Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Caldari 5
Amarr The Element Syndicate Soldiers of the Forgotten Abyss
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 15:51:00 -
[1]
I've experienced a few of these things lately, kinda annoying and very overpowered in the favour of the people already on the other side(camping), why is it so over powered? Because of Lag more so then anything else, I have experienced dying without even knowing that there was another side to the stargate(ie I was killed before I had finished loading the grid).
Now I am led to believe that Eve uses LOD. So here is my idea: Introduce time limits on inactive ships within a radius of stargate, any that fail to be active within the time limit will be jumped to the other side of the gate.
Ideas on Ranges and Times: Inactive time 5min within 10KM of the gate. Inactive time 10min within 20KM of the gate. Inactive time 15min within 25KM of the gate. Inactive time 20min within 50KM of the gate. Inactive time 25min within 75KM of the gate. Inactive time 30min within 100KM of the gate. Inactive time 1Hour within 200KM of the gate.
Classification of Inactive: Have not attacked a non Corp/Alliance Member. (The whole point of gatecamps are normally NBSI anyways)
Give a timer on screen when within 2min of the autojump, that way you can choose to jump of leave, or move away from the gate.
Having the camp moving away from the gate a bit should help lag for the person jumping into the camp and at least give them a chance to load before they get fired upon.
|
Anathema Amat
Commerce Experts Stellar Economy Experts
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:18:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Caldari 5 I've experienced a few of these things lately, kinda annoying and very overpowered in the favour of the people already on the other side(camping), why is it so over powered? Because of Lag more so then anything else, I have experienced dying without even knowing that there was another side to the stargate(ie I was killed before I had finished loading the grid).
Now I am led to believe that Eve uses LOD. So here is my idea: Introduce time limits on inactive ships within a radius of stargate, any that fail to be active within the time limit will be jumped to the other side of the gate.
Ideas on Ranges and Times: Inactive time 5min within 10KM of the gate. Inactive time 10min within 20KM of the gate. Inactive time 15min within 25KM of the gate. Inactive time 20min within 50KM of the gate. Inactive time 25min within 75KM of the gate. Inactive time 30min within 100KM of the gate. Inactive time 1Hour within 200KM of the gate.
Classification of Inactive: Have not attacked a non Corp/Alliance Member. (The whole point of gatecamps are normally NBSI anyways)
Give a timer on screen when within 2min of the autojump, that way you can choose to jump of leave, or move away from the gate.
Having the camp moving away from the gate a bit should help lag for the person jumping into the camp and at least give them a chance to load before they get fired upon.
Just having a protocol whereby the client has to confirm to the server that is has successfully synced with the server (got past the initial lag) before putting you into the system would help massively.
|
DraedPirate Roberts
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 08:43:00 -
[3]
Gatecamps themselves need to be nerfed. They're stacked in the campers favor, right down to the characteristic blue gate-activation flare.
|
Astria Tiphareth
Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 10:12:00 -
[4]
Originally by: DraedPirate Roberts Gatecamps themselves need to be nerfed. They're stacked in the campers favor, right down to the characteristic blue gate-activation flare.
Even as someone who has taken advantage of all this, I would have to agree. I'm just not sure how you can fix a system based on border warfare if you can't camp the borders... ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation or alliance, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties... |
Thargat
Caldari North Star Networks Black Hand.
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 10:17:00 -
[5]
Attacking is always more costly than defending. Why should it be otherwise?
There's only one sig that matters... and that's Radius. |
DraedPirate Roberts
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 10:29:00 -
[6]
How do you figure? Try and explain that to the innocent guy just passing through a .4 system between 2 high-sec systems. He wasn't given an option to attack or defend, but it was costly nonetheless.
EVE is stuck on border warfare by choice... if people who wanted PVP would stay in 0.0/low-sec and do their thing and fight with one-another, rather than camp gates, and let the high-sec carebears do theirs, even if it meant dipping their toes in low-sec for one system, this wouldn't be an issue. People choose to gatecamp for easy kills, because for whatever reason, they don't want a straight fight. But at the same time, I have to respect a pirate's life, I just wish it wasn't at the expense of players who have no interest in PVP. Or at least, so abused via ambushing.
|
Thargat
Caldari North Star Networks Black Hand.
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 10:35:00 -
[7]
Originally by: DraedPirate Roberts How do you figure? Try and explain that to the innocent guy just passing through a .4 system between 2 high-sec systems. He wasn't given an option to attack or defend, but it was costly nonetheless.
EVE is stuck on border warfare by choice... if people who wanted PVP would stay in 0.0/low-sec and do their thing and fight with one-another, rather than camp gates, and let the high-sec carebears do theirs, even if it meant dipping their toes in low-sec for one system, this wouldn't be an issue. People choose to gatecamp for easy kills, because for whatever reason, they don't want a straight fight. But at the same time, I have to respect a pirate's life, I just wish it wasn't at the expense of players who have no interest in PVP. Or at least, so abused via ambushing.
There's always the option to use a scout. Then gatecamps can be avoided if you're not looking for a fight. If CCP would give us the option to set up bubbles and dictors in midwarp (between celestials and gates) I'm sure that the number of gatecamps would decrease to some degree (since the midpoint bubble have some advantages that the gatecamp doesn't).
There's only one sig that matters... and that's Radius. |
Hesod Adee
Militants of Xen
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 10:45:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Anathema Amat Just having a protocol whereby the client has to confirm to the server that is has successfully synced with the server (got past the initial lag) before putting you into the system would help massively.
This would put control of the gate cloak timer into the hands of the client. Any gameplay element controlled by the client is at serious risk of being hacked, especially if players get an advantage from making it misbehave in their favor.
Would you like to be able to stay cloaked until you hit the decloak button, thus waiting until the gate camp leaves ? Because that is what hackers will get with your change.
However with enough data, CCP should be able to figure out a general trend of how long the grid loading takes compared to the number of ships in the grid. So instead of a fixed time, increase the cloak duration as the number of people on the gate increase
|
Thargat
Caldari North Star Networks Black Hand.
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 11:10:00 -
[9]
I can't say that I know (because I have no knowledge of the inner workings of TQ) but the new serverside changes that CCP have on the drawingboard might fix it a bit. With SOL servers handling log-in and movement between In-station ambulation and space there might be a similar mechanic for jumping between systems.
If the player is put into some kind of "limbo" while in jump transit then the server could feed the client with data until the client responds with a "ok now I've got grid n stuff, pls let me in" msg. If the client fails to respond after a certain amount of time the server simply disconnects it (when the player logs in he's still in transit between systems). One problem I can see with this option is players that press jump and then force-disconnect (leaving any pursuers a bit puzzled and without a chance to probe the prey out). The other is that a faster and more reliable connection will take you to the new system faster (making mass jumps with fleets a bit more dangerous) but that seems to be the case today anyhow.
There's only one sig that matters... and that's Radius. |
Astria Tiphareth
Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 11:18:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Astria Tiphareth on 07/08/2008 11:24:51
Originally by: Thargat There's always the option to use a scout. Then gatecamps can be avoided if you're not looking for a fight. If CCP would give us the option to set up bubbles and dictors in midwarp (between celestials and gates) I'm sure that the number of gatecamps would decrease to some degree (since the midpoint bubble have some advantages that the gatecamp doesn't).
Whilst I agree with your point, this doesn't actually really improve things. Firstly scouting either requires an alt (yay, more meta-gaming) or friends who are online and in the area. I'd submit that if you have people around, preferably in your own corp, then your alternative that becomes much more attractive is breaking the camp not scouting it.
Secondly, gatecamps have one major issue with them - they are an all-or-nothing approach. You can either go there or not, break the camp or not, there is no real middle ground. Camp a key route when there really is no other way around - instant profit/results for the campers. Sneaking through isn't that effective, nor is distracting the camp.
The situation very definitely favours the campers. Of course, that's the point, but I do wonder whether it favours them a bit too much. Don't get me wrong, I've camped gates, so I can see both sides, but it does sometimes feel way too easy. ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation or alliance, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties... |
|
Blancanieves
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 11:39:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Hesod Adee
This would put control of the gate cloak timer into the hands of the client. Any gameplay element controlled by the client is at serious risk of being hacked, especially if players get an advantage from making it misbehave in their favor.
Would you like to be able to stay cloaked until you hit the decloak button, thus waiting until the gate camp leaves ? Because that is what hackers will get with your change.
However with enough data, CCP should be able to figure out a general trend of how long the grid loading takes compared to the number of ships in the grid. So instead of a fixed time, increase the cloak duration as the number of people on the gate increase
Loading the grid isn't really a one-sided thing. The server should be able to tell if and when the client has loaded the grid, as he is sending the data to him, isn't he? -
|
Inara Subaka
Caldari the united
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 13:49:00 -
[12]
You said that you aren't "attacking" when you go through a gate... well, in generalized terms you are. The people on the other side have staked a claim (whether game mechanics recognizes it or not) and any intruders on "their property" are subject to their rules (usually, pay the toll to pass through or die). They are in essence, "defending" their home turf.
And Caldari 5, automatic jumping just sounds like a bad idea to me. You'd have people jumping back and forth every 10 minutes if they went AFK, sending a dozen requests to the server for jumps rather than just sitting there not making many requests at all.
|
Caldari 5
Amarr The Element Syndicate Soldiers of the Forgotten Abyss
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 14:39:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Inara Subaka
And Caldari 5, automatic jumping just sounds like a bad idea to me. You'd have people jumping back and forth every 10 minutes if they went AFK, sending a dozen requests to the server for jumps rather than just sitting there not making many requests at all.
If they are actually AFK what are doing being part of a GateCamp? I realise that the original point of the GateCamp is to defend their turf, the problem is that it is extremely over balanced in favour of the defenders, I'm not making them abandon their GateCamp. As for the Auto Jump, it was more a point of removing excess players that aren't actually doing anything, thus reducing lag, so if you have a better idea of how to do it.
Maybe the Auto Jump should Jump them 400KM from the other side of the gate, or be an Auto warp to 400KM from the Gate? again in lines with the LOD idea that it reduces the Lag on the arriving player? The reason I use 400KM as the example here is because it would be outside the auto move radius. And if they are fleeted they could easily Warp back to a fleet member if needed.
|
Inara Subaka
Caldari the united
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 14:59:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Caldari 5 If they are actually AFK what are doing being part of a GateCamp? I realise that the original point of the GateCamp is to defend their turf, the problem is that it is extremely over balanced in favour of the defenders, I'm not making them abandon their GateCamp. As for the Auto Jump, it was more a point of removing excess players that aren't actually doing anything, thus reducing lag, so if you have a better idea of how to do it.
I don't AFK gatecamp (except to run for a beer for 30 seconds). I'm talking about those (stupid) people that AFK auto pilot to Jita, then would get flashed back and forth between Jita and Perimeter clogging up the gate.
And have you ever looked at the tactical advantage that is naturally given by defending? Entrenchment tactics have been in use for AGES. A force of 300 (okay, so total it was closer to 2300) held off far superior numbers using a bottleneck (aka gates) and defensive tactics (gate camping). Yes it is VERY much in the favor of the defenders, as it should be.
Originally by: Caldari 5 Maybe the Auto Jump should Jump them 400KM from the other side of the gate, or be an Auto warp to 400KM from the Gate? again in lines with the LOD idea that it reduces the Lag on the arriving player? The reason I use 400KM as the example here is because it would be outside the auto move radius. And if they are fleeted they could easily Warp back to a fleet member if needed.
I'm not a fan of this, it could be used to bypass camps altogether (I know I would try it if I was trying to avoid getting caught in a camp or a bubble in 0.0).
|
Malen Nenokal
Eden Federal Recon
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 15:00:00 -
[15]
Have someone scout for you. If there is a gatecamp, gather a group to kill it, or find another way. It's a legitimate ambush strategy.
Eden Federal Recon
|
Caldari 5
Amarr The Element Syndicate Soldiers of the Forgotten Abyss
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 15:17:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Inara Subaka I'm not a fan of this, it could be used to bypass camps altogether (I know I would try it if I was trying to avoid getting caught in a camp or a bubble in 0.0).
So you would stay still for 5mins on the other side of gate(from the gatecamp) with 10KM of the gate, just to avoid said gate camp, whilst making yourself a prime target for anyone in the system that you're currently in? This could introduce a new type of PvP Gate Fleet roaming to try and catch people doing just that, sitting waiting.
|
z0de
Gallente The Bastards
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 15:38:00 -
[17]
Edited by: z0de on 07/08/2008 15:38:40 Bad idea. Yes it is in favour of the camper, why shouldn't it be when they were the ones to took the time to get ready also lol if you think no lag would have helped you. Use a a scout/fast ship and your problems go away.
|
Caldari 5
Amarr The Element Syndicate Soldiers of the Forgotten Abyss
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 16:07:00 -
[18]
Originally by: z0de Edited by: z0de on 07/08/2008 15:38:40 Bad idea. Yes it is in favour of the camper, why shouldn't it be when they were the ones to took the time to get ready also lol if you think no lag would have helped you. Use a a scout/fast ship and your problems go away.
So you're calling my Executioner(Fastest T1 Amarr Frigate) slow?I've gotten away from many a low sec Gate Camp of under 20 ships in this, the 2 WCS(Max that can be fitted) help there.
Trust me it was lag, was in a pod prior to actually seeing that I was on the other side of the gate.
As for being in favour of the Camper, Hey I'm not saying that they can't be there, but that they must be actively there. Having a clump of 100 ships within 20KM of the gate is kinda overkill(in lag).
|
Inara Subaka
Caldari the united
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 16:43:00 -
[19]
Another thing you need to remember, is the *edited for language that would get me banned* "Target is Invulnerable" message people trying to target you get when you come out of gate cloak or undock at a station (I've seen that message keep popping up for over 30 seconds before).
That is the ultimate "get out of jail free" card in Eve, and it really chaps my hide once in a while.
|
Nekopyat
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 17:09:00 -
[20]
While I am not in favor of the various nerfs to gatecamping described here, there is one point I think might have something to it.
Part of the problem, as described, is lag. Lag isn't a game mechanic way of doing things, it is essentially a very widly applied exploit (known but unpatched bug).
Something that would be nice would be if the ship were not placed on the grid until AFTER the client has all the data it needs to place the unit. The server wouldn't need to wait for the client to respond, all it would really need to know is that the data has been sent to all clients and thus everyone should get equal notice.
Naturally this would still leave the defenders with a significant advantage, but it would be an in-universe mechanic advantage rather then a server implementation artifact advantage.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |