EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
3 PagesPrevious page123Next page
 

Feature Requests: Empire Jump Bridges

Author
#21 - 2017-02-14 17:27:47 UTC
Linus Gorp wrote:
From a lore standpoint, these do exist already.. But just why would the empires give us access to them?
These networks are designed for their navies, not capsuleers.


Could be a way to use high standings better. Right now super-high faction standing just gives you some tax exemptions and some faction BPCs. Would be neat if you could gain access to faction jump bridges in High and LowSec with high enough standings.
Caldari State
#22 - 2017-02-14 17:31:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Hakawai
Ptraci wrote:
Bypassing Uedama and Sivala, Tama and Rancer, what could possibly go wrong.

There are already several different versions of the idea in this forum. I don\t think it's fair to assume that the only possible implementation is to change the system / security level topology.
Cannon.Fodder
#23 - 2017-02-14 22:20:43 UTC
Gates are coming.

they will replace JB. we will see if they can go in hs.

OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!

Eve For life.

Gallente Federation
#24 - 2017-02-14 22:43:01 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Siete wrote:
I was not intending this to be for instantaneous travel around high-sec. Potentially things like high-sec <-> FW staging to help the war effort, bridges between Agent hubs to assist missioners, high-sec <-> 0.0 entry systems. Not for inter-linking empires or trade hubs, merely to help citizens run their daily lives

These Jump bridges should be limited to combat ships only (IE. No hauling ships, no caps etc etc...)



This sort of thing is exactly the sort of thing that *shouldn't* be done with things like this.

First off, it makes the universe smaller.

Second, it's a major buff to certain forms of gameplay in the case of Faction Warfare or similar.

Third, and at the risk of someone dying of laughter, what about the gankers? Bottleneck systems are a large part of what make ganking possible, along with the travel times in Eve. This sort of economic activity is a cornerstone of Eve's gameplay and shouldn't be messed with overly much.

If you want to be close to something then set up close to it, if you want to be close to a lot of things then either make a trade off and live with it or use Jump Clones. If you want to move stuff faster from place to place then play World of Warcraft... or, you know, take the time and effort to scan down a Wormhole Route that's faster.



"Won't someone think of the gankers?" ROFL 🤣

Actually, a small number of strategic bridges, would add to the game if it was done sympathetically, widen options, and add interest, rather than people knowing Everything ends up going via niarja and uedama at some point or other.
#25 - 2017-02-14 22:45:21 UTC
DaReaper wrote:
Gates are coming.

Soon™.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

#26 - 2017-02-15 01:53:11 UTC
Alderson Point wrote:
"Won't someone think of the gankers?" ROFL 🤣

Actually, a small number of strategic bridges, would add to the game if it was done sympathetically, widen options, and add interest, rather than people knowing Everything ends up going via niarja and uedama at some point or other.


Only getting to certain destinations from certain others. It's absolutely intentional that the Eve universe has choke points though, and that's not something I see CCP getting rid of any time soon.
#27 - 2017-02-15 03:36:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Alderson Point wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Siete wrote:
I was not intending this to be for instantaneous travel around high-sec. Potentially things like high-sec <-> FW staging to help the war effort, bridges between Agent hubs to assist missioners, high-sec <-> 0.0 entry systems. Not for inter-linking empires or trade hubs, merely to help citizens run their daily lives

These Jump bridges should be limited to combat ships only (IE. No hauling ships, no caps etc etc...)



This sort of thing is exactly the sort of thing that *shouldn't* be done with things like this.

First off, it makes the universe smaller.

Second, it's a major buff to certain forms of gameplay in the case of Faction Warfare or similar.

Third, and at the risk of someone dying of laughter, what about the gankers? Bottleneck systems are a large part of what make ganking possible, along with the travel times in Eve. This sort of economic activity is a cornerstone of Eve's gameplay and shouldn't be messed with overly much.

If you want to be close to something then set up close to it, if you want to be close to a lot of things then either make a trade off and live with it or use Jump Clones. If you want to move stuff faster from place to place then play World of Warcraft... or, you know, take the time and effort to scan down a Wormhole Route that's faster.



"Won't someone think of the gankers?" ROFL 🤣

Actually, a small number of strategic bridges, would add to the game if it was done sympathetically, widen options, and add interest, rather than people knowing Everything ends up going via niarja and uedama at some point or other.
I'd give it about 5 minutes after the introduction of empire bridges before people start camping them and otherwise using them to their advantage, 10 minutes before the calls for nerfs appear on the forums because somebody exploded.

This is Eve.
If there's a way to bend a mechanic without actually breaking the rules, people will find it and use it.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

#28 - 2017-02-15 04:08:36 UTC
Can we charge tolls?

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

#29 - 2017-02-15 04:23:03 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Can we charge tolls?
If you can camp it, you can charge people for safe passage through your camp Pirate

Scan their ships, use a percentage value as your toll. Expect people to be unhappy and call you a sociopath.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

#30 - 2017-02-15 04:24:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
If you can camp it, you can charge people for safe passage through your camp Pirate
Scan their ships, use a percentage value as your toll. Expect people to be unhappy and call you a sociopath.

Assuming the destination ends where we tell them it does... We could rent out a gate-camp at the end.Twisted

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Caldari State
#31 - 2017-02-15 04:28:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Hakawai
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Alderson Point wrote:
"Won't someone think of the gankers?" ROFL 🤣

Actually, a small number of strategic bridges, would add to the game if it was done sympathetically, widen options, and add interest, rather than people knowing Everything ends up going via niarja and uedama at some point or other.
I'd give it about 5 minutes after the introduction of empire bridges before people start camping them and otherwise using them to their advantage, 10 minutes before the calls for nerfs appear on the forums because somebody exploded.

This is Eve.
If there's a way to bend a mechanic without actually breaking the rules, people will find it and use it.

"Everything man-made is imperfect, so nothing ever works"?

It's the perfect argument for or against anything: you can use it to justify any change; you can use it to claim any change will not have the intended positive effect; and you can use it to claim any given change will make things worse.

It's obviously true that if they wanted to, CCP could:

  • make travel more convenient
  • modify the stellar system topology to add more access points (reducing the effect of inappropriate choke-points)
  • make a small(ish) number of jump gates, even in low/null-sec, that could not be camped

Of course they wouldn't do a perfect job of these things, but they could do them well enough to make them reasonably effective/useful.
#32 - 2017-02-15 04:38:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Hakawai wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
I'd give it about 5 minutes after the introduction of empire bridges before people start camping them and otherwise using them to their advantage, 10 minutes before the calls for nerfs appear on the forums because somebody exploded.

This is Eve.
If there's a way to bend a mechanic without actually breaking the rules, people will find it and use it.

"Everything man-made is imperfect, so nothing ever works"?

It's the perfect argument for or against anything: you can use it to justify any change; you can use it to claim any change will not have the intended positive effect; and you can use it to claim any given change will make things worse.
I've merely pointed out that people will use them in unintended ways, and that people will die on them then whine on the forums about it.

I'm all for change, and the concept offers some interesting opportunities for those inclined to take advantage of them; but the introduction of empire jump bridges would not be something taken lightly, the ramifications of it for the game as a whole would rival that of player built gates.

Quote:
It's obviously true that if they wanted to, CCP could:

  • make travel more convenient
  • modify the stellar system topology to add more access points (reducing the effect of inappropriate choke-points)
  • make a small(ish) number of jump gates, even in low/null-sec, that could not be camped

Of course they wouldn't do a perfect job of these things, but they could do them well enough to make them reasonably effective/useful.
The question is not about if CCP could, it's about if CCP should.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

#33 - 2017-02-15 04:49:25 UTC
I think CCP should first fix all the bugs, finish module tiericide and ship rebalancing.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

#34 - 2017-02-15 04:49:38 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
If you can camp it, you can charge people for safe passage through your camp Pirate
Scan their ships, use a percentage value as your toll. Expect people to be unhappy and call you a sociopath.

Assuming the destination ends where we tell them it does... We could rent out a gate-camp at the end.Twisted
You might appreciate this Lol

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

#35 - 2017-02-15 04:54:30 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:

Damn that's twisted! Twisted

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

#36 - 2017-02-15 05:01:30 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
If you can camp it, you can charge people for safe passage through your camp Pirate
Scan their ships, use a percentage value as your toll. Expect people to be unhappy and call you a sociopath.

Assuming the destination ends where we tell them it does... We could rent out a gate-camp at the end.Twisted
You might appreciate this Lol


I am disappoint that the image link there doesn't seem to work anymore :(
#37 - 2017-02-15 05:05:46 UTC
Hakawai wrote:
"Everything man-made is imperfect, so nothing ever works"?

It's the perfect argument for or against anything: you can use it to justify any change; you can use it to claim any change will not have the intended positive effect; and you can use it to claim any given change will make things worse.

It's obviously true that if they wanted to, CCP could:

  • make travel more convenient
  • modify the stellar system topology to add more access points (reducing the effect of inappropriate choke-points)
  • make a small(ish) number of jump gates, even in low/null-sec, that could not be camped

Of course they wouldn't do a perfect job of these things, but they could do them well enough to make them reasonably effective/useful.


See, the actual problem here is you want space to be easier to traverse and for there to be (apparently) no choke points. Various members of the player base, probably a majority by my estimation, and CCP have reasons why this should not be the case, many of which have been elaborated in this thread.

As someone else said, the question isn't if they can or even if they would do a good job towards your objective, it's if they should do these things at all. Personally I don't think the benefits here outweigh the costs, and I don't think you even appreciate that there are costs to something like this.

Making space smaller has negative consequences, as does making travel easier. Eve is big, and that comes with a lot of benefits, like groups not being able to rush from one camping spot to another or easily threaten space a long way away from themselves.

In fact the Jump Fatigue changes were something to remove exactly the sort of travel system you're requesting be added here, where players could quickly and almost effortlessly get from one end of Eve to the other in about 10 minutes. It was horrible, we're better off with it gone.
#38 - 2017-02-15 06:19:56 UTC
MMO's reiterate that old saw about time having value, and that value varies.

So we get MMOs charging money for timed subscriptions.
We get players making money doing time consuming stuff; like mining or haulage.
We aren't really doing those activities, we are literally spending time to earn some currency or other.

CCP could do the same, if they were in the value making business.

For instance charge for quick travel.

Doesn't really matter which currency to use, they all tie in to each other.

Say 50 million ISK to use an NPC Jump to fast travel. Perhaps tie the price to distance and the current value of PLEX.

Time is money CCP.

*puts up taxi sign*

~ ~~ Thinking inside Schrodinger's sandbox. ~~ ~

The-Culture
#39 - 2017-02-15 06:25:06 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
If you can camp it, you can charge people for safe passage through your camp Pirate
Scan their ships, use a percentage value as your toll. Expect people to be unhappy and call you a sociopath.

Assuming the destination ends where we tell them it does... We could rent out a gate-camp at the end.Twisted
You might appreciate this Lol


Genius.

Come hell or high water, this sick world will know I was here.

#40 - 2017-02-15 06:32:54 UTC
I have some thoughts on this:

1. It's an interesting idea. Though will likely have economic implications for transport and the market.

2. Those economic impacts would need to be offset with some kind of fuel cost. Using the jump-bridge should be an expensive process, and should become even more so with increase mass being put through it.

3. Limiting those jump bridges to combat vessels only is a stupid idea. It promotes all of the downsides of force projection, ganker mobility, wardec mobility, without any of the positives... Namely reducing the tedium of moving stuff from point A to point B.
3 PagesPrevious page123Next page
Forum Jump