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)
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.22 18:18:00 - [1] [0.0 space, contested system, 16 jumps from the Hisec Border] Battlegroup Delphi consisting 6 Megathron Class Warships, 4 Falcon Class EW Recons, 2 Broadsword Class Heavy Interdictors, 6 Crow Class Interceptors: ôSend to fleet, Recon element maintains cloak, Interception Wing quarter the system for contacts maximum range scan. Heavy group align for warp, 100,000klick pounce point, realign for inbound on transition. Broadswords maintain focused script.ö This far from empire every everyoneÆs nerves are frayed, weÆre in enemy territory, industrial moon mining is evident from maximum range scanning as weÆve passed through the jumps in combat discipline and now weÆre entering the lions den, bordering occupied outpost systems and expecting enemy contact with each second that passes. The big-black, non-concord space, here combat information is scarce and assessment of enemy presence and disposition is the most precious commodity imaginable, our own group taking every step to hide our capability until battle is joined and FC jealousy denying sight and capability to our foes throughout the transit. ôContact maximum range, Battleship Hull, 1, now 3, IÆve got their heavy ships ûtightening the scan, found them on 30 degrees towards the outboundö ôRoger that æceptor group, focus sweeps on the Gate and celestials no engagement intel only. Recon1 head to the star under cloak and pop an active probe then bail confirm?ö ôConfirm sir.ö ôHeavy group change alignment for the Star, maximum range scans 360 maximum alert watch for incoming and cloak signatures.ö Uncertainty, fear, assessment and a gamblers instinct û these the attributes of command on this kind of deep penetration mission against the foe. We both have battleships, those are our cards on the table, our æceptor group for rapid intel, our cloaked assets hidden nature to the enemy until the time of crisis. What we donÆt have is certainty, the system is too big for our long-range scans to quarter with maximum efficiency, there could be reinforcements beyond the last orbit, this could be a trap, but you can drive yourself insane with this kind of thing, the darkness of the big-black cuts both ways, know your own capabilities first, weÆve learned that lesson hard and thousands of crew have died to teach us. ôContact on Heavy Group, incoming range decreasing multiple æceptor class they know weÆre here!ö ôProbes in space! IÆm seeing 2 hostile signatures besides our own. Getting cloak distortion harmonics within maximum range scan.ö ôKeep it calm, I want information û assessment from Recon wing now.ö ôRecon confirms - 3 battleship class, 4 interceptors, picking up unknown number of cloaked signatures.ö ItÆs these moments before the battle that so often determine the fate of all under your command. ItÆs not too late û we could bail, move the heavy group to a forward æceptor location, 180, run for home. The odds are uncomfortably even at the moment and the cloaked ships on both sides the cards in reserve, our Falcon pilots are veterans, magnificent force multipliers and the Broadswords will keep the enemy engaged whether he wants it or not but is it all too easy, and is it a trap? ôGot a solution on enemy battleship group, resolution improved, 2 Raven class, 1 Scorpion, æceptor group in close defenceö Now or never, with the initiative we can do a lot of damage, and strike first û hit their battlewagons and our group will have one less uncertainty to worry about. ôClose in Recon1, warp cloaked to outbound bounce back at 50 à go now.ö ôIn warp à at the gate, no visual outbound, reversing, in warp again à visual now, ceptors and battleships at speed û IÆm in position.ö
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.22 18:18:00 - [2] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 22/04/2008 18:26:31 ôHeavy Group warp to Recon1 range 50. Broadswords switch to area warp disruption and bubble on arrival. Primary target Raven class A, secondary B. Falcon Group jam that Scorpion and watch scan for enemy reinforcements. Interceptors weapons free I want space superiority.ö Committed and now it was the killing time, at close range we'll make short work of the Ravens and Scorpion and our EW superiority will keep additional unknowns from playing a role before itÆs too late. We have initiative and thatÆs half the battle. 30secs to contact: this is how it is, all across the contested battlezones of 0.0, cat and mouse, desperate gambles, recon and commitment, intelligence and scan officers searching for foes, evading patrols, locating prey or trying their best to slip between the nets of territorial claim and sovereign hegemony on the frontier. Transition to real space and targets flashing red in the void û the assessment is calm now, weapon locks acquired and firepower delivered. In close proximity to the fleet the EW recons decloak and their systems swing the battle fully to our favour and for a sweet minute the sense of fulfillment and victory is everything. ôAdditional contacts inbound û 4 battleship hullsö ôWhere did they come from?ö (No panic, not now) ôUnknown.ö ôRecon Element is picking up a Cynosaural field beacon at 2AU range from fleet positionö The words are like a gunshot in a prison yard. ôBroadswords de-activate disruption fields, Fleet align for the Star, Recon1 give me a Safe enroute to stellar primary.ö ôRoger thatö Slowly the fleet comes around with weapons still flashing against the second RavenÆs failing shields as the wreck of its twin tumbles and sparkles in the interstellar night and the Scorpion makes microwarp speed away with its own systems comprehensively jammed by our electronic superiority. What have I forgotten? (All around us at 40k removed the electronic distortion of disengaging cloaks to reveal 4 Sabre Class light interdiction vessels and the flares of their drive units on intercept course.) ôNew contact, Thanatos Class Carrier confirmed at 2AU removeö ôWarp drive inactive, weÆre bubbled.ö ôNew contacts, visual, 4 additional Raven class battleshipsö Closing my eyes momentarily, just a second thatÆs all it takes. ôAll æceptors to our position and eliminate the Sabres, group maintain alignment, EW spread on incoming Battleships, Broadswords get ready to fight. Now weÆre in for a rough ride àö *** The above little story is fiction. Its not about Eve as it is now, but its about Eve as it could be if we get to the point where Local chat is removed from the game in 0.0 (and perhaps lowsec) and we move to a system where intel-warfare, scanning, and limited knowledge of enemy disposition becomes a factor in space warfare. ItÆs a massive change admittedly, at the moment fleet commanders and individuals and tiny skirmish gangs have perfect near perfect knowledge of the population of particular systems. We know that if there are 10 reds in system and 5 reds in the system over then the worst itÆs likely to get in short order in an engagement is 15 against us. If local blooms from 10 to 15 it means an active enemy gang has jumped in and we can react accordingly but the question is -> is this reasonable intelligence for us too have, and is the game better or worse for the existence of this intelligence-gathering tool? At the moment everyone from the biggest territorial alliance to the tiniest pirate outfit and even lone-miners and ratters have scouts in the systems around them, perfect views of population, perfect knowledge when enemy gangs come. With the advent of tools like BACON (which I obviously hope does get ruled against EULA) this situation becomes even more weighted and it becomes literally impossible to surprise anyone without a hot-drop of some kind.
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.22 18:19:00 - [3] Now as you can probably guess IÆm in the camp that feels that Local gives us too much intelligence and actually reduces the opportunity for combat since in the current state of play everyone knows too much about what the likely opposition has on the table and can simply opt not too engage if they donÆt like the odds. Sure you can duck this a little if you are the owner of a jump bridge, or titan, or (to a degree) black ops covert portal, or (if you are really cheesy) you can do those horrible log-in trap things û but all of this is only powerful because otherwise your enemy knows precisely what you have in local (and the next local) and can react accordingly. What if that knowledge wasnÆt free? WasnÆt near omnipotent, what if tactical uncertainty existed and FCÆs and residents in 0.0 space could only be sure about what existed within range of their ships sensors? What if scouting performed a far great role, what if you could simply hide a reinforcement fleet out beyond the orbit of a distant planet? What if you had to actually use big probes and exhaustive long-range scanning to ensure that the enemy had nobody one system over to jump in once the battle had started? It would make combat more hazardous; itÆd lead to some terrible surprises of course. It would be scary for territorial powers because theyÆd need to do some actual active patrolling to know what was passing through their claimed territory rather than just putting alts in stations. It would be scary for npc hunters to a degree, since theyÆd need to have the long range scan open and check proximity rather than just watching local. But û it would also mean that hostiles hunting those ratters would have to scan and search systems properly to find their prey rather than just burning through every system in a wide area until they see people in local. Of course some changes would have to come with this: 1. The map intel would need to change and stop being a free-lunch. No point being a ninja ratter watching your scanner diligently and counting on the security of a big system to protect you from bad guys when the game map is happily announcing to the entire server that youÆve killed 1001 Guristas in the last 8 hours. Anyone hoping to come and kill you should at least have to make the effort of scanning for wrecks as they pass through the system and make the connection. 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. For example, if you were ratting youÆd want any new ship contact within your maximum range scan to pop up on your screen with flashing letters and an audible alarm. ThatÆs just reasonable payoff for the fact you are no longer able to see enemies come into local. 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. You shouldnÆt ever be able to narrow them down or get specific ship information (or warp to them) but if there is a cloaked ship in X range from your ship you should get a warning. ThatÆs again the payoff for the removal of local. Think about it û without this and no local then all NPC hunters would automatically die from cloaked recons warping to their belt and scrambling them for a gang to come in and kill. Fair is fair. 4. But there can be some excellent things too, in my story I make reference to the fact that signatures are ôunknown, by class, by specificö in that order, when first detected all traces should be unknowns, and depending on the ships involved, the skills, even the modules of scanning ships the process of refining the contacts into detailed knowledge takes time and maybe a bit of luck. This stuff makes for drama and excitement, adds some gray area and uncertainty to the engagement envelope and adds another layer of possibility to warfare.
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.22 18:21:00 - [4] But the big thing is that removal of local and some in game map statistics tools in order to make 0.0 space big and scary and spacious again û a place where anything can happen and its possible to stage ambushes, to evade patrols, to find surprise-battles and where intelligence-gathering and successful recon plays a vital role. Makes non-concord unrestricted space an open environment of danger and possibility û and will make for some excellent space conflict and drama. As for the chat aspect û other players have already addressed this. Make 0.0 (and potentially lowsec) Constellation based chat where your name only appears in the chat window if you say something. People who want to chat can do so; people who donÆt want to be seen (for combat purposes, for ratting, for transit whatever) donÆt immediately get ratted out to everyone else in the system. * So this is a post to kick a discussion amongst CSM Candidates** and the general Eve populace û what do you think about removal local chat from 0.0 and how do you envisage the game developing from this if it happens? Are you for or against the idea? And why is that? Lets have a discussion. CSM Election Manifesto 2008
Cochise Caldari 20th Legion Legio Mithras	Posted - 2008.04.22 18:25:00 - [5] Thank God a real post for a change! Good your back Jade. I agree that local needs to go!
Captain Falcord Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2008.04.22 18:26:00 - [6] Edited by: Captain Falcord on 22/04/2008 18:26:39 /Kudos Agree with all that. The story helped to make me want these changes even more, I hope CCP gets the same feeling. It would perfect if you added this to your plan: -->Scans done in 5/15/30 degree range also show the ship's pilot information. AND --> Non-pilot ships are taken out of the "ship" category on the scanner (move them to a different category)
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.22 18:38:00 - [7] Originally by: Captain Falcord Edited by: Captain Falcord on 22/04/2008 18:26:39 /Kudos Agree with all that. The story helped to make me want these changes even more, I hope CCP gets the same feeling. It would perfect if you added this to your plan: -->Scans done in 5/15/30 degree range also show the ship's pilot information. AND --> Non-pilot ships are taken out of the "ship" category on the scanner (move them to a different category) Yep, the highest level of intel on contacts should be Pilot information. Agree also you should be able to remove not piloted ships from the focus search. Also something just occurred to me. In the spirit of making intel gathering vital and removing all the "free lunch" intel from general game systems. Pilots should be able to toggle off the "appearing with online status" in other people's address books if they choose. No reason why an enemy should necessarily know with perfect accuracy whether x pilot is online or not. This address-booking of hostiles is another local-ish cheese technique of metagaming too much knowledge of the tactical situation in my opinion. As always though, I'm very interested to hear from other people on the issue.
Jenny Spitfire Caldari LoneStar Industries Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2008.04.22 18:40:00 - [8] Edited by: Jenny Spitfire on 22/04/2008 18:39:57 Multipel acounts running same time still have bonus in-game (intel and all), no?
Captain Falcord Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2008.04.22 18:40:00 - [9] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Captain Falcord Edited by: Captain Falcord on 22/04/2008 18:26:39 /Kudos Agree with all that. The story helped to make me want these changes even more, I hope CCP gets the same feeling. It would perfect if you added this to your plan: -->Scans done in 5/15/30 degree range also show the ship's pilot information. AND --> Non-pilot ships are taken out of the "ship" category on the scanner (move them to a different category) Yep, the highest level of intel on contacts should be Pilot information. Agree also you should be able to remove not piloted ships from the focus search. Also something just occurred to me. In the spirit of making intel gathering vital and removing all the "free lunch" intel from general game systems. Pilots should be able to toggle off the "appearing with online status" in other people's address books if they choose. No reason why an enemy should necessarily know with perfect accuracy whether x pilot is online or not. This address-booking of hostiles is another local-ish cheese technique of metagaming too much knowledge of the tactical situation in my opinion. As always though, I'm very interested to hear from other people on the issue. Good idea, or maybe a "Do not show my status to the enemies of my corporation" thing ^^ Btw, what do you think about my last idea? (edited on my previous post)
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.22 18:52:00 - [10] Originally by: Captain Falcord Btw, what do you think about my last idea? (edited on my previous post) I'm not keen, because it would allow an alternative to actual scanning when people were hunting for loners in 0.0 systems (for example). Its not a show-stopper, and I could definitely compromise on the issue, but I do feel that focusing the 0.0 combat intelligence on the "what you can scan from your ship" angle is the way forward. Any kind of meta-reporting tool or functionality is giving away information that is not really earned by any positive effort. If one group manages to sneak 20 ships into system (or adjoining system) where(or next too where) another group is gate camping with 10 (ie the 10 don't have a scout in scan range of incoming gate) I don't want the 10 group to suddenly be alerted that this is now a populated system and smell a rat. I think they must be attentive to scans and intel gathering or face the chance of being jumped by and losing initiative. CSM Election Manifesto 2008

Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.22 18:55:00 - [11] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Multiple accounts running same time still have bonus in-game (intel and all), no? Potentially of course, if somebody is putting a cloaked scout at a gate with and checking long range scan (while also running a BS client elsewhere) then he or she will get a benefit from that - but thats Eve really, CCP coded the system to let people run alts and multiple accounts and some things will never change. CSM Election Manifesto 2008
Hugh Ruka Caldari Exploratio et Industria Morispatia	Posted - 2008.04.22 18:55:00 - [12] 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.
Letouk Mernel	Posted - 2008.04.22 18:56:00 - [13] Originally by: Jade Constantine stuff The changes you're proposing are too sweeping, too big, for CCP's baby steps. That said, 1. I'd be in favor of deployables that give the local sovereigns some sort of advantage, as far as map intel. The problem with map intel is that it's too black-and-white; either you see everything everywhere, or the delays (half hour, 1 hr, 24 hrs) are too poor a substitute for a suitable fog of war. I'd prefer deployables that give the sovereign an intel advantage, with the provision that an enemy scouting force can sneak in and take out these intel deployables BEFORE they transmit their warnings. Wanna be stealthy, work at it. 2. I'm all for that. Also for a HUD mini-map of local, and ship-to-ship communications so that if you're a fleet of 50 ships and each warps to a belt to check it out, the information of what's present at each belt is then available to each ship in the fleet, in the local map / overview / scanner window / all integrated information screens. 3. I think that a cloak that can be detected somehow is ... well, not a cloak. If local is removed and we have to rely on scanning and proximity for information, then stealth is good enough, so I'd say remove cloaks and replace them with stealth (ship is visible, but hard to probe down, lock on, etc etc etc). 4. We already have an "unknowns" indicator, and we will rely on it heavily once local is removed. It's the LAG. An empty system feels different than one where a 100-ship fleet is waiting for you. And, anyway, ideas are nice, but everything that we suggest still is too big, too radical, for CCP's baby steps. So, good luck.
Tycho Straun	Posted - 2008.04.22 18:58:00 - [14] Jade, Interesting idea, but please either change the thread title to remove the CSM part or move it to your campaign website. The CSM has note been voted on and you are not a member of it (yet)
Zaiyo Modi	Posted - 2008.04.22 19:02:00 - [15] Edited by: Zaiyo Modi on 22/04/2008 19:07:01 Jade's post was a fun read, just what I wish Eve to be. Recalling someone on the forum somewhere menioning passive scanning, this made me come up with an idea after reading this thread. Active & passive scanning: Passive scan: Passive scan would be a window with a button that says "passive scan", this window will paint contacts with weak ship-signature-strength. This way you can get a list of contacts (mostly of ships), but without indication of ship types or any location in space. Now, cloaked ships will show up as weak contacts, but they will likely be much nearer your position. And if the passive scan is used when a recon is 30km off your ship, the signal strength will indicate that a cloaked ship is nearby. You would need luck or be tiringly paranoid to spot say a recon trying to catch you offguard. This passive scan may be used to gain knowledge that a "cloaked" ship is nearby, especially if you accidentally happen to fly 30km near it. Clever manouvering may enable you to actually triangulate the position of a cloaked ship (like a cloaked hauler). With recon ship, they might be more stealthier, and harder to spot but they will show up as weak signals, but indistinquashable from regular passive contacts far off your position. Active scan: Active scan will be a way to both search for and pinpoint the distance and vector to another ship. A list of contacts will show distance, vector and shiptype. The important thing is that when a pilot presses the "active scan" button in the scan window, his ship will radiate a much higher signal strength for the next 60 sec, revealing his position to anyone simply looking at their scanning window. I like the notion of this making for a cat and mouse game, where you can relax abit more if you are a miner or simply staying put at a safespot. The activity with active and passive scan, will serve as a limited intel tool in a star system that no longer provide guaranteed intel on local pilots, as well as giving people a "fair" change in spotting when they are probed out. Probing tools would perhaps "need" to be changed to balance the power to probe, so that the prober isn't wasting his time doing so, by having potential targets just warp away too easily.
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.22 19:03:00 - [16] Originally by: Letouk Mernel The changes you're proposing are too sweeping, too big, for CCP's baby steps. Well we need a roadmap for change really, many these things don't all come at once - but we should know where we want to be heading and its important to communicate that knowledge to the devs at ccp. Quote: 1. I'd be in favor of deployables that give the local sovereigns some sort of advantage, as far as map intel. The problem with map intel is that it's too black-and-white; either you see everything everywhere, or the delays (half hour, 1 hr, 24 hrs) are too poor a substitute for a suitable fog of war. I'd prefer deployables that give the sovereign an intel advantage, with the provision that an enemy scouting force can sneak in and take out these intel deployables BEFORE they transmit their warnings. Wanna be stealthy, work at it. Yep, don't mind this in theory at all. Quote: 2. I'm all for that. Also for a HUD mini-map of local, and ship-to-ship communications so that if you're a fleet of 50 ships and each warps to a belt to check it out, the information of what's present at each belt is then available to each ship in the fleet, in the local map / overview / scanner window / all integrated information screens. Agreed, thats all good stuff. Quote: 3. I think that a cloak that can be detected somehow is ... well, not a cloak. If local is removed and we have to rely on scanning and proximity for information, then stealth is good enough, so I'd say remove cloaks and replace them with stealth (ship is visible, but hard to probe down, lock on, etc etc etc). Well its a visual cloak I guess, with some EW stealthing. Think star trek I guess, they always seem to know there is a cloaked ship out there somewhere. Maybe reduced detection range and such - but you do need to give people in local-less setting the ability to be warned on cloaked ship proximity or cloaks become overpowered and npc hunters are dead meat. Quote: 4. We already have an "unknowns" indicator, and we will rely on it heavily once local is removed. It's the LAG. An empty system feels different than one where a 100-ship fleet is waiting for you. Sigh, lag eh, I'd rather not rely on that for detection mechanics :) Quote: And, anyway, ideas are nice, but everything that we suggest still is too big, too radical, for CCP's baby steps. So, good luck. Well its still about vision at this point and I'm pretty interested to hear how the CSM candidates and general eve populace feel about the local removal options for 0.0. All the best though and thanks for replying! CSM Election Manifesto 2008
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.22 19:06:00 - [17] Originally by: Tycho Straun Jade, Interesting idea, but please either change the thread title to remove the CSM part or move it to your campaign website. The CSM has note been voted on and you are not a member of it (yet) I see your point, I've changed CSM Discussion to CSM Campaign - in the prefix letting people know its to do with the campaign not some formal CSM discussion subject. That seem okay for you? CSM Election Manifesto 2008
Jenny Spitfire Caldari LoneStar Industries Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2008.04.22 19:09:00 - [18] Originally by: Jade Constantine Potentially of course, if somebody is putting a cloaked scout at a gate with and checking long range scan (while also running a BS client elsewhere) then he or she will get a benefit from that - but thats Eve really, CCP coded the system to let people run alts and multiple accounts and some things will never change. Yuor idea is good but I beleive by makig client to run one per mechine woudl make your porposal viable. Oterwise, it is goign to benefit multipel acount holders. It is liek take 10 steps foward and 5 steps bakward. --------- Technica impendi Caldari generis. Pax Caldaria! Recruitment -KB-
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.22 19:12:00 - [19] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Your idea is good but I believe by making client to run one per machine would make your proposal viable. Otherwise, it is going to benefit multiple account holders. It is like take 10 steps forward and 5 steps backward. To be honest Jenny, Eve benefits multiple account holders full stop. And taking 10 steps forward to go 5 steps backwards still means you've gone five steps forward But then I've always been a glass half full kinda chap really. Thank you for your feedback though, its appreciated. CSM Election Manifesto 2008
Torik Tavitas	Posted - 2008.04.22 19:25:00 - [20] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Originally by: Jade Constantine Potentially of course, if somebody is putting a cloaked scout at a gate with and checking long range scan (while also running a BS client elsewhere) then he or she will get a benefit from that - but thats Eve really, CCP coded the system to let people run alts and multiple accounts and some things will never change. Yuor idea is good but I beleive by makig client to run one per mechine woudl make your porposal viable. Oterwise, it is goign to benefit multipel acount holders. It is liek take 10 steps foward and 5 steps bakward. Is it even technically possible to only let one client run per machine? I know that Windows will let you start multiple copies of single-instance applications if you run them as different users. Also, I have access to about 4 computers in my house that can run EVE so that issue is moot anyway.

Captain Falcord Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2008.04.22 19:27:00 - [21] By the way, I'd like map statistics to have new options in the 10 minute range. That means Ships killed in the last 10 minutes... you know, all the info.
Cailais Amarr VITOC Chain of Chaos	Posted - 2008.04.22 19:33:00 - [22] 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.
Pizi Gallente	Posted - 2008.04.22 19:33:00 - [23] remove local but add a radar type screen its totally idiotic to hit scan every few seconds if you want to know if something gets close
Koro Kar'Amarr Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2008.04.22 19:35:00 - [24] Nice little story and a good description of the direction EvE 'could' go. Local could remain as a chat interface, just remove the ability to view people in the system IE they are completely anonymous/invisible in that window until they choose to speak. Im not actively engaged in 0.0 warfare yet, but making changes in this direction is going to make things a whole lot more interesting ill wager. Regarding map intel aswell, as already mentioned far too much intel can be viewed from it, in turn this would encourage more timid people into low sec, if their presence there wasnt a bright burning beacon on the map. Id suggest a new line of POS, sensor arrays, networking relays. etc etc, which grant the command of an alliance these vital bits of information on the map. This would tie in fantastically with a command room feature in the ambulation expansion. If you want your numbers hidden from an enemy alliance then forward task groups would be required to remove/disable these sensor outposts. 0.0 Space is meant to be the wild west of eve, just who is providing the data everyone can view on the map? In the fiction there is no explanation for it. I really feel that changes in this direction are overdue and would open up so many exciting possibilities. DO it CCP, make your space the cold dark void it really is!
Jenny Spitfire Caldari LoneStar Industries Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2008.04.22 19:36:00 - [25] Originally by: Jade Constantine To be honest Jenny, Eve benefits multiple account holders full stop. And taking 10 steps forward to go 5 steps backwards still means you've gone five steps forward Yes, soem steps forward is good. In tis case, I perfer bacon and lokal chat to even up teh game as a cuonter. Taht is my unbaised view.
Soyemia Minmatar Art of War	Posted - 2008.04.22 19:37:00 - [26] You seem like a good candidate but I need to know a few things about you. Are you open for suggestions? What do you mostly do in eve? Merits? Do you care about industrial side/do you know much about it?
Jenny Spitfire Caldari LoneStar Industries Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2008.04.22 19:38:00 - [27] Originally by: Torik Tavitas Is it even technically possible to only let one client run per machine? I know that Windows will let you start multiple copies of single-instance applications if you run them as different users. Also, I have access to about 4 computers in my house that can run EVE so that issue is moot anyway. Teh idea is to maek it harder not unposibel.
Jenny Spitfire Caldari LoneStar Industries Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2008.04.22 19:40:00 - [28] 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 supprot this. Invirometal effect and mabe line of sight but mabe that lag to much?
Cailais Amarr VITOC Chain of Chaos	Posted - 2008.04.22 19:56:00 - [29] 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
Jenny Spitfire Caldari LoneStar Industries Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2008.04.22 20:17:00 - [30] I knoe. The line of sight comes form me. --------- Technica impendi Caldari generis. Pax Caldaria! Recruitment -KB-

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

Allaria Kriss Minmatar Elipse Inc.	Posted - 2008.04.23 16:09:00 - [61] A bit of a ramble ahead, since I have a migraine disrupting my train of thought. It's not related to this, promise. Removing Local would require huge changes to other systems; as such it could not be done in the foreseeable future without the risk of causing massive subscriber defection. Here's why: Getting fights in 0.0 is hard enough. Right now, the map and Local are the only ways of even knowing if anyone's in a system at all, and for alliances that control more than one system, this allows them a quick way to know where to respond to. Removal of this intelligence provides them with only one alternative that can provide a similar level of security. Gate-camping. Lots of it. Without Local or the map, alliances that are serious about security will just form enormous capital-supported bubble-dropping gate-blobs on entrances into their territory and gank the pants off anyone that enters. It's a remarkably simple solution that does nothing to improve the game, and as a matter of fact just makes it worse. About the only thing that can survive such a gate-blob would be roaming nano-gangs, which are already widely-seen as being far too common. All this will accomplish is to make 0.0 even more inaccessible except to the very experienced and the very rich, and will make alliance security take even longer and be even more boring. Not everyone wants to dedicate their life to claiming virtual space. The funny thing is, the people this would screw over the most are smaller alliances, who will have no hope of holding any space whatsoever (They already don't have a prayer against the modern death-star POS towers), since they can't always be available to fend off attacks from larger groups bent on stealing their space (As with this change they won't even know they're there until they start firing at a tower, and by then there's no time to scramble a large enough defense force), while larger alliances can afford to amputate access to their space with the above tactic while still having the capacity to respond to anything that slips past. Adding new modules that benefit the defender overlook the fact that defenders already have massive advantages while taking it away from the people who need it; this would simply make gatecamping more tenable as it would be easier to stumble into one for the people just starting out in low-sec. EC-P8R is camped enough already even with the map and Local, thank you. Adding specialized ships with special modules simply assures that every gang will have one or two of these ships and nothing will effectively change. Mustn't forget the effect on low-sec, either. This would also make gate-blobs and station-camps more common there, as most pirates will not search every single system with scan probes just for the possibility of finding a mission Raven which is already nearly impossible to detect even if you know where it is. Changing Local means that the benefits of reduced intel will mostly be reaped by large, well-entrenched alliances with strong intel networks and by roving nanogangs (Capable of escaping gatecamps) in populated low- or no-sec space. I'm just cynical enough to point out that you and your alliance historically fall into the latter category. As for cloaked ships, cloaking makes you invisible for a reason - So nobody can find you. That's the whole point of cloaking. The devices are expensive and require a good bit of training to use, and carry hefty penalties on non-specialized ships. They're fine as is. All in all, reducing intelligence makes warfare more static and uninteresting when no side wants to take risks. What I see a lot of people proposing is a return to the 'trench warfare' tactic of the World Wars, only in space. As a predominantly high-sec carebear with eyes on eventually moving out to low-sec and no-sec, I don't want to have to gather an army and fight the Battle of the Somme just to mine some crokite. How would you address these new problems?
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.23 16:40:00 - [62] Originally by: Allaria Kriss Gate-camping. Lots of it. Without Local or the map, alliances that are serious about security will just form enormous capital-supported bubble-dropping gate-blobs on entrances into their territory and gank the pants off anyone that enters. It's a remarkably simple solution that does nothing to improve the game, and as a matter of fact just makes it worse. About the only thing that can survive such a gate-blob would be roaming nano-gangs, which are already widely-seen as being far too common. All this will accomplish is to make 0.0 even more inaccessible except to the very experienced and the very rich, and will make alliance security take even longer and be even more boring. Not everyone wants to dedicate their life to claiming virtual space. I'd counter by saying without the map intel and absolute intelligence tool of local you will have a situation where a space claiming alliance wants to "secure" its space will have to split its forces amongst many gates and choke points and will become more vulnerable to "feints" "fake attacks" "hit and run" and black-ops deployment deeper into its territory. Take away absolute information and risks need to be taken, it becomes far less effective to "blob" since intruders will simply attack on different fronts. Quote: The funny thing is, the people this would screw over the most are smaller alliances, who will have no hope of holding any space whatsoever (They already don't have a prayer against the modern death-star POS towers), since they can't always be available to fend off attacks from larger groups bent on stealing their space (As with this change they won't even know they're there until they start firing at a tower, and by then there's no time to scramble a large enough defense force), while larger alliances can afford to amputate access to their space with the above tactic while still having the capacity to respond to anything that slips past. This is a common hobby-horse argument any time a change impacting alliance life in 0.0 is proposed "the small alliances will fair worse!" - but I really don't buy it. Reduced information means opportunity for everyone and makes space bigger once again. It becomes scary for everyone. Large alliances cannot afford to permacamp all the entrances to their space with limited information and no local. Hotdrops are dangerous, they involve risk. Fake attack happens and counter hot drop is made? That means another entrance is open and undefended. Small alliances slip through the gaps and take advantage of the fact their presence is no longer immediately highlighted on the map for everyone to see. CSM Election Manifesto 2008
Koro Kar'Amarr Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2008.04.23 16:45:00 - [63] Originally by: Allaria Kriss Getting fights in 0.0 is hard enough. Right now, the map and Local are the only ways of even knowing if anyone's in a system at all, and for alliances that control more than one system, this allows them a quick way to know where to respond to. Removal of this intelligence provides them with only one alternative that can provide a similar level of security. Gate-camping. Lots of it. Ok, so youve removed local and map intel and have completely ignored the suggestions to replace how that info is gathered. Are organised gangs with scouts into 0.0 / lowsec such a bad thing? or should we all be making our way solo VS AI in this game. Is intel (sensor POS arrays, etc) becoming an asset that has to be worked at by your alliance, defended by them, implimented by them a bad thing? Would being harder to locate in low sec due to less intel really deter people from going there? or would more people fancy their chances? Options are a good thing, more involvement is a good thing, less important things automated and requiring player input is a good thing. Sure, youll have to be paying attention to your scanner if you venture into low sec for some high reward activities, but you wont be a shining beacon on the map for all to see either. I think putting intel gathering into the hands of the players is such a cool prospect, if youre organised and wily you'll have the element of suprise against your enemy, if youre disorganised then youll be walking into traps left right and centre until you change that. Rather than looking at the map / local and getting specific numbers of an incoming blob and meeting it with a matching blob, guerilla warfare is going to become alot more attractive. I think changes to this aspect of EvE opens up way too many cool avenues to be ignored.
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.23 16:51:00 - [64] Quote: Adding new modules that benefit the defender overlook the fact that defenders already have massive advantages while taking it away from the people who need it; this would simply make gatecamping more tenable as it would be easier to stumble into one for the people just starting out in low-sec. EC-P8R is camped enough already even with the map and Local, thank you. Adding specialized ships with special modules simply assures that every gang will have one or two of these ships and nothing will effectively change. You forget that the gate campers rely on map and local information too. It'll be MUCH MUCH easier to attack gate camps with benefit of surprise with no local warning for the campers. Jump in a "victim" empty industrial to get aggression. Jump in a counter gate-camp gank fleet from another gate thats moved into position from another entrance. Current system the campers see local bloom and all de-aggress and jump out. This way we get a chance for engagements happening from imperfect knowledge and this in turn will make gate camping itself more hazardous, involving more pvp and consequentially giving more opportunity for blockade runners and travels to slip through the gaps into deeper 0.0 and protective obscurity. Quote: Mustn't forget the effect on low-sec, either. This would also make gate-blobs and station-camps more common there, as most pirates will not search every single system with scan probes just for the possibility of finding a mission Raven which is already nearly impossible to detect even if you know where it is. Well I'm not a pirate but I already search most systems I send gangs through with 'ceptor patrols and scanning on the chance of finding -10 hostile NSBI'ers. The diligent and the cunning will benefit - the lazy and uncreative will find it more difficult. Lacking map intel on dead ships will put the onus on locals to band together and report the presence of hostile camps - lacking map intel will make it easier to surprise those camps and scatter and destroy them. Quote: Changing Local means that the benefits of reduced intel will mostly be reaped by large, well-entrenched alliances with strong intel networks and by roving nanogangs (Capable of escaping gatecamps) in populated low- or no-sec space. I'm just cynical enough to point out that you and your alliance historically fall into the latter category. Well cynical or not - I will tell you that I (and SF) historically use whatever technology we find appropriate to fight back against superior numbers and blob fleets. Blackops, ceptor gangs, nano, ew superiority, hot drops, remote repping battleships, cloaked recon patrols ... whatever whatever. We'll adapt and make use of whatever technology exists to allow us to fight back. The game has changed many many times in our lifespan as an alliance/corp and we always make the best of the situations. What I can tell you is limited intel does not benefit centralized systems of control and the giant alliances will find it more difficult to patrol and control their space. Instead of being spoon fed free lunch from the map screen and local updates they'll have to go out and patrol and thats a good thing for the game. CSM Election Manifesto 2008
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.23 16:53:00 - [65] Quote: As for cloaked ships, cloaking makes you invisible for a reason - So nobody can find you. That's the whole point of cloaking. The devices are expensive and require a good bit of training to use, and carry hefty penalties on non-specialized ships. They're fine as is. I think you should re-read the OP and look specifically at the mention of cloaking devices there and in follow up posts. You've missed the point really. It would not be possible for people to "find" cloaked ships with the scanner in my proposal - just that people should know they "are out there - somewhere". CSM Election Manifesto 2008
Koro Kar'Amarr Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2008.04.23 17:07:00 - [66] 'Fog of war' is quite a staple in RTS games, the element of suprise and ability to outsmart an opponent make for alot more excitement and options rather than just clashing head on with everything you have. I know EvE isnt an RTS, but alliance warfare shares alot of parallels with it. While an effort is made to gather intel on real threats, it opens up the chance for lone opportunists to go about their business.
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.23 17:20:00 - [67] Originally by: Koro Kar'Amarr 'Fog of war' is quite a staple in RTS games, the element of suprise and ability to outsmart an opponent make for alot more excitement and options rather than just clashing head on with everything you have. I know EvE isnt an RTS, but alliance warfare shares alot of parallels with it. While an effort is made to gather intel on real threats, it opens up the chance for lone opportunists to go about their business. Agree, as Danton said a page ago - restrict available information makes the game bigger. Uncertainty and unknown disposition of enemy forces will make for more chance and meeting engagements sure, but it'll be much easier for those that want to "go deep" and hide to do just that. I'd believe that restricting map tools/local will lead to more conflict between groups out "looking for trouble" (because neither will know the precise advantage/size of the other) but will make it more difficult to find people who don't want to be found. And thats how deep 0.0 should be. CSM Election Manifesto 2008
Allaria Kriss Minmatar Elipse Inc.	Posted - 2008.04.23 17:23:00 - [68] Some points. Hit and run, and feints, already work pretty well. That's why you hear about nanogangs every time you turn around - They are the ideal in hit and run and they're already doing just fine. Feints are commonly used by larger alliances when attacking POS's, since 50 people in frigates do not equal 50 people in battleships and capitals waiting to hotdrop on your POS while you're chasing said frigates. As for Black Ops, they can't do anything as it is, anyway. A recon-based gang can already do what it wants in most 0.0 space without needing a large, expensive, vulnerable Black Ops tender. These changes wouldn't affect their ability to do that. Next point. Small alliances will fare worse with any change to intelligence for one simple reason - Larger alliances have more people and thus more people they can dedicate to intelligence-gathering. An alliance of 1000 people can easily afford to dedicate 20 highly-experienced pilots to scouting and recon, while that might be half the people that a smaller alliance has online at any given time - They can't afford to take such measures. Plus, smaller alliances have a harder time pulling off feints and sneak attacks because they often don't have the people to do so. If you have 40 people online, and you need 30 to launch a serious attack, you only have 10 to feint with, whereas your defender, who benefits from interior lines as well as numbers, has 80 people available and can counter both fleets with a group of 40. Of course, even if you slip through undetected, there's no guarantee you'll find anything before you get spotted, since your intel is worse than that of the controlling alliance. Onto what Koro said. Intel in the hands of the players does make low-sec more dangerous because of one simple rule of piracy. The only thing that making targets harder to find would mean is that people looking for targets will go to places where targets are most likely to be found - Gates and stations. That's why, historically, pirates plied known trade routes between major ports - They knew they would find ships there. Same goes for EVE, only in EVE you can't catch the ships in transit so you need to catch them at port. Making it harder to find ships off the trade lanes will increase piracy on the trade lanes. Back to Jade. Gatecampers, ones with half a brain anyway, don't rely on Local at all. An alt in a newbship, or better, something that cloaks, sitting on the other side of the gate they're camping is a far more effective early-warning system than the map or the directional scanners, since you not only get the advantage of knowing what's coming, but also who they are and what ships they're in. The map and Local have nothing to do with it. Most people will not scan systems as-is because it's usually a waste of time. Removing Local will make it a genuine waste of time - Would you be so keen on checking a system that MIGHT have a ship in it, or would you rather limit it to systems you KNOW have ships in them? I hate to agree with a Goon, especially this one, but Goumindong has a point when he says restricting intel reduces fights, because he's right. The only thing more painful than flying around in a gang for three hours without finding a target is flying around in a gang for three hours looking for possible targets that may not even exist. I'm not going to argue the cynicism point, simply because that's a personal opinion. However, limited intel strongly benefits from centralization, as that way everyone knows what intel is available rather than some people having some parts of it and not being able to put two and two together. That's why militaries require soldiers to report, so that an intelligence specialist or command officer can put all the various reports together and get a good idea of what's going on. Alliances with the experienced manpower to dedicate to central intelligence are in a much better position than alliances that can't.
Torik Tavitas	Posted - 2008.04.23 17:43:00 - [69] Local as a game mechanic is just awful. However, it has been in the game forever and as such an equilibrium has built up around it. It defines how miners, ratters, pirates, high sec players, low sec players, 0 sec players, solo players, corp players, small alliance players and mega alliance players operate in this game. Yanking it out will have repercussions to every playstyle in the game. I believe that local should be replaced with a proper sensor and intelligence gathering system. However, I am not really invested in the status quo so I don't really care which way they equilibrium shifts due to such a change. Naturally people who feel that it will shift in a direction that is disadvantagous to them will oppose it whether for good reasons or bad ones. You just won't escape it.
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.23 17:43:00 - [70] Allarria Kriss, In response: 1. Nano-gangs in the current environment are another item of discussion altogether really. I have my own opinions as to why nano-gang has become the primary mobile force in 0.0 warfare and it has a lot to do with the gradual spread and empowerment of POS equipment/jump bridge/hotdrop with full map intel and local monitoring. Black Ops ships provide a covert portal to a covert cyno that doesnÆt appear on the map. 2. Your point of Large vs Small alliances doesnÆt really work since the ratio of alliance size doesnÆt map directly on the potential game impact of local removal and making the landscape much bigger through limited intel. If you have 40 people online you can make a roving gang of quiet competent capability û at the moment you plunge that into large alliance space youÆll be scouted and countered and hotdropped on through jump bridges. Without local chat and reduced map options you have a far greater chance of penetrating enemy borders and finding an enemy gang that has not been configured precisely to counter you. 3. Gatecampers rely on local. Sorry Allaria, but thatÆs just the case. Yes they run alts in systems around û but those alts are watching local û often by the time a force lands on the gate its too late. The clever ones are watching local/scanners/+the map for blobs also. Trust me on this: IÆve fought these people for a long long time. 4. Re the restricting local / reducing fights. ItÆs just an incorrect assessment. People play this game for fun they want fights. Roving pvp gangs want action. At the moment the problem is that itÆs too easy to pick and choose your perfect fight. If you have a gang of 10 people out and you meet 15 (from your scout intel watching local) you might think the better of it and run. (if you meet 20-30 you definitely will) û but without local you arenÆt suddenly going to lose all desire for pvp combat in eve û youÆll still be out looking for trouble and watching the scanners but it will be more difficult of judge the odds and numbers in advance. Opting out of engagement on first comparison of local numbers will no longer be an option. 5. Re the big alliance thing and intel, if you have a huge multi region alliance with 500 people in chat the current state of the game allows them to see precisely where an incoming group is and track its movement through local scouts. They can see ninja ratters/ rogue miners / where npcs are dying, where jumps have occurred, they can focus their whole strength on the precise point of incursion. Limited intelligence means that imperfect intel traces will need to be investigated properly by intelligent scouts and patrollers and groups will have to be split up. In no way can this be construed an advantage foe a large regionally distributed power over a smaller focused territorial entity with restricted critical focus.

Hugh Ruka Caldari Exploratio et Industria Morispatia	Posted - 2008.04.23 17:58:00 - [71] 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.
Allaria Kriss Minmatar Elipse Inc.	Posted - 2008.04.23 18:12:00 - [72] Jade: You're contradicting yourself now. But before I get to that part, I'll reply to the other points. #1 - Nanogangs are a problem for a thousand different reasons that have already been beaten to death. I was just mentioning one that was relevent. #2 - "Your point of Large vs Small alliances doesnÆt really work since the ratio of alliance size doesnÆt map directly on the potential game impact of local removal and making the landscape much bigger through limited intel." - Put that in English, please. A communications expert like you should not be posting something so incomprehensible. I will try to respond anyway. More players = more people available = more coverage = better intel = win. All your proposal does is put off the hotdropping of the small alliance's fleet until somebody runs into them and reports them. #3 - Gatecampers rely on Local because Local is there. If you remove it, they will simply use alt scouts like most of them already do. They will just need more of them. #4 - It's been proven statistically time and again that, while most people play EVE for fun, they are not looking for PvP. All that your proposal means is that it is even harder for these people who are looking for PvP to find each other, and all roving gangs will catch are the occasional ratter or miner, not anything challenging like another fleet. #5 - Larger alliances can easily control more space than smaller alliances because larger alliances have fewer chokepoints per system than smaller alliances controlling less space. Some of their systems and constellations 'cover' others - Sending someone to guard an apartment block is just as productive as sending someone to guard an individual apartment, except that the guard can now protect many more apartments. Most space is the same way - Regions have very few entry points per system compared to individual components of those regions. That point aside, most people already will not engage a force if they don't have good intel on it - Simply knowing how big a force is tells you nothing. It could be 100 frigates, it could be 100 Titans. You'd better go look before you suit up for a hotdrop, eh? Your contradiction: You want people to have more fun PvPing, but make having fun harder to do by making fights, especially good fights, harder to find. You encourage blob warfare and gatecamping by making PvP riskier (Most PvPers are risk-averse, so the greater the risk, the bigger the blob) while limiting the chance that a small roving gang (Which will show up only as a tiny blip in Local or on the map and thus probably be ignored) will have of finding opponents. I for one fail to see how making PvP harder to find will make PvP more fun; if anything I think it'll be more of a pain in the arse. I don't want to have to fly around for an hour scanning four systems just to gank a ratter in an Enyo. 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.
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.23 18:25:00 - [73] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 23/04/2008 18:26:24 Allaria, most of your post is just repetition of the previous one so I'm not going over old ground. Its easy to play quote wars contradicting each other endlessly but with such a gulf of understanding between the core concepts we'll agree to disagree where views are incompatible and move on. Just a couple of points to close on: Originally by: Allaria Kriss #4 - It's been proven statistically time and again that, while most people play EVE for fun, they are not looking for PvP. Since I'm talking in this thread specifically about 0.0 and lowsec where actual pvp combat is prized by the player base I'm going to take your comment with a pinch of salt and just roll my eyes at the notion of such statistics. Quote: Your contradiction: You want people to have more fun PvPing, but make having fun harder to do by making fights, especially good fights, harder to find. The notion of the "good fight" is by definition a subjective one. A "good fight" tends to be something that has the advantage in your favour. To the other guys its as "bad fight". Currently knowing the numbers in local exactly its too easy to decide against non "good fights" ie ... where the numbers are roughly even or against you. Not knowing that intelligence in advance will lead to more genuinely objective "good fights" (which are not in the numerical advantage of either side necessarily) but ends up in a battle that could go either way. In any case, we've argued back and forth on the issue and we're disagreeing on interpretation not fact (statistics or otherwise) so we'll leave it there. Thanks for responding to the thread though! CSM Election Manifesto 2008
Hugh Ruka Caldari Exploratio et Industria Morispatia	Posted - 2008.04.23 18:32:00 - [74] 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.
Allaria Kriss Minmatar Elipse Inc.	Posted - 2008.04.23 18:40:00 - [75] 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.
Hugh Ruka Caldari Exploratio et Industria Morispatia	Posted - 2008.04.23 18:52:00 - [76] 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.
Torik Tavitas	Posted - 2008.04.23 18:55:00 - [77] Here is my reason for removing local: It is really bad UI implementation. To me at least staring at a list of names, waiting for it to change is not my idea of 'playing the game' and it has an uncanny resemblence to what raiding in WoW is like. There is no skill involved but it is just an exercise in endurane to see how long you can stare at the same list before your eyes gloss over.
Allaria Kriss Minmatar Elipse Inc.	Posted - 2008.04.23 18:58:00 - [78] Edited by: Allaria Kriss on 23/04/2008 18:59:47 Jade hasn't voiced a solution. Jade has reposted the same ideas that have been doing the rounds of these forums for months. I want to see something original, not the same old dead horses. Edit: Torik: How would this be any different from any other system that would be implemented? People will check for new hostiles as frequently as possible when in hostile territory.
Koro Kar'Amarr Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2008.04.23 19:10:00 - [79] Originally by: Allaria Kriss I want to see something original, not the same old dead horses. After you, please! since you are so intent on attempting to rubbish the suggestions people are trying to build here.
Rawr Cristina Caldari Naqam	Posted - 2008.04.23 19:19:00 - [80] Originally by: Jade Constantine But the big thing is that removal of local and some in game map statistics tools in order to make 0.0 space big and scary and spacious again û a place where anything can happen and its possible to stage ambushes, to evade patrols, to find surprise-battles and where intelligence-gathering and successful recon plays a vital role. Makes non-concord unrestricted space an open environment of danger and possibility û and will make for some excellent space conflict and drama. Anyone who votes the removal of local gets a + in my book. Now about those cheap Cerbs... ...

Sergio Ling Veto.	Posted - 2008.04.23 19:32:00 - [81] Jade, I've never been a massive fan, but you're far and away the best candidate. You have my votes. _
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.23 19:40:00 - [82] Great discussion - I'd love to see the perfect information of Local replaced with something where recon within a system is a tactical advantage.
Mangold Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2008.04.23 19:59:00 - [83] Great post. Nerf local now! ....and while you are at it make stations destructable or let the attackers pillage them.
Allaria Kriss Minmatar Elipse Inc.	Posted - 2008.04.23 20:03:00 - [84] Edited by: Allaria Kriss on 23/04/2008 20:03:52 Originally by: Koro Kar'Amarr Originally by: Allaria Kriss I want to see something original, not the same old dead horses. After you, please! since you are so intent on attempting to rubbish the suggestions people are trying to build here. Have a quick attempt at making something new. This one's even thought-out and detailed. It took me all of half an hour. Have fun flaming. Step one: Make similar intelligence tools available. Your turn?
Koro Kar'Amarr Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2008.04.23 20:26:00 - [85] Wasnt a flame dear, you just seemed very counter constructive. To be honest it doesnt even require new ship types but that never hurts. The systems are already in place in EvE, map data, local logs, scanners. All that needs to change is how they are accessed and who has access. Take a look at any contemporary strategic game and info gathering / fog of war features in it. Knowing what your opponent is up to at all times makes for a very unexciting strategy game. But since youve taken the time to conceptualise a new ship type I'll go have a look. :)
Torik Tavitas	Posted - 2008.04.23 20:53:00 - [86] Originally by: Allaria Kriss Edit: Torik: How would this be any different from any other system that would be implemented? People will check for new hostiles as frequently as possible when in hostile territory. Obviously any replacement system that would require people to keep staring at a display would be just as bad. Any workable solution would have to involve automated scanning and proximity alerts. This would then have to be balanced out with equipment sensivity, range, signature and power usage issues. ie. a scanner setup that could detect people at the other side of the solar system would give out a ton of false positives, eat up most of your power and make you detectable by people with much weaker setups.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2008.04.23 21:24:00 - [87] I have not read every post but have seen some references to this so I will reiterate hoping for some clarification: In general I think Local is a problem but the solutions so far seem lacking. 1) While I like the notion of bringing skill back to scanning I am not keen on the idea of having to spam a scan button while mining/ratting in dangerous space. Just not a good game mechanic. As some have noted there needs to be an automated system in place but how far does that go before you are essentially back to local? Further, when I am in low sec or 0.0 knowing who just jumped in is very helpful to me as a miner/ratter/missioner. Even if I have a 100% "someone is there" buzzer not knowing who it is means I will be running for a POS/station/SS every time the thing goes off. The only alternative is to have a large gang with me if I ever want to go into dangerous space and that simply is not possible most times. So, removing Local, to me, would effectively block me out of doing anything in low/no sec on anything short of a large(ish) gang basis. 2) Added to #1 above is the removal of map info. Often when people get ganked at gates and complain here they are told it is their own fault for not checking the map (even though the map is a lagged and imperfect tool for this it is better than nothing). Without that info I am utterly at the mercy of gate camps. Use scouts...fine...still does not sound like a gameplay improvement except for the pirates. Again, in a general sense I like the notion of info warfare, fog of war, general uncertainty and so on. As a practical matter though I am not seeing how this improves much. -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
Roland Thorne	Posted - 2008.04.24 00:25:00 - [88] I'll bring up an idea for discussion that could replace local. Just go back to basics: have a pinnable window that functions as a real-time radar screen, one that maybe looks like a shrunk version of Homeworld's 3-d navigation interface. Put a radial button in the corner that switches between "Active" and "Passive" scanning. "Active" scanning would bring much better results, but it would make you easily detected. "Passive" scanning would be reliant on other energies illuminating or reflecting off of someone else; such as someone using an active scanner nearby other ships, which would be illuminated at great range for a sensitive passive scan (which could be affected by special modules fitted in the highs, lessening the chance that a cloak could also be fitted including any firepower). The strength of the passive return would of course be affected by each ship's sig radius, giving an aggressive and large fleet extra presence in system. If there is no active scanning within range of a passive receiver, all ships would only be illuminated by perhaps the level of their powergrid, or their proximity to a star or other source of energy. The level of passive return would dictate how much information is received on the ship-type and general location, signified by the size, color, and clarity of the blip on your screen. Pilots would be unknown until close contact is made. Even though active scanning would make you clear to any passive viewer, the benefits of it would be enormous for the aggressor. Though they would be unable to warp to their contacts, they would know exactly where they were, what they were flying, and who was flying it. Though they would have a shorter range then passive scanning, and they are unable to detect cloaked ships, they would know instantly when and where that ship was if they uncloaked, and they could position themselves to trap the contact, and send probers to find him. The range of this active scanning should be short, maybe 10 - 15 AU, with skills or fittings available to improve it. Hum... (shrug) Any thoughts or improvements? oh, and btw... the reason I think cloaked ships should be left alone is because they are already limited greatly in firepower. You can't do much even with a recon without support.
Tommy TenKreds Animal Mercantile Executive	Posted - 2008.04.24 01:00:00 - [89] Jade, Every time I read, you inspire. It's a pretty sure thing you'll be getting my votes. Bandures > tommy you like a cowboy harry )
Alekseyev Karrde Noir. Trinity Nova Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.24 01:45:00 - [90] I think cloaked ships should show up as unknowns/undifferentiated from a rat or a cosmic annomoly on the scanner and thus not trigger the proximity alarm. Otherwise i feel it would disadvantage cov ops/recon players too much. Zombie Apocalypse Guitar-Wielding Superteam

Temp Boi Infinitus Odium	Posted - 2008.04.24 02:28:00 - [91] CONFIRM SIR
Aeo IV Amarr	Posted - 2008.04.24 02:55:00 - [92] Yes, local gives too much intelligence, but scanning gives far too little intelligence.
TwilightMadcat Caldari Scream Inc. Moral Decay.	Posted - 2008.04.24 03:07:00 - [93] I support this... would be a nice anti-macro thing as well imo. no more, local jump loggofski
Nemiron Amarr Katsu Corporation	Posted - 2008.04.24 09:40:00 - [94] Originally by: Tommy TenKreds Jade, Every time I read, you inspire. It's a pretty sure thing you'll be getting my votes. What he said. Counts for this thread as well as for the stuff on your website. OP was a nice read and the proposed fix for the loss of local is the way to go. Sure itÆs a huge step, but I think itÆs for the better of the game. Space will become bigger (and scarier), teamwork will be more rewarded (good thing for a mmo), soloplayers can use the proximity alert or something similar), more adrenalin, more tactic, more fielding T1 stuff, more ships blown up, etc. etc.. IÆm all for it. Keep up the good work.
JabJabVVV Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.04.24 12:22:00 - [95] Excellent OP and a generally excellent idea; not entirely to my taste but not far off either. A couple of things I would add: Local chat should be turned from instantaneous mode to delayed mode rather than remove it all together (ie you have to say something in local to appear). All ships should have a 'broadcast identity' option which automatically places your name and, perhaps, ship type in local when turned on. - This should be compulsory in 0.1 - 1.0 sec with the punishment being a global criminal flag when turned off (though it should have options to automate it based on sec level of system etc to prevent accidental concordokken) - This should be optional in 0.0 (again with the option to automatically turn it off/on when you enter/leave 0.0) as it may be desirable to turn on when operating in safe alliance space in order to avoid scaring the cr@p out of each other by showing up on scan without warning. I agree that the on-board scanner should definitely be improved: - The absolute maximum range of the ship scanner should be increased, maybe even unlimited, but with lower resolution and less information available at longer ranges. - Should be built into the HUD rather than rely on a pop-up window - Should be hot-key controllable as much as possible - Should be filterable and have user defined pre-sets (as opposed to simply using no filters or the overview filters) - However I do not believe the scanner alone should be able to provide automatic warnings of a ship entering range but I think an automatic scanning module would be a good idea, however when in operation it would kill your engines (cycle time of 5 seconds or so). This would reduce (though unfortunately not remove) the viability of the auto-logoff tactic employed by many ratters in 0.0 (as opposed to the automated scanner option which would make it easier) but would benefit stationary operations such as mining ops, which would be those most at risk from removing local. - The ability to detect the presence of a cloaked ship but not its precise location or ship type I like a lot, if local was removed but cloaks not changed then these would get a big bonus that I do not think is needed.
Gigi Barbagrigia 58th Syndicate	Posted - 2008.04.24 12:24:00 - [96] Nice read. However, before anything else you need to decide where you want PvP to go. Whether you want it going fun way or real way. What you described in your little fiction is real way. Fun? Maybe. To selected few. Also, you skipped the boring stuff; you know all the void scans before that fleet got its fight. You are looking at this from FC's point of view. Sending people left and right, scan this, report that, camp here, warp there, etc. Fun, huh? Now reverse the view ... a reasonably bad analogy, try putting yourself into role of single infantry unit in an RTS game. Fun, huh? You need attractors in space for fights to happen. They can be gates, POSes or intel, that there's juicy target one jump ahead. As much as your little story could look awesome on 6 o'clock news, channel would have trouble all the other days when nothing could be reported. Since I very much doubt anybody would enjoy coverage of some fleet spending 10 minutes scanning a system. For 10 systems. But most importantly, I'm afraid this Originally by: DigitalCommunist You will not succeed in making the game any harder than it currently is. holds true so whole debate is pointless imho.
Nicholas Barker MASS Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service	Posted - 2008.04.24 12:45:00 - [97] lol if local gets removed you guys are gunna be sooooooooo sorry ---
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.24 12:58:00 - [98] Originally by: Gigi Barbagrigia Nice read.However, before anything else you need to decide where you want PvP to go. Whether you want it going fun way or real way. What you described in your little fiction is real way. Fun? Maybe. To selected few. Also, you skipped the boring stuff; you know all the void scans before that fleet got its fight. Is an fps game more or less fun for knowing who is in the next room? Is an rts game more or less fun for having "fog of war" turned on. If everyone lacks perfect overview and tactical information then all is fine and balanced. Eve won't suddenly stop undocking if local went away in 0.0. People will be ratting, patrolling, agenting and building POS and whatnot and since these activities will not automatically signal presence on the map and in local there will be a radical upsurge in that rarest of eve engagement paradigms - the meeting engagement. Quote: You are looking at this from FC's point of view. Sending people left and right, scan this, report that, camp here, warp there, etc. Fun, huh? Now reverse the view ... a reasonably bad analogy, try putting yourself into role of single infantry unit in an RTS game. Fun, huh? Depends really, in game my character can fly pretty much any kind of ship. Sometimes I FC, sometimes I scout, sometimes I tackle, sometimes I like the stand-off nano stuff. Everything has its appeal and I tell you there is enjoyment to be found buzzing around in a Crow quartering systems looking for targets as much as in ordering a fleet around. Its different kinds of fun granted, but sometimes you want to kick back and just find and tackle while somebody else makes the big decisions for a change. In the local-free environment every decision would be more exciting and scouting even more critical - we'd have a lot less "X contacts in local immediately run/log off/dock" stuff going on. Quote: You need attractors in space for fights to happen. They can be gates, POSes or intel, that there's juicy target one jump ahead. As much as your little story could look awesome on 6 o'clock news, channel would have trouble all the other days when nothing could be reported. Since I very much doubt anybody would enjoy coverage of some fleet spending 10 minutes scanning a system. For 10 systems. It really doesn't take 10mins to scan a system - trust me on this CSM Election Manifesto 2008
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.24 13:01:00 - [99] Originally by: Nemiron Originally by: Tommy TenKreds Jade, Every time I read, you inspire. It's a pretty sure thing you'll be getting my votes. What he said. Counts for this thread as well as for the stuff on your website. OP was a nice read and the proposed fix for the loss of local is the way to go. Sure itÆs a huge step, but I think itÆs for the better of the game. Space will become bigger (and scarier), teamwork will be more rewarded (good thing for a mmo), soloplayers can use the proximity alert or something similar), more adrenalin, more tactic, more fielding T1 stuff, more ships blown up, etc. etc.. IÆm all for it. Keep up the good work. Thank you guys - really is much appreciated comment. All the best! CSM Election Manifesto 2008
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2008.04.24 13:22:00 - [100] Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 24/04/2008 13:23:34 Originally by: Jade Constantine Eve won't suddenly stop undocking if local went away in 0.0. People will be ratting, patrolling, agenting and building POS and whatnot and since these activities will not automatically signal presence on the map and in local there will be a radical upsurge in that rarest of eve engagement paradigms - the meeting engagement. So your proposal is only no Local in 0.0? Since the vast majority of 0.0 is empty what you just said would seem to be the case. However, in low sec I think it is completely wrong. I have tried my level best to find low sec that is mostly pirate free. I was moon probing so I would spend a fair amount of time in various systems and I never went more than 15 minutes (and generally a lot less time) without some pirate zooming through. While on the face of it your suggestion means the incoming pirate would need to scan the system to find me in practice I am long gone the second I see him. PvP > PvE fit so if I am doing anything except hunting other players I need to get the hell out fast. When you spend enough time in an area of Low Sec you learn who will leave you alone and can continue whatever it is with some assurance you'll be ok. With no Local I would have to assume everyone is a bad guy meaning I would be running for a POS/SS/Station every few minutes. Not fun. Further, with no window to look outside of a station how do I know if I am undocking into a station camp? With Local I can get some sense if bad guys are at least in the system. With your proposal undocking will be an adventure every time and frankly that stinks. -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"

Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.24 13:31:00 - [101] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h So your proposal is only no Local in 0.0? Since the vast majority of 0.0 is empty what you just said would seem to be the case. However, in low sec I think it is completely wrong. I have tried my level best to find low sec that is mostly pirate free. I was moon probing so I would spend a fair amount of time in various systems and I never went more than 15 minutes (and generally a lot less time) without some pirate zooming through. I'm open to persuasion on the solution for lowsec. Gut reaction is that local should be restricted in some form there though. Whether it be delayed/display or simply not there yet to see. I guess I'm a bit luckier than you with lowsec though, last night I made an appalling gaff and delivered a friends ship 40 jumps to the tale-end of space to Hakana system through some really lonely unoccupied lowsec (when I should have been taking it to ihakana at the other end of space). And let me tell you it was a big slow ship! Seriously though, pirate camps in lowsec - yeah, I can see a problem, perhaps allowing the map intelligence for lowsec but not nullsec is the way to go. Quote: Further, with no window to look outside of a station how do I know if I am undocking into a station camp? With Local I can get some sense if bad guys are at least in the system. With your proposal undocking will be an adventure every time and frankly that stinks. I'm actually in favor of windows for stations but I think we might need to wait for ambulation to get them. CSM Election Manifesto 2008
Gigi Barbagrigia 58th Syndicate	Posted - 2008.04.24 13:45:00 - [102] Thank you for answering question you didn't know I asked.
Soma Khan	Posted - 2008.04.24 13:56:00 - [103] Originally by: Aeo IV Yes, local gives too much intelligence, but scanning gives far too little intelligence. Poasting on teh intarnetz takes zero intelligence!
Wrayeth Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.04.24 14:14:00 - [104] Edited by: Wrayeth on 24/04/2008 14:16:37 Dammit, the EVE forums just ate my long and thought out reply, and I don't have much time to retype it. They really need to do something about this **** - it told me I wasn't logged in and didn't at least do me the courtesy of keeping and posting the content I just typed when I DID log back in again. Anyway, long time no see, Jade. I've got a couple of concerns regarding your suggestions. My apologies if they have already been addressed in previous replies; I'm trying to finish typing this before I get ready for work and don't have time to read the whole thread. Okay, my concerns are twofold: that this will decrease the chances of getting an engagement and increase the likelihood of blobbage. The first is pretty straightforward: greater difficulty in locating people (and knowing whether they are friendly or hostile) will result in more time spent searching, sometimes fruitlessly, and less chance and time spent pew-pewing. The latter is also fairly cut and dried, if a bit more in-depth. First and foremost, your proposed system would seem to favor numbers when searching for enemies; more people to case a system would result in better chances of finding something to shoot (assuming there's anyone to shoot in the system in the first place). The second is simple human nature: increase the uncertainty factor and people will take steps to ensure that, if unforseen events do occur, they will be ready for them. I see the upshot of this as most gangs bringing more numbers to ensure that if they do run into something they didn't expect, they'll have a greater ability to deal with it. TBQH, I find your ideas intriguing, but these concerns would have to be addressed before I could endorse them. Now let's see if the forum gods eat my repost. This time I'm COPYING what I typed beforehand. -Wrayeth n00b Extraordinaire "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!"
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.04.24 14:15:00 - [105] Edited by: Goumindong on 24/04/2008 14:17:41 Originally by: Jade Constantine Is an fps game more or less fun for knowing who is in the next room? Is an rts game more or less fun for having "fog of war" turned on. If everyone lacks perfect overview and tactical information then all is fine and balanced. Eve won't suddenly stop undocking if local went away in 0.0. People will be ratting, patrolling, agenting and building POS and whatnot and since these activities will not automatically signal presence on the map and in local there will be a radical upsurge in that rarest of eve engagement paradigms - the meeting engagement. Then again. These games are fundamentally different. Not only do they offer some certain and important information regarding opponents[in more RTS's is where the opponent starts how many of them are there and with what resources, in FPS games its how many of them are there and their base capabilities], but they also are more or less riskless. If you lose the game, the time it takes to start again is near zero. Because sides are not fixed and risks are higher makes eve fundamentally a different game from these. And then the analogy breaks down. The argument also breaks down due to time. That you increase the amount of time it takes for the engagement to happen may reduce its frequency. This is especially true for deep 0.0 ops. An increase in the time it takes to find targets combined with the both the decreased likelihood that people will produce and the increased likelihood that they will form together for defense mean that engagements are more likely to be much fewer with many more people on either side. Originally by: Wrayeth I've got a couple of concerns regarding your suggestions. My apologies if they have already been addressed in previous replies; I'm trying to finish typing this before I get ready for work and don't have time to read the whole thread. She has said it won't happen the way we claim, but hasn't put up a strong argument to that effect. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.24 14:49:00 - [106] Originally by: Wrayeth Anyway, long time no see, Jade. Hey there Wrayeth! Nice to see you're still around and up to mischief Quote: I've got a couple of concerns regarding your suggestions. My apologies if they have already been addressed in previous replies No problems, I'll summarize the general answers to the concerns below: Quote: The first is pretty straightforward: greater difficulty in locating people (and knowing whether they are friendly or hostile) will result in more time spent searching, sometimes fruitlessly, and less chance and time spent pew-pewing. Well lets look at what happens now. We put together a gang or go solo, we check out the map perhaps looking for blobs, we set the autopilot destination and then move quickly to the trace location. Our scouts are ahead in local and they report the presence of ships as they pass through. If we see a group much bigger than ours we generally evade, if their scouts see us coming they general evade, safespot, dock, logout or cloak etc etc. The problem is we have too much intel about enemy dispositions. You almost never get the wonderful "meeting engagement" in Eve since both sides are instantly aware of the relative numbers and generally have time to evade in some way to avoid a pitched even battle. Remove local and map intel and everyone is in the dark beyond the range of their sensors. We'll still go patrolling, we'll still have forward scouts to report on gate camping and run through systems with max range scans but we won't have the certain knowledge of X enemy ships in system and neither will the enemy have certain knowledge of our numbers. Now some people say that this means everyone will just go and hide in dock and never fight but come on Wrayeth, guys like you and I know that people play this game for fighting fun and games as well as anything else. People will be patrolling, they'll be baiting, they'll be setting traps, they'll be maneuvering, forming pincers, feints and reversals and all that lovely stuff we'd like to be happening. And remember, in actuality this isn't so different than we have to do at the moment, we bring a gang into system and just seeing people in local doesn't get us fights and kills - we have to narrow down the position of enemy ships and search to find them. Thats why scan skills in interceptor pilots are so vital. Removing local if anything increases the chance of getting fights since people are not getting immediate BACON-style warnings of enemy presence. Quote: First and foremost, your proposed system would seem to favor numbers when searching for enemies; more people to case a system would result in better chances of finding something to shoot (assuming there's anyone to shoot in the system in the first place). Yes and no, realistically 20+ interceptors can't search a system much faster than 4, its not just a numbers game - its pilot skill at play. Most systems in Eve I can confirm/deny enemy presence in about 2 mins without even looking at local right now - open system map plot a triangle course that takes in all major groupings and cruise with max range scanner - its not rocket science. Quote: The second is simple human nature: increase the uncertainty factor and people will take steps to ensure that, if unforseen events do occur, they will be ready for them. I see the upshot of this as most gangs bringing more numbers to ensure that if they do run into something they didn't expect, they'll have a greater ability to deal with it. Might seem that way in theory, but remove map intel and everyone has uncertainty - large space holding entities will need to spread their intel and patrols wider to actually control space. They will be vulnerable to false intel, feints, unknown traces etc. Also, if I'm a 10 man gang meeting a 100 man gang, my scout intel is still going to pick up a huge blob on the scanner and bail out. Blobs are slow - and they need intel to pursue after all CSM Election Manifesto 2008
Hamfast Gallente	Posted - 2008.04.24 15:03:00 - [107] Would this idea of the Removal of Local be acceptable if changed to a less efficient local chat based more on the New Player Help Channel? If you have not started a new character in a while, or it may only be on new accounts, but you can watch the help channel and never be listed on it until you speak... This is like playing hide and seek at night, you have a good hiding place, as long as you stay quiet, it remains a good hiding place... Talk, Move (or as I did once, snore) and your good hiding place is no longer as good... The only added functionality would be that local would not show everyone in system, it would only show those that have used local... I would also add 2 items, first is a timer, second is system detection... System detection is any uncloaked ship within X KM of a NPC Structure (Gate or Station) would be detected while they are in that range... Ships that are detected are shown as they are now in local... the Timer is once you are no longer detected (talking or within X Km of a structure) there is a chance that the system will lose track of you and you drop off the local chat list... just like you had left the system... It is not the elimination of Local, but the modification of how it works. --------*****-------- Learn and be informed, because a Politicians worst nightmare is an informed voter... So choose your CSM Candidates wisely
Hardin Amarr Epitoth Fleetyards Vigilia Valeria	Posted - 2008.04.24 16:54:00 - [108] I have to say I agree with Wrayeth and Guomindong here. I think the proposal as it stands could potentially lead to a dramatic decline in the number and quality of fights by encouraging ganking and blobbage. While the more PvP oriented 'small gang' corps may go to the efforts outlined here I suspect that many groups will simply fall back on the old 'safety in numbers' philosophy. While I can see where you are coming from Jade I think you are totally misreading how the majority of people play this game. What will happen when a pilot is ganked by 10 enemies. Will his own alliance send just 10 people to respond when they have no clear idea how many enemies are in the area? Will they assume that the 10 pilots are merely an advance guard for another fleet 2 jumps away? While there is already a tendency to blobbage I can only see that being worsened by this proposal. Yes they can dispatch scouts to scan all the surrounding systems (which could be a very large number of systems) but that takes time, organisation and will. We already see people on these forums complaining about nano-hac gangs and the pointlessness/effort required to engage them. Speed gangs have not resulted in more PvP (unless you count the ability to catch the odd careless NPCer as PvP)because many players cannot even be bothered to gather the required ships to combat them and this proposal could produce a similar result! While some organisations will make the effort many more will simply blob up (or dock up) on the assumption that there are many more enemies around than there actually are. Indeed (as with the nano-hac gangs) they may simply refuse to respond at all because it all takes too much effort. This proposal (as it stands) will from my viewpoint make EVE combat less likely than it is already. Yes we already have blobs but I think this proposal may actually make the situation worse. I do like the whole concept of 'uncertainty and fear' that removing local could bring but I simply don't see how it will encourgage good fights. All it will lead to is the death of careless individuals caught by surprise who will simply get ganked (as they already are). While that may be good for pirates I fail to see how its really going to help improve the frequency or quality of PvP in EVE on a larger scale. Of course there may be ways around this but so far I have yet to be convinced... ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.24 17:14:00 - [109] I think some people are making the mistake of looking at a proposal like this and failing to employ any vision or imagination in how the basic idea would be integrated into the reality of the game. Surely concerns like "It'd be too hard to find fights" could be easily addressed during the development of the actual mechanics and solutions found for minor problems such as these. I hope CSM candidates weighing in can demonstrate their skills in this area, especially with this idea which has tremendous potential and merit. It would be my expectation that anyone elected to the CSM be skilled at constructive criticism and capable of taking an idea and running with it instead of simply offering a shrug and a "It's got flaws." Especially when their job is going to partly consist of recognizing good ideas from the community and helping to develop them for presentation to CCP! We need council members who can pitch an idea to CCP with maximum effect.
Hardin Amarr Epitoth Fleetyards Vigilia Valeria	Posted - 2008.04.24 18:40:00 - [110] Yes it's quite easy to be 'visionary' when trying to win votes isn't it? Lets forget about words such as pragmatic, realistic and achievable and focus on 'vision' instead. It is so much more exciting isn't it! Recognising good ideas is fine - provided that they are actually good ideas and more importantly balanced! We can of course all jump on existing lobbies and claim to be 'visionaries' in order to get elected but what exactly will we achieve when we present ill-thought or agenda driven proposals to CCP. Should we all be sheep and quietly accept Jade as the all knowing EVE meister or should we point out flaws and issues in her thinking so that those ideas can be refined and improved into something that would actually work and might have a chance of being implemented by CCP? Jade should welcome this opportunity to fine tune her thinking! But if it is a sheep you want then don't vote for me! Hmmmm - may have to turn that into a banner

D4RT N3RDiUS	Posted - 2008.04.24 18:52:00 - [111] 3 simple solutions... 1rs: make the cloaking ships use fuel and only recons and cover ops have a bonus of compsumption and only the covers and the recons have a spacial bay for the fuel who are too heavy and the non recon ships or cover ops dont so 450 idrogen isotopes can last 30 min 40 min .. 2cond: REMOVE THA FRIKING JUMP FREIGTERS! AND THE JUMP ARRAIS FROM POSES!!!!.. .. lots of ppl are in is primary sistem all daylong only left the primary sistem wen they need to sell they ****y minerals.. this 2 things only promove the carebears alliances and make the things for this ppl more easy we need 00 like all days i need to cruise 20 jumps to get one hostile mate 3rd: make the cloaked ship posible to prove they can be proved with special proves and you only can prove the ship like the all days remember ??? like shoting 3 proves and thath things ??? so you can scanthe area but still is dificult but still posible to caths the cloaked bonused ships ... so the ships who dont have bonus can be proved more easy but still hard to .. sry mi engrish im spanish and barely can speack sry and by the way im half ork XD to
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.24 19:10:00 - [112] Originally by: Hardin I think the proposal as it stands could potentially lead to a dramatic decline in the number and quality of fights by encouraging ganking and blobbage. A couple of others have said the same and I've answered them in detail above - the key point is to understand exactly what happens when the local/map intel goes away. There isn't a way to simply "outblob" intel failures - you have to scan for and discover enemy gangs and use that read intel gathered from ships in space to make the engagement decision. I think its a bit ironic to suggest that removing local would actually reduce the quality of fights and encourage ganking and blobs since to my eyes the current state of the game has reached the absolute optimum peak for this tendency already - now we're trying to unwind this and improve the territory somewhat. Quote: While the more PvP oriented 'small gang' corps may go to the efforts outlined here I suspect that many groups will simply fall back on the old 'safety in numbers' philosophy. As explained in posts above it really doesn't work that way. If a defensive force retreats to "the blob" and doesn't move its extremely easy to scout and avoid. The raiders will simply look elsewhere for more engage-able targets and the blob will not be able to move quickly enough to pursue. + of course, I honestly don't think anything could make Eve more blob-friendly than the current status quo of jump/bridge/perfect local and map intel and rapid deployment on any movement. Quote: While I can see where you are coming from Jade I think you are totally misreading how the majority of people play this game. On that point we agree to disagree, but its worth pointing out that the way people play the game is determined largely by the mechanics in place. That doesn't necessarily mean its the way they WANT to play the game. Case in point your line about nano-ships below: Quote: We already see people on these forums complaining about nano-hac gangs and the pointlessness/effort required to engage them. Speed gangs have not resulted in more PvP (unless you count the ability to catch the odd careless NPCer as PvP)because many players cannot even be bothered to gather the required ships to combat them and this proposal could produce a similar result! This is actually an entirely different issue - and something worthy of debate in its own right but I don't believe every 0.0 raider pilots nano-ships because its what they want to be flying. I strongly believe that nano-ship culture has evolved because its simply the only way to fight in the current environment of 0.0 where the defending side has all advantages, cyno jammed and jump-bridged systems and the ability to focus the entirety of the defensive blob on any incoming force. Many players would much use battleships, rounded fleets, slower more powerful vessels but its suicide to do so in the current state of the game. Enhanced defender advantage and near instant reinforcement by jump-bridge hot-drop means that an aggressor force must be flying ships that can near-instantly disengage when local blooms on the incoming hotdrop and multiple incoming forces appear. Our own experience of 0.0 warfare in Providence just showed that Hardin - anytime anti CVA BS groups engaged Providence forces the battle would always conclude with defenders hotdropping double the numbers from jump-bridges and ending the fight with a convincing blob. Now you can't expect players to keep losing ships on a failed tactic and conventional slow vessels in enemy 0.0 sovereignty space against jump bridge reinforcement is a "failed tactic". This is why your enemies in Providence moved to nano-ships and cloakers - it was a tactic that traded firepower for maneuverability and ability to disengage. So the point is - you need to be able to see the big picture, its not enough to complain about nano-ships, you need to understand why they have become the sole practical raiding option. CSM Election Manifesto 2008
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.24 19:23:00 - [113] Quote: While some organisations will make the effort many more will simply blob up (or dock up) on the assumption that there are many more enemies around than there actually are. Indeed (as with the nano-hac gangs) they may simply refuse to respond at all because it all takes too much effort. Then that brings us into the realm of discussing Sovereign mechanics and bringing vulnerable infrastructure outside of POS shields Hardin. Nobody who puts up equipment in 0.0 should have the option of simply staying docked forever and not defending it. This is a pretty essential principle of Eve-online, if you want to establish and empire then you'd better be prepared to defend it. But really, I think you are making too much of the difficulty of finding enemies without using local as a perfect 100% reliable intel tool. Anyone who flies an interceptor knows how quickly you can quarter a system and report hull traces to the FC. Larger alliances will certainly be able to station scouts and cloakers and have a fair idea of enemy numbers incoming - they won't have absolute certainty in the way they do now, but people will adapt and war will continue. Its a bit silly to suggest that everyone would simply remain perma-docked forever if they couldn't know for certain what the total number of pilots in local was Quote: This proposal (as it stands) will from my viewpoint make EVE combat less likely than it is already. Yes we already have blobs but I think this proposal may actually make the situation worse. Obviously we disagree. I believe that the tactical uncertainty will lead to more incidence of combat because neither side has the option of simply counting local numbers and docking/going safe/logging off or otherwise making the disengagement decision based on absolute local intel. The blob argument is also unproven really and seems more a gut instinct than a reasoned one. Ultimately we the player base know that there is a problem with the perfect intel function of local and map statistics - CCP know this from a development perspective too. Question posed in this thread is about how we address that problem and deal with the issues of implementation. Quote: All it will lead to is the death of careless individuals caught by surprise who will simply get ganked (as they already are). While that may be good for pirates I fail to see how its really going to help improve the frequency or quality of PvP in EVE on a larger scale. I think you're a bit limited in your view of how combat happens Hardin. Its understandable because you come from the bias of big alliance POS ownership, perfect intel channels for local and jump-bridge hot-drops on anything that moves. But on this issue you need to listen a bit more to the experience of pilots that do the raiding thing and aren't counting on being able to sit out fights from behind POS shields or deploy overwhelming numbers in friendly cyno-jammed systems. Your comments on nano-ship warfare showed a bit of naivety on the issue I think - try and ask people their opinion on why nano-ships have come to dominate the 0.0 playing field (I'm not just talking about the ships themselves, I'm talking about the big picture of the space combat in 0.0 and the environments those ships are designed to survive in). Ask yourself what happens to a non-nano raiding gang that enters Providence at the moment and put yourself into the head of a player trying to construct a fleet that can survive being jump-bridge hotdropped and dictor bubbled in hostile space. When you can see these things from other perspectives it'll be helpful to revisit the local issue I think. CSM Election Manifesto 2008
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.04.24 19:30:00 - [114] Originally by: Jade Constantine A couple of others have said the same and I've answered them in detail above - the key point is to understand exactly what happens when the local/map intel goes away. There isn't a way to simply "outblob" intel failures - you have to scan for and discover enemy gangs and use that read intel gathered from ships in space to make the engagement decision. I think its a bit ironic to suggest that removing local would actually reduce the quality of fights and encourage ganking and blobs since to my eyes the current state of the game has reached the absolute optimum peak for this tendency already - now we're trying to unwind this and improve the territory somewhat. You are wrong about what happens in this game when local goes away, your argument to support that position is a false analogy, and you are also wrong about the ability to out-blob intelligence failures. Intelligence networks all follow the same laws of cooperative networks[not sure this is the right word here], but their value is "equal" to the number of nodes they have squared. Larger alliances are more easily able to dedicate more people to scanning and have larger gangs all scanning. This increases the number of nodes they have and lets them get better and more accurate information in faster. Only by increasing the amount of information that parties have access to or removing the ability to gather information can you limit the advantage that larger gangs and alliances have in this regard. Quote: I strongly believe that nano-ship culture has evolved because its simply the only way to fight in the current environment of 0.0 where the defending side has all advantages, cyno jammed and jump-bridged systems and the ability to focus the entirety of the defensive blob on any incoming force. No, the prevalence of nano-gangs has entirely to do with the fact that the ships reduce risks much too severely[i.e. they are overpowered]. Defensive gangs for every type of operation that is not attacking a POS are now nearly all compromised of nano-ships[and for good reason]. Even fleets today are split into the nano-ships and the battleships[and the capitals]. A great example is BoB which flies with nearly no frigates, ceptors, or interdictors now-a-days simply because they have become obsolete to fast tech 2 cruisers. Back in the day when nano-fibers were +20m/s, overdrives were +velocity -agility and i-stabs were useless this was not the case because you could not make a cruiser as fast as a frigate but with more hit points and better dps. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Ashlee Darksky	Posted - 2008.04.24 19:36:00 - [115] A nice story at the start... nothing like it to get the crowd going, and slightly distracted through all the hype. I'm not saying that's wrong, just simply pointing that out to anyone who may not have noticed it and been swayed. Local is handy, but when it is abused then it becomes a problem. The changes you suggest are massive! Not in themselves, but the effects they can and will have. You can't simply say "get rid of local" - and you haven't, but it does introduce a number of other issues. How do you propose to counter the problems created? BACON and tools like it are bad, but local isn't the devil incarnate. Without it, we would spend literally HOURS scanning, probing, scanning again, warping in only to find the enemy had gone,etc, etc. It would make for VERY boring gameplay and slow everything down to a snails pace. I would suggest keeping local (maybe in some watered-down state) but banning things like BACON and the Goons version of it, or simply breaking the log server so these tools can no longer be used. A watered down version of local might be: 121: In system 114: Neutral 3: Orange standing (up to -4.99 corp ratings/standings) 2: Red standing (-4.99 to -10 corp ratings/standings) 2: War Targets (anyone you are at war with) This way you can simply see the number of people in the system, and if you have any targets. You cannot see the ACTUAL player - unless of course they speak, which would be stupid in a war, right? So I think an overhaul, rather than scrapping it totally. --- COMRADE MINERS - FORWARD THE REVOLUTION!!! Trit > 8. Pyerite > 12 ---
Mangold Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2008.04.24 19:44:00 - [116] Edited by: Mangold on 24/04/2008 19:46:00 Originally by: Ashlee Darksky BACON and tools like it are bad, but local isn't the devil incarnate. Without it, we would spend literally HOURS scanning, probing, scanning again, warping in only to find the enemy had gone,etc, etc. It would make for VERY boring gameplay and slow everything down to a snails pace. Did you ever try probing befor the massive change to it? That was when it took skill to probe out people and not only skillpoints. The thing you describe sounds great to me.
Arithron	Posted - 2008.04.24 19:49:00 - [117] I like your idea about local not being available in 0.0 space. This would definately mean that tactics for invading forces will have to change to accomodate scouting ahead etc. However, I must disagree with your point regarding detecting cloaked ships. Cloaking is essentially electronic detection avoidance, with large swathes of the electromagnetic spectrum affected. You are proposing circumventing the whole purpose of the cloaked ship- it can sneak up on you and lock you down. This just makes 0.0 sec space a little more uncomfortable for its inhabitants, and a little more dangerous. Instead of making them detectable, surely a small increase in the penalty targeting time after uncloak would be better? This way, if you are suprised, you may just get time (if you are paying attention) to get away/respond. This, of course, still allows players to sit near gates collecting entry/exit information and relaying it to their corp/alliances! However, this is being done ICly, so I have no problem with it at all. Arithron Vote Arithron- honesty and integrity you can trust! P.S. I am assuming (and you know what they say about assumptions) that getting rid of local will also effectively stop BACON working (assuming it stills takes info from local log).
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.24 19:53:00 - [118] Originally by: Ashlee Darksky A nice story at the start... nothing like it to get the crowd going, and slightly distracted through all the hype. I'm not saying that's wrong, just simply pointing that out to anyone who may not have noticed it and been swayed. Well I think its important to engage the imagination a bit too - this is a game after all and it does need appeal our sense of wonder and entertainment as well as stat-grinding and EFT spreadsheet fandom! Quote: The changes you suggest are massive! Not in themselves, but the effects they can and will have. You can't simply say "get rid of local" - and you haven't, but it does introduce a number of other issues. How do you propose to counter the problems created? BACON and tools like it are bad, but local isn't the devil incarnate. Without it, we would spend literally HOURS scanning, probing, scanning again, warping in only to find the enemy had gone,etc, etc. Its certainly a big issue I agree, hence its a discussion thread and I'm very interested to here what everyone thinks on the subject and there have been many excellent posts in this thread and a lot of good debate. I do think that you've falling into the same mistake as Hardin and others to focus on the length of time it takes to scan systems though Ashlee - it really really isn't as slow a process as you are suggesting. Otherwise the concept for watered down local is interesting, but I think it will still show too much information and focus fights in on the blob, rather than distributing combat and conflict across a wider area. Certainly agree on the banning of BACON and other alliance versions of the software though. These things need to go.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.24 20:17:00 - [119] There's also the fact that if and when Local is removed there will certainly be a revamp of the On-Board Scanner that will to some extent take the place of the intel lost via Local. What I imagine is something like a sonar - passively detecting the presence of other Players (not empty ships) within a certain range - that doesn't cover the entire system. So you could check for the presence of players by warping to just a couple celestials in a system. That eliminates the omniscience of Local chat without blinding players so much that they can't ever find each other to fight. I think a revamp of the way the scanner works (to make it more passive) could lead to some exciting things, like what Jade describes in the OP.
The Amazing GTG Cat Is On Fire	Posted - 2008.04.24 20:28:00 - [120] As always, you're advocating unfair advantages and almost no effort or consequences for the attacking party. I DON'T think that the ability for LOLKIDS to log in for an hour, ruin someone's investment (a ship, a POS) without any danger or effort and then disappearing to brag on the forums is the right direction for eve. Please die until you run out of clones. Thxbai.

Nielas	Posted - 2008.04.24 20:34:00 - [121] Originally by: The Amazing As always, you're advocating unfair advantages and almost no effort or consequences for the attacking party. I DON'T think that the ability for LOLKIDS to log in for an hour, ruin someone's investment (a ship, a POS) without any danger or effort and then disappearing to brag on the forums is the right direction for eve. Please die until you run out of clones. Thxbai. I was under the impression that the main objection to these changes is that it would make the job of the attacker much harder.
Hardin Amarr Force Liberatrice du Quebec Lonetrek Industrial Mining Enterprises	Posted - 2008.04.24 20:42:00 - [122] Originally by: Jade Constantine This is actually an entirely different issue - and something worthy of debate in its own right but I don't believe every 0.0 raider pilots nano-ships because its what they want to be flying. I strongly believe that nano-ship culture has evolved because its simply the only way to fight in the current environment of 0.0 where the defending side has all advantages, cyno jammed and jump-bridged systems and the ability to focus the entirety of the defensive blob on any incoming force. While I don't want to detract too much from the main topic of this thread I have to disagree with you with the reason nano-ship culture evolved. Yes hot-dropping is one of the primary causes but I disagree that this is purely down to Sov Warfare. The fact is that some enlightened people - such as Omniscient Order - developed nano-tactics long before they became flavour of the month. Why? Because they could see that it allowed them to engage targets with minimal risk to themselves, as Goumindong has already highlighted. The fact is that nano 'culture' had started to develop prior to the introduction of jump bridges. This was partly in response to general tendency for people to blob but more importantly became evident with the introduction of carriers and dreads and more laterly Titans. Yes if people really want to roam 0.0 now in security and safety they are left with little option but to nano but that is not (as you seem to want to insist) purely a consequence of Sov Warfare but a consequence of people's ability to hot drop ships full stop! The simple fact is that people who care about their 'efficiency' would still be using nanos even if jump bridges and cyno jammers went away tomorrow. In fact if it wasnt for cynojammers people would probably have to use them even more for fear of being 'titaned' in every engagement! But that is all irrelevant anyway because I wasn't actually complaining about you or anyone else using nano's - as I have acknowledged above they are the wise choice in some situations. You were fighting a guerilla war against CVA - you were outnumbered and outgunned - I have no issue with you opting to use nanos to keep yourself safe. The point that I was making was that while nanos may be useful in certain circumstances do not lead to more or better fights and PvP - in fact quite the opposite...and that is how I see a basic removal of local turning out (unless it is balanced properly). By all means use the opportunity to smack about CVA blobs again and to bang on about your Sov Warfare hobby horse but please don't accuse me of not seeing the bigger picture when everything you write quite clearly screams "this is my and my corps agenda - sod game balance" ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
Nielas	Posted - 2008.04.24 20:58:00 - [123] Originally by: Hardin sod game balance" I don't have the knowledge to really comment on the rest of the post but this phrase for me sums up the main bone of contention in this issue. Local is so important to pretty much anything that is done in the game that any change to it is gonna change the status quo. So if you want to change/remove local you have to accept that it will upset the game balance and force a new equilibirum between the playstyles. I do not see any way a sensible change could be made that still preserve the current balance in the game.
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.24 21:31:00 - [124] Originally by: Hardin The point that I was making was that while nanos may be useful in certain circumstances do not lead to more or better fights and PvP - in fact quite the opposite...and that is how I see a basic removal of local turning out (unless it is balanced properly). I think you are making a mistake to make the connection between nano-ships and removing local, you're just confusing two different issues. Quote: By all means use the opportunity to smack about CVA blobs again and to bang on about your Sov Warfare hobby horse but please don't accuse me of not seeing the bigger picture when everything you write quite clearly screams "this is my and my corps agenda - sod game balance" Don't really know what you are talking about here Hardin. Reality is you come from the big-alliance school of pvp where POS/Sovereignty/Hot-drops are the order of the day. Thats your experience and its obviously you're interest. You are right to say I'm more interested in small scale roving pvp and tactical engagements rather than huge POS reinforcement battles -correct. Ultimately both interests need representation on the CSM so I'm not going to be arguing you shouldn't be there. But don't be silly and accuse me of bias when you're own is very evident on the subject too. Its different styles of play and both need representation. CSM Election Manifesto 2008
Maidel Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.24 21:52:00 - [125] Originally by: Jade Constantine Its different styles of play and both need representation. Very true - and you are doing a damn good job of representing your side of the arguement (damn this has been a long read!) However, no matter how you replace local/ scanner whatever, you are moving the advantange from the defender to the attacker - which in my opinion is completely the wrong way around. Also - if you think about even modern radar abilities, states can 'see' enemys entering their territory (sure it doesnt pop a name of the pilot up, but it does pretty much everything else.) Based on that 'local' or a list of blue, neut and reds should be avaliable to every member of a soverenty holding power in their own terratory based on this. (And I would add that to high sec because the empire factions would have this information too and probably make it avaiable to friendly pilots)
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.24 22:27:00 - [126] Originally by: Maidel Based on that 'local' or a list of blue, neut and reds should be avaliable to every member of a soverenty holding power in their own terratory based on this. (And I would add that to high sec because the empire factions would have this information too and probably make it avaiable to friendly pilots) Not to stray too far from the topic, but that may be something that factors into an eventual change to how Sovereignty works, based on some recent Dev posts - there is talk of allowing Sov holding alliances to check the logs on Stargates to see who has been using them. But back to this topic - I don't think this particular discussion benefits from viewing it through an "attacker/defender" lens. The omniscience of the Local chat list is something everyone acknowledges as lacking in dynamism, including most importantly CCP. So if Local is going to go the question is what can replace it that will be fun and functional? Anything other than the current system will be in some way a movement towards less than perfect information, so how can less than perfect info be fun and not frustrating? Jade's story is great because it highlights exactly that - how a lack of information can be fun instead of frustrating.
Maidel Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.24 22:32:00 - [127] Edited by: Maidel on 24/04/2008 22:31:58 Originally by: Kelsin The omniscience of the Local chat list is something everyone acknowledges as lacking in dynamism, including most importantly CCP. So if Local is going to go the question is what can replace it that will be fun and functional? Dont want to argue with you on semantics, but CCP has never said that they are going to remove local - they have just said that it is one of the things they are considering.
Hardin Amarr Force Liberatrice du Quebec Lonetrek Industrial Mining Enterprises	Posted - 2008.04.24 22:44:00 - [128] Originally by: Jade Constantine But don't be silly and accuse me of bias when you're own is very evident on the subject too. Its different styles of play and both need representation. I have from the very start of this process made it quite clear that I want the CSM to represent the multiplicity of game styles available to the players of EVE. However where I (seemingly) differ from you Jade is that I am not focused on pushing a corp or alliance agenda. Take sov warfare: I have already acknowledged that changes have to be made to create more opportunities for the attacker and where I do disagree with your proposal and suggestions I do so not because I am part of a sov holding alliance, or because the proposal is coming from you, but because I genuinely feel that some of the proposed changes are unbalanced and will not be in EVE's long term interests. Similarly, on the issue of local, I can see why some people are such advocates for its removal. However, I also see very good reasons why the removal of local would actually diminish (rather than increase) the likelihood of enjoyable PvP. Obviously we will have to agree to disagree sometimes but we also have to be able to compromise and adapt our standpoints based upon the input we receive from all the players of EVE and not just those that reflect the interests of our own particular corps. Specifically and quickly on local removal: 1) Uncertainty - Uncertainty increases the desire for safety. Safety is obtained by either not travelling to risky areas or seeking saftey in numbers - its human nature. The removal of local increases uncertainty gigantically and unless an effective alternative is put in place it is, in my opinion, more likely to reduce PvP action than increase it. 2) Tedium - Making things harder is not in itself wrong. I am sure there are many vets who long for a really hardcore EVE. The problem is there is a fine line between challenging and tedious. Make life too difficult and you run the risk of driving people out of the game. And while we are at it lets just make EVE that little bit more unpleasant and daunting for people joining the game, after all its not like they have enough to get to grips with already. 3) Solo play - The removal of local will pretty much eliminate solo play in 0.0. That's fine if you believe that 0.0 should be a mercilessly hostile unforgiving place but not so fine if you believe in developing economies and creating empires in 0.0. It's not like we should be doing anything that would encourage people to leave Empire anyway! While those are my major concerns there are also big issues around login traps. Jump scout in, scan gate, one enemy in local, move scout on, jump fleet in, **** there's now 50 people on the gate - no warning whatsoever Also undocking. No local - no idea who is in the system as you can't scan. Okay let's put windows on the station - erm what if they are all in cloakers? Okay lets introduce in station scanners - erm what if they are all in cloakers? As it stands it just seems way too imbalanced and impractical to me. Maybe there are ways around some of the issues I have outlined. Maybe I am just being too 'carebear' for my own good but I honestly think that the removal of local without an adeqaute alternative would severely damage the playing experience for the vast majority of players! ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
Ben Derindar Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.04.24 22:45:00 - [129] IMO, all that removing local completely would achieve (without changing anything else) is a slowdown in activity in the general sense, i.e. it would simply add a timesink to the game, as both sides would have to invest more time just looking for people. And I don't know about you, but I'm up for making Eve more fun, not less. See, the usefulness of intel provided by local depends not just on the information itself, but how it is received by whoever's reading it, or even if it's being received at all. Many a time I've caught people who weren't paying attention to it, just as I've been caught one or twice myself. That's what makes pseudo-macros like BACON so dangerous to the health of the game; it removes that human element of situational awareness that differentiates the smart player from the dumb. Certainly I'm open to a "watering down" of local to the effect of providing a count of how many blues, greys and reds for example, along with a re-assessment of how the map works with a view to a fog-of-war type effect, but a complete removal is just not feasible as far as the fun factor of the game is concerned. And this is coming from a roamer. /Ben Ben Derindar: Eve CSM candidate
Maidel Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.24 22:52:00 - [130] Originally by: Ben Derindar Certainly I'm open to a "watering down" of local to the effect of providing a count of how many blues, greys and reds for example, I think something along these lines isnt far from the correct way to go. Also, it might well help with jump in lag, all those portaits to fill in/ names to list etc.

Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.24 23:01:00 - [131] Originally by: Hardin I have from the very start of this process made it quite clear that I want the CSM to represent the multiplicity of game styles available to the players of EVE. However where I (seemingly) differ from you Jade is that I am not focused on pushing a corp or alliance agenda. Well Hardin, if you want me to accept that you are intending to represent the whole range of play styles in eve and take you at your word on that then the least you can do in return is take me at mine and don't assume narrow bias while claiming otherwise yourself. Clearly we're both very passionate about the game of eve and have different perceptions and experiences in the game, and we do have variant interpretations and assessments of current problems. I've already said that the CSM needs different viewpoints and areas of specialty to succeed, fingers crossed it gets that. We need CSM reps prepared to engage with and inspire debate in the Eve community and see good suggestions raised to the CCP council. I think if nothing else we can both agree that this thread is an example of the sort of discussion that achieves genuinely useful feedback. CSM Election Manifesto 2008
Hardin Amarr Force Liberatrice du Quebec Lonetrek Industrial Mining Enterprises	Posted - 2008.04.24 23:10:00 - [132] Fair enough ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
Maidel Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.24 23:15:00 - [133] Originally by: Jade Constantine Well Hardin, if you want me to accept that you are intending to represent the whole range of play styles in eve and take you at your word on that then the least you can do in return is take me at mine and don't assume narrow bias while claiming otherwise yourself. The only problem with this statement is that you appear to be very keen on pushing this line of thinking (even tieing it with your campain in the thread title) And as far as I can see it only helps the small roving pirate, and thus, you cannot claim to support all the range of playing styles.
Francis Inch Amarr Lightyear Inc	Posted - 2008.04.24 23:17:00 - [134] I have a couple of questions to those that favour the removal of local, after reading this thread. 1.) What about local channel's primary purpose - communication? Scrapping it might be great from an intel point of view, but I'm not seeing anyone putting forward suggestions on what to do about the great big hole in the social element of the MMO that removing it creates. Every MMO has a local channel because being multiplayer means people talk. Might be alright for all the anti-social types out in 0.0 where every impairor and kestrel is a enemy alt scout coming to get you, but back in Empire, even in low sec, it's much more heavily used for what it is - chat. I don't think I favour taking away something as fundamental as chat without seeing better ideas put forward that include this element too. 2.) As a method of encouraging pvp. I think the argument that scouting, gatecamps etc will all bring more pvp forget one thing. The 0.0 mechanics of pvp encourage blobbing, but also territorial warfare. Surely this will just create standby fleets ready to engage as soon as the first alliance member receives that handy mail from CONCORD that tells them their POS shields are dropping? I mean, having a capital fleet to cyno in on whichever system has POS going into reinforced will be the easiest way to protect them. Ah, but what about the miners and the ratters you will cry. Well, exactly my point, most pvpers responses to a miner or ratter being attacked by a roving gang will simply remain the same "lolz" and then move on to looking for something to gank themselves instead of defending anything. When 0.0 alliances become about defending their assets more than just POS and outposts, then I can see it making a difference to pvp, but most alliances seem, to me at least, not to care about the individual gankings and raids that go on unless they're the ones doing it. EVE is 90% aggression and 10% defense because defense is boring. Raiding fleet in enemy space is far more fun to your pvp player than scouting home systems just so Carebear King can strip zyd in his hulk more easily - even if it is for the good of the alliance. (Which in some cases it is and some its not). Anyway, just my views from reading this.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.04.24 23:58:00 - [135] Edited by: Goumindong on 24/04/2008 23:58:16 Originally by: Francis Inch Scrapping it might be great from an intel point of view, but I'm not seeing anyone putting forward suggestions on what to do about the great big hole in the social element of the MMO that removing it creates. Every MMO has a local channel because being multiplayer means people talk. You can easily still have the channel. When people talk about removing local they talk about removing its functionality as an intelligence tool. I.E. setting it to delayed mode, or "off" so that the channel list won't ever update or will only update when someone talks. Kinda how if you open up any large chat channel it will look like no one is in until any person talks, then only they show. 2. This is a very legitimate complaint and one that I share[as well as the slanting towards attacking]. Which is why any removal of local functionality would need to be packaged with a new mechanic that had the same key functionality as local. This key functionality is 1. Presence 2. Standing Local produces some other information like name, [notes based on show info], corp/alliance, etc that does not need to be figured. For more information see this link, and follow the discussion that goes on. The discussion that is in the link that is in the link is also a good read regarding the problems of local and why removing its functionality. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Francis Inch Amarr Lightyear Inc	Posted - 2008.04.25 00:15:00 - [136] Edited by: Francis Inch on 25/04/2008 00:16:43 The problem with removing or delaying local is it is a bit of a conversation killer, but then perhaps I am unusual in that even in low sec I'd probably natter away to another pilot I saw at a station or in an asteroid belt. (Mining of course ) But I guess it's probably easier to adapt to assumed silence with people hidden unless they speak than to no possibility of communication at all - after all, if I can't yelp for help and the locals have a good laugh at my blunders it would make the gankings less fun for all the bystanders. As for the thread, thanks I will have a look.
Archbishop Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris	Posted - 2008.04.25 02:31:00 - [137] I believe in the long run getting rid of local would create more problems then it solves. While there are some inherent issues with it overall it's such an ingrained part of the game now I think it would be difficult to replace. I look at my own experiences in 0.0 space in survival mode (and as someone who has played this game solo at times). I jump into a system. I'm cloaked initially but unless the pirate gatecamp is at that gate I really have no warning. Am I supposed to stop and probe out every system I'm jumping thru on my way somewhere? Not realistic and way to time consuming we might as well just get rid of highways. After all I remember 84 jump trips before those came in (and before AP). Now it'll take just as long to go 20 when we have to scan people out. Likewise now when I jump in I can see local, see those orange skulls and think "hey there are pirates around here". Maybe I'll scout a bit, warp in at 100km to a gate or warp to a safe location before doing anything. I have the choice to protect myself. Without local you're fair game. I completely agree with Hardin on this one. While local isn't always the greatest it is the way we've played for years and moreso it's the way many have stayed alive (or at least less-dead) for years. Another point is what I would think would be a decline in combat. Right now generally two evenly matched fleets will engage. Sure one side likes the advantage but usually if the fleets are close it's "hey lets rumble". Now imagine where you have NO IDEA what the other fleet has. Right now you can send scouts to other systems to see if reinforcements are there or check the map for pilots in space. Not anymore. I see GANK GANK GANK the end result of doing away with local. I just don't believe it's realistic and furthermore believe it would decrease the pvp opportunties in Eve for 0.0 dwellers to a point where the game could lose interest to them. Even with a "sonar" type of scanner if you can't see the opposite gate your warping to you're completely blind. I'm sorry but if I'm in a system and I see 20 pirates in local I'm going to take precautions. With this model the only precaution I have is making sure my clone is updated. While Archbishop is in a corp I do play solo alt characters at times in 0.0 space and I know if something like this went through as a solo player I'd be back hiding in Empire. Stuff where fleets of alliance mates can drum up 50 ships is fine but for the solo or small corp player it's completely unrealistic. Right now those solo an small corp players have a life in 0.0 and local is one of the only real ways they have to protect themselves. Taken away it's gone regardless of what type of scanner you get. People want some semblence of security and like it or not there are a sizeable number of Eve players who are solo or in small corps. I can see them moving back to empire because of something like this after being GANKED over and over again by unseen gatecamps. I don't think thats what CCP wants. Archbishop PIE WEBSITE & FORUMS
Torik Tavitas	Posted - 2008.04.25 04:13:00 - [138] It's the eternal question of EVE: Do you want things safe or do you want them interesting? Local is the 'safe' thing right now. People are used to it and it provides them with near perfect information. If you remove local, no matter what you replace it with, you will create a period of 'interesting' where old assumptions must be abandoned and new tactics developed.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.25 04:15:00 - [139] Originally by: Maidel Dont want to argue with you on semantics, but CCP has never said that they are going to remove local - they have just said that it is one of the things they are considering. Well, this is the thread I was thinking of: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=729912&page=2 And the focus of the dev posts in that thread is indeed the nature of what would replace Local "if/when" it is removed (granted, "if/when" is not a certainty). Given that CCP has expressed an interest in replacing Local, it's great to see people taking that idea and running with it, just to get some ideas out there! I wouldn't view it through an "attacker/defender" lens, since I don't think the question of Local chat favors one or the other - it's just a tool.
Octavinus Augustus Amarr Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.25 08:25:00 - [140] I must admit straight away, that I have only skimmed some of the posts (and ignored most) as I simply dont currently have the time to give this topic all the attention it requires right now. I agree with the main arguments against removing local in that it would move the game balance quite drastically towards favoring the attacker. I won't go into all that again - it has already been covered. However, I do see the general frustration with local, and perhaps it's possible to come up with some sort of "middle way"? So here's an idea that might be good or bad: Imagine local is "updated" by either having people using gates into the system, taking aggressive action or flying capitals. Also, imagine a module coming in 3 sizes (frig, cruiser and bs). This module would have a rather high CPU and Power requirement limiting the striking capability of the ship it's fitted to, but it would allow you to jump to planets and stars within range without using either gates, jumpbridges or cynos. The range is could then be 0.3 light years per rank of some skill invented for the purpose. Finally this module would have some restrictions on use: You can't fit a cloak on the same ship as this module and you can't activate the module for a period of 30 minutes after taking aggressive action. The idea of this being to give raiders some sort of "first strike/surprise" capability - but at a cost. After attacking you can't cloak or use this "supercyno" module for an extended period of time, making you somewhat vulnerable to the defensive response. Personally, I would also like to see the logoffski trick hampered by letting ships fitted with this module remain in space for 30 minutes after logoff (me no like logoffskis). I haven't exactly thought this one through, but the idea might be worth some consideration. Q: How do you make a disobediant Minmatar slave scream? A: Skin it and roll it in salt.

Grim Vandal Burn Proof	Posted - 2008.04.25 18:13:00 - [141] I am tired of saying it all over again but: local needs to die (without replacement) buff the scanner thats it... repeat that for 5 years ... and here we are ... sad isnt it??? CCP utterly failed on instas removement so I hardly see anything cool coming out of this change.
Sinnae Takeda	Posted - 2008.04.25 20:10:00 - [142] hat off to you, sir! a very nice post and damn solid arguments. count me amongst the supporters.
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.25 20:13:00 - [143] Originally by: Sinnae Takeda hat off to you, sir! a very nice post and damn solid arguments. count me amongst the supporters. Thank you Sinnae, very much appreciated.
Archbishop Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris	Posted - 2008.04.26 03:35:00 - [144] If those advocating the removal of local would answer a couple of quick questions from me it would allow everyone to make a more informed decision. For many years now we've seen CCP make some decisions to change the game only to have a patch a short while later to "fix" some "unintended consequence" of their "improvement". 1. If local is removed how are solo players who operate in 0.0 supposed to live there anymore and enjoy the benefits of 0.0 space while staying as solo players? Given the increased risk of GANKING when you warp into a gate and have no idea if someone is there or not (like a 30 ship pirate blob) I would think the enjoyment of the game by these solo players would be greatley diminished. I also think they would flee back to empire where they can "see" whats around them. 2. On long distance trips thru 0.0 space are you supposed to stop and "scan" the system now everytime you jump with some new "sonar module" sort of thing? How long would this take? It basically ends autopilot if you have to stop everytime you jump and do this. Jade's idea is great if we want to change this into EVE-ALLIANCE-ONLINE and have everyone join an alliance so we can all fly around in a Battlegroup and scan out the enemy. The reality is far different for many in Eve however and I don't believe making changes to the game which basically lead the solo players to the altar of sacrifice and gankarmageddon is the answer. Not everyone is in an alliance and can do these things. Likewise even if people are in an alliance maybe they're not some battle hungry alliance of pvp killers. Maybe they're peaceful mining industrialist carebears venturing into 0.0 to make their fortune. Not everyone in eve is looking for endless pvp and "wild times". While something like that may not be intended by removing local I do believe it would be another in the long line of "unintended consequences" to CCP patches and "improvements". Those two questions above stand for anyone willing to take a shot at them. If a compelling argument can be made I'll listen. But I'm going on the experience of someone with nearly 6 years in Eve counting beta who has played the solo game in 0.0 and knows the reality of "flying alone out there". Now there is something that no one has brought up however (that surprises me). What if in 0.0 space any war declared enemy DOESNT appear in local? You can see everyone else (like those 15 guys with -10.0 sec status) but if you're corporation is wardec'd you can't see those enemies. I mean if people want the thrill of the hunt and chase why not this? It gives that hunt and chase to those who want it while keeping the status quo for those who don't. Even so I do see something like this causing pvp to slow down quite a bit as corps are reduced to "scanning and jumping... scanning and jumping" to accomplish anything. Sounds kind of boring to me. Archbishop PIE WEBSITE & FORUMS
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.26 12:19:00 - [145] Some of these issues have definitely been addressed in this thread already Archbishop but just to provide a decent summary to your points: 1. The removal of local will not really change the solo dynamic negatively in 0.0. At the moment lone-players donÆt really move with perfect freedom Archie. Sure you can warp to outbound - but each time you jump through the gate you take the same risk you outline for the ôlocal-lessö scenario. How do you know you arenÆt jumping through into a sensor-boosted / hic/rapier camp? You donÆt, thatÆs eve. How do you escape? Well, speed, cloaks, EW? maneuverability. Pretty much the same evasion tools you'd need now if you jump to a gate and get caught by a bubble off gate. Only difference is that when warping to an outbound you can opt to go to scan point and check first. When jumping through a gate you don't have that option (and that is the current status quo). At least with the scenario you outline (warping to a gate) you have an option of moving with scanner open and being pre-warned (or warping to close celestial and checking) û or if itÆs a common route for you then by all means make a line of in-line ôscan pointsö 1000 klicks or so form the outbound and be warned of the gate status. Doing this gives you more information and warning than the process of simply jumping through the gate without scout does now. 2. If you read the suggestion weÆre talking about a new form of long range scanner that is always on and can be configured to give proximity warnings on the acquisition of new contacts. Yes of course, going to outbound scanpoints as a precaution would break your autopilot but seriously, who uses autopilot in 0.0 Archbishop? 3. I donÆt think your previous points support this concept turning Eve into ôalliance onlineö û on the contrary I believe that reducing the perfect map intelligence and local monitoring functionality will reduce the ability of alliances to control and dominate space and will allow solo/small group players far greater opportunity to evade and exist in 0.0 without continual interference from sitting powers. At the moment any ratting/mining op can be seen by everyone in eve by scanning the map. Discovering the presence of interlopers is ridiculously easy just by scanning through local with a quick trip. Reduce intelligence functionality and you are making it easy for the little guy to evade notice and isn't that really what you were worried about? Anyway, thanks for your comments Archbishop and I hope you'll read the feedback to your points with an open mind. All the best. CSM Election Manifesto 2008
maccrat	Posted - 2008.04.26 12:22:00 - [146] good writeup.
Cailais Amarr VITOC Chain of Chaos	Posted - 2008.04.26 15:05:00 - [147] 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
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.04.26 15:36:00 - [148] Do you ever log in, Jade?
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.26 15:45:00 - [149] Originally by: LaVista Vista Do you ever log in, Jade? Mmmhmmm, but generally quite late in the US TZ at the moment LaVista, I don't often play in the UK TZ unless we've got an arranged op. Drop me a pm on the SF forums (or SHC) if you want to arrange a chat. CSM Election Manifesto 2008
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.26 17:22:00 - [150] 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!

Cailais Amarr VITOC Chain of Chaos	Posted - 2008.04.26 17:53:00 - [151] 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
Archbishop Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris	Posted - 2008.04.26 18:31:00 - [152] Quote: 1. The removal of local will not really change the solo dynamic negatively in 0.0. At the moment lone-players donÆt really move with perfect freedom Archie. Sure you can warp to outbound - but each time you jump through the gate you take the same risk you outline for the ôlocal-lessö scenario. Agreed to a point although lets look at it a moment from the aspect of the stationary solo/small alliance player in a system. Lets say the ABC mining corp is out mining in 0.0 and has 3-4 mining ships or even a rorqual and 2 guys in ravens to defend against belt rats and they're just minding their own business. With the current local system if 10 pirates jump into system they'll be seen. With no local that warning is gone. Sure some proximity sensors might help and the two defending ravens could swap a high end weapon for a "scanner" to keep scanning but why then would this be any different from what we have now. That's sort of the point I'm making here. With an improved sensor system it's really no different from current local. People are supporting a revamped sensor and map system to help aid the local "benefits" lost yet why even dump local if we're going to offer totally usable substitutes? In the end that's the hidden point of my message. Either they'll be big changes or it isn't a change at all and I have to agree with some that CCP doesn't move in big steps. In the end I think the abandonment of 0.0 by alot of solo and small alliance players would happen, I believe we'd see alot more gatecamping and alot more ganking and in the end no real improvement. I do agree with you Jade that local was never intended to become an early warning system. That's what's evolved though and thats what we've had for five plus years. While we can tweak it a bit, maybe make it so war declared enemies don't appear or something, in the end I just don't think it's wise to mess with. Quote: 3. I donÆt think your previous points support this concept turning Eve into ôalliance onlineö û on the contrary I believe that reducing the perfect map intelligence and local monitoring functionality will reduce the ability of alliances to control and dominate space and will allow solo/small group players far greater opportunity to evade and exist in 0.0 without continual interference from sitting powers. I will agree with you on dumping the map inteligence. Likewise I don't believe the map should be used for intel. Maps are for convenience not recon. When I'm driving down the highway and looking at a map it tells me theres a gas station at the next exit but it doesn't give me the price per gallon of gas. Yes dump the map intel and while they're at it make the map ONLY informational. Things like services are great but info like pilots in system, corp member locations, podkills, etc are only intel based. Who gives us that intel? It isn't realistic. That said I'd support an alternative. What if (even without sovereignty) a corporation could deploy "spy satellites" that could monitor a system gate? You could only deploy a few of them per corp but you could put them where you believe your enemy is operating. They'd require maintenance and would shut down after awhile. It would require special skills to operate and the benefit would be more "realistic" then some all seeing map we can pull up. Quote: 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 would be good. You could detect a 20 ship pirate gatecamp before you warp in on top of them at least. Good discussion everyone! Archie PIE WEBSITE & FORUMS
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.26 19:24:00 - [153] Edited by: Kelsin on 26/04/2008 19:24:06 Originally by: Archbishop Lets say the ABC mining corp is out mining in 0.0 and has 3-4 mining ships or even a rorqual and 2 guys in ravens to defend against belt rats and they're just minding their own business. With the current local system if 10 pirates jump into system they'll be seen. With no local that warning is gone. Sure some proximity sensors might help and the two defending ravens could swap a high end weapon for a "scanner" to keep scanning but why then would this be any different from what we have now. This is a good example to work with. With local, the pirate scout jumps in, sees players in system, and starts hunting for them. The mining op sees someone pop into local, and knows something might be up. With a scanner-based system the Pirate jumps into system and doesn't know if anyone is there and the mining op doesn't know anyone jumped into system. Now the Pirate starts searching for pings on his sonar. He gets a hit - but at the same time the mining op gets a ping too, and the game is on. They both have imperfect information. Now in your example the mining op would actually do better to station their guards at the stargates leading into the sytem. Then when a pirate scout jumps in, they see him, but he still doesn't know where the mining op is located, and the battle becomes a system-wide situation with a front at the stargate while the mining op in the belt has to start making decisions about what action to take, as intel comes in from the front lines. This sort of scenario is just more dynamic and has more possibilities than the current Local chat list. It's not that an improved scanner system would be either identical to local or just not as good - it's that an improved scanner has a wider range of dynamic possibilities than Local for how intel plays into conflict. Your question about "If Local is just getting replaced by something that does the same thing, why bother replacing it?" is understandable - but the real reason Local needs to be replaced is not that intel is bad, it's that it's a static system. Imagine Eve was a game with a single class of ships that are all fast and powerful. Then someone suggests getting rid of that single class of ships and instead introducing some ships that are light and fast but fragile, and other ships that are heavier and well-armored, but slower. The same question you raise could be asked then: "Why take away our ships that do everything if you're just replacing them with two different classes of ships that amount to the same thing?" The answer is to make the game more dynamic. Replacing the static tool of Local with a more dynamic tool that can range from being superior to Local intel to inferior, depending on how it is used, will make the intel side of Eve more dynamic and more fun. That's what I'd like to see happen anyway.
Cailais Amarr VITOC Chain of Chaos	Posted - 2008.04.27 11:06:00 - [154] 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
Maidel Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.27 11:19:00 - [155] Originally by: Kelsin This is a good example to work with. With local, the pirate scout jumps in, sees players in system, and starts hunting for them. The mining op sees someone pop into local, and knows something might be up. But with this example you are showing that you need FAR more people to do the same op. Now I havent mined since '04 so please dont tell me im getting it wrong, im just using it as an example. In the first instance you have a 3-4 miners and 1-2 guards + possibly a hauler or two. Thats max 8 people. Now if you remove local, you need someone one each gate, and in most average systems thats another two people so we are up to 10 and everyones profits decrease. Now someone warps in, the scouts on the gate tell them someone ebil has appeared and they all get to a safe spot. The game has become no more dynamic, the results are the same, accept you have just made the game a little less fun for everyone. 2 people have spent their evenings staring at a star gate, and the miners have made less money because of it. Now mineral prices will rise, pirates will start whining that their ships are more expensive... you get my drift.
Max Torps Gallente eXceed Inc. eXceed.	Posted - 2008.04.27 12:08:00 - [156] Originally by: Maidel But with this example you are showing that you need FAR more people to do the same op. Now I havent mined since '04 so please dont tell me im getting it wrong, im just using it as an example. In the first instance you have a 3-4 miners and 1-2 guards + possibly a hauler or two. Thats max 8 people. Now if you remove local, you need someone one each gate, and in most average systems thats another two people so we are up to 10 and everyones profits decrease. Now someone warps in, the scouts on the gate tell them someone ebil has appeared and they all get to a safe spot. The game has become no more dynamic, the results are the same, accept you have just made the game a little less fun for everyone. 2 people have spent their evenings staring at a star gate, and the miners have made less money because of it. Now mineral prices will rise, pirates will start whining that their ships are more expensive... you get my drift. Or you introduce another mechanic. A perimeter beacon, spy satellite, call it what you want. But it gets dropped by a member of the mining gang at the star gate. That gang member can now go elsewhere in the system, maybe mine, maybe keep the rats away but he gets an alert as soon as someone enters that gate. EvE blogspace, free! Max Torps CSM Candidate
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.27 14:33:00 - [157] Originally by: Maidel But with this example you are showing that you need FAR more people to do the same op. Now I havent mined since '04 so please dont tell me im getting it wrong, im just using it as an example. In the first instance you have a 3-4 miners and 1-2 guards + possibly a hauler or two. Thats max 8 people. Now if you remove local, you need someone one each gate, and in most average systems thats another two people so we are up to 10 and everyones profits decrease. Now someone warps in, the scouts on the gate tell them someone ebil has appeared and they all get to a safe spot. The game has become no more dynamic, the results are the same, accept you have just made the game a little less fun for everyone. 2 people have spent their evenings staring at a star gate, and the miners have made less money because of it. Now mineral prices will rise, pirates will start whining that their ships are more expensive... you get my drift. Existing in 0.0 would indeed require more vigilance without Local, I don't deny that. But again, it's as though Battleships were great Ewar platforms, and then CCP introduces dedicated Ewar ships and downgrades the Battleships' Ewar potential - people might complain that they're just requiring them to have more pilots in a gang in order to use Ewar, but creating specializations in the end makes the game better, even if it's more "work". If, in our mining op example, having "eyes" for the op was something advantageous then maybe Recon probes could be changed to act as those 'spy beacons' that Max brought up. The mining op could hire a CovOps pilot to keep probes up covering the gates to passively detect anyone entering the system and give an early warning to the mining op before the pirates know the op even exists.
Ankhesentapemkah Gallente	Posted - 2008.04.27 15:18:00 - [158] Any replacement of local needs to be well worked-out so that it does not shift balance around too much, but nevertheless manages to add excitement to the game for everyone. One more idea for the pile. How about being able to automatically detect certain warp signatures as well, with the chance of your ship detecting it increasing if the ship emitting the signature is heading straight towards you. (makes sense from a science standpoint, warp drive emits FTL particles, if it heads straight to/away from you your scanner will detect abnormal amounts of those particles coming from the same direction) - I LOVE PVPers I HATE griefers Consider voting for me in the CSM elections. You are invited to look at my campaign website, where more information is available
Cailais Amarr VITOC Chain of Chaos	Posted - 2008.04.27 18:45:00 - [159] 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
Maidel Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.27 18:52:00 - [160] Edited by: Maidel on 27/04/2008 18:59:44 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. EDIT - now its let me post that, trying to see if I can get the other post posted, I cant be bothered to type it all out again but the gist was: Quote: Or you introduce another mechanic. A perimeter beacon, spy satellite, call it what you want. But it gets dropped by a member of the mining gang at the star gate. That gang member can now go elsewhere in the system, maybe mine, maybe keep the rats away but he gets an alert as soon as someone enters that gate. If you do this, then what is the point, you have just removed local, onlt to replace it with something that acts just like local, but requires more effort. Whats wrong with more effort you might ask? Fun. This is a game, its not a second job. I will draw another comparason within this game. There was talk about people having cyno blockers up 23/7 in every system which CCP didnt like. They were talking about making it having to be refueled every 12 hours or similar. That would have achieved nothing appart from making people feel this is a job rather than a game. It wouldnt have taken the cyno blockers down, it would have just caused the alliances to spend their entire lives fueling it - and making them hate the game for making them do it. Removing local will cause the same if you replace it with a time consuming alternative - people will just do that alternative, hate the time consuming nature of it, get bored of eve and play less or leave. (yes thats rather extreme, but im just making my point) 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.

Cailais Amarr VITOC Chain of Chaos	Posted - 2008.04.27 18:56:00 - [161] 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
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.04.27 19:29:00 - [162] Originally by: Cailais 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! How does the miner know the warp drive spike is not just his hauler coming back to the belt, leaving the belt, a friendly moving through the system, a friendly ratter in another belt. etc etc etc etc. Vote Goumindong for CSM
AKULA UrQuan Caldari STK Scientific Black-Out	Posted - 2008.04.27 19:44:00 - [163] I like Jades's ideas on this matter. A lone hunter in say a battleship would have a snowballs chance of getting somewhere out in null space, if he knows his stuff. Meanwhile the, smart ratter/miner can hide off the beaten trail and be pretty safe. All the morons in the alliance will be huddled around the 3-4 systems with the best spawns and the best ore. Guess where the hunter(s) goes looking first?
Scout McAlt	Posted - 2008.04.27 20:28:00 - [164] CSM's Take note Local Soulution is SIMPLE Anyone in local can warp to ANYONE with the rules.... 1. You cannot warp to cov ops, perhaps probe em out with a long delay (which is long enough to catch afk cov ops) 2. Warping to a non-cov ops cloak ship puts you in grid at a random distace (distance to be balanced on test server) 3. You cannot warp to someone in deadspace. Probe em out as usual. Bingo - Local is no longer stupid. If you see someone in local, you can get a fight out of them if its 0.0 rather than the current cloakfag tactics and afk intel bot tactics. Also NERFS all isk farmers as well as all Intel Bots ! Think about it. Whats wrong with warping to anyone in local? Nothing and this will remove ALL NEVITIVE local problems as well.
Max Torps Gallente eXceed Inc. eXceed.	Posted - 2008.04.27 22:16:00 - [165] 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. EvE blogspace, free! Max Torps CSM Candidate
Cailais Amarr VITOC Chain of Chaos	Posted - 2008.04.27 23:33:00 - [166] 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
Mistress Alice	Posted - 2008.04.28 00:56:00 - [167] I say, Ban BACON, keep local and all you whiners about local out there, shut up cause you will whine when its gone and you keep getting ganked
Eval B'Stard Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.04.28 03:39:00 - [168] We've had local since the game began, why should we change something that is so established. I really am sick of the NERF this NERF that, get rid of this, do this, don't do that attitude of the player base it really has gotten out of hand. EVERYTHING in this game can be overcome, used to your advantage if you just think about how you play instead of crying about it. It's so easy to get kills even with local if you just use a bit of common sense, this game has been dumbed down a lot in the last year or so it's not the game I signed on for, which is probably why I don't play as much as I used to anymore. Get over yourselves and get on with the game, yes the GAME sheesh.
Cikulisuy Amarr Infortunatus Eventus	Posted - 2008.04.28 05:08:00 - [169] agreed jade. i am so tired of not being able to kill anything because as soon as i enter local everyone and their mother warps out of the belt and cloaks.. or if i bring a gang of 5, the gang of 3 cloaks because they know i am a gang of 5 if they can at all count. this would also help to fix scouts in a station 5 jumps down the pipe rousing the blob as soon as we get close, so /signed this out of all will remain, they have lived and have tossed; so much of the game will be gain, though the gold and the dice have been lost.
Butzew Volition Cult The Volition Cult	Posted - 2008.04.28 14:28:00 - [170] what everyone forgets is that this is just a GAME and you are supposed to have fun, not make it complicated to be as realistic as real life is. so ... local as it is today: you jump in sys, you know if there is hostiles in it and how much. you dont know where in sys they are, what ship they are in, are they active or not, so you have to scan them and look for them. removing local: you jump in sys, you dont know if there is any1 there, but you scan the whole sys hoping there would be some1 to fight ... now considering avarage play time is 2-3 hours per day (my guess) you can cover well over 20 jumps looking for fights. You may find some ... Removing local and making you scan all the sys you enter you would be able to cover maybe 10 sys, just maybe. So removing local will in that way decrease your chance to find trouble (fight) (do PvP). 2. the lone rater/miner in 0.0. this kind of player is PvE fitted, hostiles entering sys will be PvP fitted. Removing local will make that player spam "scan" button in order to survive. Hostile who entered sys looking for targets know that the most probable place to find one is in belts. That means that the player rating/mining will see the hostile on scan who is already warping to him, checking the belts, and wont have time to escape. Miner/rater will have even lower chances of survival if the hostile gang enters sys, the bigger the gang, less chance of survival as they can check belts in one sweep ... Reading posts in this topic and others concernig removal of local i noticed its all about making your fleet invisible and undetected by enemy. IMO 0.0 isn't just about fleet vs fleet, and gate camps ... I dont mind if local gets changed as long as there is some other early warning system that gives solo player equal chances of surviving as the hunter will have of finding/killing him. PS: spelling :P

Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.28 15:13:00 - [171] We're seeing a lot of the same comments popping up in relation to this issue. Personally I think it's just a misunderstanding of what is being suggested and why, so this is my take on clearing some of that up: 1) Misconception: Replacing Local is being suggested in order to favor one group or playstyle over another. In truth, replacing Local is being suggested to increase dynamism in the intel aspect of the game. It's the difference between an RTS with a fog of war and one without - adding a fog of war doesn't shift the balance of power, it affects all parties equally. The Pirate will be affected by the same limitations and have the same options to gather intel as the Miner or the Mega-Alliance member. 2) Misconception: If the balance of power will stay the same, why bother changing it at all? It's just more work! Replacing local with a dynamic scouting/scanning intel system would be adding a new layer to the game. It opens up new weapons tools and tactics to be used in the intel battle that takes place prior to the combat battle. So although balance wouldn't be affected in a political sense, the possibilities for gaining and losing advantage would be widened and a more complex game resulting. 3) Misconception: The OP's proposal is to simply remove Local. Many straw man arguments can be concocted centering around doomsday scenarios that would result from simply shutting off local tomorrow and seeing what happens. But what Jade asks in the OP's story is that we open our imaginations to the possibilities of trading our static Local intel for something more dynamic and layered, that can be as simple or as elegant or as complex as we can imagine. Let's not assume that players would be "forced to sit and hit scan every five seconds" when we can easily imagine a revamped scanner that automatically and constantly scans for us. Since the possibilities are wide open, let us not be deterred by 'what is' when we can concieve of a better 'what may be'.
Zaruda Minmatar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2008.04.28 16:01:00 - [172] Originally by: DigitalCommunist You will not succeed in making the game any harder than it currently is. I can't help but respond to this. You actually believe the game is currently hard? I've been almost as long as you and essentially started over now but for a universe that is supposed to be brutal and unforgiving, they sure put in alot of get rich quick elements over the years. Originally by: Hardin I think the proposal as it stands could potentially lead to a dramatic decline in the number and quality of fights by encouraging ganking and blobbage. While the more PvP oriented 'small gang' corps may go to the efforts outlined here I suspect that many groups will simply fall back on the old 'safety in numbers' philosophy. While I can see where you are coming from Jade I think you are totally misreading how the majority of people play this game. I don't think I am alone in having my jaw drop to the floor at this. Considering this is how every major group (including CVA) plays what do you mean by 'fall back'? This is being done already anyway. Short of a few players, I very rarely see any CVA 'come out to play' without significantly greater numbers on their side. I can understand this to a degree. People hate to lose and love to win. Having larger numbers reduces risk and effectively ensures the win but it also removes all semblance of tactical planning. Unfortunately, the state of Eve currently encourages and promotes this. Originally by: Hardin What will happen when a pilot is ganked by 10 enemies. Will his own alliance send just 10 people to respond when they have no clear idea how many enemies are in the area? Will they assume that the 10 pilots are merely an advance guard for another fleet 2 jumps away? While there is already a tendency to blobbage I can only see that being worsened by this proposal. Yes they can dispatch scouts to scan all the surrounding systems (which could be a very large number of systems) but that takes time, organisation and will. Yes, lets leave large regions of space controlled groups that have now become complacent, paranoid and lazy. That works much better. While I'm not 100% behind all Jade's ideas, I do like the direction of the ideas. Some people say this particular idea prevents soloing in dangerous areas. Well gosh golly, what a thought. If I am going alone into a bad neighborhood that isn't patrolled at all by law enforcement, isn't it reasonable to expect a very high level of confrontation and danger? Go into that same place with a large group, the threat level lowers. I do not believe I am the only one who misses the 'risk' from the beginning days of Eve. As the *****ing and moaning dragged on over the years, CCP made things far too easy and more forgiving and by doing so, took away from some of the themed elements. Now I am going to pick on Hardin and CVA some more as I have more experience with them (purely from an outside point of view) but they also make a good example. Here you have an alliance that appears, by just their own manpower, to be able to manage 100-150 players on average for an active fleet. Factor in their allies, you could see about 200-250 on average. Yet they maintain and control an ENTIRE region of systems that is quite large in size. Does that make any sense compared to the NPC empires? Yes, player driven ones are done in a different context but look how easy it is now to pull this off. You would expect large areas should be controlled by large alliances that have the manpower and organization to do so. However, items and ships now exist to make it feasible for groups to do this without much thought which make it feel alot like munchkin gaming. I see this idea as one extra step to recapturing some of the elements that made us want to join Eve.
LongTrucker	Posted - 2008.05.05 21:51:00 - [173] Originally by: Jade Constantine This is a low sec/null sec proposal. There I'd advocate replacing local with constellation (delayed) chat where you only appear in the constellation chat window if you chat. People who want to chat can do, people who want to remain stealthy can do that too. In high sec the local situation should remain unchanged to properly illustrate the contrast between outlaw and policed regions. No. Only in local chat of systems where official war is declared, the camouflage mode should be activate. With the prevention: "Attention, you in a zone of military actions. Systems of communications are blocked."
Dani Leone Gallente A Dark Cloud Unaffiliated	Posted - 2008.05.05 23:03:00 - [174] Originally by: Zaruda I do not believe I am the only one who misses the 'risk' from the beginning days of Eve. As the *****ing and moaning dragged on over the years, CCP made things far too easy and more forgiving and by doing so, took away from some of the themed elements. Now I am going to pick on Hardin and CVA some more as I have more experience with them (purely from an outside point of view) but they also make a good example. Here you have an alliance that appears, by just their own manpower, to be able to manage 100-150 players on average for an active fleet. Factor in their allies, you could see about 200-250 on average. Yet they maintain and control an ENTIRE region of systems that is quite large in size. Does that make any sense compared to the NPC empires? Yes, player driven ones are done in a different context but look how easy it is now to pull this off. You would expect large areas should be controlled by large alliances that have the manpower and organization to do so. However, items and ships now exist to make it feasible for groups to do this without much thought which make it feel alot like munchkin gaming. I see this idea as one extra step to recapturing some of the elements that made us want to join Eve. I'm with you there, I was a member of the Reckoning Alliance for a few months and they controlled Cloud Ring for quite a while whilst never managing to get more than 80 or so in a given fleet. It always struck me as rather bizarre that a smallish group could disproportionately control so much space, and Jump bridges certainly helped do it. They made it far too easy to respond to distant threats with overwhelming force in a near instantaneous manner. Removing local or reducing its utility as an intel tool in some way is more than justified to actually allow some form of real pvp and roaming gang action in the sovereign areas of 0.0 imho. It'd be even nicer if Jump bridges were nerfed (maybe a 5x increase in the fuel usage :P ) and cov ops cynos were not affected by cyno jammers.
Ezekiel Sulastin Central Research Nexus	Posted - 2008.05.05 23:59:00 - [175] Edited by: Ezekiel Sulastin on 05/05/2008 23:59:28 All I can see about removing local is that the risk aversion present in 80-90% of Eve players will go off the charts, leading them to either stay in hisec or work in ever-more-massive blobs to do anything once the balance of power shifts to the aggressor. It could be great, but be real - 0.0 would remain the same alliance happyfest it is now (especially now that you get to have people dedicated to staring at gates all day, woo happyfun!), and lowsec would be even more desolate than it already is. ---- WTB Armor Nerf Hardener II, 10^100 isk OBO
Iynara Maeral Caldari Voice of Reason	Posted - 2008.05.09 22:13:00 - [176] This is full of win and awesome.
Shamharoth Gallente Beach Boys BeachBoys	Posted - 2008.05.10 14:21:00 - [177] Edited by: Shamharoth on 10/05/2008 14:22:45 Edited by: Shamharoth on 10/05/2008 14:22:15 I am sorry if someone already said this before, but I ain't got time for reading through 6 pages of text, so let me just say: how about introducing rigs enhancing the on-board scanner, for example multiplying the range, increasing quality of the scan itself for expense of actual firepower and battle quality of the ship (whatever statistic would that be). Also, the interface of the scanner would have to be much easier to manage and quickly change scan ranges, etc. Maybe pre-defined presets to the scanner should be introduced? Anyway, way to go Jade!
Haalanii	Posted - 2008.05.10 14:57:00 - [178] Edited by: Haalanii on 10/05/2008 14:59:40 With intel being scarcer and thus more valuable I fear there will be few engagements not dictated by spies. There are few penalties one faces if caught by the organization one infiltrates, particularly so considering the existence of multiple accounts and alts. By making public knowlege the number and rough composition of the enemy fleet it is possible to make informed decisions without infiltrating other corporations. I have no doubt that spies will always exist, but do we really want to make them so valuable that they are an absolute necessity? I suppose it all comes down to how good the scanning interface is. At the very least we need a HUD with a no-delay transition between a system map (configureable of course) that is capable of showing the location of all ships visible to members of your gang and a more robust scanner that has passive and active elements. It should also integrate broadcasts and have the ability to differentiate individual squads within fleets. Thinking about the use of scanning also leads me to realize that there is room for "sensor jammer" ships that project a blackout field around them that cannot be penetrated by scans while a module is active. It wouldn't even have to be a new class of ship, I believe tha this would actually be a way to make black ops battleships more useful. To sustain the heavy demands of such a module fuel would be required. While I'm ranting, I think cloaking should require fuel as well, at least for the vast majority of ships. Give the cov ops, recons and black-ops a special bonus that reduced fuel use 20/40/60/80/100% or just make the cloak they alone can fit not require fuel in the first place.
Skjorta	Posted - 2008.05.10 15:24:00 - [179] Removing local is usually suggested by people who want to AVOID fights. Local is fine, pvp would dwindle so fast once people spent days searching completely empty systems for fights. Not all fights happen between large groups of people, when u can actually have covops watching the enemy fleet...thats just not the way it happens all the time. One suggestion is to take cloaked ships out of local. If you want the surprise and stealth of no local, there you go. However, no local at all is a terrible idea. You still have to find the targets once you know you're in the right system....everybody acts as if local can give you a WTZ to them. Scan the belts and stations, drop probes...because you're having fun and actually hunting somebody. Not hunting in empty systems for hours and logging out of sheer boredom. Fun story though :) You forgot the 2 hours of waiting it took for both sides to randomly jump into the same system hah
Lyta Reimalken Minmatar No Fear Buccaneers	Posted - 2008.05.10 16:39:00 - [180] Edited by: Lyta Reimalken on 10/05/2008 16:45:10 Originally by: Skjorta Removing local is usually suggested by people who want to AVOID fights. Local is fine, pvp would dwindle so fast once people spent days searching completely empty systems for fights. Not all fights happen between large groups of people, when u can actually have covops watching the enemy fleet...thats just not the way it happens all the time. One suggestion is to take cloaked ships out of local. If you want the surprise and stealth of no local, there you go. However, no local at all is a terrible idea. You still have to find the targets once you know you're in the right system....everybody acts as if local can give you a WTZ to them. Scan the belts and stations, drop probes...because you're having fun and actually hunting somebody. Not hunting in empty systems for hours and logging out of sheer boredom. Fun story though :) You forgot the 2 hours of waiting it took for both sides to randomly jump into the same system hah This is just not the case. Removing local is usually suggested by people who want fights. As it is, fights dont happen as often as they could (should?) because we know what each other has. Consequence of which, either someone messes up and doesnt watch local, or the fights will be between largely equal numbers. Since if the defender has too many, the attacker wont attack, and if the attacker has too many, the defender will bug out. Given that numbers are often not equal, lots of (potentially not unfair) fights wont happen. From the point of view of someone trying to have small scale fights, im all in favour of an idea like this. Quite often I have looked at local and decided that the odds werent at least 50/50, and bottled a fight. In retrospect, I wish I hadn't, my best fights in eve have been outnumbered, fought with impetus and aggression and without fear of losing isk. The more information I have, the less fights I feel confident of winning (due to finding myself with a perfect representation of the assets in play) and the less willing I am to engage. If I dont know what my enemy has, and he doesnt know what I have, I am going to have more fun finding out. Knowing whats in local, knowing what the odds are before combat starts and having to do no work to do this (whilst knowing the exact same holds true for your opponent) is one of the things that can make eve combat boring. People are very quick to see the negative implications of this lack of knowledge, that maybe they will lose ships or whatever, but I would be rather excited by the knowledge that my opponent is just as clueless as I would be, so sure, things will have to change, the scanner will need to be rethought, additions made, but on the whole I dont see how that could be a bad thing. Right now the scanner is a pain to use, an RSI contributor and a wasted opportunity for adding some real 'feel' to intel gathering. As it is, between the scanner and local you get a pretty perfect picture of whats going on in a place by pressing one button continually, i'd love the idea of deploying sensor drones to provide some early warning as to people approaching my location, or setting up a covops purely for intel gathering at extreme ranges or whatever. As it is most of what i'd want done can be achieved with a trial alt, a velator, local and the 360 scanner. That sucks.

El'Niaga Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.05.10 17:26:00 - [181] You can't remove local without removing a majority of the playerbase. Trust me if they could they would have. That mistake some time back was not a mistake..... Accept that local isn't going away or that if they were to remove it whatever replaced it would be just as easy and just as useful to the point of making removing it worthless. CCP is a business. Regardless of how you feel, they simply can't afford the loss in business removing local would incur.
Brunswick2 coracao ardente Cruel Intentions	Posted - 2008.05.10 17:54:00 - [182] Edited by: Brunswick2 on 10/05/2008 17:56:42 Removing local is going to kill off low sec/0.0 even more. People are already intimidated by leaving empire to go into the dreaded 0.4 systems with an easy source of intel (local). Take that away and have the scanner be the only source of intel and you will just have huge gangs of recons running around, and with all the new chars terrified of entering low sec/0.0. People don't seem to realize that making it easier to kill people is only going to scare mostly everyone from doing anything in low sec/0.0. All removing local will do is encourage empire hugging and massive blobbing because you'll have no idea what is out there in the system.
Astria Tiphareth Caldari	Posted - 2008.05.10 18:52:00 - [183] Originally by: Brunswick2 People don't seem to realize that making it easier to kill people is only going to scare mostly everyone from doing anything in low sec/0.0. All removing local will do is encourage empire hugging and massive blobbing because you'll have no idea what is out there in the system. So let me get this straight... having local allows you to see precisely what the enemy has in system, encouraging blobbing by bringing more people than they have (a simple and obvious tactic) or encouraging docking if you don't have more people. (In fact, it's amazing anybody gets to fight at all the way local intel is described by some...) Removing local will now also encourage blobbing? Which is it? Or is it perhaps that safety in numbers applies regardless of the intel tools used? Setting aside that a lot of players view low-sec as a no-go-area right now... As an empire-hugger myself, I can appreciate what you're saying about local & low-sec; it's quite nifty to enter a low-sec system and see precisely who's there. On the other hand, I don't really care who's in the system in low-sec, pretty much anyone is a threat. I do care if there's a gatecamp but I won't know that without going and looking. Overall, the way I see local at the moment is vastly over-powered, but also very simple to implement and to use. On the other hand, it's pretty trivial to write a radar system or something similar for every ship so you get an idea of what's out there, and sensor specifics and warp spikes and all that jazz can be incorporated pretty easily. I even have visions of a solar system map with compiled data for fleet commanders, the way real naval battles are conducted... The question is does it benefit the game? Not knowing what is out there enables more tactics, more ways to confuse and defeat your foe. Feints, lures, jamming, all become possible. As already mentioned cloaks need some suitable proximity warning (I would suggest only if moving, otherwise ambushes go out the window) otherwise they become far far too powerful. Do players have time and coordination enough to pull these sorts of things off? One issue that does come to mind: how much of an intel tool can scanning be given the use of gates? Ultimately everyone has to come through one. If scanning replaced local by some means, would this just lead to gatecamps galore? Lets assume for a moment it wouldn't, perhaps simply due to time-zones... Conversely, not knowing what is out there reduces the ability to actually engage the enemy. For comparison, a typical submarine engagement can last days if not weeks trying to hunt the other without giving away your own position. PvP has to happen reasonably quickly otherwise it's just a time-sink with no satisfaction at all. In short, you need a balance. Whatever scanning system is implemented needs to be easy to use, just powerful enough that it doesn't take hours to find an enemy, and just underpowered enough that it doesn't immediately replace local, in which case you've achieved nothing. I could mention how real carrier battles are theorised (since we've not really had one in any modern military) and all about the choice to radiate or not, scouting, passive sensors, active sensors, (a lot of the same applies in different ways to submarine combat) but it's really all fluff as far as EVE is concerned. Nice to have, not the core of the concept. I'm all for a scanning system, and seen some great ideas like spotting concentrations of ships, but it must be easy to use, still enable PvP, and not protect attackers so much that people daren't set foot outside a station. Heck, put it in empire and low-sec, I don't see why they need any special treatment. ___ "If you can't debate using logic & fact, and at least recognise other people's point of view, don't waste time posting on forums. It only makes you look like a teenage idiot."
Zeknichov Life. Universe. Everything.	Posted - 2008.05.10 19:00:00 - [184] Remove local. Allow scanner to determine if the ship it has scanned is being piloted or not.
Astria Tiphareth Caldari	Posted - 2008.05.10 19:08:00 - [185] Originally by: Lyta Reimalken The more information I have, the less fights I feel confident of winning (due to finding myself with a perfect representation of the assets in play) and the less willing I am to engage. If I dont know what my enemy has, and he doesnt know what I have, I am going to have more fun finding out. Knowing whats in local, knowing what the odds are before combat starts and having to do no work to do this (whilst knowing the exact same holds true for your opponent) is one of the things that can make eve combat boring. Missed this in my first read and to me it sums up how PvP combat should be. I was thrilled and exhilarated by my first trip into low-sec (read: terrified out of my wits) until I worked out that I could find out if a system was safe just by looking in local. Not knowing, and knowing that your enemy may have better or worse information is part of the thrill. Have you been detected? Have you found their main force or a diversion? etc. As I said in my much longer previous post, it's all a balance; in my example, low-sec became a lot less intimidating when I realised I could see who was about. On the other hand, it means that pirates must resort to gate-camping and catching someone first entering the system, precisely because local informs on their presence. You can't hunt if you're permanently up-wind of the prey. ___ "If you can't debate using logic & fact, and at least recognise other people's point of view, don't waste time posting on forums. It only makes you look like a teenage idiot."
Tankn00blicus Cosmic Vacum Cleaners	Posted - 2008.05.10 19:13:00 - [186] Edited by: Tankn00blicus on 10/05/2008 19:15:01 Removing local will nerf low sec even more. Oh, and the veld buff made high sec even better than it was before. In low-null sec, people will fly gank and/or make nano even better.
Cornette Gallente Black Screen of Death HUZZAH FEDERATION	Posted - 2008.05.10 19:35:00 - [187] It took some time to read through all the pages but it was worth it. To Jade: I already voted for you for your ideas of making null sec less static and dull. And this thread only reinforced my belief that I gave my vote to the right person. Removing local chat and nerfing the map would make EVE feel big again, and make null-sec much more interesting and dangerous. It would also limit the insanity of big space-holding alliances who love to lay claim to big estates of space without really using it. And before someone hits the reply-button to nag on my opinion, I been in big space-holding alliances. So I know everything there is to know about that play-style already. For those who say people will just quit the game if CCP remove local, there is a perfect place for them already. Its called Empire, and its already to good compared with most 0.0 space. Some People already in 0.0 will squirm and complain but they will adapt, or they will be replaced by newer players entering 0.0 after the change. So please CCP, with sugar on top, nerf local and the map. Remove the adress book intel too when your at it. Unless a person wants you to know you shouldn't be able to use it like a watch-list to see if your enemies are online or not.
Gaiam Gallente Supernova Security Systems	Posted - 2008.05.10 19:42:00 - [188] removing local is a totally stupid idea. EVERY single friend or enemy i have in eve i met using local. removing local would be worse for eve than smugglers gates or jump bridges.
Ashnagala Caldari Cybertec Inc.	Posted - 2008.05.10 22:53:00 - [189] this is so tripple-/signed ___________________________________ Best regards, ALPR Co-CEO Ashnagala Alphrenel Productions - making nice videos for everyone!
Corey McDonald	Posted - 2008.05.24 23:22:00 - [190] I'm for it

Corey McDonald	Posted - 2008.05.24 23:24:00 - [191] Originally by: Gaiam removing local is a totally stupid idea. EVERY single friend or enemy i have in eve i met using local. removing local would be worse for eve than smugglers gates or jump bridges. Not removing local entirely, removing local in particularly low sec and 0.0
hydraSlav Synergy Evolved Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2008.05.25 00:37:00 - [192] Edited by: hydraSlav on 25/05/2008 00:37:55 Oh please please please see this through, Jade. I was voting for removal of local for couple of years now. I even wrote an article to EvE-Tribune about this a long time ago: http://www.eve-tribune.com/index.php?no=1_24&page=4 Hell, even Oveur himself says local should not be used as an intel tool (read my signature). Of course, removing local would be a huge game-changing mechanic, and something on that magnitude should not be done in one step. But the solution already exists. We have "delayed mode" channels already, where people don't show up in the list unless they recently spoke. And you don't see the numbers of local, unless you spoke or spent some time in channel. == Above comments are my personal views Oveur >Local shouldn't be a tactical tool, it's for chat
Bellum Eternus D00M.	Posted - 2008.05.25 00:58:00 - [193] To the OP: while removing local is an admirable idea, your list of additional changes does nothing but move locals intel hand holding to different game mechanics. Having any sort of active warning system for players to automatically protect them is the last thing I want to see introduced. The whole point of removing local is to make combat more offensive and less defensive. Just put Local into 'delayed mode' and be done with it. Frankly, I'd like to see the scanner be changed so that you're only able to see the class of ship, not the exact type. If you wanted detailed info, you'd have to get a covert ops (or any other ship fitted with a probe launcher) to drop a probe, and then you'd get detailed info on the ship, it's position, what type it is, who's flying it and it's name etc.. The game needs to move away from the concept of simplified dumbed down handholding gameplay and develope it into a more complex skill based (as in user interactivity) game design that rewards players that exhibit some intelligence and forthought and punishes those who are lazy and unprepared. We need to make it harder to avoid PVP, not easier. Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [gold]Owing to lack of Eve-related content, signature removed. If you would like to discuss this, please mail mods@cc
Taizu Lilith Re-Awakened Technologies Inc Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.05.25 01:26:00 - [194] I like the idea Jade!
LongHong Dong	Posted - 2008.05.25 01:29:00 - [195] If local was removed , I would expect to see a rise in packet sniffing programs. Im pretty sure CCP does not have much in outbound packet encryption.
Brachis Eve Liberation Force	Posted - 2008.05.25 03:23:00 - [196] Originally by: LongHong Dong If local was removed , I would expect to see a rise in packet sniffing programs. Im pretty sure CCP does not have much in outbound packet encryption. That doesn't really make a difference. Packet sniffers simply cannot get information out of a packet if it's not being provided, and I am very confident that CCP's system doesn't send information to the player's client until they would have access to that information anyway. If the system doesn't tell the computer how many people are in local, no amount of packet sniffing will tell you how many people are in local. If the system doesn't tell the computer that a cloaked ship is even there until the client does something that would reveal the ship, no amount of packet sniffing will help.
Grarr Dexx Naval Protection Corp Carpe Universitas	Posted - 2008.05.25 03:28:00 - [197] OP finally gave me a reason why they instated a post character limit
Garvin Lumines	Posted - 2008.05.25 04:43:00 - [198] Removing Local will have 3 effects. 1)Force people to rat in gangs, further nerfing solo piracy. 2)Ratting and mining profits will drop per hour per character, leading more 0.0 players to adopt empire based methods to generate isk. There will be more npc corp members running level 4's in CNR's, and more players doing invention and production further reducing profits in those areas. 3)Spying will become even more of a necessity in order to discern the composition and location of opposing forces. This will further empower large organizations with extensive spy networks.
Rakaim Rising Federation	Posted - 2008.07.25 08:02:00 - [199] I stopped reading after page 1. I like the idea - a lot. The orignal idea minus the whole "Is this system popuated" answer. I don't want to know if there's people in the system besides my gang. _____________________________ CEO of Rising Federation [RWNX]
Aeo IV Amarr Xomic OmniCorporation	Posted - 2008.07.25 08:53:00 - [200] /not signed.

J'Mkarr Soban Amarr Proxenetae Invicti	Posted - 2008.07.25 09:32:00 - [201] Originally by: Garvin Lumines Removing Local will have 3 effects. 1)Force people to rat in gangs, further nerfing solo piracy. 2)Ratting and mining profits will drop per hour per character, leading more 0.0 players to adopt empire based methods to generate isk. There will be more npc corp members running level 4's in CNR's, and more players doing invention and production further reducing profits in those areas. 3)Spying will become even more of a necessity in order to discern the composition and location of opposing forces. This will further empower large organizations with extensive spy networks. For the first point - good, it brings people together. Second, ******s. No idea where you're getting that from. Third - good. However, there is a fourth point - these large alliances will have to spend more resources (people) on maintaining the security of their systems, which means they have less resources available for expansion. The borders will shrink, and there will be more open space for younger, smaller alliances. At the very least they'd need a pilot in each system, preferably one on each gate, just keeping an eye on things. Or, if a POS system scanner module comes out (which I support, does the same thing as the ship scanner but has massive range and resolution) then it again forces them to withdraw from the borders and start maintaining their infrastructre, or consolodating it from their capital out. All good things in my view. -- These are my personal views and in no way represent the views of Proxenetae Invicti, which maintains a neutral stance stemming from the strong ethics demanded of its work.*
Pushtan Ministry of Destruction Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.25 09:34:00 - [202] ITT: idiots... i'm sorry, but just because some people cant catch ratters, or get a fight from people unready/willing to fight them isnt cause to remove one of the oldest game features 'cus i cant kill that guy' main posts were tl;dr, but i gather you were trying for a fleet battle and no one wanted to engage you. try and think of something that wont alter the game for your temporary ADHD problems. Option 1: Remove the ability to talk in local - how many times have you just mashed the local bar to just show Chars? It also cuts down on server load, FAR MORE THAN SPAMMING THE SCANNER, remember Goons spamming 'FOFOFOFOFOFO' in local? yeah, well then. Option 2: (as i read somewhere else in the post) make the scanner scan at intervals and make it about 40au...considering most systems are that size or larger. --- Option 1 would be my suggestion as it is less stressful on the server, but (now unless youre completely oblivious to alliance intel channels and their uses - this should make an iota os sense) when the enemy is moving a fleet through your space, how can you tell how many or what alliance, if they rename their ships to [SCA] ** or [Star] ** - its gonna mess up your ability to distinguish whos who, and end up saying 'Are you the mega? No? The Mael? No...?'..........'So,' you say, 'post recons all over!'. Yeah, cus we all have 40+ recon/cov ops pilots all gagging to sit on a gate solo for hours.... You cannot expect people on fleet moves, mining ops, or guarding them in the next system to sit there spamming scanner - or just watching it tick over...Local will SUFFICE it isnt a massive problem, its just inconvenient SOMETIMES when you want a fight.
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2008.07.25 10:00:00 - [203] At a time when folks still scream that there are not enough people in 0.0 and that the load on the Empire servers is to high this would be disastrous. You would get fewer people going to 0.0 More people would hang in empire. This is a game, ship sensors commonly in science fiction can detect ships system wide to even systems away. I see local as an expansion of that same sci fi mechanic. Even if you did get it removed the info most likely would still be sent to your computer in order for the server to handle locations. Someone would just write a third party program that still gave them local and their corp/alliance, thus giving an unfair advantage to them. In the skies above the World today we track every plane so long as their locater beacon is working. Rather than the complete removal of local introduce a new rig that when installed removes you from local. It should be a fairly large calibration probably around 150 to 200. It accomplishes in some sense the same thing but without removing everyone and thus giving some semblance of safety so that droves don't stay in empire. Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts.
Roshan longshot Gallente Ordos Humanitas	Posted - 2008.07.25 11:19:00 - [204] "If" the jump gates are maned, should'nt local be reduced to "So and So entered systems 20 mins ago, and has not been reported leaving the system." Or a General warning..."ATTENTION all pilots! A wanted pilot by the name of So and So has entered system at this time!" And that is all that is used. I agree 'local' chat has alot of problems...but removing it from the game completly is just wrong. Like it or not...not everyone is playing this game for combative PvP. And adding yet more things to do while playing a game is a drawback to people wanting to just play for a couple of hours a day. Damn you CCP! Why did you have to make such a good game?? Yes you drew me back AGAIN! Oh well wheres the Omber?
Amandi Casimi Amarr Celestial Janissaries Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.25 14:00:00 - [205] Why is this failed idea keep being brought up, time and time again? Removing local will increase the need for alts to sit their all day and scan gates constantly, because to have secure space, you will need to know who is in your space. I am sorry, but removing local will break the game, hurt established 0.0 alliances, and will give unlimited power to invading forces. Jade... let this dreamworld die... ------------------------- Let neutrals be neutrals.
TheG2 Gallente Dirty Rotten Scoundrels	Posted - 2008.07.25 14:05:00 - [206] /signed And the prox. alerts are a great balance. Do it CCP!
Karando Random Goods	Posted - 2008.07.25 14:13:00 - [207] Originally by: Jade Constantine 1. The map intel would need to change and stop being a free-lunch. No point being a ninja ratter watching your scanner diligently and counting on the security of a big system to protect you from bad guys when the game map is happily announcing to the entire server that youÆve killed 1001 Guristas in the last 8 hours. Anyone hoping to come and kill you should at least have to make the effort of scanning for wrecks as they pass through the system and make the connection. Just read this paragraph when I saw you posted a wall of unrelevant RP text. Your idea is fail. Haven't you got your own forum for Carebear Stellar Managment issues?
Neth'Rae Gallente Decorum Inc Tygris Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.26 03:33:00 - [208] I like this idea, and it's the main reason I voted jade ^^ Also along with this some more interesting EW could be added like scanner spoofing. I also like the idea of POS Mods that functions like a radar and detects signatures in a certain radius or in the entire solar system, which could be configured to report any hostile or neutral signatures being detected. Request signatures at EVE-GFX
J Kunjeh Gallente	Posted - 2008.07.26 04:20:00 - [209] Originally by: Astria Tiphareth So let me get this straight... having local allows you to see precisely what the enemy has in system, encouraging blobbing by bringing more people than they have (a simple and obvious tactic) or encouraging docking if you don't have more people. (In fact, it's amazing anybody gets to fight at all the way local intel is described by some...) Removing local will now also encourage blobbing? Which is it? Or is it perhaps that safety in numbers applies regardless of the intel tools used? Setting aside that a lot of players view low-sec as a no-go-area right now... As an empire-hugger myself, I can appreciate what you're saying about local & low-sec; it's quite nifty to enter a low-sec system and see precisely who's there. On the other hand, I don't really care who's in the system in low-sec, pretty much anyone is a threat. I do care if there's a gatecamp but I won't know that without going and looking. Overall, the way I see local at the moment is vastly over-powered, but also very simple to implement and to use. On the other hand, it's pretty trivial to write a radar system or something similar for every ship so you get an idea of what's out there, and sensor specifics and warp spikes and all that jazz can be incorporated pretty easily. I even have visions of a solar system map with compiled data for fleet commanders, the way real naval battles are conducted... The question is does it benefit the game? Not knowing what is out there enables more tactics, more ways to confuse and defeat your foe. Feints, lures, jamming, all become possible. As already mentioned cloaks need some suitable proximity warning (I would suggest only if moving, otherwise ambushes go out the window) otherwise they become far far too powerful. Do players have time and coordination enough to pull these sorts of things off? One issue that does come to mind: how much of an intel tool can scanning be given the use of gates? Ultimately everyone has to come through one. If scanning replaced local by some means, would this just lead to gatecamps galore? Lets assume for a moment it wouldn't, perhaps simply due to time-zones... Conversely, not knowing what is out there reduces the ability to actually engage the enemy. For comparison, a typical submarine engagement can last days if not weeks trying to hunt the other without giving away your own position. PvP has to happen reasonably quickly otherwise it's just a time-sink with no satisfaction at all. In short, you need a balance. Whatever scanning system is implemented needs to be easy to use, just powerful enough that it doesn't take hours to find an enemy, and just underpowered enough that it doesn't immediately replace local, in which case you've achieved nothing. I could mention how real carrier battles are theorised (since we've not really had one in any modern military) and all about the choice to radiate or not, scouting, passive sensors, active sensors, (a lot of the same applies in different ways to submarine combat) but it's really all fluff as far as EVE is concerned. Nice to have, not the core of the concept. I'm all for a scanning system, and seen some great ideas like spotting concentrations of ships, but it must be easy to use, still enable PvP, and not protect attackers so much that people daren't set foot outside a station. Heck, put it in empire and low-sec, I don't see why they need any special treatment. First, I agree with Jade on the original proposal; not necessarily the specifics, but the general idea. The post above is on the money. I may have more to add later once I've thought it over more.
gtcsellalt	Posted - 2008.07.26 04:37:00 - [210] yes remove local. csm get to work ccp starting to go looney with ******ed changes... next we have a space pony that suddenly blows up an entire system on super titan.

Nova Fox Gallente Novafox Shipyards	Posted - 2008.07.26 06:04:00 - [211] youve ma'am have made the best argument for removing local, I appauld your effort and am glad I voted for you. But like you said the ship scanner will of course need improvements, user friendlness and a more active state/role/useability. Like narrowing your scanner would be shown as a graphical representation on the scanner page by reducing the drawn range rings size, any hits will register accross the range of the as an arc (so you cant tell excatly where they are at the range but you know they are there at that range) hopefully this could be real time info instead of constantly hitting the scan button. Another thing someone mentioned passive scanning, turning on passive makes the scanner 'sweep' and record hits if they pop, bigger the angle shorter the range but better coverage and faster speed on the sweep where a narrowband sweep will give best range but slowest scan you also cant aim this scanner. Active would have 'aimable' scanners but would be very noisy in themselves. Putting results on overview would make it useable too or at least make the results rippable from the main scanner window and resizable on its own. We could possibly see an apperance of ships and more gear based around this mechanic (hacking ships that could change thier and neary ships thier IFF friendly instead of hostile/netural while they perform thier havok, a mini capitol could act as a mobile scanning platform, skills to improve sweep speed and scan resolution) Of course the idea only covers onboard scanners a deployable scanner would be all the more better than the ship's provided info. Also any room for a system wide distress beacon launch? A warpable to neutral beacon visible system wide as well might be used for baits traps and other fun things New Ship Idea: Tender Supply Ship, The Logistics Sister
Nova Fox Gallente Novafox Shipyards	Posted - 2008.07.26 06:10:00 - [212] Edited by: Nova Fox on 26/07/2008 06:10:56 Also if you remove maps statistics would it be possible to have a interstellar probe launch platform? POS anchorable observatory? Something that would launch a probe systems away and spill that information about that system but only certain specifics like traffic, cyno activations, and large object population. Of course homebase players can find this probe and destroy it. Also my ears perked up to devs saying how they want to add in FW elements to 0.0 conquering. This included having gate guns that have to be manned, if local is removed would you pefer these become automated and squeal alerts if they are attacked or attacking to help ease patrols and personal required to maintain space? Once again hackers could come into play allowing disabling of the guns IFF scanners letting hostile fleets though untouched. Also since these changes are so sweeping I purpose the replacement mechanics to be installed first and fully tested before removing the local. New Ship Idea: Tender Supply Ship, The Logistics Sister
Sebastien Starstrider Minmatar Ship Construction Services	Posted - 2008.07.26 08:05:00 - [213] Admittedly I haven't read through all of the thread's responses, but I'd still like to give my own input on the matter. I'm all for removing local. I think it would be great and have many tactical advantages. Scanning would become more universally used, and not so much just by those persons that wanted to track down that person in local that seems to be evading them. I would think that it might also promote more opportunity in 0.0 security areas for those corporations and alliances without space of their own. It would become harder to detect enemy presence in some backwater outpost that might be "claimed" but not necessarily defended unless people pop onto local. Maybe we'd see some of the larger organizations scramble to put forth effective intelligence and eventually give up on such huge land claims, deciding it wasn't worth the upkeep? Perhaps they'd resort to taking smaller areas, where they could possess effective intel and quick response times. I'm just thinking of the possibilities here, of course. I've not been playing long enough to judge the full impact it may have, but I'd be more than happy to see it implemented nonetheless.
Gone'Postal Minmatar Vengeance 8 Interceptors	Posted - 2008.07.26 09:24:00 - [214] Originally by: Jade Constantine What have I forgotten? Lag. The plan and tactic in the story is mute if noone can control there ship. Sarcasm off. -V8I-
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. eXceed.	Posted - 2008.07.26 09:39:00 - [215] If you want to remove local, you need a whole host of things changed. Aside from the map giving away your position if you're a ratter, the truesec status of a system also gives you away. If I were a gankfleet, all I would have to do is go to a -1.0 truesec system and I would be guaranteed to have people out and about ratting. Don't need anything for that. But most of the things you already touched upon. If I had to describe an ideal system where there was no local, it would be like this: 1. Asteroid belts not visible on scanner, but need to be probed out. Or basically, remove all asteroid belts, and increase the number of exploration plexes by a factor of anywhere between 3 and 10. 2. Longrange permanent scanners. And with variation between shiptypes. A frigate could have the 15 AU scanner, but a battleship should have a 75 AU scanner and a carrier should have a 150 AU scanner. 3. Ability to set passive warnings so you know when people are warping in. 4. IFF transponder tech. I.e. I need to be able to see if that guy warping in is a friendly. 5. Ability to see whether ships are in use or powered down and remove those from the scanner. I.e. parked ships at a POS need to be filtered out if so desired. 6. Ability to detect the presence of cloaked ships. Not pinpoint em, but general presence in the area. You can make it a bit chance-based, and/or require a specific module, but the ability to at least detect is very important. Thats the most important things I can think of at this point.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.07.26 10:02:00 - [216] First off: Intelligence needs to be more proactive, and it's own game mechanic. So I completely agree with the removal of the instant intel with local and the statistics info from map. Secondly: This change is a boon to pirates AND carebears. It helps pirates, by allowing them to actually set traps at locations other than gates. They can camp roid belts with a scout, and drag the other ships from roaming safespots. And carebears benefit by having a modest level of protection by not being immediately identified when a pirate enters system. Third: New tools should be added that gives an alliance the means to get system intelligence (anchored scanning dishes), and gives players the ability to make intelligence gathering their key function (recon probes, etc). Fourth and Final: Now, make this information available to fleet commanders (through scout assignments) and alliance leaders (through tactical maps). Make it so that having these assets in place and using gathering intelligence actively is a important as having a tackler in your group. - A player or corporation shouldn't be able to see what's happening in another 0.0 system all the way across the map. If you don't have assets there or the rights to check those assets (a radar dish sitting in one of your covert POS's), the place is unknown to you. - Players of all pursuasions should be able to avoid conflict simply by watching a chat channel. I've used both myself. I know how EASY and i-win it is. If I'm in a carebear setup, some identified comes in local, my cloak goes up and I can wait them out. If I am in a corp war or tactical situation, and a blob of enemy enter system, I'll go to station and either log or go afk. It's too simple. - Players need to be proactive about using scanners and protecting themselves. Smart fleets already have scouts ranging ahead and behind. This will make it crucial for survival, and make you post scouts to your sides as well. I'm 100% for this, and have been for two+ years now. Please take the I-win button away, and make it mysterious again. Genesis Project
Carrier Eleven Gallente EVE Posting Service	Posted - 2008.07.26 11:14:00 - [217] Remove local, every two-bit lowsec pirates gankers wet dream. you go!! This Idea while popular with the small group posting here, would not set well with the masses.
ceyriot Entropians on Vacation	Posted - 2008.07.26 12:05:00 - [218] Love the idea, and there really does need to be some way of seeing cloaked people if this goes into effect or cloaked guys/recons/whatever will become overpowered. Its been said in the thread before, I know, but just my thought. Faction Store - Killboard
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.07.26 17:09:00 - [219] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 26/07/2008 17:09:24 Wow Kinky! My thread is back from the dead. I support! Star Fraction \| Dare to Dream!
Neth'Rae Gallente Decorum Inc Tygris Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.26 18:49:00 - [220] Edited by: Neth''Rae on 26/07/2008 18:50:28 Originally by: Astria Tiphareth Overall, the way I see local at the moment is vastly over-powered, but also very simple to implement and to use. On the other hand, it's pretty trivial to write a radar system or something similar for every ship so you get an idea of what's out there, and sensor specifics and warp spikes and all that jazz can be incorporated pretty easily. I even have visions of a solar system map with compiled data for fleet commanders, the way real naval battles are conducted... The question is does it benefit the game? Not knowing what is out there enables more tactics, more ways to confuse and defeat your foe. Feints, lures, jamming, all become possible. As already mentioned cloaks need some suitable proximity warning (I would suggest only if moving, otherwise ambushes go out the window) otherwise they become far far too powerful. Do players have time and coordination enough to pull these sorts of things off? One issue that does come to mind: how much of an intel tool can scanning be given the use of gates? Ultimately everyone has to come through one. If scanning replaced local by some means, would this just lead to gatecamps galore? Lets assume for a moment it wouldn't, perhaps simply due to time-zones... Conversely, not knowing what is out there reduces the ability to actually engage the enemy. For comparison, a typical submarine engagement can last days if not weeks trying to hunt the other without giving away your own position. PvP has to happen reasonably quickly otherwise it's just a time-sink with no satisfaction at all. In short, you need a balance. Whatever scanning system is implemented needs to be easy to use, just powerful enough that it doesn't take hours to find an enemy, and just underpowered enough that it doesn't immediately replace local, in which case you've achieved nothing. I could mention how real carrier battles are theorised (since we've not really had one in any modern military) and all about the choice to radiate or not, scouting, passive sensors, active sensors, (a lot of the same applies in different ways to submarine combat) but it's really all fluff as far as EVE is concerned. Nice to have, not the core of the concept. I'm all for a scanning system, and seen some great ideas like spotting concentrations of ships, but it must be easy to use, still enable PvP, and not protect attackers so much that people daren't set foot outside a station. Heck, put it in empire and low-sec, I don't see why they need any special treatment. Actually the comparison to naval and submarine combat is pretty spot on as to what similar mechanics I'd like to see :) I got stuck a few hours in a game called 'silent hunter 4' after watching the movie Das Boot, and I got to say submarine combat is awesome, though the game has a fast-forward function that lets you roam the pacific in 8000 times faster than normal, because otherwise traveling would take weeks. I also just learned to use the hydrophone, it's so exciting listening and hearing the enemy destroyers engines, and at which bearing they are located. And it's really scary when you're in the command room in silent running mode and you suddenly hear the sound of the enemy ships active sonar and shortly after depth charges explode all around you shaking the boat like crazy.. But my point is, the most awesome thing about it is the hunt, you don't know what is out there and you have to use all sensors and means necessary to find out, some methods make yourself valunerable by for example, surfacing the boat to use the radar. I'd really love for the scanner to be more powerful and dynamic, and not favor either the hunter or the hunted. Like in reallife you could have passive and active modes, active could have longer range but those using passive would get a warning that someone is using it and thus they would be able to warp out. Also detecting someone warping would be awesome.. Request signatures at EVE-GFX

Straight Chillen Gallente Solar Wind Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service	Posted - 2008.07.26 19:25:00 - [221] this could make the system scanner POS mod useful
Mister Xerox	Posted - 2008.07.26 20:21:00 - [222] Not supported. I'm no 0.0 plebe, to be sure. 0.0 Politics drive me utterly insane. But I don't believe ants like Jade should be able to run in and trash the hard work people have put into establishing a 0.0 presence as easily as they currently can. Speed changes won't change the raiders at all except make their nano gangs catchable (more or less). I say boost 0.0 presence; allow the anchoring of sentry guns at gates or other defense modules. After all, there's a whole fleet of covert ships that can bypass them. Blobs should find themselves under heavy fire when they jump into enemy space through gates.
J'Mkarr Soban Proxenetae Invicti	Posted - 2008.07.26 20:46:00 - [223] First for support! -- These are my personal views and in no way represent the views of Proxenetae Invicti, which maintains a neutral stance stemming from the strong ethics demanded of its work.
Neth'Rae Decorum Inc Tygris Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.27 08:55:00 - [224] Cool, now I can give it thumbs up aswell ^^ Request signatures at EVE-GFX
Tchu Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2008.07.27 09:51:00 - [225] I like it
McDonALTs	Posted - 2008.07.27 15:33:00 - [226] I want to kill some ratter. If local was removed, how will I find the ratter as quickly? I do not have 10 hours to check manually all over teh place.
MirrorGod Heretic Militia	Posted - 2008.07.27 15:53:00 - [227] You know, I never liked the idea until I had a look at what it might offer via Jade's poast. If implemented, I'm all for it, if nothing else, in 0.0. Supporting it. Save Small Gang Warfare
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.07.29 19:22:00 - [228] local = no suspense kill local, give us scanning tools. make flying around in space meaningful. let us use the entire system for combat instead of just gates/moons/stations.
Fluent Designs	Posted - 2008.08.03 22:19:00 - [229] killing local is a great idea, but the reason we fight over 00 if memory serves me right is for the industrial value that the moons and minerals bring us , it used to be hard enough making the trip from the belts to the stations everytime a unknown would arive in the system, this would only make that hard if not impossible for miners to stay safe. Unless ccp added some kind of long lasting scanners and a window , maby like a radar system for the miners to use, drop a probe at each gate, thatmay help keep them safe for a few hours, a system only launchable from a mining barge even would work and then the miners in 00 would become a part of the eyes and ears of keeping systems guarded, that information would not have to be of a tactical nature just a informative one ie friendly or unfriendly just arived time to run or stay and mine, that simple information could then be given to any local defence force
Marcus Gideon Gallente Excessive Force	Posted - 2008.08.03 23:26:00 - [230] Edited by: Marcus Gideon on 03/08/2008 23:26:22 Three things... 1) Make Local a "Recent Speakers" channel. Then you have no idea who is actually in your area unless they are chatty, which Spies shouldn't be. 2) Make Hunter modules for tracking down nearby Cloaks. 3) DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES allow Probes to find a Cloak. --- Don't take my ranting personally. I may just be arguing the topic, unless you're saying something stupid, and then I mean every word. "Players don't want Variety. They want THE BEST"

Demus DaVet Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.04 09:41:00 - [231] I would like to see local go. It's gamey, it's out of character and it is generally abused in a way it was not designed for. However, you do understand that players are also humans. Real life humans. Most of the time one just wants to jump through 5 systems to go from station to station to pick something up, it doesn't necessarily mean he/she undocks in order to have the adventure of their lives, and generally, people most of the time don't have the time to have the time of their lives... Local should be replaced by something that is more in character and that gives certain concrete advantages when flying through your alliance's space. I do agree it can't be completely safe but owning space does lose some of it's meaning when there is no way of flying through it in relative safety. Maybe a POS module you can anchor with Sov 1 and provides a number (doesn't have to be names) of Friendlies, Hostiles and Neutrals in the system to your overview. It won't be out of character since the module supposedly could scan the system every 30 seconds to get ship signatures or something. If one is flying in uncontested space... well, that's always something of an adventure anyway. Local could be kept as a chat where only the name of someone talking shows, but there is no list with portraits on the right side of it. It also has to be an automatic warning system. It's no fun loosing a warp-in because you had to roll a cigarette ------------------------------------------------- Things are generally simple EVE PVP Gameplay: Reloaded
Cheap Dude	Posted - 2008.08.04 11:13:00 - [232] Well that would make mining a dead profession. Atleast ratters jump from belt to belt to kill new spawns.
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.08.04 15:11:00 - [233] You have to read the whole thing. Replacing current local, you would have an alarm functionality on scanner. Almost assured there will be specialized ships or modules for this when you really need it (sitting in one spot mining.) You can always put people on the gates. Always scan a system you enter to mine.
Fireball Jones	Posted - 2008.08.04 18:03:00 - [234] /support
Cyberus Caldari Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:19:00 - [235] i like the idea in general.(nice fiction story btw) But i'm afraid at the long scale this will only involve more that some part of pilots who curently living in outlaw space will return to more save space and thats probebly the last thing what our developers want to happence in game. Atm they are still not managed get to the point where pilots out Empire switch to to 0.0 securety space life. and any posseble change what could bring whit in possebility that will result in discrasing population on the long run, will be probebly avoidet by CCP in any means. So long CCp will not find out or get any good idea from citizens of EVE what can replase LOCAl and still not do any impact on population in 0.0 space they will move that ideas in the corner and wait for better solution. Just my 2cents. regard Cyb [/url]
sexyminer	Posted - 2008.08.08 06:39:00 - [236] JADE could you say all that but in a shorter way plz i carnt read it all properly :(
Terra Mikael NightCrew	Posted - 2008.08.08 12:05:00 - [237] Edited by: Terra Mikael on 08/08/2008 12:15:09 You forgot to tell the story of how you were in an empty system and couldn't tell it was empty, so you wasted 20 minutes scanning and found nothing. Or the story of how a couple missioners in the same system wanted to fleet up with some one to speed things along, but can't. Or perhaps the story or of the miner who suddenly started to get his ass handed to him by a handful of rat frigates and couldn't even yell "help," (call it a "distress signal" if you want fancy storytelling) Or how about the time you find several people who you'd like to talk to at the same time, but you have to convo them all individually instead of saying "hey guys, let's [insert meaningless social activity that carbears do here]" Or how about just wanting to get on the damn radio and talk to anyone whose out there because you're **ing bored and you wanna see whose out there. You seem to forget that eve is a social game. Local will never go away because of this. Local could be changed to not display anyone in the local sidebar unless they decided to talk in local (somewhat the way other chat channels do only a lot faster), but to simply make such a powerful socializing tool just vanish is, excuse me, ing stupid. If giving away your presence is what you're worried about, perhaps a few line of codes can be added that remove you from local while your cloaked, but if surpises is what you want, then just go with the above idea. Edited: emphasizing the important parts Originally by:** VicturusTeSaluto All piracy is built upon honoring one's word.
Marcus Gideon Gallente Excessive Force	Posted - 2008.08.08 12:19:00 - [238] Originally by: Terra Mikael ...Local could be changed to not display anyone in the local sidebar unless they decided to talk in local (somewhat the way other chat channels do only a lot faster... These types of channels are called "Recent Speakers", and I'm going to promote that until something better comes along. But I agree completely, that just POOF removing Local wouldn't work. And voting for such a total removal will not prompt CCP to do it any faster than NEVER. BUT... removing the Intel gathering aspect (the names and faces) would alleviate the problem, while still leaving the chat function itself intact. --- Don't take my ranting personally. I may just be arguing the topic, unless you're saying something stupid, and then I mean every word. "Players don't want Variety. They want THE BEST"
Cyberus Caldari Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels	Posted - 2008.08.08 12:50:00 - [239] Originally by: NanDe YaNen You can always put people on the gates. So what you saying if someone deside to go out mine alone in syetm with 5 gates he must to find 5 ppl to cover it those gates? Dont beleave they will do it for free and how much profit will ppl get after? I dont know. Like i said i like idea in general but it can bring lots of concequnces with it and have poseble huge impact on 0.0 population on the long run. Now we did read the story showed from one side (combat situation) and it is sound fun but what about if you travel from dest A to dest B ? We all do arent we? and we all have local open and trying to get fast to our destenation and dont run in the camp or atleast try to avoid. In this scenarion you will have 2 options: a) run like headless chiken and hope you dont get in any camp on your way b) you have to scan every system you enter and will cost you alot of time to finish your jurney. My 2 cents. Cyb [/url]
Akarr Creitos	Posted - 2008.08.12 16:05:00 - [240] I like it, you have my support.

takinurwreck	Posted - 2008.11.03 01:14:00 - [241] Edited by: takinurwreck on 03/11/2008 01:15:01 I agree, come on ccp, acknowledge this. LOCAL MUST GO, not EVERYWHERE, just in 0.0 space. 0.1 to +1.0 should still sustain a "live" state as this is (semi)governed space.


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