1. Three character slots per account.
2. Send an alt, (preferably one you dont care about), thru as a scout.
3. If safe, jump in, rinse repeat.

There you go.

not asking for that and never will, i LIKE pvp, just not cheap pirating tactics that do more damage then good to the games play-ability over all.

I'm not sure what meaning you are ascribing to this.

If the problem isn't with low, then why does it remain the single least relevant block of space in the game?

By definition, anything that improves the risk:reward ratio of low constitutes a buff. Your argument that a reduction of the "risk" side of the equation constitutes a nerf to low is an emotional one, not a rational one. It improves the ratio, but it does so at the cost of a type of gameplay that *you* prefer. This make sit a buff to low, and a nerf to your particular playstyle - don't conflate the two.

Camping the gate is a cheap pirating tactic that does more damage then good to the games play-ability over all.

Camping the station is a cheap pirating tactic that does more damage then good to the games play-ability over all.

Killing ratters is a cheap pirating tactic that does more damage then good to the games play-ability over all.

Killing miners is a cheap pirating tactic that does more damage then good to the games play-ability over all.


Stop them all, CONCORD today ! Protection we can believe in.

I think, more than anything else, that it's just bad gameplay. It's bizarre to me that people will rabidly defend a system that promotes sitting in one place and waiting for protracted periods of time. It's like mining, but with less action.

It seems you think sandbox means only your playstyle is valid and others should be nerfed.

/signed

Gate camps are not fun from either perspective imo. It's also illogical that the large empires wouldn't at least protect the gates closer to their systems. Low sec shouldn't mean virtually no sec, a graduated reduction in gate gun effectiveness also matches the reduced reaction speed of concord in high sec.

I'm confident this would get a lot more noobs into low sec as the gate camps are the main problem. You can deal with people scanning you down by paying attention. You can't get your mission fit battleship through a gatecamp.

If the problem isn't with low, then why does it remain the single least relevant block of space in the game? Understand that people have been making the argument you just posited for a long, looooong time now - that Low is fine, nothing needs to be changed with Low - it's just that those STUPID other people won't come here!

Lowsec is an important part of understanding the dynamics in Eve. Being able to run camps and evade pirates while in that space is something people need to learn.

following sevatars suggestion i will attempt to make this more clear and less trollish

ii suggest that the gate guns be scaled similar to concord in high sec

.4-.3 should be extremely difficult to tank the gate guns without commiting a sizable and costly force to do so.

however, .2-.1 should be easy to tank allowing easy set up with relativly low cost ships.

i say this so there are fewer choke point camps and so new players trying to dip their toes into PVP don't get blapped the second the enter low sec. i believe it would allow for more FW as people would go for plexes more often without fearing running into gate camps as often when attempting to enter FW space.


constructive comments (for or against) only please

Most players don't go there because they don't want to play the game as designed, they want easy rewards or whatever. That's fine, but don't make the assumption that Low is not relevant. That is just a failure to understand certain aspects of the game on your part.

/signed

Gate camps are not fun from either perspective imo. It's also illogical that the large empires wouldn't at least protect the gates closer to their systems. Low sec shouldn't mean virtually no sec, a graduated reduction in gate gun effectiveness also matches the reduced reaction speed of concord in high sec.

I'm confident this would get a lot more noobs into low sec as the gate camps are the main problem. You can deal with people scanning you down by paying attention. You can't get your mission fit battleship through a gatecamp.

The only interesting thing about low sec is the possibility for pvp. Your suggestions would make low sec not worth visiting. Gate camps are part of low sec life. PVP is part of the eve experience. Carebears who wish to avoid all forms of pvp should stay in high sec and hide. Even then pvp will likely find them.

Why not learn evading pirates in .3 and .4, and gate camps + pirates in .1 and .2?

Be a doll and tell me which other block of space is less relevant than low-sec.

did i say anything about getting rid of PVP? no i did not, i suggested a way to force pirates into actual, dynamic pvp, intead of sitting in place and insta-locking/ insta blapping people looking for real PVP.

gate camping=/=PVP

when you can't shoot back becuase you're insta popped, it's slaughter, not PVP

i made this thread in an effort to generate ideas about forcing some real PVP back into low sec

...are you roleplaying right now? It seems like you would have to be, because what you just described is, in practice, about five minutes worth of learnin'.




The game has more to offer than what can be quantified with a risk v reward breakdown on a spreadsheet. Some players don't see the value of market trading, should we nerf the complexity and challenge of the market to make it more accessible for them?

[quote=Prekaz]
Finally, a word on reading comprehension. I described it as the LEAST relevant block of space. Be a doll and tell me which other block of space is less relevant than low-sec.

I'm going to explain this not because I am a "doll" but because I am right and you are not: Lowsec as it stands may well be the least relevant place to you and many others, that fact speaks volumes about who you are as a player, but in no way does it support the idea that lowsec needs to be changed.

The other thing is the gate guns are pretty strong in .4 already, and they get progressively weaker as you go in. As it stands now they can be tanked with BC's and smaller ships for a limited time. Increasing that requirement to BS's with some logi or just Sebo'd Procurors wont change the current dynamic all that much. Gate campers camp because they like it, they will continue to do so even if the guns are bigger.

One of the things that makes lowsec interesting, and really playable, is the low density of players further in.

It is already too crowded there.

did i say anything about getting rid of PVP? no i did not, i suggested a way to force pirates into actual, dynamic pvp, intead of sitting in place and insta-locking/ insta blapping people looking for real PVP.

gate camping=/=PVP

when you can't shoot back becuase you're insta popped, it's slaughter, not PVP

i made this thread in an effort to generate ideas about forcing some real PVP back into low sec

Getting more people into low sec is an admirable goal imo. Why not have noobs contend with pirates in .4 and .3, and pirates and gate camps in .2 and .1? Much better way to train more carebears up for pvp, not to mention more logical from the empires standpoint.

If you want more space in low sec hey I'd agree - much of null is a deserted wasteland. It makes sense that the empires would be expanding into null.


...

These statements seem at odds with each other.

Lol. "Yeah, yeah, it's the least relevant but... I'm still TOTES right!"

You're probably the only person who thinks nothing needs to be changed about low-sec. Reasonable people can disagree about what needs to be changed, but hey, I guess someone needs to play the radical conservative.

i suggest that the gate guns be scaled similar to concord in high sec

Yeah, the problem isn't that people don't know how to navigate the pitfalls of low-sec, it's that anyone with an IQ exceeding room-temperature can immediately see that there is nothing in low-sec that is worth having to scout a path for.

Every other block of space has a draw. High sec has safe, easy, but modest income. Draw. Null sec and WHs offer high levels of income and are even relatively securable. Also a draw.

Low-sec lives at the intersection of "inconvenient" and "low value". The only thing interesting about low-sec is the number of people who will rabidly defend the status quo, there.

People don't like adapting.