These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Rebuttal: Nerf Without Cause: Jump Drives

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#181 - 2013-01-16 15:08:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Combat versus logistics it seems...

So far hotdropping is generally used for reinforcements from the larger force who rush to defend, call in backup and obliterate opposition. Since you are using a small vs large concept, I doubt those smaller groups have the backup to call in. So they would either die or retreat or win. But they would know that to begin with. Removing the ability to hotdrop 3x the #s of that smaller force (as a combat pov) would still generate a good fight, which is what the smaller group wants in the first place since they are not nullsec longterm residents (assumption).

If that is the case, using a smaller group trying out sov null and learning the ropes, it actually HELPS that smaller group since generally even after a fight I'd assume negotiations would then ensue.

You take a larger group who rushes to defend, hotdrops via escalation, obliterates and dominates that fight, the smaller group loses interest.

You then have either a one hit wonder of a fight, or lose a potential ally, or lose a potential enemy that could still end up being have fun to have (knowing they are new and not truly a threat to your empire anyways... yet).

Ergo, you would entirely destroy the growth aspect and again remain in your niche and only a few hours would have pissed like a ripple in the pond, with that smaller group losing interest.

In regards to logistics... since that smaller group wouldn't be able to get a foothold in sov anyways because of hotdropping and wiping them out in a "op" fashion, that smaller group wouldn't have the chance to even consider the logistics of their new home in regards to however many jumps their transport has to complete for their supply train.

Take or nerf that jump drive ability, and now you just might give that smaller group a chance, regardless if it would make it more difficult or not isn't the question. The chance to try is already removed with current mechanics.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#182 - 2013-01-16 15:16:27 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Isn't that what 80% of the Goons contributing to this thread are saying needs to be done anyways? I'd think that this would help accomplish those means. Instead, you have an argument where it's a bad idea because smaller groups need friends and to join bigger groups, but if what we are saying would be the case, it would hurt the smaller groups and force them to join a larger group.

If it's a win:win situation, why argue in the first place?

Kind of tanks credibility at that point doesn't it?


are you really trying to take the route of "why argue if it APPPARENTLY helps you LOL CONSPIRACY THEORY"

because if so just stop posting

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#183 - 2013-01-16 15:18:53 UTC
Andski wrote:
iskflakes wrote:
A cyno mass limit is the right choice because it doesn't hurt individual pilots. Want to move a capital? No problem. Want to supply nullsec with a couple of jump freighters at the same time? No problem. Want to drop a few dreads or triage carriers into a fight? No problem. Want to move 350 supercapitals to the other side of the map within 5 minutes? Nope.jpg. Super blobs should have to be deployed long in advance of their usage. If you want to drop in unannounced to a fight, then do it with 5-10 supers, not 350.


"I want to be able to stomp people without risk of interference from PL"

mmm? what happened? PL doesn't like goonswarm anymore? Shocked

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#184 - 2013-01-16 15:20:15 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
Andski wrote:
iskflakes wrote:
A cyno mass limit is the right choice because it doesn't hurt individual pilots. Want to move a capital? No problem. Want to supply nullsec with a couple of jump freighters at the same time? No problem. Want to drop a few dreads or triage carriers into a fight? No problem. Want to move 350 supercapitals to the other side of the map within 5 minutes? Nope.jpg. Super blobs should have to be deployed long in advance of their usage. If you want to drop in unannounced to a fight, then do it with 5-10 supers, not 350.


"I want to be able to stomp people without risk of interference from PL"

mmm? what happened? PL doesn't like goonswarm anymore? Shocked

They're not blue to each other I believe, so no.
At least, PL is red to us, so they're likely also red to GSF.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#185 - 2013-01-16 15:23:34 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
Andski wrote:
iskflakes wrote:
A cyno mass limit is the right choice because it doesn't hurt individual pilots. Want to move a capital? No problem. Want to supply nullsec with a couple of jump freighters at the same time? No problem. Want to drop a few dreads or triage carriers into a fight? No problem. Want to move 350 supercapitals to the other side of the map within 5 minutes? Nope.jpg. Super blobs should have to be deployed long in advance of their usage. If you want to drop in unannounced to a fight, then do it with 5-10 supers, not 350.


"I want to be able to stomp people without risk of interference from PL"

mmm? what happened? PL doesn't like goonswarm anymore? Shocked


i realize you don't understand "posting" but i'm pointing out that the guy i quoted is afraid of counter-drops when hotdropping people

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#186 - 2013-01-16 15:35:03 UTC
Andski wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
And would do away with jumping directly into a fight and would not hamper the ability of actually traveling which is what everyone is bitching about.

Use some sort of alignment cooldown and the only thing taken away would be the ability to directly engage a fight, which is about the only travel method that does NOT employ some sort of invulvnerability that would constitute as being "op".

Would also enforce the method of having to strategically place a front to engage from, which logistically, is a bit better anyways. Since we are talking about titan bridging for the sake of fighting and not cyno alts in rookie ships etc, or traveling which would in fact not help at all, but also would not hinder.

Next trolling comment please.


so supercaps literally never dying is, to you, an acceptable tradeoff for some gatecamps not getting crashed by subcaps titan bridging in



No, supercaps not being able target or ships jumping in not being able to target for X seconds. Not invulverability, but offensive capabilities.

That I think would be an acceptable tradeoff. Think of it as a non covops/blackops ship using a cloak then decloaking. There's a cooldown until they can "align" their guns and shoot them at people, including locking.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#187 - 2013-01-16 15:39:27 UTC
Andski wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Isn't that what 80% of the Goons contributing to this thread are saying needs to be done anyways? I'd think that this would help accomplish those means. Instead, you have an argument where it's a bad idea because smaller groups need friends and to join bigger groups, but if what we are saying would be the case, it would hurt the smaller groups and force them to join a larger group.

If it's a win:win situation, why argue in the first place?

Kind of tanks credibility at that point doesn't it?


are you really trying to take the route of "why argue if it APPPARENTLY helps you LOL CONSPIRACY THEORY"

because if so just stop posting



No, 2 sides of the argument come from the fact that the end result becomes "join a bigger blob" whether it talks about a small group trying to do what they want, or if the change DID go through, we would need to join a bigger blob.

Are you even reading?

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#188 - 2013-01-16 15:44:45 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
i thought mass limits on cynos was a boss idea too until i realized that the first thing that would happen is the first bridged ships would be a bunch of additional cyno frigs

well. and this would make defenders be able to prevent somehow cyno-blobbing by killing some of cyno-ships in process.

However the whole idea of cyno-BEACON mass-limit is strange for me. After all cyno is just beacon which marks some point in space for jump drive. It has no connection to any masses.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#189 - 2013-01-16 16:01:03 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:

I don't really know why, but a bunch of people in NPC corps keep telling me it will; so it must.

let me tell you something about accounts and characters in Eve Online and difference between these two strange words.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#190 - 2013-01-16 16:03:35 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
i thought mass limits on cynos was a boss idea too until i realized that the first thing that would happen is the first bridged ships would be a bunch of additional cyno frigs

well. and this would make defenders be able to prevent somehow cyno-blobbing by killing some of cyno-ships in process.

However the whole idea of cyno-BEACON mass-limit is strange for me. After all cyno is just beacon which marks some point in space for jump drive. It has no connection to any masses.


How fast can you kill a brick tanked Archon? Keep in mind that, due to the invulnerability timer you recieve upon jumping in, you can't start shooting until the Cyno goes up. 3.3m EHP is going to take a while to kill. (Chimera gets 4.3m EHP at the cost of being unlikely to receive significant reps once the rest of the Capital fleet lands.)

Assuming more than one ship can jump to the first cyno, how fast can you kill x Pantheon fit Archons? Now they have an RR chain, and you're going to have to alpha through them before the first person can rt click > jump.

Limiting the number/mass of ships that can use one cyno does not help the defender unless they're defending against a group that doesn't have the manpower and capital to have Carriers ready to provide secondary cynos for combat drops (i.e. a smaller group).


The problem with all of these proposed "fixes" is that, because a large group can simply throw money/manpower at a task, any nerf aimed at them will disproportionately affect smaller groups. This is the core problem with trying to nerf the fact that 1+1 > 1.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#191 - 2013-01-16 16:09:12 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
No, supercaps not being able target or ships jumping in not being able to target for X seconds. Not invulverability, but offensive capabilities.

That I think would be an acceptable tradeoff. Think of it as a non covops/blackops ship using a cloak then decloaking. There's a cooldown until they can "align" their guns and shoot them at people, including locking.


The inevitable result in preventing ships landing from a cyno from targeting is that Supers will almost never die. Because the HIC you bridged in to tackle them can't actually tackle anything until well after the supers have warped away. Moving the HIC via gates doesn't work either because the Supers will be done with their task and leaving the field long before the HIC arrives. And keeping HICs pre-seeded everywhere is only a viable option for larger groups on defensive campaigns.

In other words, your suggestion makes it virtually impossible to use supers against a defending group large enough to seed HICs/Dics in all their stations, but trivial to use supers against an attacking force or smaller group.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#192 - 2013-01-16 16:09:32 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Zloco Crendraven wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Okay, so we're getting somewhere.
Now you explain what part of the game it's breaking and how it's being broken.


