If players care so much about camps the game lets them take action to break them up or avoid them easily. No need for NPCs to do the job players should do, especially in lowsec and nullsec.
1 Like
Stop feeding camps kills and they go away on their own. Think of it this way. You can roam or camp. Why bother roaming only for everyone to hide in limitless citadels or come with a massive blob if targets come to your camp on their own?
Please tell that to all the ijits that walk into them. I don’t need to hear it.
1 Like
You don’t understand. NPCs have powers players don’t. Plus, NPCs could empower players to take more meaningful action, if CCP bothered exploring it.
Some gate camps have been operating for years. Its nothing but silly. Many of them are just exploiting a bottleneck that could be ammended. NPCs don’t need to blow anything up.
1 Like
First, NPCs already visit camps and can be annoying. Target is coming though and NPCs land and start harassing tackle, distracting people into having to blow them up, etc. But at the end of the day NPCs are just computer controlled bots and easy to figure out. They will never stop camping as the campers will adapt. If you make them so strong that they can’t be defeated then you will start complaining that the NPCs are stopping commerce or they just become another Concord and you will just be suicide ganked if valuable enough.
The bottleneck issue is a problem of laziness. There are plenty of ways to enter lowsec without seeing anyone whatsoever let alone a camp but people just have to take the shortest route using the autopilot. So from the get go you can simply take a longer route and avoid the camp. You can look up what corp is doing the camping and go through out of their usual timezones. You can bridge across the camp using a black ops bridge. You can bust the camp or make them run away. Who cares if they run if your objective was to get that cargo through? Op success on your escort mission.
Really what is your objective? If you want to get through the camp that bad because you just have to be on the other side then be willing to do the work to get there. Get some friends to help you get through or get Intel like the campers are doing to try and get you. Why should they move for your convenience? You say the camps are lazy and they are. But your are also being lazy by not using the tools available to solve or avoid the problem, instead asking for the devs to do the job for you.
1 Like
I don’t know how CCP could reasonably track/prove queue manipulation.
So you jump out and jump back in to get to the top of the queue… people jump out and back anyway. At what point is the threshold for jumping in and out of a gate in one system.
CCP would need to see queue manipulation in large numbers to act on it. Not just in the handful of players who currently use it.
More often than not, the gate camp victim is the last to jump system anyway so theoretically they’re at the top of the queue and still maintain some sort of advantage, assuming they are sub 2s and have a good UK/EU ping…
Sorry. I should have been more clear. I meant NPC’s have in game political power and CCP could have them confer powers on players, such as deputizing so we could just go wipe out gate camps. CCP could have Concord move in after and change the security level of the system for example, or even change the way Concord and FacPo behave at that gate at least for a while to prevent a gate camp coming back. I could think of lots of things that could be done utilizing NPC’s both directly and indirectly, but essentially, I want players empowered, not NPCs.
Is that what you like to tell yourself while you blow up innocent pilots that come into your camp?
I see you managed to blow up a well-fit Stiletto once. I don’t know all the details but I can see that person at least fit their Stiletto to align and warp quickly and I know he did not get bubbled or mobile warp disrupted. Maybe they were on AP and also have themselves to blame. IDK. But its not as simple as people just being lazy.
And do you even understand what a bottleneck is? You can’t just go around a bottleneck. That’s why its called a bottleneck. Not all gate camps are at true bottlenecks. But those that are you either can’t go around or you travel through territory just as dangerous.
Go mine ice in Hodrold and deliver it for sale in Rens. Good luck with that.
Some problems are not actually solvable. Others you could use tools to solve but find you have a new problem; way too much work or cost.
Of all my characters only this one ever died at a gate camp and that is because I let a friend lead and was just too inexperienced to even conduct a reasonable combat. I got others through camps but I was carrying no significant cargo and worked out the best times etc. I got nothing out of it but knowledge of gate camps.
Now, I will repeat, I want tools for players to be able to permently or semi-permanently end permanent and semi-permanent gate camps. At present, that cannot be really done as far as my information goes. I want EVE more player centered and dynamic. Zombie gate campers in the same place for literal years is just frustating, boring, repetitive, non-gaming.
1 Like
In other words, you want travelling in EVE to be safe?
Stopping gatecamps is not a good idea, as those gates are the only place of danger for a ship flying from tether in one system to tether in another. If this player doesn’t risk danger at the gates he crosses, he cannot be killed at all (if there are no bubbles).
1 Like
Why do you need a NPC corp to deputize you in order to kill something where you are already allowed to shoot them? Get some friends and bust the camp. No NPC permission needed.
I kill “insta warp” ceptors all the time. Likely it was killed with a smartbomb. It is stupidly easy to avoid either by warping to a ping/celestial first or fitting a tank. Sometimes I use remote sensor boosters on various ships to catch them as well.
Yup, and in EVE there are almost no “bottlenecks” that can’t be gone around in some way or even gone through by waiting to the right timezone.(I can’t think of any whatsoever but I say almost just in case). I camp a lot, blow through camps a lot, and avoid others through various means. It is definitely not luck that somehow I have a high survival rate.
If it is such a problem and you lack the skills or friends to go through wherever. You realize that there are tons of other ice belts and markets all over EVE. You aren’t forced to mine or sell in those locations yet you choose to and want CCP to regulate other’s gameplay because it inconveniences you.
You have them already but since you don’t want to take the effort it takes the results are clear. Imagine for example, that you took the same effort and numbers to destroy or ward off the campers as they do camping the gate?
2 Likes
In other words, you didn’t read my post. That’s not what I said. I said I want EVE to be more dynamic. Static gate camps are repetitive and boring.
1 Like
My God bro. It takes more than just killing some outlaw gate campers to end a gate camp. They have scouts and ALTs with positive standings. They also have stations that need removing. Plus deputies get paid directly.
I am talking about motivation for taking down years’ old gate camps. They last so long because there is no real motivation.
No no… I am not asking you to do it FOR me. I am asking you to do it and see what happens. And you are refusing because you know its gonna be too much of a problem.
Says the guy ruining other’s gameplay on a daily basis.
I never said I wanted to end all gate camping. But I keep talking to people who totally lack the capacity to see anything between 1) end all gate camping and 2) allow all gate camping.
Not remotely. All I have is a perpetual see-saw IF I put the effort in and I will not get much out of it.
1 Like
Riiight… so how do you propose for the game to deputize you to kill a character that has no criminal history or affiliation with the “gankers” or a station not owned by the supposed gankers but casually used by them? Pretty much what you want in effect is to be able to wardec anyone even in rookie corps (which I don’t mind whatsoever personally) but remember, that stupid ideas to “help the helpless children” can be also used by the gankers themselves.
But you do. You say they are there for years bothering your gameplay. That is a massive long term effort put in by a dedicated group. Sounds like they are putting in the effort to stop traffic and you are the lazy one. You could bring a group there and be the “anti campers” holding the gate open and letting traffic through so the side of good prevails. You can wardec the citadels they use and destroy them (or simply attack them in lowsec). You could even do it for years like the campers are doing. Crushing them over and over until they leave. Heck, you can even hire mercs to mess with them if you have money and don’t want to be bothered with something you feel is boring. You might even be able to bribe the campers with enough isk to leave you alone. Why do you deserve to win vs their larger numbers and much greater effort when you aren’t willing to do it yourself? Why does CCP need to change the whole game just because you want to haul some ice to Rens?
2 Likes
I think you misunderstand.
The goal isn’t to stop gate camping. Just force gate campers to take more of a risk.
If the gate warp disrupts you when you attack another player, then it’s not killing you, nor even stopping you from your gate camp.
It’s merely making you susceptible to the risk someone else might come into the system and attack you before you can get free from the disrupt.
Gate camping becomes more of an adventure, because each person who comes through might be part of a gang that wants to fight.
As things stand, gate crashing is mostly pointless, because the campers will just warp off to a station.
Change the mechanic, and camps might arm up to be ready for a real battle, and get one. Think how exiting that would be! To be able to find real fights, instead of just shooting a fish in a barrel.
And they could get rid of it with just a few lines of code. Just start all lock timers from the center of the “one second” tick, no matter when the actual activation occurs. (Or maybe not the center. Maybe from a point where instalocker would always win if the locker clicks in time?)
It’s silly to have any module’s timer starting from something based on real world connectivity. (But it’s also a very minor design flaw, all things considered, when you look at the overall extremely well designed picture.)
1 Like
This guy’s life is gatecamping. All he is going to do is gnash and stonewall against anything anyone says that might make him have to adjust his repetetive, canned playstyle.
Never said I did.
That’s the trouble and why its not done so much. Nobody wants to do that for years. Few want to do it over and over or have to keep on top of them every single day to ensure they cannot recover.
If your goal is to haul because you are an inty, you don’t want bogged down crushing gate campers for years.
Only you think permanent gate camps are “the whole game”. Yes, we can see that.
No I didn’t. This is not about my gameplay. That said, since I avoid gatecamps I am kept away from certain places and my game play is affected, sure. But do I really care though? For me, no. I am doing fine. This is not about me. Its about EVE. And I think EVE would do better if there were not basically permanent gate camps in this static set up.
Interestingly years ago I suggested systems be more fluid, with low sec systems becoming high sec and vice versa. Seems what I got was Pochven, which is like my idea on steroids and LSD.
First of all my idea is not about helping helping the helpless. Its about making EVE more dynamic. Hell, I could even suggest more stargates so that actually bypassing bottlenecks becomes a real possibility. But yeah, it woud be a longer route so gate campers could still get kills and loot.
But another thing I want is more power in the hands of players. Yes, someone is going to abuse a mechanic that allows players to be on the level of Concord for a while. So either game moderators will have to be on the ball, or trusted players will have to have the ability to pull the deputization so Concord could blow up the deputies gone rogue if they go after another innocent.
There is also the idea of having a list of characters that become free to kill by deputies once approved to help avoid innocent losses. But yes, just as there are rogue cops and crooked judges in the real world, it won’t be perfect.
1 Like
It seems you’re the one who wants gate campers to be safe.
“End permanent gate camps” means that sometimes (not always) a gate camp would get broken up and the campers would taste defeat. It means whenever you gate camp, there is a chance someone will blow you up (just like when you do any other activity.)
He didn’t say “end gate camps”. He said “end PERMANENT gate camps”.
Anything you can set up as a “permanent”, is a safe activity (exactly the kind of activity you just admitted should not exist in Eve)
You preach and preach about how other people should take risks. Why are you opposed to taking one yourself?
2 Likes
If you can show me a permanent gate camp in eve I can tell you how to avoid it, though what it sounds like he wants is an instant “I Win” button:
He also appears to miss (or ignore) the fact that CONCORD has no impact on anything outside of high sec space and that outside of High Sec players already have the ability to gain far more power (carriers/super carriers/titans)… 
Edit:
Whenever you’re gate camping right now there is a chance someone will blow you up.
Regards,
Cypr3ss.
2 Likes
I know a couple of gates into my region that are permanently camped. There are ways around it, or if we want it gone it’s up to us players to do something about it. Just bring a couple of quick fighting capable ships through and the gate camp will scatter, or if you’re lucky, get annihilated like my fleet did a couple days ago.
There are ways to avoid gatecamps and ways to stop their permanent state (as long as you put in effort). What more do you want?
1 Like
I’m not entirely sure what Ridley is after in this discussion but two things are for sure.
-
Going around should not be the only solution and if it is, it only embraces the “you come in, you lose” aspect which is not ok. Not counting situations where you have a very specific ship setup that is useless in almost any other situation.
-
Beating a gate camp while hurting the campers is not possible because if you come in with any force, they can just retreat or cloak up their big ships for 5 minutes. Or just not have these ships on grid and have them come in only if it’s perfectly safe. That is of course unless you want to constantly come in, which again doesn’t hurt them and they can just ignore you until you get bored.
I used to fly in fleets in nullsec, also passing gate camps and I can’t say I’ve ever seen any battleships around there. Or anything bigger than tackle ships, which were not providing resistance and were perfectly disposable. That is a problem.
Avoiding permanent gate camps is easy. Just abandon anything and any ideas on the other side. Done.
No. I am not saying my ideas are the best or even possible. The point is I want a reasonable way to remove permanent or semi-permanent gate camps. If they are up for more than 6 months and actually getting kills and profitable, to me, it seems like something is wrong and there is an imbalance.
This is sort of like how economy is the flow of wealth. Its just not compelling game play to have a so-called “gate” that is like 95 percent of the time more like “a dead end”.
1 Like
Sticking your head in the sand and asking for the Devs to ‘fix it’ for you is an option I guess… not a very good one mind you, or the one I’d pick.
Well guess what!
So you simply don’t want to put in the effort, is that it? Otherwise,
Seriously? If someone has been running a gate camp for more than 6 months and making a profit from the activity you can be sure they are putting in effort to achieve this. You have these same options available to you already in game, so if you want to break-up or disrupt another groups preferred playstyle why not use the existing options (and possibly improve your understanding of the game) rather than requesting assistance from ‘outside forces’ (i.e. devs)?
Regards,
Cypr3ss.
1 Like