EVE Search - Low-sec gate camp: Impossible to escape?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Low-sec gate camp: Impossible to escape?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.01.05 10:25:00 - [181] Originally by: Elena Laskova Malcanis This thread, regardless of what OP or I have said, like most PvP threads, contains contradictory information. The same happens if you ask questions in an ingame channel. And unless you're already an expert you're not able to select and use the good information, and reject the bad. The only consistent verifiable advice I've received about learning EvE PvP is to join EvE University and/or do the Agony Unleashed class. That's it. The whole lowSec/noSec game seems to be balanced on two (admittedly excellent) player initiatives. And for completely different reasons (or perhaps not?): the overwhelming majority of EvE players stay in highSec or w-Space. Personally testing 2 or 3 suggestions, even if mutually contradictory, is still hugely more efficient than personally testing whatever ideas may occurr. You can also look up the advice giver's combat record on battleclinic. Someone who spends a lot of time in 0.0 but has very few losses to gatecamps is more likely to be qualified to give advice on escaping gatecamps than someone who has only set foot outside empire once, and lost their ship doing it. Generally in threads like this you will get a couple of mischevious players making harmful suggestions but they're usually pretty obvious, even if only from the responses of other players. With respect to the specific query posed by the OP, I will asert that the MWD-Cloak trick is outrageously effective. (Check my battleclinic record for lo-sec losses if you like - I cant even remember losing anything in lo-sec last year. Maybe a pod to a smartbomber about this time last year). In fact I will further assert that MWD-Cloak largely unnecessary, since lo-sec camps are far rarer than popularly believed. I travel through lo-sec quite often, and I would estimate that I even see a single ship on overview less than 1 gate in 12. 90% of those get the hell away ASAP, since, like me, they're travelling. A few minutes worth with the map, and planning an alternate route to the obvious autopilot offering will almost always obviate the problem. Your point on documentation is well taken, but the fact is, EVE isn't not well documented. It would be a monumental task do so fully, and futile, since the document would be out of date before it was complete. And really, with respect to things like tactics, I dont think it's CCP's place to document such things. They should be for the players to evolve, learn and counter. Sometimes I suspect that the minimal documentation is actually a deliberate policy of CCP's to encourage player interaction. In any case, a person who would rather argue with those who are trying to help him than learn will never do well in EVE, no matter how well documented it was. Larkonis, who knows as much about living in lo-sec as anyone, gave the OP complete and correct advice early on, and the OP rejected it rather than admit that he was in any way at fault.
mirel yirrin Gallente Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2010.01.05 11:51:00 - [182] obvious troll/wrong forum ---------------------------------
Ti'anla	Posted - 2010.01.05 12:18:00 - [183] I don't know if anyone suggested this (sorry if so, I'm a bit rushed for time this moment so only read the first couple of pages) the way I tend to try to avoid gate camps is by using the map. It isn't 100% accurate, but you can do it in warp or whatever else.. Basically just focus the system map on your route, set the filter for Players in system in last 30 minutes, and if a system shows more than a few pilots there, switch over to the ships destroyed in the last thirty minutes filter. It isn't perfect, but at least gives warning signs if you're flying into a trap.
Platoon Sergeant	Posted - 2010.01.05 13:05:00 - [184] I jump into a 0.4 sec thread in my internet explorer with 2 WCS and a Cloaking Device. Upon arriving on the other side, I see about 10 red blinky trolls about 15-20 posts down (clearly a troll thread). Still cloaked after the click, I guess that my best method of escape is to tap my back button for a second and immediately close the browser. But apparently that is not good enough. Within that time period, I am immediately enraged, so my cloaking device doesn't work. [ 2010.01.01 22:34:44 ] (notify) Mouse moves to top left corner [ 2010.01.01 22:34:47 ] (notify) You cannot go back as you are being troll by trolls. Never thought smacktalk would hold me up. Shortly thereafter: Pop. Zero chance to escape. WTF... (Is that really reasonable? If so, then there is NO safe way to jump into low-sec General Discussion.) Btw: How do people successfully troll me within 2-3 seconds? (My understanding is: One needs to get a target LOCK on my ip to prevent my backing, correct?)
Ick Ickagami	Posted - 2010.01.05 13:17:00 - [185] Originally by: Platoon Sergeant I jump into a 0.4 sec thread in my internet explorer with 2 WCS and a Cloaking Device. Upon arriving on the other side, I see about 10 red blinky trolls about 15-20 posts down (clearly a troll thread). Still cloaked after the click, I guess that my best method of escape is to tap my back button for a second and immediately close the browser. But apparently that is not good enough. Within that time period, I am immediately enraged, so my cloaking device doesn't work. [ 2010.01.01 22:34:44 ] (notify) Mouse moves to top left corner [ 2010.01.01 22:34:47 ] (notify) You cannot go back as you are being troll by trolls. Never thought smacktalk would hold me up. Shortly thereafter: Pop. Zero chance to escape. WTF... (Is that really reasonable? If so, then there is NO safe way to jump into low-sec General Discussion.) Btw: How do people successfully troll me within 2-3 seconds? (My understanding is: One needs to get a target LOCK on my ip to prevent my backing, correct?) Simple. actually. You were obviously in a browser powered by an inferior processor, running a substandard browser routine, on a slow datastream, belaboring a fail point. You were countered by someone in a much better browser powered by a vastly superior processor possessing an infinipoint to counter your fail point, connected via latest-generation fiber optics. Forum PvP s best PvP
Malidinus Caldari	Posted - 2010.01.05 14:00:00 - [186] The issue is not so much about not being able to escape such a gate camp with a BC. The issue in my opinion is the EXTREME difference between 0.5 and 0.4 security, and pretty much none at all between 0.4 and 0.1. Even though it may be justified to keep the CONCORD away from low sec I still think that the gates and stations should have a lot more defence. Something like this (measured in Turret Strengths, an imaginary unit I have no value to give at this time): And since PvP is no my thing in EVE these descriptions will sound silly to many of you but maybe you'll get my meaning if you give it a try. 0.4 : 50 TS at gates (you practically need capital ships to keep camping these gates) 0.3: 25 TS at gates (A sizeable fleet of battleships should do the trick) 0.2: 12 TS at gates 0.1: 6 TS at gates 0.0 gates leading to low sec: 3 TS (More like an annoyance to campers than a real threat) You could still hunt mission runners and miners with ease in 0.4 but on the other hand people could more easily enter low sec and see what is happening in local. Right now you pretty much need an alt to scout the gate before you bring anything through the gates. Currently the security system is pretty much binary for new players and carebears. The system either has security or not. There is no gray area.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.01.05 15:25:00 - [187] Originally by: Malidinus Edited by: Malidinus on 05/01/2010 14:26:04 The issue is not so much about not being able to escape such a gate camp with a BC. The issue in my opinion is the EXTREME difference between 0.5 and 0.4 security, and pretty much none at all between 0.4 and 0.1. Even though it may be justified to keep the CONCORD away from low sec I still think that the gates and stations should have a lot more defence. Something like this (measured in Turret Strengths, an imaginary unit I have no value to give at this time): And since PvP is no my thing in EVE these descriptions will sound silly to many of you but maybe you'll get my meaning if you give it a try. 0.4 : 50 TS at gates (you practically need capital ships to keep camping these gates) 0.3: 25 TS at gates (A sizeable fleet of battleships should do the trick) 0.2: 12 TS at gates 0.1: 6 TS at gates 0.0 gates leading to low sec: 3 TS (More like an annoyance to campers than a real threat) You could still hunt mission runners and miners with ease in 0.4 but on the other hand people could more easily enter low sec and see what is happening in local. Right now you pretty much need an alt to scout the gate before you bring anything through the gates. Currently the security system is more or less binary for new players and carebears. The system either has security or not. There is no gray area. An alternative approach might be to make 0.5s a little less safe...
couger malthas Amarr Shiva	Posted - 2010.01.05 15:45:00 - [188] Edited by: couger malthas on 05/01/2010 15:46:19 Originally by: Platoon Sergeant I jump into a 0.4 sec thread in my internet explorer with 2 WCS and a Cloaking Device. Upon arriving on the other side, I see about 10 red blinky trolls about 15-20 posts down (clearly a troll thread). Still cloaked after the click, I guess that my best method of escape is to tap my back button for a second and immediately close the browser. But apparently that is not good enough. Within that time period, I am immediately enraged, so my cloaking device doesn't work. [ 2010.01.01 22:34:44 ] (notify) Mouse moves to top left corner [ 2010.01.01 22:34:47 ] (notify) You cannot go back as you are being troll by trolls. Never thought smacktalk would hold me up. Shortly thereafter: Pop. Zero chance to escape. WTF... (Is that really reasonable? If so, then there is NO safe way to jump into low-sec General Discussion.) Btw: How do people successfully troll me within 2-3 seconds? (My understanding is: One needs to get a target LOCK on my ip to prevent my backing, correct?) Is clearly a troll! He says he has internet explorer, should have DL'ed firefox, then you can dodge trolls like your in a covrt ;) _______________________________________________
Jin Nib Resplendent Knives	Posted - 2010.01.05 19:50:00 - [189] Originally by: Malidinus Edited by: Malidinus on 05/01/2010 14:26:04 The issue is not so much about not being able to escape such a gate camp with a BC. The issue in my opinion is the EXTREME difference between 0.5 and 0.4 security, and pretty much none at all between 0.4 and 0.1. Even though it may be justified to keep the CONCORD away from low sec I still think that the gates and stations should have a lot more defence. Something like this (measured in Turret Strengths, an imaginary unit I have no value to give at this time): And since PvP is no my thing in EVE these descriptions will sound silly to many of you but maybe you'll get my meaning if you give it a try. 0.4 : 50 TS at gates (you practically need capital ships to keep camping these gates) 0.3: 25 TS at gates (A sizeable fleet of battleships should do the trick) 0.2: 12 TS at gates 0.1: 6 TS at gates 0.0 gates leading to low sec: 3 TS (More like an annoyance to campers than a real threat) You could still hunt mission runners and miners with ease in 0.4 but on the other hand people could more easily enter low sec and see what is happening in local. Right now you pretty much need an alt to scout the gate before you bring anything through the gates. Currently the security system is more or less binary for new players and carebears. The system either has security or not. There is no gray area. Concord is a pretty bad game mechanic in itself TBH. Why would you want to inflict them on low sec? That's just cruel. -Jin Nib Trading on behalf of Opera Noir since: 2009.03.02 03:53:00
Selrid Miamarr Amarr	Posted - 2010.01.05 20:25:00 - [190] Quote: Concord is a pretty bad game mechanic in itself TBH. Why would you want to inflict them on low sec? That's just cruel. I can't see it being a bad gameplay mechanic. Well, if the point is to guarantee a measure of safety for non-pvp pursuits. If you want no safety anywheres, then yes it's bad, but you are talking about a radically different game, and one I'm not the players would be up to handling.

FunzzeR Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2010.01.05 20:36:00 - [191] Edited by: FunzzeR on 05/01/2010 20:36:23 Originally by: Malidinus Edited by: Malidinus on 05/01/2010 14:26:04 The issue is not so much about not being able to escape such a gate camp with a BC. The issue in my opinion is the EXTREME difference between 0.5 and 0.4 security, and pretty much none at all between 0.4 and 0.1. Even though it may be justified to keep the CONCORD away from low sec I still think that the gates and stations should have a lot more defence. Something like this (measured in Turret Strengths, an imaginary unit I have no value to give at this time): And since PvP is no my thing in EVE these descriptions will sound silly to many of you but maybe you'll get my meaning if you give it a try. 0.4 : 50 TS at gates (you practically need capital ships to keep camping these gates) 0.3: 25 TS at gates (A sizeable fleet of battleships should do the trick) 0.2: 12 TS at gates 0.1: 6 TS at gates 0.0 gates leading to low sec: 3 TS (More like an annoyance to campers than a real threat) You could still hunt mission runners and miners with ease in 0.4 but on the other hand people could more easily enter low sec and see what is happening in local. Right now you pretty much need an alt to scout the gate before you bring anything through the gates. Currently the security system is more or less binary for new players and carebears. The system either has security or not. There is no gray area. Only if Concord/faction police gets appropriately weakened in .5 and .6 systems. After all they are only marginally safer than .4 (using your logic) PRAISE THE SCOTTISH FOLD!! THEIR WILL SHALL BE DONE!!
Jin Nib Resplendent Knives	Posted - 2010.01.05 20:37:00 - [192] Originally by: Selrid Miamarr Quote: Concord is a pretty bad game mechanic in itself TBH. Why would you want to inflict them on low sec? That's just cruel. I can't see it being a bad gameplay mechanic. Well, if the point is to guarantee a measure of safety for non-pvp pursuits. If you want no safety anywheres, then yes it's bad, but you are talking about a radically different game, and one I'm not the players would be up to handling. It's bad for a few reasons the major of which is the way sec status and standings work and the way that system sec status works. Except that no one is asking for it to be removed ( he suggested that it "may be justified" implying that it was questionable in the first place). All I said was that the desire to inflict such a flawed mechanic on low sec was crazy, pointless, and works against the whole idea of lowsec. Just not in so many words. Further more the poster wants turret strength changed based on sec status. It already does, there are more turrets around higher security gates then there are in lower security ones, and in null sec there are none. Care-bears don't want to go into PvP, especially involuntarily. Happy-friendly lowsec-land wouldn't change that. -Jin Nib Trading on behalf of Opera Noir since: 2009.03.02 03:53:00
Joe Stalin Unknown-Entity Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2010.01.05 23:56:00 - [193] Edited by: Joe Stalin on 06/01/2010 00:06:42 If you want to fly through low sec solo, you might want to try doing it in a ship better setup to evade gate camps instead of a super slow battle cruiser. Solo flying through low sec is for people who actually understand what to do to survive. (hint hint, you probably should have hit the MWD and gone for the gate immediately when your initial cloak ran out... or better yet not fly BC's solo in low sec and start with something like an interceptor. Fly BC's in gangs or with a scout, unless you are an idiot) Oh, and cloaking in a freaking BC is usually not going to lead to your escape anyway... unless you somehow figured out how to fit a covert ops cloak. 10 blinky reds at a gate are probably going to figure out how to decloak you at freaking 12km off the gate. -- To escape gate camps: 1) Fly in a ship designed to escape them, like a fast frigate that is way harder to lock quickly than a battlecruiser 2) Fly a stealth bomber or other frigate that fits a covert ops cloak, and PRACTICE hitting warp followed by enabling your cloak as fast as you can without getting a warning that you did it too quickly (before the game starts your warp and does you initial decloak) 3) GET SOMEONE TO SCOUT YOU!!! If you want to fly a ship like a BC that almost anyone can nearly instantly lock, you should have someone in a fast ship checking ahead of you for gate camps... then simply don't fly your BC into the gate camp like a fool. You will rarely lose a ship to a gate camp if you follow any one of those 3
Wet Ferret	Posted - 2010.01.06 00:15:00 - [194] Originally by: Seishi Maru Originally by: Wet Ferret Cloak can't be engaged if someone even begins targeting you. So you need to align and cloak in one swift motion basically, to give them no time to click on you. A little bad luck and latency will get you killed though... Tha is NOT true. When you have an yellow bracked you have already been locked. Try liek this.. get a stealth bobmer.. and a friend in acarrier. Ask him to start locking. SHould take almost 1 minute. You can cloak any time during that. Fact is BC is not a small ship and its easy to lock it in 1 seconds only. And Server lag sometimes is far larger than that so your cloak command might not arrive in time. That's how I learned it worked back in RMR when I was first messing around with cloaks. I haven't had time to test it yet but not in a big hurry either. If nothing else the paranoia has kept me safer over the years But, yeah. These forums seriously need some indicator that the post has ended and the sig has started.
Marchocias Silent Ninja's	Posted - 2010.01.06 11:18:00 - [195] Originally by: Milana Arkani Originally by: Jebidus Skari ... By your logic, the ONLY people who should ever venture into low-sec space are covert ops or fleets of ships. Or, fly an alt in to get killed first. Again, so idiotic... Is that really the way this game is meant to be played? I think not. Btw: Risk is fine. But inescapable guaranteed insta-death is really lame, imo. He didn't say you NEED a covops or a massive fleet at all. And he's not being idiotic, he's handing out perfectly appropriate advice. It is a standard technique to use alts to scout ahead. If you HAVE alts, and you're moving ships/cargo which is expensive enough that you feel you cannot afford to lose it, then its a bloody good idea to use them to scout, and if you don't then you're probably doing it wrong. Also, if you're any good at scouting your alt WONT die, but even if he does its better the alt die in a throwaway covops ship, than your main dying in something much more expensive. And, as it happens, the game is meant to be played whilst cooperating with other players, and in some case cooperation means having alts and cooperating with yourself. Half the playerbase does it. So whether or not its the way its meant to be played, it happens to be the way that it IS played. Basically, you're calling someone an idiot, when everything that you've typed makes you look like you're a noob who doesn't actually understand how the game works. Until such a time as you have educated yourself, you probably shouldnt mock people regarding a subject they clearly understand better than you. ---- I belong to Silent Ninja (Hopefully that should cover it).
Agnatar	Posted - 2010.01.06 12:34:00 - [196] Originally by: couger malthas If you got a problem with PVP or getting ganked there is more then one way to get out of it, 1 being stay in .5+ or going and playing HelloKitty Online. Be carefull with such advices. Do you remember what happened with Felucca after the introducing of Trammel? To EVE the same thing could happen soon (STO and so).
Another Whine Caldari Homicidal Minds	Posted - 2010.01.06 13:11:00 - [197] Epic troll 9/10 for length and ill bite YES YOU FAILED HARD a **ing freigther** can escape a low sec gate camp allthough with underhanded method, and no latency is not the problem YOU ARE and a little info 4 things make you not cloak : Yellow box, Red box, being within 2000meters of something, corrupt cache and setting files learn game mechanichs before coming on the forums and making stupid threads
Maximilian Black Techno-Wizard Industrial Technologies	Posted - 2010.01.06 21:28:00 - [198] Edited by: Maximilian Black on 06/01/2010 21:28:38 ... --- Maximilian Black Techno-Wizard Industrial Technologies


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.