These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Local & Null: Why hasn't this been accomplished?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2011-12-26 23:53:05 UTC
It could be implemented at a test in a specific region(s).

Don't ban me, bro!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2011-12-27 00:00:29 UTC
Mr Kidd wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:

Personally I predict that if we're seeing any changes, it'll be some sort of shootable module which allows system owners to select who gets access to the information of who's in system.


If that's how it's to play out than I don't see any reason to remove local. I'm a big believer in balance. Removing local and making it accessible only to inhabitants actually makes it safer for the owners since noone else can "know" who is in system. As you've envisioned that change it's a huge imbalance.

Personally I see no real reason to make any changes at all, but I suspect that if CCP were to do any changes, it'd be something which makes sense, i.e. make local disappear until someone puts up a intelligence module, effectively giving inhabitants/owners/friends a "defenders' privilege" which could be easily circumvented by shooting up the module, making everyone "equally" blind again.

But as said, I see no real reason to fiddle with it. The risk/reward balance is a precarious thing, and personally I'd rather allure more people out into nullsec, than drive them out.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Valei Khurelem
#23 - 2011-12-27 03:09:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Valei Khurelem
Danika Princip wrote:
Valei Khurelem wrote:
Seleia O'Sinnor wrote:
Because bots would have a hard time to survive without local.

No really, I'd like to see local removed(put into delayed mode) for all k-space. There's far too much free intel in this game.


There is, we just need to get CCP to ignore all the 0.0 alliances in CSM who will cry about it because they won't be able to gank anyone easily anymore.



Yes. What we need to do is make sweeping changes to something, while totally ignoring the people who actually know about said thing! brilliant!

What are you, a politician?


The reason they don't want local changed is precisely because they know exactly how the game mechanic works, they know if it is removed then they will be put a disadvantage, that is also why you see them crying about people staying in high security space away from them and their gank fleets, it disadvantages them. Another thing I find hilarious is people pointing out blatant exploits and them saying to shut up and live with it as if they're somehow entitled to abuse the crap out of the game unfairly and everyone else deserves to suffer, that's the kind of thing that ends up killing a player base more than micro-transactions.

It's hardly a sweeping change either, it makes no difference to ship or skill stats and considering it will make 0.0 alliances think more carefully about how they operate in systems they own and about gatecamping then that's only a good thing.

"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
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#24 - 2011-12-27 03:45:54 UTC
Mr Kidd wrote:
It could be implemented at a test in a specific region(s).

just make some w-space 'unstable wormholes' perma-stable.
Perfect simulator.
Jaigar
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#25 - 2011-12-27 05:01:06 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Mr Kidd wrote:
It could be implemented at a test in a specific region(s).

just make some w-space 'unstable wormholes' perma-stable.
Perfect simulator.

Theres too many things that make W-Space drasticly different from K-Space.
The first and major one is the importance of your pod escaping. If someone is invading your system and you get podded, there no virtually no way you can get back into your system to defend it; podding is incredibly important in W-Space because of this.
Another issue is contending with mass limits. Some fleets will sit heavy so they can control the hole and force a fight or force others on the other side to flee.

They need an alternate intel system to local is all; hell, they further nerfed W-Space intel and most don't even care. The mentality in W-Space is completely different and both sides need to understand that.
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2011-12-27 12:23:08 UTC
Jaigar wrote:

They need an alternate intel system to local is all; hell, they further nerfed W-Space intel and most don't even care. The mentality in W-Space is completely different and both sides need to understand that.



Before I went to w-space to live I some times went into nullsec to see if I could find some PVP to learn from. What I learned was, unless you want to be blobbed then don't go there on your own. It's local that gives your presence away. And while it works for both the foreign player and the inhabitants, the inhabitants have the upper hand as in most cases they're capable of camping all your exits out of the system and even most celestials which I've witnessed first hand. I've also been there is recent times watching local go from +5 to 1 upon my arrival.

I guess my motivation for asking about the null local change is to see where it stands on the planning and implementation white board at CCP, that I would love to hunt there. But local just gives any advantage that a lone player, a gang or even a large fleet has unless the large fleet out numbers the local fleet. I think you null guys would have more fun without local and rely less on blob tactics. I mean, the blob will always have its place. It would just lose some of its effectiveness in certain situations.

Don't ban me, bro!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2011-12-27 12:55:39 UTC
The problem with changing local is, the guys in null who PVP won't care much as they're going to/from a system with a specific activity in mind, and they're prepared for PVP. What the change would affect the most, however, is those who aren't in space in null to PVP, but to make isk for whatever reason (pay for more PVP ships, or just to hoard ISK).

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

RIP Vile Rat
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#28 - 2011-12-27 13:55:36 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
The problem with changing local is, the guys in null who PVP won't care much as they're going to/from a system with a specific activity in mind, and they're prepared for PVP. What the change would affect the most, however, is those who aren't in space in null to PVP, but to make isk for whatever reason (pay for more PVP ships, or just to hoard ISK).


There should be an inherent risk with regards to null space as there is in all Eve, should there not?

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2011-12-27 14:12:34 UTC
Ingvar Angst wrote:
There should be an inherent risk with regards to null space as there is in all Eve, should there not?

So you mean I can just park any ship anywhere in a system, and it'll never get ganked?

And here I thought we had to be vigilant to avoid ganks out in nullsec. Shucks, I've been misled.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#30 - 2011-12-27 14:20:45 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:
There should be an inherent risk with regards to null space as there is in all Eve, should there not?

So you mean I can just park any ship anywhere in a system, and it'll never get ganked?

And here I thought we had to be vigilant to avoid ganks out in nullsec. Shucks, I've been misled.


Nice dodge.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Torin Corax
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#31 - 2011-12-27 14:32:17 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:
There should be an inherent risk with regards to null space as there is in all Eve, should there not?

So you mean I can just park any ship anywhere in a system, and it'll never get ganked?

And here I thought we had to be vigilant to avoid ganks out in nullsec. Shucks, I've been misled.


This is not a particularly good idea in high sec either, especially if you choose to park your ship in an ice belt....or one of the gates around jita.

Just sayin' Blink
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2011-12-27 14:46:47 UTC
Torin Corax wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:
There should be an inherent risk with regards to null space as there is in all Eve, should there not?

So you mean I can just park any ship anywhere in a system, and it'll never get ganked?

And here I thought we had to be vigilant to avoid ganks out in nullsec. Shucks, I've been misled.


This is not a particularly good idea in high sec either, especially if you choose to park your ship in an ice belt....or one of the gates around jita.

Just sayin' Blink

Funny, I've done that tons of times, with freighters filled to the brim with PI stuff.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2011-12-27 14:55:40 UTC
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:
There should be an inherent risk with regards to null space as there is in all Eve, should there not?

So you mean I can just park any ship anywhere in a system, and it'll never get ganked?

And here I thought we had to be vigilant to avoid ganks out in nullsec. Shucks, I've been misled.


Nice dodge.

You're the one saying it's perfectly safe. If I can park any ship (even a velator) in any system in, say, deklein, without a cloak module fitted, and expect to come back to that ship in 10 hours time, then I'll concede that it's perfectly safe.

Or would you like to qualify your definition of perfectly safe?

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

RIP Vile Rat
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#34 - 2011-12-27 15:36:15 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:
There should be an inherent risk with regards to null space as there is in all Eve, should there not?

So you mean I can just park any ship anywhere in a system, and it'll never get ganked?

And here I thought we had to be vigilant to avoid ganks out in nullsec. Shucks, I've been misled.


Nice dodge.

You're the one saying it's perfectly safe. If I can park any ship (even a velator) in any system in, say, deklein, without a cloak module fitted, and expect to come back to that ship in 10 hours time, then I'll concede that it's perfectly safe.

Or would you like to qualify your definition of perfectly safe?


You'll have to link to me where I used "perfectly". It's certainly already extremely low risk due primarily to local giving away everyone's presence the moment they jump into a system. Supporting concepts such as probes that can detect cloaked vessels. etc. adds even greater safety to the system, which seems to be the opposite of what null sec should be.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2011-12-27 16:05:17 UTC
Ingvar Angst wrote:
You'll have to link to me where I used "perfectly".

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=572291#post572291

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

RIP Vile Rat
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#36 - 2011-12-27 16:07:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Jaigar wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Mr Kidd wrote:
It could be implemented at a test in a specific region(s).

just make some w-space 'unstable wormholes' perma-stable.
Perfect simulator.

Theres too many things that make W-Space drasticly different from K-Space.
The first and major one is the importance of your pod escaping. If someone is invading your system and you get podded, there no virtually no way you can get back into your system to defend it; podding is incredibly important in W-Space because of this.
Another issue is contending with mass limits. Some fleets will sit heavy so they can control the hole and force a fight or force others on the other side to flee.

Making wormholes in this test region 'stable' solves this, after mapping out the location of non-collapsible entry points both attacker and defender in whs can see the fun of no-local + static routes. All they'd need is frigs to pop up and cyno stuff in and we're set for the null no-local test.

I mean, here you guys were just crowing about what a great idea this was.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2011-12-27 16:14:29 UTC
It has come up that nullsec (and possibly lowsec as well) did lose local for a while. Apparently the effect was that everything shut down. If you're going to get a proper result, then I think you'll have to do this for an extended period of time, say a few months or more.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#38 - 2011-12-27 16:39:23 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:

Making wormholes in this test region 'stable' solves this, after mapping out the location of non-collapsible entry points both attacker and defender in whs can see the fun of no-local + static routes. All they'd need is frigs to pop up and cyno stuff in and we're set for the null no-local test.

I mean, here you guys were just crowing about what a great idea this was.


Ugh... what a horrble idea. Stable wormholes would really screw wormhole living up big time. One aspect that's critically important to wormhole survival is the changing static. Statics are often used for farming, for finding routes out to empire, etc. Having a stable wormhole would mean someone along the chain could potentially shut down all holes that are above the chain by denying them access to ice fuels.

Wormholes would be the absolute worst place to test something of this nature.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Previous page12