These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

'Local' is a problem? Why is that? (further study on AFK cloaking subject)

First post
Author
Stetson Eagle
Paird Technology
#41 - 2013-06-17 14:59:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Stetson Eagle
1) delayed local
2) make directional scanner alert when a ship is in range. filters per d-scan range and ship allegiance; friendly ships bypass alert by derived standings if you set so in filters.

Basic filter examples:
High - shows only hostiles and negative standings by d-scan red alert
Null - shows all non-blues as red alert.
Null incoming - shows all non-blues by red alert, but you have set range to 50000 km so you can expect someone on grid soon.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#42 - 2013-06-17 15:01:17 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
There are two issues. One is local, the other is the nullbear.

Local, I feel, provides too much intel for too little (ie zero) effort. You know someone has entered your system before they've even finished jumping the gate. You know exactly how many people are in your system and can tell exactly when they come and go. This intel is extremely powerful in low population null sec space, and I feel it hinders solo/small gang pvp in null, as it allows people - both carebears and pvpers alike - intel far too quickly regarding potential threats.

You're also forgetting that it works the other way around - local intel immediately alerts any solo/gang/fleet to potential targets. So does the map intel.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#43 - 2013-06-17 15:01:39 UTC
Stetson Eagle wrote:
1) delayed local
2) make directional scanner alert when a ship is in range. filters per d-scan range and ship allegiance; friendly ships bypass alert by derived standings if you set so in filters.

Dscan doesn't include cloaked ships, so this is a no.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Signal11th
#44 - 2013-06-17 15:48:38 UTC
Please don't mess around with my 10 minute neut warning indicator.

God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster!

Stonecrusher Mortlock
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#45 - 2013-06-17 15:51:28 UTC
Ramona McCandless wrote:
Dont remove local







Remove KillBoards


Then people wouldn't be such pussies about dying






Remove Killmails, delay local by 45 to 120 seconds depending on sec stats.
Stonecrusher Mortlock
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2013-06-17 15:52:31 UTC
Raneru wrote:
If there is "nothing" wrong with local then perhaps we could make changes to NPCs so that they all warp scramble in nullsec Blink




got to make gas clouds and roids do it as well.
DreznicK
OORt Cloud Research
The OORT Cloud
#47 - 2013-06-17 16:00:29 UTC  |  Edited by: DreznicK
There has been so many threads about local it is no longer funny.

It all comes down to people don't want local cause it allows someone to hide.
That is both prey and hunter.

People want local to stay because without the information, game play will slow down to much as people have to scan every system.

Neither option is except-able which means the game mechanics have to be changed and nobody can agree on what they should be.

So at the end of the day nothing is done and a thread will pop up every now and again about it.

Just like cloaking and the all of threads about it.
Steve WingYip
Doomheim
#48 - 2013-06-17 18:01:16 UTC
Long term, it would feel more realistic to not have local as an intel tool. We should have an intel system designed that does not involve using a chat channel.
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings
#49 - 2013-06-17 18:12:40 UTC
Crazy thought, and I don't know if this has been explicitly mentioned before.

But what if instead of local, the lowest level of chat you could get to was constellation?

that channel already exists, although most people close it down.

1. It shouldn't affect chat too much, as most people are either on comms, or chatting in private channels (corp etc).
2. It still gives intel. it just isn't "perfect" anymore. You would know if a neutral is in the general area, but not necessarily which system.

Seems honestly like it would be an interesting comprimise.
Endeavour Starfleet
#50 - 2013-06-17 18:15:38 UTC
They made a place where local is nerfed. It is called wormholes. That is why in my opinion the best way to read "no or delayed local" arguments as "I want free ganks! And I want them NOW!"

Unlike AFK Cloaking. Which people ADMIT to have been doing in wormhole space.

Again keep in mind. CCP does not consider AFK Cloaking to be an exploit. But they have never said that the current cloaking abilities are balanced.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#51 - 2013-06-17 18:22:48 UTC
Derath Ellecon wrote:
Crazy thought, and I don't know if this has been explicitly mentioned before.

But what if instead of local, the lowest level of chat you could get to was constellation?

that channel already exists, although most people close it down.

1. It shouldn't affect chat too much, as most people are either on comms, or chatting in private channels (corp etc).
2. It still gives intel. it just isn't "perfect" anymore. You would know if a neutral is in the general area, but not necessarily which system.

Seems honestly like it would be an interesting comprimise.

It's not a compromise at all. Instead of a character in a cloaked ship causing all PVE in a system to halt, you'll have that same single character in a cloaked ship causing all PVE in an entire constellation to halt.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
#52 - 2013-06-17 18:23:20 UTC
Local CHAT shouldn't be anything more than that..you want intel? upgrade your hub or where not possible pay concord deep space monitoring stations..make it a isk sink.

And make some space anomalies where it simply isn't possible to monitor traffic for periods of time(low sec incursions come to mind).

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard

Jenn aSide
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#53 - 2013-06-17 18:29:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Stetson Eagle wrote:
1) delayed local
2) make directional scanner alert when a ship is in range. filters per d-scan range and ship allegiance; friendly ships bypass alert by derived standings if you set so in filters.

Basic filter examples:
High - shows only hostiles and negative standings by d-scan red alert
Null - shows all non-blues as red alert.
Null incoming - shows all non-blues by red alert, but you have set range to 50000 km so you can expect someone on grid soon.


No. no active alerts.

The great thing about the current system is that for the most part you have to be WATCHING local. The "blinking local" thing CCP just added (while VERY helpful for a guy like me) was a mistake, an anti-pvp mistake in a pvp game.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#54 - 2013-06-17 18:46:50 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Stetson Eagle wrote:
1) delayed local
2) make directional scanner alert when a ship is in range. filters per d-scan range and ship allegiance; friendly ships bypass alert by derived standings if you set so in filters.

Basic filter examples:
High - shows only hostiles and negative standings by d-scan red alert
Null - shows all non-blues as red alert.
Null incoming - shows all non-blues by red alert, but you have set range to 50000 km so you can expect someone on grid soon.


No. no active alerts.

The great thing about the current system is that for the most part you have to be WATCHING local. The "blinking local" thing CCP just added (while VERY helpful for a guy like me) was a mistake, an anti-pvp mistake in a pvp game.

I can agree with this.
The blinking feature removed a little bit of the "pay attention" aspect. I watch local like a hawk when I'm ratting, always have. I don't think most people are as able to stay focused on such a solitary item for an extended period of time. Even then I've slipped up once or twice. This is how it should be.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

BoBoZoBo
MGroup9
Quantum Cafe
#55 - 2013-06-17 19:36:35 UTC
As much as I would love to see local removed, there is nothing "wrong" with it in relation to people freaking out over covert ops ships in the system. People are calling for locals removal in this particular situation, because:

Despite the fact that cannot prove if someone is AFK...
Despite the fact that cloaked ships cannot do anything...
Despite the fact if someone WAS AFK they cannot see anything...

They still wet their pants when then cannot find a ship on scan.

SO - since they insist on trying to "fix" something that is not broken beyond their own lack of will and risk taking, why not remove local so they don't get scared.


That - and local should be removed because i does nothing but make you feel safe.

Primary Test Subject • SmackTalker Elite

Turelus
Utassi Security
Second State
#56 - 2013-06-17 20:15:56 UTC
The problem is the people looking to gank PVE ships )which have no chance to even defend themselves in PVP due to horrible PVE mechanics) can't always get said ganks because they get spotted early.

Just a tip to those wanting local removed in NullSec, if they do it then everyone will just go back to Empire because the rewards will never be worth he risk in NullSec.

Turelus CEO Utassi Security

Kijo Rikki
Killboard Padding Services
#57 - 2013-06-17 20:40:43 UTC
Turelus wrote:
The problem is the people looking to gank PVE ships )which have no chance to even defend themselves in PVP due to horrible PVE mechanics) can't always get said ganks because they get spotted early.

Just a tip to those wanting local removed in NullSec, if they do it then everyone will just go back to Empire because the rewards will never be worth he risk in NullSec.


I'm just going to call bs on this one. I, for one, will keep right on ratting, instead of watching local I'll watch a d-scan, be in a fleet with friends, if not ratting right with them in pvp capable ships that have a point and cloak fitted. Alliances will adapt by having sentries on strategic gates to watch activities, and life will go on, and to everyone who chooses to stay the profits will go up because we have less competition.

Local is a problem, but it's a problem with a perfectly viable solution already. I can understand why it exists and it is even justified in immersion by the fact the gates know who and what ships they just delivered from another star system. Now people have a problem with a solution to the problem of instant intel, because it's not 100% accurate. People don't know how to deal with a single unknown thrown into the mix and they want to fix the solution and keep the problem.

You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam. 

Gealbhan
Temeraria Praedonum
The Watchmen.
#58 - 2013-06-17 21:18:44 UTC
I don't always sit there cloaked but when I do I'm not afk. I'm watching you from 50-100km out Shocked
Arrow
Black Dranzer
#59 - 2013-06-17 21:20:08 UTC
Well, this is a bit more like it. A discussion about local and intel gathering as opposed to AFK cloaking.

Personally, I don't think Local should be an intel tool at all. Not even in high sec. Make it show only through participation, ala wormhole. Then, work on replacement intel tools.

Our real question should be "if local is removed, how would we replace it?"

I think we need a better sort of system scanner. Maybe something that displays where every active grid is and gives you a rough idea of the population within that grid. Something that picks up "warp signatures" maybe. Too much dependance on local and DScan. Both of those things should be removed, I feel, and merged into one system. Possibly something that overlaps with probe usage, even.

The core is that if local/intel is "fixed", then AFK cloaking just goes away by itself.

Doubt it'll get looked at any time soon, though.
Cyprus Black
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#60 - 2013-06-17 22:49:07 UTC
Can you distinguish between a cloaked player gathering intel from a player who's afk?

So far no one has been able to.

Summary of EvEs last four expansions: http://imgur.com/ZL5SM33