| 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 !!!!
|
Danton Marcellus
|
Posted - 2004.04.26 04:56:00 -
[31]
So what if alliances got it harder? There's nothing to support them carving out empires exceeding that of established states by camping a few bottlenecks.
Think a little and stop blindly worshipping power, thank you.
Convert Stations
|
Darken Two
|
Posted - 2004.04.26 06:22:00 -
[32]
Danton can you please talk sense or not talk at all. We arent discussing politics on this thread, but game mechanics.
If you have nothing to say then dont post rubbish.
Ps. You are an established anti alliance forum troll and I dont have a problem with that. But please keep your paranoic views on the appropriate threads.
Why dont you just DIE DIE DIE !!!!
|
Mr nStuff
|
Posted - 2004.04.26 07:05:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Malvada
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?
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=75992
Still a dumb idea though. 
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 |
Xelios
|
Posted - 2004.04.26 09:10:00 -
[34]
No thanks, if anything we need the local to display more information about people in the system. Ie what corp they're in, their status toward you, that kind of thing.
Local is fine now. 0.0 is a huge place and it's very easy for someone to hide in it. People still have to physically travel to the system you're in to see who it is that's there, and even then you'd be extremely lucky to catch that person. I don't see any reason to get rid of the local chat.
|
StiZum Hilidii
|
Posted - 2004.04.26 11:02:00 -
[35]
totally agree remove local
^carebear mass dude above me says that we need it to check info on them if they are hostile...heres an idea get some balls warp to the gate and have a look see ...if they are orange or red run like the wind
if they aint take your chances
and realise
your in 0.0 and no one can hear you scream
STAN
FACTA NON VERBA |
Darken Two
|
Posted - 2004.04.26 12:28:00 -
[36]
I agree with Xelios, totally dumb idea. I dont even wanna imagine how Im gonna hunt someone down if I cant see whos in system. Removing local would be more carebear than not removing it. All in all just another idea couched as pretty words so people can mine in low sec without being caught and also to help people who wanna avoid combat that much more. If you go to low sec you get seen and you get shot so people should just deal withit already instead of whining.
Why dont you just DIE DIE DIE !!!!
|
StiZum Hilidii
|
Posted - 2004.04.26 13:44:00 -
[37]
im not saying remove the map and the dots for me its like this
remove local and keep map blobs or keep local and remove map blobs
STAN
FACTA NON VERBA |
Darken Two
|
Posted - 2004.04.26 14:04:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Darken Two on 26/04/2004 14:07:09
K stizum think about it this way.
lets say I **** you off ingame and you wanna hunt my ass down. And lets say you know I hang around a certain system in lets say tribute or pure blind. What happens next .
You have the option of turning up at the system but no way of knowing if I was there. Supossing by some miracle we find out we are both in the same system and I decide to bolt how are you ever going to find me cos each system is gonna ahve 1-6 jumpgates. Makes it a lot more frustrating and combat would be too easily avoided.
And lets face it the map is often bugged. Yea it can show blobs but when it comes to showing 1-3players it is often inaccurate in its updating.
I forsee a hellish future without local.
Ps. removing map blobs dont seem like a bad idea at all. Makes combat more likely.
Why dont you just DIE DIE DIE !!!!
|
Imhotep Wade
|
Posted - 2004.04.26 15:48:00 -
[39]
I think this gives us another opportunity for specialization.
Noone is seen in local unless;
a. they talk in corp or local, and shows name, icon and all.
b. or hunter has detection module which can see all of local
if you are detected by a detection module, you should receive warning from security services in high sec systems. low sec systems give no warning of detection.
Also, high sec systems announce jump events to all. Lower sec systems do not announce jump events.
This gives the advantage to the one most prepared for clandestine activity.
|
Maximo Prime
|
Posted - 2004.04.26 16:18:00 -
[40]
Make system monopolies illegal!! 
|
YuuKnow
|
Posted - 2004.04.26 17:28:00 -
[41]
Edited by: YuuKnow on 01/05/2004 04:17:23
Edited by: YuuKnow on 26/04/2004 18:22:04
Edited, changed my mind
|
Shimatu
|
Posted - 2004.04.26 18:49:00 -
[42]
i think removing local is a stupid idea tbh, for the reasons outlines above.
also, people seem to think that defending alliance space is easy to do. it isnt. without sentry guns or anything, its a full time job just to look after an area as it is now.
