| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
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!
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |