| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tusko Hopkins
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
   |
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:47:00 -
[1]
Ship tech has advanced a lot since sentry guns have been introduced. New ship classes, massive tank beasts have been introduced, but the firepower of the sentries is still 2004ish. They need to be buffed up to be in line with today's ships.
First alternate to CSM.
|
Heartstone
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:51:00 -
[2]
Low Sec sentires need to be buffed a bit but also graded so the closer to High Sec they are the more problematic they are. For instance.
0.4 150% DPS of current
0.3 125% DPS of current
0.2 100% DPS of current
0.1 75% DPS of current
or something similar. That way there would be more meaning to the security status.
---
|
Erotic Irony
0bsession
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:53:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Erotic Irony on 22/05/2008 18:13:51
No they need to racial damage, makes no sense that everything is doing nothing but kinetic thermal despite being artillery or a laser.
___
Eve Players are not very smart.
Support Killmail Overhaul
|
Siona Windweaver
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:25:00 -
[4]
I support it, also racial damage idea is good.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:28:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Heartstone
Low Sec sentires need to be buffed a bit but also graded so the closer to High Sec they are the more problematic they are. For instance.
0.4 150% DPS of current
0.3 125% DPS of current
0.2 100% DPS of current
0.1 75% DPS of current
or something similar. That way there would be more meaning to the security status.
Originally by: Erotic Irony
No they need to racial damage, makes no sense that everything is doing nothing but kinetic thermal despite being artillery or a laser.
Agreed on both counts.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Ishina Fel
Synergy.
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 20:02:00 -
[6]
Sounds fair enough, though it is hardly a pressing issue.
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Zzz
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 20:06:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Kazuo Ishiguro on 22/05/2008 20:06:35
How is this thread on -1 supports when several people have apparently voted in favour of it?
Edit: seems to be working now.
My research services
Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant stats |
Nick119
Professional Industries
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 22:59:00 -
[8]
Agreed no more perma tanking sentrys
~Originally by: CCP Prism X~
Holy crap, I gave away real information! |
SencneS
Rebellion Against big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 23:03:00 -
[9]
You can sit on a 0.4 gate circle tanking with remote reps all day long. So I agree with this.
Amarr for Life |
Stakhanov
Metafarmers
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 23:26:00 -
[10]
Maybe that's because , you know , sentries were never meant to be impossible to tank ?
Battleships and command ships have been able to comfortably tank sentries since they were implemented. The sentries do their job fine , instapopping flagged frigates and drones. I am positive heavy interdictors were designed with sentry tanking in mind.
Not signed. I suppose sentries do not have racial damage to make them relatively hard to tank with cruisers (ruptures with EM/therm hardeners could camp amarr gates all day)
|
|
|
Frecator Dementa
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 00:37:00 -
[11]
.
-----------------------
forum ate my post again |
Minud Distr
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 01:11:00 -
[12]
Agreed. It should be possible to tank sentries, but their current damage is ridiculous compared to today's ships. |
Kinkie Yuuki
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 01:18:00 -
[13]
I concur.
|
Zeknichov
Imperial Shipment
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 01:20:00 -
[14]
Why buff sentry guns in low-sec? We want more low-sec fighting not less.
|
Bunyip
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 05:00:00 -
[15]
One of the ideas I had in my original campaign bid was to make the sentries increase over time. Yes, they do pitiful damage, and gate camps are kinda a nightmare, but this will force people to keep on the move rather than just sitting and tanking until the cows come home.
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.
-Bunyip
"May all your hits be crits." - Knights of the Dinner Table.
A candidate for the Council of Stellar Management. View my website here. |
Rawr Cristina
Naqam
Project Alice.
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 07:52:00 -
[16]
the only way I would be happy with a buff to sentry gun DPS is if the tracking got nerfed.
buffing sentry DPS by itself is going to do nothing but force people to use even bigger camps than they already do.
...
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 08:51:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Rawr Cristina
the only way I would be happy with a buff to sentry gun DPS is if the tracking got nerfed.
buffing sentry DPS by itself is going to do nothing but force people to use even bigger camps than they already do.
Yes, buffing their damage will only make people use bigger gangs. As long as the sentries split their fire. Now if sentries did the same damage to ALL ships regardless of gang size, the gang size would not matter anymore at least for sentry tanking, and thus remove one encouragement for bigger blobs.
Nerfing sentry tracking would be utterly wrong imho, currently the only redeeming thing about lowsec is that nanofaggots can't tank sentries very well, so lowsec actually provides 'normal' combat and most camps are escapable in fast ships because they have no inties.
Make suicide ganking more difficult!
|
Sariyah
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 09:04:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Sariyah on 23/05/2008 09:05:26
And in what way bigger gangs are a bad thing? Say 100 pirates now make 20 camps they will only have 10 camps, it's still better ain't it. Manpower is a limited resource in Eve.
Yep, damage should be 150-200%... maybe 150 is good enough but even 200 would be tankable with properly fitted heavy ships. At least no newbs in BBs on gates.
Aoe sentry guns sound really silly. Increasing damage sounds just fine. Don't be like CCP sometimes moving between extremes. A 150-200% damage would make it considerably more difficult to camp compared to what it is now. More tank = less firepower etc.
|
Rawr Cristina
Naqam
Project Alice.
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 17:08:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Sariyah
Edited by: Sariyah on 23/05/2008 09:05:26
And in what way bigger gangs are a bad thing?
Less camps, and those that exist are too huge to actually deal with for a lot of people
overall effect = less fights (and those you get are likely to be blobfests rather than the typical 2/3 vs 3/4)
...
|
Havohej
The Defias Brotherhood
DEFI4NT
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 17:21:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Tusko Hopkins
Ship tech has advanced a lot since sentry guns have been introduced. New ship classes, massive tank beasts have been introduced, but the firepower of the sentries is still 2004ish. They need to be buffed up to be in line with today's ships.
No. Battlecruisers and T2 cruisers (HICs? HACs?) are able to tank the sentry guns, but they generally have to sacrifice gank in order to fit a good tank. Battleships can tank the sentry guns. My frigates, AFs, Interceptors, Interdictors, T1 cruisers* and Recons cannot tank the sentry guns. (did I leave out any ship types?)
In other words, spend more than 60M on a ship, and you might survive the sentry guns. Spend less, and you probably won't. The Sentry guns, much like CONCORD, are not there to provide you with absolute protection. They are there to provide a penalty for criminal aggression.
*Note: I have seen Moas and Ruptures that were able to tank sentry guns for a short period of time, less than 2 minutes... hardly a "problem".
Originally by: techzer0
I'm invincible until proven wrong
|
|
|
xena zena
Catalyst Corporation
Dominatus Phasmatis
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 17:27:00 -
[21]
Racial damage will *ONLY* make it easier to tank. right now they do equal damage on all types, hardest to tank.
They're pretty tough to tank! You really have to gimp your damage and speed to be able to tank them, and usually only in the largest of ships. Most HAC's can't indefinitely tank them, they have to use cap boosters, which limits their ability to tank them to just a minute or two.
Not a big issue IMHO. 
|
Scoop de'Woop
X Bane X
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 17:30:00 -
[22]
Yup, don't see any problem with the way they are now.
|
Furb Killer
The Peacekeeper Core
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 18:02:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Zeknichov
Why buff sentry guns in low-sec? We want more low-sec fighting not less.
Exactly, more fighting, where for me fighting is something where both sides shoot each other and not one side completely outguns the other side.
The last gatecamp i saw had 25 ships camping one low sec gate. It wasnt a fight for those who came through, it was insta popped.
If you want more fighting you need more people. You get more people if people can enter low sec without being ganked.
|
Havohej
The Defias Brotherhood
DEFI4NT
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 18:18:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Furb Killer
Originally by: Zeknichov
Why buff sentry guns in low-sec? We want more low-sec fighting not less.
Exactly, more fighting, where for me fighting is something where both sides shoot each other and not one side completely outguns the other side.
The last gatecamp i saw had 25 ships camping one low sec gate. It wasnt a fight for those who came through, it was insta popped.
If you want more fighting you need more people. You get more people if people can enter low sec without being ganked.
I don't think you understand... the sentry guns don't just stay on one target. They fire at one guy a few times then move to the next guy. It doesn't matter how many ships you have in your gate camp, if each ship can't tank the guns, then they'll die. Why do you think you see battleships, HICs, BCs, HACs and recons which stay cloaked for the most part in these lowsec camps, but no frigates, no cruisers, no dictors? 'Cause the frigs, cruisers and dictors can't tank the guns.
They're not camping the gate with 25 people because that's the only way to be able to tank the guns - they're doing it because they have 25 people who want to sit there and camp the gate.
Now, you might say that having a bunch of ships means that the guns cycle around through more people, which gives everyone else time to rep up before the guns get back to them, but by that logic, unless you make it so the guns instapop BSes, upping the damage isn't going to change anything there, either - they'll just bring even MORE ships to make it take even longer for the guns to cycle back to any given target, so that they still have time to rep up between cycles of sentry fire.
This is a 'careful what you wish for' kind of thing...
Originally by: techzer0
I'm invincible until proven wrong
|
Furb Killer
The Peacekeeper Core
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 18:47:00 -
[25]
Exactly again, so increase their damage, then gatecamps become harder, and you get less gatecamps.
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 19:02:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Furb Killer
Exactly again, so increase their damage, then gatecamps become harder, and you get less gatecamps.
Low sec sentry guns add to the dps of the defender and are fine as they are, to boost them to a stupid level would make low sec way to safe.
Gate camping in low sec is easily avoided if are smart enough to have a scout but if you do not you deserve to get popped tbh.
PS: RK & bruce suck at pvp . |
El'Niaga
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 10:15:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Heartstone
Low Sec sentires need to be buffed a bit but also graded so the closer to High Sec they are the more problematic they are. For instance.
0.4 150% DPS of current
0.3 125% DPS of current
0.2 100% DPS of current
0.1 75% DPS of current
or something similar. That way there would be more meaning to the security status.
Originally by: Erotic Irony
No they need to racial damage, makes no sense that everything is doing nothing but kinetic thermal despite being artillery or a laser.
Agreed on both counts.
I agree with these two proposals.
|
Conrad Rock
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 10:59:00 -
[28]
Signed, this will force pirates to have bigger camps, so overall, there will be less camped low-sec systems.
|
Ameliorate
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 12:11:00 -
[29]
Biased support: I am sick of gate camps popping my Badgers.
|
Ethaet
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 12:59:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Ethaet on 24/05/2008 12:59:11
/signed. sentry guns should be powerful enough to kill most non capital ships eventually. Maybe increasing dps over time as they keep firing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Seriously, we need some kind of separation between the post and signature.
There you go. Now that wasn't so hard  |
|
|
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
|
|
|
Zorda
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 20:03:00 -
[61]
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2008.06.01 05:18:00 -
[62]
who needs sentries when you can just log off! oh then wait two minutes, log in and log off again and be in a safe spot and then just head on your way
|
BlondieBC
7th Tribal Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.01 05:57:00 -
[63]
CCP please update.
|
Frug
Repo Industries
R.E.P.O.
|
Posted - 2008.06.01 06:17:00 -
[64]
This just isn't a pressing enough issue.
- - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - -
If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO
BOOO!! - Ductoris
Neat look what I found - Kreul
Hey, my marbles |
Unreal5
Malicious Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.06.01 06:36:00 -
[65]
no, they're fine as they are
ASD |
Nick Bete
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 18:00:00 -
[66]
Boosting the pain of sentry guns would be a nice start towards decreasing the imbalanced higher risk of low sec, thus encouraging people to go there IMO. |
Kethry Avenger
Krell-Korp
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 19:18:00 -
[67]
I disagree, they hit pretty hard and thats in a T2 fitted BS.
|
Arkady Sadik
Gradient
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 19:22:00 -
[68]
AFAIK, sentries do 176 dps per gun, so in low-sec with two guns per gate, 352 dps. Damage type spread is quite ok (17% em, 17% ex, 33% ki, 33% th, IIRC). They have a 100% hit chance and an optimal of 150km or so, which makes their dps a good deal higher than the comparable dps of a BC/BS. I'd say they're at non-gank BS level, comparatively, which is ok. You need a dedicated tank on your bs to actually permanently tank them - or you spider tank. But they're not meant to pwn your bs when you get flagged, they're meant as a nuisance and anti-tackler weapon.
The biggest problem that makes sentries easily tankable is that they do not combine fire and cycle targets. If you have a few people in your fleet, you only have to survive 176 dps for 20 seconds. That's ridiculously low, and a spider tank can easily keep everyone alive. That is the problem with sentries.
Do not give unnecessary, additional bonuses to large groups. Make sentries shoot every flashy at a gate at the same time. Then, their current dps is just fine, and they work as a nice force mitigator.
|
Elsebeth Rhiannon
Gradient
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 11:38:00 -
[69]
Edited by: Elsebeth Rhiannon on 06/06/2008 11:39:10
Ok, this will sound real funny coming from an antipirate, but no, pls don't change low sec sentry guns much, they are quite fine as they are. They give some disadvantage to the initial aggressor, but do not turn the battle.
The only problem I see with them is that a large number of ships can tank the sentries by just having the large numbers. Make the guns concentrate fire, that'll take care of it.
--
Help us defend the Republic; join Gradient today.
|
Akiba Penrose
PAK
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 12:18:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Akiba Penrose on 06/06/2008 12:22:02
Im a antipirate and id like to see the removal of sentrys in lw sec.
They do not help the ones getting ganked in camps. All they do is act as an excuse for pirates to avoid players that actually wants to fight them.
- -
Falcons |
|
|
Dav Varan
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 13:05:00 -
[71]
Having the sentry guns on your side is like having an indestructable battlecruiser on your side.
An Indestructable battlecruiser with perfect tracking I might add.
They stop Pie's from using nano ships and drones.
There good enough as they are.
Don't complain if you jump into a PvP area in a bear ship or untanked hauler and get ganked.
If your anti-pie then stop asking the game to do your work for you , whats the point in that ?
Gates are fine.
Not Signed.
|
DiamondEdges
Black Lotus Foundation
Damned Pirates
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 02:41:00 -
[72]
Sentury guns even at 200 percent more dammage will not at all stop a camp. it will only stop SOME solo gankers from sitting on a gate flaged.
If you fear for your badger that much, go to high sec cause LOW SEC, is suppose to be LOW sec not high sec.
|
DeviloftheHell
Caldari
RaaFharaX
Omega Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 10:52:00 -
[73]
improve the guns arent necessary just dont go into lowsec whit badgers and etc if you are soo noob to let them to lock you its your problem
cos some people too stupid for fit his/her ship for lowsec its their fault not the guns
pirate camps will going on if you make the guns more stronger but enough stronger the guys cos they arent destructable
|
Somealt Ofmine
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 14:16:00 -
[74]
The reason that low-sec is dead right now is that it's imbalanced toward the pirates.
Try to do industry or NPCing out there and you're just a victim. Try to anti-pirate and you just go broke, because the pirates will just scatter when presented with anything close to an even fight and tend to drop crappy loot even when you do catch them out.
It collapsed for a reason, and that reason is not because the game mechanics make it too hard to pirate. Anything that starts to shift the balance from the outlaws back toward the citizens will help bring people back there.
|
Somealt Ofmine
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 14:20:00 -
[75]
Originally by: DiamondEdges
Sentury guns even at 200 percent more dammage will not at all stop a camp. it will only stop SOME solo gankers from sitting on a gate flaged.
If you fear for your badger that much, go to high sec cause LOW SEC, is suppose to be LOW sec not high sec.
You need to make up your mind. On one thread this morning you say "if you don't like it go to high-sec", on another you say "we have to find a way to get you out of high-sec".
|
Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 15:58:00 -
[76]
Not signed for already stated reasons.
|
eliminator2
Gallente
You're Doing It Wrong
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 16:20:00 -
[77]
I disagree with this low sec will be more useless and is there actually any pirates signing this or is it high sec livers wanting to pass through low sec with less gate camping?
and if you are signing this you should live in low sec to be able to signe it not jut random high sec/0.0 ***s
|
Opertone
SIEGE.
The Border Patrol
|
Posted - 2008.08.17 22:57:00 -
[78]
support
|
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 12:30:00 -
[79]
**** off
SKUNK
|
Rostran Targo
Minmatar
Kinda'Shujaa
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 12:59:00 -
[80]
No
Hey look! It's a signature!
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
|
|
Inertial
The Python Cartel
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 13:31:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Sariyah
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.
Ehgawd.
What you are claiming is basically that:
"Since this is how it used to be back in the day, this is how it should be now"
I am pretty sure this is some sort of chronological/historical/whatever fallacy, and since you are making one, I will too.
"Since human sacrfice used to be practiced in the past, we should start practicing human sacrificing"
I might also add:
"Lets start by sacrificing Sariyah(ingame)"
we are recruiting!
|
Exlegion
New Light
Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 14:20:00 -
[82]
Agreed.
One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr |
ian666
Rave Technologies Inc.
C0VEN
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 16:26:00 -
[83]
no, guns are already too strong
|
Danjira Ryuujin
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 23:04:00 -
[84]
Edited by: Danjira Ryuujin on 18/08/2008 23:04:27
Yes, take a look at sentry guns please. If pirates had to scan people out instead of ****ing each other off all day at a gate camp, you might actually get more people INTO low sec. |
Daveydweeb
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.19 05:50:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Siona Windweaver
I support it, also racial damage idea is good.
Not without a much more significant increase in DPS than has been suggested already. Omni-tanks are much less effective than one that's designed for just one or two damage types, so a mere ~150% increase in DPS output with a shift to racial damage types makes the change essentially meaningless.
That said, I support the concept in principle. |
Irongut
M'8'S
Frontal Impact
|
Posted - 2008.08.19 07:03:00 -
[86]
Sentry guns are fine as they are. |
Malcanis
We are Legend
eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.08.19 07:09:00 -
[87]
Replace or (enhance if you must) sentries with roving NPC patrols. |
Saraah Leeown
|
Posted - 2008.08.19 12:01:00 -
[88]
Why not increase the DPS but give them worse tracking? Or a larger signature resolution so smaller ships will still take some damage, but larger ships won't be able to just sit on the gate tanking the guns indefinitely.
I have no problems with gate camps etc, I just don't see how battleships etc should be able to sit on a gate, perma-tanking the guns while smartbombing with relative impunity. |
Farrqua
Minmatar
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.19 16:22:00 -
[89]
Yea OK, If you make it too hard to tank in the ships currently camping the gates, you will see a return of the Mizh Smarty gate camps. (You know the one where he sits on the Hek gate in Otou in his Nyx and kills everything with in reach?) Then you get to see all the wonderful whine posts of "I was not even out of warp and I got killed why?!!"
And as far as getting more people into low-sec. You have to be kidding. There is nothing in low-sec to get the people into the damn belts. All you are doing is setting up a JB jewperhighway type network that makes the haulers as safe as they were in High sec.
Increase the value of the belts and then maybe it would make some sense.
Plus is you remember they buffed the guns already and reduced the shield recharge and resists on the ships. |
RuleoftheBone
Minmatar
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.19 22:56:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Ameliorate
Biased support: I am sick of gate camps popping my unscouted Badgers and everything else.
Not supported in the slightest.
Any support for this is simply based on variations of above-quoted individual (yeah I modified the post a smidge  ).
Also...LOL thread.
|
|
|
Arthmandar Valikari
|
Posted - 2008.08.19 23:14:00 -
[91]
I support this, but not for the reason specified.
I think that the guns probably do a fine job now... but I think it would be good for Eve to make it easier to *travel* somewhere in lowsec. Gatecamping is boring to those as do it, and lame and frustrating to those that receive it.
I would rather encourage more people to get into lowsec, where more interesting fights can happen at stations, belts, POSes, etc.
Remember, everyone traveling in lowsec is on their way somewhere. I would prefer to push combat to that somewhere rather than on the gates, and I think this would help.
So, /signed. |
Deej Montana
Outbound Flight
|
Posted - 2008.08.20 20:29:00 -
[92]
Originally by: DiamondEdges
If you fear for your badger that much, go to high sec cause LOW SEC, is suppose to be LOW sec not high sec.
And yet they complain that there's no one in low sec for them to hunt. Jeez, at least be consistent....
But I agree that the guns should be brought in line with today's ships. |
DEATHsyphon
Gallente
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 02:10:00 -
[93]
DEATHsyphon looks around and sees all the people in support are on our Alliances KB.
Low sec already needs a boost sooooo Yeahhh NO.
Also I'm pretty sure Sentry Guns have seen some changes since 2004. |
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 10:45:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Arthmandar Valikari
I would rather encourage more people to get into lowsec, where more interesting fights can happen at stations, belts, POSes, etc.
Yes....
Fights at belts: Yes there are many fights at belts, due to the rubbish roids and piddly frigate npc bounties.
Fights at Station: Yes, there are many fights at stations, where people can tank and dock whenever they want
Fights at POS - Yes lets fight at a pos- where there are guns, neut batterys, jams batteries, and a convienient shield for the defender to sit afk in.
Fights at etc: There is no ETC.
- The only place to get a target with any degree of regularity is at a gate.
The sentry guns in their present state:
 Already encourage blobbing to help tanking...
Q:"YOU GUYS ARE BIG BULLIES WHY YOU NOT 1V1 ME"
A:Because previous carebear whines lead to sentry guns being set up, then another whine lead to them being indestructable. As such a gang is neccesary to take out a target
Prevent 50% of ships and fittings being used by the outlaws. No intys to tackle, no close jammers, no nano fits, heavy tanks mandatory, remote reps advisory.
This thread is supported by a few bears who may have been into low sec once or twice and got ganked and have no experience of being an outlaw.
SKUNK
|
K1RTH G3RS3N
Hanzai Soshiki
BROTHERS GRIM.
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 11:07:00 -
[95]
Edited by: K1RTH G3RS3N on 21/08/2008 11:07:35
Originally by: Conrad Rock
Signed, this will force pirates to have bigger camps, so overall, there will be less camped low-sec systems.
no - there will just be more blobs.
being a pirate will therefor require being in big ass blobs.
another update to increase fleet sizes.
fail. |
K1RTH G3RS3N
Hanzai Soshiki
BROTHERS GRIM.
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 11:13:00 -
[96]
Originally by: K1RTH G3RS3N
Edited by: K1RTH G3RS3N on 21/08/2008 11:07:35
Originally by: Conrad Rock
Signed, this will force pirates to have bigger camps, so overall, there will be less camped low-sec systems.
no - there will just be more blobs.
being a pirate will therefor require being in big ass blobs.
another update to increase fleet sizes.
fail.
also there are enough penalties for being an outlaw as it is.
like you cant fire on ppl without sentry agression but they can fire on you... and then your friend cant help without taking sentry fire etc etc etc.
but its good like that because if it was great being a pirate then everyone would be then it would suk so meh. |
MirrorGod
Heretic Militia
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 11:26:00 -
[97]
Epicly, NO
 Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. |
Zarch AlDain
Hematite Rose
Bionic Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 12:14:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Heartstone
Low Sec sentires need to be buffed a bit but also graded so the closer to High Sec they are the more problematic they are. For instance.
0.4 150% DPS of current
0.3 125% DPS of current
0.2 100% DPS of current
0.1 75% DPS of current
or something similar. That way there would be more meaning to the security status.
Seems reasonable, sentry drone fire is pretty feeble atm.
|
Zaranya Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 17:50:00 -
[99]
Edited by: Zaranya Amarr on 25/08/2008 17:50:38
Support. But...
Tweak the guns to lay waste (quickly) to capitals, battleships, battlecruisers, etc.
Tweak the guns to do little to no damage on t1 cruisers, assault frigates, interceptors, frigates, stealth bombers, etc.
Maybe this would make for far more fun small ship PvP on the gates.
The asteroid belts (that currently have no one in them because they die trying to get in low sec) will start to fill up a bit as the reward is comparable to the risk. This means more targets and you can still use your pimp gatecamp Battleship to blow up people in belts.
This is good for everyone, pirates and pvpers will be much happier to have more people coming in and having to use a bit more strategy than sit, tank, and overwhelm. Traders in their big fat industrials might have a chance, might. Intermediate players will have an exciting place to rat or mission before getting the skills to step out onto the 0.0 playing field. Either way you can still die but you might last a minute or two which is much more satisfying than watching your ship disappear in a blaze of fire ending your 5 second journey into low sec.
|
Another Forum'Alt
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 18:39:00 -
[100]
|
|
|
NightmareX
MAFIA
Pirate Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 18:50:00 -
[101]
Edited by: NightmareX on 25/08/2008 18:57:13
I'm a bit late in this topic, but to you guys who support this, i have a question to you.
Was the HP buff on all ships meant to let the ships last longer in fights or to let the ships pop as fast as they did before the HP buff?
If you answer that the HP buff was meant to let the ship live longer, then why are you supporting this thing by saying increase the DPS on the sentrys. The ships wont last longer if they increase the DPS on sentrys.
That's the reason for the HP buff, to let ships live longer.
But no, not signed from me.
|
Unreal5
Malicious Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 21:53:00 -
[102]
no. stupid idea
ASD |
Mister Xerox
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 23:01:00 -
[103]
Senries should be upgraded to be more in-line with existing POS modules.
There should, of course, be guns... and those guns should do a respectable amount of damage (150-200 DPS per gun, all types), but there also need to be ECM sentries, Cap Neut sentries, Webbing sentries, ect. Just no scrambling sentries (let the PCs/rats do that).
|
Piru Industrial
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 23:06:00 -
[104]
Edited by: Piru Industrial on 25/08/2008 23:07:10
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: Rawr Cristina
the only way I would be happy with a buff to sentry gun DPS is if the tracking got nerfed.
buffing sentry DPS by itself is going to do nothing but force people to use even bigger camps than they already do.
Yes, buffing their damage will only make people use bigger gangs. As long as the sentries split their fire. Now if sentries did the same damage to ALL ships regardless of gang size, the gang size would not matter anymore at least for sentry tanking, and thus remove one encouragement for bigger blobs.
Nerfing sentry tracking would be utterly wrong imho, currently the only redeeming thing about lowsec is that nano***gots can't tank sentries very well, so lowsec actually provides 'normal' combat and most camps are escapable in fast ships because they have no inties.
quoted for best signature.
ps. i dislike my ship getting blowed up when i dont want it do as much as the next guy, but to me gate camps are fine the way they are now. ive lost a good deal of money to pirates. though most of those were by accident as i am fortunate enough to have a 2nd account from which i can scout from.
-
The ISK must flow.. |
Confirmed
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 16:56:00 -
[105]
|
Larkonis Trassler
Neo Spartans
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 18:04:00 -
[106]
No.
This thread is full of people, many of whom I think will have had little or no lowsec experience aside from maybe being ganked in an AP hauler or some such.
Ramp up the damage from the guns and it will only result in bigger camps, which are harder to break, resulting in less fights and more gankage of unsuspecting passers by.
The guns prevent the use of small fast tacklers and nanoships on the gates. That is good enough for me. Stick to the highsec pipes if you don't want heavy camps.
If you change this it will make things slightly harder for 'weaker' pirate corps but the big ones will still flourish and profit off the traffic the weaker camps are no longer picking up.
OP Fails.
Assumption of Risk |
Akiba Penrose
The Movement
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 21:23:00 -
[107]
Sentries should be removed.
They do not help those caught in a gate camp, sentries makes no difference to them.
The only time sentries makes a difference is when pirates meets Anti pirates, then they work as a excuse not to fight.
Keep sentries at high sec/low sec boarder gates and stations, remove the rest.
|
SgtDeaux
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 11:36:00 -
[108]
Ive played both sides of this card...I think we need to do whatever would encourage more people to rat in low sec and mine in low sec... Targets or opportunities to make isk in low sec depending on your version of eve are being coming harder to come by.
More often than not a outing of some relaxing pvp is disrupted by a blob of other people trying to get some relaxing pvp..mostly blobbed because engauging something on a gate in anything less than a t2 ship or t2 fitted ship solo is suicide.. There are characters that rely upon the gateguns as half their dps in pvp.. See AMI on any weekday night.. attack the thorax on the gate then watch the gank mega appear.
The gate guns are becoming too much of a crutch for some and a hinderance for others... CCP bring back benefits for carebears who brave low sec... Give them greater rewards.. and stop punishing the pvp'ers who attempt to educate the carebears on the ways of low sec living.
|
SFX Bladerunner
Naval Protection Corp
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 12:09:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Ishina Fel
Sounds fair enough, though it is hardly a pressing issue.
well, I personally would have to disagree with you.
Right now, as it is, someone in a BROADSWORD (yes, ive seen it done, ive been blown up by it) can just gatecamp a 0.4 system at 0m from the gate and shoot stuff up.
I do not believe CCP ever intended one person to just be able to (pirate) gatecamp a 0.4 system gate, or atleast i really hope so.
I totally agree that low-sec guns need boosting.
__________________________________________________
History is much like an endless waltz, the three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.. |
rimpula
Rehtirepen pisnes ja pilkkiseura
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 13:42:00 -
[110]
|
|
|
Amberly Coteaz
Amarr
The Black Rabbits
The Gurlstas Associates
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 15:31:00 -
[111]
Originally by: SFX Bladerunner
Originally by: Ishina Fel
Sounds fair enough, though it is hardly a pressing issue.
well, I personally would have to disagree with you.
Right now, as it is, someone in a BROADSWORD (yes, ive seen it done, ive been blown up by it) can just gatecamp a 0.4 system at 0m from the gate and shoot stuff up.
I do not believe CCP ever intended one person to just be able to (pirate) gatecamp a 0.4 system gate, or atleast i really hope so.
I totally agree that low-sec guns need boosting.
My god man, what failure of a ship were you flying to die to a lone broadsword on a gate?
Anything frigate sized can warp off before the broadsword gets a lock.
Any battlecruiser with a reasonable fit can kill an agressed broadsword or tank long enough to jump through the gate (hint free 350 dps)
Battleships are in the same position as the Battlecruiser.
Which leaves cruiser hulls which can ewar, burn away from, tank or gank (free 350 dps) said broadsword depending on specific ship.
If you died in an unscouted hauler/mining ship then its your own fault for being silly, a fool and his ISK are soon parted.
Sentry gun DPS is fine.
If you find yourself in a fair fight, something went wrong
Originally by: Patch86
OK people, Amberly Coteaz has won life for the time being. Everyone go home and wait for the round reset.
|
Ackuula
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 18:13:00 -
[112]
add in a "warp to 200km" and I'd support this |
SFX Bladerunner
Naval Protection Corp
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2008.08.29 09:11:00 -
[113]
Originally by: Amberly Coteaz
Originally by: SFX Bladerunner
Originally by: Ishina Fel
Sounds fair enough, though it is hardly a pressing issue.
well, I personally would have to disagree with you.
Right now, as it is, someone in a BROADSWORD (yes, ive seen it done, ive been blown up by it) can just gatecamp a 0.4 system at 0m from the gate and shoot stuff up.
I do not believe CCP ever intended one person to just be able to (pirate) gatecamp a 0.4 system gate, or atleast i really hope so.
I totally agree that low-sec guns need boosting.
My god man, what failure of a ship were you flying to die to a lone broadsword on a gate?
Anything frigate sized can warp off before the broadsword gets a lock.
Any battlecruiser with a reasonable fit can kill an agressed broadsword or tank long enough to jump through the gate (hint free 350 dps)
Battleships are in the same position as the Battlecruiser.
Which leaves cruiser hulls which can ewar, burn away from, tank or gank (free 350 dps) said broadsword depending on specific ship.
If you died in an unscouted hauler/mining ship then its your own fault for being silly, a fool and his ISK are soon parted.
Sentry gun DPS is fine.
well, it was in a hauler
I scouted the damn gate with an alt right before though.
Yes you are right, any decent combat ship would have survived... hell I survived a 15man T2 0.4 gatecamp in a travel fitted DRAKE by just turning on mwd and reapproaching gate while they were locking me and trying to get through my shield (got me down to about 30% before I could jump out).
My biggest concern though isn't that a broadsword or similar ship could kill a hauler on a 0.4 gate.. the biggest concern I have is that sometimes haulers NEED to go into 0.4 for stuff like agent missions etc.
Now if only battleships etc were able to solo camp 0.4 gates a hauler could probably make it out, which would make it more fair in my opinion.
Personally, I used to do missions in Gelfiven (borders 2 0.4 systems) untill new ships and probing patches came up and pirates started camping those 2 0.4 systems excessively and probing out missioners in those systems.
I spent about an hour looking for a good lvl4 agent in empire that WON'T send you to 0.4 or below systems, and found ONE good agent with 0.5 or above systems in all directions for 4 jumps. just ONE. missioning in empire just isn't fun anymore because of the constant fear of pirates/probers.
__________________________________________________
History is much like an endless waltz, the three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.. |
Lt Angus
Caldari
Lt Angus Corp
|
Posted - 2008.08.29 09:57:00 -
[114]
bunch of people who don't know what they are talking about,
Have you seen the setups we need to tank sentrys, if anyone comes in a pvp fit we die, luckily hardly anyone ever fights back.
Shhhh, Im hunting Badgers |
Tuleingel
|
Posted - 2008.08.29 12:49:00 -
[115]
Yea! Let's nerf em all !
|
Amberly Coteaz
Amarr
The Black Rabbits
The Gurlstas Associates
|
Posted - 2008.08.29 13:54:00 -
[116]
Originally by: SFX Bladerunner
Originally by: Amberly Coteaz
Originally by: SFX Bladerunner
Originally by: Ishina Fel
Snip
snip
snip
well, it was in a hauler
I scouted the damn gate with an alt right before though.
Yes you are right, any decent combat ship would have survived... hell I survived a 15man T2 0.4 gatecamp in a travel fitted DRAKE by just turning on mwd and reapproaching gate while they were locking me and trying to get through my shield (got me down to about 30% before I could jump out).
My biggest concern though isn't that a broadsword or similar ship could kill a hauler on a 0.4 gate.. the biggest concern I have is that sometimes haulers NEED to go into 0.4 for stuff like agent missions etc.
Now if only battleships etc were able to solo camp 0.4 gates a hauler could probably make it out, which would make it more fair in my opinion.
Personally, I used to do missions in Gelfiven (borders 2 0.4 systems) untill new ships and probing patches came up and pirates started camping those 2 0.4 systems excessively and probing out missioners in those systems.
I spent about an hour looking for a good lvl4 agent in empire that WON'T send you to 0.4 or below systems, and found ONE good agent with 0.5 or above systems in all directions for 4 jumps. just ONE. missioning in empire just isn't fun anymore because of the constant fear of pirates/probers.
Then you scouted badly and its still your own fault for getting killed.
You admit that and decently fit combat ship would have survived the engagement, yet still think that you should be able to waltz on through in a none combat ship with near impunity.
Really sentry DPS is right on the mark in my opinion. It discourages solo gate camping whilst still being viable and it gives certain tactical advantages to an attacking side: less drones, no frigate hulls, limited use of cruiser hulls, lack of shield buffer on armour tankers, lower cap from tanking, less cap charges, less gank the list goes on...
If you find yourself in a fair fight, something went wrong
Originally by: Patch86
OK people, Amberly Coteaz has won life for the time being. Everyone go home and wait for the round reset.
|
Pithecanthropus
|
Posted - 2008.08.29 14:57:00 -
[117]
I'll support this, even tho its been 3 years since I've been ganked at a gate.
---------------------------------
Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man. |
oilio
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.08.30 04:45:00 -
[118]
Ship tanks are better. Sentry guns haven't improved.
Improve Sentry guns - it may be one of the steps that gets more people to go into low sec.
|
Zara Skyray
Caldari
DEADLY RENEGADE ELITE ASSASSIN MERC SQUAD
|
Posted - 2008.08.31 02:00:00 -
[119]
Edited by: Zara Skyray on 31/08/2008 02:09:10
Not signed - not even a little.
Sentry guns already do their job - i.e. providing a consequence for lowsec piracy - quite well. As many have pointed out, it takes a BS, Commandship, Hictor or specialized BC/HAC to tank the guns. Many have complained that these ships can "instapop a badger" etc.
My response?
Of course they can. They SHOULD for Pete's sake! Your badger costs 1 mil for the hull and 20mil for mods if you go all out. The minimum cost of a good solo gatecamp ship is about 80-100mil. I could get into comparitive skill points, but suffice to say that gatecamp ships also require MANY mroe SP than industrials. Any system which made it such that these ships couldn't kill your 1-20mil badger would be horribly broken.
If you want to travel through lowsec in relative safety, hire a scout, get a transport ship or rig your ship out such that it aligns too quickly for a big nasty BS or BC to chase you down. In other words, invest more SP and ISK - that's what the pirates have to do. Shouldn't you have to do the same to beat them?
Finally, I feel that it is worth mentioning that increasing sentry DPS will only make gatecamps larger. Fewer? Yes. But MUCH larger. Solo/small team gatecamps aren't too bad for travel - they are beatable. You can conceivably get a ship through them or even put together a fleet to kill them/chase them off. Large gatecamps are soul-destroying monsters against which there is little defense and almost no possibility of attack. Lets NOT create a system which encourages more of them.
|
irion felpamy
Minmatar
HellJumpers Corp
United For 0rder
|
Posted - 2008.08.31 02:18:00 -
[120]
sentrys limit the role of small ships without making it impossible to fight around them, they are a deterrant and work to swing the balance of small scale fights. no change required.
|
|
|
SickSeven
|
Posted - 2008.08.31 05:43:00 -
[121]
I fully support the buffing of sentry guns. And scaling their damage according to sec status of system. I also agree that we want to encourage more low sec fighting! However, low sec gate camps do not encourage more carebears/newbs to go to low sec!!!!
Some people really never think things through. 
|
Fox Walken
Delucian Defence Initiative
|
Posted - 2008.08.31 10:55:00 -
[122]
Disagree, this is bears whining, nothing more.
The beauty of EVE is the danger everywhere, lose that and its a WoW in space.
|
Xyzibit
New-Roots
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 16:09:00 -
[123]
signed ... sentry dps is too low
good idea to lower dps with the systems sec status <-- also supported
|
BiggestT
Caldari
Space Oddysey
Pupule 'Ohana
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 13:14:00 -
[124]
Originally by: Rawr Cristina
the only way I would be happy with a buff to sentry gun DPS is if the tracking got nerfed.
buffing sentry DPS by itself is going to do nothing but force people to use even bigger camps than they already do.
excactly,
unless they *dmg by 4 and make racial (effectively no change in total dps), then no support
Proudly annoying FC's since 2007
Originally by: Sherrif Jones
*ding ding!*
Wrangler: Hello and w-
*ding ding!*
Wrangler: Damn nanowhiners...*goes back to reading*
|
Cpt Branko
Surge.
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 15:39:00 -
[125]
No, they don't.
Forcing people to just blob more (and fight less actual fights) at gates is bad. Sentries are fine, really. They raise the bar for camping to a BC (for limited sentry action) or a tanked T2 cruiser, so you don't get all the annoying insta-locking interceptors and such.
Nerfing pirates trying to fight under sentries even more is just a bad thing. Sentries are already a significant advantage on the side of FW / anti-pirate gangs which insist on fighting us at gates. They remove a solid part of our DPS via drone killing and contribute to the overall damage.
If you think that increased sentry damage would make people stop gatecamping, it won't. It'll stop the easy to avoid 2 man gatecamp, and it will nerf actual interesting fights under sentries where we already have a disadvantage, since we do get sentry aggro if we remote rep each other or shoot someone who has agressed our gang mates (which is really stupid).
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Cpt Branko
Surge.
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 15:40:00 -
[126]
Originally by: SickSeven
I fully support the buffing of sentry guns. And scaling their damage according to sec status of system. I also agree that we want to encourage more low sec fighting! However, low sec gate camps do not encourage more carebears/newbs to go to low sec!!!!
Some people really never think things through.
It'll promote more SS / dock tactics by gatecampers to avoid fights (which are already very annoying under sentries), but will not deter us from gatecamping and ganking 10:1.
So it achieves precisely the opposite of what you want.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Nekopyat
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 18:58:00 -
[127]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
So it achieves precisely the opposite of what you want.
Maybe it is time to re-examine gate guns in general, possibly even getting rid of them all together (or at least make them destructible).
They are pretty useless at this point. Anything big enough to tank them will wipe out a T1 indy, and anything small that MIGHT have been an interesting fight gets popped in no time. They also discourage young pirates, leaving camps to the people who have the SP/ISK for battleships (which, granted, is no longer a big deal)
|
Cpt Branko
Surge.
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 20:18:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Nekopyat
Originally by: Cpt Branko
So it achieves precisely the opposite of what you want.
Maybe it is time to re-examine gate guns in general, possibly even getting rid of them all together (or at least make them destructible).
They are pretty useless at this point. Anything big enough to tank them will wipe out a T1 indy, and anything small that MIGHT have been an interesting fight gets popped in no time. They also discourage young pirates, leaving camps to the people who have the SP/ISK for battleships (which, granted, is no longer a big deal)
The issue is that removing gate guns would make low-sec more dangerous for legitimate low-sec dwellers the same way FW (and the associated gangs of small, fast and fast locking ships) has made low-sec more dangerous for pirates (personally I used to roam in bigger ships without too many worries, except running into a really big and really organized gatecamp, those days are gone).
It'd effectively mean that even frigates/etc would get caught and killed, and cloakers would have a much much harder time given a ceptor can MWD and decloak it in mere second. Cruisers would literally stand no chance, and nano-ships would get much more common in hands of pirates*.
All that is really a bad thing. I like low-sec for what it is (well, FW killed a part of it, but oh well): a place where you have good reasons to fly bigger ships, and where someone in a frigate (or interceptor or agile AF) can roam far and free without too many worries (sans smartbombs). I'd like to keep that place.
*Which would increase the SP required to compete - it's reasonably easy to get in a BC, and much harder to get in a HAC.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |