Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
PieceOfMind
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.06.05 22:41:00 -
[1]
After a few trips into low sec (from 0.0), I have come to this simple realization.
Low sec sucks simply because of the limitations that gate guns impose on small ships.
Can't CCP remove gate guns altogether?
Because at the moment, they are a serious disadvantage for any kind of skirmish non consensual pvp. You can't engage with any ship smaller than a battlecruiser, and even then, you are put at a serious disadvantage which leads to things like falcon overuse and overly large gatecamps.
I just think it that 00 is already massively different from low sec simply because of sovereignty/bubbles/titans/bombs. Wouldn't removing gate guns give it the pvp boost it needs? |
Snasty
Caldari The Hippies House of Mercury
|
Posted - 2009.06.05 23:04:00 -
[2]
Seems reasonable.
--------------------------------------- -=Snasty, short for Shagnasty ever since the GM's in SWG made me change it...!=- |
Rhinanna
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.06.05 23:13:00 -
[3]
Better to apply a large scan resolution to them so the damage they cause is scaled by ship size?
|
Shigsy
Neo Spartans Laconian Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.06.05 23:16:00 -
[4]
Originally by: PieceOfMind After a few trips into low sec (from 0.0), I have come to this simple realization.
Low sec sucks simply because of the limitations that gate guns impose on small ships.
Can't CCP remove gate guns altogether?
Because at the moment, they are a serious disadvantage for any kind of skirmish non consensual pvp. You can't engage with any ship smaller than a battlecruiser, and even then, you are put at a serious disadvantage which leads to things like falcon overuse and overly large gatecamps.
I just think it that 00 is already massively different from low sec simply because of sovereignty/bubbles/titans/bombs. Wouldn't removing gate guns give it the pvp boost it needs?
Lowsec doesn't need a pvp buff it needs a carebear buff. |
Krystal Vernet
Minmatar Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.06.05 23:19:00 -
[5]
Lowsec doesn't need a pvp buff.
|
PieceOfMind
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.06.05 23:20:00 -
[6]
It needs both.
It's stupid that you can only lumber around in a battleship, hoping of catching something relatively large, which rarely happens. There isn't really skirmish fighting anymore, except the occasional noob mining in his thrasher @ top belt (if you call that fighting).
|
Shigsy
Neo Spartans Laconian Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.06.05 23:22:00 -
[7]
Originally by: PieceOfMind It needs both.
It's stupid that you can only lumber around in a battleship, hoping of catching something relatively large, which rarely happens. There isn't really skirmish fighting anymore, except the occasional noob mining in his thrasher @ top belt (if you call that fighting).
You don't need battleships. Learn2adapt.
|
Krystal Vernet
Minmatar Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.06.05 23:24:00 -
[8]
Originally by: PieceOfMind It needs both.
It's stupid that you can only lumber around in a battleship, hoping of catching something relatively large, which rarely happens. There isn't really skirmish fighting anymore, except the occasional noob mining in his thrasher @ top belt (if you call that fighting).
It sounds like you're not looking in the right places. While a good portion of lowsec fighting is like this, there's also plenty of fighting where there's not a single battleship in sight.
|
Zeba
Minmatar Honourable East India Trading Company
|
Posted - 2009.06.05 23:26:00 -
[9]
Plenty of Pvp to be had in low sec in the belts or mission and exploration sites you scan people out in. Don't even bother with gate fights unless you want to get blobbed or happen of course to have a handy counter blob with even moar blob on backup to counter the counter-counter blob.
|
PieceOfMind
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.06.05 23:27:00 -
[10]
I'm talking about giving an alternative to amamake belt skirmishes...
and the people who call for carebear buffs to low sec are the people that camp rancer with 30+ faction battleships and don't fight other gangs with 3 falcons + support.
|
|
Nomakai Delateriel
Amarr Ammatar Free Corps
|
Posted - 2009.06.05 23:28:00 -
[11]
In like my gategunned low-sec. I can't sit on gates with inties and the like, but neither can anyone else (accomodating both a tank and a sufficiently high scan resolution takes a very specialized fit). Thus it's fairly easy to conduct low-sec logistics/travel. Low-sec is still more dangerous than anything but highly active 0.0 NPC space as it's no-mans-land and there is a very real penalty for the people trying to police those areas (sec status hits. Not so bad for pirates that never go to high-sec, but quite limiting for the people that do). If the gateguns went then it would basically be impossible to live in low-sec and still retain a decent sec-status.
Anyway. Gatecamps in lowsec is usually between 4 and 8 ships, so not very different from 0.0 except that they don't have any bubbles. The only areas where you find larger camps than that in low-sec is areas where there are multiple corps competing against each other and there your reduced "dodging ability" isn't a consideration at all. It's merely a bonus. |
Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.06.05 23:55:00 -
[12]
Originally by: PieceOfMind Edited by: PieceOfMind on 05/06/2009 23:27:12 I'm talking about giving an alternative to amamake belt skirmishes...
and the people who call for carebear buffs to low sec are the people that camp rancer with 30+ faction battleships and don't fight other gangs without 3 falcons + support.
Aye, the Racner guys fancy them self pirates, but they are just km *****s blobbing one system. Us real pirates that roam about tryong to find a few good fights are finding less and less fights actually. Less fihgts thats not againt 10+ other ships that is. And with Falcon/Rook.
Sure gang PvP is fun as well, but I like small scal dog fights also :).
As for the gate guns, they are ok. Remove them and you get more blobbing, and thats no fun either. scan res rifters catch anything and holds it until dps ships locks = less intersting stuff and fun then it is now. |
Issler Dainze
Minmatar Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
|
Posted - 2009.06.06 00:50:00 -
[13]
Low sec gate guns need to be buffed. It was never intended that you could park there permenantly and tank the guns. But over time ships have improved and now you can. The guns should be good enough to not allow low sec gate camps.
Issler |
Ms Delerium
|
Posted - 2009.06.06 00:51:00 -
[14]
CCP should enable Arkonor in 0.3 and lower systems.
This way noobs would like to enter there in the Hulk and... BLASTED!!! |
Packs Merlau
Killer Carebears
|
Posted - 2009.06.06 03:47:00 -
[15]
I agree with the goon
:o
|
Myra2007
Shafrak Industries
|
Posted - 2009.06.06 04:22:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Issler Dainze It was never intended that you could park there permenantly and tank the guns. But over time ships have improved and now you can.
Thats a complete fabrication. But i assume you know that already. |
Mire Stoude
Cash Money Brothers
|
Posted - 2009.06.06 05:49:00 -
[17]
Low-sec would essentially be 0.0 without gate guns, but I see your point. I've often felt the same way. Some big juicy Iteron V flying unmolested through .2 space but I can't engage because my interceptor, AF, or whatever other small ship can't tank the gate guns.
Any fix for this really requires a whole rethink of high sec, low sec, and 0.0 in one really massive patch. Until then, I guess we have to just keep working around it.
|
Frug
Repo Industries
|
Posted - 2009.06.06 05:53:00 -
[18]
Removing gate guns is a stupid idea. Asking for them to be less effective against small ships is more reasonable. - - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Whisper/PrismX 4 emperor |
PieceOfMind
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.06.06 15:14:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Frug Removing gate guns is a stupid idea. Asking for them to be less effective against small ships is more reasonable.
You should probably just stop posting. |
ddred
|
Posted - 2009.06.06 17:56:00 -
[20]
NO. Problem doesn't exist, a frigate, destroyer or cruiser should not be able to camp stargates or stations. Use a bigger ship.
|
|
Jon Lucien
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2009.06.06 18:35:00 -
[21]
1) I agree that currently gate guns make it nigh-impossible to use small ships in skirmishes near stations and stargates. I certainly don't think it should be possible to perma-camp a gate or station with a fast-locking frig, but I also don't like that they really can't come to participate at all. Perhaps alternative effects to massive damage could be explored for station and gate defenses?
2) I don't like the current right-to-fire rules. Currently if I find another pilot anywhere in lowsec, he has the right to fire on me without accruing a GCC (because I'm blinky red). If I were to fire first, I would incure a GCC. This makes sense because I'm the pirate and he's not. However, I feel that if he chooses to fire at me, this should not only give right-to-fire to me (which is how it is now) but also to my corporation/alliance/gang (which does not currently happen). I feel that if someone chooses to fire on a pirate, he has accepted the idea of (incoming RP crap) becoming a bounty hunter. Because he has fired on me, this should allow my team-mates to fire on him w/o accruing a GCC (just like I can now). Obviously the caveat to this is that it can't occur if I fire first, else it would be impossible to fight back against pirates w/o allowing all their friends to kill you.
The reason I bring this up is not to target the current victims of pirates minding their own business. My gripe is the current disadvantage of fighting non-reds in range of the gate guns. Example: 4 of my friends and I are out and about in interceptors. I scan down a battleship in a belt, but he warps to station just as I land in the belt. Our gang warps to station, to find that he is sitting in docking range to see what we're flying. He sees that we're in interceptors, and opens fire on me. At this point several things are true. A) He has no GCC because I'm blinky red (and so are my friends). B) I can now fire on him w/o getting a GCC because he engaged me. C) My friends cannot help me fight him because right-to-fire is not shared in a gang, and they will promptly be fired at by the gate guns if they try to engage the battleship.
This is what I feel is wrong. If the battleship pilot decided to engage me as in the above example, he has weighed the risks and accepts himself to be trying to collect the bounty on my head. My gang (composed of my corp members) should be able to help me without getting a GCC and being shot by the sentry guns.
3) Putting 500k rats in lowsec on rare spawn chances has not had much positive effect on lowsec. That's not to say it has had a negative effect on lowsec, but I see more pirates popping the rats than anyone else. People aren't going to rat or mine in lowsec when they could instead be doing lvl 4's for much better money. With the current prevalence of lvl 4 agents in highsec, there's really very little reason to live in the majority of lowsec outside factional warfare and pirate wars. I believe more incentive needs to be given to live in lowsec that doesn't involve running missions. Dropping better ore in lowsec, putting better rats in lowsec, or putting more frequent exploration sites might help, although I won't claim to know a certain fix for this. |
Myra2007
Shafrak Industries
|
Posted - 2009.06.06 19:49:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Frug Removing gate guns is a stupid idea. Asking for them to be less effective against small ships is more reasonable.
The sentry guns exist for the specific purpose of keeping small, fast locking fry away. Travelling in lowsec would become much harder and thats probably not intended.
For a group of bigger ships the 350dps don't mean a whole lot. --
Originally by: Jasper Dark
I agree! Lets go back into caves and lick rocks!
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |