targets to be your "Prey". If this is the case then your whole thread has not been for the good of EVE, but the benefits to yourself only.
o7
I have zero interest rehearsing the same non arguments with quite frankly, daft people. WH's dont give me exactly what I want and wouldn't change the premise even if they did. You can ask 99 more convoluted questions and i'm probably going to skip over them unless I find one that is poignant and merits taking the time to bother. |
malcovas Henderson
Smoking Minerals Syndicate Cannabis Legionis
71
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 04:09:00 -
[492] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:malcovas Henderson wrote: You can form any opinion. Opinions gained from experience, are more valued than Waffle from someone who never has. You should never delude yourself, that you opinions matter if you have never experienced. You scoff at the opinions of those that have at least some experience in these areas. whose is the mature one here?
Your third answer evades the whole question. Is that because you don't have a viable answer. WH's give you EXACTLY what you want. Yet you still REFUSE to acknowledge them as a completely viable source, for your playstyle. I can only imagine why this must be so. My best guess is that you still want soft targets to be your "Prey". If this is the case then your whole thread has not been for the good of EVE, but the benefits to yourself only.
o7
I have zero interest rehearsing the same non arguments with quite frankly, daft people. WH's dont give me exactly what I want and wouldn't change the premise even if they did.
You have yet to give 1 single valid arguement against WH's. As I have said removing local from HI/low, and null, Would make them almost like WH's. Entering a system without local would be exactly the same as entering a WH. Now please tell me. What would be so different, that you prefer to stay in HI sec without local, for your kills, and getting themfrom a WH?
Admit it. Real PvP scares the **** out of you. Everything you have said, has led to this. You hide behind the security of HI sec. Your "prey" are soft targets. The Agent finder being your "local" (be it somewhat unreliable to a certain degree), is the only reason you can even ask for the removal of local. Without it, you wouldn't even be here. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
211
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 04:11:00 -
[493] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote:[
You have yet to give 1 single valid arguement against WH's. As I have said removing local from HI/low, and null, Would make them almost like WH's. Entering a system without local would be exactly the same as entering a WH. Now please tell me. What would be so different, that you prefer to stay in HI sec without local, for your kills, and getting themfrom a WH?
Admit it. Real PvP scares the **** out of you. Everything you have said, has led to this. You hide behind the security of HI sec. Your "prey" are soft targets. The Agent finder being your "local" (be it somewhat unreliable to a certain degree), is the only reason you can even ask for the removal of local. Without it, you wouldn't even be here.
Because I market trade in Jita and having to leave the wormhole multiple times per hour would be unbearable. Consider the valid argument presented. The rest of your post is hot air. Its a fallacy known as Appeal to Ridicule.
Example: Hey guys look at his alliance. Its a big joke because it has no sovereignty but its members talk as if they are relevant to null sec. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
211
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 04:23:00 -
[494] - Quote
In the interest of fairness I think you make a fair point about locater agents. Certainly worth considering a modification of but not so detrimental as to make the OP irrelevant. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
21
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 05:41:00 -
[495] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Because I market trade in Jita and having to leave the wormhole multiple times per hour would be unbearable. Consider the valid argument presented. The rest of your post is hot air. Its a fallacy known as Appeal to Ridicule.
Congratulations, you are the worst at Eve Online, both the internet spaceship game, and the forums.
Removing local is not the solution to your problem. Rolling a market alt and parking it in Jita so you can keep you PvP guy where the action is is what you need to do. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
211
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 05:44:00 -
[496] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Because I market trade in Jita and having to leave the wormhole multiple times per hour would be unbearable. Consider the valid argument presented. The rest of your post is hot air. Its a fallacy known as Appeal to Ridicule.
Congratulations, you are the worst at Eve Online, both the internet spaceship game, and the forums. Removing local is not the solution to your problem. Rolling a market alt and parking it in Jita so you can keep you PvP guy where the action is is what you need to do.
Thats an interesting point of view. Tell me then why do we need skill clones that go into the 100 million mark when we can all stop training and roll an alt to fill the niche. You think it might be because convenience and diversity are the motivation? |
Onyx Nyx
Perkone Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 05:49:00 -
[497] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Because I market trade in Jita and having to leave the wormhole multiple times per hour would be unbearable. Consider the valid argument presented. The rest of your post is hot air. Its a fallacy known as Appeal to Ridicule.
Congratulations, you are the worst at Eve Online, both the internet spaceship game, and the forums. Removing local is not the solution to your problem. Rolling a market alt and parking it in Jita so you can keep you PvP guy where the action is is what you need to do. Thats an interesting point of view. Tell me then why do we need skill clones that go into the 100 million mark when we can all stop training and roll an alt to fill the niche. You think it might be because convenience and diversity are the motivation? Being able to do more than one activity on your toon is the whole point of classless character development.
But then you got no right to complain either. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
211
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 05:50:00 -
[498] - Quote
@Onyx Nyx - I must have missed the EVE being free to play announcement, post a link? |
Onyx Nyx
Perkone Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 05:51:00 -
[499] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:I must have missed the EVE being free to play announcement, post a link?
Here you go. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
211
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 05:53:00 -
[500] - Quote
Onyx Nyx wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:I must have missed the EVE being free to play announcement, post a link? Here you go.
I'm sorry your confused thats not free to play, thats work in exchange for gametime. As it so happens
17418434
5/5/2012 8:35:10 AM
1 x A Paxist Treasure
Free
Paid
17320622
4/30/2012 4:36:40 PM
CreditCard
Recurring Payment for 1 Month EVE Subscription
$14.95
Paid
17133624
4/7/2012 8:15:01 PM
CreditCard
1 x 6x 30 Day Pilot License Extension
$104.97
Paid
17070829
3/31/2012 4:36:34 PM
CreditCard
Recurring Payment for 1 Month EVE Subscription
$14.95
Paid
16825072
3/1/2012 4:36:21 PM
CreditCard
Recurring Payment for 1 Month EVE Subscription
$14.95
Paid
16586015
1/31/2012 4:36:11 PM
CreditCard
Recurring Payment for 1 Month EVE Subscription
$14.95
Paid
16348348
1/1/2012 4:36:04 PM
CreditCard
Recurring Payment for 1 Month EVE Subscription
$14.95
Paid
16334680
12/31/2011 1:50:17 AM
CreditCard
1 x 6 PLEX - Special offer
$99.99
Paid
16156214
12/18/2011 8:40:26 AM
CreditCard
1 x 6x 30 Day Pilot License Extension
$104.97
Paid
16027299
12/12/2011 10:30:28 PM
1 x Holiday present 2011: Neural Surgery
Free
Paid
|
|
Onyx Nyx
Perkone Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 06:00:00 -
[501] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Onyx Nyx wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:I must have missed the EVE being free to play announcement, post a link? Here you go. I'm sorry your confused thats not free to play, thats work in exchange for gametime. As it so happens RABBLE RABBLE
It is for me, enough to pay for my accounts and fund my pewpew. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
211
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 06:00:00 -
[502] - Quote
Yeah its rabble rabble isn't it? |
Onyx Nyx
Perkone Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 06:06:00 -
[503] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Yeah its rabble rabble isn't it?
And $309 later and you are still not wiser.
Hilarity ensues. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
211
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 06:08:00 -
[504] - Quote
Onyx Nyx wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Yeah its rabble rabble isn't it? And $309 later and you are still not wiser. Hilarity ensues.
Peanut Butter with your Jelly? I can afford to give you some, no charge. |
Frying Doom
198
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 06:09:00 -
[505] - Quote
The whole free to pay bit would be funny, if it wasn't so sad that people seem to think plex's just magically appear. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
21
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 06:13:00 -
[506] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Because I market trade in Jita and having to leave the wormhole multiple times per hour would be unbearable. Consider the valid argument presented. The rest of your post is hot air. Its a fallacy known as Appeal to Ridicule.
Congratulations, you are the worst at Eve Online, both the internet spaceship game, and the forums. Removing local is not the solution to your problem. Rolling a market alt and parking it in Jita so you can keep you PvP guy where the action is is what you need to do. Thats an interesting point of view. Tell me then, why do we need skill clones that go into the 100 million mark when we can all stop training and roll an alt to fill the niche. You think it might be because convenience and diversity are the motivation? Being able to do more than one activity on your toon is the whole point of classless character development. Also you didn't quite convey your smugness at appropriate levels, it came off as more angry.
You combined a station based profession with a space based profession, now your PvP abilities are hobbled by having to run back to market multiple times an hour.
Meanwhile, everyone else is left scratching there heads because they trained their characters more sensibly, and can enjoy the markets of Jita and the danger of null/w-space without hassle. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
211
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 06:17:00 -
[507] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:[quote=Caliph Muhammed]
You combined a station based profession with a space based profession, now your PvP abilities are hobbled by having to run back to market multiple times an hour.
Meanwhile, everyone else is left scratching there heads because they trained their characters more sensibly, and can enjoy the markets of Jita and the danger of null/w-space without hassle.
If I deleted every non combat skill off of my toon i'd still prefer the population of hisec. I answer to no one and have all the positives with zero logistics issues. And none of that has any relevance to pvp being fundamentally broken and a boring campfest because of local. Just because wormholes are a potential less optimal replacement for just local chat doesn't make it a non issue. All of the people i'd wish to attack wouldn't so happen to live in my wormhole or even wormholes in general.
And everyone isnt in disagreement with me. 40 so far have liked the post while I don't think a disagreeing post in the thread has recieved 10 yet. The truth is most people worry about retaliation for posting their ideas or find it unenjoyable to respond to critique. |
steejans nix
0beron Construct Tribal Dragons
8
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 07:04:00 -
[508] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:..........................
I must admit I not read a lot of this thread but skimmed the first few pages only I not see you ask for locator agents to be removed or watchlist's to be gotten rid of along with local for balance purposes?
Is this an oversight or intended on you're part, because if you take away the mechanics which the wardecced can see if they being hunted ( which already is a joke btw with all the neutral scouts ) and leave in the mechanics the wardeccers have to find there targets, oh and don't trip out the targets can use locator agents line, it a lot diferent to see where you're target is to start the hunt, than it is to find out where ONE of you're enemies are and you got to wait to find out a agent guessing at where he is as it's delayed for some minuites.
Also how do you manage now to pvp and go to jita several times an hour now to alter market orders ?
A market alt would seem to solve all you're problems, would allow you to alter market orders several times an hour and still experience the local free fighting you desire, also everyone in there would be a target for you.
|
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
17
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 07:15:00 -
[509] - Quote
Pretty much everything you've said thus far in this thread has confirmed my hypothesis that you are a risk-averse wardec ganker who wants easy-mode kills.
It has also confirmed my secondary hypothesis that you are a delusional idiot. |
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
17
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 07:19:00 -
[510] - Quote
steejans nix wrote: Also how do you manage now to pvp and go to jita several times an hour now to alter market orders ?
When your pvp consists of ganking wartarget freighters in trade hubs, it can be pretty easy.
|
|
Lord Zim
719
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 07:52:00 -
[511] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:I have zero interest rehearsing the same non arguments with quite frankly, daft people. Definition of "daft people": anyone who's talking back to him, instead of blindly agreeing.
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Because I market trade in Jita and having to leave the wormhole multiple times per hour would be unbearable. "I don't want to change the way I play, because it would be :effort:, but the entire rest of the game should!"
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Consider the valid argument presented. Come back to us when you have an argument which is an actual argument, and not "this should happen because I'm lazy". |
Frying Doom
198
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 08:07:00 -
[512] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Consider the valid argument presented. Come back to us when you have an argument which is an actual argument, and not "this should happen because I'm lazy". As opposed to your position of not having any suggestions and just telling people how bad there ideas are. oh and one liners like"fix Sov so the systems are easier to take" doesn't count, I'm not saying it's wrong but It is hardly fleshed out. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Lord Zim
719
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 08:16:00 -
[513] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Consider the valid argument presented. Come back to us when you have an argument which is an actual argument, and not "this should happen because I'm lazy". As opposed to your position of not having any suggestions and just telling people how bad there ideas are. oh and one liners like"fix Sov so the systems are easier to take" doesn't count, I'm not saying it's wrong but It is hardly fleshed out. Uh, there's been multiple ideas for modifying how local works which I've been tentatively in favor of. What I'm fully against is "just remove local" "ideas" which I will continue to call bad ideas because they are bad ideas. |
Frying Doom
198
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 08:21:00 -
[514] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Consider the valid argument presented. Come back to us when you have an argument which is an actual argument, and not "this should happen because I'm lazy". As opposed to your position of not having any suggestions and just telling people how bad there ideas are. oh and one liners like"fix Sov so the systems are easier to take" doesn't count, I'm not saying it's wrong but It is hardly fleshed out. Uh, there's been multiple ideas for modifying how local works which I've been tentatively in favor of. What I'm fully against is "just remove local" "ideas" which I will continue to call bad ideas because they are bad ideas. Well instead of tentatively being in favour of how about you pick one, post it up and defend it or if you think it has flaws explain what you believe needs changing and too what.
Stop just fence sitting and criticizing. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Lord Zim
719
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 08:26:00 -
[515] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Well instead of tentatively being in favour of how about you pick one, post it up and defend it or if you think it has flaws explain what you believe needs changing and too what.
Stop just fence sitting and criticizing. You're assuming I think something needs changing about local; I don't. What I'm "tentatively in favour of" are ideas I could possibly live with (subject to change pending actual testing) if CCP decides that local will change.
Until they say they are definitely making a change to how local works, I'll continue to give advice/point out weaknesses in suggestions other people put up. In you and Caliph's case, however, it's all geared towards the gankers, and there's absolutely nothing in it for the gankee.
But then you know this. |
Frying Doom
198
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 08:40:00 -
[516] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Well instead of tentatively being in favour of how about you pick one, post it up and defend it or if you think it has flaws explain what you believe needs changing and too what.
Stop just fence sitting and criticizing. You're assuming I think something needs changing about local; I don't. What I'm "tentatively in favour of" are ideas I could possibly live with (subject to change pending actual testing) if CCP decides that local will change. Until they say they are definitely making a change to how local works, I'll continue to give advice/point out weaknesses in suggestions other people put up. In you and Caliph's case, however, it's all geared towards the gankers, and there's absolutely nothing in it for the gankee. But then you know this. Actually no. not instantly showing your presence in local is an advantage to the prey as well. You will d-scan detect probes before they have your position locked in or in some cases even detected if you are paying attention.
Oh the other point if you cant stand behind any idea for anything at all, you must really have no complaints about EVE. You would be the first person I have ever heard that from, or a spineless fence sitter, capable of complaining about everyone elses ideas while never standing up for any your self. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Lord Zim
719
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 08:45:00 -
[517] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Actually no. not instantly showing your presence in local is an advantage to the prey as well. You will d-scan detect probes before they have your position locked in or in some cases even detected if you are paying attention. You need probes to find people?
Frying Doom wrote:Oh the other point if you cant stand behind any idea for anything at all, you must really have no complaints about EVE. You would be the first person I have ever heard that from, or a spineless fence sitter, capable of complaining about everyone elses ideas while never standing up for any your self. Nice strawman. |
Mirime Nolwe
Mantra of Pain
44
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 08:46:00 -
[518] - Quote
Just remove local and lets hell be unleashed. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
21
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 08:52:00 -
[519] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote: Actually no. not instantly showing your presence in local is an advantage to the prey as well. You will d-scan detect probes before they have your position locked in or in some cases even detected if you are paying attention.
Oh the other point if you cant stand behind any idea for anything at all, you must really have no complaints about EVE. You would be the first person I have ever heard that from, or a spineless fence sitter, capable of complaining about everyone elses ideas while never standing up for any your self.
So instead of watching for local to update, they'll be watching d-scan to update. Yah, big improvement. |
Lord Zim
719
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 08:59:00 -
[520] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:So instead of watching for local to update, they'll be watching d-scan to update. Yah, big improvement. Do you know what the big catch here is? dscan is currently severely limited in the range of space it can cover. Guess who that would favour, then ponder why the same people are against modifying how dscan works. |
|
Frying Doom
198
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 09:21:00 -
[521] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:So instead of watching for local to update, they'll be watching d-scan to update. Yah, big improvement. Do you know what the big catch here is? dscan is currently severely limited in the range of space it can cover. Guess who that would favour, then ponder why the same people are against modifying how dscan works. Umm it would favor the observant and hard working while penalizing the lazy.
Oh and what ideas where you behind in this thread sorry I missed you backing and arguing the points for these. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Elena Melkan
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
18
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 09:30:00 -
[522] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:So instead of watching for local to update, they'll be watching d-scan to update. Yah, big improvement. Do you know what the big catch here is? dscan is currently severely limited in the range of space it can cover. Guess who that would favour, then ponder why the same people are against modifying how dscan works. Umm it would favor the observant and hard working while penalizing the lazy. Oh and what ideas where you behind in this thread sorry I missed you backing and arguing the points for these. It wouldn't favor anyone really. It would make things harder for a predator to find a target, and for prey to avoid getting caught. Spamming a d-scan would make playing in low and nullsec really boring and pointless, and I don't understand what a word 'boring' has to do with 'hard working' or 'observant'. |
Lord Zim
719
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 09:48:00 -
[523] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Oh and what ideas where you behind in this thread sorry I missed you backing and arguing the points for these. It's all in the threads, go back and read. |
Frying Doom
198
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 09:50:00 -
[524] - Quote
Elena Melkan wrote: It wouldn't favor anyone really. It would make things harder for a predator to find a target, and for prey to avoid getting caught. Spamming a d-scan would make playing in low and nullsec really boring and pointless, and I don't understand what a word 'boring' has to do with 'hard working' or 'observant'.
If you read further up I propose the change only in Null sec and with the alteration of the D-scan so it auto updates as spamming the stupid thing stinks. Essentially I propose that people have to check the dscan instead of the free intel from local, giving covert ships the ability to be covert.
Thanks for the honesty about it still being a neutral playing field because it would be. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
21
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 09:51:00 -
[525] - Quote
Elena Melkan wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:So instead of watching for local to update, they'll be watching d-scan to update. Yah, big improvement. Do you know what the big catch here is? dscan is currently severely limited in the range of space it can cover. Guess who that would favour, then ponder why the same people are against modifying how dscan works. Umm it would favor the observant and hard working while penalizing the lazy. Oh and what ideas where you behind in this thread sorry I missed you backing and arguing the points for these. It wouldn't favor anyone really. It would make things harder for a predator to find a target, and for prey to avoid getting caught. Spamming a d-scan would make playing in low and nullsec really boring and pointless, and I don't understand what a word 'boring' has to do with 'hard working' or 'observant'.
Not to mention that spamming d-scan only helps the prey if they are in a place that needs to be scanned down. If they are in an anom or any place that can be warped to from the overview, the prey get no warning.
So I guess if these guys want to be e-honourable, and not just camp the gates, they'll run circuits around all the belts, anoms and customs offices till they find a soft target.
|
Lord Zim
719
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 09:54:00 -
[526] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:If you read further up I propose the change only in Null sec and with the alteration of the D-scan so it auto updates as spamming the stupid thing stinks. Essentially I propose that people have to check the dscan instead of the free intel from local, giving covert ships the ability to be covert.
Lord Zim wrote:Do you know what the big catch here is? dscan is currently severely limited in the range of space it can cover. Guess who that would favour, then ponder why the same people are against modifying how dscan works. Oh, I actually forgot to mention that of course dscan doesn't see cloaked ships, so you have no idea if there's a bomber, recon, t3 or similar about to lock you down in a sanctum or similar. |
Frying Doom
198
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 09:57:00 -
[527] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:If they are in an anom or any place that can be warped to from the overview, the prey get no warning. Without any form of probing the system? sure you could do that but without local how many empty anoms would you warp to before you decided you might need to see if anyone is in the system first. And although the prey would receive limited warning, it would not be no warning as you show up on D-scan warping in. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Frying Doom
198
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 10:01:00 -
[528] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:If you read further up I propose the change only in Null sec and with the alteration of the D-scan so it auto updates as spamming the stupid thing stinks. Essentially I propose that people have to check the dscan instead of the free intel from local, giving covert ships the ability to be covert. Lord Zim wrote:Do you know what the big catch here is? dscan is currently severely limited in the range of space it can cover. Guess who that would favour, then ponder why the same people are against modifying how dscan works. Oh, I actually forgot to mention that of course dscan doesn't see cloaked ships, so you have no idea if there's a bomber, recon, t3 or similar about to lock you down in a sanctum or similar. So they would be able to function like their name implies or for that matter like they do in populated systems in Hi-sec or lo-sec systems where there is more than just blue contacts in a system. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Lord Zim
720
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 10:05:00 -
[529] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:So they would be able to function like their name implies or for that matter like they do in populated systems in Hi-sec or lo-sec systems where there is more than just blue contacts in a system. And this is where your concept of "game balance" breaks down.
Or are you going to suddenly start talking about an idea where the system inhabitants are able to get a fair warning ahead of the "you have been warpscrambled" message, so they have a modicum of chance to escape if they're paying attention? Or are you going to claim that the obvious solution to your change is to put a cloaked char on each and every stargate and wormhole entrance in the system? |
Elena Melkan
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
18
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 10:16:00 -
[530] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Elena Melkan wrote: It wouldn't favor anyone really. It would make things harder for a predator to find a target, and for prey to avoid getting caught. Spamming a d-scan would make playing in low and nullsec really boring and pointless, and I don't understand what a word 'boring' has to do with 'hard working' or 'observant'.
If you read further up I propose the change only in Null sec and with the alteration of the D-scan so it auto updates as spamming the stupid thing stinks. Essentially I propose that people have to check the dscan instead of the free intel from local, giving covert ships the ability to be covert. Thanks for the honesty about it still being a neutral playing field because it would be. Would you like to explain why in your mind only null should be affected? I'm sorry if you mentioned it earlier already, there are so many pages and I have to admit that I'm feeling a bit lazy at the moment... |
|
Frying Doom
198
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 10:21:00 -
[531] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:So they would be able to function like their name implies or for that matter like they do in populated systems in Hi-sec or lo-sec systems where there is more than just blue contacts in a system. And this is where your concept of "game balance" breaks down. Or are you going to suddenly start talking about an idea where the system inhabitants are able to get a fair warning ahead of the "you have been warpscrambled" message, so they have a modicum of chance to escape if they're paying attention? Or are you going to claim that the obvious solution to your change is to put a cloaked char on each and every stargate and wormhole entrance in the system? If putting a cloaked character on every gate would be your method of security then that would be your method. you could have cloaked ships accompanying mining groups or for that matter a battleship or 2.
You always seem to argue why Null should be safe and you should get plenty of notice of incoming enemies, I hate to break it to you Hi-sec is more dangerous than null is at this point and has been up to now. You are talking about a surprise attack by a cloaked ship rather than a ship that for some reason is cloaked but is carrying a disco ball announcing its presence to everyone around it.
Hi-sec and Lo-sec people carry on all the time without the ability to identify that they are about to be ganked, why can't null sec residents? Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Lord Zim
720
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 10:31:00 -
[532] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:You always seem to argue why Null should be safe and you should get plenty of notice of incoming enemies And you always seem to argue that the people in nullsec are only there to be farmed by roaming gangs, with absolutely no way of stopping that from happening.
Frying Doom wrote:I hate to break it to you Hi-sec is more dangerous than null is at this point and has been up to now. This is a fallacy.
Frying Doom wrote:Hi-sec and Lo-sec people carry on all the time without the ability to identify that they are about to be ganked, why can't null sec residents? How do lowsec people carry on without the ability to identify that they are about to be ganked?
Are hisec people being ganked the instant they undock? Are hisec people unable to go afk without a certainty that if anyone not in their own corp/alliance runs past, they'll get popped? |
Frying Doom
199
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 10:49:00 -
[533] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: And you always seem to argue that the people in nullsec are only there to be farmed by roaming gangs, with absolutely no way of stopping that from happening.
Said it before you need to actively defend your systems not passively or reactively.
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:I hate to break it to you Hi-sec is more dangerous than null is at this point and has been up to now. This is a fallacy. And the most dangerous PvP system in eve is Amamake a 0.4 losec system in heimatar, followed by Jita, the most dangerous Null system is HED-GP and that is fifth on the list hardly more dangerous than Hi-sec and defiately not more dangerous than empire.
Lord Zim wrote: How do lowsec people carry on without the ability to identify that they are about to be ganked?
The same way people will in a null sec will without local, using D-scan. Lo-sec is not a one alliance per system space, how else would you get things done.
Lord Zim wrote:Are hisec people being ganked the instant they undock? Are hisec people unable to go afk without a certainty that if anyone not in their own corp/alliance runs past, they'll get popped? If they obey the laws yes via wardecs, second depends on what they are carrying.
Without local you would have a better chance of surviving being afk in null and would be less likely to be attacked on undock unless they new before hand you were in ther.e You would be harder to track down if you got away as local wouldn't exist to tell them you were still in system. It would also be easier to counter attack a stationary enemy camping a station Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Degren
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
1083
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 10:51:00 -
[534] - Quote
I can not believe this became a threadnaught. You people are terrible. You don't know |
Frying Doom
200
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 10:55:00 -
[535] - Quote
Degren wrote:I can not believe this became a threadnaught. You people are terrible. Thanks :) Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
malcovas Henderson
Smoking Minerals Syndicate Cannabis Legionis
73
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 10:59:00 -
[536] - Quote
Degren wrote:I can not believe this became a threadnaught. You people are terrible.
And now you have got bragging rights with "I was there" |
Lord Zim
721
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 12:12:00 -
[537] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Said it before you need to actively defend your systems not passively or reactively. In other words, one guy to sit above a station 23.5/7, cloaked. One for each stargate. One for each wormhole. A "quick reaction force" sitting somewhere nearby just waiting for something to happen. And this is, of course, on a per system basis, multiply this by every system you own or want to protect.
Lord Zim wrote:And the most dangerous PvP system in eve is Amamake a 0.4 losec system in heimatar, followed by Jita, the most dangerous Null system is HED-GP and that is fifth on the list hardly more dangerous than Hi-sec and defiately not more dangerous than empire. How many people go through each of those systems pr day, and how many of those are ganked pr day? How many of them are ganked due to wardecs?
Frying Doom wrote:If they obey the laws yes via wardecs, second depends on what they are carrying. So you're actually going to say that hisec is inherently more dangerous than nullsec, even though in nullsec you're getting popped if the guy can catch you, whereas in hisec you can get ganked, but all you need to do to avoid this is generally to not fly around when there's a wardec on, and not fly a cargo which is expensive enough, and not steal from other people.
Yep. Hisec is inherently so much more dangerous than nullsec.
Frying Doom wrote:Without local you would have a better chance of surviving being afk in null and would be less likely to be attacked on undock unless they new before hand you were in ther.e You would be harder to track down if you got away as local wouldn't exist to tell them you were still in system. It would also be easier to counter attack a stationary enemy camping a station You wouldn't have a better chance of surviving being afk in null if local wasn't there, and since there could be a huge gang sitting outside a station without anyone knowing (unless, of course, you mandate that someone's only job in EVE is to sit undocked in a cloaked ship and watch the station 23.5/7. And one for each gate. And one for each wormhole. And unless you're in a cloaky ship, they can still see "is he somewhere in system". |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
218
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 12:17:00 -
[538] - Quote
Notice Zim's argument always comes with the premise he's entitled to one iota of unearned safety? Bless his heart, he tries.
Zim in your alliance of, 9000, if you can't create a 24 hour cycle of patrols then you shouldn't "own the space". Take that as "ever feel safe."
And you don't need a guy at every entrance, just a combat fleet relatively close and of good size relative to the likely threat. Occupants that aren't a part of the defense force have to take some actions themselves such as strengthening their defense to hold out until help arrives or they should perish. Under the right circumstances, they should die instantly. As example if a ten man stealth bomber fleet invades and intercepts you. Chalk it up to 10 people playing exceptional and the one guys exceptional play didn't match it.
You have no inherent right to a safe way out unless you take the appropriate actions in creating that situation. And that won't change no matter how many times and different ways you ask that same question. |
Frying Doom
200
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 12:17:00 -
[539] - Quote
Elena Melkan wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Elena Melkan wrote: It wouldn't favor anyone really. It would make things harder for a predator to find a target, and for prey to avoid getting caught. Spamming a d-scan would make playing in low and nullsec really boring and pointless, and I don't understand what a word 'boring' has to do with 'hard working' or 'observant'.
If you read further up I propose the change only in Null sec and with the alteration of the D-scan so it auto updates as spamming the stupid thing stinks. Essentially I propose that people have to check the dscan instead of the free intel from local, giving covert ships the ability to be covert. Thanks for the honesty about it still being a neutral playing field because it would be. Would you like to explain why in your mind only null should be affected? I'm sorry if you mentioned it earlier already, there are so many pages and I have to admit that I'm feeling a bit lazy at the moment... Two reasons for Null sec only local.
1) Empire space is exactly that funded and controlled by huge empires of Triilions of people and a budget so large nothing of it's like has never been seen on this planet. NPC Null is just providing stations and therefore if they are not shelling out a cent on defense they are not likely to pay for a Local channel. Sov space is provincial lawless space and although some Alliances have claimed them as their own the basic fact is that the ability to have empire features like Local should be out of the financial realms or technological capabilities of a few thousand players.
2) Null is by its definition lawless space in its current state Covert ops are not covert, Stealth ships are not stealthy and by its very nature local was not meant to be an intel source but has become the biggest intel provider in Null sec. In Hi sec and lo-sec gankers are hidden in the background of other characters where as the lawless nature of Null allows the eradication of all non blues in a system. This gives a supposed lawless wild area an advantage over supposedly safer areas. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Dror Roidcrusher
Balls of Megacyte In Tea We Trust
27
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 12:22:00 -
[540] - Quote
I have balls of megacyte |
|
Frying Doom
200
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 12:24:00 -
[541] - Quote
Dror Roidcrusher wrote:I have balls of megacyte I feel sorry for your loss Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
218
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 12:27:00 -
[542] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:alot of stuff
I appreciate your view but it will create an imbalance in risk versus reward that will lead to overcompensating rewards in nullsec. Local has to be removed across the board.
Second, local has a dulling effect on pvp. It makes it suck. Many people in hisec pvp and fixing or rather removing the tedium of camping due to local is not a benefit that should be given to just one subset of pvpers.
There is no sound reason to leave local chat in EVE. Or rather to have everyone automatically registered as in system. Removing local will not remove concord so there is not a shred more risk in doing so outside of those potentially in war. But the risk would be mutual for attacker and defender, hence balanced.
I remember they removed public standings because it gave to much free intel. Well that gave a trivial amount of intel compared to local chat. |
Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
13
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 12:35:00 -
[543] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Elena Melkan wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Elena Melkan wrote: It wouldn't favor anyone really. It would make things harder for a predator to find a target, and for prey to avoid getting caught. Spamming a d-scan would make playing in low and nullsec really boring and pointless, and I don't understand what a word 'boring' has to do with 'hard working' or 'observant'.
If you read further up I propose the change only in Null sec and with the alteration of the D-scan so it auto updates as spamming the stupid thing stinks. Essentially I propose that people have to check the dscan instead of the free intel from local, giving covert ships the ability to be covert. Thanks for the honesty about it still being a neutral playing field because it would be. Would you like to explain why in your mind only null should be affected? I'm sorry if you mentioned it earlier already, there are so many pages and I have to admit that I'm feeling a bit lazy at the moment... Two reasons for Null sec only local. 1) Empire space is exactly that funded and controlled by huge empires of Triilions of people and a budget so large nothing of it's like has never been seen on this planet. NPC Null is just providing stations and therefore if they are not shelling out a cent on defense they are not likely to pay for a Local channel. Sov space is provincial lawless space and although some Alliances have claimed them as their own the basic fact is that the ability to have empire features like Local should be out of the financial realms or technological capabilities of a few thousand players. 2) Null is by its definition lawless space in its current state Covert ops are not covert, Stealth ships are not stealthy and by its very nature local was not meant to be an intel source but has become the biggest intel provider in Null sec. In Hi sec and lo-sec gankers are hidden in the background of other characters where as the lawless nature of Null allows the eradication of all non blues in a system. This gives a supposed lawless wild area an advantage over supposedly safer areas.
You do understand that if people couldn't use local to pull information about the people in the system, while in hi sec, that it would actually make people who live in hi sec safer right?
Doing the same thing in low and null would make people both safer, and at the exact same time make that space more dangerous.
In hi sec you use local to scout for people in worthwhile sips, without actually having to locate them first. You locate the target through local, and then find them.
In low and null you use it to see if there is a threat, not to find friendlys.
Keep the ability to chat in local, in all parts of space. Remove the ability to pull the information about what the people in local are flying. Add a short wave broadcast chanell if there isn't one already. If you want to get more detailed information about an individual in local, you should have to open yourself up to them as much as they would have to open themselves up to you, by sending them a message and seeing if they respond. |
Lord Zim
722
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 12:38:00 -
[544] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Zim in your alliance of, 9000, if you can't create a 24 hour cycle of patrols then you shouldn't "own the space". Take that as "ever feel safe." What would be the incentives to be in these patrols? |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
218
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 12:40:00 -
[545] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Zim in your alliance of, 9000, if you can't create a 24 hour cycle of patrols then you shouldn't "own the space". Take that as "ever feel safe." What would be the incentives to be in these patrols?
For the Hives' continual claim to sovereignty. And to allow a safe place for its tax paying citizens to generate tax revenue. Those taxes could then be distributed to the defensive patrols or invested and multiplied for greater return.
Did you not read the post where i said if I had 9000 people behind me i'd burn Jita down weekly?
Of course I wouldn't announce it, and it would rotate days it was carried out. |
Frying Doom
200
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 12:46:00 -
[546] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Frying Doom wrote:alot of stuff I appreciate your view but it will create an imbalance in risk versus reward that will lead to overcompensating rewards in nullsec. Local has to be removed across the board. Second, local has a dulling effect on pvp. It makes it suck. It makes many skills largely useless and at minimum boring. Many people in hisec pvp and fixing or rather removing the tedium of camping due to local is not a benefit that should be given to just one subset of pvpers. My primary reasons for null sec only are based on the fact that Null sec is lawless space and it makes no sense that local would exist there. Also no local in Null is part of a package of alterations I believe should occur to Null as it is very stagnant and boring at this point and a large part of the pvp is gate camping with little to no risk to the campers. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
218
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 12:49:00 -
[547] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Frying Doom wrote:alot of stuff I appreciate your view but it will create an imbalance in risk versus reward that will lead to overcompensating rewards in nullsec. Local has to be removed across the board. Second, local has a dulling effect on pvp. It makes it suck. It makes many skills largely useless and at minimum boring. Many people in hisec pvp and fixing or rather removing the tedium of camping due to local is not a benefit that should be given to just one subset of pvpers. My primary reasons for null sec only are based on the fact that Null sec is lawless space and it makes no sense that local would exist there. Also no local in Null is part of a package of alterations I believe should occur to Null as it is very stagnant and boring at this point and a large part of the pvp is gate camping with little to no risk to the campers.
Removing local has no real effect on high sec law and order. It only affects war. One can die in a martyrdom operation in hisec with local as is because it can come from someone completely anonymous. Having no local wouldn't effect that one way or the other save for making the suicide ganker have to work to locate their target.
I honestly wish the orthodox carebears could see how much less likely they would be to die to a suicide gank with local removed. They overestimate how well seeing someone in hisec local is protecting them and underestimate how not having their presence revealed in hisec local would shelter them. |
malcovas Henderson
Smoking Minerals Syndicate Cannabis Legionis
73
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 12:54:00 -
[548] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Notice Zim's argument always comes with the premise he's entitled to one iota of unearned safety? Bless his heart, he tries.
Zim in your alliance of, 9000, if you can't create a 24 hour cycle of patrols then you shouldn't "own the space". Take that as "ever feel safe."
And you don't need a guy at every entrance, just a combat fleet relatively close and of good size relative to the likely threat. Occupants that aren't a part of the defense force have to take some actions themselves such as strengthening their defense to hold out until help arrives or they should perish. Under the right circumstances, they should die instantly. As example if a ten man stealth bomber fleet invades and intercepts you. Chalk it up to 10 people playing exceptional and the one guys exceptional play didn't match it.
You have no inherent right to a safe way out unless you take the appropriate actions in creating that situation. And that won't change no matter how many times and different ways you ask that same question.
lol. you really are trying hard. With no Local, and as such no protection from, Covert Op's. The first fundemental action of any Corp/alliance, would be to cover the entrances. Be it combat or cloaky. Now if your Corp/alliance is only doing "watch" duties. what would be the point of going to Null in the first place.
Flying a cloaky through null, is to easy already. Add to that of having only 1-2 seconds to spot him as he jumps through a gate. It doesn't take rocket science to see how much potential that would have, to any agressor.
Hi sec WT's would be effectively be placed into a WH scenerio. The agressor has the advantage over WT in Hi, with the use of Locator agents. As locator agents cannot be used for WH's. This actually would put Hi sec, at a higher level of danger than WH's. All this without the risk/rewards of WH's.
Can you see how silly that would be? can you? eh? can you? |
Lord Zim
722
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 12:54:00 -
[549] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:For the Hives' continual claim to sovereignty. And to allow a safe place for its tax paying citizens to generate tax revenue. Those taxes could then be distributed to the defensive patrols or invested and multiplied for greater return. So to make it worth it to have a single person as an official "quick reaction force", 24/7, that'd be 960 million a day pr system in salary costs. If we're assuming we're talking about just 8 hours of QRFs, that's 320 million pr day. Multiply that by how many people you want in your QRF, and add ship replacement programmes for any ships and pods lost.
Frying Doom wrote:My primary reasons for null sec only are based on the fact that Null sec is lawless space and it makes no sense that local would exist there. And if we're going for the "makes sense" option, there's also the suggestions that "local" is a system upgrade which can be shot up or hacked for a short period of time to either be disabled or give the attackers access to the same information, and would give the alliance and its allies the benefits of actually owning sov in a system, whereas an attacker would not (or would have to expend energy to get that data).
But that's "too safe" for you, of course.
Frying Doom wrote:Also no local in Null is part of a package of alterations I believe should occur to Null as it is very stagnant and boring at this point and a large part of the pvp is gate camping with little to no risk to the campers. Oh really? Tell us about this package of alterations you've never mentioned, then. I mean, you have such a wealth of nullsec experience, surely you have a lot of suggestions beyond "REMOVE LOCAL!". |
Bunnie Hop
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
76
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 12:55:00 -
[550] - Quote
I cringe just a bit everytime I read the title of this thread |
|
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
218
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 12:57:00 -
[551] - Quote
Revised just for you Bunnie Hop
|
Bunnie Hop
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
76
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 12:58:00 -
[552] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Revised just for you Bunnie Hop
Awww, Such a gentleman. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
218
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:08:00 -
[553] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: So to make it worth it to have a single person as an official "quick reaction force", 24/7, that'd be 960 million a day pr system in salary costs. If we're assuming we're talking about just 8 hours of QRFs, that's 320 million pr day. Multiply that by how many people you want in your QRF, and add ship replacement programmes for any ships and pods lost.
Either your defense force demands to much pay or your security is to severe and hinders trade. Open borders has its benefits and its liabilities. Either of which are a non issue to the core principle. Thats on Goonswarm Command to figure out. |
Lord Zim
722
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:13:00 -
[554] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Lord Zim wrote: So to make it worth it to have a single person as an official "quick reaction force", 24/7, that'd be 960 million a day pr system in salary costs. If we're assuming we're talking about just 8 hours of QRFs, that's 320 million pr day. Multiply that by how many people you want in your QRF, and add ship replacement programmes for any ships and pods lost.
Either your defense force demands to much pay or your security is to severe and hinders trade. Either of which are a non issue to the core principle. Thats on Goonswarm Command to figure out. What would you say would be a fair wage, pr person and pr hour, to sit guard around a bunch of carebears in case something happens, then? |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
218
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:22:00 -
[555] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Lord Zim wrote: So to make it worth it to have a single person as an official "quick reaction force", 24/7, that'd be 960 million a day pr system in salary costs. If we're assuming we're talking about just 8 hours of QRFs, that's 320 million pr day. Multiply that by how many people you want in your QRF, and add ship replacement programmes for any ships and pods lost.
Either your defense force demands to much pay or your security is to severe and hinders trade. Either of which are a non issue to the core principle. Thats on Goonswarm Command to figure out. What would you say would be a fair wage, pr person and pr hour, to sit guard around a bunch of carebears in case something happens, then?
That would depend on what ship I was in and how I felt about the Alliance. But remember just a relatively small fleet can defend one system and in that system many civilians can be generating taxes.
With the benefits offered to Hive members I would consider a draft service for the privilege. You guys can offer alot asking a little something of your members shouldn't be a big issue. It's garrison duty. Nobody likes it but someone has to do it or the combat is for naught. With as many people as you guys have you could setup a schedule for guys to devote a hour or so per day to do their share. The specifics I can't answer because I don't know the inner workings of the 'Swarm but it's within the alliances ability.
With the right officers you might even be able to get it done on tips. Make the experience enjoyable even if its less than the adrenaline pumping front line combat. |
Dragon Outlaw
Rogue Fleet
90
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:29:00 -
[556] - Quote
Lord Zimmy, are you trying to say that you would leave null sec if local gets removed? A brave and tough guy like you!! |
Lord Zim
722
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:29:00 -
[557] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:That would depend on what ship I was in and how I felt about the Alliance. But remember just a relatively small fleet can defend one system and in that system many civilians can be generating taxes.
With the benefits offered to Hive members I would consider a draft service for the privilege. You guys can offer alot asking a little something of your members shouldn't be a big issue. It's garrison duty. Nobody likes it but someone has to do it or the combat is for naught. With as many people as you guys have you could setup a schedule for guys to devote a hour or so per day to do their share. The specifics I can't answer because I don't know the inner workings of the 'Swarm but it's within the alliances ability. I'm not asking for GSF specifically, but for an assumption on a system which'll be realistic to implement for every alliance out there.
Let's take you, for example. Let's presume that the alliance you're in is in good standing with you, for the sake of the exercise. How much would you have to be paid to sit guard for an hour? |
Lord Zim
722
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:32:00 -
[558] - Quote
Dragon Outlaw wrote:Lord Zimmy, are you trying to say that you would leave null sec if local gets removed? A brave and tough guy like you!! As I've said before, I expect the removal of local to have absolutely no effect on my playstyle whatsoever. |
Frying Doom
201
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:32:00 -
[559] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:For the Hives' continual claim to sovereignty. And to allow a safe place for its tax paying citizens to generate tax revenue. Those taxes could then be distributed to the defensive patrols or invested and multiplied for greater return. So to make it worth it to have a single person as an official "quick reaction force", 24/7, that'd be 960 million a day pr system in salary costs. If we're assuming we're talking about just 8 hours of QRFs, that's 320 million pr day. Multiply that by how many people you want in your QRF, and add ship replacement programmes for any ships and pods lost. Or your members could take turns and contibute to their alliance.
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:My primary reasons for null sec only are based on the fact that Null sec is lawless space and it makes no sense that local would exist there. And if we're going for the "makes sense" option, there's also the suggestions that "local" is a system upgrade which can be shot up or hacked for a short period of time to either be disabled or give the attackers access to the same information, and would give the alliance and its allies the benefits of actually owning sov in a system, whereas an attacker would not (or would have to expend energy to get that data). As I have stated on many occasions on the other post in Jita park speakers corner, the amounts generated by 9000 people are insignificant compared to an empire consisting of billions to trillions of people.
Lord Zim wrote:Oh really? Tell us about this package of alterations you've never mentioned, then. I mean, you have such a wealth of nullsec experience, surely you have a lot of suggestions beyond "REMOVE LOCAL!". Umm in the other post you have been arguing with me for the last few days https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=110157 Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
219
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:32:00 -
[560] - Quote
If the alliance respected my work, handled leadership and promotions fairly, I do it for free. Tips appreciated. |
|
Lord Zim
722
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:36:00 -
[561] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:If the alliance respected my work, handled leadership and promotions fairly, I do it for free. Tips appreciated =) So you'd sit in a system for 8 hours a day, and respond to any emergency within a few seconds, for free? |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
220
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:38:00 -
[562] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:If the alliance respected my work, handled leadership and promotions fairly, I do it for free. Tips appreciated =) So you'd sit in a system for 8 hours a day, and respond to any emergency within a few seconds, for free?
Well Zim it's a game. I think 8 hours is a little much for one guy, you have to find a more feasible schedule. Small alliances claiming sov are doomed to fail yes, but they weren't really sov worthy to begin with.
I'll buy Tengus and Legions for my amigos if they can't afford them so doing charity isn't something I shun. I am Muslim.
Its also why I may only have 8 solid with me but all eight of them will camp someone for hours on end if i ask. They know i'll do the same in return. |
Frying Doom
201
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:41:00 -
[563] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:If the alliance respected my work, handled leadership and promotions fairly, I do it for free. Tips appreciated =) So you'd sit in a system for 8 hours a day, and respond to any emergency within a few seconds, for free? You jumped from an hour to 8. I myself have done mining overwatch 90 minutes or so at a time and not been payed for it as the next time round someone else does it. Being in an alliance doesn't mean you should just get payed or the opposite ripped off. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Lord Zim
722
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:49:00 -
[564] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Well Zim it's a game. I think 8 hours is a little much for one guy, you have to find a more feasible schedule. Okay, let's pretend you're a normal person and you have 1 hour of time, pr day, which you can spend in EVE. Would you dedicate that hour to probably doing absolutely nothing, but you still have to be alert enough that you can be on the scene within a few seconds of someone getting ambushed, for free? |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
220
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:49:00 -
[565] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Well Zim it's a game. I think 8 hours is a little much for one guy, you have to find a more feasible schedule. Okay, let's pretend you're a normal person and you have 1 hour of time, pr day, which you can spend in EVE. Would you dedicate that hour to probably doing absolutely nothing, but you still have to be alert enough that you can be on the scene within a few seconds of someone getting ambushed, for free?
Under the right conditions, absolutely. |
Elena Melkan
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
18
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:51:00 -
[566] - Quote
Made pretty long reply, but the forums messed it up! |
Lord Zim
722
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:53:00 -
[567] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Well Zim it's a game. I think 8 hours is a little much for one guy, you have to find a more feasible schedule. Okay, let's pretend you're a normal person and you have 1 hour of time, pr day, which you can spend in EVE. Would you dedicate that hour to probably doing absolutely nothing, but you still have to be alert enough that you can be on the scene within a few seconds of someone getting ambushed, for free? Under the right conditions, absolutely. Okay, so you're a samaritan. How long would you keep this up? |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
220
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:54:00 -
[568] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Well Zim it's a game. I think 8 hours is a little much for one guy, you have to find a more feasible schedule. Okay, let's pretend you're a normal person and you have 1 hour of time, pr day, which you can spend in EVE. Would you dedicate that hour to probably doing absolutely nothing, but you still have to be alert enough that you can be on the scene within a few seconds of someone getting ambushed, for free? Under the right conditions, absolutely.
You have to remember Zim I fight wars in hisec. Camping is a part of the job. Its why I want local gone. I'd still have to camp but i'd have at least a reasonable chance of having it pay off. I'll succed regardless as I have been but its mind numbing at the moment the work involved in getting a specific individual. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
220
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:56:00 -
[569] - Quote
Zim you're hunting for a contradiction that isn't going to come. As I stated before its directly relative to how much I care for the alliance and how much appreciation is shown for doing so. |
Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
18
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:59:00 -
[570] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Well Zim it's a game. I think 8 hours is a little much for one guy, you have to find a more feasible schedule. Okay, let's pretend you're a normal person and you have 1 hour of time, pr day, which you can spend in EVE. Would you dedicate that hour to probably doing absolutely nothing, but you still have to be alert enough that you can be on the scene within a few seconds of someone getting ambushed, for free? Under the right conditions, absolutely. Okay, so you're a samaritan. How long would you keep this up?
I personally think this is getting to far off the fact that we are just playing a game.
The only people that should be 'required" to do stuff like that, should be the people who want to. If you don't have enough people willing to, well then I would think your probably shouldn't be trying to hold space, or you could trying paying people.
Having the option for people to set up a corp with the intention of selling their service as a security force that a corp or alliance can contract to patrol their space would be better then any solution that would make that nonviable. |
|
Elena Melkan
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
18
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:59:00 -
[571] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Frying Doom wrote:alot of stuff I appreciate your view but it will create an imbalance in risk versus reward that will lead to overcompensating rewards in nullsec. Local has to be removed across the board. Second, local has a dulling effect on pvp. It makes it suck. It makes many skills largely useless and at minimum boring. Many people in hisec pvp and fixing or rather removing the tedium of camping due to local is not a benefit that should be given to just one subset of pvpers. My primary reasons for null sec only are based on the fact that Null sec is lawless space and it makes no sense that local would exist there. Also no local in Null is part of a package of alterations I believe should occur to Null as it is very stagnant and boring at this point and a large part of the pvp is gate camping with little to no risk to the campers. But nullsec is not lawless, actually! It's just player controlled. Alliances that hold the sovereignty set the rules and guard the space (best way they can, of course, nothing in null is completely safe). As EVE claims to be a sandbox, and as we talk about butterfly effect, a AI-controlled Empire space should not be praised over player controlled space. |
Lord Zim
722
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 14:00:00 -
[572] - Quote
I'm not hunting for a contradiction, I'm making a point. You have 1 hour with which to spend your eve-time, and the carebears must be protected, and it has to be something which is done every day and every hour the carebears are active. If that doesn't happen, they leave. Now, how long would you keep spending your 1 hour daily in eve, protecting these carebears, for free? |
Frying Doom
201
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 14:03:00 -
[573] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:I'm not hunting for a contradiction, I'm making a point. You have 1 hour with which to spend your eve-time, and the carebears must be protected, and it has to be something which is done every day and every hour the carebears are active. If that doesn't happen, they leave. Now, how long would you keep spending your 1 hour daily in eve, protecting these carebears, for free? loosing 1/7th or 1/14 of your time for your alliance doesn't sound to bad to me at all, depending on the number of members you have. Working towards building up your alliance is kind of par for the course. If you can't help your alliance why would you be in one? Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
541
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 14:08:00 -
[574] - Quote
This is one of these topics CCP should just poll among all voters (after informing them properly ofcourse)
Even as a '03 vet II totally agree on removing all local though. Over the years EVE has become a much safer place, especially in null where it's supposed to be dangerous. Removing local would fix this a lot, and it would also do something about the NAP-infested stagnation (pilots need to stay closer at home to keep it safe, and thus alliances have to pick more fights with direct neighbors to counter boredom-rot)
Most nay-sayers just don't like to adapt to a new situation and ignore the fact that removing local benefits the prey almost as much as the hunter. Only it becomes much more dynamic and depends more on personal effort. Local is the lazy-mode of safety. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Frying Doom
201
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 14:10:00 -
[575] - Quote
Elena Melkan wrote: But nullsec is not lawless, actually! It's just player controlled. Alliances that hold the sovereignty set the rules and guard the space (best way they can, of course, nothing in null is completely safe). As EVE claims to be a sandbox, and as we talk about butterfly effect, a AI-controlled Empire space should not be praised over player controlled space.
Beyond the interior of the cluster lie the outer regions, lawless zones where the independent space captains of EVE, the capsuleers, contend with one another for supremacy.
http://www.eveonline.com/universe/the-world-of-eve/
without going into it to far it is provisional space being fought over by Alliances who's size is tiny by comparison to empires.
See https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=110157&find=unread for rest of argument. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
18
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 14:10:00 -
[576] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:I'm not hunting for a contradiction, I'm making a point. You have 1 hour with which to spend your eve-time, and the carebears must be protected, and it has to be something which is done every day and every hour the carebears are active. If that doesn't happen, they leave. Now, how long would you keep spending your 1 hour daily in eve, protecting these carebears, for free?
I think that's going to far to the extreme.
I'm one of those null space carebears, I'm not going to leave because goons don't patrol space well enough to keep me protected, nor do I ever expect or ask them to protect me. I only expec them not to do what they ask me not to do, don't ef me.
Not every system I have to go through at any given time is being watched, it's not really feasible for every system to be watched either. I'm in null space by choice, not by order; so I know there is that risk. I do my best to make sure to minimize that risk, and that usually starts by asking in sec. if my route is clear. If someone can verify my route that's awesome, if they can't then it's no big deal; I have a choice to make. I can take my chances, or I can wait until someone is able to verify it's clear, and I accept that may be 3 days from now.
The only reason a corp wants their space to be safe is to keep business running, and isk flowing. That has a direct impact on the non pvpers in the corp, but isn't done as a direct result of them being in the corp. |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
541
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 14:13:00 -
[577] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:I'm not hunting for a contradiction, I'm making a point. You have 1 hour with which to spend your eve-time, and the carebears must be protected, and it has to be something which is done every day and every hour the carebears are active. If that doesn't happen, they leave. Now, how long would you keep spending your 1 hour daily in eve, protecting these carebears, for free?
Perhaps such casual players don't belong in null? And since homeland security is important for null-alliances, perhaps a alliance that wants to survive in null, should pay players to run occasional shifts as boring security guards? And they don't have enough pilots to do so, perhaps they shouldn't claim so much space? Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Lucy Ferrr
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
32
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 14:16:00 -
[578] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote: Over the years EVE has become a much safer place, especially in null where it's supposed to be dangerous. Removing local would fix this a lot, and it would also do something about the NAP-infested stagnation (pilots need to stay closer at home to keep it safe, and thus alliances have to pick more fights with direct neighbors to counter boredom-rot)
First and foremost I would like to say I support the removal of local. Maybe add some type of intel tool in it's place so you don't get insta ganked any time you try and rat or something, but total removal would be better than the perfect intel-local we have now.
With that being said I think the NAP-infested stagnation stems from another problem besides local, jump mechanics. It is way too easy for an alliance to hold and defend assets all over Eve. CFC can get a 100+ man fleet anywhere in Eve in under 5min. It is far too easy for major alliances to cherry pick all the good moons because they are so easy to defend. Location has zero relevance in Eve, defending a moon that is 60 jumps away from home is not much harder than one that is 2 jumps away, broken game mechanics. |
Lord Zim
723
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 14:19:00 -
[579] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:Perhaps such casual players don't belong in null? With the changes Caliph proposes, I agree. They'd be much better off just doing their thing in hisec instead.
Tobiaz wrote:And since homeland security is important for null-alliances, perhaps a alliance that belongs in null, should pay players to run occasional shifts as boring security guards. I mentioned 40m/hour as a wage, but Caliph balked at that price and claimed he'd do it for free. I'm just wondering how long he'd spend his 1 hour pr day for free being a security guard.
Lucy Ferrr wrote:CFC can get a 100+ man fleet anywhere in Eve in under 5min. You might want to check those numbers a bit, dear. |
Lucy Ferrr
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
33
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 14:23:00 -
[580] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Lucy Ferrr wrote:CFC can get a 100+ man fleet anywhere in Eve in under 5min. You might want to check those numbers a bit, dear.
Did I forget a zero? 1000+man fleet? |
|
Lord Zim
723
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 14:25:00 -
[581] - Quote
Lucy Ferrr wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Lucy Ferrr wrote:CFC can get a 100+ man fleet anywhere in Eve in under 5min. You might want to check those numbers a bit, dear. Did I forget a zero? 1000+man fleet? That'd spend 10 minutes just jumping into the next system, let alone 60+.
Actually, scratch that, it'd spend 10 minutes in warp from the station to the outgate, and then it'd spend another 10 minutes switching solar system. |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
542
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 14:29:00 -
[582] - Quote
Lucy Ferrr wrote:Tobiaz wrote: Over the years EVE has become a much safer place, especially in null where it's supposed to be dangerous. Removing local would fix this a lot, and it would also do something about the NAP-infested stagnation (pilots need to stay closer at home to keep it safe, and thus alliances have to pick more fights with direct neighbors to counter boredom-rot)
First and foremost I would like to say I support the removal of local. Maybe add some type of intel tool in it's place so you don't get insta ganked any time you try and rat or something, but total removal would be better than the perfect intel-local we have now. With that being said I think the NAP-infested stagnation stems from another problem besides local, jump mechanics. It is way too easy for an alliance to hold and defend assets all over Eve. CFC can get a 100+ man fleet anywhere in Eve in under 5min. It is far too easy for major alliances to cherry pick all the good moons because they are so easy to defend. Location has zero relevance in Eve, defending a moon that is 60 jumps away from home is not much harder than one that is 2 jumps away, broken game mechanics.
I absolutely agree on the jump mechanics being the biggest cause of NAP-fest. Especially the low cost of them is what causes the biggest problem with excessive power-projection, fighting the neighbors of neighbors or messing with low-sec for lulz.
But the ability to guarantee absolute safety in your hinterlands acts as another incentive for creating massive power-blocs, taking in loads of semi-competent null-bears (like some in this thread) that are just riding along to suckle the zero-risk null-teet. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Lord Zim
723
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 14:33:00 -
[583] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:I absolutely agree on the jump mechanics being the biggest cause of NAP-fest. Especially the low cost of them is what causes the biggest problem with excessive power-projection, fighting the neighbors of neighbors or messing with low-sec for lulz. Combine a sov revamp so you can lose an undefended system in, say, 2 days, with a removal of jump drives or a hefty reduction in the distance of both jumpdrives and titan bridges, and I'm pretty certain you'd see some hilarious wars break out. |
Bootleg Jack
Potters Field
102
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 14:35:00 -
[584] - Quote
Cant get rid of local, the null bears are too afraid.
I'm an American, English is my second language... |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
933
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 14:36:00 -
[585] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Tobiaz wrote:I absolutely agree on the jump mechanics being the biggest cause of NAP-fest. Especially the low cost of them is what causes the biggest problem with excessive power-projection, fighting the neighbors of neighbors or messing with low-sec for lulz. Combine a sov revamp so you can lose an undefended system in, say, 2 days, with a removal of jump drives or a hefty reduction in the distance of both jumpdrives and titan bridges, and I'm pretty certain you'd see some hilarious wars break out. Yeah. We could wipe out regions in even less than a week Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
933
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 14:39:00 -
[586] - Quote
Lucy Ferrr wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Lucy Ferrr wrote:CFC can get a 100+ man fleet anywhere in Eve in under 5min. You might want to check those numbers a bit, dear. Did I forget a zero? 1000+man fleet? No, it takes a bit to get 4 fleets out, just because of TiDi. The game doesn't like seeing 500 maels and 500 drakes undock from VFK at once.
But anywhere in EVE isn't really going to happen regardless because it's unlikely to have the titans all in place to JB everyone. And moving a titan into red space to bridge to the other side of it is sort of silly.
Sure, you can use a supercapital fleet and bridge everyone over then jump it, but that's sort of silly. Without a POS in the area, just using a single titan is asking for it to get hotdropped. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
542
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 14:47:00 -
[587] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Tobiaz wrote:I absolutely agree on the jump mechanics being the biggest cause of NAP-fest. Especially the low cost of them is what causes the biggest problem with excessive power-projection, fighting the neighbors of neighbors or messing with low-sec for lulz. Combine a sov revamp so you can lose an undefended system in, say, 2 days, with a removal of jump drives or a hefty reduction in the distance of both jumpdrives and titan bridges, and I'm pretty certain you'd see some hilarious wars break out. Yeah. We could wipe out regions in even less than a week
And someone else could wipe out yours if you overextend.
Anyway I don't think nerfing jump&bridge mechanics into uselessness is good. Just massively increase their cost to the point where it becomes hours of work for an individual to pay for a single jump (and even more for supercaps). This means using capitals for static defense costs little and using them on alliance-level to conquer a moon or an outpost would be economically viable investment.
But simply using them to hotdrop targets of opportunity, defending an overextended amount of moons, or fighting alliances on the other side of the map, would bankrupt an alliance, no matter how much Tech it's got. Don't forget: it also becomes a logistical problem if you can't simply continue to jump in cheap ice from empire.
Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
933
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 15:10:00 -
[588] - Quote
Sounds like fun.
Let's do it. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd |
Dragon Outlaw
Rogue Fleet
90
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 15:12:00 -
[589] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Sounds like fun.
Let's do it.
You gona talk to Soundwave? |
Lord Zim
724
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 15:20:00 -
[590] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:And someone else could wipe out yours if you overextend. Voila, actual risk in nullsec.
Tobiaz wrote:Anyway I don't think nerfing jump&bridge mechanics into uselessness is good. Just massively increase their cost to the point where it becomes hours of work for an individual to pay for a single jump (and even more for supercaps). This means using capitals for static defense costs little and using them on alliance-level to conquer a moon or an outpost would be economically viable investment. Balancing anything squarely on cost will not work. All you'll see happen is that the guys who already have titans will be much harder to actually get out of their space, because it'll cost so much to attack that position that EVE'd be even more stagnant than it is now.
Tobiaz wrote:Don't forget: it also becomes a logistical problem if you can't simply continue to jump in cheap ice from empire. I've no problems with increasing the difference in range between combat ships and noncombat ships. |
|
Malice Redeemer
Redeemer Group Joint Venture Conglomerate
114
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 15:55:00 -
[591] - Quote
Grow some extremely durable genitalia |
Ban Bindy
Bindy Brothers Pottery Association
158
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 16:53:00 -
[592] - Quote
GÇ£Why do people say "grow some balls"? Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding.GÇ¥ GÇò Betty White |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
442
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 16:58:00 -
[593] - Quote
More coming later, only up to page 18 of this whine fest....
Caliph Muhammed wrote:None of which matter to the point. Nothing your presenting has any bearing on local being the one feature in EVE that contradicts and makes the whole game a campfest. Static, predictable routes, static predictable un-docks, static predictable pve content, and to a lesser degree, local. Delayed local only works in WH's because there, the PVE content is always dynamic, there are *no* predictable ways in and out, and "gate camp" bookmarks only work while *that* wormhole is alive... Not to mention there are no "tactical bookmarks" no "sniper bookmarks" all the things that come with static travel lanes.
As has been pointed out (and you have failed to make *any* cogent argument against) making low-sec/null-sec more dependent on alts for intell, and increasing the risk & effort will only serve to drive more people out of those spaces.
Caliph Muhammed wrote:It makes nonconsentual targeted pvp an impossibility. **** the victim. It makes EVE suck. Having a mechanism that completely removes stealth and scouting from the game, suprise attacks and endless other often hyped features isnt balance. Its ******* weak.
Non-consensual * at least spell it right...
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Suicide ganking makes hi-secmining an impossibility. **** the attackers! It makes EVE suck. Having a mechanism that completely removes defense fleets and tanking from the game, ability to hide and endless other often hyped features isnt balance. Its ******* weak. Your well thought out and reasoned answer sounds as lame assed as a motivation as all the people screaming about Hulkageddon/suicide ganking...
Selinate wrote:No it doesn't. Roaming gangs and pirates have to find the miners/plexers/etc. just as well as the miners/plexers/etc. have to be on active lookout for the gangs and such.
FFS this is how it happens in wormholes and it really just does not give the "aggressor" an advantage at all... FFS - WH's only work with delayed local because there aren't *static* anything except moons/planets and the sun - if you have static structures, pve content and routes, removing local adds *nothing* and removes incentive from even more people to try 0.0 or low-sec. FFS - only 5.4% of the population in Eve lives there... pretty good indication of how many people like the "no local" thing...
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
544
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 19:52:00 -
[594] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: Balancing anything squarely on cost will not work. All you'll see happen is that the guys who already have titans will be much harder to actually get out of their space, because it'll cost so much to attack that position that EVE'd be even more stagnant than it is now.
If you make it expensive enough, it WILL work. Besides that, ice also means mining it and hauling (which also becomes more expensive). You can't solve both by simply throwing more ISK at it.
And yes alliances already having a lot of capital ships are at an advantage, but is that so bad? In the end a bigger number of active players can still beat anything. Don't forget: a big jump&bridge fuel increase will shatter all big null-coalitions, because they'll have to find fights closer to home and stay closer to home to defend it as well.
In a way it's sad the drone regions got nerfed so hard. They were excellent breeding grounds for capitals, while not being very desirable for anything else, thus breeding cap-heavy alliances eager for conquest. The dumping of cheap dronepoo-minerals in empire would have simply stopped if the JF consumed too much fuel to make it profitable. Too bad CCP didn't understand that.
Quote:Tobiaz wrote:Don't forget: it also becomes a logistical problem if you can't simply continue to jump in cheap ice from empire. I've no problems with increasing the difference in range between combat ships and noncombat ships. Jumpfreighters are causing possibly even more problems then combat ships. Null and empire shouldn't be joined at the hip logistically. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Mindseamstress
Jovian Labs Jovian Enterprises
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 20:31:00 -
[595] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Frying Doom wrote:alot of stuff I appreciate your view but it will create an imbalance in risk versus reward that will lead to overcompensating rewards in nullsec. Local has to be removed across the board. Second, local has a dulling effect on pvp. It makes it suck. It makes many skills largely useless and at minimum boring. Many people in hisec pvp and fixing or rather removing the tedium of camping due to local is not a benefit that should be given to just one subset of pvpers. My primary reasons for null sec only are based on the fact that Null sec is lawless space and it makes no sense that local would exist there. Also no local in Null is part of a package of alterations I believe should occur to Null as it is very stagnant and boring at this point and a large part of the pvp is gate camping with little to no risk to the campers. Removing local has no real effect on high sec law and order. It only affects war. One can die in a martyrdom operation in hisec with local as is because it can come from someone completely anonymous. Having no local wouldn't effect that one way or the other save for making the suicide ganker have to work to locate their target. I honestly wish the orthodox carebears could see how much less likely they would be to die to a suicide gank with local removed. They overestimate how well seeing someone in hisec local is protecting them and underestimate how not having their presence revealed in hisec local would shelter them.
I do fully support your proposal to remove local (local is a stupid idea in the first place), and yes it would make the game a lot more exciting and wars more meaningful, even for carebears such as myself (these days at least). I do suspect that CCP, given its current predicaments around screwed-up patches, might be reluctant to accept the risk this would pose to the retention of the player base (not to say it couldn't attract more players, but it's a bit of a punch in the dark). |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
486
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 20:33:00 -
[596] - Quote
Asuri Kinnes wrote:Static, predictable routes, static predictable un-docks, static predictable pve content, and to a lesser degree, local. Delayed local only works in WH's because there, the PVE content is always dynamic, there are *no* predictable ways in and out, and "gate camp" bookmarks only work while *that* wormhole is alive... Not to mention there are no "tactical bookmarks" no "sniper bookmarks" all the things that come with static travel lanes.
there's also the whole cyno thing eh |
General Freight
GIRLFRIEND SURF TEAM
35
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 21:30:00 -
[597] - Quote
Ban Bindy wrote:GÇ£Why do people say "grow some balls"? Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding.GÇ¥ GÇò Betty White
This. |
Lord Zim
726
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 22:02:00 -
[598] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:If you make it expensive enough, it WILL work. You know what happened the last time CCP said that? Supercarriers and titans happened.
No, if you absolutely want to fix "force projection", you don't fix it by making the it monstrously expensive to run, the way to fix it is to make it so the act of moving them from one place to the other takes time. Why? Because if there's one thing that's really limited in EVE, which doesn't unjustly impact f.ex alliances down south, it's time. Not ISK, time.
If something like this was actually implemented, then the act of moving your capital or supercapital fleet would be something you put more thought into than I believe you do today.
Tobiaz wrote:Jumpfreighters are causing possibly even more problems then combat ships. Null and empire shouldn't be joined at the hip logistically. The problems aren't just because of JFs, even though they help make it "worse". Nullsec doesn't have enough capacity for sustaining itself in any way, shape or form, and I wouldn't be surprised if some numbercruncher could come up with a nice long list of systems in hisec which actually outperforms Deklein as a region. I've also yet to see a station which can deal with copying, inventing, refining and manufacturing at the same time, which means that compared to empire, manufacturing is a ******* chore. And again, the main reason I'm getting **** imported isn't because it's cheaper, but because it means it's less work, less hassle and less time.
The only thing I can see happening when it comes to nerfing things like JFs without first buffing how industry works in nullsec, is that we'll see a return of ye olde freighter convoy ops for a while, followed by a drop in desirability of living in "deep null", or a degradation of equipment from today's T2/T3 ships and equipment, and more towards T1 ships and modules.
This, of course, doesn't take into account the effect no local would have on the cost of actually having an alliance trying to sustain itself out there, and I'm not sure if 40m/hour would suffice to get enough people to volunteer for guard duty day in and day out, or if you'd still see people saying "you know what? **** this, I'm going back to empire to do L4s instead".
And, what would wars be without proper logistics to sustain them? Or, actually, that point isn't so much a problem anymore, since people's morale keeps breaking well before any strain is put upon logistics, so vOv I guess. |
Frying Doom
201
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 23:38:00 -
[599] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Tobiaz wrote:I absolutely agree on the jump mechanics being the biggest cause of NAP-fest. Especially the low cost of them is what causes the biggest problem with excessive power-projection, fighting the neighbors of neighbors or messing with low-sec for lulz. Combine a sov revamp so you can lose an undefended system in, say, 2 days, with a removal of jump drives or a hefty reduction in the distance of both jumpdrives and titan bridges, and I'm pretty certain you'd see some hilarious wars break out. I will admit I agree with you there, some of the biggest problems are jump drives and the ease of moving forces to fighting spot battles on short notice. It should be harder to move troops around and goods for that matter via jump drive whether it be by cost which I am willing to fence sit on(this being due to my dislike of making things harder for small alliances but at the same time agreeing that large piles of cash have always made life easier for countries and corporations that have it) .
As to your other point on the lack of copying, researching manufacturing ect.. in Null Im sorry to say....I completely agree with you on this as well, null should be more self sufficient while still retaining goods required by empire.
The removal of local in Null would cause people to be more defensive of their own space and prevent massive over extension of areas as they would have to concentrate on Garrison work in defense of there space.
As I have previously said I have done overwatch on mining ops and that was in Hi-sec to deter gankers. Gankers and guerrilla raids would become more of an occurrence without local. Yes they would because only the most demented would sit stationary at a gate camp uncloaked and then bubblers would not be a problem for people moving through.
As so many have now agreed the removal of local in Null would be a step in the right direction. This is quite easily because Local actually makes things easier for for gate campers and pirate attacks, they require no work at all to see you are there. Maybe local should just be renamed "Crutch for the Lazy"
Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
22
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 00:52:00 -
[600] - Quote
The game already has an atomized no-local area; Wormholes.
Tyring to do that with nullsec would really just ruin it. I for one like the idea of space that can be taken and held by large player empires. Its cool that Eve provides space to do that.
Taking away local and nerfing jump drives turns player made empires into wilderness. Wilderness that's harder to control and pays less than the existing wilderness of wormholes.
Does Eve really need more wilderness? |
|
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
614
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 00:53:00 -
[601] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Get rid of local, all secs. It fixes almost everything. You would have to work to locate a target. You would have to work to avoid a target. There would be risk in high sec. There would be risk in all secs. Freighters could be caught during a war dec. Freighters could get through during a war dec. You would still have Concord retaliation in high sec. You could still be camped, though if you break the camp it would be harder to hunt you down. Certainly no worse that what we have now but with compelling gameplay. It would solve cloaky camps people complain about. It would give a point to cloaks of which people complain about. It would make neutral alts almost irrelevant. Though not 100%. It would certainly make playing with one account a lot less of a disadvantage. Sure you might lose a few alt account subs, but you would gain many more subs by having more compelling gameplay. What good is a scout profession when they're revealed as soon as they enter system? The changes the expansion are bringing aren't going to revitalize low sec or null sec and its certainly not going to promote or fuel war. Quite the opposite. The devs and the playerbase talk a lot about EVE being hardcore, but as of yet i'm not really seeing the hardcore aspect to the game. The game is a boring campfest. Removing local removes that to a large degree. To my ultra Orthodox carebear players, uncle Caliphy isn't throwing you under the bus. The threats you worry about occuring with this change would actually be resolvable by a merc corporation. If you are decced and you hire a merc the merc cannot sneak up on the enemy with everything displayed for them. They may be able to make your tormentors life a little more difficult but in most cases can't force a fight under those conditions. With no local they could. If you are camped by a griefdec and you hire a reasonably sized merc to help you the griefer will never see them coming. It's win/win. Even null entry points would be camped far less. Lets see the thirty man bubble camp consistently do it when a 150 man roaming gang warps in on them and they never see it coming. Local is holding EVE back. Period. Get rid of it and let EVE become great. The dissenters video responseI was impressed by the conciseness conveyed.
Yes. And it would also give us more screen-space to work with! \o/
shiptoastin' liek a baws |
Frying Doom
202
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 01:10:00 -
[602] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:The game already has an atomized no-local area; Wormholes.
Tyring to do that with nullsec would really just ruin it. I for one like the idea of space that can be taken and held by large player empires. Its cool that Eve provides space to do that.
Taking away local and nerfing jump drives turns player made empires into wilderness. Wilderness that's harder to control and pays less than the existing wilderness of wormholes.
Does Eve really need more wilderness? Well yes but worm holes are alot more than just Null without local.
Richard Desturned wrote:Signal11th wrote:No local seems to work in WH based on the amount of "You want to remove local theres a place it already works...." replies people give so why shouldn't it work in 0.0??? There are very fundamental differences in the way one operates in wormholes and the way one operates in nullsec. Traveling to a particular w-space system requires you to find a wormhole to begin with. Traveling to a particular nullsec system only involves setting a destination. You also can't take an unlimited number of ships through a wormhole, you can't use jump drives in wormholes, you can't simply cloak up, scan and warp to a 100% signature like you would a 0.0 anomaly. Living in a wormhole is much more dependent on probing, and probes can be detected on dscan. These are not minor, insignificant differences - instant k-space style local in wormholes would be overpowered considering the amount of effort required to travel into and within a w-space system. Wormhole style local in 0.0 would make bombers and other cloaky ships far overpowered, on the other hand.
I have no problem with players being able to take and hold space but that is the key, making them use the space and actively defend it rather than just plopping up a structure in a system and paying for it but not really doing much in the system.
Removing local with all the other changes I propose will make it harder for Alliances to over extend there space while at the same time giving small alliances the ability to get a foothold in.
Removing local in Null its self will cause more guerrilla tactics and less gate camping and the like because who would sit stationary at a fixed point if you don't know what is coming or you don't have sufficient support.
Empire should have local. The empires can afford it. Alliances don't have access to all technology (Skill book creation, BPO creation ect..) So I would argue the technology for local would also be out of there grasp.
Null is Lawless space with player corporations fighting for supremacy but all it has become is boring. Wormholes are the least populated space per system followed by Null. Lo-sec has a higher population per system that Null.
Null is broken and needs fixing. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
445
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 01:14:00 -
[603] - Quote
I've now read the entire thread:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
1. Get rid of local, all secs. It fixes almost everything.
2. You would have to work to locate a target. You would have to work to avoid a target.
3. There would be risk in high sec. There would be risk in all secs.
4. Freighters could be caught during a war dec. Freighters could get through during a war dec.
5. You would still have Concord retaliation in high sec.
6. You could still be camped, though if you break the camp it would be harder to hunt you down. Certainly no worse that what we have now but with compelling gameplay.
7. It would solve cloaky camps people complain about. It would give a point to cloaks of which people complain about.
8. It would make neutral alts almost irrelevant. Though not 100%.
9. It would certainly make playing with one account a lot less of a disadvantage.
10. Sure you might lose a few alt account subs, but you would gain many more subs by having more compelling gameplay.
11. What good is a scout profession when they're revealed as soon as they enter system?
12. The changes the expansion are bringing aren't going to revitalize low sec or null sec and its certainly not going to promote or fuel war. Quite the opposite.
13. The devs and the playerbase talk a lot about EVE being hardcore, but as of yet i'm not really seeing the hardcore aspect to the game. The game is a boring campfest. Removing local removes that to a large degree.
14. To my ultra Orthodox carebear players, uncle Caliphy isn't throwing you under the bus. The threats you worry about occuring with this change would actually be resolvable by a merc corporation. If you are decced and you hire a merc the merc cannot sneak up on the enemy with everything displayed for them. They may be able to make your tormentors life a little more difficult but in most cases can't force a fight under those conditions. With no local they could. If you are camped by a griefdec and you hire a reasonably sized merc to help you the griefer will never see them coming. It's win/win.
15. Even null entry points would be camped far less. Lets see the thirty man bubble camp consistently do it when a
150 man roaming gang warps in on them and they never see it coming.
16. Local is holding EVE back. Period. Get rid of it and let EVE become great.
1. Opinion unsubstantiated by any supporting evidence (other than the OPs personal observation).
2. Locator agents, available to all (and adding your enemies/targets to your friends list makes knowing *when* to look for them perfect intell - same as now).
3. There is already risk in High Sec, there is risk in all sec space. Check the killboards (but you already know this). CCP tweeted (I think it was a tweet) numbers of ship blown up. Ships blow up everywhere. Again, opinion presented as fact.
4. Freighters can already be caught, ffs OP's own killboard shows this: http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=16184208
5. Concord is irrelevant to the question of "Local".
6. What compelling gameplay? Having a cloaked alt observe the undock of whatever station your enemy is in when your locator agent finds them? That's compelling? Or following people through gates your cloaky alt shows you they're headed to is "harder to hunt them down" & "compelling gameplay"? Explain (specifically) just *what* compelling game play you're talking about please...
7. The problem of cloaky camps is that they serve as cyno portals, not (just) the fact that they are there. Cloaks have uses (a point) and sometimes griefing people is a valid use (Cloaks work just fine for us in WH's).
8. The change would, in fact, make neutral alts dam near a requirement for just about all travel in game. It would also necessitate alts for gate watching a requirement (if you don't believe me, ask people who live full time outside of hi-sec) a percentage of the population you just seem to dismiss when in fact they are *just* as important to Eve-Online as you.
9. It would actually increase the disadvantage, because having scouts available means either losing another pilot from your fleet (for those without alts) or someone having to dual box to replace them (decreasing their effectivness at other jobs in the fleet) {i.e. - "alt"}
10. Overall, they would probably *gain* account subs (alts for EVERYONE) but again, what "compelling gameplay" are you talking about?
11. I dunno, why don't you ask corps who use them, I would suggest Noir Mercenary Group, Agony Unleashed, RvB or *anyone else*...
12. I don't believe "revitalizing low/null" was the point of this expansion, but I could be wrong. Also, "promoting or fueling war" will have to be shown with time. I suspect that you're correct here, but so far (without evidence pro or con) it's just your opinion.
13. Observation and opinion presented as fact, when in fact, quite a few people disagree with you, and do believe that Eve is plenty hard to learn, and plenty hard to be good at. Even if "people" disagree with you or not, it is still *just* your opinion, not a fact (as you stated).
14. I always support people hiring mercs. However, increasing risk/cost to carebears without any significant benefit to them will not go over well. Remember, the carebear population *is* just as important (to a point) as anyone else in game. Each individual player is just as important as any other player (yes, even you).
15. Alt eyes on the (static, unmovable) entry points to (every gate) in the system - again, promoting more neutral alt-accounts) would totally *not* detect those roaming gangs... nope, nothing to see here... Static routes > local chat.
16. This is your opinion stated as fact. You may (in fact) be wrong. Many people already believe Eve is great
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
22
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 01:31:00 -
[604] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote: I have no problem with players being able to take and hold space but that is the key, making them use the space and actively defend it rather than just plopping up a structure in a system and paying for it but not really doing much in the system.
A lot of systems really have nothing in them worth doing. Few belts, few anoms, no rare materials. Some of the systems you think are empty might actually have some strategic importance, and we would rather you think they are empty and unused so that you don't go poking around in them.
Quote: Removing local with all the other changes I propose will make it harder for Alliances to over extend there space while at the same time giving small alliances the ability to get a foothold in.
How so? Small groups will still be at a disadvantage, and now they will have no clue when a large fleet from an established nullsec alliance drops on them, or where it went after blapping them.
Quote: Removing local in Null its self will cause more guerrilla tactics and less gate camping and the like because who would sit stationary at a fixed point if you don't know what is coming or you don't have sufficient support.
It would be a big buff to guerrilla tactics, and wouldn't do much to gate camps because gates are too big a choke point not to camp. Besides, campers would just have to fit a cloak, and then they could just be completely invulnerable and no one would know if they are just waiting or have left.
Quote: Empire should have local. The empires can afford it. Alliances don't have access to all technology (Skill book creation, BPO creation ect..) So I would argue the technology for local would also be out of there grasp.
Null is Lawless space with player corporations fighting for supremacy but all it has become is boring. Wormholes are the least populated space per system followed by Null. Lo-sec has a higher population per system that Null.
Null is broken and needs fixing.
So your solution is to take aspects from the least populated area of Eve, and put them in the second least populated area, to boost population?
If you can't find anything fun to do in null, then go to low or w-space. |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
445
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 01:36:00 -
[605] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Asuri Kinnes wrote:Static, predictable routes, static predictable un-docks, static predictable pve content, and to a lesser degree, local. Delayed local only works in WH's because there, the PVE content is always dynamic, there are *no* predictable ways in and out, and "gate camp" bookmarks only work while *that* wormhole is alive... Not to mention there are no "tactical bookmarks" no "sniper bookmarks" all the things that come with static travel lanes. there's also the whole cyno thing Didn't mean to gloss that over, for sure!
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
Frying Doom
202
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 02:23:00 -
[606] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:A lot of systems really have nothing in them worth doing. Few belts, few anoms, no rare materials. Some of the systems you think are empty might actually have some strategic importance, and we would rather you think they are empty and unused so that you don't go poking around in them. So your agreeing with my points from the other post https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1377678#post1377678 That sovereignty systems should require activity in order to hold on to the system, allowing smaller alliances to move into the useless systems..
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:How so? Small groups will still be at a disadvantage, and now they will have no clue when a large fleet from an established nullsec alliance drops on them, or where it went after blapping them. Please see https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1377678#post1377678
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:It would be a big buff to guerrilla tactics, and wouldn't do much to gate camps because gates are too big a choke point not to camp. Besides, campers would just have to fit a cloak, and then they could just be completely invulnerable and no one would know if they are just waiting or have left. People might still camp them but they would be alot easier targets to counter attack and if they are cloaked bubbles are less of a problem as they could not use bubblers.
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:So your solution is to take aspects from the least populated area of Eve, and put them in the second least populated area, to boost population? Wormholes are not just empty because of not having a local channel as has been stated repeatedly there is alot more involved to moving to a wormhole than just loosing local. That argument is like saying that Jita should be moved to a wormhole because local is useless there. Its just rubbish.
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:If you can't find anything fun to do in null, then go to low or w-space. Oh I did.
Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
499
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 02:44:00 -
[607] - Quote
There's already a whole 2,500 0.0 systems with delayed local where jump drives do not work. eh |
Frying Doom
202
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 02:55:00 -
[608] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:There's already a whole 2,500 0.0 systems with delayed local where jump drives do not work. So why haven't you claimed sov in them yet? Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Lord Zim
728
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 07:56:00 -
[609] - Quote
I love how you take a statement of fact (there are systems which have a strategic importance, even if they aren't used), and go off on a tangent with "so you agree with $completely_unrelated_topic, then?"
Yeah, see, the problem I have with those suggestions is that they're the wrong bandaid for the job you're trying to achieve, for the most part.
Capital systems and sov costing less as the distance from the capital system increases will just lead to either rich fucks like us keeping on keeping on, or we'll end up with GSF1 GSF2 GSF3 to cover the exact same space. And, again, balancing anything on cost doesn't work, the only thing that actually works to balance things in a game such as EVE is resources which are actually finite, such as time and effort put into it by normal humans, which means that the whole "cost of operating capital and super capital ships would increase or decrease based on ddistance from capital system" won't really work, and it's an illogical and arbitrary mechanic. Ask yourself this question: what would this do to an attacker with absolutely no sov?
Frying Doom wrote:Wormholes are not just empty because of not having a local channel as has been stated repeatedly there is alot more involved to moving to a wormhole than just loosing local. And no local works in WHs because very little in a WH is actually static and must actually be probed down instead of just scanned down using the built-in scanner, and the rewards are scaled accordingly.
So I guess you're in agreement that nullsec should have its rewards tripled.
Frying Doom wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:There's already a whole 2,500 0.0 systems with delayed local where jump drives do not work. So why haven't you claimed sov in them yet? Obviously because we can't use our JFs in there. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
518
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 08:00:00 -
[610] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:There's already a whole 2,500 0.0 systems with delayed local where jump drives do not work. So why haven't you claimed sov in them yet?
You can't online TCUs in those systems. eh |
|
Frying Doom
203
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 08:49:00 -
[611] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:There's already a whole 2,500 0.0 systems with delayed local where jump drives do not work. So why haven't you claimed sov in them yet? You can't online TCUs in those systems. Thanks for the quote it was exactly what I was looking for. Sorry I'm just getting sick to death of people like Shepard Wong Ogeko saying Wormholes are just Null without local.
It not just wrong to say it is just SO WRONG. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
522
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 08:53:00 -
[612] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Sorry I'm just getting sick to death of people like Shepard Wong Ogeko saying Wormholes are just Null without local.
Nobody is saying that, they're saying that people who want to play without local should play in wormholes and accept the intrinsic challenges of living there, challenges completely different to the challenges in other parts of the game. eh |
Frying Doom
203
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 09:05:00 -
[613] - Quote
Oh God.
Lord Zim wrote: I love how you take a statement of fact (there are systems which have a strategic importance, even if they aren't used), and go off on a tangent with "so you agree with $completely_unrelated_topic, then?"
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote: A lot of systems really have nothing in them worth doing. Few belts, few anoms, no rare materials. Some of the systems you think are empty might actually have some strategic importance, and we would rather you think they are empty and unused so that you don't go poking around in them.
Hardly a statement as you are implying that ALL the systems in sovereignty are of strategic importance. I was commenting on a point I made in the other post about how large alliances are swallowing up Null for no reason other than to stop others.
Lord Zim wrote: Yeah, see, the problem I have with those suggestions is that they're the wrong bandaid for the job you're trying to achieve, for the most part.
Capital systems and sov costing less as the distance from the capital system increases will just lead to either rich fucks like us keeping on keeping on, or we'll end up with GSF1 GSF2 GSF3 to cover the exact same space. And, again, balancing anything on cost doesn't work, the only thing that actually works to balance things in a game such as EVE is resources which are actually finite, such as time and effort put into it by normal humans, which means that the whole "cost of operating capital and super capital ships would increase or decrease based on ddistance from capital system" won't really work, and it's an illogical and arbitrary mechanic. Ask yourself this question: what would this do to an attacker with absolutely no sov?
Please re-read as it says -Maintenance fees on upgraded systems that the Alliance claims (after selecting their Capital System) will be based on distance (in light years) from the Capital System, the greater the distance in light years between the Capital System and upgraded systems, the greater the cost per month not the opposite. As for GSF1 GSF2 simple I would disband you for using an obvious exploit.
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:There's already a whole 2,500 0.0 systems with delayed local where jump drives do not work. So why haven't you claimed sov in them yet? Obviously because we can't use our JFs in there. No because you can't in wormhole space showing the sum total of your knowledge of wormholes. They are not Null without local and they are empty for completely different reasons. Saying Null without local is the same as wormholes is like saying Null and Hi-sec are the same at because they both have a local channel, Its a crap analogy. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Lord Zim
728
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 09:22:00 -
[614] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Hardly a statement as you are implying that ALL the systems in sovereignty are of strategic importance. I was commenting on a point I made in the other post about how large alliances are swallowing up Null for no reason other than to stop others. Some systems are taken because they're valuable to use, some are taken because of their strategic importance. This is basic strategic thinking. vOv
Frying Doom wrote:Please re-read as it says -Maintenance fees on upgraded systems that the Alliance claims (after selecting their Capital System) will be based on distance (in light years) from the Capital System, the greater the distance in light years between the Capital System and upgraded systems, the greater the cost per month not the opposite. So, keep supers and capitals in a different corp/alliance with no SOV, because that circumvents the "distance from capital system" cost increase? Okay then.
Frying Doom wrote:As for GSF1 GSF2 simple I would disband you for using an obvious exploit. No, actually, you won't.
Frying Doom wrote:No because you can't in wormhole space showing the sum total of your knowledge of wormholes. They are not Null without local and they are empty for completely different reasons. Saying Null without local is the same as wormholes is like saying Null and Hi-sec are the same at because they both have a local channel, Its a crap analogy. If you scream, then we can hear when you hit the bottom of the sarchasm you just fell down. |
Frying Doom
203
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 09:37:00 -
[615] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Hardly a statement as you are implying that ALL the systems in sovereignty are of strategic importance. I was commenting on a point I made in the other post about how large alliances are swallowing up Null for no reason other than to stop others. Some systems are taken because they're valuable to use, some are taken because of their strategic importance. This is basic strategic thinking. vOv Frying Doom wrote:Please re-read as it says -Maintenance fees on upgraded systems that the Alliance claims (after selecting their Capital System) will be based on distance (in light years) from the Capital System, the greater the distance in light years between the Capital System and upgraded systems, the greater the cost per month not the opposite. So, keep supers and capitals in a different corp/alliance with no SOV, because that circumvents the "distance from capital system" cost increase? Okay then. Frying Doom wrote:As for GSF1 GSF2 simple I would disband you for using an obvious exploit. No, actually, you won't. Frying Doom wrote:No because you can't in wormhole space showing the sum total of your knowledge of wormholes. They are not Null without local and they are empty for completely different reasons. Saying Null without local is the same as wormholes is like saying Null and Hi-sec are the same at because they both have a local channel, Its a crap analogy. If you scream, then we can hear when you hit the bottom of the sarchasm you just fell into.
Oh God... Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Lord Zim
728
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 09:52:00 -
[616] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:The only bit I will answer is I forgot to add "if I was CCP", the rest of this verbal garbage isn't worth the effort. Strangely repeating the same thing over and over and over and over is getting weary at this point. So I will nick out have whats left of my brains be smashed out with a hammer then I can come back and discuss things on your level. You're the one that wanted to link captial and supercapital costs to the distance between a capital system and its source/destination. How would your idea impact non-sov holders? |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
102
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 10:32:00 -
[617] - Quote
this thread and ideas suck
have a cookie! |
Frying Doom
206
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 11:09:00 -
[618] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:The only bit I will answer is I forgot to add "if I was CCP", the rest of this verbal garbage isn't worth the effort. Strangely repeating the same thing over and over and over and over is getting weary at this point. So I will nick out have whats left of my brains be smashed out with a hammer then I can come back and discuss things on your level. You're the one that wanted to link captial and supercapital costs to the distance between a capital system and its source/destination. How would your idea impact non-sov holders? The capital & fort ideas are specific to Sov holders, so it would have as much effect on them as the current sov system does....None at all. Unless you mean if they want to claim sov and as I have said before having to defend your own territory locally would discourage overextension. So it would mean they could actually get some sov space.
Anyway this thread is about the removal of local, the rest of my proposal is in Jita Park speakers corner and I dislike running someone elses thread off the rails.
So to re-iterate this is about removing local. See post 1.
I believe the removal of local from Null only would cure that sector of alot of its woes and prevent alliances from just having a land grab. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Jake Warbird
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1229
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 11:19:00 -
[619] - Quote
But... Well... What I mean to... **** this, I need a drink... |
Lord Zim
728
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 11:37:00 -
[620] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:The capital & fort ideas are specific to Sov holders, so it would have as much effect on them as the current sov system does....None at all. Unless you mean if they want to claim sov and as I have said before having to defend your own territory locally would discourage overextension. So it would mean they could actually get some sov space. So, in other words, keep the cap fleet in a neutral alliance to keep the costs down. vOv |
|
Frying Doom
207
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 11:55:00 -
[621] - Quote
Reply is to be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=110157 As it is not about No local. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Lord Zim
728
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 11:59:00 -
[622] - Quote
Probably the first smart thing you've said in a while, even if the way your suggestion to "hinder sovereignty sprawl" is based on the worst balancing item in the eve universe (isk), and is so hilariously easy to game/has huge downsides/drawbacks it's not even funny.
Kind of like your and caliph's "remove local entirely" suggestions. |
Lustralis
Tiny Holdings
8
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 12:12:00 -
[623] - Quote
I like the WH model for a lot of things. I like that there are no belts, just gravs. I think there shouldn't be any ice or roid belts in Eve at all but that all resource things like that should be probed out - or in high sec scanned without a probe (so noobs can access the content).
I'm not sure about local. The trouble here is that the attacker ALWAYS knows where he can find players to gank - he knows where their stations are. So even if you remove static content like asteroid belts, you still have the problem of static content elsewhere. The attackers can move around, which kind-of sucks.
Then there's the social aspect of local. Like last night, I'm new to a 0.0 region and there's no way of introducing myself and letting the locals see who I am without scaring the ***** out of them by just flying up alongside and saying HI. Local is a kind-of social glue in many respects.
Just have constellation chat? Would it really make a huge difference?
I'm not convinced it should be removed... |
Frying Doom
207
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 12:15:00 -
[624] - Quote
Repost from Jita park, as Zim doesnt seem to like it there.
Lord Zim wrote:Probably the first smart thing you've said in a while, even if the way your suggestion to "hinder sovereignty sprawl" is based on the worst balancing item in the eve universe (isk), and is so hilariously easy to game/has huge downsides/drawbacks it's not even funny.
Kind of like your and caliph's "remove local entirely" suggestions. No the balance to the sprawl is having to actively defend your systems while actively using them. The idea of added cost for larger areas is not mine but I do support it when coupled with a Jump nerf it will make the null space provinces more provincial.
Lord Zim wrote:Kind of like your and caliph's "remove local entirely" suggestions. The idea is primarily his, mine is just part of the changes I think need to happen in Null. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Lord Zim
728
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 12:51:00 -
[625] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:The idea is primarily his, mine is just part of the changes I think need to happen in Null. I've shot large holes in his idea, and I've pointed out large holes (or hilariously exploitable holes) in your "package of changes". And I've pointed out alternatives which have much more of a sandbox feel to them, would make warfare in nullsec more fluid, and would naturally limit the amount of systems any given alliance/coalition could hold, and would make taking space in nullsec more easily accessible to smaller alliances than today's ****-tastic sov system. |
Dors Venabily
United Starbase Systems
19
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 12:55:00 -
[626] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Alara IonStorm wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote: It would solve cloaky camps people complain about. It would give a point to cloaks people complain about.
Uncloak aliegned, tap bomb, warp to safety. No time to get reinforcements on grid to help or even lock targets. Hurray for 100% Safe uncounterable attacks. This is pretty much how it works now, even with local.
This it is not relevant to local at all. |
Frying Doom
208
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 13:53:00 -
[627] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:The idea is primarily his, mine is just part of the changes I think need to happen in Null. I've shot large holes in his idea, and I've pointed out large holes (or hilariously exploitable holes) in your "package of changes". And I've pointed out alternatives which have much more of a sandbox feel to them, would make warfare in nullsec more fluid, and would naturally limit the amount of systems any given alliance/coalition could hold, and would make taking space in nullsec more easily accessible to smaller alliances than today's ****-tastic sov system. I find this strange use of the term "sandbox" hilarious "Sand Box" just means it all occurs in one environment that's it.
So if CCP changed the game tomorrow into a non pvp game where we all flew dragons, if this all occurred within the one environment (Realm, bank of servers what ever you want to call it.) it would still be in the sandbox. Thats not directly at you Zim the phrase is everywhere today.
I personally feel alot of your holes that you have poked in the no local are more opinions than wholes, but that is your view point and I have mine.
As to your points on the Null package, I think some of your ideas are actually quite good points and others like some of the ones I am supporting require more honing to get the right balance.
Unfortunately that's it from me tonight, down side when you live near the start of the world :) Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Lord Zim
728
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 14:36:00 -
[628] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:I find this strange use of the term "sandbox" hilarious "Sand Box" just means it all occurs in one environment that's it. That's not my interpretation of the term, my interpretation of the term is "a set of fairly loose rules which the players live by to govern a very, very deep ".
Frying Doom wrote:So if CCP changed the game tomorrow into a non pvp game where we all flew dragons, if this all occurred within the one environment (Realm, bank of servers what ever you want to call it.) it would still be in the sandbox. Thats not directly at you Zim the phrase is everywhere today. If you'd taken WoW, and made it into a single sharded universe/world, it still wouldn't be a sandbox. If you'd taken old MMOs like planetside or DAoC, they'd still not be sandboxes.
Frying Doom wrote:I personally feel alot of your holes that you have poked in the no local are more opinions than wholes, but that is your view point and I have mine. I've backed up my "opinions" with a fair bit of facts. vOv
Frying Doom wrote:As to your points on the Null package, I think some of your ideas are actually quite good points and others like some of the ones I am supporting require more honing to get the right balance. The main problem I have with your "castles and forts" idea is that it's not a loose set of rules, it's actually a fairly constricting set of rules, much like today's SOV system. Personally I think I'd prefer it if it was more descriptive than prescriptive (so there'd still be the urge to get your name on the map, but since it's more a case of "lawless space", it's easy come easy go), since it makes more sense and it'd probably end up creating a much more fluid map. And, that's where I believe the majority of risk should be.
Having said that, the main problem I have with the "just remove local" idea is that my idea of how risk should be distributed in nullsec is less on the individual level (although there should of course still be risk there. duh.), and more on the corp/alliance level. "No local" doesn't do squat to the corp/alliance level risk, but it dramatically increases the amount of work and risk the individuals have to do/put themselves in.
To be honest, I would've been surprised by the fact a majority of those who keep yelling "harden the **** up" aren't jumping all over these kinds of changes, if it hadn't been for the fact I keep getting the vibe that those who are for removing local, (especially when they're giving no alternatives as a replacement) are for removing it because it'll make their own lives as gankers easier. vOv |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
450
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 15:13:00 -
[629] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:To be honest, I would've been surprised by the fact a majority of those who keep yelling "harden the **** up" aren't jumping all over these kinds of changes, if it hadn't been for the fact I keep getting the vibe that those who are for removing local, (especially when they're giving no alternatives as a replacement) are for removing it because it'll make their own lives as gankers easier. vOv Say......... Aren't you that "Bat Country" guy??? Aren't bat country kinda like "gankers"???
Why are you arguing for something that might make ganking harder!?!
TRAITOR!
/shakes fist, /gets torch /gets pitchfork...
rabblerabblerabble!
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
Lharanai
Empyrean Guard IMPERIAL LEGI0N
160
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 16:19:00 -
[630] - Quote
funny just screening through the forum posts, a lot of threads that EVE becomes to vanilla and that the carebears have to be culled, but once someone suggest something which would especially hit low and nullsec dwellers, the whining is strong on the forums.
P.s. I do not support the local channel as intel tool even if I use it in extend. Seriously, don't take me serious, I MEAN IT...seriously |
|
Lord Zim
730
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 16:42:00 -
[631] - Quote
I would be a member of that corp, yes. And we do have a penchant for the odd gank on occasion, I'll admit.
When it comes to the hisec ganking, I'm actually a bit torn. On the one hand the fact that people keep insisting that hisec is safe, not safer makes me support the gankathon. On the other hand, I do worry that we might be going too far. vOv |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
452
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 19:16:00 -
[632] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:I would be a member of that corp, yes. And we do have a penchant for the odd gank on occasion, I'll admit.
When it comes to the hisec ganking, I'm actually a bit torn. On the one hand the fact that people keep insisting that hisec is safe, not safer makes me support the gankathon. On the other hand, I do worry that we might be going too far. vOv
DAM YOUR REASONABLENESS!
/rabble...
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
Malice Redeemer
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
118
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 19:18:00 -
[633] - Quote
General Freight wrote:Ban Bindy wrote:GÇ£Why do people say "grow some balls"? Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding.GÇ¥ GÇò Betty White This.
I'm pretty sure this as well. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 20:06:00 -
[634] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote: Hardly a statement as you are implying that ALL the systems in sovereignty are of strategic importance. I was commenting on a point I made in the other post about how large alliances are swallowing up Null for no reason other than to stop others.
Thank you for proving that you have no capacity for strategic thought. You hinted at it with you uninformed notions of a nullsec made out of tons of small competing groups being workable. But if you honestly don't understand the idea of holding something for the simple reason of denying it to your enemies, then you don't belong in a sov holding alliance. |
Frying Doom
212
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 22:43:00 -
[635] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:Frying Doom wrote: Hardly a statement as you are implying that ALL the systems in sovereignty are of strategic importance. I was commenting on a point I made in the other post about how large alliances are swallowing up Null for no reason other than to stop others.
Thank you for proving that you have no capacity for strategic thought. You hinted at it with you uninformed notions of a nullsec made out of tons of small competing groups being workable. But if you honestly don't understand the idea of holding something for the simple reason of denying it to your enemies, then you don't belong in a sov holding alliance. I would hardly call swallowing up all the land possible a strategy. It is just the exploitation of a broke mechanic. Frankly if you actually had to actively defend your areas locally this would be impossible. Its only due to a rather boring sov system and an overpowered Jump drive system that makes it possible.
Your statement is almost a rally cry to why Null needs fixing, Your idea of what strategy should make as much sense as the United states conquering North and South America for "Strategic Value". Sounds good looks great but the USA is too small and too broke to capture and hold such a large area indefinitely.
Null is broken, it needs fixing if you cannot understand that you should just go gank miners in Hi-sec. I hear the pay isn't bad. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Degren
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
1095
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 22:45:00 -
[636] - Quote
I dig my hole you build a wall You don't know |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 23:31:00 -
[637] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote: I would hardly call swallowing up all the land possible a strategy.
Like I said, you just don't have the capacity for strategic thought.
The simple fact that you can't see the inevitable outcome of some noob alliance trying to hold sov in some crappy spur off another alliance's space is further proof.
The static and largely linear gate routes in null would lead to a form of hydraulic despotism that would turn all those little alliances into de facto renters. |
Mirima Thurander
The 8th Tribe Seraphim Dragoons.
287
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 23:37:00 -
[638] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote: It would solve cloaky camps people complain about. It would give a point to cloaks people complain about.
Uncloak aliegned, tap bomb, warp to safety. No time to get reinforcements on grid to help or even lock targets. Hurray for 100% Safe uncounterable attacks.
go cry me a river, learn to use real scouts.
go around, or jump a few ships in and after the bombs go off jump the rest in.
TL;DR
BRAIN USE IT I love the the smell of victory in the morning. It smells like... Blood, vomit and burning flesh.
|
Frying Doom
212
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 00:04:00 -
[639] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:Frying Doom wrote: I would hardly call swallowing up all the land possible a strategy.
Like I said, you just don't have the capacity for strategic thought. The simple fact that you can't see the inevitable outcome of some noob alliance trying to hold sov in some crappy spur off another alliance's space is further proof. The static and largely linear gate routes in null would lead to a form of hydraulic despotism that would turn all those little alliances into de facto renters. All I can see is that you do not appear to understand strategy. Under the current Sov and Null mechanics taking everything you can makes sense given what the moons make for the alliances this coupled with the ability to move a huge fleet from one side of your territory to the other easily. But being able to do this really makes no sense as far as game play is concerned. Denying your enemies a foot hold is a good strategy but it really should come with the penalties for over extending yourselves. It doesn't the current mechanics are one sided and need changing.
And once again you are talking about gate camps that without local to give them warning would just be sitting ducks, unless as some people have said they are cloaked at which point they would be completely no threat. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Lord Zim
731
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 01:33:00 -
[640] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:All I can see is that you do not appear to understand strategy. Right...
Frying Doom wrote:Under the current Sov and Null mechanics taking everything you can makes sense given what the moons make for the alliances this coupled with the ability to move a huge fleet from one side of your territory to the other easily. But being able to do this really makes no sense as far as game play is concerned. Denying your enemies a foot hold is a good strategy but it really should come with the penalties for over extending yourselves. How much space is "enough for everyone", in your view?
Frying Doom wrote:It doesn't the current mechanics are one sided and need changing. If you could pick just one thing which you could fix which, in your view, made nullsec stagnant, what would you choose?
Frying Doom wrote:And once again you are talking about gate camps that without local to give them warning would just be sitting ducks, unless as some people have said they are cloaked at which point they would be completely no threat. Um. I'm going to just put this out there: if someone tried to setup shop in a backwater system in deklein, then gatecamps would be the least of their worries. Getting completely facefucked and lose access to all their assets (or have them blown up) would probably rank a smidgeon higher. |
|
Frying Doom
214
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 01:43:00 -
[641] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Under the current Sov and Null mechanics taking everything you can makes sense given what the moons make for the alliances this coupled with the ability to move a huge fleet from one side of your territory to the other easily. But being able to do this really makes no sense as far as game play is concerned. Denying your enemies a foot hold is a good strategy but it really should come with the penalties for over extending yourselves. How much space is "enough for everyone", in your view? Well Null is almost twice the size of all of empire space, so I think if you actually had to locally defend your own space it would work its self out.
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:It doesn't the current mechanics are one sided and need changing. If you could pick just one thing which you could fix which, in your view, made nullsec stagnant, what would you choose? Only 1 well the Sovereignty system, it is so usless in its current form.
Lord Zim wrote: Um. I'm going to just put this out there: if someone tried to setup shop in a backwater system in deklein, then gatecamps would be the least of their worries. Getting completely facefucked and lose access to all their assets (or have them blown up) would probably rank a smidgeon higher.
I agree and given the current free intel tools and broken Sov system and overpowered Jump mechanics, They don't stand a welks chance in a supernova.
This being why Null is so empty, there is no reason for anyone small to go out there. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
24
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 05:46:00 -
[642] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote: Well Null is almost twice the size of all of empire space, so I think if you actually had to locally defend your own space it would work its self out.
Yah, nice dodge there.
Its all about manpower and money, and who ever has it will swallow up huge chunks of what ever you think a provincial nullsec would look like.
Awesome that you are honest about having no clue exactly what your improved nullsec would look like. "It would work itself out" doesn't really fill people with any confidence that such a nullsec would really be an improvement.
Since you love pointing out the goons so much, how much turf should we hold? We've actually hit "over 9000" in terms of players. Our capabilities are well publicized and scrutinized. How much is too much for an already large and active group? |
Frying Doom
223
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 06:27:00 -
[643] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:Frying Doom wrote: Well Null is almost twice the size of all of empire space, so I think if you actually had to locally defend your own space it would work its self out.
Yah, nice dodge there. Its all about manpower and money, and who ever has it will swallow up huge chunks of what ever you think a provincial nullsec would look like. Awesome that you are honest about having no clue exactly what your improved nullsec would look like. "It would work itself out" doesn't really fill people with any confidence that such a nullsec would really be an improvement. Since you love pointing out the goons so much, how much turf should we hold? We've actually hit "over 9000" in terms of players. Our capabilities are well publicized and scrutinized. How much is too much for an already large and active group? Yes it is about manpower and money and that's exactly what i am proposing not just a simple we took it and if you try to take it we can concentrate our entire force in one area scenario but rather a scenario where if you deplete your forces everywhere to take on an attack you actually leave parts of it more vulnerable, partially by the jump nerf but also by the sov bar where your deserting your space makes it easier to take. Where smaller alliances would have a bonus of actually being in their capital system and close by plus there activity levels in such a small space would make it harder to take there space.
I noticed that you seem to not wish to discuss the basis of this thread very often. The removal of local. Is this because you can even see holes in the few arguments given against the idea. And the current hulkagedon is actually proving the point. I use local to check characters titles to see if they are likely to be mining before I even go looking.
As to how much space you should currently hold, well that would be an idea completely for your upper management based on what they believe they could safely sustain and actually use. Rather than just what they can pay for.
as for your comment "Awesome that you are honest about having no clue exactly what your improved nullsec would look like. "It would work itself out" doesn't really fill people with any confidence that such a nullsec would really be an improvement."
I could do like CCP did and promise alot of crap that never came about, even though they employ people just to figure out these things or I can be truthful and say I think these are heading in the right direction but no one really knows.
Anyway back to No local in Null sec and the fact I have heard alot of crap but no real arguments as to why removing it wouldn't be good for Null sec. There are alot of good reasons for it but bugger all other than scare tactics against it. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Lord Zim
731
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 07:50:00 -
[644] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Well Null is almost twice the size of all of empire space, so I think if you actually had to locally defend your own space it would work its self out. That is what I would call a non-answer. You're arguing for a castles and forts mechanic, you must have some idea of what would be your ideal size of an alliance's space. Keep in mind that you can only rat/plex so much in any given system at any given time, so you have to scale up the space an alliance stays in accordingly.
Frying Doom wrote:Only 1 well the Sovereignty system, it is so usless in its current form. But I thought it was the local intel which was the main reason null was so stagnant and boring?
Frying Doom wrote:I agree and given the current free intel tools and broken Sov system and overpowered Jump mechanics, They don't stand a welks chance in a supernova.
This being why Null is so empty, there is no reason for anyone small to go out there. I'm pretty sure "free intel tools" and "broken sov system" and "overpowered jump mechanics" have nothing to do with them "not having a welks chance in a supernova", since we'd be able to easily bring enough subcaps to ram our nuts down their throat.
Frying Doom wrote:Yes it is about manpower and money and that's exactly what i am proposing not just a simple we took it and if you try to take it we can concentrate our entire force in one area scenario but rather a scenario where if you deplete your forces everywhere to take on an attack you actually leave parts of it more vulnerable, partially by the jump nerf but also by the sov bar where your deserting your space makes it easier to take. Where smaller alliances would have a bonus of actually being in their capital system and close by plus there activity levels in such a small space would make it harder to take there space. What are these "activity levels" going to be based around?
Frying Doom wrote:I noticed that you seem to not wish to discuss the basis of this thread very often. The removal of local. Is this because you can even see holes in the few arguments given against the idea. And the current hulkagedon is actually proving the point. I use local to check characters titles to see if they are likely to be mining before I even go looking. What are these holes in the "few" arguments given against the idea? Do you even remember what these "few" arguments are? |
Lord Zim
731
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 07:51:00 -
[645] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:As to how much space you should currently hold, well that would be an idea completely for your upper management based on what they believe they could safely sustain and actually use. Rather than just what they can pay for. I thought you wanted the limiting factor to be how much it cost based on the distance from the "capital system"?
Frying Doom wrote:Anyway back to No local in Null sec and the fact I have heard alot of crap but no real arguments as to why removing it wouldn't be good for Null sec. There are alot of good reasons for it but bugger all other than scare tactics against it. I hear "well-reasoned facts" is the new "scare tactics". |
Degren
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
1104
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 07:51:00 -
[646] - Quote
Thread still going.
Thread has a titanium pair. You don't know |
Frying Doom
223
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 08:30:00 -
[647] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:As to how much space you should currently hold, well that would be an idea completely for your upper management based on what they believe they could safely sustain and actually use. Rather than just what they can pay for. I thought you wanted the limiting factor to be how much it cost based on the distance from the "capital system"? No never had the idea is based on cost from capital and fort systems but the main limiting factor is of course your ability for local defense and your activity within the system.
Frying Doom wrote:Anyway back to No local in Null sec and the fact I have heard alot of crap but no real arguments as to why removing it wouldn't be good for Null sec. There are alot of good reasons for it but bugger all other than scare tactics against it. I hear "well-reasoned facts" is the new "scare tactics".[/quote] I dont think I have heard a single well reason fact at all actually, for the removal of local. Why Sov currently sucks Yes and why Null needs more science and industry Yes. But nothing I can think of on removing local. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Frying Doom
223
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 08:43:00 -
[648] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: That is what I would call a non-answer. You're arguing for a castles and forts mechanic, you must have some idea of what would be your ideal size of an alliance's space. Keep in mind that you can only rat/plex so much in any given system at any given time, so you have to scale up the space an alliance stays in accordingly.
I am aware of that plus you left out mining ratting and with the alterations scouting and patrolling. And No I have no set Idea of what space I believe any alliance would be capable of holding. Assumptions like that are just allways wrong.
Lord Zim wrote: But I thought it was the local intel which was the main reason null was so stagnant and boring?
It is but the sov system is so broken in needs repairs urgently.
Lord Zim wrote: I'm pretty sure "free intel tools" and "broken sov system" and "overpowered jump mechanics" have nothing to do with them "not having a welks chance in a supernova", since we'd be able to easily bring enough subcaps to ram our nuts down their throat.
Quite possibly but they would stand alot better chance with the changes than they do now.
Lord Zim wrote: What are these "activity levels" going to be based around?
Have said this before on the other post. the amounts mined, ratted plexes patrols ect.. with the average activity of lets say 20-30 people per system per day.
Lord Zim wrote: What are these holes in the "few" arguments given against the idea? Do you even remember what these "few" arguments are?
Well most of them relied on cloaks suddenly becoming overpowered and gate campers strangely being more deadly. there were others but these were repeated so often.
Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Lord Zim
731
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 09:39:00 -
[649] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:No never had the idea is based on cost from capital and fort systems but the main limiting factor is of course your ability for local defense and your activity within the system. Oh? What's this then?
Quote:-Maintenance fees on upgraded systems that the Alliance claims (after selecting their Capital System) will be based on distance (in light years) from the Capital System, the greater the distance in light years between the Capital System and upgraded systems, the greater the cost per month -Cost of operating Capital and Super Capital ships (in fuel) would increase or decrease based on distance from Capital System, the greater the distance in light years, the more it costs
Frying Doom wrote:I am aware of that plus you left out mining ratting and with the alterations scouting and patrolling. And No I have no set Idea of what space I believe any alliance would be capable of holding. Assumptions like that are just allways wrong. If you're going to make SOV costs scale up as distance from your capital system increases, then you have to have some sort of "optimum alliance size" in mind, anything above that would cost too much. Which in my mind isn't very sandboxy, since it puts limits on things, but vOv
Frying Doom wrote:Quite possibly but they would stand alot better chance with the changes than they do now.
Have said this before on the other post. the amounts mined, ratted plexes patrols ect.. with the average activity of lets say 20-30 people per system per day. First of all, no, they wouldn't stand a greater chance with the changes than they do now. To rat or to mine, you need safe space. To have safe space, you need border systems which gives some semblance of warning beforehand so people have a modicum of chance of getting safe so they don't bankrupt themselves to keep the SOV. So, all we'd have to do (and it wouldn't be hard to do) is camp them in for whatever time it takes for the ticker to tick down.
Frying Doom wrote:Well most of them relied on cloaks suddenly becoming overpowered and gate campers strangely being more deadly. there were others but these were repeated so often. I've no idea where you got the "gate campers strangely being more deadly", when at least I've said they'd be "no different from before". You sit on gate. You see gate fire. You shoot person popping up on overview. The end.
As to the rest of them, there's been far, far more than just "cloaks will become overpowered", and all of them are valid.
First of all, you don't know who's in a system, so you have no idea if it's safe. Nor do anyone else, because someone can log in, jump in through a wormhole and come in through a gate at any time. If additionally all you have is the dscan, your view of the solar system is very limited, so all someone needs to do to become "invisible" is to find a spot in the solar system which is further away from anything than dscan reaches, and for all intents an purposes, they're "not there". Or, they can fit a cloak. Or they can log out and wait for a while.
This means that for a system to be "safe", you'll have to have scanners out to see if there are any noncloaked ships out there, and they have to be active constantly, any lapse in concentration and someone can get through and hide. And then you'll have to have a reaction force, which will most likely have to be paid a rate which is competitive with L4s, since it's going to be a very, very boring job to do for a long period of time, and it's not something you can just not pay attention to either. You have to be on the ball and ready to move at a second's notice.
And if there are cloaked ships out there, they can take their time to scan for anom signatures and warp around to see if there's anyone who's gankable. If it looks like a trap, all they have to do is ignore the guy and move on/wait for someone else to drop their guard sufficiently. Sooner or later, it will happen, and if done right, then almost any ship can be taken down (with the help of f.ex rats) in less than 30 seconds, which is less than it would take for a reasonable defense to show up. Then they'd just cloak up and wait for a while until the locals have settled down sufficiently to drop their guard to the point where they're gankable again.
Which means that in most cases, for all parties involved except for the ganker(s), if you want to make isk, you'd most likely be better off just doing L4s in hisec, where it's perfectly safe, because 1) it's less stress, and 2) it costs less in ship replacement and downtime. And, ammo is easier to get hold of.
Now, which part of this is a "scare tactic", and why? |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
24
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 09:46:00 -
[650] - Quote
Hell, if sov was simply dictated by pilots in space, a blob of afk cloakers could roam around taking sov and there would be nothing the defenders could do about it. All they would know is that their 30 players can't seem to flip the sov back and can never find, or even know the existence of, the 40 other players who left their covops pilots drifting about while they slept.
Sounds better than a structure shoot, and I bet it takes less ammo. And as a member of the largest alliance in the game, we can always put the most active players in a system. This takes afk cloaking to an entire new level or griefing. You made a believer out of me Frying Doom. Sign me up.
First though, would leaving my cheetah to orbit the sun while I went to work be considered a "patrol" and count towards my alliance being active and taking the system? |
|
Frying Doom
223
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 09:55:00 -
[651] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:[quote=Frying Doom]No never had the idea is based on cost from capital and fort systems but the main limiting factor is of course your ability for local defense and your activity within the system. Oh? What's this then?
Quote:-Maintenance fees on upgraded systems that the Alliance claims (after selecting their Capital System) will be based on distance (in light years) from the Capital System, the greater the distance in light years between the Capital System and upgraded systems, the greater the cost per month -Cost of operating Capital and Super Capital ships (in fuel) would increase or decrease based on distance from Capital System, the greater the distance in light years, the more it costs
You said "I thought you wanted the limiting factor to be how much it cost based on the distance from the "capital system"?"
That quote isn't from me and if you read below it I explain what changes I believe need to be made.
The limiting factor is the activity level use it or loose it but the cost is related to above so rich large Alliances could own more and more space but would have to use the systems and pay for supplying them. As I have said repeatedly the rich should still be able to do what poor alliances cannot. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Frying Doom
223
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 10:08:00 -
[652] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:I am aware of that plus you left out mining ratting and with the alterations scouting and patrolling. And No I have no set Idea of what space I believe any alliance would be capable of holding. Assumptions like that are just allways wrong. If you're going to make SOV costs scale up as distance from your capital system increases, then you have to have some sort of "optimum alliance size" in mind, anything above that would cost too much. Which in my mind isn't very sandboxy, since it puts limits on things, but vOv
Oh no not limits that make sense. not an idea like holding territory further from your capital or a fort would cost more money like reality. And yeah I am heading for that sarcasm again
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Quite possibly but they would stand alot better chance with the changes than they do now.
Have said this before on the other post. the amounts mined, ratted plexes patrols ect.. with the average activity of lets say 20-30 people per system per day. First of all, no, they wouldn't stand a greater chance with the changes than they do now. To rat or to mine, you need safe space. To have safe space, you need border systems which gives some semblance of warning beforehand so people have a modicum of chance of getting safe so they don't bankrupt themselves to keep the SOV. So, all we'd have to do (and it wouldn't be hard to do) is camp them in for whatever time it takes for the ticker to tick down. So one minute you quote parts of an idea that I support me but the next you failed to read the rest of the same idea?
Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Frying Doom
223
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 10:09:00 -
[653] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Well most of them relied on cloaks suddenly becoming overpowered and gate campers strangely being more deadly. there were others but these were repeated so often. I've no idea where you got the "gate campers strangely being more deadly", when at least I've said they'd be "no different from before". You sit on gate. You see gate fire. You shoot person popping up on overview. The end. As to the rest of them, there's been far, far more than just "cloaks will become overpowered", and all of them are valid. First of all, you don't know who's in a system, so you have no idea if it's safe. Nor do anyone else, because someone can log in, jump in through a wormhole and come in through a gate at any time. If additionally all you have is the dscan, your view of the solar system is very limited, so all someone needs to do to become "invisible" is to find a spot in the solar system which is further away from anything than dscan reaches, and for all intents an purposes, they're "not there". Or, they can fit a cloak. Or they can log out and wait for a while. This means that for a system to be "safe", you'll have to have scanners out to see if there are any noncloaked ships out there, and they have to be active constantly, any lapse in concentration and someone can get through and hide. And then you'll have to have a reaction force, which will most likely have to be paid a rate which is competitive with L4s, since it's going to be a very, very boring job to do for a long period of time, and it's not something you can just not pay attention to either. You have to be on the ball and ready to move at a second's notice. And if there are cloaked ships out there, they can take their time to scan for anom signatures and warp around to see if there's anyone who's gankable. If it looks like a trap, all they have to do is ignore the guy and move on/wait for someone else to drop their guard sufficiently. Sooner or later, it will happen, and if done right, then almost any ship can be taken down (with the help of f.ex rats) in less than 30 seconds, which is less than it would take for a reasonable defense to show up. Then they'd just cloak up and wait for a while until the locals have settled down sufficiently to drop their guard to the point where they're gankable again. Which means that in most cases, for all parties involved except for the ganker(s), if you want to make isk, you'd most likely be better off just doing L4s in hisec, where it's perfectly safe, because 1) it's less stress, and 2) it costs less in ship replacement and downtime. And, ammo is easier to get hold of. Now, which part of this is a "scare tactic", and why?
First bit was not you I was talking about. Next bit sounds like good reasons to remove local like people having to pay attention in Null and as to paying a force if your members are to pampered and demand payment for helping their own alliance that is for your management to figure a solution too not me. On the cloaked ships see again overwatch and patrols.
A large part of that sounded like great reasons to get rid of local not for its existance.
Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Frying Doom
223
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 10:10:00 -
[654] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:Hell, if sov was simply dictated by pilots in space, a blob of afk cloakers could roam around taking sov and there would be nothing the defenders could do about it. All they would know is that their 30 players can't seem to flip the sov back and can never find, or even know the existence of, the 40 other players who left their covops pilots drifting about while they slept.
Sounds better than a structure shoot, and I bet it takes less ammo. And as a member of the largest alliance in the game, we can always put the most active players in a system. This takes afk cloaking to an entire new level or griefing. You made a believer out of me Frying Doom. Sign me up.
First though, would leaving my cheetah to orbit the sun while I went to work be considered a "patrol" and count towards my alliance being active and taking the system? You appear to be dribbling please get a bucket. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Akirei Scytale
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1519
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 10:15:00 -
[655] - Quote
durable genitalia?
what about internal genitalia? TEST Alliance BEST Alliance |
Frying Doom
226
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 10:41:00 -
[656] - Quote
Akirei Scytale wrote:durable genitalia?
what about internal genitalia? Nice rhyme but one would hope they are all durable. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Lord Zim
731
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 11:04:00 -
[657] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Oh no not limits that make sense. not an idea like holding territory further from your capital or a fort would cost more money like reality. So, increased costs which won't matter one whit to goonswarm, then. Why add it to the system, then, if even a 9k alliance won't see a problem with it when occupying a full region?
Frying Doom wrote:Next bit sounds like good reasons to remove local like people having to pay attention in Null and as to paying a force if your members are to pampered and demand payment for helping their own alliance that is for your management to figure a solution too not me. On the cloaked ships see again overwatch and patrols.
A large part of that sounded like great reasons to get rid of local not for its existance. So, in other words, you want a null which is mostly devoid of life. |
Ned Black
Driders
28
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 11:13:00 -
[658] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: ...
And if there are cloaked ships out there, they can take their time to scan for anom signatures and warp around to see if there's anyone who's gankable. If it looks like a trap, all they have to do is ignore the guy and move on/wait for someone else to drop their guard sufficiently. Sooner or later, it will happen, and if done right, then almost any ship can be taken down (with the help of f.ex rats) in less than 30 seconds, which is less than it would take for a reasonable defense to show up. Then they'd just cloak up and wait for a while until the locals have settled down sufficiently to drop their guard to the point where they're gankable again.
Which means that in most cases, for all parties involved except for the ganker(s), if you want to make isk, you'd most likely be better off just doing L4s in hisec, where it's perfectly safe, because 1) it's less stress, and 2) it costs less in ship replacement and downtime. And, ammo is easier to get hold of.
Now, which part of this is a "scare tactic", and why?
Well, personally I say its about time nullspace that is supposed to be a dangerous place actually became a dangerous place. Right now nullsec is about the safest place to do PvE activities in EvE simply because you instantly know when someone enters your system and if it is a friend or not. If they remove local then you nullbears would actually have to experience a bit of risk... oh the horror... Nullbears always talk about risk vs reward yet they start crying every time the risk happens to be to their disadvantage... ever heard the frase: There is no safe place in eve?
Personally I think CCP provides WAAAAYYYY to much free intel about what happens. Remove local, remove intel mail about hostile towers going up in your space, and remove intel mails about people attacking your infrastructure. If you are not around to see anyone attacking your sov structure then you should have no effing clue someone goes there and finds it missing.
|
Lord Zim
731
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 11:14:00 -
[659] - Quote
Ned Black wrote:[quote=Lord Zim]Nullbears always talk about risk vs reward yet they start crying every time the risk happens to be to their disadvantage... ever heard the frase: There is no safe place in eve? nullsec isn't safe. |
Leisen
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
37
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 11:16:00 -
[660] - Quote
I've had a nonstop fap marathon since the creation of this thread, and I am very pleased to report; I have succeeded. My genitals are calloused. I am durable genitalia.
FOR YOU EVE, FOR YOU! |
|
Frying Doom
226
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 11:29:00 -
[661] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Oh no not limits that make sense. not an idea like holding territory further from your capital or a fort would cost more money like reality. So, increased costs which won't matter one whit to goonswarm, then. Why add it to the system, then, if even a 9k alliance won't see a problem with it when occupying a full region?
So the largest alliance in EvE wouldn't have to worry about the extra cost...and I fail to see your point. This is not a campaign against Goonswarm but a campaign for Null sec. Your belief that this is something specifically aimed at Goonswarm would explain alot of your answers and logic.
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Next bit sounds like good reasons to remove local like people having to pay attention in Null and as to paying a force if your members are to pampered and demand payment for helping their own alliance that is for your management to figure a solution too not me. On the cloaked ships see again overwatch and patrols.
A large part of that sounded like great reasons to get rid of local not for its existance. So, in other words, you want a null which is mostly devoid of life. I think your crystal ball is cracked. Null is mostly devoid of life now and making people work harder to find and attack both Miners and PvErs as well as making Alliances actively defend their own territory sounds like very good reasons to remove local. The fact that you will not know if it is safe other than to look at your d-scan and see if there are probes out benefits the observant not the lazy. As someone in an other ship wouldn't know you are there either till you give it away by trying to probe them down,
As to the anomalies, so null would be dangerous funny that. It this is your choke point maybe you need a patrol nearby when you go in, or just look at the Dscan to see if someone is comming.
At the moment we have so many people complaining that Hi-sec is to dangerous and you are trying to tell me that because a Null with out local would require people to concentrate more that this is a bad thing. It does have a security rating for a reason, it is lower than high and lo sec so don't you think that implies it should require you to pay attention. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Frying Doom
226
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 11:30:00 -
[662] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Ned Black wrote:Nullbears always talk about risk vs reward yet they start crying every time the risk happens to be to their disadvantage... ever heard the frase: There is no safe place in eve? nullsec isn't safe. But the most dangerous systems are not in Null. Not a great argument there. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Ned Black
Driders
28
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 11:43:00 -
[663] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Ned Black wrote:Nullbears always talk about risk vs reward yet they start crying every time the risk happens to be to their disadvantage... ever heard the frase: There is no safe place in eve? nullsec isn't safe.
Yet the number of PvE ships lost in highsec vastly outnumbers the ones lost in nullsec... strange... |
Lord Zim
731
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 11:54:00 -
[664] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:So the largest alliance in EvE wouldn't have to worry about the extra cost...and I fail to see your point. This is not a campaign against Goonswarm but a campaign for Null sec. Your belief that this is something specifically aimed at Goonswarm would explain alot of your answers and logic. It's got nothing to do with "my belief this is something specifically aimed at goonswarm", and everything to do with "well shucks, the largest alliance in the game wouldn't have a problem with paying for the SOV it's got now, why implement a system where costs aren't fixed?".
You know, if you want to do game balancing, then what you need to do is look at the way things can be abused, not the way you want things to be used. But, I don't really expect this from you at this point.
