|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Cailais
Amarr
VITOC
Chain of Chaos
   |
Posted - 2008.04.22 19:33:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Cailais on 22/04/2008 19:35:28
An excellent post Jade. My personal view is that the visibility of Local channel is a problem because it operates at a consistent uniformity across an entire system.
What do I mean by this? Well, regardless of where you are in a system Local 'sees' you - perhaps the omniscience you refer to in your post. What systems lack is any sense of 'terrain': theres nothing to hide in or behind, no way to manouver and attempt to conceal yourself, wether that's for offensive purposes or defensive.
I have suggested an alternative (link under sig) whereby systems have a form of 'weather' - micro climates around planets and across space. These micro-climates / environments act to divide Local into a series of sub channels.
For example all Category A planets would create a 'Yulain Feild' around them: if you're close to a Cat A planet you sit within that local 'channel'. Stars might be surrounded by a different radiation, enabling some scan frequencies whilst disabling others.
These fields would shift, move, expand and contract creating a dynamic shift of system weather and creating localised pockets of scannable space. Its the 18thC equivalent of hiding in a fog bank. We could expand upon this idea by considering that certain micro-climates are more or less common in certain regions of space.
Now players have the opportunity to plot their course around, through or into specific micro-climates to wait in ambush or conceal their location from roving pirates. An additional layer of tactical decision making evolves, perhaps even a 'career path' of pilots who specialise in tracking 'weather patterns'.
The solution need not sit wholey in the domain of the scanner: we must consider also the topography of EVE - the interstella equivalent of mist, darkness, woods and valleys.
C.
|
Cailais
Amarr
VITOC
Chain of Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 19:56:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Jenny Spitfire
Originally by: Cailais
The solution need not sit wholey in the domain of the scanner: we must consider also the topography of EVE - the interstella equivalent of mist, darkness, woods and valleys.
I support this. Environmental effect and mabey line of sight but mabey that will lag to much?
Im not suggesting line of sight mechanics - moreover dividing a system into seperate, fluctuating environments. I dont believe it will cause significant lag because essentially youre just breaking Local down into seperate channels based upon where a ship is. Local is still 'there' - its just much more localised.
C.
A new look at Local - IDEA |
Cailais
Amarr
VITOC
Chain of Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 21:08:00 -
[3]
Originally by: The Economist
Edited by: The Economist on 22/04/2008 20:54:46
Am I wrong in thinking the idea of CSM was to provide a certain degree of transparency to CCP, act as an oversight commitee and work to prevent scandals and endless tinfoil-hattery and not make players into pseudo-devs?
A lot of the candidates seem bent on using their potential position in the CSM as a platform to lobby for their own pet peeves, game design changes etc etc.
Have I got the wrong end of the stick?
Pretty much.
The CSMs role is to relay to the Devs cuurent topics of concern or debate amongst the EVE Community - if thats tin foli hattery fine, but it could equally be ballance issues, new features and so on and so forth.
Clearly its beneficial that we, the voters, are able to view the candidates in as transparent a light as possible: after all once voted in theyll be 'in the room' with CCP we wont. CSM members will likely have personal baises towards various aspects of the game that they view as more, or less important and equally views on how those issues should be adressed. Jade Constantine is simply being transparent is this instance and calling on other CSM candidates to offer their views should they wish to do so.
C.
A new look at Local - IDEA |
Cailais
Amarr
VITOC
Chain of Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 15:05:00 -
[4]
Something that Hardin wrote caught my attention here.
To paraphrase he noted that less information equated to a less safe environment - the options then being to stay in a safe area, or to seek safety in numbers: thus reducing the viability of 'solo' play.
Its a sound argument in that respect, which might point us towards solutions.
I know Ive mentioned the aspect of 'terrain' in terms of system space as an important factor, but Ill detract on this for a minute and talk about concentration of force.
If we think of the scanner perhaps it should detect not just individual elements (such as ships) but the combined effect of large numbers of ships in one location. For example, the scanner might act to detect 'mass signature' readings created by ships in close proximity to one another.
In essence the scanner would actually show blobs as, well blobs of mass on "radar". This might be fairly simple to calculate by totaling the signature radius of all ships within a given grid for example.
Now, to bring back my thoughts on 'terrain' we can then add an overlay of backround noise and interferance around certain objects / environments in space. Where this background noise is strong individual ships would be lost amongst the clutter but larger ships / 'blobs' of ships would still be apparent.
Furthering this subject we can consider the popular 'active vs passive' scanning method. Here we might imagine an active 'ping' clearing away a certain amount of background noise (albiet at the cost of a higher signature radius) within a narrow arc of view and range.
Even more tantalising we can see the prospect of 'camoflaging' your ship for specific environments through the use of specialised modules, or the creation of probes that produce false images of high mass concetrations.
Any thoughts on this?
C.
A new look at Local - IDEA |
Cailais
Amarr
VITOC
Chain of Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 17:53:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Cailais
If we think of the scanner perhaps it should detect not just individual elements (such as ships) but the combined effect of large numbers of ships in one location. For example, the scanner might act to detect 'mass signature' readings created by ships in close proximity to one another.
This is a brilliant idea!
Yes it is isnt it - anti blob too when you think about it.
C.
A new look at Local - IDEA |
Cailais
Amarr
VITOC
Chain of Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 11:06:00 -
[6]
Id agree here.
The current system is akin to being on a flat becalmed lake. The players 'view' is essentially limitless in terms of 'who' is there. However if we add storms, squalls of rain, mist and fog banks to this lake the picture changes and becomes more dynamic and requires more skill as a result.
C.
A new look at Local - IDEA |
Cailais
Amarr
VITOC
Chain of Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 18:45:00 -
[7]
An interesting idea.
a: Pirate sits quietly at a belt ready to ambush his prey.
b: Miner sits at a belt, sees a warp drive spike on scanner - time to flee!
= works for both parties. Certainly worthy of consideration Anke'.
C.
PS: please someone fix these forums this has taken three attempts just to post a reply! 
A new look at Local - IDEA |
Cailais
Amarr
VITOC
Chain of Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 18:56:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Maidel
Originally by: Cailais
PS: please someone fix these forums this has taken three attempts just to post a reply!
Ive given up... I had a long post and it wouldnt let me post it.
Yeah its a pain - do what I do and copy the whole thing before you post it.
C.
A new look at Local - IDEA |
Cailais
Amarr
VITOC
Chain of Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 23:33:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Max Torps
Originally by: Maidel
If you want to make eve 'harder' remove local entirely. I wont be happy, it think it will be a griefers paradise. However the alternative is to remove local, replace it with a silly time consuming scanner system which will annoy people who will do it to try and stay safe, and nothing will change appart from everyone enjoying themselves less.
You make a valid point in all honesty but the scenario I posted was is answer to a specific question about miners and what they could do to remain safe. The alternative there was to use either alts or mains dedicated to watching gates.
I think we need to peel this back and refocus on why people want to change local. Then discuss again encompassing all scenarios. I really do not think there is a one size fits all solution to this. Thanks for your point of view, it's extremely valid.
I think Local has come to the fore for a number of reasons.
Obviously players dont want to get ganked by overwhelming numbers: the tactic of scouting ahead witha lone ship, whilst having a massive fleet a jump or two out is now well used and understood.
Warp Core Stabs, having been nerfed, provide little hope to players now (in fact virtually no one fits them compared to 2 years ago) - a factor exaccerbated by HICs.
So how does a player escape the gank? Well he cant - his only option is to run as soon as a hostile appears: even just one hostile because of the risk of further ships 'over the horizon'. BACON is a good example of the pressing need for immediate intel in this regard.
And this applies both ways: the scout can immediately see if its worth attempting a hunt in a given system.
So we have a stalemate: the hunters get fewer and fewer 'hunting kills' and so resort to gatecamping, hotdrops or logon traps typically utilising overwhelming force (blobs).
Even if both sides are pvp 'centric the fights dont occur as everyone is busy tallying up numbers in local to achieve superiority of numbers. Thats a cyclical effect with fleets growing and growing until one side 'looses' the tally and docks up, runs to a POS or just logs off for the night.
At least thats my view - others may disagree.
C.
A new look at Local - IDEA |
|
|
| |
|