Features & Ideas Discussion

 
^ Back to top

Topic is locked indefinitely.

 

i am disappointed in null sec people. (TL:DR talking about local chat.) read first post.

Author
Goonswarm Federation
#1541 Posted: 2012.11.26 22:22
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:


You seem to be suggesting that the only way to possibly mine is to go out solo in an undefended barge and just cross your fingers...




That is how they do it in highsec, and it is where most of the minerals come from. So why would anyone bother mining in nullsec when it is just so much easier to do in in highsec?
Goonswarm Federation
#1542 Posted: 2012.11.26 22:25  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Nikk Narrel wrote:
The problem is the NBSI paradigm itself. It is anti-social, and drives away "unwanted' pilots.

Um, no. NBSI isn't a problem. If the alliances which owned space had actually lived there, instead of sending their isk-making alts to hisec, then you wouldn't be bitching about how local made it hard to catch ratters (i.e. "hurr local makes it too safe to live in null"), instead you'd be bitching about how difficult it was to run an incursion into that space and live.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
This could be solved by shifting to NRDS, but you need to create an environment where this attitude is rewarded.

Why? Why should we spend a lot of time, energy and ships to take over and build our own empire, and then let some random chucklefuck run through our systems with impunity just because that particular char hasn't been bad enough to go red yet?

Nikk Narrel wrote:
High Sec does this, but at the cost of war decs. And we all know NPC corps avoid this.

I don't know how you play in hisec, but in hisec I ignore everyone else, and the only concession I make that there are any other players at all in hisec, is that I take care to not derp around with too valuable cargo. I don't even keep local visible, there's no point.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
So, why don't we suggest a self regulating standings system?
As soon as your alliance has SOV over a system, they become entered as a standings item for this.
Put simply, anyone who is outside your alliance, and attacks someone IN your alliance, they drop on the color bar scale to you.
Light red, red, whatever makes sense.
Pretty soon, you know who you should be shooting, they will sort themselves out.

People can still override this and change standings manually, if they see a need.

Yes, let's tell CCP, who can't code a standing system which survives session changes, titan bridges, jumpbridges, cynos etc to save their lives, to make that system even more complicated.

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

RIP Vile Rat
#1543 Posted: 2012.11.26 22:29
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:


You seem to be suggesting that the only way to possibly mine is to go out solo in an undefended barge and just cross your fingers...




That is how they do it in highsec, and it is where most of the minerals come from. So why would anyone bother mining in nullsec when it is just so much easier to do in in highsec?

You make a good point.

Why should mining occur in null sec at all? At least the type of mining we have now, where you hang out at obvious locations in ships that are, at best, slow to explode.

If it is impractical to expose yourself to risk like this, why is the game designed to require it for mining?
#1544 Posted: 2012.11.26 22:39
Lord Zim wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
The problem is the NBSI paradigm itself. It is anti-social, and drives away "unwanted' pilots.

Um, no. NBSI isn't a problem. If the alliances which owned space had actually lived there, instead of sending their isk-making alts to hisec, then you wouldn't be bitching about how local made it hard to catch ratters (i.e. "hurr local makes it too safe to live in null"), instead you'd be bitching about how difficult it was to run an incursion into that space and live.
....

Great idea.

(Obviously the last line was sarcasm, Lord Zim never fails to poke in these chats)

I actually find it amusing that most null sec entities have an attitude, that basically says:
"We will kill anyone who is not us"
and then folks turn up later and ask why the place doesn't attract tourists more often.

I think it has to do with other pilots hearing banjos start playing, as they fly around space belonging to others.

If you want Null Sec to be a shooting gallery of doom, let's do it up right, and turn out the lights.

If you want more people in null, try shooting at them less.

Admit when you have conflicting goals, such as wanting more people so you can drive them off by shooting at them.
Goonswarm Federation
#1545 Posted: 2012.11.26 22:40
Nikk Narrel wrote:

You make a good point.

Why should mining occur in null sec at all?


It shouldn't. There shouldn't be any ratting, production or trade either. The only thing people should be doing in nullsec is crashing cap and battleship fleets into each other. Poor people who want to earn isk for doing stuff should just go somewhere else. Or they could fit a stealth bomber and lurk around the emptiness of nullsec and feel like some sort of ~elite~ hunter for an hour or 2 before getting bored and realizing they are too poor to have fun in nullsec.
Goonswarm Federation
#1546 Posted: 2012.11.26 22:49
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I actually find it amusing that most null sec entities have an attitude, that basically says:
"We will kill anyone who is not us"
and then folks turn up later and ask why the place doesn't attract tourists more often.

Um. Nullsec isn't supposed to be about tourists, it's about giving and receiving war, and building your own space empire. I've no idea why you're trying to imply nullsec should be some tourist area.

**** that noise.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
If you want more people in null, try shooting at them less.

No. The nullsec population problem has nothing to do with us "shooting them too much", and everything to do with nullsec not being good enough in effort/reward comparisons when compared to literally every other area of the game.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Admit when you have conflicting goals, such as wanting more people so you can drive them off by shooting at them.

It is a conflicting goal, but it is not a goal you meet by making the area you want more people to move to suck more.

I mean, we can do that now just to shut people like you up, I don't think we'll notice much difference if we were to go from less than 1% of player activity in our space to even less than that. People who are proponents of this change, however, will, because they'll find even less people to try to gank, and they'll be back whining about something else. Probably how dscan is overpowered, or JBs are used by bots or whatever the next excuse will be.
Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
#1547 Posted: 2012.11.26 23:18
>>>>I actually find it amusing that most null sec entities have an attitude, that basically says:
"We will kill anyone who is not us"
and then folks turn up later and ask why the place doesn't attract tourists more often.
Lord Zim wrote:
Um. Nullsec isn't supposed to be about tourists, it's about giving and receiving war, and building your own space empire. I've no idea why you're trying to imply nullsec should be some tourist area.

**** that noise.

Don't waste time playing ignorant here. The term tourist was used quite loosely, as you should realize. I refer to the presence of pilots in null sec by choice, for whatever reason.

>>>>If you want more people in null, try shooting at them less.
Lord Zim wrote:
No. The nullsec population problem has nothing to do with us "shooting them too much", and everything to do with nullsec not being good enough in effort/reward comparisons when compared to literally every other area of the game.

Actually, a good part of it relates to the limited means of fighting available. If they can't muster greater numbers, why bother?
Use of anything except brute force is handicapped by flawless free intel.
How much reward is enough to convince someone who believes they won't survive to collect it, hmmm?

>>>>Admit when you have conflicting goals, such as wanting more people so you can drive them off by shooting at them.
Lord Zim wrote:
It is a conflicting goal, but it is not a goal you meet by making the area you want more people to move to suck more.

I mean, we can do that now just to shut people like you up, I don't think we'll notice much difference if we were to go from less than 1% of player activity in our space to even less than that. People who are proponents of this change, however, will, because they'll find even less people to try to gank, and they'll be back whining about something else. Probably how dscan is overpowered, or JBs are used by bots or whatever the next excuse will be.

You assume that blob warfare which we have now is self justifying?

Interesting.

I hope you appreciate that smaller groups, who are possibly willing, use tactics more akin to guerrilla warfare, where they show up unexpectedly and deal focused damage.
It's not really a viable tactic if they are unable to be 'unexpected'. Once someone shows up in local, they tend to be quite expected.

Do you think major alliance sov holders are simply going to pull up stakes and flee for high sec?
Those bombers are scary, I heard someone imply....
#1548 Posted: 2012.11.26 23:21
Lord Zim wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I actually find it amusing that most null sec entities have an attitude, that basically says:
"We will kill anyone who is not us"
and then folks turn up later and ask why the place doesn't attract tourists more often.

Um. Nullsec isn't supposed to be about tourists, it's about giving and receiving war, and building your own space empire. I've no idea why you're trying to imply nullsec should be some tourist area.

**** that noise.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
If you want more people in null, try shooting at them less.

No. The nullsec population problem has nothing to do with us "shooting them too much", and everything to do with nullsec not being good enough in effort/reward comparisons when compared to literally every other area of the game.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Admit when you have conflicting goals, such as wanting more people so you can drive them off by shooting at them.

It is a conflicting goal, but it is not a goal you meet by making the area you want more people to move to suck more.

I mean, we can do that now just to shut people like you up, I don't think we'll notice much difference if we were to go from less than 1% of player activity in our space to even less than that. People who are proponents of this change, however, will, because they'll find even less people to try to gank, and they'll be back whining about something else. Probably how dscan is overpowered, or JBs are used by bots or whatever the next excuse will be.

