open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Black Ops ships require 'Local' to be changed
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7

Author Topic

Westly Synpa
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.12.18 07:46:00 - [121]
 

Originally by: Tovarishch
Edited by: Tovarishch on 18/12/2007 07:16:26

Originally by: Goumindong
You're delusional if you think the single advantage of black ops battle ships and recons are negated by a noob alt

Why arent stealth bombers usefull? Because they are still frigates.

Why arent black ops battleships usefull? Because they are still battleships? WTF?!!?!

I am sorry that they arent "i win" buttons, or "im never going to die" buttons like you want recons to be. Oh wait, im not sorry, because its ******ed.

Yea, whatever will a camp running battleship that can pick its fights, and jump bridge in recons ever do with itself!?!?!

Quote:

I'm actually very much in favor of adding some sort of probe that can scan cloaked ships. Particularly if cloaked ships are removed from local.


Are you also in favor of removing entirely the ability of any ship to warp cloaked?


What is the main purpose of a Black Ops ship? To use Covert Cynos.

If an untrained alt is sitting in a system with friends on a gate or two and people enter local what has that person discovered without doing anything other than watching the local tab? That a Covert Cyno was just used and a Black Ops ship and recons are in system.

Why you can't see a problem with this is beyond me. However, the continuing insulting tone of your posts and your childish comebacks only tell me that you have no interest in engaging your brain. You are simply here to be childish and insulting. I'll go back to addressing people who prefer logic and dialectics to grade school insults.

PS. I'd like to point out that in one page of this thread you've called people 'stupid', delusional', 'dumb', and '******ed'. Class act. Really. Honestly, I'll go back to filtering out your posts via FireFox as I did for ages, as your flawed opinion of local is the vast minority here... and those who have an interest in actually having a discussion, heated or not, are mature enough to refrain from using playground insults.



and somehow this makes yours better?

This is a *snip* Do not use this word - Valorem idea in its entirty placing such a ri****lous ownus on the defends of the area to have so many people avalible to sit on a ****ing gate is just a waste of time.

Kalica Kahn
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.12.18 08:07:00 - [122]
 

Edited by: Kalica Kahn on 18/12/2007 08:09:24
In my opinion local should not be a intel tool, and the portraits showing who is in local should be removed, not the actual chat channel.

HOWEVER, if you did that I also believe you should strengthen the scanner in some way so it can scan the whole system, maybe only giving a "friend or foe" count.
You could also give the scanner an "active" and "passive" mode, passive meaning you would have to click the scan button yourself, while active would do a scan say once every 5 seconds. The offset being that having the scanner run in active mode would make your ship much easier to scan down by any hostiles entering system.


I believe there's so much CCP could do with the scanner to give the game more depth.

I would like to see player able to offline all their modules in order to hide from scanners/probers rather than just fitting a standard cloak. The more modules running the easier you are to find sort of thing.
I can see a pilot safespotting, offlining all his modules and "running silent" because he had picked up hostiles entering system on his scanner. Holding his breath almost because he knows offlining his modules makes him extremely hard to find, but not entirely impossible if the enemy have a dedicated prober, with excellent skills.

You could get so complex and creative with ideas like warp drives leaving a signature in space, ships dedicated to jamming opposition scanners limiting intel etc etc. In fleets, scouts would become even more important in order to avoid a "where the heck did those 20 battleships come from!?!" moment.


I don't know if my idea's have merit, but I think something along those lines would certainly beat the current pilot-with-a-red-tag-enters-local-warp-to-safespot-and-hit-cloak "fun" scenario. Yes you should be able to avoid gankers hunting for you, but you should also have to work to avoid them almost as much as they are working to find you.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2007.12.18 08:44:00 - [123]
 

Originally by: Tovarishch

What is the main purpose of a Black Ops ship? To use Covert Cynos.



What is the main purpose of Abaddons? To kill ****

Therefor the abaddon should do infinite dps and have 99% resistances.

Can you seriously not see how your arguement fails. Ive already explained it to you once, and after you ignore that clear fact, i am going to have to explain it to you in another way, one that maybe you can understand.

It doesnt matter what the purpose of a ship is if attaining that purpose to the quality as desired by a person makes the ships overpowered.

Titans? Designed to "break up the blob" NERFED. Motherships? NERFED. Nano BS? NERFED. Gank-a-geddon? NERFED.

All these ships fit their role but that didnt stop it from being overpowered and because its overpowered its a stupid thing to do!

ISD Valorem


Amarr
ISD STAR
Posted - 2007.12.18 09:19:00 - [124]
 

Guys and Girls,

Please keep the discussion civil and friendly.

Dristra
Amarr
Idle Haven
Posted - 2007.12.18 12:30:00 - [125]
 

Originally by: Tovarishch
Does it seem ironic and somewhat disappointing to anyone else that when using a Black Ops ship to help some friends sneak behind enemy lines that the first thing the enemy is going to see is a new group of bad guys pop up in local?

Covert? I think not.

There needs to be another reflection on why local exists in 0.0



Hey, just giving the black ops the power to "leave" local if cloaked would be neat, and make them worth training.

Temujin Ka
Amarr
Posted - 2007.12.18 15:12:00 - [126]
 

Edited by: Temujin Ka on 18/12/2007 15:14:12
Other possible covert-ops solutions:

1) short delay in updating local statistics (who and how many). Not too long but at least enough time for someone to cyno in and warp to an exit or maybe even enough time to refuel from a cloaked hauler and jump again before they show up.

edit for clarification: players entering a system have their view of local delayed by the same amount of time as well.

2) remove names from local but give players a simple count on how many ships are in a system.

3) Don't add someone to local until they enter warp in the system.

I definitely think someone solo mining/ratting in 0.0 should have a lot harder time than they do now. Instantly warping to a safe spot once someone neutral or red enters the area is not how this game should be played. In 0.0 a soloer should absolutely be at a disadvantage. Players should be encouraged to group together in 0.0 and there should be a lot more surprise encounters all around (pirates jumping into a mining op that has a strong defense or soloers actually being able to be caught surprised). How this can be implemented fairly I don't have a good answer for.

Tovarishch
Caldari
Body Count Inc.
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2007.12.18 19:39:00 - [127]
 

Edited by: Tovarishch on 18/12/2007 19:39:58

Originally by: Dristra

Hey, just giving the black ops the power to "leave" local if cloaked would be neat, and make them worth training.


Not a bad idea, but why would anyone choose to be visible in local?

Originally by: Temujin Ka
Edited by: Temujin Ka on 18/12/2007 15:14:12
Other possible covert-ops solutions:

1) short delay in updating local statistics (who and how many). Not too long but at least enough time for someone to cyno in and warp to an exit or maybe even enough time to refuel from a cloaked hauler and jump again before they show up.

edit for clarification: players entering a system have their view of local delayed by the same amount of time as well.

2) remove names from local but give players a simple count on how many ships are in a system.

3) Don't add someone to local until they enter warp in the system.


Interesting ideas. The delayed update on local holds promise for solving the problem with local. Rewarding those who can move quickly is a nice side effect.

Originally by: Temujin Ka

I definitely think someone solo mining/ratting in 0.0 should have a lot harder time than they do now. Instantly warping to a safe spot once someone neutral or red enters the area is not how this game should be played. In 0.0 a soloer should absolutely be at a disadvantage. Players should be encouraged to group together in 0.0 and there should be a lot more surprise encounters all around (pirates jumping into a mining op that has a strong defense or soloers actually being able to be caught surprised). How this can be implemented fairly I don't have a good answer for.


I completely agree. It's not an easy problem to solve... but the introduction of Black Ops ships brings the problem into focus.

Plekto
Freedom United Consolidations - Inter Terrestrial
United For 0rder
Posted - 2007.12.18 23:31:00 - [128]
 

Edited by: Plekto on 18/12/2007 23:35:35
Edited by: Plekto on 18/12/2007 23:32:05
Interesting weekend :)

There are a few things that need to be added/changed, though.

1 - Logically, the only way short of a massive communications array the size of half of your ship to communicate with the rest of eve has to be via the gates. This is why they "tag" you - they receive your transponder signal like a tower would with an airplane and tell the other pilots in the area about you.

If you turn it off, it's logical that all chat channels would go away.

- The cloaked covert ops ship not only has local effectively removed(still sees number in system and so on) - but they can't send email, chat, or do ANYTHING at all that lets other players, even in their gang know about what's going on. Not unless they "surface".

- They still can *receive* all of this, though.(essentially when cloaked, your return key ceases to function - you can't type anything in any chat or email window)

Submarines are like this. Passive only, can't send anything or gather any intel except what they "see" around them.(the "look out the window"/periscope effect)

Change - Add a second level to the covert ops cloak. This is a "silent running" mode which does all of this.

Penalty - while in silent mode, you can't warp.

Standard cloaking is like current cloaking - no change. You show up in local as usual.

2 - Having Sov in a system gives you that intel you want. If you are mining in 0.0 without sov, well, stuff WILL sneak in and gank you, so don't go mining or ratting alone in areas where it's not yours.

Change - Sov gives intel at gates and also in any system, an enemy getting in the same grid as a POS or Outpost will automatically show up in local.(they have massive scanners - no use hiding from them) Gates don't do this, though, since they aren't player-owned.

3 - People forget that this also affects the defenders, allowing for superb intel on what's coming and going. Being able to check, for instance, a couple of belts without the intruders being any wiser, because you launched from your own POS or outpost, which doesn't report to the gate system.

Change - Always undock cloaked for Cov Ops so as to not let the enemy know you undocked.(they'll still know you're there, somewhere)

4 - Detection.

Change - Cloaked ships appear in local if a ship comes within *20*km of them. A skill should modify this to 10 at level 5, IMO. This allows people to scan and while they won't uncloak the player, they will see their name show up if they get close.

This makes it a lot harder to camp at a gate, but it's also fairer to the defenders who aren't cloaked.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2007.12.18 23:59:00 - [129]
 

"Logic" in the sense that you use it has nothing to do with balance. Balance is important.

"no communications" does nothing to hinder a cloaked ship since they will likely be using ventrillo or teamspeak anyway.

Allowing defenders much more information than attackers is a huge buff in defenders efficiency to kill attackers. That is not really the problem as anyone here sees it, but rather the inability of attackers to kill producers. Which may or may not be an issue depending on how you view their goals[shutting down the production while the attacker is in the area can be valid reason enough]


Plekto
Freedom United Consolidations - Inter Terrestrial
United For 0rder
Posted - 2007.12.19 00:22:00 - [130]
 

I understand your point of view. But the game is really geared already towards the attacker, and having SOV in a system should give you a defensive advantage.

Note - in low sec and ES, you don't get this intel! Only where you have undisputed SOV.

Shutting down production is a pretty hefty penalty, and the truth is that no mining op is going to get warped out before that cloaked ship "surfaces" and unloads into them. That is, if they are stupid enough to keep mining or ratting with enemies in the system.

I'm with the "0.0 isn't for idiots or wimps" camp on this one. It's a tough place for a reason and if you don't protect your operations, well, tough luck - learn some tactics.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2007.12.19 01:10:00 - [131]
 

Originally by: Plekto
...


See, i dont really think the game is geared towards attackers, and i think its very hard to objectivly hold that opinion if you activly participate in a corporation or alliance[i might go so far as to say you are just plain wrong]. Attackers have some advantages in that they get to pick the terms of the engagement since they are planning ahead[I.E. they choose their fleet composition because they are planning as opposed to defenders who must get togother what they have], but defenders have multipule other advantages.

Holding sov in a system does give you defensive advantage, it gives you POS with which to refit and resupply. It gives out outposts with which to do the same. It gives you defence channels that can report hostiles more efficiently[as you dont have the critical mass in areas you arent living with which to have an effective hostile reporting system].

The question is really how much advantage should the defenders have? To that i think we can clearly say that any method which allows ships to move without being seen by everyone in local[and/or scan] is clearly too skewed towards the attackers, since this negates all advantages the defenders have.

But likewise, giving the defenders the same advantage screws the attackers, because part of typical pvp combat is to attempt to choose your fight. By giving information only to defenders, not only do defenders have all the benefits listed above, but they also have extra benefits of not having to worry about being detected ahead of time.

A system where cloaked ships couldnt be seen in local, and only people who held sov could see local would produce huge problems in the current mechanics. It would be impossible to attack someone without a cloak, since that is the only way to even come close to evening up the information gap. And producers would be sitting ducks against those that were fitting in that manner, especially recons. It also makes inter-alliance cooperation more difficult.

This is not the type of game that i want to play and i have a feeling, not the type of game that CCP wants to produce.

Now, there are pretty easy solutions to the issue that defenders have too much time to react[if it is an issue], and the simplest is to reduce the amount of time that defenders have to react by delaying local reporting by 10 to 25 seconds. Now fast moving gangs can surprise people, and you have to be vigilant of both local and intel channels to not be caught.

It also pretty much ends people who dont have intel channels[macro'ers], and increases the chances of ambushes, which is an added bonus on top of the problems to be fixed.


Tovarishch
Caldari
Body Count Inc.
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2007.12.19 02:22:00 - [132]
 

Edited by: Tovarishch on 19/12/2007 03:52:24

Originally by: Plekto
I understand your point of view. But the game is really geared already towards the attacker, and having SOV in a system should give you a defensive advantage.

Note - in low sec and ES, you don't get this intel! Only where you have undisputed SOV.

Shutting down production is a pretty hefty penalty, and the truth is that no mining op is going to get warped out before that cloaked ship "surfaces" and unloads into them. That is, if they are stupid enough to keep mining or ratting with enemies in the system.

I'm with the "0.0 isn't for idiots or wimps" camp on this one. It's a tough place for a reason and if you don't protect your operations, well, tough luck - learn some tactics.


God forbid that you ask people to actually adapt and use some skill.

Also, I don't believe a change to local leans toward favoring an attacker. I honestly believe that the only people myopic enough to believe this are people who haven't directly engaged in 0.0 warfare. Attacking generally requires an extended logistics chain that will become more difficult in 0.0 without local. Wars are won and lost on logistics. The old adage of, 'Armies march on their stomachs' comes to mind.

Not to mention, any advantage that an 'attacker' may have can also be applied to a counter-attacking defensive group.

Edit - for clarity.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2007.12.19 06:52:00 - [133]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 19/12/2007 06:56:00
Sieging requires logistics. Attacking does not.

ed: A counter attacking group does not recieve nearly any of the benefits the attacker does.

Because the attacker does not need to engage the defending group to achieve its objective[production disruption], as well, the defending group is time constrained on prep, while an attacking group is not, giving it more ability to fit ships with the ability to leave local.

The defenders need to engage and destroy ships in order to make the operation a success, they need to do this because only in inflicting harm on their enemies can those enemies be pressured to not return. If their enemies waltz in and get some kills then dissapear when the blob comes, there is nothing to stop them from doing it again.

Tovarishch
Caldari
Body Count Inc.
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2007.12.19 16:58:00 - [134]
 

Edited by: Tovarishch on 19/12/2007 17:27:58

For once I'm thankful my second machine self-destructed, and that I had to reinstall all my software, or else I would have missed your filtered post on my main computer.

Originally by: Goumindong

Sieging requires logistics. Attacking does not.


Sieging is attacking. Attackers are the players sieging ('siege' at www.dictionary.com). Calling a dog a cat doesn't make it a cat. Flawed logic. Again.

Originally by: Goumindong

ed: A counter attacking group does not recieve nearly any of the benefits the attacker does.

Because the attacker does not need to engage the defending group to achieve its objective[production disruption], as well, the defending group is time constrained on prep, while an attacking group is not, giving it more ability to fit ships with the ability to leave local.

The defenders need to engage and destroy ships in order to make the operation a success, they need to do this because only in inflicting harm on their enemies can those enemies be pressured to not return. If their enemies waltz in and get some kills then dissapear when the blob comes, there is nothing to stop them from doing it again.


Flawed logic.

Every player has the capacity to make 'profit' or 'deny profit'. If 'denial of profit' (to your enemy) doesn't exceed how much time could have applied to 'profit' (your own time spent mining or doing something else) then you've lost potentional money. This is very basic reason.

Attackers organize a raid, prep/fit, travel and spend plenty of time doing 'non-profitable' things when they could have been making money. All the while the defenders ARE making money.

Current situation is - defenders make money till the moment enemies enter local then dock and wait for them to leave. The attackers are making no money during all this while (organizing, preping, traveling, waiting). The attackers then travel home... all the while still not making any money, while the defenders have undocked and gone back to mining/ratting.

With local changed so that cloaked ships don't show up (and these cloaked ships can't scan, etc)... only single thing that will change is that the defenders will have to assign one person for each gate in the system for recon.

Let's say in your horribly flawed scenario that the attackers succeed in blowing some ships up. Will it likely be a proper 'denial of profit', meaning the attacker has caused the defenders to lose profit equal to what the defenders made mining, and the attackers could have been making if they hadn't gone to the trouble of attacking? Almost never. A siege has to be made in order for a proper 'denial of profit' to be created.

Now, read again from the top.

Attackers, with both local in place and with local removed, are forced to spend more time not making money than defenders... which was your entire point. That entire point is completely wrong. Defenders, on home turf with their gear nearby (and with mining being magnitudes more profitable than flying through stargates for an hour or two) can offset losses very, very quickly.

For a proper 'denial of profit' a siege is required, and that is difficult for both parties... and with local removed it suddenly becomes a much more difficult logistical operation for the attackers.

Now, back to Firefox and my 89(!) filters for EVE-O.

Edit - for clarity.

Farrah Jun
Posted - 2007.12.19 20:42:00 - [135]
 

Well, glad to see there is such an active topic on this matter. I am still very new, but this issue became clear to me as I began venturing out into low-sec space. For what its worth here is the opinion of a non-allianced new player:

I have seen, and been the target of newb hunters. New players do not know who is dangerous and who is not. However, veteran players do. This creates a scenario where seasoned players can scan local chat for PKers, or worse yet, a PKer can scan for PKKers and run! However new players are unaware, and only know that if they see a "scary" person that person sees them, too!

Additionally, the massive amount of statistical data available at all times in low security space allows for automated defense monitoring using 3rd party programs. As just a rudimentary coder, this became obvious to me immediately.

No player can move through space covertly. This does not even include covert-ops ships. No player can move through low security space secretly.

It is easy for alliances to maintain a hold on 0.0 space. 0.0 space contains many keys to advanced gameplay, and yet once a strong alliance has control of an area it is almost impossible for any other group to secretly move through it. I'm not discussing turf warfare here, simply moving through low-sec space in general. If an alliance wants to completely control 0.0 space it should be more then a full-time job.

Local chat, and certain map statistics completely remove the ability to move covertly or even normally through low security space. I humbly suggest the following changes:

- No player count for 0.4 and below
- Only players who talk show up in local chat for 0.4 and below
- The following statistics should not display in the star map for 0.4 and below:
Average pilots in space
Cynosural fields (One would still see it if they were in the system)
Jumps in the last hour
Number of docked and active pilots
Pirates and police ships destroyed (Do not show NPC ship destruction)
Station Count (Player owned stations only)

Notice this still allows players to see how many player ships and pods were destroyed (The intended final result of most secret operations). It also allows players to know which stargates are being heavily used.

There have been a great deal of interesting and practical suggestions posted in this forum. From a purely programming perspective, the suggestions I am making are very reasonable, as they mostly involve small changes to database filters, not massive code rewrites, I believe.

I would also point out that part of the arguments in the forum against such changes appear to stem from a lack of counter-measure against cloaked ships, and poor or no implementation of struture and station defense mechanisms. I am still new so I don't have the full picture on this issue, yet. Hopefully CCP will address these problems in future updates.

I commend CCP for their grand experiment known as Eve.


Myrania
Gallente
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.12.22 00:15:00 - [136]
 

Originally by: Archivian Specialatus
How about:

When you activate your Cov-OPs cloak, you are removed from local.

So you cant use local whilst you are cloaked and people in local cant see you.

This would mean that being cloaked actually would mean that you are cloaked. But also cloakers cant just Cloak and watch local for hours, they would actually have to doing something to get info. And every time they want intel like local info then they will have to de cloak.

It will be like a submarine surfacing for air.




This is a superb idea. I think this would be a good compromise between people who want local eliminated and people who want it to stay.

Also the opt-in/opt-out idea could work as well. Lets say 3 people are 'logged in' to local, only those 3 people will see each other in local chat. Being in local chat this way only allows you to see people that opt-in for local, and not everyone in the system.

You would still have tools available to such as the map to see how many people are active in the system in the last 30 mins.

Marcus Ailichi
ohgodhowdidthisgethereimnotgoodwithcomputers
Posted - 2007.12.22 16:11:00 - [137]
 

This might have been said before, and I migh not even know what I'm talking about ;)

I understand that the reason why you show up in local has been explained and it would be because stargates somehow register everyone who goes through and report it to some kind of system wide database.

But when you use your ships jumpdrive you don't have to use stargates right? So maybe it could be so that if you use jump drive instead of stargate you wont show up in local.

ViolenTUK
Gallente
Demolition Men
Posted - 2007.12.22 20:29:00 - [138]
 

I feel that local chat should be removed in 0.0 systems as i feel that local chat is used for inteligence and this should be limited in 0.0 in the same manner that your safety is limited in 0.0.

If players were assigned to watch gates for incoming traffic it would open to human error which is an integeral part on low security systems. No fleet or holding force would be foolish enough to beleive that they have all there entrances covered by assigning people to watch gates. There is room for error.

TubeChild TK421
Posted - 2007.12.23 00:25:00 - [139]
 

Originally by: ViolenTUK
I feel that local chat should be removed in 0.0 systems as i feel that local chat is used for inteligence and this should be limited in 0.0 in the same manner that your safety is limited in 0.0.

If players were assigned to watch gates for incoming traffic it would open to human error which is an integeral part on low security systems. No fleet or holding force would be foolish enough to beleive that they have all there entrances covered by assigning people to watch gates. There is room for error.


I hope your corp orders you to sentry duty every time you log on. Then you'll understand how boring it is, and why we textually lynch people at the suggestion that we must sit on our arses staring at nothing for hours on end in a game that, in the end, we play for FUN. Not because we're getting paid in real money that can pay the bills when the war is won, but because we're there to have FUN in the game.

If you want to be a sentry, join the Army and get out of Eve, imho.

ViolenTUK
Gallente
Demolition Men
Posted - 2007.12.23 00:43:00 - [140]
 

Originally by: TubeChild TK421


I hope your corp orders you to sentry duty every time you log on. Then you'll understand how boring it is, and why we textually lynch people at the suggestion that we must sit on our arses staring at nothing for hours on end in a game that, in the end, we play for FUN. Not because we're getting paid in real money that can pay the bills when the war is won, but because we're there to have FUN in the game.

If you want to be a sentry, join the Army and get out of Eve, imho.


I dont want to be a sentry. Thats my point. If you read a few of the post before mine you will see that there are players genuinely beleive that sentry duty will negate local chat. It wont.

Barqs
Peanut Factory
Good Sax
Posted - 2008.02.08 21:15:00 - [141]
 

This would really serve to make most 0.0 activities a deathtrap, But on the reverse, every damn system you must stop and ask should I waste my time scanning this whole system every belt only to find out that the ships im picking up are at a POS inline with a belt? Or even that the ships are piloted at all? That would also make ganking a pain in the ass.
Barqs-

Renfus
0DAMN
Posted - 2008.02.08 23:05:00 - [142]
 

Agreed !

Local should not be a tool used to monitor if anyone enters/leaves system..

just makes no sense....

Saladin
Minmatar
Minmatar Ship Construction Services
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2008.02.08 23:29:00 - [143]
 

What if it was done like this:

If you jump through the gate, you are in local chat
If you are portalled or cyno'd in, you are not in local chat.

Polkageist
Minmatar
tr0pa de elite
Triumvirate.
Posted - 2008.02.09 01:07:00 - [144]
 

/signed

I suport the idea of having local chanel changed in some way. Covert ships should not appear on local atleast... Then they are not that covert anymore.

Renfus
0DAMN
Posted - 2008.02.09 01:36:00 - [145]
 

I personally would like it to be more realistic...
All I know is that if you walk into a building your not gonna know how many people/who's in it...
So entering a Solar System which is a bit bigger then a building you definitly should not know when people enter and how many...
Arrow make it so noone shows up in local unless they chat..
Arrowimprove ships sensors and impliment a radar system that is always active so that you can scan for nearby ships like we do here in the real world...

here's an idea:
Arrowcreate a probe that scans the gate and anchors like bubbles do... when someone jumps through it sends you their ID & ship type... call it a watchman probe or something..
just limit the number of probes that can be deployed on a gate because i'd hate to jump into 100 probes lol lag city wating to happen :P

But as in depth as this game is... the way local works now just doesn't seem right... and not very realistic..

almightybig
Evolution
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.02.29 18:11:00 - [146]
 

I am making a few assumptions about the Universe as we know it.

Although unpoliced, movement in 0.0 is in effect controlled the same way as Empire, in that we get around using the "Gates". (hold off cynos for a sec) Each system has them and none of us put them there. I would think that it would be an inherent property of the gate to protect, to some extent, those people in the system. The Gallente didnt just put gates up in the middle of nowhere for no reason. They recognize that valuable resources are available and in lieu of providing something like a constant military presence, they built in a limited ability for the gates to keep track of some things to protect people of their own group using the system. I think we should assume that Local is an extension of a scanning and communication subsystem of the gates. The gate(s) scan (every 1? 2? 5? minutes) the system they are in and report via a communication channel (local) what ship/station/etc.. signatures it can detect, whether they came through the gate or not. Assume also that the gates communicate with each other. The "chat in local" is nothing more than a common radio frequency controlled and broadcasat from the gates.

A Cyno gen is something that can be "scanned" by the gate and therefore reported in overview and potentially by a system message in local.

Under that assumption the solution is simple, and I know I have read this in the thread... Just make Cloaked ships NOT visible in local. If a ship can jump into the system by means OTHER than the gates (ie. bridged) cloaked, or if they can cloak within a reasonable amount of time of entering the system, between the scans of the gates, then it should not appear in local.

If you cloak a normal BS.. it should disappear from local (after an appropriate scan delay). If that pilot is dumb enough to be talking in local then it is apparent that they don't care that you know they are cloaked.

The key then to this is the fact that in order for a TRUE black ops to operate, the CYNO has to be cloaked or masked from the gate scans in some manner. Then when it comes in neither the "bridge" nor any of the accompanying ships would show in local. And in that case I agree that it should be a resource exhausting process encouraging the use of conventional jump technology to get close to the target, thus exposing the force to some extent on the way to target, and then the stealth jump at the last jump.

If i missed a point on how BOs travel I apologize.

Mith Dahn
Posted - 2008.02.29 18:52:00 - [147]
 

Screw that. The whole cloaking bs should be NERFED.

Reachok
Amarr
Wrecking Shots
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2008.02.29 22:06:00 - [148]
 

Originally by: almightybig
I am making a few assumptions about the Universe as we know it.

Although unpoliced, movement in 0.0 is in effect controlled the same way as Empire, in that we get around using the "Gates". (hold off cynos for a sec) Each system has them and none of us put them there. I would think that it would be an inherent property of the gate to protect, to some extent, those people in the system. The Gallente didnt just put gates up in the middle of nowhere for no reason. They recognize that valuable resources are available and in lieu of providing something like a constant military presence, they built in a limited ability for the gates to keep track of some things to protect people of their own group using the system. I think we should assume that Local is an extension of a scanning and communication subsystem of the gates. The gate(s) scan (every 1? 2? 5? minutes) the system they are in and report via a communication channel (local) what ship/station/etc.. signatures it can detect, whether they came through the gate or not. Assume also that the gates communicate with each other. The "chat in local" is nothing more than a common radio frequency controlled and broadcasat from the gates.

A Cyno gen is something that can be "scanned" by the gate and therefore reported in overview and potentially by a system message in local.

Under that assumption the solution is simple, and I know I have read this in the thread... Just make Cloaked ships NOT visible in local. If a ship can jump into the system by means OTHER than the gates (ie. bridged) cloaked, or if they can cloak within a reasonable amount of time of entering the system, between the scans of the gates, then it should not appear in local.

If you cloak a normal BS.. it should disappear from local (after an appropriate scan delay). If that pilot is dumb enough to be talking in local then it is apparent that they don't care that you know they are cloaked.

The key then to this is the fact that in order for a TRUE black ops to operate, the CYNO has to be cloaked or masked from the gate scans in some manner. Then when it comes in neither the "bridge" nor any of the accompanying ships would show in local. And in that case I agree that it should be a resource exhausting process encouraging the use of conventional jump technology to get close to the target, thus exposing the force to some extent on the way to target, and then the stealth jump at the last jump.

If i missed a point on how BOs travel I apologize.



Very good points. And it makes sense and fits within the storyline and game mechanics. I'd like to expand on the idea that if you've cloaked for a set period, and have not spoken then not only your ship dissapears, but your avatar from local chat as well.

DitchDigger
Posted - 2008.03.05 16:51:00 - [149]
 

As a miner, I disagree with removing the local channel. Local is our primary means of defense against other aggressive players. Without that, miners are simply 'Free Loot' for covert ops ships and other attackers. Removing the local channel would drastically alter the parameters of the predator/prey relationship.
So, if your going to remove local then you need to at least give miners something to rebalance the situation. How about a new level 5 exhumer with bigger shields, bigger resistances, higher drone bandwidth, and a native +3 to warp strength, similar to blockade runners.

Thera Romana
Posted - 2008.03.05 17:30:00 - [150]
 

Ok, lets see If I have it right.

Covops(yes Im one) would like to be able to move around undetected, like the name implies. I agree with 90% of this.
I dont believe local should be removed, but rather changed to be more realistic.

If you are in a cloaked ship, your chance of not being picked up by local should drop to 90% with increased drop per level. When you uncloak, your chance of not being pickup up by local in a cov op should be like 40 or 50. Basically if your cloaked and you sit in the same system for a few hours there is a possibility, that you would end up flashing up in local. If you talk in local cloaked or not, you will show up.

This applies to local picking you up on its own. Now scanners would have the ability to apply results to local. Now you wouldnt get a warp to for cloaked ships, but if you scan down and have good stats, you could populate local with all in system.

Miner/Ratters in my opion are the same, just shooting/mining different resources. Most people do one of the two to raise funds. Now granted ratters have a higher probability of surviving minor attacks from roamers. But both still like local for intel, this adds some security to thier evolutions. Why, well it doesnt take a rocket scientist to find them quickly even with out scanning. Just warp to belts. Now everybody likes easy targets, but this is to easy. So if you are going to remove ships from local, then getting to the locations of workers should become harder.

Remove warp to points for belts all of them, make belts scannable, but warp in point shouldnt be the same for everyone, should be random. That way you found me in a belt, but your are not instantly on top of me, warp scramming me. That or you need to remove warp disruptors.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7

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