EVE Search - War Declaration and Gate Camping should be nerfed...

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

War Declaration and Gate Camping should be nerfed...

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Jarem Alistor	Posted - 2006.04.02 19:45:00 - [61] I've seen and even started threads like this within the period of a few months and always seem to run across the same arguments. I believe that it all boils down to the fact that there are a large segment of players who believe that such a thing as griefing does not exist in Eve. As to whether or not they are wrong is not for me to say, suffice that I do not share that same belief. However, unfortunately, it would seem that there is to be no response to this topic and others like it, no official response anyway, and that most threads devolve down into flames far before any sort of middle ground can be comfortably met. There are some on one side of the fence who, after having pushed themselves and their characters up to a level in which they can comfortably afford to lose quite a lot, enjoy preventing other players from getting to those heights. There are others who, still struggling to get to a level such as that themselves, find themselves prevented in that endevour time and time again with no solution save joining a larger corp or alliance which might, in and of itself, prevent them from achieving their own personal goals. Shrugs. Much as I would love to see some sort of balance, at the very least perhaps increasing the price of a wardec - I mean, it is a WAR, war's aren't really your every day thing, IMHO - I doubt that one will come. However if there is ever to be some sort of official comment stating that they will at least consider some sort of viable adjustment to balance things even the slightest, I would love to help come up with that. The problem is I seriously doubt that such a thing would ever come to fruition. -Jarem
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2006.04.02 19:48:00 - [62] Originally by: Nanobotter Mk2 Should be some sort of calculation when a war is declared, and if it is a meaningless big corp crush a small corp result then the game should allow the smaller corp to make the larger corp open game for all player sin the game. IE society would take arms against a clearly unfair opressor, just like the real world. :) Yea right they do. There are people who will help against genuine grief wardecs, when asked. But there are less of them then you might think - people tend to invite the wardecs by "practicing piracy for a day", or "I only took a few million from their hangers when I left". "The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer
000Hunter000	Posted - 2006.04.02 19:58:00 - [63] Hm.. just make the costs of a wardec dependant on the size and wealth of the corp. Big corp with lots of rich players = big costs Small corp with few and not so rich players = small costs (the border at how low should be the current costs) oh and the cost goes up if rich players join the corp after the war has been declared. On the gatecamp... perhaps just let the sentries 'recalibrate' after the pirate has been there for an X amount of time so they can actually hit em. Also the deeper u go the longer it should take for the sentries to 'recalibrate' and actually hit.
Aeaus	Posted - 2006.04.02 20:26:00 - [64] Some Additions I considered... War Dec My ideal would be a system where the rich do not prey on the weak simply because they can. It's really quite the equivilent of beating up little children, and while many war avoiding concepts are fairly easy to understand, new players are really unable to do this... Wars should be declared based on location and corporation SP values. Since most legitimate corporation wars usually occur over territory the declaring corporation can specify a location they wish to fight over and then concord takes the corporation SP values into account and charges an appropriate fee... Most griefing corporations don't mind paying 1M to bullying on the weak, but 100M would be annother story. (Not suggesting such harsh payments, just an example) NPC Gatecamp Busters The purpose of this idea isn't to end gate camping either. I do not fancy NPCs keeping low security space secure. What I have a problem with is the gate campers that sit at a gate and destroy everything that comes their way, regardless of the target. Travel through low security space would still be dangerous for anybody that is transporting anything of remote value. It makes more RP sense that pirates would be more choosy in their targets. As it stands competent pilots sniping can nearly never be caught, not even with covert ops as they will instantly warp out the second they notice a tackler coming out of warp on them.
Laythun	Posted - 2006.04.02 20:48:00 - [65] Originally by: Aeaus Some Additions I considered... War Dec My ideal would be a system where the rich do not prey on the weak simply because they can. It's really quite the equivilent of beating up little children, and while many war avoiding concepts are fairly easy to understand, new players are really unable to do this... Wars should be declared based on location and corporation SP values. Since most legitimate corporation wars usually occur over territory the declaring corporation can specify a location they wish to fight over and then concord takes the corporation SP values into account and charges an appropriate fee... Most griefing corporations don't mind paying 1M to bullying on the weak, but 100M would be annother story. (Not suggesting such harsh payments, just an example) NPC Gatecamp Busters The purpose of this idea isn't to end gate camping either. I do not fancy NPCs keeping low security space secure. What I have a problem with is the gate campers that sit at a gate and destroy everything that comes their way, regardless of the target. Travel through low security space would still be dangerous for anybody that is transporting anything of remote value. It makes more RP sense that pirates would be more choosy in their targets. As it stands competent pilots sniping can nearly never be caught, not even with covert ops as they will instantly warp out the second they notice a tackler coming out of warp on them. Look NO. current system WORKS. The WEAK shall NOT inherit the Universe. --------------------------------------------- If im flaming or not contributing im sorry, but im trying to get into th [23]
Rells	Posted - 2006.04.02 21:00:00 - [66] Crazy suggestions and comming from a BoB member really makes me wonder what this game has come to. Wardeced industrial corps should make full use of their isk and get a merc corp to counter dec their foes. Thats what we are for. We solve YOUR problems for a fee. Gates are the focus of combat in eve because they are choke points. There needs to be more reason to fight off gate, not gate nerfage. -- Rells ◄ Isnt it time you learned how to fight back? ◄ Agony Unleashed PvP University: ◄ Click here to find out more!
Aeaus	Posted - 2006.04.02 21:14:00 - [67] Originally by: Rells Wardeced industrial corps should make full use of their isk and get a merc corp to counter dec their foes. Thats what we are for. We solve YOUR problems for a fee. Right, I think I mentioned this about oh, I don't know, several times in the first post alone? Where in this did I say that industrial corps can't be fought against? I, and many others who aren't a vocal majority on these forums do not want to see newbs getting preyed upon by more experienced players. Removing pointless ganking from low security gates would mean more people spread out into the meat of low security instead of getting ganked pointlessly and then deciding it isn't worth the risk.
Lo3d3R	Posted - 2006.04.02 21:17:00 - [68] Edited by: Lo3d3R on 02/04/2006 21:18:07 Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu The grief does not flow freely through this one. You must meditate and invite the grief to your heart. Only then will you understand. well spoken =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- to threadstarter, the game is fine the way it is imo, if your badger gets blown up by a gate camp there are tons of ways to deal with it, you're always in the advantage because we need to deal with the sentryguns, if your not capable to retaliate (spelling?), you should not come near low-sec. 0/ Carebear Destruction - Rank (13) - Level 5 -
Aeaus	Posted - 2006.04.02 21:21:00 - [69] Again, the point is not to make low security safer. The point is to remove pointless random ganking from gates and make it more logical; choosing targets instead of blowing everything that passes through. This would also make low sec more populated and thus revive the profession of belt piracy, etc.
Clementina	Posted - 2006.04.02 21:54:00 - [70] The War system, while it could use improvement, is good the way it is. Gate Camping in low sec needs some changes. I would make the sentry guns in low sec would have really long range, but also really bad tracking. Essentally, making it so that a 200+ km sniper would be insta-popped, but pirates who choose to fight close to a gate would have little to fear. This would also have the interesting side effect of allowing for smaller ships to be used in piracy, and people who are into ransoming would be tempted to take it up again.
Ravenal	Posted - 2006.04.02 22:40:00 - [71] sometimes i find myself wondering how many people actually post without reading the thread (generally speaking) . -Fate is what you make of it. -Make your own fate using T2 items produced by The Fated
Lo3d3R	Posted - 2006.04.02 23:26:00 - [72] Edited by: Lo3d3R on 02/04/2006 23:32:18 Originally by: Aeaus Again, the point is not to make low security safer. The point is to remove pointless random ganking from gates and make it more logical; choosing targets instead of blowing everything that passes through. This would also make low sec more populated and thus revive the profession of belt piracy, etc. your ideas and the ones (few) that support them will make eve a boring game, what you call pointless ganking is a pretty exciting piece of gameplay aswell for me and my victims, and WE are the victims also just as easy, if you put some effort in to it and bother to use the countless tools the game provides. what you want is a more fixed and static gameplay away from the gates so you can pass safely and fly your badger without to much trouble, what you call logical i call lazy. but hey its just my oppinion Carebear Destruction - Rank (13) - Level 5 -
DarkStar251	Posted - 2006.04.03 00:19:00 - [73] Despite being someone that enjoys pirating in lowsec, I agree with your gate camping proposal. After all it will not stop belt piracy... On the other hand, the War system is fine imho. Corps full of newbies/low SP players shouldning exist, people should join an established corp where they can learn from others and be protected by them. If you dont want to be wardecced stay in your NPC corp, forming a PC corp is saying you are ready to step out in to the big bad world of EVE. Apart from anything else, alot of the corps doing the wardeccing are small (say 10 members) and will wardec on much larger corps of weaker players, so the difference in total SP probably isnt much.
Freya Runestone	Posted - 2006.04.03 00:59:00 - [74] one thing i would like to see. one-man corps being safe from wardec'ing and ofcourse, not being able to wardec anyone themselves. or some way to pay concord to be undec'able (at a very high cost ofcourse. possibly like having 30% corp tax, you lose 30% of all your income) ofcourse this would need to limit your capabilities. like not being alowed by concord to fly anything above cruiser size, (no HAC's either) if you were to completely stay out of PvP, by game mechanics, it would have to hurt you somewhere else... __________________________________
Kahani Lyn	Posted - 2006.04.03 01:00:00 - [75] Edited by: Kahani Lyn on 03/04/2006 01:00:46 Originally by: Lo3d3R what you call pointless ganking is a pretty exciting piece of gameplay aswell for me and my victims, and WE are the victims also just as easy, if you put some effort in to it and bother to use the countless tools the game provides. what you want is a more fixed and static gameplay away from the gates so you can pass safely and fly your badger without to much trouble, what you call logical i call lazy. but hey its just my oppinion Yes, sitting 160km from a gate, with little to NO risk, pushing a couple of keys on occasion, lined up towards a safe spot provides a target that is counterable by SO MANY TOOLS, and I'm sure it's SO FUN for you AND the people who get pointlessly creamed at gates for no other reason than passing through them. Gate snipers don't just fly BS, they are BS.
Plutoinum	Posted - 2006.04.03 01:03:00 - [76] Gate-camping: Since CCP removed the highways probably to strengthen regional markets, the shortest route between Rens and Jita goes through low sec e.g. Rancer. I think this was not done by mistake, but with the goal to make trading between these regions more difficult. Seems to work, since people complain. If you remove gate piracy, the whole concept doesn't work anymore, because low sec. gate to gate travel would be 100% safe. So for me it's only a question, how gate piracy should look like. I see no reason to remove it completely.
Lorth	Posted - 2006.04.03 01:08:00 - [77] Originally by: Plutoinum Gate-camping: Since CCP removed the highways probably to strengthen regional markets, the shortest route between Rens and Jita goes through low sec e.g. Rancer. I think this was not done by mistake, but with the goal to make trading between these regions more difficult. Seems to work, since people complain. If you remove gate piracy, the whole concept doesn't work anymore, because low sec. gate to gate travel would be 100% safe. So for me it's only a question, how gate piracy should look like. I see no reason to remove it completely. Agreed. I would say support a range increase of the sentry guns. It removes most of the sniping, but allows pirates to camp in scamble range. You want pirates close to the gate, it increases thier risk 10 fold when they do.
Claude Leon	Posted - 2006.04.03 02:17:00 - [78] Originally by: Kahani Lyn Edited by: Kahani Lyn on 03/04/2006 01:00:46 Originally by: Lo3d3R what you call pointless ganking is a pretty exciting piece of gameplay aswell for me and my victims, and WE are the victims also just as easy, if you put some effort in to it and bother to use the countless tools the game provides. what you want is a more fixed and static gameplay away from the gates so you can pass safely and fly your badger without to much trouble, what you call logical i call lazy. but hey its just my oppinion Yes, sitting 160km from a gate, with little to NO risk, pushing a couple of keys on occasion, lined up towards a safe spot provides a target that is counterable by SO MANY TOOLS, and I'm sure it's SO FUN for you AND the people who get pointlessly creamed at gates for no other reason than passing through them. Gate snipers don't just fly BS, they are BS. Best post of the thread. Remember EVE requires you to think strategically.
Gamer4liff	Posted - 2006.04.03 02:25:00 - [79] Maybe they could fix it so that sent. guns increase in damage and range the longer the target sniper is there?
Aeaus	Posted - 2006.04.03 02:51:00 - [80] So far I'm really liking the idea for sentry guns to be able to kill sniping battleships, but not being able to track enough to hit those camping closer to the gate. Would definately make gate piracy a bit more strategical Mr. Ctrl-Click F1, F2, F3, F4. (Although no offense Lo3der, you're not one to run from combat)
Razin	Posted - 2006.04.03 04:01:00 - [81] Originally by: Aeaus Again, the point is not to make low security safer. The point is to remove pointless random ganking from gates and make it more logical; choosing targets instead of blowing everything that passes through. This would also make low sec more populated and thus revive the profession of belt piracy, etc. The only way to stop the static gate camps (aside from brute force methods like sentries or concord presence) is to retrofit every ship with a jump-drive and get rid of most gates. If implemented correctly this would force the aggressors to move around to catch their prey and give the would be victim enough of a chance to actually introduce tactics to the whole thing. Incidentally, this would also solve the insta problem once and for all.
Lorth	Posted - 2006.04.03 04:07:00 - [82] Originally by: Razin Originally by: Aeaus Again, the point is not to make low security safer. The point is to remove pointless random ganking from gates and make it more logical; choosing targets instead of blowing everything that passes through. This would also make low sec more populated and thus revive the profession of belt piracy, etc. The only way to stop the static gate camps (aside from brute force methods like sentries or concord presence) is to retrofit every ship with a jump-drive and get rid of most gates. If implemented correctly this would force the aggressors to move around to catch their prey and give the would be victim enough of a chance to actually introduce tactics to the whole thing. Incidentally, this would also solve the insta problem once and for all. Jeez, this is whats wrong with a lot of people I see posting on the forums. Rather then whine, why don't you remove the gate camp your self? The solution to your problem is right in front of your nose. Why don't you use it rather then ask for wide sweeping changes to the game?
Razin	Posted - 2006.04.03 04:16:00 - [83] Originally by: Lorth Originally by: Razin Originally by: Aeaus Again, the point is not to make low security safer. The point is to remove pointless random ganking from gates and make it more logical; choosing targets instead of blowing everything that passes through. This would also make low sec more populated and thus revive the profession of belt piracy, etc. The only way to stop the static gate camps (aside from brute force methods like sentries or concord presence) is to retrofit every ship with a jump-drive and get rid of most gates. If implemented correctly this would force the aggressors to move around to catch their prey and give the would be victim enough of a chance to actually introduce tactics to the whole thing. Incidentally, this would also solve the insta problem once and for all. Jeez, this is whats wrong with a lot of people I see posting on the forums. Rather then whine, why don't you remove the gate camp your self? The solution to your problem is right in front of your nose. Why don't you use it rather then ask for wide sweeping changes to the game? Why donÆt you look in the mirror to see whatÆs wrong with the people posting here. I am responding to a proposal posted by the OP. You are knee-jerking.
Lorth	Posted - 2006.04.03 04:24:00 - [84] Originally by: Razin Why donÆt you look in the mirror to see whatÆs wrong with the people posting here. I am responding to a proposal posted by the OP. You are knee-jerking. No you are suggesting a complete change to the game mechanics based (persumably) on a play style you don't like. You also suggested that the only ways to remove gate camps is through some radical means. That is whats wrong with a number of posters on these forums. There are 167 ways to remove a gate camp now. We don't need more, we need people willing to empower them selves, rather then ask CCP to do it for them. No I'm not knee jerking. And yes people that suggest radical changes to the game to solve problems that are currently solvable with the current mechanics is wrong. Especially in a game that supposed to be about player empowerment, not about the Dev's removing all risk for those who don't think for them selves.
Aeaus	Posted - 2006.04.03 04:27:00 - [85] Yes you are knee jerking! I am not suggesting to remove gate camps in low sec space! Go back, click on page one, read PAST THE TOPIC NAME, and actually try to understand what I'm posting about.
Lorth	Posted - 2006.04.03 04:31:00 - [86] Originally by: Aeaus Yes you are knee jerking! I am not suggesting to remove gate camps in low sec space! Go back, click on page one, read PAST THE TOPIC NAME, and actually try to understand what I'm posting about. I'm not talking to you. I'm talking to the person I quote who seems to suggest large scale changes to the game such as jump drives for every ship or increased NPC presence as the only way to remove cames. The most effective counter to empire gate camps is to simply jump in and remove the camp your self
Razin	Posted - 2006.04.03 04:38:00 - [87] Edited by: Razin on 03/04/2006 04:43:48 Originally by: Lorth No you are suggesting a complete change to the game mechanics based (persumably) on a play style you don't like. You also suggested that the only ways to remove gate camps is through some radical means. I voiced no opinion whatsoever on the current play style. I simply suggested an idea that has a potential to change it into something much more flexible and complex (not to be confused with complicated). You, on the other hand, ôpresumedö.
Razin	Posted - 2006.04.03 04:43:00 - [88] Originally by: Lorth And yes people that suggest radical changes to the game to solve problems that are currently solvable with the current mechanics is wrong. Especially in a game that supposed to be about player empowerment, not about the Dev's removing all risk for those who don't think for them selves. There is nothing in the change I suggested to curb player empowerment (there arenÆt enough details in my proposal to make a judgment either way). ItÆs one thing to say you just donÆt like the idea of a sweeping change like that, itÆs another to accuse me of whining, etc.
0August0	Posted - 2006.04.03 05:16:00 - [89] How about making the cost of a war dec to be a percentage of a corps (and its members and alts of its members) total assets including ships and equipment. Say 1% of the total per week? . . . Regards, August Soldier of the Gooch
Cerberal	Posted - 2006.04.03 05:40:00 - [90] Personally i think they should just remove turrets from gates in .4 and lower. Ive been killed twice by snipers in my entire playing time, once in a frigate and once in a Scythe cruiser (both completely replaceable). Ive even escaped many camps made specifically to catch me (keep in mind at most ill ever use 2 WCS) in 0.0 and sometimes low sec war targets. With proper use of scanners, proper preparation, proper checking of map to see jumps in the last hour and current occupants of a system... not to mention the very rare usage of 2 WCS on a HAC of mine (to avoid 150 mil in losses) ive successfully avoided death. So why does the gate camping aspect need to be nerfed? its not like they deal tons of damage anyways since they equip stabs low, or their tracking sucks. Theres also insta's you can use to avoid fire altogether, or just do as i do and scan ahead before warping (or check your map for jumps..etc). Signature removed - please resize your signature graphic to be smaller than 24,000 bytes in filesize - Jacques

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.