EVE Search - Ban Warp Disruption in Low-Sec

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Ban Warp Disruption in Low-Sec

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tibalt Avalon Suck my Titan	Posted - 2010.04.23 06:30:00 - [31] Originally by: Simon Boon This is probably an idiotic idea, but it might generate an interesting discussion. What if warp disruption was banned in low sec for non-war targets? For newer players there is the perception (right or wrong) that if you enter low-sec you will be webbed/scrammed and podded moments after warping in to a 0.4 system. Seasoned players know this isn't true, but for the greener players the perception remains. Would removing warp disruption, thus giving a player chance to escape, actually result in more PVP by increasing the traffic in low-sec systems? Would there be more PVP but less kills? How would tactics change to actually be able to catch, track and kill targets? I hope god strikes you down with a bolt of lightning you fu....in j..... Hardstyle Ambassador
Simon Boon Amarr	Posted - 2010.04.24 12:13:00 - [32] I think some people are missing the point of the post. CCP will never make a change like this. I hoped to generate some discussion about the possibilities a change like this would make.
Whitehound The Whitehound Corporation	Posted - 2010.04.24 12:19:00 - [33] Originally by: Simon Boon I think some people are missing the point of the post. CCP will never make a change like this. I hoped to generate some discussion about the possibilities a change like this would make. Oh, do not underestimate CCP. They do whatever they feel necessary. However, trying to start a high level discussion in a forum like this one here is hard work. --
Party Scout	Posted - 2010.04.24 14:35:00 - [34] Originally by: Simon Boon I think some people are missing the point of the post. CCP will never make a change like this. I hoped to generate some discussion about the possibilities a change like this would make. Ok, my first thought was "this is a terrisucky idea!", but actually thinking on this idea more, it is actually not too bad... Ok, lets say they make that change. What would happen? It would push more players into low sec, as it is now safer, but it would still allow ganking there (some people would escape, so gankers would need more skill than just point/kill). More miners would go into low sec, more mission runners, traders, etc, and they would be at the mercy of capital ships as well. In general, it would provide a better link between "secure" space, and 0.0 space. It puts people into PVP, but with a certain safety net. It would expand empire space quite a bit. Ok, so not a bad idea after all I guess. I'm not saying it should be done, but something for CCP to think about.
lookatzebirdie	Posted - 2010.04.24 15:49:00 - [35] seriously, nobody has even entertained the idea that OP is terribad troll ? 3/10 because you got to page 2 before someone called it anti macroer anti exploiter 100% PRO RUSSIAN :)
Simon Boon Amarr	Posted - 2010.04.28 10:00:00 - [36] The more I think about a change like this, the more I like the idea. I believe that it would make low-sec a more dynamic, interesting and fun place to live in. I completely understand why people wouldn't want to see the removal of warp disruption from low-sec; especially if you've already made the transition from hi-sec (I moved out of hi-sec over a year ago). It's a massive change, and would dramatically alter the balance in low-sec. For that reason alone, the idea is a non-starter. I'd like to respond to a few people who were kind enough to post constructive comments. Blobbing will always be a problem, in this game, more is usually better. Granted, gangs may have to increase in size to alpha heavily tanked targets, but there is a point where additional numbers become overkill. In fact we may see a reduction in blobs due to more hit and run tactics. Capitals are likely to be unstoppable, which is another good reason why a change like this is unworkable. Some people have suggested that this change would prevent PVP without consent. I don't agree, it would make killing without consent far more difficult, but there is nothing to prevent the initiating of PVP. My hope is that PVP would become more interesting and varied. I also think PVP would have more of a purpose, like defending an asset, rather than combat for combat sake. What if warp disruption was banned in only 0.4 sec, inviting players in to low, while in lower sec systems, maintaining their lethal nature?
Cpt Branko Retired Pirate Club	Posted - 2010.04.28 10:30:00 - [37] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 28/04/2010 10:35:28 I'm still agreeing with the OP that this is a idiotic idea. It is a mighty fine trollpost however. Anyone who thinks this change would bring anything but eliminate anything resembling solo or small gang in favour of gangs of sensor boosted artycanes (or artypests/artymaels) one-volleying ships is a clueless, misguided idiot who has no clue about game mechanics whatsoever, or simply trolling. Originally by: Party Scout but it would still allow ganking there (some people would escape, so gankers would need MOAR PEOPLE. Fixed it for you. There are groups which camp gates in large blobs and make for practically instadeath gatecamps. I'm sure they need a boost because they encourage carebears coming to lowsec. Originally by: lookatzebirdie seriously, nobody has even entertained the idea that OP is terribad troll ? 3/10 because you got to page 2 before someone called it Actually someone on page 1 said this post is a trololololo, so you're not first. However, the OP definitely deserves a modestly successfull troll is modestly successfull. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Simon Boon Amarr	Posted - 2010.04.28 12:18:00 - [38] Originally by: Cpt Branko Anyone who thinks this change would bring anything but eliminate anything resembling solo or small gang in favour of gangs... This outcome is certainly possible, would this change be made. Solo and small gang warfare should be encouraged, but I'm unsure if a change like this would eliminate it. If your goal was to only kill people, then that's not going to be possible solo or in a small gang, unless the target is stupid, already damaged, or a war target. However, for example, what a small gang could do is drive off the slow, poorly tanked, "sensor boosted artycanes" from the gate camp, allowing a corps industrials access to the system. The goal then becomes control of the gate, rather then the kill mail.
Novs Slave	Posted - 2010.04.28 12:33:00 - [39] more meat for discussion... what if warp disruption only is effective when the target shoots back? Or even better, what if warp disruption modules get removed and you get automatically warp disrupted while you actually shoot. Scenarios: Pirate engages innocente bystander. Innocent bystander can warp out if he/she does not shoot. Fleet fight. Units which shoot won't be able to warp for a period of time (coold down, 30 secs?). I know the answer is no, but as Simon say, why not discuss it? Maybe something good can come from wild ideas like this. Flame on
Whitehound The Whitehound Corporation	Posted - 2010.04.28 12:51:00 - [40] Originally by: Novs Slave more meat for discussion... what if warp disruption only is effective when the target shoots back? Or even better, what if warp disruption modules get removed and you get automatically warp disrupted while you actually shoot. Or maybe leave those modules for interceptors/interdictor role ships only. ... Flame on You are starting a new discussion within the existing one. Try to stick to one discussion. Flame off. --

Novs Slave	Posted - 2010.04.28 13:09:00 - [41] Originally by: Whitehound Originally by: Novs Slave more meat for discussion... what if warp disruption only is effective when the target shoots back? Or even better, what if warp disruption modules get removed and you get automatically warp disrupted while you actually shoot. Or maybe leave those modules for interceptors/interdictor role ships only. ... Flame on You are starting a new discussion within the existing one. Try to stick to one discussion. Flame off. I'd say it is pretty much related and well within the possible ramifications of the original debate but if you say so.... Any other orders... sir?
Simon Boon Amarr	Posted - 2010.04.28 14:02:00 - [42] Edited by: Simon Boon on 28/04/2010 14:02:48 Originally by: Novs Slave Edited by: Novs Slave on 28/04/2010 12:37:17 more meat for discussion... what if warp disruption only is effective when the target shoots back? Or even better, what if warp disruption modules get removed and you get automatically warp disrupted while you actually shoot. Or maybe leave those modules for interceptors/interdictor role ships only. Scenarios: Pirate engages innocente bystander. Innocent bystander can warp out if he/she does not shoot. Fleet fight. Units which shoot won't be able to warp for a period of time (coold down, 30 secs?). I know the answer is no, but as Simon say, why not discuss it? Maybe something good can come from wild ideas like this. Flame on I did consider the consequences of making warp disruption effective when the target shot back. However I thought it might be a bad idea because it effectively makes combat by consent only, and removes any incentive for the target to shoot back, which is no better than hi-sec. Using your example, imagine the "innocent bystander" is a belt ratter in harbinger. A small gang of frigates engage. Depending on fitting and pilot skill, it maybe possible for the harby to fight off the attack. So the pilot has a choice, fight or flight. If shooting makes it possible to be warp scrambled, then many pilots will bug out rather than risk death; the engagement ends, frustrating both parties. If the option to escape remains, I believe many pilots would be willing to "have a go", making things a lot more interesting. Granted, the chances of the engagement resulting in a kill mail are limited, but that's not to say experience wouldn't be fun. I did wonder if warp disruption should be time limited and chance based, like ECM. I also think that limiting warp disruption to certain ship types is also an interesting idea.
Jovialmadness	Posted - 2010.04.28 15:11:00 - [43] Pointless post. Remote sensor boosted hics and rapiers would be everywhere. And yea I assume the op is talking about standard warp disruption/ scramming. If not I apologize in advance.
Simon Boon Amarr	Posted - 2010.04.28 19:17:00 - [44] Originally by: Jovialmadness Pointless post. Remote sensor boosted hics and rapiers would be everywhere. And yea I assume the op is talking about standard warp disruption/ scramming. If not I apologize in advance. I was suggesting that all forms of warp disruption would be prevented, otherwise HICs would dominate.
Major Stallion The Dark Horses	Posted - 2010.04.28 19:39:00 - [45] 7/10...great troll. Haven't seen one this good in quite some time.
Whitehound The Whitehound Corporation	Posted - 2010.04.28 21:58:00 - [46] Originally by: Novs Slave I'd say it is pretty much related and well within the possible ramifications of the original debate but if you say so.... Any other orders... sir? Related, yes, but the OP has an idea of its own and you want to modify it before the discussion has started. --
Cpt Branko Retired Pirate Club	Posted - 2010.04.28 22:09:00 - [47] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 28/04/2010 22:09:48 Originally by: Simon Boon Originally by: Cpt Branko Anyone who thinks this change would bring anything but eliminate anything resembling solo or small gang in favour of gangs... This outcome is certainly possible, would this change be made. Solo and small gang warfare should be encouraged, but I'm unsure if a change like this would eliminate it. If your goal was to only kill people, then that's not going to be possible solo or in a small gang, unless the target is stupid, already damaged, or a war target. However, for example, what a small gang could do is drive off the slow, poorly tanked, "sensor boosted artycanes" from the gate camp, allowing a corps industrials access to the system. The goal then becomes control of the gate, rather then the kill mail. Cool story bro. I'm really having trouble deciding whether you're simply talking out of ignorance or yo·'re one of the better trolls in here Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Dasfry Caldari Demio's Corporation Aegis Militia	Posted - 2010.04.29 00:24:00 - [48] Originally by: mothyowns Go on then. How would you change your tactics for killing people if you cant actually keep them in your system? The only way I can see if smartbombing gatecamps on every gate, which would be even less fun. Before a ship can warp away, it must aline to the target and then get up to speed. Bumping a ship is one very effective way to keep a target from warping off. Also a note: you are not killing people... you're pod'ing characters *********** Military Tactics Dasfry, CEO Demio's Corporation
Simon Boon Amarr	Posted - 2010.04.29 07:58:00 - [49] Originally by: Dasfry Also a note: you are not killing people... you're pod'ing characters "Killing people", in the context of this thread, means ship destruction. Having said that, "killing people" could be refering to the ship's crew or the exotic dancers you have in your cargo bay.


Pages: 1 [2] :: 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.