Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I know, right.

All of that is useless unless you think inty should really be able to solo camp a gate. Assault frig with resist mods will hold under light logi support. I'm talking frig logi here, not even cruiser. Use the inty to get initial tackle on fast stuff and have him warp out as soon as harder ship have their point working. It's as easy as that. The right ship/comp for the job.

The only thing a battleship is really good at is standing his ground and you want to make it harder...

You would ahve to make their sig or something like that as anything else would have ramification for the BS.

This all sounds like you're trying to build a better gate camp. Wich on the one hand is fine, but on the other probably won't effect much. The game already has instalocking hics, so an inty would only add a small amount of value in the speed that they can tackle. Inty is already used to uncloak the cloaky aligners - at present it has to be ok w/ that and pass on the km whoring due to gate guns. Overall you're just allowing the inty team member to finally be on the mails. I get that.



Personally - I'd like to go back to day zero with gates. They dump you into one of 6 or so places in the system. No gate to run back through. When you jump into a system you commit to entering it. Sure, I just added 5 possible new spawn points, but I removed the whole don't agress, get back to the gate and jump home option. I think splitting a 30 man gang into 5 squads of 6 would add some interesting game play. (did your logi spawn at x & Y and your dps spawn at z? A side benefit would be that there are no gate guns at the spawn point, so the whole frigate survivability issue wouldn't exist.

It would be a little more difficult (but not impossible) to bottle up your null carrier bot farm also.

Would that improve or ruin low sex travel? Murky to determine at best. More spawn points for higher survivability against small gangs => more likely to travel low sex. No option to forego agression and get back through the gate => less likely to travel low sex. It's tough to read the minds of other pilots and also tough to predict the future.

I think it would be a change that would add interest into low sex travel and not totally break it. Personally I think more caps jumping gates without the proper support would have a hard time with the change, but I'm not big on feeling bad for caps travelling solo in low sex when things don't work out like they hoped it would.

This idea has a lot of consequences beyond low sex gate guns. I'm not against it at a glance, but this is a lot bigger than make gate guns less size dependant. You want this - think it through and make a new thread. Quick thinking - 100+ BS fleets and afk ratting (both empire missions and null anoms).

This make logi even more effective than they already are when supporting a fleet of battleship because you can fit all resistance since your base buffer is more than likely big enough to pass the current alpha test. Stop trying to justify un-needed change to gate guns and put your time into designing a fit for a ship that can take the heat.

Fine, my 3 FC spaned in the camp while the rest of the fleet died uselesssly tried to warp to FC to support them but they got burned down faster. How many FC do I have to have in my fleet? Am I supposed to make sure everybody in the fleet know what/where the strategic objective for a form up is so they can all take over from any number of stupid loss because of a bad draw on spawn point? What if there are 10 gates total to jump? Is half of my fleet supposed to be FC level of game competence because we might lose some every other jump?

Because giving an easier time to entosis troll by making them bypass gate camp will somehow reduce the stagnation? Making home defense harder will totally motivate the small group not holding SOV now to try and hold SOV because they somehow can control 6 entry point/gate better than they would with only 1.

It's not about "for the children" at all. It's about your idea being just plain dumb because it solve nothing that needs to be solved while also causing negative effect on some part of the game.

Your idea is bad for roaming fleet because it put them at risk to be scattered and killed piece meal every time they take a gate. The "safe" move from that point is to stay in your system because your support will always be with you.

Your idea is bad for any group trying to prevent passage into a system because the entry point is not 6 different places. This is of course only an administrative level for larger group but it just does not add anything meaningful to be worth the extra effort. Making system deep and meaningful can be good for a game but there has to be a reason for it or it just becomes a chore for anyone involved in it.

Attacking my corp tag is stupid as I never even pretended to speak in their name. I'm really not sure why you keep mentioning it. I'd rather have you discuss the words I put down here instead of my corp tag because it makes for a much better discussion.

The "issue" brought up by the OP is a non issue. I already posted what he needs to do if he want to use frigs on a gate encounter against non legal target. Changing how people spawn in system they jump into is just not necessary which is why I tell you the reason why I think your idea and the point you try to bring to defend it are just bad. It's not my fault there are issue with your idea that involve more different than just one thing you think I should worry about by being a member of KarmaFleet. At the end of the day, a very large portion of travel in the game is made by gates so changing how they behave would have ramification in pretty much all player habits no matter what they really do in EVE.

Your idea is like a rado of the gate malfunction idea a few days back but instead of spawning in different system, you spawn in different place in the system. It remove some problems by not being as random but you still have issue present which are additional chores to deal with for no big gain in term of quality for the game.

I think it wouldn't work very well because it would offer a huge advantage to lone travelers, especially in lowsec, while making it difficult to reliably defend sovereignty systems. In nullsec it would make less of a difference because enemies can already enter through any stargate, you can just bubble all the entry points. In lowsec it would hurt because you can't bubble. A lot of campers stick to the highsec entry points or other high traffic lanes, but with your idea it would take far greater forces to stop them. The "rabbits" will still feel unsafe because any gank in the right place is just as dangerous as before, while the "wolves" will feel more difficulty to get kills. It seems like something that would reduce population in systems.

I like solutions that give everybody tools to use in their defense or against others. Make everyone work for their success. It makes them feel happy when they succeed, and they see what they did wrong when they fail. Probably the most frustrating thing about EVE is when you don't know why you got killed or how you could have avoided it, or you don't know why your target got away or how you could have caught them. I'd like to reduce that unknown and leave it more up to skill vs. skill. Unknowns should be what you don't know about the other people, not what you don't know about a random number generator.



In my suggestion they would need fleet support to stay on gate for the long haul, not necessarily remote reps. Probably a well-tanked cruiser could do it alone. Also a small group of cruisers could pull off a gank then run away from the guns. I also agree that logi should never be mandatory for anything, but I think my suggestion leaves a lot of room to play with other possibilities.



It's about game balance, not about what makes sense. We all agree it makes no sense. In real life, if anything a larger ship will have superior computers as well as numerous small turrets with superior tracking mechanisms, while still carrying its main big guns. The interesting facet of balance here is that in order to have the benefit of high speed and maneuverability along with being hard to hit and being able to target things quickly is that you sacrifice a lot of power, range, and hit points. The frigates are cheaper but that's a good balance for how easy it is to lose them. You still don't always want to throw them away because it can be cumbersome to try to get a new one and catch up with the fleet again.

I really like this balance trend of size classes and I feel that small ships are too easily destroyed by small numbers of larger ships, mainly because of giving drone bays to almost every ship. I say give some ships drone bays, and let others specialize in guns or other high slot options and rely on fleet support or escapability instead of drone bays.



This is an important point. I see a lot of you seemingly afraid to even discuss or brainstorm ideas, as if you're afraid that merely mentioning it will cause it to happen in-game. Mentioning it here is next to meaningless in that venue, it's when you get people thinking and talking about it, and agreeing with it, that CCP starts to notice. Best thing is to keep an open mind and point out the merits and drawbacks of each idea, and not react with horror and phobia just because you realize it would screw the game up.

I'd like to offer a further disclaimer: when I "like" your post, it means I enjoy and/or support where your thought process is going. It does not necessarily mean I agree with your idea. Now you know. Lots of great conversation here, but lets try to keep the discussion less of a tug-of-war and allow it to be a breeding ground for new ideas. For example: I disagree (mostly) with Serendipity Lost's idea of depositing ships at pre-determined points--when I talk about it I mention my disagreement but spend more time discussing what changes I think it'll bring. Whether or not you like those changes is up to the reader. Perhaps I'll say I dislike something because X repercussion, and someone else will think "hmm perhaps X repercussion is a good thing..." and that breeds good, productive discussion. Thanks for reading this and carry on, guys. Perhaps eventually I'll update the OP, or maybe start a new thread, and incorporate your feedback. But for now I've got to get going. o/