open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked The CSM wants to get rid of Jump Bridges.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 ... : last (21)

Author Topic

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.22 12:28:00 - [331]
 

Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 22/01/2011 12:30:01
Originally by: Borza Slavak

Looks like someone made the mistake of correlating a proposed mechanics change with nerfing the NC.


Yeah, that'd be Greyscale, who wants the change to hurt all coalitions troll.

Originally by: The Quote, Yet Again

It is noted that the cost of supporting coalition allies will increase, which will increase friction; coalitions may fragment so reds are easier to find. This may make it easier for small alliances to set up shop, with less supercapital curb stomping.


Of course pointing that out becomes "defending the NC". Does it even occur to you, while trolling, just how absurd it is to assume that people playing a sandbox game and cooperating with who they choose needs to be "defended" for playing the game how they want to?

As you're trolling, I'll also point out that it was our 48 hour old alt-troll who decided that it was about the NC. I pointed out that the proposed changes fail on merit, utility and design philosphy.

Troll harder.

Oh, and Tertiacero, thank you for trolling too. Obviously you are correct, and someone playing EVE for 48 hours would have a solid understanding of nullsec mechanics. Yes.

Borza Slavak
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2011.01.22 12:34:00 - [332]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
I pointed out that the proposed changes fail on merit, utility and design philosphy.



All CCP were saying is that change is proposed without any solution being ruled out? So do any and all possible changes fail in all respects? Status quo only?

Also please, use the word 'troll' at least another half dozen times per post. It's good reading.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.22 13:01:00 - [333]
 

Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 22/01/2011 13:13:08
Originally by: Borza Slavak

All CCP were saying is that change is proposed without any solution being ruled out


No, that's fiction, again.
What was actually said was that JB's being removed from the game was the proposal and it might actually be put through within the next three months.

And, again:
Originally by: The Actual Quote. Again, Again.
It is noted that the cost of supporting coalition allies will increase, which will increase friction; coalitions may fragment so reds are easier to find. This may make it easier for small alliances to set up shop, with less supercapital curb stomping.


After you've just been corrected, why make the same error again? It's not about "no solution being ruled out." It's about finding a way through game mechanics to try to stop player-created political content and force it to be created in a model that Greyscale wants.

The funny thing is that the trolls don't even seem to understand that, while they're supporting it because they see it as a way to hurt specific coalitions that they don't like, that it sets a precedent that can easily be used against them, later. That's the problem with changes to mechanics informed by wanting to **** over politics.

That's the whole point of integrity. You don't have to worry if the next change that's designed to hurt someone's in-game political alliances is going to be targeted at you or not if you don't have any changes designed to hurt anybody's in-game political alliances.

Supporting a change designed to stop player-created content, because you think you'll get an advantage, simply leaves you vulnerable if caprice or chance leaves you on the chopping block next. If the next change is to ban all roleplaying alliances because people taking the fiction seriously makes EVE look nutty, you'll have nothing to complain about. And if roleplayers are banned for roleplaying, maybe you'll be lucky enough to have someone troll you with "Status quo only?"

Originally by: Borza Slavak

So do any and all possible changes fail in all respects? Status quo only?


See, this is just obvious trolling, I wish folks would stop.

I've pointed out that the precedent is a dangerous one that should be avoided. I've pointed out that getting rid of JB's won't actually have the desired effect as there were massive coalitions before there ever were JB's. I've pointed out that fleets can and do project force without JB's and the time savings for JB's, even on the longest routes, are insignificant compared to the massive battles that they're (sometimes) used to get people to. I've pointed out that massive invasions can be and are carried out without any significant JB use at all as alliances set up forward staging HQ's, and that even defending coalitions with a full JB network can still be beaten on their home turf.

And your response to that is "Well... so nothing at all should ever change, right?"
Does that even make sense to you?

And yes, the fact that you're trolling, and other people are trolling? That's good comedy, lowell!, and such. But how about you identify anything but trolling that gets you from "These are all the reasons why this specific change, and the reasons it's been suggested, is a bad idea" to "Okay, so nothing in EVE should ever change, ever. Not ever."


Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Spikes Chop Shop
Posted - 2011.01.22 13:18:00 - [334]
 

Finn, any and all game mechanic changes invariably affect someone's sandbox. by that line, any change would be impossible as long as someone opposes it. that's not how things work, man.

Borza Slavak
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2011.01.22 13:18:00 - [335]
 

Oh quoting is it?
Quote:
The CSM was somewhat divided on how aggressive CCP should be with any nerfing.
However, one CSM suggested, with respect to the nerfing of jump bridges, “get rid of them.”
Greyscale: “Anyone disagree with that?”
CSM response varied between “Nope,” “Nah” and a simple “No”.
Greyscale: “Sweet!” – meaning that option will then not be discarded when the topic of jump bridges will be on CCP’s table.


CCP are only looking at complete removal as one possible solution. This thread has (had) moved on to the point where it was discussed as only one possible solution. Since then you've come along shouting down everything with hurf blurf about how wrong it would be to remove JBs entirely, over and over.
Please, allow discussion to continue instead of redundantly whiteknighting about one possible idea which might make things difficult for you and your friends.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.22 13:35:00 - [336]
 

Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 22/01/2011 13:36:17
Originally by: Jagga Spikes
Finn, any and all game mechanic changes invariably affect someone's sandbox. by that line, any change would be impossible as long as someone opposes it. that's not how things work, man.


Yet again, no.
There would be a series of objections to removing JB's based on mechanics if it was only a mechanics change.

But since it's a change, specifically, to try to stop stop non-CCP Approved player created content.
So that's another factor against it. And again, it's a very dangerous precedent. And the people supporting it now will have nothing to fall back on if, next round of changes, CCP decides that they don't like how someone is playing the EVE political game, and they try to stop them.

The only difference between this change, designed to stop player-created content and having devs get into Jove ships and drop on alliances they don't like, is that this is a bit less overt. It's a difference in scale, not in kind.

And anybody who values their ability to play EVE as a sandbox should be very wary of changes designed to limit that for political reasons. Yes, even if they stand to benefit from this specific round of changes.

Originally by: Borza Slavak
Oh quoting is it?


During the actual discussion they noted that the option of removing JB's won't be discarded. By the writeup, however, the minutes clearly state that not only is it simply another option to consider, but that it might be implemented within the next 3 months.

And notice the thread title? This is a thread to show the CSM whether or not the playerbase supports removing JB's and how we want the CSM to react to such plans. If you want to discuss how you'd like JB's to be changed, we have the features and ideas forum.

Originally by: Borza Slavak
one possible idea which might make things difficult for you and your friends.


Yet again, it's other people who made this about the NC, not me.

I've already pointed out that it won't make things particularly difficult to any great extent. I've also pointed out that since this is a change designed to stop player-created content and force it to adhere to CCP-Approved content, that the precedent can then be applied to anybody, for any reason.

You see it as a change that only effects certain alliances, who you're not a part of. But the fact is that I'm arguing that we should be protecting your interests, and your friends', and their friends', and every "friend" in EVE since once CCP decides to start altering 0.0 player-created politics, the only guarantee is that the players will only be allowed to play a sandbox game and form pacts if CCP okays it. Yes, even the trolls who see this solely as a way to hurt coalitions they don't like still deserve to be protected from CCP deciding that they don't like the player-created content that they're creating, and then trying to stop them by changing how the game itself works.

And that's bad for everybody.

Artisan Botanist
Minmatar
Hysteria Nexus
Posted - 2011.01.22 13:38:00 - [337]
 

Originally by: Shobon Welp
Originally by: Mishkaii
It would make space big again, make logistics meaningful, and hot drops of thousands of ships no longer trivial. What is there not to like again?

The bit where, faced with journeys of 30+ jumps to get to hostile territory and another 30+ jumps to get home again, the typical 0.0 alliance member will say, 'nope, can't be bothered' and carry on running sanctums at home instead.


Well guess what, that is the downside of blueing ****, most alliances have some hostility to neighbouring allies and wont be affected by this, if you are blue to everything in 30 jumps atm then you may as well return to empire.

CCP and the CSM have agreed that the reason for the decision was to encourage neighbouring warfare, right now it is NC, DRF, IT and whatever the south is, thats not what CCP wanted 0.0 to be like.

Burn jump bridges, nerf supercaps and buff dreads, maybe then people will actually move out of empire to 0.0

There is a reason why 0.0 isnt popular and it because the current mechanics and 'hand holding' makes it pointless to do anything there unless you are a pet or in providence.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.22 13:48:00 - [338]
 

Originally by: Artisan Botanist

Well guess what, that is the downside of blueing ****


No, that's the downside that CCP wants to create. The largest invasion in EVE's history just went on a few months ago and it was in the east all the way from the north. One poster, ironically, argued that it was the hardest to reach area in the entire game.

Originally by: Artisan Botanist

CCP and the CSM have agreed that the reason for the decision was to encourage neighbouring warfare[...]thats not what CCP wanted 0.0 to be like.


Too bad, then, that CCP aren't creating the content and it's a sandbox where the whole selling point is that 0.0 is all about player-created content, eh?
Again, just because you don't like the content that other players create does not mean it's valid for CCP to tell them "You're sandboxing wrong!"
And again, while you're willing to support this change because it might hurt your political opponents in EVE, that simply leaves you vulnerable and sets a precedent, and if the next change is designed to hurt how you play the game because that type of player-created content is now objectionable, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Originally by: Artisan Botanist

it pointless to do anything there unless you are a pet or in providence.


Funny, Pandemic had excellent success with their subcap fleets time and time again against a vastly numerically superior opponent during November and much of December. It's a good thing that they didn't listen to talk about how impotent and powerless they were and how impossible it was to accomplish things in EVE, and instead actually set about accomplishing ****.

Argue for how impossible it is for you to accomplish something and, gee, it turns out to be true.
Go figure.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.22 13:56:00 - [339]
 

Originally by: Tertiacero
'Because I wouldn't like it'


From the ancient history of a few pages back:

Quote:
I've pointed out the fact that there were massive coalitions before JB's were introduced.
I've pointed out the fact that "blobbing" and groups of alliances cooperating happened before sov was even introduced.
I've pointed out that the fact that JB's are insignificant when it comes to an alliance or coalition level forward deployment to a stocked HQ system in lowsec or NPC nullsec near a target.
I've pointed out the fact that that it's easy to gank targets on JB's.
I've pointed out the fact that the ability to zip around the map is a theoretical and not a pragmatic one as fleets that are out for hours rarely, if ever, have the stamina and will left to go add a few more hours to their night.
And so on, and so on, and so on.

I understand that you can't address let alone refute my argument, which is why you're arguing the way you are.
However, feel free to address my actual argument any time you'd like to stop trolling.


So, stop trolling, and actually contribute to the thread please. If you have any plans of contributing, that is.

Massive Dragon
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.01.22 13:58:00 - [340]
 

Edited by: Massive Dragon on 22/01/2011 14:10:31
Edited by: Massive Dragon on 22/01/2011 14:02:04
mother of god...


edit: try tell me that these changes wont increase the instances of pvp in 0.0. go on... tell me...

also im sorry i never realised that someone ranked 20k in eve could have valid opinions about 0.0. from what you were saying.



the biggest flaw in your argument is that none of it is real. how can i see this? through the blatant contradictions constantly cropping up. for example, you say that these proposed changes are specifically aimed at HURTING COALITIONS, yet you then go on to say that these changes wont change anything for coalitions.

have you even decided which is true?

you then display a blatant lack of understanding of day to day gameplay deciding unilatteraly that jumpbridges are easy to attack and camp. (the reverse is true, its far too easy to defend these structures, and the best part is you dont really need to. if one is reinforced you go out there kill it and reanchor another for 9m isk.) camping jumpbridge poses is risky and unprofitable, disabling them is the same.

just take it like a man... drawing this out is not going to win you more support its just going to lose you any credibility you may have still had.

