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 : ... 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 ... : last (21)

Author Topic

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.01.23 22:13:00 - [421]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Remember Zulu's "nerf carriers" propoal. Cool

Yea, he was considering turning them into logistics/support platforms for fleets by restricting fighter usage.

Guess what has happened a few years after he was treated insanely badly by the null crowd:
Carriers are used as logistics in 95% of all cases and only some even carry fighters.

Null failed incredibly hard in their assault on him. Zulu was right on the money, 2+ years ahead of the "oh so holy" player content .. wonder if it might be that CCP knows what they are doing at least some of the time.

TooBad NZ
Posted - 2011.01.23 22:15:00 - [422]
 

these issues have nothing to do with sandbox. the choice will remain with the players whether to be part of a super coalition or look after their alliances intrests. your particular decision does not reflect a lack of choice.

i fully support additional gameplay value in 0.0, the removal of jumpbridges and any other changes that provide more risk and pvp to 0.0.

Jessica Autumn
Posted - 2011.01.24 07:03:00 - [423]
 

Edited by: Jessica Autumn on 24/01/2011 07:10:09
Get rid of Jump Bridges because its not challenging enough?.....apparenlty CCP employees dont have to worry about Roaming gangs of Neuts or Red's up in there Jovian empire, even with JB's your rolling the Dice flying even to other parts of your alliance holding's. JB's are a stratigic asset, help player run empire's grow, and provide a way to out smart roaming gangs.

And on the similar subject, I know alot of capital and Super cap pilots that like to keep there ships safe in Cyno jammed system's, how does this apply to this thread, well after an operation how does said capital get back to his or her Semi-safe home system? Well a JB or course, since they can't use the Jump gates, because CCP has fail to solve the bumping issue so If Capitals can't access there safe systems, it forces them to either A: stay logged off, and really CCP u wan't accounts logged off? Leave Null sec alone and focus on more important things like Sov r somethin....not supported.

P.S this is what happens when High sec carebears get to decide whats going on in Null Sec

Vis Nyliss
Caldari
Posted - 2011.01.24 17:36:00 - [424]
 

After skimming this topic, I see nothing but 15 pages of tears. TEARS from the oh-so-mighty nullsec holders. Hello? 0.0 is NULLsec. As in NO SECURITY. Its as risky and as safe as you want to make it.

But oh, no! We're not going to be able to hold HUGE EXPANSES OF SPACE anymore!
Oh, no! Logistics is actually going to be difficult!
Oh, no! Distance to a fight is going to actually MATTER!

CCP, DO THE RIGHT THING! Make space big again! Make 0.0 holding risky again! Make some room for the growing powers in the galaxy! Death to jump bridges! Nerfs to supercapitals and jump range!

For gods' sake, BUST UP the gigantic power blocs!

Ma'kal
The Imperial Commonwealth
E.Y
Posted - 2011.01.25 00:51:00 - [425]
 

Personally I think it would be a lot better to make alliances do convoy ops. It gives people more to do. So I totally support getting rid of jump bridges.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.25 01:44:00 - [426]
 

Originally by: Cassus Temon
This is not about Coalitions, or sandbox play; it's about restricting alliance mobility.


It is about both. That's the whole bit about altering game mechanics to allow small alliances to be independent even if player-created politics wouldn't lean that way, and potentially causing coalitions to tear themselves apart.

As I've pointed out many times, while I see no valid reason to remove JB's, the major problem is the precedent that altering game mechanics to alter player-created content sets.

The topic would be significantly different if CCP simply kicked around the idea of changing (or even removing) JB's without explicitly tying it in to altering player-created content so small alliances can be independent and large coalitions are more likely to disintegrate and shoot each other.


Originally by: Marconus Orion
Remember this is not Finnagain-Online. There are other people who play this game you know.


I wish folks would avoid this sort of obvious nonsense. I clearly state that everybody should be allowed to determine how player-created politics get sorted out, by the processes of conflict and cooperation between and among themselves, and that whatever happens should be the result of 100% of EVE's playerbase getting to choose.

Others claim that their specific playstyle should be supported at the expense of how others like to play.

And I need to be reminded that the game isn't only about me. Rolling Eyes

Originally by: filingo rapongo
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


'I just got ganked by people using game mechanics to beat me, and someone has argued against removing them. That just shows why he is arguing the way he is. What? I'm the one who got ganked? I don't understand what you're getting at...'

JB's made for great PvP and made CVA's providence one hell of a fun place to hunt. I suppose that's because most of us didn't cry about being "blobbed" or how unfair it was, and how much we needed CCP to change things to help us, when CVA brought a bigger fleet than us and boxed us into a system by jump bridging back and forth.

We just went for the fights.

And here, you were trying to avoid combat and JB's allowed a gang to catch you. But JB'ing, in your telling of events at least, prevented you from avoiding PvP.
Remind me again, are you on the "more PvP is good, by definition" side of the discussion?

Massive Dragon
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.01.25 03:07:00 - [427]
 

Edited by: Massive Dragon on 25/01/2011 03:07:47


honestly i dont think you have any idea what a sandbox game is finnagain.

let me help you out: a sandbox game by definition is "A video game with no linear storyline or specific goal, the player deriving amusement from a range of open-ended interactions or situations."

as it is no one is stopping you from joining a super coalitions or joining a small roaming corp / alliance.

should these changes go through, that choice is unimpeeded by any potential changes. more to the point, this game was a sandbox game before jumpbridges or titan bridges were ever used. so suggesting that their removal would somehow stop this game being a sandbox game is verging on mad panic.



Mara Rinn
Posted - 2011.01.25 03:39:00 - [428]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
As I've pointed out many times, while I see no valid reason to remove JB's, the major problem is the precedent that altering game mechanics to alter player-created content sets.


CCP put JBs in, and some time later they're wondering if JBs aren't actually turds, polluting the sandbox and ruining the experience for everyone.

JBs themselves aren't necessarily so bad. Cyno transport by itself isn't necessarily so bad. Perhaps it's not that JBs and Cynos are turds in the sandbox as much as gravel. A concept in line with the rest of the sandbox, just poorly implemented.

Some simple changes would be enough to balance the issue out a little: reduce the maximum range of any cyno (JF, BOBS, Capital, JB) and add a jump drive spool up time or as per one of my suggestions, have an "intensity" which is incremented for each cycle of the cynoprojector, with larger ships requiring more intense beacons. Bring the sport back into hunting.

Attacking the cyno ship must be a viable option for those on-grid when the cyno is lit.

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2011.01.25 14:49:00 - [429]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
As I've pointed out many times, while I see no valid reason to remove JB's, the major problem is the precedent that altering game mechanics to alter player-created content sets.


Any change to the game alters the player-created content set. Your argument is invalid and absurd. You don't like the idea of removing JBs because you're more interested in your own personal security rather than the good of the game. But this is obvious.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.25 22:27:00 - [430]
 

Originally by: Mara Rinn

CCP put JBs in, and some time later they're wondering if JBs aren't actually turds, polluting the sandbox and ruining the experience for everyone.


Well, no, not for everybody. For those who don't like them, there are evidently 10's of thousands who do. But be that as it may, again the problem isn't so much that they found a mechanic that was working a way they didn't like, but that it's being done specifically to reshape player-created politics and break sandbox play.

Why should small alliances be independent? Seriously. EVE is a sandbox game, and we determine our own political arrangements. The only way anybody should be independent is if they can convince others to leave them alone. That's the whole point behind player-created political content.

Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
As I've pointed out many times, while I see no valid reason to remove JB's, the major problem is the precedent that altering game mechanics to alter player-created content sets.


Any change to the game alters the player-created content set.


You are deliberately ignoring that the word I used was "to" and not "and". Yes, any change alters how players will play the game. Creating changes specifically in order to alter player-created content and break sandbox play, on the other hand, is quite different.

Quote:
you're more interested in your own personal security


Tune in next week for another episode of Internet Psychologist, same time, same channel.

Rafia Landras Audeles
Gallente
Posted - 2011.01.26 01:08:00 - [431]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
For those who don't like them, there are evidently 10's of thousands who do. But be that as it may, again the problem isn't so much that they found a mechanic that was working a way they didn't like, but that it's being done specifically to reshape player-created politics and break sandbox play.


Citation needed.

Finn proves yet again that he loves jump bridges and that he has no idea of what the words "facts" and "troll" mean through his continued posting and gratuitous use of the later term. Protip: Troll does not mean "person who disagrees with Finnagain's opinion" and Fact does not mean "Finnagain's opinion"

By the way, "evidently 10's of thousands who do"?. Did you do a survey? do you have any, you know, data? a summary look through this thread would indicate quite the contrary unless you count every post by you as a different person. I would like to see the data sources you use. How many tens of thousands by the way? For someone that seems so concerned about clarity and specificity in language, you sure like to make **** up when it fits your agenda. BTW props on the awesome attempt to establish complete bull**** as a fact. Very sneaky.

And the bit about "done specifically to reshape player created politics"? You do know how to read, right? I missed the part in the minutes where it is stated that it is their specific goal, but rather their projected results of such a move.

And finally, so what?

Since EVE started, mechanics have come and gone, SOV is completely different than it was, there are now corps, alliances, how ships work has changed, etc etc etc. A lot of those changes occurred solely because the devs did not like how something that "worked properly" "worked". So is the game not a sandbox now? Are you prevented from doing whatever you want?

If there are no jump bridges would you be prevented from being friends with any other alliance, would CCP suddenly set everyone to red or some such? No.

Your argument is fallacious, and unsupported by anything beyond your opinion.

Eve changes. What happened to "Adapt or Die"? I've taken to ignoring you because you are the same as a broken record and it gets harder and harder to take you seriously between your wanton use of fallacies (while accusing others of it!), overwhelming hypocrisy, and classy and liberal use of the word "troll" but some of your things are just lol.

10's of thousands of people agree with this post.

SATAN
BURN EDEN
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.01.26 01:45:00 - [432]
 

Jump bridge removal will be too much of a leap for the weak and inept, so that probably will never happen since they wont be able to live in 0.0 without their nanny CCP watching over them and making their life almost as safe as Jita.

But what I think is a good compromise is to place these Bridges at celestial objects, maybe allow a few sentry guns to be anchored around them kinda like a Star gate which can be in-capped like POS guns.

This will create situations for great fights, and at the same time allow for safer travel than just using gates for however many jumps you pathetic souls think is too dangerous for you to move.

Sahmul
The Grimreapers.
Posted - 2011.01.26 02:45:00 - [433]
 

I'm not particularly moved one way or the other by this proposal, though if you forced me to choose I would probably come down on the side of a nerf.

That said I mostly wanted to address one of the main arguments that Finnagain seems to keep coming back to, ie, that CCP interfering with player emergent behaviour sets a bad precedent and therefore removes the "sandbox". What is more, I can do so in one word: Yulai.

The highway nerf was CCP interfering with emergent behaviour that they didn't like, the fact that Jita then rose as the major market hub is proof that the "sandbox" didn't fail in spite of this egregious attack on player choices.

2xalted
Metanoia.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.01.26 09:47:00 - [434]
 

CCP need to fix real problems and don't even need to be thinking this is a problem.... So thanks for wasting your time talking bout irrelevant things during your meetings and focus on the real things that needs to be fixed...

kkthxbye

DOWN VOTE Very Happy

Mara Rinn
Posted - 2011.01.26 11:20:00 - [435]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
But be that as it may, again the problem isn't so much that they found a mechanic that was working a way they didn't like, but that it's being done specifically to reshape player-created politics and break sandbox play.


So it's wrong that the designers of a game who intended that nullsec should be about awesome fleet battles between forces vying for control of valuable resource, would want to pull apart whatever game mechanics are in place that encourage nullsec to become owned by two huge alliances?

Quote:
EVE is a sandbox game, and we determine our own political arrangements.


Those political arrangements are apparently turds in the sandbox from CCP's point of view. They want awesome fleet battles. The entire game's economy revolves around war and destruction. The current game mechanics for sovereignty don't push people towards war and destruction.

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Creating changes specifically in order to alter player-created content and break sandbox play, on the other hand, is quite different.


When the player-created content sucks, the game creator must find ways to adjust the sandbox to help the players do better.

There's more to this issue than just JBs, but JBs are part of the issue. I use JBs myself, they are very useful for avoiding combat you don't want to partake in, and very useful for bringing fights to where you do want them. The advantage they give in tactical terms has very little penalty apart from a few billion ISK a month and a supply of fuel.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.26 13:18:00 - [436]
 

Originally by: Mara Rinn

So it's wrong that the designers of a game who intended that nullsec should be about awesome fleet battles between forces vying for control of valuable resource


Nullsec is about that, right now.
And if they want to make sure that nullsec is the way they want it, then they need to give up the idea of sandbox play. Because otherwise it will be whatever the players want it to be.

Quote:

Those political arrangements are apparently turds in the sandbox from CCP's point of view.


Then as stated, CCP needs to abandon the pretense of running a sandbox game. Maybe drop Jove ships on any coalition that has more than 1 blue or whatever. Otherwise players will create player-created content however they want.

Quote:

When the player-created content sucks


Again, who gets to decide? 10's of thousands of people have decided that it doesn't suck, and they're playing it that way. And again that sets up quite a precedent; if CCP thinks your sandboxing wrong, they can take steps to stop you. Not for exploits or hacks, just for creating the 'wrong' player-created content.

Originally by: Sahmul

The highway nerf was CCP interfering with emergent behaviour that they didn't like


No, it didn't target player-created politics.
And there it was totally even-handed, everybody in Empire had the same routes. It wasn't like those people in Empire who'd cooperated well enough to achieve certain routes had those routes taken away.

Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles

Citation needed.


Citations provided. Stop trolling.

Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles
By the way, "evidently 10's of thousands who do"?. Did you do a survey? do you have any, you know, data?


Try counting the number of people who play in alliances/coalitions that use JB's.
Then stop trolling.

Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles

And finally, so what?


Already discussed and you're ignoring what I've actually said in order to, go figure, troll.
Here's a thought... stop trolling.

Two Shots
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.01.26 16:12:00 - [437]
 

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

Very supported.


They're talking about getting rid of Jump Bridges, not chains of cyno alts. Capital ships would still be able to get around just fine, with the inclusion of Jump Freighters for logistics. It would be the sub-capital ships that would be impeded; i.e., the people who are either new or have chosen not to train up for being part of a capital ship blob.

Memcoll
Posted - 2011.01.26 16:46:00 - [438]
 

Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles

And the bit about "done specifically to reshape player created politics"? You do know how to read, right? I missed the part in the minutes where it is stated that it is their specific goal, but rather their projected results of such a move.



Both you and Finn can read but only Finn understands. Do you really think that CCP will state “It is our specific goal to break player created content”? You can see and have stated “but rather their projected results of such a move”. Now why do you think CCP made such a projection? Come on man think!

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.01.26 16:53:00 - [439]
 

Originally by: SATAN
... making their life almost as safer than Jita....

Fixed that one for you Very Happy

Looking up the mortality statistics on Dotlan the only time null regions even come close (close mind you, never exceeding) the empire regions is when blobs collide.

Moving bridges away from armed POS' may not be necessary, just de-fang the towers by making the bridge module consume most/all of fitting, they are probable now (was in patchnotes recently) so should be eay enough to find.
Doesn't address the problem of force projection though so would have to be part of a greater plan.

@Finn:
The argument that making changes to JB's is somehow a "gateway drug" to CCP dictating in-game behaviour is, to put it mildly, flawed ..
CCP changed wardec mechanics to stop Privateers, they declared alliance hopping a no-no, they evicted capitals from high-sec etc. etc.
Your cry of "the sky will fall!" is many years too late I am afraid so move to the next item on your list of talking points Smile

Rafia Landras Audeles
Gallente
Posted - 2011.01.26 16:58:00 - [440]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero



Citations provided. Stop trolling.


Originally by: FinnAgain Zero


Try counting the number of people who play in alliances/coalitions that use JB's.
Then stop trolling.


I can't stop laughing. I seriously can't figure out if you are a ******, an idiot, some kind of televangelist or an editor for Fox news. You don't even meet the standad or coherency for your idiocy, but now you project your opinion over "tens of thousands of people" who are not aware of it and dont necessarily agree with you? In fact, most likely don't?

(Protip, plenty of JB users have posted in this thread for their removal, including me.)

Seriously, looooooool.

But lets play your game, according to the QEN newsletter, most people playing the game take years to go to null, or never do. Therefore (using your own logic and brilliance), they don't like Jump Bridges!

I believe the number of such people dwarfs the number of peoples in 0.0 alliances. So obviously democracy of people whose words have been made up to fit an agenda, says that bridges should go.

How's it go again? stop trolling?

Btw never stop, you are an excellent poster and it makes for quite amusing reading, your brilliance has brightened my day and shows the level of discourse that can be expected by you. Don't worry about providing any other facts, I now see how reliable you are and how you know the difference between "fact" and "your opinion" Laughing

10's of thousands of people agree with this message


SATAN
BURN EDEN
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.01.26 17:12:00 - [441]
 

The only reason my suggestion was to move them to a planet is that POS's would take a complete reworking if you want to make JB's more dangerous while they are at a POS.

This way you can leave the POS mechanics unchanged except for the fact that the JB which is supposed to be at that pos is actually on a planet which the POS is linked to.

UberDefDef
Perkone
Posted - 2011.01.26 18:32:00 - [442]
 

Originally by: Massive Dragon
Edited by: Massive Dragon on 25/01/2011 03:07:47


honestly i dont think you have any idea what a sandbox game is finnagain.

let me help you out: a sandbox game by definition is "A video game with no linear storyline or specific goal, the player deriving amusement from a range of open-ended interactions or situations."

as it is no one is stopping you from joining a super coalitions or joining a small roaming corp / alliance.

should these changes go through, that choice is unimpeeded by any potential changes. more to the point, this game was a sandbox game before jumpbridges or titan bridges were ever used. so suggesting that their removal would somehow stop this game being a sandbox game is verging on mad panic.





I love you minigin

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.26 18:32:00 - [443]
 

Originally by: Hirana Yoshida

The argument that making changes to JB's is somehow a "gateway drug" to CCP dictating in-game behaviour is, to put it mildly, flawed


By CCP's own explicit statements, these changes are designed to alter the player-created content and allow small alliances to be independent, and to potentially fragment coalitions. It's not flawed, it's fact.

And what's the next step when CCP can decide that a certain style of sandbox play is "wrong"? The only thing that safeguards anybody, then, becomes caprice and chance.

Privateers and capitals were both in highsec, highsec is not where player-created empires lie, that's in nullsec. Highsec is specifically supposed to be where players interface with CONCORD and the Empires.


Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles
now you project your opinion over "tens of thousands of people"


Yet again, stop trolling (Oh, I know, now you're going to troll about how you keep trolling, and that earns a response telling you to stop trolling. Boy, won't that be some great trolling?) Yes, 10's of thousands of people play in alliances/coalitions that use them, and use them themselves.

Your trolling about people who haven't been to 0.0 and don't know how it works can safely be avoided as it's some pretty obvious trolling, as can your trolling about how EVE is a "democracy". It's not. That's the whole point, the content is player-created, not voting-created. You craft and destroy empires by logging in and doing ****, not alt trolling the forums.

Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles
including me


Rafia Landras Audeles:
Center for Advanced Studies from 2011.01.20 07:25 to this day

Yeah... you've used JB's a lot in your whole six days of playing EVE as an alt troll.
Post with your main, troll.

Massive Dragon
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.01.26 19:38:00 - [444]
 

1. show me where ccp explicitly says this is an attack on player created content (NB. jumpbridges are not player created they are an illthought-out inclusion by ccp a few patches ago.)
2. prove to me that should they be interfeering, that it is a bad thing in most cases.
3. prove to me that should they be interfeering, that it is a bad thing in this case.

Memcoll
Posted - 2011.01.26 20:02:00 - [445]
 

Originally by: Massive Dragon




should these changes go through, that choice is unimpeeded by any potential changes. more to the point, this game was a sandbox game before jumpbridges or titan bridges were ever used. so suggesting that their removal would somehow stop this game being a sandbox game is verging on mad panic.





Finn had the choice to join an alliance with politics that were created by the players. Simply because he still has a choice to join an alliance after some of the open ended content created by the players has been closed by CCP is no argument at all.

The jump bridges were given to us to use as we saw fit to create our open ended content. If the jump bridges are removed then that content is closed off by being destroyed. This one decision alone wouldn’t suddenly stop eve from being a sandbox game but it does make you think am I really playing a sandbox game?

Memcoll
Posted - 2011.01.26 20:09:00 - [446]
 

Edited by: Memcoll on 26/01/2011 20:11:08
Originally by: Massive Dragon
1. show me where ccp explicitly says this is an attack on player created content


They are not going to are they? Although is it obvious to everyone unless you are completely stupid.
Originally by: Massive Dragon
(NB. jumpbridges are not player created


No one in this thread has suggested that the jump bridges themselves are player created. The content created with them is however.
Originally by: Massive Dragon
they are an illthought-out inclusion by ccp a few patches ago.)


This is your opinion.
Originally by: Massive Dragon
2. prove to me that should they be interfeering, that it is a bad thing in most cases.


Read this thread.
Originally by: Massive Dragon
3. prove to me that should they be interfeering, that it is a bad thing in this case.


Read this thread.

LordElfa
Gallente
Golden Lyon Warriors
Posted - 2011.01.26 20:15:00 - [447]
 

The alliances in Null sec rarely if ever are in favor of things that make the lives of those of us in High sec better, but I wish them no ill will or hardships. Therefor, as this does not directly affect me, I won't come out on either side of the argument and leave more experienced heads to the matter at hand.

Massive Dragon
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.01.26 21:07:00 - [448]
 

for whatever reason it is, you and finnagain (im not even sure you are different people at this point) are refusing to see this from any other perspective than "you just hate us you want us to suffer, thats the goal of this patch".

whereas we do not have specific statements from ccp saying "hi we want all coalitions to blanket cascade" we do have specific statements saying they want to "encourage pvp in null sec".

if you could stop being paranoid for about half a second perhaps you would see the benefits this game will derive from these changes.


furthermore ccp markets 0.0 as a dangerous environment "where people can attack you with no consequences" there are popup messages every time you jump into these systs should you not disable them saying how dangerous these systems are and how not lightly you should take them.

that ccp accidentaly introduced a poor mechanic that ended up benefiting you does not mean they did not make a mistake introducing those changes (as they are now realising and saying). in fact nearly every terrible argument you have made can be easily applied to the patch when they first introduced jumpbridges.

given ccp now realises the mistake they made, not only do i think they are entitled to undo the harm they have done to the game, but i feel as though they have a responcibility to the community.

one of the big selling points of this game is that individuals can make a difference in the scope of the game, that choice due to the obseen buffs to coalitions have boiled down to "join coalition a or join coalition b" and that is about the sum of all change you will experiance.

the newer manner of playing eve essentially means corps that focus on anything but numbers on a massive scale will have far less impact, and i do not believe ccp ever intended for such a thing nor should they allow this style of play to continue.

let me state this again, just because it benefited you, does not mean it was intended by ccp for this style of play to develope nor does it mean a change away from this is unfair. if you are in 0.0 it should be because you are either driven to profit weighing in the risks or because you enjoy the dangerous elements of this game.

that we have ridiculous means in 0.0 to avoid all the risks and make obseen profits has nothing to do with player driven content, these are issues to do with game ballance and design.

you have no right to tell ccp that "i want no risks i want lots of isk and you made a mistake and gave it to me unintentionally... now you have to stand by your decision"

be happy that you benefited from their mistakes for long enough. now its time for you to follow through with one of your favourite (and ironic) statements. "time to adapt or die".

we surrvived the hardest times for small gang roamers, will you survive a tiny nerf to your favoured game play? i doubt it.

Memcoll
Posted - 2011.01.26 21:56:00 - [449]
 

Originally by: Massive Dragon
for whatever reason it is


Here is your problem. You don’t understand
Originally by: Massive Dragon
, you and finnagain (im not even sure you are different people at this point)


This is an alt but I am not FinnAgain
Originally by: Massive Dragon
are refusing to see this from any other perspective than "you just hate us you want us to suffer, thats the goal of this patch".


No and to my best knowledge the changes to jump bridges haven’t been officialy proposed.

Originally by: Massive Dragon
whereas we do not have specific statements from ccp saying "hi we want all coalitions to blanket cascade"


If CCP did want that to happen they are not going to say that are they?

Originally by: Massive Dragon
we do have specific statements saying they want to "encourage pvp in null sec".


I’m sure you are capable of such suggestions without even touching the Jump Bridge debate.

Originally by: Massive Dragon
if you could stop being paranoid for about half a second perhaps you would see the benefits this game will derive from these changes.


You know it is possible that the game might benefit to a change in the manner Jump Bridges but that’s not why I am posting.


Originally by: Massive Dragon
furthermore ccp markets 0.0 as a dangerous environment "where people can attack you with no consequences" there are popup messages every time you jump into these systs should you not disable them saying how dangerous these systems are and how not lightly you should take them.


Ok… and…

Originally by: Massive Dragon
that ccp accidentaly introduced a poor mechanic

First thing this is your opinion.

Originally by: Massive Dragon
that ended up benefiting you


Did it benefit me?

Originally by: Massive Dragon
does not mean they did not make a mistake introducing those changes


I don’t think they made a mistake.

Originally by: Massive Dragon
(as they are now realising and saying).


CCP are not saying the Jump Bridges are a mistake they are however not happy with how they are being used.
Originally by: Massive Dragon
in fact nearly every terrible argument you have made can be easily applied to the patch when they first introduced jumpbridges.


No.

Originally by: Massive Dragon
given ccp now realises the mistake they made, not only do i think they are entitled to undo the harm they have done to the game,


They are entitled to make amends but it is your opinion that they have caused harm.

Originally by: Massive Dragon
but i feel as though they have a responcibility to the community.

Yes I agree.

Originally by: Massive Dragon
one of the big selling points of this game is that individuals can make a difference in the scope of the game,


I am glad you are citing this. You are still yet to understand that CCP are undermining the scope of the game for what they feel is the “better good”.

Originally by: Massive Dragon
that choice due to the obseen buffs to coalitions have boiled down to "join coalition a or join coalition b" and that is about the sum of all change you will experiance.


Your opinion. You might be right but we the players decided this.

Originally by: Massive Dragon
the newer manner of playing eve essentially means corps that focus on anything but numbers on a massive scale will have far less impact, and i do not believe ccp ever intended for such a thing


They may have not intended this to happen but it has.

Originally by: Massive Dragon
nor should they allow this style of play to continue.

Your opinion

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.01.26 22:24:00 - [450]
 

It seems intuitive to me that a strategy game with instant teleportation of units is going to be a bad one, in a way that it offers less value for developing strategies, and throws in large random factors - enemy of plans.

I explained this view in couple posts long ago:
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1448938&page=9#253

I'd like to see some arguments from supporters of JB that explain how their function makes EVE a better war strategy game. Just curious.


Pages: first : previous : ... 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 ... : 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