| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Memran
Caldari
DarkStar 1
GoonSwarm
   |
Posted - 2008.08.20 21:31:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Memran on 20/08/2008 21:32:18
While on Sisi just a few minutes ago, and talking to CCP Casqade about an idea to change how local is used as an intel tool.
There have been many people saying they want local removed completely, but consider this:
[21:15:52] Exitium II > "In the early 24th century, a brilliant scientist called Dr Memran invented a new type of scanner...."
Nobody appears in local except people who are within a certain range of your ship. (Probably 14AU since that is what your ship's scanner can handle). Chats could appear only if within this range.
Suddenly local is no longer an intel tool, but still provides a little bit of a warning when enemies are nearby. For the roaming gang, you won't know if you got any targets in system until you get close, or probe them.
Tweaks/Improvements
Range could depend on signature radius, so big ships can spotted from further away.
Cov ops/Recons could get a bonus to range.
What do you think? :) |
Dermot Cron
|
Posted - 2008.08.20 21:43:00 -
[2]
I like this, and it seems that it could expand the role of EWAR (reduce your gang's sig radius) as well as making scanning just a bit more imperative. |
KageAkurei
Gemini Sun
Violent-Tendencies
|
Posted - 2008.08.20 22:22:00 -
[3]
I like this idea and perhaps when cloaked in a cov ops cloak you don't show up at all when in range of a target in local. I think regular cloaks should still show up how ever as their not as advanced as the cov ops cloak which allow for warping around cloaked. Unless if you talk to them of coarse then you would show up. |
Kiki Arnolds
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 01:10:00 -
[4]
Actually, it looks like the best compromise anyone has yet proposed...
Though I would change it so that you appear in local if a) your ship is uncloaked and within 14AU, OR b) you have talked in local within the last 15 minutes. Having local chat be visible only within the range is taking it too far, and would be a nuisance when trying to hold a convo... |
Astria Tiphareth
Caldari
24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2008.08.22 07:29:00 -
[5]
Very interesting and I particularly like the EWAR notions - though I'd still like in tandem to see an improvement to the godawful directional scanner we have at the moment - spamming Search on it is just RSI inducing and probably not great for the server either. However strictly a different topic so that's all I say on the matter.
___
My views may not represent those of my corporation or alliance, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties... |
JanSVK
|
Posted - 2008.08.22 08:46:00 -
[6]
Very interesting idea.
However I am affraid that 0.0 carebearing would be much much harder which means more risk with same reward.
1 force recon has more then enough firepower to take out a hauler, mining barge or hold down a ratter long enough for the gang to arrive and kill giving the carebear virtually no time to get safe and as we all know PVP setup vs Carebear setup menas PVP setup wins 90% of the time.
Rathunting in a gang simply cuts on the profit as only very few systems can accullay support more than 1 ratter. As for mining ops, paper tank hauler and mining barge pops fast.
|
Ydyp Ieva
Caldari
Amarrian Retribution
|
Posted - 2008.08.22 12:22:00 -
[7]
 Originally by: JanSVK
Very interesting idea.
However I am affraid that 0.0 carebearing would be much much harder which means more risk with same reward.
1 force recon has more then enough firepower to take out a hauler, mining barge or hold down a ratter long enough for the gang to arrive and kill giving the carebear virtually no time to get safe and as we all know PVP setup vs Carebear setup menas PVP setup wins 90% of the time.
Rathunting in a gang simply cuts on the profit as only very few systems can accullay support more than 1 ratter. As for mining ops, paper tank hauler and mining barge pops fast.
Well to be honest those 0.0 carebearing abuse a system now that wasn't put place for that use in the first case. Most of them got accustomed to this method of thinking. So it sure will bring cries and whines about when they change it. Pirates rejoyce cause the most already use the directional scanner to pinpoint their targets. Now all you have to do when they remove local as an intel tool is open directional scanner, set it to 360 and max distance and spam the scan button. Which is what I already do in low sec, to find out if something is moving in and I should prepare to move out. If people are to lazy to use the correct tool for it, it is their own fault when they get blown up.
|
Glach Duwat
|
Posted - 2008.08.22 14:05:00 -
[8]
Hmm I'm wondering how effective it is. I mean, people would still show in local most of the time, and players would have about the same amount of time to react. It's pretty much only useful in huge ass systems where you can set a trap, or find a nook that is hard to be spotted by pirates.
Also, what about cloaking ships? If it's based on the scanner, would they not shot in local? If so that's a change I am ALL FOR.
I think it would be cool if gates had a "beacon" that sent out when ships jump in, so they pop up in the "system" and when they get a certain distance away from the gate, or cloak, they disappear again. They would simply show up in a "number count" of ships, not who they are. And then local would be more like your idea, except with a shorter scan range, maybe 4 or 5 AU. This way, you know when someone enters system, though not who they are, and then when they are in a certain range of your ship you can see them. Basically, there would be big dead zones between you and celestial objects where you don't know if someone is lurking.
|
Schalac
Caldari
Apocalypse Reign
|
Posted - 2008.08.22 16:48:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Schalac on 22/08/2008 16:48:58
Any changes to local require that CCP fix the "map lag" first. Total removal of current intel about system activity is just bad. Example, so the map says that there are 30 pilots currently online in space. You think you found your prey that you are stalking so your fleet warps a system away and sends cov ops to that system and starts sending out probes. Well it turns out that fleet you are chasing is now 10 jumps away because without local, and outdated map statistics you missed them. To me the removal of local is like giving blind and dumb people guns, releasing them into a hotel and saying fight. Because would you use local on an op if it was made talk to appear. I wouldn't.
|
Straight Chillen
Gallente
Solar Wind
|
Posted - 2008.08.22 17:04:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Straight Chillen on 22/08/2008 17:05:59
some things to consider. Implement an IFF system in conjunction with this, so that way people who are in the same corp/alliance or are blue to you, can see each other in local, regardless of distance. Also limiting Chat range is stupid and makes little sense, if u think along the lines of local chat being a high energy signal being broadcast through out the system, it makes no sense that someone on the other end of the system wouldnt pick it up.
Also the scanner i think would have to be reworked a bit to feel right with these changes. I would propose that instead of giving actual ship types and the ship name, that it give a Signature size, and an approximate distance. Introducing the Stealth Plating stuff thats hiding in the database would also benefit this as reducing your sig radius could be made into an interesting tactic to make someone think your in a smaller ship then you are. Ships that are using a Non-CovOps cloak should also appear on scan, just with no relavent info on where or what they are.
edit: also i would take the pilots in space statistic off the map for lowsec and 0.0 space.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |