|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Antic
   |
Posted - 2005.05.30 23:02:00 -
[1]
Nerf all instas. Then we have a reason to start nerfing gate camping.
For travel time add an option for long range travel but at a cost. Like a subspace area workign as a hub (kinda like the GRID in AO) wich gives you control of where entrances and exits are. Also adding some other form of gates for long distnace travel that costs ISK to use would be good.
|
Antic
|
Posted - 2005.05.31 10:02:00 -
[2]
Another problem here is the ganker/pirate vs non pvper debate. What non pvpers hate the most is running into pvpers and then dying instantly cus their ship dont have the fittings to even begin to fight back or survive a fight. If they did they would not be able to perform their non PvP role.
So getting ganked without wanting to PvP will always cause complaints. And instas was and is the only real way to avoid getting gate ganked in any larger/slower ship.
I know i will be thinking twice before traveling to low sec without instas. Every gate you pass might mean instant helpless death. Even if i had a PVP fit i cant beat a gate gank sqad. And as a casual player i cant get escorts just to travel from point a to point b when my corp mates may not have anything to do at the same location.
|
Antic
|
Posted - 2005.05.31 10:09:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Rod Blaine
Then you are indeed going to be limited.
There's nothing wrong with that imo. If you cannot get past then you cannot get past. There's no divine right to be able to get past is there ?
Fit for evasion and chances of dying are next to zero, insta's or not. IF you do what every person in 0.0 that wants to minimise risk needs to do. If you don't, then you are accepting the risk. If you want neither risk nor effort at evasion, then don't be there.
you are missing the point. CCP wants an exodus to low sec. Casuals who cant form squads eveyr time the log on and dont have the play time to join huge alliances to have the manpower available at all time will not be joining this exodus with gate ganking being so rampart as it is. And casuals is the vast majority of the playerbase. So whilst the people whos in 0.0 and low sec now will continue to stay there, there wont be much new blood to join the "gank" down there. That is a failure for the exodus vision.
So gate ganking has to be fixed teh same time instas are nerfed. Or some other safer form of travel has to be added even if it costs isk to use.
|
Antic
|
Posted - 2005.05.31 10:48:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Antic on 31/05/2005 10:50:12
oh but you are incorrect. Your asumption that we all just sit and whine in empire is flawed. If we would have been accepted as we were by 0.0 alliances then sure! cus its pretyt much safe space within their controled territory. But they demand that you actively PVP. And actively is a problem for a casual.
And we HAVE ganged together. Theres lots of alliances in empire and low sec right now where as im part of one. But surprise surprise how do you expect alliances of miners and mission runers with perhaps a dozen pvpers to escort hundreds of people through gatecamp? Impossible. Why arent these alliances in 0.0 right now? cus if they dont have pvpers enough to escort miners through gatecamps then they dont have the pvpers to war with the 3000 people k3wld3wd alliances out there who claim the entire area. Oh and wich PVPer would want to run miner escort all day long? No the pvpers rather go join a 0.0 corp/alliance to join the pvp arena wich is all 0.0 currnetly is untill cosmos.
Then add the myriad of "mercenary" corps of PVPers who declare war on said alliances just to have a free reign ganking helpless miners in empire.
Know what the awful truth is? Unless you are a majority PvPers, grouping together in allinaces in eve isnt for you, cus you will get targeted even in empire. And with your logic, we need to form said alliances to have teh ability to travel by escorting through low sec gates.
Nice vision but it dosnt fit with reality.
|
Antic
|
Posted - 2005.05.31 11:06:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Rod Blaine
Edited by: Rod Blaine on 31/05/2005 11:03:21
Originally by: Antic
more retorts
Correct, and incorrect.
oh, nm. Deleted more retorting since we are getting waaay off topic here.
of course you did. Because you ran out of arguments.
Thus my point stands, removing instas without sorting gate ganking will be having a bad effect on said player population. And if gate ganking isnt sorted there has to be added some sort of alternative method of travel wich can cost ISK to use wich will help adress the increased traveltime with instas gone too.
|
|
|
| |
|