| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Feriluce
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
   |
Posted - 2008.10.12 00:32:00 -
[1]
Removing local in 0.0 would make it a much more interesting place. You'd actually have to be in guard and use the scanner instead of just relying on a chatwindow to see who's in the same system as you. It would make ambushes be actual ambushes, and it would make a cov ops more fun and vital to fly.
It would be easy to implement too. Just make it like corp chat, where you only see ppl in the chat after they've said something.
/random rant
|
Siona Windweaver
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 00:35:00 -
[2]
What a great idea, I'm surprised no body has come up with something even close to this.
This should be implemented immediately
|
CrayC
Gallente
CrayC Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 00:38:00 -
[3]
LOL 
|
Dirk Magnum
Royal Hiigaran Navy
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 00:39:00 -
[4]
Local chat functions in areas of player-held sovereignty should be controlled by the system's owners, but I'd rather stay out of the "remove local completely" argument at this juncture.
|
Lady Karma
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 00:42:00 -
[5]
That would be great, spamming the scanner button every 3 seconds is what the game is missing.
Oh and can you imaging the fun of spending 15mins warping from planet to planet scanning only to find there is actually no one in the 158 AU system.
It would make those roaming ops so much more fun.
|
Niccolado Starwalker
Shadow Templars
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 00:42:00 -
[6]
 Originally by: Feriluce
Removing local in 0.0 would make it a much more interesting place. You'd actually have to be in guard and use the scanner instead of just relying on a chatwindow to see who's in the same system as you. It would make ambushes be actual ambushes, and it would make a cov ops more fun and vital to fly.
It would be easy to implement too. Just make it like corp chat, where you only see ppl in the chat after they've said something.
/random rant
Easy to implement maybe, but the effects and the consequences would be dramatic, and change the setting of EVE drastically - if not completely.
personally I think they should leave it as it is. It have worked for like 5 years now. So why change something that works rather good after all this time??
Originally by: Dianabolic
Your tears are absolutely divine, like a fine fine wine, rolling down your cheeks until they flow down the river of LOL |
Kazuma Saruwatari
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 00:46:00 -
[7]
I'll repeat my same arguements over this "remove local" thing:
Local stays.
Reason: without local, everyone would be too afraid to go into the next system without a scout.
Not everyone can scout for themselves (single account users) and not everyone is able/capable/wanting to scout for their fellow corp/alliance mate.
Unless replacements for local (like an improved directional scanner so people can actualy decipher the info in a visual format instead of another stupid spreadsheet) are put in place, local stays.
-
|
Feriluce
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 00:47:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker
Originally by: Feriluce
Removing local in 0.0 would make it a much more interesting place. You'd actually have to be in guard and use the scanner instead of just relying on a chatwindow to see who's in the same system as you. It would make ambushes be actual ambushes, and it would make a cov ops more fun and vital to fly.
It would be easy to implement too. Just make it like corp chat, where you only see ppl in the chat after they've said something.
/random rant
Easy to implement maybe, but the effects and the consequences would be dramatic, and change the setting of EVE drastically - if not completely.
personally I think they should leave it as it is. It have worked for like 5 years now. So why change something that works rather good after all this time??
How do you know it wont work better? Its not like you have anything to compare the old system with.
|
Letouk Mernel
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 00:48:00 -
[9]
They haven't removed local because they aren't done implementing and testing the replacement systems.
They were talking about it a while back, search the CSM forum / discussion.
|
CrayC
Gallente
CrayC Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 00:49:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Feriluce
How do you know it wont work better? Its not like you have anything to compare the old system with.
Easy to test for yourself. Head to 0.0. Keep local closed. Fly around and see how things go 
|
Dirk Magnum
Royal Hiigaran Navy
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 00:51:00 -
[11]
I'll wire every forum regular a dollar if the long-term replacement for local turns out to be an interregional chat that covers like twenty systems in every direction from you, leaving your mind boggled by all the people five jumps from you having conversations with people 21 jumps from you and hence outside of the 20 jump chat radius.
|
Feriluce
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 00:51:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Letouk Mernel
They haven't removed local because they aren't done implementing and testing the replacement systems.
They were talking about it a while back, search the CSM forum / discussion.
Ah...that sounds interesting. I can see that scanning every 3 seconds can be trivial. But as the system is atm getting intel is way too easy. Both for the attacking and the defending side.
|
Feriluce
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 00:53:00 -
[13]
Originally by: CrayC
Originally by: Feriluce
How do you know it wont work better? Its not like you have anything to compare the old system with.
Easy to test for yourself. Head to 0.0. Keep local closed. Fly around and see how things go
Yes ofcourse. Naturally the system works both way, so when i close my local noone can see me in their local. 
|
Lady Karma
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 00:56:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Feriluce
Ah...that sounds interesting. I can see that scanning every 3 seconds can be trivial. But as the system is atm getting intel is way too easy. Both for the attacking and the defending side.
The obvious way would be to have local show the number of active ships, but not who was flying them.
That would only get updated from visual. Bit like the scanner, but system wide and no need to keep pressing the button every frkin second 
|
CrayC
Gallente
CrayC Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 01:03:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Feriluce
Yes ofcourse. Naturally the system works both way, so when i close my local noone can see me in their local.
I know But that should give you a taste of what it's like. And why people like to keep local 
|
Feriluce
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 01:06:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Lady Karma
Originally by: Feriluce
Ah...that sounds interesting. I can see that scanning every 3 seconds can be trivial. But as the system is atm getting intel is way too easy. Both for the attacking and the defending side.
The obvious way would be to have local show the number of active ships, but not who was flying them.
That would only get updated from visual. Bit like the scanner, but system wide and no need to keep pressing the button every frkin second
Even that would still relay too much intel imo. If you're in a system ratting and you see the number go up by 40, and you dont know if its friendlies, you'll be sure to get your ass to a safespot. On the other hand, the roaming gang would have to keep track of their exact number to know if theres someone in the system besides them. So that would be a slight nerf for defenders, and a huge nerf for attackers.
It sould be an even local nerf for both.
|
Feriluce
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 01:07:00 -
[17]
Originally by: CrayC
Originally by: Feriluce
Yes ofcourse. Naturally the system works both way, so when i close my local noone can see me in their local.
I know But that should give you a taste of what it's like. And why people like to keep local
Not quite. It would be the same as walking around with your eyes closed, thinking it would give you a good idea about how the world would be if everyone was blind. It just doesnt work.
|
Lady Karma
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 01:14:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Feriluce
If you're in a system ratting and you see the number go up by 40, and you dont know if its friendlies,
Local doesn't go up by 40....
It goes up by 1, then you are tackled, then your gang jumps in.
If you are jumping a gang of 40 in to local and the ratter is bailing, then perhaps your tactic is somewhat at fault
|
Armoured C
Gallente
Federation of Freedom Fighters
Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 01:22:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Lady Karma
Originally by: Feriluce
If you're in a system ratting and you see the number go up by 40, and you dont know if its friendlies,
Local doesn't go up by 40....
It goes up by 1, then you are tackled, then your gang jumps in.
If you are jumping a gang of 40 in to local and the ratter is bailing, then perhaps your tactic is somewhat at fault
not if said ratter has scout like all good ratters should have or intel channels,  if you rtarded enough to get caught it is your own damm fault
bring on darwinism
My new blog here |
Feriluce
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 01:35:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Armoured C
Originally by: Lady Karma
Originally by: Feriluce
If you're in a system ratting and you see the number go up by 40, and you dont know if its friendlies,
Local doesn't go up by 40....
It goes up by 1, then you are tackled, then your gang jumps in.
If you are jumping a gang of 40 in to local and the ratter is bailing, then perhaps your tactic is somewhat at fault
not if said ratter has scout like all good ratters should have or intel channels, if you rtarded enough to get caught it is your own damm fault
bring on darwinism
And removal of local would promote the use of scouts.
|
Lady Karma
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 01:37:00 -
[21]
yeah, would be crazy to lose an ity 5 unscouted while not looking an intel chans
Good old darwin
|
Berious
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 02:07:00 -
[22]
Local is a good compromise between fun and "realism" IMO (if you can even talk about realism in internet spaceships). Roaming sans local would take ages and miners/ratters would develop RSI on their RSI. You might get more ganks but they'd take longer to find, slowing down an already really slow game. I'm not seeing where the fun is.
|
EnslaverOfMinmatar
Yarsk Hunters
DeaDSpace Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 02:31:00 -
[23]
I sense a troll.....
*sniff*
something smells really bad, why don't you go take a shower, mr troll?
|
Doc Fury
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 02:32:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Feriluce
Why haven't CCP gone ahead and removed local already
Because not enough people have complained about it yet in the forums.
Oh, wait...
The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the ho's and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' and I'll look down, and whisper 'no.' |
Cpt Branko
Surge.
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 02:39:00 -
[25]
Would really have to be complemented by massive nerfing of force recon capabilities, or you'd see force recon only gangs + 1 visible ship as bait ;P
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Faife
Noctiscion
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 03:30:00 -
[26]
god, that's brilliant. it would make absolutely impossible to not get tackled by a recon, even for the people who click "scan" every second instead of having fun in the game. i can't possibly imagine this could possibly get rid of solo/small gang play and lead to more blobs and lag
this is clearly an OP who thought about all the side consequences.
--
|
Feriluce
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 03:50:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Faife
god, that's brilliant. it would make absolutely impossible to not get tackled by a recon, even for the people who click "scan" every second instead of having fun in the game. i can't possibly imagine this could possibly get rid of solo/small gang play and lead to more blobs and lag
this is clearly an OP who thought about all the side consequences.
Good thing that you come with so many ideas as to how to fix local as the only form of intel you need to know about enemy posistion then.
|
Dianeces
The Illuminati.
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 04:24:00 -
[28]
Because you're terrible at posting.
|
Zey Nadar
Gallente
Heavily Utilized Mechanic Mayhem
Einherjar Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 07:18:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Faife
even for the people who click "scan" every second instead of having fun in the game.
This is the reason why I wouldn't like this change.
|
Lord Fitz
Project Amargosa
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 07:29:00 -
[30]
The basic reason is, while they don't want people to use 'local' as an intel too, in order to remove it and preserve game balance they want to replace it with a tool that provides a similar level of info. Thus they're not going to put time and effort into replacing local, with essentially 'local' re branded.
Quote:
Just make it like corp chat, where you only see ppl in the chat after they've said something.
Have you been outside an NPC corp ? :p
If you were to make the system more 'realistic', it wouldn't show pilot names, but it would show all ships types in system, with any that weren't broadcasting 'friendly' flagged, as well as any changes. In the end the local replacement may be more effective for people wanting to avoid being ambushed.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |