| 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) |
Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
9049
   |
Posted - 2012.08.05 12:38:00 -
[571] - Quote
Andrest Disch wrote:Schalac wrote:All I hear is "wah, I can't gate camp in my instalocking T3's with off grid boosts and an orca so I can run from people that will kill me"
As they like to say here, HTFU.
Yeah, the pirates are crying because they'll be able to use inties instead of elaborate and expensive t3 setups to catch people on gates. Are you actually reading this thread. Mate, it's simply more people without a clue. The ignorance in these threads amazes me tbh.
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. |
Joneleth Rein
The Scope
Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 13:32:00 -
[572] - Quote
+1 on this change.
And to me it feels like it promotes a more important change. No perma-camping in low-sec. Or at least not easy perma-camping anymore. Not because people can't get through. But because low-sec is under empire control and it's not totally lawless like null (ahem security status). If a corp(pirate or not) wants to enforce system/pipe control it should be a little more easier than sitting on a gate with 20-100 people. Of course a corp/alliance can move to null if they have such aspirations for system(s) control. Plus it will actually help smaller low-sec dwelling corps to survive without having pipes controlled by null-sec alliances or their allies (or at least not that easily)
For me it feels like an awsome change,making things a bit more even in an area which was more dead than null sometimes. On the side it will allow easier travel which means easier access to null as well for those that want to avoid a more heavilly pirated system. More players=more content for everyone. Hell. Even FW benefits from this. Since essentially it will keep the gates clear from GCC non-FW allies (again up to a point).
My 2 isk.
Spider Pig!-áSpider Pig!
Does what a Spider Pig does..
Can he swing? From a web..
No he can't.
He's a pig. |
Ludi Burek
The Player Haters Corp
132
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 13:51:00 -
[573] - Quote
 There is one of these posts on every page "I believe this change is awesome because it will stop all the perma camp everywhere and boost low sec traffic bla bla..." /sigh    |
betoli
Ketogenic Killzone
34
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 13:54:00 -
[574] - Quote
Ensign X wrote:Tippia wrote:there are no particular riches in lowsec to be exploited I beg to differ, but we can agree to disagree. I'm not saying Lowsec couldn't use some love, it sure as hell could, but there's plenty of reward already there for those who are willing to seek it out.
You seem to be in a minority with that view.... |
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Angry Mustellid
Iron Oxide.
225
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 14:15:00 -
[575] - Quote
Just fix the orca bug and there is really no problem with gate camps, if you take a shortcut though a busy system its your own fault when you inevitably die.
Why nerf docking in carriers? If they want to stick a carrier on the gate to scoop T3s I have no problem with that, they won't be doing it for long. |
Schalac
Apocalypse Reign
71
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 14:25:00 -
[576] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Andrest Disch wrote:Schalac wrote:All I hear is "wah, I can't gate camp in my instalocking T3's with off grid boosts and an orca so I can run from people that will kill me"
As they like to say here, HTFU.
Yeah, the pirates are crying because they'll be able to use inties instead of elaborate and expensive t3 setups to catch people on gates. Are you actually reading this thread. Mate, it's simply more people without a clue. The ignorance in these threads amazes me tbh.
And you are the one claiming that this is somehow a nerf.. I am in the other end of the spectrum. I believe that this really is a boost to lowsec and honestly if you think that camping gates is the only way to make money in lowsec then you fail at EVE. |
Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
9050
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 14:30:00 -
[577] - Quote
Schalac wrote:And you are the one claiming that this is somehow a nerf.. I am in the other end of the spectrum. I believe that this really is a boost to lowsec and honestly if you think that camping gates is the only way to make money in lowsec then you fail at EVE. It is a nerf, no doubt about that.
Oh and please point to where I said camping is the only way to make money in low sec. 
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. |
Schalac
Apocalypse Reign
71
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 14:34:00 -
[578] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Schalac wrote:And you are the one claiming that this is somehow a nerf.. I am in the other end of the spectrum. I believe that this really is a boost to lowsec and honestly if you think that camping gates is the only way to make money in lowsec then you fail at EVE. It is a nerf, no doubt about that. Oh and please point to where I said camping is the only way to make money in low sec. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1746540#post1746540
Mag's wrote:Nice post and I couldn't have said it better myself.
I have said it before, if we killed everything, we'd be doing it wrong. We are there to make ISK and right now because low sec has no real benefit outside of high and null, our money making area is a gate.
Instead of nerfing our only money making spot, why not create more money making spots? Boost low, don't nerf it.
Hurry and edit your post about the gate area being the money maker in lowsec. |
Ris Dnalor
Black Rebel Rifter Club
The Devil's Tattoo
408
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 14:37:00 -
[579] - Quote
Ensign X wrote:Ris Dnalor wrote:live in lowsec for awhile. Then you'll laugh at your own post. Unless of course your description of "operate" means to go for months without ever dying. Dying is a part of living in lowsec. That's not a problem, that's a good thing.
Now, there should be better rewards to help offset that risk, but that risk should never ever ever be taken away. and it should be more common, not less. I have lived in Lowsec for most of the past 9 months. I've run into and chatted on occasion to a number of your fellow R1FTAs. I appreciate what you and your kind do, but we have different viewpoints on the same subject based on separate experiences. It happens. In my sandbox, Lowsec exists for it's riches to be exploited by skilled pilots. In your sandbox, Lowsec exists to blow **** up.
So, is to much to freaking ask that CCP make us both happy?!! 
joking aside, I think there is much to be done with risk vs. reward.... on the reward side... like boosting lowsec rewards and cutting high sec ones.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961
EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody
- Qolde |
Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
9051
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 14:40:00 -
[580] - Quote
Schalac wrote:Mag's wrote:Schalac wrote:And you are the one claiming that this is somehow a nerf.. I am in the other end of the spectrum. I believe that this really is a boost to lowsec and honestly if you think that camping gates is the only way to make money in lowsec then you fail at EVE. It is a nerf, no doubt about that. Oh and please point to where I said camping is the only way to make money in low sec. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1746540#post1746540
Mag's wrote:Nice post and I couldn't have said it better myself.
I have said it before, if we killed everything, we'd be doing it wrong. We are there to make ISK and right now because low sec has no real benefit outside of high and null, our money making area is a gate.
Instead of nerfing our only money making spot, why not create more money making spots? Boost low, don't nerf it. Hurry and edit your post about the gate area being the money maker in lowsec. So, please point to where I said camping is the only way to make money in low sec.
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. |
|
|
Schalac
Apocalypse Reign
71
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 14:42:00 -
[581] - Quote
Mag's you must be dense. |
Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
9051
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 14:44:00 -
[582] - Quote
Schalac wrote:Mag's you must be dense. No, I simply can read and comprehend the English language.
So go on, please point to where I said camping is the only way to make money in low sec.
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. |
Tom Gerard
Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
376
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 14:46:00 -
[583] - Quote
If I read it correctly the first few shots won't deal much damage, this is to allow small tackle.
This may mean we can "prime" the guns using newbie alts so boost sentry DPS when it suits our cause. =)
~1.8m damage done in 4.5 minutes = 6,666 Damage per second, =)
If you need a friend call me @ (501) 444-CCNA |
Schalac
Apocalypse Reign
71
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 14:55:00 -
[584] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Schalac wrote:Mag's you must be dense. No, I simply can read and comprehend the English language. So go on, please point to where I said camping is the only way to make money in low sec.
You are hilariously dumb.
Mag's wrote:I have said it before, if we killed everything, we'd be doing it wrong. We are there to make ISK and right now because low sec has no real benefit outside of high and null, our money making area is a gate.
Instead of nerfing our only money making spot, why not create more money making spots? Boost low, don't nerf it.
Now if you meant "I simply cannot read and comprehend the English language" then you would be right. I /b/u the important parts of your words though so as to help you read and comprehend the English language. |
Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
9052
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 14:59:00 -
[585] - Quote
Schalac wrote:Mag's wrote:Schalac wrote:Mag's you must be dense. No, I simply can read and comprehend the English language. So go on, please point to where I said camping is the only way to make money in low sec. You are hilariously dumb. Mag's wrote:I have said it before, if we killed everything, we'd be doing it wrong. We are there to make ISK and right now because low sec has no real benefit outside of high and null, our money making area is a gate.
Instead of nerfing our only money making spot, why not create more money making spots? Boost low, don't nerf it. Now if you meant "I simply cannot read and comprehend the English language" then you would be right. I /b/u the important parts of your words though so as to help you read and comprehend the English language. Here, let me help you. You seem to be having difficulty.
"our" money making spot. "our" only money making spot.
Which is not.
The money making spot. The only money making spot.
So go on, please point to where I said camping is the only way to make money in low sec.
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. |
Schalac
Apocalypse Reign
71
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 15:04:00 -
[586] - Quote
Yep, completely dense. |
Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
9052
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 15:11:00 -
[587] - Quote
Schalac wrote:Yep, completely dense. So you can't point to where I said camping is the only way to make money in low sec?
OK, moving on.
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. |
Templar Nato
Shadow Cartel
16
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 15:53:00 -
[588] - Quote
Adalynne Rohks wrote:Templar Nato wrote:
As mentioned previously, 90% of PvP in low sec takes place on stations and gates as they are natural bottlenecks. the suggestions that we all meet at planet 1 to shoot each other are as absurd as they sound.
So you're saying that they're natural bottlenecks...? As in, they funnel any potential enemies toward you? So all you have to do is sit there and wait as long as you like for your unaware victims? Sounds about right.
I'm really not sure where you were going with this since gates and stations are a natural bottleneck in all parts of space in the game. It's pretty irrelevant to the point I'm making anyway since I don't gate camp, though that being said I don't have an issue with those that do. As I said in my previous post, current gatecamps are easy to avoid/ run. If players are having issues with that they need to engage their intellect a little more.
Of course having players funneled together is a good thing, otherwise no one would ever run into each other and the amount of conflict that would occur would be vastly reduced. This is MMO after all, not a single player experience. The whole idea is that we interact with each other and I firmly believe the game design should continually push players in that direction.
Adalynne Rohks wrote:The bolded..... god forbid.... Why should you have to move anywhere? Why on earth would somebody try to set up an ambush at a asteroid belt, or at a archaeology site.......?
Wow, that sounds like some thrilling gameplay you're proposing there. We should all totally set ourselves up in asteroid belts and hope and pray people warp to them rather than being proactive and interdicting them as they transit the system. I guess I shouldn't warp after someone to a gate either, since that would be unfair that I know in advance where they're going because that's the exit to the system. Are you seriously trying to sell this drivel? Again, (I guess you missed this on my original post), I roam for PvP in low sec. It's also a little ironic that you're suggesting that camping a belt or an archaeology site is a good idea ... I guess camping is OK after all, just as long as it's easy to avoid and not bothering you?
Adalynne Rohks wrote: I love irony. Yeah. I mean, why people have to have a gate act as a funnel that brings all the enemies to them, instead of actually having to seek and destroy targets? It's pretty pathetic that people couldn't function without that crutch.
LOL, seriously? What are you proposing here, getting rid of gates or something? Since even with the proposed changes single player ganking on a gate would still be possible ... hell it'd be easier since we could use smaller, faster locking ships. What the changes will nerf is actual roaming PvP where there are decent sized fleets running in to each other and the fights take 10 min or so to conclude. Losing that diminishes Low sec which in my mind is an overall negative for the game as a whole.
Looking forward to your reply.
|
Dograzor
The Black Rabbits
The Gurlstas Associates
12
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 15:58:00 -
[589] - Quote
Huzzah, CCP finally saw the light and is giving lowsec the much deserved attention it needs.. oh.. wait....
Dear, dear CCP.
If you want to give lowsec some love, then this is not the way to do it.
When it comes to lowsec, most fights are either fought through roams or camps on stations and gates. Except for the occasional Fw plex or couple day old missioner that gets unlucky. I don't mind new idea's or features by CCP concerning piracy, but this tweak of the gate guns won't work for the following reasons:
1) Small scale fleet engagements (5-10 man gangs) occur on gates or station most of the time. The time needed for a decent small gang fight usually amounts 5-10 minutes, depending on the situation/escalation/w.e. So any neutral fleet that engages an outlaw fleet - will just have to tank the incoming dps for 5 minutes, keep the outlaw fleet pointed & can then watch the sentries go I-win at 4.5 minutes in their favor.
2) Basically you will force us to grind away our precious -10.0 status - a symbolic status that defined who is a pirate and who is not for years. We (outlaws) will be forced to by this change to keep a sec status above -5.0 so we can be at the same level as our opponents.
3) When we have done 2) and gotten our sec status back up - You are potentially creating artificial fights - stalemates with neutral fleets staring at each other who will fire the first shot so that they can get the sentryfire to their advantage - and waiting for 1) to happen.
CCP, I love lowsec. There is no place like it... I love being an outlaw, I just love roaming through dangerous territory, not caring about politics and shooting targets of opportunity. I just like my playstyle, and Eve Online is one of the few places that gives me a chance to live it out. One of the definitions of the word outlaw describes pretty much what I like doing in Eve:
Quote:"Out-+law - A person who refuses to be governed by the established rules or practices of any group; rebel; nonconformist:"
I love this playstyle. I won't give it up because you might change the sentries, however, I do feel that you, CCP, might be (or already is) neglecting this playstyle in the long term of this game.
Please, give lowsec some love, I'm sure that there are more players who are willing to provide a decent list of suggestions of features in case you are looking for more. But I am worried that this change might reflect your general philosophy on lowsec, favoring the new or neutral, lawabiding players that venture into lowsec above its denizens that have called it home for a long time already.
My 2c. |
Hitman 001
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
1
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 16:13:00 -
[590] - Quote
grabing my catalysts, and tornados. to high sec we go, yo ho. |
|
|
Tom Gerard
Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
380
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 16:14:00 -
[591] - Quote
Hitman 001 wrote:grabing my catalysts, and tornados. to high sec we go, yo ho.
Don't Gank me Bro
If you need a friend call me @ (501) 444-CCNA |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
542
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 16:40:00 -
[592] - Quote
How about throwing in a little ewar to the gate guns, triggering after they've been shooting for a while. Doesn't kill anything, camps are still viable, but perma-camps are less so?
Just spitballing.
FuzzWork Enterprises
http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/
Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities. |
Xen Solarus
Inner 5phere
126
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 17:09:00 -
[593] - Quote
Still yet to hear any valid arguments to why more people entering low-sec is a bad thing. Just going, "your dumb, etc" doesn't work im afraid. Also suggesting "i don't know what im talking about", like most random insults in eve, are effectively a shot in the dark, cause i'm afraid you don't know me. Makes me laugh when the pirate croud shout "carebear!" and stuff at people that disagree with them, as if they must be for not having the same viewpoint.
Improved gate-guns in conjunction with increased low-sec rewards, means more people in and around low-sec. More targets means more explosions! Literally a win, win.
The only argument made against this is to protect your source of easy kills. The suggestion that it would "kill low-sec pvp" is just laughable. More that it would kill low-sec pvp for those players unable to actually hunt down targets, which i guess must be the guys complaining and threatening mass unsubs (never gonna happen). |
Russell Casey
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
182
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 17:20:00 -
[594] - Quote
As much fun as it is watching the pirates bawl like the miners did when the dessie buff/T3 BCs came out, this does seem like an unnecessary change. If I can get into nullsec without it being perma-camped, I sure as hell can get into low (seriously, are there even enough people in low to cover every highsec entrance?).
Also, it's not fear of gatecamps that keep carebears out, it's not wanting to get blown up and not wanting to have to stop PvEing to dodge PvPers. You could put freaking CONCORD at gates and stations and they still wouldn't go there. |
Alpheias
Euphoria Released
Verge of Collapse
740
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 17:23:00 -
[595] - Quote
Schalac wrote:Yep, completely dense.
Your reasoning in general points to that you had one too many marbles in your youth. Thinking it was candy.
I'd kill kittens and puppies and bunnies
I'd maim toddlers and teens and then more |
Scion Lex
Rogue Bastards.
16
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 17:54:00 -
[596] - Quote
God this thread is tired. |
Ensign X
26
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 18:01:00 -
[597] - Quote
Prez21 wrote:You talk about talking to noobs and trying to help them but from what ive read it seems you your self are a noob who doesnt understand this game, your ideas a perception of low sec is so far off the mark its laughable, you seem completely clueless on how this game works.
So you're going with "you're a noob" and "you're completely clueless" as arguments to support your cause? Welp, I guess that's case closed then. 
betoli wrote:Ensign X wrote:I beg to differ, but we can agree to disagree. I'm not saying Lowsec couldn't use some love, it sure as hell could, but there's plenty of reward already there for those who are willing to seek it out. You seem to be in a minority with that view....
Thank god, and I hope it stays that way. Not that the resources I'm after are finite in any way, they're extremely abundant, but the fewer pilots who are there to exploit them is actually better for me.
Ris Dnalor wrote:Ensign X wrote:I have lived in Lowsec for most of the past 9 months. I've run into and chatted on occasion to a number of your fellow R1FTAs. I appreciate what you and your kind do, but we have different viewpoints on the same subject based on separate experiences. It happens. In my sandbox, Lowsec exists for it's riches to be exploited by skilled pilots. In your sandbox, Lowsec exists to blow **** up. So, is to much to freaking ask that CCP make us both happy?!! joking aside, I think there is much to be done with risk vs. reward.... on the reward side... like boosting lowsec rewards and cutting high sec ones.
I completely agree that there's a middle ground that exists between the risk and reward of Lowsec. As it stands the rewards across the board are generally too low, with a few definite exceptions, but I also believe that the risk is too low for fat, lazy pirates who sit on gates in their insta-locking T3s and smartbombing battleships. These parasites add little to the game and do so by risking very little.
I'm not saying I know the answer to the Risk v. Reward balance of Lowsec, BUT I am saying that something needs to be done to balance it out. |
Nerf Burger
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 18:03:00 -
[598] - Quote
get raped whiners. There were too many mechanics to protect the carebear pirates. Great work CCP for putting some risk back into the equation. |
Zera Kerrigan
Dark Tempest Enterprises
6
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 18:04:00 -
[599] - Quote
Honestly, just no. |
Ensign X
26
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 18:31:00 -
[600] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Ensign X wrote:In my sandbox, Lowsec exists for it's riches to be exploited by skilled pilots. In your sandbox, Lowsec exists to blow **** up. You seemingly are unwilling to see our side, one bit. Sure there are some that come simply to kill, but many many pirates are there to make ISK. It's our livelihood. What this idea does, is remove a large swatch of that livelihood. Ransoming. That's one of the main reasons for camping gates. That's not an improvement of low sec riches at all. Not for anyone. A sandbox is a sandbox is a sandbox. You mention smart-bombing battleships. Answer me this, how should you transport expensive very low sized items? Should this be done in a BR, A covert ops, a T3 covert, a shuttle or a noobship? What ship?
Please don't take offense, but is English not your first language? You seem to have a hard time comprehending what I'm telling you and you're completely glossing over any point I agree with you on so you can jump on every point where I don't. It's completely counter-productive to a meaningful debate.
I have absolutely nothing against ransoming or, outside of parking your fat, lazy smart-bombing BS' on gates, anything that you do to make ISK. IF the change as proposed actually reduced your income from Bounties I would be against that aspect of it. I've been ransomed before, not that the pirates held up their end of the bargain, but that's pirates for you, they usually can't be trusted.
As for how should one transport expensive, very low sized items, there isn't one answer to that question. Clearly a shuttle or noobship isn't the answer, though I have no doubt that the average monkey might think they are. Personally, I'd use a cloaky T3 or a Covops, but I'm well aware at this point where most of the major gate and no skill smart-bombing camps hang out. That said, if I was unsure about the presence of either and for some reason didn't have access to a scout I'd stick with the T3 or use a 3rd party service like Black Frog. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 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 |