EVE General Discussion

Well, mind that the actual combat itself is more or less still fine and holds up in it's own right. Most issues that people bring up, including you is rather the steps which are supposed to lead to combat itself.

Right now the environment is basically such that combat is avoided too easily due to various issues, some of which I've pointed out too many times already.

Instead the environment should be such that (coincidental meetings aside) you start off in a sort of "neutral" ground and from there you have to put in a reasonable amount of effort in order to either avoid or engage in combat. Effort being mainly the gathering of information. No one should be excluded from this requirement, whether a pirate in low-sec, industrialist in high-sec or alliance member in null-sec.

There are of course other lesser factors as well, such as the one you bring up, gates and gatecamps. This is why I've always proposed to at the very least have a free entry - fixed exit setup instead of the current fixed entry - fixed exit setup. But again, this will never work unless you have an more innovative system in which you can find and catch ships.

Basically, skill and effort currently has a way too little effect on the current path which leads to combat and should play a much bigger role. But unfortunately there is a rather large group who simply refuse to let go no matter what, most likely because the current system benefit their particular style of gameplay.

Well, end result is all these discussions of areas of space being inactive and people being unwilling to engage in combat and yada yada yada.

Why on earth do we have to hard-core stick to the Star Trek warp theory in EVE? Sci-fi is sci-fi, right? We're not sitting here nitpicking on why microwarpdrives work the way they work, right?

The majority do though, and the prevailing attitude is that gatecamps are a form of lazy PVP so would it severely reduce the PVP in EVE or would the lethargic gatecampers adapt?

Do you feel like if you don't get the fleet at the gate you will never get'em?

Yes yes you had good fights at the gate, but would you have enough fights to satisfy your combat-PVP itch without the gate?

Ok now for the serious bit.

Fights on stations and gates are very common, but that is simply the game reflecting life.

Towns and roads are key strategic points irl, so why is it a surprise that this happens in game.

You see a hostile fleet coming, you decide to engage so you go to the gate. Why?

a) Because it is the only place you can guarantee they will go and so you can set up and be ready.
b) If you allow them into the system unopposed who knows where they will be, what they will do, how they will set up? You give them the initiative - tactically unwise
c) If they are merely a transitory fleet then you will not force the engagement if you do not take them on at jump in.

The only way to remove fights from stations and gates really is to remove stations and gates, then whatever you do instead will become the focus point of the fights. As for Concord level NPC guns on low sec gates - it is LOW sec not high sec, doing this would mean that almost all non-consentual PVP dies in low sec so we might as well start running around throwing little flags in the ground and shouting I challenge you to a duel.

You mean like what happens to gatecamps when the bombers or kiting gangs come rolling into town?

Also, I'm sure your assertion that roads and towns aren't of strategic value would surprise the hell out of the Air Force commanders who dropped thousands of tons of bombs on the roads that the VC were using to supply their armies.

It would also surprise literally any other military commander ever. (Why try to take Stalingrad, Leningrad, Kursk, etc if they're not "strategic points"? The largest tank battle in history was a small part of the battle for Kursk.)



Gates do not make anything one sided. A one person gatecamp is easily defeated by a one person gatecrashing party set up to counter the camper's ship. What you're complaining about is the fact that 1+1>1, and a 10 person gate camp will probably nuke a single person trying to get through (which is kind of how roadblocks are meant to work).

Naaaah.
I have an alt, a low skilled alt, who runs gatecamps all the time - even gatecamps operated by people who know what they're doing. Taunting all the way. If EVE were truly dependant on gatecamps, this obnoxious space-troll alt wold get plastered MUCH more often than he does.

Gatecamps are just another flavor of playstyle, and aren't particularly hard to adapt to, if you're willing to bother.

Gate camps aren't really that big a deal. I've died in a few, and I've skated past way more. Most pvp, for me at least, happens inside the systems. I mean, people try to jump you at the stations and gates because they're lazy. They know someone's going to go there, so they set up a camp to farm kills. But most people don't fly around from gates to stations just to do it. Most people are in space doing stuff. Faction War, null-sec, low-sec, and wormholes all have complexes people run. Loads of fights happen in belts where people rat for ISK. And let's not forget the huge number of fights that happen on gates that involved no camping at all, but were just two fleets that happened to meet at the same gate.

TL-DR -> No. EVE PvP isn't remotely dependent on gate camps. It isn't really hindered by gate camps either. Gate camps are something people think are a big deal until they learn how to spot, avoid, and exploit them. And, yeah, sometimes you die to them too.

I've never seen a kiting fleet destroy a low sec gate camp. Bombs are exclusive to null. The strategic bombing runs in Vietnam was largely ineffective. Also don't compare EVE to RL battle tactics the game is too far from a simulation of any kind to be given that kind of scrutiny. I am not complaining I am simply stating that if EVE got rid of gatecamps, it would be getting rid of a majority of its PVP. Or would players be able to adapt?[/quote]
Messed up the quote thingy :(

It wasn't a comparisson of the tactics as if it were a simulation it was an explanation of the strategic thinking of FCs. To be set up on your chosen spot where you can force an engagement on your terms.