| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
MOOstradamus
   |
Posted - 2004.07.19 03:04:00 -
[1]
Edited by: MOOstradamus on 19/07/2004 03:29:34
See: Front Page News
/me has changed his assumption so that \o/ means 'YES' we agree with Oveur's DEVBLOG idea to scrap the info but /o\ means 'NO' to Oveur's DEVBLOG idea as we want to keep the info ...
Read first before voting: DEVBLOG
MOOrovingian "Following & supporting EVE (since Jan 2001) is like wiping your arse with sandpaper."
|
MOOstradamus
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 03:04:00 -
[2]
Edited by: MOOstradamus on 19/07/2004 03:29:34
See: Front Page News
/me has changed his assumption so that \o/ means 'YES' we agree with Oveur's DEVBLOG idea to scrap the info but /o\ means 'NO' to Oveur's DEVBLOG idea as we want to keep the info ...
Read first before voting: DEVBLOG
MOOrovingian "Following & supporting EVE (since Jan 2001) is like wiping your arse with sandpaper."
|
ScumUK
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 03:09:00 -
[3]
eh?
"Eat at McTorp, more tasty than a Big Mac" |
ScumUK
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 03:09:00 -
[4]
eh?
"Eat at McTorp, more tasty than a Big Mac" |
HostageTaker
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 03:10:00 -
[5]
Edited by: HostageTaker on 19/07/2004 03:27:49
YAY!!!
Edit: YAY!!! As in YES SCRAP 0.0 locals and pilots in space info for tactical reasons! Dedicate PLAYERS to play the f00king role, otherwise wtf do we need Recon frigs for?!
|
HostageTaker
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 03:10:00 -
[6]
Edited by: HostageTaker on 19/07/2004 03:27:49
YAY!!!
Edit: YAY!!! As in YES SCRAP 0.0 locals and pilots in space info for tactical reasons! Dedicate PLAYERS to play the f00king role, otherwise wtf do we need Recon frigs for?!
|
Levi
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 03:10:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Levi on 19/07/2004 13:23:02
the poll was fixed after i made this post. it was confusing w/o a link so... move along, nothing to see here. 
"and this means yes to what ??? and no to what ???
sorry but that's just the most confusing thing i've ever seen??  "
|
Levi
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 03:10:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Levi on 19/07/2004 13:23:02
the poll was fixed after i made this post. it was confusing w/o a link so... move along, nothing to see here.
"and this means yes to what ??? and no to what ???
sorry but that's just the most confusing thing i've ever seen?? "
|
Levi
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 03:16:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Levi on 19/07/2004 14:03:47
oveur.. could we get more information, i like to make an informed decision, could u add more info or links to more details? and how long will you be taking the opinion poll?
what kind of log in/off exploit is this? this sounds like putting a band-aid on a gaping wound, atm.
is this an attempt to open up 0.0 and if it is, is it in preparation for shiva? more gates to 0.0 (& back doors) would help this, without ending any alliances nor put too much stress on them.
i'm thinking of a 'yes' vote, just so access to 0.0 space will open up more.
|
Levi
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 03:16:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Levi on 19/07/2004 14:03:47
oveur.. could we get more information, i like to make an informed decision, could u add more info or links to more details? and how long will you be taking the opinion poll?
what kind of log in/off exploit is this? this sounds like putting a band-aid on a gaping wound, atm.
is this an attempt to open up 0.0 and if it is, is it in preparation for shiva? more gates to 0.0 (& back doors) would help this, without ending any alliances nor put too much stress on them.
i'm thinking of a 'yes' vote, just so access to 0.0 space will open up more.
|
VossKarr
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 03:26:00 -
[11]
Edited by: VossKarr on 19/07/2004 03:38:27
 Originally by: Levi
nay / yay to what???
local chat & pilots in space information, what kind of information and where and how and on what??
hmmm... okay. i give up, what does this mean?? 
Ditto. I'm just as confused here.... Does voting 'Yay' to "Local chat and pilots in space map information" mean you disagree with removing local and 'pilots in space', and 'Nay'- you agree, or vice versa? 
Edit: I see they changed the wording to make it clearer. Disregard my question above, pls...
|
VossKarr
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 03:26:00 -
[12]
Edited by: VossKarr on 19/07/2004 03:38:27
Originally by: Levi
nay / yay to what???
local chat & pilots in space information, what kind of information and where and how and on what??
hmmm... okay. i give up, what does this mean??
Ditto. I'm just as confused here.... Does voting 'Yay' to "Local chat and pilots in space map information" mean you disagree with removing local and 'pilots in space', and 'Nay'- you agree, or vice versa?
Edit: I see they changed the wording to make it clearer. Disregard my question above, pls...
|
Sochin
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 03:31:00 -
[13]
holy **** a poll
I didn't realize CCP was capable of such technology 
Nemo me impune lacessit
|
Sochin
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 03:31:00 -
[14]
holy **** a poll
I didn't realize CCP was capable of such technology
Nemo me impune lacessit
|
Vel Kyri
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 03:42:00 -
[15]
what what!???
i thought this was a dictatorship?? Crush the pirate!
????
yarrr...
-----
|
Vel Kyri
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 03:42:00 -
[16]
what what!???
i thought this was a dictatorship?? Crush the pirate!
????
yarrr...
-----
|
Aitrus
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 03:46:00 -
[17]
The scary thing is, I had to look at the page like 3 times before I saw the poll.
/votes.
|
Aitrus
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 03:46:00 -
[18]
The scary thing is, I had to look at the page like 3 times before I saw the poll.
/votes.
|
Levi
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 03:46:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Levi on 19/07/2004 15:02:20
ah.. thx whoever fixed the poll, that makes sense now!!!
almost!
the poll is to the right of the dev blog page, in the right margin btw.
|
Levi
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 03:46:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Levi on 19/07/2004 15:02:20
ah.. thx whoever fixed the poll, that makes sense now!!!
almost!
the poll is to the right of the dev blog page, in the right margin btw.
|
VossKarr
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 03:49:00 -
[21]
Btw, don't forget to 'remind' your alt's to vote, too...
|
VossKarr
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 03:49:00 -
[22]
Btw, don't forget to 'remind' your alt's to vote, too...
|
Ronyo Dae'Loki
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 03:59:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Ronyo Dae'Loki on 19/07/2004 04:00:26
No, you fools! Do you have any idea what this will do to PvP?
It will be like wandering around in a dark warehouse blindfolded with a baseball bat.
You're never going to find anyone to fight!
You know how there are these big grand fleet battles some times? Well say good bye to them. Unless a scout ship gets lucky and runs right into the fleet, NOBODY WILL KNOW TO ASSEMBLE ANOTHER FLEET TO FIGHT WITH!
Sure, occasionally you might run into someone randomly at a gate or station, but otherwise how in the world are you even going to know your enemy is around? How will they even know to look for you? This change is far too drastic.
Removing "pilots in space" from 0.0 is one thing--I don't like it, but it wouldn't ruin the game--but making people invisible in local chat is insane. It will destroy non-gate camping piracy, it will destroy alliances, and it will destroy PvP in 0.0.
If this poll succeeds and if CCP actually follows it, well, you will reap the consequences.
Think before you vote on this foolish idea.
-------------
My salsa makes all the pretty girls want to dance and take off their underpants.
I <3 ( . Y . ) |
Ronyo Dae'Loki
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 03:59:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Ronyo Dae'Loki on 19/07/2004 04:00:26
No, you fools! Do you have any idea what this will do to PvP?
It will be like wandering around in a dark warehouse blindfolded with a baseball bat.
You're never going to find anyone to fight!
You know how there are these big grand fleet battles some times? Well say good bye to them. Unless a scout ship gets lucky and runs right into the fleet, NOBODY WILL KNOW TO ASSEMBLE ANOTHER FLEET TO FIGHT WITH!
Sure, occasionally you might run into someone randomly at a gate or station, but otherwise how in the world are you even going to know your enemy is around? How will they even know to look for you? This change is far too drastic.
Removing "pilots in space" from 0.0 is one thing--I don't like it, but it wouldn't ruin the game--but making people invisible in local chat is insane. It will destroy non-gate camping piracy, it will destroy alliances, and it will destroy PvP in 0.0.
If this poll succeeds and if CCP actually follows it, well, you will reap the consequences.
Think before you vote on this foolish idea.
-------------
My salsa makes all the pretty girls want to dance and take off their underpants.
I <3 ( . Y . ) |
Levi
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 04:12:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Levi on 19/07/2004 13:26:55
ty Ronyo, excellent post.
where fools rush in, everyone better think this out.
it's more than just a solution to 'carebear' pirates wanting an edge / advantage, this will mean you won't know when your buddies or team mates are in system, like another player that you might just like to talk to. a long lost friend or someone that might save ur arse and become a new friend.
and how will you smacktalk .. are you there?? biatch! hehe 
ps - oveur, how long will you be collecting this data? will the poll last a day? a month? tonight?
|
Levi
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 04:12:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Levi on 19/07/2004 13:26:55
ty Ronyo, excellent post.
where fools rush in, everyone better think this out.
it's more than just a solution to 'carebear' pirates wanting an edge / advantage, this will mean you won't know when your buddies or team mates are in system, like another player that you might just like to talk to. a long lost friend or someone that might save ur arse and become a new friend.
and how will you smacktalk .. are you there?? biatch! hehe
ps - oveur, how long will you be collecting this data? will the poll last a day? a month? tonight?
|
Valan
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 04:15:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Ronyo Dae'Loki
Edited by: Ronyo Dae'Loki on 19/07/2004 04:00:26
No, you fools! Do you have any idea what this will do to PvP?
It will be like wandering around in a dark warehouse blindfolded with a baseball bat.
You're never going to find anyone to fight!
You know how there are these big grand fleet battles some times? Well say good bye to them. Unless a scout ship gets lucky and runs right into the fleet, NOBODY WILL KNOW TO ASSEMBLE ANOTHER FLEET TO FIGHT WITH!
Sure, occasionally you might run into someone randomly at a gate or station, but otherwise how in the world are you even going to know your enemy is around? How will they even know to look for you? This change is far too drastic.
Removing "pilots in space" from 0.0 is one thing--I don't like it, but it wouldn't ruin the game--but making people invisible in local chat is insane. It will destroy non-gate camping piracy, it will destroy alliances, and it will destroy PvP in 0.0.
If this poll succeeds and if CCP actually follows it, well, you will reap the consequences.
Think before you vote on this foolish idea.
Actually you are correct its the end of alliances. A fleet can roll in destroy everything. Can't be found and maraud at will boundaries will be impossible to protect. Then with that in mind no one is gonna deploy any structures because you won't be able to protect them. From a PvP point of view I can see the merit. But most of the player generated content in the game is associated with alliances. If thats the case all the alliance functionality in Shiva may as well be written off and the jove visit was a waste of time. You can't have a decent sized force all the time guarding your gate.
But from the look of the vote its gonna get implemented we'll see how it works. If its good then all is cool. If not it can't be that difficult to put it back. The only worry is if it is a disaster that the player base will have been damaged that much that it will kill the game. I'm all for a bit of play testing to see how it goes though. But I don't see any evidence in that blog that this has been thought through properly with respect to all the aspects in the game.
|
Valan
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 04:15:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Ronyo Dae'Loki
Edited by: Ronyo Dae'Loki on 19/07/2004 04:00:26
No, you fools! Do you have any idea what this will do to PvP?
It will be like wandering around in a dark warehouse blindfolded with a baseball bat.
You're never going to find anyone to fight!
You know how there are these big grand fleet battles some times? Well say good bye to them. Unless a scout ship gets lucky and runs right into the fleet, NOBODY WILL KNOW TO ASSEMBLE ANOTHER FLEET TO FIGHT WITH!
Sure, occasionally you might run into someone randomly at a gate or station, but otherwise how in the world are you even going to know your enemy is around? How will they even know to look for you? This change is far too drastic.
Removing "pilots in space" from 0.0 is one thing--I don't like it, but it wouldn't ruin the game--but making people invisible in local chat is insane. It will destroy non-gate camping piracy, it will destroy alliances, and it will destroy PvP in 0.0.
If this poll succeeds and if CCP actually follows it, well, you will reap the consequences.
Think before you vote on this foolish idea.
Actually you are correct its the end of alliances. A fleet can roll in destroy everything. Can't be found and maraud at will boundaries will be impossible to protect. Then with that in mind no one is gonna deploy any structures because you won't be able to protect them. From a PvP point of view I can see the merit. But most of the player generated content in the game is associated with alliances. If thats the case all the alliance functionality in Shiva may as well be written off and the jove visit was a waste of time. You can't have a decent sized force all the time guarding your gate.
But from the look of the vote its gonna get implemented we'll see how it works. If its good then all is cool. If not it can't be that difficult to put it back. The only worry is if it is a disaster that the player base will have been damaged that much that it will kill the game. I'm all for a bit of play testing to see how it goes though. But I don't see any evidence in that blog that this has been thought through properly with respect to all the aspects in the game.
|
Wild Rho
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 04:32:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Wild Rho on 19/07/2004 04:37:31
Well now if an alliance wants to protect its borders its going to have to rethink where its borderes really are and if it has the manpower to keep them covered.
This is an excellent idea for several reasons.
Suddenly an alliances territory will be influenced by its ability to defend said territory instead of covering a couple of systems and using the map to spot ppl coming.
Suddenly scouts and recon type people have a real role to play in eve as you will never know what is up ahead.
Now the smaller corps who have been forced to stick to empire space can finally have a chance at operating in 0.0 and the areas around there becuase now they can setup an op and not have the local pirates or alliance forces just spot it from the other side of the galaxy and come in and bully them. On the other hand somone with some patience may spot haulers moving around and wonder where they are going.
(This is my favourite reason, Im not a miner /npc hunter but what always bothered me was that the smaller newer corps had enough trouble on their hands just trying to protect a mining op in 0.0 and without everyone seeing their op and picking on them. While yes, its 0.0 and things are harsh out there, these corps dont have any real encouragement to leave empire unless they want to simply be absorbed into the local alliance and they dont get any real chance to gain experience in 0.0).
Pirates who are gate camping AND the haulers etc they prey on have to start using scouts to be ready. Infact since any successful gate camp will attract attention suddenly there is an option for a retaliation strike to take place without the pirates spotting it and vanishing.
Pirates and similar now have the chance to run quick strike operations in deep 0.0 space meaning that the local corps or alliances are going to HAVE to protect their mining ops meaning they need to get organised.
Every corp thats not in an alliance and doesn't have a massive fleet at their beackoning call can now set up a station of their own in 0.0 without it simply being taken or destroyed as soon as its built.
Once said POS are ingame and being built there is a whole new niche for players willing to do intel runs to search for players that have hidden their stations (i.e. player owned hidden pirate bases, alliance manufacuring stations etc).
There are even more reasons but Im tired and cant be bothered to keep going. Overall this will make 0.0 a much more interesting place where players and corps will have to MAKE AN EFFORT if they really want to know whats going on without just having the info handed to them.
Bring it on CCP
(EDIT: Removed the typo monkies)
I have the body of a supermodel. I just can't remember where I left it... |
Wild Rho
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 04:32:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Wild Rho on 19/07/2004 04:37:31
Well now if an alliance wants to protect its borders its going to have to rethink where its borderes really are and if it has the manpower to keep them covered.
This is an excellent idea for several reasons.
Suddenly an alliances territory will be influenced by its ability to defend said territory instead of covering a couple of systems and using the map to spot ppl coming.
Suddenly scouts and recon type people have a real role to play in eve as you will never know what is up ahead.
Now the smaller corps who have been forced to stick to empire space can finally have a chance at operating in 0.0 and the areas around there becuase now they can setup an op and not have the local pirates or alliance forces just spot it from the other side of the galaxy and come in and bully them. On the other hand somone with some patience may spot haulers moving around and wonder where they are going.
(This is my favourite reason, Im not a miner /npc hunter but what always bothered me was that the smaller newer corps had enough trouble on their hands just trying to protect a mining op in 0.0 and without everyone seeing their op and picking on them. While yes, its 0.0 and things are harsh out there, these corps dont have any real encouragement to leave empire unless they want to simply be absorbed into the local alliance and they dont get any real chance to gain experience in 0.0).
Pirates who are gate camping AND the haulers etc they prey on have to start using scouts to be ready. Infact since any successful gate camp will attract attention suddenly there is an option for a retaliation strike to take place without the pirates spotting it and vanishing.
Pirates and similar now have the chance to run quick strike operations in deep 0.0 space meaning that the local corps or alliances are going to HAVE to protect their mining ops meaning they need to get organised.
Every corp thats not in an alliance and doesn't have a massive fleet at their beackoning call can now set up a station of their own in 0.0 without it simply being taken or destroyed as soon as its built.
Once said POS are ingame and being built there is a whole new niche for players willing to do intel runs to search for players that have hidden their stations (i.e. player owned hidden pirate bases, alliance manufacuring stations etc).
There are even more reasons but Im tired and cant be bothered to keep going. Overall this will make 0.0 a much more interesting place where players and corps will have to MAKE AN EFFORT if they really want to know whats going on without just having the info handed to them.
Bring it on CCP
(EDIT: Removed the typo monkies)
I have the body of a supermodel. I just can't remember where I left it... |
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 04:41:00 -
[31]
I voted yay. Please vote yay. I promise lower taxes and better education.
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 04:41:00 -
[32]
I voted yay. Please vote yay. I promise lower taxes and better education.
|
CmdrRat
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 04:46:00 -
[33]
The implications to Pirates and Prey make me want to say No to this idea. But after talking to friends about this it becomes apparent that this change would open 0.0 space to the likes of me.
As it stands now your ability to control s section of 0.0 depends on your ability to secure several choke points and watch the map. With the removal of the ôpilots in spaceö information it would be possible to ôrunö the blockade and disappear into 0.0 (run the blockade, lose your pursuers and hide at a safe spot) forcing alliances to patrol their space regularly and be ready to fight anyone there.
IÆve felt for a while that 0.0 is way to secure and makes it very hard for the little guy to get into it with out making lots of commitments, these changes would help change the situation AND IMHO lower the prices of mega and zyd.
So I vote yes on this issue.
________________________________________________
Except for Ending Slavery, Fascism and communism, War Has Never Solved Anything |
CmdrRat
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 04:46:00 -
[34]
The implications to Pirates and Prey make me want to say No to this idea. But after talking to friends about this it becomes apparent that this change would open 0.0 space to the likes of me.
As it stands now your ability to control s section of 0.0 depends on your ability to secure several choke points and watch the map. With the removal of the ôpilots in spaceö information it would be possible to ôrunö the blockade and disappear into 0.0 (run the blockade, lose your pursuers and hide at a safe spot) forcing alliances to patrol their space regularly and be ready to fight anyone there.
IÆve felt for a while that 0.0 is way to secure and makes it very hard for the little guy to get into it with out making lots of commitments, these changes would help change the situation AND IMHO lower the prices of mega and zyd.
So I vote yes on this issue.
________________________________________________
Except for Ending Slavery, Fascism and communism, War Has Never Solved Anything |
Lee X
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 04:53:00 -
[35]
really good posts, this is obviously not a simple question / poll and needs some thought.
i can see there are some good points to both points of view.
also, how about some more gates into 0.0 too! The 'ore' must flow!
well anyways, if this does get put ingame, see you in 0.0, woohoo!
|
Lee X
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 04:53:00 -
[36]
really good posts, this is obviously not a simple question / poll and needs some thought.
i can see there are some good points to both points of view.
also, how about some more gates into 0.0 too! The 'ore' must flow!
well anyways, if this does get put ingame, see you in 0.0, woohoo!
|
Valan
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 04:53:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Valan on 19/07/2004 06:15:48
Edited by: Valan on 19/07/2004 06:13:21
I agree with some of that. But it is gonna put a lot of noses out of joint. Noses out of joint means no subscriptions.
OK one particular alliance has a corridor of 2 or 3 jumps. So now some poor sap has to sit there day in day out watching the sytem and I mean sat there, running scan after scan. Most pirate fleets are gonna be 5 to 10 ships. So the alliance needs at least that number guarding the gate. Ten more bored players. Think safe spots are bad now, you won't even bother looking cos you won't know they are there. It will break 0.0 up which is a good thing for most people in the game. All I'm saying is cut the alliance code out of Shiva because its not going to be needed. Also the fleet skills and that tactical view crap, thats the end of fleet battles. PvP will be more of a corp size thing and individuals because even if the alliances survive they will be spread more thinly patrolling. That will be a good thing, we'll get Shiva earlier. But how will all those people that put all that work into those alliances feel, when its no longer feasible.
I can see an alternative for an alliance already, people complain about griefing now. A roaming alliance will rip corps apart trying to use 0.0 and player owned structures. Masses of ships moving system to system destroying all in their path. No point in holding territory better to have a fluid alliance.
I'll adapt try and play if I don't like it I know where the door is. But you know as well as I do that most people won't adapt. I just don't want to see a poorly thought out change of this magnitude destroying the game because its driven people out. If a Dev posts showing that all the aspects have been discussed, explored and evaluated and it fits in with the Shiva plans then I'll be happy to go with it. A large change that drastically alters gameplay with no play testing hmmmmm there is only one way that is going to end.
At the moment I check local see whos there if they're neutral leave them be, maybe have a chat see who they are. If they approach held territory or a fleet position have a chat warn them off no one gets hurt. In the future warp in see a ship seconds to react, is that a friagte square close up or a BS at range. Yeh like I'm gonna spend time checking. Go for the safe option lock open fire. Great for PvP, hold on a minute everyones a pirate. To the guy who says I'll see you in 0.0 not if I see you first. Whereas before I would'nt have batted an eyelid as you went past. I can live with this but I can see the posts on the forums now.
Lol one last thing you'll never be able to undock in 0.0. All pirates have to do is camp a station and you'll never know they are there by the time the screen loads you'll be dead. People will have to arrange to meet and undock en mass in combat ships.
BTW I voted yay because a few thousand less players would suit me fine. I used to like it at around 5000. Plus the alliances will go, so I can go where I like. I know its contradictory to my post but I'm just playing Devils advocate.
|
Valan
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 04:53:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Valan on 19/07/2004 06:15:48
Edited by: Valan on 19/07/2004 06:13:21
I agree with some of that. But it is gonna put a lot of noses out of joint. Noses out of joint means no subscriptions.
OK one particular alliance has a corridor of 2 or 3 jumps. So now some poor sap has to sit there day in day out watching the sytem and I mean sat there, running scan after scan. Most pirate fleets are gonna be 5 to 10 ships. So the alliance needs at least that number guarding the gate. Ten more bored players. Think safe spots are bad now, you won't even bother looking cos you won't know they are there. It will break 0.0 up which is a good thing for most people in the game. All I'm saying is cut the alliance code out of Shiva because its not going to be needed. Also the fleet skills and that tactical view crap, thats the end of fleet battles. PvP will be more of a corp size thing and individuals because even if the alliances survive they will be spread more thinly patrolling. That will be a good thing, we'll get Shiva earlier. But how will all those people that put all that work into those alliances feel, when its no longer feasible.
I can see an alternative for an alliance already, people complain about griefing now. A roaming alliance will rip corps apart trying to use 0.0 and player owned structures. Masses of ships moving system to system destroying all in their path. No point in holding territory better to have a fluid alliance.
I'll adapt try and play if I don't like it I know where the door is. But you know as well as I do that most people won't adapt. I just don't want to see a poorly thought out change of this magnitude destroying the game because its driven people out. If a Dev posts showing that all the aspects have been discussed, explored and evaluated and it fits in with the Shiva plans then I'll be happy to go with it. A large change that drastically alters gameplay with no play testing hmmmmm there is only one way that is going to end.
At the moment I check local see whos there if they're neutral leave them be, maybe have a chat see who they are. If they approach held territory or a fleet position have a chat warn them off no one gets hurt. In the future warp in see a ship seconds to react, is that a friagte square close up or a BS at range. Yeh like I'm gonna spend time checking. Go for the safe option lock open fire. Great for PvP, hold on a minute everyones a pirate. To the guy who says I'll see you in 0.0 not if I see you first. Whereas before I would'nt have batted an eyelid as you went past. I can live with this but I can see the posts on the forums now.
Lol one last thing you'll never be able to undock in 0.0. All pirates have to do is camp a station and you'll never know they are there by the time the screen loads you'll be dead. People will have to arrange to meet and undock en mass in combat ships.
BTW I voted yay because a few thousand less players would suit me fine. I used to like it at around 5000. Plus the alliances will go, so I can go where I like. I know its contradictory to my post but I'm just playing Devils advocate.
|
Karx Galaxus
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 05:00:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Karx Galaxus on 19/07/2004 05:04:39
\o/ as in: Yay, yes, agree, prefered, ect. Makes frigs useful, but I am against show pilots in space..YOU BETTER VOTE!
------------------------------------------------
Cowards die many times before their deaths,
the valliant only taste death but once. |
Karx Galaxus
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 05:00:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Karx Galaxus on 19/07/2004 05:04:39
\o/ as in: Yay, yes, agree, prefered, ect. Makes frigs useful, but I am against show pilots in space..YOU BETTER VOTE!
------------------------------------------------
Cowards die many times before their deaths,
the valliant only taste death but once. |
Neil Crow
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 05:46:00 -
[41]
I can see it already, everybody is going to use the same technique as log on traps - however since they don't show up in local, no need to do the exploit thing!
Just have 1 pilot at a gate, when 3 warp in to attack, warp the fleet of 40 ships in and ubar gank them.
W00t!
BIG NAY.
And don't even try to use the argument about the uber scanner that can scan more than 4000 AU out, please.
|
Neil Crow
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 05:46:00 -
[42]
I can see it already, everybody is going to use the same technique as log on traps - however since they don't show up in local, no need to do the exploit thing!
Just have 1 pilot at a gate, when 3 warp in to attack, warp the fleet of 40 ships in and ubar gank them.
W00t!
BIG NAY.
And don't even try to use the argument about the uber scanner that can scan more than 4000 AU out, please.
|
Negotiator
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 06:14:00 -
[43]
i voted nay, but only because im not sure. its a very big change, and its sorta scary to think what will happen if its implemented. however i do think alliances will have to organise a bit more, and stop claiming 8 regions at a time.
|
Negotiator
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 06:14:00 -
[44]
i voted nay, but only because im not sure. its a very big change, and its sorta scary to think what will happen if its implemented. however i do think alliances will have to organise a bit more, and stop claiming 8 regions at a time.
|
Angelhunter
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 06:20:00 -
[45]
What good is a Frigate Scout really though if they can't see who is in local?? A lone scout can't cover all the paths into most areas and all it takes is to warp to 1 wrong gate on a route and a whole fleet of ships can sail right by while the scout keeps reporting back "all clear". The Pilots in Space should be changed, but you can't really eliminate it. As far as story/game mechanics, people can communicate across an entire galaxy but we can't get positions on ship??? doesn't sound quite right to me.
--------------- |
Angelhunter
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 06:20:00 -
[46]
What good is a Frigate Scout really though if they can't see who is in local?? A lone scout can't cover all the paths into most areas and all it takes is to warp to 1 wrong gate on a route and a whole fleet of ships can sail right by while the scout keeps reporting back "all clear". The Pilots in Space should be changed, but you can't really eliminate it. As far as story/game mechanics, people can communicate across an entire galaxy but we can't get positions on ship??? doesn't sound quite right to me.
--------------- |
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 06:20:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Sinist on 19/07/2004 06:23:46
Originally by: Negotiator
i voted nay, but only because im not sure. its a very big change, and its sorta scary to think what will happen if its implemented. however i do think alliances will have to organise a bit more, and stop claiming 8 regions at a time.
AHAHAHA CAREBEAR IN m0o !!! I have lost all official respect for m0o. I now know they are just carebears like the empire miners they kill. What would they do without their precious local and pilots in space map? AHAHAHAHA
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 06:20:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Sinist on 19/07/2004 06:23:46
Originally by: Negotiator
i voted nay, but only because im not sure. its a very big change, and its sorta scary to think what will happen if its implemented. however i do think alliances will have to organise a bit more, and stop claiming 8 regions at a time.
AHAHAHA CAREBEAR IN m0o !!! I have lost all official respect for m0o. I now know they are just carebears like the empire miners they kill. What would they do without their precious local and pilots in space map? AHAHAHAHA
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 06:35:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Negotiator
i voted nay, but only because im not sure. its a very big change, and its sorta scary to think what will happen if its implemented. however i do think alliances will have to organise a bit more, and stop claiming 8 regions at a time.
I'm with you, Negotiator and Ronyo.
Removing the map features and keeping local seems to be the best way or else login ganks can be reproduced without the actual need to login........
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 06:35:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Negotiator
i voted nay, but only because im not sure. its a very big change, and its sorta scary to think what will happen if its implemented. however i do think alliances will have to organise a bit more, and stop claiming 8 regions at a time.
I'm with you, Negotiator and Ronyo.
Removing the map features and keeping local seems to be the best way or else login ganks can be reproduced without the actual need to login........
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Garramon
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 07:42:00 -
[51]
Along th elines of what Mr. Calvert said, I think it will be fine to put in just the map change for now and see how it all works out. Removing pilots from local is quite drastic compared to the map change.
------------------------------------------------
 |
Garramon
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 07:42:00 -
[52]
Along th elines of what Mr. Calvert said, I think it will be fine to put in just the map change for now and see how it all works out. Removing pilots from local is quite drastic compared to the map change.
------------------------------------------------
|
illuminati
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 08:15:00 -
[53]
This vote requires resolution!
- Alternative 1 YES/NO
- Alternative 2 YES/NO
- Alternative 3 YES/NO
Please do not remove local chat, it's isolated enough as it is with no market, no agents and only one station service. If you thought local was spammed before, immagine the
hello? hello? hello? hello?
Hi.
HIIII :D oh he jumped :(
So instead of moving combat closer with military might is right, this suggestion will turn it even more into a "JAWS" movie with the ULTIMATE solution for the small gangsquad.
|
illuminati
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 08:15:00 -
[54]
This vote requires resolution!
- Alternative 1 YES/NO
- Alternative 2 YES/NO
- Alternative 3 YES/NO
Please do not remove local chat, it's isolated enough as it is with no market, no agents and only one station service. If you thought local was spammed before, immagine the
hello? hello? hello? hello?
Hi.
HIIII :D oh he jumped :(
So instead of moving combat closer with military might is right, this suggestion will turn it even more into a "JAWS" movie with the ULTIMATE solution for the small gangsquad.
|
Gan Howorth
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 08:29:00 -
[55]
Remove pilots in space or at least do not show actual numbers.
Remove compulsory pilots in local ONLY if the scanner is improved to make up for the loss of awareness. Base this on skills (player and IC), modules or both BUT DO NOT REMOVE LOCAL WITHOUT SOME LONG RANGE SCANNER LUVVIN
|
Gan Howorth
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 08:29:00 -
[56]
Remove pilots in space or at least do not show actual numbers.
Remove compulsory pilots in local ONLY if the scanner is improved to make up for the loss of awareness. Base this on skills (player and IC), modules or both BUT DO NOT REMOVE LOCAL WITHOUT SOME LONG RANGE SCANNER LUVVIN
|
Jim Bond
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 08:35:00 -
[57]
I vote BIG NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY. I'd rather ccp spend there time on other more important stuff like shiva or mending cloaks, than changing something thats atm working ok and maybe spending the next 6 months after trying to mend it.
The eve world is tooooooooooo big for people not to see where the fight is and where to go for a fight for those that want to fight. For those that don't wanna fight well, theres no way to avoid it. The game should always have the choice of fighting or not fighting, depending on if the player is into PVP or not.
If these propositions are implemented then whats next? Taking out warping so you have to spend 5 days to get to the stargate with 5 mwd? oooops shouldnt be giving ccp ideas 
If this is implemented, how about a mobile, anchorable scanning module that can be put into a system that can be accessed outta system to see this information, a bit like a convential video camera, that tells the person/corp who is in system or who can be scanned from the position of the scanner.
I just rather ccp spend there time on stuff whats important to the majority of people playing the game, such as SHIVA and Cloak fixes, than changing stuff for a minority of players that dont need changing.
|
Jim Bond
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 08:35:00 -
[58]
I vote BIG NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY. I'd rather ccp spend there time on other more important stuff like shiva or mending cloaks, than changing something thats atm working ok and maybe spending the next 6 months after trying to mend it.
The eve world is tooooooooooo big for people not to see where the fight is and where to go for a fight for those that want to fight. For those that don't wanna fight well, theres no way to avoid it. The game should always have the choice of fighting or not fighting, depending on if the player is into PVP or not.
If these propositions are implemented then whats next? Taking out warping so you have to spend 5 days to get to the stargate with 5 mwd? oooops shouldnt be giving ccp ideas
If this is implemented, how about a mobile, anchorable scanning module that can be put into a system that can be accessed outta system to see this information, a bit like a convential video camera, that tells the person/corp who is in system or who can be scanned from the position of the scanner.
I just rather ccp spend there time on stuff whats important to the majority of people playing the game, such as SHIVA and Cloak fixes, than changing stuff for a minority of players that dont need changing.
|
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 08:47:00 -
[59]
Removing or limiting pilots in space on the map is something we've been asking for a long time, good to see it being contemplated. I vote Yay.
But since imo removing all pilots from local channel in 0.0 would essentially destroy any activity in 0.0 except balls-to-the-wall pvp with a whole lot of scouting involved....
NAY to this poll.
I simply can't imagine ccp would remove the only effective source of inaformation and thus destroy the last possibility of control over space.
Unless.....anyone think POS: isolinear scanner, giving vieuw of people in space (in local) for the surrounding systems withing 5 jumps ?
_______________________________________________
Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know.
Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online
Solutions to your issues. |
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 08:47:00 -
[60]
Removing or limiting pilots in space on the map is something we've been asking for a long time, good to see it being contemplated. I vote Yay.
But since imo removing all pilots from local channel in 0.0 would essentially destroy any activity in 0.0 except balls-to-the-wall pvp with a whole lot of scouting involved....
NAY to this poll.
I simply can't imagine ccp would remove the only effective source of inaformation and thus destroy the last possibility of control over space.
Unless.....anyone think POS: isolinear scanner, giving vieuw of people in space (in local) for the surrounding systems withing 5 jumps ?
_______________________________________________
Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know.
Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online
Solutions to your issues. |
Eris Discordia
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 09:13:00 -
[61]
sticky for a while
I ♥ my pink dreadnought of pwnage
Mail [email protected] if you have any questions. |
Eris Discordia
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 09:13:00 -
[62]
sticky for a while
I ♥ my pink dreadnought of pwnage
Mail [email protected] if you have any questions. |
Yarrick
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 09:36:00 -
[63]
No, only benefits the carbears imo.
_____________________________________________
|
Yarrick
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 09:36:00 -
[64]
No, only benefits the carbears imo.
_____________________________________________
|
DarkStar251
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 09:41:00 -
[65]
/o\ nooooo!
|
DarkStar251
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 09:41:00 -
[66]
/o\ nooooo!
|
Negotiator
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 09:44:00 -
[67]
Sinist, for a person that sits in Empire (Asrios) all day, you sure have a big mouth...
|
Negotiator
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 09:44:00 -
[68]
Sinist, for a person that sits in Empire (Asrios) all day, you sure have a big mouth...
|
Spanker
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 09:50:00 -
[69]
I vote YAY. Thinking about it, seeing exactly who is in local is just ludicrous. The local chat is just that - a means of communication. Shouldn't be used as a tactical resource at all imo. If you have to choose between local names and map blobs, I say keep the map blob - it's feels more realistic to be able to get info on the approx. number of ships in a region than instantly seeing the names and shoe sizes of everyone within a hundred AU radius just because one happens to jump through a stargate. Imagine the suspence of entering say A2 without knowing what's in store for you - the tension alone would be enough to kill a guy/gal 
This is of course what would suit me the best, but I suppose that's why we're voting.
|
Spanker
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 09:50:00 -
[70]
I vote YAY. Thinking about it, seeing exactly who is in local is just ludicrous. The local chat is just that - a means of communication. Shouldn't be used as a tactical resource at all imo. If you have to choose between local names and map blobs, I say keep the map blob - it's feels more realistic to be able to get info on the approx. number of ships in a region than instantly seeing the names and shoe sizes of everyone within a hundred AU radius just because one happens to jump through a stargate. Imagine the suspence of entering say A2 without knowing what's in store for you - the tension alone would be enough to kill a guy/gal
This is of course what would suit me the best, but I suppose that's why we're voting.
|
Arud
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 10:14:00 -
[71]
A big fat no because of the same reason as Ronyo Dae'Loki wrote.
Also for this to work corps, and alliances with shiva, the information on local should be shared. If one player is in a system, detects another player on local, scanning, him blabbering on local or something. So when another player of the same corp,alliance as the other player enters the system he should be allowed to see the same thing on local. Also with this there must be relay stations like I have pointed out in the shiva forum. Please please put in relay stations, I think that would make most people happy.
A change like this will have huge impact on everything in 0.0 and it shouldnt be considered as a "qickfix" to quiet some loudmouths on the forum.
Being able to scan for logged off ships is a great idea though. But the scanner needs a filter to filter out asteroids, planets and other stuff you dont want when you are scanning for ships. Just simple checkboxes for the relevant info would work great.
and.. please... relay stations :)
|
Arud
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 10:14:00 -
[72]
A big fat no because of the same reason as Ronyo Dae'Loki wrote.
Also for this to work corps, and alliances with shiva, the information on local should be shared. If one player is in a system, detects another player on local, scanning, him blabbering on local or something. So when another player of the same corp,alliance as the other player enters the system he should be allowed to see the same thing on local. Also with this there must be relay stations like I have pointed out in the shiva forum. Please please put in relay stations, I think that would make most people happy.
A change like this will have huge impact on everything in 0.0 and it shouldnt be considered as a "qickfix" to quiet some loudmouths on the forum.
Being able to scan for logged off ships is a great idea though. But the scanner needs a filter to filter out asteroids, planets and other stuff you dont want when you are scanning for ships. Just simple checkboxes for the relevant info would work great.
and.. please... relay stations :)
|
Estios
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 10:16:00 -
[73]
I say yay to changing Pilots in space feature to what I think was a superb suggestion of 'Average Number of Pilots in space over last hour' or something similary vague but still mildly useful. And make this average figure actually realistic and not like the crappy bugged pilots in space we have now when it say 18 in space when there are infact 84 etc
I wouldnt like local removed unless you make the scanner ie by range better.
All the folks saying about you'd have no idea who was in local there is always the scanner and remember that the carebears wouldnt see you coming and safespot as soon as local jumped.
Its a pretty radical change thats for sure. You cannot simply remove both features without implementing better working alternatives.
So HMV consider Andy Williams and Dean Martin to be "easy listening" do they? Tell that to my mate Dave, he's been deaf for 20 years.
|
Estios
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 10:16:00 -
[74]
I say yay to changing Pilots in space feature to what I think was a superb suggestion of 'Average Number of Pilots in space over last hour' or something similary vague but still mildly useful. And make this average figure actually realistic and not like the crappy bugged pilots in space we have now when it say 18 in space when there are infact 84 etc
I wouldnt like local removed unless you make the scanner ie by range better.
All the folks saying about you'd have no idea who was in local there is always the scanner and remember that the carebears wouldnt see you coming and safespot as soon as local jumped.
Its a pretty radical change thats for sure. You cannot simply remove both features without implementing better working alternatives.
So HMV consider Andy Williams and Dean Martin to be "easy listening" do they? Tell that to my mate Dave, he's been deaf for 20 years.
|
StarWolfer
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 11:08:00 -
[75]
All I can hope for is that when it are like 1000 Yay's and 999 Nay's, CCP doesn't push it through, just for the sake of the poll result...
You will have 999 disappointed customers that way 
Me hopes for a clear direction (a far majority has to be achieved, otherwise leave it as is) |
StarWolfer
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 11:08:00 -
[76]
All I can hope for is that when it are like 1000 Yay's and 999 Nay's, CCP doesn't push it through, just for the sake of the poll result...
You will have 999 disappointed customers that way
Me hopes for a clear direction (a far majority has to be achieved, otherwise leave it as is) |
Raia Mortius
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 11:15:00 -
[77]
big time NAY !
|
Raia Mortius
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 11:15:00 -
[78]
big time NAY !
|
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 11:31:00 -
[79]
Edited by: Rod Blaine on 19/07/2004 11:33:41
Originally by: StarWolfer
All I can hope for is that when it are like 1000 Yay's and 999 Nay's, CCP doesn't push it through, just for the sake of the poll result...
You will have 999 disappointed customers that way
Me hopes for a clear direction (a far majority has to be achieved, otherwise leave it as is)
lol, you really think ccp sees this poll as some kind of binding thing ?
This was just a balloon going up, a wild idea being thrown on the table for discussion and opinion. They wont just blinldy do what the majority asks. If they'd work that way we would have no highways, no research agents, cruiser missiles on cruisers and 5 bonuses on every ship
Nah, and since the way in which the question was posed is fuxt to a whole new dimension in itself, they could hardly take the result seriously anyway.
_______________________________________________
Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know.
Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online
Solutions to your issues. |
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 11:31:00 -
[80]
Edited by: Rod Blaine on 19/07/2004 11:33:41
Originally by: StarWolfer
All I can hope for is that when it are like 1000 Yay's and 999 Nay's, CCP doesn't push it through, just for the sake of the poll result...
You will have 999 disappointed customers that way
Me hopes for a clear direction (a far majority has to be achieved, otherwise leave it as is)
lol, you really think ccp sees this poll as some kind of binding thing ?
This was just a balloon going up, a wild idea being thrown on the table for discussion and opinion. They wont just blinldy do what the majority asks. If they'd work that way we would have no highways, no research agents, cruiser missiles on cruisers and 5 bonuses on every ship
Nah, and since the way in which the question was posed is fuxt to a whole new dimension in itself, they could hardly take the result seriously anyway.
_______________________________________________
Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know.
Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online
Solutions to your issues. |
Tophereon
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 11:45:00 -
[81]
\o/ to removing pilots in space
Not sure about local, this would need a lot of thought, to get it right I guess.
Toph.
|
Tophereon
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 11:45:00 -
[82]
\o/ to removing pilots in space
Not sure about local, this would need a lot of thought, to get it right I guess.
Toph.
|
Grimpak
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 11:48:00 -
[83]
as said once, removing "pilots in space" is bad, but not that bad, but removing local chat, that's the part i REALY don't like it, so I say a prolly "yay" (\o/) for the 1st part, but a big "NAY" ( /o\ ) to the remove local.
-------------------
Quote:
Fragm's Oversized Ego Cannon barely scratches the forums, inflicting omgnoonecares damage
|
Grimpak
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 11:48:00 -
[84]
as said once, removing "pilots in space" is bad, but not that bad, but removing local chat, that's the part i REALY don't like it, so I say a prolly "yay" (\o/) for the 1st part, but a big "NAY" ( /o\ ) to the remove local.
-------------------
Quote:
Fragm's Oversized Ego Cannon barely scratches the forums, inflicting omgnoonecares damage
|
XpoHoc
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 12:23:00 -
[85]
You can remove one thing, not both.
 |
XpoHoc
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 12:23:00 -
[86]
You can remove one thing, not both.
|
Naqq
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 12:38:00 -
[87]
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!! NO DAMNIT NO!
Think the idea through god damnit, how will you be able to find enemies in 0.0? You can warp through more then then 50 systems without finding any victims, pirating would be dead!
--
"Yarrr..."
[FRIG] promotional video|Training film #1|Training film #2|
|Newsreels: #1,#2,#3(NEW).| |
Naqq
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 12:38:00 -
[88]
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!! NO DAMNIT NO!
Think the idea through god damnit, how will you be able to find enemies in 0.0? You can warp through more then then 50 systems without finding any victims, pirating would be dead!
--
"Yarrr..."
[FRIG] promotional video|Training film #1|Training film #2|
|Newsreels: #1,#2,#3(NEW).| |
Arlen Seek
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 12:47:00 -
[89]
\O/ YES
E Pluribus Unum
|
Arlen Seek
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 12:47:00 -
[90]
\O/ YES
E Pluribus Unum
|
toaster
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 13:10:00 -
[91]
I vote yay. I like the realism of this change, and I like the fact that there will be more PvP and more uncertain-of-the-outcome-before-the-fight-even-starts PvP. This will be a pretty exciting change, and I think that there will be many more ship losses after it, since people will have to react realtime in a fight (and can easily be caught in a fight they think they will win, but then end up losing), instead of reacting to 'pilots in space' coming their way.
Choke points will be camped to death, and uberganks will be even more common than they are now.
I am kinda concerned about the 'blindfolded, swinging a bat in a dark warehouse' thing though. 0.0 is huge, so finding others to kill will be pretty hard. I'm sure we'll find a way though. :) If other map features are still available though, I think it will be fine.
------------------------------------------------
|
toaster
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 13:10:00 -
[92]
I vote yay. I like the realism of this change, and I like the fact that there will be more PvP and more uncertain-of-the-outcome-before-the-fight-even-starts PvP. This will be a pretty exciting change, and I think that there will be many more ship losses after it, since people will have to react realtime in a fight (and can easily be caught in a fight they think they will win, but then end up losing), instead of reacting to 'pilots in space' coming their way.
Choke points will be camped to death, and uberganks will be even more common than they are now.
I am kinda concerned about the 'blindfolded, swinging a bat in a dark warehouse' thing though. 0.0 is huge, so finding others to kill will be pretty hard. I'm sure we'll find a way though. :) If other map features are still available though, I think it will be fine.
------------------------------------------------
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 13:27:00 -
[93]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 19/07/2004 13:28:19
/o\
"As far as I can tell, It doesn't matter who you are, If you can believe there's something worth fighting for " - Garbage, "Parade" |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 13:27:00 -
[94]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 19/07/2004 13:28:19
/o\
"As far as I can tell, It doesn't matter who you are, If you can believe there's something worth fighting for " - Garbage, "Parade" |
Stavros
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 13:39:00 -
[95]
Edited by: Stavros on 19/07/2004 13:42:50
Sadly if you look at this thread the VAST majority of pilots are not regular pvpers, nor do they have recogniseable names (nothing personal just mean that not very many famous pvpers or well known alliance members or whatever).
Im voting /o\ and if you don't your wrong.
--
"Keep On Flaming Lamers, Like Your Ships Did When We Ended You" |
Stavros
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 13:39:00 -
[96]
Edited by: Stavros on 19/07/2004 13:42:50
Sadly if you look at this thread the VAST majority of pilots are not regular pvpers, nor do they have recogniseable names (nothing personal just mean that not very many famous pvpers or well known alliance members or whatever).
Im voting /o\ and if you don't your wrong.
--
"Keep On Flaming Lamers, Like Your Ships Did When We Ended You" |
Mean Jeebus
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 13:40:00 -
[97]
\o/
Removing the players from the local channel list in 0.0.
Overall I think the idea is good, but I forsee gate camping to increase even more as it's the only way to monitor who is in / out of the system after an initial physical sweep. (anyone who logs in into 0.0 should probably show up in local until they jump at least 1 system in my opinion)
And making players 'uncloak' in the local chat once they say something is a great idea too. This would help those who are trying to gang a bit. "All gangers say HI" would probably work.
This change would add even more excitement to hunting for- and running from- alike.
wo0+
|
Mean Jeebus
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 13:40:00 -
[98]
\o/
Removing the players from the local channel list in 0.0.
Overall I think the idea is good, but I forsee gate camping to increase even more as it's the only way to monitor who is in / out of the system after an initial physical sweep. (anyone who logs in into 0.0 should probably show up in local until they jump at least 1 system in my opinion)
And making players 'uncloak' in the local chat once they say something is a great idea too. This would help those who are trying to gang a bit. "All gangers say HI" would probably work.
This change would add even more excitement to hunting for- and running from- alike.
wo0+
|
Wild Rho
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 14:09:00 -
[99]
One thing that can help balance it out for alliances and groups.
Only gang/corp members show in local.
Only corps that both you and they have a +5 standing to each other. This lets you see your allies in local but cant be abused by a corp setting everyone it can think of to +5 so that they all show in local.
Hopefully this will let friends see each other out in 0.0 and maintain a certain social aspect but without the local acting as a system wide radar.
Alliances are going to have to make an effort and rethink their borders with these changes if they want to maintain security which Ipersoanlly think is a great thing.
I have the body of a supermodel. I just can't remember where I left it... |
Wild Rho
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 14:09:00 -
[100]
One thing that can help balance it out for alliances and groups.
Only gang/corp members show in local.
Only corps that both you and they have a +5 standing to each other. This lets you see your allies in local but cant be abused by a corp setting everyone it can think of to +5 so that they all show in local.
Hopefully this will let friends see each other out in 0.0 and maintain a certain social aspect but without the local acting as a system wide radar.
Alliances are going to have to make an effort and rethink their borders with these changes if they want to maintain security which Ipersoanlly think is a great thing.
I have the body of a supermodel. I just can't remember where I left it... |
The Sloth
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 14:11:00 -
[101]
I really do not see the point in having a vote on this topic.
Characters who are members of an alliance will just vote 'nay' to the 'proposed' changes and characters who are not part of an alliance will just vote 'yay'.
Never-the-less, in keeping with my guidelines I will cast my vote - YAY. There is no good reason why pirates/alliances et cetera should automatically know who is in the system with them.
Regards,
The Sloth.
|
The Sloth
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 14:11:00 -
[102]
I really do not see the point in having a vote on this topic.
Characters who are members of an alliance will just vote 'nay' to the 'proposed' changes and characters who are not part of an alliance will just vote 'yay'.
Never-the-less, in keeping with my guidelines I will cast my vote - YAY. There is no good reason why pirates/alliances et cetera should automatically know who is in the system with them.
Regards,
The Sloth.
|
dalman
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 14:41:00 -
[103]
"Please continue this discussions in the stickies."
I hope the dev team read all the other threads too.
You know, many of them were started EARLIER than the 2 threads now stickied. And they hold many good posts.
Some of these threads:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=94958
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=94972
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=95340
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=95054
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=95286
M.I.A. since 2004-07-30 |
dalman
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 14:41:00 -
[104]
"Please continue this discussions in the stickies."
I hope the dev team read all the other threads too.
You know, many of them were started EARLIER than the 2 threads now stickied. And they hold many good posts.
Some of these threads:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=94958
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=94972
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=95340
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=95054
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=95286
M.I.A. since 2004-07-30 |
Kerosene
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 14:41:00 -
[105]
Could be interesting. We'll find corps within alliances holding the few systems around a station and that it's. Each corp in each alliance be allocated a station sort of thing.
1. It's gonna allow the empire miner to come to 0.0 and lose his ships to rats a lot easier
2. It's gonna make the current chokepoints even bloody worse.
3. Alliance vs Alliance wars will be a pain because nobody will be able to actively find the enemy, even with recon.
4. 0.0 pvp will become a serious lottery as to if you even manage to find someone to shoot at.
5. There will be a proliferation of corp spies scouting the 'Show Corp Members in Space' for enemies/pirates to gank.
6. Player Owned Stations will be destroyed left right and centre because the defenders didn't know the attackers were coming and couldn't prepare.
7. It's a nice thought that there will be dedicated scouting parties, but jesus christ, it just will not happen. Who wants to patrol areas for 8 hours a day just to get ganked by some fleet coming through.
8. Solo pvp will be replaced by fleet pvp
I vote /o\ unless there's some guarantees that corps will be able to deploy advanced warning sensors in systems in conjunction with player owned stations. At least give corps a chance to see if someone is coming.
The above post may contain traces of utter gonads.
|
Kerosene
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 14:41:00 -
[106]
Could be interesting. We'll find corps within alliances holding the few systems around a station and that it's. Each corp in each alliance be allocated a station sort of thing.
1. It's gonna allow the empire miner to come to 0.0 and lose his ships to rats a lot easier
2. It's gonna make the current chokepoints even bloody worse.
3. Alliance vs Alliance wars will be a pain because nobody will be able to actively find the enemy, even with recon.
4. 0.0 pvp will become a serious lottery as to if you even manage to find someone to shoot at.
5. There will be a proliferation of corp spies scouting the 'Show Corp Members in Space' for enemies/pirates to gank.
6. Player Owned Stations will be destroyed left right and centre because the defenders didn't know the attackers were coming and couldn't prepare.
7. It's a nice thought that there will be dedicated scouting parties, but jesus christ, it just will not happen. Who wants to patrol areas for 8 hours a day just to get ganked by some fleet coming through.
8. Solo pvp will be replaced by fleet pvp
I vote /o\ unless there's some guarantees that corps will be able to deploy advanced warning sensors in systems in conjunction with player owned stations. At least give corps a chance to see if someone is coming.
The above post may contain traces of utter gonads.
|
Stevie Wonder
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 15:23:00 -
[107]
No Stavros you are wrong because I say so
I ain't getting on no plane fool ....ooops wait, wrong guy |
Stevie Wonder
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 15:23:00 -
[108]
No Stavros you are wrong because I say so
I ain't getting on no plane fool ....ooops wait, wrong guy |
Stavros
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 15:27:00 -
[109]
I wish I was an alt 
--
"Keep On Flaming Lamers, Like Your Ships Did When We Ended You" |
Stavros
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 15:27:00 -
[110]
I wish I was an alt
--
"Keep On Flaming Lamers, Like Your Ships Did When We Ended You" |
Stavros
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 15:28:00 -
[111]
Agree with viceroy, system scanning (and i mean FULL systme scanning, not craptacular 14.3au range scanning that everyone and his dog can avoid) is a necessity for this to work, although I'm still against the change as I dont think it will add/change much in the game.
I don't see why so many people are FOR this change though, I mean people whine and moan about login traps for example calling them lame and yadda yadaa, but with these changes it will be like a login trap EVERYTIME you fight if the attackers are good and can move fairly fast. Also these people clammering for a scout role I mean REALLY where do you get your jollies in a game flying around a system scanning for enemy fleets but OH dear you can't tell if they are safespotted or wherever they are so IN jumps your fleet and OH DEAR WE HAVE A BLOB WAR YEY! The fact of the matter is at the moment you can't tell where people are in a system if they are safespotted (YEAH YEAH U CAN SCAN WHATEVER BUT NOT AT 101010aus or whatever) system scanning will tell you EXACTLY the same thing as local now cept OH DEAR YOU GOTTA SPEND 10MINUTES CLICKING to get the info GOOD GAME WELL PLAYED. Basically you won't be able to tell where anyone is or what they are doing so it will just be hit and miss.
ALSO
If you are scanning enemy ships in a system then chances are they are either mining/npcing and well prepared for a quick getaway OR they are combat ready in which case will have their own scout ships so as soon as your fleet jumps in they will know and OMG OMG OMG BLOB WAR.
Fact of the matter is most of the people posting on these changes are blatant noobs with relatively little experience of fleet or hunting in 0.0 areas (and no going to one of your alliances fleet battles a month don't count, I'm talkin command experience here people).
The only people to benefit from these changes will be greedy miners and carebears who will be able to hold there 3-5 ship mining ops in deep space without fear of interruption by small pirate corps. ITS OK I hear you cry, they will get cought in blockades because they will have no map warning, erm WRONG COS THEY JUST INSTA JUMP PASSED YOU ANYWAY.
In short if you support these changes your either not in possesion of a full set of mental faculties or a greedy miner.
They will add nothing to the game that isn't already there whilst taking up valuable dev time that should be being put into shiva.
Tbh I think the devs time would be better spent FINISHING SHIVA and not randomly altering the rest of the game :/
Just my 100000 dollars worth
Stav
--
"Keep On Flaming Lamers, Like Your Ships Did When We Ended You" |
Stavros
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 15:28:00 -
[112]
Agree with viceroy, system scanning (and i mean FULL systme scanning, not craptacular 14.3au range scanning that everyone and his dog can avoid) is a necessity for this to work, although I'm still against the change as I dont think it will add/change much in the game.
I don't see why so many people are FOR this change though, I mean people whine and moan about login traps for example calling them lame and yadda yadaa, but with these changes it will be like a login trap EVERYTIME you fight if the attackers are good and can move fairly fast. Also these people clammering for a scout role I mean REALLY where do you get your jollies in a game flying around a system scanning for enemy fleets but OH dear you can't tell if they are safespotted or wherever they are so IN jumps your fleet and OH DEAR WE HAVE A BLOB WAR YEY! The fact of the matter is at the moment you can't tell where people are in a system if they are safespotted (YEAH YEAH U CAN SCAN WHATEVER BUT NOT AT 101010aus or whatever) system scanning will tell you EXACTLY the same thing as local now cept OH DEAR YOU GOTTA SPEND 10MINUTES CLICKING to get the info GOOD GAME WELL PLAYED. Basically you won't be able to tell where anyone is or what they are doing so it will just be hit and miss.
ALSO
If you are scanning enemy ships in a system then chances are they are either mining/npcing and well prepared for a quick getaway OR they are combat ready in which case will have their own scout ships so as soon as your fleet jumps in they will know and OMG OMG OMG BLOB WAR.
Fact of the matter is most of the people posting on these changes are blatant noobs with relatively little experience of fleet or hunting in 0.0 areas (and no going to one of your alliances fleet battles a month don't count, I'm talkin command experience here people).
The only people to benefit from these changes will be greedy miners and carebears who will be able to hold there 3-5 ship mining ops in deep space without fear of interruption by small pirate corps. ITS OK I hear you cry, they will get cought in blockades because they will have no map warning, erm WRONG COS THEY JUST INSTA JUMP PASSED YOU ANYWAY.
In short if you support these changes your either not in possesion of a full set of mental faculties or a greedy miner.
They will add nothing to the game that isn't already there whilst taking up valuable dev time that should be being put into shiva.
Tbh I think the devs time would be better spent FINISHING SHIVA and not randomly altering the rest of the game :/
Just my 100000 dollars worth
Stav
--
"Keep On Flaming Lamers, Like Your Ships Did When We Ended You" |
meowcat
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 15:33:00 -
[113]
what about if you had a 'warp-to' option for everything that showed up on the new system scanner 
~~~~)\~~~~~\o/~~~~
yeah but no but yeah but no but |
meowcat
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 15:33:00 -
[114]
what about if you had a 'warp-to' option for everything that showed up on the new system scanner
~~~~)\~~~~~\o/~~~~
yeah but no but yeah but no but |
MrBinary
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 15:34:00 -
[115]
\o/ to first part.
/o\ to second part.
"[ 2004.05.20 20:11:42 ] Hodal Xibur > Die MrBinary" |
MrBinary
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 15:34:00 -
[116]
\o/ to first part.
/o\ to second part.
"[ 2004.05.20 20:11:42 ] Hodal Xibur > Die MrBinary" |
Skorp
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 15:41:00 -
[117]
No more blob wars. \o/
-
Skorp,
Commander (CEO)
The Wolf Brigade |
Skorp
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 15:41:00 -
[118]
No more blob wars. \o/
-
Skorp,
Commander (CEO)
The Wolf Brigade |
Jarjar
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 15:58:00 -
[119]
Originally by: Skorp
No more blob wars. \o/
Think again.
_HUGE_ blob wars. /o\
|
Jarjar
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 15:58:00 -
[120]
Originally by: Skorp
No more blob wars. \o/
Think again.
_HUGE_ blob wars. /o\
|
MOOstradamus
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 16:07:00 -
[121]
Quote:
In short if you support these changes your either not in possesion of a full set of mental faculties or a greedy miner.
In short, TBH, IMHO and all the other little phrases you use (Stavros) if you are against these changes then there is a good chance you are nothing more than a lazy "get your rocks off" violence addict. Try actually hunting your prey instead of selecting a blob on the map and then picking them off the local list ...
MOOrovingian  "Following & supporting EVE (since Jan 2001) is like wiping your arse with sandpaper."
|
MOOstradamus
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 16:07:00 -
[122]
Quote:
In short if you support these changes your either not in possesion of a full set of mental faculties or a greedy miner.
In short, TBH, IMHO and all the other little phrases you use (Stavros) if you are against these changes then there is a good chance you are nothing more than a lazy "get your rocks off" violence addict. Try actually hunting your prey instead of selecting a blob on the map and then picking them off the local list ...
MOOrovingian "Following & supporting EVE (since Jan 2001) is like wiping your arse with sandpaper."
|
Dianabolic
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 16:16:00 -
[123]
Originally by: Stavros
Tbh I think the devs time would be better spent FINISHING SHIVA and not randomly altering the rest of the game :/
But Stav, unless people think they can get away with running a multi billion isk POS (I don't know how much they're gonna cost) in secret, people like yourself will just go round blowing them up for fun. It's pretty obvious from the past that m0o has a pretty decent intel service, this will just give it even MORE reason to exist.
I disagree with you, I think that this change is good (and, yes, i do agree that the scanner should be improved VASTLY if this change is implemented).
|
Dianabolic
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 16:16:00 -
[124]
Originally by: Stavros
Tbh I think the devs time would be better spent FINISHING SHIVA and not randomly altering the rest of the game :/
But Stav, unless people think they can get away with running a multi billion isk POS (I don't know how much they're gonna cost) in secret, people like yourself will just go round blowing them up for fun. It's pretty obvious from the past that m0o has a pretty decent intel service, this will just give it even MORE reason to exist.
I disagree with you, I think that this change is good (and, yes, i do agree that the scanner should be improved VASTLY if this change is implemented).
|
Alexis Machine
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 16:55:00 -
[125]
I for one voted \0/. I've been asking for this since beta.
Maybe if they tell us some ideas for the scanner. Or other ideas to help find/track people...
As it stands now I think the most valid argument against it is the fear that you'll never be able to find an enemy.
So if we could get some opinions on how an improved scanner could work, it might change a few minds?
----------------sig----------------------------
Dtai'kai'-dte sa-de nau'gkon dtain'aun bpi-de.
if you don't wake up, i'll have to stop kissing you. all that flailing has made you sleepy. you rest while i untie you. stay here until they find you. My hand made mannequin. i won't let them get you. they'll know you're mine by the fingerprints on your throat. isn't she lovely? isn't she wonderful? like the *****s that we are, swatting flies from the wounds we design. |
Alexis Machine
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 16:55:00 -
[126]
I for one voted \0/. I've been asking for this since beta.
Maybe if they tell us some ideas for the scanner. Or other ideas to help find/track people...
As it stands now I think the most valid argument against it is the fear that you'll never be able to find an enemy.
So if we could get some opinions on how an improved scanner could work, it might change a few minds?
----------------sig----------------------------
Dtai'kai'-dte sa-de nau'gkon dtain'aun bpi-de.
if you don't wake up, i'll have to stop kissing you. all that flailing has made you sleepy. you rest while i untie you. stay here until they find you. My hand made mannequin. i won't let them get you. they'll know you're mine by the fingerprints on your throat. isn't she lovely? isn't she wonderful? like the *****s that we are, swatting flies from the wounds we design. |
Iluyen
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 16:56:00 -
[127]
no
|
Iluyen
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 16:56:00 -
[128]
no
|
Mr nStuff
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 17:03:00 -
[129]
I say /o\
The local names list should stay. And you should be able to rightclick any name on the list, and select "Warp to" right from there.
And any other channels you happen to be in. You should be able to righclick any names on thoughs channels and select "Set Destination" from the popup menu.
5 R&D Agents, 10months, Zero BPO Offers..
Onboard navigational [Planetary Avoidance] computer.
My account will be suspended at the end of the current play period.
Expires on 19. September 2004 |
Mr nStuff
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 17:03:00 -
[130]
I say /o\
The local names list should stay. And you should be able to rightclick any name on the list, and select "Warp to" right from there.
And any other channels you happen to be in. You should be able to righclick any names on thoughs channels and select "Set Destination" from the popup menu.
5 R&D Agents, 10months, Zero BPO Offers..
Onboard navigational [Planetary Avoidance] computer.
My account will be suspended at the end of the current play period.
Expires on 19. September 2004 |
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 17:10:00 -
[131]
Edited by: Baun on 19/07/2004 17:11:34
Originally by: Ronyo Dae'Loki
Edited by: Ronyo Dae'Loki on 19/07/2004 04:00:26
No, you fools! Do you have any idea what this will do to PvP?
It will be like wandering around in a dark warehouse blindfolded with a baseball bat.
You're never going to find anyone to fight!
You know how there are these big grand fleet battles some times? Well say good bye to them. Unless a scout ship gets lucky and runs right into the fleet, NOBODY WILL KNOW TO ASSEMBLE ANOTHER FLEET TO FIGHT WITH!
Sure, occasionally you might run into someone randomly at a gate or station, but otherwise how in the world are you even going to know your enemy is around? How will they even know to look for you? This change is far too drastic.
Removing "pilots in space" from 0.0 is one thing--I don't like it, but it wouldn't ruin the game--but making people invisible in local chat is insane. It will destroy non-gate camping piracy, it will destroy alliances, and it will destroy PvP in 0.0.
If this poll succeeds and if CCP actually follows it, well, you will reap the consequences.
Think before you vote on this foolish idea.
Seconded more or less.
We need 1 of two things to remain. Either the people show up in local channel and you know who they are AND the map gets "show players in space" removed. OR the map retains current functionability but the NAMES of the players in local chat do not show but rather an ACCURATE count of how many there are remains.
Option #1 promotes better scouting and reconaissance. You can find out the identity of those in systems but you need to seek them out. This would be acceptable but far inferior to the latter option.
Option #2 promotes better intelligence gathering. You know where people are but you don't know who they are. I am in favor of this one.
You cannot simultaneously make 0.0 space totally anonymous and remove the ability to detect the prescence of players without arduous scanner work. Such a change would be complete insanity.
Bear in mind, EVE star systems are REAL scale and there are THOUSANDS of said systems. Do we really want to lose the ability to know both whether someone is anywhere AND who that someone is? Has everyone who seriously supports this idea gone entirely insane? Does no one understand that this change in lieu of specific knowledge of Shiva improvements will make EVE a COMPLETELY different game?
The fact that this is even being considered at this stage in the game belies a profound divorce between the devs and the game itself and extreme shortsightedness by ~50% of the player base.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 17:10:00 -
[132]
Edited by: Baun on 19/07/2004 17:11:34
Originally by: Ronyo Dae'Loki
Edited by: Ronyo Dae'Loki on 19/07/2004 04:00:26
No, you fools! Do you have any idea what this will do to PvP?
It will be like wandering around in a dark warehouse blindfolded with a baseball bat.
You're never going to find anyone to fight!
You know how there are these big grand fleet battles some times? Well say good bye to them. Unless a scout ship gets lucky and runs right into the fleet, NOBODY WILL KNOW TO ASSEMBLE ANOTHER FLEET TO FIGHT WITH!
Sure, occasionally you might run into someone randomly at a gate or station, but otherwise how in the world are you even going to know your enemy is around? How will they even know to look for you? This change is far too drastic.
Removing "pilots in space" from 0.0 is one thing--I don't like it, but it wouldn't ruin the game--but making people invisible in local chat is insane. It will destroy non-gate camping piracy, it will destroy alliances, and it will destroy PvP in 0.0.
If this poll succeeds and if CCP actually follows it, well, you will reap the consequences.
Think before you vote on this foolish idea.
Seconded more or less.
We need 1 of two things to remain. Either the people show up in local channel and you know who they are AND the map gets "show players in space" removed. OR the map retains current functionability but the NAMES of the players in local chat do not show but rather an ACCURATE count of how many there are remains.
Option #1 promotes better scouting and reconaissance. You can find out the identity of those in systems but you need to seek them out. This would be acceptable but far inferior to the latter option.
Option #2 promotes better intelligence gathering. You know where people are but you don't know who they are. I am in favor of this one.
You cannot simultaneously make 0.0 space totally anonymous and remove the ability to detect the prescence of players without arduous scanner work. Such a change would be complete insanity.
Bear in mind, EVE star systems are REAL scale and there are THOUSANDS of said systems. Do we really want to lose the ability to know both whether someone is anywhere AND who that someone is? Has everyone who seriously supports this idea gone entirely insane? Does no one understand that this change in lieu of specific knowledge of Shiva improvements will make EVE a COMPLETELY different game?
The fact that this is even being considered at this stage in the game belies a profound divorce between the devs and the game itself and extreme shortsightedness by ~50% of the player base.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Stavros
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 17:17:00 -
[133]
Edited by: Stavros on 19/07/2004 17:20:32
Originally by: MOOstradamus
In short, TBH, IMHO and all the other little phrases you use (Stavros) if you are against these changes then there is a good chance you are nothing more than a lazy "get your rocks off" violence addict. Try actually hunting your prey instead of selecting a blob on the map and then picking them off the local list ...
You have no idea how or why we do what we do, we don't hunt blobs and more than any alliance. Maybe if you actually PLAYED the game rather than beliving the usual anti-m0o anti pirate forum BS rhetoric then you would be qualified to pass comment on the matter, as it is you can join the corner of all the alliance and pvp corp hating whiners and sit there blaming pilots in space and local chat for the reason THEY can't exist in 0.0 space when in fact it has ALOT to do with lack of skill and their lack of decent corp.
But hey why don't we just ignore all of my PERFECTLY valid arguementitive points and make fun of my use of abbreivations and phrases cos hey, THAT has a lot to do with the game don't it, makes your arguement REALLY convincing.
Against: Well constructed arguements by the best and most common pvpers in the game
For: Whining by allianceless, pvp know nothings whos idea of pvp is safespotting from their asteroid belt when people come into there system OH and lets not forget it MUST be a good idea because stavros uses abreviations OMG (OOPS DID IT AGAIN)
Btw don't get personal its against forum rules.
Stavros
--
"Keep On Flaming Lamers, Like Your Ships Did When We Ended You" |
Stavros
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 17:17:00 -
[134]
Edited by: Stavros on 19/07/2004 17:20:32
Originally by: MOOstradamus
In short, TBH, IMHO and all the other little phrases you use (Stavros) if you are against these changes then there is a good chance you are nothing more than a lazy "get your rocks off" violence addict. Try actually hunting your prey instead of selecting a blob on the map and then picking them off the local list ...
You have no idea how or why we do what we do, we don't hunt blobs and more than any alliance. Maybe if you actually PLAYED the game rather than beliving the usual anti-m0o anti pirate forum BS rhetoric then you would be qualified to pass comment on the matter, as it is you can join the corner of all the alliance and pvp corp hating whiners and sit there blaming pilots in space and local chat for the reason THEY can't exist in 0.0 space when in fact it has ALOT to do with lack of skill and their lack of decent corp.
But hey why don't we just ignore all of my PERFECTLY valid arguementitive points and make fun of my use of abbreivations and phrases cos hey, THAT has a lot to do with the game don't it, makes your arguement REALLY convincing.
Against: Well constructed arguements by the best and most common pvpers in the game
For: Whining by allianceless, pvp know nothings whos idea of pvp is safespotting from their asteroid belt when people come into there system OH and lets not forget it MUST be a good idea because stavros uses abreviations OMG (OOPS DID IT AGAIN)
Btw don't get personal its against forum rules.
Stavros
--
"Keep On Flaming Lamers, Like Your Ships Did When We Ended You" |
dabster
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 17:19:00 -
[135]
Removing local is insane. Scan? Helloooo i usually lag 5+secs if i perform a full range scan, worse if i move around so no thx.
Removing pilots in space....kinda agree to that..it should imho show whether or not there is activity at all, nothing else, no numbers or anything (not that numbers today are very accurate above ~10 people but anyway..).
It's funny how the 'yay' sayers have the most votes, and the nay-sayers have far majority in explaining why they think it's a horrible idea.
I guess it's easier to say 'yeye Oveur is cool', than it is to think twice, then vote.
___________________________
Chicks dig Brutor's |
dabster
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 17:19:00 -
[136]
Removing local is insane. Scan? Helloooo i usually lag 5+secs if i perform a full range scan, worse if i move around so no thx.
Removing pilots in space....kinda agree to that..it should imho show whether or not there is activity at all, nothing else, no numbers or anything (not that numbers today are very accurate above ~10 people but anyway..).
It's funny how the 'yay' sayers have the most votes, and the nay-sayers have far majority in explaining why they think it's a horrible idea.
I guess it's easier to say 'yeye Oveur is cool', than it is to think twice, then vote.
___________________________
Chicks dig Brutor's |
Ronyo Dae'Loki
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 17:28:00 -
[137]
I want everyone to do as Stavros suggested and step back and take a look at this thread.
Who are the people voting yay? Who are the people voting nay?
It should be rather clear that the people voting nay are people who run around in 0.0 space fighting--these are people who regularly do PvP, whether they are in an alliance or a pirate.
Let's take a real example:
Last night I decided to visit Tribute in my trusty Taranis for the first time (I have never been up there before). So I flew on up and checked for "Pilots in Space," then headed toward those areas.
Ok, sure, if Pilots in Space was removed, I could have just sort of guessed by using "Station Count" and flying there. But what if people didn't show up in local? Not only would I have no clue if there was anybody in the area I was flying through, but the people I was fighting and killing wouldn't have a clue if I was still lurking in the system or not. In other words, it's not just bad for one party, it's bad for everyone. (thanks for the corpses, TPS)
Even worse, I wouldn't be able to find out before I see anyone who is a target and who isn't. What if I had warped to the station and there was a UNICOR pilot there? I don't know of any UNICOR corps, and once I see the actual ship, it's just a bit late to check and see who that pilot it part of. If I check while approaching, I might get downed, if I warp away while checking, I've lost the element of surprise. It just doesn't work. Removing Local Chat causes so many problems that I cannot see any merit to the arguements of doing it.
Carebears: Do you want to be flying through 0.0 and suddenly, without warning, get ganked? Do you really think easy access to high-end ore in 0.0 for everyone would be a good thing? Even those of you mining low-end ore in empire... do you realize what would happen? PvP would become a lot more rare, less ships would get blown up, and the demand for both equipment and ships would drop. 100,000 megacyte in your hanger won't sell if nobody needs to buy new battleships.
PvPers: Do you want to spend more time than you do already looking for someone to kill? I don't know about you, but for me most of PvP involves finding someone to kill and hunting them down; camping gates really isn't my style. Do you even want to keep using your battleship in PvP? I honestly can't see anybody using anything slow if local chat is removed--unless you're just camping a gate with 5 sensor boosters, you're never going to find anyone to kill.
Alliances: Do you want to have ZERO control over your territory? I don't care how big your fleets are--unless you can cover every single gate into your core systems 23/7, people are going to get in, not say a word, and mine to their heart's content.
Removing "Pilots from Space" is annoying but can be worked around.
Removing Local Chat is quite possibly the worst idea for Eve ever. Until there are better ways of seeing who is in the system, it's a big NAY.
-------------
My salsa makes all the pretty girls want to dance and take off their underpants.
I <3 ( . Y . ) |
Ronyo Dae'Loki
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 17:28:00 -
[138]
I want everyone to do as Stavros suggested and step back and take a look at this thread.
Who are the people voting yay? Who are the people voting nay?
It should be rather clear that the people voting nay are people who run around in 0.0 space fighting--these are people who regularly do PvP, whether they are in an alliance or a pirate.
Let's take a real example:
Last night I decided to visit Tribute in my trusty Taranis for the first time (I have never been up there before). So I flew on up and checked for "Pilots in Space," then headed toward those areas.
Ok, sure, if Pilots in Space was removed, I could have just sort of guessed by using "Station Count" and flying there. But what if people didn't show up in local? Not only would I have no clue if there was anybody in the area I was flying through, but the people I was fighting and killing wouldn't have a clue if I was still lurking in the system or not. In other words, it's not just bad for one party, it's bad for everyone. (thanks for the corpses, TPS)
Even worse, I wouldn't be able to find out before I see anyone who is a target and who isn't. What if I had warped to the station and there was a UNICOR pilot there? I don't know of any UNICOR corps, and once I see the actual ship, it's just a bit late to check and see who that pilot it part of. If I check while approaching, I might get downed, if I warp away while checking, I've lost the element of surprise. It just doesn't work. Removing Local Chat causes so many problems that I cannot see any merit to the arguements of doing it.
Carebears: Do you want to be flying through 0.0 and suddenly, without warning, get ganked? Do you really think easy access to high-end ore in 0.0 for everyone would be a good thing? Even those of you mining low-end ore in empire... do you realize what would happen? PvP would become a lot more rare, less ships would get blown up, and the demand for both equipment and ships would drop. 100,000 megacyte in your hanger won't sell if nobody needs to buy new battleships.
PvPers: Do you want to spend more time than you do already looking for someone to kill? I don't know about you, but for me most of PvP involves finding someone to kill and hunting them down; camping gates really isn't my style. Do you even want to keep using your battleship in PvP? I honestly can't see anybody using anything slow if local chat is removed--unless you're just camping a gate with 5 sensor boosters, you're never going to find anyone to kill.
Alliances: Do you want to have ZERO control over your territory? I don't care how big your fleets are--unless you can cover every single gate into your core systems 23/7, people are going to get in, not say a word, and mine to their heart's content.
Removing "Pilots from Space" is annoying but can be worked around.
Removing Local Chat is quite possibly the worst idea for Eve ever. Until there are better ways of seeing who is in the system, it's a big NAY.
-------------
My salsa makes all the pretty girls want to dance and take off their underpants.
I <3 ( . Y . ) |
Watson
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 17:31:00 -
[139]
Edited by: Watson on 19/07/2004 17:39:34
/o\ - if they take something away, they should give something back.
Once real alliances are supported (shiva?), I'd like to see something like a conquerable station in each 0.0 constellation. Call it a 'Jumpgate Command & Control Facility' or whatever... let it allow members of the alliance or corp that controls it to see the locals and the blobs for that constellation. If you don't control the C&C outpost, you see neither local nor the # of pilots on the map.
It'd be a very basic station... maybe just a repair facility... Would have to be someplace that is warpable to... either with its own icon in the system -or- in orbit around a planet or moon for scouts to go 'find'... but it'd have to someplace that could be warped to.
This would let defenders have the advantage of knowing the "lay of the land"... Attackers would have the advantage of picking when and where to attack. They kind of balance out, and would show real 'control' of territory... but only in the terms of dissimination of information and the strategic and tactical advantages that go along with that.
Wars would become strategic as you have attackers taking the C&C facilities as they advance so to blind the attackers to what's behind them. Defenders would have to mount real counter-attacks... hiding in safe-spots till the attackers get bored wouldn't really work or they'd really lose their region.
I could see a lot of very interesting strategic aspects a change like this would give to the game.
|
Watson
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 17:31:00 -
[140]
Edited by: Watson on 19/07/2004 17:39:34
/o\ - if they take something away, they should give something back.
Once real alliances are supported (shiva?), I'd like to see something like a conquerable station in each 0.0 constellation. Call it a 'Jumpgate Command & Control Facility' or whatever... let it allow members of the alliance or corp that controls it to see the locals and the blobs for that constellation. If you don't control the C&C outpost, you see neither local nor the # of pilots on the map.
It'd be a very basic station... maybe just a repair facility... Would have to be someplace that is warpable to... either with its own icon in the system -or- in orbit around a planet or moon for scouts to go 'find'... but it'd have to someplace that could be warped to.
This would let defenders have the advantage of knowing the "lay of the land"... Attackers would have the advantage of picking when and where to attack. They kind of balance out, and would show real 'control' of territory... but only in the terms of dissimination of information and the strategic and tactical advantages that go along with that.
Wars would become strategic as you have attackers taking the C&C facilities as they advance so to blind the attackers to what's behind them. Defenders would have to mount real counter-attacks... hiding in safe-spots till the attackers get bored wouldn't really work or they'd really lose their region.
I could see a lot of very interesting strategic aspects a change like this would give to the game.
|
MOOstradamus
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 17:33:00 -
[141]
Edited by: MOOstradamus on 19/07/2004 18:36:00
Quote:
Btw don't get personal its against forum rules.
Yes as you aren't inside my head you likewise have no idea what I believe so until that time you are unqualified to comment on the reason I think what I do. So ...
* Don't get personal its against forum rules *
Quote:
You have no idea how or why we do what we do, we don't hunt blobs and more than any alliance.
So you do hunt 'blobs' exactly like I stated ...
Quote:
Maybe if you actually PLAYED the game rather than beliving the usual anti-m0o anti pirate forum BS rhetoric ...
I have nothing against m0o just you sometimes, and hence the humour directed at your forum/IRC manner; when you go on one of these crusades proclaiming yourself to be better and more righteous than any other single EVE player. See below:
Quote:
Im voting /o\ and if you don't your wrong.
Is that one of your "perfectly valid argumentative points"
MOOrovingian "Following & supporting EVE (since Jan 2001) is like wiping your arse with sandpaper."
|
MOOstradamus
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 17:33:00 -
[142]
Edited by: MOOstradamus on 19/07/2004 18:36:00
Quote:
Btw don't get personal its against forum rules.
Yes as you aren't inside my head you likewise have no idea what I believe so until that time you are unqualified to comment on the reason I think what I do. So ...
* Don't get personal its against forum rules *
Quote:
You have no idea how or why we do what we do, we don't hunt blobs and more than any alliance.
So you do hunt 'blobs' exactly like I stated ...
Quote:
Maybe if you actually PLAYED the game rather than beliving the usual anti-m0o anti pirate forum BS rhetoric ...
I have nothing against m0o just you sometimes, and hence the humour directed at your forum/IRC manner; when you go on one of these crusades proclaiming yourself to be better and more righteous than any other single EVE player. See below:
Quote:
Im voting /o\ and if you don't your wrong.
Is that one of your "perfectly valid argumentative points"
MOOrovingian "Following & supporting EVE (since Jan 2001) is like wiping your arse with sandpaper."
|
Gween
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 17:49:00 -
[143]
/o\
And to simply qoute myself:
"Those changes after more then one year are simply stupid - but go on, make the game even more boring.
(even if you tell us you just think about, you'll do it anyway)
/sarcasm on
I really like to pay for sitting in station and wait for a buddy that checks the system - yay! Go CCP go! You guys totally rock!
/sarcasm off
By the way... why do I play EVE?
I can simply play a FPS shooter - not much difference, expect I dont need to spent so much stupid real time on gaining stuff for killing/get killed and I can actually see what happen."
/rant
--------------
Coffee'n'Toffee makes Gween happy
Coffee'n'Toffee makes Gween happy
... |
Gween
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 17:49:00 -
[144]
/o\
And to simply qoute myself:
"Those changes after more then one year are simply stupid - but go on, make the game even more boring.
(even if you tell us you just think about, you'll do it anyway)
/sarcasm on
I really like to pay for sitting in station and wait for a buddy that checks the system - yay! Go CCP go! You guys totally rock!
/sarcasm off
By the way... why do I play EVE?
I can simply play a FPS shooter - not much difference, expect I dont need to spent so much stupid real time on gaining stuff for killing/get killed and I can actually see what happen."
/rant
--------------
Coffee'n'Toffee makes Gween happy
Coffee'n'Toffee makes Gween happy
... |
Stavros
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 18:11:00 -
[145]
Edited by: Stavros on 19/07/2004 18:16:46
Ouch looks like some got spanked, better heed my advice next time moo ¼_¼
And everyone knows I am right cause I always say it on all of my posts, its one of my phrases or abreviations or whatever, shameless stolen from my idol maddox ^_^
Anyway I wasn't talking about YOU specifically when I commented about lack of expierence and skill by the majority of the posters on this thread but if you want to prove me wrong in your individual case, then please feel free to tell the boys and girls about all your infamous exploits ^_^
Anyway gonna hit the climbing wall now, you should chill out moo its only a debate nothing personal.
Stav
--
"Keep On Flaming Lamers, Like Your Ships Did When We Ended You" |
Stavros
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 18:11:00 -
[146]
Edited by: Stavros on 19/07/2004 18:16:46
Ouch looks like some got spanked, better heed my advice next time moo ¼_¼
And everyone knows I am right cause I always say it on all of my posts, its one of my phrases or abreviations or whatever, shameless stolen from my idol maddox ^_^
Anyway I wasn't talking about YOU specifically when I commented about lack of expierence and skill by the majority of the posters on this thread but if you want to prove me wrong in your individual case, then please feel free to tell the boys and girls about all your infamous exploits ^_^
Anyway gonna hit the climbing wall now, you should chill out moo its only a debate nothing personal.
Stav
--
"Keep On Flaming Lamers, Like Your Ships Did When We Ended You" |
Mr nStuff
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 18:32:00 -
[147]
Originally by: Gween
/sarcasm on
I really like to pay for sitting in station and wait for a buddy that checks the system - yay! Go CCP go! You guys totally rock!
/sarcasm off
I really like to pay for having to logoff all the time because i'm out numbered 5 to 1 and they can find my safespots now.
Oops.. Wrong topic.. My bad. Originally by: Stavros
Edited by: Stavros on 19/07/2004 18:16:46
WTF. Now your sig randomizer puts different pictures on the same page? Err..
5 R&D Agents, 10months, Zero BPO Offers..
Onboard navigational [Planetary Avoidance] computer.
My account will be suspended at the end of the current play period.
Expires on 19. September 2004 |
Mr nStuff
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 18:32:00 -
[148]
Originally by: Gween
/sarcasm on
I really like to pay for sitting in station and wait for a buddy that checks the system - yay! Go CCP go! You guys totally rock!
/sarcasm off
I really like to pay for having to logoff all the time because i'm out numbered 5 to 1 and they can find my safespots now.
Oops.. Wrong topic.. My bad. Originally by: Stavros
Edited by: Stavros on 19/07/2004 18:16:46
WTF. Now your sig randomizer puts different pictures on the same page? Err..
5 R&D Agents, 10months, Zero BPO Offers..
Onboard navigational [Planetary Avoidance] computer.
My account will be suspended at the end of the current play period.
Expires on 19. September 2004 |
MOOstradamus
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 18:34:00 -
[149]
Edited by: MOOstradamus on 19/07/2004 18:38:30
Quote:
Ouch looks like some got spanked, better heed my advice next time moo ¼_¼
Hahahahaha !! You nub I typed the * RED TEXT * as it was directed at you ... Hahahaaaaahahahaha !!
- I am perfectly chilled thanks Stav
- What have your 'infamous exploits' got to do with anything
MOOrovingian "Following & supporting EVE (since Jan 2001) is like wiping your arse with sandpaper."
|
MOOstradamus
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 18:34:00 -
[150]
Edited by: MOOstradamus on 19/07/2004 18:38:30
Quote:
Ouch looks like some got spanked, better heed my advice next time moo ¼_¼
Hahahahaha !! You nub I typed the * RED TEXT * as it was directed at you ... Hahahaaaaahahahaha !!
- I am perfectly chilled thanks Stav
- What have your 'infamous exploits' got to do with anything
MOOrovingian "Following & supporting EVE (since Jan 2001) is like wiping your arse with sandpaper."
|
Demangel
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 18:57:00 -
[151]
Edited by: Demangel on 19/07/2004 19:06:02
I have to admit to a small amount of fence sitting on the matter, but I lean toward YAY in regard to Players in space, and Nay for local chat changes. From this point on I will use the term PIS to refer to Pilots in space.
I won't touch the local chat issue with a ten foot pole right now (thats a complicated thing, I mean finding an enemy is hard enough as it is, say I'm hunting you, right now I need to know what system your in. Thats hard enough already... but I can at least hunt you down if I try hard enough and know your habitat. I can patrol the systems and look for your name. Doesn't mean I have you, I still need to lock you down to a specific location within the system...
If local becomes "opt in only" as it is suggested, it's going to be that much harder to hunt anyone... Now my problem is, I don't mind "Harder." I mind however when it becomes without sport... By that I mean, there is such a thing as too hard/tedius to be fair, or enjoyable for anyone.
However the PIS issue has a very simple answer for me.
In empire: Leave it alone... It's fine.
In 0.0: PIS should be a simple yes or no answer. No indication of size whatsoever. Just a blip.
Why?
It allows for strategic and tactical planning and reactions, without giving anyone reliable data about force composition or makeup or size.
As it is now, this is IMHO the definition of a blob war... It's not that you know there is someone in system X. It's that you can see that it's more than X or less than Y.
This leads to giant blobs of players ganing up trying to make thier blob look more meancing than mine, to the point where the two fleets just stare at eachother across interstellar space... sometimes without anyone making a move ever.
If PIS is reduced to just a yes or no blip, Fleets could still plan thier movements, and they would still be likely to park one system apart from one another... But now sending in scouts both in advance, and after the fact would be a good part of the action.
A good fleet commander might place a "holding" force near the jump in gate to hold any attackers, and then summon his buddies to come make the full assault once the enemy has comitted to the attack.
In other words, Group A camps a gate with 5 out of 30 ships...
Group B, has 15 ships and sends in a small expendable scout frigate... The firgate reports 5 enemy ships on the other side, and the commander of Group B decides he has an easy fight on his hands, and sends in his 14 remaining ships to make a mess.
Group A on the other hand is sweating it out: "Will group B have more ships? Will they be able to punch through my holding force? Have they somehow managed to slip in a scout somewhere else in system to count us all?"
Well it's group A's lucky day as Group B jumps through as one force... For a moment they seem to have the upper hand in thier 14-5 struggle. But after just a few seconds, 25 more ships from group A arrive, and the massacre ensues...
Anyway Thats my thoughts on the matter.
Galaxion > If you drove a car shaped like a thorax women would call you
Demangel > Dude... I would call..
Demangel > wait that sounded g@y I bet.
Galaxion > Just a bit.
|
Demangel
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 18:57:00 -
[152]
Edited by: Demangel on 19/07/2004 19:06:02
I have to admit to a small amount of fence sitting on the matter, but I lean toward YAY in regard to Players in space, and Nay for local chat changes. From this point on I will use the term PIS to refer to Pilots in space.
I won't touch the local chat issue with a ten foot pole right now (thats a complicated thing, I mean finding an enemy is hard enough as it is, say I'm hunting you, right now I need to know what system your in. Thats hard enough already... but I can at least hunt you down if I try hard enough and know your habitat. I can patrol the systems and look for your name. Doesn't mean I have you, I still need to lock you down to a specific location within the system...
If local becomes "opt in only" as it is suggested, it's going to be that much harder to hunt anyone... Now my problem is, I don't mind "Harder." I mind however when it becomes without sport... By that I mean, there is such a thing as too hard/tedius to be fair, or enjoyable for anyone.
However the PIS issue has a very simple answer for me.
In empire: Leave it alone... It's fine.
In 0.0: PIS should be a simple yes or no answer. No indication of size whatsoever. Just a blip.
Why?
It allows for strategic and tactical planning and reactions, without giving anyone reliable data about force composition or makeup or size.
As it is now, this is IMHO the definition of a blob war... It's not that you know there is someone in system X. It's that you can see that it's more than X or less than Y.
This leads to giant blobs of players ganing up trying to make thier blob look more meancing than mine, to the point where the two fleets just stare at eachother across interstellar space... sometimes without anyone making a move ever.
If PIS is reduced to just a yes or no blip, Fleets could still plan thier movements, and they would still be likely to park one system apart from one another... But now sending in scouts both in advance, and after the fact would be a good part of the action.
A good fleet commander might place a "holding" force near the jump in gate to hold any attackers, and then summon his buddies to come make the full assault once the enemy has comitted to the attack.
In other words, Group A camps a gate with 5 out of 30 ships...
Group B, has 15 ships and sends in a small expendable scout frigate... The firgate reports 5 enemy ships on the other side, and the commander of Group B decides he has an easy fight on his hands, and sends in his 14 remaining ships to make a mess.
Group A on the other hand is sweating it out: "Will group B have more ships? Will they be able to punch through my holding force? Have they somehow managed to slip in a scout somewhere else in system to count us all?"
Well it's group A's lucky day as Group B jumps through as one force... For a moment they seem to have the upper hand in thier 14-5 struggle. But after just a few seconds, 25 more ships from group A arrive, and the massacre ensues...
Anyway Thats my thoughts on the matter.
Galaxion > If you drove a car shaped like a thorax women would call you
Demangel > Dude... I would call..
Demangel > wait that sounded g@y I bet.
Galaxion > Just a bit.
|
Stained
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 19:03:00 -
[153]
/o\ Allit will do is create more blob wars and no more solo traveling. dont do it! Gank's Gank's and mroe Gank's
___________________________________________________________________
Hair is Over-rated.
|
Stained
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 19:03:00 -
[154]
/o\ Allit will do is create more blob wars and no more solo traveling. dont do it! Gank's Gank's and mroe Gank's
___________________________________________________________________
Hair is Over-rated.
|
Zaphod Robotnik
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 19:33:00 -
[155]
Removal of Local
Now: Currently, the Local channel serves two purposes, a supplemental scanner letting you know who is sharing space with you, and a chat channel where you can speak with said pilots.
Change: Local will still function as a chat channel, but no longer functions as a scanner, plus you will not know if anyone is there to talk to.
Viewpoint: To my mind this is not that drastic a change, so long as alternative scanning options are in place. A method would need to replace it to inform you of how many pilots are in space, and possibly names (though this is a lot less essential).
My suggestion would be the use of a new mid-slot module. A hi-slot module may perhaps even give functionality to "Warp To" from such a scan. Bare minimum the current scanner needs to be "de-lagged", and made more "user-friendly". I don't think extra scanner range should be given though, to create a new role for long-range scanning support ships.
Removing of Pilots In Space
Now: Albeit imperfect, it is possible to track the movements of fleets, and even spot smaller groups of people out on the fringes of space.
Change: 0.0 Security Space will become a total unknown factor.
Viewpoint: I like this change. A lot. But without the changes to scanning in my first viewpoint above it would be a disaster as everyone is currently predicting. What it will mean, though, is a change in how pirate and alliance groups operate - their edict is not going to be writ as far, and control will come down to constellation, rather than regional level. Perfect for when Player Deployables come ingame.
Final Comment:
If this change is going to come in, I would much rather see it as a part of Shiva, as it is fairly wide-ranging in concept and the changes it will bring to gameplay. It also complements Player Deployables heavily - allowing people to set up "secret" bases that other players can then hunt down.
To my mind, these changes (when done properly) will bring EVE closer to what I originally envisaged for the game, from reading the (then) PoTW's like "Prey Miner".
--
Zaphod "Zaprobo" Robotnik
President, Royal Communication Department
http://eve.britishspacecorps.co.uk/http://eve.britishspacecorps |
Zaphod Robotnik
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 19:33:00 -
[156]
Removal of Local
Now: Currently, the Local channel serves two purposes, a supplemental scanner letting you know who is sharing space with you, and a chat channel where you can speak with said pilots.
Change: Local will still function as a chat channel, but no longer functions as a scanner, plus you will not know if anyone is there to talk to.
Viewpoint: To my mind this is not that drastic a change, so long as alternative scanning options are in place. A method would need to replace it to inform you of how many pilots are in space, and possibly names (though this is a lot less essential).
My suggestion would be the use of a new mid-slot module. A hi-slot module may perhaps even give functionality to "Warp To" from such a scan. Bare minimum the current scanner needs to be "de-lagged", and made more "user-friendly". I don't think extra scanner range should be given though, to create a new role for long-range scanning support ships.
Removing of Pilots In Space
Now: Albeit imperfect, it is possible to track the movements of fleets, and even spot smaller groups of people out on the fringes of space.
Change: 0.0 Security Space will become a total unknown factor.
Viewpoint: I like this change. A lot. But without the changes to scanning in my first viewpoint above it would be a disaster as everyone is currently predicting. What it will mean, though, is a change in how pirate and alliance groups operate - their edict is not going to be writ as far, and control will come down to constellation, rather than regional level. Perfect for when Player Deployables come ingame.
Final Comment:
If this change is going to come in, I would much rather see it as a part of Shiva, as it is fairly wide-ranging in concept and the changes it will bring to gameplay. It also complements Player Deployables heavily - allowing people to set up "secret" bases that other players can then hunt down.
To my mind, these changes (when done properly) will bring EVE closer to what I originally envisaged for the game, from reading the (then) PoTW's like "Prey Miner".
--
Zaphod "Zaprobo" Robotnik
President, Royal Communication Department
http://eve.britishspacecorps.co.uk/http://eve.britishspacecorps |
OrbitalEffect
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 19:38:00 -
[157]
Bah. Do it. If only to see what happens. If it works out, fine. If not, change it back.
|
OrbitalEffect
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 19:38:00 -
[158]
Bah. Do it. If only to see what happens. If it works out, fine. If not, change it back.
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 19:48:00 -
[159]
/o\
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 19:48:00 -
[160]
/o\
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Lao Tzu
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 20:02:00 -
[161]
Quote:
t should be rather clear that the people voting nay are people who run around in 0.0 space fighting--these are people who regularly do PvP, whether they are in an alliance or a pirate.
I spend nearly all my time fighting these days, I vote \o/, for a whole lot of reasons.
|
Lao Tzu
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 20:02:00 -
[162]
Quote:
t should be rather clear that the people voting nay are people who run around in 0.0 space fighting--these are people who regularly do PvP, whether they are in an alliance or a pirate.
I spend nearly all my time fighting these days, I vote \o/, for a whole lot of reasons.
|
Reptar
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 20:45:00 -
[163]
nay /o\
|
Reptar
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 20:45:00 -
[164]
nay /o\
|
Shaelin Corpius
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 20:57:00 -
[165]
Edited by: Shaelin Corpius on 19/07/2004 21:04:09
Ok, I do agree with the "Number of pilots in space" option to be taken away, its kinda pointless since its never right anyway. In addition change it if anything to "Systenm occupied" and leave it at that. Forcing someone to recon it for more info.
Anyone who lives in 0.0 like me anyway see that stuff and go scout it.
Taking away local chat, thats just opening up the doors to hell. You would never have any idea of who was in any system, there fore having no reason to defend it.
Take this scenario for example.
You log on in station. Cause there no local, you undock and 50 BS sitting there camping your station. you go *poof*. matter of fact you go poof so fast you don't get the chance to see who was all there, friendly and not.
Basically stating, you could waltz right into the heart of any alliance and no one would even know. The game would turn into Gate Camping Sim. You would have no choice but to gate camp every single system in 0.0.
Then add cloaks, ha ha ha lmao. I would put one on every ship in the group, jump in, keep cloaked, fly off somewhere, and they wouldn't ever know how many ppl or what, you see my point.
This will suck royally for both Pirates and Alliances in the same.
|
Shaelin Corpius
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 20:57:00 -
[166]
Edited by: Shaelin Corpius on 19/07/2004 21:04:09
Ok, I do agree with the "Number of pilots in space" option to be taken away, its kinda pointless since its never right anyway. In addition change it if anything to "Systenm occupied" and leave it at that. Forcing someone to recon it for more info.
Anyone who lives in 0.0 like me anyway see that stuff and go scout it.
Taking away local chat, thats just opening up the doors to hell. You would never have any idea of who was in any system, there fore having no reason to defend it.
Take this scenario for example.
You log on in station. Cause there no local, you undock and 50 BS sitting there camping your station. you go *poof*. matter of fact you go poof so fast you don't get the chance to see who was all there, friendly and not.
Basically stating, you could waltz right into the heart of any alliance and no one would even know. The game would turn into Gate Camping Sim. You would have no choice but to gate camp every single system in 0.0.
Then add cloaks, ha ha ha lmao. I would put one on every ship in the group, jump in, keep cloaked, fly off somewhere, and they wouldn't ever know how many ppl or what, you see my point.
This will suck royally for both Pirates and Alliances in the same.
|
Claus
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 21:16:00 -
[167]
\o/
PIS allows alliances to control huge areas == bad for the development of the game. Also, it makes it harder for gate camps (pirate or not).
Local is just a cheap alternative to the scanner. It is for people who are too lazy to scan (excluding the subject of inactive ships).
Removing PIS and making local opt-in in 0.0 opens the regions up and makes alliances concentrate more -- this is what Shiva will do anyway.
<stavros>If u disagree with me u are wrong</stavros>
-------------
You have to go out of your mind from time to time to stay sane. |
Claus
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 21:16:00 -
[168]
\o/
PIS allows alliances to control huge areas == bad for the development of the game. Also, it makes it harder for gate camps (pirate or not).
Local is just a cheap alternative to the scanner. It is for people who are too lazy to scan (excluding the subject of inactive ships).
Removing PIS and making local opt-in in 0.0 opens the regions up and makes alliances concentrate more -- this is what Shiva will do anyway.
<stavros>If u disagree with me u are wrong</stavros>
-------------
You have to go out of your mind from time to time to stay sane. |
Stavros
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 21:25:00 -
[169]
Yeah because EVERY alliance can UTTERLY control their terrotory now, I mean m0o has never managed to sneak battle fleets into curse or stain or fountain or venal oh no siree bob, never done that at all.
You can't control space now worth toffee, dont blame alliances for you or your corps lack of ability to survive in 0.0 space.
--
"Keep On Flaming Lamers, Like Your Ships Did When We Ended You" |
Stavros
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 21:25:00 -
[170]
Yeah because EVERY alliance can UTTERLY control their terrotory now, I mean m0o has never managed to sneak battle fleets into curse or stain or fountain or venal oh no siree bob, never done that at all.
You can't control space now worth toffee, dont blame alliances for you or your corps lack of ability to survive in 0.0 space.
--
"Keep On Flaming Lamers, Like Your Ships Did When We Ended You" |
Shaelin Corpius
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 21:53:00 -
[171]
Was this intended for just 0.0 BTW?
I hope not. Should be fair across the boards. No locals for anyone. Would make interesting for Empire space.
Sorry Stavros, you should know better, scanners don't really matter, not the way they are now, whoopadeedoo I can see a Megathron sitting 400mil KM off the station. Hope those recon frigs are as good as they should be, cause I won't fly anything but one of those in 0.0 anymore if that stuff happens.
And its not like you really snuck into those alliance areas :). Brute force bludgeoning your way more like it.
|
Shaelin Corpius
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 21:53:00 -
[172]
Was this intended for just 0.0 BTW?
I hope not. Should be fair across the boards. No locals for anyone. Would make interesting for Empire space.
Sorry Stavros, you should know better, scanners don't really matter, not the way they are now, whoopadeedoo I can see a Megathron sitting 400mil KM off the station. Hope those recon frigs are as good as they should be, cause I won't fly anything but one of those in 0.0 anymore if that stuff happens.
And its not like you really snuck into those alliance areas :). Brute force bludgeoning your way more like it.
|
Claus
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 22:01:00 -
[173]
Originally by: Stavros
Yeah because EVERY alliance can UTTERLY control their terrotory now, I mean m0o has never managed to sneak battle fleets into curse or stain or fountain or venal oh no siree bob, never done that at all.
You can't control space now worth toffee, dont blame alliances for you or your corps lack of ability to survive in 0.0 space.
Control in the terms of keeping out intruders looking for mining/hunting -- not the premier PvP corp in the game. Or did you think I was advocating something just so m0o would have it easier? You funny man:)
-------------
You have to go out of your mind from time to time to stay sane. |
Claus
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 22:01:00 -
[174]
Originally by: Stavros
Yeah because EVERY alliance can UTTERLY control their terrotory now, I mean m0o has never managed to sneak battle fleets into curse or stain or fountain or venal oh no siree bob, never done that at all.
You can't control space now worth toffee, dont blame alliances for you or your corps lack of ability to survive in 0.0 space.
Control in the terms of keeping out intruders looking for mining/hunting -- not the premier PvP corp in the game. Or did you think I was advocating something just so m0o would have it easier? You funny man:)
-------------
You have to go out of your mind from time to time to stay sane. |
Teelmaster
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 22:16:00 -
[175]
NAY! /o\
Stained and stavros are right. This will lead to more ganking and even more blobs b/c everyone will be afraid to fly solo and massive gank blobs be much more common than today. Bad Bad Bad
|
Teelmaster
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 22:16:00 -
[176]
NAY! /o\
Stained and stavros are right. This will lead to more ganking and even more blobs b/c everyone will be afraid to fly solo and massive gank blobs be much more common than today. Bad Bad Bad
|
Claus
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 22:24:00 -
[177]
To avoid the gank just send a scout ahead. Have him scan the systems as he goes along. It can be an alt in a shuttle. That is not a big problem.
-------------
You have to go out of your mind from time to time to stay sane. |
Claus
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 22:24:00 -
[178]
To avoid the gank just send a scout ahead. Have him scan the systems as he goes along. It can be an alt in a shuttle. That is not a big problem.
-------------
You have to go out of your mind from time to time to stay sane. |
Stavros
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 22:45:00 -
[179]
Edited by: Stavros on 19/07/2004 22:47:45
Right yes so EVERYWHERE I go I will have a disposable alt in a shuttle scouting.
Now then WHAT was the point of these changes again? So people don't know where peopel are?
Yes thats right everyone can just use alts scouts to FIND OUT and not care if they die.
Net result these changes make NO difference to the game.
Yet another logical arguement with abbrevieations (sp) brought to you by stavros and the I AM ALWAYS right company uk ltd.
Also how do you think m0o makes its money? YES ALOT OF US MINE/NPC IN ALLIANCE SPACE OMGOGMOGMGOM on ALTS!!!! Without m0o tags!!!! WHen we shouldnt be there?!!?! HOW L33t...
Anyone can mine/npc or be wherever they want, provided you take the neccessary precautions, your arguement is null and void.
BYE!
--
"Keep On Flaming Lamers, Like Your Ships Did When We Ended You" |
Stavros
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 22:45:00 -
[180]
Edited by: Stavros on 19/07/2004 22:47:45
Right yes so EVERYWHERE I go I will have a disposable alt in a shuttle scouting.
Now then WHAT was the point of these changes again? So people don't know where peopel are?
Yes thats right everyone can just use alts scouts to FIND OUT and not care if they die.
Net result these changes make NO difference to the game.
Yet another logical arguement with abbrevieations (sp) brought to you by stavros and the I AM ALWAYS right company uk ltd.
Also how do you think m0o makes its money? YES ALOT OF US MINE/NPC IN ALLIANCE SPACE OMGOGMOGMGOM on ALTS!!!! Without m0o tags!!!! WHen we shouldnt be there?!!?! HOW L33t...
Anyone can mine/npc or be wherever they want, provided you take the neccessary precautions, your arguement is null and void.
BYE!
--
"Keep On Flaming Lamers, Like Your Ships Did When We Ended You" |
Parallax Error
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 22:51:00 -
[181]
Changes are good so \o/ yay!
I would want to go over the proposed scanning changes etc with a fine toothed comb first.
Whilst your on the subject of sweeping but necessary changes, get rid of alts as well.
|
Parallax Error
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 22:51:00 -
[182]
Changes are good so \o/ yay!
I would want to go over the proposed scanning changes etc with a fine toothed comb first.
Whilst your on the subject of sweeping but necessary changes, get rid of alts as well.
|
Stavros
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 22:59:00 -
[183]
And insta jumps!
--
"Keep On Flaming Lamers, Like Your Ships Did When We Ended You" |
Stavros
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 22:59:00 -
[184]
And insta jumps!
--
"Keep On Flaming Lamers, Like Your Ships Did When We Ended You" |
Phoenixgurl
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 23:19:00 -
[185]
PPl know me because I don't like pirates much. You know what? even with that, I vote to remove local. It removes the real feeling of ambush and all the fun that comes with it. When im about to attack someone, I don't want him to know im coming.
Thats all. REMOVE IT!
--------------------------
When the universe collapses and dies, there will be 3 survivors: Tyr Anasazi, the coc*roaches ... and Dylan Hunt trying to save the coc*roaches. --Tyr (Andromeda) |
Phoenixgurl
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 23:19:00 -
[186]
PPl know me because I don't like pirates much. You know what? even with that, I vote to remove local. It removes the real feeling of ambush and all the fun that comes with it. When im about to attack someone, I don't want him to know im coming.
Thats all. REMOVE IT!
--------------------------
When the universe collapses and dies, there will be 3 survivors: Tyr Anasazi, the coc*roaches ... and Dylan Hunt trying to save the coc*roaches. --Tyr (Andromeda) |
Stained
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 23:21:00 -
[187]
It's jsut stupid to make such a drastic gameplay change into a game that's over a year old. I mean you don't go to a coffee shop for a year strait for them to change it into an all caffine free coffee shop do you? I mean if it does happen, it happens, but your gonna get a lot of ****ed off customers.
___________________________________________________________________
Hair is Over-rated.
|
Stained
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 23:21:00 -
[188]
It's jsut stupid to make such a drastic gameplay change into a game that's over a year old. I mean you don't go to a coffee shop for a year strait for them to change it into an all caffine free coffee shop do you? I mean if it does happen, it happens, but your gonna get a lot of ****ed off customers.
___________________________________________________________________
Hair is Over-rated.
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 23:27:00 -
[189]
Originally by: Stavros
Edited by: Stavros on 19/07/2004 17:20:32
Originally by: MOOstradamus
In short, TBH, IMHO and all the other little phrases you use (Stavros) if you are against these changes then there is a good chance you are nothing more than a lazy "get your rocks off" violence addict. Try actually hunting your prey instead of selecting a blob on the map and then picking them off the local list ...
You have no idea how or why we do what we do, we don't hunt blobs and more than any alliance. Maybe if you actually PLAYED the game rather than beliving the usual anti-m0o anti pirate forum BS rhetoric then you would be qualified to pass comment on the matter, as it is you can join the corner of all the alliance and pvp corp hating whiners and sit there blaming pilots in space and local chat for the reason THEY can't exist in 0.0 space when in fact it has ALOT to do with lack of skill and their lack of decent corp.
But hey why don't we just ignore all of my PERFECTLY valid arguementitive points and make fun of my use of abbreivations and phrases cos hey, THAT has a lot to do with the game don't it, makes your arguement REALLY convincing.
Against: Well constructed arguements by the best and most common pvpers in the game
For: Whining by allianceless, pvp know nothings whos idea of pvp is safespotting from their asteroid belt when people come into there system OH and lets not forget it MUST be a good idea because stavros uses abreviations OMG (OOPS DID IT AGAIN)
Btw don't get personal its against forum rules.
Stavros
Agreed by and large (same goes for Ronyo's last post)
This change comes from left field given that it affects the most important aspect of ANY massively multiplayer game. Changing this before Shiva comes out, wherein we may or may not get working deployable sensor grids or other intelligence technology is sheer madness. The very suggestion of such a change independent of mitigating information undercuts my confidence in the very sanity and coherence of the dev team.
I do have one question for those unilaterally opposing any such change (despite the fact that I am more with than against you, in that the proposed changes equate to insanity):
How do you feel about the removal of part of the 0.0 intelligence/local/map functionality but not the total removal of it? DO you feel that all aspects currently present are entirely essential or that it would be appropriate to pare them down so as to add more danger and challenge to 0.0, both for Alliances and Pirates?
Quote:
And insta jumps!
Personally i'd rather see them make Mobile Warb Scramblers bug-proof, cheaper, and deployable nearer to gates to cut off a larger arc-length of possible entry vectors. Also they should decrease velocity in the field in addition to scrambling. If those changes were made, then insta-jumps would be fair game since MWDs would be viable counter-measures.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 23:27:00 -
[190]
Originally by: Stavros
Edited by: Stavros on 19/07/2004 17:20:32
Originally by: MOOstradamus
In short, TBH, IMHO and all the other little phrases you use (Stavros) if you are against these changes then there is a good chance you are nothing more than a lazy "get your rocks off" violence addict. Try actually hunting your prey instead of selecting a blob on the map and then picking them off the local list ...
You have no idea how or why we do what we do, we don't hunt blobs and more than any alliance. Maybe if you actually PLAYED the game rather than beliving the usual anti-m0o anti pirate forum BS rhetoric then you would be qualified to pass comment on the matter, as it is you can join the corner of all the alliance and pvp corp hating whiners and sit there blaming pilots in space and local chat for the reason THEY can't exist in 0.0 space when in fact it has ALOT to do with lack of skill and their lack of decent corp.
But hey why don't we just ignore all of my PERFECTLY valid arguementitive points and make fun of my use of abbreivations and phrases cos hey, THAT has a lot to do with the game don't it, makes your arguement REALLY convincing.
Against: Well constructed arguements by the best and most common pvpers in the game
For: Whining by allianceless, pvp know nothings whos idea of pvp is safespotting from their asteroid belt when people come into there system OH and lets not forget it MUST be a good idea because stavros uses abreviations OMG (OOPS DID IT AGAIN)
Btw don't get personal its against forum rules.
Stavros
Agreed by and large (same goes for Ronyo's last post)
This change comes from left field given that it affects the most important aspect of ANY massively multiplayer game. Changing this before Shiva comes out, wherein we may or may not get working deployable sensor grids or other intelligence technology is sheer madness. The very suggestion of such a change independent of mitigating information undercuts my confidence in the very sanity and coherence of the dev team.
I do have one question for those unilaterally opposing any such change (despite the fact that I am more with than against you, in that the proposed changes equate to insanity):
How do you feel about the removal of part of the 0.0 intelligence/local/map functionality but not the total removal of it? DO you feel that all aspects currently present are entirely essential or that it would be appropriate to pare them down so as to add more danger and challenge to 0.0, both for Alliances and Pirates?
Quote:
And insta jumps!
Personally i'd rather see them make Mobile Warb Scramblers bug-proof, cheaper, and deployable nearer to gates to cut off a larger arc-length of possible entry vectors. Also they should decrease velocity in the field in addition to scrambling. If those changes were made, then insta-jumps would be fair game since MWDs would be viable counter-measures.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
svetlana
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 23:29:00 -
[191]
until something like this is tested in chaos properly + something majorly changed with the scanner to make up for it--> a big nay.
you just should not remove major ingame systems like this without something implemented to compensate for it.
i am no fan of alliances and pirate gank teams, but removing local and map info on players would blind everyone to such a degree, that it would be almost pointless to pvp in 0.0- randomly fly around 1000's of systems hoping to accidentally bump into someone.
on the other hand, non-pvpers will have free reign to mine or explore undetected by anyone in 0.0, so the so-called mining 'carebears' score a big win.
eve pvp would turn into something like a random-monster encounter game; random warp, jump, warp, see if after each warp you accidentally bump into someone to fight- retardedness.
removing local would reduce contact with other players to almost nothing- it kills the interactiveness of the game and will allow players to hide from each other even better. anyone dreaming that the game would become more fun because you would have to scout, and chase each other in big gangs is dreaming- fleets will fly past each other without even knowing they are there- scouts will fly for hours not finding anything, you think players will do this for fun? you might as well play the game with your eyes closed. login ganking will technically be made easier- but there won't be anyone to gank since the 'bait' player won't know where anyone is.
gate camping would have to increase, so in the end you create a scenario where the gatecamps are more extreme but totally safe travel once you get past them. increased random instadeath at gate-camps then isolation everywhere else- that is supposed to improve the game?
my real suggestion however is:
1) if you remove F10map-PlayersInSpace, then replace it with:
-map color blobs in the system you are currently in ONLY
-add the same color blobs in the F11 local map to show approximate location of players in system- would help pirates find prey, helps prey see it's attacker, helps keep friendlies aware of each other in system.
-and don't show the actual numbers.
2) if local is to be removed, replace it with:
-upgrade scanner for system wide scan.
-make scanner able to be used from inside a station.
-make scanner differentiate between occupied ships and unoccupied ships.
-make convo possible directly through the scanner window.
|
svetlana
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 23:29:00 -
[192]
until something like this is tested in chaos properly + something majorly changed with the scanner to make up for it--> a big nay.
you just should not remove major ingame systems like this without something implemented to compensate for it.
i am no fan of alliances and pirate gank teams, but removing local and map info on players would blind everyone to such a degree, that it would be almost pointless to pvp in 0.0- randomly fly around 1000's of systems hoping to accidentally bump into someone.
on the other hand, non-pvpers will have free reign to mine or explore undetected by anyone in 0.0, so the so-called mining 'carebears' score a big win.
eve pvp would turn into something like a random-monster encounter game; random warp, jump, warp, see if after each warp you accidentally bump into someone to fight- retardedness.
removing local would reduce contact with other players to almost nothing- it kills the interactiveness of the game and will allow players to hide from each other even better. anyone dreaming that the game would become more fun because you would have to scout, and chase each other in big gangs is dreaming- fleets will fly past each other without even knowing they are there- scouts will fly for hours not finding anything, you think players will do this for fun? you might as well play the game with your eyes closed. login ganking will technically be made easier- but there won't be anyone to gank since the 'bait' player won't know where anyone is.
gate camping would have to increase, so in the end you create a scenario where the gatecamps are more extreme but totally safe travel once you get past them. increased random instadeath at gate-camps then isolation everywhere else- that is supposed to improve the game?
my real suggestion however is:
1) if you remove F10map-PlayersInSpace, then replace it with:
-map color blobs in the system you are currently in ONLY
-add the same color blobs in the F11 local map to show approximate location of players in system- would help pirates find prey, helps prey see it's attacker, helps keep friendlies aware of each other in system.
-and don't show the actual numbers.
2) if local is to be removed, replace it with:
-upgrade scanner for system wide scan.
-make scanner able to be used from inside a station.
-make scanner differentiate between occupied ships and unoccupied ships.
-make convo possible directly through the scanner window.
|
Alexis Machine
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 23:46:00 -
[193]
^ Cool.
----------------sig----------------------------
Dtai'kai'-dte sa-de nau'gkon dtain'aun bpi-de.
if you don't wake up, i'll have to stop kissing you. all that flailing has made you sleepy. you rest while i untie you. stay here until they find you. My hand made mannequin. i won't let them get you. they'll know you're mine by the fingerprints on your throat. isn't she lovely? isn't she wonderful? like the *****s that we are, swatting flies from the wounds we design. |
Alexis Machine
|
Posted - 2004.07.19 23:46:00 -
[194]
^ Cool.
----------------sig----------------------------
Dtai'kai'-dte sa-de nau'gkon dtain'aun bpi-de.
if you don't wake up, i'll have to stop kissing you. all that flailing has made you sleepy. you rest while i untie you. stay here until they find you. My hand made mannequin. i won't let them get you. they'll know you're mine by the fingerprints on your throat. isn't she lovely? isn't she wonderful? like the *****s that we are, swatting flies from the wounds we design. |
Matzu
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 02:18:00 -
[195]
\o/ I agree but give alliances and corps player owned structure (destroyable of course) that can provide alliance, corp with information about pilots in space on map. Also make that easy to find with scanner. (No more Megathrons and other called Veldespar). \o/
|
Matzu
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 02:18:00 -
[196]
\o/ I agree but give alliances and corps player owned structure (destroyable of course) that can provide alliance, corp with information about pilots in space on map. Also make that easy to find with scanner. (No more Megathrons and other called Veldespar). \o/
|
Rath Amon
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 02:28:00 -
[197]
~0~
|
Rath Amon
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 02:28:00 -
[198]
~0~
|
Sergeant Bilko
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 06:00:00 -
[199]
After reading the posts on this topic it seems like half want it and the other half dont, so I dont see how CCP will decide whether to implement it or not.
Possible Idea:
Using the roleplay aspect of this game CCP implements the patch that makes the local and map changes. CCP then issues a CONCORD news flast that a virus or terrorists have brought down a central part of the comm technology causing these changes, and are working dilligently to fix them. This would give everybody a chance to experience the changes first hand. CCP then could gauge the community reaction, and if they dont like it decide to put in another patch to put it back the way it was with the news message that the comm equipment was repaired. If, due to unforseen benifits the majority of the community likes the changes then CCP can come up with some news that the comm equipment can not be fixed thus leaving the local and map changes.
|
Sergeant Bilko
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 06:00:00 -
[200]
After reading the posts on this topic it seems like half want it and the other half dont, so I dont see how CCP will decide whether to implement it or not.
Possible Idea:
Using the roleplay aspect of this game CCP implements the patch that makes the local and map changes. CCP then issues a CONCORD news flast that a virus or terrorists have brought down a central part of the comm technology causing these changes, and are working dilligently to fix them. This would give everybody a chance to experience the changes first hand. CCP then could gauge the community reaction, and if they dont like it decide to put in another patch to put it back the way it was with the news message that the comm equipment was repaired. If, due to unforseen benifits the majority of the community likes the changes then CCP can come up with some news that the comm equipment can not be fixed thus leaving the local and map changes.
|
GodEmperor
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 06:16:00 -
[201]
no local chat would give the game to the gate camping pirates...this idea is totally unacceptable and it will make trying to get into any .0 space a total nighmare...bad bad idea
|
GodEmperor
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 06:16:00 -
[202]
no local chat would give the game to the gate camping pirates...this idea is totally unacceptable and it will make trying to get into any .0 space a total nighmare...bad bad idea
|
Latex Mistress
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 06:59:00 -
[203]
Proponents of this be careful what you wish for...
Acceptable to everyone I think:
\o/ to nerf "Pilots" (or all statistics, really) in 0.0 only
/o\ to local and "Pilots" nerf (in Empire only)
I don't see how ship X warps in and can instantaneously see ship Y and all the relevant data for it when she sits 100au away, but you know what? It needs to be that way!
Now if we could get them to dissect the two and let people make a rational choice...
If ECM is an act of aggression, why am I not on kill mails?
|
Latex Mistress
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 06:59:00 -
[204]
Proponents of this be careful what you wish for...
Acceptable to everyone I think:
\o/ to nerf "Pilots" (or all statistics, really) in 0.0 only
/o\ to local and "Pilots" nerf (in Empire only)
I don't see how ship X warps in and can instantaneously see ship Y and all the relevant data for it when she sits 100au away, but you know what? It needs to be that way!
Now if we could get them to dissect the two and let people make a rational choice...
If ECM is an act of aggression, why am I not on kill mails?
|
Vel Kyri
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 06:59:00 -
[205]
how does no list of pilots in local give the game to gate-gankers????
just because you see ppl in local DOES NOT mean that they are at a gate...
even now you need to scan the gate to see where the other in local are - and often its next to impossible to find them as they are at safespots anyway...
bring on the changes.
-----
|
Vel Kyri
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 06:59:00 -
[206]
how does no list of pilots in local give the game to gate-gankers????
just because you see ppl in local DOES NOT mean that they are at a gate...
even now you need to scan the gate to see where the other in local are - and often its next to impossible to find them as they are at safespots anyway...
bring on the changes.
-----
|
StarWolfer
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 07:28:00 -
[207]
Edited by: StarWolfer on 20/07/2004 07:39:24
Originally by: Mr nStuff
Originally by: Gween
/sarcasm on
I really like to pay for sitting in station and wait for a buddy that checks the system - yay! Go CCP go! You guys totally rock!
/sarcasm off
I really like to pay for having to logoff all the time because i'm out numbered 5 to 1 and they can find my safespots now.
Oops.. Wrong topic.. My bad.
Mr nStuff maybe I understood you wrong, but his point is about not being able to safely undock from a station by himselves.
If local is gone, you can not check for yourselves if there are possible enemies outside. ( You would need a buddy or an alt character just in order to safely undock )
The point is that there could be a 100+ enemy fleet camping outside the station, while you lose your ship before you even get control (usual lag issue when lot's of enemies are in same system)...
That sounds fun to you? Not to me 
-----
I dunno where most 'Yay' people roam around ( Empire? ), but where we are ( in 0.0 ) we got enemies in local from time to time... |
StarWolfer
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 07:28:00 -
[208]
Edited by: StarWolfer on 20/07/2004 07:39:24
Originally by: Mr nStuff
Originally by: Gween
/sarcasm on
I really like to pay for sitting in station and wait for a buddy that checks the system - yay! Go CCP go! You guys totally rock!
/sarcasm off
I really like to pay for having to logoff all the time because i'm out numbered 5 to 1 and they can find my safespots now.
Oops.. Wrong topic.. My bad.
Mr nStuff maybe I understood you wrong, but his point is about not being able to safely undock from a station by himselves.
If local is gone, you can not check for yourselves if there are possible enemies outside. ( You would need a buddy or an alt character just in order to safely undock )
The point is that there could be a 100+ enemy fleet camping outside the station, while you lose your ship before you even get control (usual lag issue when lot's of enemies are in same system)...
That sounds fun to you? Not to me
-----
I dunno where most 'Yay' people roam around ( Empire? ), but where we are ( in 0.0 ) we got enemies in local from time to time... |
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 07:42:00 -
[209]
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 07:49:56
This is lame. More people are voting no then yes. You all suck and have no idea what is the best for this game.
So much for Eve being decent. For those who havent voted please vote yes. Looks like im still going to afk mine and just afk skill train. Game mechanics are borked but you all are prissy carebears with no skills.
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 07:42:00 -
[210]
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 07:49:56
This is lame. More people are voting no then yes. You all suck and have no idea what is the best for this game.
So much for Eve being decent. For those who havent voted please vote yes. Looks like im still going to afk mine and just afk skill train. Game mechanics are borked but you all are prissy carebears with no skills.
|
t00r
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 07:48:00 -
[211]
no: to removing players from local.
Local only shows u what u would find on the scanner anyway, u still have to use directional to find position, I would prolly implement this change if i couldnt fix the ongoing local chat bug.
yes: to removing players in space.
This would help the freelancer/small corps to engage in mining/npc hunting ops 'out there' a lot more. If noone knew there were ppl in a system it may bring more ppl out to .0 space as intended from the beginning.
Very few ppl show concern for the smaller corps out there anymore, not everyone is into alliances & mega corps, and .0 sec systems are not made only for pvp, the rarest ores are found there & atm small mining/manufactoring corps are finding it hard to make ends meet.
Withholding map information to as how many ppl are in what sector would definately boost smaller corps mining ops.
Remember, this is a game & everybody wants to play it.
__________________________________________
1.9 How can I participate in beta testing EVE? |
t00r
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 07:48:00 -
[212]
no: to removing players from local.
Local only shows u what u would find on the scanner anyway, u still have to use directional to find position, I would prolly implement this change if i couldnt fix the ongoing local chat bug.
yes: to removing players in space.
This would help the freelancer/small corps to engage in mining/npc hunting ops 'out there' a lot more. If noone knew there were ppl in a system it may bring more ppl out to .0 space as intended from the beginning.
Very few ppl show concern for the smaller corps out there anymore, not everyone is into alliances & mega corps, and .0 sec systems are not made only for pvp, the rarest ores are found there & atm small mining/manufactoring corps are finding it hard to make ends meet.
Withholding map information to as how many ppl are in what sector would definately boost smaller corps mining ops.
Remember, this is a game & everybody wants to play it.
__________________________________________
1.9 How can I participate in beta testing EVE? |
Stavros
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 08:22:00 -
[213]
One thing also I notice about the yes voters in this thread is that they all have COMPLETELY different reasons for wanting the change effected aas well as different opinions on which parts of the 2 changes to implement.
Some say it will stop blob wars, some say will stop piracy, some say will INCREASE piracy, some say it will make blob wars worse, some say it will increase access to alliance space, some say it will make bloackades more effective and gankings far far worse.
Basically the for arguements are a mish mash of quite frankly amateurish and contradictory views without any form of coherence or standard theory.
Also its rather interesting to note how many of the yes votes have no corps and are presumably either alts or people who are too young (in eve terms) to have joined a corp... Just an observation.
NATCHO!
--
"Keep On Flaming Lamers, Like Your Ships Did When We Ended You" |
Stavros
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 08:22:00 -
[214]
One thing also I notice about the yes voters in this thread is that they all have COMPLETELY different reasons for wanting the change effected aas well as different opinions on which parts of the 2 changes to implement.
Some say it will stop blob wars, some say will stop piracy, some say will INCREASE piracy, some say it will make blob wars worse, some say it will increase access to alliance space, some say it will make bloackades more effective and gankings far far worse.
Basically the for arguements are a mish mash of quite frankly amateurish and contradictory views without any form of coherence or standard theory.
Also its rather interesting to note how many of the yes votes have no corps and are presumably either alts or people who are too young (in eve terms) to have joined a corp... Just an observation.
NATCHO!
--
"Keep On Flaming Lamers, Like Your Ships Did When We Ended You" |
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 08:39:00 -
[215]
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 08:40:13
Stav man you dont see anyone else spamming this thread defending their point. We heard your reasong the first 10000000000000000000 times. Gawd you figure you being a PVPer would want this. But you just want to dumb down the game and make it easy for what you do. Your opinions will ruin this game. Just pls stop arguiing everyone's opinion. Wait and see what happens like the rest of us.
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 08:39:00 -
[216]
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 08:40:13
Stav man you dont see anyone else spamming this thread defending their point. We heard your reasong the first 10000000000000000000 times. Gawd you figure you being a PVPer would want this. But you just want to dumb down the game and make it easy for what you do. Your opinions will ruin this game. Just pls stop arguiing everyone's opinion. Wait and see what happens like the rest of us.
|
Vel Kyri
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 08:39:00 -
[217]
basically the current situation sucks.
1: pilots in space...
the current situation is that alliances can spot ANYONE in "their territory" and go pounce on them - it also allows pirates to look for mining ops and go hit targets of opportunity - and it also gives rise to blob wars.
all of these are BAD things - and all cause by pilots in space(and other information)
so - removing "pilots in space" is a good first step.
It will allow smaller groups to mine without worrying about attracting attention from the map...
it will also reduce the power of the alliances (a good thing imho) as they now have to "police" their territory - giving the smaller group the chance to expand into 0.0 space and potentially stay hidden.
problem with removing pilots in space is that it becomes harder to find ppl to shoot at.
removing list of pilots in local...
ok - this basically makes travel more risky - you dont know how many ppl are in a system. this make life MUCH more dangerous to unwary travellers (potentially) but also MUCH safer for careful travellers.
if you travel in a group - and CHECK the gates before warping/jumping by sending small fast scouts, you will be much safer. cloaking will be very very useful here.
the end result of the proposed idea from Oveur would be that travel in 0.0 space would slow down, and people would clump together. PvP would change from blob-war stalemates into something else - probably more creative.
This is a good start - although personally i would say remove ALL map information, and nerf the map a whole lot more to boot.
i also want instabookmarks and safespots removed as there are other ways of getting the EXACT SAME functionality by using gang mates... <shrug>
-----
|
Vel Kyri
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 08:39:00 -
[218]
basically the current situation sucks.
1: pilots in space...
the current situation is that alliances can spot ANYONE in "their territory" and go pounce on them - it also allows pirates to look for mining ops and go hit targets of opportunity - and it also gives rise to blob wars.
all of these are BAD things - and all cause by pilots in space(and other information)
so - removing "pilots in space" is a good first step.
It will allow smaller groups to mine without worrying about attracting attention from the map...
it will also reduce the power of the alliances (a good thing imho) as they now have to "police" their territory - giving the smaller group the chance to expand into 0.0 space and potentially stay hidden.
problem with removing pilots in space is that it becomes harder to find ppl to shoot at.
removing list of pilots in local...
ok - this basically makes travel more risky - you dont know how many ppl are in a system. this make life MUCH more dangerous to unwary travellers (potentially) but also MUCH safer for careful travellers.
if you travel in a group - and CHECK the gates before warping/jumping by sending small fast scouts, you will be much safer. cloaking will be very very useful here.
the end result of the proposed idea from Oveur would be that travel in 0.0 space would slow down, and people would clump together. PvP would change from blob-war stalemates into something else - probably more creative.
This is a good start - although personally i would say remove ALL map information, and nerf the map a whole lot more to boot.
i also want instabookmarks and safespots removed as there are other ways of getting the EXACT SAME functionality by using gang mates... <shrug>
-----
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 08:41:00 -
[219]
Did you even to bother reading the blog? They are going to put in a system scanner so basically you will still have local. It will just be on your scanner. How is that making it any more dangerous. CCP do what you want with your game. If you sit here and listen to everyone we arent going to get anywhere.
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 08:41:00 -
[220]
Did you even to bother reading the blog? They are going to put in a system scanner so basically you will still have local. It will just be on your scanner. How is that making it any more dangerous. CCP do what you want with your game. If you sit here and listen to everyone we arent going to get anywhere.
|
Vel Kyri
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 08:53:00 -
[221]
/me agrees with sinst..
just do what you want CCP - your game.
We'll adjust - just like we have to everything else you've done before.
-----
|
Vel Kyri
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 08:53:00 -
[222]
/me agrees with sinst..
just do what you want CCP - your game.
We'll adjust - just like we have to everything else you've done before.
-----
|
t00r
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 08:54:00 -
[223]
Originally by: Sinist
Stav man you dont see anyone else spamming this thread.
Originally by: Sinist
Your opinions will ruin this game.
Yeah, 1 guys opinion always gets ccps attention.
Originally by: Sinist
Just pls stop arguiing everyone's opinion. Wait and see what happens like the rest of us.
deÀbate
To engage in a formal discussion or argument.
To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
Conflict.
If there were more explanations of votes then maybe more ppl can see why a) it could be a good thing. or b) its could be a bad thing. Theres really no need to flame/abuse posters.
__________________________________________
1.9 How can I participate in beta testing EVE? |
t00r
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 08:54:00 -
[224]
Originally by: Sinist
Stav man you dont see anyone else spamming this thread.
Originally by: Sinist
Your opinions will ruin this game.
Yeah, 1 guys opinion always gets ccps attention.
Originally by: Sinist
Just pls stop arguiing everyone's opinion. Wait and see what happens like the rest of us.
deÀbate
To engage in a formal discussion or argument.
To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
Conflict.
If there were more explanations of votes then maybe more ppl can see why a) it could be a good thing. or b) its could be a bad thing. Theres really no need to flame/abuse posters.
__________________________________________
1.9 How can I participate in beta testing EVE? |
Dajar Binks
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 09:01:00 -
[225]
\o/
--
Freelance miner, cap'tain of the 'Ro´d Nightmare' (Thorax class)
Freelance Freighter, cap'tain of the 'Galtouze' (Iteron IV class, 12 000 m3)
"Moi le Troll. Moi le laideron. Moi je vous martÞle le crÔne. Vous le sans tÛte. Moi le dÚsormais magnifique."
Extrait - La psykologie du Troll vol. XXX (bible de Sac) |
Dajar Binks
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 09:01:00 -
[226]
\o/
--
Freelance miner, cap'tain of the 'Ro´d Nightmare' (Thorax class)
Freelance Freighter, cap'tain of the 'Galtouze' (Iteron IV class, 12 000 m3)
"Moi le Troll. Moi le laideron. Moi je vous martÞle le crÔne. Vous le sans tÛte. Moi le dÚsormais magnifique."
Extrait - La psykologie du Troll vol. XXX (bible de Sac) |
Gween
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 09:05:00 -
[227]
Originally by: Vel Kyri
/me agrees with sinst..
just do what you want CCP - your game.
We'll adjust - just like we have to everything else you've done before.
Maybe CCP owns this Game and our Stuff, but we are here and pay to play and if CCP just do what they want - free space for the 'adobt or die' 4k players max. online, like back to september '03! Yay, wouldnt that be great?
--------------
Coffee'n'Toffee makes Gween happy
Coffee'n'Toffee makes Gween happy
... |
Gween
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 09:05:00 -
[228]
Originally by: Vel Kyri
/me agrees with sinst..
just do what you want CCP - your game.
We'll adjust - just like we have to everything else you've done before.
Maybe CCP owns this Game and our Stuff, but we are here and pay to play and if CCP just do what they want - free space for the 'adobt or die' 4k players max. online, like back to september '03! Yay, wouldnt that be great?
--------------
Coffee'n'Toffee makes Gween happy
Coffee'n'Toffee makes Gween happy
... |
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 09:06:00 -
[229]
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 09:13:21
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 09:12:39
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 09:11:06
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 09:09:07
NO he is obfuscating everyone else into thinking its a bad idea. I dont think we need to back and forth on this issue. This was my second post on this thread. It was his 15th. He is rebutting everyone who posts. I could do that all day too. Its annoying personally. Especially when alot of people dont understand the changes in the first place. So someone arguiing every single thread will likely just confuse people. Especially when alot of posts in this thread just arent true.
I dont really care. Does CCP want this to be a noob game with repetitive blob wars and map camping. Or do they want the scanner to replace local and get rid of the pilots in space. Its a no brainer to me. Why should CCP argue this with us? The mecahnics they have dont work. If thats the way they want it fine. Ask the community about an issue of PvP or more dumbed down consentual PvP(like we have now) and this vote will liekly be what you get. A stalemate or the noobs coming out on top.
IM content training skills in my station for the next 3 years until there are no more skills. If they fix the game by then more power to them. If not ill do a little mining, and a little more skill training. I love combat but I just dont like the mechanics in Eve like safespotting. Nothing worse thena noob running and no chance you can kill him. Id rather avoid that. IM better then that.
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 09:06:00 -
[230]
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 09:13:21
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 09:12:39
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 09:11:06
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 09:09:07
NO he is obfuscating everyone else into thinking its a bad idea. I dont think we need to back and forth on this issue. This was my second post on this thread. It was his 15th. He is rebutting everyone who posts. I could do that all day too. Its annoying personally. Especially when alot of people dont understand the changes in the first place. So someone arguiing every single thread will likely just confuse people. Especially when alot of posts in this thread just arent true.
I dont really care. Does CCP want this to be a noob game with repetitive blob wars and map camping. Or do they want the scanner to replace local and get rid of the pilots in space. Its a no brainer to me. Why should CCP argue this with us? The mecahnics they have dont work. If thats the way they want it fine. Ask the community about an issue of PvP or more dumbed down consentual PvP(like we have now) and this vote will liekly be what you get. A stalemate or the noobs coming out on top.
IM content training skills in my station for the next 3 years until there are no more skills. If they fix the game by then more power to them. If not ill do a little mining, and a little more skill training. I love combat but I just dont like the mechanics in Eve like safespotting. Nothing worse thena noob running and no chance you can kill him. Id rather avoid that. IM better then that.
|
Stavros
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 09:19:00 -
[231]
I didn't break any forum rules and I dont think there is censorship of free discussion and debate on this thread.
Its not like i'm trying to derail the thread with pointless posts either.
So pls stop personally attacking me thx.
kbye
--
"Keep On Flaming Lamers, Like Your Ships Did When We Ended You" |
Stavros
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 09:19:00 -
[232]
I didn't break any forum rules and I dont think there is censorship of free discussion and debate on this thread.
Its not like i'm trying to derail the thread with pointless posts either.
So pls stop personally attacking me thx.
kbye
--
"Keep On Flaming Lamers, Like Your Ships Did When We Ended You" |
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 09:32:00 -
[233]
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 09:34:11
IM not personally attacking you stav. And I dont think I broke any forum rules either. I expressed my opinion that I thought you were wrong. And that I heard your opinions the first 10000000 times. Enough of the woe is me.
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 09:32:00 -
[234]
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 09:34:11
IM not personally attacking you stav. And I dont think I broke any forum rules either. I expressed my opinion that I thought you were wrong. And that I heard your opinions the first 10000000 times. Enough of the woe is me.
|
Jim Bond
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 09:37:00 -
[235]
Edited by: Jim Bond on 20/07/2004 09:40:03
Sinist, you are starting to be as bad as Stavros. Stavros has a point he wishes to get across and yes he is expressing it repeatably and it does get repetitive. So however do your posts rebuking him and throwing your rattle around because he doesn't agree with you, and if you really wanna know, this sort of attitude got you kicked from Evolution. He has as much right as you and myself to tell people his opinions.
1 Point i would like to make, is that this is a game for new AND experienced players, and there is gonna have to be a better tutorial on how to use the scanner for new players if this is implemented. Also you have to remember there isn't 9,000 on the server 24 hours a day.
If the remove pilots on map thing is implemented,
1. Offensive PVP people are either gonna jump 20-50 jumps to find somone to kill, whereas atm they can see whereabouts to go, or instead there gonna gate camp a primary route to get kills, cause its "easier" than jumping 20-50 jps, especially at server quiet times.
2. Mining people and Defensive PVP people will not be able to see any blobs approaching, and there will be an element of surprise when somone jumps in. Again i forsee the Defensive PVP Players Camping gates, but mining no real difference except that they will find it easier to "sneak" into 0.0 space and mine there. They still however have to haul the ore 5 jps, and if they cant sneak there mins good enough have wasted there time when they get blown up by some corp camping a gate.
Regarding the Current PIS system, i would say is pretty good, you get an estimate only of the current people in that system. As there is a time delay between map updates, yes its not accurate in location or numbers as the people might have jumped 3 or 4 systems since the last map update.
To Finish, if in 1 hand there was shiva/cloaks fix coming earlier or this changing, i would go for shiva/cloaks everytime.
You all seem to forget, that implementing this will take manhours to implement, and i would rather those manhours were spent on shiva.
|
Jim Bond
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 09:37:00 -
[236]
Edited by: Jim Bond on 20/07/2004 09:40:03
Sinist, you are starting to be as bad as Stavros. Stavros has a point he wishes to get across and yes he is expressing it repeatably and it does get repetitive. So however do your posts rebuking him and throwing your rattle around because he doesn't agree with you, and if you really wanna know, this sort of attitude got you kicked from Evolution. He has as much right as you and myself to tell people his opinions.
1 Point i would like to make, is that this is a game for new AND experienced players, and there is gonna have to be a better tutorial on how to use the scanner for new players if this is implemented. Also you have to remember there isn't 9,000 on the server 24 hours a day.
If the remove pilots on map thing is implemented,
1. Offensive PVP people are either gonna jump 20-50 jumps to find somone to kill, whereas atm they can see whereabouts to go, or instead there gonna gate camp a primary route to get kills, cause its "easier" than jumping 20-50 jps, especially at server quiet times.
2. Mining people and Defensive PVP people will not be able to see any blobs approaching, and there will be an element of surprise when somone jumps in. Again i forsee the Defensive PVP Players Camping gates, but mining no real difference except that they will find it easier to "sneak" into 0.0 space and mine there. They still however have to haul the ore 5 jps, and if they cant sneak there mins good enough have wasted there time when they get blown up by some corp camping a gate.
Regarding the Current PIS system, i would say is pretty good, you get an estimate only of the current people in that system. As there is a time delay between map updates, yes its not accurate in location or numbers as the people might have jumped 3 or 4 systems since the last map update.
To Finish, if in 1 hand there was shiva/cloaks fix coming earlier or this changing, i would go for shiva/cloaks everytime.
You all seem to forget, that implementing this will take manhours to implement, and i would rather those manhours were spent on shiva.
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 09:48:00 -
[237]
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 09:57:23
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 09:55:19
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 09:54:39
Since when is this supposed to be "look at map, fleet now goto enemy blob, warp in and engage blah blah blah".
This is dumbed down PvP. If your a fleet you have ot have scouts. If your a small guerilla unit you act like one and you set up traps and hit people in no mans land (if you find them). Knowing where everyone is all the time is a joke.
This to me is what the game should be about. Maybe in RL we have more sophistcated intelligence gathering. In the game it doesnt make it fun though.
Sorry you dont like my attitude. I dont stand for what I dont agree with. Sorry. And if someone says something stupid (like in Evol corp chat) ill likely tell him he is an idiot or be abrasive etc. Especially if I ***** a joke and someone acts like he is the pope and gets offended. LOL.
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 09:48:00 -
[238]
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 09:57:23
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 09:55:19
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 09:54:39
Since when is this supposed to be "look at map, fleet now goto enemy blob, warp in and engage blah blah blah".
This is dumbed down PvP. If your a fleet you have ot have scouts. If your a small guerilla unit you act like one and you set up traps and hit people in no mans land (if you find them). Knowing where everyone is all the time is a joke.
This to me is what the game should be about. Maybe in RL we have more sophistcated intelligence gathering. In the game it doesnt make it fun though.
Sorry you dont like my attitude. I dont stand for what I dont agree with. Sorry. And if someone says something stupid (like in Evol corp chat) ill likely tell him he is an idiot or be abrasive etc. Especially if I ***** a joke and someone acts like he is the pope and gets offended. LOL.
|
Jim Bond
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 09:58:00 -
[239]
Edited by: Jim Bond on 20/07/2004 10:02:44
Dumbed down pvp, has gotta be better than every1 gate ganking cause they can't be bothered makin 20-50 jps when theres 2000 - 4000 people on or more for that matter.
|
Jim Bond
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 09:58:00 -
[240]
Edited by: Jim Bond on 20/07/2004 10:02:44
Dumbed down pvp, has gotta be better than every1 gate ganking cause they can't be bothered makin 20-50 jps when theres 2000 - 4000 people on or more for that matter.
|
Adonai RisenStar
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 10:29:00 -
[241]
Edited by: Adonai RisenStar on 20/07/2004 10:30:59
1. Point one is reasonable, optimal suggestion is to limit the information the map provides. An example is this: "System Occupied: Yes"
2. This idea of removing local is a complete exercise of nearsighted, idealistic drivel. What you will essentially have is pilots unable to track players sufficiently, unable to engage in large force expediently, roaming system-to-system with nothing more than (I'm sorry) a bit of a souped up scanner to see into the night.
You will be swinging at a pi±ata that may or may not be there.
With all due respect, you proponets of this change are citing fundamentally flawed arguments. If you could not survive in 0.0 before, you will be able to survive even less out here after. You will not be able to see attackers until they have already scrambled you, and any attacker worth his/her salt can do it quite quickly. Secondly, believe it or not - I agree with Stavros and my newfound compatriots on this matter. Ganking will increase, with little recompense - and legitimate fleet combat operations will be ridiculous to orchestrate and enact.
Those that think you will be protected travling in 0.0 by your new found anonymity will find it quite the opposite. Your complaints of ganking will rise to newfound levels largely because when you actually see who might be there, it's probably too late for a sizeable lot of you. The advantage is shifted unproportionally towards the attacker, while the defender's only recourse is to camp choke points, stations, or often-used systems.
And for those of you thinking "scouting" will be a newfound profession. Really? And who will pay for the ships/equipment/clones you waste in a usless display against attackers that at any given moment can move around undetected? Profession? Give me a break.
And for the "realists" who think something being realistic is reason enough to put it into a sci-fi game. Do we really want to go there with Eve gents? The idealism here blinds you to the simple reality of pragamatic, enjoyable, expedient play. Feasability is a meaningful word in entertainment, something you lot should remember.
And yes, Stav, the incosistancy of the "pro" crowd is telling of the weakness of their case, while the "nay" crowd (practically regardless of individual) seems to bring up the same points that the "pro" crowd has yet to answer with anything of substance.
Try and think it through, on a scale that's bigger than you and your own little agendas, ok?
Risen's Art for ISK - Custom made images, sigs, logos, etc. tailor made to your specification! Competative pricing and absolute satisfaction assured. Eve-Mail me for details If you can name it, I can frame it! |
Adonai RisenStar
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 10:29:00 -
[242]
Edited by: Adonai RisenStar on 20/07/2004 10:30:59
1. Point one is reasonable, optimal suggestion is to limit the information the map provides. An example is this: "System Occupied: Yes"
2. This idea of removing local is a complete exercise of nearsighted, idealistic drivel. What you will essentially have is pilots unable to track players sufficiently, unable to engage in large force expediently, roaming system-to-system with nothing more than (I'm sorry) a bit of a souped up scanner to see into the night.
You will be swinging at a pi±ata that may or may not be there.
With all due respect, you proponets of this change are citing fundamentally flawed arguments. If you could not survive in 0.0 before, you will be able to survive even less out here after. You will not be able to see attackers until they have already scrambled you, and any attacker worth his/her salt can do it quite quickly. Secondly, believe it or not - I agree with Stavros and my newfound compatriots on this matter. Ganking will increase, with little recompense - and legitimate fleet combat operations will be ridiculous to orchestrate and enact.
Those that think you will be protected travling in 0.0 by your new found anonymity will find it quite the opposite. Your complaints of ganking will rise to newfound levels largely because when you actually see who might be there, it's probably too late for a sizeable lot of you. The advantage is shifted unproportionally towards the attacker, while the defender's only recourse is to camp choke points, stations, or often-used systems.
And for those of you thinking "scouting" will be a newfound profession. Really? And who will pay for the ships/equipment/clones you waste in a usless display against attackers that at any given moment can move around undetected? Profession? Give me a break.
And for the "realists" who think something being realistic is reason enough to put it into a sci-fi game. Do we really want to go there with Eve gents? The idealism here blinds you to the simple reality of pragamatic, enjoyable, expedient play. Feasability is a meaningful word in entertainment, something you lot should remember.
And yes, Stav, the incosistancy of the "pro" crowd is telling of the weakness of their case, while the "nay" crowd (practically regardless of individual) seems to bring up the same points that the "pro" crowd has yet to answer with anything of substance.
Try and think it through, on a scale that's bigger than you and your own little agendas, ok?
Risen's Art for ISK - Custom made images, sigs, logos, etc. tailor made to your specification! Competative pricing and absolute satisfaction assured. Eve-Mail me for details If you can name it, I can frame it! |
Stavros
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 10:44:00 -
[243]
Adonai you have a point with the map showing pilots here but no numbers, except thats pretty much what it does now.
The map numbers are WOEFULLY inaccurate at the best of times and as soon as you get over like 5-10 pilots in one system the PIS just dies alltogether and blatantly LIES about the true numbers.
So what is the change from now?
--
"Keep On Flaming Lamers, Like Your Ships Did When We Ended You" |
Stavros
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 10:44:00 -
[244]
Adonai you have a point with the map showing pilots here but no numbers, except thats pretty much what it does now.
The map numbers are WOEFULLY inaccurate at the best of times and as soon as you get over like 5-10 pilots in one system the PIS just dies alltogether and blatantly LIES about the true numbers.
So what is the change from now?
--
"Keep On Flaming Lamers, Like Your Ships Did When We Ended You" |
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 10:54:00 -
[245]
Hmm, anyone get the feeling removing people from local will only increase gate- and especially station-locked ganking ?
Since it is no longer possible for an alliance to secure inner systems (too many boring scouting needed), defensive measures will need to be taken in form of gatecamps at the chokepoint entrances (incl. logontraps to fool enemy scouts), and in the form of camping the popular refining stations to make refining impossible and so dissuade lone and corp mining ops.
So, more blobs, more camps and more ganks. Less small skirmishes, more boring scoutwork for everyone, stricter control over npc stations, increased camping of entrance corridors, less offensive pvp all around.
Furthermore, the increased need to have key systems to guard so you can determine who leaves and enters your alliance space will mean alliances will NOT shrink in size due tot this at all. Since most alliances have already claimed a portion of space not determined by the number of regions, but by the number of entry points.
For example, Curse is governed by two main entry points: the U-Q corridor and the Egbinger corridor. CA would be mad to abandon defense of say the Great Wildlands region because that would add a new 3 possible entry points into the rest of their space. The same goes for most alliances, their space has been chosen strategically, and making chokepoint-camping the only feasible defense will result in exactly that: more chokepoint camping.
So all in all, the chances of loners and smaller corps to make it into alliance space will get reduced rather then increased by removing pilots from local. Second to that, their chances of succesfully finding a station they can saomewhat safely use to refine dwindles, as do their chances of getting the minerals out.
The chances of alliances defending and pacifying their territory grow smaller, and more reliant on blobbing and holding the entrance points. Result is less moving skirmishes even, more stagnant fleet battle at the camping sites.
The result for the roaming pvp/pirate corp looking for a fight in enemy space is that they will need to make a bigger effort to circumvent or break the entrance camp, will need to work harder to secure a fitting station to use as temporary base for guerilla warfare and will find lesser targets of medium and small size since numbers will mean safety.
Even when alliance members and 0.0 inhabitants are the Eve players that shun risk the least, in the end one will opt for safety in numbers rather then the unknown of small number operations.
If it is more dynamical combat (roaming smaller fleets using scouts to determine enemy positions and strength in order to form a succesfull battleplan for attacks on those enemies (rather then pre-formed blobs moving into eachother from 20 jumps distance by the map)) you want, removing pilots in space should go a long way towards that.
Removing pilots from local will not add much for anyone imo.
Rod Blaine
Lobbyist for hire
_______________________________________________
Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know.
Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online
Solutions to your issues. |
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 10:54:00 -
[246]
Hmm, anyone get the feeling removing people from local will only increase gate- and especially station-locked ganking ?
Since it is no longer possible for an alliance to secure inner systems (too many boring scouting needed), defensive measures will need to be taken in form of gatecamps at the chokepoint entrances (incl. logontraps to fool enemy scouts), and in the form of camping the popular refining stations to make refining impossible and so dissuade lone and corp mining ops.
So, more blobs, more camps and more ganks. Less small skirmishes, more boring scoutwork for everyone, stricter control over npc stations, increased camping of entrance corridors, less offensive pvp all around.
Furthermore, the increased need to have key systems to guard so you can determine who leaves and enters your alliance space will mean alliances will NOT shrink in size due tot this at all. Since most alliances have already claimed a portion of space not determined by the number of regions, but by the number of entry points.
For example, Curse is governed by two main entry points: the U-Q corridor and the Egbinger corridor. CA would be mad to abandon defense of say the Great Wildlands region because that would add a new 3 possible entry points into the rest of their space. The same goes for most alliances, their space has been chosen strategically, and making chokepoint-camping the only feasible defense will result in exactly that: more chokepoint camping.
So all in all, the chances of loners and smaller corps to make it into alliance space will get reduced rather then increased by removing pilots from local. Second to that, their chances of succesfully finding a station they can saomewhat safely use to refine dwindles, as do their chances of getting the minerals out.
The chances of alliances defending and pacifying their territory grow smaller, and more reliant on blobbing and holding the entrance points. Result is less moving skirmishes even, more stagnant fleet battle at the camping sites.
The result for the roaming pvp/pirate corp looking for a fight in enemy space is that they will need to make a bigger effort to circumvent or break the entrance camp, will need to work harder to secure a fitting station to use as temporary base for guerilla warfare and will find lesser targets of medium and small size since numbers will mean safety.
Even when alliance members and 0.0 inhabitants are the Eve players that shun risk the least, in the end one will opt for safety in numbers rather then the unknown of small number operations.
If it is more dynamical combat (roaming smaller fleets using scouts to determine enemy positions and strength in order to form a succesfull battleplan for attacks on those enemies (rather then pre-formed blobs moving into eachother from 20 jumps distance by the map)) you want, removing pilots in space should go a long way towards that.
Removing pilots from local will not add much for anyone imo.
Rod Blaine
Lobbyist for hire
_______________________________________________
Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know.
Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online
Solutions to your issues. |
illuminati
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 11:05:00 -
[247]
I think it's safe to say this vote would have been a yes if local chat had been left alone. Either that or a clarification reguarding the "full system scanning".
If we get a scanner on steroids instead then cool. No way of knowing who is in system isn't just unrealistic considering they jumped in, it is also BORiNG and useless.
|
illuminati
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 11:05:00 -
[248]
I think it's safe to say this vote would have been a yes if local chat had been left alone. Either that or a clarification reguarding the "full system scanning".
If we get a scanner on steroids instead then cool. No way of knowing who is in system isn't just unrealistic considering they jumped in, it is also BORiNG and useless.
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 12:02:00 -
[249]
Quote:
You will be swinging at a pi±ata that may or may not be there.
With all due respect, you proponets of this change are citing fundamentally flawed arguments. If you could not survive in 0.0 before, you will be able to survive even less out here after. You will not be able to see attackers until they have already scrambled you, and any attacker worth his/her salt can do it quite quickly. Secondly, believe it or not - I agree with Stavros and my newfound compatriots on this matter. Ganking will increase, with little recompense - and legitimate fleet combat operations will be ridiculous to orchestrate and enact.
Those that think you will be protected travling in 0.0 by your new found anonymity will find it quite the opposite. Your complaints of ganking will rise to newfound levels largely because when you actually see who might be there, it's probably too late for a sizeable lot of you. The advantage is shifted unproportionally towards the attacker, while the defender's only recourse is to camp choke points, stations, or often-used systems.
And for those of you thinking "scouting" will be a newfound profession. Really? And who will pay for the ships/equipment/clones you waste in a usless display against attackers that at any given moment can move around undetected? Profession? Give me a break.
Agreed but lets not get hasty. My initial question has still yet to be answered, by my SSC friends or Stavros.
I personally would be in favor of this change IF (big IF) it were possible to completely reverse with Shiva owned deployable technology. This would put the ball squarely in the court of the defenders. If they prepare well and maintain security of their space they have an insane advantage. If however they get lax, allow defenders to setup sensor grids themselves and such and so forth they lose their advantage.
Here is how I envision it working:
With Shiva come deployable sensor relay stations. These sensor relay stations can be deployed for Alliances as a whole or for individual corporations. They then reports ALL Map information to whatever group they are deployed for AND ALL local information should a pilot be in the same system (clearly). In this way the defenders have a possible advantage, which if they choose not to exercize (big sic) turns into a monumental headache.
Independent of any disucssion over whether such a system is possible this entire debate devolves into insane misinformed ramblings on the part of those frustrated at their inability to persist in 0.0 space against the reasoned views of those who understand the profound, game altering, nature of these changes.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 12:02:00 -
[250]
Quote:
You will be swinging at a pi±ata that may or may not be there.
With all due respect, you proponets of this change are citing fundamentally flawed arguments. If you could not survive in 0.0 before, you will be able to survive even less out here after. You will not be able to see attackers until they have already scrambled you, and any attacker worth his/her salt can do it quite quickly. Secondly, believe it or not - I agree with Stavros and my newfound compatriots on this matter. Ganking will increase, with little recompense - and legitimate fleet combat operations will be ridiculous to orchestrate and enact.
Those that think you will be protected travling in 0.0 by your new found anonymity will find it quite the opposite. Your complaints of ganking will rise to newfound levels largely because when you actually see who might be there, it's probably too late for a sizeable lot of you. The advantage is shifted unproportionally towards the attacker, while the defender's only recourse is to camp choke points, stations, or often-used systems.
And for those of you thinking "scouting" will be a newfound profession. Really? And who will pay for the ships/equipment/clones you waste in a usless display against attackers that at any given moment can move around undetected? Profession? Give me a break.
Agreed but lets not get hasty. My initial question has still yet to be answered, by my SSC friends or Stavros.
I personally would be in favor of this change IF (big IF) it were possible to completely reverse with Shiva owned deployable technology. This would put the ball squarely in the court of the defenders. If they prepare well and maintain security of their space they have an insane advantage. If however they get lax, allow defenders to setup sensor grids themselves and such and so forth they lose their advantage.
Here is how I envision it working:
With Shiva come deployable sensor relay stations. These sensor relay stations can be deployed for Alliances as a whole or for individual corporations. They then reports ALL Map information to whatever group they are deployed for AND ALL local information should a pilot be in the same system (clearly). In this way the defenders have a possible advantage, which if they choose not to exercize (big sic) turns into a monumental headache.
Independent of any disucssion over whether such a system is possible this entire debate devolves into insane misinformed ramblings on the part of those frustrated at their inability to persist in 0.0 space against the reasoned views of those who understand the profound, game altering, nature of these changes.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 12:10:00 -
[251]
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 12:15:06
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 12:14:26
Choke point camping is fine. It is unavoidable in the current system or the old. The mecahnics are going to be there anyways regardless if we take out local or pilots in space map. Tell CCP to add more routes into any given region then. Dont base your argument on another problem in the game affecting this one. This is like kindergarten. NOT HUH. UH HUH. NOT HUH. UH HUH. YOU SMELL. NOT UH YOU SMELL THE WORSTEST! I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I.
Local wouldnt even go away, you would have a new scanner that would compensate. 80% of these posts ASSUME that they are taking away local. If 80% of you actually read the blog you would know this isnt the case.
The real argument is here is wether or not to remove the pilots in space map. And yeah LMFAO at the people who vote no. AND LMFAO at those who are here arguing about local.
Carebear dumbed down PvP is what you are arguiing. Why dont we automatically tell each other what skills and what modules we have fitted in map.
Pathetic.
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 12:10:00 -
[252]
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 12:15:06
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 12:14:26
Choke point camping is fine. It is unavoidable in the current system or the old. The mecahnics are going to be there anyways regardless if we take out local or pilots in space map. Tell CCP to add more routes into any given region then. Dont base your argument on another problem in the game affecting this one. This is like kindergarten. NOT HUH. UH HUH. NOT HUH. UH HUH. YOU SMELL. NOT UH YOU SMELL THE WORSTEST! I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I.
Local wouldnt even go away, you would have a new scanner that would compensate. 80% of these posts ASSUME that they are taking away local. If 80% of you actually read the blog you would know this isnt the case.
The real argument is here is wether or not to remove the pilots in space map. And yeah LMFAO at the people who vote no. AND LMFAO at those who are here arguing about local.
Carebear dumbed down PvP is what you are arguiing. Why dont we automatically tell each other what skills and what modules we have fitted in map.
Pathetic.
|
Adonai RisenStar
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 12:50:00 -
[253]
Edited by: Adonai RisenStar on 20/07/2004 12:55:44
Edited by: Adonai RisenStar on 20/07/2004 12:54:41
Sorry, at what point did we enter into reactionary tantrum throwing? Argue the merits of the case instead of spewing line after line of the same misinformed and questionable rhetoric, or go away.
You have yet to establish how seeing people in local constitutes as "dumbing-down" our "carebear" PVP. You have provided nothing to substantiate your ranting and personal attacking of persons who do not see your point of view. What you have done, however, is reveal a substancless bias that I can only assume (as Baun eloquently stated) is founded in your frustration of not being untouchable. Fact is, people shouldn't be made to spend even more time trying to find a group to fight with. You honestly want to require everyone to log on alts to scout ahead, so that MAYBE you can see someone? You want to require gate camping, station camping, and choke point camping as the only means of effective, FEASABLE spatial-security? And do not for a moment say "well that's how it is now" because that will only reveal that you don't know what you are talking about. I'm in an alliance that effectively maintains our borders without incessant camping of gates, choke points or stations. When the need arises, that can be employed but asking folks to sit at gates 6 hours a day is a complete abandonment of feasability.
Stavros has a point - take away local, give us a scanner that does the same thing, what does that change? Nada. Spend CCP's time a little more constructively ok? It's not like there aren't other issues that should be more important.
Ever chased someone from system to system? It's exhilarating, frustrating, and if you catch them, gratifying. If I can't see local - can't establish what system they went to, can't tell if they doubled back or turned aside to another route why in the world would I bother going all those jumps, just to swing at something that isn't there? You say that we want "carebearish dumbed down pvp" but by definition this limits PVP even further.
How about gangs - How're they gonna work now? "Hey, I'm here gang me!" so you can be seen in local won't give you away? What a ridiculously wasteful proposal. The game takes up a great deal of time as it is, don't increase that according to some dimly informed, nearsighted suggestions that are made NOT for the good of the game as a whole but so people can get it their way. Change the game because they are incapable of dealing with the system at hand = bad form.
What's wrong with using local anyway? How does that "dumb-down" I spot a baddie, I hunt him down. If I'm good enough and fast enough he's gonna get caught. If I have friends around, we setup some kinda system to corral him in hopes of killing him or at least forcing him to log off. People honestly want to relenquish that so we can go back to sitting at gates and stations twiddling our thumbs? Do you actually know what you're asking for?
Please, answer me that Sinist. If you cannot debate the matter on it's merits then perhaps you should step away and let the more apt argue for you? As it is, you are only strengthening my case by not proving yours.
Risen's Art for ISK - Custom made images, sigs, logos, etc. tailor made to your specification! Competative pricing and absolute satisfaction assured. Eve-Mail me for details If you can name it, I can frame it! |
Adonai RisenStar
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 12:50:00 -
[254]
Edited by: Adonai RisenStar on 20/07/2004 12:55:44
Edited by: Adonai RisenStar on 20/07/2004 12:54:41
Sorry, at what point did we enter into reactionary tantrum throwing? Argue the merits of the case instead of spewing line after line of the same misinformed and questionable rhetoric, or go away.
You have yet to establish how seeing people in local constitutes as "dumbing-down" our "carebear" PVP. You have provided nothing to substantiate your ranting and personal attacking of persons who do not see your point of view. What you have done, however, is reveal a substancless bias that I can only assume (as Baun eloquently stated) is founded in your frustration of not being untouchable. Fact is, people shouldn't be made to spend even more time trying to find a group to fight with. You honestly want to require everyone to log on alts to scout ahead, so that MAYBE you can see someone? You want to require gate camping, station camping, and choke point camping as the only means of effective, FEASABLE spatial-security? And do not for a moment say "well that's how it is now" because that will only reveal that you don't know what you are talking about. I'm in an alliance that effectively maintains our borders without incessant camping of gates, choke points or stations. When the need arises, that can be employed but asking folks to sit at gates 6 hours a day is a complete abandonment of feasability.
Stavros has a point - take away local, give us a scanner that does the same thing, what does that change? Nada. Spend CCP's time a little more constructively ok? It's not like there aren't other issues that should be more important.
Ever chased someone from system to system? It's exhilarating, frustrating, and if you catch them, gratifying. If I can't see local - can't establish what system they went to, can't tell if they doubled back or turned aside to another route why in the world would I bother going all those jumps, just to swing at something that isn't there? You say that we want "carebearish dumbed down pvp" but by definition this limits PVP even further.
How about gangs - How're they gonna work now? "Hey, I'm here gang me!" so you can be seen in local won't give you away? What a ridiculously wasteful proposal. The game takes up a great deal of time as it is, don't increase that according to some dimly informed, nearsighted suggestions that are made NOT for the good of the game as a whole but so people can get it their way. Change the game because they are incapable of dealing with the system at hand = bad form.
What's wrong with using local anyway? How does that "dumb-down" I spot a baddie, I hunt him down. If I'm good enough and fast enough he's gonna get caught. If I have friends around, we setup some kinda system to corral him in hopes of killing him or at least forcing him to log off. People honestly want to relenquish that so we can go back to sitting at gates and stations twiddling our thumbs? Do you actually know what you're asking for?
Please, answer me that Sinist. If you cannot debate the matter on it's merits then perhaps you should step away and let the more apt argue for you? As it is, you are only strengthening my case by not proving yours.
Risen's Art for ISK - Custom made images, sigs, logos, etc. tailor made to your specification! Competative pricing and absolute satisfaction assured. Eve-Mail me for details If you can name it, I can frame it! |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 12:55:00 -
[255]
/me gives Adonai a handshake for resisting the temptation to flame Sinist back to the Stone ages
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 12:55:00 -
[256]
/me gives Adonai a handshake for resisting the temptation to flame Sinist back to the Stone ages
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
DJTheBaron
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 13:00:00 -
[257]
\o/ kill map and local 0.0 information and allow scouts to sell recon
__________________________________________________
Scum, your all scum. |
DJTheBaron
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 13:00:00 -
[258]
\o/ kill map and local 0.0 information and allow scouts to sell recon
__________________________________________________
Scum, your all scum. |
Stevie Wonder
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 13:04:00 -
[259]
Guess some other 'well known PVP' players are starting to see this could revitalise EVE eh Stavros ?
When your corp mates (one is infinitely better at EVE than you) start to look forward to it it kinda ruins your greedy miner anology.
I ain't getting on no plane fool ....ooops wait, wrong guy |
Stevie Wonder
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 13:04:00 -
[260]
Guess some other 'well known PVP' players are starting to see this could revitalise EVE eh Stavros ?
When your corp mates (one is infinitely better at EVE than you) start to look forward to it it kinda ruins your greedy miner anology.
I ain't getting on no plane fool ....ooops wait, wrong guy |
Jim Bond
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 13:21:00 -
[261]
Edited by: Jim Bond on 20/07/2004 13:30:48
Edited by: Jim Bond on 20/07/2004 13:24:59
I would agree however, that whilst being cloaked from either the module or jumping into a system, You SHOULDN'T be visible in the local channel or on the map.
For those who want local removing, how much does "The Love Machine" or other silly ship names seen on scanner tell you if it is an enemy, neutrel or an ally?
|
Jim Bond
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 13:21:00 -
[262]
Edited by: Jim Bond on 20/07/2004 13:30:48
Edited by: Jim Bond on 20/07/2004 13:24:59
I would agree however, that whilst being cloaked from either the module or jumping into a system, You SHOULDN'T be visible in the local channel or on the map.
For those who want local removing, how much does "The Love Machine" or other silly ship names seen on scanner tell you if it is an enemy, neutrel or an ally?
|
Stavros
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 13:23:00 -
[263]
Edited by: Stavros on 20/07/2004 13:39:38
Originally by: Stevie Wonder
Guess some other 'well known PVP' players are starting to see this could revitalise EVE eh Stavros ?
When your corp mates (one is infinitely better at EVE than you) start to look forward to it it kinda ruins your greedy miner anology.
Ohh a personal attack and a bait in one post and from a nameless, corpless alt. I'm so honourerd.
There are people in m0o far better at various aspects of eve than me but it is the skills of the corp combined that is makes us so good. Also we are not against free speech and free ideals, if someone in m0o holds a different opinion thats fine by me, it would just be petty to think otherwise.
However the fact remains that the majority of well known and skilled pvpers, dislike these changes count em up if you like.
Anyway we have some GREEDY miners in m0o, prolly infact some of the greediest (yes flatliner im lookin at you :) )
Whilst we are on the subject of players in m0o, I can safely say that everyone in m0o is a darn site better at eve that you, so please run along and play elsewhere mr mctroll. When you are anywhere near as famous (infamous) my corpmates or I in the game then I just may value your opininion, until then your just an alt running his mouth and making personal attacks against me.
Just to fill me in which of my corp mates are looking forward to it? I tried reading this thread to find it but I couldn't but I am currently abusing my lunch hour so I ain't really got time. Pls post with names thx ^_^
This post was brought to you by the letters E G and O
Stavros
--
"Keep On Flaming Lamers, Like Your Ships Did When We Ended You" |
Stavros
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 13:23:00 -
[264]
Edited by: Stavros on 20/07/2004 13:39:38
Originally by: Stevie Wonder
Guess some other 'well known PVP' players are starting to see this could revitalise EVE eh Stavros ?
When your corp mates (one is infinitely better at EVE than you) start to look forward to it it kinda ruins your greedy miner anology.
Ohh a personal attack and a bait in one post and from a nameless, corpless alt. I'm so honourerd.
There are people in m0o far better at various aspects of eve than me but it is the skills of the corp combined that is makes us so good. Also we are not against free speech and free ideals, if someone in m0o holds a different opinion thats fine by me, it would just be petty to think otherwise.
However the fact remains that the majority of well known and skilled pvpers, dislike these changes count em up if you like.
Anyway we have some GREEDY miners in m0o, prolly infact some of the greediest (yes flatliner im lookin at you :) )
Whilst we are on the subject of players in m0o, I can safely say that everyone in m0o is a darn site better at eve that you, so please run along and play elsewhere mr mctroll. When you are anywhere near as famous (infamous) my corpmates or I in the game then I just may value your opininion, until then your just an alt running his mouth and making personal attacks against me.
Just to fill me in which of my corp mates are looking forward to it? I tried reading this thread to find it but I couldn't but I am currently abusing my lunch hour so I ain't really got time. Pls post with names thx ^_^
This post was brought to you by the letters E G and O
Stavros
--
"Keep On Flaming Lamers, Like Your Ships Did When We Ended You" |
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 13:50:00 -
[265]
What is to argue about? Why do I have to teach you guys something called logic and knowledge. Not my job. If you dont like the idea. Fine you dont like it. Im not gonna hold your hand and wipe your butt whenever you do kaka.
I am for removing the pilots in space on the map. I am for making scanner the new local. I am all for taking out local at that point. Enough said. You made your opinion I made mine.
This thread was to inform us of the vote on the Eve Insider. It wasnt a call to debate.
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 13:50:00 -
[266]
What is to argue about? Why do I have to teach you guys something called logic and knowledge. Not my job. If you dont like the idea. Fine you dont like it. Im not gonna hold your hand and wipe your butt whenever you do kaka.
I am for removing the pilots in space on the map. I am for making scanner the new local. I am all for taking out local at that point. Enough said. You made your opinion I made mine.
This thread was to inform us of the vote on the Eve Insider. It wasnt a call to debate.
|
Garion Maki
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 13:53:00 -
[267]
\o/
currently recruiting euro players. |
Garion Maki
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 13:53:00 -
[268]
\o/
currently recruiting euro players. |
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 14:00:00 -
[269]
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 14:04:58
Stavros as far as I can see your just trying to preserve your pirate ways and to make life as easy as possible. Your not better then the next and your not the ideal of a PVPer in Eve. Get over yourself.
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 14:00:00 -
[270]
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 14:04:58
Stavros as far as I can see your just trying to preserve your pirate ways and to make life as easy as possible. Your not better then the next and your not the ideal of a PVPer in Eve. Get over yourself.
|
Stavros
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 14:07:00 -
[271]
Pls stop getting personal Sinist, if you can't handle a nice mature debate dont enter into it. Your attitude like this already lost you membership in one of the best corps in the game, don't let it get you kicked off the forums as well ^_^
--
"Keep On Flaming Lamers, Like Your Ships Did When We Ended You" |
Stavros
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 14:07:00 -
[272]
Pls stop getting personal Sinist, if you can't handle a nice mature debate dont enter into it. Your attitude like this already lost you membership in one of the best corps in the game, don't let it get you kicked off the forums as well ^_^
--
"Keep On Flaming Lamers, Like Your Ships Did When We Ended You" |
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 14:12:00 -
[273]
Quote:
Stavros has a point - take away local, give us a scanner that does the same thing, what does that change? Nada. Spend CCP's time a little more constructively ok? It's not like there aren't other issues that should be more important.
Yes, which is why I like my idea. Remove everything once there are Shiva modules available to compensate for it all. This is different than simply placing default scanners on every client that can compensate as it requires the establishment and maintenance of infastructure.
In any case, if you are arguing for local to be removed and a scanner to be introduced which does the same thing you are, of course, being circular and don't deserve to be listened to. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
As such, starting from the assumption that the base question has to be one of three things:
1. Take away local and corresponding functions from appearing by default.
2. Take away map functionality from appearing by default
or
3. Some combination thereof
We can determine a priore that Sinist is rambling in an insecure self-inconsistent manner.
Quote:
Local wouldnt even go away, you would have a new scanner that would compensate. 80% of these posts ASSUME that they are taking away local. If 80% of you actually read the blog you would know this isnt the case.
Circular. You state that it cannot be a question because the functionality is guaranteed anyway. This, however, is clearly not the case as you admitted by adhering to a figure of 80%. If you wish to ASSUME that Local will not be removed (which is a natural progression of the stated changes) feel free, but don't be so self righteous as to assume such a discussion lacks base.
Quote:
The real argument is here is wether or not to remove the pilots in space map. And yeah LMFAO at the people who vote no. AND LMFAO at those who are here arguing about local.
No, that is one of 3 possible arguments. As described, it is an argument you yourself have entered into. As such you are laughing at yourself.
Quote:
Carebear dumbed down PvP is what you are arguiing. Why dont we automatically tell each other what skills and what modules we have fitted in map.
We are talking about broad based impact of the stated changes on large scale PVP. We aren't, however, arguing about said PVP. Rather we are arguing about the difference between the PVP we have NOW and the PVP that might result should one of the lines of argument be brought to fruition. Don't confuse cause and effect.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 14:12:00 -
[274]
Quote:
Stavros has a point - take away local, give us a scanner that does the same thing, what does that change? Nada. Spend CCP's time a little more constructively ok? It's not like there aren't other issues that should be more important.
Yes, which is why I like my idea. Remove everything once there are Shiva modules available to compensate for it all. This is different than simply placing default scanners on every client that can compensate as it requires the establishment and maintenance of infastructure.
In any case, if you are arguing for local to be removed and a scanner to be introduced which does the same thing you are, of course, being circular and don't deserve to be listened to. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
As such, starting from the assumption that the base question has to be one of three things:
1. Take away local and corresponding functions from appearing by default.
2. Take away map functionality from appearing by default
or
3. Some combination thereof
We can determine a priore that Sinist is rambling in an insecure self-inconsistent manner.
Quote:
Local wouldnt even go away, you would have a new scanner that would compensate. 80% of these posts ASSUME that they are taking away local. If 80% of you actually read the blog you would know this isnt the case.
Circular. You state that it cannot be a question because the functionality is guaranteed anyway. This, however, is clearly not the case as you admitted by adhering to a figure of 80%. If you wish to ASSUME that Local will not be removed (which is a natural progression of the stated changes) feel free, but don't be so self righteous as to assume such a discussion lacks base.
Quote:
The real argument is here is wether or not to remove the pilots in space map. And yeah LMFAO at the people who vote no. AND LMFAO at those who are here arguing about local.
No, that is one of 3 possible arguments. As described, it is an argument you yourself have entered into. As such you are laughing at yourself.
Quote:
Carebear dumbed down PvP is what you are arguiing. Why dont we automatically tell each other what skills and what modules we have fitted in map.
We are talking about broad based impact of the stated changes on large scale PVP. We aren't, however, arguing about said PVP. Rather we are arguing about the difference between the PVP we have NOW and the PVP that might result should one of the lines of argument be brought to fruition. Don't confuse cause and effect.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 14:22:00 -
[275]
blah blah blah heh i might be rambling tho
Stavros man I have no hard feelings for not being in Evolution. They think they are gods gift to Eve. Same deal as here. Some guy I didnt even know starts bossing me around. Starts talking about nonsense. And I laugh at his face. I think he got offended at my abrasiveness and rebellious behavior that he cried to Shrike and Molle. Or maybe the other members observed that I took no crap and was not what Evolution was. I cant say what Evolution is on this forum without getting in trouble but you get the idea.
Besides the corp is 80% GM. 90% of Eve's Alt population. And about 40 different corporations. Extremely pompous. Not brilliant more like arrogant and dedicate ALOT of time and energy into the game.
Yeah I played with most of them since beta. Cant say I like them much anymore though. WOuld I of stayed? Probably. They didnt want me in the corp. All is well im all the better without them.
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 14:22:00 -
[276]
blah blah blah heh i might be rambling tho
Stavros man I have no hard feelings for not being in Evolution. They think they are gods gift to Eve. Same deal as here. Some guy I didnt even know starts bossing me around. Starts talking about nonsense. And I laugh at his face. I think he got offended at my abrasiveness and rebellious behavior that he cried to Shrike and Molle. Or maybe the other members observed that I took no crap and was not what Evolution was. I cant say what Evolution is on this forum without getting in trouble but you get the idea.
Besides the corp is 80% GM. 90% of Eve's Alt population. And about 40 different corporations. Extremely pompous. Not brilliant more like arrogant and dedicate ALOT of time and energy into the game.
Yeah I played with most of them since beta. Cant say I like them much anymore though. WOuld I of stayed? Probably. They didnt want me in the corp. All is well im all the better without them.
|
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 14:38:00 -
[277]
Well Sinist, let's end the discussion as you propose.
I just want to add I'm in favour of removing the map feature of pilots in space. But removing pilots from local adds nothing, wether the scanner gets some lub or not.
If it does, we'll just spend our time doing alot more then we do now to end up at the same point, with exeption of the people that undock into a gank, which get the shaft anytime anyway. If it doesn't, well that opens up another can of worms imo, like I described earlier.
But if we take the blog literally, the last change changes little and accomplishes even less. So let's stick with just changing the map...
_______________________________________________
Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know.
Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online
Solutions to your issues. |
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 14:38:00 -
[278]
Well Sinist, let's end the discussion as you propose.
I just want to add I'm in favour of removing the map feature of pilots in space. But removing pilots from local adds nothing, wether the scanner gets some lub or not.
If it does, we'll just spend our time doing alot more then we do now to end up at the same point, with exeption of the people that undock into a gank, which get the shaft anytime anyway. If it doesn't, well that opens up another can of worms imo, like I described earlier.
But if we take the blog literally, the last change changes little and accomplishes even less. So let's stick with just changing the map...
_______________________________________________
Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know.
Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online
Solutions to your issues. |
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 14:47:00 -
[279]
But alternating the local basically into the scanner is the same exact thing as we have now. Except for the fact that maybe you will need to scan every few seconds to see who is in local. *shrug* it sounds cool to me. When i open up the map and check pilots in space I think to myself " This isnt exactly fair" or " This makes things alot easier". Especially when im travelling around. I want to see it go just because I think the game will be funner without it. You wont know whats going on in a part of space unless there was a battle. I like that. I want to epxlore. I want to scout. iw ant to gather intelligence. I want an intelligence network to form. Etc Etc. I just think its dumbed down PvP. Or dumbed down travel. But everyone has their different view.
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 14:47:00 -
[280]
But alternating the local basically into the scanner is the same exact thing as we have now. Except for the fact that maybe you will need to scan every few seconds to see who is in local. *shrug* it sounds cool to me. When i open up the map and check pilots in space I think to myself " This isnt exactly fair" or " This makes things alot easier". Especially when im travelling around. I want to see it go just because I think the game will be funner without it. You wont know whats going on in a part of space unless there was a battle. I like that. I want to epxlore. I want to scout. iw ant to gather intelligence. I want an intelligence network to form. Etc Etc. I just think its dumbed down PvP. Or dumbed down travel. But everyone has their different view.
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 14:51:00 -
[281]
Sinist, please put down the smackpipe and step away from the keyboard.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 14:51:00 -
[282]
Sinist, please put down the smackpipe and step away from the keyboard.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Levi
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 14:51:00 -
[283]
after much thought, i think i'll vote \o/ 'yes'
i'm at the point that this decision has went back to the basics, i'm for some change and anything that will add some more excitement to eve. and this should do it!
let chaos rule!
|
Levi
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 14:51:00 -
[284]
after much thought, i think i'll vote \o/ 'yes'
i'm at the point that this decision has went back to the basics, i'm for some change and anything that will add some more excitement to eve. and this should do it!
let chaos rule!
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 14:58:00 -
[285]
I dont appreciate that comment. Drugs are a mjor problem in the world. Id ont do drugs. Thats kind of offensive. You also broke the EULA in that you will not condone breaking any federal or state laws.
I hope you get a much needed vacation from the boards
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 14:58:00 -
[286]
Originally by: Joshua Calvert
Sinist, please put down the smackpipe and step away from the keyboard.
Just in case he edits.
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 14:58:00 -
[287]
I dont appreciate that comment. Drugs are a mjor problem in the world. Id ont do drugs. Thats kind of offensive. You also broke the EULA in that you will not condone breaking any federal or state laws.
I hope you get a much needed vacation from the boards
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 14:58:00 -
[288]
Originally by: Joshua Calvert
Sinist, please put down the smackpipe and step away from the keyboard.
Just in case he edits.
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 15:00:00 -
[289]
Originally by: Sinist
I dont appreciate that comment. Drugs are a mjor problem in the world. Id ont do drugs. Thats kind of offensive. You also broke the EULA in that you will not condone breaking any federal or state laws.
I hope you get a much needed vacation from the boards
Wow, given that reply I am going to have to second Josh's eloquent, though somewhat blunt, barb.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 15:00:00 -
[290]
Originally by: Sinist
I dont appreciate that comment. Drugs are a mjor problem in the world. Id ont do drugs. Thats kind of offensive. You also broke the EULA in that you will not condone breaking any federal or state laws.
I hope you get a much needed vacation from the boards
Wow, given that reply I am going to have to second Josh's eloquent, though somewhat blunt, barb.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 15:01:00 -
[291]
The play on words obviously escaped you
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 15:01:00 -
[292]
The play on words obviously escaped you
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 15:08:00 -
[293]
IM not smacktalking anyone.
Smack is actually slang for ***** *******. Which people smoke out of a pipe to get high.
Try and save face all you want.
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 15:08:00 -
[294]
IM not smacktalking anyone.
Smack is actually slang for ***** *******. Which people smoke out of a pipe to get high.
Try and save face all you want.
|
Maiwenn LeBesc0
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 15:16:00 -
[295]
holy crap give me some of what you've been smoking, sinist.
Evolution made me TOO LAZY to change my sig. |
Maiwenn LeBesc0
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 15:16:00 -
[296]
holy crap give me some of what you've been smoking, sinist.
Evolution made me TOO LAZY to change my sig. |
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 15:18:00 -
[297]
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 15:23:08
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 15:22:36
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 15:21:55
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 15:21:17
Tobacco :P and thats fine.
Unless you have something else in mind? If so BAN
You also said holy crap. EULA states that you will not discuss religions. Expressing you worship crap is a breach of EULA. Implying that crap is holy is also bad.
You are inciting religious debate. And I dont appreciate crap worshippers it is against my morals and religion.
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 15:18:00 -
[298]
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 15:23:08
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 15:22:36
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 15:21:55
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 15:21:17
Tobacco :P and thats fine.
Unless you have something else in mind? If so BAN
You also said holy crap. EULA states that you will not discuss religions. Expressing you worship crap is a breach of EULA. Implying that crap is holy is also bad.
You are inciting religious debate. And I dont appreciate crap worshippers it is against my morals and religion.
|
Dukath
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 15:22:00 -
[299]
So how does smackTALKING work then? Take a deep breath with smack and then simply talk a bit or something?
Anyway, on topic, Removing local is a good thing. yes it will affect the game, for lazy, stupid people the game will get harder, for people who are looking for a challenge, who have fun in going into danger the game will become much more appealing.
From all those who i see post against it it is always the worst possible scenario that 'will' happen, but i'd rather look at what could come out of it. How it could benefit the game with some help from ccp. This change is needed for EVE. Of course this change alone will not work but that does not mean this change should not be implemented. Shiva without removing local will not be as good as Shiva with local removed.
|
Dukath
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 15:22:00 -
[300]
So how does smackTALKING work then? Take a deep breath with smack and then simply talk a bit or something?
Anyway, on topic, Removing local is a good thing. yes it will affect the game, for lazy, stupid people the game will get harder, for people who are looking for a challenge, who have fun in going into danger the game will become much more appealing.
From all those who i see post against it it is always the worst possible scenario that 'will' happen, but i'd rather look at what could come out of it. How it could benefit the game with some help from ccp. This change is needed for EVE. Of course this change alone will not work but that does not mean this change should not be implemented. Shiva without removing local will not be as good as Shiva with local removed.
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 15:31:00 -
[301]
smack2 Audio pronunciation of "smack" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (smk)
n.
1.
1. A distinctive flavor or taste.
2. A suggestion or trace.
2. A small amount; a smattering.
smack4 Audio pronunciation of "smack" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (smk)
n. Slang
******.
smack
\Smack\, adv. As if with a smack or slap. [Colloq.]
mack
\Smack\, v. i. [imp. & p. p. Smacked; p. pr. & vb. n. Smacking.] [OE. smaken to taste, have a taste, -- from the noun; cf. AS. smecan taste; akin to D. smaken, G. schmecken, OHG. smechen to taste, smach?n to have a taste (and, derived from the same source, G. schmatzen to smack the lips, to kiss with a sharp noise, MHG. smatzen, smackzeen), Icel smakka to taste, Sw. smaka, Dan. smage. See 2d Smack, n.] 1. To have a smack; to be tinctured with any particular taste.
2. To have or exhibit indications of the presence of any character or quality.
All sects, all ages, smack of this vice. --Shak.
3. To kiss with a close compression of the lips, so as to make a sound when they separate; to kiss with a sharp noise; to buss.
4. To make a noise by the separation of the lips after tasting anything.
smack
\Smack\, n. [OE. smak, AS. ssm?c taste, savor; akin to D. smaak, G. geschmack, OHG. smac; cf. Lith. smagus pleasant. Cf. Smack, v. i.] 1. Taste or flavor, esp. a slight taste or flavor; savor; tincture; as, a smack of bitter in the medicine. Also used figuratively.
So quickly they have taken a smack in covetousness. --Robynson (More's Utopia).
They felt the smack of this world. --Latimer.
2. A small quantity; a taste. --Dryden.
3. A loud kiss; a buss. ``A clamorous smack.'' --Shak.
4. A quick, sharp noise, as of the lips when suddenly separated, or of a whip.
5. A quick, smart blow; a slap. --Johnson.
smack
\Smack\, v. t. 1. To kiss with a sharp noise; to buss.
2. To open, as the lips, with an inarticulate sound made by a quick compression and separation of the parts of the mouth; to make a noise with, as the lips, by separating them in the act of kissing or after tasting.
Drinking off the cup, and smacking his lips with an air of ineffable relish. --Sir W. Scott.
3. To make a sharp noise by striking; to *****; as, to smack a whip. ``She smacks the silken thong.'' --Young.
smack
n 1: a blow from a flat object (as an open hand) [syn: slap] 2: the taste experience when a savoury condiment is taken into the mouth [syn: relish, flavor, flavour, sapidity, savor, savour, tang] 3: a sailing ship (usually rigged like a sloop or cutter) used in fishing and sailing along the coast 4: a morphine derivative [syn: ******, diacetyl morphine, {H}, horse, junk, scag, ****] 5: an enthusiastic kiss [syn: smooch] 6: the act of smacking something [syn: smacking, slap] adv : (informal) directly; "he ran bang into the pole"; "ran slap into her" [syn: bang, slap, slapdash, bolt] v 1: deliver a hard blow to; "The teacher smacked the student who had misbehaved" [syn: thwack] 2: have an element suggestive (of something); "his speeches smacked of racism" [syn: reek] 3: have a distinctive or characteristic taste; "This tastes of nutmeg" [syn: taste] 4: kiss lightly [syn: peck] 5: deliver a smack to; "The teacher smacked the naughty student" 6: eat noisily by smacking one's lipsnull
So smacktalking is merelely having an element of suggestiveness. Positive or negative. Nothing to do with the slang word of it ******. It cant be used in that context. Not in the English language anyways.
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 15:31:00 -
[302]
smack2 Audio pronunciation of "smack" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (smk)
n.
1.
1. A distinctive flavor or taste.
2. A suggestion or trace.
2. A small amount; a smattering.
smack4 Audio pronunciation of "smack" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (smk)
n. Slang
******.
smack
\Smack\, adv. As if with a smack or slap. [Colloq.]
mack
\Smack\, v. i. [imp. & p. p. Smacked; p. pr. & vb. n. Smacking.] [OE. smaken to taste, have a taste, -- from the noun; cf. AS. smecan taste; akin to D. smaken, G. schmecken, OHG. smechen to taste, smach?n to have a taste (and, derived from the same source, G. schmatzen to smack the lips, to kiss with a sharp noise, MHG. smatzen, smackzeen), Icel smakka to taste, Sw. smaka, Dan. smage. See 2d Smack, n.] 1. To have a smack; to be tinctured with any particular taste.
2. To have or exhibit indications of the presence of any character or quality.
All sects, all ages, smack of this vice. --Shak.
3. To kiss with a close compression of the lips, so as to make a sound when they separate; to kiss with a sharp noise; to buss.
4. To make a noise by the separation of the lips after tasting anything.
smack
\Smack\, n. [OE. smak, AS. ssm?c taste, savor; akin to D. smaak, G. geschmack, OHG. smac; cf. Lith. smagus pleasant. Cf. Smack, v. i.] 1. Taste or flavor, esp. a slight taste or flavor; savor; tincture; as, a smack of bitter in the medicine. Also used figuratively.
So quickly they have taken a smack in covetousness. --Robynson (More's Utopia).
They felt the smack of this world. --Latimer.
2. A small quantity; a taste. --Dryden.
3. A loud kiss; a buss. ``A clamorous smack.'' --Shak.
4. A quick, sharp noise, as of the lips when suddenly separated, or of a whip.
5. A quick, smart blow; a slap. --Johnson.
smack
\Smack\, v. t. 1. To kiss with a sharp noise; to buss.
2. To open, as the lips, with an inarticulate sound made by a quick compression and separation of the parts of the mouth; to make a noise with, as the lips, by separating them in the act of kissing or after tasting.
Drinking off the cup, and smacking his lips with an air of ineffable relish. --Sir W. Scott.
3. To make a sharp noise by striking; to *****; as, to smack a whip. ``She smacks the silken thong.'' --Young.
smack
n 1: a blow from a flat object (as an open hand) [syn: slap] 2: the taste experience when a savoury condiment is taken into the mouth [syn: relish, flavor, flavour, sapidity, savor, savour, tang] 3: a sailing ship (usually rigged like a sloop or cutter) used in fishing and sailing along the coast 4: a morphine derivative [syn: ******, diacetyl morphine, {H}, horse, junk, scag, ****] 5: an enthusiastic kiss [syn: smooch] 6: the act of smacking something [syn: smacking, slap] adv : (informal) directly; "he ran bang into the pole"; "ran slap into her" [syn: bang, slap, slapdash, bolt] v 1: deliver a hard blow to; "The teacher smacked the student who had misbehaved" [syn: thwack] 2: have an element suggestive (of something); "his speeches smacked of racism" [syn: reek] 3: have a distinctive or characteristic taste; "This tastes of nutmeg" [syn: taste] 4: kiss lightly [syn: peck] 5: deliver a smack to; "The teacher smacked the naughty student" 6: eat noisily by smacking one's lipsnull
So smacktalking is merelely having an element of suggestiveness. Positive or negative. Nothing to do with the slang word of it ******. It cant be used in that context. Not in the English language anyways.
|
illuminati
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 15:41:00 -
[303]
Uhm, Sinist, you are posting half the posts in this topic. Honestly dude, for anyone not to have understood your point of view would require a true miracle from all the Amarr gods combined. Stavros has a good point in most PvP players voting NAY, just like I did, simply because the INFO about the vote was too vague and the vote itself lacked details and/or resolution. I want 2/3 of those changes but still voted no.
Could you please stop posting now, you haven't given us anything but your own opinion like 500 times. I can be pretty vocal too but I shut up every now and then too.
|
illuminati
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 15:41:00 -
[304]
Uhm, Sinist, you are posting half the posts in this topic. Honestly dude, for anyone not to have understood your point of view would require a true miracle from all the Amarr gods combined. Stavros has a good point in most PvP players voting NAY, just like I did, simply because the INFO about the vote was too vague and the vote itself lacked details and/or resolution. I want 2/3 of those changes but still voted no.
Could you please stop posting now, you haven't given us anything but your own opinion like 500 times. I can be pretty vocal too but I shut up every now and then too.
|
Porter Hadlend
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 15:59:00 -
[305]
Yes. Please go away if you won't answer anyone's questions.. but demand answers to your own.
It's getting tired, and really just making me hate humanity more.
--------------
credendo vides - believing is seeing
-=Proud member of the Fountain Alliance=-
Hell Hath No Fury Like A Shattered Star! |
Porter Hadlend
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 15:59:00 -
[306]
Yes. Please go away if you won't answer anyone's questions.. but demand answers to your own.
It's getting tired, and really just making me hate humanity more.
--------------
credendo vides - believing is seeing
-=Proud member of the Fountain Alliance=-
Hell Hath No Fury Like A Shattered Star! |
Estios
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 16:02:00 -
[307]
map and avoid it like the plague.
Its hardly an exciting immersive game of PVP space combat when you pretty much pick and choose when, who and where to fight. I personally think it might push corps back to the purest form of fighting which is small scale (10vs10) battles. A 10 man squad could move round logistically better than a 30 ship fleet and is quicker to assemble. They would have a couple of scouts and if the squad is skilled it should be able to avoid ganks and if it does get wiped out by a 30 strong fleet then fair play. I dont think 30, 40 or 50 pilot gangs would be keen to camp a single gate/system on the off chance of a fight against some noobs who never sent in frig first (although I see this often enough to make me wonder sometimes) but smaller groups might start roaming around because they know they arent a detectable as they are now ........its a naive dream but I remember the good ol'days when a 10vs10 was the norm.
The only major downside I see is that there will be far too many frigates flying about. This is partly to do with the fact they are being loved so hard by CCP anyways and now this is another major reason to ***** them.
I think these changes could really work if done right and done at the same time as addressing the scanner/ insta jumps and ultra safe spots.
Yes there will be more alt scouts but at least this makes the scouters actually have to do 'something'. Regardless of how little effort it is to use scouts its infinitely more effort than pressing F10. And hey, more 2nd accounts of alts equals more money for CCP so its gonna happen anyway.
Sorry for the novel but I too dont like YAY or NAY with no valid reasoning. Go ahead shoot my post down, its the only PVP I get at work.
So HMV consider Andy Williams and Dean Martin to be "easy listening" do they? Tell that to my mate Dave, he's been deaf for 20 years.
|
Estios
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 16:02:00 -
[308]
map and avoid it like the plague.
Its hardly an exciting immersive game of PVP space combat when you pretty much pick and choose when, who and where to fight. I personally think it might push corps back to the purest form of fighting which is small scale (10vs10) battles. A 10 man squad could move round logistically better than a 30 ship fleet and is quicker to assemble. They would have a couple of scouts and if the squad is skilled it should be able to avoid ganks and if it does get wiped out by a 30 strong fleet then fair play. I dont think 30, 40 or 50 pilot gangs would be keen to camp a single gate/system on the off chance of a fight against some noobs who never sent in frig first (although I see this often enough to make me wonder sometimes) but smaller groups might start roaming around because they know they arent a detectable as they are now ........its a naive dream but I remember the good ol'days when a 10vs10 was the norm.
The only major downside I see is that there will be far too many frigates flying about. This is partly to do with the fact they are being loved so hard by CCP anyways and now this is another major reason to ***** them.
I think these changes could really work if done right and done at the same time as addressing the scanner/ insta jumps and ultra safe spots.
Yes there will be more alt scouts but at least this makes the scouters actually have to do 'something'. Regardless of how little effort it is to use scouts its infinitely more effort than pressing F10. And hey, more 2nd accounts of alts equals more money for CCP so its gonna happen anyway.
Sorry for the novel but I too dont like YAY or NAY with no valid reasoning. Go ahead shoot my post down, its the only PVP I get at work.
So HMV consider Andy Williams and Dean Martin to be "easy listening" do they? Tell that to my mate Dave, he's been deaf for 20 years.
|
Estios
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 16:02:00 -
[309]
Ok ok , Firstly I tend to be a little bias in taking more from the posts of PVP'ers which I know to be skilled than from folks Ive never heard of but that doesnt mean you have no say, I guess Im not as harsh as Stavros :) BUT I dont seem to buy into the fact that this is the sky falling and will ruin the game. I personally think this is a step in the right direction and whilst perhaps needing some fine tuning I think its a little short sighted to say NNOOOOOOO, MORE GANKS
Right now I PVP pretty much everysingle night of the week and am a pretty strong beleiver that decent PVP in EVE is too hard to initiate and again whilst not as right wing as say, Sally I think PVP in EVE is too consentual. 0.0 Space should be the great unknown, the dangerous outback, the mother ******* wildwest of space. Alliances are natural progression and fair play for making there living in this dangerous space but right now (and if you disagree you ARE wrong) alliances lay claim to areas of space far too large to effectively control/patrol.
My PVP experience tends to mainly now consist of gather some corp mates (average gang size is 10-15) and open map of Curse. See a blob on map in [insert system name here] and decide to go attack it/scout it. Sometimes this journey takes 5 mins, other times it takes an hour. 90% of the time you get there the enemy has either seen your blob coming as soon as you left your home system and a) judged they cannot match size or just cant be bothered to fight in which case they move to safespot and mock you as you enter local after wasted journey (can be friendly mocking of course) b) seen you coming from such a long time they have amassed a fleet twice your numbers so you give it a miss or the 10% have been too lazy/stoned/noobish to check the map and yay our 10 strong fleet gets to gank a couple of Battleships.
Now whilst a good gankage can relieve some stress its not really a heart pumping adrenalin rush Im sure you will all agree and if you dont get the gank I end up getting frustrated because Im dedicating my time to a game where people can see me coming from 10 jumps away and have the complete consensual decision of whether to fight.
How can you think the current Pilots in Space feature should stay is beyond me. Whether it should completely go Im not sure but it needs to change. Id probably prefer a change to say 'average numbers of pilots in last [insert time period]' or also liked the idea of vague blip ie no numbers, just an indicator. This would help somewhat.
Also if the scanner is beefed up with extra range (via skills or mods or whatever) and safe spot detection tools are introduced (whoever thinks you should just be able to right click warp to people in local/scanner is tarded...it needs to require skill) then I think local can probably go too. Although this is a much trickier subject.
Why not make the local counter accurate but not show who it is ie local shows 10 pilots when you jump in but not who they are.
I hear some people say without local you wont know where anyone is, how the **** does local tell you now anyway ?? It doesnt, you jump into a system and see how many enemies there are and then you begin SCANNING. (unless they are all on gate)
At the moment we use Interceptor scouts for all fleet movements and I dont see why it would be any different after these changes. As Stavros pointed out its not that drastic a change but I disagree it doesnt add anything, I think it adds a whole new feel to 0.0 space travel/warfare which I think EVE has been missing.
As I said we use Interceptor scout(s) to jump into an enemy system, he relays there are 20 enemies in local by looking at local list, a bit easy if you ask me but under new rules whilst he was cloaked for a minute he could use scanner and tell us exactly same info but this is more realistic way of doing things surely. The difference would be that those 20 enemies wouldnt know our scout was in system yet and he could begin the search before the fleet jumps in. Currently he jumps into local and even if we have fitted a ******* CLOAKING device our enemy know immediately that a potential scout as entered their local and they all shoot off to a safespot. HOW CAN ANY CHANGE NOT BE AN IMPROVEMENT to this flawed ultra consent PVP system ???
You say it will lead to pure gankage but by using pilots destroyed and with knowledge of busy systems you can pretty much know potential camp spots. And you say it will mean massive fleets moving round together .......HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT FROM NOW ??
No offense but CA rarely move round in any groups of less than 30 pilots so I fail to see what difference this would make. I think it might help because they could gather intel from other alliance members under attack and creep up and kill us or Celest or [insert pesky corp name here]. Right now we do the same as the ebay squad in Cache and if CA come after us with twice our numbers we use the all seeing :
So HMV consider Andy Williams and Dean Martin to be "easy listening" do they? Tell that to my mate Dave, he's been deaf for 20 years.
|
Estios
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 16:02:00 -
[310]
Ok ok , Firstly I tend to be a little bias in taking more from the posts of PVP'ers which I know to be skilled than from folks Ive never heard of but that doesnt mean you have no say, I guess Im not as harsh as Stavros :) BUT I dont seem to buy into the fact that this is the sky falling and will ruin the game. I personally think this is a step in the right direction and whilst perhaps needing some fine tuning I think its a little short sighted to say NNOOOOOOO, MORE GANKS
Right now I PVP pretty much everysingle night of the week and am a pretty strong beleiver that decent PVP in EVE is too hard to initiate and again whilst not as right wing as say, Sally I think PVP in EVE is too consentual. 0.0 Space should be the great unknown, the dangerous outback, the mother ******* wildwest of space. Alliances are natural progression and fair play for making there living in this dangerous space but right now (and if you disagree you ARE wrong) alliances lay claim to areas of space far too large to effectively control/patrol.
My PVP experience tends to mainly now consist of gather some corp mates (average gang size is 10-15) and open map of Curse. See a blob on map in [insert system name here] and decide to go attack it/scout it. Sometimes this journey takes 5 mins, other times it takes an hour. 90% of the time you get there the enemy has either seen your blob coming as soon as you left your home system and a) judged they cannot match size or just cant be bothered to fight in which case they move to safespot and mock you as you enter local after wasted journey (can be friendly mocking of course) b) seen you coming from such a long time they have amassed a fleet twice your numbers so you give it a miss or the 10% have been too lazy/stoned/noobish to check the map and yay our 10 strong fleet gets to gank a couple of Battleships.
Now whilst a good gankage can relieve some stress its not really a heart pumping adrenalin rush Im sure you will all agree and if you dont get the gank I end up getting frustrated because Im dedicating my time to a game where people can see me coming from 10 jumps away and have the complete consensual decision of whether to fight.
How can you think the current Pilots in Space feature should stay is beyond me. Whether it should completely go Im not sure but it needs to change. Id probably prefer a change to say 'average numbers of pilots in last [insert time period]' or also liked the idea of vague blip ie no numbers, just an indicator. This would help somewhat.
Also if the scanner is beefed up with extra range (via skills or mods or whatever) and safe spot detection tools are introduced (whoever thinks you should just be able to right click warp to people in local/scanner is tarded...it needs to require skill) then I think local can probably go too. Although this is a much trickier subject.
Why not make the local counter accurate but not show who it is ie local shows 10 pilots when you jump in but not who they are.
I hear some people say without local you wont know where anyone is, how the **** does local tell you now anyway ?? It doesnt, you jump into a system and see how many enemies there are and then you begin SCANNING. (unless they are all on gate)
At the moment we use Interceptor scouts for all fleet movements and I dont see why it would be any different after these changes. As Stavros pointed out its not that drastic a change but I disagree it doesnt add anything, I think it adds a whole new feel to 0.0 space travel/warfare which I think EVE has been missing.
As I said we use Interceptor scout(s) to jump into an enemy system, he relays there are 20 enemies in local by looking at local list, a bit easy if you ask me but under new rules whilst he was cloaked for a minute he could use scanner and tell us exactly same info but this is more realistic way of doing things surely. The difference would be that those 20 enemies wouldnt know our scout was in system yet and he could begin the search before the fleet jumps in. Currently he jumps into local and even if we have fitted a ******* CLOAKING device our enemy know immediately that a potential scout as entered their local and they all shoot off to a safespot. HOW CAN ANY CHANGE NOT BE AN IMPROVEMENT to this flawed ultra consent PVP system ???
You say it will lead to pure gankage but by using pilots destroyed and with knowledge of busy systems you can pretty much know potential camp spots. And you say it will mean massive fleets moving round together .......HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT FROM NOW ??
No offense but CA rarely move round in any groups of less than 30 pilots so I fail to see what difference this would make. I think it might help because they could gather intel from other alliance members under attack and creep up and kill us or Celest or [insert pesky corp name here]. Right now we do the same as the ebay squad in Cache and if CA come after us with twice our numbers we use the all seeing :
So HMV consider Andy Williams and Dean Martin to be "easy listening" do they? Tell that to my mate Dave, he's been deaf for 20 years.
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 16:20:00 -
[311]
Quote:
Sorry for the novel but I too dont like YAY or NAY with no valid reasoning. Go ahead shoot my post down, its the only PVP I get at work.
Your reasoning wasn't invalid, it just speaks to the fact that this is too large a change, and accompanied by too little information to allow for an affirmation. Hence, indecision between YAY or NAY = NAY. You summarized essentially why most experienced players ARE INDEED voting NAY.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 16:20:00 -
[312]
Quote:
Sorry for the novel but I too dont like YAY or NAY with no valid reasoning. Go ahead shoot my post down, its the only PVP I get at work.
Your reasoning wasn't invalid, it just speaks to the fact that this is too large a change, and accompanied by too little information to allow for an affirmation. Hence, indecision between YAY or NAY = NAY. You summarized essentially why most experienced players ARE INDEED voting NAY.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
FileCop AI
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 16:31:00 -
[313]
nay
It will be hard or impossible for people to find each other and it will be too easy for miners/hunters or whatever to hide in a system. There's hundreds of systems - you seriously expect us to check 100 systems to find 1 player which we might just be lucky enough to kill? Ruins the game for lone hunters, for fleets - for everything.
A definate NO
FileCop AI of MASS
Co-CEO |
FileCop AI
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 16:31:00 -
[314]
nay
It will be hard or impossible for people to find each other and it will be too easy for miners/hunters or whatever to hide in a system. There's hundreds of systems - you seriously expect us to check 100 systems to find 1 player which we might just be lucky enough to kill? Ruins the game for lone hunters, for fleets - for everything.
A definate NO
FileCop AI of MASS
Co-CEO |
Attrael
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 17:21:00 -
[315]
Originally by: FileCop AI
nay
It will be hard or impossible for people to find each other and it will be too easy for miners/hunters or whatever to hide in a system. There's hundreds of systems - you seriously expect us to check 100 systems to find 1 player which we might just be lucky enough to kill? Ruins the game for lone hunters, for fleets - for everything.
A definate NO
A definate yes. Currently it is far too easy for a small group of people to lay control over regions far too big for them to handle. With this change, these 'pig' corps and alliances will have to decide what systems are important to them and claim only those systems. Otherwise, spend all their time trying to patrol everything, which they won't be able to do. This creates a better situation for all in 0.0. Sort of like the 'fog of war' effect in many real time strategy games. You can't see what the enemy is doing unless you get up off your lazy, fat behind and go check.
|
Attrael
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 17:21:00 -
[316]
Originally by: FileCop AI
nay
It will be hard or impossible for people to find each other and it will be too easy for miners/hunters or whatever to hide in a system. There's hundreds of systems - you seriously expect us to check 100 systems to find 1 player which we might just be lucky enough to kill? Ruins the game for lone hunters, for fleets - for everything.
A definate NO
A definate yes. Currently it is far too easy for a small group of people to lay control over regions far too big for them to handle. With this change, these 'pig' corps and alliances will have to decide what systems are important to them and claim only those systems. Otherwise, spend all their time trying to patrol everything, which they won't be able to do. This creates a better situation for all in 0.0. Sort of like the 'fog of war' effect in many real time strategy games. You can't see what the enemy is doing unless you get up off your lazy, fat behind and go check.
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 17:21:00 -
[317]
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 17:27:15
Well what gives you right to find 1 miner? You think you own your region or osmething? If your alliance doesnt have the manpower to shutdown the region and make sure noone is mining there then you dont deserve to "close" the region by checking pilots in space map and just sending appropiate forces outnumbering them.
Nice one swifty you are the god and you own Eve. Noone can mine in my systems bc I have pilot in space map so I can find you and kill you whereveer you go no matter if you are 100 jumps from me. MIGHTY MASS. Fear us.
You sound like noobs to me. I mean generally this is the idea I am getting from alot of people. Dumbed down PvP 
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 17:21:00 -
[318]
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 17:27:15
Well what gives you right to find 1 miner? You think you own your region or osmething? If your alliance doesnt have the manpower to shutdown the region and make sure noone is mining there then you dont deserve to "close" the region by checking pilots in space map and just sending appropiate forces outnumbering them.
Nice one swifty you are the god and you own Eve. Noone can mine in my systems bc I have pilot in space map so I can find you and kill you whereveer you go no matter if you are 100 jumps from me. MIGHTY MASS. Fear us.
You sound like noobs to me. I mean generally this is the idea I am getting from alot of people. Dumbed down PvP
|
Ronyo Dae'Loki
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 17:26:00 -
[319]
You sound like you never want to have to fight anyone to me.
-------------
My salsa makes all the pretty girls want to dance and take off their underpants.
I <3 ( . Y . ) |
Ronyo Dae'Loki
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 17:26:00 -
[320]
You sound like you never want to have to fight anyone to me.
-------------
My salsa makes all the pretty girls want to dance and take off their underpants.
I <3 ( . Y . ) |
Kujin
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 17:30:00 -
[321]
After long time of thinking about it i will vote no....
In my point of view only the covert ops ships with their special cloaking device shouldn¦t show up in local...That would give them a real + .....
Nuff said !!!
|
Kujin
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 17:30:00 -
[322]
After long time of thinking about it i will vote no....
In my point of view only the covert ops ships with their special cloaking device shouldn¦t show up in local...That would give them a real + .....
Nuff said !!!
|
Cookie
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 17:36:00 -
[323]
hmm, if the scanner 'replaces' local, what does really change ? Except having to do some more clicke-di-click ?
So i vote, leave local as it is and spend dev-resources for more important things.
The total removal of pilots in local, well, some kind of double-sided sword it is, prolly some kind of fog of war would be a nice way to solve the problem, like being just able to see 1-3 systems further.
Oh, and can some mod please clean this thread up a bit so we can see the votes without wasting time and bandwith please ?
|
Cookie
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 17:36:00 -
[324]
hmm, if the scanner 'replaces' local, what does really change ? Except having to do some more clicke-di-click ?
So i vote, leave local as it is and spend dev-resources for more important things.
The total removal of pilots in local, well, some kind of double-sided sword it is, prolly some kind of fog of war would be a nice way to solve the problem, like being just able to see 1-3 systems further.
Oh, and can some mod please clean this thread up a bit so we can see the votes without wasting time and bandwith please ?
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 17:42:00 -
[325]
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 17:52:54
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 17:42:00 -
[326]
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 17:52:54
|
Cookie
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 17:48:00 -
[327]
ah, typo ....
.... total removal of pilots in space
|
Cookie
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 17:48:00 -
[328]
ah, typo ....
.... total removal of pilots in space
|
Maud Dib
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 18:10:00 -
[329]
This is what will result if these things are changed.
Freelancers: You will get ganked by huge fleets at choke points. Also all alliances will camp their stations with refineries. So mine all you want you won't be able to refine it or move it to empire.
Alliances: You wiull have to guard your choke points and stations that can refine 23/7. Sounds like fun eh?
PvPer's: Welcome to the uber blobs. After the first week or so of single ship slaughters people will only move in huge groups or just not move at all.
Non-pvper's: If a throughly bored PvPer happens on you in space you are going to die as they may not see another player all game so if they want to kill it will be you.
Who wins? Other game companies.
|
Maud Dib
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 18:10:00 -
[330]
This is what will result if these things are changed.
Freelancers: You will get ganked by huge fleets at choke points. Also all alliances will camp their stations with refineries. So mine all you want you won't be able to refine it or move it to empire.
Alliances: You wiull have to guard your choke points and stations that can refine 23/7. Sounds like fun eh?
PvPer's: Welcome to the uber blobs. After the first week or so of single ship slaughters people will only move in huge groups or just not move at all.
Non-pvper's: If a throughly bored PvPer happens on you in space you are going to die as they may not see another player all game so if they want to kill it will be you.
Who wins? Other game companies.
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 18:18:00 -
[331]
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 18:19:40
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 18:18:59
well alliances should be doing all those above mentioned anyways if they have a clue. nah but they would rather sit on their behind and just check the map every 10 minutes and then outblob whoever is in their region or regions.
lame. and it leads to me laughing. maybe i should call CCP carebears and noob pvpers instead of all the people who play this. they probably are and would get owned if they had to go 5 jumps without knowing what was in front of them. probably not but you get the idea.
and i kind of disagree with your point in that freelancers will have a hard time. i think it will make their life alot easier. automatically fleets arent going to know where they are. not every cokepoint is going to be camped either realistically. Plus with cloaking it makes it a whole lot easier depending on how effective anti cloak modules are. still there will be more oppurtunity for people to get into 0.0 in peace and be left alone.
i dream of a time where i can goto a 0.0 system out in middle of nowehere. plop down a POS and be left alone for weeks while I mine and setup POS defenses. Or be left alone for weeks npc hunting etc. Or sending out scanner drones into the next systems before I jump so I know what is there(liek in the CSM). That to me what Eve should be. Not like such a tiny feeling of space because you can see where evryone is and go straight to them.
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 18:18:00 -
[332]
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 18:19:40
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 18:18:59
well alliances should be doing all those above mentioned anyways if they have a clue. nah but they would rather sit on their behind and just check the map every 10 minutes and then outblob whoever is in their region or regions.
lame. and it leads to me laughing. maybe i should call CCP carebears and noob pvpers instead of all the people who play this. they probably are and would get owned if they had to go 5 jumps without knowing what was in front of them. probably not but you get the idea.
and i kind of disagree with your point in that freelancers will have a hard time. i think it will make their life alot easier. automatically fleets arent going to know where they are. not every cokepoint is going to be camped either realistically. Plus with cloaking it makes it a whole lot easier depending on how effective anti cloak modules are. still there will be more oppurtunity for people to get into 0.0 in peace and be left alone.
i dream of a time where i can goto a 0.0 system out in middle of nowehere. plop down a POS and be left alone for weeks while I mine and setup POS defenses. Or be left alone for weeks npc hunting etc. Or sending out scanner drones into the next systems before I jump so I know what is there(liek in the CSM). That to me what Eve should be. Not like such a tiny feeling of space because you can see where evryone is and go straight to them.
|
GFLTorque
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 18:22:00 -
[333]
Edited by: GFLTorque on 20/07/2004 18:25:23
Edited by: GFLTorque on 20/07/2004 18:24:57
Refer to original GAMESPY review of EVE. Too Much Travel Time... blah blah. So we fixed it a bit with a "highway" system with a major hub.
Cloaking as you enter space to cure lag gank. Fixed gank problem, ppl of EVE complained in large groups about the Increased Travel Time. So CCP fixed it by creating the 15km warp to at gates. PPL smiled and patted each other on the back.
Now we consider "Pilots on map."
To which I hear my esteemed PC'ers say "well just send a scout, hopefully when you find the bad guys, they will wait for you to move your uber fleet in. Is this not obvious. Increased Travel Time will be the result of this. Sure you may not be travelling, now you will just all sit in the same system 15 systems away from your 4 scouts as they fly about blindly trying to find the bad guys.
When they find the bad guys, you will then pray they will be there in the 20-30 (no instas considered) minutes that is required for you to move your fleet to blindly engage them.
Gee that will be fun.
If this is implemented, I eagerly await the: How can we find enemies to pvp faster? thread that will be posted like this one. Then we can spend a few weeks working on its solution.
I do not mean to be cynical, but it never occured to me that the current map system was flawed, and I am challenged to see how its alteration would be beneficial.
/o\ I vote NO to changes.
If POS is the issue, lets come up with another solution to protecting them.
4 out of 3 people have trouble with fractions
|
GFLTorque
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 18:22:00 -
[334]
Edited by: GFLTorque on 20/07/2004 18:25:23
Edited by: GFLTorque on 20/07/2004 18:24:57
Refer to original GAMESPY review of EVE. Too Much Travel Time... blah blah. So we fixed it a bit with a "highway" system with a major hub.
Cloaking as you enter space to cure lag gank. Fixed gank problem, ppl of EVE complained in large groups about the Increased Travel Time. So CCP fixed it by creating the 15km warp to at gates. PPL smiled and patted each other on the back.
Now we consider "Pilots on map."
To which I hear my esteemed PC'ers say "well just send a scout, hopefully when you find the bad guys, they will wait for you to move your uber fleet in. Is this not obvious. Increased Travel Time will be the result of this. Sure you may not be travelling, now you will just all sit in the same system 15 systems away from your 4 scouts as they fly about blindly trying to find the bad guys.
When they find the bad guys, you will then pray they will be there in the 20-30 (no instas considered) minutes that is required for you to move your fleet to blindly engage them.
Gee that will be fun.
If this is implemented, I eagerly await the: How can we find enemies to pvp faster? thread that will be posted like this one. Then we can spend a few weeks working on its solution.
I do not mean to be cynical, but it never occured to me that the current map system was flawed, and I am challenged to see how its alteration would be beneficial.
/o\ I vote NO to changes.
If POS is the issue, lets come up with another solution to protecting them.
4 out of 3 people have trouble with fractions
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 18:34:00 -
[335]
In the CSM he said long range scanners. POS structures being able to scan many systems out. Drones that can jump into next system for you and send abck intel.
Maybe they will expand on the drone idea and let you send them out a few systems. Or even maybe the whole damn universe if you wanted. A ship has unlimited power why cant a drone. But maybe you would lose them if you logout and dont scoop them.
ANyways they did say you would have drones that could scout the next system. Long range scanners. Placeable sensors so you could remotely monitor a system. Player owned structures that would have scanners built into them. All of this is good enough to me.
And yeah I think you speak for everyone when you say "Well how do we find people and can I ask for a easier way to find them". With tracking agents its easy. Ifw e have scanners or the means to scan a few systems at a time it would work. For me anyways.
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 18:34:00 -
[336]
In the CSM he said long range scanners. POS structures being able to scan many systems out. Drones that can jump into next system for you and send abck intel.
Maybe they will expand on the drone idea and let you send them out a few systems. Or even maybe the whole damn universe if you wanted. A ship has unlimited power why cant a drone. But maybe you would lose them if you logout and dont scoop them.
ANyways they did say you would have drones that could scout the next system. Long range scanners. Placeable sensors so you could remotely monitor a system. Player owned structures that would have scanners built into them. All of this is good enough to me.
And yeah I think you speak for everyone when you say "Well how do we find people and can I ask for a easier way to find them". With tracking agents its easy. Ifw e have scanners or the means to scan a few systems at a time it would work. For me anyways.
|
Ronyo Dae'Loki
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 19:41:00 -
[337]
Originally by: Sinist
And yeah I think you speak for everyone when you say "Well how do we find people and can I ask for a easier way to find them". With tracking agents its easy. Ifw e have scanners or the means to scan a few systems at a time it would work. For me anyways.
Have you ever used a location agent?
I use one all the time.
It takes on average 8 minutes for my agent to locate someone not in the same region. So, not only are they not in the same region, they might be moving around, which means by the time I get to the system they are in, they are probably 2 regions away.
Unless, of course, they are sitting in a station. Then I get to camp the station. Yay.
I have only ONCE ever killed someone as a direct result of using a location agent. ONCE.
The guys above are right--if this sort of thing is implemented, soon most of us PvPers will stop caring who we kill. We'll be so desperate for a little action that if we see anyone non-allied at a gate we'll probably just go for it.
-------------
My salsa makes all the pretty girls want to dance and take off their underpants.
I <3 ( . Y . ) |
Ronyo Dae'Loki
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 19:41:00 -
[338]
Originally by: Sinist
And yeah I think you speak for everyone when you say "Well how do we find people and can I ask for a easier way to find them". With tracking agents its easy. Ifw e have scanners or the means to scan a few systems at a time it would work. For me anyways.
Have you ever used a location agent?
I use one all the time.
It takes on average 8 minutes for my agent to locate someone not in the same region. So, not only are they not in the same region, they might be moving around, which means by the time I get to the system they are in, they are probably 2 regions away.
Unless, of course, they are sitting in a station. Then I get to camp the station. Yay.
I have only ONCE ever killed someone as a direct result of using a location agent. ONCE.
The guys above are right--if this sort of thing is implemented, soon most of us PvPers will stop caring who we kill. We'll be so desperate for a little action that if we see anyone non-allied at a gate we'll probably just go for it.
-------------
My salsa makes all the pretty girls want to dance and take off their underpants.
I <3 ( . Y . ) |
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 20:05:00 -
[339]
I use them all the time. Theoretically yes people can move.
It is good for finding where people might be mining, blobbing or where they are docked.
Unless their safeszpotted or traveling far distances then yeah a tracking agent might not be 100% effective. But they ARE still useful.
And with new scanners and taking local and pilots in space away I dont see too many problems. Unless of course your a noob in my opinion or like consentual dumbed down player versus player combat.
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 20:05:00 -
[340]
I use them all the time. Theoretically yes people can move.
It is good for finding where people might be mining, blobbing or where they are docked.
Unless their safeszpotted or traveling far distances then yeah a tracking agent might not be 100% effective. But they ARE still useful.
And with new scanners and taking local and pilots in space away I dont see too many problems. Unless of course your a noob in my opinion or like consentual dumbed down player versus player combat.
|
Ronyo Dae'Loki
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 20:29:00 -
[341]
Originally by: Sinist
Unless of course your a noob in my opinion or like consentual dumbed down player versus player combat.
Goodbye credibility.
So, tell me. If you use a locator agent to find where someone is, how will you know they are in system when you get there? On top of that, what if they've moved only a system or two away?
What, are you willing to spend 45 minutes flying around each system doing scans and hoping the ship on your scanner is actually the right person?
If so, I commend you for your, erm, dogged patience, but most of us have to spend long enough chasing our enemies around as it is.
Maybe your enemies sit at station or asteroid belts all the time, but mine like running around. A lot.
-------------
My salsa makes all the pretty girls want to dance and take off their underpants.
I <3 ( . Y . ) |
Ronyo Dae'Loki
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 20:29:00 -
[342]
Originally by: Sinist
Unless of course your a noob in my opinion or like consentual dumbed down player versus player combat.
Goodbye credibility.
So, tell me. If you use a locator agent to find where someone is, how will you know they are in system when you get there? On top of that, what if they've moved only a system or two away?
What, are you willing to spend 45 minutes flying around each system doing scans and hoping the ship on your scanner is actually the right person?
If so, I commend you for your, erm, dogged patience, but most of us have to spend long enough chasing our enemies around as it is.
Maybe your enemies sit at station or asteroid belts all the time, but mine like running around. A lot.
-------------
My salsa makes all the pretty girls want to dance and take off their underpants.
I <3 ( . Y . ) |
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 20:53:00 -
[343]
Like I care about credibility? Not many people here that I would even accredit as being sane or worthy of my respect.
What gives you the right to track someone down ALL the time? If your a bounty hunter you use tracking agents. You do a couple of tracks and see if person is moving. Then you make your move and hit him fast. With new super scanners yous hould be able to get to and find the person no problem if your in same system.
IF he warps out its your fault for letting him get away. Trace his warp trail and follow him. Read the CSM.
Ill let this end here again ill refer to my kindgerten example. YOUR STUPID> NOT UH YOUR STUPID. NOT UH YOUR STUPIDEST. I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I
Its a neverending battle debating. Ill let CCP sort out the mess. Im gonna subscribe regardless but wether or not I decide to waste my time PVPin is another story. Right now its just lame with safespots and how Eve is so small(probably bc of the pilots in space makes everything so umm personal with everybody). ID rather be out in 0.0 in relative peace until someone comes finds me. Then I want to deal with them and them not being able to safespot or use logouts. And if they do run then well id like a chance to catch up to them and take care of it.
None of these mechanics are in place so ill enjoy training skills in the peace of my station. IM perfectly content with that. Maybe ill get lucky and get a T2BPO and can get into production. And maybe if CCP are good people they will let people put down POS in empire. That will give me something else to do also until they sort out PvP.
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 20:53:00 -
[344]
Like I care about credibility? Not many people here that I would even accredit as being sane or worthy of my respect.
What gives you the right to track someone down ALL the time? If your a bounty hunter you use tracking agents. You do a couple of tracks and see if person is moving. Then you make your move and hit him fast. With new super scanners yous hould be able to get to and find the person no problem if your in same system.
IF he warps out its your fault for letting him get away. Trace his warp trail and follow him. Read the CSM.
Ill let this end here again ill refer to my kindgerten example. YOUR STUPID> NOT UH YOUR STUPID. NOT UH YOUR STUPIDEST. I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I
Its a neverending battle debating. Ill let CCP sort out the mess. Im gonna subscribe regardless but wether or not I decide to waste my time PVPin is another story. Right now its just lame with safespots and how Eve is so small(probably bc of the pilots in space makes everything so umm personal with everybody). ID rather be out in 0.0 in relative peace until someone comes finds me. Then I want to deal with them and them not being able to safespot or use logouts. And if they do run then well id like a chance to catch up to them and take care of it.
None of these mechanics are in place so ill enjoy training skills in the peace of my station. IM perfectly content with that. Maybe ill get lucky and get a T2BPO and can get into production. And maybe if CCP are good people they will let people put down POS in empire. That will give me something else to do also until they sort out PvP.
|
Ronyo Dae'Loki
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 21:08:00 -
[345]
I didn't say you were stupid.
Anyway, as of your last post I can see the difference between us.
Originally by: Sinist
...but wether or not I decide to waste my time PVPin is another story.
You aren't interested in going looking for a fight. If it comes, you might fight it.
I, on the other hand, go looking for people to fight. Personally I enjoy 1v1s. Every day after I've done my R&D missions I go looking for a fight. Last night I was in Fountain. A few nights ago I was in Tribute. Maybe tonight I'll go to Curse.
The difference is that I go looking for fights, where as you don't really care.
I think I can see why you have your opinion. However I respectfully disagree with it: I don't think that the people arguing for "yes" realize the far-reaching consequences of such a change.
Even with a new scanning to replace local chat, I must ask, why would we want to have CCP work on such a large change? Don't we want them to finish up Shiva, or (finally) implement the new tech II ships and guns?
I don't know about you, but I think CCP should be working on current bugs and the content they've promised instead of spending their time thinking up highly controversial changes that will take significant time and effort to implement.
-------------
My salsa makes all the pretty girls want to dance and take off their underpants.
I <3 ( . Y . ) |
Ronyo Dae'Loki
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 21:08:00 -
[346]
I didn't say you were stupid.
Anyway, as of your last post I can see the difference between us.
Originally by: Sinist
...but wether or not I decide to waste my time PVPin is another story.
You aren't interested in going looking for a fight. If it comes, you might fight it.
I, on the other hand, go looking for people to fight. Personally I enjoy 1v1s. Every day after I've done my R&D missions I go looking for a fight. Last night I was in Fountain. A few nights ago I was in Tribute. Maybe tonight I'll go to Curse.
The difference is that I go looking for fights, where as you don't really care.
I think I can see why you have your opinion. However I respectfully disagree with it: I don't think that the people arguing for "yes" realize the far-reaching consequences of such a change.
Even with a new scanning to replace local chat, I must ask, why would we want to have CCP work on such a large change? Don't we want them to finish up Shiva, or (finally) implement the new tech II ships and guns?
I don't know about you, but I think CCP should be working on current bugs and the content they've promised instead of spending their time thinking up highly controversial changes that will take significant time and effort to implement.
-------------
My salsa makes all the pretty girls want to dance and take off their underpants.
I <3 ( . Y . ) |
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 21:18:00 -
[347]
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 21:23:10
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 21:20:15
Sucha a large change? Im not the one who came up with the idea. CCP is the one who came out with it. Im just saying where I stood. How is this turned around into "Sinist's dev blog". I dont think theyw oudlnt of asked about it if they couldnt do it.
What are you trying to get at by saying you disagree with my opinion on why I dont PvP. I DONT CARE WHAT YOU THINK. Never will. Sorry. Get over yourself. This is not my idea this was CCP's idea.
And if this forum has no rules you would be owned. I can be alot meaner and slick then you.
I HEREBY VOTE YAY. AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. I DONT CARE WHAT YOU THINK. ITS NOT MY JOB TO ARGUE. Make your rebuttal posts like you think you have something to prove. I laugh.
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 21:18:00 -
[348]
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 21:23:10
Edited by: Sinist on 20/07/2004 21:20:15
Sucha a large change? Im not the one who came up with the idea. CCP is the one who came out with it. Im just saying where I stood. How is this turned around into "Sinist's dev blog". I dont think theyw oudlnt of asked about it if they couldnt do it.
What are you trying to get at by saying you disagree with my opinion on why I dont PvP. I DONT CARE WHAT YOU THINK. Never will. Sorry. Get over yourself. This is not my idea this was CCP's idea.
And if this forum has no rules you would be owned. I can be alot meaner and slick then you.
I HEREBY VOTE YAY. AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. I DONT CARE WHAT YOU THINK. ITS NOT MY JOB TO ARGUE. Make your rebuttal posts like you think you have something to prove. I laugh.
|
Ronyo Dae'Loki
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 21:21:00 -
[349]
|
Ronyo Dae'Loki
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 21:21:00 -
[350]
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 21:23:00 -
[351]
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 21:23:00 -
[352]
|
Deadzone
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 21:48:00 -
[353]
Edited by: Deadzone on 20/07/2004 21:50:31
I didn't read through every reply here- just too damn many!!- but it seems a lot of folks are forgetting one main reason why they might be comming to this decision to remove the info from 0 sec space. Covert frigs. As it stand, and I ask you people this question seriously...what purpose, as the current system stands, does this frig have? THe only purpose atm, I can see, is an up to the second update of the info the map already shows you. The only difference is you can actually see WHAT types of ships are in the system.
What I think CCP is trying to do is actually give a specific purpose to a specific ship ( as it always should have been from the start, as many here would agree). No take the covert ops frig and place it in a system where you can't see how many people are in a 0 sec system. NOW< there is a DAMN good reason to have this ship and the pilots that can operate them very efficiently. What more could any fleet have that is more important ( not to mention make fleet engagements much more fun and a TOTAL element of surprise if you don't have a covert ops frig)? I would take it from most of the people saying NO here, are the ones that don't want to increase the fun factor and are too afraid to lose a ship and any assests on your char, and don't actually want to put in any work to win something. Thats my take on it anyways. Noone here that has said no to this option has given any very valid point why it shound not be done.
What it mostly comes down to is being able to see who is where, and run or fight, depending on fixed numbers atm. With this gone, you won't be able to tell what is there unless you first recon. And if you don't, well, thats just your dumb choice and you deserve anything you get, be it a lost ship, or destroying someone elses because you had surprise on your side.
Vice-Admiral
Executive Commanding Officer
Military Command
Hadead Drive Yards |
Deadzone
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 21:48:00 -
[354]
Edited by: Deadzone on 20/07/2004 21:50:31
I didn't read through every reply here- just too damn many!!- but it seems a lot of folks are forgetting one main reason why they might be comming to this decision to remove the info from 0 sec space. Covert frigs. As it stand, and I ask you people this question seriously...what purpose, as the current system stands, does this frig have? THe only purpose atm, I can see, is an up to the second update of the info the map already shows you. The only difference is you can actually see WHAT types of ships are in the system.
What I think CCP is trying to do is actually give a specific purpose to a specific ship ( as it always should have been from the start, as many here would agree). No take the covert ops frig and place it in a system where you can't see how many people are in a 0 sec system. NOW< there is a DAMN good reason to have this ship and the pilots that can operate them very efficiently. What more could any fleet have that is more important ( not to mention make fleet engagements much more fun and a TOTAL element of surprise if you don't have a covert ops frig)? I would take it from most of the people saying NO here, are the ones that don't want to increase the fun factor and are too afraid to lose a ship and any assests on your char, and don't actually want to put in any work to win something. Thats my take on it anyways. Noone here that has said no to this option has given any very valid point why it shound not be done.
What it mostly comes down to is being able to see who is where, and run or fight, depending on fixed numbers atm. With this gone, you won't be able to tell what is there unless you first recon. And if you don't, well, thats just your dumb choice and you deserve anything you get, be it a lost ship, or destroying someone elses because you had surprise on your side.
Vice-Admiral
Executive Commanding Officer
Military Command
Hadead Drive Yards |
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 22:06:00 -
[355]
Quote:
I HEREBY VOTE YAY. AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. I DONT CARE WHAT YOU THINK. ITS NOT MY JOB TO ARGUE.
Quote:
Like I care about credibility?
Can you possibly be more inconsistent.
You spend 4 threads trying to convince people that you are right (although doing so in an incoherent manner) and then claim that you don't care about credibility (which you indeed did forget to establish) and that you AREN'T arguing?
Its a damn good thing that it ISN'T your job to argue, because you would be unemployed.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 22:06:00 -
[356]
Quote:
I HEREBY VOTE YAY. AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. I DONT CARE WHAT YOU THINK. ITS NOT MY JOB TO ARGUE.
Quote:
Like I care about credibility?
Can you possibly be more inconsistent.
You spend 4 threads trying to convince people that you are right (although doing so in an incoherent manner) and then claim that you don't care about credibility (which you indeed did forget to establish) and that you AREN'T arguing?
Its a damn good thing that it ISN'T your job to argue, because you would be unemployed.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Porter Hadlend
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 22:10:00 -
[357]
Edited by: Porter Hadlend on 20/07/2004 22:11:35
Just a quick FYI..
What gives me the right to be able to find someone?
How does 15 bucks a month sound? I don't pay to be able to sit at a gate doing **** all for X hours a day.
Why don't you come to Fountain Sinist? We'd LOVE the visit.
--------------
credendo vides - believing is seeing
-=Proud member of the Fountain Alliance=-
Hell Hath No Fury Like A Shattered Star! |
Porter Hadlend
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 22:10:00 -
[358]
Edited by: Porter Hadlend on 20/07/2004 22:11:35
Just a quick FYI..
What gives me the right to be able to find someone?
How does 15 bucks a month sound? I don't pay to be able to sit at a gate doing **** all for X hours a day.
Why don't you come to Fountain Sinist? We'd LOVE the visit.
--------------
credendo vides - believing is seeing
-=Proud member of the Fountain Alliance=-
Hell Hath No Fury Like A Shattered Star! |
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 22:17:00 -
[359]
Originally by: Baun
Quote:
I HEREBY VOTE YAY. AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. I DONT CARE WHAT YOU THINK. ITS NOT MY JOB TO ARGUE.
Quote:
Like I care about credibility?
Can you possibly be more inconsistent.
You spend 4 threads trying to convince people that you are right (although doing so in an incoherent manner) and then claim that you don't care about credibility (which you indeed did forget to establish) and that you AREN'T arguing?
Its a damn good thing that it ISN'T your job to argue, because you would be unemployed.
Can you possibly make sense in your posts next time?
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 22:17:00 -
[360]
Originally by: Baun
Quote:
I HEREBY VOTE YAY. AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. I DONT CARE WHAT YOU THINK. ITS NOT MY JOB TO ARGUE.
Quote:
Like I care about credibility?
Can you possibly be more inconsistent.
You spend 4 threads trying to convince people that you are right (although doing so in an incoherent manner) and then claim that you don't care about credibility (which you indeed did forget to establish) and that you AREN'T arguing?
Its a damn good thing that it ISN'T your job to argue, because you would be unemployed.
Can you possibly make sense in your posts next time?
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 22:19:00 -
[361]
Originally by: Porter Hadlend
Edited by: Porter Hadlend on 20/07/2004 22:11:35
Just a quick FYI..
What gives me the right to be able to find someone?
How does 15 bucks a month sound? I don't pay to be able to sit at a gate doing **** all for X hours a day.
Why don't you come to Fountain Sinist? We'd LOVE the visit.
Was in Fountain not too long ago. I did plan on hunting down in Serpentis Prime maybe in the near future. Keep an eye for me I guess.
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 22:19:00 -
[362]
Originally by: Porter Hadlend
Edited by: Porter Hadlend on 20/07/2004 22:11:35
Just a quick FYI..
What gives me the right to be able to find someone?
How does 15 bucks a month sound? I don't pay to be able to sit at a gate doing **** all for X hours a day.
Why don't you come to Fountain Sinist? We'd LOVE the visit.
Was in Fountain not too long ago. I did plan on hunting down in Serpentis Prime maybe in the near future. Keep an eye for me I guess.
|
Azure Skyclad
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 22:30:00 -
[363]
Edited by: Azure Skyclad on 20/07/2004 22:32:37
By all means, kill the "free" recon and intel sources but provide alternatives and make them available when or if the change is implemented
Ships with enhanced sensors.
Deployable Sensors
Player owned Structures with Sensors.
(All combined with the Tactical view implemeted with Shiva)
Leave these changes for post-Shiva though.
It's a worthy idea in principle but the practice needs looking at in my opinion.
My 2
La Maison de tous Les Plaisirs
Star Fraction
http://www.voodoorockers.co.uk/ |
Azure Skyclad
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 22:30:00 -
[364]
Edited by: Azure Skyclad on 20/07/2004 22:32:37
By all means, kill the "free" recon and intel sources but provide alternatives and make them available when or if the change is implemented
Ships with enhanced sensors.
Deployable Sensors
Player owned Structures with Sensors.
(All combined with the Tactical view implemeted with Shiva)
Leave these changes for post-Shiva though.
It's a worthy idea in principle but the practice needs looking at in my opinion.
My 2
La Maison de tous Les Plaisirs
Star Fraction
http://www.voodoorockers.co.uk/ |
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 22:32:00 -
[365]
Edited by: Baun on 20/07/2004 22:36:48
Originally by: Sinist
Originally by: Baun
Quote:
I HEREBY VOTE YAY. AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. I DONT CARE WHAT YOU THINK. ITS NOT MY JOB TO ARGUE.
Quote:
Like I care about credibility?
Can you possibly be more inconsistent.
You spend 4 threads trying to convince people that you are right (although doing so in an incoherent manner) and then claim that you don't care about credibility (which you indeed did forget to establish) and that you AREN'T arguing?
Its a damn good thing that it ISN'T your job to argue, because you would be unemployed.
Can you possibly make sense in your posts next time?
As you seem so good at doing you have managed, yet again, to reply to someone without actually directly analyzing what they say.
Now, be a good logical boy and provide basis for a claim/statement. Should you prove unable to do so your claim/statement automatically becomes invalid.
Perhaps then we can get back to the discussion, which ought to have been your aim all along.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 22:32:00 -
[366]
Edited by: Baun on 20/07/2004 22:36:48
Originally by: Sinist
Originally by: Baun
Quote:
I HEREBY VOTE YAY. AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. I DONT CARE WHAT YOU THINK. ITS NOT MY JOB TO ARGUE.
Quote:
Like I care about credibility?
Can you possibly be more inconsistent.
You spend 4 threads trying to convince people that you are right (although doing so in an incoherent manner) and then claim that you don't care about credibility (which you indeed did forget to establish) and that you AREN'T arguing?
Its a damn good thing that it ISN'T your job to argue, because you would be unemployed.
Can you possibly make sense in your posts next time?
As you seem so good at doing you have managed, yet again, to reply to someone without actually directly analyzing what they say.
Now, be a good logical boy and provide basis for a claim/statement. Should you prove unable to do so your claim/statement automatically becomes invalid.
Perhaps then we can get back to the discussion, which ought to have been your aim all along.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Azure Skyclad
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 22:33:00 -
[367]
Clean the thread up please mods. It was going sooooo well
La Maison de tous Les Plaisirs
Star Fraction
http://www.voodoorockers.co.uk/ |
Azure Skyclad
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 22:33:00 -
[368]
Clean the thread up please mods. It was going sooooo well
La Maison de tous Les Plaisirs
Star Fraction
http://www.voodoorockers.co.uk/ |
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 22:43:00 -
[369]
Is it just me or does this Baun guy just come out of nowhere and repeat some nonsense about proving logic to him. LOL obviously I cant explain logics to you if you dont understand the logic in the first place.
Oh well. Kind of annoying though.
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 22:43:00 -
[370]
Is it just me or does this Baun guy just come out of nowhere and repeat some nonsense about proving logic to him. LOL obviously I cant explain logics to you if you dont understand the logic in the first place.
Oh well. Kind of annoying though.
|
Porter Hadlend
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 22:46:00 -
[371]
Originally by: Sinist
Is it just me or does this Baun guy just come out of nowhere and repeat some nonsense about proving logic to him. LOL obviously I cant explain logics to you if you dont understand the logic in the first place.
Oh well. Kind of annoying though.
It's you.
--------------
credendo vides - believing is seeing
-=Proud member of the Fountain Alliance=-
Hell Hath No Fury Like A Shattered Star! |
Porter Hadlend
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 22:46:00 -
[372]
Originally by: Sinist
Is it just me or does this Baun guy just come out of nowhere and repeat some nonsense about proving logic to him. LOL obviously I cant explain logics to you if you dont understand the logic in the first place.
Oh well. Kind of annoying though.
It's you.
--------------
credendo vides - believing is seeing
-=Proud member of the Fountain Alliance=-
Hell Hath No Fury Like A Shattered Star! |
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 22:53:00 -
[373]
Quote:
Is it just me or does this Baun guy just come out of nowhere and repeat some nonsense about proving logic to him. LOL obviously I cant explain logics to you if you dont understand the logic in the first place.
You have not reached the point where you can even claim failure as you have still yet to try.
Since you seem young and/or ignorant I will explain to you have arguments and discussions generally work.
First, we start with a premise. In this case we are assuming that the proposed changes are inacted. Within this premise is an assumption as to what said changes are.
Second, one person expounds upon their belief as to the results of said premise. They do so by constructing cause and effect chains wherein they start with a part of the original premise and derive a result via negation or conditional causality relationships.
Third, this same person then uses his derived results to come to even more conclusions which inexorably lead him to his final conclusion. In this case he constructs a set of effects, logically derived from the premise, and uses them to support his vote of yay or nay.
Fourth, a second person repeats steps 1-3 above and derives other results agreeing or disagreeing with the first person. This then continues as more people enter into the debate. People then begin to use other peoples results as premises to enter into more complex and nuianced disucssion or simply deconstruct others' arguments so as to prove them wrong.
You have so far been able to only tenuously construct your own arguments and have shown yourself completely unable to actually round out the fourth step, in so doing failing to actually participate in the discussion.
Now, if you would be so kind, please start actually disecting/responding directly to others arguments. Alterantively simply stop talking. That is your choice.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 22:53:00 -
[374]
Quote:
Is it just me or does this Baun guy just come out of nowhere and repeat some nonsense about proving logic to him. LOL obviously I cant explain logics to you if you dont understand the logic in the first place.
You have not reached the point where you can even claim failure as you have still yet to try.
Since you seem young and/or ignorant I will explain to you have arguments and discussions generally work.
First, we start with a premise. In this case we are assuming that the proposed changes are inacted. Within this premise is an assumption as to what said changes are.
Second, one person expounds upon their belief as to the results of said premise. They do so by constructing cause and effect chains wherein they start with a part of the original premise and derive a result via negation or conditional causality relationships.
Third, this same person then uses his derived results to come to even more conclusions which inexorably lead him to his final conclusion. In this case he constructs a set of effects, logically derived from the premise, and uses them to support his vote of yay or nay.
Fourth, a second person repeats steps 1-3 above and derives other results agreeing or disagreeing with the first person. This then continues as more people enter into the debate. People then begin to use other peoples results as premises to enter into more complex and nuianced disucssion or simply deconstruct others' arguments so as to prove them wrong.
You have so far been able to only tenuously construct your own arguments and have shown yourself completely unable to actually round out the fourth step, in so doing failing to actually participate in the discussion.
Now, if you would be so kind, please start actually disecting/responding directly to others arguments. Alterantively simply stop talking. That is your choice.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 22:54:00 -
[375]
Eve MArshalls and Shattered Star Confederation.
Winners of the universe. If we cant troll it noone can.
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 22:54:00 -
[376]
Eve MArshalls and Shattered Star Confederation.
Winners of the universe. If we cant troll it noone can.
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 22:56:00 -
[377]
Originally by: Sinist
Eve MArshalls and Shattered Star Confederation.
Winners of the universe. If we cant troll it noone can.
Another insecure knee jerk response. Thank you, however, for at the very least confirming everything I just said.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 22:56:00 -
[378]
Originally by: Sinist
Eve MArshalls and Shattered Star Confederation.
Winners of the universe. If we cant troll it noone can.
Another insecure knee jerk response. Thank you, however, for at the very least confirming everything I just said.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 23:06:00 -
[379]
I am assuming your british.
|
Sinist
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 23:06:00 -
[380]
I am assuming your british.
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 23:10:00 -
[381]
Edited by: Baun on 20/07/2004 23:11:59
Originally by: Sinist
I am assuming your british.
I am not sure what that has to do with anything.
I am, however, not British.
Now, if you would please stop dodging my direct challenge (i.e to return to the discussion, the POINT of this thread) I would be ever so obliged.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 23:10:00 -
[382]
Edited by: Baun on 20/07/2004 23:11:59
Originally by: Sinist
I am assuming your british.
I am not sure what that has to do with anything.
I am, however, not British.
Now, if you would please stop dodging my direct challenge (i.e to return to the discussion, the POINT of this thread) I would be ever so obliged.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Porter Hadlend
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 23:10:00 -
[383]
Neither of us are.
And you do realise that by insulting us, and calling us trolls.. you yourself are contributing nothing of worth to this discussion and trolling?
hm?
--------------
credendo vides - believing is seeing
-=Proud member of the Fountain Alliance=-
Hell Hath No Fury Like A Shattered Star! |
Porter Hadlend
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 23:10:00 -
[384]
Neither of us are.
And you do realise that by insulting us, and calling us trolls.. you yourself are contributing nothing of worth to this discussion and trolling?
hm?
--------------
credendo vides - believing is seeing
-=Proud member of the Fountain Alliance=-
Hell Hath No Fury Like A Shattered Star! |
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 23:11:00 -
[385]
Originally by: Porter Hadlend
Neither of us are.
And you do realise that by insulting us, and calling us trolls.. you yourself are contributing nothing of worth to this discussion and trolling?
hm?
quite
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.07.20 23:11:00 -
[386]
Originally by: Porter Hadlend
Neither of us are.
And you do realise that by insulting us, and calling us trolls.. you yourself are contributing nothing of worth to this discussion and trolling?
hm?
quite
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Estios
|
Posted - 2004.07.21 10:38:00 -
[387]
Baun how on earth did I summarize why 'experienced' players are voting nay ??
I personally summed up many issues which make decent PVP in EVE like pulling teeth. I have no idea who your corp are or who you hunt but I can safely tell you we know what we are doing and unfortunately so do most of our targets.
If either of our respective forces dont want to fight then no fight occurs except for opportunist ganks when people arent paying attention or a blob fight which takes hours to initiate .....is this a fun experience ????
I dont think so yet I go through some rigmarole (is that a word) everynight because Im addicted. Doesnt mean that I enjoy it everynight and can think of nothing more frustrating than travelling round hunting blobs on an all seeing map only for them to safespot when our blip gets within 2 jumps.
As I clearly stated I dont think just changing local and the map will solve the flawed frustrating PVP system but if these chnages are combined with addressing of Insta jumps, the scanner and the scanners ability to find safespots then its YAY clearly a step to making more exciting PVP.
I honestly dont think its a major change you are all crying about but I completely fail to see how what Im stating helps the NAY argument. Its a step in the right direction and whilst Id hate to see it done half assed I think it shows someone is seeing the frustration many of us 'experienced' players are feeling.
So HMV consider Andy Williams and Dean Martin to be "easy listening" do they? Tell that to my mate Dave, he's been deaf for 20 years.
|
Estios
|
Posted - 2004.07.21 10:38:00 -
[388]
Baun how on earth did I summarize why 'experienced' players are voting nay ??
I personally summed up many issues which make decent PVP in EVE like pulling teeth. I have no idea who your corp are or who you hunt but I can safely tell you we know what we are doing and unfortunately so do most of our targets.
If either of our respective forces dont want to fight then no fight occurs except for opportunist ganks when people arent paying attention or a blob fight which takes hours to initiate .....is this a fun experience ????
I dont think so yet I go through some rigmarole (is that a word) everynight because Im addicted. Doesnt mean that I enjoy it everynight and can think of nothing more frustrating than travelling round hunting blobs on an all seeing map only for them to safespot when our blip gets within 2 jumps.
As I clearly stated I dont think just changing local and the map will solve the flawed frustrating PVP system but if these chnages are combined with addressing of Insta jumps, the scanner and the scanners ability to find safespots then its YAY clearly a step to making more exciting PVP.
I honestly dont think its a major change you are all crying about but I completely fail to see how what Im stating helps the NAY argument. Its a step in the right direction and whilst Id hate to see it done half assed I think it shows someone is seeing the frustration many of us 'experienced' players are feeling.
So HMV consider Andy Williams and Dean Martin to be "easy listening" do they? Tell that to my mate Dave, he's been deaf for 20 years.
|
Moah
|
Posted - 2004.07.21 10:58:00 -
[389]
i havent read the 11 pgs.
my vote: /o\
if they remove local/pilots in space, its impossible to hunt players or have some nice fights. there wont be any pvp beside of gatecamping and blobwars. ie. a small group of pilots move into a region to kill some ppl. its impossible to find someone. i mean they could be right next to you and you wont notice it. there could be a 60ppl blob in local and you wont see it. and i have really no time to scann every ******* system...
the only thing that will be work better is gatecamping and blob wars, mhkay, gatecamping is very important for eve, so are blob wars.
im not on the carebearside, nor on the "pirate" side, but i think that would destroy the best parts of pvp: small skirmishes.
Fancy. |
Moah
|
Posted - 2004.07.21 10:58:00 -
[390]
i havent read the 11 pgs.
my vote: /o\
if they remove local/pilots in space, its impossible to hunt players or have some nice fights. there wont be any pvp beside of gatecamping and blobwars. ie. a small group of pilots move into a region to kill some ppl. its impossible to find someone. i mean they could be right next to you and you wont notice it. there could be a 60ppl blob in local and you wont see it. and i have really no time to scann every ******* system...
the only thing that will be work better is gatecamping and blob wars, mhkay, gatecamping is very important for eve, so are blob wars.
im not on the carebearside, nor on the "pirate" side, but i think that would destroy the best parts of pvp: small skirmishes.
Fancy. |
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.07.21 11:32:00 -
[391]
Edited by: Baun on 21/07/2004 11:36:38
Quote:
Baun how on earth did I summarize why 'experienced' players are voting nay ??
Quote:
Also if the scanner is beefed up with extra range (via skills or mods or whatever) and safe spot detection tools are introduced (whoever thinks you should just be able to right click warp to people in local/scanner is tarded...it needs to require skill) then I think local can probably go too. Although this is a much trickier subject.
Agreed, it is not clear cut. We don't know what the results of replacing local with a scanner will be. Will it lead to tedious repition or make the game more fun?
Quote:
At the moment we use Interceptor scouts for all fleet movements and I dont see why it would be any different after these changes.
It wouldn't. You would still need scouts. The difference is their job would now be entirely different. They would have to spend 10 minutes scanning every system they pass through.
So yes ...
Quote:
As Stavros pointed out its not that drastic a change but I disagree it doesnt add anything, I think it adds a whole new feel to 0.0 space travel/warfare which I think EVE has been missing.
BUT we don't really know exactly what this addition would be. Either enemies would pass each other in the night or it might mean that permanent blockades are enforced by Alliances and ganks increase OR it might mean that attackers now have free reign. We really can't predict.
Quote:
Currently he jumps into local and even if we have fitted a ******* CLOAKING device our enemy know immediately that a potential scout as entered their local and they all shoot off to a safespot. HOW CAN ANY CHANGE NOT BE AN IMPROVEMENT to this flawed ultra consent PVP system ???
Agreed, but again for the sacrifice of having a scout reveleaed you have to consent to tedious scanning in EVERY system because now your scout also has no idea when he has found someone. Before you only had to scan in systems where you KNEW people were (which equates to probably less than 1 in 15 systems your party travels through).
Quote:
The only major downside I see is that there will be far too many frigates flying about. This is partly to do with the fact they are being loved so hard by CCP anyways and now this is another major reason to ***** them.
For months thats all I ever saw. No one wants this again.
Quote:
Yes there will be more alt scouts but at least this makes the scouters actually have to do 'something'.
Yes but ONE pilot out of a large force can always be made to do tedious ***** work. Its annoying but someone WILL do it and very little will change as a result.
Quote:
Sorry for the novel but I too dont like YAY or NAY with no valid reasoning.
Correct more or less, we do NOT know enough to vote YAY right now. We do not know what is being introduced later. We do not know what other changes are planned. We do NOT know what effect almost any of these changes will actually have. This entire thing opens up a can of worms and all experienced players are capable of not being shortsighted such that they can actually understand that at the moment voting YAY is folly. This means that they HAVE to vote NAY.
As I said:
Quote:
this is too large a change, and accompanied by too little information to allow for an affirmation. Hence, indecision between YAY or NAY = NAY.
O and to answer who I am and my corp is;
We are an FA corporation and I along with the 2 SSC people posting are FA military commanders.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.07.21 11:32:00 -
[392]
Edited by: Baun on 21/07/2004 11:36:38
Quote:
Baun how on earth did I summarize why 'experienced' players are voting nay ??
Quote:
Also if the scanner is beefed up with extra range (via skills or mods or whatever) and safe spot detection tools are introduced (whoever thinks you should just be able to right click warp to people in local/scanner is tarded...it needs to require skill) then I think local can probably go too. Although this is a much trickier subject.
Agreed, it is not clear cut. We don't know what the results of replacing local with a scanner will be. Will it lead to tedious repition or make the game more fun?
Quote:
At the moment we use Interceptor scouts for all fleet movements and I dont see why it would be any different after these changes.
It wouldn't. You would still need scouts. The difference is their job would now be entirely different. They would have to spend 10 minutes scanning every system they pass through.
So yes ...
Quote:
As Stavros pointed out its not that drastic a change but I disagree it doesnt add anything, I think it adds a whole new feel to 0.0 space travel/warfare which I think EVE has been missing.
BUT we don't really know exactly what this addition would be. Either enemies would pass each other in the night or it might mean that permanent blockades are enforced by Alliances and ganks increase OR it might mean that attackers now have free reign. We really can't predict.
Quote:
Currently he jumps into local and even if we have fitted a ******* CLOAKING device our enemy know immediately that a potential scout as entered their local and they all shoot off to a safespot. HOW CAN ANY CHANGE NOT BE AN IMPROVEMENT to this flawed ultra consent PVP system ???
Agreed, but again for the sacrifice of having a scout reveleaed you have to consent to tedious scanning in EVERY system because now your scout also has no idea when he has found someone. Before you only had to scan in systems where you KNEW people were (which equates to probably less than 1 in 15 systems your party travels through).
Quote:
The only major downside I see is that there will be far too many frigates flying about. This is partly to do with the fact they are being loved so hard by CCP anyways and now this is another major reason to ***** them.
For months thats all I ever saw. No one wants this again.
Quote:
Yes there will be more alt scouts but at least this makes the scouters actually have to do 'something'.
Yes but ONE pilot out of a large force can always be made to do tedious ***** work. Its annoying but someone WILL do it and very little will change as a result.
Quote:
Sorry for the novel but I too dont like YAY or NAY with no valid reasoning.
Correct more or less, we do NOT know enough to vote YAY right now. We do not know what is being introduced later. We do not know what other changes are planned. We do NOT know what effect almost any of these changes will actually have. This entire thing opens up a can of worms and all experienced players are capable of not being shortsighted such that they can actually understand that at the moment voting YAY is folly. This means that they HAVE to vote NAY.
As I said:
Quote:
this is too large a change, and accompanied by too little information to allow for an affirmation. Hence, indecision between YAY or NAY = NAY.
O and to answer who I am and my corp is;
We are an FA corporation and I along with the 2 SSC people posting are FA military commanders.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Sassinak
|
Posted - 2004.07.21 11:41:00 -
[393]
Originally by: Estios Potter
As I clearly stated I dont think just changing local and the map will solve the flawed frustrating PVP system but if these chnages are combined with addressing of Insta jumps, the scanner and the scanners ability to find safespots then its YAY clearly a step to making more exciting PVP.
On the contrary. It will make it far worse....
How we supposed to go looking for each other if we dont know each other are in the system.
Its ok as it is now. A little frustrating yes, but atleast we know there are A) People to look for B) People to try to avoid.
Basically... If it aint broke dont fix it... (Which is what constantly seems to keep happening.)
Sass
Arcane Technologies |
Sassinak
|
Posted - 2004.07.21 11:41:00 -
[394]
Originally by: Estios Potter
As I clearly stated I dont think just changing local and the map will solve the flawed frustrating PVP system but if these chnages are combined with addressing of Insta jumps, the scanner and the scanners ability to find safespots then its YAY clearly a step to making more exciting PVP.
On the contrary. It will make it far worse....
How we supposed to go looking for each other if we dont know each other are in the system.
Its ok as it is now. A little frustrating yes, but atleast we know there are A) People to look for B) People to try to avoid.
Basically... If it aint broke dont fix it... (Which is what constantly seems to keep happening.)
Sass
Arcane Technologies |
Kin Hanyerec
|
Posted - 2004.07.21 12:00:00 -
[395]
Originally by: Sassinak
Originally by: Estios Potter
As I clearly stated I dont think just changing local and the map will solve the flawed frustrating PVP system but if these chnages are combined with addressing of Insta jumps, the scanner and the scanners ability to find safespots then its YAY clearly a step to making more exciting PVP.
On the contrary. It will make it far worse....
How we supposed to go looking for each other if we dont know each other are in the system.
Its ok as it is now. A little frustrating yes, but atleast we know there are A) People to look for B) People to try to avoid.
Basically... If it aint broke dont fix it... (Which is what constantly seems to keep happening.)
removing the list of people in local will reduce the chances to avoid a fight by, warping to safespot, logging off, or just by seeing a red spot in you map.
You will have to seek information from the human intelligence, instead of having it always available in map and local chat. Scouts and spies will have a reason to exist 
|
Kin Hanyerec
|
Posted - 2004.07.21 12:00:00 -
[396]
Originally by: Sassinak
Originally by: Estios Potter
As I clearly stated I dont think just changing local and the map will solve the flawed frustrating PVP system but if these chnages are combined with addressing of Insta jumps, the scanner and the scanners ability to find safespots then its YAY clearly a step to making more exciting PVP.
On the contrary. It will make it far worse....
How we supposed to go looking for each other if we dont know each other are in the system.
Its ok as it is now. A little frustrating yes, but atleast we know there are A) People to look for B) People to try to avoid.
Basically... If it aint broke dont fix it... (Which is what constantly seems to keep happening.)
removing the list of people in local will reduce the chances to avoid a fight by, warping to safespot, logging off, or just by seeing a red spot in you map.
You will have to seek information from the human intelligence, instead of having it always available in map and local chat. Scouts and spies will have a reason to exist
|
Estios
|
Posted - 2004.07.21 13:52:00 -
[397]
lol nice name edit
I think it is broke personally Sass and therefore does need a fix.
Its starting to **** me off to chase smaller or equal enemy blobs only for them to hide with no way of finding them because its so obvious whats coming then to have massive predictable blob come after us only for us to do the same. Im willing to have that risk of getting caught because Im confident we have the skills to hunt more effectively than be hunted.
EVE is a game and whilst I dont expect to get my rocks off 5 minutes after loading it up as I could in a FPS I do not expect to have to chase **** round for hours on end only to have every noob as his dog able to press F10 and scream 'get to the safespot, the blip cometh'
Im leaning towards a yay to remove/change players in space but am starting to think local change needs a lot more thought. Yes Baun I totally agree its not enough info to warrant a yes or no vote but I saw this as more of a feeler to see if people felt local and map were fine as they are and I dont think it is.
So HMV consider Andy Williams and Dean Martin to be "easy listening" do they? Tell that to my mate Dave, he's been deaf for 20 years.
|
Estios
|
Posted - 2004.07.21 13:52:00 -
[398]
lol nice name edit
I think it is broke personally Sass and therefore does need a fix.
Its starting to **** me off to chase smaller or equal enemy blobs only for them to hide with no way of finding them because its so obvious whats coming then to have massive predictable blob come after us only for us to do the same. Im willing to have that risk of getting caught because Im confident we have the skills to hunt more effectively than be hunted.
EVE is a game and whilst I dont expect to get my rocks off 5 minutes after loading it up as I could in a FPS I do not expect to have to chase **** round for hours on end only to have every noob as his dog able to press F10 and scream 'get to the safespot, the blip cometh'
Im leaning towards a yay to remove/change players in space but am starting to think local change needs a lot more thought. Yes Baun I totally agree its not enough info to warrant a yes or no vote but I saw this as more of a feeler to see if people felt local and map were fine as they are and I dont think it is.
So HMV consider Andy Williams and Dean Martin to be "easy listening" do they? Tell that to my mate Dave, he's been deaf for 20 years.
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.07.21 13:54:00 -
[399]
Originally by: Sassinak
Originally by: Estios Potter
As I clearly stated I dont think just changing local and the map will solve the flawed frustrating PVP system but if these chnages are combined with addressing of Insta jumps, the scanner and the scanners ability to find safespots then its YAY clearly a step to making more exciting PVP.
On the contrary. It will make it far worse....
How we supposed to go looking for each other if we dont know each other are in the system.
Its ok as it is now. A little frustrating yes, but atleast we know there are A) People to look for B) People to try to avoid.
Basically... If it aint broke dont fix it... (Which is what constantly seems to keep happening.)
I agree BUT I think thats an oversimplification. Obviously making people completely blind to one another without use of the scanner isn't a solution to people avoiding combat, it just makes it easier for them to avoid it entirely or when they do enter into it to get ganked.
There are clearly improvements that CAN be made. Something to the effect of what has been suggested MIGHT be viable if it is well thought out and modifiable via new P.O.S which can be used by both attackers and defenders (harder for attackers obviously but it gives them the advantage back).
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.07.21 13:54:00 -
[400]
Originally by: Sassinak
Originally by: Estios Potter
As I clearly stated I dont think just changing local and the map will solve the flawed frustrating PVP system but if these chnages are combined with addressing of Insta jumps, the scanner and the scanners ability to find safespots then its YAY clearly a step to making more exciting PVP.
On the contrary. It will make it far worse....
How we supposed to go looking for each other if we dont know each other are in the system.
Its ok as it is now. A little frustrating yes, but atleast we know there are A) People to look for B) People to try to avoid.
Basically... If it aint broke dont fix it... (Which is what constantly seems to keep happening.)
I agree BUT I think thats an oversimplification. Obviously making people completely blind to one another without use of the scanner isn't a solution to people avoiding combat, it just makes it easier for them to avoid it entirely or when they do enter into it to get ganked.
There are clearly improvements that CAN be made. Something to the effect of what has been suggested MIGHT be viable if it is well thought out and modifiable via new P.O.S which can be used by both attackers and defenders (harder for attackers obviously but it gives them the advantage back).
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: [one page] |