These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Local chat and cloaking... a Three Point Plan

Author
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#41 - 2011-12-30 23:33:29 UTC
Drake Draconis wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Drake Draconis wrote:
What is this 93% figure you keep mentioning? Where is this? What proof do you have?

....


Check the QENs

About 7% percent of players decide to go live in no local worm holes. If my figure are accurate will you agree that it is a bad Idea to force this on everyone?


Also your saying you would keep local in low sec and high sec?



Epic Fail.

93% != 0.0 Space Population.

Try again....your seriously reaching at this point.

Care Bears Care Bear in High Sec.

Removnig Local from 0.0 wouldn't be that bad...just makes it more challenging to watch your back. Even then...every bloody attempt to change cloaking mechancis ends up being ignored or rejected...so I'm likely wasting my time to be quiet honest.

So yeah I'm done with this thread...enjoy slugging it out with the dead horse.



You are completely incoherent at this point. Are you saying 93% of eve is in null sec???

93% of players choose to play where there is a local. 7% choose to play where there is no local. You want the whole game to be the way the 7% prefer.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#42 - 2011-12-30 23:43:08 UTC
Feligast wrote:
I, too, want to be forced to load all the portraits for everyone in the constellation every time I decloak.

Isn't that done in a separate thread? I don't think I've noticed it impact the client much.

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

RIP Vile Rat

Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#43 - 2011-12-31 00:26:37 UTC
Cearain wrote:

93% of players choose to play where there is a local. 7% choose to play where there is no local. You want the whole game to be the way the 7% prefer.


Enough with the statistical shenanigans.

Percentage of Characters does not equal percentage of Players. There are 3 characters per account and a very large number of players have multiple accounts.

There's some seriously faulty logic going on here by some to justify the status quo. Just because players choose to make ISK in High Sec does not mean they want EVE to keep risk/PvP free PvE. I think Local Chat Intel is terrible game mechanics, but I take full advantage of it all the same. All players except perhaps the most dedicated roleplayers choose the path that will lead to the greatest reward and advantage.

Rambling on about how only 7% of characters spend time in Worm Holes is some indication that Local Chat intel removal is unpopular is also faulty as there's more differences between Wormhole space and the rest than simple delayed Local.

And Zim talking about High Sec Incursions being some critical training ground for group flying, completely ignores that players have been doing that fine in EVE for several years prior to PvE Raids in the form of Incursions.

ALL risk free PvEing needs a massive nerf, buffing Null anomalies while leaving Local and continuing Incursions in High Sec is hardly the answer.

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2011-12-31 00:51:22 UTC
Xorv wrote:
And Zim talking about High Sec Incursions being some critical training ground for group flying, completely ignores that players have been doing that fine in EVE for several years prior to PvE Raids in the form of Incursions.

What other hisec PVE activity requires the same level of coordination between a bunch of players in this game?

Xorv wrote:
ALL risk free PvEing needs a massive nerf, buffing Null anomalies while leaving Local and continuing Incursions in High Sec is hardly the answer.

Nullsec PVEing is hardly "risk free".

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

RIP Vile Rat

Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#45 - 2011-12-31 02:18:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Xorv
Lord Zim wrote:

What other hisec PVE activity requires the same level of coordination between a bunch of players in this game?

So the more people we coordinate with is now going to be the measuring stick of how much ISK we should make? Seems largely irrelevant to me.

Lord Zim wrote:
Nullsec PVEing is hardly "risk free".

No I suppose there is some risk if your both careless enough to do it AFK and honest enough not to be botting. The danger of Null sec is only in traveling via gates, a risk virtually eliminated by being part of one of the big alliances and staying in home territory.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#46 - 2011-12-31 03:39:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
Xorv wrote:
Cearain wrote:

93% of players choose to play where there is a local. 7% choose to play where there is no local. You want the whole game to be the way the 7% prefer.


Enough with the statistical shenanigans.

Percentage of Characters does not equal percentage of Players. There are 3 characters per account and a very large number of players have multiple accounts.

There's some seriously faulty logic going on here by some to justify the status quo. Just because players choose to make ISK in High Sec does not mean they want EVE to keep risk/PvP free PvE. I think Local Chat Intel is terrible game mechanics, but I take full advantage of it all the same. All players except perhaps the most dedicated roleplayers choose the path that will lead to the greatest reward and advantage.

Rambling on about how only 7% of characters spend time in Worm Holes is some indication that Local Chat intel removal is unpopular is also faulty as there's more differences between Wormhole space and the rest than simple delayed Local.

And Zim talking about High Sec Incursions being some critical training ground for group flying, completely ignores that players have been doing that fine in EVE for several years prior to PvE Raids in the form of Incursions.

ALL risk free PvEing needs a massive nerf, buffing Null anomalies while leaving Local and continuing Incursions in High Sec is hardly the answer.



You are right about the high sec numbers being inflated. But its unclear that wormholes numbers are deflated. Many wormhole players keep at least one alt in their wormhole just incase they get podded right?

So while the high sec numbers are very likely inflated and the null sec and low sec numbers are deflated its unclear whether the wormhole numbers are deflated or inflated due to that extra alt being kept there. Sure maybe not everyone in the corp has an alt there but many will.

The biggest difference between empire and wormholes is the lack of local. Yes wormholes need to be scanned but that is not a big deal. The fact that wormholes can close and bounce you on another side of the universe is a pretty big deal too but you can see if its about to close.

The biggest difference is the no local so you have no way to tell what sort of numbers you may be up against. Going into a place with no local for pvp is just begging to get blobbed. But if wormholes had local many more people would go there for pvp.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#47 - 2011-12-31 06:49:37 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Drake Draconis wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Drake Draconis wrote:
What is this 93% figure you keep mentioning? Where is this? What proof do you have?

....


Check the QENs

About 7% percent of players decide to go live in no local worm holes. If my figure are accurate will you agree that it is a bad Idea to force this on everyone?


Also your saying you would keep local in low sec and high sec?



Epic Fail.

93% != 0.0 Space Population.

Try again....your seriously reaching at this point.

Care Bears Care Bear in High Sec.

Removnig Local from 0.0 wouldn't be that bad...just makes it more challenging to watch your back. Even then...every bloody attempt to change cloaking mechancis ends up being ignored or rejected...so I'm likely wasting my time to be quiet honest.

So yeah I'm done with this thread...enjoy slugging it out with the dead horse.



You are completely incoherent at this point. Are you saying 93% of eve is in null sec???

93% of players choose to play where there is a local. 7% choose to play where there is no local. You want the whole game to be the way the 7% prefer.


You seem to be under the illusion that people choose to play in empire or wormholes based on the presence or absence of local. People aren't in empire because of local or in wormholes because of the absence of local.

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

Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#48 - 2011-12-31 06:52:42 UTC
Cearain wrote:


The biggest difference is the no local so you have no way to tell what sort of numbers you may be up against. Going into a place with no local for pvp is just begging to get blobbed. But if wormholes had local many more people would go there for pvp.


Please. If wormholes had local PvP would be decimated. It would be impossible to plan any types of ops covertly. People would dock up at the first sign of a stranger. It would suck the life out of wormholes altogether. It would become as safe as high sec sadly.

Fortunately nothing that stupid would ever happen.

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

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#49 - 2011-12-31 09:18:41 UTC
Xorv wrote:
So the more people we coordinate with is now going to be the measuring stick of how much ISK we should make? Seems largely irrelevant to me.

Are you naturally this thickheaded, or are you just trolling? It's almost like I haven't said that hisec incursions could easily do with a nerf to payouts, and the only thing I'm definitely arguing against is the complete removal of hisec incursions.

Xorv wrote:
No I suppose there is some risk if your both careless enough to do it AFK and honest enough not to be botting. The danger of Null sec is only in traveling via gates, a risk virtually eliminated by being part of one of the big alliances and staying in home territory.

Doesn't even need to do it AFK to lose a ship, all it takes is not watching the intel channels, and a few seconds of not noticing reds/neuts in local, if you're unlucky.

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

RIP Vile Rat

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2011-12-31 09:21:42 UTC
Ingvar Angst wrote:
It would become as safe as high sec sadly.

Unless you can reliably stick an empty velator anywhere in a system over an extended period of time, and not get podded, then it's not going to be as safe as hisec. Safer than now, yes, but not as safe as hisec, that's taking it too far.

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

RIP Vile Rat

L Salander
All Web Investigations
#51 - 2011-12-31 12:31:18 UTC
CynoNet Two wrote:

c) Introduce at least one method for identifying or forcibly decloaking any cloaked ships. I'm keeping this intentionally vague as it will be a key balance issue, but possible methods include:


No, this is a terrible idea and if there was a -1 option I'd be hammering that. The tears over cloaks is ridiculous, it doesn't need a "counter" because it counters itself by making the pilot incapable of actually doing anything.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2011-12-31 13:48:58 UTC
L Salander wrote:
because it counters itself by making the pilot incapable of actually doing anything.

Except it doesn't prevent them from running around and choosing juicy targets, which is a fairly nice advantage to have.

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

RIP Vile Rat

Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#53 - 2011-12-31 14:35:04 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
L Salander wrote:
because it counters itself by making the pilot incapable of actually doing anything.

Except it doesn't prevent them from running around and choosing juicy targets, which is a fairly nice advantage to have.


Which could be why you have to train cloaking to IV and fly special ships to do it.

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

Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#54 - 2011-12-31 14:38:45 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:
It would become as safe as high sec sadly.

Unless you can reliably stick an empty velator anywhere in a system over an extended period of time, and not get podded, then it's not going to be as safe as hisec. Safer than now, yes, but not as safe as hisec, that's taking it too far.


The only reason you can do that in high sec is basically because no one cares about a free noob ship floating around out there. It's not worth getting Concordokken over. In a wormhole, that's a target of opportunity... either someone that doesn't belong there or someone that you want to remove for control purposes.

Although, with those damnable cloak breaking probes, you probably could leave a velator parked somewhere as long as you had people manning the probes (would become required) and keeping the cloakie on the run if one should show up.

So yeah... those probes would effectively make wormholes nearly as safe as high sec.

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

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#55 - 2011-12-31 14:56:24 UTC
Ingvar Angst wrote:
So yeah... those probes would effectively make wormholes nearly as safe as high sec.

No. It'd still be more dangerous than nullsec.

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

RIP Vile Rat

Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#56 - 2011-12-31 15:12:55 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:
So yeah... those probes would effectively make wormholes nearly as safe as high sec.

No. It'd still be more dangerous than nullsec.


Nearly as safe as high sec and more dangerous than null sec.

You seem to be coming around that null sec is already safe enough without nerfing it further by breaking cloaks. It's already quite clear that being able to scan down a cloaked vessel would make wormholes incredibly safe places to live... no one would ever have a chance to be in a hole long enough to hunt a random target, gather intel in preparation for an op, anything. Wormhole PvP would die.

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

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#57 - 2011-12-31 15:20:53 UTC
It's WH > Nullsec > Lowsec > Hisec. There's no way WHs can get even close to hisec by that minor change.

As to cloaks, I'd find it hilarious if cloaks consumed some sort of fuel if just to make staying cloaked in a single system for a few days in a row actually require effort, but I'm way more interested in shooting down awful suggestions that'd completely **** over the precarious balance that determines the nullsec population.

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

RIP Vile Rat

Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#58 - 2011-12-31 15:30:58 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
It's WH > Nullsec > Lowsec > Hisec. There's no way WHs can get even close to hisec by that minor change.

As to cloaks, I'd find it hilarious if cloaks consumed some sort of fuel if just to make staying cloaked in a single system for a few days in a row actually require effort, but I'm way more interested in shooting down awful suggestions that'd completely **** over the precarious balance that determines the nullsec population.


Minor? MINOR? You really need to start paying attention or at least learning the game a little before you go blathering on about things.

Let's state it again, not that you'll actually pay attention.

If you could scan cloaked ships down with probes, for example, these would become required items in wormholes. It would become one of the first things you do when logging on, when anything is happening, etc. to have these probes out looking for cloaked vessels... much like it's common practice to keep a skynet of probes out looking for new K162s that may appear. So, what's this mean? If someone comes (or is in) your hole cloaked, you get a ping that there's a cloaked ship somewhere.

The relentless hunting begins.

You begin to attempt to scan him down continually, and if you're trying to protect your hole you never stop until he's either caught or leaves, period. You coordinate with someone else (if required) who has combats out in case he logs... you go for the quick hit and kill. It would become impossible to be in a hole with the intent of preparing for an invasion, for example... you couldn't stay in there to scan the opening for a fleet... you couldn't park off the pos and gather intel. It would become ungodly easy to lock the system down to any unwanted visitors that you would decimate wormhole PvP, completely breaking the system.

Odds are that you won't admit to understanding this... Goons troll after all. If that's you're game you're playing it well btw. But... others understand. CCP certainly does as well.

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

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#59 - 2011-12-31 15:52:17 UTC
Sigh. It's a minor change, just like "remove local" or "remove cloaked ships from local" is a minor change. It's not something CCP could spend months on implementing, unless they're totally hopelessly incompetent.

I know perfectly well what the impact of that change is, and it's still not getting anywhere near hisec-safe.

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

RIP Vile Rat

Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#60 - 2011-12-31 20:31:40 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Sigh. It's a minor change, just like "remove local" or "remove cloaked ships from local" is a minor change. It's not something CCP could spend months on implementing, unless they're totally hopelessly incompetent.

I know perfectly well what the impact of that change is, and it's still not getting anywhere near hisec-safe.


I do not think you know what you think you know.

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