These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#141 - 2012-08-05 20:54:45 UTC
Sorceror Majiir wrote:

Arena star systems, deadspace gate camps inside the arena, gauntlet runs, gang vs gang, mano e mano, mano vs npc death squads, all on pay per view with live, streaming real time gambling. Entry fees, market linked to allow gamblers access to the latest bloodsport stat god pilot and easy payment method to lay down their iskies, use a horse racing betting model or any number of gambling models irl. If the payout and action is there, why would a pirate waste his time on a gate. No siting around gates, instant gratification deathsicle. Just sayin.. you want to add some spice.. kick the box.. get wild. o/



No.

No, no, no, no, And no.

This is not EVE.

Not even close.

As for the gambling aspect and creating such events, the ability to do so already exists, exclusively by the community, and always has. No dev person-hours commitment needed! That's just great, eh?

EVE.

IS.

NOT.

WoW.


For ****'s sakes, man, what you want is NEVER going to happen in this game, what is so bloody hard about this?

Star Wars: the Old Republic may not be EVE. But I'll take the sound of dual blaster-pistols over "NURVV CLAOKING NAOW!!!11oneone!!" any day of the week.

Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#142 - 2012-08-05 21:15:22 UTC
Sorceror Majiir wrote:


I'm not an advocate to go play Wow, my point is that their design ideas captured the largest market segment in history. Is it sustainable for the next 10 years? No I don't think so, but that's just my opinion and not really relevant in the short term.


That something is popular doesn't make it good (ref.: Just about every car ever built by GM North America from 1975-present).

Sorceror Majiir wrote:
What I am sure of is that there is a general notion of 'what should be' in Eve and that's analogous to designing in a box. Take a design solution Wow uses - the dungeon. So in Eve, it's called deadspace, sites, mining, etc.. all these design elements could fit in the same conceptual 'container' in terms of what they provide to a user. There is one big difference however between dungeons and Eve's similar areas... anyone can usually enter Eve's areas.. not so with a dungeon. That simple design element makes the difference between players being potential victims and enjoying their 'time online' should they not wish to pvp.


There are many simple, basic precautions a player can take to not being victims at all, and most any memeber of the community will be happy to tell them if they ask, and can't find the info themselves.

This is a non-problem, bru.

Sorceror Majiir wrote:
Beyond all the opinions on the pro's and con's of this, my assertion is that Eve has shot themselves in the foot by allowing this free for all environment without at least providing some place for those who don't want the pvp free for all experience. I use as an example the growth of Wow over the years to Eve. yes there is a learning curve factor and micro adjusting the design elements will just make that worse. Easy solutions that give a big return in terms of new players, interest, etc is what's needed imo. [...]


Will all those new players add value to EVE, though?

Will they?

I think not, because EVE requires time to learn, to find your niche, and get good at it, and I suspect the typical MMO player --entitled little immature babies that all too many of them are-- will not stay long enough once they find that EVE Is Hard(TM), so what long-term benefit has CCP realised?

That's right: None.

A non-PvP environment would not work in EVE, first and foremost because EVE's PvE component is hilariously primitive, dull, almost completely lacking in storyline/immersion, and quite simply, bad. (Wanna put the "Grrrrrrrr" in "grind?" Do missions!) The other MMOs make up for their lack of real meaning with a good (great in some cases) PvE component, which EVE doesn't have, and wouldn't have without it being totally re-invented.

That's kinda fine, though. A really good PvE component in EVE is needed IMHO, but only if seen by CCP as "icing" for the cake, not the cake itself.

In a sandbox, it is to some degree or another, up to the community to create content, and ours does so quite well.

Star Wars: the Old Republic may not be EVE. But I'll take the sound of dual blaster-pistols over "NURVV CLAOKING NAOW!!!11oneone!!" any day of the week.

Jude Lloyd
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#143 - 2012-08-05 21:36:12 UTC
Greyscale...don't kill low sec.

Sentry guns are larger than large guns (battleship class guns), yet they can track a frigate with ease. Why don't you just increase the damage output slightly, and decrease the tracking significantly.

Thats my two cents on sentries.

I'm back!

Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#144 - 2012-08-05 22:02:45 UTC
Jude Lloyd wrote:
Greyscale...don't kill low sec.

Sentry guns are larger than large guns (battleship class guns), yet they can track a frigate with ease. Why don't you just increase the damage output slightly, and decrease the tracking significantly.

Thats my two cents on sentries.


That's all that's needed, and all that's ever been needed.

Gate guns have 150km optimal/0 falloff (they don't attack you outside of minimum warp-to distance, IIRC) + perfect tracking at present, yet --going by how their models look, at least-- are essentially POS-batteries.

Why not just make them the same as those, stats-wise, and make them Tracking-Disruptable?

Going global on a gate in anything smaller than a Battlecruiser would no longer almost guarantee suicide, then, and add a new tactic/role in gang, especially for newbies (newbie can point the target/s, and TD the guns, whilst learning by doing how to speed/transversal/sig-tank. How can that not possibly be a massive win for CCP?).

Star Wars: the Old Republic may not be EVE. But I'll take the sound of dual blaster-pistols over "NURVV CLAOKING NAOW!!!11oneone!!" any day of the week.

Jude Lloyd
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#145 - 2012-08-05 23:38:20 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Saithe wrote:
If you are looking at increasing sentry damage in lowsec, can you also look at fixing security gain?

I can spend 2 weeks getting my sec to a 'reasonable' level from -10, and go right back to -10 in a matter of 2 hours.


Frankly, I'd love to see low sec be the ONLY place you can regain security status, it makes no sense to have to go patrol 0.0 space (with no empire citizens to protect and no concord to care) to pay off your blood debt, cleaning up low sec should be the premier place to pay your dues. This has the added effect of putting more pilots in low sec belts instead of sending them on long 0.0 treks - giving more opportunities for the type of off-gate low sec PvP the gate-camp haters want to encourage instead.


Yeah I've been for this idea for a while. We need more reasons for people to wander in lowsec.




Also, the cast of this thread is wonderful.

I'm back!

Jude Lloyd
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#146 - 2012-08-05 23:49:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Jude Lloyd
Kaeda Maxwell wrote:
/me sits back to watch Heretic, Tundragon, SCUM, Mothra & Negative Ten complain.



I don't care too much about gatecamps, but I do care about long fleet engagements on gates.

Last night we got in a BC fight with an equal sized gang, it lasted quite a while. With these new changes, towards the end of the fight... the gateguns would pick each one of us off like drones. How is that a fair addition to the life of a lowsec pirate? How is that a fair addition to lowsec combat at all?


Believe me, I love belt hunting. I love what Black Rebel does, I do the same thing myself very often. Many Heretics do.

But removing the gates as a viable option for fleet engagements is going to remove a lot of what medium sized pirate corps do. CCP has no reason to make lowsec piracy more difficult. CCP has no reason to make those medium sized fleet engagements impossible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMe4HDIIxgk <--- Heres an example of what will be removed from lowsec if this change occurs. Fleet engagements on gates.

Just because Black Rebel doesn't do this doesn't mean the rest of lowsec shouldn't be allowed to.

Obviously we are going to complain. This change will eliminate our gameplay, and we weren't consulted.

I'm back!

Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#147 - 2012-08-06 00:00:11 UTC
Karl Planck wrote:
Before i overreact to this, am i crazy or is idea 100% pants-on-head ret*rded?


you're not crazy. I also happen to think that it's dumb. especially the part where the damage scales up into absurdity. at least make it so that a small concord task force arrives and adds to the DPS instead of just having super saiyan sentries.

I should buy an Ishtar.

Zagdul
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#148 - 2012-08-06 02:56:04 UTC
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:
Sorceror Majiir wrote:

Arena star systems, deadspace gate camps inside the arena, gauntlet runs, gang vs gang, mano e mano, mano vs npc death squads, all on pay per view with live, streaming real time gambling. Entry fees, market linked to allow gamblers access to the latest bloodsport stat god pilot and easy payment method to lay down their iskies, use a horse racing betting model or any number of gambling models irl. If the payout and action is there, why would a pirate waste his time on a gate. No siting around gates, instant gratification deathsicle. Just sayin.. you want to add some spice.. kick the box.. get wild. o/



No.

No, no, no, no, And no.

This is not EVE.

Not even close.

As for the gambling aspect and creating such events, the ability to do so already exists, exclusively by the community, and always has. No dev person-hours commitment needed! That's just great, eh?

EVE.

IS.

NOT.

WoW.


For ****'s sakes, man, what you want is NEVER going to happen in this game, what is so bloody hard about this?

While Arenas are a very bad idea for EVE online. He's not far off from what many people have asked for and that's a longer 'season' on how the alliance tournaments work.

Right now the way teams are picked is a bit unfair. It's still a lottery draw, and lottery draws suck. If they turned it into a season and had it regulated via arenas and trusted ISD/members of the community. Running betting and much of what is done during the alliance tournament can be very healthy for EVE.

Don't be surprised if the Alliance Tournament gets a longer season spread over a few months with a wider range of teams and engagements.

1. All ships would need to be purchased from the economy.
2. It's regulated with rules and is monitored so it's more fair.
3. It brings in the e-sport to EVE Online and feeds that type of gamer.
4. It makes for a point systems for teams to qualify for finals rather than a buy-in and random draw.
5. It helps develop ship balancing and provides a controlled environment for testing what is and isn't working combat wise in EVE. Especially small gang.
6. It's not an 'arena' therefore it wouldn't detract from normal combat in EVE that goes on.
7. It adds content to the game.
8. If regulated by CCP/ISD it wouldn't be able to be 'destroyed' or interfered with.Currently if someone wants to have a tournament, there is no efficient way to check implants, ship fits for no faction/officer mods or to regulate timers/arenas.

I can keep going to the benefits of it. It's actually not entirely out of the question as something that would be good for the game. However it shouldn't be something anyone can just queue up for and enter an arena for a skirmish match. It should be something that teams/alliances compete in over the course of a few months.

A queuing system > insta match would be bad and I do not advise this for EVE.

FYI: During alliance tournament, small gang pvp typically picks up. It's good advertising for it and encourages people to be involved in it.

Dual Pane idea: Click!

CCP Please Implement

Miura Bull
Screaming Hayabusa
#149 - 2012-08-06 03:37:18 UTC
quoting from my blog, bit of a tl;dr but meh, bite me.

Quote:

My first thoughts I must admit were 'lol campers gonna be mad, they mad'.


After thinking for a bit though and reading through this thread.....


I don't personally enjoy getting caught in gatecamps, I don't do gatecamps myself nor do I fight on gates that often. I tend to die to them a lot of the time if they have instalock tacklers or I am not flying a frig that day but I tend to man up and throw up a begrudging gf in local and be on my way. I also tend to avoid the most obvious camps, cos you know you do get used to where they usually are.

So perhaps I should be all for this proposal? I'm not convinced. Part of me wants more people in lowsec, part of me does not.

This proposal (it must be noted that this is still only at the idea stage) does come across as a kind of lowsec stealth nerf attempt and a poor one at that. I don't think this is the way to 'fix' gatecamps, how do you define a fix for this tactic/profession and who are you trying to appease? And why? There are no answers here or am I missing them? Gimping fleet combat on gates and spoiling certain avenues for pvp is not the answer. Should the fixing lay somewhere with risk-free orca tactics, remote repping and t3 boosters in pos's, I dunno?



I get the feeling that somebody 'upstairs' wants to attract more people to lowsec? May I even border on the edge and suggest this change may in fact be directed at attracting new players to the game? New subscriptions and more honey for the pot? I am all for this more people in lowsec debate to an extent and do think that more people will come to lowsec if they know that the horrible gatecamp isn't going to trouble them on the way in as a result of these planned changes.

But I don't really like this kind of easy eve.

As a wide-eyed noob I was attracted to lowsec because of the horrors that I might find behind every stargate. Nervous excitement and the not knowing was like a shot of adrenaline for me. This playstyle that you are trying to fix was one of the very reasons I subscribed to this game in the first place! It came across as brutal and not a very nice place--I don't want to play in nice places. There will be other potential customers out there who are drawn to the evil and mystic ways of eve, if you change eve to an easy mode then you will miss out on these potential new customers. I know for a fact I wouldn't have played if I knew it was all safe and policed.

Are people really scared of lowsec? If so and they are holding off jumping into an eve subscription because of ooh scary camp then they probably aren't going to last in the long run anyway in all honesty. Are these the people we want in eve? People who play games as if they are in a daycare centre. People who don't like risk.

I don't think I do.


A great man who went by the name of Snypes once said....


Low sec in EVE reminds me of an inner city ghetto. Kids with ski masks ganging up on someone and threatening to stick em if he doesn't give up his chain and the $5 in his wallet. Pimped out "economy" class space ships flying around because nice rides get left on a stack of bricks with nothing left but the stale air freshener you were supposed to change 5 months ago. Seedy people hanging outside the stations wearing aviators, smoking a cigarette, eyeing people up until they see someone weak enough they can take his pocket change to get themselves a cup of coffee. You all get the idea.


Then, there's the rest of EVE. They know low sec exists. They certainly have opinions on it and about the people that choose to call it their home. They spot the low sec gates on their overview while surfing the calm relaxing currents of high sec in their luxury billion isk Sundays best. Or pass nearby on patrol scanning down the latest sites in 0.0 turf. They even give advice to newer players about low sec based on their assumptions of what it's like. This can be both hilarious and really annoying to players who actually live or know life in low sec. It's like me thinking I'm privileged, intelligent, and amazing enough to make wild statements based on assumption that high sec is full of nothing but a bunch of bumbling retards who couldn't find their way out of the noob zone because it's too big :P... It's not necessarily true but if I spammed it in the rookie channel using ALL CAPS some people might believe me.



This attempt at sentry gun change is not what lowsec needs right now.




MB.

Ariel Marquette
Doomheim
#150 - 2012-08-06 07:32:03 UTC
All the player suggestions I see here amount to this:

"Why not make x changes, which would make sentry guns just as easily countered as simply tanking them now?"

Essentially, lazy gatecampers who don't want to hunt for targets are all in favor of changing how sentry guns do the job, as long as the sentry guns end up equally ineffective at deterring gatecamps as they are now. Again, I have to ask: What is the point of sentry guns on gates if not to actually keep the gates relatively clear? If this is not their purpose, then just remove them altogether.
Cpt Branko
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#151 - 2012-08-06 08:10:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Cpt Branko
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:
What they should have done --years ago-- is bloody well nerf gate-guns' tracking and optimal range to something approximating "real" (IE, available to players) guns,but oh no:


And that is a bad idea.

One of the nice things about low-sec is that travelling in a smaller ship is actually quite safe, bar running into a sizeable and specialized cap with remote sensor boosters (rare, and also requires you to risk some expensive ships) or smartbombs (easily avoided). I don't think campers need the tools to catch *everything* at no risk / expense, what tackling with interceptors and frigs would enable. Currently you can do it in a RSB recon, but it requires bringing some real ships to the field which also cannot get away in half a second, and throwing some money and organization at it. For the most part, low-sec is safe for frig hulls precisely because of this.

Also, it is far easier to roam (which I find more fun then gatecamping, but of course people like different things) when the average camp cannot insta-lock you down with frig hulls.

I think sentries tracking frigates perfectly with 352 DPS is a good thing. You can still tackle with a frigate in an absolute emergency - we did tackle in covops on roams sometimes when we'd find some high-value target which might get away otherwise (there's a trick how to do it, but you must warpoff very very soon and naturally stay away from gates/stations for the next 15 mins).

If anything, I would change gate guns not to shoot drones. The current GCC mechanics cover who should be shot and who should not be fairly well. They are a definite advantage to the non-criminal side, but can be fought under. If the damage ramps up to thousands of DPS in four minutes, then this becomes an impossibility. The only sensible thing then is to play like the united, running away whenever a hint of a fight approaches. Interestingly, this type of camper actually gets boosted with the proposed changes, since he can tackle with interceptors if he likes.

To the poster above: the point of gate guns is to make travel much much easier in low-sec then it would be without them. This they do very well.
Sugar Kyle
Middle Ground
#152 - 2012-08-06 08:25:26 UTC
Ariel Marquette wrote:
All the player suggestions I see here amount to this:

"Why not make x changes, which would make sentry guns just as easily countered as simply tanking them now?"

Essentially, lazy gatecampers who don't want to hunt for targets are all in favor of changing how sentry guns do the job, as long as the sentry guns end up equally ineffective at deterring gatecamps as they are now. Again, I have to ask: What is the point of sentry guns on gates if not to actually keep the gates relatively clear? If this is not their purpose, then just remove them altogether.


Hello forum NPC corp alt. Do you camp gates with your main?

Popping a carrier in under five minutes is silly. If a carrier is on gate its for a fight or drop not a camp.
Small gangs often have to call for help to take down a capital in low sec. Gateguns melting them in a handful of minutes is silly.


More than campers live in low sec. The group least effected by a change such as the one proposed would be the campers. The hunters would be the ones most harmed. Fighting on gates does not equal camping.

Fewer fights happen. Just as many ganks happen.

Low sec needs love, not nerfs. If people do not wish to research or learn they can adapt, die, or huddle in high sec howling that every gate in every system in all of low sec is camped 24/7 while the rest of eve goes about its business having taken the time to learn to play the game.

Member of CSM9 and CSM10.

Elena Murphy
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#153 - 2012-08-06 13:56:44 UTC
Seems like this make it a lot more difficult for -10 types to sit at gates and smartbomb in battleships while tanking the sentries....

Thumbs up for the changes Lol
Ristlin Wakefield
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#154 - 2012-08-06 14:13:39 UTC
Buff the gate guns and add some more life to low sec!

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.

Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#155 - 2012-08-06 14:30:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Michael Harari
How to fix gatecamps

1) Make it so that scooping a gcced ship gccs the scooping ship. The orca on highsec gates is one of the reasons gatecamping is risk free. You see gatecamps nowadays with two, even three orcas to scoop all their ships on the off chance they fail to scout an incoming fleet, or if they get bridged onto.

2) Linking should be like assinging fighters - you cant do it from inside a pos. This is another mechanic that lets you influence the game while being immune to attack. Ships inside a pos should not be able to do anything that affects things outside the pos.

3) Make sebos stacking penalized and nerf t3 sebo subsystems. Maybe integrate the sensor sub and sebo sub into a single sub.

4) Increase the decloak locking timer. Cloaky proteus linked scorpions make it ridiculous even to bait the gatecampers and then attack, since you cant point while jammed. Reduce the lock range and scan res of falcons and rooks (and all recons tbh).

5) Make sentry guns cycle amongst space debris (corpses, abanadoned drones, cargo containers, anchored containers) when there are no gcced targets.

Not related to gatecamps, but just sentry guns: Make sentry guns NOT cycle against active drones, since its sort of stupid that drone ships are pretty much worthless if they gcc on a gate.



Also, frigates can gcc on gates currently. Assault frigates can be very tanky. Ive killed a t1 hauler that jumped through a gate with me in my wolf, and ive pointed ships in other afs (not for very long, and I have lost some). Its not insta-death by any means, although you cant stay for very long.
jimmyjam
Fire Mandrill
#156 - 2012-08-06 16:12:21 UTC
Does this apply to 0.0 as well?
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#157 - 2012-08-06 16:25:12 UTC
Are there sentry guns in 0.0?
Saithe
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#158 - 2012-08-06 17:09:01 UTC
jimmyjam wrote:
Does this apply to 0.0 as well?


Yes, this will apply to every sentry gun on gates in 0.0 as well.
Sugar Kyle
Middle Ground
#159 - 2012-08-06 17:56:51 UTC
Saithe wrote:
jimmyjam wrote:
Does this apply to 0.0 as well?


Yes, this will apply to every sentry gun on gates in 0.0 as well.


That is good. Wouldn't want them to feel left out.

Member of CSM9 and CSM10.

Ristlin Wakefield
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#160 - 2012-08-06 17:58:00 UTC
Saithe wrote:
jimmyjam wrote:
Does this apply to 0.0 as well?


Yes, this will apply to every sentry gun on gates in 0.0 as well.


WTF! This will kill 0.0 PVP!!! EvilEvilShockedOops

Roll


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.