| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Inertial
   |
Posted - 2008.04.01 10:29:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: Cpt Branko
"Remove gatecamping. Then make gatecamping 12321321 times more reliable/safer to do."
lolwhat? 
It would be safer for the gatecampers yes, but there would be more ways to avoid the camp. If you scanned out the pirates, then you could simply make a quick detour by a planet or if you often travelled trough that are, by a safespot.
 Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. |
Tippia
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 12:03:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Rubbish. Just look at who's making all the threads.
It's not pirates, I can tell you that.
Fair enough - they're gankbears, not pirates. The fact remains that they only want to entice more players into becoming targets for them.
|
Gavin Darklighter
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 12:46:00 -
[33]
I've always been of the opinion that low-sec should have good rats in it, while 0.0 should have good rats, good ore, and good exploration. Ratting is typicaly an idividual activity, and anything that encourages people to fly alone or in small numbers into a possibile PVP situation is a step in the right direction if you ask me. Getting more 'bears in BS flying alone in low-sec will mean more pirates hunting bears alone or in smaller gangs rather than in a huge gate camp. Getting more pirates hunting alone will mean more anti-pies hunting and baiting pirates alone or in small gangs too.
The problem with low-sec as I see it is that the vast majority of the potential piracy targets are simply trying to pass through low-sec instead of doing something in low-sec, and to catch most of these guys you need a gate camp with a combination of ships that can both tackle and kill the target quickly while tanking gate guns. The pirate who tries to kill someone jumping into him while solo is already at a big disadvantage since odds are he either can't tackle the target fast enough, can't kill the target fast enough, or can't tank long enough. IMO this is part of why we see larger and larger camps out there.
|
Reem Fairchild
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 12:50:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Rubbish. Just look at who's making all the threads.
It's not pirates, I can tell you that.
Fair enough - they're gankbears, not pirates. The fact remains that they only want to entice more players into becoming targets for them.
No, it's the "I will never leave high-sec, it's too dangerous out there" people making all the "fix low-sec" threads. And the "fix" is almost always making it more like high-sec.
|
Liu Hideharo
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 13:03:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Trix Rabbit
EVE is a pvp centered game. I'm sorry but its true. Low security space is there as a jumping off point to 0.0. Adding concord/concord-lite is contrary to the purpose of low security space. If low security space was safe there would be no reason to be in high security space since both ore and rats are better in low security space.
Besides, you are just wrong in your assumptions. The real protection in low security space is the inability to use a warp bubble.
http://www.evegeek.com/orecalc.php
type jita prices. You wil see hermorphite,herdbegite,jaspet being cheaper or same price per m3 as high sec ones.
|
Wet Ferret
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 13:03:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Wet Ferret on 01/04/2008 13:04:01
Originally by: Reem Fairchild
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Rubbish. Just look at who's making all the threads.
It's not pirates, I can tell you that.
Fair enough - they're gankbears, not pirates. The fact remains that they only want to entice more players into becoming targets for them.
No, it's the "I will never leave high-sec, it's too dangerous out there" people making all the "fix low-sec" threads. And the "fix" is almost always making it more like high-sec.
Do you just ignore all of the "nerf high-sec missions / rats / ore to get bears into low-sec" ideas or what? I can guarantee you that the high-sec dwellers aren't the ones making those suggestions.
edit: just to be clear, I am not denying the existence of the type of player you described
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. |
Tippia
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 13:55:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Reem Fairchild
No, it's the "I will never leave high-sec, it's too dangerous out there" people making all the "fix low-sec" threads. And the "fix" is almost always making it more like high-sec.
Ehm no. Not quite.
Look through a couple of the larger recent threads on the topic, and you'll see the same pattern: attempts at making low-sec more enticing (higher rewards) to get high-seccers to move out there, when the high-seccer solution - what you describe as "make low-sec more like high-sec" - would entail lowering the risks.
I'm not denying that the carebears whine, but the gankbears do it as well, and the difference in what approach the two camps choose is quite apparent:
"Increase the rewards" (aka lure more carebears into harm's way) = gankbear.
"Lower the risk" (aka nerf/remove the gankbears' toys and tactics) = carebear.
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N.
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 14:33:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Originally by: Zeba
Faction police would ruin gate camps so I vote no. Let the poor buggers who make a living off the morons of eve who blindly jump into low sec with billions in isk in their untanked t1 indys cargo hold well, make a living. 
Well, most pirates complain about the lack of targets in low sec because most people are hip to the notion that taking their untanked indys with billions of cargo is a Bad IdeaÖ.
In order to do this there need to be different mechanics. Not saying the OP's ideas are it but we have been around this block many times on the forums and some good ideas have popped out. If you leave it so jumping into a camp pretty much = death no one will go there. If you find ways to give other players a real chance at flying around out there then yes, pirates will not kill absolutely everything but with more targets it should even out. One would think that would be a lot more fun for all parties.
Making low sec more valuable is a waste of time without a change of mechanics. You could put arkonor out there and it would not be worth mining (better off sneaking into 0.0 to ninja mine there).
having just a few days ago started trying my hand at a bit of lo-sec piracy, I was amazed at the number of unescorted DSTs, haulers and even a freighter that feel free to run through lo-sec.
More got past us that not at first because of our inexperience and lack of knowledge of the area (we did get the freighter tho  ) but even so. Incredible.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Reem Fairchild
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 14:51:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Originally by: Zeba
Faction police would ruin gate camps so I vote no. Let the poor buggers who make a living off the morons of eve who blindly jump into low sec with billions in isk in their untanked t1 indys cargo hold well, make a living.
Well, most pirates complain about the lack of targets in low sec because most people are hip to the notion that taking their untanked indys with billions of cargo is a Bad IdeaÖ.
In order to do this there need to be different mechanics. Not saying the OP's ideas are it but we have been around this block many times on the forums and some good ideas have popped out. If you leave it so jumping into a camp pretty much = death no one will go there. If you find ways to give other players a real chance at flying around out there then yes, pirates will not kill absolutely everything but with more targets it should even out. One would think that would be a lot more fun for all parties.
Making low sec more valuable is a waste of time without a change of mechanics. You could put arkonor out there and it would not be worth mining (better off sneaking into 0.0 to ninja mine there).
having just a few days ago started trying my hand at a bit of lo-sec piracy, I was amazed at the number of unescorted DSTs, haulers and even a freighter that feel free to run through lo-sec.
More got past us that not at first because of our inexperience and lack of knowledge of the area (we did get the freighter tho ) but even so. Incredible.
I'm going to take a wild guess and say you're in Amarr space near Providence.
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 14:58:00 -
[40]
Right now the entire concept of low sec is flawed: it's supposed to be a gradual transition from the complete safety of hi sec to the zero safety in 0.0.
Instead, new players are tossed to the wolves the instant they jump through their first gate into low sec. How is that a gradual introduction? It's not, and it puts many people off of low sec forever.
In real life, it would be as though empire were a castle, low sec the land outside the castle, and 0.0 the forest full of brigands. And somehow, the entire group of brigands has set up camp literally right ouside the castle gates, within spitting distance of the guards, where they are free to rob and plunder everyoen who sticks his nose outside the castle portcullis. I think players realize intuitively this is entirely backwards and swear off low sec because of it.
But fixing all that would be difficult.
Fixing missioning in low sec in battleships would also be quite difficult and would almost certainly have to involve some nerf to piracy, so let's skip that too.
Some trivially easy fixes should be boosting the belt rats in low sec to about the value of crappy 0.0. Also boost low sec ores some how so they're worth mining. The reason they're useless is almost entirely the drone regions, but it wouldn't be hard to do something like introducing entirely new ores.
0.0 could use fixes as well - new ores, and all the regions with crappy true sec should get better rats so they are better than the new beefed up low sec.
|
|
|
Alowishus
mUfFiN fAcToRy
Sex Panthers
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 15:08:00 -
[41]
1) Larger rewards will not get people into lowsec. Unless it were ridiculously large rewards that could be had with relative ease, for example: jump into lowsec in a shuttle, get a million ISK. It's just not worth it.
2) Lowsec is not a jumping off point to 0.0. They are entirely different. Lowsec is like the ghetto of a big city, 0.0 is like a private island you can colonize.
3) No matter how few wary people refuse to go to lowsec there are a million idiots who transport Obelisk BPOs in Punishers. Real pirates who are interested in profit rather than simply carebear tears (although they are tasty) know this and that's why we're still here in spite of the remoteness.
4) This has nothing to do with pirates, gankbears or carebears. The problem is most people simply do not understand why lowsec is what it is or the psychology behind it. The endless solutions that favor one group over another, and are yet ineffective at the same time, are a distraction. Yet this bickering makes up 99% of debates on this topic.
5) Lowsec is not difficult to survive in but it does, at times, require patience, planning, scouting and effort. Things that immediately make it undesirable for people who can complete Gurista Extravaganza in their CNR in 20 minutes. If your goal is to simply make ISK it can be done a lot easier in High Sec. The key is not risk vs. reward, it's time/effort vs. reward. My suggestion to get people into lowsec is not to increase reward or decrease risk, it's to decrease time/effort with an entirely new mission system for lowsec.
/makes fart noise
|
Gavin Darklighter
THE FINAL STAND
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 22:25:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 01/04/2008 22:25:55
Originally by: Alowishus
1) Larger rewards will not get people into lowsec. Unless it were ridiculously large rewards that could be had with relative ease, for example: jump into lowsec in a shuttle, get a million ISK. It's just not worth it.
I have to disagree with you here. If there were good rats in low sec, people would rat there, just like they do in 0.0
I think a good number of newer players and/or players who don't want to get involved with an alliance would love to have easy access to good rats close to their high-sec homes. If anything low-sec could get a little too crowded.
|
Sarakiel
VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD
Carpe Universitas
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 22:47:00 -
[43]
Here's the low sec fix: leave it as is
high sec is the only place solo play should be viable. Money making should always be soloable but securing the place to make money should not. Low-sec missions are good enough to be justified but you gotta do them as a team in pvp set ups (speaking from experience). You gotta be a gang of bullies to cut it in low sec and thats what its for. Low-sec is fine.
|
Spurty
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 22:54:00 -
[44]
Gates need to be looked at and redesigned before any other suggested change gets implemented.
Hows about the novel approach of making people appear on the other side around 200 km from the gate?
If they want to return back the way they came, they can warp to the gate.
Gangs would jump through at random distances so would have to 'regroup' (I never understood the point of that feature, could be 'useful') before they could blob up.
Excuse the fact that this would make interceptors useful , punish 'packed' blobs and mean defenders of gates have to do more work to catch targets and give the 'curious' that have never left high-sec, a bit of a safety buffer for a very small change to the game.
If 200km works out as duff, reduce or increase that distance until a happy medium is worked out. 15km from an object is just way too close and yet, not far enough.
There are lots of lots of ways to fix people coming to low sec. All of them good ideas. All of them shot down as people want low sec populated without any changes to the way they play the game.
I say keep dreaming up ideas, I'm sure CCP will pick one and test it out.
Those that don't like it will get over it and adapt, they always do and they know it
--
Two cannibals eating a clown. One says to the other "Does this taste funny to you?" |
Anaalys Fluuterby
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 22:57:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Sarakiel
Here's the low sec fix: leave it as is
high sec is the only place solo play should be viable. Money making should always be soloable but securing the place to make money should not. Low-sec missions are good enough to be justified but you gotta do them as a team in pvp set ups (speaking from experience). You gotta be a gang of bullies to cut it in low sec and thats what its for. Low-sec is fine.
Wow, first decent post Sarakiel has ever made....
Originally by: Audri Fisher
On the other, the emo tears being cryed in this thread tell me that just because you shoot somebody for a living, does not mean you aren't a carebear
|
Spurty
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 22:59:00 -
[46]
better still, make it an option the pilot choses himself.
'Jump to next system at [15|50|100|200]km from gate'
Leave as much alone as possible though. Its hard to suspend disbelief when ships morph and grow new 'slots' and 'abilities'. If things like this need to happen, introduce new ships. Variety is what makes EVE teh Win!!
--
Two cannibals eating a clown. One says to the other "Does this taste funny to you?" |
Wet Ferret
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 23:12:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby
Originally by: Sarakiel
Here's the low sec fix: leave it as is
high sec is the only place solo play should be viable. Money making should always be soloable but securing the place to make money should not. Low-sec missions are good enough to be justified but you gotta do them as a team in pvp set ups (speaking from experience). You gotta be a gang of bullies to cut it in low sec and thats what its for. Low-sec is fine.
Wow, first decent post Sarakiel has ever made....
Well he forgot the part about 0.0 being just as dangerous but about twice as rewarding. The only difference is warp bubbles, really. And that's not enough of a difference to make low-sec better for mission running. And it isn't.
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. |
Anaalys Fluuterby
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 23:43:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Wet Ferret
Well he forgot the part about 0.0 being just as dangerous but about twice as rewarding. The only difference is warp bubbles, really. And that's not enough of a difference to make low-sec better for mission running. And it isn't.
Well, TBH I'm ignoring all his 0.0 fanatical comments because they aren't appropriate here AND we all know how good they are 
He said leave it alone, its supposed to be dangerous. I happen to agree. He also said you aren't supposed to be there solo, I happen to agree.
Now if we can get all the gankbears off the topic, life is good
Originally by: Audri Fisher
On the other, the emo tears being cryed in this thread tell me that just because you shoot somebody for a living, does not mean you aren't a carebear
|
Matting
NQX Innovations
|
Posted - 2008.04.02 00:15:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Alowishus
Lowsec is not a jumping off point to 0.0. They are entirely different. Lowsec is like the ghetto of a big city, 0.0 is like a private island you can colonize.
This^^, my interpretation, not sure what CCP's is.
Boost low sec rats so you can live there.
short version of my big post the forums stuffed up.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |