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) |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
2105
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:27:00 -
[91] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Issler Dainze wrote:Tippia wrote:Oh, andGǪ Issler Dainze wrote:I've been asking for progressively stronger gate guns in low sec for years. This is a great change that is long overdue! GǪgood, then you can explain why this would in any way be a good change. Gate guns in low sec were put there for a reason and were never intended to be perma-camped. Over time the ships improved and now they can be. Mostly all the guns do now is pop new players that don't understand the aggression mechanics. This makes folks have to look for fights in the belts or other areas of the system instead of lazily sitting at a gate waiting for hapless victims. There you go, explanation provided. Issler What an ignorant viewpoint. Do you even PVP? -Liang
You will need to be a little more specific about what I got wrong. Do you disagree that CCP put gate guns on gates in low sec for a reason? Do you disagree you couldn't perma-camp them until ships progressed to the point that now they can? Do you think moving the fights off the gates is a bad idea? If so, why?
Just insulting me without a counter to my explanation doesn't make your case any more compelling. CCP clearly sees this as something that needs attention, I think I'll side with them on this change.
Issler |
Jim Era
The Syndicate Inc En Garde
67
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:29:00 -
[92] - Quote
Nuu Issler, dun feed the whiners, they won't stop until you make gate guns only target people <6mo old and Concord attacks miners. |
Nikolai Dostoyevski
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
28
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:30:00 -
[93] - Quote
Syphon Lodian wrote:Don't fight at gates. Problem solved.
Also don't play docking games.
Your killboard will survive. It'll be okay.
Amen.
Now we just need more reasons to go elsewhere in low-sec so that some fights will crop up. Other than the FW sites.
I'm glad that gate camps are getting neutered, though.. gates always seemed like a silly mechanic to me anyway. |
Jim Era
The Syndicate Inc En Garde
67
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:35:00 -
[94] - Quote
I like the gates, I think it would be better if you could just jump FROM a gate to whichever solar system but in a random point (not necessarily a belt but just somewhere in the *middle* instead of jumping gate to gate, but it doesn't really bother me either way. They are a mechanic in a game that I choose to play and that I choose to pay for therefore I am choosing to play with said mechanic. I don't get why people want to join into something and change it to match their needs. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8865
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:35:00 -
[95] - Quote
Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote:Now we just need more reasons to go elsewhere in low-sec so that some fights will crop up. Other than the FW sites. GǪand that's why the change is thoroughly ill-advised. First you find some place for people to go, and then you move them there. All they're doing now is flat-out removing combat situations for no good reason. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
1727
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:36:00 -
[96] - Quote
Issler Dainze wrote: You will need to be a little more specific about what I got wrong. Do you disagree that CCP put gate guns on gates in low sec for a reason? Do you disagree you couldn't perma-camp them until ships progressed to the point that now they can? Do you think moving the fights off the gates is a bad idea? If so, why?
Just insulting me without a counter to my explanation doesn't make your case any more compelling. CCP clearly sees this as something that needs attention, I think I'll side with them on this change.
Issler
I've been very forthright with why it's a bad idea: almost all PVP in all areas of Eve happens on gates. High sec, low sec, null sec, WH space... wherever. The fights always happen where people travel. The entire game is built around it. While the change would undoubtedly prevent people from gate camping, it will ALSO severely hamper people that are roaming - so even the "good" kind of PVP would simply die out too.
Furthermore, this does nothing to really affect the usage of content in low sec because that's already not on gates. Basically, it's misguided and naive. And it will further break this section of the game.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos
Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
2106
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:36:00 -
[97] - Quote
Bubanni wrote:Issler Dainze wrote:Tippia wrote:Oh, andGǪ Issler Dainze wrote:I've been asking for progressively stronger gate guns in low sec for years. This is a great change that is long overdue! GǪgood, then you can explain why this would in any way be a good change. Gate guns in low sec were put there for a reason and were never intended to be perma-camped. Over time the ships improved and now they can be. Mostly all the guns do now is pop new players that don't understand the aggression mechanics. This makes folks have to look for fights in the belts or other areas of the system instead of lazily sitting at a gate waiting for hapless victims. There you go, explanation provided. Issler See the thing you missed... when a fleet is camping a gate, and another fleet comes roaming by... this would create action... you want that destroyed? You want eve more boring than it already is? Eve has had "concord" players for years "anti pirats" people who would roam around low sec looking for criminals (which would normally be on the gates preying on the weak)... now they will just wait at a bookmark above the gate and warp down when they know you come in...(which is already done)
If it really was mostly fleet "A" waits for fleet "B" to come by that would be great. More often than not its lazy fleet "A" sitting on the gate and killing industrials and the odd single ship passing through. For every true "looking for the good fight" I see 10 "woot! ganked your hauler, now to swim in your tears" encounters.
This won't solve everything but it will make a capital living at a gate less common and will change the dynamics of places like Rancer. I live in low sec and deal with gate camps every day so I know a little about the experience. I like this idea and hope CCP goes through with some form of it.
Now to be fair, there needs to be a lot more known about how it would get implemented. We don't know the way the gate resets for example so until we see a more detailed blog or it is actually on the test server we don't really even know what we are arguing about.
Issler
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
1727
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:39:00 -
[98] - Quote
Issler Dainze wrote: If it really was mostly fleet "A" waits for fleet "B" to come by that would be great. More often than not its lazy fleet "A" sitting on the gate and killing industrials and the odd single ship passing through. For every true "looking for the good fight" I see 10 "woot! ganked your hauler, now to swim in your tears" encounters.
I really don't care about the whole gate camp part - though I actually like crashing gate camps with my old high sec PVE alt. But nerfing AAAAAALLLLLLLLLL engagements in low sec to the point that they just won't happen is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
It's just flat stupid.
Quote: This won't solve everything but it will make a capital living at a gate less common and will change the dynamics of places like Rancer. I live in low sec and deal with gate camps every day so I know a little about the experience. I like this idea and hope CCP goes through with some form of it.
I can't even remember last time I saw a capital on a gate. Oh wait, yes I can. It was 12-18 months ago...
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos
Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
2106
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:40:00 -
[99] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Issler Dainze wrote: You will need to be a little more specific about what I got wrong. Do you disagree that CCP put gate guns on gates in low sec for a reason? Do you disagree you couldn't perma-camp them until ships progressed to the point that now they can? Do you think moving the fights off the gates is a bad idea? If so, why?
Just insulting me without a counter to my explanation doesn't make your case any more compelling. CCP clearly sees this as something that needs attention, I think I'll side with them on this change.
Issler
I've been very forthright with why it's a bad idea: almost all PVP in all areas of Eve happens on gates. High sec, low sec, null sec, WH space... wherever. The fights always happen where people travel. The entire game is built around it. While the change would undoubtedly prevent people from gate camping, it will ALSO severely hamper people that are roaming - so even the "good" kind of PVP would simply die out too. Furthermore, this does nothing to really affect the usage of content in low sec because that's already not on gates. Basically, it's misguided and naive. And it will further break this section of the game. -Liang
See, that was a great response. You shared your reasons for your opinion. I would argue that it sounds like you are going to have be a lot more mobile to avoid the guns escalating but you'd still be able to roam for a while to a gate and then start a fight, that you should be able to finish up before the guns become a problem. As I just posted in another response the devil will be in the details and we need to know those before we can really decide if this is a good thing or not.
Issler |
Jim Era
The Syndicate Inc En Garde
67
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:40:00 -
[100] - Quote
Tippia~ I understand your point and everything I swear. *not choosing any side here because either way I don't give a ****, leave it the same or change it idc* But I think this could be good for one thing (I know it has its flaws and I'm sure it will be tweaked before actually implemented) -ask anybody who resides in high-sec why they are there, most will say because every time they try to go anywhere else they die constantly to gate camps. I understand how easy it is to avoid them-I've never died to one yet. But apparently people do and that is keeping it very stagnant. I think that this could honestly generate more traffic, even if only a temporary fix. |
|
Bubanni
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
403
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:41:00 -
[101] - Quote
Issler Dainze wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Issler Dainze wrote:Tippia wrote:Oh, andGǪ Issler Dainze wrote:I've been asking for progressively stronger gate guns in low sec for years. This is a great change that is long overdue! GǪgood, then you can explain why this would in any way be a good change. Gate guns in low sec were put there for a reason and were never intended to be perma-camped. Over time the ships improved and now they can be. Mostly all the guns do now is pop new players that don't understand the aggression mechanics. This makes folks have to look for fights in the belts or other areas of the system instead of lazily sitting at a gate waiting for hapless victims. There you go, explanation provided. Issler What an ignorant viewpoint. Do you even PVP? -Liang You will need to be a little more specific about what I got wrong. Do you disagree that CCP put gate guns on gates in low sec for a reason? Do you disagree you couldn't perma-camp them until ships progressed to the point that now they can? Do you think moving the fights off the gates is a bad idea? If so, why? Just insulting me without a counter to my explanation doesn't make your case any more compelling. CCP clearly sees this as something that needs attention, I think I'll side with them on this change. Issler
The problem is that most fun in eve is had on a gate (because that's were all the action is!) Your obviously a non pvp player so you won't understand this... sure I want more people in low sec too, but what people like me and liang is saying is potentially this would make less people in low sec... oh sure if you made it just like high sec, then more people would... but how about adding more stuff that encourages pvp instead of removing it? What about making all low sec into 0.0 without bubbles... and all highsec into low sec lol
Christmas wish list https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134275
Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8865
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:42:00 -
[102] - Quote
Issler Dainze wrote:Now to be fair, there needs to be a lot more known about how it would get implemented. We don't know the way the gate resets for example so until we see a more detailed blog or it is actually on the test server we don't really even know what we are arguing about. Sure we do: we're arguing about an attempt to move combat off gates and ontoGǪ nowhere, because there is no reason for those fights to happen anywhere else.
We're also arguing about what the actual problem is. What is this solving? Why is it a problem to begin with? Is this a good solution for whatever the problem is? That last one might be subject to implementation details, but the others aren't. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
2106
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:42:00 -
[103] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Issler Dainze wrote: If it really was mostly fleet "A" waits for fleet "B" to come by that would be great. More often than not its lazy fleet "A" sitting on the gate and killing industrials and the odd single ship passing through. For every true "looking for the good fight" I see 10 "woot! ganked your hauler, now to swim in your tears" encounters.
I really don't care about the whole gate camp part - though I actually like crashing gate camps with my old high sec PVE alt. But nerfing AAAAAALLLLLLLLLL engagements in low sec to the point that they just won't happen is throwing the baby out with the bath water. It's just flat stupid. Quote: This won't solve everything but it will make a capital living at a gate less common and will change the dynamics of places like Rancer. I live in low sec and deal with gate camps every day so I know a little about the experience. I like this idea and hope CCP goes through with some form of it.
I can't even remember last time I saw a capital on a gate. Oh wait, yes I can. It was 12-18 months ago... -Liang
It still happens where I operated regularly.
As for baby/bathwater, lets wait and see what the details are because I think it could be put in place in a manner that still allows the types of roaming fleet engagement you seem to feel need to start at a gate.
Issler
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
1727
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:43:00 -
[104] - Quote
Issler Dainze wrote: See, that was a great response. You shared your reasons for your opinion. I would argue that it sounds like you are going to have be a lot more mobile to avoid the guns escalating but you'd still be able to roam for a while to a gate and then start a fight, that you should be able to finish up before the guns become a problem. As I just posted in another response the devil will be in the details and we need to know those before we can really decide if this is a good thing or not.
Issler
Not really, we already have enough information to know that any kind of engagement beyond a simple many vs one gank isn't really feasible. It just takes too long to get the fight and conclude it when there's even a moderate number of ships on the field. We're talking about it taking out TRIAGE CARRIERS before the point when most engagements wrap up.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos
Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Jim Era
The Syndicate Inc En Garde
67
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:44:00 -
[105] - Quote
When gate camps are no more, there will be tons of stupid carebear miners in low sec belts that you can all gank freely.
-when I get an aneurism will CCP buy me a new clone? |
Nikolai Dostoyevski
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
28
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:44:00 -
[106] - Quote
Issler Dainze wrote: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
I like the change except for the part about it starting weaker. Why make it easier than before to tackle people zoning into low sec? Now unless you're a cloaky, you will be pointed and blasted before you can escape. And even if you're a cloaky, odds are you'll be blasted. |
Kuehnelt
Devoid Privateering
155
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:45:00 -
[107] - Quote
Issler Dainze wrote:Tippia wrote:Oh, andGǪ Issler Dainze wrote:I've been asking for progressively stronger gate guns in low sec for years. This is a great change that is long overdue! GǪgood, then you can explain why this would in any way be a good change. Gate guns in low sec were put there for a reason and were never intended to be perma-camped. Over time the ships improved and now they can be. Mostly all the guns do now is pop new players that don't understand the aggression mechanics. This makes folks have to look for fights in the belts or other areas of the system instead of lazily sitting at a gate waiting for hapless victims. There you go, explanation provided. Issler
This change will not prevent them from being perma-camped. The camps will just work like this: alts in T1 'attack frigs' (Executioner, Slasher, etc.) sit at a gate and the rest of the gang (which can now fly smaller ships, and which can now fit more for gank vs. tank) sit just off-grid. The alts are rotated (they don't need to be biomassed for rotation; dual-boxing their sec status up is enough ... assuming they'll even lose sec status under the coming system) so that they can sit permanently at the gate. Smart-bombing battleships in Rancer can sit off-grid and only warp to the gate when they see a pod incoming.
It would be no easier to get into lowsec (although it's already damned easy; why don't you support NPE changes that teach people the game so that they'd know this?), but what would happen is that impromptu, temporary camps for known fleets or specific targets would be hampered enormously. Low sec status, which is only a badge of "I live in lowsec and pvp ever", would become such a nuisance that the people who aren't perma-camping specific systems would abandon the space. |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
2107
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:46:00 -
[108] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Issler Dainze wrote:Now to be fair, there needs to be a lot more known about how it would get implemented. We don't know the way the gate resets for example so until we see a more detailed blog or it is actually on the test server we don't really even know what we are arguing about. Sure we do: we're arguing about an attempt to move combat off gates and ontoGǪ nowhere, because there is no reason for those fights to happen anywhere else. We're also arguing about what the actual problem is. What is this solving? Why is it a problem to begin with? Is this a good solution for whatever the problem is? That last one might be subject to implementation details, but the others aren't.
So there are going to be all manner of reasons being added to low sec to get folks into the system. Like new mining options, like new FW activities, like who knows what since CCP seems to want to get folks to try out the more dangerous side of Eve. There are the things you can find and fight. You can't deny the argument that at some point early in Eve CCP put guns at the gates to keep people from hanging out and popping people there. I think they are back to thinking that now and I support them getting the original mechanism re-calibrated.
So unless your position is that there shouldn't have ever been gate guns there in the first place, which is a whole other argument you need to explain why in they form they are in now they are working as intended.
Issler
|
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
271
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:48:00 -
[109] - Quote
Increasing damage over time will only lower the number of fights in losec. Its a bad idea, that will lead to less fight. I maybe wrong, but as a Pirate I like to be the one that starts the fleet fight on a gate. I don't want to wait for some nuet to agress, then be the only ass in my fleet shooting him cause no one else has been agressed yet.
Gate Guns are fine, Classic Case of, Not Broke so Brake it.
Edit: New fleet tactic, jump gate warp to belt one, hope the guys in system follow even though local just told them if they have a chance or not. Totally increasing pvp with this change, |
Sentamon
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
93
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:48:00 -
[110] - Quote
Karl Planck wrote:Alara IonStorm wrote:I would just prefer it if they made 0.4 to High Sec Gates WTFBBQ and lowered them in increments so the farther down in Sec you get the less dangerous they are. Then actively display the Sec where the gate you are jumping through to leads on the overview.
Perhaps increase the number of 0.3 - 0.2 systems as well. the thing is this change WILL NOT AFFECT GATE CAMPS. It will just force a change in tactics (bouncing)
Easy enough to fix. Have the guns remember you and scale down damage based on the time you're away. I'll still let you have several gate fights per day, and eliminate the failures that sit at a gate all day popping noobs.
~ Professional Forum Alt -á~ |
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
1727
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:50:00 -
[111] - Quote
Issler Dainze wrote: So there are going to be all manner of reasons being added to low sec to get folks into the system. Like new mining options, like new FW activities, like who knows what since CCP seems to want to get folks to try out the more dangerous side of Eve. There are the things you can find and fight. You can't deny the argument that at some point early in Eve CCP put guns at the gates to keep people from hanging out and popping people there. I think they are back to thinking that now and I support them getting the original mechanism re-calibrated.
So unless your position is that there shouldn't have ever been gate guns there in the first place, which is a whole other argument you need to explain why in they form they are in now they are working as intended.
Issler
I'm pretty sure they're working as intended because I've gotten that exact response from petitions about gate guns. Now the question is whether the design spec needs adjustment.... (hi Grayscale, see I can speak gobbldeygook too!)
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos
Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
2107
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:51:00 -
[112] - Quote
sYnc Vir wrote:Increasing damage over time will only lower the number of fights in losec. Its a bad idea, that will lead to less fight. I'm maybe wrong, but as a Pirate I like to be the one that starts the fleet fight on a gate. I don't want to wait for some nuet to agress, then be the only ass in my fleet shooting him cause no one else has been agressed yet.
Gate Guns are fine, Classic Case of, Not Broke so Brake it.
They aren't fine. What good do they do anyone now? When they were introduced you couldn't camp them. Now you can. So either your argument is there shouldn't have ever been gate guns in low sec or you have to agree they are NOT working as intended.
Issler
|
Shayla Sh'inlux
Aliastra Gallente Federation
34
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:51:00 -
[113] - Quote
As a solution to mindless Rancer camping, it's a great idea. As an ex-pirate I applaud the effort to move people away from sitting on gates forever just to get some cheap kills. However, destroying low-sec roaming is not worth it.
It would make way more sense to make the sentry guns' strength depend on the amount of kills in a given solar system during the last x days or hours. That way, you can't reliably camp the same gate but will keep proper lowsec PvP intact. |
Kuehnelt
Devoid Privateering
155
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:52:00 -
[114] - Quote
Issler Dainze wrote:You can't deny the argument that at some point early in Eve CCP put guns at the gates to keep people from hanging out and popping people there. I think they are back to thinking that now and I support them getting the original mechanism re-calibrated.
I always assumed that the gate guns were there to make it easier to fly through lowsec with a travel fit or a frig, because it limited what could tackle you. And it's actually the case that lowsec is very easily entered and flown through right now, for that reason. But this change, targeted at like two systems in the entire game, comes with an encouragement for using interceptors as tacklers at lowsec gates. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8866
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:53:00 -
[115] - Quote
Issler Dainze wrote:You can't deny the argument that at some point early in Eve CCP put guns at the gates to keep people from hanging out and popping people there. I think they are back to thinking that now and I support them getting the original mechanism re-calibrated. No, but I can (and do) argue that what they intended then might not be particularly relevant now, as years worth of gameplay has been created around this mechanic. Right now, they provide support fire for the defensive party, and while it might not seem like much, if you've lived in lowsec you will have seen the aggression dance at some point: each side goading the other to shoot first so they take the gate gunsGǪ if the guns were pointless, that dance would never happen.
It all comes back to the fundamental question: what is the problem? Why is it a problem? How does this idea solve that problem?
GÇ£They're there for a reasonGÇ¥ doesn't answer that GÇö it just raises the question of what the reason is. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Eternal Error
Exitus Acta Probant
96
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:54:00 -
[116] - Quote
Issler Dainze wrote:sYnc Vir wrote:Increasing damage over time will only lower the number of fights in losec. Its a bad idea, that will lead to less fight. I'm maybe wrong, but as a Pirate I like to be the one that starts the fleet fight on a gate. I don't want to wait for some nuet to agress, then be the only ass in my fleet shooting him cause no one else has been agressed yet.
Gate Guns are fine, Classic Case of, Not Broke so Brake it. They aren't fine. What good do they do anyone now? When they were introduced you couldn't camp them. Now you can. So either your argument is there shouldn't have ever been gate guns in low sec or you have to agree they are NOT working as intended. Issler They aren't "perfect" but they are "fine." Wasting resources on gate guns would be a monumental act of stupidity. |
Sexy Cakes
Poasting
20
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:54:00 -
[117] - Quote
lol holy **** ccp is ********
lets not let carriers go into triage on a gate
its no fun when you get a cap fight going in lowsec |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
2107
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:54:00 -
[118] - Quote
Shayla Sh'inlux wrote:As a solution to mindless Rancer camping, it's a great idea. As an ex-pirate I applaud the effort to move people away from sitting on gates forever just to get some cheap kills. However, destroying low-sec roaming is not worth it.
It would make way more sense to make the sentry guns' strength depend on the amount of kills in a given solar system during the last x days or hours. That way, you can't reliably camp the same gate but will keep proper lowsec PvP intact.
See, that is exactly the kind of refinement that may be the way to make this a great idea. It was the point I was trying to make that once we see how it is intended to be implemented some feedback can result in something that gets gate guns back to doing what they were put in place to do but still allows PvP in a manner that suits the pirates the live there.
Issler
|
Zenos Ebeth
An Eye For An Eye AN EYE F0R AN EYE
17
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:54:00 -
[119] - Quote
I think this will encourage blobbing , as fleets that want to attack another fleet on a gate/station will have to kill it within X minutes or die horribly to sentries. So the logical conclusion will be to bring more people to kill the targets more quickly.
Also , i really don't see why people would fight on belts and planets , mining in low sec is not worth it , same for ratting , you are much better off finding yourself a deserted null sec system and doing it there. Only people that WANT to fight will be in the belts.
Also to people who think camps will be gone: insta locking ceptors on gate with fleet in a just out of grid BM ready to warp , nothing is going to change. If anything , it's going to make it harder for noobs in frigates/destroyers to get in lowsec due to getting killed by small gank ships that can now survive sentries long enough to get kills.
What will happen in FW if you are a -10 ? You will get shot to bits by sentries in front of stations and gates while fighting the ennemy militia. And this despite not having any GCC... |
Kuehnelt
Devoid Privateering
155
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:56:00 -
[120] - Quote
Tippia wrote:and while it might not seem like much, if you've lived in lowsec you will have seen the aggression dance at some point: each side goading the other to shoot first so they take the gate gunsGǪ if the guns were pointless, that dance would never happen.
Aye. A gang I was with flew an Orca through lowsec once, trying to get some pirates to engage. They refused to bite :-( |
|
|
|
|
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 |