FIRST GENERAL
Wolfsbrigade
Lost Obsession
185
   |
Posted - 2012.08.03 14:27:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Greyscale, I really do hope that this was merely an idea and nothing more. We've all been witness to at the time so-called 'ideas' which were later implemented exactly 'as is' despite only ever being advertised as ideas.
After reading through the whole thread and finding some whining, some trolling but also some rigorous (and righteously so) and valid arguments against even the 'mere idea' of these new gate guns i'll add my 5 cents worth to it as well:
The idea to 'fix gate guns' or implement 'stronger gate guns' seems to stem (and achieve that very desire) from a :
- desire to eliminate gate camps (a)
- desire to make low-sec safer (b)
- desire to draw carebears into lowsec to make it more crowded (c)
(a) First off, there isn't that much gate camping to being with, and I think that in that respect its a false desire to begin with. Its a vast generalisation that comes from having a few systems in Eve that are notorious for gate Smartbombing and camping gates with insta-locking ships.
Most of the time so-called 'gate camps' are merely gangs running around 'showing some leg' in order to find engagements and naturally taking the possibility away to 'show some leg' on a gate to get an engagement will not help at all to make lowsec more crowded, quite the opposite actually, it will drain it of the life and action you've given it lately with Inferno. Your idea will not lead to eliminating gate camps.
(b) Second, the proposed changes will not make low-sec safer. You merely force the lowsec veterans to adapt their tactics if they want to gate camp and gank. Some adapted tactics have already been formulated in this thread to illustrate just that. Your idea will then eliminate the problem nor bring with it your desired effect. However fleet fights around the gates will simply not be possible anymore as stated above. Your idea will not lead to making lowsec safer. (If you want safe stay in high-sec)
(c) Third, and by (b) this will already be clear to most, your idea will not draw carebears into lowsec to make it more crowded simply because pvp'ers will find ways around your changes and still hurt the 'carebears' and gank them like there's no tomorrow. Your idea will however drive pvp'ers out of low-sec, and that, is not something you want or do you? Your idea will not bring more carebears into lowsec and will not make it more crowded, quite the opposite.
Instead of trying to get carebears into low-sec how about getting even more pvp'ers into low-sec? After all, low-sec is one of the main homes of PvP or isn't it? So instead make it more attractive for pvp'ers to live in low-sec. The mechanics as they are are not unfair simply because there's ways to avoid getting killed in low-sec and as long as there is, it is in my opinion balanced.
If carebears learn the low-sec mechanics, you won't have to have ideas about fixing something that isn't broken in the first place in the form of having sentry guns' power go OVER 9000 after 4 minutes.
If the master plan really is to make low-sec more crowded, and it seems to me as if it were, then do the only sensible thing in that regard, and make low-sec more rewarding. |