TZeer
BURN EDEN
Posted - 2011.01.22 14:18:00 - [341]
 

Edited by: TZeer on 22/01/2011 14:19:10
Some examples regarding numbers of jumps compared to jump bridge network.

1W-OKS Vale Of The Silent --> B-DBYQ in Cloud Ring

Using shortest route through empire: 29 Jumps

Using NC jump bridge system: 19 Jumps

Going through NC alliance space via normal gates: 45 Jumps

So basically it`s quicker to take the jumpbridge network then go straight through empire and high sec.

And 45 jumps vs 19 jumps through the same area. Dont come here and say that cutting away 26 jumps, more then half the number of jumps isnt wrong.

Source: NC jumpbridge network map

Jump bridges are r e t a r d e d

Memcoll
Posted - 2011.01.22 14:21:00 - [342]
 

Originally by: Massive Dragon


no offence finnagain but for someone who puts so much emphasis on stats and pvp knowledge... you seem to have very little of either: http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=FinnAgain+Zero

now if youd like to continue telling us how much you know about this game... and how little we do... i understand.



Massive Dragon are you completely stupid? Are you? It is very, very clear that FinnAgain Zero has an absolutely exemplary pvp career with 1667 kills and 70 losses. This quite vast and obvious career which has been spent in 0.0 is being trolled by an ignorant idiot posting with an alt with absoloutely no history of pvp.

Massive Dragon you really do need to stop trolling you are absolutely clueless.

theycall mestacey
Posted - 2011.01.22 14:23:00 - [343]
 

Originally by: TZeer
Edited by: TZeer on 22/01/2011 14:19:10
Some examples regarding numbers of jumps compared to jump bridge network.

1W-OKS Vale Of The Silent --> B-DBYQ in Cloud Ring

Using shortest route through empire: 29 Jumps

Using NC jump bridge system: 19 Jumps

Going through NC alliance space via normal gates: 45 Jumps

So basically it`s quicker to take the jumpbridge network then go straight through empire and high sec.

And 45 jumps vs 19 jumps through the same area. Dont come here and say that cutting away 26 jumps, more then half the number of jumps isnt wrong.

Source: NC jumpbridge network map

Jump bridges are r e t a r d e d


you just want to hurt large coalitions rabble rabble you are clearly jealous of how good they are and how bad you are. maybe you should learn to play the game instead of crying about it!!!

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.22 14:23:00 - [344]
 

Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 22/01/2011 14:35:03
Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 22/01/2011 14:29:25
Originally by: TZeer

Using shortest route through empire: 29 Jumps
Using NC jump bridge system: 19 Jumps


So, in reality, it's a savings of ten jumps. Roughly a whole 10 minutes. Maybe 15. Maybe pilots even need to fly a shuttle through Empire if their sec status is too low, and have an alt/buddy move a ship to a lowsec staging area for them near the end of that dreadful 29 jump deployment.
Definitely game breaking.

Originally by: Memcoll
This quite vast and obvious career which has been spent in 0.0 is being trolled by an ignorant idiot posting with an alt with absoloutely no history of pvp.

Massive Dragon you really do need to stop trolling


See, that's the problem. He's obviously very passionate about the issues and he'd obviously like to discuss them, but I can't seem to get him to discuss the issue honestly.

I point out that a 48 hour old char with no PvP experience can't speak as an authority about PvP, he claims that since I have fewer kills than him, my experience and knowledge from hundreds of hours of deployment relating to the coalition and JB network many people are specifically complaining about is invalid. I point out that according to the summit minutes themselves, removing JB's is designed to hurt coalitions, but I argue for why the actual impact would be negligible contrary to intents, he claims that intents that aren't born out by results is a "contradiction" in my reasoning not a flaw in the proposal. And so on.

I'd love to have him actually support his position honestly, since for an issue as important as whether or not CCP should internationally alter game mechanics to control player-created content, someone as passionate as he is about the issue would make for a rousing discussion.
Instead he won't stop trolling.

I don't get it.


Massive Dragon
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.01.22 14:27:00 - [345]
 

Originally by: Memcoll
Originally by: Massive Dragon


no offence finnagain but for someone who puts so much emphasis on stats and pvp knowledge... you seem to have very little of either: http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=FinnAgain+Zero

now if youd like to continue telling us how much you know about this game... and how little we do... i understand.



Massive Dragon are you completely stupid? Are you? It is very, very clear that FinnAgain Zero has an absolutely exemplary pvp career with 1667 kills and 70 losses. This quite vast and obvious career which has been spent in 0.0 is being trolled by an ignorant idiot posting with an alt with absoloutely no history of pvp.

Massive Dragon you really do need to stop trolling you are absolutely clueless.


facepalm.jpg


ViolenTUK
Gallente
Demolition Men
Posted - 2011.01.22 14:30:00 - [346]
 

Jump bridges are working as intended. I am not keen with the idea that CCP may want to intervene and dictate to the players how to play their sandbox just because they don’t like it.

Massive Dragon
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.01.22 14:30:00 - [347]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Originally by: TZeer

Using shortest route through empire: 29 Jumps
Using NC jump bridge system: 19 Jumps


So, in reality, it's a savings of ten jumps. Roughly a whole 10 minutes. Maybe 15. Maybe pilots even need to fly a shuttle through Empire if their sec status is too low, and have an alt/buddy move a ship to a lowsec staging area for them near the end of that dreadful 29 jump deployment.
Definitely game breaking.



if its not such a big deal... what does it matter so much to you if it goes?

its clear that the only thing you really want is for things to be as easy as possible for you. trying to paint this any other way is just sad.

Count MonteCarlo
Genos Occidere
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.01.22 14:39:00 - [348]
 

I like how people think roaming in 0.0 space will make things easier if jb's are removed


look at the facts


95% of 0.0 residents are complete pants on head ******ed, there's no word to describe how bad they are, because they have everything handed to them, doesn't really need to think for them selves and being a bad isn't that harsh on you too

if you start making **** harder for them, then they might stop being so ******ed as they'll have to start thinking for them selves

so from that perspective, keep jb's, I'd rather fight a **** tonne of idiot bads and pawn rather than a bunch of goods

Makumba Aki
Posted - 2011.01.22 14:39:00 - [349]
 

Originally by: Memcoll
Originally by: Massive Dragon


no offence finnagain but for someone who puts so much emphasis on stats and pvp knowledge... you seem to have very little of either: http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=FinnAgain+Zero

now if youd like to continue telling us how much you know about this game... and how little we do... i understand.



Massive Dragon are you completely stupid? Are you? It is very, very clear that FinnAgain Zero has an absolutely exemplary pvp career with 1667 kills and 70 losses. This quite vast and obvious career which has been spent in 0.0 is being trolled by an ignorant idiot posting with an alt with absoloutely no history of pvp.

Massive Dragon you really do need to stop trolling you are absolutely clueless.


lmao Very Happy

What does this have to do with the actual argument? Very Happy
One could also argue that his alliance is good at exploiting the whole JB/Cyno thing in order to hotdrop small fleets with their blob. And removing this system would obviously hurt them even though it might benefit the majority of players. Thus, he has a strong incentive to be against such changes. <-- This however, has also nothing in common with the actual argument. Casue one could make up tons of such meaningless arguments.


