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 : ... 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 ... : last (21)

Author Topic

Massive Dragon
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.01.22 15:13:00 - [361]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
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.




i guess if ccp decided to remove jumpbridges from the game and patched that in it would be a mistake... because they wouldnt have intended for that change!!!

how do you exist... seriously...

Memcoll
Posted - 2011.01.22 15:15:00 - [362]
 

Originally by: Massive Dragon

i guess if ccp decided to remove jumpbridges from the game and patched that in it would be a mistake... because they wouldnt have intended for that change!!!

how do you exist... seriously...



"your knowledge is incomplete and at a different standard to other people" ShockedVery Happy

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.22 15:21:00 - [363]
 

Originally by: Memcoll

"your knowledge is incomplete and at a different standard to other people"


Yeah... I don't get it. Minigin isn't stupid. I don't know why he pretends to be in order to troll.

He knows that altering game mechanics in order to hurt player-created political content is a sandbox issue. He knows that JB's were designed to move blues with the right password, and they're doing exactly that. He knows that if CCP patches something or removes a function, then it changes and that's its new intended function.

He's not confused about any of this, but he compares changing the intended function of something in EVE with altering gameplay mechanics with the deliberate aim of hurting certain sandbox play.

It's a shame. I really do wish he'd stop trolling, he's obviously got a lot of passion and a very strong point of view, and trolling is no help to anybody.

TZeer
BURN EDEN
Posted - 2011.01.22 15:31:00 - [364]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
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]


What you are not taking into account are all the other bits and peices in the bigger picture.

- If someone needs to log while on a roam, or are left behind for some reason. There is a big difference in travelling 13 jumps where 90+% of them are on jump bridges with a deathstar attached to it, and going through 26 normal gates, where every gate can potentially have a small gang waiting for him.

- Logistics. A scouted freighter will think twice before he jumps into a local with only 1 hostile in it. When that jump is done on a POS with deathstar, the risk is greatly reduced.

- Reinforcements. When you are fighting, and you get reinforcements within 10-15 minutes instead of 25-30 minutes. That usually has an impact. Also when people looses a ship/or get podded and end up in whatever system he had his clone in, the chance of him coming back with a ship, alone, unscouted, through 26 gates, isnt very high. But through a jumpbridge network, that also cut`s the jumps in half, we are talking great success!!!

- Powerprojection, moving about. When it`s possible for people to move up 3x the distance in the same amount of time, the area you are able to controll/habitate greatly increases. When you also add that any hostility can be met with a great deal of numbers cause of jump bridges it doesnt excactly make it harder for you to controll the space.
Without jumpbridges, those reinforcements would have needed to go through normal gates, and possible be cought up fighting another small gang in their region. Other would maybe be ganked on a gate casue they travelled alone without scout.

Massive Dragon
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.01.22 15:38:00 - [365]
 

Originally by: Makumba Aki
Edited by: Makumba Aki on 22/01/2011 15:28:07
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 22/01/2011 14:50:16

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.


But his arguments are obviously valid. It seems to me like, since you guys (or the one special guy) can't beat him with arguments, you try it on a personal level. Do I have to be a scientist to say that the earth is round?

Quote:

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.


How that? Why does it stop player created content? According to your argument, the perfect sandbox would be one where every player has godlike abilities (e.g. can use dev tools). Because then everybody would be able to create missions the way he like them, have as much money and as many ships as he like to create his own universe. Is that what you want?

Quote:

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.


So how would removing the JB harm palyer created content?
Would it harm the NC and other big power blocks? Yes it would!
Do powerblocks comprise the majority of players? No!
Would it bring more content? Well, this is arguable. It surely would make strategy more important. Since it is much harder to form a blob when many pilots live 30j away.
However, the removal of the JB alone wouldn't solve the problem. I my opinion JBs should be removed and the Jump Drive of Capitals and Super Capitals should be removed (gate travel) or nerfed.
The timer aystem should be reworked.
For instance:
- When a tower is reinforced, it can only keep up the big FF for 1-2h afterwards the FF shriks so that it only protects the tower.
- After the ff has shrunck, the anchored modules can be either hacked and stolen or destroyed.

