Originally by: Death Kill

---

Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

---

Originally by: Siigari Kitawa

---

Originally by: Kagura Nikon

---

on the contrary. removign local will improve PVP. Because then you wotn have automatic logoff of everyone in a low sec system when a pirate comes in.

You wotn have anymore the blobbing effect of: hey they have 70 peopel we have 50, we need 40 more. Because you dotn knwo how many they have.


Belt huntign will become very possible again (today is a near miracle to do it unless by sheer luck of findign a semi afk target).



On the contrary. NErfin local will ENHANCE the very spirit of the game.

---

No, it won't.

Removing local will cause a ripple effect like this:

Nobody can see anyone in local anymore, hence people will start blobbing around looking for a random target, in order to win a fight they're not sure about because they can't see ambushes/etc in local, so they must be prepared for anything.

I just shot down your argument with your own argument.

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

---

Originally by: Caffeine Junkie

---

In two minds about removing local, makes it easier for aggressors and harder for the population of a system.

Would be very nice for skirmish gangs, and would help to reduce blobbing (as people won't know your coming 10 jumps out because a guy saw you in local).

It will probably just mean that alliances have permanent alts cloaked on gates watching for incoming hostiles.

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

---

Originally by: Siigari Kitawa

---

Originally by: Celeste Coeval

---

This already happens...every-single-day-in-eve.

The argument isn't about blobs, it's about intel. What good is blob in finding a target that isn't in local, if the target knows there is a blob? Sure you can sweep the system faster, but that in it's self eliminates a blob warp in all at once. It would work the same as it always does. Someone gets a point the rest warp in.

---

Because you shouldn't remove local.

Local exists as a TOOL. Period.

Just let it go. Everybody uses local as intel, and it has always been that way. Changing this sort of stuff causes HUGE player whiplash (have you pressed "alt" in space lately?) and creates a negative buzz across the playerbase that makes CCP uncomfortable (or at least we would hope it would).

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

---

Originally by: Siigari Kitawa

---

I don't see where omnipresence comes into the picture.

You are in a system. You see everyone else there with you. End of local's intel-gathering abilities.

It is not a "game breaker" or else it would have been taken out years ago. I love local. It lets me know how cautious I have to be in a system, if at all.

Metagaming can take away from this experience, but I don't fly with an alt. I fly solo. So I use my map and coordinate with friends to find out if systems are clear. Local enhances that ability to teamwork.


btw- you speak rather elegantly, and it's very welcome after seeing nonstop "omgz internet speak"

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

You guys are missing a key point here. OVEUR himself agrees that local is a problem when it is being used as an intel tool (which it is). The issue here isn't 'do we remove it?', the issue here is 'yes, it's bad, how are we going to change it?'.

Stop debating about the merits of local and whether or not it's good or bad (it's bad), and start coming up with ideas about how to remove it's game breaking functionality from the game in a simple and effective (cheap) manner.

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

---

Originally by: Gort

---

I stopped reading about page two.

Whatever sensors provide the data in local, it's amazing to me that they give instant information on the person out there, along with his date of birth, along with current and all prior affiliations. As intel, it's pure gravy.

I would expect a sensor suite to first tell me there's "something" out there; maybe a bit later whether it's a big or small something; and only later, yikes!, it's a battleship; and only after perhaps some form of active scanning whether it's ours or theirs, etc.

IMO, entirely too much of the wrong kind of intel comes out of local currently. That's why I have been in favor of modifying it for several years now. There have been a number of well thought out solutions proposed. (None mine.) All would modify the way the game is played to a greater or lessor degree. I just don't like local for two reasons (yeah, yeah, close it you say): 1) too much of the wrong kind of intel, and 2) sometimes really, really, really moronic smacktalk.

Regards,

G

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

And btw, if WoW can do it, I'm sure Eve can too (with respect to not having/needing a local chat channel the likes of which we have now. Yes, I know WoW has 'local chat', but it's not the intel tool it currently is in Eve.

You people are telling me that WoW noobs are superior to Eve players? Impossible.

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

---

Originally by: Burnharder

---

Edited by: Burnharder on 19/03/2008 20:16:10

Originally by: Bish Ounen

---

@ Celeste

We are in agreement then. <Mr.Burns> Eeeeccellent! </Mr. Burns>

Interesting that you would mention "Radar Installations" since there is already a model for a large radar dish in the game. (If you run any missions, you have seen it. In the classic client it's a large white rotating radar dish on a cylindrical base. I couldn't find it on eve-files though.) I've always thought that would make a cool thing to have attached to a POS or an Outpost.

---

So what have you achieved apart from making said module compulsory for anyone in low sec or 0.0? What about a player (mining op) deployable sensor (required by anyone who wants to do anything remotely "solo")? You are just swapping local for some module/deployable/anchorable that is compulsory. It's the same problem I had with Avons WTZ alternative (module) idea. It would be obligatory, so what's the point in having it?

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

---

Originally by: Burnharder

---

Originally by: Celeste Coeval

---

I think an overhaul of the scanner is the solution, but i'm open to all suggestions tbh. Passive low intel scanners and active high intel modules.

---

It doesn't matter if it's active or passive (apart from slightly less RSI from the latter), if it doesn't give you the intel immediately that allows you take the life or death decision as to whether to get out, it's a gigantic loss to anyone who has to sit still for more than a few seconds.

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

---

Originally by: Theladder

---

It looks like people are looking for easy ganks here

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

---

Originally by: Amanda Blue

---

So instead of Jita getting spammed with WTSs & contracts we get the whole constellation doing it? No thanks, keep local.

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

---

Originally by: Kerfira

---

Originally by: Celeste Coeval

---

I'm sorry I see nothing that you are posting adequately countering the points raised for local's removal.

---

All these 'points' are based on the (faulty) assumption that people will still continue to rat/mine as they are now even if they become much more vulnerable.

If it is not profitable (due to losses) to rat/mine in 0.0, what faulty sense of logic makes you think people will continue doing so?

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

---

Originally by: Kerfira

---

Originally by: Avon

---

Originally by: Kerfira

---

All these 'points' are based on the (faulty) assumption that people will still continue to rat/mine as they are now even if they become much more vulnerable.

If it is not profitable (due to losses) to rat/mine in 0.0, what faulty sense of logic makes you think people will continue doing so?

---

More vunerable by remaining hidden unless actively looked for?
How does that work then?

---

Because I'm arguing against a person who just want local removed and all other things being left as they are.

If that happens, the prey has to spam the scan button (and this only gives him a 13AU radius), while the hunter just has to enter system (the map will give him an indication someone is there), use either the in-built scanner or a scan probe, warp to target.
So, it becomes marginally more difficult for the hunter, but massively more difficult for the prey.

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

---

Originally by: Kerfira

---

Originally by: Celeste Coeval

---

Originally by: Kerfira

---

My post

---

Again i shall state this /sighs

The removal of local will require new tools from ccp to fill it's space.

---

Ehem, you haven't said that before!

Originally by: Bish Ounen

---

Originally by: Celeste Coeval

---

Edited by: Celeste Coeval on 19/03/2008 18:40:07
The problems of Local:

1. Instant intel on system occupants.
1.1 Prey knows theres someone local.
1.2 Hunter knows prey is local.

If your hunting and you see a local you start hunting them down. If your prey and you watch local you dock up. Now if there is no local and you are in a system which is 160 au across and your mining in a belt 80 au + away from the nearest station or stargate, technically you are safe until someone appears on scan. If you chose a belt 10 au from a stargate, your BBQ (with or without local, unless you are aligned). With no local there is a tactical use for solar system sizes that simply doesnt exist at present. A smart carebear plays on the hunters laziness.

You cannot argue that mining in say low sec, is any safer with local, as the dynamic of no local actually gives you "a cloak" from the lazy hunter, if you play to your environment. Local breaks the purpose of astronomical distances and topography. Not to mention if your mining in an exploration site, it annoys the hell out of me that my face is in local. I'm in a "sekrit" place, I worked to find it and you should have to work to find me.

My argument for removing local also extends to covert operations. At present the only thing covert about these ships is they cloak. So I can cloak, but i'm not actually invisible. The others in system:
a) know i'm there
b) know what kind of ship im in through the powers of deduction and the scanner, this train of thought is a follow on from a)
c) They know my corp, my bio, my employment history, my security status, which agents i like working for etc... very covert i'm sure you'll agree.

Gankers already use "the gang/blob" all the time. I say this gives more opportunity for the carebear to operate in low sec and 0.0. Eve will suddenly have the illusion of being bigger once more.

I acknowledge many don't see the need for change, but change is important to prevent things going stale. Eve would change alot with the removal of local/ any other similar solution to the problem.

But I argue that this change would inject alot of fun, creativity, adventure, adrenaline and opportunity for every player, not just any particular group (which btw is hard to define anyway, seeing as most players try everything eventually).

If you wish to contribute further to the thread, bring thought out arguments, not generalized sweeping statements wrought out of defensivness.

Cheers

---

As usual, you eruditely make some very interesting points, and I really cannot disagree with any of them.

However, none of your points address the issue of defense for 0.0 alliances. What are alliances to do when they cannot see a large enemy fleet coming? How can they raise a defense when a large fleet warps quickly and directly from gate to gate to gate and is suddenly in their system?

Organizing a fleet for ANY reason takes time, and without local to use as an intel tool, alliance members in outlying systems (the perimeter lookouts of any alliance) cannot warn you when they see the enemy fleet passing through unless they happen to be on a gate, which is pretty much a guaranteed podding if anything more than one ship comes through.

Now, if alliances with Sov 3 or 4 could put up their own gate and outpost guns, and if there was a "system scanner" mod for POSes that would give Alliances and corps the ability to see all non-cloaked ships in local, then I would be right there with you. I would MUCH rather have the ability to sneak around, as long as I can't easily "sneak" in a 100 ship blob fleet.

---

Originally by: Celeste Coeval

---

Edited by: Celeste Coeval on 19/03/2008 19:53:08
Thats why i suggested standalone structures for surveying systems, independent of POS. Make them need fuel, but only need fueling very intermittently. Or just have them self powering and seed bpo for replacements. Make the build req's fairly simple: mins/gas even? Then covert strikes can preempt a larger force. This creates scenarios where misdirection can become a tactical tool. Attack recon outposts covertly, then strike from the other side.

I certainly don't think the removal of local (anymore anyway) is as simple as turning local off. Modules, Structures, Ship roles, Skills, Scanner overhauls all must play a part for the transition to work. But thats what these forums are for, exploring these issues in complexity in the hope we have some sort of effect on overall design.

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

---

Originally by: Celeste Coeval

---

Edited by: Celeste Coeval on 19/03/2008 19:53:08
Thats why i suggested standalone structures for surveying systems, independent of POS. Make them need fuel, but only need fueling very intermittently. Or just have them self powering and seed bpo for replacements. Make the build req's fairly simple: mins/gas even? Then covert strikes can preempt a larger force. This creates scenarios where misdirection can become a tactical tool. Attack recon outposts covertly, then strike from the other side.

I certainly don't think the removal of local (anymore anyway) is as simple as turning local off. Modules, Structures, Ship roles, Skills, Scanner overhauls all must play a part for the transition to work. But thats what these forums are for, exploring these issues in complexity in the hope we have some sort of effect on overall design.

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

---

Originally by: Kerfira

---

Edited by: Kerfira on 20/03/2008 13:20:22

Originally by: Celeste Coeval

---

err i think i did

---

Not to me you didn't. You just said:

Originally by: Celeste Coeval

---

I'm sorry I see nothing that you are posting adequately countering the points raised for local's removal.

---

...as a reply to a post of mine where I was arguing against a person who just wanted a removal of local with no other changes.
That makes you a supporter of his view, no matter what you might have said to other people!

If you'd said "local's replacement with other mechanics" instead of "local's removal" you'd still have been wrong in arguing against me (since I'm basically saying the same, ie. a comprehensive change to replace local), but at least what you'd said would have been representing your opinion!

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

---

Originally by: Ralara

---

Originally by: Krats

---

I really liked Cailais' solution, where local chat was based on range from ship and lower sec status systems had shorter range. Seemed like a very elegant compromise.

---

I quite like that idea - Altough I'd like a "total count" in system - just don't show who they are.

When you're "near" someone - say, scanner range? - then they show up, otherwise they dont.

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

---

Originally by: Kerfira

---

Originally by: Celeste Coeval

---

Originally by: Kerfira

---

My post...

---

Pedantic conclusions from badly connected analysis of what has been said and to whom, a forum warrior does not make.
I was under the impression that if you commit to a thread with an opinion that you had read it all, I'll be sure to not assume as such with yourself again.

---

Having read the thread is not equal to remembering who made all posts, especially in a 10 page thread!

Your reply to my post was supporting a point of view which you yourself now say you're against! If anyone is guilty of not reading what you reply to, its you.

You felt the need to make a badly worded argument to a post of mine which you didn't comprehend properly.
Now you're trying to save your precious e-honor as a 'forum warrior'

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

---

Originally by: Razin

---

Originally by: Vorian Atraties

---

you guys are asking that local be removed and new scanning tools be added so people can detect if somebody comes into local. Well I just have to ask what's the diff here. if you go into a system you show up in local.. your way. if you go into system you show up on scan. to me that just seams like a change to make a change for no good reason. I personaly can see where you are comeing from. however I like local. I like chatting with people. And yes I do like useing it as an intel tool. I personaly think that the day they remove it would be the day i left the game. and i know your going to say blah blah blah go away carebear.. but meh is how i feel.

vor

---

There is an assumption that when CCP devs talk about replacing the Local intel function with an improved ship's scanner, they are talking about a limited range solution. Current Local has infinite range. The only intel function of current Local that CCP wants to leave alone is the number of people in system.

AFAIK no one is asking to have the 'chat' function of the Local to be removed.

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

---

Originally by: Avon

---

Originally by: Burnharder

---

Then one would fully expect to see an increase in the "why is low sec always empty?" threads subsequently.

---

But if local isn't an intel tool then you won't actually know if low sec is empty, will you?

Ah-ha, gotcha!

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

---

Originally by: Burnharder

---

Originally by: Razin

---

You are forgetting the additional time the hunter needs to scan for the 'new dynamically spawned belt' where the miner/ratter is doing his thing. If, for example, the hunter needs to be within the miner/ratter scan range to do this, that's the reasonable warning you are looking for.

CCP stated time and again that they are working on content to make low-sec more attractive. Who knows, this new content may be enough to balance the new risks.

---

Yea, I read that stuff about new dynamic content. That is fine. If the hunter needs time to scan down such content, that is no use to me if I don't know he's there doing the scanning. We'd need a passive mechanism to alert me that I'm being scanned, otherwise we are back at square 1, with me hitting my scanner button every few seconds looking for probes.

But the issue of truely dynamic content (ie. no fixed locations for anything) is one that cannot be ignored. If I want to hunt, I vastly increase my chances of finding someone because I know which systems that content is in. It would certainly generate more interest from us "static" players if we had to hunt for content - ie. it would be worth more to us when we found it - and we wouldn't feel like sitting targets 95% of the time, because we'd have to move around as much as the hunter.

I doubt they'd be able to do it, but large scale game changes like this should be trialed in some chosen constellation, to see how it goes. I can imagine it causing an unholy, unbalanced, nerf-tastic experience if it were foistered onto players overnight.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the removal of local - I'm against just removing local. I guess what it is replaced with is up for discussion.

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

---

Originally by: Burnharder

---

Originally by: Celeste Coeval

---

So your ok with changes as long as your objections are noted and part of the overall design then?

---

Of course. I don't have a philosophical objection, it's simply a case of whether or not the changes will make life harder (hence I move to reduce that risk, probably to high sec), easier (which I would obviously not object to), or about the same (the same, but different, if you see what I mean). Any solution that requires some compulsory module/deployable (because everyone will need it, regardless of whether it is actually a pre-requisite to play), would be no different to having local, so why change it?

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

---

Originally by: xVorenuSx

---

Edited by: xVorenuSx on 22/03/2008 04:40:30
Wow , last week it was everyone get out of empire and move to 0.0. This week it is kill local so none of the people will move out there. Why would a miner go to to null if he has to be camped at a belt. Enemy comes in travels the belts. Kills the miner, miner goes back to high sec. end of story there. I wont blame them. Constellation showing enemy movements ? Maybe it will work maybe not. I guess for that to work you would have to pay attention to where the constellation edges are for that to have any effect and then stay away from them. Or you could be running for cover from a guy thats 5 jumps away and not even heading in your direction.
It will be interesting to see what the devs come up with if anything to assist the industrialists in 0.0.
From a pvp perspective I like the idea of no local. From a cov-ops perspective, no local and I are married and we have 3 kids and are living happily ever after.
Just trying to be objective.


**Edit** someone mentioned that you should have to hunt down someone for pvp and actually look. Whats the chance that you spend the time to look and end up just finding your own corp mates?

---

Originally by: Death Kill

---

Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

---