EVE Search - [ISSUE] Modify LOCAL chat

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[ISSUE] Modify LOCAL chat

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.11 19:06:00 - [31] Originally by: Tyrrhena Maxus 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? The entire idea would be scrapped, because its ********. The only way to remove the function of the local channel and have a semblance of balance would be to duplicate its functionality right into the scanner. A system wide count of friendlies, hostiles, and neutrals. This would be even easier for you to read and would actually increase the ability of the defenders to keep themselves alive. Yes, the only way to balance local removal would be to duplicate its functionality to a point where it would actually be easier to identify enemies in your system. More information: See post 40 and 41 http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=729912&page=2#40
AlphaViscera	Posted - 2008.06.11 20:39:00 - [32] I support the idea of a change to Local, however I don't believe in removing the ability to gain an understanding about who is in the system with you. Think of it like this, You are on the battlefield, you know how many you have in your ranks, however you can always survey the enemy and find what they are. Scan probes would be our way of doing this, however that mechanic is quite slow, and it dosnt give you an idea of who is blue/red. Perhaps adding in another type of scan probe or system of scanning that can be used to get ideas of these numbers.. Now for fluidity's sake, this information could be rounded down or rounded up to say the closest 5 or the closest 10 for anything that isnt blue, say there was 33 in local, 14 blue, 17 red 2 neutral it would report Blue=14, Red 20, Neutral=0 Obviously this is an early idea, but it gives a overview of the field, it dosnt have to be an accurate guide, just something that gives some idea and allows for quick and semi-accurate ideas of whats out there.. much like a recon mission would in real world battlefields. It could be used say every 30 seconds or so.
Reiisha Splint Eye Probabilities Inc. Dawn of Transcendence	Posted - 2008.06.11 21:39:00 - [33] I direct thee to this little thread of mine... http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=779290
Athre The HIgher Standard	Posted - 2008.06.11 22:20:00 - [34] I'm against removing the local names. How about pirates be more cunning than beg for more loopholes.
Ms Linne Omiracon Technologies Nex Eternus	Posted - 2008.06.11 23:31:00 - [35] that would take pvp to the next lvl!!! I APPROVE IT!!!
Zorok LEGI0N F.E.A.R Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.12 02:08:00 - [36] I'm totally against this proposed change. As I've said, the pirates already have things going for them in their favor, the only thing you could do more for the pirates is to give all of them an "I Win" button. Making local an "optional" channel will only make things perilous for the non-pirate players.
Evesham Decorum Inc Tygris Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.12 08:30:00 - [37] Originally by: Zorok I'm totally against this proposed change. As I've said, the pirates already have things going for them in their favor, the only thing you could do more for the pirates is to give all of them an "I Win" button. Making local an "optional" channel will only make things perilous for the non-pirate players. I'm not even a pirate and I LoL'd at this. When you enter low sec/0.0 you are agreeing that you are a viable target to those players who want to shoot people so you should always be ready to defend yourself. I have done a lot of Cov Ops work for my current/previous corps and the only time I worry is when jumping into a system which may/may not be camped on tother side, if local is hot then I have ways of getting to next gate/wherever without putting myself in danger however if local is empty I just warp to next gate. If I have no idea how many people are in local then I have to fly by the seat of my pants in EVERY system surely this is only a good things as it make life more fun/dangerous. Entering lowsec or 0.0 and moaning you have been killed is ridiculous because Eve is all about the intel. Play smart, adapt to the surroundings.
Tyrrhena Maxus Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.12 09:46:00 - [38] 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.
Razin The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2008.06.12 15:31:00 - [39] Edited by: Razin on 12/06/2008 15:32:13 There should not be any mandatory chat channel that auto-shows everyone who's joined. The intel function of the current Local should be performed by an improved (but still limited in range and other functionality) ship's scanner. Let me reiterate: a Constellation chat as described by the OP is a very bad idea (as bad as current Local).
Kage Toshimado Kage Clan	Posted - 2008.06.12 18:15:00 - [40] Edited by: Kage Toshimado on 12/06/2008 18:17:21 I vote no and here is why. You can spend long amounts of time scanning in local and find dozens of ships on scanner. How am I supposed to know if those ships are being flown, or if they are parked or what? I don't want to come into every system and ask "is anyone in here?" and have to constantly scan to find a target and see if it is actually moving. Local is fine the way it is. You say it helps the miner, not really... the miner will have to constantly scan if someone could be warping in on him. Helps the potential attacker? I disagree, you just made him have to scan local to find out if anyone is actually in it now, then pinpoint him and this just adds time to his overall game play. Where as previously he could just warp into a system, see zero targets, and move on. I can agree with your point that it provides information that there are "people" in the system but you don't neccessarily know where and what they might be flying, or if they are cloaked etc. It doesn't give THAT much intel, just a heads up "hey pal, you're not alone in here." So again, I vote no. Leave it alone. *Also please notice I know how to spell and I am giving you a reason per your request OP. EDIT: What may be a solution, is a ticker that actually shows how many people are actually IN the system currently, but not who. But again. I have been playing for a few years and this is a constant that I and many other players are used to. Removing it is kind of like losing a thumb.

Faekurias Black Legion Command Red Dawn Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.12 18:21:00 - [41] Why couldn't local work the way like many other chats? As in - only show those who chat. Maybe keep number of people in system still there though.
Che Biko	Posted - 2008.06.12 21:50:00 - [42] Edited by: Che Biko on 12/06/2008 21:55:12 Pro vs. Local, Against Constellation.
Nara Krylov	Posted - 2008.06.13 01:15:00 - [43] Removing local = removing the only viable ratter/miner/etc defense. Spamming scan 360 isn't much of an option. But I have to admit, it would make the game more interesting. Of course, nerfing gate camping and/or warp jamming would be nice, too.
Jonis Sinmaker Dead Hooker Industries	Posted - 2008.06.13 14:09:00 - [44] Edited by: Jonis Sinmaker on 13/06/2008 14:10:16 Originally by: Athre I'm against removing the local names. How about pirates be more cunning than beg for more loopholes. Originally by: Nara Krylov Removing local = removing the only viable ratter/miner/etc defense. Spamming scan 360 isn't much of an option. But I have to admit, it would make the game more interesting. Of course, nerfing gate camping and/or warp jamming would be nice, too. Outstanding contribution to this thread....I give you guys a -9 out of 10 for your effort and ability to see the big picture instead of your own narrow minded portion of the picture. to think of local as your only viable defense is why you die to pirates and gank squads. This game is about thinking, adapting, and teamwork. This is why the majority of all updates to the game are "team oriented". This is a multiplayer game, not a single player game. If this change is made it would make it that much more important for players to work as a team to get things accomplished. Players would have to depend on teamwork to get through dangerous areas of space, just like with real life. I don't see a local chat when I go into the wrong end of town telling me there is a guy there ready to mug me. What the Op is suggesting is an outstanding way to improve not only pvp (not just pirating) but also a way for miner's and haulers hide more efficiently. No more will a small gank squad be able to roll into a system and instantly see who is there. If the miners or haulers use a scout on ingates and in scan spots they will know when a hostile or shady character enter's system and will be able to warn his gang members....open your eyes and look at both sides of the picture. If you use team work within this game you can eliminate half of the idiotic carebear kills in the game, but those who die while mining, ratting and hauling die because they are doing it alone and/or without a scout. This game wasn't built for solo play...it was build for team play and once you start playing as such you will see how much more productive you can and will be.
SunglassesInSpace GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.13 21:47:00 - [45] A chat channel should not be used for intel. 100% behind this.
Nynaeve Ares Animus Incarnate	Posted - 2008.06.13 23:41:00 - [46] Edited by: Nynaeve Ares on 13/06/2008 23:46:11 I would be for this but "active pilots in space" option on the map would have to be removed to make it workable for ambushes and fair for carebears. Until then no support. PS. Perhaps also as compensation, show a standings column on the scanner otherwise i think gathering intel will be too tedious.
Cursive Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.14 00:13:00 - [47]
Corp Quas	Posted - 2008.06.14 00:37:00 - [48] I completely disagree with your idea in its current form. I would rather have it changed in one of these forms: (1) create a skill that allows a 2 second delay in when you appear in local per level. At lvl 5 it would give a 10 second delay. AND (2) create a ship that hides you from local for an additional 30 seconds. However, this ship would be the equivilent of a shuttle but the size of a cruiser (all that built in anti-Local electronics are heavy!) with no offense, no defense and no way to cloak. It would ONLY be a scout.
Salastil GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.14 02:59:00 - [49] Let me illuminate for the more dimwitted folk in this thread. People are proposing that Constellation, not local. Is the main channel. That is, the 4-6 systems around you will all condense into one large "Local". This means if a hostile in in the Constellation you won't be able to tell where he is, however you'll see gatecamps long before you arrive to them and also you'll see hostiles approaching more often than you would. Your reaction time goes up as you see them father out, but their actual location is obfuscated. Blackops will gain purpose for bridging past gatecamped systems without them being sure if you've actually done it. Ratters will see that large gain inbound or even gatecamps ahead in the pipe depending on how the constellation is formed. This isn't a single faceted fix or nerf. Both sides will take a hit but gain from it. Overall I believe the game gains more than is restricted by this.
Windjammer	Posted - 2008.06.14 03:12:00 - [50] 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. Your own Goumindong (post 29 on page 1 of this thread) states the case well. I will simply add that the change you propose benefits hunting packs at the expense of miners, haulers and mission runners. Your assumption that defending PvPer's would want to hang around these people on the off chance of intercepting pirates, etc, is self serving absurdity and would rarely happen save perhaps in the case of a large corp and/or alliance. Oh...look.....you're in a large corp and/or alliance. What a surprise. What's next? Nerfing cloaks? This is at least the second time this week that I've found myself in agreement with Goumindong and it's ****ing me off. Please coordinate your communications within goonswarm to avoid this in the future. Thank you. Windjammer

Gantrithor105 Acerbus Vindictum Critical Dissent	Posted - 2008.06.14 05:26:00 - [51] I absolutely and fully believe this would be the single best change to the eve interface available (and I'm almost never in local low-sec/0.0)
SunglassesInSpace GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.14 08:34:00 - [52] 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. 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.
Tyrrhena Maxus Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.14 08:46:00 - [53] 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.
Sigul Siento	Posted - 2008.06.14 09:44:00 - [54] Agreed with the principle of altering local, even if not necessarily exactly as the OP suggest.
Hegotu Alecto Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.06.14 10:23:00 - [55] this has many pro's and cons. from a PVP standpoint it can be both, the ability to move a sizable fleet practically undetected, the con is the poor sods getting blobbed. CON, chinese farmers will find it easier to farm with little risk of detection , PRO more secure transports through high sec. etc, im sure we could carry on, atm i cant think of any way to balance things but i will have a think more on it
Siona Windweaver	Posted - 2008.06.14 11:01:00 - [56] Edited by: Siona Windweaver on 14/06/2008 11:06:46 Dont completely remove it, instead modify it to have a range of 20 AU (maybe more or less, i just threw a random number) in low and null sec. This way scouting will actually mean something. Make it so that cloaked ships shows as "unidentified flying object". This way you'll know there is a cloaked ship, but you wont know who it is. Cloaked ships should also have a scanning penalty (like -50% to -75% penalty on system scans) so they wont be overpowered. If someone types something into local, they basically broadcasts a message across the solar system, this way the chat function also protected. Make it so that every station and stargate has an inherent 100AU scanner range in high sec that will give the system info between each other and then, to players, like an information web. This will ensure local will stays as more or less same in high sec as it is today. Thats my 2 ISKs.
Windjammer	Posted - 2008.06.14 23:14:00 - [57] 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. 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. Normally I'd agree and that's what's ticking me off. In this, though, he has the right of it. Windjammer
Zaran Darkstar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2008.06.15 03:13:00 - [58] Would make ratting/mining on 00 practically unavailiable. Reason is that a recon would travel each belt cloacked to see if something is there then all of a sudden the miner/ratter would have a whole gang scrambling him. Let alone that the small gangs would no logner camp the gates. They would simply sit in safespots within popular ratting/mining systems as are OE-4HB 42x- etc on Tenal and have a couple of covert ops to scan for ratters miners. In the end of the day they would simply log out at the safespot only to reappear the next day to do some more griefing. Is this your idea of fun? The alliances would be practicaly impossible to scan the systems with covert ops daily. The so called "sovereignity" would be a joke since there wouldn't be any way to actually control/take advantage of system like this. That is why i am against this idea
Reiisha Splint Eye Probabilities Inc. Dawn of Transcendence	Posted - 2008.07.14 11:13:00 - [59] Bumping up this one again, with some more references: I linked my own thread above, about making local optional, just like the constellation and regional chats. The consequences should have been discussed for the most part in that thread. Now, the issue comes up in how the intel can still be retained in a simple, but effective fashion, albeit somewhat more limited. An extra function on the overview, which would simply display 3 numbers in a seperate area: blue, white, and red, which represent the standings, and how many pilots of each standing are within x range. Some AU's would be advisable, but not system-wide. This doesn't replace the scanner, as that can still be used to determine precise range and direction, and it doesn't show anything else than ships in range. How this mechanic would deal with cloaked ships remains to be seen, but this is another issue entirely. This still provides an early warning system for anyone wary of pirates, while not being as overpowered as local is now. You have to remember that this will make life harder on the attacker aswell. Everyone is screaming how they won't be able to detect pirates early enough if local is removed in it's current form, however, pirates also won't be able to find you as easily. Coupled with this small change to overview, i think this would be an acceptable solution for everyone (except the whiners :P ) EVE History Wiki
Reiisha Splint Eye Probabilities Inc. Dawn of Transcendence	Posted - 2008.07.14 11:15:00 - [60] Originally by: Zaran Darkstar Would make ratting/mining on 00 practically unavailiable. Reason is that a recon would travel each belt cloacked to see if something is there then all of a sudden the miner/ratter would have a whole gang scrambling him. Let alone that the small gangs would no logner camp the gates. They would simply sit in safespots within popular ratting/mining systems as are OE-4HB 42x- etc on Tenal and have a couple of covert ops to scan for ratters miners. In the end of the day they would simply log out at the safespot only to reappear the next day to do some more griefing. Is this your idea of fun? The alliances would be practicaly impossible to scan the systems with covert ops daily. The so called "sovereignity" would be a joke since there wouldn't be any way to actually control/take advantage of system like this. That is why i am against this idea If alliances wouldn't try and take control of several regions at once, this problem would be trivial, as smaller space is easier to control with the same amount of members than larger space. This change would force most alliances to reconsider their territorial aspirations, giving way to new alliances, aswell as making room for a lot more players in between. Alliances being able to control fewer systems at the same time is only a good thing. BoB, RA and Goonswarm are the perfect examples why. EVE History Wiki



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

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