These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sandslinger
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#521 - 2012-11-02 12:27:06 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Mirima Thurander wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
anyways, reading this little blog:

http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=3235
Null Sec
PVP: 7,061,988
PVE: 568,353
Total: 7,630,341

Wormhole Space

PVP: 377,786
PVE: 162,126
Total: 539,912


so wormholes have 1/4 of the population of 0.0 but 1/20th of the PvP action
and certain members start threads about other secstatus places being too safe

how embarassing


Your over looking that's the the nature of whs that make it safer. Not the lack of local.

I'm not overlooking it, I remember the giant threadnaughts in response to the idea of a 'wormhole stabilizer' module. You know, an aspect of 0.0 treated as a given that allegedly would 'kill w-space'. It's no mystery to me why the average wormholer is only a quarter as likely to be shot by another player as a 0.0 player. The chestbeating on the other hand, that is the mystery.



Not sure where your getting 1/4th of the population from. I can count about 1500 active pvp players in the alliances and corps that are pvp focused.

All of those spend a lot of time using wh to pvp in anyways. seeing as well variety is what keeps the game alive and wormholes aren't very highly populated, no matter what your 1/4th number says

The rest of the inhabitants of wh are a vast number of alts of 0,0 corps + random scrubs of course that the pvp alliances spends vast time and resources in constantly removing. A failed fight as those corps do not put assets in wormhole space beyond the capitals they log off in after running sites anyways.

The wormhole stabilizer would help in killing off the proper pvp alliances who can't withstand the capital fleets of any single of the 0,0 alliances that are vastly larger while it wouldn't do anything to remove the rest who just log off for 2 weeks and then start up again.

As to my personal opinion I think local in highsec should be something alliances has to pay to be able to get but then it would work both ways. Very expensive to maintain perhaps even running on moon minerals like technetium =) so limited to a few systems only.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#522 - 2012-11-02 13:00:27 UTC
I'd like if local in nullsec was something that was upgradeable - you start with wormhole style local, but can upgrade it to say a constellation wide local, and eventually up to the current level. You'd be able to have your tool for the very important systems, but some of the less interesting or populated areas wouldn't have local (or not have it as powerful as it is now)
Desert Ice78
Gryphons of the Western Wind
#523 - 2012-11-02 13:18:29 UTC
Mirima Thurander wrote:
You cry for more targets but then will not remove your greatest foe LOCAL chat.


Who was crying for more targets?

Mirima Thurander wrote:

You have probes, combat probes, deep space probes, and D-Scan.


And what is your point? I do plenty of exploration.

Actually, I'm too busy right now trying to keep up with the target calling from my FC; 200 malestroms is a hell of a lot of ships to shoot. You run back to hi-sec and call me again when you have something interesting to tell me.


I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg

CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused.
Klymer
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#524 - 2012-11-02 14:23:21 UTC
Mirima Thurander wrote:
You cry for more targets but then will not remove your greatest foe LOCAL chat.

Some want it removed. It most like it for its ease of Intel gathering.

And now to the main point.

How can u be such a Carebear and need ccp to keep local so you feel safe. Knowing you have your instant intel ever time you jump in system.


And dont even say if there was only a better way to get intel.

You have probes, combat probes, deep space probes, and D-Scan.
If you dont know how they work ask Your wh dwelling friends about there combat scanning.

Local is the tool of the weak minded sheep of null sec. You should be ashamed of your self.

EDIT 10-24-12. I looked at your complaints and have had an idea.



OK i looked at the biggest complain of the null sec people and have come up with a fair deal.
We change local to work like WHs, and add a readout of the number of players in system to the ui,
Now you can still tell if theres a large fleet in your space, u can still tell if theres targets in system, and small gangs and solo pilots still have the chance to slip between the cracks.

If thats not a fair enough deal for u them your just a carebear living in null that likes your local.


wat? I thought the point of removing local was MOAR PVP!!! not slip through the cracks. I've been kind or keeping an eye on this threadnaught but now I see it's a complete joke. I am Jacks utter disappointment.
Karrl Tian
Doomheim
#525 - 2012-11-02 14:43:14 UTC
I remember reading that CCP planned to change local and introduce new intel tools. But the article also said this was part of fully implementing incarna (probably wanted to make our avatar pictures 3-D or something like highlighting our monocles), so, probably not going to happen.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#526 - 2012-11-02 15:07:38 UTC
Klymer wrote:
wat? I thought the point of removing local was MOAR PVP!!! not slip through the cracks. I've been kind or keeping an eye on this threadnaught but now I see it's a complete joke. I am Jacks utter disappointment.

Anyone saying they want local removed because it will promote so much more PVP have either absolutely no idea how it'll actually impact the players, or they've gotten kicked out of nullsec and just want to hurt them back.

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

RIP Vile Rat
JackknifedII
The Congregation
RAPID HEAVY ROPERS
#527 - 2012-11-02 16:49:52 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
JackknifedII wrote:
there is something that everyone who complains about local is forgetting, even in null sec. Stargates. Since you cannot sneak into a system without using the stargates, its impossible (in game) to enter or leave a system without your presence being logged automatically.
You've got wormholes, and you've got logging off and logging back in the day after, which is why I keep talking about having to have a ton of alts spread out in system, d-scanning constantly, to notice when hostiles log back in.


I don't know if you quote mined on purpose, missing out my specific mention of wormholes as to why they are different to normal space....

Good job though. It's not often someone takes a written statement that can be seen by everyone, and completly change it's meaning and intention on the same page.

*Insert golf clap*

Minmatar....we are generally unpleasant to be around....

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC81MDW6dFa41VdNTt-pTl1Q

Always recruiting
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#528 - 2012-11-02 16:52:44 UTC
I love how something I said on the first page is still relevant 26 pages later.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Klymer
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#529 - 2012-11-02 17:12:47 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Klymer wrote:
wat? I thought the point of removing local was MOAR PVP!!! not slip through the cracks. I've been kind or keeping an eye on this threadnaught but now I see it's a complete joke. I am Jacks utter disappointment.

Anyone saying they want local removed because it will promote so much more PVP have either absolutely no idea how it'll actually impact the players, or they've gotten kicked out of nullsec and just want to hurt them back.


I thought the sarcasm was detectible, guess not.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#530 - 2012-11-02 17:46:26 UTC
Sandslinger wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:

I'm not overlooking it, I remember the giant threadnaughts in response to the idea of a 'wormhole stabilizer' module. You know, an aspect of 0.0 treated as a given that allegedly would 'kill w-space'. It's no mystery to me why the average wormholer is only a quarter as likely to be shot by another player as a 0.0 player. The chestbeating on the other hand, that is the mystery.



Not sure where your getting 1/4th of the population from. I can count about 1500 active pvp players in the alliances and corps that are pvp focused.

All of those spend a lot of time using wh to pvp in anyways. seeing as well variety is what keeps the game alive and wormholes aren't very highly populated, no matter what your 1/4th number says

The rest of the inhabitants of wh are a vast number of alts of 0,0 corps + random scrubs of course that the pvp alliances spends vast time and resources in constantly removing. A failed fight as those corps do not put assets in wormhole space beyond the capitals they log off in after running sites anyways.

The wormhole stabilizer would help in killing off the proper pvp alliances who can't withstand the capital fleets of any single of the 0,0 alliances that are vastly larger while it wouldn't do anything to remove the rest who just log off for 2 weeks and then start up again.

As to my personal opinion I think local in highsec should be something alliances has to pay to be able to get but then it would work both ways. Very expensive to maintain perhaps even running on moon minerals like technetium =) so limited to a few systems only.


I got the "Wormhole population is 1/4 of nullsec's population (of active, >5m SP accounts) from CCP Diagoras' twitter, here". I figured the necessities of wormhole life (finite wh lifespan, multiple people needed for PvE) made it much more single-TZ focused, explaining its emptiness.

Anyways, you aren't telling me anything I don't know - wormhole space supports a surprising number of carebear "0.0 alts and random scrubs" as you put it (likely the majority of wh inhabitants), multiboxing away on sleeper rats, mashing d-scan and collapsing wormhole entry points as soon as a cloaked scout sees the slightest activity on them. Not that there's anything really wrong with that, I just keep that in mind whenever we have people like Mirima or Roime chestbeating about how no local automatically makes them "pro". Nothing against wormholes themselves.

I use the example of 'wormhole stabilizers' to make a point because the end result between it and 'no local 0.0" are the exact same. Except one would have l4 missions+20% income that you had to maintain and set up and the other has sleeper rats. If no-local + static gates would kill wormholes, with its much greater reward, just imagine what it would do to sov null's paltry reward system.

As for making highsec local run on technetium - i dont think technetium's bottleneck needs to be narrowed any further. why not let some other moon min make lots of money?
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#531 - 2012-11-02 18:00:47 UTC
Only more tedius gameplay can save EVE.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#532 - 2012-11-02 18:04:04 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Only more tedius gameplay can save EVE.

captcha for mining and ratting?

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

RIP Vile Rat
Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#533 - 2012-11-02 19:14:33 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Only more tedius gameplay can save EVE.

captcha for mining and ratting?



Actually, a captcha for warp-ins on anoms, gates on missions and maybe even some sort of "laser calibration" on mining would probably go a long way to slowing down bots.

I'm already forced to click "okay" on some lore blurb every time I warp to an anom any way. Adding a captcha there would be a small price to pay if it meant less competition with bots.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#534 - 2012-11-02 19:18:18 UTC
Remove the crutch.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#535 - 2012-11-02 19:20:31 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Remove the crutch.

Would it make it eadier for you to get your space back?
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#536 - 2012-11-02 19:23:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Herzog Wolfhammer
Lord Zim wrote:
Klymer wrote:
wat? I thought the point of removing local was MOAR PVP!!! not slip through the cracks. I've been kind or keeping an eye on this threadnaught but now I see it's a complete joke. I am Jacks utter disappointment.

Anyone saying they want local removed because it will promote so much more PVP have either absolutely no idea how it'll actually impact the players, or they've gotten kicked out of nullsec and just want to hurt them back.



So are you afraid of being hurt?


Seeing goons defend local in null makes me think this is a reverse psychology trap because I would imagine their disruptive anti-establishment spirit would embrace this idea. Cool

Or perhaps they want all of nullsec and have become the establishment.


Seeing goons defend local in nullsec is like seeing a stripper become a church lady (but you can't help wonder if she has a thong under the long dress).

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#537 - 2012-11-02 19:26:24 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Klymer wrote:
wat? I thought the point of removing local was MOAR PVP!!! not slip through the cracks. I've been kind or keeping an eye on this threadnaught but now I see it's a complete joke. I am Jacks utter disappointment.

Anyone saying they want local removed because it will promote so much more PVP have either absolutely no idea how it'll actually impact the players, or they've gotten kicked out of nullsec and just want to hurt them back.



So are you afraid of being hurt?



Look a couple of posts up at the NC guy wanting to remove local.

And no local would make less pvp not more.
That was both of the points being made, that you don't seem to get.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#538 - 2012-11-02 19:35:52 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
So are you afraid of being hurt?

Nope.

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Or perhaps they want all of nullsec and have become the establishment.

Not having local would have absolutely no effect on us taking over (or defending) space. I've no idea why you keep talking about this, it's almost as if you've no idea what you're talking about.

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

RIP Vile Rat
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#539 - 2012-11-02 20:28:32 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Remove the crutch.

I love how you keep repeating the same rhetoric. Do you have a reason for believing that removing local is a good idea?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#540 - 2012-11-02 20:31:25 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Remove the crutch.

I love how you keep repeating the same rhetoric. Do you have a reason for believing that removing local is a good idea?

"Sqwaaak remove the crutch remove local sqwaaaak polly wanna cracker"

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

RIP Vile Rat