| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tank CEO
   |
Posted - 2003.12.05 07:23:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Tank CEO on 05/12/2003 07:24:09
 Quote:
- We are considering the possibility of removing sentry guns in lower sec systems.
Please remove the stargate sentries in low security space (.4 - 0.0 Space)
Sign if you agree.
/signed
---
|
Luther Pendragon
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 07:53:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Luther Pendragon on 05/12/2003 07:56:34
I would say keep them on .4 areas, but remove them from .3 and below. I think there should be one area where concord doesnt respond, but theres still guns at least. Could go the opposite direction instead, having concord not respond in .5 areas. Though stations should always have their guns, nobody puts an unarmed station in dangerous space.
____________________________________
Taggart wants YOU. Join TTi!
*waves his hand in your face in the jedi way* |
Fausto
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 08:24:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Fausto on 05/12/2003 08:25:31
Quote:
- We are considering the possibility of removing sentry guns in lower sec systems.
Please do not remove sentries from 0.1 - 0.4 space. 
______
<brainpodder> |
Kasha
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 08:25:00 -
[4]
Yes , please remove the sentry guns from low security space, .4 and lower.
With the new selectable warp-in distance and changes in jump-in points they have become unneccesary.
Also, the way it is now on chaos, travel is 100% safe if you dont fly thru 0.0 space.
Transporting millions of isk worth of cargo thru half the universe should not be 100% safe.
|
Novo DuPont
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 09:11:00 -
[5]
Why?
If a system has some security rating then there has to be something protecting gates and stations.
I do think sentry guns should be removed in favor of randomly appearing Concord BS patrols at gates 
"To succeed greatly one must sacrifice greatly"
|
Momaw Nadon
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 09:39:00 -
[6]
Well, nobody puts station nor jumpgate unarmed to space Who is so stupid
If there is x amount of hp, anyone can destroy station or jumpgate. That would be nice, every PKers are trapped to some system and no way out. Do you like that
BTW: Have you never wondered why CONCORD doesnt act if npc rats attack you (thats not problem to me, but its just funny:) |
Luther Pendragon
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 09:51:00 -
[7]
How bout just making them destructible in low sec space?
____________________________________
Taggart wants YOU. Join TTi!
*waves his hand in your face in the jedi way* |
Talon SilverHawk
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 10:07:00 -
[8]
Why so you can camp in lower sec space lol
Tal
What goes around comes around
Tal |
Golgrath
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 10:12:00 -
[9]
How about using some crappier sentrys in <=0.4, the lower the sec the crappier they are. And only use the uber sentrys in high sec systems?
|
Archemedes
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 10:19:00 -
[10]
I like the gate guns in low sec space...they make the transition from high security to 0.0 less abrupt.
Right now we have it like this:
1.0-0.5 = no camping, can kil a single target but you WILL be chased and probably lose your ship
0.4-0.1 = piracy is freely available except at gates and stations, camping gates IS possible but requires a group since some ships have to play target to the sentry guns
0.0 = anything goes
With the guns gone, the only difference between 0.4 space and 0.0 will be SS hits (which are meaningless to pirates). Space Invaders proved that camping gates with guns was possible a couple MONTHS ago... so what's the big deal?
Note: low security space SHOULD be open to pirates. If guns in 0.4 space fire at people solely because of low security rating that should probably be changed. But keep them there so 0.4 campers have to work harder than 0.0 campers... that's how it's SUPPOSED to be since 0.4 space is safer!
|
Beeny
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 10:56:00 -
[11]
Nah I think they should stay or be varied according to faction.
|
Tank CEO
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 18:36:00 -
[12]
The only reason why you people think that they should stay is because u dont want to lift a fingure to kick us out when we do camp those gates. You are spoiled with them.
---
|
Beseb
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 18:42:00 -
[13]
And the only reason you want them removed Tank is so you can leisurely camp empire space and rack up easy kills.
A middle ground compromise is what is needed. The idea of weaker guns might be the ticket.
|
Tank CEO
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 18:49:00 -
[14]
Easy kills, u dont know pirating for ****. not everyone is easy kills. Your right, we want them removed so we can camp and actually get traffic and intercept trade routes and set up tolls.
We have a valid reason to do this too because we remember need to make a profit in pirating. Look at yourselves, look how easy it is to mine and make millions. Why should pirating be so hard for us but on the other hand trading and mining be so easy for u.
---
|
McWatt
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 18:54:00 -
[15]
sentries need to go, it s a joke if they dont.
flexible police response is what is needed to keep all sides happy.
|
Beseb
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 19:10:00 -
[16]
Tank, you missed the point of my post - extremes are bad. Removing all guns is extreme and having god like sentries in .1 through .4 is extreme.
Finding a good middle ground is the solution.
|
Tank CEO
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 19:20:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Tank CEO on 05/12/2003 19:20:49
OK, well how about htis, have flying concord in .4 and less and have NPC cruiiser and battleship pirates (alot) in .5+ space.
---
|
Leitari
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 19:39:00 -
[18]
Beseb, you seem to think that camping a gate is easy work and no trouble. To be able to catch anything you must know your business.
After the patch it will require alot more effort to nail anyone down for sure as we do not know where they will warp in.
I want the sentry's removed, but would not reject the idea of having very random(not 2 often) concord patrols appear.
Here, Only the silent survive.
|
The Enslaver
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 20:00:00 -
[19]
I vote No.
Surely secure space would have some form of protection, and a response from Concord (But at a much slower speed, say 10 minutes for 0.4, etc)
--------
FireFoxx80: If you think you can do a better job, go find yourself a datacentre to host a box, get a copy of Visual Studio, and STFU. |
Eltigre
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 20:14:00 -
[20]
I vote NO !
What the hell is the point of calling the gate-to-gate jumps a JIP camping fix if all it means is that player-pirates can resume their old activity of camping JIP's to gank-kill players with the ONLY difference being that it takes longer for players to be visible and longer for a pirate to target a player ?!?
The ONLY place I want to see player pirates is in 0.0 space IF we are talking about JIPs and where I may need to go to run a damned Agent mission. L2 Agents keep sending me and mine thru 0.3 space and I certainly don't want to have to worry about running from player pirates while running L2 Agent missions. Now if I wander off into 0.0 space then okies, I expect to get ganked by every player-pirate currently connected to EVE.
The thing player-pirates such as ol' bored to death Tank CEO is that some of us don't want to meet player-pirates who can easily kill us... on the other hand, the Tankster prolly wouldn't cry about being able to go into any sector including 1.0 space to kill anyone he chooses just for the fun of it.
Give me the option of having no-cost ship insurance and then no probs, you can let pirates go anywhere they want for all I care. (I am sure this idea will come back to haunt me someday - lol).
Allowing Tank CEO and his -10 sec rating to kill at-will any player he chooses in some 0.4 system is just retarded ! Anyone who has gone that completely against the law should be kept well away from empire space ! On the other hand I could care less if Tank CEO keeps playing or not. If I were an evil pirate in-game with -10 sec rating I would be okay with having to remain outside empire space but then I am also not a homicidal maniac with delusions of god-hood - hehe.
SWEET routinely sells BPC's in Sing Laison and Essence Regions. |
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 20:22:00 -
[21]
Yes.
Pirates are players who pay for this game. A pirate's income comes from intercepting traffic between ports of call (aka stations) and relieving them of the goods they carry. There is no significant traffic of goods between 0.0 space and Empire space. Rocks do not count as it's as feasible for the pirates in Eve to attack mining haulers as it'd be fore real world pirates of today (and they do exist) to attack supertankers carrying oil.
The game has piracy in it. The game was designed to have piracy in it. Because of those facts, the game has to allow for a means to conduct piracy. Sentry guns do not allow that.
And if you people who keep saying "No" had any sense, you'd not want a pirate group capable of dealing with the sentry guns to be conducting piracy. You stand 0 chance against that.
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 20:23:00 -
[22]
"What the hell is the point of calling the gate-to-gate jumps a JIP camping fix if all it means is that player-pirates can resume their old activity of camping JIP's to gank-kill players with the ONLY difference being that it takes longer for players to be visible and longer for a pirate to target a player ?!?"
... The difference is, with the new jumping code there's no issue of getting killed before your screen loads.
People were crying how it's unfair and how pirates are lame and how they would surely fight the pirates back if only there wasn't that "black screen of death" issue.
Well, 'tis will no longer be the issue. Time to put your money where your mouth was, guys?
Please, remove the sentries in the lower security systems; introduce the scaled Concord response in those systems instead...
|
Beseb
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 20:46:00 -
[23]
Quote:
Beseb, you seem to think that camping a gate is easy work and no trouble. To be able to catch anything you must know your business.
After the patch it will require alot more effort to nail anyone down for sure as we do not know where they will warp in.
I want the sentry's removed, but would not reject the idea of having very random(not 2 often) concord patrols appear.
Leitari, I didn't comment on the difficulty of piracy. But, since you raised the subject, I'll say that A) I believe piracy should be amongst the most difficult "professions" to succeed in (just as it is in RL) and B) I believe that piracy in it's current form is one of the most lopsided "risk vs reward" professions out there.
Pirates really have very little risk. Most pirates (not all, but most) don't really pirate anyway. They want to kill people and that's it. That's fine, the game allows for it and lets face it, it's fun blowing things up. But where is the risk? The moment a challenging fight presents itself, most of pirates are well positioned to just flee. The only risk can't even be classified as such, it's really more of an annoyance and that is the fact that a deeply neg sec player can't freely travel in empire space.
With everything I've read thus far regarding the patch, it looks like pirates will overall get the better end of the deal. Or more accuratly - gate campers, which can of course include defending forces of "good guys". The fact that you can target while someone is lining up for warp, and the fact they can't even get into warp until they get up to x speed is quite a change for the better for campers. Wouldn't you agree?
For the record, I know a great deal about camping, hunting players, fighting and fleeing and so on. Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt as they say.
I think what they ought to do is put a "maintenance cycle" on remote sentry guns (ie, guns in systems <=.4). Every couples weeks or so, the sentry guns fail to operate properly and need maintenance and are "down" for 1-3 days.
This could have interesting results. Pirates wouldn't just sit on one route and never move. Rather, they'd have to scout around and find routes of opportunity and set up shop when and where they could. It would also add an element of anxiety for empire travellers as they would never know for sure if the next system is safe or not.
|
Tank CEO
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 21:06:00 -
[24]
The only reason why we sit in 1 place is because in order to get to another place u have to go 80 jumps to get there.. All though next patch will make it possible for pirates to travel threw empire space and not get ganked with the uber police.... that will change. The only reason why we sit at 1 place is because u guys let us. You want a computer to do the job you are suppost to do. Put down those mining lasers, ffit on those dusty weapons and come kick us out if you dont want us there. Stop crying to ccp to do it for u.
---
|
drunkenmaster
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 21:12:00 -
[25]
Edited by: drunkenmaster on 05/12/2003 21:14:16
I would prefer to have the guns removed in the outer 0.4 and below systems, and the areas between empires.
Regarding the concord response, I would recommend it, but I have a different approach to the timing, triggering of them.
Here's my slighty crackpot design:
- Concord response would be system wide for a period of 12 hours, and for that time, the system will be like the current concord response. (warning, or a system info field would need to warn/inform players)
- there will be no reaction time, as this can be rather easily circumvented by jumping out of the system to camp the other side of the gate, and jumping back after a short time.
- The concord forces would appear on one of two criteria: Either at 50 ships kills, or 20 pod kills
- If the kills pass a certain limit (eg. 3 times concord trigger) in a certain timespan (say 4 days), then you will have sentries installed for a week. RP it as concord recieving complaints, or something.
all numbers are negotiable. And would be gradiated from 0.49 down to 0.05. (lower sec - longer trigger, shorter lockdown etc.)
I am against the idea of having timed responses, because it won't really solve anything, as people will quickly learn the timing of them, and thus, be able to avoid them quite easily.
A half-day lockdown would be a better way of clearing the gates after too much action.
You would have to add in code to stop the player-haters from 'taking advantage' of it by various means (self destructing shuttles to get the numbers up, noob alt podding, etc.)
But on the whole I think it's a pretty solid idea, pirate action in specific systems would be 'windowed', and the less destructive a pirate is, the longer they can go about their business.
admittedly, it's slanted more towards 'toll' piracy than lethal piracy, but I can't help that, I'm just that sort of guy.
[edit:word filter caught me]
.
|
Tease
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 21:40:00 -
[26]
Quote:
The only reason why we sit in 1 place is because in order to get to another place u have to go 80 jumps to get there.. All though next patch will make it possible for pirates to travel threw empire space and not get ganked with the uber police.... that will change. The only reason why we sit at 1 place is because u guys let us. You want a computer to do the job you are suppost to do. Put down those mining lasers, ffit on those dusty weapons and come kick us out if you dont want us there. Stop crying to ccp to do it for u.
I'd certainly have no problem at all with removing the NPC sentry guns in 0.4 and below space, IF one more little thing is added.. The inability to dock for players with -7.5 or below in empire..
Why? for one very simple reason: Players like Tank here get all huffy and dare everyone to come out and PvP them, or 'kick them out'. Alot of us would like to do this.. It's almost impossible to do though, when 'pirates' turn tail and run at the first sign of a challenge, or even at the hint of a challenge coming thier way.
So sure! Get rid of those NPC sentry guns, but give the players the ability to hunt down and fight the 'pirates' in Empire space.
Warping into a gank area, causing the 'pirate' to dock in an Empire station so he can sh*t-talk for 2-3 hours while he watches a movie isn't "kicking him out".
-----------------------------------------
[2003.12.17 06:35:20] Corwin > Orvolle is .4? Doesn't that mean that it's
less than .5 ? and isn't .5 what starts the danger level?
[2003.12.30 07:15:50] Corwin > Tech 2, IE expanded cargo holds I, MIning
lasers 2, etc.... TL2 is being released all around you
[2003.12.30 07:21:20] Corwin > tech 2 is released to players. Some players
are busy researching the BPs before building stuff. Others are sitting on
the BPs making copies to make money off of them that way |
Leitari
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 21:43:00 -
[27]
Thats a pretty good idea DM, Im totally for some system like that but there would have to be some sort of a way to stop players from fake triggering the system (destroying noob ships or shuttles)
Here, Only the silent survive.
|
trap
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 21:46:00 -
[28]
ok ccp your all fired and drunkenmaster is now hired. Why you ask? Because you have been working on this game for years and drunken has just given you a balanced solution in under 6 months.
DRUNKENMASTER'S SOLUTION RULES!!
and as i said YOUR FIRED! PACK UP YOUR STUFF AND LEAVE THE RED STAPLER!
oh and have one of traps special drinks on the way out...
kthxbye
----------------------------------------------
[ 2003.11.20 05:35:28 ] Jade Constantine > looks like you blasted the crap out of a load of our ships again |
Tease
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 21:47:00 -
[29]
Quote:
Thats a pretty good idea DM, Im totally for some system like that but there would have to be some sort of a way to stop players from fake triggering the system (destroying noob ships or shuttles)
Sad to say that it already happens now.. people will destroy alt noob ships in a system to make it appear dangerous so they can mine/chain-kill in relative peace..
-----------------------------------------
[2003.12.17 06:35:20] Corwin > Orvolle is .4? Doesn't that mean that it's
less than .5 ? and isn't .5 what starts the danger level?
[2003.12.30 07:15:50] Corwin > Tech 2, IE expanded cargo holds I, MIning
lasers 2, etc.... TL2 is being released all around you
[2003.12.30 07:21:20] Corwin > tech 2 is released to players. Some players
are busy researching the BPs before building stuff. Others are sitting on
the BPs making copies to make money off of them that way |
Tank CEO
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 22:33:00 -
[30]
Quote:
Quote:
The only reason why we sit in 1 place is because in order to get to another place u have to go 80 jumps to get there.. All though next patch will make it possible for pirates to travel threw empire space and not get ganked with the uber police.... that will change. The only reason why we sit at 1 place is because u guys let us. You want a computer to do the job you are suppost to do. Put down those mining lasers, ffit on those dusty weapons and come kick us out if you dont want us there. Stop crying to ccp to do it for u.
I'd certainly have no problem at all with removing the NPC sentry guns in 0.4 and below space, IF one more little thing is added.. The inability to dock for players with -7.5 or below in empire..
Why? for one very simple reason: Players like Tank here get all huffy and dare everyone to come out and PvP them, or 'kick them out'. Alot of us would like to do this.. It's almost impossible to do though, when 'pirates' turn tail and run at the first sign of a challenge, or even at the hint of a challenge coming thier way.
So sure! Get rid of those NPC sentry guns, but give the players the ability to hunt down and fight the 'pirates' in Empire space.
Warping into a gank area, causing the 'pirate' to dock in an Empire station so he can sh*t-talk for 2-3 hours while he watches a movie isn't "kicking him out".
Ok, well if that happens, then all pirate stations will have to reject positive security peoople, so what will you do now since u wont be able to dock at any of the 0.0 space pirate stations. You will have a hard time mining bistot thats what.
---
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |