EVE Search - The CSM wants to get rid of Jump Bridges.

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

The CSM wants to get rid of Jump Bridges.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.16 06:49:00 - [1] I happen to believe that jump bridges are really bad for PvP in general, but in particular for small roaming gangs. I remember the days when EVE had no jump bridges, and things were much more alive than they are now. Now there are faces in local, but no ships anywhere, hardly any travel, sudden blob formations and blob teleportations. It's bad for strategy, bad for the game
Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.16 07:15:00 - [2] Edited by: Ephemeron on 16/01/2011 07:18:21 Quote: I hear that warp at zero was bad for roaming gangs, too, maybe we should roll that back as well. Wrong. I was one of the people suggesting to CCP to implement warp to 0 option. I don't think it's bad for pvp at all. Quote: Seriously if you can't figure out how to camp a well-traveled jumpbridge route you are pretty bad at this game. I have examined the mechanics on how jump bridge camping can be done. And I just don't like it. It's not very user friendly, unlike gate camping, which is open to any casual player who wants to pvp. When there's a choice between gate pvp and jump bridge PvP, stargate is a clear winner. Quote: Also if you're complaining about blob teleportations then you should probably go ahead and whine about titan bridges as well. I already argue against titan bridges by proposing changes to cyno mechanics and possible addition of mobile cyno jammer.
Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.16 22:36:00 - [3] Ability to disrupt your enemy logistics operations adds very important and exciting strategic gameplay for any war game. Over the years, however, CCP minimized the risk involved with logistic operations. Carrier bays, jump freighters, jump bridges, titan bridges, anonymous alt corps in high sec empire - all these things remove danger from logistics. Sure, that makes EVE more "civilized" and more of an industrial tycoon simulator, but it diminishes the war strategies. I want a great war simulator, not industry simulator.
Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.17 19:21:00 - [4] Quote: This. Without jump bridges, 0.0 would become even more carebear land. No one would travel anywhere, so null space would be even safer just because of the fact that it is huge and mostly empty. I am old enough to remember 0.0 before jump bridges, and I can assure you that it was very lively. There was lots of traffic - MORE than there is now. Even tho there was less people per system, there was a lot of small scale activity
Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.17 22:29:00 - [5] Quote: And who will mine the minerals for your ships? In your nice dream universe have you ever thought about the little problem that you will have to spend time protecting the miners after the ease of transportation from empire has been removed? Or you think you will be only the guy that will have the fun to kill the miners, never the one that will have hours of guard duty defending them? Most of the minerals come from high sec empire. Half from botters, half from countless level 3/4 mission runners who refine their loot. Most 0.0 alliances just buy minerals in empire and bridge them to their little outposts, why bother mining in 0.0?
Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.18 00:23:00 - [6] Originally by: Bagehi How are you going to bridge without bridges? You can't remove bridges and then argue that people can just bridge their stuff in. Jump freighters will be unaffected. And then there are titan bridges. I was once roaming Delve and seen how BoB titan was bridging 8 freighters. Dunno what they were hauling. Anyway, it'd be silly to argue that logistics would remain easy. No, the main idea behind removing jump bridges is to make logistics harder - more dangerous. So alliance people only develop and maintain systems they really care about. So people actually use star gates in 0.0 and risk PvP. You may worry about your alliance becoming more vulnerable, but don't forget that your enemies will have exact same problems.
Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.18 01:59:00 - [7] Basically, there are 2 important goals that need to be achieved to make EVE a better war game: 1) make logistics operations vulnerable to raids. As it is now, it's too safe, almost impossible to disrupt any alliance logistics, short of mega blob camping 23/7. Ability to hit enemy logistics would add new dimension to strategic and tactical aspects of EVE warfare 2) sub-capital ships should be more vulnerable to raids in 0.0, that is done by forcing more people to use stargate travel instead of highly protected jump bridges. Stargates have always been the main catalyst of casual PvP. Both camping and roaming relies heavily on stargate dynamics. Both of these goals promote PvP on smaller scale, while slightly discouraging mega blob pvp and lazy carebearism. I believe these goals are worth pursuing even if it means that certain percentage of EVE players will leave 0.0 Most will stay and adapt, just like they did during first years of EVE.
Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.18 19:41:00 - [8] Quote: 0.0 without JBs is very much like highsec without Concord. That is, highsec without Concord that is much more spread out with many fewer stations / POSs to hide in when things look bad. Make that highsec without Concord that is much more spread out with many fewer stations / POSs to hide in when things look bad with NPC rats that (rarely) do attempt to warpscram the solo freighter (yes - a really bad idea, but it happens). VERY bad idea. 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. What it comes do is this: some people want EVE to be more carebear friendly - even in 0.0 others want EVE to be more hardcore PvP - especially in 0.0 It just so happens that I like hardcore PvP. And I can understand the carebear perspective, I don't mind it so much if you openly say that is what you want. I just can't stand the hypocrites who push carebear ideals while arguing that not doing so is "bad for PvP"
Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.19 20:05:00 - [9] 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
Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.19 21:38:00 - [10] 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.

Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.19 21:47:00 - [11] 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
Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.19 23:04:00 - [12] 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
Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.20 08:00:00 - [13] 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
Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.20 18:45:00 - [14] 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
Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.20 19:34:00 - [15] 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.
Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.20 22:27:00 - [16] 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
Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.21 00:09:00 - [17] some people just can't take a hint
Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.21 00:47:00 - [18] none of the last 6 posts add anything relevant to the main topic. of course I could just ignore it. It happens all the time in every long thread. But it'd be nice if reminder to be considerate actually worked.
Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.21 20:09:00 - [19] Originally by: Pirokobo If bridges disappear it will change nothing. We will still form coalitions and we will still be fighting halfway across the map, because we love technetium and we love shooting IT and we love that the one lets us do the other a lot. If bridges disappear it will change PvP dynamics significantly. Stargate traffic would increase significantly, number of small scale PvP encounters would rise, large scale PvP operations would require more effort to organize and execute, with more risks for counter attacks and multiple fronts. 0.0 would become more hardcore - that cannot be disputed. It will have minimal impact on political structures of EVE. It's not the intent of CCP to break up big power blocks. But CCP seems to be concerned with PvP strategies used by the power blocks.
Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.21 20:21:00 - [20] Quote: Fallacy 2 Jump Bridges reduce small scale pvp/ganking. I'll tell you want reduces small scale pvp. The fact that there are no small scale objectives worth fighting for in a contested pvp encounter, and ganking gets steadily harder as the player base gains a better understanding of game mechanics (warping to a safespot is not hard). I'm sorry, but anyone who claims Jump Bridges don't reduce SMALL SCALE pvp doesn't actually spend any time doing small scale PvP. The simple, easily understandable fact of the matter is that JB are designed to provide easy and safe alternative to stargate travel. That's pretty much a given. The vast majority of small scale PvP engagements happens either around a stargate or asteroid belt. Therefore, reducing the traffic thru stargates would automatically reduce number of small pvp encounters. There are small scale objectives worth fighting for: I fight for sake of getting kills, which I find a fun thing to do. The main objective of the game is fun - not isk, not outpost holding, not moon holding - but fun. While large organizations need concrete game objectives to justify their existence, small scale entities, such as individuals and small groups of people, have "pvp fun" as their main objective. Sure, not all people want to "pvp for fun", but quite a few do. And that's enough reason to start most of the small scale fighting that goes on all over EVE - high sec, low sec, and 0.0

Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.22 23:59:00 - [21] Basically we got a clash of ideologies here: Carebears vs Hardcore PvP Carebears want to keep Jump Bridges, Hardcore PvPers want to nerf them Arguing over the issue is about as pointless as arguing over religion or politics - no matter how hard you try, you will never convince your opposite. Therefore, realizing that, the best thing to do is to present your arguments as clearly as possible, once, and not get drawn into pointless debates that serve no other purpose than to confuse the issue and discredit the people involved. (tho I suppose the opposition may view this as valid stalling tactic to prevent action)
Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.26 22:24:00 - [22] It seems intuitive to me that a strategy game with instant teleportation of units is going to be a bad one, in a way that it offers less value for developing strategies, and throws in large random factors - enemy of plans. I explained this view in couple posts long ago: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1448938&page=9#253 I'd like to see some arguments from supporters of JB that explain how their function makes EVE a better war strategy game. Just curious.
Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.27 02:42:00 - [23] so nobody cares about game design of war strategy games, just political and personal mumbo jumbo great
Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.27 06:35:00 - [24] Quote: at current there is effectively no way for a small or even a large alliance to effectively go head to head with the nc for any length of time. And part of the reason is - no way to disrupt logistics. No way to starve the beast. It has to be all-out pitched battle for every POS/TCU. And it's always a pitched battle because it's always known in advance, with the reinforcement timers and all. Anything small is completely irrelevant. JB may not be the only thing to blame, but they sure add to the problem. That's my belief.
Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.27 19:23:00 - [25] Ability to disrupt enemy logistics adds new dimension to strategy. That's a fact of both game design and real war. Anything that increases strategic and tactical choices in war is automatically good for PvP. Political discussions are irrelevant. Personal preferences are irrelevant. Those things are valid only in the scope of the sandbox. Decisions to modify the sandbox are outside the scope of the sandbox
Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.27 21:38:00 - [26] TZeer says the truth. I was member of ASCN for a while, I remember the space used to be more lively than it is now. And as he says, small roaming gangs are completely irrelevant to a local alliance with JBs and titan bridges.
Ephemeron Lubricous Rebel Alliance of New Eden	Posted - 2011.01.28 02:37:00 - [27] Edited by: Ephemeron on 28/01/2011 02:40:11 Originally by: lwxsky oli IMO, it will make eve worse, it will be less fun. It's not a matter of opinion, we have people who know first hand what EVE is like without JB and with JB Lets conduct a poll among all the vets who been with this game since 2004 - is EVE more fun now with JB or was it more fun before JB? Quote: As far as being able to undermine the activities of small roaming gangs. So what? One would expect a large organized power block to be able to effectively deal with small time criminals trying to harass it's citizens. Sure, we expect that. But we expect that security to be achieved by PvP, by patrolling and hunting down the criminals. Not bypassing it completely with safety of teleportation devices. You want security? fight for it
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2011.02.26 05:43:00 - [28] same thing happening in this thread as what was happening in The Great Nano Nerf threads - also 40 pages each. 1 guy that can't shut up keeps trolling everyone, derailing the debate. I wish the forum mods regulated Assembly Hall a little more strictly, and forcibly shut up people who are just trolling.
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2011.02.28 23:18:00 - [29] I think the first preliminary nerf that CCP should do to Jump Bridges is to put 10 million isk cost to using jump bridge. Any person using jump bridge should have 10 million deducted from their wallet. If they don't have 10 million in wallet, they would not be able to jump. While that rule is in effect, CCP can spend more time redesigning jump and cyno mechanics for later patch. This price tag on JB usage will help encourage people use traditional ways of travel, without taking away the super-safe and fast option. People wouldn't use it for trivial purposes.
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2011.03.01 23:22:00 - [30] Make each jump thru the JB cost 10 million isk from user's wallet. That can bring some balance to the current situation. It's like a toll gate for a super highway. Most unbalanced things in EVE can be brought in order by economic adjustments.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.