Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

removing local?

Squal'ZellSqual'Zell Member Posts: 1,803

i know this debate has been going on for ages, long before i eve subscribed to eve, (dec 1, 2008) but the thing is that wormhole and wormhole space has been added while i was playing. so i think i am misunderstanding what the debate is about or how to remove local.

honestly if they made normal space have the same type of local as wormhole space i would not mind at all, high sec low sec nul sec all the same. Would make radio chatter more realistic (eve speaking)

for those who are unfamiliar wormhole space there is no local channel, basically the list is empty unless you actually type something in which case you apear on "the list"

- ok boys radio silence from now on.. (kind of useless with vent and team-speak)

but also it could work well in offense AND defense. offense, you can infiltrate a system and attack and defense, you can hide in a system.

and a few little tweaks could be added to help

1. have a gate activity feed, (like on the overview have a number of ships currently in the system)  no names and no ship types (although ship class could be a logical since it gets recorded in the gates frigate, cruiser, battlecruiser, battleship, industrial, barge class ship) like that you dont know if its a tech 2 or a tech 1.

2. have the range of ship basic scanners range different depending on the ship, scout ships have the largest, then frigate the lowest and growing as the ship grows. (right now it stands that its about 14AU for everything (including your pod)

3. if possible somehow add the size of the ship in the scanners, (small med large xlarge)

im sure it takes quite of programming, but in my 1 year of eve, they have done so much more complex additions.

 

right back to my question, before wormholes how was the idea of no local?

and what do you think of the idea i posted? pros and cons

 

image
image

Comments

  • ChlodwigChlodwig Member Posts: 150

    As you already pointed out "enforced radio silence" to stay covered is pointless when it is easy to circumvent with out-of-game means.

    What would it mean? Basically what would change is that "local recon" would stop to work. You couldn't see anymore whether you jumped into a system filled with an armada assembling. And while this would certainly help me, I think small corps and single players would be at a disadvantage, so I doubt we'll see it anytime soon. It's not like small corps dominate the game now, you see...

  • MalcanisMalcanis Member UncommonPosts: 3,297
    Originally posted by Chlodwig


    As you already pointed out "enforced radio silence" to stay covered is pointless when it is easy to circumvent with out-of-game means.
    What would it mean? Basically what would change is that "local recon" would stop to work. You couldn't see anymore whether you jumped into a system filled with an armada assembling. And while this would certainly help me, I think small corps and single players would be at a disadvantage, so I doubt we'll see it anytime soon. It's not like small corps dominate the game now, you see...

     

    Removing local would greatly benefit small corps.

    Give me liberty or give me lasers

  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 37,036

    The way i see it, your suggestions are a "different' way to implement communication and tracking but not necessarily an improvement, merely different so there's no reason to change game mechanics that players are familiar with and have adapted their playstyles to.

    In some ways, you can say they've already implemented one of your ideas, the reason we know who is in system is because they come through gates, while in WH's no such gates/tracking mechanism exists.

    I've been living in WH's for over 3 months now, and I've had to learn new game mechanics to adapt.  W/O local to alert us, we have to spend far more time scouting neighboring wormholes, sometimes leaving scouts at them to monitor activity, and when we run across potential problems (direct null sec/empire holes) we have the ability to actually close the wormhole.

    We also live monitoring the directional scanner about every 10-15 seconds but even then, every now and then someone manages to surprise us.  (but fortunately our fleet distribution usually discourages attackers)

    So while the mechanics of tracking players in WH's is different, it isn't better or worse, and makes sense when coupled with their lore.

    I'd say leave local as it is, players are comfortable with it, and there's better places to focus development efforts on right now.

     

     

     

     

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing FO76 at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • jrs77jrs77 Member Posts: 419

    I'd say that highsec and lowsec the local should stay as it is, as these gates are controlled by Concord. Nullsec however isn't Concord-protected space and therefore the gates shouldn't register the pilots aynmore.

    Make local in nullsec as it is in WH-space. Nothing will change actually for the bigger part, as people can simply position cloaked alt-scouts some 200km at the gate leading into their carebear-system and get an early-warning. That's how it should be, and it would make scouting a real profession again.

  • Squal'ZellSqual'Zell Member Posts: 1,803
    Originally posted by Kyleran


    The way i see it, your suggestions are a "different' way to implement communication and tracking but not necessarily an improvement, merely different so there's no reason to change game mechanics that players are familiar with and have adapted their playstyles to.
    In some ways, you can say they've already implemented one of your ideas, the reason we know who is in system is because they come through gates, while in WH's no such gates/tracking mechanism exists.
    I've been living in WH's for over 3 months now, and I've had to learn new game mechanics to adapt.  W/O local to alert us, we have to spend far more time scouting neighboring wormholes, sometimes leaving scouts at them to monitor activity, and when we run across potential problems (direct null sec/empire holes) we have the ability to actually close the wormhole.
    We also live monitoring the directional scanner about every 10-15 seconds but even then, every now and then someone manages to surprise us.  (but fortunately our fleet distribution usually discourages attackers)
    So while the mechanics of tracking players in WH's is different, it isn't better or worse, and makes sense when coupled with their lore.
    I'd say leave local as it is, players are comfortable with it, and there's better places to focus development efforts on right now.
     
     
     
     

    yeeah i have lived in wormhole space for an extended period of time (few days over 2 months) and yes we learn to adapt, thats why i would not mind changing the known space local chat. though someone else mentioned that due to gates registering who comes in and out we can know who is in the system, thus making the current system also very valid. and wormhole also valid since you don't have a "machine" (gate) registering but a natural phenomenon so it makes perfect sense.

    i was just sugesting means to use the onboard scanner more in known space. i mean, when i am in a wormhole its a permanent window that is open but in known space that window gets forgotten i rarely i use it (specially iin high sec.) in low and nul sec i use it to scout for gate camps before i warp to it. other than that... no need...

    image
    image

  • cosycosy Member UncommonPosts: 3,228

    local should not be removed,  local should be set delayed

    BestSigEver :P
    image

  • MalcanisMalcanis Member UncommonPosts: 3,297
    Originally posted by jrs77


    I'd say that highsec and lowsec the local should stay as it is, as these gates are controlled by Concord. Nullsec however isn't Concord-protected space and therefore the gates shouldn't register the pilots aynmore.
    Make local in nullsec as it is in WH-space. Nothing will change actually for the bigger part, as people can simply position cloaked alt-scouts some 200km at the gate leading into their carebear-system and get an early-warning. That's how it should be, and it would make scouting a real profession again.

     

    This.

    Give me liberty or give me lasers

  • EleazarosEleazaros Member UncommonPosts: 206

    I looked at the issue and saw a potential solution but I still find problems with many of the suggestions.

    EVE is very complex so most simple solutions aren't quite so simply and have "ripple" effects through areas many don't see up front.  The "unexpected consequences" or X-factor tends to mess with things.

    It's obvious that this "chat channel" is being abused simply by the comments recommending changes strictly based upon what type of space you are in (highsec, lowsec, nullsec, WH). Change it in this type of space to be like that kind of space! etc... It's supposed to be a friggn chat channel, not *THE* PvP observation lounge. And yet...

    2 hours flying through system after system, visiting the belts, visiting planets, scanning, probing, etc... to find out you were the only one there. I may not be into that style of game play but I sure as hell don't like "time sinks" for anyone in a game and removal could easily put this into play.

    Now... take hunting war targets. Where are they? So you go system by system, station by station trying to find "someone" to fight in a war... It doesn't matter if you're the aggressor or the aggrieved, a wardec safety tactics shift to "find a different region to mess in and keep moving"... locater agents? You end up gate camping to find targets...

    As such gate camps, where you have a higher chance of finding someone, will become a far more predominant form of game play and flat out, that mechanism in the game slows/stops the willingness of many to go into more dangerous areas so I don't care for it much -- hunter and hunted works. Sitting in a "duck blind", waiting for the "ducks" to be forced through a choke point... little "style" to that for PvP but that'd be what a lot of PvP players would be reduced to.

    So a fix? ...

    The one I saw is about making sensors into modules. Enhanced versions can be made/start dropping with a varied ranges, etc... they also cycle when used but you adjust ranges and the like. So you fly into a system, pop a "huge" scan off and get back the ship count there. Closer/more accurate and you get more details on the ships "within range". The right tools/fittings and your ship can be invisible to the scans.

    That kills the complaints about AFK cloakers. You wouldn't see them in system. It does make cloaks even more valuable than they are and could make sensor information (ships... type of ships... who owns them) only available based upon skills and readings from fitted modules. War targets could be more visible due to "recorded signatures" so "ship" might be the info level but it'd be "painted" as a target for you to see, even if you don't know what it is or who's flying it... (the old "ship on the horizion... let's go look.  PIRATE!" or the reverse "ship out there...  let's nail it.  PIRATE HUNTER!" -- bring the "oh crap, I picked the wrong target" factor into play)

    There is one "technical" downside to this: The server has to figure out what should and shouldn't be sent. That's extra overhead on figuring out how much of what it hands off "without thinking" now vs how much it should hand off based upon skills and fittings. I have no idea on how much extra overhead such a fix might add but I don't think it'd be that trivial.

  • QuirhidQuirhid Member UncommonPosts: 6,230
    Originally posted by Malcanis

    Originally posted by jrs77


    I'd say that highsec and lowsec the local should stay as it is, as these gates are controlled by Concord. Nullsec however isn't Concord-protected space and therefore the gates shouldn't register the pilots aynmore.
    Make local in nullsec as it is in WH-space. Nothing will change actually for the bigger part, as people can simply position cloaked alt-scouts some 200km at the gate leading into their carebear-system and get an early-warning. That's how it should be, and it would make scouting a real profession again.

     

    This.

     

    I agree. Good compromise.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • EleazarosEleazaros Member UncommonPosts: 206
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Originally posted by Malcanis

    Originally posted by jrs77


    I'd say that highsec and lowsec the local should stay as it is, as these gates are controlled by Concord. Nullsec however isn't Concord-protected space and therefore the gates shouldn't register the pilots aynmore.
    Make local in nullsec as it is in WH-space. Nothing will change actually for the bigger part, as people can simply position cloaked alt-scouts some 200km at the gate leading into their carebear-system and get an early-warning. That's how it should be, and it would make scouting a real profession again.

     

    This.

     

    I agree. Good compromise.

     

    I don't think so.  Simply adding complexity for complexities sake is rarely a decent solution.  Chat channels should be for chat, not for PvP intel and definitely not look and act different in different areas.  That alone can mess with newer players migrating between security levels of space and adds more reasons for fewer to move out of highsec.  "can't live without Local info!"

    If it's going to be adjusted, then fix it so it works consistently and the info is available from "proper" sources vs the bullshit solution that's currently out there.

    (nothing against individuals on this -- it's the misuse and reliance upon broken mechanics that annoys me.  Such 'workarounds' as adjusting a chat channel, based upon where it appears, shouldn't exist and should be fixed in some kind of "proper" and consistent fashion.)

Sign In or Register to comment.