If you walk into a large camp and get killed, so be it, but yes, for anything bigger than a cruiser, the gate guns are pretty ineffective.

I just checked. It was 3 CRUISERS. No other ships involved. No 'anything bigger than a cruiser.' No 'large gate camp.'

3 cruisers can instagank an industrial and get off scott free in a 0.4sec covered in sentry guns. Good job CCP.

Sentries, like CONCORD, aren't there to protect you

While I'm not entirely sure I agree, the point I made was that the risk/reward for this kind of activity seriously needs to be adjusted.

While I'm not entirely sure I agree, the point I made was that the risk/reward for this kind of activity seriously needs to be adjusted.

Ok. Here's how you do that: don't go up against three combat ships with a transport.

Oh, because that's the decision I made, right?

I agree, Gate Guns definitely need a serious buff by CCP.

Gate guns are supposed to be deadly. Right now they are nothing more than just a minor annoyance.



DMC

Gate guns are supposed to be deadly. Right now they are nothing more than just a minor annoyance.

Scouts and/or support works wonders for keeping industrials alive in lowsec

It was two cruisers and a T3 and you jumped an Iteron V unscouted into Egghelende (which is almost always camped)

Write it off and be glad you didn't lose anything valuable

You could try learning from this because it's what, the fourth Iteron 5 you've lost in Egghelende?

Not everyone has the luxury of support. Not everyone has the luxury of a massive corporation or alliance to help them play the game. No, some people have to do everything on their own, by themselves.

More news at 11.

It was a bestower (I am amarr, I don't have iteron skills), and it wasn't anywhere near Egghelende.

Deep down you all know something is wrong with how Sentry Guns work in low sec.

Once the aggressing pilot warps off they are free to come back and attack the pilot due to a 'limited engagement' timer of 5 minutes?

Pirates are free to roam in low sec and have very minimal consequences for their actions.

EVE is for the solo players too they have to start somewhere.

Rancer is 100 times worse now than it has ever been and how I loathe the inhabitants of that system

Man the **** up and stop demanding that NPC entities fight your battles while you're AFK, goddamn

This is an MMO and you're blindly venturing into a zone that has drastically reduced penalties for aggression while in a poorly equipped ship, so stop crying because your dumb choices have consequences

Because you're omnipotent and know that I was AFK, right?

In fact, I was only AFK a short time... THROUGH HI-SEC. I stopped being AFK right as I made the jump into a 0.4 system. I specifically wasn't AFK during low-sec travel because I didn't want to be AFK during low-sec travel. Comprehende'?

Duh... how on earth could a bestower driven by a person with low skills who hasn't played the game for 7 years straight NOT be 'poorly equipped'?

And my choices aren't the ones that don't have consequences... 'friend.' They have quite large consequences for someone at my level - weeks worth of ISK gone for nothing. The choices without consequences are the choices of the lo-sec griefer douchbags you are defending. By all means sentry guns should just tickle cruisers, and stop firing after the victim is dead.

Not everyone has the luxury of support.

Duh... how on earth could a bestower driven by a person with low skills who hasn't played the game for 7 years straight NOT be 'poorly equipped'?

And my choices aren't the ones that don't have consequences... 'friend.' They have quite large consequences for someone at my level - weeks worth of ISK gone for nothing.

Deep down you all know something is wrong with how Sentry Guns work in low sec. Before the recent changes Sentry Guns would shoot pilots with security status <= -0.5.

So when you could have docked your industrial and jumped through the gate in a throwaway ship to ensure the coast is clear, you opted to simply jump into lowsec blindly?

Either way, going up against T2/T3 combat ships in a T1 hauler, unsupported, is a very very bad idea.

Are you that bloody thick? Do you honestly think that you have the right to jump about EVE as you please, and not get attacked if you jump into the wrong place?

Because that's what I've said here many times - that I have the right to jump about EVE as I please without getting attacked. I didn't say 'adjust the risk/reward ratio for low-sec griefer douchebags who shrug off hits from sentries while sitting in cruisers, and have no consequences whatsoever for their actions.' No, I said what you just said above.

Too many people are able to manage these risks just fine for people to take your complaints seriously OP.

When others are able to navigate freighters safely through low, null, and w-space just fine, we can't help but think the problem isn't the game.

Check out the big brain on this one.

I didn't say 'adjust the risk/reward ratio for low-sec griefer douchebags who shrug off hits from sentries while sitting in cruisers, and have no consequences whatsoever for their actions.' No, I said what you just said above.

Because freighters can be instaganked by a couple of cruisers in seconds. Because freighters fly around unsupported by their corps and alliances.

Because freighters can be instaganked by a couple of cruisers in seconds. Because freighters fly around unsupported by their corps and alliances.

You sure know a lot about a situation you weren't there to observe.

Because no one else has this problem but me.



Because freighters can be instaganked by a couple of cruisers in seconds. Because freighters fly around unsupported by their corps and alliances.

There isn't enough risk for stupid griefer pirates camping gates in these low-sec shitholes I have to pass through on occasion. Even small ships can tank the damage - some huge tank isn't required.

Buff the stupid sentry guns. There shouldn't be zero risk and 100% reward for these idiots. It's dumb.

That is all.

Because you know I didn't do that. And because you know it isn't possible for people to jump to gate camp between the time I scout and the time I arrive in my industrial. And because you know they couldn't have been sitting there cloaked, therefore couldn't have been seen.

"Open your local!" Because you know that I didn't do that too, although I can tell you that keeping local open is entirely useless, as there are always people in every low-sec shithole, so it tells you nothing.

You sure know a lot about a situation you weren't there to observe.



Check out the big brain on this one.



Because that's what I've said here many times - that I have the right to jump about EVE as I please without getting attacked. I didn't say 'adjust the risk/reward ratio for low-sec griefer douchebags who shrug off hits from sentries while sitting in cruisers, and have no consequences whatsoever for their actions.' No, I said what you just said above.

OP BRO, you dont get it do you?

If gate guns could be tanked by frigate, I bet they would have killed you in frigates and then you would be posting about how sentry guns are useless because they can be tanked by frigates.


But lets progress with your logic, sentry guns are weak because they cant kill tech 2 or tech 3 cruisers (or cruisers specifically equipped to be buffers)

SO LETS BUFF THEM OKAY

now with buffed gates only t3 and battlecruisers can tank them... guess what thats what the pirates would of used and you would still be dead

SO LETS BUFF THEM AGAIN

now with the even more buffed gates only command ships (t2 battlecruisers) and battleships can tank them... you would STILL BE DEAD

SO LETS BUFF THEM EVEN ******* MORE

now with these omnipotent gates that one shot any sub capitals, you would be safe thanks for reducing low sec to hi sec

(GF op but seriously think about some other games if you cant handle eve)

I was always under the impression that you had to have a somewhat serious commitment in personnel and firepower (tankpower) to go against sentry guns. I was always under the impression that this was essentially tanked battleships. I have read this and been told this on numerous occasions.

I didn't know that they nerfed sentries to be jokes.

So that's what you people really want? People quitting Eve? I think the average IQ of posts here keeps going down and down.

[quote=Boozer Hoover]



So that's what you people really want? People quitting Eve? I think the average IQ of posts here keeps going down and down.

I would have been fine with dying if I'd seen a serious gatecamp with battleships and the whole 9 yards, because I don't expect to be able to survive that, and I don't expect sentry guns to be a big deterrent in that situation. But I'm not fine dying to a couple of jackoffs camping a gate in a couple of cruisers while being shot at by sentry guns, and the guns doing nothing to them.



So that's what you people really want? People quitting Eve? I think the average IQ of posts here keeps going down and down.

Oh, because that's the decision I made, right? To go up against 3 combat ships in a transport?

Begone troll.

Not everyone has the luxury of support. Not everyone has the luxury of a massive corporation or alliance to help them play the game. No, some people have to do everything on their own, by themselves.

There shouldn't be zero risk and 100% reward for these idiots. It's dumb.

I'm betting you had Expanded Cargo Holds on that puppy too, aye?

So what you're asking for, is to be allowed to fly around lowsec in an industrial with zero risk and 100% reward. This has got to be a troll.

There isn't enough risk for stupid griefer pirates camping gates in these low-sec shitholes I have to pass through on occasion. Even small ships can tank the damage - some huge tank isn't required.

Buff the stupid sentry guns. There shouldn't be zero risk and 100% reward for these idiots. It's dumb.

That is all.

Because no one else has this problem but me.

I was always under the impression that you had to have a somewhat serious commitment in personnel and firepower (tankpower) to go against sentry guns. I was always under the impression that this was essentially tanked battleships. I have read this and been told this on numerous occasions.

I would have been fine with dying if I'd seen a serious gatecamp with battleships and the whole 9 yards, because I don't expect to be able to survive that, and I don't expect sentry guns to be a big deterrent in that situation. But I'm not fine dying to a couple of jackoffs camping a gate in a couple of cruisers while being shot at by sentry guns, and the guns doing nothing to them.

I just checked. It was 3 CRUISERS. No other ships involved. No 'anything bigger than a cruiser.' No 'large gate camp.'

3 cruisers can instagank an industrial and get off scott free in a 0.4sec covered in sentry guns. Good job CCP.

You lowsec guys moan about how people never leave highsec, whilst simultaneously defending your position on mercilessly owning them in gatecamps. Don't you realise this is the exact reason why lowsec is a wasteland? You are yourselves the cause of the problem. No wonder people have learned not to leave highsec, when you can just sit on a gate while they single file through to their doom. The risks of lowsec don't match the rewards. Not even slightly.

The whole point is to reinvigorate lowsec, make it an area in which highsec players are willing to risk traveling there to benifit increased reward for increased risk. Buffing gateguns gives them the possibility of getting a foot in the door of lowsec. This in turn, leads to more targets for pirates. The ONLY difference being, you won't be sitting there hitting your easy-mode button, but rather having to scan and hunt them down in system. You add a buff to lowsec resources, and now we're talking!

Of course, you all have a massive issue with this. I mean, why would you want to make EvE better if it effects your niche, right? Better to be selfish and maintain your L33T camps and moan about how highsec players are such carebears to not want to come and make pretty fireworks while you eat popcorn.

Buffing gateguns gives them the possibility of getting a foot in the door of lowsec. This in turn, leads to more targets for pirates.

As to just going and playing another game - yeah, I might very well do that. And if enough others decide the same, enjoy shooting asteroids or air or whatever.

As to just going and playing another game - yeah, I might very well do that. And if enough others decide the same, enjoy shooting asteroids or air or whatever.

I hope that you understand why you received such a dismissive response from the community as a result.

Get over yourself.

Let me take a wild guess. The griefers who infest these low-sec shitholes are the same posters on this thread telling me sentry guns are fine, and that sentry guns were never meant to do much beyond tickle gate campers.

As to the second point, that's a damn lie because it has already been stated that CCP nerfed sentry guns to some sort of "ramp up" mechanic. So they apparently WERE meant to do more at some point.

As to just going and playing another game - yeah, I might very well do that. And if enough others decide the same, enjoy shooting asteroids or air or whatever.

Not everyone has the luxury of support. Not everyone has the luxury of a massive corporation or alliance to help them play the game. No, some people have to do everything on their own, by themselves.

Quit with the narcissism and hallucinations of grandeur. You don't represent any 'community.' You represent a handful of griefers who infest low-sec ratholes and who want to preserve game mechanics that benefit their asinine playstyle. Get over yourself.

You shouldn't be able to post if you lost a ship within 30 minutes

You lowsec guys moan about how people never leave highsec, whilst simultaneously defending your position on mercilessly owning them in gatecamps. Don't you realise this is the exact reason why lowsec is a wasteland? You are yourselves the cause of the problem. No wonder people have learned not to leave highsec, when you can just sit on a gate while they single file through to their doom. The risks of lowsec don't match the rewards. Not even slightly.

The whole point is to reinvigorate lowsec, make it an area in which highsec players are willing to risk traveling there to benifit increased reward for increased risk. Buffing gateguns gives them the possibility of getting a foot in the door of lowsec. This in turn, leads to more targets for pirates. The ONLY difference being, you won't be sitting there hitting your easy-mode button, but rather having to scan and hunt them down in system. You add a buff to lowsec resources, and now we're talking!

Of course, you all have a massive issue with this. I mean, why would you want to make EvE better if it effects your niche, right? Better to be selfish and maintain your L33T camps and moan about how highsec players are such carebears to not want to come and make pretty fireworks while you eat popcorn.

Quit with the narcissism and hallucinations of grandeur. You don't represent any 'community.' You represent a handful of griefers who infest low-sec ratholes and who want to preserve game mechanics that benefit their asinine playstyle. Get over yourself.

There isn't enough risk for stupid griefer pirates camping gates in these low-sec shitholes I have to pass through on occasion. Even small ships can tank the damage - some huge tank isn't required.

Buff the stupid sentry guns. There shouldn't be zero risk and 100% reward for these idiots. It's dumb.

That is all.

Quit with the narcissism and hallucinations of grandeur. You don't represent any 'community.' You represent a handful of griefers who infest low-sec ratholes and who want to preserve game mechanics that benefit their asinine playstyle. Get over yourself.

I still want to know why the OP was flying a t1 industrial through low-sec

I fly T1 Industrials through lowsec... not enough skill points for anything else. I send a scout ahead and the T1 follows... I haven't been caught yet, but I will.

You use the tools you have.

Getting caught by a gatecamp in this game is completely optional. Dont choose to get caught.

I fly T1 Industrials through lowsec... not enough skill points for anything else. I send a scout ahead and the T1 follows... I haven't been caught yet, but I will.

You use the tools you have.

But the real question is, when the inevitable happens, will you deal with it and move on, or come to the forums and whine like a 12 year old for CCP to change games mechanics like the op??

I fly T1 Industrials through lowsec... not enough skill points for anything else. I send a scout ahead and the T1 follows... I haven't been caught yet, but I will.

You use the tools you have.

There isn't enough risk for stupid griefer pirates camping gates in these low-sec shitholes I have to pass through on occasion. Even small ships can tank the damage - some huge tank isn't required.

Buff the stupid sentry guns. There shouldn't be zero risk and 100% reward for these idiots. It's dumb.

That is all.

I already lost one a T1 in 0.0, plus a frigate I used as a fast courier in lowsec., and two pods in lowsec.

I think some game mechanics do need adjustment, but my losses were my mistakes.

We could make the whole system a lot fairer.

Just make all sentry guns insta kill anyone that comes within 200 km of them.

so this way it effects everyone exactly the same.

If you'd really enjoy risk, taking care of yourself and reap the riches of lowsec, you'd live there, and not in boring hisec.

Just wondering which part of "Extremely Dangerous" makes people think "My untanked industrial will be unharmed"

While I'm not entirely sure I agree, the point I made was that the risk/reward for this kind of activity seriously needs to be adjusted.

EVE is the last bastion of the stupid pvper. Mindless and skilless activities with essentially zero risk are rewarded. The tears would certainly flow if sentry guns were buffed but it is needed for this game to be less of a joke amongst the pvp gamer community.

Assumtions make a fool of you. I live in wormhole space, and frequent lowsec all the time! I don't fall into the highsec crowd, but am keenly aware of the challenges they face. There is little incentive for them to risk lowsec. Though the OP's example is poor, industrials are fodder in lowsec unscouted, it doesn't change much if he had chosen a different ship. Most catecamps are more than sufficent to kill a solo player, especially the general highsec non-PvP experienced type. Lowsec is nothing more than a buffer zone between high and null, with the pirates within attempting to catch anything passing through. And though its more than possible to pass through lowsec realtively easily for players that know what they are doing, we're talking about players that don't. The pirates have been very successful in creating the image of lowsec being a deathtrap, and its an underpopulated wasteland as a result.

I honestly believe, that by discouraging easy gate-camps via gategun buffs will open the door to highsec players. Allowing them to risk traveling to lowsec for the potential rewards within, with a reduced chance of immediate OMGWTFPWNAGE. The result? More targets for pirates, and more carebears becoming not carebears. The arguements against these suggested changes are poor, in the extreme. It boils down to players selfishly defending their play style, with disregard of the improvement of EvE as a whole. Do you really need to protect the gate-camp easy-mode? Are you completely unable to find targets running sites or mining in lowsec systems?

I guess nothing beats mashing F1 when someone appears through a gate.

...
3) that image is not a reflection of true state of things, and it was not created by lowseccers, but hiseccers justifying their risk adversity and fears
...

Furthermore, even as we speak, only very few gates are actually camped. If somebody is unable to avoid these with all the available information and ingame and OOG tools, do you think that person would actually survive in lowsec then?

Not everyone has the luxury of support. Not everyone has the luxury of a massive corporation or alliance to help them play the game. No, some people have to do everything on their own, by themselves.

You mean not everyone is willing to put effort into group activities. It's not like these 'luxuries' come for free. The luxury of support or better space to carebear in, is achieved by collective effort. Without you being willing to input that same amount of effort, you will forever be a lonesome cowboy getting ganked left and right because you have no friends in dangerous places, and thus little intel on them.

If there are lowsec systems you frequently visit, get to know the inhabitants, and build up positive relationships with other people. If you don't, all you are to them is a target invading their space. And you get ganked for good reason. Any noobship can be in incoming cyno. Any mining vessel can be bait. You can't fault people for securing their own space and make other people not want to use it. Sandbox a little.

Duh... how on earth could a bestower driven by a person with low skills who hasn't played the game for 7 years straight NOT be 'poorly equipped'?

Funnily, killboards prove the fact that people who lose most ships in lowsec aren't carebears.

Of the few bear lossmails we were able to find during this scientific study, we established some statistics

With these facts, in the 3 months that your "main" has been alive, you could have a good number of your core tank skills (Mechanics, Hull Upgrades, Shield Operation, etc) to L4 if not L5. With that, you could be fitting T2 tank mods, and have your EHP pretty close to someone who was all L5.

all these skills won't help you if you get caught in low-sec.
IMO only MWD+cloak skills are needed at all. If they won't help nothing will.

You can use a shuttle if one is available but for the lazy, like me I just leave my ship and jump through the gate in just my capsule.

Calling gate campers pirates is an insult to all real pirates out there.

I just checked. It was 3 CRUISERS. No other ships involved. No 'anything bigger than a cruiser.' No 'large gate camp.'

3 cruisers can instagank an industrial and get off scott free in a 0.4sec covered in sentry guns. Good job CCP.

well doesnt help if CCP would do anything for one simple reason:

If you make something idiot proof, a bigger idiot will rise.

If you have implants I would recommend using a rookie ship instead. I recently got podded because every now and then your pod won't land at zero on the gate but a few meters outside jump range. The time it takes to get in range may very well be enough for bad people to do horrible things to your capsule.

i could be wrong for sure but if you press "jump" then after your ships comes from warp and stops it will move to gates and jump. And "grid loading timer" will still protect you from anything bad.

Let me take a wild guess. The griefers who infest these low-sec shitholes are the same posters on this thread telling me sentry guns are fine, and that sentry guns were never meant to do much beyond tickle gate campers.

As to the second point, that's a damn lie because it has already been stated that CCP nerfed sentry guns to some sort of "ramp up" mechanic.

Quit with the narcissism and hallucinations of grandeur. You don't represent any 'community.'

i could be wrong for sure but if you press "jump" then after your ships comes from warp and stops it will move to gates and jump. And "grid loading timer" will still protect you from anything bad.

It would be great to know if i'm wrong here before i get some tasty lossmail

There isn't enough risk for stupid griefer pirates camping gates in these low-sec shitholes I have to pass through on occasion. Even small ships can tank the damage - some huge tank isn't required.

Buff the stupid sentry guns. There shouldn't be zero risk and 100% reward for these idiots. It's dumb.

That is all.

I just checked. It was 3 CRUISERS. No other ships involved. No 'anything bigger than a cruiser.' No 'large gate camp.'

3 cruisers can instagank an industrial and get off scott free in a 0.4sec covered in sentry guns. Good job CCP.

Oh, because that's the decision I made, right? To go up against 3 combat ships in a transport?

Begone troll.

However EVE allows for people to deny access to things (is a necessary facet of contention within the playerbase), lowsec makes it easier for people to deny you access to things, and camps are a necessary component of denying people access - ie all world pvp games have natural chokes.

They aren't trying to 'deny access' to anything.

There's no motive or intelligence or logic to it. They just get off on griefing and seeing stuff go 'boom.'

Ban explosions.

Replace the use of alt scouts with a right click option on gates: Check Destination.

This option will allow you to pay the gate owners a fee to get a 250km directional scan from the targeted destination stargate. The fee will depend on the faction standing and your security level and may be rejected if either is too low. Does not work on border gates. Only works in empire high and low sec. In 0.0 alliances with sovereignty can set the fee and access to this option, if they have sovereignty in both systems.

Alright, time to cloak.

LOL. I love it when people ascribe motives or intelligence or strategy to something when in reality it simply doesn't exist.

They aren't trying to 'deny access' to anything. They are sitting at a gate and pushing a button called 'fire' whenever anything jumps through. There's no motive or intelligence or logic to it. They just get off on griefing and seeing stuff go 'boom.'

Now, access may be denied, but that's entirely incidental. My car denied me access to a place earlier today because it failed to start. But it isn't as if the car was purposefully trying to do that as part of some grand strategy.

LMAO.

LOL. I love it when people ascribe motives or intelligence or strategy to something when in reality it simply doesn't exist.

They aren't trying to 'deny access' to anything. They are sitting at a gate and pushing a button called 'fire' whenever anything jumps through. There's no motive or intelligence or logic to it. They just get off on griefing and seeing stuff go 'boom.'

No they don't, lowsec is supposed to be lowsec, not highsec.

Not really, no. They're meant to be an annoyance GÇö something you don't want against you in a fight, and they do just that.

They remove the use of fast tacklers, drones, and unsupported ships, forcing a bit of co-ordination on the part of the aggressor. Nothing more is really needed, and each of these added requirements also means an additional point of weakness that can be exploited by people trying to get past the camp.

If none of that works, then hey, it's lowsec GÇö if a gate is camped, just blow it up or bypass it. It's not rocket surgery.

Not everyone has the luxury of support. Not everyone has the luxury of a massive corporation or alliance to help them play the game. No, some people have to do everything on their own, by themselves.

More news at 11.

Who said anything about low sec / high sec?

Typical, over-sensationalized statement yet still wrong. The only thing gate guns do is present a slight hindrance for gate campers, nothing more. I've seen plenty of small gang camps with drones deployed as well as solo campers.

Who said anything about low sec / high sec?

Doesn't matter where the Sentry guns are located, they all belong to Empire Factions and as such should be something that's feared, not easily ignored.

As it is right now, gate guns are just a bad joke. They constantly rotate through targets, have low DPs along with limited range.

Drones die horribly to sentries and you can't rely on them to do damage. You still want to use them for decloaking, and if you are willing to pay for exceptionally expensive ammo, then sure GÇö go ahead and waste them. They're still not a camping weapon. .

sentry guns do not target drones any more and have not for quite some time now.

GǪand the reason DMC has seen Gǣplenty of small gate camps with drones deployedGǥ is still not that they're any good for camping (quite the opposite) but because they have far better uses. The very recent change in Retribution does not change this.

You see, I don't particularly believe that he's been in lowsec ever any time recently, so it's all ancient history anyway.

drones are perfectly fine for camping, esp sentry drones.

they suffer dps application issues much like missiles do,

What's their purpose? To chase off light tier 1 frigates?

Even if the sentry guns were buffed, you still would have died.

Thanks for proving you know nothing.

By the way, when was the last time you logged into the game and actually played it, other than to do skill training?


DMC

Chand knows plenty...unlike you he reads the patch notes.

Nobody ever suggested anything of the sort.

What somebody suggested was that sentry guns actually, you know, do something. What's their purpose? To chase off light tier 1 frigates?

What someone suggested was that there be an adjustment to the risk/reward for mindless easy mode low-sec gate camping.

Yet no one accuses any of them of wanting to change the game to suit their carebear selves. Why?

GǪand what everyone else is pointing out is that this is lowsec GÇö it's your job to make that adjustment.

By suggesting that a shitfitted T1 hauler should be able to stand up against three T2 combat vessels, just because there are sentries about, you kind of are, you knowGǪ

I think he was talking to Tippia, but I appreciate the sentiment Kali ;)

You are confusing lowsec with nullsec.

Thanks for more straw man arguments, claiming that I suggested stuff that I never suggested.

What I said was that these 3 cruisers should not be able to operate this way with impunity.

You are confusing lowsec with nullsec.

Highsec: Not your job to make the adjustment (concord will do it).

Lowsec: Part your job to make the adjustment, and part "assisted."

Nullsec: Entirely your job to make the adjustment.

EDIT:



Thanks for more straw man arguments, claiming that I suggested stuff that I never suggested.

I never once said "shitfitted t1 hauler should be able to stand up against 3 cruisers." What I said was that these 3 cruisers should not be able to operate this way with impunity.

Now go ahead and offer up another straw man attack so we can repeat the process.

other adverbly attacked.

Chand knows plenty...unlike you he reads the patch notes.

In other words, you're asking for a T1 hauler to be able to stand up against three T2 combat vessels with the aid of sentries. Otherwise, they'd still be doing it GÇ£with impunity,GÇ¥ now wouldn't they?

Okay, you either have monstrous reading comprehension issues, or you are a serious troll.

There isn't enough risk for stupid griefer pirates camping gates in these low-sec shitholes I have to pass through on occasion. Even small ships can tank the damage - some huge tank isn't required.

Buff the stupid sentry guns. There shouldn't be zero risk and 100% reward for these idiots. It's dumb.

That is all.

I never once said "shitfitted t1 hauler should be able to stand up against 3 cruisers." What I said was that these 3 cruisers should not be able to operate this way with impunity.

First of all, I apologise if my original reply appeared 'narcissistic' and I was perhaps overstating my argument as the position of the 'community' at large. Perhaps a more accurate term would relate to the majority of the people that have replied in this thread. I can also add that I am not a "griefer" in the sense that you describe it - I would suggest that you reconsider the use of this term however, as it stands for something very different in EVE.



Perhaps the vast majority of the people in this thread misunderstood you Beast. I also read your original post in very different way. If your position is that 3 Cruisers in low-sec should not be able to camp gates and aggress neutral ships with 'impunity', then your argument is already answered: They cannot operate in such a way with impunity.

Impunity implies exemption from punishment or immunity from consequences/detrimental effects of an action. Both are applicable in this scenario as the 3 Cruisers would be punished for their actions (sec status loss, Global PvP flag, aggression from Sentry Guns) and are not immune from the detrimental effects of their action, namely ongoing Sentry Gun damage, ability for any other party to engage them with 'impunity' for next 15 minutes and inability to jump out or dock for 60 seconds (PvP flag).

Now of course, you didn't mean 'impunity', did you? Impunity just sounds better because it is such a strong, albeit generalised term, that continues to reinforce the validity and strength of your position, which without this smoke and mirrors reinforcement falls on its head.
And here is yet another 'straw-man argument', right? And I am just another 'griefer' or 'troll' that is here to save my easy gate-camping ways and get a rise out of you, right? Yes. All those generic terms that are loosely thrown about these forums, without a clear understanding of their actual meaning, give you an ability to dismiss valid counter-arguments and questions and sustain the belief that you are in fact right, despite the majority of posters stating otherwise. There is a generic term for that as well but I will refrain, and also I digress.

But OK, let us entertain this a while longer:

I suppose, and please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, what you were meant to say was that 3 Cruisers should be punished much more severely via game mechanics (increased damage output from gate-guns) than they are currently? This would, in your opinion, dissuade lacklustre gate-camps and promote further organisation within low-sec groups to effectively camp gates. The added bonus of this (and I gather this from your subsequent posts), would be that high-sec players may feel more reassured of their relative safety to enter and travel through low-sec.

Just a quick question Beast, could you explain, without reference to your T1 Industrial loss, why is this change necessary for the game? In responding, I would ask you to try and stay away from sweeping statements and generalisations and to try and think of the necessity of such a change for the game itself.

Thanks in advance.

Probably best to ignore the queen of subtle snide one liner troll remarks. Miss Sunshine and Lollipops is the leader of the troll parade and will constantly post replies in an attempt to out shout anyone who opposes her.
DMC

Impunity implies exemption from punishment or immunity from consequences/detrimental effects of an action. Both are applicable in this scenario as the 3 Cruisers would be punished for their actions (sec status loss, Global PvP flag, aggression from Sentry Guns) and are not immune from the detrimental effects of their action, namely ongoing Sentry Gun damage, ability for any other party to engage them with 'impunity' for next 15 minutes and inability to jump out or dock for 60 seconds (PvP flag).

I suppose, and please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, what you were meant to say was that 3 Cruisers should be punished much more severely via game mechanics (increased damage output from gate-guns) than they are currently?

Just a quick question Beast, could you explain, without reference to your T1 Industrial loss, why is this change necessary for the game?

3. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.

4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

22. Post constructively.

Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online provided that it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting.