Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
SB Rico
the united Negative Ten.
155
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 08:17:00 -
[31] - Quote
Karrl Tian wrote:Aza Ebanu wrote: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 a bad thing? Having no gate guns? No. Without warp bubbles lowsec is still cake compared to null. As for being tackled by frigates, outlaw players deal with that on a daily basis anyway.
You know I have to be honest here and say living in null with cyno jammers and bubbles, blues and intel channels is extremely easy. Most people either don't realise or don't remember that there is probably more null sec experience in the average low sec corp, per member, than in the majority of sov holding null sec alliances. Reason low sec is made "easy" is because like any space people have learned how to do the job. Scammers are currently selling killrights on this toon for up to 5mil, if you have paid for this service demand your money back at once.
Killing me should be for free. |
SB Rico
the united Negative Ten.
155
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 08:30:00 -
[32] - Quote
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. Scammers are currently selling killrights on this toon for up to 5mil, if you have paid for this service demand your money back at once.
Killing me should be for free. |
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 23:02:00 -
[33] - 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. |
RubyPorto
Sniggwaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2438
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 23:52:00 -
[34] - Quote
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). This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 00:16:00 -
[35] - 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? |
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
420
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 02:41:00 -
[36] - Quote
Aza Ebanu wrote:Without gatecamps? I am convinced that this game is dependent on gate camps. Naaaah. I have a 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 a a flavor of playstyle, and aren't particularly hard to adapt to, if you're willing to bother.
Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.
Malcanis for CSM8 |
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 02:59:00 -
[37] - 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? |
Pinaculus
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
206
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 03:31:00 -
[38] - Quote
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. I know sometimes it's difficult to realize just how much you spend on incidental things each month or year, but seriously, EVE is very cheap entertainment compared to most things... If you are a smoker, smoke one less pack a week and pay for EVE, with money left over to pick up a cheap bundle of flowers for the EVE widow upstairs. |
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 03:44:00 -
[39] - 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? |
SB Rico
the united Negative Ten.
156
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 05:23:00 -
[40] - Quote
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? [/quote]
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. Scammers are currently selling killrights on this toon for up to 5mil, if you have paid for this service demand your money back at once.
Killing me should be for free. |
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
1450
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 05:43:00 -
[41] - Quote
don't know. I almost never fight at gates or stations. If i do its usually while burning away from them. (E.g. one reason why i am in FW is to avoid docking games - i have nothing against camps but docking games are just silly IMO)
I would love to see "more points of interests" in space where many people meet for some reason. DED1/2 static plexes are no more but FW plexes work quite well most of the time. Dust districts could become interesting if CCP would introduce proper requirements for orbital bombardments (right now you can just take a 3 days old alt with cheapest possible weapons while leaving the rest of the ship fitting empty). POS cities... not sure if they will ever happen. a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 05:55:00 -
[42] - 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? |
SB Rico
the united Negative Ten.
156
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 17:01:00 -
[43] - Quote
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?[/quote]
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 Scammers are currently selling killrights on this toon for up to 5mil, if you have paid for this service demand your money back at once.
Killing me should be for free. |
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 18:55:00 -
[44] - 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? |
Kyt Thrace
Lightspeed Enterprises Fidelas Constans
123
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:00:00 -
[45] - Quote
What the heck, I vote to just remove gates completely. Everyone picks a system to spawn into when they log into game.
You have to log out to change systems when logging back in.
That way no gate camps & OP will be happy. R.I.P. Vile Rat
[Proposal] Remove Skills for Plex |
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:25:00 -
[46] - 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. |
Gillia Winddancer
Shiny Noble Crown Services
288
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 20:26:00 -
[47] - Quote
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.
|
Dr No Game
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
49
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 21:32:00 -
[48] - Quote
Gillia Winddancer wrote:B: A more advanced system where you can chase and catch ships whilst in warp. Current bubbles are beyond insufficient for this.
Hi. Please google Rooks and Kings pipebomb. Enjoy.
|
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 21:53:00 -
[49] - 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. |
Jame Jarl Retief
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
974
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 21:59:00 -
[50] - Quote
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. |
|
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 22:50:00 -
[51] - 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. |
RubyPorto
Sniggwaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2442
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 22:51:00 -
[52] - Quote
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 take a fair amount of work.
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. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 22:59:00 -
[53] - 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. |
RubyPorto
Sniggwaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2442
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 23:13:00 -
[54] - Quote
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 generally occur 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. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Hakaimono
Stillwater Corporation
44
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 23:17:00 -
[55] - Quote
Avoiding gate camps isn't hard. Besides, ships are meant to blow up. |
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 23:25:00 -
[56] - 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 -
[57] - 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". |
RubyPorto
Sniggwaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2442
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 23:57:00 -
[58] - Quote
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? This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 00:14:00 -
[59] - 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. |
RubyPorto
Sniggwaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2442
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 00:27:00 -
[60] - Quote
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. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |