| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
SUNscatcher
   |
Posted - 2004.04.23 13:04:00 -
[1]
Hey This game would play much better if the Local channel disappeared once a player left empire space. I can understand a supported network existing in empire but once out that support should go away.
With local constantly present its like have a infailable long range sensor active at all times. Not very realistic.
If you can catch me you can have me. |
Ithildin
|
Posted - 2004.04.23 13:48:00 -
[2]
So, I presume you represent no alliance, and affiliate with those who wish for the downfall of player-claimed space.
No, local stays. If anything, it's in Empire it should go. It makes me suffer horrendous lags and gives me information I do not need.
--
If TC causes you discomfort that you feel is unwarranted or may be outside TC's current contract - contact me, please. |
Etoile Chercheur
|
Posted - 2004.04.24 02:15:00 -
[3]
this idea is just part of a fantastic thread that's worth reading thoroughly. you'll find this thread linked to below my sig.
Midshipman Etoile Chercheur - Logistics Division (M&T) | Hadean Drive Yards
|
Christopher Dalran
|
Posted - 2004.04.24 03:20:00 -
[4]
I'd say shorten the LOCAL channel range to 1000km (the range of your radar). Mainly because you can communicate with people around you without every last person listening in. Also knowing all the players that are in the entire area is just plain goofy. I do realize that you wont know if there is anyone in space that can kill you but this works both ways, if you dont see them on radar they wont see you either.
I also would like to see the "players in space" option for the star map go the way of the dodo (atleast in sectors that do not have concord patrolls).
|
illuminati
|
Posted - 2004.04.24 08:43:00 -
[5]
Absolutely not.
You cant "warp to" people in local yet anyway so I dont get this stealth thing. I dont know where a threat is in deepspace and "staying alert" is something I would do anyway.
Plus, EvE is like irc with graphics and without irc, there is just graphics, comprende?
|
Danton Marcellus
|
Posted - 2004.04.24 20:30:00 -
[6]
Alliances should have other means of controlling their territory or just give it up.
Remove Local!
Convert Stations
|
Schizophrenia
|
Posted - 2004.04.24 21:05:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Schizophrenia on 24/04/2004 21:07:37
 Originally by: SUNscatcher
Hey This game would play much better if the Local channel disappeared once a player left empire space. I can understand a supported network existing in empire but once out that support should go away.
With local constantly present its like have a infailable long range sensor active at all times. Not very realistic.
How is a sensor that can detect ships in a solar system unrealistic? Even todays sensors can detect EM signals at the edge of our solar system, although with a time delay.
I say the local channel should stay but with the text only. No pictures possible. No ID's on people just because they're in the system. This would allow players in the same system to still talk to each other (I rater enjoy chatting with locals and meet many peeps this way), but does not allow players to identify people who are just in the system and not talking. Sorta like a cb radio. You can listen in and talk out but you can't tell who's listening (present) unless they speak out.
The sensor range of the scanner should be able to be extended to system wide with modules. Or at least a remote scanner available in game to park at the jump gate and monitor its sensor. This could be deployed and then would appear in the scanner window as its own seperate tab.
|
Vel Kyri
|
Posted - 2004.04.24 22:16:00 -
[8]
Schitz - excellent suggestion.
just remove the list of icons of ppl in system from the local chat.
if you talk - ppl know you are in system.
if you stay silent - no one knows till they see you.
the scanner can already scan an entire system is a few moments - and returns the ship names and anything floating in space. that should be enough.
-----
|
Schizophrenia
|
Posted - 2004.04.25 00:22:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Schizophrenia on 25/04/2004 16:06:51
Thanks Vel. How about this for the scanner:
What if the another tab was added to the scanner to be a "systems" tab that showed:
a)number of total signitures in system
b)number of corpmates in system
c)number of alliance members in system
d)number of "UNKOWN" signitures
This would provide a sense that "someone" had entered the system, but who or where is a mystery. It would add a sense of supense to the game...
.....who is this person that just entered the system?.......
.....are they friendly??......
.....are they just passing through?.....
.....are they scanning for us ?.......
.....should I dare speak out in local (giving my identity away) to see if they reply?.......
.....if they don't reply back are they hunting me?........
