open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked Who to vote for.?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Digiblast
Minmatar
The Collective
B O R G
Posted - 2008.05.12 13:43:00 - [1]
 

Ok.. If this is the way to get CCP attention for new changes then I want to know who is going to go for few things.

- Changing or removing Buddy list ingame.
and
- Change or remove Toons from Local chat.!

Who ever is going for these 2 things have my vote!!!

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.12 13:57:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Jade Constantine on 12/05/2008 13:57:09

Originally by: Digiblast
Ok.. If this is the way to get CCP attention for new changes then I want to know who is going to go for few things.

- Changing or removing Buddy list ingame.
and
- Change or remove Toons from Local chat.!

Who ever is going for these 2 things have my vote!!!


I'd agree with both issues. Pilots should have the ability to set their buddy list options in-game, from full visibility of online status to all "buddies" (anyone who set them such) - to AFK (logged in but don't expect a reply) to - "SHOW OFFLINE" for when you're active but don't want people to know you are active (ie when involved in critical fleet ops and sneaky war-fighting.). I think its unreasonable that people can add known "titan/dreadnaught" pilots to a buddy list and automatically be informed when these people are online for example.

For more detail on my thinking re local chat ... please have a look at This local chat discussion thread

Hope this helps decide your vote Digiblast. All the best.


Arum Erzoh
Amarr
Kreios Imperium
Posted - 2008.05.12 15:11:00 - [3]
 

I'm uncertain of your concerns with the Buddy List, but shall assume that it pertains to others knowing when you're on or not.

Principally, I am not for changing or removing the Buddy List as it currently stands.

I am for changing Local Channel such that avatars/toons only appear after one has used the chat channel.

Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.12 16:04:00 - [4]
 

If you propose these changes via the CSM forum as topics, and they gained the support of 5% of the player base (or a representative) then the CSM would have to discuss and vote on these for presentation to CCP council.

If I was on the CSM council, I would like to see 5% player support for both of these issues, as they are major and affect all players. I would then carefully consider all arguments for and against making such changes, including the debate and discussion in the CSM meeting, before deciding which way to vote. Its important, I feel, in keeping an open-mind as long as possible!

Take care,
Bruce Hansen (Arithron)

zoolkhan
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2008.05.12 16:12:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: zoolkhan on 12/05/2008 16:14:47
Originally by: Digiblast
Ok.. If this is the way to get CCP attention for new changes then I want to know who is going to go for few things.

- Changing or removing Buddy list ingame.
and
- Change or remove Toons from Local chat.!



another vote lost for me then.

removing local is removing active roleplay.
A delay i could agree with, but not with a total remove.

no more "for matar!" during the warp to the gate
no more "leave this place slaver, this area is free and guarded by XYZ"
mo more warpoems and chatter during a gatecamp in local
(ok, no more smack either, but if you smack thats your problem, i dont)

i know you as a pew pew AAA member couldnt care less about the roleplay aspect
but some people candidating for CSM should think about this.



what do you hate most on that buddly list? i barely use it these
days... in what sense is it bad as it is? as a detector when someone comes online?

I can understand that this can be rather annoying, maybe adding a buddy to the list should require permission of the one added - a permission which should be possible to revoke should the relation change one day....


Digiblast
Minmatar
The Collective
B O R G
Posted - 2008.05.12 16:58:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Arum Erzoh
I'm uncertain of your concerns with the Buddy List, but shall assume that it pertains to others knowing when you're on or not.

Principally, I am not for changing or removing the Buddy List as it currently stands.

I am for changing Local Channel such that avatars/toons only appear after one has used the chat channel.




I use buddy list to capture my enemy and keep track of them.
And many use that list to keep track of who of the enemy Capital ships are online.

So either remove it or make it work like MSN or something similar.

About Local chat.. I'm specially thinking about 0.0 space here.
- Have delay
or
- Make only ppl that speak appear in it.

Anything would make a big difference to current situation. Imo the cov op's blackop and all ships that can cloak are just useless!


And another thing I would like to see changed.
Remove Chr names from Overview.
- This would lengthen the fights
- Make the Kill mails even more surprising and fun to look at.
- Harder to take down known gang leaders in the begining.
- Give known named pilots the joy to play again without being called primarys all the time! ;-D

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.12 17:05:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Digiblast

And another thing I would like to see changed.
Remove Chr names from Overview.
- This would lengthen the fights
- Make the Kill mails even more surprising and fun to look at.
- Harder to take down known gang leaders in the begining.
- Give known named pilots the joy to play again without being called primarys all the time! ;-D


We actually talked about this one in vent last night. I believe Danton Marcellus advocated this change a while ago. I can certainly see the point. One issue is how you differentiate the otherview list - it'll need some kind of automatic tagging system -> RavenAlpha, RavenBeta, RavenGamma etc, or otherwise some easy way to make the calling of primaries possible for larger fleet battles. But on the grounds its a continuation of the "less is more" paradigm for information warfare I'm broadly in agreement its a suggestion we should look at - but I'd want to see a detailed implementation proposal before saying its a first draft CSM issue for this sitting.


Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.12 17:20:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Digiblast

And another thing I would like to see changed.
Remove Chr names from Overview.
- This would lengthen the fights
- Make the Kill mails even more surprising and fun to look at.
- Harder to take down known gang leaders in the begining.
- Give known named pilots the joy to play again without being called primarys all the time! ;-D


We actually talked about this one in vent last night. I believe Danton Marcellus advocated this change a while ago. I can certainly see the point. One issue is how you differentiate the otherview list - it'll need some kind of automatic tagging system -> RavenAlpha, RavenBeta, RavenGamma etc, or otherwise some easy way to make the calling of primaries possible for larger fleet battles. But on the grounds its a continuation of the "less is more" paradigm for information warfare I'm broadly in agreement its a suggestion we should look at - but I'd want to see a detailed implementation proposal before saying its a first draft CSM issue for this sitting.




This could be implemented fairly easily by adding hot keys to the target calling mechanic already in the game so that commanders didn't have to go through a right click menu for every target.

You would need at least 3 hotkeys, call primary, call secondary, remove target. Where calling a primary put a target at the top of the stack and bumped the current primary to the next position. Calling a secondary put something at the bottom of the stack, and removing a target would remove that target from the stack.

So if we had 10 enemies[named 1-10] and i selected enemy 10, then called primary, then selected enemy 1 then called primary, then selected enemy 2 then called primary, then selected enemy 3 then called secondary, then selected enemy 4 then called secondary. Then selected enemy 2 and removed target our final target list would look like this:

1: 1
2: 10
3: 3
4: 4

Gang hot keys are important anyway.

Digiblast
Minmatar
The Collective
B O R G
Posted - 2008.05.12 19:41:00 - [9]
 

CCP added really cool stuff that they call Broadcast target or something... I heared that it's used for mining!Shocked

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.12 20:09:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Digiblast
CCP added really cool stuff that they call Broadcast target or something... I heared that it's used for mining!Shocked


CCP has implemented a lot of things, but that doesn't mean they are implemented well. The right click menu for broadcasting targets makes it largely useless in nearly any fight.

Digiblast
Minmatar
The Collective
B O R G
Posted - 2008.05.13 11:25:00 - [11]
 

Well it's rather simple I guess.

Jade you buy me a beer when you have to get to Iceland for EVE TV ;-D

Sariyah
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
Posted - 2008.05.13 11:30:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Digiblast
I use buddy list to capture my enemy and keep track of them.


... and you also complain of lag and slow load times, right? Since you're in 0.0 I assume you have thousands of people there. Been there, before standings were shown on local.

Digiblast
Minmatar
The Collective
B O R G
Posted - 2008.05.13 13:26:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Digiblast on 13/05/2008 13:26:31
Originally by: Sariyah
Originally by: Digiblast
I use buddy list to capture my enemy and keep track of them.


... and you also complain of lag and slow load times, right? Since you're in 0.0 I assume you have thousands of people there. Been there, before standings were shown on local.



I did not complain about lag or slow load times.
I'm not sure what you mean by:
Originally by: Sariyah
"Since you're in 0.0 I assume you have thousands of people there. Been there, before standings were shown on local"


Could you be little more detailed?

Sariyah
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
Posted - 2008.05.13 13:33:00 - [14]
 

Sorry, that didn't make much sense.
Before implementing the standings showing on local I also added my enemies to the buddy list. In a few months I had most of the active members of several alliances on my buddy list. Being at war, that was lots and lots of people, probably thousands. Enormous buddy list is (I think) one of the resource eaters in the eve client, just as bookmarks were before insta warp was implemented. :)

Digiblast
Minmatar
The Collective
B O R G
Posted - 2008.05.13 14:03:00 - [15]
 

I just added thouse that I really wanted to KILL and thouse that where passing by and so on.(Pretty Unfair imo) So why don't I just stop doing that since I think it's unfair.. well this is effective way and local chat kinda give me no other options. But that only works 1-2 times and then you need a new chr or friend to take over if you want to catch the guys again, because he knows your intention when he sees your online and in local.
And in 0.0 space it just makes no sence when you have Cov op's and all these ships to do the local chat jobs for you.

All I'm saying I WANT MORE HARDCORE in 0.0

0.1-0.4 systems could maybe have some sort of delay.

0.5-1.0 systems whould be like they are. Since Concord and The 4 Empires whould have a beacon hub that all that enter the system have to register at to be able to be in theyr space with out concord killing the unknown threat.(That could be the story line reason.)




Sariyah
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
Posted - 2008.05.13 16:19:00 - [16]
 

Delay is bad. Often 30 sec - 1 min delay is just enough so a good scanner catches you.
But yea, nailing farmers should be at least possible, now it's impossible (unless they're like scrambled by rats, ehh) if they watch local. Umm, or use some nonsense like bacon or what's that called again ;)

Darius JOHNSON
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.13 16:34:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 13/05/2008 16:34:51
There's a couple of items here I have an opinion on.

The first, removing the buddy list... I'm not sure I agree with from the perspective that you should be able to find your friends. This is after all an MMO. What may be MUCH more solid in my perspective is being able to control who can see you... like with IM. If you're not on my buddy list you don't get to see if I'm online or not. That serves to meet the dual need of getting in touch with your friends, while mitigating the issue where large alliances will add say, your capfleet to their buddy list to avoid a hot drop. Guess what? This will also decrease the size of buddy lists.

Local has always been explained as the information relayed by the jump gates themselves iirc. I could see some merit in working within that constraint to tweak the system a bit. Perhaps if I own a chunk of 0.0 I should be able to drop a mod in system that will shut off the gate's local reporting. It is my space. Perhaps I should have some control over the gates themselves. This has all been discussed in the past by devs I believe and I find it intriguing at least as a discussion point.

What if I was able to disable the gates leading into my sovreign constellations and stealth had to be used to re enable that jump functionality to bring in your fleet? Bridging in a covops using a blackops BS, who has a hacking skill and module to hack the gate to allow the rest of the fleet to enter.

This type of theorycraft I at least find compelling as opposed to a blanket "Let's get rid of local". We've been having that discussion for years.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.13 16:49:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
This type of theorycraft I at least find compelling as opposed to a blanket "Let's get rid of local". We've been having that discussion for years.


Yet it still ignores all the problems it causes in optimal play as risk is increased.

Darius JOHNSON
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.13 16:52:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
This type of theorycraft I at least find compelling as opposed to a blanket "Let's get rid of local". We've been having that discussion for years.


Yet it still ignores all the problems it causes in optimal play as risk is increased.


*makes a statement without providing context*

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.13 17:18:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
This type of theorycraft I at least find compelling as opposed to a blanket "Let's get rid of local". We've been having that discussion for years.


Yet it still ignores all the problems it causes in optimal play as risk is increased.


*makes a statement without providing context*


I don't want to have to write an essay on every comment I make. I expect people to keep up with the discussion. Maybe its too much to ask.

Heres a quick refresher.

Less information = more risk

More risk = more mitigation = More blobs

If you give that information to one side, or let one side pick and choose where the information is available then you are giving one side the ultimate advantage that can be gained in this game[or pretty much any game where choices can be defined in terms of risk].

Eve is a game, and at some point you have to recognize there are at least two sides involved in that before you go around messing with the most important dynamic which determines the outcome of fights.


Darius JOHNSON
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.13 17:35:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
This type of theorycraft I at least find compelling as opposed to a blanket "Let's get rid of local". We've been having that discussion for years.


Yet it still ignores all the problems it causes in optimal play as risk is increased.


*makes a statement without providing context*


I don't want to have to write an essay on every comment I make. I expect people to keep up with the discussion. Maybe its too much to ask.

Heres a quick refresher.

Less information = more risk

More risk = more mitigation = More blobs

If you give that information to one side, or let one side pick and choose where the information is available then you are giving one side the ultimate advantage that can be gained in this game[or pretty much any game where choices can be defined in terms of risk].

Eve is a game, and at some point you have to recognize there are at least two sides involved in that before you go around messing with the most important dynamic which determines the outcome of fights.




I'm sorry nowhere in this thread did you mention any of that. Thanks for the refresher though and let me address that in the context of what I was talking about.

When YOU attack MY space, I SHOULD have the advantage. It's MY space. Without inherent advantages there's no reason to bother conquering space in the first place.

:merchi:

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.13 17:49:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Darius JOHNSON

I'm sorry nowhere in this thread did you mention any of that. Thanks for the refresher though and let me address that in the context of what I was talking about.

When YOU attack MY space, I SHOULD have the advantage. It's MY space. Without inherent advantages there's no reason to bother conquering space in the first place.

:merchi:


The question is not "should you have an advantage?" the question is "how much advantage should you have?". You are making the same argument the folks who lobby against changing titans make, "But they should be better!" they argue. Well that doesn't matter, what matters is how much better they ought to be.

Information is the heart of the game and changing the available information farther towards the defender is a huge advantage when they already have advantages in this regard.

Increasing the risk for attacking in all forms is not something we need to do at this point in the game unless we really want to entrench mega-alliances[since they will have the forces to attack smaller alliances and smaller alliances will not be able to reasonably take the risk to even roam in larger alliance space]

Darius JOHNSON
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.13 17:55:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 13/05/2008 17:55:25
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON

I'm sorry nowhere in this thread did you mention any of that. Thanks for the refresher though and let me address that in the context of what I was talking about.

When YOU attack MY space, I SHOULD have the advantage. It's MY space. Without inherent advantages there's no reason to bother conquering space in the first place.

:merchi:


The question is not "should you have an advantage?" the question is "how much advantage should you have?". You are making the same argument the folks who lobby against changing titans make, "But they should be better!" they argue. Well that doesn't matter, what matters is how much better they ought to be.

Information is the heart of the game and changing the available information farther towards the defender is a huge advantage when they already have advantages in this regard.

Increasing the risk for attacking in all forms is not something we need to do at this point in the game unless we really want to entrench mega-alliances[since they will have the forces to attack smaller alliances and smaller alliances will not be able to reasonably take the risk to even roam in larger alliance space]


Now you're discussing something different. Mega-alliances are already entrenched. What I was discussing specifically by way of theorycraft was an unoriginal idea that involved adding some dynamics to the concept of attack.

Perhaps to expand on that there could be other things which could be accomplished to damage infrastructure. I made an offhanded remark based on what was in a dev blog as an idea. That is all. It's called a discussion. Discussion is not, you say something to prod a conversation, I say you're wrong and leave.

I'm not even sure really I'd want to see local gone. I'd like to see a discussion happen and many times I'll play devil's advocate just to see more discussion on the topic. I don't presume to know or understand everything. Your opinion is no. Ok.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.13 18:14:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Darius JOHNSON

Now you're discussing something different. Mega-alliances are already entrenched. What I was discussing specifically by way of theorycraft was an unoriginal idea that involved adding some dynamics to the concept of attack.

Perhaps to expand on that there could be other things which could be accomplished to damage infrastructure. I made an offhanded remark based on what was in a dev blog as an idea. That is all. It's called a discussion. Discussion is not, you say something to prod a conversation, I say you're wrong and leave.

I'm not even sure really I'd want to see local gone. I'd like to see a discussion happen and many times I'll play devil's advocate just to see more discussion on the topic. I don't presume to know or understand everything. Your opinion is no. Ok.


Not discussing something different. You simply are changing the topic. We were talking about mechanics to control information based on sovereignty. I said it was a bad idea and when asked for more information explained why it was a bad idea. A discussion is not "i don't like that I was wrong, so I'm going to move the goalposts". Its a pointed conversation.

I can play those games too Darius.

With regards to my opinion. No, my opinion is that moving advantages severely towards attackers or defenders is a bad idea. Its not a matter of opinion for what will happen when changes to the mechanic are implemented. We can determine that by "solving" the system, or at the very least applying some heuristics if the solve is too complex.

I am not sure what infrastructure has to do the discussion though.

Digiblast
Minmatar
The Collective
B O R G
Posted - 2008.05.13 21:44:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
The first, removing the buddy list... I'm not sure I agree with from the perspective that you should be able to find your friends. This is after all an MMO. What may be MUCH more solid in my perspective is being able to control who can see you... like with IM. If you're not on my buddy list you don't get to see if I'm online or not. That serves to meet the dual need of getting in touch with your friends, while mitigating the issue where large alliances will add say, your capfleet to their buddy list to avoid a hot drop. Guess what? This will also decrease the size of buddy lists.


You can alwayes use eve-mail. I'm not talking about removing it, more like change it to where you add somebody and he has to accept to allow you to see if he's online and so on.


Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Local has always been explained as the information relayed by the jump gates themselves iirc. I could see some merit in working within that constraint to tweak the system a bit. Perhaps if I own a chunk of 0.0 I should be able to drop a mod in system that will shut off the gate's local reporting. It is my space. Perhaps I should have some control over the gates themselves. This has all been discussed in the past by devs I believe and I find it intriguing at least as a discussion point.


Here you talk about controling the local somehow... ok.. but who's controling it now... Do we all have this automatic system in our ship that broadcasts to some local hub that we have no controle over.

Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
What if I was able to disable the gates leading into my sovreign constellations and stealth had to be used to re enable that jump functionality to bring in your fleet? Bridging in a covops using a blackops BS, who has a hacking skill and module to hack the gate to allow the rest of the fleet to enter.


Nice Idea.. make a new topic for that if you like.


Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
This type of theorycraft I at least find compelling as opposed to a blanket "Let's get rid of local". We've been having that discussion for years.


CCP even made us do a vote about local few years ago but to many life on this exploit!

Darius JOHNSON
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.13 21:46:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Digiblast
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
The first, removing the buddy list... I'm not sure I agree with from the perspective that you should be able to find your friends. This is after all an MMO. What may be MUCH more solid in my perspective is being able to control who can see you... like with IM. If you're not on my buddy list you don't get to see if I'm online or not. That serves to meet the dual need of getting in touch with your friends, while mitigating the issue where large alliances will add say, your capfleet to their buddy list to avoid a hot drop. Guess what? This will also decrease the size of buddy lists.


You can alwayes use eve-mail. I'm not talking about removing it, more like change it to where you add somebody and he has to accept to allow you to see if he's online and so on.


Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Local has always been explained as the information relayed by the jump gates themselves iirc. I could see some merit in working within that constraint to tweak the system a bit. Perhaps if I own a chunk of 0.0 I should be able to drop a mod in system that will shut off the gate's local reporting. It is my space. Perhaps I should have some control over the gates themselves. This has all been discussed in the past by devs I believe and I find it intriguing at least as a discussion point.


Here you talk about controling the local somehow... ok.. but who's controling it now... Do we all have this automatic system in our ship that broadcasts to some local hub that we have no controle over.

Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
What if I was able to disable the gates leading into my sovreign constellations and stealth had to be used to re enable that jump functionality to bring in your fleet? Bridging in a covops using a blackops BS, who has a hacking skill and module to hack the gate to allow the rest of the fleet to enter.


Nice Idea.. make a new topic for that if you like.


Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
This type of theorycraft I at least find compelling as opposed to a blanket "Let's get rid of local". We've been having that discussion for years.


CCP even made us do a vote about local few years ago but to many life on this exploit!


re: who's controlling it, CCP. The going RP backstory is that the jump gates log who goes through them and somehow this is transmitted to your ship.

Digiblast
Minmatar
The Collective
B O R G
Posted - 2008.05.13 21:47:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Sariyah
Delay is bad. Often 30 sec - 1 min delay is just enough so a good scanner catches you.
But yea, nailing farmers should be at least possible, now it's impossible (unless they're like scrambled by rats, ehh) if they watch local. Umm, or use some nonsense like bacon or what's that called again ;)




This is a MMO game.. get some friends to help and defend or attack.! One thing I love about this game is that it is a crule harsh world. But the more I play it the more I notice it's so much simular carebear world like WOW.

Digiblast
Minmatar
The Collective
B O R G
Posted - 2008.05.13 21:50:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
re: who's controlling it, CCP. The going RP backstory is that the jump gates log who goes through them and somehow this is transmitted to your ship.


Then CCP is failing there, why does it not still show all player that are logged out in that system.
What about Capitals that dont use the gates they shouldent appear should they?

Darius JOHNSON
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.13 21:52:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON

Now you're discussing something different. Mega-alliances are already entrenched. What I was discussing specifically by way of theorycraft was an unoriginal idea that involved adding some dynamics to the concept of attack.

Perhaps to expand on that there could be other things which could be accomplished to damage infrastructure. I made an offhanded remark based on what was in a dev blog as an idea. That is all. It's called a discussion. Discussion is not, you say something to prod a conversation, I say you're wrong and leave.

I'm not even sure really I'd want to see local gone. I'd like to see a discussion happen and many times I'll play devil's advocate just to see more discussion on the topic. I don't presume to know or understand everything. Your opinion is no. Ok.


Not discussing something different. You simply are changing the topic. We were talking about mechanics to control information based on sovereignty. I said it was a bad idea and when asked for more information explained why it was a bad idea. A discussion is not "i don't like that I was wrong, so I'm going to move the goalposts". Its a pointed conversation.

I can play those games too Darius.

With regards to my opinion. No, my opinion is that moving advantages severely towards attackers or defenders is a bad idea. Its not a matter of opinion for what will happen when changes to the mechanic are implemented. We can determine that by "solving" the system, or at the very least applying some heuristics if the solve is too complex.

I am not sure what infrastructure has to do the discussion though.


To not like that I was wrong is to assume I was. The topic of discussion was local. I was talking directly about local using some ideas which had been mentioned in the past by devs regarding the control of local. It's not "moving the goalposts". Local is the topic of the thread. Change the topic of discussion to "Remove local everywhere except unconquerable 0.0" and my post then becomes off topic.

The mechanics already favor the defender. The discussion of POS warfare is really for another thread. I believe wires got crossed here as I was talking strictly about local in 0.0 referencing ideas that had been brought up in the past regarding the very subject of local.

I don't really see a need personally for local in non sovreign space. If you own space I think you should have some mechanism for knowing who's passing through it. If you're using my stargates I should know about it.

It's not moving the goalposts and it's certainly relevant to the topic.

Darius JOHNSON
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.13 21:53:00 - [30]
 

Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 13/05/2008 21:55:11
Originally by: Digiblast
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
re: who's controlling it, CCP. The going RP backstory is that the jump gates log who goes through them and somehow this is transmitted to your ship.


Then CCP is failing there, why does it not still show all player that are logged out in that system.
What about Capitals that dont use the gates they shouldent appear should they?


Haha good question. To be honest I really don't follow much of the backstory and don't recall if that was even mentioned. I just remember a blurb where they were discussing the story behind local. v0v

:edit: To follow up on your reply, we're in agreement regarding the buddy list then. Now it's used to track presence and I don't think you should be able to tell whether people are online simply by deciding that you want to know. They should have to allow you to.


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