|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 06:26:00 -
[1] - Quote
Without gatecamps? I am convinced that this game is dependent on gate camps. Unfortunately if you want to find a fight you have to be on a gate camp. WH space has delayed local so you can surprise someone. So where would EVE Online be if one could not camp a gate? Is it a bad game design if most fights must take place at the gates? |
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 07:04:00 -
[2] - Quote
Some Rando wrote:Gates provide convenient chokepoints where players meet; FW plexes and other static places provide similar meeting points. Most fights happen on gates because most players travel, so I wouldn't exactly say it's game design that causes fights to happen at gates. Rather, it happens organically. Gates are probably the most common point in a system to find other players. You're probably right, but imagine if gate guns worked like concord weapons, and EVE returned to the way it was before warp bubbles.... Would there be as many ships destroyed? |
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 07:11:00 -
[3] - Quote
Karrl Tian wrote:Aza Ebanu wrote:Some Rando wrote:Gates provide convenient chokepoints where players meet; FW plexes and other static places provide similar meeting points. Most fights happen on gates because most players travel, so I wouldn't exactly say it's game design that causes fights to happen at gates. Rather, it happens organically. Gates are probably the most common point in a system to find other players. You're probably right, but imagine if gate guns worked like concord weapons, and EVE returned to the way it was before warp bubbles.... Would there be as many ships destroyed? Before warp bubbles there were no gate guns---or warp to zero (long story). Hiding behind a gate let's you surprise people since otherwise you have to try to narrow down, warp to and point/scram a target all while you're revealed to them in local. Would that be such a bad thing? |
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 07:40:00 -
[4] - Quote
ACE McFACE wrote:Aza Ebanu wrote:Without gatecamps? I am convinced that this game is dependent on gate camps. Unfortunately if you want to find a fight you have to be on a gate camp. WH space has delayed local so you can surprise someone. So where would EVE Online be if one could not camp a gate? Is it a bad game design if most fights must take place at the gates? Wow, I didn't realise that a lot of my fights don't actually count because they weren't on a gate How are you defining a lot? |
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 19:44:00 -
[5] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Aza Ebanu wrote:Karrl Tian wrote:Before warp bubbles there were no gate guns---or warp to zero (long story). Hiding behind a gate let's you surprise people since otherwise you have to try to narrow down, warp to and point/scram a target all while you're revealed to them in local. Would that be a bad thing? Only if you like the sever. The lack of WTZ meant that people had a bookmark 15km past each gate/station from every other gate/station in that system for every system (most people bought packs of them). Especially in LS (great story from early GSF history: they sold WTZ BM packs that were accurate, except one bookmark, which led right to a deathstar POS.). All those bookmarks (and the process of copying them) were doing horrible things to the server, so CCP introduced WTZ to obviate the need for people to have thousands of bookmarks. Anyway, without fighting available on gates, Freighters would ply their trade right through Rancer in perfect safety.
Yeah I remember that was the problem, but without the ability to camp a gate would the game cease to have combat - PVP? |
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 20:20:00 -
[6] - Quote
Ptraci wrote:Aza Ebanu wrote:Without gatecamps? I am convinced that this game is dependent on gate camps. Unfortunately if you want to find a fight you have to be on a gate camp. WH space has delayed local so you can surprise someone. So where would EVE Online be if one could not camp a gate? Is it a bad game design if most fights must take place at the gates? Posting in yet another stealth remove local thread. Hey if you want to play D-Scan Online, fair enough. I don't. No I dont think CCP should remove local. I don't know why that is even an issue in this game. I'm asking: "would PVP exist if there were no more gatecamps?" D-scan? is PVP too hard to get then? if you have to D scan to get a fight thats not on a gate? |
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 20:22:00 -
[7] - Quote
Gillia Winddancer wrote:What EVE lacks in this regard is:
A: Free flight during warp where you can alter course mid-warp, engage and fly in warp without a set destination - at the cost of cap energy of course.
B: A more advanced system where you can chase and catch ships whilst in warp. Current bubbles are beyond insufficient for this.
It would not eliminate location specific engagements entirely but it would definitely reduce it as well as making system size a somewhat more important factor.
There is a reason for why the current system is purely from A to B, but this IMO is also quite outdated by now. Thank you for your well thought out response. I feel an addition like what you mention here is the next step CCP needs to take to improve the dated combat system. |
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 05:40:00 -
[8] - Quote
Some Rando wrote:Aza Ebanu wrote:I'm asking: "would PVP exist if there were no more gatecamps?" Of course it would, since not all fights happen on gates now. The majority do though, and the prevailing attitude is that gatecamps are a form of lazy PVP so would it severely reduce the PVP in EVE or would the lethargic gatecampers adapt? |
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 06:15:00 -
[9] - Quote
Veronica Kerrigan wrote:I may be in the minority here, but I like th terrain that fighting on a gate provides. It can provide a "high ground" for both sides, where nano gangs are bale to set up at range and maintain the ability to warp away while the enemy is going through a choke point, but at the same time brawler gang waiting on the opposite side can beat down everything that comes through very quickly. It also allows people with a good sense of aggression mechanics to dictate which fights happen and which don't. Do you feel like if you don't get the fleet at the gate you will never get'em? |
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 06:27:00 -
[10] - Quote
Veronica Kerrigan wrote:Aza Ebanu wrote:Veronica Kerrigan wrote:I may be in the minority here, but I like th terrain that fighting on a gate provides. It can provide a "high ground" for both sides, where nano gangs are bale to set up at range and maintain the ability to warp away while the enemy is going through a choke point, but at the same time brawler gang waiting on the opposite side can beat down everything that comes through very quickly. It also allows people with a good sense of aggression mechanics to dictate which fights happen and which don't. Do you feel like if you don't get the fleet at the gate you will never get'em? Gates make a good place to fight, because with good tactics you can engage and disengage pretty much at will, while bad tactics will get you stuck. Of course fights also happen at other places, but many of the roams I have been part of have found the best fights at gates. Yes yes you had good fights at the gate, but would you have enough fights to satisfy your combat-PVP itch without the gate? |
|
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 23:02:00 -
[11] - Quote
SB Rico wrote:Ok now for the serious bit.
Fights on stations and gates are very common, but that is simply the game reflecting life.
Towns and roads are key strategic points irl, so why is it a surprise that this happens in game.
You see a hostile fleet coming, you decide to engage so you go to the gate. Why?
a) Because it is the only place you can guarantee they will go and so you can set up and be ready. b) If you allow them into the system unopposed who knows where they will be, what they will do, how they will set up? You give them the initiative - tactically unwise c) If they are merely a transitory fleet then you will not force the engagement if you do not take them on at jump in.
The only way to remove fights from stations and gates really is to remove stations and gates, then whatever you do instead will become the focus point of the fights. As for Concord level NPC guns on low sec gates - it is LOW sec not high sec, doing this would mean that almost all non-consentual PVP dies in low sec so we might as well start running around throwing little flags in the ground and shouting I challenge you to a duel.
So you are of like opinion, that PVP in EVE would become just like every other MMO if gatecamping was tweak/nerfed/removed? I don't agree with the roads and towns being strategic points though. Maybe in conventional warfare, but it was a stupid thing to secure a town or road in Vietnam for example because guerrilla groups would eat troops alive.
If we are comparing EVE to RL( a no no imho) CCP is cutting out a balancing tactic making combat extremely one sided. And maybe a gatecamp is the little PVP flag in disguise. |
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 00:16:00 -
[12] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Aza Ebanu wrote:So you are of like opinion, that PVP in EVE would become just like every other MMO if gatecamping was tweak/nerfed/removed? I don't agree with the roads and towns being strategic points though. Maybe in conventional warfare, but it was a stupid thing to secure a town or road in Vietnam for example because guerrilla groups would eat troops alive. You mean like what happens to gatecamps when the bombers or kiting gangs come rolling into town? Also, I'm sure your assertion that roads and towns aren't of strategic value would surprise the hell out of the Air Force commanders who dropped thousands of tons of bombs on the roads that the VC were using to supply their armies. It would also surprise literally any other military commander ever. (Why try to take Stalingrad, Leningrad, Kursk, etc if they're not "strategic points"? The largest tank battle in history was a small part of the battle for Kursk.) Quote:If we are comparing EVE to RL( a no no imho) CCP is cutting out a balancing tactic making combat extremely one sided. And maybe a gatecamp is the little PVP flag in disguise. Gates do not make anything one sided. A one person gatecamp is easily defeated by a one person gatecrashing party set up to counter the camper's ship. What you're complaining about is the fact that 1+1>1, and a 10 person gate camp will probably nuke a single person trying to get through (which is kind of how roadblocks are meant to work). I've never seen a kiting fleet destroy a low sec gate camp. Bombs are exclusive to null. The strategic bombing runs in Vietnam was largely ineffective. Also don't compare EVE to RL battle tactics the game is too far from a simulation of any kind to be given that kind of scrutiny. I am not complaining I am simply stating that if EVE got rid of gatecamps, it would be getting rid of a majority of its PVP. Or would players be able to adapt? |
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 02:59:00 -
[13] - Quote
silens vesica wrote:Aza Ebanu wrote:Without gatecamps? I am convinced that this game is dependent on gate camps. Naaaah. I have an alt, a low skilled alt, who runs gatecamps all the time - even gatecamps operated by people who know what they're doing. Taunting all the way. If EVE were truly dependant on gatecamps, this obnoxious space-troll alt wold get plastered MUCH more often than he does. Gatecamps are just another flavor of playstyle, and aren't particularly hard to adapt to, if you're willing to bother.
Maybe you are good at evading gatecamps and the guys who wanna get you can't because they can only get you in a camp? |
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 03:44:00 -
[14] - Quote
Pinaculus wrote:Gate camps aren't really that big a deal. I've died in a few, and I've skated past way more. Most pvp, for me at least, happens inside the systems. I mean, people try to jump you at the stations and gates because they're lazy. They know someone's going to go there, so they set up a camp to farm kills. But most people don't fly around from gates to stations just to do it. Most people are in space doing stuff. Faction War, null-sec, low-sec, and wormholes all have complexes people run. Loads of fights happen in belts where people rat for ISK. And let's not forget the huge number of fights that happen on gates that involved no camping at all, but were just two fleets that happened to meet at the same gate.
TL-DR -> No. EVE PvP isn't remotely dependent on gate camps. It isn't really hindered by gate camps either. Gate camps are something people think are a big deal until they learn how to spot, avoid, and exploit them. And, yeah, sometimes you die to them too. So would half of your fights have taken place if you didn't fight at the gate? |
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 05:55:00 -
[15] - Quote
SB Rico wrote:Aza Ebanu wrote: Gates do not make anything one sided. A one person gatecamp is easily defeated by a one person gatecrashing party set up to counter the camper's ship. What you're complaining about is the fact that 1+1>1, and a 10 person gate camp will probably nuke a single person trying to get through (which is kind of how roadblocks are meant to work).
I've never seen a kiting fleet destroy a low sec gate camp. Bombs are exclusive to null. The strategic bombing runs in Vietnam was largely ineffective. Also don't compare EVE to RL battle tactics the game is too far from a simulation of any kind to be given that kind of scrutiny. I am not complaining I am simply stating that if EVE got rid of gatecamps, it would be getting rid of a majority of its PVP. Or would players be able to adapt? Messed up the quote thingy :(
It wasn't a comparisson of the tactics as if it were a simulation it was an explanation of the strategic thinking of FCs. To be set up on your chosen spot where you can force an engagement on your terms.[/quote]
Do most FC use the gate as a battleground? I am just asking if gatecamps weren't, would there be as much combat-PVP? |
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 18:55:00 -
[16] - Quote
SB Rico wrote:Aza Ebanu wrote:SB Rico wrote:Aza Ebanu wrote: Gates do not make anything one sided. A one person gatecamp is easily defeated by a one person gatecrashing party set up to counter the camper's ship. What you're complaining about is the fact that 1+1>1, and a 10 person gate camp will probably nuke a single person trying to get through (which is kind of how roadblocks are meant to work).
I've never seen a kiting fleet destroy a low sec gate camp. Bombs are exclusive to null. The strategic bombing runs in Vietnam was largely ineffective. Also don't compare EVE to RL battle tactics the game is too far from a simulation of any kind to be given that kind of scrutiny. I am not complaining I am simply stating that if EVE got rid of gatecamps, it would be getting rid of a majority of its PVP. Or would players be able to adapt? Messed up the quote thingy :( It wasn't a comparisson of the tactics as if it were a simulation it was an explanation of the strategic thinking of FCs. To be set up on your chosen spot where you can force an engagement on your terms. Do most FC use the gate as a battleground? I am just asking if gatecamps weren't, would there be as much combat-PVP?
A significant amount of the time yes, they are a wonderful chokepoint as someone has pointed out before, you can then set up pick your range and wait for the enemy to jump into your web. Additionaly the gate in is the only place you can guarantee the enemy fleet will pass unless there is a specific known objective in system[/quote] So would you get enough PVP in EVE without chokepoints / gatecamping? |
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:25:00 -
[17] - Quote
Nope they should just rethink this choke point method and make a better way to get PVP fights. The problem stands that the best almost only place to fight is at the gate. |
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 21:53:00 -
[18] - Quote
Gillia Winddancer wrote:Aza Ebanu wrote:Nope they should just rethink this choke point method and make a better way to get PVP fights. The problem stands that the best almost only place to fight is at the gate. There is no way to rethink choke points without changing how you enter a system, how you leave a station and how you capture ships. These are the bare minimum requirements. Sure ad alternate gates. The choke point is a choke point because it is, but the question is whether EVE PVP is largely dependent on gatecamps. Without gatecamps would PVP take place in the same quantities. |
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 22:50:00 -
[19] - Quote
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:Arguably gates, and by relation gate camps, are a necessity. Because so many other game mechanics are broken. For example, we wouldn't need gates as chokepoints if D-scanning/probing was changed to work decently well. Compared to current "spreadsheet in space" D-scan that doesn't even differentiate between friend (in fleet) or foe. If we didn't have local, gates wouldn't be necessary either, it would be easier to surprise someone. At the same time, if D-scan and probing were made better, perhaps it would be easier to keep track of who's sneaking up on you. But as it is, EVE has a lot of "games". As in "station games", "gate games", etc. Basically trying to squeeze every last ounce of advantage out of otherwise utterly broken game systems. For example, would "station games" exist if the pilot could look out of the friggin' docking bay through his ship's window and see the fleet parked outside? But apparently looking out of the window is just too difficult a thing to do, and naturally a station wouldn't keep track of a hostile fleet parked 500m outside... Bottom line, gates and "gate games" are just symptoms of a much bigger problem that permeates the entire game. And just like you don't cure a runny nose by cutting off the head (although that approach IS 100% curative!), you don't fix EVE by fiddling with the gates. Fix the rest, the gates will follow. Thank you for your constructive post. |
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 22:59:00 -
[20] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:For a fight to occur, two (or more) forces must be forced into close proximity, both physically and temporally.
This can occur from the following: Both parties are forced into the same location by a chokepoint (gates/stations/whs) Both parties are fighting over control of the same objective (structure timers) One party ambushes the other (ganking ratters) Mutual agreement
With gates, the physical proximity is guaranteed. The temporal proximity is not (2 groups passing through the same gate 12h apart will not fight). A gatecamp is simply spreading the camping party's temporal coverage.
Structure timers guarantee both physical and temporal proximity, and that's why you get enormous fights from them.
Ambushes are one sided enough that they rarely turn into satisfying fights.
Mutual agreed fights are pretty universally unimportant (fun as they may be) (this includes baiting a fight at the top belt).
Removing local (in k-space) simply raises the utility of ambushes to an overwhelming level. It works well in Wh Space because of the mechanics of uncertain, limited connections, the inability to circumvent chokepoints (no cynos), and (to some extent) the inability to run PvE without a diverse group. K-Space without local would provide a fairly overwhelming advantage to the BLOPs drop and other cloaky fun (no need to AFK cloak when you can just show up, invisible, and gank people on a whim), because the connections between space are stable and unrestricted, and the chokepoints can be circumvented.
Yes but structure timers are rare. Ganking not at a gate is rare compared to ganking at a gate so EVE's game mechanics force players to fight at the gate. Therefore, EVE combat-PVP is gate dependent. A simple EVE combat-PVP would be very rare indeed without gatecamps would suffice. |
|
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 23:25:00 -
[21] - Quote
Hakaimono wrote:Avoiding gate camps isn't hard. Besides, ships are meant to blow up. Who said avoiding gatecamps is hard. I'm saying it is dependent on gatecamps for combat-PVP. Without them I have a feeling PVP would be difficult for many players to engage in. EVE Online's current mechanics make the game dependent on gate PVP. Without it, where would EVE Online be? |
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 23:30:00 -
[22] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Aza Ebanu wrote:Yes but structure timers are rare. Ganking not at a gate is rare compared to ganking at a gate so EVE's game mechanics force players to fight at the gate. Therefore, EVE combat-PVP is gate dependent. A simple EVE combat-PVP would be very rare indeed without gatecamps would suffice. Never said EVE combat wasn't dependent on gates. (Just like RL battles of ancient times generally occurd at chokepoints, both geographic and logistical when they don't occur around strategic objectives like cities and fortresses.) What I am saying is that it's not a problem. There you go again comparing RL to EVE Online. But thank you for landing close enough to the topic in that "EVE Online is dependent on gatecamps". |
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 00:14:00 -
[23] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Aza Ebanu wrote:RubyPorto wrote: What I am saying is that it's not a problem.
There you go again comparing RL to EVE Online. But thank you for landing close enough to the topic in that "EVE Online is dependent on gatecamps". There you go again skipping right over the point of my post. Why do you think that chokepoints being the nuclei for combat is a bad thing for EVE? What mechanics do you propose to replace chokepoints as nuclei for combat?
Well a majority of your post was irrelevant.
I never said it was a bad thing, just stating it is the majority thing.
Well there are plenty options that have been stated over the years. One has been posted even in this thread. But you are more than welcome to add your two cents if you know of any other nuclei for combat. |
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 00:43:00 -
[24] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Aza Ebanu wrote:Well a majority of your post was irrelevant.
I never said it was a bad thing, just stating it is the majority thing.
Well there are plenty options that have been stated over the years. One has been posted even in this thread. But you are more than welcome to add your two cents if you know of any other nuclei for combat. So you're saying that this entire thread is intentionally pointless? There's no debate on whether gates are a primary location where fights occur. The debate is over whether that's a good or bad thing. So, what are you proposing? How would you propose moving combat away from chokepoints without descending into ridiculous contrivance? Man up and pick something to stand behind.
You sir jump to too many conclusions. I think you became frustrated because you came to the thread expecting a "gatecamps is bad kinda thing" instead of a "would EVE Online still be able to go on without them." Maybe you dont' feel comfortable expressing how you feel about the question? There isn't a debate on weather gatecamps / gate combat is the primary location where fights occur. Is it a good thing? Is it a bad thing? Feel free to share your opinion, but I did not start this thread to debate weather gatecamps are good or bad. Hey why don't you start a "gatecamps good or bad" thread? |
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 01:02:00 -
[25] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Aza Ebanu wrote:You sir jump to too many conclusions. I think you became frustrated because you came to the thread expecting a "gatecamps is bad kinda thing" instead of a "would EVE Online still be able to go on without them." Maybe you dont' feel comfortable expressing how you feel about the question? If you want a "would EVE survive" then the answer entirely depends on your definition of survival, and trivially follows once you've nailed down the definition. It's like asking "would Monopoly survive without Dice?" The answer depends entirely on your definition of survival, and the answer trivially follows from that definition. So, what is your definition of "survival" for EVE? You know I can't relate EVE combat-PVP tactics and strategy to Monopoly. I tried too. Would combat-PVP happen in the same frequency without gatecamps / gates? |
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 04:17:00 -
[26] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Aza Ebanu wrote:RubyPorto wrote: If you want a "would EVE survive" then the answer entirely depends on your definition of survival, and trivially follows once you've nailed down the definition.
It's like asking "would Monopoly survive without Dice?" The answer depends entirely on your definition of survival, and the answer trivially follows from that definition.
So, what is your definition of "survival" for EVE?
You know I can't relate EVE combat-PVP tactics and strategy to Monopoly. Good thing I didn't relate those things. I related your question about "EVE's survival" to a theoretical question about Monopoly's survival. Both answers are uninteresting because the answer follows directly from your definition of "survival." Quote:I tried too. Would combat-PVP happen in the same frequency without gatecamps / gates? No. Duh. That's an easy answer and has been given multiple times in this thread. Choke points guarantee physical proximity but not temporal proximity. Without chokepoints you can guarantee neither temporal nor physical proximity. Both are required to have a fight. You would reduce fights in EVE to the other 3 types I listed here, which are less common. So would they become more common? |
|
|
|