These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Removing Local from 0.0

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Salvos Rhoska
#61 - 2014-04-24 14:36:33 UTC
Eugene Kerner wrote:
Remove local everywhere!


Not a bad suggestion, imo.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Dave Stark
#62 - 2014-04-24 14:37:46 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Andski wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Implying I have ever claimed so. It is however, one avenue for fixing the current status quo.


No it's not. It's not even an alleyway leading to any of those avenues. Changing local will have zero effect on the status quo and it'll only affect how much people actually play in 0.0 outside of bloc-level warfare.


Contrdictory.

You state it will not affect the status quo, yet immedistely thereafter make an observation of how, indeed, it will affect it.

What are YOUR suggestions to fixing Null and Sov then?
Be as specific as possible please.


actually it's not a contradiction, things that happen outside of bloc level content won't change the status quo. the status quo is defined at bloc level.

are you posting about things you have no idea about, again?
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#63 - 2014-04-24 14:39:21 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
That's why you always end up in flame wars


You have me confused, with you.

If you think Null is not in need of major security and Sov overhauls, you are even more knee-deep in self-entitlement than was already obvious.

The risks you posted for Local, run both ways. They are equally an advantage, and a detractant, to both sides.
As long as Local data is universally available to everyone in the system, it is a broken system.

Best way out of that, is to remove it.
There is no rational reason why Null should have Local.

And make no mistake, I and others will make CERTAIN you Nullbears are revealed for what the self-entitled whiners you are in the upcoming months.

Are you for real? Holy ****.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#64 - 2014-04-24 14:40:07 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Because the game needs it to be the way it is, that's why.


The game does not want, or need, for the Null situation to be as it is.

How do YOU propose to fix Null and Sovs mechanics?
You answered when I asked another poster, but you did not answer the actual question.
You merely elaborated on how a solution should be created, whihc I agree with, but the false implication that you made, that this spexidic proposal has not been considered, was false and wrong. It has.

So, what are YOUR specific suggestions?


The difference between me and you is that I KNOW I'm not a game designer. I don't know how to fix null as I'm not a presumptuous *insert words that would spawn ISD like CONCORD to this thread*.

The point I'm making is that there are good thought (and design) processes and bad ones. While i don't know what the best fixes would be, I know bad/irresponsible thinking when i see it, and you are displaying bad/irresponsible thinking.
Salvos Rhoska
#65 - 2014-04-24 14:40:59 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:

actually it's not a contradiction, things that happen outside of bloc level content won't change the status quo. the status quo is defined at bloc level


Pathetic attempt.

Every change has repercussions throughout the system.

Furthermore, if we take your complaint as true, if removal of Local has so little effect in your eyes, then there is commensurately no harm in doing so. Nice faceplant.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Salvos Rhoska
#66 - 2014-04-24 14:42:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Jenn aSide wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


So, what are YOUR specific suggestions?

No suggestions


Oh look. You didnt answer the question, or provide any suggestions.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Revman Zim
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#67 - 2014-04-24 14:42:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Revman Zim
If you are using SOV as a reason why local should be removed, then there is only ONE way to do it.

Once SOV is established in a system, ONLY those people that belong to that alliance or who are blue to them would have access to local. Anyone else would have no info at all unless someone typed something. It seems to me that the Alliance or Corporation that spent the time and resources to get sov should be the only ones who have access the intel.

Any system that has NO sov holder would have NO intel for anyone since there would be no active intel gathering resouces.

Let the **** storm begin.
Dave Stark
#68 - 2014-04-24 14:43:24 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:

actually it's not a contradiction, things that happen outside of bloc level content won't change the status quo. the status quo is defined at bloc level


Pathetic attempt.

Every change has repercussions throughout the system.

Furthermore, if we take your complaint as true, if removal of Local has so little effect in your eyes, then there is commensurately no harm in doing so. Nice faceplant.


i see you're still having trouble with the english language.

pray tell, what is your mother tongue, perhaps google translate will be able to help me help you.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#69 - 2014-04-24 14:43:46 UTC
"You don't know how to do it better, that clearly means you're unable to distinguish how to do it worse."

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#70 - 2014-04-24 14:44:27 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Contrdictory.

You state it will not affect the status quo, yet immedistely thereafter make an observation of how, indeed, it will affect it.

What are YOUR suggestions to fixing Null and Sov then?
Be as specific as possible please.


Making individual systems more worthwhile to live off of, which fixes the need to take huge swathes of space to rent out
Changing to a multiple independent objective sov system that does not encourage concentrating huge amounts of force for every timer
Making bottom-up income streams viable

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#71 - 2014-04-24 14:45:06 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


So, what are YOUR specific suggestions?

No suggestions


Oh look. You didnt answer the question, or provide any suggestions.


That's right, because i don't know. The fact that you think you do says volumes about who you are.

Again (for the rational people as yo aren't one of those), suggesting that there is a simple fix to a complex problem/situation is the definition of stupid.
Salvos Rhoska
#72 - 2014-04-24 14:49:12 UTC
Revman Zim wrote:
If you are using SOV as a reason why local should be removed, then there is only ONE way to do it.

Once SOV is established in a system, ONLY those people that belong to that alliance or who are blue to them would have access to local. Anyone else would have no info at all unless someone typed something. It seems to me that the Alliance or Corporation that spent the time and resources to get sov should be the only ones who have access to it.

Any system that has NO sov holder would have NO intel for anyone since there would be no active intel gathering resouces.

Let the **** storm begin.


Not a bad suggestion.

But unfoetunately, two elements make this unworkable.

1) CFC will argue that this would make it evene easier for them to steamroll.
2) They would be right in saying so.

The Null situation is already so fked, and so entrenched, that everyone is waiting for a miracle to fix it.
Any and all real sugfestions will be vetoed either by the part of Null which rightly knows they can ezploit theirncurrent hegemony even more effectively through the change OR by the part of Null hegemony who wants no compromise on the advantage they have earned in their majority position.

Its a hopeless deadlock. A Gordian Knot, which only drastic acrion can part.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Salvos Rhoska
#73 - 2014-04-24 14:52:16 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


So, what are YOUR specific suggestions?

No suggestions


Oh look. You didnt answer the question, or provide any suggestions.


That's right, because i don't know. The fact that you think you do says volumes about who you are.



And it speaks volumes of you that you dont even try, and instead insult and harass those who do.

You are bringing nothing to the table.

Show some good faith. Make even ONE suggestion.
Its ok to be wrong, but atleast attempt to contribute.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#74 - 2014-04-24 14:52:44 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
1) CFC will argue that this would make it evene easier for them to steamroll.
2) They would be right in saying so.

...We'd have an easier time steamrolling in systems where we couldn't see local but the defenders could?
Uh, yeah, sure.

Not that this makes it a good suggestion. It's imbalanced too far in favor of the defenders. It'd make it marginally harder for us to take someone else's space, but it'd make it prohibitively hard for anyone else to take our space.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Salvos Rhoska
#75 - 2014-04-24 14:54:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
1) CFC will argue that this would make it evene easier for them to steamroll.
2) They would be right in saying so.

...We'd have an easier time steamrolling in systems where we couldn't see local but the defenders could?
Uh, yeah, sure.

Not that this makes it a good suggestion. It's imbalanced too far in favor of the defenders. It'd make it marginally harder for us to take someone else's space, but it'd make it prohibitively hard for anyone else to take our space.


Yes. It would make it easier for you to defend your enormous empire.

Thanks for agreeing and proving my point.

If such a system had been implemented before a doughnut ever occured, it might have prevented it.
Now, its too late. Every proposed change can be argued to fsvor the existing hegemony, and rightly so, because of the simple force differential.

Doesnt mean the change proposed is "bad", it just means it alone will be insufficient to break the doughnut.
It doesnt have to be just one change that does so.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#76 - 2014-04-24 14:56:08 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Pathetic attempt.

Every change has repercussions throughout the system.

Furthermore, if we take your complaint as true, if removal of Local has so little effect in your eyes, then there is commensurately no harm in doing so. Nice faceplant.


Except that you're wrong and 0.0 would still be a game between two supercoalitions regardless of any changes made to local, all else equal

Removing local would not create any opportunities for other entities to gain a foothold in the sov game, period.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#77 - 2014-04-24 14:57:19 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
1) CFC will argue that this would make it evene easier for them to steamroll.
2) They would be right in saying so.

...We'd have an easier time steamrolling in systems where we couldn't see local but the defenders could?
Uh, yeah, sure.

Not that this makes it a good suggestion. It's imbalanced too far in favor of the defenders. It'd make it marginally harder for us to take someone else's space, but it'd make it prohibitively hard for anyone else to take our space.


Yes. It would make it easier for you to defend your enormous empire.

Thanks for agreeing and proving my point.

Except what you said was exactly the opposite. It wouldn't make it easier for us to attack. It'd make it easier for us to defend.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#78 - 2014-04-24 14:58:19 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Yes. It would make it easier for you to defend your enormous empire.

Thanks for agreeing and proving my point.


I 'get' that you've never set foot in 0.0 and don't understand how strategic assets are defended, but at no point does it involve intel channels or local or any of that crap

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Jur Tissant
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#79 - 2014-04-24 14:58:42 UTC
Null is already treacherous enough to travel through while having to dodge bubbles. Perhaps it should be an option in player-controlled systems but not in NPC null.
Salvos Rhoska
#80 - 2014-04-24 14:59:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
@Andski and James:
So what do YOU propose as a change then?

Show us what youve got.

Jur Tissant wrote:
Null is already treacherous enough to travel through while having to dodge bubbles. Perhaps it should be an option in player-controlled systems but not in NPC null.

I agree. The difference being in the nature of Sov, and player control.
Players cant Sovereignly control NPC space, nor is that Sov control contested by other players, therrfore a degree of automation and NPC interference in that environment, as Local, is justified.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent