| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Face Lifter
   |
Posted - 2008.04.25 19:57:00 -
[91]
 Originally by: Sergeant Spot
Originally by: Face Lifter
Originally by: Sergeant Spot
The MINIMUM requirements for a scanner based replacement of Local:
-- Must be able to sort out unmanned junk (cans and abandoned ships, etc) (So, for example, when you jump into a new and cluttered system, you can set it so you see ONLY manned ships and maybe POS towers)
But that's not how it works now. This would be an additional feature that provides information currently not available with local chat.
The minimum in that sense would be knowing how many people are in local without identifying who is flying what by long range scanner.
Sounds to me like you don't object to local on realism issues, but only because it works.
I definitely wasn't thinking of realism. But now that I do, I don't see how manned and unmanned ships can be distinguished by long range scanners.
My main objection to local chat is that it provides valuable intel instantly. I want intelligence gathering to be a little more player skill oriented
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.25 20:12:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Tarminic
Originally by: Stratten
no no and no. :)
removing local only really benefits certain play-styles at the expense of others.
Could you expand on this? What play-styles do you believe it benefits, and harms, and how does my proposal fail in addressing those issues?
It benefits play styles that emphasize
1. Not Producing in 0.0
2. Traveling in large gangs
2. Blobbing
3. Cloaking
4. Any and all low risk combat types
The best way to explain this is by explaining a two player game with perfect intelligence and a two player game with no intelligence.
With perfect intelligence you know two things:
1. You know what your enemy is flying
2. You know your enemy knows what you are flying
Such. If you enemy brings a gang of 2 cruisers you would be hesitant to send 2 battleships after them, or 4 cruisers since they would see this and retreat. As such, you are more likely to bring something closer to their gang size.
With no intelligence you know three things
1. You know what you are flying
2. You know your enemy doesn't know what you are flying
2. You know you don't know what your enemy is flying.
Such. If you want to win, you want to bring the largest force possible. Your enemy, who doesn't know how many folks you have is thinking the same thing. "He doesn't know i have 100 cloaked sniping BS, on this gate he is going to jump in and get toasted!" And so you get an ever increasing blob of ships.
Perfect intelligence however is bad, because it removes mystery from the game and makes some actions not risky enough[producing/hauling etc]. But we can see that if we want more fights and smaller engagement sizes, we need to be closer towards the "more intelligence" system than the "less intelligence" system.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Tarminic
Black Flame Industries
|
Posted - 2008.04.25 20:26:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Goumindong
Such. If you want to win, you want to bring the largest force possible. Your enemy, who doesn't know how many folks you have is thinking the same thing. "He doesn't know i have 100 cloaked sniping BS, on this gate he is going to jump in and get toasted!" And so you get an ever increasing blob of ships.
Perfect intelligence however is bad, because it removes mystery from the game and makes some actions not risky enough[producing/hauling etc]. But we can see that if we want more fights and smaller engagement sizes, we need to be closer towards the "more intelligence" system than the "less intelligence" system.
Exactly. The problem I'm running into with my proposal is exactly where this system should fall between Perfect Intel and No Intel. If that issue is solved, I then need to determine how to keep supplementary modules and ship classes (cloaking, sensor boosters and ECCM) from skewing it too far in either direction for either side.
Unfortunately I have little 0.0 experience since the advent or recons and the popularity of nano-ships, so I'm not sure how viable it is or how to do so.
Goumindong, I like the suggestion you made regarding replacing local with a friendly/neutral/hostile count but I'm not sure it goes far enough to reduce intel accuracy. Maybe that could be implemented alongside my idea?
Then again, perhaps I'm just too attached to this suggestion.  |
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.04.25 20:39:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Goumindong
Such. If you want to win, you want to bring the largest force possible. Your enemy, who doesn't know how many folks you have is thinking the same thing. "He doesn't know i have 100 cloaked sniping BS, on this gate he is going to jump in and get toasted!" And so you get an ever increasing blob of ships.
This argument is neither here nor there. If you're supposing that more ships make you more likely to win, it doesn't matter what you know about your enemy - you will always bring as many ships as you can.
Removing Local and replacing it with a scanning/scouting system benefits those that employ scanning and scouts over those who do not.
In fact I would go so far as to say that if Local were replaced by some kind of scanner/scouting system, blobbing would be DISadvantageous, because your fleet's sensing apparatus would be concentrated in one spot instead of spread out to provide more coverage.
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.25 20:54:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Kelsin
This argument is neither here nor there. If you're supposing that more ships make you more likely to win, it doesn't matter what you know about your enemy - you will always bring as many ships as you can.
"as many ships as you can" changes based on what you know about your enemy. If you know that he knows what you have then you know that if you bring overwhelming force there will not be combat as he will run away.
Such bringing more forces will let you "win" the fight, because you hold the field and he has won. But strategic victories like this mean very little in eve unless you are disrupting operations[and if you are you are likely close to your enemies home port and they can get forces together to combat you].
But bringing more forces will decrease the likelihood of an engagement since the enemy will just run away. And its the engagement that everyone has fun from.
E.G. if am flying solo and you know i am flying solo you are more likely to engage me with any number of forces. But if i also know what you are flying, i am likely to run away if you bring something overwhelming. And since you know that I know what you are flying, actually bringing overwhelming force will mean that I disengage. So if you bring overwhelming forces you are choosing to not fight and i can clearly not choose the glass in front of me.
fake edit: Actually the Vizzini joke and point doesn't hold true, its in there entirely because its funny. In this situation, the meta-game play is actually important, where in many cases it is not(which the joke emphasizes).
This has been your "Goumindong ruins the joke and the fun" moment of the day, thank you for reading.
Quote:
In fact I would go so far as to say that if Local were replaced by some kind of scanner/scouting system, blobbing would be DISadvantageous, because your fleet's sensing apparatus would be concentrated in one spot instead of spread out to provide more coverage.
No, has has been explained to Jade, the more people you have the more information you have, not less(unless its impossible to gather information). All you do is add more cov-ops to your fleet ratio and have them constantly scanning. Now you have an information advantage and a fleet size advantage.
These severely benefits blobbing and other low risk activities like nano-cruisers, cloaking, and the many combinations of the two. Low-risk activities = less combat and less "good" combat. |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.25 21:13:00 -
[96]
Edited by: Goumindong on 25/04/2008 21:13:16
Originally by: Tarminic
Goumindong, I like the suggestion you made regarding replacing local with a friendly/neutral/hostile count but I'm not sure it goes far enough to reduce intel accuracy. Maybe that could be implemented alongside my idea?
I am not sure intel accuracy needs to be reduced. If anything, players need to be able to find and warp to enemies easier[so that on-gate combat is more rare, and this is a feature that is 'more info and more accurate info']. And in knowing enemy ship types easier they are more likely to be get a proper challenge together that the opponent wont run away from.
However. It also means there is less guess work in the game, specific ship counters are less able to be used and killing production is near impossible. And these are things we probably ought to be encouraging.
Its not so simple to say that we should have a scanning system as you say and really needs more fleshing out with regards to how quickly you can get on top of producers once they know you are in system.
For pvp fit vs pvp fit it doesn't matter much, since they are much more likely to be on gates and small tweaks to local functionality[don't appear on standings scan until you de-cloak from jump in(and/or possibly undock)] will have large and likely desired effects on pvp fit vs pvp fit. The rest is just figuring out how easy it ought to be to kill the non-coms.
edit: stupid quote marks inside bracket bug. |
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.04.25 21:26:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Goumindong
If you know that he knows what you have then you know that if you bring overwhelming force there will not be combat as he will run away.
(...)
But bringing more forces will decrease the likelihood of an engagement since the enemy will just run away. And its the engagement that everyone has fun from.
This is precisely the point of arguing to remove Local - as it stands the lesser force can always see when a greater force enters the system because they just watch Local for hostiles.
Originally by: Goumindong
No, has has been explained to Jade, the more people you have the more information you have, not less(unless its impossible to gather information). All you do is add more cov-ops to your fleet ratio and have them constantly scanning. Now you have an information advantage and a fleet size advantage.
You have more information only if you spread out to gain scanning coverage. But that's not blobbing. If you blob your fleet can only see what the unit with the most coverage can see. On top of which, all of those assumptions are based on one imagined scanning system - we could easily think of a scanning system that does not have those flaws.
Originally by: Goumindong
These severely benefits blobbing and other low risk activities like nano-cruisers, cloaking, and the many combinations of the two. Low-risk activities = less combat and less "good" combat.
Again, this doesn't follow - nano-cruisers have no more to do with the existance of Local chat than anything else in the game.
What you're saying is that removing local will make space more dangerous, and therefore players would gravitate towards lower-risk methods of travel and combat.
By that logic we should push for CCP to implement full insurance on all ships and modules so that combat losses cost you nothing, and then there will be "more good combat" because no one will avoid combat for fear of loss.
