Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Ensign X
24
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 01:28:00 -
[511] - Quote
Mors Sanctitatis wrote:Traffic won't increase. Pirates will (as always) adapt to the new limitations, however that may be (super fast/cheap tacklers with vast amounts of sniper support?). Traffic still won't increase. The issue here is the gates, and the poor game design that they represent.
I disagree that traffic won't increase. I've played with a lot of noobs and chat with them on a daily basis and the most cited deterrent for them avoiding lowsec are the gate camps. They believe, either because of what they've been told or what they've fallen victim themselves, that the prevalence of gate camps in lowsec means that solo travel is essentially nullified or becomes very limited in where and how you can travel.
I do agree that Ineffectual sentry guns and their poor design is the issue, however I believe the design is outdated as well rather than just straight up poor. I don't believe sentry guns were designed with the intent of ships being able to permanently tank them. Battleship level EHP obsoletes sentry guns when used by pirates who park on gates and roll their face across their keyboard anytime they see a gate flash. A mechanic as suggested that would force people to consider sentry gun damage into their strategy or force them off-grid on occasion is good, solid design.
If you stop making it so easy for pirates to farm every noob who dares leave highsec I have no doubt that lowsec traffic will increase. |
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
290
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 01:31:00 -
[512] - Quote
Ensign X wrote:Mors Sanctitatis wrote:Traffic won't increase. Pirates will (as always) adapt to the new limitations, however that may be (super fast/cheap tacklers with vast amounts of sniper support?). Traffic still won't increase. The issue here is the gates, and the poor game design that they represent. I disagree that traffic won't increase. I've played with a lot of noobs and chat with them on a daily basis and the most cited deterrent for them avoiding lowsec are the gate camps. They believe, either because of what they've been told or what they've fallen victim themselves, that the prevalence of gate camps in lowsec means that solo travel is essentially nullified or becomes very limited in where and how you can travel. I do agree that Ineffectual sentry guns and their poor design is the issue, however I believe the design is outdated as well rather than just straight up poor. I don't believe sentry guns were designed with the intent of ships being able to permanently tank them. Battleship level EHP obsoletes sentry guns when used by pirates who park on gates and roll their face across their keyboard anytime they see a gate flash. A mechanic as suggested that would force people to consider sentry gun damage into their strategy or force them off-grid on occasion is good, solid design. If you stop making it so easy for pirates to farm every noob who dares leave highsec I have no doubt that lowsec traffic will increase.
Sebo inties will catch everything, the second they no longer insta die to gate guns. Fewer ships are making it past camps. |
Ensign X
24
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 01:32:00 -
[513] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Ensign X wrote:Beekeeper Bob wrote:Have you ever been to 0.0? In the last few years? ... Do your reseach before making a blanket statement. You mean how you did research before asking if I've been to Nullsec in the last few years? Killboards are hard, amirite? So you're basing your argument off killboards? It's worse than I thought. Oh and this idea will not increase traffic, in fact more will die due to this change. Why? Well why would we even consider ransoming after this change? It would be pointless, so everything would die.
Mag's, I'm not basing anything off of killboards. I was responding to a random troll - bad idea, I know.
Whether or not this particular change would increase traffic, it's good that people are at least discussing ways of doing it. I love lowsec, it's where I spend the majority of my time, and despite it probably not being in my best interest, I believe Lowsec could definitely benefit from increased traffic. |
Lock out
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
247
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 01:33:00 -
[514] - Quote
Posting to confirm that me gatecamping in a carrier is killing all noob traffic in lowsec.
Also I fully agree that something needs to be done to discourage all that fighting in lowsec, ppl are to eager to engage atm. Gateguns melting all off them should do the trick. |
Ensign X
24
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 01:34:00 -
[515] - Quote
sYnc Vir wrote:Ensign X wrote: I disagree that traffic won't increase. I've played with a lot of noobs and chat with them on a daily basis and the most cited deterrent for them avoiding lowsec are the gate camps. They believe, either because of what they've been told or what they've fallen victim themselves, that the prevalence of gate camps in lowsec means that solo travel is essentially nullified or becomes very limited in where and how you can travel.
I do agree that Ineffectual sentry guns and their poor design is the issue, however I believe the design is outdated as well rather than just straight up poor. I don't believe sentry guns were designed with the intent of ships being able to permanently tank them. Battleship level EHP obsoletes sentry guns when used by pirates who park on gates and roll their face across their keyboard anytime they see a gate flash. A mechanic as suggested that would force people to consider sentry gun damage into their strategy or force them off-grid on occasion is good, solid design.
If you stop making it so easy for pirates to farm every noob who dares leave highsec I have no doubt that lowsec traffic will increase.
Sebo inties will catch everything, the second they no longer insta die to gate guns. Fewer ships are making it past camps.
I don't disagree with you. I'm also not agreeing with the design concept as laid out by CCP. What I'm saying, if you take a minute to comprehend what I wrote, is that one way or another Lowsec needs some lovin' and an injection of pilots. Gate guns are the biggest culprit preventing that from happening. |
Ensign X
24
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 01:35:00 -
[516] - Quote
Lock out wrote:Posting to confirm that me gatecamping in a carrier is killing all noob traffic in lowsec.
Also I fully agree that something needs to be done to discourage all that fighting in lowsec, ppl are to eager to engage atm. Gateguns melting all off them should do the trick.
Reading is hard. Comprehension is harder. Move along. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
9048
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 01:36:00 -
[517] - Quote
Ensign X wrote:Mag's, I'm not basing anything off of killboards. I was responding to a random troll - bad idea, I know.
Whether or not this particular change would increase traffic, it's good that people are at least discussing ways of doing it. I love lowsec, it's where I spend the majority of my time, and despite it probably not being in my best interest, I believe Lowsec could definitely benefit from increased traffic. But this is what we are trying to explain, it will not increase traffic. All it will do is make us adapt and simply pounce camp. But instead of ransoming where we see expense, we will simply kill everything. who's going to stick around for ransoming, with high DPS gate guns?
This means more will die, so traffic will either remain the same, or get worse. It will not improve.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Lock out
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
247
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 01:37:00 -
[518] - Quote
Ensign X wrote:Lock out wrote:Posting to confirm that me gatecamping in a carrier is killing all noob traffic in lowsec.
Also I fully agree that something needs to be done to discourage all that fighting in lowsec, ppl are to eager to engage atm. Gateguns melting all off them should do the trick. Reading is hard. Comprehension is harder. Move along.
Posting half the posts on the page is hard too. |
Andrest Disch
Doctrine. FEARLESS.
28
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 01:39:00 -
[519] - Quote
You know what brought people to lowsec? Incursions. Because they gave rewards proportional to the risks.
Why would someone want to live in lowsec if both the PvP and the rewards are ****?
Camps in this discussion are a total red herring. |
Ensign X
24
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 01:42:00 -
[520] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Ensign X wrote:Mag's, I'm not basing anything off of killboards. I was responding to a random troll - bad idea, I know.
Whether or not this particular change would increase traffic, it's good that people are at least discussing ways of doing it. I love lowsec, it's where I spend the majority of my time, and despite it probably not being in my best interest, I believe Lowsec could definitely benefit from increased traffic. But this is what we are trying to explain, it will not increase traffic. All it will do is make us adapt and simply pounce camp. But instead of ransoming where we see expense, we will simply kill everything. who's going to stick around for ransoming, with high DPS gate guns? This means more will die, so traffic will either remain the same, or get worse. It will not improve.
I think you underestimate the mindset of the average noob. Specifically when it comes to smart bombing battleships. I talk to them every day and try to discourage that mindset. I'm well aware of the psychological effect that places like Rancer have on the amount of travel people make into Lowsec. I also think you're exaggerating the prevalence of ransoming as most people I know would never trust a pirate to a ransom for very good reason. |
|
Ensign X
24
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 01:45:00 -
[521] - Quote
Lock out wrote:Posting half the posts on the page is hard too.
Working on it, almost there.
I feel I have a somewhat unique opinion on this compared to the random drivel found in the thread. I spend a lot of time in-game mentoring and talking with new players. I feel I have a pretty solid grasp of what it is that prevents them, for the most part, from entering Lowsec. I make a point of encouraging them that Lowsec isn't nearly the lawless void that the average carebear claims it is.
|
Adalynne Rohks
Tax Evasion Anonymous
159
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 01:48:00 -
[522] - Quote
Templar Nato wrote:A lot of the posters in this thread seem to have limited experience with gate guns. I'd like to see if they have the same opinion after taking their favorite battlecruiser out solo and engaging someone on a gate and seeing what happens to them. Yeah, you lose ... The gate guns are already a massive bonus for the player being aggressed (as they should be). I can't count the number of times I've run into people on gates who sit there picking their nose staring at me and refusing to shoot because they not only want to outnumber me, but want me to take gate guns as well.
Maybe working out a way for small, relatively even matched encounters to take place at gates would be good. But the reason for the change isn't because of 1 BC trying to shoot another BC. You playing stupid?
Templar Nato wrote:As mentioned previously, 90% of PvP in low sec takes place on stations and gates as they are natural bottlenecks. the suggestions that we all meet at planet 1 to shoot each other are as absurd as they sound.
So you're saying that they're natural bottlenecks...? As in, they funnel any potential enemies toward you? So all you have to do is sit there and wait as long as you like for your unaware victims? Sounds about right.
Templar Nato wrote:Perhaps the changes would bring more risk adverse people into Low sec, however, what's the point? We can't shoot them on the gates and we can't shoot them on stations, meaning we'd have to probe people down doing whatever it is they're in low sec for ... certainly not the fleet-based roaming PvP I currently enjoy.
The bolded..... god forbid.... Why should you have to move anywhere? Why on earth would somebody try to set up an ambush at a asteroid belt, or at a archaeology site.......?
Templar Nato wrote:Asking for a game mechanic to act as a crutch is pretty sad.
I love irony. Yeah. I mean, why people have to have a gate act as a funnel that brings all the enemies to them, instead of actually having to seek and destroy targets? It's pretty pathetic that people couldn't function without that crutch.
I'm sure the idea by itself isn't perfect, but it seems like it would absolutely be a step in the right direction. If more people occupy lowsec, even occasionally, there would be more targets, more pvp, but at least both sides of the engagement would be able to adequately prepare themselves.
Or you could just keep ganking newbies at gates, I guess... |
Ludi Burek
The Player Haters Corp
131
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 02:07:00 -
[523] - Quote
I wish people would stop talking about inties tackling on gates and people sniping from outside sentry range because that's just giving clues to the geniuses that sentry range needs to be infinite and start with epic dps
Also confirming that people's ability to herpa derp in their unprepaired ships into Amamake from Osoggur takes precedence over any other style of gameplay. |
Red Teufel
Blackened Skies The Unthinkables
66
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 02:42:00 -
[524] - Quote
nothing is going to stop me from harvesting poor little ships and pods in lowsec. sorry to say gents you wont be safe even with the changes. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1238
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 02:52:00 -
[525] - Quote
Ludi Burek wrote:I wish people would stop talking about inties tackling on gates and people sniping from outside sentry range because that's just giving clues to the geniuses that sentry range needs to be infinite and start with epic dps Also confirming that people's ability to herpa derp in their unprepaired ships into Amamake from Osoggur takes precedence over any other style of gameplay. Maybe it should be infinite ...
Or perhaps they can warp next to you, scram and then web you. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Ludi Burek
The Player Haters Corp
132
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 03:00:00 -
[526] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote: Or perhaps they can warp next to you, scram and then web you.
Now I am mad that I didn't think of this brilliant proposal!
Maybe we could also bridge them? |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2726
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 03:29:00 -
[527] - Quote
Ensign X wrote: I disagree that traffic won't increase. I've played with a lot of noobs and chat with them on a daily basis and the most cited deterrent for them avoiding lowsec are the gate camps. They believe, either because of what they've been told or what they've fallen victim themselves, that the prevalence of gate camps in lowsec means that solo travel is essentially nullified or becomes very limited in where and how you can travel.
I do agree that Ineffectual sentry guns and their poor design is the issue, however I believe the design is outdated as well rather than just straight up poor. I don't believe sentry guns were designed with the intent of ships being able to permanently tank them. Battleship level EHP obsoletes sentry guns when used by pirates who park on gates and roll their face across their keyboard anytime they see a gate flash. A mechanic as suggested that would force people to consider sentry gun damage into their strategy or force them off-grid on occasion is good, solid design.
If you stop making it so easy for pirates to farm every noob who dares leave highsec I have no doubt that lowsec traffic will increase.
I'd much rather teach the noobs about how to get around lowsec safely than make the game easier just because they're too afraid to come out here. Eve is a tough game, where we hold players responsible for learning not only the rules, but also the pilot tricks and techniques they need to survive. Often times, those lessons are learned through a good hard podding, and that's good stuff.
This idea that solo travel is nullified is utter hogwash. Sorry, but it's true. I've lived in and around Amamake, arguably the most dangerous system in EVE, and I not only travel solo, I haul valuable materials, move fitted ships for war, and even pod from place to place. This is made possible using my two favorite ships (Prowler and Mastodon, now with even more beautiful artwork than ever) and some common sense bookmarks and scanning techniques - not to mention cloaks, interceptors, and yes, even warp core stabilizers. Don't let ANYONE ever make you feel guilty for fitting these, folks - if you're actually just looking to travel. (You PvP-ers that fit them are bunch of cowards. Grow up and fit something that will let you kill more ships). I'd also like to add that I *rarely* ever use scouts anymore, I'm just far too lazy. I do most of my movement with one account. Low sec is incredibly safe if you know what you're doing, even in pirate-infested territory and Faction Warfare strongholds.
My point is, I've always felt the gate guns need to be LESS restrictive in many ways. What excited me about the summit proposal was the enabling of more frigate use on gates, not the OMGDEATHOFALLPVP potential many here fear. I was more excited just to hear that they were still serious about examining sentry fire, and I knew full well I'd have my work cut out after the summit, first in talking with you all here about Greyscale's proposal, and seeing if we can come up with something much better to propose to CCP instead. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2726
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 03:37:00 -
[528] - Quote
Templar Nato wrote: Perhaps the changes would bring more risk adverse people into Low sec, however, what's the point? We can't shoot them on the gates and we can't shoot them on stations, meaning we'd have to probe people down doing whatever it is they're in low sec for ... certainly not the fleet-based roaming PvP I currently enjoy. I also don't understand what's up with these seemingly hundreds of gate camps in low sec people are talking about. I can think of maybe 4 systems that are regularly camped with any sizable force. If you don't like that, use your intelligence and the ships you're already provided in Eve to either find an alternate route, or break through the camp. Asking for a game mechanic to act as a crutch is pretty sad.
Exactly. What people don't realize is that until CCP does something radically different to make low sec space valuable, our major resource that entices players to live out here is the PvP itself.
I'm all for bringing more industrialists and such into lowsec, but not by making it more cuddly. I think things like increasing industry speed in upgraded Faction Warfare systems makes fare more sense. Those that are looking to maximize profits WILL figure out a way to survive out here if there's money to be made, regardless of the danger that lurks about. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Tiberius Sunstealer
Phantom Soulreavers Axiom Solaris
124
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 04:08:00 -
[529] - Quote
I would like to say that sentries are currently working as intended but I don't know as they eliminate entire ship classes because they are instapopped or popped after a few seconds but these changes are not the fix that is needed for this issue. What is the point of triage carriers when 30 seconds to the end of your triage cycle you are popped from sentry guns? There isn't and we have the frigate problem only reversed.
I think that CCP (at this point in time) should be fixing lowsec as a whole by adding more reasons for people to go there except for casual PvPers then focusing on problems like sentry guns and undock games. |
Ensign X
24
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 04:08:00 -
[530] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:[I've always felt the gate guns need to be LESS restrictive in many ways. What excited me about the summit proposal was the enabling of more frigate use on gates
You would propose that the bar be raised for people wishing to travel or operate in lowsec? Less restrictive gate guns and more frigate use on gates would destroy the ability for anything without a cloak or a full rack of warp core stabilizers to operate in Lowsec.
|
|
Ris Dnalor
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
407
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 04:15:00 -
[531] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Ensign X wrote: I disagree that traffic won't increase. I've played with a lot of noobs and chat with them on a daily basis and the most cited deterrent for them avoiding lowsec are the gate camps. They believe, either because of what they've been told or what they've fallen victim themselves, that the prevalence of gate camps in lowsec means that solo travel is essentially nullified or becomes very limited in where and how you can travel.
I do agree that Ineffectual sentry guns and their poor design is the issue, however I believe the design is outdated as well rather than just straight up poor. I don't believe sentry guns were designed with the intent of ships being able to permanently tank them. Battleship level EHP obsoletes sentry guns when used by pirates who park on gates and roll their face across their keyboard anytime they see a gate flash. A mechanic as suggested that would force people to consider sentry gun damage into their strategy or force them off-grid on occasion is good, solid design.
If you stop making it so easy for pirates to farm every noob who dares leave highsec I have no doubt that lowsec traffic will increase.
