open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked No Local a good thing (2nd try)
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5

Author Topic

Humpalot
Posted - 2007.03.20 20:22:00 - [1]
 

*Snip - do not discuss moderation - if you have any issues with moderation contact us by email at mods@ccpgames.com - Timmeh 2k*

Given the current bug in EVE making it so no one shows in chat channels I thought I'd revisit this idea (no Local channel...or at least not showing up in it) that is often tossed about as a "good idea" by many players.

I ask again because despite seeing many, many people advoacte for this now that we have an actual taste of it this does not seem so popular. As a builder I have a number of Alliance peeps (in a variety of different Alliances) in a few channels and so far not a one seems very happy with it. All of a sudden 0.0 became a different world with no Local.

So, is it just the "suprprise" that is at issue as this was not expcted or, upon trying to deal with no Local are people actually reconsidering whether it is a good idea?

Me? I tentatively supported the no Local idea but more as a matter of opinion. I really have no dog in this race so sit neutral.

Humpalot
Posted - 2007.03.20 20:28:00 - [2]
 

Originally by: Humpalot
*Snip - do not discuss moderation - if you have any issues with moderation contact us by email at mods@ccpgames.com - Timmeh 2k*



Fair enough...I was just trying to point it out as I was not on about what they thought I was on about and didn't want this one locked is all.

Skraeling Shortbus
Caldari
Final Agony
Posted - 2007.03.20 20:42:00 - [3]
 

shrug its hardly a "good" thing now as the balance is completely shifted to the hunter and there is nothing for the hunted.

SonOTassadar
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2007.03.20 20:49:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: SonOTassadar on 20/03/2007 20:46:43
Originally by: Skraeling Shortbus
shrug its hardly a "good" thing now as the balance is completely shifted to the hunter and there is nothing for the hunted.


Both hunter and hunted have the same tools to find each other. How has the balance shifted?

Personally, I think no local is a good thing, but having something to make watching your back an easier, less remedial task would be good, like being able to track residual warp destinations (Like a dog following a scent) would be great.

Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
Posted - 2007.03.20 20:54:00 - [5]
 

Just eliminating Local entirely isn't a good thing, I think. What I'd like to see is some of its intel functions taken over by the scanning system. TomB hinted in his most recent blog that if they changed Local at all, that's the main way they were looking at it.

Sever Aldaria
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2007.03.20 20:55:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: SonOTassadar
Edited by: SonOTassadar on 20/03/2007 20:46:43
Originally by: Skraeling Shortbus
shrug its hardly a "good" thing now as the balance is completely shifted to the hunter and there is nothing for the hunted.


Both hunter and hunted have the same tools to find each other. How has the balance shifted?

Personally, I think no local is a good thing, but having something to make watching your back an easier, less remedial task would be good, like being able to track residual warp destinations (Like a dog following a scent) would be great.


He's got a point. Hunter has to scan for prey but prey can do the same thing. Also, hunters can be hunted by other hunters easier. Makes the game more real and exciting imo.

monkeyduck
Mithril Inc
Posted - 2007.03.20 20:58:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: monkeyduck on 20/03/2007 20:54:44
Originally by: Sever Aldaria
Originally by: SonOTassadar
Edited by: SonOTassadar on 20/03/2007 20:46:43
Originally by: Skraeling Shortbus
shrug its hardly a "good" thing now as the balance is completely shifted to the hunter and there is nothing for the hunted.


Both hunter and hunted have the same tools to find each other. How has the balance shifted?

Personally, I think no local is a good thing, but having something to make watching your back an easier, less remedial task would be good, like being able to track residual warp destinations (Like a dog following a scent) would be great.


He's got a point. Hunter has to scan for prey but prey can do the same thing. Also, hunters can be hunted by other hunters easier. Makes the game more real and exciting imo.



Depends on who the hunted is. With no local, the hunted has to view everyone as a potential enemy. The hunter, like before, still views everyone as potential prey. There has been a shift in favor of the hunter, but whether this was a good thing or bad thing I'm not sure. Now that I've stopped mining, this won't affect me none except to more easily pass through hostile territory.

Edit for above: ZOMG HACKING! Twisted Evil

MrDisposable
Caldari
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2007.03.20 21:08:00 - [8]
 

Its too advantageous for the hunter. The hunter will know for a fact that miners and NPCers are at the belts, it would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

So if this was a reality all mining/NPCing would also need to be like a gatecamp aswell. Gatecamps suck for the camper and the victim because of boredom.

Emily Spankratchet
Minmatar
Pragmatics
Posted - 2007.03.20 21:15:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: SonOTassadar
Both hunter and hunted have the same tools to find each other. How has the balance shifted?


Because the hunter is in a combat-fitted ship and the hunted is flying in a paper bag.

