Player Features and Ideas Discussion

So your reasoning to leave 0.0 alone because high-sec is broken?

I remember when I first started hearing all these stories about 0.0 so I ventured forth and found myself in 0.0. There I found 10% of people were actually interested in fighting and the other 90% more interested in making isk and staying as far away from a fight as possible.

Unless you haven't noticed we all play on one server.

I'm not sure where you're from in the world but you may have noticed that countries are way past the point where the goings on in one country has no effect on its neighbours, and EVE is no different. Now the world is (largely) a free market economy the US banking industry effects the EU banking industry, food consumption in China effects food prices in the UK, producing less oil in the Middle East effects petrol prices in the US etc.

You can't just say "well high sec is fine, therefore the problem is with null because no-one is there" because that's foolish.

All players, the areas of the game they play (be it PvP, mission runners, FW, miners etc) and the regions of space they live in are fundamentally linked. To deny this is the case is foolish.

Fact is when you make make ALMOST as much money in High Sec for NO WHERE NEAR as much risk it will draw people "living" in null sec into High Sec.

I can't speak for others but personally it wouldn't bother me if ganking someone in high sec dropped 0 loot. I think it should be possible as I like the fact you can't run your mouth without possibly risking retribution (hur hur) in this game. However if high sec players want high sec to be safer that's fine, as long as the income drops too. If they want to earn more money then risk should be increased.

That's not because I hate high sec players, but because I like EVE.

I sort of assumed those went without saying to be honest.

EDIT: Thinking on it though this is actually the harder part to do.

Ratting in a carrier in null is easy and make you a shed ton of money, it's just very very risky.

The main thing imo should be risk and reward. You'll never find something that takes effort that players wont make easier anyway.

I thought we had all ready decided why whs where safer than null.

Its not the fact of no local. Aka its the shiny round things with the mass.limits.

Thing how safe whs would be if they HAD local.

Now.


Death to local!

Ohh Lord Zim, nine years in EVE and I have truly never seen someone try so hard at making a point and failing so completely. You just want to argue with everyone but just dont have the facts or concise writing to do it convincingly. Breaking down quotes sentence by sentence does not make you effective at arguing, all it seems to do is confuse you as to the spirit of the argument.

Take a deep breath, read what you write. Come back to a it a minute later and possibly have someone else proof it.

If people are having a hard time understanding you, you just aren't as good at communicating as you think you are. Maybe you should use the edit function that you gave me **** about.

With that said, you STILL havent proven how removal of local will kill Null. And stating what is already wrong with it is really just a distraction.

REMOVE LOCAL!

I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to come up with a compelling reason to remove local in nullsec.

If it doesn't sound like it's written by a failed ganker who just wants daddy ccp to make their life easier for them, that'd be a nice bonus, too.

I would be very happy if we switched to delayed local. I remember when it actually happened for a day, after one of CCP's more hilariously unpredictable patch launches in 2006 or 2007.

It was, in a word, thrilling. EVE suddenly felt much much bigger. And scarier. Warping to a belt to shoot a rat was a dangerous and exciting expedition.

But....

*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*
*click*

So: Real time, filterable scanner with good design that conveys lots of information in a very compact way and doesn't require endless bloody clicking, tested, implemented, improved, de-bugged, polished and released onto TQ first

Delayed mode local second.

Apparently, according to you the only way to prove how removal of local will kill null is by removing local. Telling you exactly what will happen, and why, is for some reason not good enough. vOv

I wonder if you remove active local the "pings" the client sends to get new local info would offset the drawback from having an automatic D-scan.