EVE Search - [CSM Discussion] + Story / Removing Local

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

[CSM Discussion] + Story / Removing Local - Eve Gameplay Opinions?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Hamfast Gallente	Posted - 2008.04.22 20:28:00 - [31] I know you wanted this discussion to include the CSM candidates, to hear their opinions on the idea... with luck they will show up and make their views known. If local is a Concord (Empire/Faction?) maintained set of systems that, based on the security of the system, tended to "Break down"... In .5 or higher space, these systems are well maintained, thus local remains as it is... In Low Sec, these systems do not work as well, they are not maintained... and so the local channel may fail to keep track of anyone in that system... when someone uses a gate, docks in a station, or speaks in Local, the system tracks them... if they are in proximity (100 KM) of a gate or station, they can be tracked... after a while (about a minute) there is a chance (20% per Security level) that the system will maintain that tracking... so in .1 space, there is a 20% chance that the pilot remains listed in local, 80% in .4... every 30 seconds after the first minute, another check is made until that check fails (or the pilot triggers the tracking again) After tracking is lost, an interaction with the system (as listed above) would be required for the system to start tracking the pilot again. In 0.0 space, there is no tracking, talking in local, using a gate or station will cause you to show up only for as long as you are talking or within range of the gates or stations. Player Controlled areas (Sov Level 1) can install tracking systems, the data can be encoded to allow only Alliance members to gain the information, but Hacking (Skill) with a decryption device would allow enemies to also get the data, and that data can be disseminated to the fleet (more role for the Intel folks) Cloaked ships (when Cloaked) should never be able to be scanned, perhaps at most an unknown signature at a minimal range, similar to all ships at extreme scanning range that are uncloaked... Non-Covert ops cloaks should use Cap as long as they are on, and the amount of cap should be based on the size of the ship and no non-covert ops ship should be able to remain cloaked indefinitely (10 to 30 minutes at most, at which point the Cap is gone as well). Covert Ops Cloaks will also use Cap, but a minimal amount (easily maintained by the ships that can use them). I would also add Forced Recon and Stealth Bombers to those ships that can use the Covert Ops Cloakà --------*****-------- Learn and be informed, because a Politicians worst nightmare is an informed voter... So choose your CSM Candidates wisely
Nicholas Barker MASS Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service	Posted - 2008.04.22 20:36:00 - [32] EVE doesn't have an email field for this sage!!!!!!! ---
The Economist Logically Consistent	Posted - 2008.04.22 20:52:00 - [33] 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?
Cailais Amarr VITOC Chain of Chaos	Posted - 2008.04.22 21:08:00 - [34] 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
Koro Kar'Amarr Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2008.04.22 21:09:00 - [35] On the flipside does being a CSM mean you should halt your personal take on EvE and not share ideas about where EvE is heading development wise? The local chat is a hot topic lately (and not so lately) having the problem and ideas for solution made so eloquently and creatively rather than just rants is good. Thumbs up from me
DigitalCommunist Obsidian Core	Posted - 2008.04.22 21:18:00 - [36] I'll delete my longer post, and say my views quite simply. You won't get local chat functions removed without some dumb clause for replacement mechanics. CCP's idea of change is trivial, and only a knee-jerk reaction to years of player ****ing. They'll remove local chat* in the same way they removed instajump bookmarks. The mechanics may be changed, but they'll be used to achieve the same results. The best you'll do with CSM is: a) convince them to reveal the details of their replacement mechanic b) get them to reveal their timeline for replacement And if you're really loud: c) push them to bump the scheduling and priority d) solicit another idea for replacement You will not succeed in making the game any harder than it currently is.
Koro Kar'Amarr Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2008.04.22 21:22:00 - [37] Originally by: DigitalCommunist You will not succeed in making the game any harder than it currently is. Thats really not what we are asking for here, options and depth is. Each ship they insert into the game adds both those things. Its not too much to ask for that to be applied to the local chat issue.
DigitalCommunist Obsidian Core	Posted - 2008.04.22 21:39:00 - [38] That makes no sense, because the inclusion of so many ships has watered down EVE. I'm asking for the complete removal of local chat functionality, without any need for replacement. If the scanner gets looked at, then it should be for the improvement of existing functionality and user-friendliness. Its important that you realize the whole problem of local chat is the artificial restriction of player interaction. Allowing more player interaction in 0.0 is the same as increasing the difficulty of EVE. Which, by the way, is the same thing as adding 'options and depth'. CCP could remove local chat list tomorrow, the game would be better and the problem resolved. _______________________________ http://epicwords.net/
Sevan Rax Noob Mercs	Posted - 2008.04.22 21:42:00 - [39] I very much enjoyed the story there, excellent stuff... on your points: 1. The map intel would need to change and stop being a free-lunch. I would somewhat agree with this. I would like to see the map intel available on the map be based on what your corp/alliance has come into contact with in these areas rather than losing all information on the map. 2. The Long Range scanner should become more customizable and user friendly û it should be able to give a PROXIMITY WARNING if you set it up that way. Another stellar plan... I like the thought of this and helps keep things interesting too. 3. Cloaked Ships are another problem. Realistically you are going to have to be able to scan for Cloaked Signatures and be warned of their approach. This I have a problem with... if this is done what would be the point in flying A Covert Ops, Force Recon or Black Ops ship with a cloak at all. There wouldn't be any, which interestingly enough highlights a problem with the whole remove local idea and re-balancing existing mechanics to fit. Despite not liking the idea of making cloaked ships 'detectable' as it breaks the entire spirit of the thing, I am forced to see the sense of it in terms of game balancing as much as I don't like it. But I still feel there should still be a way, however difficult, for the cloaked ship to remain completely undetected by potential victims, or you are killing off dedicated cloaking ships as a viable choice and this (to me at least) is totally unacceptable. Originally by: Cailais The solution need not sit wholey in the domain of the scanner: we must consider also the topography of EVE - the interstellar equivalent of mist, darkness, woods and valleys. Great stuff Calais, you got my vote :p Part of the problem here is that 'Space' in eve remains pretty much two dimensional in some respects, despite the three Axis. Take planets and moons for instance, regardless of where you or others warp from, everyone ends up at exactly the same place when warping to 'Zero'. Being able to hide your ship on the dark side of the moon would be a Sci-Fi wet dream come true! And aside from from warping from 'room' to 'room' spamming the Bookmark button there is no way to take advantage of the space in-between. You should at least be able to warp to an approximate point in space at will. From a combat perspective, this would cause a problem for scan probing but that itself could be solved by the very same mechanic. The solution here would be to allow different types of probes to be deployed within the sphere of influence of other types, which would, in effect, make it possible to create a sensor network within what-ever system you are in. Secondly, the probe network and the results thereof you create, should be accessible by all members of the gang and as a corollary the workload too, as probe deployment itself could be shared between members... The analysis itself would have to remain the domain of those ships specialized in it, to make sure that we are not making the obvious ships redundant in this matter. This would make, alongside removing local a very interesting environment indeed... dark and scary where good work, tactical environments (CCP had a sticky about this a while back) and inventive shenanigans are rewarded. Wow.. well, thanks to the Op for an excellent thought provoking and inspiring post and to the surprising lack of rabid trolls, many well thought out ideas in here. I ~~hope~~ know CCP can pull some good stuff out of this thread. -A Simple Proposal-
KhieIly Alcatraz Inc. Tactical Narcotics Team	Posted - 2008.04.22 22:02:00 - [40] Edited by: KhieIly on 22/04/2008 22:05:20 Perhaps the issue is more than local chat showing. The game has drastically changed with the introduction of cloaking and capital ship types. Some areas have advanced while others have not advanced to remain balanced. For example: sentry guns in empire, I remember a time when you could not "tip cans" without Concord intervening, or when you couldn't tank the gate even in 0.4. With ship changes and equipment upgrades this is now possible, so this is now an imbalance. Local is used by FC's to gage when to engage, how many there are to engage, I feel removing local would create more of a blob mentality and remove the tactical that makes real battles fun. Perhaps there needs to be a percentage of detection on ships that use devices not meant for them, cloaking devices were meant for covert ops originally. Lets say a raven has a cloaking device on there should be a detection penalty for fitting it to a non covert ops ship. Since capital ships have been introduced, some gangs run with a cyno to bring their caps in if engaged, so no longer a tactical battle but a blob fest. Also instead of pushing for game changes maybe discuss how to balance what is currently in game and work towards fixing the lag? My perspective of a csm is "how/what can I communicate to CCP to make this game better" or "CCP has this idea, what do you as the player think?" as opposed to "I have a campaign" some good thoughts, but perhaps not all agree and some don't come to the forums to have input in it. A csm should give and get ideas in game, it will allow a larger player base of input, and like a diplomat explain when one idea has to come before another so people know they are being listened to. My perspective of a csm is like being a diplomat, you listen to all and represent them. If you have an idea allow everyone the opportunity to critique it as they allow you to critique theirs, in game. I have a feeling it will be like negotiations of how/what to do first ;-)

Thirzarr	Posted - 2008.04.22 22:26:00 - [41] Edited by: Thirzarr on 22/04/2008 22:26:18 I think the fundamental data for "Radar" is already in the game: ship sizes and masses indicate how big their blib would be. I love the idea to remove the meta-level-intel that local is right now and replace it with a line of ships and skills that are fokussed on just that: Intel! AWACS capital ships anyone?
Trathen	Posted - 2008.04.22 22:42:00 - [42] If there is one thing I'd like to see come out of CSM, it would be for CCP to understand Local as the intel tool is totally weak - and even if a long-range scanner gave someone the same benefits as watching local, it would make sense and they would still need skills and modules for it.
Max Torps Gallente eXceed Inc. eXceed.	Posted - 2008.04.22 22:50:00 - [43] Firstly, allow me to apologise for my late showing in this thread, I wanted to read over Jade's quite in depth and imaginative post. Very invigorating it is too. Some good ideas, long term ones I think but you never know. As this is a request for my views on local...I am going to preface this with my usual and state that these are not my agenda but feel free to interpret as you need. My stance on views vs agenda can be found in this external site blog entry. I've posted a few times about local and forums being what they are it can be a bit hit and miss finding stuff. I'm very open to ideas on local changes as long as a suitable and enjoyable replacement is found. I think that's what everyone wants anyway of course. It's identifying and thinking through what repercussions a change will make that it vitally important. As well as being able to discuss ideas and not be tempted to bludgeon another person until they agree with you. Did I say that? Anyway...for previous mentions of local ideas, some in response to Bacon until focus shifted to log server alterations: Submitted by Max Torps on Sat, 12/04/2008 - 17:54. - External Site - StarFleetComms.com Eve-O Posted - 2008.04.20 08:21:00 Eve-O Posted - 2008.04.20 11:14:00 Eve-O Posted - 2008.04.20 23:54:00 Over the next couple of days I'm climbing Ben Nevis and Snowdon so apologies for not being able to answer questions during that time, however I will catch up on this on my return. Thanks for your time.
Dirtball PinK TacO Inc.	Posted - 2008.04.22 23:10:00 - [44] I like the idea in 0.0. A number of points I've added on multiple occasions over the last 4 years. Leave the amount of people in local [x] just not names. Allow + standing pilots to show up. On a sidenote if the CSM candidate could have a platform for things like these I think you'd see ALOT more involvement from the community. Some of the replys to this thread lead me to believe peeps are running for CSM just get a free plane ticket, a news item and some drinks. Although Pedro's "all your wildest dreams will come true" might should be avoided.
Wild Rho Amarr GoonFleet	Posted - 2008.04.22 23:22:00 - [45] Originally by: DigitalCommunist I'll delete my longer post, and say my views quite simply. You won't get local chat functions removed without some dumb clause for replacement mechanics. CCP's idea of change is trivial, and only a knee-jerk reaction to years of player ****ing. They'll remove local chat* in the same way they removed instajump bookmarks. The mechanics may be changed, but they'll be used to achieve the same results. The best you'll do with CSM is: a) convince them to reveal the details of their replacement mechanic b) get them to reveal their timeline for replacement And if you're really loud: c) push them to bump the scheduling and priority d) solicit another idea for replacement You will not succeed in making the game any harder than it currently is. I'm pretty much agreed with DC. When you read a lot of the responses in these sorts of threads it's hard to miss the notion that many players these days feel they have some sort of right to be able to mine/rat in 0.0 (theoretically the most dangerous areas of Eve) while taking the most minimal of precautions to protect themselves (no scouts, no team work to secure an area etc). Even many of the suggested alternatives amount to the same basic thing. CCP really do need to just bite the bullet and make 0.0 the dangerous space it used to be, high risk and high rewards for those with the brains and balls to make it there. Certainly some mechanics such as cloaking may need looking at but Eve really needs the sort of challenging environment back that it once had.
Torik Tavitas	Posted - 2008.04.22 23:28:00 - [46] Originally by: Wild Rho Originally by: DigitalCommunist I'll delete my longer post, and say my views quite simply. You won't get local chat functions removed without some dumb clause for replacement mechanics. CCP's idea of change is trivial, and only a knee-jerk reaction to years of player ****ing. They'll remove local chat* in the same way they removed instajump bookmarks. The mechanics may be changed, but they'll be used to achieve the same results. The best you'll do with CSM is: a) convince them to reveal the details of their replacement mechanic b) get them to reveal their timeline for replacement And if you're really loud: c) push them to bump the scheduling and priority d) solicit another idea for replacement You will not succeed in making the game any harder than it currently is. I'm pretty much agreed with DC. When you read a lot of the responses in these sorts of threads it's hard to miss the notion that many players these days feel they have some sort of right to be able to mine/rat in 0.0 (theoretically the most dangerous areas of Eve) while taking the most minimal of precautions to protect themselves (no scouts, no team work to secure an area etc). Even many of the suggested alternatives amount to the same basic thing. CCP really do need to just bite the bullet and make 0.0 the dangerous space it used to be, high risk and high rewards for those with the brains and balls to make it there. Certainly some mechanics such as cloaking may need looking at but Eve really needs the sort of challenging environment back that it once had. So you are in favour of them removing local?
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2008.04.23 00:14:00 - [47] Before removing local, nerf the map, less is more as Jade said, all that intel from the map is hindering not helping. Also nerf the overview, people need not see who is in what ship, they only need to know the ship and it's corporate affiliation, let them guess the rest. Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav! Also Known As
Element 22 Gallente	Posted - 2008.04.23 00:23:00 - [48] 2 things here: I love the idea, it would make EVE much more "realistic" (even though we know it isn't and never will be). I also loved the story (and was very very disappointed when I read about how it wasn't true). I have only a few suggestions -Cloaked Covert Ops shouldn't be seen on the "passive" radar (as someone else suggested), but should be seen on the active radar, but as a sevearly reduced signiture (that would increase if they're using MWD) that could only be seen within "line of sight" (aka 250 KM). - Recons should be seen in passive radar, but as a reduced signiture that mimics that of a frigate. -Stealth bombers shouldn't show up in passive and should show up sometimes in active depending on the radar operators skills and the stealth bombers skills. -I can't agree with the EM current idea, while very good (and ripe for imaginative use), it doesn't address two problems with it: We can't really move around in space, even at the very fast speed of 3-10 Km/s we simply can fly fast enough to make it feisable, otherwise we're stuck again in the "warp to 0" problem someone else mentioned. This could be solved by having an "overdrive option", it takes a full minute to start up, and it takes 30 seconds to stop but allows you to go at maybe 10% or 1% of your warpdrive capabilities (you also go in a striaght line). The community is constantly complaining about lag, but I can't see this helping in anyway. But that's not a real problem, and I can see how it wouldn't contribute much to the lag anyways. I also really liked the idea of sovernighty and stations. They should be able to place armored and defended "outposts" in space that actively or passivly scan the area with the active ones showing up in the scan quite easily. This puts a whole new use to the skill of hacking, a Covert Ops could warp to it while cloaked and hack it (they wouldn't have to take down the cloak) and be able to insert a "time trojan" in the form of datachips in 5/10/15 minute increments so a coordinated team can swoop in and take down the intelligence network and actually be able to do Covort Op like things. Now for the meta-comment: CCP probably won't listen to us, and it's both good and bad that we can accept that, but at this point harping on that is avoiding the purpose of the thread which is to simply talk about something we would/wouldn't like. /\|X\|X\|X\|X\|X\|X\|X\|X\|X\|X\|X\|X\|X\|X\|X\|X\|X\|X\|X\|X\|X\|X\|X\|\ / \|\| It's a truss bridge O.O
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.23 02:37:00 - [49] Originally by: Soyemia You seem like a good candidate but I need to know a few things about you. Right-o, fair enough old chap. Quote: Are you open for suggestions? Yes, definitely. Many of the ideas I've presented in the CSM manifesto are just that, suggestions and ideas from other players with experience in these elements of the game. I feel its important for a candidate to be good at listening and have a feel for which genuinely good ideas need to be promoted to the highest level of attention. Quote: What do you mostly do in eve? Most actual gameplay is fighting at the moment. 0.0, Empire Wars, constructing tactics and applications for new technology etc etc. I'm the executor of Star Fraction alliance that takes some admin, but I've got an excellent director team to share the work load. Here's an example of what I like to do Operation Fedaykin Quote: Merits? Hmmm, gameplay merits? or personal merits, not sure exactly how to answer that. Quote: Do you care about industrial side/do you know much about it? Star Fraction's tech2 industry very important to our alliance - we have an extensive suite of blueprint originals and build all interceptors, assault frigates, most recon cruisers, 4 hacs, 4 command cruisers and a wide variety modules and equipment. I do take an interest in the current state of play economically - though the day to day management and planning of these things falls to SF alliance director talent generally.
MongWen Farmer Killers United Corporations Against Macros	Posted - 2008.04.23 04:22:00 - [50] Originally by: The Economist 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? The CSM is and will never be an oversight committee, and they will more that likely act as a damage control if some scandal does happen again. Besides, what corp in real life wants their clients to go in and act as a big brother to prevent a scandal ? Originally by: The Economist 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? Now there are some that are running for the CSM that think they will have the idea that they can go a say to CCP: change this and this, so that they and their corp/alliance can get what they want. And the few that have only applied to get a chance to get a free trip to Iceland (A very bad turnout if they get elected). But the fact is that the CSM is players that will have a direct line to CCP that can handle issues and ideas with the direct intent to be open minded to it and voice what they think is the best for the community and what thy want. And they shod look at both sides of the issue/idea and discuss for both sides. [At least that is how I foresee that the CSM to CCP will work in general] And to the op: I like this idea, and it may open up for a new ship class and a mini profession also. Though the local channel can be changed so that in 0.0 it only displays the resent talkers and no way shod it display the numbers in local and no way to use it to get names out without people talking. And I think it can be adapted to low sec as well, and ofc it is up to CCP if it is implemented this way. ------------------------- Vote MongWen For The CMS. [Campaign Site]

Radcjk Caldari Dark Star LTD Atrocitas	Posted - 2008.04.23 05:00:00 - [51] The view list of the CSM candidates, I think Jade Constantine looked the best, but there were some issues I'd have liked to have known about before throwing my full weight into it. But with these ideas and goals, as well the the opinion on BACON, I think I just found my candidate. I'll have to point this out to my corpies as well. Much thanks for the effort Jade.
Soporo Caldari	Posted - 2008.04.23 05:00:00 - [52] Edited by: Soporo on 23/04/2008 05:04:14 Untill you can adress how Miners (who are required to be stationary) arent even more screwed than usual by these proposed changes then nothing will be taken seriously. Mobility and Gank owns stationary and defense. This is hardly arguable. If something makes mining even more dangerous than it is in Low and No-sec now then you can expect people just wont mine or will Empire hug or, at best, blob up even worse.
Tjolwin	Posted - 2008.04.23 07:56:00 - [53] Wouldn't the removal of local chat also mean that you remove a way to socialize with people, for good or bad. After all in my experience in high sec, local is quite often filled with interesting chat between parties that would have probably never talked to each other, because they wouldn't have known they are there. New players would be harmed too, by removing the first channel they are likely to ask for help. So there needs to be at least a replacement of sorts to ensure that you can still socialize with unknown players, otherwise eve can get a mmo, where you feel pretty lonely. Just jumping around in empire seeing all the people in local, since you barely see them all in space gives a feeling of actual population, since you know all are players. (I doubt 700 people in Jita are all alts of one person, but rather alts of 700 persons, knowing that, it provides a special experience once you think about it.)
Thirzarr	Posted - 2008.04.23 08:52:00 - [54] Originally by: Tjolwin ... in high sec... Please remember that we are talking about the systems where there is no public, concord controlled communication channel (well where the shouldn't be any). I think the changes would be radical but absolutely awesome. Adding real reconnaicance to the game would rock on the long run. And I think that everyone is well aware of changes needed. Be it Mining-Ship-High-Risc-Tanks - or tech II Mining ships - or Awacs caps or Anti-Camo-Bursts... Alot of possibilities and also alot of time being "not perfectly balanced". SO WHAT? Come on, guys! If eve stops progressing, yes radical progressing that might be disliked by change-fearers, it will soon enough die. Now if we want to keep playing eve and CCP wants to have a lifetime income by providing eve there have to be changes. BIG changes. Changes that give rebirth to eve as a game. I'm Looking forward to faction warfare. I'm looking forward to Ambulation. And I shure as hell would like to see Recon and Surveilance become what their name suggest.
El'Niaga Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.04.23 09:57:00 - [55] For economic reasons Local cannot be removed, CCP can't afford to lose that many accounts. They tried it once by 'accident'. It was quickly reversed.
Suitonia Gallente interimo	Posted - 2008.04.23 10:53:00 - [56] I like this idea for 0.0 certainly. I wouldn't like to see it removed in empire space though as it would make empire-based wars next to impossible. Good ideas, and well presented though. --- I've always wondered about those Vagabond pilots...
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.23 15:01:00 - [57] Originally by: Sevan Rax 3. Cloaked Ships are another problem. Realistically you are going to have to be able to scan for Cloaked Signatures and be warned of their approach. This I have a problem with... if this is done what would be the point in flying A Covert Ops, Force Recon or Black Ops ship with a cloak at all. There wouldn't be any, which interestingly enough highlights a problem with the whole remove local idea and re-balancing existing mechanics to fit. Despite not liking the idea of making cloaked ships 'detectable' as it breaks the entire spirit of the thing, I am forced to see the sense of it in terms of game balancing as much as I don't like it. But I still feel there should still be a way, however difficult, for the cloaked ship to remain completely undetected by potential victims, or you are killing off dedicated cloaking ships as a viable choice and this (to me at least) is totally unacceptable. Yeah, I mean I love cloaked ships too, I really do. But you do have to look at the gameplay angle and ensure there is still balance that gives people the opportunity to fight back. I guess you just have to get back to the idea that the cloak is a "visual cloak" primarily and hides people from visual sighting. And with the reduced scan result showing "cloak present" (not range or direction) thats enough warning for people to take counter action and look to their defense. (bare in mind that with the system I'm suggesting in the OP ALL ships would give some kind of result on the LR scanner so the cloakers would still have an advantage of hiding their ship type, range, direction etc.) Now cloaked ship outside of LR range scan is "completely undetectable" perhaps you play with the stats a bit and have the maximum range that cloaked vessels get detected even as a general "unknown trace" is lesser than max range for conventional vessels. In the bit of fiction in the OP I was describing the main advantage of the cloaked ships in the engagement being "unknown wild cards" side A had its 4 falcons, side B had its 4 sabres. The conventional ships got detected one by one by recon ops (except the 4 side B ravens that warped from beyond the orbit of the last planet) - the cloaked ships were the hidden assets that the fleet commanders knew were out there but couldn't resolve with any specifics until they de-cloaked.) Thats how I'd see the cloaking device function in in a map and local free environemnt - but you do need a payoff to allow the possibility of detection of presence alone to replace the disappearing local chat register in my opinion. CSM Election Manifesto 2008
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.23 15:04:00 - [58] Originally by: Radcjk The view list of the CSM candidates, I think Jade Constantine looked the best, but there were some issues I'd have liked to have known about before throwing my full weight into it. But with these ideas and goals, as well the the opinion on BACON, I think I just found my candidate. I'll have to point this out to my corpies as well. Much thanks for the effort Jade. Thank you Radcjk, much appreciated and please pass my best wishes to your corp! CSM Election Manifesto 2008
Nguyen VanPhuoc Minmatar The Halibuts	Posted - 2008.04.23 15:20:00 - [59] i'd be chuffed if local showed everyone in the system in 1.0 to 0.7 and then only showed those that spoke in local chat from 0.6 to 0.0, the buffer of 0.6 and 0.5 would stop high sec alts or BACONs watching ship movements near most low-sec entry points i'd love lots of other cool stuff like restricted scanning and interference from astral bodies but they're probably something to dream of in the far distant future :) ___________________ What was that word young man!?!
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.04.23 15:46:00 - [60] Edited by: Goumindong on 23/04/2008 15:49:27 Until you have a system on paper that does not fall into all the pitfalls that need to be avoided all of the wishes and wants for local are just hot air. Especially when there are a number of "quick" fixes that will solve pretty much all of the problems except the "feel" problem that can be implemented swiftly and easily. [I.E. let people scan cloaking ships, add 5 minute rat/mining aggression timer, don't show in local until you decloak from jump in(you still show if using a cloak)] Originally by: Jade Constantine Here's the thing Soporo. At the moment the map gives too much information. How many in space? How many npcs destroyed? How many jump activations? And local lets me know when I come into system there is somebody there. All I have to do as a "hunter" is zoom about with a ceptor and quarter the belts and look for a barge. The hard business of knowing where to look amongst the 1000 stars is already done for me. An increase in the time and effort it takes to find ships is, plain and simple, a decrease in the amount of combat that will occur. This is for two reasons, the first being that it takes more time to find targets, the second being that players are more likely to run together for protection when they have less information to deal with. Both of these things are not good for the game. Vote Goumindong for CSM



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.