Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |

TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Elysian Empire
195
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 15:22:00 -
[331] - Quote
Has it even been revealed what this was intended to "fix" in the first place? Was it titans smartbombing gates, or lowsec having a "low population", or ... what? Greyfail has said it was just a "spitball idea" but what prompted you to start generating these ideas in the first place? What exactly do you think the issue is? |

Othran
Southern Cross Empire Flying Dangerous
220
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 15:24:00 -
[332] - Quote
This isn't going to get more people in low-sec.
Nor will it cause more people to stay in low-sec.
If the issue is high<->low gates then make the gates regional-sized gates.
Without large bubbles regional gates require significant effort to camp due to the size of the gate radius.
It is obviously possible to catch everything that comes through a regional gate but its a lot harder to KILL everything that comes through. In addition if you setup to catch/kill everything then more options exist for breaking up your camp.
Ramping sentry gun DPS will do bugger all to stop camps, it never has before and it won't now.
Use of carriers in low-sec is fine, there's plenty counters to that, lost count of the number of carriers I've seen die in low-sec.
Use of supers/titans in low-sec isn't fine, better off addressing that ****. If you can't build it in low-sec then you cant use it in low-sec should be the rule of thumb. That won't happen though. |

Sunrise Omega
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
19
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 15:25:00 -
[333] - Quote
Hiyora Akachi wrote:Just do this at the .4 High sec entries and leave the rest of the guns as they are.
Less people will Rage n' Unsub because they have to go hunting.
There definitely needs to be a more gradual entry into low-sec rather then 0.5 = nice and fluffly, 0.4 = you can get ganked right as you enter. I wouldn't mind seeing a boost in the number of sentry guns at the gates on the border systems, gradually wearing away to no guns at all in 0.0. This already happens somewhat, but even in 0.4, the number of guns on the gate or the DPS they do is simply not enough to make it a less risky entry point.
But in 0.3, 0.2 and 0.1 systems? Those guns should stay as-is.
The number of guns on the gate should be reflective of what the gate links to. A 0.5-0.4 gate should have more guns on the 0.4 side then a 0.4-0.3 gate.
Let the NPCs join the arms race that has been going on ever since scaps/titans were added. |

Jerick Ludhowe
Toxic Waste Industries
122
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 15:27:00 -
[334] - Quote
Danny Diamonds wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Worst proposed change of the year. Congratz CCP on knowing next to nothing about your own game yet again. P.S. This CSM guy actually thinks he knows what he is talking about, kinda funny tbh  According to the numbers presented in that same CSM... Only 25% of players were playing EvE for the PVP. That leaves...75% who do not consider it a reason for playing the game. If i were running CCP, I wonder what group I would listen to? Maybe the majority...
25% and 75% are far too rounded numbers to ever be taken seriously as real... Stop nut hugging ccp and realize that this is a deplorable idea at best, at worst it's an obvious concoction of true mongoloids.
|

Karl Planck
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
197
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 15:27:00 -
[335] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:Has it even been revealed what this was intended to "fix" in the first place? Was it titans smartbombing gates, or lowsec having a "low population", or ... what? Greyfail has said it was just a "spitball idea" but what prompted you to start generating these ideas in the first place? What exactly do you think the issue is?
prompted?
1) code was open to touch for the first time in a very long time so they thought about how they would poke it. 2) Wanted to discourage gate camping (which apperently is fine in every form except at a few lowsec gates) 3) wanted to increase "active" fights on gates
To all everyone concerned over the fairness involving the H/O disqualification https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=113351&find=unread |

Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
9043
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 15:31:00 -
[336] - Quote
lol
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |

Strider Hiryu
ICEBOX. Negative Ten.
17
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 15:33:00 -
[337] - Quote
Virgil Travis wrote:Generals4 wrote:Maybe this is a plan to get more people in FW? Afterall we can shoot folks in low without getting a sec status hit or going gcc. They'd better learn quickly then that not everybody in low sec is interested in FW, it's one part of the game and not something we should have to do so we can get the best out of low sec.
I 100% agree with this post. My first PVP experience were with FW. It was great! Now I am a pirate. Sure FW needs a buff, but CCP have gone in the wrong direction of making FW lowsecs big reward. FW should not be the focus of lowsec. Piracy should be.
The one thing that pisses me off about this stupid idea is:
We have 2 gangs: 1 pirate gang camping a gate 1 anti pirate gang that wants to bust up the gate camp
Both gangs being equal, who will win? The anti pirate gang will, because they have sentries on their side.
Why does CCP want to reward un-orangised, lazy, childish, immature scrubs with this stupid game mechanic changes? Is it their goal to drive away long term loyal players?
How about fixing the bounty system before coming up with ******** **** like this! |

Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin
359
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 15:37:00 -
[338] - Quote
If this sheer craziness goes ahead, i do hope ccp plan to RAPIDLY boost the means to fix sec stat in low sec.
Risk vs reward? seems a bit broken with this stuff, esp the auto shoot outlaws weather gcc or not <- OMG so stupid http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4375/mynewsig2.jpg |

Brewlar Kuvakei
Adeptio Gloriae
111
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 15:40:00 -
[339] - Quote
If CCP want to put people in Low sec they need to increase the rewards not decreases the risk. Allow bigger pay outs for low sec ded and missions. To be fair doing PVE in low sec is much more dangerous than Null sec so why does null get a greater pay out?
In null you can sit behind bubbles in a cyno jammed system where as in low anyone can enter you mission/ded and tackle you. Kugutsumen - My signature insures that my post is always read by an ISD or Dev, does yours? |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1229
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 15:43:00 -
[340] - Quote
So you want more players in losec?
The majority of players in this game are risk averse, the riskier the activity, the more reward is expected to even consider doing it
How about you slightly lower hisec mission income from bounties and increase the bounties on rats in losec.
This makes sense as you seem to want to move pvp away from the gates and into the belts and celestials.
Give people more reasons to actually want to be in losec My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
|

Hammer Borne
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 15:44:00 -
[341] - Quote
Strider Hiryu wrote:...*snipped*
Why does CCP want to reward un-orangised, lazy, childish, immature scrubs with this stupid game mechanic changes?
Maybe because their attitude isn't as ****** as yours? Emotional posts and temper tantrums didn't get you far with mommy and it won't help much here either.
Using terms like "Scrubs" only shows your extreme lack of maturity toward fellow players. |

Bullz3y3
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
14
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 15:44:00 -
[342] - Quote
You shouldn't have a way to rapidly fix sec status. You committed a crime. Just like allowing pirates to dock in ANY empire sec, it shouldn't happen. Go base in null and travel to low for raids. Like you want hi sec dwellers to do. Its lazy and stupid that a empire would let you camp gates in their territory. |

Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
20
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 15:50:00 -
[343] - Quote
Gate campers ? Make a safepoint out of grid but close to gate. Stay aligned and ready to warp. Use D-scan.
Problem solved.
(Of course it will require a bit more skill to catch people, as gatecampers are not used to think because they spend their day killing unthreatening ships. But I'm sure they will adapt) Death to trees !!! *Axe* *Chop, chop, chop...* => This is the new inventory. ;) |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1229
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 15:51:00 -
[344] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:The game will eventually change for the better, but still, the removal of gates to travel or the reliance on them should go entirely. Let ships dial in system to system warps - and even target a specific area. That's the bloody end of camps, and the entire space opens up to sheer chaos. Worst idea ever - would kill EVE My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
204
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 15:51:00 -
[345] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:It's starting to look to me like CCP is recognizing that gate camping is not PVP in an of itself.
Getting rid of, or reducing gate camps, could open things up a bit.
Back in the days of yor, when people who camped gates did not kill everything that moved "for the lulz" or the killboard, lowsec did have more people in it - and this was BEFORE WTZ.
Because the noob in the rookie ship or cheapie frig was not worth the trouble. Heck I was such a nooblet once i was sitting outside of a station in a velator and asking some -10 guy why he was flashing red on my overview.
And I didn't get popped and told to go back to WOW/High.
But things have changed.
And so killing everything that moved for no apparent reason prevailed. Now I can hear the tears "it's a sandbox!!!1! Marsha Marsha Marsha!!!!" but who wants to play in a sandbox where there are kids whose only goal is to hit you with the pale and shovel and then point and laugh?
Now imagine that sandbox where the only way to get around in it is to pass those kids on a set trail within pail and shovel range.
The majory of "avoid the gate camp" measures will work against most campers most of the time, because campers are campers and camping is dumb. But there are smart campers out there, and someone who is really thinking and not surfing FB/4CH or playing an FPS on the side while "waiting for the word to go up" (meaning "someone jumped in!!!1!!! kill kill killl!!!!") can come up with neat ways to catch people zipping about without even having to concentrate on a gate.
The writing is on the wall and has been since apocrypha. The combat probe is how you are going to get kills, not sitting on a gate being just as semi-afk as a high-sec carebearing miner.
Often the idea of playing this game semi-AFK is considered a mortal sin by the uber leet PVP crowd, but admit it: nobody is sitting on that gate for hours on end with a laser beam focus of attention on the EvE client. Find someone who is and let me know so I can call the mental hospital.
The game will eventually change for the better, but still, the removal of gates to travel or the reliance on them should go entirely. Let ships dial in system to system warps - and even target a specific area. That's the bloody end of camps, and the entire space opens up to sheer chaos.
Can't like this post enough. Whether or not you win the game matters not. -áIt's if you bought it. |

Strider Hiryu
ICEBOX. Negative Ten.
18
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 15:54:00 -
[346] - Quote
Hammer Borne wrote:Strider Hiryu wrote:...*snipped*
Why does CCP want to reward un-orangised, lazy, childish, immature scrubs with this stupid game mechanic changes?
Maybe because their attitude isn't as ****** as yours? Emotional posts and temper tantrums didn't get you far with mommy and it won't help much here either. Using terms like "Scrubs" only shows your extreme lack of maturity toward fellow players.
Infact it shows my disrespect towards such players.
I do disrespect players that cannot use the current game mechanics to evade / defeat pirate gate camps. It really isnt that hard.
I am emotional about it because I like many have been playing this game for many, many years and it forms a large part of my life in my mommys basement.
"You only get out what you put in" Risk v reward.
Why should we reward lazy "scrubs" that are to lazy to use scouts, escorts, etc???
Eve has a steep learning curve, but thats why so many of us are addicted to it.
Also because you brought my mother into this, I just want to say you sir, are immature! Only childish and immature people make mom jokes. |

Private Pineapple
Rifterlings Ushra'Khan
256
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 15:57:00 -
[347] - Quote
Mechael wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:It's starting to look to me like CCP is recognizing that gate camping is not PVP in an of itself.
Getting rid of, or reducing gate camps, could open things up a bit.
Back in the days of yor, when people who camped gates did not kill everything that moved "for the lulz" or the killboard, lowsec did have more people in it - and this was BEFORE WTZ.
Because the noob in the rookie ship or cheapie frig was not worth the trouble. Heck I was such a nooblet once i was sitting outside of a station in a velator and asking some -10 guy why he was flashing red on my overview.
And I didn't get popped and told to go back to WOW/High.
But things have changed.
And so killing everything that moved for no apparent reason prevailed. Now I can hear the tears "it's a sandbox!!!1! Marsha Marsha Marsha!!!!" but who wants to play in a sandbox where there are kids whose only goal is to hit you with the pale and shovel and then point and laugh?
Now imagine that sandbox where the only way to get around in it is to pass those kids on a set trail within pail and shovel range.
The majory of "avoid the gate camp" measures will work against most campers most of the time, because campers are campers and camping is dumb. But there are smart campers out there, and someone who is really thinking and not surfing FB/4CH or playing an FPS on the side while "waiting for the word to go up" (meaning "someone jumped in!!!1!!! kill kill killl!!!!") can come up with neat ways to catch people zipping about without even having to concentrate on a gate.
The writing is on the wall and has been since apocrypha. The combat probe is how you are going to get kills, not sitting on a gate being just as semi-afk as a high-sec carebearing miner.
Often the idea of playing this game semi-AFK is considered a mortal sin by the uber leet PVP crowd, but admit it: nobody is sitting on that gate for hours on end with a laser beam focus of attention on the EvE client. Find someone who is and let me know so I can call the mental hospital.
The game will eventually change for the better, but still, the removal of gates to travel or the reliance on them should go entirely. Let ships dial in system to system warps - and even target a specific area. That's the bloody end of camps, and the entire space opens up to sheer chaos.
Can't like this post enough.
This and I think Herzog hit the point on a problem that happens to many sandboxes. After a while, the sheep either dies or turns into the wolf. Sandboxes need sheep, but in every sandbox game, the wolf wants to fully kill the sheep.
This happened to Mortal Online, actually. It used to have a booming population with a healthy mix of wolves (pvp'rs) and sheep (pve'rs: crafters, explorers, and traders alike). The wolves killed off the sheep and now the only sheep that exist in that game are alts of the wolves. The game is pretty much dead.
The only reason EVE Online did not die horribly like Mortal Online is because of highsec: a place where the sheep can thrive without true risk from the wolves.
Also doesn't anyone find it funny the OP is from HA/HN? They gatecamp all day long and when solo, use smartbombing machariels to score kills on anyone warping to zero on a gate. No wonder they started this thread.
edit: removal of gates is a pretty radical and... well, dumb idea tho I am the Kingpin of the Crime and Punishment forum.
I am the rightful heir to the CSM 8 throne.
|

Hammer Borne
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 15:57:00 -
[348] - Quote
Just to be clear, I am not disagreeing with your message; just the delivery.
I see no point in slamming other players because they play differently than you in a sandbox game. It is their sandbox as well. |

ElextriX
Latrunculi
23
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 16:02:00 -
[349] - Quote
Bullz3y3 wrote:You shouldn't have a way to rapidly fix sec status. You committed a crime. Just like allowing pirates to dock in ANY empire sec, it shouldn't happen. Go base in null and travel to low for raids. Like you want hi sec dwellers to do. Its lazy and stupid that a empire would let you camp gates in their territory.
Have you ever fixed your sec status? There is nothing rapid about it.
|

Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
9043
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 16:04:00 -
[350] - Quote
Hammer Borne wrote:Just to be clear, I am not disagreeing with your message; just the delivery.
I see no point in slamming other players because they play differently than you in a sandbox game. It is their sandbox as well. But your delivery was good? I think not.
Strider's point was valid and showed the disdain we have for those who seemingly cannot use the tools, CCP already provide.
As far as this idea is concerned, (for the reasons above) I really cannot see the need for it. The lack of any pirates in the CSM, is now a worrying situation.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
|

Hammer Borne
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 16:06:00 -
[351] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Hammer Borne wrote:Just to be clear, I am not disagreeing with your message; just the delivery.
I see no point in slamming other players because they play differently than you in a sandbox game. It is their sandbox as well. But your delivery was good? I think not. Strider's point was valid and showed the disdain we have for those who seemingly cannot use the tools, CCP already provide. As far as this idea is concerned, (for the reasons above) I really cannot see the need for it. The lack of any pirates in the CSM, is now a worrying situation.
Yes, it was far better. |

Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
9045
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 16:08:00 -
[352] - Quote
Hammer Borne wrote:Yes, it was far better. Bad language and the mention of ones Mother is better? Sure, I now see your worth. Thank you. 
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |

Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
205
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 16:12:00 -
[353] - Quote
Danny Diamonds wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Danny Diamonds wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Worst proposed change of the year. Congratz CCP on knowing next to nothing about your own game yet again. P.S. This CSM guy actually thinks he knows what he is talking about, kinda funny tbh  According to the numbers presented in that same CSM... Only 25% of players were playing EvE for the PVP. That leaves...75% who do not consider it a reason for playing the game. If i were running CCP, I wonder what group I would listen to? Maybe the majority... The only problem with that logic (or lack of) is that without the pvp, this game wouldn't exist at all. That's strange, it seems that would only impact 25% of current playerbase in drastic ways. I merely echoed (as best i could from memory) the numbers mentioned. Are you denying that only 25% of players responded with PVP as a reason for playing the game? It amazes me at the lengths the handful of forum trolls go to try and convince everyone (including CCP) that they are the only ones who know the "truth". Same 5 turds every time too.
Seriously? If those statistics are true, then 75% of EVE players are even more ******** than I thought. The only ... only ... non-PvP activity in EVE is shooting rats. The moment you so much as make one transaction involving another player, congratulations. You're a PvPer. Player versus Player. Not necessarily Guns/Missiles/Drones vs Guns/Missiles/Drones. Hell, not even necessarily Spaceship vs Spaceship.
We're in worse shape than I thought if 75% of EVE doesn't understand this. Whether or not you win the game matters not. -áIt's if you bought it. |

Rico Minali
Sons Of 0din Dark Therapy
903
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 16:13:00 -
[354] - Quote
All this will do is stop people pvping in lowsec which means less poeple living in lowsec which in turn just makes lowsec even worse than it is now.
What needs to happen is the RIGHT people encouraged into lowsec adn what is lowsec meant to be? Less secure, more crime, a darker and more dangerous place to live. That is what this: OUTLAW - A lowsec idea is all about.
This plan of greyscales seems only to make it easy for risk averse to enter lowsec. In fact all it will do is encourage a more off grid camping or using Alpha snipers for camping. After all, its easy enough to sit 50 Sniper BS at 190km from gate guns and just alpha anythign that comes in using a massive tanked super sebo'd hic to hold it down long enough to target.
The plan is a bad one. Getting into lowsec isnt the problem. Having a GOOD reason to be in lowsec is teh problem, it needs unique opportunities, better resources and a solid storyline friendly reason for why these things are there. See my thread. Lowsec is for Outlaws, drug creating, black markets.... It is also for Vigilantes, bounty hunters and teh people who want to work against thr criminal world of lowsec.
Greyscales idea is simply geared towards hisec poeple to daytrip into lowsec to make isk. Whilst this should be possible (if you take the right precautions) that isnt what the majority of teh people who actually care about lowsec want. Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing. |

King Rothgar
Path of the Fallen
254
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 16:13:00 -
[355] - Quote
I have been an outlaw since late 2008, a frequent pirate and when pvping, I'm GCC more often than not.
With that said, I support the general idea of the change. I have always disliked the whole notion of gate camping. PvP should occur at places of value to players such as POS's, POCO's, exploration sites and so on. Gate camping is the most pathetic form of pvp and simply needs to die imho.
That said, those who have mentioned this won't change mission runner's perspective of low sec are correct. It really is combat probes everywhere 24/7. Probing used to be a highly specialized skill that only a few players had, now everyone and their mother can be good at it with a day of skill training and 20 minutes of practice. I hated the old system and love the far more logical current one. But it needs to be made much harder to probe ships of all classes. There are a number of ways to do this from simple cycle time changes to alterations in deviation and probe strength. Perhaps even adding new tier 2 probing skills to up strength and reduce deviation further.
I also agree that this won't completely eliminate gate camps, the inty/AF with a bunch of alpha tornado's sitting 151km off the gate is a very real possibility. In fact I personally have used this tactic in the past. But I don't see it becoming a common sight due to its obvious limitations.
In any case, I see this as a package deal. Dealing with perma camps is good, this coming from a long time pirate, but it is incomplete. A nerf to combat probing must also be made. With these two together, running lvl4's in low sec in your CNR might not be such a terrible idea for a high sec player. Guys like me will still catch them, but guys like me are rare. 
It will also force roaming gangs to look a little harder for something to shoot. Rather than blobbing gatecamps, they'll have to bait and blob in a belt. Not a major change, but it is a change. The Troll is trolling. |

Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
206
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 16:16:00 -
[356] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:From the wording it also sounds like anyone who steals (once the new mechanics for crimes goes into effect) sentries will shoot them too.
This part is extremely terrible. Why the **** would CCP think that this is a good idea? Whether or not you win the game matters not. -áIt's if you bought it. |

Hammer Borne
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 16:17:00 -
[357] - Quote
King Rothgar wrote:I have been an outlaw since late 2008, a frequent pirate and when pvping, I'm GCC more often than not. With that said, I support the general idea of the change. I have always disliked the whole notion of gate camping. PvP should occur at places of value to players such as POS's, POCO's, exploration sites and so on. Gate camping is the most pathetic form of pvp and simply needs to die imho. That said, those who have mentioned this won't change mission runner's perspective of low sec are correct. It really is combat probes everywhere 24/7. Probing used to be a highly specialized skill that only a few players had, now everyone and their mother can be good at it with a day of skill training and 20 minutes of practice. I hated the old system and love the far more logical current one. But it needs to be made much harder to probe ships of all classes. There are a number of ways to do this from simple cycle time changes to alterations in deviation and probe strength. Perhaps even adding new tier 2 probing skills to up strength and reduce deviation further. I also agree that this won't completely eliminate gate camps, the inty/AF with a bunch of alpha tornado's sitting 151km off the gate is a very real possibility. In fact I personally have used this tactic in the past. But I don't see it becoming a common sight due to its obvious limitations. In any case, I see this as a package deal. Dealing with perma camps is good, this coming from a long time pirate, but it is incomplete. A nerf to combat probing must also be made. With these two together, running lvl4's in low sec in your CNR might not be such a terrible idea for a high sec player. Guys like me will still catch them, but guys like me are rare.  It will also force roaming gangs to look a little harder for something to shoot. Rather than blobbing gatecamps, they'll have to bait and blob in a belt. Not a major change, but it is a change.
Making probing more skill intensive would just "kick the can down the road" wouldn't it? Probe-using pvpers would simply train up what was needed and it would merely offset for a few days at most.
|

Lexmana
641
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 16:24:00 -
[358] - Quote
Stupid idea and I don't even know what they are trying to fix. Wouldn't it be better to buff lowsec instead of nerfing it? |

Welshy RL
Vertigo. SCUM.
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 16:28:00 -
[359] - Quote
Isalone wrote:Quote:CCP Greyscale moves on to explain his work on sentry guns. Sentry guns will now shoot anyone with a criminal flag, suspect or otherwise. Sentry guns will also start with smaller amounts of damage, and ramp up with time. Ideal tuning will be to where triage carriers will die at around 4 1/2 minutes. This way, if you want to use triage carriers in lowsec on gates you can, but you must commit to the cycle for a length of time before starting your reps, if you want to deactivate triage before the sentry guns kill you and jump out. CCP Greyscale also points out that another goal is to make it so that the first couple of hits won't kill an interceptor immediately, enabling a quick tackle, and then a warp out. I've lived in lowsec for quite a while now and gotta tell you - this is probably gonna cause as much "whine 'n' unsub" threads as nex store/greed is good did. For those who don't go to low often - most of fleet/gang fights in low take place at gates. If gateguns are gonna pop carriers 4.5mins into the fight, cruiser/bc fleets going gcc on a gate aren't gonna happen at all. When was the last time you have seen a carrier at a gate? I don't think I've ever seen one. Gatecamps - those aren't the problem, people who won't learn/adapt are. You can easily get through all of them, just do a little research. discuss, lol
Well CCP Greyscale either is one of them pilots who died to lowsec pirats or its his way of doing an incarna mrk 2
Have u got the ORG thread link if thers one? |

Amun Khonsu
Royal Order of Security Specialists Late Night Alliance
55
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 16:29:00 -
[360] - Quote
Isalone wrote:Quote:CCP Greyscale moves on to explain his work on sentry guns. Sentry guns will now shoot anyone with a criminal flag, suspect or otherwise. Sentry guns will also start with smaller amounts of damage, and ramp up with time. Ideal tuning will be to where triage carriers will die at around 4 1/2 minutes. This way, if you want to use triage carriers in lowsec on gates you can, but you must commit to the cycle for a length of time before starting your reps, if you want to deactivate triage before the sentry guns kill you and jump out. CCP Greyscale also points out that another goal is to make it so that the first couple of hits won't kill an interceptor immediately, enabling a quick tackle, and then a warp out. I've lived in lowsec for quite a while now and gotta tell you - this is probably gonna cause as much "whine 'n' unsub" threads as nex store/greed is good did. For those who don't go to low often - most of fleet/gang fights in low take place at gates. If gateguns are gonna pop carriers 4.5mins into the fight, cruiser/bc fleets going gcc on a gate aren't gonna happen at all. When was the last time you have seen a carrier at a gate? I don't think I've ever seen one. Gatecamps - those aren't the problem, people who won't learn/adapt are. You can easily get through all of them, just do a little research. discuss, lol
Ive seen many carriers at gates, including heretic carriers in amamake (tho was some time ago).
Frankly, if it makes Heretics concerned im all for it. Tics are mostly lazy pvp'rs who love sitting still on mainly one gate of the thousands in eve (ama/oso).
Except yoy Issy. You know how to get it done :p Fight them until turmoil is no more and strike terror into their hearts. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |