EVE General Discussion

The design intent may be sound but it seems to be based on a complete misconception of how lowsec works. Static gatecamps, especially of the long term variety, are a lot rarer than people supporting this idea seem to think, partly because its boring as hell and partly because theyre a prime target for pvpers.

Lets take an example, The United camps on the high sec entrance in Rancer, to lock down one gate in one system the United has to set up scouts for two jumps in all directions watching for approaching fleets they cant handle (this is based on information the United divulged when an EvE Radio op crashed the camp just after a server reset, they claimed they hadn't had time to get their scouts back online). Rancers position as a single system between two highsec groups also makes it pretty much the only system in lowsec where this kind of setup is viable because it gives it the traffic required to make the effort sustaining the camp worthwhile.

Overall I think these ideas are born out of the misconception that lowsec is a camp infested deathtrap, which in my eyes as someone who lives there full time is fundamentally wrong.

So far, it seems to do more good than harm. The message is quite clear: anti-cap level DPS from sentries is a bad idea; allowing for fast tackler deployment on gates will lock down lowsec more than ever; gates are where fights happen — period — and unless and until something is done that ensures that everyone has a reason to roam somewhere else, there is very little reason to dissuade fighting from happening on gates. Also, they need to be very careful with the new CrimeWatch flags, unless they want to turn lowsec into pseudo-highsec and screw over people who actually choose to live there.

Overall, design ideas are fine and all, but it's also a good idea if they include an overview of what problems they're meant to solve. Pretty much every point of criticism so far seems to trace back to that basic question: what's the problem? It may very well be that it's a good idea, if it solves some specific problem (or, if not, it may just need some tweaks to get to where it needs to be). On the other hand, it may be that the problem itself is fundamentally misinformed, and that no matter how good the solution is, it won't actually solve anything.

right, as the ccp pipeline takes what at least 18 months?

just staying vigilant as it seems once someone at ccp gets an idea it tends to go through no matter how much resistance comes up, that and with no details other than kill a triage carrier it sounds pretty scary.

Exactly my thought as well when I read the minutes. It seemed they all just cheered on eachother and patted themselves on the back. Have you noticed how quiet CSM has been in these threads as well? The only post I've seen so far is the one Hans just did.. which said nothing, really. Disturbing, to say the least.

You mean kind of like what this thread has offered?

Why are you being so rude and childish and moaning about how people act rather than join in the discussion?

This is an excellent question, and highly appropriate seeing as how we just went through this with the Unified Inventory. Design changes should serve a purpose, and not be done for the sake of being done. There will be certainly time for these questions to be answered, publicly, before any hard decisions are made. I think a lot of people don't understand that the summit is often just a starting point, to begin conversations that end up continuing into the months following.

The sessions are also fast-paced, and I was limited to remote chat which is a fraction of the speed of someone sitting in the room just blurting out a response. I could have certainly chimed in on every single thing I liked or didnt like during each of the sessions, but it would have been ridiculously inefficient and disruptive. The summits no longer exist merely to log official +1's to ideas, and none of us on the CSM really felt like whoring for constituent cred by having to more or less "vote" on every single proposal. The moment I understood that this was stuff we had months ahead to work on and discuss the issue in skype and in the forums, there just wasn't a sense of urgency to stand up and cause a scene about the issue.

Besides - this is an idea that came just out of a vacuum, just like Tippia pointed out. I've always saved my blanket statements about what needs to be done for those items that have been discussed and vetted in large part by the community. As this thread shows, you don't all agree on "the right thing" to do with gate g. It would have been irresponsible for me to take a hard stand before I'd had a chance to discuss it with you first. This was quite different than say, Faction Warfare, which I've been engaged with the community about for some time and I can go into a meeting confident about sending a message that properly reflects the player base.

I am pretty sure that the CSM minutes were simply misleading. Or at the very least, I'm pretty sure they'll find some other way to engage the community and find an approach that isn't quite so controversial. :)

And FWIW, I believe Hans about not speaking up because of typing issues. The minutes were pretty clear about that communication impediment.

-Liang

My corp lives like forever in lowsec, so what i ll be telling you is some valuable info

Oke the change wont bring more players to lowsec. Why? There will be still gate camps with smaller, insta locking ships with bigger ones on grid to warp on the prey. So now clokies and small frigs wont be able to pass too.

90% of engagements happen on gates. Why? Because u ll have always a stronger fleet and a weaker. The one wth well less odd wont warp to a planet or belt to get massacred by the one with more chances. Baits dont work cos, weaker fleet same as the stronger one has always scouts +2,3 systems. This change would be mild only to corps with titan netwroks which can bait more effectively.

9% fights happen on POCOs and POSes while getting out of reinforece.

And 1 % is well rest. So after this change lowsec will be left with 10% of the pvp was before + maybe some another 5% (the chance that there will be equal fleets and they agree to warp on a planet and have fight there).

So what can be done? There is need of a rise in reward in lowsec. Those features needs to be doable in small amount of time 1 to tops 2 hours and reward be very high.

Exploring is the way. 6/10 are really good excellent profit time/reward. Only regular visitors from highsec are ppl that do those sites. But there needs to be some more of em. Rise the spawn rate. It will attract ppl from high and null and animate some more low sec PvP. Boost the rewards of lv 5 and lv 4 and make them not to be blitzable. Lv 4 to be doable in 15 mins, lv 5 in 30 and lv 6 in 45 mins. Thats is a proper risk/reward ratio. Not too much time to be finished, but still enough time go get probed and caught.

Add 1, 2 and 3/10 to lowsec also and make them a bit more profitable than highsec ones. Those wont boost huge amount of isk to lowsec dwellers cos is not much isk/hour, but will be quite more for the hisghsec inhabitants who could risk their frigates/destroyers/cruisers for some fast income of 20/40/60 of mils per 20/25/30 min of time needed to do them.

lv 1/10 d accept only frigates. Lv 2/10 d accept destroyers and less. lv 3/10 cruisers and less. Remember that the right system d needed to be found, same as the plexe. So its NOT like u d farm 3/10 60mils per 20mins = 180mil but it d be in line btw 50-100 mil per hour if only 1 player clears all. It will be a fast incursion to lowsec, inject some nice ammount of isk and be done for today.

These changes bring lots of of frigates/destroyers/cruisers from highsec. But also more expensive ships for 4/5/6 of 10. U d see low skil players commin ina group with their frigs, dest or cruisers doin those plexes.

What else? Make the gravimetric sites to have all kind of expensive ore but high concetraded. Let say that u d need 5 hulks and an orca full skilled and boosted to empty it in 1hour. But so they can earn few bills from that asteroid alone. What will happen. There will be some ninja miner ops (who knows maybe rorqs d be used more). Miners could pay to lowsec pirates to protect em or even mercenary groups also. Lot of possibilites rise.

And finally static anomalies. These now in lowsec are useless. Make 2 kind of those anomalies appear in lowsec randomly once a week but in same constalation always and with quite a higher reward. One anomaly d require 5 players minimum to be done cruiser and below and one d require 10 players (BS and below). Would add lots of contents, highsec incursions of players or even some wars btw lowsec corps to stay within those.

Just 2 cents of mine :D

what a great change.... for interceptor cheapskates longing for killmails on lowsec gates

come on CCP this is summerbullshit right?