EVE Search - [ISSUE] Modify LOCAL chat

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[ISSUE] Modify LOCAL chat

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tyrrhena Maxus Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.09 14:28:00 - [1] My suggestion is to modify local chat so that it doesn't show who is in system. Local chat is currently used as a tactical tool and I believe this hinders the atmosphere and game play potential of the game. This would make space much more exciting, potentially lead to more dynamic pvp opportunities and would encourage people to work together more and in new ways. It would make space feel like the giant ocean it is, not just a series of interconnected fishbowls. I believe that CONSTELLATION chat should auto-update, rather than local chat. This way hostiles can still be located but not instantly pinpointed to a single system. I think this would be a balanced change for the better, as though it may benefit a potential attacker, it may also benefit someone who doesn't want to engage ie a miner or someone hauling. It would make fleets more reliant on intelligence from players rather than from a box full of names. Discuss
Tyrrhena Maxus Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.09 14:28:00 - [2] My suggestion is to modify local chat so that it doesn't show who is in system. Local chat is currently used as a tactical tool and I believe this hinders the atmosphere and game play potential of the game. This would make space much more exciting, potentially lead to more dynamic pvp opportunities and would encourage people to work together more and in new ways. It would make space feel like the giant ocean it is, not just a series of interconnected fishbowls. I believe that CONSTELLATION chat should auto-update, rather than local chat. This way hostiles can still be located but not instantly pinpointed to a single system. I think this would be a balanced change for the better, as though it may benefit a potential attacker, it may also benefit someone who doesn't want to engage ie a miner or someone hauling. It would make fleets more reliant on intelligence from players rather than from a box full of names. Discuss
Tyrrhena Maxus Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.11 09:12:00 - [3] Originally by: Ethaet Edited by: Ethaet on 09/06/2008 18:26:03 lol, no. If local is nerfed, even less people will go to lowsec/0.0 edit: typo What makes you think that this change would make lowsec/0.0 any more dangerous than it already is? In fact, it would give players more time to notice that a hostile gang is incoming, or camping a gate. To be quite honest this change would be a boost to small gang/solo pvp, and increase the chance of remaining undetected in lowsec/0.0. It's no secret that the majority of players who hang out in lowsec/0.0 are pvp'ers, and thats why they live in these areas. Of course the risk vs reward of lowsec/0.0 is quite horrible if you want to line your space wallet with isk, but that is a side issue to this debate.
Tyrrhena Maxus Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.11 12:21:00 - [4] Originally by: marie blueprint yes yes all pirats want this no no no no no bad idea lowsec is bad enuff the uber bad kill way tooo often now stop whining why don't you farm some isk about it?
Tyrrhena Maxus Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.11 13:59:00 - [5] Edited by: Tyrrhena Maxus on 11/06/2008 14:01:29 I think its quite funny that the people arguing against my idea: a) can't spell, b) haven't formed any constructive argument at all, ("no its a bad idea" adds nothing to the discussion) d) think this relates only to pvp, e) believe because this issue has been raised in the past means that it is a dead issue and won't give it a moments consideration, and f) probably didn't even notice I skipped out 'c' because they are too busy nerd raging. Arguing that the only reason people are in 0.0/lowsec is because they can see peoples names in local is an absurd and unrealistic argument. If you are opposed to this idea, before you post I ask that you take this viewpoint: Imagine what I have detailed in the op IS being implemented, what checks and balances would you suggest should go hand in hand with this change? Would shifting scan able asteroid belts, similar to the instances that can be found using the basic ship scanner satisfy you? (I believe this was the way that CCP was talking about modifying asteroid belts at some stage) Or do you have another reasonable suggestion? edit: hey look the guy the majority of you voted for agrees with me
Tyrrhena Maxus Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.12 09:46:00 - [6] Hey look all the carebears are still nerd raging and haven't contributed anything to the thread except whining. Even if this change made it easier to gank miners/ ratters etc, (which it would not), pvp'ers would actually want to hang around where their buddies are ratting/mining in order to protect them and get fights at the same time. You must admit that to see a group of industrialists and a group of pvp'ers working together is RARE in this game, and to me that is quite absurd. Why are things like this? Because if you want to be 100% completely safe in 0.0, you can be if you know what you are doing. Basically what you are saying is this: "I want all the rewards and none of the risk" in an area that is designed to be a risk/reward environment. As Co-Ceo of a corporation, the idea of my logistics and pvp players having a reason to work closer together a) makes sense, and b) makes my heart sing with joy. Scenario: There is no such thing as local chat and 'Mr Jones' rat killer extraordinaire is happily blasting away at some serpentis in his laser raven without a care in the world. A crow warps in and a rapier decloaks 15km's away from him because he was too lazy to be watching his scanner. Luckily he was aligned, he hits warp and is gone before either can lock him. So basically I am saying that any argument you big girls have brought to the table is not a solution to the discussion at hand. Get a better argument or get out of my thread.
Tyrrhena Maxus Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.14 08:46:00 - [7] Originally by: SunglassesInSpace Edited by: SunglassesInSpace on 14/06/2008 08:35:21 Originally by: Windjammer Edited by: Windjammer on 14/06/2008 03:13:41 No support. Local is fine just the way it is. I won't bother to offer reasons for this because I can't. Originally by: Windjammer Your own Goumindong (post 29 on page 1 of this thread) states the case well. If you listen to anything goumindong says you're an idiot. This, I didn't even think his post deserved a reply.

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.