| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mak'shar Karrde
Minmatar
UK Corp
Lotka Volterra
   |
Posted - 2006.10.02 15:56:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Eve Hel
better to be a cowerd a long life
than a Brave death dude  hehe
on a seriously note, the whole gate camping boubble system as it is now, its the gangs of pirates lowscum or other type's of crimenels that got the advanges over the peacefull travellers miners and other kinds of non-combattens, if gate campers got it even more easy, it would be redichelessly close to imporseble to get around in 0.0,, and than pirate ppl's wish of getting more ppl to 0.0 would be a nope nope.
although i agree that the logg off is lame, but its a nessesary defence against a lame gate camping system 
You mean groups have a benefit over solo players. In a MMOG. Say it isn't so!
|
Mak'shar Karrde
Minmatar
UK Corp
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.10.02 16:14:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Tiny Tove
Edited by: Tiny Tove on 02/10/2006 16:02:12
And while CCP are at it, they should ban every miner who logs off if you steal his ore just so you cannot steal any more.
Stop being ridiculous, if somebody doesn't want to play Eve with you and your legion of camping tards, that's THEIR business, not YOURS. Maybe that person wants to mine, but they're hardly likely to insist that YOU leave the camping alone for a life in the roids, and then Petition CCP when you refuse to play Eve with THEM.
When I warp into my first bubble, I will simply think. "I have no further wish to play this game this evening. I was having fun, but then I met some complete morons, so I'm going to do something else for the rest of the night" and I will log out. That is MY business, not YOURS and not CCP's. Just Get Over It. Somehow... any how... just find a way.
And when you roll a 6 and land on my Park Lane hotels will you just flip the board and walk away too?
|
Mak'shar Karrde
Minmatar
UK Corp
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.10.02 16:28:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Mak''shar Karrde on 02/10/2006 16:30:29
But that one person should know that without proper intelligence it's a possibility before he even clicks on the warp button. Everybody does or should know by now that most entrances to 0.0 are camped a good deal of the time. It's like crossing a road, at an accident blackspot, with your eyes closed.
I can travel through most chokepoints quite easily because I have a whole alliance of people giving out intelligence reports. I just have to ask 'What is the status of N-R' and I'll have a good reply before long. If I risk it without asking and end up losing my ship then I expect no sympathy, just a thwack on the back of the head for being a fool.
Don't use the old counterstrike argument. I hate FPS's and am not the one arguing that death be made painless and easily avoidable. I like the fact that in order to survive in EVE you have to have friends and a brain (that you're willing to use).
|
Mak'shar Karrde
Minmatar
UK Corp
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.10.02 16:55:00 -
[4]
You've lost the battle before you exit a gate and see yourself inside a bubble though. It's a failure of intelligence that has placed you in that situation. It could just as easily be an interdictor or a couple of fast locking tacklers on the other side and the result would be the same. Some people would still log off and most would still justify it simply because they had no chance of survival.
If bubbles were removed or nerfed somehow (I assume we're talking about deployable bubbles) then the complaints would just turn to interdictors, then to fast locking tacklers, etc. The complaints would just shift while the main problem remains the same: Lack of intelligence. I'm not advocating a mechanical change to allow people to see what is ahead, my suggested solution is to simply make more friends.
There's an old saying that goes something like this: 'the victor is decided long before the battle begins'. That's more true in EVE (although the bloody lag throws a rather interesting random factor into the mix). Even the largest alliances can't take a break from eternal vigilance, show me a 0.0 Freighter Op without forward, backward scouts at a minimum and I'll show you some very juicy targets.
|
Mak'shar Karrde
Minmatar
UK Corp
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.10.02 23:54:00 -
[5]
It's obvious that the problem isn't really bubbles. Most negative replies in this thread have been directed at gatecamps themselves. My earlier comment stands: Even if (deployable) bubbles were removed today; an almost identical thread to this would be created tomorrow in order to complain about Interdictors.
If you don't want to waste 20 hours of playtime by being caught in a gatecamp then don't! I certainly wouldn't fly a ship that takes me 20 hours of farming/mining/whatever to replace into an unknown system that has a reputation for being a death zone. I'd take a Vigil or a Stabber if that were the case. Easily replaceable in an hour.
However, if I were to take my brand-spanking-new T2 fitted Tempest (I don't actually have it yet) into hostile territory and find myself trapped inside a bubble with no hope for escape... I would definetly let them kill me, while putting up the best fight I could. I'd probably laugh about my bad luck, or lack of intelligence, in local before they pop my pod too. There are just some things ISK cannot buy.
|
Mak'shar Karrde
Minmatar
UK Corp
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.10.02 23:56:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Mak''shar Karrde on 02/10/2006 23:59:45
Originally by: Eve Hel
Originally by: Izrahar
What's wrong with putting your bubble in the middle of a warp route, again? Y'know, rather than being lazy and putting one up in the middle of a gate? Just a random question.
none i guess,,, however it's not instant noo chance of ecsape tactic theirfor pirates/PVper don't do it that way
It does not pull people out of warp. Putting it in the middle of the route would only ensure that you fail to catch a single person.
Besides, can you imagine if they worked like that? Low sec pirates could camp people without having to deal with sentry guns! The forums are already in a bad enough state without adding that to the mix!
|
Mak'shar Karrde
Minmatar
UK Corp
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.10.03 00:14:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Eve Hel
that is likewise a (kinda)exploit of game mechanics to make a system block even while they do not poses the skills for it.
Nothing you say will make camping with a bubble an exploit, it's rather childish to cling to that. A bubble stops people warping, gatecampers use bubbles to stop people warping. Nowhere does it say that they can only be deployed in systems you hold the sovereignty over. They are using them as intended.
|
Mak'shar Karrde
Minmatar
UK Corp
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.10.03 01:09:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Raquel Smith
Originally by: Orree
I disagree. The means of your excape is not game mechanics, it's an exploit thereof.
Too bad for you and your ilk CCP sees it our way. 
Cite?
|
Mak'shar Karrde
Minmatar
UK Corp
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.10.03 01:43:00 -
[9]
Originally by: zeKzn
Edited by: zeKzn on 03/10/2006 01:28:38
Edited by: zeKzn on 03/10/2006 01:27:49
Originally by: Complacency's Bane
Edited by: Complacency''s Bane on 03/10/2006 01:25:32
Originally by: zeKzn
never said anything about being organized, which isn't even a requirement for a gatecamp.
you're abusing the characteristics of the game that only allow a single entry point into a system from another system, which is an element of the game, not something based in "reality."
Youre abusing the characteristic of the game that you can travel at speeds faster then light, which is not something based in "reality".
if you choose to take the definition of metagaming that far, then yes. All you've accomplished now is to make the accusation of metagaming meaningless.
edit: but actually you're just being idiotic. there's no reason to believe that chokepoints wouldn't be bypassed by people building more stargates or even by allowing player built stargates, its just not allowed by the game mechanics.
But that argument can be pulled and twisted in so many different ways so as to make it rather meaningless. In reality the 0.0 alliances wouldn't need to camp gates, they would just put up automated FoF defence turrets at gates instead. Also, I imagine it would be a lot easier to destroy a gate than it would be to build/transport a pair of them and project a wormhole between them. At the very least we can create an Iris as shown in 'Stargate', destroying any non-friendly ships before they even appear on the other side. Plus we wouldn't have to worry about alts at all, thus removing the need for NBSI...
I'm sure you can think of more examples.
|
Mak'shar Karrde
Minmatar
UK Corp
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.10.03 02:04:00 -
[10]
Originally by: zeKzn
Exactly. But thats "gaming the game" as it were, is it not? Metagaming is going to be part of any "game" that we play, regardless of efforts undertaken to remove it. If anything it should be viewed as a compliment, because it indicates an understanding of how to extract the maximum advantage from whatever you're given, although logout tactics are admittedly extremely annoying for those who lose targets to them.
I'm indifferent on the discussion, because some gatecamps/bubbles deserve to have people log on them and some dont.
I don't think I'm clear on the definition of metagaming. I thought it refered to using out of character tactics to gain an advantage. Such as powergaming or twinking (popularised in Everquest I believe). I hesitate to mention teamspeak because in EVE I think it can be roleplayed, but in a game like EQ I would consider it metagaming. An example relating to EVE might be jetcan mining (debatable) or tricking someone into 'flagging' themselves in Empire so that you can kill them.
Anyway, under that definition (Metagaming = OOC methods to gain an advantage) I don't think gatecamping qualifies. In reality I imagine people would protect choke points in order to defend their space. They certainly couldn't 'log out' in reality though. So that must be considered Metagaming (again, under this definition, which I am willing to accept as wrong).
I realise you could be using a different definition. I'm not sure there is an official one, Dictionary.com didn't have an entry listed. Anyway, it's not an important point, I just like to have my ignorance fought.
|
Mak'shar Karrde
Minmatar
UK Corp
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.10.03 02:22:00 -
[11]
Originally by: zeKzn
Ah, under that definition then I agree. I dont think its entirely fair to label logout tactics metagaming without at least making some mention of the dubiousness of gatecamping/bubbles themselves, but arguments are rarely fair.
Refreshing to have an intelligent discussion with someone for once though, I commend you :)
Heh, thank you. I could say the same about you, it does make a pleasant change.
|
Mak'shar Karrde
Minmatar
UK Corp
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.10.06 00:38:00 -
[12]
I would just like to take the opportunity to point out that the problem doesn't just revolve around the single person logging out to save his ship/pod. Evidently entire fleets are logging out in order to get around a (smaller!) gatecamp. With that in mind, surely there is a problem that needs to be resolved.
If you need proof, read this thread. That thread contains a link to an frapsed video proving the incident happened. Plus, the defence of the offending pilots seems to be 'they do it to'.
|
| |
|