open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked The 'stair trap'-problem or how to let life into low-sec
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.10.25 14:07:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Whitehound on 27/10/2010 06:02:44
The only problem I see with getting more people into low-sec are the gate camps, which keep players from going into low-sec. These are perfect traps at a choking point and effectively stop players from going into low-sec. Of course, it is not impossible to overcome a gate camp, but this is not the issue. Nor is the frequency of gate camps the issue.

The problem, which stops players from going into low-sec, is as old as computer games, and is known as a "stair trap" or a "level trap". On maps or entries leading to new levels, dungeons, etc. do players have to face new opponents, and depending on how this transition is shaped can they find themselves in the middle of a fight, with their backs to a wall, against unknown and stronger opponents. This often has the effect of discouraging the players as they will most likely die during a first attempt to enter a new area. This is exactly the same problem here with players going into low-sec. Only here does one not meet stronger monsters, but better skilled players, without a save area and the way out being 15km away.

One can do two things here. Either one can believe in the dark nature of EVE, leave things the way they are and tell all those who complain about a lack of players in low-sec to shut up, or to remove the obvious trap.

So my suggestion is to add CONCORD protection to a few, selected gates (leading to high-sec) of low-sec systems, i.e. systems with a 0.4 sec-status. This would not need entire fleets of CONCORD ships popping out of the void, but maybe 8 "death"-sentries could already do the trick. It would work as a forward presence of CONCORD in low-sec and give new players a save zone to explore low-sec. Attacks on players would then have to happen at various points, in the belts, at the stations, etc. and would not allow to easily choke every new player from exploring low-sec. The strategic advantage of camping a gate to high-sec really is the problem here and needs to be taken out in order to allow a higher population of low-sec. Once a player can safely put a first foot into low-sec are they also more willing to take risks.

Alara IonStorm
Caldari
Posted - 2010.10.25 14:10:00 - [2]
 

Really I can not say I agree entirly but I always thought the the Lo Sec to Hi gate should be protected.

Might clear noob pirate choke points and make more people peak there head in.

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.10.25 14:17:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Whitehound on 25/10/2010 14:35:36
I do not believe in moving L5s into low-sec as the answer. Sure, it is not a bad idea, but those players who can do L5s are often experienced enough anyway. Also the amount of players who want to run L5s, or just L4s with high rewards, is likely rather small. Half of these players will have a POS or two in low-sec, which serve as safe zones for them. Or they are able to fly an unprobeable ship, etc.. I also doubt that these are the players the majority of those who wish to see a more populated low-sec want to see there.

Stygian Knight
Blood Covenant
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.10.25 14:37:00 - [4]
 

there is no "safe zone" in eve

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.10.25 14:41:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Whitehound on 25/10/2010 15:32:50
Originally by: Stygian Knight
there is no "safe zone" in eve

Yes, there is. Stations are safety zones and for most players is high-sec save enough.

Caldari Citizen20090217
Posted - 2010.10.25 16:52:00 - [6]
 

Let us see whats on the other side of a gate before jumping. Not 100% safe from camps but makes pirates more imaginative and carebears feel safer.

Reeno Coleman
Posted - 2010.10.25 17:26:00 - [7]
 

What you are suggesting is a supporting presence of AI at key points (like entry gates) in Low Sec.

--> gate guns

so your suggestion comes down to making gate guns stronger, right?

Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2010.10.25 17:59:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Whitehound
Edited by: Whitehound on 25/10/2010 15:32:50
Originally by: Stygian Knight
there is no "safe zone" in eve

Yes, there is. Stations are safety zones and for most players is high-sec save enough.

Safer does not mean safe, Stygian was correct.

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.10.25 18:08:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Whitehound on 25/10/2010 18:09:57
Originally by: Mag's
Safer does not mean safe, Stygian was correct.

What he or you perceive as correct or save is irrelevant for the discussion. Savety is always relative and a matter of perception. Players perceive high-sec as save. That is all you need to understand.

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.10.25 18:22:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Whitehound on 25/10/2010 18:24:43
Originally by: Reeno Coleman
What you are suggesting is a supporting presence of AI at key points (like entry gates) in Low Sec.

--> gate guns

so your suggestion comes down to making gate guns stronger, right?

More guns, stronger guns, webing, scraming, etc.. Whatever it takes to give players a feeling of safety similar to high-sec, but only within perhaps a 300km range around the gate.

A completely different approach could be to enter low-sec not within the typical 15km radius around the gate, but a much greater radius, i.e. 250km. Might be a bit weird at first, but this can give some safety, too, without any guns and without a significant change in the current game mechanics.

Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2010.10.25 18:25:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Whitehound

Originally by: Mag's
Safer does not mean safe, Stygian was correct.

What he or you perceive as correct or save is irrelevant for the discussion. Savety is always relative and a matter of perception. Players perceive high-sec as save. That is all you need to understand.

Erm I think you'll find you argued the point, I merely posted as part of that argument and pointed out you were wrong.


Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.10.25 18:43:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Mag's
Erm I think you'll find you argued the point, I merely posted as part of that argument and pointed out you were wrong.

No, I was not arguing. I was telling. This is where you are wrong.

Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2010.10.25 18:47:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: Mag's
Erm I think you'll find you argued the point, I merely posted as part of that argument and pointed out you were wrong.

No, I was not arguing. I was telling. This is where you are wrong.

It was an argument, so I was in fact correct on all counts.

As I can see English is not your first language, we can end it here. The ball's in your court. Very Happy

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.10.25 18:49:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Whitehound on 25/10/2010 18:52:05
Originally by: Mag's
It was an argument, so I was in fact correct on all counts.

Stop trolling. This is not a ball game, and this is not an argument either.

pushbyte ii
the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2010.10.25 18:49:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Alara IonStorm
Really I can not say I agree entirly but I always thought the the Lo Sec to Hi gate should be protected.

Might clear noob pirate choke points and make more people peak there head in.



The gates from Low Sec to High Sec ARE protected... on the High Sec side by concord, navy and sentry guns and the Low Sec side by sentry guns.

Also, let's not forget that CCP gives everyone a friendly warning message that says something to the effect of 'You are about to enter a low security area. You can and will probably die horribly and cry about it and the people that killed you will laugh and post the details of your loss all over the internet for others that weren't present to also laugh at your losses. Are you sure you want to proceed? [ ] Yes [ ] No'

So at that point, if you clicked 'Yes' then everything you do is your own fault, everything that occurs to you is your own fault. Do not blame the pirates, do not blame the sentries, do not blame anything or anyone other than yourself. When you go in the desert and kick a rattlesnake and it bites you, it is simply doing what is in it's nature, you didn't have to kick it. Pirates are simply doing what is in their nature, you didn't have to enter low sec.

Maybe we don't want noobs flooding low sec and mining our belts, killing our rats and chatting about their elite Tormentor frigate in local. Go back to Rens if that's what you want to do. If you die horribly upon entry into low sec, then you probably don't belong there. (Either because you took the most hostile route because you don't know how to press F10 or you have a fail ship or fitting and should l2read.)

Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2010.10.25 18:51:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: Mag's
It was an argument, so I was in fact correct on all counts.

Stop trolling. This is not an argument either.

I gave you an easy out, but instead you cried troll, poor show.

Oh and your idea sucks. Razz

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.10.25 18:57:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: pushbyte ii
The gates from Low Sec to High Sec ARE protected... on the High Sec side by concord, navy and sentry guns and the Low Sec side by sentry guns.

Also, let's not forget that CCP gives everyone a friendly warning message that says something to the effect of 'You are about to enter a low security area. ...

This is not the point. We can leave it the way it is, but then low-sec will stay low in population.

This thread is not about making people understand the risks of low-sec. They understand it very well, which is why they stay out of it. The thread is about what can be done without changing much of the game. The idea is to create a small, save entry point at a few gates.

In other words, allow players to jump through the gate and allow them to see for them self and without them getting instantly popped. If however small gangs set up gate camps now and then and kill players on entry into low-sec then it will always be an avoided area. This is what needs to be understood. It is too easy to choke these points.

pushbyte ii
the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2010.10.25 20:11:00 - [18]
 

I've lived in lowsec for the greater part of last 4 years, personally I don't want a bunch of Hulk flying carebears filling up local. Nor do I want hordes of traffic coming through. There are low sec areas that are not as heavily patrolled and camped. Those are 'safe entry' points. Like I stated earlier, if you die because you jumped from Osoggur to Amamake or Crielere to Rancer, then that's your own fault for not pressing F10 or knowing anything about lowsec and you might consider not going to lowsec until you rectify that issue. We have our fun at times with traffic spikes like EUNI fleets and the occasional neg fleets coming through, but if Amamake local looked like Jita it would be too many people to safely PvP, thus ruining the point of lowsec. It would turn into complete chaos. Don't come crying about lowsec being 'too hard' because you lost your Imicus in a camp. Fit your ships properly, know the routes, use your map, talk to people. You will probably fair better that way. Even if you added concord to low sec, we would just move to nullsec and then you would be whining about nullsec being too hard for noobs to get into. So my suggestion is either skill up, train up, learn more or stay in highsec until you do.

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.10.25 20:36:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Whitehound on 25/10/2010 20:39:00
Originally by: pushbyte ii
... but if Amamake local looked like Jita it would be too many people to safely PvP, ...

I doubt it will look like Jita, but even if, there are many in Jita who wish they could just PvP there. If a few systems get too crowded then you can always shoot the players. I also doubt that there is any more safety in PvP as there is in high-sec. What does it mean "too many people to safely PvP" anyway?!

pushbyte ii
the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2010.10.25 20:39:00 - [20]
 

Adding concord to lowsec would turn it into highsec. We would just move to either the surrounding lowsec areas of said system (still causing the exact same problem) or move to nullsec (making nullsec the new lowsec, still same problem).

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.10.25 20:49:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: Whitehound on 25/10/2010 21:03:19
Originally by: pushbyte ii
Adding concord to lowsec would turn it into highsec. We would just move to either the surrounding lowsec areas of said system (still causing the exact same problem) or move to nullsec (making nullsec the new lowsec, still same problem).

This is the idea. It unchokes the entry into low-sec and allows players to enter and to spread out. An instant death is less likely to occur. Just so you understand it right, CONCORD shall not follow you into the belts or come out of nowhere. Only at the gate itself shall players coming from high-sec receive an advantage.

Kalia Masaer
Amarr Border Defense Consortium
Posted - 2010.10.26 00:38:00 - [22]
 

I am inclined to agree with the OP as it is very hard to get a sampling of what low sec has to offer for new players. First of making a handful of entrance gates pretty much safe is a very good idea as it lets less experienced players get into low sec without having to run the gauntlet which could then encourage them to look further afield. This would not really hurt the pirates as while they can't camp certain high to low transition gateways they will have plenty of targets to hunt in that system as well as the fact more of the players who try lowsec may venture further through gates without that protection.

Basically it seems the idea is to put a shallow end in the swimming pool instead of having people go straight from the High-sec Kiddie pool to the Low-sec Lap-pool.

TehFailGuy
Posted - 2010.10.26 02:33:00 - [23]
 

I looked at a couple of random low sec systems that border high sec just now and found one with > 80 jumps and no ships destroyed in the last hour and another with > 30 jumps in the last hour and also no ships destroyed in that time. Gate camps aren't the problem.

Herzog Wolfhammer
Gallente
Sigma Special Tactics Group
Posted - 2010.10.26 05:06:00 - [24]
 

FFS just stop with the "gate to gate" jumping. Random drop-off into target system will be the end of camps.


Torothanax
Posted - 2010.10.26 05:45:00 - [25]
 

Concord in low sec is a no no. It's counter to back story. Empire navy maybe, but not concord.

I'd favor beefing up gate guns a little, and actually nerfing them some as well. Hear me out. Make the strength of the guns depend on an average of the two systems they join. If it's a high sec to a 0.4 system, make the guns stronger then they are, or add a few more. If it's say a 0.1 to a 0.1 gate, only put one gun out. The security status of systems means very little right now. It should play more of a role in game or just be taken out completely.

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.10.26 09:31:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: Whitehound on 26/10/2010 09:32:34
Originally by: Torothanax
Concord in low sec is a no no. It's counter to back story. Empire navy maybe, but not concord.

When the game evolves its story evolves with it. ...

Suicide attacks in high-sec take place not just daily but hourly, if not every minute. Capsuleers do not die, nor does CONCORD shoot their pods, and so criminals have moved forward into 0.5-systems like Niarja and Uedama. Where it is profitable do they strike in 1.0-systems and even directly at highly populated market places. One can say that CONCORD is failing and high-sec is effectively under siege by criminal organizations. It is time for CONCORD to counter the situation with a forward presence at gates in low-sec.

So there is a bit of a new story.

Charnivale
Garoun Investment Bank
Posted - 2010.10.26 09:42:00 - [27]
 

I dont understand. Do you find it hard to enter losec?

Never had a problem with that

Psihius
Caldari
Anarchist Dawn
U N K N O W N
Posted - 2010.10.26 09:59:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Charnivale
I dont understand. Do you find it hard to enter losec?

Never had a problem with that

Well, most times popular route are just camped and new players just get poped on the spot as they do not really understand or know how to escape a gate camp.

I'd say that I like the idea of strong guns on the gates leading into high sec space. And place them only in 0.4 systems, so that if you go from high-sec into low-sec 0.4, even if you get into trouble, guns will make a good pounding on the attackers, forcing them to use bigger ships with less scan resolution and a noob a change of escape in a small ship (definitely no escaping battleships!). So if you go like high-sec to 0.3, everything is left like it is now.

Personally I get a good tank and just get out to the gate if I need to, but I was in lowsec with my corp exercising and teached about caveats and other stuff. Most empire noobs don't get that.

Or I know, we need a tutorial to send them to low sec and tech them stuff! :)

Flesh Slurper
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.10.26 10:01:00 - [29]
 

There are a few issues with this:

1) Pirates would just camp the next system in, so the noobs would get in 1 single jump into lowsec and then die the same as they do already, thus negating the purpose of the "protection".

2) Most of lowsec is actually relatively empty. People already can simply check the map for entry points with no activity and you can go exploring all they want.

3) As you say indirectly yourself, people don't want to go to lowsec because they risk being killed. Since these people can still be killed there even if not at a gate, they still will not go in there.

Charnivale
Garoun Investment Bank
Posted - 2010.10.26 11:57:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Flesh Slurper
There are a few issues with this:

1) Pirates would just camp the next system in, so the noobs would get in 1 single jump into lowsec and then die the same as they do already, thus negating the purpose of the "protection".

2) Most of lowsec is actually relatively empty. People already can simply check the map for entry points with no activity and you can go exploring all they want.

3) As you say indirectly yourself, people don't want to go to lowsec because they risk being killed. Since these people can still be killed there even if not at a gate, they still will not go in there.



So, what we really need is an incentive to go to losec that outweights the danger of getting killed?


Pages: [1] 2 3

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only