These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Krall Hoar
Combined Technologies
#121 - 2012-08-04 14:35:23 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:

  • 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.


So where do we pirates fight in lowsec then?
gates - no chance, you get shot even while waiting or roaming through you get shot each time you change the systems
stations - no chance, there are guns as well
pirate nest ( in this case is a station too) - no chance, even by etting home you get shot in your own front garden
sites/complexes/etc - no chance, noones comming there cause non-pirtes use lowsec just as something to connect high and 0.0
mission sides - maybe, if you find someone stupid enough to do missions in enemy pirate territory
roid belts - no chance, I can't even remember when I last saw ppl in a belt which was not in a pirate hotspot

Now you can choose to give away the advantage of helping gateguns to your enemy, with this change you have no choise left.
CCPs always talking about not to crush things for ppl, keep up options, "nah don't remove those T2 BPOs, ppl could get mad (a few priviliged ppl among thouthands)" , but this would really **** of alot more ppl than a few bill holding empire carebears.

Not only carebears paying the subs for EVE, we pirates do aswell
eddie valvetino
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#122 - 2012-08-04 14:41:01 UTC
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:
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.


+1

+2 to drone post too
Sorceror Majiir
Doomheim
#123 - 2012-08-04 17:07:18 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Tetsel wrote:
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)


The motivation behind them is "can we find new ways to make EVE better?". That's kind of our job.

Xylorn Hasher wrote:
+1

Like i ask you before CCP, how many of you ever tries to live in low with -10 mark and kill for a living?
I bet none.


At the time we were looking at this, we had two serious former pirates on Team Five 0 who'd spent a significant amount of time at -10 (one of them has since moved to another team).

Eternal Error wrote:

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Sentries aren't perfect, but they are currently working just fine. CCP has already made one serious mistake with this philosophy (unified inventory) and is rapidly headed towards another (crimewatch revamp). Radical change for the sake of radical change is always a terrible idea.


I'm sorry but I can't subscribe to that philosophy. The idea that once something is "good enough" it should never be touched again is a complete creative capitulation.



Keep up the good work and ideas. Low Sec should be a viable option for people who don't necessarily want to pvp constantly, right now it's not.

You might consider setting up pvp star systems for those wishing to pvp other gangs (come up with some rp background for why), getting them off heavy carebie travelled gates so carebies can do their thing too. Pvp arena systems or something. ( Myself and 3 others orchestrated that very thing in Ultima eons back.. place called Oasis (might still be on their website) - perps and such competed everyday, in 'the games'). Set several systems up like that, ongoing tournament environment, give prizes, bpo's, corpses, whatever, free for all... so it will feel 'real', allow gambling, heck even put lotto tickets on the market where players have to pay 100M per ship to 'compete' (on lotto day)... on and on and on.. point is Eve doesn't have to be static, this game has potential, make it so :)


PS: I want credits if you use my idea *grin*
Eternal Error
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#124 - 2012-08-04 17:46:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternal Error
Sorceror Majiir wrote:


Keep up the good work and ideas. Low Sec should be a viable option for people who don't necessarily want to pvp constantly, right now it's not.

You might consider setting up pvp star systems for those wishing to pvp other gangs (come up with some rp background for why), getting them off heavy carebie travelled gates so carebies can do their thing too. Pvp arena systems or something. ( Myself and 3 others orchestrated that very thing in Ultima eons back.. place called Oasis (might still be on their website) - perps and such competed everyday, in 'the games'). Set several systems up like that, ongoing tournament environment, give prizes, bpo's, corpses, whatever, free for all... so it will feel 'real', allow gambling, heck even put lotto tickets on the market where players have to pay 100M per ship to 'compete' (on lotto day)... on and on and on.. point is Eve doesn't have to be static, this game has potential, make it so :)


PS: I want credits if you use my idea *grin*

2/10

+1 to Bloodpetal's post
Odin Tribus
Rancer Revenue And Customs
#125 - 2012-08-04 17:56:46 UTC
Confirmed that CCP Greyscale has ABSOLUTELY no idea on low sec and it's mechanics.

What is all this bowing to carebears who constantly cry?

LEAVE

WELL

ALONE
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#126 - 2012-08-04 18:02:31 UTC

The lack of infrastructure in a lot of Low Sec is changing. POCOs are sources of income and more and more pirates arrange deals with high seccers for a bit of a kickback to make money on the POCOs.

I see more organizations working everyday towards low sec infrastructure.


It's not changing fast, but it's changing. The major thing that's taking all this time is embracing high sec organizations and teaching them to live in a social lifestyle somewhere between null sec and empire space.


Gate guns should feel less like deterrents, and more like an environmental factor. Currently, they're really mostly annoying.


Current Factors for Gate Guns

In small engagements, gate guns won't stop me from shooting someone on a gate.

In large engagements they spread damage enough that you account it for it as your opponent having +1 battlecruiser in DPS (with ADD).

Their biggest attributing factor is to not let small tackle on gates, which lets small frigates and smart pilots move through in certain situations.

And I think that is what they are best at and what they should do best. Allowing somewhat safe travel.


This whole discussion doesn't even address the security status changes which I am hoping to see addressed as well.



Where I am.
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#127 - 2012-08-05 01:06:40 UTC
Sorceror Majiir wrote:
Scion Lex wrote:


We can't allow this game to become wow. We have the best players on the planet because of the challenging enviroment presented here. Give them the tools they need and they will step up.



Yeah, heaven forbid CCP would try to incorporate some innovative ideas from the most successful company in the history of online gaming.

Relax, EVE will never be wow, but that doesn't mean it has to be playable by middle aged gaming geeks only. Who have countless hours to review and perfect their gaming knowledge. Some of us only get a few hours online a week and don't want to spend those getting roasted at a gate so some other guy can 'enjoy' his game experience.



You know, I've been reading that WoW is actually gaining very few new subbies, and may actually be entering a (small for now) net loss of same.

It has huge inertia, though, which will surely carry it for a while, but I suspect --I think, I hope, I pray-- that the Age of WoW is coming to its end.

Just thought I'd put that out there.

Star Wars: the Old Republic may not be EVE. But I'll take the sound of dual blaster-pistols over "NURVV CLAOKING NAOW!!!11oneone!!" any day of the week.
Ariel Marquette
Doomheim
#128 - 2012-08-05 09:56:50 UTC
You mean the sentry guns might actually do what they're intended to do by forcing criminals to move or be destroyed? Awesome idea!

Ganker tears taste the best!
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#129 - 2012-08-05 10:26:46 UTC
Ariel Marquette wrote:
You mean the sentry guns might actually do what they're intended to do by forcing criminals to move or be destroyed? Awesome idea!

Ganker tears taste the best!


I don't think you really understand low sec. Force all criminal activity off the gates, where is the PvP supposed to occur? Planets? Belts? There's not exactly scads of ships hanging out there for pew pew.

If you want to destroy criminals, get a fleet together and fight them.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Saithe
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#130 - 2012-08-05 11:17:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Saithe
If you are looking at increasing sentry damage in lowsec, can you also look at fixing security gain?

I can spend 2 weeks getting my sec to a 'reasonable' level from -10, and go right back to -10 in a matter of 2 hours.

First, you have to recognize the current 'problems' with lowsec:
> Drake, Onyx, Broadsword can permanently passive take current guns.
> BS's can tank with ease.
> Capitals laugh at the guns.
> Frigates and cruisers are completely worthless engaging on a gate.

Some idea's to remove static lowsec gangs from sitting on gates 24/7:

1) After a player has been within 100km of a gate for more than 60 minutes, or even 120 minutes, enable an auto-warning for players jumping in stating that there are players on the other side. It could even have a 15 minute timer as well, preventing warping out and back to reset the warning. This would discourage players from sitting on a gate for more than 2 hours without at least a 15 minute break, while keeping low-sec life in balance.

2) Significantly reduce damage dealt to Frigates/Cruisers. Maybe even reduce sentry tracking to allow extremely fast frigates a better chance of 'dodging' the gun. Speed tanking would not be an option, but shots could miss. This would allow 'up and comers' to come in with their t1 cruiser gang and bust up the camp.

Option 1 benefits 'care bears', giving them on-screen warning about lurking danger they should ALREADY be aware of.

Option 2 benefits Pirates, as they can actively engage other pirates as well for control of the area.

Some other ideas: Allow for control of low-sec, to an extent. Maybe even the controlling members could 'pay off' the sentry guns to not engage the controlling area members for 24 hours, for a hefty fee of course. Controlling a system would mean dropping 'control nodes' similar to the crap in nullsec currently, but with slightly reduced stats. This actually opens the door for many new possibilites, and gives low seccers something more to do than 'sit on a gate'. Some other possibilities with low-sec control:

> Increase lowsec ore rates. Not the abc ore, whatever the lowsec ore crap is. This would create incentive to control an area and rent it out to miners for a fee.
> Name a station already in system. As 'pirates', they could have forcefully taken the station and have renamed it to whatever. This would add to the uniqueness of Eve.


Some times, introducing new content is the best way to get people to stop doing FOTM things.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#131 - 2012-08-05 11:40:40 UTC
Saithe wrote:
If you are looking at increasing sentry damage in lowsec, can you also look at fixing security gain?

I can spend 2 weeks getting my sec to a 'reasonable' level from -10, and go right back to -10 in a matter of 2 hours.


Frankly, I'd love to see low sec be the ONLY place you can regain security status, it makes no sense to have to go patrol 0.0 space (with no empire citizens to protect and no concord to care) to pay off your blood debt, cleaning up low sec should be the premier place to pay your dues. This has the added effect of putting more pilots in low sec belts instead of sending them on long 0.0 treks - giving more opportunities for the type of off-gate low sec PvP the gate-camp haters want to encourage instead.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#132 - 2012-08-05 11:48:24 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Saithe wrote:
If you are looking at increasing sentry damage in lowsec, can you also look at fixing security gain?

I can spend 2 weeks getting my sec to a 'reasonable' level from -10, and go right back to -10 in a matter of 2 hours.


Frankly, I'd love to see low sec be the ONLY place you can regain security status, it makes no sense to have to go patrol 0.0 space (with no empire citizens to protect and no concord to care) to pay off your blood debt, cleaning up low sec should be the premier place to pay your dues. This has the added effect of putting more pilots in low sec belts instead of sending them on long 0.0 treks - giving more opportunities for the type of off-gate low sec PvP the gate-camp haters want to encourage instead.



I have long been an advocate of this. It would mean that there was a genuinely lo-sec specific resource.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Saithe
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#133 - 2012-08-05 12:04:41 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

Frankly, I'd love to see low sec be the ONLY place you can regain security status, it makes no sense to have to go patrol 0.0 space (with no empire citizens to protect and no concord to care) to pay off your blood debt, cleaning up low sec should be the premier place to pay your dues. This has the added effect of putting more pilots in low sec belts instead of sending them on long 0.0 treks - giving more opportunities for the type of off-gate low sec PvP the gate-camp haters want to encourage instead.


This actually is a great idea. It would also tie in yet another reason to allow for control of a system in lowsec. You could increase the security gain from rats in lowsec. Not enough to super boost you back to positive, but enough to make it worth the effort.
Kage Toshimado
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#134 - 2012-08-05 15:32:49 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Tetsel wrote:
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)


The motivation behind them is "can we find new ways to make EVE better?". That's kind of our job.


And often times, you fail at your job. Look to the past for examples, and player community feed back. This is a BAD idea.
Sorceror Majiir
Doomheim
#135 - 2012-08-05 16:00:28 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.


Arena star systems, deadspace gate camps inside the arena, gauntlet runs, gang vs gang, mano e mano, mano vs npc death squads, all on pay per view with live, streaming real time gambling. Entry fees, market linked to allow gamblers access to the latest bloodsport stat god pilot and easy payment method to lay down their iskies, use a horse racing betting model or any number of gambling models irl. If the payout and action is there, why would a pirate waste his time on a gate. No siting around gates, instant gratification deathsicle. Just sayin.. you want to add some spice.. kick the box.. get wild. o/
Mane Frehm
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#136 - 2012-08-05 18:32:02 UTC
My issue with the entire discussion in this thread and with many other threads is that this is a discussion about solutions where the problem to be solved has not been clearly articulated. I can tell you that there is zero hope of success in this approach. Let me demonsttrate:

Quoting Greyscale:
"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. "

My response to that statement is simple - why do you want to break up static gatecamps. Is it because (just examples, and not necessarily good ones):
- they prevent new players from getting to experience lo sec or null sec as they get killed immediately
- we want goods flowing across these chokepoints to encourage more players doing industry/trading/etc.
- we feel that the pirate profession (is that an oxymoron bttw?) is currently overpowered and needs to be weakened
- we feel that the pirate profession is currently underpowered and needs to be strengthened
- etc etc

These statements too would need to be worked back to overall design goals so that each problem statement and solution set generated moves the overall design of the game forward. This is not an easy process, but it is fundamental. And if thats already been done, then I strongly recommend that any statement by devs start by stating the design goal and the specific issue being addressed, which might allow a focussed and intelligent discussion (I say might because this is, after all, EVE).


tl;dr - state the problem to be solved before you start discussing solutions



Beachura
Doomheim
#137 - 2012-08-05 18:55:07 UTC
JC Anderson wrote:
Xylorn Hasher wrote:
What an idea is that?

Sentries DPS will start low and raise in time but to what level exacly? 300 DPS like it is now?

"Also, I predict hilarity when a criminal battlecruiser jumps into a system where the sentry guns are still "warmed up" and gets one-shotted. Plus people crashing gate camps in super-tanky ships and just holding pirates down while the sentries melt them. I've got some half-formed ideas that could make some very creative use of these sentries."

You must be kidding me. It will kill solo PvP even more as it is now. I used to do solo gate camps in Low and having on my a*s 300 DPS from gate guns plus 400-600 from incoming ship isn't piece of cake.

I really hope that the max DPS from gate aggro will stay at 300 as it is now.


Don't count on it staying at 300.,

They said right in the notes that over time they want to ramp up the damage to a point where a triage carrier can be taken down.

That will mean a Max dps much higher... And I mean MUCH higher than 300.

A carrier in triage mode can tank well into the multiple of thousands.


15-16,000 DPS Tank unstable on a standard triage chimera, that's going to be one hell of a sentry gun DPS
Sorceror Majiir
Doomheim
#138 - 2012-08-05 19:59:40 UTC
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:
Sorceror Majiir wrote:
Scion Lex wrote:


We can't allow this game to become wow. We have the best players on the planet because of the challenging enviroment presented here. Give them the tools they need and they will step up.



Yeah, heaven forbid CCP would try to incorporate some innovative ideas from the most successful company in the history of online gaming.

Relax, EVE will never be wow, but that doesn't mean it has to be playable by middle aged gaming geeks only. Who have countless hours to review and perfect their gaming knowledge. Some of us only get a few hours online a week and don't want to spend those getting roasted at a gate so some other guy can 'enjoy' his game experience.



You know, I've been reading that WoW is actually gaining very few new subbies, and may actually be entering a (small for now) net loss of same.

It has huge inertia, though, which will surely carry it for a while, but I suspect --I think, I hope, I pray-- that the Age of WoW is coming to its end.

Just thought I'd put that out there.


I'm not an advocate to go play Wow, my point is that their design ideas captured the largest market segment in history. Is it sustainable for the next 10 years? No I don't think so, but that's just my opinion and not really relevant in the short term.

What I am sure of is that there is a general notion of 'what should be' in Eve and that's analogous to designing in a box. Take a design solution Wow uses - the dungeon. So in Eve, it's called deadspace, sites, mining, etc.. all these design elements could fit in the same conceptual 'container' in terms of what they provide to a user. There is one big difference however between dungeons and Eve's similar areas... anyone can usually enter Eve's areas.. not so with a dungeon. That simple design element makes the difference between players being potential victims and enjoying their 'time online' should they not wish to pvp.

Beyond all the opinions on the pro's and con's of this, my assertion is that Eve has shot themselves in the foot by allowing this free for all environment without at least providing some place for those who don't want the pvp free for all experience. I use as an example the growth of Wow over the years to Eve. yes there is a learning curve factor and micro adjusting the design elements will just make that worse. Easy solutions that give a big return in terms of new players, interest, etc is what's needed imo. I think the developers have tried hard to supply this too. This is why I've proposed the Arena Systems idea... simple, easy to code up but provides a big return on delivering new exciting game content with low cost. I'm sure people have already noticed the huge interest in tournament play.
Red Teufel
Calamitous-Intent
#139 - 2012-08-05 20:14:03 UTC
best change ever! i'm going to make so much isk off those ships i gank muhahahahahah! you're not safe carebears!!!
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#140 - 2012-08-05 20:45:33 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Saithe wrote:
If you are looking at increasing sentry damage in lowsec, can you also look at fixing security gain?

I can spend 2 weeks getting my sec to a 'reasonable' level from -10, and go right back to -10 in a matter of 2 hours.


Frankly, I'd love to see low sec be the ONLY place you can regain security status, it makes no sense to have to go patrol 0.0 space (with no empire citizens to protect and no concord to care) to pay off your blood debt, cleaning up low sec should be the premier place to pay your dues. This has the added effect of putting more pilots in low sec belts instead of sending them on long 0.0 treks - giving more opportunities for the type of off-gate low sec PvP the gate-camp haters want to encourage instead.


^^That.^^

I, among others (Macalnis, to name just one of many) have forever and a day begged for content exclusive to losec --and here we could have a great start for some, no new "dev'ing" needed!

Just change a few spawn-triggers/tables (more higher-bounty BS spawns needed, especially in 0.4 systems), make sure all the rats in anomalies give a sec boost (they don't, always, for some weird reason), and there ya go.

How hard could this be?

Star Wars: the Old Republic may not be EVE. But I'll take the sound of dual blaster-pistols over "NURVV CLAOKING NAOW!!!11oneone!!" any day of the week.