These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Karl Planck
Perkone
Caldari State
#41 - 2012-08-03 13:43:12 UTC
Grey, thank you very much for your thoughtful feedback here. Most of the responses in GD are really just to draw attention to something anyway.

I am still behind this specific idea being shot down, but that is up for debate. Either its not going to work as you want it to or it will and have large drawbacks on other parts of gameplay. I wrote a long response in GD about the topic, but considering how loose the ideas on this change are right now it isn't really worth reposting here.

Thanks again for the update and paying attention to the community

I has all the eve inactivity
Musashibou Benkei
State War Academy
Caldari State
#42 - 2012-08-03 13:44:44 UTC
Kaeda Maxwell wrote:
Ok as a frigate pilot from a predominately frigate based corporation.

Gate guns should continue, now and in the future, to kill frigates outright if you don't buff the damage to the point where it can force BC's, BS's and up of grid.

Because if they don't you enable people using cheap fast tackle on lowsec gates and you effectively end up boosting gate camps (at least you currently need a Legion now just give Orca's scooping them on gates timers so they can't jump to high sec please). Currently you stand at least a chance to get past a gate camp in something that align and warps fast. In a world where frigates have time to tackle on lowsec gates while big dps can also stay on grid you will have effectively killed small ship PvP in lowsec.
As frigate pilots will just lose their ships every time they run into a gate camp where now they at least have some chance of getting away in their ships.

Also I spend 2 years pirating in lowsec and only moved to null a few weeks ago. There's plenty of pirates making a living in lowsec doing things that aren't gate camping. So saying that making gate camping harder some how ruins lowsec is nonsense.


Gate camping is a legitimate activity and should not be dismissed as something stupid. Just because there are other ways to pirate, does not mean CCP should interfere with currently existing game content just because "they can"
Kaeda Maxwell
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#43 - 2012-08-03 13:47:58 UTC
Musashibou Benkei wrote:
Kaeda Maxwell wrote:
Ok as a frigate pilot from a predominately frigate based corporation.

Gate guns should continue, now and in the future, to kill frigates outright if you don't buff the damage to the point where it can force BC's, BS's and up of grid.

Because if they don't you enable people using cheap fast tackle on lowsec gates and you effectively end up boosting gate camps (at least you currently need a Legion now just give Orca's scooping them on gates timers so they can't jump to high sec please). Currently you stand at least a chance to get past a gate camp in something that align and warps fast. In a world where frigates have time to tackle on lowsec gates while big dps can also stay on grid you will have effectively killed small ship PvP in lowsec.
As frigate pilots will just lose their ships every time they run into a gate camp where now they at least have some chance of getting away in their ships.

Also I spend 2 years pirating in lowsec and only moved to null a few weeks ago. There's plenty of pirates making a living in lowsec doing things that aren't gate camping. So saying that making gate camping harder some how ruins lowsec is nonsense.


Gate camping is a legitimate activity and should not be dismissed as something stupid. Just because there are other ways to pirate, does not mean CCP should interfere with currently existing game content just because "they can"


In never said it isn't legitimate and I'm fine with gate camping, but currently well setup and run camps are essentially untouchable and risk free. I believe this should not be the case. Camping, even when done well, should carry a genuine risk.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#44 - 2012-08-03 13:58:13 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
  • 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".

    • To be honest, I think I'd prefer to see it more or less exactly match a carrier's triage timer. Rather than arbitrarily popping the carrier for taking a suspect flag too early in a triage cycle, make it so that the carrier will die under the guns if it doesn't bail immediately after triage...meaning that a short tackle could net someone a carrier kill.

    Don't take the initiative away from the players.

    CCP Greyscale wrote:
  • 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.
    • [/list]

    In that case, I wouldn't be overly concerned with this. It will allow a wider variety of fighting and create some interesting new tactics. Gate campers will get kills and warp out to wait for new targets, or for their flags to expire. You'll adapt and it might even make camping more interesting. I'd like to see it implemented in SiSi for an extended period of time so that people have an opportunity to thoroughly test the mechanics and look for problems. You're talking about a big gamechanger in lowsec.

    I still like my idea of scaling the flag time according to sec status. It would make those 0.x numbers actually matter and might move the gatecamps away from the highsec entrances and toward null, where they have to spend less time off gate.

    Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
    Warde Guildencrantz
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #45 - 2012-08-03 14:14:47 UTC
    Kaeda Maxwell wrote:
    Ok as a frigate pilot from a predominately frigate based corporation.

    Gate guns should continue, now and in the future, to kill frigates outright if you don't buff the damage to the point where it can force BC's, BS's and up of grid.

    Because if they don't you enable people using cheap fast tackle on lowsec gates and you effectively end up boosting gate camps (at least you currently need a Legion now just give Orca's scooping them on gates timers so they can't jump to high sec please). Currently you stand at least a chance to get past a gate camp in something that align and warps fast. In a world where frigates have time to tackle on lowsec gates while big dps can also stay on grid you will have effectively killed small ship PvP in lowsec.
    As frigate pilots will just lose their ships every time they run into a gate camp where now they at least have some chance of getting away in their ships.

    Also I spend 2 years pirating in lowsec and only moved to null a few weeks ago. There's plenty of pirates making a living in lowsec doing things that aren't gate camping. So saying that making gate camping harder some how ruins lowsec is nonsense.


    You fail to see the fact that this change with gate gun damage does not at all cause problems for camps, because gate gun damage is negligible for the amount of time a camp is on grid of a gate to kill an incoming target.

    The reason the change "ruins" lowsec is simply because escalating sentry damage will end up destroying any fleet that fights another fleet while being aggressed. One fleet will have to take aggression in a low sec fight around 75% of the time, unless both fleets are pirate fleets, which is pretty rare, or faction warfare enemies, or have wardecced each other. Wardeccing is not a low sec feature, people want to go out and shoot whatever fleet they meet up with. Therefore, having gate guns eventually blow up the aggressed fleet with around 3000 dps to the aggressed targets in 60 seconds completely breaks lowsec operations, and discourages roaming PvP, which is what they wanted to PROMOTE, instead of camping. You see where the problem lies? It isn't doing anything much for camps and is doing everything for actual fleet ops.

    TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us
    Karl Planck
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #46 - 2012-08-03 14:38:19 UTC
    cross posting this here because its a good summation of the GD thread

    FIRST GENERAL wrote:
    CCP Greyscale, I really do hope that this was merely an idea and nothing more. We've all been witness to at the time so-called 'ideas' which were later implemented exactly 'as is' despite only ever being advertised as ideas.

    After reading through the whole thread and finding some whining, some trolling but also some rigorous (and righteously so) and valid arguments against even the 'mere idea' of these new gate guns i'll add my 5 cents worth to it as well:

    The idea to 'fix gate guns' or implement 'stronger gate guns' seems to stem (and achieve that very desire) from a :
    - desire to eliminate gate camps (a)
    - desire to make low-sec safer (b)
    - desire to draw carebears into lowsec to make it more crowded (c)

    (a) First off, there isn't that much gate camping to being with, and I think that in that respect its a false desire to begin with. Its a vast generalisation that comes from having a few systems in Eve that are notorious for gate Smartbombing and camping gates with insta-locking ships.
    Most of the time so-called 'gate camps' are merely gangs running around 'showing some leg' in order to find engagements and naturally taking the possibility away to 'show some leg' on a gate to get an engagement will not help at all to make lowsec more crowded, quite the opposite actually, it will drain it of the life and action you've given it lately with Inferno. Your idea will not lead to eliminating gate camps.

    (b) Second, the proposed changes will not make low-sec safer. You merely force the lowsec veterans to adapt their tactics if they want to gate camp and gank. Some adapted tactics have already been formulated in this thread to illustrate just that. Your idea will then eliminate the problem nor bring with it your desired effect. However fleet fights around the gates will simply not be possible anymore as stated above. Your idea will not lead to making lowsec safer. (If you want safe stay in high-sec)

    (c) Third, and by (b) this will already be clear to most, your idea will not draw carebears into lowsec to make it more crowded simply because pvp'ers will find ways around your changes and still hurt the 'carebears' and gank them like there's no tomorrow. Your idea will however drive pvp'ers out of low-sec, and that, is not something you want or do you? Your idea will not bring more carebears into lowsec and will not make it more crowded, quite the opposite.

    Instead of trying to get carebears into low-sec how about getting even more pvp'ers into low-sec? After all, low-sec is one of the main homes of PvP or isn't it? So instead make it more attractive for pvp'ers to live in low-sec. The mechanics as they are are not unfair simply because there's ways to avoid getting killed in low-sec and as long as there is, it is in my opinion balanced (in a general way and this is of course disregarding known bugs; sentry guns as they are at the moment, are not a bug).

    If carebears learn the low-sec mechanics, you won't have to have ideas about fixing something that isn't broken in the first place in the form of having sentry guns' power go OVER 9000 after 4 minutes.

    If the master plan really is to make low-sec more crowded, and it seems to me as if it were, then do the only sensible thing in that regard, and make low-sec more rewarding.

    I has all the eve inactivity
    Xylorn Hasher
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #47 - 2012-08-03 16:08:26 UTC
    Tetsel wrote:
    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.


    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)

    So here is my feedback about this "CSM idea" not a "devblog": Improve damages to sentries till they will not be sustainable for subcap fleet, will shutdown several LOW-SEC PERMANENT RESIDENT PLAYER gameplay and RP.
    Gate camping a choke point is as fun as frigate pvp in belt, ransoming people is as fun as counting corpse in hangar, looting reckless hauler is as fun as having a good T3 killmail.
    Improving Sentries the way you think you're almost shutdown half of those activities.
    You will also be able to remove Piracy from the AWESOME "The Sanbox" list on eveonline.com, cause small gang warfare and kill in low-sec doesn't makes people some pirates !


    +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.
    I really dont understand why do you force us players go gather in large groups to mean something? Can you imagine that some of us are not interested in pressing F1...F4 when the FC says to do so or share the killmail with another 100 people?
    Why to even tinker with gate guns in the first place?
    If you really think Gate guns are easy to tank just take your T3 ship and try kill my Cane being GCC'd. You will die in flames.
    Guys i'm serious. Do not try to kill the freedom that lowsec gives to it's flashy residents.



    All my posts are made shortly after Marihuana consumption.
    Emma Royd
    Maddled Gommerils
    #48 - 2012-08-03 16:25:59 UTC
    tldr
    all I see is pirates now complaining that their erroneous ways can be punished by gate guns.


    NEWSFLASH - YOU'RE PIRATES! you know, when you shoot other peoples ships, the warnings that may flash up should be an indication that you're doing something that will lower your sec status, yet you want to sit on gates waiting for gankworthy opponents? that's like a drug pusher sitting in the doughnut shop with a big sign saying "I sell drugs" and not expecting the plethera of cops sat their eating their doughnuts and drinking their coffee not to take a passing interest in you.

    YOU choose to be a pirate, YOU know that your sec status will be negative, and now YOU know that hey there's consequences too.



    My heart doth bleed for you.
    Eternal Error
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #49 - 2012-08-03 16:51:18 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.

    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.
    CCP Greyscale
    C C P
    C C P Alliance
    #50 - 2012-08-03 17:16:14 UTC
    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.
    Kailean
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #51 - 2012-08-03 17:16:50 UTC
    Warde Guildencrantz wrote:
    made up numbers

    Dude, I heard it's at least 10x that in DPS, and in just half the time!
    ANGRY23
    Safety Set To Red
    Train Wreck.
    #52 - 2012-08-03 17:20:39 UTC
    Heres and idea, go on SISI get in a bc or recon and go take gcc and see how long u last under sentrys. To play eve as a gatecamper isnt just about ninja camping a gate and warping off, if u wanna ransom ships/pods you gotta have the ships in place to keep the target in point range and out of jump range. To keep the target in place u need recons or t3 cruisers for scram, web, nuets and any recon or t3 will die to a properly fitted t1 cruiser/bc while sentry guns are shooting it. Thats not pirates whining that just how it is in low sec, we adapt our fits around sentry guns as it is and this idea is just another nail in the pirate's coffin.

    CCP advertise Eve online as a sandbox where piracy is a listed profession yet every other expansion there are changes (some included in patch notes and some get "omitted" from patch notes) that gimp what we do and that are killing piracy. We dont want eve on easy mode and any of u that have fit a ship to negate sentry damage will know that it isnt easy when your enemys have 300-400 dps of a start. You have given FW some loving recently but seem hell bent on gimping pirates even though you list both as professions in eve online.

    We dont want I-win buttons or eve on easy mode we just want a bit of low sex loving (FW isnt piracy) from time to time instead of nerf after nerf to our style of play. Or just remove piracy from your list of careers if you dont want ppl playing your game that way greyscale. You are welcome to come camp with us sometime greyscale and witness first hand how current sentry mechanics work.

    Flame away

    Angry23

    CEO - The United/Negative Ten
    Smee1
    Safety Set To Red
    Train Wreck.
    #53 - 2012-08-03 17:44:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Smee1
    CCP Greyscale wrote:
    [quote=Tetsel]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.



    Gimping a viable career/profession isnt making EVE better. Is it not better to fix whats broken first before breaking something that isnt.
    Ristlin Wakefield
    Viziam
    Amarr Empire
    #54 - 2012-08-03 17:45:53 UTC
    HAHA, I thought carebear tears were great but pirate tears are even better!

    I have a lover, her name is EVE. I see her every night and all she asks in return is that I have a pilot's license.
    Smee1
    Safety Set To Red
    Train Wreck.
    #55 - 2012-08-03 17:49:03 UTC
    Ristlin Wakefield wrote:
    HAHA, I thought carebear tears were great but pirate tears are even better!



    CCP listens to carebear tears tho.
    FloppieTheBanjoClown
    Arcana Imperii Ltd.
    #56 - 2012-08-03 17:50:27 UTC  |  Edited by: FloppieTheBanjoClown
    CCP Greyscale wrote:
    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.


    The idea presented back then suggested that a carrier shouldn't be able to survive a full triage cycle. Would that still be a goal of yours?

    I ask because I strongly disagree that sentries should be able to do *all* the work in such a situation. In fact I find myself reversing on some of my previous notions as I think about just what this means for combat in general: fights MUST be resolved in a matter of minutes or the gate guns will do it for you. Crashing a gate camp? Don't worry about bringing DPS. Just bring tank and hold them down long enough for the guns to work. It's taking the need for DPS away from the players, because they can depend on an NPC source for it.

    I'm all for the scaling DPS that will allow a fast tackle to get a point and then get off the grid, but if sentry guns reach the point where they grossly tip the balance in a fleet battle, I think they've gone to far. I think maybe you need to rethink the rate of damage escalation or where it's capped, at least based on what little I've seen of the idea so far.

    Sentries shooting suspects = bad. Concord doesn't gank you for can flipping, and gate guns shouldn't either.

    And please, PLEASE consider tying the length of the new aggression timers to the system sec level.

    Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
    Ristlin Wakefield
    Viziam
    Amarr Empire
    #57 - 2012-08-03 17:50:48 UTC
    Smee1 wrote:
    CCP Greyscale wrote:
    [quote=Tetsel]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.



    Gimping a viable career/profession isnt making EVE better. Is it not better to fix whats broken first before breaking something that isnt.


    Well, there has long been an idea going around that low-sec is "broken" (http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/05/13/eve-evolved-risk-vs-reward-in-lowsec/). I think this is a step toward the right direction by encouraging more people to venture into low-sec thereby giving pirates more possible targets. I expect more fights to occur at belts, anons, and exploration sites this way.

    Hell, I've spent the majority of my time in low-sec when I explore. Why? Because most low-sec pirates don't seem to bother probing lol.

    I have a lover, her name is EVE. I see her every night and all she asks in return is that I have a pilot's license.
    Ristlin Wakefield
    Viziam
    Amarr Empire
    #58 - 2012-08-03 17:52:05 UTC
    Smee1 wrote:
    Ristlin Wakefield wrote:
    HAHA, I thought carebear tears were great but pirate tears are even better!



    CCP listens to carebear tears tho.


    Doesn't make it right to cry lol. Man up, take the change and deal with it. No point whining.

    I have a lover, her name is EVE. I see her every night and all she asks in return is that I have a pilot's license.
    Ristlin Wakefield
    Viziam
    Amarr Empire
    #59 - 2012-08-03 17:53:32 UTC
    FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
    CCP Greyscale wrote:
    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.


    The idea presented back then suggested that a carrier shouldn't be able to survive a full triage cycle. Would that still be a goal of yours?

    I ask because I strongly disagree that sentries should be able to do *all* the work in such a situation. In fact I find myself reversing on some of my previous notions as I think about just what this means for combat in general: fights MUST be resolved in a matter of minutes or the gate guns will do it for you. Crashing a gate camp? Don't worry about bringing DPS. Just bring tank and hold them down long enough for the guns to work. It's taking the need for DPS away from the players, because they can depend on an NPC source for it.


    I call that an additional layer of strategy. No matter how much tank someone brings, its possible the camp has that extra bit of DPS to break it.

    I have a lover, her name is EVE. I see her every night and all she asks in return is that I have a pilot's license.
    Emma Royd
    Maddled Gommerils
    #60 - 2012-08-03 17:56:03 UTC
    Smee1 wrote:
    Ristlin Wakefield wrote:
    HAHA, I thought carebear tears were great but pirate tears are even better!



    CCP listens to carebear tears tho.



    So the tier 3 BC benefited carebears how?........