EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Planned lowsec sentry "fix" - you guys serious?

First post First post First post
Author
#801 - 2012-08-22 18:32:54 UTC
Singoth wrote:
Hello,

Gatecamping is wrong, annoying, prevents newbies from getting to low/null and make a living there. I think that's the main reason why.

If you want to fight, start an actual roam, instead of camping gates 23,5/7.
And jump to an other gate from time to time.

This will not impede with normal fighting if you have some actual PvP experience. Gatecamping requires no experience, just patience, and we all know that waiting for something to happen without much risk involved is much like mining, which is carebearing, which is EVIL AND MUST BE EXTERMINATED AT ALL COSTS.


So sadly even though there seemed to be support for this change by some players and at a couple of CSM for some variation of the idea only one side of the feedback seems to have been heard. Sad.

Issler
Monyusaiya Industry Trade Group
#802 - 2012-08-22 18:35:28 UTC
Issler Dainze wrote:
Singoth wrote:
Hello,

Gatecamping is wrong, annoying, prevents newbies from getting to low/null and make a living there. I think that's the main reason why.

If you want to fight, start an actual roam, instead of camping gates 23,5/7.
And jump to an other gate from time to time.

This will not impede with normal fighting if you have some actual PvP experience. Gatecamping requires no experience, just patience, and we all know that waiting for something to happen without much risk involved is much like mining, which is carebearing, which is EVIL AND MUST BE EXTERMINATED AT ALL COSTS.


So sadly even though there seemed to be support for this change by some players and at a couple of CSM for some variation of the idea only one side of the feedback seems to have been heard. Sad.

Issler


And I remain very glad that none of my votes went to you!
#803 - 2012-08-22 18:48:08 UTC
Issler Dainze wrote:
Singoth wrote:
Hello,

Gatecamping is wrong, annoying, prevents newbies from getting to low/null and make a living there. I think that's the main reason why.

If you want to fight, start an actual roam, instead of camping gates 23,5/7.
And jump to an other gate from time to time.

This will not impede with normal fighting if you have some actual PvP experience. Gatecamping requires no experience, just patience, and we all know that waiting for something to happen without much risk involved is much like mining, which is carebearing, which is EVIL AND MUST BE EXTERMINATED AT ALL COSTS.


So sadly even though there seemed to be support for this change by some players and at a couple of CSM for some variation of the idea only one side of the feedback seems to have been heard. Sad.

Issler



I will do everything in my power to support CSM reps with a clue. I am glad I did not vote for you. It is a shame you were elected with the attitudes you have shown over and over again. Hans stood up for our valid gamestyle to stop a change that would not fix the so called problem but increase it and nerf the fleet combat as a side dish.

Someone might actually respect you, Issler. Please, don't embarrassing them further.

Member of CSM9 and CSM10.

Negative Ten.
#804 - 2012-08-22 18:51:16 UTC
Issler Dainze wrote:
Singoth wrote:
Hello,

Gatecamping is wrong, annoying, prevents newbies from getting to low/null and make a living there. I think that's the main reason why.

If you want to fight, start an actual roam, instead of camping gates 23,5/7.
And jump to an other gate from time to time.

This will not impede with normal fighting if you have some actual PvP experience. Gatecamping requires no experience, just patience, and we all know that waiting for something to happen without much risk involved is much like mining, which is carebearing, which is EVIL AND MUST BE EXTERMINATED AT ALL COSTS.


So sadly even though there seemed to be support for this change by some players and at a couple of CSM for some variation of the idea only one side of the feedback seems to have been heard. Sad.

Issler


Support you say im sorry i must have missed that post. Im glad you aint representing low sec and looking at ur alliance killboard i see lots of high sec and null sec kills so maybe u should just keep out of something u have no clue about. Are you for real btw 4 losses no kills on evekill and 9 losses no kills on BC WTF are you doing representing the community anyway???

Caldari State
#805 - 2012-08-22 19:01:24 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

The minute that status changes - I'll let the community know as soon as possible so we can continue "the resistance". But in the meantime, there's not much to fight against because this doesn't appear to be moving past the idea stage, thanks to all who have spoken up.


I look forward to the day this idea gets reconstituted with yet another impending forum ban.

Good fight sir, good fight indeed.
Caldari State
#806 - 2012-08-22 19:25:32 UTC
Sugar Kyle wrote:
Hans stood up for our valid gamestyle ...


Jeebus, whatever happened to "adapt or die"?

You couldn't sound more carebear if you were discussing veldspar yields.
#807 - 2012-08-22 19:28:16 UTC
Issler Dainze wrote:
Singoth wrote:
Hello,

Gatecamping is wrong, annoying, prevents newbies from getting to low/null and make a living there. I think that's the main reason why.

If you want to fight, start an actual roam, instead of camping gates 23,5/7.
And jump to an other gate from time to time.

This will not impede with normal fighting if you have some actual PvP experience. Gatecamping requires no experience, just patience, and we all know that waiting for something to happen without much risk involved is much like mining, which is carebearing, which is EVIL AND MUST BE EXTERMINATED AT ALL COSTS.


So sadly even though there seemed to be support for this change by some players and at a couple of CSM for some variation of the idea only one side of the feedback seems to have been heard. Sad.

Issler
You've shown us time and again, you have no clue. That and you being in the CSM, are the only sad things about it.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

#808 - 2012-08-22 19:40:10 UTC
Malphilos wrote:
Sugar Kyle wrote:
Hans stood up for our valid gamestyle ...


Jeebus, whatever happened to "adapt or die"?

You couldn't sound more carebear if you were discussing veldspar yields.


I don't gatecamp and I would adapt. Once again, gatecampers were the least affected. I also do carebear activities daily. I like making ISK.

Member of CSM9 and CSM10.

Monyusaiya Industry Trade Group
#809 - 2012-08-22 19:45:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiberious Thessalonia
Malphilos wrote:
Sugar Kyle wrote:
Hans stood up for our valid gamestyle ...


Jeebus, whatever happened to "adapt or die"?

You couldn't sound more carebear if you were discussing veldspar yields.


Oh dear, apparently my post decided to get eaten.

People would adapt. They would adapt by

A) moving out of low-sec, probably to NPC nullsec, though there isn't really anywhere other THAN lowsec which is currently suited to small gang warfare. I imagine a good number of us would move to either plague hi-sec or would join the blobs.

B) Gatecamping even harder with instalocking interceptors and Tier3 BC gangs that sit 1000km off the gate and only warp in when something mildly interesting shows up.
Lost Obsession
#810 - 2012-08-22 19:51:12 UTC
Please stop fight each other and let's go mining ice together.

it's the focus of eve online now, stop going in low or 0.0 sec, leave your wh and back in high sec systems.


Follow the CCP patch and forget your guns.

Peace.





=D ofc ...
Caldari State
#811 - 2012-08-22 19:56:36 UTC
Sugar Kyle wrote:
Malphilos wrote:
Sugar Kyle wrote:
Hans stood up for our valid gamestyle ...


Jeebus, whatever happened to "adapt or die"?

You couldn't sound more carebear if you were discussing veldspar yields.


I don't gatecamp...


Oh, so when you say " our valid gamestyle" you're actually defending someone else's interests. Someone who obviously can't adapt and isn't available to post.

Fair enough.
Caldari State
#812 - 2012-08-22 19:57:58 UTC
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
Malphilos wrote:
Sugar Kyle wrote:
Hans stood up for our valid gamestyle ...


Jeebus, whatever happened to "adapt or die"?

You couldn't sound more carebear if you were discussing veldspar yields.


Oh dear, apparently my post decided to get eaten.

People would adapt. They would adapt by

A) moving out of low-sec, probably to NPC nullsec, though there isn't really anywhere other THAN lowsec which is currently suited to small gang warfare. I imagine a good number of us would move to either plague hi-sec or would join the blobs.

B) Gatecamping even harder with instalocking interceptors and Tier3 BC gangs that sit 1000km off the gate and only warp in when something mildly interesting shows up.


In other words, there'd be no problem.
Monyusaiya Industry Trade Group
#813 - 2012-08-22 20:08:57 UTC
Malphilos wrote:
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
Malphilos wrote:
Sugar Kyle wrote:
Hans stood up for our valid gamestyle ...


Jeebus, whatever happened to "adapt or die"?

You couldn't sound more carebear if you were discussing veldspar yields.


Oh dear, apparently my post decided to get eaten.

People would adapt. They would adapt by

A) moving out of low-sec, probably to NPC nullsec, though there isn't really anywhere other THAN lowsec which is currently suited to small gang warfare. I imagine a good number of us would move to either plague hi-sec or would join the blobs.

B) Gatecamping even harder with instalocking interceptors and Tier3 BC gangs that sit 1000km off the gate and only warp in when something mildly interesting shows up.


In other words, there'd be no problem.



Uh, there's a big problem. The only people left in low-sec would be the gatecampers, not the people looking for small gang fights.
Shadow Cartel
#814 - 2012-08-22 22:42:09 UTC
Malphilos wrote:
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
Malphilos wrote:
Sugar Kyle wrote:
Hans stood up for our valid gamestyle ...


Jeebus, whatever happened to "adapt or die"?

You couldn't sound more carebear if you were discussing veldspar yields.


Oh dear, apparently my post decided to get eaten.

People would adapt. They would adapt by

A) moving out of low-sec, probably to NPC nullsec, though there isn't really anywhere other THAN lowsec which is currently suited to small gang warfare. I imagine a good number of us would move to either plague hi-sec or would join the blobs.

B) Gatecamping even harder with instalocking interceptors and Tier3 BC gangs that sit 1000km off the gate and only warp in when something mildly interesting shows up.


In other words, there'd be no problem.


*uch* post with yerr main.
Gatecampers would stay with this change, and small scale indy pilots would have a hard time getting around losec with frigates camping all over the place.

Camps can be avoided with some intelligence today, maybe not so much in the future if this would have gone trough.
#815 - 2012-08-22 23:32:25 UTC
Issler Dainze wrote:
Singoth wrote:
Hello,

Gatecamping is wrong, annoying, prevents newbies from getting to low/null and make a living there. I think that's the main reason why.

If you want to fight, start an actual roam, instead of camping gates 23,5/7.
And jump to an other gate from time to time.

This will not impede with normal fighting if you have some actual PvP experience. Gatecamping requires no experience, just patience, and we all know that waiting for something to happen without much risk involved is much like mining, which is carebearing, which is EVIL AND MUST BE EXTERMINATED AT ALL COSTS.


So sadly even though there seemed to be support for this change by some players and at a couple of CSM for some variation of the idea only one side of the feedback seems to have been heard. Sad.

Issler



I asked once before so I'll reword it and see if you have an answer this time.

Once past the gate what would carebears be able to do in space that wouldn't result in them being hunted down and killed? How would any change to sentries increase interest in low sec considering the answer to the first question is nothing?
#816 - 2012-08-23 00:02:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Issler Dainze
Minmatar Citizen160812 wrote:
Issler Dainze wrote:
Singoth wrote:
Hello,

Gatecamping is wrong, annoying, prevents newbies from getting to low/null and make a living there. I think that's the main reason why.

If you want to fight, start an actual roam, instead of camping gates 23,5/7.
And jump to an other gate from time to time.

This will not impede with normal fighting if you have some actual PvP experience. Gatecamping requires no experience, just patience, and we all know that waiting for something to happen without much risk involved is much like mining, which is carebearing, which is EVIL AND MUST BE EXTERMINATED AT ALL COSTS.


So sadly even though there seemed to be support for this change by some players and at a couple of CSM for some variation of the idea only one side of the feedback seems to have been heard. Sad.

Issler



I asked once before so I'll reword it and see if you have an answer this time.

Once past the gate what would carebears be able to do in space that wouldn't result in them being hunted down and killed? How would any change to sentries increase interest in low sec considering the answer to the first question is nothing?


Well, depends on the care bear. For example if they can get into low sec they can consider trade at stations, explore the belts, search for anomolies or even consider missions that require low sec. Don't get me wrong, this alone is not the "get the bear into low sec fix" but reducing gate camps will have to part of the solution once other carrots are put into low sec to make risk/reward make sense in this under utilized portion of space.

And to be fair I should have reworded my post. What I was really reacting to was that this issue is not "clear support against and none for", there was support for variations of the idea with players as well as those against. Not acknowledging that some folks liked the idea in general (including a few CSM) was what prompted me to post.

I don't think gate gun changes are as dead as some may have suggested. Also, the real discussion should be broader about how to improve low sec for everyone.

Issler
Gallente Federation
#817 - 2012-08-23 00:24:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Aruken Marr
Ive been in and out of losec 2 jumps from Amarr in a tech one frigate atleast 6 times in the last 2 days without a single problem. Tell me how making gate guns more powerful will encourage the already risk averse to leave their play pen when it doesnt appear to be much of a problem anyway? (funnily enough I do think they require a change that would make small tackle a lot less suicidal in losec.)The only conclusion i can come up with is that most of the people complaining dont actually know what they are talking about (no surprise there).

Also a large majority of roaming gangs ive been on have culminated into a fight on a gate (if at all). Tell me exactly how lowering the ability to fight on this frequent meeting place for fleets will make losec more enjoyable? Should fleets start demanding 10v10s at the sun while they eye each other up waiting for the other side to either bite the bullet and shoulder the guns or leg it?
#818 - 2012-08-23 00:29:16 UTC
Aruken Marr wrote:
Should fleets start demanding 10v10s at the sun they eye each other up waiting for the other side to either bite the bullet and shoulder the guns or leg it?

That would be interesting. Of course some poor outside appears in the midst of this and the 20 people will all gank im' then run off the gate for a while. Or maybe not, because that'll aggro the guns and then the other group will start shooting you.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Gallente Federation
#819 - 2012-08-23 00:38:45 UTC
The only thing I can come up with really is that ccp wish to relegate losec pvp into the "catch the ratter in the belt" game. While this becomes increasingly appealing with Isslers reassurance that carebears will indeed lap up happy happy adventure land losec, I seriously have my doubts whether they'll take this bait.
#820 - 2012-08-23 00:57:42 UTC
Aruken Marr wrote:
The only thing I can come up with really is that ccp wish to relegate losec pvp into the "catch the ratter in the belt" game. While this becomes increasingly appealing with Isslers reassurance that carebears will indeed lap up happy happy adventure land losec, I seriously have my doubts whether they'll take this bait.

Hahaha, your doubts have a great deal of justification to them.

But you never know, maybe THIS time it'll happen.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Forum Jump