These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

General Poll: Would you prefer omniscient Local Chat, or an actual Intel Tool?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#61 - 2012-01-27 09:17:38 UTC
Cathy Drall wrote:
Local as it is feels very artificial.

The manual clickfest D-scan as it is now is hopeless though, why can't it be automated like a radar?
Perhaps a 10-25AU range radar would be a lot better and realistic.


I suggested elsewhere that DScan could be set to an automated pulse the frequency based on the range and angle of the Scan, the further and wider you go the less frequent. Although I don't think it should have a maximum range much beyond what it already has.

Andski, when you say 'active vigilant players' do you mean non afk players with their Local Chat window open?
Razin
The Scope
#62 - 2012-01-27 13:11:45 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:

In fact, in the long list of CCP promises, this is one of the ones that has been lacking the most. In a QnA session with the games public 2 years ago CCP actually stated flatly that a change to local was in the works, but here we sit, still waiting.

Actually, that's over 3 years ago.

Off course, that is if you don't count several statements by CCP Oveur on the same subject that go back a few years more.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#63 - 2012-01-27 16:02:06 UTC
Xorv wrote:
Cathy Drall wrote:
Local as it is feels very artificial.

The manual clickfest D-scan as it is now is hopeless though, why can't it be automated like a radar?
Perhaps a 10-25AU range radar would be a lot better and realistic.


I suggested elsewhere that DScan could be set to an automated pulse the frequency based on the range and angle of the Scan, the further and wider you go the less frequent. Although I don't think it should have a maximum range much beyond what it already has.

Andski, when you say 'active vigilant players' do you mean non afk players with their Local Chat window open?


I've seen several suggestions about a ranged based auto-scanning radar-like system to gather intel on ships... and my own F&I suggestion is pretty similar to this (although I never mentioned radars).

'Active Vigilant Players' sounds like a euphemism for BOT to me... but I don't think Andski meant it in such a manner. I took it to mean active players using ships in space.
Chandaris
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#64 - 2012-01-27 16:25:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Chandaris
I would prefer a more advanced intel tool / directional scanner / radar og some sort..

and make local behave more realistically.. A pilot only shows up if they check in with traffic control -- jump through a stargate or undock from a starbase.. If they cyno in or jump in via wormhole, they are not passing by the port authority, and shouldn't be in local

in nullsec I don't believe there should be a local channel (ie set to delayed / chat only), since concord and the faction navy's have no presence there, thus there is no specific 'traffic control / port authority'

IMO anyways. take it or leave it.

Edit: could be a net sov mechanic to have a 'traffic control' unit you could erect in a system that would make local work in a nullsec system.. hmmmm
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#65 - 2012-01-27 16:27:23 UTC
Xorv wrote:
Cathy Drall wrote:
Local as it is feels very artificial.

The manual clickfest D-scan as it is now is hopeless though, why can't it be automated like a radar?
Perhaps a 10-25AU range radar would be a lot better and realistic.


I suggested elsewhere that DScan could be set to an automated pulse the frequency based on the range and angle of the Scan, the further and wider you go the less frequent. Although I don't think it should have a maximum range much beyond what it already has.

Andski, when you say 'active vigilant players' do you mean non afk players with their Local Chat window open?


Something like this.

If your scan is set to 360 degrees at max range, which would be system wide, you get a visual alter that ships are in system on a type of radar screen, not type, or affiliation, but that they are there.

As you narrow down its scope or range, either or, you get more concrete information on what it is, and who it is.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#66 - 2012-01-27 16:29:25 UTC
Chandaris wrote:
I would prefer a more advanced intel tool / directional scanner / radar og some sort..

and make local behave more realistically.. A pilot only shows up if they check in with traffic control -- jump through a stargate or undock from a starbase.. If they cyno in or jump in via wormhole, they are not passing by the port authority, and shouldn't be in local

in nullsec I don't believe there should be a local channel (ie set to delayed / chat only), since concord and the faction navy's have no presence there, thus there is no specific 'traffic control / port authority'

IMO anyways. take it or leave it.

Edit: could be a net sov mechanic to have a 'traffic control' unit you could erect in a system that would make local work in a nullsec system.. hmmmm


Interesting... I would support this. The traffic control unit needs to be vulnerable to things that are not giant fleets of doom. Something similar to the POCO maybe.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#67 - 2012-01-27 16:40:58 UTC
local is actaully very good.

It tells you what you need to know if you are concerned about getting blobbed - how many and in what corp. It does not tell you ship types etc.

Delaying intel? Either pve ships will still have time to get away or they wont.

If you they have time to get away then nothing will change. CCP will just do allot of work that changes nothing.

If pve ships do not have time to get away then there will be less pve in low sec and null sec. Is that what we want?

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Razin
The Scope
#68 - 2012-01-27 16:42:52 UTC
Petrus Blackshell wrote:


Interesting... I would support this. The traffic control unit needs to be vulnerable to things that are not giant fleets of doom. Something similar to the POCO maybe.

I think any kind of automated intel-gathering infrastructure is a bad idea that would undermine the whole purpose of delayed local. There is nothing that would stop sov holders from installing such a 'traffic control' unit in every farming system and we're back to the current situation of semi-afk intel networks and instantly safing ratting/mining ops.
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#69 - 2012-01-27 16:46:00 UTC
Razin wrote:
Petrus Blackshell wrote:


Interesting... I would support this. The traffic control unit needs to be vulnerable to things that are not giant fleets of doom. Something similar to the POCO maybe.

I think any kind of automated intel-gathering infrastructure is a bad idea that would undermine the whole purpose of delayed local. There is nothing that would stop sov holders from installing such a 'traffic control' unit in every farming system and we're back to the current situation of semi-afk intel networks and instantly safing ratting/mining ops.


Not if cynos/blops cynos don't trigger the traffic control system, and you can take it down with a fleet of bombers. Now doesn't that sound like "black ops"? Drop a bunch of bombers on the traffic control, disable it, then silently move a conventional fleet in.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Razin
The Scope
#70 - 2012-01-27 16:48:57 UTC
Cearain wrote:

Delaying intel? Either pve ships will still have time to get away or they wont.

If you're aligned you always have time to get away.

Delayed local would necessitate some balancing of the cloaking ships to keep that true.
Valei Khurelem
#71 - 2012-01-27 16:51:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Valei Khurelem
I think we should keep the chats on all types of space but what should happen is when you leave high security the avatar list will disappear and then that way people can at least talk if they want to make themselves noticed but they also won't be revealed if they just want to stay silent and slip through.

"don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP."   - CCP Ytterbium
Razin
The Scope
#72 - 2012-01-27 16:52:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Razin
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Razin wrote:
Petrus Blackshell wrote:


Interesting... I would support this. The traffic control unit needs to be vulnerable to things that are not giant fleets of doom. Something similar to the POCO maybe.

I think any kind of automated intel-gathering infrastructure is a bad idea that would undermine the whole purpose of delayed local. There is nothing that would stop sov holders from installing such a 'traffic control' unit in every farming system and we're back to the current situation of semi-afk intel networks and instantly safing ratting/mining ops.


Not if cynos/blops cynos don't trigger the traffic control system, and you can take it down with a fleet of bombers. Now doesn't that sound like "black ops"? Drop a bunch of bombers on the traffic control, disable it, then silently move a conventional fleet in.

Still, that gives too much to large entities. What about small gangs or solo? They would always be at a disadvantage, having to either continuously disable structures or put up with the other side's instant and effortless intel.
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#73 - 2012-01-27 16:54:12 UTC
Razin wrote:

Still, that gives too much to large entities. What about small gangs or solo? They would always be at a disadvantage, having to either disable structures or put up with the other side's instant and effortless intel.


That's a fair point. I don't know how to solve it.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#74 - 2012-01-27 17:41:30 UTC
Xorv wrote:
Andski, when you say 'active vigilant players' do you mean non afk players with their Local Chat window open?


Yes, what else is that supposed to mean?

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
'Active Vigilant Players' sounds like a euphemism for BOT to me... but I don't think Andski meant it in such a manner. I took it to mean active players using ships in space.


No, it's not. "Active vigilant players" refers to a person sitting at the keyboard playing the game and actively reporting hostiles in intel chat - I do not believe bots ever report hostiles.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Cryten Jones
Advantage Inc
#75 - 2012-01-27 17:56:31 UTC
How about this.

Start by changing the local to the following based on the same arguments above about "port authorities etc"

0.0 gets changed to be the same as WH space local
01. - 0.4 = Local shows you how many people are in the system but no names unless they talk
0.5 - 1.0 = same as now.

THEN

you add in anchorable structure, like a warp bubble but with a limited life span, that you can place near a gate. This will then feed you (the anchorer) with information on what goes though the gate. This would be skill based so:-

lvl1 - "Hey dude I think x ships possible did something around this gate...not sure though"
lvl2 - "Yep somehing deffo jumped in, didn't see what"
lvl3 - ...
lvl4 - ....
lvl5 - "Yep, I saw 3 HAC's jump in flying the {insert random foe here} flag" << (eg where we are now with local + dscan


As an ' invader' you are going to see the anchored structure and can choose to pass on though, go a hunting or shoot the 'EWS Probe' down just to underscore your intentions.


This could also lend it's self to having an iHub upgrade for sov holders that offers some level of this functionality to their people in that particular system.

Anyway, just and idea..... flame away :-)

-CJ
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#76 - 2012-01-27 20:13:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Gizznitt Malikite
Andski wrote:

No, it's not. "Active vigilant players" refers to a person sitting at the keyboard playing the game and actively reporting hostiles in intel chat - I do not believe bots ever report hostiles.


And an intel tool, rather than an omniscient instant local, would force those players to actively ascertain information on unidentified new locals. Many pilots would find doing this tedious and couldn't be bothered, especially if there was a lot of friendly traffic. Then region-wide intel networks could lose much of their effectiveness, and identifying squatters to purge, hostiles to blob, and infiltrated areas of an empire would require more than flying a scout into system.

I definitely see why many people would find this unappealing. I can also see why a lot of people would find this very appealing. I hope it can it be created in a balanced manner, so intel gathering isn't an enormous and tedious task, while still creating an atmosphere with more mystery and ambiguity. Implementing this is a fair amount of work, with disastrous consequences if it is botched. Is it worth the effort and risk, when we have an easy-mode omniscient chat window that "works" now? I think so, but I certainly understand why people don't!

12-29
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#77 - 2012-01-27 20:19:51 UTC
Cryten Jones wrote:
How about this.

Start by changing the local to the following based on the same arguments above about "port authorities etc"

0.0 gets changed to be the same as WH space local
01. - 0.4 = Local shows you how many people are in the system but no names unless they talk
0.5 - 1.0 = same as now.

THEN

you add in anchorable structure, like a warp bubble but with a limited life span, that you can place near a gate. This will then feed you (the anchorer) with information on what goes though the gate. This would be skill based so:-

lvl1 - "Hey dude I think x ships possible did something around this gate...not sure though"
lvl2 - "Yep somehing deffo jumped in, didn't see what"
lvl3 - ...
lvl4 - ....
lvl5 - "Yep, I saw 3 HAC's jump in flying the {insert random foe here} flag" << (eg where we are now with local + dscan


As an ' invader' you are going to see the anchored structure and can choose to pass on though, go a hunting or shoot the 'EWS Probe' down just to underscore your intentions.


This could also lend it's self to having an iHub upgrade for sov holders that offers some level of this functionality to their people in that particular system.

Anyway, just and idea..... flame away :-)

-CJ


Interesting.... I don't think this, by itself, would be anywhere near enough to qualify as a balanced intel system. I typically prefer pilots to actively seek their intel, rather than have it completely fed to them by static modules. At the same time, it gave me some things to ponder about how pilot skills could play into an intel system. Thank you for the idea.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#78 - 2012-01-27 21:17:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Andski wrote:

No, it's not. "Active vigilant players" refers to a person sitting at the keyboard playing the game and actively reporting hostiles in intel chat - I do not believe bots ever report hostiles.


And an intel tool, rather than an omniscient instant local, would force those players to actively ascertain information on unidentified new locals. Many pilots would find doing this tedious and couldn't be bothered, especially if there was a lot of friendly traffic. Then region-wide intel networks could lose much of their effectiveness, and identifying squatters to purge, hostiles to blob, and infiltrated areas of an empire would require more than flying a scout into system.

I definitely see why many people would find this unappealing. I can also see why a lot of people would find this very appealing. I hope it can it be created in a balanced manner, so intel gathering isn't an enormous and tedious task, while still creating an atmosphere with more mystery and ambiguity. Implementing this is a fair amount of work, with disastrous consequences if it is botched. Is it worth the effort and risk, when we have an easy-mode omniscient chat window that "works" now? I think so, but I certainly understand why people don't!


yeah let's absolutely remove any advantage you have in defending your own space

great idea

if you honestly trust CCP to come up with an intel tool that isn't a clickfest like dscan, great - I really don't.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Cryten Jones
Advantage Inc
#79 - 2012-01-27 23:09:07 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Cryten Jones wrote:
Stuff I said


Interesting.... I don't think this, by itself, would be anywhere near enough to qualify as a balanced intel system. I typically prefer pilots to actively seek their intel, rather than have it completely fed to them by static modules. At the same time, it gave me some things to ponder about how pilot skills could play into an intel system. Thank you for the idea.



I was thinking that the limited life time, anchoring time and vulnerability of the early warning probes would account for the activity part. You would not be firing these things off just as part of jumping though a gate! You would be placing them at gates as you setup your camp (mining or PewPew type)

Once you are done doing whatever it was OR your probes life time runs out you have to act to retrieve that probe or loose it.


This could lead to cool tactics like waiting cloaked for the probe timer to expire and jumping your fleet in while it's on the spin up cycle totally unseen, with no local if you get into the system avoiding the probe you are a ghost in the system :-)

(think covert cyno / WH) here.

-CJ
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#80 - 2012-01-27 23:15:21 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
I'm curious as to what level of automation is acceptable to you?
For the intel part? None.

For the data part? Pretty much linearly with the level of opaqueness and obscurity of the data provided — the more you have to work with the interpretation of the data, the more automatic the data collection can be without giving anything for free.