| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Hyperforce99
Gallente
Infinite Covenant
Majesta Empire
   |
Posted - 2011.05.16 18:15:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Hyperforce99 on 16/05/2011 18:19:59
I propose an alternative change to the jump bridges which uses a similar mechanic as wormholes to limit what can pass through them, instead of the flat limitations that are currently being integrated.
Lets have a look what the current proposed changes are trying to achieve:
- Remove the ability to safely transport large fleets across vast distances.
- Remove the ability for capital ships to easily cross distances without using their jump drives.
- Making refueling jump bridges less of a hassle.
- Not actually removing jump bridges from the game suggests that they should still be usable for small fleets.
However the current changes will bluntly remove a lot of the features jump bridges are used for and make them a hassle to use.
Especially the change that only allows 1 jump bridge per system is a very un-elegant solution.
-------------------------------------  The elegant alternative --------------------------------------
Someone else suggested before that jump-bridges should have a "Mass Capacitor" instead of the current fuel bay.
The capacitor depletes as mass (ships) jump through the array. If the capacitor is depleted or if not enough mass is available for a certain ship type it renders the jump bridge unusable.
The capacitor would slowly recharge passively by itself, but recharge substantially faster if supplied with fuel.
- The Mass Capacitor's maximum limit and the recharge speeds can easily be tweaked to adjust the types of ships and the amount of ships that can use them. Unlike the proposed flat limitations that are being integrated right now.
This alternative would achieve most if not all of the same goals the current proposed change to jump bridges is trying to achieve but in a much more efficient, elegant and easier to tweak manner.
This change would create a system where:
- Large fleets or capitals would rapidly deplete the mass reserves in the jump bridge's capacitor rendering the jump bridge useless.
- Using jump bridges for smaller fleets like Home Defense would still be viable.
- Normal capital ships could this way still move into cyno jammed systems, just not in the massive quantities that todays system allows.
- The changed fuel mechanic would remove a lot of the hassle revolving around jump bridge refueling, as lesser used routes would no longer require refueling. Often used routes however still benefit from being fueled making the mechanic much more user friendly.
- Travel times and 0.0 Accessibility would not be effected.
- This change would effect all alliances the same way! Unlike the current proposed change which will hit the smaller alliances hardest as developing the additional space needed for a jump bridge network is relativly much harder for them.
- If an alliances space comes under attack by an invading fleet, the initial response would quickly deplete the defenders jump bridges. Once they are depleted, the defenders would be forced to use regular jump gates and jump drives until the jump bridge's capacitors are recharged.
This way it should still be possible to keep 2 jump bridges in one solar system while still forcing large fleets and capitals to take other routes. By making the mass capacitors of jump bridges deplete when they are off-lined, you prevent players from abusing this mechanic, as well as allow enemy fleets from further disabling jump bridge capabilities by knocking the POS into reinforced mode. (as once the POS comes out of reinforced mode the jump bridge would still have to recharge its capacitor.)
I suggest CCP takes another close look at their jump bridge change, as I personally don't like if it features are nerfed with flat limitations. I'd much rather see a scalable and elegant solution such as this.
---------------------------------------------
Somewhere beyond happyness and sadness, I need to calculate what creates my own madness o/ |
Katrina Cortez
|
Posted - 2011.05.16 18:22:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Katrina Cortez on 16/05/2011 18:26:28
Good idea... but now we can spam JB without having to maintain them?
|
Hyperforce99
Gallente
Infinite Covenant
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2011.05.16 18:30:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Hyperforce99 on 16/05/2011 18:31:48
 Originally by: Katrina Cortez
Edited by: Katrina Cortez on 16/05/2011 18:24:18
I like it... but i still like 1 JB per system too.
The reason CCP is changing it to 1 JB per system is because of the above reasons.
This alternative takes this into account removing the need for said Nerf.
Also, as stated, by limiting to 1 JB per system, smaller alliances are hit harder relative to larger alliances, as they would have to develop more space to create their jump bride networks. Making them much weaker against initial invasion.
If your talking about creating bottlenecks inside highsec to 0.0 JB highways, then yes 1 JB per system would create that. However thats one change I do not like out of personal reasons. I'd rather fight around my own space than have to constantly patrol the highway (which with this alternative system would eventually deplete the highway, opening up for a lot of harassment).
---------------------------------------------
Somewhere beyond happyness and sadness, I need to calculate what creates my own madness o/ |
Hyperforce99
Gallente
Infinite Covenant
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2011.05.16 18:38:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Hyperforce99 on 16/05/2011 18:40:34
Originally by: Katrina Cortez
Good idea... but now we can spam JB without having to maintain them?
No, as without maintenance they would deplete under high or even normal use, as their passive recharge is not very fast.
If you supply them with fuel however their recharge is multiplied substantially, making it essential to fuel them if they are used often.
CCP has already stated they want to relief the hassle of refueling JBs somewhat. This change does that more effectively.
Perhaps integrating a system where the recharge speed can be adjusted upward somewhat, at the cost of a higher fuel consumption could be considered.
---------------------------------------------
Somewhere beyond happyness and sadness, I need to calculate what creates my own madness o/ |
Katrina Cortez
|
Posted - 2011.05.16 18:50:00 -
[5]
Ok, i give it a maybe. :)
|
Covert Kitty
Amarr
ISK Solutions
SRS.
|
Posted - 2011.05.16 19:38:00 -
[6]
Quote:
....opening up for a lot of harassment
This is a large part of the point of limiting it to 1 system, because as it is now you can move around almost entirely safely. This change is not a nerf, its a buff to smaller gang roams.
I definitely support the change CPP is making.
|
Hyperforce99
Gallente
Infinite Covenant
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2011.05.16 20:23:00 -
[7]
Perhaps a compromise where the amount of JB per system (1 or 2) is linked to the systems development level. This way high developed space can still have 2 gates per system while these JB highways will become very costly to maintain if an alliance wants only 2 JB systems.
---------------------------------------------
Somewhere beyond happyness and sadness, I need to calculate what creates my own madness o/ |
Crausaum
Ixion Defence Systems
Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2011.05.16 21:22:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Covert Kitty
Quote:
....opening up for a lot of harassment
This change is not a nerf, its a buff to smaller gang roams.
We're really paying a heck of a price for that buff though.
With the increase to Sov costs, slowing of transit, and hassle of waiting on intel these bottlenecks better generate a lot of PvP or I will just be frustrated that I'm now wasting more of my time getting around for no real improvement in my entertainment.
Realistically I'm betting in relation to a day the changes are just going to be 98% slowing people trying to get somewhere fun versus 2% people in high speed Minmatar vessels grabbing a quick kill at the gate before running back to safespots before posting "GF lol" in local.
I can get that kind of gameplay in empire space if I wanted it...
Overall I think the OP's suggestion is good, it doesn't really get us more small gang warfare but I'm really skeptical that the one bridge per system change will get people the PvP they want anyways.
---------------------------
absit iniuria verbis |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |