Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Bellum Eternus
Death of Virtue Sex Panthers
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 23:19:00 -
[1]
Stupid forums ate my original post.
tl;dr version: was watching the dev interviews during the 5th Alliance Tournament. Oveur says "when the chat becomes an intel tool, it's a problem". Well, quite frankly, local has *always* been an intel tool since it has existed. If it's that fundamental of a problem, change it already.
Swap local/constellation chat functionality: force players to appear in constellation chat, and only appear in local if they speak. Problem solved. Minimum of coding. No new stuff required.
You guys (the devs) can't use the excuse that you don't like to make radical changes to the game: you removed instas and introduced WTZ. Can't get much more radical than that.
It's high time you removed local. It breaks so many things currently, and is partly responsible for many of the problems we currently have: the Jita situation, massive blob warfare, complete lack of stealth/sneak attacks, ISK farmers... the list goes on.
The dev team asks for constructive posts over and over. I submit that this post is entirely constructive, as I've stated the problem, and the solution, and the factors that contribute to the problem and how the solution would resolve the issue.
Thanks in advance, looking forward to constellation chat.
Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I |
Tarminic
Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 23:23:00 -
[2]
Couldn't this possibly create big lag problems in empire space? I could see the Constellation chat reach a thousand or more people. aside from that, it seems like a good idea to me. ---------------- Tarminic - 33 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.79.2 |
Imperator Jora'h
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 23:23:00 -
[3]
Just remember this cuts both ways. When you are the fleet lying in wait you hate it but when 100 ships do a logon in your home system you want to know they are there.
And what about pilots in space on the map? A bit lagged and not super reliable but it is an intel tool. Been times when I ninjaed my way into 0.0 and people came looking because they saw 1 ship in a system on the map. -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
|
Frug
Repo Industries R.E.P.O.
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 23:27:00 -
[4]
Just because they implemented WTZ doesn't mean they like to make big changes. It also doesn't mean they should rush into things before properly assessing, coding, and bug testing (hah yea right) a change.
I don't like local, but I don't want it to be changed to constellation without giving ships better scanning tools. If you're suggesting they immediately scrap local for constellation without changing anything else, then you probably haven't read the discussions about it or don't understand the consequences, and I don't agree with you.
- - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles |
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 23:30:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Celeste Coeval on 18/03/2008 23:31:21 I suggested constellation / local switch around last year. It was met with a luke warm response.
There are many issues why it's good and bad.
But nothing actual discussion can't hammer out.
Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
Alski
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 23:31:00 -
[6]
Any form of removing local as an intel tool needs to come in the form of something that: A- does not require every player to spam the directional scanner constantly, creating yet more lag and being a pain to use. B- identifies friend from foe.
-
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
Bellum Eternus
Death of Virtue Sex Panthers
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 23:31:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Tarminic Couldn't this possibly create big lag problems in empire space? I could see the Constellation chat reach a thousand or more people. aside from that, it seems like a good idea to me.
Rookie chat has 3-4 *thousand* in it at any one time. The system can handle that, it should be able to handle constellation chat. I mean, it already exists, people are in it regardless if they think they are or not. They're just not chatting in it.
Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I |
Traeon
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 23:33:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Traeon on 18/03/2008 23:33:40 Local is both intel tool and communication tool. That's why it's difficult to find a good solution.
A toggle to switch between being visible/invisible in local could perhaps be a step in the right direction. Corp and alliance members should always see each other in local.
|
local orb
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 23:34:00 -
[9]
if you have a constillation chat, im going to be docking 3 jumps before you even get close to where im carebearing. You ever think of that ?
|
Tarminic
Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 23:35:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Tarminic Couldn't this possibly create big lag problems in empire space? I could see the Constellation chat reach a thousand or more people. aside from that, it seems like a good idea to me.
Rookie chat has 3-4 *thousand* in it at any one time. The system can handle that, it should be able to handle constellation chat. I mean, it already exists, people are in it regardless if they think they are or not. They're just not chatting in it.
True, but Rookie Chat is only a single channel - I don't know exactly how many constellations there are in Caldari space, but I imagine it would be at least a dozen channels with a thousand in each. However, I don't really know how much lag chat channels actually cause... ---------------- Tarminic - 33 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.79.2 |
|
Bellum Eternus
Death of Virtue Sex Panthers
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 23:36:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Frug Just because they implemented WTZ doesn't mean they like to make big changes. It also doesn't mean they should rush into things before properly assessing, coding, and bug testing (hah yea right) a change.
I don't like local, but I don't want it to be changed to constellation without giving ships better scanning tools. If you're suggesting they immediately scrap local for constellation without changing anything else, then you probably haven't read the discussions about it or don't understand the consequences, and I don't agree with you.
We already have awesome scanning tools: 20 and 40 AU probes, Observator probes that can scan entire systems. Granted, I think that the probe strengths need to be buffed quite a bit so that you can get consistant returns on what is out there, but FFS, that's the point of Covert Ops ships: doing recon and gathering intel.
Of course I've read the discussions and understand the concequences. And I still want it changed. Heck, I'm even pointing out how to replace the existing functionality of local chat (maintaining human contact with your other surrounding residents) with a simple and easy fix.
Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I |
Avon
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 23:36:00 -
[12]
Ignore Oveur, he tends to turn his back on his convictions if there is the slightest moan.
Shame really.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Bellum Eternus
Death of Virtue Sex Panthers
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 23:37:00 -
[13]
Originally by: local orb if you have a constillation chat, im going to be docking 3 jumps before you even get close to where im carebearing. You ever think of that ?
They (carebears) already do. No big change there. And people have to undock eventually. Otherwise, have fun browsing the market while I'm AFK.
Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I |
Bellum Eternus
Death of Virtue Sex Panthers
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 23:40:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Avon Ignore Oveur, he tends to turn his back on his convictions if there is the slightest moan.
Shame really.
So true. *sigh*. On that note, I was thinking about changing WTZ to 5km instead. I wonder if that would be an acceptable compromise? Crap, I'm derailing my own thread.
Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I |
Krats
The Pioneers
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 23:40:00 -
[15]
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.
If the server was having to calculate relative ranges of all people in system it would obviously cause lag but perhaps it could be implemented relative to the grid you're in? -
Nooo! The cake can't be a lie!!
|
Pooka
United Space Aillance USA
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 23:41:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Avon Ignore Oveur, he tends to turn his back on his convictions if there is the slightest moan.
Shame really.
Hope not. He promised me personally during the Vegas gathering that ther would all ways be a place in EVE for solo players and care bears!!! And it didn't even cost me a beer for him to say that!
PROMISES MADE PROMISES KEPT BRING THE BRIGHT STAR BACK!!!
|
Pan Crastus
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 23:43:00 -
[17]
Removing local would be a radical change, but it might solve the blobbing problem (you could use multiple fleets effectively to surprise the enemy).
I fear that the lag improvement from removing it will be compensated by the increase in scanning though ...
EVE Online: a cold, cruel world where (RL-)rich people replace their losses with GTCs sold to poor students who need to farm ISK to afford their play time ...
|
Soporo
Tides of Silence Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 23:52:00 -
[18]
This change would ONLY benefit the gank. Period. The Gank, the Agressor already has the most obvious advantages over defense. Mining would suffer enormously, in fact it would be the biggest mining nerf ever. Who else has to sit in one friggin palce for so long to get his work done? As an aside, a no-local implementation would ensure no mining in LawlzLowSec, forever.
If you can't see this then you don't mine, prat, pvp or are lying. Cheers.
________________________________________________
"We can't reimburse ships due to server meltdowns because our service is so frickin unstable we get thousands of reimburse petitions daily". |
Sky Marshal
Aeden Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 23:54:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Sky Marshal on 18/03/2008 23:56:07
As stated in much threads, remove local will generate more disadvantages than profits, and I think that way too.
Quote: You guys (the devs) can't use the excuse that you don't like to make radical changes to the game: you removed instas and introduced WTZ. Can't get much more radical than that.
Radical ? Before this modification, much people sold BM packs to everyone for a small cost, and if you was not too dumb, you bought them, or created them yourself to reduce the very annoying travel time.
WTZ changes nothing radically, only correct a curious situation where WTZ existed unofficialy. ____
14/20 Revelations : Desyncs... 11/20 Trinity : BBSOD, Bugs, Desyncs, F*** Nerfs 10/20 1.1 : [...] + EXP shield nerf 07/20 ½ Not a single nerf + : What ?!?
CCP is the real problem of EVE. |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. Black-Out
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 23:57:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Tarminic Couldn't this possibly create big lag problems in empire space? I could see the Constellation chat reach a thousand or more people. aside from that, it seems like a good idea to me.
Simple fix: you don't have to have constellation open to appear in it to everyone else.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
|
Uncle George
Super Chickens
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 23:57:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus Stupid forums ate my original post.
Yea. It's the dumb idea filter .
|
Burnharder
Tiny Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 23:58:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus Stupid forums ate my original post.
tl;dr version: was watching the dev interviews during the 5th Alliance Tournament. Oveur says "when the chat becomes an intel tool, it's a problem". Well, quite frankly, local has *always* been an intel tool since it has existed. If it's that fundamental of a problem, change it already.
Swap local/constellation chat functionality: force players to appear in constellation chat, and only appear in local if they speak. Problem solved. Minimum of coding. No new stuff required.
You guys (the devs) can't use the excuse that you don't like to make radical changes to the game: you removed instas and introduced WTZ. Can't get much more radical than that.
It's high time you removed local. It breaks so many things currently, and is partly responsible for many of the problems we currently have: the Jita situation, massive blob warfare, complete lack of stealth/sneak attacks, ISK farmers... the list goes on.
The dev team asks for constructive posts over and over. I submit that this post is entirely constructive, as I've stated the problem, and the solution, and the factors that contribute to the problem and how the solution would resolve the issue.
Thanks in advance, looking forward to constellation chat.
imho, if you want to remove local, just minimise the window.
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. Black-Out
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 23:59:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Avon Ignore Oveur, he tends to turn his back on his convictions if there is the slightest moan.
Shame really.
So true. *sigh*. On that note, I was thinking about changing WTZ to 5km instead. I wonder if that would be an acceptable compromise? Crap, I'm derailing my own thread.
People would still make instas. I would.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. Black-Out
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 00:01:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Soporo This change would ONLY benefit the gank. Period. The Gank, the Agressor already has the most obvious advantages over defense. Mining would suffer enormously, in fact it would be the biggest mining nerf ever. Who else has to sit in one friggin palce for so long to get his work done? As an aside, a no-local implementation would ensure no mining in LawlzLowSec, forever.
If you can't see this then you don't mine, prat, pvp or are lying. Cheers.
Wait so miners can see hostiles appear from several jumps away and this hurts them?
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Bellum Eternus
Death of Virtue Sex Panthers
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 00:01:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Burnharder
Originally by: Bellum Eternus Stupid forums ate my original post.
tl;dr version: was watching the dev interviews during the 5th Alliance Tournament. Oveur says "when the chat becomes an intel tool, it's a problem". Well, quite frankly, local has *always* been an intel tool since it has existed. If it's that fundamental of a problem, change it already.
Swap local/constellation chat functionality: force players to appear in constellation chat, and only appear in local if they speak. Problem solved. Minimum of coding. No new stuff required.
You guys (the devs) can't use the excuse that you don't like to make radical changes to the game: you removed instas and introduced WTZ. Can't get much more radical than that.
It's high time you removed local. It breaks so many things currently, and is partly responsible for many of the problems we currently have: the Jita situation, massive blob warfare, complete lack of stealth/sneak attacks, ISK farmers... the list goes on.
The dev team asks for constructive posts over and over. I submit that this post is entirely constructive, as I've stated the problem, and the solution, and the factors that contribute to the problem and how the solution would resolve the issue.
Thanks in advance, looking forward to constellation chat.
imho, if you want to remove local, just minimise the window.
I tried that, but my arm isn't long enough to reach your keyboard.
Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I |
EveJoker
Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 00:01:00 -
[26]
You will still have a rough idea of how many are in local.
100 - start noticing lag 200 - 10-20s module lag 300 - 5-10m module lag 400+ - nodecrash
Quite clearly lag can be used as an intel tool too. Fix the lag!
|
Burnharder
Tiny Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 00:08:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
I tried that, but my arm isn't long enough to reach your keyboard.
AHAAAAA!!!! What you want is an easier target. Well, that's understandable. Think about it. If you are going to remove local, you have to:
(1) randomise the location of ores/complexes/other interesting currently static content (2) remove the "people in space", "docked and active" stats from the map (3) provide an alternative intel tool (anchorable sensor for example)
and that's all I can think of, right now, in my current tired and nauseous state. I'll think of some more in a mo.... actually probably tomorrow.
|
Brea Lafail
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 00:09:00 -
[28]
The only people who want to remove Local as an intel tool are skill-less PvPers who want free ganks.
|
Alyx Alyn
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 00:10:00 -
[29]
WTZ was not a "radical" change to EVE. It was implemented because *everyone* was already doing it with instabookmarks.
|
BLACKBAN
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 00:13:00 -
[30]
Swaping Local to constellation will increase the problem. Because not the enemy will safe spot as soon as you are in the constellation, instead of seeing you in local, and it will omit the need of having scouts 1 jump out.
So removing Local is a good damn idea. Replacing it with Constellation chat is the worst thing that can ever happen to EVE
What needs to happen here is for Local to be removed, and New modules to increase max range scan to be added, maybe a dedicated BC ships for that, Not frigates because than they will be used for scouting one easy mode.
|
|
Burnharder
Tiny Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 00:17:00 -
[31]
Originally by: BLACKBAN
What needs to happen here is for Local to be removed, and New modules to increase max range scan to be added, maybe a dedicated BC ships for that, Not frigates because than they will be used for scouting one easy mode.
Yea great - and while we are at it double the server stack and bandwidth because we are all going to be perma-scanning 23/7.
|
Illyria Ambri
RennTech SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 00:25:00 -
[32]
How about if you have local window open.. you show up.. if its closed.. you dont... drawback being if you wanna hide.. you can't see who else is around either.. dbl blind risk ------------ This is not War... This is pest control - Dalek Sek
Here come the Drums!! - The Master
Which is worse.. the Carebear or the pirate that whines about them? |
Neesa Corrinne
Black Watch Legionnaires
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 00:36:00 -
[33]
Swapping local and constellation will not solve the problem, in fact it will only make it a better intel tool. At the moment you only know there's an immediate threat when someone pops into local.
Keep local, keep constellation. Just make it so that no general chat room shows the people in it until they speak.
Sensors are where the issue lies. Sensors should have a passive mode that is constantly looking for signature radius's when turned on. Every 10-30 seconds your sensors get a chance based test to identify a nearby ship based on it's sig radius.
When your ship picks up a nearby non-friendly signature radius, then it will alerty you with a notification window somewhere on your screen.
A new mid slot module should be invented to work with the passive mode that boosts your ships passive ability to detect incoming/nearby ships. I would call it a "Passive Detection Modulator I, II... ect"
This would also help solve the "role" issue that interceptors and Assault Frigates currently have. With their low signature radii, they are inherently less detectable and therefore perfect again for scouting out potential hostiles/targets/macro ratters.
This, I believe, is the best solution all around. Get rid of local showing everyone that is there and give the intel power back to the players and their ships.
|
Roy Batty68
Immortal Dead
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 00:41:00 -
[34]
Oveur said something very similar to that like a year and a half ago. So pretty much nothing has changed, including his opinion of the situation.
I think there currently isn't enough supporting game mechanics to fill the void if local was removed. Clicking scan every 5 seconds isn't an option. And the scanner itself needs work, such as the ability to filter out unmanned ships parked at POS.
Maybe something in the way of a deployable scanning satelite you could launch at a planet. A launchable, active intel gathering 'thing' that replaces the heads-up functionality of local. And easily destroyed...
I don't know. I think the reason they haven't solved the local 'problem' is because there's an obvious need for a something else in it's place, but what that something else might be isn't so obvious.
Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Avon
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 00:42:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Alyx Alyn WTZ was not a "radical" change to EVE. It was implemented because *everyone* was already doing it with instabookmarks.
I think you are missing the point. What was needed *was* a radical change, what we got was wtz.
WTZ was not the best solution for the game, it was the least controversial.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Neesa Corrinne
Black Watch Legionnaires
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 00:44:00 -
[36]
WTZ is the other thread. This one is about constructive ways to fix local and I just posted a very good one, IMO.
|
Cailais
VITOC
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 00:45:00 -
[37]
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.
If the server was having to calculate relative ranges of all people in system it would obviously cause lag but perhaps it could be implemented relative to the grid you're in?
The solution Krat's is refering to can be viewed via the link under my sig below.
C.
Improved Low Sec Idea!! |
Call'Da Poleece
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 00:47:00 -
[38]
Is this the "waah, I want easy ganks" thread?
If so .... nerf local |
EvilNate
Instant Annihilation New Age Solutions Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 00:49:00 -
[39]
Originally by: EveJoker You will still have a rough idea of how many are in local.
100 - start noticing lag 200 - 10-20s module lag 300 - 5-10m module lag 400+ - nodecrash
Quite clearly lag can be used as an intel tool too. Fix the lag!
i LOL'd
|
Neesa Corrinne
Black Watch Legionnaires
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 00:49:00 -
[40]
His idea is nice, but it STILL leaves you spamming your scan button every 10 seconds while your trying to mine/rat/put up a POS and that will have people leaving the game in droves.
There needs to be a passive sensor ability. All ships and submarines have them now, so why wouldn't ships in the future have them?
|
|
RuleoftheBone
Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 00:55:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Neesa Corrinne
There needs to be a passive sensor ability. All ships and submarines have them now, so why wouldn't ships in the future have them?
Errr...you do know that a ton of people are sitting intently glued to screens and monitors LOOKING for things right? Passive refers to the sensor type...not the work involved .
Just saying is all.
"Lead Me..Follow Me..Or get the **** out of my way" General George Patton USA
|
Sergeant Spot
Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 00:56:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Sergeant Spot on 19/03/2008 00:56:30 I fully in favor of removing local chat on one condition:
It must be replaced with something that makes lazy gankers whine and cry and quit Eve even more. Something that is even MORE effective as a defensive intel tool, and even EASIER for a miner at a belt or an NPC hunter to use.
The tears of the whiny are sweet honey. More please.
Play nice while you butcher each other.
|
Sky Marshal
Aeden Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 00:58:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Sky Marshal on 19/03/2008 00:59:06
Originally by: Neesa Corrinne WTZ is the other thread. This one is about constructive ways to fix local and I just posted a very good one, IMO.
Because the local need to be fixed ?
Quote: Keep local, keep constellation. Just make it so that no general chat room shows the people in it until they speak.
Like everyone speaks in local ____
14/20 Revelations : Desyncs... 11/20 Trinity : BBSOD, Bugs, Desyncs, F*** Nerfs 10/20 1.1 : [...] + EXP shield nerf 07/20 ½ Not a single nerf + : What ?!?
CCP is the real problem of EVE. |
Neesa Corrinne
Black Watch Legionnaires
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 00:58:00 -
[44]
You're making no sense... if you're in 0.0 and not safely tucked in a POS or Outpost, then you should be watching your screen anyways.
All I'm offering is a passive ability to keep an eye out for people instead of constant spamming.
|
Sky Marshal
Aeden Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 01:00:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Sky Marshal on 19/03/2008 01:00:13
Originally by: Neesa Corrinne You're making no sense... if you're in 0.0 and not safely tucked in a POS or Outpost, then you should be watching your screen anyways.
All I'm offering is a passive ability to keep an eye out for people instead of constant spamming.
The solution is to keep local like it is today. ____
14/20 Revelations : Desyncs... 11/20 Trinity : BBSOD, Bugs, Desyncs, F*** Nerfs 10/20 1.1 : [...] + EXP shield nerf 07/20 ½ Not a single nerf + : What ?!?
CCP is the real problem of EVE. |
Reem Fairchild
Shadow Forces Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 01:01:00 -
[46]
Just increase the range on the scanner a little bit (like 50-100 % increase), and make it update automatically like the overview does. Possibly add in a certain amount of friend-or-foe recognition in there instead of just seeing the ship type and name.
Problem solved.
|
Segge Bolled
Dirty Sexy Pilots
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 01:52:00 -
[47]
My opinion, probably stated many times before on the forums:
Either remove local completely (with negative "social" impacts resulting) or instead simply set local so that people only appear to others already in system if they choose to speak in it - or after a set time delay.
|
Rawr Cristina
Naqam
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 02:02:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Avon Ignore Oveur, he tends to turn his back on his convictions if there is the slightest moan.
Shame really.
qft... ...
|
Methesda
The Avengers
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 02:10:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Methesda on 19/03/2008 02:14:54 Edited by: Methesda on 19/03/2008 02:14:20
Originally by: Soporo Mining would suffer enormously, in fact it would be the biggest mining nerf ever. Who else has to sit in one friggin palce for so long to get his work done? As an aside, a no-local implementation would ensure no mining in LawlzLowSec, forever.
Not True.
Firstly there is no mining in Losec already, by your standards.
Secondly, if I as a miner took the time to find a quiet system with a mining exploration site, I think I would happily mine that as a safer option to current lo-sec mining.
I honestly think that as far as low-sec mining is concerned, getting rid of local would be awesome.
EDIT: Getting rid of local, OR only making toons show after speaking. Either way is fine by me.
|
SoftRevolution
Complicity.
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 02:22:00 -
[50]
How would local NOT be an intel tool the way it's now implemented?
Giving players a list of everyone in system with them is obviously going to be an intel/tactical tool.
Reminds me of Planetside's /who command and map % indicator. They eventually changed that to only show you big troop movements instead of showing you 1% as soon as anyone was on a continent.
Perhaps they could introduce some other system for giving you an inventory of who is in space near to an object ("Mobile sensor arrays" for example) for player owned systems.
OFC this also has implications for cloaking ships and the general balance between ratters/missioners and yarrs - not that I think it's a good that people safe and cloak whenever someone appears on local.
I can't work out who's favour this would work in the most.
It might be too big a can of worms to open.
ps. 5km may as well be WTZ for fast ships but for anything at all big it's quite a change.
Implementing BOTH local removal/replacement AND monkeying with WTZ at the same time would be horrible for balance since both have overlapping effect in places. EVE RELATED CONTENT |
|
Marcus TheMartin
Deadly Addiction Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 02:26:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Call'Da Poleece Is this the "waah, I want easy ganks" thread?
If so .... nerf local
Is this the "waah, I want to rat in 0.0 with no risk" thread?
If so .... keep local
|
SATAN
BURN EDEN Terra Incognita.
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 02:49:00 -
[52]
Local has ALWAYS been an intel tool, since the game went on line people have been looking at local to see who is in it. CCP made local even stronger when they made a way to set colors to friends/hostiles.
CCP employees need to stop smocking ***** and realize just what local has been used for since day 1, chat is hardly even a concern for most.
GET RID OF LOCAL, and all will be right in the game.
While you are at it remove the ability to to add anyone to your address book, unless they allow you too.
|
Don Juanito
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 02:55:00 -
[53]
or just don't change something that isnt broken ffs. local works both ways, and if they remove it, lowsec pirating will be even harder (targets more sparse). for the few times i rat, jamming the scan butan every second is hardly what i would call balanced risk v reward, or anything approaching fun play.
|
Zeba
Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 02:58:00 -
[54]
Remove people from showing up in local until they talk in local. Then add a toggle to the directional scanner to do a 360 degree 999au ship scan to only pick up undocked ships not in a deadspace. You would still have to probe or at least warp around to use the normal directional scanner mode to pinpoint a ship. Easy to impliment and needs minimal balancing. Next hotfix maybe? --------------------- Q: WTF! Why?! A: Because I can. --------------------- |
Novemb3r
Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 03:09:00 -
[55]
I think i suggested this before somewhere but who knows.
In HiSec keep local as it is. It shows everyone in system all the time. Nothing changes.
In LowSec local displays you as you jump in. Then after some amount of time, say 30 seconds or so you disappear. You show up again if you speak then disappear again.
In 0.0 local shows you as you jump in. You disappear pretty much straight away afterwards.
I'm not sure what to do when you jump in system tho. Either it only displays you or it displays everyone in system for the same period until you disappear. I guess this would lead to people jumping between systems every 30 seconds to see who's in there.
I dunno. Maybe it's a ******** suggestion. -
|
Marcus TheMartin
Deadly Addiction Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 03:11:00 -
[56]
I just logged out after I saw Evil Pookie in local.
just to prove how broken it is
|
Reiisha
Splint Eye Probabilities Inc. Dawn of Transcendence
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 03:17:00 -
[57]
Would have been easier to simply disable the creation of bookmarks within the same grid as stargates and stations.
EVE History Wiki
|
Bruce Tremor
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 03:17:00 -
[58]
Local was not designed for intel? ok sure.
0.0 alliances now need pos system scanner tool that gives the same intel + full system range scanning for ship types, and this will automatically be linked to every alliance member's onboard scanner.
Else roaming gangs would rule eve because there is no point to making a defense against one, as they will just run away and you wouldn't even know through where unless playing became a job an dpeopel were put on shifts and put in claoking shifts in every system.
That's why it's not being removed right away, devs still working on alternative as to not break space holding alliances.
|
Marcus TheMartin
Deadly Addiction Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 03:20:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Bruce Tremor Local was not designed for intel? ok sure.
0.0 alliances now need pos system scanner tool that gives the same intel + full system range scanning for ship types, and this will automatically be linked to every alliance member's onboard scanner.
Else roaming gangs would rule eve because there is no point to making a defense against one, as they will just run away and you wouldn't even know through where unless playing became a job an dpeopel were put on shifts and put in claoking shifts in every system.
That's why it's not being removed right away, devs still working on alternative as to not break space holding alliances.
or they could take control of space they can actually defend as opposed to pos spamming and only defending when towers get reinforced
|
Jennai
The Greater Goon GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 04:39:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin or they could take control of space they can actually defend as opposed to pos spamming and only defending when towers get reinforced
good luck getting any defense gangs up in time when the only way to tell where the hostiles are or how many there are is to have a covops or a guy mashing scan every 5 seconds in every system within 10 jumps.
and the other side would be equally frustrated because it would take forever to find targets for 0.0 roaming gangs.
current procedure: scout jumps in, system is empty, gang moves on. scout goes to next system, hostiles in local, scout messes with scanner for a bit, hostiles are all in a pos or cloaked, gang moves on. there's a hell of a lot of completely empty systems, and being forced to scan everything would be immensely boring.
|
|
Marcus TheMartin
Deadly Addiction Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 05:01:00 -
[61]
Edited by: Marcus TheMartin on 19/03/2008 05:01:05
Originally by: Jennai
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin or they could take control of space they can actually defend as opposed to pos spamming and only defending when towers get reinforced
good luck getting any defense gangs up in time when the only way to tell where the hostiles are or how many there are is to have a covops or a guy mashing scan every 5 seconds in every system within 10 jumps.
and the other side would be equally frustrated because it would take forever to find targets for 0.0 roaming gangs.
current procedure: scout jumps in, system is empty, gang moves on. scout goes to next system, hostiles in local, scout messes with scanner for a bit, hostiles are all in a pos or cloaked, gang moves on. there's a hell of a lot of completely empty systems, and being forced to scan everything would be immensely boring.
you forgot to mention that your client mods would become useless
|
Jennai
The Greater Goon GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 05:16:00 -
[62]
anyone can edit cache portraits if they're smart enough.
I never used that anyway, standings icons work well enough.
|
Marcus TheMartin
Deadly Addiction Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 05:21:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Jennai anyone can edit cache portraits if they're smart enough.
I never used that anyway, standings icons work well enough.
*fanfare plays*
You have defeated temptation
you've earned 43xp
temptation dropped 4900 gold
you've earned 324 brownie points
*teleports Jennai back to the world map*
|
Zorlag
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 05:51:00 -
[64]
Are you that guy who does nothing but talk about and post about the portrait pack or is that some other guy
I never used the PP either, it's just too much trouble and since CCP incorporated the PP into the game it's way easier to just look at standings instead.
Also I'm against removing local as an intel tool because honestly this game would be pretty obnoxious without it. I know how some people would find it more fun, but the majority of players would probably just hate it.
|
Marcus TheMartin
Deadly Addiction Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 06:28:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Zorlag Are you that guy who does nothing but talk about and post about the portrait pack or is that some other guy
I never used the PP either, it's just too much trouble and since CCP incorporated the PP into the game it's way easier to just look at standings instead.
Also I'm against removing local as an intel tool because honestly this game would be pretty obnoxious without it. I know how some people would find it more fun, but the majority of players would probably just hate it.
first client mod post ever I swear. Of course every one is going to hate local changes but the fact remains that seeing some ones name in local being reason enough for them to ctrl+q the **** out needs work. ex My recent ctrl+q with evil pookie in local, farmers multiple ctrl+q's with me in local.
|
Havohej
The Defias Brotherhood ANTHRAX DEATH
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 06:43:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Tarminic Couldn't this possibly create big lag problems in empire space? I could see the Constellation chat reach a thousand or more people. aside from that, it seems like a good idea to me.
Not much need for it in empire, unless you're in a highsec corp/alliance at war (this might be another PRVTR stealth nerf if it happens?) because there aren't many people who actually keep constellation and region chat open... I know plenty who would close local if the game would let you.
In 0.0, however, something like this would certainly make people keep Constellation open... would make blobs form faster, too, since an interloper would be spotted without necessarily having to be spotted.
MOST of the "nerf Local" calls that I've seen on these forums have been with 'realism' and/or "vastness of space" in mind, i.e.: you would have no way of knowing when someone else entered the system if you didn't see them or scan for them. You'd have no idea they were there or who they were. I, for one, would have no problem keeping the D-scanner open and clicking scan every 20 seconds or so while ratting in nullsec.. but that's just me.
And Local is definitely an intel channel. Heading up or down the pipe, I see hostiles (that is, reds OR neutrals) in system, I know not to warp directly to my next gate. Without people showing up automatically on Local, people would learn not to do this ever, at all under any circumstances. It would remove some of the complacency.
It might not be the be-all, end-all solution but I certainly agree with the direction that suggestion points in.
Here's me, hoping to be first poster in an epic-comedy "zomg how come i cant see them on local they killed me dead!" whine post someday, but doubting it'll ever happen.
|
El'Niaga
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 06:44:00 -
[67]
Removing local is a bad idea. Moving local to constellation is a bad idea.
The only thing removing local would do is to remove subscriptions from the game. They tried this once already and the outrage was immense, I don't think it'll be tried again. (Yes it was claimed to be a mistake that time and was reversed shortly).
Learn to face the reality that not everyone that plays wants to fight you. The game needs all the subscriptions to continue to expand content and pay the developers.
So suck it up and adapt to local being there. It is like air radar that tracks the locations of all known entities in the surrounding airspace. It is a reasonable navigational function for a starfaring civilization.
|
Reem Fairchild
Shadow Forces Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 06:47:00 -
[68]
Originally by: El'Niaga
Learn to face the reality that not everyone that plays wants to fight you.
Because obviously that's the real issue here...
|
Marcus TheMartin
Deadly Addiction Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 06:55:00 -
[69]
Originally by: El'Niaga Removing local is a bad idea. Moving local to constellation is a bad idea.
The only thing removing local would do is to remove subscriptions from the game. They tried this once already and the outrage was immense, I don't think it'll be tried again. (Yes it was claimed to be a mistake that time and was reversed shortly).
Learn to face the reality that not everyone that plays wants to fight you. The game needs all the subscriptions to continue to expand content and pay the developers.
So suck it up and adapt to local being there. It is like air radar that tracks the locations of all known entities in the surrounding airspace. It is a reasonable navigational function for a starfaring civilization.
the removal of local was a bug and like all bugs of anysort there is mass forum outrage
It is reasonable for a starfaring civilization to figure out how to remove detection from the omni dectection field don't pull out your half assed role playing in this.
Of course there are times when people don't want to fight but in the spirit of surprise pvp having local go +1 and lead to a **** WARP OUT GOOD THING I CAN RAT IN A MISSILE SHIP THAT DOSEN'T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT TRACKING I CAN JUST WARP AND CLOAK OR HELL JUST LOG OFF AS THERE IS NO AGRESSION TIMER I NEED TO WORRY ABOUT
|
Polaris Lumine
Red. Red Republic
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 06:58:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Polaris Lumine on 19/03/2008 06:58:37
Originally by: Brea Lafail The only people who want to remove Local as an intel tool are skill-less PvPers who want free ganks.
QFT!
|
|
Steakkbone
Blood-Adders Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 06:59:00 -
[71]
Edited by: Steakkbone on 19/03/2008 06:59:55 If constellation chat becomes a reality, I think ISK spammers are going to have a field day. It will be OVER 9000. They will be able to cover roughly every area at minimal effort, and most likely cause more people to buy isk and **** the economy up...
Thoughts on this issue?
|
El'Niaga
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 07:00:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin
Originally by: El'Niaga Removing local is a bad idea. Moving local to constellation is a bad idea.
The only thing removing local would do is to remove subscriptions from the game. They tried this once already and the outrage was immense, I don't think it'll be tried again. (Yes it was claimed to be a mistake that time and was reversed shortly).
Learn to face the reality that not everyone that plays wants to fight you. The game needs all the subscriptions to continue to expand content and pay the developers.
So suck it up and adapt to local being there. It is like air radar that tracks the locations of all known entities in the surrounding airspace. It is a reasonable navigational function for a starfaring civilization.
the removal of local was a bug and like all bugs of anysort there is mass forum outrage
It is reasonable for a starfaring civilization to figure out how to remove detection from the omni dectection field don't pull out your half assed role playing in this.
Of course there are times when people don't want to fight but in the spirit of surprise pvp having local go +1 and lead to a **** WARP OUT GOOD THING I CAN RAT IN A MISSILE SHIP THAT DOSEN'T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT TRACKING I CAN JUST WARP AND CLOAK OR HELL JUST LOG OFF AS THERE IS NO AGRESSION TIMER I NEED TO WORRY ABOUT
The game needs all types.
Let's give the industrialist the tools they need to wage proper PVP. Let's give them the ability to boycott selling goods and services to corporations or alliances. Currently they have no control over who buys their goods, but they should have for them to have real PVP in that area.
Today aircraft since 9/11 have their transponders hardcoded such that they can't be turned off. I suspect a spacefaring race would do the same. However if you want such an item a rig that allows you not to show up in local that takes say 200 calibration points is far more reasonable than completely removing local for everyone.
|
Marcus TheMartin
Deadly Addiction Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 07:09:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Polaris Lumine Edited by: Polaris Lumine on 19/03/2008 06:58:37
Originally by: Brea Lafail The only people who want to remove Local as an intel tool are skill-less PvPers who want free ganks.
QFT!
There is no truth in a general assumption
Originally by: Steakkbone Edited by: Steakkbone on 19/03/2008 06:59:55 If constellation chat becomes a reality, I think ISK spammers are going to have a field day. It will be OVER 9000. They will be able to cover roughly every area at minimal effort, and most likely cause more people to buy isk and **** the economy up...
Thoughts on this issue?
Linkage
Originally by: El'Niaga
The game needs all types.
Let's give the industrialist the tools they need to wage proper PVP. Let's give them the ability to boycott selling goods and services to corporations or alliances. Currently they have no control over who buys their goods, but they should have for them to have real PVP in that area.
Today aircraft since 9/11 have their transponders hardcoded such that they can't be turned off. I suspect a spacefaring race would do the same. However if you want such an item a rig that allows you not to show up in local that takes say 200 calibration points is far more reasonable than completely removing local for everyone.
how would the removal of local kill industrialists off?
good going bringing up the 9/11 card in a thread about internet space ships and their annoying chat room
there are bots designed to use local and log off the instant a hostile jumps in (can't be linked due to isd)
did you know that all electronic devices can be rendered useless via emp shock wave (not to be confused with emp smart bombs) or even sunspot activity so your all mighty proud to be american radio (that was made in china) is still vulnerable
|
Zorlag
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 07:16:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin
first client mod post ever I swear. Of course every one is going to hate local changes but the fact remains that seeing some ones name in local being reason enough for them to ctrl+q the **** out needs work. ex My recent ctrl+q with evil pookie in local, farmers multiple ctrl+q's with me in local.
Oh, soz for the mistaken identity thing.
I realize that some people use local purely as a tool to ctrl-Q when hostiles jump into 0.0 space. That can be annoying. But the alternatives are seriously lacking. I can see why most gank pvpers would love this change (indeed it's pretty obvious why they would want this change) but for most people it would turn eve into even more of a chore than it already can be. There's a difference, I think, between making space Safe and making space Tedious. Local makes it more safe, which isn't necessarily positive in the EVE way of doing things, but I'm having trouble thinking of anything that would replace it without just being overly tedious. And yes, the directional scanner is overly tedious.
|
El'Niaga
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 07:17:00 -
[75]
Pointing out the injustice of the system Marcus. PVPers, particularly pirates keep crying for the removal of local. Yet at the same time the industrialist many of them prey upon do not have the power to exclude them from sales.
Also EMP only works if the target isn't shielded against it....
I noticed you didn't comment on the rig idea. It would solve your problem without removing local for everyone. The person not wanting to appear in local merely has to invest in the rig and then those bots won't log out because they won't detect the rigged ship.
Another solution would be to program EVE such that it shuts down if a third party program is running at the same time. The problem with this solution though is that you'd have to constantly maintain a bank of approved programs and unapproved programs so that you don't accidentally deny someone that's just running a browser or listening to music while playing EVE.
|
Marcus TheMartin
Deadly Addiction Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 07:18:00 -
[76]
a passive long range and a passive short range scanner of varying accuracies could replace local and keep ravens "safe"
|
El'Niaga
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 07:24:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin a passive long range and a passive short range scanner of varying accuracies could replace local and keep ravens "safe"
This games already so tedious on many levels and is one reason most people don't find it fun. Why add another layer of such tediousness to the game. No one wants to have another screen to keep an eye on, or a button to push every minute to see if anyone new has arrived. It will lead to less subscriptions.
It's like the tedious nature of POS maintenance, lack of proper docking in 0.0, lack of assembly and research lines, the fact 90% of 0.0 is NBSI, and then complaining about why folks don't come there.
|
Marcus TheMartin
Deadly Addiction Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 07:26:00 -
[78]
Originally by: El'Niaga
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin a passive long range and a passive short range scanner of varying accuracies could replace local and keep ravens "safe"
This games already so tedious on many levels and is one reason most people don't find it fun. Why add another layer of such tediousness to the game. No one wants to have another screen to keep an eye on, or a button to push every minute to see if anyone new has arrived. It will lead to less subscriptions.
It's like the tedious nature of POS maintenance, lack of proper docking in 0.0, lack of assembly and research lines, the fact 90% of 0.0 is NBSI, and then complaining about why folks don't come there.
do you know what passive means?
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 07:29:00 -
[79]
Are you 8 years old, Bellum Eternus?
If you could stay focused on something for more than 2 minutes, you would have heard where Oveur states that they want players to have situational awareness of their surroundings but think that local chat is not a very good way of doing it. They have been searching for a good solution (not a noob one like constellation chat) for 2 years and when they get a good solution, they will put it in.
If anyone has any good solutions for local chat instead of "lulz removeorz teh thing!" then bring em out.
|
Rawr Cristina
Naqam
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 07:32:00 -
[80]
What I don't understand is why they allowed Standings to be visible in the local channel, if they didn't want it to be a tactical tool?
IMO the game would be much more interesting without Local chat, but I don't really see it happening. ...
|
|
El'Niaga
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 07:32:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin
Originally by: El'Niaga
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin a passive long range and a passive short range scanner of varying accuracies could replace local and keep ravens "safe"
This games already so tedious on many levels and is one reason most people don't find it fun. Why add another layer of such tediousness to the game. No one wants to have another screen to keep an eye on, or a button to push every minute to see if anyone new has arrived. It will lead to less subscriptions.
It's like the tedious nature of POS maintenance, lack of proper docking in 0.0, lack of assembly and research lines, the fact 90% of 0.0 is NBSI, and then complaining about why folks don't come there.
do you know what passive means?
Yes I do but I can think of no way to make it passive without making it local again.....
I suppose you could make a rig that allowed you to see everyone in local, but then that becomes a must have rig/module for everyone, and I'm against having any one rig/module a must have.
|
El'Niaga
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 07:33:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Rawr Cristina What I don't understand is why they allowed Standings to be visible in the local channel, if they didn't want it to be a tactical tool?
IMO the game would be much more interesting without Local chat, but I don't really see it happening.
Someone had hacked a series of clients to allow them to see that. CCP found out and rather than allowing it to only benefit one side decided to include the hack for everyone.
I'll let you guess which alliance did it initially.
|
Rawr Cristina
Naqam
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 08:24:00 -
[83]
Originally by: El'Niaga Someone had hacked a series of clients to allow them to see that. CCP found out and rather than allowing it to only benefit one side decided to include the hack for everyone.
CCP seem to have a history of doing that. WTZ anyone? ...
|
Zorlag
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 08:27:00 -
[84]
More like CCP has a history of having the least user-friendly interface ever and have trouble thinking of improvements until other people program it in for them?
|
Bellum Eternus
Death of Virtue Sex Panthers
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 09:09:00 -
[85]
After thinking about it some more, I think that the easiest/most logical thing to do is simply make local behave like constellation/alliance chat etc., and not allow players to appear unless they use the chat channel.
To all the babies whining that I just want 'easy ganks'- not so. Losing local is a two edged sword. I'd suffer just as much from lack of intel as anyone else. People come looking to kill me all the time with blobs that outnumber my gangs by 5:1 at least. It's in their best interest for this change, as I'd have a harder time knowing what is around the area.
Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I |
Kyguard
Fire Mandrill
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 09:18:00 -
[86]
Meh local intel is really a non-issue, it's something the pvp extremist "hardcore" (although they're not really) want to have just like the pve extremist "carebears" want to have 100% free high sec. Local isn't a broken mechanic, it can be abused, but that's almost the same with every eve concept.
Nonetheless, if it has to be changed, then constellation chat is the best thing without going overboard. Delayed local as some have suggested isn't practical at all. -
|
HenkieBoy
Enrave
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 09:18:00 -
[87]
About chatscreens... just remove them all.. Players are quite capable to join/create own channels. New players automatic join the help channel where they can redirected to fun/good channels.
About local as an intel channel.. well.. Removing them will create a new 'job' which is quite boring and needs to be done 23/7 in order to protect others who are busy with mining and ratting and other stuff. Also, you need multiple people to do that. The part I like is that alliances can't claim endless without the need for scouts, bigger sov means much more scouts out there.
|
Kyguard
Fire Mandrill
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 09:20:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus After thinking about it some more, I think that the easiest/most logical thing to do is simply make local behave like constellation/alliance chat etc., and not allow players to appear unless they use the chat channel.
Would make recons and future cloak-role ships overpowered. -
|
Burnharder
Tiny Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 09:36:00 -
[89]
Originally by: HenkieBoy About chatscreens... just remove them all.. Players are quite capable to join/create own channels. New players automatic join the help channel where they can redirected to fun/good channels.
About local as an intel channel.. well.. Removing them will create a new 'job' which is quite boring and needs to be done 23/7 in order to protect others who are busy with mining and ratting and other stuff. Also, you need multiple people to do that. The part I like is that alliances can't claim endless without the need for scouts, bigger sov means much more scouts out there.
Not to mention making things extremely difficult for solo/independant players, of which there are many . I'm not sure what the answer is here, unless you invent a new mechanism that is as good, easy to use and light-weight as local (I doubt scanning is light-weight). In which case, what would be the point of removing it? Similar to the WTZ argument, I'm all in favour of the simplest solution. Is local already that? I think perhaps it is.
|
Cpt Branko
Surge. Night's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 10:14:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Pan Crastus Removing local would be a radical change, but it might solve the blobbing problem (you could use multiple fleets effectively to surprise the enemy).
Mmmm.... yeah, in theory.
In practice, it would make outblobbing/baiting/logonski even more powerful, as you'd have no real warning of a impending blob/logonski/whatever until you saw the ships on scanner, which doesn't provide enough time to pull out unless you're all in nanoships anyway.
Furthermore, scanner needs love before anything happens to local (you would *have* to be able to make it auto-update, because spamming the button is dumb, and you'd seriously have to make for a way to identify friend/foe/neutral ships on scanner).
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
|
Atreides Horza
No Fear Buccaneers
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 10:20:00 -
[91]
Edited by: Atreides Horza on 19/03/2008 10:22:42
Originally by: Bellum Eternus Swap local/constellation chat functionality: force players to appear in constellation chat, and only appear in local if they speak. Problem solved. Minimum of coding. No new stuff required.
You guys (the devs) can't use the excuse that you don't like to make radical changes to the game: you removed instas and introduced WTZ. Can't get much more radical than that.
It's high time you removed local. It breaks so many things currently, and is partly responsible for many of the problems we currently have: the Jita situation, massive blob warfare, complete lack of stealth/sneak attacks, ISK farmers... the list goes on.
^^^ This - and Bellum for prez tbfh.
Also, converting to the constellation-model will get rid of the smacktalk that often affects the gaming experience and the community as a whole in a very negative way.
It'd add another strategic dimension to the game in moving smaller fleets unseen through hostile territory with specific strategic objectives, rather than just one big blob looking for another big blob.
ISK selling would be struck hard too, since there'd be a lot less chat channels to monitor.
Getting rid of local could be regarded as a way of boosting piracy, but it'd be just as much of a help to carebears and people trying to get by in losec. Who'd wanna gatecamp while running the risk of blob sneaking up on you? Also, pirates would be forced to move around to locate targets - and that'd pretty much solve the whole issue of macro mining. You'd have to be present at your computer while mining in order to avoid getting killed.
|
panman
Omniscient Order
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 10:22:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus Swap local/constellation chat functionality: force players to appear in constellation chat, and only appear in local if they speak. Problem solved. Minimum of coding. No new stuff required.
This, a great idea in my opinion. ----------------------- Resistance is not worth it |
Sorted
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 10:26:00 -
[93]
100% Agree with the OP.
makes ALOT of sense.
|
Xikin
Honour Bound G Thanks Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 10:51:00 -
[94]
Local stays but shows only the amount of people in system
you dont know who just jump in but if its your alliance mate he can always say hi and appear if 20 are in local and 1 just stays silent assume hostile, as for roaming gangs its hard to miss a 5-10 ppl spike in a system :P
|
Grunt Futtoks
Zenithal Harvest
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 10:58:00 -
[95]
I love how the OP is like "I have read the discussions and know the issues at hand"...
and then completely fails to address the glaring issues with what he is suggesting.
Quote: We already have awesome scanning tools: 20 and 40 AU probes
Wow you need to go back and actually read some of the issues, or actually think about your changes from the perspective of other players because the need for "better scanning tools" has absolutely nothing to do with probes.
Unless of course you're not being entirely serious. And I really hope you're not being serious about your posts. -
"We do not ask sheep to be wolves; we, the wolves, do not ask ourselves to be sheep. Sheep can make such rules as happen to suit them--but it's foolishly naive to expect wolves to obey." |
Siigari Kitawa
The Aduro Protocol
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 11:00:00 -
[96]
Edited by: Siigari Kitawa on 19/03/2008 11:02:01 Local's not gonna get nerfed.
I don't think CCP can do it.
Additionally, even though this whine comes around probably once every week, I don't think the players would be able to actually deal with the fact that they look at local and they see an empty box. There's something fundamentally wrong with moving into a system and not knowing who all is there. It's like a very very very basic scanner. It lets you know who is there but you get no other details.
Getting rid of local will practically destroy EVE's playability for older players. Roaming is fun because we can HUNT. Take away the ability to find any sort of bread crumbs (such as jumping into a system and seeing your target there) and you take away the spirit of the game, which is PVP.
CCP won't do it. They just won't.
|
Kagura Nikon
Infinity Enterprises Odyssey.
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 11:03:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Alski Any form of removing local as an intel tool needs to come in the form of something that: A- does not require every player to spam the directional scanner constantly, creating yet more lag and being a pain to use. B- identifies friend from foe.
the idea of removign local as itenl tool is EXACLTY so people not automagically know who is there or not.
It SHOUDL need effort to discover who is in system. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
|
Kagura Nikon
Infinity Enterprises Odyssey.
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 11:06:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Siigari Kitawa Edited by: Siigari Kitawa on 19/03/2008 11:02:01 Local's not gonna get nerfed.
I don't think CCP can do it.
Additionally, even though this whine comes around probably once every week, I don't think the players would be able to actually deal with the fact that they look at local and they see an empty box. There's something fundamentally wrong with moving into a system and not knowing who all is there. It's like a very very very basic scanner. It lets you know who is there but you get no other details.
Getting rid of local will practically destroy EVE's playability for older players. Roaming is fun because we can HUNT. Take away the ability to find any sort of bread crumbs (such as jumping into a system and seeing your target there) and you take away the spirit of the game, which is PVP.
CCP won't do it. They just won't.
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. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
|
Zarin
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 11:17:00 -
[99]
Edited by: Zarin on 19/03/2008 11:19:37 The reality is they're not going to remove local until they replace it with a tool that does EXACTLY the same thing. So aside from using it for an un-intended purpose there's really no reason to remove it, since it will just be replaced with 'local substitute 1' that works just the same.
Remember if you replace it with constellation chat, people can get a warning you're coming to shoot them SEVERAL jumps out instead of just one. If you don't have it at all you will jump into a system and have to scan around it yourself to find out if there's anyone there to kill. Meanwhile they know you are coming as you've been scanned 3 jumps out by a cov-ops and have logged out anyway. So in no way is it actually going to make it easier for the attacker if it's removed.
Remember they're going to remove belts eventually as well, so you're to have to use your onboard scanner just to find the new 'belts' that they might be npcing in, and wait for results just so you can warp there and maybe find someone or not, you won't know until you get there.
|
Alfie Bester
Royal Hiigaran Navy
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 11:24:00 -
[100]
Quote: My opinion, probably stated many times before on the forums:
Either remove local completely (with negative "social" impacts resulting) or instead simply set local so that people only appear to others already in system if they choose to speak in it - or after a set time delay.
Thats what I think is the most elegant solution as well. Er, the latter part... then if you choose to speak in local you appear.
If we could go even further and say if you have picked up someone on scanner, then they stay in local until they leave system... that might be a compromise.
Removing local is NOT that crazy, imo because I believe that if there is one thing about EVE Players... its that we are a resourceful group of people.
I really think that CCP could make nearly any change to the game and we would all figure out how that change can be used to benefit ourselves.
Someone mentioned a "passive scanner"
If what they meant was: "If you leave your scanner open, and someone comes within range... it should auto update without having to hit scan." then that actually makes a lot of sense to me also.
Interesting topic!
|
|
Mostly Amazing
Mostly Amazing Corp
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 11:26:00 -
[101]
Forcing people into constellation chat and not in local chat is gonna make it ten times harder for 0.0 pvp roaming.
- You are gonna have to go around the entire system scanning for people, and with 0.0 being failry empty as it is. That's gonna take a lot of time. It's already annoying having to fly through so many systems just to find a target, this is gonna triple the time.
- Its gonna get easier to avoid hostiles. They can see them coming just by looking at constellation chat. -------------- I R Not Completely Amazing, But I R Mostly Amazing |
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 11:37:00 -
[102]
I don't get the: "remove local is what crappy pvp'er and gankers want" stuff.
I am primarily an industrialist. I feel that the MUTUAL anonymity of no local allows me to use my skill, knowledge and planning to survive in low sec rather than local. You seem to forget removing local does not give gankers a warp to point on you ffs. They are at exactley the same disadvantage as you are.
I hate knowing if there are enemies in local as they know im there too. I then have to endure smack whilst I navigate around them. I would much rather have the element of surprise in my transport ship.
And that is the crucial point. Local removes the most effective tool in war or survival. Surprise. Quarry can go to ground if their ears are sharper than the predator. It's very EvE. Risk vs Reward, darwinism yadda yadda.
Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
Siigari Kitawa
The Aduro Protocol
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 11:40:00 -
[103]
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.
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 11:44:00 -
[104]
Edited by: Celeste Coeval on 19/03/2008 11:44:42
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.
This already happens...every-single-day-in-eve.
Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
Caffeine Junkie
300 Spartans Celestial Frontier
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 11:51:00 -
[105]
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.
|
Siigari Kitawa
The Aduro Protocol
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 11:53:00 -
[106]
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).
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 11:57:00 -
[107]
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.
Uou do realize that although the cloaked alt is a problem that its ability to cover regions is very limited and to actually catch someone jump in and orchestrate a response is nearly impossible unless your gang knows the next system the guy / blob is going to.
I think afk cloakers are overated for intel. An active player cloaked collecting intel is many times more effective. Not to mention you wouldn't know there was an afk cloaker or a real cloaker anyway with current mechanics, unless the afk cloaker is there 23/7. You would not be able to make the distinction with no local. Further to that current mechanics mean that having an army of afk cloaker-alts would be of more benefit with 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.
|
Seldarine
Arcane Technologies The Five
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 11:59:00 -
[108]
CCP will NEVER remove local for the following reasons:
The vast majority of the playerbase has never, and will never set foot in 0.0.
The vast majority of the playerbase have never and will never pvp.
The vast majority of the playerbase is where CCP earn the vast majority of thier income. ______________________________
Seldarine
|
Celeste Coeval
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 12:00:00 -
[109]
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).
Your opinion is noted and valid, but so is mine. The difficulty is hammering out a solution thats eve like. Because there are many players that don't want to "let it go". Tools are great as long as they don't bestow omnipresence.
Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
Sajuukar
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 12:01:00 -
[110]
this is a bit of a crazy idea but ill just put it out there anyway:
if we just have a constellation channel , but instead of permanently staying in the channel, after entering a constellation you only appear in the channel for a limited amount of time (say 30 seconds or maybe 2 mins). this would mean tht a large blob of ppl would easily be seen entering the constellation , this therefore gives smaller gangs the advantage whilst disadvantaging a large blob. if a miner isnt paying attension to the channel then he may miss the solo pirate entering the constellation. Yet large mining ops can be carryed out in relative secrecy if done right.
|
|
Siigari Kitawa
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 12:05:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Celeste Coeval Your opinion is noted and valid, but so is mine. The difficulty is hammering out a solution thats eve like. Because there are many players that don't want to "let it go". Tools are great as long as they don't bestow omnipresence.
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"
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. |
Matrixcvd
Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 12:08:00 -
[112]
i would love this, but with the morons mounting their cause-a-week barage on nanos and ECM because they can't PVP, removing local and making people use their scanner for things other than ganking other ships... WELL THATS JUST TO MUCH FOR THE MEATHEADS TO TAKE YOU SEE...
get rid of local, just do it already
|
Torin Corax
Dark Nova Crisis Chain of Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 12:10:00 -
[113]
Speaking from the standpoint of a covops/ recon pilot Local is the most annoying tool in the game. There is little point acting as a scout if my war targets know I'm there the second I jump in. I believe there is something deeply flawed if an unidentifiable alt in a newb frig makes for a better scout than my main, when I have taken the time to train specifically for the role. Not to mention spending a reasonable sum on role-specific ships. Personally I'd support the removal of Local and have it replaced by a buff to the scanner.Possibly an increased range+auto-update, maybe have the scanner give increasing levels of information as range decreases. E.g: Maximum range (system wide perhaps) Indicates the presence of a ship only. Medium Range (approx. 20 Au) same level of info as at present. Short range (5 Au or less) pilot name (with or without right-click option?) This way, so long as a ship is cloaked, it would not show up. This would give the role of scout back to the covops pilots, and away from the alts.
Torin
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 12:12:00 -
[114]
Edited by: Celeste Coeval on 19/03/2008 12:12:47
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"
heh thankyou. Vocab "ftw".
I also don't fly with an alt. I enjoy solo play and tend to fly anywhere in eve I want to. I don't adhere to alliance boundaries or "camped" systems. I fly through amamake several times a day in an industrial. Only lost one so far in a few months. I feel that at least, ccp need to make local intel a modular thing and ranged at that.
I'm confident that with enough discussion a solution can be reached that appeases most parties on this issue.
Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 12:12:00 -
[115]
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin
there are bots designed to use local and log off the instant a hostile jumps in (can't be linked due to isd)
and the solution to these is to fix cloaking and change aggression mechanics for rats. Not to remove all profitability from 0.0 and low sec belt production.
|
Pushtan
The BlackHand Order FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 12:14:00 -
[116]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus Stupid forums ate my original post.
tl;dr version: was watching the dev interviews during the 5th Alliance Tournament. Oveur says "when the chat becomes an intel tool, it's a problem". Well, quite frankly, local has *always* been an intel tool since it has existed. If it's that fundamental of a problem, change it already.
Swap local/constellation chat functionality: force players to appear in constellation chat, and only appear in local if they speak. Problem solved. Minimum of coding. No new stuff required.
You guys (the devs) can't use the excuse that you don't like to make radical changes to the game: you removed instas and introduced WTZ. Can't get much more radical than that.
It's high time you removed local. It breaks so many things currently, and is partly responsible for many of the problems we currently have: the Jita situation, massive blob warfare, complete lack of stealth/sneak attacks, ISK farmers... the list goes on.
The dev team asks for constructive posts over and over. I submit that this post is entirely constructive, as I've stated the problem, and the solution, and the factors that contribute to the problem and how the solution would resolve the issue.
Thanks in advance, looking forward to constellation chat.
Im sorry.....WTF did you just suggest?!!? So, er, do you go to 0.0 or not? cus that might be all well and good for probers/scouts....what the hell you gonna do when your miners get ganked hourly cus they cant avoid hostiles?? and dont tell me you dont care about carebears, cus if you want to get ANYWHERE in this game you need miners to fuel your outpost/POS or build ships...
That is total bull, think about it, you'll never get anything industrial related done if all you can see is Constelation with 1000 red -'s in it - paranoia is bad enough without not knowing if your gonna get a cap fleet drop on your nice camp/squad...
Eejit.
[green]Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail |
J'Mkarr Soban
Proxenetae Invicti
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 12:16:00 -
[117]
The functionality is already there: player-made channels can be set so that people only show up when they talk, and disappear after a while. Just apply the same code to the local channel. Problem solved. ----------------------------- "Oh, we're sorry, you had the 'NakedAmarrChicks' bit flagged in your account somehow." "Wait, why was there even a flag for that to begin with?" "..." |
Soyemia
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 12:22:00 -
[118]
Constant scanner spam ftw? Official BoB fanboy. Called Stabemia. Corp hopper. |
Sky Marshal
Aeden Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 12:24:00 -
[119]
Edited by: Sky Marshal on 19/03/2008 12:26:24
Originally by: Kagura Nikon It SHOUDL need effort to discover who is in system.
Yes, EVE is a work, not a game, we should do all things hardly instead of enjoy the game.
Some solutions provided by the Remover Faction, requires that Corporations must support the change by themselves. Scouting, scanning, POS module who need fuel...
No one like scouting to permit others players to play, no one, as the scout want play too.
No one like scanning each second, but same if we extend the range of the scanner and make it automatic, this solves nothing. When we see someone in local, we can react immediatly. If the scanner find someone, it is probably too late, as the FOE is certainly warping on your position.
Originally by: Kagura Nikon 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.
This would improve the blobbing effect at contrary, as told by an another player before. As we don't know how much people there are or there will be, we will not take risks : +100 players minimum for fleet, minimum, to be sure to encounter any FOE fleet correctly, and add others allies fleets in the same time.
Originally by: Kagura Nikon Because then you wotn have automatic logoff of everyone in a low sec system when a pirate comes in.
Yes, everyone will love the obligation to stay connected more time than before to avoid a loss...
Originally by: Kagura Nikon 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).
Yes, and so many players will leave 0.0 and Low/sec because they can't mine or farm with a minimum of security. I will do the same.
It is too easy to ask a corporation or a group of players to adapt to have security, when we forget that the first goal, is playing.
A new time, this is a thread between the workers against the players.
Quote: Thats what I think is the most elegant solution as well. Er, the latter part... then if you choose to speak in local you appear.
Seriously, few players speaks in local, in lowsec or 0.0. Of course, it is not the case after a good fight or a fleet battle, but generaly the local is always empty.
Make this is the same than remove local, no one will ever speak after that, to note provide intel for FOE. This can become an alliance obligation too, but this don't give the same security than before removing local.
So, this solves nothing. ____
14/20 Revelations : Desyncs... 11/20 Trinity : BBSOD, Bugs, Desyncs, F*** Nerfs 10/20 1.1 : [...] + EXP shield nerf 07/20 ½ Not a single nerf + : What ?!?
CCP is the real problem of EVE. |
Avon
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 12:29:00 -
[120]
Edited by: Avon on 19/03/2008 12:31:12 Grr, forum ate my post.
Make local more local.
Points: Any ship within range of your ship's scanner appear in your local list (unless cloaked) automatically. Ship scanner range is modified for these purposes as: Scan range + (200AU*system sec status).
Cloaked ships can be revealed in local with a scan probe, but not their position. Range = probe range.
Fleet designated scouts relay their local scan information to all ships in a fleet (within the same system).
Speaking in local automatically reveals you.
I did a long write up on how that would effect gameplay, but I can't be bothered to type it again.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
|
Torin Corax
Dark Nova Crisis Chain of Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 12:37:00 -
[121]
Originally by: Sky Marshal Edited by: Sky Marshal on 19/03/2008 12:29:30
No one like scouting to permit others players to play, no one, as the scout want play too.
I beg to differ. I enjoy scouting, if I didn't I would not of bothered training for it. What makes it pointless is Local letting the very people I'm looking for know I'm there long before I can even locate their position. If Local is to stay at least make role-specific ships (Any ship capable of fitting a Covert-ops cloak)exempt from appearing in local. I would be happy to lose any/ all damage bonus on these ships as compensation for having a decent shot at fulfilling my proper role.
Torin
|
Kagura Nikon
Infinity Enterprises Odyssey.
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 12:52:00 -
[122]
Originally by: Sky Marshal STUFF
if YOU are a coward, that is not MY or anyoen else problem. Eve is not a game for cowards. Local has to go, because its just a support for cowards. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
|
Rhaegor Stormborn
Volition Cult The Volition Cult
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 13:19:00 -
[123]
I so hope they get rid of local as an intel tool! Constellation chat is in the game, use it!
Volition Cult Recruitment Post |
NightmareX
Quam Singulari Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 13:22:00 -
[124]
Siigari Kitawa, i'm soooo agreeing with you on this.
Those who don't see the whole point by removing local, also what bad things it brings by doing that, need to play EVE, seriously.
Local have been in EVE for many years, and it haven't been any problems with the local, and why should it be changed after 5 years?
And you say it will solve blobbing?, there is other things that will come and that will help with that soon.
CCP, fix my forum portrait goddamnit. |
Kappas.
Galaxy Punks Black Core Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 13:38:00 -
[125]
Ahh another week, another thread about removing local. __________________
|
Nohl
Faugh a Ballagh
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 13:40:00 -
[126]
Know what would be awesome? Removing cloaked ships from local. Know what would be more awesome? Not having some idiot disagree with this because "omg then my poor little carebear ship would get ganked because i wouldn't know not to jump that gate because i couldn't see the guy watching it from 100km off and then i'd go home a cry like an emo kid that got dumped by the fat girl". That'd be way more awesome.
|
RuleoftheBone
Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 13:49:00 -
[127]
While I would prefer to have local removed I can see the problems for a lot of the player base.
But consider current mechanics:
Scout jumps in...loads local..."FC-Scout 22 local 3 reds 19 neutrals".
All that info without having to do anything other than load system. Thats a bit ******-up for a "hardcore" game . You would think I could just turn my EvE-IFF transponder to the O-F-F position so you would actually have to LOOK for me .
"Lead Me..Follow Me..Or get the **** out of my way" General George Patton USA
|
0raven0
Point-Zero SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 13:50:00 -
[128]
This would actually do more to nerf the people hunting ratters than it would to nerf the ratters.
Hunter knows theres a ratter somwhere in the next 5 systems but as soon as he comes into constellation the ratter cloaks. The hunter now continues to fly to each and every corner of the next 5 systems and finds nothing. When he comes within scan range of the ratter the ratter can see him and realizes since he isn't seen himself he can decloak and start ratting as soon as this guy leaves scan range. Ratter leaves scan range, finds nothing and has no reason to go back to any specific spot in the last 20 places in 5 systems so ratter survives while hunter spends 20 times the time he would have spent with the local window. ------
Quote: tuxford: AT LEAST ITS SPEELED CORRECTLY tuxford: spelled* Oveur: rofl
|
Mannakin
Mercurialis Inc. Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 13:58:00 -
[129]
If you have a POS scanner at an alliance POS present in the system then everyone in the alliance, in that system, can see everyone in local.
So in alliance held space you can see the enemies coming into local. Your enemies get no intel about the system without scouting it. Maybe make cloaked recons ships invisible in local. Outside claimed space nobody appears on local.
|
Hohenheim OfLight
Pegasus Mining and Securities R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 14:07:00 -
[130]
remove local remove players, all that will happen is people will ether quit or go to empire, removing local basicall means you have to be in gang 100% of the time.
If any thing removing local will make even the simple act of mining blob war fair as you will need 4 mining ships and 50 man gang fro defense as you have no idea who is going to turn up.
Saying use scouts is ajoke, as in the end all that happens are rich plays buy yet another account and sit an alt scout on the gate cloacked and it beceomes who ever has teh most alt gate camping scouts wins.
Leave local alone like democrcey its the least evil choice.
N.B Yes nothing is spelt right in this post but this is not my pc and it does not have firfox speelelelele checker ;P ----------------------------------------------
Is mining for a hel mad? or just ambishus?
|
|
Haradgrim
Tyrell Corp INTERDICTION
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 14:25:00 -
[131]
uhh....why not just make local not insta-update the list of players in channel like player created channels are.
There. 100% fixed and no new game mechanics were needed....
Originally by: CCP Oveur ...every forum whine feels like a baby pony is getting killed
|
Torin Corax
Dark Nova Crisis Chain of Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 14:30:00 -
[132]
Another option is just have local show you as "unknown pilot" until you are in sight. it's the amount of info local gives you that is more annoying than anything else.
|
sakana
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 14:33:00 -
[133]
T'is a nice idea. Like others have said, it goes both ways, there is a feeling that you want to know if theres people in your space if you work for it, maybe some sort of anchorable Local scanner or something for POSs could do that though? I dunno.
|
Marcus TheMartin
Deadly Addiction Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 14:51:00 -
[134]
Edited by: Marcus TheMartin on 19/03/2008 14:53:11
Originally by: Kestrix Instead of removing local, why not offer the player the choice of two states, Dark: You can't talk in local but you can't be seen ether and Active: You can be seen in local and can chat to your hearts content. Think of it like a beacon on your ship, flip the switch and it starts transmitting who you are and enables you to talk to others who are also in this state.
Alts
Originally by: Seldarine CCP will NEVER remove local for the following reasons:
The vast majority of the playerbase has never, and will never set foot in 0.0.
The vast majority of the playerbase have never and will never pvp.
The vast majority of the playerbase is where CCP earn the vast majority of thier income.
Empire huggers in [SWA] don't need local as they can't be wardecced
Originally by: Torin Corax Another option is just have local show you as "unknown pilot" until you are in sight. it's the amount of info local gives you that is more annoying than anything else.
the local number count and portrait count have to go. If it ever got reduced to just the number count alliances would have a make yourself known policy when entering a system by just typing o/ when jumping in to a system.
A highslot module turret/launcher slot occupying passive scanner is the key to removing local
A short range scanner that detects signature radius's from 24m2 to ∞ at a distance of 10 AU
A long range scanner that detects signature radius's from 115m2 to ∞ at a distance of 30 AU
It allows a degree of safety to your precious cloaking ravens
with local gone it means there is more of a reason to rat in systems that are 30 AU+ in size as opposed to which one is more likely to spawn the officers as now no one would know you were there
|
Izzy Lizzy
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 14:53:00 -
[135]
I personally don't see any problem with local. Maybe it could use a few tweaks but it makes since to me. No one is more at an advantage than anyone else by using local. We all have access to it. There may be others that use it more to their advantage than someone else but the same tools are there to use for everyone.
I'm not a big roleplayer but I tend to look at the local chat from a roleplaying element and it makes sense in that light. The jump gates are obviously a sophisticated piece of technology and the computer systems they would have would keep a log of anyone who has jumped through them. Thus I just imagine that my ship's computer can access the jump gate's computer and download the public log of all who have jumped in and out of the system. I know my little idea doesn't explain why someone would show in local that used a jump bridge or whatever but I haven't really thought that far into it.
Quote: The average man will bristle if you say his father was dishonest, but he will brag a little if he discovers that his great-grandfather was a pirate.
|
Torin Corax
Dark Nova Crisis Chain of Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 15:06:00 -
[136]
Originally by: Izzy Lizzy I personally don't see any problem with local. Maybe it could use a few tweaks but it makes since to me. No one is more at an advantage than anyone else by using local. We all have access to it. There may be others that use it more to their advantage than someone else but the same tools are there to use for everyone.
Local gives a huge advantage to a defending force (during war) or a "prey" ship (if pirating). As the defender you get an instant alert to the presence of a scout/ attacker allowing you to immediately warp/ cloak. However as an attacker you still have to spend time using the scanner to locate your target. This makes it all but impossible to catch your target so long as he/ she is paying attention. Torin
|
Frug
Repo Industries R.E.P.O.
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 15:19:00 -
[137]
I used to hate local. I used to want to get rid of local.
Then I read all the thoughtless posts in this thread.
Now I'm convinced people are talking out of their asses and I want local to stay just to spite all the bad suggestions.
- - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles |
Marcus TheMartin
Deadly Addiction Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 15:23:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Frug I used to hate local. I used to want to get rid of local.
Then I read all the thoughtless posts in this thread.
Now I'm convinced people are talking out of their asses and I want local to stay just to spite all the bad suggestions.
why cut off your nose to spite your face?
|
Frug
Repo Industries R.E.P.O.
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 15:36:00 -
[139]
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin
Originally by: Frug I used to hate local. I used to want to get rid of local.
Then I read all the thoughtless posts in this thread.
Now I'm convinced people are talking out of their asses and I want local to stay just to spite all the bad suggestions.
why cut off your nose to spite your face?
The answer is contained in your question.
Spite.
- - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles |
Marcus TheMartin
Deadly Addiction Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 15:46:00 -
[140]
Originally by: Frug
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin
Originally by: Frug I used to hate local. I used to want to get rid of local.
Then I read all the thoughtless posts in this thread.
Now I'm convinced people are talking out of their asses and I want local to stay just to spite all the bad suggestions.
why cut off your nose to spite your face?
The answer is contained in your question.
Spite.
but then you don't have a nose
|
|
Frug
Repo Industries R.E.P.O.
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 15:52:00 -
[141]
I didn't want that nose anyway
- - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles |
Lord Zoran
House of Tempers
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 15:55:00 -
[142]
Originally by: NightmareX Siigari Kitawa, i'm soooo agreeing with you on this.
Those who don't see the whole point by removing local, also what bad things it brings by doing that, need to play EVE, seriously.
Local have been in EVE for many years, and it haven't been any problems with the local, and why should it be changed after 5 years?
And you say it will solve blobbing?, there is other things that will come and that will help with that soon.
this.
why the hell does local really need removing?
|
Marcus TheMartin
Deadly Addiction Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 15:56:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Lord Zoran
Originally by: NightmareX Siigari Kitawa, i'm soooo agreeing with you on this.
Those who don't see the whole point by removing local, also what bad things it brings by doing that, need to play EVE, seriously.
Local have been in EVE for many years, and it haven't been any problems with the local, and why should it be changed after 5 years?
And you say it will solve blobbing?, there is other things that will come and that will help with that soon.
this.
why the hell does local really need removing?
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Blob?
|
Avon
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 15:59:00 -
[144]
Originally by: Frug I used to hate local. I used to want to get rid of local.
Then I read all the thoughtless posts in this thread.
Now I'm convinced people are talking out of their asses and I want local to stay just to spite all the bad suggestions.
You could, you know, discuss the suggestions to come up with better solutions ... what with this being a discussion forum, an' all.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Ulstan
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 15:59:00 -
[145]
Local has always been an intel tool. I can't remember the last time I chatted in local.
And enough of the 'they only appear in local when they speak.' Just make them not appear in local period. Ever. Only in the 'constellation chat' or whatever.
|
Cailais
VITOC
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 16:19:00 -
[146]
My belief is that Local, as a source of intelligence should be a function of the security level of a system.
Your Local channel would display 'known pilots' within a given AU of your own ship, the greater the Sec level of a system the greater your 'Local' scan range.
For example, in .9 system your local scan range is 90AU, in a .8 it is 80AU and so forth.
Alliances holding Sov would have the ability to place structures that increase the scanning reception of all ships in a given system (effectively creating a quasi Sec Status for the system).
This means that Local 'intelligence' in Low Sec systems is subject to a good degree of doubt, depending on the size of the system itself. This would no doubt be advantageous to both the pirate who wished to remain unseen and the non-pirate seeking to remain undiscovered by casual inspection.
The large range of the Local Scan range in high Sec systems however offers increased warning to those under a War Dec and of course enables a more social environment for those that choose to use it.
C.
Improved Low Sec Idea!! |
Zorlag
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 16:23:00 -
[147]
Originally by: Frug
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin
Originally by: Frug I used to hate local. I used to want to get rid of local.
Then I read all the thoughtless posts in this thread.
Now I'm convinced people are talking out of their asses and I want local to stay just to spite all the bad suggestions.
why cut off your nose to spite your face?
The answer is contained in your question.
Spite.
We're not so different, you and I...
|
N00byn00blar
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 16:33:00 -
[148]
Originally by: Avon
You could, you know, discuss the suggestions to come up with better solutions ... what with this being a discussion forum, an' all.
Ok, I'll bite. Firstly, what is the problem local is causing that needs a solution? I don't see it written anywhere. Okay, apart from "when I come into local, everybody docks/logs/hides/takes their knickers off". BOO HOO! So they should if they are at risk. Otherwise, nobody without a PvP fit would ever undock - and no, we can't all be escorted 23/7 everywhere we go by a bunch of goons.
Having established we don't want local to be an intel tool, we then proceed to try to create a game mechanism whereby we can remove local and then replace it with another mechanism that is an intel tool.
Are you watching where I'm going with this?
What's the point!
|
Frug
Repo Industries R.E.P.O.
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 16:34:00 -
[149]
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin
blah blah...
you forgot to mention that your client mods would become useless
What's all this client modding business?
- - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles |
Jin Entres
Malevolent Intervention Reavers.
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 16:37:00 -
[150]
Originally by: Avon Edited by: Avon on 19/03/2008 12:31:12 Grr, forum ate my post.
Make local more local.
Points: Any ship within range of your ship's scanner appear in your local list (unless cloaked) automatically. Ship scanner range is modified for these purposes as: Scan range + (200AU*system sec status).
Cloaked ships can be revealed in local with a scan probe, but not their position. Range = probe range.
Fleet designated scouts relay their local scan information to all ships in a fleet (within the same system).
Speaking in local automatically reveals you.
I did a long write up on how that would effect gameplay, but I can't be bothered to type it again.
I was going to suggest something like this. In addition the number of people in local could always update in real time, so that you could see blobs jump in even though you wouldn't know who they are until you went into scan range. You'd therefore also always know how many people are in system, as we do know.
Additionally, cloaked ships could also appear in local (not overview) without probing if they are on the same grid. That way if you sat on a gate for example, you would always get people jumping in updated in your local immediately, but you would need someone else covering other gates or risk being ambushed if your scan range doesn't cover them.
The scan range dependency on system security status would be an additional feature worth considering, but not mandatory for the idea to work otherwise. The detection radius could be a standard that is deemed fair in general, or it could even depend on ship class, encouraging the scouting role of some ships (*cough* Assault Frigates *cough*).
In any case, adding more functionality to increase risks to local is the way to go in my opinion, not its complete removal. --- CEO
|
|
Kerfira
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 16:37:00 -
[151]
Originally by: Mannakin If you have a POS scanner at an alliance POS present in the system then everyone in the alliance, in that system, can see everyone in local.
So in alliance held space you can see the enemies coming into local. Your enemies get no intel about the system without scouting it. Maybe make cloaked recons ships invisible in local. Outside claimed space nobody appears on local.
This is probably one of the only solutions suggested that'll work. It should probably require sov 2 to put up the scanning module.
MAYBE(!) ships with cov-ops cloaks should not be seen, but this is probably too big an advantage to the hunter.
A pure removal of local will not work since there has to be some way for people in system to be warned when enemies approach that doesn't involve spamming scan buttons for maybe hours on end (as already said). It'll simply be too lopsided between prey and hunter.... Hunter: Jump into system, scan once (or maybe 2-3 times in a big system), move on if nothing there. Prey: Continously spam scan button for maybe hours on end (mining ops, ratting)
If the advantage to the attacker is too great, then people will simply not do ratting/mining in 0.0 and'll simply go do L4's in highsec (ie. there'll be nothing to hunt), leaving 0.0 even more barren.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Severe Civire
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 16:38:00 -
[152]
My 0.02 ISK: Nerf local - show numbers only perhaps, or nothing at all. Leave the channel for communication tho, maybe show friendlies?
When someone activates the directional scanner it is announced to all in the scan range in local channel "a scan ping has been detected". This could be an innate ability or tied to a deployable. Point is this fixes the need for anyone to spam the scanner every 30 secs.
|
Avon
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 16:44:00 -
[153]
Originally by: Jin Entres
The scan range dependency on system security status would be an additional feature worth considering, but not mandatory for the idea to work otherwise. The detection radius could be a standard that is deemed fair in general, or it could even depend on ship class, encouraging the scouting role of some ships (*cough* Assault Frigates *cough*).
I threw the sec status thing in to stop the high-sec carebears from whining too much tbh - the 200AU figure was purely arbitary. Lo-sec would become increasingly less information rich, and 0.0 would be no better than using your scanner .. without actually having to use your scanner.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Avon
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 16:47:00 -
[154]
Edited by: Avon on 19/03/2008 16:48:02
Originally by: N00byn00blar
Are you watching where I'm going with this?
What's the point!
The point is that some of the features in the game a rendered less effective or pointless by people automatically appearing in local. Take for example using the covert jump-bridge on a covops battleship bridging other covert ships to a covert cyno in another system. All a bit pointless when they suddenly appear in local isn't it?
Hardly covert.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Commander 598
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 16:48:00 -
[155]
Honestly, I kind of like the "You only appear on a ship's local user list if you come within scan range of that ship". One should still pick up whatever is being spoken but the speaker wouldn't be ID'd unless in range. This could be augmented by POS/stations/whatever and be irrelevent in highsec due to highsec NPC factions/concord/whatever shoving the same information down everyone's throat regardless of their corp (I guess that's in RP terms but whatever...you get the idea...)
A more complex but basically the same idea is to remove the local channel, replace it with constellation but nobody shows up unless they talk (Or no list at all). THEN, you take the scanner and stick it on screen like a flight sim's radar and have it show you everything within however many AU it picks up (With a warning for friendly/enemy ships that come on scanner), also augmented by NPC factions and your own corp/alliance's stuff. Could also make gates "modable" by allowing whoever holds sov to stick special modules on them one for reporting who came through, one for logging who's been through, and possibly one for password protecting or turning off the gates for an entire system or constellation if you want but that's another issue...and a huge one I guess...(Could make up some RP reason for not having it since all gates belong to an Empire faction or make jump capable ships not exactly require a beacon in some way...)
|
Vanessa Vale
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 18:02:00 -
[156]
Originally by: Pooka
Originally by: Avon Ignore Oveur, he tends to turn his back on his convictions if there is the slightest moan.
Shame really.
Hope not. He promised me personally during the Vegas gathering that ther would all ways be a place in EVE for solo players and care bears!!! And it didn't even cost me a beer for him to say that!
That place being docked at a station.
|
Shidhe
The Babylon5 Consortuim
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 18:13:00 -
[157]
I smell lions voting for all zebras to be caught and barbequed. Then what happens to the lions when the zebras are all dead or run away?
So what is the problem exactly? The OP didn't state it - apart from some red herrings that are nothing to do with local. Sorry - there was one point - lack of sneak attacks. This is how to kill ALL the zebra above.
OK, sorry for being a bit destructive, I really do see problems in local. But to have OTT posts blaming local for everything short of the price of cream muffins won't help.
There are several problems, but the lack of secrecy for offensive manoevers is the main one. The biggest problem here is the map system pilot count, not local. Without local fleet commanders would have to assign a cov ops to every gate instead of every system that they want to monitor - hardly a very interesting or rewarding position. Then there is the mass login fleet tactic - arranged for a previously swept locked down system, so in game terms (as opposed to game mechanics) it should be clean. At least local gives some warning of mass logins, or forces them to be in strategic positions to be effective.
Hunting ships in 0.0 without local really is a needle in a haystack job (it isn't easy even with local) - making even more PvP happen at gate camps, rather than hunting / chasing / hiding, which is much more fun. [Or try finding war targets in empire - much the same...] Again boredom with everyone sitting at a gatecamp FTW.
So the use of local is a really varied idea - if it is to be replaced, then how is system scanning to be done? Under what circumstances should it be done? What do we want to happen to make gameplay more mobile and fun? Do we want to move the 0.0 economy largely into exploration (as fixed sites like belts would be too risky), with some pop-ups indicating when scan probes are launched in system? [probably not a good idea, but then we need lots of ideas...]
What we don't want is some half baked solution that would empty low sec and 0.0 of carebears without massive blob escorts - the problem at the moment seems to be getting people into low sec and 0.0! No local gameplay would be a combination of killing carebears in belts (for about 3 days before they packed up) and gatecamps and blobs.
What do we want gameplay to be? - then try to make mechanics to bring that about!
|
Phyrr
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 18:14:00 -
[158]
Originally by: Torin Corax
Originally by: Sky Marshal Edited by: Sky Marshal on 19/03/2008 12:29:30
No one like scouting to permit others players to play, no one, as the scout want play too.
I beg to differ. I enjoy scouting, if I didn't I would not of bothered training for it. What makes it pointless is Local letting the very people I'm looking for know I'm there long before I can even locate their position. If Local is to stay at least make role-specific ships (Any ship capable of fitting a Covert-ops cloak)exempt from appearing in local. I would be happy to lose any/ all damage bonus on these ships as compensation for having a decent shot at fulfilling my proper role.
Torin
I agree, I scout for celeste and will also scout for isk:)
The odds on me being here are rather slim evolutionary speaking, yet in the infinite bounds of probability my being here is a certainty. |
Bish Ounen
Omni-Core Freedom Fighters Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 18:33:00 -
[159]
Originally by: Avon Edited by: Avon on 19/03/2008 16:48:02
Originally by: N00byn00blar
Are you watching where I'm going with this?
What's the point!
The point is that some of the features in the game a rendered less effective or pointless by people automatically appearing in local. Take for example using the covert jump-bridge on a covops battleship bridging other covert ships to a covert cyno in another system. All a bit pointless when they suddenly appear in local isn't it?
Hardly covert.
While I can certainly agree with this point in principle, as a 50/50 denizen of both hisec and 0.0, I can say without a doubt that the problem with completely removing local and not supplying some other kind of scanning and defense mechanism is that you take a situation already tilted heavily in favor of an attacking force to a ridiculous level.
Removing local allows the defending force NO simple and efficient method for detecting the attackers until they are on top of your POS or Outpost with a 200 ship fleet and blasting you to bits.
It's bad enough that you can't even put GUNS around your outpost to defend it with, (You can make a veritable Death Star out of a POS, but the MUCH more expensive and difficult to procure Outpost cannot have guns? WTF?) or even see OUT of a station or an outpost to see if your undock point is camped and bubbled. NOW we aren't even allowed to know if anyone red is even in our local space? What's the point of ever going out to 0.0? Who is going to volunteer for guard duty, and just orbit around a gate or a station ALL DAY to guard it like NPC ships do?
You can being to see the problem here. Yes, I agree that COVERT ships, like Cov-Ops and Black ops should NOT show up in local while they are cloaked, or unless they speak in local. But all other ships should, OR we need to add an inexpensive "System scanner" module to the POS mod lineup that would give the owning corp or alliance the same effect as local does now.
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 18:38:00 -
[160]
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
Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
|
Phyrr
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 18:41:00 -
[161]
Originally by: RuleoftheBone While I would prefer to have local removed I can see the problems for a lot of the player base.
But consider current mechanics:
Scout jumps in...loads local..."FC-Scout 22 local 3 reds 19 neutrals".
All that info without having to do anything other than load system. Thats a bit ******-up for a "hardcore" game . You would think I could just turn my EvE-IFF transponder to the O-F-F position so you would actually have to LOOK for me .
Yea as a covert ops pilot TBH, i'd like more to do than jump through a gate and look at a list that is magically generated by who? the enemy?
The odds on me being here are rather slim evolutionary speaking, yet in the infinite bounds of probability my being here is a certainty. |
Tuschii
Filthy Scum Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 18:49:00 -
[162]
Although i agree with your ideas and points Bellum i think that this will create, a new market for Off-gate instas, and scan spam. Mostly the people who do not have these Off-gate instas/BM's will die and whine (A la WTZ). I don't have a problem with this but apparently CCP will, thats what i think is preventing them from making a such a simple change now. We need to come up with a way to remove local that CCP will actually introduce.... Tus ---
- Omega man ~ Post with your alt, your main is stupid. -
|
Eventy One
Magellan Exploration and Survey Phoenix Rising Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 18:50:00 -
[163]
Personally this debate is getting stale.
There are, IMHO, valid reasons why local should be: 1. Left as is 2. Scrapped.
.. yet the debate goes on ..
|
Phyrr
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 18:56:00 -
[164]
Originally by: Tuschii Although i agree with your ideas and points Bellum i think that this will create, a new market for Off-gate instas, and scan spam. Mostly the people who do not have these Off-gate instas/BM's will die and whine (A la WTZ). I don't have a problem with this but apparently CCP will, thats what i think is preventing them from making a such a simple change now. We need to come up with a way to remove local that CCP will actually introduce.... Tus ---
I already have these off gate "instas". They are in my people & places folder under Tactical
The odds on me being here are rather slim evolutionary speaking, yet in the infinite bounds of probability my being here is a certainty. |
Bish Ounen
Omni-Core Freedom Fighters Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 19:03:00 -
[165]
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.
|
Burnharder
Tiny Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 19:08:00 -
[166]
Originally by: Celeste Coeval
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.
Yes, you can argue precisely this, because everybody knows where the best mining systems are. They are easy to find û just check out real sec status, so if I want to jump a bunch of miners, I know EXACTLY where I should head. There is a lot of static content in Eve that needs to become dynamic if removing local is ever going to work - and I'm not just talking dynamic within any given system - I mean the bistot roids (for example) have to move around the constellation, randomly - or at least the chance of probing them out changes around randomly for any given system. This could be painful, because people might have built outposts in good systems, for convenience. Removing local changes the whole dynamic.
I have no objection to local being removed (replaced with constellation chat - if you like - because it's an important socialising tool as well as anything else), as long as your enemy needs to probe you down to find you - and as long as some automatic mechanism for knowing when you are being probed (i.e. not spamming the scanner) is available for deployment at said mining site (anchorable sensor) - that *does not* require sovereignty. I don't want to have 1.5 seconds to pack up and leave if someone is in my system - I don't want my survival to be down to chance either - I want to know, *for sure*, that I have, say, 30 seconds to get out, or risk being podded.
And even given all that, I will still have to meta-game (with an alt) in order to travel.
|
Kirex
Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 19:19:00 -
[167]
It's incredible how hard it is to kill an NPCer in 0.0 these days. I've finished training for a Vagabond a few days ago thinking I'll take a vacation and head into 0.0 to kill some NPCers to have fun/make money. So far, I've killed nothing. It's not because I suck, it's because every NPCer is either aligned out, cloaked, logged, SSed, stabbed, or they form a blob everytime I entered local. I'd take anything that gives me even a slight chance of catching one of them, even a 10 second delay. :/
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 19:21:00 -
[168]
@ Bish
I see no reason why alliances can't be given more tools. I would like to see higher sov systems become more like city states with sentries at gates and full info on all system intel via pos / station modules that feed into alliance intel channel/inboxes/wherever ccp makes it to.
For the borders of territory(sov1), simpler observation outposts that could be either pos add on's or structures in their own right could be implemented. I think removing local would make CCP make 0.0 much more fun. Constellation sov would be something for an alliance to strive for and have fantastic benefits for defense. The observation outposts could also provide strategic targets for the opposing alliances. To use an example, sending bombers/sas teams to take out radar dishes before comitting the larger force.
I think CCP already has these sorts of things in mind for 0.0, with the introduction of cyno jammers and jump bridges. I believe these are the groundwork for many great new features.
@ Burn
CCP is moving away from static eve...slowly but surely. All i can say is exploration was the precursor to an overhaul of such things. Cosmic anomalies are an example of this.
Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
Maxpie
Cross Roads Ouroboros Cross Combine
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 19:32:00 -
[169]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus Swap local/constellation chat functionality
/signed
He put... creatures... in our bodies... to control our minds. He made us... say lies... do things. |
Bellum Eternus
Death of Virtue Sex Panthers
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 19:36:00 -
[170]
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.
Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I |
|
Jessica Hoothra
Independant Union of Rangers
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 19:40:00 -
[171]
Whatever happens to local, please don't merge it with constellation chat. I really cba to have to listen to goons smack talk whole constellations. At least now, all I have to do is move to the system next door.
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 19:41:00 -
[172]
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.
Discussion requires looking at a problem from every angle. If you can't convince the naysayers you've lost half the battle.
Debate is multifaceted so expect multifaceted opinions and include everyone and you will get somewhere. Read my bio in game and you'll understand:)
Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
Sky Marshal
Aeden Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 19:44:00 -
[173]
Edited by: Sky Marshal on 19/03/2008 19:46:38
Originally by: Kagura Nikon if YOU are a coward, that is not MY or anyoen else problem. Eve is not a game for cowards. Local has to go, because its just a support for cowards.
Like probably more than 50% of the player base who stay in Empire and who are difficult to move in low/null sec... Well ok, I am in 0.0 and have some kills, but because there is local to be able to move and find targets.
I never understand why some players ask to make lowsec/nullsec more appealing, but at the same time they ask to make these areas more hard to play. Same if, of course, some tools would be provided to compensate the removed local, nothing can generate the same amount of security than local (who is not maximum anyway).
Know that the hunter will be a few blind is reassuring, but you are blinded too, so who will panic the most ? The standard player who do mining/farm/Caldari non-solo player, or the professional hunter ?
Maybe the quality of PVP will be better (personaly I think it will become more annoying in reality), but there will certainly have less players to do it, when low/null will be considered too risky to be interesting.
And same if some solutions seems interesting, they have some problems. POS structures for exemple, would need some POS and fuel, so more work for logistic section, as they don't have already enough work to do ____
14/20 Revelations : Desyncs... 11/20 Trinity : BBSOD, Bugs, Desyncs, F*** Nerfs 10/20 1.1 : [...] + EXP shield nerf 07/20 ½ Not a single nerf + : What ?!?
CCP is the real problem of EVE. |
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 19:50:00 -
[174]
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.
|
Gort
Storm Guard Elite
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 19:51:00 -
[175]
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
-- When in doubt, empty the magazine. |
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 19:54:00 -
[176]
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
please read the entire thread, it's quite interesting :)
Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
Bellum Eternus
Death of Virtue Sex Panthers
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 19:54:00 -
[177]
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.
Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I |
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 19:59:00 -
[178]
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.
If you want to get anywhere I suggest you don't mention WoW, fail, or other such forum pitfalls. WoW also is not a PvP game.
Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
Gort
Storm Guard Elite
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 19:59:00 -
[179]
Originally by: Celeste Coeval
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
please read the entire thread, it's quite interesting :)
You know, I've read many pages on this subject in the past(it's not a new one, no offense meant). There probably is some quite interesting bits here and there. But right now, I'm not in the mood to read the whole thing. Thanks, anyhow. If you would like to list a couple of the highpoints, I'd be interested in what you think they are.
Regards,
G
-- When in doubt, empty the magazine. |
Bish Ounen
Omni-Core Freedom Fighters Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 20:01:00 -
[180]
@ 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.
|
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 20:02:00 -
[181]
Well the thread seems to be mainly headed in a direction towards a more complex redesign of giving tools for players to use to counter locals removal. I'd say (having read and even started many local threads before) that this one is going somewhere.
Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
Avon
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 20:07:00 -
[182]
Originally by: Bish Ounen But all other ships should, OR we need to add an inexpensive "System scanner" module to the POS mod lineup that would give the owning corp or alliance the same effect as local does now.
I had those in my original post that the forums decided to munch up, and forgot to add them to the replacement post, my bad.
No problem whatsoever with system scanning POS modules. Just make sure they are outside the POS and destructable - and issue complete killmails if they die. (Then at least you know what was there killing it before everything went dark! :D)
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 20:10:00 -
[183]
See the remove of local could be immensely enriching content wise.
Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
Burnharder
Tiny Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 20:16:00 -
[184]
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?
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 20:22:00 -
[185]
Edited by: Celeste Coeval on 19/03/2008 20:24:00
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?
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. I'm not setting things in stone here, I am not CCP You raise some good points so why not create a solution to your own points. Surely theres a little bit of everyone that finds local a little odd.
Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
Bellum Eternus
Death of Virtue Sex Panthers
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 20:27:00 -
[186]
Originally by: Celeste Coeval
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.
If you want to get anywhere I suggest you don't mention WoW, fail, or other such forum pitfalls. WoW also is not a PvP game.
Just poking a bit of fun. No I don't take anything about WoW seriously, and I don't expect anyone else to either.
Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I |
Burnharder
Tiny Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 20:27:00 -
[187]
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.
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 20:30:00 -
[188]
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.
I dont think you are seeing that no local can be of benefit to the carebear. I am an industrialist and trader and I am arguing for no local in it's current form. I know the risks and I still want it why? read my earlier posts. I want to be able to use the distances and topography to my advantage not a window of omnipresence.
Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
Burnharder
Tiny Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 20:51:00 -
[189]
Edited by: Burnharder on 19/03/2008 20:51:05
Originally by: Celeste Coeval
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.
I dont think you are seeing that no local can be of benefit to the carebear. I am an industrialist and trader and I am arguing for no local in it's current form. I know the risks and I still want it why? read my earlier posts. I want to be able to use the distances and topography to my advantage not a window of omnipresence.
Yes I can see very clearly how this would benefit "us", but only if you make all content dynamic - because not having local is a big loss to those who exploit static resources (the enemy always know where you are). That is: no static agent locations, no static asteroid belts, no static complexes, no static moon mining, etc. etc. Then you are on an equal footing. You are as hard to locate as they are.
|
Asuka Smith
StarHunt Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 20:52:00 -
[190]
Local means every fight has to be a stand-up fight where both sides are willing to engage, or an obscenely elaborate trap where you are camping the opposite side of every gate in system with a dictor and tackler.
Local makes everyone invulnerable except for idiots who do not understand what a SS chain is. I mine, exclusively now, but I used to PVP and so I can appreciate that this change NEEDS to be implemented. Those saying that the only people who want local removed are pirates looking for a cheap gank are idiots with no grasp of the big picture...
|
|
Atsuko Yamamoto
The Nietzian Way Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 21:11:00 -
[191]
What people are saying about using more tedious "hands on" approach to detection of other vessels and possibly their standing would only add a great amount of work to this game. WORK and GAME do not belong in the same sentence. I don't want to work all day to come home to a game that makes me work.
CCP talks about realism and wanting a realistic game as much can be allowed, well lets look at current technology. Air radar and IFF transponders pretty can do what local does for us now, and even marine technology we have AIS which does the same thing. You can look at the info and be told course, speed, type, name, IMO number, and even a short description. All local says is "your not alone".
People want this more "realistic" approach to knowing who is near you. As far as I see it would make 0.0 mining operations a complete liability and needing an entire squadron of vessels to ensure towers and OPs stay fueled for the week. Logistics and communications on who is where would be a constant "what who where" over voice and chat, griefers in empire would have a field day taking out smaller corps, and generally the whole of paranoia and resignation to not even bother logging in would grow.
This is a GAME folks, entertainment, not work. Local isn't that bad, people still get ganked, get away, dock up, and so on. I just don't want to put that much serious work into something I do for fun. ____________________________________ "MONKEY!!"-Gir |
Dewa
Surgically Removed Red Republic
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 21:28:00 -
[192]
Originally by: Asuka Smith Local means every fight has to be a stand-up fight where both sides are willing to engage, or an obscenely elaborate trap where you are camping the opposite side of every gate in system with a dictor and tackler.
And this is one of the roots of it - the fact is that local breaks the game. It breaks anything covert, it breaks hiding in infinite space and it breaks ambushes. Why should someone passing through a 0.0 system with literally nothing in it but 1 ratter and his prey (and that ratter safespotted and cloaked!) instantly know that someone is there? And not only that someone is there, but exactly who they are?
I agree with many previous posters that the solution is more stuff. I want POS modules that do auto-update scanning like local did, but are fooled by cloaks.
I want anchorable, optionally cloakable sensors that small gangs and soloers can put in systems, perhaps near gates to give them system intel when someone enters. Make them expensive. Make them destroyable. Make it so there's a limit you can have running, much like drones, with an associated skillset.
I also agree that static resources need to move around more in order to handle this local-free system.
One final thing - any scheme that makes local range dependent is not going to work. I would guess (and would bet I am right) that local is basically an irc channel with the name of the system. It's almost certainly completely unhooked from the actual node that runs the system. Thus it's not contributing to lag in any way, but it's also not able to do anything like filtering by range (without suddenly being a cause of lag). Don't lose your loose change, loser. |
Asuka Smith
StarHunt Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 21:52:00 -
[193]
Originally by: Atsuko Yamamoto This is a GAME folks, entertainment, not work. Local isn't that bad, people still get ganked, get away, dock up, and so on. I just don't want to put that much serious work into something I do for fun.
Flying 30 jumps in 0.0 until you find someone who is stupid enough to keep ratting instead of going to a SS sounds like work to me...
Non-consensual PVP is what makes this game hardcore. Local is the anathema to non-consensual PVP. Also, why should 0.0 mining not be harder? 0.0 last I checked is supposed to be risky, but I see more hulks getting blown in empire than in 0.0
In fact, I do not see anybody dying in 0.0 that does not want to die, the only non-consensual PVP left is in empire where people think they are safe. I want the pirates to have to look for people, and I want the people to have to look out for pirates.
Local is what makes this game a job, it is what allows macro ratters to do their thing, and it saps the fun from PVP and devalues minerals. If mining was harder minerals would be worth more, and I would have fun mining for massive profits in 0.0 but always being on my toes.
|
Kyra Felann
Noir.
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 23:14:00 -
[194]
Originally by: RuleoftheBone Errr...you do know that a ton of people are sitting intently glued to screens and monitors LOOKING for things right? Passive refers to the sensor type...not the work involved .
And the reason capsuleers use pods is because they eliminate the need for much of the crew, probably including the people watching screens for blips and saying "captain, we've got five new contacts bearing blah blah". The pod's computer and the pilot's brain handles that sort of thing.
You're right about passive vs active as far as how they work, but it would be nice if there was a way to get sensor data on things that are close without having to click "scan" constantly.
Speaking of active vs passive, maybe something where either you're actively scanning, which makes you show up on all sensors but you can find ships better, or you're passively scanning, which lets you only see other actively scanning ships or ships that are close enough for your sensors to pick up their heat/radiation/whatever signatures (unless they're cloaked, of course, or maybe have some shielding/heatsink type modules to reduce their signature). Active would be similar to being on local, passive would be like being off local but still being able to see relatively close ships without having to scan constantly.
|
Kyra Felann
Noir.
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 23:20:00 -
[195]
Originally by: Burnharder 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.
I'm pretty sure he doesn't mean how much you have to click it when he wrote "active" and "passive". I took that to mean either you're actively "pinging" with radar or whatever or your sitting there silent passively listening and looking for pings, heat signatures, etc. The former would give you a more complete picture of what's out there, but would light you up on everyone else's sensors. The latter would not advertise your presence, but you wouldn't be able to see as much in the system, or as far.
|
Kyra Felann
Noir.
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 23:28:00 -
[196]
Originally by: Dewa And this is one of the roots of it - the fact is that local breaks the game. It breaks anything covert, it breaks hiding in infinite space and it breaks ambushes. Why should someone passing through a 0.0 system with literally nothing in it but 1 ratter and his prey (and that ratter safespotted and cloaked!) instantly know that someone is there? And not only that someone is there, but exactly who they are?
I agree. It also breaks immersion and makes space feel smaller. In high-sec--and maybe low-sec to a lesser degree--it would make sense that all ships would be expected to broadcast an identification code so that who was in system would be freely-available information. But a cloaked ship wouldn't be broadcasting a signal like that. In null-sec and low-sec it wouldn't really make sense for any ships to be broadcasting that they're in system and who they are.
Gates could keep track of who enters and exits and stations could have scanners to keep track of who docks or undocks. But if you're floating silently out in space and not broadcasting (especially if you're cloaked) you shouldn't be included in a nice neat list of everyone who's in system that's available to everyone at no risk or effort.
|
Jayna Keria
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 23:34:00 -
[197]
Yes local is a ***** when trying to kill a war target without them being alerted. but than again...how do you know the war-target is there without local
and yes locator agents I have used but it is not entirely practical.
|
Rhaegor Stormborn
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 23:37:00 -
[198]
Originally by: Asuka Smith
Originally by: Atsuko Yamamoto This is a GAME folks, entertainment, not work. Local isn't that bad, people still get ganked, get away, dock up, and so on. I just don't want to put that much serious work into something I do for fun.
Flying 30 jumps in 0.0 until you find someone who is stupid enough to keep ratting instead of going to a SS sounds like work to me...
Non-consensual PVP is what makes this game hardcore. Local is the anathema to non-consensual PVP. Also, why should 0.0 mining not be harder? 0.0 last I checked is supposed to be risky, but I see more hulks getting blown in empire than in 0.0
In fact, I do not see anybody dying in 0.0 that does not want to die, the only non-consensual PVP left is in empire where people think they are safe. I want the pirates to have to look for people, and I want the people to have to look out for pirates.
Local is what makes this game a job, it is what allows macro ratters to do their thing, and it saps the fun from PVP and devalues minerals. If mining was harder minerals would be worth more, and I would have fun mining for massive profits in 0.0 but always being on my toes.
Excellent Post.
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. Volition Cult Recruitment Post |
Siigari Kitawa
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 23:46:00 -
[199]
I'm going to say this once, and after that I'm really done posting in a "nerf local" thread.
Local exists for one purpose, and this is a fact: it allows you to see who is in the system with you.
Period.
Everything that is derived from local after that is because a player used Local to his advantage. Those that choose not to use local cannot complain then that Local is broken because it is an intel gathering tool because they too have the exact same Local as the other guy.
Local is a game mechanic to which everyone can use to their advantage. CCP provides us tools which we can choose to use or not use. Saying local is broken because people can jump into a system and do an analysis of who is there has no ground to stand on because you can just as easily then open the scanner and GET YOUR ACTUAL INTELLIGENCE. I mean, crap.
If I jump into a system in my Ishtar and see 10 hostiles, oh no! I'm gonna die! Wait, I should use my scanner to see what they're flying. Oh, they're all in shuttles. Well, I'm going to be okay.
See, using local in harmony with your other tools makes it a powerful tool and not a problem. Removing it WILL cause the problem.
Finally, I will end my discussion in this thread with an analogy:
Nerf weapons. Weapons cause damage to ships and causes them to explode. The people with the most weapons wins, because they can out-damage their opponent. How do you solve this problem? Get more weapons. It is not CCP's problem to provide you with more weapons, so use the game mechanics to do it yourself.
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. |
Artemis Byte
Boennerup Banden
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 00:05:00 -
[200]
It's probably been mentioned before but why not make local tell you who entered system after you? You automatically see things on grid but only people who were in system before you have any idea of what's there. So if I jump into a system I see local as empty; the miner in system sees local go up by one but he doesn't know who or what just jumped in.
|
|
Nebuchadnezzar I
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 01:07:00 -
[201]
lol, you truly do blame local for alot of things.
Now just explain to me: How exactly does removing local help blob warfare? Are you totally clueless? If anything it will increase blobs and now a solo player will have only the directional scanners range as warning, which frankly, wont help you much if you've already engaged someone.
|
Asuka Smith
StarHunt Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 01:21:00 -
[202]
Originally by: Siigari Kitawa I'm going to say this once, and after that I'm really done posting in a "nerf local" thread.
Local exists for one purpose, and this is a fact: it allows you to see who is in the system with you.
Period.
Everything that is derived from local after that is because a player used Local to his advantage. Those that choose not to use local cannot complain then that Local is broken because it is an intel gathering tool because they too have the exact same Local as the other guy.
Local is a game mechanic to which everyone can use to their advantage. CCP provides us tools which we can choose to use or not use. Saying local is broken because people can jump into a system and do an analysis of who is there has no ground to stand on because you can just as easily then open the scanner and GET YOUR ACTUAL INTELLIGENCE. I mean, crap.
If I jump into a system in my Ishtar and see 10 hostiles, oh no! I'm gonna die! Wait, I should use my scanner to see what they're flying. Oh, they're all in shuttles. Well, I'm going to be okay.
See, using local in harmony with your other tools makes it a powerful tool and not a problem. Removing it WILL cause the problem.
Finally, I will end my discussion in this thread with an analogy:
Nerf weapons. Weapons cause damage to ships and causes them to explode. The people with the most weapons wins, because they can out-damage their opponent. How do you solve this problem? Get more weapons. It is not CCP's problem to provide you with more weapons, so use the game mechanics to do it yourself.
Yes nice analogy, a hyperbolic strawman, what a brilliant defense of local.
|
Jennai
The Greater Goon GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 01:27:00 -
[203]
Originally by: Asuka Smith Non-consensual PVP is what makes this game hardcore. Local is the anathema to non-consensual PVP. Also, why should 0.0 mining not be harder? 0.0 last I checked is supposed to be risky, but I see more hulks getting blown in empire than in 0.0
if anything, 0.0 mining will be safer because this will be the death of the roaming gang.
no one wants to have to sit there mashing scan every 10 seconds, and no one wants to have to spend several minutes scanning out a system only to find that it's empty ... and then repeat that on the next dozen systems.
|
Murder Love
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 01:30:00 -
[204]
Without reading through 7 pages.. heres my input on removing local as an intel tool.
-It would benefit lowsec/0.0 gate campers. -Highsec war dec corps who have to search for specific targets would be screwed. (unless they dramatically revamped locator agents) -There would be a lot less pvp in general.
Its a nice thought, and although the OP says it wouldnt be hard to code, this would be a HUGE change to eve. So it'll never happen. kthxbye
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 01:49:00 -
[205]
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.
You are missing a key point. Oveur himself is wrong about whether its a good idea or not. If you want proof, you can go back to the fourth alliance tournament where Oveur said "we don't like local as an intelligence tool" and then got promptly slammed down by the logic of the eve-tv commentators.
You simply cannot remove local without introducing another mechanic that does exactly the same thing without completely screwing over low-sec and 0.0 belt production.
Ratters and miners cant fight back, the entire mechanic of killing them is based on getting into system and tackling them before they can get out. If the problem is that, then you tweak the mechanics of that system to make it easier to achieve. You can add a longer log out aggression timer for attacking rats. And you can either fix cloaking or add methods to scan cloaked ships down.
Then the problems are fixed but producers and miners aren't totally screwed.
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 01:58:00 -
[206]
Originally by: Murder Love Without reading through 7 pages.. heres my input on removing local as an intel tool.
-It would benefit lowsec/0.0 gate campers...
... kthxbye
How would it benefit the lowsec gate campers? ...
|
Commander 598
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 02:06:00 -
[207]
If one was to remove local, what would be really nice is the standard scanner being on screen and picking up everything within 5 AU (That's the range right?) and slowing down warp a bit because the average ship crosses 5 AU in about an eye blink, thus making it completely useless, and/or a 50km random warp exit on anything that isn't a bookmark, gate, station (Assuming this whole make belts and whatever scan only that I keep hearing about becomes a reality).
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 02:10:00 -
[208]
Originally by: Goumindong
You simply cannot remove local without introducing another mechanic that does exactly the same thing without completely screwing over low-sec and 0.0 belt production.
The 'replacement mechanic' doesn't have to do exactly the same thing. It could be a ranged solution that looks for warp signatures, for example. A little uncertainty will make all the difference here.
By the way, in the last live devblog the CCP dev talked about a "delayed Local" that shows the number of people in system but doesn't show who they are 'till they speak. He also said the only thing keeping this from being good for implementation is a revision to ship's scanner to make it a better tool at locating ships. ...
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 02:25:00 -
[209]
Originally by: Razin
Originally by: Goumindong
You simply cannot remove local without introducing another mechanic that does exactly the same thing without completely screwing over low-sec and 0.0 belt production.
The 'replacement mechanic' doesn't have to do exactly the same thing. It could be a ranged solution that looks for warp signatures, for example. A little uncertainty will make all the difference here.
By the way, in the last live devblog the CCP dev talked about a "delayed Local" that shows the number of people in system but doesn't show who they are 'till they speak. He also said the only thing keeping this from being good for implementation is a revision to ship's scanner to make it a better tool at locating ships.
No, it pretty much does. Unless you changed scanning to give you character name/corporation/alliance info and then automated it[because we are going to be scanning constantly] then increased its range to at least 100-150 AU. At which point it does pretty much the same thing[except now it have an easier time telling what ships people are in, and telling if they are cloaked since this mechanic also has to show cloaked people in local or you get the exact same problem as no local, except only for ships with cloaks]
It would be a lot easier to just fix aggression and cloaking mechanics. And, at the most, just change local to a 10-30 second delay[or better yet, you don't show until you uncloak].
Any solution where you don't give people a decent chance to evade the attackers doesn't really work since the evasion is the only part that matters. Once your ratter or miner is caught, its pretty much dead[So long as you have >1 ship for the ratter, or get him aggressed by rats.]
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 02:53:00 -
[210]
Originally by: Goumindong Unless you changed scanning to give you character name/corporation/alliance info and then automated it[because we are going to be scanning constantly] then increased its range to at least 100-150 AU. At which point it does pretty much the same thing[except now it have an easier time telling what ships people are in, and telling if they are cloaked since this mechanic also has to show cloaked people in local or you get the exact same problem as no local, except only for ships with cloaks
You are filling the idea with unnecessary content and then declaring it a failure. Sounds familiar? The ranged scanner solution I alluded to certainly does not have to provide all this information.
Originally by: Goumindong Any solution where you don't give people a decent chance to evade the attackers doesn't really work since the evasion is the only part that matters.
I think the problem here is your choice of definition for a 'decent chance'. In my opinion the instant and free intel provided by current Local is way and above 'decent chance' and into 'spoon feeding' territory. ...
|
|
Jennai
The Greater Goon GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 03:09:00 -
[211]
Originally by: Commander 598 If one was to remove local, what would be really nice is the standard scanner being on screen and picking up everything within 5 AU (That's the range right?) and slowing down warp a bit because the average ship crosses 5 AU in about an eye blink, thus making it completely useless, and/or a 50km random warp exit on anything that isn't a bookmark, gate, station (Assuming this whole make belts and whatever scan only that I keep hearing about becomes a reality).
it's like 12 or 14 AU, and warping takes long enough already.
|
Hortoken Wolfbrother
Free Lapland The Kadeshi
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 03:20:00 -
[212]
I'm very for removing local.
Its a ridiculously stupid intel tool. Removing it would make it easier to catch ratters you found, yet at the same time make it harder to find them. Itd open a whole bunch of new strategies involving cloaks and stealthy movements which would ad a huge new layer of strategy to combat that i would find enjoyable. It'd actually make cloaking ships much better, and probably even fix the currently quite lame blackops ship.
One things absolutely sure, itll bone macro farmers in 0.0. Good riddance is the least i can say to that.
It'll also make a lot more fights happen. Lots of fights atm are avoided because you look at local and know it goes one way or another. Without that to rely on, there be a lot more engagements that happen for better or worse :P. I for one would enjoy the violence whatever end of it im on.
I hope ccp doesn't wuss out and give the macro farmers the get out of jail card they need with local.
|
Commander 598
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 03:24:00 -
[213]
Originally by: Jennai
Originally by: Commander 598 If one was to remove local, what would be really nice is the standard scanner being on screen and picking up everything within 5 AU (That's the range right?) and slowing down warp a bit because the average ship crosses 5 AU in about an eye blink, thus making it completely useless, and/or a 50km random warp exit on anything that isn't a bookmark, gate, station (Assuming this whole make belts and whatever scan only that I keep hearing about becomes a reality).
it's like 12 or 14 AU, and warping takes long enough already.
Too long? On average I think it usually only takes like 10ish seconds to go from gate to gate...that's kinda short for a game that advertises the vastness of space.
|
Jennai
The Greater Goon GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 03:31:00 -
[214]
Originally by: Commander 598 Too long? On average I think it usually only takes like 10ish seconds to go from gate to gate...that's kinda short for a game that advertises the vastness of space.
you seem to have something seriously wrong with your sense of time.
138000 km warp in a recon when already aligned and up to speed is 19 seconds from "warp drive active" to the (WARPING) indicator on the speedometer going away. 36.6 AU is 39 seconds.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 03:43:00 -
[215]
Edited by: Goumindong on 20/03/2008 03:44:10
Originally by: Razin
You are filling the idea with unnecessary content and then declaring it a failure. Sounds familiar? The ranged scanner solution I alluded to certainly does not have to provide all this information.
No, it really does. You have to have corp/alliance information. You have to have advanced warning significantly greater than the 3 seconds that a 14 AU scan provides you[a 100 AU warp can be crossed in about 10 seconds by a tackling interceptor, making even this amount very iffy]. You have to have the ability to see cloaked targets[which is actually impossible with the current mechanics]
If you don't the system doesn't work. The ability of ratters to produce would be removed.
Quote:
I think the problem here is your choice of definition for a 'decent chance'. In my opinion the instant and free intel provided by current Local is way and above 'decent chance' and into 'spoon feeding' territory.
How many times do you think you can enter a system with a ratter in it? How long does it takes to make a profit off a ratting battleship? If you can't avoid them the majority of the time, then profitability will be reduced to zero very quickly.
edit: Jennai, something is seriously wrong with your sense of time. 19 seconds for 138k warp is way way way too much, try 5 seconds at the most.
|
Skraeling Shortbus
The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 03:54:00 -
[216]
Edited by: Skraeling Shortbus on 20/03/2008 03:55:05 leave local as it is... sort of.
Cloaking ships, covops,recons etc.. dont show up. Everyone else does.. let scouts actually be able to scout.
fix ctrl-q to avoid combat
fix noncloaking ships cloaking... macro ravens etc.
Love to the Assault Frigate! |
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 04:46:00 -
[217]
Originally by: Goumindong No, it really does. You have to have corp/alliance information. You have to have advanced warning significantly greater than the 3 seconds that a 14 AU scan provides you[a 100 AU warp can be crossed in about 10 seconds by a tackling interceptor, making even this amount very iffy]. You have to have the ability to see cloaked targets[which is actually impossible with the current mechanics]
If you don't the system doesn't work. The ability of ratters to produce would be removed.
YouÆre making an assumption that the interceptor would know exactly where to warp to.
Corp/alliance information does not have to be provided at a system-wide range to be useful. Your warning comes when the local count changes (someone else enters the system). Presumably the ænewÆ scanner will show ship-type and other info as it comes into range. What you do with all that information is up to you (youÆd certainly have the option to line-up to warp-off instantaneously û something that many miners/ratters currently do anyway when someone enters the system). How much of an advance warning do you get when you jump into a newly formed gate camp?
(If Local is changed in this manner, I wouldnÆt have any problems with some method of scanning for cloaked ships)
...
|
Jennai
The Greater Goon GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 04:47:00 -
[218]
Originally by: Goumindong
edit: Jennai, something is seriously wrong with your sense of time. 19 seconds for 138k warp is way way way too much, try 5 seconds at the most.
I used a stopwatch, starting as soon as I heard the "warp drive active" voice and stopping when the speedometer no longer said (WARPING).
arazu reaches its peak speed on the short warp after 5 seconds, immediately begins decelerating, is on grid at 13 seconds, and is controllable at 19 seconds.
on the 36.6 AU warp, it reaches its cruising speed of 3.7AU/s at 8 seconds, begins decelerating at 18 seconds, is on grid at 32 seconds, and is controllable at 39.
max scan range is 2,147,483,647 km = 14.35 AU. an arazu will be within scan range of its destination for 24 seconds before coming out of warp ... but it's an arazu, and someone in a belt with no local wouldn't even know it was there unless they had an alt on the gate.
any recon gang willing to go through the tedium of scanning lots of empty belts will get really easy kills. if everyone shows up in constellation chat, a few mostly-afk cloakers will have the same effect on an entire constellation that they do on a single system now.
|
Asuka Smith
StarHunt Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 05:06:00 -
[219]
Edited by: Asuka Smith on 20/03/2008 05:09:04 Let me give you guys a scenario here...
I am mining in a hulk in 0.0
I see a neutral/hostile in local
I warp to SS 1/10
I warp to SS 2/10
I warp to SS 3/10
I warp to SS 4/10
I warp to SS 5/10
I warp to SS 6/10
I warp to SS 7/10
I warp to SS 8/10
I warp to SS 9/10
I warp to SS 10/10
I warp to SS 11/10 (the first replacement I made) and continue on my cycle for fifteen minutes, warping to the next spot as soon as I arrive and making more safe-spots the whole time so I never use the same one twice.
You cannot kill me, ever. And if I had a cloak fitted (Ie. a ratting ship setup) it would be EVEN EASIER for you to never kill me, ever.
If one of you can come up with a solution to that without the removal of local let me know, otherwise local has got to go because only fools and the people who want to fight are going to be losing ships, which is the whole problem. Not to mention making the only alliance fights stand-up napoleonic ATTACKERS HERE--> pewpewpewpew <--DEFENDERS HERE , with absolutely no strategy besides blobs and primaries and the grand strategy of "hm shall we attack their shipyards at system A and crash the node or their shipyards at system B and crash the node".
I reiterate, local needs to be removed and replaced by Constellation chat, and in Constellation chat it must be forced "recent speakers only" mode. The poster above me points out something great that will happen, instead of letting a hundred guys control an entire region because they can watch intel channels and hit any hostile coming through the choke-points the major alliances will be forced to only control as much space as they can effectively guard, which will open up HUGE swathes of 0.0 that currently sit unoccupied because the "owners" block all access and then never use them.
|
Jennai
The Greater Goon GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 05:14:00 -
[220]
Originally by: Asuka Smith Not to mention making the only alliance fights stand-up napoleonic ATTACKERS HERE--> pewpewpewpew <--DEFENDERS HERE , with absolutely no strategy besides blobs and primaries and the grand strategy of "hm shall we attack their shipyards at system A and crash the node or their shipyards at system B and crash the node".
strategic fleet ops would still be node-crashing blob vs blob. the only difference would be many more covops alts parked on gates, and more alt spies. neither of these things is particularly desirable.
|
|
Asuka Smith
StarHunt Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 05:17:00 -
[221]
Absolutely right they might find a way around it, but do you think the major alliances have enough covert ops alts to park across 100 systems and scan every 5-10 minutes? I mean realistically it will take scans every single sixty seconds in most systems, because a fleet of 100 could warp in, warp to next gate, and warp out within two minutes. And if you plan to see that you have to be sitting and watching and waiting all day every day.
I doubt even BoB has a hundred players willing to watch all their border worlds like that.
|
El'Niaga
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 05:22:00 -
[222]
Removing Local will result in at least a loss of a third of subscriptions within 90 days, the game can't take that kind of hit and expect the same quantity of new content.
First off stop trying to hunt the hulk down. Its not like he has a choice. Assuming he's selling his ore on the market everyone can buy it, he has no choice as to who gets it. (Same with any product).
You will never defeat the farmers. They come to every game and generally they adapt much more quickly and efficiently than the general populace to changes. The sad fact to is that without them the ships and modules you fly would probably cost 4 or 5 times what they do now, and you'd have immense shortages. (You'd also have extreme difficulty maintaining all those 0.0 POSs....). If you change the rules they'll adapt.
They are a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. The problem is people with money are willing to spend that money to gain an advantage within a virtual reality or game. It is sad that some feel they need to do this, it's like the guy that sticks a couple 100s under his side of the board in Monopoly every time you play, or the guy that stacks the deck for a rummy card game. They feel that they have to get ahead whatever the costs. The end to them justifies the means. It is a social issue. Unfortunately being a social issue you will never beat it with rules mechanics in a game.
|
Asuka Smith
StarHunt Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 05:26:00 -
[223]
Originally by: El'Niaga Removing Local will result in at least a loss of a third of subscriptions within 90 days, the game can't take that kind of hit and expect the same quantity of new content.
First off stop trying to hunt the hulk down. Its not like he has a choice. Assuming he's selling his ore on the market everyone can buy it, he has no choice as to who gets it. (Same with any product).
You will never defeat the farmers. They come to every game and generally they adapt much more quickly and efficiently than the general populace to changes. The sad fact to is that without them the ships and modules you fly would probably cost 4 or 5 times what they do now, and you'd have immense shortages. (You'd also have extreme difficulty maintaining all those 0.0 POSs....). If you change the rules they'll adapt.
They are a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. The problem is people with money are willing to spend that money to gain an advantage within a virtual reality or game. It is sad that some feel they need to do this, it's like the guy that sticks a couple 100s under his side of the board in Monopoly every time you play, or the guy that stacks the deck for a rummy card game. They feel that they have to get ahead whatever the costs. The end to them justifies the means. It is a social issue. Unfortunately being a social issue you will never beat it with rules mechanics in a game.
This has nothing to do with macros, I mine in a hulk in a belt and I am a real guy who just likes industry and market PVP more than shooting you.
This has to do with me playing a game with about as much risk as checkers because the local system makes it impossible to kill anyone who is not looking to risk their ship on purpose. Basically this game promises non-consensual PVP and local removes that.
|
Jennai
The Greater Goon GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 05:29:00 -
[224]
Originally by: Asuka Smith Absolutely right they might find a way around it, but do you think the major alliances have enough covert ops alts to park across 100 systems and scan every 5-10 minutes? I mean realistically it will take scans every single sixty seconds in most systems, because a fleet of 100 could warp in, warp to next gate, and warp out within two minutes. And if you plan to see that you have to be sitting and watching and waiting all day every day.
I doubt even BoB has a hundred players willing to watch all their border worlds like that.
no one's going to have alts out all the time, only when they know there's a major fleet op coming. an alt spy in the fleet and on teamspeak would make all the alts unnecessary. having even more spies would make FCs less willing to tell people what the objective is and what's going on, and no one likes going on fleet ops where you just sit there in silence for an hour until you're told to load long range ammo and warp to a covops with no idea of what you're about to land on.
|
El'Niaga
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 05:32:00 -
[225]
Originally by: Asuka Smith
Originally by: El'Niaga Removing Local will result in at least a loss of a third of subscriptions within 90 days, the game can't take that kind of hit and expect the same quantity of new content.
First off stop trying to hunt the hulk down. Its not like he has a choice. Assuming he's selling his ore on the market everyone can buy it, he has no choice as to who gets it. (Same with any product).
You will never defeat the farmers. They come to every game and generally they adapt much more quickly and efficiently than the general populace to changes. The sad fact to is that without them the ships and modules you fly would probably cost 4 or 5 times what they do now, and you'd have immense shortages. (You'd also have extreme difficulty maintaining all those 0.0 POSs....). If you change the rules they'll adapt.
They are a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. The problem is people with money are willing to spend that money to gain an advantage within a virtual reality or game. It is sad that some feel they need to do this, it's like the guy that sticks a couple 100s under his side of the board in Monopoly every time you play, or the guy that stacks the deck for a rummy card game. They feel that they have to get ahead whatever the costs. The end to them justifies the means. It is a social issue. Unfortunately being a social issue you will never beat it with rules mechanics in a game.
This has nothing to do with macros, I mine in a hulk in a belt and I am a real guy who just likes industry and market PVP more than shooting you.
This has to do with me playing a game with about as much risk as checkers because the local system makes it impossible to kill anyone who is not looking to risk their ship on purpose. Basically this game promises non-consensual PVP and local removes that.
It also doesn't give the PVP tools needed to merchants as I pointed out before. You don't get the option of boycotting sales to anyone. If you had that option you'd see a very different EVE today.
If you are looking for non consensual PVP then I'd suggest using a ship other than the Hulk, which though it can bring down a cruiser, is no match for a well fitted PVP ship.
Realize that the guy in a Hulk is supplying you with the materials needed to conduct your PVP. He has no choice who buys his goods, unless he just builds for himself. If he puts it up on the market anyone can buy it, and that's not PVP for him. Go find a target that at least has a chance to fight back, a hulk fitted for mining is not going to be fighting back very long.
It seems you are more interested in easy kills than real PVP.
|
Asuka Smith
StarHunt Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 05:34:00 -
[226]
So it sounds like there will be a lot smaller blob-free harassment gangs formed between mates who trust eachother going through the border regions of 0.0... Making it the lawless hell where fortune and infamy are made daily, with big gains and big losses every few minutes somewhere in the galaxy...
Sounds like the EVE I dream about when I log out at night.
|
Marcus TheMartin
Deadly Addiction Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 05:35:00 -
[227]
Originally by: El'Niaga
It seems you are more interested in easy kills than real PVP.
This just in MINERS AREN'T PEOPLE!
|
Jennai
The Greater Goon GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 05:54:00 -
[228]
Originally by: Asuka Smith So it sounds like there will be a lot smaller blob-free harassment gangs formed between mates who trust eachother going through the border regions of 0.0... Making it the lawless hell where fortune and infamy are made daily, with big gains and big losses every few minutes somewhere in the galaxy...
... unless you're a new player, or recently joined the alliance, or someone doesn't like you. then you can't go on any ops because you're a spy.
|
Asuka Smith
StarHunt Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 06:08:00 -
[229]
Edited by: Asuka Smith on 20/03/2008 06:12:23 Edited by: Asuka Smith on 20/03/2008 06:08:46 Sounds like people will only work with those they trust and the blob situation will decrease, the super-power alliance will see it's downfall, and EVE will return to being a lawless "Mad Max" universe that I think is so great.
|
Commander 598
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 06:23:00 -
[230]
Originally by: Jennai
Originally by: Goumindong
edit: Jennai, something is seriously wrong with your sense of time. 19 seconds for 138k warp is way way way too much, try 5 seconds at the most.
I used a stopwatch, starting as soon as I heard the "warp drive active" voice and stopping when the speedometer no longer said (WARPING).
arazu reaches its peak speed on the short warp after 5 seconds, immediately begins decelerating, is on grid at 13 seconds, and is controllable at 19 seconds.
on the 36.6 AU warp, it reaches its cruising speed of 3.7AU/s at 8 seconds, begins decelerating at 18 seconds, is on grid at 32 seconds, and is controllable at 39.
max scan range is 2,147,483,647 km = 14.35 AU. an arazu will be within scan range of its destination for 24 seconds before coming out of warp ... but it's an arazu, and someone in a belt with no local wouldn't even know it was there unless they had an alt on the gate.
any recon gang willing to go through the tedium of scanning lots of empty belts will get really easy kills. if everyone shows up in constellation chat, a few mostly-afk cloakers will have the same effect on an entire constellation that they do on a single system now.
Yeah, I wasn't counting those 10ish second points when it says your warping but your not really going anywhere...
|
|
Asuka Smith
StarHunt Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 06:30:00 -
[231]
Also the problem with a cloaked arazu halting all activity in a system is a cloak problem not a local problem. Local is a bandaid to cloaks being broken and you should not justify one broken game mechanic with another.
|
Pushtan
The BlackHand Order FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 06:38:00 -
[232]
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.
Hang on....did he just use a Wow -> Eve -> Wow example....?
Tell you what, come hang around GW for a few weeks and hide your local chat, k? see you there
|
Lrd Byron
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 06:46:00 -
[233]
If ratters and miners are so concerned with being killed if there is no local, why don't they bring a few friends or hire a few people. If I want to kill anyone in low sec I am going to need more than just me, why should ratters and miners be so profitable solo.
|
Scorched Evil
R A G E
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 06:47:00 -
[234]
Remove local. It was a stupid move to introduce it. It does nothing but destroy small gang and solo pvp.
CYVOK > All you station jockies better get out their and start killing these idiots
|
umop 3pisdn
Fnck the blob.
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 06:54:00 -
[235]
Originally by: BLACKBAN Swaping Local to constellation will increase the problem. Because not the enemy will safe spot as soon as you are in the constellation, instead of seeing you in local, and it will omit the need of having scouts 1 jump out.
So removing Local is a good damn idea. Replacing it with Constellation chat is the worst thing that can ever happen to EVE
What needs to happen here is for Local to be removed, and New modules to increase max range scan to be added, maybe a dedicated BC ships for that, Not frigates because than they will be used for scouting one easy mode.
Yep this is it, with no local/constellation you will die more, lifes hard, get a ******* helmet. Or are we all carebears?
|
Marcus TheMartin
Deadly Addiction Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 06:54:00 -
[236]
Originally by: Pushtan
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.
Hang on....did he just use a Wow -> Eve -> Wow example....?
Tell you what, come hang around GW for a few weeks and hide your local chat, k? see you there
make sure you didn't forget your liquid ozone this time
|
Vorian Atraties
Orion Trade Syndicate Solaris Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 06:55:00 -
[237]
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
|
umop 3pisdn
Fnck the blob.
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 06:56:00 -
[238]
Originally by: Scorched Evil Remove local. It was a stupid move to introduce it. It does nothing but destroy small gang and solo pvp.
The truth in this post ^^^
Forget the effect it will have on blob wars.
|
Asuka Smith
StarHunt Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 07:03:00 -
[239]
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
No one is saying we should not have a local channel period (or some sort of system to talk to pilots in the same system and shoot the breeze), we are saying it should not an intel tool. Make local only show players that choose to speak.
The reason for the change is for there to be PVP. You want the intel you will have to do more work to get it, I am all about making things in EVE take a lot of time and effort and energy (it motivates people to cut corners and get sloppy, sloppy leads to interesting situations, right now there are not very many interesting situations).
|
CelticKnight
DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 07:19:00 -
[240]
that would make any operations a real pain. the ratters & PVPers would spend 24/7 scanning instead of FIGHTING.
Getting rid of a player to safespot and cloak, effectively making them INVINCIBLE is a pain. give us a module, similar to a cloak that turns cloaks OFF. 50KM range, and make cloaked ships scannable (omg i can hear the recon pilots who sitting in ratting systems ****ing the locals off, scream!)
It would keep the cloaked pilots on thier toes (GOOD! going to sleep in a system for 24 hours is irratating.. does nothing for defence) and allow the defenders to actually DEFEND.
Removing local would remove most of the fun of the game, hunting, being hunted. ... smacktalk (in fleet ops i enjoy the banter! or teasing the fools in the station.... also knowing there is actually someone IN that station..)
|
|
Kovid
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 07:22:00 -
[241]
Who chats in local besides in trade hubs? If people want to look for deals they can have a specific channel or constellation channel.
OR
Remove member list local where it displays new people immediately.
Alternative 1:
Put in place active member list local. You talk in local, you show up. Chatters get what they want, intel tool is gained only when you waive your right being a chatterbox and blasting your communication waves all over the system.
Alternative 2 a:
Time based member list. Depending on the security status of the system results would come in delayed. The higher the security, the quicker it would appear to you and to them.
Alternative 2 b:
A harsher version would be all current people in system beyond the time period would show to everyone after the time, including new people who just entered.
Both would best to have a random deviation to the results, but that would be dependent if it would cause lag to users.
Some ideas were gotten from a really good low sec idea improvement thread. This one is actually pretty good.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 07:37:00 -
[242]
Originally by: Jennai
Originally by: Goumindong
edit: Jennai, something is seriously wrong with your sense of time. 19 seconds for 138k warp is way way way too much, try 5 seconds at the most.
I used a stopwatch, starting as soon as I heard the "warp drive active" voice and stopping when the speedometer no longer said (WARPING).
arazu reaches its peak speed on the short warp after 5 seconds, immediately begins decelerating, is on grid at 13 seconds, and is controllable at 19 seconds.
on the 36.6 AU warp, it reaches its cruising speed of 3.7AU/s at 8 seconds, begins decelerating at 18 seconds, is on grid at 32 seconds, and is controllable at 39.
max scan range is 2,147,483,647 km = 14.35 AU. an arazu will be within scan range of its destination for 24 seconds before coming out of warp ... but it's an arazu, and someone in a belt with no local wouldn't even know it was there unless they had an alt on the gate.
any recon gang willing to go through the tedium of scanning lots of empty belts will get really easy kills. if everyone shows up in constellation chat, a few mostly-afk cloakers will have the same effect on an entire constellation that they do on a single system now.
1. Only if the arazu started warp within 14 AU.
2. you said the warp time for 138,000 KM was 19 seconds. You cant reach max warp speed on a warp that short.
You are also ignoring faster ships.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 07:40:00 -
[243]
Edited by: Goumindong on 20/03/2008 07:43:34
Originally by: Razin
Originally by: Goumindong No, it really does. You have to have corp/alliance information. You have to have advanced warning significantly greater than the 3 seconds that a 14 AU scan provides you[a 100 AU warp can be crossed in about 10 seconds by a tackling interceptor, making even this amount very iffy]. You have to have the ability to see cloaked targets[which is actually impossible with the current mechanics]
If you don't the system doesn't work. The ability of ratters to produce would be removed.
YouÆre making an assumption that the interceptor would know exactly where to warp to.
Corp/alliance information does not have to be provided at a system-wide range to be useful. Your warning comes when the local count changes (someone else enters the system). Presumably the ænewÆ scanner will show ship-type and other info as it comes into range. What you do with all that information is up to you (youÆd certainly have the option to line-up to warp-off instantaneously û something that many miners/ratters currently do anyway when someone enters the system). How much of an advance warning do you get when you jump into a newly formed gate camp?
(If Local is changed in this manner, I wouldnÆt have any problems with some method of scanning for cloaked ships)
You're making the assumption that they use an interceptor.
And yes, typically the interceptors do know where to warp to. You warp to the belts not in scan range. When you enter the system you scan what you can, then warp to a belt outside of scan range while scanning belts and moons in range as you arrive. Its pretty easy to pin someone down that you can scan out very fast.
Edit: to answer the question presented: you have infinite seconds since you have a covops scouting for you, who mwds, then cloaks and gives you numbers, fleet composition, and other pertanent info.
|
Lucky Lynn
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 07:45:00 -
[244]
Only read the title so I don't know if it's been brought up but Oveur did say once in a post something about removing local because he didn't like how it turned out.
This was back in '04. I'll try to dig it out.
|
Bellum Eternus
Death of Virtue Sex Panthers
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 07:57:00 -
[245]
GD forum ate my post *again*. !!!!
tl;dr version: 'delayed mode' should be sufficent for local- it lets you know how many people are in system, so you don't scan forever in empty systems, but you don't know who it is that is in the system for sure unless you make contact or they speak.
Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I |
cRaNbErRy MuFfInMaN
mUfFiN fAcToRy Sex Panthers
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 08:04:00 -
[246]
bellum this idea stinks this would help communist russians.
|
Pushtan
The BlackHand Order FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 08:10:00 -
[247]
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin
Originally by: Pushtan
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.
Hang on....did he just use a Wow -> Eve -> Wow example....?
Tell you what, come hang around GW for a few weeks and hide your local chat, k? see you there
make sure you didn't forget your liquid ozone this time
what? I dont need Liqiud Ozone - but if you want me to jetison some next to your corpse, then sure
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 08:24:00 -
[248]
Do most of you suffer from ADHD?
I see people who obviously haven't even read the thread.
@ jennai we already have blobs that crash nodes, afk cloakers are reduced in efficency with local removed. As I argued earlier which you obviously ignored.
@ asuka your very perceptive
@ El'Niaga where is your evidence for loss of subscriptions, you own a third of the eve accounts?
@ Vorian there is a huge difference between having local and no local as Torin and I have both extensively discussed.
@ muffinman
If you can't be bothered to debate the points actually raised intelligently and repetitively post "this is stupid", you have no point to stand on. Please READ the thread and form constructive arguments before posting (I know thats alot to ask on EvE-O)
Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
Kyra Felann
Noir.
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 08:29:00 -
[249]
Originally by: Skraeling Shortbus Edited by: Skraeling Shortbus on 20/03/2008 03:55:05 leave local as it is... sort of.
Cloaking ships, covops,recons etc.. dont show up. Everyone else does.. let scouts actually be able to scout.
I think it should be removed, but I definitely agree about at least not showing cloaked ships. Local now leads to metagaming tactics like having to have out-of-corp alts as scouts because if you scout with a character in your corp, uh oh! Everyone in system sees you and the little red star icon.
|
Killde
Veto. Academy Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 08:46:00 -
[250]
Edited by: Killde on 20/03/2008 08:47:22
Originally by: El'Niaga
It also doesn't give the PVP tools needed to merchants as I pointed out before. You don't get the option of boycotting sales to anyone. If you had that option you'd see a very different EVE today.
If you are looking for non consensual PVP then I'd suggest using a ship other than the Hulk, which though it can bring down a cruiser, is no match for a well fitted PVP ship.
Realize that the guy in a Hulk is supplying you with the materials needed to conduct your PVP. He has no choice who buys his goods, unless he just builds for himself. If he puts it up on the market anyone can buy it, and that's not PVP for him. Go find a target that at least has a chance to fight back, a hulk fitted for mining is not going to be fighting back very long.
It seems you are more interested in easy kills than real PVP.
I'm all for more market management tools, but to be frank that's a completely different discussion.
TBH local isn't so bad, the problem is it's a perfect source of intel. You know exactly how many players are in system, their names, corps sec status everything. This allows people who are looking to avoid fights a foolproof method of knowing when it's time to cloak/dockup. There is NO gameplay mechanic that can overcome this, NONE. So don't say use the gameplay mechanics to overcome the problem, because you can't. That's why I suggest the following:
An option to not appear in local, you don't show up in local (but player count may/maynot still count you, up to balance) but no one else shows up for you either (but player count may/maynot still count them, up to balance). Speaking would not add a players name to your listing of players... but you could show info on their name in the text bar. This means people in 'stealth mode' get less info, in exchange for more stealth. Note that alliance members will show up in your local list regardless of mode.
Another option instead of having a simple menu option is to have a rig or perhaps a pricey low slot module called "Modified transponder" that achieves the above without detached menu buttons.
This allows for 'pirates' and people looking for a fight to either be stealthier (perhaps at the cost of a rig slot) while losing easy intel, or stick with easier intel at the cost being visible to all. This fixes the problem of people playing the 'no risk game' in areas of the game that are defined by risk, while at the same time making it harder to locate targets for pirates/PvPers who use this new gameplay mechanic to overcome a flaw in the current system.
For those of you that think people in low/zero sec who don't not want to risk their ship should be allowed to avoid combat, remember that empire space is designed for that. Low/zero space should always have some degree of risk.
|
|
Torin Corax
Dark Nova Crisis Chain of Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 10:04:00 -
[251]
Originally by: El'Niaga
Originally by: Asuka Smith
Originally by: El'Niaga
Realize that the guy in a Hulk is supplying you with the materials needed to conduct your PVP. He has no choice who buys his goods, unless he just builds for himself. If he puts it up on the market anyone can buy it, and that's not PVP for him. Go find a target that at least has a chance to fight back, a hulk fitted for mining is not going to be fighting back very long.
It seems you are more interested in easy kills than real PVP.
No. Sorry but my corps' miners are supplying the materials, and if you come into the lowsec systems we mine you are in direct competition with them for local resources. As such you are a valid target and will be attacked on sight, but wait. what's that..oh you warped to a safe as soon as you saw us in local. Now we have to waste time camping the gates and station to see who is the most patient, oh you logged. See a pattern forming here? Cue several hours of the interloper logging on and off waiting for local to be empty before continuing on his merry, and almost completely safe, way. however, as I've said before it's the amount of info local gives to war targets that irritates me the most, and yes I'm a cov-ops pilot and damn proud of it
|
Theladder
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 10:21:00 -
[252]
It looks like people are looking for easy ganks here
|
Zaskarr
Falling Stars Squadron Aphelion.
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 10:40:00 -
[253]
Edited by: Zaskarr on 20/03/2008 10:40:33 Edited by: Zaskarr on 20/03/2008 10:40:10 I support removing of local. But introduce a module which would detect scanning and raise an alarm. Or on similar note, old game Allegiance, which is now free BTW, has a stealth icon which disappears when your ship is detected by an enemy.
__________________ How do I shot web? |
Amanda Blue
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 10:57:00 -
[254]
So instead of Jita getting spammed with WTSs & contracts we get the whole constellation doing it? No thanks, keep local.
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 11:02:00 -
[255]
Originally by: Theladder It looks like people are looking for easy ganks here
Where? Did you even read the thread?
Someone stating "everyone will get ganked" doesn't make it true.
Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 11:05:00 -
[256]
Originally by: Amanda Blue So instead of Jita getting spammed with WTSs & contracts we get the whole constellation doing it? No thanks, keep local.
The thing is most items sell via contracts anyway.
"WTS XYZ item" rarely actually brokers a sale. Having traded in various goodies for about a year or so in Jita, I can honestly say i've sold 2 items spamming local. The issue is really that people like to shout about their wares in an environment that is self advertising.
Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
Kerfira
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 11:07:00 -
[257]
Edited by: Kerfira on 20/03/2008 11:12:15
Originally by: Asuka Smith
Originally by: Atsuko Yamamoto This is a GAME folks, entertainment, not work. Local isn't that bad, people still get ganked, get away, dock up, and so on. I just don't want to put that much serious work into something I do for fun.
Flying 30 jumps in 0.0 until you find someone who is stupid enough to keep ratting instead of going to a SS sounds like work to me...
Non-consensual PVP is what makes this game hardcore. Local is the anathema to non-consensual PVP. Also, why should 0.0 mining not be harder? 0.0 last I checked is supposed to be risky, but I see more hulks getting blown in empire than in 0.0
Your argument completely ignores reality and devolves into: "I want people to line up so I can shoot them!"
You say "0.0 mining should be harder". Why is that limited to mining? Why shouldn't it be "0.0 hunting should be harder"?
Your other argument "I see more hulks blown up in empire than 0.0" should also give you a hint that mining in 0.0 is already TOO hard!
The ignorance of yours I'm pointing out is the classic lion-zebra comparison. If the zebras are too easy for the lions to catch, soon there'll be no zebras. So the zebras evolved to be alert and being fast. Basically the same for miners/ratters. They're alert (watches local), and are aligned to get out (fast).
Mining/ratting/exploring/etc. in 0.0 has to have a relatively low risk. If people loose their ship 50% of the times they go out to make money, they'll all move to high-sec and run L4's. What'll you hunt then? Given the difficulty of getting a ship to 0.0, 50% is probably way too high too. 10% is probably even still too high.
The 'Local' question is not a matter of absolutes (ie. stay/go). I do see the problems with local, but until there is a complete redesign of how a lot of things work in 0.0 (and empire too), I haven't seen any better solutions than what we have currently. There has to be a balance between prey and hunter. We have a reasonably nice balance now (as we still score kills when roaming), so the problems with local is more about the realism of it than the balance. In essence, a smart/alert player (and 'smart/alert' is NOT equal to 'willing to spam the scan button for hours on end') should not be gankable except by a smarter player.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 11:13:00 -
[258]
You miss the point
Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
Kerfira
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 11:18:00 -
[259]
Originally by: Asuka Smith
Originally by: Atsuko Yamamoto If mining was harder minerals would be worth more, and I would have fun mining for massive profits in 0.0 but always being on my toes.
You are of cause completely ignoring mineral generation in high-sec.
High-sec mining supplies probably 90% of the fuel and low-end minerals used in EVE, and mission running supplies a fair amount of the high-ends.
As said before, a simple removal of local is a dead solution. It'll not work! A lot of other game mechanics has to be changed, probably something like a fairly significant rewrite of how EVE works, before local as we know it today can be changed....
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Avon
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 11:24:00 -
[260]
Originally by: Kerfira
You are of cause completely ignoring mineral generation in high-sec.
High-sec mining supplies probably 90% of the fuel and low-end minerals used in EVE, and mission running supplies a fair amount of the high-ends.
As said before, a simple removal of local is a dead solution. It'll not work! A lot of other game mechanics has to be changed, probably something like a fairly significant rewrite of how EVE works, before local as we know it today can be changed....
I was just wondering if you sig is intended as an ironic counter-point to you post?
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 11:29:00 -
[261]
heh I thought the same avon
Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
Kerfira
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 11:30:00 -
[262]
Originally by: Asuka Smith Let me give you guys a scenario here...
I am mining in a hulk in 0.0
I see a neutral/hostile in local
I warp to SS 1/10 I warp to SS 2/10 ... I warp to SS 10/10
I warp to SS 11/10 (the first replacement I made) and continue on my cycle for fifteen minutes, warping to the next spot as soon as I arrive and making more safe-spots the whole time so I never use the same one twice.
You cannot kill me, ever. And if I had a cloak fitted (Ie. a ratting ship setup) it would be EVEN EASIER for you to never kill me, ever.
If one of you can come up with a solution to that without the removal of local let me know, otherwise local has got to go because only fools and the people who want to fight are going to be losing ships, which is the whole problem.
So a smart and alert person can with current game mechanics avoid getting ganked?
THIS CANNOT BE!!!!! Nerf local!!!! We want to be able to kill everyone we find when roaming!!!
Your argument is stupid.... While there are some minor problems with local, just removing it would not work.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Kerfira
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 11:35:00 -
[263]
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Kerfira
You are of cause completely ignoring mineral generation in high-sec.
High-sec mining supplies probably 90% of the fuel and low-end minerals used in EVE, and mission running supplies a fair amount of the high-ends.
As said before, a simple removal of local is a dead solution. It'll not work! A lot of other game mechanics has to be changed, probably something like a fairly significant rewrite of how EVE works, before local as we know it today can be changed....
I was just wondering if you sig is intended as an ironic counter-point to you post?
Not really But 'hard and unforgiving' has to be measured up against realities. If generating revenue in 0.0 is too hard compared to empire (I actually already thing it is, due to L4 missions), nobody will do it, and what'll we hunt then?
Oh, and btw, I'm completely FOR nerfing empire ISK/resource generation by 50-75%, PLUS making transport of minerals/ice from empire to 0.0 WAY more difficult! Resources used in 0.0 should largely be produced there. THAT would mean a lot more targets to hunt!
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Caleese
101 Industries space weaponry and trade
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 11:38:00 -
[264]
The problem isn't that local is an intel tool, it's that it's an intel tool that requires no skill or involvement from the player.
----------------- Think of someone you consider of average intelligence... now realise this. Half the worlds population is dumber than that person. How does the world survive such stupidity? |
Kerfira
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 11:42:00 -
[265]
Originally by: Caleese The problem isn't that local is an intel tool, it's that it's an intel tool that requires no skill or involvement from the player.
It does require involvement. He has to watch it..... Ratting for 5-6 hours..... If he stops watching for 5 minutes and someone hostile enters local, he's dead!
This is basically pretty close to what it should be. An alert/smart player (and this is not equivalent to 'willing to spam the scan button every 5 seconds') should only be gankable by a smarter player.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Kerfira
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 12:01:00 -
[266]
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: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Avon
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 12:04:00 -
[267]
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?
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Kerfira
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 12:07:00 -
[268]
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Kerfira This is basically pretty close to what it should be. An alert/smart player (and this is not equivalent to 'willing to spam the scan button every 5 seconds') should only be gankable by a smarter player.
None of my suggestions included button spamming, and yet they advocate a replacement to local. I even thoughtfully made local less effective as system security rating drops so that the impact on the most anti-risk players would be minimal.
The main problem I have with local is that the information it provides bears no relation how much effort a player puts in to remaining hidden. I ship sitting on a gate has to accept that they are likely to be detected as being in the system .. but some guy cloaked 100AU from the nearest celestial object should not be revealed as being in the system. It is the same with all covert operations. Why would people invest much in cool game features such as covert cynos and black-ops jump-bridges, when they will instantly appear in local anyway, thus revealing their presence?
Oh, I agree with you about what the 'game reality' problems with local are, and I'm not arguing against sensible solutions to that (in fact I'd like if it happened).
But as I said I AM arguing against the people who just want local removed without any other changes. I believe that the balance between hunter and prey is basically correct right now, with the problem being too few prey because of other factors (like easy high-sec resource generation). That's why I also think that a change in how local works has to be accompanied by changes/balancing to how a lot of other things in EVE work.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Kerfira
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 12:12:00 -
[269]
Edited by: Kerfira on 20/03/2008 12:13:12
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 which is f-all use against a cov-ops), 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/dangerous for the prey.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 12:13:00 -
[270]
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?
Because thats what you do in eve. The frequency of gank will not increase, it will stay the same. Removing local does not make hunting targets easier.
Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 12:14:00 -
[271]
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.
Again i shall state this /sighs
The removal of local will require new tools from ccp to fill it's space.
If you want to argue with that point rather than slither around it, i'm all ears
Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
Kerfira
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 12:15:00 -
[272]
Originally by: Celeste Coeval
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?
Because thats what you do in eve. The frequency of gank will not increase, it will stay the same. Removing local does not make hunting targets easier.
So your argument is: Ratter: "I now get ganked so much that it's no longer profitable, but I'll continue doing so because 'thats what you do in eve'"
Seriously dude, get a clue....
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 12:17:00 -
[273]
Have you even read my posts?
Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
Kerfira
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 12:20:00 -
[274]
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!
Your answer to my post was (full quote):
Originally by: Celeste Coeval I'm sorry I see nothing that you are posting adequately countering the points raised for local's removal.
....and nothing more than that! Nothing about new tools, nothing except the term "local's removal".
You'll also note that I've only been arguing against the people who just wants a removal of local without other changes...
Maybe read before you post?
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Kerfira
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 12:22:00 -
[275]
Originally by: Celeste Coeval Have you even read my posts?
They are quite lengthy and can't be summed up in one sentence as language just isn't that efficient i'm afraid.
There are almost 300 posts in this thread. I can not remember who made all of them! I'm merely replying to what you replied to my post!
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
F90OEX
Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 12:25:00 -
[276]
Curious...
If local was removed, how would one know there are war targets in the system and also same would go for kill rights ...
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 12:25:00 -
[277]
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.
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 12:26:00 -
[278]
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.
err i think i did
Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 12:31:00 -
[279]
Also I am a trader...not a yarrer.
Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
Rimhawk
Vengeance 8 Interceptors
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 12:39:00 -
[280]
Don't remove local...
Just set it so it will only show people who speak/spoke (like so many other channels) and remove the number of people in local. I suspect FC's will also start to enforce 'SHUT UP IN LOCAL' a bit better if that happens.
.
|
|
Sky Marshal
Aeden Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 12:48:00 -
[281]
Edited by: Sky Marshal on 20/03/2008 12:56:46
Originally by: Celeste Coeval 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
In a system with a station, there is nearly always someone in a belt, so no local don't give protection, but insecurity, and difficulties to kick off the hunter, as no local permit the hit and run tactic. I shoot, I leave the system, defenders try to find someone who are not anymore in the system, this can frustrate some players.
In a large system without station, there is a logistic problem, as the ore must be hauled to the nearest station. It can be difficult if it is a small gang or a soloing mining operation, and if the nearest station is far of the large system. So few players will do this as it is annoying.
Originally by: Celeste Coeval A smart carebear plays on the hunters laziness.
And become himself lazy, or more paranoid. I admit that it is a smart tactic, but... You still don't know if someone is here -> Scanning will still become the rule for a part of carebears, same if his risk is lower than be in scan range of a gate. This depends of the alternative solutions of course.
Quote: 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.
I agree, but so we return to the "30 jumps without kill" problem if too much players adapt and act like you.
With local, you can have to do 30 jumps to find someone to kill (I think more of a "Too much NAP problem" that a local problem). Without local, you will have to scan mostly all system to find someone to kill.
I think that the second situation will take more time that the first. PVP can become nearly impossible or a luxe for people who have time to waste.
Originally by: Celeste Coeval My argument for removing local also extends to covert operations. At present the only thing covert about these ships is they cloak.
CCP can certainly permit to coverts to be invisible at local without have to remove it. One problem, this will do like there is no local : A Covert, with a Warp Disruptor, can appear at any moment near you.
This can be badly accepted by some players, as if you are scrambled, you are nearly already dead.
Originally by: Celeste Coeval 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.
Personaly, I think this will make blobs more worse than ever, and as the carebear security is not guaranted, no interest to operate in low/null.
I don't know if it is the case for others players, but for me, two things made the risk acceptable for me to go to nullsec : Local, if you learn how to use it, it is a good argument, and the Warp To Zero, who permit better but not maximum security.
It is difficult to convince someone that nullsecs are not so risky if one of this two parameters is replaced by something else.
Originally by: Celeste Coeval 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)
I won't definitively be so optimist, as we all know that the most important for a majority of players, is doing ISK without risks.
Replace local generate more risk, same if some alternative solutions are interesting. Also, there are limited to alliance area, who can be problematic : If I am in a blue area but not of my alliance... Make them available for all blue will generate more work for servers than simply adding me in the local list. If a new carebear want move in nullsec, we will have to make an escort operation, who will not reassure him, etc... ____
14/20 Revelations : Desyncs... 11/20 Trinity : BBSOD, Bugs, Desyncs, F*** Nerfs 10/20 1.1 : [...] + EXP shield nerf 07/20 ½ Not a single nerf + : What ?!?
CCP is the real problem of EVE. |
Ethen Bejorn
Pestilent Industries Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 12:50:00 -
[282]
I wonder if after all this time they will finally remove local. I would be so happy.
|
Kerfira
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 13:20:00 -
[283]
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: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Ralara
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 13:41:00 -
[284]
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. -- Ralara / Ralarina |
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 14:54:00 -
[285]
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!
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.
Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 14:56:00 -
[286]
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.
Yes this is definitely one of the best solutions suggested.
Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
Kerfira
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 15:17:00 -
[287]
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: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Marcus TheMartin
Deadly Addiction Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 15:35:00 -
[288]
Edited by: Marcus TheMartin on 20/03/2008 15:36:38
Originally by: Celeste Coeval
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.
Yes this is definitely one of the best solutions suggested.
total count will lead to a policy of alerting when you enter a system eventually leading to any one who dosen't type o/ is a hostile.
Also farmer ravens still log off.
Even with the removal of local and the retooling of the scanner the issue of covert ops alts sitting on a gate with the sound turned up to hear when some one comes in is an issue
Originally by: F90OEX Curious...
If local was removed, how would one know there are war targets in the system and also same would go for kill rights ...
That is the beauty of it you don't know they don't know
|
Hyperforce99
Infinite Covenant
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 15:37:00 -
[289]
the best way I think to make local work is to make it only show up for people that have local opened. Make it so that theres a checkbox on the local chat window, if its checked your showing in local and everyone thats not in your corp will also show.
If its not checked only show your corp/alliance members.
Make it so that if a player opens local everyone who has local open himself can see him, HOWEVER he will stay in local for 15 minutes even if he disables local. leaving system will still clear him from local but he'll then show up in local in the next system he go's into, he still won't be able to see anyone else besides corp and possibly alliance mates in local though. --------------------------------------------- Somewhere beyond happyness and sadness, I need to calculate what creates my own madness o/ |
Marcus TheMartin
Deadly Addiction Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 15:37:00 -
[290]
Edited by: Marcus TheMartin on 20/03/2008 15:37:45
Originally by: Hyperforce99 the best way I think to make local work is to make it only show up for people that have local opened. Make it so that theres a checkbox on the local chat window, if its checked your showing in local and everyone thats not in your corp will also show.
If its not checked only show your corp/alliance members.
Make it so that if a player opens local everyone who has local open himself can see him, HOWEVER he will stay in local for 15 minutes even if he disables local. leaving system will still clear him from local but he'll then show up in local in the next system he go's into, he still won't be able to see anyone else besides corp and possibly alliance mates in local though.
Alt with local open Main with local closed
|
|
Ptolomey Incognito
Masters of Assonance
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 16:32:00 -
[291]
Currently, when you jump into Local, you see who is there, and if you have standings set, what relation to you they are (IE Hostile, Friendly, Neutral).
This has Advantages,
For the Miner, Ratter, Mission Runner, Explorer, this means that you can see when a potential hostile jumps in system.
For someone out to Blow someone up they see a list of potential targets.
The Disadvantages,
To the PvPer: The Ratter/Miner/Missioner/Explorer docks up, cloaks, or logs off if they see you in local.
To the Ratter/miner etc: The PvPer sees you there, and starts looking for you.
There is nothing you can do to stop someone, who is active, from escaping.
That right there presents the issue. Eve is an MMORPG focused around a sandbox idea, where PvP is not reigned in by boundaries of "Servers" or "zones." It's supposed to have a Risk/Reward system, you want to make the Big Money? You want to have nice things? You need to put yourself at risk. Right now, there is little to no risk for active players, other than Gate Camps, hence 90% of all eve combat takes place at Gates.
Local has more advantage to the Player avoiding PvP. That means there is an Imbalance. Should active players be able to avoid fights? yes. But right now it is tipped the favor of one style.
My Ideas for a solution:
First off, people have mentioned an auto-updating directional scan. This works great in bigger systems, because you can see when someone is near you, but not when they jump in. However, in a small system, and there are plenty, you can see all gates from one scan, this would mean you know exactly when they are in the system.
The Idea is great, it gives PvPers the ability to get into system undetected and increase chance of finding targets. It Gives the others the ability to see who is nearby, and take action if needed. However as I mentioned the range on the scanner is a bit much for smaller systems.
So How about a Radar? It is an Active ship system, and say it has a range of half your Directional Scanner. This would tell you when people are getting close to your position, and you can take steps to survive, but it doesn't stifle the PvP aspects of the game. This makes ships like Interceptors incredibly valuable for tackling. The Directional Scanner is still the same, so if you are super paranoid you can get the extra range by constantly refreshing. The issue is as people stated that it would make scouting for roaming Gangs much harder, as you cannot just make a quick scan of the system.
In this case, how about making the Hacking skill do some fancy work on gates, before you jump in system, you can "hack" the gates, and get a Jump record for the last hour, two hours, etc. This way, you could see how many incoming and outgoing jumps happened over a period of time and make educated assumptions about the System population. And then remove the "pilots in space over the last 30 minutes or whatever" from the Map, as well as the Jumps in the last hour.
It wouldn't tell you about the other gates in System, so your scout might jump to its doom if there is a gate camp if they all entered a system, but didn't leave. but this can happen in the current system anyhow.
Adding these Tools would take local as intel channel away, would give Ships sufficient warning to potential threats without giving them excessive warning, still allow for scouting to be done in a timely manner, and give PvPers a few options. As well as making Cov-Ops and Recons truly stealth. As they wouldn't show up on Radar.
Sure, an active ratter will see you on Radar and warp the frick out, but it has less time to make that decision. Making the Risk/Reward a little more balanced.
The only issue is that Recons may become overpowered, as they could get a tackle on you without you ever knowing, but at the same time, they don't have strong tanks or high DPS. And without Local, Traps can be set much easier increasing risk for those pilots.
Thoughts?
|
Gypsio III
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 17:19:00 -
[292]
Remove local. Replace it with an auto-updating scanner, whose range is inversely proportional to scan frequency.
The new scanner provides three types of information, depending on range.
At long range, only ship hull class is displayed (BS, cruiser etc.). At medium range, ship type is revealed (Dominix, Falcon etc.). At short range, standings are displayed (is this ship allied/-10?). Names are never displayed.
Some way of detcting cloakers might be necessary, however, otherwise force-recon gangs would be immensely powerful.
|
Ptolomey Incognito
Masters of Assonance
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 17:26:00 -
[293]
Originally by: Gypsio III
Some way of detcting cloakers might be necessary, however, otherwise force-recon gangs would be immensely powerful.
Except that they are made of Paper, duct tape and chewing gum.
|
Rhaegor Stormborn
Volition Cult The Volition Cult
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 17:28:00 -
[294]
Originally by: Gypsio III Remove local. Replace it with an auto-updating scanner, whose range is inversely proportional to scan frequency.
The new scanner provides three types of information, depending on range.
At long range, only ship hull class is displayed (BS, cruiser etc.). At medium range, ship type is revealed (Dominix, Falcon etc.). At short range, standings are displayed (is this ship allied/-10?). Names are never displayed.
Some way of detcting cloakers might be necessary, however, otherwise force-recon gangs would be immensely powerful.
This idea is as good as any. I just don't want our chat channels used as tools for intel. Currently local is better than any radar system imaginable.
Volition Cult Recruitment Post |
Turin
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 17:30:00 -
[295]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus Stupid forums ate my original post.
tl;dr version: was watching the dev interviews during the 5th Alliance Tournament. Oveur says "when the chat becomes an intel tool, it's a problem". Well, quite frankly, local has *always* been an intel tool since it has existed. If it's that fundamental of a problem, change it already.
Swap local/constellation chat functionality: force players to appear in constellation chat, and only appear in local if they speak. Problem solved. Minimum of coding. No new stuff required.
You guys (the devs) can't use the excuse that you don't like to make radical changes to the game: you removed instas and introduced WTZ. Can't get much more radical than that.
It's high time you removed local. It breaks so many things currently, and is partly responsible for many of the problems we currently have: the Jita situation, massive blob warfare, complete lack of stealth/sneak attacks, ISK farmers... the list goes on.
The dev team asks for constructive posts over and over. I submit that this post is entirely constructive, as I've stated the problem, and the solution, and the factors that contribute to the problem and how the solution would resolve the issue.
Thanks in advance, looking forward to constellation chat.
Well, shy of going into huge details here, as plenty of others have done. Ill just say this.
Your idea sucks, and I would never support it. I believe EVE needs to be played the way I like it to be played, and I personally think every one else should have to play in that same fashion. See what I did there?
_________________________________
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 17:37:00 -
[296]
Edited by: Celeste Coeval on 20/03/2008 17:38:34
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'
sorry but tbqfh, I don't value any credibility on these forums. I let my views speak for themselves. I have no need of e-honor or such nonsense.
Back to the topic at hand.
Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 17:47:00 -
[297]
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. ...
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 18:07:00 -
[298]
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.
very good point
Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 18:12:00 -
[299]
Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 20/03/2008 07:43:34
Originally by: Razin
Originally by: Goumindong No, it really does. You have to have corp/alliance information. You have to have advanced warning significantly greater than the 3 seconds that a 14 AU scan provides you[a 100 AU warp can be crossed in about 10 seconds by a tackling interceptor, making even this amount very iffy]. You have to have the ability to see cloaked targets[which is actually impossible with the current mechanics]
If you don't the system doesn't work. The ability of ratters to produce would be removed.
YouÆre making an assumption that the interceptor would know exactly where to warp to.
Corp/alliance information does not have to be provided at a system-wide range to be useful. Your warning comes when the local count changes (someone else enters the system). Presumably the ænewÆ scanner will show ship-type and other info as it comes into range. What you do with all that information is up to you (youÆd certainly have the option to line-up to warp-off instantaneously û something that many miners/ratters currently do anyway when someone enters the system). How much of an advance warning do you get when you jump into a newly formed gate camp?
(If Local is changed in this manner, I wouldnÆt have any problems with some method of scanning for cloaked ships)
You're making the assumption that they use an interceptor.
And yes, typically the interceptors do know where to warp to. You warp to the belts not in scan range. When you enter the system you scan what you can, then warp to a belt outside of scan range while scanning belts and moons in range as you arrive. Its pretty easy to pin someone down that you can scan out very fast.
Edit: to answer the question presented: you have infinite seconds since you have a covops scouting for you, who mwds, then cloaks and gives you numbers, fleet composition, and other pertanent info.
I mentioned the interceptor because you used it in your example (presumably to show that something small and agile is hard to evade). And it still takes time to scan someone down, however short. Time enough for a miner/ratter to lineup and warp away, since the first warning comes when another ship enters the system.
Still donÆt see any working argument against removing Local intel.
P.S. There are ways to setup a gate camp that no covops scouting could help to avoid. ...
|
Bellum Eternus
Death of Virtue Sex Panthers
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 18:57:00 -
[300]
Originally by: Turin
Originally by: Bellum Eternus Stupid forums ate my original post.
tl;dr version: was watching the dev interviews during the 5th Alliance Tournament. Oveur says "when the chat becomes an intel tool, it's a problem". Well, quite frankly, local has *always* been an intel tool since it has existed. If it's that fundamental of a problem, change it already.
Swap local/constellation chat functionality: force players to appear in constellation chat, and only appear in local if they speak. Problem solved. Minimum of coding. No new stuff required.
You guys (the devs) can't use the excuse that you don't like to make radical changes to the game: you removed instas and introduced WTZ. Can't get much more radical than that.
It's high time you removed local. It breaks so many things currently, and is partly responsible for many of the problems we currently have: the Jita situation, massive blob warfare, complete lack of stealth/sneak attacks, ISK farmers... the list goes on.
The dev team asks for constructive posts over and over. I submit that this post is entirely constructive, as I've stated the problem, and the solution, and the factors that contribute to the problem and how the solution would resolve the issue.
Thanks in advance, looking forward to constellation chat.
Well, shy of going into huge details here, as plenty of others have done. Ill just say this.
Your idea sucks, and I would never support it. I believe EVE needs to be played the way I like it to be played, and I personally think every one else should have to play in that same fashion. See what I did there?
Which is why hopefully Oveur and the dev's vision of the game is more coincident with my ideas than yours.
I can't stop you from being a loser. See what I did there?
Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I |
|
Burnharder
Tiny Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 19:05:00 -
[301]
Edited by: Burnharder on 20/03/2008 19:06:13
Originally by: Razin
Still donÆt see any working argument against removing Local intel.
That's because the argument against its removal is one of balance. It is not true that all parties are equal without local, because much content is static and therefore the hunter has a head start in knowing where to look. This is the fundamental objection I have to the removal of local. It hasn't been answered so far - to answer it, you must suggest that all content is made dynamic (moon minerals, asteroid belts, asteroid types, complexes, agent locations).
Secondly, you need to provide a passive alternative that is almost as good (that also does not stress the server). It must be passive (not module, or anchorable based either) because otherwise it will be compulsory (much as Avon's WTZ idea would have been) and there is no difference between a compulsory module and a global system much as local is today.
It must not be chance based either - because removal of the certainty players might get from excersising skill in game in this respect will prevent them from making rational judgements about risk - and force an exodus to the least risky areas of the game (as if that hasn't happened already).
Finally, it must give players a fighting chance. It is no good receiving a passive alert 4 seconds before an arrival if in order for me to escape it takes me 10 seconds to reach warp velocity.
Anything that does not take the above into account will result in a large increase in risk and a consequent further emptying of those parts of the map that are already risky, but where the player is able to effectively mitigate that risk through skill and/or common sense, ie. low sec.
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 20:01:00 -
[302]
Originally by: Burnharder Edited by: Burnharder on 20/03/2008 19:06:13
Originally by: Razin
Still donÆt see any working argument against removing Local intel.
That's because the argument against its removal is one of balance. It is not true that all parties are equal without local, because much content is static and therefore the hunter has a head start in knowing where to look. This is the fundamental objection I have to the removal of local. It hasn't been answered so far - to answer it, you must suggest that all content is made dynamic (moon minerals, asteroid belts, asteroid types, complexes, agent locations).
The hunter still has many places to look, and the new Local would warn of someone new arriving into the system. In addition, one of the devblogs talked about all the asteroid belts moving to the exploration part of the game mechanics (one of the reasons sited was the lag created by all the static belts). However, changing all content to be dynamic would be overkill.
Originally by: Burnharder Secondly, you need to provide a passive alternative that is almost as good (that also does not stress the server). It must be passive (not module, or anchorable based either) because otherwise it will be compulsory (much as Avon's WTZ idea would have been) and there is no difference between a compulsory module and a global system much as local is today.
As mentioned before, CCP has stated in the latest live devblog that one of the conditions for nerfing Local is the deployment of a new and improved shipÆs scanner that combines the functionality of the current scanner and the Local channel at a reduced range.
Originally by: Burnharder It must not be chance based either - because removal of the certainty players might get from excersising skill in game in this respect will prevent them from making rational judgements about risk - and force an exodus to the least risky areas of the game (as if that hasn't happened already).
The current shipÆs scanner is not chance based, and neither is the current Local. I donÆt see why this would change when the functions are merged. Up to CCP, though.
Originally by: Burnharder Finally, it must give players a fighting chance. It is no good receiving a passive alert 4 seconds before an arrival if in order for me to escape it takes me 10 seconds to reach warp velocity.
YouÆd get your first alert when someone new enters the system. Time enough to lineup and warp if the scanner shows something scary approaching.
Originally by: Burnharder Anything that does not take the above into account will result in a large increase in risk and a consequent further emptying of those parts of the map that are already risky, but where the player is able to effectively mitigate that risk through skill and/or common sense, ie. low sec.
Regardless, the nerfed Local will result in more risk and a different, more varied, game play. That would be the point of the whole endeavor.
...
|
Burnharder
Tiny Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 20:15:00 -
[303]
Originally by: Razin
Regardless, the nerfed Local will result in more risk and a different, more varied, game play. That would be the point of the whole endeavor.
Then one would fully expect to see an increase in the "why is low sec always empty?" threads subsequently.
With respect to seeing that someone has entered local - just how useful is that in, say, a 0.1 system, where people are constantly passing through? I'm only interested in seeing if some nerfarious character has joined the fray, not simply a number going up or down.
If I have time to escape - a reasonable amount of time, from a reduced range scanner, then that is fine. If I only see him when he's almost on top of me, covert ops or not, then that is just one more reason for me not to undock for business there (and to head back to high sec).
Really, if it isn't *as good as* local for intel in these cases, it's just another low sec nerf.
|
Avon
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 20:36:00 -
[304]
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!
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 20:41:00 -
[305]
Originally by: Burnharder
Originally by: Razin
Regardless, the nerfed Local will result in more risk and a different, more varied, game play. That would be the point of the whole endeavor.
Then one would fully expect to see an increase in the "why is low sec always empty?" threads subsequently.
With respect to seeing that someone has entered local - just how useful is that in, say, a 0.1 system, where people are constantly passing through? I'm only interested in seeing if some nerfarious character has joined the fray, not simply a number going up or down.
If I have time to escape - a reasonable amount of time, from a reduced range scanner, then that is fine. If I only see him when he's almost on top of me, covert ops or not, then that is just one more reason for me not to undock for business there (and to head back to high sec).
Really, if it isn't *as good as* local for intel in these cases, it's just another low sec nerf.
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.
Here is today's post from CCP game design:
Originally by: CCP Greyscale If/when we do revisit Local, cloaked ships and the general intel-gathering arena, it will likely be as a complete package, with the aim of creating an integrated set of mechanics. This will mean changes for established mechanics, but they'll be changes to rather than changes from.
With regards to concerns about Local,, the reason we haven't just removed it or flipped it into delayed mode is that the role it provides - being able to see who's around - is critical to many elements of gameplay and isn't covered sufficiently by other existing tools. We're aware that sitting there hitting "scan" on the directional scanner every five seconds isn't a good substitute, which is why we're waiting until we can improve those tools before we change anything.
...
Looks reasonable to me. ...
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 20:49:00 -
[306]
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.
|
Rhaegor Stormborn
Volition Cult The Volition Cult
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 20:53:00 -
[307]
Originally by: Burnharder
Originally by: Razin
Regardless, the nerfed Local will result in more risk and a different, more varied, game play. That would be the point of the whole endeavor.
Then one would fully expect to see an increase in the "why is low sec always empty?" threads subsequently.
With respect to seeing that someone has entered local - just how useful is that in, say, a 0.1 system, where people are constantly passing through? I'm only interested in seeing if some nerfarious character has joined the fray, not simply a number going up or down.
If I have time to escape - a reasonable amount of time, from a reduced range scanner, then that is fine. If I only see him when he's almost on top of me, covert ops or not, then that is just one more reason for me not to undock for business there (and to head back to high sec).
Really, if it isn't *as good as* local for intel in these cases, it's just another low sec nerf.
Local should be an intel tool. Plain and simple.
Volition Cult Recruitment Post |
Turin
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 21:07:00 -
[308]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Turin
Originally by: Bellum Eternus Stupid forums ate my original post.
tl;dr version: was watching the dev interviews during the 5th Alliance Tournament. Oveur says "when the chat becomes an intel tool, it's a problem". Well, quite frankly, local has *always* been an intel tool since it has existed. If it's that fundamental of a problem, change it already.
Swap local/constellation chat functionality: force players to appear in constellation chat, and only appear in local if they speak. Problem solved. Minimum of coding. No new stuff required.
You guys (the devs) can't use the excuse that you don't like to make radical changes to the game: you removed instas and introduced WTZ. Can't get much more radical than that.
It's high time you removed local. It breaks so many things currently, and is partly responsible for many of the problems we currently have: the Jita situation, massive blob warfare, complete lack of stealth/sneak attacks, ISK farmers... the list goes on.
The dev team asks for constructive posts over and over. I submit that this post is entirely constructive, as I've stated the problem, and the solution, and the factors that contribute to the problem and how the solution would resolve the issue.
Thanks in advance, looking forward to constellation chat.
Well, shy of going into huge details here, as plenty of others have done. Ill just say this.
Your idea sucks, and I would never support it. I believe EVE needs to be played the way I like it to be played, and I personally think every one else should have to play in that same fashion. See what I did there?
Which is why hopefully Oveur and the dev's vision of the game is more coincident with my ideas than yours.
I can't stop you from being a loser. See what I did there?
Ah. nice. I love when people resort to personal attacks. Obviously I must have hit some kinda bone with you. Your tears are the honey in my tea. I attacked your idea. Not you. Thankfully for both of us, I am pretty sure the Devs vision more match mine than yours. For this I am thankful since your vision.... isnt very good. I did indeed see what you did there, but you shouldnt have bothered. It was a pretty lame attempt.
_________________________________
|
Grim Vandal
Burn Proof
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 22:28:00 -
[309]
Originally by: Avon Ignore Oveur, he tends to turn his back on his convictions if there is the slightest moan.
Shame really.
Sadly this. After this blog I thought OMFG god bless OVEUR cuz he will all save us true evelers however he ****.ed us in the ass. I am sorry to say so but that is it. And it will happen again. If anything the map gets probably boosted to be even more accurate.
backstabbing this is ... a shame
Greetings Grim |
Hyperforce99
Infinite Covenant
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 23:28:00 -
[310]
Edited by: Hyperforce99 on 20/03/2008 23:28:50
Originally by: Grim Vandal
Originally by: Avon Ignore Oveur, he tends to turn his back on his convictions if there is the slightest moan.
Shame really.
Sadly this. After this blog I thought OMFG god bless OVEUR cuz he will all save us true evelers however he ****.ed us in the ass. I am sorry to say so but that is it. And it will happen again. If anything the map gets probably boosted to be even more accurate.
backstabbing this is ... a shame
if with that quote you are refering to oveur not liking insta's your forgetting that together with warp to 0 we also got interdictors, heavy interdictors and recon ships that have long range tackling capabilities. So people can now be stopped easier from the other side of the gate. Bubble also still draw people away from warp to 0 points on the incoming side.
but i'm trailing off, back to the thread and massive whine about local. --------------------------------------------- Somewhere beyond happyness and sadness, I need to calculate what creates my own madness o/ |
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 00:49:00 -
[311]
Edited by: Avon on 21/03/2008 00:49:50
Originally by: Hyperforce99
if with that quote you are refering to oveur not liking insta's your forgetting that together with warp to 0 we also got interdictors, heavy interdictors and recon ships that have long range tackling capabilities. So people can now be stopped easier from the other side of the gate. Bubble also still draw people away from warp to 0 points on the incoming side.
Unfortunately the 'solution' only foucused on the PvP aspects of WTZ, and totally ignored the other aspects which it was a perfect time to address. We could have had something in place which would have expanded Eve, adding regionalisation, populating under-populated systems, and encouraging more smaller trade hubs. What we got was a smaller Eve, with less diversity, less interest, and a couple of extra toys for PvP'ers to play with outside of hi-sec space.
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
ceaon
Porandor Imperium Aeternum
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 03:14:00 -
[312]
my 0,02 isk i like the idea only who speak show on local
put /signed if u are agree
BC one |
Marcus TheMartin
Deadly Addiction Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 03:18:00 -
[313]
Originally by: ceaon my 0,02 isk i like the idea only who speak show on local
put /signed if u are agree
/signed accomplishes nothing (like posting about it but what ever)
|
Bellum Eternus
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 05:14:00 -
[314]
Originally by: Turin
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Turin
Originally by: Bellum Eternus Stupid forums ate my original post.
tl;dr version: was watching the dev interviews during the 5th Alliance Tournament. Oveur says "when the chat becomes an intel tool, it's a problem". Well, quite frankly, local has *always* been an intel tool since it has existed. If it's that fundamental of a problem, change it already.
Swap local/constellation chat functionality: force players to appear in constellation chat, and only appear in local if they speak. Problem solved. Minimum of coding. No new stuff required.
You guys (the devs) can't use the excuse that you don't like to make radical changes to the game: you removed instas and introduced WTZ. Can't get much more radical than that.
It's high time you removed local. It breaks so many things currently, and is partly responsible for many of the problems we currently have: the Jita situation, massive blob warfare, complete lack of stealth/sneak attacks, ISK farmers... the list goes on.
The dev team asks for constructive posts over and over. I submit that this post is entirely constructive, as I've stated the problem, and the solution, and the factors that contribute to the problem and how the solution would resolve the issue.
Thanks in advance, looking forward to constellation chat.
Well, shy of going into huge details here, as plenty of others have done. Ill just say this.
Your idea sucks, and I would never support it. I believe EVE needs to be played the way I like it to be played, and I personally think every one else should have to play in that same fashion. See what I did there?
Which is why hopefully Oveur and the dev's vision of the game is more coincident with my ideas than yours.
I can't stop you from being a loser. See what I did there?
Ah. nice. I love when people resort to personal attacks. Obviously I must have hit some kinda bone with you. Your tears are the honey in my tea. I attacked your idea. Not you. Thankfully for both of us, I am pretty sure the Devs vision more match mine than yours. For this I am thankful since your vision.... isnt very good. I did indeed see what you did there, but you shouldnt have bothered. It was a pretty lame attempt.
My ideas are both elegant and practical, artistic even. So many people agree with me that the avalanche of approval drowns your obtuse twaddle into oblivion.
See what I did there? Don't get recalcitrant with me. Know your role and shut your hole.
Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I |
Grendelsbane
Noir.
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 06:21:00 -
[315]
If CCP had created a sensor/EWar scheme that was actually effective, coherent, and comprehensive, we could just do away with mandatory local/constellation and be done with it.
|
Burnharder
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 10:32:00 -
[316]
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.
|
Celeste Coeval
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 11:31:00 -
[317]
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.
So your ok with changes as long as your objections are noted and part of the overall design then?
Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
Burnharder
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 11:42:00 -
[318]
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?
|
Celeste Coeval
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 11:45:00 -
[319]
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?
Well good, because constructive objection is what this thread is lacking tbh. Hopefully CCP takes this into account, I also don't want a scan spam issue. I think we should give CCP some credit in it's ability to overhaul this to everyones liking, even if it takes some folks longer to come round:)
Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
Burnharder
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 12:01:00 -
[320]
Originally by: Celeste Coeval
Well good, because constructive objection is what this thread is lacking tbh. Hopefully CCP takes this into account, I also don't want a scan spam issue. I think we should give CCP some credit in it's ability to overhaul this to everyones liking, even if it takes some folks longer to come round:)
If you've read my posts above, you'll see that all of my objections have been constructive.
|
|
Depp Knight
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 13:00:00 -
[321]
I am all for local being removed, but only if there is a new scanning system in place. Till then, I will vote for local to stay.
|
Marcus TheMartin
Deadly Addiction Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 13:03:00 -
[322]
Originally by: Depp Knight I am all for local being removed, but only if there is a new scanning system in place. Till then, I will vote for local to stay.
a new scanning system would have to take account for people who are running multiple accounts with a covert ops alt on a gate with the sound turned up being auto notified of gate activations
|
TheEndofTheWorld
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 13:22:00 -
[323]
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Kerfira This is basically pretty close to what it should be. An alert/smart player (and this is not equivalent to 'willing to spam the scan button every 5 seconds') should only be gankable by a smarter player.
None of my suggestions included button spamming, and yet they advocate a replacement to local. I even thoughtfully made local less effective as system security rating drops so that the impact on the most anti-risk players would be minimal.
The main problem I have with local is that the information it provides bears no relation how much effort a player puts in to remaining hidden. I ship sitting on a gate has to accept that they are likely to be detected as being in the system .. but some guy cloaked 100AU from the nearest celestial object should not be revealed as being in the system. It is the same with all covert operations. Why would people invest much in cool game features such as covert cynos and black-ops jump-bridges, when they will instantly appear in local anyway, thus revealing their presence?
Oh, I agree with you about what the 'game reality' problems with local are, and I'm not arguing against sensible solutions to that (in fact I'd like if it happened).
But as I said I AM arguing against the people who just want local removed without any other changes. I believe that the balance between hunter and prey is basically correct right now, with the problem being too few prey because of other factors (like easy high-sec resource generation). That's why I also think that a change in how local works has to be accompanied by changes/balancing to how a lot of other things in EVE work.
You do know that a good 0.0 ratter/miner has no risk at all. It is impossible to die, if you watch local and get to a safe/pos when there is a neutral/hostile in pos. I have seen both sides of 0.0, all those high-end systems are overfarmed, everyone fights for rats and well there are a lot of miners. When even a single hostiles comes within 5jumps-10jumps, all those alliance alts see a random person in local, start notifying intel-chats and everyone docks up/cloaks/packs up their mining op.
What are all those 30+ active players doing in outpost systems? Farming, ratting, mining - however, the defense measures(mainly local) against hostiles are too great, and to lose a ratting ship you generally have to be very new or afk. Losing ratting ships in alliances isn't considered normal, it is considered stupid and usually a lot of bitter whining is involved. I have even seens ratting bans and kicks due to losing ratting ships.
I agree, plain removal of local would be too much, but having a actively used 0.0 gistii tanked hulk/navy raven ever since they were realeased is too much/safe.
|
Lo3d3R
MAFIA
|
Posted - 2008.03.22 01:35:00 -
[324]
Do not use the name "Oveur" in vain . ___________________
Sexy Time: |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.22 03:35:00 -
[325]
Edited by: Goumindong on 22/03/2008 03:35:21
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=729912&page=2#40
|
Aaron Mirrorsaver
R.E.C.O.N. Black-Out
|
Posted - 2008.03.22 03:48:00 -
[326]
they could do like the game dark space, anyone familiar with it knows what i mean.
add a fog of war, and make ships able to warp to anywhere within a solar system.
in darkspace you could click on a point not at a gate or planet and have the ship warp to it.
in eve the only place for ships to meet in combat is a celestial object, if local is to change you need to have the entire solar system has a field of movement.
C.E.O.
Go Hard, or go Home.
|
xVorenuSx
Rulers Of Mankind Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.22 03:48:00 -
[327]
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.
|
Kerfira
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.03.22 09:47:00 -
[328]
Originally by: TheEndofTheWorld
Originally by: Kerfira My post
You do know that a good 0.0 ratter/miner has no risk at all. It is impossible to die, if you watch local and get to a safe/pos when there is a neutral/hostile in pos.....
So a smart and alert guy has a (very) good chance of escaping???? Oh, buhu!!!
I have nothing against people who're smart and alert being more or less impossible to kill. It seems quite fair to me that the intelligence of the player determines whether he's caught or not, not some randomness factor.
A smart player can still be caught, but it requires the same amount of dedication on the part of the hunter. The alert ratter spends hours watching local to escape in those few seconds when hostiles jump in. This to me indicates that the hunters should be prepared to leave a cov-ops in system cloaked for those same hours until the (less) smart player decides the cov-ops afk and goes ratting anyway. Maybe picket the whole surrounding systems with cov-ops w. covert cynos at the gates ready to jump a gang of recons in when he moves out....
Your argument reeks all too much of wanting easy kill and 'oh its unjust that I can't kill all I see'...
But, as I said, there are problems with local, but I just don't see them as serious as they're made out to be (except in a realism sense). We still get plenty of kills on less smart/alert players when roaming, which is how it should be. Life in 0.0 should be darwinian. I like the solution of relating the information currently given by local to sovereignty and pos modules, as I think people should be mostly safe in their own area...
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.22 14:00:00 -
[329]
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?
You like many others in this thread think that local removal = nothing to replace it. That is not the case.
Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
xVorenuSx
Rulers Of Mankind Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.22 17:25:00 -
[330]
Originally by: Celeste Coeval
You like many others in this thread think that local removal = nothing to replace it. That is not the case.
Well, greyscale commented about removing local. Please enlighten me on what they want to replace it with. I seem to have missed it in the dev blog. All i heard was a if the enemy decides to talk in local he will give away the fact that he is there. Then option 2, spamming system scanner. Maybe your special and have information that is separate\hidden from all but the devs about the special replacement tool. Please only include an answer that is confirmed from the devs as new modules and auto update scanners are all just player talk so they don't count yet. You have specified it will be replaced by something as fact and I am dying to hear what it is.
|
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.22 17:49:00 -
[331]
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=729912&page=2#40
|
Gabriel Karade
Nulli-Secundus
|
Posted - 2008.03.22 18:05:00 -
[332]
"Gabriel in OSHT" ...1 min later....
"Gabriel in JWJ"
*station fills up *tumbleweed blows through J7A...
...1 minute later...
"Gabriel leaving JWJ" *station empties*
...all makes Gabriel a sad panda. I wan't a Nebula to hide in dammit! ... (or some useful compromise on the 'Local' issue). And no, 'Constellation' replacing 'Local' is a fecking awful idea. --------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Jeremaid Pang
The Masque of the Red Death
|
Posted - 2008.03.22 18:41:00 -
[333]
Local is fine. What Eve doesn't need is yet another time sink.
I refuse to have to scan every single belt/planet/moon/degree on scanner simply to find if a target is present, let alone hunting him down.
It's hard enough to find things to shoot as is, we don't need to further extend the time required to actually have fun.
Why do you people want to make Eve into more of a job than it already is? It's a game ffs.
|
TheEndofTheWorld
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.03.22 19:16:00 -
[334]
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: TheEndofTheWorld
Originally by: Kerfira My post
You do know that a good 0.0 ratter/miner has no risk at all. It is impossible to die, if you watch local and get to a safe/pos when there is a neutral/hostile in pos.....
So a smart and alert guy has a (very) good chance of escaping???? Oh, buhu!!!
I have nothing against people who're smart and alert being more or less impossible to kill. It seems quite fair to me that the intelligence of the player determines whether he's caught or not, not some randomness factor.
A smart player can still be caught, but it requires the same amount of dedication on the part of the hunter. The alert ratter spends hours watching local to escape in those few seconds when hostiles jump in. This to me indicates that the hunters should be prepared to leave a cov-ops in system cloaked for those same hours until the (less) smart player decides the cov-ops afk and goes ratting anyway. Maybe picket the whole surrounding systems with cov-ops w. covert cynos at the gates ready to jump a gang of recons in when he moves out....
Your argument reeks all too much of wanting easy kill and 'oh its unjust that I can't kill all I see'...
But, as I said, there are problems with local, but I just don't see them as serious as they're made out to be (except in a realism sense). We still get plenty of kills on less smart/alert players when roaming, which is how it should be. Life in 0.0 should be darwinian. I like the solution of relating the information currently given by local to sovereignty and pos modules, as I think people should be mostly safe in their own area...
Looking at local does not take any skill, neither is it hard... You don't have to be smart, or too alert to spot a neutral/hostile jumping into a system. AFK cloaker thing does not work, no one rats with hostiles in local... Simply put, there is no way to kill a decent 0.0 ratter. No amount of preparation, ships, mods, or skills can do that.
A good solo-ratter should have 100% immunity, impossible to disagree with this, otherwise 0.0 would just die out, but it is too easy to achieve it at the moment.
In my opinion something like this should be done: Remove local as it is, and add a ratting/mining module that can detect all(even cloaked) ships within 1-3AU, it should also involve fuel(LO, isotopes, heavy water) usage to prevent 23/7 ratting and abuse in pvp.
|
Jack Dubrow
The Drekla Consortium VENOM Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.22 19:33:00 -
[335]
Replace AUTO-TARGETTER with AUTO-SCANNER.
Alerts you (through your local window, like NPC announcements) that a "ship" has entered the system. Does not tell you anything else.
If you jump into a system it does not tell you how many are already there. You have to manually scan. But if you're mining you can use the "auto-scanner" to alert you when players enter your system. It just won't tell you ship type or who.
If you REALLY think it should, let it say "A ship with a standing of 0.0 has entered the system." 0.0 being whatever standing is normally displayed in local.
Now ships in a gang can be the AWACS for the team! =D ---
Let all of it fall to the ground and burn with what we can not smell! |
Reachok
Tres Hombres
|
Posted - 2008.03.22 21:09:00 -
[336]
From a game play point of view, the local and map info should be instant. The gates log who jumps into and out of a system. Your com channels and maps should be updated instantly as the information is sent between gates and finally to Concord. This is how it should be IF this was reality.
However, it's a game and the whinage years ago from the 0.0 crowd got the map display changed to a 30 minute average. This particular controversy over "no local chat" is similar. How about this instead:
1) Non claimed 0.0 - no local chat BUT instant map update. You know someone's there but when you jump in you don't know who, unless he shouts "BOO!!" in local
2) Claimed, no sovereignty - owner gets something like the current local. The map is like the current one, 30 minute average. Non allied players get a warning that "System XXXX is owned by alliance BBBB" This warns the player (if he's not there on purpose) that he's not going to see or know who's in local from this point on)
3) Claimed and with sovereignty - The owner now gets instant map and local. Why? Because he's got control of the gates (theoretically) and has a POS network in place and outposts. This rewards the hard working people who put their time and isk into empire building.
Anyone attempting to jump into a system under #3's rule set is at a disadvantage, as they should be. They cannot see who's in local, and the map won't show them how many is in local either. Now, once you've knocked a system out of sov, you drop back to #2. And finally # 1 once the POS's in that system are destroyed.
Some other thoughts:
Even in a system that gets instant local, local is delayed for 30 seconds. Why? To allow covop ships to cloak after entering the system. The covop pilot should always remain out of local and off the map unless he speaks in local or flies uncloaked for 30 seconds through a system that allows instant map updates.
In unclaimed systems, all pilots would be on the same footing.
Another idea in unclaimed systems would be to announce, "Gate activation detected". Again, this would work for both prey and predator. Is it a pirate? Is it backup? This idea is only for those wishing some type of warning.
Obviously I'm only referring to 0.0. No one idea is going to satisfy everyone. But I think the groups who work to take and hold 0.0 space should be rewarded and those that wish to take it away from them should have to work at it. And people who train for covops should be able to use that ship as intended in spite of any changes to the system.
High sec and low sec have different needs and will require different solutions. CCP (if they even read this thread) should work from 0.0 inward implementing this change if they actually do it, whether this idea, or any variation of it.
|
Sorted
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2008.04.18 20:51:00 -
[337]
More discussion please! IMO Switch local and constilation as the OP sugests!
|
Khorkrak
|
Posted - 2008.04.18 21:10:00 -
[338]
Absolutely yes - remove automatically appearing in Local chat when you enter a system. Found that this was the dumbest thing ever in a PvP game - well World of Warcraft's names floating above you character as you try to hide in a bush are really bad too but...this is even more stupid.
Other incredibly dumb things about this game include: - No way to change your character name. - Requirement to be in a corp. - No way to alter appearance (although that'll be fixed eventually).
All games have their really stupid quarks. Hopefully the Local chat one here will go away soon.
|
Zephyr Rengate
Prophets Of a Damned Universe
|
Posted - 2008.04.18 21:23:00 -
[339]
If local is changed too radically, i will no longer rat in 0.0 but run missions in high sec tbh. So anychange must be carefuly considered to avoid 0.0 intel being too complex stoping the casual player from being able to survive in 0.0.
Though just a thought of how it could be changed slightly.
Local chat only shows people who chat. But it will still say the amount in system.
Not sure how removal of local in high sec will work where the only intel availble is either spies or local chat. Unlike 0.0 where large numbers travelling means a gang in high sec it just means normal traffic.
Perhaps allow local to stay if people own the space or have a high standing with the owners or with the NPC owners.
Just a few thought nothing really thought out tbh.
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire I habe no life.
|
Shaks
Panta-Rhei Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.04.18 22:51:00 -
[340]
let the localcount show how many ppl are in a system but not who it is, except they're in a particular distance to a stargate/station
my 2 cents ---
|
|
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.18 23:05:00 -
[341]
Originally by: Khorkrak
Other incredibly dumb things about this game include: - No way to change your character name.
This one's true enough, though I'd only call it a little dumb.
Quote: - Requirement to be in a corp.
False, unless you're concerned about a basically meaningless NPC corp under your name.
Quote: - No way to alter appearance (although that'll be fixed eventually).
Look up "portrait swap". :) * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams, writing about EVE |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: [one page] |