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.25 21:42:00 -
[98]
Edited by: Goumindong on 25/04/2008 21:42:19
Originally by: Kelsin
This is precisely the point of arguing to remove Local - as it stands the lesser force can always see when a greater force enters the system because they just watch Local for hostiles.
And you want a system where they cannot and so will die to the larger force.
How can you not see what this produced?
Quote:
You have more information only if you spread out to gain scanning coverage. But that's not blobbing. If you blob your fleet can only see what the unit with the most coverage can see. On top of which, all of those assumptions are based on one imagined scanning system - we could easily think of a scanning system that does not have those flaws.
No, you network the scanning and you keep the main force together. The same way you do it today with scouts in surrounding systems with cloaks.
Quote:
Again, this doesn't follow - nano-cruisers have no more to do with the existance of Local chat than anything else in the game.
What you're saying is that removing local will make space more dangerous, and therefore players would gravitate towards lower-risk methods of travel and combat.
By that logic we should push for CCP to implement full insurance on all ships and modules so that combat losses cost you nothing, and then there will be "more good combat" because no one will avoid combat for fear of loss.
1. Good god no. Fast ships that can disengage very easy are chosen specifically because if they get caught by larger forces they can run away instead of die. Increasing the chance that ships get caught by larger forces simply means that players must either bring more forces of their own or must move towards the lowest risk options.
2. Yes
3. I am arguing that if you do these things, then this other thing will happen. I am not arguing [i]we should do these things so that these other things will happen. You are straw-manning me. Furthermore you completely ignore anything regarding the over-arching goal of combat.
Think of it this way:
In a system with more information, if you reduce your risk, you reduce your rewards because people will be less likely to engage you and they are the source of mods. In a system with less information when you reduce your risk you increase your rewards. Because there is no correlation between the risks you take and the likelyhood of combat[that will produce loot by killing enemies] |
WillageGirl
|
Posted - 2008.04.25 22:04:00 -
[99]
Edited by: WillageGirl on 25/04/2008 22:09:27
Originally by: Goumindong
No, has has been explained to Jade, the more people you have the more information you have, not less(unless its impossible to gather information). All you do is add more cov-ops to your fleet ratio and have them constantly scanning. Now you have an information advantage and a fleet size advantage.
These severely benefits blobbing and other low risk activities like nano-cruisers, cloaking, and the many combinations of the two. Low-risk activities = less combat and less "good" combat.
What you fail to realize here, even though you say it yourself is that while gang size might be still large you have a lot more covert op's and scout and less heavy ships in your gang. This means you have less of actual combatships on the field and the rest of your gang spread around gathering intel == less people on the field == smaller blob's or less blobs. (how ever you like to put it.)
About favoring blob's ... these days you bring more to the field than your enemy and you dont engage unless you think you can win (or atleast not many do). So its nothing to say that removing local would somehow make the situation any worse. Infact it gives a lot more options for small more maneuverable gangs that can run around large blobs when they cant be so easily followed just by looking at local anymore.
Originally by: Goumindong
1. Good god no. Fast ships that can disengage very easy are chosen specifically because if they get caught by larger forces they can run away instead of die. Increasing the chance that ships get caught by larger forces simply means that players must either bring more forces of their own or must move towards the lowest risk options.
You do realize that you can go the other way too and start using smaller gangs, traps, baits, etc. You know the conventional strategic thinking that doesnt only involve adding more nombers to your gang. This would be good for game, dont you think? I cant imagine anyone enjoying those huge blobs that cause huge lag. Unfortunately, thats what the game design we have right now with local and all forces you to do.
One thing that I think everyone agrees is that if local is removed / nerfed it requires some kind of advanced scanning system. For example something similar EvE already had long time ago. Picture for those that were not around or do not remember.
Just a suggestion to get the thred on track again 
Fighting for Our right to Cloak since 2004 |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.25 23:40:00 -
[100]
Originally by: WillageGirl
What you fail to realize here, even though you say it yourself is that while gang size might be still large you have a lot more covert op's and scout and less heavy ships in your gang. This means you have less of actual combatships on the field and the rest of your gang spread around gathering intel == less people on the field == smaller blob's or less blobs. (how ever you like to put it.)
No, you don't have less combat ships and less heavy combat ships because you are incented to bring more ships in total
Where-as a 3-4 person gang might be viable when you can see what you can an can't fight. It is not viable when you need 20 before you start to feel safe. Even if half the gang were cov-ops that is still twice as many combat ships.
As well, so many intelligence based ships is simply unlikely to be fun for most people.
Quote:
So its nothing to say that removing local would somehow make the situation any worse. Infact it gives a lot more options for small more maneuverable gangs that can run around large blobs when they cant be so easily followed just by looking at local anymore.
Yes, nothing besides economics, common sense, sociology, et all will tell you that the change would likely make it worse. Those things are totally worthless!
[/sarcasm]
It does not give more options for maneuverable gangs because the big gang is just has hard to follow. Which means the maneuverable gang is more likely to run into the big gang and get wasted
Quote:
You do realize that you can go the other way too and start using smaller gangs, traps, baits, etc. You know the conventional strategic thinking that doesnt only involve adding more nombers to your gang. This would be good for game, dont you think? I cant imagine anyone enjoying those huge blobs that cause huge lag. Unfortunately, thats what the game design we have right now with local and all forces you to do.
No, because these tactics require you to have more information and more information than your enemy. And who has the more information again? The big gang does!
|
Mudrat
|
Posted - 2008.04.25 23:43:00 -
[101]
Edited by: Mudrat on 25/04/2008 23:45:19
you people need to be reading other mmorpg sites for more CURRENT news about this game. you wont be getting it on these boards.
from massively.com, today, as told by CCP as a con in NYC:
"For years the war waged between the empires of EVE Online has been a cold war. Well, now it is time to break out the Clausewitz ladies and gentlemen. The long awaited clash of the titans is coming and there is nowhere to hide. Corporation warfare has nothing on what is about to occur. Systems will change hands, empires will fall, and the galaxy as we know it will change forever. To hell with putting blasters on stun, this will be a fight to the finish.
With the launch of EVE's expansion Empyrean Age sometime in the future, the entire universe, players and NPCs, will be duking it out in the name of their empire in an epic struggle for galactic domination. The war is not going to be easy and players may participate alone, running missions for their empire of choice, or they may bring their entire corporation into the fray. You thought piracy was a problem, imagine finding yourself in the middle of an Amarr fleet bent on your merciless destruction! Kick in the afterburners and train up those tanking skills, there is going to be a torrent of destruction hellbent on finding your ship.
So what about you carebears? All is not lost for the industrialist at heart! In addition to an EVE proximity alert to keep you safe, all of the fighting will provide plenty of scrap metal. The empires and players need resources for the larger conflict and the usual struggles between corporations. Someone needs to make sure everyone in EVE is supplied with guns and ammunition. This means plenty of trading and market watching for players eager to make a few isk as gun runners. Stock up on Quafe and void ammo while you are browsing the market, you are going to need it!"
note the 'proximity alert' part.
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm?FEATURE=1909&GAME=14&bhcp=1
with pvp being pretty much forced on everyone, do expect ship and module prices to skyrocket something fierce. and all you miners out there had better start working on your tanking and drone skills - right now - or start working on a second account that can fly cover for your miners. this game is slowly devolving into a f2p korean thing.
|
Frug
Repo Industries
R.E.P.O.
|
Posted - 2008.04.25 23:50:00 -
[102]
I really love the idea of turning off all your ships systems to remain 'hidden' from any counts at all. (ie I forfeit my local count to also appear hidden) Not for fleets, but for soloing. It might not be so detrimental to fleets if you had to wait a few minutes between session changes to enter said cloaked mode, and you couldn't do it while in a fleet.
We pretty much do this with logging off anyway.
- - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - -
If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO
BOOO!! - Ductoris
Neat look what I found - Kreul
Hey, my marbles |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.25 23:57:00 -
[103]
Originally by: Frug
I really love the idea of turning off all your ships systems to remain 'hidden' from any counts at all. (ie I forfeit my local count to also appear hidden) Not for fleets, but for soloing. It might not be so detrimental to fleets if you had to wait a few minutes between session changes to enter said cloaked mode, and you couldn't do it while in a fleet.
We pretty much do this with logging off anyway.
This function already exists. Its called logging off. |
Tarminic
Black Flame Industries
|
Posted - 2008.04.25 23:58:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Frug
I really love the idea of turning off all your ships systems to remain 'hidden' from any counts at all. (ie I forfeit my local count to also appear hidden) Not for fleets, but for soloing. It might not be so detrimental to fleets if you had to wait a few minutes between session changes to enter said cloaked mode, and you couldn't do it while in a fleet.
We pretty much do this with logging off anyway.
Doing that wouldn't help, people would always find ways around it, such as creating "informal" fleets or having scouts operate outside the normal fleet.
I don't think that theyre needed, however, fleets are much more likely to be detected even if they employ the same measures to evade detection.
If I scan an area that has 1 ship that has a 1% chance of being detected, I'd need to scan (on average) 50 or more times in order to detect that ship. If I scan an area that has 200 ships in it, I'm likely to get 3 or 4 hits each time. It'd be clear after a few scans that I'm dealing with a large force. |
Frug
Repo Industries
R.E.P.O.
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 00:30:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Goumindong
This function already exists. Its called logging off.
I totally said that at the end of my post.
The difference would be a miner could keep mining. Yes, at increased risk, because he forfeits his own intel, but in a system that looks empty the risk of someone checking all the belts is pretty negligible.
If he employs an alt with intel the system will no longer appear empty and people will start belt scanning and will find him as normal.
Also, making it so people don't have to logoff to mimic this effect is a good thing imo. Mostly because logging off in itself is lame. |
Professor Perplex
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 02:09:00 -
[106]
good ideas. to replace local though we will need an option to warp 1, 2, 3,... au towards an object.
|
Cailais
Amarr
VITOC
Chain of Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 02:42:00 -
[107]
I think if we're going to address how the intel system works it needs to have a sense of in built balance to it.
i.e the narrower your field of vision the more precise you can be and the more detailed information you can gain. The wider your field of vision and that information is less precise and less detailed.
Its a telescope effect; look through a telescope and you can see further away, or close object in high detail but your field of vision is reduced so you cant see things outside of that very narrow view - even if theyre actually quite close to you.
C.
A new look at Local - IDEA |
Kyra Felann
Gallente
Noctis Fleet Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 03:23:00 -
[108]
Edited by: Kyra Felann on 26/04/2008 03:24:32
I still think the "submarine" model would be the most tactically interesting and useful. Eve ships move like submarines anyway, so why not?
I think it would make sense, also. Submarines can't just see other submarines, so they have to use sonar. Spaceships can't really see other spaceships unless they're very close, so they'd have to use whatever type of "ping" they would use (radar/ladar/gravometric/whatever) or just sit silently listening and looking for energy signatures from ships in the void of space.
One gives you good intel at a long range at the cost of giving away your position, while the other gives you less intel, but you're difficult to detect. Have different types of modules have a certain level of "noise" that they produce when active (things like passive targeters would have very a very low signature, while lasers or missiles would have a strong signature) that passive sensors can pick up. Then maybe add modules that dampen your signature ("stealth dampening field" or whatever) so you're harder to detect but completely different from being cloaked, as you're not completely invisible, just giving off a smaller signature. You could still be probed or detected by a ship that's close enough.
Sounds realistic, tactically interesting, and fun to me.
|
Cordran Li
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 06:26:00 -
[109]
Edited by: Cordran Li on 26/04/2008 06:26:12
What if the scanning window showed all of the system and a 360 sphere that showed you everything in your area (not the entire system) kind of like the "fog of war" style scanning that exists in homeworld 2. Ships would appears as "blips" on the radar if they were in your area, and you could increase the size of the ring/sphere with skills. In order to make more accurate scans you would need to use the directional scanner, but that would increase your likelihood of being scanned down. You would also be able to warp to those blips that you scanned with the directional scanner.
That would make space seem more open and scanning more accessible. It would be nice if on the scanning window there was a number that showed total people in the system...after all this is a game and I wouldn't want to spend most of my time hoping there were people in the system I'm trying to scan.
|
The Icefox
Gallente
Under the Wings of Fury
Atrocitas
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 06:29:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Tarminic
5. Using the DS Should have Consequences. The constantly scanning should have its drawbacks, just like a submarine actively pinging can reveal its location to potential hostiles in range. One simple way to implement this is to have using the scanner increase your signature radius by a certain percentage when you have the scanner window open.
Since you mentioned submarines like passive and active sonar you could incorporate this into your idea.
What you would want to do and this could be incorporated into number 4 is to have one scanner window with two modes. One active and one passive. Your active scanner would essentially ping the space around you for hulls. Your passive would only listen for anything that was not the dead emptiness of space.
The active scanner while pinging would have a range based on your suggestion and would be capable of finding targets based on sensor strength with the draw back of giving away your position. It could do this within so many KM/100KM/AU depending on your enemies sig radius, your sensor strength and other factors. It would have the ability to determine via an active ping what targets were and what bearing to target and range to target were.
The passive scanner on the other hand simply listens for noise. Ships of different types would give off different noise and since space is relatively noisy with all that background radiation unless you were VERY close to a target that was running quiet you wouldn't pick them up. However a target that was actively pinging away would make noise over that background smaller ships with low sig radius might be able to hide from larger ships in this manner as it would take longer to detect them while larger ships would be able to flee.
Combining these two uses you can create varied tactics within the game for both hunting and evading combat providing a balance without using local. I leave the details up to you and CCP however to sort out as conventional sub warfare would probably not be ideal for eve but a variation there of might.
Bored during down time? Try this. |
The Icefox
Gallente
Under the Wings of Fury
Atrocitas
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 06:46:00 -
[111]
Edited by: The Icefox on 26/04/2008 06:51:51
Edited by: The Icefox on 26/04/2008 06:46:59
Originally by: Fifth Horseman
Since mixed race Recon gangs can do it all, that will end up the defacto standard, and ratting will become impossible, since you'll need that scanner open constantly looking for the 1.5 seconds blip of a recon entering your system. Making you easier to find by the people who are impossible to find.
I think the reduction in sensor strength (above) would help alleviate this issue, but I can't say whether it would be solved completely or would need something else as well.
Expanding on my active vs passive scanning. Given the assumption that the new scanner would be tied into sensor strength we should also assume that its not 100% accurate either. Also given the fact that a passive scan would have considerably limited range as it can only listen for activity over the general background noise of space you then have two options as a cloaker gang.
1. Actively scan giving away your location and the fact that you are hunting to anyone who is listening on passive. Hope they are afk and kill them when you arive or curse when you arrive and they have already warped off. OR
2. Use the passive scanner or have some one use scan probes (which should also show up on the passive) and try to conceal your numbers and intentions.
The point being that cloaking should be for stealth surprise and escape, you can not expect to surprise some one or be stealthy while actively pinging away. As tarminic pointed out with submarines, and from my own personal experience working on a sub, you don't use active sonar unless you don't care about being seen.
Bored during down time? Try this. |
Sergeant Spot
Black Eclipse Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 19:10:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Tarminic
Originally by: Stratten
no no and no. :)
removing local only really benefits certain play-styles at the expense of others.
Could you expand on this? What play-styles do you believe it benefits, and harms, and how does my proposal fail in addressing those issues?
It benefits play styles that emphasize
1. Not Producing in 0.0
2. Traveling in large gangs
2. Blobbing
3. Cloaking
4. Any and all low risk combat types
THAT is why I am rabidly against ANY change that does not REPLACE local with an even MORE EFFECTIVE AND EASY TO USE intel tool.
Play nice while you butcher each other.
|
Soporo
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 19:36:00 -
[113]
Just a reminder, as almost no-one else has even mentioned Miners:
All I know is, if you make Mining harder and more dangerous to do (which is most local change suggestions I see here) you are screwing everyone in the end.
Gank and Mobility owns Stationary and Defense. Particularly with the idiotic state of affairs with the various Mining ships speed/slots/grid/tank/etc.
Make it harder for Miners and LowSec will forever be screwed, 0.0 Mining will see more blobbing and it will encourage even more Empire hugging.
Whatever ideas you cupcakes come up with it needs to be practical for all ships.
Good luck with that.
|
Sergeant Spot
Black Eclipse Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 20:25:00 -
[114]
Originally by: Soporo
Gank and Mobility owns Stationary and Defense.
Quoted for Truth
Some folks are just whiny lazy bastards and want more suicide monkeys.
Play nice while you butcher each other.
|
Zorok
LEGI0N
|
Posted - 2008.04.28 21:04:00 -
[115]
Originally by: Sergeant Spot
Originally by: Soporo
Gank and Mobility owns Stationary and Defense.
Quoted for Truth
Some folks are just whiny lazy bastards and want more suicide monkeys.
Amen to all that...This is what I have been trying to say in the forums about CCP's silly decision to get rid of local.
Those fitted for PvP will always have the upper hand and their tactics already nullify their risk while outweighing the rewards. Getting rid of local only tips that balance more in their favor.
|
Xaen
Caldari
Caritas.
|
Posted - 2008.04.28 21:28:00 -
[116]
Let's not forget that it needs to measure in AU.
Also, if it's going to replace local all that crap about limiting range and resolution has to go out the window. Either that or nobody would fly small ships in lowsec or 0.0 since they'd be basically blind. Recons would be even more godlike.
-
Support fixing the UI|Suggest Jita fixes|Compact logs |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |