These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Replacing Local

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#161 - 2013-12-27 16:43:56 UTC
simple idea which will stop nullbears whining as they camp gates in their supers..

Make local Delayed like some private chat groups.

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]
Clansworth
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#162 - 2013-12-27 16:45:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Clansworth
DragonGrace wrote:
I have read through the majority of this and i am smiling my ass off.

i would like to maybe add a little thing to the "constellation" local idea.

I think its a good idea, however i do see a little bit of a failing.

Would it not be better idea to have a "so many jumps depending on your skills" local. I mean if you are in a constellation, and you think its pretty quiet. You are in a party of 3 or something in low sec. You jump into another constellation and all of a sudden there is 100 people in your local, 30 are gate camping where you are. YOU WILL BE SCREWED :P which is nice. but a skilled pilot wouldnt want to be forced to make this mistake. I think it would be a good idea to have a skill.

Something like "vacinity radius" or something. Level 1, you can see in your system and up to 1 jump from where you are in any direction, all the way to level 5 where you can see up to 5 systems in either direction of the system that you are. Of course, there has to be gates. so, if you are in a dead end system, you will only see the systems linked to that 1 gate.

I think this would be a better way of having a nice dynamic local. The people who dont train they vacinity skill will be the ones who get a nasty surprised, and the one that do, deserve to plot their course well.

I hope i have explained that properly. I would like to have gone into more detail but im at work :P

thoughts on this?

The problem with altering the local CHAT channel to a flexible location (like number of jumps) is that it would impair it's utility as a CHAT channel. constellation level would at least have defined boundaries, and everyone in that constellation would be in that chat channel.

I really think those saying that removing local equals more work haven't read some of the proposals here. My proposal would give you much of what local does without any extra work, and extra work would simply give more info as a reward for the effort.

The important part is that it would move all intel into a cohesive interface. Instead of aggregating your information yourself from alliance chat reports, local player lists, d-scan's, and probes - you'd have a composite list of everything you KNOW from all those sources. THAT is not going to be more work.
Tryaz
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#163 - 2013-12-27 16:48:21 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
[...] if they can't receive perfect intel, clicking a button or not, they are FORCED TO DIE mechanically.

Pure bull****

Narrator of Chronicles of New Eden, the EVE audiobook series. Listen at www.soundcloud.com/chroniclesofneweden
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#164 - 2013-12-27 16:52:52 UTC
Tryaz wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
[...] if they can't receive perfect intel, clicking a button or not, they are FORCED TO DIE mechanically.
Pure bull****
What I love about this is how much detail you put into your response.

Seriously though, if they don't get perfect intel, IE, they can't see everyone who is in local (let's say cloakers, since that seems to be the most common request), how does the PVE player stop himself from dying if the cloaky appears right next to him and points him with no prior warning?

The only way that is "pure bullshit" is if you didn't understand it.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#165 - 2013-12-27 16:58:51 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
You keep throwing up this straw man, by implying that PvE player are UNABLE to click buttons, or toggle on a function.
I don't care if most PvE players like myself are suddenly able to better avoid threats, by trivial efforts such as this.
I DO care that we are interacting in order to earn this benefit.

Nobody will be forced to do anything, but players will have more chances to interact and define a personal standard for their own play.

Again with the "let just call everything a straw man since that's the FOTM response".
And it's simple. I've explained it 1000 times. I'm NOT saying a PVE player is unable to click a button. I'm saying that if they need to click a button, but receive perfect intel, then there is NO GAMEPLAY BENEFIT to the change. But if they can't receive perfect intel, clicking a button or not, they are FORCED TO DIE mechanically.


For starters, a straw man is a BS argument created by overstating or exaggerating something.
Saying players will be unable to do something simple like toggle on sensors or click a d-scan is an example of this, as it is something players can obviously do.
Therefore, noone is being forced to die, even in lowercase letters.

They MIGHT, however, make a human error, or simply forget for whatever reason. If people did not make mistakes, the number of kill mails in EVE would be drastically reduced, especially in ambush scenarios.
(Blob vs blob uses somewhat different dynamics, as both sides can average out individual mistakes to create an overall result)

Now, if you make the effort to always remember, which is easier for some people more than others, you will always have the life saving intel at hand.

But if you screw up, you MAY not survive if that intel was important to your survival. Hopefully you were not relying on it as an all or nothing defense, in such a case.

In a game, shouldn't screwing up be beaten by those who do not screw up? Or are we giving everyone trophies for undocking this week again?

Yaay! I participated!!

Lol

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#166 - 2013-12-27 17:01:25 UTC
Clansworth wrote:
I really think those saying that removing local equals more work haven't read some of the proposals here. My proposal would give you much of what local does without any extra work, and extra work would simply give more info as a reward for the effort.

The important part is that it would move all intel into a cohesive interface. Instead of aggregating your information yourself from alliance chat reports, local player lists, d-scan's, and probes - you'd have a composite list of everything you KNOW from all those sources. THAT is not going to be more work.
So if your solutions involves no extra effort for the amount of intel currently received, why change it at all?
And what is the problem that you are trying to solve?

Your idea seems to reach pretty much what we have now, but with a considerable amount more complexity. It reads as something that would be great amounts of fun if what you wanted was to explore and play directly with the mechanic, but tagged onto any other style of play it would seems to me to be nothing more than a chore you are forced to undertake to then be able to do whatever it is you actually want to do.
It's kinda like how miners used to have to scan down gravs and it was a pain in the ass chore you knew you had to do periodically, but wasn't something that you really wanted to do. So they took it out, and now its automatic.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#167 - 2013-12-27 17:09:11 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
For starters, a straw man is a BS argument created by overstating or exaggerating something.
Saying players will be unable to do something simple like toggle on sensors or click a d-scan is an example of this, as it is something players can obviously do.
Which I didn't at any point state. So you read it, exaggerated it in your mind, then decided to call it a straw man.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Therefore, noone is being forced to die, even in lowercase letters.
If the intel is perfect, then no, they won't, which I stated before, thanks for reading. If the intel is imperfect they will be.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
They MIGHT, however, make a human error, or simply forget for whatever reason. If people did not make mistakes, the number of kill mails in EVE would be drastically reduced, especially in ambush scenarios.
(Blob vs blob uses somewhat different dynamics, as both sides can average out individual mistakes to create an overall result)

Now, if you make the effort to always remember, which is easier for some people more than others, you will always have the life saving intel at hand.

But if you screw up, you MAY not survive if that intel was important to your survival. Hopefully you were not relying on it as an all or nothing defense, in such a case.

In a game, shouldn't screwing up be beaten by those who do not screw up? Or are we giving everyone trophies for undocking this week again?
They might right now make the human error of not opening up the local window, or not looking at it. You are simply drawing your arbitrary line in the sand slightly further up. It's a pointless change to make people have more mundane repetitive tasks to undertake just to play, which is pretty much the opposite of what CCP has been developing for years.

See the problem still remains that you think all they have to do is undock and somehow the "local shield" protects them. So who's the one exaggerating here?

Seriously though, are you just gonna start doing that thing you did before where you simply ignore half of what people say, badly interpret the rest, then respond with ridiculous nonsense based on your bad interpretation of half of what was said?

Not sure I have the time for another 200 pages of that.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Clansworth
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#168 - 2013-12-27 17:11:44 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Clansworth wrote:
I really think those saying that removing local equals more work haven't read some of the proposals here. My proposal would give you much of what local does without any extra work, and extra work would simply give more info as a reward for the effort.

The important part is that it would move all intel into a cohesive interface. Instead of aggregating your information yourself from alliance chat reports, local player lists, d-scan's, and probes - you'd have a composite list of everything you KNOW from all those sources. THAT is not going to be more work.
So if your solutions involves no extra effort for the amount of intel currently received, why change it at all?
And what is the problem that you are trying to solve?

Your idea seems to reach pretty much what we have now, but with a considerable amount more complexity. It reads as something that would be great amounts of fun if what you wanted was to explore and play directly with the mechanic, but tagged onto any other style of play it would seems to me to be nothing more than a chore you are forced to undertake to then be able to do whatever it is you actually want to do.
It's kinda like how miners used to have to scan down gravs and it was a pain in the ass chore you knew you had to do periodically, but wasn't something that you really wanted to do. So they took it out, and now its automatic.


Because my proposal does not give you EVERYTHING local does (I said most). It is good that it gives you only partial information (who, not what or where)... but that is the wrong partial information to get first. The first bit of information, that which is easiest to obtain, is the what. "There's a large craft within sensor range" should be known before "There's an enemy in the system". further detail would depend on systems in place and the actual visibility (signature) of said ship - and more importantly, how many friends you've got with eyes.

The problem with local isn't that it gives instant intel, it's that it gives the most important intel instantly - friend or foe should not be so readily known. Local also doesn't give the home-field advantage that common sense would dictate. The group who has taken the time to set up the system for operations would have probes stationed at the gates and key locations. Would potentially have a system scanning array at a POS to aid in locating contacts - those are rewards for properly setting up your worksite.

That said, my system also would allow miniscule/cloaky ships to traverse almost completely undetected - which common sense ALSO dictates. Due to the tiny sig radius, and especially the upper info limit the cloak sets, you're looking at a LOT of potential surprises - also very good.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#169 - 2013-12-27 17:19:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Clansworth wrote:
Because my proposal does not give you EVERYTHING local does (I said most). It is good that it gives you only partial information (who, not what or where)... but that is the wrong partial information to get first. The first bit of information, that which is easiest to obtain, is the what. "There's a large craft within sensor range" should be known before "There's an enemy in the system". further detail would depend on systems in place and the actual visibility (signature) of said ship - and more importantly, how many friends you've got with eyes.

The problem with local isn't that it gives instant intel, it's that it gives the most important intel instantly - friend or foe should not be so readily known. Local also doesn't give the home-field advantage that common sense would dictate. The group who has taken the time to set up the system for operations would have probes stationed at the gates and key locations. Would potentially have a system scanning array at a POS to aid in locating contacts - those are rewards for properly setting up your worksite.

That said, my system also would allow miniscule/cloaky ships to traverse almost completely undetected - which common sense ALSO dictates. Due to the tiny sig radius, and especially the upper info limit the cloak sets, you're looking at a LOT of potential surprises - also very good.
Well, all a PVE player really cares to know is when someone's entered the system. Even friend and foe is not really that important at first. If your system was put in place, you'd still have the same group of people crying that all the free intel must GO! This is because he majority of people calling for it want a single thing: To gank PVE players.

So any mechanic that still provides that will leave PVE players still doing exactly what they do now, and the gankers collapsing into heaps on the forums crying "I can't kill unarmed people quickly enough in my cloaky nullified T3!".

And if the mechanic can just involve launching a couple of probes and getting to what we have now, or better, then there would be no real point in making the change. It would just be extra clicks added for no real gameplay benefit, and a whole bunch of dev time wasted that could have been spent on improvements to the game.

As for the "good surprises". If a cloaky could appear on grid with a PVE player with no prior warning, that's not good, that's choosing to kill PVE players with a mechanic, affording them no ability to react. That in itself would kill null PVE within minutes. I don;t even like ganking, yet even I'd slap a couple of alts in cloaky ships and start harassing enemies just because it would be so easy, cheap and risk free to do.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#170 - 2013-12-27 17:44:57 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Seriously though, are you just gonna start doing that thing you did before where you simply ignore half of what people say, badly interpret the rest, then respond with ridiculous nonsense based on your bad interpretation of half of what was said?

Not sure I have the time for another 200 pages of that.

I'm sorry, but am I the one misinterpreting things, by suggesting that the quality of intel would be less than was needed?

No.
The concept of imperfect intel came from you. The suggestion that your imperfect intel would then cause forced deaths followed.
All I did was point out that people should need to make a more significant in game effort to access the intel, as the bar is too low to be considered an effort at all currently.

Ok, then am I the one suggesting that any effort beyond being alert enough to read a list of names, would be too much effort?

No.
You continually point out that if they get the same intel, then making additional effort is a waste.
But, in so doing, you have been glossing over the established awareness of human error, (and screwing up in general), that local intel goes to great lengths suppressing currently. Players who never considered fitting for defense, and intel gathering in general, are handed the results no differently than the ones who paid close attention, and prepared wisely.
It could be pointed out that paying close attention and preparing wisely are devalued by this mechanic, given the uniformity of results available either way.

And you can call anything you like 'ridiculous nonsense'. You are entitled to your own opinion.
Just keep in mind, the loudest voice in a room is not necessarily worth listening to.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#171 - 2013-12-27 17:53:26 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Clansworth wrote:
Because my proposal does not give you EVERYTHING local does (I said most). It is good that it gives you only partial information (who, not what or where)... but that is the wrong partial information to get first. The first bit of information, that which is easiest to obtain, is the what. "There's a large craft within sensor range" should be known before "There's an enemy in the system". further detail would depend on systems in place and the actual visibility (signature) of said ship - and more importantly, how many friends you've got with eyes.

The problem with local isn't that it gives instant intel, it's that it gives the most important intel instantly - friend or foe should not be so readily known. Local also doesn't give the home-field advantage that common sense would dictate. The group who has taken the time to set up the system for operations would have probes stationed at the gates and key locations. Would potentially have a system scanning array at a POS to aid in locating contacts - those are rewards for properly setting up your worksite.

That said, my system also would allow miniscule/cloaky ships to traverse almost completely undetected - which common sense ALSO dictates. Due to the tiny sig radius, and especially the upper info limit the cloak sets, you're looking at a LOT of potential surprises - also very good.

Well, all a PVE player really cares to know is when someone's entered the system. Even friend and foe is not really that important at first. If your system was put in place, you'd still have the same group of people crying that all the free intel must GO! This is because the majority of people calling for it want a single thing: To gank PVE players.


Majority??? Horse feathers!

A good number of PvE players would like to actually play a game where they can compare efforts in more areas beyond simply how much ISK did you grind this week.
Many support players are denied a niche in serious play because there is no market for scouting except for the gaps local fails to cover.

You seem to have a limited view of PvE, considering how you think only a ganker would want to change it this way.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#172 - 2013-12-27 18:35:34 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
All I did was point out that people should need to make a more significant in game effort to access the intel, as the bar is too low to be considered an effort at all currently.
And All I did was point out that would be a pointelss change. If intel is still perfect, then nothing will be different to as it is now, except PVE players will have RSI. I really don;t understand how you don;t get the concept. A PVE player currently has to spend 100% of their time at their PC doing their PVE. After the change they would still have to spend 100% of their time at their PC. The only difference would be how many hoops they have to jump though. More hoops != good gameplay.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
You continually point out that if they get the same intel, then making additional effort is a waste.
But, in so doing, you have been glossing over the established awareness of human error, (and screwing up in general), that local intel goes to great lengths suppressing currently. Players who never considered fitting for defense, and intel gathering in general, are handed the results no differently than the ones who paid close attention, and prepared wisely.
It could be pointed out that paying close attention and preparing wisely are devalued by this mechanic, given the uniformity of results available either way.
Oh ok so are you saying right now there is no such thing as human error? Before you were claiming that 100% of the PVE kills in null (which there are a lot of) were down to human error.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
And you can call anything you like 'ridiculous nonsense'. You are entitled to your own opinion.
I know, thanks.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Just keep in mind, the loudest voice in a room is not necessarily worth listening to.
This amuses me quite a bit coming from you.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#173 - 2013-12-27 18:40:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Clansworth wrote:
Because my proposal does not give you EVERYTHING local does (I said most). It is good that it gives you only partial information (who, not what or where)... but that is the wrong partial information to get first. The first bit of information, that which is easiest to obtain, is the what. "There's a large craft within sensor range" should be known before "There's an enemy in the system". further detail would depend on systems in place and the actual visibility (signature) of said ship - and more importantly, how many friends you've got with eyes.

The problem with local isn't that it gives instant intel, it's that it gives the most important intel instantly - friend or foe should not be so readily known. Local also doesn't give the home-field advantage that common sense would dictate. The group who has taken the time to set up the system for operations would have probes stationed at the gates and key locations. Would potentially have a system scanning array at a POS to aid in locating contacts - those are rewards for properly setting up your worksite.

That said, my system also would allow miniscule/cloaky ships to traverse almost completely undetected - which common sense ALSO dictates. Due to the tiny sig radius, and especially the upper info limit the cloak sets, you're looking at a LOT of potential surprises - also very good.

Well, all a PVE player really cares to know is when someone's entered the system. Even friend and foe is not really that important at first. If your system was put in place, you'd still have the same group of people crying that all the free intel must GO! This is because the majority of people calling for it want a single thing: To gank PVE players.


Majority??? Horse feathers!

A good number of PvE players would like to actually play a game where they can compare efforts in more areas beyond simply how much ISK did you grind this week.
Many support players are denied a niche in serious play because there is no market for scouting except for the gaps local fails to cover.

You seem to have a limited view of PvE, considering how you think only a ganker would want to change it this way.

OK then genius, point me to the plethora of reasons for this change beyond that.
Almost every time this has been raised throughout the history of EVE, the reasons given are "because a PVE player can see you coming and run". Even you and teckos have previously stated that.

And no, YOU want to play a game where you have PVP as part of your PVE. I would like to see this "good number" or PVE players that basically want the fun they have cut in half beyond your alts. Not that by definition, A PVE player like PVE. Why the **** would they want to add PVP to that to make it challenging?
I don't dispute that PVE players like more challenges, but they don't want those challenges added by some prick in a cloaky tengu out to buff his KB without risk.

And oh yeah, there's no such thing as scouting. It's not like there are whole subgroups of alliances dedicated to exactly that or anything. Seriously guy, learn null mechanics before presuming so much.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#174 - 2013-12-27 19:12:25 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Oh ok so are you saying right now there is no such thing as human error? Before you were claiming that 100% of the PVE kills in null (which there are a lot of) were down to human error.

An interesting spin, which suggests either pretense or genuine misunderstanding on your part.

I said the majority of kills fitting the context of this were indeed human error related, and the type often associated with negligent play.
(Bob walked away from his PC entirely, letting the dog in, etc)


The simpler mistakes, (which could be more common), would be failing to activate shield hardeners, not fitting an AB or MWD, possibly forgetting a flight of ECM drones.

These mistakes tend to be pushed aside if the player is warned by an automatic listing of potential threats. They usually never need to worry about defending themselves, so the fitting mistakes alone get glossed over frequently.

There are many levels of human error. Local covers a good enough portion of them to be considered as dumbing down the game.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Silent Rambo
Orion Positronics
#175 - 2013-12-27 19:52:32 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:

As for the "good surprises". If a cloaky could appear on grid with a PVE player with no prior warning, that's not good, that's choosing to kill PVE players with a mechanic, affording them no ability to react. That in itself would kill null PVE within minutes. I don;t even like ganking, yet even I'd slap a couple of alts in cloaky ships and start harassing enemies just because it would be so easy, cheap and risk free to do.


This is a potential problem as removing local would be a huge buff to cloaked ships. A cloaked fleet without local would mean no way to detect any cloaked ships at all, which would lead to roaming gangs of cloaking ships that just stop by all anoms in every system looking for an easy gank. I'm all for removing local, but this needs to be addressed as it is way too OP.

One question is how do WH residents not get steamrolled by gangs of cloaked ships?

You really think someone would do that? Just log into EvE and tell lies?
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#176 - 2013-12-27 20:13:00 UTC
Silent Rambo wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:

As for the "good surprises". If a cloaky could appear on grid with a PVE player with no prior warning, that's not good, that's choosing to kill PVE players with a mechanic, affording them no ability to react. That in itself would kill null PVE within minutes. I don;t even like ganking, yet even I'd slap a couple of alts in cloaky ships and start harassing enemies just because it would be so easy, cheap and risk free to do.


This is a potential problem as removing local would be a huge buff to cloaked ships. A cloaked fleet without local would mean no way to detect any cloaked ships at all, which would lead to roaming gangs of cloaking ships that just stop by all anoms in every system looking for an easy gank. I'm all for removing local, but this needs to be addressed as it is way too OP.

One question is how do WH residents not get steamrolled by gangs of cloaked ships?

They put more effort into their tactics, and work in teams. They also tend to be more careful in general.

As to removing local, I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting removing it entirely, and leaving nothing to take it's place.
Despite the example of wormholes, many players consider this to be an impossible change for null, and I tend to agree with this.

I think we need comparable intel, but I would have it inside the game, not out of reach.
I recommend the two tiered system for this aspect, which I believe I described before.

HERE

It has a durable aspect, suitable for strategic use and threatened only by blobs, same as a POS or outpost.
It has a vulnerable aspect, suitable for tactical use and threatened by even just a few ships.

Both of these give the other improved results, but both can operate by itself, in a manner that is useful for it's own style.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#177 - 2013-12-27 20:31:09 UTC
Silent Rambo wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:

As for the "good surprises". If a cloaky could appear on grid with a PVE player with no prior warning, that's not good, that's choosing to kill PVE players with a mechanic, affording them no ability to react. That in itself would kill null PVE within minutes. I don;t even like ganking, yet even I'd slap a couple of alts in cloaky ships and start harassing enemies just because it would be so easy, cheap and risk free to do.


This is a potential problem as removing local would be a huge buff to cloaked ships. A cloaked fleet without local would mean no way to detect any cloaked ships at all, which would lead to roaming gangs of cloaking ships that just stop by all anoms in every system looking for an easy gank. I'm all for removing local, but this needs to be addressed as it is way too OP.

One question is how do WH residents not get steamrolled by gangs of cloaked ships?


The delayed local in w-space is balanced by several things.

Entrances are temporary and can be closed at will. This means that a cloaky gang can't just 'set destination' to your wormhole and raid it day after day.

The entrances are mass limited. So a bomber gang being frigates has no problem. But if the bombers find capitals or a POS in the w-space system they want to kill, they can't just call a battleship fleet to follow in.

Cynos don't work. So you can't just send out scout bombers every which way and then bridge in the fleet or jump in the carriers.


Also, most of the PvE in wormholes has to be probed down. This is where you get a lot of groans over 'active' intel gather, because wormholers currently do this, and it means clicking the d-scan button over and over and over, until your finger hurts. And as soon as they see probes on the scanner, they run just as fast as a PvE'er in nullsec who sees a non-friendly in local.

Also, the higher end ratting sites in wormholes tend to be group activities, and the nature of the Sleeper rats mean wormhole PvE'ers are much closer to PvP fit. So the roaming gang that does manage to warp in on them is going to find some high dps omni tanked ships with logi backing them up.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#178 - 2013-12-27 20:50:26 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Oh ok so are you saying right now there is no such thing as human error? Before you were claiming that 100% of the PVE kills in null (which there are a lot of) were down to human error.

An interesting spin, which suggests either pretense or genuine misunderstanding on your part.

I said the majority of kills fitting the context of this were indeed human error related, and the type often associated with negligent play.
(Bob walked away from his PC entirely, letting the dog in, etc)


The simpler mistakes, (which could be more common), would be failing to activate shield hardeners, not fitting an AB or MWD, possibly forgetting a flight of ECM drones.

These mistakes tend to be pushed aside if the player is warned by an automatic listing of potential threats. They usually never need to worry about defending themselves, so the fitting mistakes alone get glossed over frequently.

There are many levels of human error. Local covers a good enough portion of them to be considered as dumbing down the game.
Except you want to swing it the other way. By allowing PVP players to sneak up on a PVE player they can;t evade. And since shield hardeners just mean a few extra shots before your inevitable death, it still doesn't matter if they are activated or not.

But you are claiming that what you want is to add an element of human error, but that element is already there. And no, not just in walking away from the PC. I've seen people get killed while clearly at their PC

To be honest, when you think about it, if anything, the fact that they have to click a button or do something active for their intel means they are probably LESS likely to make a mistake that gets them killed. Yet still they will need to be clicking pointless buttons to just get a chance to PVE.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#179 - 2013-12-27 20:54:37 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
So if your solutions involves no extra effort for the amount of intel currently received, why change it at all?
And what is the problem that you are trying to solve?



I'd really like to see some solid answers for this.

My feeling is people want to get easy kills. Because most other reasons I've seen so far is that people don't think the game has enough clicking or chores, which is just bad game play. CCP has been doing a pretty good job recently of getting rid of extra clicking, like dropping all probes at once in formation, and drag and drop drone window.

Does any one want to go back to launching every probe individually, and arranging them by hand, simply to make people work for the sake of extra work? Was that "Fun"?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#180 - 2013-12-27 20:59:38 UTC
Silent Rambo wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:

As for the "good surprises". If a cloaky could appear on grid with a PVE player with no prior warning, that's not good, that's choosing to kill PVE players with a mechanic, affording them no ability to react. That in itself would kill null PVE within minutes. I don;t even like ganking, yet even I'd slap a couple of alts in cloaky ships and start harassing enemies just because it would be so easy, cheap and risk free to do.


This is a potential problem as removing local would be a huge buff to cloaked ships. A cloaked fleet without local would mean no way to detect any cloaked ships at all, which would lead to roaming gangs of cloaking ships that just stop by all anoms in every system looking for an easy gank. I'm all for removing local, but this needs to be addressed as it is way too OP.

One question is how do WH residents not get steamrolled by gangs of cloaked ships?
As Shepard pointed out above, there are a number of differences that make wormholes a different case.
One important one though I feel he missed is tat wormholes are dead. Wormholes get a fraction of the PVE of null. If you look at the stats for 2013 for example, wormholes had less npc kills than lowsec.
http://evemaps.dotlan.net/stats/2013

And as for mining, not many people mine to scale in wormholes, since you either have to ship the ore out or put up with a POS refinery which has a huge amount of waste, making ore considerably less valuable. Then finding the few people to kill is hard too, since you can;t tell in advance where wormholes are linking or what to expect, while in null you can simply pull up the map, set it to "average pilots in space" or "pirate ships destroyed in last 24 hours", or the development indices, and pick a glowing system to head towards. So I would think that lack of targets is a massive contributor to a lack of roaming gangs, and not an issue that they would encounter in null.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.