Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 26 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Orakkus
Imperium Technologies DARKNESS.
331
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 00:23:13 -
[1] - Quote
So, does everyone have their own idea about how to make low-sec good, or have certain ideas/concepts started to get favor with the mass of low-sec players?
He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
|
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
10554
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 00:30:28 -
[2] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:So, does everyone have their own idea about how to make low-sec good, I don't know about everyone, but I do.
Get rid of it. All you need is lawful space and lawless space. No need for some in between space that makes no one happy.
Mr Epeen
There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners Test Alliance Please Ignore
15317
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 00:34:04 -
[3] - Quote
I don't know at all. I do know that Low Sec is my least favorite part of EVE. All the freaking rules of high sec with none of the benefits. |
Tisiphone Dira
New Order Logistics CODE.
1093
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 01:00:18 -
[4] - Quote
lvl 4 missions, out of HS, restricted to low/null
Incursions, out of HS, restricted to low/null
Basically everything but veldspar, out of HS.
Ramp up the market taxes and fees in HS gradually but continually, until decent LS hubs pop up (once they pop up you may be able to slightly lower the taxes again, you need them higher initially to overcome the inertia).
Basically nothing 'end game' should be in HS.
There once was a ganker named tisi
A stunningly beautiful missy
To gank a gross miner
There is nothing finer, cept when they get all pissy
|
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
5972
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 01:11:12 -
[5] - Quote
Supercapitals banned from low-sec (no more transit through or operating out of). CONCORD expanded to all low-sec systems (including FW systems). Players engaged in FW are legitimate targets for each other (but cannot attack neutrals without a wardec, and vice-versa).
Then I'm fine with relocating L4 agents and Incursions to low-sec. Without CONCORD anything is a deal breaker.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
47258
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 01:15:14 -
[6] - Quote
I know lowsec is not all faction warfare, however whenever lowsec is talked of, that is what most people focus on. So you might find this thread interesting OP:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=511134&find=unread
There are issues not-FW related in that thread too. |
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
5972
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 01:18:39 -
[7] - Quote
I think I enjoy the drama of low-sec more than the actual content.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Eternus8lux8lucis
Primus Inc. LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
1351
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 01:28:50 -
[8] - Quote
I would just expand FW systems and give the Iaptan titans to each faction as a final HS target as well as player made gates patrolled and engaged by FW in HS to create more/less passageways between the empires that due to the nature of knocking out a gate for a time would make logistics rather... interesting.
I really dont like the capital usage increase in low. Its just too much imo so Id call for some very light restrictions.
Other than that I like that low is much busier than it used to be.
Have you heard anything I've said?
You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?
That's right.
Had to end sometime.
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
3997
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 10:33:36 -
[9] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Supercapitals banned from low-sec (no more transit through or operating out of). CONCORD expanded to all low-sec systems (including FW systems). Players engaged in FW are legitimate targets for each other (but cannot attack neutrals without a wardec, and vice-versa).
Then I'm fine with relocating L4 agents and Incursions to low-sec. Without CONCORD anything is a deal breaker.
thats just expanding highsec, seems pointless
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
ImYourMom
Retribution Holdings Corp Retribution.
122
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 10:47:15 -
[10] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:Orakkus wrote:So, does everyone have their own idea about how to make low-sec good, I don't know about everyone, but I do. Get rid of it. All you need is lawful space and lawless space. No need for some in between space that makes no one happy. Mr Epeen
i sort of agree with this. low sec doesnt deter pirates or anything because the penalties are so easy overcome so whats the point. changing gate gun mechanics and adding tags for sec was a big mistake. tbh gates should be almost alpha-ing. they are so easily tanked. criminal flags are again pointless and can be avoided. its just about immersion and content. with piracy pretty much a none thing now you dont even get flashy red epeen anymore which tbh 8 yrs ago was pretty cool.
miners wont mine either, no point attempting lvl 4 and 5 missions in low sec either its just not worth the risk
the problem is why do a level 4 mission in low sec for example when you can do one in highsec at no risk. Perhaps one change ia that we have 3 clear distinct tiers where perhaps only 1-2 missions in high, 3-4 in low and 5 in null. that sort of thing.
it is n fact pointless.. so actually yes i agree. id like to see more 0.0 npc instead tho |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18744
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 11:03:41 -
[11] - Quote
Bringing back faction warfare raids into highsec would be nice.
Problem with lowsec is the things it needs are mostly addressed with nerfs to highsec income Possibly making lowsec the only place you can get some minerals from, noticeable improvement to mission income, unique PI resources, certain popular LP items changed to only be farmable in lowsec.
To get more life into lowsec you need to make it worth going into lowsec and right now the only thing is FW for most people. |
ImYourMom
Retribution Holdings Corp Retribution.
122
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 11:34:10 -
[12] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Bringing back faction warfare raids into highsec would be nice. Problem with lowsec is the things it needs are mostly addressed with nerfs to highsec income Possibly making lowsec the only place you can get some minerals from, noticeable improvement to mission income, unique PI resources, certain popular LP items changed to only be farmable in lowsec. To get more life into lowsec you need to make it worth going into lowsec and right now the only thing is FW for most people.
exactly what i was trying to say with the 3 tier system which are distinct. the problem is now with FW it deters people coming in to lowsec to do other such things. There are so many people now in FW and a lot of systems are packed, everyone is also a pirate meaning because of the changes being minus sec status is just the norm. its a place where everyone is looking to shoot you so you wouldnt risk going in
lowsec is like the bronx. full.of bad people happy to kill you where the police just pick up the bodybags. maybe lowsec is the battle arenas everyone wants and it serves no other purpose than that. I dont think we can have both unless fundamental changes are made. that means a complete overhaul. Citadels have helped somewhat.
criminal flags are useless lets face it so they dont really help. its like giving a chav an asbo. its just something they can show off rather than a deterent |
Gregorius Goldstein
Ze One Man Show
2166
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 11:37:32 -
[13] - Quote
Is low-sec really that bad? I am just moving through most of the time so I can't tell myself. I got that staging citadels and stabed farmers are what some FW people are mad about. |
Commander Spurty
1676
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 11:55:10 -
[14] - Quote
Gregorius Goldstein wrote:Is low-sec really that bad? I am just moving through most of the time so I can't tell myself. I got that staging citadels and stabed farmers are what some FW people are mad about.
It's not bad. It's not good either. It's .. pointless.
As said above, just make +0.0 Empire High Sec and -0.0, Lawless Null sec.
Pointless 'gray' area is one of those 'No Mans Sky' optical illusions of 'deep meaningful content'.
There are good ships,
And wood ships,
And ships that sail the sea
But the best ships are Spaceships
Built by CCP
|
Kaivarian Coste
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
128
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 11:57:39 -
[15] - Quote
Low sec is actually pretty good. FW, belt ratting (clone tags and Mordu BPCs) and ice mining (glare crust) actually makes low-sec viable. I much prefer low sec over high sec.
Personally, I'd do away with gate and station guns as they only punish solo / frigate pilots. |
renwahh
Wiking Brigade The Devil's Warrior Alliance
125
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 12:05:56 -
[16] - Quote
The only change I would make to Low Sec is
Option to deploy bubbles.
Option to bomb stuff.
Give sentries a higher damage output
only difference would be the sentries and sec status compared to high and null sec |
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
3999
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 12:16:04 -
[17] - Quote
love everyone saying get rid of lowsec because 0.0 is soo much more relevant, the same argument can be said about null, its pointless, pvp is tedious and far too much effort to find a fight, solo in null doesn't happen, and tidi is aids, and so is powerblocks with supercap blobs.
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Sasha Nemtsov
New Order Logistics CODE.
530
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 12:24:11 -
[18] - Quote
Interesting article on CZ, which seems to expand on some of the points made here; to reinforce or refute others.
I don't do FW, and although I do travel through Lowsec the question often occurs to me: What is it for? |
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
5980
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 12:24:27 -
[19] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:love everyone saying get rid of lowsec because 0.0 is soo much more relevant, the same argument can be said about null, its pointless, pvp is tedious and far too much effort to find a fight, solo in null doesn't happen, and tidi is aids, and so is powerblocks with supercap blobs. Isn't null-sec a separate issue entirely though? I'm not going to necessarily disagree with any of your points about null-sec, but as we're talking about low-sec what would you suggest in the way of ideas to improve it?
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
53
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 12:26:43 -
[20] - Quote
ImYourMom wrote:baltec1 wrote:Bringing back faction warfare raids into highsec would be nice. Problem with lowsec is the things it needs are mostly addressed with nerfs to highsec income Possibly making lowsec the only place you can get some minerals from, noticeable improvement to mission income, unique PI resources, certain popular LP items changed to only be farmable in lowsec. To get more life into lowsec you need to make it worth going into lowsec and right now the only thing is FW for most people. exactly what i was trying to say with the 3 tier system which are distinct. the problem is now with FW it deters people coming in to lowsec to do other such things. There are so many people now in FW and a lot of systems are packed, everyone is also a pirate meaning because of the changes being minus sec status is just the norm. its a place where everyone is looking to shoot you so you wouldnt risk going in lowsec is like the bronx. full.of bad people happy to kill you where the police just pick up the bodybags. maybe lowsec is the battle arenas everyone wants and it serves no other purpose than that. I dont think we can have both unless fundamental changes are made. that means a complete overhaul. Citadels have helped somewhat. criminal flags are useless lets face it so they dont really help. its like giving a chav an asbo. its just something they can show off rather than a deterent
Covert Ops cloak > lowsec almost all of the time, the lack of bubbles is extremely no-scout solo friendly. You can also trigger some of the lowsec content from highsec (ded 5s for instance), only time you are particularly stuck in a predictable location to be harassed is if you want to run missions there.
Escalation runners don't even have to dock or use a public signature that someone else might have scanned earlier, and the stratios (accessible ship for low skill pilots), is challenged by ded 5s, its not defeated by them.
As a solo pilot I even held a couple of moons for months - even when the material was twice the value of the fuel required (ie worthwhile).
There is also lots of low that is not FW space, or not particularly active FW space.
IMO the mechanics are fine, it is as baltec suggests, economic. Infinite level 4 content nipples to feed from in highsec, and other incomes that are higher and other conveniences, and the perceived risk of completely sidelining battleships as a useful tool, and thus risking new players not understanding how they might "progress".
|
|
Ijon-Tichy
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 12:27:15 -
[21] - Quote
I would change low-sec like that: - Get rid of sec status in low, it is just a nuisance. Gate and stations guns would get obsolete that way too. - Ban capitals and make it a glorious battlefield for battleship fleets. |
erg cz
Broz With Froz Dot Dot Dot
558
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 12:41:33 -
[22] - Quote
Make Jita and Amarr low sec. Dodixie is dead market anyway, just as Hek or Rens.
Create low sec borders between all empires, so people will be forced to use it for trade.
Replace CONCORD with empire police with the same capabilities. Plus make FW four sided. Thats fits to the lore perfectly. With low sec as the place, where war between empires rages on.
Instead of get rid of unique part of EVE universe, make it more attractive. Make it bigger, so people will be able to find far away calm backwater system for PVE farm if they feel like or they can sit in choke points between factions, where they will find combat opportunities faster, than now. Cause if you know, that you will ALWAYS find the PVP ready gang on low sec Jita/Perimeter gate - you do not have to play fisherman for tens of minutes to get one combat for your whole evening. You will find combat instantly on ever camped gates between empires.
It is often hard to find PvP opportunities in semi-void null, low sec systems between empire trade hubs can be the answer. Bubbles and super caps on those gates may spoil small/medium gang warfare there, IMHO.
Right now Jita / Perimeter / Amarr are so full of trade goods, that making them low sec will gives gankers years of content.
Absolutely free trial extension. Just click the link and get extra 250 000 SP for free!
|
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
5980
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 12:54:55 -
[23] - Quote
erg cz wrote:Make Jita and Amarr low sec. Dodixie is dead market anyway, just as Hek or Rens. Yeah... no. Maybe you can try to come up with a suggestion for improving low-sec that doesn't involve gutting high-sec...
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
erg cz
Broz With Froz Dot Dot Dot
559
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 13:21:50 -
[24] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:erg cz wrote:Make Jita and Amarr low sec. Dodixie is dead market anyway, just as Hek or Rens. Yeah... no. Maybe you can try to come up with a suggestion for improving low-sec that doesn't involve gutting high-sec...
Ok, one step at a time. Make a lore twist and add two NEW low sec systems between empires. One system belonging to one empire and other one - to the second one. So no one can get from gallente to minmatar system via high sec only. Make FW 4 - sided and put all those new systems into FW map.
Absolutely free trial extension. Just click the link and get extra 250 000 SP for free!
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners Test Alliance Please Ignore
15320
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 13:45:40 -
[25] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:erg cz wrote:Make Jita and Amarr low sec. Dodixie is dead market anyway, just as Hek or Rens. Yeah... no. Maybe you can try to come up with a suggestion for improving low-sec that doesn't involve gutting high-sec...
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.
In the past we've had discussions here about how unbalanced high sec incursions where. I saw it 1st hand, I'd fly with ISN (Incursion Shiney Network) can at peak cloak a good 180 isk per hour not even counting CONCORD LP flying a machariel. That same Mach struggled to make half as much per hour in null except on the very rare occasion that a null incursion was nearby, and not even then because you have to clear null incursions quickly because they become strategic headaches, no farming like in high sec.
Back then you seriously needed to rat in a super carrier to match what you could do in sub caps in high sec incursions. A Carrier back then struggled to break 150 mil per hour.
The usual high sec partisans jumped in with all manner of nonsense defenses of a measurable and noticeable flaw in the game, but one of them stuck at as more nonsense than the other:
"If the problem is low income in null sec, JUST BUFF NULL!!!, Leave Brittany high sec alone"!!!!
We tried to explain to these...people... that buffing null sec income would be bad for ALL of us, null sec income comes from anomalies that spew liquid isk and from mining ores not found in great supply in other places. Buffing null would hurt everyone everywhere else. No, the problem is high sec, fix high sec.
CCP ignored this. They changed carriers and super carriers in ways that inadvertently turned them into anomaly clearing monsters, and the buffed the Rorqual to an insane degree. That also upped the escalation chances from anomalies that had the affect of increasing the supply of dead space gear and blueprints.
Very shortly the ill affects made themselves clear. Because or Rorqs, high sec mining became damn near useless. Cheap deadspace battleships filled the skies of high sec and the rest of new eden while the high sec tech1 BS builder goes broke. Some Deadpsace gear is cheaper than tech2. When high sec anom runners get escalations they are sometimes like "why bother, the loot is trash now" etc etc.
We tried hard to explain to the high sec folks that this would happen, tried to explain to them that a buff to null would hurt THEM worse than a nerf to high would. But they were too short sighted.
Don't be short sighted like them. Low sec's chief problem is that there really is no pressing financial/pecuniary reason to leave high sec once you can run lvl 4 missions or fly a beginner level incursion boat like a Maelstrom or Megathron or follow the Burner Mission Plan. That means that ONLY the more adventurous players leave, but it should be the adventurous AND the greedy. Fix that and you go a long way towards fixing low sec....and null. |
Hir Miriel
Elves In Space
354
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 13:53:25 -
[26] - Quote
I've never been much good at all the different types of sex, safe sex is the best I'm told, others say that's too boring.
All the different types makes me very confused, just build a wall and leave the undesirables on the other side.
At the moment it doesn't really matter though, playing Alpha because I don't really like paying for secs.
~
~~
Thinking inside Schrodinger's sandbox.
~~
~
|
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
5980
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 13:53:27 -
[27] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: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. Low-sec is the problem, and trying to deflect the issues with low-sec by blaming high-sec and null-sec is just a cop-out. As I've previously stated, I have no problems with L4s and Incursions being relocated to low-sec - provided CONCORD comes along for the ride in ALL low-sec systems. Otherwise it's totally a deal breaker.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners Test Alliance Please Ignore
15321
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 13:58:57 -
[28] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Jenn aSide wrote: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. Low-sec is the problem, and trying to deflect the issues with low-sec by blaming high-sec and null-sec is just a cop-out. As I've previously stated, I have no problems with L4s and Incursions being relocated to low-sec - provided CONCORD comes along for the ride in ALL low-sec systems. Otherwise it's totally a deal breaker.
And just like that you stuck your head in the sand like every other short sighted high seccer.
It's win win for me. If they fix high sec all our experiences improve, but if they repeat the null sec mistake and "just biff low sec" I'll be ok and YOU (high seccers) will get screwed all over again like you just did when we started Rorq mining.
Shortsighted-ness doesn't make sense dude. Wake up.
|
Keno Skir
1357
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 14:00:19 -
[29] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Supercapitals banned from low-sec (no more transit through or operating out of). CONCORD expanded to all low-sec systems (including FW systems). Players engaged in FW are legitimate targets for each other (but cannot attack neutrals without a wardec, and vice-versa).
Then I'm fine with relocating L4 agents and Incursions to low-sec. Without CONCORD anything is a deal breaker.
So.. you want lowsec to be hisec?
<Gùï> 250,000 Bonus SP when you start an Alpha Clone HERE <Gùï>
<Gùï> Contact me regarding my trusted Alliance Creation Service <Gùï>
|
Wolfgang Jannesen
The Evesploratory Society
101
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 14:12:39 -
[30] - Quote
I want a second local channel added, for no other reason than the threads asking for the first local to be removed. |
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3179
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 14:26:14 -
[31] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:love everyone saying get rid of lowsec because 0.0 is soo much more relevant, the same argument can be said about null, its pointless, pvp is tedious and far too much effort to find a fight, solo in null doesn't happen, and tidi is aids, and so is powerblocks with supercap blobs.
The whole game is borderline crippled by the effort to fun ratio you get in PVP. The saving grace is that we have some people who will do the hard work for many to benefit but even then, people often would rather hell dunk than fight which mean the other side has a rather large reason no GTFO and not engage because let's face it, getting hell dunked isn't all that much fun. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3179
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 14:29:13 -
[32] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:erg cz wrote:Make Jita and Amarr low sec. Dodixie is dead market anyway, just as Hek or Rens. Yeah... no. Maybe you can try to come up with a suggestion for improving low-sec that doesn't involve gutting high-sec... 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. In the past we've had discussions here about how unbalanced high sec incursions where. I saw it 1st hand, I'd fly with ISN (Incursion Shiney Network) can at peak cloak a good 180 isk per hour not even counting CONCORD LP flying a machariel. That same Mach struggled to make half as much per hour in null except on the very rare occasion that a null incursion was nearby, and not even then because you have to clear null incursions quickly because they become strategic headaches, no farming like in high sec. Back then you seriously needed to rat in a super carrier to match what you could do in sub caps in high sec incursions. A Carrier back then struggled to break 150 mil per hour. The usual high sec partisans jumped in with all manner of nonsense defenses of a measurable and noticeable flaw in the game, but one of them stuck at as more nonsense than the other: "If the problem is low income in null sec, JUST BUFF NULL!!!, Leave Brittany high sec alone"!!!!We tried to explain to these...people... that buffing null sec income would be bad for ALL of us, null sec income comes from anomalies that spew liquid isk and from mining ores not found in great supply in other places. Buffing null would hurt everyone everywhere else. No, the problem is high sec, fix high sec. CCP ignored this. They changed carriers and super carriers in ways that inadvertently turned them into anomaly clearing monsters, and the buffed the Rorqual to an insane degree. That also upped the escalation chances from anomalies that had the affect of increasing the supply of dead space gear and blueprints. In short, they took the High Seccers advice and "just buffed null"....... Very shortly the ill affects made themselves clear. Because or Rorqs, high sec mining became damn near useless. Cheap deadspace battleships filled the skies of high sec and the rest of new eden while the high sec tech1 BS builder goes broke. Some Deadpsace gear is cheaper than tech2. When high sec anom runners get escalations they are sometimes like "why bother, the loot is trash now" etc etc. We tried hard to explain to the high sec folks that this would happen, tried to explain to them that a buff to null would hurt THEM worse than a nerf to high would. But they were too short sighted. Don't be short sighted like them. Low sec's chief problem is that there really is no pressing financial/pecuniary reason to leave high sec once you can run lvl 4 missions or fly a beginner level incursion boat like a Maelstrom or Megathron or follow the Burner Mission Plan. That means that ONLY the more adventurous players leave, but it should be the adventurous AND the greedy. Fix that and you go a long way towards fixing low sec....and null.
My theory is that CCP went that way because they actually believe the "we will leave in droves" HS menace more than they believe the "people will move to low/null" view of others. You are arguing with facts but CCP has to deal with opinions.
Or I could be wrong... |
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
51
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 14:30:19 -
[33] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:Orakkus wrote:So, does everyone have their own idea about how to make low-sec good, I don't know about everyone, but I do. Get rid of it. All you need is lawful space and lawless space. No need for some in between space that makes no one happy. Mr Epeen
I disagree in the sense that I enjoy having a bubble-less PVP space that low-sec provides.
I particularly enjoy it combined with FW mechanics (regardless of if I'm flying a FW toon or not). |
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
5980
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 14:30:22 -
[34] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:And just like that you stuck your head in the sand like every other short sighted high seccer.
It's win win for me. If they fix high sec all our experiences improve, but if they repeat the null sec mistake and "just biff low sec" I'll be ok and YOU (high seccers) will get screwed all over again like you just did when we started Rorq mining.
Shortsighted-ness doesn't make sense dude. Wake up. You haven't explained how this benefits me as a high-sec player. So before accusing me of being shortsighted perhaps you'll enlighten me as to how moving L4s to low-sec without CONCORD benefits me. I'm not sure how Rorq mining screws me over. I don't mine, have no plans to mine - and everything has been dropping in price. This is bad how exactly...?
I'm not trying to be sarcastic here - I just really don't get how your "QOL" changes are supposed to benefit me.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3179
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 14:37:03 -
[35] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:And just like that you stuck your head in the sand like every other short sighted high seccer.
It's win win for me. If they fix high sec all our experiences improve, but if they repeat the null sec mistake and "just biff low sec" I'll be ok and YOU (high seccers) will get screwed all over again like you just did when we started Rorq mining.
Shortsighted-ness doesn't make sense dude. Wake up. You haven't explained how this benefits me as a high-sec player. So before accusing me of being shortsighted perhaps you'll enlighten me as to how moving L4s to low-sec without CONCORD benefits me. I'm not sure how Rorq mining screws me over. I don't mine, have no plans to mine - and everything has been dropping in price. This is bad how exactly...? I'm not trying to be sarcastic here - I just really don't get how your "QOL" changes are supposed to benefit me.
It does not. It's literally a nerf to HS. The entire proposal is that nerfing HS would amke low/null more worthwhile because right now, the only real "offering" of low sec is PvP without CONCORD and bubbles and from what most player seem to report, that offering is not popular. |
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners Test Alliance Please Ignore
15321
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 14:49:41 -
[36] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:And just like that you stuck your head in the sand like every other short sighted high seccer.
It's win win for me. If they fix high sec all our experiences improve, but if they repeat the null sec mistake and "just biff low sec" I'll be ok and YOU (high seccers) will get screwed all over again like you just did when we started Rorq mining.
Shortsighted-ness doesn't make sense dude. Wake up. You haven't explained how this benefits me as a high-sec player. So before accusing me of being shortsighted perhaps you'll enlighten me as to how moving L4s to low-sec without CONCORD benefits me. I'm not sure how Rorq mining screws me over. I don't mine, have no plans to mine - and everything has been dropping in price. This is bad how exactly...? I'm not trying to be sarcastic here - I just really don't get how your "QOL" changes are supposed to benefit me.
When did I say anything about moving lvl 4s anywhere? |
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
5981
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 15:01:56 -
[37] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:When did I say anything about moving lvl 4s anywhere? I guess I'm confused then as to what it is you're suggesting...
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
51
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 15:04:54 -
[38] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Jenn aSide wrote: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. Low-sec is the problem, and trying to deflect the issues with low-sec by blaming high-sec and null-sec is just a cop-out. As I've previously stated, I have no problems with L4s and Incursions being relocated to low-sec - provided CONCORD comes along for the ride in ALL low-sec systems. Otherwise it's totally a deal breaker.
Concord in low-sec makes low-sec into hi-sec. Essentially you wouldn't be relocating anything to low-sec, you'd be getting rid of low-sec. That's not an answer.
I'm not for moving lvl4's to low-sec. I understand the thought process, but the fact is that when people are looking for a safe play-style, they'll migrate to the next safest thing, not follow that thing that you move. I'm not going to run lvl 4's in low sec... my mission running BS's would be scanned down and killed by hunting packs with fast tackle in no time. Even fitting for PvP won't work as if I get dropped on during a large wave in a mission I'm at such a huge disadvantage death is likely anyway. The best result of a change like this would probably drive more people to "safe null" locations... well protected renter space or perhaps providence.
I AM for moving incursions exclusively to low-sec (just like FW is). It's fleet based PVE where you're grouped up anyway. I can't see a reason why they couldn't handle low-sec just fine... and making them low-sec only will probably in a small way help numbers operating in low-sec.
In the end my personal view of the various parts of eve is as follows. I know many disagree... but this is my opionion.
1. High sec is fairly low risk PVE Space with limited PVP. 2. Low sec is high risk PVE and non-blobbish/small gang PVP. 3. Null sec is Fleet/blob based PVP with set battle lines and high reward PVE based on keeping control of space (risk based on how well controlled the space is) 4. WH space is small gang PvP (weighted heavily toward stealth/ambushes due to lack of local) and high risk/high reward PVE. "Controlling space" is based simply on controlling a particular wormhole, not a region (as that doesn't really apply with the dynamic nature of wormholes)
I'm mainly against changing the nature of these spaces. I don't want Low sec to become low risk. I also don't want it to become blobbish with the PvP. |
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners Test Alliance Please Ignore
15322
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 15:08:16 -
[39] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:When did I say anything about moving lvl 4s anywhere? I guess I'm confused then as to what it is you're suggesting...
Im suggesting learning from the recent past. I am not a game designer, I offer no 'plans' because that would be stupid.
And I'm pointing out how short sighted the high sec partisans on this board can be, many of whom ARE miners and builders and who did exactly get screwed when CCP did as they suggested which was to "buff null" instead of fixing the actual problem (High Sec). |
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4000
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 15:19:25 -
[40] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Lan Wang wrote:love everyone saying get rid of lowsec because 0.0 is soo much more relevant, the same argument can be said about null, its pointless, pvp is tedious and far too much effort to find a fight, solo in null doesn't happen, and tidi is aids, and so is powerblocks with supercap blobs. Isn't null-sec a separate issue entirely though? I'm not going to necessarily disagree with any of your points about null-sec, but as we're talking about low-sec what would you suggest in the way of ideas to improve it? Sasha Nemtsov wrote:I don't do FW, and although I do travel through Lowsec the question often occurs to me: What is it for? Faction Warfare, gate camping and ganging up on other players constantly comes to mind...
well a lot of people imply it should made into nullsec so i agree nullsec isnt relevant here and changing it to be nullsec isnt making anything better.
i wouldnt change much about lowsec tbh, i like it and if i wanted nullsec mechanics then id move to null.
Remove gateguns and station guns (they cripple solo/frigate pvp) blocking warp stabs from plexes if a dscan immune ship enters a plex then its not dscan immune (thats cancer) add pirate faction warfare
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
|
Henry Plantgenet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
183
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 15:24:49 -
[41] - Quote
How i would fix lowsec: Make gate guns remember who they were shooting at and give them smarter AI. Dissentivize bigger blobs somehow. Dissentivize kiting with snake set mordus ships.
PVE wise lowsec is the best in eve. (with exception of sov anomalies, truesec burners in -1.0, and They get all the ore anomalies you can get in NPC high,low and null with all the ores., they get 4-6/10s (cruiser deadspace mods are best); the difficulty is high but meh balans. The belts have no high end ores but they have faction, hauler, mordus, and clone soldier spawns which is lots of farming opportunities. Level 5 missions. Faction warfare farms. (the PVP aspect is sov lite.)
Overcrowding is a player issue and can be very hard to balans because you're trying to balans features with utility functions that vary from individual to individual and may not always be logical, efficient or something like that. Trying to balans for players always ends in disgruntled players. Can always get worse with bubbles :) Imagine lowsec with bubbles. Now forget about it.
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3179
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 15:33:30 -
[42] - Quote
Henry Plantgenet wrote: Dissentivize kiting with snake set mordus ships.
This is accomplished by just nerfing mordus ships. From the day it was designed, it was obvious it would be a WTFKITEPWNMOBILE. |
Pleasure Hub Node-514
Pleasure Hub Hotline
223
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 15:43:48 -
[43] - Quote
Hir Miriel wrote:I've never been much good at all the different types of sex, safe sex is the best I'm told, others say that's too boring.
All the different types makes me very confused, just build a wall and leave the undesirables on the other side.
At the moment it doesn't really matter though, playing Alpha because I don't really like paying for secs. Do you like aggressive engagement? I enjoy red safety lights and golden pod debris showers.
'One night hauler' The tell all story of a pleasure bot in Jita 4-4
|
nezroy
Nice Clan
50
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 16:06:48 -
[44] - Quote
End-game HS content (i.e. L4 agents & incursions) should be moved exclusively to high-sec islands. The LP payouts from these activities should be converted to the equivalent of sleeper's blue loot. NPC orders/LP store agents that will buy/convert that loot will only exist in contiguous high-sec space, requiring it to be moved across the low-sec pipes. EDIT: This also has the added benefit of allowing direct market trading of LP, for those that don't want to figure out the current optimal cash out.
Meanwhile, disallow cynos in 0.4 systems. Make every low-sec system a 0.4 system if it is directly next to a high-sec system, and all other low-sec systems 0.3 or lower. No more perfectly invulnerable JF's logistics to high sec. This will help fix null too, while we're at it. Risk free JF logistics has been a bane on EVE for a while now... |
Torin Corax
Game of Roams
253
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 16:32:16 -
[45] - Quote
Personally I'd like to see the following in low sec.
Create more "fast" content in low sec. By this I mean basic PvE that is relatively quick to complete and which can give a (semi) reliable return on the time invested. In my experience one of the most popular activities ( outside of FW) in low is exploration, this is primarily because it can be done with small, fast and cloaky ships, which allows for reasonable survivability. This is an area I think could be built upon in low sec to encourage PvE activities....the more PvE in low, the more oportunity for PvP.
Moving Lvl 4's to low sec is largely pointless, way too much risk involved to be worthwhile in most areas. Add in the predictability of location ( agent location/ stations etc.) and it's just going to be too much hassle...may as well run lvl 3's in HS. Perhaps moving all Burner missions to low sec could be looked at though, again this would be more in keeping with small fast ships, possibly in gangs, with slightly improved rewards.
Base-line mineral changes- I'd go for nerfing HS mining across the board, with perhaps only Veld/ scor available in high sec. This however would only be useful if ore size was looked at for the rarer ores (only available in low/ null) to, again, allow for more efficient mining in smaller ships ( looking straight at the mining frig family here). I'd even go so far as to ask for Mercoxit spawns in low sec, in small quantities, to make for a more exciting/ interesting mining experience in low sec. Low-sec mining could then be a get in- get out fast activity with a decent pay-off, even after lost time due to dodging hunters is factored in.
Ultimately I enjoy Low sec at the moment, but I'm fully aware that my decision to base (most) of my isk making there is hampering my efficiency....this is a decision that I made to allow for a more interesting and engaging PvE/ PvP experince....However, that choice is not for everyone. I am fully aware that I could very easily earn considerably more isk/ hour in high sec with almost no risk or effort whatsoever beyond the need to stave off boredom.
That is the problem, HS is just to profitable for the safety it affords. There is no incentive to got to low sec, with the possible exception of dedicated explorers, to make isk.... this needs to be changed. HS PvE should be the worst isk source in the game, not amongst the most reliable and effective.
Focusing on activities that allow for greater profits for small, fast and survivable ships is imo the way to go for low sec. Newer players may then decide low sec is worth a go because they don't need a blingy BS to make decent isk, or to exceed HS Lvl 4 income with relative ease.
Oh, if CCP want to remove Capitals from low sec ( except JF's) I'm ok with that...I hate caps |
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
5986
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 16:44:53 -
[46] - Quote
After thinking about it some more, in hindsight I'm not necessarily opposed to some of the changes being suggested. Relocating L4 agents, Incursions and Ice belts to low-sec might be what is desperately needed for EVE. The active player count is moving in the wrong direction and this could very well be due to players becoming complacent in high-sec. You can literally match null-sec ratting income and easily exceed low-sec income through Incursions and L4 blitzing/Burners.
I do think that in order to work supercapitals and possibly even capitals (excluding industrials) need to be restricted or banned from operating in low-sec. Transit might be ok but this could also be heavily abused.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners Test Alliance Please Ignore
15324
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 16:53:17 -
[47] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:After thinking about it some more, in hindsight I'm not necessarily opposed to some of the changes being suggested. Relocating L4 agents, Incursions and Ice belts to low-sec might be what is desperately needed for EVE. The active player count is moving in the wrong direction and this could very well be due to players becoming complacent in high-sec. You can literally match null-sec ratting income and easily exceed low-sec income through Incursions and L4 blitzing/Burners.
I've never supported such ideas, trying to force people who are in a voluntary situation (in this case, a video game) never works and just builds resentment. High Sec needs adjusting not killing.
I've said it before when talking about Incursions. It's not a problem that high sec incursions exist, it's a problem that they are so good that many incursions runners are in fact alts of low sec and null sec players who use it as a safe way to generate a huge income instead of generating income in their own space where they would at least be vulnerable to counter play. The irony is that "High Sec Incursions" aren't really high sec pve content, they are NULL SEC PVE CONTENT , because that's where the money goes...
The same principle applies to all of high sec. In a more balanced situation many people would still choose high sec because they are casual and don't have much time to play or they aren't interested in spending time dodging the kinds of pvp that happen outside high sec. Nothing wrong with that, the problem is that high sec is so easy and profitable enough that it attracts people who otherwise WOULD have gone to low/null/WH space but don't because there is literally no need.
Everytime I say the above, high sec partisans reject it, but that's just because they are dumb. What I've been saying for years is NOT that high seccers need to be forced out of high, but that NON-high sec players shouldn't be tempted to play in high sec because it's too good to ignore. |
Torin Corax
Game of Roams
254
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 17:03:46 -
[48] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
I've said it before when talking about Incursions. It's not a problem that high sec incursions exist, it's a problem that they are so good that many incursions runners are in fact alts of low sec and null sec players who use it as a safe way to generate a huge income instead of generating income in their own space where they would at least be vulnerable to counter play. The irony is that "High Sec Incursions" aren't really high sec pve content, they are NULL SEC PVE CONTENT , because that's where the money goes...
The same principle applies to all of high sec. In a more balanced situation many people would still choose high sec because they are casual and don't have much time to play or they aren't interested in spending time dodging the kinds of pvp that happen outside high sec. Nothing wrong with that, the problem is that high sec is so easy and profitable enough that it attracts people who otherwise WOULD have gone to low/null/WH space but don't because there is literally no need.
Very true this ^
Was certainly the case when I was living in Null...most of my corp at the time either used alts or Jump clones for HS incursion running, the payout was far too good to miss out on. Why on earth risk null sec PvE ( even with decent intel and defence fleets) when you could just alt+tab and make stupid amounts of isk in high sec incursions.
|
MadMuppet
A Better Corp Name
1267
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 17:03:53 -
[49] - Quote
In a way, someplace in EVE is going to be the crappiest place to live, so might as well leave it low-sec. Unless the blob mentality can be addressed, the big groups will kick everybody in the teeth and the solo players will run and hide a lot.
I hate DSCAN and that it the primary reason I hate hanging out in low-sec. Constantly clicking a box and reading a list while doing something is very immersion breaking and tedious. I would prefer a active/passive radar system instead, but that would make for a full rewrite of code, so forget that idea for now. In WH and Null it isn't as bad since it is more laid back, but in Low, being mostly transit systems, it is game breaking just enough to not make me want to go and hang out there.
This message brought to you by Experience(tm). When common sense fails you, experience will come to the rescue. Experience(tm) from the makers of CONCORD.
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners Test Alliance Please Ignore
15325
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 17:08:56 -
[50] - Quote
Torin Corax wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:
I've said it before when talking about Incursions. It's not a problem that high sec incursions exist, it's a problem that they are so good that many incursions runners are in fact alts of low sec and null sec players who use it as a safe way to generate a huge income instead of generating income in their own space where they would at least be vulnerable to counter play. The irony is that "High Sec Incursions" aren't really high sec pve content, they are NULL SEC PVE CONTENT , because that's where the money goes...
The same principle applies to all of high sec. In a more balanced situation many people would still choose high sec because they are casual and don't have much time to play or they aren't interested in spending time dodging the kinds of pvp that happen outside high sec. Nothing wrong with that, the problem is that high sec is so easy and profitable enough that it attracts people who otherwise WOULD have gone to low/null/WH space but don't because there is literally no need.
Very true this ^ Was certainly the case when I was living in Null...most of my corp at the time either used alts or Jump clones for HS incursion running, the payout was far too good to miss out on. Why on earth risk null sec PvE ( even with decent intel and defence fleets) when you could just alt+tab and make stupid amounts of isk in high sec incursions.
That changed a bit when CCP made changes that made carrier ratting wayyyy more lucrative, but carrier ratting is still mainly the province of the bigger alliances that can counter drop anything strong enough to kill carriers. That's why the bounty isk faucet exploded like it did.
But yea, the guys in the smaller sov null alliances and in low sec that I know all still have incursion alts. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
5986
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 17:17:15 -
[51] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:I've never supported such ideas, trying to force people who are in a voluntary situation (in this case, a video game) to do somehting never works and just builds resentment. High Sec needs adjusting not killing. Except every time you buff null-sec it gets abused to h*ll, so the only real solution at this point is to nerf high-sec income so that ther's an actual incentive to move beyond high-sec. There's also no way to prevent null-sec alts from abusing high-sec income mechanics, either - which is another reason high-sec income needs to be nerfed.
Strange how every time one looks at a broken aspect of the game it's always being unduly influenced or outright f*cked over by null-sec. CSM monopoly... null-sec. Power creep... null-sec. High/low-sec space abuse... null-sec. Mining abuse... null-sec. it would be really interesting to see what would happen if null-sec players (and their alts) were actually forced to live and work out of null-sec...
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Torin Corax
Game of Roams
254
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 17:39:57 -
[52] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote: Except every time you buff null-sec it gets abused to h*ll, so the only real solution at this point is to nerf high-sec income so that ther's an actual incentive to move beyond high-sec. There's also no way to prevent null-sec alts from abusing high-sec income mechanics, either - which is another reason high-sec income needs to be nerfed.
Agreed.
Quote:Strange how every time one looks at a broken aspect of the game it's always being unduly influenced or outright f*cked over by null-sec. CSM monopoly... null-sec. Power creep... null-sec. High/low-sec space abuse... null-sec. Mining abuse... null-sec. it would be really interesting to see what would happen if null-sec players (and their alts) were actually forced to live and work out of null-sec...
To be fair, it's the inevitable result of large, organized and dedicated groups....which for the most part is a defining feature of null sec. There are plenty of HS dwellers abusing the crap out of HS mechanics, but when it comes to numbers Null sec alliances tend to have the upper hand, and in all likelihood they always will. Change the mechanics how you will, those who have the numbers and organization will generally thrive....and I am in no way saying they shouldn't.
|
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
5987
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 17:46:26 -
[53] - Quote
I'm not saying I'll like it - I won't initially. But I'll find a low-sec corporation to join and pay them a tidy sum for protection so I can continue running the activities I like. It might end up being even safer than high-sec... A lot of players will b*tch and moan - even threaten to quit. But most will adapt and probably be the better for it...
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Lulu Lunette
Savage Moon Society
1278
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 18:07:49 -
[54] - Quote
Well I have no ideas on how to fix lowsec or any other sec, I have complaints and praise about each but I think other than having the most chance for wormholes, I think lowsec generally just sucks the most.
I was sold on this idea originally that lowsec was a prominent playground for 1v1 types and lowsec piracy types of things. Let me save you a ton of effort and time: It is not. Lowsec is a level 5 mission running alliance thing. The recent article on Crossing Zebras is completely overshadowed by the Rixx:Grath drama - THAT'S LOWSEC!
What I desired for 1v1 Frigate PVP was honestly better suited in nullsec. The most elite kills I got were beheading the rookie fleet tackles in front of their mostly clueless blobby fleets and moonwalking away. Suitonia is the modern day Frigate solo example.
@lunettelulu7
|
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
10562
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 18:59:59 -
[55] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:I've never supported such ideas, trying to force people who are in a voluntary situation (in this case, a video game) to do somehting never works and just builds resentment. High Sec needs adjusting not killing. Except every time you buff null-sec it gets abused to h*ll, so the only real solution at this point is to nerf high-sec income so that ther's an actual incentive to move beyond high-sec. Oh...they'll move beyond high sec all right.
They'll move right out of EVE.
Love it or hate it, high sec needs to have reasonable rewards. High sec players are people, not puppies. If you smack them with a rolled up newspaper, they don't stop peeing on the floor. They find a new place to live that will let them pee on the floor.
And also love it or hate it. EVE can't survive a mass exodus of players, which is essentially what you are suggesting CCP do to itself.
Mr Epeen
There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3180
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 19:09:11 -
[56] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:I've never supported such ideas, trying to force people who are in a voluntary situation (in this case, a video game) to do somehting never works and just builds resentment. High Sec needs adjusting not killing. Except every time you buff null-sec it gets abused to h*ll, so the only real solution at this point is to nerf high-sec income so that ther's an actual incentive to move beyond high-sec. Oh...they'll move beyond high sec all right. They'll move right out of EVE. Love it or hate it, high sec needs to have reasonable rewards. High sec players are people, not puppies. If you smack them with a rolled up newspaper, they don't stop peeing on the floor. They find a new place to live that will let them pee on the floor. And also love it or hate it. EVE can't survive a mass exodus of players, which is essentially what you are suggesting CCP do to itself. Mr Epeen
What is reasonable for high sec? |
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
5988
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 19:13:20 -
[57] - Quote
There has already been a mass exodus of players since Ascension - nevermind the steady decline we've been seeing for the past few years. If EVE is not already at the tipping point it soon will be. Instead of f*cking around with Fozziesov, blundering Citadels and the continued see-saw with capitals (jump fatique, rorqual mining, fighters) - they needed to be focusing on the outstanding issues in the game, ie: NPE, PvE, FW, module/ship tiericide and rebalancing.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
2604
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 19:34:23 -
[58] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:So, does everyone have their own idea about how to make low-sec good, or have certain ideas/concepts started to get favor with the mass of low-sec players?
I do. Make low sec about making boosters and make smuggling a real thing. When Eve was designed CCP had the idea you could become a smuggler. There was even a skill to make you better at evading customs at the gates. Low sec should be changed to allow creation of "contraband goods" and make developing that smuggling skill a real thing. Maybe even look at creating a mechanism to improve faction with some pirate NPC's to aid in getting the contraband goods. I started out wanting to be a smuggler and have that now dead skill that I wish actually worked as it was intended.
The other thing I'd consider doing with low sec was introduce comets. These would be moving bodies you mined to get moon minerals. Putting them in low sec would make low sec more interesting and mining comets there more challenging since you would also have to deal with folks that would like to explode you will you got you comet goodness.
|
Vic Jefferson
Knights of Poitot Rote Kapelle
1185
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 19:40:47 -
[59] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:What is reasonable for high sec?
Lower than low, lower than NPC null, lower than sov-null, lower than WH.
Was I too honest?
They have the right idea with the variable bonuses on the industrial arrays.
The entire game right now is too hinged on big-ticket content with big-ticket objectives, leading the actual number of people with hands on the 'generate content' levers to be really small. CCP keeps making this worse by repeatedly focusing on regions which lend themselves to this sort of play, while whole-sale ignoring regions which should empower small, scrappy entities. Hi-Sec being more profitable than it should be is a band-aid which be painful to remove until they fix Low/NPC null.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
|
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
2604
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 19:42:34 -
[60] - Quote
Another thing I think you could do in low sec. Create a way for a corporation or alliance become "deputies" of Concord in low sec. So they could enforce the "law" in low sec with no consequence and have access to types of fire power to enforce the law. Give the players a path to be "the new sheriffs in town" in some part of low sec. |
|
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
2604
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 19:44:40 -
[61] - Quote
By the way for what it's worth. I've lived in low sec until recently. I was there 99% of the time for the last 5 years. I didn't mind it much once you learn the ropes but it sure would be cool if there was something special about it that made it truly unique. |
Daemun Khanid
Calculated Miscalculation
698
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 20:00:19 -
[62] - Quote
Scrap fw. Make lowsec nullsec sov system w/o caps and bubbles and with lower isk generation potential. Then lowsec is null sec sov for smaller corps / younger toons without cap skills. Maybe make citadels a little easier to kill in low sec to make control of systems more fluid and active. Personally, after years of lowsec life I'm in the middle of packing, finding a nice corp and moving out to null for my first time. There's just no incentive for staying in lowsec unless youre a faction warfare farmer or you just have nothing better to do or no deeper interest in EvE than hunting down farmers for "gf's. "
And also agree that hs incursions should not exist. Too much isk too little risk.
Daemun of Khanid
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3181
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 20:01:45 -
[63] - Quote
Vic Jefferson wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:What is reasonable for high sec? Lower than low, lower than NPC null, lower than sov-null, lower than WH. Was I too honest? They have the right idea with the variable bonuses on the industrial arrays. The entire game right now is too hinged on big-ticket content with big-ticket objectives, leading the actual number of people with hands on the 'generate content' levers to be really small. CCP keeps making this worse by repeatedly focusing on regions which lend themselves to this sort of play, while whole-sale ignoring regions which should empower small, scrappy entities. Hi-Sec being more profitable than it should be is a band-aid which be painful to remove until they fix Low/NPC null.
From someone like you, I was expecting an answer like that. I was more interested in the guy I quoted for example. Part of the issue for CCP to "fixing" this is that something will have to eat a bat and nobody really know players will react to this bat. You hit people in low and null with the nerf bat, they are people who already are used to adapting at least in part to situation changing. They "live" in environment where adapting is essentially the norm. Batting high-sec is different. Yes there are indeed a certain amount of character there who will probably just adapt becuse they are used to by being null/low/WH alts and even that comes with a "but". How many people actually adapt in low/null/WH because of how HS is right now is an unknown right now. Will they move their alt? Abandon it? Say screw that I can't sustain myself with HS anymore?
The other one part is the true HS player. The one who isn't someone's alt. This guy sure as hell isn't the type to adapt or at least haven't really demonstrated it. What will he do when the swing goes in?
The last unknown is how many are in each of those sets? CCP has to analyse this and think real hard about it because while the game still has momentum and a active player base, it really has to make sure it has a way to replace the normal MMO player bleed in one way or another. Forgetting the "I quit because you nerfed/buffed X", you still have to renew your base for because no matter how good your game is, your player will go away at some point for varied reason that might be 100% unrelated to the game itself. |
Salvos Rhoska
2387
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 20:12:17 -
[64] - Quote
Daemun Khanid wrote:Scrap fw. Make lowsec nullsec sov system w/o caps and bubbles and with lower isk generation potential. Then lowsec is null sec sov for smaller corps / younger toons without cap skills. Maybe make citadels a little easier to kill in low sec to make control of systems more fluid and active.
Adjacent Player Sov entities would conquer LS immediately, with or without caps. LS entities would be wiped out overnight, or forced to join or rent.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
5992
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 20:27:46 -
[65] - Quote
So we've now come full circle with all indicators pointing to null-sec as being at the root of a lot of problems in the game. i wonder if everyone was forced to join a null-sec corporation or alliance if that would actually improve the game...
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Avaelica Kuershin
Paper Cats
323
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 20:43:27 -
[66] - Quote
erg cz wrote:Make Jita and Amarr low sec. Dodixie is dead market anyway, just as Hek or Rens.
Right now Jita / Perimeter / Amarr are so full of trade goods, that making them low sec will gives gankers years of content.
As long as there is high sec, that idea wouldn't work. The markets would simply shift.
|
Vic Jefferson
Knights of Poitot Rote Kapelle
1187
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 20:44:43 -
[67] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:The other one part is the true HS player. The one who isn't someone's alt. This guy sure as hell isn't the type to adapt or at least haven't really demonstrated it. What will he do when the swing goes in?
I...I just don't know what to say. It must be so hard for an obligate high-sec player to adapt to not having income which overshadows most of the rest of the game. Why, with all the expenses and dangers that go a long with living in HS, HS income should be competitive with the rest of the game, right?
Income is there to create content with - to start fights, to give the impetus for conflict. It makes for a terrible, unhealthy game when some of the best income is in the safest space, and there's both no way to fight over it, and places that can foster open conflict are relatively impoverished.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
|
Kaybella Hakaari
State War Academy Caldari State
50
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 20:52:24 -
[68] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Jenn aSide wrote: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. Low-sec is the problem, and trying to deflect the issues with low-sec by blaming high-sec and null-sec is just a cop-out. As I've previously stated, I have no problems with L4s and Incursions being relocated to low-sec - provided CONCORD comes along for the ride in ALL low-sec systems. Otherwise it's totally a deal breaker. And just like that you stuck your head in the sand like every other short sighted high seccer. It's win win for me. If they fix high sec all our experiences improve, but if they repeat the null sec mistake and " just buff low sec" I'll be ok and YOU (high seccers) will get screwed all over again like you just did when we started Rorq mining. Shortsighted-ness doesn't make sense dude. Wake up. Not true. If blitzing L3s is about as good as farming L4s, we'll just go to blitzing L3s instead of farming L4s. |
Artemis Ellery Sazas
Shock and Awe Inc.
94
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 20:58:00 -
[69] - Quote
I spend a lot of my time in low sec and find it quite enjoyable. Some things I would change to make low sec a better place:
Remove station and gate guns. I prefer solo, frigate pvp, but have to pass on a lot of fights because of gate guns.
Reduce or eliminate loss of sec status penalty, especially for podding.
Eliminate the ability to use stabs in plexes, plex farmers doesn't add content to the game imo.
No supers allowed
Give low sec only, bonuses for booster manu.
Move 50% of high sec ice belts to low sec
Increase low sec ore belts to include Gneiss and Ochre
Reduce taxes for NPC stations in low sec to encourage manufacturing and research
I really only care about the first two, but wanted to give support to some earlier ideas.
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3182
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 22:10:38 -
[70] - Quote
Vic Jefferson wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:The other one part is the true HS player. The one who isn't someone's alt. This guy sure as hell isn't the type to adapt or at least haven't really demonstrated it. What will he do when the swing goes in? I...I just don't know what to say. It must be so hard for an obligate high-sec player to adapt to not having income which overshadows most of the rest of the game. Why, with all the expenses and dangers that go a long with living in HS, HS income should be competitive with the rest of the game, right?
What do you do if they decide to pack up and leave? Because while Vic Jefferson and Frostys Virpio don't really give a **** if some high sec pubbie scrublord quit EVE, CCP somewhat has to care. I'm not even sure of what I would do if I was in their shoes by now because a **** load of the customer base might be entirely present only because of the current imbalance and I really don't know how to replace them if they go. CCP either already has taken a decision and just does not say it or has to take one over this. At that point, it will make it's bed and have to lie in it.
Both our position of not relying on HS for our gameplay mean we don't have the point of view of someone who does. I really don't know what Joe pubbie #123 will think after he is told HS incursion HQ sites now pay 2 million ISK and 200 LP, all his lvl 4 mission happen in LS and every single lvl 3 mission is changed in way to prevent blitzing in any way, shape or form. It sure as hell would change the income curve tome something that makes more sense according to the theory tho. |
|
Salvos Rhoska
2391
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 22:14:03 -
[71] - Quote
No cynos in LS.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Daemun Khanid
Calculated Miscalculation
699
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 22:31:05 -
[72] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Daemun Khanid wrote:Scrap fw. Make lowsec nullsec sov system w/o caps and bubbles and with lower isk generation potential. Then lowsec is null sec sov for smaller corps / younger toons without cap skills. Maybe make citadels a little easier to kill in low sec to make control of systems more fluid and active. Adjacent Player Sov entities would conquer LS immediately, with or without caps. LS entities would be wiped out overnight, or forced to join or rent.
Possibly, but there would be no more incentive for them to waste time doing so than there is for them to inhabit the low sec systems now, and with swarms of smaller corps and alliances speciallizing in cruiser amd bs warfare would it be worth their time and effort? While commiting assets to fighting off said swarms they would be leaving less assets behind to defend their null sec assets worth a far greater value. Ofc weekly timers on citadels could make it way too easy to defend on multiple fronts but thats a seperate issue.
Daemun of Khanid
|
Torin Corax
Game of Roams
265
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 22:31:26 -
[73] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: What do you do if they decide to pack up and leave? Because while Vic Jefferson and Frostys Virpio don't really give a **** if some high sec pubbie scrublord quit EVE, CCP somewhat has to care. I'm not even sure of what I would do if I was in their shoes by now because a **** load of the customer base might be entirely present only because of the current imbalance and I really don't know how to replace them if they go. CCP either already has taken a decision and just does not say it or has to take one over this. At that point, it will make it's bed and have to lie in it.
Both our position of not relying on HS for our gameplay mean we don't have the point of view of someone who does. I really don't know what Joe pubbie #123 will think after he is told HS incursion HQ sites now pay 2 million ISK and 200 LP, all his lvl 4 mission happen in LS and every single lvl 3 mission is changed in way to prevent blitzing in any way, shape or form. It sure as hell would change the income curve tome something that makes more sense according to the theory tho.
The question I'd like to ask dedicated high sec players is simply...how much income do you actually need?
Assuming a reasonably clued-up HS player who knows how to avoid ganks/ baiting etc. just how much isk income is needed to buy "stuff" that is never really going to need replacing?
That's the issue with risk/ reward in HS. It's annoying to me that those who conduct their affairs in the safest space in the game, also have unnecessarily high rewards. Meanwhile those who take risks in more dangerous space will generally have a lower return, or at least a far less reliable return, on their time.
Again, in my case that's a choice I make based on the enjoyment I get from trying to make isk while avoiding those who would take it from me....but for those who look more towards the bottom line the choice to stay in high sec is pretty much a no-brainer.
This just seems out of balance. Personally I'd not so much like to see content removed from high sec (incursions and the like), just tone down the rewards. Players can then still do the things they want to do while making a more balanced return on their time investment. If they want a better return, then they will need to take risks. I think a fair few would actually do this. Not every HS player is a carebear...but a lot of them are good at math, and if the numbers don't add up in low sec then why bother.
Low sec could also be looked at from the view of adding new, perhaps unique, content specifically tailored to fit in with the risks that exist there. Content that focuses on smaller ships, used with care, that can match the income of Lvl 4 mission running. Or if used with extreme success, match incursion isk, with a reasonable level of reliability. Exploration is close, but still a little random. |
Salvos Rhoska
2392
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 22:45:25 -
[74] - Quote
Daemun Khanid wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Daemun Khanid wrote:Scrap fw. Make lowsec nullsec sov system w/o caps and bubbles and with lower isk generation potential. Then lowsec is null sec sov for smaller corps / younger toons without cap skills. Maybe make citadels a little easier to kill in low sec to make control of systems more fluid and active. Adjacent Player Sov entities would conquer LS immediately, with or without caps. LS entities would be wiped out overnight, or forced to join or rent. Possibly, but there would be no more incentive for them to waste time doing so than there is for them to inhabit the low sec systems now, and with swarms of smaller corps and alliances speciallizing in cruiser amd bs warfare would it be worth their time and effort? While commiting assets to fighting off said swarms they would be leaving less assets behind to defend their null sec assets worth a far greater value. Ofc weekly timers on citadels could make it way too easy to defend on multiple fronts but thats a seperate issue.
Expansion is incentive enough, as well as removing LS annoyances for HS market access, and cos they are bored.
There is no way you can resist the full brunt of NS dropping countless caps on you. LS locals would be annihilated overnight. The rest is just cleaning up.
Dont kid yourself as to your chances.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
MadMuppet
A Better Corp Name
1269
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 00:04:00 -
[75] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:So we've now come full circle with all indicators pointing to null-sec as being at the root of a lot of problems in the game. i wonder if everyone was forced to join a null-sec corporation or alliance if that would actually improve the game...
I'd leave. I did the null sec thing a couple times. First as a newbie and I ran 30 jumps with my @$$ on fire. The second time was BORING! 100+ ship fleets... ALIGN, WARP,ALIGN, WARP.... as the saying goes, the view only changes for the lead dog of a sled team.
People need to get it, nobody will leave high-sec by force. They won't, so stop.
People also need to understand that **ANY** change to the game mechanics is going to be exploited by the large groups. If nothing else, a brief reading of the history of the GOONS will show that to be true.
I took a three year break from EVE because they were aiming towards forcing group play. I hated that, I liked to 'live in the cracks'. If the day came where you logged in and had to choose between the RED or BLUE team I would log off. Anybody preaching that players MUST go down a certain road after a certain time is PART OF THE PROBLEM*
-MadMuppet
*If you are part of the problem, you will be nerfed.
This message brought to you by Experience(tm). When common sense fails you, experience will come to the rescue. Experience(tm) from the makers of CONCORD.
"If you are part of the problem, you will be nerfed." -MadMuppet
|
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
3499
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 00:19:09 -
[76] - Quote
Lowsec is actually quite good, balanced, from a pure PvP perspective, best space in New Eden imo. Casual, small group friendly. Income-wise it's not that good if you want to actually live there, so this aspect needs improvement. Also I can see that citadels make FW "sov" more or less pointless.
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
goudaMob
TunDraGon Lost Obsession
14
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 00:19:30 -
[77] - Quote
Please keep low-sec. I don't want to be forced into tidi gameplay. |
MadMuppet
A Better Corp Name
1269
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 00:24:26 -
[78] - Quote
goudaMob wrote:Please keep low-sec. I don't want to be forced into tidi gameplay.
P l e a s e k e e p l o w - s e c .
I d o n ' t w a n t t o b e f o r c e d i n t o t i d i g a m e p l a y .
This message brought to you by Experience(tm). When common sense fails you, experience will come to the rescue. Experience(tm) from the makers of CONCORD.
"If you are part of the problem, you will be nerfed." -MadMuppet
|
goudaMob
TunDraGon Lost Obsession
14
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 00:27:47 -
[79] - Quote
MadMuppet wrote:goudaMob wrote:Please keep low-sec. I don't want to be forced into tidi gameplay. P l e a s e k e e p l o w - s e c . I d o n ' t w a n t t o b e f o r c e d i n t o t i d i g a m e p l a y .
P l e a s e k e e p l o w - s e c .
I d o n ' t w a n t t o b e f o r c e d i n t o t i d i g a m e p l a y . |
Daemun Khanid
Calculated Miscalculation
699
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 00:32:30 -
[80] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Daemun Khanid wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Daemun Khanid wrote:Scrap fw. Make lowsec nullsec sov system w/o caps and bubbles and with lower isk generation potential. Then lowsec is null sec sov for smaller corps / younger toons without cap skills. Maybe make citadels a little easier to kill in low sec to make control of systems more fluid and active. Adjacent Player Sov entities would conquer LS immediately, with or without caps. LS entities would be wiped out overnight, or forced to join or rent. Possibly, but there would be no more incentive for them to waste time doing so than there is for them to inhabit the low sec systems now, and with swarms of smaller corps and alliances speciallizing in cruiser amd bs warfare would it be worth their time and effort? While commiting assets to fighting off said swarms they would be leaving less assets behind to defend their null sec assets worth a far greater value. Ofc weekly timers on citadels could make it way too easy to defend on multiple fronts but thats a seperate issue. Expansion is incentive enough, as well as removing LS annoyances for HS market access, and cos they are bored. There is no way you can resist the full brunt of NS dropping countless caps on you. LS locals would be annihilated overnight. The rest is just cleaning up. Dont kid yourself as to your chances.
Which is why I also said "no caps and no bubbles." If the resources were worth it then they would already nuke the low sec'ers.
Daemun of Khanid
|
|
Ptraci
3 R Corporation The Irukandji.
2084
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 00:47:58 -
[81] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Supercapitals banned from low-sec (no more transit through or operating out of).
Awww you poor baby. Show me on this ship doll where the nasty titan smartbombed you... |
Vic Jefferson
Knights of Poitot Rote Kapelle
1197
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 00:55:20 -
[82] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Vic Jefferson wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:The other one part is the true HS player. The one who isn't someone's alt. This guy sure as hell isn't the type to adapt or at least haven't really demonstrated it. What will he do when the swing goes in? I...I just don't know what to say. It must be so hard for an obligate high-sec player to adapt to not having income which overshadows most of the rest of the game. Why, with all the expenses and dangers that go a long with living in HS, HS income should be competitive with the rest of the game, right? What do you do if they decide to pack up and leave? Because while Vic Jefferson and Frostys Virpio don't really give a **** if some high sec pubbie scrublord quit EVE, CCP somewhat has to care. I'm not even sure of what I would do if I was in their shoes by now because a **** load of the customer base might be entirely present only because of the current imbalance and I really don't know how to replace them if they go. CCP either already has taken a decision and just does not say it or has to take one over this. At that point, it will make it's bed and have to lie in it. Both our position of not relying on HS for our gameplay mean we don't have the point of view of someone who does. I really don't know what Joe pubbie #123 will think after he is told HS incursion HQ sites now pay 2 million ISK and 200 LP, all his lvl 4 mission happen in LS and every single lvl 3 mission is changed in way to prevent blitzing in any way, shape or form. It sure as hell would change the income curve tome something that makes more sense according to the theory tho.
I dunno Frostys. I think this is unnecessarily dramatic, and sets up a little bit of a double standard.
I mean, they introduced the New Rorqual, which pulled the carpet out from under high sec miners, and they don't seem that apologetic about it. I agree 100% that mining should be much, much more profitable in other areas. It may be a matter of time before they realize that mining rats needs to go the same way.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
|
Vic Jefferson
Knights of Poitot Rote Kapelle
1197
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 00:57:48 -
[83] - Quote
Tipa Riot wrote:Lowsec is actually quite good, balanced, from a pure PvP perspective, best space in New Eden imo. Casual, small group friendly. Income-wise it's not that good if you want to actually live there, so this aspect needs improvement. Also I can see that citadels make FW "sov" more or less pointless.
Exactly the groups CCP should be focused on both retaining, and recruiting. It really is a shame they appear to have blinders on when it comes to low and NPC nullsec. People want to play EvE, they just want to play their EvE, not forced into adopting sov as the only legitimate game-mode.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
|
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
5997
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 00:59:59 -
[84] - Quote
Ptraci wrote:Awww you poor baby. Show me on this ship doll where the nasty titan smartbombed you... It was a nasty Revenant, actually.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Tisiphone Dira
New Order Logistics CODE.
1106
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 02:41:48 -
[85] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:After thinking about it some more, in hindsight I'm not necessarily opposed to some of the changes being suggested. Relocating L4 agents, Incursions and Ice belts to low-sec might be what is desperately needed for EVE. The active player count is moving in the wrong direction and this could very well be due to players becoming complacent in high-sec. You can literally match null-sec ratting income and easily exceed low-sec income through Incursions and L4 blitzing/Burners.
I do think that in order to work supercapitals and possibly even capitals (excluding industrials) need to be restricted or banned from operating in low-sec. Transit might be ok but this could also be heavily abused.
It is so refreshing to see somebody not be dogminded and continually argue a position for 20 pages, instead coming around to a new position. I think your position of supers and caps needing restrictions in low in light of these proposed changes is also reasonable, though what that might entail I don't know.
There once was a ganker named tisi
A stunningly beautiful missy
To gank a gross miner
There is nothing finer, cept when they get all pissy
|
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
758
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 05:15:08 -
[86] - Quote
A lot of people seem to be implying that money seems to be the end-all be-all of managing the populations of the respective security status areas. ISK is one factor, not the only factor that decides where people want to live and operate. And the simple sad fact is, there needs to be reliable and decent (but not best) income in highsec for the simple reason that it's a neutral ground where anyone can go to eek out a living. You don't have to manage diplomacy for your surroundings and the mechanics at play are a lot more basic (like not having to worry about cyno drops). On the idea of relocating level 4 agents, I would very much worry about placing even more ISK faucets squarely in areas where certain groups could congregate and expel others (which I would expect nullsec entities and major lowsec entities to do immediately).
Continuing, I think "decent but not best income" is already where highsec is at. Let me explain that point by addressing the two main things people seem to be harping on about in this thread (and often when it comes to highsec discussions).
About two years ago now, a man posted on the forums about his incursion experience. For all intents and purposes, it was the most optimal it could be. I forget the specifics, but at the time he gave numbers for all the investment for his ship and fittings, his payouts both ISK and LP, start and end times, his setup, etc. And what he found was that under the most ideal conditions, incursions don't pay out all that well. Under perfect circumstances, the real payouts were half of what everyone purports.
(I'd have bookmarked his post if I thought I'd need it to discuss later, but I'd love a refresher on that post - if anyone here happens to have that post bookmarked, I'd love to read it again)
Continuing on, I would like to be taught why people think level 4 missions are such a big deal. I run level 4 missions in my spare time and I never see these amazing money streams materialize. In many ways it seems similar to incursions - the big money people fret over comes from ISK sinks and market sales. LP item sales are a steady ISK sink to obtain the items in the first place. Sometimes the items have to be built (ISK and materials sink). Most of the time, the items need to be transported to a market hub (chance for intercept, content in space). And then the items have to be traded on the market (another ISK sink). The massive "money" that comes from this is from other players - money is shifting, not being generated as the term "faucet" suggests.
Given all the ISK sinks it provides and potential for content (both in material intercept and in mission runner intercept) I don't think it would be wise for CCP to mess with it in any serious way. That's completely aside from any speculation about player behavior and who will or won't leave the game.
Now can someone point me to those reports that say where all the money is pouring in from, in the economy? Because all I hear about is how nullsec is still king of ISK, with ISK payouts being consistent and large. Heck, someone in the "fighters getting tweaked" thread offered up an average tick of 50 million isk. That's a heck of an average tick. My BEST tick ever running level 4's was 20 mil, and that was just back to back really good missions. My average tick is half that at best. And I don't get chances for blue loot either. Odd that again, the "real" income level seems to be half of what people boast.
With all that said, I think that focusing on ISK faucets is worrying about one single attribute for a given space in a very complex game, and it is the wrong attribute for the perceived problem at hand. People migrate to their comfortable risk level and/or involvement level in the game. Right now I reside in highsec. I enjoyed my time in lowsec, but keeping up on constantly shifting politics on who was blue, who was red, who was neutral, and who was kinda neutral but you can fire back if they fire on you first, was getting tiresome. My job right now doesn't allow me that much time to keep up on things in this game. I can still do the occasional roam or op with my corp if I happen to log on at the correct time, but that's my life right now. Removing or nerfing level 4 missions won't change what I can commit to the game, it just makes it very difficult for me to replace my inevitable ship losses.
That's something that messing with ISK faucets won't change though. Some people have the discipline and time to keep up with the low/null politics and skullduggery, some don't. Anyone who hasn't yet stepped foot into lowsec isn't going to be forced, either. Remember this is a game - people do play it for fun on some level. If you take away what brings them in, they don't have an incentive to stay. Encourage them to explore, don't beat them with a bat and tell them they had it too easy, because you will not get the reaction you were hoping for.
I would make some changes to highsec though. Fix wardecs*, nerf Concord response times, get rid of faction police.
I like some of the ideas that have been tossed around for adjusting lowsec rules, because I do believe the game benefits from having diverse spaces. So, I'd be on-board with the idea of prohibiting supercaps (maybe even all caps?) and cynos in lowsec, which might encourage more roams and general PvP content in that zone. Maybe. At the very least I'd like to see that experimented with as a trial to see if it helps at all.
At the end of the day, nullsec has the majority of ISK, all the best toys, and space you can claim and expel others. That already makes it unique and enough incentive to draw people in who want that style of play and the rewards it brings. Highsec is more stable and reliable. We should focus on what we want lowsec to be and really specialize it to make it shine.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
3500
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 06:34:03 -
[87] - Quote
Vic Jefferson wrote:People want to play EvE, they just want to play their EvE, not forced into adopting sov as the only legitimate game-mode. Some people, yes, but apparently the majority of non-highsec players just wants to join a big group and being told what to think and do.
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
Salvos Rhoska
2395
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 12:42:00 -
[88] - Quote
Daemun Khanid wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Daemun Khanid wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Daemun Khanid wrote:Scrap fw. Make lowsec nullsec sov system w/o caps and bubbles and with lower isk generation potential. Then lowsec is null sec sov for smaller corps / younger toons without cap skills. Maybe make citadels a little easier to kill in low sec to make control of systems more fluid and active. Adjacent Player Sov entities would conquer LS immediately, with or without caps. LS entities would be wiped out overnight, or forced to join or rent. Possibly, but there would be no more incentive for them to waste time doing so than there is for them to inhabit the low sec systems now, and with swarms of smaller corps and alliances speciallizing in cruiser amd bs warfare would it be worth their time and effort? While commiting assets to fighting off said swarms they would be leaving less assets behind to defend their null sec assets worth a far greater value. Ofc weekly timers on citadels could make it way too easy to defend on multiple fronts but thats a seperate issue. Expansion is incentive enough, as well as removing LS annoyances for HS market access, and cos they are bored. There is no way you can resist the full brunt of NS dropping countless caps on you. LS locals would be annihilated overnight. The rest is just cleaning up. Dont kid yourself as to your chances. Which is why I also said "no caps and no bubbles." If the resources were worth it then they would already nuke the low sec'ers.
Do you mean making it NPC Sov, or Player Sov?
No caps/bubbles will in no way stop NS from crushing LS. Nor will "LS swarms". LS has a tiny population/resource base compared to their NS neighbors.
You will be evicted, blued or rented, almost overnight in order for said NS neighbors to move their borders/control right up against HS.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2395
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 13:03:05 -
[89] - Quote
Ptraci wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Supercapitals banned from low-sec (no more transit through or operating out of). Awww you poor baby. Show me on this ship doll where the nasty titan smartbombed you...
I agree with Arthur. Caps have no place in LS, nor do cynos.
LS content doesnt require caps, and JFs are abusing the hell out of cynos in LS.
This involves two problems however: -The current asset recovery system which moves ships to LS. -How to move current gate incapable caps out of LS.
The former is difficult, as it may result in assets being moved to hostile NS. The latter is simple and already resolved. They can simply cyno out to NS (although there might be some that are stranded due to distance). Somekind of "grace" is possible to allow them to get out of LS.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
53
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 13:57:50 -
[90] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:A lot of people seem to be implying that money seems to be the end-all be-all of managing the populations of the respective security status areas. ISK is one factor, not the only factor that decides where people want to live and operate. And the simple sad fact is, there needs to be reliable and decent (but not best) income in highsec for the simple reason that it's a neutral ground where anyone can go to eek out a living. You don't have to manage diplomacy for your surroundings and the mechanics at play are a lot more basic (like not having to worry about cyno drops). On the idea of relocating level 4 agents, I would very much worry about placing even more ISK faucets squarely in areas where certain groups could congregate and expel others (which I would expect nullsec entities and major lowsec entities to do immediately)
The game doesn't teach someone how to hunt down another player ship, which leads to the observation that the game doesn't teach someone how to avoid being hunted down. ie PVP doesn't start ongrid, it only ends there, and its a major flaw that the PVE doesn't have enough of the similar elements.
What always happens with this debate, is that it gets utterly derailed by the self-entitled that want to run missions 'as is' even though its an utter cancer on new players (for ****s sake some of those missions are 14 years old). Whilst you can be anything, I think people join to be privateers, or space heros or space villains and that the game doesn't actually lead them there, and then lots of people accept the game as "slow".
IMO there could be vastly more lowsec, vastly less highsec, and the purpose of highsec could easily be to house market hubs and allow people to earn replacement cruisers (stealthy or otherwise) and to get missions into lowsec (since they have escalations, they have the mechanisms for this), for which stealthy cruisers generally succeed at, given that the hunting tools are also the survival tools, they are just as good at either purpose.
That entire highsec mission running game is so old its boob job has sagged.
As far as mining goes, they should change the name exhumer to, exhumed. The game avorion has a salvage mechanic that is far closer to the mark - ie if one goes to a scrapyard in avorion, aiming the bloody salvagers by observing the wreck has a huge impact on output. The netflix model of mining has to go.
IMO lowsec is the key to a bringing this game out of 2005, and far more radical solutions are actually required than anyone is actually proposing here.
|
|
Salvos Rhoska
2395
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 14:05:59 -
[91] - Quote
Coralas wrote:IMO lowsec is the key to a bringing this game out of 2005, and far more radical solutions are actually required than anyone is actually proposing here.
I agree. Especially regarding radical solutions.
LS is the missing link, in many ways.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
6008
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 03:05:53 -
[92] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:I agree with Arthur. Caps have no place in LS, nor do cynos.
LS content doesnt require caps, and JFs are abusing the hell out of the system.
This involves two problems however: -The current asset recovery system which moves assets to LS. -How to move current gate incapable caps out of LS. Are we just talking Jump Freighters and Supercapitals - or ALL capitals (including carriers, dreadnoughts and freighters). And yes, asset recovery is a problem - so eliminate asset recovery from NS to LS (sorry, it's toast). As for supercapitals already there - give them a 30-day "get out of low-sec free" card. After that they cannot use the gates and they're stuck in that system. One other problem that we didn't touch on is LS supercapital production with Sotiyos (not sure how prevalent this is).
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Vic Jefferson
Knights of Poitot Rote Kapelle
1201
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 05:28:04 -
[93] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:Now can someone point me to those reports that say where all the money is pouring in from, in the economy?
Sure, here's the one from February:
https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/monthly-economic-report-february-2017/
When you think about the number of people doing incursions vs the number of people in null, plus the fact that a good deal of the payout is in LP, the sheer amount of wealth incursions dump into the game relative to the risk involved is staggering. I'm not sure about your personal experience with them, but even some of the public groups can easily peak over 100m/hr in bounties, before LP is considered.
There's basically zero risk involved, zero liabilities, etc, in running them. Sure, you have to have the SP and the ISK to get started, but after that there's no investment - nothing to defend, nothing to attack, no actual potential to generate player conflict/content over a contested resource. Compare that to sov, where not only are the ratters at risk, creating content for both attackers and defenders, but a huge amount of cash had to be poured into developing those regions, and see to it that they are defended.
Suppose you want to live in Lowsec. You could run level 5s (big investment, takes alts, worth it in the end), you could do Faction Warfare (takes at least 2 alts, depends which way the war is going), or you could just have an incursion alt in HS, and never have to worry about a thing. Right there is a lot of the reason why low/NPC null is so stagnant right now; they lack good bottom-up, accessible income to put smaller groups out in space, doing something. There's few content seeds or resources to actually fight over for smaller groups, or even to get smaller groups to colonize the space. So long as High Sec remains a place to stick 'alts' in to do various tasks of income generation, the rest of the game is going to just slowly atrophy with no life of its own.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
|
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics Federation Uprising
752
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 06:44:36 -
[94] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:erg cz wrote:Make Jita and Amarr low sec. Dodixie is dead market anyway, just as Hek or Rens. Yeah... no. Maybe you can try to come up with a suggestion for improving low-sec that doesn't involve gutting high-sec...
and just a few post above you have the audacity to gut lowsec yourself, well ..|.. !!!
Make system security scale with who is winning in FW, so Caldari lowsec/FW system captured by us will lower the security of Caldari hisec systems near it. This makes useless carebears like Arthur, defend his hisec and work.
Just Add Water
|
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics Federation Uprising
752
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 06:49:53 -
[95] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Ptraci wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Supercapitals banned from low-sec (no more transit through or operating out of). Awww you poor baby. Show me on this ship doll where the nasty titan smartbombed you... I agree with Arthur. Caps have no place in LS, nor do cynos. LS content doesnt require caps, and JFs are abusing the hell out of the system. This involves two problems however: -The current asset recovery system which moves assets to LS. -How to move current gate incapable caps out of LS. The former can be reconciled with grace to move the cap out towards NS. The latter is simple and already resolved. They can simply cyno out to NS (although there might be some that are stranded due to distance). Somekind of "grace" is possible to allow them to get out of LS. Al things considered, I want JFs out of HS and LS. No more cynoing in/out, and no more citadel/gate hopping through systems that cannot use bubbles to stop them. JF all around NS you want. But if you want to carry material through LS/HS, use non-JFs to do so. JF stats are optimised for NS use, not for LS/HS. They are for material transport in NS, not LS/HS. LS/HS is too restricted by safety measures, to deal with them. Its a huge effort without bubbles, under CONCORD, and against the potential EHP of JFs. Restrict JFs to NS, where they belong, and are optimised for. And no sneaking into HS/LS via wormholes either, if you do, you are stranded unless you take another wormhole out. No gate access, no cyno.
Congrats, the most stupid and dumbest idea i've ever read in the forums.
Just Add Water
|
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
1145
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 07:59:24 -
[96] - Quote
Quote:That same Mach struggled to make half as much per hour in null except on the very rare occasion that a null incursion was nearby, and not even then because you have to clear null incursions quickly because they become strategic headaches, no farming like in high sec.
Back then you seriously needed to rat in a super carrier to match what you could do in sub caps in high sec incursions. A Carrier back then struggled to break 150 mil per hour.
One man mach and one man carrier versus 10 to 40 man fleet.
Get real.
On the topic more ppl need to stream in low sec from high sec in order for that to happen i think changes need to be made so borderline systems and fastest routes linking high sectors should be Border zones.
Border zones no capitals strong NPC presence at gates mostly (will respond as Concord but without dev hacks thru whole system )to prevent gate camping easy mode let baby seals in without immediately clubbing em to death
then start seeding minerals and missions that gonna take you to low can drop good stuff
than make incursions that are dipping in low sec HQ mostly but VG systems too
Also mix advance AI into this hard mining fleets pirate fleets seekers sleepers name it all good stuff make fuss in around there,
ppl should come for shiny stay for kicks.
"You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear"n++
|
Matthias Ancaladron
Wrath of Angels Solitaire.
178
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 08:36:42 -
[97] - Quote
Just expand it and make it fringe empire space. .1 is the new .5 with the new slowest concord response. |
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4005
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 08:46:20 -
[98] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Ptraci wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Supercapitals banned from low-sec (no more transit through or operating out of). Awww you poor baby. Show me on this ship doll where the nasty titan smartbombed you... I agree with Arthur. Caps have no place in LS, nor do cynos. LS content doesnt require caps, and JFs are abusing the hell out of the system. This involves two problems however: -The current asset recovery system which moves assets to LS. -How to move current gate incapable caps out of LS. The former can be reconciled with grace to move the cap out towards NS. The latter is simple and already resolved. They can simply cyno out to NS (although there might be some that are stranded due to distance). Somekind of "grace" is possible to allow them to get out of LS. Al things considered, I want JFs out of HS and LS. No more cynoing in/out, and no more citadel/gate hopping through systems that cannot use bubbles to stop them. JF all around NS you want. But if you want to carry material through LS/HS, use non-JFs to do so. JF stats are optimised for NS use, not for LS/HS. They are for material transport in NS, not LS/HS. LS/HS is too restricted by safety measures, to deal with them. Its a huge effort without bubbles, under CONCORD, and against the potential EHP of JFs. Restrict JFs to NS, where they belong, and are optimised for. And no sneaking into HS/LS via wormholes either, if you do, you are stranded unless you take another wormhole out. No gate access, no cyno.
what do you mean "LS doesnt require caps"? why do you feel caps and cyno's dont belong in lowsec?
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Salvos Rhoska
2403
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 08:51:53 -
[99] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Ptraci wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Supercapitals banned from low-sec (no more transit through or operating out of). Awww you poor baby. Show me on this ship doll where the nasty titan smartbombed you... I agree with Arthur. Caps have no place in LS, nor do cynos. LS content doesnt require caps, and JFs are abusing the hell out of the system. This involves two problems however: -The current asset recovery system which moves assets to LS. -How to move current gate incapable caps out of LS. The former can be reconciled with grace to move the cap out towards NS. The latter is simple and already resolved. They can simply cyno out to NS (although there might be some that are stranded due to distance). Somekind of "grace" is possible to allow them to get out of LS. Al things considered, I want JFs out of HS and LS. No more cynoing in/out, and no more citadel/gate hopping through systems that cannot use bubbles to stop them. JF all around NS you want. But if you want to carry material through LS/HS, use non-JFs to do so. JF stats are optimised for NS use, not for LS/HS. They are for material transport in NS, not LS/HS. LS/HS is too restricted by safety measures, to deal with them. Its a huge effort without bubbles, under CONCORD, and against the potential EHP of JFs. Restrict JFs to NS, where they belong, and are optimised for. And no sneaking into HS/LS via wormholes either, if you do, you are stranded unless you take another wormhole out. No gate access, no cyno. what do you mean "LS doesnt require caps"? why do you feel caps and cyno's dont belong in lowsec?
A) The content in LS doesnt require caps to run. Its overkill. B) Due to LS safety mechanics, such as no bubbles or smartbombs, cynos are not justified there.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics Federation Uprising
753
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 08:57:26 -
[100] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
A) The content in LS doesnt require caps to run. Its overkill. B) Due to LS safety mechanics, such as no bubbles or smartbombs, cynos are not justified there.
hey mofo, are you not aware that citadels exist in LS as well?
about cynos, so bombers and blops are not allowed too?
Just Add Water
|
|
Salvos Rhoska
2403
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 09:01:17 -
[101] - Quote
Nat Silverguard wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
A) The content in LS doesnt require caps to run. Its overkill. B) Due to LS safety mechanics, such as no bubbles or smartbombs, cynos are not justified there.
hey mofo, are you not aware that citadels exist in LS as well? about cynos, so bombers and blops are not allowed too?
They are allowed. Just no cynos.
Cynos belong in NS, in systems with unrestricted engagement rules.
PS: Wtf calling me a mofo?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics Federation Uprising
754
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 09:05:05 -
[102] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Nat Silverguard wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
A) The content in LS doesnt require caps to run. Its overkill. B) Due to LS safety mechanics, such as no bubbles or smartbombs, cynos are not justified there.
hey mofo, are you not aware that citadels exist in LS as well? about cynos, so bombers and blops are not allowed too? They are allowed. Just no cynos. Cynos belong in NS, in systems with unrestricted engagement rules. PS: Wtf calling me a mofo?
because i love you...
so what's the point of using SBombers and Blops if it can't be dropped?
Just Add Water
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4005
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 09:08:42 -
[103] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Nat Silverguard wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
A) The content in LS doesnt require caps to run. Its overkill. B) Due to LS safety mechanics, such as no bubbles or smartbombs, cynos are not justified there.
hey mofo, are you not aware that citadels exist in LS as well? about cynos, so bombers and blops are not allowed too? They are allowed. Just no cynos. Cynos belong in NS, in systems with unrestricted engagement rules. PS: Wtf calling me a mofo?
i dont really get where this sort of idea comes from, i cant really put m finger on how this would benefit anything, no cyno's in lowesec just means you are nerfing a ton of content, as for capitals, they are a big part of pvp in lowsec so again i dont really see any sort of benefit to this change.
no cyno's but jump capable ships are allowed, thats pointless...who is going to use a blops when a t1 battleship ha more tank
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Salvos Rhoska
2403
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 09:11:30 -
[104] - Quote
Nat Silverguard wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Nat Silverguard wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
A) The content in LS doesnt require caps to run. Its overkill. B) Due to LS safety mechanics, such as no bubbles or smartbombs, cynos are not justified there.
hey mofo, are you not aware that citadels exist in LS as well? about cynos, so bombers and blops are not allowed too? They are allowed. Just no cynos. Cynos belong in NS, in systems with unrestricted engagement rules. PS: Wtf calling me a mofo? because i love you... so what's the point of using SBombers and Blops if it can't be dropped?
You can still cloak and deliver your payload. I lost a fail muninn to a Panther once in LS. Didnt require a cyno, just a gate camp.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2403
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 09:16:56 -
[105] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:i dont really get where this sort of idea comes from, i cant really put m finger on how this would benefit anything
Its not about benefiting anyone. Its about rationalizing the game systems/mechanics.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics Federation Uprising
754
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 09:21:08 -
[106] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Nat Silverguard wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Nat Silverguard wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
A) The content in LS doesnt require caps to run. Its overkill. B) Due to LS safety mechanics, such as no bubbles or smartbombs, cynos are not justified there.
hey mofo, are you not aware that citadels exist in LS as well? about cynos, so bombers and blops are not allowed too? They are allowed. Just no cynos. Cynos belong in NS, in systems with unrestricted engagement rules. PS: Wtf calling me a mofo? because i love you... so what's the point of using SBombers and Blops if it can't be dropped? You can still cloak and deliver your payload. I lost a fail Muninn to a Panther once in LS. Didnt require a cyno.
yes, because your single experience transcends all logic and rational, therefore game design and balance should solely revolve around that.
Just Add Water
|
Salvos Rhoska
2403
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 09:25:36 -
[107] - Quote
Nat Silverguard wrote:yes, because your single experience transcends all logic and rational, therefore game design and balance should solely revolve around that.
Sarcasm and argumentum ad absurdum is not an argument. I simply demonstrated cynos are not required.
The game design issue is in allowing cynos in Ls in the first place, whereas rationally they should only be allowed in sectors with unrestricted engagement mechanics (ie: NS)
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4005
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 09:31:31 -
[108] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:i dont really get where this sort of idea comes from, i cant really put m finger on how this would benefit anything
Its not about benefiting anyone. Its about rationalizing the game systems/mechanics.
no its about improving lowsec and removing 2 key features of the game which many lowsec groups use as main gameplay is not an improvment, there really is no rational excuse to remove cynos and caps from lowsec.
because no bubbles...we get by fine killing supers without bubbles
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Salvos Rhoska
2403
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 09:33:42 -
[109] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:i dont really get where this sort of idea comes from, i cant really put m finger on how this would benefit anything
Its not about benefiting anyone. Its about rationalizing the game systems/mechanics. no its about improving lowsec and removing 2 key features of the game which many lowsec groups use as main gameplay is not an improvment, there really is no rational excuse to remove cynos and caps from lowsec. because no bubbles...we get by fine killing supers without bubbles
Whether its an improvement, is subjective to your own interests, not game design and rationality.
As an example: -Explain to me why cynos and supers are not allowed in HS?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics Federation Uprising
754
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 10:41:47 -
[110] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Nat Silverguard wrote:yes, because your single experience transcends all logic and rational, therefore game design and balance should solely revolve around that. Sarcasm and argumentum ad absurdum is not an argument. I simply demonstrated cynos are not required. The game design issue is in allowing cynos in Ls in the first place, whereas rationally they should only be allowed in sectors with unrestricted engagement mechanics (ie: NS)
you demonstrated and justified nothing, you just simply shared a personal anecdote, nothing more nothing less.
Just Add Water
|
|
Marcus Heth
2
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 10:42:39 -
[111] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:So, does everyone have their own idea about how to make low-sec good, or have certain ideas/concepts started to get favor with the mass of low-sec players?
1) change high sec so each faction is on its own high sec island with no-man's land low sec in between. This also makes logistics and hauling more of a specialisation and creates a stronger sense of belonging within each faction, choices suddenly matter more.
2) move some of the needed minerals to low sec only, make it so you can't get them from reprocessing. This creates a drive for the more adventurous miner (rewarding the non-afk ones) and will end up creating more well rounded groups that do both mining as pvp/defence and ofcourse more pvp as a whole
3) remove the sec status loss upon podding, lots of people who want to dabble in low sec are scared of the sec status loss.
|
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
59999
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 19:27:24 -
[112] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:Orakkus wrote:So, does everyone have their own idea about how to make low-sec good, I don't know about everyone, but I do. Get rid of it. All you need is lawful space and lawless space. No need for some in between space that makes no one happy. Mr Epeen I agree, since low sec space is still owned by Empire Factions combine it with high sec and call it Empire Space. Null sec is Alliance Space.
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Supercapitals banned from low-sec (no more transit through or operating out of). CONCORD expanded to all low-sec systems (including FW systems). Players engaged in FW are legitimate targets for each other (but cannot attack neutrals without a wardec, and vice-versa).
Then I'm fine with relocating L4 agents and Incursions to low-sec. Without CONCORD anything is a deal breaker. I agree and it would definitely get a lot more players going into 0.4 to 0.1 systems.
Since there's already plenty of lv 4 Agents currently in low sec space, all CCP needs to do is just remove lv 4 Agents from 1.0 to 0.5 systems.
No to having Concord active in FW systems. Those are battlefields, no man's land, enter at your own risk, all civilians are forewarned to stay clear. Just have the game issue a warning (option to disable) after setting destination if travel route includes a FW system.
Since 0.4 to 0.1 systems is Empire Space, Concord response time would be lower in each consecutive lower system security level. That would give suicide gankers plenty of killmails.
Gate Camping would be outlawed in Empire Space due to obstruction of traffic flow. Those loitering (camping) at Gates would incur Sentry Gun fire after a set amount of time has expired. Also Sentry Guns would no longer 'Fire & Forget' when flagged pilots jump out of range and back in again. Sentry Guns would also be updated with the new AI that will switch target to the biggest threat level on grid.
For those who want to do solo PvP action, just turn the Duel mechanic into a 'Death Duel' (pod kill allowed) that allows no outside interference from others and no security status change from Empire.
Anyway, it'll never happen but hey, one can dream, right ?
DMC
'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4005
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 07:31:01 -
[113] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:Mr Epeen wrote:Orakkus wrote:So, does everyone have their own idea about how to make low-sec good, I don't know about everyone, but I do. Get rid of it. All you need is lawful space and lawless space. No need for some in between space that makes no one happy. Mr Epeen I agree, since low sec space is still owned by Empire Factions combine it with high sec and call it Empire Space. Null sec is Alliance Space. Arthur Aihaken wrote:Supercapitals banned from low-sec (no more transit through or operating out of). CONCORD expanded to all low-sec systems (including FW systems). Players engaged in FW are legitimate targets for each other (but cannot attack neutrals without a wardec, and vice-versa).
Then I'm fine with relocating L4 agents and Incursions to low-sec. Without CONCORD anything is a deal breaker. I agree and it would definitely get a lot more players going into 0.4 to 0.1 systems. Since there's already plenty of lv 4 Agents currently in low sec space, all CCP needs to do is just remove lv 4 Agents from 1.0 to 0.5 systems. No to having Concord active in FW systems. Those are battlefields, no man's land, enter at your own risk, all civilians are forewarned to stay clear. Just have the game issue a warning (option to disable) after setting destination if travel route includes a FW system. Since 0.4 to 0.1 systems is Empire Space, Concord response time would be lower in each consecutive lower system security level. That would give suicide gankers plenty of killmails. Gate Camping would be outlawed in Empire Space due to obstruction of traffic flow. Those loitering (camping) at Gates would incur Sentry Gun fire after a set amount of time has expired. Also Sentry Guns would no longer 'Fire & Forget' when flagged pilots jump out of range and back in again. Sentry Guns would also be updated with the new AI that will switch target to the biggest threat level on grid. For those who want to do solo PvP action, just turn the Duel mechanic into a 'Death Duel' (pod kill allowed) that allows no outside interference from others and no security status change from Empire. Anyway, it'll never happen but hey, one can dream, right ? DMC
Are you too scared to go to losec without concord?, it's about "fixing" lower, not turning it into highec, doesn't do anything for game apart from cater to higher carebears
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Salvos Rhoska
2416
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 10:30:52 -
[114] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:it's about "fixing" lower
What, exactly, do you propose yourself towards that?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University Amarr Empire
451
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 10:37:40 -
[115] - Quote
IMO lowsec primarily needs a reason for people to be there. The types who live in lowsec are predators and they need prey. There needs to be some incentive to get out of highsec and into low. I also would agree that supers should be prohibited to prevent nullsec groups dominating lowsec as well. Lowsec should be sheltered from the big boys in null but provide a hunting ground for those looking for that style of play.
A case for more AoE in EvE
|
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
55
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 11:15:08 -
[116] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
You can still cloak and deliver your payload. I lost a fail Muninn to a Panther once in LS. Didnt require a cyno.
There is nothing stopping people counter dropping. ie after a while you should have an idea how much cloaky shite is going to come through on various droppers cynos, and you should have an idea whether your counter drop is sufficient for the kind of fight you want.
I also find lowsec works for me for pve content consumption (escalations generally), its a great replacement for the good ole days when every nullsec pvp pilot lived in one of about 5 systems (because of the stupid power projection), and I was able to rent a system for myself. |
Salvos Rhoska
2416
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 11:25:26 -
[117] - Quote
Coralas wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
You can still cloak and deliver your payload. I lost a fail Muninn to a Panther once in LS. Didnt require a cyno.
There is nothing stopping people counter dropping. ie after a while you should have an idea how much cloaky shite is going to come through on various droppers cynos, and you should have an idea whether your counter drop is sufficient for the kind of fight you want. I also find lowsec works for me for pve content consumption (escalations generally), its a great replacement for the good ole days when every nullsec pvp pilot lived in one of about 5 systems (because of the stupid power projection), and I was able to rent a system for myself. How did you get this ^ out of what I wrote.
Cynos dont belong in LS. They belong in NS.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
55
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 11:27:52 -
[118] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:IMO lowsec primarily needs a reason for people to be there. The types who live in lowsec are predators and they need prey. There needs to be some incentive to get out of highsec and into low. I also would agree that supers should be prohibited to prevent nullsec groups dominating lowsec as well. Lowsec should be sheltered from the big boys in null but provide a hunting ground for those looking for that style of play.
Can't actually remember the last time I jumped in on 50 players in the 1 lowsec system. Usually when I saw that it was getting in and out of Vale (through Obe), and they were usually camped on the lowsec side of the null gate, not on the lowsec side of a highsec gate - ie a place that would not interdict anyone just doing lowsec content. I never died to them either, went through the camps many times with loot onboard.
My actual experiences with doing content in low, is pass through a small gatecamp, find small groups of 5 active players that get very prickly if you take their content, lots of 5.0s in stations, or running errands for goo towers, lots of newbies in scanning frigates, and the routine passage of scout/solos/small gangs. If you don't offer the scout much in the way of an obvious target, you just have to be patient and you'll get your content done. |
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
55
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 11:33:50 -
[119] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Coralas wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
You can still cloak and deliver your payload. I lost a fail Muninn to a Panther once in LS. Didnt require a cyno.
There is nothing stopping people counter dropping. ie after a while you should have an idea how much cloaky shite is going to come through on various droppers cynos, and you should have an idea whether your counter drop is sufficient for the kind of fight you want. I also find lowsec works for me for pve content consumption (escalations generally), its a great replacement for the good ole days when every nullsec pvp pilot lived in one of about 5 systems (because of the stupid power projection), and I was able to rent a system for myself. How did you get this ^ out of what I wrote. Cynos dont belong in LS. They belong in NS. Cynos overstep, circumvent and perforate the safety mechanics of LS, especially those of gatecamps which are one of their few ways to prevent passing through their territory from the NS angle.
I'm saying that people dropping cynos are not safe. ie the mechanism is self balanced and is fine in lowsec.
|
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics Federation Uprising
759
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 11:43:42 -
[120] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote: How did you get this ^ out of what I wrote.
Cynos dont belong in LS. They belong in NS.
Cynos overstep, circumvent and perforate the safety mechanics of LS, especially those of gatecamps which are one of their few ways to prevent passing through their territory from the NS angle, or back out when returning to NS (especially laden with goods from HS).
you really must be trolling you mofo...
so you want JFs to slow boat and use gate from NS to HS and vice versa?
you want to kill NS' economy?
Just Add Water
|
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners Test Alliance Please Ignore
15349
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 13:27:59 -
[121] - Quote
On thing that is never talk about when it comes to rewards and low sec is history.
CCP noticed early on that low sec was unpopular. So low sec because one of the places that got new "content" 1st. Lvl 5 missions were an explicit attempt by CCP to make low sec attractive. They failed, and not just because of the bug that allowed people to generate lvl 5 missions in high sec (that took 4 years to fix, you STILL hear some people talking about 'bring lvl 5s back to low sec) lol.
Likewise, it was no coincidence that Faction Warfare was planted firmly in low sec. After that, there came YEARS of CCP stuffing new PVE content into low, clone soldiers, the addition of all the high sec DED complex levels to low sec, the expansion of the DED 4/5/6 loot tables (dropping the BEST deadspace loot in the game, pithum and gistum invulnerability fields and the like), and the way certain exploration sites appear more frequently there than anywhere else.
None of it worked, so if someone is suggesting "more rewards" for low sec, they should look at the history (and the history of null too). More rewards don't mean more people, it means organized groups go in and find a way to farm. Those organized groups are great at keeping people out, meaning LESS people will come out to low, not more.
What would I do. for people who know me this might seem surprising, but I'd add a version of CONCORD to low sec.
Not "blap them off their field" super magical high sec CONCORD, a new division of CONCORD that acts like the NPC Mining Operations (mining operations protect you if you have proper standings, though this new division would not be standings based). If someone attacks someone else illegally in low sec, these new NPCs would spawn and HELP the person being attacked, with remote repairs and/or some DPS and/or EWar against the attacker(s) (or maybe even something fancy like opening a wormhole entrance on grid for you to escape into if you can just get to it lol).
But, unlike high sec CONCORD, these npcs could be killed and don't have magical Dommsdays and such. And their spawns would be super random, from a few frigates to a squadron of battlecruisers (to simulate the idea that these police NPCs couldn't be everywhere at once).
IMO the problem with low sec is that the safety cliff is TOO steep, Low sec isn't any safer than null, gate guns and station guns are non issues. So as I said above the fix is a little bit of NPC help, not a lot, but enough to even up the odds for well prepared players. |
Inxentas Ultramar
Ultramar Independent Contracting
1758
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 13:45:55 -
[122] - Quote
Jenn aSide, I remember when Clone Tags were introduced. We actually opened an office in a 2.0 system around that time, with the idea that the tags that drop in 0.2 systems were (1) what we needed to combat sec-status drops and (2) the best in terms of monetary value. We ended up keeping people out of our system harder as a result.
No matter how many rewards CCP adds to lowsec, actually living there requires a mindset not many players possess. You'd need to appreciate both the freedom you get, as well as the restrictions placed upon you. I for one have always loved what lowsec offered. Underestimated PVE content, near-impossibility to block traffic, and a population that plays for the challenge and the fun.
My advice would be "don't change a thing". Lowsec is actually a lot better then it used to be. I can't say if people are still fighting a lot over lowsecs resources, but when I played extensively this was always the case. |
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4005
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 14:00:58 -
[123] - Quote
Inxentas Ultramar wrote:My advice would be "don't change a thing". Lowsec is actually a lot better then it used to be. I can't say if people are still fighting a lot over lowsecs resources, but when I played extensively this was always the case.
this.
i dont really see any need to change much in lowsec apart from add in pirate faction warfare
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Salvos Rhoska
2416
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 14:16:06 -
[124] - Quote
Nat Silverguard wrote:you really must be trolling you mofo...
so you want JFs to slow boat and use gate from NS to HS and vice versa?
you want to kill the economy?
No, you trolling fafo.
Read the thread.
I want JFs out of LS entirely, and Im not the only one.
I want to save the economy. Jita is a cancer killing the economy. Everyday, entity powers wax and wane throughout EVE, yet everyday, Jitas trade value just grows and grows. Its already many thousands of % greater than the combined trade value of any number of entire regions combined. Jita is a tumor that as it grows ever larger, sucks more and more content out of the rest of the game.
Wake up, man. Put your own interests aside for even one second and think of the health of the game.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3189
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 14:28:52 -
[125] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:i dont really get where this sort of idea comes from, i cant really put m finger on how this would benefit anything
Its not about benefiting anyone. Its about rationalizing the game systems/mechanics.
It still has to benefit the game itself. No cynos and CAP in LS mean a lot of stuff currently happening there right now is gone. Do you really think all those activities will be replaced? DO you think enough people will flow to LS because it now has no cynos to replace those that will leave LS because there are no more cynos? I personally doubt it but if you have some info that could convince me otherwise, you are free to show it. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3189
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 14:29:39 -
[126] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Inxentas Ultramar wrote:My advice would be "don't change a thing". Lowsec is actually a lot better then it used to be. I can't say if people are still fighting a lot over lowsecs resources, but when I played extensively this was always the case. this. i dont really see any need to change much in lowsec apart from add in pirate faction warfare
You mean like enroling for Guristas or something entirely different? |
Salvos Rhoska
2416
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 14:30:49 -
[127] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:it's about "fixing" lower For the second time.
What, exactly, do you propose yourself towards that?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3189
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 14:31:26 -
[128] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Nat Silverguard wrote:you really must be trolling you mofo...
so you want JFs to slow boat and use gate from NS to HS and vice versa?
you want to kill the economy? No, you trolling fafo. Read the thread. I want JFs out of LS entirely, and Im not the only one. Drastic? Yes, perhaps, but its clear to everyone how JFs are exploiting the hell out of LS/citadel/cyno/geography mechanics. I want to save the economy. Jita is a cancer killing the economy. Everyday, entity powers wax and wane throughout EVE, yet everyday, Jitas trade value just grows and grows. Its already many thousands of % greater than the combined trade value of any number of entire regions combined. Jita is a tumor that as it grows ever larger, sucks more and more content out of the rest of the game. Wake up, man. Put your own interests aside for even one second and think of the health of the game. JFs are the primary culprit of material transport past/over/through the LS "blood barrier" between HS and NS, and back.
What's the problem with stuff moving if it will get destroyed but just in a different place? |
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4006
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 14:36:17 -
[129] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Lan Wang wrote:Inxentas Ultramar wrote:My advice would be "don't change a thing". Lowsec is actually a lot better then it used to be. I can't say if people are still fighting a lot over lowsecs resources, but when I played extensively this was always the case. this. i dont really see any need to change much in lowsec apart from add in pirate faction warfare You mean like enroling for Guristas or something entirely different?
yes
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4006
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 14:40:35 -
[130] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:it's about "fixing" lower For the second time. What, exactly, do you propose yourself towards that?
i dont really see anything which requires any sort of drastic changes like you and a few others suggested, this is the 2nd time i have said this.
1. remove gate/station guns (hurts solo/micro gang pvp) 2. remove recons dscan immunity when in fw plexes (thats cancer). 3. ban stabs from fw plexes 4. add in pirate faction warfare
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
|
Salvos Rhoska
2416
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 15:07:03 -
[131] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:On thing that is never talk about when it comes to rewards and low sec is history.
CCP noticed early on that low sec was unpopular. So low sec because one of the places that got new "content" 1st. Lvl 5 missions were an explicit attempt by CCP to make low sec attractive. They failed, and not just because of the bug that allowed people to generate lvl 5 missions in high sec (that took 4 years to fix, you STILL hear some people talking about 'bring lvl 5s back to low sec) lol.
Likewise, it was no coincidence that Faction Warfare was planted firmly in low sec. After that, there came YEARS of CCP stuffing new PVE content into low, clone soldiers, the addition of all the high sec DED complex levels to low sec, the expansion of the DED 4/5/6 loot tables (dropping the BEST deadspace loot in the game, pithum and gistum invulnerability fields and the like), and the way certain exploration sites appear more frequently there than anywhere else.
None of it worked, so if someone is suggesting "more rewards" for low sec, they should look at the history (and the history of null too). More rewards don't mean more people, it means organized groups go in and find a way to farm. Those organized groups are great at keeping people out, meaning LESS people will come out to low, not more.
What would I do. for people who know me this might seem surprising, but I'd add a version of CONCORD to low sec.
Not "blap them off their field" super magical high sec CONCORD, a new division of CONCORD that acts like the NPC Mining Operations (mining operations protect you if you have proper standings, though this new division would not be standings based). If someone attacks someone else illegally in low sec, these new NPCs would spawn and HELP the person being attacked, with remote repairs and/or some DPS and/or EWar against the attacker(s) (or maybe even something fancy like opening a wormhole entrance on grid for you to escape into if you can just get to it lol).
But, unlike high sec CONCORD, these npcs could be killed and don't have magical Dommsdays and such. And their spawns would be super random, from a few frigates to a squadron of battlecruisers (to simulate the idea that these police NPCs couldn't be everywhere at once).
IMO the problem with low sec is that the safety cliff is TOO steep, Low sec isn't any safer than null, gate guns and station guns are non issues. So as I said above the fix is a little bit of NPC help, not a lot, but enough to even up the odds for well prepared players.
Hmm, so lets consider examples:
1) John is on his return trip from HS, through LS to NS, in his JF (or other hauler) filled with goods, and gets caught (by some miracle) before he can warp/cyno out.
Suddenly random CONCORD ships show up, repair him, attack/ewar aggressors, and give him a wormhole opportunity for escape! Hurray! John is saved!
2) John is doing the same, except cynos/warps in from NS with tasty cargo for tasty HS markets and gets caught (by some miracle). Hurray! Random CONCORD fleet to the rescue!
3) Bob, the LS hauler is attacked by an NS sourced aggressor! OH NOES THIS IS ILLEGAL! Random CONCORD appears. NS doesnt like that. So they cyno drop a super fleet ontop of CONCORD and the LS hauler. Nomnomnom!
Dont get me wrong, Im glad you finally, for once in your life, attempted to make a suggestion of change. But now you see what its like to be critiqued, and how much consideration it takes to make one. No more yelling Malcani's Law from the peanut gallery. Your own suggestion violates it above.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2417
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 15:46:01 -
[132] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:it's about "fixing" lower For the second time. What, exactly, do you propose yourself towards that? i dont really see anything
How do these:
A) Prevent JF cyno+citadel/station hopping through LS in almost complete safety? LS has its hands tied to intercept the insane HS/NS transit of materials.
B) Prevent NS neighbors dropping with impunity across and over the border on far smaller entities in LS?
C) FW LS, is distinct from LS. They are as different as NPC/Player NS. Your attempt at conflating the two doesnt fly. It insults the intelligence of this thread.
Cynos have no place in LS, period. Neither do JFs, and neither do supers. These are NS toys/tools.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4008
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 16:09:52 -
[133] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:it's about "fixing" lower For the second time. What, exactly, do you propose yourself towards that? i dont really see anything How do these: A) Prevent JF cyno+citadel/station hopping through LS in almost complete safety? LS has its hands tied to intercept the insane HS/NS transit of materials. B) Prevent NS neighbors dropping with impunity across and over the border on far smaller entities in LS? C) FW LS, is distinct from LS. They are as different as NPC/Player NS. Your attempt at conflating the two doesnt fly. It insults the intelligence of this thread.
A) as mentioned you will just ruin the economy with such a drastic change. moving caps in safety has always been a thing.
B) that hasnt really been an issue since before jump fatigue was introduced, was it even an issue then?
C) insult the intelligence of this thread? you asked for my ideas so i gave them to you, is faction warfare in lowsec? yes, does my list only affect fw players? no it affects anyone living in lowsec. i live in lowsec as a pirate which means i dont participate in faction warfare however i do slide into fw plexes for pvp and i do gatecamp so i get gateguns, and i would like pirate faction warfare. i know the difference between the 2 but they affect people regardless if they are fw or not.
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics Federation Uprising
761
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 16:27:19 -
[134] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Nat Silverguard wrote:you really must be trolling you mofo...
so you want JFs to slow boat and use gate from NS to HS and vice versa?
you want to kill the economy? No, you trolling fafo. Read the thread. I want JFs out of LS entirely, and Im not the only one. Drastic? Yes, perhaps, but its clear to everyone how JFs are exploiting the hell out of LS/citadel/cyno/geography mechanics. I want to save the economy. Jita is a cancer killing the economy. Everyday, entity powers wax and wane throughout EVE, yet everyday, Jitas trade value just grows and grows. Its already many thousands of % greater than the combined trade value of any number of entire regions combined. Jita is a tumor that as it grows ever larger, sucks more and more content out of the rest of the game. Wake up, man. Put your own interests aside for even one second and think of the health of the game. JFs are the primary culprit of material transport past/over/through the LS "blood barrier" between HS and NS, and back.
do you think each area can supply and produce the raw materials it needs to produce the ships/mod they need?
are you fcking s2pid?
who in his right mind would go to NS from either HS or LS just to buy pirate LP stuff using the gates?
again, are you fcking s2pid?
Just Add Water
|
Salvos Rhoska
2417
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 16:28:56 -
[135] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:What's the problem with stuff moving if it will get destroyed but just in a different place? A) This material is not being destroyed sufficiently, anywhere, in transit. Hence, Jita.
B) Yes, I understand your question/point about overall destruction, but that is currently happening after most of the constituent materials have passed through Jita atleast once. Note: Through Jita. Not other markets.
C) Material transport is so safe, hence cheap and easy, across all sectors and by various mechanics, that a disproportionate amount ends up in Jita, no matter how far its origin.
D) Jita is strangling the diversity/localisation/opportunity of sector/region markets. This is not a result of player behavior. That is only a symptom.
The problem is LS not functioning as a barrier between HS and NS.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics Federation Uprising
761
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 16:29:06 -
[136] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote: Cynos have no place in LS, period. Neither do JFs, and neither do supers. These are NS toys/tools.
good thing you are not working in CCP.
these s2pid ideas will immediately kill EvE.
Just Add Water
|
Salvos Rhoska
2417
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 16:45:05 -
[137] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:
A) as mentioned you will just ruin the economy with such a drastic change. moving caps in safety has always been a thing.
B) that hasnt really been an issue since before jump fatigue was introduced, was it even an issue then?
C) insult the intelligence of this thread? you asked for my ideas so i gave them to you, is faction warfare in lowsec? yes, does my list only affect fw players? no it affects anyone living in lowsec. i live in lowsec as a pirate which means i dont participate in faction warfare however i do slide into fw plexefve the economy..
A) How will more local markets ruin the economy? Jita, and the feeding safety of material transit across sectors, is ruining the economy. Are you not aware of Jita/Forge stats?
Also lol at "moving caps in safety has always been a thing". You should be flogged and tarred for that.
B) Jump fatigue plays no part in securing a JF in a Citadel/station.
C) LS and FW LS are as distinct as NPC/Player NS.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Torin Corax
Game of Roams
278
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 16:51:13 -
[138] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
What would I do. for people who know me this might seem surprising, but I'd add a version of CONCORD to low sec.
Not "blap them off their field" super magical high sec CONCORD, a new division of CONCORD that acts like the NPC Mining Operations (mining operations protect you if you have proper standings, though this new division would not be standings based). If someone attacks someone else illegally in low sec, these new NPCs would spawn and HELP the person being attacked, with remote repairs and/or some DPS and/or EWar against the attacker(s) (or maybe even something fancy like opening a wormhole entrance on grid for you to escape into if you can just get to it lol).
But, unlike high sec CONCORD, these npcs could be killed and don't have magical Dommsdays and such. And their spawns would be super random, from a few frigates to a squadron of battlecruisers (to simulate the idea that these police NPCs couldn't be everywhere at once).
IMO the problem with low sec is that the safety cliff is TOO steep, Low sec isn't any safer than null, gate guns and station guns are non issues. So as I said above the fix is a little bit of NPC help, not a lot, but enough to even up the odds for well prepared players.
Essentially this idea would completely kill solo PvP in Low sec....and I do mean completely...As far as non-consensual PvP goes anyway. Grinding standings is a pathetically easy endeavor, which is one of the reasons I'm not a huge fan of using (NPC) standings as a way of "controlling" PvP activities. Predictable NPC interference in Low sec PvP is something I would fight against to the bitter end. Bearing in mind that most of my time spent in low sec is dedicated to non-PvP activities, I don't want NPC "protection"....that defeats the whole point of being in low sec, I might as well go to HS and make more isk/hour at that point.
Imho the problem with low sec isn't so much the safety, for me at least that's actually one of the main attractions, but the efficiency. Any activity that requires a reasonable time expenditure, mining for example, is generally far more efficient in HS ( or Null) simply due to time lost because of "interruption" and the requirement to safe/ dock at a moments notice. While the ores themselves might be more valuable, the lost time adds up. Then there is the matter of hauling to trade, which can be interesting depending on the area. Granted, there are areas of low sec that are relatively inactive, and the more time-consuming activities can be reasonable lucrative, however they are still subject to the problems above. Anyone who does the math can see that the most efficient use of time is to go mine in HS.
Where Low sec does start to shine is in activities like exploration. Activities that can be pursued by small ships, with relatively short "exposure" times when actively engaged in a site. It can be risky, and should remain so, but it's not dependent on having to sit in a single location for extended periods. It's in this area that I think low sec could be made more attractive to people. Building on a principal of "hit and run" style PvE, even activities like mining could be encouraged....but it has to be at least as efficient as HS mining to be worthwhile to the general population.
Risk v. Reward is broken in HS. Until this is addressed the issues of Low sec will remain extremely hard to sort out. But the addition of "Concord light" is not the way to go imo.
|
Salvos Rhoska
2417
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 17:00:13 -
[139] - Quote
Nat Silverguard wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote: Cynos have no place in LS, period. Neither do JFs, and neither do supers. These are NS toys/tools.
good thing you are not working in CCP. these s2pid ideas will immediately kill EvE.
Thanks, fafo.
Your response proves Im infact on the right trail to save EVE.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4008
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 17:02:18 -
[140] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:
A) as mentioned you will just ruin the economy with such a drastic change. moving caps in safety has always been a thing.
B) that hasnt really been an issue since before jump fatigue was introduced, was it even an issue then?
C) insult the intelligence of this thread? you asked for my ideas so i gave them to you, is faction warfare in lowsec? yes, does my list only affect fw players? no it affects anyone living in lowsec. i live in lowsec as a pirate which means i dont participate in faction warfare however i do slide into fw plexefve the economy..
A) How will more local markets ruin the economy? Jita, and the feeding safety of material transit across sectors, is ruining the economy. Are you not aware of Jita/Forge stats? Also lol at "moving caps in safety has always been a thing". You should be flogged and tarred for that. B) Jump fatigue plays no part in securing a JF in a Citadel/station. C) LS and FW LS are as distinct as NPC/Player NS.
A) making logistics harder will obviously affect the market. yes moving capitals in safety has been a thing, if you cant move a capital safely across eve you dont deserve one
B) JF's play no part in nullsec entities roflstomping lowsec entities with capitals which is what you implied.
C) no they are not, anyone can operate in fw space regardless if you are participating in fw or not, plexes are visible to anyone and are common pvp zones for fw/pirates/solo players, please dont compare fw/ls to be the same as npc/sov nullsec
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3190
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 17:12:37 -
[141] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:What's the problem with stuff moving if it will get destroyed but just in a different place? A) This material is not being destroyed sufficiently, anywhere, in transit. Hence, Jita. B) Yes, I understand your question/point about overall destruction, but that is currently happening after most of the constituent materials have passed through Jita atleast once. Note: Through Jita. Not other markets. C) Material transport is so safe, hence cheap and easy, across all sectors and by various mechanics, that a disproportionate amount ends up in Jita, no matter how far its origin. D) Jita is strangling the diversity/localisation/opportunity of sector/region markets. This is not a result of player behavior. That is only a symptom. The problem is LS not functioning as a barrier between HS and NS.
What exactly is the problem if a shitload of things get to Jita or any specific system except being convenient for people to buy all they need in one place so they can go pew after shopping at one place instead of 18?
You know why people build shopping center IRL instead of only small shops spread out across a city? Because it ******* work. |
Salvos Rhoska
2417
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 17:16:29 -
[142] - Quote
Nat Silverguard wrote: do you think each area can supply and produce the raw materials it needs to produce the ships/mod they need?
are you fcking s2pid?
Ofc not. J-space loot cant be sourced in k-space. Ice can only be sourced in ice system belts.. Etc etc.
Are you so fking s2tpid you think removing cynos, JF and supers from LS, will entirely stop flow of goods?
You dont need cynos, JFs or supers in LS for that.
Nat Silverguard wrote:who in his right mind would go to NS from either HS or LS just to buy pirate LP stuff using the gates? again, arebyou fkking s2pid?
Are you so fkking s2pid you think removing cynos, JF and supers from LS will prevent people from buying pirate LP stuff or bringing it to HS?
Ofc not.
You arent making sense. Think. Use your head before you write.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Inxentas Ultramar
Ultramar Independent Contracting
1759
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 17:22:09 -
[143] - Quote
Torin, I mine in lowsec with 10% better yield. This interruption theory only holds up when you'd expect to be in the belts non-stop, without corpmates around. I actually want to be the bait while I suck roids for my next batch of replaceable PvP ships. It really depends on your playstyle whether interruption is actually a bad thing. To me it never was, because I am a small time manufacturer / miner and I get a lot of efficiency elsewhere. Like renting slots at stations. Less POS requirements. Zero competition on better yield ores, etc. |
Torin Corax
Game of Roams
279
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 17:30:44 -
[144] - Quote
Inxentas Ultramar wrote:Torin, I mine in lowsec with 10% better yield. This interruption theory only holds up when you'd expect to be in the belts non-stop, without corpmates around. I actually want to be the bait while I suck roids for my next batch of replaceable PvP ships. It really depends on your playstyle whether interruption is actually a bad thing. To me it never was, because I am a small time manufacturer / miner and I get a lot of efficiency elsewhere. Like renting slots at stations. Less POS requirements. Zero competition on better yield ores, etc.
Fair point.
If you have the infrastructure and support to exploit low sec successfully then it can work. You feelings towards interruptions largely match my own, that's why I mine in low sec.
That said. If mining solo, with no corpies around, I can make more isk/ hour in high sec. My choice of ships, fittings and playstyle is dependent on where I am. HS allows for uninterrupted mining with a focus on yield. Granted the ore is better in LS to a degree, but from my own experience ( limited as it is), on an extended mining session HS just pays out better. That said I'm not a builder, and most of the ore I mine will go for sale.....tbh most of the ore I mine in LS is Ice. |
Salvos Rhoska
2417
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 17:34:35 -
[145] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:What's the problem with stuff moving if it will get destroyed but just in a different place? A) This material is not being destroyed sufficiently, anywhere, in transit. Hence, Jita. B) Yes, I understand your question/point about overall destruction, but that is currently happening after most of the constituent materials have passed through Jita atleast once. Note: Through Jita. Not other markets. C) Material transport is so safe, hence cheap and easy, across all sectors and by various mechanics, that a disproportionate amount ends up in Jita, no matter how far its origin. D) Jita is strangling the diversity/localisation/opportunity of sector/region markets. This is not a result of player behavior. That is only a symptom. The problem is LS not functioning as a barrier between HS and NS. What exactly is the problem if a shitload of things get to Jita or any specific system except being convenient for people to buy all they need in one place so they can go pew after shopping at one place instead of 18? You know why people build shopping center IRL instead of only small shops spread out across a city? Because it ******* work. h Think about that.
Are you so naive that you cant see the problem with one mall in EVE that utterly eclipses all others by tens of thousands of trade value %?
If you cant see the problem in that, leave EVE. EVE is about competition, interaction and conflict.
Jita is an NPC center of trade, enabled by failed mechanics, down all trade lanes to and from.
Its an abomination. Empires rise and fall everyday in EVE, yet Jita only grows.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3190
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 17:41:55 -
[146] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:What's the problem with stuff moving if it will get destroyed but just in a different place? A) This material is not being destroyed sufficiently, anywhere, in transit. Hence, Jita. B) Yes, I understand your question/point about overall destruction, but that is currently happening after most of the constituent materials have passed through Jita atleast once. Note: Through Jita. Not other markets. C) Material transport is so safe, hence cheap and easy, across all sectors and by various mechanics, that a disproportionate amount ends up in Jita, no matter how far its origin. D) Jita is strangling the diversity/localisation/opportunity of sector/region markets. This is not a result of player behavior. That is only a symptom. The problem is LS not functioning as a barrier between HS and NS. What exactly is the problem if a shitload of things get to Jita or any specific system except being convenient for people to buy all they need in one place so they can go pew after shopping at one place instead of 18? You know why people build shopping center IRL instead of only small shops spread out across a city? Because it ******* work. h Think about that. Are you so naive that you cant see the problem with one mall in EVE that utterly eclipses all others by tens of thousands of trade value %? If you cant see the problem in that, leave EVE. EVE is about competition, interaction and conflict. Jita is an NPC center of trade, enabled by failed mechanics, down all trade lanes to and from. Its an abomination. Empires rise and fall everyday in EVE, yet Jita only grows. Jita is proof positive EVE systems are not working. I think that a central economic hub is better for the player base than scattered mini marts. I could be wrong of course but I highly doubt player would be thrilled to have to shop 18 palces to assemble a single ship so they can go PEW.
People already whine about how hard content is to find and you want them to spend extra time to get their ship in order before they can go look for content?
You might find "content" by killing a dude travelling from step 12 to step 13 trying to finally get his ship setup but as we know how people behave in EVE, chances are he will do his shopping in stuff that are hard to catch because he does not want to lose the progress he already made because module X was only available 1 region down the pipe. |
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University Amarr Empire
451
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 17:44:52 -
[147] - Quote
If highsec consisted of 4 Islands, one for each empire, surrounded by lowsec then the dominance of jita would fade somewhat. It would remain however for as long as nullsec groups continue to use it to source supplies. To be fair though, who can blame them for using an available market to source goods instead of going through the more painful process of building everything yourself. Having said that, if the 4 empires are split from each other logical price differences might emerge. This could lead groups to use Dodixie to source gallente ships for example, though jita may remain the faction mod hub.
A case for more AoE in EvE
|
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics Federation Uprising
762
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 17:46:23 -
[148] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Nat Silverguard wrote: do you think each area can supply and produce the raw materials it needs to produce the ships/mod they need?
are you fcking s2pid?
Ofc not. J-space loot cant be sourced in k-space. Ice can only be sourced in ice system belts.. Etc etc. Are you so fking s2tpid you think removing cynos, JF and supers from LS, will entirely stop flow of goods? You dont need cynos, JFs or supers in LS for that. Nat Silverguard wrote:who in his right mind would go to NS from either HS or LS just to buy pirate LP stuff using the gates? again, arebyou fkking s2pid? Are you so fkking s2pid you think removing cynos, JF and supers from LS will prevent people from buying pirate LP stuff or bringing it to HS? Ofc not. You arent making sense. Think. Use your head before you write.
you use your head mofo.
that's the point, you think with the increase in danger and difficulty which will lead to decrease in supplies will not make the prices of the goods to sky rocket and eventually fail?
fcking moron
Just Add Water
|
Torin Corax
Game of Roams
280
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 17:51:47 -
[149] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: I think that a central economic hub is better for the player base than scattered mini marts. I could be wrong of course but I highly doubt player would be thrilled to have to shop 18 palces to assemble a single ship so they can go PEW.
People already whine about how hard content is to find and you want them to spend extra time to get their ship in order before they can go look for content?
You might find "content" by killing a dude travelling from step 12 to step 13 trying to finally get his ship setup but as we know how people behave in EVE, chances are he will do his shopping in stuff that are hard to catch because he does not want to lose the progress he already made because module X was only available 1 region down the pipe.
To be fair, there are other hubs, and I've yet to have issues fitting out pretty much any ship at them. Dodixie, Amarr etc. As long as you're not looking for something seriously rare it's easy enough to find outside of Jita.
Personally, I'd suggest that a larger number of smaller hubs would actually benefit your " dude" looking to find a ship to pew in...after all what happens if said pew is happening a long way from Jita? If there were a larger number of smaller hubs it could become a lot easier to replace ships on short notice. Including Null-hubs perhaps supplied by local builders. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3190
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 17:54:40 -
[150] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:If highsec consisted of 4 Islands, one for each empire, surrounded by lowsec then the dominance of jita would fade somewhat. It would remain however for as long as nullsec groups continue to use it to source supplies. To be fair though, who can blame them for using an available market to source goods instead of going through the more painful process of building everything yourself. Having said that, if the 4 empires are split from each other logical price differences might emerge. This could lead groups to use Dodixie to source gallente ships for example, though jita may remain the faction mod hub.
Why would you build your ship in Gal space? Just move your operation to the Caldari bandwagon island and live there. |
|
Salvos Rhoska
2417
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 17:55:34 -
[151] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Snip Listen to yourself.
Are you seriously trying to justify an HS NPC trade hub with trade value that utterly eclipses all the entire regions of EVE combined?
Its insane.st
Jita is an abomination that should never have happened in EVE.
That it did, and has, and persists, and grows, proves positively there are systemic/mechanical issues that need addressing.
The LS barrier between HS and NS, is the primary failing system.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Maximillian Bonaparte
Interstellar Booty Hunters
135
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 18:07:49 -
[152] - Quote
renwahh wrote:The only change I would make to Low Sec is
Option to deploy bubbles.
Option to bomb stuff.
Give sentries a higher damage output
only difference would be the sentries and sec status compared to high and null sec
NO!!
The nice thing about a free-to-pew area with no bubbles is that you can move around MUCH faster.
Increasing gate gun damage would reduce 50% of the pvp in lwosec...lets not do that!
Lowsec is mostly for fast paced PvP, not null-bears like you might be . :)
|
Salvos Rhoska
2417
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 18:08:27 -
[153] - Quote
Nat Silverguard wrote:you use your head mofo.
that's the point, you think with the increase in danger and difficulty which will lead to decrease in supplies will not make the prices of the goods to sky rocket and eventually fail?
fcking moron Lolwat.
Do I "think with the increase in danger and difficulty which will lead to decrease in supplies will not make the prices of the goods to sky rocket and eventually fail?"
So you admit removing cynos, JFs and supers from LS will increase danger and difficulty. Good. Will that reduce supply? No, just localise it, for others to move forward. Will it raise prices? Yes. That is good for you, moron. If you have the brains to bring it to local markets.
"Eventually fail" Doesnt work that way, fafo.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Maximillian Bonaparte
Interstellar Booty Hunters
135
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 18:13:19 -
[154] - Quote
Ijon-Tichy wrote:I would change low-sec like that: - Get rid of sec status in low, it is just a nuisance. Gate and stations guns would get obsolete that way too. - Ban capitals and make it a glorious battlefield for battleship fleets.
You could do, however I like my RED sec status. Its psychological. BUT it would be nice if there was something more tenable to it...something that criminals get that others cannot if we are punished from access to highsec.
Perhaps access to more pirate agents IN lowsec... Perhaps the ability to where certain pirate skins. Perhaps a special kind of incursion for pirates only?
Something...
Other than that I am fine with lowsec as it is. I only wish there was a little more of it. :)
Also, its hard as **** to recruit people into lowsec PvP (good people) as simple pirates. |
Salvos Rhoska
2417
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 18:26:14 -
[155] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:If highsec consisted of 4 Islands, one for each empire, surrounded by lowsec then the dominance of jita would fade somewhat. It would remain however for as long as nullsec groups continue to use it to source supplies. To be fair though, who can blame them for using an available market to source goods instead of going through the more painful process of building everything yourself. Having said that, if the 4 empires are split from each other logical price differences might emerge. This could lead groups to use Dodixie to source gallente ships for example, though jita may remain the faction mod hub.
Seconded. Will explain tomorrow.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Inxentas Ultramar
Ultramar Independent Contracting
1759
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 19:48:43 -
[156] - Quote
Fair points also Torin. Inclusion of minor caches of such ores would be welcome, perhaps entice me to mine more as well. I know cap builders import lots of ore from HS but that's fine in my view, it causes traffic. That same group has ice miners that do mine lowsec in greater capacity, because they aren't yield-focussed (nor need they be in their numbers) they actually get lots of overconfidence-kills.
I see no reason to meddle with traffic mechanics although I would love to see gate / station gun ownership. By that I mean a simple on / off toggle, not targetting mechanics, in the hands of player corps.
Those who say lowest cyno traffic is too safe clearly hasn't flown with our friends, although I have not asked how watch list removal has impacted their piracy. They do not require bubbles, that much I know. |
000Hunter000
Missiles 'R' Us
148
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 19:56:54 -
[157] - Quote
Tisiphone Dira wrote:lvl 4 missions, out of HS, restricted to low/null
Incursions, out of HS, restricted to low/null
Basically everything but veldspar, out of HS.
Ramp up the market taxes and fees in HS gradually but continually, until decent LS hubs pop up (once they pop up you may be able to slightly lower the taxes again, you need them higher initially to overcome the inertia).
Basically nothing 'end game' should be in HS.
Edit: Oh and wardec fees made much cheaper. Wars for everybody, war is good for the eve economy
LMFAO! So basicaly, u want to kill off EVE? |
Vic Jefferson
Knights of Poitot Rote Kapelle
1203
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 20:36:50 -
[158] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:The LS barrier between HS and NS, is the primary failing system.
I could be very wrong, but as far as I know, the economy is much different on Serenity. Now elucidating a single, tractable cause, yeah that's not going to happen, but, again, as far as I know, they have the same map, and not nearly as severe a case of "Jita Syndrome', so clearly the map isn't the only thing that explains it.
I think you also may be discounting the impact the Rorqual and Industrial Complexes are having on solving so called 'Jita Syndrome'.
Of course, neither of those two really help low-sec. I'm not sure if it implies CCP is happy with a zero-sum, all the content and the tools to make content go to the null-blocs paradigm they are building, but they sure aren't giving any honest signals they care at all about Low Sec or NPC null.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
|
Orakkus
Imperium Technologies DARKNESS.
331
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 21:22:40 -
[159] - Quote
I think we need to split low-sec up into a couple different categories.
You need a faction war low-sec and an NPC mobster (affiliated with a NPC pirate group) low-sec, each with their own rules. That would be a good start. FW low-sec would be as it is right now without capitals. It should be a sort of limited proxy war area between the four major nations. Success should allow some areas to be temporary high-sec, so that industry options can be explored, including some of the options I will be discussing for Pirate low-sec.
Mobster low-sec should be a "pay to play" area with unique missions, rewards, and industrial opportunities. For example, there could be resources that are necessary for citadel operation. (personally, I think there should different illegal goods that a.) temporarily buff citadel services, b.) become more in demand for a citadel with the less services that citadel offers, c.) are used for buying influence in other Pirate low-sec areas). Mobster low-sec shouldn't be fair, but it should be nearly as safe as high-sec for those willing to cuddle up to the local Pirate Don. If Miner A has paid his dues, he should get local protection, but Miner B gets no such protection since he is just there in belt.. shoot he might even get shot by the NPC fleet. You pay more, but your rewards should be greater as well. Maybe pull drug collection and production out of null-sec and put it in low-sec, same with some of the higher level minerals found in high-sec.
Just a thought.
He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
|
March rabbit
Mosquito squadron The-Culture
2094
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 21:30:38 -
[160] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
I want JFs out of LS entirely, and Im not the only one. Drastic? Yes, perhaps, but its clear to everyone how JFs are exploiting the hell out of LS/citadel/cyno/geography mechanics.
At some point people used to carry their goods in other ships and with escort. Yea, that was not "fun" or anything....
What makes this thing currently impossible is: cyno. At any moment any ship can bring half of universe over your head.
What if low-sec bans cynos? Can it mean that JFs will cyno to nearest 0.0 system and then slowboat over low-sec to high-sec? They will need escort which CAN exist because what? Cyno is banned!
For some reason i don't think it will KILL 0.0-sec industry. We have wormholes too. It will make lives of JF -buddies harder. But it can provide low-seccers with more content (catching those who do not use escort or uses not enough of it).
Overall it looks interesting.
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
|
nezroy
Nice Clan
52
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 23:16:52 -
[161] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:None of it worked, so if someone is suggesting "more rewards" for low sec, they should look at the history (and the history of null too).
Your points and the replies to it don't actually illustrate that putting more rewards in low sec is a bad idea. They mostly illustrate that CCP does not understand the TYPE of rewards they need to put into low sec to make it interesting.
What makes FW so successful is because 1) you can make ISK while flying a PvP ship and 2) the content is spread equally, or at least unpredictably, across the region.
The other things you mentioned that were added to low sec did not meet one or both of those criteria, which is why they led to stale content. CCP keeps trying to put null-style content in low; stuff that requires optimized PvE fits, focuses on locking down and controlling a region, and rewards running and hiding when neutrals show up. But the reality is that the random traffic and mechanics restrictions of low make this kind of content impractical.
The type of content low needs is different. It needs randomly spawning stuff that encourages roaming in proper PvP fits. It needs to reward staying in place rather than running, with payouts that are disproportionately weighted toward the final "victor" of a "king of the hill" style mechanic, rather than the consistent per-tick payouts of something like null ratting.
I'm not a content designer but, for instance, imagine a site that is a cross between an ESS and a FW plex. It requires you to bring some kind of one-time use, consumable "mobile lab" deployable. This is your buy-in. The lab has a 20 min timer. As the timer ticks down, the final value of the lab contents go up. The value would be back-weighted, so say 50% of the drop value is generated in the final 2 minutes of the timer. Timer runs down as long as any player is de-cloaked within, say, 100km. The base hull value of any player ships killed within 100km of the lab would be added to the final "pot" dropped by the lab. Rat spawns with reasonable buffer but low DPS would have their bounties added to the lab drop as well. Rats would spawn as fast as killed, and spawns would be dynamic and increase in size (and the size of their bounty added to the pot) based on the speed with which they were dispatched. Larger fleets or solo players bringing more DPS that can pop rats more quickly will get a higher final payout.
To retrieve the actual reward, the lab must be popped. This will drop the site's "pot" into a public container. The buffer HP on the lab would depend on the initial deployable used; small/solo players could bring smaller labs that are faster to pop at the end but are of course also more vulnerable to random alpha ganking. Faction variants of the lab could be used to add a multiplier to the pot values, with the risk of a much higher initial "buy in" to the site. If your site is sniped or you run early, you'll be out a lot more, but your potential pot drop at the end will be doubled or tripled, etc.
Anyway, I'm sure that thing is full of exploitable holes, but that's not the point. The implementation details can be ironed out. The basic gameplay mechanic that needs to be understood here is that low sec needs content that encourages people to roam in PvP fits and to remain in and fight over the content, rather than simply fleeing at the first sign of neutrals as happens with null content. FW was successful low-sec content because it accomplished these goals pretty well (stabbed plex farmers notwithstanding). |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
8245
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 23:34:01 -
[162] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:So, does everyone have their own idea about how to make low-sec good, or have certain ideas/concepts started to get favor with the mass of low-sec players?
How quaint. There were a lot of threads like this when the revised combat scanning introduced in 2009 made getting scanned down and ganked inevitable instead of "chance of". Couple that with paying ransoms becoming double the "point and laugh at the fool" on somebody's pirate/gank blog.
It died a long time ago. And stays dead. Unless you are in FW. But that may well have been the intention. There are some sharp lowsec crews that protect their level 5 mission runners fairly well but to everybody else lowsec is like the parking lot of the shopping mall in those zombie movies.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Annabelle Le
State Protectorate Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 23:57:41 -
[163] - Quote
Why do we want more people in low sec?
|
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
60015
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 06:53:18 -
[164] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Are you too scared to go to losec without concord?, it's about "fixing" lower, not turning it into highec, doesn't do anything for game apart from cater to higher carebears Despite the fact that you constantly troll post and badmouth others who don't share your viewpoint, I'll answer your question. As an explorer I travel quite often in both low and null sec space. After getting past Border systems, low sec is void of players. There's only one reason why players stay in high sec and that's CONCORD. Obviously you're too blind to see that.
Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:it's about "fixing" lower For the second time. What, exactly, do you propose yourself towards that? i dont really see anything which requires any sort of drastic changes like you and a few others suggested, this is the 2nd time i have said this. 1. remove gate/station guns (hurts solo/micro gang pvp) 2. remove recons dscan immunity when in fw plexes (thats cancer). 3. ban stabs from fw plexes 4. add in pirate faction warfare Talk about Carebear, all you want is low sec to be changed into easy mode so you can gank without impunity. The changes you propose will drive even more players away from low sec. It's not about fixing low sec, it's about changing it to get more players operating in it.
DMC
'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4009
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 09:27:27 -
[165] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:Lan Wang wrote:Are you too scared to go to losec without concord?, it's about "fixing" lower, not turning it into highec, doesn't do anything for game apart from cater to higher carebears Despite the fact that you constantly troll post and badmouth others who don't share your viewpoint, I'll answer your question. As an explorer I travel quite often in both low and null sec space. After getting past Border systems, low sec is void of players. There's only one reason why players stay in high sec and that's CONCORD. Obviously you're too blind to see that. Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:it's about "fixing" lower For the second time. What, exactly, do you propose yourself towards that? i dont really see anything which requires any sort of drastic changes like you and a few others suggested, this is the 2nd time i have said this. 1. remove gate/station guns (hurts solo/micro gang pvp) 2. remove recons dscan immunity when in fw plexes (thats cancer). 3. ban stabs from fw plexes 4. add in pirate faction warfare Talk about Carebear, all you want is low sec to be changed into easy mode so you can gank with impunity. The changes you propose will drive even more players away from low sec. It's not about fixing low sec, it's about changing it to get more players operating in it. DMC
easy mode lol, no i gank with impunity anyway so nothing will change the way i play, how will removing pirates hidden in medium plexes with a fleet of recons drive more people away from lowsec? how will removing pointless tankable gateguns affect players coming into lowsec? stabs in plexes are stupid and encourage botting and pirate fw should have been added years ago
so yeah your idea to get more players into lowsec is completely gutting out lowsec and adding concord. ill troll and badmouth ideas that totally fck the space i live in, sorry if that doesnt align with your viewpoint but i live here.
on another note, lowsec is hardly void of players so i dont know where you get that idea from
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Keno Skir
1378
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 09:35:44 -
[166] - Quote
Nat Silverguard wrote:so you want JFs to slow boat and use gate from NS to HS and vice versa?
you want to kill the economy?
Don't be so apocalyptic dude the economy was just fine before Jump Freighters.
<Gùï> 250,000 Bonus SP when you start an Alpha Clone HERE <Gùï>
<Gùï> Contact me regarding my trusted Alliance Creation Service <Gùï>
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18755
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 09:48:43 -
[167] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:Lan Wang wrote:Are you too scared to go to losec without concord?, it's about "fixing" lower, not turning it into highec, doesn't do anything for game apart from cater to higher carebears Despite the fact that you constantly troll post and badmouth others who don't share your viewpoint, I'll answer your question. As an explorer I travel quite often in both low and null sec space. After getting past Border systems, low sec is void of players. There's only one reason why players stay in high sec and that's CONCORD. Obviously you're too blind to see that. Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:it's about "fixing" lower For the second time. What, exactly, do you propose yourself towards that? i dont really see anything which requires any sort of drastic changes like you and a few others suggested, this is the 2nd time i have said this. 1. remove gate/station guns (hurts solo/micro gang pvp) 2. remove recons dscan immunity when in fw plexes (thats cancer). 3. ban stabs from fw plexes 4. add in pirate faction warfare Talk about Carebear, all you want is low sec to be changed into easy mode so you can gank with impunity. The changes you propose will drive even more players away from low sec. It's not about fixing low sec, it's about changing it to get more players operating in it. DMC
Removing a ton of content from the game does not fix anything, you make the situation much worse.
Simple fact here is most people in highsec have no reason to go to low sec because highsec gives them better rewards for near zero effort and risk. This is what is hurting the game as a whole. Moving highsec ice to lowsec, shaking up the mineral distribution so at least one mineral can only be found in lowsec will have a big draw. Missions do need some work, possible stopping blitzing, removing burners from highsec or just straight up moving level 4s to lowsec. PI should be shaken up so that some materials only come from low sec, LP rewards should be altered so some of the popular ones only come from low sec.
There are other things that should probably change such as probing being made harder so that its both more difficult to pinpoint people but also means good probers stand out a lot more than bad ones. It could even be argued to ban the use of cynos in low but allow caps to still use gate but that would be a bitter pill to swallow for null JF pilots.
|
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics Federation Uprising
762
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 10:00:17 -
[168] - Quote
Keno Skir wrote:Nat Silverguard wrote:so you want JFs to slow boat and use gate from NS to HS and vice versa?
you want to kill the economy? Don't be so apocalyptic dude the economy was just fine before Jump Freighters.
so why was JF added anyway? is it because of necessity or CCP just being nice?
Just Add Water
|
Lug Muad'Dib
Wise Humans Sword
54
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 10:27:08 -
[169] - Quote
Lowsec is the best place in Eve for a lot of pvp players and casual, we don't want bubbles or CONCORD..
I understand that lot of people want to stay in high sec, most won't go to low sec or null anyway, you can nerf high sec and increase reward in low as you want, at best they will unsub, that's dumb and CCP know it.
And if you like the boring 0.0, i don't know why but that's fine for you, stay here and let's other enjoy the game they love in low sec. |
erg cz
Broz With Froz Dot Dot Dot
561
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 10:38:54 -
[170] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: Simple fact here is most people in highsec have no reason to go to low sec because highsec gives them better rewards for near zero effort and risk. This is what is hurting the game as a whole.
People are in high sec cause they want to PvP, when they want to PvP, not when some jerk with huge self esteem issues is looking for easy kill. All suggestions how to make high sec unplayable will only remove large chunk of players out of the game, not move them into low sec. Make low sec more lucrative. Make it place, where you find your PvP in a matter of minutes. Comparing to tens of minutes of roaming empty null that alone will drive even null sec dvellers into low sec. I do not want to repeat here my suggestions how to do this, cause I already posted them in this thread, but I believe low sec has very very big potential and role in New Eden as a prime arena for solo / small gang pvp.
Absolutely free trial extension. Just click the link and get extra 250 000 SP for free!
|
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
3250
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 10:47:22 -
[171] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Simple fact here is most people in highsec have no reason to go to low sec because highsec gives them better rewards for near zero effort and risk. This is what is hurting the game as a whole. Moving highsec ice to lowsec, shaking up the mineral distribution so at least one mineral can only be found in lowsec will have a big draw. Missions do need some work, possible stopping blitzing, removing burners from highsec or just straight up moving level 4s to lowsec. PI should be shaken up so that some materials only come from low sec, LP rewards should be altered so some of the popular ones only come from low sec. Indeed. The imbalance of risk vs. rewards is the source of many of the problem of the game, including a underpopulated lowsec.
Players whine and complain how highsec isn't safe enough, but given how much reward there is, it is still far, far too safe. Something like 80%+ of industrial activity, and 95%+ of the trade, still goes on there, not to mention the significant amount of mining, and ISK generation via Incursions and Level 4 missions that rival the ISK/h of the other spaces. CCP's failure to address this problem is the largest problem preventing the realization of the player-run empire game they set out to build. Why build an empire when you can just hide beneath the skirts of the NPC empires and let them protect you while you make about the same reward?
I would have no problem making highsec even safer if risk vs. reward was properly balanced. Unfortunately, as it is highsec is the go-to place for the majority of veterans to make their ISK or do their industry and these economy-altering activities need to be at risk. CCP really needs to address this identity crisis of what highsec is suppose to be: either it should be a much safer, but much poorer zone for new, solo and casual players to mess around and have fun in safety (and also poverty), or it is the heart of the competitive aspect of the game and thus players need more tools to interfere with each other, especially those gathering large amounts of resources or doing significant amounts of industry. The current situation we have ended up with of a highsec that is both safe and lucrative is acting as an anchor on the other spaces, draining much of the reason to go out there and collect resources, or take space and build an empire, leaving the primary attraction of non-highsec as just a space with less PvP restrictions for meaningless and consensual PvP roams or fleet fights. That's fine if you are a building a consensual fleet flight simulator where players mostly fight for honour. That is not-so-fine if you are trying to build a competitive virtual universe where players fight for space and resources.
I really hope this new space CCP Seagull says is coming forces CCP to address this imbalance and redo the risk vs. reward across the spaces. This new space is going to have to have some attraction over highsec to get players to want to move there and not just become another underutilized section of sov nullsec.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Salvos Rhoska
2418
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 11:51:48 -
[172] - Quote
Nat Silverguard wrote:Keno Skir wrote:Nat Silverguard wrote:so you want JFs to slow boat and use gate from NS to HS and vice versa?
you want to kill the economy? Don't be so apocalyptic dude the economy was just fine before Jump Freighters. so why was JF added anyway? is it because of necessity or CCP just being nice? Answer that yourself.
Protip: They are not a necessity, least of all in LS.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics Federation Uprising
762
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 11:59:42 -
[173] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Nat Silverguard wrote:Keno Skir wrote:Nat Silverguard wrote:so you want JFs to slow boat and use gate from NS to HS and vice versa?
you want to kill the economy? Don't be so apocalyptic dude the economy was just fine before Jump Freighters. so why was JF added anyway? is it because of necessity or CCP just being nice? Answer that yourself. Protip: They are not a necessity, least of all in LS.
fck off dude, this is a forum, ii want to know other's opinion.
Just Add Water
|
March rabbit
Mosquito squadron The-Culture
2096
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 12:05:44 -
[174] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: Simple fact here is most people in highsec have no reason to go to low sec because highsec gives them better rewards for near zero effort and risk. This is what is hurting the game as a whole. Moving highsec ice to lowsec, shaking up the mineral distribution so at least one mineral can only be found in lowsec will have a big draw. Missions do need some work, possible stopping blitzing, removing burners from highsec or just straight up moving level 4s to lowsec. PI should be shaken up so that some materials only come from low sec, LP rewards should be altered so some of the popular ones only come from low sec.
Not true.
Anything in low-sec pays more than in high-sec. The only reason high-sec has "better rewards" is CONCORD.
Moving anything from high-sec to low-sec you just basically remove it from the game. For example look at lvl5 missions. Comparing to any other levels they are almost ignored. Move lvl4 to low-sec -> the same will happen to it. Other example: incursions.
In general anything which needs you to sit there in PVE fitted ship for prolonged periods of time dies if you move it to low-sec.
I would say that only Burners have any chance to not be forgotten if moved. And it's only because they are run in frigate-sized ships and take small time to complete.
baltec1 wrote: There are other things that should probably change such as probing being made harder so that its both more difficult to pinpoint people but also means good probers stand out a lot more than bad ones. It could even be argued to ban the use of cynos in low but allow caps to still use gate but that would be a bitter pill to swallow for null JF pilots.
Here are ideas i can support.
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
ApexDynamo
Hazardous Wormhole Rebels
10
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 12:13:46 -
[175] - Quote
Lowsec and nullsec should be like Wormholes, With no local's make more risk only place that should have a local is highsec |
Salvos Rhoska
2418
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 12:15:35 -
[176] - Quote
Nat Silverguard wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Nat Silverguard wrote:Keno Skir wrote:Nat Silverguard wrote:so you want JFs to slow boat and use gate from NS to HS and vice versa?
you want to kill the economy? Don't be so apocalyptic dude the economy was just fine before Jump Freighters. so why was JF added anyway? is it because of necessity or CCP just being nice? Answer that yourself. Protip: They are not a necessity, least of all in LS. fck off dude, this is a forum, ii want to know other's opinion.
That's why I gave mine, and am asking for yours.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
erg cz
Broz With Froz Dot Dot Dot
562
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 14:28:22 -
[177] - Quote
ApexDynamo wrote: nullsec should be like Wormholes, With no local's make more risk only place that should have a local is sec
Do you think, that pushing players out from where they used to live is a good way to get them into places, where they do not want to live? If you remove local from null, players will simply abandone null but they will not go to olw sec or high sec - they go to different game.
Lure people to the place you want them to be, do not push them from the place they want to be. There is a difference.
Absolutely free trial extension. Just click the link and get extra 250 000 SP for free!
|
Cade Windstalker
1089
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 14:42:49 -
[178] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Removing a ton of content from the game does not fix anything, you make the situation much worse.
Simple fact here is most people in highsec have no reason to go to low sec because highsec gives them better rewards for near zero effort and risk. This is what is hurting the game as a whole. Moving highsec ice to lowsec, shaking up the mineral distribution so at least one mineral can only be found in lowsec will have a big draw. Missions do need some work, possible stopping blitzing, removing burners from highsec or just straight up moving level 4s to lowsec. PI should be shaken up so that some materials only come from low sec, LP rewards should be altered so some of the popular ones only come from low sec.
There are other things that should probably change such as probing being made harder so that its both more difficult to pinpoint people but also means good probers stand out a lot more than bad ones. It could even be argued to ban the use of cynos in low but allow caps to still use gate but that would be a bitter pill to swallow for null JF pilots.
I feel like you're both overestimating the draw these sorts of changes would have and targeting the wrong groups of players.
Ice is already pretty limited in High Sec, and tends to get mined out pretty quickly in most space. It also already exists in Low, and that's not enough to draw generally risk-averse high sec miners into Low.
There's already the potential for good rewards from Low Sec site running, many Low Sec Deadspace modules are worth far more than their Null or High Sec counterparts (looking at you A-type tank mods).
You're never going to force people into Low who don't want to be there, and you're never going to coerce people out into Low just to get blown up unless you make it so that the actual risk of dying is low enough that they can make money there reliably, something the existing Low Sec crowd will never accept.
As for stuff like removing L4 missions, LP rewards, and a ton of other established High Sec content and moving it to Low, I think you're assuming that people will chase that stuff out to Low when most of them will either just do other things in High Sec or leave the game if they can't afford their accounts anymore on High Sec income. You might be fine with those players leaving, but I don't think CCP will ever do it, they'd lose way too many players and the game as a whole would suffer for it.
Shifting rewards from High Sec to Low just isn't a good approach. The rewards in Low could just be straight up increased, but they're already pretty high if you know what to look for. That means the actual changes need to come in the form of either an increase in *perceived* risk, or rewards. Perception can do a lot for an area of the game and often trumps reality. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3192
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 14:46:06 -
[179] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
There are other things that should probably change such as probing being made harder so that its both more difficult to pinpoint people but also means good probers stand out a lot more than bad ones. It could even be argued to ban the use of cynos in low but allow caps to still use gate but that would be a bitter pill to swallow for null JF pilots.
I too want to go on escort fleet to get **** moved. Wait no I don't. Yeah you can slingshot things into warp but that's no reason to make gating through LS with JF/freighters a needed thing. |
Salvos Rhoska
2422
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 15:20:05 -
[180] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Snip
I agree with your analysis. Increasing LS rewards will not bring more HS players in. It hasnt.
This raises the question of whom it might. To which the answer is, NS neighbors.
Which goes right to the core of why whom is arguing for what.
NS wants supers, cynos, JFs and better rewards in LS.
Why? Consider the assets of NS entities entering and exiting LS, compared to HS entities on the other side of the LS "blood barrier" (to those unfamiliar with the term, its the tissue qualities which prevent pathogens from passing from the blood stream into the brain)
LS is sandwiched between HS and NS, and geographically narrow. Furthermore, LS is sandwiched between too entirely different safety systems. HS as the extreme of safety, and NS as the lowest.
If any NS agent passing through LS is engaged, NS can drop right ontop of them. If LS responds, NS can keep funneling its far larger player/resource base ontop of it. This cannot happen from the HS direotion, either in support, retaliation, or otherwise.
And that in and of itself, is not yet considering the safety of JFs jumping past gates on entry, nor warping to citadels. LS, due to lack of bubbles, cannot prevent them exiting the final gate to HS.
TLDR: Current mechanics, make LS, NS's little b***h. The transit barriers between NS, LS, and HS, in that sequence and back, must be reinforced.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
|
Marcus Binchiette
Federal Vanguard
89
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 15:36:22 -
[181] - Quote
Before you start trying to fix lowsec please first of all consider what the problems are. I'm seeing a lot of misdirected solutions posted by people who have no consensus on what the problem with lowsec is.
For the most part lowsec is good. I'm working in lowsec much more than I was before, and it does provide a natural and necessary progression from highsec to nulsec. If you remove this stepping stone then you will discover that new players will never discover PvP and will be forever locked into highsec.
The reason why lowsec is important is that it reduces some of the overpowered strategies of nulsec, with interception cruisers, interdictors, and bubbles. So it requires targeted warp disruption/scrambling and is a place where warp stabiliser mechanics can play out. This combined with guns on gates and stations creates a greater level of mobility for logistics. Which is something you will not find in lowsec. Without these pro's logistics (and hence any meaningful industry or PI) would be unattainable to the newer player.
There is also the FW element, which I would argue is the greatest fun I've had in EVE Online. I don't agree with providing a Concord response for Pirate vs. FW players, or FW vs. Neutrals. As this grey area is one of the charms of lowsec. Even as frustrating as it is when pirates take sides in FW contests, I still wouldn't remove this. If you are indeed going to make FC unable to target neutral's and pirates, this must be a bilateral restriction. This alone would remove all piracy and much of the fun from lowsec would disappear.
There is also another aspect of low vs. nulsec with regard to PI. In nulsec the sovereignty locks out non-alliance members from PI. Whereas lowsec anyone can use the POCO. Which means that lowsec PI is attainable for the solo player or small corp. Removing lowsec would force people into nulsec alliances and make PI unattainable for newer players.
I don't have any problem with super capitals in lowsec or highsec. Though, I think that a better approach is to have module activation restrictions. Such that Carriers and Dreads and Titans can move through lowsec (and even highsec) but cannot deploy fighters or modules within the higher security systems.
In short, I don't see any real problems with lowsec the way it is, and if people do have problems with it I'd like them to firstly define what those problems are.
|
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
6063
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 15:45:26 -
[182] - Quote
I can't help but think that adding more player space when high-sec, low-sec and null-sec are so inherently f*cked up is an extremely bad idea. At some point perhaps.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Salvos Rhoska
2424
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 16:06:16 -
[183] - Quote
Marcus Binchiette wrote:In short, I don't see any real problems with lowsec the way it is, and if people do have problems with it I'd like them to firstly define what those problems are.
The problem, is not so much with LS in an of itself, but with the sectors it is sandwiched between as polar opposites, in relation to LS for and from their own ends.
NS has zero permeability restraints on entering LS. They can jump past the gates, or force an entry through gates with their greater wealth/assets/population. They can drop a fleet on you in LS if you so much as glance at one of their haulers. NS JFs, super/caps can enter/exit LS with impunity, and operate within it and past it in both directions by jumping/warping to citadels/stations.
What can HS do from the other direction? Nothing. Once the NS entity makes it through LS, they are under HS rules, and as safe as can be. In HS, only a meticulously planned, scouted, complicated and organizationally intensive effort involving many players can hope to even attempt to kill that single target, via suicide gank. ck LS is not fulfilling its barrier purpose between HS and NS.
NS owns you in LS, whether you know it or not. The only reason they havent wiped you out, is because they have greater profits back home in NS, and because they can bypass you entirely.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18756
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 17:46:26 -
[184] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:baltec1 wrote: Simple fact here is most people in highsec have no reason to go to low sec because highsec gives them better rewards for near zero effort and risk. This is what is hurting the game as a whole. Moving highsec ice to lowsec, shaking up the mineral distribution so at least one mineral can only be found in lowsec will have a big draw. Missions do need some work, possible stopping blitzing, removing burners from highsec or just straight up moving level 4s to lowsec. PI should be shaken up so that some materials only come from low sec, LP rewards should be altered so some of the popular ones only come from low sec.
Not true. Anything in low-sec pays more than in high-sec. The only reason high-sec has "better rewards" is CONCORD. Moving anything from high-sec to low-sec you just basically remove it from the game. For example look at lvl5 missions. Comparing to any other levels they are almost ignored. Move lvl4 to low-sec -> the same will happen to it. Other example: incursions. In general anything which needs you to sit there in PVE fitted ship for prolonged periods of time dies if you move it to low-sec. I would say that only Burners have any chance to not be forgotten if moved. And it's only because they are run in frigate-sized ships and take small time to complete. baltec1 wrote: There are other things that should probably change such as probing being made harder so that its both more difficult to pinpoint people but also means good probers stand out a lot more than bad ones. It could even be argued to ban the use of cynos in low but allow caps to still use gate but that would be a bitter pill to swallow for null JF pilots.
Here are ideas i can support.
This is pretty much the problem. Highsec has been buffed in terms of reward while the risks have been greatly reduced. Nerfs are needed to bring back some sort of balance simply because buffing everywhere else will just cripple the game. |
Salvos Rhoska
2427
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 17:55:13 -
[185] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:This is pretty much the problem. Highsec has been buffed in terms of reward while the risks have been greatly reduced. Nerfs are needed to bring back some sort of balance simply because buffing everywhere else will just cripple the game. This is nonsense, NS has been buffed throughout all changes.
THAT is the problem.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Penance Toralen
Compass Fox
37
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 03:06:21 -
[186] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Simple fact here is most people in highsec have no reason to go to low sec because highsec gives them better rewards for near zero effort and risk. This is what is hurting the game as a whole. Moving highsec ice to lowsec, shaking up the mineral distribution so at least one mineral can only be found in lowsec will have a big draw. Missions do need some work, possible stopping blitzing, removing burners from highsec or just straight up moving level 4s to lowsec. PI should be shaken up so that some materials only come from low sec, LP rewards should be altered so some of the popular ones only come from low sec.
It is not just a matter of moving all the ice from high-sec. Remove it null as well. (but leave it in Shattered WH). Why only incentive from one direction? Players will buy null surplus, as such is done with Zyd/Mega. This would then have a impact on the overabundance of citadels. Conduct a another downward for the returns on high-sec Refineries - both suppressing income and encouraging more industry outside of HS.
If L4s are removed from high-sec (and why not) then they all need to be remote acceptance.
Scrape Incursions altogether. "they don't sense" to coin the phrase. Make all LP stock exchange currency. |
Torin Corax
Game of Roams
287
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 08:54:28 -
[187] - Quote
Lug Muad'Dib wrote:Lowsec is the best place in Eve for a lot of pvp players and casual, we don't want bubbles or CONCORD.. I understand that lot of people want to stay in high sec, most won't go to low sec or null anyway, you can nerf high sec and increase reward in low as you want, at best they will unsub, that's dumb and CCP know it. And if you like the boring 0.0, i don't know why but that's fine for you, stay here and let's other enjoy the game they love in low sec.
While I don't entirely disagree with you, I'd say that there are a fair number of HS players who would move into low sec if it was worth their time to do so. Especially casual players.
From the point of view of a casual ( which I am) HS offers reliable income at low risk, so with limited time to grind it makes earning enough isk to recoup losses far easier. LS may be more fun and interesting, but the isk earning is not as reliable in the short term. I'm ok with that, but a lot of people aren't. If LS PvE didn't put a player at a ridiculous disadvantage against a determined attacker I honestly think more players would do it.
However, with only a few simple changes this could be tested. The first step could be to completely do away with the requirement to dock in order to interact with agents. This gets around the inherent dangers of predictable behavior. The missions themselves ( combat at least) could be tuned towards faster completion, with an emphasis on the use of smaller ships. Mining missions could have the drop-off locations be a "company" Orca/ hauler at a warpable location etc. Same for delivery missions.
I'd even go so far as to be able to accept missions from an agent anywhere within low sec belonging to that agents faction, with the mission spawning in the system which the player is occupying. All this aimed, obviously, at making it trickier to locate a PvE player, but still possible for roaming Pv'P'ers to find, probe and attack if they are quick enough.
It's not always about risk in LS, but about exposure. This is partly why exploration seems to be one of the most popular LS activities, even among new players. Even in a T1 frig with basic fittings exploration can be done, as the players vulnerability windows are relatively small, and with practice can be made smaller still. Yet explorers do get caught and killed regularly, but most come back again. Lvl 4 missions though...unlikely anyone would spend too much time on them as they are now, the exposure factor is just too high to be overcome without a fair bit of support.
As far as mining goes, that would need some serious looking at....far beyond my knowledge to deal with all the potential ramifications. I would like to see a move towards making the mining frigs, T1 and T2, far more profitable in low sec without having to multibox/ refit a prober. This would probably require a complete re-think of the ore distribution, volume and refining though. Extreme care would have to be taken with anything like this.
|
Salvos Rhoska
2431
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 09:00:47 -
[188] - Quote
No cynos in LS would certainly encourage me to participate in LS more.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
erg cz
Broz With Froz Dot Dot Dot
564
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 09:12:05 -
[189] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:No cynos in LS would certainly encourage me to participate in LS more.
What about logistic ? No cyno = no jump freighter, am I right?
erg cz wrote:
Create low sec borders between all empires, so people will be forced to use it for trade.
Replace CONCORD with empire police with the same capabilities. Plus make FW four sided. Thats fits to the lore perfectly. With low sec as the place, where war between empires rages on.
Instead of get rid of unique part of EVE universe, make it more attractive. Make it bigger, so people will be able to find far away calm backwater system for PVE farm if they feel like or they can sit in choke points between factions, where they will find combat opportunities faster, than now. Cause if you know, that you will ALWAYS find the PVP ready gang on low sec Jita/Perimeter gate - you do not have to play fisherman for tens of minutes to get one combat for your whole evening. You will find combat instantly on ever camped gates between empires.
It is often hard to find PvP opportunities in semi-void null, low sec systems between empire trade hubs can be the answer. Bubbles and super caps on those gates may spoil small/medium gang warfare there, IMHO.
Right now Jita / Perimeter / Amarr are so full of trade goods, that making them low sec would also gives gankers years of content.
Comet mining - option to improve mining in low sec without removal of ice from other parts of the universe.
Planet rings mining another option for the same purpose.
Do not break high sec or null sec to push people onto low sec. It will not work. Make low sec more interesting. Make it place to find solo / small gang fights quicker.
Absolutely free trial extension. Just click the link and get extra 250 000 SP for free!
|
Torin Corax
Game of Roams
287
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 09:12:08 -
[190] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:No cynos in LS would certainly encourage me to participate in LS more.
I'm on the fence about this to be honest. I have zero interest in flying caps myself, and I'm not a huge fan of hot-drops in LS (granted this would make me something of a hypocrite considering the people I used to fly with), so if CCP decided to block cynos in low sec I'd be absolutely ok with it.
That said, I've never been personally responsible for running the logistics for a Null sec corp. Those of my friends who were, seriously did not enjoy it....considering it a chore that was best done as quickly as possible in order to go do something fun. I dare say there are very few people who would actually enjoy it.
I suppose, as a largely solo player these days, that cynos + caps don't really effect me all that much....never been tackled by a carrier
Of course, fewer cyno alts in Local makes judging when to run/ dock/ cloak a damn sight easier....so yeah, **** cynos in Low sec |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18758
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 09:12:14 -
[191] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:baltec1 wrote:This is pretty much the problem. Highsec has been buffed in terms of reward while the risks have been greatly reduced. Nerfs are needed to bring back some sort of balance simply because buffing everywhere else will just cripple the game. This is nonsense, NS has been buffed throughout all changes. THAT is the problem.
Null has seen is good few nerfs too and I expect nerfs to both isk income and exploration fairly soon. |
Salvos Rhoska
2431
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 09:42:03 -
[192] - Quote
erg cz wrote:What about logistic ? No cyno = no jump freighter, am I right?
Do not break high sec or null sec to push people onto low sec. It will not work. Make low sec more interesting. Make it place to find solo / small gang fights quicker.
1) I am forced to hesitate on the JF issue. I do think JFs (or any ship) should not be able to jump into LS via cyno. That Im sure about. JFs can use gates. But LS cant use bubbles to prevent them jumping from the gate to citadel/station hopping.
2) However, Im unsure of the mechanical fairness of not allowing jumping out of LS into NS. Since its a separate ship inside NS mechanics which lights the actual cyno. It seems to me, that allowing jumping out of LS into NS, would allow some degree of NS incursion into LS via gates, and then jumping out to NS. Reciprocally, it would mean LS entities can jump into NS too, but have to use gates to get back out to LS.
3) Removal of cynos in LS will directly lead to more solo/small gang.
4) Nobody wants to break HS/NS. Surely we can all agree, however, that HS incursion income is too great, as is ice mining potential in HS. In reciprocation, Id say the NS potential to cyno jump into LS is also too great.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2431
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 09:54:28 -
[193] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:baltec1 wrote:This is pretty much the problem. Highsec has been buffed in terms of reward while the risks have been greatly reduced. Nerfs are needed to bring back some sort of balance simply because buffing everywhere else will just cripple the game. This is nonsense, NS has been buffed throughout all changes. THAT is the problem. Null has seen is good few nerfs too and I expect nerfs to both isk income and exploration fairly soon.
Exploration nerfs are to a vast spread of people, not NS entities themselves.
When I say NS has been buffed throughout all changes, I mean by extension of NS interests, not NS specific nerfs. Malcanis' Law has not been observed to its fullest.
As an example, you talk about exploration nerfs. Only noobs run data/relic sites in NS. The real money is in super/cap ratting and some top level DEDs, and in uninterrupted mining fleets, not to mention the occassional officer modules.
According to Malcani's Law, you should be vociferously against exploration nerfs, as they harm noobs more than super/caps or mass miners
Yet here you are, "expecting them", as somesort of argument that NS would be nerfed by it. NS wont be nerfed by it (if it happens), only the wide diaspora of small-time players incidentally running relic/data sites in NS, whether blued, or not.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the posing meat Snuffed Out
4009
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 10:26:37 -
[194] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:I recognize that cyno removal from LS, hurts LS internally. But it is also commensurately helps defend LS from drops from NS.
i get where you are coming from with this but i think you underestimate the power of lowsec and capitals and how content creation in lowsec relies heavily on cyno's, lowsec doesnt need any help defending against nullsec capitals, i think this would have a worse effect on defending nullsec from lowsec, no cyno's = no lowsec entity can mid caps or even subcaps where nullsec can freely.
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
erg cz
Broz With Froz Dot Dot Dot
564
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 11:12:00 -
[195] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote: Surely we can all agree, however, that HS incursion income is too great, as is ice mining potential in HS. In reciprocation, Id say the NS potential to cyno jump into LS is also too great.
Ok, no cyno in low sec will defenetly mean more fights on gates, probably more fights overall. If that logistic nerf will not also mean less players in low sec, cause no one will want to play in space with such logistic problem.
CCP changed belts in null in sence of asteroid size. Why not change the ice belts size in high sec? Make them hundred of km big, full of very small (like 5-10 ice blocks) ice asteroids. Just make those asteroids unwarpable to. So ship will always have to burn to the next one.
HS incursions may get pay out nerf, but I would not remove them all together. They make high sec more interesting. But of cause they do not need to be that much lucrative.
Both incursion and ice mining nerfs are attempt to make high sec less profitable or even less interesting. I am strongly against complete removing any of implemented and used features, cause it will make game more dull.
Once again - make low sec more interesting, do not make other sec less interesting. There are options, IMHO, how to make low sec source of almost insatnt solo / small gang PVP. That is the place of low sec in EVE universe, IMHO. Not a ISK printing machine. High sec is where you relax, null is where you "work" and fight large blobs for soverenity and low sec for quick fun in small teams, where you do not need to wait hours to get into action.
Absolutely free trial extension. Just click the link and get extra 250 000 SP for free!
|
Salvos Rhoska
2431
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 11:13:22 -
[196] - Quote
Torin Corax wrote: I've never been personally responsible for running the logistics for a Null sec corp. Those of my friends who were, seriously did not enjoy it....considering it a chore that was best done as quickly as possible in order to go do something fun. I dare say there are very few people who would actually enjoy it. Of course, fewer cyno alts in Local makes judging when to run/ dock/ cloak a damn sight easier....so yeah, **** cynos in Low sec
1) A chore= tedious necessary repetition. Im a little on the fence myself still regarding JFs in LS in the first place. In do however know I am utterly against cynos in or into LS.
Where this change implemented, its arguable JFs can still citadel/station/gate hop. Without bubbles in LS, there is little means to intercept them.
So if cynos are disallowed, but JFs are allowed, it amounts only to a small increased opportunity for LS to intercept JFs transitting between NS/HS. I dont think it is adequate to improve the LS blood/transit barrier between NS/HS, through LS.
Overall, Id prefer JFs did not enter LS at all. JFs, to me, are an NS optimised craft, not intended for LS or HS transit. They can drop their cargo at NS stockpiles, and move them through LS to and from, with other conventional means.
2) As above, I dont think cynos belong in LS either. Cynos are an NS mechanic, appropriate in systems without engagement rules/security mechanics.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18758
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 11:32:39 -
[197] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:baltec1 wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:baltec1 wrote:This is pretty much the problem. Highsec has been buffed in terms of reward while the risks have been greatly reduced. Nerfs are needed to bring back some sort of balance simply because buffing everywhere else will just cripple the game. This is nonsense, NS has been buffed throughout all changes. THAT is the problem. Null has seen is good few nerfs too and I expect nerfs to both isk income and exploration fairly soon. Exploration nerfs are to a vast spread of people, not NS entities themselves. When I say NS has been buffed throughout all changes, I mean by extension of NS interests, not NS specific nerfs. Malcanis' Law has not been observed to its fullest. As an example, you talk about exploration nerfs. Only noobs run data/relic sites in NS. The real money is in super/cap ratting and some top level DEDs, and in uninterrupted mining fleets, not to mention the occassional officer modules. According to Malcani's Law, you should be vociferously against exploration nerfs, as they harm noobs more than super/caps or mass miners Yet here you are, "expecting them", as somesort of argument that NS would be nerfed by it. NS wont be nerfed by it (if it happens), only the wide diaspora of small-time players incidentally running relic/data sites in NS, whether blued, or not.
The reason for exploration nerfs is we need to drastically cut down the number of BPC's dropping as well as mods. Right now there is a huge oversupply. NS would be nerfed in that pirate battleship fleets would no longer be an option. |
Salvos Rhoska
2432
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 11:44:46 -
[198] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:I recognize that cyno removal from LS, hurts LS internally. But it is also commensurately helps defend LS from drops from NS. i get where you are coming from with this but i think you underestimate the power of lowsec and capitals and how content creation in lowsec relies heavily on cyno's, lowsec doesnt need any help defending against nullsec capitals, i think this would have a worse effect on defending nullsec from lowsec, no cyno's = no lowsec entity can mid caps or even subcaps where nullsec can freely.
1) We will have to agree to disagree on the potential of LS to defend against NS drops. Especially insofar as some border LS entities are themselves actually NS players. And furthermore that the NS neighbors are almost always far more unified and richer, owing to the peculiarities of Player Sov. Your opinion is noted. I do not refute it. I cant. I dont have the data. I think we can agree that it is situational.
2) In considering this issue of cynos, as differentiated between the ship(s) that jump, and the ship that cynos, I came to a dilemma. I resolved this, by recognising that cynoing out of LS, has advantage to both LS and NS.
As is my position, cynos belong in NS. Thus it should be rational that cyno jumping into NS is rational.
3) Yes, this means LS entities can drop on NS regions. But it also means they CANT cyno jump back out. They must EXIT NS via gates. Yes, this means NS entities can jump out of LS, but they CANT jump in. Reciprocally, they will have to ENTER LS via gates.
4) Summa summarum: -LS can cyno jump into NS, but must gate out. -NS can cyno jump out of LS, but must gate in.
5) I agree, that this does in total slightly advantage LS entities cynoing into NS regions. However, I submit the following mitigating caveats. A) NS is naturally more wealthy and capable of sustaining losses. B) The cyno jumping fleet from LS into NS, has to gate its way back to LS. The deeper they jump in, the more vulnerable they are to get back out, via gates. C) NS can deploy bubbles to cripple that retreat. Whereas in LS, if NS penetrates the gates, that is not possible.
6) When NS invades LS via gates, LS cant cyno onto them. They will have to gate around, like the NS invader However, due to lack of cynos in LS, the LS defense fleets can gatecamp past the point of entry, or warp en masse to a structure to defend it.
I think equity is served in this suggestion. Quid pro quo. Both get advantage, at reciprocate cost.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2432
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 12:29:35 -
[199] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:The reason for exploration nerfs is we need to drastically cut down the number of BPC's dropping as well as mods. Right now there is a huge oversupply. NS would be nerfed in that pirate battleship fleets would no longer be an option.
Who is sourcing those pirate BS BPCs?
Cheap, noob explorers in NS, whether blue or not.
This nerfs them, not NS entities.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
1140
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 12:52:51 -
[200] - Quote
Remember that space that is somewhat unwanted by the most powerful entities of EVE has some boons to it.
You can fight there without wanting to kill yourself and end TiDi misery specifically because noone that can blob find it worthwhile to deploy server-crushing blobs. You can run L5s because those who could remove your setup in one sniff find it more convenient to sit in null anomalies. You have your belt spawns because others are busy clearing 10/10 escalations elsewhere.
Some of those complaining about "pointless lowsec" will be kicked straight to HS the moment LS will become, well, less pointless.
That's the same reason some NS regions are objectively worse than others - to leave people unwilling to kiss the largest ring some space to play with.
Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
|
|
Salvos Rhoska
2432
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 12:58:08 -
[201] - Quote
Barrogh Habalu wrote:Snip
None of the proposed changes here make LS more lucrative than NS.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
March rabbit
Mosquito squadron The-Culture
2098
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 16:56:20 -
[202] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:This is pretty much the problem. Highsec has been buffed in terms of reward while the risks have been greatly reduced. Nerfs are needed to bring back some sort of balance simply because buffing everywhere else will just cripple the game. Well, if you look at it this way....
Don't you think that balance risk (totally player controlled) and rewards (totally NPC controlled) is somehow complicated? For example give your value of change to high-sec rewards and tell why it should not be twice less or twice higher?
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
March rabbit
Mosquito squadron The-Culture
2098
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 17:20:08 -
[203] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:I recognize that cyno removal from LS, hurts LS internally. But it is also commensurately helps defend LS from drops from NS. i get where you are coming from with this but i think you underestimate the power of lowsec and capitals and how content creation in lowsec relies heavily on cyno's, lowsec doesnt need any help defending against nullsec capitals, i think this would have a worse effect on defending nullsec from lowsec, no cyno's = no lowsec entity can mid caps or even subcaps where nullsec can freely. Ok. What would you change to prevent uninterrupted JF travels over low-sec then? I think that would be straight gift for low-seccers?
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
Salvos Rhoska
2437
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 18:20:11 -
[204] - Quote
erg cz wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote: Surely we can all agree, however, that HS incursion income is too great, as is ice mining potential in HS. In reciprocation, Id say the NS potential to cyno jump into LS is also too great.
Ok, no cyno in low sec will defenetly mean more fights on gates, probably more fights overall. If that logistic nerf will not also mean less players in low sec, cause no one will want to play in space with such logistic problem. CCP changed belts in null in sence of asteroid size. Why not change the ice belts size in high sec? Make them hundred of km big, full of very small (like 5-10 ice blocks) ice asteroids. Just make those asteroids unwarpable to. So ship will always have to burn to the next one. HS incursions may get pay out nerf, but I would not remove them all together. They make high sec more interesting. But of cause they do not need to be that much lucrative. Both incursion and ice mining nerfs are attempt to make high sec less profitable or even less interesting. I am strongly against complete removing any of implemented and used features, cause it will make game more dull. Once again - make low sec more interesting, do not make other sec less interesting. There are options, IMHO, how to make low sec source of almost insatnt solo / small gang PVP. That is the place of low sec in EVE universe, IMHO. Not a ISK printing machine. High sec is where you relax, null is where you "work" and fight large blobs for soverenity and low sec for quick fun in small teams, where you do not need to wait hours to get into action.
1) Good. We agree. Lack of cynos in LS will not impair LS logistics.
2) I suggested a similar HS Ice belt nerf. But I argued for longer respawn timer, and/or less total yield. Your wider field and small ice rocks could also work, but I prefer my suggestion. Id also add more Ice fields to LS.
3) HS Incursions are ridiculous. Everyone knows this. Its high time this was finally addressed.
4) If HS Incursions and Ice fields are nerfed, (both of which SHOULD be anyways) this makes LS more attractive. However, players are afraid of cyno drops in LS. And as Ive explained elsewhere, cynos dont belong in LS anyways.
5) In theory I agree with your HS relax, NS sov combat, and LS small gang ideal. But in order for that to happen, change must happen. HS is too relaxed. NS doesnt PvP much. LS cant small gang cos cynos.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Maximillian Bonaparte
Interstellar Booty Hunters
136
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 18:28:49 -
[205] - Quote
Umm guys...
The idea of not allowing JF's to do what they are meant to do into lowsec will kill a LOT of lowsec content.
It kills any markets in lowsec, prevents a lot of corps from getting ships and supplies into lowsec, and ... JF's are about 7 billion isk each, so forcing them to go through gates would reduce their use.
Also, lowsec sometimes is a halfway point for JF's who dont have the range to get to null...or supply dumps for similar purpose. It would also utterly kill the moon-goo market.
Removing cyno action is lowsec is just generally not a good idea.
Lowsec is mostly FINE the way it is, some places are quiet some places are hot.
It would be nice is there was something like pirate FW as long as a 'pirate' who joins up with angel cartel or something can still run ded sites (cuz why not), or simply create a capsuleer faction equivalent for each pirate type for us to join.
The reality is most people are too lazy to live in lowsec. Most people are boring, incurious, stupid, brain-dead, and cowardly little herd animals. And yes this is a DELIBERATE insult to people who are prejudiced against lowsec. :)
It takes a certain kind of adventurous mentality to live in lowsec. I am perhaps a cynic but most highseccers and probably most nullseccers are not mentally prepared to deal with the challenges of lowsec, though the challenges are very rewarding when overcome.
"1) Good. We agree. Lack of cynos in LS will not impair LS logistics." **** no! We dont agree, and I am sure anyone who makes their homes in lowsec will be on my side. Get out before we a l wardec you! :P |
Salvos Rhoska
2439
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 19:20:16 -
[206] - Quote
Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:The idea of not allowing JF's to do what they are meant to do into lowsec will kill a LOT of lowsec content.
It kills any markets in lowsec, prevents a lot of corps from getting ships and supplies into lowsec, and ... JF's are about 7 billion isk each, so forcing them to go through gates would reduce their use.
Also, lowsec sometimes is a halfway point for JF's who dont have the range to get to null...or supply dumps for similar purpose. It would also utterly kill the moon-goo market.
Three letters. Lol.
Do you really think us so naive that we dont see your obvious underlying selfish motive?
Cynos dont belong in LS. They belong in NS.
Furthermore JFs dont belong in LS either, let alone in HS.
Fly your cargo through by other means. You dont need cynos or JF to do that through LS.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Octavian Vanderhoolt
FTL Deliveries
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 20:21:50 -
[207] - Quote
What Low sec needs is to become safer for PVE players somehow, but not 100% safe.
Concord protects PVE in HS Intel channels protects PVE in Sov NS. Obscurity protects PVE in wormholes. What protection is there in LS?
Clearly pvper vs pvper action isn't enough to sustain LS activity most of the time, what you need is a better 'wolf' vs 'bear' balance. Then miners/haulers/missioners will be there to create content (ie targets) for you.
|
erg cz
Broz With Froz Dot Dot Dot
567
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 09:54:04 -
[208] - Quote
Octavian Vanderhoolt wrote:What Low sec needs is to become safer for PVE players somehow, but not 100% safe.
It should not become "safer", it should become "more lucrative and/or interesting". FW missions are good example, how you can PvE in PvP ship. And IMHO low sec is place for PvP, primary. If you make something safer it reduces PvP fun. Cause kill defenseless PvE ship is not a fun - its a primitive form of PvP, abused by players with hurt selfesteem.
I think there is a very basic contradiction between understanding of low sec role in the game. Some players still think it is place to live in, other think it is place to have PvP fun. It is not necessary the same. Make money elsewhere, spend them in low sec. ;) Problem solved.
Absolutely free trial extension. Just click the link and get extra 250 000 SP for free!
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18758
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 12:28:11 -
[209] - Quote
March rabbit wrote: Well, if you look at it this way....
Don't you think that balance risk (totally player controlled) and rewards (totally NPC controlled) is somehow complicated? For example give your value of change to high-sec rewards and tell why it should not be twice less or twice higher?
Frankly I think it all needs a shakeup.
The null levels of income are not sustainable, hence the multiple rorqual nerfs to try and stop the collapse of the mineral market and this first attempt to deal with carrier/super ratting. High is offering too much income for the level of risk you have while low sec is sort of left to fester.
Mix in there a revitalization of pvp in all areas, more content, more interaction and things would get more interesting. |
Drake Aihaken
CODE.d
9
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 13:04:29 -
[210] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Frankly I think it all needs a shakeup.
The null levels of income are not sustainable, hence the multiple rorqual nerfs to try and stop the collapse of the mineral market and this first attempt to deal with carrier/super ratting. High is offering too much income for the level of risk you have while low sec is sort of left to fester.
Mix in there a revitalization of pvp in all areas, more content, more interaction and things would get more interesting. Probably. I'll most likely be skewered for suggesting this, but high-sec income needs a nerf. Yes, I'm talking about you Burners and Incursions.
Burners should be moved exclusively to low-sec because there is no point in running them outside of high-sec for the entailed risk. The only problem I see is that a lot of the fits need to be very specialized for different Burners which does not lend itself well to potential PvP engagements. The Guristas Base Anomic is just poorly-designed and needs a revamp. L4 agents should remain in high-sec without any changes.
High-sec Incursions have always bothered me. Aside from the fact it seems odd that the Sansha are regularly able to stage mass invasions into high-sec, they also seem very elitist. These should be removed from high-sec altogether.
There is also the very real problem of null-sec alts padding their income by abusing both of these mechanisms in high-sec, and for that reason alone they both need to go. This will take high-sec income down from well over 200m ISK/hour to 50-60m ISK/hour. Those willing to entail more risk for greater rewards will venture into low-sec. Those who won't will take the hit and stay in high-sec. All the null alts will return to null-sec where they belong.
Low-sec also needs some changes, such as eliminating cynos and banning gate travel to super capitals (no more FAX, super carriers or titans).
Citadels also need a re-work as quickly as possibly by increasing the vulnerability window and requiring a base fuel operating cost. No fuel - no vulnerability window and no asset safety (meaning anyone can dock and loot the sucker or destroy it without a wardec). |
|
Salvos Rhoska
2455
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 13:33:42 -
[211] - Quote
Drake Aihaken wrote:Probably. I'll most likely be skewered for suggesting this, but high-sec income needs a nerf. Yes, I'm talking about you Burners and Incursions.
Burners should be moved exclusively to low-sec because there is no point in running them outside of high-sec for the entailed risk. The only problem I see is that a lot of the fits need to be very specialized for different Burners which does not lend itself well to potential PvP engagements. The Guristas Base Anomic is just poorly-designed and needs a revamp. L4 agents should remain in high-sec without any changes.
High-sec Incursions have always bothered me. Aside from the fact it seems odd that the Sansha are regularly able to stage mass invasions into high-sec, they also seem very elitist. These should be removed from high-sec altogether.
There is also the very real problem of null-sec alts padding their income by abusing both of these mechanisms in high-sec, and for that reason alone they both need to go. This will take high-sec income down from well over 200m ISK/hour to 50-60m ISK/hour. Those willing to entail more risk for greater rewards will venture into low-sec. Those who won't will take the hit and stay in high-sec. All the null alts will return to null-sec where they belong.
Low-sec also needs some changes, such as eliminating cynos and banning gate travel to super capitals (no more FAX, super carriers or titans).
Citadels also need a re-work as quickly as possibly by increasing the vulnerability window and requiring a base fuel operating cost. No fuel - no vulnerability window and no asset safety (meaning anyone can dock and loot the sucker or destroy it without a wardec).
I agree with this all, except: 1) Lowering HS Incursion income substantially may be preferable to removing them entirely. 2) Citadels: I dont understand what you mean by destroying a Citadel without wardec. Are you suggesting to suicide gank a Citadel? Otherwise, yes I agree with fuel, wider vuln windows and an asset safety nerf. (Its not pragmatic to remove them entirely)
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Drake Aihaken
CODE.d
9
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 14:12:44 -
[212] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:I agree with this all, except: 1) Lowering HS Incursion income substantially may be preferable to removing them entirely. 2) Citadels: I dont understand what you mean by destroying a Citadel without wardec. Are you suggesting to suicide gank a Citadel? Otherwise, yes I agree with fuel, wider vuln windows and an asset safety nerf. (Its not pragmatic to remove them entirely) If you kept high-sec Incursions you'd have to limit the frequency (making them rarer) and probably cut the income by at least half.
With respect to Citdaels, what I meant was require a fuel cost to online them as well as a base operating cost (some of the services would then have their fuel costs reduced). This provides you with an expanded vulnerability window and asset safety. Let your Citadel run out of fuel and you lose the vulnerability window, asset safety as well as any docking rights (ownership reverts to public, so the first players to dock can assume control by refueling, loot, dismantle or destroy without a wardec). Establishing a blockade thus becomes a vital tactic to isolate Citadels. |
MoonDragn
ZiTek
13
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 15:47:00 -
[213] - Quote
I rather all the PVE stuff get moved to high sec and the PVP stuff to low/null sec. There is no point in forcing people that just want to PVE to go to there when they don't want to.
Is it a real challenge to gank someone who is not outfitted properly for PVP because they are doing PVE content?
If you want PVP, fight someone who is outfitted for PVP. If you want the HS PVE income, then do PVE.
I never liked the idea of forced PVP and if PVE is too easy, then nerf the rewards. Don't force people to PVP if they don't want to. |
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4013
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 16:06:39 -
[214] - Quote
MoonDragn wrote:I rather all the PVE stuff get moved to high sec and the PVP stuff to low/null sec. There is no point in forcing people that just want to PVE to go to there when they don't want to.
so you want to force people to go to highsec to do pve when they dont want to?
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
MoonDragn
ZiTek
14
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 16:10:23 -
[215] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:MoonDragn wrote:I rather all the PVE stuff get moved to high sec and the PVP stuff to low/null sec. There is no point in forcing people that just want to PVE to go to there when they don't want to. so you want to force people to go to highsec to do pve when they dont want to?
Never said that. There are plenty of PVE content in null sec also IF they want to do it there. I just feel that the option should be there. Nothing wrong with the current system the way it is.
Right now in order to do level 5 missions you have to go to NULL, DED complexes etc, just bring a less isk reward version to high sec and if people really want to go to null for the higher isk version then fine.
People who want to gank easy targets are not really good at pvp. That's really just griefing and not really pvp at all. |
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4013
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 16:12:45 -
[216] - Quote
MoonDragn wrote:Lan Wang wrote:MoonDragn wrote:I rather all the PVE stuff get moved to high sec and the PVP stuff to low/null sec. There is no point in forcing people that just want to PVE to go to there when they don't want to. so you want to force people to go to highsec to do pve when they dont want to? Never said that. There are plenty of PVE content in null sec also IF they want to do it there. I just feel that the option should be there. Nothing wrong with the current system the way it is. Right now in order to do level 5 missions you have to go to NULL, DED complexes etc, just bring a less isk reward version to high sec and if people really want to go to null for the higher isk version then fine.
lvl 5's are in lowsec not null
edit: yes you did say that because i quoted what you said and it said that
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
MoonDragn
ZiTek
14
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 16:15:49 -
[217] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:
lvl 5's are in lowsec not null
You know what I meant. Low/Null etc. Move a version of each into the respective zones. Low right now serves as a transition between the two but it really is actually higher risk than null. Completely opposite of the way it should be working.
I've done my share of ratting in NULL space back in the days when there were NO agent missions available. The risks were much lower because there were not that many players around, but I never enjoyed PVP because it required more time/attention than I am willing to give to the game.
I know I'm not really that great at PVP, but before burner missions I've only lost my ship 4 times. Once in a blackbird to 2 MOO pirates in an outnumbered situation and once in a helpless bestower to someone at a station in low sec. I knew the risks but needed the content. The other two times were due to getting stuck on an asteroid while ratting in low sec and dying to NPC battleships.
I really just rather PVE and enjoy my brief play times in EVE. |
Salvos Rhoska
2456
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 16:37:06 -
[218] - Quote
MoonDragn wrote:Don't force people to PVP if they don't want to.
This is an impossible demand.
Its not CCP forcing you to PvP, its other players. This cannot ever change in EVE.
Think of it as predators and prey, if that helps. You both live in the same ecosystem, and are both interdependent.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
MoonDragn
ZiTek
14
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 16:43:33 -
[219] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:MoonDragn wrote:Don't force people to PVP if they don't want to. This is an impossible demand. Its not CCP forcing you to PvP, its other players. This cannot ever change in EVE. Think of it as predators and prey, if that helps. You both live in the same ecosystem, and are both interdependent.
Not impossible. Separate the two and you will be perfectly fine. There is no reason for predators and prey, if that is what you want then expect to lose players until all you have is predators and no prey at all.
If I'm forced into low/null sec to find PVE content, then guess what? I'm leaving EVE again to go find a better game. I left EVE pretty much because of this reason the first time.
If you want this type of content, then why have HS at all? Have PVP everywhere and get rid of NPC protection all together. If you kill me I'll be waiting outside your station to do the same etc. |
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4013
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 16:46:48 -
[220] - Quote
this is about improving lowsec not gutting lowsec and null so you can put it in highsec, you can run lvl 5's in a rattlesnake, you dont need capitals.
that being said everyone would just go to highsec and thats not good for anything
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
|
MoonDragn
ZiTek
14
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 16:48:52 -
[221] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:this is about improving lowsec not gutting lowsec and null so you can put it in highsec, you can run lvl 5's in a rattlesnake, you dont need capitals.
that being said everyone would just go to highsec and thats not good for anything
If you can solo Lvl 5s in a rattlesnake then that ship needs to be nerfed or the level 5s changed. Level 5s were meant to be team PVE content.
Everyone can go to high sec for the content, but it won't put out the same isk reward because the risk is lower, simple. |
Cade Windstalker
1105
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 16:52:14 -
[222] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:This is pretty much the problem. Highsec has been buffed in terms of reward while the risks have been greatly reduced. Nerfs are needed to bring back some sort of balance simply because buffing everywhere else will just cripple the game.
I don't really feel like this is accurate.
Level 4 missions haven't substantially changed. Ganking has changed a *little* but mostly to keep balance about where it's always been, more or less.
High Sec mining has dropped relative to pretty much everything else due to inflation and buffs to Null and Low.
High Sec exploration is easier now but consequently pays significantly worse on average.
The only thing that's *really* changed high sec much in the last 5 years is Incursions, and the income from those has been pretty steady and drastically lower overall than rat bounties and other sources of income, and pretty much anything out in Null is consistently higher income for less work and logistics.
Also a respectable level of High Sec income is needed to allow people to get out into Low and Null in the first place. Otherwise the only feasible options a player has for getting enough to do something like buy their first Carrier, or recover from a stinging loss, are to join a group that's already out in Null. If for whatever reason that's not an option if there weren't any good High Sec income options they'd be pretty stuck.
baltec1 wrote:The reason for exploration nerfs is we need to drastically cut down the number of BPC's dropping as well as mods. Right now there is a huge oversupply. NS would be nerfed in that pirate battleship fleets would no longer be an option.
Yes, but this wouldn't really nerf Null PvE options, just affect Null PvP and do so fairly evenly across the board.
baltec1 wrote:Frankly I think it all needs a shakeup.
The null levels of income are not sustainable, hence the multiple rorqual nerfs to try and stop the collapse of the mineral market and this first attempt to deal with carrier/super ratting. High is offering too much income for the level of risk you have while low sec is sort of left to fester.
Mix in there a revitalization of pvp in all areas, more content, more interaction and things would get more interesting.
The whole Null income thing has been a fairly recent development though, as indicated by the MER graphs, and it has been an issue with Null incomes skyrocketing not any real changes in other areas of the game changing to produce this issue. On top of that there's some question as to whether or not there's actually an issue here. Since the tax changes with Citadel the ISK supply in the economy has remained fairly stable despite the increase from ratting. This suggests that the income levels in Null are sustainable at present levels.
The mineral market issue was its own thing, separate from the income from carrier ratting. The issue with the Rorqual was it drew a ton of people into mining who hadn't mined previously much if at all, and that combined with the huge yields of the Rorqual creates a massive mineral surplus that flooded the market.
So the problem there wasn't so much that the Rewards in general were too good, it's that the mineral production was massive outpacing consumption and what the market could soak.
That last sentence is just kind of fluff. It's a great high level idea, but what would have to be done to actually *do* that is a massive pile of work and it's questionable if the high level statements there are even actually achievable. It's like someone saying "Make Low Sec more attractive and active!" or "Make an amazing game that'll sell a billion copies!" Sure, that's a great idea... how?
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. |
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4013
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 16:53:29 -
[223] - Quote
MoonDragn wrote:Lan Wang wrote:this is about improving lowsec not gutting lowsec and null so you can put it in highsec, you can run lvl 5's in a rattlesnake, you dont need capitals.
that being said everyone would just go to highsec and thats not good for anything If you can solo Lvl 5s in a rattlesnake then that ship needs to be nerfed or the level 5s changed. Level 5s were meant to be team PVE content. Everyone can go to high sec for the content, but it won't put out the same isk reward because the risk is lower, simple.
that will have a knock-on affect on the lp markets making them worthless in lowsec
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
MoonDragn
ZiTek
15
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 16:57:42 -
[224] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:
that will have a knock-on affect on the lp markets making them worthless in lowsec
Why should it? Lower rewards means lower rewards. LP included. Or rather since the content will require a team, the LP will have to be shared anyway.
Soloing level 5s should not be possible unless you are in a large capital ship period. No exceptions. That will balance the content better than it is now.
|
Ronimil
The Goat Farm Reverberation Project
2
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 17:15:34 -
[225] - Quote
ImYourMom wrote:Mr Epeen wrote:Orakkus wrote:So, does everyone have their own idea about how to make low-sec good, I don't know about everyone, but I do. Get rid of it. All you need is lawful space and lawless space. No need for some in between space that makes no one happy. Mr Epeen i sort of agree with this. low sec doesnt deter pirates or anything because the penalties are so easy overcome so whats the point. changing gate gun mechanics and adding tags for sec was a big mistake. tbh gates should be almost alpha-ing. they are so easily tanked. criminal flags are again pointless and can be avoided. its just about immersion and content. with piracy pretty much a none thing now you dont even get flashy red epeen anymore which tbh 8 yrs ago was pretty cool. miners wont mine either, no point attempting lvl 4 and 5 missions in low sec either its just not worth the risk the problem is why do a level 4 mission in low sec for example when you can do one in highsec at no risk. Perhaps one change ia that we have 3 clear distinct tiers where perhaps only 1-2 missions in high, 3-4 in low and 5 in null. that sort of thing. it is n fact pointless.. so actually yes i agree. id like to see more 0.0 npc instead tho
Do you even gate camp? I would use a smaller ship w/ faster lock, throw up bubbles, basically what null sec is.Gate guns aren't effective when there's a 10 man gang of cruisers, but if it's one or two guys camping it, it can help a lot. The guns are 350 dps (175 each). So if sit on gate with a solo BC, attack your cruiser that's tanked to high hell, I might actually die.
Watch this freighter get attacked in low sec by a hurricane, and then hurricane attacks until it explodes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlNERUpwhV8 Just skip to 7 mins 30 sec
|
Drake Aihaken
CODE.d
9
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 17:58:33 -
[226] - Quote
MoonDragn wrote:Soloing level 5s should not be possible unless you are in a large capital ship period. No exceptions. That will balance the content better than it is now. L5s weren't designed to be run in capitals or the acceleration gates would allow them. The fact that some L5 missions are directly warpable to is merely a happy coincidence for capitals. And no one would run L5s with embedded rooms in capitals because you'd essentially be trapping yourself without an option to quckly align out. |
MoonDragn
ZiTek
15
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 18:05:39 -
[227] - Quote
Drake Aihaken wrote:MoonDragn wrote:Soloing level 5s should not be possible unless you are in a large capital ship period. No exceptions. That will balance the content better than it is now. L5s weren't designed to be run in capitals or the acceleration gates would allow them. The fact that some L5 missions are directly warpable to is merely a happy coincidence for capitals. And no one would run L5s with embedded rooms in capitals because you'd essentially be trapping yourself without an option to quckly align out.
Well like I said, they were meant to be group content, not solo content. Should not be soloable anyway. It being soloable is a mistake that I think they should fix.
That taken care off, it wouldn't have much impact to bring it to high sec cause the rewards will have to be shared with a group. |
Torin Corax
Game of Roams
289
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 18:14:39 -
[228] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:
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.
Agreed.
However, what would you define as reducing risk as opposed to reducing perceived risk?
Myself, I'd consider any use of "defensive" NPC's, be it improved gate guns, police, Concord Light etc. to be unacceptable as this is attempting to make Low sec safer by direct manipulation of the base mechanics that define it. Perceived risk is trickier, that's entirely subjective, and largely dependent on the knowledge of the individual.
That's why I tend towards manipulating the PvE content itself to allow for a different approach to participation. If low sec PvE was geared towards more "survivable" ships, preferably PvP fit ships, then it could serve to act as an encouragement to bring "fresh Blood" into low as well as reward those who spend a fair bit of their time in low sec already. More people spending more time in low sec= more possibility of random PvP for those that want it. How successful it is depends on skill and luck, much as it does now.
|
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
54
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 18:22:32 -
[229] - Quote
Torin Corax wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:
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.
Agreed. However, what would you define as reducing risk as opposed to reducing perceived risk? Myself, I'd consider any use of "defensive" NPC's, be it improved gate guns, police, Concord Light etc. to be unacceptable as this is attempting to make Low sec safer by direct manipulation of the base mechanics that define it. Perceived risk is trickier, that's entirely subjective, and largely dependent on the knowledge of the individual. That's why I tend towards manipulating the PvE content itself to allow for a different approach to participation. If low sec PvE was geared towards more "survivable" ships, preferably PvP fit ships, then it could serve to act as an encouragement to bring "fresh Blood" into low as well as reward those who spend a fair bit of their time in low sec already. More people spending more time in low sec= more possibility of random PvP for those that want it. How successful it is depends on skill and luck, much as it does now.
The issue is that PvP is not lucrative for most (maybe for you experts... but for me it's a sink).
I do enjoy FW space in low-sec for PvP action... but I don't make isk in Low... I jump to Null or to High for that. And when I'm in "isk making" mode in null I run from combat rather than looking for it.
Maybe I'm doing it wrong. |
Cade Windstalker
1105
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 18:24:51 -
[230] - Quote
Torin Corax wrote:Agreed.
However, what would you define as reducing risk as opposed to reducing perceived risk?
Myself, I'd consider any use of "defensive" NPC's, be it improved gate guns, police, Concord Light etc. to be unacceptable as this is attempting to make Low sec safer by direct manipulation of the base mechanics that define it. Perceived risk is trickier, that's entirely subjective, and largely dependent on the knowledge of the individual.
That's why I tend towards manipulating the PvE content itself to allow for a different approach to participation. If low sec PvE was geared towards more "survivable" ships, preferably PvP fit ships, then it could serve to act as an encouragement to bring "fresh Blood" into low as well as reward those who spend a fair bit of their time in low sec already. More people spending more time in low sec= more possibility of random PvP for those that want it. How successful it is depends on skill and luck, much as it does now.
I think it's almost impossible to change perceived risk without also changing real risk, at least slightly. The trick is for the actual change in real risk to be small in exchange for a greater change in perceived risk.
For example I think the lack of local in Wormholes makes a lot of people feel safer than they actually are. Similarly people who aren't used to getting ganked through a wormhole, or don't understand their spawn mechanics, may feel safer out in an isolated null system than is actually the case.
In general I like this general approach, lowering the barrier to entry to Low Sec content and thus asking people to risk less for the rewards being offered, and consequently hopefully bringing more people out into Low Sec. If you told me I could spend a few hours tooling around Low in a T2 fit T1 Cruiser hull to farm A and B-type Deadspace modules I'd absolutely pick that over spending tens of hours running missions, ratting, or something similar in High or Null.
In a way this could also be considered a change in perceived risk, in that the risk of losing your ship doesn't really change (if anything you're more likely to lose a T1 Cruiser hull than something more expensive), but because you're being asked to risk less the trade-off seems more worthwhile. |
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3202
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 18:40:27 -
[231] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: For example I think the lack of local in Wormholes makes a lot of people feel safer than they actually are. Similarly people who aren't used to getting ganked through a wormhole, or don't understand their spawn mechanics, may feel safer out in an isolated null system than is actually the case.
I wonder what WH people would so if someone decided to cap a system and talk in local just to be sure he appear in the chat window as being in system. |
Torin Corax
Game of Roams
289
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 18:52:08 -
[232] - Quote
Scialt wrote:
The issue is that PvP is not lucrative for most (maybe for you experts... but for me it's a sink).
I do enjoy FW space in low-sec for PvP action... but I don't make isk in Low... I jump to Null or to High for that. And when I'm in "isk making" mode in null I run from combat rather than looking for it.
Maybe I'm doing it wrong.
It's not so much about making PvP profitable, that's not the main goal of most PvP activities in Low sec, it's about making the PvE content more accessible imo.
I ratted my sec back up from -10 before tags were a thing. I did this in low sec in PvP fit ships. It was boring as hell for the most part, but completely possible. I did surprise more than one "pirate" who thought I'd be an easy kill as a ratter, which was the point. Now, it would of been a lot quicker to use a dedicated PvE fit ship, but far less safer, and this was just standard belt ratting (with a lot of system jumps thrown in for more efficient BS farming). Bear in mind I was doing this exclusively to raise sec, not make isk....in the time taken I would of made significantly more isk doing missions in HS....and that's the crux of the issue for me.
Now I'm no expert, so am willing to defer to those with more experience, but just how efficient is it to run the higher-end PvE sites in a PvP ship? Furthermore, just how expensive would those ships need to be to give a reliable return on the time spent to make it a preferable option over HS incursion/ missioning?
I honestly believe that LS could benefit from PvE activities that a more accessible (read: safer) by virtue of being designed around ships that are themselves inherently "safer" to fly...PvP fit frigs, dessies and cruisers for example. The rewards would be weighted to allow these ship types to out-earn their counterparts in HS by a significant margin, preferably in content that allows for a relatively low exposure time.
Data/ relic sites are an example of what I would consider to be almost ideal. The exposure time is low ( only really exposed on gates and while performing a hack), and the rewards can be relatively decent. However the time lost while probing etc. leads to pretty low efficiency and there is a rather large amount of RNG thrown in for good measure. Subsequently it requires rather a considerable time investment.....time that could be earning a player far more in HS.
TLDR: It's not the mechanics of Low sec that really need a change, it's the mechanics/ rewards of the PvE content.
|
MoonDragn
ZiTek
22
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 20:21:47 -
[233] - Quote
Another solution would be to remove local in all low and null sectors. I don't see any reason why anyone should be able to automatically see who is in the system. How is that happening anyway? There is a magic sensor that tells everyone automatically who is in the system?
I can see how it would work in Hi-sec if the government monitors the traffic and broadcast it as a public service, but that should not happen in low and null sec. |
Cade Windstalker
1107
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 21:01:06 -
[234] - Quote
MoonDragn wrote:Another solution would be to remove local in all low and null sectors. I don't see any reason why anyone should be able to automatically see who is in the system. How is that happening anyway? There is a magic sensor that tells everyone automatically who is in the system?
I can see how it would work in Hi-sec if the government monitors the traffic and broadcast it as a public service, but that should not happen in low and null sec.
That's actually more or less exactly what happens in k-space. When you enter a system you're registered on the local broadcast node and everyone on the node is visible to everyone else on that node. It's part of the Capsule tech and therefore not under player control. In WHs the supporting infrastructure doesn't exist (because waaaaay beyond the gate network) so there's no local.
From a gameplay perspective it makes it easier to find people and thus create content.
Whether or not that's still valid or necessary is, I want to stress, a topic for another thread, it's been done to death.
Torin Corax wrote:...
Data/ relic sites are an example of what I would consider to be almost ideal. The exposure time is low ( only really exposed on gates and while performing a hack), and the rewards can be relatively decent. However the time lost while probing etc. leads to pretty low efficiency and there is a rather large amount of RNG thrown in for good measure. Subsequently it requires rather a considerable time investment.....time that could be earning a player far more in HS.
TLDR: It's not the mechanics of Low sec that really need a change, it's the mechanics/ rewards of the PvE content.
An experienced prober can actually run sites pretty quickly, and almost anything in Low is going to be at least a little RNG dependent. The site rewards, especially for combat sites, area already fantastic, the problem is basically what you're describing. They either require expensive and very hard to catch PvE ships to run or a significant group which is inherently inefficient.
I'm not personally aware of anyone who runs Low sites in a PvP fitted ship. That's not to say they don't exist, just that it's not a common profession and is fairly niche all things considered. |
Salvos Rhoska
2458
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 21:01:44 -
[235] - Quote
MoonDragn wrote:Not impossible. Separate the two and you will be perfectly fine. There is no reason for predators and prey, if that is what you want then expect to lose players until all you have is predators and no prey at all. Destruction must happen, commensurate to resource generation.
Separating the two, is certain death.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Rotho Ataru
The Anti-Meme Initiative Exponential Dysfunction
6
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 21:12:40 -
[236] - Quote
I posted by ideas for improving low sec in the war dec thread in this post.
Copy-pasta for easier reference:
Quote:Here are some vague ideas I was thinking of. They aren't fully fleshed out, but I think that we should be thinking outside of the box for ways to encourage PVP without needing a war dec system.
- Make low sec more profitable: Hopefully the increased traffic (and destruction) would balance out the extra production.
- Make gate camps have a cost: Currently entering a low sec system in a gate gamp is like walking down a booby-trapped hallway with arrows being shot at you from the walls and the door at the end of the hallway rapidly closing. You don't want to do this in anything worth any sort of value. We should have NPC security who can tackle and EWAR gankers at low sec gates when they attack someone who just uncloaked. This way gate campers pay a price for cowardly ambush mechanics unless they bring a large enough group to neutralize their target and the security guards. By allowing people to feel SOMEWHAT safe entering a low sec system, they will also be more likely to rat there and mine there. The RP reason could be that NPC corps want people to travel in their system, do their missions, pay their station taxes, etc. and gankers discourage that.
- Make it possible to hire a NPC's corp's help when you want to solo: They wouldn't be very strong ships, but they will at least make up for the fact that solo gankers have every advantage if they catch you. If you are doing a mission or mining in low sec, unless you have hired help, you have NO FIGHTING CHANCE against any aggressors. The aggressor comes into the fight with the advantage of picking their own target and often times their target is not at full health if it's a mission ship (you know, those expensive, easy kill mails you love). The aggressor should have to have as much on the line as the person being attacked. This is not currently the case. Mission ships and mining ships are just floating kill mails in low sec.
As a high sec care bear myself, I would love to enter low sec if it was worthwhile and I wasn't 100% sure I would be blown up immediately without being able to fight back. High sec is more fun because I can fly battleships and I can undock without a fleet behind me. Low sec is for cruisers and below. And even then, you have to have PVP fit at all times. That's super restrictive and boring IMO. Also, where's the isk to compensate for the free-for-all destruction I have to endure as a visitor or hell, even a resident? |
Salvos Rhoska
2458
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 21:21:46 -
[237] - Quote
Rotho Ataru wrote:Low sec is for cruisers and below. And even then, you have to have PVP fit at all times. That's super restrictive and boring IMO. Also, where's the isk to compensate for the free-for-all destruction I have to endure as a visitor or hell, even a resident?
Explain this.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Rotho Ataru
The Anti-Meme Initiative Exponential Dysfunction
6
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 21:25:45 -
[238] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Rotho Ataru wrote:Low sec is for cruisers and below. And even then, you have to have PVP fit at all times. That's super restrictive and boring IMO. Also, where's the isk to compensate for the free-for-all destruction I have to endure as a visitor or hell, even a resident? Explain this. It would be foolish to take a mission ship into low sec. You'd be easily found and gunned down if you even make it through the gate camps because you don't have a fit for PVP, you have a fit for damage high sustained damage.
I could fit for PVP but then the same missions would take longer for me to do and I still would easily lose my battleship to a frigate who tackles me until his buddies come to share the kill mail.
You basically need a fleet with you if you're in anything that's too large because you are a juicier target and easier to tackle. |
MoonDragn
ZiTek
22
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 21:29:45 -
[239] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:MoonDragn wrote:Not impossible. Separate the two and you will be perfectly fine. There is no reason for predators and prey, if that is what you want then expect to lose players until all you have is predators and no prey at all. Destruction must happen, commensurate to resource generation. Separating the two, is certain death.
That's fine as long as it is your resources being destroyed. Go buy an expensive ship and let me blow it up a few times. Right now piracy is lower risk because they are using inexpensive ships to pirate with. With the high level missions the ships are expensive.
Where is the risk vs reward here? |
Drake Aihaken
CODE.d
22
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 21:31:05 -
[240] - Quote
Supercapitals, jump freighters and cynos are the problem in null-sec. You either go small or you go broke because you can't compete against the larger null-sec alliances. Removing all their toys from low-sec is the first step. Nerfing high-sec Incursions and Burners to deny a lucrative and risk-free income source for null-sec alts is the second. After that, with a few tweaks the problems will largely take care of themselves. |
|
Penance Toralen
Compass Fox
38
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 21:45:47 -
[241] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:The only thing that's *really* changed high sec much in the last 5 years is Incursions, and the income from those has been pretty steady and drastically lower overall than rat bounties and other sources of income, and pretty much anything out in Null is consistently higher income for less work and logistics.
You missed the addition of Sisters of Eve faction ships. Which inflated the value of SoE LP and their missions. So much so that CCP had to shift around their agent types to increase the number of Security agents accessible to mission runners. No other pirate faction is available in high-sec.
I wouldn't mind seeing a graph of the number of missions run by type and volume. |
Roland Schlosser
Abyssal Heavy Industries
22
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 23:13:45 -
[242] - Quote
Separate the Empire HS areas with LS. minimum 5j between Empires through LS, no avoiding it. |
Xel'lotath Tier
Interstellar Booty Hunters
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 00:49:01 -
[243] - Quote
So much awful ideas. Remove it entirely or add concord to it WTF?
Low sec is fine.
The only thing that needs to be done is nerf high sec to oblivion, then people will actually have a reason to leave the tutorial area of the game. The fact that high sec is so populated when essentially is the "asylum" of this game says that something is really wrong.
You are supposed to leave high sec. High sec is only there so new players don't get immediately blown up while learning the game. Everything else is crappier (and it should be) in high sec, the game is teasing you to move to low or null for better rewards when you feel comfortable enough, but how can that happen when players don't even know what the dscan is.
Low sec is not the problem. If they want it to be more populated, nerf high sec so people actually learn the freaking game and leave the tutorial area for once.
I don't know anything about incursions but I heard you can make near carrier ratting in null level of isk per hour. How is that even a thing on high sec? If that's true then they should be low sec/null sec exclusive.
That's the problem with low sec, why leave high sec if you can make 150 mill an hour in the safest space of the game.
And for the people that are saying "if you move stuff to low sec then people will not do them anymore, like level 5 missions, or they will quit." So what? If people are too scared to leave the starting area of the game because they don't know how to protect themselves in a game called Everyone vs Everyone Online, then they are just playing the wrong game and should leave. It's like playing Dark Souls and never leave the asylum because you are too scared of invaders. You should like to be hunted, and you should like to hunt other players. If you don't, then the game is simply not for you.
I've been playing this game 11 months now, I leaved high sec on my own 2 weeks into the game, I was still in a npc corp. Why are people so afraid of dying in a video game? What's funny is that if you know how to use the dscan, which is not hard at all, then you are almost unkilleable. You will evade your predators before they even land on grid. You are only really at risk at gates because you can't dscan the other side, you still have options to deal with those though.
Condcord in low sec... my god. This is why developers should stick to their vision and never listen to their ignorant fans. Lol I'm triggered. |
Rotho Ataru
The Anti-Meme Initiative Exponential Dysfunction
8
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 05:17:46 -
[244] - Quote
Xel'lotath Tier wrote: The only thing that needs to be done is nerf high sec to oblivion, then people will actually have a reason to leave the tutorial area of the game.
Nerf high sec if it makes you feel better but low sec would still be unappealing in it's current state. It's a ganker's paradise. Gankers get to choose their target who is not fitted as well for PVP as they and gun them down with hardly any retaliation at all. That's not fun for the target. That's why all PVE happens in safe places like high sec or in null sec with a large alliance protecting you.
Xel'lotath Tier wrote: You are supposed to leave high sec. High sec is only there so new players don't get immediately blown up while learning the game
Source from CCP? I get that CCP wants people to play in other parts of space more but high sec is not supposed to be just a tutorial.
Xel'lotath Tier wrote: I don't know anything about incursions but I heard you can make near carrier ratting in null level of isk per hour. How is that even a thing on high sec? If that's true then they should be low sec/null sec exclusive.
Well you need a fleet with pretty advanced skills and you have to constantly move your expensive ships through space chasing the Sansha. It's more much involved than carrier ratting. And I am fairly sure it's not as lucrative but they're probably somewhat close. Also, there are incursions in low sec but you'd need to have a very well prepared team or be a special kind of dumb to take expensive incursion ships into low sec incursions. Gankers would have a field day.
Xel'lotath Tier wrote: And for the people that are saying "if you move stuff to low sec then people will not do them anymore, like level 5 missions, or they will quit." So what? If people are too scared to leave the starting area of the game because they don't know how to protect themselves in a game called Everyone vs Everyone Online, then they are just playing the wrong game and should leave. It's like playing Dark Souls and never leave the asylum because you are too scared of invaders. You should like to be hunted, and you should like to hunt other players. If you don't, then the game is simply not for you.
I understand your sentiment (you want to PVP in a PVP game) but that would shut down a large chunk of CCP's income. Good luck convincing them they should make less money so you can blow up more internet spaceships.
|
Xel'lotath Tier
Interstellar Booty Hunters
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 06:14:16 -
[245] - Quote
Anyone with half a brain can pve "safely" in low sec or hostile null sec. All you have to do is keep your dscan open (you don't even need to watch local, so idk why many people want that feature removed, but that's off topic) at 14 AU with 360-¦ angle and watch it every couple of seconds. See ships on it? short it to 10 AU, then to 5 at which point you should start to get worried and pre aling. See ships at 1 AU? Warp off. Gank avoided. Even cloacky ships will have a hard time catching you if you pay attention because they have a delay before they can lock you up. Sometimes ships can't get to you without using combat probes, giving you even more time to warp off.
If getting interrupted constantly is a problem. Then all you need to do is open your ingame map or dotlan, and search for a system with low traffic and just pve there.
I don't see how a whole fleet can be afraid of low sec even if it is pve fit. (Talking about incursions here).
I've pved in wh space alone. Did combat sites on low sec alone. Explored in hostile sov space with intel channels alone. I consider myself a noob at this game, if I can do it, anyone can. People just need to stop being so risk averse and take some risk in a risk vs reward game. Those who do will see the benefits that low/null sec offer. Those who don't will remain in the tutorial area of the game making **** isk as they should (and they should make less that they are making now).
I honestly don't see what's wrong with low sec (apart from fw farmers, which are just an annoyance), it's looks like is the best (along with WH) space to me so far. No concord and no blue donut to protect you, only yourself. Fast and accessible solo/small gang pvp, better minerals, better exploration sites and less competition.
If people want low sec buffed, or with exclusive content not even found in null, thats fine with me. But saying that low sec serves no purporse and should be removed or that it needs concord it's so stupid that it made me post here for the first time lol.
Low sec is basically a better space for those that learned the game enough to not waste time in high sec but don't want to deal with sov stuff or bubbles. |
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4019
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 12:11:13 -
[246] - Quote
MoonDragn wrote:Drake Aihaken wrote:MoonDragn wrote:Soloing level 5s should not be possible unless you are in a large capital ship period. No exceptions. That will balance the content better than it is now. L5s weren't designed to be run in capitals or the acceleration gates would allow them. The fact that some L5 missions are directly warpable to is merely a happy coincidence for capitals. And no one would run L5s with embedded rooms in capitals because you'd essentially be trapping yourself without an option to quckly align out. Well like I said, they were meant to be group content, not solo content. Should not be soloable anyway. It being soloable is a mistake that I think they should fix. That taken care off, it wouldn't have much impact to bring it to high sec cause the rewards will have to be shared with a group. I think it should be a group of coordinated min of 3 people to prevent being soloable in multi-boxing alts.
min 3 people....so my rattlesnake and a couple of alts for logi.
again you are just proposing ideas to make highsec more appealing while doing nothing for lowsec, which is what this thread is about
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Shiloh Templeton
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
612
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 13:02:16 -
[247] - Quote
Xel'lotath Tier wrote:The only thing that needs to be done is nerf high sec to oblivion, then people will actually have a reason to leave the tutorial area of the game. The fact that high sec is so populated when essentially is the "asylum" of this game says that something is really wrong. This is the strategy that many null-sec leaders have adopted and is completely wrong for the game (even if you think it is good for you). You don't become a bigger, more profitable company by alienating half your customers.
Sure, provide positive incentives to move to other parts of the game ( WH, LS, NS). But don't destroy the part of the game some players prefer.
"Go west young man" is better than Stalin forced resettlement.
|
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
57
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 13:11:12 -
[248] - Quote
MoonDragn wrote:Another solution would be to remove local in all low and null sectors. I don't see any reason why anyone should be able to automatically see who is in the system. How is that happening anyway? There is a magic sensor that tells everyone automatically who is in the system?
I can see how it would work in Hi-sec if the government monitors the traffic and broadcast it as a public service, but that should not happen in low and null sec.
I don't think that would drive more people to low sec.
I think it would probably drive more people from null and low sec into high sec.
If we want to eliminate local as a mechanic in anything other than high sec, that's fine. But I think people have a really odd conception of how the players would react to it. If people wanted that style of play they'd be in wormholes already. |
Ishido Attaka
Purity of the Iron Cold
24
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 13:28:20 -
[249] - Quote
Xel'lotath Tier wrote:S
The only thing that needs to be done is nerf high sec to oblivion, then people will actually have a reason to leave the tutorial area of the game. The fact that high sec is so populated when essentially is the "asylum" of this game says that something is really wrong.
You are so wrong it hurts... Way too many legal EVE players just do not want to interact with other players for whole 100 % of the time. 5-10% of the time - yes, but not 100%. Constant D-Scan paranoya or hours long run around "Dotlan-empty" systems to earn at least some ISK for PvP is just not worth it for them / us. I earn ISK to PVP and I do not like to be interrupted during that relaxing time to the degree, when I quit playing if bothered with forced PvP too often. I dare to quote here the opinion I agree with:
Bill Bones wrote:
First thing first: people staying in highsec is not a problem, thus, it doesn't needs to be fixed. People staying in highsec is the cash cow where CCP earns the money for the smaller minorites doing null, low and WH stuff. so the real problem is people leaving both highsec and the game altogether.
EVE needs the kind of player who stays in highsec i.e. someone whose "risk" level is suit to highsec AS IT IS. They are the bulk of the playerbase. They also are the vast majority of any potential users (people who still haven't played EVE) left for CCP to replace the parting players.
Plain and simple, after 13 years, EVE Online is a game where MOST people log in, play in highsec, amass bilions and then leave. SOME people go to null, SOME people PvP, SOME people become cool guys having drinks with devs in Reykjavik, but the money for CCP it's in the guy leveling his Raven and then removing it from the game by going inactive after roughly 2 years in highsec.
The reason why EVE economy remains healthy althouhh production triples destruction it's because inactive accounts remove anything between 30 and 60x more money from the economy than PvP does. So the real economy flux in EVe is:
Each month, 3 ISK are produced, 1 isk is destroyed and 50 isk disappear into inactive accounts.
Each month, 25 months worth of production are removed from the game as players leave it.
Highsec is the proverbial elephant in the room. It si not a "starter area", but the reason why EVE still is alive after 13 years. And also the slow destruction of highsec since Rubicon is the reason why EVE is going south no matter how Hilmar tries to spin CCP's one year record to prospective buyers. You can only sell a launch app with a new hardware once. You can only go "F2P" once. You can only convince investors that VR is a thing before it crashes and burns and your company's main future asset becomes useless.
Then 2017 comes and goes and unless someone buys CCP, you'll be left with a company whose cash cow EVE is decaying at the same rate as development is drained from keeping EVE's cash cow healthy and resources pour into "cooler" but financially unsustainable gameplay. Nullsec can't pay for nullsec's development. WH and low, they even less. PvP can't pay for PvP's development. Remove highsec, kill it player by apleyr, nerf by nerf and month by month of neglect, and you'll be left with a cool highsec-free game which just happened to lose 60% of its income.
TL;DR - you want to see CCP broke and eve dead? - nerf high sec |
MoonDragn
ZiTek
22
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 14:17:44 -
[250] - Quote
Xel'lotath Tier wrote:So much awful ideas. Remove it entirely or add concord to it WTF?
Low sec is fine.
The only thing that needs to be done is nerf high sec to oblivion, then people will actually have a reason to leave the tutorial area of the game. The fact that high sec is so populated when essentially is the "asylum" of this game says that something is really wrong.
You are supposed to leave high sec. High sec is only there so new players don't get immediately blown up while learning the game. Everything else is crappier (and it should be) in high sec, the game is teasing you to move to low or null for better rewards when you feel comfortable enough, but how can that happen when players don't even know what the dscan is.
Low sec is not the problem. If they want it to be more populated, nerf high sec so people actually learn the freaking game and leave the tutorial area for once.
I don't know anything about incursions but I heard you can make near carrier ratting in null level of isk per hour. How is that even a thing on high sec? If that's true then they should be low sec/null sec exclusive.
That's the problem with low sec, why leave high sec if you can make 150 mill an hour in the safest space of the game.
And for the people that are saying "if you move stuff to low sec then people will not do them anymore, like level 5 missions, or they will quit." So what? If people are too scared to leave the starting area of the game because they don't know how to protect themselves in a game called Everyone vs Everyone Online, then they are just playing the wrong game and should leave. It's like playing Dark Souls and never leave the asylum because you are too scared of invaders. You should like to be hunted, and you should like to hunt other players. If you don't, then the game is simply not for you.
I've been playing this game 11 months now, I leaved high sec on my own 2 weeks into the game, I was still in a npc corp. Why are people so afraid of dying in a video game? What's funny is that if you know how to use the dscan, which is not hard at all, then you are almost unkilleable. You will evade your predators before they even land on grid. You are only really at risk at gates because you can't dscan the other side, you still have options to deal with those though.
Condcord in low sec... my god. This is why developers should stick to their vision and never listen to their ignorant fans. Lol I'm triggered.
Don't think you understand the problem. The reason I left EVE was because there was no casual content. If I log out in low or null sec there is nothing but pvp. What if I just want to go ratting or do a mission? I can't because some idiot will try to jump me. I don't have time for that. I just want to do a quick mission because I only have a short time to play, not have to be stuck somewhere for hours.
If there is no content like that for me, then it is time to quit again.
You think some of us haven't left high sec? Our corp used to have a few offices in Geminate. We only left there because the devs changed the ore spawn on us and MOO decided to move into the area.
Back in those days there was nothing but ratting or mining. No missions. That's great when you are still in college and have plenty of time to play, but RL will catch up to you and EVE desperately needs casual content that can be done in 1 hour or less.
PVP in eve is a real drag for me. When you are a casual player, it is hard to hook up with a group for pvp, and going at it solo is going to ruin your day half of the time. So solo missions is about the only fun there is left in EVE. I got tired of sucking roids a long time ago. |
|
Salvos Rhoska
2467
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 14:20:17 -
[251] - Quote
MoonDragn wrote:If there is no content like that for me, then it is time to quit again.
So what exactly do you want changed in LS?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4020
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 14:23:06 -
[252] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:MoonDragn wrote:If there is no content like that for me, then it is time to quit again. So what exactly do you want changed in LS?
thats the thing, he has made it clear he doesnt want to go to lowsec, he wants low and null content added to highsec, which is not what this thread is about
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
MoonDragn
ZiTek
22
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 14:25:27 -
[253] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:MoonDragn wrote:If there is no content like that for me, then it is time to quit again. So what exactly do you want changed in LS?
I don't want LS to change. I'm arguing against the change. I want there to be a clear delineation between PVE and PVP. let the people who enjoy doing PVP to have their own area and leave us casual PVEers alone.
|
Salvos Rhoska
2467
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 14:26:51 -
[254] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:MoonDragn wrote:If there is no content like that for me, then it is time to quit again. So what exactly do you want changed in LS? thats the thing, he has made it clear he doesnt want to go to lowsec, he wants low and null content added to highsec, which is not what this thread is about Thanks for the opinion, but I didnt ask you. I asked him, and my question is ontopic and what this thread is about.
Stop running interception for a bit and let people answer.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4020
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 14:40:07 -
[255] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:MoonDragn wrote:If there is no content like that for me, then it is time to quit again. So what exactly do you want changed in LS? thats the thing, he has made it clear he doesnt want to go to lowsec, he wants low and null content added to highsec, which is not what this thread is about Thanks for the opinion, but I didnt ask you. I asked him, and my question is ontopic and what this thread is about. Stop running interception for a bit and let people answer.
he has already answered maybe read what he wrote instead of asking the same things
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Salvos Rhoska
2469
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 14:51:41 -
[256] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:he has already answered maybe read what he wrote instead of asking the same things
He answered 2 mins AFTER you.
Check the time stamps.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2469
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 14:56:59 -
[257] - Quote
MoonDragn wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:MoonDragn wrote:If there is no content like that for me, then it is time to quit again. So what exactly do you want changed in LS? I don't want LS to change.
Ok then. That's, like, your opinion, man.
What exactly is it that you do in LS?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4020
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 15:01:26 -
[258] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:he has already answered maybe read what he wrote instead of asking the same things He answered 2 mins 21sec AFTER you. Check the time stamps. Are you a time traveler? Or maybe confusing your alts?
no im not a time traveller, im sure you have some sort of memory problem if you cant remember yesterday...
MoonDragn wrote:I rather all the PVE stuff get moved to high sec and the PVP stuff to low/null sec. There is no point in forcing people that just want to PVE to go to there when they don't want to.
Is it a real challenge to gank someone who is not outfitted properly for PVP because they are doing PVE content?
If you want PVP, fight someone who is outfitted for PVP. If you want the HS PVE income, then do PVE.
I never liked the idea of forced PVP and if PVE is too easy, then nerf the rewards. Don't force people to PVP if they don't want to.
MoonDragn wrote:Right now in order to do level 5 missions you have to go to NULL, DED complexes etc, just bring a less isk reward version to high sec and if people really want to go to null for the higher isk version then fine.
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Salvos Rhoska
2469
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 15:06:48 -
[259] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:no im not a time traveller, im sure you have some sort of memory problem if you cant remember yesterday..
Those involved HS and NS changes. Not LS.
I specifically asked about LS changes. To which he replied 2mins 21secs AFTER you claiming he had already answered that.
This is legit beginning to stink, as do the sudden "first time posters" appearing in this and the wardec thread, often at the incidental lack of posting by typical antagonists.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4020
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 15:47:14 -
[260] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:no im not a time traveller, im sure you have some sort of memory problem if you cant remember yesterday.. Those involved HS and NS changes. Not LS. I specifically asked about LS changes. To which he replied 2mins 21secs AFTER you claiming he had already answered that. This is legit beginning to stink, as do the sudden "first time posters" appearing in this and the wardec thread, often at the incidental lack of posting by typical antagonists.
lvl 5's are lowsec content which he wants added to highsec, thats a lowsec change because why bother going to low to run 5's if you can do them in hs.
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
|
Salvos Rhoska
2470
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 15:56:05 -
[261] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:no im not a time traveller, im sure you have some sort of memory problem if you cant remember yesterday.. Those involved HS and NS changes. Not LS. I specifically asked about LS changes. To which he replied 2mins 21secs AFTER you claiming he had already answered that. This is legit beginning to stink, as do the sudden "first time posters" appearing in this and the wardec thread, often at the incidental lack of posting by typical antagonists. lvl 5's are lowsec content which he wants added to highsec, thats a lowsec change because why bother going to low to run 5's if you can do them in hs.
Wait.. Wat..? Not only does this not explain the timestamp issue, now you are claiming his statement that he wants no changes to LS, is false?
Are you that goddam dishonest, that you will claim to me and readers, that removing L5s from LS, is not a change to LS?
Get your **** straight, bro. This isnt going well for you, nor "him".
Send a better shill. You guys are crap. Better yet, send me the uber-shill! Lets go, toe-to-toe!
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4020
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 16:08:10 -
[262] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:no im not a time traveller, im sure you have some sort of memory problem if you cant remember yesterday.. Those involved HS and NS changes. Not LS. I specifically asked about LS changes. To which he replied 2mins 21secs AFTER you claiming he had already answered that. This is legit beginning to stink, as do the sudden "first time posters" appearing in this and the wardec thread, often at the incidental lack of posting by typical antagonists. lvl 5's are lowsec content which he wants added to highsec, thats a lowsec change because why bother going to low to run 5's if you can do them in hs. Wait.. Wat..? Not only does this not explain the timestamp issue, now you are claiming his statement that he wants no changes to LS, is false? Are you that goddam dishonest, that you will claim to me and readers, that removing L5s from LS, is not a change to LS? Get your **** straight, bro. This isnt going well for you, nor "him".
what are you talking about a timestamp issue for, are you trying to assume thats my alt or something? he has been posting here since yesterday regarding these changes if you actually read then you will see wtf im talking about, you actually quoted him yesterday, i also highlighted the part in my previous quote so start reading instead of twisting things around to suit your own wierd theories, there is nothing mentioned about removing them.
HE WANTS A LESS REWARD VERSION OF LVL 5 MISSIONS ADDED TO HIGHSEC SO HE DOESNT HAVE TO DEAL WITH PVP'ERS IN LOWSEC, THAT IS A CHANGE TO LOWSEC BECAUSE LVL 5'S ARE UNIQUE TO LOWSEC
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Buoytender Bob
Ronin Exploration Mission and Mining
227
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 16:40:24 -
[263] - Quote
CCP needs to slow the ISK faucet down in HS while generating new content. Any ideas expressed may be the kernel that sparks a Dev's new idea that puts a forth a new mechanic that may improve EVE for all the players.
1) Nerf HS Incursion income by removing the current Incursion types to only LS and NS. Introduce a much smaller Incursion class of site (new Scout class) to HS that offers a greatly reduced ISK/LP payout. These new sites could be ship class restricted or not, but they should be made for 1-3 pilots. There should be a limit of running only 2-3 sites in a 24 hour period; activating modules would become impossible in sites once one exceeded their limit. This forced the large continuous Incursion fleets to move to LS/NS and reduces the huge amount of ISK they make per hour, while allowing newer players a chance to try out higher end content.
2) Change all HS Level 4 missions to have less agent information revealed when offering a mission. Blitzing blinged out ships in level 4 missions has been a constant complaint by those seeking to make changes. Agents would, of course, inform what type of mission it would be but, with the exception of if it is against one of the four major factions (Minmatar,etc) , exact information about opponents/force would be eliminated. Have a RNG generate both the opponents (all types) and graduated loot table to range from easy to extremely hard. All missions are entered by a gate and once entered, can only be warped out once. The gate becomes locked for 6 hours to ALL ships, so alts cannot be used to scout beforehand. When entering a site via gate, a pilot will be greeted by part of the opposing forces who will auto agress, hopefully preventing the overuse of Mobile Depots to change at warp in during a mission. The current Level 4 mission protocol remains in effect in LS/NS, so blitzing mission runners who want to keep their current practices will have to change locations. Burner mission protocol remains the same in HS.
3) Significantly reduce the standing hit from ship kills in LS and replace part of it with a new standing meter called Reputation. This reputation only applies in LS and increases at a slower rate than the current penalties for ship kills. This Reputation could be improved by a yet to be determined mechanic. Reputation would have the most effect on the new mechanic of LoPo/Gate guns.
4) All LS gates that directly connect to HS have increased gun power and new AI, as well as a new LoPo fleet presence. The LoPo are defeatable by a powerful enough force, but the gate guns have to really hurt. LoPo remains in close proximity to only the HS gate. All other gates and sentry guns remain the same in LS. This would hopefully encourage players at least the ability to peek into LS at the gate and then decide if they want to adventure out of the protection of the gate defences. Hostile pilots with LoPo reps of good/neutral could still gate camp or scout nearby and be ignored by the LoPo, but this new mechanic should increase the traffic flow of people venturing into LS.
5) Offer small scannable ore sites of much rarer ore that would encourage small 1-2 man groups into LS, but discourage large scale farming by larger groups.
I know that these ideas are incomplete or not fully thought out, but I think most of the people posting in this thread want to improve EVE or at least keep it healthy. By combining new content with reduced HS income, perhaps a larger number of people will begin to explore LS/NS. Simply nerfing HS without offering new content will just drive more people to other games. Keeping the current HS/LS gate mechanics the same discourages newbros and others from even trying to make it in LS. I would think that CCP welcomes all ideas even if 99% are non-workable, in the hopes that a new concept that was overlooked may be discovered or inspired.
To buck the popular trend, I began to Rage Start instead of Rage Quit.
...and every time I get another piece of Carbon, I know exactly what CCP is getting this Christmas.
|
Salvos Rhoska
2472
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 17:45:03 -
[264] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:HE WANTS A LESS REWARD VERSION OF LVL 5 MISSIONS ADDED TO HIGHSEC SO HE DOESNT HAVE TO DEAL WITH PVP'ERS IN LOWSEC, THAT IS A CHANGE TO LOWSEC BECAUSE LVL 5'S ARE UNIQUE TO LOWSEC
Vs
MoonDragn wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
So what exactly do you want changed in LS?
I don't want LS to change.
Btfo, bro.
Plus the ridiculous attempt by you to claim he had answered my question, 2mins 21secs before he answered it.
I specifically warned you to stop your desperate interception play for a bit. Did you listen, no. GJ. This is the result.
Protip: Dont presume to answer on behalf of others. If I want your view, I will ask you.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
MoonDragn
ZiTek
22
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 18:00:00 -
[265] - Quote
Buoytender Bob wrote:CCP needs to slow the ISK faucet down in HS while generating new content. Any ideas expressed may be the kernel that sparks a Dev's new idea that puts a forth a new mechanic that may improve EVE for all the players.
I agree with you that incursion isk inflow might be causing the issues, but I don't think reducing isk income in general is a good idea. When I mentioned a lower reward for HS, that is only for content that would be copied from LS. If you reduce the isk income even further, then people will further not want to risk their expensive ships into LS/NULL because the cost of replacement would be out of your reach.
If your idea is to entice people to go into LS or NULL, then maybe you need to create a type of content for items that are not sellable, or some kind of special standing system like you mentioned, that can only be obtained from pvp that gives out rewards that cannot be sold.
Then the risk vs reward may be worth it for people in HS.
In other online games, these type of enticements are PVP gear that cannot be obtained any other way. This would be a similar system. |
Maximillian Bonaparte
Interstellar Booty Hunters
138
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 18:03:25 -
[266] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:HE WANTS A LESS REWARD VERSION OF LVL 5 MISSIONS ADDED TO HIGHSEC SO HE DOESNT HAVE TO DEAL WITH PVP'ERS IN LOWSEC, THAT IS A CHANGE TO LOWSEC BECAUSE LVL 5'S ARE UNIQUE TO LOWSEC
Vs MoonDragn wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
So what exactly do you want changed in LS?
I don't want LS to change. Btfo, bro. Plus the ridiculous attempt by you to claim he had answered my question, 2mins 21secs before he answered it. I specifically warned you to stop your desperate interception play for a bit. Did you listen, no. GJ. This is the result.
Salvos, I am calling you out... you seem to be all over this thread with a lot of weird behavior, and preconceived notions about lowsec.
I see you (at least this toon), has been in an NPC corp for over three years, and your killboard shows you do not kill people, and have only died a few times over the years in lowsec. So, where is your main-toon that has been operating in lowsec?
What I am seeing here is on one side, people who do NOT thrive in lowsec who want to change things like, remove cynos, add more gate gun aggro, add concord whatever... And on the other side people who DO thrive in lowsec saying 'ya know mostly its fine, you just have to learn how to do it right'. Of course some people will never go because they would rather not be challenged in any way, at least not presently. Lowsec is indeed a hard challenge, but with some effort and practice you can learn to love it.
I think there should be more incentive for people to go to lowsec for one, no blue donut and continued mechanics that reduce the 'fleet blobs' you see in nullsec. And once that incentive is there, actually add MORE lowsec. Because lets face it, most of lowsec is already a narrow zone between empire space and null...not a lot more lwosec but a wee bit more. :)
Lowsec is nice because you can travel quickly through it without worrying about bubbles to slow you down. It is clsoer to trade hubs. The pvp content is smaller scale. The space is not 'owned' by anyone. It is one of the most free-spirited and fearless ways to play imho.
|
MoonDragn
ZiTek
22
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 18:08:16 -
[267] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:HE WANTS A LESS REWARD VERSION OF LVL 5 MISSIONS ADDED TO HIGHSEC SO HE DOESNT HAVE TO DEAL WITH PVP'ERS IN LOWSEC, THAT IS A CHANGE TO LOWSEC BECAUSE LVL 5'S ARE UNIQUE TO LOWSEC
Vs MoonDragn wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:So what exactly do you want changed in LS? I don't want LS to change. Btfo, bro. Plus the ridiculous attempt by you to claim he had answered my question, 2mins 21secs before he answered it. I specifically advised you to stop your desperate interception play for a bit. (Read back) I saw this coming a mile away, and tried to warn you, cos Im a nice guy. Did you listen, no. GJ. This is the result. Protip: Dont presume to answer on behalf of others. If I want your view, I will ask you.
In a way both of you are right. It depends on how you look at my answers.
I want HS to change, to have the content that LS and Null has, except with less rewards, which technically won't change LS.
However, I agree there are other issues with the current system. The high incursion isk income being the main glaring one. I think that is what a lot of people are perceiving as easy money, even though it isn't that easy unless you are in a well oiled team for incursion. Either way, a lot of isk is there that make people think it is why they are not in LS pvping. (Good luck with incursion groups in LS, because they are so well oiled, you will have issues pvping them.)
Other issues being blitzing missions. But instead of nerfing the reward, how about just change the mission objective to having to clear all the NPCs? that would solve the blitzing problem easily.
|
Salvos Rhoska
2472
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 18:11:17 -
[268] - Quote
Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:Lowsec is nice because you can travel quickly through it without worrying about bubbles to slow you down. It is clsoer to trade hubs
Hmm. Such nice quick travel. Wow, such no bubbles. Trade hub nearby yumyum.
Quite telling, when one reads between the lines. Which reads: "LS cant do **** to stop me moving mats between HS and NS trolololol."
Also GJ completely ignoring the content/context of what you quoted me on.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2473
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 18:19:33 -
[269] - Quote
MoonDragn wrote:I want HS to change, to have the content that LS and Null has, except with less rewards, which technically won't change LS.
This is impossible and preposterous.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Maximillian Bonaparte
Interstellar Booty Hunters
138
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 18:29:56 -
[270] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:Lowsec is nice because you can travel quickly through it without worrying about bubbles to slow you down. It is clsoer to trade hubs Hmm. Such nice quick travel. Wow, such no bubbles. Trade hub nearby yumyum. Quite telling, when one reads between the lines. Which reads: "LS cant do **** to stop me moving mats between HS and NS trolololol." Also GJ completely ignoring the content/context of what you quoted me on.
Cause umm...
what??
|
|
MoonDragn
ZiTek
22
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 18:35:31 -
[271] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:MoonDragn wrote:I want HS to change, to have the content that LS and Null has, except with less rewards, which technically won't change LS. This is impossible and preposterous.
Give me any reasons why it is impossible and preposterous? I don't think you even understand the reason for the current condition. Were you here back in 2003 when EVE first started? people practically lived in low sec back then. |
Salvos Rhoska
2475
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 19:02:47 -
[272] - Quote
MoonDragn wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:MoonDragn wrote:I want HS to change, to have the content that LS and Null has, except with less rewards, which technically won't change LS. This is impossible and preposterous. Give me any reasons why it is impossible and preposterous? I don't think you even understand the reason for the current condition. Were you here back in 2003 when EVE first started? people practically lived in low sec back then. I know I did. Low sec was relatively safe and only once in a while someone would get a surprise to their freighter. The actual gate camps happened much closer to null than HS.
Explain to me how L5s in HS will improve LS? Should cynos and supers be allowed in HS as well? Should there be 10/10 DEDs in HS? Should there be CONCORD in LS and NS, as there is in HS?
Wtf are you even arguing for?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4022
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 19:31:06 -
[273] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:Lowsec is nice because you can travel quickly through it without worrying about bubbles to slow you down. It is clsoer to trade hubs Hmm. Such nice quick travel. Wow, such no bubbles. Trade hub nearby yumyum. Quite telling, when one reads between the lines. Which reads: "LS cant do **** to stop me moving mats between HS and NS trolololol." Also GJ completely ignoring the content/context of what you quoted me on.
Why are you bringing bubbles into the conversion like nullified ships don't exist?
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Rotho Ataru
The Anti-Meme Initiative Exponential Dysfunction
8
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 19:43:19 -
[274] - Quote
Xel'lotath Tier wrote:Anyone with half a brain can pve "safely" in low sec or hostile null sec. All you have to do is keep your dscan open (you don't even need to watch local, so idk why many people want that feature removed, but that's off topic) at 14 AU with 360-¦ angle and watch it every couple of seconds. See ships on it? short it to 10 AU, then to 5 at which point you should start to get worried and pre aling. See ships at 1 AU? Warp off. Gank avoided. Even cloacky ships will have a hard time catching you if you pay attention because they have a delay before they can lock you up. Sometimes ships can't get to you without using combat probes, giving you even more time to warp off.
If getting interrupted constantly is a problem. Then all you need to do is open your ingame map or dotlan, and search for a system with low traffic and just pve there.
The problem is that I have to keep warping away from attackers in a PVP game. That's dumb and a waste of time. Even if I did missions in PVP fit battleship, all it takes is a frigate to lock me down until his/her friends can come collect the kill mail. Ganking is not PVP in my book.
Xel'lotath Tier wrote:I don't see how a whole fleet can be afraid of low sec even if it is pve fit. (Talking about incursions here). You can't see why billions of isk worth of ships in PVE fit already preoccupied fighting tough rats might be a huge target for gank groups? You can't see how annoying it would be for the fleet to constantly redock? You can't see how annoying and dangerous it would be to have to transport PVP ships with you through lowsec from incursion to incursion every week on top of transporting your expensive incursion ships?
Xel'lotath Tier wrote:If people want low sec buffed, or with exclusive content not even found in null, thats fine with me. But saying that low sec serves no purporse and should be removed or that it needs concord it's so stupid that it made me post here for the first time lol. We can at least agree here. |
MoonDragn
ZiTek
22
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 19:52:53 -
[275] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:MoonDragn wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:MoonDragn wrote:I want HS to change, to have the content that LS and Null has, except with less rewards, which technically won't change LS. This is impossible and preposterous. Give me any reasons why it is impossible and preposterous? I don't think you even understand the reason for the current condition. Were you here back in 2003 when EVE first started? people practically lived in low sec back then. I know I did. Low sec was relatively safe and only once in a while someone would get a surprise to their freighter. The actual gate camps happened much closer to null than HS. Explain to me how L5s in HS will improve LS? Should cynos and supers be allowed in HS as well? Should there be 10/10 DEDs in HS? Should there be CONCORD in LS and NS, as there is in HS? Wtf are you even arguing for?
Explain to me how L5s in HS will improve LS?
L5s in HS will improve PVE content, it will not directly affect LS, but maybe reduce the solo rattlesnakes doing L5s by changing L5s to be not soloable.
Should cynos and supers be allowed in HS as well?
Explain to me why cynos and supers affect LS so much? How does it affect you personally?
Should there be 10/10 DEDs in HS?
Yes, and it should be a team only. Being able to do it solo is ridiculous.
Should there be CONCORD in LS and NS, as there is in HS?
What does concord have to do with any of this? The reason for Concord in HS is to keep PVP out of HS, which currently it doesn't because of the stupid suicide bombers. That needs to be fixed as well. |
Josef Djugashvilis
3539
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 19:56:28 -
[276] - Quote
I would be perfectly happy to use my pve fit Dominix to run level 4 missions in lo-sec, after all the odds of a group of pvp ships jumping me are infinitesimally small, so I would not be wasting my ship and earning no isk which enables that me to waste isk the way I like to, lo-sec pvp.
Even running level 3 missions and earning some isk, is better than earning no isk in lo-sec.
This is not a signature.
|
Torin Corax
Game of Roams
293
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 20:02:39 -
[277] - Quote
MoonDragn wrote:
What does concord have to do with any of this? The reason for Concord in HS is to keep PVP out of HS, which currently it doesn't because of the stupid suicide bombers. That needs to be fixed as well.
No it's not. If CCP wanted to keep PvP out of high sec, it would be impossible to attack anyone without a valid war dec.
Suicide ganking is present by design. It's nothing new, CCP have had over a decade to get rid of it if that's what they actually wanted to do. They quite obviously don't.
CONCORD exist primarily to allow for a distinct area in which there is punishment for crimes committed, unavoidable ship destruction is the consequence for breaking the law. They are not there to make it impossible to break the law though. This is by very deliberate design. |
Rotho Ataru
The Anti-Meme Initiative Exponential Dysfunction
8
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 20:03:08 -
[278] - Quote
Buoytender Bob wrote:1) Nerf HS Incursion income by removing the current Incursion types to only LS and NS. Introduce a much smaller Incursion class of site (new Scout class) to HS that offers a greatly reduced ISK/LP payout. These new sites could be ship class restricted or not, but they should be made for 1-3 pilots. There should be a limit of running only 2-3 sites in a 24 hour period; activating modules would become impossible in sites once one exceeded their limit. This forced the large continuous Incursion fleets to move to LS/NS and reduces the huge amount of ISK they make per hour, while allowing newer players a chance to try out higher end content. Literally removing incursions would be a simpler idea because NO ONE will move their ships across space for 3 sites per day. Of those who would, I doubt many would have fun only doing simple incursions. Just nerf the isk/LP payout of stuff rather than making it less fun or limit peoples' play time dramatically.
Buoytender Bob wrote: 2) Change all HS Level 4 missions to have less agent information revealed when offering a mission. Blitzing blinged out ships in level 4 missions has been a constant complaint by those seeking to make changes. Agents would, of course, inform what type of mission it would be but, with the exception of if it is against one of the four major factions (Minmatar,etc) , exact information about opponents/force would be eliminated. Have a RNG generate both the opponents (all types) and graduated loot table to range from easy to extremely hard. All missions are entered by a gate and once entered, can only be warped out once. The gate becomes locked for 6 hours to ALL ships, so alts cannot be used to scout beforehand. When entering a site via gate, a pilot will be greeted by part of the opposing forces who will auto agress, hopefully preventing the overuse of Mobile Depots to change at warp in during a mission. The current Level 4 mission protocol remains in effect in LS/NS, so blitzing mission runners who want to keep their current practices will have to change locations. Burner mission protocol remains the same in HS.
I don't see how this addressing blitzing. But I do agree, that blitzing is probably not the intent CCP had with missions. They change specific missions over times to be less blitzable, not more. I also don't think blitzing should be a thing in low sec either though.
Buoytender Bob wrote: 3) Significantly reduce the standing hit from ship kills in LS and replace part of it with a new standing meter called Reputation. This reputation only applies in LS and increases at a slower rate than the current penalties for ship kills. This Reputation could be improved by a yet to be determined mechanic. Reputation would have the most effect on the new mechanic of LoPo/Gate guns.
4) All LS gates that directly connect to HS have increased gun power and new AI, as well as a new LoPo fleet presence. The LoPo are defeatable by a powerful enough force, but the gate guns have to really hurt. LoPo remains in close proximity to only the HS gate. All other gates and sentry guns remain the same in LS. This would hopefully encourage players at least the ability to peek into LS at the gate and then decide if they want to adventure out of the protection of the gate defences. Hostile pilots with LoPo reps of good/neutral could still gate camp or scout nearby and be ignored by the LoPo, but this new mechanic should increase the traffic flow of people venturing into LS.
Seems complex but I like the purpose behind it. I think it's a huge problem that low sec is too scary to even peek inside of. Gate camps in general need to be reworked because it's not real PVP. It's boring for the campers who just float around until a target comes by. It's not very pleasant for the victim because they are typically a soft target that has no chance at all at fighting back. I think low sec would be much more populated if not for gate camps.
|
MoonDragn
ZiTek
22
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 20:06:13 -
[279] - Quote
Torin Corax wrote:MoonDragn wrote:
What does concord have to do with any of this? The reason for Concord in HS is to keep PVP out of HS, which currently it doesn't because of the stupid suicide bombers. That needs to be fixed as well.
No it's not. If CCP wanted to keep PvP out of high sec, it would be impossible to attack anyone without a valid war dec. Suicide ganking is present by design. It's nothing new, CCP have had over a decade to get rid of it if that's what they actually wanted to do. They quite obviously don't. CONCORD exist primarily to allow for a distinct area in which there is punishment for crimes committed, unavoidable ship destruction is the consequence for breaking the law. They are not there to make it impossible to break the law though. This is by very deliberate design.
If that was true, then stations in HS would still be destroyable. The changes they have made recently have all been to make it harder and harder to pvp in HS. Not less. |
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4022
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 20:07:09 -
[280] - Quote
Lvl 5's in high sec won't improve pve content because it's just the same grind as lvl 4s but a bit harder, which high sec will just murder the lp market because concord then complain they need something else, you put lvl 5''s in high sec and you ruin Lowsec content
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
|
MoonDragn
ZiTek
22
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 20:08:12 -
[281] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Lvl 5's in high sec won't improve pve content because it's just the same grind as lvl 4s but a bit harder, which high sec will just murder the lp market because concord then complain they need something else, you put lvl 5''s in high sec and you ruin Lowsec content
No, because it would still require you to group up to do them. Instead of solo, and it should not be soloable. Or you can keep the LS version soloable because of the increased risk in pvp. |
Torin Corax
Game of Roams
293
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 20:16:28 -
[282] - Quote
MoonDragn wrote:Torin Corax wrote:MoonDragn wrote:
What does concord have to do with any of this? The reason for Concord in HS is to keep PVP out of HS, which currently it doesn't because of the stupid suicide bombers. That needs to be fixed as well.
No it's not. If CCP wanted to keep PvP out of high sec, it would be impossible to attack anyone without a valid war dec. Suicide ganking is present by design. It's nothing new, CCP have had over a decade to get rid of it if that's what they actually wanted to do. They quite obviously don't. CONCORD exist primarily to allow for a distinct area in which there is punishment for crimes committed, unavoidable ship destruction is the consequence for breaking the law. They are not there to make it impossible to break the law though. This is by very deliberate design. If that was true, then stations in HS would still be destroyable. The changes they have made recently have all been to make it harder and harder to pvp in HS. Not less.
Stations are not destroyable therefore CONCORD is broken????( Seriously, I don't get that argument at all, what am I missing?)
Harder to PvP sure...but not impossible. Again, by design. If CCP wanted non-consensual PvP to be gone in HS all they need to do is lock safeties to green and it's done.
OT: I'm all for leaving HS content where it is atm. Payout for HS missions/ incursions could be looked at perhaps. Personally though, I'd like to see new content, specifically tailored to LS introduced to entice people there rather than force. I tend to be carrot, not stick, in my approach....unless there is a very specific reason for stick of course. |
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4022
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 20:37:47 -
[283] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:HE WANTS A LESS REWARD VERSION OF LVL 5 MISSIONS ADDED TO HIGHSEC SO HE DOESNT HAVE TO DEAL WITH PVP'ERS IN LOWSEC, THAT IS A CHANGE TO LOWSEC BECAUSE LVL 5'S ARE UNIQUE TO LOWSEC
Vs MoonDragn wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:So what exactly do you want changed in LS? I don't want LS to change. Btfo, bro. Plus the ridiculous attempt by you to claim he had answered my question, 2mins 21secs before he answered it. I specifically advised you to stop your desperate interception play for a bit. (Read back) I saw this coming a mile away, and tried to warn you, cos I'm a nice guy. Did you listen? No. GJ. This is the result. Protip: Dont presume to answer on behalf of others.
Are you drunk?
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Buoytender Bob
Ronin Exploration Mission and Mining
227
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 20:49:44 -
[284] - Quote
How about my idea of a new metric called Lo-Sec Reputation that one changes by PvP in LS combined with HS gate changes suggested earlier. People who earn LSR LP can spend them like a company store (LP plus ISK) to purchase PILOT SPECIFIC items such as:
1) Individual ship skins only available in LS, but can be flown anywhere. Some various sorts of "LowSec Killah" skins that are over the top in design, but must be earned in only one way (LS PvP) , might entice a certain section of EVE pilots to venture out or engage more frequently.
2) A similar enticement based on PvE that includes LS missions and/or sites. These people wouldn't earn LSR LP, but rather LS Exploration points that could be like the PvP rewards, but completely different skins ; ie, "Fearless Explorer" . If engaged while running missions/sites in LS, a PvE player could also earn LSR LP and have the bonus of not reducing ( increase) their Reputation score/penalty.
3) Both PvP and PvE also would have access to their LS LP store exclusives like Prison Tattoos or an Indiana Jones Fedora.
All items mentioned above would have to be earned by the individual pilot, not tradable , and would have to be combined with lots of ISK (new isk sink, CCP) to purchase.
To buck the popular trend, I began to Rage Start instead of Rage Quit.
...and every time I get another piece of Carbon, I know exactly what CCP is getting this Christmas.
|
Orakkus
Imperium Technologies DARKNESS.
331
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 21:07:40 -
[285] - Quote
Alright, things are getting a bit wild on this thread, so let's bring it back to basics again.
What does Low-sec, in general, want? More content What is more content? More PVP What is required for more PVP? More People What is required for more People? Less Risk How do you remove risk? Make it harder to kill people
After playing this game 10+ years in High-sec, Low-sec, NPC Null, and Sov Null.. those above statements are pretty spot on. Many of you have put that if we put more rewards into low-sec, more people will go. Yeah, some will.. but certainly not in the amounts that really could make low-sec come alive.
Really, it seems to me that for many low-sec PVP'ers, a low-sec paradise looks awfully similar to NPC Null.
The problem with that is the reason NPC Null works is that it is difficult to get to because places like low-sec are in the way and both the distance and the expected hostility act as a barrier.. which adds to the protection one can get in NPC null (and in Sov Null too).
Whatever a solution is.. in order to have more content, you have to have more people, and in order to have more people, those people need to feel comfortable (i.e. relatively safe) in that space. That fact isn't going to be solved by removing the ability to cyno into and out of low-sec. That fact isn't going to be solved by moving incursions into low-sec. The more you try to force people into an area, the more likely they will either change occupations or quit the game. That has been my experience over the years.
So you are left with only one option: Make low-sec safer. Period. This can be accounted as fact because, in reality, Sov null-sec is effectively the safest space in the game if you keep your head about you. Now, what we should all be concerned about is HOW that is done without killing non-consensual PVP outright. Only after that is figured out can you really work on whether or not an isk faucet needs to be adjusted or moved, or if new ones need to be developed.
He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
|
Orakkus
Imperium Technologies DARKNESS.
331
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 22:01:10 -
[286] - Quote
I also think that it would be helpful if we got away from the idea that Sec space is linear i.e.
High-sec -> Low-sec -> Null-sec
I think it would really benefit the conversation to make low-sec an aspect all its own, not necessarily a progression of high-sec or null-sec.
He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4022
|
Posted - 2017.03.18 01:01:24 -
[287] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:Alright, things are getting a bit wild on this thread, so let's bring it back to basics again.
What does Low-sec, in general, want? More content What is more content? More PVP What is required for more PVP? More People What is required for more People? Less Risk How do you remove risk? Make it harder to kill people
After playing this game 10+ years in High-sec, Low-sec, NPC Null, and Sov Null.. those above statements are pretty spot on. Many of you have put that if we put more rewards into low-sec, more people will go. Yeah, some will.. but certainly not in the amounts that really could make low-sec come alive.
Really, it seems to me that for many low-sec PVP'ers, a low-sec paradise looks awfully similar to NPC Null.
The problem with that is the reason NPC Null works is that it is difficult to get to because places like low-sec are in the way and both the distance and the expected hostility act as a barrier.. which adds to the protection one can get in NPC null (and in Sov Null too).
Whatever a solution is.. in order to have more content, you have to have more people, and in order to have more people, those people need to feel comfortable (i.e. relatively safe) in that space. That fact isn't going to be solved by removing the ability to cyno into and out of low-sec. That fact isn't going to be solved by moving incursions into low-sec. The more you try to force people into an area, the more likely they will either change occupations or quit the game. That has been my experience over the years.
So you are left with only one option: Make low-sec safer. Period. This can be accounted as fact because, in reality, Sov null-sec is effectively the safest space in the game if you keep your head about you. Now, what we should all be concerned about is HOW that is done without killing non-consensual PVP outright. Only after that is figured out can you really work on whether or not an isk faucet needs to be adjusted or moved, or if new ones need to be developed.
No offense but you are with darkness which is a nullsec alliance, darkness is never in lowsec, what gives you the idea that Lowsec isn't alive?
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Rotho Ataru
The Anti-Meme Initiative Exponential Dysfunction
8
|
Posted - 2017.03.18 01:19:12 -
[288] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:Alright, things are getting a bit wild on this thread, so let's bring it back to basics again.
What does Low-sec, in general, want? More content What is more content? More PVP What is required for more PVP? More People What is required for more People? Less Risk How do you remove risk? Make it harder to kill people
After playing this game 10+ years in High-sec, Low-sec, NPC Null, and Sov Null.. those above statements are pretty spot on. Many of you have put that if we put more rewards into low-sec, more people will go. Yeah, some will.. but certainly not in the amounts that really could make low-sec come alive.
Really, it seems to me that for many low-sec PVP'ers, a low-sec paradise looks awfully similar to NPC Null.
The problem with that is the reason NPC Null works is that it is difficult to get to because places like low-sec are in the way and both the distance and the expected hostility act as a barrier.. which adds to the protection one can get in NPC null (and in Sov Null too).
Whatever a solution is.. in order to have more content, you have to have more people, and in order to have more people, those people need to feel comfortable (i.e. relatively safe) in that space. That fact isn't going to be solved by removing the ability to cyno into and out of low-sec. That fact isn't going to be solved by moving incursions into low-sec. The more you try to force people into an area, the more likely they will either change occupations or quit the game. That has been my experience over the years.
So you are left with only one option: Make low-sec safer. Period. This can be accounted as fact because, in reality, Sov null-sec is effectively the safest space in the game if you keep your head about you. Now, what we should all be concerned about is HOW that is done without killing non-consensual PVP outright. Only after that is figured out can you really work on whether or not an isk faucet needs to be adjusted or moved, or if new ones need to be developed.
Yep. Make gate camping harder to do and I'm sure you'll see a lot more traffic.
|
Rotho Ataru
The Anti-Meme Initiative Exponential Dysfunction
8
|
Posted - 2017.03.18 01:21:52 -
[289] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:No offense but you are with darkness which is a nullsec alliance, darkness is never in lowsec, what gives you the idea that Lowsec isn't alive? In game map or DotLan. FW space is active. Everywhere else in low sec... not really. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
47311
|
Posted - 2017.03.18 02:26:47 -
[290] - Quote
Rotho Ataru wrote:Yep. Make gate camping harder to do and I'm sure you'll see a lot more traffic. Why does it so often come down to "change the game mechanics to make it easier for one group/activity and harder for xyz group/activity we don't like"?
There are far more entrances to lowsec that are never camped, than there are entrances that are camped. It's as simple as applying a little bit of thought and choosing a system that is never camped.
Gate camps from highsec -> lowsec work so well in certain systems because people are lazy, not because there's anything wrong with choosing to gate camp.
I also think there are several cases where people complain about a gate camp, that is really just a roaming fleet that happens to be on the gate when the 'victim' jumps in. For good or bad, gates are the means of transport between systems, so there's going to be a lot of pvp on gates, even when it isn't really a gate camp. |
|
Salvos Rhoska
2480
|
Posted - 2017.03.18 07:40:58 -
[291] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:I also think that it would be helpful if we got away from the idea that Sec space is linear i.e.
High-sec -> Low-sec -> Null-sec
I think it would really benefit the conversation to make low-sec an aspect all its own, not necessarily a progression of high-sec or null-sec.
I would like to agree, and try myself to think outside the box as much as possible inorder that non-linear solutions dont get overlooked.
But its difficult, cos so much of the sector mechanics are essentially linear by design. There is a cascade of security mechanics, increasing towards 1.0, and decreasing towards 0.0. There is also a content cascade in terms of rewards/difficulty in the same linear spectrum. (With the notable exception of HS Incursions and perhaps Ice belts, which are far too profitable) There is also a player autonomy cascade that follows the same general linear spectrum.
Furthermore, the geographic landscape in EVE of these sectors, is linear as well. except notably for HS islands.
One of my core concerns, is material transport ease/safety between HS and NS. I dont think LS is currently enough of an impediment/buffer zone between the two markets. Ive tried to address this non-linearly by suggesting a delivery cargo value tax in HS, of 1% per gate.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Rotho Ataru
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
9
|
Posted - 2017.03.18 08:38:52 -
[292] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Why does it so often come down to "change the game mechanics to make it easier for one group/activity and harder for xyz group/activity we don't like"?
There are far more entrances to lowsec that are never camped, than there are entrances that are camped. It's as simple as applying a little bit of thought and choosing a system that is never camped.
Gate camps from highsec -> lowsec work so well in certain systems because people are lazy, not because there's anything wrong with choosing to gate camp.
I also think there are several cases where people complain about a gate camp, that is really just a roaming fleet that happens to be on the gate when the 'victim' jumps in. For good or bad, gates are the means of transport between systems, so there's going to be a lot of pvp on gates, even when it isn't really a gate camp. If you don't concede anything, nothing will change. You're asking for other players to change their behavior and you are offering nothing in return to encourage them to do so. Gate camps are the biggest deterrents to traveling in low sec. Make those less common, and you get more traffic and more people who can target in other areas of the system. Being ganked in the system is more tolerable than being ganked at the gate. At least you had a chance to see people were coming and a chance to escape or call your friends or prepare to fight back.
If the only change you're willing to make is nerfing high sec, then maybe you'll get more people in null, but not low sec.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:One of my core concerns, is material transport ease/safety between HS and NS. I dont think LS is currently enough of an impediment/buffer zone between the two markets. Ive tried to address this non-linearly by suggesting a delivery cargo value tax in HS, of 1% per gate. What does that solve? |
Buoytender Bob
Ronin Exploration Mission and Mining
229
|
Posted - 2017.03.18 14:32:50 -
[293] - Quote
Rotho Ataru wrote: If you don't concede anything, nothing will change. You're asking for other players to change their behavior and you are offering nothing in return to encourage them to do so. Gate camps are the biggest deterrents to traveling in low sec. Make those less common, and you get more traffic and more people who can target in other areas of the system. Being ganked in the system is more tolerable than being ganked at the gate. At least you had a chance to see people were coming and a chance to escape or call your friends or prepare to fight back.
If the only change you're willing to make is nerfing high sec, then maybe you'll get more people in null, but not low sec.
How about keeping the HS/LS specific gate changes suggested and add a mechanic to missions only where, due to lack of maintenance, all missions are gated and the gate only works again, after the initial use, after a RGN of minutes (3-7+). This allows the mission runner a few minutes to gate into a mission and start running it. He probably won't complete it fully by the time the gate is "recharged", but the mission runner will have to keep an eye on the scanner and decide if he thinks he can complete it before the gate allows company. This head start may encourage some pilots who fear an "instant drop" during the mission. The RNG number would be shown back at the gate for any other player who has probed down the mission runner (the gate broadcasts info only so far) and allows the second player to decide rather to follow and engage, etc. The mission runner is left with knowing he has some headstart into a mission, but how much exactly is unknown. If the original player warps out , he is forced to return later or suffer the normal penalties.
As stated before, LoSec population can probably only be increased by making SOME parts more safe. THe HS/LS gate changes could work well as it encourages at least a tentative step into LoSec. Changes into LS mission mechanics or, perhaps in other ways, exploration sites, could also increase the perceived safety and, therefore, increase the population. Throw in some LS exclusive perks like Pilot Locked skins/clothing or other rewards and you might see LS become much more occupied.
To buck the popular trend, I began to Rage Start instead of Rage Quit.
...and every time I get another piece of Carbon, I know exactly what CCP is getting this Christmas.
|
Orakkus
Imperium Technologies DARKNESS.
331
|
Posted - 2017.03.18 16:49:20 -
[294] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:
No offense but you are with darkness which is a nullsec alliance, darkness is never in lowsec, what gives you the idea that Lowsec isn't alive?
15 pages of low-sec posts on a single thread that only asked IF there was an issue and if that issue had one idea everyone was behind or if it was still up in the air.. yeah, that is a pretty good indicator that lots of people think it could be more alive.
Second, the life that most of low-sec has is pretty one sided and not actually healthy game-wise. You WANT people to come to low-sec, and faction warfare does do that to an extent in those areas.. but really, overall it isn't very busy or active. Low-sec is just a barrier that benefits null-sec at this point, not a place to be.
Oh, and just because darkness is a null-sec alliance, doesn't mean I personally have only been in null-sec.
He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
|
Hinrika
Collective-Company
2
|
Posted - 2017.03.18 17:05:46 -
[295] - Quote
lower profits from nullsec
or add delay to local in lowsec and remove local in nullsec.
most profitable systems should be the most dangerous |
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4024
|
Posted - 2017.03.18 17:56:40 -
[296] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:Lan Wang wrote:
No offense but you are with darkness which is a nullsec alliance, darkness is never in lowsec, what gives you the idea that Lowsec isn't alive?
15 pages of low-sec posts on a single thread that only asked IF there was an issue and if that issue had one idea everyone was behind or if it was still up in the air.. yeah, that is a pretty good indicator that lots of people think it could be more alive. Second, the life that most of low-sec has is pretty one sided and not actually healthy game-wise. You WANT people to come to low-sec, and faction warfare does do that to an extent in those areas.. but really, overall it isn't very busy or active. Low-sec is just a barrier that benefits null-sec at this point, not a place to be. Oh, and just because darkness is a null-sec alliance, doesn't mean I personally have only been in null-sec.
as i said no offense intended, i live in black rise and tbh i see no issues with lack of people in lowsec, i moved to low from null because null content was few and far between, personally the only change to low i would like would be adding to fw by creating pirate faction warfare, serpentis, angel etc to the respective areas of lowsec, there is still a lot of traffic which comes to lowsec so i dont think lowsec isnt alive
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Salvos Rhoska
2486
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 06:31:49 -
[297] - Quote
Rotho Ataru wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:One of my core concerns, is material transport ease/safety between HS and NS. I dont think LS is currently enough of an impediment/buffer zone between the two markets. Ive tried to address this non-linearly by suggesting a delivery cargo value tax in HS, of 1% per gate. What does that solve? Ive addressed this earlier in the thread at length. For best effect, it would be concurrent with removing cynos from LS, to hinder JFs.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
47311
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 06:42:26 -
[298] - Quote
Rotho Ataru wrote:If you don't concede anything, nothing will change. You're asking for other players to change their behavior and you are offering nothing in return to encourage them to do so. Gate camps are the biggest deterrents to traveling in low sec. Make those less common, and you get more traffic and more people who can target in other areas of the system. Being ganked in the system is more tolerable than being ganked at the gate. At least you had a chance to see people were coming and a chance to escape or call your friends or prepare to fight back. There's a huge difference between someone choosing just to use a different gate because they take responsibility for their safety; and implementing mechanics changes that make a playstyle harder, just so others can have it easier.
I'm all for people being individually responsible for their safety, including gate campers. I'm not in favour of creating mechanics changes that benefit lazy players.
As for gate camps being the biggest deterrent to lowsec travel, lol. Lowsec is easy to travel in and very few gates are truly camped. Hitting a roaming fleet happens to everyone. It's a bit of bad luck, but it isn't a gate camp. |
Salvos Rhoska
2486
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 06:47:28 -
[299] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:People change, not mechanical change.
How do you propose to implement "people change"?
(Heh, you edited it out)
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
47311
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 06:49:08 -
[300] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:People change, not mechanical change. How do you propose to implement "people change"? I don't. It's an individual responsibility.
Look after your safety, or don't. If you don't, then you certainly don't deserve any assistance with changes in mechanics to make it easier for you to be lazy. |
|
Salvos Rhoska
2486
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 06:53:10 -
[301] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:don't deserve any assistance with changes in mechanics. Mechanics changes arent made to "assist" anyone, much less on "deserving". They are to equalize unbalanced mechanics and irrationality in the game system.
If you are judging proposed changes based on criteria of "assisting" someone, or on "deserving", you are doing it wrong.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
47313
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 06:59:54 -
[302] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:don't deserve any assistance with changes in mechanics. Mechanics changes arent made to "assist" anyone, much less on "deserving". They are to equalize unbalanced mechanics and irrationality in the game system. Yeah sure. Every whinge and whine in the forum asking for mechanics changes is about balancing things and not just making it easier for the person whinging.
But if this is really about balance, then there's no change needed. Every single one of us has equal ability under the mechanics to go and shoot gate campers. Gate campers gain no advantage in the mechanics compared to anyone else.
So if you don't want to do something as simple at take a different gate, then HTFU and engage the gate camp.
That's where the lie of "this is about balance" is. People see the gate camps with 10, 20 , 30 ships of well organised players and they get caught jumping through on their own, solo; or as a much smaller, weaker gang. Then they come here and whinge that it shouldn't be possible for a gate camp, so the one player can jump through safely. That's not balance. It's the exact opposite. |
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University Amarr Empire
459
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 10:34:42 -
[303] - Quote
Scipio, you're saying changes to make it easier for solo players is not balance, but presumably the status quo is balanced? Presumably its perfectly fine to be jumped by 30 more players than yourself and hopelessly blown to pieces, only to be told well if you took a different gate you wouldnt be here, along side, its probably just a roaming camp and you were unlucky.
I've realised that most eve players are the types of people to understand the status quo for what it is, and accept it. Any changes proposed will be met with "oh, but what about X playstyle" or "what about the impacts on Y market?", which by the way are also purely selfish comments by people afraid the change will affect them. I have noticed though, that when CCP propose a change things are different. The exact same people who come out shooting down ideas, come out defending CCPs latest idea against others asking "oh, but what about my playstyle?".
CCP make the game the way it is, dont blame humanity for being lazy or whatever other character flaw you want to use, blame the people who are incapable of accepting humanity for what it is.
A case for more AoE in EvE
|
Salvos Rhoska
2488
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 10:51:07 -
[304] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Every whinge and whine in the forum asking for mechanics changes is about balancing things and not just making it easier for the person whinging.
Interesting statement. Care to prove that?
Furthermore I havent made any proposal to nerf gate camps, nor to make choosing taking another gate not an option.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
47313
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 11:27:03 -
[305] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:Scipio, you're saying changes to make it easier for solo players is not balance, but presumably the status quo is balanced? Presumably its perfectly fine to be jumped by 30 more players than yourself and hopelessly blown to pieces, only to be told well if you took a different gate you wouldnt be here, along side, its probably just a roaming camp and you were unlucky. As above, the status quo is balanced in that the mechanics of the game don't favour gate campers anymore than anyone else. If you want to go and engage the gate campers, you can; and if you are as organised as they are as a group of players, then you stand every chance of killing them and removing them from the gate.
So yeah, the mechanics are balanced. 1 guy jumping through a gate facing 30 people camping it, is probably going to lose a ship if they aren't quick enough. Nothing at all wrong with that.
There is certainly something wrong with that one guy coming and asking CCP to change the game to make it 'balanced' for him, so he can escape from the 30 other well prepared people, purposely on a gate to camp it. All he has to do is take a few seconds to think about what he is going to do and he can totally avoid losing his ship at all.
Mr Mieyli wrote:I've realised that most eve players are the types of people to understand the status quo for what it is, and accept it. Any changes proposed will be met with "oh, but what about X playstyle" or "what about the impacts on Y market?", which by the way are also purely selfish comments by people afraid the change will affect them. Actually, a change to gate camping wouldn't affect me negatively, so nothing to be afraid of. I don't gate camp.
I've lost a few ships in Tama either in fleets engaging the gate camp, or by taking the risk and jumping through from Nourvakaiken when solo: https://zkillboard.com/character/93663512/losses/system/30002813/
Similarly from Villore->Old Man Star back in the day when the gate was camped more than Tama: https://zkillboard.com/character/93663512/losses/system/30005000/
Siseide: https://zkillboard.com/character/93663512/losses/system/30002539/ Ostingele: https://zkillboard.com/character/93663512/losses/system/30003792/
I could go on. I've lost ships at one time or another to just about every major gate camp that is often complained about, with the exception of LSH in Nalnifan.
But there's nothing wrong with that playstyle. If people want to gate camp, my personal desires shouldn't be used as the measure to prevent them from doing so, or to make it harder for them. It's on me to be responsible for my safety, not to ask CCP to change to game to suit me and screw over someone else.
Mr Mieyli wrote:I have noticed though, that when CCP propose a change things are different. The exact same people who come out shooting down ideas, come out defending CCPs latest idea against others asking "oh, but what about my playstyle?". From my perspective, that's because I believe that CCP do genuinely try to accommodate all playstyles. They could make a change to gate camping tomorrow and I'd probably have no problem with changes they want to make, because I believe, they take a bigger picture view when they make design decisions.
But when people come here to whine and moan, they do so out of their own self interest. They don't care in the slightest about anyone else. When people whinge, requests are made on the basis of believing they have more of a right to their playstyle than someone else does, even when there's already a very easy alternative available.
That's the bit I don't personally agree with. I have no more right to my playstyle than you do to yours. I don't have any less either. So screw me if I ever come here and ask CCP to change your game because it will help me. |
Salvos Rhoska
2489
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 11:33:36 -
[306] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote: As above, the status quo is balanced in that the mechanics of the game don't favour gate campers anymore than anyone else. If you want to go and engage the gate campers, you can; and if you are as organised as they are as a group of players, then you stand every chance of killing them and removing them from the gate.
This is inaccurate.
HS cant cyno drop a fleet or caps on you at an LS gate.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
47313
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 11:35:45 -
[307] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote: As above, the status quo is balanced in that the mechanics of the game don't favour gate campers anymore than anyone else. If you want to go and engage the gate campers, you can; and if you are as organised as they are as a group of players, then you stand every chance of killing them and removing them from the gate.
This is inaccurate. HS cant cyno drop a fleet or caps on you at an LS gate. HS can't do anything, only players can.
Any player in an organised group with captials can drop them on other people on a LS gate, but Capitals wasn't what I saying. There are plenty of ways to be organised as a group, well enough to engage a gate camp.
Peddle your **** elsewhere Salvos. I'm not interested in your stupid arguments. |
Vokan Narkar
New Eden Traders Aliance
3
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 11:40:30 -
[308] - Quote
lowsec is fine only problem is cyno and drops...
obviously cyno cannot be removed but dropping 5 carriers on procurer come on... |
Salvos Rhoska
2489
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 11:40:42 -
[309] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote: As above, the status quo is balanced in that the mechanics of the game don't favour gate campers anymore than anyone else. If you want to go and engage the gate campers, you can; and if you are as organised as they are as a group of players, then you stand every chance of killing them and removing them from the gate.
This is inaccurate. HS cant cyno drop a fleet or caps on you at an LS gate. HS can't do anything, only players can..
Explain to me how a PLAYER entering from HS can drop a fleet or caps from HS on a LS gatecamp?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
47313
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 11:46:20 -
[310] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote: As above, the status quo is balanced in that the mechanics of the game don't favour gate campers anymore than anyone else. If you want to go and engage the gate campers, you can; and if you are as organised as they are as a group of players, then you stand every chance of killing them and removing them from the gate.
This is inaccurate. HS cant cyno drop a fleet or caps on you at an LS gate. HS can't do anything, only players can.. Explain to me how a PLAYER entering from HS can drop a fleet or caps from HS on a LS gatecamp? Quote where I said that was possible. You can't, because it was never said.
You're just running off on some stupid, ridiculous tangent. As organised as the gate campers means a lot more than dropping capitals.
But, rabbit holes with you are foolish and pointless. |
|
Salvos Rhoska
2489
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 11:59:48 -
[311] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote: As above, the status quo is balanced in that the mechanics of the game don't favour gate campers anymore than anyone else. If you want to go and engage the gate campers, you can; and if you are as organised as they are as a group of players, then you stand every chance of killing them and removing them from the gate.
This is inaccurate. HS cant cyno drop a fleet or caps on you at an LS gate. HS can't do anything, only players can.. Explain to me how a PLAYER entering from HS can drop a fleet or caps from HS on a LS gatecamp? Quote where I said that was possible. You can't, because it was never said..
So where is the status quo, when LS can drop cynos and capitals on LS gatecamps, whereas HS cant?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
47313
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 12:04:42 -
[312] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:So where is the status quo, when LS can drop cynos and capitals on LS gatecamps, whereas HS cant? By definition, a player in LS is not in HS. They can drop whatever they want if they are organised enough. |
Salvos Rhoska
2489
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 12:08:10 -
[313] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:So where is the status quo, when LS can drop cynos and capitals on LS gatecamps, whereas HS cant? By definition, a player in LS is not in HS. They can drop whatever they want if they are organised enough.
They cannot drop on the LS gatecamp from HS, much less with caps, no matter how organised they are.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
47313
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 12:10:49 -
[314] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:So where is the status quo, when LS can drop cynos and capitals on LS gatecamps, whereas HS cant? By definition, a player in LS is not in HS. They can drop whatever they want if they are organised enough. They cannot drop on the LS gatecamp from HS, no matter how organised they are. If they are in HS, then they are never going to meet the gate camp, so who cares. They can go about their business and never worry about LS gate camps.
However, if they jump into LS, then they can drop anything they want if they are organised enough. It's not hard to understand. |
Salvos Rhoska
2489
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 12:17:56 -
[315] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:However, if they jump into LS, then they can drop anything they want if they are organised enough. It's not hard to understand.
Lol no.
From the direction of HS, players cant cyno in, or field caps onto the LS gatecamp, inorder to fight it.
LS players, however, can drop cynos and caps to their hearts content on that LS gatecamp, and wipe out endless amounts of sub-cap ships passing through the gate from HS to LS, at ANY gate.
This is where your notion of game balance and status quo, falls apart. You assume the status quo as correct, because it is CCP implemented. You use that as a hammer against any change that offends YOUR interests, by arguing it is against the status quo, and causes change unfavorable to you.
Ive smelt this on you for a long time now. You are what is called a "stonewaller".
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
3524
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 12:21:15 -
[316] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:So where is the status quo, when LS can drop cynos and capitals on LS gatecamps, whereas HS cant? By definition, a player in LS is not in HS. They can drop whatever they want if they are organised enough. They cannot drop on the LS gatecamp from HS, much less with caps, no matter how organised they are. You can, I participated in one or two hotdrops from highsec staging. Not with a Titan of course but a BLOPs.
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
47313
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 12:21:38 -
[317] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:However, if they jump into LS, then they can drop anything they want if they are organised enough. It's not hard to understand. Lol no. From the direction of HS, players cant cyno in, or field caps onto the LS gatecamp, inorder to fight it. LS players, however, can drop cynos and caps to their hearts content on that LS gatecamp, and wipe out endless amounts of sub-cap ships passing through the gate from HS to LS, at ANY gate. If I jump in from HS, why can't I light a cyno once in LS?
You're making no sense. If I am organised enough, of course I can drop Capitals, or bridge other ships, or jump with BLOPS. Nothing stops me in lowsec, except my own preparedness. No different for anyone. Be organised enough and you can engage a gate camp successfully; and that means a lot more than jumping in Capitals though. |
Salvos Rhoska
2489
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 12:24:13 -
[318] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote: If I am organised enough, of course I can drop Capitals..
Explain how to drop a cap from HS onto an LS gatecamp?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
47313
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 12:32:07 -
[319] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote: If I am organised enough, of course I can drop Capitals.. Explain how to drop a cap from HS onto an LS gatecamp? For the very few people with Capitals in HS, nothing whatsoever stops them jumping to a cyno in LS. It's perfectly fine for them to do.
However, for most people, they can't jump Capitals from HS because no new ones (which the exception of the recent FAX machine for Max Singularity) are allowed in HS. This is basic mechanics.
If you think, being as prepared as the gate camp means trying to jump capitals from HS, then go learn mechanics.
But if I jump into LS, nothing at all stops me jumping Capitals onto the gate camp if I am prepared enough, though there are many other ways to be as prepared as a gate camp, in order to engage them, that don't involve capitals at all. Anyone prepared enough, can successfully engage a gate camp. |
Salvos Rhoska
2489
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 12:40:38 -
[320] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:This is basic mechanics.
Are not all changes to the game, mechanics changes?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
47313
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 12:46:21 -
[321] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:This is basic mechanics. Are not all changes to the game, mechanics changes? No.
Graphics and sound changes are not mechanics changes. UI changes often involve no mechanics changes. Events often just use existing mechanics, with no mechanics changes. I'd need to go back through patch notes, but I'm sure there are others.
However, that question is irrelevant anyway. Some new tangent. Well, it's late for me, so argue it with someone else. |
Salvos Rhoska
2493
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 12:54:09 -
[322] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:This is basic mechanics. Are not all changes to the game, mechanics changes? No..
So what differentiates a sound/graphics/ui change, from a "mechanics" change? Are they both not enacted in the same way, by adding, omitting and/or rewriting the code of EVE?
EVE is not perfect, nor complete. It is an evolving system. Just as players adapt in EVE, so too must EVE adapt to players.
We have shown, as a player base, that we will bend and break everything as far as possible.
EVE has, demonstrably, changed many many times. Whether that is because of players exploiting change, or CCP enacting it, is a chicken/egg question.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3223
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 17:15:43 -
[323] - Quote
Vokan Narkar wrote:lowsec is fine only problem is cyno and drops...
obviously cyno cannot be removed but dropping 5 carriers on procurer come on...
This is not a game problem but a player base problem. People would rather hell-dunk than have a fight. |
Sameli Adelora
State War Academy Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 01:55:13 -
[324] - Quote
I have been spending time in low sec doing FW. I am not very good but I got tired of being (at least being called) a carebear so I decided to give it a try. I have read so many post about people talking about how boring mining is because all you do is sit there and occasionally change targets and to a point all of those people are right. So I go over to the Black Rise, have 20 or so ships and all the fitings and its off to Low Sec and a new and exciting life. Except the majority of the FW targets you find are farmers that only fit their ships with warp stabs. And to make matters worse if you try to kill them they complain and say that the area is just for people farming LPs and if I want pvp I should go to WHs because if I don't I suck. Well in my second sentence I said I suck so I can't disagree. But this is a major problem with Low Sec. That it is just a farming area. A bunch of ice belts renamed as FW plexes full of people that think they should be able to play AFK. This is painful to say, but if you want Low Sec to improve then there needs to be a Low Sec version of Code. |
Salvos Rhoska
2502
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 07:27:40 -
[325] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Vokan Narkar wrote:lowsec is fine only problem is cyno and drops...
obviously cyno cannot be removed but dropping 5 carriers on procurer come on... This is not a game problem but a player base problem. People would rather hell-dunk than have a fight.
Remove cynos. Player base behavior will change to adapt.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4025
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 07:37:56 -
[326] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Vokan Narkar wrote:lowsec is fine only problem is cyno and drops...
obviously cyno cannot be removed but dropping 5 carriers on procurer come on... This is not a game problem but a player base problem. People would rather hell-dunk than have a fight. Remove cynos. Player base behavior will change to adapt.
no, they will leave lowsec
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Salvos Rhoska
2503
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 07:52:08 -
[327] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Vokan Narkar wrote:lowsec is fine only problem is cyno and drops...
obviously cyno cannot be removed but dropping 5 carriers on procurer come on... This is not a game problem but a player base problem. People would rather hell-dunk than have a fight. Remove cynos. Player base behavior will change to adapt. no, they will leave lowsec
Some will leave, others will enter.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Jax Bederen
Dark Horse RM
319
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 07:56:43 -
[328] - Quote
Well, they can start by removing me having to press the scan button over and over like a good little monkey. Seriously it's such a archaic mechanic. i'd like to feel a bit more high tech in a space ship. Ping.....ping.....ping....Captain!...my finger hurts. |
Toxin Nostromo
Veni Vidi Vici Inc
5
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 08:21:30 -
[329] - Quote
IGÇÖve spent most of my time in Eve in lowsec. Mainly because it provides easy logistics without kissing the ring.
Once upon a time I actually mined in lowsec with a couple barges (2007). I lived down a pipeline that saw maybe 2-3 jumps a day. Then the hauler bots came and increased traffic and piracy, then I moved.
I Setup a POS out in the middle of nowhere no stations for 5 jumps or so, and had my own little space carved out. Did my own thing with a couple of friends, solo PVP was a thing and it was fun. Anyone sticks around too long youGÇÖd run them off, give them hell until they had enough and would leave. In fact there was another POS in the system with a small gang, we fought off and on for a couple weeks till they had enough and they left. It was great content!
Then faction war came and thereGÇÖs very few places that doesnGÇÖt have faction war bringing heavy traffic to the places that doesnGÇÖt have it. All those places are overrun by growing corporation/alliances that are either pirates or building up for taking some sov space. Leaving the very few places hard to do the Combat sites and forget about any industrial work.
With all the hot dropping, bait, falcon alts, etc no one wants to bring a challenge, the time it takes to find that isnGÇÖt worth the investment. I donGÇÖt find small hull 10 second battles fun. Currently at least, so solo/small PVP is out for lowsec atm.
I would like to see Lowsec changes designed around solo/small parties. Also, a separation of PVE and PVP. When I PVP, I am PVP fit and donGÇÖt have to perform PVE content. However, if you PVE you have to PVP in a PVE fit. So most just check d-scan and warp off. No PVP is had, no PVE is had, loose for everyone. If a small party wantGÇÖs PVE or PVP challenges I donGÇÖt see a compelling reason for the need to join an alliance when your perfectly happy with the current diversity, friends and direction of the corporation youGÇÖre in. Nor pay monthly to play by someone elseGÇÖs GÇ£visionGÇ¥ or rules. Lowsec was the happy medium back then for that and could be again.
Faction War space needs to be reduced greatly. Faster for people to find fights and more epic battles. While opening up space for more activity, carnage, industrial and local politics. Never happen, but no one said it had to be realistic.
|
Salvos Rhoska
2504
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 08:59:30 -
[330] - Quote
You dont "need" cynos (or caps for that matter) in LS to gatecamp, nor for LS combat PvE content, nor to mine. Pirate/T2/3 cruisers, bcs and bs are sufficient, or with an alt/friend. If cynos/caps are removed from LS, you also dont need them to defend against NS neighbors dropping.
Tbh if you have interest in cyno content, and cap content, you would be better off in NPC Null anyways.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4026
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 09:28:40 -
[331] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:You dont "need" cynos (or caps for that matter) in LS to gatecamp, nor for LS combat PvE content, nor to mine. Pirate/T2/3 cruisers, bcs and bs are sufficient, or with an alt/friend. Caps are overkill. If cynos/caps are removed from LS, you also dont need them to defend against NS neighbors dropping.
Tbh if you have interest in cyno content, and cap content, you would be better off in Null anyways. (Vast empty sectors of NPC Null if you dont want the hastle/competition of Sov, or Player Null, if you do.)
thats a completely selfish and arrogant reply. the answer to this is, we already have it so removing it is a bad idea when it p***es on pretty much every lowsec group in eve by removing a core mechanic, you also dont need capitals to do havens or any other pve content in null so i fail to see any merit in your logic here.
"Tbh if you have interest in cyno content, and cap content, you would be better off in Null anyways." explain please because the mass amount of capital users in lowsec disagree with you here.
"(Vast empty sectors of NPC Null if you dont want the hastle/competition of Sov, or Player Null, if you do.)" - cant see a capital being much use in an empty system in the backend of null unless its to rat with which again you dont need a capital to rat havens...
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Salvos Rhoska
2504
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 09:51:06 -
[332] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:You dont "need" cynos (or caps for that matter) in LS to gatecamp, nor for LS combat PvE content, nor to mine. Pirate/T2/3 cruisers, bcs and bs are sufficient, or with an alt/friend. Caps are overkill. If cynos/caps are removed from LS, you also dont need them to defend against NS neighbors dropping.
Tbh if you have interest in cyno content, and cap content, you would be better off in Null anyways. (Vast empty sectors of NPC Null if you dont want the hastle/competition of Sov, or Player Null, if you do.) thats a completely selfish and arrogant reply. the answer to this is, we already have it so removing it is a bad idea when it p***es on pretty much every lowsec group in eve by removing a core mechanic, you also dont need capitals to do havens or any other pve content in null so i fail to see any merit in your logic here. "Tbh if you have interest in cyno content, and cap content, you would be better off in Null anyways." explain please because the mass amount of capital users in lowsec disagree with you here. "(Vast empty sectors of NPC Null if you dont want the hastle/competition of Sov, or Player Null, if you do.)" - cant see a capital being much use in an empty system in the backend of null unless its to rat with which again you dont need a capital to rat havens...
Jesus Christ, Mr. Meat-Puppet. Drop the shilling for a minute.
Caps are huge overkill for LS content, and you dont need cynos in LS to avoid bubbles (cos there are none). When cynos/caps are removed from LS, you also wont need cynos/caps to defend against NS drops/caps. This frees LS to run sub-cap fleets to their hearts content, without cyno drops or caps, which is clearly what LS wants for itself.
Cynos have three purposes: 1)-Bypassing gate camps 2)-Dropping overwhelming force 3)-Avoiding bubbles
In LS: -1) Means NS bypassing LS gate camps -2) Means NS dropping into LS with impunity. -3) No bubbles in LS
Thats a very ****** deal for LS.
If you want cyno/cap content, go to NS. Where caps are tiered to the content, and bubbles/geography actually make cynos relevant. If you dont want the hastle/competition of Sov, go to the vast empty expanses of NPC Null.
There is no rational or logical reason for cynos or caps in LS. You dont need them to gatecamp, you dont need them to PvP, you dont need them to bypass bubbles, you dont need them to run any LS content.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4026
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 10:53:34 -
[333] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:LS wants sub-cap/non-cyno PvP.
If you want cynos and cap content, gtfo of LS, to NS, where they belong.
Is it comfy to overkill with caps in LS, and drop into it with NS alts with impunity? 9/10 of this thread want LS to be sub-cap. Why dont you? Afraid to adapt? Afraid of equal playing field in NS?
"afraid of equal playing field in NS?" what does that even mean, there is no equal playing field anywhere in eve, you obviously assume i haven't lived in nullsec.
"why dont i?" because i like flying caps in space that isnt a 10% tidi slugfest, is that good enough for you?, im sure all the other lowsec groups who specialise in caps and black ops will agree.
"9/10 of this thread" lol this thread is not a reliable source to assume that all of lowsec wants capitals removed. your idea will kill lowsec. simple
"LS wants sub-cap/non-cyno PvP." say who? you and like 3 other people over the hundreds if not thousands of capital pilots in lowsec, ok
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Salvos Rhoska
2504
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 11:03:19 -
[334] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:LS wants sub-cap/non-cyno PvP.
If you want cynos and cap content, gtfo of LS, to NS, where they belong.
Is it comfy to overkill with caps in LS, and drop into it with NS alts with impunity? 9/10 of this thread want LS to be sub-cap. Why dont you? Afraid to adapt? Afraid of equal playing field in NS? "afraid of equal playing field in NS?" what does that even mean, there is no equal playing field anywhere in eve, you obviously assume i haven't lived in nullsec. "why dont i?" because i like flying caps in space that isnt a 10% tidi slugfest, is that good enough for you?, im sure all the other lowsec groups who specialise in caps and black ops will agree. "9/10 of this thread" lol this thread is not a reliable source to assume that all of lowsec wants capitals removed. your idea will kill lowsec. simple "LS wants sub-cap/non-cyno PvP." say who? you and like 3 other people over the hundreds if not thousands of capital pilots in lowsec, ok 1) Im not assuming anything. Idgaf where you live on what alt. Nobody does. Where you live is not relevant to topic.
2) You like flying caps in space that has no bubbles or smartbombs.. You probably also enjoy bypassing LS gates between NS and LS, and within LS.? How comfy.
3) How incredibly selfish and arrogant YOU are.
4) NPC Null fights are rarely, if ever, TIDI. Wtf are you even arguing?
5) Lolwat? How will removal of cyno/caps from LS kill LS? I specifically showed that LS doesnt need either cynos or caps. YOU are the one killing LS. LS wants non-cyno/non-cap subcap fights!
6) HTFU and move to Null, either Player or NPC, where caps and cynos are justified.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4026
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 11:57:40 -
[335] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:******** stuff
shut up salvos and get off your high horse.
"You are afraid of NS, and of a non-cyno/sub-cap LS. You want to keep LS as a cyno/cap playground though neither cynos nor caps are justified nor needed there, especially as entering from NS, whilst the majority of players want LS to be a sub-cap/non-cyno sector without NS exploitation" - how did you guess? this is the most ******** thing ive ever actually heard.
"2) You like flying caps in space that has no bubbles or smartbombs.. You probably also enjoy bypassing LS gates between NS and LS, and within LS.? How comfy." when were smartbombs removed from lowsec? i was in tama just yesterday smartbombing . who cares about bubbles, you can tackle a cap without a bubble did you forget about hics?, and if i wanted to cyno in null id fly nullifed to a citadel, not hard is it?
5) no, thats just your assumption based on this thread which again is not a reliable source.
6) they are justified in lowsec and appears ccp agrees, otherwise they wouldnt be here.
8) i havent actually used a capital in months, my killboard shows that
7) are you assuming they are not?, every lowsec group ive come across has titans, supers and caps and are not scared to use them.
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
318
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 11:59:33 -
[336] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote: LS wants non-cyno/sub-cap fights!
7) Are you trying to argue the majority of LS players are cap/cyno capable, or even interested in those? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Well, Salvos IMO these statements are wrong. and Tbh. I don't care about your idealistic view of how you think lowsec should be and what rules need to apply there, and what types of gameplay you think should only happen in null. That is just your opinion. It is not important if you think there is no reason for Caps in lowsec (You seem to ignore disregard structure grinds). As the arguments that you use to come to this conclusion are highly subjective, disguised as your typical reductive logic.
There is no text in the Eula that states: All game Mechanics must be estimated appropriate by Salvos Rhoska, and fit to his view of EVE. So you claiming that Caps don-¦t belong in low, as they for you have no reason to be there, does not mean that they actually have no reason to be there, and that we all should accept your view so tone down the hostility in your replies.
Caps are here, and are driving content. Cap engagements are an important part of Lowsec for the high SP people who live in low and want to dominate a certain part of lowsec. It is a valid tool of power, that project nicely due to the cynos. It is a sandbox and people should be able to play how they like everywhere. If it where up to me, Caps would also be allowed in Highsec with all the hilarity that would follow. Cynos and Caps gives more options in low, so how can you be against that?
"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
|
Salvos Rhoska
2504
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 12:14:48 -
[337] - Quote
Cynos and caps gtfo of LS to NS, where they are rational and belong.
LS will do very well without cynos or caps, and sub-caps is what LS wants, deserves and is a appropriate to its content and mechanics.
Especially without NS cyno/caps dropping with impunity on LS, whereas LS drops to NS suffer from bubbles and smartbombs.
Go play cynos/caps where they belong. In NS.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
318
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 13:07:51 -
[338] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Cynos and caps gtfo of LS to NS, where they are rational and belong.
LS will do very well without cynos or caps, and sub-caps is what LS wants, deserves and is a appropriate to its content and mechanics.
Especially without NS cyno/caps dropping with impunity on LS, whereas LS drops to NS suffer from bubbles and smartbombs.
Go play cynos/caps where they belong. In NS.
Hun hun, you blindly repeating pseudo truths you invented yourself does not make it true. Coming from a middlesized lowsec alliance I can say, I have never heard anyone suggest caps as the main problem in lowsec. This is a non-problem invented by you. The main problem in this thread is people not being from the bigger entities living in lowsec trying to nerf it. You have to listen to the people(Lan wang and the aideron guy in this thread) who live there what the problem is IMO.
Lowsec would do fine without caps, and cynos but would also do fine with them. Again non-problem
I even come from an lowsec alliance who just had to move to a new area, due to project-waffle box(Lowsec megacoalition, where lan wang is from) told us that they would hotdrop us to hell with caps, if our group would grew any bigger. We did grow and they did hotdrop even our frig-gangs. So having caps made them able to get the strategical victory and force us away. That is what Caps are.. just another layer on the power pyramid, making those with the ressources able to control non-sovereignity space. Working as intended.
"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
|
Vokan Narkar
New Eden Traders Aliance
5
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 13:45:31 -
[339] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Vokan Narkar wrote:lowsec is fine only problem is cyno and drops...
obviously cyno cannot be removed but dropping 5 carriers on procurer come on... This is not a game problem but a player base problem. People would rather hell-dunk than have a fight. Remove cynos. Player base behavior will change to adapt. no, they will leave lowsec Only those dropping caps in every opportunity will leave and it will be a good thing.
I live(d) in one ls region few months and it looks like this.
Corporations living there are afraid to fight each other in ls unless they have an mutual agreement that they won't use a cyno (friendly enemies concept). Because everytime you start bigger fight the other side will light a cyno and drop capitals to overrun you. Even if none of the sides has actually capitals, they might have agreement with one of the ns groups dropping ls noobs - they do it for free as long there are targets worth the killboard. And let say you have one capital pilot and you try to drop on their drop. What happens is they will escalate...
So ls as it is now is a farm zone and gank zone. Peoples are ganking with t3+cyno drops or stratios/astero if they are solo most of the time. The few rare fleet fights usually end up with a capital drop, POCO/BOS bashing always end up with a capital drop because even those who have no defending capatibility can just simply call to the Initiative or other dropping groups and tell them hey guys in this sector there is 15 peoples in battleships bashing POCO, do you want to drop them? And they will want to do it.
Majority of the players dropping capitals in ls doesn't even live in ls. They live in neighboaring ns and sending a solo t3 gankers around all the ls because they are bored in ns or idk what.
It sounds to me that you are one of those roaming around in tengu dropping sin on procurers you gank. Am I wrong?
Anyway - even I though removal of cyno is not doable in lowsec from a mechanical/gameplay point of view. I take back, if the cyno in ls would be changed so only JF can jump into it or perhaps it would be restricted to 0.1 it could work.
And it would be easy to see if it kills LS or not - simply temporarily try it out in single LS region for a month or two and see how it goes. I bet the life in there increases. |
Salvos Rhoska
2504
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 13:46:37 -
[340] - Quote
sero Hita wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Cynos and caps gtfo of LS to NS, where they are rational and belong.
LS will do very well without cynos or caps, and sub-caps is what LS wants, deserves and is a appropriate to its content and mechanics.
Especially without NS cyno/caps dropping with impunity on LS, whereas LS drops to NS suffer from bubbles and smartbombs.
Go play cynos/caps where they belong. In NS. Lowsec would do fine without caps, and cynos Good job.
You agreed LS will do fine without cynos/caps, and then gave an example of how an LS mega-coalition forced you to displace with CAPS (which almost certainly has NS based reinforcement and interests).
You singlehandedly obliterated your own position that cynos and caps should not be removed from LS.
Do you not comprehend, that as long as cynos/caps are allowed in LS, it means LS is permeable by NS? Its not LS entities you are dealing with, its with NS fronts.
LS doesnt need cynos/caps as the peak of the power pyramid. NS will beat you in that everytime.
If cynos/caps are removed from LS, not only will NS not be able to field/drop its cap fleets there either directly or via fronts, but it means LS will become a sub-cap region with mechanics suitable for a non-NS empire region.
There is no sense in cynos/caps in LS. LS doesnt need it for PvE content. LS doesnt need it for gatecamping. LS doesnt need it for PvP.
Cynos and caps belong in NS, in unrestricted space. Cynos are for bypassing gatecamps (bad for LS) Cynos are for dropping overwhelming force (really bad for LS as a NS neighbor) Cynos are for bypassing bubbles (REALLY bad for LS, as they have no bubbles to begin with).
Consider the following: -Fleet X from NS, cynoing into LS with caps, has no fear of smartbombs or bubbles. -Fleet Y from LS, cynoing into NS with caps, have to deal with smartbombs and bubbles. Add to that the weight of organisation, power and wealth of NS vs LS
Its ludicrous.
Cynos/caps should operate in NS, where there are no restrictions on engagement forms.
There is no rational reason for cynos/caps in LS. NS is where they belong, either in Player or NPC Null.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4027
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 14:32:25 -
[341] - Quote
Vokan Narkar wrote:Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Vokan Narkar wrote:lowsec is fine only problem is cyno and drops...
obviously cyno cannot be removed but dropping 5 carriers on procurer come on... This is not a game problem but a player base problem. People would rather hell-dunk than have a fight. Remove cynos. Player base behavior will change to adapt. no, they will leave lowsec Only those dropping caps in every opportunity will leave and it will be a good thing. I live(d) in one ls region few months and it looks like this. Corporations living there are afraid to fight each other in ls unless they have an mutual agreement that they won't use a cyno (friendly enemies concept). Because everytime you start bigger fight the other side will light a cyno and drop capitals to overrun you. Even if none of the sides has actually capitals, they might have agreement with one of the ns groups dropping ls noobs - they do it for free as long there are targets worth the killboard. And let say you have one capital pilot and you try to drop on their drop. What happens is they will escalate... So ls as it is now is a farm zone and gank zone. Peoples are ganking with t3+cyno drops or stratios/astero if they are solo most of the time. The few rare fleet fights usually end up with a capital drop, POCO/BOS bashing always end up with a capital drop because even those who have no defending capatibility can just simply call to the Initiative or other dropping groups and tell them hey guys in this sector there is 15 peoples in battleships bashing POCO, do you want to drop them? And they will want to do it. Majority of the players dropping capitals in ls doesn't even live in ls. They live in neighboaring ns and sending a solo t3 gankers around all the ls because they are bored in ns or idk what. It sounds to me that you are one of those roaming around in tengu dropping sin on procurers you gank. Am I wrong? Anyway - even I though removal of cyno is not doable in lowsec from a mechanical/gameplay point of view. I take back, if the cyno in ls would be changed so only JF can jump into it or perhaps it would be restricted to 0.1 it could work. And it would be easy to see if it kills LS or not - simply temporarily try it out in single LS region for a month or two and see how it goes. I bet the life in there increases.
"It sounds to me that you are one of those roaming around in tengu dropping sin on procurers you gank. Am I wrong?" - yes you are wrong.
"Majority of the players dropping capitals in ls doesn't even live in ls. They live in neighboaring ns and sending a solo t3 gankers around all the ls because they are bored in ns or idk what." - wut? so shadow cartel, EE, waffles, snuff, project mayhem, LSH, DHSJ etc etc are nullsec now?
Corporations living there are afraid to fight each other in ls unless they have an mutual agreement that they won't use a cyno - top tip, put up a cyno inhib...
call to the Initiative or other dropping groups - or any lowsec group, take your pick everyone will show up for content, its not exclusive
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4027
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 14:41:26 -
[342] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Fk off to NS where you belong.
youre getting a bit disrespectful towards people, stay in highsec buttercup clearly lowsec is too intense for you
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Salvos Rhoska
2504
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 14:43:56 -
[343] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Fk off to NS where you belong. youre getting a bit disrespectful towards people, stay in highsec buttercup clearly lowsec is too intense for you
How much are you being paid to shill?
GJ failing to address my post. Let me re-post if for you.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4027
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 15:22:52 -
[344] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:stuff
Ok ill address this for you.
You agreed LS will do fine without cynos/caps, and then gave an example of how an LS mega-coalition forced you to displace with CAPS (which almost certainly had NS based reinforcement and interests).
what NS interests do you "think" we have? i forget...(clearly you underestimate capital forces in lowsec)
Do you not comprehend, that as long as cynos/caps are allowed in LS, it means LS is permeable by NS? Its not LS entities you are dealing with, its with NS fronts.
Again explain what you think you know because this just sounds stupid...
LS doesnt need cynos/caps as the peak of the power pyramid. NS will beat you in that everytime.
But we have them and removing them is bad as the thousands of cap pilots will either unsub or move to nullsec and join another big (*insert chosen supercap blob blob here).
There is no sense in cynos/caps in LS. LS doesnt need them for PvE content. LS doesnt need them for gatecamping. LS doesnt need them for PvP.
but nothing in nullsec requires a cap so again whats your point?
Consider this: Gatecamps with scouts on every gate, how do you engage that gatecamp with out them running?....neutral cyno
If cynos/caps are removed from LS, not only will NS not be able to field/drop its cap fleets there either directly or via fronts, but it means LS will become a sub-cap region with mechanics suitable for a non-NS empire region.
can you source some recent battlereports to enforce this theory that nullsec is a problem to lowsec
Cynos and caps belong in NS, in unrestricted space. Cynos are for bypassing gatecamps (bad for LS) Cynos are for dropping overwhelming force (really bad for LS as a NS neighbor) Cynos are for bypassing bubbles (REALLY bad for LS, as they have no bubbles to begin with).
- interceptors are also for bypassing gatecamps and bubbles which are available anywhere
NS has used these mechanics to make LS its little b***h.
yeah if thats what you think
Cynos/caps should operate in NS, where there are no restrictions on engagement, and those rules are equal.
you will need to be a bit more specific here to whatever you are implying
You dont need LS, and LS doesnt need you. Fk off to NS where you belong.
same can be said for you, your killboard shows you do nothing in this game, so either post on a main or stfu and go back to highsec as lowsec seems too intense for you.
Post-change, you can simply move to NS. Its not a problem. LS will do fine without you.
maybe, but could ccp deal happily with a mass unsub of thousands of capital alts?
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
319
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 15:33:10 -
[345] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:sero Hita wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Cynos and caps gtfo of LS to NS, where they are rational and belong.
LS will do very well without cynos or caps, and sub-caps is what LS wants, deserves and is a appropriate to its content and mechanics.
Especially without NS cyno/caps dropping with impunity on LS, whereas LS drops to NS suffer from bubbles and smartbombs.
Go play cynos/caps where they belong. In NS. Lowsec would do fine without caps, and cynos Good job. You agreed LS will do fine without cynos/caps, and then gave an example of how an LS mega-coalition forced you to displace with CAPS (which almost certainly had NS based reinforcement and interests). You singlehandedly obliterated your own position that cynos and caps should not be removed from LS.
I did not obliterate any position. If you could read, you would know that my point is that caps are not the problem in lowsec. They are need for the very reason I said: To remove people from your territory due to lack of sov systems. Us being removed is not a bad thing. We were too weak. Now we have landed somewhere where we are not too weak. Worked out great
I do not accept your intial assumption, that Lowsec entities does not want caps. I also do not accept that everyone who disagrees with your selfproclaimed goals of lowsec should leave it for null. There is a reason we are not in null, we don-¦t want the sov crap but enjoy the fleeting up and pvping the way you can only do in low. that is what lowsec is for IMO. And my opinion is just as much worth as yours.
"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
|
MoonDragn
ZiTek
22
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 15:45:24 -
[346] - Quote
So what you guys are basically saying is that you feel that you should be able to destroy ships that are worth billions of isk with a little bubble and smart bombs that cost a tiny percentage of that amount?
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4028
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 15:48:13 -
[347] - Quote
MoonDragn wrote:So what you guys are basically saying is that you feel that you should be able to destroy ships that are worth billions of isk with a little bubble and smart bombs that cost a tiny percentage of that amount?
wut?
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
319
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 15:48:27 -
[348] - Quote
MoonDragn wrote:So what you guys are basically saying is that you feel that you should be able to destroy ships that are worth billions of isk with a little bubble and smart bombs that cost a tiny percentage of that amount?
Nope, that is not what I am saying at least... Perhaps quote next time, so people know to whom you refer?
"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3229
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 16:28:07 -
[349] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Vokan Narkar wrote:lowsec is fine only problem is cyno and drops...
obviously cyno cannot be removed but dropping 5 carriers on procurer come on... This is not a game problem but a player base problem. People would rather hell-dunk than have a fight. Remove cynos. Player base behavior will change to adapt.
If you think removing cynos will stop the helldunk or blueball mentality in EVE, I now understand why you think removing cyno from LS is a good idea.
|
Salvos Rhoska
2506
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 17:57:19 -
[350] - Quote
sero Hita wrote:There is a reason we are not in null, we don-¦t want the sov crap
You can do it just as well in NPC Null.
Or did you forget it even exists?
Take the cynos/caps to where they belong. Cos it sure isnt LS.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
|
Salvos Rhoska
2506
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 18:02:03 -
[351] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Vokan Narkar wrote:lowsec is fine only problem is cyno and drops...
obviously cyno cannot be removed but dropping 5 carriers on procurer come on... This is not a game problem but a player base problem. People would rather hell-dunk than have a fight. Remove cynos. Player base behavior will change to adapt. If you think removing cynos will stop the helldunk or blueball mentality in EVE, I now understand why you think removing cyno from LS is a good idea.
It will stop helldunks from NS into, and in LS, overnight. Categorically. Period.
LS does not need cyno/caps, nor are they justified there. Cynos/caps belong in NS.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
319
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 18:16:30 -
[352] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Take the cynos/caps to where they belong. Cos it sure isnt LS.
Show me where this is defined? When did we all sign that document?
That is such bullshit
Finally we came down to the core, your base wrong assumption on which all the rubbish you build on...
Like I said I reject that assumption. Come up with some real arguments instead.. or are you incapable?
"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4031
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 18:17:55 -
[353] - Quote
We will continue to play with our caps in lowsec like the game allows us to, you think they dont belong there but ccp disagrees otherwise they wouldnt be there, ok?
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Salvos Rhoska
2506
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 18:19:51 -
[354] - Quote
Explain to me how cynos/caps are justified in LS.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2506
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 18:21:01 -
[355] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:We will continue to play with our caps in lowsec like the game allows us to, you think they dont belong there but ccp disagrees otherwise they wouldnt be there, ok?
Sure, go ahead and play.
That doesnt stop me from pointing out the issues with cynos/caps existing in LS.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Annabelle Le
State Protectorate Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 18:25:39 -
[356] - Quote
I'm still kind of new at all this so forgive my ignorance: How do Cynos and Caps ruin LS?
Now from my stand point (never flown anything bigger than a frigate) allowing warp stabs in plexes ruins LS. |
Orakkus
Imperium Technologies DARKNESS.
333
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 18:25:50 -
[357] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Explain to me how cynos/caps are justified in LS.
Citadel bashing POS bashing Other caps Combat Escalation
He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
|
Maximillian Bonaparte
Interstellar Booty Hunters
139
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 18:26:04 -
[358] - Quote
Rotho Ataru wrote:Lan Wang wrote:No offense but you are with darkness which is a nullsec alliance, darkness is never in lowsec, what gives you the idea that Lowsec isn't alive? In game map or DotLan. FW space is active. Everywhere else in low sec... not really.
This is generally true and where I have found the best PvP content.
You could add pirate FW to other parts of lowsec (or increase the size of certain parts of lowsec) to make them even more interesting.
Other parts of lowsec do have their advantages though.
|
Maximillian Bonaparte
Interstellar Booty Hunters
139
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 18:26:57 -
[359] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Explain to me how cynos/caps are justified in LS.
Citadel bashing POS bashing Other caps Combat Escalation
Yes and not to mention jump freighters to get ships out to...well anywhere there is PvP content. |
Jenn aSide
Absolute Massive Destruction Test Alliance Please Ignore
15370
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 18:27:07 -
[360] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Vokan Narkar wrote:lowsec is fine only problem is cyno and drops...
obviously cyno cannot be removed but dropping 5 carriers on procurer come on... This is not a game problem but a player base problem. People would rather hell-dunk than have a fight. Remove cynos. Player base behavior will change to adapt. If you think removing cynos will stop the helldunk or blueball mentality in EVE, I now understand why you think removing cyno from LS is a good idea.
He doesn't tend to demonstrate understanding of what things like this mean. What he thinks happens is that it stops null sec groups from having an influence on low sec.
What it really means is that low sec groups would lose the ability to escalate to caps to stop null sec sub-capital intrusions (because of jump range restrictions, it's null groups fearing low sec caps, not the other way around)
It means MORE null sec groups in low sec camping low/null entry systems to control the movement of materials (null groups would cyno JFs into the null side of the null/low border then gate to high sec to drop off in a high sec station.
It means organized wormhole groups would also lord over low sec (because low sec groups do use caps against them as it's also hard for them to bring their own caps through holes).
And on and on, the results would be the reverse of the intention, because Salvos doesn't understand enough about how people in low and null interact to see that his idea would be terrible. Kind of like that time when he thought you could afk rat with carriers...oh wait, that was yesterday lol.
. At the end of the day Salvos can't be blamed for thinking the way he does, even profession developers have made the mistakes he keeps making. I remember how in 2009 we were told Dominion would do certain things like:
Quote:We get (hopefully!):
A more comprehensible, streamlined and robust way of showing who owns a particular system A better conquest experience More organic, meaningful and fun small-fleet combat Less territorial sprawl by major alliances A more diverse and interesting political landscape More opportunities for players to get involved in nullsec More awesome emergent gameplay
We know that Dominion did the OPPOSITE of all of that, and in dramatic fashion too. CCP (like Salvos does with his posts) made the mistake of thinking you can engineer people's behavior. You can't, people are opportunistic and devious and will find a way around your game design intentions.
That being said I knod of hope CCP does some of the things Salvos wants to see done. It's clear that you can't just explain things to folks like that, they need to see the bad results of a thing to learn. |
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4031
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 18:27:29 -
[361] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:We will continue to play with our caps in lowsec like the game allows us to, you think they dont belong there but ccp disagrees otherwise they wouldnt be there, ok? Sure, go ahead and play. That doesnt stop me from pointing out the issues with cynos/caps existing in LS.
bubbles and smartbombs (so you call them) are not a reason to remove something, they are easy avoidable, if i want to light a cyno in nullsec a fcking bubble isnt gonna stop me, so you basing that bubbles are some sort of capital ship deterant which gives some crazy advantage to engagement terms is stupid
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Salvos Rhoska
2506
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 18:31:12 -
[362] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Explain to me how cynos/caps are justified in LS.
Citadel bashing POS bashing Other caps Combat Escalation
I didnt ask you in the context I asked him.
Citadel bashing, POS bashing, combat escalations, do not need cynos or caps The same happens in HS, under even stricter engagement rules, everyday, without cynos or caps.
If caps are removed from LS, as I propose, you wont need caps to counter them.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3231
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 18:36:16 -
[363] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Orakkus wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Explain to me how cynos/caps are justified in LS.
Citadel bashing POS bashing Other caps Combat Escalation I didnt ask you in the context I asked him. Citadel bashing, POS bashing, combat escalations, do not need cynos or caps The same happens in HS, under even stricter engagement rules, everyday, without cynos or caps. If caps are removed from LS, as I propose, you wont need caps to counter them.
By your "logic" we should remove cynos and caps from null too since I can do all everything in a sub-cap there too. |
Salvos Rhoska
2506
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 18:38:19 -
[364] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:We will continue to play with our caps in lowsec like the game allows us to, you think they dont belong there but ccp disagrees otherwise they wouldnt be there, ok? Sure, go ahead and play. That doesnt stop me from pointing out the issues with cynos/caps existing in LS. bubbles and smartbombs (so you call them) are not a reason to remove something, they are easy avoidable, if i want to light a cyno in nullsec a fcking bubble isnt gonna stop me, so you basing that bubbles are some sort of capital ship deterant which gives some crazy advantage to engagement terms is stupid
Nobody has said bubbles or smartbombs prevent cynos.
The issue is that LS DOES have restrictions, whereas NS does not.
Answer me this: -When LS has cynos and caps as does NS, but not bubbles or smartbombs, (which you have stated dont stop cynos), what is the goddam point of LS?
Gateguns? Crap PI/mining/sigs compared to NS?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3231
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 18:39:26 -
[365] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Quote:We get (hopefully!):
A more comprehensible, streamlined and robust way of showing who owns a particular system A better conquest experience More organic, meaningful and fun small-fleet combat Less territorial sprawl by major alliances A more diverse and interesting political landscape More opportunities for players to get involved in nullsec More awesome emergent gameplay We know that Dominion did the OPPOSITE of all of that, and in dramatic fashion too. CCP (like Salvos does with his posts) made the mistake of thinking you can engineer people's behavior. You can't, people are opportunistic and devious and will find a way around your game design intentions. That being said I knod of hope CCP does some of the things Salvos wants to see done. It's clear that you can't just explain things to folks like that, they need to see the bad results of a thing to learn.
Well they had one right no? I mean, didn't people start anchoring SBU in their own system or something like that thus making it even harder for an attacker to even try to contest SOV? That's "emergent" gameplay no? |
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4031
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 18:40:34 -
[366] - Quote
1. stop calling them smartbombs, makes you sound uneducated as they are very much allowed in lowsec
2. you got aggressive about me not "addressing" your comment, which i did, now have the curtosy to address the questions i asked you.
lowsec does not have restrictions on using capitals
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University Amarr Empire
461
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 18:41:32 -
[367] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Explain to me how cynos/caps are justified in LS.
Caps/cynos are justified for ::reasons::
Explain to me how they are not justified? Has god proclaimed from on high that this is the case? Closest thing to god here is CCP, and it's written in the good book, 0.4 systems and below do not feature concord, bombs, or bubbles that's all it says.
I agree it's unfortunate certain null blocs can control lowsec as well, but I don't think most of low is really controlled by the null empires. Null is paved with gold, why would those guys even care about lowsec? It would be better game design if low was somehow sheltered from the big boys in null, allowing room to grow in a hostile environment, but this is eve and change is Baaaad.
I want you to think hard about this bit salvos, what makes a thing justified?
A case for more AoE in EvE
|
Jenn aSide
Absolute Massive Destruction Test Alliance Please Ignore
15371
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 18:41:54 -
[368] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:1. stop calling them smartbombs, makes you sound uneducated as they are very much allowed in lowsec
2. you got aggressive about me not "addressing" your comment, which i did, now have the curtosy to address the questions i asked you
Wait, he thinks doomsdays are 'smartbombs'? lol.
He's having another "afk carrier ratting" moment. |
Salvos Rhoska
2506
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 18:42:38 -
[369] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:1. stop calling them smartbombs, makes you sound uneducated as they are very much allowed in lowsec
2. you got aggressive about me not "addressing" your comment, which i did, now have the curtosy to address the questions i asked you
Wat?
Getting aggressive at you? Dude, take a break from the keyboard.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3231
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 18:43:15 -
[370] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote: Answer me this: -When LS has cynos and caps as does NS, but not bubbles or smartbombs, (which you have stated dont stop cynos), what is the goddam point of LS?
Well 1st, you can use smartbomb in LS. You can even use them in HS.
The no bubbles clause to low-sec game play is pretty interesting to many players. If you don't believe it, think for a second why interceptor are so popular. |
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4032
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 18:45:49 -
[371] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:1. stop calling them smartbombs, makes you sound uneducated as they are very much allowed in lowsec
2. you got aggressive about me not "addressing" your comment, which i did, now have the curtosy to address the questions i asked you Wat? Getting aggressive at you? Dude, take a break from the keyboard.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:How much are you being paid to shill? They should fire you, Mr. Meat-Puppet. You are terrible and lazy at your job.
A one-liner? Seriously? Pretending offense? Seriously? Thats it?
GJ failing to address my post. Let me re-post if for you..
Salvos Rhoska wrote:You dont need LS, and LS doesnt need you. Fk off to NS where you belong.
looks pretty aggressive so maybe take your own advice
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Salvos Rhoska
2507
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 18:51:29 -
[372] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:I agree it's unfortunate certain null blocs can control lowsec as well, but I don't think most of low is really controlled by the null empires. Null is paved with gold, why would those guys even care about lowsec? It would be better game design if low was somehow sheltered from the big boys in null, allowing room to grow in a hostile environment, but this is eve and change is Baaaad.
They do control LS on their axis of entry to HS, by various means. -Citadel networks to hop through. -Dropping on LS. -Alt Corps there to secure transit.
They dont care about LS. They only care about getting their goods back and forth through it. Plus some incidental lols in wrecking LS Corps inorder to sustain the above.
Removing cynos/caps from LS impairs that, and forces them to fight in LS on equal, gate based, sub-cap ground. They are also afraid of more subcap capable corps moving into LS (either as legit, or NS front corps of their antagonists) to further complicate their logistic route through LS to HS markets.
Hence the vociferous resistance to this change by various shills.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2507
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 18:53:39 -
[373] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:You dont need LS, and LS doesnt need you. Fk off to NS where you belong. looks pretty aggressive so maybe take your own advice
HTFU.
EVE is aggressive. Deal with it.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3232
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 18:57:22 -
[374] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:You dont need LS, and LS doesnt need you. Fk off to NS where you belong. looks pretty aggressive so maybe take your own advice HTFU, meat-puppet shill. EVE is aggressive. Deal with it.
HTFU
Los-Sec has Cynos. Deal with it. |
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4034
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 18:59:48 -
[375] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:You dont need LS, and LS doesnt need you. Fk off to NS where you belong. looks pretty aggressive so maybe take your own advice HTFU, meat-puppet shill. EVE is aggressive. Deal with it. HTFU Los-Sec has Cynos. Deal with it.
he is just salty because someone blopsed his pve boat in lowsec
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Salvos Rhoska
2507
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 19:01:32 -
[376] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Snip.
Explain cynos/caps in LS, in 817 systems, where you dont need cynos/caps to gatecamp, run content, to PvP, or bypass bubbles, with restrictions on engagement, where NS neighbors can drop on you with caps, when you can also run cynos/caps in the 3400+systems around it?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3232
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 19:05:46 -
[377] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Snip. Explain cynos/caps in LS, in 817 systems, where you dont need cynos/caps to gatecamp, run content, to PvP, or bypass bubbles, with restrictions on engagement, where NS neighbors can drop on you with caps, when you can also run cynos/caps in the 3400+systems around it?
You don't actually need cynos anywhere in the game so saying you don't need them in low-sec is 100% irrelevant. |
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4034
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 19:06:13 -
[378] - Quote
cyno's are litterally the only way to get ships into a system which has an organised gatecamp with scouts in every surrounding system looking for hostile fleets
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Salvos Rhoska
2508
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 19:12:30 -
[379] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:cyno's are litterally the only way to get ships into a system which has an organised gatecamp with scouts in every surrounding system looking for hostile fleets
Wrong.
Cynos can bypass the gatecamp(s) entirely and drop far beyond them in a distant system.
Also, you dont need cynos to bypass a gatecamp. Instead use a non-gatecamped point of entry, fit correctly, scout or escort force your way through.
But you are beginning to catch on to why cynos/caps should not exist in LS. Thats good.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4034
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 19:14:54 -
[380] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:cyno's are litterally the only way to get ships into a system which has an organised gatecamp with scouts in every surrounding system looking for hostile fleets Wrong. Cynos bypass the gatecamp(s) entirely and drop far beyond them in a distant system. Also, you dont need cynos to bypass a gatecamp. Instead use a non-gatecamped point of entry, fit correctly, scout or escort force your way through. But you are beginning to catch on to why cynos/caps should not exist in LS. Thats good.
how do people engage an organised gatecamp which can see a fleet of subcaps from 2 jumps out? but i really shouldnt complain about you buffing gatecamping
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
|
Salvos Rhoska
2508
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 19:15:36 -
[381] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Snip. Explain cynos/caps in LS, in 817 systems, where you dont need cynos/caps to gatecamp, run content, to PvP, or bypass bubbles, with restrictions on engagement, where NS neighbors can drop on you with caps, when you can also run cynos/caps in the 3400+systems around it? You don't actually need cynos anywhere in the game so saying you don't need them in low-sec is 100% irrelevant.
Then why are cynos disallowed in HS?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2508
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 19:19:38 -
[382] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote: but i really shouldnt complain about you buffing gatecamping.
It doesnt buff gatecamps. Just removes jumping over them in LS.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Orakkus
Imperium Technologies DARKNESS.
333
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 19:19:51 -
[383] - Quote
Okay, trying to bring back the conversation to producing some useful results..
I am sure someone posted something like this earlier, but I am wondering what you all might think of it.
Have low-sec gates turn off for a period of time. Not randomly, but in a predictable period.. say 5 to 20 minutes out of every hour depending on the security level. While the amount of time the gate is off stays the same, when it goes off changes daily, and you can buy a constellation's information with some isk or LP depending on your standing with the local faction.
This would allow players to be invested in developing local industry, because if they have good faction they can keep up with when the gates close and open, giving them more control over risk. WIth a higher perceived level of control, more people will move out to low-sec. With more people out to low-sec, more content would be provided to those who want to pirate.
He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4034
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 19:25:49 -
[384] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote: but i really shouldnt complain about you buffing gatecamping. It doesnt buff gatecamps. Just removes jumping over them in LS.
it does because all i simply need to do is put scouts in each surrounding system around where i am camping, i dont need to worry about someone dropping blops, or capitals, i can see any hostile fleet coming into my system and i can just warp off the gate.
currently all someone needs to do is have a nuetral cyno jump in system and gg gatecamp gets rekt'd by a ton of blops and nobody has any time to respond because its over in the blink of an eye
thats a buff to gatecamps
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Salvos Rhoska
2508
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 19:37:37 -
[385] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote: but i really shouldnt complain about you buffing gatecamping. It doesnt buff gatecamps. Just removes jumping over them in LS. it does because all i simply need to do is put scouts in each surrounding system around where i am camping, i dont need to worry about someone dropping blops, or capitals, i can see any hostile fleet coming into my system and i can just warp off the gate. currently all someone needs to do is have a nuetral cyno jump in system and gg gatecamp gets rekt'd by a ton of blops and nobody has any time to respond because its over in the blink of an eye thats a buff to gatecamps
It doesnt buff gatecamps. Just removes jumping over them in LS.
It really is that simple.
Gate camps remain the same.
Its not a buff to gate camps, its the elimination of the option of jumping past them.
Post-change, you dont have to worry about blops reking your cyno.
If you want to pass through LS, prepare, fit, choose path, and either sneak through or fight through.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University Amarr Empire
461
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 19:38:02 -
[386] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:I want you to think hard about this bit salvos, what makes a thing justified?
A case for more AoE in EvE
|
Salvos Rhoska
2508
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 19:41:00 -
[387] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:Mr Mieyli wrote:I want you to think hard about this bit salvos, what makes a thing justified? Game mechanics and structure. Equilibrium as a rational totality.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University Amarr Empire
461
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 19:44:44 -
[388] - Quote
There is no such thing as rational totality.
There is also no such thing as justice, or any objective morality.
We are alone to decide for ourselves what is right and what should be. There's thousands of years of proof people can't agree what should be.
In the context of eve, CCP decide what is right, they are god here. They literally create the (game) universe.
A case for more AoE in EvE
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3232
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 19:44:44 -
[389] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Post-change, you dont have to worry about blops reking your cyno.
Blops aren't reking cynos. They use cynos to squash gatecamp.
Your though process is all over the place man... |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1583
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 20:05:05 -
[390] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Post-change, you dont have to worry about blops reking your cyno.
Blops aren't reking cynos. They use cynos to squash gatecamp. Your though process is all over the place man... He doesn't understand cyno, he's shown that before when he thought you cyno off grid and then warp to the target, giving them plenty of time with d-scan to know what you have and warp out.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
|
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
319
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 20:55:51 -
[391] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Explain to me how cynos/caps are justified in LS.
It doesn't matter if it is justified or not. It doesn't have to be. It says no where that every mechanic has to be justified, that is only in your head.
Besides I already have: power projection for lowsec groups, giving people the posibillity to set up traps etc. One can clearly feel that you are not playing in lowsec. Because usually lowsec groups hotdrop other lowsec groups, and not like you think: nullsec hotdropping lowsec. Even the fw militias (Galmil/calmil) have used caps when taking systems in the past(One being stopped by an incursion suddenly not allowing cynos and breaking down the logistics chain feeding ships to the grinder, ending the siege). And i also think the ability to escalate above your enemy is reason enough tbh.
"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
|
Salvos Rhoska
2510
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 20:58:50 -
[392] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:In the context of eve, CCP decide what is right, they are god here. They literally create the (game) universe. EVE is a machine. It has no life of its own. Nor is it a perfect machine. It has flaws.
It is created and populated by people whom are fallible.
That CCP decides what they do with their machine, does not mean their decisions are right, rational or justified.
There is a distinction between the games mechanical parts, and its organic parts (us as players and CCP).
In my view, cynos/caps in LS are a dysfunctional part of the machine.
NS exists over 3400 systems in which to use cynos/caps. LS exists as a slim border between HS and NS of only 817 systems.
I have at length explained the inequity between NS dropping into LS vs LS dropping into NS. I have at length explained that LS content, nor gatecamps, do not require cynos/caps.
Caps/cynos, rationally, mechanically, belong in NS.
I understand the misgivings of LS/NS (whichever or, or however organised) about losing cynos/caps in LS for whatever purpose they currently enjoy it as. Some expressed overtly, some vested.
But caps/cynos, rationally, mechanically, belong in NS. NPC Null is ideal if you want LS style non-sov. Its a vast emptiness. Player Sov is ideal if you want conflict.
These spaces already exist for cyno/cap play, without restrictions.
Why then are they staying in LS? Why are they arguing for LS to keep cynos/caps, when NS is out there already, with no restrictions?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
319
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 21:06:25 -
[393] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote: but i really shouldnt complain about you buffing gatecamping. It doesnt buff gatecamps. Just removes jumping over them in LS.
Salvos, you are not understanding. Lan Wang Means that cynos are the counter to gatecamps right now. Because if you slow boat to them, they will see you on d-scan and leave. If you light a cyno on the gatecamp, your backup fleet will jump bridge in and appear immidiately and the whole gatecap won't get away. It has NOHTING to do with jumping over the gatecamp
"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3237
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 21:07:25 -
[394] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Mr Mieyli wrote:In the context of eve, CCP decide what is right, they are god here. They literally create the (game) universe. EVE is a machine. It has no life of its own. Nor is it a perfect machine. It has flaws. It is created and populated by people whom are fallible. That CCP decides what they do with their machine, does not mean their decisions are right, rational or justified. There is a distinction between the games mechanical parts, and its organic parts (us as players and CCP). In my view, cynos/caps in LS are a dysfunctional part of the machine. NS exists over 3400 systems in which to use cynos/caps. LS exists as a slim border between HS and NS of only 817 systems. I have at length explained the inequity between NS dropping into LS vs LS dropping into NS. I have at length explained that LS content, nor gatecamps, do not require cynos/caps. Caps/cynos, rationally, mechanically, belong in NS. I understand the misgivings of LS/NS (whichever or, or however organised) about losing cynos/caps in LS for whatever purpose they currently enjoy it as. Some expressed overtly, some vested. But caps/cynos, rationally, mechanically, belong in NS. NPC Null is ideal if you want LS style non-sov. Its a vast emptiness. Player Sov is ideal if you want conflict. These spaces already exist for cyno/cap play, without restrictions. Why then are they staying in LS? Why are they arguing for LS to keep cynos/caps, when NS is out there already, with no restrictions?
I really wonder how you manage to post while holding your hands over your ears because there is no way you haven't understood how nonsensical your point is beside blatantly ignoring people while chanting lalalalala. |
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4040
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 21:10:05 -
[395] - Quote
we are in lowsec because we dont like nullsec, how hard is that for you to understand? the current mechanics in lowsec allow for a range of different gameplay options and logistics is easier for people who dont want to rely on using huge logistics networks.
nullsec do not walk over lowsec by projecting caps in every system, nullsec do not own or dominate lowsec either, thats all in your head
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
319
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 21:12:04 -
[396] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
These spaces already exist for cyno/cap play, without restrictions.
Why then are they staying in LS? Why are they arguing for LS to keep cynos/caps, when NS is out there already, with no restrictions?
Well, why stay in lowsec... FW, no bubbles, a nice mixture of solo and fleet. But I thank you, because i actually see the solution to buffing lowsec now. Let's remove NPC null, lowsec does it better anyway.
"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
|
Othran
Route One
767
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 21:12:12 -
[397] - Quote
Get rid of lowsec is probably the easiest answer. Maybe not the best but easy.
If you can deploy supers in lowsec which cannot be built there then whats the point of it?
Either have lowsec as true pirate space - no caps of any sort (JFs excepted) allowed once POS are gone or get rid of it. This would be my preferred solution.
If not then turn it into hisec or null & put the FW systems on their own blades - that'd save a lot of cpu cycles. |
Salvos Rhoska
2510
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 21:12:20 -
[398] - Quote
sero Hita wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote: but i really shouldnt complain about you buffing gatecamping. It doesnt buff gatecamps. Just removes jumping over them in LS. Salvos, you are not understanding. Lan Wang Means that cynos are the counter to gatecamps right now. Because if you slow boat to them, they will see you on d-scan and leave. If you light a cyno on the gatecamp, your backup fleet will jup bridge in and appear immidiately and the whole gatecap won't get away. It has NOHTING to do with jumping over the gatecamp
If cynos/caps are removed from LS, this becomes a non-issue.
Either go through another gate, fit for travel, or brute force yourself through.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
319
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 21:14:55 -
[399] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:sero Hita wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote: but i really shouldnt complain about you buffing gatecamping. It doesnt buff gatecamps. Just removes jumping over them in LS. Salvos, you are not understanding. Lan Wang Means that cynos are the counter to gatecamps right now. Because if you slow boat to them, they will see you on d-scan and leave. If you light a cyno on the gatecamp, your backup fleet will jup bridge in and appear immidiately and the whole gatecap won't get away. It has NOHTING to do with jumping over the gatecamp If cynos/caps are removed from LS, this becomes a non-issue. Either go through another gate, fit for travel, or brute force yourself through. So not killing them then before they warp off... why should lowsec gatecaps be more secure? I don't get it
"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
|
Salvos Rhoska
2510
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 21:15:09 -
[400] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Mr Mieyli wrote:In the context of eve, CCP decide what is right, they are god here. They literally create the (game) universe. EVE is a machine. It has no life of its own. Nor is it a perfect machine. It has flaws. It is created and populated by people whom are fallible. That CCP decides what they do with their machine, does not mean their decisions are right, rational or justified. There is a distinction between the games mechanical parts, and its organic parts (us as players and CCP). In my view, cynos/caps in LS are a dysfunctional part of the machine. NS exists over 3400 systems in which to use cynos/caps. LS exists as a slim border between HS and NS of only 817 systems. I have at length explained the inequity between NS dropping into LS vs LS dropping into NS. I have at length explained that LS content, nor gatecamps, do not require cynos/caps. Caps/cynos, rationally, mechanically, belong in NS. I understand the misgivings of LS/NS (whichever or, or however organised) about losing cynos/caps in LS for whatever purpose they currently enjoy it as. Some expressed overtly, some vested. But caps/cynos, rationally, mechanically, belong in NS. NPC Null is ideal if you want LS style non-sov. Its a vast emptiness. Player Sov is ideal if you want conflict. These spaces already exist for cyno/cap play, without restrictions. Why then are they staying in LS? Why are they arguing for LS to keep cynos/caps, when NS is out there already, with no restrictions? I really wonder how you manage to post while holding your hands over your ears because there is no way you haven't understood how nonsensical your point is beside blatantly ignoring people while chanting lalalalala.
The irony, when you ignored my post, stuck your fingers in your ears and lalalalad right past it.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
|
Salvos Rhoska
2510
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 21:17:19 -
[401] - Quote
sero Hita wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
These spaces already exist for cyno/cap play, without restrictions.
Why then are they staying in LS? Why are they arguing for LS to keep cynos/caps, when NS is out there already, with no restrictions?
Well, why stay in lowsec... FW, no bubbles, a nice mixture of solo and fleet. But I thank you, because i actually see the solution to buffing lowsec now. Let's remove NPC null, lowsec does it better anyway.
NPC Null does do it better. And more rationally.
Which supports that LS is not a place for cynos/caps.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2510
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 21:20:45 -
[402] - Quote
sero Hita wrote:So not killing them then before they warp off... why should lowsec gatecaps be more secure? I don't get it
Wat?
How does lack of cynos/caps in LS make gate camps more secure?
Its standard procedure without cyno.
Either choose another gate, sneak through, travel fit, or brute force through.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4040
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 21:20:57 -
[403] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:sero Hita wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote: but i really shouldnt complain about you buffing gatecamping. It doesnt buff gatecamps. Just removes jumping over them in LS. Salvos, you are not understanding. Lan Wang Means that cynos are the counter to gatecamps right now. Because if you slow boat to them, they will see you on d-scan and leave. If you light a cyno on the gatecamp, your backup fleet will jup bridge in and appear immidiately and the whole gatecap won't get away. It has NOHTING to do with jumping over the gatecamp If cynos/caps are removed from LS, this becomes a non-issue. Either go through another gate, fit for travel, or brute force yourself through.
fml, fine buff gatecamps, im good with that, i dont need to worry about people dropping me in tama anymore, gg well done
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Salvos Rhoska
2510
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 21:26:21 -
[404] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:fml, fine buff gatecamps, im good with that, i dont need to worry about people dropping me in tama anymore, gg well done
1) It doesnt buff gatecamps. Nothing changes for gatecamps. 2) Good, now you begin to understand. You no longer need to fear drops or caps in Tama. Just gate transiting subcaps, locals popping out of structures/offline, or WH trespassers.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
319
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 21:27:56 -
[405] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:sero Hita wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
These spaces already exist for cyno/cap play, without restrictions.
Why then are they staying in LS? Why are they arguing for LS to keep cynos/caps, when NS is out there already, with no restrictions?
Well, why stay in lowsec... FW, no bubbles, a nice mixture of solo and fleet. But I thank you, because i actually see the solution to buffing lowsec now. Let's remove NPC null, lowsec does it better anyway. NPC Null does do it better. And more rationally. Which supports that LS is not a place for cynos/caps.
So just repeating the same carbage about rationality, and not reflecting on what people write?? How do you deal with the real world being so inflexible and rigid in your thinking? That something is more rational for you, is not a reason to prefer something over another. It is no argument but a statement. Hope you understand the difference
"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4041
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 21:28:25 -
[406] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:fml, fine buff gatecamps, im good with that, i dont need to worry about people dropping me in tama anymore, gg well done 1) It doesnt buff gatecamps. Nothing changes for gatecamps. 2) Good, now you begin to understand. You no longer need to fear drops. Just gate transiting subcaps.
IT BUFFS GATECAMPS BECAUSE REMOVING CYNOS MEAN HOSTILES CAN NO LONGER LIGHT A CYNO AT 0 ON A GATECAMP TO KILL THE CAMPERS
Salvos if you dont understand how cyno's work stfu
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
319
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 21:32:57 -
[407] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:fml, fine buff gatecamps, im good with that, i dont need to worry about people dropping me in tama anymore, gg well done 1) It doesnt buff gatecamps. Nothing changes for gatecamps. Ofc it does gatecamps will not be hotdropped anymore and are safe. Hotdrops is the only real threat for gatecamps right now. They have eyes on all gates so they will be gone before you "Bruteforce" your way through. How can you not understand this? This plus your comments in that other thread about seing the fleet before they hotdrop on d-scan, makes me wonder did you ever hotdrop someone salvos, because I think you might not have understood how it works at all.
"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
|
Salvos Rhoska
2510
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 21:43:44 -
[408] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:IT BUFFS GATECAMPS BECAUSE REMOVING CYNOS MEAN HOSTILES CAN NO LONGER LIGHT A CYNO AT 0 ON A GATECAMP TO KILL THE CAMPERS
Lolwat.
Do you need a cyno to kill an LS gatecamp?
Just bring more subcaps through the gate, or a better fleet, and fight.
Or enter LS through another gate.
Standard procedure.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2510
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 21:47:04 -
[409] - Quote
sero Hita wrote: so they will be gone before you "Bruteforce" your way through.
So what?
That means you are now in LS, without having to defeat a gatecamp.
Go ahead thereafter and run rampant through LS as you wish, with no worry of a hot drop and/or caps.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
320
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 21:48:47 -
[410] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:IT BUFFS GATECAMPS BECAUSE REMOVING CYNOS MEAN HOSTILES CAN NO LONGER LIGHT A CYNO AT 0 ON A GATECAMP TO KILL THE CAMPERS Lolwat. Do you need a cyno to kill an LS gatecamp? Just bring more subcaps through the gate, or a better fleet, and fight. Or enter LS through another gate. Standard procedure.
The gatecamp will see you and leave FFS. I have gatecamped Ichoriya gate plenty of times, and we would always have eyes in all surrounding systems. You cannot get on top of an organized gatecamp by jumping through the gate with a big fleet.
How any times have you succesfully done as you have described above Salvos?
"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
|
|
Salvos Rhoska
2510
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 21:51:47 -
[411] - Quote
sero Hita wrote:The gatecamp will see you and leave FFS.
So?
Ofc they leave if they see a larger/better fleet arriving. Whats wrong with that?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
320
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 21:52:08 -
[412] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:sero Hita wrote: so they will be gone before you "Bruteforce" your way through. So what? That means you are now in LS, without having to defeat a gatecamp. Go ahead thereafter and run rampant through LS as you wish.
We live in lowsec. we want to defeat the gatecamp. No reason to jump into low. We roam to kill stuff, gatecamps are stuff, that hinder our logistics. So we kill them to deter them from caping in our spot or to help a ate move something through. Not everyone lives in highsec
"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
|
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
320
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 21:53:31 -
[413] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:sero Hita wrote:The gatecamp will see you and leave FFS. So? Ofc they leave if they see a larger/better fleet arriving. Whats wrong with that?
then there is no risk. With cynos there is risk, that they get killed. And that is one of many reasons why cynos are needed in lowsec. To add risk to gatecamps
"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
|
Salvos Rhoska
2510
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 21:57:51 -
[414] - Quote
sero Hita wrote:We live in lowsec. we want to defeat the gatecamp.
If the gatecamp runs away, it is defeated. Its no longer a gatecamp with no one there.
Good for you.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4042
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 22:01:23 -
[415] - Quote
this is what happens when carebears get stupid ideas about pvp mechanics
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
320
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 22:02:27 -
[416] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:sero Hita wrote:We live in lowsec. we want to defeat the gatecamp. If the gatecamp runs away, it is defeated. Its no longer a gatecamp with no one there. Good for you.
So here is the thing we are discussion why cynos are needed. I have just explained it to you. That you don't think that killing the gatecamps to send a signal is important, so they are not back 5 mins later is not my problem. You are twisting the conversation in another direction now. You don't have to rationalize if I need to kill the gatecamp or not. It is my freetime and my game to play.
"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
|
Salvos Rhoska
2510
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 22:04:50 -
[417] - Quote
sero Hita wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:sero Hita wrote:The gatecamp will see you and leave FFS. So? Ofc they leave if they see a larger/better fleet arriving. Whats wrong with that? then there is no risk. With cynos there is risk, that they get killed. And that is one of many reasons why cynos are needed in lowsec. To add risk to gatecamps
You dont need cynos to defeat a gatecamp. Just run them off. No one at the gate=no gatecamp=gatecamp defeated.
Your perspective on risk is perverse. You dont need cynos for risk in LS.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2510
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 22:10:02 -
[418] - Quote
sero Hita wrote:That you don't think that killing the gatecamps to send a signal is important, so they are not back 5 mins later is not my problem.
Its not my problem either if you fail to hold the gate 5mins later.
What is this "send a signal" bullshit? What koolaid are you drinking?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
320
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 22:12:38 -
[419] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:sero Hita wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:sero Hita wrote:The gatecamp will see you and leave FFS. So? Ofc they leave if they see a larger/better fleet arriving. Whats wrong with that? then there is no risk. With cynos there is risk, that they get killed. And that is one of many reasons why cynos are needed in lowsec. To add risk to gatecamps You dont need cynos to defeat a gatecamp. Just run them off. No one at the gate=no gatecamp=gatecamp defeated. Your perspective on risk is perverse. You dont need cynos for risk in LS.
Perverse... really??? Trying to make me look bad, by associating me with loaded words... classy. All this just because I don't agree with you. Is this respecting other peoples right to express themselves like you cried about in another thread that no one does with you???
My perspective is btw. not relevant. Protecting the highsec entrances for our alliance logistics is relevant. Killing them unexpectedly with a cyno so they have a big loss, and fear every ship will be a cyno will make them move to another gate. Scaring them off with a big fleet, keeps them away when they see a big fleet. When the fleet dock they are there again. And you are ****** at the timezones where you don-¦t have fleet big enough to scare them off.
"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
|
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
320
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 22:13:53 -
[420] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:sero Hita wrote:That you don't think that killing the gatecamps to send a signal is important, so they are not back 5 mins later is not my problem. Its not my problem either if you fail to hold the gate 5mins later. What is this "send a signal" bullshit? What koolaid are you drinking?
So you don't understand words or what is happening? it is pretty clear I think. Newsflash is it not a new group camping the gate everyday...... People fight over the gates to camp, and you know who your rivals are
"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
|
|
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
320
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 22:17:18 -
[421] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:sero Hita wrote:That you don't think that killing the gatecamps to send a signal is important, so they are not back 5 mins later is not my problem. Its not my problem either if you fail to hold the gate 5mins later. What is this "send a signal" bullshit? What koolaid are you drinking?
I don't care if it is your problem. This is why we need cynos. period. There is my argument. It is perfectly valid, and you don't need to tell how I could it differently.
"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
|
Soel Reit
Dambusters 617 Sq
616
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 22:18:11 -
[422] - Quote
calm down miners
|
Salvos Rhoska
2510
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 22:18:46 -
[423] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:this is what happens when carebears get stupid ideas about pvp mechanics
No, this is what happens when entitled pricks get so full of their own crap, they cant tell what is what anymore.
Wtf are you even doing in LS, relying on cynos and caps? Are you afraid to fight without them, even in LS?
Frankly its pathetic to try and justify cynos/caps in 817 LS systems, when there are 3400+ NS systems to use them in without restrictions.
Wtf are you even doing in LS? Gtfo to NS.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4042
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 22:24:39 -
[424] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:this is what happens when carebears get stupid ideas about pvp mechanics No, this is what happens when entitled pricks get so full of their own crap, they cant tell what is what anymore. Wtf are you even doing in LS, relying on cynos and caps? Frankly its pathetic to try and justify cynos/caps in 817 LS systems, when there are 3400+ NS systems to use them in without restrictions. Wtf are you even doing in LS? Gtfo to NS.
calm down miner im in lowsec enjoyin my game camping gates and dropping on retards like you
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
320
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 22:25:38 -
[425] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:this is what happens when carebears get stupid ideas about pvp mechanics No, this is what happens when entitled pricks get so full of their own crap, they cant tell what is what anymore. Wtf are you even doing in LS, relying on cynos and caps? Frankly its pathetic to try and justify cynos/caps in 817 LS systems, when there are 3400+ NS systems to use them in without restrictions. Wtf are you even doing in LS? Gtfo to NS.
you don't get to decide that though. the game is made so we can have Caps in low, stop shaming people who are clever enough to use the tools available. It is allowed so makes no sense you call us out for using caps tbh. Why the anger, salvos?
"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
|
Salvos Rhoska
2510
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 22:33:12 -
[426] - Quote
sero Hita wrote:[Protecting the highsec entrances for our alliance logistics is relevant. Killing them unexpectedly with a cyno so they have a big loss, and fear every ship will be a cyno will make them move to another gate. Scaring them off with a big fleet, keeps them away when they see a big fleet. When the fleet dock they are there again. And you are ****** at the timezones where you don-¦t have fleet big enough to scare them off.
Jesus christ, man. Wtf are you on about?
You dont need cynos or caps for that.
Just secure the gate with subcaps and camp it yourself.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2510
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 22:35:16 -
[427] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:this is what happens when carebears get stupid ideas about pvp mechanics No, this is what happens when entitled pricks get so full of their own crap, they cant tell what is what anymore. Wtf are you even doing in LS, relying on cynos and caps? Frankly its pathetic to try and justify cynos/caps in 817 LS systems, when there are 3400+ NS systems to use them in without restrictions. Wtf are you even doing in LS? Gtfo to NS. calm down miner im in lowsec enjoyin my game camping gates and dropping on retards like you
Im not a miner.
Weak post, shill.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
321
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 22:36:14 -
[428] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:sero Hita wrote:[Protecting the highsec entrances for our alliance logistics is relevant. Killing them unexpectedly with a cyno so they have a big loss, and fear every ship will be a cyno will make them move to another gate. Scaring them off with a big fleet, keeps them away when they see a big fleet. When the fleet dock they are there again. And you are ****** at the timezones where you don-¦t have fleet big enough to scare them off. Jesus christ, man. Wtf are you on about? You dont need cynos or caps for that. Just secure the gate with subcaps and camp it yourself.
What I am on about is covered in the quote. you not understanding it not my problem
"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
|
Soel Reit
Dambusters 617 Sq
618
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 22:41:32 -
[429] - Quote
calm down pvpers |
Salvos Rhoska
2511
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 22:44:07 -
[430] - Quote
sero Hita wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:this is what happens when carebears get stupid ideas about pvp mechanics No, this is what happens when entitled pricks get so full of their own crap, they cant tell what is what anymore. Wtf are you even doing in LS, relying on cynos and caps? Frankly its pathetic to try and justify cynos/caps in 817 LS systems, when there are 3400+ NS systems to use them in without restrictions. Wtf are you even doing in LS? Gtfo to NS. you don't get to decide that though. the game is made so we can have Caps in low, stop shaming people who are clever enough to use the tools available. It is allowed so makes no sense you call us out for using caps tbh. Why the anger, salvos?
"Stop shaming" What? Do you think this is Tumblr?
Your arguments and positions are shameful. If you want cyno/caps play, fk off to NS where ir belongs and you get punched back in unrestricted space.
LS doesnt need caps/cynos, nor are they justified there. If you want to defeat an LS gatecamp, engage it with subcaps. If they run off, the path is clear.
The rest of your nonsense makes no sense.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
|
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
321
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 22:46:52 -
[431] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
The rest of your nonsense makes no sense.
because you don't understand the mechanics and strategies of lowsec alliances.
"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4043
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 22:51:09 -
[432] - Quote
salvos, cynos and caps are allowed in lowsec, telling us to fck off to nullsec every 10minutes isnt going work just makes you sound like a spoiled little child, you sound like a total entitled prick yourself. if you have such an issue with us being in lowsec, guess what, bring a fleet down and "chase us away"
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Salvos Rhoska
2513
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 23:02:21 -
[433] - Quote
sero Hita wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
The rest of your nonsense makes no sense.
because you don't understand the mechanics and strategies of lowsec alliances.
Oh, I do understand.
Do you understand that in a no cyno/cap mechanic, you simply have to hold the gate with subcaps till material is transported?
LS doesnt need cynos/caps for anything. If you want cynos/caps, go to NS.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2513
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 23:04:05 -
[434] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:cynos and caps are allowed in lowsec,
Protip: Check the topic of the thread.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
321
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 23:08:31 -
[435] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:sero Hita wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
The rest of your nonsense makes no sense.
because you don't understand the mechanics and strategies of lowsec alliances. Oh, I do understand. Do you understand that in a no cyno/cap mechanic, you simply have to hold the gate with subcaps till material is transported? LS doesnt need cynos/caps for anything. If you want cynos/caps, go to NS where they are actually justified by content and unrestricted engagement.
But you can also do it by killing the gatecamp with a cyno, which is more pirate like. How about we agree upon some artistic freedom to do what we want?
"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4046
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 23:09:30 -
[436] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:cynos and caps are allowed in lowsec, Protip: Check the topic of the thread.
i have and people from lowsec and nullsec have given reasons why cynos and caps are in lowsec, dont bother asking for these reasons again because you are not goldfish and dont need to be told the same thing over and over again
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3239
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 23:11:16 -
[437] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:cynos and caps are allowed in lowsec, Protip: Check the topic of the thread.
I checked it. It does not mean CCP should implement stupid changes like your idea. |
Salvos Rhoska
2513
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 23:14:29 -
[438] - Quote
sero Hita wrote:But you can also do it by killing the gatecamp with a cyno, which is more pirate like. How about we agree upon some artistic freedom to do what we want?
Cyno drop of caps is pirate like? In LS?
First it was "sending a signal". Now its "artistic freedom".
What is this bullshit?
If you want cyno/cap action, go to the 3400+ NS systems.
LS can work just fine with subcaps and without cyno. If you w,ant to clear the gate, bring a fleet and clear it.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4046
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 23:16:59 -
[439] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:sero Hita wrote:But you can also do it by killing the gatecamp with a cyno, which is more pirate like. How about we agree upon some artistic freedom to do what we want? Cyno drop of caps is pirate like? In LS? First it was "sending a signal". Now its "artistic freedom". What is this bullshit? If you want cyno/cap action, go to the 3400+ NS systems. LS can work just fine with subcaps and without cyno. If you w,ant to clear the gate, bring a fleet and clear it.
good luck burning 33 jumps in subcaps from tama to rancer to chase pirates to ping off the gate, such engaging gameplay
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Salvos Rhoska
2513
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 23:17:10 -
[440] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:cynos and caps are allowed in lowsec, Protip: Check the topic of the thread. I checked it. It does not mean CCP should implement stupid changes like your idea.
Wrong alt, sis.
It does mean this is a thread for discussing LS CHANGE.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
|
Salvos Rhoska
2513
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 23:19:17 -
[441] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:good luck burning 33 jumps in subcaps from tama to rancer to chase pirates to ping off the gate, such engaging gameplay
Then dont be 33 jumps away.
PS:Those pirates are also playing the same game.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
321
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 23:20:57 -
[442] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote: Cyno drop of caps is pirate like? In LS?
First it was "sending a signal". Now its "artistic freedom".
What is this bullshit?
If you want cyno/cap action, go to the 3400+ NS systems.
LS can work just fine with subcaps and without cyno. If you w,ant to clear the gate, bring a fleet and clear it.
I bring a fleet, and transport it in by cyno. Because they will flee otherwise. Not so hard to understand
"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
|
Salvos Rhoska
2513
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 23:24:05 -
[443] - Quote
sero Hita wrote:Because they will flee otherwise.
So?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Vokan Narkar
New Eden Traders Aliance
5
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 23:29:00 -
[444] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote: but i really shouldnt complain about you buffing gatecamping. It doesnt buff gatecamps. Just removes jumping over them in LS. it does because all i simply need to do is put scouts in each surrounding system around where i am camping, i dont need to worry about someone dropping blops, or capitals, i can see any hostile fleet coming into my system and i can just warp off the gate. currently all someone needs to do is have a nuetral cyno jump in system and gg gatecamp gets rekt'd by a ton of blops and nobody has any time to respond because its over in the blink of an eye thats a buff to gatecamps I think it was you who said I can use cyno inhibitor. So what will you do then if GC will have cyno inhib? Cyno off-grid and warp to them right?
Most GCs are maintained by the large corps in LS such as Lowsechnaya, or FW-corps and they do not fear you will drop them because they can escalate far more than you can - they have everything prepared for it.
It seems to me like all this is about is that you want to be able to destroy GCs of some random noob corps with easy. Which is hell simple with a t3 who can pass their gc, cloak, wait till they engage someone who comes and light a cyno.
Btw cyno-inhib seems to be unavailable, either there is no demand (I had demand) or the demand is too high and the production is too low. Create it on my own is a no go, noo high PI prereqs for corp that doesn't specialize in industry. Also the price makes it inefficient - its cheaper to lose 2 cruisers in the drop than to pay for somehing that lasts 1 hour only, is visible on d-scan and has low area of effect with a limitation it can be anchored 75km off gate which means that all you need to do is to move 25km off gate in right direction to light a cyno. Useless piece of crap. |
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
321
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 23:29:33 -
[445] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:sero Hita wrote:Because they will flee otherwise. So?
Look up the answer I gave you earlier. Sometimes you want to hunt down the gatecamp. period. That you think scaring it off has just as much value is your perogative, but I would rather smash their fleet using a cyno, showing strength and tactical superiority. You don't agree fine. But the truth is your solution, does not lead to them having to take the fight and mine does. Hence that is enough reason for me to have cynos in lowsec. But repeat it again, how I should go to nullsec instead, perhaps it will work this time.
"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4046
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 23:43:46 -
[446] - Quote
Vokan Narkar wrote:Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote: but i really shouldnt complain about you buffing gatecamping. It doesnt buff gatecamps. Just removes jumping over them in LS. it does because all i simply need to do is put scouts in each surrounding system around where i am camping, i dont need to worry about someone dropping blops, or capitals, i can see any hostile fleet coming into my system and i can just warp off the gate. currently all someone needs to do is have a nuetral cyno jump in system and gg gatecamp gets rekt'd by a ton of blops and nobody has any time to respond because its over in the blink of an eye thats a buff to gatecamps I think it was you who said I can use cyno inhibitor. So what will you do then if GC will have cyno inhib? Cyno off-grid and warp to them right? Most GCs are maintained by the large corps in LS such as Lowsechnaya, or FW-corps and they do not fear you will drop them because they can escalate far more than you can - they have everything prepared for it. It seems to me like all this is about is that you want to be able to destroy GCs of some random noob corps with easy. Which is hell simple with a t3 who can pass their gc, cloak, wait till they engage someone who comes and light a cyno. Btw cyno-inhib seems to be unavailable, either there is no demand (I had demand) or the demand is too high and the production is too low. Create it on my own is a no go, noo high PI prereqs for corp that doesn't specialize in industry. Also the price makes it inefficient - its cheaper to lose 2 cruisers in the drop than to pay for somehing that lasts 1 hour only, is visible on d-scan and has low area of effect with a limitation it can be anchored 75km off gate which means that all you need to do is to move 25km off gate in right direction to light a cyno. Useless piece of crap.
are you actually being serious?
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Helene Fidard
CTRL-Q
48
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 23:43:57 -
[447] - Quote
The only way to revitalize lowsec is obviously to remove local from null.
Hey! I don't know about you
but I'm joining CTRL-Q
|
Beta Maoye
151
|
Posted - 2017.03.21 00:16:06 -
[448] - Quote
Various security spaces exist for reasons. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
47319
|
Posted - 2017.03.21 01:25:37 -
[449] - Quote
Vokan Narkar wrote:Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote: but i really shouldnt complain about you buffing gatecamping. It doesnt buff gatecamps. Just removes jumping over them in LS. it does because all i simply need to do is put scouts in each surrounding system around where i am camping, i dont need to worry about someone dropping blops, or capitals, i can see any hostile fleet coming into my system and i can just warp off the gate. currently all someone needs to do is have a nuetral cyno jump in system and gg gatecamp gets rekt'd by a ton of blops and nobody has any time to respond because its over in the blink of an eye thats a buff to gatecamps I think it was you who said I can use cyno inhibitor. So what will you do then if GC will have cyno inhib? Cyno off-grid and warp to them right? Most GCs are maintained by the large corps in LS such as Lowsechnaya, or FW-corps and they do not fear you will drop them because they can escalate far more than you can - they have everything prepared for it. It seems to me like all this is about is that you want to be able to destroy GCs of some random noob corps with easy. Which is hell simple with a t3 who can pass their gc, cloak, wait till they engage someone who comes and light a cyno. Btw cyno-inhib seems to be unavailable, either there is no demand (I had demand) or the demand is too high and the production is too low. Create it on my own is a no go, noo high PI prereqs for corp that doesn't specialize in industry. Also the price makes it inefficient - its cheaper to lose 2 cruisers in the drop than to pay for somehing that lasts 1 hour only, is visible on d-scan and has low area of effect with a limitation it can be anchored 75km off gate which means that all you need to do is to move 25km off gate in right direction to light a cyno. Useless piece of crap. Mate.
Look at what Alliance Lan is in and check her killboard.
You couldn't be further from the truth if you tried. |
Cade Windstalker
1140
|
Posted - 2017.03.21 02:35:18 -
[450] - Quote
Vokan Narkar wrote:I think it was you who said I can use cyno inhibitor. So what will you do then if GC will have cyno inhib? Cyno off-grid and warp to them right?
Most GCs are maintained by the large corps in LS such as Lowsechnaya, or FW-corps and they do not fear you will drop them because they can escalate far more than you can - they have everything prepared for it.
It seems to me like all this is about is that you want to be able to destroy GCs of some random noob corps with easy. Which is hell simple with a t3 who can pass their gc, cloak, wait till they engage someone who comes and light a cyno.
Btw cyno-inhib seems to be unavailable, either there is no demand (I had demand) or the demand is too high and the production is too low. Create it on my own is a no go, noo high PI prereqs for corp that doesn't specialize in industry. Also the price makes it inefficient - its cheaper to lose 2 cruisers in the drop than to pay for somehing that lasts 1 hour only, is visible on d-scan and has low area of effect with a limitation it can be anchored 75km off gate which means that all you need to do is to move 25km off gate in right direction to light a cyno. Useless piece of crap.
Oh man this is a load of bad info.
First off, the idea that most GCs in Low are maintained by massive entities that can out-escalate a null group dropping BLOPs is ridiculous. There are tons of small groups in low who gate camp at least occasionally, and most of the larger entities in Low are tiny and can drop, at best, a relatively small number of caps compared to a Null entity with more dreads in a standard drop-Cache than that Low entity can drop. They also don't have the bank to just shrug off a massive cap welp the same way a Null group can. That's not to say that a cap welp is gonna break the bank, but it's not nothing either.
Also, FYI, Mobile Cyno inhibs aren't unavailable, they're just expensive and not that useful most of the time. If, for some reason, you feel the need to burn 63m you can buy them in Jita for a semi-reasonable price, Amarr for an unreasonable one, and a smattering of other systems for anywhere between reasonable and highway robbery.
Also "just burning away from the gate" is laughable. First off, gate models are pretty big, second you pop in 10-15km off the thing in a random direction so you can actually end up having to burn about 40km to get out of the cyno inhib. By that point you're either dead or everyone's warped off, same for if you cyno in from off grid. Anyone who doesn't notice the local spike is either *hilariously* drunk or has no business leading a fleet.
Also, those same big groups you're griping about, would probably be more than happy to see cynos restricted, because as Lan quite rightly pointed out they can avoid anything they can't take, or since they're the locals, they can *undock* their capitals, warp them to grid, and "begin dealing out merry hell on a democratic basis" to every non-blue on grid.
The idea that anyone could view cynos being restricted in Low as a *nerf* to GCs is just... wat?
Completely academic though, because CCP would need an amazingly compelling reason to even consider a change like that, and "why not?" isn't it. |
|
Zirashi
Cyclical Destruction
58
|
Posted - 2017.03.21 04:29:03 -
[451] - Quote
This is a troll right? I mean, c'mon, he's been unironically telling people to HTFU while simultaneously whining about the "unjust" cynos in low sec and "unfair" mechanics on a forum alt for over 5 pages now. |
Alaric Faelen
Sabotage Incorporated Executive Outcomes
449
|
Posted - 2017.03.21 05:48:12 -
[452] - Quote
I've always thought that it's sort of backwards that Low Sec is less dangerous than Null Sec.
Using the Age of Sail as a blueprint, I see High Sec as the old big empires of Europe where the markets were. Null Sec is the New World or India where the exotic resources were harvested, but under fairly strong local control by semi-freelance corporations (like the East India company which had it's own military/mercenary arm). Low Sec is that long, dangerous space in between the two.
Thus, it should be Low Sec which is truly lawless, has warp bubbles, etc. Not claimable- anyone there is a 'pirate' by default. Soldiers on opposing sides use that space to interdict their enemy's goods and pirates try to interdict it all. The real difference between piracy and legitimate warfare just a little fuzzy.
If more resources were being harvested in Low Sec, and transported thru Low Sec (as opposed to jump bridging right past it), then it would matter much more to the whole game. Make FW ownership of space matter more to the free flow of goods and it becomes part of everyone's interests to keep it stable. Null Sec, as well as the NPC empires.
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3241
|
Posted - 2017.03.21 12:43:43 -
[453] - Quote
Zirashi wrote:This is a troll right? I mean, c'mon, he's been unironically telling people to HTFU while simultaneously whining about the "unjust" cynos in low sec and "unfair" mechanics on a forum alt for over 5 pages now.
Well his forum alt got dropped some time ago and it cost him a cynabal and the crystal pod so maybe he is just salty... |
Verlyn
Minmatar Secret Service Ushra'Khan
74
|
Posted - 2017.03.21 16:01:39 -
[454] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:Orakkus wrote:So, does everyone have their own idea about how to make low-sec good, I don't know about everyone, but I do. Get rid of it. All you need is lawful space and lawless space. No need for some in between space that makes no one happy. Mr Epeen
Speak for yourself. |
Maximillian Bonaparte
Interstellar Booty Hunters
139
|
Posted - 2017.03.21 18:16:47 -
[455] - Quote
Alaric Faelen wrote:I've always thought that it's sort of backwards that Low Sec is less dangerous than Null Sec. Using the Age of Sail as a blueprint, I see High Sec as the old big empires of Europe where the markets were. Null Sec is the New World or India where the exotic resources were harvested, but under fairly strong local control by semi-freelance corporations (like the East India company which had it's own military/mercenary arm). Low Sec is that long, dangerous space in between the two. Thus, it should be Low Sec which is truly lawless, has warp bubbles, etc. Not claimable- anyone there is a 'pirate' by default. Soldiers on opposing sides use that space to interdict their enemy's goods and pirates try to interdict it all. The real difference between piracy and legitimate warfare just a little fuzzy. If more resources were being harvested in Low Sec, and transported thru Low Sec (as opposed to jump bridging right past it), then it would matter much more to the whole game. Make FW ownership of space matter more to the free flow of goods and it becomes part of everyone's interests to keep it stable. Null Sec, as well as the NPC empires.
Astute observations.
I think that the problem with factional warfare though is the LP system. You can farm, farm, farm in a cheap stabbed frig with very little risk, and running away repeatedly. I HATE stabbed FW farmers and still kill them with double scrams when I can.
Instead of LP, if there was a tangible object, tag, loot, or somehting that they have to 'sell' or convert to lp with some value, this would make FW far more benificial and interesting for all parties: militia, pirates, privateers. Ofc you would have to increase the reward just a little bit.
Another intersting factoid about RL pirate history, is that it was often secretly sponsored, encouraged, or tolerated by 'legitimate' entrepeneurs who were corrupt.
But yeah I think there would need to be a new system or essential supply in lowsec that you can get.
Also I think lately there is a problem about PvP training. Eve-Uni is jsut not cutting it, RvB is restarting but not what it was, but if people learned how to solo or small gang PvP they would be more inclined to try lowsec. OR AGAIN, mission agent incentive to PvP in lwosec that is NOT faction warfare LP farming. We need more pirate agents or constable agents or something like that.
Nullsec PvP is different. Its groupthink PvP...which is why they all lost to Lowsec pvp-ers during World War Bee. :)
|
Salvos Rhoska
2524
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 04:17:54 -
[456] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Zirashi wrote:This is a troll right? I mean, c'mon, he's been unironically telling people to HTFU while simultaneously whining about the "unjust" cynos in low sec and "unfair" mechanics on a forum alt for over 5 pages now. Well his forum alt got dropped some time ago and it cost him a cynabal and the crystal pod so maybe he is just salty...
Pfft..
There are 3400+ NS systems for cynos/caps. The narrow 800 system LS buffer between HS and NS would be better served as a non-cyno sub-cap sector.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
56
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 05:10:27 -
[457] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Zirashi wrote:This is a troll right? I mean, c'mon, he's been unironically telling people to HTFU while simultaneously whining about the "unjust" cynos in low sec and "unfair" mechanics on a forum alt for over 5 pages now. Well his forum alt got dropped some time ago and it cost him a cynabal and the crystal pod so maybe he is just salty... Pfft.. There are 3400+ NS systems for cynos/caps. (Both NPC and Player) The narrow 800 system LS buffer between HS and NS would be better served as a non-cyno sub-cap sector.
That would have the effect of building a cyno proof trench around all the nullsec that doesn't border large swathes of NPC null, and that would thus make great swathes of nullsec much closer to invasion proof. I did live in Vale of the Silent as a renter for some time, and it was invaded by capitals staged from lowsec, despite being blue on one side and "strategically" neutral on the other.
Also currently nullsec ratters get dropped on all the time (so common even a terrible renter alliance will publish known drop scouts as such on their intel channels), and this change would reduce the neutral space locations that can reach into null for such, dramatically - ie ratting would be a simple case of analysing reach on the map.
Never mind what a pain in the ass JF piloting would become. |
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4053
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 07:43:16 -
[458] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Zirashi wrote:This is a troll right? I mean, c'mon, he's been unironically telling people to HTFU while simultaneously whining about the "unjust" cynos in low sec and "unfair" mechanics on a forum alt for over 5 pages now. Well his forum alt got dropped some time ago and it cost him a cynabal and the crystal pod so maybe he is just salty... Pfft.. There are 3400+ NS systems for cynos/caps. (Both NPC and Player) The narrow 800 system LS buffer between HS and NS would be better served as a non-cyno sub-cap sector.
what does the amount of systems have to do with it? if anything traveling around 800 hostile systems is reason enough to allow capitals and cynos
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
333
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 07:52:07 -
[459] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:
what does the amount of systems have to do with it? if anything traveling around 800 hostile systems is reason enough to allow capitals and cynos
Like I said before, he is confusing arguments and statements. But I am sure that in his head the number of systems are the answer to why cyno should not be there. He has repeated it so much now, that I don't think he would be able to understand why it is not an argument anymore.
"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
|
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University Amarr Empire
475
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 08:06:48 -
[460] - Quote
You know, making it harder to invade null from outside would drive up local conflict. Why have so many blues if you aren't worried about being jumped on from the centre of the wheel that is the eve map. Of course, null players only claim to love dangerous lawless space so they won't like any changes to cynos.
A case for more AoE in EvE
|
|
Salvos Rhoska
2525
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 14:44:26 -
[461] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:if anything traveling around 800 hostile systems is reason enough to allow capitals and cynos
Explain. Do you feel you would be unable to survive in LS without cynos/caps?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2525
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 14:49:34 -
[462] - Quote
Coralas wrote:That would have the effect of building a cyno proof trench.
More like a cyno proof WALL around LS. Entry/exit only through gates.
Furthermore, I submit no caps in LS either. LS is empire space, with security restrictions, NS, is not. LS makes more sense as a non-cyno, sub-cap region on the security scale, in the few 800 systems it comprises as stretched in a thin border wedged between NS and HS.
Many players want LS to be a sub-cap, non-CONCORD PvP zone. Especially if (without caps/cynos) it means they can pirate the sub-cap transports passing through their space between NS/HS.
Furthermore, LS locals dont need cynos or caps to run the local PvE content. The anomalies/DEDs etc are all eminently manageable with sub-caps.
LS, thin and restricted as it is, needs less permeability. Lets be real. NS is exploiting the hell out of it, as is now.
I understand your point on invading NS from LS. Its valid.
But there is plenty of NS space from which to stage those.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Orakkus
Imperium Technologies DARKNESS.
334
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 15:24:19 -
[463] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote: But there is plenty of NS space from which to stage those.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:There are 3400+ NS systems for cynos/caps. (Both NPC and Player) The narrow 800 system LS buffer between HS and NS would be better served as a non-cyno sub-cap sector.
You keep using these numbers as if it were relevant. They are not.
They aren't relevant because the moment you limit access of ships though any space you start to develop corridors and chokepoints. Those areas would allow larger alliances to control access into vast areas of null-sec. Smaller alliances would not have the ability to expand into those areas and large tracts of null-sec would go unused because people simply cannot get to them and operate in them effectively. On that point alone, your idea of removing capitals and cyno access through low-sec would be highly detrimental to the game.
It doesn't matter if null-sec had a billion systems and low-sec had five. The moment you implement your idea there would be major, but short, battles over the chokepoints and access to the games content for large swaths of players would be removed, without any legitimate way to get back into there effectively. It would result in the worst "N+1" dynamic ever in the game.
He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4055
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 15:26:55 -
[464] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:if anything traveling around 800 hostile systems is reason enough to allow capitals and cynos
Explain. Do you feel you would be unable to survive in LS without cynos/caps?
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.
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Salvos Rhoska
2525
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 15:48:29 -
[465] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote: But there is plenty of NS space from which to stage those.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:There are 3400+ NS systems for cynos/caps. (Both NPC and Player) The narrow 800 system LS buffer between HS and NS would be better served as a non-cyno sub-cap sector. You keep using these numbers as if it were relevant. They are not. They aren't relevant because the moment you limit access of ships though any space you start to develop corridors and chokepoints. Those areas would allow larger alliances to control access into vast areas of null-sec. Smaller alliances would not have the ability to expand into those areas and large tracts of null-sec would go unused because people simply cannot get to them and operate in them effectively. On that point alone, your idea of removing capitals and cyno access through low-sec would be highly detrimental to the game. It doesn't matter if null-sec had a billion systems and low-sec had five. The moment you implement your idea there would be major, but short, battles over the chokepoints and access to the games content for large swaths of players would be removed, without any legitimate way to get back into there effectively. It would result in the worst "N+1" dynamic ever in the game.
1) That there is 4x more NS systems that LS systems, is relevant. It means LS is a thin line stretched between HS and NS. It also means there are 4x more systems to run cynos/caps in (where there is no security and no restrictions), whereas LS is overshadowed, penetrated and overrun by its NS neighbors.
LS players want a non-cyno, sub-cap zone to PvP in and intercept NS/HS material transport in.
2) Lol at chokepoints. Are you trying to claim there arent gatecamps in NS and HS? Cynos currently serve as a means to pass through LS WITHOUT interception. Its ridiculous.
3) Smaller entities can expand into Player Sov through the far wider web of connections in NS itself. Yes, invading NS with cynos/caps from LS will no longer be possible. You can however operate in LS instead with sub-caps to cripple that bordering NS entities access to HS markets, and back.
4) To run material through LS between HS/NS, you will either have to escort it, or risk it. No more lol-cyno skipping.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3250
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 15:55:15 -
[466] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote: LS players want a non-cyno, sub-cap zone to PvP in and intercept NS/HS material transport in.
Got stats or anything to support that opinion of yours? |
Salvos Rhoska
2525
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 16:00:32 -
[467] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:if anything traveling around 800 hostile systems is reason enough to allow capitals and cynos
Explain. Do you feel you would be unable to survive in LS without cynos/caps? 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.
1) LS is 800 systems, stretched all the way around HS. At its deepest, its like 10 gatejumps wide.
2) As long as its sub-caps and non-cynos, both HS and NS can break through gatecamps from either end. Freighters can arrange escort and/or fly safer. There are no bubbles in LS, so really its not that hard.
3) People travel through gates in slower ships than cruisers all the time. BCs, BS. If you dont like it, fly something faster.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4055
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 16:09:32 -
[468] - Quote
so just remove battleships from lowsec too then and make people fly interceptors, thats your solution?
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Salvos Rhoska
2525
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 16:11:15 -
[469] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote: LS players want a non-cyno, sub-cap zone to PvP in and intercept NS/HS material transport in.
Got stats or anything to support that opinion of yours?
The insane volume of material transport between HS and NS, passing/cynoing through LS with impunity (under a cap umbrella), is support enough.
Or do you really think LS doesnt want to pirate the hell out of that enormous bounty?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4055
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 16:11:49 -
[470] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote: LS players want a non-cyno, sub-cap zone to PvP in and intercept NS/HS material transport in.
Got stats or anything to support that opinion of yours?
ofcourse he doesnt, he has been asked for this sort of thing dozens of time now and cant produce anything but the same half-baked opinions
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
|
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
63
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 16:15:45 -
[471] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:if anything traveling around 800 hostile systems is reason enough to allow capitals and cynos
Explain. Do you feel you would be unable to survive in LS without cynos/caps? 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. 1) LS is 800 systems, stretched all the way around HS. At its deepest, its like 10 gatejumps wide. 2) As long as its sub-caps and non-cynos, both HS and NS can break through gatecamps from either end. Freighters can arrange escort and/or fly safer. There are no bubbles in LS, so really its not that hard. 3) People travel through gates in slower ships than cruisers all the time. BCs, BS. If you dont like it, fly something faster.
You don't really address the points he raised about it making gameplay in lowsec more annoying for many and that it would hurt lowsec logistics quite a bit by forcing them to go through lowsec chokepoints just like those traveling from null would.
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. |
Salvos Rhoska
2525
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 16:17:01 -
[472] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:so just remove battleships from lowsec too then and make people fly interceptors, thats your solution? Wat?
Mr. Meat-puppet. Please. I understand you are afraid, but this is unreasonable shilling.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3250
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 16:25:02 -
[473] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote: LS players want a non-cyno, sub-cap zone to PvP in and intercept NS/HS material transport in.
Got stats or anything to support that opinion of yours? The insane volume of material transport between HS and NS, passing/cynoing through LS with impunity (under a cap umbrella), is support enough. Or do you really think LS doesnt want to pirate the hell out of that enormous bounty?
With their life style being reliant on those same JF, I doubt they all want them to be interdictable at every gate camp. |
Salvos Rhoska
2525
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 16:26:25 -
[474] - Quote
Scialt wrote: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) HS-NS material transport has no option than to travel through LS, unless they use WHs. They MUST pass through LS.
2) Will it draw more people to LS? HELL YES.
3) Pirates/alt corps galore to get a piece of the cake. NS entities galore to escort their shipments. Mercs galore to offer their services.
4) LS PI/PvE Corps may suffer attrition, but tbh, nobody will bother them much, as the HS-NS transitioning ships are FAR more lucrative.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2525
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 16:40:07 -
[475] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:With their life style being reliant on those same JF, I doubt they all want them to be interdictable at every gate camp. LS isnt reliant on JFs.
NS-HS trade networks are (currently conveniently cynoing their way through LS past gatecamps).
LS can run its own goods out with existing sub-caps and gatecamp avoidance precautions (easier to HS however, than NS, due to bubbles in NS).
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4055
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 16:40:09 -
[476] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:so just remove battleships from lowsec too then and make people fly interceptors, thats your solution? Wat? Mr. Meat-puppet. Please. I understand you are afraid, but this is unreasonable shilling.
so is "use something faster" as an answer to traveling in 800 lowsec systems, get something else man instead of the crappy half-baked answers you keep giving, provide some evidence that freighters dont die and the other stuff people have asked for. this is getting tedious you really are proving to be a total noodle brain.
you clearly have no idea how low, null and high sec works, give it a rest
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Salvos Rhoska
2525
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 16:45:33 -
[477] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:so is "use something faster" as an answer to traveling in 800 lowsec systemst
Wtf are you doing traveling through 800 LS systems? Is this some roleplay thing?
LS is like 10ish gates deep at its deepest point.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4055
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 16:47:29 -
[478] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:so is "use something faster" as an answer to traveling in 800 lowsec systemst Wtf are you doing traveling through 800 LS systems? Is this some roleplay thing? LS is like 10ish gates deep at its deepest point.
are you fcking ********?
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
63
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 16:52:01 -
[479] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scialt wrote: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) HS-NS material transport has no option than to travel through LS, unless they use WHs. They MUST pass through LS. 2) Will it draw more people to LS? HELL YES. 3) Pirates/alt corps galore to get a piece of the cake. NS entities galore to escort their shipments. Mercs galore to offer their services. 4) LS PI/PvE Corps may suffer attrition, but tbh, nobody will bother them much, as the HS-NS transitioning ships are FAR more lucrative.
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. |
Salvos Rhoska
2525
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 16:54:34 -
[480] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:so is "use something faster" as an answer to traveling in 800 lowsec systemst Wtf are you doing traveling through 800 LS systems? Is this some roleplay thing? LS is like 10ish gates deep at its deepest point. are you fcking ********?
Are you fking kidding me that you are cynoing through 800 LS systems on some kind of roleplaying crusade per play session?
Wtf is even your point?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4055
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 16:59:03 -
[481] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:so is "use something faster" as an answer to traveling in 800 lowsec systemst Wtf are you doing traveling through 800 LS systems? Is this some roleplay thing? LS is like 10ish gates deep at its deepest point. are you fcking ********? Are you fking kidding me that you are cynoing through 800 LS systems on some kind of roleplaying crusade per play session? Wtf is even your point?
stfu you noodle, "traveling in 800 lowsec systems" i didnt say through, do you think every where in lowsec takes 10 gate jumps? ffs man
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3251
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 17:06:58 -
[482] - Quote
Scialt wrote:
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.
Will be fun to defend a cargo ship from a suicide alpha strike like Tornados or brute force DPS like Talos. It's like High-Sec ganking except you collect insurance to reduce your cost. |
Salvos Rhoska
2525
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 17:08:08 -
[483] - Quote
Scialt wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scialt wrote: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) HS-NS material transport has no option than to travel through LS, unless they use WHs. They MUST pass through LS. 2) Will it draw more people to LS? HELL YES. 3) Pirates/alt corps galore to get a piece of the cake. NS entities galore to escort their shipments. Mercs galore to offer their services. 4) LS PI/PvE Corps may suffer attrition, but tbh, nobody will bother them much, as the HS-NS transitioning ships are FAR more lucrative. 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.
1) Touche. So be it. This change doesnt affect that link at all though.
2) Primarily, it removes the overwhelming cap force of NS from LS. WH corps cant hotdrop through a WH. It will sure as hell increase pirate numbers in LS, cos they dont have to deal with cynos/caps, just sub-cap combat.
3) Why/how would you be "forced" to escort trade runs? Ofc you will demand payment for your service, or not do it. You dont have to escort anyone. Blow them up instead, if you wish.
4) Gatecamps already do that. But post-change, they will also have to fight escort fleets with far more lucrative cargo seeking to clear the gate. I agree that it would be constant fights for gate control, but since its sub-caps, even a smaller LS Corp can bide its time to secure transit of its own materials, or clear the camp.
5) Lets be real, gatecamps are what LS is all about. The gates are conflict drivers (currently bypassed by cynos, or wiped out by cap drops).
6) I dont believe local pve will be all that impaired, and they can bide their time and make deals etc. The HS-NS transiting enormous wealth is far more interesting.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2525
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 17:26:53 -
[484] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Scialt wrote:
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.
Will be fun to defend a cargo ship from a suicide alpha strike like Tornados or brute force DPS like Talos. It's like High-Sec ganking except you collect insurance to reduce your cost.
Its not a suicide gank, cos no CONCORD death certainty.
Scout ahead and clear the gate before you bring the cargo ship in.
Glad to see you say it will be fun.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
63
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 17:29:29 -
[485] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scialt wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scialt wrote: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) HS-NS material transport has no option than to travel through LS, unless they use WHs. They MUST pass through LS. 2) Will it draw more people to LS? HELL YES. 3) Pirates/alt corps galore to get a piece of the cake. NS entities galore to escort their shipments. Mercs galore to offer their services. 4) LS PI/PvE Corps may suffer attrition, but tbh, nobody will bother them much, as the HS-NS transitioning ships are FAR more lucrative. 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. 1) Touche. So be it. This change doesnt affect that link at all though. 2) Primarily, it removes the overwhelming cap force of NS from LS. WH corps cant hotdrop through a WH. It will sure as hell increase pirate numbers in LS, cos they dont have to deal with cynos/caps, just sub-cap combat. 3) Why/how would you be "forced" to escort trade runs? Ofc you will demand payment for your service, or not do it. 4) Gatecamps already do that. But post-change, they will also have to fight escort fleets with far more lucrative cargo seeking to clear the gate. I agree that it would be constant fights for gate control, but since its sub-caps, even a smaller LS Corp can bide its time to secure transit of its own materials. 5) Lets be real, gatecamps are what LS is all about. The gates are conflict drivers (currently bypassed by cynos, or wiped out by cap drops). 6) I dont believe local pve will be all that impaired, and they can bide their time and make deals etc. The HS-NS transiting enormous wealth is far more interesting.
For me... lowsec is all about FW. Gatecamps are something that take away from that. What increasing the number of gatecamps does is make it more annoying for everyone who's not in the gatecamps. While in part that's null groups transporting goods (which is what you're shooting for) it's also... everyone else in lowsec. That's PVE players, indy groups, and FW players. Gatecamps are almost never target specific... they blow up the loan rifter or venture that they can catch just as much as they do a freighter. They make travelling more difficult for everyone.
I engage in PvP in FW... in plexes. It's small group or solo, which is what I prefer. Gatecamps for me are a hassle I have to work around (and I generally can). Making them more frequent is a disincentive for me to deal with lowsec as a player who currently spends about half his time there without engaging in trade runs or gatecamps.
It feels like the main impact of what you're suggesting is to change lowsec into a zone where the primary action is moving supplies and protecting them vs gatecampers pirating them. It would seriously put breaks on industrial/PVE/FW operations due to the larger number of gatecamps that would pop up (due to their being more targets). It might increase traffic through lowsec, but would lower the actual RESIDENCY. Small lowsec industrial corps would be better suited in Null as part of larger alliances who can provide escorts for freighters and better minerals for manufacture. FW (and those preying of FW plexers) might get more solo/small gang pvp in wormholes rather than in low sec due to gatecamps making moving around FW space more difficult. PVE types might have too much trouble getting through gatecamps in their mission fit ships and instead run lvl 4's in HS or anomalies in null.
|
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
63
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 17:33:40 -
[486] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Scialt wrote:
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.
Will be fun to defend a cargo ship from a suicide alpha strike like Tornados or brute force DPS like Talos. It's like High-Sec ganking except you collect insurance to reduce your cost.
I don't think that's how it will work for most larger null-sec entities. Rather I imagine they'd conscript blob fleets to escort a large number of freighters from null to high. 200+ ship fleets scaring away the gatecampers as opposed to actually generating much in the way of combat.
When combat happened I imagine it would be another null-sec entity learning of the plans and bringing their own blob.
You have to remember the biggest advantage that large alliances often have is numbers. It's silly to think they wouldn't use that when dealing with a change like this. |
Salvos Rhoska
2525
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 17:52:07 -
[487] - Quote
Scialt wrote:Gatecamps are almost never target specific... they blow up the loan rifter or venture that they can catch just as much as they do a freighter. They make travelling more difficult for everyone.
This already happens. My change, does not change that.
Scialt wrote:It feels like the main impact of what you're suggesting is to change lowsec into a zone where the primary action is moving supplies and protecting them vs gatecampers pirating them.
This too, is already what LS largely is. Except cynos enable JFs and other cargo vessels to bypass gates, and caps/cynos allow dropping overwhelming force ontop of any attempt to intercept it.
Scialt wrote:It would seriously put breaks on industrial/PVE/FW operations due to the larger number of gatecamps that would pop up (due to their being more targets).
Lack of cynos/caps doesnt put a break on those. (as in two quotes above). Gatecamps already exist. The number of gatecamps is irrelevant, since cynos jump past them as is now.
Scialt wrote: It might increase traffic through lowsec, but would lower the actual RESIDENCY. Small lowsec industrial corps would be better suited in Null as part of larger alliances who can provide escorts for freighters and better minerals for manufacture. FW (and those preying of FW plexers) might get more solo/small gang pvp in wormholes rather than in low sec due to gatecamps making moving around FW space more difficult. PVE types might have too much trouble getting through gatecamps in their mission fit ships and instead run lvl 4's in HS or anomalies in null.
1) LS pirates will naturally become residents.
2) Small LS industry corps would frankly, already, be better off in NS alliances (and its arguable how muxh of LS is already essentially NS front corps)
3) FW and WHs are separate. If FW players want to raid a WH, they can still do so, as they can now. My change doesnt change that.
4) As above, gatecamps already "prevent" mission fit ships from moving in LS. A PvE fit while traveling, is always a bad idea, anywhere in EVE.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Maximillian Bonaparte
Interstellar Booty Hunters
141
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:03:30 -
[488] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote: LS players want a non-cyno, sub-cap zone to PvP in and intercept NS/HS material transport in.
Got stats or anything to support that opinion of yours? The insane volume of material transport between HS and NS, passing/cynoing through LS with impunity (under a cap umbrella), is support enough. Or do you really think LS doesnt want to pirate the hell out of that enormous bounty?
Hmmm...
I think as said before you will then have a huge amount of gate-camping to go after that stuff.
I don't mind a little bit of gate camping.
But for me and a lot of others it is the lazy man's PvP content...not quite as lively as going on the hunt.
Yeah I think there is already enough gate camping. :) Too much of it and you kill the content behind the camps.
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4055
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:08:24 -
[489] - Quote
if ccp wanted to make transit of materials harder they would not have introduced citadel mechanics
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Salvos Rhoska
2525
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:11:05 -
[490] - Quote
Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:Too much of it and you kill the content behind the camps.
There is so much HS-NS transit of material through, that its almost impossible to even put a dent in it
Believe me, the sheer volume of the above, is an an endless, unceasing source of content between both camps.
You wont believe how much content LS will have once HS-NS transit has to run through gates, without caps drops.
It will blow your mind.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
|
Maximillian Bonaparte
Interstellar Booty Hunters
141
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:12:06 -
[491] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scialt wrote:
[quote=Scialt]It would seriously put breaks on industrial/PVE/FW operations due to the larger number of gatecamps that would pop up (due to their being more targets).
Lack of cynos/caps doesnt put a break on those. (as in two quotes above). Gatecamps already exist. The number of gatecamps is irrelevant, since cynos jump past them as is now. .
Oh yes it does.
You want to bring in materials to build a cap ship, best way is JF.
You want to get ships in for your lowsec PvP corp, best way is JF.
You want to mine and manufactures stuff from moon goo? Best way to get it out is with a JF.
You want to get market stuff out to nullsec, or get back to highsec from nullsec, you have to light a cyno in lowsec!
Why dont you spend some time really living most of your life in lowsec or even nullsec to get this understanding?
However, if you want to ban supercaps from lowsec, and possibly even capitals...that might make thigns rather interesting. :) Veeery interesting indeed! Price of marauders, battleships, and T3's would go up, bashing pos's would be harder, the major lowsec power blocks such as Shadow Cartel would have to move to nullsec or seriously rework all their doctrines and tactics to a point that they might collapse, and give an opening for many more pilots who dont fly capitals to thrive in lowsec. :)
|
Salvos Rhoska
2526
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:19:55 -
[492] - Quote
Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:Snip
There are 3400 NS systems to use JFs in inorder to bypass bubbles/gatecamps. Use them there, where they belong.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
8251
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:25:29 -
[493] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:Snip There are 3400 NS systems to use JFs inorder to bypass bubbles/gatecamps. Use them there, where they belong. JFs with cynos make a mockery of LS.
I remember the days when convoys to move stuff were a thing - along with security for them through space. I was too new to be a part of it, but I have seen endless posts and descriptions about it. The effort a corp/alliance had to put in it, and the things that happened around it. It was on the level of being at war, and a corp could get its back broken on poor planning or poor security.
Of the many things that killed lowsec, JFs was one of them.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Maximillian Bonaparte
Interstellar Booty Hunters
142
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:27:21 -
[494] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:Snip There are 3400 NS systems to use JFs inorder to bypass bubbles/gatecamps. Use them there, where they belong. JFs with cynos make a mockery of LS.
What is it that you DO in lowsec again? Are you a gatecamper? LOL
I really don't understand the motivation behind your argument other than simply to make an argument for its own sake. |
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4056
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:27:58 -
[495] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:Snip There are 3400 NS systems to use JFs inorder to bypass bubbles/gatecamps. Use them there, where they belong. JFs with cynos make a mockery of LS.
what? so only jump freighters can be used in null also now?
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Maximillian Bonaparte
Interstellar Booty Hunters
142
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:29:52 -
[496] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:Snip There are 3400 NS systems to use JFs inorder to bypass bubbles/gatecamps. Use them there, where they belong. JFs with cynos make a mockery of LS. I remember the days when convoys to move stuff were a thing - along with security for them through space. I was too new to be a part of it, but I have seen endless posts and descriptions about it. The effort a corp/alliance had to put in it, and the things that happened around it. It was on the level of being at war, and a corp could get its back broken on poor planning or poor security. Of the many things that killed lowsec, JFs was one of them.
Maybe but all I know is that today no one who lives in lwosec ever makes an argument against cyno's really.
An I like to use my JF to get stuff in. Otherwise I would NOT live in lowsec. |
Orakkus
Imperium Technologies DARKNESS.
334
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:33:43 -
[497] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:Snip There are 3400 NS systems to use JFs inorder to bypass bubbles/gatecamps. Use them there, where they belong. JFs with cynos make a mockery of LS.
No, there isn't. Yes, there are 3400 NS system.. NO the vast majority aren't viable for JF transport. Just because you can fly a capital through it doesn't make it viable for use. Flying a JF in and out of Null-sec isn't just a snap of your fingers and "poof" you are safely in null-sec or high-sec. It already take a few people and some planning to do it successfully.
In addition, in order to make Low-sec more viable it NEEDS cynos and caps. It needs to develop an industrial base, and you can't have that if you can't import and export materials and goods. And you can't have an industrial base without people, and you can't have people without some measure of safety and convenience. And once you have more people, then and only then do you get more content.
He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
|
Salvos Rhoska
2527
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:34:59 -
[498] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Of the many things that killed lowsec, JFs was one of them.
Amen.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4056
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:36:27 -
[499] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Of the many things that killed lowsec, JFs was one of them. Amen.
answer my question, are proposin to ban jump freighters from lowsec?
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Salvos Rhoska
2527
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:37:14 -
[500] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:what? so only jump freighters can be used in null also now?
No. You can use whatever you want in NS. Its unrestricted space.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
|
Salvos Rhoska
2527
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:39:55 -
[501] - Quote
Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:An I like to use my JF to get stuff in. Otherwise I would NOT live in lowsec.
Why not? And where would you live instead?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2527
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:46:20 -
[502] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:In addition, in order to make Low-sec more viable it NEEDS cynos and caps. It needs to develop an industrial base, and you can't have that if you can't import and export materials and goods. And you can't have an industrial base without people, and you can't have people without some measure of safety and convenience. And once you have more people, then and only then do you get more content.
Explain how LS industry cant be viable without cynos or caps.
Once cynos/caps are removed, your import/export is improved, as you dont need to fear cyno/cap drops that grossly exceed your effort or capacity to deal with them.
Subcaps will be sufficient, and its far easier to find sub-cap players, than cap players.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4056
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:47:50 -
[503] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Orakkus wrote:In addition, in order to make Low-sec more viable it NEEDS cynos and caps. It needs to develop an industrial base, and you can't have that if you can't import and export materials and goods. And you can't have an industrial base without people, and you can't have people without some measure of safety and convenience. And once you have more people, then and only then do you get more content. Explain how LS industry cant be viable without cynos or caps. Once cynos/caps are removed, your import/export is improved, as you dont need to fear cyno/cap drops that grossly exceed your effort or capacity to deal with them.
no its not because you need to take gates through pirate infested space!
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1585
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:51:00 -
[504] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Orakkus wrote:In addition, in order to make Low-sec more viable it NEEDS cynos and caps. It needs to develop an industrial base, and you can't have that if you can't import and export materials and goods. And you can't have an industrial base without people, and you can't have people without some measure of safety and convenience. And once you have more people, then and only then do you get more content. Explain how LS industry cant be viable without cynos or caps. Once cynos/caps are removed, your import/export is improved, as you dont need to fear cyno/cap drops that grossly exceed your effort or capacity to deal with them. Subcaps will be sufficient, and its far easier to find sub-cap players, than cap players. If you can't get your goods to market, there's no point manufacturing.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
65
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 19:05:03 -
[505] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote: "Gatecamps are almost never target specific... they blow up the loan rifter or venture that they can catch just as much as they do a freighter. They make travelling more difficult for everyone."
This already happens. My change, does not change that.
Your change drastically increases the number of camps. So instead of having to dodge one camp you now have to dodge 20. That makes travel for everyone in lowsec more of a pain.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: "It feels like the main impact of what you're suggesting is to change lowsec into a zone where the primary action is moving supplies and protecting them vs gatecampers pirating them. "
This too, is already what LS largely is. Except cynos enable JFs and other cargo vessels to bypass gates, and caps/cynos allow dropping overwhelming force ontop of any attempt to intercept it.
Umm... that's not what I see. I see FW, PVE and industry operations in lowsec. This would hurt those things and only leave gatecamps and null-sec logistics.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: "It would seriously put breaks on industrial/PVE/FW operations due to the larger number of gatecamps that would pop up (due to their being more targets). "
Lack of cynos/caps doesnt put a break on those. (as in two quotes above). Gatecamps already exist. The number of gatecamps is irrelevant, since cynos jump past them as is now.
The groups that do lowsec industry generally use cynos to export their goods with jumpfreighters now... which means removing that ability hurts them a ton. If they don't... they'll be having to dodge a LOT more gatecamps which hurts them a ton. Either way they get hurt a ton. Those in FW rarely use cynos (except for supplies) as they are mostly fighting in non-caps already. Having a lot more gatecamping makes their movement in their home space a lot more difficult (as well as their supply issues). So I disagree with your assessment.
The number of gatecamps is hugely relevant. It makes all life in low-sec aside from those camping others more annoying. Because of that it has a supressing impact on those living in low-sec... because they're looking for either small gang/solo PvP (in the case of FW) and getting blobs... or they're looking for industry/PVE and getting blobbed at every gate.
Look... taking away JF's will make lowsec a pure gatecamp zone. It will pretty much hinder EVERYTHING ELSE in lowsec because people doing everything else want to avoid gatecamps and this will cause the number of camps to become huge. FW will diminish. Low Sec industry will diminish. PVE in lowsec will diminish.
I fail to see how that helps lowsec.
|
Salvos Rhoska
2527
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 19:07:19 -
[506] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:no its not because you need to take gates through pirate infested space! Lol
Thats what LS is, and should be.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2527
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 19:08:35 -
[507] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:If you can't get your goods to market, there's no point manufacturing.
Every system has a market.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1586
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 19:10:37 -
[508] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:If you can't get your goods to market, there's no point manufacturing. Every system has a market. Not every system has customers.
Think Salvos. I know it's hard for you, but you can't sell goods to non-existing customers, hence the need to move goods to where they can be sold.
To not understand this.. no surprise.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Orakkus
Imperium Technologies DARKNESS.
336
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 19:10:53 -
[509] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote: Lol
Thats what LS is, and should be.
Your idea destroys content. People won't live in space that they can't get to reasonably safely. All your idea does is effectively turn it into another version of wormhole space, only with less protection and even less reason to operate there.
You keep forgetting people are content. So no people, no content.
He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
|
Salvos Rhoska
2527
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 19:12:36 -
[510] - Quote
Escort your cargo and clear the gates for transit.
Sorry you can no longer lol-cyno past them.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
|
Salvos Rhoska
2527
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 19:16:38 -
[511] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:Your idea destroys content. My idea creates content by making gatecamps conflict drivers, as they should be.
No more lol-cynoing past them. No more lol-dropping caps on them.
Beat it with subcaps, as the gatecamp is sub-caps itself. Or route through uncamped gates. Or fly your cargo in ships that can pass the gatecamp.
There is currently vast wealth cynoing right over your head in LS. You dont get any content from it. I aim to remedy that.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1587
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 19:16:44 -
[512] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Sorry you can no longer lol-cyno past them. We can't.
When did this change happen?
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Salvos Rhoska
2527
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 19:18:05 -
[513] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Not every system has customers.
Every system has customers.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2527
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 19:19:26 -
[514] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Sorry you can no longer lol-cyno past them. We can't. When did this change happen?
Hur-dur.
Post-change, obviously.
Read name of thread again?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1587
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 19:19:28 -
[515] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Not every system has customers. Every system has customers. Liar. That statement is so full of **** and it is deliberate.
Such a pointless stupid discussion. The usual stuff from you.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4058
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 19:20:42 -
[516] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:[Such a pointless stupid discussion. The usual stuff from you.
+1 im done with this noodle brain he doesnt have a clue
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Salvos Rhoska
2527
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 19:24:06 -
[517] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Not every system has customers. Every system has customers. Liar. That statement is so full of **** and it is deliberate..
Tell me one system that doesnt have customers?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
65
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 19:24:07 -
[518] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Escort your cargo and clear the gates for transit. Sorry you can no longer lol-cyno past them.
As I said before... what I do in low-sec is FW.
I'll probably move to be nearly full-time in null with this change were it to be implemented.
I agree it will make it more difficult for people transporting stuff. It will also make it more difficult for everyone else to move around aside from gatecampers in low-sec... including me looking for small-group and solo fights in complexes.
Which is the point that I was making that you're trying to minimize. The impact of your change is to make the only residents of low-sec be gatecampers and the primary visitors being large null-sec groups moving stuff from null to high-sec. You'll drive most everyone else out.
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. |
Salvos Rhoska
2527
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 19:24:57 -
[519] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:[Such a pointless stupid discussion. The usual stuff from you. +1 im done with this noodle brain he doesnt have a clue
Bye!
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Orakkus
Imperium Technologies DARKNESS.
336
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 19:27:40 -
[520] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Orakkus wrote:Your idea destroys content. My idea creates content by making gatecamps conflict drivers, as they should be. No more lol-cynoing past them. No more lol-dropping caps on them. Beat it with subcaps, as the gatecamp is sub-caps itself. Or route through uncamped gates. Or fly your cargo in ships that can pass the gatecamp.
Gatecamps were never conflict drivers, they were only content. Conflict drivers required groups of people operating at a strategic level. While your idea would become a conflict driver.. it would remove other, more effect conflict drivers that have a larger impact on the game, and involve more people.
So yes, your idea would destroy content without good reason and would disenfranchise far more people than you know.
He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
|
|
Orakkus
Imperium Technologies DARKNESS.
336
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 19:28:30 -
[521] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Not every system has customers. Every system has customers. Liar. That statement is so full of **** and it is deliberate.. Tell me one system that doesnt have customers? Empty ones.. like the ones that would exist under your perpetually bad ideas.
He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
|
Salvos Rhoska
2527
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 19:33:52 -
[522] - Quote
Scialt wrote: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.
1) FW LS and LS, are different.
2) HS-NS material transport will never stop, and it MUST travel through LS unless they find WHs.
3) If cynos/caps are removed from LS, you wont believe the amount of sub-cap freighters that suddenly appear moving the material through gates, rather than cynoing past you.
4) You will be drowning in a ceaseless flood of sub-cap freighters and targets. Its a pirates paradise.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2527
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 19:38:02 -
[523] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Not every system has customers. Every system has customers. Liar. That statement is so full of **** and it is deliberate.. Tell me one system that doesnt have customers? Empty ones.. like the ones that would exist under your perpetually bad ideas.
This is a nonsense point.
If you dont have customers, your price or product is bad. Thats your own fault.
Every system in EVE, has a market. If you find one that doesnt, GJ! Make your own there.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Orakkus
Imperium Technologies DARKNESS.
336
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 19:48:09 -
[524] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
This is a nonsense point.
If you dont have customers, your price or product is bad. Thats your own fault.
Every system in EVE, has a market. If you find one that doesnt, GJ! Make your own there.
You clearly don't have any idea what it takes to develop a market in Eve, and you can't have "bad" products in Eve, so that point you made is bogus. And while every system in Eve can have a station with a market in it, putting up a market in every system is not very efficient, nor does it mean that it will be profitable.
He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
|
Salvos Rhoska
2527
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 20:04:51 -
[525] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
This is a nonsense point.
If you dont have customers, your price or product is bad. Thats your own fault.
Every system in EVE, has a market. If you find one that doesnt, GJ! Make your own there.
You clearly don't have any idea what it takes to develop a market in Eve, and you can't have "bad" products in Eve, so that point you made is bogus. And while every system in Eve can have a station with a market in it, putting up a market in every system is not very efficient, nor does it mean that it will be profitable.
1) There are "bad" products, in terms of there being no demand for it there.
2) Its not about you putting up a market in every system. My point was there IS a market in every system.
3) Whether it is profitable or not, is up to you.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
8251
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 20:46:49 -
[526] - Quote
Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:Snip There are 3400 NS systems to use JFs inorder to bypass bubbles/gatecamps. Use them there, where they belong. JFs with cynos make a mockery of LS. I remember the days when convoys to move stuff were a thing - along with security for them through space. I was too new to be a part of it, but I have seen endless posts and descriptions about it. The effort a corp/alliance had to put in it, and the things that happened around it. It was on the level of being at war, and a corp could get its back broken on poor planning or poor security. Of the many things that killed lowsec, JFs was one of them. Maybe but all I know is that today no one who lives in lwosec ever makes an argument against cyno's really. An I like to use my JF to get stuff in. Otherwise I would NOT live in lowsec.
Be silent then. Notice that CCP has been cracking down on things you can do solo except trading and mindlessly easy canned exploration. Shhhhhhhh.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
8251
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 20:53:41 -
[527] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:Orakkus wrote:So, does everyone have their own idea about how to make low-sec good, I don't know about everyone, but I do. Get rid of it. All you need is lawful space and lawless space. No need for some in between space that makes no one happy. Mr Epeen
Were it up to me (and my sig) every system would be highsec.
And lowsec.
And nullsec.
Highsec would be the planets and gates zone of the solar system, the planets and gates that matter to commerce and are therefore protected.
Lowsec would be the backwater planets, the outer orbits. You can do bad things, but people are gonna know about it.
Nullsec would be the space beyond the system, way beyond. And there would even be gates way out there. And deep space exploration too with much wonder and darkness and risk.
All in one system. Every system.
But.... we can't have nice things. It's only a pipe dream anyway.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
8251
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 20:55:12 -
[528] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Orakkus wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
This is a nonsense point.
If you dont have customers, your price or product is bad. Thats your own fault.
Every system in EVE, has a market. If you find one that doesnt, GJ! Make your own there.
You clearly don't have any idea what it takes to develop a market in Eve, and you can't have "bad" products in Eve, so that point you made is bogus. And while every system in Eve can have a station with a market in it, putting up a market in every system is not very efficient, nor does it mean that it will be profitable. 1) There are "bad" products, in terms of there being no demand for it there. 2) Its not about you putting up a market in every system. My point was there IS a market in every system. 3) Whether it is profitable or not, is up to you.
Yes there's a market in every system.
I recall back in 2008 the crew camping the Parts system was selling shuttles for 8 million a piece.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
65
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 20:58:46 -
[529] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scialt wrote: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. 1) FW LS and LS, are different. 2) HS-NS material transport will never stop, and it MUST travel through LS unless they find WHs. 3) If cynos/caps are removed from LS, you wont believe the amount of sub-cap freighters that suddenly appear moving the material through gates, rather than cynoing past you. 4) You will be drowning in a ceaseless flood of sub-cap valuable freighters and targets. It will be a pirates paradise, both for PvP and raw real value.
And all the gatecamps that will create will drive me from FW. These changes will impact FW space... because if they don't everyone will cyno there to bring their goods to market. So the gatecamps will be in FW space as well. It will drive non-gatecampers from low-sec. Why are you unwilling to see the impact of creating a ton of extra gatecamps throughout low-sec while simultaneously taking away the ability to bypass those gatecamps?
I'm not a gate camper. This only helps gatecampers and has the side effect of driving all non-gatecamper residents from low-sec. It will even drive pirates who don't want to camp gates away. |
Vokan Narkar
New Eden Traders Aliance
6
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 21:20:06 -
[530] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Orakkus wrote:In addition, in order to make Low-sec more viable it NEEDS cynos and caps. It needs to develop an industrial base, and you can't have that if you can't import and export materials and goods. And you can't have an industrial base without people, and you can't have people without some measure of safety and convenience. And once you have more people, then and only then do you get more content. Explain how LS industry cant be viable without cynos or caps. Once cynos/caps are removed, your import/export is improved, as you dont need to fear cyno/cap drops that grossly exceed your effort or capacity to deal with them. no its not because you need to take gates through pirate infested space! No you don't have to. You can wait for any WH into HS or WH chain into HS. Safe WH (chain) will appear in specific system at least once per week if you have connexes to get this information or players who can search for it. |
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4058
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 21:23:02 -
[531] - Quote
Vokan Narkar wrote:Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Orakkus wrote:In addition, in order to make Low-sec more viable it NEEDS cynos and caps. It needs to develop an industrial base, and you can't have that if you can't import and export materials and goods. And you can't have an industrial base without people, and you can't have people without some measure of safety and convenience. And once you have more people, then and only then do you get more content. Explain how LS industry cant be viable without cynos or caps. Once cynos/caps are removed, your import/export is improved, as you dont need to fear cyno/cap drops that grossly exceed your effort or capacity to deal with them. no its not because you need to take gates through pirate infested space! No you don't have to. You can wait for any WH into HS or WH chain into HS. Safe WH (chain) will appear in specific system at least once per week if you have connexes to get this information or players who can search for it.
thats such a reliable solution! if its that easy why are cyno's and freighters a problem in lowsec again? i forget
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Vokan Narkar
New Eden Traders Aliance
6
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 21:46:57 -
[532] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Quote:Quote: no its not because you need to take gates through pirate infested space!
No you don't have to. You can wait for any WH into HS or WH chain into HS. Safe WH (chain) will appear in specific system at least once per week if you have connexes to get this information or players who can search for it. thats such a reliable solution! if its that easy why are cyno's and freighters a problem in lowsec again? i forget how long have you been playing eve? and what is it you do in eve, do you run a logistics wing for any sort of lowsec or nullsec alliance? Wut? lol WHs have nothing to do with cyno - its the other way around. You don't need WH (chain) because you can simply use JF to get bring the goods in and out. WHs are now only for those who didnt skilled JF yet. Because traveling through gcs is pain already and while I can use Blockade Runner to get past gc, it doesn't have too high cargo and sometimes you need to bring ships and minerals to the LS. The problems you claim that will happen if cyno will be removed from ls are problems already. But only to those who can't afford JF or can't fly it. But then there are backdoors in form of WH who solves the issue the only disadvantage is that you must wait till they appear as opposed to bring a JF every day at same time.
Who am I, how long do I play and what I do is not relevant to the discussion. But I play long enough and tried all types of space and all activities you can do in this game except POS maintaining.
Lan Wang wrote:this is a reply to another post you have posted... Vokan Narkar wrote:First - thats the problem here. In order to compress ore I have to travel 5 jumps through lowsec. Not very viable with Tayra which have the 25k only when you max cargo-upgrade it which makes it a one-shot fit not suitable to fly through lowsec. Miasmos has double the cargohold and can be fitted with stabs/intertials. Even if the route wouldn't be through lowsec, its twice as much jumps with the bigger industrial compared to what Gallente alpha clone can do with Miasmos. GG mate This is why Im not using main character on this forum anymore. Unless you propose something which makes it easier to destroy ships players like you will start digging on you telling you that you don't play 10 years as they do and you know nothing about this game, mocking you, your killboard or even telling you that you should not play this game as its obviously not for someone who plays how you play.
So mature! |
Orakkus
Imperium Technologies DARKNESS.
338
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 21:48:32 -
[533] - Quote
Since this thread hasn't been locked, or commented on by the CSM or Devs, it is clear they want us to keep throwing punches.
However, all this is now moot.
With the addition of the refineries, this will definitely change things up... particularly in low-sec.
He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4058
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 21:49:56 -
[534] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:Since this thread hasn't been locked, or commented on by the CSM or Devs, it is clear they want us to keep throwing punches.
However, all this is now moot.
With the addition of the refineries, this will definitely change things up... particularly in low-sec.
rip lowsec
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Orakkus
Imperium Technologies DARKNESS.
338
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 21:55:39 -
[535] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:
rip lowsec
Maybe, with passive moon mining gone, many of the might PVP alliances will have to readjust, and much of that adjustment will require time that normally went to personal or PVP activities to go to corp/alliance activities. This MAY be useful to low-sec in that null-sec alliances won't have the manpower to staff all the moons they had previously.
This could open the way up for low-sec alliances and corps to start organizing and "claiming" sections of space for those resources. Though, I do have a concern about how that will interact with the structure of low-sec.
He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4058
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 22:05:11 -
[536] - Quote
Vokan Narkar wrote:stupid stuff
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.
if you run a large logistics operation for a half decent lowsec or null alliance waiting a week for a wormhole from LS-HS or NS-HS to restock a market with ships after a loss from a fight is not a reliable solution!
how long you have been playing and what you do is relevant because you dont know what youre talking about and the other comment proves you also feel its stupid to move any sort of industrial via gates in lowsec, let alone 10+bil worth of jump freighter and cargo which is pretty much like moving an unfitted carrier by gate through blackrise.
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4058
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 22:17:16 -
[537] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:Lan Wang wrote:
rip lowsec
Maybe, with passive moon mining gone, many of the mighty PVP alliances will have to readjust, and much of that adjustment will require time that normally went to personal or PVP activities to go to corp/alliance activities. This MAY be useful to low-sec in that null-sec alliances won't have the manpower to staff all the moons they had previously. This could open the way up for low-sec alliances and corps to start organizing and "claiming" sections of space for those resources. Though, I do have a concern about how that will interact with the structure of low-sec.
i dont even know what to think of this change tbh, i dont do anything "carebear" so it makes me wonder what will happen, i kinda moved here to just pvp, i can see a lot of changes to doctrines coming in the future, lowsec always seemed to have the shiney ships, i can see that phasing out, however as i say i know nothing of moon mining etc, id large alliances of lowsec dominating lowsec, or even the large nullblocs dominating lowsec income with super fleet back up. i dunno tbh
but i agree this whole thread now becomes moot
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Vokan Narkar
New Eden Traders Aliance
7
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 00:57:56 -
[538] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Vokan Narkar wrote:stupid stuff what salvos is proposing is making it easier to kill ships... Is it? All I see in this thread is that you scream that without cyno you can't destroy enemy gc because they will always run from you and dock on station. Which is reasonable to expect if they get scouts behind every gate out of the system. Because as we know, PvP in eve is always about advantage - you know their gc composition so you take ships that counters them, stronger ships or just drop a capitals on their heads. And if you can't drop capitals on their heads and they will see you coming in double their count sure as hell they won't stay on that gate to fight you
I don't think that removing cyno from ls will suddenly drag industrials and missioners into gates. Those who does pve or industry in ls live in some abadoned ls that is not on any main route or fw. Main hs entry ls gates are already camped 23/7 and therefore anyone who lives in hs and flies to ls to do a mission knows its a bad idea already. Nothing will change in that.
Also, players now needs JF to move their goods to trade hubs because there is no demain in ls right? Lets break it why there is no demand why there are no customers. 1) local market doesn't provide enough stocks of what you want or doesn't offer what you want at all 2) offer is scattered amongs multiple sectors, its easier to buy all things on trade hub in hs and get it to ls with JF than to fly to 5 sectors to get what you want 3) items on the market in ls are (far) more expensive than in trade hub in hs 4) given to 1,2 and 3 players don't buy from local market 5) given to 4, players don't sell on local market because nobody would buy it anyway 6) even ls lone wolfs usually have the opportunity to request anything they want from trade hub by local JF supplier for a little extra ISK. those in corp have this opportunity almost everywhere - you order we bring it
Due to this market in ls is next to non-existant.
But if cyno wouldn't be allowed in ls this all might change. We can't know what will realistically happen if this gets implemented, it can be the dark scenario you presented but it can also establish a market in lowsec. All we know is that there will be: - harder to get goods in and out of ls - massive increase in pirate gangs in ls
This could create an opportunity for anyone able to make ships and fits inside the ls to sell them on local market. This could therefore bring more industry corps to supply pirate gangs with their ships. This could make an opportunities for all the small-scale traders running in blockade runner/interceptor or moving through WHs.This could allow ns alliances to sell their minerals on ls market because industrials can't really mine in so dangerous space. Thats how I see it. |
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
58
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 05:41:35 -
[539] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:[ 3) Smaller entities can expand into Player Sov through the far wider web of connections in NS itself. Yes, invading NS with cynos/caps from LS will no longer be possible. You can however operate in LS instead with sub-caps to cripple that bordering NS entities access to HS markets, and back.
it is such a poor idea.
ie : you can't invade null unless you hold null. The best recipe for stagnation and supersized entities.
The biggest 3 or 4 nullsec entities will hold the useful invasion routes and secure them all the way up to high and then they will control all of the entities behind them, and starve out anything unaligned. After which everything else behind that will form the new rental empires, safe from small groups and easily counter attacked if they are attacked, since your plan is to hamstring travel in lowsec - effectively turning the universe inside out, making the exterior travel line faster than the interior line!
It would even be much harder to run an unaligned group in deep NPC null, since you can't dock anywhere but the NPC null, and you can't jump out of the NPC null over the surrounding red space to haul supplies, you would literally have to cyno into populated chokes and then shift to gate travel, all on the nullsec side.
|
Salvos Rhoska
2536
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 07:31:24 -
[540] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote: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.
Your gatecamp WILL get attacked by HS-NS entities which want to transit their materials, and other LS entities which want to camp the gate themselves.
Gates will become conflict drivers.
You are grossly undervaluing the sheer mass of materials that will gate transit after cynos/caps are removed from LS. That content/value is currently cynoing right over your head. You will be drowning in targets, and you will have to compete for control of the gate.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
|
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
66
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 11:30:08 -
[541] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote: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. Your gatecamp WILL get attacked by HS-NS entities which want to transit their materials, and other LS entities which want to camp the gate themselves. Gates will become conflict drivers. You are grossly undervaluing the sheer mass of materials that will gate transit after cynos/caps are removed from LS. That content/value is currently cynoing right over your head. You will be drowning in targets, and you will have to compete for control of the gate.
The end result will be that large null alliances will bring a couple hundred ships escorting their freighters an the gatecampers will run. Once they pass it will reform. Other than being annoying for NS residents it shouldn't impact them much... because they have numbers. If a gatecamper group somehow gets numbers, the NS scout will see it and they'll take another route. Since surprises are much harder with no cynos, it will only be in cases where both sides with large numbers decide to fight that fights will happen.
Those that don't have numbers will get constantly destroyed or be unable to move material. They'll either join the larger groups or leave low-sec... which is the whole problem. This closes low-sec EXCEPT for large groups that can organize protection of their logistics to handle the large number of gatecampers that will show up.
I think your biggest mistake it this is thinking it won't turn into a blob scenario. We already know that huge numbers works as a method of winning conflict in Eve. Why on earth do you think that wouldn't apply with this change (especially since they won't have to worry about a larger hidden fleet cynoing in on them)?
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).
When the best solution for groups dealing with a change is to bring large numbers... that change is going to tilt power more toward the largest alliances. It may make things more difficult for them... but it will hurt everyone else worse which increases their edge. I don't think that was your goal with this. |
Salvos Rhoska
2539
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 12:10:58 -
[542] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:judging by your commens you sound like a salvos alt, which kinda makes sense
I assure you, we are not the same person, nor have we been in any contact.
I too however am surprised how similar our writing/argument style is, and how almost identically we perceive the same problems and solutions.
This toon is the only one I post with, and is the toon I inject myself personally into this game on. Ive always been like that in MMOs. I like being "me" ingame. Its how I improve my immersion. I even modeled my own face: http://imgur.com/ZG4JWWa
I know you are some others disagree on the issue, cos "reasons".
But that Vokan and I having almost the same exact opinion on this matter, as two different unrelated people, does demonstrate neither I nor him are random loonies, and there is justification for our views.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2539
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 12:46:31 -
[543] - Quote
Coralas wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:[ 3) Smaller entities can expand into Player Sov through the far wider web of connections in NS itself. Yes, invading NS with cynos/caps from LS will no longer be possible. You can however operate in LS instead with sub-caps to cripple that bordering NS entities access to HS markets, and back.
ie : you can't invade null unless you hold null. The best recipe for stagnation and supersized entities. The biggest 3 or 4 nullsec entities will hold the useful invasion routes and secure them all the way up to high and then they will control all of the entities behind them, and starve out anything unaligned. After which everything else behind that will form the new rental empires, safe from small groups and easily counter attacked if they are attacked, since your plan is to hamstring travel in lowsec - effectively turning the universe inside out, making the exterior travel line faster than the interior line! It would even be much harder to run an unaligned group in deep NPC null, since you can't dock anywhere but the NPC null, and you can't jump out of the NPC null over the surrounding red space to haul supplies, you would literally have to cyno into populated chokes and then shift to gate travel, all on the nullsec side.
Yes, this is a likely outcome, among some others.
Some caveats: -Citadels can function as staging/dock/warehouse points in NPC Null. -NS entities down the chain can aggress the LS bordering NS entities transports as well, in LS. -NS entities down the chain can produce their needs locally. -They can either join the border NS entity, or join other down chain NS entities to aggress it. -The exterior and interior travel lines are not changed, except that LS cannot be cynoed into or through.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2539
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 12:53:58 -
[544] - Quote
Scialt wrote: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)..
Im ok with this.
If NS is willing to field a 200+sub-cap fleet to escort its shipments, so be it. They could do so already, if they wished.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
66
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 13:40:17 -
[545] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scialt wrote: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).. Im ok with this. If NS is willing to field a 200+sub-cap fleet to escort its shipments, so be it. They could do so already, if they wished. Atleast it requires some effort then, rather than lol-cyno jumping through LS, denying content. The rest of EVE can choose to setup its own sub-cap alts in LS to combat that convoy. It shouldnt take long for innumerable corps to take a huge interest in engaging those NS fleets in LS. A) For the sub-cap PvP B) For the huge rewards of looting the convoys wealth. C) A 200+man NS sub-cap escort may infact not be enough in the long run. D) Each shipment is like a Spanish Gold Galleon fleet returning to European markets from the New World. E) Plus, there are return transports from HS-> NS, which NS will have far more difficulty defending, as they will have to fly to the HS border. (Good post btw, you are clearly exploring the implications rationally.)
The point is they CAN do it.
The smaller groups cannot. You're killing them off with a change like this. You're killing off small/independent FW participants. You're killing off low-sec industrialists. You're killing of low-sec PVE. You're killing of smaller null-sec corps who can't field significant protection fleets.
The only group that can cope with a change like this is the one you seem to be targeting. Your change makes it more difficult for everyone in null and low security space by making transport much, much more difficult. Only the large null-sec alliances will be able to cope. So because of that... they'll become relatively that much more powerful.
Overall the only way pirates will be able to stop a large null alliance's supply runs would be through a spy and EXTREMELY good logistics (made harder by removing cynos from low). If you had to wait until you had in-game evidence that a supply run was occurring... you'd never be able to get your fleet in position quick enough. Realistically that means another null entity... not low-sec gate campers. You can't drop on the caravan... you'll have to travel through gates just like them. And since they know the operation is coming... they'll have their neutral scout alts in place covering all approach systems before hand.
I don't think the high sec portion of either matters at all... because they already deal with that part just fine. The only difference will be the staging of return trips at a border station until the time the blob logs in to return. Again... unless you have foreknowledge that the op is coming you won't be able to get in place before the blob is on the move. And if you do... their scouts will likely see YOUR fleet moving into position and they'll simply postpone if they don't think they can take your fleet.
You may end up turning LS into a NS-light... in the sense that you get way more large fleet battles (albeit sub-capital) and much fewer near-even engagements. To me that defeats the purpose of low-sec (or the purpose that I have for low sec). Those small number engagements are my only reason for going to low to be honest. Those going away in favor of fleet action and gatecamps being the only PvP doesn't sound good to me in any way. |
Salvos Rhoska
2539
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 13:54:30 -
[546] - Quote
I think you grossly underestimate how many pirates will appear in LS, after removing cynos means material transport is vulnerable, and removing caps removes overwhelming force.
We are talking about HUGE value moving, by necessity, through NS and HS, in both directions, daily, via gates, rather than lol-cynoing through it under a cap umbrella.
Hundreds, probably thousands of players/alts will redirect their efforts to intercepting them.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Rotho Ataru
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
17
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 13:59:00 -
[547] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:I think you grossly underestimate how many pirates will appear in LS, after removing cynos means material transport is vulnerable, and removing caps removes overwhelming force. We are talking about HUGE value moving, by necessity, through NS and HS, in both directions, daily, via gates, rather than lol-cynoing through it under a cap umbrella. Hundreds, probably thousands of players/alts will redirect their efforts to intercepting them. So your solution is to create more gate camps and less incentive for anyone other than pirates or a null sec fleet guarding a freighter from traveling in null. I thought you wanted more targets and not less. |
Salvos Rhoska
2539
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 14:09:57 -
[548] - Quote
Rotho Ataru wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:I think you grossly underestimate how many pirates will appear in LS, after removing cynos means material transport is vulnerable, and removing caps removes overwhelming force. We are talking about HUGE value moving, by necessity, through NS and HS, in both directions, daily, via gates, rather than lol-cynoing through it under a cap umbrella. Hundreds, probably thousands of players/alts will redirect their efforts to intercepting them. So your solution is to create more gate camps and less incentive for anyone other than pirates or a null sec fleet guarding a freighter from traveling in null. I thought you wanted more targets and not less.
Pulling current material transit through LS out of cyno down to gate transit, creates targets. Valuable, vulnerable targets galore.
In Dune, "The Spice must flow". In EVE, HS-NS material transport must flow. It will never cease.
There will be an endless supply of sub-cap hauler targets in LS. You are not grasping how much value/material is currently lol-cynoing through LS, daily. Astronomical figures. Enormous wealth flying right over your head. Gatecamps mean nothing to cynos, especially without bubbles.
If you want to PvE in LS, go ahead and fit for travel, and run your content. Gatecampers are gatecampers, they are at the gate, not in your DED/ore field.
They will be more than busy destroying haulers, avoiding incoming fleets larger than them, or coming to replace them, or engaging the escorts of haulers.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
66
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 14:29:23 -
[549] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:I think you grossly underestimate how many pirates will appear in LS, after removing cynos means material transport is vulnerable, and removing caps removes overwhelming force. We are talking about HUGE value moving, by necessity, through NS and HS, in both directions, daily, via gates, rather than lol-cynoing through it under a cap umbrella. Hundreds, probably thousands of players/alts will redirect their efforts to intercepting them.
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. |
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4060
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 14:37:38 -
[550] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:There will be an endless supply of sub-cap hauler targets in LS. You are not grasping how much value/material is currently lol-cynoing through LS, daily. Astronomical figures. Enormous wealth flying right over your head. Gatecamps mean nothing to cynos, especially without bubbles.
bubbles arent an issue, we have instalocking ships and hics, if you think freighter are lol-cyno'ing into ls with immunity you are wrong. freighters die in lowsec easy enough.
however citadels provide a near 100% safe moving, ccp wouldnt have implemented them if they wanted to make it harder
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
|
Salvos Rhoska
2539
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 14:40:06 -
[551] - Quote
Scialt wrote: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. .
If NS wants to run a convoy through LS with superior numbers, go ahead. They will also have to arrange it, call everyone up, group up, and most importantly, consolidate their shipments into one action. LS can respond reciprocally. Intel will ofc be important.
Those smaller entities you refer to, have to pass through NS anways inorder to reach the LS border.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2539
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 14:45:47 -
[552] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:There will be an endless supply of sub-cap hauler targets in LS. You are not grasping how much value/material is currently lol-cynoing through LS, daily. Astronomical figures. Enormous wealth flying right over your head. Gatecamps mean nothing to cynos, especially without bubbles. bubbles arent an issue, we have instalocking ships and hics, if you think freighter are lol-cyno'ing into ls with immunity you are wrong. freighters die in lowsec easy enough. however citadels provide a near 100% safe moving, ccp wouldnt have implemented them if they wanted to make it harder
1) Cynos bypass gatecamps, rendering LS unable to intercept JFs. 2) Citadel hopping makes it even worse. 3) Bubbles are an issue, in a sector where cynos are allowed. Why are cynos allowed to jump past gatecamps in a sector that cant even use bubbles to intercept gate travel? 4) Idiot freighters die in LS. Idiots die all over EVE all the time. This is not an argument for cynos in LS.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
March rabbit
Mosquito Squadron The-Culture
2107
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 14:52:25 -
[553] - Quote
Scialt wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:I think you grossly underestimate how many pirates will appear in LS, after removing cynos means material transport is vulnerable, and removing caps removes overwhelming force. We are talking about HUGE value moving, by necessity, through NS and HS, in both directions, daily, via gates, rather than lol-cynoing through it under a cap umbrella. Hundreds, probably thousands of players/alts will redirect their efforts to intercepting them. 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. This works once or twice. But then you know prime time of this alliance and can prepare ambush.
And this convoy won't be huge and careful every time. So there are possibilities.
Add here that every big move always gets known to 3rd parties.
And the main thing i don't understand: what is these 'small groups' who has citadels and JFs, have need to often move huge amount of cargo around and yet are 'small' to not even break your '10 man gatecamp' when it's quiet around and locals are in bed for long?
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
8253
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 16:24:05 -
[554] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote: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. Your gatecamp WILL get attacked by HS-NS entities which want to transit their materials, and other LS entities which want to camp the gate themselves. Gates will become conflict drivers. You are grossly undervaluing the sheer mass of materials that will gate transit after cynos/caps are removed from LS. That content/value is currently cynoing right over your head. You will be drowning in targets, and you will have to compete for control of the gate.
It took some years worth of various arguments but it became apparent that the only "content" that people (who say they want content) in the game really want, is ganking unarmed targets.
Everything else that could be content gets in the way of their alts, and they don't want that.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
8253
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 16:27:20 -
[555] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scialt wrote: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).. Im ok with this. If NS is willing to field a 200+sub-cap fleet to escort its shipments, so be it. They could do so already, if they wished. Atleast it requires some effort then, rather than lol-cyno jumping through LS, denying content. The rest of EVE can choose to setup its own sub-cap alts in LS to combat that convoy. It shouldnt take long for innumerable corps to take a huge interest in engaging those NS fleets in LS: A) For the sub-cap PvP B) For the huge rewards of looting the convoys wealth. C) A 200+man NS sub-cap escort may infact not be enough in the long run, and they would have to coordinate their shipments and fleets for periodic mass transits (with info leaking and scouts telegraphing it) D) Each such shipment is like a Spanish Gold Galleon fleet returning to European markets from the New World. E) Plus, there are return transports from HS-> NS, which NS will have far more difficulty defending, as they will have to fly to or from the HS border. F) To spit in the eye of NS entities G) Alt corps from competing NS entities to destroy assets of a rival NS entity Do you see the picture? LS will become a massive warzone almost overnight. NS may be able to deal with NS cap fleets, but can it deal with a massive proliferation of sub-cap pirates in LS? (Good post btw, you are clearly exploring the implications rationally.)
You just described the losec of olde, back when the term "piracy" really applied to lowsec (not just griefers and bored campers coopting the name).
I would resub for that kind of action. Two accounts.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Salvos Rhoska
2544
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 16:34:56 -
[556] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:It took some years worth of various arguments but it became apparent that the only "content" that people (who say they want content) in the game really want, is ganking unarmed targets.
Everything else that could be content gets in the way of their alts, and they don't want that.
NS doesnt want its JF/Citadel cyno trade network pulled down to gate transit in LS.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
66
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 16:39:49 -
[557] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:Scialt wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:I think you grossly underestimate how many pirates will appear in LS, after removing cynos means material transport is vulnerable, and removing caps removes overwhelming force. We are talking about HUGE value moving, by necessity, through NS and HS, in both directions, daily, via gates, rather than lol-cynoing through it under a cap umbrella. Hundreds, probably thousands of players/alts will redirect their efforts to intercepting them. 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. This works once or twice. But then you know prime time of this alliance and can prepare ambush. And this convoy won't be huge and careful every time. So there are possibilities. Add here that every big move always gets known to 3rd parties. And the main thing i don't understand: what are these 'small groups' who have citadels and JFs, have need to often move huge amount of cargo around and yet are 'small' to not even break your '10 man gatecamp' when it's quiet around and locals are in bed for long?
If you can't cyno in... exactly how are you going to manage an ambush?
Mass logoffski?
The problem with disabling cynos is that it gives the advantage to the bigger group and the group dictating the time/place of an engagement. You think null-sec alliances can't mount appropriate scouting to ensure the safety of a 5-10 system low-sec route? They won't notice another 200 man fleet in a nearby system?
Gatecamps work because they dictate the place and hope to catch travellers unawares. They don't work nearly as well when a prepared group with numbers and scouts comes through. And that's what we're talking about.
As for small groups with jump freighters... uh... yeah, there are tons of those. I'd say nearly every low-sec industrial corporation (many with 5-10 members) have jump freighter logistics in place. Most can't manage moving a freighter, fighting through 3-5 gatecamps of 10 pirates and scouting for the trip with any kind of effectiveness. Jump freighters are what allow those groups to exist in low-sec.
Most large null-sec alliances run multiple fleets a day. I can't see a 200 man escort op being much of a problem. I still think the only groups trying to hinder that are going to be other null-sec groups... not low-sec pirates. But taking away the ability to drop a cyno and jump a huge fleet on top of them will seriously limit the ability for even those groups... ambushes will be seen by scouts well before they arrive in 99% of the cases. |
Maximillian Bonaparte
Interstellar Booty Hunters
142
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 17:47:38 -
[558] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Mr Epeen wrote:Orakkus wrote:So, does everyone have their own idea about how to make low-sec good, I don't know about everyone, but I do. Get rid of it. All you need is lawful space and lawless space. No need for some in between space that makes no one happy. Mr Epeen Were it up to me (and my sig) every system would be highsec. And lowsec. And nullsec. Highsec would be the planets and gates zone of the solar system, the planets and gates that matter to commerce and are therefore protected. Lowsec would be the backwater planets, the outer orbits. You can do bad things, but people are gonna know about it. Nullsec would be the space beyond the system, way beyond. And there would even be gates way out there. And deep space exploration too with much wonder and darkness and risk. All in one system. Every system. But.... we can't have nice things. It's only a pipe dream anyway.
Yeah that would be a different game altogether no matter the merit in your idea. :) Buuut if every gate is highsec what are the poor lill' piwates gonna do when they need to innocently travel?
|
Maximillian Bonaparte
Interstellar Booty Hunters
142
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 17:53:00 -
[559] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer) wrote:
You just described the losec of olde, back when the term "piracy" really applied to lowsec (not just griefers and bored campers coopting the name).
I would resub for that kind of action. Two accounts.
Heh, sometimes older is NOT better. You are a 'solo' lowsec player, as indicated in your earlier posts. So your agenda is to argue against anythign that brings people to live in lowsec.
From what I have been told the convoys of freighter traffic were always a nightmare to setup requiring days of full-time preparation. Besides how long ago was that? Was it when the eve population was half what it is today?
I salute you for your solo 'quiet corner of lowsec' style of game-play, and I think there are sill many parts of lowsec where you can do that (it changes but sometimes ya gotta be nomadic). However there are other types of players who appreciate teamwork and an online social life. There are other games you can play alone such as Elite Dangerous if you wanna break from Eve...but eve shines with teamwork and group content. |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
8253
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 19:34:20 -
[560] - Quote
Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Mr Epeen wrote:Orakkus wrote:So, does everyone have their own idea about how to make low-sec good, I don't know about everyone, but I do. Get rid of it. All you need is lawful space and lawless space. No need for some in between space that makes no one happy. Mr Epeen Were it up to me (and my sig) every system would be highsec. And lowsec. And nullsec. Highsec would be the planets and gates zone of the solar system, the planets and gates that matter to commerce and are therefore protected. Lowsec would be the backwater planets, the outer orbits. You can do bad things, but people are gonna know about it. Nullsec would be the space beyond the system, way beyond. And there would even be gates way out there. And deep space exploration too with much wonder and darkness and risk. All in one system. Every system. But.... we can't have nice things. It's only a pipe dream anyway. Yeah that would be a different game altogether no matter the merit in your idea. :) Buuut if every gate is highsec what are the poor lill' piwates gonna do when they need to innocently travel?
Were it up to meGäó they could either make a run for it (as they do now, if you ever chased -10s through highsec) which is fun for everybody, or as I stated, the "null sectors" would also have gates - gates that don't go to the same places as the high sector gates. I would also put in special pirate NPC gates usable only to people who have high faction with NPC pirate corps that appear in deadspace pockets (all over the solar system) and change location and are only automatically bookmarked to those who can use them. This would answer to the "How does the Morse in "Templar One" manage to get around without getting bubblef*cked two chapters in bring the entire novel to a screeching halt?" kind of question (answer: pirate gate networks). It would also answer to making actual smuggling a "thing" and not only for drugs, but for goods too (put a tariff on high sector gates).
You know: "create content" the way content is supposed to be created, like the very argument in this thread, instead of the "content" we have now: breed boredom and complacency in the player base so they can be gank food.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
8253
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 19:42:28 -
[561] - Quote
Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer) wrote:
You just described the losec of olde, back when the term "piracy" really applied to lowsec (not just griefers and bored campers coopting the name).
I would resub for that kind of action. Two accounts.
Heh, sometimes older is NOT better. You are a 'solo' lowsec player, as indicated in your earlier posts. So your agenda is to argue against anythign that brings people to live in lowsec. From what I have been told the convoys of freighter traffic were always a nightmare to setup requiring days of full-time preparation. Besides how long ago was that? Was it when the eve population was half what it is today? I salute you for your solo 'quiet corner of lowsec' style of game-play, and I think there are sill many parts of lowsec where you can do that (it changes but sometimes ya gotta be nomadic). However there are other types of players who appreciate teamwork and an online social life. There are other games you can play alone such as Elite Dangerous if you wanna break from Eve...but eve shines with teamwork and group content.
I'm not sure what you mean. Lowsec back then was full of life. People "living" out there? You mean like they live in highsec: grinding and farming? Back in my day (Warning: "Get off my lawn" is imminent) people who "lived" out in lowsec lived off real booty (stolen stuff booty, not rap video booty call booty) and ransoms. Sometimes they managed to get players to eject from their ship and steal the whole ship! Can I have a "Yarr!"?
What you are telling me is that people are "living" out there in the same manner that they live in nullsec: farming and grinding? Where's the excitement in that? What exactly are the farmers and grinders getting out of this game (be it in high, low, and null) anyway? Are they even playing a game at all any more?
I get the impression that everybody, from the highsec "carebear" to the nullbear living safe behind intel channels all want to live in some bubble of predictable ISK/reward/Risk balance. Predictable being the key word here. Even the gankers are stuck on predictable.
Is anybody having actual fun in this game any more?
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1588
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 19:54:24 -
[562] - Quote
Maximillian Bonaparte wrote: From what I have been told the convoys of freighter traffic were always a nightmare to setup requiring days of full-time preparation. Besides how long ago was that? Was it when the eve population was half what it is today?.
No, no. Clearly it was such good game content and everyone loved the play around it so much, that CCP removed it...
Herzeg sees everything through rose coloured glasses if it's something he approves of and everything else is just griefing.
Old content that most people hated; and that had a huge negative impact on industry in lowsec and nullsec, is good....because it's Ye olde content.
It's a very selective memory thing.
Jump Freighters were introduced into the game in the Trinity expansion in 2007. Apparently only the game back before 2007 was 'real piracy',
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
66
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 20:01:17 -
[563] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean. Lowsec back then was full of life. People "living" out there? You mean like they live in highsec: grinding and farming? Back in my day (Warning: "Get off my lawn" is imminent) people who "lived" out in lowsec lived off real booty (stolen stuff booty, not rap video booty call booty) and ransoms. Sometimes they managed to get players to eject from their ship and steal the whole ship! Can I have a "Yarr!"?
What you are telling me is that people are "living" out there in the same manner that they live in nullsec: farming and grinding? Where's the excitement in that? What exactly are the farmers and grinders getting out of this game (be it in high, low, and null) anyway? Are they even playing a game at all any more?
I get the impression that everybody, from the highsec "carebear" to the nullbear living safe behind intel channels all want to live in some bubble of predictable ISK/reward/Risk balance. Predictable being the key word here. Even the gankers are stuck on predictable.
Is anybody having actual fun in this game any more?
I have fun right now in FW space finding fights (and often having to run or getting blown up). I also have fun with exploring wormholes, being scared out of my mind that the proteus always watching me will uncloak and kill me. I enjoy trading in high sec. I also like running some missions every now and then, completing a null sec anomaly or two... and I even join a mining fleet for some low-key social interaction while blowing up rocks every once in a while.
I don't enjoy gatecamps... either being a camper or getting caught in one. It's not what I consider enjoyable PvP (especially being caught). Jump. "Oh... I'm in a bubble. 10 ships on grid and I'm in a Caracal. Can I get back to the gate? Nope... I'm scrambled. Can I target anyone? Nope... I'm damped. And now I'm dead. Well that was fun."
Basically the most enjoyable PvP I get right now is in FW plexes. The biggest annoyance I have from this proposal is that I think it will pretty much kill FW space by making travel through low-sec suck. |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
8254
|
Posted - 2017.03.24 04:09:58 -
[564] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Maximillian Bonaparte wrote: From what I have been told the convoys of freighter traffic were always a nightmare to setup requiring days of full-time preparation. Besides how long ago was that? Was it when the eve population was half what it is today?.
No, no. Clearly it was such good game content and everyone loved the play around it so much, that CCP removed it... Herzeg sees everything through rose coloured glasses if it's something he approves of and everything else is just griefing. Old content that most people hated; and that had a huge negative impact on industry in lowsec and nullsec, is good....because it's Ye olde content. It's a very selective memory thing. Jump Freighters were introduced into the game in the Trinity expansion in 2007. Apparently only the game back before 2007 was 'real piracy',
Surely nobody complains about anything now.
CCP would have done best to stick to their vision and just pay attention to the subs and not what people say.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4060
|
Posted - 2017.03.24 07:30:24 -
[565] - Quote
Nobody likes structure grinds so I highly doubt anyone would like cta escort ops
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Salvos Rhoska
2552
|
Posted - 2017.03.24 09:44:49 -
[566] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Nobody likes structure grinds so I highly doubt anyone would like cta escort ops Well, structure grind exists.
Charge a fee as an escort.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3254
|
Posted - 2017.03.24 20:52:38 -
[567] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:Nobody likes structure grinds so I highly doubt anyone would like cta escort ops Well, structure grind exists. Charge a fee as an escort.
After landing on grid, a Tornado will dump it's alpha strike into a freighter in less than 5 seconds. Tell me how you are supposed to play escort against that. And remember the cost of those is rather limited since they do get insurance payout while about half of your freighter's load will be lost in the explosion.
The idea of escort makes sense IRL where you can mostly prevent the enemy from even approaching in firing range of what you protect. In EVE, this is not the case.
Structure grind are still done because you can still get a fight out of it. The objective takes long enough to grind down that grid control is important. Against a freighter, you can have it done at some ridiculous pace thus effectively denying the possibility of defending the objective, especially if you consider your attacking ships as just cost of operation. If you targeted a loaded freighter, you have high chance of winning the ISK war even if you do not loot anything off the field.
People had reasons to consider freighter escort operation as cancer and CCP agreed with them. |
Salvos Rhoska
2556
|
Posted - 2017.03.25 08:49:00 -
[568] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:After landing on grid, a Tornado will dump it's alpha strike into a freighter in less than 5 seconds. Tell me how you are supposed to play escort against that. And remember the cost of those is rather limited since they do get insurance payout while about half of your freighter's load will be lost in the explosion..
You can use Tornados in HS, as is right now. Infact you can do the same in LS too as it is right now.
So it seems insurance is the remaining issue.
Seems a fair tradeoff to me in LS where PvP is systemically less restricted than in HS.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
58
|
Posted - 2017.03.25 10:59:17 -
[569] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:After landing on grid, a Tornado will dump it's alpha strike into a freighter in less than 5 seconds. Tell me how you are supposed to play escort against that. And remember the cost of those is rather limited since they do get insurance payout while about half of your freighter's load will be lost in the explosion.. You can use Tornados in HS, as is right now. Infact you can do the same in LS too as it is right now. So it seems insurance is the remaining issue. Seems a fair tradeoff to me in LS where PvP is systemically less restricted than in HS.
In lowsec, you put 60 tornados on grid, fire once and warp. Doesn't matter how its fit, or whats with it, doesn't matter if the volley is ragged. Insurance is irrelevant, few if any tornados are going to die.
I've observed a JF pilot running an alliance business. He moved far more cargo the distance required with 2 accounts (JF + cyno alts) than you can possibly hope to do with a pair of freighters, ie this change would require many more space truckers, and quite frankly its a dull task, that people will resent having to do just to live in null. I set up no more than a couple of jumps from the hub in highsec, and when I lived in null 1 jump from the alliance JF serviced outpost for a reason.
I also observed bads losing their JFs all the time, was a bit of a joke in the rental alliance really, ie its not like you can't intercept lots of nullsec trade right now if you wanted to. |
Salvos Rhoska
2556
|
Posted - 2017.03.25 11:29:49 -
[570] - Quote
Coralas wrote:ie this change would require many more space truckers, and quite frankly its a dull task, that people will resent having to do just to live in null.
Might be dull for some, but its clear from the amount of freight being moved that its not dull for many. That stuff isnt moving itself.
Also you dont "have" to haul through LS to live in null. Get someone else to do it for you.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3255
|
Posted - 2017.03.25 16:39:56 -
[571] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:After landing on grid, a Tornado will dump it's alpha strike into a freighter in less than 5 seconds. Tell me how you are supposed to play escort against that. And remember the cost of those is rather limited since they do get insurance payout while about half of your freighter's load will be lost in the explosion.. You can use Tornados in HS, as is right now. Infact you can do the same in LS too as it is right now. So it seems insurance is the remaining issue. Seems a fair tradeoff to me in LS where PvP is systemically less restricted than in HS.
In HS, your tornadoes are lost to CONCORD and you receive no insurance. In low sec, you will receive insurance for every Tornadoes lost and might not even lose that many in the first place anyway. meanwhile, the guy who tried to do an escort lost the ship it was supposed to protect and on average, 50% of it's content. A few week after your changes, people would realize escort flat out don't work and the only way around it the play the Niarja game hoping the gankers are not there this time except after a gank, there is not criminal timer preventing them from killing the very next one. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3255
|
Posted - 2017.03.25 16:46:47 -
[572] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
For smaller volumes, you can use traditional MWD/Cloak, webbing, tank/align, T2cloak etc tactics just like usual on a variety of hulls for gate transit (especially as there are no bubbles in LS).
"Look at me, Salvos Rhoska, terrible idiot who think it's even remotely possible to feed some large null-sec staging/hub market by doing thousands of trips with a MWD/cloak trip blockade runner." |
Salvos Rhoska
2557
|
Posted - 2017.03.25 16:53:22 -
[573] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Snip.
A) The escort loses nothing.
B) In a few weeks you will realize its better to fly your goods through LS in sub-caps, using traditional precautions.
C) Welcome to EVE. No more cyno-lolling past gates and cyno Citadel/Station hopping.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2557
|
Posted - 2017.03.25 16:58:00 -
[574] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: "Look at me, Salvos Rhoska, terrible idiot who think it's even remotely possible to feed some large null-sec staging/hub market by doing thousands of trips with a MWD/cloak trip blockade runner."
Lol. Wtf.
Where do you get off thinking EVE is responsible for feeding NS markets? Much less by bypassing LS with JF cynos and cap threat?
You are in NS, the most lucrative of all space.
Feed yourself. Use what you have, locally.
Build your own markets.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
8254
|
Posted - 2017.03.25 17:35:35 -
[575] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote: It will be a pirate paradise. Targets everywhere, fighting for control of gates, and either avoiding or manning up to beat the crucial NS convoys for the greatest profit of all.
In the long run, hopefully this will encourage more localized trade hubs, in HS/LS/NS, or atleast warehouse hubs from which willing haulers (in whichever configuration) carry the materials forward per contract or agreement, piecemeal.
JFs lol-cynoing into and through LS, must end.
You see that's the problem. The kind of player that would agree with you has long left the game. They have been replaced with people who all want to live in their predictable isk/risk/reward bubble. I blame it on marketing: too long with the banner ads that attract the kind of people who do everything with one eye on their wallet or stats as if that's the end all be all of the game. They want those ISK / stats as THE measure of winning, game and fun be damned. And don't you dare change one thing or by golly, they are going to complain loudly like you just stole their parents' retirement funds. They will throw at you the same level of self entitled vitriol only matched by incursioners complaining about mom-popping fleets, all the while claiming every other player is self entitled (the usual projections).
Makes me hope such changes occur just to see that type of player cry oceans of tears. Yet they will never see that being what they are (or have become through lack of self reflection) is the root of the problem.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Salvos Rhoska
2560
|
Posted - 2017.03.25 17:53:07 -
[576] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Snip
HS/NS transit is currently lol-cynoing past/through/over LS, laughing all the way.
Meanwhile smaller entities have to run gates, cos they cant afford/SP JFs, nor Citadel points, nor cap fleets.
Its not so much that new players have showed up, which is good for the game.
Its that some old players refuse any and all change that might hurt their convenience and advantage.
The HS/NS transit of materials through LS, is a systemic issue. I fully expect them to resist any change to it, by all means, in their own interest.
They will fight it to the bitter end, and any attempt to highlight it.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
58
|
Posted - 2017.03.26 02:58:03 -
[577] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: "Look at me, Salvos Rhoska, terrible idiot who think it's even remotely possible to feed some large null-sec staging/hub market by doing thousands of trips with a MWD/cloak trip blockade runner." Lol. Wtf. Where do you get off thinking EVE is responsible for feeding NS markets? Much less by bypassing LS with JF cynos and cap threat? You are in NS, the most lucrative of all space. Feed yourself. Use what you have, locally. Build your own markets.
Moon distribution is uneven to enforce trading. PI is generally more efficient in null so null produces an excess, data and relics produce a biased racial output that limits what can be made with it (and thus it requires trading), and mining highends produces more valuable minerals that can be exchanged for lowends from highsec at a favourable ratio to the nullsec miner.
The NPCs drop only their peculiar items.
ie anyone that tries to self-contain their nullsec empire is going find it pointlessly inefficient to live in null, because they'll be mining trit like they could in highsec just to build things, and if that became the norm, then constructing things in highsec would become impossible through lack of zydrine, megacyte and moon goo.
All the changes through the years have made it impossible to not have JFs, as they are, today.
|
Salvos Rhoska
2562
|
Posted - 2017.03.26 10:34:50 -
[578] - Quote
Coralas wrote:All the changes through the years have made it impossible to not have JFs, as they are, today.
I dont agree, in terms of LS.
JFs are not the only way to transport material.
My suggestions regarding removing cynos/caps in LS are just a suggestion. Im not saying its the perfect solution, but I think it has an equitable ratio of +/-.
If someone has another idea on how to curtail JFs currently making a mockery of LS, and hence the ease/safety of HS-NS material transit (especially by large/wealthy corps), I'm all ears.
I readily admit my position is predicated on the the premise that ease/safety/efficiency of material transport between HS-NS is unhealthy for the universal economy, for content and diversification of markets.
I look at the Jita figures, and cannot accept that its good for the game. Huge player empires in EVE have risen and fallen, over and over, yet Jita, an NPC system, just gets bigger and bigger. Its an abomination, and antithetical to EVE. Its a tumor that continues to grow in the heart of EVE, draining it of content, and a result of dysfunctional mechanics which make its existence and growth possible.
Since its almost impossible to incentivize PvP in HS, and I dont want to nerf NS autonomy, I look at LS, as the narrow, thin stretched buffer between HS-NS, as the place to curtail the collusion of HS-NS which is making Jita possible.
(Ive also suggested a HS per gate contract cargo value tax % to indirectly incentivize local markets, to atleast encourage flying the materials yourself or as entrusted non-contractually.)
Im open to argument on any of these, as long as its not just veiled self-interest. Its not about what is "good" for you, or me, or anyone else, its about the impact on us all, overall.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
ApexDynamo
Hazardous Wormhole Rebels
22
|
Posted - 2017.03.26 11:27:41 -
[579] - Quote
Remove local best change for low and null |
Salvos Rhoska
2562
|
Posted - 2017.03.26 11:36:46 -
[580] - Quote
ApexDynamo wrote:Remove local best change for low and null
Removing LS local wont do squat to curtail JF cyno transit.
NS is another matter, but this thread is about LS.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
|
Maximillian Bonaparte
Interstellar Booty Hunters
144
|
Posted - 2017.03.26 19:37:42 -
[581] - Quote
I think it is important to point out that the two people on this thread who are arguing for drastic changes to lowsec do not thrive there.
Lowsec is about PvP isnt it? Zkill is pretty much a good way to get intel on what people are about.
Herzog Wolfhammer
and
Salvos Rhoska
If you compare them to someone like...
Lan Wang
or even me...you can see whats up.
Maybe they are not to blame because no one has ever 'taught' them what lowsec pvp is about...but maybe they are to blame for never getting into a ship with the intention of fighting, loosing it, and LEARNING what lowsec PvP is about...and then from there joining a corp that ALSO knows what lowsec PvP is about - how it is funded, and the supply and logistics involved to maintian the content.
Like i said before, the people that thrive in lowsec do have their complaints - but NONE of them ever complain about cynos and especially jump freighters.
Interstellar Booty Hunters - Pirate Small Gang PvP Forever!
|
Sivar Ahishatsu
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 05:03:25 -
[582] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:So, does everyone have their own idea about how to make low-sec good, or have certain ideas/concepts started to get favor with the mass of low-sec players?
Yup,
Remove low Sec. Expand High Sec to 0.2, and leave only 0.1 with unresponsive Concord just for the ***** and giggles. Current situation is that Low Sec is innaccessible by many new players. As it is controlled by older Piraty players who kill kill anyone jumping in "their turf", and then go sell some insignias to concord to by pass the security hits they take.
So it serves nothing really to have Low sec right now, it only filters new players out of the game as High sec gets boring after the initial ooohs and aaaahs of the game. I would say 2-3 months in players would start feeling boredom and frustration.
It takes at least 1-2 years of skilling to match the players who control low sec so forget about fighting them off as a new player, many have 6 years + skills and game experience.
Plus the game already has mechanics where players carve their own space in nulsec. Why double up on that? Low sec was not meant to be claimed by players it is empire space, and if yes, then I question that design decision of redundant gameplay experience. Low sec was meant to offer players a self policing, self balancing arena for PvP. It failed, the Pirates won. Now it is juts a death trap for anyone new to EVE.
I think seriously expanding High Sec and reducing (or removing) Low sec will push the pirates in to the few NPC controll 0.0 zones and in to Alliance Nulsec.
At the same time, it will provide for a sturdier base upon which new players and corps can evolve out of high sec and contest Nullsec (or add t the Pirate pop), in either case the action will move back to Nulsec, it will mean something having patrols and escorts and enforcing one's territory and pushing off new would be attackers from the new high sec.
The truth is that, we all evvolve, we change with time and the only direction is forward, the game needs to follow the player base and provide new opportunities and challenges. The "how it was before" is not a destination for the majority of people, otehrwise they would still be here, and it is a step back for thsoe that are still here.
James 315 was wrong, he was living and longing for the past (I empathise and understand him). But life moves forward and people look otwards the future, the game must be able to do the same. |
Salvos Rhoska
2573
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 06:40:57 -
[583] - Quote
Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:Snip. Heh, killboard epeening.
Removing cynos/caps from LS will increase PvP content, not reduce it.
JFs are making a mockery of LS, and largely benefit only large/wealthy/older corps.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1591
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 06:46:00 -
[584] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Removing cynos/caps from LS will increase PvP content, not reduce it. Bullshit.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Salvos Rhoska
2573
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 06:47:58 -
[585] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Removing cynos/caps from LS will increase PvP content, not reduce it. Bullshit. When material is forced to gate transit, rather than lol-cyno past it, its undeniable this means more PvP surface in LS.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1593
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 07:18:14 -
[586] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Removing cynos/caps from LS will increase PvP content, not reduce it. Bullshit. When material is forced to gate transit, rather than lol-cyno past it, its undeniable this means more PvP surface in LS. No it doesn't. It means less industry and market activity in lowsec. Nothing more.
Lowsec players will stage adjacent to highsec and have alts buy in highsec. Nullsec will just manage their manufacturing in nullsec if big enough, and small groups will die out in certain areas.
That's the effect of your dumb suggestion.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Salvos Rhoska
2573
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 08:14:35 -
[587] - Quote
Just gates instesd of lol-cynoing.
Simple as that.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4060
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 08:16:31 -
[588] - Quote
Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:I think it is important to point out that the two people on this thread who are arguing for drastic changes to lowsec do not thrive there. Lowsec is about PvP isnt it? Zkill is pretty much a good way to get intel on what people are about. Herzog Wolfhammerand Salvos RhoskaIf you compare them to someone like... Lan Wangor even me...you can see whats up. Maybe they are not to blame because no one has ever 'taught' them what lowsec pvp is about...but maybe they are to blame for never getting into a ship with the intention of fighting, loosing it, and LEARNING what lowsec PvP is about...and then from there joining a corp that ALSO knows what lowsec PvP is about - how it is funded, and the supply and logistics involved to maintian the content. Like i said before, the people that thrive in lowsec do have their complaints - but NONE of them ever complain about cynos and especially jump freighters.
Ill add to this that if people really wanted to kill jf's then they would also do what this guy does.
Tiky Mikk
But citadels sorta removed this gameplay
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4060
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 08:28:33 -
[589] - Quote
Sivar Ahishatsu wrote:Orakkus wrote:So, does everyone have their own idea about how to make low-sec good, or have certain ideas/concepts started to get favor with the mass of low-sec players? Yup, Remove low Sec. Expand High Sec to 0.2, and leave only 0.1 with unresponsive Concord just for the ***** and giggles. Current situation is that Low Sec is innaccessible by many new players. As it is controlled by older Piraty players who kill kill anyone jumping in "their turf", and then go sell some insignias to concord to by pass the security hits they take. So it serves nothing really to have Low sec right now, it only filters new players out of the game as High sec gets boring after the initial ooohs and aaaahs of the game. I would say 2-3 months in players would start feeling boredom and frustration. It takes at least 1-2 years of skilling to match the players who control low sec so forget about fighting them off as a new player, many have 6 years + skills and game experience. Plus the game already has mechanics where players carve their own space in nulsec. Why double up on that? Low sec was not meant to be claimed by players it is empire space, and if yes, then I question that design decision of redundant gameplay experience. Low sec was meant to offer players a self policing, self balancing arena for PvP. It failed, the Pirates won. Now it is juts a death trap for anyone new to EVE. I think seriously expanding High Sec and reducing (or removing) Low sec will push the pirates in to the few NPC controll 0.0 zones and in to Alliance Nulsec. At the same time, it will provide for a sturdier base upon which new players and corps can evolve out of high sec and contest Nullsec (or add t the Pirate pop), in either case the action will move back to Nulsec, it will mean something having patrols and escorts and enforcing one's territory and pushing off new would be attackers from the new high sec. The truth is that, we all evvolve, we change with time and the only direction is forward, the game needs to follow the player base and provide new opportunities and challenges. The "how it was before" is not a destination for the majority of people, otehrwise they would still be here, and it is a step back for thsoe that are still here. James 315 was wrong, he was living and longing for the past (I empathise and understand him). But life moves forward and people look otwards the future, the game must be able to do the same.
1. So it serves nothing really to have Low sec right now, it only filters new players out of the game as High sec gets boring after the initial ooohs and aaaahs of the game. I would say 2-3 months in players would start feeling boredom and frustration.
You say this but please explain how making highsec bigger would make players less bored, that doesnt make sense, they will just get the same bored but in a bigger area.
2. I think seriously expanding High Sec and reducing (or removing) Low sec will push the pirates in to the few NPC controll 0.0 zones and in to Alliance Nulsec.
it might push some of them but then some of them will just quite because the majority of people in lowsec do not like nullsec and you cant force that on people, its like me saying make highsec all 0.5 and make concord tankable. im sure you bears wouldn't like that happening.
3. As it is controlled by older Piraty players who kill kill anyone jumping in "their turf", and then go sell some insignias to concord to by pass the security hits they take.
Wrong again, pirates dont care because we all have alts to do stuff in highsec, we take pride in our -10.0 status.
4. It takes at least 1-2 years of skilling to match the players who control low sec so forget about fighting them off as a new player, many have 6 years + skills and game experience.
really? new players come in and out of lowsec everyday, not everyone is scared, if you are too scrared to jump into lowsec then you probably wont last long in eve regardless
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1594
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 08:48:15 -
[590] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Just gates instesd of lol-cynoing.
Simple as that. Bullshit.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3255
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 12:46:09 -
[591] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:Snip. Heh, killboard epeening. Removing cynos/caps from LS will increase PvP content, not reduce it. JFs are making a mockery of LS, and largely benefit only large/wealthy/older corps. JFs are a 90day train just to sit in, and 7+bil off the market to buy. That is well beyond the capacity of newer players.
How about those new players join corp where they will learn how to live in low-sec and get the support of said corp who, if it's worth anything, will already have at least one JF to help handle the entire corp's logistic need.
"Think of the children" is not a good argument. |
Salvos Rhoska
2573
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 12:52:56 -
[592] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:How about those new players join corp where they will learn how to live in low-sec and get the support of said corp
You dont need JFs for that in Ls.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3256
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 13:34:22 -
[593] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:How about those new players join corp where they will learn how to live in low-sec and get the support of said corp You dont need JFs for that in Ls.
You don't need them anywhere. Needing them is an absolutely garbage argument and I have already told you that. |
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
67
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 14:18:12 -
[594] - Quote
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. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3256
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 14:37:12 -
[595] - Quote
Scialt wrote: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.
Nobody really want to run escort fleet even if they have large number. It's cancer and the enemy can still kill your hauling ship faster than you can respond if they find you by alpha striking it.
Add to that the fact that only 2 freighter out of 4 can actually try to fit a tank which a fleet could support.
If we go away from freighter to have ships that can be supported, we still face the alpha BS but over this, we now multiply all the required trips thus creating more cancer fleet where all the majority actually do is align-warp-jump while 5 key people are on scout and web duty to try to slingshot the damn ship into warp faster.
Even if null wanted to live by itself, it currently is impossible. We need some of HS minerals because the ratio in ore anoms isn't right. Then, we also need some moon-goo since no region provide a balanced plate. 3rd, if you ever want to run anything above T2 tank mods, you need to import them because your region can only produce one type, shield or armor unless your territory spans multiple region with different rat types.
All of this generate large volume of stuff that need to move on a daily basis. It's currently done by JFs but if you remove that, you would still need impressive m3/day to sustain anything.
It is not strictly impossible but I have doubt CCP want to restrict stuff as much as they would if JFs links with empire were cut.
We are probably the alliance that currently milk it's territory for resources the most and we still have a rather constant flow of JFs making runs because ***** need to be moved. |
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
67
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 15:40:30 -
[596] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Scialt wrote: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. Nobody really want to run escort fleet even if they have large number. It's cancer and the enemy can still kill your hauling ship faster than you can respond if they find you by alpha striking it. Add to that the fact that only 2 freighter out of 4 can actually try to fit a tank which a fleet could support. If we go away from freighter to have ships that can be supported, we still face the alpha BS but over this, we now multiply all the required trips thus creating more cancer fleet where all the majority actually do is align-warp-jump while 5 key people are on scout and web duty to try to slingshot the damn ship into warp faster. Even if null wanted to live by itself, it currently is impossible. We need some of HS minerals because the ratio in ore anoms isn't right. Then, we also need some moon-goo since no region provide a balanced plate. 3rd, if you ever want to run anything above T2 tank mods, you need to import them because your region can only produce one type, shield or armor unless your territory spans multiple region with different rat types. All of this generate large volume of stuff that need to move on a daily basis. It's currently done by JFs but if you remove that, you would still need impressive m3/day to sustain anything. It is not strictly impossible but I have doubt CCP want to restrict stuff as much as they would if JFs links with empire were cut. We are probably the alliance that currently milk it's territory for resources the most and we still have a rather constant flow of JFs making runs because ***** need to be moved.
Oh, I know nobody wants to run them. But the big null-sec alliances will do so... because what's the alternative?
Removing jump freighters would be a huge pain. The point is the ones who would be able to deal with it are the 1000-man corporations who can bully together enough support to clear out a path through low-sec killing everything, send scouts out in all directions to make sure another large fleet isn't coming and send their freighters through. The smaller groups will just leave or be assimilated. |
Salvos Rhoska
2573
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 18:03:55 -
[597] - Quote
This is yet another case where the convenience of wealthy/established corps goes over that of lessers. And making it even worse, its cross-sector.
Its tragic that even the simple suggestion of removing cynos from LS, is immediately met with doomsday scenarios where NS will flood LS with hundreds of ships. This whereas it is NS which most benefits from the cyno mechanic in LS to avoid PvP, and is most able to field the high SP/cost of JFs in the first place.
They then use the "consider the children" argument, stating they will wipe LS out if cynos are removed, whereas it is infact themselves whom benefit most from cynos in LS.
If its true that NS is such n overwhelming threat to LS, simply for the removal of cynos (from which NS benefits most), then perhaps we need even more drastic solutions.
NS convenience should not be dictating LS mechanics.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Maximillian Bonaparte
Interstellar Booty Hunters
144
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 18:16:51 -
[598] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:Snip. Heh, killboard epeening. Removing cynos/caps from LS will increase PvP content, not reduce it. JFs are making a mockery of LS, and largely benefit only large/wealthy/older corps. JFs are a 90day train just to sit in, and 7+bil off the market to buy. That is well beyond the capacity of newer players. How about those new players join corp where they will learn how to live in low-sec and get the support of said corp who, if it's worth anything, will already have at least one JF to help handle the entire corp's logistic need. "Think of the children" is not a good argument.
Exactly!
Also to say that older vet players 'control' lowsec is a falsehood. Thanks to Novice FW plexes only t1 frigates can enter them. So my suggestion for the new player is to get in a cheap t1 frigate with several backups ready to go (as it will get blown up) and get out into some FW space, and investigate the novice plexes.
Eventually you will get a fight, and eventually even win! :) Congrats, your pvp career as a noob has begun. You may take it from there however you please. :)
Interstellar Booty Hunters - Pirate Small Gang PvP Forever!
|
Salvos Rhoska
2573
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 18:20:24 -
[599] - Quote
Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:Eventually you will get a fight, and eventually even win! :)
No.
The counter-argument has been that NS will flood and wreck LS, if they cant cyno their JFs through it.
They are saying that LS cant win that fight.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Maximillian Bonaparte
Interstellar Booty Hunters
144
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 18:21:05 -
[600] - Quote
Umm as far as killboard epeening...
I would define KB epeening when someone has a 90% kb efficiency with several thousand kills, but all their fights are 30 plus participants to 100's, and then they show it off. :)
My first year in eve was between RvB and lowsec carebearing exploration, so it is not that great! I am small fry compared to certain solo players even. However we know how to have fun content and win 'most of the time'. There is PvP out there that is not blobbing, station games, or even gate camping. If you dare to come out to lowsec and find it! :)
Interstellar Booty Hunters - Pirate Small Gang PvP Forever!
|
|
Trebon Luap
Hard Rock Mining Inc.
6
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 18:22:24 -
[601] - Quote
To be truthful, I did not read through all 30 pages of this thread, but what I did read through was pretty amazing .
I just have a question. ....
Is this just some wishes of the player base or is there some info from CPP that precipitated this topic? And if so, would someone please post a link?
Thanks |
Maximillian Bonaparte
Interstellar Booty Hunters
144
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 18:30:26 -
[602] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:Eventually you will get a fight, and eventually even win! :) No. The counter-argument has been that NS will flood and wreck LS, if they cant cyno their JFs through it. They are saying that LS cant win that fight.
Your being dumb. NS doesnt care about a damn t1 frigate!
Interstellar Booty Hunters - Pirate Small Gang PvP Forever!
|
Salvos Rhoska
2573
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 18:37:03 -
[603] - Quote
No post from CCP precipitated it. No indication of change from them.
As a very narrow and the smallest sector of EVE (only some 800 systems stretched thin all around between HS and NS), what is happening there, why/how has been overlooked.
My problem with that, is JFs are lol-cynoing through it, creating an uninterrupted stream of NS<->HS material transfer.
This leads to exploitation by large entities which use both HS markets (or rather Jita and Forge production), and NS benefits, commensurately and conjointly, cos LS is no substantial barrier between the two.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
67
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 18:42:56 -
[604] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:This is yet another case where the convenience of wealthy/established corps goes over that of lessers. And making it even worse, its cross-sector.
Its tragic that even the simple suggestion of removing cynos from LS, is immediately met with doomsday scenarios where NS will flood LS with hundreds of ships. This whereas it is NS which most benefits from the cyno mechanic in LS to avoid PvP, and is most able to field the high SP/cost of JFs in the first place.
They then use the "consider the children" argument, stating they will wipe LS out if cynos are removed, whereas it is infact themselves whom benefit most from cynos in LS.
If its true that NS is such n overwhelming threat to LS, simply for the removal of cynos (from which NS benefits most), then perhaps we need even more drastic solutions.
NS convenience should not be dictating LS mechanics.
If we operate under the notion that NS can wreck LS at will, what is the point of LS as a sector at all?
The problem is I AM a low-sec player as well as a null-sec player. I do actually see both sides of this.
I like small group PvP in low sec. Your plan seriously harms that by encouraging a huge increase in gate-camps... which hinders/prevents low-sec roams for PvP and FW mechanics.
You have to understand that the ability to bypass combat in eve always helps small number groups in eve. It allows them to take care of logistics/intelligence gathering/travel without having to bring enough numbers to survive combat. That goes for cynos for JF's, cloaks, interdiction proof ships, whatever. While it may help large member groups as well... if you have large numbers available you can afford to throw large numbers at the problem. And in Eve that works much of the time.
Are JF's helpful for large null-sec groups? Of course. They're also helpful for small null-sec groups and low-sec groups and pay-for-haul services. The difference is that one of those categories has a large number of players to use to try to handle that difficulty... so while you're making it less convenient for them you're harming everyone else (aside from dedicated gatecampers) a lot more. |
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
67
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 18:46:30 -
[605] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:Eventually you will get a fight, and eventually even win! :) No. The counter-argument has been that NS will flood and wreck LS, if they cant cyno their JFs through it. They are saying that LS cant win that fight.
The counter-argument is the huge increase in gate camps will wreck LS... but that the ones who'll be able to smash through the increased gate-camps (and thus least hurt by the change) are the large null-sec alliances.
The ones who'll be hindered most by those gate-camps are smaller null-sec corps, low-sec industrial and PVE corps, and FW participants (both officially and the pirates that prey on FW plexes).
The only people actually helped by the idea... are gate campers. |
Salvos Rhoska
2573
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 18:48:27 -
[606] - Quote
Scialt wrote:You have to understand that the ability to bypass combat in eve always helps small number groups in eve. .
In LS, its helping the ceaseless, lol-cynoing transport of material between HS and NS.
As you yourself pointed out, where it not for the threat of hundreds of NS ships flooding LS to escort non-cyno ships, LS could handle its own logistics with sub-caps.
You cant have it both ways
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2573
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 18:51:32 -
[607] - Quote
Scialt wrote:The only people actually helped by the idea... are gate campers.
Then give me a better solution to preventing HS<->NS lol-cyno transit through LS
What is the point to LS when material can lol-cyno through it, and it can be crushed by NS at anytime if they bother?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1596
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 19:05:49 -
[608] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scialt wrote:The only people actually helped by the idea... are gate campers. Then give me a better solution to preventing HS<->NS lol-cyno transit through LS What is the point to LS when material can lol-cyno through it, and LS can be crushed by NS at anytime if they bother? No 'solution' is needed, because it's no a problem to begin with.
It's only in your small mind that there is an issue.
Cynos provide far more content then they remove, especially in facilitating convenient logistics resupply of lost PvP ships as well as the ability to move products to markets where they can sell them so they have the ISK to do so.
There is no downside to cynos in lowsec.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4060
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 19:10:11 -
[609] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scialt wrote:The only people actually helped by the idea... are gate campers. Then give me a better solution to preventing HS<->NS lol-cyno transit through LS What is the point to LS when material can lol-cyno through it, and LS can be crushed by NS at anytime if they bother? You say you like small gang in LS. Small gang against who? For what? Whom are your targets? Please dont tell me gatecamping to catch noobs on their first trip... Meanwhile billions upon billions in isk of HS-NS JFs are lol-cynoing right over your head.
...remove citadel tethering
infact, nobody really cares about jump freighters, we want to fight ships with guns we couldnt care if jump freighters "lol-cyno"
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Salvos Rhoska
2574
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 19:10:33 -
[610] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Cynos provide far more content then they remove.
JFs lol-cynoing through LS with billions in cargo provide no content to LS.
Just provides convenient profit for entities running them, with a negligible chance of interception in LS.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
|
Salvos Rhoska
2574
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 19:17:44 -
[611] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:...remove citadel tethering
infact, nobody really cares about jump freighters, we want to fight ships with guns we couldnt care if jump freighters "lol-cyno"
Thanks, that's a start.
But we both know that is not an impediment to lol-cynoing through LS. And its unlikely CCP is going to remove tethering on their flagship Upwell project.
So who exactly are you fighting in LS, and why, whilst there is billions upon billions in JFs and cargo cynoing right over your head constantly between HS-NS?
Farming little noobs on their first trip to LS? Small PI freighters?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3261
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 19:24:00 -
[612] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Cynos provide far more content then they remove. JFs lol-cynoing through LS with billions in cargo provide no content to LS. Just provides convenient profit for entities running them, with a negligible chance of interception in LS.
It's like you don't understand that there won't be content if the goods don't reach the destination. The reason why so much stuff move between HS and NS is because that stuff gets used. The ship gets flown, the ammo gets shot, the fitting get fit, the mats gets processed and all of it get exploded at the end of the whole process. |
Lulu Lunette
Savage Moon Society
1327
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 19:27:12 -
[613] - Quote
I really think we should introduce maybe some npc caravans that don't really have a preset destination (maybe use the same rng thing that ded s ites have) and they just go gate to gate on autopilot so there's stuff for the local pirates to shoot again which should bring in some more old blood and maybe even new enthusiastic alpha players and eventually we can stop using npc carvans when the server count is too low without telling anyone because everyone will be too busy shooting each other, which requires them to be supplied by real players it's also important to note that this should be a lowsec only thing but that doesn really leave highsec or even lowsec or wormholesec out of the picture it just means that the supplies could come from any industrialist in any space and it will keep isk circulating which just like in an real life economies the velocity of i sk is a good measure of how well an economy is going not to mention again lowsec is not dead it just needs a few tweaks and will be as good as always
@lunettelulu7
|
Salvos Rhoska
2574
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 19:33:35 -
[614] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Cynos provide far more content then they remove. JFs lol-cynoing through LS with billions in cargo provide no content to LS. Just provides convenient profit for entities running them, with a negligible chance of interception in LS. It's like you don't understand that there won't be content if the goods don't reach the destination. The reason why so much stuff move between HS and NS is because that stuff gets used. The ship gets flown, the ammo gets shot, the fitting get fit, the mats gets processed and all of it get exploded at the end of the whole process.
Ofc I understand that.
But this justifies lol-cynoing through LS in 7+bil JFs + billions in cargo value?
That NS resources can access HS markets (Jita/Forge) and back by passing LS with little to no risk of interception? In HS CONCORD covers you. In LS you lol-cyno past. In NS, your home.
Wtf is then even the point of LS?
Its made a mockery of, daily, by billions in cynoing value over their heads that they cant reach.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4060
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 19:39:05 -
[615] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Farming little noobs on their first trip to LS? Small PI freighters?
yeah just a load of noobs tbh...
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Salvos Rhoska
2574
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 19:41:13 -
[616] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:yeah just a load of noobs tbh...
Fair enough, but you dont need cynos in LS for that.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3261
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 19:45:41 -
[617] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Cynos provide far more content then they remove. JFs lol-cynoing through LS with billions in cargo provide no content to LS. Just provides convenient profit for entities running them, with a negligible chance of interception in LS. It's like you don't understand that there won't be content if the goods don't reach the destination. The reason why so much stuff move between HS and NS is because that stuff gets used. The ship gets flown, the ammo gets shot, the fitting get fit, the mats gets processed and all of it get exploded at the end of the whole process. Ofc I understand that. Makes you rich for leveraging HS markets vs NS benefits. But does this justify lol-cynoing through LS in 7+bil JFs + billions in cargo value with almost no chance of interception? That NS resources can access HS markets (Jita/Forge) and back by passing LS with little to no risk of interception? In HS CONCORD covers you. In LS you lol-cyno past. In NS, your home. Wtf is then even the point of LS? Its made a mockery of, daily, by billions in cynoing value over their heads that they cant reach.
The last time CCP made changes to jump drive enabled ship, they ended up making sure JFs had lots of range and low fatigue to be sure our lifeline were still working because in the current way things are setup, it would be broken if those lines were cut. The problem isn't that null can or can't curb-stomp low sec. The problem is that the entire null sec system is fed by the JFs and the system to allow it to live with less blood pumped into it by a **** load of JFs trips just aren't existing.
If I was to build everything I use in Null out of stuff that does not come from HS, I would end up trashing an exceptional amount of trit and pyrite for example because the mineral balance is not right. I also can't ever get much T2 mods/ships built because the moon goo is not available if you cut JF transit. In my current region, I would also pretty much have to turn all doctrine to armor because I can't sources shield modules without the trains running.
Unless your changes is to come with more to make living outside of empire a reasonable endeavor, then it won't happen. |
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
67
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 20:03:00 -
[618] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scialt wrote:You have to understand that the ability to bypass combat in eve always helps small number groups in eve. . In LS, its helping the ceaseless, lol-cynoing transport of material between HS and NS. The small corp transit is nothing compared to the HS<->NS conjoined processes of large entities. As you yourself pointed out, where it not for the threat of hundreds of NS ships flooding LS to escort non-cyno ships, LS could handle its own logistics with sub-caps. You cant have it both ways
Not with an increase in gate camps they can't. THAT'S what I pointed out.
Your solution is to make a change that makes gate camps more likely to catch things. That increases the number of gate camps. And then who has the easiest time getting through gate camps?
Those with big numbers. That applies to LS groups as well. If you're 10 jumps out from the nearest LS/HS gateway... and there are always 4 systems camped... how are you going to manage that as a 10 man corp?
The answer... you can't. You end up moving back to highsec. If I have to jump through 15 LS systems to get to where the action is in FW and I have to navigate 6 camped systems to even get there... I'm going to do something else instead. The end result is low sec becomes all about gate camps and low-sec travel sucks.
You're missing the problem I think. Yes... there will be smaller groups who try to survive in low-sec or null-sec with this change. There will also be lazy members of large null sec groups. Those will present targets. Those targets attract more gate camps. As gate camps increase, travel becomes more difficult for EVERYONE... FW participants, low sec PVE types, low sec industry corps, small null-sec corps and large null-sec corps. EVERYONE suffers the travel difficulty from increased gatecamps.
So then the question becomes... what groups can cope with that? I think the large null sec groups will be able to by throwing numbers at it. They won't ENJOY it... but they'll be able to handle it. I'm not sure anyone else (FW, small industrial corps, PVE types, solo pirates) will be able to handle dealing with a large number of camped gates (assuming the gates are camped with enough firepower to take down freighters reasonably fast).
It seems like in your analysis you stop after the first action and response. You seem to be thinking... no cyno = freighters through low = content!
But the results keep going from that... no cyno = freighters through low = more gate camps = flight from low for those who cant handle additional gate camps = large escort fleets that can overpower gate camps = probably more responses that I can't imagine yet.
Can you imagine FW style combat if every third gate you go through is camped? That sounds really crappy to me. |
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
68
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 20:11:03 -
[619] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scialt wrote:The only people actually helped by the idea... are gate campers. Then give me a better solution to preventing HS<->NS lol-cyno transit through LS What is the point to LS when material can lol-cyno through it, and LS can be crushed by NS at anytime if they bother? You say you like small gang in LS. Small gang against who? For what? Whom are your targets? Please dont tell me gatecamping to catch noobs on their first trip... Meanwhile billions upon billions in isk of HS-NS JFs are lol-cynoing right over your head.
I simply don't think that's a problem in need of a solution.
I use low-sec for FW fights. I enjoy those immensely. Because of the plex ship limitations I can find solo or small gang combat regularly. If I cruise belts I can also find miners to attack. I haven't tried to scan down missioners... but if they're out there I can't see why that wouldn't work as well.
If those people have a lot more difficulty GETTING to those low sec systems... that combat disappears. And gate camps make travel tougher for everyone... not just "lol-cyno" people. The camps are going to kill all non-aligned travelers... not just let everyone but freighters from null-sec pass.
I don't think a change that adds more gate camps to low-sec is good for low-sec population. |
Salvos Rhoska
2574
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 20:22:24 -
[620] - Quote
Scialt wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote: Meanwhile billions upon billions in isk of HS-NS JFs are lol-cynoing right over your head.
I simply don't think that's a problem in need of a solution.
Alrighty then. I do think its a problem, and Jita/Forge is the result.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
|
Salvos Rhoska
2574
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 20:38:21 -
[621] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: The problem is that the entire null sec system is fed by the JFs and the system to allow it to live with less blood pumped into it by a **** load of JFs trips just aren't existing.
Yes, as is. But lol-cynoining past/through LS to head to Jita, is a cancer that must end.
Fortunately, there are adaptive options.
A) Encourage non-cyno supply of needed material from HS to LS warehouses/trade hubs, for NS to carry forward to its own use, and from LS to HS reciprocally. B) LS itself can provide most of those needed materials, and thus supply those to hubs nearby for delivery to NS. Work with LS producers/markets rather than the current system of largely ignoring LS entirely with JFs, thus screwing LS entirely. C) Pass through WH chains. D) Brute force shipments through, in either direction.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
8264
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 21:14:28 -
[622] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Cynos provide far more content then they remove. JFs lol-cynoing through LS with billions in cargo provide no content to LS. Just provides convenient profit for entities running them, with a negligible chance of interception in LS. It's like you don't understand that there won't be content if the goods don't reach the destination. The reason why so much stuff move between HS and NS is because that stuff gets used. The ship gets flown, the ammo gets shot, the fitting get fit, the mats gets processed and all of it get exploded at the end of the whole process. Ofc I understand that. Makes you rich for leveraging HS markets (Jita) with NS benefits. But does this justify lol-cynoing through LS in 7+bil JFs + billions in cargo value with almost no chance of interception? That NS resources can access HS markets (Jita/Forge) and back by passing LS with little to no risk of interception? In HS CONCORD covers you. In LS you lol-cyno past. In NS either blue up, or lol-cyno some more. Wtf is then even the point of LS? Its made a mockery of, daily, by billions upon billions in cynoing value over their heads that they cant aggress.
Crap I just realized what you are really up against.
When you said "Concord protects you in HS" I heard the autism of a million gankers cry out all at once.
(OK maybe there are not that many but they sure make as much noise)
Then I realized....
It's not NS that would most vehemently cry and scream over the end of lol-cyno through LS. Heck, the NS entities would be kings for being the only ones who could field the protection convoys and logistics. If even just one could do it, they would be on top.
Everybody else loses the road to Jita but they have to survive "out there".
What are you really up against here? Hint: the same old trolls that haunt every ganking thread.
Because if the lol-cyno was gone, then just about every JF undocking from Jita while there still was a Jita would be protected by a fleet. Thus that kind of player, being no less the entitled highsec bearbears than those they prey upon (and claim they are the polar opposite of), would take a huge hit to their shtick.
If these forums were not so dead they would be brigading with alts by now.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Salvos Rhoska
2576
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 21:34:28 -
[623] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Crap I just realized what you are really up against.
Im trying to save the game, (pretentious as that sounds) by offering an option that is conducive to EVE and sector mechanics.
Jita/Forge numbers are insane, completely irrational, and a clear indicator there are systemic problems.
Player Empires rise and fall, over and over, yet Jita (an NPC system that already has unprecedented restrictions such as no POS/Citadels) just gets larger and larger.
As in my precious post, I am advocating that HS-NS trade with LS instead, inbetween. Inorder for that to to happen, lol-cynoing in LS must end.
LS is the missing link.
LS can internally provide much of the material NS otherwise needs from HS, and it can house trade/warehouse hubs to facilitate exchange between HS and NS as carried by ALL of EVEs players, rather than HS-NS exchange currently bypassing LS with impunity.
The first point of trade/contact/exchange between HS and NS, should be LS, as the intermediary zone.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4060
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 22:02:28 -
[624] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Its far more, and worse than that. These forums are a metagame, and we are dealing with paid shills. Its their job and purpose here to aggress opposition to their interests. Thats well and fine, cos this is EVE, but it does mean there is no reasoning with them except steamrolling over them.
more like telling retards how ******** ideas they propose are
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Salvos Rhoska
2576
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 22:19:45 -
[625] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Its far more, and worse than that. These forums are a metagame, and we are dealing with paid shills. Its their job and purpose here to aggress opposition to their interests. Thats well and fine, cos this is EVE, but it does mean there is no reasoning with them except steamrolling over them. more like telling retards how ******** ideas they propose are
Hmm...
Do you legit claim I am a retards?
("retards" is the only conjugation that bypasses censure).
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
68
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 22:50:20 -
[626] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scialt wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote: Meanwhile billions upon billions in isk of HS-NS JFs are lol-cynoing right over your head.
I simply don't think that's a problem in need of a solution. Alrighty then. I do think its a problem, and Jita/Forge is the result.
Your solution destroys the part of low-sec that I enjoy. I'm not in favor of creating more blob combat... really anywhere. Certainly not in low-sec. That's what you're doing.
You're trying to destroy low-sec and turn it into a gatecamp. |
Salvos Rhoska
2577
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 23:00:48 -
[627] - Quote
Scialt wrote:You're trying to destroy low-sec and turn it into a gatecamp. Wut.
As I outlined in another post, its better to turn LS into an intermediary trade hub. LS can internally produce most of NS needs, and can facilitate non-cyno delivery of product from both HS and NS to LS stations/Citadels for the rest..
LS doesnt have bubbles, hence you dont need cynos to bypass gatecamps.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
8265
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 03:46:58 -
[628] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote: Its far more, and worse than that. These forums are a metagame, and we are dealing with paid shills. Its their job and purpose here to aggress opposition to their interests. Thats well and fine, cos this is EVE, but it does mean there is no reasoning with them except steamrolling over them.
Indeed. This is why no game company should ever direct the game based on player feedback or opinions. The same people using the meta game will cite all kinds of examples of "tyranny" where a game company was monolithic and unyielding. But it would not have mattered if the product managers paid attention. That is, if you are going to be king, you best be a good one lest everybody knows where to find your neck.
The only metrics that should have mattered are the balance metrics, and a game system such as this has tracking on that level built into it. There was never any need to ask anybody anything regarding balance.
The worst end of it is that they will respond to both ends of the spectrum that work towards the same goals: you end up with both the bad guys and the carebears wanting an easy game (while pointing the finger elsewhere of course).
People speak of nerfs to "content" (PVP) but PVe also gets nerfed, even by default when it's neglected in light of player perfection, like Sansha throwing itself at incursions endlessly without new tactics (or just plain giving up). The better days of Eve were actually the pre-incursion days and before exploration was turned into just plain predictable farming. Easier PVe has done more damage than ganks.
CSM should be disbanded and the only thing the devs should want to hear about are bugs.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1598
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 04:21:37 -
[629] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Cynos provide far more content then they remove. JFs lol-cynoing through LS with billions in cargo provide no content to LS. Just provides convenient profit for entities running them, with a negligible chance of interception in LS. The ships they carry do, you idiot.
I am amazed at your inability to grasp even basics.
Without those ships being moved, content dries up.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Salvos Rhoska
2580
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 08:32:27 -
[630] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Cynos provide far more content then they remove. JFs lol-cynoing through LS with billions in cargo provide no content to LS. Just provides convenient profit for entities running them, with a negligible chance of interception in LS. The ships they carry do. I am amazed at your inability to grasp even basics. Without those ships being moved, content dries up.
Placing a rock in a river, does not stop the river. It simply flows around it. Content, like said river, will always take the path of least resistance.
Its perfectly sustainable to run cargo through LS gates, rather than over them with JF cynos. Especially since LS doesnt have bubbles to hamper that. LS can become an intermediary sub-cap trading point to both HS and NS. The materials NS needs, can be sourced locally in LS, or shipped into LS for transfer.
You present that I am so naive as to not understand what the lol-cynoing past LS is enabling in terms of "content" for NS access to HS markets.That is obviously false, as the entire premise behind my proposal is addressed at exactly that and its repercussions.
You really should try reading more accurately. Ive addressed these issues several times over already. I and the discussion are already way ahead of you. Start catching up, or are you really this slow.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
|
Green Cobra
Aliastra Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 11:18:58 -
[631] - Quote
Low sec is fine as is, it's a lot better now than it was a few years ago and you make more isk in low sec than high sec. As it is now it's right between high sec and null sec as it should be.
If you can't make a bil isk per day in low sec your are doing something wrong...
Either find a few nice quite low sec systems or join a larger NBSI low sec corp/alliance. |
Salvos Rhoska
2582
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 11:41:05 -
[632] - Quote
Green Cobra wrote:Low sec is fine as is, it's a lot better now than it was a few years ago and you make more isk in low sec than high sec. As it is now it's right between high sec and null sec as it should be. If you can't make a bil isk per day in low sec your are doing something wrong... Either find a few nice quite low sec systems or join a larger NBSI low sec corp/alliance.
I agree LS local content is fine. The local DEDs, anomalies, L5 missions, mineral/ice resources etc are fine. (Data/Relic are a bit weak, but that is an incentive to run them in NS)
The problem is JFs lol-cynoing past it between HS-NS. Secondarily, caps in LS, especially with cyno, are overkill, and strongly favor NS neighbors.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1603
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 12:32:03 -
[633] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:...and strongly favoring NS neighbors. Lol wat?
Cynos in lowsec favours NS capitals? Do you even follow what happens in the game?
This should be good. Post your evidence of NS groups being favoured by their ability to jump capitals into LS. I bet for every LS group loss you can pull out, I can pull out at least 10 losses by NS groups instead.
LS groups hand NS their ass whenever they jump into LS.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Salvos Rhoska
2583
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 12:40:10 -
[634] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:LS groups hand NS their ass whenever they jump into LS.
So why then are JFs cynoing nonstop over LS between NS-HS?
Your shilling is getting tiresome and all too obvious.
Bad move completely ignoring my previous post to you. That reddit-tier bullshit wont work here.
Your cover is blown.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1603
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 12:56:28 -
[635] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:LS groups hand NS their ass whenever they jump into LS. So why then are JFs cynoing nonstop over LS between NS-HS? Your shilling is getting tiresome and all too obvious. Use your brain. Troll better. You are way behind. Bad move completely ignoring my previous post to you. That reddit-tier bullshit doesnt fly here. Your cover is blown. Protip: JFs are caps. JFs are not Capitals.
But, post your evidence of this advantage that NS groups have over LS by being able to jump capitals into lowsec. I bet you can't because you don't know what you are talking about.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Salvos Rhoska
2583
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 13:04:05 -
[636] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:LS groups hand NS their ass whenever they jump into LS. So why then are JFs cynoing nonstop over LS between NS-HS? Your shilling is getting tiresome and all too obvious. Use your brain. Troll better. You are way behind. Bad move completely ignoring my previous post to you. That reddit-tier bullshit doesnt fly here. Your cover is blown. Protip: JFs are caps. JFs are not Capitals. But, post your evidence of this advantage that NS groups have over LS by being able to jump capitals into lowsec. I bet you can't because you don't know what you are talking about.
JFs are caps.
Are you seriously trying to claim LS can field more caps than NS? NS caps can drop on LS and even gate back out, whereas LS cap drops in NS must deal with bubbles for non-cyno exit.
Your entire premise is ridiculous.
You are just digging a deeper hole for yourself. And again you ignored the posts to you, shill.
This isnt reddit. You will be called to answer.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1603
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 13:08:40 -
[637] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:LS groups hand NS their ass whenever they jump into LS. So why then are JFs cynoing nonstop over LS between NS-HS? Your shilling is getting tiresome and all too obvious. Use your brain. Troll better. You are way behind. Bad move completely ignoring my previous post to you. That reddit-tier bullshit doesnt fly here. Your cover is blown. Protip: JFs are caps. JFs are not Capitals. But, post your evidence of this advantage that NS groups have over LS by being able to jump capitals into lowsec. I bet you can't because you don't know what you are talking about. JFs are caps. Are you seriously trying to claim LS can field more caps than NS? NS caps can drop on LS and even gate back out, whereas LS cap drops in NS must deal with bubbles for non-cyno exit. Your entire premise is ridiculous. Furthernore, none of this refutes the fact cynoing JFs are making a mockery of LS. You are just digging a deeper hole for yourself. And again you ignored the posts to you, shill. This isnt reddit. You will be called to answer. Post your evidence.
You made a claim. Prove it. Otherwise, it's like all your other arguments. Just made up in your head and no reflection of what happens in the game.
So put up or shut up.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Salvos Rhoska
2583
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 13:11:04 -
[638] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:You made a claim.
No.
YOU made the claim that LS can field more caps and wreck NS drops. Not me. YOU.
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:LS groups hand NS their ass whenever they jump into LS. Go ahead and substantiate that claim.
Im slowly transitioning from considering you a shill, to you actually being this stupid.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1603
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 13:20:25 -
[639] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:You made a claim. No. YOU made the claim that LS can field more caps and wreck NS drops. Not me. YOU. Once again, bullshit from the biggest bullshitter in the forum.
your claim is that NS has an advantage over LS.
Post #631: Secondary problem is caps in LS, especially with cyno, as overkill, and strongly favoring NS neighbors.
Prove it. Otherwise, as usual, you are full of ****.
I've already said, that for every LS loss you can post cause by a NS group with capitals, I'll post 10 that are the other way. You simply can't prove what you say.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Salvos Rhoska
2583
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 13:25:53 -
[640] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:You made a claim. No. YOU made the claim that LS can field more caps and wreck NS drops. Not me. YOU. Once again, bullshit from the biggest bullshitter in the forum. your claim is that NS has an advantage over LS. Post #631: Secondary problem is caps in LS, especially with cyno, as overkill, and strongly favoring NS neighbors. Prove it. Otherwise, as usual, you are full of ****.
Caps are not required to clear LS local content. Cynos also are not necessary, due to lack of bubbles on gate transit.
NS has far more cap capacity, than LS. NS furthermore, can cyno into LS and gate back out. Whereas a LS cap fleet cynoing into NS must deal with bubbles to gate to LS.
Claim substantiated and answered.
Now its your turn to substantiate yours:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:LS groups hand NS their ass whenever they jump into LS.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1603
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 13:33:41 -
[641] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:You made a claim. No. YOU made the claim that LS can field more caps and wreck NS drops. Not me. YOU. Once again, bullshit from the biggest bullshitter in the forum. your claim is that NS has an advantage over LS. Post #631: Secondary problem is caps in LS, especially with cyno, as overkill, and strongly favoring NS neighbors. Prove it. Otherwise, as usual, you are full of ****. Caps are not required to clear LS local content. Cynos also are not necessary, due to lack of bubbles on gate transit. NS has far more cap capacity, than LS. NS furthermore, can cyno into LS and gate back out. Whereas a LS cap fleet cynoing into NS must deal with bubbles to gate to LS. Claim substantiated and answered. You haven't substantiated with anything other than fiction.
Show us the kills Salvos. Put evidence, not opinion.
If what you claim is true, it'll be easy to substantiate. Otherwise, you are full of ****.
I already k ow which it is.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Rotho Ataru
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
17
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 13:34:25 -
[642] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Placing a rock in a river, does not stop the river. It simply flows around it. Content, like said river, will always take the path of least resistance. This is the underlying flaw in your suggestions.
Your suggestion is not a rock. It's closer a dam.
And content is not a lifeless river. If you dam it, the content that would be trapped behind it would decide that the river isn't working for them so rather than busting through the damn, they'll fork off and go elsewhere.
All your suggestions seem to be about forcing people to go somewhere they don't want to be. Focus instead of making LS the place they want to be. Otherwise people will just burn out on shipping to high sec.
I understand the frustration with JFs but this would just make the cost of living in NS higher since shipments will require more pilots and planning. Increasing the cost of living and inconvenience in null just makes it less appealing and you'll have more PVEers living in high sec.
Will there be more PVP as a result? Maybe. But I don't see pirates successfully popping any freighters all that often. NS alliances are pretty well organized and they won't take so much isk worth of cargo through anywhere they wouldn't be able to easily clear. |
Salvos Rhoska
2583
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 13:37:17 -
[643] - Quote
Show me how:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:LS groups hand NS their ass whenever they jump into LS.
Show me how each JF from NS gets its ass handed to it by LS.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1603
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 13:40:54 -
[644] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Show me how: Shae Tadaruwa wrote:LS groups hand NS their ass whenever they jump into LS. Show me how each JF from NS gets its ass handed to it by LS. Jump Freighters are not capitals and that has nothing to do with your bullshit claim.
You can try to change the subject to divert away from your complete inability to post any evidence to support what you claim, but it won't work.
Post the kills Salvos. Post the evidence that supports your claim.
As before, put up, or shut up.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Salvos Rhoska
2583
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 13:42:22 -
[645] - Quote
Rotho Ataru wrote:Your suggestion is not a rock. It's closer a dam.
I considered that extension of the analogy before I submitted the post.
Its not a dam, because it doesnt stop the river.
Its not an impassable obstacle to the flow.
Transit is still possible with non-cyno shipments.
The change does not prevent material transport in LS, nor between HS-NS.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2583
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 13:48:37 -
[646] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:LS groups hand NS their ass whenever they jump into LS.
Show me how each and every JF from NS gets its ass handed to it.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1603
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 13:52:25 -
[647] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:LS groups hand NS their ass whenever they jump into LS. Show me how each and every JF from NS gets its ass handed to it. Jump Freighters are not Capitals and that has nothing to do with your bullshit claim.
Prove what you claimed. You aren't going to take this off track.
Prove it, or don't prove it. Can't prove it is the conclusion.
You're here peddling lies and using them as a basis to support your dumb idea. Lies are still just lies. They do t support anything but the opposite of what they say.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Salvos Rhoska
2594
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 14:05:32 -
[648] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:You're here peddling lies and using them as a basis to support your dumb idea. Lies are still just lies. They dont support anything but the opposite of what they say.
Im gonna go full Tippia on you.
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:LS groups hand NS their ass whenever they jump into LS.
Prove to me that every JF from NS gets its ass handed to it in LS.
PS: JFs are capitals. They are the freighter direct equivalent in the spectrum of hull categories. PPS: Meanwhile we discuss, billions in isk is lol-cynoing through LS between HS-NS.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4067
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 15:34:10 -
[649] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:LS groups hand NS their ass whenever they jump into LS. Show me how each and every JF from NS gets its ass handed to it.
"3 days - 100 Billion of Freighters" - Tiky Mikk
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Salvos Rhoska
2594
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 15:53:10 -
[650] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:LS groups hand NS their ass whenever they jump into LS. Show me how each and every JF from NS gets its ass handed to it. "3 days - 100 Billion of Freighters" - Tiky Mikk
And what about the 99.9% rest of JF cyno transit through LS?
See what I mean?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4067
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 15:55:46 -
[651] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:LS groups hand NS their ass whenever they jump into LS. Show me how each and every JF from NS gets its ass handed to it. "3 days - 100 Billion of Freighters" - Tiky Mikk And what about the 99.9% rest of JF cyno transit through LS? See what I mean?
nobody cares about them otherwise we would all be in supers doing the same
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Salvos Rhoska
2594
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 15:59:34 -
[652] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:nobody cares about them otherwise we would all be in supers doing the same
Wat?
Seriously, wtf is this nonsense supposed to mean?
This is pathetic. You arent even trying.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Charley Varrick
State War Academy Caldari State
36
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 16:05:53 -
[653] - Quote
I admit I know next to nothing of jump freighter mechanics but I was under the impression that they couldn't jump from null to high all in one jump... that it took a few jumps with stops in low along the way. Just trying to understand what all the fuss is about. |
Salvos Rhoska
2594
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 16:10:50 -
[654] - Quote
Charley Varrick wrote:I admit I know next to nothing of jump freighter mechanics but I was under the impression that they couldn't jump from null to high all in one jump... that it took a few jumps with stops in low along the way. Just trying to understand what all the fuss is about.
In some rare places, they can cyno past LS altogether. Elsewhere, they can cyno to stations/citadels for added safety, or to anywhere in space within range.
In anycase, gatecamps are not an issue for cyno transit.
Its almost impossible in to intercept a well run JF cyno based passage through LS.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4067
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 18:16:47 -
[655] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:nobody cares about them otherwise we would all be in supers doing the same Wat? Seriously, wtf is this nonsense supposed to mean? This is pathetic. You arent even trying.
Look man, if people of lowsec really cared about killing jump freighters we would be sitting on the undock of every midpoint point station alpha'ing freighters with fighter bombers, the thing is nobody really cares as we have better things to do. Sorry you can't grasp that but you dont live or contribute to Lowsec so it's understandable.
They don't lol-cyno, they cyno in because we let them
Alliance Logo Design Service
--
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
--
"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
47367
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 22:43:00 -
[656] - Quote
Charley Varrick wrote:I admit I know next to nothing of jump freighter mechanics but I was under the impression that they couldn't jump from null to high all in one jump... that it took a few jumps with stops in low along the way. Just trying to understand what all the fuss is about. No, they can't.
It's not possible to light a cyno in highsec, so any return journey from null to highsec must involve lowsec (except for a few nullsec systems that have highsec connections directly).
You cyno to a system with a highsec connection and then warp to gate and jump. It's pretty safe if you know what you are doing, but plenty make mistakes:
https://zkillboard.com/group/902/losses/lowsec/ |
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
1141
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 13:47:38 -
[657] - Quote
It took only 30 pages to completely lock entire discussion around the matter which, of course, is the main problem that poisons existence of everyone who lives or visits LS: null guys haul their stuff through LS via JFs. Because fixing that obviously addresses everything anyone ever wanted for LS.
I take off my hat in the face of such persistence.
Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
|
Salvos Rhoska
2612
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 14:12:51 -
[658] - Quote
Barrogh Habalu wrote:Because fixing that obviously addresses everything anyone ever wanted for LS..
Explain.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
68
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 14:27:07 -
[659] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scialt wrote:You're trying to destroy low-sec and turn it into a gatecamp. Wut. As I outlined in another post, its better to turn LS into an intermediary trade hub. LS can internally produce/source most of NS needs, and can facilitate non-cyno delivery/storing/trading of product from both HS and NS to LS stations/Citadels for the rest. LS doesnt have bubbles, hence you dont need cynos to bypass gatecamps.
Shutting down travel in an area does not turn it into a trade hub. It does the opposite. Increasing gate camps shuts down travel. There aren't really any sites resembling trade hubs in low sec now WITH the ability to JF to them to keep them supplied. If one were to start without JF's... it would get camped and die almost immediately.
LS still has warp scramblers and interceptors. Plenty of gate camps capture plenty of ships without bubbles. The thing that hinders shipping from null to high sec also hinders non-shipping travel in low sec. Just think about it for a few minutes. The only result of your suggestion are a big increase in gate camps and a big decrease in EVERYTHING ELSE that happens in low-sec. |
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
337
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 14:35:10 -
[660] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Barrogh Habalu wrote:Because fixing that obviously addresses everything anyone ever wanted for LS.. Explain.
Do you not have the ability to understand irony, tin man? He is making fun of you.... Because in his opinion fixing jumpfreigthers will not fix all what is wrong with lowsec. Do you even English?
"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
|
|
Salvos Rhoska
2612
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 14:37:50 -
[661] - Quote
sero Hita wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Barrogh Habalu wrote:Because fixing that obviously addresses everything anyone ever wanted for LS.. Explain. Do you not have the ability to understand irony, tin man? He is making fun of you.... Because in his opinion fixing jumpfreigthers will not fix all what is wrong with lowsec. Do you even English?
So it was bullshit. Ok them.
Nobody has claimed removing cynos from Ls will fix "everything".
Sarcasm is the sister of lies. Only a weak and fearful mind hides what it means, rather that stating it clearly and bravely.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
337
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 14:42:37 -
[662] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:sero Hita wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Barrogh Habalu wrote:Because fixing that obviously addresses everything anyone ever wanted for LS.. Explain. Do you not have the ability to understand irony, tin man? He is making fun of you.... Because in his opinion fixing jumpfreigthers will not fix all what is wrong with lowsec. Do you even English? So it was bullshit. Ok them.
No, he was calling you opinion bullshit, because it is very narrowminded to think that fixing jumpfreigthers will fix all the other problems of lowsec.
Basically you are making a solution considering only a specific subset of the problems (Which many find, is not a real problem and definitely not the biggest one). Solutions cannot be made in a vacuum, and you need to consider and include more of the problems with lowsec in your solution, to be taken serious.
"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
|
Salvos Rhoska
2612
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 14:45:18 -
[663] - Quote
Players will adapt. The material will continue to flow.
LS cynoing is making a mockery of the system.
You present more gatecamps as bad thing. It isnt. Because there will be more targets and competition both to hold gatecamps and to pass through them. LS JF cynoing removes content from LS, as the JFs lol-cyno through/past it.
Most LS subcap entities can arrange their less voluminous material transfer past gatemcaps just fine as is.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2612
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 14:47:39 -
[664] - Quote
sero Hita wrote:No, he was calling you opinion bullshit, because it is very narrowminded to think that fixing jumpfreigthers will fix all the other problems of lowsec..
Nobody has claimed it would, least of all I. So yes, its bullshit, since nobody has claimed that.
What "all other problems or lowsec" are you and he referring to? Be specific.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
68
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 15:26:37 -
[665] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Players will adapt. The material will continue to flow. LS cynoing is making a mockery of the system. You present more gatecamps as bad thing. It isnt. Because there will be more targets and competition both to hold gatecamps and to pass through them. LS JF cynoing removes content from LS, as the JFs lol-cyno through/past it. Most LS subcap entities can arrange their less voluminous material transfer past gatemcaps just fine as is.
This is a thread about helping low sec.
Would players adapt to having difficulty moving through low sec? Sure.
They'll adapt by leaving low sec. Many FW participants will leave. Many low-sec pirates who don't camp and use FW space for PvP will leave. Most low-sec industrialists will leave. Most low sec anomaly/mission runners will leave.
While you may be morally offended by cynos in low... removing them ends up killing low-sec, not helping it. And the point of this thread isn't to deal with your beliefs about how the game SHOULD work... it's about helping to draw more people to low-sec. Your plan doesn't do that in any way.... it in fact would end up driving everyone who doesn't camp gates to reside somewhere else.
So... your idea simply sucks as a way to draw more players to reside in low-sec space by making their living experience there suck (again... other than gate campers). |
Salvos Rhoska
2612
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 15:36:02 -
[666] - Quote
Removing LS JF cynoing = more gate transit = more gate content.
What is the problem again?
Are you trying to argue that JFs lol-cynoing through LS is making current gate transit life easier somehow? That is ridiculous.
JFs lol-cyno past gatecamps. Gate transit already has to deal with gatecamps.
You just dont want to put in the effort/precautions of gate transit, and prefer lol-cynoing past it all.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
337
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 16:21:50 -
[667] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Removing LS JF cynoing = more gate transit = more gate content. What is the problem again? Are you trying to argue that JFs lol-cynoing through LS is making current gate transit life easier somehow? That is ridiculous. LS JFs lol-cyno past gatecamps. LS gate transit already has to deal with gatecamps. You just dont want to put in the effort/precautions of gate transit, and prefer lol-cynoing past it all. People wont move out of LS, more people will move in, both to facilitate logistics and to profit from the enormous wealth of over-flying JF material now brought down to gate transit.
I have yet to meet a person, who think doing logistics is fun. And increasing the hassle of it is your solution to help lowsec. Who will move to lowsec to do this increased logistics and ganking? The people in highsec? I am pretty sure they are there to avoid that stuff. Nullseccers? I think we don't want to depopulate null more than it is.. So do you have a real suggestion to help low.
"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
|
Salvos Rhoska
2612
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 16:27:08 -
[668] - Quote
You completely ignored my post to you, and instead answered a post addressed to someone else.
That **** doesnt fly.
Do your due diligence.
Dont expect an answer to your questions till you have answered mine.
PS: Lol claiming logistics/hauling/trading isnt fun, when thousands do it daily, enjoy it and profit from it.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4075
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 18:31:39 -
[669] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:You completely ignored my post to you, and instead answered a post addressed to someone else. That **** doesnt fly. Do your due diligence. Dont expect an answer to your questions till you have answered mine. PS: Lol claiming logistics/hauling/trading isnt fun, when thousands do it daily, enjoy it and profit from it.
That's the pot calling kettle black mate as I'm still waiting on you answering questions I asked you like 8 pages back which you completely ignored
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
Calm down miner.
As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they
would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*
|
Zanar Skwigelf
Boa Innovations Brothers of Tangra
110
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 18:34:40 -
[670] - Quote
I would be OK with removing cyno's from low if we can light them in 0.5 space. Salvos gets his cyno free low, and the null alliances get to continue jumping right past low. Seems legit. Or maybe instead of lighting them all 0.5 systems have a NPC cyno beacon?
Also, I wanted to point out that rying to force a low sec hub to grow by cutting off cynos in low would probably create a hub in NPC null before low, since we can still cyno into NPC null, and move stuff there using black frog / PushX / etc.
Hell, it might even lead to the blue donut moving corp (tm) where everyone stuffs their JF alt so they can jump into and out of the NPC null hub without worrying about neuts in local.
|
|
Salvos Rhoska
2612
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 18:48:41 -
[671] - Quote
A wild alt appears.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2624
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 18:58:20 -
[672] - Quote
Zanar Skwigelf wrote:the null alliances get to continue jumping right past low.
No. This must end.
They can gate transit through it like everyone else if they want access to HS.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4076
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 19:00:16 -
[673] - Quote
Is that all you got man, lm alt now whose alt do you think I am?
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
Calm down miner.
As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they
would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*
|
Salvos Rhoska
2624
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 19:05:04 -
[674] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Is that all you got man, lm alt now whose alt do you think I am?
Thats all you had.
You presumed to answer to a post addressed to someone else, yet did not answer the questions therein.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1611
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 19:11:39 -
[675] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Secondary problem is caps in LS, especially with cyno, as overkill, and strongly favoring NS neighbors. Since you're back here at this thread, where is your evidence that proves this claim?
Are you going to provide it, or just continue to argue for something based on lies?
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Zanar Skwigelf
Boa Innovations Brothers of Tangra
110
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 19:15:04 -
[676] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Zanar Skwigelf wrote:the null alliances get to continue jumping right past low. No. This must end. They can gate transit through it like everyone else if they want access to HS.
And direct connections between high and null?
Also, what about all the null systems within jump range of the Jita undock? Seems kind of silly that a ships jump range is 10 ly unless you are in high sec, then its 10 ly or the nearest low sec system.
Rhea jump range from Jita
Geminate
Vale of the Silent
Tribute
|
Salvos Rhoska
2626
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 19:18:06 -
[677] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Secondary problem is caps in LS, especially with cyno, as overkill, and strongly favoring NS neighbors. Since you're back here at this thread, where is your evidence that proves this claim? Are you going to provide it, or just continue to argue for something based on lies?
LS PvE content does not require caps. LS hauling does not require cynos. LS gatecamps do not require caps. LS cynos bypass LS gates. NS has far more caps than LS.
Your move.
PS: Lol at me "being back" in this thread. I never left.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1611
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 19:20:40 -
[678] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Secondary problem is caps in LS, especially with cyno, as overkill, and strongly favoring NS neighbors. Since you're back here at this thread, where is your evidence that proves this claim? Are you going to provide it, or just continue to argue for something based on lies? LS PvE content does not require caps. LS hauling does not require cynos. LS gatecamps do not require caps. LS cynos bypass LS gates. NS has far more caps than LS. Your move. PS: Lol at me "being back" in this thread. I never left. That is no evidence, just more typical rambling.
Show us the kills that demonstrate that cynos strongly favour NS neighbours over LS. Evidence, not just further opinion. If it is "strongly favouring NS", it should be easy to prove.
Where's the evidence?
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Salvos Rhoska
2626
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 19:23:36 -
[679] - Quote
Zanar Skwigelf wrote:And direct connections between high and null?
Also, what about all the null systems within jump range of the Jita undock? Seems kind of silly that a ships jump range is 10 ly unless you are in high sec, then its 10 ly or the nearest low sec system.
Those are geographic anomalies which have systemically aided the Jita abomination.
They are however beyond the purview of this thread, as there is no LS intervening there. Or rather, obviate the point that LS is not functioning as a barrier between HS and NS.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1611
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 19:28:56 -
[680] - Quote
Zanar Skwigelf wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Zanar Skwigelf wrote:the null alliances get to continue jumping right past low. No. This must end. They can gate transit through it like everyone else if they want access to HS. And direct connections between high and null? Also, what about all the null systems within jump range of the Jita undock? Seems kind of silly that a ships jump range is 10 ly unless you are in high sec, then its 10 ly or the nearest low sec system. Rhea jump range from JitaGeminateVale of the SilentTribute That's his thing, this isn't about stopping NS from jumping straight past LS. As you've just shown, it'll still be totally possible, even direct from Jita. There are other HS systems you could go to that would allow you to totally bypass LS as well.
There'd still be nearly 0 need to go through LS with his dumb proposal. It's just Salvos being butthurt over NS groups and wanting to destroy them in a stupid way that will be ineffective and only destroy LS industry and markets and remove content from LS.
All based on lies of his.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
|
Salvos Rhoska
2626
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 19:31:58 -
[681] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Where's the evidence? This isn't a dissertation.
If you can refute any of the observations I made, go ahead and do so.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2626
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 19:33:38 -
[682] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:That's his thing, this isn't about stopping NS from jumping straight past LS.
No.
Its in large part about exactly that.
That there are direct HS-NS connections with no intervening LS is just an extension of the same problem.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1611
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 19:34:41 -
[683] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Where's the evidence? This isn't a dissertation. If you can refute any of the observations I made, go ahead and do so. I can: there is no evidence and your claims are lies.
Here is the evidence to support your claim:
See, doesnt exist. You are wrong.
So we can finally conclude that now. You're arguments are not supportable by anything that shows you are correct.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Salvos Rhoska
2626
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 19:38:01 -
[684] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote: your claims are lies.
Prove that.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3268
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 19:40:23 -
[685] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Secondary problem is caps in LS, especially with cyno, as overkill, and strongly favoring NS neighbors. Since you're back here at this thread, where is your evidence that proves this claim? Are you going to provide it, or just continue to argue for something based on lies? LS PvE content does not require caps. LS hauling does not require cynos. LS gatecamps do not require caps. LS cynos bypass LS gates. NS has far more caps than LS. Your move. PS: Lol at me "being back" in this thread. I never left.
NS PvE does not require caps. NS hauling does not require cynos. NS gatecamp does nto require caps. All god damn cynos can bypass gates. This is mostly because we have more people. I would not be surprised of some corp/alliance in LS had a higher cap ownership per person than some NS corp/alliance. Especially since many are rather newbie friendly while this does not seem to be as prevalent in LS.
Fun fact, not needing something does not mean it should be removed. |
Salvos Rhoska
2626
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 19:41:58 -
[686] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Fun fact, not needing something does not mean it should be removed. Fun fact.
LS is not NS.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3268
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 19:43:21 -
[687] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote: your claims are lies. Prove that.
The game isn't dead yet so the transit of material being as efficient as it currently is can't be killing it. I mean, it been years already. It would be dead by now no? Or do you see it as some case of extremely slow cancer that will kill it withing the next 10 years if that? |
Salvos Rhoska
2626
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 19:44:32 -
[688] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Snip
Who asked you?
How many shill alts are going to intercept questions directed to someone else?
PS: Player Empires rise and fall in EVE, daily, yet Jita/The Forge just gets more and more prominent.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3268
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 19:45:28 -
[689] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Fun fact, not needing something does not mean it should be removed. Fun fact. LS is not NS.
Yeah and they already have different mechanic to differentiate them. It's been working for years with jump freighter going through it. How long until the supposed Jita cancer kills the game according to you if we don't build a damn over the LS hauling river? |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3268
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 19:46:16 -
[690] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Snip Who asked you? How many shill alts are going to intercept questions directed to someone else?
How many time will your answer to people not agreeing with you be claim that we are alt instead of actually proposing fact to support your claims? |
|
Salvos Rhoska
2626
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 19:46:59 -
[691] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Yeah and they already have different mechanic to differentiate them.
Yes. Which is why LS is made a mockery of by JFs.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3268
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 19:47:04 -
[692] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Snip PS: Player Empires rise and fall in EVE, daily, yet Jita/The Forge just gets more and more prominent.
Amarr never felt.
Your move. |
Salvos Rhoska
2626
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 19:48:03 -
[693] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:How many time will your answer to people not agreeing with you be claim that we are alt instead of actually proposing fact to support your claims?
That depends on how many times you presume to inadequately answer questions addressed to someone else.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2626
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 19:48:54 -
[694] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Snip PS: Player Empires rise and fall in EVE, daily, yet Jita/The Forge just gets more and more prominent. Amarr never felt. Your move.
Is this supposed to mean something?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3268
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 19:49:11 -
[695] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Yeah and they already have different mechanic to differentiate them. Yes. Which is why LS is made a mockery of by JFs.
Ganking makes a mockery out of CONCORD every time people do manage to gank something after all the nerf. Does that mean it require "Just one more nerf"? |
Salvos Rhoska
2626
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 19:50:48 -
[696] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Yeah and they already have different mechanic to differentiate them. Yes. Which is why LS is made a mockery of by JFs. Ganking makes a mockery out of CONCORD every time people do manage to gank something after all the nerf. Does that mean it require "Just one more nerf"?
Ganking does not make a mockery of CONCORD, cos CONCORD always wins.
Try again.
Not that this has anything to do with JFs in LS.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3268
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 19:51:13 -
[697] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
That depends on how many times you presume to inadequately answer questions addressed to someone else.
This is a forum, your post are public and open to comment by anyone sir.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Snip PS: Player Empires rise and fall in EVE, daily, yet Jita/The Forge just gets more and more prominent. Amarr never felt. Your move. Is this supposed to mean something?
If Jita not falling is an issue, why aren't you bitching about Amarr at the same time? According to you, it should have felt by now... |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3268
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 19:52:15 -
[698] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Yeah and they already have different mechanic to differentiate them. Yes. Which is why LS is made a mockery of by JFs. Ganking makes a mockery out of CONCORD every time people do manage to gank something after all the nerf. Does that mean it require "Just one more nerf"? Ganking does not make a mockery of CONCORD, cos CONCORD always wins. Try again. Not that this has anything to do with JFs in LS.
We blow up ship and collect the loot but somehow CONCORD won?
No wonder all the change you ever propose are so bad. |
Salvos Rhoska
2626
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 19:53:04 -
[699] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:If Jita not falling is an issue, why aren't you bitching about Amarr at the same time? According to you, it should have felt by now...
What should Amarr have "felt"?
Wtf are you even one about?
Have you not seen the figures on Jita/Forge?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2626
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 19:54:42 -
[700] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:We blow up ship and collect the loot but somehow CONCORD won?
CONCORD blew up your ship. You cant beat CONCORD.
CONCORD always wins.
This is basic EVE 101.
Not that this has anything to do with LS JFs, despite your desperate attempt to redirect the discussion.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3268
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 19:57:17 -
[701] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:If Jita not falling is an issue, why aren't you bitching about Amarr at the same time? According to you, it should have felt by now... What should Amarr have "felt"? Wtf are you even on about? Have you not seen the figures on Jita/Forge?
Yes I did and I have absolutely no problem with that.
There are actually no problem with Jita. It's actually pretty realistic for trade to centralize in a hub making it efficient for everyone. |
Salvos Rhoska
2627
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 20:00:14 -
[702] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Yes I did and I have absolutely no problem with that.
You have no problem with a a single NPC HS region and system housing the overwhelming majority of trade and production THROUGHOUT EVE.
Are we even playing the same game?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3268
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 20:53:48 -
[703] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Yes I did and I have absolutely no problem with that. You have no problem with a a single NPC HS region and system housing the overwhelming majority of trade and production THROUGHOUT EVE. Are we even playing the same game?
I effectively have no problem with that and we are indeed playing the same game. Well, I think since I can't verify if you do actually play EVE... |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1612
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 22:23:01 -
[704] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote: your claims are lies. Prove that. Despite being asked multiple times to show evidence that proves your claim, you haven't.
That is proof enough. No evidence available is itself proof that your claims cannot be supported and are nothing but lies.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Salvos Rhoska
2627
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 06:27:50 -
[705] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote: your claims are lies. Prove that. If it is "strongly favouring" NS neighbours, that should be easy. I stand by my claim that for every 1 killmail you can post of a LS group losing a capital in LS to a NS group, I can post 10 that are the other way around.
You are inferring things that have not been said. You immediately assumed "strongly favouring" meant only current rates of LS cap PvP.
NS lol-cynos its JFs past LS. NS doesnt care what you do in LS, nor have interest in LS cap PvP as long as they can continue doing so.
As others have pointed out, NS can flood LS with fleets should it wish to do so. Currently they have no interest in LS, except as a fly-over sector to and from HS.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2627
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 06:30:40 -
[706] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Yes I did and I have absolutely no problem with that. You have no problem with a a single NPC HS region and system housing the overwhelming majority of trade and production THROUGHOUT EVE? I effectively have no problem with that
What do you mean by "effectively"?
Do you "effectively" have no problem with it because it is convenient/beneficial for you?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1613
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 06:55:46 -
[707] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:You are inferring things that have not been said. You immediately assumed "strongly favouring" meant only current rates of LS cap PvP.
NS lol-cynos its JFs past LS. NS doesnt care what you do in LS, nor have interest in LS cap PvP as long as they can continue doing so.
As others have pointed out, NS can flood LS with fleets should it wish to do so. Currently they have no interest in LS, except as a fly-over sector to and from HS. You would think it is possible someone could remember what they actually wrote.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:The primary problem is JFs lol-cynoing past LS between HS-NS. Secondary problem is caps in LS, especially with cyno, as overkill, and strongly favoring NS neighbors.
It isn't me inferring anything and your claim about caps in lowsec was separate to the stupid point about jump freighters.
You clearly said, 'Secondary problem is caps in LS, especially with cyno, as overkill, and strongly favouring NS neighbours".
Your words.
Post your evidence of STFU, because you have no clue what you are talking about (as usual).
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Salvos Rhoska
2627
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 07:01:57 -
[708] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote: The primary problem is JFs lol-cynoing past LS between HS-NS. Secondary problem is caps in LS, especially with cyno, as overkill, and strongly favoring NS neighbors.
It isn't me inferring anything. You clearly said, 'Secondary problem is caps in LS, especially with cyno, as overkill, and strongly favouring NS neighbours".
If NS wanted to eradicate every single player structure in all of LS, they could do it, and especially with cap superiority.
You are again making the false inference that NS currently even bothers with LS as anything other than a fly-over sector.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1613
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 07:45:43 -
[709] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote: The primary problem is JFs lol-cynoing past LS between HS-NS. Secondary problem is caps in LS, especially with cyno, as overkill, and strongly favoring NS neighbors.
It isn't me inferring anything. You clearly said, 'Secondary problem is caps in LS, especially with cyno, as overkill, and strongly favouring NS neighbours". If NS wanted to eradicate every single player structure in all of LS, they could do it, and especially with cap superiority. You are again making the false inference that NS currently even bothers with LS as anything other than a fly-over sector. The "overkill" refers to PvE content local to LS, which is tiered as such that caps are overkill for completing them. Oh so now it's LS PVE strongly favours NS neighbours.
Your arguments getting dumber and dumber every time you post.
You should just admit that you have no clue what you are talking about, that this 'strong favouring NS neighbours' BS is complete rubbish and at least save face.
If it strongly favours NS neighbours, there would be evidence of it.
Post it. Stop this dodging rubbish with non-sensical arguments and post some actual evidence that these cynos strongly favour NS neighbours bringing caps to LS.
Hell, even do it for PVE, since you can't for PVP.
Show how dominant PVE in LS is and how it so strongly favours NS coming to LS.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Oliver Delorean
SUB Inc.
64
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 09:28:36 -
[710] - Quote
Remove low-sec. Cut high-sec to half. Remove local from null-sec. |
|
Salvos Rhoska
2627
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 09:38:01 -
[711] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
The "overkill" refers to PvE content local to LS, which is tiered as such that caps are overkill for completing them.
Oh so now it's LS PVE strongly favours NS neighbours.
No, that again is a false inference.
The point is that caps are overkill for LS PvE content which raises the question why they can be flown there in the first place. L5s can be run without them as a group effort. Caps are massive overkill for LS DEDs/complexes.
There are 3400+ NS systems with PvE content tiered for caps. There are only 800 LS systems, with PvE content not tiered for caps.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4080
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 10:19:27 -
[712] - Quote
this is now totally confirmed that this guy is just trolling.
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
Calm down miner.
As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they
would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*
|
Salvos Rhoska
2627
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 10:22:25 -
[713] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:this is now totally confirmed that this guy is just trolling.
Weak, very weak. And constitutes trolling in and of itself.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4080
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 10:25:42 -
[714] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:this is now totally confirmed that this guy is just trolling. Weak, very weak. And constitutes trolling in and of itself.
you dont have a clue what you are talking about, its getting boring listening to the same arguments from you where you provide no evidence when asked
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
Calm down miner.
As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they
would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*
|
Salvos Rhoska
2627
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 10:33:22 -
[715] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:you dont have a clue what you are talking about, its getting boring listening to the same arguments from you where you provide no evidence when asked
Prove it. Your boredom is not my problem. No one is forcing you to read or respond. The irony of you demanding evidence when I specifically addressed that in my previous post. Then you resort to "you dont have a clue" and "you are trolling", both which you cant prove and are just an excuse to avoid arguing the points made.
This isnt reddit, and Im not a push-over. Try harder or gtfo the kitchen.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4080
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 11:06:18 -
[716] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:you dont have a clue what you are talking about, its getting boring listening to the same arguments from you where you provide no evidence when asked
Prove it. Your boredom is not my problem. No one is forcing you to read or respond. Believe me, your crap content here bores the hell out of me as well. The irony of you demanding evidence when I specifically addressed that in my previous post. Then you resort to "you dont have a clue" and "you are trolling", both which you cant substantiate and are just an excuse to avoid arguing the points made. This isnt reddit, and Im not a push-over. Try harder or gtfo the kitchen.
ofcourse not but i come here to see if anyone has anything constructive to say about the space me and any others "live" in, prove what? people have already shown you that freighters die quite often in lowsec, you chose to ignore that and again try and enforce your agenda with no evidence when asked, all you say is "lol-cyno" and nullsec this and that, you havent supplied any links to enforce what you say, so its just an opinion from someone who doesn't have a clue, nothing more.
luckily this isnt reddit as you would be trolled worse
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
Calm down miner.
As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they
would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*
|
Salvos Rhoska
2632
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 11:16:55 -
[717] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote: people have already shown you that freighters die quite often in lowsec.
Sure, the occasional idiot/drunk blows up.
Its not even a fraction of total NS-HS transit past LS in JFs.
As I stated before, there is no killboard evidence of NS neighbor capacity to overwhelm LS with caps, because they have no incentive to do so. LS is crap space compared to NS. NS has zero interest in operating in LS. Its just something to cyno over with JFs to and from HS markets (Jita/Forge).
PS: You claimed I am trolling, why then are you posting to me?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4080
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 11:18:13 -
[718] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:PS: You claimed I am trolling, why then are you posting to me?
if you havent noticed already im also trolling you
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Its not even a fraction of total NS-HS transit past LS in JFs.
prove it
Salvos Rhoska wrote:As I stated before, there is no killboard evidence of NS neighbor capacity to overwhelm LS with caps, because they have no incentive to do so.
you said a while ago that this change would "protect lowsec from nullsec neighbours dropping on lowsec with impunity", so thats wrong now?
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
Calm down miner.
As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they
would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*
|
Salvos Rhoska
2632
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 11:22:58 -
[719] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:PS: You claimed I am trolling, why then are you posting to me? if you havent noticed already im also trolling you Im not trolling though. Im posting ontopic and at length, arguing issues, answering questions, reciprocally.
But you just admitted you are infact trolling.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4080
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 11:35:08 -
[720] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:PS: You claimed I am trolling, why then are you posting to me? if you havent noticed already im also trolling you Im not trolling though. Im posting ontopic and at length, arguing issues, answering questions, reciprocally. But you just admitted you are infact trolling.
After your edited additions: 1) Prove that most of JF transport through LS is destroyed. 2) Post-change, NS will not be able to drop cyno/caps in LS. LS PvP will be subcap, non-cyno, only.
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
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
Calm down miner.
As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they
would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*
|
|
Salvos Rhoska
2632
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 11:41:33 -
[721] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote: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
1) Why cant you prove that the majority of JFs cyno dont pass LS without destruction? Why then do you expect me to be able to prove its opposite?
2) Read. The occasional idiot/drunk fails JF transit through LS. Nobody has claimed that ALL 100% of JFs make it through LS. Where did you get that idea into your head?
3) NS utterly dwarfs LS geographically, in wealth, resources, population, organisation and cap pilots. Do you dispute this?
4) Since you clearly announced yourself as a deliberate troll, is this just more of the same?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4080
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 12:00:34 -
[722] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote: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 1) Why cant you prove that the majority of JFs cyno dont pass LS without destruction? Why then do you expect me to be able to prove its opposite? 2) Read. The occasional idiot/drunk fails JF transit through LS. Nobody has claimed that ALL 100% of JFs make it through LS. Where did you get that idea into your head? 3) NS utterly dwarfs LS geographically, in wealth, resources, population, organisation and cap pilots. Do you dispute this? 4) Since you clearly announced yourself as a deliberate troll, is this just more of the same? (inb4 someone "else" answers these instead of Lan.)
you heard it here first guys NS dwarfs LS in organisation...yes i dispute that.
your plucking straws salvos, you have been asked to prove something which you cant then turn it on to someone else because you know its bulls*** "Its not even a fraction of total NS-HS transit past LS in JFs." you made the claim now prove it, because we have shown you they die yet your counter to is just words with no evidence. you dont know what fraction gets past so stop exaggerating your claims.
You dont have to be drunk to lose a freighter to a super who uncloaks and alphas you as you are aligning before having a chance to do anything.
salvos thinks everyone who doesnt agree with his stupid idea is an alt....ok mate
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
Calm down miner.
As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they
would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*
|
Salvos Rhoska
2632
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 12:04:04 -
[723] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
1) Why cant you prove that the majority of JFs cyno dont pass LS without destruction? Why then do you expect me to be able to prove its opposite?
2) Read. The occasional idiot/drunk fails JF transit through LS. Nobody has claimed that ALL 100% of JFs make it through LS. Where did you get that idea into your head?
3) NS utterly dwarfs LS geographically, in wealth, resources, population, organisation and cap pilots. Do you dispute this?
4) Since you clearly announced yourself as a deliberate troll, is this just more of the same?
(inb4 someone "else" answers these instead of Lan.)
your plucking straws salvos
4 itemized, numbered, simple, concise questions.
Answer them.
(PS: Enormous lol at arguing supers decloaking and alphaing IN LS, when my proposal removes them FROM LS)
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4080
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 12:23:44 -
[724] - Quote
no salvos you are implying that freighters lol-cyno in lowsec with impunity which is why you have this idea in the first place, yet you have be shown that they do not, start reading and understanding.
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
Calm down miner.
As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they
would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*
|
Artemis Ellery Sazas
Shock and Awe Inc.
94
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 12:46:36 -
[725] - Quote
For Christ sake just lock this thread already! It has been reduced to nothing more than worthless bantering and trolling. There have been some very good suggestions made earlier in this thread as to how to improve low sec, which imo is very much needed.
If CCP wants to continue this discussion and generate a consensus about improving low sec, a much neglected area of the game, perhaps they should send out a survey much like the recent structure survey. The combined ideas in this thread and results from a survey should set a clear direction of players wants and needs for low sec. |
Salvos Rhoska
2635
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 12:47:39 -
[726] - Quote
So you cant, or wont, reciprocate 4 simple questions. There is clearly no point in discussing with you, especially since you already openly claimed you are trolling.
You are now blocked.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2635
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 12:50:47 -
[727] - Quote
Artemis Ellery Sazas wrote:Snip
They can do both.
There is no reason to lock this thread (at best, prune it), and they can send a survey or start an official thread whenever they want.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
73
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 13:38:36 -
[728] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Removing LS JF cynoing = more gate transit = more gate content. What is the problem again? Are you trying to argue that JFs lol-cynoing through LS is making current gate transit life easier somehow? That is ridiculous. LS JFs lol-cyno past gatecamps. LS gate transit already has to deal with gatecamps. You just dont want to put in the effort/precautions of gate transit, and prefer lol-cynoing past it all. People wont move out of LS, more people will move in, both to facilitate logistics and to profit from the enormous wealth of over-flying JF material now brought down to gate transit.
But it drives people from low-sec.
Look... you seem to think low-sec is all about shipping stuff and attacking the ships that are moving goods. Maybe that's all it is for you... but there are permanent industrial, PVE and FW residents in low-sec who don't particularly care for having every gate camped.
Your idea creates more annoying logistics (for everyone in Null... but also everyone in LOW). It makes life in low-sec more annoying for everyone who's not interested in gate camps (which still exist but in small enough numbers that those living in low sec can deal with them).
You are boosting one type of content while killing all of the other types of content in low-sec. You're turning it from a place where some reside to a place that people only travel through (because residing there will be too annoying logistically with your changes).
I've never used a cyno. I don't fly capitals, I don't take part in large fleets with capitals and I don't have a jump freighter. I DO take part in FW quite a bit. I also travel back and forth between null and low-sec through gates.... not cynos.
Your suggestion will cause me to not take part in FW if it causes increased gatecamps like I think it will. I'm not against it because I like cynos. I'm against it because it screws up MY gameplay which has nothng to do with transportation of goods or cynos in any way.
I don't want to fight 10-20 man gate camp gangs every time I change systems in low sec. I'm looking for smaller engagement PvP in FW plexes. If I have to deal with constant gate camps... that's no longer possible. |
Salvos Rhoska
2637
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 13:50:01 -
[729] - Quote
Scialt wrote:But it drives people from low-sec.
No, it drives people into LS, from everywhere.
We are talking about billions upon billions in daily value now accessible, whereas before they cyno or are protected by caps.
NS-HS transit has no other option, except WH chains or the few remote geographic direct gates between HS-NS.
LS will become a frothing subcap piranha pool of activity to hold gates either to secure transit, or intercept it.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
73
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 13:53:14 -
[730] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lan Wang wrote: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 1) Why cant you prove that the majority of JFs cyno dont pass LS without destruction? Why then do you expect me to be able to prove its opposite? 2) Read. The occasional idiot/drunk fails JF transit through LS. Nobody has claimed that ALL 100% of JFs make it through LS. Where did you get that idea into your head? 3) NS utterly dwarfs LS geographically, in wealth, resources, population, organisation and cap pilots. Do you dispute this? 4) Since you clearly announced yourself as a deliberate troll, is this just more of the same? (inb4 someone "else" answers these instead of Lan.)
1. This is a silly debate trick. You can't prove they pass low sec without destruction. The other guy can't prove that they don't pass. Unless you can provide information showing your view is correct, demanding the other party to do that is a juvenile way to behave.
2. So... you have been provided proof that some JF's do get destroyed. We have seen JF's make it through as well... so we know some make it. The question is what is a reasonable rate of destruction? And what number of JF's are destroyed compared to those that are produced? Until you get that data, you shouldn't use perceived percentages as part of your argument. You honestly don't know what the real numbers say either... so stop thinking your assumptions about what numbers might be MUST be correct if you're going to base your entire argument on them.
3. I don't think things are as fluid as labeling groups or players strictly as "null", "low" or "high". Geographically... yeah, there are more null systems. Wealth/resources... yes there is more available in null. Population? Well... on a per-system basis I'm not sure. There are fewer low-sec players but also fewer systems. I've seen crowded and empty parts of both. I think that's a push. Organization? Depends on where in null and where in low you're at. On average I think more low-sec players are in smaller corporations... but some of them operate in a very organized manner despite lower numbers than less organized larger null-sec entities who overcome a lack of organization with numbers. Cap pilots... sure, there are more in null.
I'm not sure why you think any of that is important.
4. Look... you ignore 99% of what people are telling you, quote with a "snip" and respond to one little thing to try to score points. That is more trollish behavior than much of what you're complaining about.
I just don't want you to cause low-sec to only be for transporting goods and having gate camps. I don't enjoy either of those things... while the small group PvP that low-sec presents that I DO enjoy will be hurt by your suggestion. Right now low-sec is the only place I can consistently get that type of gameplay. And you want to kill it because "cynos are bad". |
|
Salvos Rhoska
2637
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 13:55:20 -
[731] - Quote
Scialt wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
(inb4 someone "else" answers these instead of Lan.)
Snip.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
73
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 14:03:23 -
[732] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scialt wrote:But it drives people from low-sec. No, it drives people into LS, from everywhere. We are talking about billions upon billions in daily value now accessible, whereas before they cyno or are protected by caps. NS-HS transit has no other option, except WH chains or the few remote geographic direct gates between HS-NS. LS will become a frothing subcap piranha pool of activity to hold gates either to secure transit, or intercept it.
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.
It will quite obviously drive those who are looking for content that does NOT involve gate camping away... because a huge increase in gate camps make it horrendous for EVERYONE to travel, not just those shipping goods.
Look... I don't CARE about cynos. They don't impact my daily play in any real way. I do care about not being able to take my solo pvp ships through low-sec because every freaking gate is camped because they want the "billions upon billions" being transported. Those gate camps will shoot me AND my targets as well as freighters.
I don't think increasing the number of gate camps will make low-sec better for the majority of players. Right now low-sec is pretty much the only place you can get consistent small-group combat (at least that I can find). I have a personal stake in this... not because of cynos but because the logical impact of your idea takes away a part of the game that I enjoy. |
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
74
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 14:07:31 -
[733] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scialt wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
(inb4 someone "else" answers these instead of Lan.)
Snip. Saw that coming a mile away.
So... by "snip" what you're really saying is: "I can't respond to the logic showing my idea isn't a good one... so I'll just cut their words and re-post the same thing and hope nobody notices."?
For someone who says they want discussion, you seem to not want to discuss the fairly obvious drawbacks that I and others have been repeatedly pointing out about your idea... mainly that it kills all low-sec content aside from gate camps, makes everyone else's game play more annoying aside from those who like running gate camps and will likely hurt the large null-sec alliances the least while hurting the smaller independent groups in low and null-sec the most.
You just say "SNIP. No, my idea is still awesome." |
Salvos Rhoska
2638
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 14:12:02 -
[734] - Quote
Scialt wrote:
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.
Listen to yourself.
You think all that will happen, just by removing cynos from LS?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat Snuffed Out
4080
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 14:16:34 -
[735] - Quote
Scialt wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scialt wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
(inb4 someone "else" answers these instead of Lan.)
Snip. Saw that coming a mile away. So... by "snip" what you're really saying is: "I can't respond to the logic showing my idea isn't a good one... so I'll just cut their words and re-post the same thing and hope nobody notices."? For someone who says they want discussion, you seem to not want to discuss the fairly obvious drawbacks that I and others have been repeatedly pointing out about your idea... mainly that it kills all low-sec content aside from gate camps, makes everyone else's game play more annoying aside from those who like running gate camps and will likely hurt the large null-sec alliances the least while hurting the smaller independent groups in low and null-sec the most. You just say "SNIP. No, my idea is still awesome."
i find it quite funny, he cant answer any questions so he responds with accusations of everyone being an alt...even though i answered his questions in the post he quoted asking me to answer, no point in repeating things if he lacks the brain power to read
Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel
Calm down miner.
As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they
would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*
|
Salvos Rhoska
2638
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 14:18:21 -
[736] - Quote
Scialt wrote:You just say "SNIP. No, my idea is still awesome." I can and will answer your reply (which was correct in format. I genuinely respect that. Albeit wrong in content).
The point was to show Lan for what he is. You carried his burden admirably, but he didnt. I promise you a reply as if those questions had been addressed to you, cos you answered them, but Im limited on time and have a 3 day bachelor party bender impending starting tomorrow. You will get it Sunday or Monday.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
75
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 15:42:05 -
[737] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scialt wrote:
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.
Listen to yourself. You think all that will happen, just by removing cynos from LS? Explain how/why removing cynos from LS results in that?
1. Cynos and caps removed 2. Shipping traffic starts to come from null through LS gates 3. Gate camps multiply by a huge factor to get the freighters (all of this so far is what you've predicted) 4. The increased gatecamps don't just kill null freighters. They kill everything they can... LS PVE ships, LS industrials, Supply ships for FW and Pirate corps not associated with gatecamps. Everything. 5. This makes "regular" low-sec gameplay (the kind we have now) impossible. You can't go from system to system solo-ratting or searching for a small plex combat scenario when the gates are all camped. 6. The inability to do the things you currently can drives the players doing those things away. Perhaps wormholes for those looking for small group PvP, Null for the industrials and high sec for those doing PVE. The inability to travel 3 jumps without hitting a gate camp makes life in Null miserable for residents.
You stop at 3. I've explained this 5-6 times in this thread. You already accept that this will cause more gatecamping... but you aren't accepting what impact more gate camps have on everyone aside from Null-sec alliances (who I still think will be the LEAST impacted by the change as they have the ability to field large fleets and wipe out gate camps).
Your idea gives low-sec more larger-scale fleet interaction (as fleets of non-caps from large null-groups will be forced to clear shipping lanes). But we already have a good amount of that in null. It adds more gate-camps ganking small corp transports (for a while at least). But it kills PVE, small group PvP, FW and industrial residents in low. I don't see that exchange being worth it. |
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
75
|
Posted - 2017.03.30 15:48:41 -
[738] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scialt wrote:You just say "SNIP. No, my idea is still awesome." I can and will answer your reply (which was correct in format. I genuinely respect that. Albeit wrong in content). The point was to show Lan for what he is. You carried his burden admirably, but he didnt. I promise you a reply as if those questions had been addressed to you, cos you answered them, but Im limited on time and have a 3 day bachelor party bender impending starting tomorrow. You will get it Sunday or Monday.
He's essentially the same as me with less patience to explain what you're getting so wrong.
Essentially he expects you to "get it" without a detailed explanation and assumes you're intentionally trolling by not seeing what he tells you.
As a rule, I assume everyone on the internet is completely clueless about everything and explain it as if I were talking to a 10 year old. (note... this is not aimed at you specifically). That means I assume I'm going to have to say the same exact thing 30 times in many different ways before people reading comprehend the information. |
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
61
|
Posted - 2017.03.31 14:44:09 -
[739] - Quote
Scialt wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scialt wrote:
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.
Listen to yourself. You think all that will happen, just by removing cynos from LS? Explain how/why removing cynos from LS results in that? 1. Cynos and caps removed 2. Shipping traffic starts to come from null through LS gates 3. Gate camps multiply by a huge factor to get the freighters (all of this so far is what you've predicted) 4. The increased gatecamps don't just kill null freighters. They kill everything they can... LS PVE ships, LS industrials, Supply ships for FW and Pirate corps not associated with gatecamps. Everything. 5. This makes "regular" low-sec gameplay (the kind we have now) impossible. You can't go from system to system solo-ratting or searching for a small plex combat scenario when the gates are all camped. 6. The inability to do the things you currently can drives the players doing those things away. Perhaps wormholes for those looking for small group PvP, Null for the industrials and high sec for those doing PVE. The inability to travel 3 jumps without hitting a gate camp makes life in Null miserable for residents. You stop at 3. I've explained this 5-6 times in this thread. You already accept that this will cause more gatecamping... but you aren't accepting what impact more gate camps have on everyone aside from Null-sec alliances (who I still think will be the LEAST impacted by the change as they have the ability to field large fleets and wipe out gate camps). Your idea gives low-sec more larger-scale fleet interaction (as fleets of non-caps from large null-groups will be forced to clear shipping lanes). But we already have a good amount of that in null. It adds more gate-camps ganking small corp transports (for a while at least). But it kills PVE, small group PvP, FW and industrial residents in low. I don't see that exchange being worth it.
NPC null also needs to be able to send its freighters back, which would be incredibly hard, given that for example syndicate geopolitical reality is that larger powers camp dominant junctions near syndicate exits and often extend their camps to the exits themselves (and they certainly will if JFs have to endpoint there) and that low powered entities have to live behind the desirable traffic control positions.
ie right now, numerous lowsec systems a CAS return freighter trip can go to (I've never looked closely), in this distopian dream, 3 practical exits, all nullsec, all controlled by more powerful entities, 2 of which have lowsec trips after them too.
Never mind that new CAS pilots don't join into casual combat days to form a blob for freighter escort purposes, especially not escorting goods they have no monetary interest in out of syndicate.
|
Orin Solette
The Scope Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 08:07:59 -
[740] - Quote
Scialt wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scialt wrote:
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.
Listen to yourself. You think all that will happen, just by removing cynos from LS? Explain how/why removing cynos from LS results in that? 1. Cynos and caps removed 2. Shipping traffic starts to come from null through LS gates 3. Gate camps multiply by a huge factor to get the freighters (all of this so far is what you've predicted) 4. The increased gatecamps don't just kill null freighters. They kill everything they can... LS PVE ships, LS industrials, Supply ships for FW and Pirate corps not associated with gatecamps. Everything. 5. This makes "regular" low-sec gameplay (the kind we have now) impossible. You can't go from system to system solo-ratting or searching for a small plex combat scenario when the gates are all camped. 6. The inability to do the things you currently can drives the players doing those things away. Perhaps wormholes for those looking for small group PvP, Null for the industrials and high sec for those doing PVE. The inability to travel 3 jumps without hitting a gate camp makes life in Null miserable for residents. You stop at 3. I've explained this 5-6 times in this thread. You already accept that this will cause more gatecamping... but you aren't accepting what impact more gate camps have on everyone aside from Null-sec alliances (who I still think will be the LEAST impacted by the change as they have the ability to field large fleets and wipe out gate camps). Your idea gives low-sec more larger-scale fleet interaction (as fleets of non-caps from large null-groups will be forced to clear shipping lanes). But we already have a good amount of that in null. It adds more gate-camps ganking small corp transports (for a while at least). But it kills PVE, small group PvP, FW and industrial residents in low. I don't see that exchange being worth it.
This.
What would help traffic is actually making gate camps more difficult to do. Once you have safer travel in low sec, you will see more traffic in general, more people mining, more people doing low sec L4 missions, etc. It's one thing to lose your battleship because you ignored local and D-Scan. It's another to lose your battleship before you even get to use D-Scan.
I would never consider doing missions in low sec currently. Just getting my ship to a mission agent is too risky. But if transport were fairly safe, I would totally be fine with trying out low sec PVE. I would feel better about low sec PI and I don't mind but hell I'd do that too if I enjoyed mining. Unsafe gate travel is really the only blocker. |
|
Salvos Rhoska
2663
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 08:59:12 -
[741] - Quote
Orin Solett wrote: What would help traffic is actually making gate camps more difficult to do. Once you have safer travel in low sec, you will see more traffic in general, more people mining, more people doing low sec L4 missions, etc. It's one thing to lose your battleship because you ignored local and D-Scan. It's another to lose your battleship before you even get to use D-Scan.
I would never consider doing missions in low sec currently. Just getting my ship to a mission agent is too risky. But if transport were fairly safe, I would totally be fine with trying out low sec PVE. I would feel better about low sec PI and I don't mind but hell I'd do that too if I enjoyed mining. Unsafe gate travel is really the only blocker.
Hmm.
So how would that be implemented? Gategun buffs?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Mesacc
New Big Dog Mining
46
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 13:19:46 -
[742] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Orin Solett wrote: What would help traffic is actually making gate camps more difficult to do. Once you have safer travel in low sec, you will see more traffic in general, more people mining, more people doing low sec L4 missions, etc. It's one thing to lose your battleship because you ignored local and D-Scan. It's another to lose your battleship before you even get to use D-Scan.
I would never consider doing missions in low sec currently. Just getting my ship to a mission agent is too risky. But if transport were fairly safe, I would totally be fine with trying out low sec PVE. I would feel better about low sec PI and I don't mind but hell I'd do that too if I enjoyed mining. Unsafe gate travel is really the only blocker.
Hmm. So how would that be implemented? Gategun buffs?
First, I agree with Orin. Im a long time highsec mission runner and I would love to start venturing in to lowsec to run missions but im at a disadvantage the second I jump through the gate. Any experienced gate camp will have my mission running battleship instalocked, scrammed and webbed the split second I de-cloak and already in to my armor before I can even get a target lock. Im a sitting duck the second i appear. My suggestion is expand the spawn range. Why do the gates spawn us so close? because of old game mechanics. The grids used to be a lot smaller and it spawns us so close due to the old mechanics of warping in 15km away and having to fly to the gate. Well grids are very large now. Allow us to spawn 100km away or more. That would at least give us a chance to either get a target lock so we could fight back (which PvPers claim they want) or align and GTFO (at which point you could still scan us down and follow).
|
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
80
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 13:41:37 -
[743] - Quote
Mesacc wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Orin Solett wrote: What would help traffic is actually making gate camps more difficult to do. Once you have safer travel in low sec, you will see more traffic in general, more people mining, more people doing low sec L4 missions, etc. It's one thing to lose your battleship because you ignored local and D-Scan. It's another to lose your battleship before you even get to use D-Scan.
I would never consider doing missions in low sec currently. Just getting my ship to a mission agent is too risky. But if transport were fairly safe, I would totally be fine with trying out low sec PVE. I would feel better about low sec PI and I don't mind but hell I'd do that too if I enjoyed mining. Unsafe gate travel is really the only blocker.
Hmm. So how would that be implemented? Gategun buffs? First, I agree with Orin. Im a long time highsec mission runner and I would love to start venturing in to lowsec to run missions but im at a disadvantage the second I jump through the gate. Any experienced gate camp will have my mission running battleship instalocked, scrammed and webbed the split second I de-cloak and already in to my armor before I can even get a target lock. Im a sitting duck the second i appear. My suggestion is expand the spawn range. Why do the gates spawn us so close? because of old game mechanics. The grids used to be a lot smaller and it spawns us so close due to the old mechanics of warping in 15km away and having to fly to the gate. Well grids are very large now. Allow us to spawn 100km away or more. That would at least give us a chance to either get a target lock so we could fight back (which PvPers claim they want) or align and GTFO (at which point you could still scan us down and follow).
The problem with this is that it would eliminate the "warp back" solution when a gate in null is bubbled. Might be a worthwhile exchange... but that would be an impact.
Gate camps are the biggest barrier to entry for players to any part of space in eve. There is a reason you see more alphas and new omegas wandering through wormhole space than in null or low... and that's because it's rare (not impossible, but rare) to hit a WH "gate" camp. (hole camp?) I think I've ran into one in the time I've been wandering through wormholes (and I think they were staging to make a raid into the null-sec space on the other side of the wormhole, not specifically camping the wormhole).
As for buffing the gate guns... I'd say buff them and have them switch targets frequently. Have them focus fire on ships using warp scramblers or disruptors for example. Have them wipe out drones. Have THEM randomly web/neut/damp/ecm those they're firing on.
Make gate camping a situation where it generally only works with slower moving ships... you have a scout... he see's a ship with a nice cargo and charges in to web while everyone else warps to him. They have to kill it and get out quick before they get shredded by the gate defenses. Then they have to wait or log in a non-aggress timer alt to act as scout for the next attempt. Make it more interactive than just sit on gate and shoot all non-blues coming through.
|
Orin Solette
The Scope Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 16:34:59 -
[744] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Orin Solett wrote: What would help traffic is actually making gate camps more difficult to do. Once you have safer travel in low sec, you will see more traffic in general, more people mining, more people doing low sec L4 missions, etc. It's one thing to lose your battleship because you ignored local and D-Scan. It's another to lose your battleship before you even get to use D-Scan.
I would never consider doing missions in low sec currently. Just getting my ship to a mission agent is too risky. But if transport were fairly safe, I would totally be fine with trying out low sec PVE. I would feel better about low sec PI and I don't mind but hell I'd do that too if I enjoyed mining. Unsafe gate travel is really the only blocker.
Hmm. So how would that be implemented? Gategun buffs? Not quite sure really
Gate camping is a legitimate play style. Honestly, being able to scan the other side of a gate without having to log into an alt would do wonders. If I have the information that there are campers on the other side of a gate, I can play accordingly. And gate campers still would have access to any negligent travelers who didn't bother to check what the other side of a gate looks like.
The only downside I see is that it makes player-run intel channels less necessary, but I think they'll still be used just for alerting people about what's going on in a particular region/constellation that they're in.
Not sure if that would solve it, but it might be worth considering without having to go to such extremes as shooting campers in PVP space. |
Piugattuk
Lima beans Corp
578
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 16:48:46 -
[745] - Quote
What I like about low sec...the combat spawn sites, great income, making millions quickly is the biggest secret that low sec dwellers don't want known, all the lies upon lies of how it is not worth it, bull, been there and loved it, especially the upgraded NPC's make it fun and challenging, the problem with low sec is low sec dwellers who **** everything within, but hey they put in the risk so no hate just my opinion. |
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics Federation Uprising
765
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 17:00:43 -
[746] - Quote
Piugattuk wrote:What I like about low sec...the combat spawn sites, great income, making millions quickly is the biggest secret that low sec dwellers don't want known, all the lies upon lies of how it is not worth it, bull, been there and loved it, especially the upgraded NPC's make it fun and challenging, the problem with low sec is low sec dwellers who **** everything within, but hey they put in the risk so no hate just my opinion.
dude come on why do you have to say that...
why make that stupid Salvos cry about lowsec even more?
Just Add Water
|
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
80
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 18:03:23 -
[747] - Quote
Orin Solette wrote:Not quite sure really Gate camping is a legitimate play style. Honestly, being able to scan the other side of a gate without having to log into an alt would do wonders. If I have the information that there are campers on the other side of a gate, I can play accordingly. And gate campers still would have access to any negligent travelers who didn't bother to check what the other side of a gate looks like. The only downside I see is that it makes player-run intel channels less necessary, but I think they'll still be used just for alerting people about what's going on in a particular region/constellation that they're in. Not sure if that would solve it, but it might be worth considering without having to go to such extremes as shooting campers in PVP space.
Hmm. I kind of like that. some way of being able to peak through a gate and see who's on grid |
Sivar Ahishatsu
science and trade institute Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2017.04.13 05:04:41 -
[748] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote: 1. You say this but please explain how making highsec bigger would make players less bored, that doesnt make sense, they will just get the same bored but in a bigger area.
It is not about making High Sec bigger, that is just a side-effect, it is about expanding available content to players. Players will have access to more resources and PVE missions or complexes and exploration and resulting industry and trade etc.
If we think that there will be much space, then make empire space smaller turn a bunch of systems to nullsec let the Conquest begin!!
Quote:2. it might push some of them but then some of them will just quite because the majority of people in lowsec do not like nullsec and you cant force that on people, its like me saying kick everyone out of highsec after 3 months because highsec is for new players not older players. im sure you bears wouldn't like that happening.
Actually I love this point. Because low sec people demand that high sec people "bears" (even call them in diminutive ways), adhere to the "established order"...their order..while when put in the same situation where now you have to adhere to nulsec order you don't like it. And you think of quiting.
Well, you just proved that High sec players quit the game because of the current setup. Because they think like you too, they dont like to play by your rules..just like you dont like to play by nulsec rules.
And I am glad you made this point because now we are getting somewhere!
Quote:3. Wrong again, pirates dont care because we all have alts to do stuff in highsec, we take pride in our -10.0 status.
Again, all about you. How about other players not like you? Why don't they have the right to have fun too according to their vision?
Quote:4. really? new players come in and out of lowsec everyday, not everyone is scared, if you are too scrared to jump into lowsec then you probably wont last long in eve regardless
Yes new players come in low sec every day...they die in low sec every day too. I mean did you see many new players come in and just go about their day exploring in low sec, or mine some asteroids or some ice maybe?
The moment they jump in they are observed and scanned down and located and eliminated..because..."its fun".. LOL.
of course I go to low sec, but every time I do it is a battle, every time. And when I was newbie a battle to my expense..So I refuse to be your toy..so you can have "your fun"..I am here to have fun too. This is not only your game.
And there is nothing to be scared about, what should I be scared about? Losing my ship? Are you serious? ISK plentiful now days just have to buy some Plex and sell it and boom billions.
What I do not want to lose..is my time..entertaining you. Has nothing to do with being scared I actually like PvP..but I am not a criminal or a scoundrel..a PK..., I do not attack weaker players. I attack the gankers, in self defense or in defense of weaker players. Also I am acooperative player I like to build and share with others, not to deprive and destroy. That is my style of play.
The point is that nulsec is useless to my style of play, just takes up space and limits many new players fun.
Having said this, I would tend to respect your choice of fun as a player. I may not approve of you in game, consider you a criminal, but as a fellow player we stand in equality, and in reality you might be a cool person too. And I am not here to try and change your fun.
But I want you to realise reciprocity in that statement. Don't try to change my fun either.
Therefore, a more sensible solution here could be to leave low sec as is, so you can have fun, and in turn enhance high sec with a better overall experience (Pve , minerals explorations missions etc) to par levels as low sec. That way you can have fun there and I can have equal fun here.
And sometimes I may even pay you a visit for some real PvP in low sec :) |
Tetsel
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
314
|
Posted - 2017.04.13 12:40:22 -
[749] - Quote
Improvement for LS:
1- Remove gategun on Oso gate in Amamake 2- Remove this tag4sec non-sense 3- Give "CONCORD like" bonus to all pirate ship, the lower the SS the better the bonus. 4- More Police SKIN, Megathron/Kronos are **** ship for patroling. 5- Double bounty output payment when killed pilot security status is below -5 6- Include piracy into FW, a pirate corp/ally (average ss below -5) can deny "sov" for all faction.
Loyal servent to Mother Amamake.
@EVE_Tetsel
Another Bittervet Please Ignore
|
Matthias Ancaladron
Wrath of Angels Solitaire.
271
|
Posted - 2017.04.14 13:25:19 -
[750] - Quote
Remove low sec and make it soverign high sec. Empire is npc high, some of current low sec would go over to high, and the rest to be for high sec newer corps with limits on how much ground can be held.
High sec becomes 1.0 to 0.1 and concord responses are rebalanced around it. Since under .5 would have longer response times and allow for small corps to hold a few systems it could be a nice turbulent system to help small corps learn how to fight wars and make alliances. Anyone who owns sov null sec is excluded from being elligble to hold high sec. Drops and such stay the same.
NPCs and drops and ore remains the same and players feel free-er to migrate out to the fringes of highsec and closer to null. Rebalance ded sites and combat anoms so you get 4-10 in null and 1-6 in high sec but 6 is rare for high sec.
Right now it only feels like low sec is a barrier to prevent people from being able to go between high and null IMO. Never bothered with low. |
|
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
88
|
Posted - 2017.04.14 13:33:33 -
[751] - Quote
Matthias Ancaladron wrote:Remove low sec and make it soverign high sec. Empire is npc high, some of current low sec would go over to high, and the rest to be for high sec newer corps with limits on how much ground can be held.
High sec becomes 1.0 to 0.1 and concord responses are rebalanced around it. Since under .5 would have longer response times and allow for small corps to hold a few systems it could be a nice turbulent system to help small corps learn how to fight wars and make alliances. Anyone who owns sov null sec is excluded from being elligble to hold high sec. Drops and such stay the same.
NPCs and drops and ore remains the same and players feel free-er to migrate out to the fringes of highsec and closer to null. Rebalance ded sites and combat anoms so you get 4-10 in null and 1-6 in high sec but 6 is rare for high sec.
Right now it only feels like low sec is a barrier to prevent people from being able to go between high and null IMO. Never bothered with low.
I disagree.
Having concord present in FW space eliminates fights. About half of the fights I get are with non-faction aligned pirates who are just looking for combat. I don't support eliminating that mechanic.
Sov in high-sec makes little sense to me either. What exactly would that mean (beside bragging rights)? How would you defend against a fleet looking to take your space if they are mobilizing in your system and you can't do anything because your war-dec hasn't gone through yet and you'll get concorded if you try to attack them as they stage their fleet on your doorstep? The combination of "high security" with "fighting for territory" just doesn't seem to make sense to me.
If it's policed by someone else (concord) I'm not sure how you could hold sov. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 26 :: [one page] |