These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Where would EVE Online be....
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#61 - 2013-01-22 00:43:52 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Aza Ebanu wrote:
Well a majority of your post was irrelevant.

I never said it was a bad thing, just stating it is the majority thing.

Well there are plenty options that have been stated over the years. One has been posted even in this thread. But you are more than welcome to add your two cents if you know of any other nuclei for combat.


So you're saying that this entire thread is intentionally pointless?

There's no debate on whether gates are a primary location where fights occur. The debate is over whether that's a good or bad thing.


So, what are you proposing? How would you propose moving combat away from chokepoints without descending into ridiculous contrivance? Man up and pick something to stand behind.


You sir jump to too many conclusions. I think you became frustrated because you came to the thread expecting a "gatecamps is bad kinda thing" instead of a "would EVE Online still be able to go on without them." Maybe you dont' feel comfortable expressing how you feel about the question?
There isn't a debate on weather gatecamps / gate combat is the primary location where fights occur. Is it a good thing? Is it a bad thing? Feel free to share your opinion, but I did not start this thread to debate weather gatecamps are good or bad. Hey why don't you start a "gatecamps good or bad" thread?
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#62 - 2013-01-22 00:52:14 UTC
Aza Ebanu wrote:
You sir jump to too many conclusions. I think you became frustrated because you came to the thread expecting a "gatecamps is bad kinda thing" instead of a "would EVE Online still be able to go on without them." Maybe you dont' feel comfortable expressing how you feel about the question?


If you want a "would EVE survive" then the answer entirely depends on your definition of survival, and trivially follows once you've nailed down the definition.

It's like asking "would Monopoly survive without Dice?" The answer depends entirely on your definition of survival, and the answer trivially follows from that definition.

So, what is your definition of "survival" for EVE?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#63 - 2013-01-22 01:02:54 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Aza Ebanu wrote:
You sir jump to too many conclusions. I think you became frustrated because you came to the thread expecting a "gatecamps is bad kinda thing" instead of a "would EVE Online still be able to go on without them." Maybe you dont' feel comfortable expressing how you feel about the question?


If you want a "would EVE survive" then the answer entirely depends on your definition of survival, and trivially follows once you've nailed down the definition.

It's like asking "would Monopoly survive without Dice?" The answer depends entirely on your definition of survival, and the answer trivially follows from that definition.

So, what is your definition of "survival" for EVE?

You know I can't relate EVE combat-PVP tactics and strategy to Monopoly. I tried too. Would combat-PVP happen in the same frequency without gatecamps / gates?
Katran Luftschreck
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
#64 - 2013-01-22 01:13:15 UTC
If CCP really wanted to shake things up...

Change jumpdrive rules to include the X-BTF model that lets the ship link to a stargate in the target system instead of a cyno field (optional - can do either). If it jumps to a gate instead of a cyno field, it lands anywhere between 30 - 50km of that gate in a random direction away from it.

Would make blob warfare go haywire.

http://youtu.be/t0q2F8NsYQ0
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#65 - 2013-01-22 02:28:35 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Aza Ebanu wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

If you want a "would EVE survive" then the answer entirely depends on your definition of survival, and trivially follows once you've nailed down the definition.

It's like asking "would Monopoly survive without Dice?" The answer depends entirely on your definition of survival, and the answer trivially follows from that definition.

So, what is your definition of "survival" for EVE?

You know I can't relate EVE combat-PVP tactics and strategy to Monopoly.


Good thing I didn't relate those things. I related your question about "EVE's survival" to a theoretical question about Monopoly's survival. Both answers are uninteresting because the answer follows directly from your definition of "survival."

Quote:
I tried too. Would combat-PVP happen in the same frequency without gatecamps / gates?


No. Duh. That's an easy answer and has been given multiple times in this thread.

Choke points guarantee physical proximity but not temporal proximity. Without chokepoints you can guarantee neither temporal nor physical proximity. Both are required to have a fight.

You would reduce fights in EVE to the other 3 types I listed here, which are less common.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#66 - 2013-01-22 04:17:57 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Aza Ebanu wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

If you want a "would EVE survive" then the answer entirely depends on your definition of survival, and trivially follows once you've nailed down the definition.

It's like asking "would Monopoly survive without Dice?" The answer depends entirely on your definition of survival, and the answer trivially follows from that definition.

So, what is your definition of "survival" for EVE?

You know I can't relate EVE combat-PVP tactics and strategy to Monopoly.


Good thing I didn't relate those things. I related your question about "EVE's survival" to a theoretical question about Monopoly's survival. Both answers are uninteresting because the answer follows directly from your definition of "survival."

Quote:
I tried too. Would combat-PVP happen in the same frequency without gatecamps / gates?


No. Duh. That's an easy answer and has been given multiple times in this thread.

Choke points guarantee physical proximity but not temporal proximity. Without chokepoints you can guarantee neither temporal nor physical proximity. Both are required to have a fight.

You would reduce fights in EVE to the other 3 types I listed here, which are less common.

So would they become more common?
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#67 - 2013-01-22 04:23:03 UTC
I hate gatecamps. It's a bunch of guys standing around a door waiting to hit anyone who walks through it. If they get even a hint that there might be enough guys coming through to give them a good fight, they disappear. I honestly don't understand how people think it's fun.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
SmilingVagrant
Doomheim
#68 - 2013-01-22 04:29:08 UTC
Aza Ebanu wrote:

You know I can't relate EVE combat-PVP tactics and strategy to Monopoly. I tried too. Would combat-PVP happen in the same frequency without gatecamps / gates?


Less. Natural chokepoints cause in increase in exploded ships. This is a good thing as part of what keeps the economy going is attrition. Imo the most dangerous system to travel in eve is a jumpbridge connected system if the people camping it are wiley and on the ball.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#69 - 2013-01-22 04:30:58 UTC
Aza Ebanu wrote:

So would they become more common?


Maybe. But not by nearly enough to compensate for removing most of the fights in EVE.

People aren't going to increase the pace of Sov grinding to compensate for the removal of gates.

People aren't going to cloaky camp more to compensate for the removal of gates, and removing gates wouldn't significantly increase the chances of catching ratters via roaming.

People aren't going to increase the number of arranged fights they arrange to compensate for the removal of gates.


FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
I hate gatecamps. It's a bunch of guys standing around a door waiting to hit anyone who walks through it. If they get even a hint that there might be enough guys coming through to give them a good fight, they disappear. I honestly don't understand how people think it's fun.


That's not what this guy's talking about though. He's talking about removing all PvP that happens on gates (which would include most of the fights I've been in on roams).

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#70 - 2013-01-22 04:58:44 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
People aren't going to increase the pace of Sov grinding to compensate for the removal of gates.

We need to sov grind more?

Call Boat, this is an emergency ~~

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#71 - 2013-01-22 07:15:45 UTC
I for one would give anything to start and end a small gang fight, in warp, between gates.

The actual ability for a group of smaller ships to intercept and destroy bigger, slower ships in warp.... or get their ass handed to them if they catchup to a force they can't handle.

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!