| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14928
   |
Posted - 2013.06.17 22:51:00 -
[61] - Quote
Cyprus Black wrote:Can you distinguish between a cloaked player gathering intel from a player who's afk? Sure. If he moves, he's not AFK.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
BoSau Hotim
Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated
5676
|
Posted - 2013.06.17 22:55:00 -
[62] - Quote
Cyprus Black wrote:Can you distinguish between a cloaked player gathering intel from a player who's afk?
So far no one has been able to.
Your not supposed to be able to. That is the beauty of cloaking.
I'm not a carebear... I'm a SPACE BARBIE!-á Now... where's Ken? |
WhipDiddyWhip
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.17 22:58:00 -
[63] - Quote
local takes away from exploring dangerous space
instantly knowing how many ppl are in the solar system due to a chat channel is just ******** to me
|
Jayrendo Karr
Suns Of Korhal
Terran Commonwealth
258
|
Posted - 2013.06.17 23:11:00 -
[64] - Quote
Cloaks shouldnt show up in local, for all you know it could say 0 and then 30 mantis decloak and murderlize you |
gaijiin pok
Nox Noctis Industrius
Novus Dominatum
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.17 23:31:00 -
[65] - Quote
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:If you cloak, you should be removed from local. Just like WH space.
wouldn't this be nice, a stealth ship could actually be .... stealthy
Pok |
Endeavour Starfleet
883
|
Posted - 2013.06.18 01:24:00 -
[66] - Quote
gaijiin pok wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote:If you cloak, you should be removed from local. Just like WH space. wouldn't this be nice, a stealth ship could actually be .... stealthy Pok
Tell me how many free ganks would it take to satisfy you?
WhipDiddyWhip wrote:local takes away from exploring dangerous space
instantly knowing how many ppl are in the solar system due to a chat channel is just ******** to me
The current system gives defenders a chance and helps prevent easy ganks. It is not bullcrap and CCP made Wormhole space for those who want to operate without local. That is why in my opinion the continued calls for local to be nerfed or removed is about getting easy ganks. This is evidenced by those who admit to even going AFK while cloaked in wormhole space. You are not getting big solo kills or easy hotdrops right? |
Black Dranzer
277
|
Posted - 2013.06.18 01:35:00 -
[67] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:gaijiin pok wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote:If you cloak, you should be removed from local. Just like WH space. wouldn't this be nice, a stealth ship could actually be .... stealthy Pok Tell me how many free ganks would it take to satisfy you?
This entire argument (Not just yours, Endeavour, the entire sequence) is starting to bore me.
Nobody wants to risk their ****. Nullsec dwellers don't want to be hunted by untouchable ghosts. Cloakers don't want to be rendered useless by probes or advanced scanning techniques. Nobody wants to see obscure special case anti-afk measures implemented.
Here's a tip: There is not going to be a change that's going to make everybody happy. Somewhere, somebody's going to have to be pissed off at this change. Most likely everybody.
Instead of proposing changes that would merely fix your problem, people need to start accepting proposals which have compromises. Stop trying to buff and nerf in one direction. It won't work.
The only way this is getting fixed is if all involved parties agree to take a hit.
Unless, of course, you're not really interested in improving the game, and you're only interested in your own personal well being.
Walking in Stations as a Social Hub: Business vs Pleasure in Incarna |
Endeavour Starfleet
884
|
Posted - 2013.06.18 01:56:00 -
[68] - Quote
Issue is you have a place where you don't show up in local. Your problem has already been fixed. Not going into wormhole space to experience your no local PVP leads me to believe you want free big ganks in my opinion.
Also I don't want combat probes to be able to uncloak an active player. One of the primary goals of my proposed system was to not punish those who are active at their clients while cloaked. It was that discussion that I confirmed my suspicion that going AFK while cloaked is just as effective and used in wormholes as it is anywhere else. Shooting down that argument that "I afk cloak to defeat local"
CCP won't comment about cloaking other than merging topics and saying "It is not an exploit" I would honestly rather them come out and say where they stand on this. Even if it is not in my favor as someone who believes the current cloaking abilities encourage one to be away from the client for long periods of time. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation
RAZOR Alliance
5583
|
Posted - 2013.06.18 03:08:00 -
[69] - Quote
I'm sure all these people ratting in nullsec are still going to rat in nullsec just to be your easy prey when local is removed. There's no way they'd move to other areas of the game where they wouldn't have to put up with bullshit mechanics that make it impossible to prevent or defend themselves against attacks that render them unable to make any isk at all.
If solo and small gang players want more PVP, removing local intel is the last thing they'll want.
-áMy (mostly boring) Youtube channel. |
PantrashMoFo
Bruggen Raiders
18
|
Posted - 2013.06.18 06:15:00 -
[70] - Quote
If they did remove local, I would hope that they would make the d-scan inoperative while cloaked and also the scanning operation of probes. Seems a bit odd that my cloaked ship can either receive signals given off by other ships or returns from my own pulses but yet not show up on others.
Would be more balanced if when you couldn't see me, i cant look for you. If i do want to look for you then i am going to show on your d-scan for the 10 seconds i am decloaked for. |
|
|
Kamden Line
Sovereign Citizen and other Tax Evasion Schemes
162
|
Posted - 2013.06.18 06:20:00 -
[71] - Quote
Let's sum up this ******* thread because I see this all the time:
"Let's get rid of local! Option A. Completely remove. Option B. Some sort of stupid cloaking mechanic!"
Option A: Endless ganking.
Option B: Endless Ganking.
Whooo! We've fixed local! Not only do the ~gudfites~ that were the whole point of removing local in the first place not materalize, but people who are already risk-averse, become more risk-averse. Local is only a problem when pilots are so bad that they think of neutrals as a deterrent and not an opportunity, and is only an obstacle when you don't understand how to properly tackle.
therefore, stop making these threads because this chicken has been banged so many times that it's starting to resemble the dead horse that these threads beat into dust. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
3705
|
Posted - 2013.06.18 06:41:00 -
[72] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Cyprus Black wrote:Can you distinguish between a cloaked player gathering intel from a player who's afk? Sure. If he moves, he's not AFK.
I actually have my ship moving when afking.
I am a nullsec zealot. |
Kirkwood Ross
Golden Profession
34
|
Posted - 2013.06.18 07:33:00 -
[73] - Quote
Afk cloaking and just cloaking in general is very one-side and great when you're the one doing it. |
Complex Potential
Blackstar Privateer Consortium
Enigma Project
265
|
Posted - 2013.06.18 07:47:00 -
[74] - Quote
WH space has the right balance IMHO. Removing local would only be balanced if hot dropping and Titan bridging were also removed (just like WH space). The only major difference then between WHs and null would be static jump gates but sitting a scout alt cloaked on a gate isn't exactly hard.
Local, hot drops and Titan bridging are poison to this game which is why I stay in W space. |
Oxandrolone
Bite Me inc
Bitten.
189
|
Posted - 2013.06.18 08:42:00 -
[75] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Local is a problem because people treat it as an intel tool and get horribly upset when its otherwise 100% accurate information does not translate into 100% certain intel, and then get horribly scared by the uncertainty this creates.
this is a ******* excellent post |
Carlito Grey
Not Entirely A Cat With A Sword
Nomads.
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.18 11:59:00 -
[76] - Quote
I think the first post gives some interesting ideas. I don't mind local, I use it for intel, as someone whose a noobie, it's a godsend.
I like the idea that local is a comms hub, supporting the market, station locations etc. So why not introduce a new type of cloak which hides you from local... but you lose the comms hub. No planet, station locations etc, and you can only warp to what you can find with probes. No market or other comms either, literally a silent running mode.
Having a new type of cloaks adds the option of having that cloak being able to be tracked down with probes, or even by larger industrial ships etc.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
10186
|
Posted - 2013.06.18 12:07:00 -
[77] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:I'm sure all these people ratting in nullsec are still going to rat in nullsec just to be your easy prey when local is removed. There's no way they'd move to other areas of the game where they wouldn't have to put up with bullshit mechanics that make it impossible to prevent or defend themselves against attacks that render them unable to make any isk at all.
Like W-space?
OK, that was a cheap shot, but it makes the point that local isn't essential to being able to make ISK.
The reason instant local needs to go isn't because it's an intel tool, but because it's a horrible intel tool
(1) The interface is horrible: an unsorted, unflitered vertical list?
(2) It's completely uninteractive and unintuitive
(3) It's ugly and anti-immersive
(4) It gobbles far too much screen space
(5) It provides the wrong kind of intel (who is in system, rather than what is in system
(6) It makes every system feel the same
(7) It makes EVE space feel small. And flat.
We do need a real time intel tool, but local isn't that tool. It's just what we're stuck with until we can get CCP to make something better that will actually add to gameplay instead of replacing it.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Ramona McCandless
Standards and Practices
Petition Blizzard
376
|
Posted - 2013.06.18 12:18:00 -
[78] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:I'm sure all these people ratting in nullsec are still going to rat in nullsec just to be your easy prey when local is removed. There's no way they'd move to other areas of the game where they wouldn't have to put up with bullshit mechanics that make it impossible to prevent or defend themselves against attacks that render them unable to make any isk at all.
Like W-space? OK, that was a cheap shot, but it makes the point that local isn't essential to being able to make ISK. The reason instant local needs to go isn't because it's an intel tool, but because it's a horrible intel tool (1) The interface is horrible: an unsorted, unflitered vertical list? (2) It's completely uninteractive and unintuitive (3) It's ugly and anti-immersive (4) It gobbles far too much screen space (5) It provides the wrong kind of intel ( who is in system, rather than what is in system (6) It makes every system feel the same (7) It makes EVE space feel small. And flat. We do need a real time intel tool, but local isn't that tool. It's just what we're stuck with until we can get CCP to make something better that will actually add to gameplay instead of replacing it.
You know, I was about to converse (at best) or argue (at worst) about it but then something a friend of mine said
Local is a chatroom, EvE is a game in that chatroom
No Sci Fi background I have ever heard of is based on the concept of a chatroom
Edit: Except The Matrix and it sucks
Tell The Others |
Riot Girl
Thundercats
The Initiative.
1102
|
Posted - 2013.06.18 12:19:00 -
[79] - Quote
Remove local, introduce auto-D-Scan with results displayed on the hud like the system scan when entering a system.
Oh god. |
Xen Solarus
Inner 5phere
438
|
Posted - 2013.06.18 12:22:00 -
[80] - Quote
In my opinion, local should only show in system players in highsec. Everywhere else, it shouldn't work. The wormhole community has adapted to it well enough, and i personally think it would be a good thing for PvP everywhere.
Dunno if we'd ever see that happen though! 
Post with your main, like a BOSS! |
|
|
Gaidin Hollow
State War Academy
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.18 12:34:00 -
[81] - Quote
Honestly can you complain about something they themselves use. I can see local being took away from NULL and the economy would collapse, because we couldn't keep up with the fall out. PvP is an option and there should always be smart way to avoid conflict just like in real life. Just scan 360 like in worm hole space, but I guess you'll have them take that away so you can gank as many miners as you like
 I tell you what, lets have a party at the POS(nullbase), why do it in the mining field. A bit different when you have turrets fire back at you.
 I love the tears of would be gankers. Oh local is over powering blah blah blah. |
Carthas Onasi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2013.06.18 13:03:00 -
[82] - Quote
I posted this in another thread last night by accident thinking i had posted it here:-
To me this all seems to boil down to people wanting to "PVP" against people that have no desire to fight.
It almost seems the same as the whole "wardec argument".
If people scurry away and dock its because they have no desire to PVP with you... Removing peoples ability to make the choice is not a solution.
If you want to PVP then why don't you go looking for someone who actually wants to participate?
All i see here is -
"Miners always see me coming in my pvp ship and run away"
"When our pvp FLEET warps in; all of the solo pvpers and small gangs run away"
That's just being sensible... Its been hammered into me to "pick my fights" since I started playing yet when people choose not to fight because the odds are stacked against them the aggressor always cries about it. |
Ramona McCandless
Standards and Practices
Petition Blizzard
378
|
Posted - 2013.06.18 13:05:00 -
[83] - Quote
Carthas Onasi wrote:I posted this in another thread last night by accident thinking i had posted it here:-
To me this all seems to boil down to people wanting to "PVP" against people that have no desire to fight.
It almost seems the same as the whole "wardec argument".
If people scurry away and dock its because they have no desire to PVP with you... Removing peoples ability to make the choice is not a solution.
If you want to PVP then why don't you go looking for someone who actually wants to participate?
All i see here is -
"Miners always see me coming in my pvp ship and run away"
"When our pvp FLEET warps in; all of the solo pvpers and small gangs run away"
That's just being sensible... Its been hammered into me to "pick my fights" since I started playing yet when people choose not to fight because the odds are stacked against them the aggressor always cries about it.
The issue is that many believe it makes non-consentual pvp impossible
"suprise-PVP" if you will
Tell The Others |
Ramona McCandless
Standards and Practices
Petition Blizzard
378
|
Posted - 2013.06.18 13:13:00 -
[84] - Quote
Also
If AFK cloak ruins your life
What about non-productive Cyno lighting?
Tossing a flare down a rabbit warren?
Tell The Others |
Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
14976
|
Posted - 2013.06.18 13:23:00 -
[85] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Issue is you have a place where you don't show up in local. Your problem has already been fixed. Not going into wormhole space to experience your no local PVP leads me to believe you want free big ganks in my opinion.
Also I don't want combat probes to be able to uncloak an active player. One of the primary goals of my proposed system was to not punish those who are active at their clients while cloaked. It was that discussion that I confirmed my suspicion that going AFK while cloaked is just as effective and used in wormholes as it is anywhere else. Shooting down that argument that "I afk cloak to defeat local" What utter rubbish. Your idea was bad, as is your take on the mechanics at work and why AFKing evolved into what it is today. Your idea thread simply dead the death it deserved and was shown to affect active players as much as those AFK.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
1402
|
Posted - 2013.06.18 13:45:00 -
[86] - Quote
Carthas Onasi wrote:I posted this in another thread last night by accident thinking i had posted it here:-
To me this all seems to boil down to people wanting to "PVP" against people that have no desire to fight.
It almost seems the same as the whole "wardec argument".
If people scurry away and dock its because they have no desire to PVP with you... Removing peoples ability to make the choice is not a solution.
If you want to PVP then why don't you go looking for someone who actually wants to participate?
All i see here is -
"Miners always see me coming in my pvp ship and run away"
"When our pvp FLEET warps in; all of the solo pvpers and small gangs run away"
That's just being sensible... Its been hammered into me to "pick my fights" since I started playing yet when people choose not to fight because the odds are stacked against them the aggressor always cries about it.
I don't want to remove anyones choices or options, I simply want the mechanics which enable them to make those choices to not be braindead the way local is. Giving instant, infallible intel for zero cost and effort is dumb. It just needs tweaking, either so it's not quite as accurate and absolute, or so it requires a bit more input and effort from the people who want the benefits it gives.
As for the whole argument about looking for people who want to pvp, that is an argument that is so far beyond dumb you should just biomass yourself right now. The entire nature of the game is competitive play, making it consensual will destroy the economy, the politics, everything about this game. We're all part of a large system, we cannot remove ourselves from one or two aspects of it we do not like. We can remove ourselves from it entirely (biomass and unsub) but thats it. Hope this helps. |
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
1403
|
Posted - 2013.06.18 14:05:00 -
[87] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Issue is you have a place where you don't show up in local. Your problem has already been fixed. Not going into wormhole space to experience your no local PVP leads me to believe you want free big ganks in my opinion.
Also I don't want combat probes to be able to uncloak an active player. One of the primary goals of my proposed system was to not punish those who are active at their clients while cloaked. It was that discussion that I confirmed my suspicion that going AFK while cloaked is just as effective and used in wormholes as it is anywhere else. Shooting down that argument that "I afk cloak to defeat local"
CCP won't comment about cloaking other than merging topics and saying "It is not an exploit" I would honestly rather them come out and say where they stand on this. Even if it is not in my favor as someone who believes the current cloaking abilities encourage one to be away from the client for long periods of time.
Have you actually lived in wormhole space? How did you determine that "Afk cloaking" is effective in wormhole space? As someone who has spent a good two years in wormholes I can tell you it simply isn't.
As I've said in other threads, discussing the "AFK" aspect of this is utterly dishonest in any case. The reason you, and so many other people, want something done about "AFK cloakers" is so you can know with absolute certainty if the person in local with you is active. You want the advantage of knowing if they're active or not. That's it. Every suggestion ever made nerfs cloakers in this way: by providing everyone more intel on their activity levels, with no balance at all.
And that is before you consider how the vast majority of suggestions, on top of that extra, unnecessary, unearned intel, also want to further gimp cloakers somehow, whether it's the ability to find them or forcing them to jump through hoops - refueling, bouncing around system, minigames, etc - to remain hidden or whatever else.
This isn't an issue about afk players OR cloaked players, this is an issue about certain people wanting to remove all uncertainty, to have perfect, complete knowledge so they can make the absolute right decision every time unfailingly. None of you have the stones to admit that this is what it's about though. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation
RAZOR Alliance
5596
|
Posted - 2013.06.18 14:33:00 -
[88] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:I'm sure all these people ratting in nullsec are still going to rat in nullsec just to be your easy prey when local is removed. There's no way they'd move to other areas of the game where they wouldn't have to put up with bullshit mechanics that make it impossible to prevent or defend themselves against attacks that render them unable to make any isk at all.
Like W-space? OK, that was a cheap shot, but it makes the point that local isn't essential to being able to make ISK. The reason instant local needs to go isn't because it's an intel tool, but because it's a horrible intel tool (1) The interface is horrible: an unsorted, unflitered vertical list? (2) It's completely uninteractive and unintuitive (3) It's ugly and anti-immersive (4) It gobbles far too much screen space (5) It provides the wrong kind of intel ( who is in system, rather than what is in system (6) It makes every system feel the same (7) It makes EVE space feel small. And flat. We do need a real time intel tool, but local isn't that tool. It's just what we're stuck with until we can get CCP to make something better that will actually add to gameplay instead of replacing it.
So you basically went on a rant about the UI aspects, despite this being completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
The discussion had nothing to do with whether or not local was a good means of providing that intel, it was simply about whether the intel should be there in the first place.
1-4 is about that aspect, your UI concerns. Well, great, whatever.
5: No, you're wrong. Who is in system is more immediately important than what is in system, and we already have a few tools available to us that tell us what is in system and where it is.
6: Every system pretty much IS this same. Your issue here isn't with local.
7: This one doesn't even make sense, but it seems to be the catch-all argument people seem to use against mechanics they don't like nowadays.
-áMy (mostly boring) Youtube channel. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation
RAZOR Alliance
5596
|
Posted - 2013.06.18 14:35:00 -
[89] - Quote
Ramona McCandless wrote:The issue is that many believe it makes non-consentual pvp impossible
They're entirely wrong about that.
-áMy (mostly boring) Youtube channel. |
Ramona McCandless
Standards and Practices
Petition Blizzard
385
|
Posted - 2013.06.18 14:37:00 -
[90] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Ramona McCandless wrote:The issue is that many believe it makes non-consentual pvp impossible They're entirely wrong about that.
I agree
But just explaining why people think that local is bad
Personally, I thought one of the EvE mantras was "evolve or die"
Taking away local entirely is like changing the rules of the world so that you dont have to evolve to include it in your plans
Tell The Others |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |