These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

C&P, this pertains to YOU

First post First post
Author
Alice Saki
Nocturnal Romance
Cynosural Field Theory.
#21 - 2012-08-03 08:13:18 UTC
Oh **** I totally forgot about Rancer. an Eve Landmark. Who's gonna pop my Pod on a shortcut now?!

FREEZE! Drop the LIKES AND WALK AWAY! - Currenly rebuilding gaming machine, I will Return.

Tetsel
House Amamake
Heretic Nation
#22 - 2012-08-03 08:26:06 UTC
1- Why CCP Greyscale suddenly think it's necessary to tweak sentry guns, not enought obvious fix to do ? RollRoll
2- Why the f***people think it's necessary to make frigate fight possible on gate/station ? aren't the belt, safespot, planet not enought ? All the more considering the fact that during wardec or in FW or vs -10 you can shoot at will !!!
3- Sentry are maybe easy to tank but com'on gate camper are soooo easy to remove, what's the problem here ?
4- CCP L2P please !

PLEASE LEAVE SENTRIES ALONE !!!

Loyal servent to Mother Amamake. @EVE_Tetsel

Another Bittervet Please Ignore

Alice Saki
Nocturnal Romance
Cynosural Field Theory.
#23 - 2012-08-03 08:29:18 UTC
Nothing is more fun breaking a Gate camp ^_^

Roll in there with a Couple Maelstrom for kicks.

FREEZE! Drop the LIKES AND WALK AWAY! - Currenly rebuilding gaming machine, I will Return.

Kaeda Maxwell
Screaming Hayabusa
Neo-Bushido Movement
#24 - 2012-08-03 08:38:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaeda Maxwell
Ok just to clarify;

'suspect' is a new thing introduced under the new crimewatch it's not the same as being below -5.0.

From what I understood (at fanfest) 'suspect' is a flag that occurs when you do something that would currently give somebody else aggression on you (like you loot their can).

Under the new crimewatch as explained at fanfest you will be one of three states at all times;

* neutral (done nothing)
* suspect (theft, neutral repping)
* criminal (anything that currently incurs GCC)

Which is not related to security status. So you might want to hold off on the wild speculation till you read up on the new crimewatch system.
Xylorn Hasher
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#25 - 2012-08-03 08:39:47 UTC
Tetsel wrote:
1- Why CCP Greyscale suddenly think it's necessary to tweak sentry guns, not enought obvious fix to do ? RollRoll
2- Why the f***people think it's necessary to make frigate fight possible on gate/station ? aren't the belt, safespot, planet not enought ? All the more considering the fact that during wardec or in FW or vs -10 you can shoot at will !!!
3- Sentry are maybe easy to tank but com'on gate camper are soooo easy to remove, what's the problem here ?
4- CCP L2P please !

PLEASE LEAVE SENTRIES ALONE !!!


CCP wants to increase Eve online subscriptions for all costs. They thinks if they make the game more "safe" more people will start playing it and paying sub. Thing is todays youngsters have lack of brain and balls to adapt so.. CCP is making game easier.
They do not realize that todays teenagers wont play Eve for years like veterans do and leave eventually.
If veterans leave too who will stay?

I bet the next idea of CCP Greyscale will be some kind of godray striking you to the pieces out from nowhere if you dare to engage one week old noob in lowsec.

All my posts are made shortly after Marihuana consumption.

Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon
Initiative Mercenaries
#26 - 2012-08-03 08:51:14 UTC
Xylorn Hasher wrote:
Tetsel wrote:
1- Why CCP Greyscale suddenly think it's necessary to tweak sentry guns, not enought obvious fix to do ? RollRoll
2- Why the f***people think it's necessary to make frigate fight possible on gate/station ? aren't the belt, safespot, planet not enought ? All the more considering the fact that during wardec or in FW or vs -10 you can shoot at will !!!
3- Sentry are maybe easy to tank but com'on gate camper are soooo easy to remove, what's the problem here ?
4- CCP L2P please !

PLEASE LEAVE SENTRIES ALONE !!!


CCP wants to increase Eve online subscriptions for all costs. They thinks if they make the game more "safe" more people will start playing it and paying sub. Thing is todays youngsters have lack of brain and balls to adapt so.. CCP is making game easier.
They do not realize that todays teenagers wont play Eve for years like veterans do and leave eventually.
If veterans leave too who will stay?

I bet the next idea of CCP Greyscale will be some kind of godray striking you to the pieces out from nowhere if you dare to engage one week old noob in lowsec.


I do not know if there are any statistics about it, but I actually think most money is gained by CCP from people who can afford multiple accounts (aka not youngsters)?

TunDraGon is recruiting! "Also, your boobs [:o] "   CCP Eterne, 2012 "When in doubt...make a diȼk joke." Robin Williams - RIP

FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Noctis
Shoot First.
#27 - 2012-08-03 11:11:29 UTC
Kaeda Maxwell wrote:
Ok just to clarify;

'suspect' is a new thing introduced under the new crimewatch it's not the same as being below -5.0.

From what I understood (at fanfest) 'suspect' is a flag that occurs when you do something that would currently give somebody else aggression on you (like you loot their can).

Under the new crimewatch as explained at fanfest you will be one of three states at all times;

* neutral (done nothing)
* suspect (theft, neutral repping)
* criminal (anything that currently incurs GCC)

Which is not related to security status. So you might want to hold off on the wild speculation till you read up on the new crimewatch system.


You saved me the trouble of pointing that out. Apparently some people are trying to fit a small part of CrimeWatch into the existing system. That's not the case here.

Like I said before, I have questions on the damage scale and what happens when a "suspect" battlecruiser ends up on grid immediately after a triage carrier departs or is destroyed. If this results in someone losing a ship to sentry gun alpha when they jump into lowsec after a canflip, that is NOT a reasonable consequence of their actions.

If it's done intelligently and properly balanced, the dynamic of gate camps will change but you will actually have MORE options on the table because of the low starting DPS. You'll just have to remove ships from the grid after you successfully score a kill. I expect that a month after this goes live, creative groups and individuals will be getting more kills than before, because there will be fewer ships able to slip through their fingers.

I think one thing CCP should look at doing is tying the suspect and criminal timers to sec status, maybe by doing something as simple as multiplying the base time (15 minutes) by the system security level. That would still put you with a 90 second cooldown on criminal activities in a 0.1.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#28 - 2012-08-03 11:32:40 UTC
Just to clarify a few points, given that this thread seems to be the only one that's not gone off the deep end already:

  • First and foremost, this is an idea we were spitballing at the time and ran past the CSM just to see what their reaction was. It's still "in the design" right now, but that part of the design isn't going to get implemented for a while, and there will be further discussion with the CSM and the community before that happens. The CSM minutes are *NOT* a devblog, please don't treat them as such Smile
  • "Suspect" is an aggression flag, and has nothing to do with sec status
  • The general thinking behind this potential change (and again, it's just general thinking, we've not seriously reviewed it yet) is to try and break up "static" gatecamps a little and generally *discourage* hanging around on a gate all day.
  • Yes, we know people are just going to yo-yo back in, and if they're dedicated enough to do that for a couple of hours then more power to them, they get to camp the gate for a few hours.
  • The thinking specifically with carriers was that it'd be an interesting dynamic that you had to essentially "pre-commit" with a triage carrier, by dropping into triage, waiting 30-40s (times obviously subject to some actual balancing work) and then starting to rep, so you've still got the window to get out again before the damage becomes high enough to kill you. This lets you use carriers on lowsec gates but gives the other side a bit of time to go "oh crap, that carrier's gone into triage, we'd better either double down or start running".
  • Damage ramping as currently envisioned would be strictly per-ship, per-engagement - as soon as you warp off, it resets back to base. This could of course be redesigned in many ways to get it to do other interesting things - or as should hopefully be clear by now, dropped entirely if we decide it's a rubbish idea after all.
Kaeda Maxwell
Screaming Hayabusa
Neo-Bushido Movement
#29 - 2012-08-03 12:01:52 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Just to clarify a few points, given that this thread seems to be the only one that's not gone off the deep end already:

  • The general thinking behind this potential change (and again, it's just general thinking, we've not seriously reviewed it yet) is to try and break up "static" gatecamps a little and generally *discourage* hanging around on a gate all day.