Frying Doom wrote:I think your crystal ball is cracked. Null is mostly devoid of life now and making people work harder to find and attack both Miners and PvErs as well as making Alliances actively defend their own territory sounds like very good reasons to remove local. Yes, it is mostly devoid of life, now. Why do you think that is? |
Lord Zim
731
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 11:57:00 -
[665] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:But the most dangerous systems are not in Null. Not a great argument there. How many kills happen pr jump in the most dangerous system in nullsec vs the most dangerous system in hisec?
How many kills happen pr jump on average in hisec vs on average in nullsec?
Ned Black wrote:Yet the number of PvE ships lost in highsec vastly outnumbers the ones lost in nullsec... strange... How many PVE ships are in hisec vs how many PVE ships are in nullsec? What's the kill ratio of PVE ships in hisec vs in nullsec? |
Frying Doom
226
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 12:05:00 -
[666] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:So the largest alliance in EvE wouldn't have to worry about the extra cost...and I fail to see your point. This is not a campaign against Goonswarm but a campaign for Null sec. Your belief that this is something specifically aimed at Goonswarm would explain alot of your answers and logic. It's got nothing to do with "my belief this is something specifically aimed at goonswarm", and everything to do with "well shucks, the largest alliance in the game wouldn't have a problem with paying for the SOV it's got now, why implement a system where costs aren't fixed?". You know, if you want to do game balancing, then what you need to do is look at the way things can be abused, not the way you want things to be used. But, I don't really expect this from you at this point. Frying Doom wrote:I think your crystal ball is cracked. Null is mostly devoid of life now and making people work harder to find and attack both Miners and PvErs as well as making Alliances actively defend their own territory sounds like very good reasons to remove local. Yes, it is mostly devoid of life, now. Why do you think that is? I believe your paranoia is getting the best of you, considering the idea to increase cost depending on distance wasn't created by me or any member of a smaller alliance. It was created by a member of Goonswarm.
Almost every part of this game has been abused only to later have the loop hole closed. The ability to abuse the game is why CCP penalizes people who are caught using deliberate loop holes to there advantage. As I have said before the only way to create a system which is free from abuse is to do away with the thing in the first place. If the history of eve has tough us anything it is that every part of the system will be exploited for any gain players can get.
Game balance while looking for abuses should not just solely be made with them in mind or what you will have in the end is just unbalanced. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Lord Zim
731
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 12:12:00 -
[667] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:I believe your paranoia is getting the best of you, considering the idea to increase cost depending on distance wasn't created by me or any member of a smaller alliance. It was created by a member of Goonswarm. I've no idea why you think I've got a problem with paranoia, or why the fact it was posted by a WIdot guy should make it something I need to agree with. vOv
Frying Doom wrote:Game balance while looking for abuses should not just solely be made with them in mind or what you will have in the end is just unbalanced. I've no idea what you tried to say here.
And I notice you didn't answer this question, so I'll make sure you don't forget it:
Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote:[quote=Frying Doom]I think your crystal ball is cracked. Null is mostly devoid of life now and making people work harder to find and attack both Miners and PvErs as well as making Alliances actively defend their own territory sounds like very good reasons to remove local. Yes, it is mostly devoid of life, now. Why do you think that is?
|
Frying Doom
226
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 12:27:00 -
[668] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:I believe your paranoia is getting the best of you, considering the idea to increase cost depending on distance wasn't created by me or any member of a smaller alliance. It was created by a member of Goonswarm. I've no idea why you think I've got a problem with paranoia, or why the fact it was posted by a WIdot guy should make it something I need to agree with. vOv
You believe the Capitals and Forts idea is specifically an attack on Goonswarm even though the idea is from Vricrolatious a member of Goonswarm. To quote you
Lord Zim wrote:It's got nothing to do with "my belief this is something specifically aimed at goonswarm"
And you don't think that sounds paranoid? Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Local Channel in Null must Die. Jump Drives need Nerfing. Null is meant to be dangerous and hard. Not safe and boring. |
Lord Zim
747
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 12:34:00 -
[669] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:You believe the Capitals and Forts idea is specifically an attack on Goonswarm even though the idea is from Vricrolatious a member of Goonswarm. To quote you Lord Zim wrote:It's got nothing to do with "my belief this is something specifically aimed at goonswarm" And you don't think that sounds paranoid? Huh. I see. So dismissing a claim made by you is "being paranoid". Interesting. Just to be complete, I'm going to quote you:
Frying Doom wrote:Your belief that this is something specifically aimed at Goonswarm would explain alot of your answers and logic Then my quote:
Lord Zim wrote:It's got nothing to do with "my belief this is something specifically aimed at goonswarm" Very paranoid, indeed. Strawman much?
And, let's not forget:
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:I think your crystal ball is cracked. Null is mostly devoid of life now and making people work harder to find and attack both Miners and PvErs as well as making Alliances actively defend their own territory sounds like very good reasons to remove local. Yes, it is mostly devoid of life, now. Why do you think that is? |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
27
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 20:40:00 -
[670] - Quote
The more he talks, the less I see any real change coming to nullsec from it.
Big rich alliances will still wipe out the small one. Active nullsec dwellers like GSF won't be effected and other alliances can just keep renting out unused systems to keep "activity" up, what ever that means.
None of these suggestions include anything that actually entices people to live in nullsec. No-local helps people who want to daytrip into null and sneak around, but that is about it. Invading fleets will still get probed down and clobbered by the established powers. All kinds of talk to make null riskier and none about increasing the rewards accordingly. Null already had a jump bridge nerf, lost drone alloys, and is expecting a technetium nerf.
I also love how Frying Doom in particular calls the current sov system broken, and then dismisses the wormholes that provide almost everything he is asking for because it doesn't have the (broken) sov system.
Wormholes; No local No jump bridges/drives No broken sov system Heavier reliance on probing/scanning and player activity The rewards match the increased risk |
|
Frying Doom
Tinfoil Hat News Ltd.
269
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 23:42:00 -
[671] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:The more he talks, the less I see any real change coming to nullsec from it.
Big rich alliances will still wipe out the small one. Active nullsec dwellers like GSF won't be effected and other alliances can just keep renting out unused systems to keep "activity" up, what ever that means.
None of these suggestions include anything that actually entices people to live in nullsec. No-local helps people who want to daytrip into null and sneak around, but that is about it. Invading fleets will still get probed down and clobbered by the established powers. All kinds of talk to make null riskier and none about increasing the rewards accordingly. Null already had a jump bridge nerf, lost drone alloys, and is expecting a technetium nerf.
I also love how Frying Doom in particular calls the current sov system broken, and then dismisses the wormholes that provide almost everything he is asking for because it doesn't have the (broken) sov system.
Wormholes; No local No jump bridges/drives No broken sov system Heavier reliance on probing/scanning and player activity The rewards match the increased risk Big rich alliances can still wipe out smaller ones but it would be harder in capital and fort systems.
On the fails to include things to intice people please feel free to READ the post in Jita park speakers corner.
An No local will greatly help not just day trippers but smaller alliances and corporations as the lazy will actually have to work to find them.
At the moment 1 scout in under 10 minutes can check 4 or 5 systems for people and so direct the fleet.
The current system favours the lazy, Null sec is meant to be tough lawless space not a space for lazy people who cannot even be bothered to look at a D-scan. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Lord Zim
747
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 23:45:00 -
[672] - Quote
So, you don't know why nullsec is mostly devoid of life, I take it? |
Frying Doom
Tinfoil Hat News Ltd.
269
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 23:46:00 -
[673] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:You believe the Capitals and Forts idea is specifically an attack on Goonswarm even though the idea is from Vricrolatious a member of Goonswarm. To quote you Lord Zim wrote:It's got nothing to do with "my belief this is something specifically aimed at goonswarm" And you don't think that sounds paranoid? Huh. I see. So dismissing a claim made by you is "being paranoid". Interesting. Just to be complete, I'm going to quote you: Frying Doom wrote:Your belief that this is something specifically aimed at Goonswarm would explain alot of your answers and logic Then my quote: Lord Zim wrote:It's got nothing to do with "my belief this is something specifically aimed at goonswarm" Very paranoid, indeed. Strawman much? And, let's not forget: Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:I think your crystal ball is cracked. Null is mostly devoid of life now and making people work harder to find and attack both Miners and PvErs as well as making Alliances actively defend their own territory sounds like very good reasons to remove local. Yes, it is mostly devoid of life, now. Why do you think that is? This package to invigorate Null and make it for people who pay attention and are prepared to have to actually do something is NOT aimed at the Goonswarm. It is aimed at Smaller Alliances and to hopefully allow people to want to go to Null sec.
The current population levels show very clearly most people have no reason at all for wanting to go to Null. Personally I don't blame them in it's current form it is not worth the effort. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
SmilingVagrant
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
381
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 23:49:00 -
[674] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Alara IonStorm wrote: Compared to you always die it is way better then the opposite and it would be garbage gameplay.
I am not saying don't remove local, I am saying make a counter to cloaks.
I'm not against that. But the counter would be there already. Sure there would be ambushes, thats good gameplay, but you wouldn't be visible in local. So the cloaker would have to be as patient as you were at determining whether an area was safe or not. The 5 cloaker ambush at an anom would also risk having a 10 cloaker ambush reveal right near them.
God this sounds fun. Fleets of people hanging around a single anom for hours, hoping that other people come near it. |
Frying Doom
Tinfoil Hat News Ltd.
269
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 23:54:00 -
[675] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:So, you don't know why nullsec is mostly devoid of life, I take it? You mean besides its boring It favours lazy blobbers The risk vs reward is broken The sov system allows people to claim more territory than they could realistically use. It is currently impossible for small alliances to hold Sov independantly. There are gate camps every were due to the free intel keeping them safe There are no industry facilities worth anything
And the list goes on. My hands would probably fall off before I finished it is that bad.
On The subject of this post NO LOCAL
The only people I have heard arguing for local to remain in Null are the usual candidates who are part of the lazy blob at the moment. They them selves are not the problem but they have just fallen into the pattern the current system has permitted.
Local is free intel, makes no sense in Null sec and should go.
Some more likes and the OP's original post could run as a CSM member. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Frying Doom
Tinfoil Hat News Ltd.
269
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 00:01:00 -
[676] - Quote
SmilingVagrant wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Alara IonStorm wrote: Compared to you always die it is way better then the opposite and it would be garbage gameplay.
I am not saying don't remove local, I am saying make a counter to cloaks.
I'm not against that. But the counter would be there already. Sure there would be ambushes, thats good gameplay, but you wouldn't be visible in local. So the cloaker would have to be as patient as you were at determining whether an area was safe or not. The 5 cloaker ambush at an anom would also risk having a 10 cloaker ambush reveal right near them. God this sounds fun. Fleets of people hanging around a single anom for hours, hoping that other people come near it. Sounds almost as boring as the current setup.
Camp a gate kill single or small parties, see a blo coming from systems away (using locals and alts) dock up till the blob goes by.
Or the opposite side of be in the blob, trying to kill smaller parties watching most of them docking up before you get there. Send URL links in local showing a dog hiding in a cushion fort. continue on your way till you find another blob. At which point you instantly know its size and the age of the players. Hide or fight depending on if the numbers are favourable to the blob.
Real exciting... It really shows that local must go it makes life too safe and easy. Easy being the big one if someone is mining in a system now you just have to jump into a dead end system to see if anyone is there.
Its lazy and it makes no sense. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
SmilingVagrant
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
381
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 00:06:00 -
[677] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote: Sounds almost as boring as the current setup.
Camp a gate kill single or small parties, see a blo coming from systems away (using locals and alts) dock up till the blob goes by.
Or the opposite side of be in the blob, trying to kill smaller parties watching most of them docking up before you get there. Send URL links in local showing a dog hiding in a cushion fort. continue on your way till you find another blob. At which point you instantly know its size and the age of the players. Hide or fight depending on if the numbers are favourable to the blob.
Real exciting... It really shows that local must go it makes life too safe and easy. Easy being the big one if someone is mining in a system now you just have to jump into a dead end system to see if anyone is there.
Its lazy and it makes no sense.
Alternatively you can learn to not be bad and watch pilots in certain alliances, and I'm going to talk up some people I really dislike here: EO in Pandemic Legion.
They would watch traffic in an area for a bit, learn how people moved and then setup camp in a place that generally got them 20-30 kills an hour while they were in our space. WIth the way JB's were changed it's laughably easy to get a kill on a route. But yes if you blunder in a straight line through space hoping to find a fight: You are probably going to be disappointed. |
Lord Zim
747
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 00:06:00 -
[678] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:This package to invigorate Null and make it for people who pay attention and are prepared to have to actually do something is NOT aimed at the Goonswarm. It is aimed at Smaller Alliances and to hopefully allow people to want to go to Null sec. You're the one who claimed I believed it was aimed at goonswarm, and that I'm paranoid for thinking so. I'm telling you I'm not thinking so.
Frying Doom wrote:The current population levels show very clearly most people have no reason at all for wanting to go to Null. Personally I don't blame them in it's current form it is not worth the effort.
Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote:So, you don't know why nullsec is mostly devoid of life, I take it? You mean besides its boring It favours lazy blobbers The risk vs reward is broken The sov system allows people to claim more territory than they could realistically use. It is currently impossible for small alliances to hold Sov independantly. There are gate camps every were due to the free intel keeping them safe There are no industry facilities worth anything And the list goes on. My hands would probably fall off before I finished it is that bad. On The subject of this post NO LOCAL The only people I have heard arguing for local to remain in Null are the usual candidates who are part of the lazy blob at the moment. They them selves are not the problem but they have just fallen into the pattern the current system has permitted. Local is free intel, makes no sense in Null sec and should go. Some more likes and the OP's original post could run as a CSM member. So you're looking at this list, looking at the current nullsec population, and you're still going "I know the risk vs reward is broken, but I'll believe that the risk factor should be upped even further and I'll expect that it'll have a positive effect on the nullsec population"? |
Frying Doom
Tinfoil Hat News Ltd.
269
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 00:21:00 -
[679] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: So you're looking at this list, looking at the current nullsec population, and you're still going "I know the risk vs reward is broken, but I'll believe that the risk factor should be upped even further and I'll expect that it'll have a positive effect on the nullsec population"?
Actually removing local would not up the risk factor for those who pay attention to Dscan. I do agree that the risk is increased if are too lazy to pay attention. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Frying Doom
Tinfoil Hat News Ltd.
269
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 00:26:00 -
[680] - Quote
On a completely separate and off topic post.
I must congratulate Goonswarm on their 9165 Members. Also congratulate Test alliance on clearing 7000. I may be pro small alliance but those numbers are impressive.
Anyway back to why Large alliance member want local and so many smaller alliances and people want it shot and buried. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
|
Lord Zim
747
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 00:27:00 -
[681] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote: So you're looking at this list, looking at the current nullsec population, and you're still going "I know the risk vs reward is broken, but I'll believe that the risk factor should be upped even further and I'll expect that it'll have a positive effect on the nullsec population"?
Actually removing local would not up the risk factor for those who pay attention to Dscan. I do agree that the risk is increased if are too lazy to pay attention. Tell us more about how reducing the time you have available to you to respond to a hostile zeroing in on you equals "not more risk". |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
364
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 00:28:00 -
[682] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Actually removing local would not up the risk factor for those who pay attention to Dscan. I do agree that the risk is increased if are too lazy to pay attention.
Dscan only works if the ship isn't cloaky. You don't live in null, so someone might as well tell you: cloaking ships (i.e. stealth bombers) are really quite popular. Imagine how popular they'd be without local!
Removing local shoots risk through the roof, far beyond anything increased bounties or better minerals could ever fix. |
Frying Doom
Tinfoil Hat News Ltd.
269
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 00:29:00 -
[683] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Actually removing local would not up the risk factor for those who pay attention to Dscan. I do agree that the risk is increased if are too lazy to pay attention. Dscan only works if the ship isn't cloaky. You don't live in null, so someone might as well tell you: cloaking ships (i.e. stealth bombers) are really quite popular. Imagine how popular they'd be without local! Removing local shoots risk through the roof, far beyond anything increased bounties or better minerals could ever fix. Oh no you mean Covert ships might actually become Covert? Oh the horror. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Frying Doom
Tinfoil Hat News Ltd.
269
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 00:32:00 -
[684] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote: So you're looking at this list, looking at the current nullsec population, and you're still going "I know the risk vs reward is broken, but I'll believe that the risk factor should be upped even further and I'll expect that it'll have a positive effect on the nullsec population"?
Actually removing local would not up the risk factor for those who pay attention to Dscan. I do agree that the risk is increased if are too lazy to pay attention. Tell us more about how reducing the time you have available to you to respond to a hostile zeroing in on you equals "not more risk". Umm because the lazy would actually have to do something to find you in the first place.
And yes I am aware of the anom argument but lets see you go through 4 or more systems warping to every anom and coming up empty, before you decide to do some work and actually try to scan people down. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
364
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 00:33:00 -
[685] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Oh no you mean Covert ships might actually become Covert? Oh the horror.
They already are covert - I may know that neutral X is in the system, but unless they've decloaked and fired or killed someone who shared a KM, I have no idea what they're in at all. That's also exactly why they're popular as hell in null. You'd know this is if you lived there - guess it's just easier to spout off half-baked ideas for areas of the game you've never experienced, though. Beats the hell out of thinking about things! |
Frying Doom
Tinfoil Hat News Ltd.
269
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 00:39:00 -
[686] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Oh no you mean Covert ships might actually become Covert? Oh the horror. They already are covert - I may know that neutral X is in the system, but unless they've decloaked and fired or killed someone who shared a KM, I have no idea what they're in at all. That's also exactly why they're popular as hell in null. You'd know this is if you lived there - guess it's just easier to spout off half-baked ideas for areas of the game you've never experienced, though. Beats the hell out of thinking about things! Here is a real life analogy for you.
Would the US government have thrown so many billions of dollars into stealth research and then manufactured stealth fighters and bombers if radars could see them but not detect exactly where they are?
Having Local in Null makes absolutely no sense. It doesn't even fit into the games Lore, Especially not where black ops are involved. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
364
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 00:42:00 -
[687] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Here is a real life analogy for you.
Would the US government have thrown so many billions of dollars into stealth research and then manufactured stealth fighters and bombers if radars could see them but not detect exactly where they are?
Having Local in Null makes absolutely no sense. It doesn't even fit into the games Lore, Especially not where black ops are involved.
Ah, and there's the real life examples. Real life examples for a game that's set in an alternate universe where space travel is several orders of magnitude more advanced than today. Totally makes sense! It can't be that you don't have any actual Eve-related arguments to back up your ridiculous ideas, could it? Nah, it must be that real life examples are relevant!
ps Stealth Technology doesn't actually make ships literally invisible, you supergenius you. |
Frying Doom
Tinfoil Hat News Ltd.
269
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 00:49:00 -
[688] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Here is a real life analogy for you.
Would the US government have thrown so many billions of dollars into stealth research and then manufactured stealth fighters and bombers if radars could see them but not detect exactly where they are?
Having Local in Null makes absolutely no sense. It doesn't even fit into the games Lore, Especially not where black ops are involved. Ah, and there's the real life examples. Real life examples for a game that's set in an alternate universe where space travel is several orders of magnitude more advanced than today. Totally makes sense! It can't be that you don't have any actual Eve-related arguments to back up your ridiculous ideas, could it? Nah, it must be that real life examples are relevant! ps Stealth Technology doesn't actually make ships literally invisible, you supergenius you. You say its in the future ect.. technology is more advenced ect... But You believe that stealth technology while able to bend light would fail a basic requirement for what we have today.
I have said many times why No local in null would disadvantage the lazy, I was pointing out that your logic did and still does not make any sense. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
364
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 00:55:00 -
[689] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:You say its in the future ect.. technology is more advenced ect... But You believe that stealth technology while able to bend light would fail a basic requirement for what we have today.
I have said many times why No local in null would disadvantage the lazy, I was pointing out that your logic did and still does not make any sense.
And again, dodging any discussion at all of what would actually happen in-game if this change went through!
Protip: I don't give a **** about whether something "makes sense" in a roleplay sense, or a "this is how I imagine the universe" sense. All I care about is what changes in the game that I pay this company to play. Removing local creates no positives for players and an avalanche of negatives, hence it's a Bad Thing To Do.
The point is a curb about a quarter of an inch off the ground and you keep tripping on it over and over again. Do us all a favor - learn to walk! |
Frying Doom
Tinfoil Hat News Ltd.
269
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 01:08:00 -
[690] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Frying Doom wrote:You say its in the future ect.. technology is more advenced ect... But You believe that stealth technology while able to bend light would fail a basic requirement for what we have today.
I have said many times why No local in null would disadvantage the lazy, I was pointing out that your logic did and still does not make any sense. And again, dodging any discussion at all of what would actually happen in-game if this change went through! Protip: I don't give a **** about whether something "makes sense" in a roleplay sense, or a "this is how I imagine the universe" sense. All I care about is what changes in the game that I pay this company to play. Removing local creates no positives for players and an avalanche of negatives, hence it's a Bad Thing To Do. The point is a curb about a quarter of an inch off the ground and you keep tripping on it over and over again. Do us all a favor - learn to walk! This forum Post is over 30 pages long and contains nothing but examples of why The removal of Null would be good for EvE and the players, excluding the parts about players wishing to remain safe in Null sec,being able to do the same things in the same way.
Removing local adds alot of positives as once again stated through out this threadnaught, Doing things as they are, has done a wonderful job of making Null a deserted waste land.
Or are you now going to argue the population of null is now Full.
Null is 0.0 space and that's what it should be not just a sanctuary for Nullsec carebears going "we paid to be safe so we should be."
Your argument sounds alot like the current argument made by so many on why ganking should be removed from Hi-sec. The arguments being for people who believe they should not have to pay attention.
Remove ganking = Safer Hisec Keeping local = Safer Null sec Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
364
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 01:12:00 -
[691] - Quote
You should try reading the OP - he's advocating for removing local in ALL secs, not just null. You're the one who decided to modify that to coincidentally turn it into the part of the game you don't even live in. How crafty of you! |
Lord Zim
747
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 01:16:00 -
[692] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Umm because the lazy would actually have to do something to find you in the first place.
And yes I am aware of the anom argument but lets see you go through 4 or more systems warping to every anom and coming up empty, before you decide to do some work and actually try to scan people down. You keep saying "it's not more risk if only you watch dscan", except for the fact that worst case, you've got 4 seconds to respond.
Yep. It's definitely going to make the nullsec population explode.
Frying Doom wrote:Removing local adds alot of positives as once again stated through out this threadnaught, Doing things as they are, has done a wonderful job of making Null a deserted waste land. Yes, the things removing local in nullsec would do is definitely "positive" if what you wanted to do was depopulate null.
If the intention was to make people move out there? Heh. |
Frying Doom
Tinfoil Hat News Ltd.
269
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 03:27:00 -
[693] - Quote
What I find particularly funny is that the people against removing local from Null come from the very same Alliance and CFC as those using the tech bottle neck to fund the Infinite Hulkagedon thus providing their Alliance and the CFC with even more cash.
Is this because they are worried about people being able to sneak into their own space undetected and add the CFC's hulks to the hulkagedon killboards?
Is it because in Null sec local allows you to instantly see if anyone is in a system that shouldn't be there giving them safety. Where as in Hi-sec the residents are so much more numerous that local is a better tool for the ganker?
Null sec is so safe that these very people are able to abandon there territory to go and Burn Jita with no fear of loosing their sovereign space.
It is Funny to hear people who's Alliances have constantly and over a period of Years told people to HTFU while not being able to do so them selves. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Frying Doom
Tinfoil Hat News Ltd.
269
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 04:43:00 -
[694] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Yes, the things removing local in nullsec would do is definitely "positive" if what you wanted to do was depopulate null. Yes and the population is so high now.
Twice the size of Empire with 1/5th the population. How do you move with it so crowded. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Jhango Fett
Armada Ministry Defence Fidelas Constans
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 05:00:00 -
[695] - Quote
I am voting yes to this, remove local every where please. |
Ned Black
Driders
29
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 05:37:00 -
[696] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote:This OP is filled with "no" and seasoned with "unsubstantiated fail".
Grow some balls.
Biomass yourself.
Hmmm... the OP wants to make things harder and you tell HIM to grow some balls? Sounds to me like it's the other way around...
|
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
27
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 05:44:00 -
[697] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote: Is it because in Null sec local allows you to instantly see if anyone is in a system that shouldn't be there giving them safety. Where as in Hi-sec the residents are so much more numerous that local is a better tool for the ganker?
Names in local don't provide safety. They just provide a small amount of intel. Quit blaming local for how bad you are at Eve.
Quote: Null sec is so safe that these very people are able to abandon there territory to go and Burn Jita with no fear of loosing their sovereign space.
We had no fear because we could run back to our space if need be. But then again, all our enemies wanted to join us in Jita, others wanted to shoot us in Jita, and everyone else is too stupid and uncoordinated to be any real threat.
Quote: It is Funny to hear people who's Alliances have constantly and over a period of Years told people to HTFU while not being able to do so them selves.
You don't get to use HTFU. You haven't earned that right, and so long as you whine at CCP to screw around with other people's space to make up for your poor skills, you'll never get to use HTFU. |
Frying Doom
Tinfoil Hat News Ltd.
269
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 06:33:00 -
[698] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:You don't get to use HTFU. You haven't earned that right, and so long as you whine at CCP to screw around with other people's space to make up for your poor skills, you'll never get to use HTFU. And this is the basis for the entire argument for why the 0.0 sovereignty holders what nothing to change. They believe Null is just for them, it is their space.
Stop whining like a (I was going to say Hi-sec carebear but that isn't true is it) Null sec carebear. This game and Null are for all the members of EvE not just you while you live in YOUR space.
Arguing why things should remain the same while you have everything going your way is fair enough, it is human nature. But the reality is the current Null sec residents are a minority of EvE and null sec should be more usable for more people. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
717
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 06:37:00 -
[699] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:null sec should be more usable for more people.
it is, you only need to form an alliance, get ISK together for a sov structure fund, organize fleets, take space, hold that space and figure out the rest from there eh |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1070
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 06:38:00 -
[700] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:You don't get to use HTFU. You haven't earned that right, and so long as you whine at CCP to screw around with other people's space to make up for your poor skills, you'll never get to use HTFU. And this is the basis for the entire argument for why the 0.0 sovereignty holders what nothing to change. They believe Null is just for them, it is their space. Stop whining like a (I was going to say Hi-sec carebear but that isn't true is it) Null sec carebear. This game and Null are for all the members of EvE not just you while you live in YOUR space. Arguing why things should remain the same while you have everything going your way is fair enough, it is human nature. But the reality is the current Null sec residents are a minority of EvE and null sec should be more usable for more people. Turn all of highsec into 0.0 so that the poor hisec carebears can enjoy the level of safety that we enjoy. Then everyone can share nullsec's safety. |
|
Frying Doom
Tinfoil Hat News Ltd.
269
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 06:44:00 -
[701] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:You don't get to use HTFU. You haven't earned that right, and so long as you whine at CCP to screw around with other people's space to make up for your poor skills, you'll never get to use HTFU. And this is the basis for the entire argument for why the 0.0 sovereignty holders what nothing to change. They believe Null is just for them, it is their space. Stop whining like a (I was going to say Hi-sec carebear but that isn't true is it) Null sec carebear. This game and Null are for all the members of EvE not just you while you live in YOUR space. Arguing why things should remain the same while you have everything going your way is fair enough, it is human nature. But the reality is the current Null sec residents are a minority of EvE and null sec should be more usable for more people. Turn all of highsec into 0.0 so that the poor hisec carebears can enjoy the level of safety that we enjoy. Then everyone can share nullsec's safety. Why? They could double the amount of 0.0 we have now and it would just end up like the rest of it is now. Dull, stagnant, Down right boring and heavily underpopulated. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1070
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 06:47:00 -
[702] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Why? They could double the amount of 0.0 we have now and it would just end up like the rest of it is now. Dull, stagnant, Down right boring and heavily underpopulated. So you propose to fix underpopulation and stagnation by making it more tedious to find fights and making space less alluring to use. Interesting. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
717
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 06:48:00 -
[703] - Quote
the beatings will continue until morale improves eh |
Frying Doom
Tinfoil Hat News Ltd.
269
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 06:54:00 -
[704] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Why? They could double the amount of 0.0 we have now and it would just end up like the rest of it is now. Dull, stagnant, Down right boring and heavily underpopulated. So you propose to fix underpopulation and stagnation by making it more tedious to find fights and making space less alluring to use. Interesting. That is merely your opinion.
Just given the current whining, how many people would like to be able to guerrilla raid Goonswarm space just to see if their hulks paid out on Hulkagedon.
Not to mention the fact that Covert ops ships would actually be covert for once and black ops ships would have a purpose. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1070
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 07:01:00 -
[705] - Quote
You think Goonswarm uses hulks? According to the Fanfest '12 panel, the CFC has the least developed internal industry of any of the major powers.
Anyways, covops are already very useful in disrupting 0.0 business. Just warp to a safe and press F1. |
Lord Zim
747
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 07:20:00 -
[706] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Why? They could double the amount of 0.0 we have now and it would just end up like the rest of it is now. Dull, stagnant, Down right boring and heavily underpopulated. So you propose to fix underpopulation and stagnation by making it more tedious to find fights and making space less alluring to use. Interesting. That is merely your opinion. So what you're saying is that by changing nullsec into a place where you can't reliably carebear because everything is stacked entirely in favor of the attacker, it won't be depopulated?
Frying Doom wrote:Not to mention the fact that Covert ops ships would actually be covert for once and black ops ships would have a purpose. If by "actually be covert for once" you mean "will be the main way to roam because it makes it safer than hisec for the roaming gang", then yes. |
Frying Doom
Tinfoil Hat News Ltd.
269
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 08:04:00 -
[707] - Quote
Yes it would be hard to carebear you would have to pay attention.
Oh the Horror I live in Null and I have to do more than look at local.
You guys really should never hassle hi-sec players on being too soft. They can't even use local to see people who will gank them. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1070
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 08:06:00 -
[708] - Quote
Indeed, make all of highsec 0.0 so that they can experience the soft lazy life. |
Lord Zim
747
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 08:12:00 -
[709] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Yes it would be hard to carebear you would have to pay attention. The response window for carebears are cut down from 15 seconds or so (where tons of people are still caught), to 4, and you're still going to say that it won't depopulate nullsec even further? |
Sainrin
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 08:12:00 -
[710] - Quote
YES! removes it all! D-Scan for life! |
|
Tarn Kugisa
Space Mongolian THE UNTHINKABLES
87
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 08:18:00 -
[711] - Quote
OP makes 4chan look decent I Endorse this Product and/or Service [url]https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=16580[/url] |
Frying Doom
Tinfoil Hat News Ltd.
269
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 08:31:00 -
[712] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Yes it would be hard to carebear you would have to pay attention. The response window for carebears are cut down from 15 seconds or so (where tons of people are still caught), to 4, and you're still going to say that it won't depopulate nullsec even further? Once again
So are the pirates going to magically know you are there? Or do you think the probes might give them away to someone paying attention? Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Lord Zim
747
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 08:34:00 -
[713] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:So are the pirates going to magically know you are there? Nope. They have time (and cloaks) on their side.
Frying Doom wrote:Or do you think the probes might give them away to someone paying attention? Probes? You need probes? You don't know about the scanner which is built into the ship?
I see. That explains things. |
Frying Doom
Tinfoil Hat News Ltd.
269
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 08:42:00 -
[714] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:So are the pirates going to magically know you are there? Nope. They have time (and cloaks) on their side. Frying Doom wrote:Or do you think the probes might give them away to someone paying attention? Probes? You need probes? You don't know about the scanner which is built into the ship? I see. That explains things. I'm sorry I missed the patch where the D-scan covers an entire system or is life so easy for you in Null you have never had to use it. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1070
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 08:46:00 -
[715] - Quote
oh man trying to lecture about how intel gathering in eve works then this |
Frying Doom
Tinfoil Hat News Ltd.
269
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 08:50:00 -
[716] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:oh man trying to lecture about how intel gathering in eve works then this I'm not even sure what you are saying. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Lord Zim
747
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 08:53:00 -
[717] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:I'm sorry I missed the patch where the D-scan covers an entire system or is life so easy for you in Null you have never had to use it. I don't think even a quad facepalm would cover this. You actually do not know how sanctums etc are found? Like, seriously? |
Frying Doom
Tinfoil Hat News Ltd.
269
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 08:56:00 -
[718] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:I'm sorry I missed the patch where the D-scan covers an entire system or is life so easy for you in Null you have never had to use it. I don't think even a quad facepalm would cover this. You actually do not know how sanctums etc are found? Like, seriously? Oh so you mean if you want to do something where you gain extra reward you might have to take extra risk?
Like people piloting hulks do.
Oh poor you. I couldn't think of a way to make that drip with more sarcasm sorry. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1070
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 09:00:00 -
[719] - Quote
my god... |
Frying Doom
Tinfoil Hat News Ltd.
269
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 09:02:00 -
[720] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:my god... No my ego isn't that big. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
|
Lord Zim
747
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 09:03:00 -
[721] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:I'm sorry I missed the patch where the D-scan covers an entire system or is life so easy for you in Null you have never had to use it. I don't think even a quad facepalm would cover this. You actually do not know how sanctums etc are found? Like, seriously? Oh so you mean if you want to do something where you gain extra reward you might have to take extra risk? Like people piloting hulks do. Oh poor you. I couldn't think of a way to make that drip with more sarcasm sorry. You really, really don't know, do you?
Here, let me help you: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Cosmic_Anomaly
The important paragraph is the one aptly positioned under "Scanning". |
Frying Doom
Tinfoil Hat News Ltd.
269
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 09:12:00 -
[722] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:I'm sorry I missed the patch where the D-scan covers an entire system or is life so easy for you in Null you have never had to use it. I don't think even a quad facepalm would cover this. You actually do not know how sanctums etc are found? Like, seriously? Oh so you mean if you want to do something where you gain extra reward you might have to take extra risk? Like people piloting hulks do. Oh poor you. I couldn't think of a way to make that drip with more sarcasm sorry. You really, really don't know, do you? Here, let me help you: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Cosmic_AnomalyThe important paragraph is the one aptly positioned under "Scanning". Yes it says "Scanning
Cosmic anomalies can be found without any extra modules and skills by using the on-board scanner equipped in every ship other than capsules. The on-board scanner scans nearby space within 64 AU for cosmic anomalies and return the result after 10 seconds of scanning. One can also utilize scan probes to find anomalies, only one probe is required for anomalies and it will provide a warp-in point for any anomalies within its scan range, making it easier to find all anomalies within a system. Please consult the Scanning Guide for detailed instructions on using scan probes. "
So if you are using a anom and are gaining more rewards than mining or ratting you are getting a greater reward. Following me so far? I hope so. Therefore your ability to be found easier would constitute a greater risk. Understand that? So Just like Hulk pilots in Hi-sec who gain a greater reward from the bonuses of a hulk they have a greater risk because there are bounties on the ships.
Or are you saying Hi-sec should have a risk vs reward system and Null sec should be immune from it? Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Lord Zim
747
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 09:25:00 -
[723] - Quote
"Greater risk"? You mean "greater risk" as in "I'm running a greater risk of losing my ship by being undocked, because if I'm caught in it I'm most likely to die"? I think that's called "being in nullsec".
But then again, you have absolutely no clue about any of this, so I'll repeat myself: the worst case response time you have before someone who aren't complete **** tackles you, if local is removed and replaced with a mechanic which relies on dscan, will be 4 seconds, down from at least 10-15. What effect do you think this will have on the nullsec population?
PS: Nullsec isn't immune to the risk/reward system, and if you actually, uniroincally thinks this, then that's just something in a long, long line of things you're wrong about which we've seen proof of. |
|
CCP Spitfire
C C P C C P Alliance
1499
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 09:37:00 -
[724] - Quote
Moved from 'EVE General Discussion".
CCP Spitfire | Russian Community Coordinator @ccp_spitfire |
|
Frying Doom
Tinfoil Hat News Ltd.
269
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 09:42:00 -
[725] - Quote
Well CCP noticed and moved it to the trash heap.
Until next argument Zim and Nicolo da'Vicenza and others as always good to argue a point.
That one even managed to get quite big till it was killed. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1090
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 09:42:00 -
[726] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:"Greater risk"? You mean "greater risk" as in "I'm running a greater risk of losing my ship by being undocked, because if I'm caught in it I'm most likely to die"? I think that's called "being in nullsec".
When I started playing there was an alliance called Initiative Alliance, my alts were in a corp inside it. As a newbie I happily navigated and did my stuff with absolutely no interference till we moved out (the CEO quit the game due to RL issues). There was a chat to read, if some guys managed to slip past bubbled gates they'd post about it there and everybody had 5-10 minutes to finish their business and dock.
Then I went to NPC 0.0 on this character and there I also did not have expecially insormountable problems farming anoms and L4.
About twice a week I had to take my turn and sit at a gate for 4 hours watching for inbound hostiles, which was actually welcome because it was boring to tears 95% of the days.
In fact guess what, boredom is the 0.0 defining keyword and a potent motivator to organize events in other secs. If it was so active, compelling and challenging gameplay out there, then there'd not be the time nor resources to dedicate manpower in other EvE locations.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
27
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 09:53:00 -
[727] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:
So if you are using a anom and are gaining more rewards than mining or ratting you are getting a greater reward. Following me so far?
Nothing good comes from following you.
It already has greater risk, because concord isn't there to punish gankers, bubbles and bombs are available, and the rats themselves are battleships and can kill you on there own.
Oh, and supercaps can drop on you at any moment.
And of course, never mind the already plentiful solo bombers and small gangs that prey on players all day long. You know, the sort of activity Frying Doom wishes he could do, but can't, unless he is using a covops cloak and there is no local.
And it's not like empire miners don't have the option to bug out as soon as they see someone in local. Its like some bizzarro world justice, since highsec miners think they should be safe mining while not paying attention to the game, nullsec players must be limited to d-scan.
Further proof that Frying Doom's crusade to "improve" a region he doesn't even live in is nothing more than a vendetta.
Yes CCP, punish the goons. Take our stuff away. Make us live in gimped wormholes and force us to turn the wheel on some "patrol" mechanism to maintain our sov. Frying Doom assures of that it will just work itself out and be awesome somehow. |
Lord Zim
747
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 10:19:00 -
[728] - Quote
So we won't get an answer to whether Frying Doom thinks it'll depopulate null or not. Oh well, as with everything else which has been uncovered of his arguments, if we assume the opposite of what'll actually happen, we'll get his position, which means if he'd actually answered that question, he'd say "no, it'll make all of hisec flock to nullsec".
vOv |
Elena Melkan
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
38
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 11:09:00 -
[729] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:Further proof that Frying Doom's crusade to "improve" a region he doesn't even live in is nothing more than a vendetta.
Yes CCP, punish the goons. Take our stuff away. Make us live in gimped wormholes and force us to turn the wheel on some "patrol" mechanism to maintain our sov. Frying Doom assures of that it will just work itself out and be awesome somehow. Perhaps for him Goons are something that magically popped out from wizard's hat and started existing and being successful alliance. It's just impossible idea that there would be people who have worked hard to keep it together and working.
|
Frying Doom
Tinfoil Hat News Ltd.
269
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 11:14:00 -
[730] - Quote
Elena Melkan wrote:Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:Further proof that Frying Doom's crusade to "improve" a region he doesn't even live in is nothing more than a vendetta.
Yes CCP, punish the goons. Take our stuff away. Make us live in gimped wormholes and force us to turn the wheel on some "patrol" mechanism to maintain our sov. Frying Doom assures of that it will just work itself out and be awesome somehow. Perhaps for him Goons are something that magically popped out from wizard's hat and started existing and being successful alliance. It's just impossible idea that there would be people who have worked hard to keep it together and working. Actually if you haven't read http://www.tentonhammer.com/features/mittani You should they are a great read especially the parts on propaganda and meta gaming there are some really good ideas in there. Also the alliance panels pre-2010 are also packed full of information. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
|
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
265
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 12:01:00 -
[731] - Quote
EVE is a sandbox and a sandbox is about choice. Let's avoid overcomplicating the process to a better game and leave people with choices. How about allowing those who wish to remain in local to do so and those who wish to opt out to do so. I mean it's not meant to be a free intelligence channel right? Sounds like a compromise. If you wish to display power you could and if you wished to remain hidden from power you could as well. Its win/win.
You wouldn't want to continue forcing a playstyle upon me would you? |
Leto Aramaus
Ixion Defence Systems Tactical Narcotics Team
62
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 12:08:00 -
[732] - Quote
Ditra Vorthran wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:You would have to work to locate a target. That might work if you removed all default warp points for asteroid belts from the system menu. At the same time, make asteroid belts scanable via core probes. Otherwise, if you just remove local, it gives everyone the equivalent of a cloaking device until they're practically on top of you.
NOT if we change the EVE UI to extend your ships sensor ranges.
Remove local AND make the graphical interface of EVE zoom all the way out to solar system level, and each ship has a viewing range of anywhere from a couple hundred or thousand KM, to a couple AU.
^^^^real spaceship sh*t |
Leto Aramaus
Ixion Defence Systems Tactical Narcotics Team
62
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 12:28:00 -
[733] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:EVE is a sandbox and a sandbox is about choice. Let's avoid overcomplicating the process to a better game and leave people with choices. How about allowing those who wish to remain in local to do so and those who wish to opt out to do so. I mean it's not meant to be a free intelligence channel right? Sounds like a compromise. If you wish to display power you could and if you wished to remain hidden from power you could as well. Its win/win.
You wouldn't want to continue forcing a playstyle upon me me would you?
Such a good idea. |
Lord Zim
747
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 12:31:00 -
[734] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:EVE is a sandbox and a sandbox is about choice. Let's avoid overcomplicating the process to a better game and leave people with choices. How about allowing those who wish to remain in local to do so and those who wish to opt out to do so. I mean it's not meant to be a free intelligence channel right? Sounds like a compromise. If you wish to display power you could and if you wished to remain hidden from power you could as well. Its win/win.
You wouldn't want to continue forcing a playstyle upon me would you? I'm sure you wouldn't ever abuse the fact that by removing yourself from local you've cut the possible response time from 15-30 seconds to 4, right? |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
265
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 12:33:00 -
[735] - Quote
Its not abuse. Abuse is what's being done with local as it is. And with that being said im not even considering your timing argument as proof or even factual. Bottom line you feel entitled to keep unlimited tabs on my character when the game says otherwise. Why did we get rid of faction standings being publically displayed again? |
Lord Zim
747
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 12:36:00 -
[736] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Its not abuse. Abuse is what's being done with local as it is. I'd call it "game balance". |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
265
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 12:39:00 -
[737] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Its not abuse. Abuse is what's being done with local as it is. I'd call it "game balance". Not its not. Its called listening to a bunch of people who want to play EVE but never be forced to take a risk. Whoever declared that balanced needs to be fired as an absolute incompetent. We know your opinion Zim. Double digit sh!tpoasts throughout the thread.
