I Disagree With Spectre
Just a short opinion piece seeing as how much I have been lacking in my writing as of late. Too much school work makes my brain hurt. Ouchies.
Why should the sentry guns at gates be weaker towards smaller ships?
If they are, it would most likely have low security space mimic 0.0. It would render those guns to ineffective from keeping small ships engaging at gates, the only sanctuaries for most travelers in low security space who do not want to be ganked when just traveling through.
At the moment, it is safe to say most ships that are able to withstand gate guns will need sometime to lock on to the hauler, need some speed to get into disruptor range, thus allowing a slim chance for the hauler pilot to get away.
But if small interceptors can roam around without limitations, essentially the gates would be turned into 0.0 gate camps, but with much easier prey and much more people. Basically, interceptors can orbit the gate and tackle any ship without consequences. Sounds a little similar to the camps in 0.0 now…
Anyway, that was the only beef I had with Spectre running for CSM. He has some ideas that I support strongly, he is very qualified in terms of knowledge about the game, and he is, from what I hear, dead sexy. Other at his thoughts on the sentry gun topic, I would probably vote for him too!
14 comments
Most ships can already gank a hauler on a gate and get away fine. You can even do it in a T1 cruiser with almost no issues as long as you gank, loot and then get away from the gate ASAP. The problem is that with the current implementation of sentries, it STRONGLY discourages flying around in smaller ships or in smaller gangs as you need larger ships to tank sentries and larger gangs to spread sentries out among your group. Changing the way that they work to be scalable based on ship/gang size would be one of many steps to help discourage blobbing and would make flying smaller ships way more viable in lowsec.
This still doesn’t make lowsec much like nullsec. You still can’t use bubbles and even if sentries are weaker, they are still there (and they do not exist at all in 0.0). I can already fit a HIC with three sensor boosters and lock almost any frigate like an inti can anyhow.
I think that allowing smaller ships to tank gate guns would ruin the skill and fun involved in low sec. If you can camp gates in anything and prevent even small ships from breaking through, there’s no point in directional scanning, probing, etc. Instead of hunting down someone in a belt, mission, or plex, you can just sit on the gate and wait for them to enter/leave. There would be no incentive for anyone short of a seasoned veteran or a large gang to enter low sec.
He seems to be trying to fix a symptom without really understanding (or caring about) the real cause. If more players were choosing to go into low sec for everything from mining to faction warfare to PVP to missions, then it wouldn’t just be about catching soft targets on gates and stations.
lets not forget to point out he already is a pirate at -10 and that GCC timers need a ‘fix’… you probably want longer re-docking times when you camp stations too? but no aggression timer for docking/jumping cuz thats hurting gameplay.
CSM isnt meant to promote your personal gameplay style, its to improve the gameplay for all, not make lowsec easier for you to gank in an inty/AF.
i mean, EVERY issue for the game you listed is about making pirating easier (except the mining and UI). fixing mining, would improve gameplay AND be effective in ALL systems in eve. thats a good thing. notice the difference?
hah, he actually wants to BOOST people -5 and more. those are the people who have chosen their lifestyle of ganking random people and have emptied their lowsec systems in the first place. they wouldnt have to QQ about not having targets if they didnt empty lowsec…
I have to agree that GCCs need a fix. Students and people with real jobs who play Eve (i.e. everybody) may have only half an hour or so in a busy day to get on Eve and roam around. A fifteen minute GCC means that if one is in a small ship, half of their playing time is taken up by sitting in a safe doing nothing. Eve is a game, and waiting out a GCC is not “playing” the game.
I’m also not too concerned about Spectre advocating for better gameplay for pirates, though a shorter GCC is the only policy I know of right now that I would support. There’s more than one seat on the CSM. Much like a mining character would advocate for improvements to mining and a cov-ops character would advocate improvements to cov-ops (how about not showing in local chat if you’re cloaked?), a pirate is going to advocate improvements to piracy. The beauty of Eve is that piracy is as legitimate a profession as mining, industry, PvE, or militia.
I completely understand his view of wanting to “fix” gate guns in lowsec. But I think you made a very important point. Although, yes, it would promote more solo pvp in small ships, it also would be contradictory to “improving” low sec. People are already hesitant enough about flying around in low sec. Make the changes he’s proposing and it would only add to that hesitancy. I mean, a lot of folks who are willing to do business in lowsec rely on the small amount of protection those gate guns offer. Take that away, and low sec would, in my opinion, get a hell of a lot more dangerous than it already is and cause a significant decrease in low sec traffic. So okay…add more benefits with the decreased security. Well then it just likely equates to having the same amount of traffic as there currently is….which isn’t much.
As Spectre even said himself, T1 cruisers can manage it, which really doesn’t take much longer to get into. So why change something that isn’t really broken?
I haven’t decided whom I will support, but I will say that I look for candidates that want to improve certain areas more than candidates with specific mechanics ideas with which I can agree.
In other words, saying, “let’s boost low-sec to make it more useful, popular, and fun” matters to me. The specifics of exactly how to achieve that don’t, at this stage.
I think you guys are taking a generalized comment and making specific assumptions about how it would be implemented. Scaling sentries to deal with different sized targets/gangs DOES NOT MEAN SMALLER SHIPS SUDDENLY BECOME IMMUNE. It simply means they don’t get basically one-volleyed like they do now. In addition, scaling sentries to do MORE DAMAGE to larger gangs/ships REDUCES THE INCENTIVE FOR THEM TO SIT ON THE GATE. Sorry for the caps but I am trying to emphasive that there are two sides to this idea. It is intended to remove the advantage that large gangs/ships have while under sentry fire thus encouraging people to fly in ships and gangs of variable size instead of just blobs of big ships
I don’t simply want free targets for myself or others who play like me in lowsec. I want less blobs, more variety in ships that are viable and the capability for combat to occur everywhere instead of in belts/planets where a majority of players never go (because there is no incentive to go to these other locations which is something I would love to fix by giving players of all playstyles and careers increased reward/profit… but that is another topic).
Lastly, what is wrong with advocating for a certain region/playstyle of the game? Highsec is already incredibly profitable and houses 90% of the population and 0.0 is already getting an entire expansion devoted to it. Lowsec needs a rework and I want it to become desirable and fun for EVERYONE, not just blinkies.
Thanks for inciting a good discussion Tony :)
youre missing your own point: “Lowsec needs a rework and I want it to become desirable and fun for EVERYONE, not just blinkies.”
by lowering GCCs and revamping gate guns, how is that helping everyone?
lowsec is just “in the way” right now, and making it more pirate-able is going to make it any more appealing. the only reason people are there is, 1. noobs accidentally going, 2. going between empire/0.0, 3. ganking the first 2.
if you want pvp, go to 0.0 and stop shooting everything you see moving in lowsec and people MAY actually eventually come back, but popping barges as soon as you see them cuz its all there is to shoot really proves a lack of effort on the pirates part. go raid Goon space and pop some of their hulks mining in their sov systems. otherwise, if you want things to pew pew just handed to you, do a mission and be productive to the game economy rather than extending your epeens by some awesome new gank vs someone who didnt even want to fight.
@Kyvon
I’m not sure if you’re just trolling me now but I would ask you to follow the link back to my blog where I outline the things I am advocating. Along with the GCC/Sentry suggestions were other ones including:
(1) Improve the quality/quantity/uniqueness of ore in low security space.
(2) Improve the quality/rewards of missions in low security space.
(3) Give miners the means to better defend themselves as they currently are EXTREMELY vulnerable even when they bring protection or combat ships to try and make things safer.
(4) Improve mining mechanics so that miners can be more specialized and so that the act of mining is not a bore.
(5) Reduce the amount of time that PvP’ers in lowsec spend sitting on gates/stations ganking and encourage them to move around and fight other PvP’ers.
Perhaps I did not elaborate enough in my initial post to indicate that I want life and operation in lowsec to be desirable for everyone of all playstyles. Those who are in the career of making money via non-PvP manners need the resources and capability to defend themselves and those who are involved in PvP should be encouraged to fly a larger variety of ships and move around as opposed to camping.
As I said on twitter, in my mind, details like this discussion don’t matter so much. CSM decision making is more high level. It’s better to have an understanding of a candidates general viewpoint and area of interest, as these matter more than specific mechanics which are unlikely to even come up as discussion points
I like Spec and he’d make a good CSM member, even though he wouldn’t necessarily be representing me.
I can’t really tell if the mining thing is a joke but it doesn’t seem relevant unless he’s trying to cater to a broader audience for votes.
I’m dont trust CCP not to royally screw things up so I’m hesitant to support anything having to do with modifying sentries. Its pretty clear what sentry guns do, if you want to fly a little frig, dont engage under them.
I know those guys like their cheap little ships, but I enjoy battleships and I think a hardier ship being more resilient under sentry fire makes all kinds of sense, and doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with gatecamping.
T2 insurance? Why? If you cant afford to lose a recon just keep flying around in your crappy little celestis.
Blobs? I dont even think Spec knows what blobs are. If a 10 person BS gang is considered a blob, then just put together your own 10 BS gang and have a little fight. But then we’re back to the frig/cruiser argument. Maybe 0.0 would be a nice change for Python because then the sentries are worked out and they can learn about what blobs really are.
Just seems like a lot of “if it aint broke dont fix it” uninspired ideas, which is disappointing from such a creative person.
@Spectre
I would enjoy the scaling of PvP fights in low sec, but I think that not everyone has HICs in low sec, so they would be more likely to use interceptors to catch passerbys, which I don’t believe should be a valid option as that is one characteristic that makes low sec different from null sec.
Also, that’s why there are belts to fight in :D
@Pastor_Phelps
Main point I am concerned about.
@Centuri
If it was going to be profitable enough for people to go to low sec, then I think gate guns could be scaled down since the fights would more most likely occur in places without guns anyways.
If there are no incentives to go to low sec other than to find fights or get through the area, then removing gate guns would not make any sense since if someone wants to fight, they will be in a belt. If they wanted to pass through, they do not even want to fight, therefore it should require more skill to kill them at the gates.
@Kyvon
I do agree with that the CSM should not promote their own personal play style, but this is unavoidable. Most people just vote on those that offer to suggest features that are more suited towards a certain style of play.
While this may not be fair, it is what CCP also wants because they want to maintain their customer base to the highest level and by knowing what the “majority” of the player base wants, they can make a game that are geared towards them to keep their subscriptions.
@Pastor_Phelps
The GCC was a main reason why I did not choose to become a pirate was all of the obstacles that came with that role. I could get the same thing in null sec without the hassle.
@Selina
Good points in there Selina! I also believe that by taking the guns away this may promote an increase in blobs when people won’t have the guns on their side to help out their numbers.
Yes, this is why 0.0 is 0.0!
@Casiella Truza
I have already chosen what type of a CSM candidate I want, and now I am in the looks of what direction they want to take it.
@Spectre
I’m glad to have brought some heat to the conversation! I do support your idea to increase populations in low sec, but perhaps by increasing interactions at planets, belts, and the places that nobody goes, it can still maintain the relative safe spot of around the gate.
One reason for people to worry is that when they first jump into the system, they do not want to be ganked, so if there are scalable sentries, then it may put them off to the thought that a Rifter can hold them in place and wait for backup to finish the business.
Thanks for the link to the article!
@Kyvon
As it stands right now, I also think low sec is just “in the way” at this moment. I also agree that sentries should not be changed to a great degree (thus the reason for this post). But I do disagree with the thought that Spectre is just trying to make low sec more pirate-able because he does outline some other good points in his list.
@Spectre
I think when mining in low sec, there should be more “risk” for attacking than less “chance” based encounters.
What I mean by that is in both places, when something comes up on the d-scanner, miners just dock up or hide. What needs to be done is that it is actually a hesitancy on the attacker’s side to go attack. The miners still will have to worry, but they should have some degree of comfort in the fact that if they are attacked, there is a 50/50 chance that the pirate could die.
I do not know how this could be implemented, but it is what I think would encourage more foraging into low sec.
Mining is just too “crappy”, pirates have all the advantages and no worries when attacking. I want someone to change that.
@Bel Amar
While I agree that the CSM should manage at a higher level, from what is presented by each candidate, I think it really shows what direction they want to take the game.
These small details may not matter, but for that one vote each person gets, I think every point they list is just as important as another.
@Htrag
Your examples are well suited for this discussion as it includes a lot of what I thought when I went through his issues. I just believe that by scaling guns, it basically makes the ships in EVE all the “same”. They all can withstand guns and gank people at gates, it just boring-fies the game.
—
A big thank you for the interesting comments to all of my readers. Feel free to respond if you have not, and thanks for reading!
@Tony
Oh, absolutely, knowing what they think tells you what direction they want to take the game in. The CSM candidate should put this sort of stuff out there.
My point is that it’s not worth getting in to an argument over the minutia of said stance, and as you said, it should instead be used as an example of what direction the candidate wants to take the game
Leave a comment. Feel free to use common HTML markup tags.