open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked The Trouble with local (subject #107-b)
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Captian Internet
Lead Bricks
Posted - 2007.08.28 05:27:00 - [1]
 

Its been discussed time and time again but to no avail due to the following arguements

"I don't want to click scan every 3 seconds"

"You gankers (insert insult here)

"Well looking at it from an rp perspective. . ."

"IT WOULD COMPLETELY IMBALANCE THE FIELD TO THE SIDE OF THE PIRATES"

"I don't want to look through every system to find out if some one is there"

So what usually shows up in these threads are

The: Please Don't Kill my mouse Arguments, The I have a god given right to make isk endlessly, The convenient RP argument, The BALANCE argument, and the Laziness argument.

Now here is what I view is wrong with local.

1. Local +1 if new pilot is not + Warp to ss and cloak or warp to pos.

2. Shuttles, pods, and rookie ships are excellent scouts thanks to local

3. The element of surprise is lost unless I feel like pulling a log on trap which is really really lame Confused.

4.Easy Location of targets/hostiles (good for aggressors but bad for those on the receiving end)

5. Hiding in a larger (100+ AU distance) system avoiding detection

The pluses of local

1. NBSI is quite simple
2. 0.0 saftey is assured with an eye on local + a cloak
3. Lowsec safety is assured with an eye on local
4. Targets and hostiles easily found
--------------------------------------------------------

So here is what I would like to see become possible with the removal of auto displaying numbers and portraits in local.

1.The risk of 0.0 returns outside of station and entry systems

2.Wars in Empire or 0.0 not resulting in OH SHI REDS IN SYSTEM DOCK/CLOAK/POS/etc.

3.Aside from choosing to rat in a -1.0 system for the money potential you choose to rat in a 100+ AU system due to the effort it would take to scan you down

4. The effectiveness of Shuttles, Rookieships, and capsules as scouts greatly reduced.

5.The awareness of Cloaked observers reduced. Instead of worrying about what is it that is cloaked be glad that it hasn't made itself known yet.

6.The return of belt piracy. Gate camping will still exist as that hauler filled with goodies will not enter a belt but once again can pvp* be returned to the belts.

*pvp means that one player is aggressing another regardless of what the other player may be doing just fyi.

How to achieve it.

1.Remove the auto display of local numbers and portraits.

2. Allow "radio silence" to take effect as in you don't show up as long as you shut up.

3. Implement 2 Highslot modules that can auto scan systems with scan radius's of 20 AU and 5 AU. To prevent abuse of these modules 2 scan fields coming within range of each other
neutralize the device.

They are also neutralized by interference from stargates (to prevent the placement of cov ops alts or various cheap frigs to be used as alt scouts in single gate systems)

The passive/active Scanners are unable to detect ships with sig radius's >40m and will only be detectable by the built in scanner.

In design theory both models of the scanner are passive as you are not clicking the scan button every three seconds.

But the 5 AU scanner uses no capacitor while the 20AU scanner is a little cap heavy

Fitting Requirements

Passive Scanner I
2 Mw
50 CPU
Agility -15%
Minimum Sig Detection threshold 40m≤∝m

Active Scanner I
2 Mw
50 CPU
Activation Cost 5% of Current Capacitor Capacity
Cycle time 10 Seconds
Minimum Sig Detection threshold 170m≤∝m
Agility -5%
Max Velocity

The Longer range scanner has greater range but heavier penalties but a reduction in the agility penalty. To allow for a quicker escape

The Shorter Range scanner has a smaller detection range but a bigger detection threshold but the agility reduction increases the time needed for an escape.





Additional problems discussed in the next post provided its not stolen from me Razz

Captian Internet
Lead Bricks
Posted - 2007.08.28 05:28:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Captian Internet on 03/09/2007 19:59:37
Edited by: Captian Internet on 28/08/2007 05:31:37
Edited by: Captian Internet on 28/08/2007 05:31:20
Edited by: Captian Internet on 28/08/2007 05:31:05
Potential Problems

Covert ops alts sitting on gates with dual accounts listening for the gate activation sound to let the pilot know that their main needs to gtfo.

Scanner Nets being set up with covert ops alts.

Scanner nets being set up with cheap frig alts.

the solution to this in my opinion would be to disallow the use of the the theoretical scanners while cloaked and to remove the sound from gate activation.

Now feel free to flame away
------------------------------------------------------------
Captian Internet Ideas Section
War Changes

Jaketh Ivanes
Amarr
House of El
Posted - 2007.08.28 10:59:00 - [3]
 

I like everything but the scanners. We already got probes Smile

Yeah, it takes time, but when you finally find a victim, he won't know you are there.

Captian Internet
Lead Bricks
Posted - 2007.08.28 20:13:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes
I like everything but the scanners. We already got probes Smile

Yeah, it takes time, but when you finally find a victim, he won't know you are there.


Well the scanner is to provide a sense of safety to belt ratters as without local they would have to rely on clicking scan every 3 seconds

Dex Nederland
Caldari
Lai Dai Infinity Systems
Posted - 2007.08.29 14:36:00 - [5]
 

I think that under your "how to achieve this" section in number 1, the dropping of the population of the system is a bad idea. The Jump Gates could easily be broadcasting the necessary information of 1 jump in, 1 jump out, etc. I suppose that argument could be take farther as to broadcasting all the information for those in system, but I think there is a difference there. The Jump Gates are neutral and may provide the information as to the population of the system.

Captian Internet
Lead Bricks
Posted - 2007.08.29 16:31:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Dex Nederland
I think that under your "how to achieve this" section in number 1, the dropping of the population of the system is a bad idea. The Jump Gates could easily be broadcasting the necessary information of 1 jump in, 1 jump out, etc. I suppose that argument could be take farther as to broadcasting all the information for those in system, but I think there is a difference there. The Jump Gates are neutral and may provide the information as to the population of the system.


Realism has no place in this game. You may have previously read the first section of this post that depicts the semi rp argument.

The local Number count is just as effective as the portrait update when it comes to saying hostiles in system except if it just remains the number count with no portraits hostiles could still remain easily identified by alliance/corp mates/blues notifying others of their jump in /out

Dex Nederland
Caldari
Lai Dai Infinity Systems
Posted - 2007.08.29 18:16:00 - [7]
 

But the number would change - who it is would require eyes on those ships still, not just someone in a deep safe spot watching the changing number, especially in hub systems. I suppose that it would be possible if the only large group that would enter the system was your enemy, but that is not necessarily true.

The local number count cant be nearly as effective as the portrait update because there are no names attached to those numbers. It is simply a count of how many ships have entered the system and how many have exited. Jumping is an event that any ships sensors within a system should notice.

What you described is someone pooling their reliable intelligence sources, alliance mates, corp mates, and blues to tell them that an enemy fleet is moving. This is a good thing and how things should operate - my 'friends' should tell me where an enemy is if they encounter him. "I spotted a Red gang 5 strong in 12-AB, they may be headed to 34-CD" "Thanks I am in 34-CD, I will watch for a spike" notices a spike of 5, thinks it the enemy goes to ground, sits there until the population drops back down exits, goes back to whatever they were doing, but come to find out some other people left.


Saying that Realism has no place in the game takes away some of the best arguments for being able to remove yourself from local. I agree with the 'sound' for a gate jumping should be removed, but a great argument for this is you would not hear the sound of others jumping. You may have sensors that can detect the jumps, but I suspect people would turn of Betty going "a jump has occurred" after one visit to a high traffic system. So there is a Realism argument to support some of your ideas - use them.

All the arguments have to have a perspective, we all play the game differently and thus have different nuances we see the game from.

I am on your side in general - Local should not be the primary source of intelligence for players. Now how that is achieved is a valid question and I am voicing my opinion that showing the number of people in system does not provide adequate intelligence for most people to act on.

I suspect the reason you have posted this is to hopefully have someone who has a say in the development of the game go he has some good points. My hope is that they also see some other points.

Captian Internet
Lead Bricks
Posted - 2007.08.29 19:23:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Dex Nederland
But the number would change - who it is would require eyes on those ships still, not just someone in a deep safe spot watching the changing number, especially in hub systems. I suppose that it would be possible if the only large group that would enter the system was your enemy, but that is not necessarily true.

The local number count cant be nearly as effective as the portrait update because there are no names attached to those numbers. It is simply a count of how many ships have entered the system and how many have exited. Jumping is an event that any ships sensors within a system should notice.

What you described is someone pooling their reliable intelligence sources, alliance mates, corp mates, and blues to tell them that an enemy fleet is moving. This is a good thing and how things should operate - my 'friends' should tell me where an enemy is if they encounter him. "I spotted a Red gang 5 strong in 12-AB, they may be headed to 34-CD" "Thanks I am in 34-CD, I will watch for a spike" notices a spike of 5, thinks it the enemy goes to ground, sits there until the population drops back down exits, goes back to whatever they were doing, but come to find out some other people left.


Saying that Realism has no place in the game takes away some of the best arguments for being able to remove yourself from local. I agree with the 'sound' for a gate jumping should be removed, but a great argument for this is you would not hear the sound of others jumping. You may have sensors that can detect the jumps, but I suspect people would turn of Betty going "a jump has occurred" after one visit to a high traffic system. So there is a Realism argument to support some of your ideas - use them.

All the arguments have to have a perspective, we all play the game differently and thus have different nuances we see the game from.

I am on your side in general - Local should not be the primary source of intelligence for players. Now how that is achieved is a valid question and I am voicing my opinion that showing the number of people in system does not provide adequate intelligence for most people to act on.

I suspect the reason you have posted this is to hopefully have someone who has a say in the development of the game go he has some good points. My hope is that they also see some other points.


The problem with the local Number count is best used in an example involving a dead end system.

Lets say X is mining in sys XYZ-13 a fictional dead end system. If Y jumps in and X is not in an alliance/player corp
X is now fully aware of potential hostilities and warps to a safe.

Or lets say gang of vandals Z is traveling through station system 1 to Entry point 1. When a neutral observer sees local jump by a number >3 then its obvious something is up and a counter blob forms.

I experienced this many a time when traveling through EOA-ZC
every time our 10 man gangs went down that route we'd often get no noteworthy kills and have the local scout say to the alliance nearby that we are in the system. Each time we were met by a counter gang that outnumbered us 4 to 1.


So in matters of OH shi- hostiles portraits and numbers are almost equal in threat awareness



Major Stallion
The Money Shot Inc.
Posted - 2007.08.29 20:09:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Captian Internet


*pvp means that one player is aggressing another regardless of what the other player may be doing just fyi.




according to WHO? Theres no ONE definition of PvP

Captian Internet
Lead Bricks
Posted - 2007.08.29 21:25:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Major Stallion
Originally by: Captian Internet


*pvp means that one player is aggressing another regardless of what the other player may be doing just fyi.




according to WHO? Theres no ONE definition of PvP


pardon my blunt definition but that was to fend off the "GATE CAMPS ARE NOT PVP" brigade

In a basic sense PvP is combat

In a broader sense any action that involves competition with another player is PvP

Market,Mining,Combat,Complex farming, etc.

Ellaine TashMurkon
CBC Interstellar
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2007.08.29 21:41:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Ellaine TashMurkon on 29/08/2007 21:42:09
PvP is playing against other players.
Using remote market orders to destroy enemy alliance markets and supplies is pvp. Stealing ore is pvp. Price wars are pvp. Espionage and sabotage with alts is pvp. Destroying enemy morale with carefully planned PR is pvp. Metagame manipulations to harm other peoples exploration income etc, is pvp.
Shooting peoples ships, no matter if they can/want to fight, is pvp for sure.

Playing chess is pvp (just outside Eve).

Combat is not always pvp. Killing rats is combat but not pvp. Ship tests with corpies is combat but not pvp.

Captian Internet
Lead Bricks
Posted - 2007.08.29 21:48:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon
Edited by: Ellaine TashMurkon on 29/08/2007 21:42:09
PvP is playing against other players.
Using remote market orders to destroy enemy alliance markets and supplies is pvp. Stealing ore is pvp. Price wars are pvp. Espionage and sabotage with alts is pvp. Destroying enemy morale with carefully planned PR is pvp. Metagame manipulations to harm other peoples exploration income etc, is pvp.
Shooting peoples ships, no matter if they can/want to fight, is pvp for sure.

Playing chess is pvp (just outside Eve).

Combat is not always pvp. Killing rats is combat but not pvp. Ship tests with corpies is combat but not pvp.


Didn't I just say this Confused

Ellaine TashMurkon
CBC Interstellar
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2007.08.29 22:12:00 - [13]
 

I'll stop posting for today, it seems that I'm too tired to reads other peoples posts ;)

MITSUK0
Posted - 2007.09.04 19:29:00 - [14]
 

TBH I think that pve activities in supposedly unsecure space are way too easy. If you want to farm the crap out of a system 23/7 then you should have to support that properly by having eyes on the gates and by having capable combat ships in system.

I am all for local being removed and locater agents been accessable remotley. So if you are a merc you can keep tabs on target locations while on the move. Ratters/miners can keep tabs on known pirates in the area by using locater agents and intel channels.

*shrug* It would actually hit me just as bad as anyone else since I need to ninja rat in hostile space to make my iskies and I also want to gank as many people as possible as fast as possible (I would be slowed down by having to check every system).


Cedric Diggory
Perfunctory Oleaginous Laocoon Mugwumps
Posted - 2007.09.04 19:45:00 - [15]
 

Local needs to go, and that's a fact. Not only does it spoil immersion but I'm sure it's responsible for a lot of the lag in Jita. Having 600 pilots all showing in local must cause a strain, or else we would be allowed to have as many pilots as we wished showing in our private channels - however, we are limited to 50.

Remove local, have pilots only show up when they speak.

Captian Internet
Lead Bricks
Posted - 2007.09.05 03:25:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Cedric Diggory
Local needs to go, and that's a fact. Not only does it spoil immersion but I'm sure it's responsible for a lot of the lag in Jita. Having 600 pilots all showing in local must cause a strain, or else we would be allowed to have as many pilots as we wished showing in our private channels - however, we are limited to 50.

Remove local, have pilots only show up when they speak.


Lag in jita is caused by sitting in there and doing this

SELLING TOBIAS MODIFIED WARP THONG

nerf jita spam

nerf hubs spread out this galaxy

James Duar
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.09.05 04:55:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Cedric Diggory
Local needs to go, and that's a fact. Not only does it spoil immersion but I'm sure it's responsible for a lot of the lag in Jita. Having 600 pilots all showing in local must cause a strain, or else we would be allowed to have as many pilots as we wished showing in our private channels - however, we are limited to 50.

Remove local, have pilots only show up when they speak.

Post with your main.

There are a huge number of reasons local has to stay and why the game would be worse off without it, and the calls for its removal always stop short of proposing any kind of rational replacement that doesn't end up being "OMG if you don't PvP ALL THE TIME ur not hardcore enough", which is of course, code for "I want cheap ganks".

Cedric Diggory
Perfunctory Oleaginous Laocoon Mugwumps
Posted - 2007.09.05 08:38:00 - [18]
 

Quote:
There are a huge number of reasons local has to stay and why the game would be worse off without it


State three, or hush up.

Quote:
the calls for its removal always stop short of proposing any kind of rational replacement that doesn't end up being "OMG if you don't PvP ALL THE TIME ur not hardcore enough", which is of course, code for "I want cheap ganks".


Is it now, Mr Troll? Think rationally for a moment, rather than allowing yourself to succumb to the "Chicken Licken" effect perhaps you should actually analyse the proposition.

Removal of local would be a double edged sword for both PVE and PVP players: Neither would know of any possible hostiles or targets in the system with them without using teamwork to watch for gate activations and/or keeping an eye on the scanner. Also, the map would still be giving information on the number of pilots in local, podkills in last hour and so on - allowing easy evasion of possible hostile areas. It would increase "immersion" into the game environment by emphasising the cold and lonely nature of space, and would keep everyone on their toes. It would provide a solution to the problem of players who rat for 23 hours a day, 7 days a week in 0.0 systems and who log out of the game (and subsequently disappear from space before they can be probed out) at the first sign of a player jumping into system.

joshmorris
Posted - 2007.09.05 14:37:00 - [19]
 

I think local number should always show
You can only see people in local who are in ur address book.
You have to accept peoples permission to add you into their address book.
Your picture shows up if u speak.

Problem solved,

you can still pirate (see a guy in local (number) and scan him out)
you can still rat without SS every 5 seconds due to ur corp m8s / friends in ur adress book who u see going through local.
Still get intel from smackers in local mwha.

Captian Internet
Lead Bricks
Posted - 2007.09.05 14:50:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: joshmorris
I think local number should always show
You can only see people in local who are in ur address book.
You have to accept peoples permission to add you into their address book.
Your picture shows up if u speak.

Problem solved,

you can still pirate (see a guy in local (number) and scan him out)
you can still rat without SS every 5 seconds due to ur corp m8s / friends in ur adress book who u see going through local.
Still get intel from smackers in local mwha.


That solves nothing really.

That number and the showing of people that are friendly to you will still result in OH SHI CLOAK NOW

All you've done is removed neutrals and hostiles from your local display but you'll still know when one shows up instantly if things go with your method.

But I do like the Address book adding thing requiring approval Cool

joshmorris
Posted - 2007.09.05 15:38:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: joshmorris on 05/09/2007 15:45:09
Edited by: joshmorris on 05/09/2007 15:40:34
Originally by: Captian Internet
Originally by: joshmorris
I think local number should always show
You can only see people in local who are in ur address book.
You have to accept peoples permission to add you into their address book.
Your picture shows up if u speak.

Problem solved,

you can still pirate (see a guy in local (number) and scan him out)
you can still rat without SS every 5 seconds due to ur corp m8s / friends in ur adress book who u see going through local.
Still get intel from smackers in local mwha.


That solves nothing really.

That number and the showing of people that are friendly to you will still result in OH SHI CLOAK NOW

All you've done is removed neutrals and hostiles from your local display but you'll still know when one shows up instantly if things go with your method.
Cool


not really ... you wont have EVERYSINGLE blue in your alliance in ur address book ... and while ur checking in local asking Fof gives the pirate longer to search.

I think annoying cloakers who insta warp SS and cloak is bloody annoying when i go on roams and imo this will help a bit for ratter hunting without making a careful ratter totally vulnerable.

The pirate could even say friend ... would expose him but give a few more seconds because of the ratter clicking him to see if he is a friend or not. If it was all timed right and the ratter was slow to check it increases the chances of catching the ratter greatly compared to before.


Regaul Kinath
Posted - 2007.09.05 16:03:00 - [22]
 

I LOVE IT PLEASE PUT IT IN EFFECT TOMORROW!!

miss horizontal
Posted - 2007.09.22 04:52:00 - [23]
 

IdeaHow About No More Stargates ?
So we can get interstellar warp or such and the new (system server) would get a bit of time to synchronize and load me..

Ideaor give every ship a jumpdrive

iam for removing local anyways because people will get more paranoia Very HappyEvil or Very MadYARRRR!!

Just do it and let them Cry Cool



Ilvan
Gallente
Post with your Brain
Posted - 2007.09.22 05:39:00 - [24]
 

Edited by: Ilvan on 22/09/2007 05:40:54
I agree with this.

Chat channels should be just that: a place to chat. Having a free, perfect, omniscient intel source makes surprise attacks and black ops extremely difficult to impossible to pull off. Even a count is too much, for reasons already made clear by other people.

I do think that scanning ranges should be buffed to compensate somewhat, though, as well as a more integrated scanner UI (meld it with the overview and have it update automatically or something). Modules should be able to modify the scanner range, etc. but I think all ships should have the capability. Differing scanner ranges for ships would be nice as well; Covert ops/EWAR ships would have high range, close-combat ones medium-short, etc.

Captian Internet
Lead Bricks
Posted - 2007.09.22 07:58:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: miss horizontal
IdeaHow About No More Stargates ?
So we can get interstellar warp or such and the new (system server) would get a bit of time to synchronize and load me..

Ideaor give every ship a jumpdrive

iam for removing local anyways because people will get more paranoia Very HappyEvil or Very MadYARRRR!!

Just do it and let them Cry Cool




Gates are crucial controls points even though they are being circumvented by cyno's I will deal with that in another post

Originally by: Ilvan
Edited by: Ilvan on 22/09/2007 05:40:54
I agree with this.

Chat channels should be just that: a place to chat. Having a free, perfect, omniscient intel source makes surprise attacks and black ops extremely difficult to impossible to pull off. Even a count is too much, for reasons already made clear by other people.

I do think that scanning ranges should be buffed to compensate somewhat, though, as well as a more integrated scanner UI (meld it with the overview and have it update automatically or something). Modules should be able to modify the scanner range, etc. but I think all ships should have the capability. Differing scanner ranges for ships would be nice as well; Covert ops/EWAR ships would have high range, close-combat ones medium-short, etc.


The problem with making cov ops get a boost in what I propose is the cov ops alt sitting on a gate. The all seeing eye that can not be poked out would prove quite an issue

miss horizontal
Posted - 2007.09.22 09:07:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: miss horizontal on 22/09/2007 09:09:24
Edited by: miss horizontal on 22/09/2007 09:07:56
Remove The Local already!!!

It will not favour either hunter or hunted.
Why not? very simple the hunter can become the hunted!!!

If u replace local with constellation chat wich will act same way as local chat does, we get more fun in this game!

-So we have now constellation chat and the Hunted see suddenly several Reds jump in constellation from somewhere but doesnt know exactly where from, hunted now has to look at map and see from where they can come and has time to get scouts out, form gang, or already has put scouts at constelation entry systems so now the hunted know what comes and from where.

-The Hunters entered a constellation with an scout and voila they found 20 reds still not knowing where exactly they are, the scout now goes and search for targets he found a lonely new player whos trying to make some cash to get ina better ship to help his corp/ally in fleetbattle or whatever.
But the hunters were clever and they send only lets say 3 scouts to go check and find somthing because they want to gank not to fight they want to interrupt the enemys income to weaken them and or scarem them out of 0.0 so now hunters have the problem: can the scout tackle and hold tackle long enough for his gang to come and kill target (so the scout has to be tackler too in best case and not just an alt scout
without any meaning)

The hunters scout is fitted well and he can keep target long enough so the other in his gang can come and gank the lonely npcer!

So now the lonely Npcer dies and looses implants too.. some may say he deserved it why didnt he warp to safespot and cloak? (keep in mind they want to make cloaked ships scannable in future)
But noone said its ok that 20 people gank a single player and maybe its a trap they saw them in neighbour constellation already and could set the trap / gatecamp or whatever they choosed in time.

Main reason why iam for Local been removed is because of this kind of stuff 5 people gank an single player and call it pvp , with local removed theres an actual chance that so called PvPers get a fight instead of a gank.

But what if NPCer/Miner chooses to stay all day docked just because theres a red in constellation?
Answer: noone said u can claim a region put poses up+ outpost rat/mine in there without beeing able to defend it!

removing local would make some corps move into 0.0 too
as its harder to track down the enemy now but still gives the hunted an advantage as hunted can just cover all constallation entrances and is able to react quicker but if they choose not to, aka(stay docked guys they will get bored and leave, dont givem targets)
the hunters now can just leave some reds in there every day (even if afk) and then hunted can stay docked the long they want loosing time doing nothing or they choose to go fight or setting a trap.

Keeping all that in Mind..It will bring more people to 0.0 thats for Sure.

Ow and btw remove that stupid scanner too...















Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
Posted - 2007.09.22 13:47:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Captian Internet
That number and the showing of people that are friendly to you will still result in OH SHI CLOAK NOW


It is quite clear "I WANT CHEAP GANKING" reason, isn't it?

Anyway, I'm with my both hands, both paws and one tail for removal of local, but not the way You propose it.
Let local only show people who in space and in range of Your build-in scanner (14.3 a.u.). That way You can't even know if there's anyone in system unless they are speaking or in range of Your scanner. Relatively safe, no need to constantly masturbating [scan] button, You may only scan if You think that You're in trouble.
That way You'll also guess there's some CovOps near You too. (If someone in local and not in scanner window)

Captian Internet
Lead Bricks
Posted - 2007.09.22 15:10:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Tonto Auri
Originally by: Captian Internet
That number and the showing of people that are friendly to you will still result in OH SHI CLOAK NOW


It is quite clear "I WANT CHEAP GANKING" reason, isn't it?

Anyway, I'm with my both hands, both paws and one tail for removal of local, but not the way You propose it.
Let local only show people who in space and in range of Your build-in scanner (14.3 a.u.). That way You can't even know if there's anyone in system unless they are speaking or in range of Your scanner. Relatively safe, no need to constantly masturbating [scan] button, You may only scan if You think that You're in trouble.
That way You'll also guess there's some CovOps near You too. (If someone in local and not in scanner window)


Did you even read my post?

Morcam
Posted - 2007.09.22 17:49:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Captian Internet

2. Allow "radio silence" to take effect as in you don't show up as long as you shut up.



Isn't this just basically removing local?

Cedric Diggory
Perfunctory Oleaginous Laocoon Mugwumps
Posted - 2007.09.22 17:53:00 - [30]
 

Quote:
Isn't this just basically removing local?


No, it's more akin to what goes in in very large chat channels, in that only those who speak show up.


Pages: [1] 2

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