These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The problem with removing local

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Bill Saisima
Doomheim
#101 - 2013-08-20 17:19:41 UTC
A lot of awful ideas from people that buy their isk and want to pvp 23/7.
Guess what not everyone can afford to buy plexes and roam all day long.
Without local the hunter has the clear advantage. If I need to press dscan 200 times until I rat the price of my ratting ship I'll just install a program that does that, or I don't rat. Same for having an alt watching gate - can be done - just need a second account, an extra monitor and perhaps a piece of software to help with the warning.
Who would pay money to play a game where you're on duty, 4 hours every day to watch a gate... it's like a job you just don't get paid. I understand people offering these advices don't live in null or buy their isk...
Maybe if I get 400mil/hour I'd press dscan manually but I'd hate it nevertheless.

Local can be removed, but then you won't find any juicy targets because the only reason to undock would be to go pvp.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#102 - 2013-08-20 17:33:34 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

This is a mistake, because if you did look at why your idea wouldn't work, you'd understand that CCp's compormise (which is what local is and has always been" works.

People don't like loss, but some of us will accept some manageable risk if the reward is high enough (whereas most people find little or no risk much more acceptable). Changing the way things work in null for some pie in the sky idea would be enough to push even those of us who do accept the rsik out of null 9as has happened before).

This is bad for the game. The game NEEDs ships (inclduing null pve ships) to die sometimes, and this doesn't happen if everyone is running missions and incursions in empire because null sec is too risky to make a decent in-game profit in.


I think people in this game, PvP'ers included, are becoming more and more risk adverse. PvE with only an ever-so-slight chance of you losing your ship because you didn't pay attention. PvP with only an ever-so-slight chance of losing your ship because of overwhelming numbers, logistics, and ecm. And I think PvE is the root of a lot of this:

For 99% of EvE players, the only time it is acceptable to PvE in a 2b+ isk ship, is if you feel very confident you won't lose your ship.

I would much, much, much rather you were out PvE'ing in a 200m isk Raven, or a 100m isk drake, with a moderate chance you will lose your ship (but enough rewards that losing that ship will likely be recouped in the next 2-4 hours). And from there, I'd hope people would be less risk adverse in PvP.

Perhaps that's just a pipe dream that can't reasonable be implemented.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#103 - 2013-08-20 17:33:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Nikk Narrel
Bill Saisima wrote:
A lot of awful ideas from people that buy their isk and want to pvp 23/7.
Guess what not everyone can afford to buy plexes and roam all day long.
Without local the hunter has the clear advantage. If I need to press dscan 200 times until I rat the price of my ratting ship I'll just install a program that does that, or I don't rat. Same for having an alt watching gate - can be done - just need a second account, an extra monitor and perhaps a piece of software to help with the warning.
Who would pay money to play a game where you're on duty, 4 hours every day to watch a gate... it's like a job you just don't get paid. I understand people offering these advices don't live in null or buy their isk...
Maybe if I get 400mil/hour I'd press dscan manually but I'd hate it nevertheless.

Local can be removed, but then you won't find any juicy targets because the only reason to undock would be to go pvp.

This seems short sighted, to me, and completely ignores many details.

First off, local's impact outside of null is greatly diminished, since the ability to use it as a form of intel loses practical options.
Want to avoid non-blues? They are constantly present in low and high sec, local can't really help.

The claim you play in null can be questioned as well, or were you not aware that using local to avoid hostiles is not just accepted practice, but is ONLY countered by AFK Cloaking tactics that devalue local's intel?

If you see no hostiles in local, you can operate. Making a habit of flying aligned to a safe makes this practical if solo, otherwise your escorts are responsible for your safety.
If you DO see hostiles appear in local, hit warp. Due to the time between their appearance in the chat list, and their client still loading the system, you have a grace period usually of a few seconds. In any case, unless you are at that gate for some reason, they have to warp in order to reach you.
This means that they can do nothing to interrupt your escape, assuming you followed this described procedure. You can always get safe before they can get you.

If you DO see hostiles in local, don't undock unless you are ready and willing to face them. Being ready to counter their threat means you either assume responsibility to escape them, or destroy them.
Fit your ship around one or both of these strategies, and be ready to execute them with little warning.

