open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Isn't it about time local was changed to delayed mode already ?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 : last (13)

Author Topic

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.08.21 03:12:00 - [301]
 

Originally by: Nisanu
Knowing who is in the system is much more valuable to a solo pilot than to a large alliance that has safety in numbers. Just send some cloaked scouts into systems, and the moment they spot a solo ratter, they can call in reinforcements. It would make it a suicide mission for any solo or small corp player to do anything in nullsec. How can people doubt this?

First off, to have "safety in numbers", alliances would have to actually attain the needed concentration by reducing their territory (or at least concentrating more forces around the borders), something the "revamped sov" hasn't managed to do due to the not-ramped-up-enough costs.
Second, sending out scouting parties outside the controlled territory (be it outside a tightly-packed area, or away from the border in the other type of number-concentration) will either result in less safety in numbers in the controlled space, or in a wipeout of the expeditionary force by an ambush. Or better still, the ambush would be a bait to draw out hotdroppable ships, to make room for the REAL assault. You never know for sure which is which.
And that's just stuff off the top of my head.
Making intel NOT automatic and NOT free-of-charge opens up strategic options that are simply impossible right now.

Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron
Legion of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2010.08.21 04:16:00 - [302]
 

Originally by: Cearain

I’m not sure everyone posting in this long thread are on board for this ill-defined, new, and as yet never even mentioned by anyone in ccp, scanner.

CCP Zulu has mentioned new scanning mechanic to replace instant local. The auto feature seems like an obvious requirement.

Originally by: Cearain
Why are we splitting hairs? Just keep local as it is. Don’t make changes just for change sake.

The fact that it has less range is not good IMO. It means blobs get a boost.

So you did notice the limited range. Why complain about splitting hairs then? Seems disingenuous.
Originally by: Cearain
Plus I agree with Nisanu’s views on this. Being forced to have scouts at every gate will be a kick in the pants for all the more casual eve players.

See Akita T's answer to Nisanu.

Zey Nadar
Gallente
Unknown Soldiers
Posted - 2010.08.21 07:28:00 - [303]
 

Originally by: Cearain

First, it’s not clear that local is a “metagame”. You jump into a system you are identified by others in that system. Why? Well it could be any number of things – how the gates work, ships have scanners that indicate that (sort of like your dscan revamp idea only without the needing the revamp etc.
Second, AFK cloaking is made possible because local is not delayed? Log on traps are made possible because local is not delayed?




In ingame sense, I thought local was explained somewhere as a concord network in the solar system. Id imagine relay stations of this network would be based on the gates. Wormhole space doesnt have gates or such structures so it doesnt have same kind of local.

That said, I like delayed mode local. I wouldnt mind having it in 0.0. It would change the game a lot though.

Hemp Invader
Inverted Worlds
Posted - 2010.08.21 11:34:00 - [304]
 

Edited by: Hemp Invader on 21/08/2010 11:34:41
Beeing a wh pvp-er i always wanted 0.0 local to be just as wh local and here are my arguments:
If you guys ever take a look at the kills that have been made in wh space you would see that there are some kills with officer fitted vargurs and stuff like that on a daily basis.(try that in 0.0)

Monkey sphere proved that local is a really really effective way for macros to make tons of isk, thus ruining the game(love you monkey for the pure awesome and congratulations to the epic programmer who made the software :) ). I could not figure out a more efficient way for the macro problem than letting the players themselves kill them.

A new dimension to pvp: when you decide to go in combat you never know what to expect, a small gang or a massive blob. Counter intelligence will be used much more and this will produce more fun fights than ever before.

The lag monster will be nerfed, think about the first engagements, they don't happen todya because everyone is scared of eachother.

The FC will have to make tougher decisions about when going in on a fight or not, not having the local intelligence channel.

Sorry about the wall of text but that's the way i feel about local.

edit: indentation

Kolatha
Posted - 2010.08.21 13:17:00 - [305]
 

I have watched these nerf local arguments for some time and have noticed a recurring theme from those who want local changed to delayed.

Local is a free intel tool.

So, knowing that features and idea is that way, and knowing I will get a thorough lambasting for my idea I will still put this forward as a rough outline that can be fleshed out.

What if you had to work for local as an intel tool?

First change local intel so it only gave character name and current corp/alliance (not employment history, make it like using a locator agent to gather that info). This still lets you have standings and war-targets shown but leaves you guessing whether that is some 3 day old scouting alt or a 4 year old veteran you have on your scanner.

Change local in 0.0, NPC faction space and low-sec to delayed (it's fun in WH space even though I am always on the receiving end). Hi-sec local remains immediate for all.

Now comes the part where you work for local as intel.

In NPC held space (pirate factions and low-sec) you buy immediate access to local via LP stores of the sovereign faction (but only in systems where that faction has a station, essentially the fluff becomes that local is a function of the stations rather than the gates) and require a minimum standing for purchase. If you don't have sufficient standings and don't fork over the LP for access then your local remains in delayed mode.

Gives some sense of safety to mission runners that may encourage more people into the no-mans-land that is currently low-sec and further into the pirate faction space (it would certainly tempt me). Sure these mission runners will have better intel than the pirates but there will be more of us for you to hunt. Adds a bit more flavour to the game for the RPers as well (perhaps even add LP store item that allows you to become a member of the pirate NPC factions, kinda like faction warfare corps, but a little better thought out).

In 0.0 space immediate local is available as sovereignty upgrade that works for alliance members only.

Throw on top of this the feature where your appearance in local is always delayed, you don't show in local to other system dwellers regardless of whether they have immediate or delayed access (in hi-sec as well), if you enter the system via a non-gate entry, eg, wormholes.

Something along those lines may satisfy both sides of the argument.

But overall, I do agree some changes to local are in order just not to the extremes of a blanket removal. At the very least you should not appear in local if you don't enter the system via a gate.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.08.21 14:58:00 - [306]
 


Kolatha, it's _a_ step in the general right direction, but not quite what anybody had in mind.
You have the "non free" part down, which is ok... but what about global availability and equal opportunity ?
It's not exactly gameplay-conducive to only have one category of 0.0 have a similar maximum level of intel to what we have now, and only have one category of people be able to access that kind of data (based on standings to NPCs).

alittlebirdy
Posted - 2010.08.21 15:08:00 - [307]
 

Originally by: Akita T

* a T2 BPO is nothing more than a limited-edition investment tool with VERY low RoI but minimal effort required, a tool that also allows certain markets to even exist in the first place, while at the same time NOT interfering with invention profitability in the markets that have any reasonable demand... there are alternatives that are more profitable and cost less as far as initial capital goes

* local is an extremely powerful metagaming tool available to everybody FOR FREE, a tool that allows near-total PvP avoidance (via logoff) in a PvP-centric game, a tool that also enables other metagaming strategies like AKF cloaking and logon traps... all of which are universally hated, but still used because "that's what you do for best results"

[sarcasm]Yes, how could I not see just how similar they are ![/sarcasm]




O ya free... REALLY bad ROI... sell for 30bill...

The only reasons even remotely accurate to change local are purely emotional ones, NOT based on logic.

Thread over, I'll be like you!

You just love to skip the parts that hurt your case, everyone hates blobs too and no local just means, bring as many as you can... so either the node crashes or you have safty in numbers... *ALL THE TIME* also means people will get the FUN job of watching gates... how do you live in a WH, you close the damn ways to get in...

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.08.21 16:12:00 - [308]
 

Originally by: alittlebirdy
O ya free... REALLY bad ROI... sell for 30bill...

I have a feeling you have no clue what RoI means, or are purposefully ignoring it.
As for the rest of your post : phshaw !

SovietShield
Amarr
British Legion
Posted - 2010.08.21 17:18:00 - [309]
 

i believe the devs would be all over some sort of walking feature to revamp local chat

HarrietMiers
Helljumpers
Dead Terrorists
Posted - 2010.08.21 20:17:00 - [310]
 

I would love W-space local everywhere. There would be a rough period of adjustment for both hunters and the hunted, but it makes perfect sense and is an advantage/disadvantage to both. But it would increase the "surprise" element, allow for proper raiding parties, and, most importantly, fits in perfectly with the "it's cold, dark, and you're all alone" feel of Eve.

+1 vote.

Nisanu
Posted - 2010.08.21 21:50:00 - [311]
 

Edited by: Nisanu on 21/08/2010 21:51:21
Originally by: Akita T

First off, to have "safety in numbers", alliances would have to actually attain the needed concentration by reducing their territory (or at least concentrating more forces around the borders), something the "revamped sov" hasn't managed to do due to the not-ramped-up-enough costs.
Second, sending out scouting parties outside the controlled territory (be it outside a tightly-packed area, or away from the border in the other type of number-concentration) will either result in less safety in numbers in the controlled space, or in a wipeout of the expeditionary force by an ambush. Or better still, the ambush would be a bait to draw out hotdroppable ships, to make room for the REAL assault. You never know for sure which is which.
And that's just stuff off the top of my head.
Making intel NOT automatic and NOT free-of-charge opens up strategic options that are simply impossible right now.



Well, I think there is a valid argument that because local is free, it should be removed. I don't agree, but it's a valid argument.

However, it is exactly because it is free that removing it would change the balance against solo and small gang players. Large corps and alliances can afford to gather (expensive/difficult) intel, a solo player or small gang typically can't.

Your arguments are mostly focussed on making warfare between alliances more interesting. That is fair enough, and I think it might (perhaps) make 0.0 alliance warfare better.

But it would definitely make 0.0 almost an impossible place for small corps or solo players, and that would eventually harm everyone (less targets, less fun). Do we really want 0.0 to be exclusively the domain of those with hundreds of blues?

Because of that, local should only be removed if measures are put in place to keep some kind of balance between the two type of players (alliance warfare and small gangs/solo players).

Cearain
Caldari
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
Posted - 2010.08.22 01:36:00 - [312]
 

I don't understand the issue with it being free. Are you saying we have to "pay" the cost of pressing a button to get the information on dscan. Therefore we should have to “pay” to get information that concord gives in local? Paying is fine with me. X isk per month to concord and it tells you what is in local. Does that solve that problem? I mean concord has to know who is in local right? It has to check to make sure everyone hasn't aggressed recently before they are allowed to use the gates right?

So if your big issue is that concord shares the intel on who is in system with everyone then just set a fee and that is solved.

I don’t think this will make the anti local crowd happy though. Because the whole “local is free no fair” is really beside the point and indeed ridiculous. They want to be able to blob more effectively and they want to be able to get easier kills on pve ships.

If you want no local the game gives you that option now. Go to worm holes. Don’t eliminate eve as an option for those who like to do solo or small gang pvp. At least leave low sec an option for people who don’t live for of blobbing and ganking miners. Delayed local forced everywhere will go a long way to completely ruining the game.




Cearain
Caldari
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
Posted - 2010.08.22 01:40:00 - [313]
 

Originally by: HarrietMiers
I would love W-space local everywhere. There would be a rough period of adjustment...


Well 90% of eve players prefer the game elsewhere. Isn't there enough wormhole space for you to roam through that you have to insist we all play with the mechanics you like? I really don't understand the view that says we need to give people fewer options in eve.

alittlebirdy
Posted - 2010.08.22 01:54:00 - [314]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: alittlebirdy
O ya free... REALLY bad ROI... sell for 30bill...

I have a feeling you have no clue what RoI means, or are purposefully ignoring it.
As for the rest of your post : phshaw !


What Does Return On Investment - ROI Mean?
A performance measure used to evaluate the efficiency of an investment or to compare the efficiency of a number of different investments. To calculate ROI, the benefit (return) of an investment is divided by the cost of the investment; the result is expressed as a percentage or a ratio.

30 bill – 0 / 0 = BIG ROI… so big, it gives me an error! Haha.
Now I’m sure you want to ignore how t2 bpos came into existence… yet still, a t2 bpo has *unlimited runs* so it’s value is the profit of 100% production of the life of eve… seeing as we do not know the life of eve… you do not know the ROI… you also leave out effort… again you will ignore how they came to be… invention over a BPO, requires a lot more effort than sitting around printing off money… bottom line, bpos of any sort are money presses…

Seeing as this is about local, I do love how you decided to skip over everything about changing local, what happened you know people will blob? I think someone just wants to be able to take over some 0.0 space and is trying to shrink alliances; I got this one for you.

0.0 space you pay shˇt to concord correct? Seems only fair that you can tell concord to shut off X-Y-Z gates and leave only one entrance into your space… after all local being free intel is unfair why is not being able to control gates you pay for not fair? Now alliances can in fact get larger, however no local, how’s that sound to you I think it fixed a few cost issues!

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.08.22 03:17:00 - [315]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 22/08/2010 03:56:36
Originally by: alittlebirdy
bla

If you want to keep blabbering about T2 BPOs, go here.

P.S. BTW, you could apply the same screwed-up logic to the cheapest of T1 BPOs to claim it's infinitely valuable.

Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron
Legion of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2010.08.22 04:15:00 - [316]
 

Originally by: Nisanu

Because of that, local should only be removed if measures are put in place to keep some kind of balance between the two type of players (alliance warfare and small gangs/solo players).

The balance is maintained by everyone having access to the same scanning tools.

The challenge for CCP is to develop such tools (mainly the new d-scanner) that provide for complex gameplay mechanics without the drudgery of incessant button-pushing or god-like qualities of instant local.

Nisanu
Posted - 2010.08.22 07:56:00 - [317]
 

Originally by: Razin
Originally by: Nisanu

Because of that, local should only be removed if measures are put in place to keep some kind of balance between the two type of players (alliance warfare and small gangs/solo players).

The balance is maintained by everyone having access to the same scanning tools.

The challenge for CCP is to develop such tools (mainly the new d-scanner) that provide for complex gameplay mechanics without the drudgery of incessant button-pushing or god-like qualities of instant local.


It would require a whole new set-up. Maybe that's exactly what CCP are going to do, and if so, then fine (I won't complain).

At the moment, however, simply removing local would mean that if you and your friend are ratting/exploring/etc. in hostile or NPC, there is absolutely nothing to warn you before being killed. All that others need to do is have a cloaked scout find you, and jump to the scout. It basically means that any neutral or hostile territory will be completely off-limits for an solo or small gang pilot.

I don't know about you, but that is not my idea of a sand-box space game (with space being big and all that).

Drunken Idiot
Posted - 2010.08.22 10:08:00 - [318]
 

Not sure I'd like gameplay changes that make low/nullsec even MORE intimidating to players on the fence about it.

Mme Pinkerton
The pink win
Posted - 2010.08.22 10:59:00 - [319]
 

+1

nice discussion thread + I support this proposal

I had a look at Darkfall recently and was suprised that some parts of it feel more EVE-like than EVE itself (the remaining parts remind me too much of Runescape to enjoy that game, though^^). One of these points is the lack of an intelligence gathering tool akin to local.

Imagine EVE without the overview, without local, without dscan & probes, with plenty of hiding opportunities in the terrain and no high-sec - guess what? the result is still an enjoyable game with some additional depth of gameplay:

on the one hand the ability to hide (to some degree) poses a threat that encourages moving around, killing NPCs, ... in gangs, thus promoting the MMO aspect of the game - if you want to get serious business done, you better bring along some buddies.

on the other hand the ability to hide gives the lone-wolf-type of player additional options as it enables him (with some luck and patience) to sneak past groups of enemies without being noticed.

Of course these experiences do not translate 1:1 to EVE but especially the second aspect is sth I find a bit lacking in EVE (outside of w-space) at the moment (if you want to scout someone without him knowing that he is being scouted you either have to resort to infiltrators or use 23/7 afk cloakers in all possibly relevant solar systems - both of which is somewhat lame imho).

Bomberlocks
Minmatar
CTRL-Q
Posted - 2010.08.22 11:09:00 - [320]
 

Removing local will probably end up emptying losec even more, as the rewards for being in losec will still be less than wormholes, but just as dangerous.

Reachok
Amarr
Wrecking Shots
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2010.08.22 11:26:00 - [321]
 

Akita,

Thought you were a trader, didn't realize you PvP'd. Anyway, if you want delayed local, go find a wormhole. Local in systems with gates is just fine.

lylaal
Caldari
Posted - 2010.08.22 11:50:00 - [322]
 

would be about time they implemented this.

Artemis Rose
Clandestine Vector
THE SPACE P0LICE
Posted - 2010.08.22 12:27:00 - [323]
 

Making EVE harder? Seriously, do you really think that is ever going to happen?


Eternum Praetorian
PWNED Factor
The Seventh Day
Posted - 2010.08.22 12:32:00 - [324]
 

BUMP!


Because people need important topics beaten to death!

james1122
Posted - 2010.08.22 14:58:00 - [325]
 

Hmm i like this idea alot.
Would defo need an upgrade or something that you can put up in sov systems.

But the tactical gameplay this would open up is just limitless when you really really think about it.

Just as an idea what about an anchor-able device like warp disruption bubbles that provide local intel to all whilst deployed and the appear on everyones overview. Deployed say in a minute can be used to gain full local intel of a system. duno just an idea.

But you defo need to have something for sov systems or ratting basically becomes impossible due to stealth ships.
Overall love the idea :D

Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron
Legion of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2010.08.22 17:07:00 - [326]
 

Originally by: james1122

But you defo need to have something for sov systems or ratting basically becomes impossible due to stealth ships.
Overall love the idea :D

Giving the sov holders a way to keep local for themselves would severely unbalance the game toward the sov defender (shifting such balance the other way is one of the benefits of delayed local).

As discussed in this thread, a better solution to this problem is to slightly nerf the cov op cloakers (as in give them some scan signaure that can't be warped to).

Camios
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2010.08.22 17:48:00 - [327]
 

Edited by: Camios on 22/08/2010 18:14:19
I strongly agree with local chat switching to delayed mode.

But obviously there should some improvements on the d-scanner, so that:
  1. It shows the relative standing of the scanned ships and results can be filtered like in the overview.

  2. The d-scaner range should be dipendent on skills and ship, so that a whole solarsystem can be covered.

  3. The dipendence on the ship of the d-scanner range should be balanced so that weak ships like recons, covops black ops have more range, while strong ships like assault, hac, command, even t1 hulls will have less range. It should be even race dependent.


Some consequences I see:
  1. Cloaked ships will become really invisible. This would make the recon-bomber-black ops gang too powerful. Good thing, but this may need some careful balancement, because otherwise a blackops+covert cyno attack would become completely undetectable and individual farming in 0.0 will become even more difficult. Someone will say HTFU, in the end this will make 0.0 farming more difficult, and thus more valuable. But it may make 0.0 too harsh in the end.

  2. For the last reason, macroratters in 0.0 will have their entire plans screwed. Good thing.

  3. It would make more easy for solo players and small gang to travel across semi afk-empires, so this would be an efficient boost to smuggling. The lack of intelligence on both sides advantages the weakest side.

  4. Of course, when big alliances wake up and organize proper intelligence channels, there is no "lack of intelligence on both sides" and the advantage for the solo and small gang players vanish, and the situation returns like the current one.



So, I don't see big advantages for powerblocks against the small groups, quite che contrary, unless you give the sov holders some special tools.

What can be said for cloakers being too powerful?
There could be a mechanic that warns you about the presence of neutral or hostile cloakers in the system you are in, but with a consistent delay. The less the hostiles, the longer the delay. If a big number of recons and bombers jumps in your system, you should get some vague warning.
This would actually encourage the use of cloakers but in small numbers, and good mobility (no afk cloakers), as cov ops operation should entail.
You would not get any message when a non cloaked ship is in your system since you can use the d-scan for it and that ships does not induce any "distortion".


T0KER
Posted - 2010.08.23 01:50:00 - [328]
 

Edited by: T0KER on 23/08/2010 01:50:23
The only ones who want to keep local chat the way it is are cowards that want to avoid pvp and hide in a POS when someone enters chat

There is a place for you to avoid pvp all you want, it's called Empire. Go there and enjoy.

alittlebirdy
Posted - 2010.08.23 05:03:00 - [329]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 22/08/2010 03:56:36
If you want to keep blabbering about T2 BPOs, go here.

P.S. BTW, you could apply the same screwed-up logic to the cheapest of T1 BPOs to claim it's infinitely valuable.


Well stop ONLY replying to the crap about t2 and hit on the local parts of my post, that you seem to have no answers for... how you like that?

Cheap t1 bpos are *cheap* still aint the same you fail all over. I can buy every damn person in eve 1 cheap bpo off the *market* I can't do that for t2.

Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron
Legion of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2010.08.23 14:17:00 - [330]
 

Originally by: alittlebirdy
Seeing as this is about local, I do love how you decided to skip over everything about changing local, what happened you know people will blob?

The blobbing dynamic will not change at all if delayed local is implemented.

Currently people blob not because they see some large number in local (it’s usually too late by that time). People blob for two reasons: one – the op requires fleet DPS/coverage (for example, it’s an alliance CTA to kill some structure), and two – there is safety in numbers. For both of these cases the number in fleet is limited by the number of members willing and online, *not* by some varying level of risk. Both cases can also be dependant on the scouts’ intel, however that is acquired. Since the scout can’t be in every possible system that may contain the source of the threat, the gang always accepts a risk of engaging an overwhelming force. None of this changes with delayed local.

When not required to participate in a CTA there are a number players who prefer to stay within a smaller gang or solo format(there are, in fact, a lot of these type of players; granted though, not as many as those who like to blob). These independent players are usually much better at adapting and will stay within their chosen playstyle regardless of delayed local.

What delayed local will change is the solo to small gang incursion effectiveness into hostile alliance space. Since it is never possible to monitor every gate 23/7 there will always be a chance to ambush some carebearing players deep in hostile space without alerting a hoard of bored pvpers chillin’ in the outpost/parked at the POS watchin’ the intel channel.
Originally by: alittlebirdy
0.0 space you pay shˇt to concord correct? Seems only fair that you can tell concord to shut off X-Y-Z gates and leave only one entrance into your space… after all local being free intel is unfair why is not being able to control gates you pay for not fair? Now alliances can in fact get larger, however no local, how’s that sound to you I think it fixed a few cost issues!

It is not a good idea to use ‘reality’ or RP to justify game mechanics. In fact, CCP’s own prime fiction is inconsistent at best with regards to local, and a ‘reality’ argument can always be countered by sci-fi magic.


Pages: first : previous : ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 : last (13)

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