Define how making the entire scouting profession a complete waste of time so that you can avoid any risk whatsoever in a game designed as nonconsensual pvp focused is balanced. You can't. The most you can do is declare it.
Spreading syrup on sh!it doesn't make it pancakes. |
Xhaiden Ora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
54
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 12:44:00 -
[738] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Define how making the entire scouting profession a complete waste of time so that you can avoid any risk whatsoever in a game designed as nonsensual pvp focused is balanced. You can't. The most you can do is declare it.
Personally, I perfer sensual pvp myself. At least it calls you the next day. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
265
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 12:47:00 -
[739] - Quote
The trick is to throw in a editing error every so often and the lemmings will keep your idea plastered on the front page. I actually like your post i'm just saying in general. =)
One guy sifted through the thread looking for errors and found one with nonconsensual I had spelling it with a T. Ironically no one else noticed it because the root word is consent. But having a lack of ideas doesn't help in creating a page length rant so you have to find filler.
Consentual says the same thing as consensual though its accepted as the latter. Though in essense all words are made up so it's not necessarily incorrect as long as the idea is expressed in a way most can understand. It's like Brits jonesing on American English because it doesn't follow the Queen's decree. |
Lord Zim
747
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 12:52:00 -
[740] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Its not abuse. Abuse is what's being done with local as it is. I'd call it "game balance". Not its not. Its called listening to a bunch of people who want to play EVE but never be forced to take a risk. Whoever declared that balanced needs to be fired as an absolute incompetent. We know your opinion Zim. Double digit sh!tpoasts throughout the thread. Having 4-6 seconds to respond at a random point in time over a playsession of, say, 8 hours, isn't risk, that's certainty. The only one not wanting to take a risk is the one who wants the current system changed to this, since that would dramatically cut down his risk, and after an interestingly short time he'll be back bitching and moaning about lack of targets because most people moved back to hisec to do L4s instead of staying in nullsec/lowsec. The only thing that'd be left would be PVPers who had a hisec L4 alt (or similar) for moneymaking. |
|
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
265
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 12:55:00 -
[741] - Quote
Okay we've heard your opinion I don't want to block you and I won't but i'm not interested in having a back and forth. |
Lord Zim
747
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 13:01:00 -
[742] - Quote
Hey, all I'm saying is that if what you want out of nullsec is a place where PVPers go to do SOV war or shoot eachother's moons, then log out and go play on their L4s in hisec (leaving nullsec a complete desert devoid of life), then go ahead and remove local.
If, however, you absolutely want to add risk to nullsec, then work on making the sov system harder to defend, and stations go boom. |
Leto Aramaus
Ixion Defence Systems Tactical Narcotics Team
62
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 13:11:00 -
[743] - Quote
Guys...
Lord Zim...
risk, no risk, balance... whatever, all that is secondary.
The fact is, Local is stupid and juvenile. As soon as you enter a solar system... you see every other ship listed there for you?
Please... WORST. gameplay. mechanic. ever.
It sucks, change it. Period. |
Wibla
Backwater Redux Tactical Narcotics Team
59
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 13:29:00 -
[744] - Quote
How is local stupid or juvenile?
Just curious, if you feel that living in space with local chat is so stupid and juvenile, maybe you should go join a WH corp instead of being in TNT? |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
265
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 13:33:00 -
[745] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Hey, all I'm saying is that if what you want out of nullsec is a place where PVPers go to do SOV war or shoot eachother's moons, then log out and go play on their L4s in hisec (leaving nullsec a complete desert devoid of life), then go ahead and remove local.
If, however, you absolutely want to add risk to nullsec, then work on making the sov system harder to defend, and stations go boom.
Zim, F#CK NULL. I don't care about null or its mechanics. What I care about is EVE and the tedium that is camping for a kill. I dont mind work, risk or failure. What I mind is being willing to work, take a risk and accept failure and nothing about being so changes that to kill anyone in particular requires the target to be braindead and me to be enthralled with the tedium of sitting at a gate because stealth is impossible. |
Lord Zim
747
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 15:51:00 -
[746] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Zim, F#CK NULL. I don't care about null or its mechanics. Don't worry, that's been apparent for a very, very long time. Only, you should include lowsec and hisec to that list as well. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
313
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 16:27:00 -
[747] - Quote
I support the removal of local.
I also recommend a modification to current sensor use, as described in this linked thread:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=112964&find=unread
Local has been a block to make cloaking diminished, which would be released from this in it's absence.
Some means of hunting cloaks may be viable if local goes away. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1090
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 16:36:00 -
[748] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: Having 4-6 seconds to respond at a random point in time over a playsession of, say, 8 hours, isn't risk, that's certainty. The only one not wanting to take a risk is the one who wants the current system changed to this, since that would dramatically cut down his risk, and after an interestingly short time he'll be back bitching and moaning about lack of targets because most people moved back to hisec to do L4s instead of staying in nullsec/lowsec. The only thing that'd be left would be PVPers who had a hisec L4 alt (or similar) for moneymaking.
That's not even the risk the average ice miner runs every hour, every day.
They are stuck in totally rare and very easy to reach few system know to everybody, always have 80+ in local and the same systems are also missioning systems (so forget them being "tranquil" systems) and are stuck at a nicely visible belt everybody see on their overview.
Unlike you, they have a Mackinaw loltank, a sitting duck ship that takes ages to align and 5 drones as only defense. 8500 of them (along with others) died in 1 month.
How many 0.0 PvE ships died in 1 month again?
How many other "hard core, for hardened, skilled men" MMOs have an immediate mode local chat? Zero? One?
CCP should just make D-Scan a regular radar like every sim game past 1980 got and have players rely on it. End of AFK anything. 4-6 seconds too little? Welcome to EvE. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Lord Zim
747
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 17:05:00 -
[749] - Quote
Yes, I'm well aware of the fact tons and tons of hisec miners are dying all over the place. I suspect, however, that you know what the proper fix to that particular problem is. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
313
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 17:17:00 -
[750] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Yes, I'm well aware of the fact tons and tons of hisec miners are dying all over the place. I suspect, however, that you know what the proper fix to that particular problem is. I will guess that you would suggest some form of proactive defense. Considering the mackinaw's limits, that would most likely be having others escort you, all the way to setting bubblecamps on Null gates.
Sure, you could try to mount a tank on a mack, but past a certain point you just change ships entirely, and load a rokh up and use it instead.
Hisec is a unique puzzle. How do you prevent a pilot from killing you, when they already expect and have accepted they will also die in the process? As far as I can see, the best deterrent you can imply is that they will die alone.
In low and null, the threat of them dying is often the actual deterrent.
Perhaps if an orca boosted defense rather than mining results, it might help. (Assuming an orca here, it could be any BC or command ship really) |
|
Lord Zim
747
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 17:27:00 -
[751] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Yes, I'm well aware of the fact tons and tons of hisec miners are dying all over the place. I suspect, however, that you know what the proper fix to that particular problem is. I will guess that you would suggest some form of proactive defense. Considering the mackinaw's limits, that would most likely be having others escort you, all the way to setting bubblecamps on Null gates. I've no idea why you're talking about bubblecamps on null gates, I thought we were on the topic of hisec ganking of miners now? |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
313
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 17:46:00 -
[752] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Yes, I'm well aware of the fact tons and tons of hisec miners are dying all over the place. I suspect, however, that you know what the proper fix to that particular problem is. I will guess that you would suggest some form of proactive defense. Considering the mackinaw's limits, that would most likely be having others escort you, all the way to setting bubblecamps on Null gates. I've no idea why you're talking about bubblecamps on null gates, I thought we were on the topic of hisec ganking of miners now? Though a sidetrack to the thread, yes. Mackinaws were mentioned by name.
I was pointing out how it was actually more practicable to defend a miner with NBSI in null or low, rather than hi sec.
To get back on track, I would suggest that miners should not be listed on the menu, (AKA: Local Chat), for hunters to see at a glance. Removing local would force hunters to scan for miners, and by doing so expose themselves to the miners as a potential threat. |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
102
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 18:12:00 -
[753] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Yes, I'm well aware of the fact tons and tons of hisec miners are dying all over the place. I suspect, however, that you know what the proper fix to that particular problem is. I will guess that you would suggest some form of proactive defense. Considering the mackinaw's limits, that would most likely be having others escort you, all the way to setting bubblecamps on Null gates. I've no idea why you're talking about bubblecamps on null gates, I thought we were on the topic of hisec ganking of miners now?
i prefer talking about cookies. |
Lord Zim
747
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 19:56:00 -
[754] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:To get back on track, I would suggest that miners should not be listed on the menu, (AKA: Local Chat), for hunters to see at a glance. Removing local would force hunters to scan for miners, and by doing so expose themselves to the miners as a potential threat. Ugh no, that's a bad hack, and it wouldn't solve anything, anywhere. It certainly wouldn't do anything in hisec.
Listen, the problem isn't so much the fact that hisec miners are being ganked, since the game is designed so that this is supposed to be possible after all. No, it sounds more like the inconveniences incurred by continued ganking isn't deterring people from going to -10 and staying there.
I'd defend to the death the possibility to gank in hisec, but I wouldn't disagree with, or ***** about how CCP was ruining the sandbox if they were to see what's happening in hisec now and making a few minor tweaks to try to curb the ganking which may or may not be running rampant (that's up to CCP to decide). I would only really ***** if they were to stop people from ganking in its entirety, since hisec is supposed to be safer than the other sec statuses, but you're still not supposed to be completely safe.
Andrea Roche wrote:i prefer talking about cookies. A dirty euphemism if I ever saw one. :colbert: |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
313
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 20:07:00 -
[755] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Listen, the problem isn't so much the fact that hisec miners are being ganked, since the game is designed so that this is supposed to be possible after all. No, it sounds more like the inconveniences incurred by continued ganking isn't deterring people from going to -10 and staying there.
I'd defend to the death the possibility to gank in hisec, but I wouldn't disagree with, or ***** about how CCP was ruining the sandbox if they were to see what's happening in hisec now and making a few minor tweaks to try to curb the ganking which may or may not be running rampant (that's up to CCP to decide). I would only really ***** if they were to stop people from ganking in its entirety, since hisec is supposed to be safer than the other sec statuses, but you're still not supposed to be completely safe. I think that is one of the aspects of this being promoted. Removal of local would inhibit both the ganker, and the target, in a way that causes the ganker to become a person of interest simply for getting into range of the target's sensors.
Past a certain point, anyone getting too close who is not a known ally, becomes increasingly more likely to be hostile. In places where shooting first equals a death sentence, knowing when to run is as good a defense as you can manage. Second best obviously being to have a tank good enough to outlast the attacker after concordokken begins on them.
Perverse though it is, hisec is prohibitive for many forms of proactive defense. |
Lord Zim
747
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 20:20:00 -
[756] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:Removal of local would inhibit both the ganker, and the target, in a way that causes the ganker to become a person of interest simply for getting into range of the target's sensors. Um, I don't see how removing miners from local would inhibit the gankers one whit. Worst case they have a cloaky alt which they put right where they want to land, fleet up and warp to the alt, lock the guy up and shoots him. Voila, he has what, 2 seconds total of reaction time?
No, that's not a solution to anything, and it's the wrong end of the stick to handle. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
265
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 20:46:00 -
[757] - Quote
@Zim
Stop spamming the thread. You have no argument for local staying. We know your inane opinion and quite frankly we see how desperate you are. You are a troll. Period. No matter what is said you reply with a non point.
You've basically hijacked the entire thread and rammed your whiney non - opinion down everyone's throat to the point i'm seriously tired of seeing your spastic looking avatar multiple times every page.
I recommend everyone blocking Lord Zim. You will have a much better time in the forums because he's an agenda pushing patsy. You won't get a real counter argument, just convoluted whines designed to make you feel guilty for playing the game the way it was meant to be played.
He builds a strawman, names it victim and then lobbies on behalf of it.
His arguments come down to..... You have guns and you want cheap ammunition? What about the victims you'll kill by having all that cheap ammo? I can't understand how giving you cheap ammunition is balanced. You realize all that cheap ammo will cause nullsec to fall apart right? We have paper tiger empires out here and only survive because no one can afford to shoot us! |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
313
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 20:54:00 -
[758] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:Removal of local would inhibit both the ganker, and the target, in a way that causes the ganker to become a person of interest simply for getting into range of the target's sensors. Um, I don't see how removing miners from local would inhibit the gankers one whit. Worst case they have a cloaky alt which they put right where they want to land, fleet up and warp to the alt, lock the guy up and shoots him. Voila, he has what, 2 seconds total of reaction time? No, that's not a solution to anything, and it's the wrong end of the stick to handle. You just committed a fleet to a suicide gank.
Now, consider in the preparation that you also committed a cloaked vessel for scouting purposes. This is significant, in that by removing local, you also remove the number one reason ever given for not being able to hunt or otherwise track cloaked vessels.
Our hypothetical miner, obviously concerned for their continued well being, would be wise to avail themselves of this cloaking detection / warning ability. I think you are right on this detail, knowing a cloaked person scouted the belt you were mining would be a screaming alarm for them to evacuate the belt. There can be little confusion that this represents a threat. |
Lord Zim
747
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 21:33:00 -
[759] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:You just committed a fleet to a suicide gank. It wouldn't really be a huge commitment to use a second account for warpin, as using multiple accounts is something I do all the time for jewing purposes. And I hope you don't take the word "fleet up" as more of a commitment than it actually is. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if people were using that already, since some miners aren't fully ******** and will actually warp off when people in non-mining ships get too close.
Nikk Narrel wrote:Now, consider in the preparation that you also committed a cloaked vessel for scouting purposes. This is significant, in that by removing local, you also remove the number one reason ever given for not being able to hunt or otherwise track cloaked vessels. Wait, remove local? I thought you said "remove miners from local"?
Nikk Narrel wrote:Our hypothetical miner, obviously concerned for their continued well being, would be wise to avail themselves of this cloaking detection / warning ability. I think you are right on this detail, knowing a cloaked person scouted the belt you were mining would be a screaming alarm for them to evacuate the belt. There can be little confusion that this represents a threat. There are a few things with this. First of all, again, using a second account to provide warpins, cloaked or not, is probably done today. Second of all, how many miners have begun to do the bare minimum of tanking their ships as it is, let alone start monitoring for whether or not there's someone in the belt with a cloak on.
Of course, if there was some way to actually detect cloaked ships and the miners actually began scanning for cloaked ships and warping out every time they saw one, then I'd probably have a fair bit of fun just sidling up to some in a cloaked transporter or something, just to see them warp off. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
313
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 22:13:00 -
[760] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Of course, if there was some way to actually detect cloaked ships and the miners actually began scanning for cloaked ships and warping out every time they saw one, then I'd probably have a fair bit of fun just sidling up to some in a cloaked transporter or something, just to see them warp off. I think a lot would do the same thing. Buzzing miners just to see them panic? As a mining person, and a CovOps pilot, I am good with this.
But, the key point is that miners would be able to make an effort not currently available to them, in a situation where they are at a disadvantage.
I believe the ability to do something in the game, to further your interest of survival, is valuable. I firmly believe that the capability of making this effort is needed, so that players choosing to mine can do the extra work to survive attacks.
Noone wants to say that someone willing to suicide gank has an I WIN button, and I believe by giving miners the ability to be effective in their vigilance brings balance. |
|
Lord Zim
747
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 22:30:00 -
[761] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:But, the key point is that miners would be able to make an effort not currently available to them, in a situation where they are at a disadvantage.
I believe the ability to do something in the game, to further your interest of survival, is valuable. I firmly believe that the capability of making this effort is needed, so that players choosing to mine can do the extra work to survive attacks.
Noone wants to say that someone willing to suicide gank has an I WIN button, and I believe by giving miners the ability to be effective in their vigilance brings balance. There are tons of things miners can do to make it so suicide gankers do not have an I win button. They can fit a proper tank, they can employ RR, they can keep their speed up by circling something so they exit the effective range of blasters etc, but if someone is determined to take out a miner, nothing'll stop that someone from bringing more people to the gank and executing it anyways. This was proven time and time again (both ways) during the ice interdiction.
And as for local, if you mean that CCP should remove just miners from local, then that won't help anyone in hisec, since gankers don't go after certain people, they go to belts and shoot the miners they find there to itty bitty bits. If you mean that CCP should remove local in its entirety, then I don't see how that's going to be positive for anyone except the gankers if they're in, say, goonswarm, because then the miners can't see that the local population suddenly got a few goon chars.
No, if you're actually concerned with the amount of miners ganked, then I'm pretty certain that the proper lasting solution would be to get CCP to do minor changes to how crimewatch treats people with very bad security status to make suicide ganking something which is doable, but there are limits to how far you can push the envelope before the reactions become an actual deterrent. Because that's the thing which is the problem with suicide ganking these days, the deterrents aren't sufficiently deterring. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
313
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 22:40:00 -
[762] - Quote
Pointing out the benefits to miners was only one aspect of value I see in removing local.
By all means, keep a regional chat, or delayed local where you only show up by saying something in the channel. That one specific element present in wormholes was refreshing. Unfortunately for myself, the other aspects of wormhole existence I found unappealing. I left after two months wishing I could enjoy that local chat in other places, but alas not yet.
To be more specific, I see local chat as an obstacle. I have a vested interest in it being removed, as a SB pilot.
With local gone, I believe the game will shift cloaking to become more of what players expected. You are harder to find, other must make effort with some skill to do so reliably. You are able to hunt, and those failing to guard against your attacks will be your targets.
Many are the details that need clarification, but one has been pointed to with certainty. Local must no longer give out intel the way it does now. |
Lord Zim
747
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 23:22:00 -
[763] - Quote
I see. Well, if there'd been ships or modules which could find cloaked ships, and either the rewards were buffed quite heavily to compensate for the added risk, or hisec didn't have L4s or similar to spew forth isk in more or less absolute safety, then I'd be for this, since there'd be no real alternative to make isk.
Otherwise, any such change would just end up sending a vast majority of the carebears I assume you'd go after as a SB pilot back to hisec, and all which'd be left in null and lowsec would be roaming gangs bemoaning the lack of targets and fleets shooting POSes and other structures. vOv |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
265
|
Posted - 2012.06.02 02:04:00 -
[764] - Quote
Excellent posts Nikk Narrel. Elegant and concise. A pleasure to read. |
Poetic Stanziel
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
883
|
Posted - 2012.06.02 14:32:00 -
[765] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Get rid of all secs. But I like secs.
The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
durka dreckly
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.02 19:53:00 -
[766] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Hey, all I'm saying is that if what you want out of nullsec is a place where PVPers go to do SOV war or shoot eachother's moons, then log out and go play on their L4s in hisec (leaving nullsec a complete desert devoid of life), then go ahead and remove local.
.
That be great for him, all he ever tries to "pvp" is high sec missioners and miners...... |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
265
|
Posted - 2012.06.02 20:55:00 -
[767] - Quote
In our survey we found that 1000 out of 1000 vikings found local chat in EVE unicelandic. |
Lord Zim
747
|
Posted - 2012.06.02 21:45:00 -
[768] - Quote
You should've stuck to the initial Umad? post. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
265
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 04:21:00 -
[769] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:You should've stuck to the initial Umad? post.
I'm not going to allow a cowardly little alt poster to derail the thread into a pissing match. Its no need to. UMad wasnt even the first iteration.
You're a sycophant. You require attention. Negative or positive you just can't stay away. No matter what I say you'll cling to my words and post each and every time. By all means Zim prove me wrong, don't post anymore. Betcha can't!
Create your own thread defending local chat. Let's see the ability for you to do anything other than meander on for the last word. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
717
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 05:07:00 -
[770] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Lord Zim wrote:You should've stuck to the initial Umad? post. I'm not going to allow a cowardly little alt poster to derail the thread into a pissing match. Its no need to. UMad wasnt even the first iteration. You're a sycophant. You require attention. Negative or positive you just can't stay away. No matter what I say you'll cling to my words and post each and every time. By all means Zim prove me wrong, don't post anymore. Betcha can't! Create your own thread defending local chat. Let's see the ability for you to do anything other than meander on for the last word.
Do you know what the word "sycophant" means?
He's also not an alt poster fyi eh |
|
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
265
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 06:30:00 -
[771] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:Lord Zim wrote:You should've stuck to the initial Umad? post. I'm not going to allow a cowardly little alt poster to derail the thread into a pissing match. Its no need to. UMad wasnt even the first iteration. You're a sycophant. You require attention. Negative or positive you just can't stay away. No matter what I say you'll cling to my words and post each and every time. By all means Zim prove me wrong, don't post anymore. Betcha can't! Create your own thread defending local chat. Let's see the ability for you to do anything other than meander on for the last word. Do you know what the word "sycophant" means? He's also not an alt poster fyi
Are you his defense by proxy? All i'm saying is I like to read different viewpoints. It's not a bias issue, I already have the advantage by having the opening post. But short of keeping the thread active occasionally I try and collect the opinions of different people, not just one person who refuses to listen to any argument that would bring any real element of danger to the game.
And yes I know what sycophancy is. But people of that personality type will substitute attention for praise when it's all that's available. If the OP is constantly responding to them they are the star of the show so to speak. I'm essentially being forced to praise (respond to) his posts by being inundated with them on every page I post.
It wouldn't be a problem, tldr isn't in my protocol, save for he refuses to see things in any other fashion than a myopic pessimist. There is no debate to be had with that personality. It's entire premise rests with suggesting a negative outcome, completely unprovable, then hiding behind it and peoples natural resistance to change.
Zim wasn't the person I refered to as an alt poster either. I'm not attacking Zim for disagreeing, i'm attacking him for being disagreeable. And his being disagreeable is purely agenda driven. |
Imrik86
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 07:19:00 -
[772] - Quote
CCP doesn't have enough balls to get rid of local. Lots of people will freak out and leave. In fact, they even encourage dual boxing. They go great lenghts to optimze the game to run simutaneously, and that's why the game is just a bunch of alts sitting at stations. It makes them look good on the " ONLINE PLAYERS" count for the investors.
WH is the only fun place left in EVE just because it lacks local. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
265
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 11:02:00 -
[773] - Quote
Imrik86 wrote:CCP doesn't have enough balls to get rid of local. Lots of people will freak out and leave. In fact, they even encourage dual boxing. They go great lenghts to optimze the game to run simutaneously, and that's why the game is just a bunch of alts sitting at stations. It makes them look good on the " ONLINE PLAYERS" count for the investors.
WH is the only fun place left in EVE just because it lacks local.
Dual boxing doesn't really help. I can throw a neutral scout in system and if the target has one too they will know i'm on the next gate. Its a game stagnating situation that needs to be fixed. Local single handedly kills almost every "feature" chaos theory and emergent gameplay offers. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
722
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 13:23:00 -
[774] - Quote
keep handwaving it's not like you're regurgitating the same drivel on and on despite everyone who actually Plays The Game telling you why You Are Wrong eh |
Lord Zim
749
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 13:35:00 -
[775] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:All i'm saying is I like to read different viewpoints. And by "different viewpoints" you mean "viewpoints which say 'remove local'" so it's easier for you to gank, and harder/impossible for the prey to get away.
Caliph Muhammed wrote:And yes I know what sycophancy is. But people of that personality type will substitute attention for praise when it's all that's available. If the OP is constantly responding to them they are the star of the show so to speak. I'm essentially being forced to praise (respond to) his posts by being inundated with them on every page I post. No, you really don't understand what a sycophant is. Read the definition again and look at which direction the flattery etc would have to be flowing if I were a sycophant.
But by all means, keep using the wrong terms, it's amusing.
Caliph Muhammed wrote:It's entire premise rests with suggesting a negative outcome, completely unprovable, then hiding behind it and peoples natural resistance to change. You keep saying it's unprovable, yet we've seen time and time again what happens every time risk is increased anywhere in eve, or when reward is decreased. The fact that you keeps responding to that with "that's just your theory" or "that's not provable" doesn't make it any less correct. The problem isn't the proof, the problem is you going "NO IT ISN'T I CAN'T HEAR YOU REMOVE LOCAL IT'S THE ONLY THING HOLDING EVE BACK FROM BEING RISKY" as long as what the poster says isn't unequivocally "remove local".
Caliph Muhammed wrote:I'm not attacking Zim for disagreeing, i'm attacking him for being disagreeable. And his being disagreeable is purely agenda driven. Actually, it's pretty obvious who has the agenda here. You're demanding changes which'll have a massive effect on how the game plays for everyone. In hisec, people won't be able to see wartargets or -10's, in low/null people won't be able to see when/if it's actually safe, no matter how much time and energy they actually expend, and cloaks would be even more mandatory for whole roaming gangs than it is now for obvious reasons.
And the funny thing? You keep saying "well they can just put in some effort to keep safe", and you can't even be bothered to stay in WHs because, and I quote, "[I] can't leave wormholes every 5 minutes to update [my] market orders". |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
271
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 11:45:00 -
[776] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:keep handwaving it's not like you're regurgitating the same drivel on and on despite everyone who actually Plays The Game telling you why You Are Wrong
Because the 81 likes on the Op mean nothing and the duo of pussies from Goonswarm and the occasional alt poster represent everyone. Oh yeah, stealth bump. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
762
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 13:12:00 -
[777] - Quote
Why don't you go to a wormhole? Too scary? eh |
Lord Zim
765
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 13:21:00 -
[778] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Why don't you go to a wormhole? Too scary? He can't update his market orders from a WH. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
315
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 15:18:00 -
[779] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Why don't you go to a wormhole? Too scary? He can't update his market orders from a WH. Let's not imply misleading information here!
There is a lot of differences between wormhole space and regular space. The absence of local, while often pointed out, is hardly the only change.
In many cases it is the only thing that some of us liked about wormhole space. It was the other aspects of that gameplay that were too negative for local's absence to overcome, so I and others like-minded left for regular space again. |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
468
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 15:37:00 -
[780] - Quote
Just catching up with this thread...
Frying Doom wrote:The only people I have heard arguing for local to remain in Null are the usual candidates who are part of the lazy blob at the moment. <--- not part of the Lazy Blob. Lives in WH's - where there is everything you seek... Regardless of farms/fields/forts whatever the hell you put out - until something is done about static travel routes and static PVE content, all your suggesting is, is an increase in alt-scouts and blobs.
Frying Doom wrote:Umm because the lazy would actually have to do something to find you in the first place.
And yes I am aware of the anom argument but lets see you go through 4 or more systems warping to every anom and coming up empty, before you decide to do some work and actually try to scan people down. WH'ers do it all the time, and it does *not* take that long...
Frying Doom wrote:What I find particularly funny is that the people against removing local from Null come from the very same Alliance and CFC as those using the tech bottle neck to fund the Infinite Hulkagedon thus providing their Alliance and the CFC with even more cash. Because everyone knows that being in the CFC means you can never identify a stupid idea without first running it past the "CFC Department of Information Resources" to get the approved answer....
Frying Doom wrote:Is this because they are worried about people being able to sneak into their own space undetected and add the CFC's hulks to the hulkagedon killboards? LOL
Frying Doom wrote:Is it because in Null sec local allows you to instantly see if anyone is in a system that shouldn't be there giving them safety. Where as in Hi-sec the residents are so much more numerous that local is a better tool for the ganker?
Null sec is so safe that these very people are able to abandon there territory to go and Burn Jita with no fear of loosing their sovereign space. Or maybe it's because they have enough people to let 1500 go attend burn jita and not miss them? You know, numbers have a quality all their own...
They seem to have HTFU pretty well, seeing as nobody has kicked them out of where they want to be while they're pissing off everyone with Hulkageddon/Burn Jita and OTEC...
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
769
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 16:44:00 -
[781] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Why don't you go to a wormhole? Too scary? He can't update his market orders from a WH. Let's not imply misleading information here! There is a lot of differences between wormhole space and regular space. The absence of local, while often pointed out, is hardly the only change. In many cases it is the only thing that some of us liked about wormhole space. It was the other aspects of that gameplay that were too negative for local's absence to overcome, so I and others like-minded left for regular space again.
Those differences are why local would be broken in wormholes and why it's necessary in k-space. It is not our problem if you couldn't hack it in wormholes, we just don't want cherrypicked aspects of wormhole space being imported to nullsec with zero balancing. eh |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
315
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 17:12:00 -
[782] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Why don't you go to a wormhole? Too scary? He can't update his market orders from a WH. Let's not imply misleading information here! There is a lot of differences between wormhole space and regular space. The absence of local, while often pointed out, is hardly the only change. In many cases it is the only thing that some of us liked about wormhole space. It was the other aspects of that gameplay that were too negative for local's absence to overcome, so I and others like-minded left for regular space again. Those differences are why local would be broken in wormholes and why it's necessary in k-space. It is not our problem if you couldn't hack it in wormholes, we just don't want cherrypicked aspects of wormhole space being imported to nullsec with zero balancing. That does not follow.
Wormholes have variable points of connection. This makes knowing who is in your wormhole dependent on knowing who could be in it, based on who has access to that external connection. Long description short: You have less information in the wormhole than in regular space. Even with local to give away all present, this dynamic would destabilize a regular system by exposing it to unpredictable risk. Local being absent magnifies this element's uncertainty factor, it does not balance it.
Wormholes have limited storage and transfer restrictions. For storage, you have what your ship can carry, and what you can store in a friendly POS. With a POS, you are often forced to trust other players with any and all resources stored there. With transfer restrictions, you are limited with what you can bring into the wormhole space, as well as what can be exported. Export limits are often a far lesser concern, for obvious reason. Local being absent does not reduce the impact this has on gameplay, at best.
Wormholes do not have a market. Outside of trades, if you need something, it's up to you to go and get it outside of wormhole space. If you have a backing organization, then they can attempt deliveries. Local being absent makes travel with cargo more challenging than would be otherwise.
In each of these major points, the absence of local does nothing to mitigate the in game impact of these features. In most of the details, the absence of local makes the aspect more of a challenge than it would otherwise be.
If anything, wormhole space is more challenging for several reasons. The absence of local is far from balancing them for risk, it enhances the level of risk. |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
470
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 17:51:00 -
[783] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Its not abuse. Abuse is what's being done with local as it is. Abuse? For nine years? Wow! I'm certainly glad we had you to come along and tell us all how it is... after playing for six months...
Caliph Muhammed wrote:And with that being said im not even considering your timing argument as proof or even factual. Bottom line you feel entitled to keep unlimited tabs on my character when the game says otherwise. "Locator Agents" "Alt Scouts" "Static travel routes" Game says "yes we can", and has for almost a decade. You may not have noticed... Edit to add: "Instant intell friends lists"
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Why did we get rid of faction standings being publically displayed again? Dunno! I'm not a care-bear. Why *did* CCP remove faction standings from being publicly displayed?
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
783
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 04:44:00 -
[784] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:That does not follow.
Wormholes have variable points of connection. This makes knowing who is in your wormhole dependent on knowing who could be in it, based on who has access to that external connection. Long description short: You have less information in the wormhole than in regular space. Even with local to give away all present, this dynamic would destabilize a regular system by exposing it to unpredictable risk. Local being absent magnifies this element's uncertainty factor, it does not balance it.
Wormholes have limited storage and transfer restrictions. For storage, you have what your ship can carry, and what you can store in a friendly POS. With a POS, you are often forced to trust other players with any and all resources stored there. With transfer restrictions, you are limited with what you can bring into the wormhole space, as well as what can be exported. Export limits are often a far lesser concern, for obvious reason. Local being absent does not reduce the impact this has on gameplay, at best.
Wormholes do not have a market. Outside of trades, if you need something, it's up to you to go and get it outside of wormhole space. If you have a backing organization, then they can attempt deliveries. Local being absent makes travel with cargo more challenging than would be otherwise.
In each of these major points, the absence of local does nothing to mitigate the in game impact of these features. In most of the details, the absence of local makes the aspect more of a challenge than it would otherwise be.
If anything, wormhole space is more challenging for several reasons. The absence of local is far from balancing them for risk, it enhances the level of risk.
Can you take 300 ships through a wormhole like you would a gate? No. Do you have to expend anywhere near as much effort to travel to a particular nullsec system as you would a specific wormhole? No. In a nullsec system without local, you'd have the ability to warp cloaked to every 100% scan signature and asteroid belt to find a target, in a bomber with no targeting delay. You can light a cyno. It wouldn't be difficult to find a target, just time-consuming. And you'd dictate every aspect of the "engagement." Sorry if I do not agree with your wish for easy PvP.
You cannot simply warp around in a wormhole and find a target. An attentive target would see your probes on scan, probes that would be unnecessary in nullsec. You can only warp to planets and moons and there are no 100% scan signatures that do not require probing. eh |
Altair Raja
Colonial Marines EVE Division Villore Accords
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 05:25:00 -
[785] - Quote
I think we should just make local delayed... lower the sec the more delay. AFK cloaking doesn't earn anything, so it needs a buff! |
Garviel Tarrant
Aces -N- Eights Excuses.
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 05:51:00 -
[786] - Quote
Buff the D-scan mechanic
Make local in H-sec mandatory
optional for recons/cov/black ops in lo sec and remove it in null
Lots of more exciting fun!
(Although i fear it would just make people turtle up in fear more..) |
Ned Black
Driders
29
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 05:56:00 -
[787] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:That does not follow.
Wormholes have variable points of connection. This makes knowing who is in your wormhole dependent on knowing who could be in it, based on who has access to that external connection. Long description short: You have less information in the wormhole than in regular space. Even with local to give away all present, this dynamic would destabilize a regular system by exposing it to unpredictable risk. Local being absent magnifies this element's uncertainty factor, it does not balance it.
Wormholes have limited storage and transfer restrictions. For storage, you have what your ship can carry, and what you can store in a friendly POS. With a POS, you are often forced to trust other players with any and all resources stored there. With transfer restrictions, you are limited with what you can bring into the wormhole space, as well as what can be exported. Export limits are often a far lesser concern, for obvious reason. Local being absent does not reduce the impact this has on gameplay, at best.
Wormholes do not have a market. Outside of trades, if you need something, it's up to you to go and get it outside of wormhole space. If you have a backing organization, then they can attempt deliveries. Local being absent makes travel with cargo more challenging than would be otherwise.
In each of these major points, the absence of local does nothing to mitigate the in game impact of these features. In most of the details, the absence of local makes the aspect more of a challenge than it would otherwise be.
If anything, wormhole space is more challenging for several reasons. The absence of local is far from balancing them for risk, it enhances the level of risk. Can you take 300 ships through a wormhole like you would a gate? No. Do you have to expend anywhere near as much effort to travel to a particular nullsec system as you would a specific wormhole? No. In a nullsec system without local, you'd have the ability to warp cloaked to every 100% scan signature and asteroid belt to find a target, in a bomber with no targeting delay. You can light a cyno. It wouldn't be difficult to find a target, just time-consuming. And you'd dictate every aspect of the "engagement." Sorry if I do not agree with your wish for easy PvP. You cannot simply warp around in a wormhole and find a target. An attentive target would see your probes on scan, probes that would be unnecessary in nullsec. You can only warp to planets and moons and there are no 100% scan signatures that do not require probing.
1. Yes you can. Not battleships, but you can...
2. No, its harder to find your way in nullsec as you say. It is possible with luck to find a specific hole, but dont hold your breath.
3. So turn plexing into a scanning fest for nullsecers as well then. Right now you have your cake walk when it comes to PvE. Sure there are scannable sites in nullsec, but most of the time you dont really need them to make tons of isk anyway.
4. Cynos are bad mkay? Or at least the way cynos work is bloody F.U.B.A.R. They should give ships a cyno speed, so when the cyno pops and you jump it still takes time for you to go wherever you are going. If someone kills the cyno ship the people jumping should end up at random places in the destination system. This would effectivly kill most of the cov ops cynos right next to the hostile that you see today.
5. Hmmm... and here I thought you goons liked easy "PvP" (hulkageddon anyone?)... but I guess that easy PvP only applies as long as you are not the target... Not as much fun when you are the one losing your money making ships now is it? |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
470
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 13:56:00 -
[788] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Imrik86 wrote:CCP doesn't have enough balls to get rid of local. Lots of people will freak out and leave. In fact, they even encourage dual boxing. They go great lenghts to optimze the game to run simutaneously, and that's why the game is just a bunch of alts sitting at stations. It makes them look good on the " ONLINE PLAYERS" count for the investors.
WH is the only fun place left in EVE just because it lacks local. Its a game stagnating situation that needs to be fixed. Local single handedly kills almost every "feature" chaos theory and emergent gameplay offers. No it doesn't. Just to name a *few* other "agents of stagnation".
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Locator Agents______ makes locating a war target trivial. Locator Agents______ makes avoiding a war target trivial. Jump Gates and neut alts______ prevents true stealth attacks. Jump Gates and neut alts______ prevents true stealth travel. d-scan/probes/dotlan______ gives intelligence unearned and effort free at zero cost. Nothing (goons prove this every day)______ makes chaos theory and emergent gameplay an impossibility. Nothing______ makes scouting skills on your pvp character an exercise in futility. (a person just can't suck at it) War-Dec Mechanics______ inevitably turns all sanctioned pvp into a campfest. Sucky Mercs and no way to enforce contracts on them______ makes hiring a merc corp to war dec a grief corp a waste of effort and resources. Jump Gates______ makes cloaking in general, useless. People's own risk aversion______ makes "afk" presence an option for asset denial. Multiple Alt Characters______ allows gate camping to be done in relative safety and without do risk of larger camps sneaking up on them. Situational Awareness______ makes neutral alts mandatory when targeting a competent player for non-consensual pvp. Whining on the forums every other day______ doesn't make sense in a hardcore sandbox MMO and feels amateur in implementation. PVE Content______ being removed would kill most botting operations in EVE with zero coding required. Indestructible Stations ______ is a crutch used for the lazy to secure themselves from risk. static asteroid belts______ allows suicide gankers to find miners without any real scanning work being done beforehand. Jump Gates______ makes the vastness of space feel absurdly small. Lack of skill______ makes black ops somewhat pointless. Neutral Alts and static routes between systems______ makes non-consensual pvp a myth. At best something only the dimmest endure.
There are no right or wrong answers here so its a very general discussion. If by chance one particular answer stands out, ignore your gut feeling. Its just wrong thinking, obviously.
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
73
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 14:02:00 -
[789] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:
Can you take 300 ships through a wormhole like you would a gate? No.
not exactly true, over a period of time you could get as many ships into a wh system as you wanted.
Richard Desturned wrote:
Do you have to expend anywhere near as much effort to travel to a particular nullsec system as you would a specific wormhole? No.
what's wrong with a little effort ? in your next point you seem to say you don't agree with the easy pvp.
Richard Desturned wrote:
In a nullsec system without local, you'd have the ability to warp cloaked to every 100% scan signature and asteroid belt to find a target, in a bomber with no targeting delay. You can light a cyno. It wouldn't be difficult to find a target, just time-consuming. And you'd dictate every aspect of the "engagement." Sorry if I do not agree with your wish for easy PvP.
isn't this true stealth/covert operational abilities ? something that both side can take advantage of so it's fair.
Richard Desturned wrote:
You cannot simply warp around in a wormhole and find a target. An attentive target would see your probes on scan, probes that would be unnecessary in nullsec.
stupid point, probes are needed everywhere, and i'm sorry, but yes you can simply warp around in a WH to find a target. yes they'll see your probes on scan, but isn't this the whole point of this thread, making things more interesting and more of a challange instead of the oh look in local targets are here approch.
Richard Desturned wrote:
You can only warp to planets and moons and there are no 100% scan signatures that do not require probing.
you can also warp to bookmarks/ pos's, if you'd have read the entire thread you'd have seen that some of us have said that if local was changed that there should be a change to balance it the other way also, a ship to allow you to probe/scan a cloaked ship down.
you are mmistaken thinking we are calling for an easy PVP systemm infact we are calling for it to be made harder.
|
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
74
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 15:58:00 -
[790] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:
Do you know what the word "sycophant" means?
sycophant = Mittani
>>>>> CLICK ME <<<<< |
|
Selissa Shadoe
89
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 16:51:00 -
[791] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:But don't you worry my killers aren't going to let up. I'll be logged in 23/7 for the duration of us hunting you. Welcome to EVE offline.
.. and the griefer's mindset is revealed. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
272
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 12:30:00 -
[792] - Quote
Selissa Shadoe wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:But don't you worry my killers aren't going to let up. I'll be logged in 23/7 for the duration of us hunting you. Welcome to EVE offline. .. and the griefer's mindset is revealed.
And the intelligence of the candyass is revealed right here. It doesn't realize the only way to actually kill a target with local chat available against its will is by numbing the target to ones presence and catching it off guard. Sadly the game isn't worth 15 bucks a month to have to camp at this level for a targeted kill. Losing training time is for my corp and im sure others no longer the percieved loss it once was. |
Lord Zim
773
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 13:04:00 -
[793] - Quote
I'd love to see how you believe people would be able to avoid getting ganked in hisec while at war, using your system of no local. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
272
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 13:12:00 -
[794] - Quote
Ganked in war. That right there folks is why EVE online will always be a niche game. It requires to much time to do anything worthwhile and when you try and improve the system you get asked about a gank in war. Is war one on one Zim? No? Then who in the hell cares?
Why i'm answering you at this point is beyond me, but Zim the answer is exactly how they do now.
It's almost like your notion of balance revolves around being able to avoid death in all situations including bad situations . |
Lord Zim
773
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 13:31:00 -
[795] - Quote
What, have you suddenly started caring about nullsec/lowsec again? |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
470
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 13:39:00 -
[796] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Ganked in war. That right there folks is why EVE online will always be a niche game. It requires to much time to do anything worthwhile and when you try and improve the system you get asked about a gank in war. Is war one on one Zim? No? Then who in the hell cares?
Why i'm answering you at this point is beyond me, but Zim the answer is exactly how they do now.
It's almost like your notion of balance revolves around being able to avoid death in all situations including bad situations .
I'll be waiting for your next terribad question where i'm forced to explain to you the docking timer mechanism. Followed up by you asking about fragile industrial ships while ignoring that leaving the corp in war is a good idea for non combat pilots. Non-consensual pvp (of all stripes) and the "Science Fiction Universe" is why it will remain a "niche game". Most people are used to (through exposure to various media, other games, fiction writing and mythology) and more comfortable in a "fantasy" type setting. The Star Wars/Star Trek settings have their fans, but they *also* have their own games that appeal to those demographics, so Eve isn't going to draw a lot of them away as those people are comfortable with the background knowledge and setting than learning an entirely new setting.
Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit (and to a greater/lesser degree) The comic book superheros draw larger audiences than science fiction movies (in *GENERAL*). Hell, Avatar follows a more mythological storyline than a techie/sci-fi storyline, even though the setting is entirely futuristic/sci-fi/technology advanced. Lets not even *talk* about the 12 million people who have played or are playing WoW... So Eve isn't going to draw a lot of *those* people.
While *I* personally wouldn't lose any sleep over the removal of local in all spaces, until something is done regarding static *everything* in hi/low/null, removing local would significantly increase the danger (perceived or otherwise) that other players would have to consider before they even *joined* the game, let alone encourage more people to move from hi-sec to low or Null. Hell, one of the biggest danger mitigating factors in low-sec and Null-sec *IS* local, and still people refuse/avoid going there for the most part.
Question to you is "How would *removing* local get those people interested in going to Low/Null sec space?" I cannot see how people who avoid danger as much as possible would be encouraged to travel further out "on the limb" (so to speak) with this change.
My guess is that if they're not going now, removing local would be a further limiting factor on people going to those spaces, and would be a new incentive for people to leave hi-sec (if that is all they're comfortable with) and leave the game as well.
Seriously - if your going to suggest removing local - *YOU* have to address all the changes it would address. Also, if you wish to be taken seriously by CCP (or others) losing the snarky attitude would go a long way to help you.
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
75
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 13:45:00 -
[797] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:What, have you suddenly started caring about nullsec/lowsec again?
you seem to be truly interested in this thread, you should go jump on your main and come put some spine behind your opinion.
|
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
470
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 13:52:00 -
[798] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:Lord Zim wrote:What, have you suddenly started caring about nullsec/lowsec again? you seem to be truly interested in this thread, you should go jump on your main and come put some spine behind your opinion. He's a 2005 character, which you would know if you bothered to check...
I'm willing to bet that *IS* his main, as this is mine...
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
Lord Zim
774
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 13:53:00 -
[799] - Quote
Asuri Kinnes wrote:xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:Lord Zim wrote:What, have you suddenly started caring about nullsec/lowsec again? you seem to be truly interested in this thread, you should go jump on your main and come put some spine behind your opinion. He's a 2005 character, which you would know if you bothered to check... I'm willing to bet that *IS* his main, as this is mine... It's one of many "mains", which char I use depends on what I feel like doing at the time. |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
75
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 13:56:00 -
[800] - Quote
Asuri Kinnes wrote:xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:Lord Zim wrote:What, have you suddenly started caring about nullsec/lowsec again? you seem to be truly interested in this thread, you should go jump on your main and come put some spine behind your opinion. He's a 2005 character, which you would know if you bothered to check... I'm willing to bet that *IS* his main, as this is mine...
you think i didn't check, lol and you think there isn't 2005 alts, lol yea,, ok |
|
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
75
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 13:58:00 -
[801] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Asuri Kinnes wrote:xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:Lord Zim wrote:What, have you suddenly started caring about nullsec/lowsec again? you seem to be truly interested in this thread, you should go jump on your main and come put some spine behind your opinion. He's a 2005 character, which you would know if you bothered to check... I'm willing to bet that *IS* his main, as this is mine... It's one of many "mains", which char I use depends on what I feel like doing at the time.
you mean like if your talking shite on the forums and trolling you use lord zim,, i get ya,
thanks for clearing that up for me. |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
75
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 14:00:00 -
[802] - Quote
back on topic or GTFO ! |
Lord Zim
774
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 14:02:00 -
[803] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:you mean like if your talking shite on the forums and trolling you use lord zim,, i get ya, thanks for clearing that up for me. If you mean "posting", then yes, I've chosen this char as my posting char, in addition to its in-game responsibilities. I could start using all the other alts if you'd like, but that wouldn't add anything to the discussion. vOv |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
75
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 14:05:00 -
[804] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:you mean like if your talking shite on the forums and trolling you use lord zim,, i get ya, thanks for clearing that up for me. If you mean "posting", then yes, I've chosen this char as my posting char, in addition to its in-game responsibilities. I could start using all the other alts if you'd like, but that wouldn't add anything to the discussion. vOv
again thanks for clearing that up for me,, now,, got anything to add to this fine discussion ? |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
316
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 14:52:00 -
[805] - Quote
Asuri Kinnes wrote:Question to you is "How would *removing* local get those people interested in going to Low/Null sec space?" I cannot see how people who avoid danger as much as possible would be encouraged to travel further out "on the limb" (so to speak) with this change.
My guess is that if they're not going now, removing local would be a further limiting factor on people going to those spaces, and would be a new incentive for people to leave hi-sec (if that is all they're comfortable with) and leave the game as well.
Seriously - if your going to suggest removing local - *YOU* have to address all the changes it would address. Also, if you wish to be taken seriously by CCP (or others) losing the snarky attitude would go a long way to help you. Greetings Asuri, it is a pleasure to address you.
Observing the behavior of these areas, (Low and Null), it is fair to say they are more challenging to play in. Simple reason being obvious, and unlikely to change. That being: Concord is not going to intervene on behalf of the attacked. This is a clear indication that High sec is intended to be less dangerous.
In High Sec: Removing local will impact both carebears and aggressive PvP aficionados equally, so it doesn't favor one or the other. Many would claim the current version does favor the aggressive type, simply because it gives them immediate at a glance intel without actually revealing their intentions. The carebears, by comparison, have no way of knowing someone is hunting, as local displays through traffic impartially right next to homicidal glee entries. How would removing local balance this? The carebear would only be aware of traffic in their immediate vicinity, if set properly. Exclude the travel paths, and your scanner will only report those approaching your area deliberately. This grants a far more useful level of intel when deciding if a defensive reaction is called for. It also requires greater vigilance, as the carebear now has less potential time to react.
The hunter, in exchange, can hide themselves in regular traffic, and try to scan down targets faster than they have a chance to react. This makes the hunter role more challenging, and that also makes a kill more rewarding. Their is no real sense of achievement from roasting a marshmallow, so a kill that is harder to get is sweeter.
In Low and Null: Removing local has now trained pilots, by starting in high sec without it, to be more self reliant, and to fly cautiously. Gone is the sense of oblivious safety, and thank goodness since it was an illusion that kept many from leaving high sec's playpen. It would be illogical for players to assume, coming into the game as new, that they would be given training wheels like free intel in all areas. Sure, they might expect it in the tutorial at first, but genuine gameplay is not thrilling if their is no sense of threat or at least unknown...
We're talking about space here, cold and deadly. Not the backyard at grandma's house. |
Lord Zim
774
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 15:14:00 -
[806] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:Removing local has now trained pilots, by starting in high sec without it, to be more self reliant, and to fly cautiously. You're implying that people in hisec pay much attention to who's in local unless they're wardecced (if even then, until they get ganked the first time)? |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
316
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 15:21:00 -
[807] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:Removing local has now trained pilots, by starting in high sec without it, to be more self reliant, and to fly cautiously. You're implying that people in hisec pay much attention to who's in local unless they're wardecced (if even then, until they get ganked the first time)? Not at all.
They have a sense of oblivious safety, an illusion that keeps many from leaving high sec's playpen.
This means they pay no attention, assuming far too much.
If they realize they are war decced, too many just try to watch for the "bad names" in local chat.
They are playing, in too many ways, EVE Lite, and are resistant to the level of effort and discipline needed outside of High Sec.
The illusions they are operating with deny them the perspective needed, and local is a big supporter of these illusions. |
Katalci
Creative Cookie Procuring Veto Corp
85
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 19:58:00 -
[808] - Quote
Keep local, remove the display of standings in the chat window.
Or, keep local, but have the appearance of new people jumping in be delayed for either 1 minute flat, or until they decloak.
Or, remove local completely, and improve the directional scanner UI. Make it easier to use (angle and range settings should be ) and possibly have a setting where you can set it to automatically refresh rather than require you to press a button every few seconds. |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
75
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 08:27:00 -
[809] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:Removing local has now trained pilots, by starting in high sec without it, to be more self reliant, and to fly cautiously. You're implying that people in hisec pay much attention to who's in local unless they're wardecced (if even then, until they get ganked the first time)?
come on zim, pilots in null sec low sec and high sec are all guilty of the very same thing, it's not a high sec stupid pilot thing ,, it's a stupid pilot thing, a bad habit formed from somewhere, i happen to believe it's a bad habit formed from using local or letting others in the fleet/corp/alliance warn them of reds in local.
it's a hey others are watching so meh, TV is far more interesting until i hear someone in vent/ts scream reds/war targets in local. you see it everyday in intel channels for null/lowsec/highsec. not even a wardec makes people snap out of it, people are lazy, and having local in it's current state lends to the lazyness.
i've seen the very same pilots go into a WH and say, how come nobody is showing in local, you reply with they don't show up unless they talk in local, the respond with, so how do i know if anyone is watching me,, i reply you don't ! so keep spamming d scan and stay alert ! then guess what, 5 minutes later the same pilot says, i just saw a SB on d scan flash on then off, i think we better align.
oh and don't say ,, then **** off to a WH, i've been there done that, sometimes still raid the odd one now and then. i'm seeing a good mechanic in WH that i'd like to see introduced to all systems. it might happen, it might not happen. i'm just giving my pennies worth here. |
Lord Zim
774
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 08:42:00 -
[810] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:i'm seeing a good mechanic in WH that i'd like to see introduced to all systems. it might happen, it might not happen. i'm just giving my pennies worth here. It's a good mechanic, in wormholes, because people have chosen to go there. Sometimes because of the lack of local, sometimes because of the rewards they yield. Removing local in null and lowsec does nothing but add to the tedium and effort of doing anything and favours the ganker, and removing it in hisec yields no real result other than making wartime ganks easier. And, of couse, making all space seem even more desolate than it already is. |
|
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
75
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 08:52:00 -
[811] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:i'm seeing a good mechanic in WH that i'd like to see introduced to all systems. it might happen, it might not happen. i'm just giving my pennies worth here. It's a good mechanic, in wormholes, because people have chosen to go there. Sometimes because of the lack of local, sometimes because of the rewards they yield. Removing local in null and lowsec does nothing but add to the tedium and effort of doing anything and favours the ganker, and removing it in hisec yields no real result other than making wartime ganks easier. And, of couse, making all space seem even more desolate than it already is.
i'm glad you agree with me that it is indeed a good mechanic, it favours the ganker no more than the hunted Zim. forget the whole wardec side of it Zim, i'm thinking this is where you are hung up on the idea, also come on Zim, space is desolate and vast, it's ment to be that way. local is the only mechanic that hasn't been tweaked, it really needs it. so come on ZIm, how about a positive idea to help improve the issue rather than just say no it's a crap idea. |
Lord Zim
774
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 09:18:00 -
[812] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:it favours the ganker no more than the hunted Zim. Yes, it does. The ganker has all the time on his side and can go AFK for however long he chooses before resuming hunting, the hunted must remain vigilent at all times, as a lapse of concentration for 4-6 seconds at the wrong time during, say, an 8 hour mining/ratting session will be fatal.
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:also come on Zim, space is desolate and vast, it's ment to be that way It's also a game, where the clues that there are other people around is few and far between. |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
75
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 11:25:00 -
[813] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:it favours the ganker no more than the hunted Zim. Yes, it does. The ganker has all the time on his side and can go AFK for however long he chooses before resuming hunting, the hunted must remain vigilent at all times, as a lapse of concentration for 4-6 seconds at the wrong time during, say, an 8 hour mining/ratting session will be fatal. xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:also come on Zim, space is desolate and vast, it's ment to be that way It's also a game, where the clues that there are other people around is few and far between.
that doesn't fly Zim , you assume the ganker has **** all else to do but gank. if you're being hunted it's no different than doing the hunting, combat mode is combat mode, if you make the choice to rat/mine for 8 hours straight then you are bound to slip up, but hey that's down to pilot error and not mechanics, also Zim sometimes the hunter becomes the hunted real fast.
i'm well aware that it's a game, ffs Zim, lol, if you're talking about null/low/highsec then the clues if people are around are, look in local, job done,, that's way too easy man. do remember that the hunter also uses local just as easy.
what do you suggest would be a better idea then the current idea in this thread then ?
|
S'totan
Hell's Revenge Fidelas Constans
15
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 12:01:00 -
[814] - Quote
Sure would make having locator agents a profitable business. |
Lord Zim
774
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 12:25:00 -
[815] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:that doesn't fly Zim , you assume the ganker has **** all else to do but gank. Well, there's also the act of just sitting somewhere, cloaked, and waiting for the locals to become less restless and start dropping their guard again.
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:if you're being hunted it's no different than doing the hunting, combat mode is combat mode Except the hunter choses when, where and who to engage, and knows exactly when to pay extra attention. The hunted must pay just as dilligent attention all the time.
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:if you make the choice to rat/mine for 8 hours straight then you are bound to slip up, but hey that's down to pilot error and not mechanics, also Zim sometimes the hunter becomes the hunted real fast. Today's margin for error for hunted: around 30 seconds. Margin for error with no local with only the dscan as "replacement": 4-6. Risk to hunter: not increased.
As to the hunter becoming the hunted, if the ganker does his job properly, then he'll only take on targets he knows he can reliably take care of within, say, 30 seconds, which gives a response team very little time to actually respond. And if they happen to be quick on the uptake, then he's got a much greater chance of getting out than the guys who basically has to sit and wait for the hunter to do anything.
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:what do you suggest would be a better idea then the current idea in this thread then? You're implying there's a problem which desperately needs fixing. I've yet to see any indication of this problem, all I see is people wanting changes made so actually living anywhere sucks more for no extra return, unlike WHs. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
320
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 14:20:00 -
[816] - Quote
I just HAD to jump on this, it is too much to simply let pass:
Lord Zim wrote:xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:it favours the ganker no more than the hunted Zim. Yes, it does. The ganker has all the time on his side and can go AFK for however long he chooses before resuming hunting, the hunted must remain vigilent at all times, as a lapse of concentration for 4-6 seconds at the wrong time during, say, an 8 hour mining/ratting session will be fatal. Current situation, Local faithfully displaying pilot names. Now, assuming this is a true gank, and not a war dec scenario, in high sec: The miner / ratter / Mission enthusiast sees another pilot in local. They take precautions briefly in case this is hostile. Time passes with no attack, so the assumption of it being another carebear seems likely enough to drop their guard. Now the attacker, having tracked the target all this time, maybe even cloaked and watching them align, then relax this behavior later. They can now call in the ganking ship from out of system, have it warp to them on top of the target, and then just leave.
If in high sec, but a war dec is active: Same as above, except: The hunter is not in the war deccing corp, so never displays as a threat in local. The killer benefits from being in the war deccing corp, as they need not worry over concord intervening.
Lord Zim wrote:xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:also come on Zim, space is desolate and vast, it's ment to be that way It's also a game, where the clues that there are other people around is few and far between. The existence of local creates an illusion that conflicts with this. and creates a false sense of safety. This is exaggerated in high sec, where a false sense of security already exists due to misunderstandings about how Concord works.
Illusion: they prevent attacks Reality: They provide a deterrent to attacks, they prevent absolutely nothing. |
Sparky11080
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 16:19:00 -
[817] - Quote
SOLUTION TO ALL PROBLEMS
High Sec Space - Full Regular Local we all Know and Love/Hate
Low Sec Space - Delayed Local (Like Alliance Chat - Delays about 1:00 - 5:00) unless you speak, then your name appears.
Null Sec Space - Same as Wormhole - OR - Local acts like wormhole space except for system count. You don't get to see WHO is in local, you only get to see how many. Names also still act like wormhole in that after you speak your name is up to anybody who was in the system when you spoke. This could also be applied to Low Sec Chat, but the delay will still be used there too.
W-Space...Space - No change
This assists everyone, and adds an element of intelligence to the game.
ALSO AS AN ADDED BONUS, A WAY TO COMBAT CLOAKIES THAT DOESN'T BREAK THE GAME
You have a high slot mod on your ship that is designed to "show" any cloakies. How it would work and not break the game: The module would have a long refresh rate (say 5 minutes). When you activate the module it sends a "cloak disruption ping" onto your grid (250km radius). The effect only lasts for 30 seconds. The ping makes any cloakies on your grid visible on your overview and you can see their "tag" in space. HOWEVER, the cloakies still are technically cloaked. They will be treated much like someone who has activated a warp. You cannot lock, align, or warp to this individual (barring if you are in fleet with them). This gives the ability for ships to manually align and fly to the ship (if AFK or stupid). If they get within the 2,000 meter radius of the cloaked vessel, it is treaded just like any normal cloak, and the ship is fully decloaked, targetable and everything.
The effect also only works for cloakies on the field AT TIME OF ACTIVATION. If you fly onto the field after the module has been activated, there is no effect. Same with if you leave the field, the effect is gone and you are fully cloaked again.
And now that I think about this, that actually deserves its own thread.
There, now everybody gets their way. Carebears can enjoy high sec undisturbed. Low sec doesn't become a blob fest and you can still see fleets coming, just not sure who. And null sec becomes a lot scarier, but carebears can still "safe up" if anybody comes into system. They will know someone is there, but they won't know who. Wormholers also get to keep their current system.
Everything is gradually more dangerous the lower you go into security status.
Complaints? ~Sparks |
Sofia Wolf
Ubuntu Inc. Varangon Tagma
37
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 20:34:00 -
[818] - Quote
Not only do I agree with OP but I think he does not go far enough. In addition of replacing all local with wormholes type delay local it also should no longer be possible to set people on contacts watch list without their approval. And there should be option to auto refuse all watch list requests. |
Imrik86
Underdog Corp
27
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 21:00:00 -
[819] - Quote
Local must go. This been brought up over and over again. WH is the only place left in EVE that is not broken for that reason alone.
Opposing this opinion is being a loser dual-boxing in a multiplayer game. Scouting should be a full-time job for players, not just an alt sitting on its ass. Then the game would be really challenging, as CCP likes to stress so much (well, it isn't).
While you are on it, get rid of instant "warp to everything". Force people to scan sh*t other than orbitals and gates down. Get rid of belts, make miners scan it down. Pronto, bots solved too.
Of course, this is not in the best interest of the company. They want more accounts and more players logged in at any given time, even if they are not legitimate. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
325
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 21:07:00 -
[820] - Quote
Sparky11080 wrote:ALSO AS AN ADDED BONUS, A WAY TO COMBAT CLOAKIES THAT DOESN'T BREAK THE GAME
You have a high slot mod on your ship that is designed to "show" any cloakies. How it would work and not break the game: The module would have a long refresh rate (say 5 minutes). When you activate the module it sends a "cloak disruption ping" onto your grid (250km radius). The effect only lasts for 30 seconds. The ping makes any cloakies on your grid visible on your overview and you can see their "tag" in space. HOWEVER, the cloakies still are technically cloaked. They will be treated much like someone who has activated a warp. You cannot lock, align, or warp to this individual (barring if you are in fleet with them). This gives the ability for ships to manually align and fly to the ship (if AFK or stupid). If they get within the 2,000 meter radius of the cloaked vessel, it is treaded just like any normal cloak, and the ship is fully decloaked, targetable and everything.
The effect also only works for cloakies on the field AT TIME OF ACTIVATION. If you fly onto the field after the module has been activated, there is no effect. Same with if you leave the field, the effect is gone and you are fully cloaked again.
And now that I think about this, that actually deserves its own thread. Cloaking detection WITH local not completely removed?
Are you joking?
Even if you just add a system count alone, people will know if it's not an ally through intel channels, and be prompted to scan.
That is a biased nerf against cloaking, no sale here. |
|
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
325
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 21:11:00 -
[821] - Quote
Imrik86 wrote:Local must go. This been brought up over and over again. WH is the only place left in EVE that is not broken for that reason alone.
Opposing this opinion is being a loser dual-boxing in a multiplayer game. Scouting should be a full-time job for players, not just an alt sitting on its ass. Then the game would be really challenging, as CCP likes to stress so much (well, it isn't).
While you are on it, get rid of instant "warp to everything". Force people to scan sh*t other than orbitals and gates down. Get rid of belts, make miners scan it down. Pronto, bots solved too.
Of course, this is not in the best interest of the company. They want more accounts and more players logged in at any given time, even if they are not legitimate. That would actually be realistic, since orbital bodies are not static, but moving in their orbits.
Now, it could be countered by saying our maps are based on projections of where these bodies are, since they are in entirely predictable movement patterns.
Heck, I recall back in the day we made bookmarks so we could warp to zero onto gates and stations, it took effort to not need to go that 15KM exposed. And there was no command to dock from auto pilot either.
(shakes cane vigorously) |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
77
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 22:25:00 -
[822] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:Imrik86 wrote:Local must go. This been brought up over and over again. WH is the only place left in EVE that is not broken for that reason alone.
Opposing this opinion is being a loser dual-boxing in a multiplayer game. Scouting should be a full-time job for players, not just an alt sitting on its ass. Then the game would be really challenging, as CCP likes to stress so much (well, it isn't).
While you are on it, get rid of instant "warp to everything". Force people to scan sh*t other than orbitals and gates down. Get rid of belts, make miners scan it down. Pronto, bots solved too.
Of course, this is not in the best interest of the company. They want more accounts and more players logged in at any given time, even if they are not legitimate. That would actually be realistic, since orbital bodies are not static, but moving in their orbits. Now, it could be countered by saying our maps are based on projections of where these bodies are, since they are in entirely predictable movement patterns. Heck, I recall back in the day we made bookmarks so we could warp to zero onto gates and stations, it took effort to not need to go that 15KM exposed. And there was no command to dock from auto pilot either. (shakes cane vigorously)
agree |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
77
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 22:27:00 -
[823] - Quote
Sofia Wolf wrote:Not only do I agree with OP but I think he does not go far enough. In addition of replacing all local with wormholes type delay local it also should no longer be possible to set people on contacts watch list without their approval. And there should be option to auto refuse all watch list requests.
i agree with the first half of what you say, making a contact red and adding to a watch list should never be a have to get permission thing, hell should i ask if i can shoot you also,, lol don't mean to be funny of smart, but it's a little too much. |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
77
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 22:47:00 -
[824] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: Except the hunter choses when, where and who to engage, and knows exactly when to pay extra attention. The hunted must pay just as dilligent attention all the time.
Zim if a pilot is not paying 100% attention to whatever he/she is doing when they undock then they deserve to get dead, hunted or hunter, bottom line,,,, PAY ATTENTION ! i'd go ahead and say more than half of the hulk pilots getting ganked would survive it if they where aligned and paying attention. (aligned = moving above 85% of max speed anf ready to hit warp)
Lord Zim wrote: Today's margin for error for hunted: around 30 seconds. Margin for error with no local with only the dscan as "replacement": 4-6. Risk to hunter: not increased.
how is the risk to the hunter not increased ZIM ? what if u have a couple of mates off grid aligned to my ass waiting for said ganker to come try it on, you must agree that the risk factor for the hunter does indeed increase.
Lord Zim wrote: As to the hunter becoming the hunted, if the ganker does his job properly, then he'll only take on targets he knows he can reliably take care of within, say, 30 seconds, which gives a response team very little time to actually respond. And if they happen to be quick on the uptake, then he's got a much greater chance of getting out than the guys who basically has to sit and wait for the hunter to do anything.
then well done to the hunter if he does a good job, i'm not looking for a win win for the hunter or the hunted, but giving the hunted a chance to have a cloaked mate sitting above him is for sure making it so the hunted has a chance to become the hunter real fast. also the hunter could have a a cloaked mate also, see it makes shite interesting, our point exactly.
Lord Zim wrote: You're implying there's a problem which desperately needs fixing. I've yet to see any indication of this problem, all I see is people wanting changes made so actually living anywhere sucks more for no extra return, unlike WHs.
not at all Zim, i'm not saying local is broken, i'm saying it was a bad mechanic from the start, it works as intended which does not mean it's a good thing, what you see are people interested in uping the game a little and making it so covert op ships are actualy covert op.
so many have made really good suggestions, one i read which made real sense and would lead to another change, locator agents being real people, a contract to locate a pilot, may take a while but yea, you see where i'm going with this.
pilot a goes to locater agent channel, says i need an agent in (insert constelation name here)
agent opens a private convo, gathers what info he needs, a contract is created, agent pilot goes and finds target, when the target gets dead the contract pays out.
removal of local in it's current state is needed in some shape or form, just saying people are implying there's a problem which desperately needs fixing is far from the truth Zim, the truth of the matter is local as a mechanic needs tweeking. |
Lord Zim
774
|
Posted - 2012.06.08 00:18:00 -
[825] - Quote
Hey, if we're going for the realism line, then let's remove contacts, killmails, missions, beltrats and anomalies. And if we're really going for making eve a cockstab, require that people do the necessary mathematical calculations for initiating the warp drive. Do it wrong, and you land on the wrong part of the solar system.
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:Zim if a pilot is not paying 100% attention to whatever he/she is doing when they undock then they deserve to get dead, hunted or hunter, bottom line,,,, PAY ATTENTION ! i'd go ahead and say more than half of the hulk pilots getting ganked would survive it if they where aligned and paying attention. (aligned = moving above 85% of max speed anf ready to hit warp) I'd love to see the person who can sit and mine or do an anom/plex/beltrat/whatever for, say, 2 hours straight, without taking his eyes off of the directional scanner for 4-6 seconds in a row. Autism Online?
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:how is the risk to the hunter not increased ZIM ? what if u have a couple of mates off grid aligned to my ass waiting for said ganker to come try it on, you must agree that the risk factor for the hunter does indeed increase. First of all, the hunted must see that he's either about to be dropped on, or he has just gotten dropped, then he must speak up on comms or in fleet. The "couple of mates" must then realize this has happened, figure out who got dropped this time and initiate warping to him. They must then actually land, lock him up and finally start shooting. All of these operations take time, and since the hunter has the initiative, time is more in his favour than in the hunted.
As for "off grid aligned to [my] ass", a proper ganker would do some scanning beforehand to see the most obvious traps.
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:then well done to the hunter if he does a good job, i'm not looking for a win win for the hunter or the hunted, but giving the hunted a chance to have a cloaked mate sitting above him is for sure making it so the hunted has a chance to become the hunter real fast. also the hunter could have a a cloaked mate also, see it makes shite interesting, our point exactly. Then he has 20 seconds to get out from the point the "cloaked mate" uncloaks. Additionally, this means that you've got multiple people spending a lot of time waiting for something, anything, to happen, for very little/no reward.
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:not at all Zim, i'm not saying local is broken, i'm saying it was a bad mechanic from the start, it works as intended which does not mean it's a good thing, what you see are people interested in uping the game a little and making it so covert op ships are actualy covert op. If you want to change it, it's because it's broken. If it's not broken, you don't fix it. And with the majority of the suggestions which keep cropping up, I'm using the word "fix" very, very loosely. |
S'totan
Hell's Revenge Fidelas Constans
16
|
Posted - 2012.06.08 03:48:00 -
[826] - Quote
Free bump |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1116
|
Posted - 2012.06.08 04:30:00 -
[827] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote: Cloaking detection WITH local not completely removed?
Are you joking?
Why not?
I should be able to defend my system whenever I please. If you as the aggressor can't deal with that, maybe you should think twice about aggressing. Maybe you're just afraid of PVP. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1116
|
Posted - 2012.06.08 04:30:00 -
[828] - Quote
Also, let 0.0 alliances disable stargates when they feel like ratting, so the comparison to WHs would be accurate. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
326
|
Posted - 2012.06.08 21:25:00 -
[829] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote: Cloaking detection WITH local not completely removed?
Are you joking?
Why not? I should be able to defend my system whenever I please. If you as the aggressor can't deal with that, maybe you should think twice about aggressing. Maybe you're just afraid of PVP. You assume I am referring to something different, given the context of your reply.
If you hold sovereignty, I have no problem with you being able to have an advantage in your own space. SOV is just bragging rights if it conveys no aspect of a "home field advantage" to your pilots. If you earned the space, you get a return on that investment.
I even think it may even be interesting to be able to lock or PW protect gates against casual entry, but I feel you must first have SOV on both sides of that gate. If someone can take the outlying system from you, I think they deserve to be able to try for the next door system next.
But if you don't hold sov, forget it, all bets are off. The lights are out, and everyone can play in the dark. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
133
|
Posted - 2012.06.08 22:01:00 -
[830] - Quote
It would take a lot of the social aspect out of EVE because people wouldn't be able to coordinate their efforts as easily, pilots have limited attention spans, and people wouldn't log on as often, so eventually the whole game would turn into a gankers' free-for-all with bears in highsec. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
|
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
326
|
Posted - 2012.06.08 22:12:00 -
[831] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:It would take a lot of the social aspect out of EVE because people wouldn't be able to coordinate their efforts as easily, pilots have limited attention spans, and people wouldn't log on as often, so eventually the whole game would turn into a gankers' free-for-all with bears in highsec. I must disagree here.
I believe the following to currently be true, using existing game rules and simple two pilot coordination. Heck, one pilot dual boxing can do this effectively just as well, a real second person is not necessary at all.
Current situation, Local faithfully displaying pilot names. Now, assuming this is a true gank, and not a war dec scenario, in high sec: The miner / ratter / Mission enthusiast sees another pilot in local. They take precautions briefly in case this is hostile. Time passes with no attack, so the assumption of it being another carebear seems likely enough to drop their guard. Now the attacker, having tracked the target all this time, maybe even cloaked and watching them align, then relax this behavior later. They can now call in the ganking ship from out of system, have it warp to them on top of the target, and then just leave.
If in high sec, but a war dec is active: Same as above, except: The hunter is not in the war deccing corp, so never displays as a threat in local. The killer benefits from being in the war deccing corp, as they need not worry over concord intervening.
The existence of local fosters an illusion that creates a false sense of safety. This is exaggerated in high sec, where a false sense of security already exists due to misunderstandings about how Concord works.
Illusion: they prevent attacks Reality: They provide a deterrent to attacks, they prevent absolutely nothing. |
Lord Zim
777
|
Posted - 2012.06.08 22:21:00 -
[832] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:The miner / ratter / Mission enthusiast sees another pilot in local. They take precautions briefly in case this is hostile. Now, honestly, how many do you think does this, even during hulkageddon? |
Drakarin
Omnitech Corporation Wonder Kids
8
|
Posted - 2012.06.09 08:19:00 -
[833] - Quote
Wibla wrote:How is local stupid or juvenile?
Just curious, if you feel that living in space with local chat is so stupid and juvenile, maybe you should go join a WH corp instead of being in TNT?
It's stupid to people who want to work for their Intel. It's also stupid based on an immersions standpoint (which does matter to some people still).
|
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
275
|
Posted - 2012.06.09 13:40:00 -
[834] - Quote
Sofia Wolf wrote:Not only do I agree with OP but I think he does not go far enough. In addition of replacing all local with wormholes type delay local it also should no longer be possible to set people on contacts watch list without their approval. And there should be option to auto refuse all watch list requests.
I like the cut of your jib. Up vote. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
327
|
Posted - 2012.06.09 19:56:00 -
[835] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:The miner / ratter / Mission enthusiast sees another pilot in local. They take precautions briefly in case this is hostile. Now, honestly, how many do you think does this, even during hulkageddon? Granted, not going to even bother pretending this point is not accurate. I do not doubt the majority are not focusing nearly enough on being safe.
It does give them the benefit of the doubt, for the sake of the point I was making at the time. |
S'totan
Hell's Revenge Fidelas Constans
16
|
Posted - 2012.06.10 23:29:00 -
[836] - Quote
Free Bump |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
917
|
Posted - 2012.06.10 23:49:00 -
[837] - Quote
Hahaha this thread is still going and people think any of the dumb suggestions in it are ever going to happen eh |
Imrik86
Underdog Corp
29
|
Posted - 2012.06.10 23:57:00 -
[838] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Hahaha this thread is still going and people think any of the dumb suggestions in it are ever going to happen
Hahaha you're a Goon and added nothing to the thread. |
Lord Zim
782
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 00:05:00 -
[839] - Quote
As if there's anything to add. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
327
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:34:00 -
[840] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:As if there's anything to add. Maybe there is, having one centralized thread about removing local achieves two points.
It gives people a central thread to see multiple views on the issue.
It has the chance to act as a flag that this topic is covered, and not to bother making a new thread repeating it, presuming it stays on page one visibly. |
|
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
275
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:05:00 -
[841] - Quote
I logged in today to play some EVE and then I realized how dreadfully dull camping is. I tried to convince myself its hardcore in spite of the camping but then I realized local is gaycore. So another day of diablo 3. Also bump because exposing Goonswarms Poonswarm division is fun as well. We see you Zim and Richard, you candyass Goon imposters. |
Cid SilverWing
Grim Determination Clockworks Inc. Nulli Tertius
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:04:00 -
[842] - Quote
Removing Local makes Stealth Bombers +9001% more OP than they already are.
Biomass yourself and uninstall EVE. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
328
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:52:00 -
[843] - Quote
Cid SilverWing wrote:Removing Local makes Stealth Bombers +9001% more OP than they already are.
Biomass yourself and uninstall EVE. Yes, because SBs are already able to kill anything at will anywhere...
Oh, wait, no they aren't!
Local hands out an immediate updated list of pilots present in system. This is flawless intel with zero effort to acquire.
Now that everyone in system knows a non-blue is in system, they immediately dash off to get safe.
This takes advantage of unearned intel to take preemptive steps to avoid PvP and associated risk.
Then they cry piteously about how the cloaked vessel is bad for not leaving, and trying to wait long enough for one of them to be bold enough to stick their heads out.
Add to this the interesting cyno mechanics that allow any cloaked vessel to suddenly drop an entire fleet on top of a target, making any cloaked vessel a fleet by proxy in the eyes of all targets.
Local is the first problem. Pick it off, and we may be able to balance the game in more interesting ways for other aspects. |
Lord Zim
789
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 18:16:00 -
[844] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:Yes, because SBs are already able to kill anything at will anywhere...
Oh, wait, no they aren't! When timed properly, they can take out surprisingly large targets. SBs aren't the only thing flying around with cloaks, though.
Nikk Narrel wrote:Local hands out an immediate updated list of pilots present in system. This is flawless intel with zero effort to acquire. Except it still requires paying attention, and people are still getting caught.
Nikk Narrel wrote:Now that everyone in system knows a non-blue is in system, they immediately dash off to get safe.
This takes advantage of unearned intel to take preemptive steps to avoid PvP and associated risk. Unlike the opposite situation where there is no local, where you have to pay attention literally all the time you're outside a station or a POS, and at best you have 4-6 seconds to react, which can come at any time.
Nikk Narrel wrote:Local is the first problem. Pick it off, and we may be able to balance the game in more interesting ways for other aspects. No, it really isn't. Or, well, if you think nullsec is overpopulated right now, then sure, it's the problem. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
328
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 19:14:00 -
[845] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:Yes, because SBs are already able to kill anything at will anywhere...
Oh, wait, no they aren't! When timed properly, they can take out surprisingly large targets. SBs aren't the only thing flying around with cloaks, though. Nikk Narrel wrote:Local hands out an immediate updated list of pilots present in system. This is flawless intel with zero effort to acquire. Except it still requires paying attention, and people are still getting caught. I don't think they can be helped by us, if they can't take free intel and use it. Not the best example I ever heard.
Now maybe, if they got used to the act of making effort and subsequently paying attention, they might have a better chance of survival. Don't forget, when you turn off the free intel, you shut it off for both sides. The hunters will also need to do more to find targets, making it a contest of efforts. Effort makes the reward have value, and it makes players as much proactive as reactive. Taking for granted the intel that dictates your survival means you take for granted that very survival. Smash that illusion, and let them find the thrill of getting by on their own merits! |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
328
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 19:14:00 -
[846] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:Now that everyone in system knows a non-blue is in system, they immediately dash off to get safe.
This takes advantage of unearned intel to take preemptive steps to avoid PvP and associated risk. Unlike the opposite situation where there is no local, where you have to pay attention literally all the time you're outside a station or a POS, and at best you have 4-6 seconds to react, which can come at any time. YES YES YES!!!
And guess what? If they work together, they can make reaction time even better than that! Imagine an intel channel that people actually need and pay attention to!
Lord Zim wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:Local is the first problem. Pick it off, and we may be able to balance the game in more interesting ways for other aspects. No, it really isn't. Or, well, if you think nullsec is overpopulated right now, then sure, it's the problem. Null ain't going anywhere.
But if you raise the bar in high sec, some of them might discover they can do more than they realized, and visit low and null. |
Lord Zim
789
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 20:12:00 -
[847] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:Now maybe, if they got used to the act of making effort and subsequently paying attention, they might have a better chance of survival. People are paying attention already, the thing is that it only takes around 30 seconds of inattentiveness at the wrong time before they get caught. And you're trying to tell me that cutting that down to 4-6 is going to give them a better chance of survival?
Nikk Narrel wrote:Don't forget, when you turn off the free intel, you shut it off for both sides. The hunters will also need to do more to find targets, making it a contest of efforts. Yeah, no. It doesn't matter how many times you guys try to claim this fallacy, it doesn't make it true. Removing local would not affect both sides equally, and the losing side won't be the gankers. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
328
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 20:48:00 -
[848] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:Now maybe, if they got used to the act of making effort and subsequently paying attention, they might have a better chance of survival. People are paying attention already, the thing is that it only takes around 30 seconds of inattentiveness at the wrong time before they get caught. And you're trying to tell me that cutting that down to 4-6 is going to give them a better chance of survival? Easy!
30 seconds in this game can feel like an eternity. You see nothing change over that time, and it is very easy to look elsewhere, and become inattentive. Mining lasers take a good long time to cycle enough to make a jetcan miner need to transfer their items to that can. Fighting in a mission? It is soooo easy to become focused on your overview and target list. Reload the weapons! Swap over to the other box to support somehow!
Now consider if local is gone. You still mine, rat, or grind missions, but you no longer have that reassuring 'don't worry window". Now you wonder, so you hit d-scan, or possibly they add in a means to automate it. Every time it pulses or updates, it becomes your security assurance. You need to see it clear, or you know you have a problem. In high sec? You set it so it excludes station traffic, and those traveling gate to gate. Being able to filter out so many obvious false alarms is a huge advantage. You just want to know about people getting close enough to where you are, not thru traffic. Anything that shows up is cause for alarm, and gives you a reason to align. Are they leaving? do you know what they are doing? Do you gamble they are safe to keep pve action going?
The fact is, every time you see a neutral pilot listed in high sec local, it is usually crying wolf. You can't accomplish everything if you assume every neutral pilot is going to try and gank you, so you are looking at a list of mostly false alarms and worthless intel.
Now, imagine you are a ganker. There is no local, so you have no idea who is on, or if they are in the same system as you. You probably have a patrol route of favorite places to find victims, and you likely know you need to move fast between discovery and attack. Seeing you scares off more than a few, but you catch enough of the slower ones to be happy.
Translation: The guys who make the least effort get caught the most. Darwin loves you, and the guys who make the most effort might just try their skills more aggressively to boot.
Lord Zim wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:Don't forget, when you turn off the free intel, you shut it off for both sides. The hunters will also need to do more to find targets, making it a contest of efforts. Yeah, no. It doesn't matter how many times you guys try to claim this fallacy, it doesn't make it true. Removing local would not affect both sides equally, and the losing side won't be the gankers. Fallacy?
Unless the hunter knows his target is present, he cannot attack it. The presence of local told them with indisputable certainty that the target was present. If they looked long and hard enough, they could find it. Often it took little effort beyond realizing they were present to be found.
Now, no local? The above described patrol route is your best hope, and if they figure out your path, they might just learn to avoid it. Are there belts outside D-Scan range if someone flies from X to Y? Then you need to go off course or risk missing a kill. There! someone in that group of orbital items.... belt one, empty, belt two, nothing... belt three, nope... what? They left? Fourteen belts, and by the time I eliminated three of them, they realized they were being hunted and booked out.
This was so much easier when they mistook my scouting alt for thru traffic, and ignored him.... |
Lord Zim
790
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 21:37:00 -
[849] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:You still mine, rat, or grind missions, but you no longer have that reassuring 'don't worry window". Now you wonder, so you hit d-scan, or possibly they add in a means to automate it. Every time it pulses or updates, it becomes your security assurance. You need to see it clear, or you know you have a problem. Which gives you a maximum of 4-6 seconds before that intel is obsolete, which means that's almost all you do, scan and stare, scan and stare, scan and stare. And miss for those 4-6 seconds at exactly the wrong time, and you're caught.
Nikk Narrel wrote:In high sec? You set it so it excludes station traffic, and those traveling gate to gate. Being able to filter out so many obvious false alarms is a huge advantage. You just want to know about people getting close enough to where you are, not thru traffic. Anything that shows up is cause for alarm, and gives you a reason to align. Are they leaving? do you know what they are doing? Do you gamble they are safe to keep pve action going?
The fact is, every time you see a neutral pilot listed in high sec local, it is usually crying wolf. You can't accomplish everything if you assume every neutral pilot is going to try and gank you, so you are looking at a list of mostly false alarms and worthless intel. This is mostly not true unless you're either in a very expensive ratting/missioning ship or in a mining ship. If you're in a crunchy industrial or freighter with a very expensive load, then you'll probably get ganked on the gates, and that doesn't take local.
I never bother to look in local while I'm in hisec, unless I'm looking for mission-related texts, simply because I'm not flying in an expensive ship, nor am I mining, and if I'm hauling expensive **** I'm doing it cleverly so I don't get ganked. vOv |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
328
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:20:00 -
[850] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:You still mine, rat, or grind missions, but you no longer have that reassuring 'don't worry window". Now you wonder, so you hit d-scan, or possibly they add in a means to automate it. Every time it pulses or updates, it becomes your security assurance. You need to see it clear, or you know you have a problem. Which gives you a maximum of 4-6 seconds before that intel is obsolete, which means that's almost all you do, scan and stare, scan and stare, scan and stare. And miss for those 4-6 seconds at exactly the wrong time, and you're caught. So, would you rather be in high sec with a laundry list of worthless intel, persistently present and pointless to watch unless you have somehow been war decced?
Or taking a chance, knowing you did have to ping every few seconds, (if not automated, they could do this if they wanted to). But if you did see something, it would be worth reacting to, because the chances of it being a false alarm are greatly reduced now.
Quality over quantity. I tend to lean towards the quality side more myself. |
|
Lord Zim
791
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:56:00 -
[851] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:So, would you rather be in high sec with a laundry list of worthless intel, persistently present and pointless to watch unless you have somehow been war decced? If I had the option of making, say, 50-70 mill/hour in nullsec where I had to glare holes in the directional scanner lest I get ganked if I look away for 6 seconds, or I can make 40 mill/hour doing L4s in a place where I can downright ignore everyone and everything other than the agent, the travelroute to/from the mission and the red crosses I need to shoot, then uh ... yeah. I'd do L4s. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
328
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 14:21:00 -
[852] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:So, would you rather be in high sec with a laundry list of worthless intel, persistently present and pointless to watch unless you have somehow been war decced? If I had the option of making, say, 50-70 mill/hour in nullsec where I had to glare holes in the directional scanner lest I get ganked if I look away for 6 seconds, or I can make 40 mill/hour doing L4s in a place where I can downright ignore everyone and everything other than the agent, the travelroute to/from the mission and the red crosses I need to shoot, then uh ... yeah. I'd do L4s. I appreciate the idea that in some specific cases high sec is a carebear haven, as you described it.
If your ship is impractical to suicide gank, then it becomes equally unlikely you will hit a situation where you need to worry about it.
Now, a lot of people are flying questionable fit exhumers, in high sec, and encountering a bizarre phenomenon... Hulkageddon Infinitus.
This means for those who can fly ganking fits under 10 million isk in value, it doesn't matter if you get ANY loot or reward from the pilot you killed. Ole man Mittani is gonna pay you that bounty. Anything that drops is pure bonus.
That being said, local for these pilots alone is a broken crutch. They are better using their d-scan and ignoring local as the garbage it is to them. Sadly for them, however, the suicide crew see's it as a fast food menu, and they know a hulk can be at any one of the belts. They see enough in the list, they know it's harvest time!
The D-scan might warn if someone is checking nearby belts. Local will list every pilot in system, including those docked up in stations. |
Lord Zim
792
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 14:32:00 -
[853] - Quote
Tell me more about how you'll convince people in hisec to expend the energy to run a dscan, when they can't even look at the local window. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
328
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:14:00 -
[854] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Tell me more about how you'll convince people in hisec to expend the energy to run a dscan, when they can't even look at the local window. The hi sec dilemma.... Some of them won't, and I do not pretend otherwise.
Some of them would definitely do this, if they understood how they could make an effort to survive that could make a difference.
The presence of local is a false hope, giving the second group an illusion that they already have all the intel they can use, and nothing they do could make a difference.
It is worse than no intel, it is BAD intel. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
389
|
Posted - 2012.07.10 08:33:00 -
[855] - Quote
Ideas that terrorize Nullbears also should not be hidden, it has 85 likes and even more nullbear tears. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Lord Zim
1004
|
Posted - 2012.07.10 08:36:00 -
[856] - Quote
I see it's the bi-weekly "I suck at PVP so I must whine about local" event again. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
389
|
Posted - 2012.07.10 08:37:00 -
[857] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:I see it's the bi-weekly "I suck at PVP so I must whine about local" event again. No I just like to hear you complain Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
382
|
Posted - 2012.07.10 13:48:00 -
[858] - Quote
Local being used for intel is the poster child for unintended use by players.
In what space epic worthy of recognition did the hero rely on a chat channel to warn him of the incoming waves of bad guys?
Local Chat is not your sensors. It is a magical short wave radio that not only lets you hear those near you, but be totally aware of everyone regardless of whether they are broadcasting at all.
If we are going to play this way, bring in the space orcs already.... Cloaking being on a ten minute manual cycle timer? (Author: Bree Okanata) Fine. As long as there is a ten minute timer for being docked in a station. Also, you can't stop moving in the game. Just add in a way so every ten minutes you are randomly warped to the nearest other player. Keeps people from going AFK. |
Ned Black
Driders
41
|
Posted - 2012.07.11 07:05:00 -
[859] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:So, would you rather be in high sec with a laundry list of worthless intel, persistently present and pointless to watch unless you have somehow been war decced? If I had the option of making, say, 50-70 mill/hour in nullsec where I had to glare holes in the directional scanner lest I get ganked if I look away for 6 seconds, or I can make 40 mill/hour doing L4s in a place where I can downright ignore everyone and everything other than the agent, the travelroute to/from the mission and the red crosses I need to shoot, then uh ... yeah. I'd do L4s.
Well, if you dont have the balls to be out in nullsec unless you have local holding your hands then it sounds to me as if highsec is the right place for you...
Lord Zim wrote:I see it's the bi-weekly "I suck at PVP so I must whine about local" event again.
And yet the one whining in just about every remove local thread I have seen is you... if wanting to make things harder makes us suck at PvP then what does whining about making things harder make you? |
Lord Zim
1018
|
Posted - 2012.07.11 08:11:00 -
[860] - Quote
Ned Black wrote:Well, if you dont have the balls to be out in nullsec unless you have local holding your hands then it sounds to me as if highsec is the right place for you... Missing the point, I see.
I've plenty balls, what I don't have is a tolerance for effort. Ratting or running anoms in nullsec takes effort, running L4s do not require effort and pay out almost just as well. I, and a fucktonne of other nullsec people, have already set about running L4s instead of running anoms in nullsec for this exact reason, which means that L4s are too lucrative and doing dumb things like removing local (without replacing it with something like, say, a module which can be incapped/hacked for x minutes and it stops registering people in that solar system) will just exacerbate this problem.
Which means we'd be back less than a week after this change had been implemented, with the same pvpbears whining about how there's nobody at all to shoot, and going "what'chu talkin' 'bout willis?" when we point out that a vast majority of those who cared enough about isk efficiency to deal with the extra work of keeping safe without local, have either moved back to hisec to farm L4s or promoted themselves to full-on WH residency.
Lord Zim wrote:I see it's the bi-weekly "I suck at PVP so I must whine about local" event again.
And yet the one whining in just about every remove local thread I have seen is you... if wanting to make things harder makes us suck at PvP then what does whining about making things harder make you?[/quote] I'm not "whining about local", I'm telling people who are "whining about local" (because they want more PVP kills, since they can't get it the honest way) that they're promoting a bad idea which'll make their life worse in the long run.
Not that you, or they, will acknowledge this. Oh well. |
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
399
|
Posted - 2012.07.12 02:26:00 -
[861] - Quote
The risk vs reward in Null is broken individually and is broken the other way for some alliances. See tech moons. What we really need is a balance of all things Null so individuals can get more and frankly tech moons just gone.
As to the PvP argument, yes Null does include and must include PvP but PvP isn't all that null is. You speak of having to use D-scan and having no warning. The loss of Local would mean adaptation, if you ran radar sites instead for instance you would have massive warning as you need to have probes to find these.
Null is at the moment both too easy and too hard, for those alliances in along time life is easier for new alliances trying to start out, it is a ***** and honestly not really worth the effort. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Lord Zim
1022
|
Posted - 2012.07.12 07:31:00 -
[862] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:The loss of Local would mean adaptation, if you ran radar sites instead for instance you would have massive warning as you need to have probes to find these. How do radar sites in null compare in effort/risk/reward vs L4s? |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
412
|
Posted - 2012.07.12 09:24:00 -
[863] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote: Local is holding EVE back. Period. Get rid of it and let EVE become great.
I'm slightly envious Caliph, your remove Local thread is well over 40 pages, none of mine made it past a dozen, and most less than that. I should have known to mention balls somewhere in the title I suppose.
I fully support removing Local Chat's Intel functions, even in the event of no improved intel gathering tools it would be a marked improvement. However, Nullsec advocates like Zim do have a point about Highsec, and that most of their PvEers that aren't already there will be after such a change.
That isn't to say because of this Local shouldn't be rightly wiped from the game forever, but rather the biggest stink of all in EVE is Highsec itself. High Level PvE (Incursions, lvl 4, even level 3 missions, DED 4/10 exploration sites etc all need to be removed from space which has CONCORD. And NPC corps need stop being a sanctuary from Wardecs.
I guess what I'm saying there should be room for agreement between those of us that embrace the Sandbox PvP nature of EVE, but that agreement comes not from single issues, but with a comprehensive list of changes to get EVE back to what CCP sold it to us as. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
401
|
Posted - 2012.07.12 13:21:00 -
[864] - Quote
Xorv wrote:I fully support removing Local Chat's Intel functions, even in the event of no improved intel gathering tools it would be a marked improvement. However, Nullsec advocates like Zim do have a point about Highsec, and that most of their PvEers that aren't already there will be after such a change. I made some points about high sec in the last couple of pages, and while Lord Zim was ready to debate them, I feel I defended my view quite well.
That being, high sec's quality of intel is rubbish. Players have grown complacent and numb about minding their personal security in high sec, under the mistaken belief they cannot be harmed due to Concord.
Let's be honest on this: Unless they recognize a name, or have been wardecced and see the warning icon, local intel has no value in high sec. At no point will some unfamiliar unflagged name in that list inspire a sudden urge to prepare for possible PvP, or otherwise defend themselves. Total garbage as far as intel value is rated.
At least if they were to even just use D-Scan, they could limit it to their region, so it ignored gate travel and people camped in stations. Just tell them the traffic that was coming into their area of the system.
Effort? Yes, of course. Nothing of value in EVE is given for free, especially intel. The delusion of local having intel value in high sec should be ended. Cloaking being on a ten minute manual cycle timer? (Author: Bree Okanata) Fine. As long as there is a ten minute timer for being docked in a station. Also, you can't stop moving in the game. Just add in a way so every ten minutes you are randomly warped to the nearest other player. Keeps people from going AFK. |
Lord Zim
1022
|
Posted - 2012.07.12 13:37:00 -
[865] - Quote
All I'll say is that if hisec lost L3 and above (or even just L4 and above), I would have no problems at all with getting on board with no local, since nullsec would then be substantially more profitable than hisec, which means that people who live in nullsec would have to choose between either grinding a LOT, or trying their luck in nullsec and actually take a chance to make isk.
But as long as the reward disparaty between hisec and low/nullsec is as low as it is, removing local anywhere is just a buff to ****** PVPers (until everyone moves back to hisec, which shouldn't take long), and a clear message to carebears that hisec is the place to make money, not nullsec. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
400
|
Posted - 2012.07.12 23:59:00 -
[866] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:All I'll say is that if hisec lost L3 and above (or even just L4 and above), I would have no problems at all with getting on board with no local, since nullsec would then be substantially more profitable than hisec, which means that people who live in nullsec would have to choose between either grinding a LOT, or trying their luck in nullsec and actually take a chance to make isk.
But as long as the reward disparaty between hisec and low/nullsec is as low as it is, removing local anywhere is just a buff to ****** PVPers (until everyone moves back to hisec, which shouldn't take long), and a clear message to carebears that hisec is the place to make money, not nullsec. The biggest problem is how to fix Null without damaging the CCP cash cow of hi-sec. They will never remove L4's from high as too many subs come from that. At the moment the risk vs reward for a smaller alliance and especially a non-tech moon mining alliance is really in the why bother area. With blobs running around and morons who like to drop super caps on single ships floating about there is just no reward great enough. I'm not sure if it is just me but eve feels like it has lost its way compared to 3-4 years ago when everything seemed so much better. Not the game code but the atmosphere. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Ned Black
Driders
43
|
Posted - 2012.07.13 06:33:00 -
[867] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Ned Black wrote:Well, if you dont have the balls to be out in nullsec unless you have local holding your hands then it sounds to me as if highsec is the right place for you... Missing the point, I see. I've plenty balls, what I don't have is a tolerance for effort. Ratting or running anoms in nullsec takes effort, running L4s do not require effort and pay out almost just as well. I, and a fucktonne of other nullsec people, have already set about running L4s instead of running anoms in nullsec for this exact reason, which means that L4s are too lucrative and doing dumb things like removing local (without replacing it with something like, say, a module which can be incapped/hacked for x minutes and it stops registering people in that solar system) will just exacerbate this problem. Which means we'd be back less than a week after this change had been implemented, with the same pvpbears whining about how there's nobody at all to shoot, and going "what'chu talkin' 'bout willis?" when we point out that a vast majority of those who cared enough about isk efficiency to deal with the extra work of keeping safe without local, have either moved back to hisec to farm L4s or promoted themselves to full-on WH residency. Ned Black wrote:Lord Zim wrote:I see it's the bi-weekly "I suck at PVP so I must whine about local" event again. And yet the one whining in just about every remove local thread I have seen is you... if wanting to make things harder makes us suck at PvP then what does whining about making things harder make you? I'm not "whining about local", I'm telling people who are "whining about local" (because they want more PVP kills, since they can't get it the honest way) that they're promoting a bad idea which'll make their life worse in the long run. Not that you, or they, will acknowledge this. Oh well.
Dude... if you think running anoms and ratting in nullsec in effort... then no offence intended, but in that case you are completely clueless as to what effort means. Come back and talk about effort when you require a 5-10 man RR fleet just to do the anoms... Right now nullsec PvE is about as effortless as you can get.
Get just enough tank to survive the crap for DPS battleships and smack in as much damage enhancing mods as you can on top of that to maximize your efficency... affter that its all a walk down easy street straight to the bank. The only risk you have is PvP... but if you keep an eye on local not even that will bother you. Lucky Luke may be able to outdraw his own shadow... but local will ALWAYS outdraw anyone jumping in as long as the one in the system is keeping it in check.
I would love it if CCP to change nullsec rats and anoms to be more akin to incursion/sleepers and actually make them dangerous. Suddenly people in nullsec would have to work as teams in order to make money... but even if CCP increased bountys to match I can just assume people in nullsec would put their heels down about such a change too... why? Because then it WOULD be actual effort and risk involved to do PvE. And where is the fun in that right? Actually its a blast, thats why I love high end sleeper blasting so much. Even experienced fleets takes losses in sleeper plexes beacuse of small mistakes... and that only adds to the thrill. The first time I watched my shields with 75+ resists go down to half in one blast I was screaming like a girl over coms. In nullsec the rats are so easy that the only "thrill" is to see if your current payout is bigger than the last one.
So... effort... nah... try out a highend wormhole for a while to get some perspective as to how much "effort" nullsec is compared to the sleeper site... and who knows... you may even start liking a lack of local if you do... when you start thinking about it, the ones vouching for no local is mostly people that live or have lived without it... the thought of no local does not scare us in the slightest, it only adds spices and flavour... and the people fighting with everything they have to keep local are mostly the ones that have never experienced a lack of local except as bugs... and bugs does not count.
Besides... If local is the only thing keeping people in nullsec then its really really bad... there will always be people who remain. They are the hard core, the ones that love the danger and thrill of living in space that is actually dangerous... the ones that actually belong in nullsec... the rest... the soft outer shell... well, if they can't live with the danger then they dont belong in dangerous space to begin with. |
Lord Zim
1022
|
Posted - 2012.07.13 07:42:00 -
[868] - Quote
Running anoms and ratting in nullsec is more than just shooting red crosses, but sure, go ahead, remove local without doing **** to hisec income and watch my prediction come true.
Also watch the gankers whine even more about an empty nullsec. vOv |
Seleia O'Sinnor
Drop of Honey
241
|
Posted - 2012.07.13 09:55:00 -
[869] - Quote
I'm totally in favor of removing local. Well make it delayed like in w-space to have some ways of broadcasting to everyone in the system. Who is using local in low/nullsec for communication purposes and who uses it for free intel?
I think that the subs won't go down, scouting is still valid. Maybe even more then. EGD: If you jettison what's in your brain, at least expect can flipping. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
414
|
Posted - 2012.07.14 04:22:00 -
[870] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:All I'll say is that if hisec lost L3 and above (or even just L4 and above), I would have no problems at all with getting on board with no local, since nullsec would then be substantially more profitable than hisec, which means that people who live in nullsec would have to choose between either grinding a LOT, or trying their luck in nullsec and actually take a chance to make isk.
That's what I thought, and if EVE followed every other MMORPG that like CCP claimed their game to be a Sandbox player conflict driven game, that's exactly how it would be. There would be no non newbie PvE of any kind under the protection of unbeatable NPCs. Highsec as it is breaks the Sandbox, because it's built on Themepark principles. It's really for us to rub CCPs nose in this fact at every opportunity, until such time they really embrace the Sandbox MMORPG concept in both word and deed, or abandon the claim EVE is a Sandbox MMORPG but rather a MMORPG with some Sandbox elements.
Frying Doom wrote: The biggest problem is how to fix Null without damaging the CCP cash cow of hi-sec. They will never remove L4's from high as too many subs come from that.
What actual evidence is there that Highsec is indeed a cash cow to CCP that you claim? Just because the majority of characters are there does not mean it's the gameplay the majority of EVE players want.
If CCP made a new area of space in an expansion that was 100% safe from PvP and had level one missions that paid out more than the greediest Incursion runner could dream of, we'd all have characters there. However, how many of us would say that we wanted that expansion or wanted to actually spend time playing there were it not for the Freighters full of ISK we were hauling away? Excluding really dumb people, probably none. Highsec is the same way, it's safer, more convenient, and a more efficient way for many to make ISK than anywhere else. So, that's why they park at least one character in Highsec, not because they appreciate the gameplay provided there the most. I would also speculate that those people would not abandon the game if it was taken away, just so long as it was taken away from everyone and not just them. |
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
401
|
Posted - 2012.07.14 05:04:00 -
[871] - Quote
Xorv wrote:Lord Zim wrote:All I'll say is that if hisec lost L3 and above (or even just L4 and above), I would have no problems at all with getting on board with no local, since nullsec would then be substantially more profitable than hisec, which means that people who live in nullsec would have to choose between either grinding a LOT, or trying their luck in nullsec and actually take a chance to make isk.
That's what I thought, and if EVE followed every other MMORPG that like CCP claimed their game to be a Sandbox player conflict driven game, that's exactly how it would be. There would be no non newbie PvE of any kind under the protection of unbeatable NPCs. Highsec as it is breaks the Sandbox, because it's built on Themepark principles. It's really for us to rub CCPs nose in this fact at every opportunity, until such time they really embrace the Sandbox MMORPG concept in both word and deed, or abandon the claim EVE is a Sandbox MMORPG but rather a MMORPG with some Sandbox elements. Frying Doom wrote: The biggest problem is how to fix Null without damaging the CCP cash cow of hi-sec. They will never remove L4's from high as too many subs come from that.
What actual evidence is there that Highsec is indeed a cash cow to CCP that you claim? Just because the majority of characters are there does not mean it's the gameplay the majority of EVE players want. If CCP made a new area of space in an expansion that was 100% safe from PvP and had level one missions that paid out more than the greediest Incursion runner could dream of, we'd all have characters there. However, how many of us would say that we wanted that expansion or wanted to actually spend time playing there were it not for the Freighters full of ISK we were hauling away? Excluding really dumb people, probably none. Highsec is the same way, it's safer, more convenient, and a more efficient way for many to make ISK than anywhere else. So, that's why they park at least one character in Highsec, not because they appreciate the gameplay provided there the most. I would also speculate that those people would not abandon the game if it was taken away, just so long as it was taken away from everyone and not just them. Ok for a start all a sandbox means is it occurs in the one environment not separate shards, with one set of rules. Strangely like kids in a sandbox.
As to the hi-sec cash cow, look how many miners and mission runners there are in Hi-sec, you have eyes use them. It will not be the high sec everyone wants as some people want no pvp at all there, others only via wardecs and others want to gank people without repercussions like not being blown up. So with so many different types of players it cannot make everyone happy. On the last snap shot I saw 60% of players over 5 million SP were in high sec add to that any newbies floating around and yeah most of CCP's cash comes from Hi-sec. Only a small amount of actual cash comes from null, given the amounts made by the larger alliances and the number of plexes they could easily buy I would doubt that more than 15% of the actually cash for the game came from Null. There are lots of isk to be made and a lot of it is not in Hi-sec. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
414
|
Posted - 2012.07.14 07:24:00 -
[872] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote: Ok for a start all a sandbox means is it occurs in the one environment not separate shards, with one set of rules. Strangely like kids in a sandbox.
No, that would at best be a rather poorly worded definition of an open world single shard/server. There's plenty of threads on these forums where people, myself included, have explained to one confused or in denial poster or another on what a Sandbox is in context of a MMORPG. You should go do a search and read them.
Frying Doom wrote: As to the hi-sec cash cow, look how many miners and mission runners there are in Hi-sec, you have eyes use them. It will not be the high sec everyone wants as some people want no pvp at all there, others only via wardecs and others want to gank people without repercussions like not being blown up. So with so many different types of players it cannot make everyone happy. On the last snap shot I saw 60% of players over 5 million SP were in high sec add to that any newbies floating around and yeah most of CCP's cash comes from Hi-sec.
You quoted my entire post, but given this reply it looks as though you never actually read what I said. Because it refuted pretty much everything you said that has any relevance to the discussion at hand. So use your own eyes and read the posts to which you are replying before posting next time.
Explain to us how most of CCPs cash comes from Highsec? Because if you're a non newbie who only plays in Highsec and avoids PvP situations that could lead to loses then you should have no problem at all paying for your account via Plex. Someone else is paying CCP for your account, likely someone who doesn't spend all their time in Highsec or avoiding PvP. |
Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
1565
|
Posted - 2012.07.14 07:54:00 -
[873] - Quote
Xorv wrote:Frying Doom wrote: Ok for a start all a sandbox means is it occurs in the one environment not separate shards, with one set of rules. Strangely like kids in a sandbox.
No, that would at best be a rather poorly worded definition of an open world single shard/server. There's plenty of threads on these forums where people, myself included, have explained to one confused or in denial poster or another on what a Sandbox is in context of a MMORPG. You should go do a search and read them. Frying Doom wrote: As to the hi-sec cash cow, look how many miners and mission runners there are in Hi-sec, you have eyes use them. It will not be the high sec everyone wants as some people want no pvp at all there, others only via wardecs and others want to gank people without repercussions like not being blown up. So with so many different types of players it cannot make everyone happy. On the last snap shot I saw 60% of players over 5 million SP were in high sec add to that any newbies floating around and yeah most of CCP's cash comes from Hi-sec.
You quoted my entire post, but given this reply it looks as though you never actually read what I said. Because it refuted pretty much everything you said that has any relevance to the discussion at hand. So use your own eyes and read the posts to which you are replying before posting next time. Explain to us how most of CCPs cash comes from Highsec? Because if you're a non newbie who only plays in Highsec and avoids PvP situations that could lead to loses then you should have no problem at all paying for your account via Plex. Someone else is paying CCP for your account, likely someone who doesn't spend all their time in Highsec or avoiding PvP.
You forgot about the fabulously wealthy, who can afford to pay for multiple accounts and still buy plex for lolz while they PvP allover....
And There are more players on average in hi-sec systems than there are in null.
Thus hi-sec has more account power. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
414
|
Posted - 2012.07.14 09:51:00 -
[874] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote: And There are more players on average in hi-sec systems than there are in null.
Thus hi-sec has more account power.
Yup and I'm one of them, all 3 characters on single active account in Highsec. What's your point? What do you mean by "account power"? ...Does this mean CCP should act on everything I've been saying because my characters are all in Highsec?
|
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
80
|
Posted - 2012.07.14 14:12:00 -
[875] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: I'm not "whining about local", I'm telling people who are "whining about local" (because they want more PVP kills, since they can't get it the honest way) that they're promoting a bad idea which'll make their life worse in the long run.
the honest way ? what the **** are you smoking, lmao, come on man,, ffs did you really mean that,,, like really ?
perhaps you'd like the attacker to warp to you, inform you in local that he/she intends to attack you and warns you to defend yourself good sir !
then waits for a reply and if they don't get a reply they go away.
you have it all wrong zim, you are whining about removal or any change to local, you believe it's a bad idea because you depend on the fact that you can see a red in system and it leads to one thing, yes zim, station tanking.
explain to me how it's a fair system when all one has to do is stare at the local channel and watch for a red, once a red is seen one docks. or how it leads new players into thinking that if they can't see a red in system that they will not be attacked.
i see there a while ago local was "broke " for a bit, maybe it was CCP trying a little test to see what the reaction/kill numbers was if local was delayed in some way.
i can see a change to local being a good thing, it would promote team work, it would kill off the idea that hi sec is safe. people would have to learn how to use D scan.( also perhaps a new tool a little like radar ) people wouldn't be sitting watching TV while they do the hi sec lvl 4 mining not watching what the **** they are doing style of play, the very same people who once they get popped they jump on the forums and whine like ******* and makes threats of i'm going to unsub, this is ******* stupid !
why do you fear such a change Zim ? or are you just trolling ?
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
401
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 12:51:00 -
[876] - Quote
Xorv wrote:Asuka Solo wrote: And There are more players on average in hi-sec systems than there are in null.
Thus hi-sec has more account power.
Yup and I'm one of them, all 3 characters on single active account in Highsec. What's your point? What do you mean by "account power"? ...Does this mean CCP should act on everything I've been saying because my characters are all in Highsec? The snapshot for population was exactly that. You cannot log into all 3 characters on the same account at the same time. But I must asked have you ever been to Null sec, lo or WH space. They are deserted the population density is bugger all.
It is a really easy concept, there are more players in Hi-sec so there is more cash coming from there for CCP to spend. Honestly it isn't that hard. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Deena Amaj
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 00:15:00 -
[877] - Quote
Might as well remove cloaking, because that is the next thing everybody will be running for. Just a random thought.
I like the idea of making things tougher - but you have to still make sure that the new players have a way to establish a foothold to eve. If it is an ultimate rapefest, they will leave - and that pretty fast.
Unfortunately, I fear it is too late to do such a (drastic) thing nowadays.
Don't forget that the learning curve of eve is already deadly and steep. You want the noobs to stay today so there is something to pew for tomorrow.
But I'm all for nerfing the cradle so they don't stay forever in highsec. There has to be more welcoming ways for them to populate 0.0 without instantly blowing up too.
edit: blasted draft-saver confirthisposmed |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
80
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 10:30:00 -
[878] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Xorv wrote:Asuka Solo wrote: And There are more players on average in hi-sec systems than there are in null.
Thus hi-sec has more account power.
Yup and I'm one of them, all 3 characters on single active account in Highsec. What's your point? What do you mean by "account power"? ...Does this mean CCP should act on everything I've been saying because my characters are all in Highsec? The snapshot for population was exactly that. You cannot log into all 3 characters on the same account at the same time. But I must asked have you ever been to Null sec, lo or WH space. They are deserted the population density is bugger all. It is a really easy concept, there are more players in Hi-sec so there is more cash coming from there for CCP to spend. Honestly it isn't that hard.
very true, also it has to be said, what ever happened to the idea of sov systems being linked, gates being borders & defenbable with gate guns being manned by real people, access being set for blues and not reds, if the reds want in, well they have to go ahead and huff and puff and blow the gate down. if CCP wants to fix null sec they need to rethink the current mechanics, a huge galaxy, systems that are indeed empty but are held as buffer systems by the larger alliances, don't snap now, i'm not getting at the largers alliances at all, but it is true, you see a large fleet engagement and it drives almost all population of null into one constellation. this in itself shows how stupid it is, high sec will stay as it is with the curent null sec mechanics of if your a big alliance you hold as much space as you don't need, you think i'm wrong, just look at the amount of free systems there is out there, pretty much nothing but the meat in the sandwhich of the big sov holders. i'm not saying limit sov holdings, i'm saying make sov so it makes sense, not huge amounts of systems under the control of the few with feck all population, no market, no industry, pretty much unused systems, this is getting away from the topic here so rant over, this ones for another debate, one that has been debated many times already k, k, one last thing before i kill this off topic rant.
FIX NULL SEC CCP ! ffs |
Lord Zim
1025
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 15:00:00 -
[879] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:you have it all wrong zim, you are whining about removal or any change to local Nope, I'm not whining about anything, what I'm doing is I'm telling you that any notion you have that this'll make nullsec anything other than an even bigger population desert than it already is, is wrong. The only thing you'll end up doing if you remove local or make local delayed, without a consequent severe decrease in hisec payouts, is make L4s even more heavily used by nullsec personnel than it already is.
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:explain to me how it's a fair system when all one has to do is stare at the local channel and watch for a red, once a red is seen one docks. or how it leads new players into thinking that if they can't see a red in system that they will not be attacked. Simple: there's a balance to it. You pay attention, there's a chance you won't get caught. You don't pay attention, and there's a chance you get caught. Mining, running anoms and ratting are fairly monotonous activities, gankers can come at any moment, and it only takes a few seconds' inattentiveness at the wrong time to get caught.
Now explain to me why we should change this into a system where cloaky gangs run rampant, and where anyone trying to rat, run anoms or mine have as little as 4 seconds in which to respond, and that's only if they stare holes in the dscan.
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:i can see a change to local being a good thing, it would promote team work, it would kill off the idea that hi sec is safe. people would have to learn how to use D scan.( also perhaps a new tool a little like radar ) people wouldn't be sitting watching TV while they do the hi sec lvl 4 mining not watching what the **** they are doing style of play, the very same people who once they get popped they jump on the forums and whine like ******* and makes threats of i'm going to unsub, this is ******* stupid ! Hisec won't notice anything, they barely notice local is there outside of scams or insults. They wouldn't be looking at their dscan while doing their L4s either, and they'd still ***** and whine every time they get popped, because they'd still think hisec was safe.
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:why do you fear such a change Zim ? or are you just trolling ? I don't "fear such a change", I'm just telling you that you're wrong. |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
80
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 18:59:00 -
[880] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: Nope, I'm not whining about anything, what I'm doing is I'm telling you that any notion you have that this'll make nullsec anything other than an even bigger population desert than it already is, is wrong. The only thing you'll end up doing if you remove local or make local delayed, without a consequent severe decrease in hisec payouts, is make L4s even more heavily used by nullsec personnel than it already is.
you are totally wrong Zim, this has nothing to do with low sec/nullsec population, the reason those areas are as you say deserts is beacuse the galaxy is pretty big Zim and sov mechanics are should i say,, a litle broken.
Lord Zim wrote: Simple: there's a balance to it. You pay attention, there's a chance you won't get caught. You don't pay attention, and there's a chance you get caught. Mining, running anoms and ratting are fairly monotonous activities, gankers can come at any moment, and it only takes a few seconds' inattentiveness at the wrong time to get caught. Now explain to me why we should change this into a system where cloaky gangs run rampant, and where anyone trying to rat, run anoms or mine have as little as 4 seconds in which to respond, and that's only if they stare holes in the dscan.
cloaky gangs already run rampant, along with ganking gangs, there is no balance in staring at the local channel and living in a bubble believing that you are safe as long as you think the pilots in system with you are not going to hand you your ass. thanks for showing us exactly what we are saying, local leads people into a false sense of safety.
Lord Zim wrote: Hisec won't notice anything, they barely notice local is there outside of scams or insults. They wouldn't be looking at their dscan while doing their L4s either, and they'd still ***** and whine every time they get popped, because they'd still think hisec was safe.
you assume too much Zim, but for those that watch tv while mining ratting mission running, that's their own loss and lazyness, if you can't handle d-scan while you kill npc's you are in real trouble when it comes to real pilots hunting you and i promise you this, if you decide to not invest in learning the skills needed to survive no matter what area of space you are in, it's only a mater of time before you get dead and no channel is going to save you.
Lord Zim wrote: I don't "fear such a change", I'm just telling you that you're wrong.
then tell me Zim, why are you not even a little open to the idea that local needs to change.
|
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
417
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:19:00 -
[881] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote: The snapshot for population was exactly that. You cannot log into all 3 characters on the same account at the same time. But I must asked have you ever been to Null sec, lo or WH space. They are deserted the population density is bugger all.
It is a really easy concept, there are more players in Hi-sec so there is more cash coming from there for CCP to spend. Honestly it isn't that hard.
That there is more player activity in Highsec isn't in dispute, it's the logically leaps you and others make to form erroneous conclusions from that information that's being challenged.
At the core of this logical failing is the fallacy of composition. In that some posters are inferring everyone counted in those numbers (from your snap shot and other stats) is representative of their views of gameplay, when in fact only a portion of those in Highsec are representative of those views. It's an appeal for action based on that they're the majority when in actual fact there is no real evidence to support that.
So what does it mean when you say Highsec has more account power when everyone arguing here has characters there?
...don't assume that because players are active in Highsec that they support the gameplay found in that space. As I explained with the following example at the top of the page which you clearly didn't read.
Xorv wrote:If CCP made a new area of space in an expansion that was 100% safe from PvP and had level one missions that paid out more than the greediest Incursion runner could dream of, we'd all have characters there. However, how many of us would say that we wanted that expansion or wanted to actually spend time playing there were it not for the Freighters full of ISK we were hauling away? Excluding really dumb people, probably none. Highsec is the same way, it's safer, more convenient, and a more efficient way for many to make ISK than anywhere else. So, that's why they park at least one character in Highsec, not because they appreciate the gameplay provided there the most. I would also speculate that those people would not abandon the game if it was taken away, just so long as it was taken away from everyone and not just them. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
417
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:23:00 -
[882] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote: then tell me Zim, why are you not even a little open to the idea that local needs to change.
He is open to changing it, but only in the event Highsec Risk/Effort vs Reward issues are addressed.
Lord Zim wrote: All I'll say is that if hisec lost L3 and above (or even just L4 and above), I would have no problems at all with getting on board with no local, since nullsec would then be substantially more profitable than hisec, which means that people who live in nullsec would have to choose between either grinding a LOT, or trying their luck in nullsec and actually take a chance to make isk.
|
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
516
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:30:00 -
[883] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:Lord Zim wrote: I'm not "whining about local", I'm telling people who are "whining about local" (because they want more PVP kills, since they can't get it the honest way) that they're promoting a bad idea which'll make their life worse in the long run.
the honest way ? what the **** are you smoking, lmao, come on man,, ffs did you really mean that,,, like really ? perhaps you'd like the attacker to warp to you, inform you in local that he/she intends to attack you and warns you to defend yourself good sir ! then waits for a reply and if they don't get a reply they go away. you have it all wrong zim, you are whining about removal or any change to local, you believe it's a bad idea because you depend on the fact that you can see a red in system and it leads to one thing, yes zim, station tanking. explain to me how it's a fair system when all one has to do is stare at the local channel and watch for a red, once a red is seen one docks. or how it leads new players into thinking that if they can't see a red in system that they will not be attacked. i see there a while ago local was "broke " for a bit, maybe it was CCP trying a little test to see what the reaction/kill numbers was if local was delayed in some way. i can see a change to local being a good thing, it would promote team work, it would kill off the idea that hi sec is safe. people would have to learn how to use D scan.( also perhaps a new tool a little like radar ) people wouldn't be sitting watching TV while they do the hi sec lvl 4 mining not watching what the **** they are doing style of play, the very same people who once they get popped they jump on the forums and whine like ******* and makes threats of i'm going to unsub, this is ******* stupid ! why do you fear such a change Zim ? or are you just trolling ?
While not having local in WH's it's not much of a big deal, do it in null/low/high there's not a single good reason for it. You choose to live in WH you deal with the rules there, you go in null low or high you do the same or, if you really think changes are needed then expose you super plan with detailed mechanics etc and what will that bring for the community as a whole in the sandbox and not just your little person.
We really missed that, WH dewlers and risk averse people explaining how awesome Eve would be without local and how local is so bad for the game -them mostly because with local they take RISKS while with no local they would just have reduced to no risk
Nice stuff. brb |
Lord Zim
1025
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 21:36:00 -
[884] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:you are totally wrong Zim, this has nothing to do with low sec/nullsec population, the reason those areas are as you say deserts is beacuse the galaxy is pretty big Zim and sov mechanics are should i say,, a litle broken. SOV mechanics have absolutely nothing to do with what people do in nullsec on a day to day basis.
Very few people, compared to how many people are involved in actually taking space, actually use it, most of them (me included) do other things in hisec because it's less effort and roughly the same (or more) reward.
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:cloaky gangs already run rampant, along with ganking gangs, there is no balance in staring at the local channel and living in a bubble believing that you are safe as long as you think the pilots in system with you are not going to hand you your ass. thanks for showing us exactly what we are saying, local leads people into a false sense of safety. Cloaky gangs don't run rampant, now. They will after the local change, then they'll start whining about how space is completely empty, because everyone'll rather spend their time AFKing L4s for slightly less reward than what anoms etc give out, for what would be more work than an actual job would entail.
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:you assume too much Zim, but for those that watch tv while mining ratting mission running, that's their own loss and lazyness, if you can't handle d-scan while you kill npc's you are in real trouble when it comes to real pilots hunting you and i promise you this, if you decide to not invest in learning the skills needed to survive no matter what area of space you are in, it's only a mater of time before you get dead and no channel is going to save you. What I'm going to assume is that you're one of those guys who'd happily make everyone else's game **** just to make the act of actually getting kills easier.
Also :laffo: at your idea that people in hisec'll start running dscan. That's funny. What'll happen is that the only time anyone'll actually care about the lack of local is when there's a war on.
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:then tell me Zim, why are you not even a little open to the idea that local needs to change. I'm "not even a little open to the idea that local needs to change" because weenies like you only think of how to make it easier to gank, with nary a thought to the rest of the game. No local works in WHs because WHs have severe limits on ships which can come in, high control of where the exits go to, very few static resources etc etc etc, and most importantly, rewards which basically make the extra cockstab worth it. Nullsec currently doesn't make it worth it as it is over hisec L4s, let alone if you actually make the job of gankers much easier than it is in WHs.
But you don't care about that, as long as ganking people is made easier. |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
80
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 00:13:00 -
[885] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:Lord Zim wrote: I'm not "whining about local", I'm telling people who are "whining about local" (because they want more PVP kills, since they can't get it the honest way) that they're promoting a bad idea which'll make their life worse in the long run.
the honest way ? what the **** are you smoking, lmao, come on man,, ffs did you really mean that,,, like really ? perhaps you'd like the attacker to warp to you, inform you in local that he/she intends to attack you and warns you to defend yourself good sir ! then waits for a reply and if they don't get a reply they go away. you have it all wrong zim, you are whining about removal or any change to local, you believe it's a bad idea because you depend on the fact that you can see a red in system and it leads to one thing, yes zim, station tanking. explain to me how it's a fair system when all one has to do is stare at the local channel and watch for a red, once a red is seen one docks. or how it leads new players into thinking that if they can't see a red in system that they will not be attacked. i see there a while ago local was "broke " for a bit, maybe it was CCP trying a little test to see what the reaction/kill numbers was if local was delayed in some way. i can see a change to local being a good thing, it would promote team work, it would kill off the idea that hi sec is safe. people would have to learn how to use D scan.( also perhaps a new tool a little like radar ) people wouldn't be sitting watching TV while they do the hi sec lvl 4 mining not watching what the **** they are doing style of play, the very same people who once they get popped they jump on the forums and whine like ******* and makes threats of i'm going to unsub, this is ******* stupid ! why do you fear such a change Zim ? or are you just trolling ? While not having local in WH's it's not much of a big deal, do it in null/low/high there's not a single good reason for it. You choose to live in WH you deal with the rules there, you go in null low or high you do the same or, if you really think changes are needed then expose you super plan with detailed mechanics etc and what will that bring for the community as a whole in the sandbox and not just your little person. We really missed that, WH dewlers and risk averse people explaining how awesome Eve would be without local and how local is so bad for the game -them mostly because with local they take RISKS while with no local they would just have reduced to no risk Nice stuff.
read the rest of what i said before you blow out your a hole, i stated already my interest in local changes is all about stealth and covert. grab your spoon and join the line :D
btw do i look like the ******* OP, i'm giving my pennies worth , nothing more. if you want a grand plan CCP can go ahead an d hire my ass, warning to CCP, i don't come cheap. |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
80
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 00:15:00 -
[886] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:you are totally wrong Zim, this has nothing to do with low sec/nullsec population, the reason those areas are as you say deserts is beacuse the galaxy is pretty big Zim and sov mechanics are should i say,, a litle broken. SOV mechanics have absolutely nothing to do with what people do in nullsec on a day to day basis. Very few people, compared to how many people are involved in actually taking space, actually use it, most of them (me included) do other things in hisec because it's less effort and roughly the same (or more) reward. xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:cloaky gangs already run rampant, along with ganking gangs, there is no balance in staring at the local channel and living in a bubble believing that you are safe as long as you think the pilots in system with you are not going to hand you your ass. thanks for showing us exactly what we are saying, local leads people into a false sense of safety. Cloaky gangs don't run rampant, now. They will after the local change, then they'll start whining about how space is completely empty, because everyone'll rather spend their time AFKing L4s for slightly less reward than what anoms etc give out, for what would be more work than an actual job would entail. xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:you assume too much Zim, but for those that watch tv while mining ratting mission running, that's their own loss and lazyness, if you can't handle d-scan while you kill npc's you are in real trouble when it comes to real pilots hunting you and i promise you this, if you decide to not invest in learning the skills needed to survive no matter what area of space you are in, it's only a mater of time before you get dead and no channel is going to save you. What I'm going to assume is that you're one of those guys who'd happily make everyone else's game **** just to make the act of actually getting kills easier. Also :laffo: at your idea that people in hisec'll start running dscan. That's funny. What'll happen is that the only time anyone'll actually care about the lack of local is when there's a war on. xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:then tell me Zim, why are you not even a little open to the idea that local needs to change. I'm "not even a little open to the idea that local needs to change" because weenies like you only think of how to make it easier to gank, with nary a thought to the rest of the game. No local works in WHs because WHs have severe limits on ships which can come in, high control of where the exits go to, very few static resources etc etc etc, and most importantly, rewards which basically make the extra cockstab worth it. Nullsec currently doesn't make it worth it as it is over hisec L4s, let alone if you actually make the job of gankers much easier than it is in WHs. But you don't care about that, as long as ganking people is made easier.
you know nothing about me Zim, like i said, you assume way too much. |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
80
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 00:27:00 -
[887] - Quote
Xorv wrote:xxxTRUSTxxx wrote: then tell me Zim, why are you not even a little open to the idea that local needs to change.
He is open to changing it, but only in the event Highsec Risk/Effort vs Reward issues are addressed. Lord Zim wrote: All I'll say is that if hisec lost L3 and above (or even just L4 and above), I would have no problems at all with getting on board with no local, since nullsec would then be substantially more profitable than hisec, which means that people who live in nullsec would have to choose between either grinding a LOT, or trying their luck in nullsec and actually take a chance to make isk.
No he's not,
Lord Zim wrote: I'm "not even a little open to the idea that local needs to change"
|
Lord Zim
1025
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 01:34:00 -
[888] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:read the rest of what i said before you blow out your a hole, i stated already my interest in local changes is all about stealth and covert. grab your spoon and join the line :D Read: I want ganking to be easier.
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:btw do i look like the ******* OP, i'm giving my pennies worth , nothing more. if you want a grand plan CCP can go ahead an d hire my ass, warning to CCP, i don't come cheap. You wouldn't come cheap, no, you'd cost them subscriptions.
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:you know nothing about me Zim, like i said, you assume way too much. Tell us more about how nullsec works, mr "nullsec is empty on a daily basis because of the sov system".
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:No he's not, Nice selective quoting you got going there, doesn't make you right though.
With the one-sided "I just want ganking to be a fucktonne easier" arguments people like you keep coming up with, I'm definitely not, no, because what you're suggesting will only depopulate nullsec further.
Temper the change of not having local with nullsec being vastly more profitable than hisec, and you have a modicum of chance to get support for that change, but good luck getting the hisec reward nerf past the playerbase, and good luck getting CCP to up the rewards in nullsec. The last time CCP did that they panicked over the effect it had on the economy. |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
80
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 12:36:00 -
[889] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:read the rest of what i said before you blow out your a hole, i stated already my interest in local changes is all about stealth and covert. grab your spoon and join the line :D Read: I want ganking to be easier. xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:btw do i look like the ******* OP, i'm giving my pennies worth , nothing more. if you want a grand plan CCP can go ahead an d hire my ass, warning to CCP, i don't come cheap. You wouldn't come cheap, no, you'd cost them subscriptions. xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:you know nothing about me Zim, like i said, you assume way too much. Tell us more about how nullsec works, mr "nullsec is empty on a daily basis because of the sov system". xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:No he's not, Nice selective quoting you got going there, doesn't make you right though. With the one-sided "I just want ganking to be a fucktonne easier" arguments people like you keep coming up with, I'm definitely not, no, because what you're suggesting will only depopulate nullsec further. Temper the change of not having local with nullsec being vastly more profitable than hisec, and you have a modicum of chance to get support for that change, but good luck getting the hisec reward nerf past the playerbase, and good luck getting CCP to up the rewards in nullsec. The last time CCP did that they panicked over the effect it had on the economy.
you talk about selective quoting ,, lmao,, read: i want ganking to be easier, you assume way too much Zim, i already said that if local was to change then so would other mechanics to bring balance to the idea, but like always in this thread you target one area and refuse to accept that you see a red flag when someone mentions any changes to how local works.
i know as much about null sec as you do Zim, so get down off your goon soap box there and deal with it ;)
none of us alone have all the answers, but together, like i've already tried to explain Zim, perhaps it could be fixed. but here's where i stand on all this,, we can talk shite all we want, CCP make the changes, and call me crazy, but aren't them lads getting ******* paid to do a job. so yea, it's CCP's baby, they can fix it, you and I along with all the others in this thread are doing nothing but debating the possible ideas to make the game more interesting,perhaps possible fixes to some of the mechanics, some ideas are good some are shite.
so to be clear ZIm,
because my interest in this debate is NOT the one-sided "I just want ganking to be a fucktonne easier" argument you assume i'm trying to make.
my interest in local changing is in one area, i like covert ops, i'd like to see covert meaning covert and not being as it is right now, i'm not very covert if you can see me in local am i.
I do not want it so i can never be found, there needs to be a counter to cloaking ships, you want balance, show me where there is balance with the current cloaking mechanics Zim ?
i'm not interested in a system that gives one side an advantage. there should be a counter to cloaking ships, when you mention a counter to cloaking, the cloaking afk gobshites get all butt hurt and start throwing the toys out of their sandbox ;)
i hope you get it now Zim. change is good, it keeps shite interesting.
as far as poplutaion changes in null sec go, the numbers of people on EVE have fallen Zim, what about certain alliances doing everything they can to drive people out of there sov ? you want more in null sec so you can remove them,, lol give me break. |
FireT
Royal Advanced Industries Imperial Hull Tankers
62
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 13:36:00 -
[890] - Quote
Just my opinion: but if you force almost everyone out of high sec you would kill Eve. The sandbox idea DOES include casual game play in high sec where you can chat with your friends and corpmates. Yes we all understand that the rage and hatred you contain for us casuals is insurmountable and that not even the gods could overcome it. But quiet frankly: suck it.
Why is it that so many people expect constant warfare. The economy of Eve would crash because it would dry up when almost no manufacturing could be done except for some really well entrenched alliances.
Let us do what we want. We aren't complaining about the alliance blob fests. And after a while high sec does become boring, we just do the low sec stuff when we are ready. High sec people do stick their toes into low sec and other things after a while. You just want it on your terms with your obvious advantages of already being established and waiting for new players to shot at. |
|
Lord Zim
1025
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 15:17:00 -
[891] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:my interest in local changing is in one area, i like covert ops, i'd like to see covert meaning covert and not being as it is right now, i'm not very covert if you can see me in local am i. Okay, then. Add a racial ship which has one high slot but no mid or low slots, and that high slot can only take a covert ops cloak. Role bonus: disappears from local when cloak activates, but can't do **** otherwise.
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:I do not want it so i can never be found, there needs to be a counter to cloaking ships, you want balance, show me where there is balance with the current cloaking mechanics Zim ? Okay, then. Add a racial ship which has one high slot but no mid or low slots, and that high slot can only take a new probe launcher which can only launch the new cloak detection probes. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
404
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 16:36:00 -
[892] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:With the one-sided "I just want ganking to be a fucktonne easier" arguments people like you keep coming up with, I'm definitely not, no, because what you're suggesting will only depopulate nullsec further.
Temper the change of not having local with nullsec being vastly more profitable than hisec, and you have a modicum of chance to get support for that change, but good luck getting the hisec reward nerf past the playerbase, and good luck getting CCP to up the rewards in nullsec. The last time CCP did that they panicked over the effect it had on the economy. I have been reconsidering Lord Zim's point about increasing the value of low and Null sec. Moving the L3's and L4's out there is not actually a bad idea. Trading local for that won't be such a bad idea, read below for more. (Leave no reward or time bonus only versions in high for training if you like, I hear that some pilots care only for the challenge)
Allow me to explain why.
The greatest reason people avoid low and null is risk. It's not just a case of being risk averse, it is much more a case of being the only target for NBSI corps across several systems. (NRDS, or Not Red Don't Shoot is a fine idea, but PvP starved dwellers can be conveniently forgetful. And that is assuming they weren't NBSI to begin with)
Now, you make it so a tidal wave of pilots is coming across to do missions, and that changes things. It would encourage low sec to be more tolerant so they could have their stations become trade hubs, and eventually swell the ranks of corps after players realized the low sec experience was doable.
WH's are a poor example of what piloting would be like after such a change, since they have so many other aspects that will remain unique to them. This local free version of EVE could quite probably be very similar to what we have now. The shifting of the game to remove local could be like the Y2K bug in how people react, overly dramatic. A lot of changes are seen as overly dramatic till they happen, and then people blink and say,"That was it? Oh....".
Change does not automatically equal doom. Cloaking being on a ten minute manual cycle timer? (Author: Bree Okanata) Fine. As long as there is a ten minute timer for being docked in a station. Also, you can't stop moving in the game. Just add in a way so every ten minutes you are randomly warped to the nearest other player. Keeps people from going AFK. |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
80
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 16:57:00 -
[893] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:my interest in local changing is in one area, i like covert ops, i'd like to see covert meaning covert and not being as it is right now, i'm not very covert if you can see me in local am i. Okay, then. Add a racial ship which has one high slot but no mid or low slots, and that high slot can only take a covert ops cloak. Role bonus: disappears from local when cloak activates, but can't do **** otherwise. xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:I do not want it so i can never be found, there needs to be a counter to cloaking ships, you want balance, show me where there is balance with the current cloaking mechanics Zim ? Okay, then. Add a racial ship which has one high slot but no mid or low slots, and that high slot can only take a new probe launcher which can only launch the new cloak detection probes.
so you'd have all covert ops pilots in ships that can do no damage, are you trying to prove your an idiot. that has got to be the most stupid reply i've ever had on these forums. Infact Zim, i'm done debating this with you. you want no changes at all because the current model suits you prefect. a covert op ship that can't do damage,, lmfao. ffs |
Lord Zim
1025
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 17:20:00 -
[894] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:Lord Zim wrote:xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:my interest in local changing is in one area, i like covert ops, i'd like to see covert meaning covert and not being as it is right now, i'm not very covert if you can see me in local am i. Okay, then. Add a racial ship which has one high slot but no mid or low slots, and that high slot can only take a covert ops cloak. Role bonus: disappears from local when cloak activates, but can't do **** otherwise. xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:I do not want it so i can never be found, there needs to be a counter to cloaking ships, you want balance, show me where there is balance with the current cloaking mechanics Zim ? Okay, then. Add a racial ship which has one high slot but no mid or low slots, and that high slot can only take a new probe launcher which can only launch the new cloak detection probes. so you'd have all covert ops pilots in ships that can do no damage, are you trying to prove your an idiot. that has got to be the most stupid reply i've ever had on these forums. Infact Zim, i'm done debating this with you. you want no changes at all because the current model suits you prefect. a covert op ship that can't do damage,, lmfao. ffs So in short, it's not about being covert at all, it's all about making cloaked ships more powerful.
Glad we got that sorted out. |
FireT
Royal Advanced Industries Imperial Hull Tankers
63
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 17:46:00 -
[895] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:Lord Zim wrote:xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:my interest in local changing is in one area, i like covert ops, i'd like to see covert meaning covert and not being as it is right now, i'm not very covert if you can see me in local am i. Okay, then. Add a racial ship which has one high slot but no mid or low slots, and that high slot can only take a covert ops cloak. Role bonus: disappears from local when cloak activates, but can't do **** otherwise. xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:I do not want it so i can never be found, there needs to be a counter to cloaking ships, you want balance, show me where there is balance with the current cloaking mechanics Zim ? Okay, then. Add a racial ship which has one high slot but no mid or low slots, and that high slot can only take a new probe launcher which can only launch the new cloak detection probes. so you'd have all covert ops pilots in ships that can do no damage, are you trying to prove your an idiot. that has got to be the most stupid reply i've ever had on these forums. Infact Zim, i'm done debating this with you. you want no changes at all because the current model suits you prefect. a covert op ship that can't do damage,, lmfao. ffs So in short, it's not about being covert at all, it's all about making cloaked ships more powerful. Glad we got that sorted out.
I that case: I can has Titan that cloaks like stealthbomber and has the mobility / agility of it too? |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
80
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 13:30:00 -
[896] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:Lord Zim wrote:xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:my interest in local changing is in one area, i like covert ops, i'd like to see covert meaning covert and not being as it is right now, i'm not very covert if you can see me in local am i. Okay, then. Add a racial ship which has one high slot but no mid or low slots, and that high slot can only take a covert ops cloak. Role bonus: disappears from local when cloak activates, but can't do **** otherwise. xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:I do not want it so i can never be found, there needs to be a counter to cloaking ships, you want balance, show me where there is balance with the current cloaking mechanics Zim ? Okay, then. Add a racial ship which has one high slot but no mid or low slots, and that high slot can only take a new probe launcher which can only launch the new cloak detection probes. so you'd have all covert ops pilots in ships that can do no damage, are you trying to prove your an idiot. that has got to be the most stupid reply i've ever had on these forums. Infact Zim, i'm done debating this with you. you want no changes at all because the current model suits you prefect. a covert op ship that can't do damage,, lmfao. ffs So in short, it's not about being covert at all, it's all about making cloaked ships more powerful. Glad we got that sorted out.
who's we ? you represent ******* nobody little bee.
you sorted nothing, all you do is troll, i have nothing more to say to you Zim, back under your bridge. |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
80
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 13:41:00 -
[897] - Quote
FireT wrote:I that case: I can has Titan that cloaks like stealthbomber and has the mobility / agility of it too? Edit: on a serious note. Why can't people think beyond their nose? Seriously, EVERY MMO has save spots. Unlike most MMOs you can lose everything in Eve. So some people do not wish for that and simply enjoy the game their way and occasionally go low sec. Why is it that we need constant fighting. If you really enjoy this. Please move to one of the world's war torn areas. And enjoy constantly getting shot at or at the very least the potential of getting shot at. Yes this is an idiotic offer, so are these demands for 'growing some tougher hyper masculine balls of sucky sucky;' Seriously.
lol funny.
i'm not fighting with anyone, i'm just adding my pennies worth to an idea brought forward by the OP. so my pennies worth has been added now several times over i have nothing more to say on the matter. some like Zim don't seem to understand the concept of Features & Ideas Discussion, he brings nothing to the table but his red flag reaction to the OP and anyone else who might agree even slightly with him on it his feature & idea suggestion.
i'm glad you got the humour in it though as i did, a Titan that cloaks like stealthbomber and has the mobility / agility of it too? lmao as long as local doean't change i'm betting Zim would agree with the idea. lmao
|
FireT
Royal Advanced Industries Imperial Hull Tankers
64
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 14:11:00 -
[898] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:FireT wrote:I that case: I can has Titan that cloaks like stealthbomber and has the mobility / agility of it too? Edit: on a serious note. Why can't people think beyond their nose? Seriously, EVERY MMO has save spots. Unlike most MMOs you can lose everything in Eve. So some people do not wish for that and simply enjoy the game their way and occasionally go low sec. Why is it that we need constant fighting. If you really enjoy this. Please move to one of the world's war torn areas. And enjoy constantly getting shot at or at the very least the potential of getting shot at. Yes this is an idiotic offer, so are these demands for 'growing some tougher hyper masculine balls of sucky sucky;' Seriously. lol funny. i'm not fighting with anyone, i'm just adding my pennies worth to an idea brought forward by the OP. so my pennies worth has been added now several times over i have nothing more to say on the matter. some like Zim don't seem to understand the concept of Features & Ideas Discussion, he brings nothing to the table but his red flag reaction to the OP and anyone else who might agree even slightly with him on it his feature & idea suggestion. i'm glad you got the humour in it though as i did, a Titan that cloaks like stealthbomber and has the mobility / agility of it too? lmao as long as local doean't change i'm betting Zim would agree with the idea. lmao
Worse, we still do not have real life Quaf. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
424
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 19:20:00 -
[899] - Quote
FireT wrote: Edit: on a serious note. Why can't people think beyond their nose? Seriously, EVERY MMO has sa[f]e spots. Unlike most MMOs you can lose everything in Eve. So some people do not wish for that and simply enjoy the game their way and occasionally go low sec.
Actually every MMO does not have safe spots. All the Sandbox MMOs built around PvP like EVE have no safe spots that also contain PvE for anyone but a day old character. Pre Trammel UO, Shadowbane, Darkfall, and Mortal Online... there may be others but those are the games I'm familiar with. All those games also have full or partial loot along with item destruction/degradation, so loss not too dissimilar from EVE.
Also, all those games have a much greater potential for sneaking around, being evasive or ambushing other players, partly because none have anything like EVE's Local Chat.
Finally no one has a problem with players wanting to take much less risk, but if available that must come at a price of being considerably less profitable, which is not the case now with Incursions and Level 4 missions. As it is even many of those willing to take risks opt for Highsec because in the overall calculation of Risk and Effort vs Reward Highsec PvE is seen as the best option. |
Lord Zim
1026
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 21:20:00 -
[900] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:who's we ? you represent ******* nobody little bee.
you sorted nothing, all you do is troll, i have nothing more to say to you Zim, back under your bridge. You said you wanted covert to actually be covert, my ship suggestion lets you be covert, without radically impacting any other part of the game. If you want to make changes which impact other parts of the game, by making cloaked ships more powerful than they already are, you're going to have to deal with the fact that high pays out way too much isk compared to both the risk and the effort required to get that isk, which in turn means that any change in risk or effort in nullsec means a further depopulation of null.
If pointing out this is "trolling", then I guess you really, really want that extra edge not showing up in local would give you. vOv
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:some like Zim don't seem to understand the concept of Features & Ideas Discussion, he brings nothing to the table but his red flag reaction to the OP and anyone else who might agree even slightly with him on it his feature & idea suggestion. More or less no suggestion is without loopholes, be they big or small. I'm here to point out loopholes until they're addressed.
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:i'm glad you got the humour in it though as i did, a Titan that cloaks like stealthbomber and has the mobility / agility of it too? lmao as long as local doean't change i'm betting Zim would agree with the idea. lmao That doesn't even make sense. vOv |
|
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
80
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 09:19:00 -
[901] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: You said you wanted covert to actually be covert, my ship suggestion lets you be covert, without radically impacting any other part of the game. If you want to make changes which impact other parts of the game, by making cloaked ships more powerful than they already are, you're going to have to deal with the fact that high pays out way too much isk compared to both the risk and the effort required to get that isk, which in turn means that any change in risk or effort in nullsec means a further depopulation of null.
yes i do want my current covert op ships to be actulay covert, not nerfed to the point that i'm just a ******* spectator, null sec doesn't pay ? i've made much more isk in null than level 4 missions would ever give. you imply there is no risk in high sec,, hmmm,,, yea right. you keep talking about depopulation, your alliance along with test is doing more for depopulation of null sec than any game mechanic, you want more population in null to bash them back to low sec/high sec ?? lol and you say i want this change so i can gank more,, lol.
Lord Zim wrote: If pointing out this is "trolling", then I guess you really, really want that extra edge not showing up in local would give you. vOv
the extra edge not showing up in local would give give covert op pilots Zim, not just me,, BTW,, can't you ******* read Zim, i already said there would be need to give mechanics to balance the loss of local, **** me you are either stupid or infact trolling.
Lord Zim wrote: More or less no suggestion is without loopholes, be they big or small. I'm here to point out loopholes until they're addressed.
ramming bad ideas and trolling is not helping, it is pointing one thing out though, the need for you to actualy read wtf i've already posted in this thread.
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:i'm glad you got the humour in it though as i did, a Titan that cloaks like stealthbomber and has the mobility / agility of it too? lmao as long as local doean't change i'm betting Zim would agree with the idea. lmao That doesn't even make sense. vOv[/quote]
if a joke doen't make sense , explaning it only makes it worse, even if it's not a great joke, i guess you don't get the joke Zim, what a shame.
all i can see in what you bring to this thread is you trying to rise people, maybe you want this topic locked, i'm done repeating myself, if you actualy come up with a reply that says something new, or actualy suggests a way to make the loss of local work, then i'll consider replying.
if you have nothing to offer but,, NO leave local alone, we've taken you view onboard now jog on. |
Lord Zim
1027
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 09:41:00 -
[902] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:yes i do want my current covert op ships to be actulay covert, not nerfed to the point that i'm just a ******* spectator, null sec doesn't pay ? i've made much more isk in null than level 4 missions would ever give. you imply there is no risk in high sec,, hmmm,,, yea right. I've yet to be ganked even once in L4s, or even bothered, and I regularly watch tv series while running L4s. It's definitely neither particularly risky nor high effort.
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:you keep talking about depopulation, your alliance along with test is doing more for depopulation of null sec than any game mechanic, you want more population in null to bash them back to low sec/high sec ?? lol and you say i want this change so i can gank more,, lol. Wrong. I want more population in null so nullsec is more vibrant and maybe even slightly more self-sustaining than they are now. If you can't see this, then I suggest you take a deep breath and count to 10.
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:the extra edge not showing up in local would give give covert op pilots Zim, not just me,, BTW,, can't you ******* read Zim, i already said there would be need to give mechanics to balance the loss of local, **** me you are either stupid or infact trolling. And this "extra edge" would, without a change in hisec payouts, depopulate nullsec even further because it would up the risk and effort (especially the effort) without an increase in reward, and nullsec is already suffering from a lack of reward compared to risk/effort in comparison to hisec.
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:ramming bad ideas and trolling is not helping, it is pointing one thing out though, the need for you to actualy read wtf i've already posted in this thread. Funny you should say this, maybe you should count to 10 and read what I've already posted in this thread.
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:all i can see in what you bring to this thread is you trying to rise people, maybe you want this topic locked, i'm done repeating myself, if you actualy come up with a reply that says something new, or actualy suggests a way to make the loss of local work, then i'll consider replying.
if you have nothing to offer but,, NO leave local alone, we've taken your points onboard now jog on. I'm not just saying "no leave local alone", I'm suggesting ways of making the loss of local work etc, you're just refusing to listen because what I'm saying isn't exactly what you want to hear. That's your problem, not mine. |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
80
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 09:45:00 -
[903] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: what ZIm said above ^^^^^^^^^^^^^.
same shite different day,, meh
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results. |
Lord Zim
1027
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 09:55:00 -
[904] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:Lord Zim wrote: what ZIm said above ^^^^^^^^^^^^^. same shite different day,, meh You claim I have nothing to offer except "NO leave local alone", yet I've repeatedly pointed at a lot of other things which needs to be done before you can consider changing/removing local. It's not my problem you don't like the arguments.
It's not difficult, if CCP fixed the lack of reward disparity between high and low/null, removing local wouldn't be such a big deal. It'd still cause more of a stir than wormholes because wormholes require everything to be scanned down whereas in nullsec tons of things do not (although that's easily rectified), but it would still lure people out to nullsec despite the added effort and risk it would put them at. If they don't do something of this nature prior to removing local, then null will be further depopulated than it already is on a day to day basis. |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
80
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 10:17:00 -
[905] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:Lord Zim wrote: what ZIm said above ^^^^^^^^^^^^^. same shite different day,, meh You claim I have nothing to offer except "NO leave local alone", yet I've repeatedly pointed at a lot of other things which needs to be done before you can consider changing/removing local. It's not my problem you don't like the arguments. It's not difficult, if CCP fixed the lack of reward disparity between high and low/null, removing local wouldn't be such a big deal. It'd still cause more of a stir than wormholes because wormholes require everything to be scanned down whereas in nullsec tons of things do not (although that's easily rectified), but it would still lure people out to nullsec despite the added effort and risk it would put them at. If they don't do something of this nature prior to removing local, then null will be further depopulated than it already is on a day to day basis.
you really believe the reason null sec is as it is because the rewards are no better than high sec. the reason is greedy large alliances that hold and keep space they have no intention of using apart from renting it to a small alliance which isn't holding your own space. you want null sec population to increase Zim and so do i.
so would you agree with the following.
1: all sov systems must be linked by gates.
2: holding sov on a system includes population numbers (system has pilots rostered to it and they must be active) -- no trial accounts --
3: upgrades are directly related to population of said system. (to upgrade you must increase the population in that system)
4: to enter a system that is owned by an alliance you must be positive 10 standings to them or be granted a temp visa.
5: once a system reaches the highest upgrade possible, level 4 missions are seeded in that system.
6: any missions in a null sec system owned by an alliance give 25% / 50% better rewards.
7: system gates are the Sovereignty Blockade Units and Territorial Claim Units. (upgrades that are fitted in slots in a gate fitings window)
8: gate defences are upgraded in line with population/trading. |
Lord Zim
1030
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 10:48:00 -
[906] - Quote
In regards to "the reason", CFC doesn't do renters, we prefer active and healthy allies. If they actually use the system beyond using the POSes to react stuff or build supercaps, or use the planets to extract PI, awesome. Dumb, but awesome. The south does renters, however, and they'd better actually be using the systems they're paying for or they're pretty dumb.
As to your suggestion, I see all manner of holes in this. First of all, this would make hisec pubbies whine even harder about how nullsec is "safer than hisec", and they would actually have a point (as opposed to today's whines). Secondly, aren't supercaps being built at an alarming rate already? What do you think happens if you can't even intercept supercap fetuses? Thirdly, haven't we already had an experiment where all space was equal, and CCP nerfed that hard within a few months?
No. Those are bad ideas. |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
80
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 12:26:00 -
[907] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:In regards to "the reason", CFC doesn't do renters, we prefer active and healthy allies. If they actually use the system beyond using the POSes to react stuff or build supercaps, or use the planets to extract PI, awesome. Dumb, but awesome. The south does renters, however, and they'd better actually be using the systems they're paying for or they're pretty dumb.
As to your suggestion, I see all manner of holes in this. First of all, this would make hisec pubbies whine even harder about how nullsec is "safer than hisec", and they would actually have a point (as opposed to today's whines). Secondly, aren't supercaps being built at an alarming rate already? What do you think happens if you can't even intercept supercap fetuses? Thirdly, haven't we already had an experiment where all space was equal, and CCP nerfed that hard within a few months?
No. Those are bad ideas.
so the mails from CFC asking if people are interest in renting a system are an attempt to scam, or are they infact not real, mmmmkay.
you don't want changes of anykind do you, no matter what anyone suggests you'll red flag it because your here for one reason. you like to disagree and love to see your mindless shite in text. you do indeed have nothing to add to this debate, so i revert to my original plan in regards to replying to you.
nuff said, jog on ! |
Lord Zim
1030
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 12:32:00 -
[908] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:so the mails from CFC asking if people are interest in renting a system are not real, mmmmkay. I'll err on the side of caution and say that yes, they're probably scams.
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:you don't want changes of anykind do you, no matter what anyone suggests you'll red flag it because your here for one reason. So you're actually going to say that your "idea" was made seriously?
Okay then. Here's a counteridea in the same vein: let titans and supercarriers into hisec, and let whomever is in a supercarrier or titan shoot anyone in hisec, with impunity. |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
80
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 12:38:00 -
[909] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
nuff said, jog on !
|
Lord Zim
1072
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 13:19:00 -
[910] - Quote
"Agree with me or jog on" - xxxTRUSTxxx |
|
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
80
|
Posted - 2012.07.20 11:12:00 -
[911] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:"Agree with me or jog on" - xxxTRUSTxxx
we already got that you don't like the idea as it was suggested.
so...............
suggest an idea to make it work or jog on.
|
Lord Zim
1072
|
Posted - 2012.07.20 11:15:00 -
[912] - Quote
I have. You didn't like it. |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
80
|
Posted - 2012.07.20 11:44:00 -
[913] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: As I've said before, I expect the removal of local to have absolutely no effect on my playstyle whatsoever .
so why give a **** Zim ?
get ya runners on kid, it's time for a jog. |
Lord Zim
1072
|
Posted - 2012.07.20 12:16:00 -
[914] - Quote
You forgot to include what I referred to (notice "as I've said before"? It's there for a reason) where I talk about how I spend my iskmaking time in hisec, and only fleet up for fleetfights in nullsec, because the risk/effort vs reward ratio makes it worth going in hisec instead of in nullsec. That's with today's mechanics, there's no way I'd even consider doing this if local were removed if hisec rewards were kept at the level they are now.
It's like I haven't said this tons of times already. vOv
And the answer to "why give a ****": I actually care about game balance. |
|
ISD TYPE40
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
9
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 04:08:00 -
[915] - Quote
Please refrain from personal attacks, off topic posting and trolling, as it does nothing to further a conversation. Thank you kindly.
Thread has been cleaned of off topic posts and personal insults - ISD Type40 ISD Type40 Ensign Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
429
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 08:58:00 -
[916] - Quote
FireT wrote:Just my opinion: but if you force almost everyone out of high sec you would kill Eve. The sandbox idea DOES include casual game play in high sec where you can chat with your friends and corpmates.
It's not about forcing everyone out of highsec, it's about having an appropriate risk/effort vs reward balance in the game rather than the imbalanced current state that forces people into an increasingly safe and lucrative Highsec.
Anyway, pretty sure there isn't a single post in this thread saying players shouldn't be able chat with their friends and corpmates without having combat forced on you, even if everywhere became Nullsec and every system was filled with massive blobs of rabid players out for killmails and tears, you could still chat with people safely in a Station.
You're also I suspect rather uninformed on what drives EVE's economy, and what a Sandbox MMORPG happens to be.
|
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
416
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 22:35:00 -
[917] - Quote
There is also a significant effect created by perception. Local supports this in high sec, despite the quality of intelligence it provides being worthless at best there.
This delusion of safety keeps too many pilots from even considering doing missions in low sec.
Here is the problem. Too many pilots avoid low sec for many of the other pilots to still travel through it with confidence. They understand that PvP hungry pilots want fights, and with so few to choose from odds for them become uncomfortable.
This is all perception. It is unsupported by the reality of EVE, but this is the power of perception to affect people.
Low sec, in particular with a meaningful amount of pilots added by this change, will bring to these pilots more of what they hoped to get out of playing EVE.
Move at least the L4 missions to low. Keep a reward free version in high if wanted, for casual challenge seekers. Cloaking being on a ten minute manual cycle timer? (Author: Bree Okanata) Fine. As long as there is a ten minute timer for being docked in a station. Also, you can't stop moving in the game. Just add in a way so every ten minutes you are randomly warped to the nearest other player. Keeps people from going AFK. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1089
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 22:44:00 -
[918] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote: Move at least the L4 missions to low. Keep a reward free version in high if wanted, for casual challenge seekers.
Then you will have the same situation we have now, except with 3s.
No one will do 4s (because you can just do 5s for the same risk), and HS will just be people running 3s.
Not to mention that a large number would rage about and possibly quit if such a change went through.
There are many ways to "fix" whatever problem there is with 4s. Removing them from HS is not the best of them. |
Lord Zim
1082
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 22:49:00 -
[919] - Quote
But you'll get people to move out of hisec and into low/nullsec instead, because the rewards warrant the increase in risk/effort. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
416
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 22:57:00 -
[920] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote: Move at least the L4 missions to low. Keep a reward free version in high if wanted, for casual challenge seekers.
Then you will have the same situation we have now, except with 3s. No one will do 4s (because you can just do 5s for the same risk), and HS will just be people running 3s. Not to mention that a large number would rage about and possibly quit if such a change went through. There are many ways to "fix" whatever problem there is with 4s. Removing them from HS is not the best of them. Without local, or just delayed local like WHs have, moving the L3 and L4 missions to low won't be the disaster many expect.
There is strength in numbers. Conversely, their can be weakness in their absence. With more people active in low it will be less risk simply because of this.
The perception of only PvP predators lurking on the other side of gates into low sec is more damaging than anything else. With greater numbers traveling through low, this myth can be beaten and many pilots can finally surpass their own perceived limits. Cloaking being on a ten minute manual cycle timer? (Author: Bree Okanata) Fine. As long as there is a ten minute timer for being docked in a station. Also, you can't stop moving in the game. Just add in a way so every ten minutes you are randomly warped to the nearest other player. Keeps people from going AFK. |
|
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1089
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 23:15:00 -
[921] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote: Move at least the L4 missions to low. Keep a reward free version in high if wanted, for casual challenge seekers.
Then you will have the same situation we have now, except with 3s. No one will do 4s (because you can just do 5s for the same risk), and HS will just be people running 3s. Not to mention that a large number would rage about and possibly quit if such a change went through. There are many ways to "fix" whatever problem there is with 4s. Removing them from HS is not the best of them. Without local, or just delayed local like WHs have, moving the L3 and L4 missions to low won't be the disaster many expect. There is strength in numbers. Conversely, their can be weakness in their absence. With more people active in low it will be less risk simply because of this. The perception of only PvP predators lurking on the other side of gates into low sec is more damaging than anything else. With greater numbers traveling through low, this myth can be beaten and many pilots can finally surpass their own perceived limits. You don't understand.
You won't ever get carebears, or partial carebears, to enter a free PvP zone. They will learn that they can be probed down and killed without knowing anyone is there, and they will either leave the game or live with 3s.
You can't change people.
You say "you can get great rewards and be safe with lots of people and you only might die" and all they hear is "die". |
Lord Zim
1082
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 23:26:00 -
[922] - Quote
We don't care about the carebears, we care about those who PVP in null/lowsec, but make money in hisec because the risk/effort to reward makes it moderately idiotic to try to make isk in anything other than L4s in hisec. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
430
|
Posted - 2012.07.22 04:40:00 -
[923] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote: You don't understand.
You won't ever get carebears, or partial carebears, to enter a free PvP zone. They will learn that they can be probed down and killed without knowing anyone is there, and they will either leave the game or live with 3s.
You can't change people.
You say "you can get great rewards and be safe with lots of people and you only might die" and all they hear is "die".
It isn't necessary to change them, I don't think that's even the goal of anyone discussing this in the last few pages of this thread.
For my part I'd like to see those that want Themepark / WoW type gameplay driven from EVE entirely, which I imagine includes a few developers as well. If players want to sit in an almost PvP free zone and do newbie PvE so be it, but level 3 and 4 missions, 4/10 exploration sites, most mining, and definitely Incursions need to be pulled from space patrolled by CONCORD.
And yes Local Intel needs to go.
|
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
80
|
Posted - 2012.07.23 08:25:00 -
[924] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:We don't care about the carebears, we care about those who PVP in null/lowsec, but make money in hisec because the risk/effort to reward makes it moderately idiotic to try to make isk in anything other than L4s in hisec.
man why do you bother posting, you said on this very same page that you cared for game balance, then you post this crap that you don't care about carebears even though most of them supply the ships you fly and the ammo thats used to kill all them ships in null sec and low sec that you attend. again i'll say who is WE ? you represent nobody, you again are pushing your opinion as if it's the general opninion of the majority of players in the game, if it is then please go ahead and post proof that what you say is how people want it.
you're butt hurt because anoms got nerfed, admit it !
do incursions, do some trading, run mining ops, do whatever it takes to make isk, but don't whine that you refuse to live in null and it's the possible loss of local or any effect on it that is keeping you in high sec, you are in high sec because it suits you and you believe you can make more isk there. (anoms got nerfed) this is all you are concerned with, how does Zim make money to allow him to PVP in null/low sec. you care for balance, but hey, **** the carebears, incredible.
you've already admitted that any change to local will have no effect on your style of play, you've now shown that you don't care for the majority, just what Zim can shoot at and then earn to keep him shooting at stuff. |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
80
|
Posted - 2012.07.23 08:28:00 -
[925] - Quote
Xorv wrote:Corina Jarr wrote: You don't understand.
You won't ever get carebears, or partial carebears, to enter a free PvP zone. They will learn that they can be probed down and killed without knowing anyone is there, and they will either leave the game or live with 3s.
You can't change people.
You say "you can get great rewards and be safe with lots of people and you only might die" and all they hear is "die".
It isn't necessary to change them, I don't think that's even the goal of anyone discussing this in the last few pages of this thread. For my part I'd like to see those that want Themepark / WoW type gameplay driven from EVE entirely, which I imagine includes a few developers as well. If players want to sit in an almost PvP free zone and do newbie PvE so be it, but level 3 and 4 missions, 4/10 exploration sites, most mining, and definitely Incursions need to be pulled from space patrolled by CONCORD. And yes Local Intel needs to go.
well said |
Lord Zim
1090
|
Posted - 2012.07.23 09:49:00 -
[926] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:man why do you bother posting, you said on this very same page that you cared for game balance, then you post this crap that you don't care about carebears I do care about game balance, I don't care to try to force those who are too chicken to even consider nullsec because they might lose a ship into null. They can keep on running their L2s in hisec if they want (or L3s if CCP doesn't want to go that far, whatever) for meager money. What needs to happen is that the nullsec people who are currently running L4s instead of running anoms or ratting because it's profitable enough compared to the risk and effort that it's worth it, should be incentivized into moving back into null and live there.
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:you're butt hurt because anoms got nerfed, admit it ! Nope. The anom nerf made sense, but keep reaching for straws, you might make a man yet.
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:do incursions, do some trading, run mining ops, do whatever it takes to make isk, but don't whine that you refuse to live in null and it's the possible loss of local or any effect on it that is keeping you in high sec, you are in high sec because it suits you and you believe you can make more isk there. (anoms got nerfed) It has nothing to do with "make more isk there", and everything to do with "it takes little enough effort and has little enough risk associated with it to make the drop in isk rewards worth it", and this is a bad balance.
If all you can think of is "anoms got nerfed", then I don't know what to tell you. vOv
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:this is all you are concerned with, how does Zim make money to allow him to PVP in null/low sec. you care for balance, but hey, **** the carebears, incredible. I've made enough money to pimpfit 2 supercarriers, I don't need to make more. vOv
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:you've already admitted that any change to local will have no effect on your style of play, you've now shown that you don't care for the majority, just what Zim can shoot at and then earn to keep him shooting at stuff. No local won't have an effect on my style of play because I don't rat/mine/plex/do anoms in null, L4s are enjoyed by "the majority" (instead of going to low/null for higher rewards), and I only shoot at things while in 100v100 (or bigger), I'm not sure how you're assuming more people in nullsec on a daily basis should translate into there being more people available there for me to shoot.
Face it, you just want local to be removed so you've got an easier time of getting kills, until nullsec is even more dead than it is now on a daily basis. |
Goremageddon Box
Guerrilla Flotilla
352
|
Posted - 2012.07.23 10:52:00 -
[927] - Quote
this thread, i would dislike it if i could.
not even for the fact that i dont want local removed (which i dont really care either way)
but because the argument being given is really poor.
Very poor. |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
80
|
Posted - 2012.07.23 21:21:00 -
[928] - Quote
face this, recieve notifications unclicked, you need to get them runners on again and for the last time troll, jog on.
|
Lord Zim
1092
|
Posted - 2012.07.23 21:23:00 -
[929] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:face this, recieve notifications unclicked, you need to get them runners on again and for the last time troll, jog on. So when I say that local can be removed when L4s and L3s are removed from hisec, it's "YOU DON'T WANT ANY CHANGES", but when Xorv says the same, it's "well said"?
I dunno, it sounds like you've got some sort of bias. vOv |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
515
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 08:46:00 -
[930] - Quote
Just a bump to stir the pot Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
|
Lilianna Star
State War Academy Caldari State
63
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 16:47:00 -
[931] - Quote
I'm a carebear and I like this plan.
I say the implementation for this should be the change from local to regional chat.
But many people will argue that there needs to be some sort of way to detect cloaking campers in belts. I say: deal with it. Have manned bodyguards. |
Lord Zim
1132
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 16:50:00 -
[932] - Quote
Lilianna Star wrote:I'm a carebear and I like this plan.
I say the implementation for this should be the change from local to regional chat.
But many people will argue that there needs to be some sort of way to detect cloaking campers in belts. I say: deal with it. Have manned bodyguards. Or just derp back to hisec to make money there instead, for less effort. |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
783
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 17:06:00 -
[933] - Quote
Obvious counter to cloaky bombs is to line up a bombing run from one direction that the enemy can't get around, setup cloaked 2 + smart bomber @ x range from fleet to intercept bombers as they arrive on grid and nullify outgoing bombs, and WIN!
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Gazmin VanBurin
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
69
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 17:16:00 -
[934] - Quote
im behind this all the way, tho they would likely need to increese the ways to find people, especialy cloakys. or just put a local count but no names or faces
Also to the people who say no local makes bombers 100% safe, arnt they already? |
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone Caldari State
292
|
Posted - 2012.08.23 05:55:00 -
[935] - Quote
Goremageddon Box wrote:this thread, i would dislike it if i could.
not even for the fact that i dont want local removed (which i dont really care either way)
but because the argument being given is really poor.
Very poor.
I only wish I had presented as such a strong of an argument as you did. |
ugh zug
32
|
Posted - 2012.08.23 06:41:00 -
[936] - Quote
I'm a fan of removing local, but I'm also a fan of Wh's. the problem is that in WH's you have some controlling factors other then local to control who is inside your space, and in normal space there is no mechanic to limit the flow of people in and out of a system. it works for WH space but i cringe to see the result it bring in low and null except rampart destruction and misery followed by lots of unsubscribing because someones pve ship got poped for the 5th time and they can no longer afford to pvp. you would need a scanner alt pinging the system every 5 seconds with Deepspace scanner probe while you do stuff and gtfo when you hit a new ship sig. Want me to shut up?-á Send me ISK and i'll stop giving suggestions to CCP that make sense. Remove content from my post, 15 bil Remove my content from a thread I have started 30bil. |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
374
|
Posted - 2012.08.23 08:20:00 -
[937] - Quote
I just want to say that I have no idea what this thread is actually about, but it pleases me greatly to find this command to grow durable genitalia embedded on the front page of this subforum every day. |
Dajli
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.23 23:20:00 -
[938] - Quote
I agree with getting rid of local as long as the rest of the UI gets overhauled too. Why do we even use menus while flying? How about a real heads up display complete with the scanner active at all times showing any ships that are in system. You wouldn't know what kind of ships or who's flying them but just the traffic. And also the traffic would not be updated but be about a minute behind i.e. every time the scanner cycles and makes another tick on the system. |
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY Tribal Conclave
143
|
Posted - 2012.08.24 00:35:00 -
[939] - Quote
no. go live in a WH... Back to the hole where you came from!!! Begone!!! |
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone Caldari State
295
|
Posted - 2012.08.25 13:14:00 -
[940] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:I just want to say that I have no idea what this thread is actually about, but it pleases me greatly to find this command to grow durable genitalia embedded on the front page of this subforum every day.
The honor and civility of the great Goon Nation is legendary good sir. Fine upstanding gentlemen you guys are. A toast to Afgoonistan. God shed his grace on thee. |
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
591
|
Posted - 2012.08.25 14:31:00 -
[941] - Quote
Ditra Vorthran wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:You would have to work to locate a target. That might work if you removed all default warp points for asteroid belts from the system menu. At the same time, make asteroid belts scanable via core probes. Otherwise, if you just remove local, it gives everyone the equivalent of a cloaking device until they're practically on top of you.
Yes ccps goal should be to.make decent pvp even harder to find. Good idea! Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
200 Proof
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.25 15:10:00 -
[942] - Quote
Basically removing local, or giving ANY buff to cloakers will upset the already unbalanced risk v reward in eve.
The most you can make in null for an average pilot in an average alliance is running anoms, in either an extremely pimped battleship or carrier, you can make as much as 120m an hour.
Factors that make 120m an hour almost unachievable in nullsec are
1. Afk cloakers (we cant run anoms because there is a very real chance of them hot dropping anyone running anoms) they can cause downtime for days at a time 2. roving gangs (not as unlikely and usually only a minor problem, very hard for them to catch someone) 3.CTA and having to defend our own space (atleast a few times a week)
Nullsec for the average pilot in an average alliance is profitable but only marginally when compared to the safety of hisec mining, incursions and missioning.
SO ANY CHANGE that makes ganking and catching nullsec pilots any easier, would simply lead to more nullsec pilots leaving nullsec. I personally was a nullsec pilot until recently I started running incursions and I love doing them. Incredibly easy, lots of isk and virtually no risk..
So unless nullsec gets alot more appealing I wont be going back, and if the rewards get boosted in nullsec then the market will be inflated by huge alliances who have systems so locked down that they are virtually hi sec systems. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
592
|
Posted - 2012.08.25 20:56:00 -
[943] - Quote
200 Proof wrote:Basically removing local, or giving ANY buff to cloakers will upset the already unbalanced risk v reward in eve.
The most you can make in null for an average pilot in an average alliance is running anoms, in either an extremely pimped battleship or carrier, you can make as much as 120m an hour.
Factors that make 120m an hour almost unachievable in nullsec are
1. Afk cloakers (we cant run anoms because there is a very real chance of them hot dropping anyone running anoms) they can cause downtime for days at a time 2. roving gangs (not as unlikely and usually only a minor problem, very hard for them to catch someone) 3.CTA and having to defend our own space (atleast a few times a week)
Nullsec for the average pilot in an average alliance is profitable but only marginally when compared to the safety of hisec mining, incursions and missioning.
SO ANY CHANGE that makes ganking and catching nullsec pilots any easier, would simply lead to more nullsec pilots leaving nullsec. I personally was a nullsec pilot until recently I started running incursions and I love doing them. Incredibly easy, lots of isk and virtually no risk..
So unless nullsec gets alot more appealing I wont be going back, and if the rewards get boosted in nullsec then the market will be inflated by huge alliances who have systems so locked down that they are virtually hi sec systems.
Really I think people who want to pvp should just grow a pair themselves and try pvping with others who are set up for pvp.
Removing local will hurt these people who really have the cajones, and don't just want to fitght industrials and pve ships. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
379
|
Posted - 2012.08.25 21:36:00 -
[944] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:I just want to say that I have no idea what this thread is actually about, but it pleases me greatly to find this command to grow durable genitalia embedded on the front page of this subforum every day. The honor and civility of the great Goon Nation is legendary good sir. Fine upstanding gentlemen you guys are. A toast to Afgoonistan. God shed his grace on thee.
Here here! |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: [one page] |