EVE Search - Low sec gate camp prevention once and for all

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Low sec gate camp prevention once and for all

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Black Scorpio	Posted - 2006.10.31 15:09:00 - [1] IMO low sec game camping is low level PvP and is really demeaning to those who think they're uber as to the victims. Simple suggestion that CCP should be implementing to prevent this: Make the turret damage and range increase to the point where gate and station turrets will not be "Tankable". If you're flagged you die! Period! This as you can see will not affect 0.0 gate camps, so the Alliances have a way of protecting their borders! Please avoid flames, constructive suggestions and comments are welcomed!
Rod Blaine Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.31 15:15:00 - [2] Seeing how this 'solution' is glaringly obvious to the extent of being a likely candidate for the title of the first thought ever thought by a multi-cellular organism with the ability of reflection and imagination, one cannot but conclude that if CCP were in any form of agreement with you on the subject, it would have been implemented about three years ago. Soooo, what it comes down to is that you need to do less whining and more thinking, or something. Old blog
Gone'Postal Minmatar LuthorCorp Combat Division	Posted - 2006.10.31 15:16:00 - [3] Edited by: Gone''Postal on 31/10/2006 15:16:19 While I agree with you on this, it's needed, but been talked about for months and still zippo. or just make them scramble the attacker so he can't tank and run. The man without a face... The company without a clue.
Andargor theWise Disbelievers of Fate The SUdden Death Squad	Posted - 2006.10.31 15:16:00 - [4] Why is gate camping and sniping a playstyle that deserves to be nerfed? Is your playstyle better than other people's? I would rather have the tools given to people that want to protect themselves, such as a better bounty system and more support for the anti-pirates. Not to nerf pirates, but to make one-sided engagements more interesting for everyone. - Got grief?
Black Scorpio	Posted - 2006.10.31 15:19:00 - [5] Originally by: Rod Blaine Seeing how this 'solution' is glaringly obvious to the extent of being a likely candidate for the title of the first thought ever thought by a multi-cellular organism with the ability of reflection and imagination, one cannot but conclude that if CCP were in any form of agreement with you on the subject, it would have been implemented about three years ago. Soooo, what it comes down to is that you need to do less whining and more thinking, or something. As I mentioned above, flames are not productive, please add to the thread or don't post. Thank you!
Black Scorpio	Posted - 2006.10.31 15:22:00 - [6] Originally by: Andargor theWise Why is gate camping and sniping a playstyle that deserves to be nerfed? Is your playstyle better than other people's? I would rather have the tools given to people that want to protect themselves, such as a better bounty system and more support for the anti-pirates. Not to nerf pirates, but to make one-sided engagements more interesting for everyone. Sniping I don't mind, it at least give you a chance to warp out if fitted properly. Not so much for a gate camp. On the point of a lifestyle choice, I don't see how a one-sided engagement is interesting to begin with. There is no skill in the Eve universe that can help you, and no skill level that can protect you. So why would that be that of an interest on the side that is attacked?
Laythun Undercover Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.31 15:24:00 - [7] Originally by: Black Scorpio IMO this is wher you go wrong. Deciding other peoples playstyle is 'demeaning to other people' with no actual arguement as to why, or how brings me to the decision that you are whining. Please provide US with a constructive arguement as to why its not a valid playstyle and we will in turn give you a constructive discussion. Undercover Brothers It's great being Amarr, aint it?Ö
Waxau Liberty Rogues	Posted - 2006.10.31 15:27:00 - [8] There are pleanty of tools at the moment, to stop pirates that are gate camping, getting targets/victims. A player can look on the map, ask people in local, scout ahead first, use an alt, or find a different route. Players need to realise that when a problem is supposedly 'found', that it does not immediately warrent nerfs. It is in YOUR power to not fall victim to gate camps, and if you dont like it, then thats your problem. Dont turn your problem into someone elses. Man up, and deal with it. Hows that for a solution?
Andargor theWise Disbelievers of Fate The SUdden Death Squad	Posted - 2006.10.31 15:28:00 - [9] Originally by: Black Scorpio Originally by: Andargor theWise Why is gate camping and sniping a playstyle that deserves to be nerfed? Is your playstyle better than other people's? I would rather have the tools given to people that want to protect themselves, such as a better bounty system and more support for the anti-pirates. Not to nerf pirates, but to make one-sided engagements more interesting for everyone. Sniping I don't mind, it at least give you a chance to warp out if fitted properly. Not so much for a gate camp. On the point of a lifestyle choice, I don't see how a one-sided engagement is interesting to begin with. There is no skill in the Eve universe that can help you, and no skill level that can protect you. So why would that be that of an interest on the side that is attacked? No, a one-sided engagement is not interesting for anyone. Even the gate campers, if you believe that. Gate camping is boring. Make it interesting. Low-sec is particular in the fact that you take a penalty for attacking someone without an aggro timer on them. Allow for such aggression without penalty in certain specific circumstances which makes the problem the same as in 0.0, namely who has more friends. Or in this case, allow you to hire someone if you have too few. The wardec mechanic is already in place for you to exact holy retribution from those that offend you. Why don't you use it? - Got grief?
Esswer Loc Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2006.10.31 15:30:00 - [10] low-sec gate-camping makes logging a legit reply, IMHO!
Black Scorpio	Posted - 2006.10.31 15:31:00 - [11] Originally by: Laythun Originally by: Black Scorpio IMO this is wher you go wrong. Deciding other peoples playstyle is 'demeaning to other people' with no actual arguement as to why, or how brings me to the decision that you are whining. Please provide US with a constructive arguement as to why its not a valid playstyle and we will in turn give you a constructive discussion. For one because no other playstyle prevents other people from exploring any other part of the Eve Universe. If CCP wants to foster movement apart from high sec, this should be prevented in the first place. Nothing prevents pirates to scan systems and locate potential victims, or catch them in belts.
Black Scorpio	Posted - 2006.10.31 15:33:00 - [12] Originally by: Esswer Loc low-sec gate-camping makes logging a legit reply, IMHO! Seconded, as gate camp is perceived by other game-style players as simple griefing in game, and being a "lame" gamestyle at that, it justifies lame coutermeasures - like the guy said logging. Which creates a circle of lameness which is not liked by any party.
Nervar Exotic Dancers Club	Posted - 2006.10.31 15:33:00 - [13] if ppl used their head then they wouldnt be killed in gatecamps Recruitment post
Zafon Caldari FATAL REVELATIONS Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.10.31 15:34:00 - [14] Which part of low sec don't you understand?
Gaven Blands	Posted - 2006.10.31 15:34:00 - [15] OP. The community has spoken many times. In fact they speak 15 minutes after every downtime when they get the last tent peg back in at there favourite low sec mission run choke hold. You can not take the gate camp off an entire community that is unable to think of something more interesting and less lame. Camping is uber, Camping is Eve, Camping is here to stay. I pity the fools. Put home addresses in loss and killmails. Maybe then the community will find a way to control themselves a bit better.
Viktor Fyretracker Caldari Worms Corp	Posted - 2006.10.31 15:34:00 - [16] Snipers are worse then tankers imo, a tanker has to give up things like damage, range and tracking mods to fit his tank. so my idea is just give sentrys an Optimal of 300km with no damage loss at range and you dont nerf gate camping at all just make everyone have to tank the guns if they want to low sec camp.
Adrian Kerensky Caldari STK Scientific Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.10.31 15:38:00 - [17] Someone got his hauler blown up whilst afking it through low sec then... On a more serious note, why shouldn't gate camps be allowed to exist? Whilst you cannot officially claim low security space in the way that you can in 0.0 with the sovereignty system, corps and alliances still do claim low sec as their own. Why shouldn't these people be allowed to do this? There are plenty of ways to avoid getting ganked if you use your head and fit your ships properly. If you want somewhere you can go where someone attacking you brings on insta death stay in high sec. You might not have noticed but the intention of the sec levels is that it gets progressively more dangerous as you move down the security levels in systems .
Black Scorpio	Posted - 2006.10.31 15:38:00 - [18] Originally by: Waxau There are pleanty of tools at the moment, to stop pirates that are gate camping, getting targets/victims. A player can look on the map, ask people in local, scout ahead first, use an alt, or find a different route. Players need to realise that when a problem is supposedly 'found', that it does not immediately warrent nerfs. It is in YOUR power to not fall victim to gate camps, and if you dont like it, then thats your problem. Dont turn your problem into someone elses. Man up, and deal with it. Hows that for a solution? Let me comment on this rather automatic response on your side. Regarding the "tools" that you mention! 1. Check map for kills - in the past 1 hour/30min. What if you get there in the first 15 mins? Bad luck? right.. 2. Scout ahead - how many times have you docked before entering a system to jump in a shuttle or switch to your alt to scout ahead? Are you doing this every time you jump to low sec? I think this is hardly the case! 3. Find a different route - just because there is a route that is 32 jumps instead of a route that is 6 jumps, doesn't justify gate camp. It is still percieved as griefing. 4. Man up? - Do you consider it manly to fight in odds 5-1? I consider it dumb!
Black Scorpio	Posted - 2006.10.31 15:40:00 - [19] Originally by: Andargor theWise Originally by: Black Scorpio Originally by: Andargor theWise Why is gate camping and sniping a playstyle that deserves to be nerfed? Is your playstyle better than other people's? I would rather have the tools given to people that want to protect themselves, such as a better bounty system and more support for the anti-pirates. Not to nerf pirates, but to make one-sided engagements more interesting for everyone. Sniping I don't mind, it at least give you a chance to warp out if fitted properly. Not so much for a gate camp. On the point of a lifestyle choice, I don't see how a one-sided engagement is interesting to begin with. There is no skill in the Eve universe that can help you, and no skill level that can protect you. So why would that be that of an interest on the side that is attacked? No, a one-sided engagement is not interesting for anyone. Even the gate campers, if you believe that. Gate camping is boring. Make it interesting. Low-sec is particular in the fact that you take a penalty for attacking someone without an aggro timer on them. Allow for such aggression without penalty in certain specific circumstances which makes the problem the same as in 0.0, namely who has more friends. Or in this case, allow you to hire someone if you have too few. The wardec mechanic is already in place for you to exact holy retribution from those that offend you. Why don't you use it? Rallying 2005/2006 characters to fight 2003/2004 is counterproductive and hardly effective, hence it is griefing on the part of older players to newer ones, without a choice to retaliate.
Zafon Caldari FATAL REVELATIONS Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.10.31 15:43:00 - [20] Originally by: Black Scorpio Rallying 2005/2006 characters to fight 2003/2004 is counterproductive and hardly effective, hence it is griefing on the part of older players to newer ones, without a choice to retaliate. That simply isn't true.
Black Scorpio	Posted - 2006.10.31 15:43:00 - [21] Originally by: Zafon Which part of low sec don't you understand? The part where unlike suggested in Eve, low sec is reward vs. profit (gate camping eliminates any chance for a reward with a 100% risk)
Zafon Caldari FATAL REVELATIONS Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.10.31 15:45:00 - [22] Black Scorpio, do you know how to use the scanner? Do you use scouts? Do you use the map? Have you got a cloaking device? What about an MWD? There are many, many tools for dealing with gate camps.
Adrian Kerensky Caldari STK Scientific Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.10.31 15:45:00 - [23] Originally by: Black Scorpio 1. Check map for kills - in the past 1 hour/30min. What if you get there in the first 15 mins? Bad luck? right.. Yes, bad luck. Nothing is infallible, this is why you should use it in conjunction with point 2. Originally by: Black Scorpio 2. Scout ahead - how many times have you docked before entering a system to jump in a shuttle or switch to your alt to scout ahead? Are you doing this every time you jump to low sec? I think this is hardly the case! I personally don't because I don't really care about gatecamps, I protect myself accordingly rather than jumping blindly into somewhere without a properly setup ship expecting to live. Originally by: Black Scorpio 3. Find a different route - just because there is a route that is 32 jumps instead of a route that is 6 jumps, doesn't justify gate camp. It is still percieved as griefing. EVE is about risk vs reward. There is hardly any risk in going the high sec route unless you get suicide ganked. There is risk in going the low sec shorter route however it will get you there quicker. Risk vs Reward. Make a decision, you can't have your cake and eat it my friend. Originally by: Black Scorpio 4. Man up? - Do you consider it manly to fight in odds 5-1? I consider it dumb! I believe the suggestion is to get yourself some in game friends so that you are not threatened by those that already have friends in EVE . But then again if you think friends are dumb... I have a question in return actually. Have you ever played World of Warcraft? You'd probably like it tbh.
Trollin	Posted - 2006.10.31 15:46:00 - [24] just make the "jump in" drop you to a random position between 150km and 500km from the gate, camps would vanish pretty quick when 98% of incoming jumps where more than 90 seconds outside of tackler range.
Black Scorpio	Posted - 2006.10.31 15:46:00 - [25] Originally by: Adrian Kerensky Someone got his hauler blown up whilst afking it through low sec then... On a more serious note, why shouldn't gate camps be allowed to exist? Whilst you cannot officially claim low security space in the way that you can in 0.0 with the sovereignty system, corps and alliances still do claim low sec as their own. Why shouldn't these people be allowed to do this? There are plenty of ways to avoid getting ganked if you use your head and fit your ships properly. If you want somewhere you can go where someone attacking you brings on insta death stay in high sec. You might not have noticed but the intention of the sec levels is that it gets progressively more dangerous as you move down the security levels in systems . and no, i do not haul for my isk
Black Scorpio	Posted - 2006.10.31 15:46:00 - [26] Originally by: Adrian Kerensky Someone got his hauler blown up whilst afking it through low sec then... On a more serious note, why shouldn't gate camps be allowed to exist? Whilst you cannot officially claim low security space in the way that you can in 0.0 with the sovereignty system, corps and alliances still do claim low sec as their own. Why shouldn't these people be allowed to do this? There are plenty of ways to avoid getting ganked if you use your head and fit your ships properly. If you want somewhere you can go where someone attacking you brings on insta death stay in high sec. You might not have noticed but the intention of the sec levels is that it gets progressively more dangerous as you move down the security levels in systems . Actually gate-camping does not make it progressively more dangerous toward 0.0. It makes it the same as venturing into 0.0 entry point gate camp, with the exception of warp bubbles. I don't see how this is justified for a space that still is supposed to provide any value for a non gate-camper.
Namelesz Dismemberment	Posted - 2006.10.31 15:47:00 - [27] Originally by: Zafon Which part of low sec don't you understand? Tier2 Bship Lottery Round 2
Rod Blaine Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.31 15:47:00 - [28] Look, the fact that you as some type of solo guy perceive any encounter that isn't fair in some way as griefing doesn't mean that those encounters aren't meant to happen anyway. CCP want gatecamps to be possible. They want unfair fights to be possible. And they give you the same chance as everyone else to make sure you are on the winning side. That is the balance in Eve, not everyone having the same stuff, the same numbers, the same information and the same intelligence to use what is provided. If you'd say sniper camps need dealing with, I could agree. As a matter of balance issue that is. However, you don't present your argument as a balance issue but as a problem you are having with a feature of this game. Well, if you ahve issues with the existence of a game feature you can do two things: avoid being affected by it as best as you can, or go enjoy a game that doesn't have that feature. In the mean while Eve's features have been designed as they are, and not to be removed again because you don't happen to like them. Old blog
Cabadrin Caldari Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.10.31 15:50:00 - [29] Originally by: Black Scorpio Originally by: Laythun Originally by: Black Scorpio IMO this is wher you go wrong. Deciding other peoples playstyle is 'demeaning to other people' with no actual arguement as to why, or how brings me to the decision that you are whining. Please provide US with a constructive arguement as to why its not a valid playstyle and we will in turn give you a constructive discussion. For one because no other playstyle prevents other people from exploring any other part of the Eve Universe. If CCP wants to foster movement apart from high sec, this should be prevented in the first place. Nothing prevents pirates to scan systems and locate potential victims, or catch them in belts. What gate camping is preventing is individual transport from high sec to low sec. If you move in groups, you can effectively combat gate campers with no problem. This is how the MC deals with gankers; we act in groups, so we ahve backup and the abilty to respond to multiple threats. Gate camping provuides negative feedback for lone explorers and industrialists; it is a gateway for groups to pass through, but individuals to die. If CCP wants to turn 0.0 more chaotic, or to shake up established alliances, they might institute the changes you talk about. However, CCP is (from past examples and the growth of the game) more interested in seeing what player groups evolve through conflict - not what individuals do. _______________________________________________
Black Scorpio	Posted - 2006.10.31 15:52:00 - [30] Originally by: Adrian Kerensky Originally by: Black Scorpio 1. Check map for kills - in the past 1 hour/30min. What if you get there in the first 15 mins? Bad luck? right.. Yes, bad luck. Nothing is infallible, this is why you should use it in conjunction with point 2. Originally by: Black Scorpio 2. Scout ahead - how many times have you docked before entering a system to jump in a shuttle or switch to your alt to scout ahead? Are you doing this every time you jump to low sec? I think this is hardly the case! I personally don't because I don't really care about gatecamps, I protect myself accordingly rather than jumping blindly into somewhere without a properly setup ship expecting to live. Originally by: Black Scorpio 3. Find a different route - just because there is a route that is 32 jumps instead of a route that is 6 jumps, doesn't justify gate camp. It is still percieved as griefing. EVE is about risk vs reward. There is hardly any risk in going the high sec route unless you get suicide ganked. There is risk in going the low sec shorter route however it will get you there quicker. Risk vs Reward. Make a decision, you can't have your cake and eat it my friend. Originally by: Black Scorpio 4. Man up? - Do you consider it manly to fight in odds 5-1? I consider it dumb! I believe the suggestion is to get yourself some in game friends so that you are not threatened by those that already have friends in EVE . But then again if you think friends are dumb... I have a question in return actually. Have you ever played World of Warcraft? You'd probably like it tbh. No Mr. Kerensky, I stopped at Warcraft III :) WoW is just not my sort of game, haven't even seen the trailer heh :) Originally by: Adrian Kerensky Originally by: Black Scorpio 1. Check map for kills - in the past 1 hour/30min. What if you get there in the first 15 mins? Bad luck? right.. Yes, bad luck. Nothing is infallible, this is why you should use it in conjunction with point 2. Originally by: Black Scorpio 2. Scout ahead - how many times have you docked before entering a system to jump in a shuttle or switch to your alt to scout ahead? Are you doing this every time you jump to low sec? I think this is hardly the case! I personally don't because I don't really care about gatecamps, I protect myself accordingly rather than jumping blindly into somewhere without a properly setup ship expecting to live. I thought 1 was supposed to be used in conjuction with 2. Again preventing other players to plat the game, in anyway, is to me griefing. I have not seen a gate camp from a 2005/2006 players in low sec, I wonder why? Hit and runs, yes, but not gate camp! I will tell you why, because they simply don't have the skills to support a gate camp. Hence gate-camping in low sec is really griefing younger players in-game and those that don't succumb to a 20+ member corp.

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.