Massive Dragon
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.01.22 14:39:00 - [350]
 

Originally by: ViolenTUK
Jump bridges are working as intended. I am not keen with the idea that CCP may want to intervene and dictate to the players how to play their sandbox just because they don’t like it.


while i appreciate that you think you know what ccps intentions are, i have a perfectly good set of ccp released notes that tells me this is not the case.

the fact that you then believe this is a sandbox issue is somewhat frightening. i want you to think carefully about this next q/a. was eve a sandbox game before jumpbridges? was it a sandbox game after jumpbridges? will it be a sandbox game after jumpbridges are removed?

in light of this i suggest you go look up what a sandbox game is.

nb. a sandbox game does not mean i get to fit 9 turrets on my apoc because i feel like it.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.22 14:45:00 - [351]
 

Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 22/01/2011 14:50:16

Originally by: Makumba Aki

What does this have to do with the actual argument?


The point was that someone posting with a 48 hour old alt and no PvP history was making claims about PvP but refused to provide any facts to back it up. I pointed that out.

Minigin then decided to troll me by playing dumb, unfortunately the way he often trolls for some reason, and pretended that if someone with absolutely no PvP experience at all doesn't have an informed opinion, then someone with hundreds of hours dealing with the specific coalition and the specific JB network that several posters have complained about, also doesn't have an informed opinion.

Or look at his argument above. It's pointed out (yet again) that, as per CCP's own official minuts, the goal of the changes is to hurt coalitions and force them to tear themselves apart. That changing gameplay mechanics to stop player-created content is a violation of the sandbox is obvious. Instead, Mini pretends that the issue is simply JB's existing or being removed and that anybody has claimed that their simple existence (rather than removing them with the explicit statement that it's to stop sandbox play) makes the game a sandbox. Or that fitting guns on a drake is the same thing as deliberately changing game mechanics explicitly to harm player-created content that you don't like.

He knows it's not true, and makes no sense. It's obvious that he knows it's not true and it makes no sense. But he's trolling.

It's a shame, as he obviously feels very, very strongly about it and an honest discussion with such a person would be a good thing.
I have no idea how to get him to stop trolling. I've tried.

Hannah Ganktannah
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.01.22 14:45:00 - [352]
 

this thread tl;dr
bawwwww remove JB's
bawwwww don't remove JB's

TZeer
BURN EDEN
Posted - 2011.01.22 14:51:00 - [353]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Originally by: TZeer

Using shortest route through empire: 29 Jumps
Using NC jump bridge system: 19 Jumps


So, in reality, it's a savings of ten jumps. Roughly a whole 10 minutes. Maybe 15. Maybe pilots even need to fly a shuttle through Empire if their sec status is too low, and have an alt/buddy move a ship to a lowsec staging area for them near the end of that dreadful 29 jump deployment.
Definitely game breaking.



You really dont get it do you?

You are reducing the numbers of jumps with 10, despite you are moving AROUND empire in a space that would have taken 45 jumps if you went through normal gates.
I`ll draw up another example where going through empire is not an option. And where leaving NC space would gain nothing if you travelled through normal gates.

RG9 --> B-DBYQ Normal Gates: 26 Jumps
RG9 --> B-DBYQ Jump Bridge : 13 Jumps

RG9 --> UMI Normal Gates : 26 jumps
RG9 --> UMI Jump Bridge : 13 Jumps

Q3-BAY --> IPAY Normal gates : 17 Jumps
Q3-BAY --> IPAY Jump Bridge : 5 jumps

Need more examples?

Massive Dragon
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.01.22 14:54:00 - [354]
 

Edited by: Massive Dragon on 22/01/2011 14:54:37
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 22/01/2011 14:50:16

Originally by: Makumba Aki

What does this have to do with the actual argument?


It's a shame, as he obviously feels very, very strongly about it and an honest discussion with such a person would be a good thing.
I have no idea how to get him to stop trolling. I've tried.


sit down on ts with me. you can record it if you like.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.22 14:57:00 - [355]
 

Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 22/01/2011 14:58:52
Originally by: TZeer

You are reducing the numbers of jumps with 10, despite you are moving AROUND empire in a space that would have taken 45 jumps if you went through normal gates.


Irrelevant and obfuscatory. Empire gates are "normal" gates. All you've described is two potential routes, perhaps one with a totally unimportant bit of additional effort for someone with low sec status, and one route is 10 jumps longer than the other (and allows dictor bubbles, bomber runs, hot drops...)

It's rather obvious that you're trying to claim that people would have to move entirely through nullsec, even though that makes absolutely no sense at all, simply because that gives you a larger number to point to.

Well, ****, getting from M-O to HED- using only 0.0 would be pretty long, too. That's why people can take the shortest route.

Originally by: TZeer

RG9 --> B-DBYQ Normal Gates: 26 Jumps
RG9 --> B-DBYQ Jump Bridge : 13 Jumps

RG9 --> UMI Normal Gates : 26 jumps
RG9 --> UMI Jump Bridge : 13 Jumps

Q3-BAY --> IPAY Normal gates : 17 Jumps
Q3-BAY --> IPAY Jump Bridge : 5 jumps



The devil you say, roughly 15 minutes saved in each case? Obviously game breaking.


Edit: Minigin, again, your uber-creepy proposal that I chat with you on Teamspeak is a silly troll. We're here, in this forum, talking now. That you refuse to stop trolling unless we leave this forum makes no sense. Stop trolling and we'll discuss the issue where we're already talking.

Again, we're talking here, now, in this forum. Just honestly discuss the issue here rather than demanding to go to a different forum entirely.


[tangent] I hope that people will stop trolling about how this isn't about the NC, since we've had what, a dozen posters now explicitly make this about the NC and NC jump bridges.[/tangent]

Memcoll
Posted - 2011.01.22 14:59:00 - [356]
 

Originally by: Massive Dragon

nb. a sandbox game does not mean i get to fit 9 turrets on my apoc because i feel like it.



This is the problem with your argument.

If you could fit 9 turrets on an apoc then this would need addressing since an apoc has 8 turret slots. I can’t fit 9 turrets to my apoc because it only has 8 slots. I can however use this apoc with 8 slots to do pretty much whatever I choose to.

Jump bridges are being used for whatever use people see fit for them. Now if jump bridges were being used to jump a titan to Jita then this would need addressing. People can't to my knowledge use jump bridges to jump titans to Jita 4-4 because they feel like it. There is no problem with jump bridges to my knowledge they are working as they were intended to be.

Tertiacero
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.01.22 15:03:00 - [357]
 

Originally by: Memcoll
Originally by: Massive Dragon

nb. a sandbox game does not mean i get to fit 9 turrets on my apoc because i feel like it.



This is the problem with your argument.

If you could fit 9 turrets on an apoc then this would need addressing since an apoc has 8 turret slots. I can’t fit 9 turrets to my apoc because it only has 8 slots. I can however use this apoc with 8 slots to do pretty much whatever I choose to.

Jump bridges are being used for whatever use people see fit for them. Now if jump bridges were being used to jump a titan to Jita then this would need addressing. People can't to my knowledge use jump bridges to jump titans to Jita 4-4 because they feel like it. There is no problem with jump bridges to my knowledge they are working as they were intended to be.


And if they change apocs to only have 7 turrets?

And finn, there is a big difference in 15 jumps or so, especially if you're not required to go anywhere more dangerous than a friendly deathstar pos the entire time.

Massive Dragon
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.01.22 15:05:00 - [358]
 

Originally by: Memcoll
Originally by: Massive Dragon

nb. a sandbox game does not mean i get to fit 9 turrets on my apoc because i feel like it.



This is the problem with your argument.

If you could fit 9 turrets on an apoc then this would need addressing since an apoc has 8 turret slots. I can’t fit 9 turrets to my apoc because it only has 8 slots. I can however use this apoc with 8 slots to do pretty much whatever I choose to.

Jump bridges are being used for whatever use people see fit for them. Now if jump bridges were being used to jump a titan to Jita then this would need addressing. People can't to my knowledge use jump bridges to jump titans to Jita 4-4 because they feel like it. There is no problem with jump bridges to my knowledge they are working as they were intended to be.



not having 9 gun apocs, or not having jumpbridges does not change this game from being a sandbox.

and THAT is the problem. your knowledge is incomplete and at a different standard to other people. ccp has said that IT IS NOT WORKING AS INTENDED, and that IT IS TOO EASY.

this is like having the discussion about the time they added stacking penalities to damage mods. sure rolling around in a maxed heat sink geddon was fun... sure it was your free choice to do this, it was however imballanced and NOT WORKING AS INTENDED. thus it was nerfed and no one complained.

this is really a very similar situation. you can cry till your heart is content that it is working as intended, but it is not. it is working how you want it to work. not as it was intended and certainly not in a manner which is providing the most ballance and fun.



i think you should be applauding ccp that they are finaly encouraging more pvp in this game rather than taking away more and more consequences of pvp.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.22 15:05:00 - [359]
 

Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 22/01/2011 15:09:37
Originally by: Tertiacero
there is a big difference in 15 jumps or so, especially if you're not required to go anywhere more dangerous than a friendly deathstar pos the entire time.


Thank you for stopping trolling, I appreciate it. You are, however, wrong. Bomber gangs can and do absolutely annihilate fleets using JB networks, especially with something as simple as a cloaky dictor and scouts. To say nothing of hotdrops on JB's that have seen some truly massive kills over the years.

The idea that JB's on deathstar POS's are somehow hard to attack is simply false. But as with all things in EVE, if you argue for how impossible it is, you won't be able to do it.

Best not to get in the way of those who are out doing it, though.

Originally by: Memcoll
There is no problem with jump bridges to my knowledge they are working as they were intended to be.



Yep, that's honest truth that's being trolled on.

Jump bridges were designed to let anybody who's blue and has a password jump to where they're connected to. JB's do that. They're working as intended. There aren't any exploits with JB's or unintended functionality that's showing that they're not working as intended.

Even if CCP decided that Apocs get 9 high slots and 9 turret hardpoints, and patched that into the game, that would then mean that now Apocs were supposed to have 9 turret slots and were working as intended.

The proposed change to JB's is more like saying that 8 gun artie-pocs are cheap and can put out roughly 11.5k alpha for suicide ganking, so you can still fit 8 guns but if you use your artie-poc to gank stuff in Empire you're at risk of a ban.

Edit: I see that minigin is still trolling that having or not having JB's makes it a sandbox, and not removing them in order to hurt a specific type of player-created political content. Maybe you'll have better luck to get him to stop trolling.


Tertiacero
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.01.22 15:08:00 - [360]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Originally by: Memcoll
There is no problem with jump bridges to my knowledge they are working as they were intended to be.



Yep, that's honest truth that's being trolled on.

Jump bridges were designed to let anybody who's blue and has a password jump to where they're connected to. JB's do that. They're working as intended. There aren't any exploits with JB's or unintended functionality that's showing that they're not working as intended.

Even if CCP decided that Apocs get 9 high slots and 9 turret hardpoints, and patched that into the game, that would then mean that now Apocs were supposed to have 9 turret slots and were working as intended.

The proposed change to JB's is more like saying that 8 gun artie-pocs are cheap and can put out roughly 11.5k alpha for suicide ganking, so you can still fit 8 guns but if you use your artie-poc to gank stuff in Empire you're at risk of a ban.



That is the most ******ed analogy I have ever heard.

It's more like CCP changing the apocs so they only have 7 turret slots and then you crying about it for 13 pages straight.


Pages: first : previous : ... 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 ... : last (21)

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