And if everyone wants to get all technical about "well, in real life you wouldnt have to transmit who you were", this isnt real life.
oh, to the previous poster, yes they did have a way to get you: they could have a) not only had 2 ships vs 9, and b)had the gate camper jump through after you, and scramble one of you before you escaped.
as a side note, i cant wait for the warp-to-ship frigs and mobile warp disruptor things :)
3-I's T2 sales can be found HERE
|
Malvada
|
Posted - 2004.04.26 19:53:00 -
[43]
playing without Local in 0.0 would just mean having to actually SCAN the system you're in to detect other pilots. i also think that scanning for a ship shouldn't just reveal the type of ship and the ship's name. people can change a ship name at the drop of a hat. the info should include the corp ticker (or none at all in the case of a freelancer) just like the one you see next to their name when you see them in space. this way, you'd know whether it was an enemy or not hanging out in that belt over there.
likewise, your prey would also have to be actively scanning the system like a paranoid freak to detect YOU. the limit of the range scanner (found by typing 1 and then zeros until the field is full, and then clicking Scan) is the same on all ships, so if you can see them, they can see you.
the prey could also have set up proximity sensors that warn them when a ship comes through the gate they've anchored one near.
the possibilities are endless, but it all comes down to one thing: make the game more fun. right now, tactical fleet movements in 0.0 are impossible. everyone knows you're coming and just boogies on out. everyone has what is effectively the ultimate spy network of information absolutely for free, with no effort.
whining about how hard it is to patrol your space, Alliances? how about not trying to grab up quite so MUCH space then? is there a problem with occupying less space, and just actively patroling your new, smaller borders? when you don't have the manpower to patrol your territory, you reduce your territory. seems simple enough.
i think there should be more Alliances out in 0.0, more corps, a denser player population. i think they should lay claim to small, intensely patrolled areas, and the vast spaces inbetween would be no-man's land, free for all to mine and hunt and pirate in, with Alliance territories being small islands of security that members of that Alliance can breath a little easier in.
the Alliances like to make fun of all the "sad little carebears" hiding in Empire space, but what it really comes down to is that there is no where to go in 0.0 that these pilots aren't afraid of being singled out and hunted down by an Alliance patrol and killed merely for "daring" to set foot in their territory! what hope do these pilots have if you can see them coming? if you KNOW they're there?!
now, it's not to say that suddenly being blind on the map and Local wouldn't be supplemented with hardware and skills. i think players should have to work and pay for their surveilance, not just have it completely for free by default as a result of the game design. Alliances should have to set up sensor buoys, which can in turn be destroyed by those that discover them and don't wish to be seen.
please tell me that some of you ney-sayers out there can see how this would make the game more fun, introduce more strategy into the game. you claim you want more pvp, but aren't willing to welcome a change that would effectively bring more players out into 0.0 to fight with...
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? |
YuuKnow
|
Posted - 2004.04.26 21:22:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Shimatu
oh, to the previous poster, yes they did have a way to get you: they could have a) not only had 2 ships vs 9, and b)had the gate camper jump through after you, and scramble one of you before you escaped.
Naw, they wouldn't have touched us even if they had 20 bs. As far and jumping through and warp scrambling us, we all had 2 WCS apiece and had instajumps lined up all the way back to empire.
|
Kaylana Syi
|
Posted - 2004.04.26 21:57:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Kaylana Syi on 26/04/2004 21:59:06
Edited by: Kaylana Syi on 26/04/2004 21:58:37
Originally by: Ithildin
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
At some point you have to ask yourself... do these alliances have the right to call it THEIR space. With Local in or out, Alliances cannot keep a section of space for 23 hours straight. Depending on how much patience and forethought on one's part... a solo pilot can set up shop to do major damage to any alliance. So... If I claim a part of space and defend it from alliances... is it MINE? I am not talking about what m0o does... I am talking real deal, hardcore chaos. Its hard for them to do it now... you just don't hear about it on the forums except through people asking "what if" and asking for feedback. So lets all keep this thread polite.
