These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Where would EVE Online be....
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#41 - 2013-01-21 05:43:06 UTC
don't know. I almost never fight at gates or stations. If i do its usually while burning away from them. (E.g. one reason why i am in FW is to avoid docking games - i have nothing against camps but docking games are just silly IMO)

I would love to see "more points of interests" in space where many people meet for some reason. DED1/2 static plexes are no more but FW plexes work quite well most of the time. Dust districts could become interesting if CCP would introduce proper requirements for orbital bombardments (right now you can just take a 3 days old alt with cheapest possible weapons while leaving the rest of the ship fitting empty). POS cities... not sure if they will ever happen.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#42 - 2013-01-21 05:55:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Aza Ebanu
SB Rico wrote:
Aza Ebanu wrote:

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).

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?

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.[/quote]

Do most FC use the gate as a battleground? I am just asking if gatecamps weren't, would there be as much combat-PVP?
SB Rico
Sumo Wrestlers
#43 - 2013-01-21 17:01:37 UTC  |  Edited by: SB Rico
Aza Ebanu wrote:
SB Rico wrote:
Aza Ebanu wrote:

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).

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?

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.


Do most FC use the gate as a battleground? I am just asking if gatecamps weren't, would there be as much combat-PVP?[/quote]

A significant amount of the time yes, they are a wonderful chokepoint as someone has pointed out before, you can then set up pick your range and wait for the enemy to jump into your web. Additionaly the gate in is the only place you can guarantee the enemy fleet will pass unless there is a specific known objective in system

Scammers are currently selling killrights on this toon for up to 5mil, if you have paid for this service demand your money back at once.

Killing me should be for free.
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#44 - 2013-01-21 18:55:45 UTC
SB Rico wrote:
Aza Ebanu wrote:
SB Rico wrote:
Aza Ebanu wrote:

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).

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?

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.


Do most FC use the gate as a battleground? I am just asking if gatecamps weren't, would there be as much combat-PVP?


A significant amount of the time yes, they are a wonderful chokepoint as someone has pointed out before, you can then set up pick your range and wait for the enemy to jump into your web. Additionaly the gate in is the only place you can guarantee the enemy fleet will pass unless there is a specific known objective in system[/quote]
So would you get enough PVP in EVE without chokepoints / gatecamping?
Kyt Thrace
Lightspeed Enterprises
Goonswarm Federation
#45 - 2013-01-21 19:00:15 UTC
What the heck, I vote to just remove gates completely. Everyone picks a system to spawn into when they log into game.

You have to log out to change systems when logging back in.

That way no gate camps & OP will be happy.

R.I.P. Vile Rat
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#46 - 2013-01-21 19:25:35 UTC
Nope they should just rethink this choke point method and make a better way to get PVP fights. The problem stands that the best almost only place to fight is at the gate.
Gillia Winddancer
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2013-01-21 20:26:40 UTC
Aza Ebanu wrote:
Nope they should just rethink this choke point method and make a better way to get PVP fights. The problem stands that the best almost only place to fight is at the gate.


There is no way to rethink choke points without changing how you enter a system, how you leave a station and how you capture ships.

These are the bare minimum requirements.
Dr No Game
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2013-01-21 21:32:26 UTC
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
B: A more advanced system where you can chase and catch ships whilst in warp. Current bubbles are beyond insufficient for this.


Hi. Please google Rooks and Kings pipebomb. Enjoy.
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#49 - 2013-01-21 21:53:31 UTC
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
Aza Ebanu wrote:
Nope they should just rethink this choke point method and make a better way to get PVP fights. The problem stands that the best almost only place to fight is at the gate.


There is no way to rethink choke points without changing how you enter a system, how you leave a station and how you capture ships.

These are the bare minimum requirements.


Sure ad alternate gates. The choke point is a choke point because it is, but the question is whether EVE PVP is largely dependent on gatecamps. Without gatecamps would PVP take place in the same quantities.
Jame Jarl Retief
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#50 - 2013-01-21 21:59:24 UTC
Arguably gates, and by relation gate camps, are a necessity. Because so many other game mechanics are broken.

For example, we wouldn't need gates as chokepoints if D-scanning/probing was changed to work decently well. Compared to current "spreadsheet in space" D-scan that doesn't even differentiate between friend (in fleet) or foe.

If we didn't have local, gates wouldn't be necessary either, it would be easier to surprise someone. At the same time, if D-scan and probing were made better, perhaps it would be easier to keep track of who's sneaking up on you.

But as it is, EVE has a lot of "games". As in "station games", "gate games", etc. Basically trying to squeeze every last ounce of advantage out of otherwise utterly broken game systems. For example, would "station games" exist if the pilot could look out of the friggin' docking bay through his ship's window and see the fleet parked outside? But apparently looking out of the window is just too difficult a thing to do, and naturally a station wouldn't keep track of a hostile fleet parked 500m outside... Roll

Bottom line, gates and "gate games" are just symptoms of a much bigger problem that permeates the entire game. And just like you don't cure a runny nose by cutting off the head (although that approach IS 100% curative!), you don't fix EVE by fiddling with the gates. Fix the rest, the gates will follow.
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#51 - 2013-01-21 22:50:35 UTC
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:
Arguably gates, and by relation gate camps, are a necessity. Because so many other game mechanics are broken.

For example, we wouldn't need gates as chokepoints if D-scanning/probing was changed to work decently well. Compared to current "spreadsheet in space" D-scan that doesn't even differentiate between friend (in fleet) or foe.

If we didn't have local, gates wouldn't be necessary either, it would be easier to surprise someone. At the same time, if D-scan and probing were made better, perhaps it would be easier to keep track of who's sneaking up on you.

But as it is, EVE has a lot of "games". As in "station games", "gate games", etc. Basically trying to squeeze every last ounce of advantage out of otherwise utterly broken game systems. For example, would "station games" exist if the pilot could look out of the friggin' docking bay through his ship's window and see the fleet parked outside? But apparently looking out of the window is just too difficult a thing to do, and naturally a station wouldn't keep track of a hostile fleet parked 500m outside... Roll

Bottom line, gates and "gate games" are just symptoms of a much bigger problem that permeates the entire game. And just like you don't cure a runny nose by cutting off the head (although that approach IS 100% curative!), you don't fix EVE by fiddling with the gates. Fix the rest, the gates will follow.

Thank you for your constructive post.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#52 - 2013-01-21 22:51:08 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
For a fight to occur, two (or more) forces must be forced into close proximity, both physically and temporally.

This can occur from the following:
Both parties are forced into the same location by a chokepoint (gates/stations/whs)
Both parties are fighting over control of the same objective (structure timers)
One party ambushes the other (ganking ratters)
Mutual agreement

With gates, the physical proximity is guaranteed. The temporal proximity is not (2 groups passing through the same gate 12h apart will not fight). A gatecamp is simply spreading the camping party's temporal coverage.

Structure timers guarantee both physical and temporal proximity, and that's why you get enormous fights from them.

Ambushes are one sided enough that they rarely turn into satisfying fights.

Mutual agreed fights are pretty universally unimportant (fun as they may be) (this includes baiting a fight at the top belt).


Removing local (in k-space) simply raises the utility of ambushes to an overwhelming level. It works well in Wh Space because of the mechanics of uncertain, limited connections, the inability to circumvent chokepoints (no cynos), and (to some extent) the inability to run PvE without a diverse group. K-Space without local would provide a fairly overwhelming advantage to the BLOPs drop and other cloaky fun (no need to AFK cloak when you can just show up, invisible, and gank people on a whim), because the connections between space are stable and unrestricted, and the chokepoints can be circumvented.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#53 - 2013-01-21 22:59:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Aza Ebanu
RubyPorto wrote:
For a fight to occur, two (or more) forces must be forced into close proximity, both physically and temporally.

This can occur from the following:
Both parties are forced into the same location by a chokepoint (gates/stations/whs)
Both parties are fighting over control of the same objective (structure timers)
One party ambushes the other (ganking ratters)
Mutual agreement

With gates, the physical proximity is guaranteed. The temporal proximity is not (2 groups passing through the same gate 12h apart will not fight). A gatecamp is simply spreading the camping party's temporal coverage.

Structure timers guarantee both physical and temporal proximity, and that's why you get enormous fights from them.

Ambushes are one sided enough that they rarely turn into satisfying fights.

Mutual agreed fights are pretty universally unimportant (fun as they may be) (this includes baiting a fight at the top belt).


Removing local (in k-space) simply raises the utility of ambushes to an overwhelming level. It works well in Wh Space because of the mechanics of uncertain, limited connections, the inability to circumvent chokepoints (no cynos), and (to some extent) the inability to run PvE without a diverse group. K-Space without local would provide a fairly overwhelming advantage to the BLOPs drop and other cloaky fun (no need to AFK cloak when you can just show up, invisible, and gank people on a whim), because the connections between space are stable and unrestricted, and the chokepoints can be circumvented.


Yes but structure timers are rare.
Ganking not at a gate is rare compared to ganking at a gate so EVE's game mechanics force players to fight at the gate. Therefore, EVE combat-PVP is gate dependent. A simple EVE combat-PVP would be very rare indeed without gatecamps would suffice.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#54 - 2013-01-21 23:13:51 UTC
Aza Ebanu wrote:
Yes but structure timers are rare.
Ganking not at a gate is rare compared to ganking at a gate so EVE's game mechanics force players to fight at the gate. Therefore, EVE combat-PVP is gate dependent. A simple EVE combat-PVP would be very rare indeed without gatecamps would suffice.


Never said EVE combat wasn't dependent on gates. (Just like RL battles generally occur at chokepoints, both geographic and logistical when they don't occur around strategic objectives like cities and fortresses.)

What I am saying is that it's not a problem.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Hakaimono
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#55 - 2013-01-21 23:17:58 UTC
Avoiding gate camps isn't hard. Besides, ships are meant to blow up.
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#56 - 2013-01-21 23:25:57 UTC
Hakaimono wrote:
Avoiding gate camps isn't hard. Besides, ships are meant to blow up.

Who said avoiding gatecamps is hard. I'm saying it is dependent on gatecamps for combat-PVP. Without them I have a feeling PVP would be difficult for many players to engage in. EVE Online's current mechanics make the game dependent on gate PVP. Without it, where would EVE Online be?
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#57 - 2013-01-21 23:30:24 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Aza Ebanu wrote:
Yes but structure timers are rare.
Ganking not at a gate is rare compared to ganking at a gate so EVE's game mechanics force players to fight at the gate. Therefore, EVE combat-PVP is gate dependent. A simple EVE combat-PVP would be very rare indeed without gatecamps would suffice.


Never said EVE combat wasn't dependent on gates. (Just like RL battles of ancient times generally occurd at chokepoints, both geographic and logistical when they don't occur around strategic objectives like cities and fortresses.)

What I am saying is that it's not a problem.

There you go again comparing RL to EVE Online. But thank you for landing close enough to the topic in that "EVE Online is dependent on gatecamps".
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#58 - 2013-01-21 23:57:15 UTC
Aza Ebanu wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

What I am saying is that it's not a problem.

There you go again comparing RL to EVE Online. But thank you for landing close enough to the topic in that "EVE Online is dependent on gatecamps".


There you go again skipping right over the point of my post.

Why do you think that chokepoints being the nuclei for combat is a bad thing for EVE?

What mechanics do you propose to replace chokepoints as nuclei for combat?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#59 - 2013-01-22 00:14:09 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Aza Ebanu wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

What I am saying is that it's not a problem.

There you go again comparing RL to EVE Online. But thank you for landing close enough to the topic in that "EVE Online is dependent on gatecamps".


There you go again skipping right over the point of my post.

Why do you think that chokepoints being the nuclei for combat is a bad thing for EVE?

What mechanics do you propose to replace chokepoints as nuclei for combat?



Well a majority of your post was irrelevant.

I never said it was a bad thing, just stating it is the majority thing.

Well there are plenty options that have been stated over the years. One has been posted even in this thread. But you are more than welcome to add your two cents if you know of any other nuclei for combat.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#60 - 2013-01-22 00:27:32 UTC
Aza Ebanu wrote:
Well a majority of your post was irrelevant.

I never said it was a bad thing, just stating it is the majority thing.

Well there are plenty options that have been stated over the years. One has been posted even in this thread. But you are more than welcome to add your two cents if you know of any other nuclei for combat.


So you're saying that this entire thread is intentionally pointless?

There's no debate on whether gates are a primary location where fights occur. The debate is over whether that's a good or bad thing.


So, what are you proposing? How would you propose moving combat away from chokepoints without descending into ridiculous contrivance? Man up and pick something to stand behind.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon