These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Planned lowsec sentry "fix" - you guys serious?

First post First post First post
Author
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#381 - 2012-08-03 19:03:24 UTC
Large Collidable Object wrote:
I don't like gatecamps, but I can't see how this is going to help new players trying to get into lowsec.

A frig was pretty safe when traveling through lowsec because ceptors wouldn't tackle you at a gate and unless it's some stupidly sensor boosted T3 with an offgrid booster, noone could tackle them unless they messed up - now a single ceptor will be able to get an initial point, which is fairly easy to get on a frig-pilot with poor navigation skills.



Not all of course but most of those "expert" camps have at least one ceptor sensor boosted to hell, why? -because this is how you get the better kills: cloacky haulers, cloacky recons/bombers with juicy stuff, everything else is just a bonus.
Of course there are a lot of camps not even using those ceptors because all they need is logistics and let smarties do the job, almost nothing survives to those camps.

So this change is again something that wouldn't be needed if some game mechanic was not exploited to the last bone and for years now. People complain ***** and moan so lvl4's come to low, no body will ever come to low for those not more they will ever come to low for 5's better ore/ice belts and free research/invention slots because a few features do not work as they should (of course you already know this)

The fact you can't tank any more gate/station guns is something overdue, fights will still happen because good players will use strong probing skill characters to get fights and counters, we already do this in null unlike many people think it's all about 400 vs 10.
It's not making low sec safer it's adjusting mechanics to current game, people will still engage if they do it wisely because actions WILL have consequences plus, the fact ships got several ehp buffs but sentry never.

brb

Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#382 - 2012-08-03 19:06:16 UTC
Jim Era wrote:
Miner~~~(Q) n (Q); life is hard for me.
Pirate~~~HTFU NOOB, LEARN TO ADAPT OR GTFO

~~Suddenly random changes come~~

Pirate~~~(Q) n (Q); life is sooo hard for me, why are you doing this CCP(mom)?! How could you hurt me like this? I don't want to try hard (Q) n (Q);
Miner~~~Is this guy serious?


This is you not knowing how to differentiate parts of the pirate community. People who like FIGHTS are against it. People who like GANKS don't care because they aren't affected.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Jim Era
#383 - 2012-08-03 19:07:16 UTC
Because fighting a noob 10v1 is a FIGHT

Wat™

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#384 - 2012-08-03 19:10:43 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Oh, and…
Issler Dainze wrote:
I've been asking for progressively stronger gate guns in low sec for years. This is a great change that is long overdue!
…good, then you can explain why this would in any way be a good change.
So that carebears can travel safely from Hek to Jita in 7 jumps, rather than 24 jumps.

The more Issler can carebear up the game, the happier she is.
Ms Kat
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#385 - 2012-08-03 19:14:30 UTC
Who ever said the people compaining are the peopel who want fights I have to disagee.

The peopel complaining are mid to low level pvpers who can only hang around a gate all dar, couple of scouts dossing about on ts, waiting for a lone guy to come through to "stats pad" thier killboard status's

People who actualy want a "fight" roam into enemys territorys and areas looking for a fight.



To review... gate camping/station games is not PVP
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#386 - 2012-08-03 19:14:45 UTC
Jim Era wrote:
Because fighting a noob 10v1 is a FIGHT


Not really.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#387 - 2012-08-03 19:15:22 UTC
Ms Kat wrote:

People who actualy want a "fight" roam into enemys territorys and areas looking for a fight.


And where do you think that fight is going to happen?

Oh, on a gate.

Doh.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

ElextriX
The Forge Buccaneers
#388 - 2012-08-03 19:15:44 UTC
Bullz3y3 wrote:
ElextriX wrote:
Sarik Olecar wrote:
Its a great idea. CCP obviously wants people to get "into" losec. Current mechanics have you getting kicked in the balls then strapped with C4 and kicked out of a plane before you've even opened the front door...
If a carebear could actually make a few bucks before getting wtfpwnd and losing their ship, they may be more inclined to return.
Besides, lazy pirates should have to work for their kills - probing, dscan, sly cloaking maneuvers - not just sit on a gate and wait for dinner to come to you.

edit: I find it really ironic that there was this big crusade by the leet to punish/remove low risk/high reward and AFK content and now that CCP is trying to do it there's all these tears.


Lol at calling pirates lazy and then saying carebears need a chance, its easy for people to get around low-sec if they know what they're doing..... and well not too lazy to research how its done.

The fact is low sec has plenty of carebears already go through and use it everyday, the amount of covert-op cloaking ships available is ridiculous, not to mention stabs, mwd'ing back to gate, map statistics, evekill (search system), cloak warp trick, nearly every1 has alts these days so scouts too, seriously how easy do you want it?

People whine about the blobs as camps, but thats a result of game designe partly, to effctively camp a gate you need a number of different ships with multiple roles. ie quick locker, hic, LR webs, LR scram, dps (some ships can do multiple roles), then to do that it suggests tech 3's, and when people start putting a bil+ on the line, of course they dont want it to be solo'd by a ship like a drake, so logi and falcons and stuff come in too, as well as a risk adverse attitude. All this creating the blob people are moaning about.

You want pirates to do probing and stuff which would require multiple accounts or friends, and still give alert people more than enough warning your coming, and yet your too lazy to run a scout. Seriously... just lol

Carebears already have life way too easy, and ccp want to make it even easier.



And sitting on the same gate day after day never changing isn't easy? Pot meet kettle.


Exactly, that was my point, accusing pirates of being lazy..... and being incredibly lazy himself. So if you want to make piracy more difficult how about balancing that with making blockade running or tengu exploration survival more difficult, I wonder how well that will go down Roll
Jim Era
#389 - 2012-08-03 19:16:39 UTC
I think Liang is bad at probing Lol

Wat™

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#390 - 2012-08-03 19:17:30 UTC
Issler Dainze wrote:
If it really was mostly fleet "A" waits for fleet "B" to come by that would be great. More often than not its lazy fleet "A" sitting on the gate and killing industrials and the odd single ship passing through. For every true "looking for the good fight" I see 10 "woot! ganked your hauler, now to swim in your tears" encounters.
GET OFF THE CSM PLEASE!!

Industrialists should no longer be targets? We'll **** over all of FW combat, so that a few stupid haulers and industrialists can be saved? What the hell is wrong with you, Issler?
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#391 - 2012-08-03 19:20:30 UTC
Issler Dainze wrote:
So there are going to be all manner of reasons being added to low sec to get folks into the system. Like new mining options, like new FW activities, like who knows what since CCP seems to want to get folks to try out the more dangerous side of Eve.
How is it more dangerous, when you're supporting making it far less dangerous?
Ms Kat
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#392 - 2012-08-03 19:22:09 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Ms Kat wrote:

People who actualy want a "fight" roam into enemys territorys and areas looking for a fight.


And where do you think that fight is going to happen?

Oh, on a gate.

Doh.

-Liang



Pos, plannet,moon, plex?

Lets not forget that sentry guns can what hit at 170km 175km?

As stated in the original information, interceptors can still scram then GTFO afterwards.


Thinking about it if someone wants to camp a gate still. all tehy need is 1 inty... 1 hic.... oh wait.... sniper T2 bc's? Might of been a happy coincidence that ccp released T3bc's which if these changes go forwards are the logical camp(sniper) ships

All any changes to mechanics need is a little thought, what could be done before can be done again
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#393 - 2012-08-03 19:24:57 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Jim Era wrote:
Miner~~~(Q) n (Q); life is hard for me.
Pirate~~~HTFU NOOB, LEARN TO ADAPT OR GTFO

~~Suddenly random changes come~~

Pirate~~~(Q) n (Q); life is sooo hard for me, why are you doing this CCP(mom)?! How could you hurt me like this? I don't want to try hard (Q) n (Q);
Miner~~~Is this guy serious?


This is you not knowing how to differentiate parts of the pirate community. People who like FIGHTS are against it. People who like GANKS don't care because they aren't affected.

-Liang

This is a distinction worth noting. Some pirates are in it for profit and are actually "good fight" adverse because good fights don't pay like juicy haulers, and gate guns aren't a big deal because fights against haulers are very short. Others are not really pirates... they are PvPers who are looking for good or any fights, and they will hate this because most fights happen around gates, and this change will make it impossible to have a "good fight" by a gate.

Signatures should be used responsibly...

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#394 - 2012-08-03 19:27:59 UTC
Issler Dainze wrote:
So if you don't like this idea, how do you think you get more folks into low sec? Hint, "keeping roaming pirate like PvP fights" like they happen today isn't the answer. We can see the results of that experience.
One gate-gun solution does not fit all of lowsec.

You want gate-guns changed, then it should be applied on a system-by-system basis. Areas deep in lowsec, where most FW happens, should be unaffected. CCP can then experiment with the border lowsec systems like Rancer and Amamake. And then move their experiments around as they see fit ... make them story-driven elements if they see fit to do that as well.

Some of the other ideas offered up in this thread are straight up reatded. For instance, the idea that gate gun damage is determined by how many kills happened in a system in an hour ... some FW systems, deep in lowsec, can have 30-50 kills per hour ... why should these people be punished for having a good time? The longer you have fun, the harder we'll make it for you to have fun.

The only thing anyone is taking into consideration with gate guns are Rancer/Amamake type gate camps ... nothing else matters, no other communities or play-types are being considered.
Jim Era
#395 - 2012-08-03 19:28:33 UTC
Gogela wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Jim Era wrote:
Miner~~~(Q) n (Q); life is hard for me.
Pirate~~~HTFU NOOB, LEARN TO ADAPT OR GTFO

~~Suddenly random changes come~~

Pirate~~~(Q) n (Q); life is sooo hard for me, why are you doing this CCP(mom)?! How could you hurt me like this? I don't want to try hard (Q) n (Q);
Miner~~~Is this guy serious?


This is you not knowing how to differentiate parts of the pirate community. People who like FIGHTS are against it. People who like GANKS don't care because they aren't affected.

-Liang

This is a distinction worth noting. Some pirates are in it for profit and are actually "good fight" adverse because good fights don't pay like juicy haulers, and gate guns aren't a big deal because fights against haulers are very short. Others are not really pirates... they are PvPers who are looking for good or any fights, and they will hate this because most fights happen around gates, and this change will make it impossible to have a "good fight" by a gate.


But for the occasional 'gudfite' how many ganks will happen. If the campers waited for gudfites and left the noobs alone it would be a different story. but they don't.

Wat™

Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#396 - 2012-08-03 19:31:08 UTC
Ms Kat wrote:
Pos, plannet,moon, plex?


Ok:
- Fighting at a POS is just stupid - at least as stupid as fighting at the new gate guns.
- Fighting at a Planet is very rare because there aren't any reasons to go there shy of killing PI haulers.
- Fighting at a moon is even more rare because you have to d-scan them down...
- Fighting at a PLEX is killing carebears. Wheeeeeee.........

Quote:
Lets not forget that sentry guns can what hit at 170km 175km?


I love how you have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote:
As stated in the original information, interceptors can still scram then GTFO afterwards.


And much longer than that and we're talking about instapopping slaved linked deadspace tanked Damnations.

Quote:

Thinking about it if someone wants to camp a gate still. all tehy need is 1 inty... 1 hic.... oh wait.... sniper T2 bc's? Might of been a happy coincidence that ccp released T3bc's which if these changes go forwards are the logical camp(sniper) ships

All any changes to mechanics need is a little thought, what could be done before can be done again


So that allows ganks but not fights. Let's return to the complaint that it will kill FIGHTS.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
#397 - 2012-08-03 19:44:49 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Ms Kat wrote:
Pos, plannet,moon, plex?


Ok:
- Fighting at a POS is just stupid - at least as stupid as fighting at the new gate guns.
- Fighting at a Planet is very rare because there aren't any reasons to go there shy of killing PI haulers.
- Fighting at a moon is even more rare because you have to d-scan them down...
- Fighting at a PLEX is killing carebears. Wheeeeeee.........

Quote:
Lets not forget that sentry guns can what hit at 170km 175km?


I love how you have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote:
As stated in the original information, interceptors can still scram then GTFO afterwards.


And much longer than that and we're talking about instapopping slaved linked deadspace tanked Damnations.

Quote:

Thinking about it if someone wants to camp a gate still. all tehy need is 1 inty... 1 hic.... oh wait.... sniper T2 bc's? Might of been a happy coincidence that ccp released T3bc's which if these changes go forwards are the logical camp(sniper) ships

All any changes to mechanics need is a little thought, what could be done before can be done again


So that allows ganks but not fights. Let's return to the complaint that it will kill FIGHTS.

-Liang



If I could like this post a thousand times, I would.
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#398 - 2012-08-03 19:53:24 UTC
This is amazing. CCP has actually found a way to make lowsec even more unappealing and pointless than it already is. Given how much of a pointless dead zone it already was, that's quite an accomplishment.

Seriously, between this, the ridiculous barge buffs and the talk of PvP arenas, they might as well just stop pussyfooting around and remove low/null from the game at this point, since every one of these changes is intended to further nerf non-consentual PVP in favour of having a nice, safe theme park for carebears.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["

Copine Callmeknau
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#399 - 2012-08-03 20:16:17 UTC
Jim Era wrote:
Because fighting a noob 10v1 is a FIGHT

No it isn't, and that's exactly the point.

Have you ever heard of 'pounce camping'?
It's a method currently employed by (among others) gatecampers under GCC that do not have an active tank or logi support. The idea is you sit like 1000km off gate at a bookmark, aligned and ready to warp if the scout reports incoming.

If the gate gun change goes through as planned, we will still be able to do this. In fact all camping will become like this. It's just as easy to accomplish as a regular camp and has essentially the same effect for the victim (by the time you've completed jump and loaded grid, the camp has already landed in position)

The other alternative is the cloaky camp, usually done with proteuses (protei?) and rapiers, employed when victims are suspected of having their own scouts. A friendly scout is again used to notify of high value targets coming to the gate so that everyone is prepared and decloak delays are eliminated. This would become easy to do with the new system, after a kill is made the camp warps off, cloaks, warps back to the gate at range while GCC'd.

Camps will still happen, they will be just as prevalent as they are now, they will simply be harder to detect as they will be off grid or cloaked.

Random fights however, the bread and butter of lowsec PvP, will cease to occur. When we get 3-4 guys together in BC's and go for a roam, say 10 jumps out, we'll be most likely to be fighting anything we find on a gate, it'll usually be one or two BC's, maybe another small gang like us. It's just a fact of EVE that people aren't stopping in lowsec to smell the roses, they're on their way through it to get somewhere, be it a high sec or null, be it PvE or trying to find a fight of their own. The gates are where the small gang fights happen, and personally all of the really good small/medium fights I've been in have been escalations (usually on stations) that at one point or another involved someone committing to taking GCC with no chance of docking, jumping or warping. That simply won't happen in the new system, people won't engage at all with sentries around. Nobody is going to throw down the metaphorical glove and take it to a planet either, because everyone knows It's A Tarp
Make gate guns superpowered death rays and you will eliminate the essence of lowsec. The only PvP will be gate camps and probing out stupid mission runners. That sounds absolutely fracking horrible.

There should be a rather awesome pic here

Shu Guang
Corporation of DEA
Memento Moriendo
#400 - 2012-08-03 20:16:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Shu Guang
Isalone wrote:
Quote:
CCP Greyscale moves on to explain his work on sentry guns. Sentry guns will now shoot anyone with a criminal flag, suspect or otherwise. Sentry guns will also start with smaller amounts of damage, and ramp up with time. Ideal tuning will be to where triage carriers will die at around 4 1/2 minutes. This way, if you want to use triage carriers in lowsec on gates you can, but you must commit to the cycle for a length of time before starting your reps, if you want to deactivate triage before the sentry guns kill you and jump out. CCP Greyscale also points out that another goal is to make it so that the first couple of hits won't kill an interceptor immediately, enabling a quick tackle, and then a warp out.


I've lived in lowsec for quite a while now and gotta tell you - this is probably gonna cause as much "whine 'n' unsub" threads as nex store/greed is good did. For those who don't go to low often - most of fleet/gang fights in low take place at gates. If gateguns are gonna pop carriers 4.5mins into the fight, cruiser/bc fleets going gcc on a gate aren't gonna happen at all. When was the last time you have seen a carrier at a gate? I don't think I've ever seen one.

Gatecamps - those aren't the problem, people who won't learn/adapt are. You can easily get through all of them, just do a little research.

discuss, lol



This is one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard of. Does Greyscale even know what goes on in lowsec? or is this part of let's listen to carebear whine more tears. People need to learn to use scout and dscan, plain and simple. The only downside of criminal flag right now is if you have a big gang then you can tank it even if you only have 20 frigs orbiting at high speed and the initial ship to go red is a decent BC or such.
Very few people bring carriers (Greyscale must be living in gingermagician era) to gate and if this goes through, what's to stop people from bringing more triage carriers to a gate should they choose to? If anything, change the damage based on gang size not ship type.
Even then it would be a bad idea, carebears don't go to lowsec period, cause they are whining little b***hes. Lowsec has always been about risk, stop making EVE carebear idiot proof.


FYI this won't change a thing cause real pirates pounce on gates, they don't camp... and carebears will still whine, you might as well add concord to lowsec and nullsec now and get it over with. WoW like theme park anyone?

Rubicon 1.1 - CCP celebrates ClusterF**K day.