open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked JB GONE?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Author Topic

StuRyan
Posted - 2011.01.17 14:54:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: StuRyan on 17/01/2011 15:01:37
Edited by: StuRyan on 17/01/2011 14:59:29
In the recent dev blogs its been suggested that JB's are going to be "Got rid of" and I personally do not like the idea.

Reason being is if we aren't already asked to spend hour after hour farming active income sites to create isk for GF's, we are no told Logistics is too easy...

Its a little frustrating tbh that the view of the csm's is of a very limited group of people and not a reflection of the eve community. I think first to understand where to take the next expansion you need to understand your player base. some play 40 hours a week and do nothing but missions, some can only play 5 hours a week and want to sign in a go pvp.

I firmly believe more research is needed in understanding the player base and infact the player base that is inolved in 0.0. or for that matter PVP.
Minutes of the meeting

Artisan Botanist
Minmatar
Hysteria Nexus
Posted - 2011.01.17 14:56:00 - [2]
 

Link devblog :P

Tom Gerard or MNG for CSM!!

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.01.17 14:58:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: StuRyan
Reason being is if we aren't already asked to spend hour after hour farming active income sites to create isk for GF's, we are no told Logistics is too easy...
Who are "we" and who's telling "us/you" those things?

Fred Barbossa
Free Mineral Collective
Posted - 2011.01.17 14:59:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Fred Barbossa on 17/01/2011 14:59:13
Originally by: StuRyan
some play 40 hours a week and do nothing but missions, some can only play 5 hours a week and want to sign in a go pvp.




troll 2/10 carebears pve because they like it and are terrified of pvp.

Xercodo
Amarr
Xovoni Directorate
Posted - 2011.01.17 15:01:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: StuRyan

Its a little frustrating tbh that the view of the csm's is of a very limited group of people and not a reflection of the eve community.



ya cause it's not like the CSM was voted in BY the EVE community or anything Rolling Eyes

StuRyan
Posted - 2011.01.17 15:07:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: StuRyan on 17/01/2011 15:08:52
"Much of the CSM agreed that alliance logistics is too easy, but there are some edge cases (in particular, items that have both high volumes and quantities) that could be significantly hurt by making logistics more challenging.

Another consequence of harder logistics might be more local manufacturing in nullsec, as opposed to the current situation where many items end up being bought in Jita.

It was suggested that CCP, as part of any changes to logistics, take the opportunity to eliminate mindless pain, and add gameplay value.

Greyscale would like to see more opportunities for conflict in the logistics, making it easier for other players to trap you if you're being sloppy.

He then popped the question: “How much can we nerf things?”

The CSM asked whether the introduction of easy logistics caused nullsec population increase; if not a lot of people moved out when it became easy, not a lot will move back when it becomes hard. No immediate numbers were available.

The CSM was somewhat divided on how aggressive CCP should be with any nerfing. However, one CSM suggested, with respect to the nerfing of jump bridges, “get rid of them.”

Greyscale: “Anyone disagree with that?”

CSM response varied between “Nope,” “Nah” and a simple “No”.

Greyscale: “Sweet!” – meaning that option will then not be discarded when the topic of jump bridges will be on CCP’s table.

Read the minutes of the meeting before calling me a troll or carebear you jack ass.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.01.17 15:11:00 - [7]
 

So join in the debates that have flared up so that when they are removed the impact is mainly in the military domain.
It is the ability of cap heavy alliances (actual size irrelevant, damn SC's) to essentially hold unlimited space due to having the ability to move hardware around at will that is the reason for the issue appearing.

Compare null logistics/operations to truly developed and civilized space (ie. high-sec ) and the discrepancy becomes very visible .. how on earth do you justify that kind of logistics power?
If you want to PvP, only have limited time and have to travel for most of that time to get what you want then perhaps you are in the wrong place to begin with.

Problem with null is that they have been pampered to the extreme the past few years and now take it for granted that their way of life with everything at their finger-tips is sacrosanct .. easy mode should not exist in Eve.

By the way, the CSM are in fact a reflection of the community since the vote is open to everyone. If they diverge greatly then we should first look inwards and not just throw mud at them .. democracy, same as the real world Very Happy

Corozan Aspinall
Perkone
Posted - 2011.01.17 15:12:00 - [8]
 

You missed the best bit ..
Quote:
Greyscale warns, however, that during the transition period “everything will go to ****.” The CSM responded with a knowing smile.


Nice. Very Happy

Xyla Kador
Posted - 2011.01.17 15:16:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: StuRyan
Edited by: StuRyan on 17/01/2011 15:08:52
"Much of the CSM agreed that alliance logistics is too easy, but there are some edge cases (in particular, items that have both high volumes and quantities) that could be significantly hurt by making logistics more challenging.

Another consequence of harder logistics might be more local manufacturing in nullsec, as opposed to the current situation where many items end up being bought in Jita.

It was suggested that CCP, as part of any changes to logistics, take the opportunity to eliminate mindless pain, and add gameplay value.

Greyscale would like to see more opportunities for conflict in the logistics, making it easier for other players to trap you if you're being sloppy.

He then popped the question: “How much can we nerf things?”

The CSM asked whether the introduction of easy logistics caused nullsec population increase; if not a lot of people moved out when it became easy, not a lot will move back when it becomes hard. No immediate numbers were available.

The CSM was somewhat divided on how aggressive CCP should be with any nerfing. However, one CSM suggested, with respect to the nerfing of jump bridges, “get rid of them.”

Greyscale: “Anyone disagree with that?”

CSM response varied between “Nope,” “Nah” and a simple “No”.

Greyscale: “Sweet!” – meaning that option will then not be discarded when the topic of jump bridges will be on CCP’s table.

Read the minutes of the meeting before calling me a troll or carebear you jack ass.


I for one love this idea for the same reason they did. When bigs alliances have their whole JB network already established it harder for smaller groups to try and keep up with the resupply capabilities of those alliances (let alone the fact they have more members and alt with which to resupply)

I like the idea of an alliance not being just a blob but also being an industrial powerhouse to support itself. Will blobs go down in size when alliances have to actually build everything themselves instead of just trucking in another 100 ship on their JB network?

StuRyan
Posted - 2011.01.17 15:21:00 - [10]
 

Yes hurt the cap's, hurt the logistcs but don't get rid of JB's.

Reading some of your replies i think you also miss the point that whole fleets have been lost on JB's.

Don't get rid of them completely make them accessible to certain types of ships. Its already hard enough looking for GF's.

Vardec Crom
Skyforger
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.01.17 15:25:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: StuRyan
Edited by: StuRyan on 17/01/2011 15:08:52
"Much of the CSM agreed that alliance logistics is too easy, but there are some edge cases (in particular, items that have both high volumes and quantities) that could be significantly hurt by making logistics more challenging.

Another consequence of harder logistics might be more local manufacturing in nullsec, as opposed to the current situation where many items end up being bought in Jita.

It was suggested that CCP, as part of any changes to logistics, take the opportunity to eliminate mindless pain, and add gameplay value.

Greyscale would like to see more opportunities for conflict in the logistics, making it easier for other players to trap you if you're being sloppy.

He then popped the question: “How much can we nerf things?”

The CSM asked whether the introduction of easy logistics caused nullsec population increase; if not a lot of people moved out when it became easy, not a lot will move back when it becomes hard. No immediate numbers were available.

The CSM was somewhat divided on how aggressive CCP should be with any nerfing. However, one CSM suggested, with respect to the nerfing of jump bridges, “get rid of them.”

Greyscale: “Anyone disagree with that?”

CSM response varied between “Nope,” “Nah” and a simple “No”.

Greyscale: “Sweet!” – meaning that option will then not be discarded when the topic of jump bridges will be on CCP’s table.

Read the minutes of the meeting before calling me a troll or carebear you jack ass.


There are so many things wrong with getting rid of JB's. Also, alliance logistics not hard enough? People don't play the damn game to micromanage logistics. It's bad enough as it is having to refuel thousands of pos's. It's boring, plain and simple. Making it more time consuming and boring does not make it "harder". It's an arbitrary barrier. -1 CCP.

Xercodo
Amarr
Xovoni Directorate
Posted - 2011.01.17 15:28:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Vardec Crom


There are so many things wrong with getting rid of JB's. Also, alliance logistics not hard enough? People don't play the damn game to micromanage logistics. It's bad enough as it is having to refuel thousands of pos's. It's boring, plain and simple. Making it more time consuming and boring does not make it "harder". It's an arbitrary barrier. -1 CCP.


then HTFU and cut back on the POSes u have to fuel.....or start up some PI and ice mining alts ahahah

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.01.17 15:28:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 17/01/2011 15:31:09
Originally by: StuRyan
Its already hard enough looking for GF's.
…and making it harder for people to scatter for the wind, to bypass large swathes of space, and to just counter-blob makes that search (marginally) easier.
Originally by: Vardec Crom
Also, alliance logistics not hard enough? People don't play the damn game to micromanage logistics. It's bad enough as it is having to refuel thousands of pos's. It's boring, plain and simple.
Like you say, boring ≠ hard. Such a change would make it hard and interesting. Also, removing JBs means you have fewer of those boring POSes to fuel.

StuRyan
Posted - 2011.01.17 15:29:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
So join in the debates that have flared up so that when they are removed the impact is mainly in the military domain.
It is the ability of cap heavy alliances (actual size irrelevant, damn SC's) to essentially hold unlimited space due to having the ability to move hardware around at will that is the reason for the issue appearing.

Compare null logistics/operations to truly developed and civilized space (ie. high-sec ) and the discrepancy becomes very visible .. how on earth do you justify that kind of logistics power?
If you want to PvP, only have limited time and have to travel for most of that time to get what you want then perhaps you are in the wrong place to begin with.

Problem with null is that they have been pampered to the extreme the past few years and now take it for granted that their way of life with everything at their finger-tips is sacrosanct .. easy mode should not exist in Eve.

By the way, the CSM are in fact a reflection of the community since the vote is open to everyone. If they diverge greatly then we should first look inwards and not just throw mud at them .. democracy, same as the real world Very Happy


How many of the CSM's have actually taken any responsibility for understanding the player base, there are tens if not hundreds of groupings you can class players. to start Play less than 5 hours a week, play between 5 and 10 hours a week. etc etc in a game where teh economy is ruled by pvp it should be about making more PVP opporunties not making it harder to more around regions.

Professor Tarantula
Hedion University
Posted - 2011.01.17 15:31:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Vardec Crom
There are so many things wrong with getting rid of JB's.


And every one of them is simply various things they make easier. They're not required for anything.

One fleet should not be able to protect half the universe on just a moments notice. Removing JBs could do a better job of reducting vast empty sov sprawl than anything else.

StuRyan
Posted - 2011.01.17 15:31:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: StuRyan
Its already hard enough looking for GF's.
…and making it harder for people to scatter for the wind, to bypass large swathes of space, and to just counter-blob makes that search (marginally) easier.


Easy - make null sec small and compact alliances null sec is far too big and in most cases the only reason why small groups are blobbed is becuase there isn't anything else better to do.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.01.17 15:32:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Vardec Crom
... It's bad enough as it is having to refuel thousands of pos's. It's boring, plain and simple...

Pre-Dominion Eve called, she would like a word with you Smile

For every null-sec person that complains about having to micro-manage logistics with JBs gone, there are 50-100 high-sec people who already have to do it on a daily basis .. share the workload, does wonders for group cohesion and minimizes tedium.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.01.17 15:33:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: StuRyan
Easy - make null sec small and compact alliances
That is exactly what this change will do.

Zhim'Fufu
Posted - 2011.01.17 15:42:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Xercodo
Originally by: StuRyan

Its a little frustrating tbh that the view of the csm's is of a very limited group of people and not a reflection of the eve community.



ya cause it's not like the CSM was voted in BY the EVE community or anything Rolling Eyes
ya cause it's like the entire eve community turned up to vote or anything.Rolling Eyes

Unless of course you feel the tiny insignificant portion of the community that voted for the tinier and even more insignificant csm speak for everyone then?Smile

Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
Posted - 2011.01.17 15:45:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: StuRyan
Yes hurt the cap's, hurt the logistcs but don't get rid of JB's.

Reading some of your replies i think you also miss the point that whole fleets have been lost on JB's.

Don't get rid of them completely make them accessible to certain types of ships. Its already hard enough looking for GF's.


That's part of the reason why you have harder time finding fights. The ease of movement makes people avoid engaging, since they know they can't just fight the people who are near where the initial fight is. They also have to worry about people being bridged or cynoed in at a moments notice from great distances.

It also makes alliances look for allies further away, since fleets can be moved so easily. This only mkes the initial problem worse, since in the worst cases the opposition can pile an immense fleet on you, that you can only repel by another gigantic coalition of alliances. If you don't have that capacity, there is no point in committing to a serious fleet fight with a side you know that can do that.

When the ability to move fleets easily gets nerfed, you can be more bold in engaging, since the chance of immediate response is lesser and so is the size of the responding force. That lessens the need to form huge coalitions, since their ability to provide aid in any useful timeframe is significantly reduced. An ally who isn't able to provide help to you, isn't really that useful. Once those coalitions start breaking up a little you won't have to go to the other side of the map to go looking for a decent fight.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.01.17 15:48:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Zhim'Fufu
ya cause it's like the entire eve community turned up to vote or anything.Rolling Eyes
That's their problem.

Not voting and then complaining that your views aren't being represented is a bit like diving into traffic and then complaining that the cars aren't made of fluffy pillows.

Kuseka Adama
Gallente
Northstar Cabal
Posted - 2011.01.17 15:50:00 - [22]
 

You guys must really want one alliance ruling everything...

Null sec life is a *****

Jump Bridges make it possible to defend territory without having to go 30 jumps through the ******* gatecamps. They make it possible for the grand game to continue. You want null sec to be a place where a thousand little groups skirmish instead of some of the legendary pvp plotlines that have put this game on the friggin MAP!?

Before CCP goes and does such a thing let me run a few things by you.

1. War Dec corps raise nine kinds of hell with alliance logistics. Privateer alliance and the like live off raising hell and kiling off jump freighters of the big gun alliances. Hell they even have a schedule where they rotate their wardecs to make sure they hit everyone. JF's are high value targets and the main train of an alliance 'logistics' chain. They're worth every isk spent. Even with JF's every run is a goddamned gamble. JB's for the most part also give pilots jump in points as they 're paired with Cyno Beacons. And god forbid someone actually hit a freighter carrying system upgrade stuff.

2. Military: JB's allow for centralized sovereignty allowing players to station out of a system. It was done without JB's before but i'm willing to bet the burnout factor is a hell of a lot higher it'd turn a game where spending hours setting up a structure becomes micro-maintenance of every system you own You'd have people popping up outposts left and right to overcome half of what would happen. Players wouldnt be logging in to have fun. They'd be logging in being forced to patrol their space in a desperate attempt for the large alliances to keep what they have. The burn out factor would be noticable and extreme. You'd see a mass exodus from null sec by the current playerbase if not a flat out cancellation of subscriptions. PVP is supposed to be a semi fun thing to do. Not a job and i gotta tell you. With the constant crap and 'cta's' that get thrown around my own alliance on a weekly sometimes hourly basis. It's already close to a point where it cant be fun for some people. This change would start a chain of events that would smash all of the major alliances save the macros. (IE russians.) I get a lot of people would like to see the NC fall apart and maybe that's whats at the heart of this but you know what. Maybe someone should try to ****ing BEAT US on the field of battle.

3. Markets. Null sec is a market. Right now its prices are at least halfway close to jita. JB's are no small link in how this happens. The hard to find items of eve make their way to Jita. If you want to destroy that system this would be a HUGE help in how that happened. I'd say Null sec items make up the majority of the Jita marketplace. Officer's in particular. But you'd be shocked at how much of common/supply items gets bought there. Better than 85% of the purchases probably come from null sec cash. Remove easy or decent access to that market and you remove reason for players to be there at all.

It's very simple. Remove JB's and watch the subscription rate fall off very quickly. In a time where CCP is getting a lot of competition from up and coming new games (DCUO and TOR.) A move like that would have people spending their hard earned cash elsewhere. Removal would once again make sov warfare the ultimate CHORE. It is already hard enough of a pain to try to get people for these things. You already have to be as tense as a friggin coiled snake and twice as alert as a cat when you're flying through null sec over any serious distance. To make players do that 5-6 times a day on 20 jump runs both ways? Doing this would be a significant mistake. JB's may seem like an easy mode. But the alternative is far worse. It should also be pointed out: Major alliances existed before JB's. The measures required to keep them intact were Draconian however. I dont know about most players. I wouldn't join alliances with those conditions.

Chaos Incarnate
Faceless Logistics
Posted - 2011.01.17 15:52:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Zhim'Fufu
Originally by: Xercodo
Originally by: StuRyan

Its a little frustrating tbh that the view of the csm's is of a very limited group of people and not a reflection of the eve community.



ya cause it's not like the CSM was voted in BY the EVE community or anything Rolling Eyes
ya cause it's like the entire eve community turned up to vote or anything.Rolling Eyes

Unless of course you feel the tiny insignificant portion of the community that voted for the tinier and even more insignificant csm speak for everyone then?Smile


and whose fault is it that the people who feel like the CSM isn't representing their interests didn't vote for someone who did represent them? Decisions are made by those who show up. True in both RL democracy and pretend (but still ~verysrsbsns~) internet spaceships democracy

As for removing JBs, i love the idea. Alliances and powerblocs get power projection and logistics made too easy via JBs, Titan bridging, and capitals...and while they don't all need to be removed, I don't think JBs add anything of value to EVE

HeIIfire11
Posted - 2011.01.17 15:54:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Fred Barbossa
Edited by: Fred Barbossa on 17/01/2011 14:59:13
Originally by: StuRyan
some play 40 hours a week and do nothing but missions, some can only play 5 hours a week and want to sign in a go pvp.




troll 2/10 carebears pve because they like it and are terrified of pvp.


0/10 Dream on..some just have better things to do than be lamer food for a huge group who all fail on their own.

StuRyan
Posted - 2011.01.17 15:55:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Destination SkillQueue
Originally by: StuRyan
Yes hurt the cap's, hurt the logistcs but don't get rid of JB's.

Reading some of your replies i think you also miss the point that whole fleets have been lost on JB's.

Don't get rid of them completely make them accessible to certain types of ships. Its already hard enough looking for GF's.


That's part of the reason why you have harder time finding fights. The ease of movement makes people avoid engaging, since they know they can't just fight the people who are near where the initial fight is. They also have to worry about people being bridged or cynoed in at a moments notice from great distances.

It also makes alliances look for allies further away, since fleets can be moved so easily. This only mkes the initial problem worse, since in the worst cases the opposition can pile an immense fleet on you, that you can only repel by another gigantic coalition of alliances. If you don't have that capacity, there is no point in committing to a serious fleet fight with a side you know that can do that.

When the ability to move fleets easily gets nerfed, you can be more bold in engaging, since the chance of immediate response is lesser and so is the size of the responding force. That lessens the need to form huge coalitions, since their ability to provide aid in any useful timeframe is significantly reduced. An ally who isn't able to provide help to you, isn't really that useful. Once those coalitions start breaking up a little you won't have to go to the other side of the map to go looking for a decent fight.


So what you are saying is harder logitcs runs, harder for fleets to get round 0.0 for gf's oh **** no ships left for me on market. might aswell be based out of empire and run missions and fight when i can be bothered. The removal of jb's does nothing but make it harder for everyone and the other side of the coin is that it also provides a beacon for fleet battles ever thought about that side of the coin?

Keta Fraal
Nul and Booleans
Posted - 2011.01.17 15:58:00 - [26]
 

First, I would like to say: why post with acronyms? Any educated writer knows that the use of acronyms is reserved for the second and consecutive references to a subject that is common in the document. How much easier is "JB" than "Jump Bridges"?

Then you refer to JBs(Jump Bridges) being mentioned somewhere in a document that is nine pages in length. Are you trying to exclude from the discussion all readers that per chance don't "get" your reference to "JB"s?

Very poor communication skills on your behalf.

However, I do agree with your post. It is very bad practice to remove a facilitating feature in a game that boasts an economic simulation model. The solution to their issues should be sought by enriching the game mechanics rather than restricting player activity. No good ever comes from restricting economic activity. Maybe they should consider un-restricting the players' ability to attack and take down these JBs. Wouldn't that easily create more game-play in the form of skirmishes?

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.01.17 16:02:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 17/01/2011 16:02:17
Originally by: Kuseka Adama
1. War Dec corps raise nine kinds of hell with alliance logistics. […]
2. Military: JB's allow for centralized sovereignty allowing players to station out of a system. […]
3. Markets. Null sec is a market. Right now its prices are at least halfway close to jita. […]

You already have to be as tense as a friggin coiled snake and twice as alert as a cat when you're flying through null sec over any serious distance. […]

It should also be pointed out: Major alliances existed before JB's.
Yes. These all seem like good reasons to remove JBs.
Originally by: StuRyan
So what you are saying is harder logitcs runs, harder for fleets to get round 0.0 for gf's
No, what he's saying is that more required actual logistics runs (you know, actual convoys) and less skipping over a ton of system means it's easier to find a fight.

Zhim'Fufu
Posted - 2011.01.17 16:02:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Zhim'Fufu
ya cause it's like the entire eve community turned up to vote or anything.Rolling Eyes
That's their problem.

Not voting and then complaining that your views aren't being represented is a bit like diving into traffic and then complaining that the cars aren't made of fluffy pillows.
I was waiting for this exact comment. Thanks for the speedy reply.

ATTENTION!

Eve is a game we play for fun and is not a real life entity that needs an elected body to ask ccp to do things to the game. Things that ccp was going to do anyways regardless if you want them to or not. But this JB debate certainly shows ccp has cunning. How? Lets see. CCP brings in an unpopular change and instead of the forums blowing up at ccp over it ccp can now point to the csm and say hey it was their idea! Laughing

Funking brilliant tbh.

Artisan Botanist
Minmatar
Hysteria Nexus
Posted - 2011.01.17 16:03:00 - [29]
 

If you read why they want it removed you would see it is a valid reason :P

It promotes PvP, reduces laming and 0.0 will actually be less of a failure

Pohbis
Neo T.E.C.H.
Posted - 2011.01.17 16:04:00 - [30]
 

Edited by: Pohbis on 17/01/2011 20:46:48

I to, would like to raise the barrier to entry for 0.0 to having 3-4 personal cyno alts and a Titan.

The problem is the ability to project capital power halfway across the map at a heartbeat. Not that JBs make logistics too easy. Camp the damn JBs if you want to disrupt logistics.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6

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