| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Elfaen Ethenwe
   |
Posted - 2006.01.12 10:22:00 -
[31]
Why change local ?
and 1 au scan range is so useless as to be a joke.
Even keeping the scanner range as it is and removing local would mean you could keep hundreds of players of scan to gank people.
Also your idea would allow you to keep fleets of battleships etc cloaked and they not show up or be detectable at all.
Some other issues with your idea....
empire space. You are flying around hunting war targets. You enter system and you have taken the time to add your targets to the buddies list.] so you see a couple of war targets in local. You then go hunting for them. Without local you would have to spend hours scannign the system to see if a war target is there. In that time they could of left and come back dozens of times.
Also no local is just a license to mine crok or npc without risk. At the mo you are visible in local and the pirates / war targets / gankers / enemies etc can go hunt the belts for you. Your way would again require hours of scanning to check if someone is there.
The game is too large for your system to work
I am part of a dedicated PvP corp and suprise an tactics does exist in the game. Yes you can be seen by alts at safespots etc, but all they are is the equiv of sensor probes.
|
Rells
|
Posted - 2006.01.12 11:50:00 -
[32]
 Originally by: El**** Ethenwe
Why change local ?
Because even Oveur agrees it sucks.
Originally by: El**** Ethenwe
and 1 au scan range is so useless as to be a joke.
The actual numbers are up for debate and can be tinkered with.
Originally by: El**** Ethenwe
Even keeping the scanner range as it is and removing local would mean you could keep hundreds of players of scan to gank people.
I dont understand this comment at all. Are you saying it would be easy to gank people? If so, that contradicts your next scenario. Yes, you will have to be careful if flying in dangerous space. You will have to decide between flying direct to that gate or flying to within 1 au of that gate and scanning it first.
Originally by: El**** Ethenwe
Also your idea would allow you to keep fleets of battleships etc cloaked and they not show up or be detectable at all.
That is true. However, they wouldnt be able to warp and they suffer significant sensor delay after uncloaking. Cloaking a fleet of battleships might have tactical advantages but you could hardly use it to gank the chance passerby.
Originally by: El**** Ethenwe
Some other issues with your idea....
empire space. You are flying around hunting war targets. You enter system and you have taken the time to add your targets to the buddies list.] so you see a couple of war targets in local. You then go hunting for them. Without local you would have to spend hours scannign the system to see if a war target is there. In that time they could of left and come back dozens of times.
Go look for them where? Local doesnt tell you where they are at; it only tells you they are in the same system. They very well might jump out of the system before you are done flying to all the belts. All local does is give them the chance to safespot and log or jump away before you can do anything. In my system it would be much easier to locate a ship WITHIN a system given a good recon pilot with high skills. Additionally when you find that pilot he will be bloody surprised to see you, not simply have logged off in his hauler.
Originally by: El**** Ethenwe
Also no local is just a license to mine crok or npc without risk. At the mo you are visible in local and the pirates / war targets / gankers / enemies etc can go hunt the belts for you. Your way would again require hours of scanning to check if someone is there.
The only people that get killed by pvp in 0.0 while mining are either stupid or reckless. All you have to do is safespot whenever a hostile jumps in. It takes no brains or effort or teamwork.
Originally by: El**** Ethenwe
The game is too large for your system to work
I am part of a dedicated PvP corp and suprise an tactics does exist in the game. Yes you can be seen by alts at safespots etc, but all they are is the equiv of sensor probes.
What surprise? I tell you what we get as members of F-E. We get fleet battles where most of the time the fleets barely engage and the only thing that pops is the tacklers. We get fleets that mass log off when the main body of our fleet outnumbers them. We get people that are lazy and stupid in 0.0. There is no surprise in 0.0 if you are intelligent.
◄ Devs, it's time to finally nerf local: Replacing Local with a practical alternative. |
Fallout2man
|
Posted - 2006.01.12 12:51:00 -
[33]
This is a good idea, but perhaps needs expanding a bit, someone else mentioned active/passive scanners. Why not add a few more less costly "stealth devices" that can be fitted to ships to reduce the chances of being detected as well as various types of scanners that can be active, passive or toggleable to either, this would add a bit more advantage to the hunted, as they could equip a few sensor dampening modules to reduce changes of detection and say, switch scanners to passive if an enemy enters in system, then try to hide somehere.
Ship/pod killing stats, or any extra system stats, should not be readily available to players, perhaps passively in the form of the "avoid pod killing zones" option, though realistically even that's a stretch. Gate traffic maybe could be available if someone could successfully hack a gate (new skill perhaps), which could say, involve failure meaning that it set off a system alert or some sort of odd automated defenses.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.01.12 13:36:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 12/01/2006 13:36:32
Originally by: Rells
Originally by: El**** Ethenwe
Why change local ?
Because even Oveur agrees it sucks.
No, he said it was not intended to be used in the way it has. There is a world of difference and your take on it is flat-out lying on your part.
You are STILL trying to take it as agreed that everyone thinks a change is needed.
Warning: above post may contain traces of sarcasm.
"Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted." |
Sanaen Eydanwadh
|
Posted - 2006.01.12 13:53:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Sanaen Eydanwadh on 12/01/2006 13:56:51
I'm still unsure about removing local chatt (or appearing in it only if you speak or at constellation-scale etc), but interesting propositions nonetheless. Just 2 quick points:
" not the ability to pull ambushes, circle around attacks and so on because all the enemy need is a one day old alt character in a safespot in local to inform the enemy "
(feel to tired to "quote" properly, I'll do it j0-style)
easier solution: ban alts 
Or nerf em to hell, I don't know, send electrical flashs through the keyboard when someone is using an alt, make all his characters lose 1 skillpoint/second, anything
"Strategic Recon Skill. This skill increases the default range of the scanner (in 360degree mode) by a factor of two for each level of skill. "
hell yes, some more possibilities about the scanner are definately needed. How come all ship's scanners have the same possibilities? With some skills, modules, and most important some special ships (recons ofc, maybe coverts and/or carriers?), one should be able to scan farther and to get more accurate informations. Ie, sort scanned objects even offgrid through their relative distance to the scanner - or (why not) more sophisticated things, like their distance to the nearest stellar object?
Edit- ah your numbers about the scanner seem really extreme though. If it had to be a skill, I'd see something like +20% scan range per level, at max? Anyway, a skill that about every pvper would raise at 3-4 seem always a little dumb to me...
|
Fallout2man
|
Posted - 2006.01.12 14:14:00 -
[36]
Banning alts or nerfing them worse than they already have been would be the "quick and easy" solution that hardly addresses the problem at hand at all.
Alts are already totally useless since you can only train one skill per account at a time, the point of an alt was to allow people to experiment with different play styles to see which fit them best, as-is the reason they're probably only used for spying is realistically that's all they're good for. I mean, why invest in an alt when you'd get farther if you kept training your main?
Though the solution is far from practical in the demands it'd entail, it does offer a GOOD solution to the problem. The game needs to allow people to truly be stealthy.
|
Serendipity007
|
Posted - 2006.01.13 15:53:00 -
[37]
/Agree
Perhaps you could just nerf local; IE only have people show up in the list if they speak in local. Minimal change, minimal coding.
Also, if you want to change maps, you should keep the "corp/gang currently in space" and keep someway of keeping track of friendlies in a region. That way it's easier to coordinate the needed search parties to find ninja miners and such.
|
Kisaku
|
Posted - 2006.01.13 23:34:00 -
[38]
I agree with this. Local is so dang easy to have an entire mining operation clear out when someone warps in. But instead of being mostly skill based it should be module based making a recon build. The skills would just further the usefullness of the modules.
One should have to sacrifice their slots to be able to recon well.
|
Rells
|
Posted - 2006.01.15 21:36:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Serendipity007
/Agree
Perhaps you could just nerf local; IE only have people show up in the list if they speak in local. Minimal change, minimal coding.
Also, if you want to change maps, you should keep the "corp/gang currently in space" and keep someway of keeping track of friendlies in a region. That way it's easier to coordinate the needed search parties to find ninja miners and such.
Space is big. You shouldnt need big arrows telling you to go shoot people there. If you cant patrol it all then you have claimed too much.
◄ Devs, it's time to finally nerf local: Replacing Local with a practical alternative. |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.01.16 00:01:00 -
[40]
Or you can jump camp the way in 23/7, and push your borders foward to chokepoints, because if you pull in too much your PvPers will get bored and tear your alliance apart in 2 weeks.
Your eve history lessons are lacking, Rells.
Warning: above post may contain traces of sarcasm.
"Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted." |
Starbuck
|
Posted - 2006.01.16 00:46:00 -
[41]
I kinda like the idea nad I kinda dont. I suppose the only thing I would like to see is some sort of Early warning system that alliances can anchor near jump gates that would give reports on who is jumping into your space. Maybe even set up a detection grid your fleets can access to get intel from.
---------------------------------------------------
Have Rail's. Will travel.
|
Rells
|
Posted - 2006.01.16 09:25:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Or you can jump camp the way in 23/7, and push your borders foward to chokepoints, because if you pull in too much your PvPers will get bored and tear your alliance apart in 2 weeks.
Your eve history lessons are lacking, Rells.
You are always predicting the destruction of the world if people dont follow your specific advice. You remind me of Elida in the Wheel of Time books.
People will adapt and the game will adapt ot fill any created holes. Things like sensor grids deployable in internal space are just one of many ideas.
◄ Devs, it's time to finally nerf local: Replacing Local with a practical alternative. |
Cookiecutter
|
Posted - 2006.01.16 13:17:00 -
[43]
keep local but just change it so it only shows people who did break radio silence - its only a matter of deleting the "show all" button on the chat window
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.01.16 13:39:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Rells
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Or you can jump camp the way in 23/7, and push your borders foward to chokepoints, because if you pull in too much your PvPers will get bored and tear your alliance apart in 2 weeks.
Your eve history lessons are lacking, Rells.
You are always predicting the destruction of the world if people dont follow your specific advice. You remind me of Elida in the Wheel of Time books.
People will adapt and the game will adapt ot fill any created holes. Things like sensor grids deployable in internal space are just one of many ideas.
Then post the ideas, congruent with the idea to remove local.
The times I've been "wrong" in a prediction - quite a few times - are when CCP have pulled the amazing "oh hey, we didn't tell you about half the idea".
Some of us predicted Exodus's reverse effect, and I for one DON'T want that to happen again.
People will adapt to *changes*
Wholesale removal of functionality is not a change, and it will get rid of players in droves.
Warning: above post may contain traces of sarcasm.
"Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted." |
Rells
|
Posted - 2006.01.17 22:54:00 -
[45]
Maya: I have given up talking to you. I decided that debating with the tree outside would be more productive.
◄ Devs, it's time to finally nerf local: Replacing Local with a practical alternative. |
Resin Kadir
|
Posted - 2006.01.18 02:12:00 -
[46]
signed
All I can say is local should be romoved unless a dope is broadcasting in it. Region is optional and so is constellation. Why no local. And all player information should be removed from 0.0/Non-empire.
_________________________________________
Shoot Squelch first, it was his idea! |
Resin Kadir
|
Posted - 2006.01.18 02:15:00 -
[47]
Originally by: El**** Ethenwe
Why change local ?
and 1 au scan range is so useless as to be a joke.
Even keeping the scanner range as it is and removing local would mean you could keep hundreds of players of scan to gank people.
Also your idea would allow you to keep fleets of battleships etc cloaked and they not show up or be detectable at all.
Some other issues with your idea....
empire space. You are flying around hunting war targets. You enter system and you have taken the time to add your targets to the buddies list.] so you see a couple of war targets in local. You then go hunting for them. Without local you would have to spend hours scannign the system to see if a war target is there. In that time they could of left and come back dozens of times.
Also no local is just a license to mine crok or npc without risk. At the mo you are visible in local and the pirates / war targets / gankers / enemies etc can go hunt the belts for you. Your way would again require hours of scanning to check if someone is there.
The game is too large for your system to work
I am part of a dedicated PvP corp and suprise an tactics does exist in the game. Yes you can be seen by alts at safespots etc, but all they are is the equiv of sensor probes.
By the way, all the above is why non-empire people want this implemented. It allows us the TRUE freedom to guard our territories and the secrecy to travel where we want without warnings reaching ahead. It means alliance that own territory need to be more vigilant and actual MAINTAIN thier space rather than just inhabit it. To me it would help strengthen teamwork and coheisiveness.
_________________________________________
Shoot Squelch first, it was his idea! |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2006.01.18 04:30:00 -
[48]
Edited by: j0sephine on 18/01/2006 04:30:47
"It allows us the TRUE freedom to guard our territories and the secrecy to travel where we want without warnings reaching ahead."
So, just how exactly do you picture someone "guarding their territory" from "people traveling in secrecy where they want, without the warnings reaching ahead"? Since you state both are possible at once, i'd like to know what is your idea for combining together these two, completely opposite, activities... as far as game mechanics go.
"It means alliance that own territory need to be more vigilant and actual MAINTAIN thier space rather than just inhabit it. To me it would help strengthen teamwork and coheisiveness."
That's just marketspeak -- long sentences creating impression of content, without actually delivering any. What sort of vigilance do you have on mind, what's the difference between maintaining space and inhabiting it, in what way would teamwork be strengthened, and what sort of cohesiveness are you speaking of?
|
Rells
|
Posted - 2006.01.18 21:18:00 -
[49]
Do make up your mind j0. First you say that it will make gankage too easy and then you say that it will be too hard to find people. Decide which it is.
◄ Devs, it's time to finally nerf local: Replacing Local with a practical alternative. |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2006.01.19 01:07:00 -
[50]
Edited by: j0sephine on 19/01/2006 01:09:46
"Do make up your mind j0. First you say that it will make gankage too easy and then you say that it will be too hard to find people. Decide which it is."
Please note, my last reply was made to Resin's comment... and i don't actually draw any sort of my own conclusions in there, but merely ask him how specifically he arrived to what appears to be clashing outcomes, and how exactly does he imagine things could work to these conflicting effects.
Meaning, it's not me who says "it'll be hard to find people" here, that's something Resin said. I figure he derives it from his suggestion made one post earlier:
"And all player information should be removed from 0.0/Non-empire."
... and i'd like to hear from him, how he figures this end-effect is going to allow people "true freedom to guard their territories" (when these that one would want to guard from are at the same time expected to have ability to move undetected) ... which is again, something he states as outcome of such system. Simple as that ^^
|
Godlesswanderer
|
Posted - 2006.02.09 16:21:00 -
[51]
/signed, double signed, stamped and sewn into my shirt.
-------------------------
I Make Sigs |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.02.09 17:10:00 -
[52]
Necro more?
I'd like to pod you for that.
Digital Communist> The Jin-Mei are probably more profficient in training for Tofu and Noodles than Spaceship Command |
Tavor Jeager
|
Posted - 2006.02.09 21:49:00 -
[53]
I think that you should not appere in local unless you are using it, the rest of it i don't know.
A passive and active scanning idea i find interesting, perhaps haveing passive scan beeing like the scanner is now but only giving the type of ship frigate, cruiser etc, or possibly even just the size of the ship whilst active scanners would be able to tell you the model, name and pilot but would be detected by those in system, possibly reveling who you are or just that someone is activly scanning the area.
|
NattyDreadlock
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 09:42:00 -
[54]
I like the idea. I do think that focused scans(scan angles 15 or 30 degrees and less should be detectable by others. Of course they cant use it to identify or warp to the person doing the focused scan, but it should alert others who are scanning that there is someone else out there looking around too...you just cant focus that much energy without alerting those within range.
_____________________________
You hit "insert pirate" with a frozen turd right in the eye from your 150mm railgun for 0.0 damage. |
Boda Khan
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 13:18:00 -
[55]
Originally by: NattyDreadlock
I like the idea. I do think that focused scans(scan angles 15 or 30 degrees and less should be detectable by others. Of course they cant use it to identify or warp to the person doing the focused scan, but it should alert others who are scanning that there is someone else out there looking around too...you just cant focus that much energy without alerting those within range.
How about passive probes that can be dropped which detect and report other scans performed within their sensitivity radius/sphere, along with their origin..? ;)
Not appearing in local unless you speak sounds like a great idea to me BTW. Cloaking bubbles also seconded. :)
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 13:51:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 10/02/2006 13:53:14
Yea, because people need to know the moment someone starts lookign for them with no idea they're arround!
At least local means the attacker has SOME idea there are actually people to find before wasting probes. You'd force ALL PvP to stargates on economic grounds.
Oh, and let's not forget the fact that you now can get nice detailed information of where the enemy scout trying to get his people through unsafe space is! Woo!
Digital Communist> The Jin-Mei are probably more profficient in training for Tofu and Noodles than Spaceship Command |
Zarch AlDain
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 13:52:00 -
[57]
I think the original idea wasn't bad at all, reasonably well thought out and presented.
There is a good question being asked as to whether the change is needed though.
I have mixed feelings on it myself, but think the suggestion here is the best I have seen so far.
--
Zarch AlDain
The Bridgeburners
Huzzah Federation
|
Rells
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 18:12:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Zarch AlDain
I think the original idea wasn't bad at all, reasonably well thought out and presented.
There is a good question being asked as to whether the change is needed though.
I have mixed feelings on it myself, but think the suggestion here is the best I have seen so far.
Thanks for the vote of confidence. Id love this to make Kali.
-- Rells
◄ Replacing Local with a practical alternative.
|
NattyDreadlock
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 23:27:00 -
[59]
people would use scanners more often, but that also means all the discarded ships in systems need to be detsroyed over time. Nothing worse then seeing 4 frigates on system scanner and not a pod in them.
_____________________________
You hit "insert pirate" with a frozen turd right in the eye from your 150mm railgun for 0.0 damage. |
Agillious
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 23:46:00 -
[60]
Bah. I'm seeing the gulf between Empire and Non-Empire players growing and growing.
The issue I take with removing Local is the effect this will have on trading and socialization in the Empire systems. Most of the arguments that I have read so far deal only with why removing local will somehow enhance play outside of Empire space. I see aggressive motivations behind it all, and I can imagine that the miners and haulers out there aren't so inclined to embrace this proposal on the surface.
To toss my 2cents in regarding options, if you really, really feel that local needs to be "nerfed" somehow, why not have covert ops players show in local, but not identified. Instead of their name, have just a generic "Player" in the list of players in system. Have that label change if the person uses any form of chat while in system.
The other idea would be to hide players from Local when they enter system, but add them to local either when their cloak drops, or they break radio silence. Cloaking players may then re-disappear from Local should they re-cloak.
Just some thoughts tossed into the ring.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |