These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Planned lowsec sentry "fix" - you guys serious?

First post First post First post
Author
Halcyon Ingenium
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#261 - 2012-08-03 09:39:12 UTC
Isalone wrote:
[quote] most of fleet/gang gate camps in low take place at gates.


Fixed that for you.

And as far as discussing, no one cares about your killboard padding gate camp.

By the way, since we're already talking, do you want to buy a rifter? I've got the cheapest rifters in Metropolis. If you can find a cheaper rifter, buy it!

Patrakele
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#262 - 2012-08-03 09:41:32 UTC
1)Problem - too few people try low sec because of getting their asses handed on the first gate and never trying again.
2)Solution - buff sentry guns.
3)????
4) Profit = tears.

If this will bring more people to low sec, then it's a good change. Maybe players will have to work a bit more then get it easy mode. Yes its easy mode, if you disagree then you obviously fail at gate camp.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#263 - 2012-08-03 10:22:20 UTC
Patrakele wrote:
1)Problem - too few people try low sec because of getting their asses handed on the first gate and never trying again.
2)Solution - buff sentry guns.
3)????
4) Profit = tears.

If this will bring more people to low sec, then it's a good change. Maybe players will have to work a bit more then get it easy mode. Yes its easy mode, if you disagree then you obviously fail at gate camp.


The fallacy here is saying that it'll bring more people to lowsec. It won't. The hisec baddies don't avoid lowsec because the entrance may be camped, they avoid it because the entire region of space is one which allows pvp.

Even if that wasn't the case, lets not ignore the fact that it's actually a huge buff to people looking for easy quick ganks, since interceptors can hang around and get initial tackles / uncloak things.
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade
Ghost Legion.
#264 - 2012-08-03 10:32:29 UTC
Patrakele wrote:
1)Problem - too few people try low sec because of getting their asses handed on the first gate and never trying again.
2)Solution - buff sentry guns.
3)????
4) Profit = tears.

If this will bring more people to low sec, then it's a good change. Maybe players will have to work a bit more then get it easy mode. Yes its easy mode, if you disagree then you obviously fail at gate camp.


No this change will turn every entry point gate camp into 2 intys and 12 nados that are sat at 151+ from the guns. You will still die in a fire, just in 2.1 seconds instead of the 30 the drake camps take.

The increasing damage will just kill fleet fights because pirates won't engage people on gates anymore and no one will follow a pirate gang to a belt they can't WTF pwn. If getting more people into losec was this changes goal, it fails to not only do that, but it will actually lower that number as more people give up on trying to find the ever decreasing pvpers in losec.

I say it again because I've read some post that seem to think you can perma tank gate guns. You can't without logi or so many people your cap regens enough to run a single rep to booster your armor back up to 100%. The idea that no logi ships can GCC forever on a gate showcases many peoples lack of understanding. CCP has gate guns do X amount of dps, people learned to deal by using guardians or enough people that they can rep up while the guns cycle around everyone.

If ccp wants to make that harder, a better idea is to increase the number of guns from 2 to 6 and have them shoot more than one person at a time. 6 guns shooting 3 people each.

The idea that carrier killing Gate guns will increase losec pvp/people is stupid. It will simply increase alpha, gangs ready to bounce.

Don't ask about Italics, just tilt your head.

Nazowa
Resilience.
DARKNESS.
#265 - 2012-08-03 10:40:05 UTC
Wonderfull changes...
Ana Fox
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#266 - 2012-08-03 10:51:29 UTC
This is all ,lets make game more dumb like WoW is.

Yes there was gate camps,but you can use map and avoid them.You can use dir scan and see if there is station camp.Where is problem?

CCP Greyscale vision is so bad that is hilarious.He is making crime watch more simple.Can flipper and GCC idea and in same time we are getting barges with ore cargo size of jetcan?Why the hell someone will use jetcan if you have cargo so big ?

Arenas?That is so so WoW and GW2 .And now gate guns ,to make and try of solo pvp even more bad.Like warp to 0 was not enough.

It is funny how people that defend this pile of crap streaming from this part of devs are proud they are playing "hardest mmo" ever ,but in same time don't have any problem to constant make it more dumb plans.

If caps were problem you could fix that simple ,not just blap universal idea cause you are lazy to think about outcome of your plan on other players that don't use caps as ships.This is just showing more that certain devs don't play this game much.And what is worse it looks they are kinda trying to lure more "lets hold hands" people.

Low sec is last place of real pvp,there was camps but use map and figure out how to pass trough.Real pvp is not just big fleet of xy cattle talking smack in local and enjoying TiDi while they press F1.There is also players like Kil2 and many like them that enjoy playing on smaller scale and use brain more often.
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
Monyusaiya Industry Trade Group
#267 - 2012-08-03 10:53:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiberious Thessalonia
Depending on the actual numbers, this could turn out to be very bad for low-sec PvP. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that every fight I've had at least started at the gate, and low-sec PvP sort of relies on the idea of at least one side being willing to go GCC to hit the other guy.

Right now, the guns switch off their target after 30 seconds, which means that the majority of fights in low-sec are done in ships that have the tank to survive the incoming DPS of the guns for that long (they have roughly 400 DPS, if I recall correctly).

If the guns now hit everyone who goes GCC, then that means that the side that goes GCC will be at a massive disadvantage if the guns damage is not significantly reduced. This means that no one is going to be willing to go GCC. Great for those random individual ships that pop through and industrials (I fully support this part and do not shoot non-enemy industrials anyways), but absolutely terrible for any actual sort of fleet action, since no one is going to be willing to go GCC on an enemy fleet when your entire fleet will suddenly be taking damage capable of killing a carrier in 4 1/2 minutes.

CCP are going to have to be very, very careful how they balance this change if they are going to try not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Edit: Just to clarify, the people who thing that "goodfights" will happen still because people are going to go say "Hey, let's move both of our fleets to planet 1 and pewpew there o7o7m8" are hilariously off base. Good fights happen when they are spontaneous, not planned.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#268 - 2012-08-03 11:02:29 UTC
Sure, I'll make a note to have another look at this and get some more player feedback when we start finalizing the designs.
Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#269 - 2012-08-03 11:10:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Caitlyn Tufy
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
The fallacy here is saying that it'll bring more people to lowsec. It won't. The hisec baddies don't avoid lowsec because the entrance may be camped, they avoid it because the entire region of space is one which allows pvp.


Respectfully, I would disagree, it's a thing of perception. Let's take a global warming for an example: we are continuously warned that heating up the atmosphere will melt the ice, thereby heightening the water levels. First reaction of a western reader to this is "oh god, oh god, we're all gonna die!" Then ice starts melting and - nothing at all happens. And the western reader goes "haha, silly scientists, false alarm!". Meanwhile, whole Pacific islands are being swallowed by the sea. Thus, from a perspective of a western reader, global warming is a big joke, but from a perspective of a pacific island citizen, it's a very true threat to his existence.

It's similar with low sec. All that a highsec carebear hears about it is "gate camps 24/7, EVERYWHERE!" So when he first enters low sec, he goes "oh god, oh god, we're all gonna die!" in a cloaked frigate. If he ends up landing on a gate camp, that confirms his beliefs and he'll never try again. But if he doesn't find a camp, he goes "hey, wait a second, it's all a lie, riches ahoy!" and becomes a low sec player.

This change can be worked around, of course. A few carriers, well coordinated team and you've go a working camp. However, I still believe it will reduce the number of gate camps, improving low sec perception for high sec players. Sure, there will still be a risk, but in their minds, the risk will reduce and with more players, the actual chance of getting attacked per player will reduce.

So yes, I believe that in the long run, this change is good for low sec, though the opportunities will shift from mainly gate camping to hunting down people with scans.

Disclaimer: I'm in low sec about 30% of my playtime at the moment. In all that time, I've landed on one gate camp and made it out alive. So yes, I do know that the boogie man has less teeth than the stories tell ;)

EDIT:

@Tiberious Thessalonia: you are correct, I've never looked at it through the eyes of a fair fight. That is a valid concern that would need to be dealt with. Perhaps by only having guns active if the other side doesn't fight back?
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#270 - 2012-08-03 11:10:42 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Sure, I'll make a note to have another look at this and get some more player feedback when we start finalizing the designs.


Make sure they're eve players you get feedback from, don't accidentally ask the wow community, since the entire crimewatch thing seems very wowplayerish
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
Monyusaiya Industry Trade Group
#271 - 2012-08-03 11:12:32 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Sure, I'll make a note to have another look at this and get some more player feedback when we start finalizing the designs.


This is a good thing. :)

I understand the idea, but I have never seen a carrier used on a gate in a serious fight. Hotdropping, of course, is a thing that happens but that's not going to end as a result of these changes, since they will just switch from having triage carriers to having standard killy ones.
W0lf Crendraven
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
#272 - 2012-08-03 11:14:51 UTC
So first on the plus side, orca camps will now be gone which is a good thing... and thats about it.

On the negative side:

The usual gatecamp willc hange a bit as said earlier instalocking sniping battleships or tier3s with friagte tackle (like a keres + hyena + remote sensor boosting frig) at the gate.

Carebears wont come into lowsec, they usually dont die to camps the die in the belt/mission they are in which emans their risk is pretty much the same.

You nerf any roaming gangs to the ground as said numerous times before fights happen at gates (imagine a nullsec without gates where people can fight, nothing will happen), and most fights take more than 5minutes!

And finally your nerf roaming frigates/crusiers and armor tanking into the ground, lets say im a flashy and im taking my vexor/rupture/(any passive armor ship, even more relevant for frigates) this means that every time i move from system to system i will be shot by the gateguns (even without gcc) which will not instapop me but it will hit me for something, this means a passive frigate/crusier cant do more than 5/30jumps before dying to gateguns, and going into a fight with lower armor is a big disadvantage, so you will be forced to dock up in every sytem you go to! And non flashy friagtes will just sit at gates beeing able to kill every flashys easily as they will have sentrys on their side, even when the nonflashy atacks first!

Nerf orca camping and be done with it, the proposed changes are absolutly ********!

And this is coming from a pirate who never gatecamps at all!
Wacktopia
Noir.
Mercenary Coalition
#273 - 2012-08-03 11:25:53 UTC
Why do we even need this? Basically this is saying that camping a low sec gate will be impossible after the first kill.

Got to say this looks like a slippery slope of pandering to me.

What next? Sentry guns on null sec entry systems?



Kitchen sink? Seriousy, get your ship together -  Fleet-Up.com

Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
#274 - 2012-08-03 11:27:32 UTC
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
It's similar with low sec. All that a highsec carebear hears about it is "gate camps 24/7, EVERYWHERE!" So when he first enters low sec, he goes "oh god, oh god, we're all gonna die!" in a cloaked frigate. If he ends up landing on a gate camp, that confirms his beliefs and he'll never try again. But if he doesn't find a camp, he goes "hey, wait a second, it's all a lie, riches ahoy!" and becomes a low sec player.

No, he won't become a low-sec player because instead of "gate camps 24/7, EVERYWHERE!" it's going to be "combat probes 24/7, EVERYWHERE!" This change will not change the collective carebear perception of low-sec.

CCP Greyscale wrote:
Sure, I'll make a note to have another look at this and get some more player feedback when we start finalizing the designs.

You know, I've never seen one of these triage carriers at a gate, because I don't go to the two systems in the entire game where this could be a problem. If this is such a big issue for you guys (not enough missioners in Amamake? really?), then just do what some other guy said a few pages back and make sentry dps scale with signature radius. That way, frigates could barely be affected, battleships could be in a similar position to the current one, and caps would take fighter-bomber-like damage.

Also, for the love of god, don't make NPCs aggro people for can theft.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#275 - 2012-08-03 11:30:59 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Also, for the love of god, don't make NPCs aggro people for can theft.


But they're THIEVES. And stealing is WRONG. They must be PUNISHED.

i am doing a crimewatch right now
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#276 - 2012-08-03 11:34:06 UTC
Syphon Lodian wrote:
Don't fight at gates. Problem solved.

Also don't play docking games.

Your killboard will survive. It'll be okay.


Also don't go -10, or flip a can, or do anything that could upset anyone. Particulary miners. Roll

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.

Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#277 - 2012-08-03 11:42:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Caitlyn Tufy
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
No, he won't become a low-sec player because instead of "gate camps 24/7, EVERYWHERE!" it's going to be "combat probes 24/7, EVERYWHERE!" This change will not change the collective carebear perception of low-sec.


Perhaps, but in my experience, people in carriers already chicken out to the nearest station the second you enter their system in your mighty Buzzard, so... :p With more people around, they might even stick around for a while and see if you're a threat ;)
Klown Walk
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#278 - 2012-08-03 11:56:53 UTC
Karl Planck wrote:
Klown Walk wrote:
I like it.


why do you like it, I am trying to understand Greyscale's reasoning


If the dmg is low enough that frigates/cruisers can fight on the gate for a min or so, it´s a good change.
Justicas Herror
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#279 - 2012-08-03 11:59:00 UTC
I'm concerned about giving the gate guns too much firepower. As a great many posters before me have articulated much better than I would have, most fights in EVE result from one side jumping into the other.

In essence, by saying you want stronger gate guns, you're saying you want less PvP in lowsec, there's no other way of looking at it.

My other concern, is how this will play out with the gate guns' traditionally reliable aggro mechanics.

Eg. There is a fleet fighting on a gate.

Side A elects to drop a Triage Archon, knowing that thanks to CCP's attempts to make lowsec "better" their carrier is going to die to gate guns.

That's OK though, because they're pretty sure the carrier will win them the fight (risk vs reward and all that).

The carrier jumps in, throws it into Triage. He's repping the friendly fleet, and just about tanking himself. He knows he's going to break, but it's fine because they're winning the fight.

Suddenly, thanks to the well documented and reliable aggro mechanics, the gate guns suddenly decide that, having built up a stupendous damage bonus from plugging away at the carrier, the Abaddon 'over there' is a much nicer looking target.

And they instapop him.


This set of circumstances applies to any fleet with any sort of logistics, if the guns have no damage cap, it'll get to the point where they're instakilling battleships, and I can't imagine that's the intended behaviour.

The idea to stop the people who camp lowsec gates with RR Battleships, or Smartbombing Supers is laudable, but stopping people doing dumb things like that is supposed to be left up to the people playing the game, not magical AI gate guns.
Lord Maldoror
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
#280 - 2012-08-03 12:14:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Maldoror
For whatever reason, Rooks and Kings don't gate camp much. Twos and threes fly through our home system all day and we tend to only form up if there's a proper fleet around. But in regard to this, some things I'm wondering:

- How would a fleet get home? Let's say we go and engage 80 Maelstroms or Tengus on a POS in low sec, with 30 Navy Apocalypse and triage carriers. If we win, we have to fly back. But our generally 0.0-based enemies, with hi-sec status, could then simply bridge tacklers in front of our fleet. If they tackle one faction BS, only he can aggro back. If the whole fleet aggresses, and then triage carriers drop to rep him, we'd have less than a triage cycle to kill the 0.0 fleet before the gate guns kill us.

- Essentially, that would mean we'd have to carrier jump back, using an alt on a cheap clone to jump in a carrier to store the faction BS, pass the carrier to the HG slave clone, who then jumps it home. We could do that but not all alliances would have players financially placed to all have multiple capital alts.

- What happens in a fight on a gate? We regularly put multiple capitals on gates and not to camp but rather to engage fleets of 0.0 alliances returning from Tech moon sieging and such-like. Their sec-status will be good, so we already take gate gun aggro and are likely to be vastly outnumbered in the fight.

Now you might argue that since RnK have low sec status we're the bad guys and since the powerbloc fleet have 5.0 status they deserve to be immune to us jumping them. However, is Eve really always as simple as that? Does it reflect the emergent gameplay of Eve? It's always a matter of perspective, of course. But, for example, do Goons even want to be 'the good guys'? I think they want to be good bad guys, so to speak (at least some of the time). Isn't it a little odd that Rooks and Kings, with our occasional bursts of e-honour, would not be able to jump them in low sec?

In this sense, there's more to Eve than a sec status.


- If you consider the changes, a lot of great low sec fights would no longer happen. For example, in this fight we engaged a CFC camp that was escorting freighters. Although they had 100 guys, including supercapitals, they were after all not flashy and so we were taking gate gun fire to intervene.

If you consider this fight, we were engaging with many triage on a gate against White Noise and co., who had been baiting with capitals and Abaddons. The general talk of the channels was that they were looking for trouble and we felt obliged to spring the trap. But although they were seen as the 'predatory' 0.0 block members who'd come to the region, they were not flashy and no local group would have the sec status to have engaged them under the new changes.

If you consider this fight, we would have been unable to go home by gate after killing all the Maelstroms, due to being flashy and vulnerable to counter-drop. Ironically, that fleet had come specifically to the area to fight us for the experience of it, an invitation we'd no longer be able to accept under the new guns.

And that's just glancing through a page or two of Failheap's Low sec thread, the largest thread on the battle report forum.


- There was recently a four-way fight in Black Rise that involved Shadows of the Federation dreads, Snuff Box carriers, Wolfsbrigade dreads, Only For Fun supers, Fatal Ascension dreads, NCdot supers, X13 carriers and dreads and a number of other parties. This all took place on a gate.

Rooks and Kings attended with a Pantheon fleet, which survived intact. Now, under the new changes, aside from the fact that there would be no chance of survival (certain death can be romantic sometimes), there is a broader issue: the 'low sec alliances' would not be able to attend a party like that in their home.

SOTF, Snuff Box, Wolfsbrigade, Only For Fun and co. all have players who were taking gate gun aggro in that fight. I can understand home territory not 'boosting' groups or offering an advantage but why would all these groups be made unable to fight against 0.0 capitals in their back yard?


I'm not against increasing low sec traffic but surely there are fairer ways - e.g. spawning faction police on the low sec side of high sec gates after a certain period of time, or making special warp core stabs against insta-locking HICs, or preventing an Orca jumping a gate when carrying aggression timer ships, etc.