+1 and I love you. Big smile
Lucy Oreless
Control-Space
DARKNESS.
#30 - 2012-08-03 12:11:05 UTC
Thank you for the explanation Mr Grey, but i really do hope this change never sees the light of day anyways.

Mostly because i dont see the need for this change. It is not an benefit for us (and here i talk about me and pirates like me) who live and try to make a living in lo-sec.
CCP has stated that they wanna see more players enter lo-sec...and that idea i do support to the fullest, but this is not the way imo.. rather the opposite.

What i see as fun in lo is the escalating of fights at gates or even stations... baiting in neut fleets, keeping the fight going as long as u can by "barely" have the upper hand.. making them jump in more ships to tip the scale, and then we jump in more etc... With a "timer" this will die and we will end up with pure gank-fleets do hit and runs.. or sniping fleets 180km of gate/station.

Please fix other more pressing issues before fixing something that is not broken.. EVE is the only game that can offer this kind of gameplay, dont kill it!


 I did not have sexual relations to THAT woman....

Kage Toshimado
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2012-08-03 12:27:37 UTC
"The general thinking behind this potential change (and again, it's just general thinking, we've not seriously reviewed it yet) is to try and break up "static" gatecamps a little and generally *discourage* hanging around on a gate all day."

-1

Kaeda Maxwell
Screaming Hayabusa
Neo-Bushido Movement
#32 - 2012-08-03 12:35:29 UTC
/me sits back to watch Heretic, Tundragon, SCUM, Mothra & Negative Ten complain.

Warde Guildencrantz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#33 - 2012-08-03 13:02:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Warde Guildencrantz
Buffing gate guns to prevent pirates from gatecamping does the exact opposite of what you are inferring. Pirates always camp from safespots if they aren't idiotic and thus barely receive gate gun damage. However, when we do fleet ops, as in fighting other low sec gangs that may or may not also be pirates, we will die because of aggression causing the gate guns to do 3000 or so dps after 60 seconds. That is unfair and nerfs a playstyle of eve, nerfs certain people's ability to have fun in PvP and is a completely stupid feature as well. (can sort of see the reasoning behind it though)

I can see the interesting thought behind the triage reps, but if you really want to implement that i would say that the gate guns only escalate to very high dps levels on capital ships, while remaining their current DPS on cruisers to battleships, then, for frigates starting from a very miniscule amount then ramping up to the current 300 or so gate gun DPS on frigates after around 30 seconds under the guns.

This would accomplish:

1. your weird carrier idea is set up properly, and capital warfare is reduced in lowsec because it isn't supposed to be a huge cap orgy
2. fleet ops aren't completely ****ed instantly if they get aggression, they have the same penalty as before save for any caps they bring in (as in they need to make sure a fight will be won quickly as caps come in).
3. frigates can have some warfare near gates as their gate gun dps ramps up slowly, allowing for a possible quick frig fight prior to warping off because of the increased damage.

For all subcaps, you need to keep gateguns the same in terms of damage. Buffing them or debuffing them just sets off too many problems in the lowsec environment. The frigate changes are reasonable but not really all that needed. Frigate warfare occurs frequently at beacons and sites rather than gates and if i saw a guy on a gate of the system i jumped into, i would warp to a beacon clearly to invite him to follow, and if he was up for a solo fight he would join me there. It's not all that hard to get frig warfare.

However i understand how fleet ops with frigs don't work out if aggression is obtained. Perhaps gate gun DPS could just do less naturally to frigs.

ALONG with this, you need to stop gateguns from shooting drones. Drone boats should not be completely useless in lowsec, as people may want to learn how to use such boats in the entry level pvp low sec is supposed to provide. Think along the lines of that drones should be shot after the ship that deployed them has been destroyed. It is a pain that gallente pilots tend to avoid low sec corps because their ships do not work in environments where you may get aggression. This needs to be addressed because preventing a player from doing a form of gameplay simply because of their faction choice is not very fair.

TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us

CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#34 - 2012-08-03 13:03:42 UTC
Lucy Oreless wrote:
Thank you for the explanation Mr Grey, but i really do hope this change never sees the light of day anyways.

Mostly because i dont see the need for this change. It is not an benefit for us (and here i talk about me and pirates like me) who live and try to make a living in lo-sec.
CCP has stated that they wanna see more players enter lo-sec...and that idea i do support to the fullest, but this is not the way imo.. rather the opposite.

What i see as fun in lo is the escalating of fights at gates or even stations... baiting in neut fleets, keeping the fight going as long as u can by "barely" have the upper hand.. making them jump in more ships to tip the scale, and then we jump in more etc... With a "timer" this will die and we will end up with pure gank-fleets do hit and runs.. or sniping fleets 180km of gate/station.

Please fix other more pressing issues before fixing something that is not broken.. EVE is the only game that can offer this kind of gameplay, dont kill it!



Ok, so here's the process behind what happened here:

  • We knew there was a hole in the design currently regarding sentry guns, ie we hadn't figured out how they'd interact with the new system
  • We came up with some basic rules (which as far as I can tell nobody's having a violent reaction to?) regarding *when* they shoot people
  • We also tossed in a few "this might be interesting" ideas, because whenever we're doing major programming work on a system, we often have the opportunity to make design changes "for free", and as designers we're always looking for adjustments we can make to our designs to make them *more interesting* for players
  • We pitched some of them to the CSM to get some *early* feedback on those ideas, to see if they flagged anything up as "this is never going to work"
  • This then got written into the CSM minutes
  • Several months pass
  • CSM minutes get released, lots of people apparently are under the misapprehension that something being mentioned in the minutes is equivalent to a "this is what we are going to do" devblog
  • Another month or two passes, this takes us into "the future"
  • We start approaching the point where this design has to be locked down and we do forum posts etc to get community feedback on ideas prior to deciding whether or not we want to do them


As to the broader picture, we will absolutely continue to consider these sorts of "crazy" changes, because we don't just want to keep making adjustments inside the current design frameworks if we have the chance to make bits of the game *significantly* better by moving outside the current box. A consequence of this is that sometimes we come up with things that, on closer analysis, are just plain dumb. We try to identify these and drop them as early as possible. Sometimes we miss some of them. We try to reduce the incidence of this happening, but the only way to prevent them completely is to be incredibly conservative with our designs, and we feel that there are enough areas of EVE design that could be *significantly* improved with more radical design changes that that's not a tradeoff we want to make.
mexallon jane
Lost Legion Of Death
Help Newbes Find a Way Alliance
#35 - 2012-08-03 13:11:53 UTC
gate camper tears are the best tears.
mkint
#36 - 2012-08-03 13:15:15 UTC
This probably isn't the place for this... or maybe it is...

what if sentries were RR's instead, and RR'd people w/o GCC when a fight was going on? Good thing or bad thing?

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

CorInaXeraL
Order of the Silver Dragons
Silver Dragonz
#37 - 2012-08-03 13:27:07 UTC
I'd be inclined to think roaming bands of faction privateers in lowsec (non-rat spawns) would be more viable than altering various mechanics. NPCs that spawn and warp about engaging people with certain sec-statuses etc. While it brings PVE to PVP, it would offer an interesting dynamic to gate-fights if suddenly NPC spawns started helping one side or another. Let them offer faction standing hits rather than overall security-status hits. For breaking up gate-camps, while it would not 'break it up' it would certainly offer a variable that needs to be taken into account for camps, especially if it also brings with it escalation of force to combat being outgunned, etc.
Musashibou Benkei
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
#38 - 2012-08-03 13:38:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Musashibou Benkei
@Greyscale

As we, the general public, are not privy to things that CCP tells the CSM and nor are they allowed to disclose whatever they aren't allowed to disclose, you can hardly call "throwing them ideas" an excuse that this idea has been pitched from way back.
Also, which of the CSM members have a serious interest in protecting or promoting low sec activity? Correct me if I'm wrong but the CSM seems to be a collective of people that are pre-occupied with protecting either high sec or null sec interests. Chairman included.

As the wise Lord Maldoror once said; "I find that when you succeed, it's often because you're able to bring the right tool to hand and when you don't; it's generally for not having the presence of mind to find it"

Low sec 'static' gate camps are one of the easiest things to break up exactly because of their static nature and open information to ship types. This would allow prospective attackers to prepare accordingly and have the upper hand when they do strike. Otherwise, you could say that it's the sandbox working as intended when people don't use scouts.

Triage carriers and more recently, tracking dreads, are wild cards that low sec pirates generally keep hidden until necessary. Incidentally, these 2 ships are used by the party with less numbers than the opposing side by bringing the capital advantage to gain the upper hand.

There are currently plenty of supers in the game owned by what seems like every second person who lives in null sec. If these "hardcore" 0.0 players wanted to take part in low sec parties, then surely they have the required tools to take down the capital threat.


EVE is slowly approaching a point where, since nothing (at least, not many) new is being inserted into the game, more and more players are reaching the high SP levels where they can pilot all ships and use all mods/weapons. The previous expansions of old continually introduced new content which kept the players fresh in training new things and keeping a mystique about what someone might bring or what role something actually plays.

Perhaps CCP should start looking more seriously into the new content; such as ring mining or new ships classes, instead of breaking things that were fine before. Do you really want to be branded as an idiot for making the SAME mistake twice, Greyscale? *cough* Unified Inventory *cough*
Tetsel
House Amamake
Heretic Nation
#39 - 2012-08-03 13:39:15 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

As to the broader picture, we will absolutely continue to consider these sorts of "crazy" changes, because we don't just want to keep making adjustments inside the current design frameworks if we have the chance to make bits of the game *significantly* better by moving outside the current box. A consequence of this is that sometimes we come up with things that, on closer analysis, are just plain dumb. We try to identify these and drop them as early as possible. Sometimes we miss some of them. We try to reduce the incidence of this happening, but the only way to prevent them completely is to be incredibly conservative with our designs, and we feel that there are enough areas of EVE design that could be *significantly* improved with more radical design changes that that's not a tradeoff we want to make.


So you're explaining that there is no other motivation behind those ideas than "just for the lulz" ? in fact you point no major issues about sentries ? o_O (I might misunderstood this point tbh)

So here is my feedback about this "CSM idea" not a "devblog": Improve damages to sentries till they will not be sustainable for subcap fleet, will shutdown several LOW-SEC PERMANENT RESIDENT PLAYER gameplay and RP.
Gate camping a choke point is as fun as frigate pvp in belt, ransoming people is as fun as counting corpse in hangar, looting reckless hauler is as fun as having a good T3 killmail.
Improving Sentries the way you think you're almost shutdown half of those activities.
You will also be able to remove Piracy from the AWESOME "The Sanbox" list on eveonline.com, cause small gang warfare and kill in low-sec doesn't makes people some pirates !

Loyal servent to Mother Amamake. @EVE_Tetsel

Another Bittervet Please Ignore

Kaeda Maxwell
Screaming Hayabusa
Neo-Bushido Movement
#40 - 2012-08-03 13:39:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaeda Maxwell
Ok as a frigate pilot from a predominately frigate based corporation.

Gate guns should continue, now and in the future, to kill frigates outright if you don't buff the damage to the point where it can force BC's, BS's and up of grid.

Because if they don't you enable people using cheap fast tackle on lowsec gates and you effectively end up boosting gate camps (at least you currently need a Legion now just give Orca's scooping them on gates timers so they can't jump to high sec please). Currently you stand at least a chance to get past a gate camp in something that align and warps fast. In a world where frigates have time to tackle on lowsec gates while big dps can also stay on grid you will have effectively killed small ship PvP in lowsec.
As frigate pilots will just lose their ships every time they run into a gate camp where now they at least have some chance of getting away in their ships.

Also I spend 2 years pirating in lowsec and only moved to null a few weeks ago. There's plenty of pirates making a living in lowsec doing things that aren't gate camping. So saying that making gate camping harder some how ruins lowsec is nonsense.