It sounds like a nice idea, but I've just been sitting at the gate in a covert ops in a dead-end system for an hour to monitor traffic. We're a tiny corp, and if we'd been in a system with multiple gates there would have been nobody left to do anything.

It doesn't make as big a difference if you're hauling through low-sec. If, on the other hand, you're sitting there like a big sitting duck (mining springs to mind), then you'll need many more people running security with no local. If people don't have the manpower (or the willpower) for this, then they won't bother.

lles
Posted - 2007.03.20 21:27:00 - [10]
 

I still havent seen any good suggestions of what makes it more fun to remove local.

Imo it only gets more boring.
-PVP, and again you probe out, a friendly miner/NpC`er/No one. You will last two weeks and quit the game.
-Gateganker, you will sit at gates for ages and ages, you will get bored after two weeks and quit the game.
-Travelling, you will fly in total boredom, feeling alone in space, I did it already, its boring...
-Miner/NPC`er.. Hitting your scanner constantly, is alot of fun I must admit....Ow wait, no it isnt, its ****ing boring!
-Neighbourhood contacts will go, I like having chats with the locals if I see there friendly....

And yes, its easy to flame this, but Im really looking for real positive things that can happen from removing local....

BubbaZanetti
Posted - 2007.03.20 21:28:00 - [11]
 


The advantages given to both sides balance the equation out. The two basic viewpoints are:

"Prey" is concerned about being able to see when "Hunters" enter the system, so that they can know they will need to be ready to run.

"Hunters" love not having local because it means "Prey" doesn't know they've entered the system.

That does seem as if hunters have the advantage. But only because opponents of the system fail to notice, or at least fail to make mention of, the benefits it gives them.

Space is big. Really big. Most systems are empty. Without local, hunters will have to scan every system they move through, finding them mostly empty, before stumbling across a mining op or an NPC'er.

Once the hunter has found that prey, he has no idea how safe he is engaging it. The prey could easily have a wolfpack sitting cloaked forty klicks out, or, hell, an entire fleet waiting at a planet, or docked but ready to roll. Once engaged, it will be too late for the hunter to disengage when the prey's twenty man ganksquad shows up.

Want to chase down pirates with your anti-pirate blob? Flank them, come in one of the back gates, and they won't know you're there until you've dropped a bubble on them. No more scattering because "Local just jumped by fifty."

It'd be nice to actually have engagements in a belt for a change, and it's only gonna happen with local gone from the equation.

Removing local is a _good_ thing for all sides, for a variety of different reasons.

Lemen Meringue
Cult of Lemen
Posted - 2007.03.20 21:29:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Sever Aldaria

He's got a point. Hunter has to scan for prey but prey can do the same thing. Also, hunters can be hunted by other hunters easier. Makes the game more real and exciting imo.



The difference is the hunter scans when he feels like looking for prey. The prey has to scan every 3 seconds for the entire time he's in space to hope to get out in time to avoid getting ganked.

Manfred Doomhammer
Caldari
ShadowTec Inc.
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2007.03.20 21:32:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Lemen Meringue
Originally by: Sever Aldaria

He's got a point. Hunter has to scan for prey but prey can do the same thing. Also, hunters can be hunted by other hunters easier. Makes the game more real and exciting imo.



The difference is the hunter scans when he feels like looking for prey. The prey has to scan every 3 seconds for the entire time he's in space to hope to get out in time to avoid getting ganked.


and if the hunter is lazy and only scans for his prey, he might himself find to be the hunted faster than he would belive...

its really working both ways, with the rewards going to those who are on the ball and the lazy getting penalized...Cool

Fraile Cloudsinger
Gallente
Igneus Auctorita
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.03.20 21:33:00 - [14]
 

No matter how you look at it, local chat is the key to staying alive as a ratter. The problem is that the local chat is a passive alarm system, which makes defence and intel gathering very easy. Gathering intel should require some kind of effort, both from the hunter and the hunted's perspective. I'd like to see local disappear, but compensated by implanting another tool to pin down targets. I hope the devs comes up with a sollution that makes the lives of ratters and hunters acceptable. One idea might be to use the "bugged" local system, where local doesn't refresh untill you've clicked on the refresh icon.

On a side note, I liked flying around and accually have to check the clusters for potential targets. Hitting outpost systems was very thrilling, as you never knew how many people were there.

Soporo
Caldari
Posted - 2007.03.20 21:46:00 - [15]
 

Bad idea.
It would nerf LowSec population bigtime, and it would nerf all Mining, it would nerf all Alliances.

In a months time all the Prats would be whinging about how no-one ever comes into LowSec anymore, and Empire is too crowded.
Remove Local = A truly idiotic idea.

Quote:
Both hunter and hunted have the same tools to find each other. How has the balance shifted?


BS, a miner has to sit in one place forever, you have maneuverability, tankability and speed.
Dont even try that.

Humpalot
Posted - 2007.03.20 21:46:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: BubbaZanetti
Space is big. Really big. Most systems are empty. Without local, hunters will have to scan every system they move through, finding them mostly empty, before stumbling across a mining op or an NPC'er.



Not so sure about this part. I mean yeah, space is big but CCP has made it small. You engage at stations/gates/belts/mission areas. Pretty much about it (I suppose people get nailed at the occasional SS). While in 0.0 many many systems are empty and scanning each one would be time consuming finding targets in many low sec systems is probably not so unlikely.

Kala Veijo
Veto Corp
Posted - 2007.03.20 21:47:00 - [17]
 

It wasnt a feature? Oh damn.

Masheine
Posted - 2007.03.20 21:49:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Soporo
BS, a miner has to sit in one place forever, you have maneuverability, tankability and speed. Dont even try that.


And you have a twenty man security force the hunter has no idea is there. Cowboy up and fight back.

VeNT
Minmatar
Freelancer Union
Unaffiliated
Posted - 2007.03.20 21:52:00 - [19]
 

tbh, local did work, just had to keep clicking things.

whens the fix going to be deployed?

Deviana Sevidon
Gallente
Panta-Rhei
Butterfly Effect Alliance
Posted - 2007.03.20 21:56:00 - [20]
 

Local is one of the few defencive mechanisms in EVE that actually work. Sure, there are other ways, like bubbling every possible entrance and setting up a gatecamp, or in the very least a scout.

But this would only cause more Alt-Abuse and small corps, would simply be unable to effectivly gather ISK in 0.0. In most cases the only warning from a local gank-squad would be massive red dots in overview. Removing local creates a gankers paradise, as they can roam around without having to worry too much.

Gatecamps are also not the real solution to keep a region somewhat secured. A large portion of an alliance PvP force needs to be put on permanent gate-camp duty and the miners and ratters are still at a large risk by small hostile-groups that managed to slip past the camps.

I do not want to click on the directional scanner every two or three seconds. Also a directional scanner provides only very little info. It would lead to a situation where you would be unable to decide if the Mega on Scanner is a friendly ratter in the same system as you, or an enemy coming for you.

Yeah, great idea. Remove local, nerf this, nerf that because I am an ebil piwate that wants a ganker paradise with little to no risk for myself...

Humpalot
Posted - 2007.03.20 22:11:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Deviana Sevidon
I do not want to click on the directional scanner every two or three seconds.


I have to agree that spamming the scanner button ad nauseum for hours sounds decidedly not fun.

Soporo
Caldari
Posted - 2007.03.20 22:11:00 - [22]
 

Quote:
And you have a twenty man security force the hunter has no idea is there. Cowboy up and fight back.


I do?
The thing is, as you well know, a prat appears out of nowhere in a belt Op, bam the miners are dead.
Period.
Even being aligned in a Ret is no guarantee, its just too damn slow. So the miners die, which is all you want really, you then warp out and disapear.

I assume you think everyone can have 5-10 guys sitting in a belt at EACH belt for each op, just waiting to defend? Not hardly.

It's just a stupid idea, admit it, it would ONLY help Prats and nerf EVERYONE else.

Humpalot
Posted - 2007.03.20 22:17:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Soporo
Quote:
And you have a twenty man security force the hunter has no idea is there. Cowboy up and fight back.


I do?
The thing is, as you well know, a prat appears out of nowhere in a belt Op, bam the miners are dead.
Period.
Even being aligned in a Ret is no guarantee, its just too damn slow. So the miners die, which is all you want really, you then warp out and disapear.

I assume you think everyone can have 5-10 guys sitting in a belt at EACH belt for each op, just waiting to defend? Not hardly.

It's just a stupid idea, admit it, it would ONLY help Prats and nerf EVERYONE else.



Part of the problem touched on here is the ability of guards to actually GUARD while in low sec (0.1 - 0.4). Guards are often not keen on taking a sec hit shooting at anyone who roams into a belt. Not to mention that every toon who swings by is necessarily a threat and the guards don't want to nail some innocent dude just looking to rat. This allows pirates to assess the situation and engage on their terms.

Also as mentioned I have been in low sec ops where pirates would take shots at cans and miners just to nuisance themselves. Covetors and the like have no tank and pop rather easily and even when the pirates do this it is all too difficult for guards to respond before the pirate just warps away.

Short of spamming the scanner button without local there really is little that can be done to guard miners in low sec.

Lorth
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.03.20 22:19:00 - [24]
 

Its not like local is the miner/npc'rs only option to defend against the hunter.

There's a whole host of easy to do, no work required, hardly any thought involved, methodes to avoid someone, even if they don't show up in local. Mine away from the belt marker, use the friggen scanner your self, where a stab or two your just mining, stay alinged when your busy with rats, etc etc. Frankly with local removed, its still much harder capture someone on the ball, then it is to avoid capture.

Banana Torres
The Green Banana Corporation
Posted - 2007.03.20 22:19:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Masheine
Originally by: Soporo
BS, a miner has to sit in one place forever, you have maneuverability, tankability and speed. Dont even try that.


And you have a twenty man security force the hunter has no idea is there. Cowboy up and fight back.


Or just take this miner and his 20 guards to high sec and have 21 miners. Lot more profitable, lot less risk.

Also, if you know the miner is there, your gonna know about the guard. Or doesn't your scanner pick up PvP setup ships?

XiticiX
Posted - 2007.03.20 22:27:00 - [26]
 

Removing Local

Yet another idea that if implemented, has no counter-balance. Like the fact that there is no counter-activity to being trapped in a bubble.

If they remove local, they damn well better have something that you can learn, buy, or otherwise use to combat being ganked. And don't say scanners do this. Hitting a scan button every 3 seconds is NOT my idea of fun

Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2007.03.20 22:28:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Sever Aldaria
Originally by: SonOTassadar
Edited by: SonOTassadar on 20/03/2007 20:46:43
Originally by: Skraeling Shortbus
shrug its hardly a "good" thing now as the balance is completely shifted to the hunter and there is nothing for the hunted.


Both hunter and hunted have the same tools to find each other. How has the balance shifted?

Personally, I think no local is a good thing, but having something to make watching your back an easier, less remedial task would be good, like being able to track residual warp destinations (Like a dog following a scent) would be great.


He's got a point. Hunter has to scan for prey but prey can do the same thing. Also, hunters can be hunted by other hunters easier. Makes the game more real and exciting imo.



OK:

Miners in a belt, mining. Pirate jumps into system. Pirate clicks "scan", and warps around a bit, until he's covered every belt (shouldn't take more than 5 scans or so, even for big systems). He spots miner. He narrows down the location. He jumps in, and engages.

On the flip side:

Miners in a belt, mining. Pirate jumps in.....but how does the miner know? He doesn't, obviously. So whats he supposed to do? Sit there with the scanner open on 360 mode clicking "scan" every 5 seconds the entire time he's there?


The fact is, the current "click to scan" method favours the attacker over the defender, because the attacker only has to scan once (when he enters system) while the defender has to scan continually. Thats clearly not doable (I don't know any miners who'd like to add an extra button they have to push, several thousand times, every hour, coming up with nothing 99.9% of the time).

So, as soon as the scanning system has been revised in order to give equal benefit to both attacker and defender, then we can take local away.

CCP kieron

Posted - 2007.03.20 22:29:00 - [28]
 

This was not intended as a feature, it was a side effect of the EVE Voice client being enabled on Tranquility. The issue was resolved with a hotfix soon after the issue was discovered and reported.

Merdaneth
Amarr
Defensores Fidei
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2007.03.20 22:32:00 - [29]
 

Just sit down and think for a minute how engagements work.

Someone usually engages when he thinks he has good odds of winning. He won't if he doesn't. The side that is being engaged will most often try to disengage, because the engaging side probably has better odds of winning (otherwise he would not have engaged in the first place). Since disengaging (running) is also fairly easy, most actual fights come about in the following way:

1. Attacking party made a mistake in estimating the odds
2. Defending party acts as bait (and thus doesn't run) and the attacking party could not see reinforcements (they were in the next system over for example)
3. Defending party made a mistake in estimating the odds (and didn't disengage in time)
4. Defending party was not paying attention (surprised).
5. The attacking party doesn't mind engaging with poor odds (he's dying for a fight)

In EVE, the attacking party rarely engages with poor odds: he has the information gathering tools to avoid such, same goes for the defender. Remove those information gathering tools, and suddenly we see less one-sided fights, because more mistakes will be made.

With local if there are 10 people on one side, and 5 on the other, the first will try to engage, the others will try to disengage. Odds are that no fight will take place. The 10 may try to bait the 5, but it usually won't succeed, since the 5 now there is backup nearby. However, with neither party knowing what the exact enemy strength is, the 5 might engage the bait, and get jumped. Thus creating a fight that would not have happened in the first place. Of course, the 10 might feel nervous themselves, because those 5 might be just bait for another larger group....

Currently I've had many situations with 6 friendlies and 6 hostiles in local. I knew 3 friendlies were afk, but didn't know how many hostiles were active. Obviously nobody of us engaged figuring 3 to 6 odds were too poor. Possibly the enemy was in the same situations, the info from local effectively paralyzing the situations. Less information means more mistakes, more mistakes mean more battles. More mistakes mean more even-sided battles.


Soporo
Caldari
Posted - 2007.03.20 22:32:00 - [30]
 

Thanks, Kieron, I think most of us know that, we are just arguing the concept.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5

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