Local chat thread

Let’s talk about local chat.

In EVE there are many intelligence tools, many ways to see incoming danger. We have D-scan, combat probes, our overview, friends and corporation members… but none of them are as powerful as local chat.

See a hostile name appear? Dock up and you will be 100% safe.

Local chat has been controversial. It’s the only intel tool that is completely uncounterable, as all the other intel tools can either be fooled or played around by using ships specifically designed to not show up on D-scan, on the overview or with combat probes.

Local chat also is part of the identity of parts of space: wormhole space and triglavian space are spooky because the only people showing up in local chat are the players who chat in local. Null, low and high sec would be completely different if the local chat there worked the same as in wormholes, as we have seen in the blackout.

I do believe local chat is simply way too reliable and uncounterable as intel tool. On the other hand, I don’t think another blackout is a good option either.

What do you think CCP could do to make local chat:

  • less reliable,
  • and/or counterable,
  • while keeping the identity of high/low/null sec space with faces in local chat?

Or do you disagree that local chat is too reliable and uncounterable as intel tool? Discuss!


Let’s start with a suggestion:

Delay joining local chat until 30 seconds after entering system.

While local chat would still show nearly everyone in system, a simple change like this will make local chat less reliable to see who’s in system with you and will make other forms of intel more important such as D-scan to see who’s coming for you.

A change like this might make it possible for hunters to catch people who almost ‘automatically’ dock up when they see an unfamiliar face in local.

Okay, there are a lot of different stakeholders here (predators and prey in HS, LS, and Null), so coming up with a solution that works for everyone will be difficult. Moreover, all the krabs are already feeling like they’re getting the shaft in the age of resource scarcity. So, they might riot if you increase their risk without addressing their incomes or ship costs.

However, things I like include:

  • Giving a short delay before a ship appears in local (which can be balanced by adjusting the time before that happens).
  • A mod that prevents a ship from appearing in local, which could be balanced by various drawbacks. And if the ability was tied to a mod instead of a hull bonus (like d-scan immunity on recons), it could be used by predator and prey alike.
  • Removing local in null, but giving sov holders intel structures of some sort (I think I heard CCP Fozzie talk about this at a fan event a few years back).

I do not think anything of making local less reliable. It helps me to decide whether I want to take an engagement because I see a chance of winning with what I have at hand, or better get safe because I have better things to do than to feed my tools needlessly and without any chance of getting a good outcome for me.

Delay is irrelevant to me as long as I see reliably who is in local. It doesn’t matter much to me if the people in system show up in chat with a short delay as long as I see all people in system.

That is one suggestion that keeps getting brought up and no one has yet solved the impossible balance issues: If you give sov holders these tools, will they get local only for themselves, thus making it incredibly hard for neutrals and hostiles to hunt local residents (which is not desireable), or will it give local to all people but then sov holders fund the intel tools of neutrals and hostiles who hunt them (which is undesireable as well).

Here’s another suggestion: You can opt out of showing up in local via a module but since local chat is tied to the fluid router network of the gate network, you have to disconnect yourself from that network. That means that you won’t be able to get into a new, current clone should you get podded because you are not connected to the network that handles these mind transfers.

To make the disconnection from the network, you have to activate the module before you jump a gate/wormhole. Once you activated that module, you won’t show up in local chat in the next system. In order to restore the connection to the network, you have to change system again via a gate (wormholes could work as well since you have to jump into w-space and back to make it work which has a polarization delay which prevents you from simply going back and forth repeatedly) or dock in a station/structure. This limitation is there to prevent people from turning off the module mid fight so that they can safe their clone, which would remove the risk that such a huge benefit should carry. Clone insurances would prevent complete loss of SP.

There you have it: Local shenanigans but with an appropriate risk for the incredible benefits that you gain. And only people who want to hunt like that would need to get a clone insurance as all other people are connected to the gate network that handles the mind transfers upon death, which means only the people who want to engage in this activity are impacted by this change and no one else, which prevents unnecessary, frustrating burdens for everyone else. A well designed gameplay feature, unlike most things CCP does these days. :slight_smile:


Local chat in the Lore is tied to the gate network.

Make it so anyone that joins a system via a wormhole doesn’t appear in local.

Jump in pod into local wormhole and back to be in almost perfect safety. Yep, perfect idea. Krabs gonna love it!

1 Like

Same thing would apply. If you don’t leave system by a gate, then you’d still appear in local. It’s far from a perfect idea, but something needs to be done to reduce the effectiveness of local.

That something has to be done says who?

Plus, what you want is all the cake without any of the poison in it that poor Gladus worked into the recipe so masterfully. You want all the good stuff without any downsides. That’s not how this is supposed to work. At least it used to be like that until Rattati and Psych got into power.

Anyone who shares that opinion I guess. The OP for one. I also agree with that opinion.

Others will disagree and that’s perfectly fine. We don’t all need to share the same opinion.

I like the idea of a module that can make players disconnect from the next local chat system.

It allows players to choose this module over something that makes them ore combat effective in order to avoid showing up in local, whether they’re ratting, hunting or anything else. Most people would still show up in local, but with such a module it won’t be 100% reliable as there is counterplay, nice!

I’m not sure I understand the connection to clones though. What is the purpose of that?

1 Like


And would it also disconnect anyone who joins via random filaments? Those aren’t gates either. :smiley:

Your ship and pod systems are connected to the gate network for purposes of showing you in local chat and mind transfer in case your pod is destroyed. Since you need to disconnect yourself from this network to not appear on local chat, you cannot transfer your mind into a clone upon destruction of your pod.

It’s a necessary downside for local chat immunity because this ability gives you tremendous power and benefits. Simply coming into a system via a WH or filament and not show up in local without any drawbacks is not balanced at all.

Another issue with your wet dreams is the following: You are not showing up in local, but that means you also should not see local chat. If you are not connected to the gate network, for whatever reason, you cannot see who is in system.

1 Like

If I understand correctly, you’re suggesting that when a player is disconnected from the local chat network, they’re also disconnected from the clone jump network, similar to how it works in wormholes? That, while disconnected, a player cannot dock up and jump to a clone in another system? Yet that they could still swap clones within the same station, or self-destruct to their medical clone?

I can see how that makes sense, but this makes a simple idea more complicated without much gameplay impact, as I doubt any of the hunters that would love a module to disconnect from the local chat network will make use of jump clone technology while in hostile space. And that any of the locals who wish to disconnect from the local chat network won’t really care either that they cannot clone jump until they have taken a gate to another system to reconnect in order to jump clone.

I’m afraid this will make a simple solution more convoluted, just for a lore reason. Or is there a gameplay scenario that will be impacted by this?

You are wrong. This is decidedly not a simple idea. You want to give hunters (and even pray if CCP implemented this like Scipio imagines it) incredible benefits. This necessitates equally drastic downsides. Otherwise there is no balance at all.

There are lots of gameplay implications. For one, your pod and skills are at risk in exchange for incredible hunting benefits. Secondly, your prey has an incentive to pod you not just because of your implants but also because you will lose SP and have to spend ISK for a new clone insurance. Third, traveling also becomes even more dangerous because you need to pay attention to things like smartbomb camps, super-insta lockers, bubbles and so on.

Your idea is not simple and saying or stubbornly insisting on that it is denies the massive implications that local immunity without any serious and unavoidable drawbacks has.
Just as an example; I am in a rather well-traveled area doing some PVE right now. I have a wormhole in system. If Scipio’s idea was implemented, I’d just go into the hole and back out and now I am gone from local and can rat in peace until I see combat probes.

1 Like

With ‘simple’ I mean it’s not a complex change. It changes one thing, not a whole lot.

Sure, it could have a big impact on the gameplay, but that’s not what I meant with ‘simple’. When you’re suggesting that we change not only A, but also connect it to change B and C, the solution becomes more complex and thus less simple.

I don’t mind the addition of downsides, but try to keep it simple as well.

I’m not sure how pod and skills are at risk. Skills are only at risk in a T3C and pod is only at risk if the player has implants.

I feel like I’m missing something here?

We seem to have a different definition of ‘simple’.

My definition of ‘simple’ means it’s not complex. A single change.

Every ship that undocks explodes → would be a simple change with high gameplay impact.

Your definition of ‘simple’ seems to be that it has low impact, am I right? A complex solution with low gameplay impact would be ‘simple’ according to you then.

Every ship that undocks and then rotates twice around their axis turns slightly purple → would be a complex change with low gameplay impact.

I prefer a non-complex change with just the right amount of impact. So let’s focus on the solution and less on the word simple.

1 Like

You are wrong. It does change a whole lot. In fact, it changes about everything about how life, intel gathering, hunting, defending and activities in null sec work.

Well, then maybe read better. You are intentionally obtuse now. I have said several times how skills would have to be at risk to balance the incredible benefits that you gain from being invisible in local.

It is a single change with massive implications about everything in null sec. It is not simple, regardless of what your definition of simple is or what my definition is. Your suggestion is not simple as this “single small” change impacts every other aspect of null sec life. If you can’t or don’t want to understand this even after I told you several times, I can’t help you further. And if you don’t want to take my word for it, take the repercussions and consequences that materialized during Black Out as evidence for the massive and far reaching consequences that a “single simple” change has.

As said, your solution is complex regardless of how much you insist on that it is not. I am very much focused on the solution to make your complex and absolutely not simple idea work within the framework of EVE of Risk vs. Reward. So far, you refuse to accept any risk for your incredible rewards. Could you take your own advice to heart and focus on solutions? :slight_smile:

That is maybe what you meant and you are in perfect company with CCP because they think in the same simple, not though through ways. But as CCP keeps saying (they used to mean it in the past but nowadays it’s just an empty phrase by clueless wannabe-developers) everything impacts everything in EVE. A is connected to B, C, D, E, … X in EVE. Simply saying that it is not and that you just want to change A but ignore its connections to B to X is not going to end up in a good gameplay feature. Blackout was an impressive demonstration of this. The recent industry changes are an impressive demonstration of that. Uncontrolled riskfree ISK influx from Trig activities are an impressive demonstration of just that.

I only see that you’re talking about loss of SP and clone insurance, but those do not exist in EVE anymore. Do you suggest bringing them back, and if yes, in what form?

Again, with ‘simple’ I mean the complexity of the change. I’m not talking about the impact of the change when I call it simple.

If you want to talk about the consequences of such a change, go ahead and I’ll join you in that discussion.

If you want to keep saying I don’t understand what you’re saying, then I’d rather just ignore you. Because we’re talking past eachother and this is not helping the discussion go any further.

Blackout was a simple change (no more local) with huge consequences.

I don’t want such huge consequences for local, as I’ve said in the opening post. Local chat is part of the identity of null, low and high sec and I’d much prefer a solution that is simple (i.e. not complex) but also has much less of an impact on gameplay.

I want a change with just enough impact on gameplay to make local less reliable and uncounterable as an intel tool.

Read above. I explained it already in detail in my first post.

Then you are willfully ignoring the repercussions of your simple change just for the sake of making your pipedream work. Congratulation, you are the perfect fit for a CCP developer. But even if you go that way, just adding clone insurance and removal of SP-keeping-on-death to your system, they add not much complexity as both systems already exist in the code. It’s simple re-purposing of existing code.

You maybe don’t want that but you create the huge consequences simply by changing how local works with your “simple” idea. You cannot change this feature “with just enough impact on gameplay to make local less reliable”. You can say that you don’t want massive impact on gameplay; however, there is no middleground here. If you make local less reliable, you give hunters and prey an incredibly powerful tool that needs serious consequences. This is actually a very simple truth in EVE. Simple changes to ships like the Rorqual mining capabilities (wrecked the economy), reintroduction of AOE doomsdays (made traveling in null sec areas that mattered a pain and endangered whole fleets by just one cyno), the cyno changes (made travel, power projection, logistics much more annoying) all show how “simple changes” inevitably have massive consequences.

Let’s take another look at that first post then:

  1. I see you talking about clone insurances and loss of SP. But no way how this should work. Clone insurance and SP loss does not exist, so what is your suggestion, that we bring those things back?

  2. This thread is about local chat, not about bringing clone insurances and loss of SP back. That’s what I mean with keep it simple.

Drawbacks to a module/method that counters local chat are fine. Making it complex by adding old systems that have already been removed for good reason for lore reasons is unnecessarily complex.

But for the sake of argument, let’s continue with your idea.

How do you suggest we re-introduce those clone insurances and SP loss and how is it supposed to work? Because I really am missing some crucial information here.

They exist. Clone insurance is just commented out of the code and SP loss exists in T3C and existed when the clone grade insurance system was still live on the server.

This topic is about giving hunters and prey an incredibly powerful tool to attack and defend themselves. You can turn words around and move goalposts as much as you want, but I am talking about how to make your pipedream workable in EVE. The problem here is (actually) simple: You want your system without drawbacks. You want no risk for your incredible rewards.

There’s no need to theorize about it. It’s already in the code and game systems. Insurance works just like in the old days with clone grades and SP loss works just like before when you did not have a sufficiently insured clone. You lose SP from a randomly selected skill. It’s very simple as everything is already in the game.