I'd much rather teach the noobs about how to get around lowsec safely than make the game easier just because they're too afraid to come out here. Eve is a tough game, where we hold players responsible for learning not only the rules, but also the pilot tricks and techniques they need to survive. Often times, those lessons are learned through a good hard podding, and that's good stuff. This idea that solo travel is nullified is utter hogwash. Sorry, but it's true. I've lived in and around Amamake, arguably the most dangerous system in EVE, and I not only travel solo, I haul valuable materials, move fitted ships for war, and even pod from place to place. This is made possible using my two favorite ships (Prowler and Mastodon, now with even more beautiful artwork than ever) and some common sense bookmarks and scanning techniques - not to mention cloaks, interceptors, and yes, even warp core stabilizers. Don't let ANYONE ever make you feel guilty for fitting these, folks - if you're actually just looking to travel. (You PvP-ers that fit them are bunch of cowards. Grow up and fit something that will let you kill more ships). I'd also like to add that I *rarely* ever use scouts anymore, I'm just far too lazy. I do most of my movement with one account. Low sec is incredibly safe if you know what you're doing, even in pirate-infested territory and Faction Warfare strongholds. My point is, I've always felt the gate guns need to be LESS restrictive in many ways. What excited me about the summit proposal was the enabling of more frigate use on gates, not the OMGDEATHOFALLPVP potential many here fear. I was more excited just to hear that they were still serious about examining sentry fire, and I knew full well I'd have my work cut out after the summit, first in talking with you all here about Greyscale's proposal, and seeing if we can come up with something much better to propose to CCP instead.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961
EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody
- Qolde |
Ris Dnalor
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
407
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 04:19:00 -
[532] - Quote
Ensign X wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:[I've always felt the gate guns need to be LESS restrictive in many ways. What excited me about the summit proposal was the enabling of more frigate use on gates You would propose that the bar be raised for people wishing to travel or operate in lowsec? Less restrictive gate guns and more frigate use on gates would destroy the ability for anything without a cloak or a full rack of warp core stabilizers to operate in Lowsec.
live in lowsec for awhile. Then you'll laugh at your own post. Unless of course your description of "operate" means to go for months without ever dying. Dying is a part of living in lowsec. That's not a problem, that's a good thing.
Now, there should be better rewards to help offset that risk, but that risk should never ever ever be taken away. and it should be more common, not less. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961
EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody
- Qolde |
Ensign X
24
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 04:34:00 -
[533] - Quote
Ris Dnalor wrote:live in lowsec for awhile. Then you'll laugh at your own post. Unless of course your description of "operate" means to go for months without ever dying. Dying is a part of living in lowsec. That's not a problem, that's a good thing.
Now, there should be better rewards to help offset that risk, but that risk should never ever ever be taken away. and it should be more common, not less.
I have lived in Lowsec for most of the past 9 months. I've run into and chatted on occasion to a number of your fellow R1FTAs. I appreciate what you and your kind do, but we have different viewpoints on the same subject based on separate experiences. It happens. In my sandbox, Lowsec exists for it's riches to be exploited by skilled pilots. In your sandbox, Lowsec exists to blow **** up. |
Y'nit Gidrine
Virtues Corporation Yulai Federation
15
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 04:56:00 -
[534] - Quote
Well, hopefully this change will bring in enough people to low sec to make it lively again. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8890
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 05:11:00 -
[535] - Quote
Ensign X wrote:In my sandbox, Lowsec exists for it's riches to be exploited by skilled pilots. In your sandbox, Lowsec exists to blow **** up. Your sandbox is very strangeGǪ there are no particular riches in lowsec to be exploited GÇö that's the whole problem. Solve that, and the rest will come on its own.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Ensign X
24
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 05:21:00 -
[536] - Quote
Tippia wrote:there are no particular riches in lowsec to be exploited
I beg to differ, but we can agree to disagree. I'm not saying Lowsec couldn't use some love, it sure as hell could, but there's plenty of reward already there for those who are willing to seek it out. |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
164
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 05:23:00 -
[537] - Quote
Ensign X wrote:I disagree that traffic won't increase. I've played with a lot of noobs and chat with them on a daily basis and the most cited deterrent for them avoiding lowsec are the gate camps. They believe, either because of what they've been told or what they've fallen victim themselves, that the prevalence of gate camps in lowsec means that solo travel is essentially nullified or becomes very limited in where and how you can travel.
I do agree that Ineffectual sentry guns and their poor design is the issue, however I believe the design is outdated as well rather than just straight up poor. I don't believe sentry guns were designed with the intent of ships being able to permanently tank them. Battleship level EHP obsoletes sentry guns when used by pirates who park on gates and roll their face across their keyboard anytime they see a gate flash. A mechanic as suggested that would force people to consider sentry gun damage into their strategy or force them off-grid on occasion is good, solid design.
If you stop making it so easy for pirates to farm every noob who dares leave highsec I have no doubt that lowsec traffic will increase.
see I might agree it's just most lowsec isn't camped. If most lowsec entrances were camped then hell yes sentries would need a fix but from what I've seen nearly every lowsec gate is empty. hell a bunch of 0.0 entry gates are empty too. the other weekend I jumped into m-oee8 and p3en-e and neither was camped. oh and did I mention I went through a whole bunch of lowsec to get there?
where are you talking to these noobs anyways? can you tell them to get their heads out of their asses and press f10? |
Nexus Day
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
19
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 05:56:00 -
[538] - Quote
Here is an idea, let's base this on economics. A sentry gun would be there to protect the gate and trade through it. No decent corporation would maintain a space station that wasn't profitable. So let's keep things the way they are with sentry guns and Concord but do the following.
Each station will have a "break even" for commerce. If the station doesn't maintain a certain level of trade it is closed. The gate will remain but all space traffic will be re-routed away from the "dead" system.
That or you could instead have Concord show up in force, essentially making the system hi-sec, to figure out why trade has stopped. Once trade is re-eastablished they would go on their merry way.
Whatever happens please stop referring to lol gankers/gate & station campers as PvPers. They are not looking for a fight, the "versus" part of the term. |
Y'nit Gidrine
Virtues Corporation Yulai Federation
15
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 06:12:00 -
[539] - Quote
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:Ensign X wrote:I disagree that traffic won't increase. I've played with a lot of noobs and chat with them on a daily basis and the most cited deterrent for them avoiding lowsec are the gate camps. They believe, either because of what they've been told or what they've fallen victim themselves, that the prevalence of gate camps in lowsec means that solo travel is essentially nullified or becomes very limited in where and how you can travel.
I do agree that Ineffectual sentry guns and their poor design is the issue, however I believe the design is outdated as well rather than just straight up poor. I don't believe sentry guns were designed with the intent of ships being able to permanently tank them. Battleship level EHP obsoletes sentry guns when used by pirates who park on gates and roll their face across their keyboard anytime they see a gate flash. A mechanic as suggested that would force people to consider sentry gun damage into their strategy or force them off-grid on occasion is good, solid design.
If you stop making it so easy for pirates to farm every noob who dares leave highsec I have no doubt that lowsec traffic will increase. see I might agree it's just most lowsec isn't camped. If most lowsec entrances were camped then hell yes sentries would need a fix but from what I've seen nearly every lowsec gate is empty. hell a bunch of 0.0 entry gates are empty too. the other weekend I jumped into m-oee8 and p3en-e and neither was camped. oh and did I mention I went through a whole bunch of lowsec to get there? where are you talking to these noobs anyways? can you tell them to get their heads out of their asses and press f10? TO be honest, the low-sec/0.0 border systems have ALWAYS been barren compared to the 0.0/high sec border systems. hence "Get the pod, get the pod!" |
Strider Hiryu
ICEBOX. Negative Ten.
19
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 06:39:00 -
[540] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Templar Nato wrote: Perhaps the changes would bring more risk adverse people into Low sec, however, what's the point? We can't shoot them on the gates and we can't shoot them on stations, meaning we'd have to probe people down doing whatever it is they're in low sec for ... certainly not the fleet-based roaming PvP I currently enjoy. I also don't understand what's up with these seemingly hundreds of gate camps in low sec people are talking about. I can think of maybe 4 systems that are regularly camped with any sizable force. If you don't like that, use your intelligence and the ships you're already provided in Eve to either find an alternate route, or break through the camp. Asking for a game mechanic to act as a crutch is pretty sad.
Exactly. What people don't realize is that until CCP does something radically different to make low sec space valuable, our major resource that entices players to live out here is the PvP itself. I'm all for bringing more industrialists and such into lowsec, but not by making it more cuddly. I think things like increasing industry speed in upgraded Faction Warfare systems makes fare more sense. Those that are looking to maximize profits WILL figure out a way to survive out here if there's money to be made, regardless of the danger that lurks about.
Faction warfare is not the answer. Why should FW get all the goodies and the pirate be left feeding off their scraps?
Ensign X wrote:I've played with a lot of noobs and chat with them on a daily basis and the most cited deterrent for them avoiding lowsec are the gate camps. They believe, either because of what they've been told or what they've fallen victim themselves, that the prevalence of gate camps in lowsec means that solo travel is essentially nullified or becomes very limited in where and how you can travel.
Key words: They believe |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |