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 [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
White Tree	Posted - 2011.01.15 19:09:00 - [1] Edited by: White Tree on 15/01/2011 19:09:27 http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/csm/CSM_CCP_Meetings-part-3_15-17_12_2010.pdf Quote: 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, ôget rid of them.ö Greyscale: ôAnyone disagree with that?ö CSM response varied between ôNope,ö ôNahö and a simple ôNoö. Greyscale: ôSweet!ö û meaning that option will then not be discarded when the topic of jump bridges will be on CCPÆs table. Tell us more about your great ideas you collective conglomerate of mind-numbingly ignorant animals.
Anubis Xian Word Bearers of Chaos	Posted - 2011.01.15 19:30:00 - [2] You get what you vote for. Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal. CINA
Cellistara	Posted - 2011.01.15 19:40:00 - [3] Apparently the current CSM suffered a case of mass brain death when the topic came up. That or CCP is drugging their Kool-Aid.
Jason Edwards Internet Tough Guy Spreadsheets Online	Posted - 2011.01.15 19:41:00 - [4] Originally by: Anubis Xian You get what you vote for. You get what the very limited pool of contenders allows minus voting blocks who vote their own guy. In the end you get **** no matter what. As for the topic itself. This would kill 0.0 essentially. Unless logistics then is buffed into being done in 0.0. So the factor of logistics itself becomes moot. My suggestion is change amarr outpost bonus from 30% time to 30% mineral. This gives a huge boost to manufacturing in 0.0 as opposed to elsewhere. People then do it there. You then need minerals there and mining in 0.0 becomes further boosted. Stuff is then built in 0.0 and those markets get filled up. Overflow rolls into highsec to compete with the more expensive volume. It would be great. Newbs could then go out to 0.0 via podexpress or shuttle or whatever. Be able to buy their ratting and pvp ships out there. It would be glorious. ------------------------ To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe.
Cellistara	Posted - 2011.01.15 19:51:00 - [5] It would kill faction warfare completely. No one would want to slow boat a massive fleet 30 or 40 jumps to get to a fight. 2 or 3 hours flying 10 seconds exploding, then 2 or 3 hours to get back? No way. Regions would get dug in and become completely insular, everyone sticking to their own constellations, maybe attacking their neighbors, fleets would shift to only those ships with jump capability. Nothing but dreads and carriers, titans wouldn't be used since their bridge ability would make them too valuable.
Mishkaii	Posted - 2011.01.15 20:01:00 - [6] 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.
Shobon Welp GoonFleet Band of Brothers	Posted - 2011.01.15 20:15:00 - [7] 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? The bit where, faced with journeys of 30+ jumps to get to hostile territory and another 30+ jumps to get home again, the typical 0.0 alliance member will say, 'nope, can't be bothered' and carry on running sanctums at home instead.
Zelda Wei	Posted - 2011.01.15 20:15:00 - [8] Jump bridges are the second biggest mistake CCP every made, and they fixed #1.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2011.01.15 20:19:00 - [9] Bridges make null into a carebear land that is safer than 1.0 high-sec. Think about it for a second. Not to mention the whole lameness of them working in jammed systems and allowing Da BlobÖ to move around with a speed faster than any attacker could possibly hope to match .. Bridges are a large contributor to the blob-fare, good riddance. About time the CSM stones dropped and bared their teeth.
Mishikaii	Posted - 2011.01.15 20:27:00 - [10] Originally by: Shobon Welp 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? The bit where, faced with journeys of 30+ jumps to get to hostile territory and another 30+ jumps to get home again, the typical 0.0 alliance member will say, 'nope, can't be bothered' and carry on running sanctums at home instead. What is bad about that exactly? You mean alliances actually holding onto only the territory they can actually reasonably use and care about is a problem? And why should they move 30+ jumps in the first place again? Space should be big, getting anywhere in 0.0 is safer and faster than getting anywhere in high sec. This needs fixed.

Shobon Welp GoonFleet Band of Brothers	Posted - 2011.01.15 21:01:00 - [11] Alliances that put in the effort and put down the infrastructure gain the benefit. 0.0 is only 'safer' than highsec in the sense that alliances provide the security themselves and human brains are better able to work towards mutual protection than NPCs. Why is everyone so obsessed with making 0.0 life filled with as much time-consuming and un-fun bull**** as possible? I realise that highsec nobodies who've never stepped outside Motsu and Jita have a limited grip on what EVE is, but the idea that players spending an hour warping through empty systems to fight for 3 minutes would be good for EVE, or that 'sorry guys, we can't do the roaming HAC op tonight because we need you to escort our freighters for 30 jumps instead' is going to make people want to log in and play, isn't based on anything resembling objective game concerns.
Falin Whalen Gallente GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.01.15 21:25:00 - [12] CCP Greyscale warns,... ôeverything will go to sh!t.ö
Dr Cheeto Minmatar Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.01.15 21:33:00 - [13] Edited by: Dr Cheeto on 15/01/2011 21:34:23 Edited by: Dr Cheeto on 15/01/2011 21:34:15 In addition to the legitimate concerns voiced above, this would be a massive buff to capitals and supercapitals, especially Titans. Essentially, an alliance with sufficient funds and high-SP pilots could just get a Titan to bridge subcapital ships on every operation of any importance. Meanwhile, the plebeians who have one or two Titans in their alliance may have to burn 30 jumps to get to where they need to go. Additionally, the Supercarrier pilots can just give a hearty "lol subcaps" in local and jump out of system. Rich, old alliances would have the difficulty of keeping their space empires running pretty much unchanged, while newer, poorer alliances would be screwed out of nullsec. This would be a major step in bringing EVE Online closer to Supercaps Online, and it is exceedingly odd that it was considered seriously, as the minutes show that the CSM discussed the Supercapital hotdrop as being more-or-less a "win" button in nullsec engagements right before discussing why jump bridges should be removed.
Medidranda Livoga	Posted - 2011.01.15 21:42:00 - [14] Edited by: Medidranda Livoga on 15/01/2011 21:44:03 This would be accompanied by cyno nerf and possible titan bridge nerf AND jump range nerf you know... Also supercarrier on top of that.
Kahega Amielden T.R.I.A.D	Posted - 2011.01.15 21:44:00 - [15] Edited by: Kahega Amielden on 15/01/2011 21:44:37 Quote: The bit where, faced with journeys of 30+ jumps to get to hostile territory and another 30+ jumps to get home again, the typical 0.0 alliance member will say, 'nope, can't be bothered' and carry on running sanctums at home instead. Oh **. So they have to make a choice between the safety of deep inside their empire, or the convenience of being close to the front lines. That sounds terrible. Quote:** This would be accompanied by cyno nerf and possible titan bridge nerf AND jump range nerf you know... I would welcome that.
Medidranda Livoga	Posted - 2011.01.15 21:46:00 - [16] Me too, all of those.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2011.01.15 21:48:00 - [17] Originally by: Shobon Welp ...Why is everyone so obsessed with making 0.0 life filled with as much time-consuming and un-fun bull** as possible? Tens of thousands move around in high-/low-sec using that age old invention called stargates, are null citizens too good/posh to actually move their fat asses or do you really think that having what amounts to a teleportation system is good for the game? Originally by:** Shobon Welp ... but the idea that players spending an hour warping through empty systems to fight for 3 minutes would be good for EVE... It is apparently good enough for the people who moseyed over slow like to within your bridge network. Bloat Empires are an abomination, systems should be used and not be wastelands just because the nearby blob says so. Originally by: Shobon Welp ...or that 'sorry guys, we can't do the roaming HAC op tonight because we need you to escort our freighters for 30 jumps instead' is going to make people want to log in and play, isn't based on anything resembling objective game concerns. Wonder why CCP created jump freighters .. ah yes, to help with null logistics. The fact that it is possible to move actual freighters around with very little trouble is part of the broken mechanic. The whole idea of having a spy/observer at bridge points and moving hundreds of ships ahead of an interloper is ludicrous. By removing bridges the null entities will be forced to actually patrol the various pipes, sucks to be an obese alliance if it comes to pass.
Doctor Invictus	Posted - 2011.01.15 22:57:00 - [18] Well, over in F&I I proposed a system where infrastructure like jump bridges (or jammers, etc) would only be available where sovereignty holders have made substantial long-term investments in a given area of space, and where the extent of functionality of a given type of infrastructure (e.g., range of jump bridge) would exist on a scale based on the extent of the development in the system. I think this would make it possible to have jump bridges in the game without having their existence in every system being a given. They would be a relative luxury for the hubs in the system.
Malcanis Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.01.15 23:04:00 - [19] Originally by: Kahega Amielden Edited by: Kahega Amielden on 15/01/2011 21:44:37 Quote: The bit where, faced with journeys of 30+ jumps to get to hostile territory and another 30+ jumps to get home again, the typical 0.0 alliance member will say, 'nope, can't be bothered' and carry on running sanctums at home instead. Oh **. So they have to make a choice between the safety of deep inside their empire, or the convenience of being close to the front lines. That sounds terrible. Quote: This would be accompanied by cyno nerf and possible titan bridge nerf AND jump range nerf you know... I would welcome that. Sounds good to me. Get rid of JBs before the whole of 0.0 is just two big powerblocks presiding over their bot empires. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always** to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Aeo IV Oneironautics Research Institute	Posted - 2011.01.15 23:14:00 - [20] I'll support this. We've all known for some time that CCP has been unhappy with the way 0.0 and low sec space has panned out, sometimes you have to remove or radically alter things to fix the problem.

PTang	Posted - 2011.01.15 23:51:00 - [21] The CSM are doing what the players want, I know I welcome this change. Of course it's not a change yet, just that about 90% of the player base wouldn't mind it being on the table.
Biomass MeNOW	Posted - 2011.01.15 23:58:00 - [22] Originally by: Doctor Invictus Well, over in F&I I proposed a system where infrastructure like jump bridges (or jammers, etc) would only be available where sovereignty holders have made substantial long-term investments in a given area of space, and where the extent of functionality of a given type of infrastructure (e.g., range of jump bridge) would exist on a scale based on the extent of the development in the system. I think this would make it possible to have jump bridges in the game without having their existence in every system being a given. They would be a relative luxury for the hubs in the system. The problem with this is that, while the territory holder may have to put weeks or even months into working the infrastructure up to a given point, the enemy can laugh their way in, regardless of forces marshaled against them, and blast it to flinders in a couple of days. The balance is hopelessly skewed toward the invader and lack of any sort of limit on the number of supercaps in a given system means that they can simply steamroll their way through system after system uncontested. As for the 'bridge issue... for those of you railing against them, saying they're too easy and whatnot, have you seen what happens when a group of 5 bombers can do at a jump bridge? Even one bomber can create considerable havoc. Add in a light dictor with eyes on the other side of the bridge and you have an unescapable deathtrap. They're also insanely costly; billions a month to operate.
Kahega Amielden T.R.I.A.D	Posted - 2011.01.16 00:03:00 - [23] Edited by: Kahega Amielden on 16/01/2011 00:04:21 Such bomber traps are cool the first couple times they happen. If they became in any way common enough to dissuade people from using JBs to transport their blobs around effortlessly, however, people would just watch local and not jump into a system with multiple known bomber pilots...Or just jump small pieces of the blob through at a time. Quote: They're also insanely costly; billions a month to operate. I'm not sure there's any cost big enough to justify being able to instantly transport blobs everywhere. Apparently, as costly as it is, it isn't nearly enough of a deterrent because alliances still slap them everywhere so their members can zoom around when and wherever they want.
Scatim Helicon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.01.16 00:07:00 - [24] Originally by: PTang Of course it's not a change yet, just that about 90% of the player base wouldn't mind it being on the table. 90% of the player base run missions and mine veld in highsec for the entire time they spend playing and have no idea what a jump bridge even is, just fyi. -----------------
Walmatar	Posted - 2011.01.16 00:20:00 - [25] Jesus christ what kind of idiots were attending this meeting?
Walmatar	Posted - 2011.01.16 00:29:00 - [26] Originally by: Doctor Invictus Well, over in F&I I proposed a system where infrastructure like jump bridges (or jammers, etc) would only be available where sovereignty holders have made substantial long-term investments in a given area of space, and where the extent of functionality of a given type of infrastructure (e.g., range of jump bridge) would exist on a scale based on the extent of the development in the system. I think this would make it possible to have jump bridges in the game without having their existence in every system being a given Hey, you should run for CSM, you don't have a **ing clue what you are talking about! Jump bridges exist in less than ten percent of 0.0 systems, and they require strategic index level 3 and ** tonne of isk. They can be shut down as easily as shooting a tower into reinforced. If you operated around jbs in 0.0 you'd know this! Apologies, you are far from the only person in this thread talking out of their rear end. You based your argument on incorrect guesswork rather than vague assumptions that change is good, and this made your post easier to respond to.
Walmatar	Posted - 2011.01.16 00:40:00 - [27] Edited by: Walmatar on 16/01/2011 00:43:13 Originally by: Kahega Amielden Edited by: Kahega Amielden on 16/01/2011 00:04:21 Such bomber traps are cool the first couple times they happen. If they became in any way common enough to dissuade people from using JBs to transport their blobs around effortlessly, Hey, try to think things through before you post, blobs can go wherever the hell they want, because they are blobs. Blobs don't need JBs. In fact many fleets avoid using jump bridges while 'blobbed up' because it is such a pain in the ass to refuel the damn things. If gates are too much of a pain in the backside, blobs use titans - which have the distinct advantage of not being limited to systems you've already been in control of for over a month! The people who benefit from jump bridges are your common alliance member trying to make 0.0 liveable, developing the markets and doing his personal logistics around the alliance's home region, or occasionally a small gang trying to outrun another small gang looking for 'good fights'. But my all means, kill jbs, watch 0.0 markets shrivel and die because you just made it an alliance blob level activity to get ships into and out of 0.0. Nice job, hero.
Laechyd Eldgorn Caldari Certified Household Sweeping Consulting	Posted - 2011.01.16 00:45:00 - [28] Jump bridges would be nicer if you could camp them easier.
Dr Cheeto Minmatar Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.01.16 01:02:00 - [29] Originally by: PTang The CSM are doing what the players want, I know I welcome this change. Of course it's not a change yet, just that about 90% of the player base wouldn't mind it being on the table. 90% of the player base doesn't leave hisec. 90% of the players are completely unaffected by this change and are woefully misinformed of it's consequences.
Doctor Invictus Gallente Zaneta Enterprises Inc	Posted - 2011.01.16 01:31:00 - [30] Originally by: Biomass MeNOW The problem with this is that, while the territory holder may have to put weeks or even months into working the infrastructure up to a given point, the enemy can laugh their way in, regardless of forces marshaled against them, and blast it to flinders in a couple of days. One possibility, in the context of making the infrastructure more centralized, is to also make it more resilient (i.e., operational until sovereignty changes). Maybe a possibility would be to have cyno fields/bridges and jammers operate in opposition to one another. For example, let's say that both the strength of a cyno field and jamming effect can be set by players, such that the person making the field and the alliance jamming the space are in an arms race to create the strongest (and most expensive) effect. Originally by: Walmatar Jump bridges exist in less than ten percent of 0.0 systems, and they require strategic index level 3 and **** tonne of isk. They can be shut down as easily as shooting a tower into reinforced. And yet, the complaint is that they are too effective. Maybe <10% is too many.



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.