These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#81 - 2014-04-24 14:59:54 UTC
Andski wrote:
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


thanks for playing, NPC alt

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Dave Stark
#82 - 2014-04-24 15:00:23 UTC
Andski wrote:
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


it involves logging in more titans than the other guy?
Cresswell Jones
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#83 - 2014-04-24 15:05:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Cresswell Jones
Salvos Rhoska please seek help for your learning delays. Your ideas are bad and you cannot engage in good faith discussion when presented with contradictory opinions, either out of inexperience or ignorance. I am not sure which at this point but it is probably both.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#84 - 2014-04-24 15:05:48 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
it involves logging in more titans than the other guy?


It basically involves a cynojammer, bubbles and slowcats

I'm sure the highly knowledgeable NPC alt will tell us how that will change if local is removed

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
#85 - 2014-04-24 15:12:21 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
I've been out of the loop for a while, but my impression of the change (giving only defenders local) would impede sov-grinding with supers.

That's really the only effect I figured it would have, as minor as it is.

No doubt Andski understands these things a lot better than I do.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Drone 16
Holy Horde
#86 - 2014-04-24 15:12:26 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 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.


I have often though how interesting it would be for null-sov to have to build infrastructure to provide intel. The fights over the "local network" would be furious as the attacker tries to remove the huge advantage of the defender having local access while they do not.

I think it would work quite well. However as I understand it local can't be touched without huge changes to the code so it's off of the table.

It puts the peanutbutter on itself or it leaves the bonus round... - E1's greatest Hits
Salvos Rhoska
#87 - 2014-04-24 15:15:41 UTC
Cresswell Jones wrote:
Salvos Rhoska please seek help for your learning delays. Your ideas are bad and you cannot engage in good faith discussion when presented with contradictory opinions, either out of inexperience or ignorance. I am not sure which at this point but it is probably both.


What are your suggestions then?

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#88 - 2014-04-24 15:17:46 UTC
"I make pizzas by throwing all the ingredients into a bowl and microwaving it. You don't know how to make a better pizza, therefore I make a really good pizza."

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Dave Stark
#89 - 2014-04-24 15:17:56 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Cresswell Jones wrote:
Salvos Rhoska please seek help for your learning delays. Your ideas are bad and you cannot engage in good faith discussion when presented with contradictory opinions, either out of inexperience or ignorance. I am not sure which at this point but it is probably both.


What are your suggestions then?


do the polar opposite of all of your suggestions.
Meytal
Doomheim
#90 - 2014-04-24 15:26:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Meytal
Andski wrote:
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

How might a restriction of Cyno/Bridging to intra-Constellation only affect this?

Edit: How might such a restriction change how Nullsec works?
E-2C Hawkeye
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#91 - 2014-04-24 15:30:59 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 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.

I like this idea....would require you to scout and probe as you would in real tactics.
Yarda Black
The Black Redemption
#92 - 2014-04-24 15:32:03 UTC
This thread is:

- Unimaginative

- Unoriginal

- Badly explained

- Already made obsolete in the post that started it: "there is already space like this"

I say: trollpost
E-2C Hawkeye
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#93 - 2014-04-24 15:32:22 UTC
This and removing jump from caps would help reshape bluesec.
Revman Zim
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#94 - 2014-04-24 15:37:11 UTC
I would lke to state that my suggestion about local being available to the SOV holder was only to make a point about removing local completely.

Using SOV as the argument for removing local does not work. I believe the OP just wants to "feel safe" in null and be able to attack and harass players without being seen. So, basically reaping the benefits of NULL without having to actually take, maintain or pay for it.

I haven't thought through the ramifications of changing the availability of local enough to categoricaly support this idea. I was just pointing out the ignorance of the argument.
Herzyr
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#95 - 2014-04-24 15:40:17 UTC
Removing local from 0.0 makes it saferthan 1.0 hisec.

Cmon CCP, enforce this.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#96 - 2014-04-24 15:41:22 UTC
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:
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 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.

I like this idea....would require you to scout and probe as you would in real tactics.


Local works because it does not discriminate. A 'defender only' local would turn null sec into SUPER bluesec where many many more people would be joining sov holding renter alliances to carebear.

Because SOV null's main isk making comes from anomalies (which spew liquid isk and no LP if you use an ESS), this means mountains and mountains of new liquid isk stuffing itself into the economy.

In short, the idea is WORSE than no local. No local slowly strangles the economy by reducing the overall numbers of ships/mods killed as PVe players leave for high sec (as happened with the comparatively minor nerf to anomalies in 2011). Defender only local would kill the EVE economy almost over night.

Alliances would have MORE incentive to hold space they don't use just to have local intel.



The above is what I'm talking about. It took my all of 15 seconds to pull apart the idea of defender only local, because the idea is so glaringly bad that it's easy to pull apart.

This is why CCP ignores most 'feedback', because it's usually coming from a bunch of know it all gamers who never made a single game lol.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#97 - 2014-04-24 15:43:30 UTC
Revman Zim wrote:
I would lke to state that my suggestion about local being available to the SOV holder was only to make a point about removing local completely.

Using SOV as the argument for removing local does not work. I believe the OP just wants to "feel safe" in null and be able to attack and harass players without being seen. So, basically reaping the benefits of NULL without having to actually take, maintain or pay for it.

I haven't thought through the ramifications of changing the availability of local enough to categoricaly support this idea. I was just pointing out the ignorance of the argument.


I know, and you made your point as far as I'm concerned.

Yet you see that some people could even think that what you said was a good idea.

It's because 'brilliant idea' people only focus on the good aspects of an idea and don't think about the bad. Which is why the features and ideas forum is a vbery very dumb place lol.
Aiwha
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#98 - 2014-04-24 15:43:49 UTC
Come play in Wspace if you want that. We also have no hotdrops.

Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Myriad Blaze
Common Sense Ltd
Nulli Secunda
#99 - 2014-04-24 16:47:06 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Myriad Blaze wrote:
But before you change these things you should better have good reasons and a good idea about what will probably happen after such a change. And you should question yourself whether you want those (long term) results.

Then how do you propose to fix Null and Sovs mechanics?

Are you implying that removing Local from Null would solve Null and Sov mechanics?
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#100 - 2014-04-24 17:07:49 UTC
Myriad Blaze wrote:
Are you implying that removing Local from Null would solve Null and Sov mechanics?



He isn't, he's just saying that just because there's no known link between local and the strategic state of sov nullsec that doesn't mean that removing local isn't the cure for everything that ails the sov game

It's simple NPC alt logic

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar