EVE Search - Removal of local chat...why do so many think that is anti-carebear?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Removal of local chat...why do so many think that is anti-carebear?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2011.05.04 14:23:00 - [91] Originally by: Opertone Originally by: Axemaster It's anti-carebear because people are too lazy to click the dir scan all the time. They want to be able to just glance at their screen and know. Realistically, abolishing local would be a huge pain for everyone involved. Carebears would have to constantly do dir scans, and pirates would have to spend lots of time scanning through empty systems. Everything would become more work-intensive. I would however like it if ships coming through a covert cyno were not added to local until they were either dir scanned or uncloaked on grid with non-fleeted ships present. delayed local, which shows pilots 3 mins after they enter local will make things more intresting. in 0.0 local should be delayed for 15 minutes - i.e. only show residents to residents. That would be the only thing that is even more ridiculously favored towards the attacker than just removing local.
Ospie The Python Cartel. The Defenders of Pen Island	Posted - 2011.05.04 14:26:00 - [92] Originally by: Furb Killer Hardest hit by afk cloaking, possibly, although doubtfull. Hardest hit by removal of local (or in your own words: removal of the problem of afk cloaking)? Not even close. I have explained that several times while you dont get further than "lalallalallalalalla i dont hear you". Removal of local directly promotes botting in several ways. I'm pretty sure I've already established beyond doubt that you are the one going "lalallalallalalalla i dont hear you". Botting benefits hugely (apparently well beyond your comprehension) from instantly updating local, it will not benefit from changing to local being changed to delayed or "speakers only".
MatrixSkye Mk2 Minmatar	Posted - 2011.05.04 14:30:00 - [93] Originally by: Tippia Seeing as how bots are hit the hardest by AFK cloakers (a reason to keep them, if the current intel-local is retained), and how the removal of local would also kick them in the wedding tackleà nah. Tippia, you really need to stop it with this ridiculousness. I can think of a of million "changes" to your play style that if implemented would be good in getting rid of bots . But I don't, precisely because arguing "well, if it helps getting rid of bots I don't care that it hurts play styles other than my own" is bull ****. This argument is getting tiresome. Grief a PVP'er. Run a mission today!
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2011.05.04 14:34:00 - [94] Originally by: Ospie Originally by: Furb Killer Hardest hit by afk cloaking, possibly, although doubtfull. Hardest hit by removal of local (or in your own words: removal of the problem of afk cloaking)? Not even close. I have explained that several times while you dont get further than "lalallalallalalalla i dont hear you". Removal of local directly promotes botting in several ways. I'm pretty sure I've already established beyond doubt that you are the one going "lalallalallalalalla i dont hear you". Botting benefits hugely (apparently well beyond your comprehension) from instantly updating local, it will not benefit from changing to local being changed to delayed or "speakers only". Not directly no, but I now explained several times and you keep acting like you cant read (you know, the "lalallalallalalalla i dont hear you" part, if you accuse me of doing the same, please point out where it is explained how bots would be hurt more than humans). While you can say bots dont benefit from removal of local, they do benefit compared to humans, and that is what matters: Against competent cov ops cloaked ships both die. Granted against incompetent ones competent human players might have an advantage. But that is a moot point simply if the cov ops is competent. Against non-cov ops cloaked ships bots have huge advantage, they can easily see it approaching on dir scan, same for probes btw. The end result is way higher risk for pve'ers (i dont think even you deny that). Higher risk, same reward -> less people, more lvl 4 mission runners. Combine that with the well known fact that more people in a system = less botters, and you got another reason why botting becomes better. With your logic of simply looking at botting, the obvious solution against botting is removal of all anomalies, belt rats and roids. Technically that would work against botting, but I do hope you see why this is not really a counter to botting.
Arnakoz	Posted - 2011.05.04 15:15:00 - [95] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Arnakoz my perception of "ideal mechanics" is: -they must scan from outside docking range, and outside of the POS shields. -the scan should take ~20 minutes, and you can't warp or its canceled. -once you have a position it would only be rough - you would warp to a random point somewhere within a 100km radius around the target. thus you would have to get within declaoking range to actually find him, an in the mean time someone not-AFK will see you and either attack or warp away... And as mentioned, this won't have any effect on AFK cloakers, since you won't catch them with this method. In the time it takes you to locate, go to, and search that area, they will no longer be there. It will only affect active cloakers who have to move away from an advantageous position. um, if they are gone by time you find them then they aren't AFK. i'm good with people who are gone for a while for bio, wife aggro, chat etc... its the people that log in, cloak up and go to work. something i'm even guilty of.
Arnakoz	Posted - 2011.05.04 15:22:00 - [96] Originally by: Furb Killer Remove the 100km range and change it to something realistic (serious it is impossible to decloak someone in such a sphere) the size of the "bubble" is definitely up for debate. but my thinking is that each time you warp in you would warp into a new random location, with the target centered in the sphere. so it would be possible to either 1. warp in and out dropping cans at each warp-in, and eventually being able to triangulate the position, or (more likely) warping in a large fleet over and until one lands close enough to declaok them. but yes, 100km may be too large. that would really be something that would need to be experimented with. but the concept remains the same.
Ava Starfire Minmatar Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2011.05.04 15:40:00 - [97] Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2 Originally by: Tippia Seeing as how bots are hit the hardest by AFK cloakers (a reason to keep them, if the current intel-local is retained), and how the removal of local would also kick them in the wedding tackleà nah. Tippia, you really need to stop it with this ridiculousness. I can think of a of million "changes" to your play style that if implemented would be good in getting rid of bots . But I don't, precisely because arguing "well, if it helps getting rid of bots I don't care that it hurts play styles other than my own" is bull **. This argument is getting tiresome. You havent unsubbed yet? St.
Wetwater	Posted - 2011.05.04 15:50:00 - [98] Originally by: Opertone Originally by: Axemaster It's anti-carebear because people are too lazy to click the dir scan all the time. They want to be able to just glance at their screen and know. Realistically, abolishing local would be a huge pain for everyone involved. Carebears would have to constantly do dir scans, and pirates would have to spend lots of time scanning through empty systems. Everything would become more work-intensive. I would however like it if ships coming through a covert cyno were not added to local until they were either dir scanned or uncloaked on grid with non-fleeted ships present. delayed local, which shows pilots 3 mins after they enter local will make things more intresting. in 0.0 local should be delayed for 15 minutes - i.e. only show residents to residents. How about the opposite. After you are in system for 15 minutes, you leave local. When you enter system you are in local for 15 minutes. Why not? You seem to like unbalanced solutions...
FeralShadow RipStar. United Front Alliance	Posted - 2011.05.04 15:56:00 - [99] Originally by: death klokk So far from wat i've gathered: the opponents to this idea feel as though ganking would be easier because: 1. people won't press d-scan because they're lazy and want everything automated from them. amirite? Why is laziness defended in this instance and not in others? For the record i'm on the fence about the idea, but i feel if they were to remove local, it should only be removed from null sec as lowsec is still technically "empire" owned hence the standing loss there. Nullsec systems where an alliance has sov should be afforded the opportunity to have a destructible scanning module that puts everyone in system in local upon jumping in or appear in local after the module has scanned the system. The mod could scan the system faster or slower depending on which version of the mod (t1 t2 named factioN) and by how well the system is upgraded. Didn't read the rest of the posts because i'm sure it's just more of the same... BUT this idea is great. In null sec where traffic is little to zero in 75% of the regions, local is actually a boon to the "carebear". Intel should never be so completely free, and it is used by botters to auto-warp their ships away when someone even enters local. So, removing it in null sec (not sure about low sec, what about just a 2 minute delay or something? 60 second delay?) would solve numerous problems. #1, you could actually have legitimate covert operations #2, there is little enough traffic as-is, and if you dont know what ships are in system based on your d-scan prior to enemies jumping in, you are really not paying attention. Not paying attention is the primary cause of ship loss, and nobody has a "right to live" everybody has to work for it, just like everybody has to work for a kill. #3, it would really hurt the ratting botters (though I bet they probably know how to do the d-scan, but at least the combat ships would be able to get within 14 au before the botter warps. OR conversely you can introduce a skill called "Covert Transmissions". From an RP standpoint, your ship upon entering any system with stargates, automatically connects to the stargate's communication network, and stargates transmit throughout the entire system and to other systems. However, with Covert Transmissions, you can delay (or maybe permanently deny) the stargate from establishing connection. I envision it such as this: At level 5 in this skill, you are hidden from local in low sec for two minutes (keep in mind it takes approximately 1 minute on average to travel across system and jump, approximately 10 seconds to launch 5 probes, 30 more to position, etc. etc.) 2 minutes is enough to allow for covert operations but not enough for ships to abuse the system. With lower levels of this skill, the time being hidden from local is less. In null sec, this skill is extended, until finally at level 5, the player is completely hidden in null sec permanently UNTIL he is scanned by the POS (local analyzer) module. That module will broadcast all ships within local to all other ships, making it known who is present. See, this is an important step, because that makes it so people have to actively gather intel about their own system, after they figured out that something just isn't right. The only problem with having no local is that cloaky ships such as recons and bombers could potentially never be found, if they cloak immediately upon entry and are never broadcast to local. The biggest problem comes when they can use their on-board scanner to find anomalies without decloaking, warp to the anomaly and kill whoever was in that anomaly, without the ratter having any way to defend himself whatsoever (unless he's working with groups, but then the cloakers will just blob up. It's not a good solution). At any rate, it's food for thought at the very least. -Feral _______________________________________________ "If you want to taste the ground, feel free to attack." - Kenshin Himura
Ingvar Angst Amarr Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United	Posted - 2011.05.04 16:09:00 - [100] They should remove local in Jita first. That would be a huge improvement to the game. Not having local really isn't a problem for the somewhat aware. DScan becomes habitual, you're more aware, you do fine.

Arnakoz	Posted - 2011.05.04 16:14:00 - [101] Originally by: death klokk ...Nullsec systems where an alliance has sov should be afforded the opportunity to have a destructible scanning module that puts everyone in system in local upon jumping in or appear in local after the module has scanned the system. The mod could scan the system faster or slower depending on which version of the mod (t1 t2 named factioN) and by how well the system is upgraded. i'm pretty sure they used to have something similar to this (it didn't have anything to do with local, however, just scanned) but yeah, i like this idea.
Sader Rykane Amarr Midnight Sentinels Midnight Space Syndicate	Posted - 2011.05.04 16:24:00 - [102] Originally by: Axemaster Originally by: Ophie Originally by: Axemaster Except for the part where you can't fit an expanded probe launcher without totally gimping most ships. Because no one trying to probe out mission runners would ever use a scout, amirite? I can't dual screen on my laptop, yes shocking I know. Wouldn't it be nice for solo players to still have a chance? Uh, laptop dual screening is easier than desktop dual screening mostly because you already get ONE "FREE" SCREEN. I regularly plug a second screen into my laptop and dual screen eve.
Mutnin Amarr Mutineers	Posted - 2011.05.04 16:37:00 - [103] No local would make it a bit more of a PITA for everyone involved. It would also change EVE into a slower paced game on the PVP side, because you would need to hunt for the targets. Over all I think it would just push more people into station humping & gate camping because that would be the easiest way to catch a target. Lets face it, the average player is lazy and wants everything on easy mode. Now what might be interesting is having a delayed local. Say tie it to the gate cloak timer and not show up in local as long as you have that gate cloak timer. This would give savvy hunters the ability to quickly do a directional scan and possibly have an edge on catching a target but wouldn't be a total freebie. The definite problem with local, is that those whom do not want to get caught have a clear advantage because they can instantly start their warp out to a SS/station/POS the second a hostile enters system. Meanwhile that hostile has to spend at the very least a few seconds using dir scan. Delayed local would simply level the playing field just a tad between the hunter & the prey. It would also be a way to help catch null sec macro ratters.
Razin The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2011.05.04 17:14:00 - [104] Originally by: Mutnin No local would make it a bit more of a PITA for everyone involved. It would also change EVE into a slower paced game on the PVP side, because you would need to hunt for the targets. Because having your 'target' safe/cloak/log as soon as you enter local is much more fun and fast paced. ...
Mutnin Amarr Mutineers	Posted - 2011.05.04 17:40:00 - [105] Edited by: Mutnin on 04/05/2011 17:42:35 Originally by: Razin Originally by: Mutnin No local would make it a bit more of a PITA for everyone involved. It would also change EVE into a slower paced game on the PVP side, because you would need to hunt for the targets. Because having your 'target' safe/cloak/log as soon as you enter local is much more fun and fast paced. Way to "READ" the entire post.. Bravo to you sir! Oh my bad, you didn't actually read the whole post before replying to it did you..
Thomas Phillippe	Posted - 2011.05.04 17:43:00 - [106] Be mindful that the easier it becomes to hunt targets the less of them there will be. We seem to forget that these two factors are inversely proportional to each other. Be careful what you ask for.
FeralShadow RipStar. United Front Alliance	Posted - 2011.05.04 18:09:00 - [107] With no local (or delayed) it is no easier to hunt targets than it is to tell there are people hunting you. Both parties are using Dscan (or the hunter is using probes in which case the prey is still using dscan). If I can scan you, you can also scan me (as long as i'm not cloaked). the cloaking part is the part that gets really tricky because with delayed (or no local) it'd be pretty overpowered. WH's negate the usefulness of cloaking because, while there is no local, there is also no way to warp to grav belts and the like (unless they're doing anoms) without decloaking to launch probes, and both yourself and the probes can be scanned at that point. There would have to be some tweaking. _______________________________________________ "If you want to taste the ground, feel free to attack." - Kenshin Himura
Razin The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2011.05.04 18:26:00 - [108] Originally by: Mutnin Edited by: Mutnin on 04/05/2011 17:42:35 Originally by: Razin Originally by: Mutnin No local would make it a bit more of a PITA for everyone involved. It would also change EVE into a slower paced game on the PVP side, because you would need to hunt for the targets. Because having your 'target' safe/cloak/log as soon as you enter local is much more fun and fast paced. Way to "READ" the entire post.. Bravo to you sir! Oh my bad, you didn't actually read the whole post before replying to it did you.. Yes, I did read the rest of your post. I just had an issue with that statement. By the way, Delayed Local works just like the w-space local (it is an actual selection in the chat channel creation settings), and is the preferred implementation for 0.0 (and ideally everywhere). ...
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.05.04 18:52:00 - [109] Edited by: Tippia on 04/05/2011 18:55:07 Originally by: Arnakoz um, if they are gone by time you would otherwise find them... then they aren't AFK. Um, yes they are. Being AFK doesn't keep your ship from continuing to do what you last told it to doà àlike keeping the cloak on. àand moving forward. In the time it takes for you to investigate that 100km radius sphere, the AFK cloaker you're looking for will be some 200 grids away. Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2 Tippia, you really need to stop it with this ridiculousness. What's ridiculous about it? The idea that bots are disrupted if potential hostiles show up in local? The idea that without local, bots would not be able to safe themselves before getting attakced? Quote: I can think of a of million "changes" to your play style that if implemented would be good in getting rid of bots . Such as? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Dr Nefarius	Posted - 2011.05.04 19:31:00 - [110] Originally by: Brooks Puuntai Removing local in SOV 0.0 would be horrible. It caters to the hunter and gimps the prey. People talk about spamming D-Scan while that is a option in any sov owned 0.0 the "prey" will d-scan and have no idea if that ship is blue or red/neut. Make it so mutual blues show up in local?

MatrixSkye Mk2 Minmatar	Posted - 2011.05.04 19:40:00 - [111] Originally by: Tippia What's ridiculous about it? That you justify the implementation of a mechanic "because of bots" and with no consideration whatsoever on how it would affect play styles different than yours. Originally by: Tippia Quote: I can think of a of million "changes" to your play style that if implemented would be good in getting rid of bots . Such as? Let's get rid of combat PVP. No PVP means no demand for ores and isk, which means it hurts bots. The hell with everyone and everything else. I don't care much for PVP anyway. Awesome solution, would you not agree? The only ones that would be against such an awesome idea would be bot users. Are you a bot user, Tippia? Grief a PVP'er. Run a mission today!
Mortania Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement	Posted - 2011.05.04 19:40:00 - [112] Yeah, removing local is totally balanced for both hunter and prey. Let me illustrate with a few minutes of simulated gameplay. Hunter D-Scan usage: Enters system. D-scans once or twice. Moves on to next system. Prey D-Scan usage: Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle.
Razin The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2011.05.04 19:55:00 - [113] Edited by: Razin on 04/05/2011 20:04:18 Originally by: Mortania Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. Wait for cycle. Hit D-Scan. To be fair, for the past couple of years it's been a given that delayed local would have to come together with some serious d-scan upgrades (as well as tweaks and balances to other game mechanics). Some kind of auto-scan mode would be included in those upgrades. ...
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2011.05.04 23:00:00 - [114] Originally by: Arnakoz um, if they are gone by time you would otherwise find them... then they aren't AFK. i'm good with people who are gone for a while for bio, wife aggro, chat etc... its the people that log in, cloak up and go to work. something i'm even guilty of. It's been explained time and again why it's a bad idea, I really can't understand why you keep peddling it. Originally by: Allestin Villimar Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it. Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
Brannoncyll	Posted - 2011.05.05 02:22:00 - [115] I would like to see local gone, but it would need to be replaced with something almost as useful. I can imagine some sort of radar system such that if an enemy warps within range of your scan, the borders of the screen flash red and a targeting tunnel appears indicating the direction of approach and approximate time until arrival. It should have filters such that people can filter out friendlies. If a cloaky ship is on its way then the sensors should be able to pick up a signal, but not give an indication as to its ETA or direction. I can envisage some midslot module that suppresses the sensor range of a target such that they have less time to react. I'm sure there are other interesting ideas out there.
Arnakoz	Posted - 2011.05.05 13:12:00 - [116] Originally by: Mag's Originally by: Arnakoz um, if they are gone by time you would otherwise find them... then they aren't AFK. i'm good with people who are gone for a while for bio, wife aggro, chat etc... its the people that log in, cloak up and go to work. something i'm even guilty of. It's been explained time and again why it's a bad idea, I really can't understand why you keep peddling it. only by you and tilipia (sp?..) and there is never really an explanation. just statements like "if they are afk, they can't hurt you" or "it wouldn't work against AFK cloakers" and "the solution is no local" ... not explanations. the only explanation i've received was "they will be gone before you could get to them" but as i said, that means they weren't actually afk... and AFIAK i've had more agree that it would be good than bad - just you two saying bad; but very frequently, as if it would ruin some aspect of your game.. maybe you have alts you keep permanently logged into some systems. idk. but either way delayed/missing local isn't the solution - and i just want to make sure people know there are better options.
Ingvar Angst Amarr Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United	Posted - 2011.05.05 13:25:00 - [117] With all the tears and arguments being thrown out here, there are actually two things that would happen if local went away in 0.0: 1. Botters would scream bloody murder. 2. Some non-botters would complain a bit, all would adapt. Eve goes on.
Arnakoz	Posted - 2011.05.05 13:32:00 - [118] Originally by: Ingvar Angst With all the tears and arguments being thrown out here, there are actually two things that would happen if local went away in 0.0: 1. Botters would scream bloody murder. 2. Some non-botters would complain a bit, all would adapt. Eve goes on. you say that until your POS is in reinforcement prior to anyone even knowing there were reds around, much less a fleet of 400 already staged and with all the intel they need... it would tilt everything so far in the direction of aggressor that trying to hold sov would become near pointless. at least in W-space the "gates" limit fleets/ships and aren't static, making staging meaningless...
Ingvar Angst Amarr Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United	Posted - 2011.05.05 14:02:00 - [119] Originally by: Arnakoz Originally by: Ingvar Angst With all the tears and arguments being thrown out here, there are actually two things that would happen if local went away in 0.0: 1. Botters would scream bloody murder. 2. Some non-botters would complain a bit, all would adapt. Eve goes on. you say that until your POS is in reinforcement prior to anyone even knowing there were reds around, much less a fleet of 400 already staged and with all the intel they need... it would tilt everything so far in the direction of aggressor that trying to hold sov would become near pointless. at least in W-space the "gates" limit fleets/ships and aren't static, making staging meaningless... You mean... 0.0 space might become dangerous again? Isn't that the intent?
Arnakoz	Posted - 2011.05.05 14:38:00 - [120] Edited by: Arnakoz on 05/05/2011 14:38:42 Originally by: Ingvar Angst You mean... 0.0 space might become dangerous again? Isn't that the intent? i agree that null space should be more dangerous. if you made it so it was cake for relatively small non-null alliances to roam around taking out POS's just for the loot, with little to no risk (since know one even knows where they are or what they are doing), then that's what would happen. moreover, it should be risky for BOTH sides - predator and prey. removing local wouldn't. roaming parties would be near uncatchable. so, removing local isn't the answer to making that happen.



Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: 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.