At present there is a problem: Players who prefer to stick with hi-sec must at some point pass through low-sec if only briefly. This is because the Stargate map has a per-defined list of connecting systems that the player must go through and in some places this means that the only way to travel from one hi-sec area to another is through very specific low-sec systems. The traffic causes groups to camp the portals who are prepared to kill players before they can even react which isn’t even really PVP since the combat isn’t balanced. This forces players to choose to remain isolated in one region.
There’s also another problem: Due to those who experience the above issue players are not inclined to venture into low-sec at all.
For this I have two solutions:
1.) A Skill to boost Stargate Range. Now, I am aware that some ships can equip a jump drive which could allow it to push beyond the normal range, but seeing as how this idea is meant to help relatively new players explore I’m thinking that if the Stargate map was based not on a fixed grid, but rather a grid based on the skill of the pilot, the routes would be more fluid making it more difficult to know where to camp. It would allow some players to skip over low sec entirely or to those who want to visit low sec they will at least have a chance of not having to deal with campers since it would be harder to predict where players would connect. If this was an Omega skill it would also create a good reason to use Omega.
For a visualization, consider the old game “Spore” in it’s space stage where the grid of connecting star systems was determined by ship range rather than a hard wired map. It could be called, “Subspace Navigation” in this case though since the pilot skill is what matters. Internally you’d just have to create 5 more different pre-defined maps, one for each skill level increase, with the current map being what you get with 0 skill. Which I would guess is how you handle jump drive maps.
2.) If there was more than one Stargate that a player could use in both departing and arriving in a star system it would make it more difficult to guess where players will arrive in a system. This won’t stop camping entirely, but it would at least make it more difficult to camp. If the system that plots the course randomized which gate to use, and avoided where very recent deaths occurred, it would force gankers to be on the move instead of sitting in one spot and probably botting.
If both of the above ideas are applied it would not stop ganking entirely, but it would make it safer for those just trying to pass through. Players who feel that they aren’t ready for low sec won’t be forced into it and those who want to give it a try won’t be killed immediately upon arrival since the gankers won’t be able to easily predict where players will come in from. It would also help combat botting by making it impossible to reliably earn ISK by camping a gate and letting a bot do it’s thing.
Nerf a playstyle just because you don’t like it? No thanks.
Gate camping in low sec is NOT “ganking”. Suicide ganking only exists in high sec. Everywhere else it’s just PVP…
This would also be immediately exploited in high sec to allow for safe travel directly to a market hub…
I understand you want some new functionality to get your Orca safely past that 0.4 system on route to your high sec island, but in your other thread people, including me, have given plenty of alternative options to get your ore out without losing the Orca again.
I kind of like the multiple gates thing, but it still decreases combat, which is bad for the game. I do not support making travel, especially lowsec travel, more safe. In fact, I wish in-gates for systems were closer to each other, to make following or reacting to other system jumps easier for the trained camper.
This is how capital and covert ops jump drives work. They don’t allow you to jump into highsec though, since those systems are cyno jammed by the empires.
To anyone who is new that might read this. Get yourself into faction warfare and grab a cheap t1 frig and get that align time down below 2 seconds. As long as you’re fast in clicking your destination, you wont be killed unless you run face first into a smart bombing ship. But even if you do die… it’ll be cheap to replace.
If you’re worried about the standing hit / being at war all the time. Make an alt for fw and leave your main for doing other things.
No. It’s not what I would consider to be PVP. PVP means “Player Vs Player” and this is just people with bots programmed to shoot anything that shows up and it only occurs on the connection between two high sec areas.
I disagree that it’s bad for the game. I mean, I get the idea that if ships are never destroyed then no one will have a reason to buy a replacement so SOME risk must exist, but if players are forced into low sec before they are ready all this does is push people out of the game. And, in fact, this is the most common reason for people quitting. Now, in order for an economy to exist, there must be people willing to buy something. Less people playing means less people buying.
Having multiple gates that you can connect to based on your skill and multiple gates in a system wouldn’t stop real PVP. It would just stop the bots from camping the gate and killing everything that passes through. THose bots could still exist, but the odds of randomly killing something would be lower so they’d have to actively work on finding people to attack. It would require actual skill. It wouldn’t even stop the groups that switch from mining to ganking just to push other miners out. Nor would it stop ship destruction from people who choose to mine in low sec.
It would be a convoluted mess. Can you imagine systems that already have 7 gates having 14 or 21 gates?
You are wanting this for a personal, specific reason, not thinking of all the other playstyles and things that it will affect…
Just don’t go into lowsec. There are warnings for a reason.
Source? How the heck did you find this data in statistically significant quantities (10% rule)?
It also means less people producing, so that balances it out quite a lot.
Bots can’t gatecamp. Gatecamping is a strategic skill that is very influential on large parts of the galaxy, most notably with the high-sec trade hubs and with interdiction on large scales in big lowsec alliance-level fights (or nullbloc battles).
Mining isn’t the issue here. Fast convenient transit, however, is.
This is indeed PvP (which stands for Player vs. Player gameplay, not Fair And Balanced Player vs. Player gameplay), and is playing the game as intended. Fights in EVE are situational and can be extremely asymmetric, this is precisely as intended. Evading players who want to attack you also requires skill and is a form of PvP.
This forces players to choose to remain isolated in one region.
No it doesn’t. There are almost always alternate (although much longer) routes - or you can, you know, learn how to manage the risk and avoid being blown up while crossing hostile territory. What is the point of dangerous space if you can simply buy a mod that allows you to skip it?
You can also simply not go there if you feel you’re not ready, but I would advise new players to try going to lowsec in a cheap little ship after they get the hang of the basics, just to get over the fear, learn to navigate dangerous territory and deal with losing your ship. These are very important skills in this game.
Your proposal will not be met with approval, as you are trying to change the game at a fundamental level and deeply misunderstand its principles and goals. If you want a game in which you can be 100% safe and not have to take any risks, or which only has “real”, honorable, fair PvP - there are plenty of other games that offer that.
Do you have any indication that these players who killed you were using bots?
Or are you simply calling them bots because you do not like their playstyle, because they killed you?
That doesn’t exist, except in FW. If it did, though, that would be totally FAB.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.