open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Why not have a trial run of no local in 0.0 and Empire?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Valei Khurelem
Posted - 2011.07.14 09:57:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Valei Khurelem on 14/07/2011 09:59:53
Edited by: Valei Khurelem on 14/07/2011 09:57:28
The title says it all, lets face it, I don't know about you but I hardly go on to test servers, I personally would like to see CCP maybe introduce it for a weekend on the normal server or something just to see how the playerbase will react and use it then they can decide whether or not it's a good idea. I don't like all this bickering people do about "Oh well it won't work because of blah blah blah reasons I just made up now about hardware and lag or PvPers".

So why not simply do a trial run? I absolutely bet that part of the reason that CCP doesn't get things done properly is because they won't have enough people stress testing these ideas out, one thing people could actually do for those who aren't playing the game all that much etc. is record videos of how it all works out and let them make their minds up.

Developers aren't politicians, there's always the option of testing something out and going back, I've never seen a games developer do this before so it would be very interesting for CCP to do it.

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2011.07.14 10:30:00 - [2]
 

no local is a bit hard I believe without an adequate replacement.
Delayed local would be great, say 20-30 seconds before you appear on local. Or constellation local would be a fine model also. It shouldnt be removed at all but become somewhat less reliable.

AlexOrl
Posted - 2011.07.14 11:29:00 - [3]
 

There is no local in wormhole so if wspace people can manage it why not 0.0?
It would be logical that local is only available if there is some kind of sov in a system.

Valei Khurelem
Posted - 2011.07.14 11:30:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Valei Khurelem on 14/07/2011 11:30:59
Edited by: Valei Khurelem on 14/07/2011 11:30:25
Originally by: Robert Caldera
no local is a bit hard I believe without an adequate replacement.
Delayed local would be great, say 20-30 seconds before you appear on local. Or constellation local would be a fine model also. It shouldnt be removed at all but become somewhat less reliable.


The thing is though, it's way too easy for people to tell exactly how many people are in the system and so on, you should have to use the scanner for that, I don't see why we can't just test it to see what would happen rather than people running around predicting disaster scenarios that may not actually happen.

I just think it's irritating seeing all this pointless debating going on when what we could just do is as I said, simply test it and then we'll see whether it's practical or not. My view is that the very people who want local to stay are probably the gate campers and gankers who want to stay station docked and then come out when new people enter the system or get through the stargate.

I think you should be able to chat in local maybe, but just not see everyone there and yes, I think maybe having it so that corporations can see the people that are in their owned systems would be a good idea.

Rek Seven
Gallente
Zandathorn Industries
Posted - 2011.07.14 11:36:00 - [5]
 

Because 0.0 isn't WH space and it should be up to the sovereignty holder whether they have local or not.

Valei Khurelem
Posted - 2011.07.14 11:39:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: Valei Khurelem on 14/07/2011 11:44:29
Edited by: Valei Khurelem on 14/07/2011 11:39:30
Edited by: Valei Khurelem on 14/07/2011 11:39:11
Originally by: Rek Seven
Because 0.0 isn't WH space and it should be up to the sovereignty holder whether they have local or not.


I think maybe, corporations should be able to build a communications radar in order to enable local and if that's destroyed then they can't use local anymore why not make it something tactical?

I'm thinking command and conquer where you had a radar up in your base but if it got destroyed you only had the normal view to use for information.

Jareck Hunter
Rubicon Legion
Posted - 2011.07.14 12:05:00 - [7]
 

I would like it.

I would rat in a spot far away from the gates in a system at the end of the world.

So everybody who wants to kill me, has to scan every system he comes throug and can't be sure if he missed somebody or a whole gang thats going to kill him, when he enters my scanrange.

Logoffskitraps would be cool again, too.

Valei Khurelem
Posted - 2011.07.14 12:26:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Valei Khurelem on 14/07/2011 12:27:09
Concerning that, if Corporations really want to protect their systems that badly, why not make it so they have radar scanners as well? That actually show corporations the objects in space? Of course, they'd have to pay for each of these structures but in the end they benefit and if people want to mission run or rat etc. in 0.0 they won't be punished for it if it's in NPC sovereignty.

Instead of complaining about it, turn it into a game mechanic.

Starcraft had players using depots to block the entrances to their bases, when Starcraft 2 came out they made it a game feature and had it so you could lower the depots and let units cross!

Rek Seven
Gallente
Zandathorn Industries
Posted - 2011.07.14 15:53:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Rek Seven on 14/07/2011 15:54:28

Originally by: Valei Khurelem
Edited by: Valei Khurelem on 14/07/2011 11:44:29
Edited by: Valei Khurelem on 14/07/2011 11:39:30
Edited by: Valei Khurelem on 14/07/2011 11:39:11
Originally by: Rek Seven
Because 0.0 isn't WH space and it should be up to the sovereignty holder whether they have local or not.


I think maybe, corporations should be able to build a communications radar in order to enable local and if that's destroyed then they can't use local anymore why not make it something tactical?

I'm thinking command and conquer where you had a radar up in your base but if it got destroyed you only had the normal view to use for information.


That is exactly how it should be. We need some kind of communication structure that has to be anchored in a spot in space (not at a POS). This structure would have it's own limited CPU and power output to allow the owner to put some small defenses up.

When a fleet attacks the communications tower, it would alert the sovereignty owner and everyone in the system.

EnderCapitalG
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.07.14 16:05:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: AlexOrl
There is no local in wormhole so if wspace people can manage it why not 0.0?
It would be logical that local is only available if there is some kind of sov in a system.


One example would by Covert Cynos. Let's move massive cov ops cloak fitted fleets around and you have 30 seconds or so to spot them on D-Scan before they cloak up.

Hot drop heaven, I say.

Valei Khurelem
Posted - 2011.07.14 16:07:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Valei Khurelem on 14/07/2011 16:09:21
Edited by: Valei Khurelem on 14/07/2011 16:07:16
I think you're all getting what I have in mind :P

One thing as well I think this would actually make 0.0 systems active again because corporations who own 0.0 systems will be able to do other stuff than gatecamp, so producing goods etc. to sell to other corporations, of course there would still be a risk that you could use hit and run tactics by taking down their communications but at the same time make keeping a 0.0 system a lot more engaging and realistic. So in the long run it may well mean that it will solve the problem EVE has now of not being able to get a real market going in 0.0 space.

Hugh Mungous
Posted - 2011.07.14 16:13:00 - [12]
 

0.0 isn't worth making isk in right now, with no local it would be completely pointless. So yeah I know all you pirates dream of dropping in on legions of unsuspecting carebears and pwning them...but finding them will be about as easy as finding girls numbers in your cell phone...they just ain't there.

Valei Khurelem
Posted - 2011.07.14 16:21:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Hugh Mungous
0.0 isn't worth making isk in right now, with no local it would be completely pointless. So yeah I know all you pirates dream of dropping in on legions of unsuspecting carebears and pwning them...but finding them will be about as easy as finding girls numbers in your cell phone...they just ain't there.


Really? I have quite a couple of girls' phone numbers on mine :P

How would no local be completely pointless? You seem to have gone either end of the argument with what you're saying, if there was no local then pirates would find it more difficult to find miners, miners in turn would find it more difficult to find them. Though with the system I have in mind, a corporation actually OWNING a 0.0 system would have an easier time of protecting their miners rather than just gate camping because they would be warned if someone not in their group decided to enter.

HELLBOUNDMAN
Posted - 2011.07.14 16:43:00 - [14]
 

Leave the local chat box just for harassment of your victims, but do away with a counter read out and player list.

No need to know how many ppl are in system, nor who they are.


Valei Khurelem
Posted - 2011.07.14 19:28:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Valei Khurelem on 14/07/2011 19:28:11
That could work as well, I just don't want the current system that we have now because it makes everything far too easy for PvPers like I said, I think we need to really try and test this out to see whether it will work or not, so can we have a show of support from the community for this idea? :)

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.07.14 20:52:00 - [16]
 

Look at what modern auto-mobiles are capable of in regards to 'awareness' .. now extrapolate what a spacecraft is capable of 10-20k years hence.

Removing local does more harm than good without appropriate tools to pick up the slack, which is what CCP seems to understand .. a game with no situational awareness available of any sort will be (and is) frustrating beyond belief.
Doesn't have to be much mind you, but you need something or at least a way to get it.

I can just imagine how null would be with zero awareness .. static camps on all major connection gates, because if you move you might cross-warp/cross-jump a target. Whoopdi****ingdo .. great gameplay.

Annexe
Gallente
I N E X T R E M I S
Anti-Social Outcast
Posted - 2011.07.14 20:53:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Annexe on 14/07/2011 20:54:09
I was thinking exactly this, and found this thread before posting it.

I think 0.0 should be completely invisible, except of course if a corp owns the system. I like the idea of a Communications Tower that corp must put up to allow Local, but only for members in that corp?

It would make 0.0 a lot better for new comers and PVE'rs, who want to make ISK without getting killed within 30 seconds of entering the system.

Think about if this was real space, and you jumped into an unknown system that wasn't owned or controlled by anyone, you would have no idea of who is in there, except maybe a record of recent jumps (which is available in MAP>Statistics>Average Pilots in Space) maybe 0.0 stargates could have an access point to see who used the gate and when? allowing for someone to decided wether that person might come back or not?

Space is so big, you could be so close, yet soooo far away ;)

Thumplex Bumpitron
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.07.14 20:55:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Robert Caldera
no local is a bit hard I believe without an adequate replacement.
Delayed local would be great, say 20-30 seconds before you appear on local. Or constellation local would be a fine model also. It shouldnt be removed at all but become somewhat less reliable.


The details are in the CSM minutes about how the Intel tool will shape up. Local still be there because TEST Alliance needs something to **** up.

Doctor Invictus
Gallente
Industry and Investments
Posted - 2011.07.14 21:37:00 - [19]
 

In the context of my overall proposal, I would like to see Local exist along a gradient - definitely in nullsec and possibly in Empire as well. The default state of a given system would be to have delayed Local, like in WH space. It wouldn't tell you how many ships there are or who the pilots were. Various levels of infrastructure development would allow for more advanced in-system intel generation...

L1: Number of (uncloaked) pilots in system.
L2: Vague location of (uncloaked) ships in system (e.g., "docked at XYZ" or "Belt XYZ")
L3: Active ship type of (uncloaked) ships in system.
L4: Pilot information for (uncloaked) pilots in system.
L5: Number of pilots, including cloaked.
L6: Vague location of cloaked ships.
L7: Ship info for cloaked ships.
L8: Pilot info for cloaked pilots.
L9: Able to access Local intel streams from neighboring systems.
Etc.

Basically the more developed a system is, the more information pilots can get access to (if the sov holders enable the intel streams).


Baaldor
Black Sail Anarchists
Yarr Collective
Posted - 2011.07.14 21:51:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Doctor Invictus
.
L6: Vague location of cloaked ships.
L7: Ship info for cloaked ships.
L8: Pilot info for cloaked pilots.
L9: Able to access Local intel streams from neighboring systems.




LOL what?

bartos100
DARK ADAMA
Terra Axiom
Posted - 2011.07.14 22:27:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Doctor Invictus

L1: Number of (uncloaked) pilots in system.
L2: Vague location of (uncloaked) ships in system (e.g., "docked at XYZ" or "Belt XYZ")
L3: Active ship type of (uncloaked) ships in system.
L4: Pilot information for (uncloaked) pilots in system.
L5: Number of pilots, including cloaked.
L6: Vague location of cloaked ships.
L7: Ship info for cloaked ships.
L8: Pilot info for cloaked pilots.
L9: Able to access Local intel streams from neighboring systems.



i like the idea up to lvl 6

however a small gang should ba able to disrupt those installations

the higher the lvl the easier it should be to screw it up
also those installations would work fro everyone if you upgrade it you might make it easier for the enemy as well

but finding cloaked ships : NO WAY

Valei Khurelem
Posted - 2011.07.15 09:31:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: Valei Khurelem on 15/07/2011 09:33:00
Edited by: Valei Khurelem on 15/07/2011 09:32:31
Edited by: Valei Khurelem on 15/07/2011 09:31:29
I agree with the poster above, lets not have the scanner able to locate cloaked ships, that would ruin the whole point of cloaking otherwise.

I also think that the scanning should be strictly limited to the system the communications radar is in why? We've got probes and the like for that kind of scouting and you also have the interceptors and covert ops frigates.

If we DO have a building capable of scanning for cloaked ships, lets make it bloody expensive to run and/or produce to keep some balance that kind of feature shouldn't be included with communications, I say we make a seperate building entirely for that.

Valei Khurelem
Posted - 2011.07.15 09:45:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Valei Khurelem on 15/07/2011 09:48:05
Edited by: Valei Khurelem on 15/07/2011 09:47:03
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Look at what modern auto-mobiles are capable of in regards to 'awareness' .. now extrapolate what a spacecraft is capable of 10-20k years hence.

Removing local does more harm than good without appropriate tools to pick up the slack, which is what CCP seems to understand .. a game with no situational awareness available of any sort will be (and is) frustrating beyond belief.
Doesn't have to be much mind you, but you need something or at least a way to get it.

I can just imagine how null would be with zero awareness .. static camps on all major connection gates, because if you move you might cross-warp/cross-jump a target. Whoopdi****ingdo .. great gameplay.


What do you think nations do in real life when they try to explore beyond our own planet or want to keep an eye out for signs of enemy forces? On land, they build telescopes, radars, observation posts. Then you have space where they are building sattelites, probes, space stations. We haven't gotten technologically advanced enough yet ( from what I know ) to build radars in space but we're very nearly getting there.

You can say people are going to gatecamp even more but are they really? I can guarantee you most corporations and PvPers would be too scared since they wouldn't know whether the ship towards them was a forward scout for a 100 pilot fleet or just a hapless newbie trying to get through 0.0 space and explore.

This fear of the unknown is exactly what will seperate from the people actually capable of surviving in 0.0 space and the gankers who are just prowling around for easy kills and will just run away the first time they see more than their number. Yes, I am actually half-suggesting that people who object to this idea are the latter because this would directly effect them and I think anyone else who wants 0.0 space to become something more than a gatecamp fest will support it.

Desirsar
Posted - 2011.07.15 15:00:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Robert Caldera
Or constellation local would be a fine model also. It shouldnt be removed at all but become somewhat less reliable.


Best suggestion I've seen yet regarding changes to local. Making it constellation based or region based would give something desirable to both sides of any conflict (other than people wanting to shoot the spammers. Might have to make certain systems have their own "constellation" for this purpose.)

Valei Khurelem
Posted - 2011.07.15 15:02:00 - [25]
 

You know, I'm not sure why we just haven't buggered off and made our own spaceship MMORPG at this rate >_> lol

Tyme Xandr
Gallente
State Protectorate
Posted - 2011.07.16 02:31:00 - [26]
 

CCP said recently in the CSM/CCP meeting in May that the reason they want local is because they dont want EVE to feel empty. So WH space is the only place ull find that.


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only