| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kahega Amielden
   |
Posted - 2008.01.10 04:07:00 -
[1]
Alright. There are a number of agreed-upon issues with lowsec. The general consensus is that you might as well go to 0.0, because often times in lowsec you run into giant ganksquads with massive raepships that can one-shot anything that comes through.
There are other issues of course, but I think the following change to sentry guns would help lowsec gatecamps, while still keeping them possible.
Firstly, buff their damage-a lot. It should be really, really, really, really, really, really hard for even large ships to tank damage. Reduce their ability to hit ships with low signature radii.
What's this mean? Gatecamps are still possible. Pirates rejoice. However, it would be much more feasible to do it in smaller, faster ships (like a gang of frigates or assault ships or something) rather than a giant rapesquad that can instakill anything that comes through.
Gatecamps would be possible and definitely a danger, but it would change the way they are carried out for the better (Give people a chance to get through, without making gatecamps useless)
Another idea would be to simply change the target priorities for them. I believe gatecamps use small ships to lock down their prey so the big ships can raep them. You could simply make the sentry guns target smaller ships first, although I don't like this as much as my above suggestion.
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
Paulo Damarr
|
Posted - 2008.01.10 04:14:00 -
[2]
Low sec doesn't need nerfing, it needs something doing to make it more attractive but nerfing it is unfair a lot of players like to live in low sec and stay out of the 0.0 goings on. People asking for certain play styles to be nerfed just isn't right.
I agree gate campings crap for both sides of the fence but there are only 3 real areas for pvp, stations, belts and gates so to take one away could very well break a already limited set of mechanics.
-----------------------------------------------
My new years resolution is to give up nonconstructive posting |
mechtech
Silver Snake Enterprise
|
Posted - 2008.01.10 04:14:00 -
[3]
I don't think they really need a buff. Pirates have it hard already, the profession is harden that it used to be.
If pirates want to bring 20 ships to camp a gate, it should be hard to defeat them. You could bring friends to bust the camp, bring a fast ship to run the camp, use scouts, and of course check the map for kills in the last hour.
I think the idea of a small ship gatecamp kind of strange, it makes much more sense to me to have sniper ships and tank ships to absorb the damage. We have enough nano gangs in 0.0.
Adding warp scramming batteries to the gates isn't a bad idea though, if they camp the gate, they should be prepared to defend it rather than just be aligned to warp out.
|
Kahega Amielden
|
Posted - 2008.01.10 04:17:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Kahega Amielden on 10/01/2008 04:19:35
Edited by: Kahega Amielden on 10/01/2008 04:18:51
As stated before, you'd have to make lowsec more profitable than 0.0 for that.
Just because they like to "live" in lowsec doesn't mean they should own it. Living in lowsec would still be possible. My suggestion would just give their prey a bit more of a chance.
There need to be other reasons to go to lowsec other than fighting other players. It should be possible for someone to go into lowsec and mine without having their ship assraped the second they step in.
There are only positives to nerfing piracy. Pirates would have a harder time catching a smart target (as they would actually HAVE A CHANCE), and this would in turn lead to more people coming in from Hisec. This means less no-challenge ganks and pirates have a much easier time finding targets.
In fact, when you factor in the additional players in lowsec due to the fact that they would actually STAND A CHANCE, it's actually a buff to piracy, as it would be much easier to find targets
MechTech, the problem with that is that is you're assuming that getting by them means you should have to defeat them. Most don't want to DEFEAT them-just evade them. Are you honestly suggesting that when you go into lowsec, if you get unlucky and run into a giant gang of wtfpwnmobiles, you should be ****** just because you didn't bring an army? No. It should be possible to evade them. Believe it or not, not everyone is able to bring a fleet of 20 people with them whenever they go into lowsec to stop themselves from being instaraped by pirates.
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
Paulo Damarr
|
Posted - 2008.01.10 04:25:00 -
[5]
Boosting the gate sentry's would effectively neutralize any chance of piracy at low sec gates leaving just belts and stations for pvp, Belts are already deserted except for the occasional ratter 40km from the warp in and aligned and if the belts where full of hungry pirates you wouldn't even get those and station humping games are even worse than gate camps.
Your "fix" would just nerf a play style and provide no solution but creates new problems.
-----------------------------------------------
My new years resolution is to give up nonconstructive posting |
Dirk Magnum
Spearhead Endeavors
|
Posted - 2008.01.10 04:26:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 10/01/2008 04:29:00
Low Sec needs boosting, not nerfing. It needs random battleship spawns in addition to routine destroyer/cruiser/battlecruiser spawns to get more people out there to rat. It needs random smatterings of rare ore to get more miners out there. It needs to have gate sentry guns REMOVED from 0.3 and below. Or 0.4 and below if CCP feels feisty. Stargates should be staffed by less competent people, possibly with criminal backgrounds, who do less to ensure ships get a good warp lock on the gate.... and as a result warp in + or - one to five km or so from the actual distance they intended to.
Rawr
|
Wu Jiun
|
Posted - 2008.01.10 04:29:00 -
[7]
Your premise that a smart player cannot evade gatecamps is wrong. Just use a scout. Thats 2 people not 20 and you are fine. Half of the camps can be evaded by just so much as looking at the map.
Then again 90% of the other half of camps is done by newer or lazy pirates who won't catch a travel fitted ship or won't be able to kill it before it makes a reapproach.
Your whole "assrape" attitude actually makes you look like someone who doesn't know much about lowsec at all. Thousands of smart players (non-pirates too) live there and die very rarely. Probably you jumped into lowsec once or twice totally
unprepared, without good knowledge of game mechanics, unscouted and non travel fitted and subsequently got killed.
Every player who knows a bit about lowsec and has actually lived there for longer than 2 days can tell you its not as dangerous as people (like you) make it out to be.
|
techzer0
IDLE GUNS
|
Posted - 2008.01.10 04:31:00 -
[8]
Solution... low-sec is safer for you if you don't go there.
I'm stuck there, and I feel perfectly safe 
------------
 Originally by: Praxis1452
you win eve
|
Kahega Amielden
|
Posted - 2008.01.10 04:39:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Kahega Amielden on 10/01/2008 04:40:12
Quote:
Low Sec needs boosting, not nerfing. It needs random battleship spawns in addition to routine destroyer/cruiser/battlecruiser spawns to get more people out there to rat. It needs random smatterings of rare ore to get more miners out there. It needs to have gate sentry guns REMOVED from 0.3 and below. Or 0.4 and below if CCP feels feisty. Stargates should be staffed by less competent people, possibly with criminal backgrounds, who do less to ensure ships get a good warp lock on the gate.... and as a result warp in + or - one to five km or so from the actual distance they intended to.
Which means that
a) New players will be boned, making it much harder to introduce them to the lowsec/nosec playstyle, and
b) Wouldn't change the fact that you get assraped whenever you go in.
Quote:
Your premise that a smart player cannot evade gatecamps is wrong. Just use a scout. Thats 2 people not 20 and you are fine. Half of the camps can be evaded by just so much as looking at the map.
Then again 90% of the other half of camps is done by newer or lazy pirates who won't catch a travel fitted ship or won't be able to kill it before it makes a reapproach.
Your whole "assrape" attitude actually makes you look like someone who doesn't know much about lowsec at all. Thousands of smart players (non-pirates too) live there and die very rarely. Probably you jumped into lowsec once or twice totally
unprepared, without good knowledge of game mechanics, unscouted and non travel fitted and subsequently got killed.
Every player who knows a bit about lowsec and has actually lived there for longer than 2 days can tell you its not as dangerous as people (like you) make it out to be.
Firstly, you shouldn't even need two people (and one person shouldn't have to risk their ship anyway) just to have a chance at not getting annihilated
Again, the main issue is gatecamps. If you jump into one (which is very easy since you don't know until you're in it) you're ****** unless you're in a fast ship.
This is the main problem with lowsec, in my opinion. Most other issues can be solved by simply moving away from the warp in point (whether you're missioning, ratting, or mining) and GTFOing if a ganksquad comes for you. You can't evade a gatecamp, though, unless you're in a frigate or something.
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
Paulo Damarr
|
Posted - 2008.01.10 04:47:00 -
[10]
You dont need someone else you can grab a shuttle and take a peep or there is my personal favorite skulk cloaked near the gate and wait for some other poor bugger to come along and jump through so if there is a camp they will be to busy killing/looting wrecks/chasing so you can whizz through.
with some Nav skills a cruiser with i stabs and nanos warps fast enough.
-----------------------------------------------
My new years resolution is to give up nonconstructive posting |
Dirk Magnum
Spearhead Endeavors
|
Posted - 2008.01.10 05:41:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 10/01/2008 05:42:23
Originally by: Kahega Amielden
Edited by: Kahega Amielden on 10/01/2008 04:40:12
Quote:
Low Sec needs boosting, not nerfing. It needs random battleship spawns in addition to routine destroyer/cruiser/battlecruiser spawns to get more people out there to rat. It needs random smatterings of rare ore to get more miners out there. It needs to have gate sentry guns REMOVED from 0.3 and below. Or 0.4 and below if CCP feels feisty. Stargates should be staffed by less competent people, possibly with criminal backgrounds, who do less to ensure ships get a good warp lock on the gate.... and as a result warp in + or - one to five km or so from the actual distance they intended to.
Which means that
a) New players will be boned, making it much harder to introduce them to the lowsec/nosec playstyle, and
b) Wouldn't change the fact that you get assraped whenever you go in.
The first point is only true to a certain extent. Low Sec rats already get harder as the sec level gets lower. Two week old players in properly fit ships can handle most 0.4 spawns. I'm just saying that there should be random rat spawns that are unusually difficult in the normal context of that sec level. These would of course also be worth more isk, and be a draw to more players to enter Low Sec, where complaints abound that there are too few people (due to low risk/reward.)
The second point is spurious at best, because a system, ANY system, is only as dangerous as a player makes it. If people go in and are careless then they get killed. I have NEVER been killed at a gate in Low Sec since the Warp To -> 15km days. Sometimes I've been slow on the switch and got scrammed and killed in belts, but I could have avoided that by staying aligned for warp out when I noticed potential pirates entering local.
|
Kahega Amielden
|
Posted - 2008.01.10 05:43:00 -
[12]
I do admit I am exaggerating the danger of gatecamps maybe a bit (I was discounting use of starmap filters and "Travel fits"). However, I still think the way gatecamps work is a bit flawed
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Minmatar
mUfFiN fAcToRy
Sex Panthers
|
Posted - 2008.01.10 05:45:00 -
[13]
Bunch of people sit on the gate... what's flawed? It's where all the cool people hang out 
Originally by: Tarminic
Okay, that's it. You are on the KOS list, and you better pray that I don't have access to a locater agent.
|
Xaziar Nortocus
Knights of the Burger King
YTMND.
|
Posted - 2008.01.10 06:17:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny
Bunch of people sit on the gate... what's flawed? It's where all the cool people hang out
Especially with warp bubbles... oh wait....talking about lowsec....not 0.0
I fail
Originally by: Ursula LeGuinn
In other news, water still wet. Film at 11.
|
Thornat
|
Posted - 2008.01.10 06:51:00 -
[15]
Well i don't dispute the fact that Low Sec at this point for anyone but a pirate is completetly and utterly a waste of time. There is absolutly no reason whatesover to go there except if you are actually looking for ganksquads to get in a fight with.
Assuming this is a fact, something most definitly needs to be done about low sec. I'm not a pirate, although I would probobly be considered as such on occassion. One thing I do know about piracy is that its use as a way to make money is completetly non-existant. I mean you might get lucky now and again and turn a profit, but considering how much effort, planning, waiting and luck it takes to make a successful kill and considering the extremly limited chance of a good drop compared to the risks involved piracy is about the equivilant twenty prostitutes trying to get work at church.
I'm not really sure what the solution should be, but I do know what won't work, things often suggested on this forum. Doing things like trying to draw people out into Low Sec by moving agents, asteroid belts or anything else of the sort will simply not work. The bottom line is that people generaly avoid unfavorable PvP situations, wether your a carebear or a hardned PvP corp and thats all low sec is at this point, a very unfaovorable PvP situation. Going into Low Sec for any extended period of time to do anything increases your chances of getting owned 3 to 1 by 1000%.
Mission Running is completetly out, since mission areas can so easily be probed out trying to do missions in low sec is like a white guy in gang gear talking smack in compton... U WILL GET SHOT..
Mining. Even worse, I mean you don't even have to be probed out, you may as ware a sign that says 'FREE KILL and ORE'
PvP.. Yes sure you can PvP but bring friends, because your odds of getting gang owned is 100% more likely then in 0.0
Production/Manufacruting/Trading - Oddly enough, the SELL market is actually worse then in High Sec so your actually better of doing your trading in the heart of Empire's High Sec.
Now I'm not saying that players can't form corps and avoid these situations but *****ing about what players do and don't do does not change anything that happens in the game so its a mute point to try and point that out. The fact remains that people see no reason to go into Low Sec and with each patch we are given less and less reason to do so. Trying to tempt us out by making it harder for people to pirate in low sec probobly won't do much to change that.
|
Corstaad
Minmatar
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.01.10 07:19:00 -
[16]
Point of low sec is its kinda dangerous but not quite 0.0 bubblecamps of doom. Problem is its not newbie friendly because you need BC and BS to camp gates or Stations which is where people go in low sec. While I could train BS I choose not to because I want to fly my ship not just man the beast. They need to either change how gateguns work or completely get rid of them.
 |
Vabjekf
|
Posted - 2008.01.10 07:23:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Vabjekf on 10/01/2008 07:25:11
It is absurd that low sec is less safe than no sec, safety should decline steadily from 1.0 down to 0.0
The solution.
1. Make gate camps in low sec impossible. Gates and stations shall be miniature concord fortresses. (that responds to aggression, not sec status)
2. This brings more people into low sec, populating the belts with more miners, thinking they can quickly warp to the safety of a gate, populating deadspace with more mission runners, thinking the same.
3. Allow bubbles (only deployable ones, not heavy interdictors) in low sec. (this also makes regular interdictors more useful again)
3. This opens up the possibility for many more targets for someone who wants to work for the kill. Careless mission runners get probed out, reckless miners get caught with their pants down in belts, lazy haulers who warp from gate to gate warp through a bubble. Cautious people know they are relatively safe if they don't do something stupid.
4. Game is fixed, pirates can still pirate, much easier than they used to (because gate camping is not piracy, its gate camping, real piracy happens away from gates and often involves ransoms and is hard because nobody is there)
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.01.10 07:25:00 -
[18]
not as dangerous a bubble.
also about small ships, they get one shotted they don't hold down anything.
which is why you can ge away in small fast ships.
with your change people would be even more ****** becuase all the small ships would have webs and scrams and be able to get into range with ease.
not my idea of fun.
pink supporter!
Future art director at CCP!
or texture guy, either or :P
http://www.digipen.edu/main/Gallery_Games_2004#Narbacular_Drop
Was in class with these folks :P |
Ridley Tree
The Black Rabbits
|
Posted - 2008.01.10 07:30:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Kahega Amielden
What's this mean? Gatecamps are still possible. Pirates rejoice. However, it would be much more feasible to do it in smaller, faster ships (like a gang of frigates or assault ships or something) rather than a giant rapesquad that can instakill anything that comes through.
You give me the ability to gatecamp in a Enyo/Crow/Tristan/Deimos/Rupture/Vagabond and I can assure you that those low-sec gatecamps will be ten times more deadly and nothing in the world will be able to escape. Right now the only thing really keeping low-sec 'safe' at all is that small ships can't fight on gates.
Indeed the large 'you're dead' style gangs, in my past experience, tended to have epeen waving contests of whose got the most sensor boosters because ships would die before people could get locks. And I don't mean industrials. I mean T2 fitted and rigged Vultures. Allowing those same gangs to fly smaller ships means a host of small and fast ships that will lock anything, thusly catch anything, and then kill it virtually as quickly. Smart people would use tacklers to catch and sniper ships outside of sentry range to do the dps. Low-sec would be even more dangerous.
So please, please let me fly small ships around gates. It'd be awesome.
____
Pirating 101: A Basic Course |
Dirk Magnum
Spearhead Endeavors
|
Posted - 2008.01.10 07:33:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 10/01/2008 07:32:47
I want to know the average character age of Low Sec critics
|
Shaemell Buttleson
Darwin With Attitude
oooh Shiny
|
Posted - 2008.01.10 08:12:00 -
[21]
If you want more ppl in lowsec it needs to have a commodity that the economy of EvE relies on that cannot be found anywhere else.
It's as simple as that.
These newer type gas clouds were a step in the right direction, but lets face it the boosters that they help make are like the +1 hardwirings that clutter up the LP store that noone wants and can be bothered to use.
|
SexehGallente
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2008.01.10 08:14:00 -
[22]
camping sucks, in every game. The name implies laziness and easy kills. They use their own scouts to gtfo if a sizable force comes to deal with them. Personally I'd like a gate to spew you out in a random spot in the next solar system. It'd allow people to move around easier, I'd go rat/mine much more often in lowsec/0.0 if I didn't get ganked at a gate in anything worthy of those activies.
I bet alot of people would be willing to also go their if they didn't have to deal with camps. You'd get alot more targets in belts/ded spaces this way.
|
Hannobaal
Gallente
Igneus Auctorita
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.01.10 08:48:00 -
[23]
Most of low-sec is, if anything, too safe. More dangerous than 0.0???? Whatever...
|
Gealbhan
Caldari
The SAS
The Kano Organisation
|
Posted - 2008.01.10 08:53:00 -
[24]
No.
Eve Online is supposed to be a dog eat dog PvP game. Diluting it would only ruin the "elite" feeling Eve-o has.
I for one do not want any candy coating put on the game. Leave low sec alone.
"Concentrate all your fire on one target, when it is destroyed, move on to the next. That is how you secure victory". - Tactica Imperium. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.01.10 09:35:00 -
[25]
Get rid of gates. Low sec will thrive. Click sig for details. :)
The Real Space Initiative - V5 (Forum Link)
|
K'jata
|
Posted - 2008.01.10 09:43:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Kahega Amielden
Alright. There are a number of agreed-upon issues with lowsec. The general consensus is that you might as well go to 0.0, because often times in lowsec you run into giant ganksquads with massive raepships that can one-shot anything that comes through.
There are other issues of course, but I think the following change to sentry guns would help lowsec gatecamps, while still keeping them possible.
Firstly, buff their damage-a lot. It should be really, really, really, really, really, really hard for even large ships to tank damage. Reduce their ability to hit ships with low signature radii.
What's this mean? Gatecamps are still possible. Pirates rejoice. However, it would be much more feasible to do it in smaller, faster ships (like a gang of frigates or assault ships or something) rather than a giant rapesquad that can instakill anything that comes through.
Gatecamps would be possible and definitely a danger, but it would change the way they are carried out for the better (Give people a chance to get through, without making gatecamps useless)
Another idea would be to simply change the target priorities for them. I believe gatecamps use small ships to lock down their prey so the big ships can raep them. You could simply make the sentry guns target smaller ships first, although I don't like this as much as my above suggestion.
The main diference between low sec and o.o is not the sec hits or the sentries, its the fact that you can't put bubbles down in 0.4 - 0.1 thats the difference, low sec does not need to be upgraded, the sentries are still a pain to tank (Passive Drake II = win) and in my opinion if your foolish enough to jump into low sec on your own its your fault :D
|
Athena Rivera
Minmatar
omen.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.01.10 10:00:00 -
[27]
Low sec needs no nerf, it's perfectly fine with me. Only drawback is not to fly something that you can't afford to lose. Not hard to avoid, yes?
The End of Days is coming...
|
Cailais
Amarr
VITOC
|
Posted - 2008.01.10 10:07:00 -
[28]
As soon as I read threads like this I know CCP are getting it right.
Why would someone want a more secure Low Sec? I would assume because they want to go into Low Sec and that there is something in Low Sec they want to have.
That means the rewards of low sec must be becoming more tantalising. Already we have Level V missions in Low Sec, Exploration Sites and synth boosters - clearly there are players that want to get their paws on the goodies inclosed in these activities.
As the player population increases in High Sec, more pressure is placed upon both the resources and the market there. Already we can see the the majority of valuable minerals are stripped bare from high sec asteroid belts. As more and more pilots run High Sec missions the loot rewards and LP rewards become more readily available on the market, and their price drops.
Thus, in order to access untouched belts, or access better missions / exploration rewards players will need to go into low sec regions.
Working (more or less) as intended Id say.
C.
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire
Dehumanisation - griefers are cool and if you are not a griefer, you do not belong here.
|
Suitonia
Gallente
interimo
|
Posted - 2008.01.10 10:13:00 -
[29]
Lowsec doesn't need to be made more profitable, otherwise it'll spoil the point of 0.0. It needs to have something unique, something that you can't obtain in 0.5+ or 0.0-. This doesn't have to be more profitable, just something that isn't avaliable in these areas.
Suggestions;
Different rats - Maybe a few new pirate factions, that havn't got the resources of the major pirate factions (serpentis etc.) to exist in 0.0 or have the 'ability' to get into highsec, therefore hang out in lowsec only, and have a small chance of turning up at one of the belts in lowsec. These rats in turn could drop new meta items of some kind as rewards. Bounties and size don't have to change, although the random difficult spawn as suggested would still be nice.
Different missions - Running missions for the suggested new pirate factions in a few select lowsec systems, with maybe a unique LP store of some kind. Again, doesn't need to be more profitable, just exclusive.
Different Ores - Same idea, not more profitable just different, prehaps with a unique mineral structure, (they give a different combination or percentage of minerals when refined).
This is just my opinion, but if lowsec had certain things that could only be obtained there, then it would make a lot more sense to go there. Instead of what we have now, where 0.0 offers pretty much the same stuff but better, with the only risk factor being bubbles.
---
I've always wondered about those Vagabond pilots... |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.01.10 10:41:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Calais
As soon as I read threads like this I know CCP are getting it right.
Why would someone want a more secure Low Sec? I would assume because they want to go into Low Sec and that there is something in Low Sec they want to have.
That means the rewards of low sec must be becoming more tantalising. à
I do agree with most of your posts, Cailais, but must disagree with this one.
What you cite assumes motivations of others, never quite a sure source of information. Another reason could simply be because people want to play in dangerous space, but have it be less of a pain in the ass to get there or get around when they are there.
I could just as easily say, each time I see one of these threads it is more evidence CCP has it wrong, apparently there is an issue that needs to be resolved. The reward of low sec, for me, is that space is dangerous, that there is some risk. But if the price to get the risk, the effort, is too high, then it is broken.
There's more to playing Eve than getting ISK in the wallet. The ultimate reward is the fun and excitement, the risk is the effort that must be spent to get that excitement. Walking into a gank is not fun and costs a lot of effort - Low sec is broken for those of us who see Eve as something other than an ISK counter.
The Real Space Initiative - V5 (Forum Link)
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |