Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
296
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 14:23:00 -
[1] - Quote
Quote:Gùª Sentry guns will only respond to anyone who incurs a security status penalty in their vicinity. Gùª A character with sentry aggression that leaves the vicinity (by warping away) and then returns will no longer be considered a target for sentry guns, unless he commits another illegal attack. Gùª They will not respond to illegal aggressions that occurred elsewhere GÇô Attacking another player at a belt or other site and then warping to a gate/station will now no longer result in sentry aggression. Gùª Sentry guns will no longer attack drones, only ships
So, can we at least make gate guns effective at killing stuff?
As it sits, they're already tankable.. Now they're tankable and you can break aggression just by warping out and back in... So it would be nice if the guns could at least kill something... |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
818
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 14:56:00 -
[2] - Quote
They're not there to kill you, they're there to discourage you. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
297
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 17:43:00 -
[3] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:They're not there to kill you, they're there to discourage you.
Considering the fact that they will now drop engagement on targets that warp out and come back, then they're not there to do anything.
The least ccp could do is give them more damage so that a criminal attack on someone would have the negative effect of you being shot at by guns and your target with pretty substantial gate gun damage.
As it sits now, gate guns have little to no effect and you can reset them. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
10752
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 17:47:00 -
[4] - Quote
Yea you can reset them, after the fight is over. While it's going, they shoot you. So what's the issue again?
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. |
Kitt JT
League of Non-Aligned Worlds Nulli Secunda
147
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 18:52:00 -
[5] - Quote
ccp has already said they plan to make sentries in lowsec have damage increasing with time. So when you agress, a t1 frig would be safe, but after a few minutes, their damage would be able to threaten even a triaged capital. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
10753
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 18:58:00 -
[6] - Quote
Kitt JT wrote:ccp has already said they plan to make sentries in lowsec have damage increasing with time. So when you agress, a t1 frig would be safe, but after a few minutes, their damage would be able to threaten even a triaged capital. You're a lot behind the times chap, that idea died long ago.
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. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
297
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 19:16:00 -
[7] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Yea you can reset them, after the fight is over. While it's going, they shoot you. So what's the issue again?
Exactly... They shoot, but they don't shoot for crap.. Most ships can tank them without a problem, including the incoming dps from a target in many cases. (assuming you're not taking on a vindicator with 1k+ dps). At least long enough to take down your target and warp away.
The reason why I mention this is because it's bad enough you can easily tank gate guns, but now you can reset them by simply warping out and back.
This defeats the purpose of even having gate guns.
So, since players can easily reset them, then I would say gate guns should be made a real threat, and not a tankable annoyance.
I don't mean necessarily that they should be able to insta-pop battleships or anything, but a reasonable amount of dps with good tracking.
That, or new defenses should be added such as webs, nos, jams, etc. etc...
The point is, if you're a criminal in factional territory then you should at least be threatened by tactics used to punish criminals.
This really only applies to low sec, I do do feel that player should be able to get in, get a kill, and get out.
However, in situations where the engagement is prolonged beyond what the aggressor intended, then the defenses will wear you down. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
10753
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 19:55:00 -
[8] - Quote
So you basically don't want to encourage PvP in low sec, you want to discourage it. Gotcha.
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. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
297
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 19:59:00 -
[9] - Quote
Mag's wrote:So you basically don't want to encourage PvP in low sec, you want to discourage it. Gotcha.
There's gotta be some type of penalty for illegal acts in low sec. Otherwise it's nulls sec without bombs and bubbles. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
10753
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 20:01:00 -
[10] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Mag's wrote:So you basically don't want to encourage PvP in low sec, you want to discourage it. Gotcha. There's gotta be some type of penalty for illegal acts in low sec. Otherwise it's nulls sec without bombs and bubbles. There are penalties, but they're obviously not to your liking.
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. |
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
297
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 20:04:00 -
[11] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:Mag's wrote:So you basically don't want to encourage PvP in low sec, you want to discourage it. Gotcha. There's gotta be some type of penalty for illegal acts in low sec. Otherwise it's nulls sec without bombs and bubbles. There are penalties, but they're obviously not to your liking.
A sec loss that amounts to almost nothing is not a penalty. Gate guns that are getting slapped with a dry paper towel is not a penalty.
In high sec you lose a ship. In null nothing happens.. What's the middle ground? |
Katran Luftschreck
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
126
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 20:10:00 -
[12] - Quote
Give gate guns warp scramble... say, 25km range? Problem solved. EvE Forum Bingo |
Commander Ted
Dookie on the flowah
100
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 20:10:00 -
[13] - Quote
I think gate guns are dumb anyway, all they do is limit engagements outside of faction warfare to smaller sizes. They don't protect the carebears, they penalize the aggressor in smaller scale combat which leads to Mexican standoffs or blobs, and they limit newer players ship choices for piracy to pretty much 0.
If I want to have a battlecruiser 1v1 on a station I either need a Dual ASB megatank boat or logistics which makes it no longer a 1v1. If I engage first on the station I am going to loose unless they are -10 which is dumb. Security status penalty with stronger repercussions in high sec are the only needed penalties. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
297
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 20:15:00 -
[14] - Quote
Commander Ted wrote:I think gate guns are dumb anyway, all they do is limit engagements outside of faction warfare to smaller sizes. They don't protect the carebears, they penalize the aggressor in smaller scale combat which leads to Mexican standoffs or blobs, and they limit newer players ship choices for piracy to pretty much 0.
If I want to have a battlecruiser 1v1 on a station I either need a Dual ASB megatank boat or logistics which makes it no longer a 1v1. If I engage first on the station I am going to loose unless they are -10 which is dumb. Security status penalty with stronger repercussions in high sec are the only needed penalties.
I'll go with you on higher sec loss and penalties |
Commander Ted
Dookie on the flowah
100
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 20:19:00 -
[15] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Mag's wrote:So you basically don't want to encourage PvP in low sec, you want to discourage it. Gotcha. There's gotta be some type of penalty for illegal acts in low sec. Otherwise it's nulls sec without bombs and bubbles.
Whats wrong with that? Their is no real gameplay or fun related reason for low sec to be neutered pvp, a middle ground enforced by such mechanics is unnecessary and stupid. You don't need semi safe space because you have high sec, low secs inherent pvp value is determined by those who live their, not because you MIGHT be able to make it out alive in your badger. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
Commander Ted
Dookie on the flowah
100
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 20:21:00 -
[16] - Quote
Katran Luftschreck wrote:Give gate guns warp scramble... say, 25km range? Problem solved. Extremely pointless since gate guns are 150km from the gate, also why would this help at all?
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
Commander Ted
Dookie on the flowah
100
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 20:23:00 -
[17] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Commander Ted wrote:I think gate guns are dumb anyway, all they do is limit engagements outside of faction warfare to smaller sizes. They don't protect the carebears, they penalize the aggressor in smaller scale combat which leads to Mexican standoffs or blobs, and they limit newer players ship choices for piracy to pretty much 0.
If I want to have a battlecruiser 1v1 on a station I either need a Dual ASB megatank boat or logistics which makes it no longer a 1v1. If I engage first on the station I am going to loose unless they are -10 which is dumb. Security status penalty with stronger repercussions in high sec are the only needed penalties. I'll go with you on higher sec loss and penalties
If low sec sucks for small scale pvp and the only way to have a real fight on a gate is to have logistics or an active tank then no thanks. Gate guns help no one and making them stronger will only ruin low sec for smaller groups of pirates. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
10753
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 20:26:00 -
[18] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Mag's wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:Mag's wrote:So you basically don't want to encourage PvP in low sec, you want to discourage it. Gotcha. There's gotta be some type of penalty for illegal acts in low sec. Otherwise it's nulls sec without bombs and bubbles. There are penalties, but they're obviously not to your liking. A sec loss that amounts to almost nothing is not a penalty. Gate guns that are getting slapped with a dry paper towel is not a penalty. In high sec you lose a ship. In null nothing happens.. What's the middle ground? There are more penalties that sec loss, but like I said, you obviously don't like them.
Katran Luftschreck wrote:Give gate guns warp scramble... say, 25km range? Problem solved. What problem and how does placing a 25km scram on guns 150km away solve it?
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. |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
819
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 20:27:00 -
[19] - Quote
Commander Ted wrote:I think gate guns are dumb anyway, all they do is limit engagements outside of faction warfare to smaller sizes. They don't protect the carebears, they penalize the aggressor in smaller scale combat which leads to Mexican standoffs or blobs, and they limit newer players ship choices for piracy to pretty much 0.
If I want to have a battlecruiser 1v1 on a station I either need a Dual ASB megatank boat or logistics which makes it no longer a 1v1. If I engage first on the station I am going to loose unless they are -10 which is dumb. Security status penalty with stronger repercussions in high sec are the only needed penalties.
If you want a 1v1 that much, you're in the wrong game. |
Commander Ted
Dookie on the flowah
100
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 20:40:00 -
[20] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:
If you want a 1v1 that much, you're in the wrong game.
I do it all the time. What is the point of playing the game if the only person making decisions is the FC? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
|
Katran Luftschreck
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
126
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 21:14:00 -
[21] - Quote
Move the gate sentries onto the gates themselves, as regular turrets. Then put warp scramble on them. That would restrict their threat zone to a small area around the gates themselves - which is probably what CCP wanted in the first place. Not to ruin all PvP within 150km of a gate, but just to make a small zone around the gates themselves for people to warp into and out of where the game campers would not want to be hanging out in. EvE Forum Bingo |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
10756
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 21:25:00 -
[22] - Quote
Katran Luftschreck wrote:Move the gate sentries onto the gates themselves, as regular turrets. Then put warp scramble on them. That would restrict their threat zone to a small area around the gates themselves - which is probably what CCP wanted in the first place. Not to ruin all PvP within 150km of a gate, but just to make a small zone around the gates themselves for people to warp into and out of where the game campers would not want to be hanging out in. But it would ruin all PvP within 150km, otherwise you wouldn't be asking for it.
I'll let you into a little secret, this space is called low sec for a reason. This means people boats get violenced quite often and the area this happens most of all, is around gates. This means PvP will not simply move because of your idea, it will just occur far less.
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. |
Crimeo Khamsi
AirHogs Zulu People
45
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 21:37:00 -
[23] - Quote
Agreed that gate guns are utterly pointless now. However, gate guns were also kinda dumb to begin with.
Obvious solution to me is to simply remove gate guns entirely. What benefit is there to making people tediously jump elsewhere and jump back again? Needless button clicking and no actual threat, so just do away with them. |
Katran Luftschreck
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
126
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 21:54:00 -
[24] - Quote
Mag's wrote:But it would ruin all PvP within 150km, otherwise you wouldn't be asking for it.
Then lower their range too.
Someone wants to use a battleship to camp a gate from 100km away? Fine, it's not like he can scramble people from that far out. He'll get a few shots off and the target will warp away. He may get him in that time, but probably not, unless you've got a gate camp fleet working. Like gate camp fleets ever worried about gate guns in the first place?
If you want to scramble someone to make sure you got them, then you'd have to get within gate gun range. Take your chances with the guy you're trying to gank, then. Try to get your target, tank the gate guns, and move out of their range again before going down. Some may be able to pull that off, but not everyone will.
Look, it looks to me that when CCP made gate guns their goal was simply to prevent gate campers sitting in front gates who use their cute little bots to scramble & pop every ship that passes through before they have a chance to power up their warp drives. The difference here is that I'm trying to look for ways to remake the gate guns into what CCP wanted them to be. You're just looking for an excuse to get rid of them altogether so you can gate camp easier.
So with that in mind and me sticking by CCPs original plan for a small "bubble of punishment" around the gates, I'm going to keep with what I was saying before: Put the guns on the gates themselves as turrets. Give them maybe 50 to 75km of range, on par with the typical T1 non-glittered battleship. Give them about 25km worth of warp scramble to even the floor with the tacklers. If you want to do actual PvP a hundred klicks from a gate then you go right ahead. The gate defenses would just there to protect the hapless folk who just want to get from Point A to Point B without dealing with a camped gates 23/7.
Oh wait, I forgot, camped gates 23/7 was the real agenda, wasn't it? Silly me. EvE Forum Bingo |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
10756
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 22:04:00 -
[25] - Quote
Katran Luftschreck wrote:Mag's wrote:But it would ruin all PvP within 150km, otherwise you wouldn't be asking for it. Then lower their range too. Someone wants to use a battleship to camp a gate from 100km away? Fine, it's not like he can scramble people from that far out. He'll get a few shots off and the target will warp away. He may get him in that time, but probably not, unless you've got a gate camp fleet working. Like gate camp fleets ever worried about gate guns in the first place? If you want to scramble someone to make sure you got them, then you'd have to get within gate gun range. Take your chances with the guy you're trying to gank, then. Try to get your target, tank the gate guns, and move out of their range again before going down. Some may be able to pull that off, but not everyone will. Look, it looks to me that when CCP made gate guns their goal was simply to prevent gate campers sitting in front gates who use their cute little bots to scramble & pop every ship that passes through before they have a chance to power up their warp drives. The difference here is that I'm trying to look for ways to remake the gate guns into what CCP wanted them to be. You're just looking for an excuse to get rid of them altogether so you can gate camp easier. So with that in mind and me sticking by CCPs original plan for a small "bubble of punishment" around the gates, I'm going to keep with what I was saying before: Put the guns on the gates themselves as turrets. Give them maybe 50 to 75km of range, on par with the typical T1 non-glittered battleship. Give them about 25km worth of warp scramble to even the floor with the tacklers. If you want to do actual PvP a hundred klicks from a gate then you go right ahead. The gate defenses would just there to protect the hapless folk who just want to get from Point A to Point B without dealing with a camped gates 23/7. Oh wait, I forgot, camped gates 23/7 was the real agenda, wasn't it? Silly me. But you've still not said why this is needed. You're trying to guess at why they were there to start with, but if it was to prevent gate PvP, then they would have had far larger damage than they have.
Like I said, your idea wouldn't mean PvP moves away from gates, even a few hundred klicks, it would mean far safer travel and less PvP. Sorry, but that's not something low sec needs. Seems to me what you're looking for, is high sec.
Also gate guns already do punish, but like the OP, it's obviously not to your liking.
P.S. I like the fact you included bots in that. Nice move.
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. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |