These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

low sec-the joke by CCP

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Daisai
Daisai Investments.
#101 - 2013-03-04 18:57:39 UTC
Calathorn Virpio wrote:
easy fix to problem

no matter what, anything smaller then a BS dies if gate camping near gate guns, even with reps.

if you're going to gate camp outside of null, it should cost you to lose your ships



You do realise that this would then reguire logistics to keep the fleet up from the gateguns, which then would result in larget fleets camping the gates.
Right now passing gatecamps in low sec is pretty easy with a covert ops ship.

However with larget fleets that orbit the gate the chance of cloaking up becomes smaller.

The last thing low sec needs is less pvp and the pvp that there is shouldnt be forced to be moved to null sec.
Yes gatecamping is lame but thats basicly a part of the game, just like camping in fps games or cheese tactics in rts.

But then again , gatecamps are easy to be baited since its boring as hell to do.
S'Way
State War Academy
Caldari State
#102 - 2013-03-04 19:09:46 UTC
Hurtini Hilitari wrote:
I think it would be better if we had people fighting for pirate factions to turn 0.5 systems, ie, Hek, into 0.4 systems. Now that would be interesting Twisted

We need more people like Solstice Project who's trying his best to do that in Hek already.

Dynamic security status of systems would make things interesting for sure, to trial it they could restrict it to a few 0.4 and 0.5 systems chosen for FW at first. Let those change depending on which faction holds that system at the time. No idea if that's even possible programming-wise for CCP, but it might liven things up a little bit.
Dessau
The Scope
#103 - 2013-03-04 19:16:31 UTC
Did a 35-jump roam in 0.3-0.1 Gal FW space last night: not a single camp and most systems had 3-15 pilots. Where and when are you flying, OP?
Xen Solarus
Furious Destruction and Salvage
#104 - 2013-03-04 19:29:08 UTC
I still strongly believe in the idea that was floated a while back about escalating gateguns. What ever happened to that awesome idea? Gatecamping has not only killed lowsec, but also acts as the most significant barrier to highsec players making the natural progression to low and nullsec space. The pirates that often whine endlessly about highsec have created the very problem. Lowsec is a wasteland of their own creation.

Of course, they argued against this suggested change with gusto. I guess they wouldn't see it as true PvP if their victims weren't marching neatly single-file into their gatecamp. The very idea of the less-PvP-orentated players of highsec being able to "get a foot in the door" of lowsec without being immediately getting OMGWTF-FACE-RAPED was competely unacceptable to them. I mean, they'd have to actually use probes to scan people down, and actually make an effort to find their targets. How unfair would that be?

So, an idea that would lead to more targets, more potential profits for highsec players willing to take the risk, as well as a potentially revitalised lowsec was strongly argued against by pirates because........ well, i'm not competely sure, other than it being for their own selfish reasons. I'm not even convinced they were sure they knew, other than it being a standard "Don't change my EvE". At least, none of them could make a convincing case against it. I invite you to try now!

Personally, i thought this was the best idea i'd heard in a long time. For the betterment of all of EvE. Cool

Post with your main, like a BOSS!

And no, i don't live in highsec.  As if that would make your opinion any less wrong.  
Prekaz
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#105 - 2013-03-04 19:37:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Prekaz
Xen Solarus wrote:
I still strongly believe in the idea that was floated a while back about escalating gateguns. What ever happened to that awesome idea? Gatecamping has not only killed lowsec, but also acts as the most significant barrier to highsec players making the natural progression to low and nullsec space. The pirates that often whine endlessly about highsec have created the very problem. Lowsec is a wasteland of their own creation.


There are some pretty interesting analogies to be made between low-sec pirates and RL commercial fishermen, tbh. Long term sustainability is only good if it comes with absolutely no short-term cost - otherwise it's an outrageous assault on their livelihood. Roll
Calathorn Virpio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#106 - 2013-03-04 19:49:08 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Sentamon wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Sentamon wrote:
[quote=Katran Luftschreck]Get eight friends with battleships together and show them what you think of their gate camp.


Very true, except you miss the point that those 8 Battleships now control the gate, and access through that system.


You don't control anything in lowsec. Assuming it's only 1 gate and your lame gatecamp might be semi effective at system control, well ... I can run a gatecamp in my sleep.

I've been on both sides of the equation, in Low Sec, Null, and in High Sec war situations. Preventing gate camps even in a multiple gate system isn't difficult if you have the right ships and people in place. In this manner you do indeed "control" the system, at least to the extent that you are interested in doing so. This does not mean you drive the pirates out of system, or even stop them from trying to get the occasional gank at a gate or station, but you can easily render their efforts against anyone in your coms relatively ineffective (unless they are in something entirely inappropriate to the situation or simply stupid).

As I said, if the anti-pirates are well organized you are vulnerable when running a low sec gate camp (you are congrated in one very predictable spot, usually because you are too lazy to use tacticals). It is also true that similar gate camps in Null are even more vulnerable, and incredibly juicy targets. In fact, there exists a subset of highly skill players that specialize in breaking such gate camps solo... but that involves a completely different set of tactics... but it an awful lot of fun. Smile

The only thing that keeps most gate campers alive is the fact that the vast majority of the time their targets are too poorly organized to counter them.



like say? a single person trying to catch up to his friends?

also, thanks to everyone who has posted well thought out suggestions

THE FORUMS ARE DOING THEIR INTENDED PURPOSE, THE WORLD MUST BE ENDING!!!

Roll

BRING BACK THE JUKEBOX

I attended the School of Hard Nocks, the only place you will ever learn anything of value, sadly most Americans never meet the requirments to attend
Calathorn Virpio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#107 - 2013-03-04 19:58:41 UTC
Xen Solarus wrote:
I still strongly believe in the idea that was floated a while back about escalating gateguns. What ever happened to that awesome idea? Gatecamping has not only killed lowsec, but also acts as the most significant barrier to highsec players making the natural progression to low and nullsec space. The pirates that often whine endlessly about highsec have created the very problem. Lowsec is a wasteland of their own creation.

Of course, they argued against this suggested change with gusto. I guess they wouldn't see it as true PvP if their victims weren't marching neatly single-file into their gatecamp. The very idea of the less-PvP-orentated players of highsec being able to "get a foot in the door" of lowsec without being immediately getting OMGWTF-FACE-RAPED was competely unacceptable to them. I mean, they'd have to actually use probes to scan people down, and actually make an effort to find their targets. How unfair would that be?

So, an idea that would lead to more targets, more potential profits for highsec players willing to take the risk, as well as a potentially revitalised lowsec was strongly argued against by pirates because........ well, i'm not competely sure, other than it being for their own selfish reasons. I'm not even convinced they were sure they knew, other than it being a standard "Don't change my EvE". At least, none of them could make a convincing case against it. I invite you to try now!

Personally, i thought this was the best idea i'd heard in a long time. For the betterment of all of EvE. Cool



this? this i like.

it's my main point, all this use the map crap? most new players are still trying to get a good overview, let alone map set up.
4 year players and beyond don't have an excuse, but someone who only played 6 months? no, they shouldn't go from, concord kills pirates in high sec that try to blap them to .4 system choke point blaping.

.2-.1 should be easy to gate camp, like a .5 can be, but a .4-.3 should have gate guns with similar strength to concord in 1.0-.9, allowing people to move into low sec more easily, THEN run the risk of getting blapped. there shouldnt be this HUGE difference between .5-.4 security regarding the gate guns.

BRING BACK THE JUKEBOX

I attended the School of Hard Nocks, the only place you will ever learn anything of value, sadly most Americans never meet the requirments to attend
Brooks Puuntai
Solar Nexus.
#108 - 2013-03-04 20:26:37 UTC
Takseen wrote:


So by creating a 0.5 system out of a 0.4 FW system we in FW
-lock out the -5.0 and below pirates, one of our best source of fights
-allow anyone not -5.0 to get a free aggress on us, while we don't get to shoot first because Concord will blap us?
-Lowers mission rewards, belt rats, exploration spawns and everything else based on sec status

Yes from a lore PoV it'd make sense for the Gallente militia to want to increase the security status of say Old Man Star, but in practical gameplay terms its not so clever.




You could create it so the truesec remains the same, meaning a lowsec system could be bumped to 0.5 yet still gain the benefits from belt rats, mission rewards, etc. As far as being dynamic you could take it even further, and that station ownership would shift towards NPC corporations that line with said faction.

To take the idea even further, you could have systems around areas that are being attacked begin to drop in security status. Say Gallente begin to make a push into Caldari space and take a few systems, after which adjacent Caldari highsec space would decrease in sec status.

The pirates and combat aspect of it could cause an issue, but as a recall many get annoyed with pirates interfering. This just allows/promotes fights between the warring factions.


However the idea of a fully dynamic Eve is only a pipe dream, since CCP would never take a chance on such radical changes. Even if it matches up completely with the whole idea of a sandbox, though they seem to have no issues throwing it around any chance they can.

CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Improving NPE / Dynamic New Eden
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#109 - 2013-03-04 21:02:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Brooks Puuntai wrote:
Takseen wrote:


So by creating a 0.5 system out of a 0.4 FW system we in FW
-lock out the -5.0 and below pirates, one of our best source of fights
-allow anyone not -5.0 to get a free aggress on us, while we don't get to shoot first because Concord will blap us?
-Lowers mission rewards, belt rats, exploration spawns and everything else based on sec status

Yes from a lore PoV it'd make sense for the Gallente militia to want to increase the security status of say Old Man Star, but in practical gameplay terms its not so clever.




You could create it so the truesec remains the same, meaning a lowsec system could be bumped to 0.5 yet still gain the benefits from belt rats, mission rewards, etc. As far as being dynamic you could take it even further, and that station ownership would shift towards NPC corporations that line with said faction.

To take the idea even further, you could have systems around areas that are being attacked begin to drop in security status. Say Gallente begin to make a push into Caldari space and take a few systems, after which adjacent Caldari highsec space would decrease in sec status.

The pirates and combat aspect of it could cause an issue, but as a recall many get annoyed with pirates interfering. This just allows/promotes fights between the warring factions.


However the idea of a fully dynamic Eve is only a pipe dream, since CCP would never take a chance on such radical changes. Even if it matches up completely with the whole idea of a sandbox, though they seem to have no issues throwing it around any chance they can.

To address the worthy points Takseen made above.

-The inability of -5.0 pirates to operate in that system if the Militia succeeds is the main motivation for them to attempt to interfere. If they are not successful then they either need to rely on their members that can still operate in that area, or they need to do what they can to help the opposing Militia break that system loose again. Strong incentive.

-I think it rather goes without saying that if Pirate factions become part of FW (which is going to happen in one form or another very shortly) then the Militia's will be considered to be in a state of war with members of those said Pirate factions. Thus any Pirate Faction member able to enter the system can fire on the Militia freely, and vice versa... and not just in that system either. Normal Faction police response would be generated against Pirate Faction members venturing deeper into an Empire Factions space. Also keep in mind, not all Pirate Faction member necessarily end up with a negative security status. Many of their targets will be legitimate in the eyes of Concord.

-The bonuses that Militia members receive in a Low Sec system that they successfully convert to a "Border" High Sec system would be substancial obviously, just as they are for controlling Low Sec systems versus their enemy faction. "Liberating" said Border system back to a Low Sec status could likewise have perks for the Pirate Faction members.

I'm not tryiing to bash you here, just taking the mechanics involved to their logical conclusions.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Calathorn Virpio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#110 - 2013-03-04 21:59:15 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Brooks Puuntai wrote:
Takseen wrote:


So by creating a 0.5 system out of a 0.4 FW system we in FW
-lock out the -5.0 and below pirates, one of our best source of fights
-allow anyone not -5.0 to get a free aggress on us, while we don't get to shoot first because Concord will blap us?
-Lowers mission rewards, belt rats, exploration spawns and everything else based on sec status

Yes from a lore PoV it'd make sense for the Gallente militia to want to increase the security status of say Old Man Star, but in practical gameplay terms its not so clever.




You could create it so the truesec remains the same, meaning a lowsec system could be bumped to 0.5 yet still gain the benefits from belt rats, mission rewards, etc. As far as being dynamic you could take it even further, and that station ownership would shift towards NPC corporations that line with said faction.

To take the idea even further, you could have systems around areas that are being attacked begin to drop in security status. Say Gallente begin to make a push into Caldari space and take a few systems, after which adjacent Caldari highsec space would decrease in sec status.

The pirates and combat aspect of it could cause an issue, but as a recall many get annoyed with pirates interfering. This just allows/promotes fights between the warring factions.


However the idea of a fully dynamic Eve is only a pipe dream, since CCP would never take a chance on such radical changes. Even if it matches up completely with the whole idea of a sandbox, though they seem to have no issues throwing it around any chance they can.

To address the worthy points Takseen made above.

-The inability of -5.0 pirates to operate in that system if the Militia succeeds is the main motivation for them to attempt to interfere. If they are not successful then they either need to rely on their members that can still operate in that area, or they need to do what they can to help the opposing Militia break that system loose again. Strong incentive.

-I think it rather goes without saying that if Pirate factions become part of FW (which is going to happen in one form or another very shortly) then the Militia's will be considered to be in a state of war with members of those said Pirate factions. Thus any Pirate Faction member able to enter the system can fire on the Militia freely, and vice versa... and not just in that system either. Normal Faction police response would be generated against Pirate Faction members venturing deeper into an Empire Factions space. Also keep in mind, not all Pirate Faction member necessarily end up with a negative security status. Many of their targets will be legitimate in the eyes of Concord.

-The bonuses that Militia members receive in a Low Sec system that they successfully convert to a "Border" High Sec system would be substancial obviously, just as they are for controlling Low Sec systems versus their enemy faction. "Liberating" said Border system back to a Low Sec status could likewise have perks for the Pirate Faction members.

I'm not tryiing to bash you here, just taking the mechanics involved to their logical conclusions.


this sounds great, would love to see it implemented

BRING BACK THE JUKEBOX

I attended the School of Hard Nocks, the only place you will ever learn anything of value, sadly most Americans never meet the requirments to attend
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#111 - 2013-03-04 23:19:36 UTC
Xen Solarus wrote:
I still strongly believe in the idea that was floated a while back about escalating gateguns. What ever happened to that awesome idea? Gatecamping has not only killed lowsec, but also acts as the most significant barrier to highsec players making the natural progression to low and nullsec space. The pirates that often whine endlessly about highsec have created the very problem. Lowsec is a wasteland of their own creation.

Of course, they argued against this suggested change with gusto. I guess they wouldn't see it as true PvP if their victims weren't marching neatly single-file into their gatecamp. The very idea of the less-PvP-orentated players of highsec being able to "get a foot in the door" of lowsec without being immediately getting OMGWTF-FACE-RAPED was competely unacceptable to them. I mean, they'd have to actually use probes to scan people down, and actually make an effort to find their targets. How unfair would that be?

So, an idea that would lead to more targets, more potential profits for highsec players willing to take the risk, as well as a potentially revitalised lowsec was strongly argued against by pirates because........ well, i'm not competely sure, other than it being for their own selfish reasons. I'm not even convinced they were sure they knew, other than it being a standard "Don't change my EvE". At least, none of them could make a convincing case against it. I invite you to try now!

Personally, i thought this was the best idea i'd heard in a long time. For the betterment of all of EvE. Cool



It was rightly shouted down as being an absurdly stupid idea that would have killed off most of the fights in lowsec and still not accomplished what it intended, if you want to look at the arguements against it go find the thread it was suggested in, theres over a hundred pages worth of them. Im grateful to CCP Greyscale for listening to the people who live in the space he was proposing to **** over as opposed to the highsec fearmongers when it came down to it.

As for the rest of your post the gist of the arguement is simple, highsec seems to think they should have some special entitlement to be protected while they do stuff in lowsec and all we expect is that if you want to use our space you play by the same rules we do.

Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin

you're welcome
ISD Suvetar
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#112 - 2013-03-04 23:22:39 UTC
Hi,

Trolling and non-constructive posts and topics are not allowed.

If you've got a suggestion to re-invigorate low-sec space; please do it constructively and provide context and actual material for people to discuss.

It's a highly polarising subject and one bound to upset people if not handled appropriately.

[b]ISD Suvetar Captain/Commando Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department[/b]