Don't let null sec spoil you by making it look like no hostiles will ever visit.

If the risks go up, the rewards will follow. Expect to need effort to balance the risks.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#104 - 2013-08-20 17:40:16 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

This is a mistake, because if you did look at why your idea wouldn't work, you'd understand that CCp's compormise (which is what local is and has always been" works.

People don't like loss, but some of us will accept some manageable risk if the reward is high enough (whereas most people find little or no risk much more acceptable). Changing the way things work in null for some pie in the sky idea would be enough to push even those of us who do accept the rsik out of null 9as has happened before).

This is bad for the game. The game NEEDs ships (inclduing null pve ships) to die sometimes, and this doesn't happen if everyone is running missions and incursions in empire because null sec is too risky to make a decent in-game profit in.


I think people in this game, PvP'ers included, are becoming more and more risk adverse. PvE with only an ever-so-slight chance of you losing your ship because you didn't pay attention. PvP with only an ever-so-slight chance of losing your ship because of overwhelming numbers, logistics, and ecm. And I think PvE is the root of a lot of this:

For 99% of EvE players, the only time it is acceptable to PvE in a 2b+ isk ship, is if you feel very confident you won't lose your ship.

I would much, much, much rather you were out PvE'ing in a 200m isk Raven, or a 100m isk drake, with a moderate chance you will lose your ship (but enough rewards that losing that ship will likely be recouped in the next 2-4 hours). And from there, I'd hope people would be less risk adverse in PvP.

Perhaps that's just a pipe dream that can't reasonable be implemented.

Your expectations are perfectly reasonable.

The core of this must always be: This is a game.

We need it to be challenging, we need it to be interactive, and we need it to be fun.

To be challenging, it must take effort.

To be interactive, it must allow players to affect each other, and not just when both sides find it most convenient.

To be fun, the rewards from playing must feel worth the effort. This is perception based, and no two people truly want the exact same thing, but they can compromise if both get what they need. We all adapt, it is what being human is, in this context.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#105 - 2013-08-20 17:54:08 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:


Null, specifically sov null, is safer than high sec. Especially if your corp is active in a war dec.
And local is why.


This is untrue. You can see this by using a program to parse killboards, you find more (and more expensive) pve ships die in null than in high. When was the last time you say a pve fit carrier die in high sec lol.

Even deep null is less safe than concord, as a poster in GD (Infinity Ziona) proved by single handedly invading TRIBE space and killing more than 1 dozen pve ships Before getting killed. You can kill exactly ONE ship in high sec without a war dec before concord kills you.

Null sec has 17th the population of high sec yet has 7 times more pvp kills according to ccp's "you guys sure like killing" dev blog. Blob warfare cannot alone account for all those kills. Many of the kills are small gang fights and ganks of pve ships.

It is simply, (scientifically provably) untrue that null is safer than high sec. You cannot use cynos to hotdrop in high sec. According to the same blog, the only part of high sec that is statistically more dangerous than null sec is the systems that give out start missions (because even in high sec pve is safe, most high sec pve deaths were frigates flown by characters with low SP).

You can look up the source or I can link if for you.

[quote]

In Null: If you see a non blue, you can warp to safety before they can act to prevent it.
In High Sec: If you see a non blue, it's because you looked. They are a constant presence, and impractical to avoid and expect to accomplish tasks.

In Null: If you are war decced, it is expected. You can avoid them just like any other non blue.
In High Sec: If you are war decced, Concord will ignore attacks from them on you. Avoiding war pilots is deceptive, since they can use out of corp alts to spot you with. No, they can't cyno you, but then why would they need to?
A neighbor mining next to you could be providing the warp in for war pilots, and unless you were aligned to warp or flying a fast ship, they can catch you on grid.

In Null: You can avoid anything but an awoxxer, but then these affect all areas of the game. Your corp's recruiting policy is your only protection.
In High Sec: Suicide ganking. The guy ratting nearby can decide you would be worth the cost of losing his ship, and try to make you go boom before Concord arrived. Unless he is new to the tactic, there is a good chance he is correct, especially if you are not paying attention closely.

Null is safer. With risk and rewards linked, how soon before it is also less profitable?
I already hear comparisons to running L4's in high sec being promoted as a good option to null in this thread.


Again, all of this is untrue. people CAN gank you in high sec, but the numbers prove it doesn't happen very often. what does happen (more than 7 MILLION times since 2010) is that people get killed in null, even with null having local chat as intel. Only wormholes can claim (on a per capita basis) to be more dangerous than null and that has a lot to do with extremely low population numbers skewing the statistic.

The whole "in high sec you can't see it coming" thing is a serious logical fallacy.

It's like saying Beverley Hills is safer than South central LA "because in south central, you can see the heavily armed gang members coming, but in Beverly hills the guy that robs you might be dressed like a move star like everyone else" loil. I'm sorry, but the whole idea is stupid.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#106 - 2013-08-20 18:11:30 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:


Null, specifically sov null, is safer than high sec. Especially if your corp is active in a war dec.
And local is why.


This is untrue. You can see this by using a program to parse killboards, you find more (and more expensive) pve ships die in null than in high. When was the last time you say a pve fit carrier die in high sec lol.

Even deep null is less safe than concord, as a poster in GD (Infinity Ziona) proved by single handedly invading TRIBE space and killing more than 1 dozen pve ships Before getting killed. You can kill exactly ONE ship in high sec without a war dec before concord kills you.

Null sec has 17th the population of high sec yet has 7 times more pvp kills according to ccp's "you guys sure like killing" dev blog. Blob warfare cannot alone account for all those kills. Many of the kills are small gang fights and ganks of pve ships.

It is simply, (scientifically provably) untrue that null is safer than high sec. You cannot use cynos to hotdrop in high sec. According to the same blog, the only part of high sec that is statistically more dangerous than null sec is the systems that give out start missions (because even in high sec pve is safe, most high sec pve deaths were frigates flown by characters with low SP).

You can look up the source or I can link if for you.


Ships are at risk in null only because that is how they are being flown.
If a pilot is careless, they have risk.
The flaw here is that they need to be careless, and until they do that when a hostile is around, they are perfectly safe.
Getting away in null is not an opposed effort, since the hostile cannot break the chain of events, only a careless mistake can do that.

Except for that carrier you mentioned, all of these pilots chose NOT to risk operating in high sec, and felt that they had less risk and better rewards operating out of null.

And despite all these losses you mentioned, high sec is known to be riskier, and avoided by these pilots as a result.
Put simply, if it is possible to make a profit off of your ship in the process, you risk being suicide ganked in high sec.

Null offers safety along these lines not matched by our Concord boasting areas.

I don't need a source, I don't dispute your details, just the conclusion you seem to be drawing.

Jenn aSide wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:


In Null: If you see a non blue, you can warp to safety before they can act to prevent it.
In High Sec: If you see a non blue, it's because you looked. They are a constant presence, and impractical to avoid and expect to accomplish tasks.

In Null: If you are war decced, it is expected. You can avoid them just like any other non blue.
In High Sec: If you are war decced, Concord will ignore attacks from them on you. Avoiding war pilots is deceptive, since they can use out of corp alts to spot you with. No, they can't cyno you, but then why would they need to?
A neighbor mining next to you could be providing the warp in for war pilots, and unless you were aligned to warp or flying a fast ship, they can catch you on grid.

In Null: You can avoid anything but an awoxxer, but then these affect all areas of the game. Your corp's recruiting policy is your only protection.
In High Sec: Suicide ganking. The guy ratting nearby can decide you would be worth the cost of losing his ship, and try to make you go boom before Concord arrived. Unless he is new to the tactic, there is a good chance he is correct, especially if you are not paying attention closely.

Null is safer. With risk and rewards linked, how soon before it is also less profitable?
I already hear comparisons to running L4's in high sec being promoted as a good option to null in this thread.


Again, all of this is untrue. people CAN gank you in high sec, but the numbers prove it doesn't happen very often. what does happen (more than 7 MILLION times since 2010) is that people get killed in null, even with null having local chat as intel. Only wormholes can claim (on a per capita basis) to be more dangerous than null and that has a lot to do with extremely low population numbers skewing the statistic.

The whole "in high sec you can't see it coming" thing is a serious logical fallacy.

It's like saying Beverley Hills is safer than South central LA "because in south central, you can see the heavily armed gang members coming, but in Beverly hills the guy that robs you might be dressed like a move star like everyone else" loil. I'm sorry, but the whole idea is stupid.

Saying something is stupid does not make it so. But your opinion is noted.

People only gank you in high sec if they expect to make a profit.
Pilots learn to avoid fitting ships that are cost effective to gank.
That is simple adapting, and means nothing.

In null, pilots learn to align and hit warp when a hostile enters local. It is simply the path of least resistance.

What brand of crazy would you need to be to fly at more risk?
This is why the ships are being found in null, because high sec feels too unsafe to undock them in.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Pew Terror
All of it
#107 - 2013-08-20 18:45:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Pew Terror
I'm pretty new to the game so i don't know if it changes any gameplay, but i always wondered how it makes sense that everyone knows the presence of everyone else in a system at all times.
It would make much more sense if the intel provided by local would be coming from whoever operates the system (gates and stuff).
So basically, when you are on grid with a supplied infrastructure unit (gates, stations, etc...) you will show up on local.
If you are just flying through empty space you will not.
Jumping through a gate to another system should be a different animation (like blinking or something) then just leaving grid of an intel supplying object (as does logging out).
In nullsec intel providers could even be anchorable objects to be used in space and moons and stuff.
seany1212
M Y S T
#108 - 2013-08-20 18:53:49 UTC  |  Edited by: seany1212
Sigras wrote:
seany1212 wrote:
I don't want them to remove local personally, i think it's quite good for if i'm looking for a fight.

But while local exists you're going to get those who cry foul on the forums on a constant basis because they can't rat/mine/complex/data sites with total impunity because they can see in local somebody who shouldn't be there (AFK Cloaking Collection Thread, Cloak Fuel, Log-In Traps, etc) and the strongest case that i have for local being removed that is, do you know who doesn't complain on a constant basis about anything to do with local, cloaking, AFK or whether someone is online or not... Wormhole Residents Roll


EDIT: I'd rather they removed local for null sec (delayed or otherwise implemented) than beginning to break down other areas of gameplay that work perfectly fine everywhere else.

Have you ever considered that WH residents dont complain about not having local because they dont have to worry about titan bridging either? Remember what I said:

1. Cyno Bridging
2. Cloaking
3. No Local

Pick two

WH space has 2 and 3 but not 1 as I keep saying . . . apple meet orange . . .


I completely forgot they didn't have to worry about titan bridging! It's not like they have to worry about uncontrollable wormholes opening into their system completely unannounced more than likely with a prepared fleet on the other side waiting to jump on them or anything. How dare i forget about the player lit cyno!

Roll


Quick Edit: It's about as bad as a black-ops cyno without local telling you everyone's poured in... Just for some perspective.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#109 - 2013-08-20 19:01:22 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:

Saying something is stupid does not make it so. But your opinion is noted.


Saying something is stupid because it's unsupportable by fact does indeed make that thing stupid lol

Quote:

People only gank you in high sec if they expect to make a profit.
Pilots learn to avoid fitting ships that are cost effective to gank.
That is simple adapting, and means nothing.

In null, pilots learn to align and hit warp when a hostile enters local. It is simply the path of least resistance.

What brand of crazy would you need to be to fly at more risk?
This is why the ships are being found in null, because high sec feels too unsafe to undock them in.


Your thinking is bizarre. You state that null pilots need to be aware of their surroundings and use actual space flying tactics (ratting while aligned and being aware enough to warp if a hostile comes in) to stay safe.

The high sec pilot only has to fit right and can fly in space any damn way he chooses, aligned or not.

You prove my point for me. Ratting aligned might only be 2 extra clicks, but that's 2 more clicks than the high sec pilot has to do to be safe lol.


The suggestion that people are in null flying expensive ships because high sec is so unsafe isn't just variably wrong, it's a Lie and you know it. The part of you post I bolded demonstrates what I said, you are not interested in the truth. Join any incursion fleet and look at the fits posted when an FC calls for them. The TVP fitting channels feature 2-5 billion is fits and TVP is a NON-shiney community lol. The Vindicator I fly in ISN fleets cost 5 bil and is CHEAP by there standards lol.

I can do screen grabs of fits from those communities when i get home in a few hours if you'd like to see what people are flying in high sec. Just say the word.

If that's the case that null is safer, why is null sec not crammed full of PVE pilots, why is high sec 7 or 8 times more populated? Why is Motsu and Osmon bursting with people whole no single null sec system in eve has more than100 pilots?

Why are you unwilling to see that which is right in front of you?
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#110 - 2013-08-20 19:50:58 UTC
Pew Terror wrote:
I'm pretty new to the game so i don't know if it changes any gameplay, but i always wondered how it makes sense that everyone knows the presence of everyone else in a system at all times.
It would make much more sense if the intel provided by local would be coming from whoever operates the system (gates and stuff).
So basically, when you are on grid with a supplied infrastructure unit (gates, stations, etc...) you will show up on local.
If you are just flying through empty space you will not.
Jumping through a gate to another system should be a different animation (like blinking or something) then just leaving grid of an intel supplying object (as does logging out).
In nullsec intel providers could even be anchorable objects to be used in space and moons and stuff.

It has more to do with what people are familiar with and used to.

Originally local did not have rankings for pilots, just names. They could be allied or hostile, unless you recognized the name you had no idea. (You could always check the name manually, but by the time you learned this it could easily be too late to react)

One alliance had a guy with a mod that was able to ID pilots on the fly, and for whatever reason CCP decided to give it to everyone rather than try to fight that effect.
(Quite probably they found it would be impossible, since an overlay like the ones used by teamspeak could read the warning and tell a player, giving that software's users an advantage over everyone else)

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#111 - 2013-08-20 20:06:49 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
This is why the ships are being found in null, because high sec feels too unsafe to undock them in.


Your thinking is bizarre. You state that null pilots need to be aware of their surroundings and use actual space flying tactics (ratting while aligned and being aware enough to warp if a hostile comes in) to stay safe.

The high sec pilot only has to fit right and can fly in space any damn way he chooses, aligned or not.

You prove my point for me. Ratting aligned might only be 2 extra clicks, but that's 2 more clicks than the high sec pilot has to do to be safe lol.


The suggestion that people are in null flying expensive ships because high sec is so unsafe isn't just variably wrong, it's a Lie and you know it. The part of you post I bolded demonstrates what I said, you are not interested in the truth. Join any incursion fleet and look at the fits posted when an FC calls for them. The TVP fitting channels feature 2-5 billion is fits and TVP is a NON-shiney community lol. The Vindicator I fly in ISN fleets cost 5 bil and is CHEAP by there standards lol.

I can do screen grabs of fits from those communities when i get home in a few hours if you'd like to see what people are flying in high sec. Just say the word.

If that's the case that null is safer, why is null sec not crammed full of PVE pilots, why is high sec 7 or 8 times more populated? Why is Motsu and Osmon bursting with people whole no single null sec system in eve has more than100 pilots?

Why are you unwilling to see that which is right in front of you?

Wow, being aware of a game you are supposedly playing, is now asking to much of a player?
You are really lowering the bar here.


Saying a high sec pilot has to fit right, is in complete agreement with my previous statements.
A ship that is fit right is NOT cost effective to gank.
If that pilot is at war, being in high sec loses the consequences of invoking Concord for attacks by war pilots.

Ratting might be two extra clicks, but you can get out your bling bling carrier or other gank-worthy boat that would be doomed in high sec the moment the first ganking capable pilot saw it.

The fact that people are not flying these bling bling boats with crazy fits in high sec proves my statements.
They generally learn the hard way not to fly gankable ISK magnets.
Even freighters learn not to carry cargo above a certain value, in high sec, because gankers know what it costs to take one down, and that number becomes their limit.

As to why high sec has more PvE pilots, are you joking?
In one breath, you point to null's kills out stripping high sec's, then you want to point out why high sec has more pilots?

Well, let's consider that.
1. High sec, is where everyone starts.
2. High sec, has the most convenient markets, for the least effort to reach.
3. If you fly smart, Concord will always be enough to protect you in high sec.
4. Making ISK might take longer, but can be safer if you follow 3.
5. If you have poor social skills, null is difficult to live in. You often need a corp / alliance to take you in.
6. Casual play, or infrequent play at odd intervals, makes high sec more practical. Concord is always online with you.

I see things differently than you do, and the facts back me up.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Sigras
Conglomo
#112 - 2013-08-20 20:16:16 UTC
seany1212 wrote:
Sigras wrote:
seany1212 wrote:
I don't want them to remove local personally, i think it's quite good for if i'm looking for a fight.

But while local exists you're going to get those who cry foul on the forums on a constant basis because they can't rat/mine/complex/data sites with total impunity because they can see in local somebody who shouldn't be there (AFK Cloaking Collection Thread, Cloak Fuel, Log-In Traps, etc) and the strongest case that i have for local being removed that is, do you know who doesn't complain on a constant basis about anything to do with local, cloaking, AFK or whether someone is online or not... Wormhole Residents Roll


EDIT: I'd rather they removed local for null sec (delayed or otherwise implemented) than beginning to break down other areas of gameplay that work perfectly fine everywhere else.

Have you ever considered that WH residents dont complain about not having local because they dont have to worry about titan bridging either? Remember what I said:

1. Cyno Bridging
2. Cloaking
3. No Local

Pick two

WH space has 2 and 3 but not 1 as I keep saying . . . apple meet orange . . .


I completely forgot they didn't have to worry about titan bridging! It's not like they have to worry about uncontrollable wormholes opening into their system completely unannounced more than likely with a prepared fleet on the other side waiting to jump on them or anything. How dare i forget about the player lit cyno!

Roll


Quick Edit: It's about as bad as a black-ops cyno without local telling you everyone's poured in... Just for some perspective.

The point is that I know only a few ships can come through my wormhole at one time (and if not so, we made sure of it) and I can rat in a group big enough to overwhelm those few ships.

The difference is that 248 ships can jump into system at any point in time in 0.0 and it is unreasonable to ask everyone to rat in groups of 300 Roll
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#113 - 2013-08-20 20:28:56 UTC
Sigras wrote:
The difference is that 248 ships can jump into system at any point in time in 0.0 and it is unreasonable to ask everyone to rat in groups of 300 Roll

You make good points, but this last one is generally over stated.

If anything, it implies the nature of local to be aiding the cyno dropper exclusively on this aspect.

The hot dropper knows if you have fleets in system, thanks to local, and they can pick and choose when to open up for a fleet to come through. A fleet that local does not report size to you in advance, like that cyno pilot knows about your defenses.

And, as others have argued in the past, you can always have a defensive cyno on standby, allowing you to flash deploy to any sudden hotspot, just like they are trying to jump on that gank.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Yeep
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#114 - 2013-08-20 21:00:36 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:

Ships are at risk in null only because that is how they are being flown.
If a pilot is careless, they have risk.


So you think that no matter how much effort a pilot puts in (or outsources to other pilots) they should never be completely safe in 0.0 because of some bizzarre small gang pvp welfare system?
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#115 - 2013-08-20 21:10:34 UTC
Yeep wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:

Ships are at risk in null only because that is how they are being flown.
If a pilot is careless, they have risk.


So you think that no matter how much effort a pilot puts in (or outsources to other pilots) they should never be completely safe in 0.0 because of some bizzarre small gang pvp welfare system?

Being completely safe?

I would rather have a mechanic where opposing efforts determined the outcome. Then you are playing against another player.

The current version has a default contest, where you must react within a certain time after seeing a new hostile name appear.
If you meet this requirement, nothing a hostile player does can stop you from evading him.

If you go to the trouble of learning this intel, for example, rather than having it on a silver platter for free, I would salute you and say well played.
You could be d-scanning a gate, keeping current on an intel channel, or even have a cloaky alt watching the gate for activations.
(Said alt could be reporting to that intel channel too)

That hunting pilot would not know you were present till he scanned you down either, so you have an opportunity to work here. If they use probes, spotting probes on a scan is a screaming alarm for trouble.

Who would make more effort? That would translate to who won that encounter.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Sigras
Conglomo
#116 - 2013-08-20 23:16:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Sigras
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Yeep wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:

Ships are at risk in null only because that is how they are being flown.
If a pilot is careless, they have risk.


So you think that no matter how much effort a pilot puts in (or outsources to other pilots) they should never be completely safe in 0.0 because of some bizzarre small gang pvp welfare system?

Being completely safe?

I would rather have a mechanic where opposing efforts determined the outcome. Then you are playing against another player.

The current version has a default contest, where you must react within a certain time after seeing a new hostile name appear.
If you meet this requirement, nothing a hostile player does can stop you from evading him.

If you go to the trouble of learning this intel, for example, rather than having it on a silver platter for free, I would salute you and say well played.
You could be d-scanning a gate, keeping current on an intel channel, or even have a cloaky alt watching the gate for activations.
(Said alt could be reporting to that intel channel too)

That hunting pilot would not know you were present till he scanned you down either, so you have an opportunity to work here. If they use probes, spotting probes on a scan is a screaming alarm for trouble.

Who would make more effort? That would translate to who won that encounter.

There are a few problems with this approach:

1. It encourages use of a bad game mechanic - the directional scanner. Since there is no reason not to use the D-scanner, it isnt a strategic decision and it might as well be automated. It doesnt measure skill so much as how long you're willing to sit there and mindlessly spam a button for hours on end.
2. cloaked ships dont show up on scan so now it just comes down to luck if they happen to be clicking the scan button in the 0.5 seconds it takes you to move and cloak.
3. There are other ways to enter a system other than just through the gates.
4. This does not encourage player interaction, it just encourages people to have more alts, which is not what we need in the game. Sitting on a gate doing nothing is not fun nor is it active, so its the perfect job for alts. 0.0 is already kinda an alt fest, we dont want to encourage that kind of gameplay.
5. People go ratting for hours on end, and must maintain their vigilance constantly, whereas the aggressors have the initiative advantage. This means that the aggressors should have to put forth MORE effort to counteract the effort put out by the ratters on a consistent basis.

Im sorry I dont have suggestions only problems to point out but this is a really tough problem.
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#117 - 2013-08-20 23:16:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Scatim Helicon
Nick, what you describe is not nullsec being 'safer'. What you're seeing is the phenomenon of Risk Compensation, where the additional safety nets present in highsec causes highsec residents to disregard the self protection measures that nullsec inhabitants adopt as second nature (watching local and intel channels, ratting aligned, bookmarking safe POSs, fitting cloaks, eliminating the scrambling rats first).

Claiming that highsec is more dangerous than nullsec because the occasional missioner gets their deadspace Navy Raven suicide ganked just makes you look silly.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#118 - 2013-08-21 13:26:11 UTC
Sigras wrote:
There are a few problems with this approach:

1. It encourages use of a bad game mechanic - the directional scanner. Since there is no reason not to use the D-scanner, it isnt a strategic decision and it might as well be automated. It doesnt measure skill so much as how long you're willing to sit there and mindlessly spam a button for hours on end.
2. cloaked ships dont show up on scan so now it just comes down to luck if they happen to be clicking the scan button in the 0.5 seconds it takes you to move and cloak.
3. There are other ways to enter a system other than just through the gates.
4. This does not encourage player interaction, it just encourages people to have more alts, which is not what we need in the game. Sitting on a gate doing nothing is not fun nor is it active, so its the perfect job for alts. 0.0 is already kinda an alt fest, we dont want to encourage that kind of gameplay.
5. People go ratting for hours on end, and must maintain their vigilance constantly, whereas the aggressors have the initiative advantage. This means that the aggressors should have to put forth MORE effort to counteract the effort put out by the ratters on a consistent basis.

Im sorry I dont have suggestions only problems to point out but this is a really tough problem.

1. The directional scanner is too obvious an aspect to not also be changed, in the event local is changed.
Seriously, that is way too obvious to miss.
I even have a thread regarding this, where it suggests details, and points out how different ships will have different scan capabilities balanced into them.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=112964&find=unread

2. Cloaked ships would show up on scan if they were looked for. This is another too obvious to miss aspect, that cloaking will remain undetectable after a local change.
The second link in my sig explains what I consider to be the most balanced possible way to hunt them, in the event local changes.

3. Of course there are. Given the effort and challenges balanced into them, how easy they are to detect will be an obvious consideration point.

4. Player interaction, is, and always will be, beyond the ability of game designers to control. The most you can do is design needs that a single character cannot fill by themselves.
Suggesting interaction can be engineered has proven constantly unreliable at best.

5. People ratting for hours on end can make strategies for what to do, have POS's and Outposts prepared, make bookmarks to deep safes, and of course talk to each other over intel channels.
The hostile rushing in, as you pointed out, has no need to make any of these preparations, and neither do they get any of the benefits from them.
They are blind, have no intel beyond historic statistics, and do not know any details about current disposition of forces.
Unless you are sitting at a gate, or a highly obvious location, they have to scan or possibly even probe for you. And they have no way of even knowing if ANYONE is even present to be found.
So they will stop, at a point of expected diminishing returns, and move to the next likely system. If they don't, that next system is safe from them.
If they do move on, and you were able to avoid them, you are now safe from them.
You can't fool them like this if Local just plain tells them when you are there to be found. That dumbs down the game by denying any chance of escape by deception previously described.

There are two sides to everything, and if you see only one side, you never see the whole picture.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#119 - 2013-08-21 13:32:56 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Nick, what you describe is not nullsec being 'safer'. What you're seeing is the phenomenon of Risk Compensation, where the additional safety nets present in highsec causes highsec residents to disregard the self protection measures that nullsec inhabitants adopt as second nature (watching local and intel channels, ratting aligned, bookmarking safe POSs, fitting cloaks, eliminating the scrambling rats first).

Claiming that highsec is more dangerous than nullsec because the occasional missioner gets their deadspace Navy Raven suicide ganked just makes you look silly.

And yet each point cannot be disputed.

It is neither reasonable or practical to even try to use local for the avoidance of every non blue pilot in high sec. The population is simply too heavy for this tactic.

If you cannot avoid neutral pilots, then you cannot avoid the pilots who you do not know. These ALL fit into one of three categories:
Not a threat
Spy for those who are a threat
Direct threat, a suicide ganker who will strike if the evaluate the cost benefit ratio in killing you works in their favor.

In sov null, you can avoid all three types, and many players always chose to do so there. Local plus simple planning gives a foolproof method to avoid risk, and only pilot error can break this.

The fact that many pilots make mistakes, is hardly evidence of good design or planning. It reflects more an aspect of overconfidence and or carelessness.
There are many pilots who simply are too cautious, and don't get caught as a result.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Sigras
Conglomo
#120 - 2013-08-21 19:57:15 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
The fact that many pilots make mistakes, is hardly evidence of good design or planning. It reflects more an aspect of overconfidence and or carelessness.
There are many pilots who simply are too cautious, and don't get caught as a result.

I think this is where we differ in opinion . . . I believe that the super cautious should be rewarded for their effort and never get caught.

Now I also believe that it is currently too easy to be "super cautious" right now, so I think a change is in order, but not one that allows everyone no matter how cautious they are to be caught, and not one that relies on luck or cat like reflexes and speed to avoid a gank.

Again consider my earlier example:(please note I am NOT suggesting this as a good system)

You drop probes with a 5 AU radius that puts everyone in range into local as it is now but expire every half hour. This would be a system that can provide infallible results but is still based on effort.

If you wanted to change the amount of effort needed, you could change the radius to 1 AU which would make it basically impossible to cover the entire system and might be a little excessive, but someone who went through all the work to keep their probes refreshed all the time, and found all the correct safe spots to perfectly cover their whole system should be rewarded by having the security they worked so freaking hard for.

To counter them, I would make them beacons in space so you could use your solar system map if you were a ganker, and find maybe a hole in their probe net to sit in while you find them thus the effort you put into finding them could counter the effort they put in to making their probe net. The better their probe net, the more effort they put in the harder it would be for you to find a hole to sit in.

Again this is a VERY rough idea and Im not sure I even like it at all, but its just an example of how the super cautious could still be safe while raising the bar on what it takes to be super cautious.