JB are fine nurf titian bridging.
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.
Amarr Empire
#1549 Posted: 2012.11.26 23:29
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:


You seem to be suggesting that the only way to possibly mine is to go out solo in an undefended barge and just cross your fingers...




That is how they do it in highsec, and it is where most of the minerals come from. So why would anyone bother mining in nullsec when it is just so much easier to do in in highsec?


...Because of simple economics! I don't see why this is so hard to understand.

If there are half a dozen resources (ice, certain ores, etc.) that are ONLY available in null sec, then it is simply not an option for all the miners to avoid null sec. If nobody mines there, then there will be no ships getting built anywhere in the galaxy, because they require whatever mineral or ice product, and there WONT BE ANY to build with.

If everyone stopped mining in null, then a ship that requires megacyte would double in price eventually... then triple, then quadruple, and so on the longer people refused to mine. At some point, mining megacyte would be like... 40-100 times more profitable than mining anything in high sec, because the demand would keep going up as people lost ships and couldn't replace them.

Eventually, SOMEBODY is going to say "okay, that's enough profit to make it worthwhile to change my mining style and to go in with a whole escorted task force to mine that stuff" and then they will. And they'll make a ton of money and keep doing it.



It is economically impossible for this not to happen / for literally everyone to stop mining in null sec forever. No matter how dangerous it is.
Goonswarm Federation
#1550 Posted: 2012.11.26 23:29
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Don't waste time playing ignorant here. The term tourist was used quite loosely, as you should realize. I refer to the presence of pilots in null sec by choice, for whatever reason.

We want pilots who are in our coalition to be in our space. We want to keep people who are not in our coalition out. Thus starts the great circle of war.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Actually, a good part of it relates to the limited means of fighting available. If they can't muster greater numbers, why bother?
Use of anything except brute force is handicapped by flawless free intel.
How much reward is enough to convince someone who believes they won't survive to collect it, hmmm?

I'm sure the dotbros are agreeing with you that the only way to fight in nullsec is to outblob the guy you're fighting 5:1. Roll

Nikk Narrel wrote:
You assume that blob warfare which we have now is self justifying?

You mean the blob warfare which is a necessity because CCP's idea of a sov system sucks literally all the bags of dicks on the way to the parking lot?

Right.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
I hope you appreciate that smaller groups, who are possibly willing, use tactics more akin to guerrilla warfare, where they show up unexpectedly and deal focused damage.

Of course I do. I'm not going to just go "well sure go right ahead and make it suck even more to live in nullsec, as long as we get roaming gangs of cloaked ships which can pretend to be doing guerilla warfare ... against empty space.

You want guerilla warfare? Make nullsec the preferred place to live and make isk for those pilots already PVPing there, add tons of little things which a roaming gang could, unless countered, wreck to be a nuisanse. That's how you fix the lack of guerilla warfare in today's nullsec, not make everyone move the few isk making alts they still have in nullsec out of nullsec so cloaked gangs can derp around and find ... nothing.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Do you think major alliance sov holders are simply going to pull up stakes and flee for high sec?
Those bombers are scary, I heard someone imply....

Tell me more about how sov is dependent on local.
Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Goonswarm Federation
#1551 Posted: 2012.11.27 10:05
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:


You seem to be suggesting that the only way to possibly mine is to go out solo in an undefended barge and just cross your fingers...




That is how they do it in highsec, and it is where most of the minerals come from. So why would anyone bother mining in nullsec when it is just so much easier to do in in highsec?


...Because of simple economics! I don't see why this is so hard to understand.

.


Simple economics isn't often so simple.

As some one who hangs out in nullsec, I'm all for CCP buffing it. But it has to be thought out, because we've already seen attempts to just drop in rare or unique minerals and it not playing out the way it was advertised. It also doesn't add a whole lot to player experience in nullsec. Being a primary commodity producer ain't all the interesting. We have moons, rare ores and better planets, but most people out here rat because straight isk is more useful and you get actual highend and rare finished goods from the wrecks, rather than highend dirt that has to be moved by freighters to Jita.

I'm going to remain skeptical that delayed local can just be balanced out by throwing more monopolies at nullsec. But I'm sure it will be a blast when nullsec has all the ice belts and no-local. Look what happened when they let a small group in nullsec get most the technetium, or super-duper ore in the form of drone alloys.
#1552 Posted: 2012.11.27 14:24
Lord Zim wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I hope you appreciate that smaller groups, who are possibly willing, use tactics more akin to guerrilla warfare, where they show up unexpectedly and deal focused damage.

Of course I do. I'm not going to just go "well sure go right ahead and make it suck even more to live in nullsec, as long as we get roaming gangs of cloaked ships which can pretend to be doing guerilla warfare ... against empty space.

You want guerilla warfare? Make nullsec the preferred place to live and make isk for those pilots already PVPing there, add tons of little things which a roaming gang could, unless countered, wreck to be a nuisanse. That's how you fix the lack of guerilla warfare in today's nullsec, not make everyone move the few isk making alts they still have in nullsec out of nullsec so cloaked gangs can derp around and find ... nothing.

Shockingly enough, I find this to be an appealing notion.

Specifically, the idea that sov holding should require a level of risk exposure for it's various aspects.
In the belts, there should be some kind of 'Ore Enhancer' to produce the rare ores, which in turn should be possible to destroy and sabotage ore production.
Same with ratting and mission running that have been enhanced by sov upgrading means. They should have isolated and vulnerable POCO-like structures that can be targeted by sneaky devils. This should be something a black ops group can do, in my opinion.

Lord Zim wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Do you think major alliance sov holders are simply going to pull up stakes and flee for high sec?
Those bombers are scary, I heard someone imply....

Tell me more about how sov is dependent on local.

Sov being dependent on local? Absurd notion, in my opinion.

Local makes certain aspects of the game easy, in exchange for effectively blocking other parts of the game.
At most, sov holding would simply adapt. Whether this means they would consolidate or expand as a result, only time will tell.
Goonswarm Federation
#1553 Posted: 2012.11.27 14:37
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Shockingly enough, I find this to be an appealing notion.

Specifically, the idea that sov holding should require a level of risk exposure for it's various aspects.
In the belts, there should be some kind of 'Ore Enhancer' to produce the rare ores, which in turn should be possible to destroy and sabotage ore production.
Same with ratting and mission running that have been enhanced by sov upgrading means. They should have isolated and vulnerable POCO-like structures that can be targeted by sneaky devils. This should be something a black ops group can do, in my opinion.

So what's the problem with backing this kind of thinking, instead of constantly harping on about how it should be shittier to live in null?

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Do you think major alliance sov holders are simply going to pull up stakes and flee for high sec?
Those bombers are scary, I heard someone imply....

Tell me more about how sov is dependent on local.

Sov being dependent on local? Absurd notion, in my opinion.

Sov isn't related to local in any way, shape or form, and there would be absolutely no adaptation required for sov holders. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nope. Nuh uh.

As such, there's not even one iota of point in postulating about how "major alliance sov holder are simply going to pull up stakes and flee for high sec", because they won't. The line members, however, will.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Local makes certain aspects of the game easy, in exchange for effectively blocking other parts of the game.
At most, sov holding would simply adapt. Whether this means they would consolidate or expand as a result, only time will tell.

Conversely, no local makes certain aspects of the game easy, in exchange for effectively blocking other parts of the game. At most, linemembers would simply move to hisec, FW or WHs.

And please for the love of all that is holy, stop harping on about how "sov holding would adapt". There's no part of sov holding which is impacted in any way, shape or form, by local or the lack thereof.
Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
#1554 Posted: 2012.11.27 15:00
Pardon my liberty at rearranging this for the sake of context.
Lord Zim wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Local makes certain aspects of the game easy, in exchange for effectively blocking other parts of the game.
At most, sov holding would simply adapt. Whether this means they would consolidate or expand as a result, only time will tell.

And please for the love of all that is holy, stop harping on about how "sov holding would adapt". There's no part of sov holding which is impacted in any way, shape or form, by local or the lack thereof.

Harping? That is hardly a fair description when the actual phrase expressed no certainty at all of such need.

When someone says "At most", such as in "At most, sov holding would simply adapt.", it suggests the need for adapting to be unlikely, and probably trivial in nature.

Lord Zim wrote:
Conversely, no local makes certain aspects of the game easy, in exchange for effectively blocking other parts of the game. At most, linemembers would simply move to hisec, FW or WHs..

No local making something easy. I must point out that if the absence of local also enhances an opposed effort, it makes neither easy, simply changing the medium to require effort for intel on both parts.

Hunting for prey is not easier; it always presumed rapt attention to sensors and an idea of where to probably look for targets. With local, they knew someone was present to be found. Without it, they will search up to a point of diminishing returns. This point will probably be different from one pilot to the next, as some will search more than others.

Avoiding hunters is not easier; the PvE pilot was always intended to be alert for the presence of hostile players. Instead of the channel roster being the go-to tool, now they will have sensors and possibly more coordination with intel channels. With local, they knew the moment a potential hostile entered the system. Without it, they will be equally as blind as the hunter seeking them.

As to cloaking being easier... no. In many ways it makes it possible to perform in a more genuine sense.
It would also be reasonable to expect a means to hunt them the same as any other ship, by matching the level of effort, skill, and appropriate ships and fittings.
Goonswarm Federation
#1555 Posted: 2012.11.27 15:12
Nikk Narrel wrote:
No local making something easy. I must point out that if the absence of local also enhances an opposed effort, it makes neither easy, simply changing the medium to require effort for intel on both parts.

Open map, look at where rats are killed, set autopilot, travel to system, setup safespot and wait. Occasionally derp around in belts and anoms and see if someone's out and about, gank them, go back to hiding for a short while. Rince repeat.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Hunting for prey is not easier; it always presumed rapt attention to sensors and an idea of where to probably look for targets. With local, they knew someone was present to be found. Without it, they will search up to a point of diminishing returns. This point will probably be different from one pilot to the next, as some will search more than others.

Open map, look at where rats are killed, set autopilot, travel to system. Job done.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Avoiding hunters is not easier; the PvE pilot was always intended to be alert for the presence of hostile players. Instead of the channel roster being the go-to tool, now they will have sensors and possibly more coordination with intel channels. With local, they knew the moment a potential hostile entered the system. Without it, they will be equally as blind as the hunter seeking them.

Except the hunter knows exactly where to go, and can choose everything to suit him. The prey must be vigilent at all times, whether there's anyone there or not.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
As to cloaking being easier... no. In many ways it makes it possible to perform in a more genuine sense.
It would also be reasonable to expect a means to hunt them the same as any other ship, by matching the level of effort, skill, and appropriate ships and fittings.

Ah, yes, the "cloaker hunter" ship which would be forbidden in WHs for some obscure reason so as to not **** over the risk which is inherent in WHs?
Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
#1556 Posted: 2012.11.27 15:46
>>>>No local making something easy. I must point out that if the absence of local also enhances an opposed effort, it makes neither easy, simply changing the medium to require effort for intel on both parts.
Lord Zim wrote:
Open map, look at where rats are killed, set autopilot, travel to system, setup safespot and wait. Occasionally derp around in belts and anoms and see if someone's out and about, gank them, go back to hiding for a short while. Rince repeat.

To counter this, simply "Open map, look at where rats are killed", and avoid the systems. Relocating periodically in order to snowshoe your activity footprint may be advisable.

>>>>Hunting for prey is not easier; it always presumed rapt attention to sensors and an idea of where to probably look for targets. With local, they knew someone was present to be found. Without it, they will search up to a point of diminishing returns. This point will probably be different from one pilot to the next, as some will search more than others.
Lord Zim wrote:
Open map, look at where rats are killed, set autopilot, travel to system. Job done.

To counter this, simply "Open map, look at where rats are killed", and avoid the systems. Relocating periodically in order to snowshoe your activity footprint may be advisable.

>>>>Avoiding hunters is not easier; the PvE pilot was always intended to be alert for the presence of hostile players. Instead of the channel roster being the go-to tool, now they will have sensors and possibly more coordination with intel channels. With local, they knew the moment a potential hostile entered the system. Without it, they will be equally as blind as the hunter seeking them.
Lord Zim wrote:
Except the hunter knows exactly where to go, and can choose everything to suit him. The prey must be vigilent at all times, whether there's anyone there or not.

The only change to this is the part where both hunter and hunted become mutually aware of each other instantly, by seeing each other's names in the chat roster.
The hunter no longer knows if he can find a target in any given system, they just hope based on past activities.
The prey also can look at past activities, and predict where the hunters are most likely to go.

Effort can counter effort in each case, there is no "I WIN" button.
But, in each case where effort is needed, an opportunity to come up short is also created. A chance to make a mistake.
Will the hunter blow off the system because too few rats were listed on the map, and miss their dream target?
Will the prey be too absorbed shifting items to a can, and neglect a scan at the wrong time?
The game becomes more challenging when more effort is needed.

>>>>As to cloaking being easier... no. In many ways it makes it possible to perform in a more genuine sense.
It would also be reasonable to expect a means to hunt them the same as any other ship, by matching the level of effort, skill, and appropriate ships and fittings.
Lord Zim wrote:
Ah, yes, the "cloaker hunter" ship which would be forbidden in WHs for some obscure reason so as to not **** over the risk which is inherent in WHs?

Just like you aren't likely to see many types of cap ships in high sec. How arbitrary can they get with these rules already?
Goonswarm Federation
#1557 Posted: 2012.11.27 16:08
Nikk Narrel wrote:
To counter this, simply "Open map, look at where rats are killed", and avoid the systems. Relocating periodically in order to snowshoe your activity footprint may be advisable.

Doesn't work very well when your profitability is dependent on a system's sec status, now does it?

Nikk Narrel wrote:
The only change to this is the part where both hunter and hunted become mutually aware of each other instantly, by seeing each other's names in the chat roster.
The hunter no longer knows if he can find a target in any given system, they just hope based on past activities.
The prey also can look at past activities, and predict where the hunters are most likely to go.

This would work if there weren't some systems which were usable, while the rest are meh.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Just like you aren't likely to see many types of cap ships in high sec. How arbitrary can they get with these rules already?

Hisec has permanent cynojammers, what would be WH's excuse?
Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
#1558 Posted: 2012.11.27 16:20
Lord Zim wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
To counter this, simply "Open map, look at where rats are killed", and avoid the systems. Relocating periodically in order to snowshoe your activity footprint may be advisable.

Doesn't work very well when your profitability is dependent on a system's sec status, now does it?


Posting guards at ingress gates doesn't work for you?

Profitability mostly depends on a system's sov status, more than the security status, and if you have a cluster of high sovereignty systems it is expected that you have most of your defences there and not just a bunch of ratters hopping from anom to anom pretending they are in highsec.

Of course, if you expect people to actually stand watch in that way you might have to pay them explicitly for doing so. Opportunity cost of not anom hopping, after all.
http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm
Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
#1559 Posted: 2012.11.27 16:22
>>>>To counter this, simply "Open map, look at where rats are killed", and avoid the systems. Relocating periodically in order to snowshoe your activity footprint may be advisable.
Lord Zim wrote:
Doesn't work very well when your profitability is dependent on a system's sec status, now does it?

Ahhh, that is a point of beauty right there... will they play it smart, and be cautious while getting a little less...
OR will they be bold, and possibly compensate by using teamwork to hold off the threat of hunters?
I would not be surprised to see both attitudes prevail, where seeing the map statistics made even the hunter think it might be too dangerous to go where a defense fleet is probably operating.

>>>>The only change to this is the part where both hunter and hunted become mutually aware of each other instantly, by seeing each other's names in the chat roster.
The hunter no longer knows if he can find a target in any given system, they just hope based on past activities.
The prey also can look at past activities, and predict where the hunters are most likely to go.
Lord Zim wrote:
This would work if there weren't some systems which were usable, while the rest are meh.

Meh is not bad. Meh can be where more vulnerable types compromise and work.
It would be hard to reward teamwork if solo play gave the same advantages.

>>>>Just like you aren't likely to see many types of cap ships in high sec. How arbitrary can they get with these rules already?
Lord Zim wrote:
Hisec has permanent cynojammers, what would be WH's excuse?

These guys love story lines.

Possibly hidden sleeper tech left behind interfering with detection gear, or the stars in this region put out so much raw energy that the sensitive equipment can't compensate... I am curious to know what they will spin it as.
Goonswarm Federation
#1560 Posted: 2012.11.27 17:20
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Ahhh, that is a point of beauty right there... will they play it smart, and be cautious while getting a little less...
OR will they be bold, and possibly compensate by using teamwork to hold off the threat of hunters?
I would not be surprised to see both attitudes prevail, where seeing the map statistics made even the hunter think it might be too dangerous to go where a defense fleet is probably operating.

Or just look at the effort required to stay semi-safe, and decide to go do L4s, farm FW or go to WHs instead.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Meh is not bad. Meh can be where more vulnerable types compromise and work.
It would be hard to reward teamwork if solo play gave the same advantages.

Meh is worse effort/reward than l4s, FW or WHs, so yes, meh is bad.
Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Forum Jump