These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

i am disappointed in null sec people. (TL:DR talking about local chat.) read first post.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
svenska flicka
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#301 - 2012-10-25 16:49:14 UTC  |  Edited by: svenska flicka
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Mirima Thurander wrote:
Its nice to see everyone agreeing removing local.would make.it harder for people to.know.if I was in your system or not.


Just to clear this up THATS THE POINT.

It's obvious you're only seeing one part of a significantly more complex picture. I'm sorry you're incapable of understanding why this is an utterly ******** suggestion, but it is.

No, they get it. They just don't give a ****.
Huge difference.

They don't care that it would make the game boring, they want corps to be forced to put groups of guys on stations 24/ 7 to protect their space.


PS: And they think the largest group of null players would have the hardest time with this. Obviously their ******, disfunctional, unorganized corporations and alliance will manage to be able to keep guys on their gates while they bounce around CFC space.

We'd never be able to send hundreds over to them AND protect our own systems.
Obviously "the blob" will have the hardest time of this, not considerably smaller entitties.

PSS: If you can't already keep us from TAKING your space, how the **** are you going to DEFEND it against us. The stupidity of it.



The blob AKA space sov holding alliance are the ones that would hurt the most by this compared to small entities with less or no space and the more space you have....

The less space the easier it gets. Less space also=less players.

Again, what you say is a joke and thanks for giving me a good laugh Bear
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#302 - 2012-10-25 17:00:11 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
svenska flicka wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Mirima Thurander wrote:
Its nice to see everyone agreeing removing local.would make.it harder for people to.know.if I was in your system or not.


Just to clear this up THATS THE POINT.

It's obvious you're only seeing one part of a significantly more complex picture. I'm sorry you're incapable of understanding why this is an utterly ******** suggestion, but it is.



Razor alliance is in the CFC right? right...

Yes. What's your point?

svenska flicka wrote:
The blob AKA space sov holding alliance are the ones that would hurt the most by this compared to small entities with less or no space and the more space you have....

The less space the easier it gets. Less space also=less players.

Again, what you say is a joke and thanks for giving me a good laugh Bear

Oh, that was your point.

You do realize with all this space we only use a small handful of systems for ratting? With as many people as we have that's hardly difficult for us to keep track of. This would hurt smaller alliances more than big ones because small alliances don't have the numbers to sit around watching gates all day.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#303 - 2012-10-25 17:02:46 UTC
svenska flicka wrote:



The blob AKA space sov holding alliance are the ones that would hurt the most by this compared to small entities with less or no space and the more space you have....

The less space the easier it gets. Less space also=less players.

Again, what you say is a joke and thanks for giving me a good laugh Bear


Yes, because lots of high seccers are coming to null.

And you're not hiding behind an NPC alt.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#304 - 2012-10-25 17:04:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
svenska flicka wrote:

The blob AKA space sov holding alliance are the ones that would hurt the most by this compared to small entities with less or no space and the more space you have....

The more space 'the blob' has, the more cloakers you need to effectively camp them, right?
Like, if a small alliance has only 6 systems total, then all you need is 6 cloakers with cynos fitted (in case they try to fight back) to shut down their PvE, right?
So which is more likely, the 100-man alliance will have 140+ characters (one per system) that could be devoted full-time to cloaky camping, or the 6000 man alliance having 6 toons available for cloaky camping purposes?

no local would be quite the buff to large alliances tbh
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#305 - 2012-10-25 17:07:21 UTC
svenska flicka wrote:
The blob AKA space sov holding alliance are the ones that would hurt the most by this compared to small entities with less or no space and the more space you have....

The less space the easier it gets. Less space also=less players.

Again, what you say is a joke and thanks for giving me a good laugh Bear

Incorrect from start to finish. It's just as much of a cockstab to keep industrials and ratters safe in any system, be it "a blob" with a whole region, or a small alliance/corp trying to keep a system safe.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
svenska flicka
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#306 - 2012-10-25 17:16:46 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
svenska flicka wrote:
The blob AKA space sov holding alliance are the ones that would hurt the most by this compared to small entities with less or no space and the more space you have....

The less space the easier it gets. Less space also=less players.

Again, what you say is a joke and thanks for giving me a good laugh Bear

Incorrect from start to finish. It's just as much of a cockstab to keep industrials and ratters safe in any system, be it "a blob" with a whole region, or a small alliance/corp trying to keep a system safe.



What is safer, mining/doing anoms etc with local or without? I'll give you a minute to bullshit yourself out of that one.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#307 - 2012-10-25 17:34:08 UTC
svenska flicka wrote:
What is safer, mining/doing anoms etc with local or without?

With. Duh.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Inquisitor Kitchner
The Executives
#308 - 2012-10-25 17:38:22 UTC
svenska flicka wrote:



What is safer, mining/doing anoms etc with local or without? I'll give you a minute to bullshit yourself out of that one.



Without of course.

Because without local I'd go do my ratting etc in High Sec and be totally safe.


HTH

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli
svenska flicka
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#309 - 2012-10-25 17:44:29 UTC
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:
svenska flicka wrote:



What is safer, mining/doing anoms etc with local or without? I'll give you a minute to bullshit yourself out of that one.



Without of course.

Because without local I'd go do my ratting etc in High Sec and be totally safe.


HTH



Lol

well point is you and guy above made my case. Oh and I want local gone from high sec as well.

Peace.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#310 - 2012-10-25 17:46:25 UTC
svenska flicka wrote:
well point is you and guy above made my case.

And what is your "case"? "How to **** up the game 101"?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
svenska flicka
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#311 - 2012-10-25 17:49:55 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
svenska flicka wrote:
well point is you and guy above made my case.

And what is your "case"? "How to **** up the game 101"?



Make it less safe, more fun and go for the feel EVE is suppose to have, dark mysterious universe that is harsh to live in and anything can happen at any time while promoting even more teamwork instead of hearing a horn go of in CFC TS channels telling every one someone entered local before person entering system has time to load grid.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#312 - 2012-10-25 17:56:08 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
svenska flicka wrote:
well point is you and guy above made my case.

And what is your "case"? "How to **** up the game 101"?

Here is his case:

NPC Corp Poster: "The blob AKA space sov holding alliance are the ones that would hurt the most by this compared to small entities with less or no space and the more space you have"
Me: How do you arrive at that conclusion when having more space and more members then your opponents gives you enormous advantages in a no-local environment since the more space you hold, the harder it would be for enemies to camp, and camping your much smaller enemies would require relatively trivial amounts of effort?
NPC Corp Poster:But anoms would be harder using local, therefore my case is made!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#313 - 2012-10-25 17:56:39 UTC
svenska flicka wrote:
Make it less safe

There's a difference between making it "less safe", and making it a complete cockstab. If you wanted to make it "less safe", you could've said you wanted to not show up in local until you uncloaked. Instead, you went for the age-old "remove local" suggestion, which has been debunked completely and utterly multiple times.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#314 - 2012-10-25 17:57:54 UTC
svenska flicka wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
svenska flicka wrote:
well point is you and guy above made my case.

And what is your "case"? "How to **** up the game 101"?



Make it less safe, more fun and go for the feel EVE is suppose to have, dark mysterious universe that is harsh to live in and anything can happen at any time while promoting even more teamwork

The way to get that result is by banning NPC corps, not removing local.
svenska flicka
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#315 - 2012-10-25 17:59:51 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
svenska flicka wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
svenska flicka wrote:
well point is you and guy above made my case.

And what is your "case"? "How to **** up the game 101"?



Make it less safe, more fun and go for the feel EVE is suppose to have, dark mysterious universe that is harsh to live in and anything can happen at any time while promoting even more teamwork

The way to get that result is by banning NPC corps, not removing local.



Not true at all, the issues I described would not be fixed by making every one be in a player corp at all, not one bit.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#316 - 2012-10-25 18:12:24 UTC
svenska flicka wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
svenska flicka wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
svenska flicka wrote:
well point is you and guy above made my case.

And what is your "case"? "How to **** up the game 101"?



Make it less safe, more fun and go for the feel EVE is suppose to have, dark mysterious universe that is harsh to live in and anything can happen at any time while promoting even more teamwork

The way to get that result is by banning NPC corps, not removing local.



Not true at all, the issues I described would not be fixed by making every one be in a player corp at all, not one bit.

Sure they would.

"Make it less safe" - Banning the safety net of NPC corps (guaranteed CONCORD protection) would make wardecs far more effective and actually start to carry out their intended function (contest resources in highsec).

"More fun" - Facing the above lack of safety would introduce adversity and challenge to many EVE players for the first time (which is what seperates EVE as an MMO from some sort of multiplayer 'free time to virtual space rock conversion simulator') not to mention more fun for those doing the attacking.

"Harsh to live in" - NPC corps with their guaranteed CONCORD protections against any and all forms of PVP is the opposite of "harsh". Obviously, banning NPC corps would go a great distance towards this goal (while making it more fun).

"Promoting teamwork" - NPC corps actively incentivize against teamwork, banning them would correct this as well.
svenska flicka
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#317 - 2012-10-25 18:18:27 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
svenska flicka wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
svenska flicka wrote:




Make it less safe, more fun and go for the feel EVE is suppose to have, dark mysterious universe that is harsh to live in and anything can happen at any time while promoting even more teamwork

The way to get that result is by banning NPC corps, not removing local.



Not true at all, the issues I described would not be fixed by making every one be in a player corp at all, not one bit.

Sure they would.

"Make it less safe" - Banning the safety net of NPC corps (guaranteed CONCORD protection) would make wardecs far more effective and actually start to carry out their intended function (contest resources in highsec).

"More fun" - Facing the above lack of safety would introduce adversity and challenge to many EVE players for the first time (which is what seperates EVE as an MMO from some sort of multiplayer 'free time to virtual space rock conversion simulator') not to mention more fun for those doing the attacking.

"Harsh to live in" - NPC corps with their guaranteed CONCORD protections against any and all forms of PVP is the opposite of "harsh". Obviously, banning NPC corps would go a great distance towards this goal (while making it more fun).

"Promoting teamwork" - NPC corps actively incentivize against teamwork, banning them would correct this as well.



only guaranteed concord protection in highsec, mute.

can and will do that in an npc corp.

harsher in highsec, whoopiedoo!

I will give you last point, but teamwork is not guaranteed in a player corp by a longshot.

Did not adress safety of carebearing in low or nullsec, did not adress the "feel of eve" or promote actual teamwork to do things in low or nullsec and so forth.

NEXT!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#318 - 2012-10-25 18:24:46 UTC
svenska flicka wrote:
Did not adress safety of carebearing in low or nullsec

Carebearing in low/null is safe?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Jeremy Soikutsu
Kite Co. Space Trucking
#319 - 2012-10-25 18:26:01 UTC
svenska flicka wrote:
always CFC fighting to keep local in all these threads.

Not surprised.

When did IRC become a part of the CFC? To be fair I can see how I my quips could've been lost in this sea of Gewns, but I'm sure you would've ignored me anyway to help maintain your narrative.

"Of course you would choose the fun, but you don't lead a relevant entity which has allies." - Colonel Xaven
svenska flicka
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#320 - 2012-10-25 18:26:22 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
svenska flicka wrote:
Did not adress safety of carebearing in low or nullsec

Carebearing in low/null is safe?


Hell yes it is.