EVE Search - What if they nerfed gate-camps?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

What if they nerfed gate-camps?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Righteous Deeds	Posted - 2007.10.22 00:15:00 - [1] So CCP regularly nerfs ships and modules to tune game mechanics. What if they essentially nerfed a tactic? Here I am, the Concord shirt in charge of system security. I figure, if I introduce a random error into the jump-gates, such that travelers de-cloak 1000km in a random direction from the normal warp-in point, I achieve a lot of interesting things. I make the lazy variety of pirates work harder for their money then the current sit-on-yer-butt-and-smartbomb method. I make low-sec a little safer which disperses the galactic populace out a little, perhaps decreasing individual system loading/lag. I create a new, but not insurmountable problem for fleet ops. I also cut down on the hi-sec ganking and improve security there as well. Add an option to "warp within 200km" and now I've really made things interesting. None of this would put the gankers/pirates out of business, but it would make them work/think for it. Lowsec would still be lowsec, it just wouldn't be a free-for-all. Just might also have the effect of alleviating some of the hi-sec lag issues. Discuss...
Kessiaan	Posted - 2007.10.22 00:16:00 - [2] Didn't warp-to-zero already do a good job of neutering gate camps? ----- My in Eve Profile
Righteous Deeds	Posted - 2007.10.22 00:20:00 - [3] Edited by: Righteous Deeds on 22/10/2007 00:20:48 The warp to 0 helped, but not enough, IMO. Still a lot of folks cashing in via gate-camps. Little bit of system-lag also helps them out. All to often, ships are destroyed before the traveler's controls even start to function again post-warp.
Shakuul Caldari O RLY corp YTMND.	Posted - 2007.10.22 00:21:00 - [4] They did. They nerfed nanos.
Blight1 Caldari Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.22 00:23:00 - [5] sounds like just another carebear crying to me.
Drizit Amarr Lonely out here Division of Eden	Posted - 2007.10.22 00:52:00 - [6] Edited by: Drizit on 22/10/2007 00:52:52 double post --
Drizit Amarr Lonely out here Division of Eden	Posted - 2007.10.22 00:52:00 - [7] Originally by: Shakuul They did. They nerfed nanos. This only really nerfed getting past gate camps. Now, only the most agile ships can hope to get into warp before getting ganked. Transports, although heavily armored, can stil be scrammed and webbed while the camp make piecemeal of them. The nano allowed a transport to hit upwards of 2K/s which meant a good speed even webbed. 200m/s is not fast with a MWD but gives a reasonable margin for survival when a gate camp is shooting at you and you are trying to get back to the gate. 10m/s or lower is certain death. Anything larger than a frigate is not agile enough now to avoid getting caught. At least nano's enabled players to fit for agility and attempt an escape. Going from highsec to lowsec often means using a frigate to get past gate camps but with few ships being sold in lowsec, there's not much you can do once you're there. Nano's also enabled barges to have some level of agility for ninja miners to avoid the gank. Now a barge in lowsec is just plain suicide unless you run every time someone enters local. You won't get much mining done that way. Therefore the OP is correct, the rewards from lowsec do not justify the high risk. --
Tractormech Caldari Fortune's Fools	Posted - 2007.10.22 00:55:00 - [8] So if you make gatecamps worse, how exactly is one supposed to get their hands on any targets? Ask nicely??? You say pirates need to work harder for targets. Well I guess they could try asking the person in the station to undock and present themselves in new and exciting ways, but I don't really see any other way than that.
citizen amarr33sd3g4	Posted - 2007.10.22 00:56:00 - [9] Allow warp to zero to prevent any player from getting to 0 even if they have a bookmark there and add this change. Now the game is exciting.
Adunh Slavy Ammatar Trade Syndicate	Posted - 2007.10.22 01:12:00 - [10] Originally by: Tractormech So if you make gatecamps worse, how exactly is one supposed to get their hands on any targets? Ask nicely??? If getting into low sec were less risky, then more people would go there. Anyone who goes to low sec, except noobs, knows it a dangerous place, but no one likes to not have a snow ball's chance in hades once they step through the door. That's the problem with low sec, not that it is a shooty shoot place, but that there's no reasonable counter to a gate camp. I'm sure I will hear all the old canards, "get a gang, use escorts, use the map" blah blah blah. None of these options are convenient. Convenient!? Bah, it's eve, it's supposed to be hard! Well yes it is, it should be hard for the gate campers too, but it isn't. Gate camping is too easy. If some lamer is only after kill mails, tough. Go play wow or something. If someone wants the thrill of the chase, then get off the gate and go hunt. As a succesful low sec carebear, I enjoy being chased around and turning the tables when the oppertunity comes, but to get blown up by lazy gate campers is boring and an annoyance. Real pirates should embrace anything that will encourage more players to be out in the belts and flying around low sec, lazy gate campers will whine. -AS
Corwain Gallente Down In Flames	Posted - 2007.10.22 01:20:00 - [11] Originally by: Adunh Slavy Only noobs, think losec is a dangerous place Fixed -- A Solo Arbitrator vid, Distortion by Corwain
Adunh Slavy Ammatar Trade Syndicate	Posted - 2007.10.22 01:33:00 - [12] Originally by: Corwain Originally by: Adunh Slavy Only noobs, think losec is a dangerous place Fixed Hey thanks -AS
Kessiaan	Posted - 2007.10.22 01:33:00 - [13] Originally by: Drizit This only really nerfed getting past gate camps. Now, only the most agile ships can hope to get into warp before getting ganked. Transports, although heavily armored, can stil be scrammed and webbed while the camp make piecemeal of them. The nano allowed a transport to hit upwards of 2K/s which meant a good speed even webbed. 200m/s is not fast with a MWD but gives a reasonable margin for survival when a gate camp is shooting at you and you are trying to get back to the gate. 10m/s or lower is certain death. Anything larger than a frigate is not agile enough now to avoid getting caught. At least nano's enabled players to fit for agility and attempt an escape. Here's what works for me when moving an indy through lowsec... 1) Check the starmap/scout to make sure there's no camp or it's a camp you can deal with. 2) Load up WCS in your lows, shield extenders / invuln fields in your mids (even on my non-indy ships I'll usually load them up with WCS for travel) 3) If there's a camp, click the button to go full speed, then immediately click the Prototype Cloaking Device. You'll appear for a split second then go back into cloak. 4) While cloaked, align for warp. If for some strange reason you jumped into a camp that can more scram points on you than you can deal with, go read a novel while you slowboat away from the gate. 5) Drop cloak, active invuln fields, get up to speed, warp out 6) Talk some smack on the way to the next gate. ----- My in Eve Profile
Nick119 Minmatar The Rubber Duckies	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:30:00 - [14] if they killed gate camps i would be so happy or atleast make sentry guns hurt battleships more ___________________________________________________ I kill jita whine threads!!!!
Mr John22ta Galactic Terran Command	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:43:00 - [15] If you want warp in at 200k so badly go do what we did in the old days and make bookmarks. You have the option of 100km which is enough. I don't remember smartbombs reaching 100km. There are far worse lag issues CCP needs to be working on.
Elaina Marie	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:47:00 - [16] Originally by: Righteous Deeds So CCP regularly nerfs ships and modules to tune game mechanics. What if they essentially nerfed a tactic? Here I am, the Concord shirt in charge of system security. I figure, if I introduce a random error into the jump-gates, such that travelers de-cloak 1000km in a random direction from the normal warp-in point, I achieve a lot of interesting things. I make the lazy variety of pirates work harder for their money then the current sit-on-yer-butt-and-smartbomb method. I make low-sec a little safer which disperses the galactic populace out a little, perhaps decreasing individual system loading/lag. I create a new, but not insurmountable problem for fleet ops. I also cut down on the hi-sec ganking and improve security there as well. Add an option to "warp within 200km" and now I've really made things interesting. None of this would put the gankers/pirates out of business, but it would make them work/think for it. Lowsec would still be lowsec, it just wouldn't be a free-for-all. Just might also have the effect of alleviating some of the hi-sec lag issues. Discuss... Nothing nerfs a gate camp like a proper scout. Jumping into a system blind with good loot is asking to be killed.
Rudy Metallo Brutor tribe	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:48:00 - [17] Yay, nerf lowsec more! -- We are the revolutionaries. We are the usurpers of the heavenly throne. We are the enemies of the Gods.
Corbin Vega	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:59:00 - [18] All then need to do is increase Sentry Gun Dmg so ppl can't just sit there and tank them. Effectively making a gate camp a suicide gate camp so that they better make sure the target is worth getting killed for. Hell, even have Sentry stasis / scramblers too. Same old story with low sec with regards to risk vs reward as it's just not worth it for most. If they gave ppl a place to warp to with relative safety, aka the sentry guns i think you would see a lot more ppl out there...and yes that means more targets for pirates / gankers. Seriously, whats the point of having sentry guns if ships can just sit there tanking them all day long...
Azirapheal Amarr The Bastards	Posted - 2007.10.22 03:26:00 - [19] Originally by: Corbin Vega All then need to do is increase Sentry Gun Dmg so ppl can't just sit there and tank them. Effectively making a gate camp a suicide gate camp so that they better make sure the target is worth getting killed for. Hell, even have Sentry stasis / scramblers too. Same old story with low sec with regards to risk vs reward as it's just not worth it for most. If they gave ppl a place to warp to with relative safety, aka the sentry guns i think you would see a lot more ppl out there...and yes that means more targets for pirates / gankers. Seriously, whats the point of having sentry guns if ships can just sit there tanking them all day long... this would be fine if people couldnt then instadock at a station.... or insta jump to next system i used to enjoy chasing people down at stations and on the way to a gate, made hunting more fun, and since people could speed or w/e there was more of a challenge. if anything WTZ and co has encouraged laziness do away with non safespot bookmarks do away with warp to 0 or allow me to put a disrupt sphere in losec.
Steppa Gallente Incognito Inc	Posted - 2007.10.22 03:44:00 - [20] On exit gates, have a grid-loading warp in to the gate you're trying to get to. One, that lets you load up all the things in that grid and two, probably pulls you out of line of the warp bubble.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2007.10.22 03:45:00 - [21] Ok so first we didnt have sentry guns. CAREBEARS WHINED So we get sentry guns. But they had 50km range CAREBEARS WHINED So they increased the range. But they could be popped and respawned slowly CAREBEARS WHINED So they became unkillable. But they could be easeily tanked CAREBEARS WHINED So its now difficult to tank for sustained period for any lenght of time - impossible in the best tacklers (frigates) CAREBEARS WHINED So Aggro timers were brought in so people were aggrod for 15 mins. But ships could still be caught if they warped to 15 CAREBEARS WHINED So the introduced warp to zero. But ships were still getting killed CAREBEARS WHINED so ship got a HP boost and many got agility boosts so it is very difficult to tackle tranpsort ships .... I think we are about here right now. And oh look -- the OP is whining. SKUNK (apologies for slight chronological order errors)
Arenis Xemdal Amarr	Posted - 2007.10.22 03:51:00 - [22] If gatecamps were the tactical equivalent of throwing spitballs at your enemy, people would still post 'nerf gatecamps' threads onto these forums. I think the fact that gatecamp whine threads are seen every few weeks instead of hours means CCP probably overdid it with WTZ. It is literally impossible to die in empire if you know what you're doing. 0.0 takes more effort, but I've been ganked maybe three times in four years when travelling (not pvping). All three times was when I chose not to use an instajump for some strange reason.
Sheriff Jones Amarr Please Enter Password	Posted - 2007.10.22 03:56:00 - [23] Le Skunk, the other part of the population ain't that different. Don't judge all by the whines. Luckily for people, the Carebears with Claws initiative that started a while back, has been working rather well. These days, if there's a gatecamp, it doesn't take long for the bears to growl and show up in their big hugging machines and disperse such criminal activity. And that's the solution to gatecamps. Pirates set up naughty stuff, the people who don't like that, tear it down My opinions represent the opinions of my corporation completely. I'm the CEO damnit.
SirMoric	Posted - 2007.10.22 04:25:00 - [24] If they nerf gatecamps you'd have a hole lot of whining on the boards..... actually, you'll just have to suggest it. They could nerf gatecamps, which in my opinion is the dumbest feature of the game, but then you'd need to invent other ways for pirates to operate. A way of dragging ships out of warp BETWEEN gates would be perfect, maybe a small bubble that could be deployed by interdictors. If places directely between gates it'll automatically drag ships out of warp at that specified location and thereby make them attackable <-- that's probably not even a real word. This could be one solution to keep people away from the gates. Now you can enter and leave a system safely, but'll have to navigate your way through the system using planets, asteroidbelts and so forth. And who knows where the pirates are? Did they even bother setting up a bubble? Are they massing in belts waiting for people to use them as waypoints? But that solution would require some determination from the pirate.... I doubt that would be appreciated by gatecampers though.... so much whining. rgds
revilot	Posted - 2007.10.22 05:19:00 - [25] Edited by: revilot on 22/10/2007 05:21:56 Originally by: Righteous Deeds So CCP regularly nerfs ships and modules to tune game mechanics. What if they essentially nerfed a tactic? Here I am, the Concord shirt in charge of system security. I figure, if I introduce a random error into the jump-gates, such that travelers de-cloak 1000km in a random direction from the normal warp-in point, I achieve a lot of interesting things. I make the lazy variety of pirates work harder for their money then the current sit-on-yer-butt-and-smartbomb method. I make low-sec a little safer which disperses the galactic populace out a little, perhaps decreasing individual system loading/lag. I create a new, but not insurmountable problem for fleet ops. I also cut down on the hi-sec ganking and improve security there as well. Add an option to "warp within 200km" and now I've really made things interesting. None of this would put the gankers/pirates out of business, but it would make them work/think for it. Lowsec would still be lowsec, it just wouldn't be a free-for-all. Just might also have the effect of alleviating some of the hi-sec lag issues. Discuss... I love reading carebears talk about piracy / gatecamps like they have the first clue about what is actually involved. There are a multitude of ways to avoid a gatecamp, but that's not good enough for you. You criticize pirates for being "lazy" but it sounds to me like you want CCP to change the game so YOU can be lazy and ap through lowsec with little to no risk. Your suggestions are completely unnecessary tbh. Why don't you just skip the middle man of actually having to travel and ask CCP to just move your ship and goods to your destination for you. And this random error you speak of...you'll still lose ships, which is what you're whining about right? Then you'd whine about how the randomness isn't random enough for you. Your seemingly small whine would snowball into a whine of epic proportions that knows no bounds. How about you save us all from that and just stop being lazy. You should have to work for your ISK just as hard as us pirates do.
Jenny Spitfire Caldari	Posted - 2007.10.22 05:44:00 - [26] I know if gate camps were totally removed in low secs, I would visit them more often. :) My 0.01 ISK. --------- Technica impendi Caldari generis. Pax Caldaria! Kali is for KArebearLIng. I 100% agree with Avon. Female EVE gamers? Mail Zajo or visit WGOE.Public in-game.
Plutonian Plutonian Shore	Posted - 2007.10.22 06:17:00 - [27] Originally by: Le Skunk Ok so first we didnt have sentry guns. CAREBEARS WHINED So we get sentry guns. But they had 50km range CAREBEARS WHINED So they increased the range. But they could be popped and respawned slowly CAREBEARS WHINED So they became unkillable. But they could be easeily tanked CAREBEARS WHINED So its now difficult to tank for sustained period for any lenght of time - impossible in the best tacklers (frigates) CAREBEARS WHINED So Aggro timers were brought in so people were aggrod for 15 mins. But ships could still be caught if they warped to 15 CAREBEARS WHINED So the introduced warp to zero. But ships were still getting killed CAREBEARS WHINED so ship got a HP boost and many got agility boosts so it is very difficult to tackle tranpsort ships .... I think we are about here right now. And oh look -- the OP is whining. SKUNK (apologies for slight chronological order errors) ^^^ This. For god sake... why don't we just remove weapons from the game alltogether, eh? It can be a game where people just fly around and mine and buy more stuff. That way no one ever loses a ship. Wonder if the OP thought how his suggestion would alter defending territory in 0.0.
Righteous Deeds	Posted - 2007.10.22 06:17:00 - [28] Too funny. So suggesting making gatecamps difficult is whining, but crying about losing some easy targets is not? What will you do if you can't easily blow up more unarmed ships??? The game will be just trashed! Actually, as I said and as a few comprehended, I'm more interested in the impact on whole game. I can live without lowsec just fine, though I could make a little more going through it weren't such a free-for-all. But it would be interesting to see what would develop if lowsec was a better risk for more than a bunch of smack-talking tough guys and couriers in fast-aligning ships. (No offense to those many pro-pirates that can actually hunt-n-kill.) The flip side is obviously that there wouldn't be much point to lowsec if pirates couldn't make a good living. Lowsec needs to be high-risk for the solo pilot, just not stupid risk. Hell, the smart pirates would probably get richer as they'd lose a lot of competition/interfence from those who can't do much but smart-bomb a gate all day. Filling the systems with more potential targets is a good point as well. CCP has a problem with lag in densely populated systems. Make it more profitable to risk using the agents in lowsec and they'd spread the population out a little. More targets/wealth in lowsec, less lag in highsec. Seems like a win/win for everyone but those worried about ridiculously easy ganks.
Righteous Deeds	Posted - 2007.10.22 06:26:00 - [29] Originally by: Plutonian For god sake... why don't we just remove weapons from the game alltogether, eh? It can be a game where people just fly around and mine and buy more stuff. That way no one ever loses a ship. Wonder if the OP thought how his suggestion would alter defending territory in 0.0. Oh stop sobbing and offer a comment on the game mechanics. How do YOU think it would alter 0,0? More difficult to defend a wide area, or offset by the need to coordinate the offensive fleet's assembly after the jump? Or maybe the Gods of gaming would actually allow gates to work differently in different areas of space based on who controlled them! You can't roll your eyes unless you're thinking it through yourself.
Plutonian Plutonian Shore	Posted - 2007.10.22 06:34:00 - [30] Your suggestions seem unbalanced. The changes you suggest make it more difficult for pirates to engage targets, but it makes low-sec safer for non-pirates. I'm not a pirate. I'm neither pro- or anti- pirate. But you know that little tingle you get when you enter low-sec? That sharpening of the senses when you're planning a route and see that huge orange globe on the map dead in the middle of your route? That's because low-sec is dangerous. As it should be. Without the risk of failure, nothing is worth a damn. All the riches of low-sec and 0.0 sitting in your hangar, alongside every ship type and module in the game, mean nothing if there was no risk in taking them. Easier? Safer? Screw that... That's what Hello Kitty Online is for. Give me a harder, colder, uncaring Eve anytime. Give me a challenge.

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.