EVE Search - Pilot only appears in local if he/she speaks?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Pilot only appears in local if he/she speaks?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)
Rman	Posted - 2006.12.27 19:27:00 - [91] Originally by: Fto Cruise I'd like to thank the OP for this thread, it's been an interesting discussion. You are quite welcome! I had no idea it was going to turn into such a long disscussion though. I'm glad that it did. Some good points were brought. Im curious to see how it all turns out.
Ephemeral Waves The Nine Gates Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2006.12.27 19:44:00 - [92] Originally by: Bastogne What happened to cloaking, or trying to hide by bouncing your ship off of several different mons, roid fields, and safespots to confuse your pursuer and then hitting a gate and making a run for it? These suggestions all assume that you know somebody is in the system with you. The major flaw in removing local is that a ganker only needs to fly through the belts to find targets. Miners and ratters have to be in the belts and having to rescan every couple of seconds would reduce the entire game to pressing 1 button and hoping that nothing found you between presses. As for picketing every gate, that's a silly suggestion. A small mining op, 2-3 miners, a hauler and some security, would then need to have as many people again picketing the gates to the system - which would eliminate the presence of small mining ops. As much as local is a pain for some PvPers (heck, it was a pain last night when we went hunting and everything docked or SS'ed when our scouts jumped in) it would be much, much worse without it. The game would be nearly unplayable for many people. People who just want a casual gaming experience - log on for 30 min, kill some rats, chat with the corp, log off. If you can't even undock without a corp fleet what is the point of playing the game? Kill Board
Fto Cruise	Posted - 2006.12.27 20:24:00 - [93] Originally by: Ephemeral Waves The game would be nearly unplayable for many people. People who just want a casual gaming experience - log on for 30 min, kill some rats, chat with the corp, log off. If you can't even undock without a corp fleet what is the point of playing the game? This is what highsec and NPC corps are for.
Kin Hanyerec Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.12.28 00:54:00 - [94] Originally by: j0sephine Kin, removing local is not answer to this problem, since even though the person won't show initially in the local their presence is still well established on the map. The attackers come to the system with fair knowledge there's target here to blow up and you are back to square one Not really square one, the map is updated every 30mn. With local the attacker never gets the element of surprise that is necessary to get a kill (you have the same unknown when you jump in a system, the map is clear but there could be someone, and people camp gates and uses scouts for the same reason). But you also give the attacker the confirmation of a target in system. In the end you have a stalled (stable) situation. Where both parties just wait the other (the attacker) to get bored or (the target) to make a mistake. It's a binary system with a bynary input and a binary reaction : local friendly/hostile -> continue mining or npcing/hide. Without local you create enough unstability (which doesn't mean unbalance since both parties are affected by such changes) to get a dynamic situation where the outcome is not fixed by just the amount of attention of the target on local, but by skills, experience and teamplay required to detect threat/target and avoid detection by target/threat.
j0sephine Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.12.28 02:12:00 - [95] "With local the attacker never gets the element of surprise that is necessary to get a kill" I think this is in a way admitting people ask to get the local removed so they get better odds to gank targets that run as soon as they see them ... because these would-be targets are perfectly aware they stand no chance in actual combat with their attacker. I'm not sure, but with the new scanning system which allows to locate such targets quite fast nowadays ... i just see even less need to screw with local than ever. Before, people did have a vaguely valid point of how it's impossible to chase/nail down people once they warp off the belt and into the safespot. But this is not really any longer the case and even logging off doesn't mean one can be 100% sure they saved their ship ::cough::Cyvok::cough::
Zaribeth Xoth Inc Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2006.12.28 02:35:00 - [96] If this was to get into eve two thing need also be added: System defense, liek sentrys at gate's or station's, and constelation chat to be non closeable. OR just remove local and replace it with constelation chat alltoghter. Imagine a bob assault and you dont even know about it before they jump you and kill you :) (bob used as reference only becasue i love you guys) -------FIX-------
Kin Hanyerec Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.12.28 03:30:00 - [97] I think this is in a way admitting people ask to get the local removed so they get better odds to gank targets that run as soon as they see them ... because these would-be targets are perfectly aware they stand no chance in actual combat with their attacker. Imo nobody stands a chance if caught by surprise, you have to suppose that someone attacking you already did math about the odds of the fight, or the attacker is a fool. Reaction is escape, get intel, evaluate, and then strike back. It is not about easy ganks, it's not even about alliances having hard times patrolling their territory (and paradoxally being the ones usually doing the ganking). Someone said "without local it would be like being in a dark room", why there should be a light in the first place ? It's like playing poker with cards on table, you cant lose if you do not play, and you will not play a losing game, but you cant win neither since it's the same for the others. You end up not playing.
Marcus TheMartin Gallente Tuxedo.	Posted - 2006.12.28 03:40:00 - [98] Originally by: Kin Hanyerec I think this is in a way admitting people ask to get the local removed so they get better odds to gank targets that run as soon as they see them ... because these would-be targets are perfectly aware they stand no chance in actual combat with their attacker. Imo nobody stands a chance if caught by surprise, you have to suppose that someone attacking you already did math about the odds of the fight, or the attacker is a fool. Reaction is escape, get intel, evaluate, and then strike back. It is not about easy ganks, it's not even about alliances having hard times patrolling their territory (and paradoxally being the ones usually doing the ganking). Someone said "without local it would be like being in a dark room", why there should be a light in the first place ? It's like playing poker with cards on table, you cant lose if you do not play, and you will not play a losing game, but you cant win neither since it's the same for the others. You end up not playing. I like what he said Sig Nerf - Cortes I declare war on ISD! You don't stand a chance -Karl
j0sephine Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.12.28 05:00:00 - [99] "Imo nobody stands a chance if caught by surprise, you have to suppose that someone attacking you already did math about the odds of the fight, or the attacker is a fool. Reaction is escape, get intel, evaluate, and then strike back." Hmm if we look at it from this angle, then wouldn't it mean the very thing that's being said in response to local nerf suggestions... that is, increase of surprise factor = less fights overall because no one is going to risk getting in fight where they aren't sure about having upper hand? "Someone said "without local it would be like being in a dark room", why there should be a light in the first place ?" See above ^^ even between 1-2 solar systems there's enough room to hide force that can be potentially always larger than whatever amount you have with you. With inability to estimate the odds how many people will be willing to risk "being a fool" (your words) and attack what's potentially a trap "It's like playing poker with cards on table, you cant lose if you do not play, and you will not play a losing game, but you cant win neither since it's the same for the others. You end up not playing." Precisely. except in EVE this tends to be more about people refusing to play if they don't know the other person't cards... because "you will not play a (potentially) losing game" as that would mean you are a fool. So yes, it's likely we would wind up with most simply not playing. We can complain but this is simply way people are, as evidenced by numbers ctrl-q'ing daily. So making the mechanics even more severe ... there isn't much to gain here, but a lot can be lost imo.
Kin Hanyerec Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.12.28 12:04:00 - [100] increase of surprise factor = less fights overall because no one is going to risk getting in fight where they aren't sure about having upper hand? You are assuming less people will attack because they will fear traps. Probably true, but in the other hand those who overcome their fear of the monster in closet will be able to attack more people (since target will be less likely able to hide). The dark and unknown are not always hostiles. Sometimes they are, then your experience and teamplay will get you out of a trap. Most times it's just an empty dak room. See above ^^ even between 1-2 solar systems there's enough room to hide force that can be potentially always larger than whatever amount you have with you. With inability to estimate the odds how many people will be willing to risk "being a fool" (your words) and attack what's potentially a trap [...] Precisely. except in EVE this tends to be more about people refusing to play if they don't know the other person't cards... because "you will not play a (potentially) losing game" as that would mean you are a fool. So yes, it's likely we would wind up with most simply not playing. you misunderstood by a "fool" (or someone very brave) i was talking about attacking known odds stronger than yours, like attacking a force that outnumbers us for more than 5:1 for bob pilots. (5 max targets if you didnt bother training multitasking). The unknown is always there. If the unknown is the same for both parties why be scared of it ? People control-q because thay have more to lose than to win in an unconsensual fight. If they dont know it they wont be able to log. And after being ganked once, if they grow balls, maybe they will consider setting up a trap to take revenge. We can complain but this is simply way people are, as evidenced by numbers ctrl-q'ing daily. So making the mechanics even more severe ... there isn't much to gain here, but a lot can be lost imo There is a lot to gain imo. There is the ability to hide and surprise which is both ways ! Why people live in 0.0 ? because gain > fear. This ability will also take strategy and tactics to a new level. Not just the Estimate the opponent odds, wait for more reinforcements, Reestimate, wait for more people, Reestimate again... then engage when both fleets have reached their maximum number. If you have to engage to estimate the opponent, then you will engage with expendable ships, win or lose, then come back with more people and engage again. I prefer the latter. And ofc less gate camping without local :)
Harisdrop Gallente ClanKillers Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.12.28 13:19:00 - [101] Originally by: Rman Edited by: Rman on 26/12/2006 19:12:24 Originally by: Fto Cruise The answer could be to remove the local chat channel, or for a pilot to only appear if he speaks. This is from another thread but I like this idea. Anyone know why something like this has not been done already? Thanks, Rman How about no local and no map showing that there was anyone in a system 30 minutes ago. New NPC Region
goatplasma No Quarter.	Posted - 2006.12.28 13:31:00 - [102] If anything of the sort was implemented, it would ruin EVE completely. This isn't real life kids, it's a game, get it into your heads.
ArtemisEntreri Turbulent	Posted - 2006.12.28 13:41:00 - [103] Originally by: goatplasma If anything of the sort was implemented, it would ruin EVE completely. This isn't real life kids, it's a game, get it into your heads. Please explain how that it would ruin the game? I say remove local and add something instead, constellation chat or longer scanning range or similar. Cormack's Power diag
Bastogne Caldari Merch Industrial	Posted - 2006.12.28 14:10:00 - [104] Originally by: Kin Hanyerec There is a lot to gain imo. There is the ability to hide and surprise which is both ways ! Why people live in 0.0 ? because gain > fear. This ability will also take strategy and tactics to a new level. Not just the Estimate the opponent odds, wait for more reinforcements, Reestimate, wait for more people, Reestimate again... then engage when both fleets have reached their maximum number. So instead of alliance battles being blob on blob, you want them to be a whole bunch of waiting and then blob on blob.
Kagura Nikon Minmatar The Black Dawn Gang	Posted - 2006.12.28 14:35:00 - [105] No local is better for both sides. Pirates can get in and not everyoen imediately log off 9 and taht is main problem log off!!!) While miners and others can get in and not imediately start tro be hunted. Defensive scanning is much easier than offensive one (just keep 360 degree max range and click every 1 minute), at least you have something to do.. otherwise mining is just looking at local. Even to rat i would get more often in low sec if there was no local. Because when i get in today i know i am going to be hunted as soon as I see someone in local. Local disturbs most of the chances of fun in the game. No local also mean pirate smight attack a target just to discover that there were not 2 ships of that corp in system... but 8.. and now they are screwed. If brute force doesn't solve your problem.. then you are not using enough!!
Amiable Quinn Minmatar Lasleinur Production Fimbulwinter	Posted - 2006.12.28 14:59:00 - [106] Few points: 1. Removing local substantially favors the aggressor. If such a change were made there would need to be some other sort of re-balancing. NPCers/miners remain stationary while PvPer's roam. Basically if a PvP fitted ship ctaches an NPC fitted ship they are pretty much dead. The hard part is the catching, not the killing. 2. I catch haulers/miners fine in my PvP fitted rifter. Do some get away? Yes. It takes a long time for those local-hull-expanded babies to get into warp. If you jump into the right belt you can find them. This obviously requires a but of luck, but it can be done with any decntly fast-to-warp ship. Local is fine as is.
uNtOldOne	Posted - 2006.12.28 15:20:00 - [107] Edited by: uNtOldOne on 28/12/2006 15:21:32 I would say a skill point cap. Say 3 mil to 5 mil on the primary character or highest skilled character on the account (so you cant just create an alt to see local)...some were in that area. No seeing local cept in high sec. There are new commers to the game and they really dont know or are still learning.
Fto Cruise	Posted - 2006.12.28 16:23:00 - [108] Originally by: Amiable Quinn I catch haulers/miners fine in my PvP fitted rifter. Do some get away? Yes. This obviously requires a but of luck, but it can be done with any decntly fast-to-warp ship. Local is fine as is. I don't want to use a rifter. I haven't spent over 3 years training my skills to use a rifter. I want to be able to chase people to the gates, fire on them, tank their firepower and that of the sentry guns and blow them up before either they escape or I blow up! Right now lowsec gives little pvp unless you're gate camping or you're up against complete idiots who stay where they are or warp right on top of you (yes, it happened!) No fun if there's no challenge!
Bastogne Caldari Merch Industrial	Posted - 2006.12.28 16:30:00 - [109] Sentries should not be so easily tankable. I would be ok with them being tankable only in a heavily tanked BS or BC with other people remote repping/boosting the guy tanking the sentry hit.
j0sephine Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.12.28 17:41:00 - [110] "You are assuming less people will attack because they will fear traps. Probably true, but in the other hand those who overcome their fear of the monster in closet will be able to attack more people (since target will be less likely able to hide)." Am estimating there will be (even) less people period in low security areas because of increased uncertainty factor.... which means even those willing to risk play in such environment would have less targets to attack. Coupled with increased difficulty of finding anyone, i think the end effect is going to be less people attacked (in raw numbers, not percentage) even if they may not run so often E.g. if nowadays you can find 10 targets on daily trip and 8 of them gets away, you still have 2 targets attacked. If after new changes you can find 10 targets in a week and only 2 out of them run... you are still short compared to previous situation (14 targets in a week vs 8, and with significantly less trouble finding them in the first place) "you misunderstood by a "fool" (or someone very brave) i was talking about attacking known odds stronger than yours, like attacking a force that outnumbers us for more than 5:1 for bob pilots. (5 max targets if you didnt bother training multitasking). The unknown is always there. If the unknown is the same for both parties why be scared of it ?" No, we simply looked at the same issue from different angles ^^ With removed ability to estimate the enemy odds, you have to presume your targets have backups. This means potentially the enemy has larger force than your own. So attacking anyone with this possibility looming is 'being foolish' because unlike nowadays you can never be sure you do have the upper hand. And since like you said, with few exceptions people tend to attack only when they are sure they have the upper hand, with this assurance removed the number of fights is very likely to sharply drop... since it only takes one side to log off because they don't want to risk it, to make the fight not happen. Why would they be scared of unknown if it's the same for both sides? Because it's still the unknown _for them_ just the same. "People control-q because thay have more to lose than to win in an unconsensual fight." People ctrl-q because they don't want to lose, period ^^ this extends to all other parts of combat, unfortunately, but overall boils down to what you said -- if they cannot be certain of winning, they'd rather simply not fight. "Why people live in 0.0 ? because gain > fear." People live in low sec because gain exceeds the risk. So when you increase the risk, natural consequence is less people living there, because the gain that didn't change no longer meets their personal gain/risk threshold. "This ability will also take strategy and tactics to a new level." I think it's personal preference here, but myself i don't find anything exciting or new in the "a-ha! feel the wrath of my dozen extra battleships i had hidden until now!" ... so you manage to get a surprise gank on enemy who wasn't smart enough to take this into account. Big whoop, people do these every day as it is, sometimes with logging on and sometimes without. So what's new here? "And ofc less gate camping without local :)" Why would there be less gate camping? If anything, with the increased difficulty to locate people it's quite likely this is what people would focus on -- gates and stations. Because it's easiest way to actually find someone, and with cloaked lookout on gate in next and previous system you are pretty much immune to any surprise attack short of the old log on traps...
Amiable Quinn Minmatar Lasleinur Production Fimbulwinter	Posted - 2006.12.28 18:00:00 - [111] Originally by: Fto Cruise I don't want to use a rifter. I haven't spent over 3 years training my skills to use a rifter. Uh... QQ? If you want to catch people you need to: 1. Fly a fast ship or 2. Team up with someone flying a fast ship. Training skills for three years (or buying a 3 year old character off of E-bay) doesn't = I win button. You still need to engage in some basic tactics to put those skills to use.
Fto Cruise	Posted - 2006.12.28 22:51:00 - [112] Originally by: Amiable Quinn If you want to catch people you need to: 1. Fly a fast ship or 2. Team up with someone flying a fast ship. Training skills for three years (or buying a 3 year old character off of E-bay) doesn't = I win button. Incorrect. You just need to be able to lock fast. Teaming up is not always an option, plus I prefer the odds of 1 + sentry guns vs me, you do remember there are sentry guns in lowsec right? And yes I've been here 3 years+
Skraelingz Gallente Gallente Federal Bank Ratel Alliance	Posted - 2006.12.28 23:14:00 - [113] Originally by: Siakel Because the people NPCing/Mining/Whatever have to scan constantly or die, while the attackers only have to scan a few times to find the targets, and don't suffer any real penalty for not hitting the 'Scan' button every three seconds, I'd think. Also makes it nearly impossible to defend your space(Because it isn't hard enough now...). Exactly why the op idea would make going into 0.0 to do anything other than gank a suicide mission. goodbye ratting/mining. -----------------------------------------------
Marcus TheMartin Gallente Tuxedo.	Posted - 2006.12.28 23:19:00 - [114] I think removing local would open up a void in protection that would need to be filled and hence a good anti pirate force is finally born to protect 0.0 entry ways or miners in need (preferrably without the smacktalk skill lvl'd at all). Sig Nerf - Cortes I declare war on ISD! You don't stand a chance -Karl
Davmi Costo	Posted - 2006.12.28 23:34:00 - [115] I'd like to see local and 'pilots in space' removed. I see both of them as a fix to space being too empty - is it still so empty though? Granted 0.0 and low sec is but high sec is crammed full of players most of the day and I suspect if the chances of slipping by un-noticed were higher more of those would be taking trips into low sec / 0.0 than currently are. There's still gate camps, but they canot camp every gate 23/7 and you only need to get through the border once to enjoy the bounty the other side, without people being able to 'know' you are there from the other side of the galaxy.
Koval Celestial Apocalypse Insurgency	Posted - 2006.12.28 23:36:00 - [116] I hope I'll manage to live long enough to see the local gone =] This is what this game really needs. It's not hard to improve scouting tools like scanner (add constant refresh rate, make some skills and mods to upgrade scanner abilities etc) so it doesn't have to be fighting in a fog. On the other hand Eve would gain insane depth. PVP would become more hardcore thing where balls > numbers, currently in most cases it's about comparing local numbers which personally i'm sick of.
Daravel Caldari Ore Mongers SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2006.12.28 23:59:00 - [117] Taking a RP and practical view here, lets say every empire stargate records who jumps through a gate and that is broadcasted out. Sounds reasonable? Empires want to see who goes where, and broadcast it for public safety. 0.0, there are no empires, so it isnt recorded (possible with the later soverignty features?), so, no local. Miners/ratters are vulnerable - Well, if your in alliance space, this should be controlled, and provides more incentive to do so. increased use for recons/cov ops. Required for all gangs/fleets and all sorts. Kind of like real life would be... ever head of an army going somewhere without a recon group 20 miles ahead? I read that cov-ops are immune to normal scanning? If so, why not provide a cov-ops/recon only probe that gives a reading of every ship in the system? I dunno, something to make a real cat and mouse type thing for scouts. I dunno if its all a good thing, im sure there are many problems. But I think that in real life, and realisticaly (sp?) speaking, local wouldnt exist, and it sounds so much more fun for it to not exist. This Sig is unerfable because I am going to take all the character spaces so that the evil sig hijackers can't get a single letter in. I beat ISD! Mwhahahahah
Amiable Quinn Minmatar Lasleinur Production Fimbulwinter	Posted - 2006.12.29 00:21:00 - [118] Edited by: Amiable Quinn on 29/12/2006 00:21:03 Originally by: Fto Cruise Incorrect. You just need to be able to lock fast. Teaming up is not always an option, plus I prefer the odds of 1 + sentry guns vs me, you do remember there are sentry guns in lowsec right? And yes I've been here 3 years+ Uh, if you want to catch slow ships before they warp off the belts upon your entrance to local, you will, indeed, need a ship that enters warp relatively fast and can get to them before they align to warp and warp off. I believe we were discussing warping to belts to catch folks, not gate camping. I have no idea what sentry guns have to do with this discussion. If you are camping a gate I fail to see how local helps or hinders you, especially considering everyone has warp to zero now. You are going to have to catch them on the other side in any event. If they jump in and you are sitting at the gate, they are going to see you local or not. (Unless you are in a stealthed ship). So what does local have to do with tanking sentry guns? I'm sorry you believe that CCP decided to make it more difficult for you to use your 3+ years of training to catch noobs jumping into gates. Since you have played the game so long obviously CCP should be catering to your every whim. I suggest writing a polite but stern letter beginning: "Dear CCP, I am not a c r ackpot..."
Imperil Northern Intelligence SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2006.12.29 09:24:00 - [119] Who cares what other peoples will do. If they chose to not go out to 0.0 because there is no local, too bad for them. But I bet there is a lot of others that will. Todays EVE is so fecking sad. As soon as people see hostile in local, they fecking LOG! And it is instant safety because you do not get aggression timer from NPC's. Support POS Overhaul - Read it NOW!
Galk Gallente Autumn Tactics All the things she said	Posted - 2006.12.29 10:36:00 - [120] It would be like "hello... is anybody else playing this game" The very forum vocal don't make the game unfortunately... shame realy. It would be one more nail in the coffin were it ever to come about. While im fairly sure something might change in your no sec space... in time after ccp feel enough people are out there playing the 'game'. Sadly (or thankfully, if you enjoy the game) it won't change in empire sec. Depends i spose if you play in 'hardcore' mode.... while the forum vocals think that everybody should.. and if not why not... ect ect... Sadly ccp see things with a little more scope. ______

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.