These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

Make gate guns less size-dependent

Author
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2015-10-01 19:23:02 UTC
Currently gate guns track like a beast and hit pretty hard. If you're a frigate, this means nearly instant death. For a cruiser, you probably don't want to stick around long. A single battleship can tank all 8 of them all day long without breaking a sweat if it's built for self-repping. And capital ships can very nearly tank them with just shield hardeners and base shield regen.


I'd like to see it be more possible for frigates to fight illegally on gates--not just as easy as larger ships, but not so much with certain death. Likewise, I'd like to see the heat turned up a bit on larger ships. Here's my plan:

Make the 8 guns into 4 types: small, medium, large, and extra-large. Each one is very easily able to track its size class ship but may have difficulty with anything smaller.
A frigate would then only have to deal with the two weakest gate guns, and if it makes a tight orbit on one of them, it may only get hit by the other. No matter what, a lone frigate will be taking good hits from at least one gun because they're so far apart, but if it's remaining mobile, not necessarily more than two.
A battleship wouldn't just be able to sit all alone and tank the guns, but a small group of battleships with logi support could do it.
And a capital ship might take heavy damage, though it doesn't matter as much because nobody uses capital ships to gank on gates anyway. Another cool use for the XL guns would be either watching naive pilots sitting still, or using webs and paints to make ships get hit by XL.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Celthric Kanerian
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2015-10-01 20:26:02 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Currently gate guns track like a beast and hit pretty hard.


From all the times I've done gate pvp, I feel like they don't hit worth s**t
Ix Method
Doomheim
#3 - 2015-10-01 21:02:41 UTC
Isn't the whole point of gate guns to make using cheap, fast locking tackle awkward?

Travelling at the speed of love.

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#4 - 2015-10-01 22:40:41 UTC
Or you could just use a bigger ship?
Gate camps give you ambushes on whoever comes through the gate, yes they could use a 'scout' but you then ambush the scout. Even a good scout has some chance of getting done by a decent gate camp, so they are 'scouting' by sacrificing ships to your killboard either way.
So put something at risk for your easy kills.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#5 - 2015-10-02 07:53:09 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Diomedes
Ix Method wrote:
Isn't the whole point of gate guns to make using cheap, fast locking tackle awkward?


This is precisely the point of gate guns. Yet another swing and a miss, OP.

If someone wants to sit on a low sec gate in a battleship or Capital ship: Good! That's great content.

A horde of Interceptors camping the same gate and murdering everything they can and running away from everything they cannot is bad content.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2015-10-02 08:02:44 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Ix Method wrote:
Isn't the whole point of gate guns to make using cheap, fast locking tackle awkward?


This is precisely the point of gate guns. Yet another swing and a miss, OP.

If someone wants to sit on a low sec gate in a battleship or Capital ship: Good! That's great content.

A horde of Interceptors camping the same gate and murdering everything they can and running away from everything they cannot is bad content.



Not empty quoting.

If you make instant locking more viable/less expensive, you make it too easy to choke people out of lowsec. It's not healthy; travel breeds content.
Christopher Multsanti
The Northerners
Fraternity.
#7 - 2015-10-02 08:17:43 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Ix Method wrote:
Isn't the whole point of gate guns to make using cheap, fast locking tackle awkward?


This is precisely the point of gate guns. Yet another swing and a miss, OP.

If someone wants to sit on a low sec gate in a battleship or Capital ship: Good! That's great content.

A horde of Interceptors camping the same gate and murdering everything they can and running away from everything they cannot is bad content.


I'm not going to dispute what you're saying exactly but have you got a source on this? Low sec gate guns were designed a long long time ago. And it seems their design is a bit more slap dash than the explanation you have given.

Besides when you have camping BS that can (with remote boosters) lock nearly as quickly as interceptors then whats the difference?
Kenrailae
Scrapyard Artificer's
Just Lizard
#8 - 2015-10-02 08:48:20 UTC
IIRC a low sec gate only has 2 guns....



And its pretty easy to tank them with a bit of logi, even in a minimally tanked interceptor.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal

Ix Method
Doomheim
#9 - 2015-10-02 08:55:38 UTC
Christopher Multsanti wrote:
Besides when you have camping BS that can (with remote boosters) lock nearly as quickly as interceptors then whats the difference?

Cost and convenience.

Travelling at the speed of love.

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#10 - 2015-10-02 09:11:59 UTC
Christopher Multsanti wrote:


Besides when you have camping BS that can (with remote boosters) lock nearly as quickly as interceptors then whats the difference?


Citation needed.

Even with five T2 Remote Sensor Boosters with scan resolution scripts, there is no way you are getting a Battleship to lock as fast as an Interceptor. At some point, server ticks come into play, so you reach a point where a Battleship can lock larger targets fast enough that it doesn't matter, but that is only against larger targets (which would have been caught anyway).

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#11 - 2015-10-02 09:13:36 UTC
Ix Method wrote:
Christopher Multsanti wrote:
Besides when you have camping BS that can (with remote boosters) lock nearly as quickly as interceptors then whats the difference?

Cost and convenience.


And the all important fact that someone else has a good chance of catching and killing you. Eve is pretty much designed to introduce you to the bigger fish in the pond the instant you start thinking you are the biggest fish in the pond. Put a battleship on a gate anywhere near a competent, active PVP group and you'll see why it's not that common.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#12 - 2015-10-02 09:45:30 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Christopher Multsanti wrote:


Besides when you have camping BS that can (with remote boosters) lock nearly as quickly as interceptors then whats the difference?


Citation needed.

Even with five T2 Remote Sensor Boosters with scan resolution scripts, there is no way you are getting a Battleship to lock as fast as an Interceptor. At some point, server ticks come into play, so you reach a point where a Battleship can lock larger targets fast enough that it doesn't matter, but that is only against larger targets (which would have been caught anyway).



Even if they could, battleships cannot hope to successfully disengage if a large fleet materializes on the other side of the gate.
Christopher Multsanti
The Northerners
Fraternity.
#13 - 2015-10-02 10:03:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Christopher Multsanti
FT Diomedes wrote:
Christopher Multsanti wrote:


Besides when you have camping BS that can (with remote boosters) lock nearly as quickly as interceptors then whats the difference?


Citation needed.

Even with five T2 Remote Sensor Boosters with scan resolution scripts, there is no way you are getting a Battleship to lock as fast as an Interceptor. At some point, server ticks come into play, so you reach a point where a Battleship can lock larger targets fast enough that it doesn't matter, but that is only against larger targets (which would have been caught anyway).


I said nearly, but a BS can lock a cruiser in roughly 3.5 secs with remote sensor boosting. Which is quick enough to catch everything cruiser and above.

A thorax with the same boosts will catch destroyers and above so you know only thing getting away from a good low sec gate camp is intys and probably frigs.
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#14 - 2015-10-02 10:28:35 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Even if they could, battleships cannot hope to successfully disengage if a large fleet materializes on the other side of the gate.

Which is kinda the point.
You either risk a big ship, or you make a setup that can deal with guns, or you go to nullsec for camping.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#15 - 2015-10-02 12:45:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Frostys Virpio
Use assault frigate with T1 cruiser logi support and your frigs will stay on grid under gate gun. Frig logi can stay a little while but not forever even with reps iirc.

With a prelock from logi, an interceptor can be used to get the first point which would keep your target on grid long enough for other ship to get a harder point. Then they GTFO because reps won't hold more than a few seconds but it still works.
Thron Legacy
White Zulu
Scorpion Federation
#16 - 2015-10-02 20:54:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Thron Legacy
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
A single battleship can tank all 8 of them.


I have yet to find a lowsec system with more than 2 guns per beacon, your 8 seems like a fortune :P


Also dont fix whats not broken
EDIT: make gate guns switch targets like rats do pleaaase
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#17 - 2015-10-02 21:49:22 UTC
I think an improvement would to add a scram to low sec gates and sations. Make it a super special you can't dock/jump, warp, MJD or cyno out scram.

Just one per gate and station.

You have all these wonderful POS modules. Gates and stations should use more than just the 1 type. Sprinkle some excitement around. Heck, add a jam on caldari gates, web on minny gates, neut for amarr and damp for gallente. The scram and racial bonus pain could come right from the gate or station - no need to float an additional module in space.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#18 - 2015-10-02 22:37:14 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
I think an improvement would to add a scram to low sec gates and sations. Make it a super special you can't dock/jump, warp, MJD or cyno out scram.

Just one per gate and station.
How is that an improvement? Or are we back to the same old adage?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#19 - 2015-10-03 12:35:41 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
I think an improvement would to add a scram to low sec gates and sations. Make it a super special you can't dock/jump, warp, MJD or cyno out scram.

Just one per gate and station.
How is that an improvement? Or are we back to the same old adage?



It's about commitment. It may actually end some of the docking ring heros. I'm all for anything that kicks a docking ring pvp master in the nutz. It's about taking some risk aversion (deagress option) out of the game. I'm for playing eve in hard mode. You seem to be so nerf averse (giggle - you know that's funny) you sometimes put things in the wrong box. I'm not trying to nerf pvp, I'm trying to make risk averse docking games less of a thing. I'd like to point out that I didn't say the scram targeted ebil pirates. It targets agression. It could grab anyone that is fighting withing it's range. Equal opportunity.

I like commitment, I dislike docking during a fight. Just imagine the amount of docking ring carriers that would perish because they no longer had enough raw hitpoints to deagress everything but a cyno blob. Getting rid of low sex unkillable docking ring carrier crap and/or the need for a massive cyno blob to kill said carrier isn't going to make eve pvp worse.

As for the racial hoo haw - I think that would just add a bit of fun to gate/station fights.

We may not agree on details, but I'm not the bad guy here. Lighten up Francis.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#20 - 2015-10-04 07:57:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
I think an improvement would to add a scram to low sec gates and sations. Make it a super special you can't dock/jump, warp, MJD or cyno out scram.

Just one per gate and station.
How is that an improvement? Or are we back to the same old adage?



It's about commitment. It may actually end some of the docking ring heros. I'm all for anything that kicks a docking ring pvp master in the nutz. It's about taking some risk aversion (deagress option) out of the game. I'm for playing eve in hard mode. You seem to be so nerf averse (giggle - you know that's funny) you sometimes put things in the wrong box. I'm not trying to nerf pvp, I'm trying to make risk averse docking games less of a thing. I'd like to point out that I didn't say the scram targeted ebil pirates. It targets agression. It could grab anyone that is fighting withing it's range. Equal opportunity.

I like commitment, I dislike docking during a fight. Just imagine the amount of docking ring carriers that would perish because they no longer had enough raw hitpoints to deagress everything but a cyno blob. Getting rid of low sex unkillable docking ring carrier crap and/or the need for a massive cyno blob to kill said carrier isn't going to make eve pvp worse.

As for the racial hoo haw - I think that would just add a bit of fun to gate/station fights.

We may not agree on details, but I'm not the bad guy here. Lighten up Francis.
So your issue is people fighting and docking up. But you want them on gates anyway, just because. But you don't want to nerf PvP, even though gates are where a large percentage of fights happen. Wat?

Station games are dumb I agree. But if people decide to play them, that's their choice. They are easy to avoid, if you do not want to play.
This game should have less NPC interference, not more. I'm averse to asking for hand holding by NPC mechanics, that nerf peoples style of play. Especially when it's not required, or fixes anything.

The joke is you've not even thought it through and don't seem at all aware of how gates/station guns work in low. What now? They will work differently and only focus on the ship, you think needs it? The ebil carrier will most defiantly get all the warp jamming, because it's making Eve worse?
Or is it those ebil content creators, who like to roam low sec hunting pirates. Yes let's warp scramble them, just because equal opportunity. Now that's funny.

I sincerely hope CCP continue the trend of less NPC interference in low, not more.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

123Next page