|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Hugh Ruka
Caldari
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
   |
Posted - 2008.04.22 18:55:00 -
[1]
Hmm ... where to start ...
Enjoyed reading the fiction. The game change suggestions are nice.
But you lack 2 things:
1. log in traps become more effective
2. oog (out of game) tools will become more effective (even eve voice).
However it's the best local replacement proposal I have read so far (including one or two of my own) :-))
EVE is seriously lacking in information and sensoric warfare (except ewar) and this could give covops pilots new potential. However I fear without automatic response tools (i.e. your mentioned proximity alert) this will kill the individual player (other than pirate) in lowsec.
I have to word my next iteration on local removal in features&ideas forum.
--- SIG ---
Goumindong for CSM. |
Hugh Ruka
Caldari
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 17:58:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Allaria Kriss
Some points.
And what will be the difference ?
1. small alliance vs large alliance. well in the current situation, both have the same intel gathering (local) just the large alliance can throw more material into actual combat. that will be the case with or without local, so this is non-argument.
2. hit and run - nano - they are there because it is so easy to avoid combat with map and local. you need to be fast to catch somebody. also they are best at disengaging when things turn south (i.e. local jumps too much with reds).
3. so the smart gate campers in lowsec already have scouts at the other gate, without local, nothing will change for them. again non-argument
As you correctly mentioned, the reason for lowsec gate and station camps is the nature of lowsec (no bubbles). Absence of local will have realy no effect on that.
I can only agree with the waste of time scanning an empty system in place of just looking at local. But that's one minor annoyance. Now you have to work for your targets. Big problem, pirates have to find targets and not just wait for them ...
--- SIG ---
Goumindong for CSM. |
Hugh Ruka
Caldari
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 18:32:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Allaria Kriss
Hugh: That's precisely my point. Removing Local has no impact on most of these things, so I don't see how it's going to make any difference.
But you are the one disgreeing with local removal and putting up non-arguments where the absence or presence of local has no impact.
Try one reasonable argument where removal of local will have a huge impact (I have one, ninja/solo mining as those ships depend on very early warning or protection).
I can see only positives IF a resonable and effective replacement is implemented. That's one BIG IF. I am all for local removal when that IF is solved. Until then it is up for discussion.
--- SIG ---
Goumindong for CSM. |
Hugh Ruka
Caldari
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 18:52:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Allaria Kriss
Here's the end-all argument, then, Hugh.
If removing Local has no impact, why remove it? CCP did it once by accident and there was open revolt. Do you think they're going to make that mistake again?
I don't think they will unless they have a very, very good substitute for it waiting in the wings. Thus, I, like you, am against Local removal until there's a well-planned practical alternative that's been well-tested and ready to go. Which there isn't right now. So that makes me against Local removal at this point in time.
Because local creates perceived problems:
1. people scream for cloak nerfs
2. BACON
3. cloaked rat farmers
4. logoff tactics
etc. etc. etc.
These are all there because of local. And you are against local removal at this point because there is no alternative solution - I do agree that's my stance too. But you are agreeing against local removal as such, not agains the solution voiced by Jade. That's a principal difference.
--- SIG ---
Goumindong for CSM. |
|
|
| |
|