open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [ISSUE] Modify LOCAL chat
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7

Author Topic

Falkrich Swifthand
Caldari
eNinjas Incorporated

Posted - 2008.07.14 12:30:00 - [61]
 

Edited by: Falkrich Swifthand on 14/07/2008 12:44:36
Originally by: AlphaViscera
Perhaps adding in another type of scan probe or system of scanning that can be used to get ideas of these numbers.. Now for fluidity's sake, this information could be rounded down or rounded up to say the closest 5 or the closest 10 for anything that isnt blue, say there was 33 in local, 14 blue, 17 red 2 neutral it would report Blue=14, Red 20, Neutral=0

It could be used say every 30 seconds or so.


Something like a person-scanning multispec probe? No pinpointing anything, but telling you what there is to be found?

EDIT: and /signed to looking at local. A compulsory chat channel's member list shouldn't be the intel tool. I'd prefer some kind of fast-cycling module to replace local for intel, and I wouldn't even be against it giving more information than local.

Oh, and preferably don't let cloaked ships show up in this scanner.

Unreal5
Enterprise Estonia
Posted - 2008.07.14 12:44:00 - [62]
 

Edited by: Unreal5 on 14/07/2008 12:44:26
agreed

Bad Borris
Mortis Angelus
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2008.07.14 12:55:00 - [63]
 

The scanning system needs an overhaul. When that is done then it will be time to reasess the situation and i believe that is already on teh drawing-board at ccp.

Until their is a viable scanning system which doesnt involve the npcer spamming scan and the attacking player getting bored and frustrated then removing local wouldnt be a good idea tbh. With the current state of the game removing local would favor the attacker too much in 0.0 for a start. Attackers would gravitate toward low true-sec systems and just roam the belts all day. At least thats what i would do.

Malachon Draco
eXceeded
Posted - 2008.07.14 18:01:00 - [64]
 

IF you want to remove local, you need to replace the scanning system with something that actually works. Longer scanning ranges, automatic scanning (a radar screen in the UI) instead of the current system. Then you need to deal with cloakers too, in some way.

Attackers do have an advantage, they will go to the -1.0 truesec systems where they know the ratters/miners will be. Sitting there cloaked, they will paralyze all of the attractive parts of 0.0 to the point where they become useless.

Draygo Korvan
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.07.14 18:39:00 - [65]
 

The idea is terrible unless rewards obtained by being in space in 0.0/lowsec are increased substantially.

By moving everything to const. chat it makes it so a small recon gang can shut down the ratting in a constilation in not just a single system. If rewards are increased such that the risk of ratting with these hostiles around is worth the reward, then I would be for this change.

Kovid
Applied Agoraphobia
Posted - 2008.07.14 18:56:00 - [66]
 

I agree.

As it is now a good fight could happen. But one side sees the number in local spike quickly and before the enemy loads or hit warp to the fight the other side calls for an evacuate. Remove local and you give people who specialize in covert operations a role, if people are smart enough to use them. Then again they don't even need to be covert ops but it just makes them better. There are plenty of other situation where local is used purely for intelligence purposes. BACON was an extension of that, but it will always remain a problem until it's ajusted. Just make it not update until you talk.

I believe one argument CCP brought up in the past is without local space would feel empty and such the game would suffer without it. Space is big and an empty void. It should feel like that. Spruce up the scanning a bit to compensate and make it not so cumbersome.



Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron
Legion of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2008.07.14 21:07:00 - [67]
 

Originally by: Malachon Draco
IF you want to remove local, you need to replace the scanning system with something that actually works. Longer scanning ranges, automatic scanning (a radar screen in the UI) instead of the current system. Then you need to deal with cloakers too, in some way.

CCP has a plan:
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
If/when we do revisit Local, cloaked ships and the general intel-gathering arena, it will likely be as a complete package, with the aim of creating an integrated set of mechanics. This will mean changes for established mechanics, but they'll be changes to rather than changes from.

With regards to concerns about Local,, the reason we haven't just removed it or flipped it into delayed mode is that the role it provides - being able to see who's around - is critical to many elements of gameplay and isn't covered sufficiently by other existing tools. We're aware that sitting there hitting "scan" on the directional scanner every five seconds isn't a good substitute, which is why we're waiting until we can improve those tools before we change anything.

With regards to cloaking, it's likely that we will differentiate in some manner between "cloaking-oriented" ships (covert ops, force recons, stealth bombers and black ops ships) and "cloaking-optional" ships (everything else) in any solution we come up with. It's also very likely that it won't be anything so simple as flipping off the "can't probe" switch on cloaked ships and leaving it at that. The exact approach we take depends on what we do to the probing system as a whole though Smile


Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2008.07.15 06:07:00 - [68]
 

I don't think they can reasonably do this without losing subscriptions.

To remove it they'd need a similar almost effortless means of acquiring the same data. At the same time for a tech angle it is most likely they'd still have to report the information to your computer so it can interact. If you code it such that it doesn't show someone will just make a program that lets them see it. So its probably not a wise investment for CCP to program it out.

Allaria Kriss
Minmatar
Native Freshfood
Posted - 2008.07.15 06:54:00 - [69]
 

I have more faith in CCP reworking this problem without screwing over everyone than I do in this idea. Simply removing Local and hiking it all over to Constellation doesn't work, especially in system with a lot of POS activity where parked and empty ships will confuse the scanners.

The grand irony is the thought that removing Local will increase PvP. It won't. It will decrease PvP for a few very simple psychological reasons. One, people already take the risk of being killed on sight in low-sec and no-sec. Now that you've taken away their ability to watch for hostiles, they're less likely to go there in the first place if other profitable avenues exist, and there are. Two, more people that do go there will fly cloak-capable ships, so they are capable of quickly getting out of a bad situation since they no longer have any way to see it coming, and they will run and cloak faster than before. Three, more alts will be made for the purpose of keeping eyes on the gates so people know when something bad has entered system. This means a potential PvPer has fewer and more paranoid targets, which translates into less PvP.

I say we wait and see what CCP is planning before we start beating this dead horse anew.

Theronnos
Aliastra

Posted - 2008.07.15 08:30:00 - [70]
 

Agree, though it needs some good looking at.

Kalintos Tyl
Minmatar
Bloody Amarr's

Posted - 2008.07.15 11:49:00 - [71]
 

mhm player chosse to be in local or leave?

Macheriel
State War Academy
Posted - 2008.07.15 12:07:00 - [72]
 

Agreed. Local need some rebalancing.

Carina Calypso
Posted - 2008.07.15 14:16:00 - [73]
 

I like the thought that you have to enter a system, open your local scanner and scan to see if anybody is around a lot better, than seeing it right away...

I favor change. A) remove names and pics from local B) introduce a local scanner option that shows people in the system after 30 seconds scan time

My2cent

Matrixcvd
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.07.15 14:38:00 - [74]
 

Originally by: Razin
Originally by: Malachon Draco
IF you want to remove local, you need to replace the scanning system with something that actually works. Longer scanning ranges, automatic scanning (a radar screen in the UI) instead of the current system. Then you need to deal with cloakers too, in some way.

CCP has a plan:
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
If/when we do revisit Local, cloaked ships and the general intel-gathering arena, it will likely be as a complete package, with the aim of creating an integrated set of mechanics. This will mean changes for established mechanics, but they'll be changes to rather than changes from.

With regards to concerns about Local,, the reason we haven't just removed it or flipped it into delayed mode is that the role it provides - being able to see who's around - is critical to many elements of gameplay and isn't covered sufficiently by other existing tools. We're aware that sitting there hitting "scan" on the directional scanner every five seconds isn't a good substitute, which is why we're waiting until we can improve those tools before we change anything.

With regards to cloaking, it's likely that we will differentiate in some manner between "cloaking-oriented" ships (covert ops, force recons, stealth bombers and black ops ships) and "cloaking-optional" ships (everything else) in any solution we come up with. It's also very likely that it won't be anything so simple as flipping off the "can't probe" switch on cloaked ships and leaving it at that. The exact approach we take depends on what we do to the probing system as a whole though Smile




and see, here we go again, and this is what the giagantic problem is with CCP. They look at local chat and brainstorm all the possibilities on how to feck it up even moar, tabs anyone? alt key anyone? THis is so simple its ludicrous.

1Arrow Add an automated scanner function that you can toggle. Either the way it is now, or you hit the auto button and it constantly scans as many times as lag/server calls allow for

2Arrow Entrance into local chat is delayed for 2 minutes, or unless typing into it. If you can't scan someone down in 2 minutes you fail

3Arrow if you wanna get crazy, and i mean CRAZY, have a low HP anchorable, within 25km from the gate, report to the pilot any gate fires, no distiniction between outgoing or incoming, and have that show up on the scanner module.

and thats it. 1, 2 are perfectly fine, 3 is thrown in for the lulz. EIther way, what we probably will get is just a bunch of nonsense and overbloated changes to game mechanics that weren't really necessary, but since CCP loves to "Go Big" and lay an egg with the simplest changes or concepts... i can't wait

Threv Echandari
Caldari
Moira.
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2008.07.15 15:08:00 - [75]
 

/signed

Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron
Legion of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2008.07.15 15:12:00 - [76]
 

Originally by: Mecinia Lua
To remove it they'd need a similar almost effortless means of acquiring the same data. At the same time for a tech angle it is most likely they'd still have to report the information to your computer so it can interact. If you code it such that it doesn't show someone will just make a program that lets them see it. So its probably not a wise investment for CCP to program it out.

The data would not be available at any range, as it is currently. The range would be calculated server side before the information is made available to the client, so no bacon-like hack would work.

Oh, and the whole point of this is to remove the "effortlessness" with which this data is currently acquired.

Malachon Draco
eXceeded
Posted - 2008.07.15 15:19:00 - [77]
 

Any radar system introduced to replace local would at the very least be permanently available and have a working IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) included in it or it won't be properly functional. Then it also needs considerably extended range compared to current scanners.

And I don't know if its even feasible with the current cloaks. Who could ever go mine again in deep 0.0 if the risk exists there are 20 force recons waiting in the belts for anyone to show up? What would be needed I think at the very least is cloaking ships showing up as a blip on radar, but never good enough to pinpoint them. Just a blip that basically says: Recon within roughly 1 AU of planet X. Otherwise you will screw up most 0.0 activities outside of moonmining.

TheEndofTheWorld
Republic Military School
Posted - 2008.07.15 15:20:00 - [78]
 

Edited by: TheEndofTheWorld on 15/07/2008 15:20:51
Very simple. Local shows three different icons: 1. pilot(s) with + standing in local 2. pilot(s) with neutral standing in system 3. pilot(s) with - standing in system. The end.

This would nerf local as the best intel tool, but would keep it as a defensive tool.

Complete removal of local would be too much for 0.0.

Making the scanner too strong would nullify the point of local nerf.

Constellation local is too strong, because the majority of constellations have only a few system worth visiting. Not to mention afk cloaking.

Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron
Legion of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2008.07.15 17:28:00 - [79]
 

Edited by: Razin on 15/07/2008 17:28:40
Originally by: Malachon Draco
Any radar system introduced to replace local would at the very least be permanently available and have a working IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) included in it or it won't be properly functional. Then it also needs considerably extended range compared to current scanners.

I suspect that in addition it would also need to be able to discriminate between piloted and pilot-less ships at a minimum, and possibly possess such capability as detecting warp and cloak signatures. All at varying ranges.

I kinda disagree on the "considerably extended range compared to current scanners" bit. In my opinion the long range stuff should be left for probe scanning.

Originally by: Malachon Draco
And I don't know if its even feasible with the current cloaks. Who could ever go mine again in deep 0.0 if the risk exists there are 20 force recons waiting in the belts for anyone to show up? What would be needed I think at the very least is cloaking ships showing up as a blip on radar, but never good enough to pinpoint them. Just a blip that basically says: Recon within roughly 1 AU of planet X. Otherwise you will screw up most 0.0 activities outside of moonmining.

Something like that.

Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron
Legion of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2008.07.15 17:42:00 - [80]
 

Originally by: TheEndofTheWorld
Edited by: TheEndofTheWorld on 15/07/2008 15:20:51
Very simple. Local shows three different icons: 1. pilot(s) with + standing in local 2. pilot(s) with neutral standing in system 3. pilot(s) with - standing in system. The end.

However this information is displayed within the new scanning system (in Local, or some scanner display/tab), I hope it's not available at infinite range as it is currently.

Ivena Amethyst
Posted - 2008.07.16 10:25:00 - [81]
 

keep local but make it not auto update who's on the system, however show total number of ppl in system
modify constellation channel to show everyone in constellation
make everyone who as spoken i local visible in local to everyone that was in local when the person spoke, this way a gang searching for someone in constelation can easily say something like "report" and all friendlys in system would say something so that the gang can see if any hostile is there (or if a friendly is afk lol)

Inertial
Did I just do that
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2008.07.16 11:58:00 - [82]
 

I like this idea.

Dianalexia
Posted - 2008.07.18 13:18:00 - [83]
 

Support for this. Also the same thing should apply to constelation chat. There you should have only the numbers, not the actual players.
For those concerned that removing local will brake 0.0 activities: it will not happen. It will hurt a little only those big alliances with huge chunks of undefended space behind chokepoints. Well, some will no longer be able to pay for 5 accounts with farmed ISK then Twisted Evil

Tchell Dahhn
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
Posted - 2008.07.18 14:53:00 - [84]
 

I support this idea, and would like to put forth an additional [IDEA] which might better support it.

As 'Locater Agents' are an attainable resource, (yet only available to a character who has worked at Missioning to achieve) I would recommend enhancing the structure, so that when one is station-side, they would be able to perform a scan that could provide them with intel on where a group of War Targets might be.

This could be a whole other skill set, such as "Science Officer" or some such, whereby scanning the system would be based upon 'chance', with improved identification of War Target location based upon the level of skill achieved.

Let's say that my Corporation is at war, and I'm docked up. The Warring Corporation is currently camped outside my Station, and by checking the 'new' Local, I get no information on whether or not they are in my System. I use my "Science Officer" skills to do a scan of the system, to find out that there are 2 War Targets identified as being 'within range' of my scan.

Aware that my War Targets usually fly small ships like Cruisers, I say, "Ok, I'll take my chances and undock in my Battleship."

When I undock, I find out that my skills only identified 2 War Targets out of the 10 actual War Targets that are camped outside ('failed my saving throw, ftl!') and get OMGWTFBBQ'd.

I do support the removal of Local as an Intel device, however, I think we also need the ability to have some type of visibility when undocking, so that we won't need to lose a ship, just to 'test the waters' and see if it's safe to undock the rest of our Corporation Fleet.

Kelron Queldine
Beyond Divinity Inc
Excuses.
Posted - 2008.07.18 15:17:00 - [85]
 

Local change is needed. I'm not too bothered about the details as long as you can no longer instantly see the occupants of a system. The constellation chat option would be fine.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.07.18 16:36:00 - [86]
 


I support this thread and would like to see formal discussion of the issue with CCP - will be adding it to the agenda for CSM discussion on 20/7/2008


Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron
Legion of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2008.07.18 18:03:00 - [87]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine

I support this thread and would like to see formal discussion of the issue with CCP - will be adding it to the agenda for CSM discussion on 20/7/2008



That's good news.

Has anyone thought how this would effect gate travel in 0.0? Currently, if the system you've entered is empty, you just warp to the next gate. With the Local gone every gate would require a scanning BM. Maybe CCP could just give us a "drop-outa-warp" button?

NanDe YaNen
The Funkalistic
Imperial Republic Of the North
Posted - 2008.07.18 19:22:00 - [88]
 

Originally by: Bad Borris
With the current state of the game removing local would favor the attacker too much in 0.0 for a start. Attackers would gravitate toward low true-sec systems and just roam the belts all day. At least thats what i would do.


Less ability to pick and choose engagements means:
  • Less throwing together really expensive ships and expecting to be able to only partake in opportunistic engagements.

  • More surprises and ships looking at each other 30km away wondering if they want to commit to the engagement or not. "Are we both flying bating ships..?" Laughing

  • Arazus and rapiers get huge boost to importance.

  • Boosts to T1 ships you don't have to worry about losing, because you have to worry about losing everything when any target can be a trap.

  • More traps and shady tactics.

  • More ninja carebear action, especially at complexes, since they could deploy for a long time in a system without drawing attention, and the image of getting ganked while going after a hauler will be in many people's minds.


Cloakers could use a bit more sensor nerfing. It's a fair trade to lose the ability to force engagements offensively in cases where you want to pick and choose engagements.

Major changes to undocking risk mechanics. Could use some help there.

Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron
Legion of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2008.07.22 14:23:00 - [89]
 

Edited by: Razin on 22/07/2008 15:05:13
Originally by: Jade Constantine

I support this thread and would like to see formal discussion of the issue with CCP - will be adding it to the agenda for CSM discussion on 20/7/2008



So, how did the discussion go?

Edit: nevermind, found the transcript of the chat here.

Looks like it's back to the drawing board.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.07.22 14:53:00 - [90]
 

Originally by: Razin
Originally by: Jade Constantine

I support this thread and would like to see formal discussion of the issue with CCP - will be adding it to the agenda for CSM discussion on 20/7/2008



So, how did the discussion go?


Well the bad news is that the CSM initially voted it down: 18:41 +

After discussion the issue was supported by Lavista, Jade, Dierdra Val,
opposed by Hardin, Bane, Inanna, Tusko, Serenity, Ank.

However, Tusko does want another attempt to get the issue onto the table with a more detailed proposal that he's working on and we should get to vote on that prior to the end of august online meeting with CCP.

I'm disappointed we couldn't get the issue in principle on the agenda last sunday but as you can see from the meeting chatlog there are quite split opinions on the issue. I however remain convinced its a vital issue and we need it raised to CCP so am eagerly looking forward to Tusko's take on the problem.



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