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 : ... 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 ... : last (21)

Author Topic

Sahmul
The Grimreapers.
Posted - 2011.01.26 23:11:00 - [451]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero

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.



Ah, so because they didn't interfere with Null it doesn't count. OK.

I obviously missed the post where it was stated they would only nerf JB for NC, oh wait, they want to do it for everyone, sounds pretty evenhanded to me.

Also, how does nerfing them take away your ability to be part of massive power blocs? It makes it harder sure, but the choice is still there.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.27 00:31:00 - [452]
 

Originally by: Memcoll

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”.


The problem with his argument is, of course, that CCP has never said that a single person is guaranteed to be able to make a difference if they're outmatched by other 'single players'.

It's an absurdity, and he doesn't really believe it. "I fought two Armageddons in my Omen, and I lost. But CCP promised I can make a difference!"

Individuals can still be beaten, especially by others working in groups. That's the whole point, and that's part of why the demand for "making a difference as an individual" is a troll. If one individual can make a difference, then two people working against that one person can too. By demanding that only that one person can, then the two people who oppose him are stripped of their ability to make a difference.

It also deliberately ignores the fact that there have been many, many people who've made a huge difference on EVE. From personalities like Molle to traitors like Hargoth to skilled FC's (in point of fact, FC's often do more to shape the world of EVE than absolutely anybody else, at all), individuals can and do shape EVE. They're just not guaranteed to be able to 'out individual' another group of individuals, especially since doing so means that when individuals choose to work for a common goal, they'll be smacked down if individuals who can not or will not cooperate with others get upset about it.

It's a rabbit trail.

Originally by: Sahmul

Ah, so because they didn't interfere with Null it doesn't count.


Here, let me repeat in case you really don't grok:
No, it didn't target player-created politics.
How players interact with CONCORD is not player created, it's player-mediated. 0.0 space is designed for players to create the content.

Originally by: Sahmul

I obviously missed the post where it was stated they would only nerf JB for NC


These two are not interchangeable:
-Nerfing JB's only for those who've managed to get JB's set up and/or networked with other alliances due to holding space, and for those might hold space later on.
-altering the flow of jump bridges in Empire for every single person, regardless of who they are or what their politics are.

Originally by: Sahmul

Also, how does nerfing them take away your ability to be part of massive power blocs?


You seem to be confusing my argument with someone's trolling about what they pretends my argument is. I never said that taking JB's away eliminates the ability for people to form coalitions. In fact, I pointed out that CCP's attempt to break sandbox play and make smaller alliances "independent", whether or not the rest of the players in 0.0 wanted them to be, would fail.

In point of fact, I have continually argued for why trying to stop player-created politics from developing as the players want it to, and trying to break sandbox play by making nonviable alliance "independent" are bad precedents. In and of themselves.

Sahmul
The Grimreapers.
Posted - 2011.01.27 01:47:00 - [453]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero

Originally by: Sahmul

Ah, so because they didn't interfere with Null it doesn't count.


Here, let me repeat in case you really don't grok:
No, it didn't target player-created politics.
How players interact with CONCORD is not player created, it's player-mediated. 0.0 space is designed for players to create the content.


ie. It didn't happen in Null therefore it doesn't count.

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero

Originally by: Sahmul

I obviously missed the post where it was stated they would only nerf JB for NC


These two are not interchangeable:
-Nerfing JB's only for those who've managed to get JB's set up and/or networked with other alliances due to holding space, and for those might hold space later on.
-altering the flow of jump bridges in Empire for every single person, regardless of who they are or what their politics are.



So, evenhanded then.

Fact is, precedent exists. Emergent, player created behaviour has been forcibly changed in the past and may well be changed in the future. Burying your head in the sand and saying effectively that Empire isn't a sandbox anyway is disingenuous and ultimately weakens your point. If for the sake of argument it had been NBPH-N that had developed into a trade hub and then nerfed would that then qualify?

I'm open to being convinced Finn, but you are going to have to actually argue a real point. To say that it wouldn't alter anything anyway is effectively saying that they might as well do it as not. In other words, why is an EVE with JB as they exist today preferable to one without, or one with weakened bridges. (convenience doesn't work as an argument for me incidentally)

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.27 02:25:00 - [454]
 

Originally by: Sahmul
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero

0.0 space is designed for players to create the content.


ie. It didn't happen in Null therefore it doesn't count.


I'll assume that your (second) misunderstanding is not intentional. Yet again, it's player-created content that's at issue. Not nullsec in specific. It simply happens to be resident in nullsec. If Faction Warfare produced actual benefits and allowed the players to really build empires, it would be as improper for that, too.


Originally by: FinnAgain Zero

Originally by: Sahmul

I obviously missed the post where it was stated they would only nerf JB for NC


These two are not interchangeable:
-Nerfing JB's only for those who've managed to get JB's set up and/or networked with other alliances due to holding space, and for those might hold space later on.
-altering the flow of jumps/bridges in Empire for every single person,regardless of who they are or what their politics are.



Rather obviously, "effecting only those who hold space" is not equivalent to "absolutely everybody who travels in Empire."
Rather than pointing out how they're equivalent, you simply say "yah, they are."

Bull****.

Originally by: Sahmul

Fact is, precedent exists. Emergent, player created behaviour has been forcibly changed in the past and may well be changed in the future.


No. Yet again, how players relate with CONCORD is not at all the same as how players create and run their own empires. The hint should be that in Empire if you do something wrong, you have an invincible, implacable, unavoidable enemy that will automatically kill you and avoiding them is an exploit. Does such a mechanic exist in player-created empires?

Sahmul
The Grimreapers.
Posted - 2011.01.27 02:35:00 - [455]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Originally by: Sahmul
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero

0.0 space is designed for players to create the content.


ie. It didn't happen in Null therefore it doesn't count.


I'll assume that your (second) misunderstanding is not intentional. Yet again, it's player-created content that's at issue. Not nullsec in specific. It simply happens to be resident in nullsec. If Faction Warfare produced actual benefits and allowed the players to really build empires, it would be as improper for that, too.


Originally by: FinnAgain Zero

Originally by: Sahmul

I obviously missed the post where it was stated they would only nerf JB for NC


These two are not interchangeable:
-Nerfing JB's only for those who've managed to get JB's set up and/or networked with other alliances due to holding space, and for those might hold space later on.
-altering the flow of jumps/bridges in Empire for every single person,regardless of who they are or what their politics are.



Rather obviously, "effecting only those who hold space" is not equivalent to "absolutely everybody who travels in Empire."
Rather than pointing out how they're equivalent, you simply say "yah, they are."

Bull****.

Originally by: Sahmul

Fact is, precedent exists. Emergent, player created behaviour has been forcibly changed in the past and may well be changed in the future.


No. Yet again, how players relate with CONCORD is not at all the same as how players create and run their own empires. The hint should be that in Empire if you do something wrong, you have an invincible, implacable, unavoidable enemy that will automatically kill you and avoiding them is an exploit. Does such a mechanic exist in player-created empires?



Well I must thank you Finn for showing me that you are not in fact interested in debate but merely shouting down anyone who disagrees with you with "Nuh-uh, sandbox". I gave you the benefit of the doubt as many of your previous opponents have been somewhat adversarial and you seem to be somewhat articulate.

I could point out that the only thing sanctioned by CONCORD is actual unprovoked aggression, and that all other activities, regardless of how reprehensible they are considered by the playerbase are acceptable, but that would obviously be pointless. After all, only Nullsec is part of the sandbox.

Good day to you Finn, fly safe 07

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.01.27 02:42:00 - [456]
 

so nobody cares about game design of war strategy games, just political and personal mumbo jumbo

great

Swynet
State War Academy

Posted - 2011.01.27 02:55:00 - [457]
 

Originally by: Ephemeron
so nobody cares about game design of war strategy games, just political and personal mumbo jumbo

great


Just let them get rid of jump gates, what changes for you? -for me? -in most general terms, for the whole community?

Nothing, just reorganisation and more titan bridges.

Dr Syphilis
Posted - 2011.01.27 03:32:00 - [458]
 

I support FinnAgain Zero's suggestion of jump bridge removal and delayed local.

Massive Dragon
Genos Occidere
Posted - 2011.01.27 04:33:00 - [459]
 

an interesting way to look at it is as follows:

at current there is effectively no way for a small or even a large alliance to effectively go head to head with the nc for any length of time.

examples such as triumvirate, pl, xxdeath, rk/smash, all took on 10 20 or even 30 alliances spread around most of the north. sure there may have been initial successes and in some cases prolonged success, but there was no way for these alliances to ever have a lasting impact or even a genuine one so long as they did not enter into an existing powerblock.

in the old days before jumpbridges, when d2 still ruled the north, i remember an enourmous cta (200 people lol) coming down to roll a few small alliances in geminate. the entire onslaught lasted 2 days because no one could be bothered flying to and from the staging area. why? because as you have been so rightly pointing out, not everyone is playing this game for the pvp. thus any argument relying on alliance numbers being projected via closeby staging systems is largely just crap imo.

changes to these machanics will give smaller or just non-coalition alliances a bigger chance than they previously had. this will likely give us a much more dynamic 0.0 with more active people (hopefully unalligned to the current 3 powerblocks), this no matter how you are spinning it is not bad for the game. EVERYONE gets more content. EVERYONE gets more weight put on their decisions. this wont get rid of the sandbox, it will reinforce it!

your choices will hopefully matter more. we are litteraly never going to see 0.0 cease to be controlled prodominantly by coalitions, but we can hope to let people who arnt interested in that to have a greater than sub 0 chance.

eve can be dynamic, it can be active, there can be plenty of pvp instances. atm there are not because there are no insentives for coalitions to stop non-sovthreatening gangs rolling around their sapce, there is no insentive to restrict the amount of space alliances hold (too easy to sustain / expand), there are no insentives for conflict eg. differing value of space.

these things being introduced would give meaning back to the sandbox. your choice is no longer coalition a, coalition b, lose.


what i would like to hear from the people against this proposal is "would this change make eve less fun?"

theres been a lot of crappy sidetracking about ccp shouldnt mess around with what they have already added into the game, but honestly all it boils down to for me is... will these changes make eve better, and will it be more fun?

if either answer is yes... i dont think any of this other crap matters.

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.01.27 06:35:00 - [460]
 

Quote:
at current there is effectively no way for a small or even a large alliance to effectively go head to head with the nc for any length of time.
And part of the reason is - no way to disrupt logistics. No way to starve the beast.

It has to be all-out pitched battle for every POS/TCU. And it's always a pitched battle because it's always known in advance, with the reinforcement timers and all.

Anything small is completely irrelevant.
JB may not be the only thing to blame, but they sure add to the problem.
That's my belief.

Jalif
Minmatar
Snuff Box
Posted - 2011.01.27 09:17:00 - [461]
 

Lets get rid of it!

Memcoll
Posted - 2011.01.27 11:43:00 - [462]
 

Originally by: Massive Dragon

theres been a lot of crappy sidetracking about ccp shouldnt mess around with what they have already added into the game



This really is what this thread has been about. You have “side tracked” into a debate about the effect of these possible theoretical changes.

Originally by: Massive Dragon

i dont think any of this other crap matters.



You don’t understand. The fact that CSM/CCP are in the position of discussing using a game mechanic to institute a potential change to content that we the players created matters.It matters if you like Jump Bridges. It matters if you dislike Jump Bridges.



Memcoll
Posted - 2011.01.27 11:48:00 - [463]
 

Originally by: Ephemeron
so nobody cares about game design of war strategy games, just political and personal mumbo jumbo

great


We are talking about “political mumbo jumbo” as you so ignorantly put it. If you want to talk about the design of war strategy games please do so in your own thread.

alliasura
Posted - 2011.01.27 12:02:00 - [464]
 


I support this.

getting stuff to 0.0 is just too easy....

AND you still have JFs and all the other cyno capable ships.

It will make 0.0 more exciting....think of all those ppl roaming around without JBs.....yey

Eve is suppost to be hard/harsh...no JBs will make 0.0 what it used to be.

Mara Rinn
Posted - 2011.01.27 13:18:00 - [465]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Making a game and owning a game doesn't mean that you can turn it into a non-sandbox game and then claim that it's still a sandbox because you own it.


One can change the texture and colour of sand in the sandbox without changing the fact that it is a sandbox. If CCP was hoping players would build sandcastles, but instead we are eating the sand, would making the sand unpalatable be making it no longer a sandbox?

Would simply increasing the time-cost of materiel movement lead to large coalitions breaking up? Would making moon goo spawn randomly lead to large coalitions breaking up? Would making sovereignty dependent on PvP kills lead to large coalitions breaking up? Would restricting the number of moon harvesters/POSes a corporation can run lead to large coalitions breaking up? Would adding RTS concepts such as "control units" lead to large coalitions breaking up (or would they simply spawn more overlords)? Would restricting the number of jumps per day that a hull could endure, lead to large coalitions breaking up? Would "making EVE bigger" lead to large coalitions breaking up? Would causing system resources to "dry up" over time lead to large coalitions breaking up?

Would the large coalitions adapt to the changing texture and colour of the sand in the sandbox and remain large coalitions? Perhaps it is in the nature of humanity to form large groups?

Would it be possible to modify the sandbox to the point where nullsec alliances end up constantly at war with their neighbours instead of forming NAPs with all and sundry?

Dramaticus
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.01.27 16:00:00 - [466]
 

you can improve server performance greatly by just no longer allowing connections to Tranquility which seems to be the desired result. that is, less people playing eve.

Dramaticus
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.01.27 16:10:00 - [467]
 

man i can't wait to base out of the nearest empire market and still steamroll whoever the **** i want

Skex Relbore
Gallente
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
Posted - 2011.01.27 17:04:00 - [468]
 

Edited by: Skex Relbore on 27/01/2011 17:08:27
This proposal is not the first indication that CCP wants to tell people that they are "sandboxing wrong". The NPC Corp tax was and I wonder which side of that debate the various posters in this thread were.

Those of us who opposed that change did so based on the fact that it was only justified by the idea that CCP wanted people in player corporations and were willing to change the game to "encourage" them.

Actually I know one, Ephemeron has shown a consistent willingness to ask CCP to force others to accomidate his playstyle. As such he's supported every half brained idea that would somehow make the game "hardcore" (Translated provide him with easy targets) that comes along. From the NPC corp tax to removal of L4's from highsec so I'm completely unsurprised he would support this one.

Then we get this proposal to break up large coalitions by making logistics more difficult, another attempt to force certain behaviors in gameplay through mechanics.

The NPC corp tax set a bad precedent of CCP using game mechanics to force gameplay choices on the player there by breaking the sandbox model. Removal of a functional gameplay mechanic that is working exactly as designed would be yet one more step down that slippery slope of themeparkdom.

Too all the supporters of this nonsense Fin has soundly thrashed you in this debate no matter how much your little intellects think you have faired against him.

I've only recently decided to give Null a go so I'm no expert to all this I've not even seen a jump bridge yet. But I have been spending a lot of time reading up on Null politics while trying to figure out where I want to go.

So I've been following the conflicts that Finn mentions and his descriptions ring very true. NC was not able maintain their offensive in the east while defending their tech moons despite their extensive JB network that would supposedly enable them to do so. They had to break off that offensive to return and reclaim their tech moons from PL.

PL managed to project force perfectly friggin fine in this case with no JB network.

The idea that making logistics more time consuming and tedious would in anyway shape or form improve the quality or quantity of PVP opportunities in the game is ludicrous. The more time consuming and tedious logistics becomes the more risk adverse people will become.

Consider if it takes 1 hour of logistics to replace a PVP ship one would far more willing to risk that ship in an uncertain engagement than if it took 5 hours.

One of the major reasons that RVB gets such a high quantity of the "goodfights" that so many small scale PVP proponents want is because it's logistics were relatively painless. When you are only looking at 2-3 jumps to reship and get back into the fight it's far easier to e motivated to reship and turn right back around again then if you were looking at an hour of carebearing to earn the isk plus 3 hours of hauling **** from Jita to get the ships and modules.

Obviously there needs to be some balance so that there is actually some risk but care must be taken to not make the PITA factor beat out the FUN factor.

Turning this game even more into Logistics Online is a bad idea.

Oh yeah tedious and boring /= hardcore.

Besides it's a game if you want hardcore join the Marines.

Not supported.

Biocross
Posted - 2011.01.27 17:13:00 - [469]
 

Edited by: Biocross on 27/01/2011 17:13:24
Looking at both sides, and having lived in 0.0 I agree with bridges going.

Hardly ever did we move in 0.0 without using a bridge, and there was never any risk to it. Empire is riskier.

Furthermore CCP makes the game and they are fully entitled to make changes that in their opinion improve the game. I've seen what the game was like when it started, I honestly didn't like it.

I like it now. CCP changes have consistently been in the right direction imho.


Supported.

Starkiller Adams
Gallente
Interwebs Cooter Explosion
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2011.01.27 17:46:00 - [470]
 

This is honestly the stupidest idea ever that would make tons of already cramped space useless and dead WOW

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.01.27 19:23:00 - [471]
 

Ability to disrupt enemy logistics adds new dimension to strategy.

That's a fact of both game design and real war. Anything that increases strategic and tactical choices in war is automatically good for PvP.

Political discussions are irrelevant. Personal preferences are irrelevant.
Those things are valid only in the scope of the sandbox. Decisions to modify the sandbox are outside the scope of the sandbox

TZeer
BURN EDEN
Posted - 2011.01.27 19:57:00 - [472]
 

Quote:
PL managed to project force perfectly friggin fine in this case with no JB network.


Pretty bad argument.

- PL had nothing to loose.
- PL had nothing to defend.
- PL had no need to go and help out "friends" on the other side of the map.

Any group in this game can project their force anywhere they want.

The real issue is when a group can change the area they wanna do this in, within a short amount of time.

One can argue that "oh wow, 15 jumps instead of 30 jumps" hardly game breaking. Maybe not, but think in a bigger picture. Think relocation of assets, dreadnoughts, carriers, multiple ships, mods, fuel, everything that needs to be moved for longer fights.

Before jumpbridges, moves like that had to be proper planned and executed. And people moved in groups. I`m not saying people aint moving in groups today, but they did in a much bigger degree before.

With jumpbridges, people can move on their own for the most of the time. They simply move through the jump bridge system. If that had been done before jump bridges, they would simply been picked off by even the smallest gangs.

Region wide logistics could simply be cut off by small roaming gangs, if the groups moving was not prepared or of a proper size. And small roaming gangs can not compete with Deathstar POS + jumpbridge.

Add titanbridges and some carefully located cynos, and groups can practically bypass/jump over entire regions.

A very common tactic I have seen been used is simply move the entire fleet by jumpbridge until the jumpbridge network ends, then do the rest with titans until the fleet is within a few jumps from the target system, if not jumping directly into the targetsystem.

Another argument that keeps getting brought up is that it will reduce activity in 0.0...
I can simply point back to the time when ASCN was still alive. Anyone who was active at that time, know that ASCN space was booming with life. At it`s peak it was almost it`s own little empire. One of it`s goals was that it would be as selfsufficient as possible. This was also before jump freighters.

Look at feythabolis today, and it`s a wasteland compared to the old days.

Either you live in empire, or you live in 0.0

"People dont wanna travel x jumps just to get a fight"

Then alliances should stop putting everything within 30jumps of their borders blue.

Main reason every major fights today ends up with a+b+c+kitchensink vs d+e+f+toiletbowl is because they can!! There is`nt really any timesink or logistic reason not to.

My experiences with jump bridges comes from the short time in AAA. AAA didnt have the biggest jump bridge system around but anyway.
It was a joke!! IT had daily roams comming in from Querious through the FAT area. They had no impact, NO impact at all on my movements.
I could sit in local and see them passing by, then jump on the bridge network, just to pass by them a few jumps further up the pipe. I could move freely without any interuption by any gangs. Within minutes I could move from FAT to HED and back. At the same time the entire pipe from HED and down to GE could be camped for all I know. IT DID NOT MATTER!!!



Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.01.27 20:13:00 - [473]
 

Originally by: TZeer
<Much needed reality check>

Well put.

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.01.27 21:38:00 - [474]
 

TZeer says the truth.

I was member of ASCN for a while, I remember the space used to be more lively than it is now. And as he says, small roaming gangs are completely irrelevant to a local alliance with JBs and titan bridges.

Marked Ugler
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.01.27 23:12:00 - [475]
 

Edited by: Marked Ugler on 27/01/2011 23:11:41
Kill all bridges...
Oh, my friend FinnAgain Zero is here!

caldarichecker
Posted - 2011.01.28 02:00:00 - [476]
 

Originally by: TZeer
Quote:
PL managed to project force perfectly friggin fine in this case with no JB network.


Pretty bad argument.

- PL had nothing to loose.
- PL had nothing to defend.
- PL had no need to go and help out "friends" on the other side of the map.

Any group in this game can project their force anywhere they want.

The real issue is when a group can change the area they wanna do this in, within a short amount of time.

<snip wot for new wot>



You forget there were two sides of that confrontation (well 3 really but one was under contract to one of the other parties) and NC still had to end their campaign even though they have that massive JB system that according to you and others supporting the idea of JB removal claim should have allowed them to operate in both theaters with impunity.

Instead they had to abandon their campaign then were forced to reclaim the systems they lost while trying to move their force back.

Sounds like everything is working perfectly fine in that regard.

As far as being able to undermine the activities of small roaming gangs. So what? One would expect a large organized power block to be able to effectively deal with small time criminals trying to harass it's citizens.

Time and time again these whines such as this just come down to some malcontent being upset that their desired victims have ways to avoid being victims.




lwxsky oli
Minmatar
FACTS on EVE
Posted - 2011.01.28 02:19:00 - [477]
 

Originally by: Massive Dragon


will these changes make eve better, and will it be more fun?

if either answer is yes... i dont think any of this other crap matters.




IMO, it will make eve worse, it will be less fun.

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.01.28 02:37:00 - [478]
 

Edited by: Ephemeron on 28/01/2011 02:40:11
Originally by: lwxsky oli

IMO, it will make eve worse, it will be less fun.
It's not a matter of opinion, we have people who know first hand what EVE is like without JB and with JB

Lets conduct a poll among all the vets who been with this game since 2004 - is EVE more fun now with JB or was it more fun before JB?

Quote:
As far as being able to undermine the activities of small roaming gangs. So what? One would expect a large organized power block to be able to effectively deal with small time criminals trying to harass it's citizens.
Sure, we expect that. But we expect that security to be achieved by PvP, by patrolling and hunting down the criminals. Not bypassing it completely with safety of teleportation devices.

You want security? fight for it

caldarichecker
Posted - 2011.01.28 05:28:00 - [479]
 

Originally by: Ephemeron
Edited by: Ephemeron on 28/01/2011 02:40:11


Quote:
As far as being able to undermine the activities of small roaming gangs. So what? One would expect a large organized power block to be able to effectively deal with small time criminals trying to harass it's citizens.
Sure, we expect that. But we expect that security to be achieved by PvP, by patrolling and hunting down the criminals. Not bypassing it completely with safety of teleportation devices.

You want security? fight for it


I believe the point would be that they already have. By gaining sovereignty that typically isn't gotten by flying out and planting a flag.

What you are asking is that they surrender that bought and paid for security so that any random group of twits can roll in and upset their empires because they are bored. I believe it has been pointed out that those devices are not completely safe.

Now someone who wants to make it unsafe does have to commit some resources to doing so but considering the amount of resources that the defender had to commit to gain that "teleport" capability in the first place it's hardly unreasonable that those who try to threaten it must commit more resources and planning than just getting together a dozen bored friends to try and gank transports.

It seems to me that your problem with jump bridges is that you can't take a small force of subcap ships and undermine an advantage that likely required a significant force of capital ships to gain in the first place.

I'm sorry but David only beats Goliath in fables.

Marconus Orion
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.01.28 09:15:00 - [480]
 

Originally by: Ephemeron
Lets conduct a poll among all the vets who been with this game since 2004 - is EVE more fun now with JB or was it more fun before?


Such a poll already exists here.

-----------------------
FinnAgain Zero replies: 69



Pages: first : previous : ... 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 ... : 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