|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Batolemaeus
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
   |
Posted - 2011.01.16 14:11:00 -
[1]
Hello my name is Batolemaeus and I approve of a removal of jumpbridges.
If capitals are nerfed at the same time. Otherwise it'd be just idiotic..
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 17:48:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Dr Cheeto
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Originally by: Dr Cheeto
Way to miss the point entirely ...
Is that not whole chest beating example not an argument that speaks FOR the removal of bridges in their current form?
If the argument is "jump bridges promote large bloc-level coalitions spanning several regions, so we're considering removing them," then "we can deploy halfway across the map without the damn jump bridges" is an argument which would reduce the removal of jump bridges from a bloc-breaking change to a simple annoyance with no real purpose or goal.
No. It means that we have to rethink the problem of easy force projection.
Bridges are a part of this problem. I think nobody is seriously believing that removing jbs will solve all problems.
However, (once again) a discussion is needed about the ease of travel and force projection, the reliance of 0.0 from empire and the lack of features for self sustainable 0.0 economies, sov warfare and how it should be about occupation rather than renting from concord and countless other topics that are impacting eve as a whole.
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 18:21:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik
you get another ISK sink (fuel for industrial JB network).
That is not an isk sink. The money just goes to the ice mining macros.
Personally, I wouldn't mind radical cutbacks to the ease of transportation both within 0.0 itself and on the routes leading into and out of 0.0, as long as accompanying changes also enable local production at a level at least competitive to a freighter convoy full of ships and t2 mods from empire.
That would mean measures to lock down a system properly, ways to refine at pos more easily, being able to acquire minerals at competitive rates and make them into stuff and being able to produce the necessary moon goo without having to rely on goo produced on the other side of the galaxy.
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 19:03:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik
Hmm... we have a specialized ore transporter (Rorqual and compressed ore), but the supply of ore is somewhat smaller than the supply of minerals (one reason being reprocessing another profit and lastly volume of materials). How about a specialized mineral compression ship (or a change to Rorqual by introducing mineral compression blueprints)? That could solve the supply part. Or just a mineral transport ship that can transport more minerals with a skill level, but can only carry minerals in its cargo bay.
The problem is that procuring tritanium and pyerite (and mexa and iso) is horribly inefficient in 0.0. You need them in such high volumes that you'd have to mine veldspar or import the minerals. Both are bad options without resorting to mineral compression via 425mm rails (or whichever method you prefer). Have you ever seen a rorqual parked next to a highsec system and being supplied with veldspar from highsec to compress and ship the stuff to 0.0?
Me neither.
To actually tackle the problem of inefficient 0.0 local production, there would need to be a competitive method of acquiring minerals there. Superdense veld, mineral harvesting arrays, you name it.
This is obviously only tangentially related to jbs, as these are mostly used for force projection. Cutting them back will make it harder to move people, as long as capitals are also touched.
However, all these things are interconnected. If you cut down on travel opportunities it would be a good time to rethink the state of the 0.0 economy, especially since nerfing bridges devalues deep 0.0 even more into poor man's 0.0, with all the inconveniences of 0.0 without the benefits of easy access to empire. Wasn't the original concept of 0.0 that the farther away from empire and the greater the logistical effort, the greater the rewards? This has been inversed, and it's a bad thing imo.
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 20:57:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Cassus Temon
The idea seems rather silly, coming from a member of Morsus Mihi; as you don't even need JB's, with a direct route to highsec. What is it for you? About 3 Jumps? In fact, you have a station that will offer you full efficiency; not more than 2 jumps from your Sovereign space. So what wouldn't hurt you, is fine? Seem's to be the carrying factor in this debate.
This might surprise you, but we're actually not a hivemind. Nor are we all interested in boosting our own space.
Just for the record, I can do the necessary logistic to build a supercapital all by myself by jumping compressed minerals DIRECTLY FROM JITA 4-4 TO OUR CSAA SYSTEMS. In one jump. At nearly no cost. With nigh zero risk.
JF ftw.
That doesn't mean I wouldn't support nerfing the heck out of it, if the loss of laughably easy logistics benefits the game at a whole. (And if I actually get to produce locally because CCP boosts localized production, I'd be a very happy bear, for it is much less :effort:)
Same for jumpbridges. It's a display of how broken the game is when I can basically run from one end of the galaxy to the other with nigh zero risk. Have you seen our network? It's ridiculous. Laughably insane. We have as many jumpbridge connections in core tribute as we have GATES.
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2011.01.17 00:04:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Bromothymol
Jump bridges and jump drives certainly contribute, but they are not the root causes. Blob warfare occurs because stacking DPS kills things faster, and allows you to win.
I hope nobody is under the delusion that simply removing all jb is a magic bullet.
It's a part of a greater problem that would have to be tackled at the same time and goes down to the very basis of 0.0 income, force projection, the ehp grind, the sov system; in short, the entire 0.0 complex including its relations to highsec and lowsec.
I'd be very happy if CCP showed an interest in redesigning 0.0 from the ground up with some player input. It has become very stale, and the utter failure of dominion just further cemented bad design choices.
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2011.01.17 00:38:00 -
[7]
Originally by: fukier
hmm... perhaps whith a black ops boost and some sort of limited-delayed 0.0 local this could see a ressurection of black ops hot drops... i mean if most of the defence will be in choke systems and the main home systems ripe with carebears... this could lead to some interesting developments... well atleast for small time pirates who base out of faction 0.0 space
Yay more afk cloakers to gank people before a defence fleet can react.
I severely dislike all the instant cyno drops all over the place. It's already bad enough with rapid deployment all over the place with titans. Fly around in a small roaming gang, get dropped by bridge. We're trying to reduce this problem here, not further augment it.
A proper bo boost would resolve around their ewar capabilities and combat usefulness, probably even giving them carrier-alike abilities for longer deployment out in deep space, instead of just even more bridging crap. They suck as combat ships for their survivability and cost; increasing their bridging ability doesn't change that.
By the way, if we're going the way of encouraging local production in 0.0, there must be a way to either keep a resource acquisition operation highly mobile or able to properly lock down and secure systems. Otherwise the opportunity cost will be too high again, and importing will still be the standard modus operandi. Covert operations as a form of area denial are fine, as long as there are countermeasures against the disproportional time investment required to secure industrial operations.
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2011.01.17 02:01:00 -
[8]
Originally by: fukier
the thing to is if you take away force projection via jb( or titans) you limit the home field defence boost... basically forces like the NC (which your a member of) usually win a long term war/fight because they are able to reinforce thier troops at a greater capacity then invading forces... this is usually because of JB... but if you removed jb's from core systems because they are fully upgraded... then re supplying your forces would be much more difficult...
Gee, thanks for reminding me that the hilarious ease of force projection to hold vast tracts of space and defend it easily is one of the reasons why the NC can repel serious threats all over the place. I would have never thought that making that harder would make this harder.
Could it be that this is the entire point of why I want force projection to be harder?
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2011.01.17 14:28:00 -
[9]
Originally by: captain foivos
[allcaps drivel]
Titans are not overpriced. They are in every single way better than dreads, not just a straight upgrade but an incredibly superior one. Limiting their bridging ability won't nerf them in any meaningful capacity.
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2011.01.18 03:53:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Batolemaeus on 18/01/2011 03:55:43
Originally by: Cassus Temon
Never mind bridging.. Where do you think you're going to get those high-end minerals; without someone doing a little mining in 0.0?
Nobody has to mine highmins. The drone regions made mining unprofitable. Just import the stuff, they're not bulky and can be brought in with a few blockade runners easily.
Acquiring the bulky minerals is the bottleneck. Nobody is going to mine veld in 0.0, because it is not competitive compared to just shipping built ships and mods from empire.
Originally by: Bagehi
Honestly, I'm more worried about not getting any PVP without flying a gazillion jumps to find it. I also do not want to have to babysit miners/haulers for the majority of the time I'm on.
There was plenty of pvp without bridge networks. Much more gate traffic leads to more roamings leads to more home defence gangs. A bigger eve will in the long run return to more smaller alliances holding space. This however will take a long time to develop.
All in all there needs to be a complete rethink of 0.0 from an industrial and empire building standpoint to support autonomous self sustained operations.
|
|
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2011.01.20 16:34:00 -
[11]
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.
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2011.01.20 21:51:00 -
[12]
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..)
|
|
|
| |
|