Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
E-2C Hawkeye
State War Academy Caldari State
598
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 15:30:00 -
[91] - Quote
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. |
Yarda Black
Epidemic. Nulli Secunda
133
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 15:32:00 -
[92] - Quote
This thread is:
- Unimaginative
- Unoriginal
- Badly explained
- Already made obsolete in the post that started it: "there is already space like this"
I say: trollpost |
E-2C Hawkeye
State War Academy Caldari State
598
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 15:32:00 -
[93] - Quote
This and removing jump from caps would help reshape bluesec. |
Revman Zim
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
248
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 15:37:00 -
[94] - Quote
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. |
Herzyr
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
12
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 15:40:00 -
[95] - Quote
Removing local from 0.0 makes it saferthan 1.0 hisec.
Cmon CCP, enforce this. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
6178
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 15:41:00 -
[96] - 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 -
[97] - 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.
|
Aiwha
Trans Secunda Nulli Secunda
734
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 15:43:00 -
[98] - Quote
Come play in Wspace if you want that. We also have no hotdrops. We're winning the war if it says so on CAOD! -á
|
Myriad Blaze
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
225
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 16:47:00 -
[99] - 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? Are you implying that removing Local from Null would solve Null and Sov mechanics?
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10514
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 17:07:00 -
[100] - Quote
Myriad Blaze wrote:Are you implying that removing Local from Null would solve Null and Sov mechanics?
He isn't, he's just saying that just because there's no known link between local and the strategic state of sov nullsec that doesn't mean that removing local isn't the cure for everything that ails the sov game
It's simple NPC alt logic Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire
565
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 17:43:00 -
[101] - Quote
Andski wrote:Myriad Blaze wrote:Are you implying that removing Local from Null would solve Null and Sov mechanics?
He isn't, he's just saying that just because there's no known link between local and the strategic state of sov nullsec that doesn't mean that removing local isn't the cure for everything that ails the sov game It's simple NPC alt logic
Though the necessity of watching both ends of your pipe in your ratting constellation would be more in-line with the concept of *living there*.
But still, it's far to radical. Eve K-space has local chat and having it disappear without any similiar replacement would be extremely bad. Though I'm all for that replacement to require some technique to correctly interpret whatever it tells you. Big nullblocs would surely pull a temporary advantage from such a change, simply cause bigger think-tank.
Afterall, please don't remove local from null, it would utterly destroy the game for AFK-cloakers. :( "I honestly thought I was in lowsec"
Moving pictures |
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
4841
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 17:47:00 -
[102] - Quote
If you remove local from null, many of the nullbear renters will stop renting eliminating a big chunk of a very lucrative revenue stream. Space holders would then have to expend a lot more :effort: to maintain their status quo.
That's either a good thing or a bad thing depending on which side of the fence you are on. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the ho's and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' and I'll look down, and whisper 'Hodor'. |
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Panhandle Industries Order of the Exalted
494
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 18:00:00 -
[103] - Quote
Dominic karin wrote:OH LOOK AN ORIGINAL IDEA POSTED IN THE CORRECT SECTION!!
Oh wait everything I just said was false.
*sips tea* Well it was an idea, and in a section. Only your adjectives lied.
I would love local being changed up or removed, but only if it were replaced by some other intel tool that doesn't seem as metagamey. I'd love for there to be an area without local where cynos are usable. Blops would be awesome this way. New player resources: http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Main_Page - General information http://www.evealtruist.com/p/know-your-enemy.html - Learn to PvP http://belligerentundesirables.com/ - Safaris, Awoxes, Ganking and Griefing-á |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
4823
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 18:04:00 -
[104] - Quote
One of my favorite topics.
I still think the best compromise would be to let players rely on indication signals comparable to what we use in modern aircraft. Non-military aircraft use a non-encrypted identity system that is mainly a beacon sending out ID signals. Military aircraft use a "Identification Friend or Foe" (IFF) system that is encrypted.
But I'm sure people will just troll back and forth instead, rather than work on any solution the enhances the game. You OCD'ed min/max -ers are funny to watch at least. Bring back DEEEEP Space! |
Benny Ohu
Beneath the Ashes Margin of Silence
3082
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 18:08:00 -
[105] - Quote
having no local works very well... in wormholes
this 'issue' of local chat isn't even worth considering until dscan is replaced and sov space is well worth living and working in |
Divine Entervention
Abyss Cooperative 3
443
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 18:15:00 -
[106] - Quote
What about in non-empire space, "local" needing to be a Radar/Communication array built and fueled by the "owners"? Make it an attackable structure that upon disabling it, removes local until it's repaired or rebuilt?
That could alot of really interesting game mechanics, and give the people of null the choice of having local up if they so desired, and if that is their desire, an object of attack by people wishing to deny those system owners of a precious resource they desire, "information". Proof of lying in thread.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4349703#post4349703 |
Lucas Kell
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS SpaceMonkey's Alliance
3310
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 19:13:00 -
[107] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Eugene Kerner wrote:Remove local everywhere! Not a bad suggestion, imo. Arguably though that's because you've been playing for about 10 minutes, so your judgement on the impact of such changes is undereducated. The Indecisive Noob - A new EVE Fan Blog for news and stuff. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. |
|
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
2976
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 19:49:00 -
[108] - Quote
Quote:16. Redundant and re-posted threads will be locked.
As a courtesy to other forum users, please search to see if there is a thread already open on the topic you wish to discuss. If so, please place your comments there instead. Multiple threads on the same subject clutter up the forums needlessly, causing good feedback and ideas to be lost. Please keep discussions regarding a topic to a single thread. Thread closed. ISD Dorrim Barstorlode Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |