These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Schalac
Apocalypse Reign
#581 - 2012-08-05 15:04:36 UTC
Yep, completely dense.

SCHALAC HAS SPOKEN!! http://eveboard.com/pilot/Schalac
Mag's
Azn Empire
#582 - 2012-08-05 15:11:16 UTC
Schalac wrote:
Yep, completely dense.
So you can't point to where I said camping is the only way to make money in low sec?

OK, moving on.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Templar Nato
#583 - 2012-08-05 15:53:40 UTC
Adalynne Rohks wrote:
Templar Nato wrote:

As mentioned previously, 90% of PvP in low sec takes place on stations and gates as they are natural bottlenecks. the suggestions that we all meet at planet 1 to shoot each other are as absurd as they sound.


So you're saying that they're natural bottlenecks...? As in, they funnel any potential enemies toward you? So all you have to do is sit there and wait as long as you like for your unaware victims? Sounds about right.


I'm really not sure where you were going with this since gates and stations are a natural bottleneck in all parts of space in the game. It's pretty irrelevant to the point I'm making anyway since I don't gate camp, though that being said I don't have an issue with those that do. As I said in my previous post, current gatecamps are easy to avoid/ run. If players are having issues with that they need to engage their intellect a little more.

Of course having players funneled together is a good thing, otherwise no one would ever run into each other and the amount of conflict that would occur would be vastly reduced. This is MMO after all, not a single player experience. The whole idea is that we interact with each other and I firmly believe the game design should continually push players in that direction.

Adalynne Rohks wrote:
The bolded..... god forbid.... Why should you have to move anywhere? Why on earth would somebody try to set up an ambush at a asteroid belt, or at a archaeology site.......?


Wow, that sounds like some thrilling gameplay you're proposing there. We should all totally set ourselves up in asteroid belts and hope and pray people warp to them rather than being proactive and interdicting them as they transit the system. I guess I shouldn't warp after someone to a gate either, since that would be unfair that I know in advance where they're going because that's the exit to the system. Are you seriously trying to sell this drivel? Again, (I guess you missed this on my original post), I roam for PvP in low sec. It's also a little ironic that you're suggesting that camping a belt or an archaeology site is a good idea ... I guess camping is OK after all, just as long as it's easy to avoid and not bothering you?

Adalynne Rohks wrote:
I love irony. Yeah. I mean, why people have to have a gate act as a funnel that brings all the enemies to them, instead of actually having to seek and destroy targets? It's pretty pathetic that people couldn't function without that crutch.


LOL, seriously? What are you proposing here, getting rid of gates or something? Since even with the proposed changes single player ganking on a gate would still be possible ... hell it'd be easier since we could use smaller, faster locking ships. What the changes will nerf is actual roaming PvP where there are decent sized fleets running in to each other and the fights take 10 min or so to conclude. Losing that diminishes Low sec which in my mind is an overall negative for the game as a whole.

Looking forward to your reply.
Dograzor
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#584 - 2012-08-05 15:58:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Dograzor
Huzzah, CCP finally saw the light and is giving lowsec the much deserved attention it needs.. oh.. wait....

Dear, dear CCP.

If you want to give lowsec some love, then this is not the way to do it.

When it comes to lowsec, most fights are either fought through roams or camps on stations and gates. Except for the occasional Fw plex or couple day old missioner that gets unlucky. I don't mind new idea's or features by CCP concerning piracy, but this tweak of the gate guns won't work for the following reasons:

1) Small scale fleet engagements (5-10 man gangs) occur on gates or station most of the time. The time needed for a decent small gang fight usually amounts 5-10 minutes, depending on the situation/escalation/w.e. So any neutral fleet that engages an outlaw fleet - will just have to tank the incoming dps for 5 minutes, keep the outlaw fleet pointed & can then watch the sentries go I-win at 4.5 minutes in their favor.

2) Basically you will force us to grind away our precious -10.0 status - a symbolic status that defined who is a pirate and who is not for years. We (outlaws) will be forced to by this change to keep a sec status above -5.0 so we can be at the same level as our opponents.

3) When we have done 2) and gotten our sec status back up - You are potentially creating artificial fights - stalemates with neutral fleets staring at each other who will fire the first shot so that they can get the sentryfire to their advantage - and waiting for 1) to happen.

CCP, I love lowsec. There is no place like it... I love being an outlaw, I just love roaming through dangerous territory, not caring about politics and shooting targets of opportunity. I just like my playstyle, and Eve Online is one of the few places that gives me a chance to live it out. One of the definitions of the word outlaw describes pretty much what I like doing in Eve:

Quote:
"Out·law - A person who refuses to be governed by the established rules or practices of any group; rebel; nonconformist:"


I love this playstyle. I won't give it up because you might change the sentries, however, I do feel that you, CCP, might be (or already is) neglecting this playstyle in the long term of this game.

Please, give lowsec some love, I'm sure that there are more players who are willing to provide a decent list of suggestions of features in case you are looking for more. But I am worried that this change might reflect your general philosophy on lowsec, favoring the new or neutral, lawabiding players that venture into lowsec above its denizens that have called it home for a long time already.

My 2c.
Hitman 001
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#585 - 2012-08-05 16:13:10 UTC
grabing my catalysts, and tornados. to high sec we go, yo ho.
Tom Gerard
Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
#586 - 2012-08-05 16:14:10 UTC
Hitman 001 wrote:
grabing my catalysts, and tornados. to high sec we go, yo ho.


Don't Gank me Bro

Now with 100% less Troll.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#587 - 2012-08-05 16:40:34 UTC
How about throwing in a little ewar to the gate guns, triggering after they've been shooting for a while. Doesn't kill anything, camps are still viable, but perma-camps are less so?

Just spitballing.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Xen Solarus
Furious Destruction and Salvage
#588 - 2012-08-05 17:09:00 UTC
Still yet to hear any valid arguments to why more people entering low-sec is a bad thing. Just going, "your dumb, etc" doesn't work im afraid. Also suggesting "i don't know what im talking about", like most random insults in eve, are effectively a shot in the dark, cause i'm afraid you don't know me. Makes me laugh when the pirate croud shout "carebear!" and stuff at people that disagree with them, as if they must be for not having the same viewpoint.

Improved gate-guns in conjunction with increased low-sec rewards, means more people in and around low-sec. More targets means more explosions! Literally a win, win.

The only argument made against this is to protect your source of easy kills. The suggestion that it would "kill low-sec pvp" is just laughable. More that it would kill low-sec pvp for those players unable to actually hunt down targets, which i guess must be the guys complaining and threatening mass unsubs (never gonna happen).

Post with your main, like a BOSS!

And no, i don't live in highsec.  As if that would make your opinion any less wrong.  
Russell Casey
Doomheim
#589 - 2012-08-05 17:20:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Russell Casey
As much fun as it is watching the pirates bawl like the miners did when the dessie buff/T3 BCs came out, this does seem like an unnecessary change. If I can get into nullsec without it being perma-camped, I sure as hell can get into low (seriously, are there even enough people in low to cover every highsec entrance?).

Also, it's not fear of gatecamps that keep carebears out, it's not wanting to get blown up and not wanting to have to stop PvEing to dodge PvPers. You could put freaking CONCORD at gates and stations and they still wouldn't go there.
Alpheias
Tactical Farmers.
Pandemic Horde
#590 - 2012-08-05 17:23:17 UTC
Schalac wrote:
Yep, completely dense.


Your reasoning in general points to that you had one too many marbles in your youth. Thinking it was candy.

Agent of Chaos, Sower of Discord.

Don't talk to me unless you are IQ verified and certified with three references from non-family members. Please have your certificate of authenticity on hand.
Scion Lex
The Unspoken Ones
OnlyHoles
#591 - 2012-08-05 17:54:06 UTC
God this thread is tired.
Ensign X
#592 - 2012-08-05 18:01:21 UTC
Prez21 wrote:
You talk about talking to noobs and trying to help them but from what ive read it seems you your self are a noob who doesnt understand this game, your ideas a perception of low sec is so far off the mark its laughable, you seem completely clueless on how this game works.


So you're going with "you're a noob" and "you're completely clueless" as arguments to support your cause? Welp, I guess that's case closed then. Roll

betoli wrote:
Ensign X wrote:
I beg to differ, but we can agree to disagree. I'm not saying Lowsec couldn't use some love, it sure as hell could, but there's plenty of reward already there for those who are willing to seek it out.


You seem to be in a minority with that view....


Thank god, and I hope it stays that way. Not that the resources I'm after are finite in any way, they're extremely abundant, but the fewer pilots who are there to exploit them is actually better for me.

Ris Dnalor wrote:
Ensign X wrote:
I have lived in Lowsec for most of the past 9 months. I've run into and chatted on occasion to a number of your fellow R1FTAs. I appreciate what you and your kind do, but we have different viewpoints on the same subject based on separate experiences. It happens. In my sandbox, Lowsec exists for it's riches to be exploited by skilled pilots. In your sandbox, Lowsec exists to blow **** up.


So, is to much to freaking ask that CCP make us both happy?!! Twisted


joking aside, I think there is much to be done with risk vs. reward.... on the reward side... like boosting lowsec rewards and cutting high sec ones.


I completely agree that there's a middle ground that exists between the risk and reward of Lowsec. As it stands the rewards across the board are generally too low, with a few definite exceptions, but I also believe that the risk is too low for fat, lazy pirates who sit on gates in their insta-locking T3s and smartbombing battleships. These parasites add little to the game and do so by risking very little.

I'm not saying I know the answer to the Risk v. Reward balance of Lowsec, BUT I am saying that something needs to be done to balance it out.
Nerf Burger
Doomheim
#593 - 2012-08-05 18:03:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Nerf Burger
get raped whiners. There were too many mechanics to protect the carebear pirates. Great work CCP for putting some risk into being an aggressor.
Zera Kerrigan
The 420th Token
#594 - 2012-08-05 18:04:33 UTC
Honestly, just no.
Ensign X
#595 - 2012-08-05 18:31:44 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Ensign X wrote:
In my sandbox, Lowsec exists for it's riches to be exploited by skilled pilots. In your sandbox, Lowsec exists to blow **** up.
You seemingly are unwilling to see our side, one bit. Sure there are some that come simply to kill, but many many pirates are there to make ISK. It's our livelihood.

What this idea does, is remove a large swatch of that livelihood. Ransoming. That's one of the main reasons for camping gates.
That's not an improvement of low sec riches at all. Not for anyone.

A sandbox is a sandbox is a sandbox.

You mention smart-bombing battleships. Answer me this, how should you transport expensive very low sized items?
Should this be done in a BR, A covert ops, a T3 covert, a shuttle or a noobship? What ship?


Please don't take offense, but is English not your first language? You seem to have a hard time comprehending what I'm telling you and you're completely glossing over any point I agree with you on so you can jump on every point where I don't. It's completely counter-productive to a meaningful debate.

I have absolutely nothing against ransoming or, outside of parking your fat, lazy smart-bombing BS' on gates, anything that you do to make ISK. IF the change as proposed actually reduced your income from Bounties I would be against that aspect of it. I've been ransomed before, not that the pirates held up their end of the bargain, but that's pirates for you, they usually can't be trusted.

As for how should one transport expensive, very low sized items, there isn't one answer to that question. Clearly a shuttle or noobship isn't the answer, though I have no doubt that the average monkey might think they are. Personally, I'd use a cloaky T3 or a Covops, but I'm well aware at this point where most of the major gate and no skill smart-bombing camps hang out. That said, if I was unsure about the presence of either and for some reason didn't have access to a scout I'd stick with the T3 or use a 3rd party service like Black Frog.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#596 - 2012-08-05 19:29:24 UTC
Ensign X wrote:
Please don't take offense, but is English not your first language? You seem to have a hard time comprehending what I'm telling you and you're completely glossing over any point I agree with you on so you can jump on every point where I don't. It's completely counter-productive to a meaningful debate.

I have absolutely nothing against ransoming or, outside of parking your fat, lazy smart-bombing BS' on gates, anything that you do to make ISK. IF the change as proposed actually reduced your income from Bounties I would be against that aspect of it. I've been ransomed before, not that the pirates held up their end of the bargain, but that's pirates for you, they usually can't be trusted.

As for how should one transport expensive, very low sized items, there isn't one answer to that question. Clearly a shuttle or noobship isn't the answer, though I have no doubt that the average monkey might think they are. Personally, I'd use a cloaky T3 or a Covops, but I'm well aware at this point where most of the major gate and no skill smart-bombing camps hang out. That said, if I was unsure about the presence of either and for some reason didn't have access to a scout I'd stick with the T3 or use a 3rd party service like Black Frog.
Oh, I have no problem understanding anything you say. Your attitude is that we can't be trusted and are fat lazy no skill smartbombers. Yet you want a meaningful discussion.

The reason I asked the question about transportation, is that many decide shuttles are the best way (and noobships). That's obviously a highly thought out decision, that requires lots and lots of skill. But sure, let's give them free passage and not give any need to worry about those choices.

Like I said, you are seemingly unwilling to see our side. That or you're so ignorant of why we do what we do, that you jump on the name calling bandwagon and expect me carry on as normal. No thanks.

So I will pass on any more discussion with you, as it's pointless.

Regards
Fat lazy no skill Mag's. Cool

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Ensign X
#597 - 2012-08-05 19:56:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Ensign X
Mag's wrote:
[quote=Ensign X]you're completely glossing over any point I agree with you on so you can jump on every point where I don't. It's completely counter-productive to a meaningful debate.

Like I said, you are seemingly unwilling to see our side. That or you're so ignorant of why we do what we do, that you jump on the name calling bandwagon and expect me carry on as normal. No thanks.

So I will pass on any more discussion with you, as it's pointless.

Regards
Fat lazy no skill Mag's. Cool


In what way have I demonstrated that I'm not willing to see your side? I've been agreeing with you on many of your good points.
Pay attention.

I didn't call you a fat, lazy, no-skill smart bomber. I called smart-bombing battleships fat and lazy and no-skill, which other than fat (admittedly it's not a fair descriptor), they most certainly are. It's the laziest, least skillful form of PVP in EVE. I don't believe, and many would agree, that it should be so easy for them to farm as many kills as they do with such minimal effort and risk.

Sentry gun design pre-dates ships that were capable of permanently tanking them. There is no debate about that. The debate is over whether something needs be done to them to bring them back into balance with the current line of ships and the space in which they operate.

It makes sense that you'd want to defend your "way of life" so vigorously, and who can blame you? But it's obvious that you're unwilling to see any side of the story that isn't your own or that conflicts with the means you feel you have to resort to in order to make a living.
Alpheias
Tactical Farmers.
Pandemic Horde
#598 - 2012-08-05 20:08:41 UTC
Ensign X wrote:
Mag's wrote:
[quote=Ensign X]you're completely glossing over any point I agree with you on so you can jump on every point where I don't. It's completely counter-productive to a meaningful debate.

Like I said, you are seemingly unwilling to see our side. That or you're so ignorant of why we do what we do, that you jump on the name calling bandwagon and expect me carry on as normal. No thanks.

So I will pass on any more discussion with you, as it's pointless.

Regards
Fat lazy no skill Mag's. Cool


In what way have I demonstrated that I'm not willing to see your side? I've been agreeing with you on many of your good points.
Pay attention.

I didn't call you a fat, lazy, no-skill smart bomber. I called smart-bombing battleships fat and lazy and no-skill, which other than fat (admittedly it's not a fair descriptor), they most certainly are. It's the laziest, least skillful form of PVP in EVE. I don't believe, and many would agree, that it should be so easy for them to farm as many kills as they do with such minimal effort and risk.

Sentry gun design pre-dates ships that were capable of permanently tanking them. There is no debate about that. The debate is over whether something needs be done to them to bring them back into balance with the current line of ships and the space in which they operate.

It makes sense that you'd want to defend your "way of life" so vigorously, and who can blame you? But it's obvious that you're unwilling to see any side of the story that isn't your own or that conflicts with the means you feel you have to resort to in order to make a living.


All that scar tissue in your ass... no wonder you are so mad. Butthurt mad.

Agent of Chaos, Sower of Discord.

Don't talk to me unless you are IQ verified and certified with three references from non-family members. Please have your certificate of authenticity on hand.
Urgg Boolean
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#599 - 2012-08-05 20:27:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Urgg Boolean
I read through a number of posts to ge the gist of the arguments.

Problem to solve : low sec is underutilized due to avoidance by risk averse players who spend most of their time in high sec.
Solution so far : have gate gun clobber campers or other aggro magnets.

I have said it before on these forums: I am not a PvPer in EvE, but I PvE in all sec's.

Honestly, access to low sec is not the problem. Getting set up in low sec takes time and effort. For me, that meant scouting in my PvE ships using a Cov Ops or Xport ships (thanks corpmates!). Then making enough runs in my Xport ship to get all my resources to the desired station. And of course, outbound scouting to get all the goods for sale back to hi sec. Once you get set up and also get the hang of low sec, it ain't that bad. The gates are the least of my worries. Inside low sec, I run cloaky T1 industrials, which I would never take to a gate.

Having said that, the "aversion" part of low sec is always having to look over my shoulder, i.e., dscan. It has been said that "you'll get used to it", like many of the less than optimal things in EvE. But using dscan constantly to make an intelligent and quick get away when needed just takes all the fun out of it. As a result, I spend the minimum qty of time in low sec and null, and get out.

Speaking more generally, for this PvEer, I would be much happier about spending time in the "scary" places of the game if the risk was limited to access, meaning system to system travel. If there was a way to conduct PvE activities without constantly having to "dscan or get podded", I'd spend a lot more time in lawless space.

The PvPers have said that "most PvP happens at the gates". Well if that is the case, I think these changes miss the mark. Access or avoiding PvP at the gates is not the problem. Hanging out while doing PvE is the problem. Find a way to fix that, and you'll see plenty of high sec dwellers taking the travel risks, so they have a bigger playground for PvE. The people who want to find fights can, and those who want to avoid them can do so too.
Nerf Burger
Doomheim
#600 - 2012-08-05 21:11:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Nerf Burger
Ensign X wrote:


It makes sense that you'd want to defend your "way of life" so vigorously, and who can blame you? But it's obvious that you're unwilling to see any side of the story that isn't your own or that conflicts with the means you feel you have to resort to in order to make a living.


He's in my CCP praising thread too, throwing around insults in a temper tantrum. Funny that he claims it is other ppl are butthurt and mad. Lol

I guess its no surprise comming from the "pvpers" this game produces.