My vote : it doesn't matter pvp needs to be fixed first.
--------------------
The Nest
|
JGR Guinevere
|
Posted - 2004.04.27 00:34:00 -
[46]
I think you all are missing one detail about seeing who is in local. They got there by using the jump gate. The gate always knows who is and isnt in the system. Its only logical to assume your ship is or could be in contact with the gates all the times.
Besides who truely wins if the local channel is removed. Certainly not the newer or inexperienced player. And just because someone has 12 months in game doenst mean they are experienced. The only winners of this would be the pirates. It would be just one more tool for them to used for ganking.
It has gotten to the point where gate camping is not as easy as it once was nor as fun. Players have wised up and found ways to circumvent these blockades and even push the gate campers out of systems. Now the pirates want to complain that pvp has diminished. To fix it they want to again make it more difficult for the less agressive players to explore the universe. Removing the local channel and map functions would certainly do just that.
I believe those features put the pirate and non-pirate on a level playing field and should remain at least in some form. Without them we would spend all our time mashing the paranoia button (scan button) every 10 seconds. I dont know about you but more clicking is just more clicking. I really dont see the need to wear out my mouse any faster. There has to be a better solution than removing these features. Or mabey a compromise is in order.
Mabey for not being able to see every ship movement in the entire universe we get to jump into a system at the gate and not 15km-20km from it. Mabey for the lack of showing up in local channels frigs and elite frigs can only install 1 mwd. There has to be a balance of some kind. You cant make pvp unescapable. Not every player wants to pvp non stop all the time. If it becomes impossible for these players to to enter 0.0 space, without at least a small amount of confidence, they will dislike it and not play any longer. This of course means less money in CCP pockets. Eve is not just a PVP playground. If it was they would call it UnREAL Tournament:Galaxy Arena.
 |
Darken Two
|
Posted - 2004.04.27 00:49:00 -
[47]
I love it how the previous poster has just generalised the eve community as pirate and non pirate.
Essentially meanining that anyone with a gun is a pirate and anyone without is not.
Removing local would be bad for anyone wanting PvP. Removing map blobs would benefit anyone wanting PvP.
As for alliances they are a part of the game and as such were meant to be. No amount of screamining on the forums is going to change that.
I love it when some people just rant on about things without actually sparing a moment to think.
Why dont you just DIE DIE DIE !!!!
|
YuuKnow
|
Posted - 2004.04.27 02:24:00 -
[48]
Edited by: YuuKnow on 01/05/2004 04:17:48
edit, changed my mind
|
illuminati
|
Posted - 2004.04.27 06:17:00 -
[49]
I requested "warp to" 7 months ago, still not in
1 Chasing and hunting people in this game sucks
2 Local channel makes it suck a bit less
3 Miner-griefers now want something to mine-grief more easily and after that, they can run and hide more easily thus making
a military might even more worthless
b running and hiding even more bulletproof
c hunting people in this game suck even more
This is a min0r-grief0r-only idea, not good for chatting, not good for alliance tactics and warfare, not good for deepspace action at all, except same-old hit-n-run.
Furthermore, jesus christ, shorten the posts people!
|
Etoile Chercheur
|
Posted - 2004.04.27 08:19:00 -
[50]
Originally by: illuminati
I requested "warp to" 7 months ago, still not in
1 Chasing and hunting people in this game sucks
2 Local channel makes it suck a bit less
3 Miner-griefers now want something to mine-grief more easily and after that, they can run and hide more easily thus making
a military might even more worthless
b running and hiding even more bulletproof
c hunting people in this game suck even more
This is a min0r-grief0r-only idea, not good for chatting, not good for alliance tactics and warfare, not good for deepspace action at all, except same-old hit-n-run.
Furthermore, jesus christ, shorten the posts people!
how do you figure it's only good for griefers? with Local as is, everyone knows who's in the system. with Local nerfed a bit not to show everyone in the system involuntarily, pirates and pkers would have to scan the system, search every belt, all just to find someone to mess with. how is this easier? seems to be a bit harder than checking the Local channel to see if there are any potential targets... the absence of a chatters list in Local would work both ways. sure, pirates could hide. but so can you. a huge plus would be that pirates would no longer know to instantly warp and dock the moment some retribution comes their way!
and as for it not being good for deep-space tactics, would you care to qualify your statement with some explanation of just what you mean? as it stands, alliance fleet movements are POINTLESS. any time you move a huge fleet into the system, the enemy instantly knows you're there! suprise attacks are impossible.
Midshipman Etoile Chercheur - Logistics Division (M&T) | Hadean Drive Yards
|
Torvus Jay
|
Posted - 2004.04.27 08:27:00 -
[51]
Quote:
This is a min0r-grief0r-only idea, not good for chatting, not good for alliance tactics and warfare, not good for deepspace action at all, except same-old hit-n-run.
you mean watch pilots in space as the 2 blobs approach eachother stop and begin talking smack until everyone get bored and logs off.
Yeah we better keep that great tactical part of the game.
______________
Aim careful, and look the devil in the eye. |
Darken Two
|
Posted - 2004.04.27 10:11:00 -
[52]
There are both benefits in removing local for certain tactics but a lot of disadvantages for a majority of others.
I could elaborate but this thread is getting way too long already.
Local is necessary. Map blobs on the other hand are a problem.
Without local alliances and also anyone chasing anyone else will have an insanely hard time doing so. And lets face it it will make miners very very nervous and people will just quit mining in low sec.
ok Im done lack of sleep is making my brain turn to mush.
Why dont you just DIE DIE DIE !!!!
|
Malvada
|
Posted - 2004.04.27 10:29:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Darken Two
There are both benefits in removing local for certain tactics but a lot of disadvantages for a majority of others.
I could elaborate but this thread is getting way too long already.
Local is necessary. Map blobs on the other hand are a problem.
Without local alliances and also anyone chasing anyone else will have an insanely hard time doing so. And lets face it it will make miners very very nervous and people will just quit mining in low sec.
i would think that miners would be braver about heading out into 0.0, seeing as how they'd be much harder to find...
Quote:
ok Im done lack of sleep is making my brain turn to mush.
your brain's always that way. i can tell by your posts.
(i couldn't resist. you left yourself wide open for that one.)
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? |
illuminati
|
Posted - 2004.04.27 11:11:00 -
[54]
Quote:
i would think that miners would be braver about heading out into 0.0, seeing as how they'd be much harder to find...
Yeah, I wonder where you can find a miner in space, tough one!
Quote:
pirates would no longer know to instantly warp and dock the moment some retribution comes their way!
Yeah, 40 "unknown signatures" entering system wouldnt be much of a hint.
Quote:
you mean watch pilots in space as the 2 blobs approach eachother stop and begin talking smack until everyone get bored and logs off.
You solve that by removing "pilots in space" from map which, imo, is a MUST in 0.0 but you present it like this "no-local" would fix that? No local would not solve that problem, ever.
Quote:
as it stands, alliance fleet movements are POINTLESS
Yeah, so? Would there be alot more point to them if there was no local? The problem is "warp to within x km" which is DIRELY needed but local again, isnt related to that at all.
|
Darken Two
|
Posted - 2004.04.27 11:18:00 -
[55]
Malvada Im pretty sure anyone with nothing constructive to say like yourself should not make judgements on my intellect.
You dont know me so dont presume I'll take your jibes as a joke.
I will now try to explain why local is necessary through a series of scenarios. Listen if you care, **** off if you dont.
Taking a pirates perspective and supposing I were in g roup with other combat ships and I jumped into a system with a few ppl. Now if the local didnt exist or even if it did Id still attack becos I can. This can also be applied to alliance fleets that are invading territory.
Taking a miners perspective, if I were in 0.0 and mining outside of my own alliance territory, I would be instantly suspicious if new people turned up in a systema nd I had no way of identifying them. This would mean I would safespot everytime I saw someone enter the system. It might be ok for a short period of time but in teh long run its just nerve wracking and Id prolly go mine in 0.5 systems.
For the alliance patrol people. If I was an alliance member patrolling my alliances territory and couldnt identify people in a system or for that matter chase intruders it would make it much more tedious than it already is.
Not to mention difficulties for bounty hunters, explorers etc.
Im done. Listed below are a number of standard responses I have seen so far if you are planning to post one of them dont bother:
1) Darken Two you're a coward
2) Darken Two you're a pirate
3) Darken Two you're an Alliance *****
4) Darken Two you're a griefer
5) Darken Two you're a brainless moron
6) Darken Two you're a spammer
7) Darken Two you smell like old ppl
Thank you all and have a good day.
Why dont you just DIE DIE DIE !!!!
|
Schizophrenia
|
Posted - 2004.04.28 13:55:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Schizophrenia on 28/04/2004 13:56:11
Originally by: YuuKnow
However, iirc, other changes are in the works that could also possibly remedy this one-sideness. Mobile warp distruptors could potentially counter instajumps, and elite frigates that can warp to safespots may represent a counter to safespots. If these are already in the works, and if they work correctly, they may be the solution and getting rid of local may be unecessary.
hmmmmm, I have to agree. If the "warp-to" and/or warp distruptors work then this "not-having-local" thing would be uneccesary. It would still make gameplay a lot funner though.
|
Alberto
|
Posted - 2004.04.28 16:30:00 -
[57]
Remove Local!
****ing off society one dumba$$ at a time |
JGR Guinevere
|
Posted - 2004.04.28 20:22:00 -
[58]
Darken Two Quote:
I love it how the previous poster has just generalised the eve community as pirate and non pirate.
Your right there are many rolls in EVE however, for the sake of arguement, there are really only 2 types of players. The pirate and the non-pirate. If your a pirate stand up and be proud. If your a non-pirate do the same but your either on or the other. There is no middle ground there. You could say that some of the pirate hunters are indeed pirates because they are griefing the pirates in a way. I would say pvp'er and non-pvp'er but that would be silly as no matter how you want to play the game you will be involved in pvp eventually in one manner or another. So we are all pvp'ing.
Malvada Quote:
would think that miners would be braver about heading out into 0.0, seeing as how they'd be much harder to find...
I dont believe this to be a true statement. This puts alot of extra work on the miners end to insure he is in a safe area. Where as the pirate has the advantage of just popping in for a quick gank. Reguardless of weather or not the pirate knows there is anyone in the system or not it is far easier for the pirate to scan around doing their pirating than it is for a miner to do the same and mine at the same time.
Anyway, this thread is at least half pointless anyway. Local channel is not going anywhere because the developers know the headache it will cause then and the unbalance it will cause for the players. The map blob is another issue and I agree that something should probably change. However, if I were an agressive force and I knew that a big blob would show up on a map I would come up with a tatic to work around that.
1) Move fewer ships at a time and more slowly in areas that it will show up.
2) Not everyone takes the same route.
3) Move ships a day or three before.
4) Prepair stations for supply lines close to the front lines.
4) Disguise the attack by purposely making distraction blobs while doing the previous 4.
5) Posably even hire out a corp to run around in shuttles to blob up the map on purpose.
Just means you cant wage war all the way across the galaxy on a moments notice. A well planned raid will always be the most effective.
|
Megan Ryder
|
Posted - 2004.04.29 12:17:00 -
[59]
i've not been into 0.0 space yet, i'm still a youngster evewise, but to me it sound like a really good idea.
I'm also sure that any objections plp have could be countered by new and interesting skills and items like Warp Signature Analysis for tracking peeps in space. Also, i'm not sure about the covert frigs specs, but isn't that partly their intent?
Megan
|
Mr nStuff
|
Posted - 2004.04.29 18:32:00 -
[60]
I don't know why you guys bother going on about this stupid idea.
1) CCP will never remove local chat. (so why bother with this)
2) It doesn't help pirates anymore than it hurts them.
3) It doesn't help carebears anymore than it hurts them.
It helps no one, in no way..
The only thing to result from such a stupid fantasy of an idea would be the loss of communication. It would create a more anti-social environment.
PS. Don't private message me in-game. It's annoying.
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 |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |