EVE Search - Vote Yes on "Removing Local from 0.0"

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Vote Yes on "Removing Local from 0.0"

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Richard Desturned GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 717	Posted - 2012.06.01 06:08:00 - [31] - Quote Xorv wrote: Why do you say that? ..and do you also think that the only thing distinguishing Wormhole Space and NPC Null Sec is Local and belt rats? There are numerous other differences between nullsec and wormhole space, and those differences are why delayed local works in wormholes and why it'd be absolutely stupid in nullsec. Why don't you go to a wormhole if you love delayed local so much? eh
Richard Desturned GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 717	Posted - 2012.06.01 06:13:00 - [32] - Quote one of the differences is that this doesn't show up on top of you in a wormhole eh
Frying Doom Tinfoil Hat News Ltd. 269	Posted - 2012.06.01 06:23:00 - [33] - Quote Strange Shadow wrote: Nullsec already pays for local's intel with Sov bills. Requesting removal of local in highsec instead, they didnt paid for it and they have concord already. Its used for jita scamming only anyway. Pls vote for removing highsec local, that would attract more people to null. The argument is very simple Empire is space controlled by empires with trillions of citizens, these empires can make skill books, bpos and so much more including the technology for local. Sovereignty space is controlled by thousands of people only and is completely insignificant to an Empire. The easiest way to put this forward would be to say the upkeep of the local system in empire costs a fortune, higher than these fledgling Alliances can afford. Not to mention if you had technology like that would you just give it away? Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Scatim Helicon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 436	Posted - 2012.06.01 06:25:00 - [34] - Quote Frying Doom wrote: Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote: RAP ACTION HERO wrote: let's not forget how creepy you were for issler dainze a few months back never forget Yeah for my next amazing trick I might even try to get a member of Goonwarm to finish an entire term on the CSM. Like in CSM 1,2,3, and 4, you mean? Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge **.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006 ~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever.
gobbybobby KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 6	Posted - 2012.06.01 06:27:00 - [35] - Quote I like the idea that the sov holder can customize how Local will work (delayed, instant, non) but NPC-null sec should remain as it is today.
Bossy Lady Aliastra Gallente Federation 6	Posted - 2012.06.01 06:31:00 - [36] - Quote Local in 0.0 should go... ...as soon as there is a reasonable replacement data gathering tool. (eg: a massively reworked D-SCAN) Posting on this character because apparently some people get upset when they're asked difficult questions. M.
Asuka Solo Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises 1503	Posted - 2012.06.01 06:36:00 - [37] - Quote No
Frying Doom Tinfoil Hat News Ltd. 269	Posted - 2012.06.01 06:40:00 - [38] - Quote Scatim Helicon wrote: Frying Doom wrote: Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote: RAP ACTION HERO wrote: let's not forget how creepy you were for issler dainze a few months back never forget Yeah for my next amazing trick I might even try to get a member of Goonwarm to finish an entire term on the CSM. Like in CSM 1,2,3, and 4, you mean? Oh you mean the very CSM's that where totted by the Goonswarm in the last CSM elections as useless and nothing more than a PR stunt. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Sarah Schneider PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore 353	Posted - 2012.06.01 06:56:00 - [39] - Quote No. Aside from the usual argument, removing local would significantly reduce the chance of engagement/fights and made it far harder to collect useful intel for fleet engagements and small gang roams. Fleet battles, small gang roams are some of the reasons people go to null in the first place. "Eve isnGÇÖt some welcoming online utopia: itGÇÖs cut-throat, cruel, atavistic despite the futuristic setting. Give people a sandbox, and theyGÇÖll throw the sand in a rivalGÇÖs eyes before kicking them in the shins and destroying their sandcastle." -Keza MacDonald, IGN.
Frying Doom Tinfoil Hat News Ltd. 269	Posted - 2012.06.01 07:53:00 - [40] - Quote Sarah Schneider wrote: No. Aside from the usual argument, removing local would significantly reduce the chance of engagement/fights and made it far harder to collect useful intel for fleet engagements and small gang roams. Fleet battles, small gang roams are some of the reasons people go to null in the first place. So your argument is keep it for the same reasons the population is so low atm. 0.0 should be so much more than easy Pvp. EvE is not only a PvP game, strangely CCP decided to make other parts of the game like missions, mining, trading and so much more. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Lord Zim 747	Posted - 2012.06.01 07:53:00 - [41] - Quote SmilingVagrant wrote: Yeah this is a great idea. Make 0.0 even less enjoyable to live in than it is already. I'm sure that will attract people to live out there in droves. Pretty much this. Every time Frying Doom is pushed on this, all he does is respond with "well that's just, like, your opinion, man!", even though he himself says that nullsec is more depopulated than it should be, and the risk vs reward aspect is broken. So he wants to fix that by making it riskier still, and expects that suddenly the hisec population will see that nullsec is a hardcore place and suddenly man up and go out there in droves. I don't quite understand his logic, but that's why we keep getting these topics, because of people like himi, with his weird sense of logic. vOv
Nicolo da'Vicenza Divine Power. Cascade Imminent 1070	Posted - 2012.06.01 07:57:00 - [42] - Quote i dunno where his plan of highsec pubbies waging a guerilla war on goons' mining backbone could go wrong. Clearly the one barrier must be the existence of local.
TheGunslinger42 Bite Me inc Exhale. 41	Posted - 2012.06.01 07:58:00 - [43] - Quote Maybe it should be kind of "tiered" - in terms of the lore it could be reasoned out as: high sec has the most infrastructure so has full local, lowsec/nullsec have less infrastructure so only have a constellation wide "local", wormholes have nothing (and love it)
Lord Zim 747	Posted - 2012.06.01 07:58:00 - [44] - Quote Frying Doom wrote: So your argument is keep it for the same reasons the population is so low atm. 0.0 should be so much more than easy Pvp. Unlike your and caliph's suggestions which'll depress the population even further?
Frying Doom Tinfoil Hat News Ltd. 269	Posted - 2012.06.01 07:58:00 - [45] - Quote Lord Zim wrote: SmilingVagrant wrote: Yeah this is a great idea. Make 0.0 even less enjoyable to live in than it is already. I'm sure that will attract people to live out there in droves. Pretty much this. Every time Frying Doom is pushed on this, all he does is respond with "well that's just, like, your opinion, man!", even though he himself says that nullsec is more depopulated than it should be, and the risk vs reward aspect is broken. So he wants to fix that by making it riskier still, and expects that suddenly the hisec population will see that nullsec is a hardcore place and suddenly man up and go out there in droves. I don't quite understand his logic, but that's why we keep getting these topics, because of people like himi, with his weird sense of logic. vOv It would make Pvp harder but also more strategic as you would not be able to get instant information as to your oponents size for one thing and it would create a system that would favour the attentive rather than the current system that favours the lazy. There are alot of other points that I have made repeatedly but Zim doesn't seem to be able to read. 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 07:59:00 - [46] - Quote Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote: i dunno where his plan of highsec pubbies waging a guerilla war on goons' mining backbone could go wrong. Clearly the one barrier must be the existence of local. Oh another "I can't be bothered to read, so I will just comment anyway" post. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Lord Zim 747	Posted - 2012.06.01 08:00:00 - [47] - Quote TheGunslinger42 wrote: Maybe it should be kind of "tiered" - in terms of the lore it could be reasoned out as: high sec has the most infrastructure so has full local, lowsec/nullsec have less infrastructure so only have a constellation wide "local", wormholes have nothing (and love it) I'd say that if we had to do a tiered type of local, then hisec has full local, lowsec has less infrastructure so only a constellation-wide local, NPC nullsec has none or constellation-wide local, WH has none, and conquered nullsec depends on what the occupying force has setup themselves.
Shian Yang 229	Posted - 2012.06.01 08:00:00 - [48] - Quote Frying Doom wrote: How do you Vote Yes on the removal of local in Null space? Just click the Like button on https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=110995&find=unread This post contains the removal of Local completely but the majority of replies are on removing Local in 0.0 /sigh. I am too exhausted by the general lack of ... I don't even know what it is the majority of capsuleers lack. I can't even greet you properly. Let me explain this in simple terms. There is a thing called the CSM. The CSM is there to take our concerns to CCP. You are linking to a random thread. This thread is not in the appropriate forum section. Likes will achieve ** all. Post it in the proper place. Get voter support for it as authorised in the CSM charter - there is a special button / checkbox to support a CSM topic. If it gains a certain level of support they are FORCED to consider it. But no, let's post a random thread and ask for likes because that is sure to actually get you somewhere. . Really. Just . Shian Yang Edit:** It is a good idea. I'd support it. But I'd like to support it and see what comes of it but in a way that means something and where it can achieve something. Not just a general sperg in the hope that something happens.
Marlona Sky Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies. 1031	Posted - 2012.06.01 08:01:00 - [49] - Quote Just block Lord Zim. He has never said anything of value. Ever. Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner!
Lord Zim 747	Posted - 2012.06.01 08:02:00 - [50] - Quote Frying Doom wrote: It would make Pvp harder but also more strategic as you would not be able to get instant information as to your oponents size for one thing And you'll have tons of fleets missing eachother because their scout weren't in the right place, hence missed PVP opportunity. Frying Doom wrote: and it would create a system that would favour the attentive rather than the current system that favours the lazy. "Favour the attentive"? You mean the system which could potentially cut down the possible response time to as low as 4 seconds? Which could happen at any given time? I think what you meant to say is "favours the ganker".
TigerXtrm Cadre Assault Force Initiative Mercenaries 23	Posted - 2012.06.01 08:03:00 - [51] - Quote What happened to adapt or die? Or does that only apply when things work in your favor?
Ned Black Driders 29	Posted - 2012.06.01 08:03:00 - [52] - Quote Sarah Schneider wrote: No. Aside from the usual argument, removing local would significantly reduce the chance of engagement/fights and made it far harder to collect useful intel for fleet engagements and small gang roams. Fleet battles, small gang roams are some of the reasons people go to null in the first place. Not really, what it would make possible however is ambushes. How many times have I not been in fleets that suddenly notice a spike in local and instead of fighting tucks tail and runs for the hills? You will be much more dependent on scouts no doubt about it, but to me that is a good thing. And its actually quite a bit of an adrenaline enhancer to not know for what you are up against. Small gang roams would probably find MORE targets if local was removed simply because the targets are unaware of you being in there with them. You need quite a bit of lot and that targets are not paying attention to catch them now. The only thing that I think need changing if local goes away is the cyno mechanics. Ships should have a cyno speed so that they need time to move from one place to the other after they cyno pops. If the cyno ship gets destroyed before you arrive you should end up in a random spot in the target system. This would make hot drops a lot harder but in my opinion much more fun as well.
Lord Zim 747	Posted - 2012.06.01 08:03:00 - [53] - Quote Marlona Sky wrote: Just block Lord Zim. He has never said anything of value. Ever. I'm sorry you don't like hard things like "the truth" or "facts". vOv
Cloned S0ul Blood Fanatics 104	Posted - 2012.06.01 08:03:00 - [54] - Quote CCP never remove local because they realise to meny nullbear come to forum with tears. Nullbears need local to feel safe, and if they spot somone on local they logofski or dock to station - pos. Second and most importand thing about local, that people know they not alone in big universe, local is most importand game mechanic part that give social abilitys, EvE isn't Startrek, startrek crew before speak with other capitan ship using scaner and radio, while we cant speak with other pilots by this way, but this would be very cool, well we still can use (start converstation) but to start it you need see somone on local...
Frying Doom Tinfoil Hat News Ltd. 269	Posted - 2012.06.01 08:06:00 - [55] - Quote TigerXtrm wrote: What happened to adapt or die? Or does that only apply when things work in your favor? Good quote and it really sums it up doesn't it. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Marlona Sky Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies. 1031	Posted - 2012.06.01 08:07:00 - [56] - Quote Shian Yang wrote: Get voter support for it as authorised in the CSM charter - there is a special button / checkbox to support a CSM topic. If it gains a certain level of support they are FORCED to consider it. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Forced by who? The CSM pushes it's own personal agenda. An agenda that is comprised of the entities that put them there. Seriously what rock have you been living under? Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner!
Lord Zim 747	Posted - 2012.06.01 08:10:00 - [57] - Quote Marlona Sky wrote: Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Forced by who? The CSM pushes it's own personal agenda. An agenda that is comprised of the entities that put them there. Seriously what rock have you been living under? Still haven't gotten rid of that SHC paranoia, I see.
Frying Doom Tinfoil Hat News Ltd. 269	Posted - 2012.06.01 08:21:00 - [58] - Quote Marlona Sky wrote: Shian Yang wrote: Get voter support for it as authorised in the CSM charter - there is a special button / checkbox to support a CSM topic. If it gains a certain level of support they are FORCED to consider it. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Forced by who? The CSM pushes it's own personal agenda. An agenda that is comprised of the entities that put them there. Seriously what rock have you been living under? The current meeting in Iceland is looking at removing the [Proposal] header in Assembly hall. Seleene wrote: Malcanis wrote: Does posting in the assembly hall still have any value as far as you are concerned? If so, please quantify that value. TBH, it's actually something we're going to discuss at the summit. ATM it does seem to be the step-child of the forums. So at the moment there is not much point in it. Even though the welcome message still says "How it works: In order to raise an issue, simply create a new thread. In the title write a brief description and in the body, give as many details about your idea as possible. Any person replying to the thread can check a box to show support for the issue, which provides at-a-glance on the thread listing how supported an idea is. If a CSM member wants to raise an issue in a meeting, they are only allowed to select issues arising from threads in the Assembly hall, and only threads that are at least a week old." The voting on issues is a process that occurs during the CSM elections I believe. Yeah the post by Marlona Sky was right they all have their own agenda and that is part of why they are there, large threads on the other hand do eventually get the eye of CCP one way or the other. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Marlona Sky Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies. 1031	Posted - 2012.06.01 08:24:00 - [59] - Quote Shhhhhhh. Don't let Lord Zim know that. It would shatter his small imagination where he thinks he knows what the **** is going on. Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner!
Frying Doom Tinfoil Hat News Ltd. 269	Posted - 2012.06.01 09:01:00 - [60] - Quote Just 27 more likes to go and the No local for 0.0 thread could run for the CSM. Please press like at https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=110995&find=unread Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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