These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123
 

Gate aggression timer and fixing losec.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#41 - 2013-10-26 23:55:19 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
Mag's wrote:
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
Lol pot calling kettle black!

Put that aside for the moment.

I am NOT saying reduce fights, protect the weak and stupid etc. never have.I personally can travel freely through losec, have no problems,don't particularly want or need to, I choose to use wormholes, much simpler, that is not the point.
Why on earth do people assume that i am suggesting the weak need protecting, It is losec that needs protecting as the residents are destroying their own income stream.
What I am saying is it is foolish to take an advantage of a game mechanic that makes it so easy for the camper, when it causes such a drop off in resources coming into the area.

Just because you can does not make it a good idea in the long run.

Fights should take place within the territory, not at the doorway.
You lose out on numbers, and value.
You waste opportunities for better, by failing to be selective.
You encourage people to avoid, where you should be encouraging them in.
Anyway, too late now, there are cloaky, fighting ships coming, not squishy covert ops.
Gatecamps will burn.

Then losec dwellers can reap the benefits, more visitors, more value, better kills and GF. Not lazy easy cheap kills with hours of waiting.
You say adapt, yet here you are asking for changes because you refuse to.

Your idea explicitly reduces fights, as it asks for limits.

Fights on gates are taking place in the territory and gates were designed to facilitate conflict.

Oh and here's a heads up. Gate camps already burn, they burn on a regular basis. But let's not have facts get in the way of your bias and lack of knowledge on the subject.

Are you capable of reading before spouting such statements, try reading the post and leave your preconceptions behind.
Lol you post the quote and ignored it completely.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
Silvetica Dian
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#42 - 2013-10-27 00:18:22 UTC
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
Maximus Aerelius wrote:
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
Maximus Aerelius wrote:
I could support the addition of more systems being linked but that's as much as I could in the OP.

Invulnerability in Low-Sec...oh god no. With more system links but not enough to remove all choke points it would enable some diversity and availability of camping\getting through but not this OP, please not this idea.

No the idea is not invunerability, the idea is that if a camper kills a ship he wastes the chance of a better one sailing in afterwards.as he has used his chance at that time, forces him to decide whether to attack or wait for better.there will be a higher number of visitors to choose from, as visiting losec will not be an automatic death sentence for noobs and single ships.


From the OP: "Limit gate-camp ambushes to so many per hour by triggering invulnerability timer on gate visitors."

So if you shoot one guy you are restricted from shooting for the next 15 minutes (time is subject to change)? I can't behind anything that restricts how many times you can engage. What if you are aggressed by that visitor? Do you become "Weapons Free" at that point? Gate Campers (as much as I think it is one step above the "gankers" in Hi-Sec" add an element of surprise in Low-Sec and I like to watch them engage sometimes especially when a roam comes along and takes them all out but this would remove that.

Noobs aren't meant to be in Low-Sec, that's why there is Hi-Sec and as for people visiting perhaps it's not in their playstyle to go to Low-Sec? If you do then you go prepared to either GTFO quick, "Come at me bro" or "Hot Drop o'Clock" along with a list of other scenarios.

Low-Sec doesn't need "fixing" and if it did this isn't it I'm afraid.

Ok the idea is to encourage the making of value judgements as to what to attack. i read many many posts complaining that people are not visiting losec, and demanding better and better resources to encourage them.
The problem is the mechanic of gatecamps and the extermination of all vunerable visitors.most gatecampers have not understood the concept of farming their resources (visitors)
More bodies coming in without making value judgements of what to attack will not bring more people into losec.
And yes you are of course right, if agressed/locked/visitor does not immidiately jump, you should be weapons free with all lock timers etc ready to go.I will amend original post to reflect this.Thanks.
Absolutely not desired to prevent roams/combat.


Most low sec entry points are not camped. your argument is invalid (i have a bunch of alts that PI in low sec and live in high)

Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#43 - 2013-10-27 00:27:25 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
Silvetica Dian wrote:
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
Maximus Aerelius wrote:
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
Maximus Aerelius wrote:
I could support the addition of more systems being linked but that's as much as I could in the OP.

Invulnerability in Low-Sec...oh god no. With more system links but not enough to remove all choke points it would enable some diversity and availability of camping\getting through but not this OP, please not this idea.

No the idea is not invunerability, the idea is that if a camper kills a ship he wastes the chance of a better one sailing in afterwards.as he has used his chance at that time, forces him to decide whether to attack or wait for better.there will be a higher number of visitors to choose from, as visiting losec will not be an automatic death sentence for noobs and single ships.


From the OP: "Limit gate-camp ambushes to so many per hour by triggering invulnerability timer on gate visitors."

So if you shoot one guy you are restricted from shooting for the next 15 minutes (time is subject to change)? I can't behind anything that restricts how many times you can engage. What if you are aggressed by that visitor? Do you become "Weapons Free" at that point? Gate Campers (as much as I think it is one step above the "gankers" in Hi-Sec" add an element of surprise in Low-Sec and I like to watch them engage sometimes especially when a roam comes along and takes them all out but this would remove that.

Noobs aren't meant to be in Low-Sec, that's why there is Hi-Sec and as for people visiting perhaps it's not in their playstyle to go to Low-Sec? If you do then you go prepared to either GTFO quick, "Come at me bro" or "Hot Drop o'Clock" along with a list of other scenarios.

Low-Sec doesn't need "fixing" and if it did this isn't it I'm afraid.

Ok the idea is to encourage the making of value judgements as to what to attack. i read many many posts complaining that people are not visiting losec, and demanding better and better resources to encourage them.
The problem is the mechanic of gatecamps and the extermination of all vunerable visitors.most gatecampers have not understood the concept of farming their resources (visitors)
More bodies coming in without making value judgements of what to attack will not bring more people into losec.
And yes you are of course right, if agressed/locked/visitor does not immidiately jump, you should be weapons free with all lock timers etc ready to go.I will amend original post to reflect this.Thanks.
Absolutely not desired to prevent roams/combat.


Most low sec entry points are not camped. your argument is invalid (i have a bunch of alts that PI in low sec and live in high)

Oh dear God, I don't care any more. its about the income into lowsec, and how you drive it away. Thats the issue not entitlement to kill, not making it easy to find another way,you are driving away future income sources, that's what causes the dropping income.some people have no self restraint so it is to encourage selective behaviour,so as not to ruin it for everyone in losec.
Fine, I give up,carry on, starve. Just don't ask for a boost to your income, you made it what it is,live with it, EVE Is hard

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#44 - 2013-10-27 00:31:32 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
I am NOT saying reduce fights,

Uh huh.

From your own OP...
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
Limit gate-camp ambushes to so many per 15 mins by triggering invulnerability timer on gate visitors once limit is reached.

Mechanically... killing a hauler or noobship on a gate is no different from killing a Hyperion or Carrier.

And even if you do somehow find a way to differentiate a noobship can still cause a fight (or prevent one).

Ergo... your idea limits fights.

epicurus ataraxia wrote:
protect the weak and stupid etc. never have.I personally can travel freely through losec, have no problems,don't particularly want or need to, I choose to use wormholes, much simpler, that is not the point.[/quote[
Cool. So you found a way to adapt that works for you. Now why can't a newbie do the same?

epicurus ataraxia wrote:
Why on earth do people assume that i am suggesting the weak need protecting, It is losec that needs protecting as the residents are destroying their own income stream.

So to protect low-sec you place artificial restrictions that don't teach anyone how to do anything?

[quote=epicurus ataraxia]What I am saying is it is foolish to take an advantage of a game mechanic that makes it so easy for the camper, when it causes such a drop off in resources coming into the area.

Just because you can does not make it a good idea in the long run.

Fights should take place within the territory, not at the doorway.

1. Technecally... by jumping through a gate you are mechanically entering a territory (whether or not it is "official" depends on how well people can enforce their claim).

2. If you don't take advantage of a mechanic someone else will... and they will use it against you.


edit:
its about the income into lowsec, and how you drive it away. Thats the issue not entitlement to kill,

The income is fine. The real problem is that there is little that makes low-sec better or unique relative to other areas.

- high-sec has...
--- CONCORD (BIG safety)
--- (in conjunction with the above point) NPC corps so you don't have to deal with war or combat (safety)
--- NPC stations everywhere (safety)
--- trade hubs (economic)
--- lots of mission agents (economic)

- null-sec has...
--- moon mining (economic)
--- corp/alliance stations with lockout privileges (safety)
--- bubbles to safeguard gates and stall attackers (safety)
--- cyno jammers (safety)
--- rather profitable sanctums, anomalies, complexes, etc. (economic)
--- the full fury of your entire alliance which lives in the same area (safety)
--- large distance between you and high-sec... which means that effort must be applied to enter your alliance territories (safety)
--- high-end ores (economic)
--- occasional officer spawns (economic)
--- ability to preemptively shoot anything that remotely looks like a threat (safety)
--- POS towers can be erected anywhere (safety and economic)


What does low-sec have?
--- NPC stations for all (safety)
--- no CONCORD (no safety)
--- no bubbles (safety and no safety)
--- Faction Warfare (economic, safety, and no safety)
--- NPCs that give tags for security status (economic)
--- ability to preemptively shoot anything that remotely looks like a threat (safety)
--- lower bar of entry for setting up a POS (economic and safety)


Which would you choose just based on the mechanics?

How did you Veterans start?
Sura Sadiva
Entropic Tactical Crew
#45 - 2013-10-27 01:10:05 UTC
epicurus ataraxia wrote:

Then losec dwellers can reap the benefits, more visitors, more value, better kills and GF. Not lazy easy cheap kills with hours of waiting.


In EVE for a fight to happens having players in the same system, region or security zone is not enough. A pre-requirement for a fight to happen is to have players on the same grid.

Gates, stations, plexes, beltts, beacons and so on works just as aggragtion points. And CCP is adding more of this kind of "points" with the new deployables.

Now, any nerf or limitations to this points as tools to pull players in the same grid is a nerf to the chance to get an engagment.

You can say that gatecamps are bad, boring, frustrating, whatever... but, please, don't try to sell it as an improvement to fights. People here is not stupid :)

So nerfing them you're nerfing the gameplay for all the players that live and operate in low-sec. Mostly for players willing to play pirates, since gates are basically the only "aggregation point" giving some chance to work as non-consensual fight opportunity.

If you think the current gates mechanics is too harsh you should have tried when there was no warp at zero to gate....
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#46 - 2013-10-27 07:32:28 UTC
Sura Sadiva wrote:
epicurus ataraxia wrote:

Then losec dwellers can reap the benefits, more visitors, more value, better kills and GF. Not lazy easy cheap kills with hours of waiting.


In EVE for a fight to happens having players in the same system, region or security zone is not enough. A pre-requirement for a fight to happen is to have players on the same grid.

Gates, stations, plexes, beltts, beacons and so on works just as aggragtion points. And CCP is adding more of this kind of "points" with the new deployables.

Now, any nerf or limitations to this points as tools to pull players in the same grid is a nerf to the chance to get an engagment.

You can say that gatecamps are bad, boring, frustrating, whatever... but, please, don't try to sell it as an improvement to fights. People here is not stupid :)

So nerfing them you're nerfing the gameplay for all the players that live and operate in low-sec. Mostly for players willing to play pirates, since gates are basically the only "aggregation point" giving some chance to work as non-consensual fight opportunity.

If you think the current gates mechanics is too harsh you should have tried when there was no warp at zero to gate....


Fair answer, What I was suggesting, was not to remove gatecamps as a location for good fights.
The issue is the lack of self control of SOME players who exterminate anything without making value judgements.

If by choosing to kill every low value target they might lose a valuable kill, might encourage a little thought before podding the noob?
Not to protect the noob, more to ensure he might be a more valuable target later?

The rest I have posted quite a bit of explaination as to why that matters, this is about protecting and expanding losec income, not nerfing fights.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
Mag's
Azn Empire
#47 - 2013-10-27 08:41:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
Mag's wrote:
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
....Snip....
You say adapt, yet here you are asking for changes because you refuse to.

Your idea explicitly reduces fights, as it asks for limits.

Fights on gates are taking place in the territory and gates were designed to facilitate conflict.

Oh and here's a heads up. Gate camps already burn, they burn on a regular basis. But let's not have facts get in the way of your bias and lack of knowledge on the subject.

Are you capable of reading before spouting such statements, try reading the post and leave your preconceptions behind.
Lol you post the quote and ignored it completely.
Yes I read it, let's go through it.

1. Lol pot calling kettle black!

Ironic statement, when you're the one asking for mechanics to change when you refuse to adapt.

2. I am NOT saying reduce fights, protect the weak and stupid etc.

That's exactly what you are asking for. Your idea is to limit gate fights.

3. Why on earth do people assume that i am suggesting the weak need protecting,

Because for the past couple of pages you banged on about noobs in noob ships and even suggested the following.

"Personally I would set gate guns to blow the living sh** out of anyone who fired on a noob with less than 1 mil Sp (with a notification to BOTH as to how bloody stupid they were before opening fire)"

4. It is losec that needs protecting as the residents are destroying their own income stream.
What I am saying is it is foolish to take an advantage of a game mechanic that makes it so easy for the camper, when it causes such a drop off in resources coming into the area.

And as has been said already, nerfing camps will not do this. We need a niche internal revenue stream. Products will always flow out of low more than they flow in. This is why you're so far off the mark.

5. Fights should take place within the territory, not at the doorway.
You lose out on numbers, and value.
You waste opportunities for better, by failing to be selective.
You encourage people to avoid, where you should be encouraging them in.

Fights on gates are taking place in the territory and gates were designed to facilitate conflict. Numbers and value are low, due to people not travelling through. Not because they wish to utilise low sec's resources. This idea will not change that, as those that bypass low sec, will continue to do the same. Oh and we are selective.

Do you know our biggest drop in income, came when they changed the automatic AP settings? Do you know we had a bonanza few days when they messed up those settings with a patch?

No you don't, you don't have a clue. Yet here you are, claiming to know how to fix low sec income.

6. Anyway, too late now, there are cloaky, fighting ships coming, not squishy covert ops.
Gatecamps will burn.

Camps already burn, on a regular basis.

7. Then losec dwellers can reap the benefits, more visitors, more value, better kills and GF. Not lazy easy cheap kills with hours of waiting.

And why would they visit more with this idea, or even afetr these new ships arrive? There is still nothing that warrants the risk for players. Nothing that cannot be gained elsewhere with less risk. The fact you spout about 'lazy cheap kills', shows your bias.

So yes I read your post. It's full of your ignorance, bias and misinformation on low sec and gate camps.
Low sec does not require poor hand holding mechanics, that only benefit a few random people and break others play styles.

It's not about bringing income in, it's about bringing players in to gather niche resources that will flow out into high sec. But we do not have that product yet and that's what will help low.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#48 - 2013-10-27 14:47:38 UTC
Mag's wrote:
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
Mag's wrote:
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
....Snip....
You say adapt, yet here you are asking for changes because you refuse to.

Your idea explicitly reduces fights, as it asks for limits.

Fights on gates are taking place in the territory and gates were designed to facilitate conflict.

Oh and here's a heads up. Gate camps already burn, they burn on a regular basis. But let's not have facts get in the way of your bias and lack of knowledge on the subject.

Are you capable of reading before spouting such statements, try reading the post and leave your preconceptions behind.
Lol you post the quote and ignored it completely.
Yes I read it, let's go through it.

1. Lol pot calling kettle black!

Ironic statement, when you're the one asking for mechanics to change when you refuse to adapt.

2. I am NOT saying reduce fights, protect the weak and stupid etc.

That's exactly what you are asking for. Your idea is to limit gate fights.

3. Why on earth do people assume that i am suggesting the weak need protecting,

Because for the past couple of pages you banged on about noobs in noob ships and even suggested the following.

"Personally I would set gate guns to blow the living sh** out of anyone who fired on a noob with less than 1 mil Sp (with a notification to BOTH as to how bloody stupid they were before opening fire)"

4. It is losec that needs protecting as the residents are destroying their own income stream.
What I am saying is it is foolish to take an advantage of a game mechanic that makes it so easy for the camper, when it causes such a drop off in resources coming into the area.

And as has been said already, nerfing camps will not do this. We need a niche internal revenue stream. Products will always flow out of low more than they flow in. This is why you're so far off the mark.

5. Fights should take place within the territory, not at the doorway.
You lose out on numbers, and value.
You waste opportunities for better, by failing to be selective.
You encourage people to avoid, where you should be encouraging them in.

Fights on gates are taking place in the territory and gates were designed to facilitate conflict. Numbers and value are low, due to people not travelling through. Not because they wish to utilise low sec's resources. This idea will not change that, as those that bypass low sec, will continue to do the same. Oh and we are selective.

Do you know our biggest drop in income, came when they changed the automatic AP settings? Do you know we had a bonanza few days when they messed up those settings with a patch?

No you don't, you don't have a clue. Yet here you are, claiming to know how to fix low sec income.

6. Anyway, too late now, there are cloaky, fighting ships coming, not squishy covert ops.
Gatecamps will burn.

Camps already burn, on a regular basis.

7. Then losec dwellers can reap the benefits, more visitors, more value, better kills and GF. Not lazy easy cheap kills with hours of waiting.

And why would they visit more with this idea, or even afetr these new ships arrive? There is still nothing that warrants the risk for players. Nothing that cannot be gained elsewhere with less risk. The fact you spout about 'lazy cheap kills', shows your bias.

So yes I read your post. It's full of your ignorance, bias and misinformation on low sec and gate camps.
Low sec does not require poor hand holding mechanics, that only benefit a few random people and break others play styles.

It's not about bringing income in, it's about bringing players in to gather niche resources that will flow out into high sec. But we do not have that product yet and that's what will help low.


No you read the words and then selectively disregarded what did not fit your views.
And selectively quoted.
It really doesn't matter whether you agree or not, to me.

The bottom line is that losec dwellers have exactly the place they deserve, and will get a more and more a suitable home it seems.
Would have been nice if people could think beyond their preconceptions, and think, rather than read what they want into things , but clearly a vain expectation.
No point trying to explain, same old same old will be the response it seems.
Remember when you ask for some shiny goody from CCP because things have got really bad, that someone tried to point out this was coming.
And you were in aggressive denial.

Enjoy EVE
EVE is hard, and may not be kind to you.


There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
Caellach Marellus
Stormcrows
#49 - 2013-10-27 15:08:42 UTC
I'd support less choke points and more ways to manoeuvre through lowsec, but that's pretty much it out of the OP's suggestions.


What I would like to see, is a feature of dotlan (which a lot of newer players aren't familiar with) brought into the game itself. Those old CONCORD infomercial screens you have at jump gates? Add a new one, that has a friendly "YOU ARE NOW ENTERING #SYSTEMNAME/SEC STATUS" and a sequence of data such as ship/pod kills in the last hour/day on a cycle. That way people can see where the fights are, where the likely camps are, and where the best places to dip their toe in the water are.


It's information that is accessible to the rest of us through other means, but because we know how to look for it, but there's no real reason to not have some of these tools in game, especially if it's going to encourage people to not only stick with the game but expand their range of activities.

When your gut instincts tell you something is wrong, trust them. When your heart tells you something is right, ignore it, check with your brain first. Accept nothing, challenge everything.
Sura Sadiva
Entropic Tactical Crew
#50 - 2013-10-27 15:41:18 UTC
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
The rest I have posted quite a bit of explaination as to why that matters, this is about protecting and expanding losec income, not nerfing fights.


But removing chocke points and making travels more "friendly" (so to speak) is a nerf for people living in there; in fact this kind of suggestions/requests come generally from people not used to operate in low.

Actually gatecamps are basically the only "non-consensual" risk in low sec. But they're so mostky for people not based in low and wanting to travel in and out, HS-LS and back, isn't such a big problem for people living in LS.

Even players not intrested in piracy but living in low only for PVE or exploration have their gameplay made more evaluable just due to the "filters" and danger of traveling in there from HS.

If you remove this risk then low-sec will simply become an appendix of high sec, not a place to live in but simply a colony for occasional HS turists. Also the low sec market hubs would die, simply because Rens and Jita are so close and the travel is so easy....

Making things easyer, faster, trivial or safer is always a nerf: when is easy to travel somewhere then there's no reason to establ

See what happened to null-sec, on a different degree: in the last years CCP made travels and logistic more trivial and easy and sovreignity a more automatic mechanic. Did this caused more people to move in there? No, since is so easy to get there people don't even need to live there. They simply login their main or teleport back when needed.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#51 - 2013-10-28 00:35:33 UTC
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Yes I read it, let's go through it...... snip....


No you read the words and then selectively disregarded what did not fit your views.
And selectively quoted.
It really doesn't matter whether you agree or not, to me.

The bottom line is that losec dwellers have exactly the place they deserve, and will get a more and more a suitable home it seems.
Would have been nice if people could think beyond their preconceptions, and think, rather than read what they want into things , but clearly a vain expectation.
No point trying to explain, same old same old will be the response it seems.
Remember when you ask for some shiny goody from CCP because things have got really bad, that someone tried to point out this was coming.
And you were in aggressive denial.

Enjoy EVE
EVE is hard, and may not be kind to you.


You asked if I was capable of reading. You claimed I quoted you yet ignored the post completely. I just reposted to show that wasn't the case. I left out the three following lines, which have no bearing or change to my replies to you.

1. Put that aside for the moment.

2. never have.I personally can travel freely through losec, have no problems,don't particularly want or need to, I choose to use wormholes, much simpler, that is not the point.

3. Just because you can does not make it a good idea in the long run.

But it seems instead of arguing the points I made against you, you now claim I've selectively disregarded and quoted. Roll

Let's face it, you don't have an argument. If you did, you wouldn't have any problems arguing against the points I raised. But as your ideas and arguments are based on a poor knowledge of low and a bias against gate camps, I think it's going to be long hard road for you.

Yes Eve is hard and players like myself, have accepted that harsh nature of Eve for years. Time you did the same I think. Blink

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Ludi Burek
Bairs
#52 - 2013-10-28 02:54:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Ludi Burek
Explain to me please how exactly more high sec people entering low sec with much less risk and taking the resources there, equals more income for low sec residents? You wish to deny people kills on gates (low sec income) by making it easier to get around to take what potentially the low sec residents rely on for income. Double loss for low sec isn't it? Lol

Edit: It's already annoying enough that the most frequently seen ship in my part of low sec is the blockade runner, entering with immunity and devaluing the local residents PI. See where I'm going with this?
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#53 - 2013-10-28 05:29:40 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
No point explaining, it is clear no one can see beyond the next few seconds.

Edit
Ok one last try, lets see if even 1 person has the ability to think beyond the next few seconds.

What is losec? One poster gave a full description above but it is Effectively hisec without concord with Lots of resources. You should able to be ganking away with no loss to concord.

But.....

Why is it not full of people?

Because you trained them that way.

When players were young ,impressionable and weak ,you trained them, you showed them, you told them by your actions, you proved losec is bad bad bad.Your choice,you wanted easy kills.

Now most of these players, some who have been playing a long time, stay away like the plague, even when the risks are not actuallly that bad, even when not many gatecamps and loads of safe ways in.

Because it is dangerous? No, it is because you trained them to think that way, and are still training new players that way.Too late for them, they will NEVER come back.Or the few learn other methods, and cloak or bypass you all together,

Unless you learn self restraint and learn to think about the future rather than only the kill of the moment, you will continue to train people to avoid you at all costs.Once trained you have lost most of them forever.

Or a mechanic is put in place to force you to think about at least the next few minutes,to make a value judgement, whether on the gate, or a minimum kill fee, or anything to make you think first about the consequences. which leads me back to the OP.


There is no purpose in improving any part of losec life or giving anything to help until you learn this lesson.

so which is it to be?

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
Previous page123