These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Sentry guns pointless and stupid - buff them

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#141 - 2013-04-18 18:52:23 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Who said anything about low sec / high sec?

Doesn't matter where the Sentry guns are located, they all belong to Empire Factions and as such should be something that's feared, not easily ignored.

As it is right now, gate guns are just a bad joke. They constantly rotate through targets, have low DPs along with limited range.


There's plenty of hisec systems for you bears, please stop trying to get it expanded into lowsec.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Chandaris
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#142 - 2013-04-18 18:55:45 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Drones die horribly to sentries and you can't rely on them to do damage. You still want to use them for decloaking, and if you are willing to pay for exceptionally expensive ammo, then sure — go ahead and waste them. They're still not a camping weapon. .


omfg read your patch notes please.

sentry guns do not target drones any more and have not for quite some time now.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#143 - 2013-04-18 19:18:48 UTC
Chandaris wrote:
sentry guns do not target drones any more and have not for quite some time now.
…and the reason DMC has seen “plenty of small gate camps with drones deployed” is still not that they're any good for camping (quite the opposite) but because they have far better uses. The very recent change in Retribution does not change this.

You see, I don't particularly believe that he's been in lowsec ever any time recently, so it's all ancient history anyway.
Kali Omega
No Vacancies
No Vacancies.
#144 - 2013-04-18 19:24:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Kali Omega
Also...OP...This game is a



SANDBOX



Nuff said
Chandaris
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#145 - 2013-04-18 19:25:56 UTC
drones are perfectly fine for camping, esp sentry drones.

they suffer dps application issues much like missiles do, that doesn't make them 'bad for camping' it just makes them ****** alpha-strike weapons. if you don't bring webs and bump ships to a gatecamp, you fail at life and should biomass now!
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#146 - 2013-04-18 19:31:13 UTC  |  Edited by: DeMichael Crimson
Tippia wrote:
Chandaris wrote:
sentry guns do not target drones any more and have not for quite some time now.
…and the reason DMC has seen “plenty of small gate camps with drones deployed” is still not that they're any good for camping (quite the opposite) but because they have far better uses. The very recent change in Retribution does not change this.

You see, I don't particularly believe that he's been in lowsec ever any time recently, so it's all ancient history anyway.

Thanks for proving you know nothing.

By the way, when was the last time you logged into the game and actually played it, other than to do skill training?


DMC

'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#147 - 2013-04-18 19:38:25 UTC
Chandaris wrote:
drones are perfectly fine for camping, esp sentry drones.

they suffer dps application issues much like missiles do,
Eh, you mean “much like turrets do”, since that's the mechanic they use. And since you have to leave them behind should something go wrong (or if, say, you want to get away from the sentry fire in a hurry), and since the ships that can properly use sentires are rather horrid for camping, and since decloaking is a better use of the bandwidth… no, I'd still qualify them as “bad for camping”.

Ok, fine, I suppose you could set them to aid the fast-tackler, but then we're back to waste of bandwidth. P
Chandaris
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#148 - 2013-04-18 19:40:17 UTC
biomass now
Varesk
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#149 - 2013-04-18 19:53:17 UTC
Dear OP.


Get a scout and stop crying. Even if the sentry guns were buffed, you still would have died.
Beast of Revelations
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#150 - 2013-04-18 19:54:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Beast of Revelations
I love the endless reams of straw man arguments.

"Oh, so you think you should be 100% safe when you do blah."

"Oh, so you think sentry guns should give you a 100% risk-free pass into low sec."

"Oh, so you think sentry guns should fight all your battles for you."

"Oh, just another high-sec risk averse carebear who blah blah blah..."

"Blah blah blah."

Nobody ever suggested anything of the sort. What somebody suggested was that sentry guns actually, you know, do something. What's their purpose? To chase off light tier 1 frigates? Are light tier 1 noob pilots the people CCP is trying to instill fear into with these sentry guns?

What someone suggested was that there be an adjustment to the risk/reward for mindless easy mode low-sec gate camping. Despite all protests to the contrary ("Oh, but these low-sec gutter pirates DO take on a lot of risk!"), I fail to see any merit to the claims. In fact, the claims are laughable. These low-sec gutter urchins can sit at the gate all day long in a couple of cruisers. Something comes through that's a little too tough for them to handle? They can simply do nothing and let it pass. Or warp away - whatever. Yeah, some "risk" haha.

Suggesting a different balance to some aspect of the game isn't all this "OMFG @*%$# pusy carebears want the game changed to suit them so they have 100% no risk play BLAH BLAH!" This forum is full of balance suggestions all over the place. All you have to do is go to the Features and Ideas Discussion to see page after page of upcoming balance changes being discussed and implemented. Yet no one accuses any of them of wanting to change the game to suit their carebear selves. Why? Because those discussions are about things like battleship balance, or large energy turrets. In other words, they aren't discussing mechanics that affect the cheap no-risk playstyle of a minority of gutter-snipe griefer low-sec 'pirates.'

Now go right back to more of your straw man arguments, arguing stuff that no one has ever suggested or said.
Chandaris
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#151 - 2013-04-18 19:57:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Chandaris
Beast of Revelations wrote:
What's their purpose? To chase off light tier 1 frigates?


Yes.

- to make solo camping not terribly viable
- to make it so fast/agile ships stand a good chance of making it through most lowsec gatecamps without a scout (an instalocker w/ web buddy will still catch you)
Beast of Revelations
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#152 - 2013-04-18 19:58:14 UTC
Varesk wrote:
Even if the sentry guns were buffed, you still would have died.


Who cares? I never said anything about 'dying.' I have died before, I will die again. I don't want to be immune to dying. I think balance of sentry guns could be better.
Kali Omega
No Vacancies
No Vacancies.
#153 - 2013-04-18 19:58:43 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Chandaris wrote:
sentry guns do not target drones any more and have not for quite some time now.
…and the reason DMC has seen “plenty of small gate camps with drones deployed” is still not that they're any good for camping (quite the opposite) but because they have far better uses. The very recent change in Retribution does not change this.

You see, I don't particularly believe that he's been in lowsec ever any time recently, so it's all ancient history anyway.

Thanks for proving you know nothing.

By the way, when was the last time you logged into the game and actually played it, other than to do skill training?


DMC



Chand knows plenty...unlike you he reads the patch notes.
WTFAMILOOKINGAT
Horizon Research Group
#154 - 2013-04-18 20:01:15 UTC
What's "Balance"? Sounds to me like you say "balance" but you mean "me don't die"
Chandaris
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#155 - 2013-04-18 20:04:39 UTC
Kali Omega wrote:
Chand knows plenty...unlike you he reads the patch notes.


I think he was talking to Tippia, but I appreciate the sentiment Kali ;)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#156 - 2013-04-18 20:06:08 UTC
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Nobody ever suggested anything of the sort.
By suggesting that a shitfitted T1 hauler should be able to stand up against three T2 combat vessels, just because there are sentries about, you kind of are, you know…

Quote:
What somebody suggested was that sentry guns actually, you know, do something. What's their purpose? To chase off light tier 1 frigates?
There are no tier-1 frigates. And they do do something. They reduce the viability of a number of ships and tactics and slightly change the balance of power between aggressor and defender.

Quote:
What someone suggested was that there be an adjustment to the risk/reward for mindless easy mode low-sec gate camping.
…and what everyone else is pointing out is that this is lowsec — it's your job to make that adjustment. They're also pointing out that you haven't offered much in the way of an argument why sentries need to be changed.

Quote:
Yet no one accuses any of them of wanting to change the game to suit their carebear selves. Why?
Because they are not specific to any particular category of players or play styles. Sure, it might not affect traders that much, but then again, that just means that the traders don't care one whit about the balance of those, unlike you, who are asking for a change in balance between pirates and clumsy targets for no good reason.
Beast of Revelations
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#157 - 2013-04-18 20:17:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Beast of Revelations
Tippia wrote:
Beast of Revelations wrote:

What someone suggested was that there be an adjustment to the risk/reward for mindless easy mode low-sec gate camping.
…and what everyone else is pointing out is that this is lowsec — it's your job to make that adjustment.


You are confusing lowsec with nullsec.

Highsec: Not your job to make the adjustment (concord will do it).

Lowsec: Part your job to make the adjustment, and part "assisted."

Nullsec: Entirely your job to make the adjustment.

EDIT:

Quote:
By suggesting that a shitfitted T1 hauler should be able to stand up against three T2 combat vessels, just because there are sentries about, you kind of are, you know…


Thanks for more straw man arguments, claiming that I suggested stuff that I never suggested.

I never once said "shitfitted t1 hauler should be able to stand up against 3 cruisers." What I said was that these 3 cruisers should not be able to operate this way with impunity.

Now go ahead and offer up another straw man attack so we can repeat the process.
Kali Omega
No Vacancies
No Vacancies.
#158 - 2013-04-18 20:24:16 UTC
Chandaris wrote:
Kali Omega wrote:
Chand knows plenty...unlike you he reads the patch notes.


I think he was talking to Tippia, but I appreciate the sentiment Kali ;)


/me pounds on chest and gives chand a manly chest bump

We stick together bro
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#159 - 2013-04-18 20:26:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Beast of Revelations wrote:
You are confusing lowsec with nullsec.
No. The same holds true for both. The difference is that in null, you can actually build your own security backbone without any NPC interference.

Risk is still only provided by other players.

Quote:
Thanks for more straw man arguments, claiming that I suggested stuff that I never suggested.
…aside from you complaining that somehow, Bestower dying to three cruisers is wrong and that the sentries need to be adjusted to make it not happen.

Quote:
What I said was that these 3 cruisers should not be able to operate this way with impunity.
In other words, you're asking for a T1 hauler to be able to stand up against three T2 combat vessels with the aid of sentries. Otherwise, they'd still be doing it “with impunity,” now wouldn't they? Oh, and you've still not really explained why this should happen.

For the record, what you're asking for is already the case: three cruiser's can't operate with impunity. That's why they have to use a fairly specialised setup to do the work, and why they're easy to both evade and overcome.

The problem is still all you: wrong ship, wrong fit, wrong place, wrong tactic. That's a lot of wrong that needs to be corrected before you can even begin to start pointing fingers at something that is working as intended…
Kali Omega
No Vacancies
No Vacancies.
#160 - 2013-04-18 20:31:16 UTC
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Beast of Revelations wrote:

What someone suggested was that there be an adjustment to the risk/reward for mindless easy mode low-sec gate camping.
…and what everyone else is pointing out is that this is lowsec — it's your job to make that adjustment.


You are confusing lowsec with nullsec.

Highsec: Not your job to make the adjustment (concord will do it).

Lowsec: Part your job to make the adjustment, and part "assisted."

Nullsec: Entirely your job to make the adjustment.

EDIT:

Quote:
By suggesting that a shitfitted T1 hauler should be able to stand up against three T2 combat vessels, just because there are sentries about, you kind of are, you know…


Thanks for more straw man arguments, claiming that I suggested stuff that I never suggested.

I never once said "shitfitted t1 hauler should be able to stand up against 3 cruisers." What I said was that these 3 cruisers should not be able to operate this way with impunity.

Now go ahead and offer up another straw man attack so we can repeat the process.



Gates are there to help you not keep you 100% safe...(eve isn't safe)

People who shoot you on gate do not have "impunity" We have a agro and are not able to dock or jump though the gate.

Please try again with your silly "poor me" statements