Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 .. 26 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4055
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 16:59:03 -
[481] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:so is "use something faster" as an answer to traveling in 800 lowsec systemst Wtf are you doing traveling through 800 LS systems? Is this some roleplay thing? LS is like 10ish gates deep at its deepest point. are you fcking ********? Are you fking kidding me that you are cynoing through 800 LS systems on some kind of roleplaying crusade per play session? Wtf is even your point?
stfu you noodle, "traveling in 800 lowsec systems" i didnt say through, do you think every where in lowsec takes 10 gate jumps? ffs man
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3251
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 17:06:58 -
[482] - Quote
Scialt wrote:
3. Gah... I'd hate to be forced to escort trade runs. I can't imagine many who'd like that sort of job. It might end up happening if the change were made but it doesn't seem like a positive development... having to protective fleet-blob your freighters to scare away pirates.
Will be fun to defend a cargo ship from a suicide alpha strike like Tornados or brute force DPS like Talos. It's like High-Sec ganking except you collect insurance to reduce your cost. |
Salvos Rhoska
2525
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 17:08:08 -
[483] - Quote
Scialt wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scialt wrote:Your idea would definitely present more targets to lowsec gatecampers. But does that really help lowsec residents overall? Does it draw more people to lowsec? I'm not so sure. 1) HS-NS material transport has no option than to travel through LS, unless they use WHs. They MUST pass through LS. 2) Will it draw more people to LS? HELL YES. 3) Pirates/alt corps galore to get a piece of the cake. NS entities galore to escort their shipments. Mercs galore to offer their services. 4) LS PI/PvE Corps may suffer attrition, but tbh, nobody will bother them much, as the HS-NS transitioning ships are FAR more lucrative. 1. Not technically true. There are high-sec to null transitions (like Dital to Providence). 2. Why? I mean the people pirating are already there. Null and wormhole corps are already hot-dropping in null. It might focus the pirates on certain systems but I'm not sure why this would increase the number. 3. Gah... I'd hate to be forced to escort trade runs. I can't imagine many who'd like that sort of job. It might end up happening if the change were made but it doesn't seem like a positive development... having to protective fleet-blob your freighters to scare away pirates. 4. Gatecamps in my experience shoot everyone who's not allied. Don't think they'll let a missioning battleship pass and only gank freighters. Again... the only group that this would seem to be a positive for is gatecampers. Everyone else... from low-sec indy/PI groups to low-sec missioners to FW participants who look for solo PvP instead of camping gates would all seem to not like this idea... because dealing with more gatecamps pretty much hurts all of their play styles.
1) Touche. So be it. This change doesnt affect that link at all though.
2) Primarily, it removes the overwhelming cap force of NS from LS. WH corps cant hotdrop through a WH. It will sure as hell increase pirate numbers in LS, cos they dont have to deal with cynos/caps, just sub-cap combat.
3) Why/how would you be "forced" to escort trade runs? Ofc you will demand payment for your service, or not do it. You dont have to escort anyone. Blow them up instead, if you wish.
4) Gatecamps already do that. But post-change, they will also have to fight escort fleets with far more lucrative cargo seeking to clear the gate. I agree that it would be constant fights for gate control, but since its sub-caps, even a smaller LS Corp can bide its time to secure transit of its own materials, or clear the camp.
5) Lets be real, gatecamps are what LS is all about. The gates are conflict drivers (currently bypassed by cynos, or wiped out by cap drops).
6) I dont believe local pve will be all that impaired, and they can bide their time and make deals etc. The HS-NS transiting enormous wealth is far more interesting.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2525
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 17:26:53 -
[484] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Scialt wrote:
3. Gah... I'd hate to be forced to escort trade runs. I can't imagine many who'd like that sort of job. It might end up happening if the change were made but it doesn't seem like a positive development... having to protective fleet-blob your freighters to scare away pirates.
Will be fun to defend a cargo ship from a suicide alpha strike like Tornados or brute force DPS like Talos. It's like High-Sec ganking except you collect insurance to reduce your cost.
Its not a suicide gank, cos no CONCORD death certainty.
Scout ahead and clear the gate before you bring the cargo ship in.
Glad to see you say it will be fun.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
63
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 17:29:29 -
[485] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scialt wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scialt wrote:Your idea would definitely present more targets to lowsec gatecampers. But does that really help lowsec residents overall? Does it draw more people to lowsec? I'm not so sure. 1) HS-NS material transport has no option than to travel through LS, unless they use WHs. They MUST pass through LS. 2) Will it draw more people to LS? HELL YES. 3) Pirates/alt corps galore to get a piece of the cake. NS entities galore to escort their shipments. Mercs galore to offer their services. 4) LS PI/PvE Corps may suffer attrition, but tbh, nobody will bother them much, as the HS-NS transitioning ships are FAR more lucrative. 1. Not technically true. There are high-sec to null transitions (like Dital to Providence). 2. Why? I mean the people pirating are already there. Null and wormhole corps are already hot-dropping in null. It might focus the pirates on certain systems but I'm not sure why this would increase the number. 3. Gah... I'd hate to be forced to escort trade runs. I can't imagine many who'd like that sort of job. It might end up happening if the change were made but it doesn't seem like a positive development... having to protective fleet-blob your freighters to scare away pirates. 4. Gatecamps in my experience shoot everyone who's not allied. Don't think they'll let a missioning battleship pass and only gank freighters. Again... the only group that this would seem to be a positive for is gatecampers. Everyone else... from low-sec indy/PI groups to low-sec missioners to FW participants who look for solo PvP instead of camping gates would all seem to not like this idea... because dealing with more gatecamps pretty much hurts all of their play styles. 1) Touche. So be it. This change doesnt affect that link at all though. 2) Primarily, it removes the overwhelming cap force of NS from LS. WH corps cant hotdrop through a WH. It will sure as hell increase pirate numbers in LS, cos they dont have to deal with cynos/caps, just sub-cap combat. 3) Why/how would you be "forced" to escort trade runs? Ofc you will demand payment for your service, or not do it. 4) Gatecamps already do that. But post-change, they will also have to fight escort fleets with far more lucrative cargo seeking to clear the gate. I agree that it would be constant fights for gate control, but since its sub-caps, even a smaller LS Corp can bide its time to secure transit of its own materials. 5) Lets be real, gatecamps are what LS is all about. The gates are conflict drivers (currently bypassed by cynos, or wiped out by cap drops). 6) I dont believe local pve will be all that impaired, and they can bide their time and make deals etc. The HS-NS transiting enormous wealth is far more interesting.
For me... lowsec is all about FW. Gatecamps are something that take away from that. What increasing the number of gatecamps does is make it more annoying for everyone who's not in the gatecamps. While in part that's null groups transporting goods (which is what you're shooting for) it's also... everyone else in lowsec. That's PVE players, indy groups, and FW players. Gatecamps are almost never target specific... they blow up the loan rifter or venture that they can catch just as much as they do a freighter. They make travelling more difficult for everyone.
I engage in PvP in FW... in plexes. It's small group or solo, which is what I prefer. Gatecamps for me are a hassle I have to work around (and I generally can). Making them more frequent is a disincentive for me to deal with lowsec as a player who currently spends about half his time there without engaging in trade runs or gatecamps.
It feels like the main impact of what you're suggesting is to change lowsec into a zone where the primary action is moving supplies and protecting them vs gatecampers pirating them. It would seriously put breaks on industrial/PVE/FW operations due to the larger number of gatecamps that would pop up (due to their being more targets). It might increase traffic through lowsec, but would lower the actual RESIDENCY. Small lowsec industrial corps would be better suited in Null as part of larger alliances who can provide escorts for freighters and better minerals for manufacture. FW (and those preying of FW plexers) might get more solo/small gang pvp in wormholes rather than in low sec due to gatecamps making moving around FW space more difficult. PVE types might have too much trouble getting through gatecamps in their mission fit ships and instead run lvl 4's in HS or anomalies in null.
|
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
63
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 17:33:40 -
[486] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Scialt wrote:
3. Gah... I'd hate to be forced to escort trade runs. I can't imagine many who'd like that sort of job. It might end up happening if the change were made but it doesn't seem like a positive development... having to protective fleet-blob your freighters to scare away pirates.
Will be fun to defend a cargo ship from a suicide alpha strike like Tornados or brute force DPS like Talos. It's like High-Sec ganking except you collect insurance to reduce your cost.
I don't think that's how it will work for most larger null-sec entities. Rather I imagine they'd conscript blob fleets to escort a large number of freighters from null to high. 200+ ship fleets scaring away the gatecampers as opposed to actually generating much in the way of combat.
When combat happened I imagine it would be another null-sec entity learning of the plans and bringing their own blob.
You have to remember the biggest advantage that large alliances often have is numbers. It's silly to think they wouldn't use that when dealing with a change like this. |
Salvos Rhoska
2525
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 17:52:07 -
[487] - Quote
Scialt wrote:Gatecamps are almost never target specific... they blow up the loan rifter or venture that they can catch just as much as they do a freighter. They make travelling more difficult for everyone.
This already happens. My change, does not change that.
Scialt wrote:It feels like the main impact of what you're suggesting is to change lowsec into a zone where the primary action is moving supplies and protecting them vs gatecampers pirating them.
This too, is already what LS largely is. Except cynos enable JFs and other cargo vessels to bypass gates, and caps/cynos allow dropping overwhelming force ontop of any attempt to intercept it.
Scialt wrote:It would seriously put breaks on industrial/PVE/FW operations due to the larger number of gatecamps that would pop up (due to their being more targets).
Lack of cynos/caps doesnt put a break on those. (as in two quotes above). Gatecamps already exist. The number of gatecamps is irrelevant, since cynos jump past them as is now.
Scialt wrote: It might increase traffic through lowsec, but would lower the actual RESIDENCY. Small lowsec industrial corps would be better suited in Null as part of larger alliances who can provide escorts for freighters and better minerals for manufacture. FW (and those preying of FW plexers) might get more solo/small gang pvp in wormholes rather than in low sec due to gatecamps making moving around FW space more difficult. PVE types might have too much trouble getting through gatecamps in their mission fit ships and instead run lvl 4's in HS or anomalies in null.
1) LS pirates will naturally become residents.
2) Small LS industry corps would frankly, already, be better off in NS alliances (and its arguable how muxh of LS is already essentially NS front corps)
3) FW and WHs are separate. If FW players want to raid a WH, they can still do so, as they can now. My change doesnt change that.
4) As above, gatecamps already "prevent" mission fit ships from moving in LS. A PvE fit while traveling, is always a bad idea, anywhere in EVE.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Maximillian Bonaparte
Interstellar Booty Hunters
141
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:03:30 -
[488] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote: LS players want a non-cyno, sub-cap zone to PvP in and intercept NS/HS material transport in.
Got stats or anything to support that opinion of yours? The insane volume of material transport between HS and NS, passing/cynoing through LS with impunity (under a cap umbrella), is support enough. Or do you really think LS doesnt want to pirate the hell out of that enormous bounty?
Hmmm...
I think as said before you will then have a huge amount of gate-camping to go after that stuff.
I don't mind a little bit of gate camping.
But for me and a lot of others it is the lazy man's PvP content...not quite as lively as going on the hunt.
Yeah I think there is already enough gate camping. :) Too much of it and you kill the content behind the camps.
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4055
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:08:24 -
[489] - Quote
if ccp wanted to make transit of materials harder they would not have introduced citadel mechanics
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Salvos Rhoska
2525
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:11:05 -
[490] - Quote
Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:Too much of it and you kill the content behind the camps.
There is so much HS-NS transit of material through, that its almost impossible to even put a dent in it
Believe me, the sheer volume of the above, is an an endless, unceasing source of content between both camps.
You wont believe how much content LS will have once HS-NS transit has to run through gates, without caps drops.
It will blow your mind.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
|
Maximillian Bonaparte
Interstellar Booty Hunters
141
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:12:06 -
[491] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scialt wrote:
[quote=Scialt]It would seriously put breaks on industrial/PVE/FW operations due to the larger number of gatecamps that would pop up (due to their being more targets).
Lack of cynos/caps doesnt put a break on those. (as in two quotes above). Gatecamps already exist. The number of gatecamps is irrelevant, since cynos jump past them as is now. .
Oh yes it does.
You want to bring in materials to build a cap ship, best way is JF.
You want to get ships in for your lowsec PvP corp, best way is JF.
You want to mine and manufactures stuff from moon goo? Best way to get it out is with a JF.
You want to get market stuff out to nullsec, or get back to highsec from nullsec, you have to light a cyno in lowsec!
Why dont you spend some time really living most of your life in lowsec or even nullsec to get this understanding?
However, if you want to ban supercaps from lowsec, and possibly even capitals...that might make thigns rather interesting. :) Veeery interesting indeed! Price of marauders, battleships, and T3's would go up, bashing pos's would be harder, the major lowsec power blocks such as Shadow Cartel would have to move to nullsec or seriously rework all their doctrines and tactics to a point that they might collapse, and give an opening for many more pilots who dont fly capitals to thrive in lowsec. :)
|
Salvos Rhoska
2526
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:19:55 -
[492] - Quote
Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:Snip
There are 3400 NS systems to use JFs in inorder to bypass bubbles/gatecamps. Use them there, where they belong.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
8251
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:25:29 -
[493] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:Snip There are 3400 NS systems to use JFs inorder to bypass bubbles/gatecamps. Use them there, where they belong. JFs with cynos make a mockery of LS.
I remember the days when convoys to move stuff were a thing - along with security for them through space. I was too new to be a part of it, but I have seen endless posts and descriptions about it. The effort a corp/alliance had to put in it, and the things that happened around it. It was on the level of being at war, and a corp could get its back broken on poor planning or poor security.
Of the many things that killed lowsec, JFs was one of them.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Maximillian Bonaparte
Interstellar Booty Hunters
142
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:27:21 -
[494] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:Snip There are 3400 NS systems to use JFs inorder to bypass bubbles/gatecamps. Use them there, where they belong. JFs with cynos make a mockery of LS.
What is it that you DO in lowsec again? Are you a gatecamper? LOL
I really don't understand the motivation behind your argument other than simply to make an argument for its own sake. |
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4056
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:27:58 -
[495] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:Snip There are 3400 NS systems to use JFs inorder to bypass bubbles/gatecamps. Use them there, where they belong. JFs with cynos make a mockery of LS.
what? so only jump freighters can be used in null also now?
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Maximillian Bonaparte
Interstellar Booty Hunters
142
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:29:52 -
[496] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:Snip There are 3400 NS systems to use JFs inorder to bypass bubbles/gatecamps. Use them there, where they belong. JFs with cynos make a mockery of LS. I remember the days when convoys to move stuff were a thing - along with security for them through space. I was too new to be a part of it, but I have seen endless posts and descriptions about it. The effort a corp/alliance had to put in it, and the things that happened around it. It was on the level of being at war, and a corp could get its back broken on poor planning or poor security. Of the many things that killed lowsec, JFs was one of them.
Maybe but all I know is that today no one who lives in lwosec ever makes an argument against cyno's really.
An I like to use my JF to get stuff in. Otherwise I would NOT live in lowsec. |
Orakkus
Imperium Technologies DARKNESS.
334
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:33:43 -
[497] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:Snip There are 3400 NS systems to use JFs inorder to bypass bubbles/gatecamps. Use them there, where they belong. JFs with cynos make a mockery of LS.
No, there isn't. Yes, there are 3400 NS system.. NO the vast majority aren't viable for JF transport. Just because you can fly a capital through it doesn't make it viable for use. Flying a JF in and out of Null-sec isn't just a snap of your fingers and "poof" you are safely in null-sec or high-sec. It already take a few people and some planning to do it successfully.
In addition, in order to make Low-sec more viable it NEEDS cynos and caps. It needs to develop an industrial base, and you can't have that if you can't import and export materials and goods. And you can't have an industrial base without people, and you can't have people without some measure of safety and convenience. And once you have more people, then and only then do you get more content.
He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
|
Salvos Rhoska
2527
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:34:59 -
[498] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Of the many things that killed lowsec, JFs was one of them.
Amen.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4056
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:36:27 -
[499] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Of the many things that killed lowsec, JFs was one of them. Amen.
answer my question, are proposin to ban jump freighters from lowsec?
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Salvos Rhoska
2527
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:37:14 -
[500] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:what? so only jump freighters can be used in null also now?
No. You can use whatever you want in NS. Its unrestricted space.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
|
Salvos Rhoska
2527
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:39:55 -
[501] - Quote
Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:An I like to use my JF to get stuff in. Otherwise I would NOT live in lowsec.
Why not? And where would you live instead?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2527
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:46:20 -
[502] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:In addition, in order to make Low-sec more viable it NEEDS cynos and caps. It needs to develop an industrial base, and you can't have that if you can't import and export materials and goods. And you can't have an industrial base without people, and you can't have people without some measure of safety and convenience. And once you have more people, then and only then do you get more content.
Explain how LS industry cant be viable without cynos or caps.
Once cynos/caps are removed, your import/export is improved, as you dont need to fear cyno/cap drops that grossly exceed your effort or capacity to deal with them.
Subcaps will be sufficient, and its far easier to find sub-cap players, than cap players.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4056
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:47:50 -
[503] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Orakkus wrote:In addition, in order to make Low-sec more viable it NEEDS cynos and caps. It needs to develop an industrial base, and you can't have that if you can't import and export materials and goods. And you can't have an industrial base without people, and you can't have people without some measure of safety and convenience. And once you have more people, then and only then do you get more content. Explain how LS industry cant be viable without cynos or caps. Once cynos/caps are removed, your import/export is improved, as you dont need to fear cyno/cap drops that grossly exceed your effort or capacity to deal with them.
no its not because you need to take gates through pirate infested space!
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1585
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:51:00 -
[504] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Orakkus wrote:In addition, in order to make Low-sec more viable it NEEDS cynos and caps. It needs to develop an industrial base, and you can't have that if you can't import and export materials and goods. And you can't have an industrial base without people, and you can't have people without some measure of safety and convenience. And once you have more people, then and only then do you get more content. Explain how LS industry cant be viable without cynos or caps. Once cynos/caps are removed, your import/export is improved, as you dont need to fear cyno/cap drops that grossly exceed your effort or capacity to deal with them. Subcaps will be sufficient, and its far easier to find sub-cap players, than cap players. If you can't get your goods to market, there's no point manufacturing.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
65
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 19:05:03 -
[505] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote: "Gatecamps are almost never target specific... they blow up the loan rifter or venture that they can catch just as much as they do a freighter. They make travelling more difficult for everyone."
This already happens. My change, does not change that.
Your change drastically increases the number of camps. So instead of having to dodge one camp you now have to dodge 20. That makes travel for everyone in lowsec more of a pain.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: "It feels like the main impact of what you're suggesting is to change lowsec into a zone where the primary action is moving supplies and protecting them vs gatecampers pirating them. "
This too, is already what LS largely is. Except cynos enable JFs and other cargo vessels to bypass gates, and caps/cynos allow dropping overwhelming force ontop of any attempt to intercept it.
Umm... that's not what I see. I see FW, PVE and industry operations in lowsec. This would hurt those things and only leave gatecamps and null-sec logistics.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: "It would seriously put breaks on industrial/PVE/FW operations due to the larger number of gatecamps that would pop up (due to their being more targets). "
Lack of cynos/caps doesnt put a break on those. (as in two quotes above). Gatecamps already exist. The number of gatecamps is irrelevant, since cynos jump past them as is now.
The groups that do lowsec industry generally use cynos to export their goods with jumpfreighters now... which means removing that ability hurts them a ton. If they don't... they'll be having to dodge a LOT more gatecamps which hurts them a ton. Either way they get hurt a ton. Those in FW rarely use cynos (except for supplies) as they are mostly fighting in non-caps already. Having a lot more gatecamping makes their movement in their home space a lot more difficult (as well as their supply issues). So I disagree with your assessment.
The number of gatecamps is hugely relevant. It makes all life in low-sec aside from those camping others more annoying. Because of that it has a supressing impact on those living in low-sec... because they're looking for either small gang/solo PvP (in the case of FW) and getting blobs... or they're looking for industry/PVE and getting blobbed at every gate.
Look... taking away JF's will make lowsec a pure gatecamp zone. It will pretty much hinder EVERYTHING ELSE in lowsec because people doing everything else want to avoid gatecamps and this will cause the number of camps to become huge. FW will diminish. Low Sec industry will diminish. PVE in lowsec will diminish.
I fail to see how that helps lowsec.
|
Salvos Rhoska
2527
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 19:07:19 -
[506] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:no its not because you need to take gates through pirate infested space! Lol
Thats what LS is, and should be.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2527
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 19:08:35 -
[507] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:If you can't get your goods to market, there's no point manufacturing.
Every system has a market.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1586
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 19:10:37 -
[508] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:If you can't get your goods to market, there's no point manufacturing. Every system has a market. Not every system has customers.
Think Salvos. I know it's hard for you, but you can't sell goods to non-existing customers, hence the need to move goods to where they can be sold.
To not understand this.. no surprise.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Orakkus
Imperium Technologies DARKNESS.
336
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 19:10:53 -
[509] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote: Lol
Thats what LS is, and should be.
Your idea destroys content. People won't live in space that they can't get to reasonably safely. All your idea does is effectively turn it into another version of wormhole space, only with less protection and even less reason to operate there.
You keep forgetting people are content. So no people, no content.
He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
|
Salvos Rhoska
2527
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 19:12:36 -
[510] - Quote
Escort your cargo and clear the gates for transit.
Sorry you can no longer lol-cyno past them.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 .. 26 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |