| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
366
   |
Posted - 2012.01.26 18:31:00 -
[1] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Do you prefer the omniscient, instantaneous Local Chat we have now? or Would you prefer a more balanced intel system? By balanced, I mean a system that:
- A.) Alerts you quickly (not necessarily instantly) to the presence of all potential threats in space.
- B.) Leaves some ambiguity as to whether a potential threat is a friend or foe until you get intel on it.
- C.) Doesn't nerf the cloak out of play, nor boost it into the God of Hunting.
This F&I thread is my idea of a more balanced intel system. That's not the point of this thread though. I'm really just curious whether people think "local is fine as is", or if they want something different assuming a balance between predator and prey, cloakies, and the intelligence gathering mechanics can be achieved.
Local is not fine as is, nor are a whole gallery of "free intel" tools. It only really makes sense in hisec, where all gates are monitored constantly. Your suggestions for an intel system are good, but I am not very enthusiastic about automation for intel.
Perhaps if the intel resulting from the automated request was something like a system-wide mass sensor, which could only say "the system's mass increased/decreased a couple seconds ago!" That gives you the info you need to set you wondering what changed about your system.
Local, killmails, API abuse... there is way too much free intel in Eve. They all need looking at. |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
368
|
Posted - 2012.01.26 19:15:00 -
[2] - Quote
Quote:I think some level of automation in the intel system is necessary. As Bane pointed out, Quote:CCP has already established that more clicks != better gameplay!
That's a good point, but fewer clicks can also turn into "easy mode". The automated/passive intel should prompt investigation in all cases. The response to passive intel shouldn't be "oop, I need to safe up now". |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
370
|
Posted - 2012.01.26 20:26:00 -
[3] - Quote
Taint wrote:LEAVE LOCAL ALONE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The fail is strong with this one. |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
378
|
Posted - 2012.01.27 06:26:00 -
[4] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:yes and no.
Because binary poll responses are too mainstream? |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
380
|
Posted - 2012.01.27 16:29:00 -
[5] - Quote
Chandaris wrote:I would prefer a more advanced intel tool / directional scanner / radar og some sort..
and make local behave more realistically.. A pilot only shows up if they check in with traffic control -- jump through a stargate or undock from a starbase.. If they cyno in or jump in via wormhole, they are not passing by the port authority, and shouldn't be in local
in nullsec I don't believe there should be a local channel (ie set to delayed / chat only), since concord and the faction navy's have no presence there, thus there is no specific 'traffic control / port authority'
IMO anyways. take it or leave it.
Edit: could be a net sov mechanic to have a 'traffic control' unit you could erect in a system that would make local work in a nullsec system.. hmmmm
Interesting... I would support this. The traffic control unit needs to be vulnerable to things that are not giant fleets of doom. Something similar to the POCO maybe. |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
380
|
Posted - 2012.01.27 16:46:00 -
[6] - Quote
Razin wrote:Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Interesting... I would support this. The traffic control unit needs to be vulnerable to things that are not giant fleets of doom. Something similar to the POCO maybe.
I think any kind of automated intel-gathering infrastructure is a bad idea that would undermine the whole purpose of delayed local. There is nothing that would stop sov holders from installing such a 'traffic control' unit in every farming system and we're back to the current situation of semi-afk intel networks and instantly safing ratting/mining ops.
Not if cynos/blops cynos don't trigger the traffic control system, and you can take it down with a fleet of bombers. Now doesn't that sound like "black ops"? Drop a bunch of bombers on the traffic control, disable it, then silently move a conventional fleet in. |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
380
|
Posted - 2012.01.27 16:54:00 -
[7] - Quote
Razin wrote:
Still, that gives too much to large entities. What about small gangs or solo? They would always be at a disadvantage, having to either disable structures or put up with the other side's instant and effortless intel.
That's a fair point. I don't know how to solve it. |
| |
|