Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Hieronomus
|
Posted - 2010.10.25 20:53:00 -
[1]
The cost of Local
First off thank you for spending the time to examine my proposal.
As it stands local performs a multitude of tasks and simply ôworksö, with that said this idea is purely a mechanism to increase the depth of the game and by no means is it a necessity . . .
I propose that null sec systems that do not have an alliance paying the bill to maintain sovereignty lose the attribute of local in said system.
(Unclaimed systems will not show players in local unless they choose to send a text transmission)
Why the Compromise?
With this feature PVPers can get the taste of WH space while carebears can retain the security that comes from having local as an intel source. It makes sense to not have local in a system that is not being maintained by an alliance hence the idea of ôlawless spaceö.
Details: A system will lose the local feature if an alliance fails to pay the sov bill, removes TCUs or if SBUs are put in place to contest the sovereignty claim
NOTE: The actual moment when the local feature is added or removed from a system happens during DT.
Thank you for reading this idea and I look forward to the fruitful feedback.
Hiero,
|
Fournone
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 01:06:00 -
[2]
To be honest, im tired of the 'local' debate. +1 on your idea but im gonna spell it out for everyone else.
Local's primary use is an intel tool to find eeryone in system, even cloaked players.
Removing local helps pirates just as much as carebears. Its not one sided. If pirates can't see the carebears, the carebears can't see the pirates.
Macros can't insta see nuetrals and hide in pos if there is no local to see nuetrals.
Yes, it will lead to mass spam of the d-scan, buts its not like nobody uses it now.
(sov warfare stuff) Not being able to instatly know what thier enemy force size is is a good thing.
Theres a few others but I'll leave it at that.
|
Tactical Miner
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 01:09:00 -
[3]
Just as insane as removing carebares from the local channel, but forcing any player who have podded anyone in the past 6 months to remain in local.
Either make local an obtainable channel in nulsec, or not at all. |
Hieronomus
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 03:58:00 -
[4]
It is easy to write this topic off as a dead horse, but I truly believe that this ôcompromiseö would be well received by the majority of EVE.
WHY DO THIS ? -The logic behind taking local from unclaimed systems simply makes sense.
-Carebears canÆt complain because they donÆt deserve to grind isk in such a system if they are to cheep to pay the cheep bill and thus retain local.
-This feature will be a small but unbelievably refreshing improvement to 0.0 small gang warfare.
-It will bring back the excitement and uncertainty when traversing 0.0 space.
Doing this for the wrong reason: -Pushing the issue in hopes of ending 0.0 macro ratters will NEVER be accepted by CCP simply because it is only going to affect a small amount of violators compared to the thousands of macro miners in empire and thus not worth CCP's time.
Look at this idea with the mindset that its sole purpose is to rejuvenate and intensify the average PVP/PVE pilot's Experience, because no matter who you are, we are all carebears in one form or another ; )
Hiero,
|
JcJet
Pretenders Inc Tower of Dark Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 04:10:00 -
[5]
---
|
MarkEchoOne
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 06:25:00 -
[6]
Agreed
|
M'aak'han
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 14:07:00 -
[7]
Hey, that's my idea !! I just cba to start a thread about it, as others had already mentioned such a way of handling local in 0.0.
Well, this gets my vote whatsoever.
|
King Rothgar
Amarrian Retribution
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 14:29:00 -
[8]
A reasonable compromise I suppose.
Thus far you shall read, but no further; for this is my sig. |
Minigin
Trinity Corp WE FORM VOLTRON
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 15:05:00 -
[9]
if the sphere still works, ccp needs to remove local entirely and sooner rather than later. . THE ORIGINAL COLOUR POSTER!
Revisal > Nice job trying to troll me but luckily I'm smarter than you. :D |
Jondo Marikesh
Masuat'aa Matari Damu'Khonde
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 23:38:00 -
[10]
Tired of the debate.
Still +1 for a decent compromise.
|
|
Divinity Cluster
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 23:53:00 -
[11]
tbh I like the Idea, even though I¦d just say to extend it for claimed systems, that SOV-Holders can decide who can use local and who can¦t.
Quote: Carebears canÆt complain because they donÆt deserve to grind isk in such a system if they are to cheep to pay the cheep bill and thus retain local.
Well, it¦s not like they are too cheap, it¦s more like someone putting up a TCU atracting the powerful neighbours that kill it Just 4 fun.
Quote: - Pushing the issue in hopes of ending 0.0 macro ratters will NEVER be accepted by CCP simply because it is only going to affect a small amount of violators compared to the thousands of macro miners in empire and thus not worth CCP's time.
I consider macro mining inefficient, while Rattingbots can be seen in every second system in some regions of 0.0 space. Some russian alliance I am not going to call by it¦s name is actually providing active support for the bot users amongst their renters...
disabling local for non-sov holders or disabling it in unclaimed space at all would surely **** off those bot ******s
|
worvand
|
Posted - 2010.10.27 17:27:00 -
[12]
why not make a module for your ship that requires alot powergrid and cpu that makes you not show up in local unless you talk in it. then to fix just warp out then jump out then jump back in. and as a counter have a sov upgrade that can disable this
|
Antihrist Pripravnik
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.10.27 20:27:00 -
[13]
Interesting idea.
However, SBU spam will become more popular. It would encourage people to spam SBUs in random systems and more blob fleets will be assembled for taking down undefended SBUs that are placed there for the sole purpose of removing local (a form of griefing). That means less true PvP, more blobs, more boring generic "take down the SBU" fleets and much less fun.
It also might lead to overpopulating certain areas of space with limited sov infrastructure that is inhabited with mainly "carebears".
Another downside would be mega-alliance disbanding (for any reason including spies and disagreements in the leadership) or losing the sov war (Catch region right now). It would take some time to rebuild infrastructure there and removing local from unclaimed systems would not help.
Just my thoughts...
o/
|
Rheige Bladewhisper
|
Posted - 2010.10.28 00:30:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Tactical Miner Just as insane as removing carebares from the local channel, but forcing any player who have podded anyone in the past 6 months to remain in local.
Either make local an obtainable channel in nulsec, or not at all.
Or, like in W-Space, make it where you're only in local if you actually say something in local.
|
Hieronomus
|
Posted - 2010.10.29 01:00:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik Interesting idea.
However, SBU spam will become more popular. It would encourage people to spam SBUs in random systems and more blob fleets will be assembled for taking down undefended SBUs that are placed there for the sole purpose of removing local (a form of griefing). That means less true PvP, more blobs, more boring generic "take down the SBU" fleets and much less fun.
Not too sure about that . . .
What Happens When Local is Gone ?
-PVE becomes more dangerous and ultimately less efficient. -Traversing through such a solar system becomes more dangerous. -Small gang warfare becomes more dynamic.
Attempting to turn this Proposed Game Mechanic into a Greifing system . . .
1.To aggressively deny your enemy local would hurt most notably their ability to generate isk.
2.To make your actions affect the enemy significantly, you would aim for their most active systems, which would be Ihub systems.
3.The effort needed to destroy the TCU + the Ihub + account for the multiple ref timers would be so great of a cost that you simply would have to commit to dismantling the entire alliance and not just weaken them be taking one system from them.
4.Lastly throughout #3, the amount of meaningful combat interaction opportunities further solidifies the importance of this feature and its positive effect on the EVE community.
Quote: It also might lead to overpopulating certain areas of space with limited sov infrastructure that is inhabited with mainly carebears
This is very true; it would force null sec inhabitants to decide if local is worth six million isk per day (base cost of a claimed system). The end result would expand the concept that EVE is all about evaluate the risk of every action.
1.No Sov = No local (You become less noticeable to other null sec entities) However (You PVE with greater risk) 2.Maintain Sov = local in system (Your space is now more visible) However (You gain the security that the Local Feature provides)
Quote: Another downside would be mega-alliance disbanding (for any reason including spies and disagreements in the leadership) or losing the sov war (Catch region right now).
How is change a downside . . .
LetÆs say a ômega-allianceö does fold, what follows is a power vacuum, chaos and ultimately conflict. This keeps the game interesting and reinforces the fact that eve is a cold dog eat dog world (sorry PETA).
Quote: It would take some time to rebuild infrastructure there and removing local from unclaimed systems would not help.
Rebuild ? All that is needed is for someone to reclaim Sov + a DT and then presto you have local. But more to the point EVE is not about sustaining constancy, it is about change.
On a side note:
Most mega-alliances do not maintain 100% Sov throughout their territory; they have holes between their main station constellations. Examples: IT, Razor, Drone Regions etc.
This feature would support hit and run tactics in these ôgapsö of Sov. The FC would for the first time be able to truly obscure his true combat strength when conducting roams.
Thanks antihrist for the comment though.
|
true name
|
Posted - 2010.11.02 17:06:00 -
[16]
Very nice . . . how much |
Kwashi
|
Posted - 2010.11.02 19:04:00 -
[17]
Good idea.
|
Flesh Slurper
|
Posted - 2010.11.02 19:22:00 -
[18]
I agree with removing local and the idea of unclaimed systems not having local seems fine, however why would an alliance want to pay so that both them and their enemies could see local. In reality, if the alliance has to pay for local, then they should be able to choose to allow local based on standings. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
FUSI0N INDUSTRIES
|
Posted - 2010.11.02 22:12:00 -
[19]
this is a good feature... although ccp would argue that a local chat feature is something that is inclusive in the gate system... any ship coming in and out is logged and communication between ships is done via the gates and their inbuilt systems. so naturally any system with a gate network would have a local chat channel.
WH systems obviously do not have gates and therefore its not applicable that this feature would be available.
...although you could say that a system like local chat would be very inefficient to run in a practically dead system.
CCP could throw it out fictionally as a subsection of a Concord Efficiency Directive, stating:
for star systems of less than 0.05 security rating a monthly subscription would be required to keep a star systems local chat channel and its underlying technical operating systems up and running. In order to process the subscrition for the said star system, evidence of sovereignty as a signifier to pay and use local would need to be met.
;)
|
Xorv
|
Posted - 2010.11.02 22:58:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Flesh Slurper I agree with removing local and the idea of unclaimed systems not having local seems fine, however why would an alliance want to pay so that both them and their enemies could see local. In reality, if the alliance has to pay for local, then they should be able to choose to allow local based on standings.
If this was done, it would also make sense that NPC controlled Null Sec would based off Pirate standing. Where only those with positive standings to the controlling Pirate Faction could see pilots in Local.
That said while I support the removal of Local Intel in Null Sec, I don't like the idea of giving any more advantages to Sov Holders, that have advantage enough with expansive numbers already. CCP needs to encourage players not to join the bloated NAPfests, this idea only encourages it further.
|
|
Amy Garzan
The Warp Rats Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2010.11.04 22:47:00 -
[21]
-------------------------------------------------- 101010 The Answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything |
sol smith
|
Posted - 2010.11.06 22:07:00 -
[22]
Very Nice Where do I Sign ?
|
Doctor Ungabungas
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.11.07 00:48:00 -
[23]
+1 - Make it so you can get local back with a 'communucations array' anchored at a POS with an ihub module installed. (like cyno beacons).
|
klyeme
Soft War
|
Posted - 2010.11.07 01:31:00 -
[24]
Also if more than 30 people are in local, it will display the number of people in local, but not who they are. This way you can keep track of blob battles in systems that are not controlled.
|
Hieronomus
|
Posted - 2010.11.08 21:31:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Doctor Ungabungas +1 - Make it so you can get local back with a 'communucations array' anchored at a POS with an ihub module installed. (like cyno beacons).
^^ Very nice I like this idea Alot. |
El Liptonez
|
Posted - 2010.11.09 17:54:00 -
[26]
I fail to see why anyone would rat in a system without sov even nowadays.
It's pretty simple, imo. Change local mode to delayed for all of EVE. Local shouldn't be an effortless intel source.
|
hjgjgfgfgsj
|
Posted - 2010.11.10 16:05:00 -
[27]
supported.
I think they should just remove local all together unless you specifically join the local channel. I mean why does everyone need to know you're there if you don't want them to?
|
Kahaal
88th Tactical
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 03:38:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Kahaal on 11/11/2010 03:43:54
Originally by: El Liptonez It's pretty simple, imo. Change local mode to delayed for all of EVE. Local shouldn't be an effortless intel source.
This.
I suppose local was designed to be a social tool, but as it stands today it's nothing more than a brainless friend/foe assessement tool.
Editing here to also state that local denies all cloacked operations of their role. Maybe you cannot see them, but you know they are there. |
Silvana Wisla
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 02:24:00 -
[29]
yum |
Matah Hari
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 03:48:00 -
[30]
I've always thought local chat was detrimental to the true tactical potential of PVP in EVE. I think this would be a step in the right direction. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |