These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#701 - 2012-11-13 15:14:26 UTC
Signal11th wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
MasterEnt wrote:
My reason, as most others who are for it, are that we like the experience of not knowing who is in the system with us via a magical intel box. We like the thrill of needing probes and scouts, working as a team as EVE intended. We like feeling that anyone can sneak up on us and vaporize us.

I hear CCP added wormholes which provide you with this exact experience.

*tongue in cheek*

So would you say Zim that 0.0 dwellers are actually people who don't like high-sec but don't like EVE on hard mode either? Smile
Sort of middle of the road, bit like people who vote Liberal Democrats? (one for the UK audience)

I wouldn't really know, since I just PVP in large fleets in nullsec. I found the effort of doing anything else in nullsec to not be worth it compared to doing the same thing in hisec, and for some odd reason I don't see that opinion changing by removing local.

In fact, I'd go so far as to postulate that PVP would decrease everywhere except around large structures with one or more timers. vOv

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

RIP Vile Rat
MasterEnt
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#702 - 2012-11-13 15:18:09 UTC  |  Edited by: MasterEnt
Lord Zim wrote:
MasterEnt wrote:
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.

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


Yes the only way to prove something to me (and most of the fact based world) is to do it and get the result, until then telling me what MAY happen is a just a claim and a claim isn't proof buddy.

The difference here is that we do have systems without local, who do all the things you claim won't happen. So yes, I am having a hard time agreeing with your claims, based on current active scenarios.

If you could keep your posts with facts and remove the "if you dont agree you are a whiney *****" routine, it would be more credible. Stop rage posting with preemptive insults because someone does not agree with your assessment.
Signal11th
#703 - 2012-11-13 15:18:28 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Signal11th wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
MasterEnt wrote:
My reason, as most others who are for it, are that we like the experience of not knowing who is in the system with us via a magical intel box. We like the thrill of needing probes and scouts, working as a team as EVE intended. We like feeling that anyone can sneak up on us and vaporize us.

I hear CCP added wormholes which provide you with this exact experience.

*tongue in cheek*

So would you say Zim that 0.0 dwellers are actually people who don't like high-sec but don't like EVE on hard mode either? Smile
Sort of middle of the road, bit like people who vote Liberal Democrats? (one for the UK audience)

I wouldn't really know, since I just PVP in large fleets in nullsec. I found the effort of doing anything else in nullsec to not be worth it compared to doing the same thing in hisec, and for some odd reason I don't see that opinion changing by removing local.

In fact, I'd go so far as to postulate that PVP would decrease everywhere except around large structures with one or more timers. vOv



ahh I do agree with you on certian aspects of this, I think it was the constant large fleet battles that killed my love for 0.0.

Props for using the word postulate by the way, a good word not seen that often.

God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#704 - 2012-11-13 15:20:30 UTC
MasterEnt wrote:
The difference here is that we do have systems without local, who do all the things you claim won't happen. So yes, I am having a hard time agreeing with your claims, based on current active scenarios.

Yes, we do have systems without local, and they have a lot of differences compared to nullsec which end up making a huge difference. I can't help it if you seem hellbent on not fathoming this. vOv

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

RIP Vile Rat
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#705 - 2012-11-13 15:29:27 UTC
Signal11th wrote:
ahh I do agree with you on certian aspects of this, I think it was the constant large fleet battles that killed my love for 0.0.

It certainly is a pity that nullsec has degraded to a never-ending series of large fights over immovable objects, and that the best way to deal with roaming gangs is to just wait them out.

According to Seleene CCP will be making some sort of statement to how they're going to fix sov/nullsec, hopefully they'll try to come up with things to revitalize the desert which is nullsec today, and hopefully they'll make sov wars a more gradual experience rather than today's "smash through 1 week of timers regardless of whether or not there's opposition" and "get all progress reset at the last timer" bullshit.

Signal11th wrote:
Props for using the word postulate by the way, a good word not seen that often.

It does roll off the tongue, doesn't it?

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

RIP Vile Rat
MasterEnt
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#706 - 2012-11-13 15:36:48 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Yes, we do have systems without local, and they have a lot of differences compared to nullsec which end up making a huge difference. I can't help it if you seem hellbent on not fathoming this. vOv


I agree they have different conditions. I just dont buy those conditions would make the different in the complete halting of activities in null. I am saying it could actually help stimulate it. But then again, that is assuming nullbears actually like risk as much as they have been claiming over the past year.

I think we can both agree null is boring and needs an overhaul to make it enticing. My argument is that the removal of Local could do just that - to increase the thrill factor a bit and the chance of encounters. Local makes you safer, period and safer equal boring. Removing it could make things more interesting. But, like you, I have no concrete proof of the ultimate effects it would have on null, just the experience of no local in my current environment and how much it adds to the risk an fun.

Personally, thats one of the reasons I left Null myself and went into WH, the thrill of no Local. But hey, its your null space I guess and if you like the magic intel box, then so be it. We are just going to have to agree to disagree about the impact local removal would have on Nullsec until it actually happens, if it ever does. In the mean time - it seems there are enough arguments and people to fill both sides of the isle.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#707 - 2012-11-13 15:42:55 UTC
MasterEnt wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Yes, we do have systems without local, and they have a lot of differences compared to nullsec which end up making a huge difference. I can't help it if you seem hellbent on not fathoming this. vOv


I agree they have different conditions. I just dont buy those conditions would make the different in the complete halting of activities in null. I am saying it could actually help stimulate it. But then again, that is assuming nullbears actually like risk as much as they have been claiming over the past year.

I think we can both agree null is boring and needs an overhaul to make it enticing. My argument is that the removal of Local could do just that - to increase the thrill factor a bit and the chance of encounters. Local makes you safer, period and safer equal boring. Removing it could make things more interesting. But, like you, I have no concrete proof of the ultimate effects it would have on null, just the experience of no local in my current environment and how much it adds to the risk an fun.

Personally, thats one of the reasons I left Null myself and went into WH, the thrill of no Local. But hey, its your null space I guess and if you like the magic intel box, then so be it. We are just going to have to agree to disagree about the impact local removal would have on Nullsec until it actually happens, if it ever does. In the mean time - it seems there are enough arguments and people to fill both sides of the isle.


So do you think that if you and Zim keep repeating the same talking points at each other for another 36 pages you'll convince him?

Instead of wasting your effort on this futile posting merry-go-round, why not put the time into thinking up some credible solutions?

As you yourself concede, nullsec is different. Fixed gates and working starmaps alone will change the scene between null and W-space enough that making direct comparisons is shaky, never mind no mass limits and working cynos. Would you agree that if it was possible to titan-bridge in W-space, that it would massively alter the nature of PvP there? If not, would you accept a counter-proposal from Zim to introduce it?

So stop trying to pretend that there aren't huge, relevent differences.

As I said above, I'd be delight to have delayed local in 0.0. But there needs to be a huge upgrade in the way that scanners work before this can happen. Candidly, we'll still need "magic free intel boxes", but they should tell us what is in space and where it is, rather than who.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
MasterEnt
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#708 - 2012-11-13 15:55:34 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
MasterEnt wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Yes, we do have systems without local, and they have a lot of differences compared to nullsec which end up making a huge difference. I can't help it if you seem hellbent on not fathoming this. vOv


I agree they have different conditions. I just dont buy those conditions would make the different in the complete halting of activities in null. I am saying it could actually help stimulate it. But then again, that is assuming nullbears actually like risk as much as they have been claiming over the past year.

I think we can both agree null is boring and needs an overhaul to make it enticing. My argument is that the removal of Local could do just that - to increase the thrill factor a bit and the chance of encounters. Local makes you safer, period and safer equal boring. Removing it could make things more interesting. But, like you, I have no concrete proof of the ultimate effects it would have on null, just the experience of no local in my current environment and how much it adds to the risk an fun.

Personally, thats one of the reasons I left Null myself and went into WH, the thrill of no Local. But hey, its your null space I guess and if you like the magic intel box, then so be it. We are just going to have to agree to disagree about the impact local removal would have on Nullsec until it actually happens, if it ever does. In the mean time - it seems there are enough arguments and people to fill both sides of the isle.


So do you think that if you and Zim keep repeating the same talking points at each other for another 36 pages you'll convince him?

Instead of wasting your effort on this futile posting merry-go-round, why not put the time into thinking up some credible solutions?

As you yourself concede, nullsec is different. Fixed gates and working starmaps alone will change the scene between null and W-space enough that making direct comparisons is shaky, never mind no mass limits and working cynos. Would you agree that if it was possible to titan-bridge in W-space, that it would massively alter the nature of PvP there? If not, would you accept a counter-proposal from Zim to introduce it?

So stop trying to pretend that there aren't huge, relevent differences.

As I said above, I'd be delight to have delayed local in 0.0. But there needs to be a huge upgrade in the way that scanners work before this can happen. Candidly, we'll still need "magic free intel boxes", but they should tell us what is in space and where it is, rather than who.


So you suggest to stop the merry-go-round, then proceed to write a page long discussion on the argument?
Someone just got on the merry-go-around and brought in a different set of variables.

Yes I say null is different, these is no arguing that, but again, agreeing that null is different does not mean the removal of local will halt everything. Unless, of course, I am severely underestimating the will on nullbears, which it seems I am. You and I Do agree on a new scan tool, but that really wasn't what Zim was asking for, because that would require him to work for his intel.

Why does there need to be a sub-set of proposals for all this.
The removal of local IS the proposal. WH dwellers seem to be able to find **** without it.

You guys just want some compensation for the loss of an intel tool. You can argue that point if you want, I don't think you need more stuff for it, but its not really me you have to convince, is it.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#709 - 2012-11-13 16:00:49 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
As I said above, I'd be delight to have delayed local in 0.0. But there needs to be a huge upgrade in the way that scanners work before this can happen. Candidly, we'll still need "magic free intel boxes", but they should tell us what is in space and where it is, rather than who.

My main issue with the deal with moving the intel gathering onto scanners is, you're going to have to think up something brand new for nullsec. Just moving on to f.ex an automatic directional scanner isn't going to cut it, it'll just suck up more CPU and either completely ignore cloaked ships (in which case the ship du jour will be cloaked ships), or it'll have what I can only assume is a marked impact on WHs by allowing you to see when someone's cloaked.

And my main issue with every "remove local" however is, I think there are more important aspects of nullsec to look at. The first thing which I think should happen is that the population in nullsec should increase. With increased numbers, the number of inattentive idiots will increase, and the higher the number of inattentive idiots the higher the chance of some of them to be dumb enough to get caught. And, if there are more people in nullsec, chances are it'll be worth actually fighting off roaming gangs instead of just POSing up and waiting for them to move on.

MasterEnt wrote:
because that would require him to work for his intel.

Implying I'm in nullsec in a capacity which means I'll have to work to gather any sort of intel at all. I don't spend a single second in nullsec outside of fleets these days. vOv

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

RIP Vile Rat
Inquisitor Kitchner
The Executives
#710 - 2012-11-13 16:22:37 UTC
MasterEnt wrote:

My reason, as most others who are for it, are that we like the experience of not knowing who is in the system with us via a magical intel box. We like the thrill of needing probes and scouts, working as a team as EVE intended. We like feeling that anyone can sneak up on us and vaporize us.

We like the risk associated with it.


I like being able to live in nullsec.

Do you know what that requires? A way to make isk.

Do you know what happens if you try to fight someone in a PvE ship when they are in a PvP ship? You die in a fire.

This is all fine, because at the moment assuming you are skillful enough (please note the word skill) to make sure you constantly pay attention to what you're doing and you work together (please note work together) with your fellow alliance members to have an intel channel you should be fine.

If you remove local I can fly around in say a cynabal and pretty much just one on one kill a load of ratters with 0 effort. But then again I wouldn't need to do it alone do I? Because no-one can see the 20 ships jump into the system, run into every belt and tackle what is there.

There is no thrill in that type of gameplay and it takes no skill.

What is better is the current system, and here is the key, with more people ratting. Why you ask? Because it means statistically your roam is more likely to find someone who has thought "Hmm I just got a message on facebook, I'll be ok if I check it for 10 seconds *alt tab*".

You remove local you wont have targets to find in null sec to probe down or scout out, because they'll all be gone.


Quote:
And frankly, after all the hubub with Hulkageddon and "emergent-gameplay" and "risk-averse" miners... We thought Nullbears liked risk also...

Our bad.


There are a whole bunch of things in this sentence that show you have never lived in null sec or have any idea what its like

If you want to actually try Null out let me know, and after living there if your opinion is still the same then fair enough.

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli
Signal11th
#711 - 2012-11-13 16:53:47 UTC
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:

If you want to actually try Null out let me know, and after living there if your opinion is still the same then fair enough.



Don't assume all of us who want local removed have never been in 0.0, I remember being kicked out of Delve, then Fountain, then Venal humm then Delve again, strangely enough usually by the same people *Doffs cap at Mr.Zim* Blink

Saying that I'm sort of in between, I'd like local to go just for the outrage plus the increased stress levels but not without something bloody good in its place.

God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster!
Inquisitor Kitchner
The Executives
#712 - 2012-11-13 17:25:26 UTC
Signal11th wrote:


Don't assume all of us who want local removed have never been in 0.0, I remember being kicked out of Delve, then Fountain, then Venal humm then Delve again, strangely enough usually by the same people *Doffs cap at Mr.Zim* Blink

Saying that I'm sort of in between, I'd like local to go just for the outrage plus the increased stress levels but not without something bloody good in its place.



I don't assume that at all (though I still think you're wrong) the comments were based off the fact this guy said:

Quote:
And frankly, after all the hubub with Hulkageddon and "emergent-gameplay" and "risk-averse" miners... We thought Nullbears liked risk also...

Our bad


Firstly he used quote marks around the words "emergent gameplay" when quoting hulkageddon, which would imply of course that he doesn't agree with it, or at least the catergorisation of it being emergrent gameplay. The fact is that by the definition of the phrase that is exactly what it is, yet he feels the need to "quote" the phrase because he can't subconsciously bring himself to type it naturally.

Second he refers to miners as risk-averse in quotes (somehow implying they aren't despite the fact they are doing the safest thing in EVE). Same thing applies as before, for some reason he feels labeling miners as risk averse is somehow a matter of opinion where it's actually a matter of fact.

Finally he's arguing for changes in nullsec, which are quite easily argued against, and refers to everyone as nullbears. I'd bet decent money he's never tried to actually live in null sec.

As for you, if you have plenty of experience in null and still want to remove local then you are misguided rather then ignorant ;)

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli
MasterEnt
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#713 - 2012-11-13 21:21:42 UTC  |  Edited by: MasterEnt
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:
I like being able to live in nullsec.
Do you know what that requires? A way to make isk.
Do you know what happens if you try to fight someone in a PvE ship when they are in a PvP ship? You die in a fire.

This is all fine, because at the moment assuming you are skillful enough (please note the word skill) to make sure you constantly pay attention to what you're doing and you work together (please note work together) with your fellow alliance members to have an intel channel you should be fine.

If you remove local I can fly around in say a cynabal and pretty much just one on one kill a load of ratters with 0 effort. But then again I wouldn't need to do it alone do I? Because no-one can see the 20 ships jump into the system, run into every belt and tackle what is there.

I'd bet decent money he's never tried to actually live in null sec.



You assume way too much. Actually my fair friend, I lived in Nullsec for years, name the region, I've probably been there, Providence, Fountain, Delve... kicked people out and been kicked out of all of them. Lost billion, made billions and taken billions. I probably still have a lot of confiscated assets in many a station. Please point out the facts the lead you to assume i have not or don't currently have an alt doing so?

You can make the bet payment to MasterEnt

And in that time I easily made over 100 mil on a bad day with casual carebearing. That was BEFORE PI and exploration were around. Plenty of money to be made when you are creative and work as a team. So maybe you should assume less and focus more on creativity (please note the word creativity) as opposed to just skill. I have no idea why you are finding it difficult to make ISK.

Yes, it takes teamwork - Get somebuddies to watch your back; get a scout on the gate, put a probe out. Problem solved But thanks for proving my point... thats the real reason some people dont want local removed isn't it... solo carebearing. Talk about disgruntled.

As to why i quoted "emergent gameplay" and "risk averse" You are overanalyzing it. You know I am quoting the Mitt and now the same person who used these terms, is crusading against the removal of local because he scared. It's ironic.

Dont try to psyco-analyse my motivations or guess my play history, your not good at it... at all. Focus on finding a creative way of making isk in Null while flying solo or find a good corp. Finding a way to discuss things with people without preemptively calling them ignorant for disagreeing with you on an opinion would help your clarity as well. Sorry to burst your thought bubble, none of what you mentioned is fact, just assumption.
Inquisitor Kitchner
The Executives
#714 - 2012-11-13 23:01:36 UTC
MasterEnt wrote:


HOW DARE YOU SAY I DONT KNOW WHAT YOURE ON ABOUT!

MY ALT IS A SUPER ELITE NULL PVP BET YET I CHOOSE TO POST AS THIS ALT FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER


It's be funny if it wasn't so predictable. Post on your main character then if you have all this null sec experience.

Although you wont, because you don't.

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli
Mirima Thurander
#715 - 2012-11-13 23:37:36 UTC
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:
MasterEnt wrote:


HOW DARE YOU SAY I DONT KNOW WHAT YOURE ON ABOUT!

MY ALT IS A SUPER ELITE NULL PVP BET YET I CHOOSE TO POST AS THIS ALT FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER


It's be funny if it wasn't so predictable. Post on your main character then if you have all this null sec experience.

Although you wont, because you don't.

Some people have far to much to lose by doing so just because your not important enough to have to deal with that portion of the meta Game doesn't mean others don't.

So get over your killbored stats its not CoD your k/d ratio means truly nothing in even so lost as u get your objective.

All automated intel should be removed from the game including Instant local/jumps/kills/cynos for all systems/regions.Eve should report nothing like this to the client/3rd party software.Intel should not be force fed to players. Player skill and iniative should be the sources of intel.
Inquisitor Kitchner
The Executives
#716 - 2012-11-13 23:47:44 UTC
Mirima Thurander wrote:

Some people have far to much to lose by doing so just because your not important enough to have to deal with that portion of the meta Game doesn't mean others don't.

So get over your killbored stats its not CoD your k/d ratio means truly nothing in even so lost as u get your objective.



What sort of random scrub are you? You haven't even read any of the discussion and just assumed I was talking about killboard stats.

I actually said I don't think the poster has ever lived in null. Not "he's not pro PvP" or "He sucks at eve" just that he was coming at the topic from a position of ignorance.

He then claimed to have a alt in null sec which was very experienced, despite all his opinions and writing style clearly showing to anyone with half a brain he's never lived in null.

Then you come is with your slip shod english and comment on something that's not even being discussed.

Usually I tell people to never stop posting, however in your case I'll make an exception: Stop posting.

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli
Mirima Thurander
#717 - 2012-11-14 00:31:17 UTC
My thread I shall post what I wish.

All automated intel should be removed from the game including Instant local/jumps/kills/cynos for all systems/regions.Eve should report nothing like this to the client/3rd party software.Intel should not be force fed to players. Player skill and iniative should be the sources of intel.
Inquisitor Kitchner
The Executives
#718 - 2012-11-14 01:20:49 UTC
Mirima Thurander wrote:
My thread I shall post what I wish.



Think this thread ceased to be yours about the time you stopped reading people's posts and just replied with what you reckon they were probably saying instead of what they were actually saying.

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli
Mirima Thurander
#719 - 2012-11-14 01:36:41 UTC
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:
Mirima Thurander wrote:
My thread I shall post what I wish.



Think this thread ceased to be yours about the time you stopped reading people's posts and just replied with what you reckon they were probably saying instead of what they were actually saying.

I'm drawing conclusions just like they are about no local.

U said null sec experience and most people go KILLBORED stats lulz.


So go on I know what your talking about and I was simply pointing out the fact some people CANT post with mains for the fact of losing face with there overlords. U know this if u new any thing about the way null works.

All automated intel should be removed from the game including Instant local/jumps/kills/cynos for all systems/regions.Eve should report nothing like this to the client/3rd party software.Intel should not be force fed to players. Player skill and iniative should be the sources of intel.
Signal11th
#720 - 2012-11-14 08:42:20 UTC
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:
Mirima Thurander wrote:

Some people have far to much to lose by doing so just because your not important enough to have to deal with that portion of the meta Game doesn't mean others don't.

So get over your killbored stats its not CoD your k/d ratio means truly nothing in even so lost as u get your objective.



What sort of random scrub are you? You haven't even read any of the discussion and just assumed I was talking about killboard stats.

I actually said I don't think the poster has ever lived in null. Not "he's not pro PvP" or "He sucks at eve" just that he was coming at the topic from a position of ignorance.

He then claimed to have a alt in null sec which was very experienced, despite all his opinions and writing style clearly showing to anyone with half a brain he's never lived in null.

Then you come is with your slip shod english and comment on something that's not even being discussed.

Usually I tell people to never stop posting, however in your case I'll make an exception: Stop posting.



lol, bitchslap

God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster!