These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lan Wang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#721 - 2017-03-30 12:00:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Lan Wang
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
that cant be proved but you have been shown by myself and scripio that they do die, you havent provided anything to enforce your opinion so do that instead.

you havent answered the question, you have just repeated the affects of your change


1) Why cant you prove that the majority of JFs cyno dont pass LS without destruction?
Why then do you expect me to be able to prove its opposite?

2) Read. The occasional idiot/drunk fails JF transit through LS.
Nobody has claimed that ALL 100% of JFs make it through LS.
Where did you get that idea into your head?

3) NS utterly dwarfs LS geographically, in wealth, resources, population, organisation and cap pilots.
Do you dispute this?

4) Since you clearly announced yourself as a deliberate troll, is this just more of the same?

(inb4 someone "else" answers these instead of Lan.)


you heard it here first guys NS dwarfs LS in organisation...yes i dispute that.

your plucking straws salvos, you have been asked to prove something which you cant then turn it on to someone else because you know its bulls*** "Its not even a fraction of total NS-HS transit past LS in JFs." you made the claim now prove it, because we have shown you they die yet your counter to is just words with no evidence. you dont know what fraction gets past so stop exaggerating your claims.

You dont have to be drunk to lose a freighter to a super who uncloaks and alphas you as you are aligning before having a chance to do anything.

salvos thinks everyone who doesnt agree with his stupid idea is an alt....ok mate

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
#722 - 2017-03-30 12:04:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Lan Wang wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


1) Why cant you prove that the majority of JFs cyno dont pass LS without destruction?
Why then do you expect me to be able to prove its opposite?

2) Read. The occasional idiot/drunk fails JF transit through LS.
Nobody has claimed that ALL 100% of JFs make it through LS.
Where did you get that idea into your head?

3) NS utterly dwarfs LS geographically, in wealth, resources, population, organisation and cap pilots.
Do you dispute this?

4) Since you clearly announced yourself as a deliberate troll, is this just more of the same?

(inb4 someone "else" answers these instead of Lan.)

your plucking straws salvos


4 itemized, numbered, simple, concise questions.

Answer them.

PS: Enormous lol at arguing supers decloaking and alphaing IN LS, when my proposal REMOVES them from LS.
PPS: Think before you type. Use your brain. 4 simple questions. Surely you can manage that.
Lan Wang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#723 - 2017-03-30 12:23:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Lan Wang
no salvos you are implying that freighters lol-cyno in lowsec with impunity which is why you have this idea in the first place, yet you have be shown that they do not, start reading and understanding.

1) WE ALREADY HAVE!!!!

Lan Wang wrote:
you havent provided anything to enforce your opinion so do that instead.

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*

Artemis Ellery Sazas
Shock and Awe Inc.
#724 - 2017-03-30 12:46:36 UTC
For Christ sake just lock this thread already! It has been reduced to nothing more than worthless bantering and trolling. There have been some very good suggestions made earlier in this thread as to how to improve low sec, which imo is very much needed.

If CCP wants to continue this discussion and generate a consensus about improving low sec, a much neglected area of the game, perhaps they should send out a survey much like the recent structure survey. The combined ideas in this thread and results from a survey should set a clear direction of players wants and needs for low sec.
Salvos Rhoska
#725 - 2017-03-30 12:47:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Lan Wang wrote:
Snip

So you cant, or wont, answer 4 simple questions.

Ive been patient and answered your questions, given you leeway and many opportunities.
You either refuse to, or are incapable of, grasping what is being said and discussed.

There is clearly no point in further discussion with you, especially since you already openly claimed you are trolling.

You are dishonest and nonreciprocating.

You are now blocked.
Salvos Rhoska
#726 - 2017-03-30 12:50:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Artemis Ellery Sazas wrote:
Snip


They can do both.

There is no reason to lock this thread (at best, prune it), and they can send a survey or start an official thread whenever they want.

In the meantime we can here keep chipping away at the issues to get to its heart.
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
#727 - 2017-03-30 13:38:36 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Scialt wrote:
Snip


Removing LS JF cynoing = more gate transit = more gate content.

What is the problem again?

Are you trying to argue that JFs lol-cynoing through LS is making current gate transit life easier somehow?
That is ridiculous.

LS JFs lol-cyno past gatecamps.
LS gate transit already has to deal with gatecamps.

You just dont want to put in the effort/precautions of gate transit, and prefer lol-cynoing past it all.

People wont move out of LS, more people will move in, both to facilitate logistics and to profit from the enormous wealth of over-flying JF material now brought down to gate transit.


But it drives people from low-sec.

Look... you seem to think low-sec is all about shipping stuff and attacking the ships that are moving goods. Maybe that's all it is for you... but there are permanent industrial, PVE and FW residents in low-sec who don't particularly care for having every gate camped.

Your idea creates more annoying logistics (for everyone in Null... but also everyone in LOW). It makes life in low-sec more annoying for everyone who's not interested in gate camps (which still exist but in small enough numbers that those living in low sec can deal with them).

You are boosting one type of content while killing all of the other types of content in low-sec. You're turning it from a place where some reside to a place that people only travel through (because residing there will be too annoying logistically with your changes).

I've never used a cyno. I don't fly capitals, I don't take part in large fleets with capitals and I don't have a jump freighter. I DO take part in FW quite a bit. I also travel back and forth between null and low-sec through gates.... not cynos.

Your suggestion will cause me to not take part in FW if it causes increased gatecamps like I think it will. I'm not against it because I like cynos. I'm against it because it screws up MY gameplay which has nothng to do with transportation of goods or cynos in any way.

I don't want to fight 10-20 man gate camp gangs every time I change systems in low sec. I'm looking for smaller engagement PvP in FW plexes. If I have to deal with constant gate camps... that's no longer possible.
Salvos Rhoska
#728 - 2017-03-30 13:50:01 UTC
Scialt wrote:
But it drives people from low-sec.


No, it drives people into LS, from everywhere.

We are talking about billions upon billions in daily value now accessible, whereas before they cyno or are protected by caps.

NS-HS transit has no other option, except WH chains or the few remote geographic direct gates between HS-NS.

LS will become a frothing subcap piranha pool of activity to hold gates either to secure transit, or intercept it.
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
#729 - 2017-03-30 13:53:14 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
that cant be proved but you have been shown by myself and scripio that they do die, you havent provided anything to enforce your opinion so do that instead.

you havent answered the question, you have just repeated the affects of your change


1) Why cant you prove that the majority of JFs cyno dont pass LS without destruction?
Why then do you expect me to be able to prove its opposite?

2) Read. The occasional idiot/drunk fails JF transit through LS.
Nobody has claimed that ALL 100% of JFs make it through LS.
Where did you get that idea into your head?

3) NS utterly dwarfs LS geographically, in wealth, resources, population, organisation and cap pilots.
Do you dispute this?

4) Since you clearly announced yourself as a deliberate troll, is this just more of the same?

(inb4 someone "else" answers these instead of Lan.)



1. This is a silly debate trick. You can't prove they pass low sec without destruction. The other guy can't prove that they don't pass. Unless you can provide information showing your view is correct, demanding the other party to do that is a juvenile way to behave.

2. So... you have been provided proof that some JF's do get destroyed. We have seen JF's make it through as well... so we know some make it. The question is what is a reasonable rate of destruction? And what number of JF's are destroyed compared to those that are produced? Until you get that data, you shouldn't use perceived percentages as part of your argument. You honestly don't know what the real numbers say either... so stop thinking your assumptions about what numbers might be MUST be correct if you're going to base your entire argument on them.

3. I don't think things are as fluid as labeling groups or players strictly as "null", "low" or "high". Geographically... yeah, there are more null systems. Wealth/resources... yes there is more available in null. Population? Well... on a per-system basis I'm not sure. There are fewer low-sec players but also fewer systems. I've seen crowded and empty parts of both. I think that's a push. Organization? Depends on where in null and where in low you're at. On average I think more low-sec players are in smaller corporations... but some of them operate in a very organized manner despite lower numbers than less organized larger null-sec entities who overcome a lack of organization with numbers. Cap pilots... sure, there are more in null.

I'm not sure why you think any of that is important.

4. Look... you ignore 99% of what people are telling you, quote with a "snip" and respond to one little thing to try to score points. That is more trollish behavior than much of what you're complaining about.


I just don't want you to cause low-sec to only be for transporting goods and having gate camps. I don't enjoy either of those things... while the small group PvP that low-sec presents that I DO enjoy will be hurt by your suggestion. Right now low-sec is the only place I can consistently get that type of gameplay. And you want to kill it because "cynos are bad".
Salvos Rhoska
#730 - 2017-03-30 13:55:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Scialt wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


(inb4 someone "else" answers these instead of Lan.)
Snip.

Saw that coming a mile away.
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
#731 - 2017-03-30 14:03:23 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Scialt wrote:
But it drives people from low-sec.


No, it drives people into LS, from everywhere.

We are talking about billions upon billions in daily value now accessible, whereas before they cyno or are protected by caps.

NS-HS transit has no other option, except WH chains or the few remote geographic direct gates between HS-NS.

LS will become a frothing subcap piranha pool of activity to hold gates either to secure transit, or intercept it.


It will drive me and everyone else searching for small group and solo PvP away.

It will drive low-sec industrial corps away.

It will drive low-sec PvE players (lvl 5 missions, anoms) away.

It will quite obviously drive those who are looking for content that does NOT involve gate camping away... because a huge increase in gate camps make it horrendous for EVERYONE to travel, not just those shipping goods.

Look... I don't CARE about cynos. They don't impact my daily play in any real way. I do care about not being able to take my solo pvp ships through low-sec because every freaking gate is camped because they want the "billions upon billions" being transported. Those gate camps will shoot me AND my targets as well as freighters.

I don't think increasing the number of gate camps will make low-sec better for the majority of players. Right now low-sec is pretty much the only place you can get consistent small-group combat (at least that I can find). I have a personal stake in this... not because of cynos but because the logical impact of your idea takes away a part of the game that I enjoy.
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
#732 - 2017-03-30 14:07:31 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Scialt wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


(inb4 someone "else" answers these instead of Lan.)
Snip.

Saw that coming a mile away.


So... by "snip" what you're really saying is: "I can't respond to the logic showing my idea isn't a good one... so I'll just cut their words and re-post the same thing and hope nobody notices."?

For someone who says they want discussion, you seem to not want to discuss the fairly obvious drawbacks that I and others have been repeatedly pointing out about your idea... mainly that it kills all low-sec content aside from gate camps, makes everyone else's game play more annoying aside from those who like running gate camps and will likely hurt the large null-sec alliances the least while hurting the smaller independent groups in low and null-sec the most.


You just say "SNIP. No, my idea is still awesome."
Salvos Rhoska
#733 - 2017-03-30 14:12:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Scialt wrote:


It will drive me and everyone else searching for small group and solo PvP away.

It will drive low-sec industrial corps away.

It will drive low-sec PvE players (lvl 5 missions, anoms) away.


Listen to yourself.

You think all that will happen, just by removing cynos from LS?

Explain how/why removing cynos from LS results in that?
Lan Wang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#734 - 2017-03-30 14:16:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Lan Wang
Scialt wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Scialt wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


(inb4 someone "else" answers these instead of Lan.)
Snip.

Saw that coming a mile away.


So... by "snip" what you're really saying is: "I can't respond to the logic showing my idea isn't a good one... so I'll just cut their words and re-post the same thing and hope nobody notices."?

For someone who says they want discussion, you seem to not want to discuss the fairly obvious drawbacks that I and others have been repeatedly pointing out about your idea... mainly that it kills all low-sec content aside from gate camps, makes everyone else's game play more annoying aside from those who like running gate camps and will likely hurt the large null-sec alliances the least while hurting the smaller independent groups in low and null-sec the most.


You just say "SNIP. No, my idea is still awesome."


i find it quite funny, he cant answer any questions so he responds with accusations of everyone being an alt...even though i answered his questions in the post he quoted asking me to answer, no point in repeating things if he lacks the brain power to read

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
#735 - 2017-03-30 14:18:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Scialt wrote:
You just say "SNIP. No, my idea is still awesome."

I can and will answer your reply (which was correct in format. I genuinely respect that. Albeit wrong in content).

The point was to show Lan for what he is.
You carried his burden admirably, but he didnt.
I promise you a reply as if those questions had been addressed to you, cos you answered them, but Im limited on time and have a 3 day bachelor party bender impending starting tomorrow. You will get it Sunday or Monday.
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
#736 - 2017-03-30 15:42:05 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Scialt wrote:


It will drive me and everyone else searching for small group and solo PvP away.

It will drive low-sec industrial corps away.

It will drive low-sec PvE players (lvl 5 missions, anoms) away.


Listen to yourself.

You think all that will happen, just by removing cynos from LS?

Explain how/why removing cynos from LS results in that?



1. Cynos and caps removed
2. Shipping traffic starts to come from null through LS gates
3. Gate camps multiply by a huge factor to get the freighters (all of this so far is what you've predicted)
4. The increased gatecamps don't just kill null freighters. They kill everything they can... LS PVE ships, LS industrials, Supply ships for FW and Pirate corps not associated with gatecamps. Everything.
5. This makes "regular" low-sec gameplay (the kind we have now) impossible. You can't go from system to system solo-ratting or searching for a small plex combat scenario when the gates are all camped.
6. The inability to do the things you currently can drives the players doing those things away. Perhaps wormholes for those looking for small group PvP, Null for the industrials and high sec for those doing PVE. The inability to travel 3 jumps without hitting a gate camp makes life in Null miserable for residents.

You stop at 3. I've explained this 5-6 times in this thread. You already accept that this will cause more gatecamping... but you aren't accepting what impact more gate camps have on everyone aside from Null-sec alliances (who I still think will be the LEAST impacted by the change as they have the ability to field large fleets and wipe out gate camps).

Your idea gives low-sec more larger-scale fleet interaction (as fleets of non-caps from large null-groups will be forced to clear shipping lanes). But we already have a good amount of that in null. It adds more gate-camps ganking small corp transports (for a while at least). But it kills PVE, small group PvP, FW and industrial residents in low. I don't see that exchange being worth it.
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
#737 - 2017-03-30 15:48:41 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Scialt wrote:
You just say "SNIP. No, my idea is still awesome."

I can and will answer your reply (which was correct in format. I genuinely respect that. Albeit wrong in content).

The point was to show Lan for what he is.
You carried his burden admirably, but he didnt.
I promise you a reply as if those questions had been addressed to you, cos you answered them, but Im limited on time and have a 3 day bachelor party bender impending starting tomorrow. You will get it Sunday or Monday.



He's essentially the same as me with less patience to explain what you're getting so wrong.

Essentially he expects you to "get it" without a detailed explanation and assumes you're intentionally trolling by not seeing what he tells you.

As a rule, I assume everyone on the internet is completely clueless about everything and explain it as if I were talking to a 10 year old. (note... this is not aimed at you specifically). That means I assume I'm going to have to say the same exact thing 30 times in many different ways before people reading comprehend the information.
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#738 - 2017-03-31 14:44:09 UTC
Scialt wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Scialt wrote:


It will drive me and everyone else searching for small group and solo PvP away.

It will drive low-sec industrial corps away.

It will drive low-sec PvE players (lvl 5 missions, anoms) away.


Listen to yourself.

You think all that will happen, just by removing cynos from LS?

Explain how/why removing cynos from LS results in that?



1. Cynos and caps removed
2. Shipping traffic starts to come from null through LS gates
3. Gate camps multiply by a huge factor to get the freighters (all of this so far is what you've predicted)
4. The increased gatecamps don't just kill null freighters. They kill everything they can... LS PVE ships, LS industrials, Supply ships for FW and Pirate corps not associated with gatecamps. Everything.
5. This makes "regular" low-sec gameplay (the kind we have now) impossible. You can't go from system to system solo-ratting or searching for a small plex combat scenario when the gates are all camped.
6. The inability to do the things you currently can drives the players doing those things away. Perhaps wormholes for those looking for small group PvP, Null for the industrials and high sec for those doing PVE. The inability to travel 3 jumps without hitting a gate camp makes life in Null miserable for residents.

You stop at 3. I've explained this 5-6 times in this thread. You already accept that this will cause more gatecamping... but you aren't accepting what impact more gate camps have on everyone aside from Null-sec alliances (who I still think will be the LEAST impacted by the change as they have the ability to field large fleets and wipe out gate camps).

Your idea gives low-sec more larger-scale fleet interaction (as fleets of non-caps from large null-groups will be forced to clear shipping lanes). But we already have a good amount of that in null. It adds more gate-camps ganking small corp transports (for a while at least). But it kills PVE, small group PvP, FW and industrial residents in low. I don't see that exchange being worth it.


NPC null also needs to be able to send its freighters back, which would be incredibly hard, given that for example syndicate geopolitical reality is that larger powers camp dominant junctions near syndicate exits and often extend their camps to the exits themselves (and they certainly will if JFs have to endpoint there) and that low powered entities have to live behind the desirable traffic control positions.

ie right now, numerous lowsec systems a CAS return freighter trip can go to (I've never looked closely), in this distopian dream, 3 practical exits, all nullsec, all controlled by more powerful entities, 2 of which have lowsec trips after them too.

Never mind that new CAS pilots don't join into casual combat days to form a blob for freighter escort purposes, especially not escorting goods they have no monetary interest in out of syndicate.
Orin Solette
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#739 - 2017-04-03 08:07:59 UTC
Scialt wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Scialt wrote:


It will drive me and everyone else searching for small group and solo PvP away.

It will drive low-sec industrial corps away.

It will drive low-sec PvE players (lvl 5 missions, anoms) away.


Listen to yourself.

You think all that will happen, just by removing cynos from LS?

Explain how/why removing cynos from LS results in that?



1. Cynos and caps removed
2. Shipping traffic starts to come from null through LS gates
3. Gate camps multiply by a huge factor to get the freighters (all of this so far is what you've predicted)
4. The increased gatecamps don't just kill null freighters. They kill everything they can... LS PVE ships, LS industrials, Supply ships for FW and Pirate corps not associated with gatecamps. Everything.
5. This makes "regular" low-sec gameplay (the kind we have now) impossible. You can't go from system to system solo-ratting or searching for a small plex combat scenario when the gates are all camped.
6. The inability to do the things you currently can drives the players doing those things away. Perhaps wormholes for those looking for small group PvP, Null for the industrials and high sec for those doing PVE. The inability to travel 3 jumps without hitting a gate camp makes life in Null miserable for residents.

You stop at 3. I've explained this 5-6 times in this thread. You already accept that this will cause more gatecamping... but you aren't accepting what impact more gate camps have on everyone aside from Null-sec alliances (who I still think will be the LEAST impacted by the change as they have the ability to field large fleets and wipe out gate camps).

Your idea gives low-sec more larger-scale fleet interaction (as fleets of non-caps from large null-groups will be forced to clear shipping lanes). But we already have a good amount of that in null. It adds more gate-camps ganking small corp transports (for a while at least). But it kills PVE, small group PvP, FW and industrial residents in low. I don't see that exchange being worth it.


This.

What would help traffic is actually making gate camps more difficult to do. Once you have safer travel in low sec, you will see more traffic in general, more people mining, more people doing low sec L4 missions, etc. It's one thing to lose your battleship because you ignored local and D-Scan. It's another to lose your battleship before you even get to use D-Scan.

I would never consider doing missions in low sec currently. Just getting my ship to a mission agent is too risky. But if transport were fairly safe, I would totally be fine with trying out low sec PVE. I would feel better about low sec PI and I don't mind but hell I'd do that too if I enjoyed mining. Unsafe gate travel is really the only blocker.
Salvos Rhoska
#740 - 2017-04-03 08:59:12 UTC
Orin Solett wrote:

What would help traffic is actually making gate camps more difficult to do. Once you have safer travel in low sec, you will see more traffic in general, more people mining, more people doing low sec L4 missions, etc. It's one thing to lose your battleship because you ignored local and D-Scan. It's another to lose your battleship before you even get to use D-Scan.

I would never consider doing missions in low sec currently. Just getting my ship to a mission agent is too risky. But if transport were fairly safe, I would totally be fine with trying out low sec PVE. I would feel better about low sec PI and I don't mind but hell I'd do that too if I enjoyed mining. Unsafe gate travel is really the only blocker.


Hmm.

So how would that be implemented?
Gategun buffs?