|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Victor Bastion
Danger Management
30
   |
Posted - 2017.03.07 22:48:01 -
[1] - Quote
So I have been reading for years about how some people want to get rid of the Local Chat and others insist it's needed.
There seems to me to be a reasonable compromise.
In High Sec Local would act as it always has with no option to opt out.
In Low Sec and Null Sec you would have the option of closing local. In the event you close it, you would no longer appear in local yourself, however you would also not have the benefit of seeing who else is in local with you.
In wormhole space there would be no change.
If this were to be implemented there would need to be some option of pre-selecting your status for local so that you would not have to select it each time you were changing region types. |
Victor Bastion
Danger Management
30
|
Posted - 2017.03.07 23:38:08 -
[2] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Victor Bastion wrote:So I have been reading for years about how some people want to get rid of the Local Chat and others insist it's needed.
. Same could be said about hs wars and ganking people whining about something on the forums doesn't mean much
If you are trying to stifle legitimate debate on the subject by suggesting that anyone commenting on it is a whiner and as such whatever they post has no merit, I would put forward that you are in fact the one doing the whining.
If however you are suggesting that you are simply tired of the debate they why post at all?
In my time in Eve I have found most opinions on the subject fall broadly into one of three category.
1. Those who see local as a means of sustaining the social aspect of Eve.
2. Those who see local as an important means of gaining intel on their surroundings but often rely on it too heavily as a crutch.
3. Those who see local as both a distraction and serious flaw in that it allows for one to gain intel without skill or effort, but who would like to have it removed also largely because they have already mastered the skills to work without it.
It is largely those who fall into the second two categories that argue so vehemently for or against local chat. Neither can be fully pleased by any adjustment to the status quo. The compromise I suggest would please neither group but it would also neither be game breaking nor give serious advantage nor disadvantage to either.
In my opinion of course. |
Victor Bastion
Danger Management
30
|
Posted - 2017.03.07 23:51:29 -
[3] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Victor Bastion wrote:In Low Sec and Null Sec you would have the option of closing local. In the event you close it, you would no longer appear in local yourself, however you would also not have the benefit of seeing who else is in local with you. So you have an alt docked in station/citadel or cloaked with local open and perfectly safe, while you have your main in space, with local closed? Not saying it's a bad idea, just not sure what it achieves in the end, other than encouraging more alts.
Well setting the whole Cloaky Camper debate aside for this instance.
If you are docked in a Citadel with local open but no one else has local open, then you would not see them regardless unless they were uncloaked within range of the the Citadel and you had control of it so that you could use it's DScan. And then you would see only what Dscan shows.
If you are in space cloaked and without local open then you would effectively not show up to anyone until which time you decided to show yourself. However, you would have to rely entirely on DScan and perhaps Probes yourself in order to identify dangers and targets around you. Effectively putting you and your targets / hunters into the same situation.
I would suggest a Delay on local loading it's list for someone who had it closed and decided to open it. Plus a delay on when their character left the local list if they had it open and decided to close it. This would be so that they could not flip it open and closed only when they wanted a quick peek.
And you always still have the option of opening up local to post the obligatory Meme. |
Victor Bastion
Danger Management
30
|
Posted - 2017.03.07 23:52:26 -
[4] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Just replace local with Constellation.
It avoids giving away perfect intel while still providing a way to see who is in the area, and to talk to them
With the idea behind new sov being to spread fights out being able to smack talk your enemy from anywhere in the constellation also makes sense.
Right up until the point that there are 6000 or more in the constellation at which point loading Local Chat itself could crash some clients. |
Victor Bastion
Danger Management
30
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 01:54:44 -
[5] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Victor Bastion wrote:
Right up until the point that there are 6000 or more in the constellation at which point loading Local Chat itself could crash some clients.
Local doesn't crash at 4-5000, the node might from the ship combat, but that's utterly unrelated to local chat, I don't believe you in the slightest that Constellation at 6k would crash anyone. You know the biggest reason I don't believe you that it would crash anyone.... Constellation already exists in game.
True 6000 people may not crash a client. The number itself is not really the point. It could be 600 or 60,000.
The point is that every time you add a player that's one more host (player computer) that needs to be updated regarding some detail of all of the other hosts. In this case the constellation would have all player names required to be broadcast to all other players in the constellation adding unnecessary stress on the servers.
In a slow constellation perhaps this would not be a problem. But consider a situation such as the battle of M-0EE8 where local peeked at 5337 pilots. In this situation with local alone, all 5337 Hosts need to be updated with every player and message sent in local to each of the other 5337 Hosts. In a system that's already under 10% TiDi, this is just extra server load that's not really needed. Especially when in such a large battle, focusing on local is not really what's important.
Now add to that everyone that was in the constellation at the time. It's just more stress on the server that does not need to be there.
My suggestion has the potential of alleviating at least some of the stress on the server in such a scenario. FC's could instruct their pilots to close local. Even if this only had a 1% effect on the strain the server is under it's still better then nothing. Doing the reverse by adding everyone to Constellation chat would just compound the already frustrating issue of TiDi.
|
Victor Bastion
Danger Management
30
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 03:18:03 -
[6] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Except it's already what the server does. Constellation exists already, and any chat over 100 or 200 uses delayed updating meaning it doesn't add constant stress anyway, it just does it as it can.
It's literally removing stress by removing local and using constellation instead.
What your system do is create a convoluted mess. Not remove stress. Since it has to constant check if someones mode has changed, and run a filter on it.
Not to mention that CCP are separating the chat system from the main server meaning that any load on the chat server is irrelevant to load on the main server.
So not a chance to your idea.
You are side stepping the real issue here which is the complaint that local provides too much intel too easily. But to address your points.
First, why do you think there is a delay cap on the number of users? Could it be to keep server stress down? And how do you think that cap is imposed? Could it be using a filter?
The more obvious downside of what you suggest is this. Have you been to Jita lately? Why do you think all of the spam happens there? Is it perhaps that it's because that's where the largest audience is to see it? What do you think would happen if you allowed a single person to spam an entire constellation? It would potentially be be turning all of Eve into Jita Local. Do you really want that?
And I am not sure how you would consider my suggestion "Convoluted" Seems rather simple. Close local you don't show up but you don't get to see it either.
Now as to the point of separating out chat. This is your one valid point and one that I had forgotten about. So yes, this is going to go a long way to lowering stress on the server. It still does not solve the issue at had about local being used as an overpowered source of Intel which is where all the debate extends from.
|
Victor Bastion
Danger Management
30
|
Posted - 2017.03.09 05:40:31 -
[7] - Quote
Faith Winters wrote:Local is fine as it is. W-space has no local, why don't you go there? 2600+ systems are waiting for you.
Actually I live in Wormhole Space. Hope to see you there!
Before you see me! ^_^
So for my part, you can get rid of local entirely. But I can't see that as entirely fair to those who still need the crutch. |
|
|
| |
|