These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Andrejs L
Constantine.
Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
#421 - 2012-08-04 01:39:03 UTC
Stop F CKING everything up and fix Ships/Items while your at it.
Homo Jesus
The LGBT Last Supper
#422 - 2012-08-04 01:56:15 UTC
Great Idea!!!!

Now the mouth breathers won't have a problem getting past gates and into their missions. I prefer letting them get some salvage and loot before I blow them up anyways.

HEY!!! Add a big display that says "WARNING: PROBES WITH-IN ONE AU" along with an alarm sound like "WOOP WOOP WOOP"....it won't matter idiots still won't know what that is, what probes are, what an AU is, and will turn off the "WOOP WOOP" because they can't hear their cool missile sounds over it.

Do you guys know how often I miss people who are too far from a warp in only to have them warp right back to the same damned spot less than 10minutes later? Good luck compensating for stupid...
Lady Aja
#423 - 2012-08-04 01:59:22 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
I remember many complaints that small ships cannot partake in gate camps because they get alphaed by the gate guns.

Now they can. Seems like a good change to me.




obviously they dont knwo how to play.

if i WANTED to camp a low sec gate in a frigate or t2 frigate for that matter..

the fleet would have one ship agro the gate so they get gate gun agression. this is done as the pilot shows up in local.
in return the frigate classed ship has 30 seconds to do his job. more than likely more if the gate guns dont change to the frig.

L2P
where is my ability to link a sig properly CCP you munters!!
DelBoy Trades
Trotter Independent Traders.
Stealth Alliance
#424 - 2012-08-04 02:03:37 UTC
This just shows a complete misunderstanding of lowsec PVP by Greyscale. Just with the gate guns at the moment it's still a mexican stand-off of who'll take GCC in a fleet fight, this massive escalation will make it ridiculous. Lowsec will be an abandoned wasteland.

Damn nature, you scary!
Ensign X
#425 - 2012-08-04 02:17:13 UTC
WAIT!

Are you telling me that a possible change that might never happen which was mentioned briefly in a meeting with ineffectual player representatives is going to destroy EVE and bring us all down with it?

Cool.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#426 - 2012-08-04 03:27:19 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Sorry to tell you but gate camping is not real PvP, as is shown by the people who now hide in Orcas if things get to tough.


I'm perfectly happy with a solution that kills orca camping. Concord the Orca, I don't give a ****.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Crexa
Ion Industrials
#427 - 2012-08-04 03:39:06 UTC


Enhanced gate guns serve what purpose? If you really want to remove/reduce gate camps. Look to an idea i've seen posted elsewhere and that is: Your jump places you in a random location within the destination system.

"F=ma, so obviously they're putting mouths against arses to produce a force." "...its breakfast time and i am very hungry. may i have some of your paint chips?"
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#428 - 2012-08-04 04:58:52 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Sure, I'll make a note to have another look at this and get some more player feedback when we start finalizing the designs.


Quoting myself. This is a spitball idea that we shared with the CSM, not a final design.


I'm just scared because usually when you guys "finalize" it is way too late for player feedback, and you won't look at it for another 3 years.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter
Ensign X
#429 - 2012-08-04 06:20:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Ensign X
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
I'm just scared because usually when you guys "finalize" it is way too late for player feedback, and you won't look at it for another 3 years.


What are you basing this on? Certainly not CCP's recent track record. Look at the recent Mining Barge re-balancing. Tons of player feedback seems to be impacting ship design decisions before they are implemented. Incursions were re-balanced shortly after they were nerfed, partly because of player feedback. There's been tons of room recently for player feedback and sometimes CCP is even wise enough to listen and adjust.

I think it's fair to say that a spitball idea that isn't even out of the gestation phase is hardly worth all the ire and rhetoric that's being spun in this thread. And, besides, it's not like Lowsec's pirates and ne'er do well are making many valid suggestions about how to invigorate Lowsec. They're too busy camping the High > Low entry points with insta-locking T3s and "smart" bombing Battleships making it a nightmare for new pilots to get their feet wet in "their" (the pirate's) space.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#430 - 2012-08-04 06:26:24 UTC
Ensign X wrote:
I think it's fair to say that a spitball idea that isn't even out of the gestation phase is hardly worth all the ire and rhetoric that's being spun in this thread.
Considering CCP's track record for not listening to feedback when it comes to core mechanics, it sure is. Bad ideas in the gestation phase have had a history of being brought live and severely breaking things in exactly the way people expected they would, and only then — when the damage is already done — is there a chance of providing feedback.

Quote:
And, besides, it's not like Lowsec's pirates and ne'er do well are making many valid suggestions about how to invigorate Lowsec.
Sure they are. One of the very valid suggestions so far is “don't make it even harder to get into lowsec, and don't arbitrarily remove the action you can get there.”
Ensign X
#431 - 2012-08-04 06:31:45 UTC
You can talk about their 'history' all you want, but actions speak louder than words, and CCP's recent track record clearly demonstrates their willingness to work with the community to affect meaningful change. Not everybody is as bitter as you are.
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#432 - 2012-08-04 07:02:08 UTC
:bittervet: they've been a little better lately sure, I went through the big mining barge fairytail and tbh didn't see ccp say they were changing much in that thread, maybe there was a more active discussion with ccp in the test server forum? and tbh I don't really know much about incursions, they undid one thing some said that wasn't enough so sounds like they are undoing more. that and tech has been a bottleneck since they redid moongoo a while back, Akita T was kind enough to do the maths with test server data before the patch went out and all.

but anyways I flew through amamake a few times recently and didn't even see a camp, maybe that was just cuz I payed a teeny bit of attention and went a few more jumps to avoid the osoggur gate though. and comparatively all the other lowsecs I went through were empty.

tl;dr ccp has a history of lazy, and the camps you describe are VERY rare.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#433 - 2012-08-04 07:02:16 UTC
Ensign X wrote:
You can talk about their 'history' all you want, but actions speak louder than words
…and their actions show that they're quite bad at taking in feedback until things have already blown up in their face.
Ensign X
#434 - 2012-08-04 07:22:05 UTC
This is all a matter of design concept vs. design intent. Those opposed to this spitball of an idea are opposed to the concept, but very well may agree with the intent (save a select few, but I'll get to them).

The design concept is flawed. Simply ramping up the damage on Sentry guns to a point that they are untankable will certainly diminish the amount of PVP that occurs on gates and station. And gates and stations, as the level-headed among us will agree, is where a large percentage of the PVP in Lowsec occurs. Therefore the concept is flawed. However, that is irrelevant at this point as the concept is not even a glimmer in the eye of the developers, which leads us to design intent.

The design intent is sound. The intent is to increase traffic and lower the bar for entry into lowsec by the reduction in permanent gate camps that can indefinitely tank ineffectual gate guns. I believe that it's safe to say the initial design of Sentry guns did not and could not account for the likelihood of them being permanently tanked and essentially ignored by the much higher class ships that exist today. Re-balancing the bar for entry into Lowsec is the intention of the concept and shouldn't so easily be overlooked while there isn't even a preliminary concept to begin with.
Ensign X
#435 - 2012-08-04 07:26:49 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Ensign X wrote:
You can talk about their 'history' all you want, but actions speak louder than words
…and their actions show that they're quite bad at taking in feedback until things have already blown up in their face.


We'll have to agree to disagree since there is as much recent evidence of their willingness to interface and adapt to the desires of the community than there is to the contrary.
Irya Boone
The Scope
#436 - 2012-08-04 07:56:55 UTC
adapt

CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails .... Open that damn door !!

you shall all bow and pray BoB
King Rothgar
Deadly Solutions
#437 - 2012-08-04 08:15:02 UTC
Mors Sanctitatis wrote:


Rothgar and I go way back. And while I agree with his assessment (mostly), I have a few things to add.

#1, changing the gate guns in the proposed manner won't solve anything. It won't fix what's wrong with lowsec, and what it WILL do is guarantee that solo players like myself will never again stand a chance at fighting multiple enemies at a gate in low sec. CCP will literally be erasing yet another opportunity for me to PVP.

#2, while I agree that probing is too easy now, how they should change probing should be very specific: it needs to be made more difficult, but in a way that rewards skill and creativity and planning, not just nerfing the hell out of probe performance. Simply nerfing probe strength by 90% so that by the time I find a target the mission is finished is not the answer.

CCP should design the probing mechanic so that someone who is highly skilled at understanding the variables can probe faster than those who can't. Personally, I don't think that CCP is creative and smart enough to implement something like this.

Regardless of the probing issue, changing gate guns in this manner isn't going to help lowec, and it will most likely hurt it overall. I know it will most definitely make me play less, if not leave the game completely. I can rarely find opportunities to PVP solo as it is.


It won't fix low sec totally, major changes to the relative pve pay for high/low/null need to be made for that to happen. But upping the power of sentry guns is a necessary step along that path as is a general nerf to combat probing.

I too would like combat probing to be much more heavily focused on player skill and creativeness, but lets face it, eve just doesn't work that way. As with all other MMO's, it is ultimately a dice roll and strategy game rather than a twitch based game. I've made proposals before on how to better balance combat probing. The basic tenants of it are simple: longer cycle time, increased deviation, reduced strength, reduced range (d-scanner use should be mandatory for a starting location) and complete removal of probes from the overview (including unsorted view).

The idea here is to make it difficult to actually probe out a mission runner, so most of them escape most of the time. But it also means that they have no way of knowing if someone is actively probing them or not, so the attacker stands a good chance of at least ending up on grid with them if he's fast. That is a balanced system. You need to be able to get on grid, but only if you come prepared. Once on grid, it should be up to the preparations and cleverness of the various players involved on both sides.

[u]Fireworks and snowballs are great, but what I really want is a corpse launcher.[/u]
Mag's
Azn Empire
#438 - 2012-08-04 08:17:09 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
I love your quote "So what gives, guys? Why didn’t you object to deleting PVP real PVP from low sec?"

Sorry to tell you but gate camping is not real PvP, as is shown by the people who now hide in Orcas if things get to tough.
If you have a problem with Orcas, then find a solution to that issue. I don't agree with it either.

But as far as gate camping is concerned. Please tell me when you became the arbiter, of what is and what is not real PvP?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Ensign X
#439 - 2012-08-04 08:22:55 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
I love your quote "So what gives, guys? Why didn’t you object to deleting PVP real PVP from low sec?"

Sorry to tell you but gate camping is not real PvP, as is shown by the people who now hide in Orcas if things get to tough.
If you have a problem with Orcas, then find a solution to that issue. I don't agree with it either.

But as far as gate camping is concerned. Please tell me when you became the arbiter, of what is and what is not real PvP?


I can buy this. Player on player violence is PVP no matter what the circumstances. Some styles of play just happen to require far less, shall we say, skill than others.Blink
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#440 - 2012-08-04 08:26:34 UTC
Re-reading all these threads where people are complaining about lowsec gatecamps, I keep thinking they must all be trolls (or play another game).

Gatecamping has been nearly non-existant since Warp To Zero was introduced, and around the time where we started to be able to kill Carriers/Dreads. If you've played this game for a while, you probably remember entering low, warping to next gate put you 15km from it, and there could very well sit a Moros there (with drone damage bonus) just raping your ship. And you had no way to kill him, even if you brought every single pal of yours.

But with WTZ, and with players having more firepower/SP/invention (t2 being accessible to the majority of players) everything changed. When the regional gates were introduced as well it got even less camped. Yah, there is the occational infamous system that is camped, but it's nothing like it used to be.

In fact, I dare to say, it's never been as easy to travel through lowsec as it is today.

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.