open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: CSM December Summit - Meeting minutes (Part 3of 3)
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12]

Author Topic

Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2011.01.23 00:18:00 - [331]
 

Originally by: Falin Whalen
Originally by: Cailais
The problem currently is that the logistic short cuts to fuel null sec are also the self same short cuts that reduce the volume of space between protagonists.
And this is bad how?

Quote:
Jump bridges shorten the battlefield for both the ammo truck and the tank - which means null sec is actually considerably smaller than you might think looking at pure system count.
Again, this is bad how? JBs, don't shorten the battlefield, it shortens the space BEHIND the battlefield. To conquer the space you have to "march" through it, you can't magically plop down a bridge at your staging POS when you don't have sov yet. When you do take sov, it is still three weeks before you can.


The space 'behind the battlefield' is where small gangs could, at least potentially, have an effect in terms of behind the lines raids. The JB network allows rapid redeployment to counter such threats making this tactic largely useless.

The same generally applies to the use of super capitals - the ability to rapidly re deploy force anywhere at vey high speed.

Making JB networks more vulnerable to sabotage by small gangs might be a potential solution.

C.

Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2011.01.23 00:22:00 - [332]
 

Edited by: Cailais on 23/01/2011 00:22:53
Edited by: Cailais on 23/01/2011 00:22:41
Originally by: Falin Whalen
Originally by: Cailais
The problem currently is that the logistic short cuts to fuel null sec are also the self same short cuts that reduce the volume of space between protagonists.
And this is bad how?


Well self evidently it means your arena is much smaller, condensing the forces involved and making mass fleet fights the exclusive form of warfare. It quite probably puts more stress on the servers and may be a contributing factor towards lag. It also means that a given % of EVE is simply irrelevant as its just hoped over.

It's like removing a % of null sec.

C.


Falin Whalen
Gallente
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.01.23 01:17:00 - [333]
 

Originally by: Cailais
Originally by: Falin Whalen
Originally by: Cailais
The problem currently is that the logistic short cuts to fuel null sec are also the self same short cuts that reduce the volume of space between protagonists.
And this is bad how?

Quote:
Jump bridges shorten the battlefield for both the ammo truck and the tank - which means null sec is actually considerably smaller than you might think looking at pure system count.
Again, this is bad how? JBs, don't shorten the battlefield, it shortens the space BEHIND the battlefield. To conquer the space you have to "march" through it, you can't magically plop down a bridge at your staging POS when you don't have sov yet. When you do take sov, it is still three weeks before you can.


The space 'behind the battlefield' is where small gangs could, at least potentially, have an effect in terms of behind the lines raids. The JB network allows rapid redeployment to counter such threats making this tactic largely useless.

The same generally applies to the use of super capitals - the ability to rapidly re deploy force anywhere at vey high speed.

Making JB networks more vulnerable to sabotage by small gangs might be a potential solution.

C.

Small gangs become more useless as the residents realize they can avoid the gank by logging out, safespotting and cloaking up, warping into POS shields, and docking, till the largely useless small gang that thinks they are an important ~wulfpak~ (but in actuality, are just a bunch of mildly annoying idiots) heads home. It has been that way before JBs, and it will continue to be that way, when the idiots at CCP remove JBs.

Falin Whalen
Gallente
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.01.23 02:08:00 - [334]
 

Originally by: Cailais
Edited by: Cailais on 23/01/2011 00:22:53
Edited by: Cailais on 23/01/2011 00:22:41
Originally by: Falin Whalen
Originally by: Cailais
The problem currently is that the logistic short cuts to fuel null sec are also the self same short cuts that reduce the volume of space between protagonists.
And this is bad how?


Well self evidently it means your arena is much smaller, condensing the forces involved and making mass fleet fights the exclusive form of warfare. It quite probably puts more stress on the servers and may be a contributing factor towards lag. It also means that a given % of EVE is simply irrelevant as its just hoped over.

It's like removing a % of null sec.

C.


Really? So putting enemies closer together is bad? I should have known coming from an Empire carebear. Maybe we should all sit by a campfire and sing songs instead. Mass fleet fights will not go away when JBs are gone.

Want to get rid of that "irrelevant" space that is just hoped over? Make it valuable for larger alliances to rent out, install with pets, finally have treaties with small alliances(something Dominion promised but never materialized), or if valuable enough have the alliances shrink down to use it themselves.

Really your automatic gainsay of anything positive about 0.0 life and politics colors you as a sour, uninformed, Empire carebear. Run along now and complete some more L4s while the grownups talk.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.01.23 20:42:00 - [335]
 

Originally by: Falin Whalen
Really?


I think what you're falin to notice is that the increased power projection artificially eliminates space that other people could be used. You may argue that the space wouldn't be used in any event, but I would argue that it would. Imagine a system where it took 15 minutes to cross a system and there were no travel "short cuts". Would you really be able to bring 4000 people 60 jumps (15 hours each)? Of course you wouldn't. And while that's an extreme example, it certainly shows that there are ways to limit power projection.

-Liang

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2011.01.23 22:15:00 - [336]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Falin Whalen
Really?


I think what you're falin to notice is that the increased power projection artificially eliminates space that other people could be used. You may argue that the space wouldn't be used in any event, but I would argue that it would. Imagine a system where it took 15 minutes to cross a system and there were no travel "short cuts". Would you really be able to bring 4000 people 60 jumps (15 hours each)? Of course you wouldn't. And while that's an extreme example, it certainly shows that there are ways to limit power projection.

-Liang


It's true, you couldn't. There wouldn't be 4000 people playing Eve to bring.

Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2011.01.23 22:35:00 - [337]
 

Originally by: Falin Whalen
Originally by: Cailais
Edited by: Cailais on 23/01/2011 00:22:53
Edited by: Cailais on 23/01/2011 00:22:41
Originally by: Falin Whalen
Originally by: Cailais
The problem currently is that the logistic short cuts to fuel null sec are also the self same short cuts that reduce the volume of space between protagonists.
And this is bad how?


Well self evidently it means your arena is much smaller, condensing the forces involved and making mass fleet fights the exclusive form of warfare. It quite probably puts more stress on the servers and may be a contributing factor towards lag. It also means that a given % of EVE is simply irrelevant as its just hoped over.

It's like removing a % of null sec.

C.


Really? So putting enemies closer together is bad? I should have known coming from an Empire carebear. Maybe we should all sit by a campfire and sing songs instead. Mass fleet fights will not go away when JBs are gone.

Want to get rid of that "irrelevant" space that is just hoped over? Make it valuable for larger alliances to rent out, install with pets, finally have treaties with small alliances(something Dominion promised but never materialized), or if valuable enough have the alliances shrink down to use it themselves.

Really your automatic gainsay of anything positive about 0.0 life and politics colors you as a sour, uninformed, Empire carebear. Run along now and complete some more L4s while the grownups talk.


You can, of course, resort to personal attacks but I'm afraid that doesnt improve your argument or make it any more valid.

Quite the opposite in fact.

Im wholly for large scale massed fleet fights, but I would also like to see relevant perimeter clashes and alternative tactics being employed. You seem to want to reduce EVE into a giant 1 side vs another side game. This view, in my opinion, lacks complexity and isnt particularly interesting. The reducing pvp count seems to indicate that I am not the only one who views this issue in the same way.

If, as you say, massed fleet fights can survive the removal or reduction of JB networks then why have them? Is it purely to reduce the 'boredom' of logistics? Because, if logistics is so dull why bother with ANY of it? Why not just auto spawn ships for players?

C.

Falin Whalen
Gallente
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.01.24 02:23:00 - [338]
 

Originally by: Cailais
If, as you say, massed fleet fights can survive the removal or reduction of JB networks then why have them?
0.0 is not Empire, where every system has a perfect refine station(sometimes more than one), with 50 manufacturing slots, and ME/PE/copy/invention slots too. The industrialists in 0.0, just can't go to the next system over, to pick up the 350km3 of Tritanium that they got on sale in absolute safety of Empire, like you can go to the chemists, or green grocers today. For 0.0 think of that trip as if you had to do it in the Beirut of the 80's or Sarajevo of the 90's, and everything is 5-20 blocks away. Wouldn't you want to shorten that trip?

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.01.24 06:02:00 - [339]
 

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Falin Whalen
Really?


I think what you're falin to notice is that the increased power projection artificially eliminates space that other people could be used. You may argue that the space wouldn't be used in any event, but I would argue that it would. Imagine a system where it took 15 minutes to cross a system and there were no travel "short cuts". Would you really be able to bring 4000 people 60 jumps (15 hours each)? Of course you wouldn't. And while that's an extreme example, it certainly shows that there are ways to limit power projection.

-Liang


It's true, you couldn't. There wouldn't be 4000 people playing Eve to bring.


You have contributed nothing to the discussion because of the sentence I underlined. Do try to do better, old chap.

-Liang

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.01.24 06:06:00 - [340]
 

Originally by: Falin Whalen
Originally by: Cailais
If, as you say, massed fleet fights can survive the removal or reduction of JB networks then why have them?
0.0 is not Empire, where every system has a perfect refine station(sometimes more than one), with 50 manufacturing slots, and ME/PE/copy/invention slots too. The industrialists in 0.0, just can't go to the next system over, to pick up the 350km3 of Tritanium that they got on sale in absolute safety of Empire, like you can go to the chemists, or green grocers today. For 0.0 think of that trip as if you had to do it in the Beirut of the 80's or Sarajevo of the 90's, and everything is 5-20 blocks away. Wouldn't you want to shorten that trip?


Of course you might want to shorten the trip. Unfortunately, shortening that trip wouldn't necessarily be good for the game.

-Liang

Falin Whalen
Gallente
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.01.24 07:37:00 - [341]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Of course you might want to shorten the trip. Unfortunately, shortening that trip wouldn't necessarily be good for the game.

-Liang
Good for the game, or good for your game?

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.01.24 08:34:00 - [342]
 

Originally by: Falin Whalen
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Of course you might want to shorten the trip. Unfortunately, shortening that trip wouldn't necessarily be good for the game.

-Liang
Good for the game, or good for your game?


That is a question for everyone involved - you included.

-Liang

Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2011.01.24 11:32:00 - [343]
 

Originally by: Falin Whalen
Originally by: Cailais
If, as you say, massed fleet fights can survive the removal or reduction of JB networks then why have them?
0.0 is not Empire, where every system has a perfect refine station(sometimes more than one), with 50 manufacturing slots, and ME/PE/copy/invention slots too. The industrialists in 0.0, just can't go to the next system over, to pick up the 350km3 of Tritanium that they got on sale in absolute safety of Empire, like you can go to the chemists, or green grocers today. For 0.0 think of that trip as if you had to do it in the Beirut of the 80's or Sarajevo of the 90's, and everything is 5-20 blocks away. Wouldn't you want to shorten that trip?


Yes, you would want to - but that's the frailty of null sec logistics. And those logistic chains could, conceivably, be cut as part of a war effort.

If escorting cargo is "boring" then we need to ask why, and how that might be improved. Perhaps it's impossible or too difficult - again how might that be improved upon?

There are of course innumerable answers - perhaps Jump Bridge networks are semi permanent, more vulnerable structures that aren't 'tied to' the POS? The key thing, in my mind at any rate, is that they allow the movement not only of industrial supplies but also combat power.

C.

Falin Whalen
Gallente
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.01.24 18:07:00 - [344]
 

Oh well, when you pubbies have had your way, and wonder why 0.0 still isn't the magical rainbow PEW PEW space battlefield, like you thought it would be, after you "fix" NULSEC. I'll just sit back, laugh, and smugly tell you, "I told you so."





CCP has such a wonderful track record for "fixing" problems in 0.0 that don't end up becoming even more hilariously broken, or with more unintended consequences, right?

Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2011.01.24 23:23:00 - [345]
 

Originally by: Falin Whalen
Oh well, when you pubbies have had your way, and wonder why 0.0 still isn't the magical rainbow PEW PEW space battlefield, like you thought it would be, after you "fix" NULSEC. I'll just sit back, laugh, and smugly tell you, "I told you so."





CCP has such a wonderful track record for "fixing" problems in 0.0 that don't end up becoming even more hilariously broken, or with more unintended consequences, right?


CCP's record may not be great, that's why input is valuable. Have a read of my blog post on the subject of JBs and see what you think (in my sig).

C.

Falin Whalen
Gallente
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.01.25 23:39:00 - [346]
 

Originally by: Cailais
CCP's record may not be great, that's why input is valuable. Have a read of my blog post on the subject of JBs and see what you think (in my sig).

C.


Yes, input is valuable, if it comes from intelligent sources that have fully thought through the implications of the changes they propose. If it comes from sources that are biased or have not properly thought through the ramifications of the changes that are suggested, that input could do more harm than good. If the assumptions behind the proposed change is faulty, the results will have unintended consequences, and may not even properly address the issue they were designed to. CCP Greyscale's desired results(notice this plural, it is important) is an increase in small scale PvP, and a reduction in the ability of large alliances to project force over great distances. Greyscale's assumptions, that a lack of content for small gangs to go after, and that shooting mega HP structures is, a bad game mechanic, are correct. The assumptions that jump bridges somehow let alliances project power well beyond their borders, contribute to node crashing fleet fights, and the general decline of small scale PvP, however, are based on faulty logic.

Lets look at each in detail. The assumption that Jump bridges let alliances project power well beyond their borders is flat out false. First, jump bridges can only be in alliance claimed sovereign space, and only in sov 3 space as well. A fleet that does not have access to jump bridges can not use them, and has to take gates, or be bridged to their destination via Titans, just like everybody else. Therefore, within your own or an allies sovereign space you can project force far better than an enemy can. Outside of your own, or an allies space, you are at a disadvantage in your ability to project force.

This dovetails with another false assumption, that jump bridges contribute to laggy, node crashing fleet fights. Well, yes, and no. Yes if you are the defender of the system being attacked, You can easily reship and get back to the fight, otherwise no. If you are attacking and get podded you have to reship, take your bridges as close to the battle as possible, then take normal gates the rest of the way deep into enemy territory, usually in a convoy of others who have had the misfortune of getting podded like yourself. Large fleets form due to psychological factors of safety, and shared effort making a task less onerous, not because of jump bridges.

The perceived decline in small scale PvP, has been prevalent since before Jump bridges were even in game. This is due to knowledge of game mechanics, and intelligence networks, rather than a mechanism of the game itself. More people have learned to CTRL-Q (now ALT-Shift-Q), warp to a safe spot and cloak, warp to a POS, or dock when a hostile enters local. Most even know what ship he is in before he is even in the system, due to intelligence networks put in place to help prevent him ganking anybody. It is those things that are making small gang roams non viable, not Jump bridges, because jump bridges can still be camped.

Removal of jump bridges will not have the desired effect that Greyscale is intending, because the logic behind it is based on false assumptions.

Fred Freedom
The Scope
Posted - 2011.01.26 00:07:00 - [347]
 

To expand on that, what people mean by "small gang PvP" is "flying around for a while to catch dumb ratters and maybe engage some gang of equal or smaller size".

Point the first: two years or even one year ago, the vast majority of players killing rats were actual players. We all know that's not true now. Bots auto-cloak up, spread out more or less optimally and never leave the system so the gang trying to catch a ratter never ever will. No JBs involved.

Point the second: 5 minutes after the hostiles enter our space we know exactly how many people they have and the ships they are in. JBs might make it easier to get "enough" people to fight the gang of 20, but if you think we're going to engage them with 10 or do anything but wait the extra 15 minutes for "enough" more to show up, you're delusional. Why would we fight outnumbered when we don't have to? We'll certainly get more bored without them, but we're not going to fight unless we will win or at least get a bunch of kills. JBs are not going to do anything to fix that.

Point the third: I've said this already, but the North is sitting on 95% of the best isk-making systems in the game (the ones with the tech; all others are exactly equal in value now.) Fighting each other means all of those systems and POS get reinforced and we're not making hundreds of billions a month. There's also the not insignificant factor that we all hang out on Jabber, like each other and dislike the same entities. Are we really going to unblue each other and lose hundreds of billions because oh no, it takes an extra half hour to invoke mutual defense? Of course not. It will be more boring, but we'll still do it.

So JBs don't mean anything - other than keeping the game more fun. Want to fix things? Nerf tech, nerf supercaps, maybe nerf local.


Pages: first : previous : ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12]

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