These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

A petition to CCP Greyscale on Sentry Mechanics (Please Read)

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tara Read
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#301 - 2012-08-06 08:54:05 UTC
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
snake pies wrote:
If gate camping was the only "traffic" in low-sec, GOOD RIDDANCE Lol

I predict more kind of the good traffic in low-sec, more roaming gangs.


This change kills roaming gangs as much as static gatecamps. MANY average engagements can last several minutes, these changes would kill the interest of anyone engaging on a fight on a gate at all. Where do you expect all this PvP to occur? Have you seen an abundance of ships hanging out in low sec asteroid belts or planetside?


Oh dear me. Are we back to the point that gates themselves are the problem once again? Who would have guessed?



We are when said gates can kill a Triage Carrier in under 5 minutes. Don't you read or is your ability to comprehend fifteen pages of the reiterated points as to why we are arguing this in the first place tiresome?
Gillia Winddancer
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#302 - 2012-08-06 08:58:21 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Gillia Winddancer wrote:

Oh dear me. Are we back to the point that gates themselves are the problem once again? Who would have guessed?


Anyone that lives and PvP's in low sec. Remember - you're talking to a Faction Warfare pilot. One of the major appeals to Faction Warfare is the lack of gate fire interfering with our PvP. I don't have a ton of sympathy with those that feel that gate camps ruin their ability to navigate low sec, sentry fire does nothing to protect me in my travels, hauling, or PvP roams. I'd rather we teach pilots the skills they need to survive out here than simply make low sec safer because people haven't figured out how to play the game.

The bottom line is, low sec is still fight club. People come out here to slug the crap out of each other. Sure, there's mining, and anomalies, but these activities are secondary to Piracy and FW as the primary appeal. If you want to revitalize low sec, you support and promote the PvP culture, plain and simple.


Well, I am anything but against revitalizing low/null-sec and I am very much against changes that would reduce action and freedom.

Thing is though that EVE has a rather big issue (if I am to include a bigger part of the package), gates, logistics, travel method and ship detection which IMO limits PvP.

I can understand from a technical point of view why things were made the way they are, but at the same time I think that the technological aspects are available today which could allow EVE to move on to something much better. The current system which effectively translates to PvP more or less only being possible at specific points (gates and stations mainly) is one of the core issues as to why gate camping is meh. And not just gate camping/piracy or that kind of pvp. Both small gang roaming and large blob roaming tactics which by themselves are fully valid could be that much better if the old engine was ripped out and replaced with something better.

I am still fascinated by the "submarine" system for instance that was proposed (would have to dig up that thread again) a while ago as it contained so many excellent solutions to many of the problems EVE has today. With something like that in place, there would be little reason to not change the gate system/the way travelling works in order to eliminate the forced point specific pvp.
Gillia Winddancer
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#303 - 2012-08-06 09:00:29 UTC
Tara Read wrote:
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
snake pies wrote:
If gate camping was the only "traffic" in low-sec, GOOD RIDDANCE Lol

I predict more kind of the good traffic in low-sec, more roaming gangs.


This change kills roaming gangs as much as static gatecamps. MANY average engagements can last several minutes, these changes would kill the interest of anyone engaging on a fight on a gate at all. Where do you expect all this PvP to occur? Have you seen an abundance of ships hanging out in low sec asteroid belts or planetside?


Oh dear me. Are we back to the point that gates themselves are the problem once again? Who would have guessed?



We are when said gates can kill a Triage Carrier in under 5 minutes. Don't you read or is your ability to comprehend fifteen pages of the reiterated points as to why we are arguing this in the first place tiresome?


In this aspect the gate guns is a rather...crappy idea. I will not disagree there. But you are talking about the gate guns whilst I have been arguing about gates as a whole.
Tara Read
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#304 - 2012-08-06 09:03:16 UTC
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Gillia Winddancer wrote:

Oh dear me. Are we back to the point that gates themselves are the problem once again? Who would have guessed?


Anyone that lives and PvP's in low sec. Remember - you're talking to a Faction Warfare pilot. One of the major appeals to Faction Warfare is the lack of gate fire interfering with our PvP. I don't have a ton of sympathy with those that feel that gate camps ruin their ability to navigate low sec, sentry fire does nothing to protect me in my travels, hauling, or PvP roams. I'd rather we teach pilots the skills they need to survive out here than simply make low sec safer because people haven't figured out how to play the game.

The bottom line is, low sec is still fight club. People come out here to slug the crap out of each other. Sure, there's mining, and anomalies, but these activities are secondary to Piracy and FW as the primary appeal. If you want to revitalize low sec, you support and promote the PvP culture, plain and simple.


Well, I am anything but against revitalizing low/null-sec and I am very much against changes that would reduce action and freedom.



Freedom to do what exactly? To move your precious Iteron without ANY risk in said systems? To rat till your hearts content? To be able to mine Veldspar into infinity until the very star your blood shot eyes keep staring at dies out?

YOU are the very reason why CCP has pandered to cheapening this game. Your mentality of "I want a free lunch because I can't think for myself" is incredibly insulting to those who actually think!

Do you not see that by giving you easy street CCP then has to TAKE away freedom from other players just to suit your laziness?

Of course you don't....
Tara Read
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#305 - 2012-08-06 09:04:10 UTC
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
Tara Read wrote:
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
snake pies wrote:
If gate camping was the only "traffic" in low-sec, GOOD RIDDANCE Lol

I predict more kind of the good traffic in low-sec, more roaming gangs.


This change kills roaming gangs as much as static gatecamps. MANY average engagements can last several minutes, these changes would kill the interest of anyone engaging on a fight on a gate at all. Where do you expect all this PvP to occur? Have you seen an abundance of ships hanging out in low sec asteroid belts or planetside?


Oh dear me. Are we back to the point that gates themselves are the problem once again? Who would have guessed?



We are when said gates can kill a Triage Carrier in under 5 minutes. Don't you read or is your ability to comprehend fifteen pages of the reiterated points as to why we are arguing this in the first place tiresome?


In this aspect the gate guns is a rather...crappy idea. I will not disagree there. But you are talking about the gate guns whilst I have been arguing about gates as a whole.


Buy a goddamned Jump Freighter then. Or strap on one of those nifty little micro jump drives. Gates are fine. You just seem to keep getting blown up on them.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#306 - 2012-08-06 09:06:24 UTC
Tara Read wrote:
Remove any and all big alliance representatives from CSM to prove to me you don't influence how this game will be played by others.

Focus resources into other elements of the game that are neglected and have long been ignored. Reinvigorate dying elements of game play to further enrich and enhance a players experience in Eve.

Certainly these are just my views. But seeing as I've sat and watched Eve morph into this twisted mass of elitism masked by "equal representation" my biggest fear is the game I have come to know and love will altogether vanish in a myriad of inflation, control, manipulation, and stagnation.


And excellent objectives they are. Who doesn't want to put resources into the game that are neglected and been long ignored? Who doesn't want to reinvigorate dying elements? This has been the entire reason I got involved in the CSM to begin with - I got sick of seeing a fantastic feature like FW wither on the vine and decided enough was enough, time to get to work.

The bottom line is - even WITH null sec alliance representation on the council, they're hardly throwing their weight around to suppress and control the development process. I'd know, because I'm one of the ones sitting in the meetings and reading the internal dialogue with CCP. Take Faction Warfare for instance - the representatives from 0.0 are essentially silent, other than some casual discussion in Icelend they've given me free reign to advise CCP on the feature, because they just trust that I'm the expert.

There have also been other changes that directly nerf the profitablity of null sec - the drone region bounties, and technetium alchemy price controls. If the 0.0 CSM candidates were purely meta-gaming for their own pocketbook, not only would you hear far more outcry from them against these changes, but it would be recorded in the minutes and their selfishness would be on record.

Personally, I no longer subscribe to the "Alliance dominance of the council" conspiracy theories, having now sat on the CSM and observed the proceedings myself. I have no stake in 0.0 affairs, and yet the rest of the CSM has been supportive of my work and never once tried to stifle my voice or censor my feedback.

Of course, you're free to believe whatever you want. All I can do is share my experiences. Whether or not you trust the council as an entity, I hope you at least keep in contact with me and continue the good work rallying and focusing everyone's feedback. You're welcome to get a hold of me any time via email or in-game convo, I'm going to continue to do whatever I can to support the small-gang warfare and low sec PvP communities.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Tara Read
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#307 - 2012-08-06 09:18:49 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Tara Read wrote:
Remove any and all big alliance representatives from CSM to prove to me you don't influence how this game will be played by others.

Focus resources into other elements of the game that are neglected and have long been ignored. Reinvigorate dying elements of game play to further enrich and enhance a players experience in Eve.

Certainly these are just my views. But seeing as I've sat and watched Eve morph into this twisted mass of elitism masked by "equal representation" my biggest fear is the game I have come to know and love will altogether vanish in a myriad of inflation, control, manipulation, and stagnation.


And excellent objectives they are. Who doesn't want to put resources into the game that are neglected and been long ignored? Who doesn't want to reinvigorate dying elements? This has been the entire reason I got involved in the CSM to begin with - I got sick of seeing a fantastic feature like FW wither on the vine and decided enough was enough, time to get to work.

The bottom line is - even WITH null sec alliance representation on the council, they're hardly throwing their weight around to suppress and control the development process. I'd know, because I'm one of the ones sitting in the meetings and reading the internal dialogue with CCP. Take Faction Warfare for instance - the representatives from 0.0 are essentially silent, other than some casual discussion in Icelend they've given me free reign to advise CCP on the feature, because they just trust that I'm the expert.

There have also been other changes that directly nerf the profitablity of null sec - the drone region bounties, and technetium alchemy price controls. If the 0.0 CSM candidates were purely meta-gaming for their own pocketbook, not only would you hear far more outcry from them against these changes, but it would be recorded in the minutes and their selfishness would be on record.

Personally, I no longer subscribe to the "Alliance dominance of the council" conspiracy theories, having now sat on the CSM and observed the proceedings myself. I have no stake in 0.0 affairs, and yet the rest of the CSM has been supportive of my work and never once tried to stifle my voice or censor my feedback.

Of course, you're free to believe whatever you want. All I can do is share my experiences. Whether or not you trust the council as an entity, I hope you at least keep in contact with me and continue the good work rallying and focusing everyone's feedback. You're welcome to get a hold of me any time via email or in-game convo, I'm going to continue to do whatever I can to support the small-gang warfare and low sec PvP communities.


Actions speak louder than words I'm afraid. And CCP Greyscale's actions from a few days ago prove to me otherwise. As far as nerfing drone regions it's simply because combat has altogether stagnated as a whole. The quick summer campaign into Delve should prove this.

Also I must point out that one doesn't lay their cards out on the table when it comes to agenda's. After all this is Eve. being sneaky is a learned skill is it not?

If you truly want to invigorate the game and make it what it used to be CCP will have to realize that they have literally made a monster out of neglecting a long growing problem. How does one cap what one can attain and use?

Remember I stated earlier how those resources that were unattainable only to those who worked their asses off in the early creation of the game is now common place? Hell even pirates have Titans and Capitals simply because we had to adapt to survive like everyone else.

If the player base keeps growing and such ships become more common place what is there to strive for? If wealth is so easily attainable to where billions of isk is just childs play what exactly is the point? The stagnation you see is that players are slowly realizing they have it all.... There's no challenge.

And THAT to me is the biggest threat to Eve. Stagnation.
RON W
Battle Toad Brigade
Ribbit.
#308 - 2012-08-06 12:35:17 UTC
/signed
Homo Jesus
The LGBT Last Supper
#309 - 2012-08-06 13:39:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Minmatar Citizen160812
Jimmy Gunsmythe wrote:
Homo Jesus wrote:


Jimmy Gunsmythe wrote:

Pirates killed piracy. You guys could have ran that sh*t like the mob, but instead it became about kill mails, dishonoring ransoms and blowing up anything that popped through the gates. The short term thinking of the majority of losec players amazes me, because with some protection rackets and crafty manipulation you might have made some serious bank. I'm talking a player-driven social structure that could easily be comparable to such things as the mob in 30s Chicago or 70-80s New York, or even a Mexican Cartel organization.

Maybe that's what CCP is trying to nudge the players to incorporate for themselves, instead of this scorched earth policy that most people utilize for the lulz and the mailz. That was never sustainable in the first place, and it reeks of welfare dependance that players would do this and then cry that CCP should move Lvl4s, Incursions, etc. out to losec. By now making it near impossible to perma-tank gate guns (which never should have been an option, ever), players will now have to adapt, be creative, learn new methods to play and profit from the game. If losec players are smart, they will start thinking more long term. They may even create a whole new social structure in losec that would encourage more people to come to losec via a mafia-style protection system that would shield those who pay and destroy those who are payees to other losec corps.

THIS would be emergent gameplay, and this would be something that would draw me out into losec in a heartbeat



Here is an example of a guy that thinks a sentry change would magically create something that already exists. After this change he still wouldn't go near low sec and I'll prove it to you.

I have a small low sec pocket under decent control with a level 4 agent, lucrative belts for mining and very nice exploration sites. I can provide you with an intel channel, light blue status, and a custom scarebear guide to help insure your safety. The cost is 100mil a month per character. I'll wait for all the mails to pour in from interested carebears....Roll

The minute I tell them they need to watch local, use d-scan and report intel they think I'm ripping them off because we can never make it a 100% brainless activity like high sec and they will need to be at the keyboard 100% when in space. They don't understand they are just paying for "protection"....FROM US not every single person that enters local. Wanna pay for that? No? Why?

Ransoms? How many have you paid? 9 1/2 times out of 10 when you offer a ransom you're promptly told to F*UCK OFF. While I can understand this mindset we're not talking about a ransom mechanic being added to escrow money that only gets released when the point drops.


Blah blah blah

What I proposed does not exist, by the very fact that the rallying cry is losec is empty. If something like this existed in the manner that I spoke of, I can guarantee you that losec would probably be far more interesting than it has ever been. What I spoke of was in all intents and purposes a protection service. The losec corp makes the money in exchange for keeping their charges safe from harm. That means if a rival corp comes into a system that you have figuratively claimed, it's your responsibility to protecty it as well. Those who don't pay don't get to play in your system or systems. You scan them down and destroy them if you cannot take them out initially.

blah blah blah



I just gave you your rallying cry. I have exactly what you speak of...100mil per character a month. What do you think an intel channel is for? To chat with me? If we don't do a good job keeping you doing what you want to do would you pay us for a 2nd month?...it's a measly 100mil to find out? We all know you're just talkin out your butt though and are the 100% risk adverse "please don't make me think" type.

Please, continue to post nonsense reasons why this ISN'T what you want but be more specific. Would you like us to hold your hand and fleet warp you to a safety net pos when you're afking missions or something so you don't get scanned and die before we can respond because you aren't reporting intel. That would cost considerably more.
Doddy
Excidium.
#310 - 2012-08-06 13:48:40 UTC
Greyscale does seem to have lost it.
Saile Litestrider
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#311 - 2012-08-06 14:15:30 UTC
The amount of overspeculation, sensationalism and overreaction related to this subject is reaching absurd levels. So many of you seem to be making up numbers and scenarios out of thin air. I don't understand how "damage ramping up" and "killing a carrier in 4.5 minutes" somehow magically equates to sentry guns with jump drives hopping around insta-popping frigates all over New Eden if you don't have a 7.0 or higher security status, which seems to more or less be the common conclusion. Roll

I'd like to invite you to step back, take a deep breath, calm down for a minute, read exactly what Grayscale said, think about what that does and doesn't mean, and then realize that he said pretty much nothing beyond "we would like to buff sentry guns so they're a threat to everyone without making them instadeath".
Turgesson
Gorillaz In The Mist
#312 - 2012-08-06 14:36:54 UTC
Saile Litestrider wrote:
The amount of overspeculation, sensationalism and overreaction related to this subject is reaching absurd levels. So many of you seem to be making up numbers and scenarios out of thin air. I don't understand how "damage ramping up" and "killing a carrier in 4.5 minutes" somehow magically equates to sentry guns with jump drives hopping around insta-popping frigates all over New Eden if you don't have a 7.0 or higher security status, which seems to more or less be the common conclusion. Roll

I'd like to invite you to step back, take a deep breath, calm down for a minute, read exactly what Grayscale said, think about what that does and doesn't mean, and then realize that he said pretty much nothing beyond "we would like to buff sentry guns so they're a threat to everyone without making them instadeath".


Ummm...sentries NOT insta-popping frigate hulls and being extremely dangerous to most T1 cruiser hulls is a buff to gate camps. There is a reason the small fast locking ships get insta-popped. I read most of this and the reaction is because the dude is talking about messing with something using a triage carrier and interceptors as examples. That shows a basic misunderstanding of gate camps and I'd rather have someone else start the discussion on sentries with something that makes sense at it's inception.

Having the sentries from stations and gates fire on you because of negative security status? Beware of what you wish for on that one.
Saile Litestrider
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#313 - 2012-08-06 15:05:44 UTC
Turgesson wrote:
Ummm...sentries NOT insta-popping frigate hulls and being extremely dangerous to most T1 cruiser hulls is a buff to gate camps. There is a reason the small fast locking ships get insta-popped. I read most of this and the reaction is because the dude is talking about messing with something using a triage carrier and interceptors as examples. That shows a basic misunderstanding of gate camps and I'd rather have someone else start the discussion on sentries with something that makes sense at it's inception.

Having the sentries from stations and gates fire on you because of negative security status? Beware of what you wish for on that one.

Again. Stop for a minute, relax, and look at what was said. Grayscale never even mentioned cruisers, he never said whether the sentries would be "extremely dangerous" "nonthreatening" "insta popping" or anything else, he never said that the system was centered around carriers, and he never said they would shoot you for low security status (in fact he came out and specifically clarified that they wouldn't in another thread where people were sensationalizing over the guns without bothering to read up on the crimewatch proposal).

What he did say is that he wants the sentry guns to be impossible to tank for extended periods of time. He brought up the triage carrier because this is the ultimate limit. If a carrier takes longer than 5 minutes for the gate guns to kill, it's essentially not going to get killed by them, which means it can spread the reps around and make gate camps able to hang around for a very long time. He identified this as a bottleneck to his concept, hence why he mentioned it. No other mentions of the damage were made, and you can't interpolate a curve from a single point. Given that this curve is absolutely not going to be linear, you can't even interpolate it from two points.

So I really don't understand what you're complaining about, since literally everything about this concept is nebulous Straight
Turgesson
Gorillaz In The Mist
#314 - 2012-08-06 15:20:22 UTC
Saile Litestrider wrote:

What he did say is that he wants the sentry guns to be impossible to tank for extended periods of time. He brought up the triage carrier because this is the ultimate limit. If a carrier takes longer than 5 minutes for the gate guns to kill, it's essentially not going to get killed by them, which means it can spread the reps around and make gate camps able to hang around for a very long time. He identified this as a bottleneck to his concept, hence why he mentioned it. No other mentions of the damage were made, and you can't interpolate a curve from a single point. Given that this curve is absolutely not going to be linear, you can't even interpolate it from two points.



That's a big paragraph of wrong. Wow, triage carrier the ultimate limit being killed by gate guns rather than players and if it doesn't die to them in 5 minutes it won't die huh?

Let's interpolate this curve as a downward spiral with factors and flux capicitors to ignore simplicity.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#315 - 2012-08-06 15:54:29 UTC
Turgesson wrote:
Saile Litestrider wrote:

What he did say is that he wants the sentry guns to be impossible to tank for extended periods of time. He brought up the triage carrier because this is the ultimate limit. If a carrier takes longer than 5 minutes for the gate guns to kill, it's essentially not going to get killed by them, which means it can spread the reps around and make gate camps able to hang around for a very long time. He identified this as a bottleneck to his concept, hence why he mentioned it. No other mentions of the damage were made, and you can't interpolate a curve from a single point. Given that this curve is absolutely not going to be linear, you can't even interpolate it from two points.


That's a big paragraph of wrong. Wow, triage carrier the ultimate limit being killed by gate guns rather than players and if it doesn't die to them in 5 minutes it won't die huh?

Let's interpolate this curve as a downward spiral with factors and flux capicitors to ignore simplicity.

Welp, better break out the super carrier repping.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Reicine Ceer
State War Academy
Caldari State
#316 - 2012-08-06 16:25:55 UTC
Surely the easiest thing to do would be to just make it so that gate guns have tankable but high dps, but also with web and scram?
Lilianna Star
Vagrant Empress
#317 - 2012-08-06 16:32:47 UTC
In my experience, Low sec is always the most dangerous place. Even more so than nullsec. I avoid it unless I absolutely need to travel through it. And even then I plan the shortest route through it.

With this change, I'll actually consider going through low sec again. This won't kill low sec, it'll liven it up.
Homo Jesus
The LGBT Last Supper
#318 - 2012-08-06 16:48:05 UTC
Reicine Ceer wrote:
Surely the easiest thing to do would be to just make it so that gate guns have tankable but high dps, but also with web and scram?


Whille that's a better "spitball" idea than what was proposed it's still bad for many reasons.

Let's really ride the crazy train here and use our massive common sense skills together to help our dear misled developer before he's hanging out with dropbear in the free soup kitchen. Let the security rating of a system govern how many sentries are in a battery (.4 system = 4 guns per battery, .3 system = 3 guns). Change the cycle time for lower rated systems to compensate for less guns and possibly open up opportunities for small hulls to camp in lower security systems. Tweak damage anyway ya want they will always be tankable for long periods of time unless the "ramp up" is global, reaches 100% power within a short period of time and lasts till the next down time.
Patrakele
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#319 - 2012-08-06 16:54:26 UTC
Delicious tears - seriously - best harvest ever? DRINK FOR TONIGHT WE DINE IN HELL.
GallantReflex Enaka
Legion Ascending
Fraternity.
#320 - 2012-08-06 17:03:41 UTC
Agree and signed