Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sure, it's just not rampant like it is in lowsec, in my experience. Plus, say I find a wormhole in an out-of-the-way lowsec system. Odds are great that the other side isn't camped, so it's little risk to pop in with my covops ship to scout around.

I can be smart about where to look for wormholes, but I can't really avoid high-traffic lowsec lanes and the camps that plague them.

A hell of a fight happen on gate, fair or unfiar is just an pov, the idea you suggested are going to remove the capability to catch anyone is lowsec with an smallish ship. Beside you can just burn back to gate, the only time people catch small ships on gate is due to human error or istra lock high Alpha gunned ship.

You jumping in system blind is down to you, if you cant scout it, ckeck killborads for that system or ckeck map for "active player in spaxe", and 'kill in the last hour.'

Also try to avoid system that are well known to be camped. If all else fails well all i can say is ship happens.

Lock him in a system like I described?

Besides, if escaping gate camps is as easy as everyone here keeps trying to claim, you can't keep him away from your ratters anyway.

And furthermore, since roughly 100% of the gate camps I've encountered in low/null have aggressed me, your example is an insignificant percentage of gate camp applications on the whole.

And furthermore, if Eve is supposed to be so hostile and dangerous, your ratters and miners have to deal with hostiles too. The difference is they're being legitimately hunted, as opposed to walking into a wildly lopsided ambush.

OP... consider these points:

- when you set up a gatecamp with a bunch of people, you are somewhat committing yourself, your friends, and your equipment to the field. Sitting in one spot basically paints a "bullseye" on you for any group that thinks they can take you on. It also makes you easy to scout.
And yet... you are complaining that a bunch of people who have taken this effort to gather up the manpower and resources... and risk committing themselves to a single spot requires less "effort" than you blindly jumping in through a gate in a solo ship?

- How do you think the people who live in low-sec and null-sec ship stuff around? Not all of us have the luxury of Jump Freighters or have small enough stuff to be moved solely by Blockade Runner (cloaky industrials). How do you think we survive and even thrive in such enviroments?

- Time efficiency or safety. Choose.
One theme that you see quite often in EVE (over various activities) is that if you want to be safe, you have to make tradeoffs. In this case, you have to sink more time into preparing yourself for the journey ahead (either in terms of researching your route, making safepoints, taking precautions).
For example: You can certainly take the "shortest route" to your destination... but more often than not, the people who live along that route know that they are the "shortest route" and thus take advantage of it (by sitting on the chokepoint). If you take the longer route that sees less traffic... odds are that you will see few, if any, gatecamps or hostiles. But you pay for that in terms of time spent getting someplace.

- You are not a "special snowflake." Even with low skills, you can be potentially VERY dangerous to whoever you run into. Or not. The people you run into have no way to know for sure. There is no way to mechanically discern intent or experience.

- You have the freedom to travel and do whatever you want. But you are not entitled to go anywhere or do anything you want.
Just as you have the freedom to do what you want to do, other players also have the freedom to do what they want to do... even if it runs counter to what you are doing.
If you impose mechanics or penalties on the basis of "I don't like it, I find it unfair" then you open the doors for other players to say the same things about stuff YOU do.


To get to the meat of your ideas...


- how is anyone supposed to catch anyone with your cloak idea? If the gate-cloak stick around until you are in warp... and you warp to 0 to the next gate... and repeat this process... there is no way anyone can catch anyone else.


As someone else pointed out... this will buff gatecamps. Like... A LOT.

A common tactic for escaping gatecamps is to quickly burn back to the gate you just came from, jump, and warp ASAP to any cluster of celestials (to throw off pursuers).
This idea would put an end to this tactics.


No. Invest the time necessary to create the perches you want to create. It encourages people to prepare in advance and rewards those who do so.
Frankly, this is Low-Sec-101 stuff.


Oh... so you want to whole package of ideas to go together?

Yeah, no. Still a massive nerf to gatecamping.

- no one can target you when you are cloaked or in warp... so your "prevent gatejump" module won't work if someone is just passing through.
- if you are passing though, you have no reason to stay in a system. Ergo, you will never be at risk of being probed or D-scanned down.
- Probes and D-scan only work when something inhabits the same grid for a period of time. If you ping-pong around between planets and asteroid belts, staying in warp for as long as possible... almost no one will be able to catch you (again... Low-Sec-Life-101).



All in all... the OP smacks of someone who doesn't want to invest much time doing stuff he personally doesn't want to do.
We all have to bite the bullet in this regard because this is a multi-faceted game. I am a PvP and I hate economics and trading. But I have had to learn it to succeed.

First, farther up the thread, I freely admitted my example fix was problematic. The point is gate camping is a net negative for the game, and I don't even think it's close.



No, as I've stated, I don't want to have to invest time in avoiding a ****** game mechanic. It's funny, throughout this whole thread, only one poster has put forth an actual application for gate camps - protecting corp ratters and miners from roaming hostiles.

All other points in favor of gate camping amount to "you suck at eve" and "it's supposed to be dangerous." Know what else would be dangerous? Random meteor storms blowing up your ship, but no one's going to claim that's a good idea too.

In practice, gate camping amounts to indiscriminately being a pain in travelers asses for little tangible gain from 90+% of camp victims.

I mean, you literally have no reason to kill a player from an NPC corp in a T1 frigate, by himself, with nothing in his hold... other than that it's easier and quicker than cargo scanning him. It's not a challenge, and you gain nothing.

How y'all are almost universally defending such pointlessness is fairly perplexing.

Translation: "I don't want to adapt for something I personally do not like."


That idea does come up here from time to time. And it does have some popularity with people.


Ummm... the whole point behind a gatecamp IS to be a pain in the ass to travelers. Because some people don't want travelers to come by.

And again... you are not entitled to go wherever you please. You have the freedom to. But other players can take that freedom away if they commit themselves to preventing you... as gatecampers do.
It is a subtle, but VERY important difference.


Live in low-sec for awhile. You will quickly learn that any and ALL ships you encounter are a threat. Even rookie ships. Especially rookie ships.

I am being totally serious here too... do you know what a "hotdrop" is?
(NOTE: in that video, look for the brown module with a "fist" on it... that is a Cynosaural Field. Any ship can fit it. Upon activation, you create a beacon which capital ships that you are fleeted with can lock on and jump directly to... from several systems away... bypassing any and all stargates on the way! Titans can add to this by creating a jump portal on their end... which allows subcapitals gathered around the Titan to jump to the Cyno. Basically, it is a "neener, neener, Imma drop my fwiends ya didn't know 'bout on ya!" module).

[quote=Jasonne Ormand
Yes, I'm aware of the things you can do about gate camps. The point is it's a hassle and a time suck, and in no way fun.

The perches, in particular, are an obvious beef: Why does CCP make me waste time on them when they could just add a warp-to-300 option? Most things in this game already take quite a bit of time, travelling in particular.

This game already has huge time commitments built into it. Doubling the time you spend playing in order to avoid lame, inherently unfair mechanics is just silly.


[/quote]

They are not lame or silly... and the point is they are not meant to be fun

You've got caught, and you have to pay... deal with it...

Oh and be grateful that you don't have the issue of if you clone is up-to-date and all the other stuff that used to go with being podded

And some people think having to PvE for isk so they can PvP is a hassle and a time suck, and in no way fun.

Deal with it.


Because a good set of perches can be extremly valuable, tactically. Besides, the only thing a 300km warp-in point would add is yet another place for you to get tackled. I'd simply put one tackle frig on the 300km warp-in, and still lock you down while the rest warped in. Conversely, a well placed perch doesn't allow the enemy to warp directly to you unless they either have the same perch, or combat probes to probe you out.


This entire game consists of inherently unfair mechanics. Hotdropping, highsec ganking, contract scams, and many more, can all be considered unfair mechanics. Once again, deal with it. EvE is not fair. If you want fair, go play Hello Kitty Online. I've said for a long time, if you get into a fair fight in EvE, both sides screwed up.

Can you prove that? Sure, you don't like it, but saying it's objectively a net negative is a trickier task.

Nothing in Eve happens in a vacuum. What you're looking at as something that's unfair and inconvenient for you actually does have some significant impact on the game in a lot of regards you haven't even considered because you don't really "get" Eve yet.

The ability to negotiate the various hazards of low/null/WH is an actual competitive advantage over players who won't or can't do it.

Better sites, better ore, better rats, better mission payouts, better planets, better industry, moon mining etc.

Saying, "I don't want to have to invest time in avoiding gatecamps" is effectively saying, "I want the perks without having to deal with the difficulties," but when you start carving away the difficulties, now EVERYONE can get the perks, and then it's just a race to the price floor.

As a concrete example, suppose I wanted to build freighters, soup to nuts. If you're not familiar, this is a multi-step process - first you need capital components, then those are assembled into the ship. I could do this in high sec...or....

...I could toss up a starbase in low sec, throw up a Thukker assembly array, and do my component building there with both hugely discounted mineral costs and much faster build times. Not only will the total build time be reduced, but I'll be building them at a much better margin.

The catch, of course, is that I now have to manage the logistics of moving large volumes of minerals safely out to low. If I can do this, I get to save a bundle on freighter construction. If I can't, then I don't.

In that regard, this thing that you imagine to be simply unfair and inconvenient and a bad game mechanic? Yeah, that's some other intrepid player's payday, because someone like you didn't want to deal with it.

They are also very thin-skinned, precious things.