EVE Search - Do we need "Local" in 0.0 space?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Do we need "Local" in 0.0 space?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
ChironV Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.17 14:02:00 - [1] Majority of what I have seen is local in 0.0 being used primarily for smacktalk or epeen stroking. Is it necessary... You have your corp channels, gang channels, squad channels, Teamspeak or Vent.... It also seems unfair as an intelligence gathering tool. Hop in a system and instantly know who is skulking about. Seems that there should be more work involved in finding out who is invading or snooping around. Perhaps IFF probes which can evemail you with results of ships passing by. ________________________________________________ It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion,
Kaeten Hybrid Syndicate	Posted - 2006.07.17 14:04:00 - [2] tbh i think local works abit more to the ppl who don't to fight advantage... High-Sec Piracy Recruitment
Tachy	Posted - 2006.07.17 14:06:00 - [3] How many scans do you do while mining for hours, or while you're in a complex, or in a mission? and I think we got enough threads about this already. (And the devs stated they're thinking up something about BM and local ...) --==*-- Even with nougat, you can have a perfect moment.
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.17 14:06:00 - [4] Edited by: Jim McGregor on 17/07/2006 14:10:04 Travelling in 0.0 would be very dangerous without any info on what people are currently in the system. Sure there is the map, but its not updated very often. And you would have to scan every gate even in systems that are really empty. Also, if you enter a system and looking for people to fight... you would have to scan every belt etc. Traps would be very easy too. Just have 5 people at a safespot and one guy in a belt. --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
PVP'er	Posted - 2006.07.17 14:08:00 - [5] You remove local and expect to see alot of people leave this game in my opinion, since u are likely to get killed alot more often.
hired goon Euphoria Released Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.07.17 14:10:00 - [6] It has already been said that local should be removed, but will not be, because of massive damage to subscriber numbers. -omg-
Valan	Posted - 2006.07.17 14:12:00 - [7] Edited by: Valan on 17/07/2006 14:14:03 Without a usable alternative to scanning exactly what was in local, blobs would be the way to go. You wouldn't be able to see them so everyone would blob in the hope they would out blob the other unseen blob that may suddenly appear. I would like to see it, it would make infiltrating alliance space really easy. You wouldn't be able to hold territory without having a scout permanently on the gate. WANTED: Gate Warden No previous experience required, all you need is two eyes and a second screen to surf the net. Extreme patience required. Long hours with no reward with a serious risk of being ganked at any second.
Dark Shikari Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.17 14:22:00 - [8] This won't happen for the same reason chance-based scrambling won't happen: neither side likes it. The small corps and soloers don't want it because it means they won't be able to see who's in local after them. The big alliances don't want it because it means they won't be able to see who's sneaking around their system. --Proud member of the [23]-- -WTS Heavy Electron II, 100mn AB II, Medium Warp Bubbles-
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.07.17 14:24:00 - [9] Need? Not strictly. But if you were to remove local, you would also need to change some other things to keep it equitable. I assume removing local would be to make it more realistic. Ok, what other things would be realistic then? 1. Destroying gates should be possible. If there is a gate there I don't want to have, I should be able to destroy it. 2. Ships shouldnt disappear when logged out. Also unrealistic. Actually, these are even be more unrealistic than local for the most part. I could imagine a system where the gates would keep track of anyone who entered and left the system through any of the gates, and give out this information to anyone in system. So local could have a logical explanation beyond gameplay reasons (except perhaps for capital pilots, maybe they shouldn't be visible. But why we can't destroy gates, or why ships disappear from space when logged out has no possible ingame explanation.
Kata Dakini	Posted - 2006.07.17 14:25:00 - [10] Originally by: Dark Shikari This won't happen for the same reason chance-based scrambling won't happen: neither side likes it. The small corps and soloers don't want it because it means they won't be able to see who's in local after them. The big alliances don't want it because it means they won't be able to see who's sneaking around their system. ...and worst of all, the nano bots that build that windowbox for everyone to read won't like it because they'll be out of job. ___ "And I don't feel any more guilty about liking baseball more than soccer than I do about not using the metric system or speaking Italian or owning an ABBA album." -Jim Caple
Avon Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.17 14:29:00 - [11] Local should show the amount of people in system, but only display info on people who actually 'talk' in it. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Nox Solaris	Posted - 2006.07.17 14:30:00 - [12] In a word: Yes. Otherwise 0.0 would just be a great big huge empty void even with 60 in local. To up that: Local should have all of the settings that your overview does.
fairimear Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.17 14:31:00 - [13] local should have a 120 second delay on it.
Quarantine Federation of Synthetic Persons YouWhat	Posted - 2006.07.17 14:35:00 - [14] After some RMR patch, don't recall which exactly, it was possible to close the local window and thus disappear from local. Some GM ruled for whatever reasons that it wasn't an exploit, and guess what happened? One week of hundreds of people getting killed because they didn't know that, and one week of people not undocking because they had no idea whatsoever how many gankers where waiting for them in local to kill them. If local was to be removed, you'd have to replace it by some sort of radar (read, automatically refreshing scanner), otherwise it would be ridicolously hard to mine or hunt in 0.0.
Goberth Ludwig eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.07.17 14:35:00 - [15] Originally by: fairimear local should have a 120 second delay on it. word - Gob [IXC] Admiral Goberius
Roue GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2006.07.17 14:37:00 - [16] Can't remember who came up with this idea. Was it Joshua? Anywho BEST EVER FRICKING IDEA FOR THIS. Get rid of local chat entirely. Turn on Constellation. (already there since exodus) TADA!! Hunters: Would know if there is absolutely no one of interest in an area. The wouldn't know if those that are there are docked or not someplace. They would also get the advantage of their prey not stopping what they are doing immediately because the prey would never get anything done if they hid the moment a pirates was in their entire constellation, but they would be on alert of course. Prey: Would get nice advance warning of hostiles in the general area and could opt if they wanted to be very conservative to hide. Unless they chose to do stuff in a system bordering another constellation, which would be the new place to setup stuff. Making camping spots less frequent and more predictable. Overall you would get more information that is less precise. Allowing more options but less tactical advantage. Whoever's idea that was, it was great. It was one of the more popular E-Online posters.
Infinity Ziona The First Noble Truth	Posted - 2006.07.17 14:38:00 - [17] Originally by: Nox Solaris In a word: Yes. Otherwise 0.0 would just be a great big huge empty void even with 60 in local. To up that: Local should have all of the settings that your overview does. Well we certainly cant have 'great huge empty voids' in a space game!
Khajit Smitty Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.17 14:41:00 - [18] Originally by: fairimear local should have a 120 second delay on it. I support both arguments for nerfing local and keeping local... 1 side is it makes 0.0 more tactical, the other side is it makes 0.0 exceptionally harder.... Maybe a 180-300 second delay ? are you mature,easy going,strong willed and community orientated ?
Khajit Smitty Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.17 14:44:00 - [19] Originally by: Roue Get rid of local chat entirely. Turn on Constellation. (already there since exodus) I liked this idea aswell, remember reading it sometime back. are you mature,easy going,strong willed and community orientated ?
Noriath	Posted - 2006.07.17 14:54:00 - [20] I like local, because it would just be way too easy for atackers to kill their targets if there wasn't local. What i don't like about local is that it shows the people and their afiliation in the system, it would be a lot more interesting if instead there would be a little window that just showed numbers of ship types. Like it would say: 2 battleships 1 interceptor 1 interdictor 3 exhumers 2 industrials 1 carrier But it wouldn't tell you anything else, so you wouldn't know who they belong to or what race or ship they are, just the types. Local would still exist except it wouldn't show people untill they talk. That way you'd still have the advantage of getting a rough idea of what is going on in the system, but you can't tell if they are hostile or who they are untill you have a visual on the ships or they identify themselves in local. That shifts the idea of local from seeing hostiles but not knowing what they are in to seeing ships but not knowing if they are hostile.
Infinity Ziona The First Noble Truth	Posted - 2006.07.17 14:57:00 - [21] Any change to local should be global. If I spend two hours hunting someone in Empire then I deserve to have a chance at them. All that effort shouldnt be wasted because a bright green glowing alarm pops up even before I load into the system.
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.07.17 14:58:00 - [22] No, it becomes practically impossible to find anyone who is on the move if you can't even pinpoint the system he's in. Not a problem for a pirate looking for ganks, but a serious issue for people ratting or mining. Defending an area is already a pain in the ass with all the safespots, poor performance of probes and all the covert ops that can sit in a system for hours. Until defenders get some more ability to stop and/or find people, any change to the local channel is unwarranted.
LORD STEALTH	Posted - 2006.07.17 15:14:00 - [23] Originally by: Kaeten Edited by: Kaeten on 17/07/2006 14:06:12 tbh i think local works abit more to the advantage of ppl who don't to fight... /agree. Use your minimize button if you don't want to look at it.
Sergeant Spot	Posted - 2006.07.17 15:20:00 - [24] THE purpose of Local is to know who is in system with you. I'd be happy to replace it with a scanner screen that has the following features: --Self refreshes every second (so once I open it, I don't have to constantly click it every second) --Can be filtered item by item, to remove clutter (No, I am not talking about filtering out "shuttles", I'm talking about filtering out "individual" shuttles)
Valan	Posted - 2006.07.17 15:21:00 - [25] If there was a drastic improvement in the scanning capabilities of your ship then yes. So you can see people coming at you but you have activeley search for them. I have a problem with people mentioning realistic in a space game as an arguement for anything. Its made up, EVE does not really exist! I would settle for 'it would improve emmersion'.
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.07.17 15:21:00 - [26] Local benefits people - Who are chasing a target - Who are stationary in a system (ratting/mining) If you keep moving in a fast ship, just making 1 or 2 warps in system while scanning, you're not needing local too much. I.e. local is a defensive tool. Nerfing local will benefit fastmoving ganksquads since they can cover great distances unnoticed and without giving people warning as to their presence.
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.07.17 15:23:00 - [27] It would also improve immersion if I could blow up stargates, after all, nothing is invincible. Don't see that happening anytime soon...
Avon Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.17 15:25:00 - [28] Originally by: Malachon Draco I.e. local is a defensive tool. Nerfing local will benefit fastmoving ganksquads since they can cover great distances unnoticed and without giving people warning as to their presence. Riiiiight. And who are these gank-squads going to kill? They are just going to magically guess which system has people in it, if they are hostile, and their exact numbers? Removing local penalises both sides equally. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Sergeant Spot	Posted - 2006.07.17 15:38:00 - [29] Any replacement of local must be equal to, or better (must error towards better) for insuring enough warning for a person ratting or mining in a belt to warp out. It must also be equal to, or better, for "practical" use (scanner don't cut it on this point in its current form) Getting rid of Local does NOT penalize both sides equally, as its fairly easy to make a good guess of where to find players. I'm not impressed. Local has already been SEVERELY nerfed for defensive purposes. The delay on how fast it refreshes does not help defensive operations at all, but massively helps roving gangs. The only replacement I'd accept for local is one that would make the roving gangs cry even louder.
Avon Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.17 15:39:00 - [30] Originally by: Sergeant Spot Any replacement of local must be equal to, or better (must error towards better) for insuring enough warning for a person ratting or mining in a belt to warp out. Why? How would the roving gang know that they are there? The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.07.17 15:44:00 - [31] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Malachon Draco I.e. local is a defensive tool. Nerfing local will benefit fastmoving ganksquads since they can cover great distances unnoticed and without giving people warning as to their presence. Riiiiight. And who are these gank-squads going to kill? They are just going to magically guess which system has people in it, if they are hostile, and their exact numbers? Removing local penalises both sides equally. Well, even if I assume that the map feature which shows number of people in local is removed (which would of course happen as well), would it be that hard to guess where people are in 0.0? BoB space, let me guess. I look for systems with either a station in it, deep negative sec rating and/or high end minerals. Bingo, ratters, miners and haulers I bet. ASCN space, well, its terribly hard to guess maybe, but a safe bet would be that there are people in AZN, RIT, K-9 at almost all times of the day. Spend a few days in a covops in any region and I bet you can pinpoint all the hotspots where people are likely to be. All you need then is a gang of 2-3 vagabonds and maybe a covops and away you go. Jump in system, open scanner, jump to sun probably, scan belts wthin 15 AU of the sun, spread out if you see a target or warp to the next gate and check the next system. All of this undetected until you find a target which you blow to smithereens without a second of warning.
Valan	Posted - 2006.07.17 15:45:00 - [32] Thats the thing it creates a new profession, the 'scout'. Opposing forces take the scouts down and move accordingly. It makes for a very tactical game. Wouldn't it suit a force like BoB down to the ground? A large marauding military force, can't see it until its on top of you. Genghis Khan in space.
Locke DieDrake Port Royal Independent Kontractors Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.07.17 15:46:00 - [33] I have a sneaking hunch that when the new scanning changes come thru in Kali we might see local get a big nerf. ___________________________________________ The deeper you stick it in your vein, the deeper the thoughts there's no more pain. ___________________________________________
Sergeant Spot	Posted - 2006.07.17 15:46:00 - [34] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Sergeant Spot Any replacement of local must be equal to, or better (must error towards better) for insuring enough warning for a person ratting or mining in a belt to warp out. Why? How would the roving gang know that they are there? You're an older veteran than I am. You know the answer.
Infinity Ziona The First Noble Truth	Posted - 2006.07.17 15:46:00 - [35] Edited by: Infinity Ziona on 17/07/2006 15:47:54 Originally by: Sergeant Spot Local has already been SEVERELY nerfed for defensive purposes. The delay on how fast it refreshes does not help defensive operations at all, but massively helps roving gangs. You must have a different local to mine because as soon as I jump into system all my targets know prior to me loading since they have me in their address books. You know what I would really love to see. Local remains as it is but you need to click an update button or it refreshes every 2 minutes by itself. That way I can kill lazy stupid people.
Tachy	Posted - 2006.07.17 15:49:00 - [36] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Sergeant Spot Any replacement of local must be equal to, or better (must error towards better) for insuring enough warning for a person ratting or mining in a belt to warp out. Why? How would the roving gang know that they are there? How long does it take your scanprobeaddicts to pinpoint ships in a system? How long does it take your shipscanjokey to find a ship in a normal system? --==*-- Even with nougat, you can have a perfect moment.
Avon Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.17 16:00:00 - [37] Originally by: Tachy Originally by: Avon Originally by: Sergeant Spot Any replacement of local must be equal to, or better (must error towards better) for insuring enough warning for a person ratting or mining in a belt to warp out. Why? How would the roving gang know that they are there? How long does it take your scanprobeaddicts to pinpoint ships in a system? How long does it take your shipscanjokey to find a ship in a normal system? So the super fast roaming gang has to stop and scan every system it passes through ... ... riiiiight, like they'd do that. Finding ships isn't too bad when you know there is someone in the system, but what if you don't know? If you think gangs are going to drag a covert around everywhere to launch an observator in each system they pass through, I think you are sadly mistakened. And what is preventing the 'victim' from using the same tools? Nothing - they just don't feel they should have too. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Tammarr	Posted - 2006.07.17 16:09:00 - [38] Local plausible explanation: Stargates, they activate, monitor and keep statistics on who goes in our out, makes sense. Also ofc they broadcast: Hey, this guy just entered system. All talk in local is made on the systems own frequency of communication also handed out once entering so you can call for help, request repairs, talk a little with other pilots to ease the lonlyness of space. Thus local makes perfect sense in a spacegame. Changing it to constellation: This is actually the one idea practicaly useable and that can be kept plausible to satisfy the diffrent sides. "Constellation local": Since space is vast and theres many systems and ftl travel etc you might end up needing to call for help and such, but noone might be there for you in "local" thus the stargate network setup communication inside a constellation in order to make it possible to reach more people. You still should have a "local is # pilots" updated due to sg handling and information going out, but you dont know whom are in your exact system unless you check. I think I've written more than 2 cents worth.
Infinity Ziona The First Noble Truth	Posted - 2006.07.17 16:17:00 - [39] Originally by: Tammarr Local plausible explanation: Stargates, they activate, monitor and keep statistics on who goes in our out, makes sense. Also ofc they broadcast: Hey, this guy just entered system. All talk in local is made on the systems own frequency of communication also handed out once entering so you can call for help, request repairs, talk a little with other pilots to ease the lonlyness of space. Thus local makes perfect sense in a spacegame. Changing it to constellation: This is actually the one idea practicaly useable and that can be kept plausible to satisfy the diffrent sides. "Constellation local": Since space is vast and theres many systems and ftl travel etc you might end up needing to call for help and such, but noone might be there for you in "local" thus the stargate network setup communication inside a constellation in order to make it possible to reach more people. You still should have a "local is # pilots" updated due to sg handling and information going out, but you dont know whom are in your exact system unless you check. I think I've written more than 2 cents worth. Okay we're being logical with the star gates. Lets leave anyone who logs out in a system in local. Since they didnt go through a stargate it wont 'log them out'. Will fix log on / off traps and provide a bit of clutter to prevent the infallible EWACS local from being as effective.
Lorth Synchro.	Posted - 2006.07.17 16:17:00 - [40] Originally by: Avon And what is preventing the 'victim' from using the same tools? Nothing - they just don't feel they should have too. Which has been the backbone to every single "Don't nerf local" argument I have ever seen. ------------- Recruit me
The Gate	Posted - 2006.07.17 16:27:00 - [41] If its not broken then don't fix it. Local is fine the way it is, just people who can't get a kill that are complaining, besides some peoples arguments are that if u remove local then scanning can be improved to show the same info, so why not just leave local as it is anyway then ?
daPreacher	Posted - 2006.07.17 16:29:00 - [42] Edited by: daPreacher on 17/07/2006 16:29:43 edit: urgh forgot to change post to my main
Unholy Preacher Trade Consortium Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.07.17 16:30:00 - [43] Originally by: daPreacher Edited by: daPreacher on 17/07/2006 16:29:43 edit: urgh forgot to change post to my main A cool alternative i was thinking about is that, when you do remove local you implement a sensor network anchorable item. The system scanner sensor would have to be anchored near the sun. It would never need fueling like a station since it would rely on solar power. Any alliance can mount these sensor networks in their space. These sensor networks would be connected to any player belonging to that alliance. They would show who is in local. These system sensors would should require some effort to take down but not as much effort as taking down a POS. Thats just my two cents, it would defintely go a long way to really making 0.0 "homes" for alliances. It would also provide cool opportunities for covert ops ppl. System sensors would be delayed in scanning any intruders. This would make for interesting small covert ops bombers to slip through and to take them out. Defitnely adds a good dose of role play and semi makes sense. Im probalby guessing all these ideas are unusuable tho as it would add alot of strain on an already overburdened network load as it is. But defintely would be cool ! :D
Burnhard Brutor	Posted - 2006.07.17 16:44:00 - [44] Originally by: Unholy Preacher Originally by: daPreacher Edited by: daPreacher on 17/07/2006 16:29:43 edit: urgh forgot to change post to my main A cool alternative i was thinking about is that, when you do remove local you implement a sensor network anchorable item. The system scanner sensor would have to be anchored near the sun. It would never need fueling like a station since it would rely on solar power. Any alliance can mount these sensor networks in their space. These sensor networks would be connected to any player belonging to that alliance. They would show who is in local. These system sensors would should require some effort to take down but not as much effort as taking down a POS. Thats just my two cents, it would defintely go a long way to really making 0.0 "homes" for alliances. It would also provide cool opportunities for covert ops ppl. System sensors would be delayed in scanning any intruders. This would make for interesting small covert ops bombers to slip through and to take them out. Defitnely adds a good dose of role play and semi makes sense. Im probalby guessing all these ideas are unusuable tho as it would add alot of strain on an already overburdened network load as it is. But defintely would be cool ! :D Yes, the sensor network is a cool idea. Just removing local is a dumbass idea, because it benefits the attacker much more than the defender (unless you move resources around randomly and/or stations around randomly).
Lorth Synchro.	Posted - 2006.07.17 16:48:00 - [45] Originally by: Burnhard Brutor Yes, the sensor network is a cool idea. Just removing local is a dumbass idea, because it benefits the attacker much more than the defender (unless you move resources around randomly and/or stations around randomly). Not really. All the defender has to do is open up the scanner. The same tools used to find someone, are just as easily used to avoid someone. ------------- Recruit me
Tasuric Orka Antares Fleet Yards SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2006.07.17 17:01:00 - [46] Edited by: Tasuric Orka on 17/07/2006 17:01:39 Local is crap, i agree. In highsec it might be used for smack or friendly banter, but in lowsec and 0.0 its just a uber scanner. This should change, people should not appear in local unless they talk, and the map should show only a weekly average of people in space every 30 minutes. Now, to make things bearable other things will have to replace it. Active radar for every ship (range depending on skills and ship/mods), it scans the space around you, this could cover an entire system (bs with some sort of sensor module that renders it inept at offensive combat), or just several AU in the case of a frigate fitted to gank. The little radar screen at the bottom of the screen that i have seen in the pictures of beta should return for this purpose. Filtering like was mentioned before should be included. -POS's should be able to be fitted with scanning arrays that can cover everything but the largest systems, revealing every ship that isnÆt cloaked to everyone docked there. -Cheap defensive sentries that can gank everything below a cruiser, and seriously hamper a cruiser when used in big numbers (max number per gate hard coded) I think this and some other modifications will make eve more interesting overall, before an assault can take place the alliance will have to bring in scouts in force (sentries remember), then a reasonable force to cover the BS with its expensive scanning array, after which they can proceed with their business. If they lose their scanning BS (which are easy to spot due to some fancy effect) they are effectively blind.
Tanjent Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.17 17:03:00 - [47] Edited by: Tanjent on 17/07/2006 17:05:12 There's always room for improvement and cool ideas to add to games. I would like to see EVE working well without quarks before new features are added. There are many so I'll only list the one I most recently had to deal with. The character I chose as my default character here on the messageboards 3x, click update and see "Settings were successfully updated" still is not the default character. I must reselect Tanjent every visit or post. "War does not determine who is right - only who is left." -Bertrand Russell
DigitalCommunist Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.07.17 17:07:00 - [48] current local = consentual pvp consentual pvp = not EVE Thus, I win this thread. I'm up for local chat being open, but only show active speakers. Even if you delay it, or have the number showing, its still not enough to have proper fleet smackdowns. Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame.
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.07.17 17:10:00 - [49] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Tachy Originally by: Avon Originally by: Sergeant Spot Any replacement of local must be equal to, or better (must error towards better) for insuring enough warning for a person ratting or mining in a belt to warp out. Why? How would the roving gang know that they are there? How long does it take your scanprobeaddicts to pinpoint ships in a system? How long does it take your shipscanjokey to find a ship in a normal system? So the super fast roaming gang has to stop and scan every system it passes through ... ... riiiiight, like they'd do that. Finding ships isn't too bad when you know there is someone in the system, but what if you don't know? If you think gangs are going to drag a covert around everywhere to launch an observator in each system they pass through, I think you are sadly mistakened. And what is preventing the 'victim' from using the same tools? Nothing - they just don't feel they should have too. The difference is that a roving gang will have a clear MO, jump into system, scan, jump to center, scan, jump to other gate, scan, next system. Takes 2 minutes per system. And they know which systems to scan. Doesn't take a genius to figure out where people will be ratting and mining. That is in no way comparable to a defender who is sitting somewhere mining or ratting for 3 hours and you expect him to scan every 30 seconds for those 3 hours on the off-chance a hostile jumps in? All it does is make defending against ganksquads even more impossibly boring than it already is. If you nerf local, you need to make it impossible for people to logout in space except by leaving their ship behind, and make it possible to find cloaked people in system. Otherwise this game is ******. That is the difference.
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.07.17 17:16:00 - [50] Originally by: Tasuric Orka Edited by: Tasuric Orka on 17/07/2006 17:01:39 Local is crap, i agree. In highsec it might be used for smack or friendly banter, but in lowsec and 0.0 its just a uber scanner. This should change, people should not appear in local unless they talk, and the map should show only a weekly average of people in space every 30 minutes. Now, to make things bearable other things will have to replace it. Active radar for every ship (range depending on skills and ship/mods), it scans the space around you, this could cover an entire system (bs with some sort of sensor module that renders it inept at offensive combat), or just several AU in the case of a frigate fitted to gank. The little radar screen at the bottom of the screen that i have seen in the pictures of beta should return for this purpose. Filtering like was mentioned before should be included. -POS's should be able to be fitted with scanning arrays that can cover everything but the largest systems, revealing every ship that isnÆt cloaked to everyone docked there. -Cheap defensive sentries that can gank everything below a cruiser, and seriously hamper a cruiser when used in big numbers (max number per gate hard coded) I think this and some other modifications will make eve more interesting overall, before an assault can take place the alliance will have to bring in scouts in force (sentries remember), then a reasonable force to cover the BS with its expensive scanning array, after which they can proceed with their business. If they lose their scanning BS (which are easy to spot due to some fancy effect) they are effectively blind. Something like this would be doable, but only a nerf to local would be horrible for gameplay IMO. Defenders against ganksquads are extremely worse off than attackers currently, that needs to change anyway.
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2006.07.17 17:18:00 - [51] Kill the map kill location agents kill local I'm not going out. Remind me about The Maze. I'm Danton Marcellus and I approve of this message.
Joram McRory Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.17 17:24:00 - [52] Having local as a chat window is pretty good when you want to talk to people around you, not the whole corp/alliance. Whether people show up in it or not without talkings, just saves some time. As for local as an early warning: Well in RP terms it is pretty poor - for my early warning system I'd want sec stautus, standing status, ship type etc... In actual fact I think these should really be available in the scanner window - a system scan tab that shows all of the above in a little table, that updates every 10 secs or so. Ok it would make hunting people a little harder, but would be far more realistic. I mean ffs we are supposed to be flying space ships in EvE, not sailing boats. As the ability to ascertain all the above information exists in game (via the scanner and "show info" on local) adding my "system scanner" wouldn't be changing anything. Well ofc that isn't true it would be changing the completley un-realistic multi mouse clicks it takes me to do it now. Is that a nerf, or just removing another "grind" from the game? I guess I'll need my flame suit for this: but if I was designing a space ship to operate in a hostile environment, I'd probably spec in a big red light on the dash that flashed if a known enemy (low sec, or low standings) was in range of my scanner :-) I might be pre-empting Kali - but this sort of thing should definately be available where you have system sov. Joram
Jet Collins	Posted - 2006.07.17 17:25:00 - [53] I need it. I'm a freindly converstionalaist and if there is no local who am I going to talk to
dalman MASS	Posted - 2006.07.17 17:30:00 - [54] Originally by: Kaeten tbh i think local works abit more to the advantage of ppl who don't to fight... tbh i think local works abit more to the advantage of ppl who don't want to fight BUT ONLY GANK... Yes, I'm the guy who can take a ride in a pimp-ship solo in 0.0 (ie, no second account scout, no corp/ally mates around). And it's already damn too difficult. BRING BACK THE INSTANT MAP INSTEAD! Lack of information favours blobbing. Fact 1. And blobbing is bad. We already have way too much of the lame blobbers around. Fact 2. Am I forced to have any regret? I've become the lie, beautiful and free In my righteous own mind I adore and preach the insanity you gave to me
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2006.07.17 17:34:00 - [55] Originally by: DigitalCommunist current local = consentual pvp consentual pvp = not EVE Thus, I win this thread. I'm up for local chat being open, but only show active speakers. Even if you delay it, or have the number showing, its still not enough to have proper fleet smackdowns. I agree, digi wins the thread Even only numbers showing or local being delayed is simply not enough of a change. Greetings Grim
Plutoinum Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.17 17:40:00 - [56] Edited by: Plutoinum on 17/07/2006 17:45:26 Originally by: Tasuric Orka I think this and some other modifications will make eve more interesting overall, before an assault can take place the alliance will have to bring in scouts in force (sentries remember), then a reasonable force to cover the BS with its expensive scanning array, after which they can proceed with their business. If they lose their scanning BS (which are easy to spot due to some fancy effect) they are effectively blind. Sentries ? It sounds that you want to secure 0.0 so much that gank squads have no chance, but only serious alliance fleets. I'm afraid that in this case 0.0 becomes a carebear heaven, where alliance farm isk most of the time. That shall never happen. Currently the system is already flawed in 0.0, because you don't need any human skill to avoid to get ganked e.g. when you are ratting. In my time in Curse I've been ratting several hundreds of hours with my alt since day one in 0.0 and I've only lost one BS in that time in the beginning due to gankers, but only because I had no experience. Since I'm in -V-, I haven't lost a single BS while ratting either, although it's my only real source of income and I've almost been visited by hostiles during each hunting session. So only one BS loss during a ratting session in over a year due to players for someone, who lives from ratting. We need an intelligent solution that requires some brain from the attacker and the defender, though I don't know how it should look like. At the moment it's a no-brainer: Hostile enters system => warp to safe. Ok, solved, I'm out of danger, I decide what to do next ( scout with another char the surrounding area, check intel channels etc. ). Everyone understands that after he got ganked once or twice.
Maya Rkell Corsets and Carebears	Posted - 2006.07.17 17:51:00 - [57] Originally by: hired goon It has already been said that local should be removed, but will not be, because of massive damage to subscriber numbers. Link or quote plz. Delay? Oh right, it hides JUST the hunters long enough to get ganks. Sigh. Removing local penalises the defenders. There are only a limited number of good systems, with a limited number of locations and there are only so many chokepoints. It's far easier for a group of hunters to check than it is for their prey to be refreshing the scan window every 3 seconds (boring, RSI inducing and seriously distracting), as they would have to. (And with the 10-15 second delay you sometimes get, that's just in time to realise you're dead...) Anchored items? Sigh, this is entirely predicated on fixed border alliances. It utterly screws over the entire concept of vassal corps, it gets rid of neutrals and makes the pirate regions near uninhabitable rather than profitable. It's a huge barrier to 0.0 entry which existing alliance WILL milk for all its worth to deter newer players and alliances. DC, so people don't catch and kill each other? WAIT, THEY DO! You lose this thread. A "proper" fleet smackdown, per you, can only be done when neither side knows anything about the other? Wait, that's the situation in which you STOP, and camp a gate. Because you can't afford to throw away a fleet engaging a blob of unknown size which might be larger. It STRONGLY favours those with spys in the other alliance. And we know who favours them.
Quarantine Federation of Synthetic Persons YouWhat	Posted - 2006.07.17 17:52:00 - [58] Originally by: Lorth Not really. All the defender has to do is open up the scanner. The same tools used to find someone, are just as easily used to avoid someone. Uh? Little difference being that the attacker only has to scan a few times to have intel on the system, while a defender would have to continually hit the scan button all the time to avoid being ganked. Removing local would be an option if there is some kind of alternative that gives an equal chance to both attacker and defender to escape/catch the prey. That would either be a warning that someone entered local, without identification, or a continously refreshing scanner.
DigitalCommunist Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.07.17 17:53:00 - [59] It strongly favours spies over game mechanics? Oh no..! Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame.
Avon Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.17 18:03:00 - [60] Originally by: Malachon Draco Doesn't take a genius to figure out where people will be ratting and mining. In which case it would take an idiot to rat or mine there. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Joram McRory Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.17 18:15:00 - [61] Edited by: Joram McRory on 17/07/2006 18:15:56 edit - deleted Joram
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.07.17 18:15:00 - [62] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Malachon Draco Doesn't take a genius to figure out where people will be ratting and mining. In which case it would take an idiot to rat or mine there. So now your advice is for people to stop mining crokite, arkonor, bistot and mercoxit in 0.0 and stop ratting in -0.7 to -1.0 systems.... Right.
DigitalCommunist Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.07.17 18:34:00 - [63] Co-operation and organization are not game mechanics. Don't twist my words by saying "Yes," Spies > instantly revealing local chat or effort > no effort Y'dig, Holmes? Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame.
Infinity Ziona The First Noble Truth	Posted - 2006.07.17 19:13:00 - [64] This thread just goes to show you how many carebears there are in 0.0. - People taking the time to scan for us might actually get lucky and kill us. Oh Noes! - Us having to click a button every 3 minutes might give us RSI. Oh Noes! - We wont be able to mine the best orez in the game in total safety! Oh Noes! - If they do this I'll stay permanantly docked forever! Oh Noes! Jesus god damned are you people serious? Its a space combat game. If you cant handle that then you can go to high sec and be insulated completely in an NPC corporation. They dont make Battleships for you to be completely safe and happy. Theres a reason its a called a Battleship. Personally I am getting really god damned sick of the Local. In the last few days I have been at war in Empire it has defeated my very well planned attacks so many times I want to pull my hair out. But my hair is all gone because of the instas they are using, and the WCS they are using and the ECM they are using (not to fight me, to break my lock so they can run away). There are sooooo many ways to escape combat in this game, use them. We do not need a no skill, no module, instant and completely reliable EWACS system as well.
Xelios Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.17 19:27:00 - [65] No, we don't need to get rid of local. We just need probes that are faster and easier to use, ie. not requiring 3 of them and 2 minutes per scan. And those are coming in Kali. Even changing local to show just numbers isn't going to solve any problems. Say someone is ratting, they see local go up to 2 people one of two things will happen a) "Oh I better start scanning now and stay aligned for warp" or b) "I better warp to a safe until I'm alone again". It's not going to do a thing for the hunter and make the defender's job that much more tedious. On the other hand of the spectrum we have the complete local nerf, which is going to make everyone even more cautious, make travel, mining or ratting even more tedious and make the hunter's job far too easy. Lets say a ratter is using the scanner for 2 hours constantly, finally he sees a hostile on it and warps to a safe. That hostile knows he warped to a safe by using the scanner, hostile cloaks. Now what? Has the hostile left the system? Has he logged off? Has he cloaked? Ratter has two options, either log off or go back to ratting. If he goes back to ratting the hostile simply waits until he shows up on scanner, pinpoints the belt, decloaks and warps in before the ratter has any idea he's still there. IF local is to be nerfed there has to be an entirely new system put in place of it, one that relies on 'sentry probes' or something of that nature for instance. And no, local chat is not unrealistic. To get into a system you need to use a gate, and there's no reason that gate couldn't track who uses it. From there, to explain it in RP terms, it's a simple matter of your ship checking the gate's logs.
Lorth Synchro.	Posted - 2006.07.17 19:35:00 - [66] Some well worded arguements in this thread. But I doubt it will matter to the hundreds of people who march unwittingly into the clutches of the evil pirate. These are the same people who manage to make amamake glow like a fireball every single day. Who come to the forums with ridiculas demands, that thier game be made safer, and damn it all to hell they refuse to use the means already availible to them to make it happen. Its people like this that tend to ruin games, with thier vocal idiocy and there never ending need to grind thier way into virtual wealth as quickly and as effortlessly as possible. Who tend to ignore that this game is about player interaction, and compititon, or only acnowladge that point when it serves thier own best interest, or they are not the ones on the negative end of a competitive enviroment. Eve isn't the game where you can do that. Or shouldn't be the game where you do that, to say it better. We shouldn't pacify certain areas of the enviroment, because others feel its unfair that thier fun should be ruined. Or that deep down inside they don't want to compete with players, and would rather spend thier time fighting off hordes of NPC's to get the next little bit of loot. I'm reminded of Golum when I think of these people, huddled in thier cave oblivious to whats around them, stroking thier "so-and-so's modified whatever" saying my precious. Thier seems to be an infestation of the "I win" crowd that have come from other games. Games where no matter how many blindenly silly mistakes you make, your entitled to grind your way into greatness with everyone else. And where everyone and thier dog is entitled to a winning game expericance, and no one can take that away from you. I don't want that. I want a game thats actually skill dependant. Where it requires a certain ammount of attention, and risk, to achive success. Local is one of the things that takes that away, and turn eve into just anouther game, that be be ground out with the attention level just slightly above comatose. Sure there's only going to be a few hard core players that aggree with me. And thats fine. Because no one likes playing in an enviroment where you can actually lose, people like winning. And we've all seen it, every single attempt to change something in this game to make PVP unconcentual, its riddiculed, and smacked. But bah, I liked the challenge of eve, and the risk. Lets bring it back. Let the "I win" crowd grind thier way into greatness somewhere else. ------------- Recruit me
Infinity Ziona The First Noble Truth	Posted - 2006.07.17 19:40:00 - [67] Originally by: Xelios No, we don't need to get rid of local. We just need probes that are faster and easier to use, ie. not requiring 3 of them and 2 minutes per scan. And those are coming in Kali. Even changing local to show just numbers isn't going to solve any problems. Say someone is ratting, they see local go up to 2 people one of two things will happen a) "Oh I better start scanning now and stay aligned for warp" or b) "I better warp to a safe until I'm alone again". It's not going to do a thing for the hunter and make the defender's job that much more tedious. On the other hand of the spectrum we have the complete local nerf, which is going to make everyone even more cautious, make travel, mining or ratting even more tedious and make the hunter's job far too easy. Lets say a ratter is using the scanner for 2 hours constantly, finally he sees a hostile on it and warps to a safe. That hostile knows he warped to a safe by using the scanner, hostile cloaks. Now what? Has the hostile left the system? Has he logged off? Has he cloaked? Ratter has two options, either log off or go back to ratting. If he goes back to ratting the hostile simply waits until he shows up on scanner, pinpoints the belt, decloaks and warps in before the ratter has any idea he's still there. IF local is to be nerfed there has to be an entirely new system put in place of it, one that relies on 'sentry probes' or something of that nature for instance. And no, local chat is not unrealistic. To get into a system you need to use a gate, and there's no reason that gate couldn't track who uses it. From there, to explain it in RP terms, it's a simple matter of your ship checking the gate's logs. Whats so terrible about losing your ship if someone has gone to the effort to find it and kill it. Its not like you are incapable of using Stabs. Or fitting some ECM modules. Or actually fighting back.
Maggie Prime	Posted - 2006.07.17 19:45:00 - [68] Local is there because ALL ship drives have a transponder type of device and each device has it's own 'address' which shows what ship is piloted by what capsuleer. It's a part of the EVE story. So all ship's where abouts and so the pilot's also, is known at all times. How do you think it's possible for your survailance (sp) agent to find someone you're looking for? So, to do away with local will involve a whole story line and it would somehow involve your precious survailance agent. I don't know if the devs want to go into that at this time.
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2006.07.17 19:49:00 - [69] Originally by: Maggie Prime Local is there because ALL ship drives have a transponder type of device and each device has it's own 'address' which shows what ship is piloted by what capsuleer. It's a part of the EVE story. So all ship's where abouts and so the pilot's also, is known at all times. How do you think it's possible for your survailance (sp) agent to find someone you're looking for? So, to do away with local will involve a whole story line and it would somehow involve your precious survailance agent. I don't know if the devs want to go into that at this time. So they implement a way to yank out the transponders, there's the name for your next major patch right there, Nightfall. Remind me about The Maze. I'm Danton Marcellus and I approve of this message.
Avon Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.17 19:50:00 - [70] Originally by: Malachon Draco Originally by: Avon Originally by: Malachon Draco Doesn't take a genius to figure out where people will be ratting and mining. In which case it would take an idiot to rat or mine there. So now your advice is for people to stop mining crokite, arkonor, bistot and mercoxit in 0.0 and stop ratting in -0.7 to -1.0 systems.... Right. No, my advice is to claim and protect the space which contains the resources you desire. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.07.17 20:02:00 - [71] Its all about Risk vs Reward. Currently, there is some balance. You know someone is in local, but you don't know where he is. You can assess the situation, maybe someone scanned him once, knows what kind of ship he's in. If there is a covert in system, at least you know someone is there. Without local, you know nothing. There could be 5 force recons hanging around in any system you are in, and you have no idea. Risk-level goes through the roof for people living somewhere to rat or mine. For gank squads, life gets easier without local, chances of detection are a lot smaller, they could zip through entire hostile sectors without anyone ever seeing them. And its already a bloody ***** to catch for example a bunch of vagas with MWD and 4+ stabs. They don't need an easier life, far from it. If you remove local outright, you destroy the current balance between risk and reward. Mining ships are completely utterly defenseless against attackers, a covetor or retriever will literally die in seconds. And not even 20 BS guarding it can save that ship from 1 or 2 recons. You would be crippling highend mining. It would be so easy to just put a few ships in every mercoxit system and be able to completely shut it down. Hell maybe you dont even need ships, who is gonna risk their ships in a system where there could be several hostiles hanging around without anyone knowing about it. Nerfing local is not about carebears crying, its about gankers crying they want an even easier game.
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.07.17 20:04:00 - [72] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Malachon Draco Originally by: Avon Originally by: Malachon Draco Doesn't take a genius to figure out where people will be ratting and mining. In which case it would take an idiot to rat or mine there. So now your advice is for people to stop mining crokite, arkonor, bistot and mercoxit in 0.0 and stop ratting in -0.7 to -1.0 systems.... Right. No, my advice is to claim and protect the space which contains the resources you desire. An how would you suggest to protect mining ships from a completely unknown threat? There could be a dozen carriers or battleships in system in a deep safe and you wouldn't have a bloody clue they were even there. Or do you want people to maintain 23/7 gatecamps on all entrances to their space? This is a space game, not a camping simulator.
Lorth Synchro.	Posted - 2006.07.17 20:29:00 - [73] Originally by: Malachon Draco An how would you suggest to protect mining ships from a completely unknown threat? There could be a dozen carriers or battleships in system in a deep safe and you wouldn't have a bloody clue they were even there. Or do you want people to maintain 23/7 gatecamps on all entrances to their space? This is a space game, not a camping simulator. And niether would they have a bloody clue you were thier either. You can use the same tools the attackers use to defend your self. Actually a fair number more tools. All removing local does is remove the brainless easy way for risk free 0.0 living. ------------- Recruit me
Havelcek Eve Defence Force Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.07.17 20:34:00 - [74] At face value, removing Local brings up some interesting benefits, but then I think about a couple guys sneaking into our space, dropping a couple POSes in our home systems and we never knowing until its too late to really be a big non-starter. Honestly until CCP gives us some tools to actually defend our sovereignty then Local is the next best thing. As it stands now, Local is basically the only sovereignty defense tool.
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.07.17 20:34:00 - [75] Originally by: Lorth Originally by: Malachon Draco An how would you suggest to protect mining ships from a completely unknown threat? There could be a dozen carriers or battleships in system in a deep safe and you wouldn't have a bloody clue they were even there. Or do you want people to maintain 23/7 gatecamps on all entrances to their space? This is a space game, not a camping simulator. And niether would they have a bloody clue you were thier either. You can use the same tools the attackers use to defend your self. Actually a fair number more tools. All removing local does is remove the brainless easy way for risk free 0.0 living. No, they do know you're there. Miners will be in the systems where there is arkonor and bistot. Any hostile with more than 2 braincells will know that. So he will sit in that system in a covops ship with a few buddies at a 200 AU safespot and scan the belts every hour or so. And when he sees a few miners, his buddies will come from their 200 AU safespot and gank the miners and haulers. And you can have 20 BS standing guard, but they wont save barges from 2 AFs or vagas unloading on them and running off again before being killed. Ratters and miners are almost by definition stationary in a system. They have to be at predictable places, i.e. roid belts, cannot be cloaked, and must be 100% on guard 100% of the time scanning every 30 seconds and still risk getting obliterated by covops if you nerf local. All a ganker has to do is sit in a system at a deep safe, have a 100% safe covops near the belts to scan and can gank at will without risk. That is not a balanced Risk vs Reward for both sides.
Lorth Synchro.	Posted - 2006.07.17 20:46:00 - [76] Originally by: Malachon Draco No, they do know you're there. Miners will be in the systems where there is arkonor and bistot. Any hostile with more than 2 braincells will know that. So he will sit in that system in a covops ship with a few buddies at a 200 AU safespot and scan the belts every hour or so. And when he sees a few miners, his buddies will come from their 200 AU safespot and gank the miners and haulers. And you can have 20 BS standing guard, but they wont save barges from 2 AFs or vagas unloading on them and running off again before being killed. Ratters and miners are almost by definition stationary in a system. They have to be at predictable places, i.e. roid belts, cannot be cloaked, and must be 100% on guard 100% of the time scanning every 30 seconds and still risk getting obliterated by covops if you nerf local. All a ganker has to do is sit in a system at a deep safe, have a 100% safe covops near the belts to scan and can gank at will without risk. That is not a balanced Risk vs Reward for both sides. Well for the record, i'm for changing local, not removing it completly. Still even so, why should miners be able to oppertate in nearly 100% immunity from hostiles. ------------- Recruit me
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.07.17 20:54:00 - [77] Originally by: Lorth Originally by: Malachon Draco No, they do know you're there. Miners will be in the systems where there is arkonor and bistot. Any hostile with more than 2 braincells will know that. So he will sit in that system in a covops ship with a few buddies at a 200 AU safespot and scan the belts every hour or so. And when he sees a few miners, his buddies will come from their 200 AU safespot and gank the miners and haulers. And you can have 20 BS standing guard, but they wont save barges from 2 AFs or vagas unloading on them and running off again before being killed. Ratters and miners are almost by definition stationary in a system. They have to be at predictable places, i.e. roid belts, cannot be cloaked, and must be 100% on guard 100% of the time scanning every 30 seconds and still risk getting obliterated by covops if you nerf local. All a ganker has to do is sit in a system at a deep safe, have a 100% safe covops near the belts to scan and can gank at will without risk. That is not a balanced Risk vs Reward for both sides. Well for the record, i'm for changing local, not removing it completly. Still even so, why should miners be able to oppertate in nearly 100% immunity from hostiles. Like I said before, there are some possibilities to change/nerf local, but it would require other changes as well. Like the scanning system on a POS to enable miners to be safer, but at a certain price. And something like gate sentries against small ganksquads, or maybe even making ships not disappear when they logoff, as well as better/easier scanning, particularly for covops. I understand the desire to change/nerf local, but I strongly feel that without additional changes as well, the game will be ruined for a lot of playstyles. Some safety should come at a price, but it should be attainable (though not 100% of course). But 0% safety isnt gonna cut it either.
Alassra Eventide Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.17 21:01:00 - [78] Could just have a viewable log at the gates, so you could see who the pilot was, what time they entered the system, and in what class ship. Wouldn't tell you if they had left, unless you had checked the log at their exit gate, but at least it gives you some idea of who's been through recently. and then make local chat only display you if you've talked, and then just show numbers otherwise, like alliance chat, or private channel settings (2 of 3 show options, I believe)
Ob Noxious	Posted - 2006.07.17 21:13:00 - [79] Removing local will only serve to drop Eve's subscriber base, which leaves only the "roving" gank squads roving about looking for other gank squads, right up until the severs are shutoff from lack of income.
Kylania Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.17 21:32:00 - [80] Why don't all the nerf local people just play for a week with your local window minimized then report back how it went? Or come up with some hi-slot "Communications Scrambler" item that corrupts the "people in local" data from the stargates. Sneak in a cov ops, unclock and nail your target with an AOE local jammer that blanks local for a minute or so. Some ships might be able to see your fleet coming in, but not everyone. Imagine the confusion as some ships report contacts but the others don't. No one knows which gates to fly into... ahh the joy. -- Lil Miner Newbie Skills Roadmap \| Visual Building Guide (Both work in game too!)
Luc Boye Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.07.17 21:33:00 - [81] Originally by: Lorth All removing local does is remove the brainless easy way for risk free 0.0 living. /signed
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2006.07.17 21:36:00 - [82] Originally by: Kylania Why don't all the nerf local people just play for a week with your local window minimized then report back how it went? Yes 'cause that will work with everyone else getting all the fattening intel. Remind me about The Maze. I'm Danton Marcellus and I approve of this message.
Locke DieDrake Port Royal Independent Kontractors Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.07.17 21:40:00 - [83] It seems most of you either are ignorant to the changes coming in Kali or just don't understand what thats going to mean for the game. For one thing. Local or not the scanner is getting a big boost, as are probes. Which means that local or not, safe spots are not going to be safe anymore. So keep local, let the miners/ratters/cowards SS. I'll drop a probe and land on top of the, gank them and then thank them for rounding up into one spot. ___________________________________________ The deeper you stick it in your vein, the deeper the thoughts there's no more pain. ___________________________________________
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2006.07.17 21:43:00 - [84] Originally by: Locke DieDrake It seems most of you either are ignorant to the changes coming in Kali or just don't understand what thats going to mean for the game. For one thing. Local or not the scanner is getting a big boost, as are probes. Which means that local or not, safe spots are not going to be safe anymore. So keep local, let the miners/ratters/cowards SS. I'll drop a probe and land on top of the, gank them and then thank them for rounding up into one spot. How will this help the people wanting to hide from said gankers ducking local and the big brotheresque map? Remind me about The Maze. I'm Danton Marcellus and I approve of this message.
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.07.17 21:46:00 - [85] Originally by: Locke DieDrake It seems most of you either are ignorant to the changes coming in Kali or just don't understand what thats going to mean for the game. For one thing. Local or not the scanner is getting a big boost, as are probes. Which means that local or not, safe spots are not going to be safe anymore. So keep local, let the miners/ratters/cowards SS. I'll drop a probe and land on top of the, gank them and then thank them for rounding up into one spot. Well, except if they warped to a POS, which would fry your scrawny ass in seconds
Locke DieDrake Port Royal Independent Kontractors Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.07.17 21:46:00 - [86] Originally by: Danton Marcellus Originally by: Locke DieDrake It seems most of you either are ignorant to the changes coming in Kali or just don't understand what thats going to mean for the game. For one thing. Local or not the scanner is getting a big boost, as are probes. Which means that local or not, safe spots are not going to be safe anymore. So keep local, let the miners/ratters/cowards SS. I'll drop a probe and land on top of the, gank them and then thank them for rounding up into one spot. How will this help the people wanting to hide from said gankers ducking local and the big brotheresque map? It won't. I'm sorry, was it supposed to? Maybe we have different ideas of what is supposed to happen in eve. See, I fly into system, spot hostiles in local, track them down and kill them. So yeah, local or not, I don't care. I can use the scanner pretty well and I have corp mates that probe like there is no tmrw. So I'm all set. ___________________________________________ The deeper you stick it in your vein, the deeper the thoughts there's no more pain. ___________________________________________
Locke DieDrake Port Royal Independent Kontractors Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.07.17 21:51:00 - [87] Originally by: Malachon Draco Originally by: Locke DieDrake It seems most of you either are ignorant to the changes coming in Kali or just don't understand what thats going to mean for the game. For one thing. Local or not the scanner is getting a big boost, as are probes. Which means that local or not, safe spots are not going to be safe anymore. So keep local, let the miners/ratters/cowards SS. I'll drop a probe and land on top of the, gank them and then thank them for rounding up into one spot. Well, except if they warped to a POS, which would fry your scrawny ass in seconds Yes. That has happened. I instantly regreted it. But hey, live and learn. ___________________________________________ The deeper you stick it in your vein, the deeper the thoughts there's no more pain. ___________________________________________
Locke DieDrake Port Royal Independent Kontractors Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.07.17 21:54:00 - [88] Originally by: Malachon Draco Originally by: Locke DieDrake It seems most of you either are ignorant to the changes coming in Kali or just don't understand what thats going to mean for the game. For one thing. Local or not the scanner is getting a big boost, as are probes. Which means that local or not, safe spots are not going to be safe anymore. So keep local, let the miners/ratters/cowards SS. I'll drop a probe and land on top of the, gank them and then thank them for rounding up into one spot. And btw, I am aware of the changes, but the use of the scanner/probes are dependent on whether you expect people to be present and where they are present in a system. Attackers have an advantage, they choose the time of the attack, defenders would have to be on guard 23/7. Also attackers don't have to sit at belts, while defenders who want to get anything done, will have to be at belts. All the changes you describe may make it better for attackers, but also for defenders. But nerfing local would make it nearly impossible for defenders, you can't expect them to be scanning and probing 23/7 when they are online, while attackers can still pick and choose when and where to strike, and thus when they need to be on guard. Simple, add a sound to the new scanner when it detects something new in range. Therefore you just hit warp when you hear the sound and it's not any differant than local is now. See, it's easy to think of ways to make it work for everyone. ___________________________________________ The deeper you stick it in your vein, the deeper the thoughts there's no more pain. ___________________________________________
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2006.07.17 22:06:00 - [89] Which is a major flaw in CCPs reasoning, how are people supposed to be able to build empires of their own, hell even shacks when the favor is always in the hand of the attacker? Where are the countertools to probes and the map to allow people to remain stationary and have a chance at remaining unseen if they put an effort in? We don't all want to end up like the roving ganker who thrashed my last post now do we?! Remind me about The Maze. I'm Danton Marcellus and I approve of this message.
Eralus	Posted - 2006.07.17 22:34:00 - [90] Originally by: Quarantine Removing local would be an option if there is some kind of alternative that gives an equal chance to both attacker and defender to escape/catch the prey. That would either be a warning that someone entered local, without identification, or a continously refreshing scanner. What if there was an item you could anchor that would tell you any ship that were near it? So, nerf local, but provide something you can drop out of your cargo bay and anchor near the gates into the system so you can see any ships that come in, (unless they're cloaked, of course) at least until someone blows up your device, but at that point you'd probably know something was up. _____ Lifewire is a big, ugly, mean... carebear.
Kumq uat Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.17 22:43:00 - [91] Originally by: Noriath I like local, because it would just be way too easy for atackers to kill their targets if there wasn't local. What i don't like about local is that it shows the people and their afiliation in the system, it would be a lot more interesting if instead there would be a little window that just showed numbers of ship types. Like it would say: 2 battleships 1 interceptor 1 interdictor 3 exhumers 2 industrials 1 carrier But it wouldn't tell you anything else, so you wouldn't know who they belong to or what race or ship they are, just the types. Local would still exist except it wouldn't show people untill they talk. That way you'd still have the advantage of getting a rough idea of what is going on in the system, but you can't tell if they are hostile or who they are untill you have a visual on the ships or they identify themselves in local. That shifts the idea of local from seeing hostiles but not knowing what they are in to seeing ships but not knowing if they are hostile. How do you know Goonfleet is in system? 1 battleship 2 cruisers 86 frigates www.eve-pirate.com author and goat molestor.
Grimster Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.07.17 22:47:00 - [92] Originally by: Locke DieDrake Simple, add a sound to the new scanner when it detects something new in range. Therefore you just hit warp when you hear the sound and it's not any differant than local is now. See, it's easy to think of ways to make it work for everyone. Lot of PvP people play with no sound at all, cuts the lag. Would have to be a visual notification, so you might as well keep local, I do believe there was a poll when this was being considered seriously by CCP on this very site - came out about 50/50 iirc. Or maybe I dreamt that last part, I disremember. We blog at The Jammy Blog
Locke DieDrake Port Royal Independent Kontractors Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.07.17 23:25:00 - [93] Originally by: Grimster Originally by: Locke DieDrake Simple, add a sound to the new scanner when it detects something new in range. Therefore you just hit warp when you hear the sound and it's not any differant than local is now. See, it's easy to think of ways to make it work for everyone. Lot of PvP people play with no sound at all, cuts the lag. Would have to be a visual notification, so you might as well keep local, I do believe there was a poll when this was being considered seriously by CCP on this very site - came out about 50/50 iirc. Or maybe I dreamt that last part, I disremember. I'm going to go off on you for a minute. Don't take it personal. Turning off sound, and turret affects and effects DOES NOT EFFECT LAG. Lag is a network issue. Sound, turrets and effects are your computer chocking to death on it's outdated hardware. Now that we've cleared that up. Fine, just make it visual and sound based. The new scanner is supposed to operate in real time. No more "scan" button. So there is no need for local when you have a real time scanner. Since local operates like a real time scanner anyway. But hey, whatever works, I'm not really for or against local being there. But I think the people against getting rid of it would be ok with losing it if they had a better/or equall replacement. ___________________________________________ The deeper you stick it in your vein, the deeper the thoughts there's no more pain. ___________________________________________
Flex Carter Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.18 00:09:00 - [94] Originally by: Sergeant Spot THE purpose of Local is to know who is in system with you. I'd be happy to replace it with a scanner screen that has the following features: --Self refreshes every second (so once I open it, I don't have to constantly click it every second) --Can be filtered item by item, to remove clutter (No, I am not talking about filtering out "shuttles", I'm talking about filtering out "individual" shuttles) Although this idea sounds pretty interesting, imagine this in system populated with numbers like Jita. Talk about lag... And I'm sure everyone's "not" going to limit their filter to just ships when other nice and hidden things can be found in the system...
Avon Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.18 00:12:00 - [95] Originally by: Locke DieDrake I'm going to go off on you for a minute. Don't take it personal. Turning off sound, and turret affects and effects DOES NOT EFFECT LAG. Lag is a network issue. Sound, turrets and effects are your computer chocking to death on it's outdated hardware. Lag is the delay between input and response. The network aspect of that is latency. If you are going to correct people, try and get it right and not look like a fool. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Vasiliyan PAX Interstellar Services Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.07.18 00:13:00 - [96] Removing local would be like turning every fight into a logon trap. Also, not everyone in local is a hostile. I'd miss seeing when people I knew were in the same system as me so I could say hi to them.
Flex Carter Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.18 00:35:00 - [97] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Malachon Draco I.e. local is a defensive tool. Nerfing local will benefit fastmoving ganksquads since they can cover great distances unnoticed and without giving people warning as to their presence. Riiiiight. And who are these gank-squads going to kill? They are just going to magically guess which system has people in it, if they are hostile, and their exact numbers? Removing local penalises both sides equally. Riiightà Most 0.0 players know which star systems roaming pilots hang out in or pass though. The ones in/or close to a station with supplies, repairs and not to mention cloning facilities. If the local box just magically disappeared right now, who do you think would benefit more; the ganker(s) or the mining/ratting pilots? When individuals or small corps moves to 0.0, they do so by checking the area for accessibility and resources. No one can take all what they need with them. SomethingÆs have to be produced, reproduced or even bought. And as ganker(s), notice I use (s) because thereÆs never just (1), what would be the perfect area of operation because no one would ever know youÆre thereàUntil it was too late.
Grimster Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.07.18 01:06:00 - [98] Edited by: Grimster on 18/07/2006 01:07:09 Originally by: Locke DieDrake I'm going to go off on you for a minute. Don't take it personal. Turning off sound, and turret affects and effects DOES NOT EFFECT LAG. Lag is a network issue. Sound, turrets and effects are your computer chocking to death on it's outdated hardware. Dispite the fact it appears you got out of the wrong side of someone's bed today, please point out where I specified network as opposed to client lag? Fact - you have 50 laser Battleships taking an NPC station, turn off your sound and "Hey Presto!" it's quicker. If that isn't a definition of improving lag then wtf is? Do us all a favour and wind your neck in just a little bit. Fact remains, a lot of PvPers have zero sound to improve lag. (whether that be network or client is irrelevant) TYVM. Edit: Thanks Avon. We blog at The Jammy Blog
Villiger	Posted - 2006.07.18 01:07:00 - [99] Originally by: Infinity Ziona This thread just goes to show you how many carebears there are in 0.0. - People taking the time to scan for us might actually get lucky and kill us. Oh Noes! - Us having to click a button every 3 minutes might give us RSI. Oh Noes! - We wont be able to mine the best orez in the game in total safety! Oh Noes! - If they do this I'll stay permanantly docked forever! Oh Noes! Jesus god damned are you people serious? Its a space combat game. If you cant handle that then you can go to high sec and be insulated completely in an NPC corporation. They dont make Battleships for you to be completely safe and happy. Theres a reason its a called a Battleship. Personally I am getting really god damned sick of the Local. In the last few days I have been at war in Empire it has defeated my very well planned attacks so many times I want to pull my hair out. But my hair is all gone because of the instas they are using, and the WCS they are using and the ECM they are using (not to fight me, to break my lock so they can run away). There are sooooo many ways to escape combat in this game, use them. We do not need a no skill, no module, instant and completely reliable EWACS system as well. Man.... Talk about needing a hug.
CreatorOfLife	Posted - 2006.07.18 01:25:00 - [100] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Locke DieDrake I'm going to go off on you for a minute. Don't take it personal. Turning off sound, and turret affects and effects DOES NOT EFFECT LAG. Lag is a network issue. Sound, turrets and effects are your computer chocking to death on it's outdated hardware. Lag is the delay between input and response. The network aspect of that is latency. If you are going to correct people, try and get it right and not look like a fool. WAvon, what he said was 100% easily understandable by everyone. Dont be a nit picker. All he said is that things like sound/turret effects cause COMPUTER lag (unrelated to internet lag) and has nothing to do with internet lag. Nitpick more? His meaning was perfectly clear.
Flex Carter Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.18 01:29:00 - [101] Originally by: Lorth Originally by: Malachon Draco No, they do know you're there. Miners will be in the systems where there is arkonor and bistot. Any hostile with more than 2 braincells will know that. So he will sit in that system in a covops ship with a few buddies at a 200 AU safespot and scan the belts every hour or so. And when he sees a few miners, his buddies will come from their 200 AU safespot and gank the miners and haulers. And you can have 20 BS standing guard, but they wont save barges from 2 AFs or vagas unloading on them and running off again before being killed. Ratters and miners are almost by definition stationary in a system. They have to be at predictable places, i.e. roid belts, cannot be cloaked, and must be 100% on guard 100% of the time scanning every 30 seconds and still risk getting obliterated by covops if you nerf local. All a ganker has to do is sit in a system at a deep safe, have a 100% safe covops near the belts to scan and can gank at will without risk. That is not a balanced Risk vs Reward for both sides. Well for the record, i'm for changing local, not removing it completly. Still even so, why should miners be able to oppertate in nearly 100% immunity from hostiles. Dude, Who said they were? You tell me what miner thinks heÆs somewhat 100% safe mining in 0.0 and youÆve met your first idiot. Between the jump-ins that shows on the local channel or the people already in local, the risk factor has risen to atleast 30 to 40%, especially if their unknown. Not to mention the occasional NPC spawn that might bring a BS or 2. If anything, were operating at ônearlyö 100% against usàAll for this awesome ôrewardö you guyÆs keep throwing at us.
CreatorOfLife	Posted - 2006.07.18 01:31:00 - [102] Just tank a set of weak npcs and you can mine for hours with no risk of npcs owning you. Just warp out the second you see someone come into the system that you dont recognize and there is absolutly no way you can be killed. Yes, miners can be 100% immune in 0.0.
Maya Rkell Corsets and Carebears	Posted - 2006.07.18 01:42:00 - [103] Infinity Ziona, No, every 3 SECONDS. Are you aware of how long it take a ship to exit warp? I am. You need to be constantly scanning. Constantly. Even a moderate lagspike can hae them on you before the scanner can blip as well. Lorth, You seem to have been taking lessons from Greenpeace. That Eve you refer to never existed. It was a game with drastically different ships, with drastically different mechanisms and with a far smaller PCU. Trying to selectively apply changes which would make an entirely new situation which you try to argue will being back those times won't work, and moreover what you call the "I win" croud are..all arround you. There's only so many places people can mine and rat deacently in 0.0. The ONLY viable defence becomes scouts on the gates, and logging when an enemy comes along. If that what you really want? Once more, that "easy" way of 0.0 living produces a remarkable number of dead ships.
Mrsticks Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.18 01:44:00 - [104] Originally by: Quarantine Originally by: Lorth Not really. All the defender has to do is open up the scanner. The same tools used to find someone, are just as easily used to avoid someone. Uh? Little difference being that the attacker only has to scan a few times to have intel on the system, while a defender would have to continually hit the scan button all the time to avoid being ganked. Removing local would be an option if there is some kind of alternative that gives an equal chance to both attacker and defender to escape/catch the prey. That would either be a warning that someone entered local, without identification, or a continously refreshing scanner. Or if you have scanner open and a Pirate enters local and Pings you get a and a closest to location. Just like with modern subs you Ping you give away your location but you can see all that is around you. Long Live TEXAS! Texans join the Texas channel in game plz.
Villiger	Posted - 2006.07.18 01:49:00 - [105] Originally by: Locke DieDrake Originally by: Malachon Draco Originally by: Locke DieDrake It seems most of you either are ignorant to the changes coming in Kali or just don't understand what thats going to mean for the game. For one thing. Local or not the scanner is getting a big boost, as are probes. Which means that local or not, safe spots are not going to be safe anymore. So keep local, let the miners/ratters/cowards SS. I'll drop a probe and land on top of the, gank them and then thank them for rounding up into one spot. And btw, I am aware of the changes, but the use of the scanner/probes are dependent on whether you expect people to be present and where they are present in a system. Attackers have an advantage, they choose the time of the attack, defenders would have to be on guard 23/7. Also attackers don't have to sit at belts, while defenders who want to get anything done, will have to be at belts. All the changes you describe may make it better for attackers, but also for defenders. But nerfing local would make it nearly impossible for defenders, you can't expect them to be scanning and probing 23/7 when they are online, while attackers can still pick and choose when and where to strike, and thus when they need to be on guard. Simple, add a sound to the new scanner when it detects something new in range. Therefore you just hit warp when you hear the sound and it's not any differant than local is now. See, it's easy to think of ways to make it work for everyone. Great, So we all can I count on you to write that code up for us to override all other noises in Eve such as their awesome soundtrack, warp engines, explosions, docking and a slew of other things itÆs got for realism? Especially when most play with sound off to cut back on lagà And IÆm going to need those TPS reports on my desk Monday okà
Flex Carter Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.18 02:02:00 - [106] Originally by: CreatorOfLife Just tank a set of weak npcs and you can mine for hours with no risk of npcs owning you. Just warp out the second you see someone come into the system that you dont recognize and there is absolutly no way you can be killed. Yes, miners can be 100% immune in 0.0. CreatorOfLife Please read the OP, the tanking of rats can be covered or somewhat countered but if there's no local or your mining blind in the system then there's no time "too" warp away. Thus your post is incorrect.
Crellion	Posted - 2006.07.18 02:14:00 - [107] To all those who want to score kills so desperately that they are trying to get rid of local my comments: - If it wasnt for the local what would be the fun in trying to gank somebody? - Atm good gankers can kill as many carebears a day as they want. Poor gankers go hungry. But if you make it so all gankers can kill as many carebears as they want what do you think will happen? Carebears will become extinct. You think they spawn like npcs? They are actually people. You sound to me like inept strikers asking for the goalposts to go a further 2-3 meters apart or useless basketball players asking for baskets to be doubles in size. Its pathetic. - Finally: If local is gone what will warn you I am in here with you? eh?
Eralus	Posted - 2006.07.18 06:37:00 - [108] I think local should go, but it would need to be accompanied by some other shifts that make escaping when someone shows up a bit more of a reasonable endeavor. _____ Lifewire is a big, ugly, mean... carebear.
mazzilliu Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.18 06:42:00 - [109] i dont think local will get nerfed. everybody likes local and uses it. it's like shields and armor. taking it out of the game hurts everybody ---------
Nicholai Pestot Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.18 07:51:00 - [110] Edited by: Nicholai Pestot on 18/07/2006 07:52:28 Just in my humble opinion, Hi-sec should keep system local, lowsec should get a constellation local and 0.0 should loose local. That useless ship scanner module should, when run,give you a box that functions like your scanner, but automatically refreshes every 3 seconds and only goes out to 150,000,000km (with a tech II version that goes out to 300,000,000km). For the complaints about how this will effect defending 0.0....If you cant defend against a roaming gank squad without the free tracking tool that is local then this simply means you have claimed too many systems and have spread too far out. God forbid you should actually have to defend the systems you claim are yours instead of just camping the choke points into them I am actually impressed that BOB members have been some of the more vocal advocates of loosing local, as with their large territory they would be one of the biggest loosers of the enforced shrinking this change would bring to 0.0 alliances. Anyone who has ever lamented that too much of 0.0 has been claimed leaving no room for the little guy should be a firm supporter of removing local chat from 0.0 ________________ What you do is you store up the rage, let it fester while you gain strength, then use it to gank those weaker than you... and so the circle of life is complete
Bluestealth Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.18 08:12:00 - [111] Originally by: Plutoinum Edited by: Plutoinum on 17/07/2006 17:48:24 Hostile enters system => warp to safe. Ok, solved, I'm out of danger, I decide what to do next ( scout with another char the surrounding area, check intel channels etc. ). Everyone understands that after he got ganked once or twice. Its actually quite nice of -V- and allies to do this, it allows me to rat in their home systems without fear, and allows me to stop their helper mining corps from getting anymore ore. Its quite amazing the lengths that you will goto to avoid getting into an engagement with my rupture. Even when multiple battleships are in system that are hostile to me I have no fear. Some of your members haven't learned how to do this yet, but most have :) I was also able to go down near 1v- and make some bms that I might need for later. Its so helpful of them to do this, and I am just so amazed by it. Occasionally I actually want to get into a fight though, I am not sure of how to do that.
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.07.18 08:41:00 - [112] Originally by: Avon Quote: Then you would have a system where defenders have to put in effort to defend themselves, but they can, and attackers if they want to be succesful against such defenses need more than a few stabbed up vagabonds with MWDs roaming around ganking **** without any risk. Sorry, I read through the whole post twice, but I couldn't see where effort was actually required. Could you point it out for me? Defenders would need to put up a POS in any system they want to mine/rat in, a scanning array should probably be pretty energy intensive, leaving not too much room for other stuff, so it wouldn't double as an effective deathstar POS. POS needs to be put up and fueled of course. Gate defenses similarly, with the risk of getting them blown up, and should also use fuel.
Avon Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.18 08:45:00 - [113] Originally by: Malachon Draco Originally by: Avon Quote: Then you would have a system where defenders have to put in effort to defend themselves, but they can, and attackers if they want to be succesful against such defenses need more than a few stabbed up vagabonds with MWDs roaming around ganking ** without any risk. Sorry, I read through the whole post twice, but I couldn't see where effort was actually required. Could you point it out for me? Defenders would need to put up a POS in any system they want to mine/rat in, a scanning array should probably be pretty energy intensive, leaving not too much room for other stuff, so it wouldn't double as an effective deathstar POS. POS needs to be put up and fueled of course. Gate defenses similarly, with the risk of getting them blown up, and should also use fuel. Oh, right. So this: Quote:** - You need to introduce the possibility that ships have active scanners on, like a small radar screen scanning permanently around them and relaying information. Range could vary per ship, if a frig has 15 AU range, cruisers should have something like 50, battleships 150 and carriers 300+ AU. was just a joke? The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.07.18 08:46:00 - [114] Originally by: Infinity Ziona Originally by: Malachon Draco Stuff about it not being fair that a person cant rat / mine in absolute safety in 0.0 and patrol / lock off several hundred systems without any real work - see above post I think once Local is nerfed that the risk vs reward (which the alliances are always blathering on about) will be quite balanced. When I jump into one of your gate camps I dont complain when 50 alliance ships disintegrate me in 5 seconds. I take it as a loss and move on. When I try to get into 0.0 I dont get any warning before I jump in. Theres no Local at the gate with a list of the morons crammed in the next system waiting to kill me in a much less skillful fashion then what your crying about. Yes I think once local is nerfed. Then they'll be some parity. You mean you don't use a scout in a covops or put expendable alts in all the key enemy systems in deep safespots, or sit in a stabbed up vagabond? Hmmm, you really should take the advanced ganking course then I guess. I love PvP, specifically have 2 characters only training combatg skills for PvP in all its various forms. But I don't like ganking, I like defending our territory. And you have no idea how frustrating it gets with every hostile in a stabbed up MWDing vagabond or putting covops in systems which you can't remove in any way shape or form. Then when you get a gang together and corner them, they just logoff. The game has virtually no tools for people defending against ganksquads, except by putting up 50 bubbles and a 50 man gatecamp, which noone likes.
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.07.18 08:51:00 - [115] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Malachon Draco Originally by: Avon Quote: Then you would have a system where defenders have to put in effort to defend themselves, but they can, and attackers if they want to be succesful against such defenses need more than a few stabbed up vagabonds with MWDs roaming around ganking ** without any risk. Sorry, I read through the whole post twice, but I couldn't see where effort was actually required. Could you point it out for me? Defenders would need to put up a POS in any system they want to mine/rat in, a scanning array should probably be pretty energy intensive, leaving not too much room for other stuff, so it wouldn't double as an effective deathstar POS. POS needs to be put up and fueled of course. Gate defenses similarly, with the risk of getting them blown up, and should also use fuel. Oh, right. So this: Quote: - You need to introduce the possibility that ships have active scanners on, like a small radar screen scanning permanently around them and relaying information. Range could vary per ship, if a frig has 15 AU range, cruisers should have something like 50, battleships 150 and carriers 300+ AU. was just a joke? No, you need that if you ever want to move a significant amount of stuff anywhere outside of your own territory without getting ganked. And of course it would also mean that if you use active scanners, you lit up on everybodies scanner like a ***** christmas tree. Not the most ideal position if you are mining in a barge, if a hostile enters local and he can warp straight to you if you got active radar going. Like I said, if you want to lose local, you need to add in the tools that should exist for people to get information. Radar is such a basic tool, and it is sadly lacking in this game. Therefore we have local to make up for it. Nerf local, once there are enough tools for people to do without, and those tools should exist, fit into the game perfectly and there is NO reason why we don't have them, except for CCP not getting round to putting them in.
Nicholai Pestot Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.18 09:06:00 - [116] Edited by: Nicholai Pestot on 18/07/2006 09:07:14 Originally by: Malachon Draco Originally by: Nicholai Pestot Edited by: Nicholai Pestot on 18/07/2006 07:52:28 Just in my humble opinion, Hi-sec should keep system local, lowsec should get a constellation local and 0.0 should loose local. That useless ship scanner module should, when run,give you a box that functions like your scanner, but automatically refreshes every 3 seconds and only goes out to 150,000,000km (with a tech II version that goes out to 300,000,000km). For the complaints about how this will effect defending 0.0....If you cant defend against a roaming gank squad without the free tracking tool that is local then this simply means you have claimed too many systems and have spread too far out. God forbid you should actually have to defend the systems you claim are yours instead of just camping the choke points into them I am actually impressed that BOB members have been some of the more vocal advocates of loosing local, as with their large territory they would be one of the biggest loosers of the enforced shrinking this change would bring to 0.0 alliances. Anyone who has ever lamented that too much of 0.0 has been claimed leaving no room for the little guy should be a firm supporter of removing local chat from 0.0 150m km is 1 AU, so a T2 scanner would have 2 AU range. So let's assume you see a target 2 AU out while its in warp to you. Even if you react immediately, it can be right on top of you in about 5 seconds max. Takes 1 second to lock with an interceptor, so unless you can have your ship basically in warp in 6 seconds at any point in time, you're a dead man if you're mining or ratting. Even at max vigilance, that is absurd. No. Max vigilance is using your built in ships scanner every 10 seconds. Max vigilance is working as a team to ensure you have multiple ships within close range of each other able to support each other.Max vigilance is only claiming the number of systems that you can effectivly control with total overwhelming force. The poor little scanner i proposed is to give you a few seconds longer to prepare if your alliance is un-willing or (as i suspect is the case with many current alliances) simply incapable of providing Max vigilance over the number of systems they laughably claim. ________________ What you do is you store up the rage, let it fester while you gain strength, then use it to gank those weaker than you... and so the circle of life is complete
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.07.18 09:17:00 - [117] Edited by: Malachon Draco on 18/07/2006 09:25:06 It is not possible to defend a system effectively against a ganksquad without local under the current game circumstances. Systems often have 2-3 gates, each needs to be guarded, since chances are even a bigger fleet will travel through systems undetected. To protect a mining operation, you need tons of warships all of a sudden, do you have any idea how fragile mining ships are? A covetor is practically made of paper. Even then, a concerted attack by a few hostiles you never even knew were there will tear you to pieces, regardless of the number of guards. The game at the moment has a flaw, lack of proper radar and intel gathering options, like POSses with scanners and the like. Attackers in fast ships and covops have a field day because of them, and the only thing protecting miners and ratters is local chat. If you want to remove local chat, you need to introduce other options for scanning and intel gathering in a major way, or the risk factor for ratters and miners goes through the roof. I can assure you, that if such a change were to go through without compensating measures, I'd sell my 11 battleships, buy some HACs and go on a ganking spree across the universe until my subscriptions ran out. It would be bloody slaughter until there are very few people left in 0.0 and lowsec.
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.07.18 09:18:00 - [118]
Cosmo Raata Federation of Freedom Fighters	Posted - 2006.07.18 09:29:00 - [119] I haven't read all the pages, so I dont know if it was mentioned yet or not. I strongly believe that defending space in 0.0 is too hard atm, thus huge alliances win all. I believe that if you have sovereignty of a system, several things should be automatically given to such alliance. They should have 1) Local chat, allowing them to see who all is there, 2) The ability to break safespots with less work than scan probes, 3) Warnings when a POS has been deployed or beacon has been opened. Without sovereignty none should be given. This allows miners & NPCers to be safe where there alliance is & Pirates to find wanderers to kill. Local only should give a number, as the only protection a traveller should have. Thoughts?
Nicholai Pestot Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.18 09:40:00 - [120] Originally by: Malachon Draco Edited by: Malachon Draco on 18/07/2006 09:25:06 It is not possible to defend a system effectively against a ganksquad without local under the current game circumstances. Systems often have 2-3 gates, each needs to be guarded, since chances are even a bigger fleet will travel through systems undetected. he moment has a flaw, lack of proper radar and intel gathering options, like POSses with scanners and the like. Attackers in fast ships and covops have a field day because of them, and the only thing protecting miners and ratters is local chat. If you want to remove local chat, you need to introduce other options for scanning and intel gathering in a major way, or the risk factor for ratters and miners goes through the roof. I can assure you, that if such a change were to go through without compensating measures, I'd sell my 11 battleships, buy some HACs and go on a ganking spree across the universe until my subscriptions ran out. It would be bloody slaughter until there are very few people left in 0.0 and lowsec. Every single point you have made is true and correct. Big 'however' though. Just taking your own alliance as an example.You currently claim what? 3 Regions/4 Regions ? Around 80 systems?This is the backdrop against which your argument stems from and given this situation it is correct. I argue, however, that local in its current form artificially extends the area that alliances can safely claim. Now take all your military power and focus it in 10 systems.Just 10 systems in which you anchor POS's, mine in, live in, launch attacks from etc.Pull back your camps to cover those systems. With that image firmly in your mind, with that compression and strenghtening of your forces fully realised....re-run the tactical implications of no more local. ________________ What you do is you store up the rage, let it fester while you gain strength, then use it to gank those weaker than you... and so the circle of life is complete
Joram McRory Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.18 09:56:00 - [121] Edited by: Joram McRory on 18/07/2006 09:59:37 Originally by: Nicholai Pestot Edited by: Nicholai Pestot on 18/07/2006 09:07:14 For the complaints about how this will effect defending 0.0....If you cant defend against a roaming gank squad without the free tracking tool that is local then this simply means you have claimed too many systems and have spread too far out. God forbid you should actually have to defend the systems you claim are yours instead of just camping the choke points into them No. Max vigilance is using your built in ships scanner every 10 seconds. Max vigilance is working as a team to ensure you have multiple ships within close range of each other able to support each other.Max vigilance is only claiming the number of systems that you can effectivly control with total overwhelming force. You seem to have an alternate agenda here: Big alliances have more space than they should! You might be right, but your idea that anyone can actively defend every system within their space is absurd! Remember EC- - to lock down just ONE system took the cobmibed force of 3 of the biggest alliances in the game. So in game terms it is impractical, and in RP terms it is just daft - you defend your boarders, not every square mile of your space. In reality the huge expance off alliance terretory you see on the map is actually about 10-15 systems per alliance (because they are the only ones worth mining/ratting in), but even so there are not enough players in eve to secure all of those at the same time. The main argument against nerfing local is as malachon has described above: Cloaks!!! Without local atm there is no game mechanic that exists to allow you to scan for cloaked ships, so just by putting a cloak on your ship you become invisible for much of the time, and recons are invisible 99% of the time. So if you remove local the vaga becomes obsolete as a ganking tool and everyone trains recon ships. Then other than bubbling every entry gate there is no defence at all. And bubbling several entry gates 24/7 is not an option (well, not a realistic one) as it would tie up 90% of your resource and people's game time to sit looking at a gate. Not much fun for anyone. There is, as always, a conflict of interest here: Some people want to get around without anyone knowing they are there (unless they spend most of their time actively looking for them) Others want to have some basic radar like facility that does not need a huge amount of effort to use. The gankers will call the others lazy because they don't want to make an effort to scan The others will call the gankers lazy too - because there is no doubt that thier life would become 100 times easier. The argument that it's the same for both is complete hogwash. Attackers pick the time and the location of the attack - defenders do not - that changes the balance of things completely in favour of the attacker becaus e the attacker can allway make a pretty good guess where the ratters/miners are. Joram
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.07.18 09:59:00 - [122] Originally by: Nicholai Pestot Originally by: Malachon Draco Edited by: Malachon Draco on 18/07/2006 09:25:06 It is not possible to defend a system effectively against a ganksquad without local under the current game circumstances. Systems often have 2-3 gates, each needs to be guarded, since chances are even a bigger fleet will travel through systems undetected. he moment has a flaw, lack of proper radar and intel gathering options, like POSses with scanners and the like. Attackers in fast ships and covops have a field day because of them, and the only thing protecting miners and ratters is local chat. If you want to remove local chat, you need to introduce other options for scanning and intel gathering in a major way, or the risk factor for ratters and miners goes through the roof. I can assure you, that if such a change were to go through without compensating measures, I'd sell my 11 battleships, buy some HACs and go on a ganking spree across the universe until my subscriptions ran out. It would be bloody slaughter until there are very few people left in 0.0 and lowsec. Every single point you have made is true and correct. Big 'however' though. Just taking your own alliance as an example.You currently claim what? 3 Regions/4 Regions ? Around 80 systems?This is the backdrop against which your argument stems from and given this situation it is correct. I argue, however, that local in its current form artificially extends the area that alliances can safely claim. Now take all your military power and focus it in 10 systems.Just 10 systems in which you anchor POS's, mine in, live in, launch attacks from etc.Pull back your camps to cover those systems. With that image firmly in your mind, with that compression and strenghtening of your forces fully realised....re-run the tactical implications of no more local. Trust me, I did just that. My conclusion, we might be able to hold on to a small group of about 20 systems, with only 1 or 2 entrances which we could close off. But even in those systems we would not be safe. It would take only 20 dedicated characters (read: alts) to shut us down for half of it. And remember, this is an alliance with 3800 accounts. If we had to live in 20 systems we would cut each others heart out over veldspar within a week. A big alliance needs a big amount of space to live in, because that is needed to sustain the people. Local helps not in controlling it fully, but certainly helps in keeping enough surveillance going to protect it. And note that even if we can only hold 20 systems, we certainly can deny the other 100 we have now to anyone but another big alliance. 95% of 0.0 would become a desolate wasteland, scoured by ganksquads, while the other 5% would become fortresses with big blobs of people. That is until internal strife about the limited resources would devastate most alliances. I seriously doubt any alliance of significant would be able to have the internal cohesion to survive living in such a small area of space, off such limited resources. My return question to you, if they removed local, but added the things I suggested, which partially will be in by Kali anyway, what would you think about that? I.e.: - POSses that can scan and relay information to outside their own system to their owners. - Anyone using active scanners showing up on local - Active scanners becoming like radar, immediately showing direction and distance (with a small margin of error) of hostiles and with longer range than the current scanners - Scanning of covops being difficult but possible - Gate defenses What would you think about that package of changes?
Avon Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.18 10:07:00 - [123] Tell you what, I'll let you have your radar. It is an electromagnetic wave based detection system, and so propogates at the speed of light (roughly 8 minutes per AU). As it depends on signal return for detection you have to double that time. 16 minutes per AU. Yup, cool, I'm fine with that. Proper radar .. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Sergeant Spot	Posted - 2006.07.18 10:26:00 - [124] Unless CCP wants to shut down 0.0 for mining, Local, or something MORE or EQUALLY effective, and MORE or EQUALLY easy to use "must" be available. As it stands now, when a player spends 4 hours mining, looking away from you computer screen for even 10 seconds can be a death sentence. Folks wear down mentally, and die. And thats the crux. The hunter is in motion, and is constantly jumping from system to system, and has a changing local, MUCH easier to watch. The miner has one that does not change 99.9% of the time (except for friendlies coming and going) I've mined in 0.0, and I've hunted. I am very familar with both sides of this coin. I am probably in a better position to Judge the issue than most other veteran players in game (except the ones like me, who only match me...) So, does CCP want to shut down 0.0 mining? Its a fair and legit question. Again, does CCP want to shut down 0.0 mining? (By "shut down", I mean about a 90% reduction, AND economic ripple that will affect a hell of a lot more than mineral prices) As always. I'll adapt. Nothing prevents me from hanging up my mining lasers for months on end. I've done it before. BoB PvP is opened to me, Level 4 missions in every Empire and in 0.0, prime 0.0 NPC hunting (which would also be severely hurt by this, but would still be possible) I don't mine much for 0.0 carebear, but I work with folks who do, and I am very aware of the impact this would have. Last I heard was CCP wants more, not less, folks living in 0.0.
Sergeant Spot	Posted - 2006.07.18 10:34:00 - [125] Edited by: Sergeant Spot on 18/07/2006 10:35:07 Never ceases to amaze me that the folks who howled to get the Map nerf can never get enough. The Map was SEVERELY nerfed. Became 100% useless for spotting almost any hostile force in 0.0, but remain GREAT for finding miners and NPC hunters. (Map can still find a gate camp, but thats it. I'm not impressed....) I've got news for folks: NOTHING will make rich and easily killed victims more common except to make such death "less" painful for the victim (Not a solution I recommend. Bad idea) (Short term increases in victims after changes are possible, but not long term....)
Joram McRory Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.18 10:34:00 - [126] Originally by: Avon Tell you what, I'll let you have your radar. It is an electromagnetic wave based detection system, and so propogates at the speed of light (roughly 8 minutes per AU). As it depends on signal return for detection you have to double that time. 16 minutes per AU. Yup, cool, I'm fine with that. Proper radar .. Ok shall we remove the ability to talk in chat windows for ships off the same grid - and make the use of voice comms a banable offence as well - that would be evemn more realistic..... Joram
babyblue	Posted - 2006.07.18 10:37:00 - [127] I think from reading Avon's posts on this issue, his idea is that your corp or alliance totally locks down the system you want to mine or rat in, bubbles/camps on every gate, on both sides, while the mining drones do their merry work, for the duration they want to do it. Each mining group has a group of dedicated protectors to help them haul to the refinery. Moving from system to system while singing "YMCA" and drinking Skoll. At the end of each session, of which there are 23/6 per day, everyone gathers at the station for a group hug and a "Whoooop". In reality, people don't live, work or play like this. It completely lacks any flexibility of control for individuals or small groups to do their own thing when they always need to rely on the gang to be there 23/7. Not to mention that gang losing the will to live sitting on a gate with a bubble in shifts 7 days a week. It's completely unrealistic and is why CCP should not listen to the purists about this kind of thing.
Sergeant Spot	Posted - 2006.07.18 10:43:00 - [128] Edited by: Sergeant Spot on 18/07/2006 10:43:21 Originally by: babyblue I think from reading Avon's posts on this issue, his idea is that your corp or alliance totally locks down the system you want to mine or rat in, bubbles/camps on every gate, on both sides, while the mining drones do their merry work, for the duration they want to do it. Each mining group has a group of dedicated protectors to help them haul to the refinery. Moving from system to system while singing "YMCA" and drinking Skoll. At the end of each session, of which there are 23/6 per day, everyone gathers at the station for a group hug and a "Whoooop". In reality, people don't live, work or play like this. It completely lacks any flexibility of control for individuals or small groups to do their own thing when they always need to rely on the gang to be there 23/7. Not to mention that gang losing the will to live sitting on a gate with a bubble in shifts 7 days a week. It's completely unrealistic and is why CCP should not listen to the purists about this kind of thing. Exactly The pure PvPers are put in enough pain just escorting Freighters now and then. They HATE it. If they think that is painful, I can just imagin how they'd react to flying cover for a mining operation. 100 times worse for what they hate. In fact, even for well diciplined PvPer (whom I work with regularly), I don't think they could do it. They simply could not bring themselves to log in and provide cover.
Nicholai Pestot Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.18 10:48:00 - [129] Originally by: Malachon Draco I.e.: - POSses that can scan and relay information to outside their own system to their owners. - Anyone using active scanners showing up on local - Active scanners becoming like radar, immediately showing direction and distance (with a small margin of error) of hostiles and with longer range than the current scanners - Scanning of covops being difficult but possible - Gate defenses What would you think about that package of changes? That sounds like a good balance. Just call the 'active radar' a gravametric sensor or somthing that can pickup the signature of warpdrives even when inactive ( looking at you avon ) and it sounds like quite a nice package. My personal taste would be lowering the range of all ship-based scanners to only work within typical subsystem range (ie a planet and its moons/belts). Including more specialised long ranged scanners with massive cpu usage and a small selection of ships with a -99% mod on its CPU use to compensate for this... Combined with the 'super sensors' on a POS that should be more than enough tools for an alliance to protect their space, with prehapse the increased effort shrinking their boarders slightly (yes yes i know, a sticking point for me ) This demasculating of on-board scanners would make life as a pirate harder...but the loss of system local would more than make up for this. My gods we turned a near-flame war into a mature discussion ________________ What you do is you store up the rage, let it fester while you gain strength, then use it to gank those weaker than you... and so the circle of life is complete
Avon Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.18 10:53:00 - [130] Originally by: babyblue I think from reading Avon's posts on this issue, his idea is that your corp or alliance totally locks down the system you want to mine or rat in, bubbles/camps on every gate, on both sides, while the mining drones do their merry work, for the duration they want to do it. Each mining group has a group of dedicated protectors to help them haul to the refinery. Moving from system to system while singing "YMCA" and drinking Skoll. At the end of each session, of which there are 23/6 per day, everyone gathers at the station for a group hug and a "Whoooop". In reality, people don't live, work or play like this. It completely lacks any flexibility of control for individuals or small groups to do their own thing when they always need to rely on the gang to be there 23/7. Not to mention that gang losing the will to live sitting on a gate with a bubble in shifts 7 days a week. It's completely unrealistic and is why CCP should not listen to the purists about this kind of thing. Nope, I am more in favour of being able to protect your borders to stop the roving gankers getting in in the first place. Bloody insta-jumping, stabbed up, cloaked safe spotting, roving space monkeys are the problem. Keeping or removing local will not change that. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Joram McRory Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.18 11:00:00 - [131] Originally by: Nicholai Pestot Originally by: Malachon Draco I.e.: - POSses that can scan and relay information to outside their own system to their owners. - Anyone using active scanners showing up on local - Active scanners becoming like radar, immediately showing direction and distance (with a small margin of error) of hostiles and with longer range than the current scanners - Scanning of covops being difficult but possible - Gate defenses What would you think about that package of changes? That sounds like a good balance. Just call the 'active radar' a gravametric sensor or somthing that can pickup the signature of warpdrives even when inactive ( looking at you avon ) and it sounds like quite a nice package. My personal taste would be lowering the range of all ship-based scanners to only work within typical subsystem range (ie a planet and its moons/belts). Including more specialised long ranged scanners with massive cpu usage and a small selection of ships with a -99% mod on its CPU use to compensate for this... Combined with the 'super sensors' on a POS that should be more than enough tools for an alliance to protect their space, with prehapse the increased effort shrinking their boarders slightly (yes yes i know, a sticking point for me ) This demasculating of on-board scanners would make life as a pirate harder...but the loss of system local would more than make up for this. My gods we turned a near-flame war into a mature discussion oh my god!! It looks like we have a consensus! now we just have to convince CCP....... Joram
Twilight Moon Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.18 11:06:00 - [132] Originally by: Avon Finding ships isn't too bad when you know there is someone in the system, but what if you don't know? If you think gangs are going to drag a covert around everywhere to launch an observator in each system they pass through, I think you are sadly mistakened. I assume Observators also show ships that are sitting unmanned at Stations too? If so, I think the OP might find that removing local makes a lot of roving gang PvP'ers rather irritated, as they spend 5 mins in every system chasing down ships that arent even targetable. --------------------- Sig to come soonish.
Sergeant Spot	Posted - 2006.07.18 11:08:00 - [133] Originally by: Avon Originally by: babyblue I think from reading Avon's posts on this issue, his idea is that your corp or alliance totally locks down the system you want to mine or rat in, bubbles/camps on every gate, on both sides, while the mining drones do their merry work, for the duration they want to do it. Each mining group has a group of dedicated protectors to help them haul to the refinery. Moving from system to system while singing "YMCA" and drinking Skoll. At the end of each session, of which there are 23/6 per day, everyone gathers at the station for a group hug and a "Whoooop". In reality, people don't live, work or play like this. It completely lacks any flexibility of control for individuals or small groups to do their own thing when they always need to rely on the gang to be there 23/7. Not to mention that gang losing the will to live sitting on a gate with a bubble in shifts 7 days a week. It's completely unrealistic and is why CCP should not listen to the purists about this kind of thing. Nope, I am more in favour of being able to protect your borders to stop the roving gankers getting in in the first place. Bloody insta-jumping, stabbed up, cloaked safe spotting, roving space monkeys are the problem. Keeping or removing local will not change that. Hmmm. Now THAT sounds interesting. Still, by itself, removing local makes border defense harder, at least for what counts. Truth is, I'm looking forward to being part of warring 0.0 empires with actual borders. However, I believe that the roaming ganker is also a valid Eve player, and such a thing would be the end of him. The best idea I've had on the issue would be allow improved control of soverign systems (what ever form that takes....), and then open Jovian space and other regions. Have the Jovians claim "protectorate" of those other new, non-jove regions. Then have Jove say "no non-jove soverignty" in said systems. This would give the roving gankers a place to exist if the other parts of 0.0 become to hard for them to exist in.
Callie Nefarious Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.18 11:12:00 - [134] I havent read all posts so dont flame me if this has already been stated. But if your piratign in 0.0 and want to ransom surely local is the way to do it. Open a private message you say, but how mnay peopel have auto reject on due to chat spam when in 0.0.
Lo3d3R Implant Liberation Front	Posted - 2006.07.18 11:13:00 - [135] removing "local" and other drastic game changes of base-features that were in the game since release will eventually destroy this game. so said Lo3d3R ganker of noobs, lover of bear meat. ____________________ Eating Chopped Bear
Khajit Smitty Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.18 11:43:00 - [136] There are valid and invalid points to both angles of this debate. To summarise : Nerf Local Argument -Makes the game more tactical with ambushes etc. -Roving gangs can get some kills without everyone safe spotting -More fights as there will be less easy intel available -Favours the attacker. Dont Nerf Local Argument -Serves as a form of communication -Will increase number of miner kills -Favours the attacker -less intel means more kills which means less people in 0.0 All the above points are valid, you cannot overlook one side of the argument totally and with this topic changing the way it works has a postitive/negative impact on both sides. If i think about it what is needed is a solution that has balance between both arguments and not a solution that favours only one side. In my opinion replacing local chat with constellation chat would favour both sides, it still does provide some intel however it is not system specific and it still means small squads can get in and cause some havoc as im sure not everyone will notice a hostile or few.
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.07.18 12:13:00 - [137] Originally by: Avon Nope, I am more in favour of being able to protect your borders to stop the roving gankers getting in in the first place. Bloody insta-jumping, stabbed up, cloaked safe spotting, roving space monkeys are the problem. Keeping or removing local will not change that. I agree they are a major part of the problem, though I wouldn't want to destroy their gamestyle completely, it does add some excitement now and again, but making it a bit riskier/better counterable would be good. And I agree local doesn't solve that problem, but it does alleviate the effects. A single ratter up the pipe will spot such a ganksquad in local, and should hav a decent chance to get away while warning miners 3 jumps away, making the ganksquad tactic less succesful.
Maya Rkell Corsets and Carebears	Posted - 2006.07.18 13:02:00 - [138] Originally by: Infinity Ziona Originally by: Malachon Draco Stuff about it not being fair that a person cant rat / mine in absolute safety in 0.0 and patrol / lock off several hundred systems without any real work - see above post I think once Local is nerfed that the risk vs reward (which the alliances are always blathering on about) will be quite balanced. Balanced, as in "anyone not a ganker or big alliance member need not bother", yea. Avon, so basically bigger ships are better scouts? Oops, theer goes ANOTHER major frigate role. You really hate em..
Avon Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.18 13:04:00 - [139] Originally by: Maya Rkell Avon, so basically bigger ships are better scouts? Oops, theer goes ANOTHER major frigate role. You really hate em.. Huh? Where did you pull that from? I fly mostly frigates. Stop trolling. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Rocksor	Posted - 2006.07.18 13:09:00 - [140] I would like to have an automated scanning system... each corp/alliance should be able to anchor an small (medium/large) scanning array in the system at a moon (no need of a POS but without one it would be very easy to kill) The scanning array should have a cargobay for fuel and use it constantly. I don't want a specific scan ability, no ships, no names, just a list of systems where these scanning arays are up and working. Each one should show the quantity of enemies, neutral and friends in the system with a small delay. I know it seems like a huge advantage versus the enemy but if a small scanning array would need about 6 min to scan the whole system and the large one 2 minutes, the attacker would have time to attack at surprise! And don't forget the fuelcosts and the time to fill up all scanning arrays (or build them up again, after an ambush of an enemy) This would give the claming alliance a good view over their territory. However, the covops-ships should be able to fit an expensive anti-scanning-module to sneak into a system and with high hacking skills and some luck, it should be possible to override a scanning-array (outside a POS!) btw. I'm sorry about my bad english :(
Maya Rkell Corsets and Carebears	Posted - 2006.07.18 13:15:00 - [141] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Maya Rkell Avon, so basically bigger ships are better scouts? Oops, theer goes ANOTHER major frigate role. You really hate em.. Huh? Where did you pull that from? I fly mostly frigates. Stop trolling. You claim you fly frigates. You propose rafts of measures which nerf them. And thus, once more, I plain don't believe you. I pulled it from YOUR post.
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.07.18 13:20:00 - [142] Originally by: Maya Rkell Edited by: Maya Rkell on 18/07/2006 13:16:22 Originally by: Avon Originally by: Maya Rkell Avon, so basically bigger ships are better scouts? Oops, theer goes ANOTHER major frigate role. You really hate em.. Huh? Where did you pull that from? I fly mostly frigates. Stop trolling. You claim you fly frigates. You propose rafts of measures which nerf them. And thus, once more, I plain don't believe you. I pulled it from YOUR post. (Effect comes from cause, in terms of your hostility) Actually, I think it was me who made a reference to frigs vs other ships where frigs should have smaller reach with radar than big ships
Avon Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.18 14:00:00 - [143] Edited by: Avon on 18/07/2006 14:03:22 Originally by: Maya Rkell You claim you fly frigates. You propose rafts of measures which nerf them. And thus, once more, I plain don't believe you. I pulled it from YOUR post. (Effect comes from cause, in terms of your hostility) Proof or stfu. Added: Actually, don't even bother. I am done with you. You just make stuff up to suit your agenda, and then question other people's honesty. People like you are exactly what is wrong with these forums. Don't cry, don't fuss, just go. Seriously. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Locke DieDrake Port Royal Independent Kontractors Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.07.18 14:55:00 - [144] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Locke DieDrake I'm going to go off on you for a minute. Don't take it personal. Turning off sound, and turret affects and effects DOES NOT EFFECT LAG. Lag is a network issue. Sound, turrets and effects are your computer chocking to death on it's outdated hardware. Lag is the delay between input and response. The network aspect of that is latency. If you are going to correct people, try and get it right and not look like a fool. Definition: Lag is a term indicating the latency of a connection, mainly to the bad. More lag indicates a longer time for your game to communicate with the game server, and thus a higher amount of lag indicates slower responses. LAG is a network term. At least in relation to computers. Just because you peons have expanded it's definition to include anything you see fit does not make you correct. If you would like to expand the definition to the greater world, lag could be applied to the time between response and return. However, in a game, that is a network issue. FULL STOP. I could go into alot more detail, but it's clear to me that you don't actually care about the facts. It's not my fault you don't understand computers. ___________________________________________ The deeper you stick it in your vein, the deeper the thoughts there's no more pain. ___________________________________________
Vasiliyan PAX Interstellar Services Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.07.18 15:07:00 - [145] Originally by: Bluestealth Occasionally I actually want to get into a fight though, I am not sure of how to do that. Come down to 28Y9 sometime, preferably 1800-2400 and I can guarantee a warm reception ;)
Plutoinum Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.18 15:07:00 - [146] Edited by: Plutoinum on 18/07/2006 15:08:50 Originally by: Bluestealth Originally by: Plutoinum Edited by: Plutoinum on 17/07/2006 17:48:24 Hostile enters system => warp to safe. Ok, solved, I'm out of danger, I decide what to do next ( scout with another char the surrounding area, check intel channels etc. ). Everyone understands that after he got ganked once or twice. smack Poor smack. You were in RA, you should know how it works. There is no chance that I engage with my ratting Raven, if I don't know what's in the system next door or know that I can kill someone in time, before his reinforcements arrive. Sorry, I've ganked enough ratters and miners myself and know how it works. When I'm ratting on an alt usally in a station-less system without mates on TS, I'm only up for ratting with that ship and not up for pvp, until I know the odds. Formerly I just had a POS and switched ships there, if someone came. I'll probably do that again in the future, if we see changes to local and probes. Would be too much hassle, if I foolishly engaged someone, fell for a bait tactics, got blobbed, lost my ratting ship and had to get a new one, before I could earn isk again. Maybe all for one interceptor kill ? No. If I make stupid mistakes, it means that I have to grind for a new ship. I hate grinding.
Avon Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.18 15:10:00 - [147] Nope, as I said, lag is the perceived delay of a system responding to input. I am correct on this, and you are not. It is you that is incorrectly defining lag (in very much the same way as quake players used to). Network latency can cause lag, but it is by no means the only factor. *To be fair to Quake players, especially Q2, not all used the term lag incorrectly. Thresh (A famous Q2 player) once attributed the loss of a match to "mouse lag", which prompted him to take his own mouse everywhere after that. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Adam C	Posted - 2006.07.18 16:10:00 - [148] the gist I am getting here is, players like to have anonymity? "The Radar idea" is prolly the best one. However it needs to be seemless for the fun factor to remain (or succeed) There could be a radical new system of ui changes which provides a hugely different experience of entering a new solar system. by providing sound/visual stimulation to (i) starships with their warpdrive ative? (ii)ships matching hostile signatures? a basic example of pro and con for local channels; - + Players like to experience a new situation when entering a solor system. - Prolly not to switch solar systems to hunt for chat-channels for their epeens. The game shouldnt be dominated by a chat channel make this more optional by choosing that. If u take anything out of my lil post, let it be "different experience of entering a new solar system"
PeeWee Pee	Posted - 2006.07.18 16:35:00 - [149] Originally by: Maya Rkell Edited by: Maya Rkell on 18/07/2006 13:16:22 Originally by: Avon Originally by: Maya Rkell Avon, so basically bigger ships are better scouts? Oops, theer goes ANOTHER major frigate role. You really hate em.. Huh? Where did you pull that from? I fly mostly frigates. Stop trolling. You claim you fly frigates. You propose rafts of measures which nerf them. And thus, once more, I plain don't believe you. I pulled it from YOUR post. (Effect comes from cause, in terms of your hostility) say what? more proposals to nerf da little guys. how about let be nerfing some hacs next
Venatus Phoenix Ars Caelestis HUZZAH FEDERATION	Posted - 2006.07.18 16:58:00 - [150] Remove local as it is now from 0.0 but leave it alone in empire. Make it so if you chat you only appear for 120 seconds when not in empire. Add a new skill based deployable scanner that you throw out within 15km of a gate. When someone jumps through it scans them and they appear to you with what ship type they are in; makes it better than current local. It will also tell you if they jump out. The deployable scanner should be fairly easy to destory though. At lvl 5 of whatever skill you can deploy a cloaked version of the scanner but it has to be within 15km of the gate to work so you have a chance of it getting decloaked by someone jumping in. I would also like to see some module created that would allow ships to find cloaks. Make 0.0 gates be anchorable like a tower if your alliance has sovereignty in the system however you can not use POS stuctures with a gate. I'd like to see a new line of structures such as sentry guns and a scanner that is much more difficult to destory than the deployable version. Make it use fuel but at a much slower rate than what towers burn through to power anything that's attached to the gate. Really just something I would like to see that does nerf local but doesn't make you completely vulnerable. If your scanner pops you know by who and to get to a SS. I would also like to see soverienty actually matter for something and it would be useful to alliances if they could put POSs at the entrances of thier areas so that they can know what ship types are moving through thier space and by whom. Everything stated is my opinion and I realize it will never happen and hopefully something else will be implemented that will work better. Spelling FTL =( Venatus Phoenix
Arthmandar Valikari Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.18 17:27:00 - [151] Edited by: Arthmandar Valikari on 18/07/2006 17:31:54 Disclaimer: I only read the first three pages of this thread. While we're all spouting ideas about how to fix local, the following came to me, and hah, you're reading it. Since nobody seems to mind having a local chat window which provides no information unless someone actually says something in it, let's define the other information in 'local' as being an aggregated report of constant broadcasts from the stargates, which are able of course to monitor who goes through them, when, etc. Then (here's the fun part) make the gates configurable based on sovereignty. That is, in empire space, the gates spew all kinds of broadcast information to protect the citizens -- local has info on who is in the system, their ship types, alliance and corporate membership, security status, everything. But out in 0.0, if you have sovereignty, someone with a stargate configuration role can decide how much information the gates broadcast in local, from everything available in 1.0 empire to absolutely nothing, depending on what they want. If you want to make it overpowered, give them the ability to filter results based on standing (that is, if you're >= +5.0 to the system sovereign, you get full information about who is jumping in and out, but if you have negative standings, you get squat. It covers a lot of the complaints about local, works with the storyline and rp-ers, and adds a lot of interesting game dynamics. Now, flame away. :) Quote: I for one welcome our new centrifuge generated superchicken overlords. -- Delerium of Disorder
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2006.07.18 17:36:00 - [152] Edited by: Grim Vandal on 18/07/2006 17:37:08 there are 2 types of different players ... those who are for the removal of local and those who are against it ... (and there is Maya who is just, well i dont know ...) a compromise which quite a few of you try to achieve is pretty much the worst thing you could do tho ... what really matters is not who is right or wrong ... but ccp have to grab their balls and make their mind up which type of players they want to play their game!!!11!onelevoen Greetings Grim
Sergeant Spot	Posted - 2006.07.18 17:51:00 - [153] Originally by: Grim Vandal Edited by: Grim Vandal on 18/07/2006 17:37:08 there are 2 types of different players ... those who are for the removal of local and those who are against it ... (and there is Maya who is just, well i dont know ...) a compromise which quite a few of you try to achieve is pretty much the worst thing you could do tho ... what really matters is not who is right or wrong ... but ccp have to grab their balls and make their mind up which type of players they want to play their game!!!11!onelevoen Compromise is a BAD idea. If anything, those demanding a local nerf should be greatful for the map nerf that happened a while back. They will NEVER be satisfied. The thing is, what they want can't exist in Eve, no matter what changes are made (with the possible exception of making death painless, but thats a really bad idea....) So long as death in Eve can be painful, people will do what it takes to avoid the most extreme pain. This cannot and will not change, no matter what is done, and no matter how much folks wish otherwise. Nerfing local will NOT improve the game the way some people seem to think it will.
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2006.07.18 17:54:00 - [154] Originally by: Sergeant Spot Originally by: Grim Vandal Edited by: Grim Vandal on 18/07/2006 17:37:08 there are 2 types of different players ... those who are for the removal of local and those who are against it ... (and there is Maya who is just, well i dont know ...) a compromise which quite a few of you try to achieve is pretty much the worst thing you could do tho ... what really matters is not who is right or wrong ... but ccp have to grab their balls and make their mind up which type of players they want to play their game!!!11!onelevoen Compromise is a BAD idea. If anything, those demanding a local nerf should be greatful for the map nerf that happened a while back. They will NEVER be satisfied. The thing is, what they want can't exist in Eve, no matter what changes are made (with the possible exception of making death painless, but thats a really bad idea....) So long as death in Eve can be painful, people will do what it takes to avoid the most extreme pain. This cannot and will not change, no matter what is done, and no matter how much folks wish otherwise. Nerfing local will NOT improve the game the way some people seem to think it will. ehm well, seems I forgot to state in my post that I am definately for the removal of local Greetings Grim
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2006.07.18 18:20:00 - [155] Originally by: Sergeant Spot Originally by: Grim Vandal Edited by: Grim Vandal on 18/07/2006 17:37:08 there are 2 types of different players ... those who are for the removal of local and those who are against it ... (and there is Maya who is just, well i dont know ...) a compromise which quite a few of you try to achieve is pretty much the worst thing you could do tho ... what really matters is not who is right or wrong ... but ccp have to grab their balls and make their mind up which type of players they want to play their game!!!11!onelevoen Compromise is a BAD idea. If anything, those demanding a local nerf should be greatful for the map nerf that happened a while back. They will NEVER be satisfied. The thing is, what they want can't exist in Eve, no matter what changes are made (with the possible exception of making death painless, but thats a really bad idea....) So long as death in Eve can be painful, people will do what it takes to avoid the most extreme pain. This cannot and will not change, no matter what is done, and no matter how much folks wish otherwise. Nerfing local will NOT improve the game the way some people seem to think it will. The map nerf was a compromize and a really bad one at that, what good did a 30 minute delay do anyone? Remind me about The Maze. I'm Danton Marcellus and I approve of this message.
Maya Rkell Corsets and Carebears	Posted - 2006.07.18 19:18:00 - [156] Malachon Draco, ah, my bad. Avon, yes, it was a mistake caused by the fact you didn't lable a quote. Shrug, get over it. You emphasise for me the necessity for a voice to dissent from the Alliance view of doing things. Adam C, no, making the game faceless and bland is a decidedly BAD idea. All the ideas based on Sov give the existing alliances a near-unbreakable advantage against newcomers and smaller forces. It's a dead halt on anything resembling war.
Sergeant Spot	Posted - 2006.07.18 20:02:00 - [157] Originally by: Danton Marcellus Originally by: Sergeant Spot Originally by: Grim Vandal Edited by: Grim Vandal on 18/07/2006 17:37:08 there are 2 types of different players ... those who are for the removal of local and those who are against it ... (and there is Maya who is just, well i dont know ...) a compromise which quite a few of you try to achieve is pretty much the worst thing you could do tho ... what really matters is not who is right or wrong ... but ccp have to grab their balls and make their mind up which type of players they want to play their game!!!11!onelevoen Compromise is a BAD idea. If anything, those demanding a local nerf should be greatful for the map nerf that happened a while back. They will NEVER be satisfied. The thing is, what they want can't exist in Eve, no matter what changes are made (with the possible exception of making death painless, but thats a really bad idea....) So long as death in Eve can be painful, people will do what it takes to avoid the most extreme pain. This cannot and will not change, no matter what is done, and no matter how much folks wish otherwise. Nerfing local will NOT improve the game the way some people seem to think it will. The map nerf was a compromize and a really bad one at that, what good did a 30 minute delay do anyone? It made roving gangs invisible on the map. I remember when BNC was part of NORAD, and the map being used offensively and defensively against moving combat targets. Thats no longer possible, but it still works great to detect mining operations.
Infinity Ziona The First Noble Truth	Posted - 2006.07.18 20:10:00 - [158] Any change to local should be global. Empire or 0.0, the local chat is used for three things only and thats spamming, smacktalk and early warning detection. If you want to spam, email, if you want to chat, convo, if you want an EWACS then scan. There are already solutions to local. Its a game. If your too scared to fight then go to empire. If your not willing to escort, guard or patrol then you dont deserve to keep me out of your systems. Its quite a simple concept. IF YOUR NOT PREPARED TO DO AS MUCH WORK TO PROTECT YOURSELF AS I DO TO FIND YOU AND KILL YOU THEN BAD LUCK. See its simple.
Spineker Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.18 20:28:00 - [159] Local is needed. :) Just my answer to the question.
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.07.18 20:39:00 - [160] Originally by: Infinity Ziona Any change to local should be global. Empire or 0.0, the local chat is used for three things only and thats spamming, smacktalk and early warning detection. If you want to spam, email, if you want to chat, convo, if you want an EWACS then scan. There are already solutions to local. Its a game. If your too scared to fight then go to empire. If your not willing to escort, guard or patrol then you dont deserve to keep me out of your systems. Its quite a simple concept. IF YOUR NOT PREPARED TO DO AS MUCH WORK TO PROTECT YOURSELF AS I DO TO FIND YOU AND KILL YOU THEN BAD LUCK. See its simple. As has been explained a dozen times already, all an attacker has to do is go to the obvious systems where people are, scan about 3 times and jump in on a mining operation to gank. In contrast, defenders will have to push the scan button every five goddamn seconds for hours and hours and hours while mining or risk being ganked. If you call that 'AS MUCH WORK'... Attacker without local has it easy, defense is impossible.
Gift Amarr	Posted - 2006.07.18 20:45:00 - [161] Local in 0.0 takes the fun & mystery away. "Do we need "Local" in 0.0 space?" No. Sawa's Graphic Fun Time
Nicocat Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.18 20:52:00 - [162] Disclaimer: I read the first page and a few posts of the last page. Removing local will create an influx of carebears. Nobody will want to party in 0.0 anymore except for big, invincible blobs. Hell, nobody will want to screw around in .1-.4 either, not knowing what is around. No changes are needed, just don't mess with it. And if CCP is still going to mess with it, I hope they at least keep a count of ships in system (updated instantly, not with some ridiculous delay). I want to know if a 70 man gankfleet has arrived, and now. ---------------------------- The opinions expressed by Nico do not reflect his corporation. He's just an ass. -Alexi Yes, I PvP in a Hookbill. How insane am I? EVE-Mail me and tell me!
Infinity Ziona The First Noble Truth	Posted - 2006.07.18 20:59:00 - [163] Originally by: Malachon Draco Originally by: Infinity Ziona Any change to local should be global. Empire or 0.0, the local chat is used for three things only and thats spamming, smacktalk and early warning detection. If you want to spam, email, if you want to chat, convo, if you want an EWACS then scan. There are already solutions to local. Its a game. If your too scared to fight then go to empire. If your not willing to escort, guard or patrol then you dont deserve to keep me out of your systems. Its quite a simple concept. IF YOUR NOT PREPARED TO DO AS MUCH WORK TO PROTECT YOURSELF AS I DO TO FIND YOU AND KILL YOU THEN BAD LUCK. See its simple. As has been explained a dozen times already, all an attacker has to do is go to the obvious systems where people are, scan about 3 times and jump in on a mining operation to gank. In contrast, defenders will have to push the scan button every five goddamn seconds for hours and hours and hours while mining or risk being ganked. If you call that 'AS MUCH WORK'... Attacker without local has it easy, defense is impossible. Ascendant Frontier has almost 4000 members - 3000 active?. If you cant defend your space with 3000 people then its obvious that you have tried to take too much. Concentrate your force into a smaller area. Problem solved. Its unreasonable to expect to take 10% of the systems in EvE using only 1% or less of the playerbase.
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2006.07.18 21:08:00 - [164] Originally by: Sergeant Spot Originally by: Danton Marcellus Originally by: Sergeant Spot Originally by: Grim Vandal Edited by: Grim Vandal on 18/07/2006 17:37:08 there are 2 types of different players ... those who are for the removal of local and those who are against it ... (and there is Maya who is just, well i dont know ...) a compromise which quite a few of you try to achieve is pretty much the worst thing you could do tho ... what really matters is not who is right or wrong ... but ccp have to grab their balls and make their mind up which type of players they want to play their game!!!11!onelevoen Compromise is a BAD idea. If anything, those demanding a local nerf should be greatful for the map nerf that happened a while back. They will NEVER be satisfied. The thing is, what they want can't exist in Eve, no matter what changes are made (with the possible exception of making death painless, but thats a really bad idea....) So long as death in Eve can be painful, people will do what it takes to avoid the most extreme pain. This cannot and will not change, no matter what is done, and no matter how much folks wish otherwise. Nerfing local will NOT improve the game the way some people seem to think it will. The map nerf was a compromize and a really bad one at that, what good did a 30 minute delay do anyone? It made roving gangs invisible on the map. I remember when BNC was part of NORAD, and the map being used offensively and defensively against moving combat targets. Thats no longer possible, but it still works great to detect mining operations. Again, what good did it do anyone? Now all we have is roving gangs. Nerf the hell out of the map and get people to use scouts. Remind me about The Maze. I'm Danton Marcellus and I approve of this message.
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.07.18 21:44:00 - [165] Originally by: Infinity Ziona Originally by: Malachon Draco Originally by: Infinity Ziona Any change to local should be global. Empire or 0.0, the local chat is used for three things only and thats spamming, smacktalk and early warning detection. If you want to spam, email, if you want to chat, convo, if you want an EWACS then scan. There are already solutions to local. Its a game. If your too scared to fight then go to empire. If your not willing to escort, guard or patrol then you dont deserve to keep me out of your systems. Its quite a simple concept. IF YOUR NOT PREPARED TO DO AS MUCH WORK TO PROTECT YOURSELF AS I DO TO FIND YOU AND KILL YOU THEN BAD LUCK. See its simple. As has been explained a dozen times already, all an attacker has to do is go to the obvious systems where people are, scan about 3 times and jump in on a mining operation to gank. In contrast, defenders will have to push the scan button every five goddamn seconds for hours and hours and hours while mining or risk being ganked. If you call that 'AS MUCH WORK'... Attacker without local has it easy, defense is impossible. Ascendant Frontier has almost 4000 members - 3000 active?. If you cant defend your space with 3000 people then its obvious that you have tried to take too much. Concentrate your force into a smaller area. Problem solved. Its unreasonable to expect to take 10% of the systems in EvE using only 1% or less of the playerbase. You obviously don't have a clue wtf you're talking about. Of all those systems under ASCN control, 70% is worth nothing, the only reason they are under ASCN control is because we need to go through them to get to other good systems. Population is mostly packed into small areas inside those regions. And even with 50 people in local you cannot defend a mining op against invisible gankers you don't even know are there. A covetor dies in seconds to a ganker, not even 20 battleships can save him.
Infinity Ziona The First Noble Truth	Posted - 2006.07.18 21:53:00 - [166] Originally by: Malachon Draco Originally by: Infinity Ziona Originally by: Malachon Draco Originally by: Infinity Ziona Any change to local should be global. Empire or 0.0, the local chat is used for three things only and thats spamming, smacktalk and early warning detection. If you want to spam, email, if you want to chat, convo, if you want an EWACS then scan. There are already solutions to local. Its a game. If your too scared to fight then go to empire. If your not willing to escort, guard or patrol then you dont deserve to keep me out of your systems. Its quite a simple concept. IF YOUR NOT PREPARED TO DO AS MUCH WORK TO PROTECT YOURSELF AS I DO TO FIND YOU AND KILL YOU THEN BAD LUCK. See its simple. As has been explained a dozen times already, all an attacker has to do is go to the obvious systems where people are, scan about 3 times and jump in on a mining operation to gank. In contrast, defenders will have to push the scan button every five goddamn seconds for hours and hours and hours while mining or risk being ganked. If you call that 'AS MUCH WORK'... Attacker without local has it easy, defense is impossible. Ascendant Frontier has almost 4000 members - 3000 active?. If you cant defend your space with 3000 people then its obvious that you have tried to take too much. Concentrate your force into a smaller area. Problem solved. Its unreasonable to expect to take 10% of the systems in EvE using only 1% or less of the playerbase. You obviously don't have a clue wtf you're talking about. Of all those systems under ASCN control, 70% is worth nothing, the only reason they are under ASCN control is because we need to go through them to get to other good systems. Population is mostly packed into small areas inside those regions. And even with 50 people in local you cannot defend a mining op against invisible gankers you don't even know are there. A covetor dies in seconds to a ganker, not even 20 battleships can save him. Why is a gang of people going to risk coming all the way to your packed system to shoot a covetor or two. Sorry but thats complete rubbish. What your looking for is empire space in 0.0. You cant have it.
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.07.18 21:59:00 - [167] Originally by: Infinity Ziona Why is a gang of people going to risk coming all the way to your packed system to shoot a covetor or two. Sorry but thats complete rubbish. What your looking for is empire space in 0.0. You cant have it. Right....tell that to the hostiles that come around already now. We get enough hostiles already, without local, I'm sure the number would increase tenfold, even in busy systems.
Ob Noxious	Posted - 2006.07.18 22:00:00 - [168] Remove local and make all of Eve 1.0, problem solved. Removing local will ruin a big part of the social aspect, talking to others you see in system. I see many players leaving Eve if that happens due to it turning into an FPS for those that want it removed.
Infinity Ziona The First Noble Truth	Posted - 2006.07.18 22:22:00 - [169] Edited by: Infinity Ziona on 18/07/2006 22:23:21 Originally by: Ob Noxious Remove local and make all of Eve 1.0, problem solved. Removing local will ruin a big part of the social aspect, talking to others you see in system. I see many players leaving Eve if that happens due to it turning into an FPS for those that want it removed. Well I hardly ever see anyone talking in local but your right about not being able to say hi to each other if you cant see someone in local. I think the best thing would be an 'anonomous flag' which you can elect to turn on, which simply removes you from local for all people who have neutral or negative standings set. You would still add to the local counter so people would know someone came in and be able to start scanning. Even if local flashed like the email tab when someone came it would not be a big issue. Its the instant completely accurate info that sucks. And it should work in all space.
PeeWee Pee	Posted - 2006.07.18 22:46:00 - [170] Originally by: Adam C the gist I am getting here is, players like to have anonymity? "The Radar idea" is prolly the best one. However it needs to be seemless for the fun factor to remain (or succeed) There could be a radical new system of ui changes which provides a hugely different experience of entering a new solar system. by providing sound/visual stimulation to (i) starships with their warpdrive ative? (ii)ships matching hostile signatures? a basic example of pro and con for local channels; - + Players like to experience a new situation when entering a solor system. - Prolly not to switch solar systems to hunt for chat-channels for their epeens. The game shouldnt be dominated by a chat channel make this more optional by choosing that. If u take anything out of my lil post, let it be "different experience of entering a new solar system" dude, sounds like some forum carebears really starving desperatily for killmails. why would anybody want to get rid of local chatz to gank some 0.0 carebears if not for padding stats. roaming stabbed out gank sqats are for losers. besides we no carebears you low sec pirate wannabes quit hiding in your npc stations with instas get rid of that then we get rid of localz no problems. you aint much better than your typical solo gate sniper in .4 Ohh riiiight that be you in the other thread too! you give rof penalty to stabbers on those vagabonds then be fair nerf da localz! otherwise it just give gank lobbyist another score and us eve players lose from this!
The Judge Tachyon Combined Technologies Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.07.18 22:56:00 - [171] Get rid of local and watch players leave in their thousands instantly. Would be a stupid move by CCP if they did this.
Gift Amarr	Posted - 2006.07.18 23:44:00 - [172] Edited by: Gift on 18/07/2006 23:45:50 Originally by: The Judge Get rid of local and watch players leave in their thousands instantly. Would be a stupid move by CCP if they did this. If CCP doesnt buy me a nacho bell grande people will start leaving by the billions, retroactively. Yup, it is fun to make up **** and state it as fact. Sawa's Graphic Fun Time
Adam C	Posted - 2006.07.18 23:51:00 - [173] Edited by: Adam C on 18/07/2006 23:53:19 Originally by: Adam C "different experience of entering a new solar system" Originally by: Maya Rkell Adam C, no, making the game faceless and bland is a decidedly BAD idea. what I was hinting at was expectations of the new seemless map maybe i should of just said seemless map, instead of the above quote. kali is just around the corner with the new seemless map, and system scanning revisions. it opens up new doors. maybe local players could be represented using the seemless map instead of local chatchannel. we will have to wait and see. edit; i said seemless map way too much fingers crossed for a dev-blog on seemless map soon
Infinity Ziona The First Noble Truth	Posted - 2006.07.18 23:57:00 - [174] Originally by: PeeWee Pee Originally by: Adam C the gist I am getting here is, players like to have anonymity? "The Radar idea" is prolly the best one. However it needs to be seemless for the fun factor to remain (or succeed) There could be a radical new system of ui changes which provides a hugely different experience of entering a new solar system. by providing sound/visual stimulation to (i) starships with their warpdrive ative? (ii)ships matching hostile signatures? a basic example of pro and con for local channels; - + Players like to experience a new situation when entering a solor system. - Prolly not to switch solar systems to hunt for chat-channels for their epeens. The game shouldnt be dominated by a chat channel make this more optional by choosing that. If u take anything out of my lil post, let it be "different experience of entering a new solar system" dude, sounds like some forum carebears really starving desperatily for killmails. why would anybody want to get rid of local chatz to gank some 0.0 carebears if not for padding stats. roaming stabbed out gank sqats are for losers. besides we no carebears you low sec pirate wannabes quit hiding in your npc stations with instas get rid of that then we get rid of localz no problems. you aint much better than your typical solo gate sniper in .4 Ohh riiiight that be you in the other thread too! you give rof penalty to stabbers on those vagabonds then be fair nerf da localz! otherwise it just give gank lobbyist another score and us eve players lose from this! You posts make my brain hurt. Please stop posting. Your obviously trolling.
Maya Rkell Corsets and Carebears	Posted - 2006.07.19 00:11:00 - [175] Isn't disagreement annoying...
Eralus	Posted - 2006.07.19 00:21:00 - [176] Originally by: Arthmandar Valikari Edited by: Arthmandar Valikari on 18/07/2006 17:36:07 Edited by: Arthmandar Valikari on 18/07/2006 17:35:23 Edited by: Arthmandar Valikari on 18/07/2006 17:31:54 Disclaimer: I only read the first three pages of this thread. While we're all spouting ideas about how to fix local, the following came to me, and hah, you're reading it. Since nobody seems to mind having a local chat window which provides no information unless someone actually says something in it, let's define the other information in 'local' as being an aggregated report of constant broadcasts from the stargates, which are able of course to monitor who goes through them, when, etc. Then (here's the fun part) make the gates configurable based on sovereignty. That is, in empire space, the gates spew all kinds of broadcast information to protect the citizens -- local has info on who is in the system, their ship types, alliance and corporate membership, security status, everything. But out in 0.0, if you have sovereignty, someone with a stargate configuration role can decide how much information the gates broadcast in local, from everything available in 1.0 empire to absolutely nothing, depending on what they want. If you want to make it overpowered, give them the ability to filter results based on standing (that is, if you're >= +5.0 to the system sovereign, you get full information about who is jumping in and out, but if you have negative standings, you get squat. While I'm really dreaming, then add modules and/or skills that let you 'hack' the gates to get better information even if you are in the negative standing groups if you've trained / equipped the skills / modules / both. It covers a lot of the complaints about local, works with the storyline and rp-ers, and adds a lot of interesting game dynamics. Now, flame away. :) Give this guy a medal. _____ Lifewire is a big, ugly, mean... carebear.
Infinity Ziona The First Noble Truth	Posted - 2006.07.19 00:37:00 - [177] Originally by: Maya Rkell Isn't disagreement annoying... Theres a difference between disagreement and childish name calling / finger pointing / inflammatory remarks.
Gunship Amarr	Posted - 2006.07.19 00:47:00 - [178] no we dont So you want to join us?
Maya Rkell Corsets and Carebears	Posted - 2006.07.19 00:56:00 - [179] Edited by: Maya Rkell on 19/07/2006 00:56:42 Originally by: Infinity Ziona Originally by: Maya Rkell Isn't disagreement annoying... Theres a difference between disagreement and childish name calling / finger pointing / inflammatory remarks. Yes, and PeeWee Pee was being quite reasonable, typing a view which is wildely held and entirely valid in this debate. I don't agree with the content, but it's far more than flamebait.
Grimster Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.07.19 14:49:00 - [180] Originally by: Locke DieDrake If you would like to expand the definition to the greater world, lag could be applied to the time between response and return. However, in a game, that is a network issue. FULL STOP. I could go into alot more detail, but it's clear to me that you don't actually care about the facts. It's not my fault you don't understand computers. Heh Now read OHNOES! LAG!, digest the information and move on. Another good point of reference is Monkeysphere ESPECIALLY page 2 point 12 as a start. Have a nice (if very hot at the moment) day. We blog at The Jammy Blog
Spartan III ISS Navy Task Force	Posted - 2006.07.19 15:07:00 - [181] At the moment Local is a sort of an "Anti-Bob" tool, and we need all of those we can get. --- Combat pilot
eLLioTT wave Art of War Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.07.19 16:02:00 - [182] make 0.0 local = regional, shows all people in region instead of local so you can chat but not know where each other are. bye bye magic intel wand
Infinity Ziona The First Noble Truth	Posted - 2006.07.20 04:21:00 - [183] Edited by: Infinity Ziona on 20/07/2006 04:21:01 Originally by: eLLioTT wave make 0.0 local = regional, shows all people in region instead of local so you can chat but not know where each other are. bye bye magic intel wand Yup! Even Constellation would be better.
Emmy Marsin	Posted - 2006.07.20 12:47:00 - [184] Kinda takin the sport out of bein a pirate isn't it? Example: Deer hunters (pirates) have Guns and Camo, Deer (miners) are defenseless critters with only fine-tuned senses (local). How many deer die vs. pirates each year? Lets just take away wcs' and local....and make the game like chaining the damn deer to a tree. How much fun would that be? Enjoy the sport as-is IMO.
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2006.07.20 13:36:00 - [185] Originally by: Emmy Marsin Kinda takin the sport out of bein a pirate isn't it? Example: Deer hunters (pirates) have Guns and Camo, Deer (miners) are defenseless critters with only fine-tuned senses (local). How many deer die vs. pirates each year? Lets just take away wcs' and local....and make the game like chaining the damn deer to a tree. How much fun would that be? Enjoy the sport as-is IMO. The hunting analogy you can take back and cram, hunting in the modern sense is nothing but a drawn out surefire kill, no sport, risk or chance about it with scopes, camping known trails, clearing shooting lanes and the like. Modern hunting is for whimps, we don't want anything like that in EVE. Remind me about The Maze. I'm Danton Marcellus and I approve of this message.
Permian	Posted - 2006.07.20 13:40:00 - [186] When you cloak do you disappear from local?
Infinity Ziona The First Noble Truth	Posted - 2006.07.20 13:55:00 - [187] Originally by: Permian When you cloak do you disappear from local? No I have a thought - Lets call it Local Change Thought No. 1002003002 (1) Each system has a scanner tower that can be located by probes. (2) The scanner tower broadcasts Local information to everyone in space. (3) They can be destroyed by a small fleet in a few hours or a single ship in a day or so. (4) They have a respawn of 12 hours. (5) If a tower is under attack its noticable by a [Show Scanner Towers Under Attack] option on the map. (6) Anyone attacking a tower in high sec is criminal flagged. There you go. If you dont want local then you can blow it up and have no local. If you want local you can stop people blowing it up by checking the map and going to stop them. Next!
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2006.07.20 14:22:00 - [188] Edited by: Danton Marcellus on 20/07/2006 14:23:06 Originally by: Infinity Ziona Originally by: Permian When you cloak do you disappear from local? No I have a thought - Lets call it Local Change Thought No. 1002003002 (1) Each system has a scanner tower that can be located by probes. (2) The scanner tower broadcasts Local information to everyone in space. (3) They can be destroyed by a small fleet in a few hours or a single ship in a day or so. (4) They have a respawn of 12 hours. (5) If a tower is under attack its noticable by a [Show Scanner Towers Under Attack] option on the map. (6) Anyone attacking a tower in high sec is criminal flagged. There you go. If you dont want local then you can blow it up and have no local. If you want local you can stop people blowing it up by checking the map and going to stop them. Next! I'd favor the ability to remove the transponder when out in 0.0, this move will of course flag you as a criminal if you go back inside without enabling it again and should leave you open for the odd managable Concord spawns in 0.0. Yes Concord in 0.0 looking for people like you, whilst people keeping the transponder in 0.0 are left alone by these Concord spawns. Remind me about The Maze. I'm Danton Marcellus and I approve of this message.
Infinity Ziona The First Noble Truth	Posted - 2006.07.20 14:39:00 - [189] Originally by: Danton Marcellus Edited by: Danton Marcellus on 20/07/2006 14:23:06 Originally by: Infinity Ziona Originally by: Permian When you cloak do you disappear from local? No I have a thought - Lets call it Local Change Thought No. 1002003002 (1) Each system has a scanner tower that can be located by probes. (2) The scanner tower broadcasts Local information to everyone in space. (3) They can be destroyed by a small fleet in a few hours or a single ship in a day or so. (4) They have a respawn of 12 hours. (5) If a tower is under attack its noticable by a [Show Scanner Towers Under Attack] option on the map. (6) Anyone attacking a tower in high sec is criminal flagged. There you go. If you dont want local then you can blow it up and have no local. If you want local you can stop people blowing it up by checking the map and going to stop them. Next! I'd favor the ability to remove the transponder when out in 0.0, this move will of course flag you as a criminal if you go back inside without enabling it again and should leave you open for the odd managable Concord spawns in 0.0. Yes Concord in 0.0 looking for people like you, whilst people keeping the transponder in 0.0 are left alone by these Concord spawns. NOOOO. There are no Concord there because I killed them before I blew up the tower.
Sergeant Spot	Posted - 2006.07.20 14:49:00 - [190] Originally by: Malachon Draco Originally by: Infinity Ziona Any change to local should be global. Empire or 0.0, the local chat is used for three things only and thats spamming, smacktalk and early warning detection. If you want to spam, email, if you want to chat, convo, if you want an EWACS then scan. There are already solutions to local. Its a game. If your too scared to fight then go to empire. If your not willing to escort, guard or patrol then you dont deserve to keep me out of your systems. Its quite a simple concept. IF YOUR NOT PREPARED TO DO AS MUCH WORK TO PROTECT YOURSELF AS I DO TO FIND YOU AND KILL YOU THEN BAD LUCK. See its simple. As has been explained a dozen times already, all an attacker has to do is go to the obvious systems where people are, scan about 3 times and jump in on a mining operation to gank. In contrast, defenders will have to push the scan button every five goddamn seconds for hours and hours and hours while mining or risk being ganked. If you call that 'AS MUCH WORK'... Attacker without local has it easy, defense is impossible. QFT Heck, frankly ever 5 seconds would not be enough. Every 2 seconds max, no joke, not even a little joke. Truth is, if they get rid of local, we'll need a 30au+ scanner that SELF refreshes every second, AND has the ability to have individual items removed from scan (not just the ability to not see shuttles, but the ability to not see "individual" shuttles...) and it would STILL be a nerf favoring the roving gankers. Repeat: And it would STILL be a nerf favoring roving gankers.
Sergeant Spot	Posted - 2006.07.20 14:51:00 - [191] oh, and it would be absolutely manditory to also have a way to know if a Covert ops was in system with you.
Sergeant Spot	Posted - 2006.07.20 14:52:00 - [192] Edited by: Sergeant Spot on 20/07/2006 14:52:11 Delete please
Sergeant Spot	Posted - 2006.07.20 14:52:00 - [193] Edited by: Sergeant Spot on 20/07/2006 14:52:57 delete please
Infinity Ziona The First Noble Truth	Posted - 2006.07.20 14:56:00 - [194] Originally by: Sergeant Spot oh, and it would be absolutely manditory to also have a way to know if a Covert ops was in system with you. Yeah cause there should be no unpleasant surprises in EvE ever. Thats why we have mandatory alt scouts and ****. Thats a very retarded attitude to have and one that seems to be in epidemic proportions in this game. GAME. GAAAAME. So what if you die.
PeeWee Pee	Posted - 2006.07.20 15:02:00 - [195] Originally by: Infinity Ziona Originally by: Sergeant Spot oh, and it would be absolutely manditory to also have a way to know if a Covert ops was in system with you. Yeah cause there should be no unpleasant surprises in EvE ever. Thats why we have mandatory alt scouts and ****. Thats a very retarded attitude to have and one that seems to be in epidemic proportions in this game. GAME. GAAAAME. So what if you die. make sence dude. no risk in dying especially when you gotz t2 mass producing altz sitting in da empire generating isk for you pirate habitz! want balance get rid of da empire make it 0.0 everywhere you go
PeeWee Pee	Posted - 2006.07.20 15:09:00 - [196] my bad you da mission ***** not da indy dude.
SKiNNiEH's Wife	Posted - 2006.07.20 15:18:00 - [197] What about a ship that hides everyone in local that is within 5km of it? Could make it real tactical. Or maybe drones that hide you from local: 1 drone needed for a frigate 2 drones needed for a cruiser 3 drones needed for a bs etc As long as the drones are out and circling you, you're good. Which means you'll be visible when you need to warp.
Infinity Ziona The First Noble Truth	Posted - 2006.07.20 15:29:00 - [198] Originally by: PeeWee Pee Originally by: Infinity Ziona Originally by: Sergeant Spot oh, and it would be absolutely manditory to also have a way to know if a Covert ops was in system with you. Yeah cause there should be no unpleasant surprises in EvE ever. Thats why we have mandatory alt scouts and ****. Thats a very retarded attitude to have and one that seems to be in epidemic proportions in this game. GAME. GAAAAME. So what if you die. make sence dude. no risk in dying especially when you gotz t2 mass producing altz sitting in da empire generating isk for you pirate habitz! want balance get rid of da empire make it 0.0 everywhere you go O.M.G stop.
Kilo Paskaa Beer and Kebabs Pirate Coalition	Posted - 2006.07.20 15:50:00 - [199] Originally by: The Judge Get rid of local and watch players leave in their thousands instantly. Would be a stupid move by CCP if they did this. Oh noez! If local is gone we got some RISK in here. We bears dont want risk do we? Please tell us some fact¦s before you state "egg came before chicken".
Maya Rkell Corsets and Carebears	Posted - 2006.07.20 16:04:00 - [200] Originally by: Infinity Ziona Originally by: eLLioTT wave make 0.0 local = regional, shows all people in region instead of local so you can chat but not know where each other are. bye bye magic intel wand Yup! Even Constellation would be better. No, hello magic HUNTER magic wand. You can INSTANTLY know if there are targets in the constellation. And there are only a very finite number of good spaces to rat and hunt within a constellation. This is a PURE change to the Hunters. Danton Marcellus, so you turn it back on when you're in warp to the gate out? What kind of penalty is that! Quite apart from the utter ludicrousness of having local work differently in different places, I'd say that a permermant, irrevocable drop to -10 would be appropropriate. (Yes, that was sarcasm). There's PLENTY of RISK. People die, constantly. Tip the balance, and you'll be left very rapidly with ONLY the paranoid fraction you'll never catch anyway.
Ozmodan Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.20 16:22:00 - [201] I really fail to see how anyone can construe removing local as a neutral change, only thing I can think of is your play has become so jaded that you cannot even look at how it is used. Without local, you have no defense, and it is quite easy for others to find you, there are limited places they need to search. While the individual pirate might have more risk in walking into traps, roving bands would be almost unstoppable. Either way the individual or small grouped miners will vitually disappear from the server in 0.0, hardly a good thing. If you want realism, you need a much better sensor and/or probes that work constantly reporting, but then something like that actually sways the advantage to the defense as they can track upon the immediate entry of the system. So looks like until someone comes up with a better idea, keeping local as is, is about the only solution. Learners permit still current
Tiny Carlos Destructive Influence	Posted - 2006.07.20 16:23:00 - [202] Edited by: Tiny Carlos on 20/07/2006 16:23:49 Local makes it easier to hunt, easier to scout, easier to avoid hostiles. EASY != FUN say no to easy mode Eve. Edit: removed a stray 'y'
PC5 Bermuda Syndrome Black Reign Syndicate	Posted - 2006.07.20 16:30:00 - [203] Local is too powerful tool and it need to be changed somehow. You dont need covert ops/intel in many situations when all you have to do is look at local players list. Its uber intel. But carebears will cry about it. Lets hope this game wont be for lame ppl who want to do such things as flying on autopilot through 0.0 and when shoted down they wrote a petition + forum post to nerf weapons.
Talland 0utbreak	Posted - 2006.07.20 16:35:00 - [204] Maya, if you ever have the urge to win an argument based on the power and veracity of your logic you will need to adopt a writing style which is less irritating. OTOH if you are not seeking to be deliberately immature and brattish, and simply have a personality defect, my apologies and sympathies to those in your "local".
Ozmodan Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.20 16:43:00 - [205] Why is it posters feel that plugging in the term "Carebears" into a sentence automatically justitifies whatever they are saying, be it nonsense or not? If you want realism, the first thing a you would do, if working in system, is drop probes at all gates so they would instantly know what was entering a system. That would give the defenders too much of an advantage, don't you think? So instead of criticizing the present system, come up with something that neither favors the aggressors or the defendors. Learners permit still current
Sentinel Eeex Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.20 16:51:00 - [206] Doh... Don't you lone pirates and similar types ever get tired of posting this nonsense? For 0.0 life, knowing which friends are in LOCAL is often more benefitial than knowing if enemy is in LOCAL, for many many reasons. Your fantastic idea would probably break 0.0 more than it could fix anything else.
Infinity Ziona The First Noble Truth	Posted - 2006.07.20 16:52:00 - [207] Ok. Look. Just before last weekend I started a war. I got prepared and I spent the entire weekend, sixteen hours over two days, hunting my targets. They knew who I was and they added me to their buddy lists. They have local open at all times. They use instas. I managed to kill how many of them? 3 people during that time. All that effort, using agents, using spies, gimping my setup to crap to be able to get a fast enough lock to pin them down during the .3 seconds they are actually 'playing' the game aka vulnerable. The current system of local is complete and total bull****. You can spend 2 or 3 hours tracking, spying, setting up a kill, to kill a crappy old barge, but even before you load into the system, your icon comes flashing up bright green. By the time your in, the barge has entered warp. By the time you hit the belt the barge is in station. By the time you figure out that you have been defeated by local once again, the git is laughing at you in local, the very thing that defeated you is the bearer of bad smack. Its crap and its needing a change because its not PvP its P athetic
Kilo Paskaa Beer and Kebabs Pirate Coalition	Posted - 2006.07.20 17:18:00 - [208] Originally by: Ozmodan Without local, you have no defense, and it is quite easy for others to find you, there are limited places they need to search. While the individual pirate might have more risk in walking into traps, roving bands would be almost unstoppable. Either way the individual or small grouped miners will vitually disappear from the server in 0.0, hardly a good thing. "You have no defence". Explain please. Last time i check¦d battleships protecting miners or haulers is regarded as defence. We might actually get fights in low sec if miners wont SS or instadock at the same second when pierat appears in local. Originally by: Ozmodan If you want realism, you need a much better sensor and/or probes that work constantly reporting, but then something like that actually sways the advantage to the defense as they can track upon the immediate entry of the system. If you want realism then your freighter should go pop when you warp throught planet Originally by: Ozmodan So looks like until someone comes up with a better idea, keeping local as is, is about the only solution. Nah. There are solutions but you just seem to ignore them totally.
Ediot	Posted - 2006.07.20 17:53:00 - [209] 1) Remove local from 0.0 2) Allow sovereigns in 0.0 to lock up warp gates. They get to put down gun emplacements, turrets, ect and as long as the emplacements are intact you dont get to to thru the gate. Without a way to lock down space the removal of local is a no go; if you remove local the attacker has ALL of the advantages. All reward and no risk..... 3) Rework the friends list; if you want to put somebody on your friends list and be notified when they log on they have to consent to it as well. Now its just a tool to find your buddies; not an early warning system. 4) Come up with an actual way to find people hiding in safe spots in system. Then allow us to find and "eject" logged off players. You find a logged off player you hit the eject button and he logs back on where his nearest clone is anchored. No more ability to wait out the heat and then come back later and hunt again.
Athren Soulsteal Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.20 19:03:00 - [210] Edited by: Athren Soulsteal on 20/07/2006 19:04:34 Where to start, Ok first to all the posts on ôwe should be able to destroy, own, lock, etcà the gates. All of the gates were built and are owned by concord not just the gates in +sec space. When you go through a gate your ships ID is logged and the ôuniversalö ship tracking database is updated. If you have ever been in an airport control tower you have see the screen that shows everything flying within the airportÆs control zone. The gates work the same way, not just beacons but as control towers. Therefore as soon as you enter a system the gates automatically list, in local, all the other ships that are in the system. In doing this they are working as they are designed to. The only way not to have a local report is to not have a traffic control tower (the gates). Now to the OP that simply wants to play EVE on easy by not alerting his victims, well be thankful that Concord is very forgiving. They are allowing you to use their property at no cost(the gates) which they have to maintain . Concord could place a toll charge on the gates to pay for their up keep or they could let them fall into disrepair thus isolating systems. Look at the cost of maintaining a POS, can you imagine having to maintain a gate(s) which is what you would have to do if you owned it which you would have to do to disable or modify the flight control tower module in the gate if you wanted locale information not to be displayed. Quote: Think about the people that did fight you fairly. Think.... that were honorable and helped you out in times of need. Those are the real heroes of EVE. I wish I could fit all the Quote
Kilo Paskaa Beer and Kebabs Pirate Coalition	Posted - 2006.07.20 19:28:00 - [211] Originally by: Athren Soulsteal Stuff Nah, Gameplay > Story. Of course we could add "local haxorz devicesÖ" so we wont be seen in it. Problem solved.
Kyrissia	Posted - 2006.07.20 19:36:00 - [212] Well how about this radical idea? Scanning a system notifies everyone else who got scanned that an unknown ship did a scan from that location. The rationale of course would be that to scan a large system something you would send out some form of powerful EM signal and listen for an echo.. which would then be picked up by sensors on other ships. The benefits would be for all sides. You can't simply do the cloak-scan-camp thing, though you could, but you alert everyone to your location for a short instant every time you scan. Lurkers would be able to lurk to their hearts content. The utter boredom of constantly clicking the scan button would be alleviated. A tactical decision: scan and risk being detected? or not scan and have a better chance to surprise someone, while at the same time risk running into a bigger fleet? It would prevent roving scouts who simply scan, without risk, an system, in a very short time, and move to the next or call in massive reinforcement. Ie. farming Sure they could scan but everyone else might scan in return. Another tactical decision: You've just been scanned and someone knows you're there. Now what? Do your own scan and tell everyone else who didnt scan that you're there? or not do a scan and have no idea whether you should be worried or how much you should be worried? A large centralized scanning structure would therefore notify everyone exactly where it is.. I also think that gate camping is lame and borders on exploit, like killing people still loading the area :p. Players should appear in a random area within maybe a hundred km from the gate. Sure, you could still camp the gate, but it would be a bit easier to run. The best solution imo would be players able to see who's waiting for them while going through the gate, but that's clearly not possible.
Kyrissia	Posted - 2006.07.20 19:38:00 - [213] I also think Ediot has some really good points.
Xelios Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.20 19:39:00 - [214] Originally by: Infinity Ziona Ok. Look. Just before last weekend I started a war. I got prepared and I spent the entire weekend, sixteen hours over two days, hunting my targets. They knew who I was and they added me to their buddy lists. They have local open at all times. They use instas. I managed to kill how many of them? 3 people during that time. All that effort, using agents, using spies, gimping my setup to crap to be able to get a fast enough lock to pin them down during the .3 seconds they are actually 'playing' the game aka vulnerable. The current system of local is complete and total bull***. You can spend 2 or 3 hours tracking, spying, setting up a kill, to kill a crappy old barge, but even before you load into the system, your icon comes flashing up bright green. By the time your in, the barge has entered warp. By the time you hit the belt the barge is in station. By the time you figure out that you have been defeated by local once again, the git is laughing at you in local, the very thing that defeated you is the bearer of bad smack. Its crap and its needing a change because its not PvP its P athetic So sit in local. In the station or wherever, doing whatever. Hell just log in and go do whatever you want, watch a movie make some food mow the lawn it doesn't matter. One of two things will happen, either your targets in their barges will move to another system (in which case you follow and do the same there) or they'll get used to you being afk there and start to risk mining anyway. Either way, if you do this for days you're depriving them of way more than a crappy mining barge that's easily replaced. You're forcing them to do nothing. Is it exciting? No, it's not, but it works. Removing local might help you and your profession in EVE, but it's going to make a lot of other activities much worse in the process. Put yourself in the shoes of an npcer or miner, would you really want to click on the scan button every 30 seconds for hours on end just so you don't get ganked with no warning? Would you enjoy scouting every single gate* before hand on a 40 jump trip through 0.0 because you can't see who is in system with you? Would you enjoy spending an hour sorting through a couple dozen empty ships on scanner just to find out if there's a target in that system? Until a viable alternative is put in place (and really, once it is your targets are going to use that just as readily as they use the addressbook to notify them of logins) local should stay how it is.
Trak Cranker	Posted - 2006.07.20 21:38:00 - [215] Originally by: Tiny Carlos Edited by: Tiny Carlos on 20/07/2006 16:23:49 Local makes it easier to hunt, easier to scout, easier to avoid hostiles. EASY != FUN say no to easy mode Eve. Edit: removed a stray 'y' No Local makes it easier to pirate, easier to be offensive, easier to harrass others turf, easier to avoid being hunted by defenders. EASY != FUN Say no to easy mode Eve. Or how about you just fail Logics and Debate class? You win the forums though. Everyone in here admits directly or indirectly, that no local benefits the agressors compared to the current situation. That is also blatantly obvious. So what remains is to establish if the balance is currently ok or if it needs a push in that direction. Personally I experience (personally or through people I know) that unconsentual and massive killing seem to happen every day in Eve(its a downright horrendous place), despite this staggering pool of intelligence that is local. I fail to see how a raw removal of local would lead to an increase in interesting gameplay for both the hunter and the potential prey. Given additional tools, this could perhaps be achieved. Theres much to be said for the gain in spy activity if you could hide your presence. And maybe you should be able to do so if you fly special ships(no warp to?)? It would still be able to deal crazy good information to an agressor (good information too for a defender, but less crazy). Remember again that the agressor picks the time and place - in it self a huge advantage and even more so in the current landscape of Eve. The defender could only get the what. Agressor would have help picking the when and where and what. Balance or not: In the end the example of a fleet at super safe spots and a cloaker roaming belts/gates/whatever, unfortunately shows why no local would be horrendous. Anyways: Nothing should ever be set in stone, and perhaps local intelligence can be handled otherwise, more interesting, more interactively. But increasing paranoia in Eve cannot be said to be good in it self.
thatguyinpc	Posted - 2006.07.21 02:28:00 - [216] Hi Gang, First of all let me say: Damn you Trak! I read through 8 pages of posts just so I could get to the last one and read: ôI experience (personally or through people I know) that un-consensual and massive killing seem to happen every day in Eve (its a downright horrendous place), despite this staggering pool of intelligence that is local.ö I was going to make much the same point, and as such be the new forum champion (in this thread anyway). But no, you had to steal my thunder with a well-written observation. Next on the list: ôOnly show active speakers in localö is a ridicules idea. Who in the world would give away their location just to be friendly? It would all become private chat with people you already know. Which would mean the only way to make new friends would be to fly to high sec space and chat from a station, to other people in stations. For those of you complaining about not being able to kill enough mining barges: If more action is what you are after why not just jettison a can and shoot it from time to time? Should be about the same level of excitement as shooting a Mining Barge for you. If it will help with the realism, send me a chat invite right before you shoot the can and I'll beg for the cans life, and then cuss you out after you blow it up. Before I forget, IÆm confused and need some help. Which definition of ôCarebearö are we using in this thread? 1)A player that mostly stays in high sec and avoids PVP. Or 2)Some one who complains about game mechanics in an effort to have the game changed so as to make the game easier for them. Ok, now I said all that to say this: If we are going to consider something as radically game changing as removing local lets take it a step farther. LetÆs remove the asteroid belt completely. Instead lets have vast fields of asteroids (and when I say ôvastö I mean in the Douglas Adams definition of ôspace is really big.ö). This way a miner could travel for a while weaving in and out of rocks till he finds a safe place to mine. That way a pirate canÆt just do a quick scan and find him (scans would be reflected by the asteroids in the way). This would require a pirate to navigate in and out of this vast field of asteroids in essence requiring him to look behind each and every rock. Hmmm, the more I think about this, the more holes I find with it, no more warping by pirates to location, but also no more warping by haulerà.. Yeah screw it lets just scratch this whole vast field of asteroids thing and leave local alone, at least until the devs find a reasonable balance. Guy
Lorth Synchro.	Posted - 2006.07.21 05:16:00 - [217] Originally by: thatguyinpc ôI experience (personally or through people I know) that un-consensual and massive killing seem to happen every day in Eve (its a downright horrendous place), despite this staggering pool of intelligence that is local.ö I was going to make much the same point, and as such be the new forum champion (in this thread anyway). But no, you had to steal my thunder with a well-written observation. The fact that a multidue of people die in eve in such a manner, is only evidence that there are a large number of inattentive players, who are not using the tools provided to them. It is not however, evidence that the system is fine as is. ------------- Recruit me
Sartaron Amarr	Posted - 2006.07.21 06:12:00 - [218] keep local in empire space. in 0.0: the local should act like a system scanner. it shows pilots with a delay. the bigger the ship, the faster it appears on local. you also instantly appear in local, when you start to write there.
Sergeant Spot	Posted - 2006.07.21 06:37:00 - [219] So long as there is a way that players can --Actually operate and do INDUSTRY stuff in 0.0 --Survive IF they exercise "due caution" --NOT have to click scan every second or anything remotely non-practical of that sort then I'm happy with whatever the option is. If, on the other hand, death is certain no matter how much caution is exercised, the option is worthless.
Lorth Synchro.	Posted - 2006.07.21 07:26:00 - [220] Originally by: Sergeant Spot So long as there is a way that players can --Actually operate and do INDUSTRY stuff in 0.0 --Survive IF they exercise "due caution" --NOT have to click scan every second or anything remotely non-practical of that sort then I'm happy with whatever the option is. If, on the other hand, death is certain no matter how much caution is exercised, the option is worthless. Short delay. Make it sovernty based. Skilled scanners in interceptors can have a chance of ending up in your belt. But with some work, (pos) you can lessen that chance. But WTF is wrong with hitting the scan button once in a while? Even with no local, but a local count, you'll know when there is someone in the system with you. Or conversly take 3 minutes of your time, and make a mining spot(s) away from the belt marker. Even with out local, unless the pirate gets extreemly lucky your safe. ------------- Recruit me
Auldare S.A.S	Posted - 2006.07.21 08:37:00 - [221] Edited by: Auldare on 21/07/2006 08:38:48 Edited by: Auldare on 21/07/2006 08:38:35 Posted this a while back, seems relevant :) Suggestion for local etc ================================================
Sergeant Spot	Posted - 2006.07.21 08:59:00 - [222] Originally by: Lorth Originally by: Sergeant Spot So long as there is a way that players can --Actually operate and do INDUSTRY stuff in 0.0 --Survive IF they exercise "due caution" --NOT have to click scan every second or anything remotely non-practical of that sort then I'm happy with whatever the option is. If, on the other hand, death is certain no matter how much caution is exercised, the option is worthless. Short delay. Make it sovernty based. Skilled scanners in interceptors can have a chance of ending up in your belt. But with some work, (pos) you can lessen that chance. But WTF is wrong with hitting the scan button once in a while? Even with no local, but a local count, you'll know when there is someone in the system with you. Or conversly take 3 minutes of your time, and make a mining spot(s) away from the belt marker. Even with out local, unless the pirate gets extreemly lucky your safe. Hitting the scan button once in a while?? No problem. Once every second for 6 hours straight?? BIG problem. Sovernty based ability to detect non-friendly ships? Hmmm. Travel would get a LOT more dangerous, but it would be useful as heck for driving unwelcome guests out of your own territory. I'm inclined against the idea, as ALL the POS stuff that CCP added to the game "depends" on a lot of travel. Anything that makes "reliable" travel impossible flushes all the work CCP did with POSs. Traveling "differently" than I currently do? No problem. But the travel must "practical" (no hitting scan every second, nor anything like that. Can't be anything more troublesome than a scout), and the travel must be mostly reliable (as reliable as travel using a scout is now). Having Sovernty affect the issue appeals to me. But anything that is done cannot be allowed to bring 0.0 industry to a "practical" halt. Anything suggested MUST have built in PRACTICAL features (no hitting scan every second for hours on end, nor anything as tedious as that....) that will allow a careful, patient industral player to keep industry humming right along at least as smoothly as it is now. Do you really think CCP is going to add a change that will trash 0.0 industry? Think about it.
Nicholai Pestot Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.21 09:21:00 - [223] Ok, hows this? A 'gate beacon' Anchor it within 5 km of a gate and it will inform you on every ship that comes through it as long as you are within that system. You can choose to anchor it for 'gang' 'corp' or 'alliance'. The information should be displayed in a list on a 'log' format. Easy to kill, even by a frigate, the death of a beacon should bring up quite a large warning in your log list. The beacons are relativly cheep and have a 24 hour life-span. This will:- 1.Reward the cautious who setup protection at the gates before starting an operation in the system. 2.Rewards the alliances that have system patrols (e.g "go NPC'ing in this system for 2 hours and while your there launch some beacons and keep an eye on the traffic for us") 3.Rewards attackers that use scout forces to move ahead into enemy space gunning down beacons to try and keep the enemy blind. You could even introduce Tech II cloaked beacons that have to sit just outside de-cloak range of the gate, requiring a quick fly-by of the gate by frigate scouts to detect them. TA-DAAAH ________________ What you do is you store up the rage, let it fester while you gain strength, then use it to gank those weaker than you... and so the circle of life is complete
Emmy Marsin	Posted - 2006.07.21 11:36:00 - [224] Edited by: Emmy Marsin on 21/07/2006 11:45:22 Originally by: Danton Marcellus Originally by: Emmy Marsin Kinda takin the sport out of bein a pirate isn't it? Example: Deer hunters (pirates) have Guns and Camo, Deer (miners) are defenseless critters with only fine-tuned senses (local). How many deer die vs. pirates each year? Lets just take away wcs' and local....and make the game like chaining the damn deer to a tree. How much fun would that be? Enjoy the sport as-is IMO. The hunting analogy you can take back and cram, hunting in the modern sense is nothing but a drawn out surefire kill Take away current defenses such as stabs and local, and EVE would be the same way. That's my point. Strangely enough, pirates that complain about stabs have NO problem fitting scramblers on their ships. Imagine that. If my analogy doesn't make sense, why don't you explain to me the difference between an armed hunter/defenseless deer and a hidden armed pirate/defenseless miner.
SwitchBl4d3 the Organ Grinder and Company Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.07.21 11:46:00 - [225] im for removing local and just having constellation. of course there would have to be changes to the scanner. i dont walk into tescos to get milk!! and see a neon board displaying people and what isle there in. and most importantly i dont see " marge: hey mister wheres the eggs" flash up Originally by: Stavros BUNGLE IN JUNGLE? J tHX OMG YEAH CHICKEN WINGS K? LOLLER SKATESWIHT LUBE K? MIUOINKEYT!!!
Maya Rkell Corsets and Carebears	Posted - 2006.07.21 13:11:00 - [226] Originally by: Talland <Stuff> And you've written that PURELY because you have no answer to my arguments. If you can't defend your side's arguments, those arguments are sushi. Any attitude you want to assume I have is purely your assumption. Infinity Ziona, yep, and that would be helped by them being in highsec, refusing to engage you and quitting to NPC corps if you wardecced them...how? Because THAT is the alternative. You want free kills just because you're on the offensive. I find THAT offensive - you're NOT going to nail everyone, but if you're quick you'll get some of them. Removing the targets entirely won't help you kill anyone. It's not your GriefPK dream, no. Kilo Paskaa, you know FULL well that there is NO way to stop those barges dying in seconds to PvP-fitted ships. There is no "escort" module, no way to merge shields or anything. Miners won't SS, they'll either log or not BE there. Ediot, great, so the 0.0 entry systems will be locked down. Wait, how DOES that help again? If you nerf the buddy list, you make people take other measures to identify. And better scanning is in Kali, but not your grieftastic "I win button". Kilo Paskaa, in return for not being able EVER to enter Empire, sure. Plus roving Concord spawns in 0.0 which hunt you. Then you don't appear in local, just the local count. Maybe. Scanner T2 cruisers / POS scanners would still reveal you in local.. Kyrissia, you don't NEED to scan before hitting the belts of a 0.0 system. You van go in blind, if need be. Yes, sure, it'd take longer but you're STILL giving zero warning. That dosn't help one BIT when you're dead with no chance. Sartaron, so the miners are fully revealed and the attackers are not? WORSE than no local. Making it sov based per Lorth is even worse, again, still. "But WTF is wrong with hitting the scan button once in a while?" Every 3 seconds. Or an interceptor can be out of warp and onto you before you can reach. THREE. Moreover, remember that covops do NOT show on the scanner. Nicholai Pestot, so we have hundreds of these floating arround every Empire gate. Lag more. Plus all they'll ever see is a single ceptor which kills them. SwitchBl4d3, your analogy is completely off. You know that if you're looking for eggs, they'll be in a certain section. If they don't have eggs there, they won't be anywhere else.
Maya Rkell Corsets and Carebears	Posted - 2006.07.21 13:12:00 - [227] Edited by: Maya Rkell on 21/07/2006 13:12:20 dp
L'Ermite	Posted - 2006.07.21 14:06:00 - [228] Edited by: L''Ermite on 21/07/2006 14:10:25 The op claims that none fighters are the only ones that want local to stay that is not true. local is needed and should stay. Think of local as a advance system scanner or early warning systems. To me the only one that want it to go is the griefers. There would be many things that would need fixed before dev's should even think about changing local. The ability to create login traps needs to go away. Gate ganking of all forms.
Avon Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.21 14:18:00 - [229] Originally by: L'Ermite Think of local as a advance system scanner or early warning systems. No, don't. CCP are on record as saying that is exactly how local shouldn't be viewed. They are against it being used as an intel gathering tool. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
The Judge Tachyon Combined Technologies Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.07.21 15:12:00 - [230] Edited by: The Judge on 21/07/2006 15:12:38 You can't remove local just because some people aren't good enough to catch targets. It's been this way since start of Eve and i see no reason to change local.
Trak Cranker	Posted - 2006.07.21 15:14:00 - [231] Originally by: Lorth Originally by: thatguyinpc ôI experience (personally or through people I know) that un-consensual and massive killing seem to happen every day in Eve (its a downright horrendous place), despite this staggering pool of intelligence that is local.ö I was going to make much the same point, and as such be the new forum champion (in this thread anyway). But no, you had to steal my thunder with a well-written observation. The fact that a multidue of people die in eve in such a manner, is only evidence that there are a large number of inattentive players, who are not using the tools provided to them. It is not however, evidence that the system is fine as is. You are absolutely right that it is not a proof that the system is fine as it is. (Not sure it prooves only what you state it proves either, though) And I was not trying to say it was either. Which I do think was quite evident from the context of it. Only trying to say that it was not as detrimental as some people paint it to be. Its all about dragging the argumentation more in towards the middle, where solutions can be found.
Infinity Ziona The First Noble Truth	Posted - 2006.07.21 15:14:00 - [232] Originally by: L'Ermite Edited by: L''Ermite on 21/07/2006 14:10:25 The op claims that none fighters are the only ones that want local to stay that is not true. local is needed and should stay. Think of local as a advance system scanner or early warning systems. To me the only one that want it to go is the griefers. There would be many things that would need fixed before dev's should even think about changing local. The ability to create login traps needs to go away. Gate ganking of all forms. Its quite interesting that you mention those two things - gate ganking and log in traps - in relation to NOT removing local. 1. Would log on traps exist if local didnt show the ships in the system? 2. Would gate gankers be less secure in a system with no local or more secure? I would suggest that log on traps would be replaced by a covert ops and a hidden fleet. The way they should be done for the most part. And I would think that it would be much easier to sneak up on and attack and destroy a gate camp rather then more difficult without local.
Tristan Acoma Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.21 15:38:00 - [233] So....um..... considering the changes that are going to happen to the scanner in the full Kali release, perhaps the discussion could be had in terms of the way the game will really be, instead of arguing about the effects of all of this in terms of the current scanner? Might be more interesting.....
thatguyinpc	Posted - 2006.07.21 16:47:00 - [234] Originally by: Lorth Originally by: thatguyinpc ôI experience (personally or through people I know) that un-consensual and massive killing seem to happen every day in Eve (its a downright horrendous place), despite this staggering pool of intelligence that is local.ö I was going to make much the same point, and as such be the new forum champion (in this thread anyway). But no, you had to steal my thunder with a well-written observation. The fact that a multidue of people die in eve in such a manner, is only evidence that there are a large number of inattentive players, who are not using the tools provided to them. It is not however, evidence that the system is fine as is. But it does suggest there is a balance to the game, you are able to kill the momentarily inattentive players but not all the players. The most vocal of players that are in favor of removing local donÆt want balance, they want advantage. I havenÆt read any posts from the strong supporters of removing local that attempts to make any type of reasonable concession for removing this tool, especially industrialist. (Not to undercut mission runners or PVE but they at least stand a chance compared to a practically defenseless mining barge or hauler.) WhatÆs wrong with pushing a button now and again? You readily acknowledge that many of the kills are from inattentive players not using the tools at their disposal. You want to widen that margin of inattentive players by removing available tools and replacing it with tools that are more tedious to use. Once again, you want advantage, not balance. Guy
Steppa Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.21 18:01:00 - [235] Stargates should not be destructable, or if they are, they should reappear (nanobot builders or something) at downtime or something. However, it would be nice to be able to inhibit a gate's operation for a given period of time. Whatever the mechanism, a special ship, a special mod, something anchorable, whatever, and would last until cap/fuel/time ran out. That particular gate would be non-operable. In tandem, I would like an alliance or corp with sovereignty to be able to initiate a global (systemwide) inhibitor field against jumping into or out of a system. It should be very expensive and difficult to maintain.
RaThlan Naaoor	Posted - 2006.07.21 18:18:00 - [236] Originally by: Steppa In tandem, I would like an alliance or corp with sovereignty to be able to initiate a global (systemwide) inhibitor field against jumping into or out of a system. It should be very expensive and difficult to maintain. They would call it the "I-Win" button.
Steppa Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.21 19:32:00 - [237] Think outside the box. For instance, let's say there are huge cosmic storms of various or exotic radiation that sweep through the galaxy; a model of a weather pattern, so to speak. Now, make those jump inhibitors completely inoperable under certain "storm" conditions. This would take us back to the very juicy and fun strategy of old-time land-warfare where you need to plan your major offensives around the elements.
Locke DieDrake Port Royal Independent Kontractors Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.07.21 19:50:00 - [238] Have any you heard the expression, Arguing in a vacum? Because this thread is a great example. With the changes that are coming in Kali making at least half this thread pointless, I think it be best to let this discussion die for the time being. It's not like this is the first 10 page thread about nerfing local. ___________________________________________ The deeper you stick it in your vein, the deeper the thoughts there's no more pain. ___________________________________________
Sergeant Spot	Posted - 2006.07.21 20:18:00 - [239] Do people really think CCP will ever do ANYTHING that has even the possibility of completely disrupting 0.0 industry??? Ain't gonna happen. So keep that in mind for your suggestions (or argue that 0.0 industry "should" be completely disrupted....)
Ediot	Posted - 2006.07.21 20:20:00 - [240] Originally by: Maya Rkell Originally by: Talland <Stuff> Ediot, great, so the 0.0 entry systems will be locked down. Wait, how DOES that help again? If you nerf the buddy list, you make people take other measures to identify. And better scanning is in Kali, but not your grieftastic "I win button". Locking down systems helps because it allows the system "owners" to protect thier space because if the "killers" want in they get to fight their way in gate by gate. Right now invading players blast thru 10 systems in 2 minutes using instas and are unstoppable. This would actually allow a sovereign to protect thier space and their members in it. So miners and ratters can do thier thing in relative saftey and it allows the PvP players a chance to respond to the gate attacks to protect the ratters and miners. Right now protection is damm near impossible and if anyone claims that a 23/7 gate camp is a viable defense...some of us actually play for fun; not to come home from work and then put in a 4 hour shift sitting on a gate. Buddy list needs nerfed because its in-game easy mode never fails radar. Remove it and if/when inventive players come up with something else nerf it too. Explain to me how finding a logged out player in your "sovereign space" (who is quite likely logged out to avoid normal removal) and sending them home would be grieftastic.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: [one 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.