This way the handling or transaction costs of an alliance would grow with it's size because logistics and defence become more difficult.




you i like, a lot.

the mins do actually discuss in part what you are talking about. any jb nerf would obviously be accompanied by a whole host of changes to the way capships jumped and how titan bridges worked, as well as most likely the introduction of new 0.0 entry points (so that it isnt living hell to try move things in and out of empire).

as i see it these changes are not so much about HURTING COALITIONS as they are about GIVING 0.0 MORE PVP.

by default obviously this will make it harder for coalitions, but this does not make it "hard". they were fine before jumpbridges and they will be fine after. the fact that there will be more pvp should benefit ALL people not just people not in coalitions.

whether it be defence or offence it is all more content. i think the problem with coalitions is that they tend to attract people who want easy mode and to never lose. any fear about these changes stems from fear of losing more because it isnt AS easy to non-stop win / easy mode everything.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.22 15:46:00 - [366]
 

Originally by: TZeer
There is a big difference in travelling 13 jumps where 90+% of them are on jump bridges with a deathstar attached to it, and going through 26 normal gates, where every gate can potentially have a small gang waiting for him.


Every deathstar POS can, equally, have a gang on it waiting to gank returning stragglers.
You've drawn a distinction without a differnce.

Quote:

- Logistics. A scouted freighter will think twice before he jumps into a local with only 1 hostile in it. When that jump is done on a POS with deathstar, the risk is greatly reduced.


A red in local in a JB system, especially if you're jumping a juicy target in like a freighter, is a very good indication of a potential hotdrop. Honestly, PL has been carrying off this tactic highly successfully for quite some time now.

Again, argue strongly enough for your inability to do something and sure enough, you're proven right.
But don't interrupt the people who are showing that they're able to do it.

Quote:

- Reinforcements. When you are fighting, and you get reinforcements within 10-15 minutes instead of 25-30 minutes. [...]Also when people looses a ship/or get podded and end up in whatever system he had his clone in, the chance of him coming back with a ship, alone, unscouted, through 26 gates, isnt very high.


Except it's not 10-15 versus 25-30. It's rallying a reinforcement fleet, making sure composition is correct, FC'ing it to the destination and coordinating it with the other FC's already on the field... It's an added 10-15 minutes to the rally time. And you're also carefully constructing your example to use the longest routes. If you save 4 or 6 jumps, that's also hardly a game changer in most battles.

Your other point is also wrong. As noted several times, JB's can be and are camped. Especially if the enemy is halfway decent and wants to interdict your ability to move reinforcements to the front lines. Many, many, many times over the years Ive seen JB networks camped
in order to stop the flow of reinforcements along them.

You're also wrong in that there's generally no need for someone to travel "alone" and "unscouted". That's why players can cooperate with each other and form reinforcement fleets to caravan over rather than trickling in one by one to a battle in progress.

Quote:

- Powerprojection, moving about. When it`s possible for people to move up 3x the distance in the same amount of time, the area you are able to controll/habitate greatly increases. When you also add that any hostility can be met with a great deal of numbers cause of jump bridges it doesnt excactly make it harder for you to controll the space.



Disproven by the actual course of EVE. Again, one of the largest invasions in the history of EVE, just carried out against the Drone Regions, was done largely by setting up forward staging zones well beyond JB networks. Groups can project power just fine without JB's, just as they did before JB's were put into the game.

Additionally, having a JB network is a benefit that defenders are supposed to have, but hardly one that's insurmountable. In the above referenced Drone invasion, for example, despite having an entire coalition and a JB network of their own, many strategic systems were lost including the gateways from Vale of the Silent and The Forge.

In point of fact, CVA's JB network was part of what made hunting there so much fun and a large part of what made PvPing in Provi during CVA's reign so much fun. For almost everybody who went there to hunt, JB's made PvP better.

You are over-exaggerating the impact of JB's to make your point.

Massive Dragon
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.01.22 15:51:00 - [367]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero

In point of fact, CVA's JB network was part of what made hunting there so much fun and a large part of what made PvPing in Provi during CVA's reign so much fun. For almost everybody who went there to hunt, JB's made PvP better.


Massive Dragon
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.01.22 15:56:00 - [368]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Originally by: Tertiacero

So basically what you're saying is that jump bridges have no impact on eve so it won't matter to you when they're removed?


No, that's you lying to troll me because you can't address the actual arguments for why they have an impact but not the impact that's being claimed, and why it can still be a bad idea to make changes even that don't have an impact on game play See, again, CCP getting five year old children to replace all of our ships models with crayon drawings. It'd be pretty silly if someone was trolling about how we should let the crayon drawing replace the models since, after all, they didn't effect anything. It'd be even sillier if someone said that they didn't want the crayon drawing in and then someone trolled them by saying that since the crayon drawing don't effect ship performance, then that person had really agreed to put in the crayon drawings.

Again, stop trolling.
The only options are not "JB's are earth-shattering in their importance and must be removed" or "JB's do nothing at all, so they can be removed and it won't matter".



the only person in this thread yet to address the issues is you. ive even opened my ts for you to come on and make it clear that you know what the issues are, and you have rejected this.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.22 16:10:00 - [369]
 

Minigin, your trolling is creepy and obvious.
Anything you can say over TS you can say here, in a thread that you're already posting in while refusing to participate honestly and trolling instead.
You've already been caught lying by saying that I hadn't addressed the issues. To say nothing of the obviousness of your new lie, as several people have made the same exactly arguments I have. So it's physically impossible for me to be the "only" one who's done something, and again you are pretending to be stupid to troll. You know it's not true.

Again, you're not a stupid person. You know that there's no actual connection to someone not wanting to agree to your creepy offer to go talk to you on TS and their argument being wrong. You know that there's no actual reason why someone has to agree to your creepy offer to talk to you on your TS since you are already posting, in this thread, right here and right now, while demanding to go have the conversation we're having here... somewhere else.
You're just pretending to be stupid in order to troll.

Now stop it, and stop trolling, and stop pretending to be stupid in order to annoy people, and post honestly in this thread.You're already posting here. You're not stupid (although why you pretend to be is beyond me). You obviously care very deeply about this issue and want to talk about it, but you refuse to not-troll anywhere but your own TS.
Why is this so hard?

Just post here and don't troll.
It's hardly brain surgery.
I'll most likely just go back to not responding to you until you stop trolling, no skin of my nose, but you seem really, really invested in challenging my arguments but bizarrely, refuse to actually do so in this thread. I've been asking you to honestly discuss the issue for some time now. Go for it, seriously. I'm more than willing to agree to a truce if you just stop trolling.

Why is that so hard for you?

Massive Dragon
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.01.22 16:17:00 - [370]
 

Edited by: Massive Dragon on 22/01/2011 16:20:43
there is a number of reasons i prefer ts.

1. it's far easier to explain things due to the live nature.
2. it provides you with a faster means of discussion
3. it is more efficent - the explanations are more pointed.
4. should one of us not be taking it seriously its easier to tell.

Address:
ts53.gameservers.com:9151


also im not sure why it would be more creepy than hopping on any other voice coms for the first time... unless of course rzr doesnt do that sort of thing.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.22 16:21:00 - [371]
 

Then stop posting to this thread if you don't want to talk about something in text, asynchronously. I do, so I'm posting here. Or if you do want to post about it in text, don't troll.

Come on.

If you don't want to use text then just make that your last post and re-post your TS info and let those of us who do want to talk about it in text, keep doing so without trolling. Or join in. Again, you obviously feel strongly about it and have a point of view you'd like to share, and you're already here, posting, in text. So why not stop trolling?

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.22 16:24:00 - [372]
 

Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 22/01/2011 16:24:09
double post, nvm

Massive Dragon
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.01.22 16:24:00 - [373]
 

Edited by: Massive Dragon on 22/01/2011 16:32:31
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Then stop posting to this thread if you don't want to talk about something in text, asynchronously. I do, so I'm posting here. Or if you do want to post about it in text, don't troll.

Come on.

If you don't want to use text then just make that your last post and re-post your TS info and let those of us who do want to talk about it in text, keep doing so without trolling. Or join in. Again, you obviously feel strongly about it and have a point of view you'd like to share, and you're already here, posting, in text. So why not stop trolling?


as i and other people in this thread have pointed out... closing your eyes and saying "i cant see you, you arnt there" is not the way to win an argument.

its what you have consistently done.

to summarise my views in this thread that havnt been trying to get you to answer questions:

1. these changes are not taylor made to hurt coalitions, they are made to provide more pvp/content in 0.0.
2. ccp is not happy with the way these mechanics work currently (and rightly so imo)


you have shifted your argument from "ha this wont change anything for coalitions" to "this is made specifically to kill off coalitions" which to me seemed strange. but i may have missed something.

neither of which btw is a good argument to not introduce such changes.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.22 16:38:00 - [374]
 

I've asked you to stop trolling and post honestly, it's unfortunately that you're refusing.

Your two issues, whether or not the change is designed to alter player-created politics and whether or not the mechanic needs to change, are both subjectes I've posted extensively on in this thread. You are lying.

Your claim that I've shifted my argument is also a lie. I've pointed out that this wouldn't be the kind of change that people are claiming it will be and as such it wouldn't accomplish its intended goal, and I've pointed out that it's wrong for CCP to alter game mechanics to attempt to stop legitimate sandbox play so that only CCP-Approved "player-created" content is allowed. You've again reverted to playing stupid in order to troll. You know full well that both things can be true, and can be argued for at the same time without contradiction or change. You know that, in fact, I have done so.

Ah well, I tried. Really did.
You refuse to stop trolling here and will only stop trolling on your TS. I wish, then, that you'd stop posting here, or at least stop trolling here, but it's not to be, it seems.
My offer is still good by the way. If you stop trolling I'll be happy to have a discussion with you.

But I'm not going to feed a troll.
Such is life.
Adios.

Massive Dragon
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.01.22 16:45:00 - [375]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
I've asked you to stop trolling and post honestly, it's unfortunately that you're refusing.

Your two issues, whether or not the change is designed to alter player-created politics and whether or not the mechanic needs to change, are both subjectes I've posted extensively on in this thread. You are lying.

Your claim that I've shifted my argument is also a lie. I've pointed out that this wouldn't be the kind of change that people are claiming it will be and as such it wouldn't accomplish its intended goal, and I've pointed out that it's wrong for CCP to alter game mechanics to attempt to stop legitimate sandbox play so that only CCP-Approved "player-created" content is allowed. You've again reverted to playing stupid in order to troll. You know full well that both things can be true, and can be argued for at the same time without contradiction or change. You know that, in fact, I have done so.

Ah well, I tried. Really did.
You refuse to stop trolling here and will only stop trolling on your TS. I wish, then, that you'd stop posting here, or at least stop trolling here, but it's not to be, it seems.
My offer is still good by the way. If you stop trolling I'll be happy to have a discussion with you.

But I'm not going to feed a troll.
Such is life.
Adios.



well that isnt true, because i havnt been trolling.

if you dont think these proposed changes will have the effect they are said to, what changes will they make and why? (i assume they will make some change in your mind as you are posting to stop this supposedly unforseen bad consequence of their removal.)

Memcoll
Posted - 2011.01.22 16:47:00 - [376]
 

You have shifted your argument.

First you were saying:

Originally by: Massive Dragon

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.



Now you are saying:

Originally by: Massive Dragon

ccp is not happy with the way these mechanics work currently (and rightly so imo)



With reference to the Eve Online Wiki:

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Jump_Bridge


“A jump bridge is a static emplacement that allows a ship to move great distances, without the assistance of anyone else online. These are commonly put into networks, allowing a ship to move up to their 0.0 home quickly.

By placing these structures, alliances create a highway system that allows very fast travel through 0.0 space. They are a time saver of immense proportions, and allow for the players to have more access to their home systems deep in 0.0

Jump bridges also facilitate the quick response ability to alliances when attacked. traditionally a system may be 30 jumps from your home system. If you were attacked there, it would take you 30 jumps X (X number of minutes per jump) to get to your destination. With jump bridges, a system 30 jumps away may only be 3 using the jump bridge technology.”


Do you understand that Jump Bridges are working as intended whether or not you, CCP or anyone else agrees with this or not?

Massive Dragon
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.01.22 16:50:00 - [377]
 

Edited by: Massive Dragon on 22/01/2011 16:56:15
Edited by: Massive Dragon on 22/01/2011 16:52:58
Originally by: Memcoll
You have shifted your argument.

First you were saying:

Originally by: Massive Dragon

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.



Now you are saying:

Originally by: Massive Dragon

ccp is not happy with the way these mechanics work currently (and rightly so imo)



With reference to the Eve Online Wiki:

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Jump_Bridge


“A jump bridge is a static emplacement that allows a ship to move great distances, without the assistance of anyone else online. These are commonly put into networks, allowing a ship to move up to their 0.0 home quickly.

By placing these structures, alliances create a highway system that allows very fast travel through 0.0 space. They are a time saver of immense proportions, and allow for the players to have more access to their home systems deep in 0.0

Jump bridges also facilitate the quick response ability to alliances when attacked. traditionally a system may be 30 jumps from your home system. If you were attacked there, it would take you 30 jumps X (X number of minutes per jump) to get to your destination. With jump bridges, a system 30 jumps away may only be 3 using the jump bridge technology.”


Do you understand that Jump Bridges are working as intended whether or not you, CCP or anyone else agrees with this or not?



i guess you got me... saying "this is not working a it was intended" is completely over-riden by "ccp is not happy with this"

damn it!


also it is one thing to say "ccp intended jumpbridges to save time" which is true, and another thing to say "ccp intended jumpbridges to make players less vulnerable while doing logistics or be sprawled litteraly all over the entirety of 0.0." which is most likely false.

and the best part is either way, whether or not they are working as intended, (which they are not), this is not a reason not to remove them should the alternative be better.

Makumba Aki
Posted - 2011.01.22 17:04:00 - [378]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero


Disproven by the actual course of EVE. Again, one of the largest invasions in the history of EVE, just carried out against the Drone Regions, was done largely by setting up forward staging zones well beyond JB networks. Groups can project power just fine without JB's, just as they did before JB's were put into the game.


Ok, and now imagine IT would have decided at the same time to attack you from the west. What would NC have done? They would set the timers the way that the towers/stations/sov stuff don't come out of RF at the same time in east and west. They would first defend their assets in the east. And then use a titan bridge to bridge to the nearest JB and use then the JB network to transfer the entire blob to the west within minutes. Finally, they would defend their assets against IT with their entire blob. There is no need to devide the forces.

But what would you do without titan bridges and JB? What if timer system would be changed (e.g. as I have proposed it above)? Obviously, you would have to devide your blob in ordet to be able to protect all your assets. On top of that, it would be harder to motivate pilots who live really deep in 0.0 and have to travel 30j back and forth for every fight.


TZeer
BURN EDEN
Posted - 2011.01.22 17:12:00 - [379]
 

Quote:
Every deathstar POS can, equally, have a gang on it waiting to gank returning stragglers.
You've drawn a distinction without a differnce.


So with your logic, only way to actually cut off the supply/reinforcement/travel is to camp a deathstar POS with a covert suicide cyno?

And there is a very low chance of anyone camping a certain jump bridge in a hope of getting a straggler, compared to him running up against a roaming gang of a few people going through normal gates.

Quote:
A red in local in a JB system, especially if you're jumping a juicy target in like a freighter, is a very good indication of a potential hotdrop. Honestly, PL has been carrying off this tactic highly successfully for quite some time now.


Who said it has to be a red one? It could be neutral. Anything thats not blue to you. I`m not sure if you remember. But we where up there, shooting the NC in H-W. And from what we saw, travelling through gates was a very rare thing for the NC. 90% of the time you guys went through a gate, was when you had to jump over to a different jump bridge route.

A roaming hostile gang will have problems finding targets when most of the targets go through jump bridges, and engaging them there will mean they will need to deal woth the tower as well.

I`m not talking about fleets, I`m talking about small gangs.

Quote:
Except it's not 10-15 versus 25-30. It's rallying a reinforcement fleet, making sure composition is correct, FC'ing it to the destination and coordinating it with the other FC's already on the field... It's an added 10-15 minutes to the rally time. And you're also carefully constructing your example to use the longest routes. If you save 4 or 6 jumps, that's also hardly a game changer in most battles.

Your other point is also wrong. As noted several times, JB's can be and are camped. Especially if the enemy is halfway decent and wants to interdict your ability to move reinforcements to the front lines. Many, many, many times over the years Ive seen JB networks camped
in order to stop the flow of reinforcements along them.

You're also wrong in that there's generally no need for someone to travel "alone" and "unscouted". That's why players can cooperate with each other and form reinforcement fleets to caravan over rather than trickling in one by one to a battle in progress.


I mentioned 3 different routes, all of them cut the travel time with minimum 50%. If you optimize your routes from A-B you can cut even more. But I guess most of that are already done when it comes to connecting important strategic locations.

I saw how you guys moved up north. People where trickling in one by one sometimes in small groups of 3 or more over the jump bridge network. It wasnt until the people got to the main staging area that stuff started getting organized. Everything before that was like looking at lemmings crossing the road.

If any hostile fleet is big anough to actually engage on a POS against a reeinforcement fleet, it would be much more effective to just shoot the bridge and move on to the next bridge.

Small scale camping works, but you cant engage on the POS for a long time, you get scrammed by the POS, webbed and shot at, on top of getting shot by the gang you are trying to kill. Yes, it`s possible to do a hit and run with stealth bombers, but if the bubble isnt at the right place, or they run into the protection of the POS field it isnt much you can do.

Quote:
Groups can project power just fine without JB's, just as they did before JB's were put into the game.


Sure, but you had no way of defending you tech moons from PL at the same time did you? If you had JB network, it would have been much easier for you to fight on two fronts. Cause there isnt much point in sitting idle waiting for the reinforcement timer is it?


FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.22 17:13:00 - [380]
 

Originally by: Makumba Aki

Ok, and now imagine IT would have decided at the same time to attack you from the west.


There's no need for a hypothetical.
PL actually did attack us from the west and the JB's and jump clones all proved insufficient, and we had to relocate to deal with PL, completely aborted our entire invasion and we quickly lost all of the gains we'd main. This despite having the JB network that many posters in this thread are very upset by.


Massive Dragon
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.01.22 17:18:00 - [381]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Originally by: Makumba Aki

Ok, and now imagine IT would have decided at the same time to attack you from the west.


There's no need for a hypothetical.
PL actually did attack us from the west and the JB's and jump clones all proved insufficient, and we had to relocate to deal with PL, completely aborted our entire invasion and we quickly lost all of the gains we'd main. This despite having the JB network that many posters in this thread are very upset by.




although your incompetance played a bigger part in your initial failure than anything else.

TZeer
BURN EDEN
Posted - 2011.01.22 17:20:00 - [382]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Originally by: Makumba Aki

Ok, and now imagine IT would have decided at the same time to attack you from the west.


There's no need for a hypothetical.
PL actually did attack us from the west and the JB's and jump clones all proved insufficient, and we had to relocate to deal with PL, completely aborted our entire invasion and we quickly lost all of the gains we'd main. This despite having the JB network that many posters in this thread are very upset by.




No you didnt, you just stated that you had no JB network in the drone regions. Ergo, you could not use your JB network to your advantage and go back and forth. This again forced you to stop your campaign in that region. And jump clones proved to be useless due to the 24 hour cooldown.

Quote:
one of the largest invasions in the history of EVE, just carried out against the Drone Regions, was done largely by setting up forward staging zones well beyond JB networks.



Artisan Botanist
Minmatar
Hysteria Nexus
Posted - 2011.01.22 17:24:00 - [383]
 

Edited by: Artisan Botanist on 22/01/2011 17:32:42
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
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.


Was there any particular reason you cut out the reasoning’s on why CCP / CSM want this, I did try to explain that CCP doesnt want 0.0 to be ruled by huge coalitions who are blue to everything within 30 jumps and they wanted to encourage local wars AND make it harder to control more space.

My comment about living in 0.0 was in regards to alliances with sovereignty, I am well aware of PLs success but you cant possibly compare PL to every other non sov holding alliance.

Are you also aware that 2 members of the CSM are in your coalition?

The argument on here is stupid anyway, the op doesnt even give anything that we should support / unsupport :S and for the past several pages you have argued against a proposal that has only been discussed with no confirmation on if it will happen and how.

Now I understand NCs reluctance to remove jump bridges, but if your own coalition leader thinks its a good decision dont you think you should go argue with him? After all there was NO ONE who disagreed with ‘removing jump bridges completely’.

Edit- Seriously though wtf are we meant to be supporting / unsupporting Neutral

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.22 17:40:00 - [384]
 

Originally by: TZeer

So with your logic, only way to actually cut off the supply/reinforcement/travel is to camp a deathstar POS with a covert suicide cyno?


Seriously, that's not "according to my argument" or "with my logic". That doesn't follow at all.
And no. I've already mentioned several ways that both capital and sub-capital ships can be ganked on JB's quite easily. You also mentioned dealing with the POS itself, which is another option too.

Originally by: TZeer
there is a very low chance of anyone camping a certain jump bridge in a hope of getting a straggler, compared to him running up against a roaming gang


This is nonsensical. If you want a higher chance of ganks, camp more JB's.

Quote:

Who said it has to be a red one? It could be neutral.


Neutrals are counted as reds by any pilot with half a brain jumping into a system. Besides, it's not as if PL hasn't been known to use alt scouts.

Quote:

A roaming hostile gang will have problems finding targets when most of the targets go through jump bridges, and engaging them there will mean they will need to deal woth the tower as well.


Yes, they offer a defensive advantage by design.
POS's and mods can be dealt with, however.
And why is it a problem that you have more trouble finding targets? Why should CCP funnel people in front of your guns. It would be "great for PvP" if any time you logged in CCP teleported you to Jove space to an Arena where you were forced to fight another player.


Quote:

I mentioned 3 different routes, all of them cut the travel time with minimum 50%.


The point is that travel time is only part of the situation when raising reinforcement fleets. So it's not a question of 10-15 vs 25-30, but 30-45 vs 45-60, or what have you. This is especially negated if you have waves of reinforcements coming. But yes, bridges are supposed to provide something of an advantage in terms of time.

Why, exactly is that advantage bad?

Quote:

I saw how you guys moved up north.


Then during MAX II did you see gank after gank after gank, including entire BS fleets obliterated by well timed bomber fleets camping our JB's, to the point where moving from M-O to UMI- was damn near lethal on some days and moving by gate with a caravan was actually safer?

Quote:
it would be much more effective to just shoot the bridge and move on to the next bridge.


And yes, that is another option.

Quote:

Small scale camping works, but you cant engage on the POS for a long time


Why does everything have to be a niche for small scale PvP? Why can't there be a place for small scale PvP, and large scale PvP, and medium scale and...

And if you like fighting in small roaming gangs, go find someone else who also likes fighting in small roaming gangs. Otherwise all you're really talking about is CCP funneling targets into your gunsights so you can get ganks on gates. I fail to see the definitive gameplay benefit to that.

Quote:
or they run into the protection of the POS field it isnt much you can do.


With a well timed bomber run, ships slamming on the MWD to try to get back into the POS is absolutely ideal.

Quote:

Sure, but you had no way of defending you tech moons from PL at the same time did you? If you had JB network, it would have been much easier for you to fight on two fronts.


Nah, not really. H-W to LXQ is 15 jumps with bridges 24 without. An extra 9-ish minutes isn't what kept us from dealing with PL, and saving that 9-ish minutes wouldn't have meant that we'd have fought a war on two fronts.
[

Massive Dragon
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.01.22 17:52:00 - [385]
 

unlike you ive actually camped jumpbridges...

i can tell you it is boring as **** with little chance of catching people after the first 5 mins and very high risk.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.22 17:56:00 - [386]
 

Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 22/01/2011 18:04:05

Originally by: TZeer

No you didnt


We don't have the JB network that many posters in this thread are upset about?
That's been the whole point, people are claiming that JB's offer game breaking advantages, both on offense and defense, especially while deploying half way across the map.

Quote:

you just stated that you had no JB network in the drone regions. Ergo, you could not use your JB network to your advantage and go back and forth.


You're arguing both sides of the issue. The JB network we do have up saved us 9 jumps and about 50% of travel jumps. When you're making the argument, 10-15 minutes and 50% is a huge deal, when I am, suddenly those savings are inconsequential unless there's a JB network going all the way to the destination.

Oh, and Minigin's trolling has reminded me. Often when I've hunted on JB POS's we had the JB password (as pretty much everybody and their sister does for the NC these days). Once in particular that let us use a medium sized (about 40 dudes) AHAX fleet to camp a bridge in an enemy's main staging system for about an hour. We managed to aggro a JF before it logoffski'd but our prober had had to go just a few minutes before that due to wife aggro. That missed kill still annoys me. Cool

Originally by: Artisan Botanist

Was there any particular reason you cut out the reasoning’s on why CCP / CSM want this, I did try to explain that CCP doesnt want 0.0 to be ruled by huge coalitions who are blue to everything within 30 jumps and they wanted to encourage local wars AND make it harder to control more space.


I don't remember exactly why, as this thread is moving pretty fast, but my best guess would be that because for that argument to work you have to accept that it's acceptable for CCP to deliberately alter game mechanics specifically to hurt certain player-created politics that they don't like.

Quote:
I am well aware of PLs success but you cant possibly compare PL to every other non sov holding alliance.


Why not? PL's shown that it's possible. They're awesome at what they do and deserve respect for it. But they've also proven that it's possible to do what they do, since after all, they've done it.

Quote:

Are you also aware that 2 members of the CSM are in your coalition?

Hrm? Mynxee, Mazz, Dierdra, Korvin, Tea, Meissa, Trebor, Sok.
Vuk, however, is.
And even if true, that means that the supermajority of CSM members aren't in the NC. And Vuk wasn't at the summit, IIRC.
I'm not sure what you're getting at though.

Quote:
the op doesnt even give anything that we should support / unsupport :S and for the past several pages you have argued against a proposal that has only been discussed with no confirmation on if it will happen and how.


It doesn't matter if there's confirmation. The point is that the thread is to tell the CSM whether or not we want them to try to support the elimination of JB's or oppose it.

Quote:

Now I understand NCs reluctance to remove jump bridges, but if your own coalition leader thinks its a good decision dont you think you should go argue with him?


Just because I'm in a coalition why should I let coalition leadership think for me? That makes no sense. Besides, Vuk fits damage control gang links to his Damnation. Wink

Quote:

After all there was NO ONE who disagreed with ‘removing jump bridges completely’.


All that means is that they made the wrong call. They're our elected officials, not my cerebellum ;)

Quote:

Edit- Seriously though wtf are we meant to be supporting / unsupporting


Do we want the CSM to support or oppose the removal of JB's from the game.

Artisan Botanist
Minmatar
Hysteria Nexus

Posted - 2011.01.22 18:10:00 - [387]
 

Edited by: Artisan Botanist on 22/01/2011 18:10:13
In that case, I support the removal OR alteration to jumpbridges on the grounds that 0.0 has become a coalition joke and making it harder for one coalition to maintain several hundred moons will encourage alliances to reduce in size.

Conflict will change from 'lets attack the opposite end of the map' to lets focus on whats good / bad in local areas, alliances will be able to work with their own territory rather than “what the powerblock is doing”.

I am a huge fan of smaller wars and increased activity, while it would take alot more than jump bridge changes to fix 0.0 I support the change and hope it happens in the next expansion.

Btw I use Damage Control II on my damnation too

Wolodymyr
Posted - 2011.01.22 18:11:00 - [388]
 

If they do this they'll have to look at cyno ranges as well. But the pros outweigh the cons

It'll cut down on empire bloat. Make space "big" again. Reduce blob mobility (and therefore formup size). It'll help small alliances because it'll always be easier to get a home defense fleet up than convince a bunch of people to go 30+ jumps to curb stomp people they don't know. And make 0.0 worry about industry again, rather than just ferrying things in from Jita.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.22 18:26:00 - [389]
 

Originally by: Artisan Botanist

Conflict will change from 'lets attack the opposite end of the map' to lets focus on whats good / bad in local areas


The evidence falsified that claim, however. Before JB's coalitions still went to war with each other on different sides of the map, and there were still large coalitions.

Quote:

I am a huge fan of smaller wars and increased activity, while it would take alot more than jump bridge changes to fix 0.0 I support the change and hope it happens in the next expansion.


Okay. You are a fan of smaller wars and such, some people are fans of larger wars. Why should CCP decide that one, or for that matter, the other viewpoint is the right one and try to alter game mechanics to help or hurt player-created content of the 'wrong' sort? Shouldn't the players, who are creating the player-created content, get to decide how it's created?

Quote:

Btw I use Damage Control II on my damnation too


Not a damage control module, the damage control ganglink. It's the third Armor link and absolutely useless (lots of people never actually read its description). In anything but an RR BS fleet, the bonus goes utterly wasted. Vuk is a good guy, but the point is that even good, smart people sometimes make mistakes.

Massive Dragon
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.01.22 18:37:00 - [390]
 

Edited by: Massive Dragon on 22/01/2011 18:38:28
ccp will invariably "chose" what is and what is not.

however it is my belief that should napalitions be scaled down because of these changes, it is not because ccp decided it be that way, but because players decided they dont want to stay blue to each other if they dont have the insentives of jumpbridges.

such a thing is your choice. not ccps. so using this as an example of ccp taking away your choice is pretty silly. if anything they are giving all players more choice. you will still have the option to retain your entire naplist now, there will just be a set of different consequences for doing so.

also in line with this, saying that people have a right to chose this large scale style is completely valid and unchanged by these proposed changes.


Pages: first : previous : ... 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 ... : 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