Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.10.25 14:07:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Whitehound on 25/10/2010 14:13:46 The only problem I see with getting more people into low-sec are the gate camps, which keep players from going into low-sec. These are perfect traps at a choking point and effectively stop players from going into low-sec. Of course, it is not impossible to overcome a gate camp, but this is not the issue. Nor is the frequency o gate camps the issue.
The problem, which stops players from going into low-sec, is as old as computer games, and is known as a "stair trap" or a "level trap". On maps or entries leading to new levels, dungeons, etc. do players have to face new opponents, and depending on how this transition is shaped can they find themselves in the middle of a fight, with their backs to a wall, against unknown and stronger opponents. This often has the effect of discouraging the players as they will most likely die during a first attempt to enter a new area. This is exactly the same problem here with players going into low-sec. Only here does one not meet stronger monsters, but better skilled players, without a save area and the way out being 15km away.
So one can do two things here. Either one can believe in the dark nature of EVE, leave things the way they are and tell all those who complain about a lack of players in low-sec to shut up, or to remove the obvious trap.
So my suggestion is to add CONCORD protection to a few, selected gates (leading to high-sec) of low-sec systems, i.e. systems with a 0.4 sec-status. This would not need entire fleets of CONCORD ships popping out of the void, but maybe 6 "death"-sentries could already do the trick. It would work as a forward presence of CONCORD in low-sec and give new players a save zone to explore low-sec. Attacks on players would then have to happen at various points, in the belts, at the stations, etc. and would not allow to easily choke every new player from exploring low-sec. The strategic advantage of camping a gate to high-sec really is the problem here and needs to be taken out in order to allow a higher population of low-sec. Once a player can safely put a first food into low-sec are they also more willing to take risks. --
|
Alara IonStorm
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2010.10.25 14:10:00 -
[2]
Really I can not say I agree entirly but I always thought the the Lo Sec to Hi gate should be protected.
Might clear noob pirate choke points and make more people peak there head in.
-- I am now on a Crusade to Fix the Omen!
For Great Justice!
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.10.25 14:17:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Whitehound on 25/10/2010 14:20:18 I do not believe in moving L5s into low-sec as the answer. Sure, it is not a bad idea, but those players who can do L5s are often experienced enough anyway. Also the amount of players who want to run L5s, or just L4s with high rewards, is likely rather small. Half of these players will have a POS or two in low-sec, which serve as safe zones for them. Or they are able to fly an unprobeable ship, etc. --
|
Stygian Knight
Blood Covenant Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.10.25 14:37:00 -
[4]
there is no "safe zone" in eve
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.10.25 14:41:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Whitehound on 25/10/2010 14:42:41
Originally by: Stygian Knight there is no "safe zone" in eve
Yes, there is. Stations are safe zones and for most players is high-sec safe enough to be a safe zone for them. --
|
Caldari Citizen20090217
|
Posted - 2010.10.25 16:52:00 -
[6]
Let us see whats on the other side of a gate before jumping. Not 100% safe from camps but makes pirates more imaginative and carebears feel safer.
|
Reeno Coleman
|
Posted - 2010.10.25 17:26:00 -
[7]
What you are suggesting is a supporting presence of AI at key points (like entry gates) in Low Sec.
--> gate guns
so your suggestion comes down to making gate guns stronger, right?
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2010.10.25 17:59:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Whitehound Edited by: Whitehound on 25/10/2010 15:32:50
Originally by: Stygian Knight there is no "safe zone" in eve
Yes, there is. Stations are safety zones and for most players is high-sec save enough.
Safer does not mean safe, Stygian was correct.
Originally by: Allestin Villimar Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it.
Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive. |
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.10.25 18:08:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Whitehound on 25/10/2010 18:09:57
Originally by: Mag's Safer does not mean safe, Stygian was correct.
What he or you perceive as correct or save is irrelevant for the discussion. Savety is always relative and a matter of perception. Players perceive high-sec as save. That is all you need to understand. --
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.10.25 18:22:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Whitehound on 25/10/2010 18:24:43
Originally by: Reeno Coleman What you are suggesting is a supporting presence of AI at key points (like entry gates) in Low Sec.
--> gate guns
so your suggestion comes down to making gate guns stronger, right?
More guns, stronger guns, webing, scraming, etc.. Whatever it takes to give players a feeling of safety similar to high-sec, but only within perhaps a 300km range around the gate.
A completely different approach could be to enter low-sec not within the typical 15km radius around the gate, but a much greater radius, i.e. 250km. Might be a bit weird at first, but this can give some safety, too, without any guns and without a significant change in the current game mechanics. --
|
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2010.10.25 18:25:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: Mag's Safer does not mean safe, Stygian was correct.
What he or you perceive as correct or save is irrelevant for the discussion. Savety is always relative and a matter of perception. Players perceive high-sec as save. That is all you need to understand.
Erm I think you'll find you argued the point, I merely posted as part of that argument and pointed out you were wrong.
Originally by: Allestin Villimar Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it.
Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive. |
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.10.25 18:43:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Mag's Erm I think you'll find you argued the point, I merely posted as part of that argument and pointed out you were wrong.
No, I was not arguing. I was telling. This is where you are wrong. --
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2010.10.25 18:47:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: Mag's Erm I think you'll find you argued the point, I merely posted as part of that argument and pointed out you were wrong.
No, I was not arguing. I was telling. This is where you are wrong.
It was an argument, so I was in fact correct on all counts.
As I can see English is not your first language, we can end it here. The ball's in your court.
Originally by: Allestin Villimar Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it.
Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive. |
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.10.25 18:49:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Whitehound on 25/10/2010 18:52:05
Originally by: Mag's It was an argument, so I was in fact correct on all counts.
Stop trolling. This is not a ball game, and this is not an argument either. --
|
pushbyte ii
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2010.10.25 18:49:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Alara IonStorm Really I can not say I agree entirly but I always thought the the Lo Sec to Hi gate should be protected.
Might clear noob pirate choke points and make more people peak there head in.
The gates from Low Sec to High Sec ARE protected... on the High Sec side by concord, navy and sentry guns and the Low Sec side by sentry guns.
Also, let's not forget that CCP gives everyone a friendly warning message that says something to the effect of 'You are about to enter a low security area. You can and will probably die horribly and cry about it and the people that killed you will laugh and post the details of your loss all over the internet for others that weren't present to also laugh at your losses. Are you sure you want to proceed? [ ] Yes [ ] No'
So at that point, if you clicked 'Yes' then everything you do is your own fault, everything that occurs to you is your own fault. Do not blame the pirates, do not blame the sentries, do not blame anything or anyone other than yourself. When you go in the desert and kick a rattlesnake and it bites you, it is simply doing what is in it's nature, you didn't have to kick it. Pirates are simply doing what is in their nature, you didn't have to enter low sec.
Maybe we don't want noobs flooding low sec and mining our belts, killing our rats and chatting about their elite Tormentor frigate in local. Go back to Rens if that's what you want to do. If you die horribly upon entry into low sec, then you probably don't belong there. (Either because you took the most hostile route because you don't know how to press F10 or you have a fail ship or fitting and should l2read.)
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2010.10.25 18:51:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: Mag's It was an argument, so I was in fact correct on all counts.
Stop trolling. This is not an argument either.
I gave you an easy out, but instead you cried troll, poor show.
Oh and your idea sucks.
Originally by: Allestin Villimar Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it.
Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive. |
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.10.25 18:57:00 -
[17]
Originally by: pushbyte ii The gates from Low Sec to High Sec ARE protected... on the High Sec side by concord, navy and sentry guns and the Low Sec side by sentry guns.
Also, let's not forget that CCP gives everyone a friendly warning message that says something to the effect of 'You are about to enter a low security area. ...
This is not the point. We can leave it the way it is, but then low-sec will stay low in population.
This thread is not about making people understand the risks of low-sec. They understand it very well, which is why they stay out of it. The thread is about what can be done without changing much of the game. The idea is to create a small, save entry point at a few gates.
In other words, allow players to jump through the gate and allow them to see for them self and without them getting instantly popped. If however small gangs set up gate camps now and then and kill players on entry into low-sec then it will always be an avoided area. This is what needs to be understood. It is too easy to choke these points. --
|
pushbyte ii
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2010.10.25 20:11:00 -
[18]
I've lived in lowsec for the greater part of last 4 years, personally I don't want a bunch of Hulk flying carebears filling up local. Nor do I want hordes of traffic coming through. There are low sec areas that are not as heavily patrolled and camped. Those are 'safe entry' points. Like I stated earlier, if you die because you jumped from Osoggur to Amamake or Crielere to Rancer, then that's your own fault for not pressing F10 or knowing anything about lowsec and you might consider not going to lowsec until you rectify that issue. We have our fun at times with traffic spikes like EUNI fleets and the occasional neg fleets coming through, but if Amamake local looked like Jita it would be too many people to safely PvP, thus ruining the point of lowsec. It would turn into complete chaos. Don't come crying about lowsec being 'too hard' because you lost your Imicus in a camp. Fit your ships properly, know the routes, use your map, talk to people. You will probably fair better that way. Even if you added concord to low sec, we would just move to nullsec and then you would be whining about nullsec being too hard for noobs to get into. So my suggestion is either skill up, train up, learn more or stay in highsec until you do.
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.10.25 20:36:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Whitehound on 25/10/2010 20:39:00
Originally by: pushbyte ii ... but if Amamake local looked like Jita it would be too many people to safely PvP, ...
I doubt it will look like Jita, but even if, there are many in Jita who wish they could just PvP there. If a few systems get too crowded then you can always shoot the players. I also doubt that there is any more safety in PvP as there is in high-sec. What does it mean "too many people to safely PvP" anyway?! --
|
pushbyte ii
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2010.10.25 20:39:00 -
[20]
Adding concord to lowsec would turn it into highsec. We would just move to either the surrounding lowsec areas of said system (still causing the exact same problem) or move to nullsec (making nullsec the new lowsec, still same problem).
|
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.10.25 20:49:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Whitehound on 25/10/2010 20:52:23
Originally by: pushbyte ii Adding concord to lowsec would turn it into highsec. We would just move to either the surrounding lowsec areas of said system (still causing the exact same problem) or move to nullsec (making nullsec the new lowsec, still same problem).
This is the idea. It unchokes the entry into low-sec and allows players to enter and to spread out. An instant death is less likely to occur. Just so you understand it right, CONCORD shall not follow you into the belts or come out of nowhere. Only at the gate self shall players coming from high-sec receive an advantage. --
|
Kalia Masaer
Amarr Border Defense Consortium
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 00:38:00 -
[22]
I am inclined to agree with the OP as it is very hard to get a sampling of what low sec has to offer for new players. First of making a handful of entrance gates pretty much safe is a very good idea as it lets less experienced players get into low sec without having to run the gauntlet which could then encourage them to look further afield. This would not really hurt the pirates as while they can't camp certain high to low transition gateways they will have plenty of targets to hunt in that system as well as the fact more of the players who try lowsec may venture further through gates without that protection.
Basically it seems the idea is to put a shallow end in the swimming pool instead of having people go straight from the High-sec Kiddie pool to the Low-sec Lap-pool.
|
TehFailGuy
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 02:33:00 -
[23]
I looked at a couple of random low sec systems that border high sec just now and found one with > 80 jumps and no ships destroyed in the last hour and another with > 30 jumps in the last hour and also no ships destroyed in that time. Gate camps aren't the problem.
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 05:06:00 -
[24]
FFS just stop with the "gate to gate" jumping. Random drop-off into target system will be the end of camps.
|
Torothanax
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 05:45:00 -
[25]
Concord in low sec is a no no. It's counter to back story. Empire navy maybe, but not concord.
I'd favor beefing up gate guns a little, and actually nerfing them some as well. Hear me out. Make the strength of the guns depend on an average of the two systems they join. If it's a high sec to a 0.4 system, make the guns stronger then they are, or add a few more. If it's say a 0.1 to a 0.1 gate, only put one gun out. The security status of systems means very little right now. It should play more of a role in game or just be taken out completely.
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 09:31:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Whitehound on 26/10/2010 09:32:34
Originally by: Torothanax Concord in low sec is a no no. It's counter to back story. Empire navy maybe, but not concord.
When the game evolves its story evolves with it. ...
Suicide attacks in high-sec take place not just daily but hourly, if not every minute. Capsuleers do not die, nor does CONCORD shoot their pods, and so criminals have moved forward into 0.5-systems like Niarja and Uedama. Where it is profitable do they strike in 1.0-systems and even directly at highly populated market places. One can say that CONCORD is failing and high-sec is effectively under siege by criminal organizations. It is time for CONCORD to counter the situation with a forward presence at gates in low-sec.
So there is a bit of a new story. --
|
Charnivale
Garoun Investment Bank
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 09:42:00 -
[27]
I dont understand. Do you find it hard to enter losec?
Never had a problem with that |
Psihius
Caldari Anarchist Dawn U N K N O W N
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 09:59:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Charnivale I dont understand. Do you find it hard to enter losec?
Never had a problem with that
Well, most times popular route are just camped and new players just get poped on the spot as they do not really understand or know how to escape a gate camp.
I'd say that I like the idea of strong guns on the gates leading into high sec space. And place them only in 0.4 systems, so that if you go from high-sec into low-sec 0.4, even if you get into trouble, guns will make a good pounding on the attackers, forcing them to use bigger ships with less scan resolution and a noob a change of escape in a small ship (definitely no escaping battleships!). So if you go like high-sec to 0.3, everything is left like it is now.
Personally I get a good tank and just get out to the gate if I need to, but I was in lowsec with my corp exercising and teached about caveats and other stuff. Most empire noobs don't get that.
Or I know, we need a tutorial to send them to low sec and tech them stuff! :)
|
Flesh Slurper
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 10:01:00 -
[29]
There are a few issues with this:
1) Pirates would just camp the next system in, so the noobs would get in 1 single jump into lowsec and then die the same as they do already, thus negating the purpose of the "protection".
2) Most of lowsec is actually relatively empty. People already can simply check the map for entry points with no activity and you can go exploring all they want.
3) As you say indirectly yourself, people don't want to go to lowsec because they risk being killed. Since these people can still be killed there even if not at a gate, they still will not go in there. |
Charnivale
Garoun Investment Bank
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 11:57:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Flesh Slurper There are a few issues with this:
1) Pirates would just camp the next system in, so the noobs would get in 1 single jump into lowsec and then die the same as they do already, thus negating the purpose of the "protection".
2) Most of lowsec is actually relatively empty. People already can simply check the map for entry points with no activity and you can go exploring all they want.
3) As you say indirectly yourself, people don't want to go to lowsec because they risk being killed. Since these people can still be killed there even if not at a gate, they still will not go in there.
So, what we really need is an incentive to go to losec that outweights the danger of getting killed? |
|
King Rothgar
Amarrian Retribution
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 14:46:00 -
[31]
I would support making the gates safer. It is true that the difference between high and low sec is huge. I've always supported blurring that line. Giving the high/low sec entry gates some sort of beefed up sentry guns would do that. The current sentries block frigates and most t1 cruisers from camping but that's about it. My maelstrom just laughs at them solo and if that fire is split a few ways it doesn't even bother BC's.
I hate gate camping tbh and I've done it plenty. Hunting missioners and hopping belts is far more fun. I believe that if entry into the systems was safer, then these other combat areas would see more traffic. There are a number of ways to do it. I've proposed giving all ships short ranged jump drives that simply jump to within 1au of the star (no cyno required). But super sentry guns or spawning 250km away from the gate would work too. The key however is breaking up gate camps, low sec must remain lawless for the most part. So I do not support any proposal that adds mobile NPC police units.
Thus far you shall read, but no further; for this is my sig. |
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation The Chamber of Commerce
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 14:47:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Flesh Slurper There are a few issues with this:
1) Pirates would just camp the next system in, so the noobs would get in 1 single jump into lowsec and then die the same as they do already, thus negating the purpose of the "protection".
2) Most of lowsec is actually relatively empty. People already can simply check the map for entry points with no activity and you can go exploring all they want.
3) As you say indirectly yourself, people don't want to go to lowsec because they risk being killed. Since these people can still be killed there even if not at a gate, they still will not go in there.
No, this is irrelevant for the problem. The problem is not high-sec or low-sec. It is the transition between high-sec and low-sec. It is merely a psychological effect players have, which stops them from entering low-sec.
Experienced players already know that safety is relative and that high-sec can be as unsafe as low-sec, low-sec can be as save as high-sec, and that it only depends on the players. So there is no point in comparing the properties of these two areas as any discussion about it will only run in circles.
The change is meant to provide an advantage for new players entering low-sec and to help them in their transition. --
|
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 14:58:00 -
[33]
Gate campers like to camp one gate inside low sec and not the high-sec gate itself. That way they can 1) camp both incoming and outgoing traffic, and 2) are less vulnerable to blobs showing up quickly from the high sec system and killing them.
|
Baaldor
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 17:20:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Whitehound It is merely a psychological effect players have, which stops them from entering low-sec
So essentially the player just has to get over it, and realize it is a friggin game. It has nothing to do with the game mechanics, concord or anything else. It has to do with the slob behind the key board.
|
pushbyte ii
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 17:55:00 -
[35]
How can we get more people to go into the ghetto and Somalia or Nigeria... let's add some cops. Then people will want to go and it will be noob friendly.
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation The Chamber of Commerce
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 18:07:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Baaldor So essentially the player just has to get over it, and realize it is a friggin game. It has nothing to do with the game mechanics, concord or anything else. It has to do with the slob behind the key board.
No. All players know that EVE is a game. For some is it more than just a game.
You need to get back at seeing it as a game, to realize that new players need a bit of support in order to step out of high-sec. --
|
Flesh Slurper
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 18:33:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: Flesh Slurper There are a few issues with this:
1) Pirates would just camp the next system in, so the noobs would get in 1 single jump into lowsec and then die the same as they do already, thus negating the purpose of the "protection".
2) Most of lowsec is actually relatively empty. People already can simply check the map for entry points with no activity and you can go exploring all they want.
3) As you say indirectly yourself, people don't want to go to lowsec because they risk being killed. Since these people can still be killed there even if not at a gate, they still will not go in there.
No, this is irrelevant for the problem. The problem is not high-sec or low-sec. It is the transition between high-sec and low-sec. It is merely a psychological effect players have, which stops them from entering low-sec.
Experienced players already know that safety is relative and that high-sec can be as unsafe as low-sec, low-sec can be as save as high-sec, and that it only depends on the players. So there is no point in comparing the properties of these two areas as any discussion about it will only run in circles.
The change is meant to provide an advantage for new players entering low-sec and to help them in their transition.
The reason why changing the defense at "entry points" would do nothing, is that it simply moves the location of the transition. The new "entry points" would end up being the first system where concord is not located, and people would wander there and die just as they do now with the entry points from high sec. Even if the gate were "protected" people would still die. In fact a protected gate might make people die even easier since it would give them the illusion of safety. As soon as they got off the gate they would be killed.
In the end, people can still be killed in lowsec, so even without gate camps, they would still be scanned down in their missions, anoms, etc or in belts. Even if concord did defend the gates more throughly, people could just place suicide gankers there just as they do in highsec, camp the next gate in, or use the D scan / probes to find people as they get off the gate.
Since regardless of the initial gate being protected, people can be killed, the only people that will enter lowsec are the same people that already do: people that can cope with the risks, and people that want a fight. The only way that anyone else would want to go to lowsec is if they can be assured that they wont end up in a fight, if the rewards are high enough to not care about death so much, or if there was something unique that could only be attained from lowsec. |
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation The Chamber of Commerce
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 18:58:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Flesh Slurper The reason why changing the defense at "entry points" would do nothing, is that it simply moves the location of the transition.
No. What it does is to remove the possibility to easily choke the transition.
Originally by: Flesh Slurper In the end, people can still be killed in lowsec, ...
This is also not a goal of the change. --
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 19:29:00 -
[39]
I can certainly see where you are coming from, but the people who worry about the camps are not and will never be actual low-sec residents .. they are travellers, passers-by, taking short-cuts.
For low-sec to come off life-support it has to have meaning; ratting is abysmal and ores are mediocre (at best). It does not serve as the gateway between Empire-Null as the geography suggests.
Construct a simplified sovereignty system for corporations (NOT alliances) to claim a handful of systems and gain benefits based on what modules they install. Modules could boost agent profitability, mining, manufacturing, piracy, ratting etc.
This would create incentive to put down roots in low-sec which is what you want, provided "life" is the objective. The ONLY reason people bother with null is that it is worth their time, pure and simple. Do the same for low (with a underbelly of society theme) and we'll have corporations fighting/collaborating over the good spots in no time .. might even give birth to the mercenary corps of old, back when "skilled" didn't necessarily mean "can field bazillion super-caps".
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation The Chamber of Commerce
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 21:20:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Whitehound on 26/10/2010 21:25:44
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida I can certainly see where you are coming from, but the people who worry about the camps are not and will never be actual low-sec residents .. they are travellers, passers-by, taking short-cuts.
For low-sec to come off life-support it has to have meaning; ratting is abysmal and ores are mediocre (at best). It does not serve as the gateway between Empire-Null as the geography suggests.
What you suggest is a large and complicated solution. I would say what you suggest is to get rid of low-sec and to make it like 0.0. This will likely increase the population, because of large alliances taking control of this new semi-0.0 space. However, you will also be driving out those players who are demanding a higher population of low-sec - it is like curing tooth ache with a stick of dynamite. Your initial problem only appears to be solved, but really you will have a new one.
My idea is to simply lure more inexperienced players into low-sec, who will then lose their ships as often as they do now. By making the step into low-sec easier does this first experience become less frustrating. It brings more mission runners, explorers and traders into low-sec simply by taking an edge off. This will also have the effect of adding a few more residents. Some of these travellers, as you call them, will decide to stay if only for a while. --
|
|
Leksi Bar'zuk
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 21:39:00 -
[41]
Originally by: King Rothgar I would support making the gates safer. It is true that the difference between high and low sec is huge. I've always supported blurring that line. Giving the high/low sec entry gates some sort of beefed up sentry guns would do that. The current sentries block frigates and most t1 cruisers from camping but that's about it. My maelstrom just laughs at them solo and if that fire is split a few ways it doesn't even bother BC's.
I hate gate camping tbh and I've done it plenty. Hunting missioners and hopping belts is far more fun. I believe that if entry into the systems was safer, then these other combat areas would see more traffic. There are a number of ways to do it. I've proposed giving all ships short ranged jump drives that simply jump to within 1au of the star (no cyno required). But super sentry guns or spawning 250km away from the gate would work too. The key however is breaking up gate camps, low sec must remain lawless for the most part. So I do not support any proposal that adds mobile NPC police units.
This. Make camping easier in deep lowsec and make it harder next to highsec borders. Give 0.4-0.1 meaning, maintain the 'lawless' feel to lowsec, everyone is happy. Won't change my life one bit in nullsec, but whatever gets more players to expose themselves to non-highsec gameplay is a good thing imo.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 21:54:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Whitehound What you suggest is a large and complicated solution....
Read it again .. there are easy ways to minimize 0.0 alliance presence. One that is mentioned repeatedly in Alliances-in-FW discussions is to use sovereignty against them, if they have any, however insignificant, they cannot "participate".
History has proven more than once that there are no quick-fixes that don't end up breaking more than they sort out so thinking small is self-defeating.
Make the gates bastions of insta-death for pirates and the population would not increase one iota. For any kind of migration to occur there has to be value in it which there currently is not. The only result of making gates into bastions is that border systems have a chance to become market outlets with more traders coming and going .. but the rest of low will still be a barren wasteland.
|
Flesh Slurper
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 22:09:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: Flesh Slurper The reason why changing the defense at "entry points" would do nothing, is that it simply moves the location of the transition.
No. What it does is to remove the possibility to easily choke the transition.
It wouldn't because the choke points would merely move to the next gate. The only change would be that choke points would exist in new locations, not that they wouldn't exist at all.
Really lowsec just needs a unique resource/activity that exists there that would be lucrative enough to get people to go there. Otherwise, even if the choke points were moved a jump deeper in so people perceive 0.4 as "safer", the fact remains that there still is no reason to go to lowsec since null has better rewards with less risk, and highsec has similar rewards with less risk. Removing gate camps will not make lowsec more populated since there isn't much in lowsec worthwhile to risk death for even if there weren't gate camps. |
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation The Chamber of Commerce
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 22:51:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Whitehound on 26/10/2010 22:56:19
Originally by: Flesh Slurper It wouldn't because the choke points would merely move to the next gate. The only change would be that choke points would exist in new locations, not that they wouldn't exist at all.
This is not the problem. Gate camps should not be completely eliminated nor should travelling deeper and further into low-sec become any easier. Think of it as a jetty if you will. It is not meant to create a highway through low-sec and into 0.0. --
|
Torothanax
|
Posted - 2010.10.27 00:23:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Torothanax on 27/10/2010 00:25:05
Originally by: Whitehound Edited by: Whitehound on 26/10/2010 09:32:34
Originally by: Torothanax Concord in low sec is a no no. It's counter to back story. Empire navy maybe, but not concord.
When the game evolves its story evolves with it. ...
Suicide attacks in high-sec take place not just daily but hourly, if not every minute. Capsuleers do not die, nor does CONCORD shoot their pods, and so criminals have moved forward into 0.5-systems like Niarja and Uedama. Where it is profitable do they strike in 1.0-systems and even directly at highly populated market places. One can say that CONCORD is failing and high-sec is effectively under siege by criminal organizations. It is time for CONCORD to counter the situation with a forward presence at gates in low-sec.
So there is a bit of a new story.
The back story doesn't get retconned very often. Pirates have been opperating in high sec for as long as Eve has been around. There's absolutely nothing new about suicide ganking. It's an intended option.
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation The Chamber of Commerce
|
Posted - 2010.10.27 05:54:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Torothanax The back story doesn't get retconned very often. Pirates have been opperating in high sec for as long as Eve has been around. There's absolutely nothing new about suicide ganking. It's an intended option.
Still, this is not the issue. People are demanding a higher population of low-sec. What do you want to do about it? Just say low-sec has always been deserted and it is part of the story?! I doubt players will buy it. --
|
Duvida
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2010.10.30 23:33:00 -
[47]
The 'simple' solution in favor of this that wouldn't involve CONCORD or an involved redesign is to make the gate guns stronger. As it stands, they add server traffic, but don't drive off the gate camps mentioned. So they fire and fire until removed (if necessary) as the camp can tank them. If they were stronger, the target would move away, and then they'd stop firing. People would move through low sec more often then, and the curious would more often venture into the belts. Low sec would also end up with more available for sale if people felt they could go to low sec stations without being randomly destroyed, giving low sec residents a wider, less expensive local market selection. Learning... |
fhyuiowauhsipabraphsprai
|
Posted - 2010.10.31 00:41:00 -
[48]
make rat carriers spawn on gates with no bounty attached, then lock the gate until the carriers are killed
carebears will have to go in groups to go though lowsec, and pirates will have to put some effort into killing the rat carriers and the carebears(who are now traveling in a large band)
|
Xorv
|
Posted - 2010.10.31 00:54:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Whitehound
The only problem I see with getting more people into low-sec are the gate camps, which keep players from going into low-sec.
I actually partly agree with what your saying. I believe gate camping as it exists in EVE is poor gameplay that would discourage players from ever entering areas where they are possible. However, there are other issues. One issue is that gate camps are one of the few circumstances in EVE you can get the jump on someone and engage in PvP on an unwilling opponent. The second issue is that gate camps are certainly not "the only problem with getting people into Low Sec".
What I would propose is:
1) Players when they jump to the farside on a jump gate are randomly placed within a 150km or more from the gate, not 15km as is now.
- Gate camps will still be possible on the approach side of a gate, and a gate could still be locked down if both sides of the gate are camped. Players have the tools to avoid camps if they're cautious and use a scanner and/or BMs
2) Remove Local Chat from Null and Low Sec.
- Makes both finding and avoiding other players a little more difficult, plus it cuts down on the numbers game, since without active intel you won't know how many friends a target/enemy may have. Ultimately a system of scanning better than what we currently have would be nice, where the emphasis on both finding ships and avoiding them rests heavily on player skill.
3) Add significant defenses at some NPC stations, where NPC protection is granted on either security status and/or Faction standings.
- This gives players a relatively safe base of operations, some stations would be Empire based (Empire Standings), others Pirate (Pirate Standings and/or Criminal status), and others still Concord (good security status). Also help avoid lame docking games.
4) Move level 3 and 4 missions out of High Sec. Remove any remotely profitable mining or exploration or any type of valuable Isk faucet out of High Sec.
- This is where players should be at risk, when they're bringing ISK into the game. Low Sec has to be hugely more profitable than High Sec for it to be worth while in a risk vs reward calculation. High Sec should be for raw newbies, industry, and markets.
5) Make combat missions be closer to PvP in the way they play out and the strategies required. Make it less about just fitting tank and DPS, and move away from the bigger is always better approach.
- Need to move away from the separation of PvE and PvP, both activities should interlinked, and strategies/fitting etc should not be completely distinct from each other.
|
Ava Starfire
Minmatar Nordanverdr Modr
|
Posted - 2010.10.31 01:32:00 -
[50]
You can move level 3 and 4 missions to losec, and hisec residents will either quit, or simply run L2s. I am a losec resident and career pirate, and believe me, would love more traffic in losec, but this isnt the way to do it. Sheesh. Let the damn horse stay dead.
People are risk averse, period. You wanna get people into losec? Put something out here that is ONLY available here, and that is actually worth the risk.
Do not want concord anywhere in losec; yep, gatecamps are a pain, but I run them several times a day. I even manage to fly a mammoth out here to resupply myself.
Hisec dwellers have a mental image of losec that simply does not exist outside certain systems like Rancer. There are not 40 bloodthirsty pirates on every gate who will blow you up and post your singing ransom on youtube.
Dirty Little Slave, reporting for duty! |
|
Xorv
|
Posted - 2010.10.31 02:06:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Xorv on 31/10/2010 02:09:09
Originally by: Ava Starfire You can move level 3 and 4 missions to losec, and hisec residents will either quit, or simply run L2s. I am a losec resident and career pirate, and believe me, would love more traffic in losec, but this isnt the way to do it. Sheesh. Let the damn horse stay dead.
People are risk averse, period. You wanna get people into losec? Put something out here that is ONLY available here, and that is actually worth the risk.
Some may quit, but so what? Some probably have quit or won't join because of the status-quo, there will never be circumstances that will please everyone. If they want to still stay in high sec and run newbie missions only that's ok as well. At least then there will be a proper Risk vs Reward balance. What MMO that could claim to be Sandbox and PvP orientated has anything close to the safety of PvE provided by EVE?
Everyone's pretty much risk averse in games like this, but in EVE there's little motivation to even take a risk when you can run Level 4 combat missions in High Sec or Plexs in Null Sec within a vast sea of NAPed friendlies blanketed by flawless insta intel provided by Local Chat.
All that said the OPer is right in a lot of ways about Gate Camps. Heck it's not even very fun for those camping the gates. It's just crappy gameplay. And no I don't have much problems with camps myself, but then I mostly fly fast or cov-ops ships, not Battleships as are typically used in level 4 missions. Or are you suggesting everyone should move around with an alt scout on a second account? I'm fairly sure that's what your likely doing to get your mammoth safely in and out of Low Sec.
|
Keoki 1
|
Posted - 2010.10.31 09:44:00 -
[52]
The OP is saying let people get their feet wet in low sec. He's not saying stop them from drowning.
As far as moving L3 and L4 to lowsec, i don't like. Sandbox remember? The game should be more pull than push. Pushing people from high sec seems to go against the sandbox style of the game. Pulling them with incentives is more in line. But incentive requires a more involved solution.
In the mean time, i like the simple idea of changing the random radius you spawn in the system at. |
Aerilis
Gallente Percussive Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2010.10.31 11:13:00 -
[53]
The problem with OPs idea is that pirates will simply bring a tankier gate camp, and camp the gates all the same. The frequency of gatecamps might decrease, but some people enjoy sitting on a hi-sec gate catching T1 fit Battlecruisers all day (lol), and nothing you can do will stop them.
But yeah always thought it was kinda ******ed you can't see what's on the other side of a gate. Hi Mr. Stargate, I'd like to jump through you to another system but could you let me know if there are 20 Concord flagged outlaws on the other side of you? No? But why not? Cuz all the fail pirates would cry to CCP if it happened, that's why.
inb4 someone calls me a carebear, check my killboard pls.
|
Veliria
|
Posted - 2010.10.31 15:12:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Charnivale
Originally by: Flesh Slurper There are a few issues with this:
1) Pirates would just camp the next system in, so the noobs would get in 1 single jump into lowsec and then die the same as they do already, thus negating the purpose of the "protection".
2) Most of lowsec is actually relatively empty. People already can simply check the map for entry points with no activity and you can go exploring all they want.
3) As you say indirectly yourself, people don't want to go to lowsec because they risk being killed. Since these people can still be killed there even if not at a gate, they still will not go in there.
So, what we really need is an incentive to go to losec that outweights the danger of getting killed?
For a lot of players, pretty much. They see the risk of getting roflstomped heavily outweighing anything in low-sec. And really, other than PvP what does it offer? The ore is crap, the missions are no better and lvl 5s are pretty hard to solo.
Moving lvl 3/4 missions to low-sec accomplishes very little. Most carebears still won't risk their BS at a low-sec gate.
Instead, lvl 3/4 missions done in low-sec should offer signifcantly bigger rewards, whilst the mission text should be maybe advise the player to keep an eye on the gates and the directional scanner. Maybe hand out special lvl 3/4 missions that only appear in low-sec and are completeable in a pvp setup. Ore in low-sec should be upped to include stuff like Gneiss and Dark Ochre whilst having good refining stations.
|
Infested Stukov
Minmatar Death Express War and Pestilence
|
Posted - 2010.10.31 16:29:00 -
[55]
How about just making the sentries untankable on lowsec - highsec gate? I'd really like to see more people in lowsec. - Infested Stukov |
Mittsu Banchori
|
Posted - 2010.10.31 16:32:00 -
[56]
And you told me to get out... At least my idea isn't this bad.
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation The Chamber of Commerce
|
Posted - 2010.10.31 18:20:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Whitehound on 31/10/2010 18:22:22
Originally by: Mittsu Banchori And you told me to get out... At least my idea isn't this bad.
Yes, I did. You want a ship to run advertisement and upload graphics into the game. The idea is so stupid, it left me speechless after I read it. Get this, people will use it to upload every imaginable nonsense into the game and onto the clients. Besides it being a waste of bandwidth will CCP have to donate staff and to check each graphic for pron and other non-game related stuff. And all so you can have your fancy little advertisement ship with dockable sections ... holy crap! It is utter nonsense. --
|
Mittsu Banchori
|
Posted - 2010.10.31 18:30:00 -
[58]
Then why didn't you state that. You could easily do it like corporation icons or based on what your endorsing. I have to laugh at your idea, your essentially just expanding high-sec making it seem like low-sec. The whole point of doing missions in high-sec is to get you ready for low-sec and then you train in low-sec for null. Plus most likely carebears will make huge profits off of the planets and asteroids. This is the worse and most dumb idea I have ever seen.
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation The Chamber of Commerce
|
Posted - 2010.10.31 18:35:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Mittsu Banchori Then why didn't you state that. You could easily do it like corporation icons or based on what your endorsing. I have to laugh at your idea, your essentially just expanding high-sec making it seem like low-sec. The whole point of doing missions in high-sec is to get you ready for low-sec and then you train in low-sec for null. Plus most likely carebears will make huge profits off of the planets and asteroids. This is the worse and most dumb idea I have ever seen.
Why? Because you are a troll. --
|
Kabaal S'sylistha
Caldari The Technomages Comrades-Of-Two
|
Posted - 2010.10.31 18:49:00 -
[60]
Are there any CCP Dev posts about what exactly the point of low sec is?
|
|
iKill Giants
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.10.31 19:13:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Kabaal S'sylistha Are there any CCP Dev posts about what exactly the point of low sec is?
To distance completely lawless from rigidly controlled. To balance the risk/reward of L5's. To create a place for faction warfare. To support another type of environment for PvP. Among others. ---------
People always ask me for my Rupture fit after I blow up their Abaddon. |
CENTUREAN
|
Posted - 2010.10.31 22:20:00 -
[62]
I avoid lowsec because 0.0 is better. In lowsec, to pvp means I'll get a -10. sec status sooner or later. Yeah yeah I can rat up the status...shut up.
I can avoid the stupid sec status issue by living in 0.0 and get the same out of the game. Remove the stupid sec status loss from low sec and it may help a bit.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |