Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mister Short
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 21:48:00 -
[1]
It has been recently talked about a lot that the jump bridges in game need to be changed. This person http://www.ninveah.com/2011/02/jump-bridges-and-art-of-alliance.html gives the only opinion so far that might not only make everyone happy, but create a whole new level of player customization in the world. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND that you read this. Please CSM, make this happen/work with this guy. BTW, if this guy us running for CSM I WILL VOTE FOR YOU.
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 21:54:00 -
[2]
Seems reasonable. Low sec shouldn't get bridges though. Take them off the POSs, make them independent, let people reinforce them. These are good ideas.
This signature is useless, but it is red.
|
Ephemeron
BeerTia Maniacs
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 22:08:00 -
[3]
Quote: 1) Divorce Jump Bridges from POS.
This would definitely help small scale pvp a lot.
However, the article does not address another major issue of jump bridges: they make space too small. They are able to cut down travel time significantly, which I don't think is such a good thing. I want EVE galaxy to feel big, and that is done by controlling number of systems people have to pass on the way from any point A to point B.
Big galaxy means more room for people to play war.
|
superheropwner
|
Posted - 2011.02.09 23:54:00 -
[4]
Bump Seems like an interesting way to fix up the coming boredom of 0.0
|
mkmin
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 00:46:00 -
[5]
Quote:
1) Divorce Jump Bridges from POS. Instead make them beefier in terms of hitpoints (and give them reinforcement timer as per sov structures) and anchorable at planets by themselves. In addition, like sov structures, they appear on the system overview and not just grid overview so anyone can see them and warp to them.
2) Allow corporations to set up jump bridges in low sec.
The proposed changes are straight up bad if taken on their own. They would not do anything to fix the issues with force projection and would in fact exacerbate the problems. Removing them altogether is better than the proposal, however a few modifications might make that proposal workable.
I'd say go with these changes, except make jump bridges extremely easy to reinforce/shutdown by small gangs, but require dreads to kill. Make it so jump bridges have a 1 week cooldown timer before they can change destinations. That would give small gangs a target, make supply lines disruptable, moderate force projection but still allow some logistics.
Make lowsec smuggler bridges usable by anyone but give anyone who uses them a GCC. Smuggler bridges should show up with the on-board scanner, but maybe not the overview.
Reduce the range of all jump bridges to be short enough to not cover inter-region travel. This, along with rebalancing super carriers should limit force projection while still making logistics possible but not invulnerable.
|
Chelso
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 01:00:00 -
[6]
Force projection is hard to control, if you decrease the range of jumps bridges the simple answer is put more in. Eve is to easy for the blob to win or have the advantage.
|
mkmin
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 01:09:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Chelso Force projection is hard to control, if you decrease the range of jumps bridges the simple answer is put more in. Eve is to easy for the blob to win or have the advantage.
What if some WH mechanics were added? Maybe a jump bridge is a semi-stable wormhole that will collapse for 24 hours if a certain mass goes through? Limit jump bridges 1 per system. Make jump bridges show their destination system on the overview like regular stargates. It should be easy to scout out someone's jump bridge network and easy to disrupt it.
|
Mister Short
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 01:47:00 -
[8]
Originally by: mkmin
Quote:
1) Divorce Jump Bridges from POS. Instead make them beefier in terms of hitpoints (and give them reinforcement timer as per sov structures) and anchorable at planets by themselves. In addition, like sov structures, they appear on the system overview and not just grid overview so anyone can see them and warp to them.
2) Allow corporations to set up jump bridges in low sec.
The proposed changes are straight up bad if taken on their own. They would not do anything to fix the issues with force projection and would in fact exacerbate the problems. Removing them altogether is better than the proposal, however a few modifications might make that proposal workable.
I'd say go with these changes, except make jump bridges extremely easy to reinforce/shutdown by small gangs, but require dreads to kill. Make it so jump bridges have a 1 week cooldown timer before they can change destinations. That would give small gangs a target, make supply lines disruptable, moderate force projection but still allow some logistics.
Make lowsec smuggler bridges usable by anyone but give anyone who uses them a GCC. Smuggler bridges should show up with the on-board scanner, but maybe not the overview.
Reduce the range of all jump bridges to be short enough to not cover inter-region travel. This, along with rebalancing super carriers should limit force projection while still making logistics possible but not invulnerable.
I feel like alone it would work, however the GCC for lowsec idea and the wh-like idea above I love.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 08:54:00 -
[9]
Why is it that you are fighting for the personal teleportation grid, aka. bridges, so furiously?
Linked "solution" does nothing: Better (low-sec bridge, Hahaha!) force projection, albeit slightly more vulnerable, and no downsides.
Even if they can be reinforced by a single frigate, it will be as today's jammers with a million of them anchored, ready to online when needed. Adds nothing but aggravation to tenders with little to no impact on the issue of projection.
How about bridges available anywhere you want, anchored away from deathstars and usable by anyone? You get all the benefits but also get the shaft in times of war if you 'forget' to dismantle the grid or guard the stations. - Terrorists of today happily use local infrastructure and logistic hubs (trains/planes mostly) are often a priority target for capture when armies invade.
PS: Low-sec smuggler gates have been brought up previously and have nothing to do with bridges, they were mentioned as a way to complete the low-sec circuit.
|
Saxton Hale
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 10:57:00 -
[10]
They should only be anchorable at planets, and only those of a certain (fairly rare) type, such as Plasma. One bridge per planet. This way most systems can't get more than 1 bridge in them and a conventional jump will also be neeeded. A few rare systems however might be able to fit more than two.
DUST mercs will be able to mess with JB operation in some way as a high-ish level objective. Perhaps greatly increasing fuel use of size of fuel bay, a cooldown on jumps or something along those lines - completely disabling would be too much though.
|
|
Mister Short
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 01:14:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Saxton Hale They should only be anchorable at planets, and only those of a certain (fairly rare) type, such as Plasma. One bridge per planet. This way most systems can't get more than 1 bridge in them and a conventional jump will also be neeeded. A few rare systems however might be able to fit more than two.
DUST mercs will be able to mess with JB operation in some way as a high-ish level objective. Perhaps greatly increasing fuel use of size of fuel bay, a cooldown on jumps or something along those lines - completely disabling would be too much though.
Supported
|
Marconus Orion
Global Criminal Countdown
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 07:28:00 -
[12]
Jesus ****ing Christ no!
One of the main reasons removing jump bridges completely is to cut back on power projection. Even if they were moved to a planet and made public it still would not cut back on a blob from zipping across the galaxy in a via a couple jump bridges to crush a seven man roaming gang and be back for tea.
By removing jump bridges completely you dramatically reduce the amount of players who are willing to want to travel a ton of jumps just for a couple guys roaming three regions away because it is not worth the effort.
You are also wanting to increase its hit points which means if someone wanted to offline/reinforce it before be blobed to hell and back, you need your own blob to do it quickly.
|
yffadak rarom
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 10:56:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Marconus Orion
By removing jump bridges completely you dramatically reduce the amount of players who are willing to want to travel a ton of jumps just for a couple guys roaming three regions away because it is not worth the effort.
Jump Bridges make 0.0 a lot more accessible as well. I think if you take them out, many people will simply leave, making for less pew pew. |
Saxton Hale
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 11:12:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Marconus Orion Jesus ****ing Christ no!
One of the main reasons removing jump bridges completely is to cut back on power projection. Even if they were moved to a planet and made public it still would not cut back on a blob from zipping across the galaxy in a via a couple jump bridges to crush a seven man roaming gang and be back for tea.
By removing jump bridges completely you dramatically reduce the amount of players who are willing to want to travel a ton of jumps just for a couple guys roaming three regions away because it is not worth the effort.
You are also wanting to increase its hit points which means if someone wanted to offline/reinforce it before be blobed to hell and back, you need your own blob to do it quickly.
Sure it will. Very few systems would be able to have 2 jump bridges, you'd need additional conventional gate jumps and the JB network can be more easily interdicted by one's opponents.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 12:14:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Myself elsewhere Bridges are the highways of null, think of them as such and treat them accordingly.
Move them to "neutral" ground at planet or moon. Allow anyone to use them (no fuel involved). Long anchoring/online time, very short offline time.
Spaceholder will reap the benefits during peace-time but will have to think long and hard about what connections to make and have security details patrolling. During wartime the infrastructure can be sabotaged (ie. offlined) by spaceholder to slow enemy advance, just as "real life".
There is the solution. Maybe add the ability for hostile forces to knock them offline and Bob's your uncle (or aunt, who knows these days).
|
Marconus Orion
Global Criminal Countdown
|
Posted - 2011.02.12 06:16:00 -
[16]
Originally by: yffadak rarom
Originally by: Marconus Orion
By removing jump bridges completely you dramatically reduce the amount of players who are willing to want to travel a ton of jumps just for a couple guys roaming three regions away because it is not worth the effort.
Jump Bridges make 0.0 a lot more accessible as well. I think if you take them out, many people will simply leave, making for less pew pew.
Only the lazy will leave. The same lazy people that 'safe up' the second a non-blue enters system. The same people who will never risk anything unless they outnumber the enemy ten to one.
This would be a welcome change.
|
Laechyd Eldgorn
Certified Household Sweeping Consulting
|
Posted - 2011.02.12 18:37:00 -
[17]
There's definetly enough bridging in low sec already. Even titan bridges are too much. Srs.
I think divorcing jump bridges totally from POS's is cool idea though, I've been talking about similar kind of ideas for some time now.
Like jump bridge and cyno beacon would take so much cpu/grid from POS that you could only have only few guns there at best, no warp scrambler/neut/web/other ewar battery which are major reason why people cannot raid jump bridges and are using super capitals instead.
|
Nosenhojh
Mad Bombers
|
Posted - 2011.02.13 00:22:00 -
[18]
Cross poasting my thoughts on bridges from SHC
Just poasting to voice my support in nerfing jump bridges in the ass. Main reason being:
They have taken the depth out of 0.0. Instead of nullsec being the dangerous and logistically challenging far reaches of space its a goldmine for sov holders and death trap for any visitors. Bridges are rather absurd when you can hop into ec- in pure blind and travel to branch or tenal with maybe 3-4 conventional jumps, something that otherwise would be a dangerous 30-40 jump trek.
Takes the challenge out defending space on a day to day basis. If anyones familiar with the NC jump bridge map it is an utter cluster****. Every third system seems to have a jump bridge. It means you can have an entire constellation of people descending on your position to blob you out in a minute or two. Null sec is meant to be dangerous, instead its now get sov >> entirely safe unless you get full scale invaded. There has to be an effort in upkeep to match the huge wealth and benefits of holding the space. Currently the upkeep is largely in isk/time etc. Pilots should be required to fight to use their space to its fullest. As it stands the vast majority of any alliance membership can essentially opt out of pvp while a tiny part of their number can bridge across multiple regions in whatever ships are needed to destroy any threat.
Right now sov holders can sit in bubbled dead ends bearing at 50-100mil isk an hr and at the site of a roaming gang reship to 50 drakes and bridge ahead of the bad guys to kill/force them out. Things are way too heavily weighted in favour of the defenders. I'll cite deklein in particular as an example.
In deklein core there is a jump bridge at every major chokepoint and all one corp does (sup jsr1) is follow intel and bridge around to chokepoints with an instalock gang of 5-10 with bubbles/ashimmu/lach etc and instakill any soloer or small gang. For the attacker there is a huge risk to being out and roaming but for the defender they can move around huge distances in total safety and press f1 >> recieve killmail, stay safe.
What I'd like to see - Reduce bridges to 1 per constellation maximum - Make bridges alliance use only
Changes such as these would but the effort back into everday space holding. People would have to be prepared to fight to enjoy the benefits of sov space (its ****ing nullsec, thats how it should be) and large scale logistics would require a co-ordinated effort from a fleet.
* Having read the above suggestions divorcing them from POS's could be very cool as well. It only makes sense that there be some risk associated with the speed and range of movement that bridges provide.
|
Mister Short
|
Posted - 2011.02.13 03:20:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Nosenhojh Cross poasting my thoughts on bridges from SHC
Just poasting to voice my support in nerfing jump bridges in the ass. Main reason being:
They have taken the depth out of 0.0. Instead of nullsec being the dangerous and logistically challenging far reaches of space its a goldmine for sov holders and death trap for any visitors. Bridges are rather absurd when you can hop into ec- in pure blind and travel to branch or tenal with maybe 3-4 conventional jumps, something that otherwise would be a dangerous 30-40 jump trek.
Takes the challenge out defending space on a day to day basis. If anyones familiar with the NC jump bridge map it is an utter cluster****. Every third system seems to have a jump bridge. It means you can have an entire constellation of people descending on your position to blob you out in a minute or two. Null sec is meant to be dangerous, instead its now get sov >> entirely safe unless you get full scale invaded. There has to be an effort in upkeep to match the huge wealth and benefits of holding the space. Currently the upkeep is largely in isk/time etc. Pilots should be required to fight to use their space to its fullest. As it stands the vast majority of any alliance membership can essentially opt out of pvp while a tiny part of their number can bridge across multiple regions in whatever ships are needed to destroy any threat.
Right now sov holders can sit in bubbled dead ends bearing at 50-100mil isk an hr and at the site of a roaming gang reship to 50 drakes and bridge ahead of the bad guys to kill/force them out. Things are way too heavily weighted in favour of the defenders. I'll cite deklein in particular as an example.
In deklein core there is a jump bridge at every major chokepoint and all one corp does (sup jsr1) is follow intel and bridge around to chokepoints with an instalock gang of 5-10 with bubbles/ashimmu/lach etc and instakill any soloer or small gang. For the attacker there is a huge risk to being out and roaming but for the defender they can move around huge distances in total safety and press f1 >> recieve killmail, stay safe.
What I'd like to see - Reduce bridges to 1 per constellation maximum - Make bridges alliance use only
Changes such as these would but the effort back into everday space holding. People would have to be prepared to fight to enjoy the benefits of sov space (its ****ing nullsec, thats how it should be) and large scale logistics would require a co-ordinated effort from a fleet.
* Having read the above suggestions divorcing them from POS's could be very cool as well. It only makes sense that there be some risk associated with the speed and range of movement that bridges provide.
This is a good summary of the types of ideas I'm trying to get passed.
|
Mimiru Minahiro
|
Posted - 2011.02.13 05:39:00 -
[20]
My avast! shows an issue with that web address. False positive?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |