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)
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.12.07 20:10:00 - [1] Does it seem ironic and somewhat disappointing to anyone else that when using a Black Ops ship to help some friends sneak behind enemy lines that the first thing the enemy is going to see is a new group of bad guys pop up in local? Covert? I think not. There needs to be another reflection on why local exists in 0.0 My crusade for faster missiles.
Wardo21 The Arcanum	Posted - 2007.12.07 20:15:00 - [2] I think there needs to be an opt-out for local no matter where you are. The completely inane chatter that clutters up the local channel brings me to tears sometimes. (And sometimes ROTFLMAO but that doesn't help either.) If you want to talk to me, send me an convo invite or an eve-mail. Wardo21
Alex Terman Gallente Euphoria and Co.	Posted - 2007.12.07 21:42:00 - [3] I concur with this. Local should be treated like a default #Lobby as you would on IRC. And as has been pointed out, the very nature of "Everyone having to be connected to a local channel* defeats the purpose of Covert Operations.
Sha'ara Sha'amashira	Posted - 2007.12.07 22:03:00 - [4] i would say nerf 0.0 local but not empire local. if you can be war deced in empire where you're supposedly safe then you deserve to know about it from the empire who's space you're flying in, but in 0.0 where there are no things like concord and empires i find it totally fine for local to stop becoming a weapon even if it helps me in defending space. That or if you want to have teh current version of local my people mount up certain special mods on their ships that make it harder to fit anything else but gives the ship the ability to use local, but a nice ew frig would have to sacrifice something like their cloak to use it possibly.
Poena Loveless	Posted - 2007.12.07 22:19:00 - [5] This has been brought up in the past, its nothing new about black ops. all covert ops have suffered from this, and in lowsec/0.0 is been the cause of most logoffski events (carebear mining/ratting sees big bad bully pop up in local, etc. you know.) The opt in / opt out idea is eh-- Not that great, no one in their right mind would opt-in. The other idea of constilation chat (has been brought up before) suffers from the flaw that it gives more information that even local at times because it lets you see outside of the current system. I've proposed in the past, and still think the best thing to do, would be to just turn 0.0/low-sec local in to a 'recent speakers' or 'delayed update' channel.
Pathogenia	Posted - 2007.12.07 22:30:00 - [6] Yeah, how about a POS module which implements local for that system it is mounted in? Like some "local monitoring and communication device". Each empire system would have such a "npc-module" somewhere in system and each alliance / corp can decide where they want to put one. Give covops vessels a module which enables them to "cloak" from those scanners as well (mayby coupled to the active cloaking device) and there you go. Sounds balanced to me. You an also make these modules report to someone if they find a hostile in the system, even if theres no one in there. perhaps you need certain sov. levels to set those modules up... ways to implement / balance this is huge, i guess.
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.12.07 22:33:00 - [7] Originally by: Poena Loveless This has been brought up in the past, its nothing new about black ops. I totally disagree. Black Ops present, for the first time, the ability for non-capital ships to enter a system and be combat ready. Recons and other ships had to pass through gates where they could be reconnoitered or destroyed. Black Ops ships now present the very real possibility of flanking an enemy without them having any warning. However, the existence of local means that the opponent will always have some degree of warning, regardless of how skillfully used the Black Ops crew might be. Essentially, local renders Black Ops ships (and their jump-in wingmen) far less useful. My crusade for faster missiles.
ViolenTUK Gallente Vindicated Exiles 101010 Alliance	Posted - 2007.12.08 00:55:00 - [8] I agree that local in 0.0 space should either be removed or optional. www.eve-players.com
Plekto Priory Of The Lemon R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.12.08 01:39:00 - [9] Signed since day one. THESE ARE CHAT CHANNELS. They should not be serving the purpose of local status channels. Here's the fix: 1: replace local with an alerts channel 2: If you have a ship in your gang/alliance that sees the ship/enters the same grid with it, all members in your group or alliance that are in that same system get an alert. 3:If you have sovereignty, this also applies to gates and towers and stations. That way, it's not a giveaway, NOR is it a gimmie to the pirates and cloaked ships. "21:02 Player X entered system(name in red) "21:04 Player X seen at (name) gate" "21:05 Player X seen by (corpmate's ID) "21:07 Player X seen at (same name) gate" "21:07 Player X left system" etc - actual intel but not the current EYE OF GOD it is now that tells everyone. It wold default to enemies/red but could be filtered to include all people if you wanted on a personal basis. NPC structures would of course give no intel at all.
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.12.08 21:36:00 - [10] Edited by: Tovarishch on 08/12/2007 21:36:51 Originally by: ViolenTUK I agree that local in 0.0 space should either be removed or optional. I don't see how 'optional' would ever work properly, as anyone who wanted to use local for intel would always opt to do so. Local in 0.0 needs to be removed. Period. EVE markets itself on being hardcore PVP. As long as local exists as a cheap, easy, riskless way to gather intel I don't see how anyone could view it as 'hardcore'. My crusade for faster missiles.
Donatien Francois	Posted - 2007.12.08 21:50:00 - [11] I say you should simply not show up in local unless you actually say something, much like the member lists for most other channels. However, this would unbalance things in favor of the cloakers a bit too much by itself, so to counter balance it, I'd like to see an improvement to ships' on-board scanners in terms of range and ease of use, the ability to scan out a cloaker with high enough skill (of course you'd have to know he was there in the first place, see nerfed local above). Another trick that would be nice is the ability to mount scanners at the stargates of a system where you have sovereignty that will passively alert you whenever a non-corp/alliance person shows up in system. The alert would come through as a system message in local so you'd still have to pay attention to local, but it could give you a warning about non-covert ops gangs entering your system. Flagship and Titans POS Warfare
Rjaiajik Kajvoril Amarr Autonomous Systems	Posted - 2007.12.09 17:58:00 - [12] I would go as far as to say remove the local room all together from 0.0 space. It provides a sense of security. You instantly know if you're alone or if there is a large group that could be forming a station camp in this system as you enter. In empire space the empire in charge would have a local frequency that all ship would be logged to. This makes sense. It would even make sense to have local channels still exist in Serpentis/Sansha/Guritas sovereign space as they could be running the local frequencies. However, in Player Owned or none owned 0.0 space, there's no-one running the radio broadcasts... why should the channels even exist. This would also leave open the possibility of POS's having radio broadcast towers that would force people into a local channel when they enter the system unless the controller gave the ship an override. Having all ship given a rating and broadcast towers also having rating would decide whether you're automatically added to the local channel or not. Covert Ops + Black Ops would get big bonuses to this. What do people think?
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.12.09 19:30:00 - [13] Originally by: Tovarishch I don't see how 'optional' would ever work properly, as anyone who wanted to use local for intel would always opt to do so. If you log into local for intel, and your enemy has logged out of local because they want to be covert, then you achieve nothing but logging into local to look at all the other people who want to chat or show that they are in local. Or who are doing like you. Makes perfect sense. Local should be optional everywhere even in 0.0. (some people in 0.0 still like to chat) And if you have sov in 0.0 (maybe sov 2), then you should have a POS structure or network of POS structures or communication POS or network of communication POS's, to force local in that system or within a certain range within that system (maybe 10 AU's per POS). And if you are not with that Alliance who has local, you show up regardless of if you opt in or out of their local. And local will only update for the enemy when someone says something in local. nice and straightforward like that. ------------------------------- bring back Eve TV
Ellaine TashMurkon CBC Interstellar The Unseen Company	Posted - 2007.12.09 20:31:00 - [14] Some people in 0.0 like to chat? All should :) When I started in 0.0, friendlies were rare and saying "o/" to any blue was just a standard. And thae fact that every blue face was actually friendly and reday to say "be careful, enemy camp 2 jumps ahead" or "I left some nice spawns here" or "How is your war going, I thought your alliance is alreday dead". It was one of the best things in 0.0, as compared to empire full of anonymous random guys.
Mei Han Gallente Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.12.09 22:48:00 - [15] Edited by: Mei Han on 09/12/2007 22:51:25 Edited by: Mei Han on 09/12/2007 22:48:57 Originally by: Plekto Signed since day one. THESE ARE CHAT CHANNELS. They should not be serving the purpose of local status channels. Here's the fix: 1: replace local with an alerts channel 2: If you have a ship in your gang/alliance that sees the ship/enters the same grid with it, all members in your group or alliance that are in that same system get an alert. 3:If you have sovereignty, this also applies to gates and towers and stations. That way, it's not a giveaway, NOR is it a gimmie to the pirates and cloaked ships. "21:02 Player X entered system(name in red) "21:04 Player X seen at (name) gate" "21:05 Player X seen by (corpmate's ID) "21:07 Player X seen at (same name) gate" "21:07 Player X left system" etc - actual intel but not the current EYE OF GOD it is now that tells everyone. It wold default to enemies/red but could be filtered to include all people if you wanted on a personal basis. NPC structures would of course give no intel at all. I would agree on that. As a cov ops Pilot i find being "spoted" in local a bit annoying and unrealistic. But as a player i would like to rat for my wallet with relative peace and not being overrun by any BS or 200 man fleet passing by without me having a chance to defend/escape. For that matter i belive the above solution would be great.Or the option not to show in local would be restricted to Cov Ops / Recons / Black Ops even when they pass the gate with no alarm at all. A "Communications Jamming Device" on those kind of ships would serve as a very realistic excuse for me.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.10 00:05:00 - [16] Originally by: Tovarishch Edited by: Tovarishch on 07/12/2007 22:43:43 Originally by: Poena Loveless This has been brought up in the past, its nothing new about black ops. I totally disagree. Black Ops present, for the first time, the ability for non-capital ships to enter a system and be combat ready... without using jumpgates. No other ship has ever had this ability. Recons and other ships had to pass through gates where they could be reconnoitered or destroyed. Black Ops ships now present the very real possibility of flanking an enemy without them having any warning. However, the existence of local means that the opponent will always have some degree of warning, regardless of how skillfully used the Black Ops crew might be. Essentially, local renders Black Ops ships (and their jump-in wingmen) far less useful. 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.
Redd Lenses Murder-Death-Kill	Posted - 2007.12.10 00:41:00 - [17] Just make a 30s-1m delay on showing who is in local. You can have the # in local update immediately, just don't have them show up in the members list.
Cailais Amarr VITOC	Posted - 2007.12.10 01:19:00 - [18] My prefered solution is that 'local' degrades as system sec status reduces (by 10 AU per sec drop). For example in 1.0 space your 'local' scan range is 100 AU. In .9 it drops to 90 AU and so on. Within .0 obviously the 'local' range is 0 AU, but those holding sov could place sensor beacons that boost the local scan AU for everyone in that system. Specific ship types (such as a new Early Warning ship) might have the capability to increase their own local AU range. Im a big fan of the cov ops ships, but I think we should be cautios about 'overpowering' these vessels to the detriment of uncloaked ships. C. Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Dehumanisation - griefers are cool and if you are not a griefer, you do not belong here.
Elantte Racketeers	Posted - 2007.12.10 01:52:00 - [19] I read through this and saw some ideas I like and some I don't. My 2 cents: high sec: local as it is now low sec: number of people in local updates but people don't show until they say something. 0.0: number of people does not update and people do not show up until they speak. Alliance members could automaticly show up if you have soverenty and corp and gang members could show up regardless. Also if a person speaks then leaves system, local should update that they have left system.
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.12.10 02:06:00 - [20] 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. A. 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. B. If you'd like to point out some of my other 'whacky' ideas... feel free to point them out. Ad hominem namecalling from you isn't much of a surprise. My crusade for faster missiles.
Novacain Gallente	Posted - 2007.12.10 05:34:00 - [21] It is currently a general "flaw" with Eve. One that only increases regardless of the new 'covert' elements being added. The Eve universe is too transparent. On all levels.(There is the odd exception) Thus creating an enviroment where the prefered tactic is one devoid of the "need to know". When everyone is standing on top of the ant hill with a perfect vista. Simple solution: - cover the univers in darkness - allow NPC's to be the noisy birds on the savanna(where they are not, it should be dark) - allow player built oberservation installations/probes to come to their right Sorry if the above is misplaced in this thread. Did not know where else to put it. But the general point is a recurring theme. One of (market) transparency.
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.12.10 09:15:00 - [22] 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. ------------------------------- bring back Eve TV
Rjaiajik Kajvoril Amarr Autonomous Systems	Posted - 2007.12.10 09:32:00 - [23] 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. You my friend have a damn fine idea.... you get a cookie. Credit Due - Linkage
Ath Amon	Posted - 2007.12.10 13:31:00 - [24] 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 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".
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.12.10 18:17:00 - [25] 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. I can't agree with this line of thought. This would be a huge boon to afk cloakers who sit on gates, or to NPCers who have a cloak fitted to hide from roaming gangs... while at the same time doing nothing for 'the other guys'. My crusade for faster missiles.
Merina Taom	Posted - 2007.12.10 18:49:00 - [26] And it would be exactly how easy to find targets without local? All this would do is drain lowsec of even more people, and 00 would be a ***** to find targets in.
Effei Gloom Minmatar eXceed Inc.	Posted - 2007.12.10 18:52:00 - [27] How about a D E L A Y E D local channel ?! join IXC
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.12.10 20:52:00 - [28] Originally by: Merina Taom And it would be exactly how easy to find targets without local? All this would do is drain lowsec of even more people, and 00 would be a ***** to find targets in. I suppose hitting f10 and bringing up the map for active pilots in space is too difficult? I spent years playing MUDs before online games actually had pictures. Back in the olden days (and even in some modern online games) you had to go out and actively pursue targets. You didn't have the luxury of getting intel without some risk. As it stands now local elimates the need for scouting, and reduces the value of recon style ships. Imagine how valuable a recon/Black Ops pilot skilled in the use of probes and the scanner would suddenly become if local were removed from 0.0. The result is a more intriguing, dangerous, fun and thrilling region of space that requires a more multi-faceted group of skilled players to navigate. Not, 'log your alt in and check to see if someone is in OMG-FU'. My crusade for faster missiles.
TordenSkiold	Posted - 2007.12.10 21:10:00 - [29] "Local" may be altered to a "gate traffic log" broadcast. All traffic before you jump in yourself is not visible, but the traffic whilst you are in system will show up like in a log. Use of covert cynos lets you avoid popping up on this log. Cov-Ops still need to uncloak to activate the gate on the other side, so they should show up. The problem is if you remove local entirely, even in 00, you will tip the ballance to far in favour of attackers. I agree that in hi- & low sec local should still be available. .
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.12.11 04:00:00 - [30] 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. My crusade for faster missiles.
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.
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.
Daelin Blackleaf Aliastra	Posted - 2007.12.17 19:38:00 - [91] Edited by: Daelin Blackleaf on 17/12/2007 19:44:33 Originally by: Tovarishch 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. It is indeed a temporary condition, but a one hour mining op does not require lasting peace. I view your statement as needlessly argumentative. Originally by: Tovarishch 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? They wouldn't, had you read my post a cov-ops gang would be able to get in there and mess things up for them. They would however be able to dock should a standard fleet arrive. With standard ships then how this concept is unfair is ridiculous to me as one group is out roaming the other group is forced to either switch to combat ships and take them out or stay docked and not make any isk. With stealth ships you have a decided advantage unless the target has similar ships of their own or other means of defense. Originally by: Tovarishch 0.0 is supposed to be an ugly, difficult place to live....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. As much as you or I may enjoy the cold harsh aspects of EVE we're not the only ones playing the game. I prefer the idea of a populated 0.0 with an active industrial backbone and market to one filled almost solely by PvP'ers who jump in all the assets they need to shoot each other with. Complete removal of local would make industrialists not incapable but unable to defend themselves at all without overwhelming force backing them up, and it would make solo ratting/exploration similarly non-profitable. It's not natural selection, if they can't cover their losses they'll have to earn isk in empire to spend fighting in 0.0. Originally by: Tovarishch 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? What's to clarify. Normal ships enter system, local count goes up, smart people find out if they're friendlies and dock up if they're not. Stealth ships enter system, count doesn't go up, unprepared people get pwned or get held in place while normal ships jump in layeth the smack down. I wasn't mindlessly saying anything about black-ops giving the advantage to the attacker. I was on about the complete removal of local giving an advantage to the attacker for free, whereas my suggestion implies that if you want that advantage you'll need to use a few specific classes of ship. Effectively buffing all stealth ships for both offensive and defensive purposes. From what I can see your not arguing in favor of the black-ops. I'm suggesting removing all people from the local list and removing stealth ships from the local count making them completely undetectable via local. You seem to be arguing for the complete removal of local since you didn't address my ideas, instead arguing in favor of undetectable fleets, removal of local as a defensive tool, and the removal from 0.0 of all people reliant on local. How about discussing what I actually wrote instead of quoting parts of it to further an unrelated agenda.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.17 20:50:00 - [92] Originally by: Tovarishch 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. Not good enough, because production activity requires that ships stay still in a system and uncloaked. Hunting activity does not require that a ship stay still in a system and uncloaked. This is a huge boon to 1. People who are moving 2. People who are cloaked. In order to "protect" a system you would need to be running scan probes 23/7 on multipule probers in order to keep ratters/miners from being destroyed and that is the most efficient course of action. If you were to remove even just cloaked ships from local you would literally have to remove their ability to scan, warp, and possibly even use the overview. Otherwise there is simply no counter to cloaking ships. A recon ship would be able to jump into a system cloak, jump to belts, find prey, wait until they had a heavy spawn on them and kill them with no repurcussion. This is unacceptable. Especially with mining incomes and ratting incomes necessitating that there be no large scale defensive force due to the profits involved in other actions which require no such defense. Not that i dont like moon mining, but i would rather that it not be the only reason to be in 0.0 space or a corp that can be wardeced. This is the fundamental problem with removing local entirely. If cloaking ships did not exist and the directional scanner was always on with a constant warning of when a ship showed up while also providing FOF information on that target, then it might be O.K. But this is not the case for a number of reasons. Even a constant warning of ships in range with no cloaking is not enough, because of the prevelence of POS and free floating ships. Now, i am not saying that local shouldnt be changed to be more favorable to the attackers, but i am saying that such rash changes present huge problems to legitimiate enterprise located all over the galaxy. Quote: Secondly, what does being able to 'warp cloaked, leave a system cloaked, jump to cloaked cynos, or enter a system cloaked' matter if the gang can still be seen in local? Please explain that to me. Saying that they are 'cloaked' means very little if their intention is to attempt to use ships that allow them to move unnoticed... which is rendered useless thanks to local. Lets take this one setup farther with some hyperbole. My ability to add anyone i see to my friends list provides me an accurate notification of whether or not a pilot is somewhere within the eve universe. Such, a cloak is useless because i know you are somewhere within the eve universe. Clearly this is not the case. And what matters is how close you ought to be able to pin a cloaked ship using the available mechanics. Currently, within a system isnt that bad. There are many places within a system that a cloaked ship can be, and a cloaked ship can even leave their computer to lull enemies into a sense of security. However, the ability to scan local so easily does present problems when attacking people who do not want to fight and have the means to avoid it[outpost/NPC station/POS]. Outposts and POS arent so bad as the "invulnerable idle" because you can always come and siege them. Cloaks, not so much. If you then give them the ability to not be seen in local, you have afforded too much leeway to the attackers. I have more, and am running out of space, will continue in a bit.
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.12.17 20:56:00 - [93] Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf It is indeed a temporary condition, but a one hour mining op does not require lasting peace. I view your statement as needlessly argumentative. A one hour mining op can net a ton of isk. If this group wants to protect that investment of time and material they should provide protection and defense instead of getting free intel via local. This is the measure of the difference between those incapable of holding a home in 0.0... and those who aren't. You are attempting to use local as a way to make local accessible to those who truly can't even hold a foothold there. Again, self-contradictory. Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf They wouldn't, had you read my post a cov-ops gang would be able to get in there and mess things up for them. They would however be able to dock should a standard fleet arrive. With standard ships then how this concept is unfair is ridiculous to me as one group is out roaming the other group is forced to either switch to combat ships and take them out or stay docked and not make any isk. With stealth ships you have a decided advantage unless the target has similar ships of their own or other means of defense. They won't be taken by surprise if they would use skill instead of local for intel. Covert ships must uncloak to use a jump gate, and Black Ops ships cannot warp while cloaked. All it takes is some effort to gather intel, as opposed to the free intel local provides... which in turn attracts weak alliances incapable of self-defense into 0.0. Perhaps players would learn to form useful coalitions comprised of industrialists and combat pilots for mutual benefit, instead of using local as a cheap way to substitute for pilots and skill. Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf As much as you or I may enjoy the cold harsh aspects of EVE we're not the only ones playing the game. Then perhaps those people should find another game to play. The creators have, on many occasions, explained that they want this game universe to be a cruel and harsh place. Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf Complete removal of local would make industrialists not incapable but unable to defend themselves at all without overwhelming force backing them up, and it would make solo ratting/exploration similarly non-profitable. It's not natural selection, if they can't cover their losses they'll have to earn isk in empire to spend fighting in 0.0. Read my comments above regarding cooperative alliances comprised of industrialists and combat pilots. Such alliances are currently in 0.0, and they are doing quite well. Groups who canÆt make it in 0.0 without the aid of local for intel do not belong there. Period. Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf What's to clarify. Normal ships enter system, local count goes up, smart people find out if they're friendlies and dock up if they're not. Stealth ships enter system, count doesn't go up, unprepared people get pwned or get held in place while normal ships jump in layeth the smack down. Read my comments above regarding people actually using scouts and going to the effort of covering an op that is raking in millions of isk per minuteà instead of relying on local as a substitute for skill and effort. Local should not amount to having group of scouts out working for you. A corp or alliance who requires such handicaps, again, does not belong in 0.0. Continued in next post. My crusade for faster missiles.
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.12.17 20:56:00 - [94] Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf I wasn't mindlessly saying anything about black-ops giving the advantage to the attacker. I was on about the complete removal of local giving an advantage to the attacker for free, whereas my suggestion implies that if you want that advantage you'll need to use a few specific classes of ship. Effectively buffing all stealth ships for both offensive and defensive purposes. From what I can see your not arguing in favor of the black-ops. I'm suggesting removing all people from the local list and removing stealth ships from the local count making them completely undetectable via local. You seem to be arguing for the complete removal of local since you didn't address my ideas, instead arguing in favor of undetectable fleets, removal of local as a defensive tool, and the removal from 0.0 of all people reliant on local. How about discussing what I actually wrote instead of quoting parts of it to further an unrelated agenda. I quoted your post in portions and addressed each point. IÆm sorry you donÆt like my method of postingà but I have no æunrelated agendaÆ. I replied to each of your commentsà and, if itÆs not obvious, I entirely disagree with your opinion that 0.0 should be an easy place to live so that it attracts lots of players. Plenty of alliances make it in 0.0 through hard work, and go to the effort to scout and defend themselves properly. As it stands now, if local were removed all players would have to do is actually earn their intel and send out a scout for each gateà and have one scout in system checking the scanner periodically. You continue to function on the flawed assumption that this group out mining or ratting canÆt have a group helping defend them in case of attackà because that is the status quo. Remove local and those capable of adapting will do so. Those incapable of self-defense will be pushed out. Rightfully so. Regardless, back to the specific matter at hand. Black Ops ships could be countered without local for free intel. All people would have to do is actually provide self-defense and scouts. If thatÆs too hard for themà. They donÆt belong in 0.0. Honestly, I'm curious what experience you have in 0.0 that leads you to feel this way. My crusade for faster missiles.
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.12.17 21:00:00 - [95] Edited by: Tovarishch on 17/12/2007 21:06:55 Originally by: Goumindong Good points with the insults left behind. The current discussion is up to - 1. Cloaked ships cannot be seen in local. 2. Cloaked ships can not see local or do anything other than see through their windshield, though coverts could still warp while cloaked. 3. Everything else remains the same. I still believe this is the best solution to the current problem. My crusade for faster missiles.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.17 21:08:00 - [96] Quote: 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. Nearly every advantage of a Black Ops crew can be entirely eliminated 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. No, they were created to move hard to catch forces into enemy territory unimpeeded. Not unnoticed. There is a significant difference. Quote: 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. Because the attacker is moving and the defender is not. Such, the attacker who comes into a system to kill targets has the advantage of knowing when to scan. The defender does not. Thus, they need to consistantly be scanning using the directional scanner to even hope to have a chance of not dieing. Add in ships at POS and cloaks and cov-ops cloaks and the mobile force has an absolute advantage over the producer. Quote: 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). Solo pilots dont really make loads of isk/day with no risk. The instant an enemy shows up in system they have to gfto or be killed. Which means they need to be constantly vigilant, or they need to be cheating[marcos which parse the incoming packets for local changes]. Such, the production of a 0.0 pilot is limited by two factors. 1. The isk/hour production that they can extract from a system, which is not all that great. 2. The amount of time that enemies spend in system/number of enemy gangs that come through. When enemies are in system you cannot rat or mine. This cuts your isk/hour. Defenders do not work because not only can you not rat or mine while enemies are in system you have to pay the defenders. Making the trade off not worth it. Unless ratting in 0.0 was over 2x as valuable as empire mission running in a noob corp then would it make sense for defenders to hang around. This is clearly not the case. So really, what you are looking for is a system that balances the needs of intelligence with the needs of allowing people to attack. POS based mechanics do not work because that unfairly limits attackers and doesnt really matter to defenders unless they have a habit of ratting in hostile space. Outpost based mechanics are the same, except that hurts the defenders a tad more. What would be needed then would be a global change that modifies the effectiveness of movement and watching local. Even a 15 second delay on local chat would give attackers a huge head start on ratters, while still giving ratters/miners the ability to bail. Easier with interceptors/frigates who can enter a system and have a tackle in a belt in under 30 seconds. Harder with 3 au/s warping ships. currently it takes a single cruiser sized ship between 30 seconds and 2 minutes to enter a system and get a tackle on a target in a belt via the directional scanner. With a delayed local mechanic, the cloak would still be important, but less important in the attack, and more important in the "getting away with it" Local exists because intelligence is required to make production profitable. It needs to stay that way, even if its specific balance is not quite perfect.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.17 21:09:00 - [97] Originally by: Tovarishch 2. Cloaked ships can not see local or do anything other than see through their windshield, though coverts could still warp while cloaked. The ability to warp cloaked would have to be removed if cloaks removed the target from local entirely.
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.12.17 21:18:00 - [98] Originally by: Goumindong The ability to warp cloaked would have to be removed if cloaks removed the target from local. Otherwise the act of "scanning" would just be warping to belts. All that does is increase the amount of time it takes to find and kill a target rather than letting the target actually do anything about whether or not they are going to die. You're assuming that the covert ops ship looking around belts somehow got into the system without being spotted. If that's the case then the group being scouted deserves to be destroyed. My crusade for faster missiles.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.17 21:51:00 - [99] Originally by: Tovarishch Originally by: Goumindong The ability to warp cloaked would have to be removed if cloaks removed the target from local. Otherwise the act of "scanning" would just be warping to belts. All that does is increase the amount of time it takes to find and kill a target rather than letting the target actually do anything about whether or not they are going to die. You're assuming that the covert ops ship looking around belts somehow got into the system without being spotted. If that's the case then the group being scouted deserves to be destroyed. You have a cloak and dont show up in local, its not going to be hard to avoid detection.
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.12.17 21:54:00 - [100] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Tovarishch Originally by: Goumindong The ability to warp cloaked would have to be removed if cloaks removed the target from local. Otherwise the act of "scanning" would just be warping to belts. All that does is increase the amount of time it takes to find and kill a target rather than letting the target actually do anything about whether or not they are going to die. You're assuming that the covert ops ship looking around belts somehow got into the system without being spotted. If that's the case then the group being scouted deserves to be destroyed. You have a cloak and dont show up in local, its not going to be hard to avoid detection. A cloaker cannot get into local unnoticed if there are scouts on gates. A group cannot be destroyed if they have defense. My crusade for faster missiles.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.17 22:02:00 - [101] Originally by: Tovarishch A cloaker cannot get into local unnoticed if there are scouts on gates. A group cannot be destroyed if they have defense. Yes he can. Yes they can. Such a scout network as required to protect against a cloaker is so extensive that you would be better off mining in empire in a noob corp. Bodies arent free.
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.12.17 22:06:00 - [102] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Tovarishch A cloaker cannot get into local unnoticed if there are scouts on gates. A group cannot be destroyed if they have defense. Yes he can. Yes they can. Such a scout network as required to protect against a cloaker is so extensive that you would be better off mining in empire in a noob corp. Bodies arent free. One scout for each gate is too much for earning millions of isk per minute? I totally disagree. My crusade for faster missiles.
Novacain Gallente	Posted - 2007.12.17 22:10:00 - [103] Edited by: Novacain on 17/12/2007 22:13:35 Edited by: Novacain on 17/12/2007 22:11:43 Iam really enjoying reading the amount of input this issue with local is getting. Though D. Forerunners hair splitting detail in a potential senario is perhaps too much. Then it has maybe been touched upon previously, that the "strength"(chances of being spotted .... how this should be handled Iam not sure(there has been several ideas)) of the local channel dissipates as one enters lower sec. systems. As the number of NPC's patrolling the systems decreases and the eyes in the sky become the responsibility of the players. As with the other freedoms 0.0 offers/allows. So even though one might consider such a change on the current order of battle(in its many forms) as being somewhat disruptive through the entire hierachy of Eve. Then it is also potentially one that could open up to new ways of playing the game that are not innate to the elements introduced by major updates. Though as I have stated earlier. I find these a superposition of clear varnish to the issue at hand.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.17 23:37:00 - [104] Originally by: Tovarishch Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Tovarishch A cloaker cannot get into local unnoticed if there are scouts on gates. A group cannot be destroyed if they have defense. Yes he can. Yes they can. Such a scout network as required to protect against a cloaker is so extensive that you would be better off mining in empire in a noob corp. Bodies arent free. One scout for each gate is too much for earning millions of isk per minute? I totally disagree. I dont know what you are mining to earn millions of isk per minute, but it sure as hell isnt in 0.0. Especially since the scout doesnt keep you making isk, but only prevents you from losing it. In a system with more than two gates and with the ability to log on into a system you are taking ridiculous risk by doing any production, even organized production. Organized production would be accomplished easier in high sec with noob corp members since you no longer need the watch and all those people can instead be mining/missioning/etc
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.12.18 00:15:00 - [105] Edited by: Tovarishch on 18/12/2007 00:16:16 Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Tovarishch Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Tovarishch A cloaker cannot get into local unnoticed if there are scouts on gates. A group cannot be destroyed if they have defense. Yes he can. Yes they can. Such a scout network as required to protect against a cloaker is so extensive that you would be better off mining in empire in a noob corp. Bodies arent free. One scout for each gate is too much for earning millions of isk per minute? I totally disagree. I dont know what you are mining to earn millions of isk per minute, but it sure as hell isnt in 0.0. Especially since the scout doesnt keep you making isk, but only prevents you from losing it. In a system with more than two gates and with the ability to log on into a system you are taking ridiculous risk by doing any production, even organized production. Organized production would be accomplished easier in high sec with noob corp members since you no longer need the watch and all those people can instead be mining/missioning/etc Reference - The Complete Miner's Guide. Note section 7.2 'Payback Time'. Take a group of 10 people in a system with 3 gates. Three players cover the gates. Three for defense. This leaves four people to mine. They are mining basic Bistot. This equals over 271 million isk per hour based on a Bistot value of 10k isk per unit. That's over 4.5 million isk per minute... and more than half the group aren't even mining. You claim to be losing money on people having to defend, which is a valid point. However, I'd argue that they are preventing the loss of isk due to having attackers destroy the mining gang. So yes... millions of isk per minute... with less than half the gang mining. My crusade for faster missiles.
Praesus Lecti Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2007.12.18 00:57:00 - [106] I dreaded hitting the reply button to add my input but so far it's a very different approach than what's been posted so far: Currently every idea put forth relies upon the server to collect the information of who is in the system and feed it to us. The notion of a delayed local or not showing up until you speak plays into this. What it boils down to is how effective can local be as an intelligence gathering tool and how much effort should the player have to expend to gather that information. Local gives intelligence in several ways: Players in system, Name of player and (via right click) all information regarding that player. That is too much information with no effort placed upon the player. To add some effort, the information once gathered by local will be separated into it's constituent parts. Local (that is the chat channel itself) will operate strictly as a chat channel. To that end the number of players will be removed as will the right click ability. You get a name and image only. That list must be actively refreshed by the player and has a cooldown period so that you can't chain refresh the list. The ship scanner would be modified so that a player could actively search out every player ship in a system by use of (to use a submariner term) "active ping." This "active ping" would utilize a one-time use probe (ships carry infinite amounts) that will give a list of every ship type (and name of the pilot in that ship and perhaps the corp of the pilot) in the system but only a very very rough estimate of it's location. The reuse of the active ping probe would be on the order of several minutes. Utilizing these mechanics, a player would be able to see a player's name in local chat, but have no other information. To get better details, the player uses an active ping probe that returns a list of every player ship in the system. Now the person seeking intel knows who's in the system and what ship they are flying..but nothing else. The player looking for intel would need to rely upon their own previous experience and start taking notes of people they see local areas. Sure, you would no longer have absolute complete information about someone, but you would have at least something. What you do with it would require some work on our part. Note: I'd go so far as to suggest that a player using an active ping would immediately show up on someone else's ship scanner as a rough warpable object (say under 500km) by someone actively using their own scanner at the same time (much like passive vs active sonar.) I await the flames.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.18 01:22:00 - [107] Edited by: Goumindong on 18/12/2007 01:25:34 450k isk/minute per person with 4 max skilled characters running. That is pretty god damn bad, its also assuming 10k isk/unit on bistot... Empire mission running will be 200m isk/hour for 10 characters before loyalty point gains. With zero risk, with no hauling necessary[whoops, guess you forgot about that in your calculation]. Of course, at 100% refine with max skills, bistot is only worth about 6300 if you were selling the minerals, so that 271m is actually 170m. Which means you are now LESS profitable than empire mission runners[when not even including LP gains], can be shut down by a roaming gang, making you even LESS profitable, and you need 10 folks online in the op to make it work, making you even LESS profitable due to high barries to entry. Wow, its almost as if defending a mining op isnt worth it because its more profitable for everyone to be in ***** empire. **, if you have 10 people and want to mine, you can do it in empire and ditch the scouts and defenses, [with only one ship to scare away looters], since you get so much more mining done and have such a smaller barrier to entry, and cant be inturrupted. Why its almost as if mining ops are terribly unprofitable compared to other endevors unless everyone and their mother is mining, and the only reason they are profitable is because production scales relativly well[I.E. efficiency does not go down with more miners]. So if you make it so that not everyone can mine, all of a sudden you might as well be doing other things.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.18 01:25:00 - [108] Originally by: Praesus Lecti ... This is exceedinly dumb. Increased server load and a huge skew towards attackers.
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.12.18 01:30:00 - [109] Edited by: Tovarishch on 18/12/2007 01:36:27 Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 18/12/2007 01:25:34 450k isk/minute per person with 4 max skilled characters running. That is pretty god damn bad, its also assuming 10k isk/unit on bistot... Empire mission running will be 200m isk/hour for 10 characters before loyalty point gains. With zero risk, with no hauling necessary[whoops, guess you forgot about that in your calculation]. Of course, at 100% refine with max skills, bistot is only worth about 6300 if you were selling the minerals, so that 271m is actually 170m. Which means you are now LESS profitable than empire mission runners[when not even including LP gains], can be shut down by a roaming gang, making you even LESS profitable, and you need 10 folks online in the op to make it work, making you even LESS profitable due to high barries to entry. Wow, its almost as if defending a mining op isnt worth it because its more profitable for everyone to be in ***** empire. **, if you have 10 people and want to mine, you can do it in empire and ditch the scouts and defenses, [with only one ship to scare away looters], since you get so much more mining done and have such a smaller barrier to entry, and cant be inturrupted. Why its almost as if mining ops are terribly unprofitable compared to other endevors unless everyone and their mother is mining, and the only reason they are profitable is because production scales relativly well[I.E. efficiency does not go down with more miners]. So if you make it so that not everyone can mine, all of a sudden you might as well be doing other things. I pretty much entirely agree with your post. However, none of that particular problem has a thing to do with Black Ops, local, or even cloaking. If you have a problem with the profitability of mining in 0.0 as opposed to running missions in empire then I'd suggest using the Game Development Forum or a bug report. Arguing that local shouldn't be changed because it would hurt the profit margin of mining in 0.0 is like arguing that you should remove someone's foot because they have a hangnail. You aren't directly solving the problem, and the 'solution' only introduces another problem. Edit - for clarification. My crusade for faster missiles.
Blind Man Cosmic Fusion	Posted - 2007.12.18 02:15:00 - [110] local should be only show up if you talk, in all of eve..
Daelin Blackleaf Aliastra	Posted - 2007.12.18 02:16:00 - [111] Originally by: Tovarishch A one hour mining op can net a ton of isk. If this group wants to protect that investment of time and material they should provide protection and defense instead of getting free intel via local. This is the measure of the difference between those incapable of holding a home in 0.0... and those who aren't. You are attempting to use local as a way to make 0.0 accessible to those who truly can't even hold a foothold there. Again, self-contradictory. Please look up the word contradictory before you start throwing it around. All I am suggesting is that if you want to storm an op it should require a similar degree or skill and effort as it does to form the op. Ergo if you want to get in undetected use stealthy ships. Once again you are pressing for the removal of local, which you informed us was not the intent of this thread. Originally by: Tovarishch All it takes is some effort to gather intel, as opposed to the free intel local provides... which in turn attracts weak alliances incapable of self-defense into 0.0. Perhaps players would learn to form useful coalitions comprised of industrialists and combat pilots for mutual benefit, instead of using local as a cheap way to substitute for pilots and skill. 0.0 was not designed to be the sole playground of the top 5% of players. In addition some people like to just nip out and mine or rat for awhile without having to spend an hour or so organizing and securing the op. Some people only play for 2 hours or so a day. Once again you are pressing for the removal of local, if thats your sole intent, and not actually solving the issue of local and stealth ships, specifically the Black Ops class just say so. Originally by: Tovarishch Then perhaps those people should find another game to play. The creators have, on many occasions, explained that they want this game universe to be a cruel and harsh place. I'm not even going to comment on how remarkably bad for the game this ideology would be given that the vast majority of players are complete carebears. Yes, it's a cruel and harsh universe however it is not a social club for "elite" "hardcore" gamers, it's an MMO and therefore a business dependent upon subscribers. Originally by: Tovarishch Read my comments above regarding cooperative alliances comprised of industrialists and combat pilots. Such alliances are currently in 0.0, and they are doing quite well. Groups who canÆt make it in 0.0 without the aid of local for intel do not belong there. Period. More elitism and ranting about removing local completely. ...and more. Originally by: Tovarishch I quoted your post in portions and addressed each point. No, you ignored my suggestions regarding the removal of players from the local sidebar and removal of stealth ships from the local count... which was the entire point of my post. Instead you chose to select parts of it to rant on about EVE being for the elite and local needing to be removed. Originally by: Tovarishch You continue to function on the flawed assumption that this group out mining or ratting canÆt have a group helping defend them in case of attackà because that is the status quo. I have assumed no such thing, please point out where I have suggested such. In fact the status quo on -Dark and PhD mining ops was typically to have multi-BS and carrier support. Are you telling me when MC mine they don't bring support? That is your status quo? Originally by: Tovarishch Black Ops ships could be countered without local for free intel. All people would have to do is actually provide self-defense and scouts. If thatÆs too hard for themà. They donÆt belong in 0.0. Honestly, I'm curious what experience you have in 0.0 that leads you to feel this way. I'll say this in bold and caps so maybe you read it this third time. I AM SUGGESTING BLACK OPS BE REMOVED FROM LOCAL AND THAT LOCAL BE NERFED Continued...
Daelin Blackleaf Aliastra	Posted - 2007.12.18 02:17:00 - [112] Originally by: Tovarishch The current discussion is up to - 1. Cloaked ships cannot be seen in local. 2. Cloaked ships can not see local or do anything other than see through their windshield, though coverts could still warp while cloaked. 3. Everything else remains the same. I still believe this is the best solution to the current problem. See now this is why I'm posting in bold caps. Go back, read my posts. What you have here is far less harsh than what I have been suggesting. If you can't be bothered to re-read it I'll reiterate the major points. 1: Local is removed. The sidebar part of it that shows who is in system. Effectively ending it's use to find out who is in system, while retaining it's use as a chat channel. 2: Local count stays. So you cannot zerg rush people with a standard t1 fleet and so as not to prompt spies becoming the new local as the new great advantage. 3: Stealth ships do not affect local count. Meaning you can covert-cyno in a gang of such ships and the enemy will be none the wiser until they are on his overview. Indeed unless you have scouts on the gate you wouldn't know any of the covert/recon type ships were in the system at all, especially not if they were there first. Affecting everything that can fit a cloaking device is imo a terrible idea because it boosts cloaking ratters, while this allows you to hunt them down and kill them. In addition it leaves the Black-Ops and Stealth Bomber without a true reason to be considered stealthy ships while this means that even though they cannot ft a covert-ops cloak they are still capable of covert operations. Now, perhaps we can discuss this without derogatory remarks as to my experience or commenting on me supposedly contradicting myself, attacking the person and not the argument is bad form and is hardly going to prove your point... especially since you don't seem to have understood what I am proposing. I would, however, like to know how my idea for nerfing the hell out of local and making covert ships vastly more... covert is more of a carebearish, soft, idea that will promote weakness in 0.0 alliances than leaving local as it is and removing all cloaked ravens from local.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.18 02:33:00 - [113] Originally by: Tovarishch Arguing that local shouldn't be changed because it would hurt the profit margin of mining in 0.0 is like arguing that you should remove someone's foot because they have a hangnail. You aren't directly solving the problem, and the 'solution' only introduces another problem. Edit - for clarification. This is you, you are arguing to implement the solution that only introduces more problems. Its even worse because you arent actually implementing a solution to solve a problem other than some amorphious idea that the description of a ship has a role in game balance[i want my invulnerable abaddons, and fleet decimating zealots tia] Black Ops ships are really strong, you cant camp them in, you cant camp them out, you cant scan them down, they have near battleship DPS and other abilities. They do not need to be stronger as you suggest. Giving them and recons[anoter very strong ship class already] the ability to move without being seen in local is just too much. Its too much to remove any ship from local that does not stop a ship from using its directional scanner and warping. I mean really? Are recons not good enough? Are they not being flown because people are saying "oh man, i dont want to be able to warp cloaked?" Because the way i see it, there is no problem there.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.18 02:38:00 - [114] Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf I have assumed no such thing, please point out where I have suggested such. In fact the status quo on -Dark and PhD mining ops was typically to have multi-BS and carrier support. Are you telling me when MC mine they don't bring support? That is your status quo? I dont know about MC, but that is my experience. Maybe one or two scouts depending on what system you are in. Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf 1: Local is removed. 2: Local count stays. 3: Stealth ships do not affect local count. This ist stupid. You cannot have balance while having any ship type be un-interceptible. Furthermore, the inability to identify people in local places much to large an onus on the defenders.
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.12.18 06:05:00 - [115] Edited by: Tovarishch on 18/12/2007 06:05:47 Originally by: Daeilin Blackleaf 0.0 was not designed to be the sole playground of the top 5% of players. Goons are, for the most part, a bunch of newer players. Not at all what I'd call the top 5%. They also hold, with their alliance, the lion's share of 0.0. Originally by: Daeilin Blackleaf In addition some people like to just nip out and mine or rat for awhile without having to spend an hour or so organizing and securing the op. Some people only play for 2 hours or so a day. That's nice. They probably won't make it in 0.0. Nor should they. Originally by: Daeilin Blackleaf Once again you are pressing for the removal of local, if thats your sole intent, and not actually solving the issue of local and stealth ships, specifically the Black Ops class just say so. My current take is that cloaking ships should be removed from local while cloaked. All other aspects of the status quo are fine with me. I won't bother with the rest of your thread as it's simply argumentative, and I'm over rehashing that issue with people who choose that particular tack. My crusade for faster missiles.
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.12.18 06:16:00 - [116] Originally by: Goumindong Black Ops ships are really strong, you cant camp them in, you cant camp them out, you cant scan them down, they have near battleship DPS and other abilities. They do not need to be stronger as you suggest. You don't fly the ships. I know you don't because you incorrectly assumed that they can warp while cloaked early in this thread. As such, I'll go ahead and explain to you that they are not 'really strong' as you believe them to be. They are actually horribly pre-nerfed... which I think is fine. They had the capacity to enter the game far too powerful, and CCP knew better. They have horrific jump range, and only enough cargo space to hold fuel for about 2 jumps (with JDC and JFC at 5). In fact, there are many 0.0 bottlenecks in the game that they do not even have the range to pass (4.5 ly range with JDC 5). They are weak ships, and do not offer much in the way of an advantage, thanks to their current counter-balancing drawbacks. The final nail in their coffin is that the single advantage that they bring to the table (the ability to jump to a Covert Cyno) is entirely negated by an untrained alt sitting in local. Balanced? No. I see this as a problem that needs to be fixed. If they are given some other purpose or advantage then I'm fine with local as it stants now (from a balance perspective, my personal opinion on local is a different matter entirely). However, if CCP leaves them as they stand now... then the problem, of local needs to be addressed. Originally by: Goumindong Giving them and recons[anoter very strong ship class already] the ability to move without being seen in local is just too much. Its too much to remove any ship from local that does not stop a ship from using its directional scanner and warping, while adding a probe that can scan down cloaked ships. I'm actually very much in favor of adding some sort of probe that can scan cloaked ships. Particularly if cloaked ships are removed from local. My crusade for faster missiles.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.18 06:45:00 - [117] You're delusional if you think the single advantage of black ops battle ships and recons are negated by a noob alt Why arent stealth bombers usefull? Because they are still frigates. Why arent black ops battleships usefull? Because they are still battleships? WTF?!!?! I am sorry that they arent "i win" buttons, or "im never going to die" buttons like you want recons to be. Oh wait, im not sorry, because its ******. Yea, whatever will a camp running battleship that can pick its fights, and jump bridge in recons ever do with itself!?!?! Quote:** I'm actually very much in favor of adding some sort of probe that can scan cloaked ships. Particularly if cloaked ships are removed from local. Are you also in favor of removing entirely the ability of any ship to warp cloaked?
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.12.18 07:00:00 - [118] Edited by: Tovarishch on 18/12/2007 07:04:43 Originally by: Goumindong You're delusional if you think the single advantage of black ops battle ships and recons are negated by a noob alt Why arent stealth bombers usefull? Because they are still frigates. Why arent black ops battleships usefull? Because they are still battleships? WTF?!!?! I am sorry that they arent "i win" buttons, or "im never going to die" buttons like you want recons to be. Oh wait, im not sorry, because its ******. Yea, whatever will a camp running battleship that can pick its fights, and jump bridge in recons ever do with itself!?!?! Quote:** I'm actually very much in favor of adding some sort of probe that can scan cloaked ships. Particularly if cloaked ships are removed from local. Are you also in favor of removing entirely the ability of any ship to warp cloaked? What is the main purpose of a Black Ops ship? To use Covert Cynos. If an untrained alt is sitting in a system with friends on a gate or two and people enter local what has that person discovered without doing anything other than watching the local tab? That a Covert Cyno was just used and a Black Ops ship and recons are in system. Why you can't see a problem with this is beyond me. However, the continuing insulting tone of your posts and your childish comebacks only tell me that you have no interest in engaging your brain. You are simply here to be childish and insulting. I'll go back to addressing people who prefer logic and dialectics to grade school insults. My crusade for faster missiles.
Westly Synpa GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.18 07:40:00 - [119] Originally by: Plekto Signed since day one. THESE ARE CHAT CHANNELS. They should not be serving the purpose of local status channels. Here's the fix: 1: replace local with an alerts channel 2: If you have a ship in your gang/alliance that sees the ship/enters the same grid with it, all members in your group or alliance that are in that same system get an alert. 3:If you have sovereignty, this also applies to gates and towers and stations. That way, it's not a giveaway, NOR is it a gimmie to the pirates and cloaked ships. "21:02 Player X entered system(name in red) "21:04 Player X seen at (name) gate" "21:05 Player X seen by (corpmate's ID) "21:07 Player X seen at (same name) gate" "21:07 Player X left system" etc - actual intel but not the current EYE OF GOD it is now that tells everyone. It wold default to enemies/red but could be filtered to include all people if you wanted on a personal basis. NPC structures would of course give no intel at all. do you have any idea how stupid this sounds?
Westly Synpa GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.18 07:46:00 - [120] Originally by: Tovarishch Edited by: Tovarishch on 18/12/2007 07:16:26 Originally by: Goumindong You're delusional if you think the single advantage of black ops battle ships and recons are negated by a noob alt Why arent stealth bombers usefull? Because they are still frigates. Why arent black ops battleships usefull? Because they are still battleships? WTF?!!?! I am sorry that they arent "i win" buttons, or "im never going to die" buttons like you want recons to be. Oh wait, im not sorry, because its ******. Yea, whatever will a camp running battleship that can pick its fights, and jump bridge in recons ever do with itself!?!?! Quote: I'm actually very much in favor of adding some sort of probe that can scan cloaked ships. Particularly if cloaked ships are removed from local. Are you also in favor of removing entirely the ability of any ship to warp cloaked? What is the main purpose of a Black Ops ship? To use Covert Cynos. If an untrained alt is sitting in a system with friends on a gate or two and people enter local what has that person discovered without doing anything other than watching the local tab? That a Covert Cyno was just used and a Black Ops ship and recons are in system. Why you can't see a problem with this is beyond me. However, the continuing insulting tone of your posts and your childish comebacks only tell me that you have no interest in engaging your brain. You are simply here to be childish and insulting. I'll go back to addressing people who prefer logic and dialectics to grade school insults. PS. I'd like to point out that in one page of this thread you've called people 'stupid', delusional', 'dumb', and '****'. Class act. Really. Honestly, I'll go back to filtering out your posts via FireFox as I did for ages, as your flawed opinion of local is the vast minority here... and those who have an interest in actually having a discussion, heated or not, are mature enough to refrain from using playground insults. and somehow this makes yours better? This is a retarted idea in its entirty placing such a rilous ownus on the defends of the area to have so many people avalible to sit on a ***** gate is just a waste of time.
Kalica Kahn GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.18 08:07:00 - [121] Edited by: Kalica Kahn on 18/12/2007 08:09:24 In my opinion local should not be a intel tool, and the portraits showing who is in local should be removed, not the actual chat channel. HOWEVER, if you did that I also believe you should strengthen the scanner in some way so it can scan the whole system, maybe only giving a "friend or foe" count. You could also give the scanner an "active" and "passive" mode, passive meaning you would have to click the scan button yourself, while active would do a scan say once every 5 seconds. The offset being that having the scanner run in active mode would make your ship much easier to scan down by any hostiles entering system. I believe there's so much CCP could do with the scanner to give the game more depth. I would like to see player able to offline all their modules in order to hide from scanners/probers rather than just fitting a standard cloak. The more modules running the easier you are to find sort of thing. I can see a pilot safespotting, offlining all his modules and "running silent" because he had picked up hostiles entering system on his scanner. Holding his breath almost because he knows offlining his modules makes him extremely hard to find, but not entirely impossible if the enemy have a dedicated prober, with excellent skills. You could get so complex and creative with ideas like warp drives leaving a signature in space, ships dedicated to jamming opposition scanners limiting intel etc etc. In fleets, scouts would become even more important in order to avoid a "where the heck did those 20 battleships come from!?!" moment. I don't know if my idea's have merit, but I think something along those lines would certainly beat the current pilot-with-a-red-tag-enters-local-warp-to-safespot-and-hit-cloak "fun" scenario. Yes you should be able to avoid gankers hunting for you, but you should also have to work to avoid them almost as much as they are working to find you.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.18 08:44:00 - [122] Originally by: Tovarishch What is the main purpose of a Black Ops ship? To use Covert Cynos. What is the main purpose of Abaddons? To kill **** Therefor the abaddon should do infinite dps and have 99% resistances. Can you seriously not see how your arguement fails. Ive already explained it to you once, and after you ignore that clear fact, i am going to have to explain it to you in another way, one that maybe you can understand. It doesnt matter what the purpose of a ship is if attaining that purpose to the quality as desired by a person makes the ships overpowered. Titans? Designed to "break up the blob" NERFED. Motherships? NERFED. Nano BS? NERFED. Gank-a-geddon? NERFED. All these ships fit their role but that didnt stop it from being overpowered and because its overpowered its a stupid thing to do!

ISD Valorem Amarr ISD STAR	Posted - 2007.12.18 09:19:00 - [123] Guys and Girls, Please keep the discussion civil and friendly. forum rules \| CAOD Rules \| [email protected] \| Our Website

Dristra Amarr Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.12.18 12:30:00 - [124] Originally by: Tovarishch Does it seem ironic and somewhat disappointing to anyone else that when using a Black Ops ship to help some friends sneak behind enemy lines that the first thing the enemy is going to see is a new group of bad guys pop up in local? Covert? I think not. There needs to be another reflection on why local exists in 0.0 Hey, just giving the black ops the power to "leave" local if cloaked would be neat, and make them worth training. It's great being Amarr isn't it. Support the introduction of Blaze M crystals for Amarr!
Temujin Ka Amarr Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters	Posted - 2007.12.18 15:12:00 - [125] Edited by: Temujin Ka on 18/12/2007 15:14:12 Other possible covert-ops solutions: 1) short delay in updating local statistics (who and how many). Not too long but at least enough time for someone to cyno in and warp to an exit or maybe even enough time to refuel from a cloaked hauler and jump again before they show up. edit for clarification: players entering a system have their view of local delayed by the same amount of time as well. 2) remove names from local but give players a simple count on how many ships are in a system. 3) Don't add someone to local until they enter warp in the system. I definitely think someone solo mining/ratting in 0.0 should have a lot harder time than they do now. Instantly warping to a safe spot once someone neutral or red enters the area is not how this game should be played. In 0.0 a soloer should absolutely be at a disadvantage. Players should be encouraged to group together in 0.0 and there should be a lot more surprise encounters all around (pirates jumping into a mining op that has a strong defense or soloers actually being able to be caught surprised). How this can be implemented fairly I don't have a good answer for.
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.12.18 19:39:00 - [126] Edited by: Tovarishch on 18/12/2007 19:39:58 Originally by: Dristra Hey, just giving the black ops the power to "leave" local if cloaked would be neat, and make them worth training. Not a bad idea, but why would anyone choose to be visible in local? Originally by: Temujin Ka Edited by: Temujin Ka on 18/12/2007 15:14:12 Other possible covert-ops solutions: 1) short delay in updating local statistics (who and how many). Not too long but at least enough time for someone to cyno in and warp to an exit or maybe even enough time to refuel from a cloaked hauler and jump again before they show up. edit for clarification: players entering a system have their view of local delayed by the same amount of time as well. 2) remove names from local but give players a simple count on how many ships are in a system. 3) Don't add someone to local until they enter warp in the system. Interesting ideas. The delayed update on local holds promise for solving the problem with local. Rewarding those who can move quickly is a nice side effect. Originally by: Temujin Ka I definitely think someone solo mining/ratting in 0.0 should have a lot harder time than they do now. Instantly warping to a safe spot once someone neutral or red enters the area is not how this game should be played. In 0.0 a soloer should absolutely be at a disadvantage. Players should be encouraged to group together in 0.0 and there should be a lot more surprise encounters all around (pirates jumping into a mining op that has a strong defense or soloers actually being able to be caught surprised). How this can be implemented fairly I don't have a good answer for. I completely agree. It's not an easy problem to solve... but the introduction of Black Ops ships brings the problem into focus. My crusade for faster missiles.
Plekto Priory Of The Lemon R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.12.18 23:31:00 - [127] Edited by: Plekto on 18/12/2007 23:35:35 Edited by: Plekto on 18/12/2007 23:32:05 Interesting weekend :) There are a few things that need to be added/changed, though. 1 - Logically, the only way short of a massive communications array the size of half of your ship to communicate with the rest of eve has to be via the gates. This is why they "tag" you - they receive your transponder signal like a tower would with an airplane and tell the other pilots in the area about you. If you turn it off, it's logical that all chat channels would go away. - The cloaked covert ops ship not only has local effectively removed(still sees number in system and so on) - but they can't send email, chat, or do ANYTHING at all that lets other players, even in their gang know about what's going on. Not unless they "surface". - They still can receive all of this, though.(essentially when cloaked, your return key ceases to function - you can't type anything in any chat or email window) Submarines are like this. Passive only, can't send anything or gather any intel except what they "see" around them.(the "look out the window"/periscope effect) Change - Add a second level to the covert ops cloak. This is a "silent running" mode which does all of this. Penalty - while in silent mode, you can't warp. Standard cloaking is like current cloaking - no change. You show up in local as usual. 2 - Having Sov in a system gives you that intel you want. If you are mining in 0.0 without sov, well, stuff WILL sneak in and gank you, so don't go mining or ratting alone in areas where it's not yours. Change - Sov gives intel at gates and also in any system, an enemy getting in the same grid as a POS or Outpost will automatically show up in local.(they have massive scanners - no use hiding from them) Gates don't do this, though, since they aren't player-owned. 3 - People forget that this also affects the defenders, allowing for superb intel on what's coming and going. Being able to check, for instance, a couple of belts without the intruders being any wiser, because you launched from your own POS or outpost, which doesn't report to the gate system. Change - Always undock cloaked for Cov Ops so as to not let the enemy know you undocked.(they'll still know you're there, somewhere) 4 - Detection. Change - Cloaked ships appear in local if a ship comes within 20km of them. A skill should modify this to 10 at level 5, IMO. This allows people to scan and while they won't uncloak the player, they will see their name show up if they get close. This makes it a lot harder to camp at a gate, but it's also fairer to the defenders who aren't cloaked.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.18 23:59:00 - [128] "Logic" in the sense that you use it has nothing to do with balance. Balance is important. "no communications" does nothing to hinder a cloaked ship since they will likely be using ventrillo or teamspeak anyway. Allowing defenders much more information than attackers is a huge buff in defenders efficiency to kill attackers. That is not really the problem as anyone here sees it, but rather the inability of attackers to kill producers. Which may or may not be an issue depending on how you view their goals[shutting down the production while the attacker is in the area can be valid reason enough]
Plekto Priory Of The Lemon R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.12.19 00:22:00 - [129] I understand your point of view. But the game is really geared already towards the attacker, and having SOV in a system should give you a defensive advantage. Note - in low sec and ES, you don't get this intel! Only where you have undisputed SOV. Shutting down production is a pretty hefty penalty, and the truth is that no mining op is going to get warped out before that cloaked ship "surfaces" and unloads into them. That is, if they are stupid enough to keep mining or ratting with enemies in the system. I'm with the "0.0 isn't for idiots or wimps" camp on this one. It's a tough place for a reason and if you don't protect your operations, well, tough luck - learn some tactics.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.19 01:10:00 - [130] Originally by: Plekto ... See, i dont really think the game is geared towards attackers, and i think its very hard to objectivly hold that opinion if you activly participate in a corporation or alliance[i might go so far as to say you are just plain wrong]. Attackers have some advantages in that they get to pick the terms of the engagement since they are planning ahead[I.E. they choose their fleet composition because they are planning as opposed to defenders who must get togother what they have], but defenders have multipule other advantages. Holding sov in a system does give you defensive advantage, it gives you POS with which to refit and resupply. It gives out outposts with which to do the same. It gives you defence channels that can report hostiles more efficiently[as you dont have the critical mass in areas you arent living with which to have an effective hostile reporting system]. The question is really how much advantage should the defenders have? To that i think we can clearly say that any method which allows ships to move without being seen by everyone in local[and/or scan] is clearly too skewed towards the attackers, since this negates all advantages the defenders have. But likewise, giving the defenders the same advantage screws the attackers, because part of typical pvp combat is to attempt to choose your fight. By giving information only to defenders, not only do defenders have all the benefits listed above, but they also have extra benefits of not having to worry about being detected ahead of time. A system where cloaked ships couldnt be seen in local, and only people who held sov could see local would produce huge problems in the current mechanics. It would be impossible to attack someone without a cloak, since that is the only way to even come close to evening up the information gap. And producers would be sitting ducks against those that were fitting in that manner, especially recons. It also makes inter-alliance cooperation more difficult. This is not the type of game that i want to play and i have a feeling, not the type of game that CCP wants to produce. Now, there are pretty easy solutions to the issue that defenders have too much time to react[if it is an issue], and the simplest is to reduce the amount of time that defenders have to react by delaying local reporting by 10 to 25 seconds. Now fast moving gangs can surprise people, and you have to be vigilant of both local and intel channels to not be caught. It also pretty much ends people who dont have intel channels[macro'ers], and increases the chances of ambushes, which is an added bonus on top of the problems to be fixed.
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.12.19 02:22:00 - [131] Edited by: Tovarishch on 19/12/2007 02:23:01 Originally by: Plekto I understand your point of view. But the game is really geared already towards the attacker, and having SOV in a system should give you a defensive advantage. Note - in low sec and ES, you don't get this intel! Only where you have undisputed SOV. Shutting down production is a pretty hefty penalty, and the truth is that no mining op is going to get warped out before that cloaked ship "surfaces" and unloads into them. That is, if they are stupid enough to keep mining or ratting with enemies in the system. I'm with the "0.0 isn't for idiots or wimps" camp on this one. It's a tough place for a reason and if you don't protect your operations, well, tough luck - learn some tactics. God forbid that you ask people to actually adapt and use some skill. Also, I don't believe a change to local leans toward favoring an attacker. I honestly believe that the only people myopic enough to believe this are people who haven't directly engaged in 0.0 warfare. Attacking generally requires an extended logistics chain that will become more difficult in 0.0 without local. Wars are won and lost on logistics. The old adage of, 'Armies march on their stomachs comes to mind'. Not to mention, any advantage that an 'attacker' may have can be applied to a defensive group counterattacking. My crusade for faster missiles.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.19 06:52:00 - [132] Edited by: Goumindong on 19/12/2007 06:56:00 Sieging requires logistics. Attacking does not. ed: A counter attacking group does not recieve nearly any of the benefits the attacker does. Because the attacker does not need to engage the defending group to achieve its objective[production disruption], as well, the defending group is time constrained on prep, while an attacking group is not, giving it more ability to fit ships with the ability to leave local. The defenders need to engage and destroy ships in order to make the operation a success, they need to do this because only in inflicting harm on their enemies can those enemies be pressured to not return. If their enemies waltz in and get some kills then dissapear when the blob comes, there is nothing to stop them from doing it again.
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.12.19 16:58:00 - [133] Edited by: Tovarishch on 19/12/2007 17:02:08 For once I'm thankful my second machine self-destructed, and that I had to reinstall all my software, or else I would have missed your filtered post on my main computer. Originally by: Goumindong Sieging requires logistics. Attacking does not. Sieging is attacking. Attackers are the players sieging ('siege' at www.dictionary.com). Calling a dog a cat doesn't make it a cat. Flawed logic. Again. Originally by: Goumindong ed: A counter attacking group does not recieve nearly any of the benefits the attacker does. Because the attacker does not need to engage the defending group to achieve its objective[production disruption], as well, the defending group is time constrained on prep, while an attacking group is not, giving it more ability to fit ships with the ability to leave local. The defenders need to engage and destroy ships in order to make the operation a success, they need to do this because only in inflicting harm on their enemies can those enemies be pressured to not return. If their enemies waltz in and get some kills then dissapear when the blob comes, there is nothing to stop them from doing it again. Flawed logic. Every player has the capacity to make 'profit' or 'deny profit'. If 'denial of profit' (to your enemy) doesn't exceed how much time could have applied to 'profit' (your own time spent mining or doing something else) then you've lost potentional money. Attackers organize a raid, prep/fit, travel and spend plenty of time doing 'non-profitable' things when they could have been making money. All the while the defenders ARE making money. Current situation is - defenders make money till the moment enemies enter local then dock and wait for them to leave. The attackers are making no money during all this while (organizing, preping, traveling, waiting). The attackers the travel home... all the while still not making any money, while the defenders have undocked and gone back to mining/ratting. Let's say in your horrible flawed scenario that the attackers succeed in blowing some ships up. Will it likely be a proper 'denial of profit', meaning the attacker has caused them to lose money on their operation and that the time spent attacking equals what could have been made mining? Almost never. A siege has to be made in order for a proper 'denial of profit' to be created. Now, read again from the top. Attackers, with both local in place and with local removed, are forced to spend more time not making money than defenders... which was your entire point. That entire point is completely wrong. Defenders, on home turf with their gear nearby (and with mining being magnitudes more profitable than flying through stargates for an hour or two) can offset loses very, very quickly. For a proper 'denial of profit' a siege is required, and that costs both parties dearly... and with local removed it suddenly becomes a much more difficult logistical operation for the attackers. Now, back to Firefox and my 89 filters for EVE-O. My crusade for faster missiles.
Farrah Jun	Posted - 2007.12.19 20:42:00 - [134] Well, glad to see there is such an active topic on this matter. I am still very new, but this issue became clear to me as I began venturing out into low-sec space. For what its worth here is the opinion of a non-allianced new player: I have seen, and been the target of newb hunters. New players do not know who is dangerous and who is not. However, veteran players do. This creates a scenario where seasoned players can scan local chat for PKers, or worse yet, a PKer can scan for PKKers and run! However new players are unaware, and only know that if they see a "scary" person that person sees them, too! Additionally, the massive amount of statistical data available at all times in low security space allows for automated defense monitoring using 3rd party programs. As just a rudimentary coder, this became obvious to me immediately. No player can move through space covertly. This does not even include covert-ops ships. No player can move through low security space secretly. It is easy for alliances to maintain a hold on 0.0 space. 0.0 space contains many keys to advanced gameplay, and yet once a strong alliance has control of an area it is almost impossible for any other group to secretly move through it. I'm not discussing turf warfare here, simply moving through low-sec space in general. If an alliance wants to completely control 0.0 space it should be more then a full-time job. Local chat, and certain map statistics completely remove the ability to move covertly or even normally through low security space. I humbly suggest the following changes: - No player count for 0.4 and below - Only players who talk show up in local chat for 0.4 and below - The following statistics should not display in the star map for 0.4 and below: Average pilots in space Cynosural fields (One would still see it if they were in the system) Jumps in the last hour Number of docked and active pilots Pirates and police ships destroyed (Do not show NPC ship destruction) Station Count (Player owned stations only) Notice this still allows players to see how many player ships and pods were destroyed (The intended final result of most secret operations). It also allows players to know which stargates are being heavily used. There have been a great deal of interesting and practical suggestions posted in this forum. From a purely programming perspective, the suggestions I am making are very reasonable, as they mostly involve small changes to database filters, not massive code rewrites, I believe. I would also point out that part of the arguments in the forum against such changes appear to stem from a lack of counter-measure against cloaked ships, and poor or no implementation of struture and station defense mechanisms. I am still new so I don't have the full picture on this issue, yet. Hopefully CCP will address these problems in future updates. I commend CCP for their grand experiment known as Eve.
Myrania Gallente Condottieri Industries The Economy	Posted - 2007.12.22 00:15:00 - [135] 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 is a superb idea. I think this would be a good compromise between people who want local eliminated and people who want it to stay. Also the opt-in/opt-out idea could work as well. Lets say 3 people are 'logged in' to local, only those 3 people will see each other in local chat. Being in local chat this way only allows you to see people that opt-in for local, and not everyone in the system. You would still have tools available to such as the map to see how many people are active in the system in the last 30 mins. ~ rawr
Marcus Ailichi Lonely Maple Prospecting Group Lonely Maple Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.12.22 16:11:00 - [136] This might have been said before, and I migh not even know what I'm talking about ;) I understand that the reason why you show up in local has been explained and it would be because stargates somehow register everyone who goes through and report it to some kind of system wide database. But when you use your ships jumpdrive you don't have to use stargates right? So maybe it could be so that if you use jump drive instead of stargate you wont show up in local.
ViolenTUK Gallente Vindicated Exiles 101010 Alliance	Posted - 2007.12.22 20:29:00 - [137] I feel that local chat should be removed in 0.0 systems as i feel that local chat is used for inteligence and this should be limited in 0.0 in the same manner that your safety is limited in 0.0. If players were assigned to watch gates for incoming traffic it would open to human error which is an integeral part on low security systems. No fleet or holding force would be foolish enough to beleive that they have all there entrances covered by assigning people to watch gates. There is room for error. www.eve-players.com
TubeChild TK421	Posted - 2007.12.23 00:25:00 - [138] Originally by: ViolenTUK I feel that local chat should be removed in 0.0 systems as i feel that local chat is used for inteligence and this should be limited in 0.0 in the same manner that your safety is limited in 0.0. If players were assigned to watch gates for incoming traffic it would open to human error which is an integeral part on low security systems. No fleet or holding force would be foolish enough to beleive that they have all there entrances covered by assigning people to watch gates. There is room for error. I hope your corp orders you to sentry duty every time you log on. Then you'll understand how boring it is, and why we textually lynch people at the suggestion that we must sit on our arses staring at nothing for hours on end in a game that, in the end, we play for FUN. Not because we're getting paid in real money that can pay the bills when the war is won, but because we're there to have FUN in the game. If you want to be a sentry, join the Army and get out of Eve, imho.
ViolenTUK Gallente Vindicated Exiles 101010 Alliance	Posted - 2007.12.23 00:43:00 - [139] Originally by: TubeChild TK421 I hope your corp orders you to sentry duty every time you log on. Then you'll understand how boring it is, and why we textually lynch people at the suggestion that we must sit on our arses staring at nothing for hours on end in a game that, in the end, we play for FUN. Not because we're getting paid in real money that can pay the bills when the war is won, but because we're there to have FUN in the game. If you want to be a sentry, join the Army and get out of Eve, imho. I dont want to be a sentry. Thats my point. If you read a few of the post before mine you will see that there are players genuinely beleive that sentry duty will negate local chat. It wont. www.eve-players.com
Barqs Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.08 21:15:00 - [140] This would really serve to make most 0.0 activities a deathtrap, But on the reverse, every damn system you must stop and ask should I waste my time scanning this whole system every belt only to find out that the ships im picking up are at a POS inline with a belt? Or even that the ships are piloted at all? That would also make ganking a pain in the ass. Barqs-
Renfus Omen Incorporated Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.02.08 23:05:00 - [141] Agreed ! Local should not be a tool used to monitor if anyone enters/leaves system.. just makes no sense....
Saladin Minmatar Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2008.02.08 23:29:00 - [142] What if it was done like this: If you jump through the gate, you are in local chat If you are portalled or cyno'd in, you are not in local chat.
Polkageist	Posted - 2008.02.09 01:07:00 - [143] /signed I suport the idea of having local chanel changed in some way. Covert ships should not appear on local atleast... Then they are not that covert anymore.
Renfus Omen Incorporated Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.02.09 01:36:00 - [144] I personally would like it to be more realistic... All I know is that if you walk into a building your not gonna know how many people/who's in it... So entering a Solar System which is a bit bigger then a building you definitly should not know when people enter and how many... make it so noone shows up in local unless they chat.. improve ships sensors and impliment a radar system that is always active so that you can scan for nearby ships like we do here in the real world... here's an idea: create a probe that scans the gate and anchors like bubbles do... when someone jumps through it sends you their ID & ship type... call it a watchman probe or something.. just limit the number of probes that can be deployed on a gate because i'd hate to jump into 100 probes lol lag city wating to happen :P But as in depth as this game is... the way local works now just doesn't seem right... and not very realistic..
almightybig Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.02.29 18:11:00 - [145] I am making a few assumptions about the Universe as we know it. Although unpoliced, movement in 0.0 is in effect controlled the same way as Empire, in that we get around using the "Gates". (hold off cynos for a sec) Each system has them and none of us put them there. I would think that it would be an inherent property of the gate to protect, to some extent, those people in the system. The Gallente didnt just put gates up in the middle of nowhere for no reason. They recognize that valuable resources are available and in lieu of providing something like a constant military presence, they built in a limited ability for the gates to keep track of some things to protect people of their own group using the system. I think we should assume that Local is an extension of a scanning and communication subsystem of the gates. The gate(s) scan (every 1? 2? 5? minutes) the system they are in and report via a communication channel (local) what ship/station/etc.. signatures it can detect, whether they came through the gate or not. Assume also that the gates communicate with each other. The "chat in local" is nothing more than a common radio frequency controlled and broadcasat from the gates. A Cyno gen is something that can be "scanned" by the gate and therefore reported in overview and potentially by a system message in local. Under that assumption the solution is simple, and I know I have read this in the thread... Just make Cloaked ships NOT visible in local. If a ship can jump into the system by means OTHER than the gates (ie. bridged) cloaked, or if they can cloak within a reasonable amount of time of entering the system, between the scans of the gates, then it should not appear in local. If you cloak a normal BS.. it should disappear from local (after an appropriate scan delay). If that pilot is dumb enough to be talking in local then it is apparent that they don't care that you know they are cloaked. The key then to this is the fact that in order for a TRUE black ops to operate, the CYNO has to be cloaked or masked from the gate scans in some manner. Then when it comes in neither the "bridge" nor any of the accompanying ships would show in local. And in that case I agree that it should be a resource exhausting process encouraging the use of conventional jump technology to get close to the target, thus exposing the force to some extent on the way to target, and then the stealth jump at the last jump. If i missed a point on how BOs travel I apologize.
Mith Dahn	Posted - 2008.02.29 18:52:00 - [146] Screw that. The whole cloaking bs should be NERFED.
Reachok Amarr Tres Hombres	Posted - 2008.02.29 22:06:00 - [147] Originally by: almightybig I am making a few assumptions about the Universe as we know it. Although unpoliced, movement in 0.0 is in effect controlled the same way as Empire, in that we get around using the "Gates". (hold off cynos for a sec) Each system has them and none of us put them there. I would think that it would be an inherent property of the gate to protect, to some extent, those people in the system. The Gallente didnt just put gates up in the middle of nowhere for no reason. They recognize that valuable resources are available and in lieu of providing something like a constant military presence, they built in a limited ability for the gates to keep track of some things to protect people of their own group using the system. I think we should assume that Local is an extension of a scanning and communication subsystem of the gates. The gate(s) scan (every 1? 2? 5? minutes) the system they are in and report via a communication channel (local) what ship/station/etc.. signatures it can detect, whether they came through the gate or not. Assume also that the gates communicate with each other. The "chat in local" is nothing more than a common radio frequency controlled and broadcasat from the gates. A Cyno gen is something that can be "scanned" by the gate and therefore reported in overview and potentially by a system message in local. Under that assumption the solution is simple, and I know I have read this in the thread... Just make Cloaked ships NOT visible in local. If a ship can jump into the system by means OTHER than the gates (ie. bridged) cloaked, or if they can cloak within a reasonable amount of time of entering the system, between the scans of the gates, then it should not appear in local. If you cloak a normal BS.. it should disappear from local (after an appropriate scan delay). If that pilot is dumb enough to be talking in local then it is apparent that they don't care that you know they are cloaked. The key then to this is the fact that in order for a TRUE black ops to operate, the CYNO has to be cloaked or masked from the gate scans in some manner. Then when it comes in neither the "bridge" nor any of the accompanying ships would show in local. And in that case I agree that it should be a resource exhausting process encouraging the use of conventional jump technology to get close to the target, thus exposing the force to some extent on the way to target, and then the stealth jump at the last jump. If i missed a point on how BOs travel I apologize. Very good points. And it makes sense and fits within the storyline and game mechanics. I'd like to expand on the idea that if you've cloaked for a set period, and have not spoken then not only your ship dissapears, but your avatar from local chat as well.
DitchDigger	Posted - 2008.03.05 16:51:00 - [148] As a miner, I disagree with removing the local channel. Local is our primary means of defense against other aggressive players. Without that, miners are simply 'Free Loot' for covert ops ships and other attackers. Removing the local channel would drastically alter the parameters of the predator/prey relationship. So, if your going to remove local then you need to at least give miners something to rebalance the situation. How about a new level 5 exhumer with bigger shields, bigger resistances, higher drone bandwidth, and a native +3 to warp strength, similar to blockade runners.
Thera Romana	Posted - 2008.03.05 17:30:00 - [149] Ok, lets see If I have it right. Covops(yes Im one) would like to be able to move around undetected, like the name implies. I agree with 90% of this. I dont believe local should be removed, but rather changed to be more realistic. If you are in a cloaked ship, your chance of not being picked up by local should drop to 90% with increased drop per level. When you uncloak, your chance of not being pickup up by local in a cov op should be like 40 or 50. Basically if your cloaked and you sit in the same system for a few hours there is a possibility, that you would end up flashing up in local. If you talk in local cloaked or not, you will show up. This applies to local picking you up on its own. Now scanners would have the ability to apply results to local. Now you wouldnt get a warp to for cloaked ships, but if you scan down and have good stats, you could populate local with all in system. Miner/Ratters in my opion are the same, just shooting/mining different resources. Most people do one of the two to raise funds. Now granted ratters have a higher probability of surviving minor attacks from roamers. But both still like local for intel, this adds some security to thier evolutions. Why, well it doesnt take a rocket scientist to find them quickly even with out scanning. Just warp to belts. Now everybody likes easy targets, but this is to easy. So if you are going to remove ships from local, then getting to the locations of workers should become harder. Remove warp to points for belts all of them, make belts scannable, but warp in point shouldnt be the same for everyone, should be random. That way you found me in a belt, but your are not instantly on top of me, warp scramming me. That or you need to remove warp disruptors.
Verys The Black Ops Black Core Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.05 17:52:00 - [150] On the local topic, local should not be nerfed removed or replaced and ill give you a couple of reasons why i dont think it would. 1) Attacker has the advantage if there was supposed to be a scanner. The attacker does have an advantage because the most people who are sitting in a system are there to make theyre precious isks such as ratting, mining or whatever. Also for defenders it would be a great minus as i for one dont want to defend my system and click a button every second to see if there is traffic going on. Also the traffic warning idea (if anomynous) would really bother a lot of people as you also got your own corp/alliance traffic outgoing and ingoing to the systems. The attacker scans everytime he comes into the system and knows whats there and doesnt have to pressing a button every second. 2) Having scouts in every system is not the solution for tracking players in your own system, this is still a game i play this game to have fun not to sit in a spaceship clicking a button all day long to track down traffic. 3) Also spaceship are now way shorter in one system as they warp to zero, traffic is way faster and keeping up with that can be hard. 4) Seemingly noone has though about people docked into a station, they cant tell if theyre station/system is in siege as taking away local is now the only way of telling how the system is looking docked. 5) Removing local wont help with the control q's if there is a system in place they will still check the system itself with the thing that comes in place check theyre scanner and hit the buttons, it wont help anything it might cause a 5 sec delay. Now onto the topic itself. The black ops is an expensive and highly skill requiring ship and should have pro's and negatives. Theyre pro's are that they do a hell lot of damage for a ship that can appear out of nowhere and jump into a system. I personally think ccp have a reason for not letting this ship be able to use the covert ops cloak. For one simple reason, they would be overpowered. They already have the capability to jump (unique in the BS class ships), do a lot of damage, have a high cloaked speed (when trained properly) and the pro's which come with the whole t2 ship side. Removing them from local or letting them warp cloaked would make them uberpwn machines. You'd need to see the black ops as an oversized version of the stealth bomber (with a jumpdrive). Support interactive hacking
Patriak Marlowe	Posted - 2008.03.08 04:56:00 - [151] Hi, I havnt read all the posts (maybe somone mentioned this earlyer). In my oppinion then I think that Local should stay but show all pilots in the Constellation rather than the Solarsystem. Constellations vary in size but maybe they should be looked on as a 'geographical' unit. like fex. in sov. This might lead to pilots/corp/alliance to rather defend Constellations on the borders, then focusing only on system to system defence. Maybe this might lead to more smaller engagements as fleets wont be detected instantly! BIG FLEET = BIG LAG Allso recon/stelth ships might be used more and the covert/raiding gangs would be more common? Local as it is today is used mostly for intelligence (and selling isk lol). It is a disadvantage for a miner/ratter to not see the 'hostile' in local (same system) it allso makes it harder for the 'hostile' to track you down. So its much easyer to hide if you dont want to pewpew. This will not make it bad for ppl that are mining/ratting/hauling, but it will make it a little harder, but hard is fun hehe. If you have wardec in empire.. Join a NPC corp! If you are afk mining/ratting in 0.0 (you deserve being pawnd hehe). Combinging this with playerowned 0.0 Sentryguns on gates would be beutiful! Probably it would be the best solution to have them as a 'module' for Stations/Outpost, i.e. stations should be Gate-gun owner! Only placeble in sov4? Or have small/med/large for sov 2/3/4? Maybe each station can have 2 guns at each gate.. Outposts in system = 4 guns etc. witha a max nr.? Then a smaller Defending gang could respond to a larges atackingforce. Allso placing bubbles could make some areas hard to navigate without cloak. But HEY ITS 0.0 hehe. Sry to deviate from the op, I just had to push the gateguns too hehe. Fly safe
Maar T'Kmel Minmatar Free Galactic Enterprises Infinite Innovation	Posted - 2008.03.08 05:36:00 - [152] Remove local and all high-end minerals prices will soar and the only fix will be to put high-end ores in empire. Making 0.0 PvP only since you'll have no more industry.
Abrazzar	Posted - 2008.03.08 07:26:00 - [153] About Black Ops and local I have this one idea floating around in my head: If you enter a system via covert cyno or covert jump portal you will not show up on local unless you dock or use a stargate. Docking or jumping through a stargate will get your ship and identity logged and broadcasted. This would allow system specific covert operations. Now if you'd add a rig, which would allow a ship fitted with it to use covert jump portals it'd add another pile of mean possibilities to covert tactics. Though adding rigs for 'Rig Roles' would be a completely new topic by itself. -------- Ideas for: Mining Clouds
Ilzam	Posted - 2008.03.08 09:55:00 - [154] solution: when the changes are implemented, local is only active if there's a station in the system. The station tower has a built in transmitter/scanner for local, and sweeps the system at regular, say, one-minute intervals to update local. if a ship is cloaked when the updater sweeps the system, they don't show up.
nasta444	Posted - 2008.03.08 13:16:00 - [155] Edited by: nasta444 on 08/03/2008 13:18:08 Originally by: Maar T'Kmel Remove local and all high-end minerals prices will soar and the only fix will be to put high-end ores in empire. Making 0.0 PvP only since you'll have no more industry. And the negative part? Edit: no need to put high end ores in empire. they'll soar to pre drone regions levels as they should
Blackbolt	Posted - 2008.04.17 04:13:00 - [156] God, that's an awful idea. Originally by: Plekto Signed since day one. THESE ARE CHAT CHANNELS. They should not be serving the purpose of local status channels. Here's the fix: 1: replace local with an alerts channel 2: If you have a ship in your gang/alliance that sees the ship/enters the same grid with it, all members in your group or alliance that are in that same system get an alert. 3:If you have sovereignty, this also applies to gates and towers and stations. That way, it's not a giveaway, NOR is it a gimmie to the pirates and cloaked ships. "21:02 Player X entered system(name in red) "21:04 Player X seen at (name) gate" "21:05 Player X seen by (corpmate's ID) "21:07 Player X seen at (same name) gate" "21:07 Player X left system" etc - actual intel but not the current EYE OF GOD it is now that tells everyone. It wold default to enemies/red but could be filtered to include all people if you wanted on a personal basis. NPC structures would of course give no intel at all.
Opertone Caldari Simtech Productions	Posted - 2008.04.17 07:20:00 - [157] Originally by: Patriak Marlowe Hi, I havnt read all the posts (maybe somone mentioned this earlyer). In my oppinion then I think that Local should stay but show all pilots in the Constellation rather than the Solarsystem. Constellations vary in size but maybe they should be looked on as a 'geographical' unit. like fex. in sov. This might lead to pilots/corp/alliance to rather defend Constellations on the borders, then focusing only on system to system defence. Maybe this might lead to more smaller engagements as fleets wont be detected instantly! BIG FLEET = BIG LAG Allso recon/stelth ships might be used more and the covert/raiding gangs would be more common? Local as it is today is used mostly for intelligence (and selling isk lol). It is a disadvantage for a miner/ratter to not see the 'hostile' in local (same system) it allso makes it harder for the 'hostile' to track you down. So its much easyer to hide if you dont want to pewpew. This will not make it bad for ppl that are mining/ratting/hauling, but it will make it a little harder, but hard is fun hehe. If you have wardec in empire.. Join a NPC corp! If you are afk mining/ratting in 0.0 (you deserve being pawnd hehe). Combinging this with playerowned 0.0 Sentryguns on gates would be beutiful! Probably it would be the best solution to have them as a 'module' for Stations/Outpost, i.e. stations should be Gate-gun owner! Only placeble in sov4? Or have small/med/large for sov 2/3/4? Maybe each station can have 2 guns at each gate.. Outposts in system = 4 guns etc. witha a max nr.? Then a smaller Defending gang could respond to a larges atackingforce. Allso placing bubbles could make some areas hard to navigate without cloak. But HEY ITS 0.0 hehe. Sry to deviate from the op, I just had to push the gateguns too hehe. Fly safe a very good post - constellation wide channel only in 0.0 no EYE of GOD... local should not be an intel channel... when you see a red you know he is there... impossible in outlaw space, makes no sense for 200 AU systems... if you were in space how would you know of someone else's presence without the scanners remove local awareness and introduce constellation awareness for high sec war target - impossible to keep the fight private... if they see you, they run... if you see them you can run too - this is wrong so fix it
Nemtar Nataal Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.04.17 07:30:00 - [158] Edited by: Nemtar Nataal on 17/04/2008 07:34:16 Drop the consept of local chat it flawed enough as it is... Implement a constelation chat in delayed mode like the channeles you can join where you only show up if you are using it. Implement new tools for both sov holders and the roming gangs for detecting each other. For instance constelation sovs should lawayes show everyone entering an leaving the constelation, and then maybe have some array similar to a system scanning array that can detect enemy ships in local (put the ships on the radar or have a proximity sensor). Simipar Black Ops ships should have a chance of avoding being caught by this countermeasures (against normal gangs couter measures would alwayes show them entering and leaving a system).
Jinshu	Posted - 2008.05.13 14:18:00 - [159] Edited by: Jinshu on 13/05/2008 14:18:53 The idea of local - why a covert ops in local makes sense - why a black ops doesn't In the world of eve one is basically restricted to entering a system through a gate - and because you are doing that - it makes perfect sense that the information of you being now in the system is available. After all you just used a jumpgate right ? Same with normal cynos and jumping caps. However with the covert cyno and the black ops - things just changed a little. And yes that is why those should not be displayed in the local channel - the very moment they enter the system.
Doc Iridium Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2008.05.13 16:10:00 - [160] Make it possible to scan down cloaked ships and I'll /sign to remove local in a heartbeat. Well, I've said my piece - wait, is that Veldspar over there? Woot!
Rugs Amarr Yakuza Corp THE R0NIN	Posted - 2008.05.16 15:43:00 - [161] On the other side we have the whiners about not being able to scan covert ships, on the other side there are people that want to be completely invisible to the enemy, both are ridiculous. <- referring to the 1 million threads about covert ops in general. If you can't be seen with the naked eye, you are extremely covert imo. If we didn't have local, we'd have 95% of the people flying in space hammering the scan button, probably causing extreme lag etc.
Danari Viper Squad Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.05.16 19:52:00 - [162] Edited by: Danari on 16/05/2008 19:53:21 My 2c worth, local can be considered the technology equivalent of 'ship signature detected in solar system'. That's fine. But if you cloak, you should disappear from local. However, cloaked ships on grid should be detectable, and thus appear on the overview according to settings, but without position information. This is compatible with existing mechanics, and removes the need to hit the scanner because it won't provide any information.
Fox Ogmo Caritas.	Posted - 2008.05.18 23:36:00 - [163] Edited by: Fox Ogmo on 18/05/2008 23:37:28 I'll start by saying that i'm not asking for any of this to be done. IMO turning local into a recent speakers only channel wouldn't unbalance the game. For every few lone miners that get caught in a belt by a force they didn't see coming, there'd be a whole roaming gang that gets jumped when they try to engage a suposedly solo ship that actually has a whole fleet with him. It would result in the destrucion of more ISK every day, and an interesting change to the typical modes of gameplay in eve. It would also promote teamwork, one of the fundamental values of eve, due to needing scouts just to go ratting/mining. I think the introduction of new modules and structures and mechanics to cover the removal of local is unnecessary, and make it unnecessarily complicated. They are all just ways of clinging to the old type of local and it's semblance of safety. If you want to change the way eve is played, embrace the change in it's entirety. It could be argued to leave local as is in high security space, but i won't discuss that. If local was changed, i think this would be the way to do it. Simple, balanced for attackers and defenders, allows cloaked ships to live their true ninja dreams, preserves the ability to talk to everyone in local, if you're prepared to give away your own presence. EDIT: Typo
Msgerbs Shadow Incursion Cosmic Anomalies	Posted - 2008.06.02 23:34:00 - [164] Local SHOULD show up in 0.0, but not if you are cloaked. Otherwise, I can major problems with no local at all in 0.0, you could have 200 reds shooting your pos and you'd never know, unless someone warped to it and get BBQ'd.
Nikita Alterana Malice.	Posted - 2008.06.03 04:47:00 - [165] simple idea: cloaked ships don't appear in local. __________________________________________________
Missuri	Posted - 2008.06.03 11:09:00 - [166] OH jeez fearing th ultimate Carrier Gate camp where you jump in, nobody in local fine. Take your time to turn puff. 10 Carriers decloak 2 Interceptors decloak and are tackling you maybe a HIC. PENG there goes your ship.. Local is fine as it is, unless the whole concept of cloaking will change.
Adamai Naval Protection Corp Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2008.06.03 11:25:00 - [167] bad idea local system chat is supposed to represet comms chatter and act as early warning, with out it people can just wade through space unchecked and unchallenged. i think this thread should be nerfed lol
Sakhr Otaktay Amarr The Funkalistic SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.06 11:09:00 - [168] how about having just "average players in system/space last 30 minutes" ------ Zombies! Aliens! Vampires! Dinosaurs!
Sergeant Spot Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.07.06 11:30:00 - [169] Oh God.... Another Local whine. I vigorous support replacing Local with an even MORE POWERFUL intelligence tool, that will make the "Nerf Local" whiners cry even more, so I can feast on their tears of emo rage..... Play nice while you butcher each other.
ultima miner	Posted - 2008.07.23 15:08:00 - [170] its pretty much useless claoking and sneaking if everone can see you in locaal. and blackop with that rane is also useless the really need todo something about the local channel and about the blockop's there greast the way there are but a little more range is handy
Pithecanthropus	Posted - 2008.08.12 05:19:00 - [171] Everyone (expect black ops) at every moment should ALWAYS be seen in local. Covert op ships should have to require fuel to operate. Black op ships, need to have their jump range expanded, the ability to warp cloaked, and be the ONLY ship that should be omitted from local. --------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man.
Beltantis Torrence	Posted - 2008.08.23 15:24:00 - [172] I say remove local. Give an additional module scanner which would replace it to scan the system - would function exactly like local (IE see all people, cloaked or not). Remove its passive ability (you need to actually scan, actively). Maybe put a timer on it. Make this ability freely available to 'scouting' ships such as recons, cov ops and black ops and the exploration frigates, everyone else has to fit it to their ship and lose out on that slot. Could possibly consider making it not show cloaked people unless there are more than X of them. Maybe make some sort of 'Alerts' channel where you'd see gate activations in the solar system.
Somealt Ofmine	Posted - 2008.08.23 15:45:00 - [173] Edited by: Somealt Ofmine on 23/08/2008 15:46:52 I think putting local on "delayed mode" where you don't appear unless you talk, just like all of the other channels, would be nothing but a good thing. It would require that "attackers" actually scan out a system, rather than just bouncing from system to system checking local for targets. It would require that "defenders" actually use those cov-ops and recons to.. well... do recon and report recon on their own internal channels. It provides the added bonus of breaking the "duck and cover" logic of most macro mining programs. Get rid of it, and don't replace it with some lame-ass POS structure that does the same thing for a few isk worth of fuel a day. 0.0 needs to require a little more effort to defend, tbh. It's too safe right now, and it's imbalanced compared to low-sec.
Verys The Black Ops Black Core Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.23 19:40:00 - [174] Edited by: Verys on 23/08/2008 19:45:34 When i read all the complaints about local im wondering if people still want EVE to stay a game. Definition of: Game - an amusement or pastime. To me eve online is a game I play for fun. When i have to spam a certain button 100x a minute just to check if a potentially evil player comes into a system that I would not call fun. Also local is not such a dead give-away as most people claim it to be, local doesn't show ships or where the ship is at, now does it. Local just informs you if there is someone in system. And if someone wants to avoid a fight because he is making money to fund whatever he does let him be, because all the cries I am currently hearing is about people who cant catch other people who run away from them. If you want a fight go and pick it with someone who fights back. But oh no you don't want to, because you could then lose your precious ship. Oh wait that's called pvp. And some of you expect to just be able to go into a system controlled by an alliance for an easy kill and then complain you couldn't do that because you were spotted in local and they ran away! Then think of yourself what would you do in such a situation while ratting, sit around and wait for those nice friendly people to kill you and then smile and wave in your pod once they leave again? My advice local works fine as an intel tool as there should be one, who wants to be patrolling system for a game, just to figure out if a potentially hostile player is entering your borders? Thats my 2 cents on local.
Beltantis Torrence	Posted - 2008.08.23 20:10:00 - [175] Edited by: Beltantis Torrence on 23/08/2008 20:14:40 Edited by: Beltantis Torrence on 23/08/2008 20:11:38 Originally by: Verys Edited by: Verys on 23/08/2008 19:45:34 When i read all the complaints about local im wondering if people still want EVE to stay a game. Definition of: Game - an amusement or pastime. To me eve online is a game I play for fun. When i have to spam a certain button 100x a minute just to check if a potentially evil player comes into a system that I would not call fun. Also local is not such a dead give-away as most people claim it to be, local doesn't show ships or where the ship is at, now does it. Local just informs you if there is someone in system. And if someone wants to avoid a fight because he is making money to fund whatever he does let him be, because all the cries I am currently hearing is about people who cant catch other people who run away from them. If you want a fight go and pick it with someone who fights back. But oh no you don't want to, because you could then lose your precious ship. Oh wait that's called pvp. And some of you expect to just be able to go into a system controlled by an alliance for an easy kill and then complain you couldn't do that because you were spotted in local and they ran away! Then think of yourself what would you do in such a situation while ratting, sit around and wait for those nice friendly people to kill you and then smile and wave in your pod once they leave again? My advice local works fine as an intel tool as there should be one, who wants to be patrolling system for a game, just to figure out if a potentially hostile player is entering your borders? Thats my 2 cents on local. There's a huge hunk of the game built specifically for people who don't want to fight called "high sec". Logoffski's and insta-docking (edited to add: not to change ships but just to hide) when a non-friendly shows up on local is lame as shit. If you're in low sec or 0.0, you should be expected to have to defend yourself and your system to some extent or at least actively watch your back. You're right, this is a game and the point of those areas is that you have to take and defend them with force. Edited to further add: I came from a MUD originally where you could see people in your area but you had to type 'where' to see a list. Also you couldn't see hiders. It was much more intense when you were in enemy territory because you had to actively watch for people. In Eve you can barely pay attention if you have local opened up somewhere, it totally devalues intel. You get garbage like neutral shuttles and such scouting, which would partially go away if you had to train up to gather intel.
Laechyd Eldgorn Caldari Karjala Inc.	Posted - 2008.08.24 10:09:00 - [176] Originally by: Nikita Alterana simple idea: cloaked ships don't appear in local. This. Also. If local chat would be removed, which I don't mind, there should be a tool for seeing people in system, without pushing your refresh scanner every 5 seconds or something lame like that. Maybe some kind of signature list system could be introduced which would show all recent ships which have jumped or warped. I am myself flying recons and blackops, but I still do not think removing all intel options would be fair for another side... Just making blackops uber wtfpwnmobile with battleships dps, recons cloaking ability combined with removed local chat would be really something silly.
Severe Civire	Posted - 2008.08.24 18:05:00 - [177] Quote: Signed since day one. THESE ARE CHAT CHANNELS. They should not be serving the purpose of local status channels. Here's the fix: 1: replace local with an alerts channel 2: If you have a ship in your gang/alliance that sees the ship/enters the same grid with it, all members in your group or alliance that are in that same system get an alert. 3:If you have sovereignty, this also applies to gates and towers and stations. That way, it's not a giveaway, NOR is it a gimmie to the pirates and cloaked ships. "21:02 Player X entered system(name in red) "21:04 Player X seen at (name) gate" "21:05 Player X seen by (corpmate's ID) "21:07 Player X seen at (same name) gate" "21:07 Player X left system" etc - actual intel but not the current EYE OF GOD it is now that tells everyone. It wold default to enemies/red but could be filtered to include all people if you wanted on a personal basis. NPC structures would of course give no intel at all. this tbh, although the cloaked ships cant see local but don't show is good too. A deployable that acts as an intel beacon is needed tho so u don't need a player on every gate just to rat/mine.
Lochmar Fiendhiem Caldari Wyverns of Dionysus Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.08.25 00:54:00 - [178] this idea will only work if and when CCP decides to add a real counter for cloakers (some mod or something as discussed in other threads), as well as adding an afk log out timer. If they add these two things, then yes, remove local. Or even make local sov based. sov holders get to see local. the rest have appear on chat only. Originally by: Halkin bob is dead, goons are great, cheese is cheesy, there we go no need for any more threads
Kyotos	Posted - 2008.08.25 01:10:00 - [179] Now lets talk about the hated/loved local channel First its is the eye of god of a system is the perfect thing for defending fleeing etc. . . But this turn the things a little unbalanced so what im proposing is a "little big" change first how someone say in other post a local chat is communication device so u should be able to chose use it or not but if we just remove wont will be a solution and turn it optional winout any downside is like everyone lets turn off your local 4 ever, but lets think we can fix it making people need use the local my idea is simple lets turn off the communication device so all your chat window will close except one the local that will stay in only receive mode u will not more appear in local but u also not will know who is in local and will be unable to get info from Corp/alliance/Intel /private chats also some system that use this same communication device will shutdown like moving cash buy/sell stuff in space your mail box You will be unable to do anything remotely and your navigation system will work with half information that normally have so u will need more time to fly warp to 0 can warp u to a random distance between 0-15km so big fleets will have problems to fly around together covert ops will need think if worth risk jump 15k away from the gate just to keep out of local channel the black ops and any ship that generates his own jump gate will need keep the communication on to jump trough system with heÆs own jump device the guy with a cyno even the covert one will need keep his local on also so this will open a bridge to people know they are there somewhere The device will need some time to get online depending from how far away from civilization if u are in 0.0 with no stations can take like 1m empire something near 15sec and this will make the player think if worth shutdown he "radio"(lose your source off Intel) to not be found and the cov ops will still useful for Intel but this time he will need lose more time them simple jump in a system and look in local I think will also make the search for player with proab more useful to see how many player really have in a system To low sec areas will allow miner to find a spot a little safer but also will give the chance for the pirate to get the miner in belt with heÆs communication device offline unable to ask for help in local or in corp chat and to make things more fair and realistic u cant dock with your local off so in station you are safe but u will show that u are in system To conbat the afk cloakers should be created a new proab tybe that can find cloaked ships but they have a limited distance and a big scan time the cloaked ship recive a warning that someone is tring to find it that way if the guy is only afk he will not leave in time and die I also think we should be able to completely shutdown the navigation system making he lose all communication and the overview in exchange he wont will be showed in overview will be like a last resort for hiding someone because the ship will need some time like 2 min to back online and this is lot of time to be killed Is really a crazy idea i got whem reading forum XD that need lot of adjusts but turn things more real when u jump in enemy area u need think when u should use the radio to get info or be quiet to use your suprise element :)
Thirzarr	Posted - 2008.08.25 09:00:00 - [180] So if there is no one in local, who'd be the first to say "hello?". Don't get me wrong, I don't like the ways local is metagaming right now. But it IS the way to get a first contact with locals, no? Idea: Warring parties cant see/read each other in local (They just dont join the same frequency).
Seishomaru	Posted - 2008.08.25 10:44:00 - [181] Originally by: Msgerbs Local SHOULD show up in 0.0, but not if you are cloaked. Otherwise, I can major problems with no local at all in 0.0, you could have 200 reds shooting your pos and you'd never know, unless someone warped to it and get BBQ'd. you know POSs send you a mail when under attack don't you?
Nnam Pir Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.26 12:22:00 - [182] Maybe, if cloaked, you're just not added to local until you are de-cloaked or join it voluntarily. Then make a special module or stealth probe that, when active, allows for you to view local chat (maybe not fully, CCP would have it muddled a bit or replace random bits with "..."). Of course you could make a counter to this, such as the scanner turret having some % chance to detect the eavesdrop, though not show where the eavesdropper is at. This might add an "Unknown Pilot" to the list of players in Local, letting you talk in local while stealthed until you are de-cloaked or choose to reveal yourself. This could add more of a espionage feel to the whole thing, as its like intercepting communications. That would make it alot more fun. Quote: System Alert! Communications Interception Detected! Man, that would get the adrenaline going!
Bi Tor Caldari State Protectorate	Posted - 2008.08.26 13:45:00 - [183] Originally by: Thirzarr So if there is no one in local, who'd be the first to say "hello?". Ever walk into an empty build and shout, "Hello! Anyone here?" Originally by: Thirzarr Idea: Warring parties cant see/read each other in local (They just dont join the same frequency). I really like this idea. Very much like the current usage. Modern militaries use scrambled comms for Airborne and Naval operations. If they want to talk with some-one that is not on their comm. net they use the Guard freqs.
Ophey Won	Posted - 2008.08.26 23:02:00 - [184] Ok now for my two cents worth. Why not have it like a module. It would fit like a micro warp drive. First you would have to train the skill. Second it would Have huge drawbacks like 25% cap reduction and eat trough your cap fast. It might only last 2 min at level 1 and maybe 10 min at level 5. When on you would not be able to see local at all. Third it would have different sizes depending on the ship size. Fourth you can not enter a system with it on. So everyone in the system as a small window of warning that you entered. Fifth using it in hight sec would flag you as a criminal and concord would come and get you. In low sec you would still be flagged with a criminal count down just like attacking someone. To even things out you could make a module that would negate this local chat clocking module. It would be a passive module that might increase your signature radius. Again it would be a skill you would have to train. Maybe at level 1 you could pick up the person when they are 2 au from you, and at level 5 maybe 20 au. Not everyone is going to fit this module because of fit space and so on. It would be no go in big fleets as everyone would have to use it and you would still see the spike in local to begin with. Small groups might be able to use it as long as they are all fit with it at the same level of skill. For the most part watching local is only good if the system is not busy or to find large fleets entering a system. But if you really wanted to be stealthy you could set up a ship that would be hard to detect.
Ashley Thomas Kiith Paktu Nex Eternus	Posted - 2008.10.11 21:47:00 - [185] Edited by: Ashley Thomas on 11/10/2008 22:00:21 read through the first page then realized there were 7 others, so sorry if it repeats something. local, as mentioned before, is perfectly fine how it is in empire, but you cant turn it completely off in 0.0 for various reasons. im trying to hammer out my thoughts while im typing, so it may appear to be a bit scatterbrained at first Make the local number reflect the known number of pilots. Those in your alliance are known, and the number reflects it, and also places their beautiful mugshot in the local channel for you to fawn over, this goes for both sov holders and invaders. now heres where it gets fun. we have recently been given some nice new pos toys, namely the system scanner. i propose that it continually scans the system for unknown forces, and when it does pick up a signature it updates the total number in local but does not add their mug to it. furthermore it shares coordinate info to owners in the system so they only need to pull up the solar view and warp to. thats good and all for the defenders, but what of the attackers? how about applying the basic principle to scan probes? when a cov op gets a hit, it shares coordinate information with the friendly alliance/gang for all to see, as well as update known number of people in local, but still, mugs dont hit the local channel yet. only time someone from the opfor shows up in local is (a) their an idiot and said hi, or (b) they were targeted and locked by someone in your alliance/gang/blue list. this would allow someone that holds sov to get some warning, as well as create a bigger demand for scouts, all while not overpowering clandestine ships. thoughts?
Fullmetal Jackass	Posted - 2008.10.11 21:58:00 - [186] Didn't CCP say somewhere that they were looking into cloaks, local, and all that? I've the feeling they are gonna settle the speed rework before they go anywhere near local.

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