| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Cearain
Caldari
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
   |
Posted - 2011.08.25 17:54:00 -
[271]
 Originally by: Mendolus
Edited by: Mendolus on 25/08/2011 17:30:32
Originally by: Cearain
Originally by: Saladin Boneslash
Originally by: Cearain
No local will effect how big of a gang you can go out in. And the effect will be much less small scale or solo pvp.
The one place in EvE with no local right now is w-space. And we all know that pvp in w-space is mostly blobs, right? Very little solo and small gang pvp there, for sure.
The only thing we know is there is very little pvp there at all. We know this from the QEN's.
If we move away from the facts and into speculation. I would bet a much larger percent of the "pvp" in wormholes actually involves "pvcb" than in null or low sec.
I think as someone pointed out elsewhere, there is a healthy amount of PvP in wormholes per capita.
If this is true....
Its not true. Here are the facts based on the QENs:
Here is the third quater distribution according to the 4th quater report of population (page 10) and the 3rd quarter report of kills per part of eve.http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/QEN/QEN_Q3-2010.pdf (page 9):
low sec: 6.95% of the population but accounts for 29% of all the kills
Null sec: 11.07 of the population and accounts for 51% of the kills
wh 2.42% of the population and accounts for only 4% of the kills.
So we get:
4.17 kills per pilot low sec
4.6 kills per pilot null sec
and
1.65 kills per pilot wh
Its clear that wormholes aren't the place to go for pvp.
Do these facts have any effect on your opinion?
-Cearain
Make fw pvp not pve
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1329906&page=1 |
Mendolus
Aurelius Federation
Eternal Evocations
|
Posted - 2011.08.25 18:05:00 -
[272]
Originally by: Cearain
So we get:
4.17 kills per pilot low sec
4.6 kills per pilot null sec
and
1.65 kills per pilot wh
Its clear that wormholes aren't the place to go for pvp.
Do these facts have any effect on your opinion?
It depends, are we concerned with discrete points of data or continuous patterns of consistent warfare?
It is my understanding that even though you can see nearly half of all ship losses in the game out in null, that it is skewed due to blobbing.
What I think people in this thread are most concerned about is the continued viability of small to medium sized gang warfare.
Now when you think about wormholes, sure I know of plenty of corporations that live in relatively large quantities (think a couple hundred, but only half that active at any given time) out in wormholes exclusively.
The issue I think would be is there more small to medium gang combat per capita in wormholes than there is in a null, and why?
It certainly is not explicitly due to their being no local I imagine, but more due to the high cost of living there in time and energy that differs from null at present.
Numbers mean something in null, but in wormholes, you stuff a thousand dudes in a C3 and you're going to have a ton of bellyaching and boredom, so the numbers in holes reflect more accurately what that space can and cannot support, whereas in null you got a thousand dudes in a fleet defending a few systems that can only technically support a small fraction of those players, but represents a slice of a larger pie. In wormholes, your hole basically IS the pie.
So I understand the numbers sure, but those numbers will not tell us whether there is more small to medium gang warfare in holes per capita compared to null sec. Need more data for that.
|
Welsige
Gallente
Ad Vita Noctu
Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2011.08.25 18:21:00 -
[273]
Originally by: Cearain
Its not true. Here are the facts based on the QENs:
Here is the third quater distribution according to the 4th quater report of population (page 10) and the 3rd quarter report of kills per part of eve.http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/QEN/QEN_Q3-2010.pdf (page 9):
low sec: 6.95% of the population but accounts for 29% of all the kills
Null sec: 11.07 of the population and accounts for 51% of the kills
wh 2.42% of the population and accounts for only 4% of the kills.
So we get:
4.17 kills per pilot low sec
4.6 kills per pilot null sec
and
1.65 kills per pilot wh
Its clear that wormholes aren't the place to go for pvp.
Do these facts have any effect on your opinion?
The only benefit i see about removing local functionality is making it harder to make a life in low sec. I see a reduction in mining and industry, and ratting also, afterall the grunts have to earn isk to get ships.
I really dont see myself taking my tengu for a ride at the next system if theres no intel about it, that way it will be far more harder to get isk to fund my pvp activities.
The benefited ones will be gankers and griefers that come to null systems in the hope of killing people that make other things in null then pvp without warning or consequence - since its far easier to gankers to evade defense fleets since no one knows where they are -, and ccp that will see a rise in plex sells because the carebears will start buying plex instead of ratting.
Things that arent broken should not be fixed. Give me a way to track cloakies that stay too much time idleing in the systems consuming precious server cpu power, that would be fun to pop.
|
Cearain
Caldari
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
|
Posted - 2011.08.25 22:57:00 -
[274]
Originally by: Mendolus
Originally by: Cearain
So we get:
4.17 kills per pilot low sec
4.6 kills per pilot null sec
and
1.65 kills per pilot wh
Its clear that wormholes aren't the place to go for pvp.
Do these facts have any effect on your opinion?
It depends, are we concerned with discrete points of data or continuous patterns of consistent warfare?
.....
So I understand the numbers sure, but those numbers will not tell us whether there is more small to medium gang warfare in holes per capita compared to null sec. Need more data for that.
Low sec is pretty much all small gang pvp. It has well over 2xs as much pvp per capita as worm holes.
Like I said this is what we know. We can speculate beyond that but we shouldn't forget what we know. And we know that you can get over 2xs as much pvp per capita in low sec.
I would speculate that in worm holes allot of the lossmails have ships that are not fit for pvp. It's just people ganking pve ships and industrials so its really pvcb.
-Cearain
Make fw pvp not pve
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1329906&page=1 |
Aelius
Caldari
Mnemonic Enterprises
Dark Matter Coalition
|
Posted - 2011.08.26 06:57:00 -
[275]
Originally by: Cearain
Originally by: Mendolus
Originally by: Cearain
So we get:
4.17 kills per pilot low sec
4.6 kills per pilot null sec
and
1.65 kills per pilot wh
Its clear that wormholes aren't the place to go for pvp.
Do these facts have any effect on your opinion?
It depends, are we concerned with discrete points of data or continuous patterns of consistent warfare?
.....
So I understand the numbers sure, but those numbers will not tell us whether there is more small to medium gang warfare in holes per capita compared to null sec. Need more data for that.
Low sec is pretty much all small gang pvp. It has well over 2xs as much pvp per capita as worm holes.
Like I said this is what we know. We can speculate beyond that but we shouldn't forget what we know. And we know that you can get over 2xs as much pvp per capita in low sec.
I would speculate that in worm holes allot of the lossmails have ships that are not fit for pvp. It's just people ganking pve ships and industrials so its really pvcb.
What makes WH have such a low percentile is not the absence of local, but the need to scan the WHs and targets (usually the targets are somewhere only warpable after scan). We all know how scanning is boring and time consuming. I would bet my life if WH had local that the percentile would be even lower.
0.0 doesn't have the "scan to find a route/target" problem, thus it will be PVP on steroids. Trust me on this, i know EVE and i can guarantee you that no local means more PVP, because most of times PVP is not consensual. It must be fueled by the unpredictable and the unexpected. A 50 VS 10 fight will never happen in the current state of things (with local), but without local certain about wining or losing is no longer there and a 50 VS 10 may actually happen.
And one more thing, no local is not equal to more blobs, because a small mobile force can outrun/outsmart a big fleet. Bringing the biggest blob wont insure victory, because without local, surprises may happen.
___________________________________________
Hilmar in his childhood
Please ensure your signature is within the allowed size of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24,000 bytes. Navigator |
baltec1
|
Posted - 2011.08.26 07:12:00 -
[276]
Originally by: Cearain
So we get:
4.17 kills per pilot low sec
4.6 kills per pilot null sec
and
1.65 kills per pilot wh
Its clear that wormholes aren't the place to go for pvp.
Do these facts have any effect on your opinion?
No because people dont pvp in WH because of the fact that you cannot have a quick roam then go home.
|
Aelius
Caldari
Mnemonic Enterprises
Dark Matter Coalition
|
Posted - 2011.08.26 07:45:00 -
[277]
Originally by: baltec1
Originally by: Cearain
So we get:
4.17 kills per pilot low sec
4.6 kills per pilot null sec
and
1.65 kills per pilot wh
Its clear that wormholes aren't the place to go for pvp.
Do these facts have any effect on your opinion?
No because people dont pvp in WH because of the fact that you cannot have a quick roam then go home.
Exactly baltec.
___________________________________________
Hilmar in his childhood
Please ensure your signature is within the allowed size of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24,000 bytes. Navigator |
Cearain
Caldari
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
|
Posted - 2011.08.26 14:08:00 -
[278]
Edited by: Cearain on 26/08/2011 14:08:53
Originally by: baltec1
Originally by: Cearain
So we get:
4.17 kills per pilot low sec
4.6 kills per pilot null sec
and
1.65 kills per pilot wh
Its clear that wormholes aren't the place to go for pvp.
Do these facts have any effect on your opinion?
No because people dont pvp in WH because of the fact that you cannot have a quick roam then go home.
That is one reason. But the worm holes are rigt there in many systems. Solo roamers and small gangs could easilly jump in and see whats happening and jump out.
But then there is the other problem. No local. Most pvp roamers (especially solo) don't want to have to waste a high slot to fit a probe launcher to their ship in order to simply see if anyone is even there. They don't want to waste time scanning down systems just to find out no one is even there.
Finding pvp is hard enough with local. Very few people on a pvp roam want the extra hassle of not having a local to tell them if anyone is even in the system.
-Cearain
Make fw pvp not pve
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1329906&page=1 |
Signal11th
|
Posted - 2011.08.26 14:37:00 -
[279]
Edited by: Signal11th on 26/08/2011 14:43:35
Originally by: Cearain
Edited by: Cearain on 26/08/2011 14:08:53
Originally by: baltec1
Originally by: Cearain
So we get:
4.17 kills per pilot low sec
4.6 kills per pilot null sec
and
1.65 kills per pilot wh
Its clear that wormholes aren't the place to go for pvp.
Do these facts have any effect on your opinion?
No because people dont pvp in WH because of the fact that you cannot have a quick roam then go home.
That is one reason. But the worm holes are rigt there in many systems. Solo roamers and small gangs could easilly jump in and see whats happening and jump out.
But then there is the other problem. No local. Most pvp roamers (especially solo) don't want to have to waste a high slot to fit a probe launcher to their ship in order to simply see if anyone is even there. They don't want to waste time scanning down systems just to find out no one is even there.
Finding pvp is hard enough with local. Very few people on a pvp roam want the extra hassle of not having a local to tell them if anyone is even in the system.
Your obviously just not getting it???
So what you need to fit a launcher ?? it's no biggie? I would hope if they removed local they would give you a better set of scanning tools? Anyone worth his salt could scan a system in under 30 seconds and see if anyone is there?
There is a saying "Don't knock it until you try it" it's obvious the current system isn't working so why not try something different. If it works great if it doesn't try something else.
PVP is hard to find because of local,It's an instant intel tool which tells people someone appeared in their system, time to dock up or wait 20 mintues to form a 30 man blob to kill them.
You remove local, yes you will make large blobs a problem (gatecampers on pipes are excluded) but small and solo will benefit so much.
What your missing out on is the inherent greediness of most players, you remove local they hide after a week of no isk they will venture out.
As it stands deep in 0.0 you have 10 minutes pre warning of any neutrals/reds so everyone docks up and either logs or tries to arrange uber fleet to kill the neut gang. After reading alot of the replies it just seems that it's people that want trouble free ratting in 0.0 are moaning.
0.0 is suppossed to be a lawless cold unknown frontier at the moment it's like sitting in front of a fire with your grandparents being fed sweets. It's a warm fuzzy place full of nice blues , intel channels and convienent pipes in to satisfy easy ganks.
All it reeks of is laziness, I want to rat in peace, I want shiny shiny. When I started in EVE you read on the forums/in game about 0.0 being this scary place full of the best pilots that eve has to offer, well after spending a couple of years in 0.0 I've found it full of a hardcore of great players/CEO's but the majority being lazy ass mofo's who just want to rat all day and are mysteriously logged off when a CTA or roam is called.
Get rid of local and make 0.0 the place it's suppossed to be not the place it's been made into.
|
Ingvar Angst
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
|
Posted - 2011.08.26 15:28:00 -
[280]
Remove the numbers of kills that occur due to gate camps in low/null sec, recalculate then report back.
Wormhole PvP is something you go looking for, not waiting for defenseless ships to happen to come across your gate camp.
Monocles are so two weeks ago.
Sparkle ships are the future! |
|
|
Cearain
Caldari
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
|
Posted - 2011.08.26 15:55:00 -
[281]
Originally by: Ingvar Angst
Remove the numbers of kills that occur due to gate camps in low/null sec, recalculate then report back.
Wormhole PvP is something you go looking for, not waiting for defenseless ships to happen to come across your gate camp.
The percentage of kills due to gate camps without local will only go up. With local you can often avoid gate camps. With out it they are going to be a real pain.
I would bet a much higher percent of the kills in worm holes are p-v-cb. I dont think these are just as bad as gate camp ganks.
Like I said we can both speculate about the types of kills. But I would like those in the anti- local camp to answer these questions that I posed earlier in this thread and got no responses:
For the sake of argument lets say I agree with many anti-local peoples claims:
1)removing local will increase the risk of engaging in pvp. (Specifically you will have an increased risk of getting blobbed.)
2)removing local will increase the chances of being able to gank a carebear that is in low or null sec.
What effect will this have?
Consider the first point. Do you think increasing the risk (especially the risk of getting blobbed) will make an already risk adverse group more likely to engage in that activity? Eve pvp is already hard enough to find. The problem is the playerbase is risk adverse as it is. Increasing the chances that you will lose your ship to a sensless blobbing will not increase the pvp.
Now consider the second point. Do you think this will drive more people to do missions/industry in low sec and null sec or fewer? Is it better to have more or fewer people in pvp areas of new eden?
Lets say you are going to make your isk in low sec or null sec anyway. You will now have to constantly click on your d scanner making it even more of a hassle to earn your isk. Are you going to value and protect that harder to earn isk more or less? If you are going to value and protect that harder to earn isk more are you more likely or less likely to engage in even higher risk pvp?
|
Signal11th
|
Posted - 2011.08.26 16:08:00 -
[282]
Originally by: Cearain
Originally by: Ingvar Angst
Remove the numbers of kills that occur due to gate camps in low/null sec, recalculate then report back.
Wormhole PvP is something you go looking for, not waiting for defenseless ships to happen to come across your gate camp.
The percentage of kills due to gate camps without local will only go up. With local you can often avoid gate camps. With out it they are going to be a real pain.
I would bet a much higher percent of the kills in worm holes are p-v-cb. I dont think these are just as bad as gate camp ganks.
Like I said we can both speculate about the types of kills. But I would like those in the anti- local camp to answer these questions that I posed earlier in this thread and got no responses:
For the sake of argument lets say I agree with many anti-local peoples claims:
1)removing local will increase the risk of engaging in pvp. (Specifically you will have an increased risk of getting blobbed.)
2)removing local will increase the chances of being able to gank a carebear that is in low or null sec.
What effect will this have?
Consider the first point. Do you think increasing the risk (especially the risk of getting blobbed) will make an already risk adverse group more likely to engage in that activity? Eve pvp is already hard enough to find. The problem is the playerbase is risk adverse as it is. Increasing the chances that you will lose your ship to a sensless blobbing will not increase the pvp.
Now consider the second point. Do you think this will drive more people to do missions/industry in low sec and null sec or fewer? Is it better to have more or fewer people in pvp areas of new eden?
Lets say you are going to make your isk in low sec or null sec anyway. You will now have to constantly click on your d scanner making it even more of a hassle to earn your isk. Are you going to value and protect that harder to earn isk more or less? If you are going to value and protect that harder to earn isk more are you more likely or less likely to engage in even higher risk pvp?
You posted this I think on another thread but either way it's still wrong.
One you mention gate camps, gate camps occur whether local is there or not. With local you still have to scout your way into a system, The scout still has to jump in to a potential bubble but hey thats what a scout is for. You remove local he still has to jump into a potential bubble.
Having local or removing local makes no difference to gate camps..
If your scout can't use the on board scanner then he's not a scout he's a lemming.
You mention people having to click d-scan repeatedly,, ok again so what all your post seems to come across is that people in 0.0 are lazy and want to rat in peace but that's not what 0.0 is suppossed to be, it's not easy, it's not safe. You want that 1bil drop from a plex work for it!.
I think if local gets removed then bounties in high sec should be lowered to counter the risk that 0.0 now represents.
Again so what if the playerbase is risk averse, you bypass the mega fleet and go deeper into 0.0 for the ratter who thinks he's safe. You still get that now with local in place so what's the difference?
Blobbing on really occurs when people camp pipes and have great intel usually from ...yes you guessed it "local" It's hard enough to get 20 people to go on a 2 hour roam at the best of times.
Your posts just seem to scream out your afraid of change. Get rid of local and give it 6 months if it turns out the way you suggest I will apologise but until you try you will never know.
|
Cearain
Caldari
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
|
Posted - 2011.08.26 16:14:00 -
[283]
Edited by: Cearain on 26/08/2011 16:17:28
Signal11th
I typically don't use scouts.
And people will go to mega blobs for safety. But your other solution of having to roam even farther out to find fights is terrible.
Are you going to actually answer any of the questions I put to the anti-local camp?
-Cearain
Make fw pvp not pve
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1329906&page=1 |
Ingvar Angst
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
|
Posted - 2011.08.26 16:34:00 -
[284]
Have cloaked ships disappear from local and not be able to use local to see anyone else. Have Cynos on a 30 or 60 second delay after uncloaking.
It's now a better universe.
Monocles are so two weeks ago.
Sparkle ships are the future! |
Aelius
Caldari
Mnemonic Enterprises
Dark Matter Coalition
|
Posted - 2011.08.28 05:40:00 -
[285]
Originally by: Cearain
Edited by: Cearain on 26/08/2011 14:08:53
Originally by: baltec1
Originally by: Cearain
So we get:
4.17 kills per pilot low sec
4.6 kills per pilot null sec
and
1.65 kills per pilot wh
Its clear that wormholes aren't the place to go for pvp.
Do these facts have any effect on your opinion?
No because people dont pvp in WH because of the fact that you cannot have a quick roam then go home.
That is one reason. But the worm holes are rigt there in many systems. Solo roamers and small gangs could easilly jump in and see whats happening and jump out.
But then there is the other problem. No local. Most pvp roamers (especially solo) don't want to have to waste a high slot to fit a probe launcher to their ship in order to simply see if anyone is even there. They don't want to waste time scanning down systems just to find out no one is even there.
Finding pvp is hard enough with local. Very few people on a pvp roam want the extra hassle of not having a local to tell them if anyone is even in the system.
1st- You don't need a probe to see if someone is in system, just use your D-Scan (if the system is big warp to planets and D-Scan). This is even better because you don't want to alarm anyone by popping probes in space. First you D-Scan possible targets and narrow them down without being seen... then you use probes for the minimum time possible to avoid detection.
2nd- As you see by the above, if i want to find PVP i do it quietly, simply because PVP in EVE is rarely consensual, because this is not a consensual PVP game where you have arenas, where everyone PVPs without the risk of losing stuff (ships/modules).
Clearly you or don't know EVE or your urge to find PVP is a lie and what you really want is to avoid it. Because you CAN find PVP without local, but you CAN'T escape PVP without it
___________________________________________
Hilmar in his childhood
Please ensure your signature is within the allowed size of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24,000 bytes. Navigator |
Solj RichPopolous
Amarr
Templars of Space
Northern Associates.
|
Posted - 2011.08.28 10:44:00 -
[286]
Edited by: Solj RichPopolous on 28/08/2011 10:54:52
Idea: Local becomes delayed like wormholes.
D-Scan is revamped has greater range (25 or 35 au??) or could stay the same with skills to increase it maybe through some sort of scouting type skillset and auto-scans every 3 seconds.
D-Scan also gets the option to scan by either AUs or KMs.
Some kind of IDing system is created to determine friendlies.
- Corporations, alliances, and players with good standings appear with either a + (under a standings tab) or the scan signature is highlighted in some color such as blue or both.
- Some kind of new rig, module, or skills are created that will allow D-Scan to detect a cloaked ship but can not determine standings or ship type. Maybe an option is given that allows a cloaked ship to broadcast itself to people with good standing using the method above to determine what ships are friendly?
Also cloaked ships will have a shorter D-Scan detection range (3 AU?) making them very viable for scouting. Which would allow the introduction of skills that increase that range maybe (scout skillset?).
This would remove local and make D-Scan very useful for gathering intel but would require work to gain said intel and someone wouldn't be able to jump into a system and automatically know who all is there.
Critiques and comments?
|
Wizlawz
|
Posted - 2011.08.28 11:52:00 -
[287]
After reading alot of this i wonder then if local is removed and not in effect of delayed chat then will concord cease to exist?
as i am assuming this would affect high sec and if it does do we go back to when all of EVE Space was chaos BEFORE the Sec Stats and Before Cord? ( i am going on what i once heard )
so then will the roid belts be dissolved as im sure no miner is going to want to sit there hitting D-Scan constantly for those who are not cloaked...what i am getting at on this note is will another way of getting matts for manufacture / sell be implemented?
on that point then i can see MAYBE it could affect macros and cease and decist them.(for mining anyway)
OR will this end up being a PURE PVP realm? after all PVP is inevitable at some point.
I mean if Local is absolutley nerfed to non existant then where are the eve mail and pm (CSP charges i think?) going to go? into players wallets?, i hope so. And what will this do for ppl looking to join a corp or looking to find like minded players INVITE ONLY???
I am thinking the ONLY way this would make ANY sense to me is to join up to this realm and get right in the fight all out war. reminds of an FPS in a sense.
hell i wouldn't subscribe, plenty of other realms to play in that style.
|
Hired Assasin
Black Aces
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2011.08.28 11:57:00 -
[288]
if 0.0 had no local, imagine the massive spike of JF's being ganked at cyno gens or just normal cyno's due to the now massive mass of 0.0 cloakers.
0.0 markets will then die out causing more and more people to either quite the game or move to empire reducing the amount of targets while increasing the time it takes to find targets. if there is no local then pritty much every pvp ship will be cloaky and ninja cyno hotdrops will increase alot due to no one being able to see them coming.
|
Solj RichPopolous
Amarr
Templars of Space
Northern Associates.
|
Posted - 2011.08.28 12:12:00 -
[289]
Edited by: Solj RichPopolous on 28/08/2011 12:12:54
Originally by: Hired Assasin
if 0.0 had no local, imagine the massive spike of JF's being ganked at cyno gens or just normal cyno's due to the now massive mass of 0.0 cloakers.
0.0 markets will then die out causing more and more people to either quite the game or move to empire reducing the amount of targets while increasing the time it takes to find targets. if there is no local then pritty much every pvp ship will be cloaky and ninja cyno hotdrops will increase alot due to no one being able to see them coming.
An expensive and resource consuming POS module that can be linked to cyno beacon to send a realtime scan of space surrounding the beacon to capital ships within jump range upon request?
|
stranac
Amarr
Most Wanted INC
White Noise.
|
Posted - 2011.08.28 12:19:00 -
[290]
Edited by: stranac on 28/08/2011 12:24:01
as expected. crying from careberish alliances.))))
removing local is awesome idea. would give so much to eve like
larger space, scouts would finally have role instead of there 20 man gang there according to local number lets make 40man gang and **** them. black ops recons etc would have their proper role. if u werent sucha noob and know to use onboard scanner u would get more kills without local then with it. u would still have your intel channels that reporting gangs just this time u would need to find that gang instead using cheat and looking at local numbers.
its a boost too all small alliances out there in empire encouraging them to enter 0.0 and have some fun instead of sitting in empire or low sec. it would be easier for them to move undetected till atleast first kill they made:P whoever is pvper and likes small gang roamin would see this as a great thing
ps. bots wont work anymore.PP think that is the problem that bugging op:))
|
|
|
Wizlawz
|
Posted - 2011.08.28 12:22:00 -
[291]
Originally by: Solj RichPopolous
Edited by: Solj RichPopolous on 28/08/2011 12:12:54
Originally by: Hired Assasin
if 0.0 had no local, imagine the massive spike of JF's being ganked at cyno gens or just normal cyno's due to the now massive mass of 0.0 cloakers.
0.0 markets will then die out causing more and more people to either quite the game or move to empire reducing the amount of targets while increasing the time it takes to find targets. if there is no local then pritty much every pvp ship will be cloaky and ninja cyno hotdrops will increase alot due to no one being able to see them coming.
An expensive and resource consuming POS module that can be linked to cyno beacon to send a realtime scan of space surrounding the beacon to capital ships within jump range upon request?
SYSTEM SCANNING ARRAY
would be sweet to re-implement, if it ever was
|
Darknesss
V0LTA
VOLTA Corp
|
Posted - 2011.08.28 13:51:00 -
[292]
I agree with removing local.
0.0 is far too safe at the moment, its easy to see gangs coming and its too easy for people npcing or plexing to dodge enemies while making large ISK.
It would also help in the fight against macro ratters.
|
Zagdul
Gallente
Clan Shadow Wolf
Fatal Ascension
|
Posted - 2011.08.28 14:34:00 -
[293]
Originally by: Solj RichPopolous
Edited by: Solj RichPopolous on 28/08/2011 12:14:36
Idea: Local becomes delayed like wormholes.
D-Scan is revamped to operate like a real radar system, has greater range (25 or 35 au??) or could stay the same with skills to increase it maybe through some sort of scouting type skillset and auto-scans every 3 seconds.
D-Scan also gets the option to scan by either AUs or KMs. No more having to do quick math and type 1,350,000,000 KM in to scan a 9 AU circle for example.
D-Scan no longer uses overview settings and has its own customizable filters and tabs.
Some kind of IDing system is created to determine friendlies.
- Corporations, alliances, and players with good standings appear with either a + (under a standings column) or the scan signature is highlighted in some color such as blue or both. Maybe also an option to broadcast player name to friendlies?
- Some kind of new rig, module, or skills are created that will allow D-Scan to detect a cloaked ship but can not determine standings or ship type. Maybe an option is given that allows a cloaked ship to broadcast itself to people with good standing using the method above to determine what ships are friendly?
It will be harder for D-Scan to detect a cloaked ship (3 AU?) making them very viable for scouting without being detected by non-cloaked ships since they can scan max range while staying out of detection radius. In example a cloaked ship wants to keep tabs on a station in a system so he cloaks 5 au off of it to avoid being detected by hostiles while being able to do intel gathering without alerting anyone. Possible introduction of skills for ships to increase their cloaked ship D-scan detection range.
- Possible introduction of a new probe which sole purpose is to be able to determine if there are cloaked ships in its range but CAN NOT probe the ships down. Unsure of a range for the probe but should be VERY limited maybe 3-4 AU with there being a skill to launch 1 probe per level with a max out of 5.
A good use for which would be to form a safety net around groups running anomalies, plexes, or mining. Would require operator to be attentive and constantly rescanning. Results would not appear in D-scan and would take the same amount of time to scan as normal probe operation.
This would remove local and make D-Scan very useful for gathering intel but would require work to gain said intel and someone wouldn't be able to jump into a system and automatically know who all is there.
Critiques and comments?
This is probably the most well thought out post in this entire thread.
The only thing I'd suggest is that D-Scan has the ability to scan down standings as well.
Potentially to where it actually uses overview settings (in fleet/alliance/neutral etc.).
|
fgft Athonille
|
Posted - 2011.08.28 14:56:00 -
[294]
fa are useless, carebear renters
of course they dont want local removed or they would all be dying to good players. ignore this clown
Originally by: Skippermonkey
keep trying and you can be an hero just like fgft Athonille
Originally by: Singeaboot Raj
Tbh i am beginning to see the win - it's the haircut, makes people take notice.
|
Ben Dourion
|
Posted - 2011.08.28 16:51:00 -
[295]
CCP should at least , if not removing local in 0.0, delay it . should also do it in low sec but with less latency .
With jump bridge and local as it is actually, 0.0 is only dangerous for the few individuals who dont live in a particular area.
That should not be the case
|
Grath Telkin
Amarr
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2011.08.28 18:03:00 -
[296]
Zagdul this is funny, because in your first few posts you claim to love PVP and actively look for it with your small gangs, and yet anytime I get close to you in space you run like a girl.
I am confused.
You can admit that the inability to see your enemy coming so you can run and hide terrifies you.
Somebody will hug you I'm sure.
|
Taedrin
Gallente
Kushan Industrial
|
Posted - 2011.08.28 18:17:00 -
[297]
Step 1) Open up the starmap (F10)
Step 2) Turn on one of the following filters:
- Ships active and in space in the past 30 minutes
- NPC ships destroyed in the last hour
- jumps in the last hour
Step 3) ????
Step 4) profit
Removing local makes it much harder to avoid fights than it does to find fights.
----------
Originally by: Dr Fighter
"how do you know when youve had a repro accident"
Theres modules missing and morphite in your mineral pile.
|
Russell Casey
|
Posted - 2011.08.28 18:36:00 -
[298]
Edited by: Russell Casey on 28/08/2011 18:40:26
Edited by: Russell Casey on 28/08/2011 18:37:59
Originally by: Taedrin
Removing local makes it much harder to avoid fights than it does to find fights.
As a whole, nobody fights in any PvP game unless one of the following two things are true:
1) They've got the advantange (or so they think) and are pretty sure they can either win or run away if they start to lose.
2) They get caught by surprise.
Even with local it's possible to make the second happen, but typically only after the first, hence the rampant blobbage that can be best summed up as "crap, I thought he only had 10 BS's to my 20 but it turns out there were another 40 waiting."
|
stevie rae
|
Posted - 2011.08.28 21:54:00 -
[299]
Edited by: stevie rae on 28/08/2011 21:54:59
As soon as I saw zagdul posting about PvP I knew it would be full of lolz. The number of times I heard FA pilots say "We need more pilots or we can't have a roam(when we already had 10 in fleet) or the number of times I heard "We need x number of logistics or there is just no point in roaming" is astounding. Though honestly I know it is a bit scary that you won't always be able to flee if you don't have a 2:1 advantage over your opponent it will be ok! Local helps you find ganks or fights you can easily win. It also means you can run away if you see your opponent has equal numbers. It kills PvP and helps the "risk free blob" play style many 0.0 alliances use. If local gets switched to delayed mode I think we will see 0.0 populations drop as people who are too scared to really fight flee back to highsec. Not sure if this would end in a good situation for eve sub wise but none of us can really know that unless it happens. I don't see adding effort to scouting as a bad thing. It will make black ops possible and make cloaking actually allow you to hide. While maybe other intel tools will need to be added (radar/improved Dscan/others I havn't thought of) I don't see switching local to delayed "killing PVP" as so many 0.0 dwellers seem to.
Edit: my shoddy typing skills
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2011.08.28 23:35:00 -
[300]
Originally by: Corvus Dove
Removing local would lower the number of gatecamps as it would no longer be necessary to sit on a gate to be able to hit a target. You would be able to catch them at various points in the system.
Removing local would increase the number of gate camps as it would be necessary to sit on a gate to know who is entering your system.
[ Australian players join channel ANZAC ] |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |