EVE Search - Jump Bridges

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

Jump Bridges

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Martin Mckenna V0LTA VOLTA Corp	Posted - 2011.04.19 17:56:00 - [1] I started writing a massive wall of text about how they sucked but tbh I think this is better. Remove them or limit them to one per system at least. Promotes PVP. Adds risk again to 0.0. Makes logistics, logistical again. Makes 0.0 big again. No more jumping to deepest 0.0 systems in 3 jumps. Cheers
Martin Mckenna V0LTA VOLTA Corp	Posted - 2011.04.19 18:09:00 - [2] Supporting
Spazz21 Amarr Angha	Posted - 2011.04.19 19:07:00 - [3] No. Doesn't promote pvp, it promotes being lazy by sitting at a gate for hours. You can do what everyone else does and cloak by JB and gank people jumping in. As they are not cloaked, it's easier to catch people. It also promotes POS Bashing, something that has declined a lot from Dominion. Risk. See Above. Logistics. Still have Cov op Transports. Rorquals, JFs, and Carriers that can use Cyno Gens/Cyno Ship Fodder are not affected so it really doesn't change stuff that much. People still use scouts while moving stuff. I don't know what part of Null you are referring to, but from HED to a system in Paragon Soul takes 9 JBs. Another 8 from a system in Etherum Reach to Cobalt Edge. Then a path going from tribute to tenal seems to be impossible without having gate jump from deklien to branch. All are rough estimated, I just checked on dotlan real quick. But yeah... 3 jumps for deepest system is a bit of an underestimate. So no, keep JBs cuz it's a perk for having sov and also saves the dieing reason of POS Bashing.
Martin Mckenna V0LTA VOLTA Corp	Posted - 2011.04.19 20:28:00 - [4] Originally by: Spazz21 Doesn't promote pvp, it promotes being lazy by sitting at a gate for hours. You can do what everyone else does and cloak by JB and gank people jumping in. As they are not cloaked, it's easier to catch people. Its not easier to catch people on jump bridges. With the right gang its possible but not easier. Originally by: Spazz21 It also promotes POS Bashing, something that has declined a lot from Dominion. POS bashing is one of the worst aspects of EVE. This was why the mechanics of sov holding changed in dominion. Originally by: Spazz21 Logistics. Still have Cov op Transports. Rorquals, JFs, and Carriers that can use Cyno Gens/Cyno Ship Fodder are not affected so it really doesn't change stuff that much. People still use scouts while moving stuff. Exactly! We have specific ships to move out juicy loot ect. Jump bridges makes its easy to move loot like this in any ships. Originally by: Spazz21 I don't know what part of Null you are referring to, but from HED to a system in Paragon Soul takes 9 JBs. Another 8 from a system in Etherum Reach to Cobalt Edge. Then a path going from tribute to tenal seems to be impossible without having gate jump from deklien to branch. All are rough estimated, I just checked on dotlan real quick. But yeah... 3 jumps for deepest system is a bit of an underestimate. I wasn't trying to be accurate with my jump estimate. But my point stands that in the past systems that would take 30 jumps to get to now take in general about 1/4 of the time with almost zero risk. I'd like to end by asking you how many times have you been killed traveling on jump bridges compared to traditional gate to gate in-order to answer your first point. Martin
Endev8	Posted - 2011.04.19 20:34:00 - [5] I can promote this. I cant kill squat these days with all the jumpbridging around :(
Ogre tech II	Posted - 2011.04.20 00:24:00 - [6] Originally by: Spazz21 No. Doesn't promote pvp, it promotes being lazy by sitting at a gate for hours. You can do what everyone else does and cloak by JB and gank people jumping in. As they are not cloaked, it's easier to catch people. It also promotes POS Bashing, something that has declined a lot from Dominion. Risk. See Above. Logistics. Still have Cov op Transports. Rorquals, JFs, and Carriers that can use Cyno Gens/Cyno Ship Fodder are not affected so it really doesn't change stuff that much. People still use scouts while moving stuff. I don't know what part of Null you are referring to, but from HED to a system in Paragon Soul takes 9 JBs. Another 8 from a system in Etherum Reach to Cobalt Edge. Then a path going from tribute to tenal seems to be impossible without having gate jump from deklien to branch. All are rough estimated, I just checked on dotlan real quick. But yeah... 3 jumps for deepest system is a bit of an underestimate. So no, keep JBs cuz it's a perk for having sov and also saves the dieing reason of POS Bashing. I've got to agree.. Are you telling me my NC alt should be able to go from 93pi- in pure blind to G8ad- in cloud ring in 3jumps ? I dont think so.. thats only an example ofc.. Have u ever had your NC alt in tribute ?? stargates are a thing of the past my friend who needs to walk that road when u can get from 1 end of tribute to the other in 3 mins or less.. so get something done because all tese sov holding hand holding kids dont like to risk there internet isk
Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed	Posted - 2011.04.20 01:08:00 - [7] I personally think you should make JB's an IHUB installation. That puts it at a planet, away from POS protection. It allows a moderate force to incap it, and the IHUB can be used for fuelage. A 2 link max/system, where the 2 beacons on the IHUB were 15+km apart, and within 100km of the IHUB. JB's have a very valuable tactical advantage that should stay. The ability of the local populace to trap an enemy by getting behind them with JB's is pretty awesome!! They just need to be a little more vulnerable!
Spurty V0LTA VOLTA Corp	Posted - 2011.04.20 01:27:00 - [8] People that need them are beyond help already. Bye Jump bridges Fizzt!
Drazi1 Minmatar The Knights Templar R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.04.20 19:23:00 - [9] not supported
Mynas Atoch Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.04.20 19:27:00 - [10] Originally by: Martin Mckenna I started writing a massive wall of text about how they sucked but tbh I think this is better. Remove them or limit them to one per system at least. Promotes PVP. Adds risk again to 0.0. Makes logistics, logistical again. Makes 0.0 big again. No more jumping to deepest 0.0 systems in 3 jumps. Cheers Only if we can disable the services on your invulnerable NPC stations. We'll adapt to any change and are sure you will adapt too.

Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.04.20 19:49:00 - [11] Originally by: Mynas Atoch Good suggestions but you don't go far enough. To promote PvP, add risk to 0.0, make logistics logistics we need to apply this to corps and alliances living in invulnerable npc stations too. The farmers need to be able to besiege the brigands preying on them, on the few days per year they can organize themselves. Make the hordes at the gate brandishing torches and pitchforks a real inconvenience. To do so we need to allow the services (repair, market, contracts, loyalty store, fitting, cloning, factories) on the previously invulnerable NPC stations to be disabled - obviously self repairing over time - say a week - and allow residents with sufficiently high standing to the pirate faction owning the station to assist with triage carriers and logistics. We'll adapt to any change and are sure you too will adapt to change that brings more challenge to the game. More than happy to accept any reasonable limit on jump bridge networks .. which range strikes you as suitable for empire to northern Branch .. three is obviously too few and we would totally agree with you there and are further pleased to see you have fully researched this proposal and have a firm grasp on Game Mechanics .. lets double it and call it six to northern Branch .. eight to the far north of the drone regions .. eight to the furthest south east. Also, can we suggest FURTHER nerfing jump bridges by only allowing them in systems with a fully upgraded Tier 3 Gallente station (of course allowing more than one station per system is a necessary prerequisite). To balance this change, we would propose allowing the conquest of npc null-sec systems where the npc faction does not have an existing station in the same constelation - limiting guristas to individual constallations just like sisters of eve, mordus legion, and others. Balance in all things makes this game interesting, and change makes for interesting times. Nothing to add to this. Just agreeing with Mynas. This signature is useless, but it is red.
Ophelia Ursus	Posted - 2011.04.20 20:02:00 - [12] Originally by: Gizznitt Malikite JB's have a very valuable tactical advantage that should stay. The ability of the local populace to trap an enemy by getting behind them with JB's is pretty awesome!! They just need to be a little more vulnerable! Are you some kind of dummy or something? Jump bridges don't confer tactical or logistical advantages that are useful for force projection or rapidly assembling and moving giant blobs, that's some kind of dumb ~elite pvp~ meme that has no bearing on how they're used in reality and furthermore... Signature removed.
Recursa Recursion	Posted - 2011.04.21 03:59:00 - [13] Mynas, you sir are a genius.
Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed	Posted - 2011.04.21 05:09:00 - [14] Originally by: Ophelia Ursus Originally by: Gizznitt Malikite JB's have a very valuable tactical advantage that should stay. The ability of the local populace to trap an enemy by getting behind them with JB's is pretty awesome!! They just need to be a little more vulnerable! Are you some kind of dummy or something? Jump bridges don't confer tactical or logistical advantages that are useful for force projection or rapidly assembling and moving giant blobs, that's some kind of dumb ~elite pvp~ meme that has no bearing on how they're used in reality and furthermore... lol... When used for quick intraregion travel, JB's seem tactically awesome/reasonable. When used for quick interregion travel, JB's seem strategically OP and unreasonable.
Martin Mckenna V0LTA VOLTA Corp	Posted - 2011.04.21 14:21:00 - [15] Ok well i'm not going to reply to that ****e troll that goon guy posted but its good to see some people taking it seriously and recognising that jump bridges in their current format need to change. How about moving jump bridges off POS's so it still allows for fast travel and the tactical advantage of jumping around gangs but makes people vulnerably again. I realise the majority of people in sov holding alliances will be totally against this because they like having their totally safe way of travel and are opposed to being shot.
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.04.21 14:29:00 - [16] Originally by: Martin Mckenna Ok well i'm not going to reply to that ****e troll that goon guy posted but its good to see some people taking it seriously and recognising that jump bridges in their current format need to change. How about moving jump bridges off POS's so it still allows for fast travel and the tactical advantage of jumping around gangs but makes people vulnerably again. I realise the majority of people in sov holding alliances will be totally against this because they like having their totally safe way of travel and are opposed to being shot. We took the threat seriously, that's why we voted in the current CSM. We don't take these suggestions seriously though. Sorry. This signature is useless, but it is red.
Dob Bole	Posted - 2011.04.21 16:03:00 - [17] Edited by: Dob Bole on 21/04/2011 16:03:22 Notice everyone opposed to JB removal is in the nc how curious. jb as they are only serve to ruin pvp via disuse of gates and rapid forming of blobs. supported.
White Tree	Posted - 2011.04.21 16:23:00 - [18] Originally by: Dob Bole Edited by: Dob Bole on 21/04/2011 16:03:22 Notice everyone opposed to JB removal is in the nc how curious. jb as they are only serve to ruin pvp via disuse of gates and rapid forming of blobs. supported. Notice everyone in favor of it fly ~elite wulfpax~ how curious. _______________________________________
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.04.21 16:31:00 - [19] Edited by: Bagehi on 21/04/2011 16:33:56 Originally by: Dob Bole Edited by: Dob Bole on 21/04/2011 16:03:22 Notice everyone opposed to JB removal is in the nc how curious. jb as they are only serve to ruin pvp via disuse of gates and rapid forming of blobs. supported. Pretty sure Drone Regions Coalition isn't in the NC, nor is the Goon Cluster, nor are the alliances in the south. However, you will notice that sov holding alliance members, in general, support this because they actually want to get something useful out of all the isk, time, and effort they put into obtaining and holding sov. Further, I'm starting to notice the characters complaining about the existence of bridges seem to be, in large part, alts. If you feel the need to bring out your alts to strengthen your position, then you already realize you hold an extreme minority opinion. This signature is useless, but it is red.
Borza Slavak Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2011.04.21 16:38:00 - [20] Edited by: Borza Slavak on 21/04/2011 16:39:19 I'm not in the NC and wouldn't like them removed or even nerfed to heavily - people would switch to titan bridging as the norm to compensate. However a bit of tweaking could make the nullsec landscape more interesting, or in **er-speak, 'dynamic'. Tie JBs to planets. Have DUST mercs able to mess with them in some way. Have them limited to one or two specific planet types such as Ice, Oceanic, Storm. Something relatively uncommon. Many systems can't have a single JB, a bunch have one (where you'd want a neighbouring system to also have one), a rare precious few have two or more** and become shiny places. I saw one 0.0 system with 4 ice planets browsing quickly, a few with 3. This will differentiate space more separately from truesec or moons, particularly empire entrances - for example in Provi KBP has an Ice, Y-MP does not, while with Oceanic the reverse is true. A change like this introduces some more scope for conflict and new targets during invasion but doesn't force it on the sandbox. JB interdiction would be a bit easier in that a wide range of gang makeups could do it effectively rather than a select few, but the networks aren't exactly 100% safe currently so no game-changer. If anything 3 and 4 bridge systems may become well populated, guarded and safer. I also like the suggestion of planet characteristics having an effect rather than just planet type. It's a bit more opaque though and possibly harder to code - are they anything other than superficial values code-wise? Alternatively different planet-types could have different effects on the JB, such as reduced fuel usage from Plasma pairs, increased range on Ice pairs, Ocean JBs being able to transport (super)capitals but having a cooldown or something. However without restricting alliances to picking and choosing one of such types you'd get wide proliferation again. Perhaps racial JB variants could do the same trick? TL;DR jump bridges can be changed to make the game more interesting but outright nerfbatting or removing wouldn't solve anything.

Mynas Atoch Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.04.21 19:37:00 - [21] Edited by: Mynas Atoch on 21/04/2011 19:42:19 Originally by: Martin Mckenna Ok well i'm not going to reply to that ****e troll that goon guy posted but its good to see some people taking it seriously and recognising that jump bridges in their current format need to change. How about moving jump bridges off POS's so it still allows for fast travel and the tactical advantage of jumping around gangs but makes people vulnerably again. I realise the majority of people in sov holding alliances will be totally against this because they like having their totally safe way of travel and are opposed to being shot. I wasn't trolling .. I was absolutely serious. You consider the biggest advantage the territorial powers have to be their invulnerable jump bridge networks (though you seemingly ignor the likes of Burn Eden who simply destroy Jump Bridges at will when they are inconvenient to them and to drive conflict). We consider the biggest advantage the pirate alliances have to be their invulnerable npc stations. We are looking for some give and take here. You nerf our abilities permanently .. we are looking to be able to nerf yours TEMPORARILY on the few days a year we are organized enough to bring the fight to you. The mechanics compromise was serious too .. pick a number of bridges from empire to the furthest reaches of space and we have something to talk about .. compromise by giving us the ability to take unused "pirate sov" constellations to fill in the gaps and we'll be more than happy to discuss it. The art of negotiation is greatly enhanced by putting yourself in the other side's shoes and looking for what THEY would settle for. If YOU are not trolling, ignore the likes of White Tree, and engage with us. If you ARE trolling, then he is right about you.
Spazz21 Amarr Angha	Posted - 2011.04.21 20:49:00 - [22] Originally by: Mynas Atoch Edited by: Mynas Atoch on 21/04/2011 20:06:34 Edited by: Mynas Atoch on 21/04/2011 20:05:14 Edited by: Mynas Atoch on 21/04/2011 19:42:19 Originally by: Martin Mckenna Ok well i'm not going to reply to that ****e troll that goon guy posted but its good to see some people taking it seriously and recognising that jump bridges in their current format need to change. How about moving jump bridges off POS's so it still allows for fast travel and the tactical advantage of jumping around gangs but makes people vulnerably again. I realise the majority of people in sov holding alliances will be totally against this because they like having their totally safe way of travel and are opposed to being shot. I wasn't trolling .. I was absolutely serious. You consider the biggest advantage the territorial powers have to be their invulnerable jump bridge networks (though you seemingly ignor the likes of Burn Eden who simply destroy Jump Bridges at will when they are inconvenient to them and to drive conflict). We consider the biggest advantage the pirate alliances have to be their invulnerable npc stations. We are looking for some give and take here. You nerf our abilities permanently .. we are looking to be able to nerf yours TEMPORARILY on the few days a year we are organized enough to bring the fight to you. The mechanics compromise was serious too .. pick a number of bridges from empire to the furthest reaches of space and we have something to talk about .. compromise by giving us the ability to take unused "pirate sov" constellations to fill in the gaps and we'll be more than happy to discuss it. The art of negotiation is greatly enhanced by putting yourself in the other side's shoes and looking for what THEY would settle for. If YOU are not trolling, ignore the likes of White Tree, and engage with us. If you ARE trolling, then he is right about you. You say move the bridges off POS. Definitely not going to reject that out of hand .. trade it off for .. say .. cloaks using fuel and balanced against ship class and ship mass? And you could probably have a agreement on that in minutes. I like this guy, he brings up some good points. And I agree, if people want it nerfed, then have it at some kind of compromise. If you are too damn lazy to make the effort, then don't have CCP cater to your laziness. Get some ships and blow the JB up. As for POS Bashing being boring, well too bad. It's the same way it's been since the start. Dreads already have such little use now it's pathetic. As for why the JBs should stay. Like Mynas was saying, you want to nerf Sov alliances, yet do nothing to alliances/corps that stay in NPC space. There has to be some benefit in being in a sov alliance. CCP already killed 70% of desired Null space. Get rid of JBs and there will be no point in claiming Sov. Then there wouldn't be any need for Capitals because no one would be fighting over systems. You just want to keep on killing Null for your own damn benefit and not thinking about it for everyone else.
Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed	Posted - 2011.04.21 22:01:00 - [23] Originally by: Mynas Atoch You say move the bridges off POS. Definitely not going to reject that out of hand .. trade it off for .. say .. cloaks using fuel and balanced against ship class and ship mass? And you could probably have a agreement on that in minutes. I would think the trade off should be related to the mechanic under review... So including a discussion of cloaks in general is meh... Potential trade-offs: JB Gate cloak... when loading grid on the other side of a JB, you get a 30-60s cloak as well as a JB activation effect (although I'm not sure this is easily programmed). Increased JB HP w/ perhaps a reinforce mode to allow saving. Decreased JB fuel use. Increased Fuel capacity. (The reason I keep linking them to the IHUB is that the IHUB is an alliance/corp asset that could easily be retrofitted with a fuel bay, and they already have a configuration screen that could be updated for inclusion of JB operations). Your ideas on incapping services at NPC stations is worth of discussion, but not applicable to this thread. Same goes for multiple outposts/system, reducing NPC space, and the like. Originally by: Mynas Atoch How many Jumps would be reasonable to travel from Lonetrek (Taisy) to Northern Branch (D4R-H7)? 10-15, including gate travel (which I think it roughly is atm). I would prefer it if JB's range wouldn't allow interregion travel (which is currently the case often).
Martin Mckenna V0LTA VOLTA Corp	Posted - 2011.05.10 18:13:00 - [24] Originally by: Martin Mckenna I started writing a massive wall of text about how they sucked but tbh I think this is better. Remove them or limit them to one per system at least. Promotes PVP. Adds risk again to 0.0. Makes logistics, logistical again. Makes 0.0 big again. No more jumping to deepest 0.0 systems in 3 jumps. Cheers Quoting this to thank CCP regarding the recent dev blob. For anyone that has not seen it. Linkage
Wolodymyr	Posted - 2011.05.10 21:44:00 - [25] Originally by: White Tree Notice everyone in favor of it fly ~elite wulfpax~ how curious. I don't fly a wolf and I also do not like jump bridges. They make it too easy to blob people, too easy to set up pet alliances, and too easy to avoid gates by warping from one POS to another.
Patty Patrick Patterson	Posted - 2011.05.10 22:40:00 - [26] Edited by: Patty Patrick Patterson on 10/05/2011 22:40:51 ITT: "We need current JB mechanics to stay relevent up north." Edit: Cluster-north colition, has a nice ring to it.
MeBiatch	Posted - 2011.05.11 02:11:00 - [27] Originally by: White Tree Originally by: Dob Bole Edited by: Dob Bole on 21/04/2011 16:03:22 Notice everyone opposed to JB removal is in the nc how curious. jb as they are only serve to ruin pvp via disuse of gates and rapid forming of blobs. supported. Notice everyone in favor of it fly ~elite wulfpax~ how curious. wow you are a big Fuking baby!!! no wonder your corp left you! stupid tree JB makes super coalitions possilbe... i remember when an super coalition was mad pact in drone regions which took up 2.5 regions when there was no such thing as JB... i cant wait to see your NC fall to fire and dust... the only reason why the nc is still together is because of JB... its such a joke... so many jb to MM home systems... now you might require skill to rule so much space!!! death to all super aliances!!!!
Vaju Katru	Posted - 2011.05.11 10:33:00 - [28] Supported, kill bridges.


Pages: [1] :: 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.