| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sinzer
   |
Posted - 2003.07.14 01:09:00 -
[1]
We all know gate camping, I don't really disagree with it, but what should happen is that you are not allowed to jump for 2mins if you have activated a weapon within 5 mins (or some other length of time like 2 mins).
This would stop people hiding at gates then jumping as soon as they know someone bad enough is ready to get them.
I agree with pirating, I love PVP. I disagree with zone ganking (as first pioneered in EQ, I believe, where it was even easier to zone gank).
Jumpgates are the obvious place to blockade and pirates should be encouraged to use them. However, they shouldn't be allowed to sit in jump range, being effectively invulnerable.
Also, I would like to see a slackening of empire space and get it back to seeing pirates floating around at least .7 and below. Perhaps this could be introduced with specific stealth skills? Perhaps reduction in chances of being spotted by Concord.
At the moment Empire space is carebear land and it pretty much sucks!
Nothing more exciting than approaching a jumpgate and seeing a famous pirate flying alongside you.... time to run :) or shoot if you have your PVP loadout on.
Another thing I would like to see is a skill to re-outfit in space, so annoying to have to dock to change modules in ships. Perhaps just limit it to turret slots or medium slots.
************************************
Explorer Extradonaire
Any contract large or small
Http://www.explore-eve.net |
Juju Mojo
|
Posted - 2003.07.14 01:42:00 -
[2]
 Quote:
...what should happen is that you are not allowed to jump for 2mins if you have activated a weapon within 5 mins (or some other length of time like 2 mins).
I made a suggestion very very similar to this about 2 months ago. If you fire a weapon, you should not be allowed to gate or dock or a certain period of time. That time period would have to be short enough as to not be a huge inconvienience, but long enough that if you were in the middle of a fight, you wouldn't even consider shutting your weapons off and waiting it out just so you can jump away or dock.
This would solve the problem of docking/repairing/undocking in the middle of a fight, and it also would solve the problem of not being able to effectively fight someone at a gate, as one side or the other will inevitably just gate out making the whole engagement pointless. |
Damon Vile
|
Posted - 2003.07.14 01:53:00 -
[3]
I'd rather see gate scramblers then some funky rule about jumping. Something needs to be done about both jumping durring combat and having to warp right ontop of ppl when you attack a gate.
|
RazorDreamz
|
Posted - 2003.07.14 03:19:00 -
[4]
Yes I disagree with this. We need less rules other than more of them. The game has so many rules constraining what you can and cannot do it is loosing it's playability. Jump scramblers would handle the situation fine and add a new tactic to combat.
---------------------------------------
CSM Chat Log September 25, 2003:
Fuhry> Some things we simply cannot test, and therefore we just put it on Tranq. cross our fingers and then get into panic m |
Sanru
|
Posted - 2003.07.14 04:04:00 -
[5]
No, EQ didn't pioneer zoneline camping. I'm not sure exactly what game started it, I know that it was a popular tactic in shooters, folks would camp spawn points for players and kill folks who respawn (sometimes several times if the person was unlucky enough to keep spawning at the same spot).
Jump scramblers are a horrid idea. They would help the pirates far more than anyone else. Running a blockade would become impossible as you could neither warp nor jump. You might get a couple of them now and again, but it will dramaticlly increase the number of ships pirates are able to stop and blow up or extort.
I do think the original suggestion has merit though. Sorry if having to remember "shoooting my guns will delay my retreat by X number of seconds/minutes" is difficult for you. I personally don't think I would have trouble remembering.
|
tekforce
|
Posted - 2003.07.14 04:18:00 -
[6]
Worst idea ever!!!!!!, makes me want to vomit. Where do you guys get the stuff your smoking cuase im mother F'in dizzown. Lets change aspects of the game that have been around since day one of alpha and beta.
|
Bentguru
|
Posted - 2003.07.14 04:25:00 -
[7]
tek some things DO need changing. Name 1 place on the map where is it possible to force a fight. one..
still waiting...
yeah thats what i though. There are 2 spots on a map that PVP usually happends at, gates and stations. Both allow one side to instantly be safe should the fight go against them. This is stupid. The can't warp/dock for 2 minutes after the firing of a weapon is a good and plausable idea to fix this. This would HELP PvP be something more then running around 8 systems trying 2 catch that pirate who jumped the 2nd he saw you. This would create more PvP. Don't you want PvP?
|
Damon Vile
|
Posted - 2003.07.14 04:40:00 -
[8]
I posted an idea and this very same problem.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=19839
Sorry don't know how to make it a link on the new forums....but I'm sure someone can :P
|
Digital Sin
|
Posted - 2003.07.14 04:57:00 -
[9]
i agree 100%. there should be a "distortion" caused by using your weaponry, that doesnt allow jumping for a set time. i really hate it when pirates camp a gate for hours on end, a sizable force shows up, and they basically say "buh-bye!" and warp just as everyone gets a target lock on them. then, the cat and mouse game starts, and they just pop into dead space and log, or hide in a station and tease people over local.
doing so would of course make the pirates mad, but would give other people a fighting chance. it really makes things less fun when people can just leave at any time. you want PvP, how are you supposed to have that when everyone runs like pansies?
"To be content,to be comfortable, is to be complacent. No one learns anything from pleasure..pain on the other hand is a most efficient instructor" |
Bas Rutten
|
Posted - 2003.07.14 05:13:00 -
[10]
Most pirates actually donŠt want an even fight as it seems, thatŠs why they would definetely start to complain if this was implemented. I have to agree I like the idea, although admittingly pirates suffer these days. First thing I would rather like to see is Concord getting nerfed to hell and back, next thing that would be positive for PvP would be your idea.
____________________________________
Deny the Urge - brutal Death from Germoney
|
tekforce
|
Posted - 2003.07.14 05:15:00 -
[11]
shut the f up and let people like Bentguru speak the truth. There is no where else for combat and gates are the only place anything really is ever going to occur at.
|
Bas Rutten
|
Posted - 2003.07.14 05:21:00 -
[12]
Umm tek ... youŠve gotta be kidding me now. Why in the hell did you first rant about the idea and now agree with bentguru? I donŠt get it... could you explain please and maybe without any cuss words to show a little maturity here?
____________________________________
Deny the Urge - brutal Death from Germoney
|
Scrapyard Jack
|
Posted - 2003.07.14 05:21:00 -
[13]
Player-targettable Jump jammer works for me.
Disrupt a ships ability to activate a Jump drive for x amount of time. Pirates can't escape; neither can blockade runners. S'fair.
Ol' Jack thinks someone had it right earlier, we've too many nerf rules as it is.
|
Deridium
|
Posted - 2003.07.14 05:35:00 -
[14]
Think there is too much in the game allready AGAINST pvp. Looking too much like a carebare game allready. So find this idea rather stupid myself. Attacked by npc pirates at a gate, cant get out and have to fight them. then cant leave for five mins then they get time to respawn and so on.
If you want a bluebie game, stay in safe space and play there.
|
Nybbas
|
Posted - 2003.07.14 05:39:00 -
[15]
just make it if you lose sec rating by a gate you cant warp through for a minute or something, this keeps people from just escaping with their lives, how is that carebear? it makes more people die. Makes it harder for pirates, to just sit back and be pussies about it all
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |