| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Mr John22ta
Galactic Terran Command
   |
Posted - 2007.12.13 02:47:00 -
[61]
Edited by: Mr John22ta on 13/12/2007 02:50:15
I'll admit I haven't read some of the huge blocks of text yet, but I get the gist of the problem. I have to say I agree local chat brings about a very unrealistic feature. There have been lots of talk about this in the past and I'm too lazy to search and link all of them, but here is my opinion on the matter since I know everyone doesn't give a flying frack but you'll still read it anyways ^_^
Local chat needs a facelift:
Numbers are important. I believe the game can be easily changed to show you read X amount of signatures in local space. (X being the amount of people in the system). Now I believe there should be an option in preferences to show or hide yourself in local, but you would still show as a number. So say player A has his turned off and player B is in system mining, but has his signal broadcasting.
Player A: should see the local tab with the normal local screen. Player B is the only one shown, but local says 2 are in system. Player B's screen shows the same; himself in local chat, but 2 local signatures.
Next issue: Cynofields
New scan option if one of the current doesn't scan them out should be added and cyno's should not be shown to everyone in system. On the otherside there be some sort of interface panel that displays there is a cyno field in system. I have no experience for this so if I'm talking out of my @ss just ignore it and move on to give a golden shower on a different idea.
This kind of idea should work for the majority of players;
Carebears: You will see that there are signatures in local! So no complaining about anything.
Everyone else: Cynos get hidden and local will no longer show who is in system thus allowing covert ops to actually happen! Lets also not forget that the hiding and showing be a choice each player makes.
EDIT:
1) People who broadcast in local become 'unhidden'
2) Expanded ideas possible for Gang, fleet, corp, and alliances
Cons:
Brain is dieing..
|
Tovarishch
Caldari
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.12.13 20:44:00 -
[62]
The idea that anyone who types something in local immediately becomes visible in the local list makes perfect sense... I have no issue with that at all.
However, I do believe that there needs to be some balance between removing local entirely, which would be a huge boon to afk cloakers... and the current status quo of local allowing near omniscience of who is in local.
Perhaps the idea of new probes that allow the scanning of cloaked ships should accompany the idea of removing local. Just an idea.
My crusade for faster missiles. |
Plekto
Priory Of The Lemon
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 00:58:00 -
[63]
Edited by: Plekto on 14/12/2007 01:04:44
My suggestion would work well, I tink, as a compromise.
Stealth ships essentially have their entire overview disappear. No local, no chat of any kind - not even alliance or gang. That they can see within 100km of them manually is all the intel they get.
Of course, public gates should announce players.
How about this:
- Player icon/pic shows up on the list if they come in via a gate.
- Player icon/pic if they are cloaked for more than 15 minutes is half grayed out but still in the list.
- Players who come in via JBs or other means don't show up.
- Players who are spotted by a major anchored *non friendly* structure appear in full color for 15 minutes.
That way you KNOW there's a SB in the system but not where(or not at all if they are really really sneaky and hide)
This also would let you know if a ship has entered in the last 15 minutes or not and hasn't left or docked.(docking would make them show up in regular color of course)
|
Tovarishch
Caldari
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 01:42:00 -
[64]
Edited by: Tovarishch on 14/12/2007 01:43:26
 Originally by: Plekto
How about this:
- Player icon/pic shows up on the list if they come in via a gate.
Not a bad idea, but for how long would they remain on the list until they vanish?
Originally by: Plekto
- Player icon/pic if they are cloaked for more than 15 minutes is half grayed out but still in the list.
This would be a step backward... because this idea would allow people to know who is in a cloaked ship without doing anything other than sitting in local and looking for grayed portraits. The whole problem here is getting intel for free with no risk. This idea would give people even more detailed info for no risk, since the only gray portraits on the list would always be pilots in cloaked ships.
Originally by: Plekto
- Players who come in via JBs or other means don't show up.
Agreed.
Originally by: Plekto
- Players who are spotted by a major anchored *non friendly* structure appear in full color for 15 minutes.
This is actually an interesting idea, though it still sort of falls under my above mentioned 'intel for free'. But this concept could lead to some interesting ideas.
Originally by: Plekto
That way you KNOW there's a SB in the system but not where(or not at all if they are really really sneaky and hide)
That's a step backward again. If good players want to know if there's a cloaker of any sort in local then they should watch the gates and/or scanner and use TS, EVE Voice, or good ol' corp chat to communicate it. Again, my problem with local is getting intel risk free, particularly when it comes to intel on Black Ops units which are supposedly able to move behind enemy lines without being detected. Local is risk free detection, eliminating any real advantage of Black Ops ships.
Interesting ideas here. Thanks for sharing them.
My crusade for faster missiles. |
Chomapuraku
Templar Republic
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 05:51:00 -
[65]
i think that if local is removed, we need another way of seeing who's around without needing a prober on every ship. pos scanning arrays would deff need to be boosted to scan out cloaked ships, and probers and scanning arrays could automatically broadcast warp-to-this-ship style info to gang members.
or if ships are scanned out, you could see the locations of scanned objects on the tactical overview, or put their locations on the solar system map, or just right in space in a similar fashion to astronomical objects.
maybe scanning arrays could spawn the scanner as a camera drone in the cell with all the ships that appear on scan. or
|
Fuglin Bonnet
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 06:58:00 -
[66]
I think MrJohn has the right idea here.
Essentially he said as follows: Local always shows the number of players (signatures) in the system. If a player sends a messages or chooses to be shown in local they are.
My addition would be stuff cloaked does not show up on local as a signature unless the player sends a message in local. This adds an entire new dimension to battles of every level. In small gang action a gang out pirating may well jump in on a cloaked gate camp and get owned. A solo player now actually has to be at his computer (TVM macro miners). In fleet action ambushes become, gasp, more plausible. Raids on enemy resources and transport lines actually work, etc. Finally the individual player has a decent chance of moving around 0.0 undetected if he is cloaked.
Carebears are not an issue because none of them have cloaks (what use is it mission running?) and recons of all sort become useful, same with interceptors.
|
Ath Amon
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 07:07:00 -
[67]
another idea could be to introduce something like active and passive scanning as in subsims
the active scan happens when you scan the system around you with sensors or probes. it could have chances to success individuating "something" based on sensor sig and sensor str.
sensor sig make it easier to determinated ship direction and distance, sensor str the ship class.
the chance to "spot" and identify an enemy ship is also based on its sig radius, distance, speed, and if it warped recently.
on counter anyone in system (or in probe/sensor range) will get a good idea about your position and on who you are.
group of cloacked ships should be also easier to spot (if you fail to identificate various single ships), even if you can get just an average lecture that there is something "strange" or "big" in that area.
on counter a ship cloaked near a "visible" one can be hidden by that one sig making it more difficult to be spotted.
another nice option will be to be able to triangle(?) ships average positions if more ships in gang make a spot.
of course if they are near the result will be just the one of the ship that got the best contact, but if they are spread in key position of the system they can get a better idea about anemy location. maybe the counter can be that they have to stand still while doing that so to not compromise the "joined" scanning/analisys
don't know if something like that is viable, but the idea is to have a dynamic scanning and counterscanning where you can make different choices to hide or catch a ship.
a cloaked ship may want to remain full passive to prevent spotting, but also it will not get any intell cept to know if someone is active scanning his area, instead if he want to get a good intel he will have to active scan revealing its presence/position.
also he will have to choice if to try to get out of scan range with the risk to get "caught" while warping or maybe try to catch the scanner and pop him.
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".
|
TimMc
Gallente
Exanimo Inc
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 07:49:00 -
[68]
Have you seen how much gank Black Ops can do? 0.0 is going to become 100 times more scary if you remove local.
Jita: No one gets out alive. |
Fuglin Bonnet
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 08:28:00 -
[69]
TimMC: Very few ships have the cove ops cloak, so all other ships with cloaks will show up when they warp. Hence you know there are in system. Black Ops, don't have cove ops cloak so its not a problem. They would show up when warping. Since you can warp to zero there is no risk of getting jumped by a cloaked gang at the entrance of a star gate and the risk of getting jumped on the other side remains the same. What it adds is danger in mining and other logistics ops. Right now it is more dangerous to mine and rat in low sec than 0.0, there is something wrong with that.
|
Khudo
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 08:45:00 -
[70]
+1 delete local.
Local chan don't allow people to perform SMART assaults.
|
7shining7one7
Quafe Paladins
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 12:15:00 -
[71]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 14/12/2007 12:16:55
Originally by: Khudo
+1 delete local.
Local chan don't allow people to perform SMART assaults.
tbqh it would be much better were it to be made mandatory if you wanted to show up in local or not. deleting it takes a lot of good conversation away.
but granted, from a quickfix perspective, removing local would be the easiest.
that said i agree with the op. black ops and the likes should not show up in local unless they wanted to.
|
Xzar Fyrarr
Minmatar
State War Academy Glory
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 12:48:00 -
[72]
Only in 0.0
In lowsec and up, local should be the same.
0.0 local can be changed.
Makes perfect sense the way it is to me, seeing as how if you cloak they cant see on scan but if you dont cloak they can...
But if you change all local...... this tactis will be exploited to the complete max.
|
Temujin Ka
Amarr
Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 14:59:00 -
[73]
I fully support this idea but I say leave local up, but in 0.0 just don't show a number or a list.
If you talk in local, people will know you are there, otherwise, you are hidden until someone scans you or sees you.
Pirates have to actually look for people. Carebears have to constantly watch their back. This will benefit the game in the long run.
|
Tovarishch
Caldari
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 17:31:00 -
[74]
Originally by: TimMc
Have you seen how much gank Black Ops can do? 0.0 is going to become 100 times more scary if you remove local.
Black Ops ships cannot warp cloaked, and, on average, have fewer weapon hardpoints, and fewer armor and shield hitpoints than their battleship counterparts. So... I'm not sure what you are talking about when you mention 'how much gank Black Ops can do'.
My crusade for faster missiles. |
Drogher Forerunner
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 19:54:00 -
[75]
Originally by: TimMc
Have you seen how much gank Black Ops can do? 0.0 is going to become 100 times more scary if you remove local.
They cant really put out that much gank. As a pack its slightly worrying but that goes for any ship. Also as local stands you would treat them just like any other ship, 3 hostiles in system try a scan, if you pick them up then you know what they are in and if you dont, you scout first. Either way you know they are there and can deal with them relitively easily.
I dont see why its all such a hard decision on how local should be, and how cloaking should be.
As i mentioned before.
Whilst cloaked = Cant see local + dont show up in Local
Whilst Un-cloaked = business as usual
|
Plekto
Priory Of The Lemon
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 20:45:00 -
[76]
My suggestion I think would work, because that 15 minute timer thing and the grayed out part is only for the group that has sovereignty(and likely super sovereignty at that).
That's the benefit of owning a system. The gates give you intel on anything that passes through. Otherwise, you get nothing unless people decide to speak in local or one of your alliance's structures spot something.
(so in a region with sov going back and forth, one system would give you good intel and one would give you nothing at all because it's not your system(yet))
Yes, it's a bit of a step backwards to give extra info to one side, but the advantage of a cloaked ship in a low sec or contested system is huge as well.
Note - this channel would function on your corp or alliance level. So if you don't scout, you get nothing on your list, but once it shows up, it's there until the person leaves.(imagine each side having a partial list in such a case)
|
Tovarishch
Caldari
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.12.14 22:30:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Drogher Forerunner
As i mentioned before.
Whilst cloaked = Cant see local + dont show up in Local
Whilst Un-cloaked = business as usual
I honestly believe this is probably the most realistic and balanced approach to this problem.
My crusade for faster missiles. |
Pseudo Ucksth
Collegium Mechanicae
|
Posted - 2007.12.15 13:32:00 -
[78]
Why with all the complex solutions?
Empire: Local as usual
Low-sec: Local forced "recent speakers" with only [count] on top up to date
Nullsec: nick list forced off, system count off.
______
|
Novacain
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.12.15 15:42:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Tovarishch
Originally by: Drogher Forerunner
As i mentioned before.
Whilst cloaked = Cant see local + dont show up in Local
Whilst Un-cloaked = business as usual
I honestly believe this is probably the most realistic and balanced approach to this problem.
Honestly ..., from my own perspective. Then it is perhaps fitting that the game changes as much as the influx of new players allows. 'Local', is in my view a piece left over from when the eve universe was less populated. When the tools for finding your friend and foe where fewer. Training wheels if 'you' will. For the entire game to emerge from. New corporation search features and filtering tools have since been added. And should have replaced 'local' all together.
The new supposed features(co-ops) being added are in my opinion rather a flavour of the same. Runnning its head against established "game mechanics". That pivots the existance of players perhaps no longer looking for a challenge.
In other words. New space need not be a new constellation or deathstar. But rather changing our perspective. No?
|
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.12.15 17:11:00 -
[80]
Edited by: Daelin Blackleaf on 15/12/2007 17:14:02
I see only two ideas I could agree with so far.
- All cov-ops, stealth bombers, force recons, and black-ops ships obtain a role bonus that removes them from the local sidebar.
- Complete removal of the local sidebar, number of people in system still shows.
Knowing local has increased is pretty much essential for anyone wishing to run non-pvp ops in 0.0 or lo-sec. The aforementioned "sneaky" classes could have an additional role bonus to not increase local count when entering a system. If your willing and able to commit a group solely comprised solely of relatively expensive and vulnerable t2 ships you will gain an advantage for it. It would also allow for the hunting down of cloaking/logoffski NPC'ers who do not operate with nearby support.
Such changes should probably be echoed on the constellation and region channels.
[To clarify by local sidebar I refer to the part of the local channel that shows everyone in the channel, there would be no restrictions with regard to chat with the exception of confirming your presence for the moment you spoke.]
|
Tovarishch
Caldari
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.12.16 04:39:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf
Knowing local has increased is pretty much essential for anyone wishing to run non-pvp ops in 0.0
This is precisely the problem. There IS no such thing as non-pvp ops in 0.0. Having a free ticket in and out thanks to free intel is ridiculous. However, that isn't the exact point at hand... it's more to do with how local affects Black Ops groups in particular.
My crusade for faster missiles. |
Kyra Felann
Gallente
Red Eye .Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.12.16 05:04:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Mr John22ta
Edited by: Mr John22ta on 13/12/2007 02:50:15I have no experience for this so if I'm talking out of my @ss just ignore it and move on to give a golden shower on a different idea.
WTF?
Do you know what "golden shower" means?
|
marie blueprint
|
Posted - 2007.12.16 07:22:00 -
[83]
pirats already look for ppl care bears already have to watch thier back this idea only helps the agressor its still an imbalance and a bad idea.
|
Mandred
Jovian Elite Squad
|
Posted - 2007.12.16 11:27:00 -
[84]
Edited by: Mandred on 16/12/2007 11:28:16
I was thinking about something like this on the train home from Uni yesterday and I'm glad to see other people thinking about ideas that I reckon could drastically alter the tactics of attacking null sec space.
With the advancements in covert operations offered by the new Black Ops class & covert cyno portals alongside the incoming tactical map, that will hopefully come with ambulation, its something that should be given a lot of attention.
The idea of distracting an alliance with a dummy full frontal assault while sending in a squad of elite covert pilots through the back door to strike a hammer blow on their key systems/operations sounds very appealing to me.
I'll start by saying that I haven't read all the posts here but some of the ones I have read seem to have prtty good ideas, particularly Pletko's idea of an alerts system based on actual sightings of ships and Archivian Specialatus' idea of a submarine obeying radio silence.
What I was thinking of before I read these ideas was to add some new skills and other goodies. This is EvE after all, skills is what we do!
An outline of my initial ideas includes
-An implant that can scour the code of the chat channel to remove the portion of the code that displays you in the chat channel. This would have high skill requirements geared towards covert ops pilots, perhaps cybernetics 5 and cloaking 5 as pre-requisites?
-To balance this for the defender the same implant could also warn of any anomalies within the local chat code, with anomalies being generated when a pilot removes himself from the local channel. Detection of the anomaly would not show the pilots name(s)or the number of pilots going undetected in the system, it would merely give an indication of the anomaly size and the defender then has to try and assess the threat.
-You could also add some skills to the Leadership skill tree to allow a pilot with one of these implants to remove the code of his squad members from the channel as well. This would have to be severely limited so that huge squads would not be able to go unnoticed, perhaps limit it to the squad commanders only. Although I'm not sure how many members you can actually have in a single squad, would you need to limit it by saying 5 extra pilots can be removed from local per skill level or something?
What I'm trying to get at with this idea is that removing yourself from local shouldn't be open for everyone, it should be open to highly specialized covert pilots only. This would still keep 0.0 dangerous for lone operatives, miners etc, as it should be, while allowing the covert classes to fill the roles intended for them. Having one of these highly skilled pilots leading a squad of black ops vessels would be of tremendous value to fleets and allow small stealth bomber gangs to patrol their space more effectively.
Something like this could bring a whole new dimension to tactical warfare in my opinion but I get the feeling I might be missing something simple. If you notice what that is then reply with constructive criticisms/opinions of your own. Thanks for reading.
(edit for spelling)
|
Moostang
DarkStar 1
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.12.16 11:35:00 -
[85]
I do not like the idea of local hiding hostiles. However, perhaps a skill that delays the effect would be nice.
Such as something like this:
System Evasion Skill
Skill as evading detection upon entering a solar system.
15 second delay per skill level.
Moostang
Darkstar 1
Goonswarm
Priceless Necro Thread |
James Duar
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.12.16 11:43:00 -
[86]
I agree. Local is unrealistic. You know what else is unrealistic? Why can't I detect ships warping to my grid. They travel faster then light by folding space, which means somehow space near me must change if a ship is incoming since it has to be told to "fold". This is reflected in how warp bubbles work. Therefore, clearly for more realism I should have an audio visual warning when a ship enters warp to my location.
Also - the system scanner. What is with this? As if it can give perfect information at a multi-AU range. I should be able to confuse it by dropping buoys which return as particular types of ships. Also surveillance drones - that list what ships are on their grid and the pilot names.
|
Meditril
|
Posted - 2007.12.16 12:31:00 -
[87]
Simply remove all people from local as long as they are cloaked. That's what the game really needs to make covert ships stealthy. The current situation is just a joke.
Additionally: To avoid the misuse of cloaks on non-covert ships, I propose to raise the CPU requirements of all cloaking devices by the factor of fife and give covert ops ships an appropriate bonus. This would render cloaks unusable for ratters while they still remain usable for Industrials due to their exoribtant CPU.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.12.16 17:07:00 -
[88]
Edited by: Daelin Blackleaf on 16/12/2007 17:09:23
Originally by: Tovarishch
Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf
Knowing local has increased is pretty much essential for anyone wishing to run non-pvp ops in 0.0
This is precisely the problem. There IS no such thing as non-pvp ops in 0.0. Having a free ticket in and out thanks to free intel is ridiculous. However, that isn't the exact point at hand... it's more to do with how local affects Black Ops groups in particular.
I hasten to disagree.
A lot of 0.0 is typically safe space. The only threat being the occasional roaming gang that may stroll through. While a mining op, for example, can defend against a roaming gang it cannot defend against a fleet. Losing fifty or more barges plus a rorqual or two against unbeatable odds really doesn't appeal to many idustrialists.
Do you really want to see another quarter or so of the people in 0.0 forced back to empire?
Complete removal of local would lead to pretty much all isk gathering activities being done in empire, increased risk would far outweigh the reward once losses are added in.
Also, since black-ops would be exempt from increasing the local count, and since that is your only point, I can't see how this is "precisely the problem". It simply means that this tactical advantage to the attacker is not completely free, thus making stealth ships far more valuable especially the Black-Ops ships.
|
Tovarishch
Caldari
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.12.16 20:19:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf
A lot of 0.0 is typically safe space. The only threat being the occasional roaming gang that may stroll through.
If 0.0 is 'typically safe', as you put it, it is a temporary condition that may change at a moment's notice, which, in my opinion, is not 'typically safe'. I view your statement as self-contradictory.
Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf
While a mining op, for example, can defend against a roaming gang it cannot defend against a fleet. Losing fifty or more barges plus a rorqual or two against unbeatable odds really doesn't appeal to many idustrialists.
You've just made my point for me. Such a gang shouldn't be able to stand up against such a fleet. The concept that this is unfair is ridiculous to me, as one group is out roaming, not making money, while the other group is making millions of isk per minute. Why should local provide such a group nearly infallible protection against a fleet?
Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf
Do you really want to see another quarter or so of the people in 0.0 forced back to empire?
If that group of players rely on local instead of skill or preperation for self-defense? Yes. 0.0 is supposed to be an ugly, difficult place to live.
Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf
Complete removal of local would lead to pretty much all isk gathering activities being done in empire, increased risk would far outweigh the reward once losses are added in.
The only people that would leave 0.0 for 'isk gathering activities' in empire are those inacapable of defending themselves properly. Natural selection is ugly, but effective.
Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf
Also, since black-ops would be exempt from increasing the local count, and since that is your only point, I can't see how this is "precisely the problem". It simply means that this tactical advantage to the attacker is not completely free, thus making stealth ships far more valuable especially the Black-Ops ships.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Would you please clarify your statement?
Also, why do people continue to mindlessly say that Black Ops ships are exclusively advantageous to an attacker? Are people really incapable of seeing how useful these ships can be for defensive/flanking operations?
My crusade for faster missiles. |
Drogher Forerunner
|
Posted - 2007.12.17 00:56:00 -
[90]
Edited by: Drogher Forerunner on 17/12/2007 00:56:18
(Continued)
If the Cloaking ship is already in a system, waiting at a belt cloaked and the ratter enters system, then the cloaker will see the ratter enter in local. IF the cloaking ship is un-cloaked. If it cloaker is cloaked, then he will not know if someone has entered system.
When the Ratter enters system he will see the cloaker in local and know someone is there, and then if the cloaker cloaks but the local player count doesnÆt go down then the ratter knows that it is a cloaker. (of some type)
But if the cloaker is already cloaked the ratters only indication that someone else is in system is the player count. But the cloaker will not know that someone has entered system.
If that cloaker is waiting at a belt, frankly he has probably been waiting for hours for someone to warp into that belt.
In 0.0, if a ratter enters a system to rat and there is an unknown there and they rat anyway, then that ratter is stupid and is going to die.
In lowsec, hunting ratters using cloaks is pointless because there are so many people anyway, they are just going to get jumped just as much as normal.
Ratters cant complain anymore about afk cloakers because the issue is still there in the same form and so its all the same. Only difference is that you donÆt know if itÆs the same guy doing the afk cloak. This might actually work against afk cloakers, because part of the idea (at least in this tactic) is to get the farmers/locals used to your name being an afk cloaker, and when they get comfortable, then you pounce. But because farmers will not know who the afk cloaker is, this tactic may not be as efficient.
So going by this the main changes work out to be:
Ratters - play a slightly and only slightly more paranoid game.
Normal cloakers û Have their name and position cloaked at the expense of Local intel.
Cov-Ops cloakers û Have their name and position and movements cloaked at the expense of intel.
Essentially the gameplay will remain mostly the same except cloakers get a level of real covertness.
Patience rewards the covert player and paranoia rewards the ratter (which is how it already works anyway)
Ratters have nothing new to worry about and coverts can be covert (aside from the number count)
Coverts move around like submarines, only surfacing (in local) when they are about to act or to get Local intel.
Ratters and ôdefendersö keep the intel from player count in local but no other intel.
And considering some ratters also use cloaks, and they tend to hide till who they think are bad people move away, have another level of depths to play against cloakers.
There is actually a lot more I can type but its late and IÆm tired, and really this is all obvious crap if some people took five mins to think it through rather than cry that pirates will own.
Ratters should NEVER die anyway, they make lots of money for NEVER dying if they keep an eye on things. And with this idea they can carry on NEVER dying if they pay enough attention and cloakers can get to be pretty damn covert.
Obviously to be truly covert, we would have to remove local.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |