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 : ... 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 ... : last (21)

Author Topic

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2011.01.20 16:25:00 - [241]
 

Edited by: Bagehi on 20/01/2011 16:27:59
Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Originally by: Ephemeron
People who haven't played EVE before jump bridges were introduces cannot be taken seriously on their "predictions" of what would happen.

We already know exactly what would happen. Most of the devs will remember it personally. It was no doomsday scenario. The game was growing quickly, 0.0 was populated. There was plenty of traffic. We know for a fact that EVE will do just fine.


Before Revelations 2 was released in mid-2007 and jump bridges seeded, nearly all of 0.0 sov was divided between 3 major powerblocs (the RSF, GBC, and NC). The only real exceptions were Providence (because CVA lived there) and the Drone Regions (Because RA were still fighting in the south east and hadn't yet fractured to create Solar Fleet and XDeath).

But clearly its all the fault of the jump bridges, right guys?


This. I was in a medium-sized alliance around the time jump bridges came out that tried to get into null sec. We were given the ultimatum "if you aren't NC then you are with Bob." Claiming there were three major power blocks at that time is almost a stretch. I understand you are proud of Goon heritage and all, but in the grand scheme of things you guys were pretty small beans back then.

Removing bridges won't break up the blocks, if anything, they will probably become tighter. Again, I will point out that if you want to open up null space, you need to increase the ability to project force in null sec. This means alliances/blocks don't have time to worry about the little guys as they are more constantly under threat of attack by the other power blocks.

Batolemaeus
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.01.20 16:34:00 - [242]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Originally by: Mara Rinn
Some people with very short memories out there. Anyone would think that EVE has always had sovereignty and POSes and jump bridges.


That's... interesting, since people are pointing out the fact that coalitions and "blobs" have been in EVE since long before JB's and the sov system and removing them won't effect that but will get rid of a good game mechanic for no good reason.



JB have next to nothing to do with the fabled "blob" at all. I don't get why people are still trying so hard to shoot themselves in the foot by repeating this fallacy over and over again. It is doing this proposal a huge disservice.

The problem of JB is one of force projection, travel speed and the ease of defending large territories, and how eve got a lot smaller due to that. High numbers are only tangentially a result of this.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.20 17:30:00 - [243]
 

Originally by: Batolemaeus

JB have next to nothing to do with the fabled "blob" at all.


Yes, they also have next to nothing to do with power blocs forming, but people allege that, too. But as Marlona demonstrates, what's really going on is that some people are angry at coalitions, and they think that removing JB's will hurt coalitions, so they're for it. Hell, even Greyscale's logic is apparently that coalitions are bad, so he'd like to try to break them up.

It seems to be the school of "EVE is based around player-created empires and player-driven content and, wait, you are player-creating wrong! Do it the way I'd do it if I was creating it, player!"

Originally by: Batolemaeus

The problem of JB is one of force projection, travel speed and the ease of defending large territories, and how eve got a lot smaller due to that. High numbers are only tangentially a result of this.


See, even there the effect is being overstated. During the invasion of the Drone Regions recently, thousands of pilots hauled all their gear down to the lowsec systems within jump range of the combat zone, and we made significant gains. That was 100% without jump bridges playing any effect once stores were moved to the front lines. Even RAGE's advance in the north-east wasn't truly dependent on jump bridges and, generally, was simply speeded up by, what, 15 minutes, a half hour?

That wouldn't have made any real difference in terms of invasions.

And defenders have the luxury of stront timeing and sov structure timing and so on. You don't need to make it for the first attack and can easily ready a defense for the second even if you need to travel 15 extra jumps (or 30).

The ability to raise a fleet of pilots who are willing to spend hours on an op is what enables force projection. Not bridges, not titan bridging, not cynos. And with jump clones, even time isn't all that much of an issue. Move a fleet down to attack an objective, dock up in lowsec/NPC 0.0 and clone jump back to your HQ if you need to defend something.

You could nerf jump drives, jump bridges, jump bridging and, hell, reduce ships' warp velocity by 90%, and a bunch of players who are willing to go X jumps to attack a target will still be able to project force.

Originally by: Jagga Spikes

sandbox or not, you can only do what tools let you.


Yes, and changing the tools that people are using because you don't like how they're choosing to play in the sandbox means that you've no longer got a sandbox game. If the objection is "people should be using these tools to fight each other, not cooperate", as it certainly is as suggested by CCP, then it's bull****.

The role of CCP is not to determine what the political landscape of the sandbox will look like, that's the job of the people playing the game.

Originally by: Marlona Sky

putting as many people into once system to lag it out, is a tactic and a strategy.


Give proof or retract that any powerbloc, in the game, deliberately tries to induce lag rather than simply bringing a bunch of folks and not caring about lag.

Originally by: Marlona Sky

Also their version of good PvP is 50 of them verses 5 of you. Also with you not loading grid.


As is well known, lag only effects one side in a battle, it can smell reds like wolves smell fear.


Originally by: Marlona Sky
Finnagain, it is extremely entertaining


Yes yes, brilliant factual refutation. Or ad hominem bull... hrmm... yah, on second thought, definitely not the factual refutation one.
Feel free to actually address the facts and the arguments made. It's neat.

Land0 CaIrissian
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2011.01.20 17:56:00 - [244]
 

1 Jump bridge per constellation.

Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Spikes Chop Shop
Posted - 2011.01.20 17:57:00 - [245]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
...
Originally by: Jagga Spikes

sandbox or not, you can only do what tools let you.


Yes, and changing the tools that people are using because you don't like how they're choosing to play in the sandbox means that you've no longer got a sandbox game. If the objection is "people should be using these tools to fight each other, not cooperate", as it certainly is as suggested by CCP, then it's bull****.

The role of CCP is not to determine what the political landscape of the sandbox will look like, that's the job of the people playing the game.
...



but they do have to determine validity of a tool. it's CCP job to say whether tool is or is not performing what it was built for. once players find unintended uses, it's on CCP to either legalize such use or prevent it. it can't be any other way. players will always push whatever they can to win. that's natural. some ways of playing will be found lacking and ignored. these ignored options are either removed or improved, because maintaining ignored options is waste of resources. that's what balance cycles do.

you can't really put CCP out of game. they have to have at least some vision where all of it is going. while they should not have a say on who should be controlling space, they most certainly should care how is controlling done.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.20 18:08:00 - [246]
 

What unintended uses are we talking about though, seriously? People weren't using JB's to get into Jove space or anything. The bridges are serving exactly as intended.

What they weren't 'intended' to do, evidently, is aid groups that want to cooperate (past a certain arbitrary threshold). But that's not how you design a tool. If you want to design a tool that lets people move around, then that's its use. If you want to design a tool to make politics in a player-driven game turn out the way you want, then that's not a tool, that's altering game mechanics to stop players from creating the content and driving the game.

Which is fine, I guess, if that's the goal and CCP is honest about it. If CCP came out tomorrow and said "EVE is no longer a player-driven game with player-created political content. Instead, groups of players will have to adhere to Official CCP guidelines. They are as follows..."

Now, it'd be a different game, and one many of us probably wouldn't want to play anymore, but it'd at least be straight forward. But this "It's a sandbox... hey, you're sandboxing wrong!" stuff is absurd.

Quote:

you can't really put CCP out of game. they have to have at least some vision where all of it is going. while they should not have a say on who should be controlling space, they most certainly should care how is controlling done.


Their vision used to be "EVE is the biggest MMO on the market where players create and control their own destines and politics is a vibrant and interesting part of the game. It's a game where thousands of people, from all parts of the world, can fight over one single objective that is persistent and matters."

That doesn't seem to be the vision anymore.

They also don't have a leg to stand on, assuming that politics are player-created, when they try to dictate how that controlling is done. If my political system is to force my neighbors to mine minerals and pay tribute to me so I don't attack them, why is that any more or less valid, in a sandbox game, than blueing my neighbor and kicking the head in of some guy across the map? Or setting all my neighbors red. Or setting the entire universe red and only accepting mercenary contracts.

Or whatever.

EVE is either a game whose politics and content are created and driven by players, or it's a game whose politics and content are created by CCP. But if it is, CCP needs to be explicit in the fact that they're changing their model.

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.01.20 18:45:00 - [247]
 

FinnAgain Zero, I am aware that a dedicated PvP alliance with 20+ gangs and 10+ stealth bombers can effectively camp a JB. I also know that after the first kill they would be scouted (enemy becomes aware of their JB camp) and warns everyone in the intel chat. At which time a counter-blob would be organized and sent again thru the JB

JB are pretty good at organizing alliance blobs and projecting power over long distances. But none of that is good for small scale fights, or even for GOOD fights

I spend nearly all my time in 0.0, for years and years, and I very rarely see hostiles camping JBs. I know it happens when there's a big fleet battle / POS bashing op, but not on regular days.

Casual PvP suffers due to lack of stargate traffic. Being able to quickly organize a huge blob is often worse than having a smaller blob - as you just scare off the hostiles needlessly so they don't bother engaging. How often do alliance PvPers spend time just waiting? waiting for hours until FC says it's time to do something?

Dunno about you, but I find that very boring. And that's what PvP is becoming - just lots of waiting and mega blob fighting. That's what JB promote. JB discourage everything else - as they reduce stargate traffic

Gallians
Posted - 2011.01.20 18:51:00 - [248]
 

ITT: Strawmen.

The problem is that it is currently trivial to project force and large fleets across the game in no time.

The problem is that Jump bridges, titan bridges and cynos are not working as intended.

Who determines what is "working as intended"? CCP would be my guess.

This is not a discussion about whether 0.0 has devolved into a safer than empire land of love where powers are completely entrenched and impossible to move due to said force protection. And personally I don't care too much if CCP likes Finn's friends, the NC, IT, or whoever or not. Things are, as determined by CCP "not working as intended".

It was not the intent of CCP to have highways that spawn the whole game. And it is the intent of CCP to change this.

And this is something that (probably quite contrary to the desires of the person that started this thread, and Finn) is supported by a vast amount of players.

Furthermore as if Finn claims, its possible to project the same force without Jump Bridges and keep his coalitions intact, then there is no grounds to oppose their removal as they won't affect any of the elements Finn seems to support, other than the "highway connecting everything" aspect which the playerbase, and more importantly CCP wants gone.

Because its not working as intended. As stated by the Devs of the system. And personally I trust them more to know what they intended or not than Finn who quite obviously has an underlaying agenda of "leave things the way they are because I like them" and strawmen about player created politics.

And really, if the system changes and the players change their politics, NC is no longer the super friends, or whatever, does it stop being player controlled politics? are the players replaced by aliens or something?

Fact is CCP has changed SOV mechanics a large number of times, and well, most mechanics in general beyond "ships blow up when exploded". They want to do so again and get rid of a broken system that makes space small, moving blobs trivial, attrition impossible, and attack and defense riskless by allowing the same fleet to do both. Basically, to bring RISK to the part of the game with the greatest REWARDS.

I missed the part where empire and low should be HTFU and 0.0, hello kitty online. I am sure a grave for jump bridges is right next to the one for the learnings. And they will be about as missed.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.20 18:53:00 - [249]
 

Originally by: Ephemeron
FinnAgain Zero, I am aware that a dedicated PvP alliance with 20+ gangs and 10+ stealth bombers can effectively camp a JB. I also know that after the first kill they would be scouted (enemy becomes aware of their JB camp) and warns everyone in the intel chat. At which time a counter-blob would be organized and sent again thru the JB


You do know what the most likely outcome is when a "blob" jumps through a JB with a dictor already waiting on the other side and a wave or two of bombers at pounce points above the jB, right?

Originally by: Ephemeron

JB are pretty good at organizing alliance blobs and projecting power over long distances. But none of that is good for small scale fights, or even for GOOD fights


Why is the game supposed to be about small scale fights? If you want to find a small group of people to fight with your small group of people, more power to you. But it's obvious that lots of people enjoy large scale PvP. Why is their way of enjoying the game any less valid than yours?

As for "GOOD fights" I'm just going to leave that one alone.

Originally by: Ephemeron

I spend nearly all my time in 0.0, for years and years, and I very rarely see hostiles camping JBs. I know it happens when there's a big fleet battle / POS bashing op, but not on regular days.


Whether or not players chose to do it (again, sandbox) is not relevant to whether or not they can.

Originally by: Ephemeron

Casual PvP suffers due to lack of stargate traffic.


Why is it CCP's job to funnel targets into your guns and make sure that your style of play, casual PvP, is boosted? Why don't you join Red vs Blue?

Originally by: Ephemeron
And that's what PvP is becoming - just lots of waiting and mega blob fighting. That's what JB promote. JB discourage everything else - as they reduce stargate traffic


With stargate traffic generally you'll only gank lone targets anyways, as any half-decent fleet will have you scouted and then whether or not they choose to jump into you will be the same whether or not they took JB's to get to you.

And if your only concern is getting ganks on stargates, then ganking ratters or getting ganks on JB's should do just fine.

Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Spikes Chop Shop
Posted - 2011.01.20 18:56:00 - [250]
 

Edited by: Jagga Spikes on 20/01/2011 18:56:55
EVE is a created closed game system. it's built by CCP according to certain specifications. it only allows players to do what system is designed to do by the developer. any unintended action is effectively an exploit (whether bug or "feature"), to be addressed by devs. maybe this breaks your vision of EVE, but that's the truth. that did not change since beginning.

if you want a specific example regarding jump bridges: yes, jump bridges allow people to move around, and that's it's use. however, speed and cost of moving is what CCP has every right and duty to control. while players may have ideas what such speed and cost should be, it's CCP that has to decide based on what CCP wants.

Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.01.20 18:58:00 - [251]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Feel free to actually address the facts and the arguments made. It's neat.



People have been addressing facts about what jump bridges doing left and right all through the forums. You just have the mindset to spin their words, lie, throw out statements like they are the law of all things, use scare tactics like saying, "It will just cause larger blobs", "You only hurt yourself", "It will kill any hope of small alliances in 0.0", etc.... or just flat out ignore what people are saying.

The bottom line is you are scared. You are scared that your 22,000 (or is it higher?) man super coalition will shatter. You are scared to have enemies that are closer than three regions away. You are scared that you will have to *gasp* use resources in your area to get supplies from instead of having everything stamped with "Made in Jita" all over it. The thing you are scared of most, is effort. This is not WoW or Hello Kitty Online. Effort should yield reward. You have it in your mind that it will be the end of the game as we know it if the jump bridge is removed. You like to sling "Adapt or die!" around all the damn time. So I say to you, if CCP does remove jump bridges... Adapt or die!

Me personally, I don't like coalitions. Never have. Even before jump bridges. There is already a lot of mechanics to enable people to be ~friends~ in the game. You can be in the same corp, and then if enough corps like each other, you can make an alliance. This is fine. A couple of alliances want to be blue to accomplish a goal, now we are starting to get out of hand.

The best example of going over the top with standings of course is the Northern Coalition. How many alliances are blue to each other? I mean including renters and pets (sorry but your part of it even if you claim your not, if your blue your in) I mean it is something like 30+ or something. Perhaps someone could post actual numbers of alliances in the NC and total member count.

If anything, it is just like Super Carriers. One or two on the battlefield is one thing, but when you put like 30+... well, now you hopefully understand what I mean. Oh, and those 30+ super caps are attacking 4 Ferox's and Iteron Mark V. That is the issue. Your just too blind with rage at the idea of having to put forth effort in 0.0 again when it comes to logistics and power projection. But hey, you have your mind made up and even when presented with endless facts, you just choose to ignore/spin everything in hopes that people will change their mind and think power blocks are good for 0.0.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.01.20 19:19:00 - [252]
 

Edited by: Hirana Yoshida on 20/01/2011 19:28:55
If you want evidence of how bridges have completely taken over transport in null, take a look at jump statistics on map.
One should think that with presumably tens of thousands of people ratting, mining, pew'ing all over the place, that stargates would be seeing a lot more activity (less than 15/hr or so for the most part).

Want to bet that bridge traffic are an order of magnitude higher in most parts of null?

It is fine to have them as a supplement or augmentation to normal gates but not as what is probably closer to a replacement.

They need to be restricted in some way, either by number or function:
- 1 per 2 constellations in a region still allows for ease of movement, or
- Limit them to industrial type ships letting Titans handle military matters.

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.01.20 19:34:00 - [253]
 

As far as "good" fighting goes, one can make an RTS analogy (EVE is a bit similar to RTS)

Lets say you are playing Starcraft or any other RTS, but with 1 new feature: instant teleportation gates that you can setup all over the map. In addition to being able to teleport, these little things also act as strong turret and have a area force field that makes your force invulnerable while they are inside it.

Now think carefully what kind of gameplay that would create.

Naturally you'd set a couple of them in your base, and as you move toward the enemy on other end of the map, you setup more and more of them. You start by building up forces in your home base and then quickly teleporting them to enemy doorstep. If it so happens that you didn't scout properly and enemy already has a force very near your base, you don't need to worry as you just use the teleportation devices to quickly return home, defend your base.

What would be the point of strategic manuevering? would there ever be a need to have more than just 1 huge blob? 1 blob can be anywhere you need it to be fast, if you got those teleportation devices. Not to forget that you can always "get safe" in the force field, if your enemy brings stronger force.

I'm sure such RTS would be amusing to play for a while - a short while - but as the novelty of it wears off, any serious strategy gamer would see how "lame" the whole game is. They would feel it instinctively as wrong. Because they would feel the limitation of viable strategy choices imposed by the rules of the game.

If you honestly believe that you would enjoy such RTS more than traditional ones, and not just for a couple days, then I guess it's your preference for simplistic war games. It can't be helped I suppose.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.20 19:42:00 - [254]
 

Originally by: Jagga Spikes
any unintended action is effectively an exploit (whether bug or "feature"), to be addressed by devs. maybe this breaks your vision of EVE


That doesn't have anything to do with my vision for EVE. We've already established that people aren't using JB's as an exploit, but 100% in accord with the function as was developed.

Originally by: Jagga Spikes
however, speed and cost of moving is what CCP has every right and duty to control.


They do. But 1) just because they can do something doesn't mean that it's a good idea and 2) If they want to do something, explicitly, in order to disrupt the sandbox and prevent certain political alignments, then it becomes in violation of what CCP has said EVE is all about.

Originally by: Marlona Sky

spin their words, lie, throw out statements like they are the law of all things, use scare tactics like saying, "It will just cause larger blobs", "You only hurt yourself", "It will kill any hope of small alliances in 0.0",


Ahh, the Argument from Nuhn Unhhh!!! A breath of fresh air, as always.
Obviously, if there were any truth to anything you're claiming, you could quote what happened and refute my claims. You can't, because you made it all up. It's also ironic to see you lying in order to make up **** and claim I ever did. All the quotes you've used, for instance, are fabricated. But please, do point out where I've lied, for example.

Originally by: Marlona Sky

You are scared


Ahhh, the ever-popular ad hominem fallacy, coupled with Internet Psychology. Convincing.

Originally by: Marlona Sky

Me personally, I don't like coalitions.


~gasp!!!~

Originally by: Marlona Sky

A couple of alliances want to be blue to accomplish a goal, now we are starting to get out of hand.


Not to belabor the obvious, but you're playing EVE. People get to play the game the way they like it, including fighting and helping who they like. If you don't like it, that's too bad.

Originally by: Marlona Sky

Oh, and those 30+ super caps are attacking 4 Ferox's and Iteron Mark V.


Not to belabor the obvious, again, but you're playing EVE.A fair fight is an error on someone's part. If someone wants to gank your cruiser with a Vindicator? Sucks to be you. For balanced combat, you need to seek instanced combat with level restrictions. Ya know, like WoW.

Originally by: Marlona Sky

But hey, you have your mind made up and even when presented with endless facts


Yah, again, why don't you actually point out any of my arguments that you claim are wrong, and show why, rather than lying and/or just playing the Argument From Nuhn Uhhn! Come on, you obviously think my position is wrong. Try to show where it's wrong, and why.

Originally by: Marlona Sky

power blocks are good for 0.0.


One last thing. I'll point out that this is a further piece of dishonesty. I think the idea of "good" or "bad" "for 0.0" is an absurdity. People will play the game as they see fit. For those who enjoy it, it'll be "good" for them. For those who don't, it'll be "bad" for them. There is hardly a Goodness O' Meter to detect how good any political landscape is. People will form political structures as they see fit, that's what player-created, player-driven content means.

You saying that you should be able to force other people to play the game the way you like rather than allowing them to play the game the way they choose is hardly what's "good" for anything, other than you.

Now care to address my actual argument?

Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Spikes Chop Shop
Posted - 2011.01.20 19:58:00 - [255]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Originally by: Jagga Spikes
any unintended action is effectively an exploit (whether bug or "feature"), to be addressed by devs. maybe this breaks your vision of EVE


That doesn't have anything to do with my vision for EVE. We've already established that people aren't using JB's as an exploit, but 100% in accord with the function as was developed.
...



you are taking statements out of context. my point was that what you call a "sandbox" is a limited system based on limited resources designed for a purpose. you can't blame CCP they want to "break your sandbox" because they have to maintain systems they designed.

Time Funnel
Posted - 2011.01.20 20:07:00 - [256]
 

Edited by: Time Funnel on 20/01/2011 20:10:31
The reason that there are blobs and powerblocs in EVE is to hold space. They are needed because of Sov mechanics. Period.

It is sov mechanics, not jump bridges which are causing blobs. If people don't need to put up with their neighbors ****, they won't.

Originally by: Ephemeron
Dunno about you, but I find that very boring. And that's what PvP is becoming - just lots of waiting and mega blob fighting.


Becoming? PvP in EVE has always been waiting, and boring. Then a few moments of terror. It seems that you are attacking alliances which are organized and co-ordinated. That will be difficult with a small force.

*now I attempt to be constructive*

If blob warfare is the "problem" and there needs to be more "skirmish" warfare, then game mechanics can usually be blamed. I personally enjoy blob warfare, but not shooting stuff to claim or protect sovereignty.

Whatever :ccp: decides to do, I think they are on the correct path just moving slooww. Make every system deeper and more interesting with Planetary Interaction, multiple stations, tons of wormholes and scannable stuff. Make it so that PI, mining, and manufacturing can provide the necessary materials for self-sustaining corporations who never have to leave their constellation. The SOV mechanics absolutely require blobs to take and hold space. If you can't drive off 50 Capitals, you have very little chance to take and hold space in 0.0...

So if taking space requires blobs, those who form blobs hold space.

Sov mechanics need a sort of bottom-up path as well as blob-oriented. If you cannot take sov without "boots on the ground" it will become a fight, planet-by-planet that a reasonably well-funded corp of say 100 people could actually claim a region without attacking the TCUs, SBUs, etc after say 2 weeks if not driven back.

Increasing the depth of each system will prevent systems from being a notch in an alliances belt, forcing them to "skirmish" and pay constant attention to a system so it will become more difficult to hold a lot of space.

It seems like we are suffering the interim of planned software releases. With the incredibly smooth deployment of incursion 1.1 I guess CCP is sorta getting their quality under control. Maybe we will see walking-in-stations and dust 514 released soon, which I think will both change the nature of space.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.20 20:18:00 - [257]
 

Originally by: Time Funnel

The reason that there are blobs and powerblocs in EVE is to hold space. They are needed because of Sov mechanics. Period.



That's really only one reason. Any objective of sufficient value will cause a "blob". Tech moon? "Blob". CSAA building a titan? "Blob". Vulnerable supercapital fleet that's bubbled? "Blob".

Any objective worth taking is generally going to be worth attacking, and defending, with everything you have.

Originally by: Jagga Spikes

you are taking statements out of context.


No, I'm not. Jump bridges are not an exploit. They are not a tool being used contrary to its designed purpose. They are a tool being used exactly as designed in accord with game mechanics as intended.

POS Bowling was an exploit. JB's are not.

Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Spikes Chop Shop
Posted - 2011.01.20 20:22:00 - [258]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
...
Originally by: Jagga Spikes

you are taking statements out of context.


No, I'm not. Jump bridges are not an exploit. They are not a tool being used contrary to its designed purpose. They are a tool being used exactly as designed in accord with game mechanics as intended.

POS Bowling was an exploit. JB's are not.


/facepalm

dude, you need to relax and take a deep breath.

Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.01.20 20:47:00 - [259]
 

Originally by: Jagga Spikes
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
...
Originally by: Jagga Spikes

you are taking statements out of context.


No, I'm not. Jump bridges are not an exploit. They are not a tool being used contrary to its designed purpose. They are a tool being used exactly as designed in accord with game mechanics as intended.

POS Bowling was an exploit. JB's are not.


/facepalm

dude, you need to relax and take a deep breath.


He is just arguing to argue at this point. He keeps screaming for people to present facts but he has as of yet to do the same.

Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Posted - 2011.01.20 20:52:00 - [260]
 

Originally by: Ephemeron
As far as "good" fighting goes, one can make an RTS analogy (EVE is a bit similar to RTS)

Lets say you are playing Starcraft or any other RTS, but with 1 new feature: instant teleportation gates that you can setup all over the map. In addition to being able to teleport, these little things also act as strong turret and have a area force field that makes your force invulnerable while they are inside it.

Now think carefully what kind of gameplay that would create.


Incidentally, a 'tunnel network' exactly matching this specification was included in C&C: Generals, an RTS game released several years ago, but only the terrorist side (with weaker individual units) had access to it, and only 10 or so units could be stored inside at any one time.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.20 21:18:00 - [261]
 

Originally by: Jagga Spikes
any unintended action is effectively an exploit (whether bug or "feature"), to be addressed by devs. maybe this breaks your vision of EVE
Originally by: Finn

That doesn't have anything to do with my vision for EVE. We've already established that people aren't using JB's as an exploit, but 100% in accord with the function as was developed.



Originally by: Jagga Spikes
Originally by: Finn

Jump bridges are not an exploit. They are not a tool being used contrary to its designed purpose. They are a tool being used exactly as designed in accord with game mechanics as intended.

POS Bowling was an exploit. JB's are not.


/facepalm



I accept that you wish to concede the argument and cannot provide any factual refutations. Thank you.

Originally by: Marlona Sky
He keeps screaming for people to present facts but he has as of yet to do the same.


I Zeee. Do you normally hear ze text as doing ze 'skreemink', and do you know what ze color blue tastes like? Veddy veddy intereztink.

Speaking of all the lies you posted earlier, care to back any of them up? Or post on my actual argument instead of trolling? As for your lie here about me not posting facts, of course I have.

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

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

Gallians
Posted - 2011.01.20 21:21:00 - [262]
 

Edited by: Gallians on 20/01/2011 21:26:19
CCP say that jump bridges and sov mechanics are not working as intended and wish to change them/get rid of them as per their own statements.

I would say that CCP are more of an authority and reliable source than Finnigan is regarding the game that CCP makes, CCP sells, and CCP develops.

I think that should put whether they work as intended to rest: They do not.


Joethelions
Caldari
Perkone

Posted - 2011.01.20 21:23:00 - [263]
 

Edited by: Joethelions on 20/01/2011 21:23:36
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero


No, I'm not. Jump bridges are not an exploit. They are not a tool being used contrary to its designed purpose. They are a tool being used exactly as designed in accord with game mechanics as intended.

POS Bowling was an exploit. JB's are not.


JBs are being used to transport fleets of over 300+ 50+ jumps and often times more than two regions in a space of 6 warps.

Who the hell are you to say whether this is their designed purpose? (Here's a tip: this probably isn't their intended purpose.)

edit: In conclusion, you're a ****** who doesn't want to lose his blob mechanics.

CSM is right on the money.

DogFACE1
Posted - 2011.01.20 21:35:00 - [264]
 

I really think the logical solution is to do one of two things.

1) Only allow 1 JB per constellation. (imo, best option)

2) Only allow 1 JB per system.

I've lived the null-sec life, I've had the chance to basically go from Period Basis to Outer Ring with using only a handful of gates. I simply think we should do away with the ability to spam JBs in any and every system.

1 per constellation seems, in theory, to be awesome. You can still move around with relative ease and keep logistics up (with a bit more work, ofc) -- however the JB now plays a much larger strategic role. Which system do I link? what other constellations in range will be missed if you we do X instead of Y? One could argue that this would just bring about the rise of titan taxi's, but the human element required makes it hit or miss, which is good. (i.e. you're only as mobile as the people you have online)

I don't think it's appropriate to remove JBs. I actually think a complete removal would actually hinder overall population in a lot of deeper null-sec.

OR, just say screw it and allow anybody with the JB password to use them, friend or foe. Add a little spice.

Batolemaeus
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.01.20 21:51:00 - [265]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero

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



From that list:

1. Strawman argument. Nobody is denying it, it's not why JB should be nerfed.
2. Strawman. JB have nothing to do with it.
3. Irrelevant, this is about force projection on the defensive primarily, and secondarily about it being easier on an offensive. Eye of terror anyone?
4. Strawman. Nobody cares.
5. UMI->Fountain back and forth: 30 minutes, including making bms for an entire fleet. Entire trip: Less than 2 hours. Shot some venal moons afterwards. Force projection literally across the map.

Your example about the drone region deployment is completely moot. JB are used to quickly project force on a smaller scale and much more spontaneus. The spontanity is what's making them so damaging.


Stop creating strawmen arguments all the time. The problem with JB lies where overstreched empires compensate overexpansion by rapid movement through bridges and where it is used to effectively render scouting pointless. They've cut down travel speed and made it possible to reach even backwater constellations without problems, create highly defensible fortresses (see fortress tribute) and eliminate the need for travel by gates almost entirely. (camp on the h-w gate in d7? Just use a jb around it..)

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.20 22:19:00 - [266]
 

Originally by: Batolemaeus

1. Strawman argument.


I've already corrected you on this point, please don't replicate your errors. Greyscale specifically stated that part of his desire to get rid of JB's was to break up coalitions. Since coalitions existed before JB's, obviously introducing JB's is independent of the existence of coalitions.

Originally by: Batolemaeus

2. Strawman.


Do you understand what a strawman is? My point is that JB's have nothing to do with it, despite people's claims that "blobbing" is related to them. I see that you're agreeing with my point. Why you're calling it a strawman is anybody's guess.

Originally by: Batolemaeus

3. Irrelevant


You're not even reading before you post off-the-cuff answers? I already pointed out that JB's only allows fleets to zip back on the defensive in theory, and in fact they're almost always spent and not ready for hours more PvP. I also pointed out that with timers being what they are, you don't need to get back.

You are, also, evidently ignorant of what's going on. The issue of force projection, especially as brought up by Greyscale, explicitly included offensive deployments across the galactic map.

Originally by: Batolemaeus

4. Strawman.


Okay, you definitely don't understand what a strawman is.
You are also evidently not even reading the thread, as I just got done, on this very page of the thread, with a discussion I had with someone claiming that one reason JB's had to go is that it's so hard to gank ships coming through them. Numerous other people have also claimed that JB's have to go because they offer "complete" or "virtual" safety.

Originally by: Batolemaeus

5. UMI->Fountain back and forth: 30 minutes


Mmm hmmm. UMI to PNQ is 19 jumps, with JB's. It's a whole (gasp!) 10 more jumps without JB's. Obviously, that 10 minutes is game breaking.
You are also ignoring what I actually pointed out, which is that after a deployment that can last hours, most pilots do not have the energy left to go back and get into another hours long fight. The number of jumps involved is inconsequential, the time investment is what's at issue. Which is why I pointed out that the benefit of JB's is deceptive if it's not looked at in context.

Originally by: Batolemaeus

eliminate the need for travel by gates almost entirely.


Yep, as pointed out that's a benefit of ownership; you get to modify the chokepoint landscape. And as pointed out by me and then handwaved by you, you can be ganked on a JB just like a gate, too.

Originally by: Batolemaeus

Your example about the drone region deployment is completely moot.


In other words, it shows you are wrong as it's perfectly possible, and indeed often the chosen method, to deploy without using JB's and without needing them at all. Especially for an invasion in which the invaders do not have even the potential to use JB's as they're in systems where their enemies still have sov.

Originally by: Batolemaeus

Stop creating strawmen arguments all the time.


Figure out WTF a strawman is before you try to argue against them. That's just basic.

Originally by: Batolemaeus

The problem with JB lies where overstreched empires compensate overexpansion by rapid movement through bridges


10 jumps saved UMI to PNQY. Your point does not hold, and defense is and was perfectly possible, with rapid reactions, before JB's. Saving a handfull of minutes is hardly game breaking.

Originally by: Batolemaeus

it is used to effectively render scouting pointless.


If your FC's are clueless, I suppose. A good FC knows the enemy JB network (and titan POS's) and has scouts watching them.

Originally by: Batolemaeus
create highly defensible fortresses


Mmm hmmm. Just like Sov 4 was unbreakable and couldn't be shattered, until the Great War II when we broke and shattered BoB's allies' Sov 4. And Tribute wouldn't be defensible without JB's. Nawww. UMI to M-O without JB's?

A crushing seven whole jumps.
Through the snow. Uphill. Both ways.

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.01.20 22:27:00 - [267]
 

The main arguments have been presented and rehashed several times. There's no need to keep posting, unless you have something new to add.

We need more information from CCP to continue

Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.01.20 22:48:00 - [268]
 

CCP should just remove the ability for anyone to use a jump bridge if they have standings and a password. There is no other module that lets someone outside of the alliance, standings blue or not, be able to use it. Outside of being able to go in a POS force field. Which should be changed too.

They should just do a patch right now that eliminates blues from using jump bridges and going in a POS force field even if they are blue. You don't see a blue manning a POS gun on a blues POS just because they are blue do you?

So Finnagain, I suppose you don't think there is a problem with super carriers do you? I mean to change them at all would qualify this game as no longer being a sandbox according to your rules.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.20 23:59:00 - [269]
 

Originally by: Ephemeron
There's no need to keep posting, unless you have something new to add.



Unlike posting to tell someone else to stop posting.
That's important.

Originally by: Marlona Sky

So Finnagain


So Marlona, you going to actually address anything I've said, ever?
Maybe just for a change?

Originally by: Marlona Sky

I mean to change them at all would qualify this game as no longer being a sandbox according to your rules.


Honestly, I'm not sure if that's a troll or if you simply don't understand what I've said, at all. This is why it would help if you respond to my actual argument rather than lying about things I haven't actually said or using the Argument from Nuhn Uhnn!

Changing how things work is not sandbox breaking. I've never said it is, and I think you probably know that. What I did say, correctly, is that altering mechanics in order to change the political landscape of player-created, player-generated content, violates the principles of a sandbox game.

Do you honestly not understand the distinction between "Rockets need to be boosted so that ships that use them will be more balanced." or "supers are currently not able to be countered effectively by something other than supers, and we'd like to change that." and "We need to come up with gameplay and mechanics changes so we can try to hurt certain political groups and try to get them to fragment and to change the player-created content so that it's the way we want it, not the way the players create it."

Really? Because, honestly, I'm at a loss to figure out what about that is unclear to you. Can you clarify what exactly you don't grok?

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.01.21 00:09:00 - [270]
 

some people just can't take a hint


Pages: first : previous : ... 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 ... : 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