|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
6168
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 12:10:00 -
[1] - Quote
Adoris Nolen wrote:This needs to happen. The constant whining about AFK cloakers is hilarious. Imagine no local, having to watch gates & dscan. There's already a space like that in Eve & it doesnt even have moon spew. Nerf 0.0
Bolded that part that makes 0.0 not wormhole space.
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
6170
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 12:49:00 -
[2] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Bolded that part that makes 0.0 not wormhole space.
Its not NPC space either. Why should you get the data for free? Who is paying for it? you don't pay for it in npc space either, try again. The NPCs do. They run the space. They OWN the space. Do you not understand the difference? Or is your false sense of carebear entitlment blocking your vision? TRY AGAIN
Please link proof of NPCs paying bills please/thanks.
Local exists as a playability function outside of the lore. The reason we have local everywhere except wormholes is because the mechanics of EVE online allows for opposing players to meet quickly (a target is just seconds away via warp) and because EVe Onlines main mode of player travel are these artificial choke points called gates. There is also the fast travel option known as jump bridges (delivered via cyno).
Without local in space that has easy access (gates/cynos) and stealth mechanics (cloaks), the balance shifts towards the aggressor way to much to have a balanced game. no one in their right minds would use gate/cyno connected space with no local .
Wormholes work with no local because of the increase difficulty of entering and leaving the space. Other than getting podded, the onyl way out of a wormhole is via probing (some has to probe the exit, even if it's not you) and THE only way in in the 1st place is to use probes, which is a lot slower than just clicking a gate icon and warping.
Even with the increase time/effort it takes to find entracnes and exits to wormholes, wormhole space STLL the most dangerous (per capita) place in EVE while being the least populated.
No local (or only "paid for SOV local) in null (unless you change the way gates, cynos, warping, D-scan and cloaks work ie re-write the whole game) would be a disaster. And not just for null, but for the rest of EVE as Null is the destruction engine that keeps null working as well as the source of most deadspace mods/ships that high sec relies on for PVE activities..
TL;DR We've been over this time and time again in F&I and the in game situation hasn't changed, there is just to much you'd have to do to EVE 1st to make no local in null work without screwing up so much other stuff.
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
6170
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 13:12:00 -
[3] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Look at the Nullbears crying.
My god, its disgusting.
That's why you always end up in flame wars, because you aren't interested in the truth of a matter (or other people's opinions on those matters). I for one explained to you why what you want to think is wrong. CCP has been explaining it for 10 years by not changing it lol.
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
6170
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 13:32:00 -
[4] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:That's why you always end up in flame wars You have me confused, with you. If you think Null is not in need of major security and Sov overhauls, you are even more knee-deep in self-entitlement than was already obvious.
Hard to do since I spend much of my time in high sec lol.
While you might try to dismiss the realites I meantion, it doesn't change the fact that a null with gates and cynos but no local would be (game play wise) unworkable. It's why wormholes are the way they are.
Quote: The risks you posted for Local, run both ways. They are equally an advantage, and a detractant, to both sides. As long as Local data is universally available to everyone in the system, it is a broken system.
Best way out of that, is to remove it. There is no rational reason why Null should have Local.
And make no mistake, I and others will make CERTAIN you Nullbears are revealed for what the self-entitled whiners you are in the upcoming months.
This is prejudice and emotion clouding judgment. No one is against good change. A no local environment DONE CORRECTLY can be a good (very very Good) thing and wormholes partially prove that (i say partially because wormholes are still low population zones, local enables people to survive in low and null which is why there are more people in low and null).
But the "just get rid of local" (and change nothing else) thing is stupid.
Local is an integral part of 'K' space design and things would have to be redesigned for the removal of local to not be game breaking. You can't apply a simple fix to a complex intertwined system and expect there to not be numerous negative unintended consequences.
It's a very good thing that you aren't in charge of game design.
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
6170
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 13:41:00 -
[5] - Quote
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:
I understand why people wouldnt want to loose the instant intell...as a bluesec player I am torn between the security it brings but I can also see how not having it would prevent some of the blobbing and bring more GF that all us bluesecers look for.
As far as breaking the game I cant see how that would be true since no local works in WH space already.
If you read my post you will see why no local works in wormholes (because wormholes we designed from the ground up to work without local, as evidenced by how their are no gates and cyno/jumpbridging isn't allowed).
Things would have to change for no local to work. A null with no local would simply be a more empty null.
This would affect everyone. The people running missions , incursions and mining in high sec would fine the goods they trade in and the isk they are earning become less valuable as fewer ships are killed in null (because the people carebearing out in null and sometimes dying in carriers wouldn't be doing that any more because that would be stupid).
Null exploration would go from hazardous to suicidal, greatly elevating the prices of null originating deadspace gear that high sec PVe players depend on.
NPC null we become overrun with alliances living there because npc null has missions (and missions, like escalations and unlike null complex and anomaly sites) require an invader to use proves to find their prey. NPC null missions would became thwe new alternative primary isk making source for grunt players and null coalitions would have much more incentive to take npc null space and eny it to others.
Sure, that would mean gudfights for a while, but in the end people would get tired of being blobbed. This, incidentally, is what happens in low sec systems with good lvl 5 agents lol.
Null minig would be greatly affected too, and the consequences of that (for everyone, including high sec) is obvious as well.
There is nothing wrong with good, well thought out change, but knee jerk , simplistic "just remove this one thing" thinking is irresponsible. it's what real life politicans do (change things without thinking it through because that change seems to only affect other people).
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
6170
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:23:00 -
[6] - Quote
Myriad Blaze wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:There is no rational reason why Null should have Local. I'd say there's no rational reason either, why Low should have Local. Or high-sec. Or why there are jump-gates in Null. Or why CONCORD appears out of thin air. Or why asteroid belts "regrow" after being mined out. Or why NPCs have a seemingly endless supply of fitted ships (who builds that stuff ?). Or why stations are apparently larger inside than outside (how much stuff is stored in Jita 4-4 ?). Or why acceleration gates appear in space when you start certain missions and vanish again when the mission is done. Or ... well I could continue, but I think you get the idea. There are many things in EVE that seem to have no rational reason (other than "it should work, lets do it"). But before you change these things you should better have good reasons and a good idea about what will probably happen after such a change. And you should question yourself whether you want those (long term) results.
Well said.
There are gameplay reason why some things exist the way they do. Remove those things without a good gameplay reason (and no, 'it doesn't make sense in the lore' is not a gameplay reason) and you invite bad things to happen.
Some people fall so in love with their own ideas that they don't properly criticize them like they should. Then when people tell them 'this is a bad idea'. they 1st get defensive then go on to accuse the more clear thinking people of having some kind of agenda.
Well, personally, i do have an agenda, i want the game I play (the WHOLE game) to not suck. Removing local in null is about as stupid idea as removing lvl4s from high sec.
. Of course, as with nulll local, lvl 4s in high sec make no sense rational sense. How do non-capsuleer pirates get MILLIONS of battleships into the same high sec that spawns magical space police to blap capsuleers who shoot at other capsuleers? Why doesn't CONCORD blap all those pirate npc battleships?
Because the game needs it to be the way it is, that's why.
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
6170
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:26:00 -
[7] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Myriad Blaze wrote:But before you change these things you should better have good reasons and a good idea about what will probably happen after such a change. And you should question yourself whether you want those (long term) results.
Then how do you propose to fix Null and Sovs mechanics?
By thinking about them. about the desired results and recognizing the potential consequences to gameplay.
Not by making knee jerk changes based on "I don't like this" or "this makes no sense lorewise". There are probably lots of good rational changes that could occur, and a null without local if done right can work. But it's a complex problem and you don't solve complex problems by doing simple (and dumb) things.
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
6177
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:40:00 -
[8] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Because the game needs it to be the way it is, that's why.
The game does not want, or need, for the Null situation to be as it is. How do YOU propose to fix Null and Sovs mechanics? You answered when I asked another poster, but you did not answer the actual question. You merely elaborated on how a solution should be created, whihc I agree with, but the false implication that you made, that this spexidic proposal has not been considered, was false and wrong. It has. So, what are YOUR specific suggestions?
The difference between me and you is that I KNOW I'm not a game designer. I don't know how to fix null as I'm not a presumptuous *insert words that would spawn ISD like CONCORD to this thread*.
The point I'm making is that there are good thought (and design) processes and bad ones. While i don't know what the best fixes would be, I know bad/irresponsible thinking when i see it, and you are displaying bad/irresponsible thinking.
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
6177
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:45:00 -
[9] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
So, what are YOUR specific suggestions?
No suggestions Oh look. You didnt answer the question, or provide any suggestions.
That's right, because i don't know. The fact that you think you do says volumes about who you are.
Again (for the rational people as yo aren't one of those), suggesting that there is a simple fix to a complex problem/situation is the definition of stupid.
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
6178
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 15:41:00 -
[10] - Quote
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:Revman Zim wrote:If you are using SOV as a reason why local should be removed, then there is only ONE way to do it.
Once SOV is established in a system, ONLY those people that belong to that alliance or who are blue to them would have access to local. Anyone else would have no info at all unless someone typed something. It seems to me that the Alliance or Corporation that spent the time and resources to get sov should be the only ones who have access the intel.
Any system that has NO sov holder would have NO intel for anyone since there would be no active intel gathering resouces.
Let the **** storm begin. I like this idea....would require you to scout and probe as you would in real tactics.
Local works because it does not discriminate. A 'defender only' local would turn null sec into SUPER bluesec where many many more people would be joining sov holding renter alliances to carebear.
Because SOV null's main isk making comes from anomalies (which spew liquid isk and no LP if you use an ESS), this means mountains and mountains of new liquid isk stuffing itself into the economy.
In short, the idea is WORSE than no local. No local slowly strangles the economy by reducing the overall numbers of ships/mods killed as PVe players leave for high sec (as happened with the comparatively minor nerf to anomalies in 2011). Defender only local would kill the EVE economy almost over night.
Alliances would have MORE incentive to hold space they don't use just to have local intel.
The above is what I'm talking about. It took my all of 15 seconds to pull apart the idea of defender only local, because the idea is so glaringly bad that it's easy to pull apart.
This is why CCP ignores most 'feedback', because it's usually coming from a bunch of know it all gamers who never made a single game lol. |
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
6178
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 15:43:00 -
[11] - Quote
Revman Zim wrote:I would lke to state that my suggestion about local being available to the SOV holder was only to make a point about removing local completely.
Using SOV as the argument for removing local does not work. I believe the OP just wants to "feel safe" in null and be able to attack and harass players without being seen. So, basically reaping the benefits of NULL without having to actually take, maintain or pay for it.
I haven't thought through the ramifications of changing the availability of local enough to categoricaly support this idea. I was just pointing out the ignorance of the argument.
I know, and you made your point as far as I'm concerned.
Yet you see that some people could even think that what you said was a good idea.
It's because 'brilliant idea' people only focus on the good aspects of an idea and don't think about the bad. Which is why the features and ideas forum is a vbery very dumb place lol.
|
|
|
|