Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Adoris Nolen
Sama Guild
66
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 11:18:00 -
[1] - Quote
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 |
Dave Stark
5026
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 11:25:00 -
[2] - Quote
Adoris Nolen wrote:This needs to happen. wrong |
Gempei
Marvinovi pratele Nulli Secunda
49
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 11:25:00 -
[3] - Quote
omg, not again! |
Dominic karin
Trojan Legion Fidelas Constans
40
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 11:26:00 -
[4] - Quote
OH LOOK AN ORIGINAL IDEA POSTED IN THE CORRECT SECTION!!
Oh wait everything I just said was false.
*sips tea* |
Yang Aurilen
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
103
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 11:28:00 -
[5] - Quote
Filthy NPC corp alt forum po-oh wait you're in a corp my bad. |
KuroVolt
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
1815
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 11:29:00 -
[6] - Quote
If it's hilarious then why do you want it to change? BoBwins Law: As a discussion/war between two large nullsec entities grows longer, the probability of one comparing the other to BoB aproaches near certainty. |
Snagletooth Johnson
Snagle Material Services CAStabouts
132
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 11:30:00 -
[7] - Quote
Trademarked |
Ramone Ormand
Black Watch Syndicate Vitoc Health Services
28
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 11:31:00 -
[8] - Quote
You also posted this in the Features & Ideas Discussion area
You're looking for a response in that thread and to troll in this thread maybe? |
Ramone Ormand
Black Watch Syndicate Vitoc Health Services
28
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 11:32:00 -
[9] - Quote
you worded it absolutely horribly in the Features & Ideas Discussion thread though, so maybe just trolling in both threads |
Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
367
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 12:04:00 -
[10] - Quote
Ramone Ormand wrote:you worded it absolutely horribly in the Features & Ideas Discussion thread though, so maybe just trolling in both threads Haven't read that one, but based on his usual "suggestions" in the Wormholes forum, it was probably par for the course with his F&I post. |
|
Salvos Rhoska
1171
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 12:05:00 -
[11] - Quote
Agreed, it needs to happen, and I am confident it will.
Null sec has no right to automatic local data.
I think after it is removed, it could however be made possible for Sov holders to "buy" local data service, as facilitated by some kind of physical installation. ------------ |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
6168
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 12:10:00 -
[12] - 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.
|
Salvos Rhoska
1171
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 12:11:00 -
[13] - Quote
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? ------------ |
Dave Stark
5026
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 12:12:00 -
[14] - Quote
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. |
Belt Scout
Forum alts make you mad
318
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 12:13:00 -
[15] - Quote
People that need local are just afraid of the dark. Having no local list of names in w-space works just fine. (Unless you're dumb enough, or new enough, to 'opt in' with a pubbie o7m8 in the window.)
Get rid of local in the entire game and balance it by pushing the dscan range up and adding a special 'Pilots' tab that will populate when you hit scan.
It'll never happen because the leet peeveepee'rs need their security blanket. EVE's only legitimate ISK halving service. I have 500Billion to not give away. It's easy for you to double my money. Just send me some isk, has to be 100Mil or higher, and I will send you back half. I can't lose. One guaranteed winner every round. Do it now. |
Salvos Rhoska
1171
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 12:13:00 -
[16] - Quote
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 ------------ |
Dave Stark
5026
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 12:21:00 -
[17] - 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
npcs don't pay for anything, they're npcs. and it's irrelevant what they pay for, not that they pay for anything.
nobody pays for local. |
Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
367
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 12:23:00 -
[18] - 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 Technically, in Sov space, the entity holding Sov is paying for that space.
If all things were ideal, one of two things would happen: either the Sov holder would set up dedicated equipment to maintain a communications presence in the system, such as communications relay satellites, POS mods or whatever, or the gates/stations/outposts themselves would report entry/exit/presence in the system.
In either case, if you do not communicate with the satellites/gates, you would not be able to participate in local communications. So for example, if you entered the system via wormhole connection, you wouldn't show up in Local but you also wouldn't see anyone in Local or be able to chat in Local either until you were on-grid with a gate, station, POS, or whatever communications device existed. In wormhole systems, there would be no Local communications at all.
CCP took the easy-to-code approach in favour of true realism. Can't fault them for that, no matter how much I dislike Local :) |
Salvos Rhoska
1171
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 12:30:00 -
[19] - Quote
Adding a separate Sov payed option of access to Local is not unreasonable. The assumption that it is a deserved "entitled" mechanic, however, is completely false.
There should be no Local in Null, without the Sov holders explicitly paying for that privilege and service, whether thtough constructed and maintained infrastructure, or by outsourcing it to the gate authorities for an ISK charge.
Make no mistake, post expansion, when Null can fairly be said to be more profitable, it is time to start re-evaluating and adjusting exactly what it is that Null is taking for granted. Be prepared to pay for every single inch of it.. ------------ |
Dave Stark
5028
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 12:32:00 -
[20] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Adding a separate Sov payed option of access to Local is not unreasonable. The assumption that it is a deserved "entitled" mechanic, however, is completely false.
There should be no Local in Null, without the Sov holders explicitly paying for that privilege and service.
which they already do; sov bills.
so we're agreed local shouldn't be removed. good. |
|
Salvos Rhoska
1171
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 12:36:00 -
[21] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Adding a separate Sov payed option of access to Local is not unreasonable. The assumption that it is a deserved "entitled" mechanic, however, is completely false.
There should be no Local in Null, without the Sov holders explicitly paying for that privilege and service. which they already do; sov bills. so we're agreed local shouldn't be removed. good.
Lol.
Thanks for showing yourself to be a self-entitled carebear. How utterly disgusting.
Sov bills cover a license to run that space, not access to the additional Local service. Currently, it is "gratis". That has to change. ------------ |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
6170
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 12:49:00 -
[22] - 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.
|
Dave Stark
5030
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 12:53:00 -
[23] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Adding a separate Sov payed option of access to Local is not unreasonable. The assumption that it is a deserved "entitled" mechanic, however, is completely false.
There should be no Local in Null, without the Sov holders explicitly paying for that privilege and service. which they already do; sov bills. so we're agreed local shouldn't be removed. good. Lol. Thanks for showing yourself to be a self-entitled carebear. How utterly disgusting. Sov bills cover a license to run that space, not access to the additional Local service. Currently, it is "gratis". That has to change.
point out people pay for the space you say they should be paying for.... and i'm an entitled carebear.
i'm sure that works in your world of bunnies and stupidity. |
Yim Sei
Watchers of Tartarus
132
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 12:57:00 -
[24] - Quote
I Love these threads for the pure fear it instills in the nullbear renter community.
In fact I would hazard a guess that most of the replies berating or insulting the OP are said bears quaking in their boots that their safe little nullsec bubble might burst XD.
It DOES make perfect sense with the current 'scare' of nerfing hi-sec. Imagine a far more profitable, but far more dangerous null.
...but seriously if this did happen, how it would decimate the nullsec renter alliances - lol.
Surely a massive cut in the profits of CFC, Tangra etc - and that capsuleers, is why (unfiotunately) it will never happen. Post with my main? This is my main - I just overtrain and overplay my alts. |
Lancastor Dex
BLUE Regiment.
28
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 12:57:00 -
[25] - 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
Shut up |
Salvos Rhoska
1171
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 13:08:00 -
[26] - Quote
Look at the Nullbears crying.
My god, its disgusting. ------------ |
BrundleMeth
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
124
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 13:09:00 -
[27] - Quote
Talks about whining?
Stop whining....whiner... |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
6170
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 13:12:00 -
[28] - 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.
|
Lucas Kell
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS SpaceMonkey's Alliance
3306
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 13:13:00 -
[29] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Adding a separate Sov payed option of access to Local is not unreasonable. The assumption that it is a deserved "entitled" mechanic, however, is completely false.
There should be no Local in Null, without the Sov holders explicitly paying for that privilege and service, whether thtough constructed and maintained infrastructure, or by outsourcing it to the gate authorities for an ISK charge.
Make no mistake, post expansion, when Null can fairly be said to be more profitable, it is time to start re-evaluating and adjusting exactly what it is that Null is taking for granted. Be prepared to pay for every single inch of it.. If this happened, it would just be paid for as standard. It would be nothing more than another isk sink. The game would not change, people wouldn't suddenly be flying around in giant wormholes screaming "wheeee" and nuking miners, there would just be 1 more thing to pay for, and 1 more hurdle for any group that isn't an enormous group trying to claim a part of null. The large groups would just pass the charge on through a distributed price rise on rental space, while smaller, more independent groups would have to figure out how to source the income elsewhere, so *shrug*.
That said, it's never going to happen. The force projection issues in null sec pretty much guarantee that. The Indecisive Noob - A new EVE Fan Blog for news and stuff. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. |
Lucas Kell
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS SpaceMonkey's Alliance
3306
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 13:14:00 -
[30] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: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. Never mind him, he just assumes everything is tears so he has fap material for later.
The Indecisive Noob - A new EVE Fan Blog for news and stuff. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. |
|
Salvos Rhoska
1171
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 13:15:00 -
[31] - Quote
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.
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. ------------ |
Seven Koskanaiken
The Shadow Plague Fidelas Constans
1205
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 13:24:00 -
[32] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote: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.
Oh my golly gosh. |
Jaun Pacht-Feng
FOX News 24
75
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 13:24:00 -
[33] - 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 FOX News 24 Reporting in!
Noob doesn't know the difference of 0.0 and Wormhole space!
This and more at 11! -á(\_/) (O.o) (> -á<) |
Lucas Kell
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS SpaceMonkey's Alliance
3306
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 13:24:00 -
[34] - 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. 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 post essentially says "If you don't agree with what I am saying, then you are categorically wrong, proven by the fact that you disagree with me."
And there's loads of rational reasons null should have local. In fact, the reason you think it shouldn't have it is an irrational reason, because the reason you think it shouldn't have it is because you hate null players. If it were removed entirely, it would empty null out in a day since power projection would make it suicide to do anything serious in null, so we'd all move to low sec and kick all of those guys out. If it were "pay to use", we'd just pay and smaller groups would get even more crushed.
And i don;t think anyone cares if you want to voice your opinions about us ebil nullbears. You realise nobody takes you seriously right? You are just "one of those forum trolls" at this point. The Indecisive Noob - A new EVE Fan Blog for news and stuff. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. |
E-2C Hawkeye
State War Academy Caldari State
598
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 13:29:00 -
[35] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: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.
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. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
6170
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 13:32:00 -
[36] - 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 -
[37] - 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).
|
Luwc
Biohazard. WINMATAR.
120
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 13:46:00 -
[38] - Quote
+1
lived in CFC null for 3+ years and **** is boring as ****.
remove local
>NOT A TROLL< http://hugelolcdn.com/i/267520.gif |
Yim Sei
Watchers of Tartarus
134
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 13:52:00 -
[39] - Quote
Why not just have a deployable that removes local ;)
would test the water at least. Post with my main? This is my main - I just overtrain and overplay my alts. |
BrundleMeth
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
124
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 13:55:00 -
[40] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote: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. You really are a melodramatic screwball. You're an even bigger whiner than the OP...
|
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10505
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:01:00 -
[41] - Quote
Belt Scout wrote:People that need local are just afraid of the dark. Having no local list of names in w-space works just fine. (Unless you're dumb enough, or new enough, to 'opt in' with a pubbie o7m8 in the window.)
Get rid of local in the entire game and balance it by pushing the dscan range up and adding a special 'Pilots' tab that will populate when you hit scan.
It'll never happen because the leet peeveepee'rs need their security blanket.
Can we get wormhole stabilizers and the ability to project force into wormhole space with supercapitals and titan bridges, considering that wormholers hide behind the security blanket of wormhole mass limitations and the fact that jump drives don't work there? Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Dave Stark
5032
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:09:00 -
[42] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Look at the Nullbears crying.
My god, its disgusting.
to be honest, crying is your thing.
usually because you keep posting stupid things. which people keep having to correct, which seems to really upset you. |
Drone 16
Law Dogz
162
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:11:00 -
[43] - Quote
Andski wrote:Belt Scout wrote:People that need local are just afraid of the dark. Having no local list of names in w-space works just fine. (Unless you're dumb enough, or new enough, to 'opt in' with a pubbie o7m8 in the window.)
Get rid of local in the entire game and balance it by pushing the dscan range up and adding a special 'Pilots' tab that will populate when you hit scan.
It'll never happen because the leet peeveepee'rs need their security blanket. Can we get wormhole stabilizers and the ability to project force into wormhole space with supercapitals and titan bridges, considering that wormholers hide behind the security blanket of wormhole mass limitations and the fact that jump drives don't work there?
Are you saying that you can't bring fights unless you have the security of knowing you can bridge in "the blob" with supercapital support?!
I know that isn't true. If you keep saying things like that people will lose respect for Goons. Please make a correction , thanks. It puts the peanutbutter on itself or it leaves the bonus round... - E1's greatest Hits |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10505
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:12:00 -
[44] - Quote
Notice how nobody in this thread has brought up the fact that the game provides tons of intelligence on k-space systems, such as the number of ships killed, number of active cynos, whether a cyno array is active in the system, number of NPCs killed, jumps in the last hour, jumps in the last 24 hours, activity indices that can indicate how much mining and anomaly running takes place, pilots in space in the last 30 minutes, number of docked pilots - and none of that data requires a player to even undock from a system across the galaxy.
But local is the problem, not the other forms of free intel that benefit me because ratters should be sheep and i am a wolf Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Caviar Liberta
Moira. Villore Accords
525
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:13:00 -
[45] - 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
You could close the window called local and pretend its not there any more. |
Salvos Rhoska
1171
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:13:00 -
[46] - Quote
Part of having autonomy in Sov, is responsibility for defending it. That SHOULD include having to do your own intel and system reconnaisance.
Automated mail systems and a universal Local make sense in NPC space, but not in sectors where Sov is held by players.
Whining that you should have Local in Null, is no different than highseccers whining for faster Concord intervention. Both are based on automatic and essentially NPC based effects.
Stop crying for and trying to defend an automated system making Sov even easier
The tables are turning. Null will receive its deserved higher nominal profitability. Thereafter, its time to start adjusting, and in particular, removing NPC based and automated systems from Null and relegating them instead to player action.
You cant argue for wanting player autonomous systems on hand, but then tryi g to defend having automated non-players systems on the otherhand.
Its a fallacious hypocrisy. ------------ |
Myriad Blaze
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
224
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:14:00 -
[47] - Quote
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.
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10505
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:19:00 -
[48] - Quote
Drone 16 wrote:Are you saying that you can't bring fights unless you have the security of knowing you can bridge in "the blob" with supercapital support?!
I know that isn't true. If you keep saying things like that people will lose respect for Goons. Please make a correction , thanks.
No, I'm saying that wormholes don't have local because it's a tradeoff to prevent what would be insanely easymode gameplay. Local would be ridiculously overpowered in a wormhole compared to anywhere else in the game. Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10505
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:20:00 -
[49] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Somthing has to change in Null and Sov mechanics, and more likeky than not, it will be something that inconveniences its current hegemounous overlords. That is predictable, why? Because the current system of Null/Sov is exactly the one that allowed this abomination of a doughnut to come to exist in the first place.
sorry hisec miner guy, local isn't why 0.0 has been condensed into two supercoalitions Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Solecist Project
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
789
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:20:00 -
[50] - Quote
*sips blood orange juice* ################################
|
|
Salvos Rhoska
1171
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:22:00 -
[51] - Quote
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? ------------ |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
6170
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:23:00 -
[52] - 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 -
[53] - 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.
|
Salvos Rhoska
1171
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:28:00 -
[54] - Quote
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? ------------ |
Dave Stark
5033
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:30:00 -
[55] - 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. What are YOUR specific suggestions?
of course the game doesn't want or need it. it's not a sentient being and it's not controlled by skynet.
null sec being "broken" isn't the topic here, stop pretending it is. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10505
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:31:00 -
[56] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Implying I have ever claimed so. It is however, one avenue for fixing the current status quo.
No it's not. It's not even an alleyway leading to any of those avenues. Changing local will have zero effect on the status quo and it'll only affect how much people actually play in 0.0. Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Salvos Rhoska
1171
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:33:00 -
[57] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:
of course the game doesn't want or need it. it's not a sentient being and it's not controlled by skynet.
null sec being "broken" isn't the topic here, stop pretending it is.
Fallacious argument.
The game is populated by players. It is their wants and needs which are the issue. How to fix them, are the games issue.
Nice try though, albeit juvenile. ------------ |
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon Drunk 'n' Disorderly
1214
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:34:00 -
[58] - 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
Remove local everywhere!
"Also, your boobs " -á CCP Eterne, 2012
|
Antihrist Pripravnik
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
237
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:35:00 -
[59] - Quote
Every time a troll is bored this thread appears It's been like this for years.
I'll repeat the same from the last 9000 threads on the same subject:
If you like an environment without local, go play in W-Space. Nothing is stopping you. There are players who like playing in 0.0 and don't like W-Space mechanics. They are playing where they like to play.
If you don't like the environment that you are in, go to another environment. Diversity of supported play styles is what makes EVE so great. My signature got stolen (o.0) |
Salvos Rhoska
1171
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:35:00 -
[60] - Quote
Andski wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Implying I have ever claimed so. It is however, one avenue for fixing the current status quo. No it's not. It's not even an alleyway leading to any of those avenues. Changing local will have zero effect on the status quo and it'll only affect how much people actually play in 0.0 outside of bloc-level warfare.
Contrdictory.
You state it will not affect the status quo, yet immedistely thereafter make an observation of how, indeed, it will affect it.
What are YOUR suggestions to fixing Null and Sov then? Be as specific as possible please. ------------ |
|
Salvos Rhoska
1171
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:36:00 -
[61] - Quote
Eugene Kerner wrote:Remove local everywhere!
Not a bad suggestion, imo. ------------ |
Dave Stark
5037
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:37:00 -
[62] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Andski wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Implying I have ever claimed so. It is however, one avenue for fixing the current status quo. No it's not. It's not even an alleyway leading to any of those avenues. Changing local will have zero effect on the status quo and it'll only affect how much people actually play in 0.0 outside of bloc-level warfare. Contrdictory. You state it will not affect the status quo, yet immedistely thereafter make an observation of how, indeed, it will affect it. What are YOUR suggestions to fixing Null and Sov then? Be as specific as possible please.
actually it's not a contradiction, things that happen outside of bloc level content won't change the status quo. the status quo is defined at bloc level.
are you posting about things you have no idea about, again? |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
9415
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:39:00 -
[63] - 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. 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. Are you for real? Holy ****. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
6177
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:40:00 -
[64] - 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.
|
Salvos Rhoska
1171
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:40:00 -
[65] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote: actually it's not a contradiction, things that happen outside of bloc level content won't change the status quo. the status quo is defined at bloc level
Pathetic attempt.
Every change has repercussions throughout the system.
Furthermore, if we take your complaint as true, if removal of Local has so little effect in your eyes, then there is commensurately no harm in doing so. Nice faceplant. ------------ |
Salvos Rhoska
1171
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:42:00 -
[66] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
So, what are YOUR specific suggestions?
No suggestions [/quote]
Oh look. You didnt answer the question, or provide any suggestions. ------------ |
Revman Zim
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
246
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:42:00 -
[67] - Quote
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 to it.
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. |
Dave Stark
5037
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:43:00 -
[68] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Dave Stark wrote: actually it's not a contradiction, things that happen outside of bloc level content won't change the status quo. the status quo is defined at bloc level
Pathetic attempt. Every change has repercussions throughout the system. Furthermore, if we take your complaint as true, if removal of Local has so little effect in your eyes, then there is commensurately no harm in doing so. Nice faceplant.
i see you're still having trouble with the english language.
pray tell, what is your mother tongue, perhaps google translate will be able to help me help you. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
9415
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:43:00 -
[69] - Quote
"You don't know how to do it better, that clearly means you're unable to distinguish how to do it worse." "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10508
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:44:00 -
[70] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Contrdictory.
You state it will not affect the status quo, yet immedistely thereafter make an observation of how, indeed, it will affect it.
What are YOUR suggestions to fixing Null and Sov then? Be as specific as possible please.
Making individual systems more worthwhile to live off of, which fixes the need to take huge swathes of space to rent out Changing to a multiple independent objective sov system that does not encourage concentrating huge amounts of force for every timer Making bottom-up income streams viable Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
6177
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:45:00 -
[71] - 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.
|
Salvos Rhoska
1172
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:49:00 -
[72] - 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 to it.
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.
Not a bad suggestion.
But unfoetunately, two elements make this unworkable.
1) CFC will argue that this would make it evene easier for them to steamroll. 2) They would be right in saying so.
The Null situation is already so fked, and so entrenched, that everyone is waiting for a miracle to fix it. Any and all real sugfestions will be vetoed either by the part of Null which rightly knows they can ezploit theirncurrent hegemony even more effectively through the change OR by the part of Null hegemony who wants no compromise on the advantage they have earned in their majority position.
Its a hopeless deadlock. A Gordian Knot, which only drastic acrion can part. ------------ |
Salvos Rhoska
1172
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:52:00 -
[73] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: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.
And it speaks volumes of you that you dont even try, and instead insult and harass those who do.
You are bringing nothing to the table.
Show some good faith. Make even ONE suggestion. Its ok to be wrong, but atleast attempt to contribute. ------------ |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
9416
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:52:00 -
[74] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:1) CFC will argue that this would make it evene easier for them to steamroll. 2) They would be right in saying so. ...We'd have an easier time steamrolling in systems where we couldn't see local but the defenders could? Uh, yeah, sure.
Not that this makes it a good suggestion. It's imbalanced too far in favor of the defenders. It'd make it marginally harder for us to take someone else's space, but it'd make it prohibitively hard for anyone else to take our space. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Salvos Rhoska
1172
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:54:00 -
[75] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:1) CFC will argue that this would make it evene easier for them to steamroll. 2) They would be right in saying so. ...We'd have an easier time steamrolling in systems where we couldn't see local but the defenders could? Uh, yeah, sure. Not that this makes it a good suggestion. It's imbalanced too far in favor of the defenders. It'd make it marginally harder for us to take someone else's space, but it'd make it prohibitively hard for anyone else to take our space.
Yes. It would make it easier for you to defend your enormous empire.
Thanks for agreeing and proving my point. ------------ |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10508
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:56:00 -
[76] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Pathetic attempt.
Every change has repercussions throughout the system.
Furthermore, if we take your complaint as true, if removal of Local has so little effect in your eyes, then there is commensurately no harm in doing so. Nice faceplant.
Except that you're wrong and 0.0 would still be a game between two supercoalitions regardless of any changes made to local, all else equal
Removing local would not create any opportunities for other entities to gain a foothold in the sov game, period. Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
9419
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:57:00 -
[77] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:1) CFC will argue that this would make it evene easier for them to steamroll. 2) They would be right in saying so. ...We'd have an easier time steamrolling in systems where we couldn't see local but the defenders could? Uh, yeah, sure. Not that this makes it a good suggestion. It's imbalanced too far in favor of the defenders. It'd make it marginally harder for us to take someone else's space, but it'd make it prohibitively hard for anyone else to take our space. Yes. It would make it easier for you to defend your enormous empire. Thanks for agreeing and proving my point. Except what you said was exactly the opposite. It wouldn't make it easier for us to attack. It'd make it easier for us to defend. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10508
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:58:00 -
[78] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Yes. It would make it easier for you to defend your enormous empire.
Thanks for agreeing and proving my point.
I 'get' that you've never set foot in 0.0 and don't understand how strategic assets are defended, but at no point does it involve intel channels or local or any of that crap Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Jur Tissant
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:58:00 -
[79] - Quote
Null is already treacherous enough to travel through while having to dodge bubbles. Perhaps it should be an option in player-controlled systems but not in NPC null. |
Salvos Rhoska
1172
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:59:00 -
[80] - Quote
@Andski and James: So what do YOU propose as a change then?
Show us what youve got.
Jur Tissant wrote:Null is already treacherous enough to travel through while having to dodge bubbles. Perhaps it should be an option in player-controlled systems but not in NPC null. I agree. The difference being in the nature of Sov, and player control. Players cant Sovereignly control NPC space, nor is that Sov control contested by other players, therrfore a degree of automation and NPC interference in that environment, as Local, is justified. ------------ |
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10508
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:59:00 -
[81] - Quote
Andski wrote:Making individual systems more worthwhile to live off of, which fixes the need to take huge swathes of space to rent out Changing to a multiple independent objective sov system that does not encourage concentrating huge amounts of force for every timer Making bottom-up income streams viable
thanks for playing, NPC alt Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Dave Stark
5039
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 15:00:00 -
[82] - Quote
Andski wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Yes. It would make it easier for you to defend your enormous empire.
Thanks for agreeing and proving my point. I 'get' that you've never set foot in 0.0 and don't understand how strategic assets are defended, but at no point does it involve intel channels or local or any of that crap
it involves logging in more titans than the other guy? |
Cresswell Jones
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 15:05:00 -
[83] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska please seek help for your learning delays. Your ideas are bad and you cannot engage in good faith discussion when presented with contradictory opinions either out of inexperience or ignorance. I am not sure which at this point but it is probably both. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10508
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 15:05:00 -
[84] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:it involves logging in more titans than the other guy?
It basically involves a cynojammer, bubbles and slowcats
I'm sure the highly knowledgeable NPC alt will tell us how that will change if local is removed Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
9421
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 15:12:00 -
[85] - Quote
I've been out of the loop for a while, but my impression of the change (giving only defenders local) would impede sov-grinding with supers.
That's really the only effect I figured it would have, as minor as it is.
No doubt Andski understands these things a lot better than I do. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Drone 16
Law Dogz
163
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 15:12:00 -
[86] - 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 have often though how interesting it would be for null-sov to have to build infrastructure to provide intel. The fights over the "local network" would be furious as the attacker tries to remove the huge advantage of the defender having local access while they do not.
I think it would work quite well. However as I understand it local can't be touched without huge changes to the code so it's off of the table. It puts the peanutbutter on itself or it leaves the bonus round... - E1's greatest Hits |
Salvos Rhoska
1173
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 15:15:00 -
[87] - Quote
Cresswell Jones wrote:Salvos Rhoska please seek help for your learning delays. Your ideas are bad and you cannot engage in good faith discussion when presented with contradictory opinions, either out of inexperience or ignorance. I am not sure which at this point but it is probably both.
What are your suggestions then? ------------ |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
9423
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 15:17:00 -
[88] - Quote
"I make pizzas by throwing all the ingredients into a bowl and microwaving it. You don't know how to make a better pizza, therefore I make a really good pizza." "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Dave Stark
5042
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 15:17:00 -
[89] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Cresswell Jones wrote:Salvos Rhoska please seek help for your learning delays. Your ideas are bad and you cannot engage in good faith discussion when presented with contradictory opinions, either out of inexperience or ignorance. I am not sure which at this point but it is probably both. What are your suggestions then?
do the polar opposite of all of your suggestions. |
Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
367
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 15:26:00 -
[90] - Quote
Andski wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Contrdictory.
You state it will not affect the status quo, yet immedistely thereafter make an observation of how, indeed, it will affect it.
What are YOUR suggestions to fixing Null and Sov then? Be as specific as possible please. Making individual systems more worthwhile to live off of, which fixes the need to take huge swathes of space to rent out Changing to a multiple independent objective sov system that does not encourage concentrating huge amounts of force for every timer Making bottom-up income streams viable How might a restriction of Cyno/Bridging to intra-Constellation only affect this?
Edit: How might such a restriction change how Nullsec works? |
|
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] |