Trial and Error - The Local Answer!


(Old Pervert) #1

AFK cloaking, free intel, etc, many times the argument of whether to remove Local channel or not comes up.

Some people support removing local because of reasons. Other people are against removing local because of reasons.

So… why not just try it?

Honestly, would the universe collapse if there was just 1 month where CCP just turned off local outside of highsec?

After 2 weeks, they launch a survey on the forums. Do you like it this way, or did you like it more that way? What activities do you do which primarily influence your opinion?

Then after the month is up, they turn it back on, launch the survey again. Do you like this more, or did you like that more? What activities do you do which primarily influence your opinion?

Then, after the following month, they post pve and pvp metrics to compare the two, and allow the players to make informed opinions based on the actual data as to whether or not local is healthy for the game or not.

It would settle the debate once and for all.

(ShahFluffers) #2

There are a few “small” issues with your idea:

  • This is assuming that people will carry on as usual rather than simply “quit” for the duration that local has been “turned off” or adopt more “low-sec PvE tactics” where people group up, find what pays the most, run it fast, and then hide (see also: do less but more lucrative PvE overall).
    This will mess with the metrics and make them unreliable by default.

  • Even if something is “healthier” for the game as a whole, player biases will decide a player’s preference.
    Hypothetically speaking; PvEers could utterly despise the any change made to Local chat simply because they rely on it to know when a hostile has entered / exited a system.
    PvPers could be a mixed bag… some loving the changes because it really allows for “cat a mouse” style games and other hating it because they have no idea what they may be potentially running into (like a drag bubble gatecamp).

(Old Pervert) #3

The ones who quit would stay gone if the change became permanent, so that doesn’t mess with the metrics at all. The ones who adopt different tactics… again, they’ll continue to use those tactics if the change becomes permanent - no metrics getting fubar there.

Exactly why a trial is in order. Krabs may hate the idea of it, and then realize it’s not so bad. Or they may simply oppose it regardless because they can’t krab (good riddance?). The PVPers I agree are a mixed bag, which is the biggest reason I want a trial run.

(yellow parasol) #4

Good riddance. o7

this is a great idea, but will such a survey not be skewed towards the group that has the most alts?

that’d be farmers, right?

(Rivr Luzade) #5

And what are 90% of the PVPers without someone doing PVE content? Right: Hateful, clueless complainers. If quitting PVEer are good riddance, many of those will follow suit. After all, there are already many complaining about how citadels have made their hunting harder or outright impossible because they cannot bubble stations/outposts/POS any more. If those now would not only not see if there is prey in system but furthermore the prey would hide most of the time without giving hunters only a remote chance to catch them, I cannot imagine how those PVPers would respond. Good riddance, maybe?

Putting that aside, I agree: CCP should do it. Gives me a reason to not do sov alliance things any more and go back to mission running in Aridia, Stain or Syndicate to make money because there the combat probes that you need to find me will betray you on dscan regardless of delayed local. And it gives the game a reason to shed another couple of percent of actual players, not juts alts.

(system) #6

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.