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 : ... 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 ... : last (21)

Author Topic

TZeer
BURN EDEN
Posted - 2011.01.22 18:39:00 - [391]
 

Quote:
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.


With several, you mean bomber gang or a blob? Just because your in an alliance doesnt mean you should be immune to small gangs. Just saying.

Quote:
If you want a higher chance of ganks, camp more JB's.


Who said I was after ganks? I would be happy to get a fight. But as it is now it`s impossible. Either you run to the jumpbridge under the cover of scrambler, webs and POS guns, or you just dont fight at all without having a numerical advantage. Hell, we had problems getting a fight out of you when we where in H-W and you had over 600 in local....

Quote:
POS's and mods can be dealt with, however.


Takes like 10 min to fix that. Not an option. And any small group trying to incap a POS in NC homespace is asking to get blobbed/lagged out.

Quote:
And why is it a problem that you have more trouble finding targets? Why should CCP funnel people in front of your guns.


I hardly roam. And I`m not saying that CCP needs to funnel targets infront of our guns. I`m saying that logistics in 0.0 needs to be more then just getting past the lowsec/0.0 point and jump on the jump bridge train.

Quote:
Why, exactly is that advantage bad?


Cause it makes it possible to travel in 0.0 with no scouts without hardly any risk. And your stealth bomb gangs of doom are ******ed if they spring the trap on lone travelers when what they really want is a freighter or a bigger gang. And you cant stay and fight with a stealth bomber gang. They will pop left and right.

Quote:
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...


I`m not saying it has to be small gang niche. But with all your arguments you are bringing up, it seems like you feel you should be immune to any small gangs comming to your space.
AS it is now, most alliances doesnt care or wont lift a finger if there is a small gang comming through their space. Simply cause it has no effect.
Every camp or roaming gang can be bypassed by a jump bridge.

Quote:
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.


Still not getting it, are you?

15 jumps through a jump bridge network is a big difference compared to 24 jumps through 0.0 space, specially when some of it is in a hostile region. Maybe not when you are in a fleet. But for every straggler or smaler group comming to it or going back to H-W.


- If you are saying it doesnt affect your travel time, then you would have no issues in them getting nerfed or removed, would you?

- Also, if moving by the means of a jump bridge network is the same risk as moving through gates you shouldnt really have any issues there as well.





FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.22 19:12:00 - [392]
 

Originally by: TZeer
you mean bomber gang or a blob? Just because your in an alliance doesnt mean you should be immune to small gangs.


Bombers, driveby snipers, armor HAC fleets, other fleets that have the password, capital fleets...
And whoever said that alliances should be "immune" to small gangs? Certainly not me.

Quote:

Who said I was after ganks?


You were complaining that lone pilots have a better chance of getting ganked on a gate than a bridge. Now it seems it's not about that, either. What exactly is the problem then?

Quote:

Takes like 10 min to fix that. Not an option.


It takes 10 minutes to fix a POS that's put into reinforced? And dropping caps on a POS to rep it make them ideal targets, especially if they're triage carriers.

If you can't rally sufficient forces to reinforce a POS or defang it without being countered, why is that a problem? If I attack two battleships and I'm in an Omen, are you really saying that battleships should be "invulnerable" just because I can't gank them?

Quote:

And any small group trying to incap a POS in NC homespace is asking to get blobbed/lagged out.


So the defenders can bring more than you can attack with. That is unfair and bad, why? If I was in a five man corp, should you be prohibited from responding with six people if I attack you?

Quote:

Cause it makes it possible to travel in 0.0 with no scouts without hardly any risk. And your stealth bomb gangs of doom are ******ed if they spring the trap on lone travelers when what they really want is a freighter or a bigger gang.


Except it's not hardly any risk as long as you have a competent enemy. And if bomber ganks reveal themselves and you know that a bridge is hot, either you use it and risk dying or it dosn't get used and, viola, successful interdiction of forces' mobility.


Quote:

it seems like you feel you should be immune to any small gangs comming to your space.


I've never said anything like that. Of course it will be more difficult for a small force to counter a large force if they're not on their game, but there's no problem with that any more than it is that if I bring out one battleship and you bring out two, you'll probably kill me instead of me killing you.

Quote:

15 jumps through a jump bridge network is a big difference compared to 24 jumps through 0.0 space, specially when some of it is in a hostile region.


You're trying to have your cake and eat it too, again. 9 fewer jumps are a big deal, they make a lot of difference, they're very important. And yet the NC had to return home and the JB network didn't prevent us being unable to fight a war on two fronts. But then 9 fewer jumps doesn't matter and can be ignored.

When your argument needs it, 9 jumps are important. When it doesn't, they're not.

Quote:

If you are saying it doesnt affect your travel time, then you would have no issues in them getting nerfed or removed, would you


Come on, this same stuff has been posted and debunked again and again. It has an impact, it does not have a game breaking impact. Even if it didn't have an impact on gameplay, that doesn't mean a change is for the good. I do not want my ship models replaced by crayon drawings from a five year old.

Quote:
Also, if moving by the means of a jump bridge network is the same risk as moving through gates you shouldnt really have any issues there as well.


I never said that, either.
Of course the risk is different, but it's hardly risk free and you can still get made dead. I, in fact, have specifically argued that granting a defensive bonus as a benefit to ownership and holding sov is fair and reasonable.





Cassus Temon
Aliastra
Posted - 2011.01.22 19:32:00 - [393]
 

Edited by: Cassus Temon on 22/01/2011 19:34:17
Edited by: Cassus Temon on 22/01/2011 19:33:58
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Originally by: Cassus Temon
given the gross distortion of facts.

I haven't distorted a single fact, let alone Greyscale's own words which are perfectly clear on the subject. If you actually believed I'd distorted anything, you could quote it. Instead, you just went straight to an ad hom fallacy.


I believe the minutes stated Greyscales words as "Sweet", which could any number of things; which is a long way from your interpretted drama child. Unless you have some secret ear in the CSM, or are an alt of one; then I don't see how you could know exactly what he did say.

Directly quoted from the minutes, for your pleasure:

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.


Perhap's you should read them again; when you're not drunk, stoned, or whatever.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.22 20:03:00 - [394]
 

Originally by: Cassus Temon

I believe the minutes stated Greyscales words as "Sweet", which could any number of things


Rolling Eyes
Yes. If he's said "awesome" it would have been even less clear.
Of course, the relevant bit is the one I've posted several times already, the bit about how the change was going to potentially make coalitions "fragment" and tear themselves apart.

Originally by: Cassus Temon

drama child [...]drunk [...] stoned


Oh, trolling, that's novel. And unexpected!
Yet again:

Quote:
CSM: Will changes to logistics and force projection cause people to castle-up in their home space? Will it have a cooling effect on Sov warfare?

Greyscale feels that reduction in mobility will decrease need for big coalitions, because huge coalition blobs won't be able to move as fast; result should be smaller local wars.

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.

Greyscale warns, however, that during the transition period “everything will go to ****.”


I appreciate you being so angry when you're wrong.

Tertiacero
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.01.22 20:16:00 - [395]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Originally by: Cassus Temon

I believe the minutes stated Greyscales words as "Sweet", which could any number of things


Rolling Eyes
Yes. If he's said "awesome" it would have been even less clear.
Of course, the relevant bit is the one I've posted several times already, the bit about how the change was going to potentially make coalitions "fragment" and tear themselves apart.

Originally by: Cassus Temon

drama child [...]drunk [...] stoned


Oh, trolling, that's novel. And unexpected!
Yet again:

Quote:
CSM: Will changes to logistics and force projection cause people to castle-up in their home space? Will it have a cooling effect on Sov warfare?

Greyscale feels that reduction in mobility will decrease need for big coalitions, because huge coalition blobs won't be able to move as fast; result should be smaller local wars.

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.

Greyscale warns, however, that during the transition period “everything will go to ****.”


I appreciate you being so angry when you're wrong.

So basically CCP wants to nerf how easy it is to maintain a super coalition. CSM agreed that it needed to be done. Jump bridges were mentioned. Cue rage about how unfair it is that someone wants to try to encourage more pvp in a pvp game.

Honestly though I can't believe that you honestly believe the **** that you're typing right now. You're making your whole aliance look bad right now Confused

If you're a troll then 10/10...if not then you just got a perfect score on the standard Plague Black Common Scale of Derp.

filingo rapongo
Vivicide
ROMANIAN-LEGION
Posted - 2011.01.22 20:33:00 - [396]
 

i support finnagainzero's quest to remove jump bridges and fight all those who plan to keep them in the game as they are cowardly and dishonourable

Memcoll
Posted - 2011.01.22 20:40:00 - [397]
 

Edited by: Memcoll on 22/01/2011 20:40:32
Originally by: Tertiacero

So basically CCP wants to nerf how easy it is to maintain a super coalition. CSM agreed that it needed to be done. Jump bridges were mentioned. Cue rage about how unfair it is that someone wants to try to encourage more pvp in a pvp game.

Honestly though I can't believe that you honestly believe the **** that you're typing right now. You're making your whole alliance look bad right now



CCP wants to nerf how easy it is to maintain a super coalition? They probably do they really are that stupid. CSM agreed that it needed to be done? What the hell do the CSM think they are doing? There is no way that can be representative of the super coalitions.

Cue rage about how unfair it is that someone wants to try to encourage more pvp in a pvp game? What the hell are you talking about? That is the stupidest thing I have heard. How completely ridiculous. The rage is for someone trying to nerf jump bridges.

It is you Tertiacero that is making your alliance look bad.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.22 20:49:00 - [398]
 

Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 22/01/2011 20:51:56
Originally by: Tertiacero

So basically CCP wants to nerf how easy it is to maintain a super coalition.


See the long discussion on why altering game mechanics to penalize or reward player-created content is a bad precedent and the wrong move. The ability to maintain a coalition should be based on whether or not players can work together, not whether or not CCP can try to frustrate that ability.

If people weren't cooperating, nobody would be as upset about JB's, they'd be as happy with them as everybody was to hunt Providence under CVA because you always knew that CVA could bring a fight through their JB network if they wanted. That shows that the problem isn't with JB's, at all, but it's a back door method to try to screw with players creating a political landscape in EVE that some don't like.

Your position is also hypocritical. You're fine with CCP wanting to "nerf how easy it is to maintain a super coalition". But your position has no support, it's just your personal preference. You have absolutely no room to complain if, instead, CCP wanted to "nerf how easy it is to maintain a small alliance." You like small alliances, others like large scale PvP. Neither is right, or wrong, and there's more than enough room for both in the game. But you want your personal preferences imposed on others.

Again, it's a very dangerous precedent. If CCP deliberately alters game mechanics to hurt player created content that they don't like today, tomorrow if they decide to target you not only do you not have a leg to stand on, but you will have already voiced your support by endorsing the basic premise that CCP is free to break sandbox play if they don't like how the players are creating their player-created content.

Quote:

rage about how unfair it is that someone wants to try to encourage more pvp in a pvp game.


I've asked you several times to stop trolling. Now would be a good time.

"Encouraging PvP" is a nonsense phrase anyway, jabberwockian but protean enough to mean whatever you want it to mean. Mandatory teleportation upon login to an arena in Jove space where you have to fight it out with another pilot? That, too, would see a lot more PvP. Giving everybody free ships and no loot drops and death only results in "res sickness" would also encourage more PvP.

Simply claiming that you're trying to encourage PvP is meaningless.

Besides which, you are ignoring the fact that it's player created content. People will cooperate and fight as they see fit. If that annoys you, that's too bad. You can't claim it's a PvP sandbox game and then get angry that people are PvPing and cooperating with who they want to, when and where, rather than who you'd want them to if you could control them like a puppet.

I'm sure there are some fans of solo combat who are annoyed that you guys fly around in awful blobs (maybe even with six or seven guys in a fleet!!!). Maybe the next change should be to eliminate alliances and corps too. After all, those who love solo PvP don't like getting "blobbed" by your small gang PvP.
Your possible defense of 'but that's how I choose to play the game and who I choose to cooperate with, and this is a sandbox' has already been removed. By your own rhetoric.

Oh, and:
Originally by: Memcoll


It is you Tertiacero that is making your alliance look bad.



Mem, I understand that you're responding to some silly trolling, but don't respond in kind. People's actions only reflect on the people making them. Blaming groups for individuals' behavior is the basis for most of the prejudice that we see, and it's simply a logical fallacy.

He's just trying to troll me and get me annoyed. It's not working.

Let him troll about how someone with an alliance ticker automatically represents their entire alliance with everything they say. Don't lower yourself to the same level, though.

filingo rapongo
Vivicide
ROMANIAN-LEGION
Posted - 2011.01.22 20:49:00 - [399]
 

Originally by: Tertiacero
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Originally by: Cassus Temon

I believe the minutes stated Greyscales words as "Sweet", which could any number of things


Rolling Eyes
Yes. If he's said "awesome" it would have been even less clear.
Of course, the relevant bit is the one I've posted several times already, the bit about how the change was going to potentially make coalitions "fragment" and tear themselves apart.

Originally by: Cassus Temon

drama child [...]drunk [...] stoned


Oh, trolling, that's novel. And unexpected!
Yet again:

Quote:
CSM: Will changes to logistics and force projection cause people to castle-up in their home space? Will it have a cooling effect on Sov warfare?

Greyscale feels that reduction in mobility will decrease need for big coalitions, because huge coalition blobs won't be able to move as fast; result should be smaller local wars.

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.

Greyscale warns, however, that during the transition period “everything will go to ****.”


I appreciate you being so angry when you're wrong.

So basically CCP wants to nerf how easy it is to maintain a super coalition. CSM agreed that it needed to be done. Jump bridges were mentioned. Cue rage about how unfair it is that someone wants to try to encourage more pvp in a pvp game.

Honestly though I can't believe that you honestly believe the **** that you're typing right now. You're making your whole aliance look bad right now Confused

If you're a troll then 10/10...if not then you just got a perfect score on the standard Plague Black Common Scale of Derp.


you are making this alliance look terrible and full of ignorant terrible posters with no idea about game play. you are doing the polar opposite to what finnagainzero is doing here. you should learn from him.

Widemouth Deepthroat
Posted - 2011.01.22 21:01:00 - [400]
 

Finagain seems terrified of jb nerf...as he should be since NC is going to get it ballsdeep once nerf arrives.

TZeer
BURN EDEN
Posted - 2011.01.22 21:12:00 - [401]
 

Quote:
Bombers, driveby snipers, armor HAC fleets, other fleets that have the password, capital fleets...
And whoever said that alliances should be "immune" to small gangs? Certainly not me.


Only way to kill someone then would be that people where jumping blindly through the jumpbridge. And by your earlier argument that would be very slim.

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.


If one red in local is a good indication, I wonder what a drive by sniper gang is, or a HAC fleet or whatever.

Quote:
You were complaining that lone pilots have a better chance of getting ganked on a gate than a bridge. Now it seems it's not about that, either. What exactly is the problem then?


Wrong, I`m complaining about the ease of travelling through jump bridges vs normal gates. If someone looses their ship, or get podded back, if he can come back via jumpbridges there is a high probability he will. If he need to go through a bunch of normal gates and happens to be a hostile small gang roaming around nearby, he would need to think twice before moving about.

Quote:
It takes 10 minutes to fix a POS that's put into reinforced? And dropping caps on a POS to rep it make them ideal targets, especially if they're triage carriers.


I think we are talking past eachother here.

Quote:
and engaging them there will mean they will need to deal woth the tower as well.


Quote:
POS's and mods can be dealt with, however.


Who will go to a incapped POS for protection, and if I`m not mistaken, a reinforced POS dont have a working jump bridge.
The 10 minutes I was refering to was the jump bridge itself.

Quote:
If you can't rally sufficient forces to reinforce a POS or defang it without being countered, why is that a problem? If I attack two battleships and I'm in an Omen, are you really saying that battleships should be "invulnerable" just because I can't gank them?


Wow, so from having single ganks/fights on the gates we need to reinforce POS`s to stop people moving through the jump bridge network? You know what kinda manpower and ships are needed then right?

Quote:
So the defenders can bring more than you can attack with. That is unfair and bad, why? If I was in a five man corp, should you be prohibited from responding with six people if I attack you?


Not what I`m refeering to, and you know it. We fight outnumbered plenty of times. It`s the need for a fleet/gang that can counter a deathstar POS to even have a shot at killing a lone traveller.

Quote:
And if bomber ganks reveal themselves and you know that a bridge is hot, either you use it and risk dying or it dosn't get used and, viola, successful interdiction of forces' mobility.


Not much, since jumpbridges can be rerouted, new one can be put up, or just take a different jump bridge network.

Quote:
When your argument needs it, 9 jumps are important. When it doesn't, they're not.


10 jumps through a jump bridge network is quite different then 10 jumps through normal gates. I would be happy if the jump bridges where moved away from the "safety" of deathstar POS.


L A G
Gallente
Hysteria Nexus

Posted - 2011.01.22 21:37:00 - [402]
 

Can you guys continue this drama somewhere else, it now shows 400 replies and 25 supports when really theres only about 40+ posters

Shame really but if you want to ***** about CSM go to Jita forums

Cassus Temon
Aliastra
Posted - 2011.01.22 21:43:00 - [403]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Originally by: Cassus Temon

I believe the minutes stated Greyscales words as "Sweet", which could any number of things


Rolling Eyes
Yes. If he's said "awesome" it would have been even less clear.
Of course, the relevant bit is the one I've posted several times already, the bit about how the change was going to potentially make coalitions "fragment" and tear themselves apart.

Originally by: Cassus Temon

drama child [...]drunk [...] stoned


Oh, trolling, that's novel. And unexpected!
Yet again:

Quote:
CSM: Will changes to logistics and force projection cause people to castle-up in their home space? Will it have a cooling effect on Sov warfare?

Greyscale feels that reduction in mobility will decrease need for big coalitions, because huge coalition blobs won't be able to move as fast; result should be smaller local wars.

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.

Greyscale warns, however, that during the transition period “everything will go to ****.”


I appreciate you being so angry when you're wrong.


You're reading to deeply into the meeting minutes, with a bias to their content, I think; which should be obvious to anyone who reads the quote you just threw up there.

Here's a few more quotes from you:

Quote:
"Greyscale makes clear, specifically, that his goals are to try to hurt coalitions and force them to fight amongst themselves rather than going across the map and attacking other groups simply to start wars for th sake of pvp."

"Greyscale says over and over that his goal is to break player-created content, try to hurt politics he doesn't like and break up coalitions."


"Greyscale never said that there was an exploit involved but that he wanted to institute a mechanics change to try to hurt political forms he doesn't like and to stop sandbox play so that only content that is CCP approved can be engaged in by the players."


Thats a fairly exaggerated, from what the actual meeting minutes state occured; and this is what I was leading to, from my earlier post. You make broad claims, of fictitious staements; made by CCP Greyscale during the meeting that took place. Nowhere in the minutes; does it indicate he said anything of the sort. It does indicate, that he is attempting to gain support; for CCP to proceed to make plans, to adjust the effects of various game mechanics on 0.0 life.

I see from your posts, that you obviously have experience regarding the subject; but, I doubt the arguments you press forward, are made with a clear mind. You don't really have to be drunk or stoned; to make overdramatic claims of grand conspiricies by CCP and CSM. The topic of Jump Bridges wasn't even--directly--brought forth by CCP; and instead, was simply pitched in at the end, by a CSM delegate.

Inferential Comprehension. A way of indirectly determining the value of a statement; based on the context of the discussion, in which it was made.

"Sweet" - Awesome, so we have free reign to make any changes as we see neccessary; based on our judgment, and perception of the best way to change a given situation.

The Situation: Excessive blobbing proliferated by easy mobility of alliances through 0.0 space.

The solution: Reduce mobility.

Nowhere did it say, that they were going to completely destroy coalitions, or prevent sandbox play; only that any changes will have consequences, and will impact gameplay for everyone involved.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.22 21:57:00 - [404]
 

Originally by: TZeer

Only way to kill someone then would be that people where jumping blindly through the jumpbridge.


Not at all. Jumping with a scout hardly saves a fleet from being bubbled and/or bombed. Dealing with a competent bomber gang camping a JB is difficult, and they serve as very effective area denial.

Quote:

If one red in local is a good indication, I wonder what a drive by sniper gang is, or a HAC fleet or whatever.


Your question isn't clear. One red/neut in local is a good indicator, especially if you have valuable cargo/a valuable ship, that you may be walking into a hot drop trap. As for a driveby sniper gang, it's exactly what it sounds like. Nanopocs work well, HAC's, whatever. Generally as long as you get the vectors right, don't hit your MWD's and have your **** together, you can volley someone quite quickly. As for what HAC gangs are, I don't understand you confusion at all.

Quote:
Quote:
You were complaining that lone pilots have a better chance of getting ganked on a gate than a bridge.

Wrong, I`m complaining about the ease of travelling through jump bridges vs normal gates.[...]if he can come back via jumpbridges there is a high probability he will. If he need to go through a bunch of normal gates [...]he would need to think twice before moving about.


You just put "Wrong," right before saying exactly what I said you were saying.

Quote:
a reinforced POS dont have a working jump bridge.


Exactly, you can disable their functionality entirely if you want.

Quote:

so from having single ganks/fights on the gates we need to reinforce POS`s to stop people moving through the jump bridge network? You know what kinda manpower and ships are needed then right?


The dynamic is exactly the same, whether it's an Omen versus two pulse Armageddons or a small group of people versus a defended POS.

Quote:
Quote:
So the defenders can bring more than you can attack with. That is unfair and bad, why? If I was in a five man corp, should you be prohibited from responding with six people if I attack you?

Not what I`m refeering to, and you know it. [...]It`s the need for a fleet/gang that can counter a deathstar POS to even have a shot at killing a lone traveller.


Again, you deny what I'm saying is accurate (this time claiming that I know it to be inaccurate) before repeating the same thing. If the defenders have more defenses in the form of a POS than you can bring to gank those lone travelers, why is that any more of a problem than a five man corp trying to take Burn Eden on alone?

What, specifically, is the problem?

Quote:

Not much, since jumpbridges can be rerouted, new one can be put up, or just take a different jump bridge network.


So they need to bring in a fleet to rep up a POS mod, or you can camp both forks of a jump bridge network. Again, it's not difficult at all. During MAX II we often had JB's camped along multiple routes and/or incapped and we had to wait until we could muster sufficient forces to rep them or to destroy them and anchor new ones.

Quote:

10 jumps through a jump bridge network is quite different then 10 jumps through normal gates.



The fact still remains that you're claiming that nine extra jumps meant that there was "no way of defending". It's not like those nine jumps were crushing or fleets didn't take the gate route quite frequently going back and forth.


FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.22 22:11:00 - [405]
 


Originally by: fact

Greyscale makes clear, specifically, that his goals are to try to hurt coalitions and force them to fight amongst themselves rather than going across the map and attacking other groups simply to start wars for th sake of pvp.

Originally by: support

Greyscale feels that reduction in mobility will decrease need for big coalitions, because huge coalition blobs won't be able to move as fast; result should be smaller local wars.

It is noted that the cost of supporting coalition allies will increase, which will increase friction; coalitions may fragment
[...]
Another issue is that at present large alliances start feeling secure, get bored, and say "we have nothing better to do, let’s go crush these guys."


Originally by: fact

Greyscale says over and over that his goal is to break player-created content, try to hurt politics he doesn't like break up coalitions.

Originally by: support

about small alliances? CCP wants them to be able to be independent if they want
[...]
that the cost of supporting coalition allies will increase, which will increase friction; coalitions may fragment


Quote:

Greyscale never said that there was an exploit involved


Fact.

Quote:

he wanted to institute a mechanics change to try to hurt political forms he doesn't like and to stop sandbox play so that only content that is CCP approved


Cited, and quoted, above. He doesn't like coalitions and thinks that small alliances should be independent even if the political realities of player-created content would normally mean that they'd face too much opposition.
That they're looking for ways to tweak mechanics in order to achieve those political results is exactly the point.

Originally by: Cassus Temon

fictitious staements


Strangely I was able to quote, them.
Evidently I can quote things that don't exist, I am good.



TZeer
BURN EDEN
Posted - 2011.01.22 22:32:00 - [406]
 

We can be arguing until the server shuts down, we still wont come closer to an "conclusion" or "agrement".

Until CCP actually do something this is where we stand today:

- CCP feels the logistics are to easy.
- CCP are thinking on different ways of dealing with jump bridges, where removing them completely are one of them.

Quote:
The topic of discussion moved on to 0.0 logistics with all parties agreeing that with the availability of jump bridge networks the logistics of running operations in 0.0 were nowhere near challenging enough. CCP Zulu had the opinion that 0.0 logistics should not necessarily be harder, but should at least be more of a challenge that scaled with the size of the operation. The complete removal of Jump Bridges was suggested and seemed to be widely accepted by both the CSM and CCP, whether or not this will actually happen though is anyone’s guess. The general consensus was that the logictics of 0.0 should consist of more strategic and tactical planning than simply “Oh I’ll run the jump bridge network on Thursday.”


If jump bridges will be removed are yet to be seen, but that there are coming a change is no secret or if`s and but`s, it`s when.

It will be fun to se what CCP comes up with Cool



Memcoll
Posted - 2011.01.22 23:32:00 - [407]
 

Edited by: Memcoll on 22/01/2011 23:34:30
Originally by: ""
Greyscale feels that reduction in mobility will decrease need for big coalitions, because huge coalition blobs won't be able to move as fast; result should be smaller local wars.

It is noted that the cost of supporting coalition allies will increase, which will increase friction; coalitions may fragment



This is astonishing. A member of CCP wants to "increase friction" if you said anything like that in customer service about any of your customers you would be fired.

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.01.22 23:59:00 - [408]
 

Basically we got a clash of ideologies here: Carebears vs Hardcore PvP

Carebears want to keep Jump Bridges,
Hardcore PvPers want to nerf them

Arguing over the issue is about as pointless as arguing over religion or politics - no matter how hard you try, you will never convince your opposite.

Therefore, realizing that, the best thing to do is to present your arguments as clearly as possible, once, and not get drawn into pointless debates that serve no other purpose than to confuse the issue and discredit the people involved. (tho I suppose the opposition may view this as valid stalling tactic to prevent action)

Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Spikes Chop Shop
Posted - 2011.01.23 00:04:00 - [409]
 

Originally by: Memcoll
...
This is astonishing. A member of CCP wants to "increase friction" if you said anything like that in customer service about any of your customers you would be fired.


except that EVE is built on conflict. PVP. also, remember, wars boost economy. more ship explosions is good for everyone.

Memcoll
Posted - 2011.01.23 00:14:00 - [410]
 

Edited by: Memcoll on 23/01/2011 00:14:49
Originally by: Jagga Spikes

except that EVE is built on conflict. PVP. also, remember, wars boost economy. more ship explosions is good for everyone.


haha yes you are right of course Laughing. Its more the case of CCP's attitude that I am concerned about.

Marconus Orion
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.01.23 01:55:00 - [411]
 

Edited by: Marconus Orion on 23/01/2011 01:54:57
Number of posts by FinnAgain Zero: 61
Longest post: FinnAgain Zero with 6588 characters

I will update these statistics as FinnAgain continues to rage post.

FinnAgain, you have argued with absolutely everyone in this thread if they don't think exactly like you when it comes to jump bridges. I suggest you give it a rest. Or if you prefer leet speak... STFU!

Gyro DuAquin1
Ev0ke
Posted - 2011.01.23 05:50:00 - [412]
 

The main problem of JBs is not that they make logistic of a large empire too easy but to move ppl around half the universe in no time risk free is the real problem.

NC has setup a network that is ridicoulus - taking this as example as there is the map posted, DRF or IT probally got some comparable network. But with your size combinded with the abilitie to be anywhere in your 9 region whide empire is just ridicoulus.

JBs make it easy to reship and go back to the fight risk free this makes it even harder for small alliances that dont have a JB network at their dispossal to win fight cause the Powerblocks will just throw ships at you till you have been driven of the field. Titans can do that too, but itll be tougher to setup 5+ titans from the alliances hub to the far boarders.

boost Jfs all the way, but itll be fun again to roam through .0 space and see ppl use gates.

I do think that Jbs where in general a good idea but when your whole blue list is able to use makes it hard to balance. It would be a great asset to small alliances to move around in .0 space. But it becomes a problem when large empire/powerblocks combine their efforts and menpower to exploit its benefits to death.

Jamtech Lingo
NosWaffle
Nostradamus Effect
Posted - 2011.01.23 08:31:00 - [413]
 

Maybe JB's need a different uses getting rid of them in Null and making them useable in WH to link systems that a corp or alliance may occupy.

Glyken Touchon
Gallente
Independent Alchemists
Posted - 2011.01.23 14:41:00 - [414]
 

I read it as CCP asking "how far can we go if necessary to fix 0.0 'force projection' etc?"

Doesn't mean they will go as far as removing them. Just means that they will include them on their list of options for improving the 0.0 experience.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.23 16:46:00 - [415]
 

Originally by: Jagga Spikes

except that EVE is built on conflict. PVP. also, remember, wars boost economy. more ship explosions is good for everyone.


Again, EVE is based on player-created, player-driven conflict. If people choose not to fight in certain circumstances, that's part of sandbox play, too.
And again, teleporting people to arenas in Jove space, automatically, when they log on would also see lots more PvP. Just because a change may (possibly) increase the amount of PvP that goes on, doesn't mean that it's a good idea.

Originally by: TZeer

- CCP feels the logistics are to easy.
- CCP are thinking on different ways of dealing with jump bridges, where removing them completely are one of them.


See, that's okay (ish). It's still not a terribly good idea, but could be argued on the ideas merits alone. Complicating matters here, however, is CCP's stated position that regardless of how player-created politics work, small alliances "should" be independent. Why? The game's content is created by players, and if they want to fight to dominate every inch of 0.0, then that's how the game will work. Same with introducing changes designed to try to make groups, who are currently cooperating, more likely to tear each other apart. People are, largely, in support of that because they personally like small scale PvP. But others like large scale PvP.

If the only real argument is "boost small scale PvP because I like it and what I like it good for the game." if there's another dev who decides "large scale combat is really what's best" then the "boost smale scale" crowd is left without an argument. Once you accept that CCP can decide who is sandboxing 'wrong', then all you have is hope that the way you and your buddies play isn't something that CCP is going to decide needs opposing.


Quote:

It will be fun to se what CCP comes up with Cool



Remember Zulu's "nerf carriers" propoal. Cool

Marconus Orion
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.01.23 18:30:00 - [416]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Quote:
It will be fun to se what CCP comes up with Cool



Remember Zulu's "nerf carriers" propoal. Cool


Worst case scenario for those who rely on jump bridges to do logistics and power projection is CCP just removes them and they have to put effort back into it.

Finnagain, you just need to calm the **** down bro. Remember this is not Finnagain-Online. There are other people who play this game you know. 0.0 is **** right now and you ****ing know it. Your just scared of change. Did you play the game before jump bridges?

Even if CCP just takes the easy route and deletes jump bridges from the POS' and removes bridging from titans and does no other changes at all, it still would be infinity better than the pile of steaming dog **** for 0.0 we have now.

---------------------------

FinnAgain post count in this thread: 62

Memcoll
Posted - 2011.01.23 19:31:00 - [417]
 

Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles
This is lool, now Finn, through his blind support of whats best for the NC is a self professed "defender of the rights of the people"?
You watch Fox news too much.
By the way, focusing on the speaker instead of the argument, is ad hominem, and trying to set yourself as an authority and claiming your opinion has more weight because you are somehow an authority (of what, using the word troll gratuitously?) is appeal to authority.
If you are gonna throw the term fallacy around, at least learn what they are and don't be a hypocryte.



So what are you doing in response?

Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles

I missed the part where Greyscale says "I'm bringing down the NC", "They be sandboxing wrong" or any of the bull**** you put in his mouth.



Do you really not understand what CCP/CSM are trying to do?
Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles

He correctly points out logistics and movement are too easy



Your opinion I assume.

Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles

and proposes ways to fix (which are supported by the payer base and CSM!).



Are they they supported by the player base? Read this thread it is clear that while many do many don't. We are talking about the way CCP/CSM are trying to fix things not the very fact they are trying to fix.

Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles

He correctly notes some of the effects that these changes may very well bring.



Yet again your opinion that "He correctly notes" this may well be the case of course.

Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles

However the professed goal is to make 0.0 less "hello kitty online" and more "eve".



The professed goal? This is highly subjective. Do you really feel that removeing player created networks using sanctioned and functioning game mechanics make the game "more eve"?

Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles

Finally, your 5 year old with crayons analogy is utter bull****, a better one is that one day the devs bring a cat. ITs nice for a bit but then stands ****ing in the sand box. This is not desired behaviour. However some kids have learned to use the **** to their advantage, making little sand **** castles and whatnot. When the dev proposes to remove the cat and the cat ****, Finn, one of the people that have taken to the ****, objects, claiming that they are nobody to tell him whether he is sand boxing right or wrong, and if he likes ****, that is his problem.
Most others, however, rightly find the cat **** disgusting.



Your analogy is outrageously stupid and quite frankly is not suitable.

Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles

Is there anything you say that is not loaded with weasel statements? equaling Greyscale and the people that make this game with 5 year olds replacing your ships with crayon drawings is just lol.
By the way, the only troll in this thread, is you. This has been conclusively established.



You are the troll. ANYONE can see that.

Cassus Temon
Aliastra

Posted - 2011.01.23 19:38:00 - [418]
 

Edited by: Cassus Temon on 23/01/2011 20:01:49
Speaking of which; I still haven't supported this.

Allow us some compromise Finn, and form an argument based on your own thoughts; without quoting, and casting down other peoples thoughts. We've been trying to make you see something very simple: This is not about Coalitions, or sandbox play; it's about restricting alliance mobility. The reason Coalitions may fall apart, isn't because CCP is going to make an effort to destroy them; it's because you, and your friends, will find less reason to maintain them. This is entirely up to you, and your mates; and there is no mechanic, that can make it otherwise. It's a player driven choice; that exists outside of gameplay, and cannot be changed by it.

What will change it, is having your allies fly a large fleet through your space, to assist in a battle; giving opportunities for diplomatic incidents, or even, them not flying at all. Suddenly, they don't have the time to make that effort; and remain in their own space, guarding their own borders. This is what will hurt coalitions, and create friction. Not the modification or removal of a game mechanic; but the value of allies decreasing in importance. Alliances will be put firmly back within their own borders and space; rather than making trips, that should require flying straight accross empire, to assist you. They won't have the time to make that trip; or will leave themselves vulnerable, to assist you.

Edit for reference:

Previous post: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1448938&page=7#194

I also believe that Jump Bridges should be moved to a Sovereignity system; and removed, as a POS anchored structure. Additionally, to inhibit their abuse; contested zones should exist between area's of Sovereingn space. These should be unclaimable; and perhaps 2-3 systems deep, along gate routes. Jump Bridges should become a Sovereignity structure; anchored within range of a TCU, and on grid.

I support this not with regard to the OP; but with regard to preventing their removal.

filingo rapongo
Vivicide
ROMANIAN-LEGION
Posted - 2011.01.23 20:17:00 - [419]
 

just got killed by the nc using jump bridges to set up multiple camps when people manage to slip away from them.

and i can see why finnagainzero is so anxious to keep them and prevent this game going to ****.

i mean if you couldnt hop around your space in an instant you might actually have to think about where your fleet is and maybe all those empty systems might actually have people in them instead of leaving half of 0.0 a barren wasteland. i shudder to think of the implications.

that man is a hero.

Cyprus Black
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2011.01.23 21:14:00 - [420]
 

Edited by: Cyprus Black on 23/01/2011 21:15:07
Remove jump bridges?

Absolutely not. This is, by and far, the worst idea I've heard that came from the CSM. This even beats the awful "Replace Titans with Monster Trucks" issue brought up by mazz.


Pages: first : previous : ... 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 ... : 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