Player Features and Ideas Discussion

loki gate camps say otherwise

See, in my mind making lowsec newbie friendly would entail removing the gate guns so that newbies in frigates can camp the gates.

As most PvP in low takes place on gates, I think it's ridiculous to ask to nerf that.. - Mag's


The ridiculously low amount of PvP in low happens at gates, because it's not allowed to happen elsewhere.
Not offering any solutions or suggestions here, just pointing out the barren wasteland that is lowsec. If that's what you like then that's what you like.

I'm not sure what meaning you are ascribing to this. Most PvP in low takes place on gates because the existing mechanics promote that particular paradigm, which makes the assertion little more than an obvious truism.

Why would that be a noteworthy piece of information in a discussion about a mechanics change to alter that paradigm?

What you just said literally reduces, in the abstract, to, "Things should not be changed because the way they are right now is the way they are right now," which further reduces to, "Just... just because, okay?"

Would it still be a ridiculous change if the increased accessibility of low-security space resulted in a quantity of off-gate-PvP that more than offset the reduction in on-gate-PvP??

Given that the amount of PvP that takes place in low sec is already very minimal, this is not an unlikely outcome. While it's difficult to conclude if that would or would not happen on speculation alone, to dismiss it out of hand simply on the basis that the way things are right now is the way they are right now is kind of silly.



If the problem isn't with low, then why does it remain the single least relevant block of space in the game? Understand that people have been making the argument you just posited for a long, looooong time now - that Low is fine, nothing needs to be changed with Low - it's just that those STUPID other people won't come here!




By definition, anything that improves the risk:reward ratio of low constitutes a buff. Your argument that a reduction of the "risk" side of the equation constitutes a nerf to low is an emotional one, not a rational one. It improves the ratio, but it does so at the cost of a type of gameplay that *you* prefer. This make sit a buff to low, and a nerf to your particular playstyle - don't conflate the two.

Sorry, trolling is all you'll get....

All you would do is encourage the pirates to drop caps on the gate to soak up gate gun damage.

CCP had a good idea when they talking about ramping up damage over time from the gate guns, to discourage long gate camps, and attempt to create a more dynamic environment.
However too much vocal pirate whining seems to have ended that idea...

Camping the gate is a cheap pirating tactic that does more damage then good to the games play-ability over all.

Camping the station is a cheap pirating tactic that does more damage then good to the games play-ability over all.

Killing ratters is a cheap pirating tactic that does more damage then good to the games play-ability over all.

Killing miners is a cheap pirating tactic that does more damage then good to the games play-ability over all.


Stop them all, CONCORD today ! Protection we can believe in.

I think, more than anything else, that it's just bad gameplay. It's bizarre to me that people will rabidly defend a system that promotes sitting in one place and waiting for protracted periods of time. It's like mining, but with less action.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_Q2vlBrwTSo/UBkmpWO6dCI/AAAAAAAAAck/MMGcO-x_sgg/s1600/Empty_Sandbox_Is_Empty.jpg

the lowsec sandbox ^

/signed

Gate camps are not fun from either perspective imo. It's also illogical that the large empires wouldn't at least protect the gates closer to their systems. Low sec shouldn't mean virtually no sec, a graduated reduction in gate gun effectiveness also matches the reduced reaction speed of concord in high sec.

I'm confident this would get a lot more noobs into low sec as the gate camps are the main problem. You can deal with people scanning you down by paying attention. You can't get your mission fit battleship through a gatecamp.

Lowsec is an important part of understanding the dynamics in Eve. Being able to run camps and evade pirates while in that space is something people need to learn. Its not really that hard, once a pilot has developed an understanding of lock-times and time to warp and tackling they are ready to get into low and develop their D-scan and intel skills. These are real skills that will allow a player to operate in lowsec. They can be practiced in highsec and then tried out and perfected in low. Once that is done the pilot may wish to move further into the game and try nullsec.

There is a skill progression in Eve that actually works well if you allow it to. If on the other hand you want to go right to "end content" in null then do that; but in skipping the lessons learned in low a pilot very much cripples himself as far as understanding the game and being able to engage with the game in its entirety.


This thought betrays a profound lack of understanding and consideration for the game as it was designed. The lessons that I learned in lowsec; how to travel unseen, how to make a little ISK go a long way, when to talk to people and when not to, how to really look for ISK rather than follow the herd, those skills are some of the most important that you can learn in Eve.

Most players don't go there because they don't want to play the game as designed, they want easy rewards or whatever. That's fine, but don't make the assumption that Low is not relevant. That is just a failure to understand certain aspects of the game on your part.