So, does everyone have their own idea about how to make low-sec good,

High Sec is the problem and you can't get high sec people to understand that no matter what you do. Recent history is proof.

snip...


The problem with Low isn't that the rewards are bad, though they could use a bit of tweaking, it's that the perceived risk is very high and the tools for risk mitigation are pretty skant compared to High and Null. The problem then is if you actually decrease risk in Low then you'll get complaints, and any change simply in perceived risk as opposed to actual risk will just as likely fool the Low dwellers as anyone who might pop in to create content.

this is the thing, you have 800 systems that you keep harping on about, i dont find spending 3 hours every fleet traveling by gates in armour battleships for a 30minute fight engaging gameplay, and i doubt a majority of lowsec residents would either.

eliminate small entities from lowsec who survive in remote lowsec systems away from large pirate corps by crippling freighter logistics and forcing loaded freighters to take gates through pirate infested chokepoints...because you know the large pirate corps will hellcamp every chokepoint to gank freighters with immunity, because i certainly will.

i would survive but id be burned out after 3 days because traveling by gates in anything bigger than a cruiser is worse than mining, i could also unsub like all my alts i pay irl money for and gate camp tama 24/7 with immunity.

Your idea would definitely present more targets to lowsec gatecampers. But does that really help lowsec residents overall? Does it draw more people to lowsec? I'm not so sure.

1. Not technically true. There are high-sec to null transitions (like Dital to Providence).

2. Why? I mean the people pirating are already there. Null and wormhole corps are already hot-dropping in null. It might focus the pirates on certain systems but I'm not sure why this would increase the number.

3. Gah... I'd hate to be forced to escort trade runs. I can't imagine many who'd like that sort of job. It might end up happening if the change were made but it doesn't seem like a positive development... having to protective fleet-blob your freighters to scare away pirates.

4. Gatecamps in my experience shoot everyone who's not allied. Don't think they'll let a missioning battleship pass and only gank freighters.

Again... the only group that this would seem to be a positive for is gatecampers. Everyone else... from low-sec indy/PI groups to low-sec missioners to FW participants who look for solo PvP instead of camping gates would all seem to not like this idea... because dealing with more gatecamps pretty much hurts all of their play styles.

3. Gah... I'd hate to be forced to escort trade runs. I can't imagine many who'd like that sort of job. It might end up happening if the change were made but it doesn't seem like a positive development... having to protective fleet-blob your freighters to scare away pirates.

Snip

As I said before... what I do in low-sec is FW.

Low-sec will simply be a gatecamp zone that people who MUST travel through will have to deal with and everyone else will avoid. I don't see that as being beneficial to low-sec in general.

what salvos is proposing is making it easier to kill ships...im a gatecamper and know his ideas are buffing gatecamping to the high hills and giving me a ton more industrial kills which will break the game.

no! being immune to be dropped by blops and capitals while i gatecamp a major traffic route is not a problem right now, removing cynos makes my gatecamping immune to suprise drops means i set up a couple of alts an my shiney ships will NEVER be killed while i farm anything that comes into my system.

You seem to be envisioning a 10 man protection fleet facing a 10 man gatecamp. What you're actually going to be seeing is multiple 10 man gate camps on tons of gates shutting down most smaller group transport... with big 200+ man null fleets escorting their stuff through (with the gatecamps scattering as they come through)..

Snip.

Yeah... I don't think it will work that way.

The server has between 20K and 40K logged in at most points. There are hundreds of low-sec routes for various null-sec organizations to travel on. While I agree you could have 500 additional gatecamping pirates at any time in low-sec... that would be more like 50 different 10-man gatecamps in various systems from non-aligned groups... not 500 massed along a single travel route.

The large null-sec groups will scout ahead of time. They'll know what is in the area. They're not going to make a run if there is a chance they'll lose. They'll KNOW it's a safe route because their enemies can't drop on them.

Then they'll move. They'll blob the heck out of the route... smashing through those various 10 man gatecamps with 200 member fleets. The freighters will start moving... and the opposition will have what.... 30 minutes? An hour? That's all they'll have to marshall up a somewhat organized fleet capable of taking down a 200 man operation and get it to one of maybe 5-10 systems in low-sec along the route without cynoing.

Those groups won't be stopped or even hindered by this. It will be the smaller null-sec renters, the low-sec residents, FW participants and a few members of larger alliances who are unwilling to wait for the organized ops who get picked off. It will literally be everyone BUT the largest null-sec groups.

This isn't like a reinforcement timer where everyone knows when the action is starting and both sides show up ready to go. This is one group dictating the place and time and the other trying to react in brief period. That's the advantage the null-sec groups with large numbers have. By taking away mechanics that let solo/small groups get their basic market logistics work done (which is what jump freighters do), you make it so that only those who can manage large scale "traditional" logistics can keep prospering.

And that's the large null-sec alliances.

The issue with removing Cynos/JF's from lowsec is that the null-sec empires that want to transfer goods will do them using large fleets.

People won't try to move stuff with small or unguarded transport... because it will always be killed. Transport will ONLY happen with large groups.

This might create some large fleet battles in low sec. The problem is it will kill all the small/unaffiliated groups in low sec and null sec because they won't be able to move goods. And the increase in camps will also put a huge damper on FW activity.

You're wiping out much of the small group pvp which in my mind makes low sec different from null-sec... in exchange for a few fleet battles in low-sec (most of which will be between large null sec groups since most low sec pirates are probably not pulling together 100-man fleets)

To me, this is a problem. Large fleet combat belongs mostly in Null. Small-gang/solo combat is how low sec works. Turning low-sec into a more annoying null isn't a good solution.

Eventually you will get a fight, and eventually even win! :)

You have to understand that the ability to bypass combat in eve always helps small number groups in eve. .

The only people actually helped by the idea... are gate campers.

I simply don't think that's a problem in need of a solution.

You're trying to destroy low-sec and turn it into a gatecamp.

Snip.

Snip

that cant be proved but you have been shown by myself and scripio that they do die, you havent provided anything to enforce your opinion so do that instead.

you havent answered the question, you have just repeated the affects of your change

But it drives people from low-sec.

Snip.

It will drive me and everyone else searching for small group and solo PvP away.

It will drive low-sec industrial corps away.

It will drive low-sec PvE players (lvl 5 missions, anoms) away.

You just say "SNIP. No, my idea is still awesome."

Hmm.

So how would that be implemented?
Gategun buffs?