EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

so this is there real future for new players? gate camp?

First post
Author
End of Life
#381 - 2017-02-15 01:39:21 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Honorable Pirates
(read on Reddit)

Why would that be an example of honourable?

Sorry, I thought you'd get the humor in that...

Of course. Read the rest of my post.
Snuffed Out
#382 - 2017-02-15 07:04:11 UTC
@zoubidah stop calling it spawn camping, makes you sound like a ******** cod player

Alliance Logo Design Service

--

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel --

"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson

Snuffed Out
#383 - 2017-02-15 07:10:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Lan Wang
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Honorable Pirates
(read on Reddit)


Whats your point? Just because 1 person does that doesnt mean all pirates are like that, stop spreading hate, you dont like it that people can take your stuff or mess with your gameplay, we get it

Now go back to solo min/maxing missions in your favourite highsec hub

Alliance Logo Design Service

--

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel --

"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson

#384 - 2017-02-15 07:21:07 UTC
Lan Wang wrote:
Whats your point? Just because 1 person does that doesnt mean all pirates are like that, stop spreading hate, you dont like it that people can take your stuff or mess with your gameplay, we get it

Now go back to solo min/maxing missions in your favourite highsec hub

Man, you need to relax. Low-sec pirates are so touchy lately... As a point of fact I actually got a nice Typhoon kill while running the Guardian event. I'm not adverse to PvP - I just don't actively seek it out.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Amarr Empire
#385 - 2017-02-15 07:39:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Zoubidah Al-Kouffarde
Lan Wang wrote:
@zoubidah stop calling it spawn camping, makes you sound like a ******** cod player


"Spawn" : upon jumping into a system, the ship spawns at a gate
"Camping": some people camp gates, to destroy other ships jumping in at the gates

So verily it's indeed spawn camping, but we might find another description for it, such as

"The activity of staying alt-tabbed until you hear the gate activation signal, or until the guy with the static scouts in the neighboring system tells you of incoming targets, or -much rarer- of an incoming campbusting gang, in which case you warp back to the station and play with your positive sec status mission running alt until the vigilante gang leaves the area"

"You would not be the first "ganker aligned" player to be found to having some issues. Here's a dark secret: there are some in AG who, because of battling gankers, have managed to get to know a few of them, found they had issues, and helped them" HW

Goonswarm Federation
#386 - 2017-02-15 07:54:28 UTC
Zoubidah Al-Kouffarde wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
@zoubidah stop calling it spawn camping, makes you sound like a ******** cod player


"Spawn" : upon jumping into a system, the ship spawns at a gate
"Camping": some people camp gates, to destroy other ships jumping in at the gates

So verily it's indeed spawn camping, but we might find another description for it, such as

"The activity of staying alt-tabbed until you hear the gate activation signal, or until the guy with the static scouts in the neighboring system tells you of incoming targets, or -much rarer- of an incoming campbusting gang, in which case you warp back to the station and play with your positive sec status mission running alt until the vigilante gang leaves the area"


Or we could just call it gate camping vs. that long winded diatribe written by The M-113 creature.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

#387 - 2017-02-15 07:59:41 UTC
Piracy 101.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Amarr Empire
#388 - 2017-02-15 08:06:01 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:

Or we could just call it gate camping vs. that long winded diatribe written by The M-113 creature.


What don't you like about "spawn camping" ? it's the most factually accurate description, ships do indeed spawn at the gate linked to the system they come from, when jumping into another system.

Could it be possible that you resent this wording because it reminds of a FPS tactic that is considered as a pathetic way to farm kills with close to zero risks, once you're set?

Hmm...

"You would not be the first "ganker aligned" player to be found to having some issues. Here's a dark secret: there are some in AG who, because of battling gankers, have managed to get to know a few of them, found they had issues, and helped them" HW

#389 - 2017-02-15 08:59:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Spawn camping is an arguably valid term.

But here in EVE we use the more accurate terminology "gate camping", especially as it also involves intercepting outgoing traffic.
Snuffed Out
#390 - 2017-02-15 09:00:28 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Spawn camping is a valid term.

But here in EVE we use the more accurate terminology "gate camping", especially as it also involves intercepting outgoing traffic.


its valid in call of duty

Alliance Logo Design Service

--

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel --

"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson

#391 - 2017-02-15 09:04:09 UTC
Lan Wang wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Spawn camping is a valid term.

But here in EVE we use the more accurate terminology "gate camping", especially as it also involves intercepting outgoing traffic.


its valid in call of duty


Yes, but in CoD there are no sector variable gate mechanics, and also no incentive to prevent de-spawning from that grid by outgoing traffic which can be intercepted by drag bubbles in this game.

"Gate camp" is more accurate in the context of this game.
Caldari State
#392 - 2017-02-15 09:36:00 UTC
Perhaps this thread is "worn out", but I'm not sure it should end yet.

A question: what good for EVE about the 0.5 to 0.4 choke points?

I know some players like the efficiency of trapping and destroying targets, but the actual PvP is generally so one-sided it's hardly fun in itself for either party. At best a zero-sum game in terms of PvP fun.

It's certainly inconvenient for people who don't want to get caught up in it, but know how to avoid it - they have to travel further, which is boring in itself, and might make them bored enough and just log off. Similarly for people who get caught up by accident and lose time and perhaps ISK, it's not generally a positive experience - just lost time now, and a few more minutes (or hours for the OP) to grind the ISK to replace the lost gear.

It definitely discourages some people (the very worst group for the good of the game too - newish players) from playing in lowsec. This doesn't seem like something CCP would favor.

So apart from the fun-vampires, who like other people to be bored and waste time, who gains?

It it really more profitable than mining, L4 missions, WH sites etc? Is it the best possible in-game social experience for campers? Is there some subtle effect on where players live, shop, or mine that improves the game experience for the majority?
#393 - 2017-02-15 09:49:45 UTC
Gate-camping in EVE is like baiting mousetraps (gates) with cheese (the promise and allure of riches beyond). What most players don't realize is that they're not the mouse - they're the cheese.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

EVEolution.
#394 - 2017-02-15 09:51:54 UTC
everyone who has ever played EVE has had to deal with gate camps,station camps, denial of service in systems, ganks, awoxers, infiltration, back stabbing and theft.

it's always been a part of the game.

along comes a new guy and thinks he or she has all the answers to make EVE somehow better in thier view.

you don't show up to a football match and insist on the rules being adjusted to suit how you want to play.

the defenders on the other team won't take it easy on you, nope, the goaly isn't going to look the other way and let you score just because you're new to the game.

nope! everyone on both teams, including the spectators are going to think is this gobshite serious?????

learn how to play the game or don't we can't make you learn.





Goonswarm Federation
#395 - 2017-02-15 10:12:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Yebo Lakatosh
Zoubidah Al-Kouffarde wrote:
What don't you like about "spawn camping" ? it's the most factually accurate description, ships do indeed spawn at the gate linked to the system they come from, when jumping into another system.
In games where this term is commonly used, players respawn at a very specific place (or at a few of them) after death. Thus spawncampers can lock a player in a perpetual die-respawn-repeat cycle. In games when devs don't fix such a mechanic, it's usually very dangerous to do for the aggressor, like they have to be at a hostile base or something.

Spawncamping is potentially perpetual and unavoidable. Gatecamps have more than one way of dodging them, but let's just look at the most obvious one: going another way, or picking an hour when the campers are not there. Since those options are (were) always available to players who get destroyed at gatecamps, I have to say the term you are using is incorrect. It feels irrelevant if the victim walked into a trap out of bravado, or ignorance.


But I think you knew that. I feel you deliberately chose to describe a phenomenon you dislike by a word that's not fitting it, but due to it's negative connotations, it might invoke sympathy in the reader.

I don't think it's an elegant way to debate.

They say Alpha clones are only for trying stuff. I say it's just the Hard Mode.

Caldari State
#396 - 2017-02-15 10:44:28 UTC
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
everyone who has ever played EVE has had to deal with gate camps,station camps, denial of service in systems, ganks, awoxers, infiltration, back stabbing and theft.

it's always been a part of the game.

along comes a new guy and thinks he or she has all the answers to make EVE somehow better in thier view.

you don't show up to a football match and insist on the rules being adjusted to suit how you want to play.

the defenders on the other team won't take it easy on you, nope, the goaly isn't going to look the other way and let you score just because you're new to the game.

nope! everyone on both teams, including the spectators are going to think is this gobshite serious?????

learn how to play the game or don't we can't make you learn.


I know they're "part of the game" - it looks like the 05-0.4 interface was designed around the choke points.

Something quite interesting about this thread though - nobody has yet described a positive effect on the game, or a "game-positive" outcome (like an interesting transfer of resources) for players.

The only upside we've been presented with is how great they are for fun-vampires.

We've also heard many times how easy this particular gate camp is to avoid, even for a new player.

It's an interesting combination - only the most inexperienced or naive players would ever get trapped, and only the fun-vampires get anything out of it. On the surface it's quite good evidence that at least the 0.5-0.4 choke points are actually bad for CCP, but perhaps they haven't noticed that yet.

Or that CCP favors fun-vampires over new players, and share their view that new/inexperienced players are a consumable resource.
Goonswarm Federation
#397 - 2017-02-15 11:04:38 UTC
Hakawai wrote:
It's an interesting combination - only the most inexperienced or naive players would ever get trapped, and only the fun-vampires get anything out of it. On the surface it's quite good evidence that at least the 0.5-0.4 choke points are actually bad for CCP, but perhaps they haven't noticed that yet.

I don't see how you have drawn that conclusion, even on the surface. (won't get into CCP's study that implies that both getting killed legally and illegally improves player retention, as I'm more interested in how you think)

By the way... I have to point out that the term "fun-vampire" feels incorrect to me. It's not a zero sum game.

First because some players keep having fun on both ends of the traps (fact - as I'm one of them), thus the total fun level of the server raises when such a player is chased.

And second, since we accepted as an axiom that "only the most inexperienced or naive players would ever get trapped", there is the possibility of such a player realizing this state -because- of getting killed. He becomes less naive, and take steps to acquire the experience that others possess, potentially saving -trillions- of his future ISK. That sounds like a huge gain to me.


Of course, the term "fun-vampire" becomes totally spot on in case of a player who experiences zero fun at the receiving end of guns, and also refuses to absorb all the information that is out there that would help him avoid such situations.

Though I'd try to keep it a secret if I were such a player.

They say Alpha clones are only for trying stuff. I say it's just the Hard Mode.

Amarr Empire
#398 - 2017-02-15 12:38:57 UTC
Yebo Lakatosh wrote:
In games where this term is commonly used, players respawn at a very specific place (or at a few of them) after death. Thus spawncampers can lock a player in a perpetual die-respawn-repeat cycle. In games when devs don't fix such a mechanic, it's usually very dangerous to do for the aggressor, like they have to be at a hostile base or something.

Spawncamping is potentially perpetual and unavoidable. Gatecamps have more than one way of dodging them, but let's just look at the most obvious one: going another way, or picking an hour when the campers are not there. Since those options are (were) always available to players who get destroyed at gatecamps, I have to say the term you are using is incorrect. It feels irrelevant if the victim walked into a trap out of bravado, or ignorance.


But I think you knew that. I feel you deliberately chose to describe a phenomenon you dislike by a word that's not fitting it, but due to it's negative connotations, it might invoke sympathy in the reader.

I don't think it's an elegant way to debate.



Very dangerous for the aggressor... like, being in vehicles shelling the areas where new players spawn as troops, or interdicting vehicle spawns? sounds difficult, and dangerous! almost as much as tanking gate guns and instalocking.

Spawn camping in a FPS is also very avoidable: just play on another server, or pick an hour when the spawncampers play on another server.


So indeed, gate camping is really the same as spawn camping. Why do you argue it's not? I thought that in war everything goes, and any tactic is a valid tactic if you win. Spawn camping is definitely a valid tactic, as it provides an endless stream of instant wins, with zero risk, because of static scouts in the neighboring system.

"You would not be the first "ganker aligned" player to be found to having some issues. Here's a dark secret: there are some in AG who, because of battling gankers, have managed to get to know a few of them, found they had issues, and helped them" HW

Snuffed Out
#399 - 2017-02-15 12:45:49 UTC
Zoubidah Al-Kouffarde wrote:
Yebo Lakatosh wrote:
In games where this term is commonly used, players respawn at a very specific place (or at a few of them) after death. Thus spawncampers can lock a player in a perpetual die-respawn-repeat cycle. In games when devs don't fix such a mechanic, it's usually very dangerous to do for the aggressor, like they have to be at a hostile base or something.

Spawncamping is potentially perpetual and unavoidable. Gatecamps have more than one way of dodging them, but let's just look at the most obvious one: going another way, or picking an hour when the campers are not there. Since those options are (were) always available to players who get destroyed at gatecamps, I have to say the term you are using is incorrect. It feels irrelevant if the victim walked into a trap out of bravado, or ignorance.


But I think you knew that. I feel you deliberately chose to describe a phenomenon you dislike by a word that's not fitting it, but due to it's negative connotations, it might invoke sympathy in the reader.

I don't think it's an elegant way to debate.



Very dangerous for the aggressor... like, being in vehicles shelling the areas where new players spawn as troops, or interdicting vehicle spawns? sounds difficult, and dangerous! almost as much as tanking gate guns and instalocking.

Spawn camping in a FPS is also very avoidable: just play on another server, or pick an hour when the spawncampers play on another server.


So indeed, gate camping is really the same as spawn camping. Why do you argue it's not? I thought that in war everything goes, and any tactic is a valid tactic if you win. Spawn camping is definitely a valid tactic, as it provides an endless stream of instant wins, with zero risk, because of static scouts in the neighboring system.


are you implying that in rl there is no rules to war? is that really what you are saying?

gatecamping does not provide risk-free instant wins.

Alliance Logo Design Service

--

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel --

"Okay. So that was a pile of word salad..." - Bjorn Tyrson

#400 - 2017-02-15 12:59:48 UTC
The true fun vampires are those that would have CCP nerf entire play styles to suit their own needs.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Forum Jump