These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Low-sec Hopes and Changes

Author
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#481 - 2017-03-22 17:06:58 UTC
Scialt wrote:


3. Gah... I'd hate to be forced to escort trade runs. I can't imagine many who'd like that sort of job. It might end up happening if the change were made but it doesn't seem like a positive development... having to protective fleet-blob your freighters to scare away pirates.



Will be fun to defend a cargo ship from a suicide alpha strike like Tornados or brute force DPS like Talos. It's like High-Sec ganking except you collect insurance to reduce your cost.
Salvos Rhoska
#482 - 2017-03-22 17:08:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Scialt wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Scialt wrote:
Your idea would definitely present more targets to lowsec gatecampers. But does that really help lowsec residents overall? Does it draw more people to lowsec? I'm not so sure.


1) HS-NS material transport has no option than to travel through LS, unless they use WHs.
They MUST pass through LS.

2) Will it draw more people to LS? HELL YES.

3) Pirates/alt corps galore to get a piece of the cake.
NS entities galore to escort their shipments.
Mercs galore to offer their services.

4) LS PI/PvE Corps may suffer attrition, but tbh, nobody will bother them much, as the HS-NS transitioning ships are FAR more lucrative.



1. Not technically true. There are high-sec to null transitions (like Dital to Providence).

2. Why? I mean the people pirating are already there. Null and wormhole corps are already hot-dropping in null. It might focus the pirates on certain systems but I'm not sure why this would increase the number.

3. Gah... I'd hate to be forced to escort trade runs. I can't imagine many who'd like that sort of job. It might end up happening if the change were made but it doesn't seem like a positive development... having to protective fleet-blob your freighters to scare away pirates.

4. Gatecamps in my experience shoot everyone who's not allied. Don't think they'll let a missioning battleship pass and only gank freighters.

Again... the only group that this would seem to be a positive for is gatecampers. Everyone else... from low-sec indy/PI groups to low-sec missioners to FW participants who look for solo PvP instead of camping gates would all seem to not like this idea... because dealing with more gatecamps pretty much hurts all of their play styles.


1) Touche. So be it. This change doesnt affect that link at all though.

2) Primarily, it removes the overwhelming cap force of NS from LS. WH corps cant hotdrop through a WH. It will sure as hell increase pirate numbers in LS, cos they dont have to deal with cynos/caps, just sub-cap combat.

3) Why/how would you be "forced" to escort trade runs? Ofc you will demand payment for your service, or not do it.
You dont have to escort anyone. Blow them up instead, if you wish.

4) Gatecamps already do that. But post-change, they will also have to fight escort fleets with far more lucrative cargo seeking to clear the gate. I agree that it would be constant fights for gate control, but since its sub-caps, even a smaller LS Corp can bide its time to secure transit of its own materials, or clear the camp.

5) Lets be real, gatecamps are what LS is all about. The gates are conflict drivers (currently bypassed by cynos, or wiped out by cap drops).

6) I dont believe local pve will be all that impaired, and they can bide their time and make deals etc.
The HS-NS transiting enormous wealth is far more interesting.
Salvos Rhoska
#483 - 2017-03-22 17:26:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Scialt wrote:


3. Gah... I'd hate to be forced to escort trade runs. I can't imagine many who'd like that sort of job. It might end up happening if the change were made but it doesn't seem like a positive development... having to protective fleet-blob your freighters to scare away pirates.


Will be fun to defend a cargo ship from a suicide alpha strike like Tornados or brute force DPS like Talos. It's like High-Sec ganking except you collect insurance to reduce your cost.


Its not a suicide gank, cos no CONCORD death certainty.

Scout ahead and clear the gate before you bring the cargo ship in.

Glad to see you say it will be fun.
Scialt
Corporate Navy Police Force
Sleep Reapers
#484 - 2017-03-22 17:29:29 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Scialt wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Scialt wrote:
Your idea would definitely present more targets to lowsec gatecampers. But does that really help lowsec residents overall? Does it draw more people to lowsec? I'm not so sure.


1) HS-NS material transport has no option than to travel through LS, unless they use WHs.
They MUST pass through LS.

2) Will it draw more people to LS? HELL YES.

3) Pirates/alt corps galore to get a piece of the cake.
NS entities galore to escort their shipments.
Mercs galore to offer their services.

4) LS PI/PvE Corps may suffer attrition, but tbh, nobody will bother them much, as the HS-NS transitioning ships are FAR more lucrative.



1. Not technically true. There are high-sec to null transitions (like Dital to Providence).

2. Why? I mean the people pirating are already there. Null and wormhole corps are already hot-dropping in null. It might focus the pirates on certain systems but I'm not sure why this would increase the number.

3. Gah... I'd hate to be forced to escort trade runs. I can't imagine many who'd like that sort of job. It might end up happening if the change were made but it doesn't seem like a positive development... having to protective fleet-blob your freighters to scare away pirates.

4. Gatecamps in my experience shoot everyone who's not allied. Don't think they'll let a missioning battleship pass and only gank freighters.

Again... the only group that this would seem to be a positive for is gatecampers. Everyone else... from low-sec indy/PI groups to low-sec missioners to FW participants who look for solo PvP instead of camping gates would all seem to not like this idea... because dealing with more gatecamps pretty much hurts all of their play styles.


1) Touche. So be it. This change doesnt affect that link at all though.

2) Primarily, it removes the overwhelming cap force of NS from LS. WH corps cant hotdrop through a WH. It will sure as hell increase pirate numbers in LS, cos they dont have to deal with cynos/caps, just sub-cap combat.

3) Why/how would you be "forced" to escort trade runs? Ofc you will demand payment for your service, or not do it.

4) Gatecamps already do that. But post-change, they will also have to fight escort fleets with far more lucrative cargo seeking to clear the gate. I agree that it would be constant fights for gate control, but since its sub-caps, even a smaller LS Corp can bide its time to secure transit of its own materials.

5) Lets be real, gatecamps are what LS is all about. The gates are conflict drivers (currently bypassed by cynos, or wiped out by cap drops).

6) I dont believe local pve will be all that impaired, and they can bide their time and make deals etc.
The HS-NS transiting enormous wealth is far more interesting.


For me... lowsec is all about FW. Gatecamps are something that take away from that. What increasing the number of gatecamps does is make it more annoying for everyone who's not in the gatecamps. While in part that's null groups transporting goods (which is what you're shooting for) it's also... everyone else in lowsec. That's PVE players, indy groups, and FW players. Gatecamps are almost never target specific... they blow up the loan rifter or venture that they can catch just as much as they do a freighter. They make travelling more difficult for everyone.

I engage in PvP in FW... in plexes. It's small group or solo, which is what I prefer. Gatecamps for me are a hassle I have to work around (and I generally can). Making them more frequent is a disincentive for me to deal with lowsec as a player who currently spends about half his time there without engaging in trade runs or gatecamps.

It feels like the main impact of what you're suggesting is to change lowsec into a zone where the primary action is moving supplies and protecting them vs gatecampers pirating them. It would seriously put breaks on industrial/PVE/FW operations due to the larger number of gatecamps that would pop up (due to their being more targets). It might increase traffic through lowsec, but would lower the actual RESIDENCY. Small lowsec industrial corps would be better suited in Null as part of larger alliances who can provide escorts for freighters and better minerals for manufacture. FW (and those preying of FW plexers) might get more solo/small gang pvp in wormholes rather than in low sec due to gatecamps making moving around FW space more difficult. PVE types might have too much trouble getting through gatecamps in their mission fit ships and instead run lvl 4's in HS or anomalies in null.

Scialt
Corporate Navy Police Force
Sleep Reapers
#485 - 2017-03-22 17:33:40 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Scialt wrote:


3. Gah... I'd hate to be forced to escort trade runs. I can't imagine many who'd like that sort of job. It might end up happening if the change were made but it doesn't seem like a positive development... having to protective fleet-blob your freighters to scare away pirates.



Will be fun to defend a cargo ship from a suicide alpha strike like Tornados or brute force DPS like Talos. It's like High-Sec ganking except you collect insurance to reduce your cost.



I don't think that's how it will work for most larger null-sec entities. Rather I imagine they'd conscript blob fleets to escort a large number of freighters from null to high. 200+ ship fleets scaring away the gatecampers as opposed to actually generating much in the way of combat.

When combat happened I imagine it would be another null-sec entity learning of the plans and bringing their own blob.

You have to remember the biggest advantage that large alliances often have is numbers. It's silly to think they wouldn't use that when dealing with a change like this.
Salvos Rhoska
#486 - 2017-03-22 17:52:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Scialt wrote:
Gatecamps are almost never target specific... they blow up the loan rifter or venture that they can catch just as much as they do a freighter. They make travelling more difficult for everyone.


This already happens. My change, does not change that.

Scialt wrote:
It feels like the main impact of what you're suggesting is to change lowsec into a zone where the primary action is moving supplies and protecting them vs gatecampers pirating them.


This too, is already what LS largely is. Except cynos enable JFs and other cargo vessels to bypass gates, and caps/cynos allow dropping overwhelming force ontop of any attempt to intercept it.

Scialt wrote:
It would seriously put breaks on industrial/PVE/FW operations due to the larger number of gatecamps that would pop up (due to their being more targets).


Lack of cynos/caps doesnt put a break on those. (as in two quotes above).
Gatecamps already exist. The number of gatecamps is irrelevant, since cynos jump past them as is now.

Scialt wrote:
It might increase traffic through lowsec, but would lower the actual RESIDENCY. Small lowsec industrial corps would be better suited in Null as part of larger alliances who can provide escorts for freighters and better minerals for manufacture. FW (and those preying of FW plexers) might get more solo/small gang pvp in wormholes rather than in low sec due to gatecamps making moving around FW space more difficult. PVE types might have too much trouble getting through gatecamps in their mission fit ships and instead run lvl 4's in HS or anomalies in null.


1) LS pirates will naturally become residents.

2) Small LS industry corps would frankly, already, be better off in NS alliances (and its arguable how muxh of LS is already essentially NS front corps)

3) FW and WHs are separate. If FW players want to raid a WH, they can still do so, as they can now. My change doesnt change that.

4) As above, gatecamps already "prevent" mission fit ships from moving in LS.
A PvE fit while traveling is always a bad idea, anywhere in EVE.
Maximillian Bonaparte
Interstellar Booty Hunters
#487 - 2017-03-22 18:03:30 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

LS players want a non-cyno, sub-cap zone to PvP in and intercept NS/HS material transport in.



Got stats or anything to support that opinion of yours?


The insane volume of material transport between HS and NS, passing/cynoing through LS with impunity (under a cap umbrella), is support enough.

Or do you really think LS doesnt want to pirate the hell out of that enormous bounty?



Hmmm...

I think as said before you will then have a huge amount of gate-camping to go after that stuff.

I don't mind a little bit of gate camping. Pirate

But for me and a lot of others it is the lazy man's PvP content...not quite as lively as going on the hunt.

Yeah I think there is already enough gate camping. :) Too much of it and you kill the content behind the camps.
Lan Wang
Princess Aiko Hold My Hand
Safety. Net
#488 - 2017-03-22 18:08:24 UTC
if ccp wanted to make transit of materials harder they would not have introduced citadel mechanics

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*

Salvos Rhoska
#489 - 2017-03-22 18:11:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:
Too much of it and you kill the content behind the camps.


There is so much HS-NS transit of material through LS, that its almost impossible to even put a dent in it

Believe me, the sheer volume of the above, is an an endless, unceasing source of content between both camps.

You wont believe how much content LS will have once HS-NS transit has to run through gates, without caps drops.

It will blow your mind.

You wont be able to have a gatecamp big enough to intercept it all, and at the same time you will have to fight off other gatecampers who want to take it from you.
Maximillian Bonaparte
Interstellar Booty Hunters
#490 - 2017-03-22 18:12:06 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Scialt wrote:


[quote=Scialt]It would seriously put breaks on industrial/PVE/FW operations due to the larger number of gatecamps that would pop up (due to their being more targets).


Lack of cynos/caps doesnt put a break on those. (as in two quotes above).
Gatecamps already exist. The number of gatecamps is irrelevant, since cynos jump past them as is now.

.



Oh yes it does.

You want to bring in materials to build a cap ship, best way is JF.

You want to get ships in for your lowsec PvP corp, best way is JF.

You want to mine and manufactures stuff from moon goo? Best way to get it out is with a JF.

You want to get market stuff out to nullsec, or get back to highsec from nullsec, you have to light a cyno in lowsec!

Why dont you spend some time really living most of your life in lowsec or even nullsec to get this understanding?

However, if you want to ban supercaps from lowsec, and possibly even capitals...that might make thigns rather interesting. :)
Veeery interesting indeed!
Price of marauders, battleships, and T3's would go up, bashing pos's would be harder, the major lowsec power blocks such as Shadow Cartel would have to move to nullsec or seriously rework all their doctrines and tactics to a point that they might collapse, and give an opening for many more pilots who dont fly capitals to thrive in lowsec. :)

Salvos Rhoska
#491 - 2017-03-22 18:19:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:
Snip


There are 3400 NS systems to use JFs inorder to bypass bubbles/gatecamps.
Use them there, where they belong.

JFs with cynos make a mockery of LS.

Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:
give an opening for many more pilots who dont fly capitals to thrive in lowsec. :)

Exactly. LS is all about gatecamps.
Cynos, and by extension, caps, are making a joke of small entities in LS.
JFs cyno past it all and laugh when entering HS security, or when entering NS support, in either direction.

Gatecamps can and should be cleared (and setup) with sub-caps without cynos in LS.

Gatecamps can, and should be, conflict drivers on HS-NS transit, and LS internal efforts.

The key to that is removing cynos/caps from LS.
FIGHT for the gate, whether at the HS or NS end, or internally with subcaps.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#492 - 2017-03-22 18:25:29 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:
Snip


There are 3400 NS systems to use JFs inorder to bypass bubbles/gatecamps.
Use them there, where they belong.

JFs with cynos make a mockery of LS.



I remember the days when convoys to move stuff were a thing - along with security for them through space. I was too new to be a part of it, but I have seen endless posts and descriptions about it. The effort a corp/alliance had to put in it, and the things that happened around it. It was on the level of being at war, and a corp could get its back broken on poor planning or poor security.

Of the many things that killed lowsec, JFs was one of them.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Maximillian Bonaparte
Interstellar Booty Hunters
#493 - 2017-03-22 18:27:21 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:
Snip


There are 3400 NS systems to use JFs inorder to bypass bubbles/gatecamps.
Use them there, where they belong.

JFs with cynos make a mockery of LS.



What is it that you DO in lowsec again? Are you a gatecamper? LOL

I really don't understand the motivation behind your argument other than simply to make an argument for its own sake.
Lan Wang
Princess Aiko Hold My Hand
Safety. Net
#494 - 2017-03-22 18:27:58 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:
Snip


There are 3400 NS systems to use JFs inorder to bypass bubbles/gatecamps.
Use them there, where they belong.

JFs with cynos make a mockery of LS.


what? so only jump freighters can be used in null also now?

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*

Maximillian Bonaparte
Interstellar Booty Hunters
#495 - 2017-03-22 18:29:52 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:
Snip


There are 3400 NS systems to use JFs inorder to bypass bubbles/gatecamps.
Use them there, where they belong.

JFs with cynos make a mockery of LS.



I remember the days when convoys to move stuff were a thing - along with security for them through space. I was too new to be a part of it, but I have seen endless posts and descriptions about it. The effort a corp/alliance had to put in it, and the things that happened around it. It was on the level of being at war, and a corp could get its back broken on poor planning or poor security.

Of the many things that killed lowsec, JFs was one of them.


Maybe but all I know is that today no one who lives in lwosec ever makes an argument against cyno's really.

An I like to use my JF to get stuff in. Otherwise I would NOT live in lowsec.
Orakkus
ImperiaI Federation
Goonswarm Federation
#496 - 2017-03-22 18:33:43 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:
Snip


There are 3400 NS systems to use JFs inorder to bypass bubbles/gatecamps.
Use them there, where they belong.

JFs with cynos make a mockery of LS.


No, there isn't. Yes, there are 3400 NS system.. NO the vast majority aren't viable for JF transport. Just because you can fly a capital through it doesn't make it viable for use. Flying a JF in and out of Null-sec isn't just a snap of your fingers and "poof" you are safely in null-sec or high-sec. It already take a few people and some planning to do it successfully.

In addition, in order to make Low-sec more viable it NEEDS cynos and caps. It needs to develop an industrial base, and you can't have that if you can't import and export materials and goods. And you can't have an industrial base without people, and you can't have people without some measure of safety and convenience. And once you have more people, then and only then do you get more content.

He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander

Salvos Rhoska
#497 - 2017-03-22 18:34:59 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Of the many things that killed lowsec, JFs was one of them.


Amen.
Lan Wang
Princess Aiko Hold My Hand
Safety. Net
#498 - 2017-03-22 18:36:27 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Of the many things that killed lowsec, JFs was one of them.


Amen.


answer my question, are proposin to ban jump freighters from lowsec?

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*

Salvos Rhoska
#499 - 2017-03-22 18:37:14 UTC
Lan Wang wrote:
what? so only jump freighters can be used in null also now?


No. You can use whatever you want in NS.
Its unrestricted space.
Salvos Rhoska
#500 - 2017-03-22 18:39:55 UTC
Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:
An I like to use my JF to get stuff in. Otherwise I would NOT live in lowsec.


Why not?
And where would you live instead?