Couldn't you just feel the tension and suspense
If you add that to the "not showing pictures" in local changes it would make for some cool drama.
|
Schizophrenia
|
Posted - 2004.04.25 00:53:00 -
[10]
Better idea for scanner... instead of a whole new scanner tab, just add it to the local label of the chat box
Local(#pilots/ #corpmates) instead of just Local(# of pilots) like it reads right now. For example:
Local(16/15)
on the local chat box label would tell you that you have 15 corpmates in system, but that you are "NOT ALONE!!" dum dum dum  .
A new scanner tab would be clumsy constantly jumping between the autoscanner and a "systems" scanner. A local label would be easy.
|
Haratu
|
Posted - 2004.04.25 08:09:00 -
[11]
I would presume you are not aware that events are broadcasted on local occasionally.
I roleplay... there is this computer game called "Earth - The First Genesis" where i play a character in the early 21st century. |
Mr nStuff
|
Posted - 2004.04.25 10:01:00 -
[12]
another one of thoughs dumb idea's that get spammed around every now and then.
5 R&D Agents, 10months, Zero BPO Offers..
Onboard navigational [Planetary Avoidance] computer.
My account will be suspended at the end of the current play period.
Expires on 19. September 2004 |
Malvada
|
Posted - 2004.04.25 10:12:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Malvada on 25/04/2004 21:12:16
dumb? eh. i kinda like the idea of not being instantaneously announced to everyone in the system against my wishes. what's the point of trying to sneak up on someone if they know you're coming? Local should be kept, but the chatters list should be removed, or at least there should be an option in the settings to remain "invisible" on Local until you voluntarily say something.
this forum is FOR ideas, sweetie. why don't you come up with some of your own instead of calling the ideas of other players "dumb", k?
pft.
Viceroy > so whats the problem?
the hlynsiman > a former corp member of mine stole some money of me and i need it back
Viceroy > did you earn the money by commiting terrorist acts?
the hlynsiman > no by mining
Viceroy > terrorist mining? |
Darken Two
|
Posted - 2004.04.25 11:31:00 -
[14]
I gotta agree with Mr nStuff here . Totally dumb idea thats been recycled from previous similar dumb ideas. If you cant see whos in a system people would just stop going to low sec systems. Can you imagine an indy travelling through 0.0 space without seeing how many pilots are in space or without the ability to see whos in the particular system.
Also can u imagine anyone taking the bship ever to 0.0 for fear of being ganked.
Furthermore How are alliances going to keep hold of their territory if they cant monitor systems for intruders. I know a lot of ppl are gonna start whinging about how alliances are evil and all that but my point is they are a part of them game all ideology aside.
In conclusion shoot this idea in the head.
Why dont you just DIE DIE DIE !!!!
|
Schizophrenia
|
Posted - 2004.04.25 12:25:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Schizophrenia on 25/04/2004 12:30:32
Originally by: Darken Two
I gotta agree with Mr nStuff here . Totally dumb idea thats been recycled from previous similar dumb ideas. If you cant see whos in a system people would just stop going to low sec systems. Can you imagine an indy travelling through 0.0 space without seeing how many pilots are in space or without the ability to see whos in the particular system.
Also can u imagine anyone taking the bship ever to 0.0 for fear of being ganked.
Furthermore How are alliances going to keep hold of their territory if they cant monitor systems for intruders. I know a lot of ppl are gonna start whinging about how alliances are evil and all that but my point is they are a part of them game all ideology aside.
In conclusion shoot this idea in the head.
The dumb idea is that you think players would stop going to low sec systems. Pleazzze, players will continue to go to low sec systems because that's where the isk is. (Not every Eve player is as gutless as you.)
PvPs would still not be able to gate camp .1 and highbecause the gate turrets would still be there. As far as 0.0, getting rid of local ID's would work both ways. Pirates would not be able to tell who's in system just as carebears wouldn't, and insta jumps would still exist anyway.
Yes alliances would have a harder time monitoring their system, they would have to patrol the belts and ask for identification for unknowns, and even monitor their gates. But this is good. Its stupid that a Alliances now can claim like 8 regions at a time each with 100 systems and all they have to do is fly through occasionally. So yes, alliances would have to concentrate on only one or two regions at a time and more aggressively patrol, instead of claiming 500 systems at a time. But that just makes things more interesting.
|
Vel Kyri
|
Posted - 2004.04.25 12:31:00 -
[16]
all good points.
local is needed to be able to talk if you want to / but removing the chatters images so you dont know who they are until you manually scan the ships (or ask them) is good.
it adds to the need for the alliance/corps to work together. send scout ships out to check out a system before jumping in. use escorts to make sure you are not attacked.
make groups more useful - and sees more use for frigates and cruisers as scouts/cheap escorts.
-----
|
Karhig Duruckhai
|
Posted - 2004.04.25 13:56:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Darken Two
I gotta agree with Mr nStuff here . Totally dumb idea thats been recycled from previous similar dumb ideas. If you cant see whos in a system people would just stop going to low sec systems. Can you imagine an indy travelling through 0.0 space without seeing how many pilots are in space or without the ability to see whos in the particular system.
Also can u imagine anyone taking the bship ever to 0.0 for fear of being ganked.
Can you imagine a multimillion isk ship, which is highly vunerable alone, being taken into unsecure space? Thats what your asking right? Well hell no, of course I can't, its a bloody stupid idea. If your going to take a lone battleship into dangerous and unpredictable space you DESERVE to die. If your going to do the same with an industrial ship, which is even more defenceless, you deserve to be killed by the last set of sentry guns before entering 0.0 space just for being a numpty.
Taking a lone ship into potentially hostile territory, without scouting the area, and without having an effective escort? ARE YOU INSANE!?!?! The only reason why you get away with it now is because of the all seeing all knowing local and map. Its just daft.
0.0 is dangerous, it SHOULD be dangerous, and you shouldnt be flying alone. This is a multiplayer game for a reason, you're meant to work together, or be prepared to take the (vast) risk of travelling alone. Its not difficult to have a friend along scouting the route in a frigate (its incredibly difficult to gate gank a frigate that is prepared to run) and keeping you informed.
Stop taking the easy way out and think of some interesting solutions. No local and no map would make the game a shed load more interesting, and a lot harder. I like a challenge, imo, no local and no map would be a good thing.
regards,
|
Darken Two
|
Posted - 2004.04.25 16:15:00 -
[18]
To Karhig and Schizophrenia, I dont have the slightest problem with removing the local channel at all. I do very little solo stuff and dont drive indys. I just pointed out its dumb cos I already know a lot of people who never leave empire cos they think 0.0 is full of ebil pirates. I point out this is without actually ever having set foot in a low sec system. Personally I live in venal so 0.0 is nothin new to me Im aware of the dangers and know how to handle myself. But my concern is that if this idea were to go through then all we will ever see is gigantic blobs in empire space or 50 bships in 0.0 systems bordering empire protecting one miner or whatever.
As for the allaince part of it most of the alliances claim areas that have bottlenecked entrances so their only options are to claim all the systems in the region or have a territory with a border that includes a few hundred gates so them claiming 500 systems like someone pointed out is more a factor of game mechanics than greed.
Also about making hunting more interesting. I think it would make things even more tedious than it already is with all the bloody safespots.
On a side note schizophernia call me gutless when u have the balls to use ur main to post.
Why dont you just DIE DIE DIE !!!!
|
Schizophrenia
|
Posted - 2004.04.25 17:01:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Schizophrenia on 25/04/2004 17:08:31
Originally by: Darken Two
Also about making hunting more interesting. I think it would make things even more tedious than it already is with all the bloody safespots.
On a side note schizophernia call me gutless when u have the balls to use ur main to post.
lol, I use my alt because my corp directors would have my hide if they knew i was smak talking on the forum (its against corp policy). I can't have my post reflecting bad on my corp.
But anyway Darken, your MISSING THE POINT. The local channel changes are designed SPECIFICALLY to allow pvp EASIER hunting. Everyone knows how the tatics go now.
1. Find a 0.0 to mine.
2. Set up instajumps and safespots.
3. Start mining and eyeball the local channel like crazy
4. ID anyone that comes into local channel.
5. If they're in a pirate corp or low standing, run like heck!!
Keeping people from ID pirates as soon as they get in system will give the pirates a break and allow them to hunt their prey with more of a chance (thereby making it more interesting), without havning players spaz and run at first sight of them. That's the WHOLE POINT of this whole issue.
Think about it.
|
Darken Two
|
Posted - 2004.04.25 21:27:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Darken Two on 25/04/2004 21:31:41
My point schziphrenia is that yes it gives pirates more of a chance at hunting people, but take a screnario where Im chasin somebody I wanna kill and he runs into a system with many gates. He then uses one of the gates to jump into a neighbouring system, now multiply that with all teh systems with multiple gates on that possible route and you are lookin at a lot of uncertainity.
What Im sayin is that its already hard to get people to fight, this just makes it even more harder.
Ps. If you think your corp is holding you back then quit. Also I couldnt care less whether pirates got to gank miners in belts or not, I wanna kill stuff and this aint gonna further that goal.
Why dont you just DIE DIE DIE !!!!
|
Ithildin
|
Posted - 2004.04.25 21:47:00 -
[21]
With removal of local and removal of pilots in space you'll have the following problems:
1. Alliances, those several players who really keep the game going and developing, will have an insanely difficult time patroling their space.
- Already it's harder than some people think. It's not just look at map
2. It's going to be harder than I-dunno-what to actually force anyone to identify themselves when patroling.
- A little reality flash: some friends of mine have spent the last 3 hours chasing a pilot in a system. They knew he was there, and they were 7+ pilots chasing him. They couldn't catch him. He didn't mine. He was there tu hurt our alliance. We didn't mine. We were there to stop him.
3. Chatting and roleplaying will hurt something fierce with this. It will be down graded to "who the **** are you?" "Show yourself" "*******" "Dude, he left ten minutes ago, pay attention" "where?" "I dunno, I was warping to the Luminaire gate" (*** were not filtered out, it was just me using a different means than swear words)
No, what really needs to be addressed is this: safespots.
Plain and simple. Removal of local is just complete lunacy, invented by people not capable of doing true operations in 0.0 space. If the game doesn't comply with your tactics, don't change the game, adapt.
Oh, and there are Covert Ops coming out in not too long...
--
If TC causes you discomfort that you feel is unwarranted or may be outside TC's current contract - contact me, please. |
Schizophrenia
|
Posted - 2004.04.25 22:48:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Darken Two
Edited by: Darken Two on 25/04/2004 21:31:41
My point schziphrenia is that yes it gives pirates more of a chance at hunting people, but take a screnario where Im chasin somebody I wanna kill and he runs into a system with many gates. He then uses one of the gates to jump into a neighbouring system, now multiply that with all teh systems with multiple gates on that possible route and you are lookin at a lot of uncertainity.
What Im sayin is that its already hard to get people to fight, this just makes it even more harder.
Ps. If you think your corp is holding you back then quit. Also I couldnt care less whether pirates got to gank miners in belts or not, I wanna kill stuff and this aint gonna further that goal.
lol, that scenario is fubar, and you would have the same problem catching them whether they showed up in local or not.
This would make it easier to get people to fight, because they wouldn't run at the first sign of you in local. You'ld get to kill more stuff.
|
Schizophrenia
|
Posted - 2004.04.25 23:09:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Schizophrenia on 25/04/2004 23:57:56
Originally by: Ithildin
With removal of local and removal of pilots in space you'll have the following problems:
1. Alliances, those several players who really keep the game going and developing, will have an insanely difficult time patroling their space.
- Already it's harder than some people think. It's not just look at map
2. It's going to be harder than I-dunno-what to actually force anyone to identify themselves when patroling.
- A little reality flash: some friends of mine have spent the last 3 hours chasing a pilot in a system. They knew he was there, and they were 7+ pilots chasing him. They couldn't catch him. He didn't mine. He was there tu hurt our alliance. We didn't mine. We were there to stop him.
3. Chatting and roleplaying will hurt something fierce with this. It will be down graded to "who the **** are you?" "Show yourself" "*******" "Dude, he left ten minutes ago, pay attention" "where?" "I dunno, I was warping to the Luminaire gate" (*** were not filtered out, it was just me using a different means than swear words)
No, what really needs to be addressed is this: safespots.
Plain and simple. Removal of local is just complete lunacy, invented by people not capable of doing true operations in 0.0 space. If the game doesn't comply with your tactics, don't change the game, adapt.
Oh, and there are Covert Ops coming out in not too long...
Aren't elite frigates, with warp-to capability already planned that will solve, the "catching people" problem as well as the safespot problems.
And to be honest the game DOES comply with my tatics, I trumpth all though 0.0 mining the heck outta belts and making a fortune. Whenever I see a pirate in local its sooooooo easy to id him and them use a instajump to escape. They haven't got a chance :) and I haven't been touched yet (aside from some silly alts that I use to make the instajumps). Its because I realize the unfairness and imbalance of these tatics that I would support this idea. It would actually make it harder for me and more of a fair game to pvpers
btw Ithildin, when you say "He was there tu hurt our alliance" I assume that your talking about a rouge enemy pilot there to conduct guerilla warfare?
|
Darken Two
|
Posted - 2004.04.25 23:21:00 -
[24]
I still dont see what you are talkin about schizophernia. Hunting ppl is already hard this would make it insanely difficult. Instajumps can be countered, they arent infallible. But I cant do anythin if I dont know whos in a particular system and imagine the chaos caused in alliance space when alliance members go afk and then others are frantically running around trying to id that person cos it might be an intruder.
Your entire argument is based on just your, Im guessin, solo mining experience in 0.0. Well its pretty hard to fight solo miners and on a seperate note if you ran through more than a few 0.0 systems and the pirates you talked about werent able to catch you then they most have been nooblars or sumin.
Why dont you just DIE DIE DIE !!!!
|
Schizophrenia
|
Posted - 2004.04.26 00:29:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Schizophrenia on 26/04/2004 00:45:53
Originally by: Darken Two
I still dont see what you are talkin about schizophernia. Hunting ppl is already hard this would make it insanely difficult. Instajumps can be countered, they arent infallible. But I cant do anythin if I dont know whos in a particular system and imagine the chaos caused in alliance space when alliance members go afk and then others are frantically running around trying to id that person cos it might be an intruder.
See the original post I made. It said:
......................................................................................
"What if the another tab was added to the scanner to be a "systems" tab that showed:
a)number of total signitures in system
b)number of corpmates in system
c)number of alliance members in system
d)number of "UNKOWN" signitures
This would provide a sense that "someone" had entered the system, but who or where is a mystery. It would add a sense of supense to the game..."
.............................................................................................
/emote Schizo points up to the previous post.
Letters B and C would ensure that pilots know when their own are in system and would keep any "afk confusion" from happening.
Yes it would be harder to gank specific pilots (aka harder to grief specific players because of vendettas), it would also be harder to ID specific corporation enemies in system (you would not know if the particular unknowns are from an enemy corp or not). So yes, encounters will be more spontaneous, yet they would also be less avoidable. It would make it impossible for pilots that don't want to be caught from sensing danger and bolting. Here's a hypothetical of the current situation:
1.Darken and friends are flying around looking for action and jump into system.
2.Schizo and friends are in system and see Darken and friends enter the system.
3.Schizo and friends know Darken is trouble and BOLT out the system.
Now heres the same situatoin if the local ID's were taken away:
1.Darken and friends are flying around looking for action and jump into system.
2.Schizo and friends are in system and see 3 unknown signitures enter the system.
3.Schizo and friends are unsure of who has entered the system (friend or foe) and get nervous not knowing what to do. Because pilots enter and exit the system occassionally they decide to stay put.
4.Darken and friends invest the unknown signitures and find Schizo and friends and gank them :)
There happy? Granted, Schizo and friends COULD bolt EVERYTIME a unknown enters the system, but they aren't going to do that if they plan to accomplish anything. Also granted that Darken and friends didn't know WHO they were ganking, but still had the opprotunity to hunt and ID them before schizo and friends bolted.
See how this would make it easier to find action? Yes would would have a hard time ID's specific people, but they would also have a harder time avoiding gankers. See?
ps) I wasn't refering to solo mining, but group mining. And I doubt that you'ld ever be able to catch me either :P
|
Darken Two
|
Posted - 2004.04.26 00:46:00 -
[26]
K i think maybe I wasnt clear enough in explaining my position. Your scenario I agree, is marginally feasible under the conditions u stipulate.
My problem is that Im not a ganker. I dont go to belts looking for miners either. What I do is bascically secure pirste infested systems if I can to protect the miners haulers etc. And sometimes this means I have to chase the pirates around for many systems. Granted it would make my life easier when the pirates are stronger than me and they are the ones chasing me but being chased is half the fun.
Also I have noticed people at gates at very sensitive trigger fingers. If I get a last minute id call chances are the person will be dead before I see the message especially if they are flying a hauler. Not a big problem for alliance ops since we use TS. But I cant protect neutrals if I dont know who they are.
This would just make life much more diffcult for the pirate and pirate hunter noone else.
assuming u are mining in a low sec with no local ids cos ccp changed it. You see 3 unknown sigs enter the system. If I was a miner Id just start askin on local who they were. If they dont respond I would think immediately that they were trouble becos the chances of their being a quiet frindly or an afk traveller in 0.0 is extremely remote.
Extrapolate the above example and you have a very complicated and totally useless system that just makes the game tedious.
Why dont you just DIE DIE DIE !!!!
|
Atansa
|
Posted - 2004.04.26 01:06:00 -
[27]
Originally by: SUNscatcher
Hey This game would play much better if the Local channel disappeared once a player left empire space. I can understand a supported network existing in empire but once out that support should go away.
With local constantly present its like have a infailable long range sensor active at all times. Not very realistic.
I love the idea for the simple reason as a miner I hate running when I see someone come in system for I knwo they know I am here. If they did not know I would be happy. Also the maps take off players in space.
|
Darken Two
|
Posted - 2004.04.26 01:16:00 -
[28]
Atansa why dont you make a game called
EVE- The mining simulator
That way you dont have to run at all just mine all day.
Why dont you just DIE DIE DIE !!!!
|
Schizophrenia
|
Posted - 2004.04.26 01:31:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Schizophrenia on 26/04/2004 01:38:56
Originally by: Darken Two
K i think maybe I wasnt clear enough in explaining my position. Your scenario I agree, is marginally feasible under the conditions u stipulate.
My problem is that Im not a ganker. I dont go to belts looking for miners either. What I do is bascically secure pirste infested systems if I can to protect the miners haulers etc. And sometimes this means I have to chase the pirates around for many systems. Granted it would make my life easier when the pirates are stronger than me and they are the ones chasing me but being chased is half the fun.
Also I have noticed people at gates at very sensitive trigger fingers. If I get a last minute id call chances are the person will be dead before I see the message especially if they are flying a hauler. Not a big problem for alliance ops since we use TS. But I cant protect neutrals if I dont know who they are.
This would just make life much more diffcult for the pirate and pirate hunter noone else.
assuming u are mining in a low sec with no local ids cos ccp changed it. You see 3 unknown sigs enter the system. If I was a miner Id just start askin on local who they were. If they dont respond I would think immediately that they were trouble becos the chances of their being a quiet frindly or an afk traveller in 0.0 is extremely remote.
Extrapolate the above example and you have a very complicated and totally useless system that just makes the game tedious.
Yes, these changes are pro-criminal. I'll not deny that. They're changes designed to increase the unpredictableness and uncertainty of the 0.0 gameplay, thus leaning more toward guerilla warfare, unplanned and spontaneous encounters. And these would give more of a boost to criminal and pirate elements. I agree its harder to garantee security against a more unpredicatable and spontaneous system. But that's what makes it more fun (you seem like the player type that is uncomfortable with uncertainty and change, nothing personal)
But is my opinion this would be more interesting, and I'm a miner not a fighter. I can understand how the thought of change can frighten people though.
ps) you say that its your job to protect people but you would fire on a unknown pilot at first sight? Sound like people need protection from you!
pps) also note that the systems sensor already show friendly corp (those in which you've set high rating) blue and criminal elements/ warring corps appear orange. The level of "itchy fingerness" would be minimal.
|
Darken Two
|
Posted - 2004.04.26 01:41:00 -
[30]
Well I think we are nudging closer to understandings each others points of view now. I like uncertainity as much as the next man. My main concern however is that there just arent enough people to shoot at ingame. Yes it would be exciting to hunt down unknowns in local. No it woudnt be fun If I only ever saw unknowns rarely. the game has a lot of systems and not enough players to populate the systems enough to make it any interesting with the local removed.
Since you say you are the worldy wise 0.0 explorer/escape artist, tell me how many millions of pirates have you seen in deep 0.0. All teh pirates you see are concentrated in a maximum of maybe 15-20 systems within the entire eve galaxy. So no again, taking away local just makes it even more dull to be deep in 0.0.
Why dont you just DIE DIE DIE !!!!
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |