I've been asking for progressively stronger gate guns in low sec for years. This is a great change that is long overdue!

I also agree with the person that suggested that the gun progression is slower as you go into lower sec.

Can't wait to see it CCP!

Issler

Rothgar and I go way back. And while I agree with his assessment (mostly), I have a few things to add.

#1, changing the gate guns in the proposed manner won't solve anything. It won't fix what's wrong with lowsec, and what it WILL do is guarantee that solo players like myself will never again stand a chance at fighting multiple enemies at a gate in low sec. CCP will literally be erasing yet another opportunity for me to PVP.

#2, while I agree that probing is too easy now, how they should change probing should be very specific: it needs to be made more difficult, but in a way that rewards skill and creativity and planning, not just nerfing the hell out of probe performance. Simply nerfing probe strength by 90% so that by the time I find a target the mission is finished is not the answer.

CCP should design the probing mechanic so that someone who is highly skilled at understanding the variables can probe faster than those who can't. Personally, I don't think that CCP is creative and smart enough to implement something like this.

Regardless of the probing issue, changing gate guns in this manner isn't going to help lowec, and it will most likely hurt it overall. I know it will most definitely make me play less, if not leave the game completely. I can rarely find opportunities to PVP solo as it is.

According to the CSM on Eve Radio just now this was simply a miscommunication in the CSM minutes. It was not actually presented as it was represented in the minutes:

The CSM minutes reads as so: "CCP Greyscale moves on to explain his work on sentry guns. Sentry guns will now shoot anyone with a criminal flag, suspect or otherwise. ... **go on to explain how sentry guns are gonna blap everything on field** ..."

It should read as so: "CCP Greyscale moves on to brainstorm with the CSM about sentry guns."

I don't know if I believe it given the CSM responses to my blog post... but w/e. I think the point that this is a bad idea and should not be implemented (as described) has been made.

-Liang

I remember many complaints that small ships cannot partake in gate camps because they get alphaed by the gate guns.

Now they can. Seems like a good change to me.

Sorry to tell you but gate camping is not real PvP, as is shown by the people who now hide in Orcas if things get to tough.

Quoting myself. This is a spitball idea that we shared with the CSM, not a final design.

I'm just scared because usually when you guys "finalize" it is way too late for player feedback, and you won't look at it for another 3 years.

I think it's fair to say that a spitball idea that isn't even out of the gestation phase is hardly worth all the ire and rhetoric that's being spun in this thread.

And, besides, it's not like Lowsec's pirates and ne'er do well are making many valid suggestions about how to invigorate Lowsec.

You can talk about their 'history' all you want, but actions speak louder than words

GǪand their actions show that they're quite bad at taking in feedback until things have already blown up in their face.

Rothgar and I go way back. And while I agree with his assessment (mostly), I have a few things to add.

#1, changing the gate guns in the proposed manner won't solve anything. It won't fix what's wrong with lowsec, and what it WILL do is guarantee that solo players like myself will never again stand a chance at fighting multiple enemies at a gate in low sec. CCP will literally be erasing yet another opportunity for me to PVP.

#2, while I agree that probing is too easy now, how they should change probing should be very specific: it needs to be made more difficult, but in a way that rewards skill and creativity and planning, not just nerfing the hell out of probe performance. Simply nerfing probe strength by 90% so that by the time I find a target the mission is finished is not the answer.

CCP should design the probing mechanic so that someone who is highly skilled at understanding the variables can probe faster than those who can't. Personally, I don't think that CCP is creative and smart enough to implement something like this.

Regardless of the probing issue, changing gate guns in this manner isn't going to help lowec, and it will most likely hurt it overall. I know it will most definitely make me play less, if not leave the game completely. I can rarely find opportunities to PVP solo as it is.

I love your quote "So what gives, guys? Why didnGÇÖt you object to deleting PVP real PVP from low sec?"

Sorry to tell you but gate camping is not real PvP, as is shown by the people who now hide in Orcas if things get to tough.

If you have a problem with Orcas, then find a solution to that issue. I don't agree with it either.

But as far as gate camping is concerned. Please tell me when you became the arbiter, of what is and what is not real PvP?

This is all a matter of design concept vs. design intent. Those opposed to this spitball of an idea are opposed to the concept, but very well may agree with the intent (save a select few, but I'll get to them).

The design concept is flawed. Simply ramping up the damage on Sentry guns to a point that they are untankable will certainly diminish the amount of PVP that occurs on gates and station. And gates and stations, as the level-headed among us will agree, is where a large percentage of the PVP in Lowsec occurs. Therefore the concept is flawed. However, that is irrelevant at this point as the concept is not even a glimmer in the eye of the developers, which leads us to design intent.

The design intent is sound. The intent is to increase traffic and lower the bar for entry into lowsec by the reduction in permanent gate camps that can indefinitely tank ineffectual gate guns. I believe that it's safe to say the initial design of Sentry guns did not and could not account for the likelihood of them being permanently tanked and essentially ignored by the much higher class ships that exist today. Re-balancing the bar for entry into Lowsec is the intention of the concept and shouldn't so easily be overlooked while there isn't even a preliminary concept to begin with.

I can buy this. Player on player violence is PVP no matter what the circumstances. Some styles of play just happen to require far less, shall we say, skill than others.

I appreciate everyone's patience as we ease back on the frustration and move back into a constructive dialogue about the proposed mechanics. Remember - it took a lot of courage for devs like CCP Greyscale to share their design ideas so early, and than to allow themselves to be quoted on top of that. This was precisely the fear that we all had (CSM and CCP alike), that one small error can lead to a huge community response that does more harm than good.

Just wanted to stop by and confirm that no, none of us want to see low sec PvP wiped from the map ;)

I'm a criminal, nearly -10 myself. I live in lowsec. Probably 50% of my kills are on gates. This **** matters, but the reality is that this meeting was about Winter crimewatch changes. Not stuff that's coming out in Inferno 1.2 next week. If you see this kind of stuff on patch notes, and you haven't ever heard the CSM say anything about it? By all means, burn down the house. But rest assured none of this is set in stone. Sometimes the developers will say that the thought process is that "______ will do ______" and they don't literally mean that this is how this is happening tomorrow.

If you really want to continue the blame game and need someone to spitroast, throw darts at, or just scream out when you're shooting people in the face on DUST, go ahead and pin it on me, I was the one that wrote the session to begin with.

Understand these were compiled using multiple rewinds, and I often would slow down sections of dialogue just to make sure I caught key words and phrases. The problem is that by zooming in at this level, it becomes difficult to than step back and say "Hmmmm someone else is going to hear this differently." (Everyone involved was there at the meeting and knew full well it was conceptual and not set in stone. We're all a bit myopic in this regard)

I've certainly learned a valuable lesson in tone and word choice, and we will certainly be careful to look for every opportunity to disclaimer the next set of minutes wherever appropriate to avoid this kind of miscommunication. I'll be discussing this with CCP Manifest myself next time I see him, so we all remember to keep this in mind next time around.

I appreciate everyone's patience as we ease back on the frustration and move back into a constructive dialogue about the proposed mechanics. Remember - it took a lot of courage for devs like CCP Greyscale to share their design ideas so early, and than to allow themselves to be quoted on top of that. This was precisely the fear that we all had (CSM and CCP alike), that one small error can lead to a huge community response that does more harm than good.

As long as we keep it respectful and give the devs some credit for opening up like this hopefully we'll continue to be a part of this design process as early as possible. This kind of discussion is what we're really after, in the end. If the devs take away from this incident that there's no benefit in public spitballing, we've all squandered a tremendous opportunity.