EVE Search - [Issue] Low sec sentry guns completely obsolete

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Issue] Low sec sentry guns completely obsolete

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Cpt Branko Surge. NIght's Dawn	Posted - 2008.05.26 00:52:00 - [31] Disagreed. Sentry guns already do their job: they prevent ships weaker then tanked HACs/BCs (gank-fit don't work, and certain BCs have to be rigged to properly tank them) from camping the gates. This makes it fairly trivial for people in frigates, transport ships (or even faster-aligning cruisers) to move through camps. 320ish DPS from sentry guns alone are a powerful advantage for any anti-pirates trying to bust the camp (as well as the campers being most likely down on cap boosters and so on), which is why many pirates will go dock/refit if a incoming gang is spotted. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
AtomizerX	Posted - 2008.05.26 02:04:00 - [32] Agreed. Give sentries some actual firepower, particularly using the proposed graduated method across system security levels.
Tenebrion Darkness Viziam	Posted - 2008.05.26 07:35:00 - [33] How about they just focus fire on a ship till it leaves or pops than moves on to the next?
Sariyah HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded	Posted - 2008.05.26 10:04:00 - [34] Originally by: lecrotta are fine as they are, to boost them to a stupid level would make low sec way to safe. As far as I can see some unidentified alts and whatnot can't understand that sentries WERE fine when they were introduced but we got more HP on the ships now. We have t2 modules. It's not about really 'buffing' sentry guns, it's adjusting them back to their original efficiency, or at least closer to that than they are now. If you wish, sentries got ninja nerfed by the game changes and they are not fulfilling their original role anymore. Yes they should be tankable, as they were years ago and they always will be. Just a bit harder.
Cpt Branko Surge. NIght's Dawn	Posted - 2008.05.26 10:22:00 - [35] Originally by: Sariyah Originally by: lecrotta are fine as they are, to boost them to a stupid level would make low sec way to safe. As far as I can see some unidentified alts and whatnot can't understand that sentries WERE fine when they were introduced but we got more HP on the ships now. Of course, the unidentified alts and whatnot cannot understand that sentries are as they are now restricting people to (tank-fit) BC, or a tank fit HAC/HIC (most of them would have issues) minimum. Hell, out of five Tier 2 BCs, two need to be rigged to survive sentries (HP buffs did nothing for sustained sentry tanking. Rigs did, but rigging ships for piracy does make it harder to pay them off). Any fool thinking sentries are ineffective needs to go to 0.0 and see what the battlefield looks like with interceptors and speed-fit ships camping. Sentries provide a hell of a detterent to that. Also, two can play the 'you're a unindentified alt and whatnot' game. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
magnus amadeus Hammer Of Light	Posted - 2008.05.26 12:40:00 - [36] Edited by: magnus amadeus on 26/05/2008 12:40:50 Although I would like to see more support for smaller ships being able to stay at the gate for more than 5 secs Like a sliding damage scale, also something to get caps off of the gates aswell. _________________________________________________ Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you down with experience.
Kuranta Pator Tech School	Posted - 2008.05.26 13:29:00 - [37] My biggest beef with the sentries atm is, that a HIC can tank the sentries and catch / pop any hauler on it's own and just run if it's anything else / has support. Dunno if it would be better to nerf the HICs or buff the sentries.
Jelek Coro Art of War Cruel Intentions	Posted - 2008.05.26 14:40:00 - [38] Nothing wrong with sentry guns. They are enough to discourage long term camping with a decent tank, which would hinder damage and or other functions. Just because you got popped by campers does not mean sentries are underpowered.
Rooker Lysian Enterprises	Posted - 2008.05.26 18:07:00 - [39] Not signed. I'd rather the guns be removed entirely and replaced with powerful faction police ships that show up a few minutes later. That lets small ships pvp on gates but forces large remote-repping BSs to go elsewhere after the police arrive. -- Let Us Avoid Systems Via Autopilot
Aadi Grox Minmatar Mafia	Posted - 2008.05.26 18:13:00 - [40] Don't see a problem with how they are currently

Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.05.26 18:20:00 - [41] Edited by: Shadowsword on 26/05/2008 18:21:02 I agree with the basic idea, sentry guns need an upgrade. However, I think you're not taking it far enough. Imho, sentries need to not only be untankable, but also have a chance to scramble. If you push piracy away form the gates, then it will happen in the belts, where it was supposed to happen in the first place, and within mission sites when mission-runners will be probed out. The only "safe" people with that in place would be traders, and then only to an extend: the t1 industrial trader would be vulnerable to one or two sniper pirates, the freighter trader would be bumped out of sentry range, then killed. ------------------------------------------
lecrotta lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2008.05.26 18:46:00 - [42] Its a total waste of time to increase the guns slightly as all ppl will do is increase the size of the gangs they have and also bring along more logistics. Sentry guns help against solo ganks vs other fighting ships as the added dps in a 1v1 situation will proly turn the battle against the guys with aggro but a well organized pirate team will easily tank gate gun fire even if it is increased.
Falkrich Swifthand eNinjas Incorporated	Posted - 2008.05.27 11:30:00 - [43] The gates to high-sec (e.g. the ones 0.4 sec) need to be pretty safe to go through. Few people go to low sec because they can't get in without hitting a gatecamp. The gate guns in those systems should be strong enough that perma-tanking is virtually impossible. As sec status gets lower they get weaker, that makes sense. Gatecamping in 0.1 or 0.2 should be easy. Essentially my point is that the risk should be "being in lowsec", not "entering lowsec". Increasing the damage of gateguns in 0.4 and reducing it down to 0.1 would make the sec status of low sec systems actually MEAN something. There's such a cliff in player safety between 0.5 and 0.4 "security" systems now. nullnull My sig is not my sig.
Efdi Tritanium Workers Union	Posted - 2008.05.27 11:34:00 - [44] Originally by: Shadowsword Edited by: Shadowsword on 26/05/2008 18:21:02 I agree with the basic idea, sentry guns need an upgrade. However, I think you're not taking it far enough. Imho, sentries need to not only be untankable, but also have a chance to scramble. If you push piracy away form the gates, then it will happen in the belts, where it was supposed to happen in the first place, and within mission sites when mission-runners will be probed out. The only "safe" people with that in place would be traders, and then only to an extend: the t1 industrial trader would be vulnerable to one or two sniper pirates, the freighter trader would be bumped out of sentry range, then killed. This is a pretty terrible idea. I'm also gonna call bull**** on the "piracy supposed to happen in belts" nonsense. _______________________________ Yes, I am an alt. No, I can't post with my main; he's forum banned. Yes, I will be happy to smack you with my main when I'm unbanned.
Abydos Lanti	Posted - 2008.05.27 11:48:00 - [45] /signed
Duke Phobos Ostium Orci	Posted - 2008.05.27 12:15:00 - [46] Just increase the number of Sentry Guns at gates according to sec level of the system. ie. a .4 system should have 2x as many guns as a .2, which has 2x as many as a .1 If you make them do racial damage only then yes they will need a dps boost.
Cpt Branko Surge. NIght's Dawn	Posted - 2008.05.27 12:21:00 - [47] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 27/05/2008 12:24:50 Originally by: Falkrich Swifthand The gates to high-sec (e.g. the ones 0.4 sec) need to be pretty safe to go through. Not really, and you have whole patches of low-sec which are 0.4/0.3, and you have places where high-sec jums straight to 0.3 or lower. Furthermore, getting in low-sec with small ships was never a issue thanks to sentries preventing interceptors/frigs/AFs and all but the most tanked cruisers from doing anything under sentry fire. Originally by: Shadowsword I agree with the basic idea, sentry guns need an upgrade. However, I think you're not taking it far enough. Imho, sentries need to not only be untankable, but also have a chance to scramble. If you push piracy away form the gates, then it will happen in the belts, where it was supposed to happen in the first place, and within mission sites when mission-runners will be probed out. This is nonsense. Low-sec is primarily used to get to other islands of high-sec easier and faster; haulers and others alike use low-sec to shorten travel time. Low-sec sees a fair bit of traffic but fairly low amount of actual activity inside. The idea that piracy is supposed to happen in belts is LOL. Many people have nothing to do in belts. Anyone capable of doing L3 missions can profit much more from those then doing anything in a low-sec belt (well, ok, short of getting a faction spawn which are rare). Preying on traders and travellers is what pirates do a lot, what pirates in general always did, and taking a portion of that traffic is the lifeblood of pirates in general. Originally by: Rooker I'd rather the guns be removed entirely and replaced with powerful faction police ships that show up a few minutes later. That lets small ships pvp on gates but forces large remote-repping BSs to go elsewhere after the police arrive. Large remote-repping BSs are precisely what you WANT on low-sec gates. Having insta-locking interceptors stop any traffic on a given gate (and just cycle gates when police arrives) would make it extremely hard for anyone to get in low-sec (while now, people in frigates and so on, faster ships in general, are fairly safe). Furthermore, if your suggestion went through the best ships for low-sec would be nanoships (since they'd be the only ones capable of running from a bunch of inties and fast ships camping a gate, and they'd be ideal for camping a gate and then buggering out) which currently don't really work for gate action. Furthermore, a RR BS gang would murder any police anyway. Originally by: Kuranta My biggest beef with the sentries atm is, that a HIC can tank the sentries and catch / pop any hauler on it's own and just run if it's anything else / has support. Dunno if it would be better to nerf the HICs or buff the sentries. I've bagged a number of untanked haulers relying on WCS solo in my single-point Hurricane merely because they take 10s to align and tend not to survive being pounded by 500 DPS in the roughly 8s they're locked. At any rate, barring WCS+agility+extender fits (where you need to have enough points), both a tanked BC/tanked HAC/BS can do the thing you describe. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Sariyah HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded	Posted - 2008.05.27 13:09:00 - [48] Haha, a lot of drama in this thread. Some can't accept the fact that ship HP was increased, t2 modules are here and cheap, and sentries are doing same damage as in stone age. Sentries tough enough? Hell you never tanked a gate or did it alone. Guess you guys have no clue how it was to pirate years ago then. You would have whined a lot. Still people did it under those "unfair" circumstances, successfully :)
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.05.27 13:12:00 - [49] Originally by: Efdi This is a pretty terrible idea. I'm also gonna call bull**** on the "piracy supposed to happen in belts" nonsense. Oh? And what do you think sentries were for in the first place, if not for discouraging piracy from happening at the gates? I'm old enough that I know how it was like when 80% of piracy was gank or ransonning in the belts, and it was way more fun and thrilling that camping a gate. Low sec at that time was also more alive that it is now. ------------------------------------------
Efdi Tritanium Workers Union	Posted - 2008.05.27 13:37:00 - [50] Originally by: Shadowsword Originally by: Efdi This is a pretty terrible idea. I'm also gonna call bull**** on the "piracy supposed to happen in belts" nonsense. Oh? And what do you think sentries were for in the first place, if not for discouraging piracy from happening at the gates? Keeping small stuff like intys from being able to camp and tackle stuff so that smaller ships like frigates would be safer. Coincidentally, this is the same thing that gate guns prevent today. _______________________________ Yes, I am an alt. No, I can't post with my main; he's forum banned. Yes, I will be happy to smack you with my main when I'm unbanned.

Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.05.27 13:41:00 - [51] Originally by: Efdi Keeping small stuff like intys from being able to camp and tackle stuff so that smaller ships like frigates would be safer. Coincidentally, this is the same thing that gate guns prevent today. At the beggining, battleships were very, very rare, and could lock tagets almost as fast as frigates. So your argument is invalid. ------------------------------------------
Kuan Yin Perizene Technology Incorporated	Posted - 2008.05.27 15:32:00 - [52] sentries are okay, what would be a better solution is some sort of special response npcs to break up long term station or gate camps and the response time varies on the sec level the response to gate ganks in a .4 system will be faster then if your in .1 system. But enough time that the evil pirates can kill some, get the loot and move on. The npc cops could even be dispatched from what ever corp owns the station being camped. I don't think lai dai would sit and stare as their customers are killed on the way to their station. Also the npc cops shouldn't be uber concord death machines but killable npcs. also there should be not response to killing in belts. so yes to low sec sentry reform. but no to making uber insta frag gate guns.
javer 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.05.27 15:35:00 - [53] this upgrade should also happen to guns close to low sec as .5 is still underopowerd compared to before vs groups of ships -------------------------------------------- Never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their Level and beat you with experience.
Akkom the united	Posted - 2008.05.27 16:04:00 - [54] TBH there so obsolete, i sit quite happily in a passive tanked moa or a drake and totally ignore the sentries, with a MWD fitted, usually camps are formed of multiple ships sharing the damage, if i were CCP id prolly remove them altogether cos they dont do that much, and most ships can solo tank sentries and fight without an issue.
Cpt Branko Surge. NIght's Dawn	Posted - 2008.05.27 16:48:00 - [55] Originally by: Akkom if i were CCP id prolly remove them altogether cos they dont do that much, and most ships can solo tank sentries and fight without an issue. Yeah, because my passive tanked Rifters tank sentries... oh, wait. Seriously, removing sentries would make low-sec horribly unsafe and make nano-fits extremely popular. Originally by: Shadowsword I'm old enough that I know how it was like when 80% of piracy was gank or ransonning in the belts, and it was way more fun and thrilling that camping a gate. Low sec at that time was also more alive that it is now. I heard that there didn't used to be L4 missions in the game, that you couldn't warp to zero on gates but had to run for 15km, and that ship HP was lower so you could gank something really quickly and get out. The EvE we play now is not the eve we used to play. Making sentries all powerful would just make people either camp in big RR groups and would further deter soloers/small corps. Sentries are already preety nasty to tank solo. Someone said it's easy in a Drake. Well, try it in a Hurricane. At any rate: sentries are fine. They deter smaller ships (which lock fast) and give a advantage to people trying to bust a camp. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
procurement specialist	Posted - 2008.05.27 16:48:00 - [56] icrease damage. i am tired of being webbed for 40 seconds before i get popped. at least let me killed by something big for a better killmail.
Nekopyat	Posted - 2008.05.27 19:00:00 - [57] Originally by: Bunyip What I'm thinking is maybe the damage doubles every 5 minutes. This way, gate camps can still be held, but not for anywhere near as long as they used to be. This, combined with a decrease in initial damage would probalby do wonders for small ship piracy. While perma-tanking is bad, the other end of the coin is right now the guns are _too_ powerful for frigates and such thus you really do not see small scale gatecamps. Thus no low-end camps to give people an idea of how to deal with them. From a carebare perspective, you get 'nothing' and 'OMGBS!' camps with no easy way to build the skilled needed to deal with them.
Praxis1452 Corp 1 Allstars Insurgency	Posted - 2008.05.27 19:49:00 - [58] Horrible idea. People say buff guns!!! yay. And the result: larger camps, more people. Then people say fewer gatecamps yay!!! GET OUT! Most people supporting this probably haven't even lived in low-sec. Number one, low-sec is quite safe. Think about the pirates. Pirates often use larger ships to camp. BS & BC's, Command Ships. They aren't very fast and being flashy anyone can attack them, yet I doubt they lose them that often. Fact: low-sec is not as dangerous as people make it out to be. Making fewer camps still won't get more people into low-sec. Fact. You don't need larger ships or more people for low-sec, you need some brains. I guess that requires too much effort and people are unwilling to live there. People talk about fewer gatecamps. Only bottlenecks or systems out of high-sec i.e. rancer are very heavily camped. Most camps are usually just a few people with a scout or two. I'd say <10. >10 people is very rare for the low-sec that I lived in. The pvp is low-sec is quite fun. Fleets or rather gang's are smaller and they can be. my points: lowsec isn't that dangerous, and people still won't come to low-sec because the same people who vote for this are often the ones who won't dare take a step out of empire, it's just that they'd like to see the game move in this direction. That this inhibits low-sec pvp, which is not only fun but also different in comparison to empire and 0.0 And what exact dps do you guys suggest sentry guns have? BC's can barely tank sentry guns permanently and that's with an infinite supply of cap boosters. Myrmidon can do it if rigged, Brutix rigged as well. But both must give up a lot of options in favor of tank. BC's can do it if rigged and fit a certain way giving up a lot of their options. BS's and command ships should of course be able to tank them solo. Having a single BS on a gate is quite risky and thereby they take a risk and are able to do it as well. Command ships cost quite a lot of isk. If they want to be able to tank sentry guns solo, they should be able to. What else? t2 Cruisers generally can't tank gate guns by themselves barring something like the sacrilege. Heavy interdictors were designed with gate guns in mind I'm sure. We shouldn't limit low-sec gatecamps to RR BS's or Command ships only. -------------------------------------------- ôHe who must expend his life to prolong life cannot enjoy it, and he who is still seeking for his life does not have it and can as little enjoy it"
NereSky Trinity Nova Trinity Nova Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.27 19:52:00 - [59] Not signed
Professor Leech Southern Light Entertainment Black Scope Project	Posted - 2008.05.28 00:41:00 - [60] Changing sentry gun damage will not change permatanking and those suggesting racial damage instead of the 18:32:32:18 (approximately) damage ratio that exists currently want to make them easier to tank. Buffing damage will not stop people from camping in low sec. Basically the intention of this proposal is to make low sec like high sec. WTF are you thinking? If you're scared of pirates don't go to low sec. Originally by: Crawe DeRaven this thread is obviously going places



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: 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.