|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Pirokobo
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 13:41:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Pirokobo on 16/01/2011 13:45:47
Originally by: The Offerer Edited by: The Offerer on 16/01/2011 04:01:00
Originally by: Dr Cheeto
Here's a thought: rebalance moon goo so that tech isn't god-tier.
Or: shift to "Moon Interaction".
I don't think you understand how broken technetium is.
We own something like a tenth of the technetium moons in the game and we're saying "this **** is way broken". Make us less rich, our enemies can't afford nice ships for us to shoot.
Moon mining itself is sorta a good mechanic as it is, it gives alliances a resource that is easy to nationalize (a rare thing in a game hinged on individual effort). But technetium was obviously imbalanced when the changes were ANNOUNCED.
We have a five... BILLION... isk daily surplus. Muahahahahah MUAHAHAHAHAHA MUHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA.
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AlIIq5agK7rWdDRnaWwzMVRrYTFCTG1sZEJhTWN1Z1E&hl=en&authkey=CMng2u0B#gid=5
|
Pirokobo
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 14:02:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Pirokobo on 16/01/2011 14:03:37
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal * protection through jumpbridges: jumpbridges and deathstar POSes make travel (over possibly large 0.0 distances) essentially risk free
People can bubble the gap between bridges. They just don't.
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal * force projection: being able to move a large fleet quickly over big distances negates any strategical decisions on where to commit your fleet and trivialises distance in Eve
If that's their concern then fixing bridges alone won't do the trick because you can relay titans to the same effect.
I think the problem here is that IT Alliance is whining to the devs again that we're punching them in the face every day in Fountain and flying home to sleep in Deklein.
|
Pirokobo
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 14:08:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Pirokobo I think the problem here is that IT Alliance is whining to the devs again that we're punching them in the face every day in Fountain and flying home to sleep in Deklein.
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal ]there seemed to be a lot of willingness - almost eagerness - to iterate on the 0.0 gameplay again.
I stand by my position and further assert that you are oblivious.
|
Pirokobo
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 14:17:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Pirokobo on 16/01/2011 14:17:52
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal The CSM that was present in the december summit (and was quite interested in considering these radical changes) did not include any IT alliance players. It did include however a Goonswarm pilot.
I am aware of the council composition.
I am also aware that this company has been caught with its own employees holding positions of power within one alliance, ALTERING THE ****ING DATABASE for the benefit of that alliance, spawning special events after giving forewarning to that alliance, and then scrambling sov mechanics when that alliance got evicted from space it had held for two years.
To be clear, I'm not bitter, I'm really more amused. I'm just highly skeptical of CCP's motives.
|
Pirokobo
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 14:39:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Pirokobo on 16/01/2011 14:41:13 Now, as for LEGITIMATE ideas as to bridges, there are a bunch of possibilities CCP could do.
They could limit bridges as they are to in-region links only. This would have the effect of slowing down travel a bit by forcing people to gate between regions.
They could limit bridges to one bridge per system, perhaps with a range boost. This would encourage alliances to place bridges such that they get the most "mileage" out of each one. It would almost certainly encourage the construction of new stations as the geographic value of space is reassessed.
They could make the operation cost of bridges increase faster then linearly with the length of the bridge chain. Another interesting mechanic, one which would target the very long chains in the north.
They could adjust the cost based on how many bridges an alliance has online. Same effect as the previous idea, but probably easier to implement.
|
Pirokobo
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 15:18:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Pirokobo on 16/01/2011 15:26:21
Originally by: Destination SkillQueue I'm not saying wealth shouldn't matter or enable you to buy some advantage. I'm sure more money will still enable you to use alternative solutions to alleviate the issues you face, but easy, fast and long range projection of your entire military might has to come to an end with the upcoming changes one way or the other.
As long as NPC nullsec exists it's possible to project power pretty much anywhere with relative impunity.
Consider:
When SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO flattened Atlas Alliance's house of cards, we didn't have jump bridges.
|
Pirokobo
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 16:29:00 -
[7]
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?
Sounds to me like they are not actually required but are rather a luxury or convenience if you will. But once we have established that is all they are then the decision becomes even easier as they (along with Tit bridges) are directly responsible for the prevalence of blob-warfare, bloated NAP lists, bloated null entities .. essentially everything that breaks null. - The bad far outweigh the good (ie. good = convenience).
It does not logically follow that because jump bridges make it easy for alliances to cover vast distances in the span of minutes that they have a causal relationship with large coalitions.
There were massive bluelists during the ASCN and LV wars, and both of those preceded Revelations II.
|
Pirokobo
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 18:23:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Batolemaeus That would mean measures to lock down a system properly
Alliance controlled gateguns.
|
Pirokobo
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 20:38:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Pirokobo on 16/01/2011 20:38:31
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.
Lonetrek is not really highsec. It's some bizzaro distorted highsec where half of the people have to observe arcane concord rules and the other half just have to replace their ships a lot.
|
Pirokobo
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 21:00:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Pirokobo on 16/01/2011 21:09:35
Originally by: d3stiny1 If EVE keeps going in the same direction it is, all of 0.0 will be essentially controlled by the russians and the NC, with entrances being constantly bubbled and permacamped.
Making 0.0 a harder place to live, discouraging rediculously massive and widespread coalitions is the only logical solution. Might as well send the russians to their own server, all they're really interested in is RMT anyway.
So far nobody has explained in this thread how taking away jump bridges is going to have the effect of destabilizing the NC or generally discouraging blocs from forming.
The RedSwarm Federation controlled most of the south for half a year before jump bridges were introduced. BoB and the GBC likewise controlled the West long before bridges existed.
Anyone who believes that taking away bridges will magically cause all the alliance blocs to suddenly turn on each other has checked out from reality.
|
|
Pirokobo
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 22:39:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Pirokobo on 16/01/2011 22:46:16
Originally by: TZeer With a change there would be no need to NAP every brother and sister in the vicinity. And you could actually fight your neighbour and not all their friends/cousins/brothers etc.
Unless your neighbor naps everyone you didn't and then kills you.
You seem to be under the delusion that the absence of bridges changes politics. It doesn't. A single region or ten, for some alliances DISTANCE SIMPLY DOESN'T MATTER, they'll go where the fights are to be found, and they'll NAP whoever they like or whoever they need to in order to win depending on their attitude towards NAPing in general.
There are many ways to field multiple armies around the map and jump bridges are only one of them. Every login has three character slots and it only takes a month to train a T2 shield drake pilot. That's instantly three potential locations for you to have characters waiting for a fight to occur.
|
Pirokobo
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 23:16:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Pirokobo on 16/01/2011 23:20:37
Originally by: TZeer But without bridges the fleet that just travelled 30-60 jumps for a massive defensive/gank operation, would either need to travel 30-60 jumps back. Or clonejump back, but be stuck for 24 hours. Or just pod jump yourself, but then you would also be far away from the inital operating area if killed.
Or log out and log into a character in that theater. Rolling a drake alt is just an example of how a completely shobun newbee can have three blob capable characters in three months. For most of us bitter old vets that's not a necessary step, we can already deploy in multiple theaters because we've got the characters to do it and we've got the money to podjump and the offices around the galaxy to land close by.
But that's giving your argument too much consideration. We've proven a foreign legion deployment is possible and practical in the pre-bridges era, and we've done it in the bridges era without using bridges. Your whining about the feasibility of it is why we hold space and you don't.
|
Pirokobo
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 23:38:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Bromothymol If, by ingenuity, luck, diplomacy, or sheer force of will, you do manage to claim a system or two, there won't be any r64 or Tech moons there. So you're going to be scraping a living off corp taxes from rats and what minerals you can harvest. Until a cap fleet wanders by and decides to kill your structures for fun (I've been on both sides of that equation).
Or you could read the map upside down and make a good first impression with your neighbors.
|
Pirokobo
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.17 01:11:00 -
[14]
Originally by: TZeer I see your points. But moving by yourself with POD jumping or having multiple characters, is a big difference from moving in a big coordinated fleet/blob. And although your example with 3 chars within 3 months is perfectly within reach of most people, it would be interesting to see how many of thoose in a 200 drake fleet actually had 2 backup drake pilots waiting in another spot for some action.
Well that ultimately boils down to running a coordinated campaign. Mittens has recently written a wall of text on the topic of choices. If you give people a clear goal to work towards (train for a Maelstrom, or in my example, train three characters for drakes and move one of them to X and one of them to Y), they'll do it.
Quote: Meanwhile, we told our thousands of members to train for one battleship, of one race, with one fit - and two support ships. Goonswarm would use Maelstroms and Scimitars with Scorpions in support, and thatĘs it. In a game with a fetish for freedom of choice, the reaction was a shock: our pilots, a notoriously fractious lot, leapt on the direction we provided with gusto.
|
Pirokobo
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.17 22:37:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Venkul Mul And who will mine the minerals for your ships?
Skynet.
Reality is, no matter how much CCP tries, the menial grind work will be dominated by bots. It's just going to happen. As long as it happens there will always be materials in 4-4 to build me a new ship.
|
Pirokobo
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.21 04:51:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Pirokobo on 21/01/2011 04:58:05
Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Yeah, because you made it up. CCP never said that bridges aren't working as intended. They're working exactly as intended. POS Bowling was a feature not working at intended. Being able to jump capitals to covert cynos is a feature not working at intended. Greyscale said that nullsec politics weren't working the way he wanted, not that JB's weren't working as intended. That's totally different, and you're trying to substitute what was actually said for a completely different issue.
But they did. They want to change bridges because they don't work as they wish. They aren't changing politics or any of the things you would rather discuss. And you accusing people of making something up? Hilarious. Quit your day job, comedy is for you.
And both of you making the classic non-engineer mistake of confusing "do what I say" and "do what I mean", and conflagrating the terms designed and intended.
In the end, all of CCP's decisions are done with the INTENT of making the game better but because they invest very little time in planning, testing, or iteration, the results are at best unreliable.
Bridges work exactly as designed. But the intent of their integration was to make the game better. The problem is that right and wrong, good and bad are all perceptual, they have no bearing in software design. A gamma knife that kills people from radiation poisoning (actually happened, dark day in programming history) can be successfully working as designed, even if it's a lethal device that was intended to help treat.
CCP is bad at identifying how to achieve their intent. The CSM's track record isn't any better, although to be fair they have been ignored most of the time so truly the fault for any perceived problems with EVE rests entirely on CCP.
When CCP added bridges, they intended for bridges to link nullsec together. They did. Quite well. But the overall result may not have been what they wanted; this is a common problem in software engineering at all levels.
|
Pirokobo
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.21 19:32:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Pirokobo on 21/01/2011 19:36:17
Originally by: Massive Dragon yes im sure that sounds aweful for you, nearby pvp as opposed to the other side of the map? ludacris. thats just unfair. people should be encouraged by mechanics to form giant naplists that there are no closeby targets. i dont see how anyone should be for changing jumpbridges now. well played sir.
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.
|
|
|
|