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 : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : last (21)

Author Topic

Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
Posted - 2011.01.19 02:09:00 - [211]
 

Originally by: Sepheir Sepheron
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.


Paskis Robinson
SPORADIC MOVEMENT
Merciless.
Posted - 2011.01.19 02:55:00 - [212]
 

It's a 'no' vote from me as it stands; the 'projection of power' problem isn't only a jump bridge problem. It's a Jump bridge / cyno / we can move 500 ships to defend an ihub 3 regions away which allows us to hold 30 stations problem. As long as 'cost of owning system < profit from owning system or renting it out' is true, then the will to grab more space and fill it with pets or renters (pets who have to buy their own petfood) will be strong.

Whatever the solution is, it needs to make it much harder to project power and hold huge swaths of space. JBs are probably part of the solution but not all of it.

TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2011.01.19 04:45:00 - [213]
 

Edited by: TeaDaze on 19/01/2011 04:45:55
Jump bridges were discussed along with a number of other things that CCP have been mulling over. The CSM didn't just agree blindly with CCP's ideas and other options were also discussed. Any changes to 0.0 would be part of a proper iteration not just a nurf to JB. Logistics etc might be changed but there were all kinds of other things discussed that might make that unnecessary.

As things like JB and logistics were CCP pitching ideas of course there are no CSM proposals on this and it was impossible to discuss the issues with the players before hand. Yes the CSM had some ideas from previous discussions but should CCP want to further discuss iteration on 0.0 the players will be consulted and it won't be just the current CSM.

Of course CCP reserve the right to do whatever they like no matter how much the CSM or players as a whole say.


So with that out of the way, CCP think that it is an issue that shared jump bridge networks allow people to cross the universe in a relativity short time. Yes it takes an investment and coordination to pull it off, but it also makes it less risky to attack another region if you can quickly return home to defend with the same fleet.

Rather than calling everyone ******ed, you have to explain to CCP why this isn't really an issue. CSM have already stated both sides of this argument.


Of all the ideas I was personally interested in drive spool up time based on jump distance as well as sized cynos. Only if it is done right of course (cue the :lolccp: comments Wink)

Anyway the message over all wasn't "CSM want to nerf Jump Bridges" it was "CSM want CCP to commit to iterating on 0.0 including fixing Sov (treaties etc) and taking a look at supercap roles". It remains to be seen if they will dedicate the development to it...

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.19 10:46:00 - [214]
 

Originally by: TeaDaze
The CSM didn't just agree blindly with CCP's ideas and other options were also discussed.


Just so it's clear then, did the entire CSM agree that JB's could (should?) be removed from the game, or was it just the three CSM delegates who said they had no problem removing them?
Were there other changes discussed wrt JB's, or was the mega-nerf the only on on the table?

Originally by: TeaDaze

So with that out of the way, CCP think that it is an issue that shared jump bridge networks allow people to cross the universe in a relativity short time.


Again, to clarify, the minutes made it seem that the real objection wasn't so much travel speed, but that CCP doesn't like coalitions or how the playerbase has divided up nullsec space. And, essentially, CCP was trying to find game mechanics ways to change how players cooperate in nullsec.

Is that accurate, or am I misreading the minutes/the minutes misstated what happened?

Originally by: TeaDaze
you have to explain to CCP why this isn't really an issue. CSM have already stated both sides of this argument.


Can you link to and/or summarize what the CSM stated as the best arguments for both sides? It'd be a bit easier to address the meat of the issue if we know what's already been said and what we're responding to.

Originally by: TeaDaze

Of all the ideas I was personally interested in drive spool up


I will support this only if you work to get the Nyx model changed to a Battlestar.

Turrican
Mercurialis Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.19 11:34:00 - [215]
 

Edited by: Turrican on 19/01/2011 11:41:22
Agreed it would be a good thing for them to go.

But as long as you have Titan Bridges as well this will simply increase demand for "Titans Online" which is EVEN WORSE.....

So on balance, I would rather have Jump Bridges than Titans.....

Javajunky
Posted - 2011.01.19 11:49:00 - [216]
 

Crap like this is why the CSM is just a bunch of @ss clowns. Nothing but a PR joke. All that space will become nothing more than low sec unclaimed territory because alliances won't want to pay a sov bill for something that can move resources or assets to without making it an 8-hour g0d damn project.

You guys are absolutely worthless. I will gladly pod each and every one of you if I ever get the opportunity.

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.01.19 12:55:00 - [217]
 

Edited by: Scatim Helicon on 19/01/2011 12:55:41
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?

Nuts Nougat
SniggWaffe
FREE KARTTOON NOW
Posted - 2011.01.19 13:25:00 - [218]
 

Edited by: Nuts Nougat on 19/01/2011 13:25:58
Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Edited by: Scatim Helicon on 19/01/2011 12:55:41
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?
Fact is, we want to gank your unscouted freighters. All there is to it. Right now we can't, because even when they might go unscouted, they will do so at a deathstar pos, no more than 1-2 jumps away (via jb) from your blob. You can keep your NAPs, we just want to weed out your dumb pilots.

Take JBs away and we can ambush your freighter unless it's escorted properly. And even then, we'll probably try and go for it anyway, so you'll only get more pvp, and also probably lose a couple freighters now and then.

Or, allow us to scramble/bubble JBs. If a JB is pointed or bubbled, noone can jump through, not even from the other side. This way bears get to keep their effort free logistics, but it allows someone to gank them without having a 100 man blob showing up 30 seconds after the freighter is tackled.

Also, I haven't been around before JBs, I've used JBs often, and I've done logistics to 0.0 both with and without JBs. And I still want them gone, along with local, jump freighters, and other such crap. And yes, I own a jump freighter too, and wouldn't want it gone, but that doesn't change the fact that it's ******edly overpowered.

TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2011.01.19 13:48:00 - [219]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Just so it's clear then, did the entire CSM agree that JB's could (should?) be removed from the game, or was it just the three CSM delegates who said they had no problem removing them?

It wasn't a session where CSM voted on ideas so there isn't anything recorded as to how many people supported the idea or not. Most people agreed that JBs should be looked at as part of a proper iteration on 0.0 (and fixing the Sov changes).


Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Were there other changes discussed wrt JB's, or was the mega-nerf the only on on the table?

Yes a number of other changes to JBs were discussed and some objections were also mentioned. It was a small part of the whole iterating on 0.0 discussion including "where are the fecking treaties".


Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Again, to clarify, the minutes made it seem that the real objection wasn't so much travel speed, but that CCP doesn't like coalitions or how the playerbase has divided up nullsec space. And, essentially, CCP was trying to find game mechanics ways to change how players cooperate in nullsec.

Is that accurate, or am I misreading the minutes/the minutes misstated what happened?

The two are related. With shared JB networks it is possible for a large group of blues to go help an ally many regions away and be back home in time for their own RF timers. CCP believe this to be a problem. They think that if JBs are scaled back in some way (plus other ideas, please understand that JBs will not be changed in isolation!) that alliances will find fights closer to home (even if that means resetting nearby blues).


Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Can you link to and/or summarize what the CSM stated as the best arguments for both sides? It'd be a bit easier to address the meat of the issue if we know what's already been said and what we're responding to.

I don't have the transcript here so I can't quote exactly. Also please note that CCP brought this up without prior warning so we only had 15-20 mins to discuss this stuff (which is why this was not a session with voting on ideas but more a discussion of areas to look at in future). So as a very high level summary:

On the one side you have scaling back JBs to make large naps less able to move their frontline to any part of their space so quickly (again for the X'th time this in combination with other things)

On the other side you concerns about making fleet logistics and movement through large areas of space more tedious (and that it would annoy Vuk).

I'm more interested to hear reasoned opinion from other players because passing that on to the right people at CCP is what we do.


Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
I will support this only if you work to get the Nyx model changed to a Battlestar.

I think it would be easier to modify the Hel, plus it needs some reason for people to fly it Wink

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.01.19 14:43:00 - [220]
 

Originally by: Scatim Helicon
... But clearly its all the fault of the jump bridges, right guys?

The big (read: extremely humongous) differences are that back then you had to plan campaigns thoroughly and in advance.
Allies on the periphery had to be able to hold their own, sometimes for days, until reinforcements could get there.

Strategy went out the window with bridges everywhere; you can no longer split a coalitions forces with multi-pronged assaults, you can attack + defend and be home for tea with one massive fleet.
War has become a casual instant gratification thing with far fewer people and intelligence needed .. I'd even say that the PvP'er/Carebear ratio in null took a nosedive when bridges became omnipresent as one hardcore group of Pew lovers can cover unlimited space.

In short: Yeah, bridges are pretty much to blame for amny of the null woes.

Time Funnel
Posted - 2011.01.19 19:36:00 - [221]
 

Originally by: TeaDaze
Edited by: TeaDaze on 19/01/2011 04:45:55

Of course CCP reserve the right to do whatever they like no matter how much the CSM or players as a whole say.



Sounds like someone wants to re-assert control of a situation. ;-)

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.01.19 20:05:00 - [222]
 

Originally by: Scatim Helicon
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?
I personally don't care what kind of NAP fests and power blocks there are in 0.0. I'm not trying to break EVE into smaller political entities.

The only thing I care about is good PvP, strategic and tactical

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.19 20:40:00 - [223]
 

Originally by: TeaDaze

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Again, to clarify, the minutes made it seem that the real objection wasn't so much travel speed, but that CCP doesn't like coalitions or how the playerbase has divided up nullsec space. And, essentially, CCP was trying to find game mechanics ways to change how players cooperate in nullsec.

Is that accurate, or am I misreading the minutes/the minutes misstated what happened?

The two are related. With shared JB networks it is possible for a large group of blues to go help an ally many regions away and be back home in time for their own RF timers. CCP believe this to be a problem. They think that if JBs are scaled back in some way (plus other ideas, please understand that JBs will not be changed in isolation!) that alliances will find fights closer to home (even if that means resetting nearby blues).


There are numerous problems with that, however. The first is that they aren't really related. We had huge coalitions before JB's were put into the game. We had a huge coalition fall apart, twice, even after JB's were put into the game. The second is that they don't actually work that way, anyways. PL's recent actions against the NC showed that not only was the NC not able to get back and forth easily, but they had to call off an entire invasion in order to go back home and deal with PL. I've also been in many large fleets over the years, and after hours of traveling, trying to load grid, fighting, reshipping, etc... the last thing a large fleet is normally fit to do is go racing across the map for another fight. People want to stand down, almost all the time.

It's also disturbing to see that CCP has set up a sandbox where players create the content and drive the storyline, and then CCP's decided that they're doing it wrong. The content and story shouldn't be able large power blocs, it should be able smaller ones. Well... why? Do the players decide what 0.0 looks like, or not? Because if we don't, then CCP needs to stop advertising the game as if players get to decide the politics in 0.0 space. To say nothing of the fact that if people want to blue everything within 50 jumps and deploy to a forward zone just to pick on someone, that's part of sandbox play.

CCP can't have their cake and eat it too. They advertise the game as one in which massive battles are possible and players shape the universe. It's a game philosophy that's gotten CCP the kind of publicity you can not buy in the pages of papers like the NY Times. And instead they seem to want to say "No, you are sandboxing wrong! Create a player-created world the way we want it to be created."

One of the main problems is that JB's provide a benefit to ownership and continued control; build up the sov level and you get a way to avoid standard gate camps and get your ships into cynojammed systems. Remove it and what replaces it? Sov holders get, what, more Sanctums?

It seems that the real problem is that CCP is trying to micromanage a game that's supposed to be player-created in terms of content. If there weren't coalitions, it seems CCP would have no problem with alliance-level JB networks. But as soon as people start cooperating and deploying/defending as groups, then it's an issue of "no, you are sandboxing wrong!"

And what's the next step if this doesn't work? Obviously this is largely about breaking up power blocs. What happens when JB's are removed and the NC doesn't tear itself apart? Does CCP admit it's wrong and put JB's back in or, more likely, do we see another round of changes designed to accomplish an in-game political change through mechanics alterations?

Originally by: TeaDaze

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
I will support this only if you work to get the Nyx model changed to a Battlestar.

I think it would be easier to modify the Hel, plus it needs some reason for people to fly it


Perhaps I was unclear. I will support that if you make my Nyx a battlestar. **** all the rest of the Nyxes. Twisted Evil

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.01.19 21:38:00 - [224]
 

FinnAgain Zero, it is wrong to think that political environment in EVE is the main reason for changing JB. CCP doesn't care, or shouldn't care, about NC or its NAP fests.

What they should care about is how JB effect war strategy of EVE and dynamics of PvP.

Of course it's still valid to discuss how removal of JB would effect political scene, just don't make the mistake of thinking it's the reason for change.

Ryan Starwing
Gallente
Cryptonym Sleepers
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.01.19 21:44:00 - [225]
 

Edited by: Ryan Starwing on 19/01/2011 21:49:56
Edited by: Ryan Starwing on 19/01/2011 21:48:34
Sounds fun escorting frieghters for the first time but after doing escort ops like that it will make you want to shoot your self after the third time especially when it is 40+ jumps. Though camping gates for frieghters sounds fun for the ones with the blob that is. Though without jb everyone would use carriers and titans to move stuff around and nerfing jump portals would remove the main reason to have a titan.

Though raising the 0.0 entry bar to must have own carrier (unless they get nerfed to the point of cant leave home system/region) does not sound like a good idea.

Edit:If I remember right they were also talking about removing jf and titan bridges, but for the adverage non-cap pilot moving his stuff around will be a pain.

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.01.19 21:47:00 - [226]
 

Originally by: Ryan Starwing
Sounds fun escorting frieghters for the first time but after doing escort ops like that it will make you want to shoot your self after the third time especially when it is 40+ jumps. Though camping gates for frieghters sounds fun for the ones with the blob that is.
apparently you haven't heard of jump freighters or titan bridges

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.19 22:05:00 - [227]
 

Originally by: Ephemeron
it is wrong to think that political environment in EVE is the main reason for changing JB. CCP doesn't care, or shouldn't care, about NC or its NAP fests.


That's not supported by the minutes.

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

It is noted that the cost of supporting coalition allies will increase, which will increase friction; coalitions
may fragment so reds are easier to find. This may make it easier for small alliances to set up shop, with
less supercapital curb stomping.
[...]
What is CCP's vision about small alliances? CCP wants them to be able to be independent if they want,
and feels reducing the ability of large alliances to hold a lot of space will make this more viable Ė it make
the curb-stomping harder. Another issue is that at present large alliances start feeling secure, get bored,
and say "we have nothing better to do, letís go crush these guys."


Originally by: Ephemeron
apparently you haven't heard of jump freighters or titan bridges


Which are things that would also be nerfed along with JB's.

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.01.19 23:04:00 - [228]
 

Quote:
Which are things that would also be nerfed along with JB's.
The nerfs proposed for cyno mechanics deal specifically with hot drops.

Unless you plan to jump/bridge your freighter into a hostile gang, the cyno nerfs will not effect you. Other than maybe add 30~ seconds waiting

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.19 23:36:00 - [229]
 

Originally by: Ephemeron
The nerfs proposed for cyno mechanics deal specifically with hot drops.



Those are not the only changes being discussed by CCP.

Allbrecht
EdgeGamers
Situation: Normal
Posted - 2011.01.20 03:49:00 - [230]
 

Was a dumb idea to be able to link systems multiple jumps away and be able to jump those distances in a sub-capital ship. I remember laughing about how dumb they were when I traveled some 30+ jumps with virtually zero risk. You're ****ing ******ed or dying on purpose if you die navigating one of your jb networks.

Get rid of JBs.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.20 07:32:00 - [231]
 

Originally by: Allbrecht
virtually zero risk. You're ****ing ******ed or dying on purpose if you die


Can we please drop the 'zero risk!' nonsense?
It's trivially easy to have a cloaked dictor and bomber gang sitting off a JB and caps/freighters that use JB's are easy targets for any hotdrop gank. And often subcap ganks, too.

JB's are not risk free, and not "virtually" risk free either. A competent opponent can and will murder your face on a JB network.

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.01.20 08:00:00 - [232]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Originally by: Allbrecht
virtually zero risk. You're ****ing ******ed or dying on purpose if you die


Can we please drop the 'zero risk!' nonsense?
It's trivially easy to have a cloaked dictor and bomber gang sitting off a JB and caps/freighters that use JB's are easy targets for any hotdrop gank. And often subcap ganks, too.

JB's are not risk free, and not "virtually" risk free either. A competent opponent can and will murder your face on a JB network.
Remember that hot dropping will be nerfed too. At very least, there would be some delay between cyno activation and ships appearing. If that's the cast, the POS guns would lock on any dictor / stealth bomber within 10-20 seconds and insta pop it

Also, the freighter thing is just half of the major problem. Other half is that every alliance member in their little Raven, Zealot, Dramiel, whatever small ship - they all travel instantly and safely. Nobody is gonna use that dictor drop strategy for main JB traffic

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.20 09:02:00 - [233]
 

Originally by: Ephemeron

Remember that hot dropping will be nerfed too. At very least, there would be some delay between cyno activation and ships appearing.


There may be. Mechanics aren't finalized or, as far as I understand it, even in the 'working on it' stage yet.

Originally by: Ephemeron

If that's the cast, the POS guns would lock on any dictor / stealth bomber within 10-20 seconds and insta pop it


Just off the top of my head I can think of several easy counters. And if I can, others will, and the community will come up with more.

-Have a disposable tackler to land initial tackle and a hard tanked Damnation aligned just off grid that can warp in and pick up the tackle, and then light a cyno.
-On POS's without lots of guns, simply send in a hard tanked Proteus and rep it when a gank squad jumps in.
-On POS's with proper guns, use a few disposable Rifters to land tackle in series as each one is about to pop and have a cyno just off grid (or just 200 km off the JB itself, or whatever) and pop the cyno when the first Rifter lands tackle.
-Alternatively alter any of the ideas above by scouting your opponent's JB network and alerting your buddies to exactly when a ship is about to jump through. When a ship warps to/lands on/is about to activate a JB, pop your cyno in the destination system and get your ships in-system or hiding in the next system over ready to engage.
-Use bomber gangs to quickly land tackle and cycle off before the POS pops them (with a few probe-point bombers to probe down anybody who logs off with aggro) and have a subcap gank fleet waiting to alpha the hell out of anything smaller than a supecarrier.

The above took me about 180 seconds to come up with. What do you think that entire gathered EVE community could do with months of time?

Originally by: Ephemeron
every alliance member in their little Raven, Zealot, Dramiel, whatever small ship - they all travel instantly and safely.


Again no, they do not. It's trivially easy to eliminate almost any ship, or gang of ships (Drams somewhat excluded)by sitting a cloaked dictor off a JB and having a wave or two of bombers ready to go at a moment's notice. Death is a virtual certainty if your enemy has the JB scouted and knows when you're about to jump through and you don't have intel about the other side.

Originally by: Ephemeron

Nobody is gonna use that dictor drop strategy for main JB traffic


Except, of course, all the times when they do.
I've seen it more than once. It's remarkably cheap and effective and can yield a massive tally of killmails if performed correctly.

Kastsumi Kobayariel
Posted - 2011.01.20 10:24:00 - [234]
 

Originally by: Batolemaeus
Nobody has to mine highmins. The drone regions made mining unprofitable.


Remove drone regions. You eliminate a large chunk of botters and restore some amount of balance to the mineral market.

Mara Rinn
Posted - 2011.01.20 11:21:00 - [235]
 

Some people with very short memories out there. Anyone would think that EVE has always had sovereignty and POSes and jump bridges.

I'm really not comprehending why it would be bad to wage war on your neighbours (you know, the guys with the other technetium moons) rather than having to travel 30 jumps in any direction just to get a 1v1 that instantly turns into a blobfest.

Raimo
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2011.01.20 11:56:00 - [236]
 

Supported. Getting rid of them would be very much acceptable.

Makumba Aki
Posted - 2011.01.20 12:37:00 - [237]
 

Edited by: Makumba Aki on 20/01/2011 13:07:36
Thi is a great Idea! Though it is coming from CCP itself and not from CSM.
This would make 0.0 wars more interesting, decrease blobs and make the life in 0.0 more challenging than in high sec as it should be.

Very supported!

BTW:
I my opinion JBs should be removed and the Jump Drive of Capitals and Super Capitals should be removed (gate travel) or nerfed.
The timer System should be reworked.
- When a tower is reinforced, it can only keep up the big FF for 1-2h afterwards the FF shriks so that it only protects the tower.
- After the ff has shrunck, the anchored modules can be either hacked and stolen or destroyed.

Black Ops:
- Should become cheaper and keep the ability to use covert cynos.
- Covert cynos should get a range buff.
- Covert cynos should get tight mass restrictions (like WH)
- Covert Cyno can be only opened every 3-6h in the same system.

This would give the sov holders an incentive to devide their forces in order to protect their assets, since they can't cyno in the blob within minutes anymore.
Black Ops would become much more usefull.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.20 13:54:00 - [238]
 

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.

Originally by: Mara Rinn

I'm really not comprehending why it would be bad to wage war on your neighbours (you know, the guys with the other technetium moons) rather than having to travel 30 jumps



How about because it's not your choice?
The game is a sandbox and people get to play their own way. If they want to form pacts so their home is safe space and they're not currently fighting with neighbors, that's their call. If they want to go 30 jumps for a fight, that's their call too.

You either have player-created, player-driven content, or you don't. You can't have a player-created political landscape and then get upset that the politics that they've created aren't the ones you'd create if you were in control.

Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Spikes Chop Shop
Posted - 2011.01.20 16:09:00 - [239]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
...
How about because it's not your choice?
The game is a sandbox and people get to play their own way. If they want to form pacts so their home is safe space and they're not currently fighting with neighbors, that's their call. If they want to go 30 jumps for a fight, that's their call too.

You either have player-created, player-driven content, or you don't. You can't have a player-created political landscape and then get upset that the politics that they've created aren't the ones you'd create if you were in control.


sandbox or not, you can only do what tools let you. and tools are provided by CCP. you aren't implying that tools are and should be built without regard to use? i'm not sure that would be any good for the game as it is now.

Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.01.20 16:20:00 - [240]
 

Edited by: Marlona Sky on 20/01/2011 16:28:10
Originally by: Ephemeron
The only thing I care about is good PvP, strategic and tactical


All of those are based on point of view. Right now power blocks things putting as many people into once system to lag it out, is a tactic and a strategy. Also their version of good PvP is 50 of them verses 5 of you. Also with you not loading grid. Now that is a good fight for them. Any changes to take those tactics, strategy and their version of a good fight, will result in them fighting any change and raging on the forums as loud as possible to keep it from happening.

In my opinion there is no good PvP left in 0.0 and the only tactic/strategy is blob the **** out of the other person where a players skills, fitting, even ship sometimes is all irrelevant.

Also, get rid of static moon income already! So ****ing stupid that this is still around.

EDIT: Finnagain, it is extremely entertaining watching you desperately try to counter everyone in this thread that is for jump bridge removal. If anything, all you are doing is making it more and more obvious how much you and a ton of others in power blocks rely on jump bridges for absolutely everything you do.

It is a huge crutch for a lot of power block members, it will be interesting to see which ones are able to remember how to use their legs and which ones fall flat on their face if they are removed.


Pages: first : previous : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : 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