So one of the concerns that the EVE player base has had frequently is about null sec local chat. Many people believe that null sec is far to safe in it’s current state. Between intel bots pasting intel without user input, and programs that organize the data into a more user friendly interface than a chat window, I tend to agree with the notion that null sec is to safe. One of the things that make it safe is the local chat, so it’s something that should be looked at.
Many people have proposed to make null sec local delayed, or invisible, much like it is in wormhole space. While this, I think, would be better for null sec than what’s implemented currently, I have an alternative idea, and that is to make null sec completely anonymous, but keep it remaining as immediate.
It would work very similarly to how wormhole space local works, except for everyone one pilot there is in local, there is one anonymous entry in local chat. They remain anonymous indefinitely, or until they type something into local chat, after which their identity is revealed.
This still provides players with some level of intel. I think they wouldn’t get to much intel, but not to little either. If an alliance is seriously concerned about the security of their space, they can still put dedicated eyes on gates to watch the overview, instead of local. Either idea, anonymous local, or invisible local would require null sec residents to put in a tad more work than they currently do to report intel. Either idea wouldn’t make intel reporting impossible either.
I don’t think my idea is great, but it is another idea that I haven’t heard from other players yet. So, your thoughts? Preferably your helpful, and constructive thoughts; not your raging and flaming thoughts.
Well, if our “recon” ships would be actual recons instead of e-war ships, then the one with d-scan immunity could have the ability (maybe as a special module) to identify anyone on d-scan and show them on local and broadcast it to fleet/corp/alliance, even in w-space. Assuming that the null local will be modified/hidden somehow, this could make these areas quite interesting, as you will see who is in the system, but you won’t see if anyone else is monitoring it.
But this would require the rework of the current “recon” ships, and possibly introduce T1 explorer cruisers which would serve as the new base for the actual recon cruisers…
If I’m too lazy to write the whole thing down again, then it’s definitely too much work to actually do it unfortunately.
It’s a good idea and has merit. I am 100% in favor of a delayed or absent local chat, but locator agents will 100% need a rework if this happens. The only way to know if someone is online is if you either see them in local or shoot them a convo, potentially spoiling any attempt to hunt or jump on someone.
[quote=“Daichi_Yamato, post:2, topic:11559, full:true”]
I think players should be able to tell when friendlies are about, and not just friendlies but who they are. Just never neutrals and bad guys.[/quote]Standing clusterf****** and abuse potential I see.
Observatories> Gates> Local
I think that’s the correct order to fix null.
How exactly? No clue. But current reporting to concord each time you take a gate (not to mention claiming sov) in “lawless” space just feels wrong.
How I think local should work is, you always know how many pilots are in system, but you never know who they are. It’s similar to your idea, except the list is empty (delayed), but the counter of pilots in system stays. Observatories, then, could be used to give intel on any blues in system.
Which means now you don’t have bots watching local chat but cloaked bots on gate pings reporting people passing through gates to a web-tool. Currently you can scoff at people who use intel tools like NEAR, then you are literally forced to use such a tool in order to know what’s going on. And only the most organized groups have the ability to setup such a tool. Truly a great idea.
Which means now you don’t have bots watching local chat but cloaked bots on gate pings reporting people passing through gates to a web-tool. Currently you can scoff at people who use intel tools like NEAR, then you are literally forced to use such a tool in order to know what’s going on. And only the most organized groups have the ability to setup such a tool. Truly a great idea.
That’s the thing about a game like eve. No matter how it’s changed, no matter what is done to evolve the game, the bots will evolve along with it. Until CCP finds some magical way to detect that the input into a client isn’t from an actual human, but instead a bot, bots will always be a problem.
A way around the bots reporting people off the overview would be to tie/link overview entries to local chat entries. If an entry in local is anonymous, it will be the same on everyone’s overview. A way around this would be to have everyone that’s blue to that area of space in the same fleet, unless the change was made so that it doesn’t show the anonymous entry on overview as a fleet member, but instead a neutral. As soon as that anonymous someone says something in local, they are no longer anonymous in local chat or on everyone’s overview.
A way around that would be to have all coalition members put an X in local wherever they go, so they can reveal themselves. Anyone who doesn’t do this, is likely to be an actual neutral. So then, what would be a way around this? Perhaps, have a combination of a delayed and anonymous local? When an anonymous someone says something in local, they are not revealed for X amount of time. After that timer runs out, everyone knows who they are.
The question is, how far do we want to take a change like this? How severe do we want it to be? Assuming we want to change it at all?
Also, NEAR is free for anyone to use. It’s not just reserved for large alliances.
[quote=“Crimson_Draufgange, post:10, topic:11559”]
A way around the bots reporting people off the overview would be to tie/link overview entries to local chat entries. If an entry in local is anonymous, it will be the same on everyone’s overview.[/quote]
And how would they ever turn non-anonymous? I mean when I am on the same grid with them, I see them. And Xing up in local? Making it harder for the people who live there to identify themselves among themselves, while neutrals and hostiles can use the system to their advantage and only their advantage?
It does not matter if NEAR is free to use for everyone. The problem is that I can right now rely on standard local and intel reports to see if someone is coming and if I can bait someone, or better dock because they will just overwhelm me and I won’t have fun, or if I want to go to the central meeting point and prepare to help a bait. The lack of local clarity makes this a lot less feasible. Under your suggestions, or any other similar suggestion, it becomes near mandatory to use such a tool to figure out what’s going on. Right now, there is a leveled playing field for attackers and residents because everyone knows what’s going on equally. Your suggestions brings back the days of CFC figuring out a system to replace char portraits with standing tags in chats to make it possible only for them to know exactly who is who in local. We all know what came afterwards.
How far we should take changes? No where at all in my opinion. Not knowing who is in local impedes good content and only leads to useless ganks. There are no fights coming from a system where people are scattered over several systems and don’t know what’s going on in their vicinity. In contrast to W-space, which people like you always like to quote for their local-removal-suggestions, the groups there are largely concentrated in one system when they do something. You can just reship and warp in a group to the attacked alliance/corp member and things happen. In W-space, ships are also fitted for more tank and PVP and rat in groups rather than alone due to the NPCs there being a lot more dangerous and anomalies a lot more rewarding there than in Null sec.
As long as null sec systems cannot support the same kind of gameplay of larger numbers of people being present and able to sustain their income in one system, removing or limiting local chat is not going to achieve anything good.
That might be a bit much. I think having all of null local anonymous would provide a nice balance.
Not sure if it was mentioned already (I think it was), but observatories could aid in revealing identities of people in null. But for sake of balance, there should be a limit to how many can be placed in a constellation or region.
Albion Online does this pretty interesting - when you pop the region map it tells you “X hostile players in the system”. Of course AO has different circumstances but the idea can be adapted, if there’s a will to do this.
Perhaps this can be applied to Eve like an intel tool that says “X players in system, Y in your fleet, Z neutral, W hostile” or something like this.
How about disabling “local” altogether and only have general chat channels - they can be region wide/based on interest etc.
How would observatories work? I’m not entirely sure myself. I was thinking they would give the player that owns them, some higher level of intel than is available at the base level. It’s all theory and speculation right now.
Not sure what you mean in your second question. You’re implying that the number of corps in an alliance, or number of corps holding sov in a region would effect the number of observatories in the area? I was implying that there could be a cap on how many observatories should be in a certain area, regardless of who owns the space.
You wouldn’t know who’s who, but you would still know the approximate safety of the area. I could see this still making null safer than it should be, which is what players want to avoid.
This idea, I think would work much better than what’s currently in-game, but may need some ironing out. Instead of cloaky camping one system, you could cloaky camp an entire region. Since the residents may not know exactly where you’re at, they may do one of two things.
Dock up and stay docked until the majority of threats in the area are gone
Keep ratting because they think they’re safe. “I don’t think that hostile is anywhere near me”
This would make a very interesting dynamic of gameplay for sure.