Dood, prove me wrong here, but I don’t think you could’ve misrepresented this harder lmao. It’s about an imbalanced mechanic that takes away more opportunities for PVP than it creates being a NET content loss, also I guess I missed that star systems are only 20-50km wide…
Also don’t sell yourself short with the bounty, you can do better than that.
You have repeatedly lost to gatecamps. You lost because of your own poor performance.
You have asked for lowsec to be changed to suit your own lamentable preferences, with the most flawed analysis I’ve seen in years. And you have let this woeful thread last for longer than it deserves.
Perhaps you should instead buy a gate permit. Carebears should buy permits for all their activities - that is what carebears are for.
You should look up what stratification means…
And you should read what “lowsec is unsafe” means.
No problem. It’s kind of my thing.
If you get tackled on a gate in pretty much any non-combat ship, you’ve already lost. Given the relative rarity of solo gate campers, I’ve found that agility is typically by far the better choice. (A CovOps cloak ship is the best one, but I’ve covered that already.)
The best way to avoid being tackled is to not be there in the first place (i.e. get into warp before they can lock you). With frigates in particular, if you can get your align time down to 2 seconds or less, you effectively cannot be tackled in losec (warping from a standstill) unless you make a mistake. The server takes at least one tick (each tick is one second) to process the lock request and another tick to process the module activation. So if you you can get into warp in 2 seconds or under, all of the sensor boosted tacklers in the world can’t stop you.
Let’s look at the math here. If you park your ship at the last system in hisec, board your corvette, jump to losec, get caught by a gate camp, warp off with your pod, then jump back through to hisec, you’re out maybe a few minute’s worth of activity and a ship that cost you literally nothing, but you’ve saved whatever other ship you were going to bring through from almost certain destruction and denied the campers content.
You’re right that this isn’t balanced: it’s way more favorable to you than it is to the campers.
Lots of things in EvE need to be fixed, but losec gate camps and gate gun mechanics are not things that need to be “fixed”. There are ample ways to deal with camps already, you just have to change your thinking a bit and use the right fits/ships.
Hilarious that people need to defend gate-camping to pad their kill-sheets. Seriously, do some real PVP and don’t embarrass yourselves here.
Fixing gate-camping isn’t easy. Fighting around gates isn’t inherently bad and is a big part of lowsec combat. Stopping tackling around gates would kill real PvP more dead than it is already.
It would be better to send Concorde after someone has been attacked at a gate. It could work quite naturally, with Concorde warping as normal. The deeper you are, the longer they take to arrive. You would probably survive at the low-high border, but you’d need to tank for a minute or so if you’re a system deeper. Concorde would stick around for 20 mins then return.
So this would be a very interesting change. 90-99% of gatecamping would die, but fighting at gates would be allowed (if quick for lowsec). You’ll see Concorde flying around lowsec a lot and they’ll attack criminals if they see them. Concorde would never chase a criminal (unless it’s the attackers) but tget would issue a “Please submit yourself to the nearest Concorde station” instruction as they pass. 
Concorde would also call in reinforcements if attacked. This would become legitimate PvE for powerful corps.
This would also make Eve more interactive and more engaging.
Or, instead of whining and crying about gatecamping and demanding NPC protection for your farming you could grow some balls, organize a PvP fleet, and go kill the gatecampers. But I guess that would require you to be more than a helpless perma-victim.
LOL hit a nerve, did I.
No-one mentioned farming. Most can’t call on big alliance PvP fleets either.
You’re going to need a VASTLY better argument than that if you don’t want us to think you’re reliant on gatecamping to pad your killsheet.
No…
No…
No…
If your answer to make the game “better” relies on AI/NPC or mechanics, especially outside HS, then…no…
As it has been pointed out by many people, there are ways to easily get through camped gates. All you want is to hit the…
Low Security Space. The cue is in the name. It offers a low level of security.
That means CONCORD doesn’t bother with enforcement here. Limited security presence from the claiming Empire is all you get. And limited resources are applied even then since this is basically ‘buffer’ space between them and rival Empires.
Thus, you get some token gate and station guns, some monitoring of illegal acts for standing and security rating purposes. And that’s it.
Oh, and you get higher rewards than High Security space because of higher risk. It makes little sense to offer higher rewards at low risk.
The whole point (lore-wise) behind losec is that the Empires and CONCORD don’t have enough resources to fully protect those areas. Especially given recent events and how CONCORD has been pulling back resources (i.e. the nullsec blackout), what you’re proposing is directly contrary to EvE lore.
Also, how would the mechanics of what you’re proposing work exactly? Would it be the same CONCORD that spawns in hisec (i.e. un-tankable, perfect EWar, etc.) or some other CONCORD variant? If you’re thinking the former, that would basically turn losec into more of a “hisec lite” and virtually kill all PvP there, and if you’re thinking the latter you’re talking about creating a whole new layer of complexity and NPC mechanics just to help avoid something that players already have the tools to do so with in-game.
So no, none of these changes need to happen. Some people look at gate camping as “cheap” or “boring” or “not real PvP”, but the whole point of EvE is that you don’t get to define what someone else thinks is entertaining. Plus, at least along some routes, gate camping can be quite profitable.
NO.
Period
Sounds to me like someone has been beaten up on a LS gate and is salty about it. You want to be able to “commute” through LS without the danger of being nuked on a gate? Why not just do away with LS all together? We’ll just have WH-Space, HS and NS. That’s basically what you’re asking for. If LS gate camps are too scary for you… Stay away from LS. Problem solved!
Alrighty, you know there is an estimated read time at the top of this thread, you might want to take note of that and read through before you just bring up points that have already been brought up before with that “haha, I’ve won the forums by saying no” kind of attitude.
This is about the third time I’ve had to remind people there was more to the OP than just “waahh, I can’t get through Low-Sec Gate-Camps with my clunky ship”… if you guys could stop hyper-focusing on stuff that’d be great.
Yes, indeed, the sky is blue and Low-Sec is unsafe… you’ve really enlightened me… indeed you’ve also taught me that solar systems are only 20-50km wide. Go on misrepresenting everything I say and, well, this thread is gonna be here for a long time for people to see just how bad the argument for keeping Low-Sec Gate-Camps really is, and how it’s this “get gud or don’t play our game carebear” kind of attitude. New’s flash, they’re probably not gonna play your game. You’re literally just re-enforcing what I brought up in the OP.
I understand the sentiment of “hitting the easy button” but that’s just not true, not unless that “easy button” would apply to a Gate-Campers (sitting AFK on a gate watching netflix until your hear someone activate the gate), like I’ve said before you guys seem to be allergic to having to actually go to a belt and catch some miners or camp a station and bump or use a combat probe scanner… bored spiders.
You indeed could use lore based reasons, Null is lawless and not even blinked at by empires, but they had local comms systems up there. Pressure from the combined “drifter menace” and the triglavian invasion were the cited reasons for the blackout. Low is Empire space and could be reasoned that the Empires want to protect the (NPC) corporations that are a part of their empires out in low sec and then put a very delayed concord response on those Low-Sec Empire space gates. Very different from the Null environment right now, and High-Sec, again seeing as unless maybe in a Gate-Campers mind, a system is more than just the jump gates lol.
Good. EVE is not a game for everyone. And if risk-averse carebears quit then EVE is a better game.
(sitting AFK on a gate watching netflix until your hear someone activate the gate)
Why are you allowing it to be that easy? Why don’t you cyno in a 500 man capital fleet and wipe them out? Why are you blindly jumping into a gatecamp and making it so easy to get a kill? Gatecamping is only easy because other players have chosen to be helpless victims instead of fighting back. The solution is not to nerf gatecamping, it’s for the carebear farmers to either grow some balls or ragequit and go back to WoW.
As you were the only one to even vaguely try a counterargument.
The whole point (lore-wise) behind losec is that the Empires and CONCORD don’t have enough resources to fully protect those areas.
But we’re not talking about full protection.
Next.
Also, how would the mechanics of what you’re proposing work exactly? Would it be the same CONCORD that spawns in hisec (i.e. un-tankable, perfect EWar, etc.) or some other CONCORD variant? If you’re thinking the former, that would basically turn losec into more of a “hisec lite” and virtually kill all PvP there
Maybe you should try lowsec instead of theorycrafting? Nearly all PvP happens in 2-3 mins.
I don’t have access to server logs but gameplay always trumps realism. So whatever the timer needs to be, make it so.
you’re talking about creating a whole new layer of complexity and NPC mechanics just to help avoid something that players already have the tools to do so with in-game.
You have the tools to ‘never die’. Just don’t undock. Not much of a game there.
So no, “having the tools” does not override game design.
the whole point of EvE is that you don’t get to define what someone else thinks is entertaining
You don’t get to define the whole point of Eve. Especially, not that badly,
Numerous rules exist to make PvP a more entertaining experience for both sides. Hisec has half a dozen. There’s aggression warnings. Gate guns etc.
It doesn’t need to be justified in terms of anything other than improving gameplay.
Thanks for at least trying to produce counterarguments, though. It raises a slight doubt about needing to pad your killsheet with gatecamping.
People are addressing your suggestions.
They just disagree with them.
No, but we are talking more protection than currently available. It just doesn’t fit with the lore, especially not now.
You either misunderstood my point or are dodging it. I’ll assume the former for the sake of civility.
My point was that a CONCORD response in losec as proposed by the OP would be A) greatly delayed from the offending act and B) able to be evaded, which means it would be totally different than how CONCORD behaves in hisec. It’d be a whole new NPC-based security response. I brought up how CONCORD behaves in hisec to compare and contrast, not to declare that this is how losec would be.
Also…maybe you should check out my killboard. I’m not an expert PvPer by any stretch, but I’ve seen enough action in losec to have some idea of what I’m talking about. If I don’t think I can kill a prospective target in under a minute, I typically won’t engage.
“Having the tools” doesn’t override game design, it is game design. There are already ways to bypass/avoid gatecamps. Note the plural there. What the OP (and by extension you) are asking for is a way to shut down a style of hostile play that there are already ways of bypassing. In essence, you’re asking to make losec safer, which breaks the concept of “risk vs reward” because there is no corresponding decrease in how lucrative losec is.
This entire thread is about improving gameplay for players like the OP, and I’m guessing you. It would definitely not improve gameplay for losec gatecampers. As much as you seem to loathe them, they are every bit as important as you and the OP in terms of overall game balance.
You may not like how they play, you may think it’s cheap or boring or “not real PvP”, but it’s every bit as valid gameplay as the hapless haulers, explorers, and mission runners they gank while trying to make a buck in losec.
EvE is Everybody vs Everybody. Play accordingly.
Oh so you have looked at my killboard? I will admit to spending a lot of time playing hisec station games. Out-of-pod stuff has me in a spot where I need to log off at a moment’s notice, plus I have this weird thing for unusual min/max fits that happen to work well in that environment, but I digress.
I’ve been playing on and off for 13-ish years; I’ve done hisec, losec, nullsec, and wormholes. I fought on both sides of The Great War. I’m not “pro-this” or “anti-that”, I just realize that changes to game mechanics impact everyone, especially those you’d never think they would.
No, but we are talking more protection than currently available. It just doesn’t fit with the lore, especially not now.
Prove the lore makes it impossible. If you can.
My point was that a CONCORD response in losec as proposed by the OP would be A) greatly delayed from the offending act and B) able to be evaded, which means it would be totally different than how CONCORD behaves in hisec.
He was talking about 20 seconds. I’m talking about minutes.
What you haven’t explained is why it would make the game worse (instead of quite a lot better as is obviously the case).
This entire thread is about improving gameplay for players like the OP, and I’m guessing you.
You guess wrong. I’ve done my fair share of gatecamping and have killed 5x more people through it than died to it. I’m nerfing myself and don’t give a crap because it’s not real PvP.
It would definitely not improve gameplay for losec gatecampers.
Diddums. Maybe they’ll go do real PvP instead.
Imagine CCP introduced an “I win” button. Most of the players quit, and some that stuck around would be “I win” players.
So your argument is, we should keep that “I win” button in the game because those players are important?
As much as you seem to loathe them, they are every bit as important as you and the OP in terms of overall game balance.
Errr how? What is this game balance you’re talking about?
“Having the tools” doesn’t override game design, it is game design .
I’d suggest you stop talking about game design if that’s what you think it is.
Game design is designing a game such that people want to play it. Gatecamping drives people away from the game. It’s that simple.
Well then please provide all that data you have to back such a confidant position up…
Careful everyone, we found the one person that defines PvP for everyone…we don’t want to make him angry…
Gatecamping is gatecamping…deal with it or don’t, the choice is yours…stop asking CCP to install easy buttons everywhere…
