EVE Search - Black Ops ships require 'Local' to be changed

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Black Ops ships require 'Local' to be changed

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.11 04:45:00 - [31] Originally by: Tovarishch Edited by: Tovarishch on 10/12/2007 02:39:30 Originally by: Goumindong Wiat, so black ops ships just got more powerful with the ability to enter and leave systems without using jump gates, and so the answer to this is to buff them more? I know youve had some whacky ideas in the past, but this takes the cake. If you believe Black Ops ships are overpowered feel free to speak up. As it stands now they are hugely inefficient, with a very short jump range. I would hardly begin to call them overpowered. So, your insinuation that they don't need a 'buff' is completely erroneous. These ships are designed to enter enemy territory 'undetected'. However, all someone needs to do is park an alt in a system and watch local to provide reconnaissance. Apparently you think that using a untrained alt safely parked in a station or cloaked is a fair way to offset a ship and module that require a tremendous amount of training and isk. Sorry, but I don't call that balanced. The removal of local has a net balanced result, in that it affects both sides of the conflict equally. My only single concern with the removal of local is a possible increase in blob tactics due to lack of enemy fleet info. However, we already have a 'cheater button' in opening the map and sorting by active pilots in system. That in itself seems nearly unfair to me. Hardcore PVP? No. PS. If you'd like to point out some of my other 'whacky' ideas... feel free to point them out. Although, your ad hominem namecalling comes as no surprise in light of your post that lacks any substance or facts. Edit - Also, according to your statement that - Originally by: Goumindong black ops ships just got more powerful with the ability to enter and leave systems without using jump gates ... that you must believe capital ships are unbalanced because of their ability to do the same thing? This is the worst logic i have seen on eve-o in a long time. 1. Just because something is powerful does not mean it is overpowered. 2. Just because something is called "black-ops" does not mean that its intent is to break the game. Carries cannot warp cloaked, cannot leave systems cloaked, cannot jump to cloaked cynos, and cannot enter a system cloaked. The removal of local, while it affects everyone equally, effects everyone equally bad. Titans affected everyone equally[more or less], and they were still **ty for the game because of **ty mechanics.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.11 04:48:00 - [32] Originally by: Tovarishch Originally by: TordenSkiold The problem is if you remove local entirely, even in 00, you will tip the ballance to far in favour of attackers. I'm curious as to why you think this might be the case. I'm not saying that I disagree, I just want to know why you feel the change to local would cause this to happen. Have you ever played the game? You are wondering why the inability to see people enter your system passivly is a boon to attackers? Seroiusly? Here ill give you a hint. Attackers move, targets dont.
marie blueprint	Posted - 2007.12.11 05:20:00 - [33] Edited by: marie blueprint on 11/12/2007 05:21:13 i love it when piwats whine. "sob the mean guy control q'd when i came on local so i cant kill him! sniff" its a gang mechanic adapt over come
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.12.11 05:25:00 - [34] Originally by: Goumindong This is the worst logic i have seen on eve-o in a long time. 1. Just because something is powerful does not mean it is overpowered. Precisely. I'm glad you understand that statement, because it's a fundamental part of my point. Originally by: Goumindong 2. Just because something is called "black-ops" does not mean that its intent is to break the game. Irrelevant. I'm not sure why you bring this up. Originally by: Goumindong Carries cannot warp cloaked, cannot leave systems cloaked, cannot jump to cloaked cynos, and cannot enter a system cloaked. That wasn't your statement. Please reread what you typed and my response to it. Also, please respond to my very relevant comment that you apparently think it's balanced to have an untrained alt that is currently able to counter a Black Ops crew simply by being parked in local. Every advantage of a Black Ops crew can be entirely elimated by such a tactic, which you are conveniently ignoring... which is essentially my entire point - that Black Ops were created for the very purpose of being able to move into enemy territory unnoticed. However, as I've shown, local entirely negates this ability. Originally by: Goumindong The removal of local, while it affects everyone equally, effects everyone equally bad. Titans affected everyone equally[more or less], and they were still **ty for the game because of **ty mechanics. You've done absolutely nothing to show that the removal of local would hurt the game. All you've done is (once again) resort to insults and strawmen. Facts please. My crusade for faster missiles.
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.12.11 05:35:00 - [35] Originally by: Goumindong Have you ever played the game? You are wondering why the inability to see people enter your system passivly is a boon to attackers? Golly gee. No, I've never played the game. Really. I haven't. Stop being childish, whether you're famous for it or not. Originally by: Goumindong Here ill give you a hint. Attackers move, targets dont. I have no idea what you are talking about. Defenders don't move? You do realize that attacks can be made on many fronts, and all those fronts cannot be covered fully at all times. If you were familiar with 0.0 warfare you'd realize that attackers currently have a number of disadvantages stacked against them. I don't see how the removal of local weighs very heavily in one direction or the other... as (something you again don't realize) neither attackers nor defenders will have local as a way to judge numbers. It could wind up being advantageous (or likewise) for either side. If you'd care to explain why the removal of local would help attackers more than defenders instead of resorting to childish insults then I'd be happy to see you shift from petulance to facts. My crusade for faster missiles.
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.12.11 05:37:00 - [36] Originally by: marie blueprint Edited by: marie blueprint on 11/12/2007 05:21:13 i love it when piwats whine. "sob the mean guy control q'd when i came on local so i cant kill him! sniff" its a gang mechanic adapt over come I'd respond to this, but I don't really understand what you are saying. My crusade for faster missiles.
marie blueprint	Posted - 2007.12.11 05:59:00 - [37] my bad ment to say it is a game mechanic get over it or go do something else. shutting down local is an imbalance as it only helps the attacker. has no bennift for the target. pirats always want more advantages over thier targets. and whine when people log off. saying things like its cowardly or what ever. like 3 bs on a hauler isnt? lol. ccp normaly wont change some thing to over buff one side so hopefully they will ignore this thread.
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.12.11 06:07:00 - [38] Originally by: marie blueprint my bad ment to say it is a game mechanic get over it or go do something else. shutting down local is an imbalance as it only helps the attacker. has no bennift for the target. pirats always want more advantages over thier targets. and whine when people log off. saying things like its cowardly or what ever. like 3 bs on a hauler isnt? lol. ccp normaly wont change some thing to over buff one side so hopefully they will ignore this thread. I've asked other people, and I'll ask you... explain why removing local helps the attacker more than the defender... as neither side will be gaining any info regarding the size of the enemy force they are about to encounter. The removal of local as a way to judge enemy fleet size helps the defenders as much as the attackers. As it stands now local is not only used as a way to judge the size of an enemy fleet, but high priority enemy pilots (Mothership/Titan pilots) are added to address books and watched for in local. Removing this ability is a help to both attacker and defender alike. So again, I'm still waiting for someone to illuminate why attackers would gain so much from having local removed, while defenders would not. My crusade for faster missiles.
marie blueprint	Posted - 2007.12.11 06:15:00 - [39] a lone target would have no warning of incomeing ships and if he/she is mining / ratting they dont have time to scan for ships every 2 min to watch thier 6. an incomeing fleet or single scout can scan down a ship in 2 min sometimes less they have the advantage of time.local chat is like radar or sonar lets u know when there are sharks in the water. and adding other players to your list so u can watch them is gasp another game mechanic. and a smart idea i may add.i do hope this clears it up for you.
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.12.11 06:23:00 - [40] Edited by: Tovarishch on 11/12/2007 06:24:57 Originally by: marie blueprint a lone target would have no warning of incomeing ships and if he/she is mining / ratting they dont have time to scan for ships every 2 min to watch thier 6. an incomeing fleet or single scout can scan down a ship in 2 min sometimes less they have the advantage of time.local chat is like radar or sonar lets u know when there are sharks in the water. and adding other players to your list so u can watch them is gasp another game mechanic. and a smart idea i may add.i do hope this clears it up for you. Firstly, a lone pirate mining/ratting in 0.0 should not be invulnerable thanks to your 'game dynamic'. As it stands now all anyone has to do is cloak or log off when they see someone pop into local. Just because you call that a fair 'game mechanic' does not make it balanced. I know that solo pilots have a hard time letting go of making loads of isk per day with no risk... but that's only one facet of the problem... one that I honestly could care less about as I'm not a pirate (which you don't seem to understand). You very clearly pointed out only one problem - that local can make someone invulnerable. However, that isn't the point of this thread, if you'd reread the OP. However, I do appreciate your bumping this thread to keep it at the top! My crusade for faster missiles.
marie blueprint	Posted - 2007.12.11 06:32:00 - [41] i appoligize for saying you a pirate if you truly are not but i do understand your origanal idae and still oppose it the black ops ship should not exclud u from local i have no idea how u think local makes some one invulnerable seeing how many people get killed in lowsec and 0.0 every single day it seems to me there must be a way to catch them. someone is any way. perhaps u simply need the councel of ppl that do catch lone or otherwize targets in local. i have no idea i just mine and/trade in low sec fly a cheap ship no implants and get killed from time to time. i dont feel invulnerable to be shure. and would shurly like to know how to get invulnerable as it would make the game a little less risky for me. :) thanx in advance for that advice.
Kieran Jarnush	Posted - 2007.12.11 13:30:00 - [42] just my 2cent on this topic. how about making announcement of new players in local delayed by 10-15 minutes? or on another proposal i'd find it great if the stargates would have some sort targetable/shootable communicationslink facility. just like the facilities on stations. once that is disabled, players entering through that gate will not be hooked into the local channel.
Novacain Gallente	Posted - 2007.12.11 16:05:00 - [43] Originally by: Kieran Jarnush just my 2cent on this topic. how about making announcement of new players in local delayed by 10-15 minutes? or on another proposal i'd find it great if the stargates would have some sort targetable/shootable communicationslink facility. just like the facilities on stations. once that is disabled, players entering through that gate will not be hooked into the local channel. Local with delay. Yes, that is a good idea. As with my analogy of "noisy birds of the savanna" in the form of NPC's patrolling the gates. You have been spotted. The inhabitants of 0.0 will have to spot intrusions on 'their' space with deployable sentry drones or probes. Does'nt anyone watch the Discovery channel anymore? It is filled with great studies in this kind of enviroment and behavior.
Kiithnaras Minmatar OVER-DOSE Hedonistic Imperative	Posted - 2007.12.11 16:33:00 - [44] My opinion is that nerfing local is just silly. It is the way it has always been. For every person wanting to get rid of instant updates, there's at least five more who want to keep it. Keep in mind that you're on the offensive side of it, the one actually flying the Black Ops, and nerfing local would only buff it more. On the other side, people rely on local to let them know who has just jumped in either via gate or drive. If the majority of players wanted to change a game mechanic that core to Eve, I'm fairly sure it'd get done quickly. But you are in the minority, only those who are on the offensive most of the time, not those on the defensive. So just chill out and let the territorials and carebears have their fun. Besides, it's an even better challenge to have them know you're in system and still not be able to find you. And someone suggested being able to scan cloaked ships? Thats an even bigger nerf than breaking local. Stop taking Crash. ; )
Drogher Forerunner	Posted - 2007.12.11 16:48:00 - [45] Originally by: Archivian Specialatus How about: When you activate your Cov-OPs cloak, you are removed from local. So you cant use local whilst you are cloaked and people in local cant see you. This would mean that being cloaked actually would mean that you are cloaked. But also cloakers cant just Cloak and watch local for hours, they would actually have to doing something to get info. And every time they want intel like local info then they will have to de cloak. It will be like a submarine surfacing for air. Originally by: Tovarishch I can't agree with this line of thought. This would be a huge boon to afk cloakers who sit on gates, I dont see how it would be a boon to afk cloakers. If they are AFK and cloaked, then they can neither see or be seen in local. If they are at a gate cloaked then they can see what is at the gate and you (coming through the gate) cant see them. As it stands now, you cant see if they are at the gate anyway, you just know they are somewhere in local, so essentially nothing is changed. Originally by: Tovarishch or to NPCers who have a cloak fitted to hide from roaming gangs... while at the same time doing nothing for 'the other guys'. If an NPCer cloaks, the roaming gang who entered system would see them leave local and either think that they have cloaked or left system. At the same time, the NPCer will not be able to see local to know if the roaming gang has left system or not. It would have to de-cloak to check local, at which point the roaming gang will see him in local and try to scan him down. Unless you are looking at it from another point of view that i'm missing, Then i dont see a problem with it. Also about the new black-ops Battleships, as i understand it. You cant actually warp around cloaked. please correct me if im wrong on that.
Kiithnaras Minmatar OVER-DOSE Hedonistic Imperative	Posted - 2007.12.11 17:28:00 - [46] That's a very interesting idea, the removing/adding from local entirely. I agree that it would not change much anyway even though it would be an interesting alternative, but I do forsee one problem: Lag Generation. Repeatedly cloaking at a safespot or offgrid, especially in large numbers, could potentially hammer the local chat server and create a fair amount lag for players in system, and that's bad, m'kay? And no, Black Ops can't use Covert Ops cloaks (as far as their description says, anyway)
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.12.11 17:28:00 - [47] Edited by: Tovarishch on 11/12/2007 17:31:26 Originally by: Kiithnaras My opinion is that nerfing local is just silly. It is the way it has always been. For every person wanting to get rid of instant updates, there's at least five more who want to keep it. Keep in mind that you're on the offensive side of it, the one actually flying the Black Ops, and nerfing local would only buff it more. On the other side, people rely on local to let them know who has just jumped in either via gate or drive. If the majority of players wanted to change a game mechanic that core to Eve, I'm fairly sure it'd get done quickly. But you are in the minority, only those who are on the offensive most of the time, not those on the defensive. So just chill out and let the territorials and carebears have their fun. Besides, it's an even better challenge to have them know you're in system and still not be able to find you. Wrong. One of the only times CCP has taken an actual poll of players regarding an issue was about two years ago or so when they asked players if they wanted local removed. If I recall correctly the vote was something like 52% against, 48% for. SO, you're simply making up numbers. Also, you are simply making more info up by saying that I'm on the offensive more of the time. Yes, obviously I spend a lot of time 'attacking' people. However, most of our time on the job is sepnt as an occupation force, which defends an area we have already taken. Originally by: Drogher Forerunner I dont see how it would be a boon to afk cloakers. If they are AFK and cloaked, then they can neither see or be seen in local. If they are at a gate cloaked then they can see what is at the gate and you (coming through the gate) cant see them. As it stands now, you cant see if they are at the gate anyway, you just know they are somewhere in local, so essentially nothing is changed. I was loosely using the term that many people use for those people who cloak a ship near a gate for recon purposes... and can safely go afk. I still see absolutely no reason why local should exist in 0.0. A 'chat' room is not needed there. It is simply used for recon/intel purposes, which entirely ruins a Black Ops ship ability to do specifically what it was designed to do. Originally by: Drogher Forerunner Also about the new black-ops Battleships, as i understand it. You cant actually warp around cloaked. please correct me if im wrong on that. That is correct. Black Ops ships, as far as cloaking is concerned, work like a Stealth Bomber. My crusade for faster missiles.
Eka Maladay	Posted - 2007.12.11 21:40:00 - [48] Removing local will have this following effect: The lost of local will means that small alliance will not be able to afford to be in 0.0 since perma gate camp become a requirement to get any meaningful ops. Lost of local will also means that population in 0.0 decrease. I'm not saying that without local, 0.0 become unplayable. But without local, a major counter for any carebear, as well as roaming ops will disappear, Change like this will make people leave 0.0 simply because the change is too big and requires people to takes a 'wait and see' approach. It might set off a major chains reaction and drives a lot of smaller alliance out of 0.0 altogether. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but this will change the game so heavily and not to be taken lightly, the alternative and replacement for local need to be made just right.
Max Godsnottlingson Amarr Freelancing Corp Confederation of Independent Corporations	Posted - 2007.12.11 23:27:00 - [49] Edited by: Max Godsnottlingson on 11/12/2007 23:32:27 Edited by: Max Godsnottlingson on 11/12/2007 23:27:43 As a 0.0 Ratter I would originally have disagreed with you Tovarishch. But after a few weeks of trying to put isk farmers out of business in our 'patch' of 0.0 I can now understand where you are coming from. I don't think doing away with o.o local is the way forward. But do agree that true Covert Ops ship (those that can warp while cloaked) Should be able to enter a system and not be shown on 'the list'. Then a Covert Ops could do it's real job, sneak into system unseen by anybody, scout out targets, then provide a solid, warp too point for his mates to warp too as soon they jump in system. It would also need some fine ballacing, but I might even suggest tagging back ratters for a few seconds, to stop insta warps at the first sign of trouble. Justification being that interference from weapons fired (at the NPC's) causes a delay in warping. The main problem, as is with much of Eve, is the all or nothing nature of the game. I know that if I rat correctly as things are now, I will never get caught by a player. But now having seen this problem from the 'other side' agree that there should at least be some level of 'grey' area to add some uncertainly and not have the aligned to POS/Station/SS and rolling so you have an insta warp at the first sign of trouble. I guess that for the same reason, the agression timer for logging off should also be applied to NPC's So, keep local as it is, but let Covert Ops ships jump in system and their pilot then stays hidden off the list unless he chooses to talk. Oh, and for those who didn't seem to understand what Tovarishch was saying, about not all the advantage going to the attackers if 0.0 Local was to be removed. I think the point he was trying to make is this. Yes I would be annoyed if I got caught by a fleet warping on top of me when I am ratting because there was no local. But at least I could take some comfort in the thought that they had to search dozens and dozens and dozens of belts to find me. Simply because they won't know if a system is empty or full too. They won't know if there is a 100 ship BOB/Goonie gang (depending on which side applies) floating about and ready to swat them as they drop out of warp. It would make it harder for everybody. Yes, ratters and miners would struggle, until they came up with some plan, like, god forbid, working together as a team. But it would be equally as difficult for raiders trying to push deep into 0.0 space that is claimed by some Alliance or another. lol, now that I have typed this up, perhaps it would be 'interesting' for CCP to switch off local in 0.0 for a few weeks just to see how it does pan out.
Plekto Priory Of The Lemon R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.12.12 00:28:00 - [50] Getting rid of it at this point would cause a massive revolt. So we need to make stealth ships work like they are intended. Possible solutions that I have heard so far that appear to work and be balanced: 1 - stealth ships lose their entire chat channels and scanning abilities when cloaked. This is like a submerged submarine. The outside world is literally what they can see through their periscope when they are dong "silent running".(ie - in EVE, what you see out of your screen visually - camera only, no scanning, no chat.) Only email would work when like this. They so much as breathe in any chat channel and they appear in local for 15 minutes(same as aggression timer) In exchange they drop off of the face of EVE. They can sit for hours at a gate and unless something gets close, they are invisible. I would make it a 20km radius to be fair - they don't uncloak but if they get 20Km from an enemy or gate, they appear in local until they move out of range.(this allows ships to possible home in on them, which is fair, and a missing part of cloaking, IMO) 2 - Another option is to remove them from local but to have them announced in local when they jump. "Stealth Bomber at (foo) gate (timestamp)". Once they are through, they are invisible. This would apply to only stealth bombers and black ops. A normal cloak would do nothing. NOTE - you would need sovereignty to get this info from the gate. Together, I feel that it would solve the problem. cloaked ships get an advantage, but being cut off at the same time from local and chat channels is a stiff enough penalty to compensate. *note - I mean their entire chat window closes and won't open while cloaked. Targeting is disabled. Scanning is disabled. You are basically a fancy cloaked pod floating in space looking out your window.
Ath Amon	Posted - 2007.12.12 04:33:00 - [51] Originally by: Eka Maladay Removing local will have this following effect: The lost of local will means that small alliance will not be able to afford to be in 0.0 since perma gate camp become a requirement to get any meaningful ops. Lost of local will also means that population in 0.0 decrease. I'm not saying that without local, 0.0 become unplayable. But without local, a major counter for any carebear, as well as roaming ops will disappear, Change like this will make people leave 0.0 simply because the change is too big and requires people to takes a 'wait and see' approach. It might set off a major chains reaction and drives a lot of smaller alliance out of 0.0 altogether. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but this will change the game so heavily and not to be taken lightly, the alternative and replacement for local need to be made just right. as said above i'm not for the total local removal, just by the ability to see who is in the chat. i agree with you about these problems, but also there could be different (IG) solutions to this... a buoy to place near gates that gives intel of the ships jumping in and out (and that maybe can ne hacked :P) "radar" poses that scan some LY around them, maybe even some new ship class able to "track" the "signature" of a ship in various systems (so you don't know the right position but more or less you can know in wich system it is) just a couple of ideas that got while i was writing. the problem of local is that you can get intel even if it is actually a chat channel, so something out of game and this hit hard some ship classes like cov-ops. is more a problem about "game mechanic" than of playability. imo CCP should "fix" local so it will not give anymore any intell but with that they should also introduce new ingame elements that will permit to get that intel (or part of it) back Originally by: Diana Merris Unfortunately, rather than address the slot layout/tanking issues for Minmatar the Devs have simple declared that it makes us "versitile".
Eka Maladay	Posted - 2007.12.12 06:17:00 - [52] I guess having them unable to probe and scans and see local while cloaked is a good idea. And have the local delay to them for sometime before they see local (but nto the other way around) would be acceptable. However, this would screw up a lot of existing probing activity.
marie blueprint	Posted - 2007.12.12 11:24:00 - [53] 2 thing first this looks like a whine thread "wahh i cant kill isk farmers ccp please let me" second ccp cant "fix" anything without making it worse or at least doing something u did not expect/want. tbh i say drop it b4 they see this as a "good" thing and give u a nerf ball to swallow. just my 2 cents.
Cailais Amarr VITOC	Posted - 2007.12.12 11:33:00 - [54] Originally by: Archivian Specialatus How about: When you activate your Cov-OPs cloak, you are removed from local. So you cant use local whilst you are cloaked and people in local cant see you. This would mean that being cloaked actually would mean that you are cloaked. But also cloakers cant just Cloak and watch local for hours, they would actually have to doing something to get info. And every time they want intel like local info then they will have to de cloak. It will be like a submarine surfacing for air. This idea I like a lot. C. Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Dehumanisation - griefers are cool and if you are not a griefer, you do not belong here.
Zeonos Amarr Fairtrade Syndicate	Posted - 2007.12.12 12:09:00 - [55] well. only show up in local if you used a gate to get there, the gates can have sensors. but when jumping in with a bridge, you shouldn't show in local, unless you speak, or send out a signal otherwise. Look I Hijacked a sig!! -Kaemonn <3 Kaemonn -Zeonos A sunset with Kaemonn... how nice... -Wachtmeister In Eve-Online Forum Hijack Signature! -Ivan K This space is reserved for moderator hijacking, Need more colors! Red & Yellow & Pink & Green, Orange & Purple & ME! - Deckard My yellow pwns Deckard's fruity rainbow thingie anyday. BRING IT BABY! -Hango Black and pink 4tw however gold pwns -Eldo
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.12.12 17:42:00 - [56] Edited by: Tovarishch on 12/12/2007 17:44:51 Originally by: Ath Amon as said above i'm not for the total local removal, just by the ability to see who is in the chat. i agree with you about these problems, but also there could be different (IG) solutions to this... a buoy to place near gates that gives intel of the ships jumping in and out (and that maybe can ne hacked :P) "radar" poses that scan some LY around them, maybe even some new ship class able to "track" the "signature" of a ship in various systems (so you don't know the right position but more or less you can know in wich system it is) just a couple of ideas that got while i was writing. the problem of local is that you can get intel even if it is actually a chat channel, so something out of game and this hit hard some ship classes like cov-ops. is more a problem about "game mechanic" than of playability. imo CCP should "fix" local so it will not give anymore any intell but with that they should also introduce new ingame elements that will permit to get that intel (or part of it) back Well said. Some very good points. I'm all for a less heavy-handed solution than simply removing local. I only want the effect that local has upon covert/Black Ops ships to be minimized. Now if people like marie blueprint will actually read the post instead of just responding to this thread without understanding the problem, and whining about not being able to solo mine/rat in low sec (which is not even the topic of this thread). My crusade for faster missiles.
Chodie101 Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.12.12 20:27:00 - [57] How about tying appearance in local to having used a stargate? Storyline justification would go something like this. Pilot uses stargate > stargate has info on pilot > stargate broadcast this to others in local > pilot appears in local. Then you have Cyno for caps where cyno is dropped, cap pilot doesnt' appear in local until he is 'spotted' (someone warps to cyno and rt click > 'spot' option) if he is spotted, he appears in local, or if he is successfully probed out, the spot can be done from the scan results. Then you have black ops where cyno itself is covert and cannot be warped to (but could be probed for, perhaps) and spotting is done in a similar way to the caps, once pilot has been seen or probe-scanned (so he'd be okay until he decloaked) the rt click > spot option would force him into local. I'm sure there's a million holes in this idea, as it was rushed whilst I'm waiting for a bath to fill up, but discuss!
Mr Cleann	Posted - 2007.12.12 21:23:00 - [58] I think were all in for a little disapointment if we think we can just jump in to any system without using the jumpgate. After reviewing the descriptions of the co op jump portal and the co op cyno generator. I believe that the co op frig or the recon cruiser will be needed to sneak its way to the destination by using conventional gates. Once there they activate the co op cyno which allows the co op bs or any capital equiped with a co op jump portal to jump to the location of the co op cyno. To think that we can be able to just be able to jump at will would make the co op frig and recon too uneven in the game with reguards to the other ships. If I am wrong, lol and I hope I am. please show me where. Cause I am not seeing it.
Chodie101 Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.12.12 22:23:00 - [59] Edited by: Chodie101 on 12/12/2007 22:23:50 I don't know of one single person who thought that, Cleanm!
Little Tigerlilly	Posted - 2007.12.12 23:22:00 - [60] Originally by: Ath Amon i'm not a fan of local too, but maybe i will not totally remove it the simplest thing imo is to show only people who are speaking, or eventually keep the channel but remove the ability to see who is in it I like this idea. Local is still there but until someone says something they dont' show up. So if someone wants to ask for help they can talk in local, everyone else can decide if they want to respond. Could setup very interesting protocols in 0.0 space. When entering an alliance friendlies call out on local as they enter a system, if people comes into system (local goes from 16 -> 30) and the local channel is silent you can send out an alert on local letting everyone know, or you can band together and go hunt the bastards down without ever saying anything on local.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: 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.