Someone at CCP must have recognized the risk and was at least willing to accept degraded performance/reliability of local in exchange for the benefits of moving the chat functions off of the main server. No matter how good and reliable another server is, there is now the possibility that the chat server can go down, or be interrupted by network hiccups, while Tranquility is fully functional, something that was an absolute impossibility before.
I think CCP, and most outside observers would remark that nullsec is perhaps a little too safe right now, so I bet concerns about the slightly degraded reliability of local chat as an intel tool were not considered to be a deal-breaker. I think it is one of those examples of a non-game design change impact on the game in an unintended (if though predictable) fashion.
The bottom line is they canât fix this without completely reverting the change and putting chat back on the game server. They can optimize, tweak, build in redundancy, and add checks to prevent the worst of the abuse, but local will never be as reliable as it was before this change. People are going to get disconnected from chat on occasion, and sometimes that will be at a critical time and result in the loss of a ship. Basically local is not perfect intel anymore (although it still is almost perfect intel and far from useless), and should not be used as such.
Honestly, I wouldnât be surprised if some devs at CCP though this slight weakening of the local chat as an intel tool was actually a side-benefit of the change and actually a good thing for the game even if they wouldnât dare say that publicly. We should see from the next MER report how players responded to this change.
Current state of Local is not simple âno localâ. It is rather âthis guy has local and this one - has notâ. Where you can never be sure which one of these is you.
As far as i have seen sending something to chat helps the system to find lost connection. So maybe new local is similar to d-scan? Ping, ping, ping to make sure you have it working.
It is always interesting to see people complain about the most mild of changes that really dont effect the smart/experienced player.
It is rare I get killed by a person jumping in on my in low or null sec. When it does happen, I often laugh at my own ignorance for slipping up. I lose more ships to gate camps than anything else outside of FW PVP.
So I dont understand the issue. Keep D-Scan up, hit your scan hotkey every so many seconds⌠filter out anything not needed, only keep ships and probes on it. And dont worry about the little things.
No, again, if people actually did some homework and learned some systems they would learn that they can overcome most of these shortcomings by using these tools.
If you are going to complain have a suggestion to fix the issue you are explaining instead of crying about it.
Your experience here is very similar to mine. Funny thing is, for PvE, I would like for NS local to be just completely disabled, or on a flat 5-10 minute delay instead of the current buggy mess.
When its disabled, then the hunters donât know you are in the system and have to fly around d-scanning just to find out. Then they need to often probe scan to get location, unless they are regular visitors and have some spawn site bookmarks etc. All of which gives us greatly increased chance to pick them up and act accordingly, and you donât need to relog, if you see them or their probes coming, simply warp out of range.
Lead them on a chase a few times and they get the point. Only the most determined will still try, most will classify you as too much of a waste of time and move on.
Staying aligned as much as possible helps a lot, but of course that is not always possible, but when it is, it gives you an even bigger advantage.
All the AFKers and botters will of course naturally argue against this and bring up a wide plethora of excuses so they can keep AFKing and botting as anything requiring more active gameplay cuts into the profits.
Overall I do feel you, they need to fix the bugs and just go one way or the other.
Honestly, Guilty. I was too complacent, as generally I have enough time to safe up, or even rally a response when local spikes. Behavior has now changed, but appreciate the critique? See ya there !
There could be an exploit, but you should know how CCP works.
Anythingâbug or not bug,intended or notâthat stays in the game for long enough would become a feature. I remembered that in 2012 CCP was still undecided on the matter of bumping. And on Serenity, who was following Tranquility on rules, some people were actually banned for bumping. But now even Serenity does not ban bumping. I guess if not fixed, this delayed local thing would become a utilitarian feature like CONCORD pulling.
No local is quite different to bugged local where you show up but the hunter doesnât, thus giving them the free intel but not you. Thatâs not an even playing ground, thatâs a blatantly uneven playing ground.
So what you are saying is that map data that details people in space and rats killed allowing people to vector in on active people is not the same as having free intel to see who comes in to a system. If local is removed so must that free intel too. So people have to truly find people who are active, and I can go and use a useless system to rat with more security. What is the issue with that?
So what you have done is continued with one set of free data and removed another which means the balance swings towards the hunter and makes it too easy. If you cannot understand that then you are less of a person than I thought you were.
Rattlesnakes tend to use sentries, for example when carriers were using sentries many people got caught as they were sitting still next to them, while I decided to use fighters and was always aligned,
Partly Iâm saying that, yes.
Map data does not âdetailâ specific people, only population there and other general data.
Local intel tells you whom specifically is there, map data does not.
Local intel can only be accessed in-system, map data can be accessed anywhere, by anyone.
The usefulness of map data to anyone, for whatever purpose, is not changed, because map data is not changed in any way.
Im sorry to hear that. I dont see how my assessment of this makes me âless of a personâ.
It details active people, hunters are looking for active people to blow up, it hands them that data on a plate, does not matter if the individual is detailed or not.
It makes it more powerful, because the balance to counter it has been removed.
I thought you had a better appreciation of game balance
Seriously, the balance has changed, you canât see that?
Of course it does, wow.
Nope, because I have played as solo, as small group and in big groups in nullsec, I have been under siege by hunters and AFK cloaky campers and roamers, I have done all that. I have hunted, nope I understand the balance very very well.
Yes, in regards to Local intel.
No, in regards to map data.
Nothing has changed in map data.
Please explain to me, how lack of Local intel has changed the function of map data?
This is not a flippant query. Explain it to me as if knew nothing.
Here is just a short-list of just some of what I have used map data for, with no intent to aggress anyone:
Finding low population/destruction ice fields.
Finding low population/destruction systems/constellations for PvE.
Looking for high rate of destruction in NS systems, so as to avoid gating into a fight.
Looking for potential NS bubble camps.
Looking for LS gate camps, especially on choke points.
You are underestimating the universal usefulness of map data to everyone, everywhere, in EVE, for both immediate needs and extended planning needs.
How you use it, is up to you. Its available to everyone, everywhere.
Not just to the system you are in, as is the case with Local intel, and which is specific of whom EXACTLY is in that system.
Hunters used map data to identify active ratter systems already before this.
Nothing is changed in that regard, by the removal/delay or Local there.
Local intel and map data are completely different animals.
Local intel has NEVER provided map data, and map data has NEVER provided Local intel.
Are you seriously suggesting changes to map data?
If so, what exactly?