It has been explained over and over again and i am not going to repeat my and other words anymore. When u ll ve some decent arguments write it down.

No, it hasn't. All you've been saying is "it's too fast, it should be nerfed".

translation: i don't see a thing! (my eyes are closed)

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#193 - 2013-01-16 16:16:27 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
No, supercaps not being able target or ships jumping in not being able to target for X seconds. Not invulverability, but offensive capabilities.

That I think would be an acceptable tradeoff. Think of it as a non covops/blackops ship using a cloak then decloaking. There's a cooldown until they can "align" their guns and shoot them at people, including locking.


yes, while the supercaps they jumped in to kill align to their safespots and warp out

in other words, supercaps being unkillable

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#194 - 2013-01-16 16:19:17 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Zloco Crendraven wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Okay, so we're getting somewhere.
Now you explain what part of the game it's breaking and how it's being broken.


It has been explained over and over again and i am not going to repeat my and other words anymore. When u ll ve some decent arguments write it down.

No, it hasn't. All you've been saying is "it's too fast, it should be nerfed".

translation: i don't see a thing! (my eyes are closed)


So, can you explain what part of the game that jump distance/speed is breaking and the manner in which it is doing so? Or provide a quote and link to an explanation?

Since it's apparently so obvious, doing so should be trivial, right?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#195 - 2013-01-16 16:31:11 UTC
Andski wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
No, supercaps not being able target or ships jumping in not being able to target for X seconds. Not invulverability, but offensive capabilities.

That I think would be an acceptable tradeoff. Think of it as a non covops/blackops ship using a cloak then decloaking. There's a cooldown until they can "align" their guns and shoot them at people, including locking.


yes, while the supercaps they jumped in to kill align to their safespots and warp out

in other words, supercaps being unkillable



So the supercaps jump in, align to safespots, and warp out while doing what... nothing? Ok.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#196 - 2013-01-16 16:42:06 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
No, supercaps not being able target or ships jumping in not being able to target for X seconds. Not invulverability, but offensive capabilities.

That I think would be an acceptable tradeoff. Think of it as a non covops/blackops ship using a cloak then decloaking. There's a cooldown until they can "align" their guns and shoot them at people, including locking.


The inevitable result in preventing ships landing from a cyno from targeting is that Supers will almost never die. Because the HIC you bridged in to tackle them can't actually tackle anything until well after the supers have warped away. Moving the HIC via gates doesn't work either because the Supers will be done with their task and leaving the field long before the HIC arrives. And keeping HICs pre-seeded everywhere is only a viable option for larger groups on defensive campaigns.

In other words, your suggestion makes it virtually impossible to use supers against a defending group large enough to seed HICs/Dics in all their stations, but trivial to use supers against an attacking force or smaller group.



Then I guess a further mechanic attunement based on mass would be in order. Rough drafts and tune ups etc. But the point, is to not just drop in a super and just "win the fight" because as already stated.... null is about diplomacy and just fighting should be in low right? And yes, a trade off would be that it would affect all ships, including those brought in to tackle.

As it is right now, intel is almost worthless because if you can just pop in X supercaps from N amount of systems away without a penalty, it does quite simply overpower any chance of winning unless you are the blob. I get that it doesn't have to be equal or "balanced" but setting better odds is always ideal.

But we are also talking about logistics (freight jumping) and while this argument doesn't really affect that since the orig argument put in Mynna's article was about increasing the # of jumps, we have a mentality of "logistics" now.

If you know it would be that much more difficult to warp in 15 of your supcaps to a fight of only a few hundred, and it might not be needed and also a waste of fuel... chances are you might not want to commit to it. Again, diplomacy and logistics. You know, that the other side is facing the same problem, and as the larger force know that the cost won't affect you as much.

But that means a wild card... what if that other side DOES want to spend the money, maybe their upkeep isn't as heavy hitting. Who knows? You only know that it would be more difficult to logistically field those ships and might not be worth it. Par for the course, bitter vet, whatever kneejerk response.

But for the smaller group, it might actually be fun. It might just bring on negotiations. But the easy where you will use 1 titan or 20 to bring a whoevermanylegion of super caps to the field to fully decimate the other force is just... well, not enticing is it?

Think of it as commiting the entire U.S Army to repel some border jumpers and being able to line the entire border within a few minutes as opposed to orchestrating a force to invade a country in the middle east to assasinate a terrorist organization.

I know RL =!= Eve but the mentality is still there. If it's more difficult and if the effort doesn't seem worth it, chances are you will opt for diplomacy over commitment.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#197 - 2013-01-16 16:42:39 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
RubyPorto wrote:
So, can you explain what part of the game that jump distance/speed is breaking and the manner in which it is doing so? Or provide a quote and link to an explanation?

Since it's apparently so obvious, doing so should be trivial, right?

Of course he can't, because the problem is all in his head.
He doesn't like that we can use jump drives and jump portals in the way that we can and do. As far as finding something actually wrong with game balance you're asking a bit much from him. ;)

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#198 - 2013-01-16 16:50:48 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Murk Paradox wrote:
And yes, a trade off would be that it would affect all ships, including those brought in to tackle.


Which means that Supers already on field will never die unless the defending group already has HICs/DICs sitting cloaked on field. (HICs/DICs on market can easily be bought out by the attacking party, HICs/DICs on contract can be bought out by spies. HICs/DICs jumping in via gate will be killed by a small camp or reported by scouts. HICs/DICs undocking can be killed by a small camp or reported by scouts. All with plenty of time for Supers to align and warp out.)


As for the rest of your post, I honestly tried, but I couldn't follow your train of thought at all.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#199 - 2013-01-16 16:51:57 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Combat versus logistics it seems...

So far hotdropping is generally used for reinforcements from the larger force who rush to defend, call in backup and obliterate opposition. Since you are using a small vs large concept, I doubt those smaller groups have the backup to call in. So they would either die or retreat or win. But they would know that to begin with. Removing the ability to hotdrop 3x the #s of that smaller force (as a combat pov) would still generate a good fight, which is what the smaller group wants in the first place since they are not nullsec longterm residents (assumption).

If that is the case, using a smaller group trying out sov null and learning the ropes, it actually HELPS that smaller group since generally even after a fight I'd assume negotiations would then ensue.

You take a larger group who rushes to defend, hotdrops via escalation, obliterates and dominates that fight, the smaller group loses interest.

You then have either a one hit wonder of a fight, or lose a potential ally, or lose a potential enemy that could still end up being have fun to have (knowing they are new and not truly a threat to your empire anyways... yet).

Ergo, you would entirely destroy the growth aspect and again remain in your niche and only a few hours would have pissed like a ripple in the pond, with that smaller group losing interest.

In regards to logistics... since that smaller group wouldn't be able to get a foothold in sov anyways because of hotdropping and wiping them out in a "op" fashion, that smaller group wouldn't have the chance to even consider the logistics of their new home in regards to however many jumps their transport has to complete for their supply train.

Take or nerf that jump drive ability, and now you just might give that smaller group a chance, regardless if it would make it more difficult or not isn't the question. The chance to try is already removed with current mechanics.

I'm sorry that's horrible.

You'rae suggesting arbitrary limitters.
If one group has 100 guys in the fleet, the other group can't bring more than 300? This EVE, not WoW, not EQ2, not Rift, not DAoC. ******* EVE!

NO.
CCP gives us the ability to put thousands of people in a single corp, if you can't grow, you don't succeed. CCP shouldn't give you leg up because you don't want to play on the same level as the big boys.

What a horrible idea.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#200 - 2013-01-16 16:55:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Combat versus logistics it seems...

So far hotdropping is generally used for reinforcements from the larger force who rush to defend, call in backup and obliterate opposition. Since you are using a small vs large concept, I doubt those smaller groups have the backup to call in. So they would either die or retreat or win. But they would know that to begin with. Removing the ability to hotdrop 3x the #s of that smaller force (as a combat pov) would still generate a good fight, which is what the smaller group wants in the first place since they are not nullsec longterm residents (assumption).

If that is the case, using a smaller group trying out sov null and learning the ropes, it actually HELPS that smaller group since generally even after a fight I'd assume negotiations would then ensue.

You take a larger group who rushes to defend, hotdrops via escalation, obliterates and dominates that fight, the smaller group loses interest.

You then have either a one hit wonder of a fight, or lose a potential ally, or lose a potential enemy that could still end up being have fun to have (knowing they are new and not truly a threat to your empire anyways... yet).

Ergo, you would entirely destroy the growth aspect and again remain in your niche and only a few hours would have pissed like a ripple in the pond, with that smaller group losing interest.

In regards to logistics... since that smaller group wouldn't be able to get a foothold in sov anyways because of hotdropping and wiping them out in a "op" fashion, that smaller group wouldn't have the chance to even consider the logistics of their new home in regards to however many jumps their transport has to complete for their supply train.

Take or nerf that jump drive ability, and now you just might give that smaller group a chance, regardless if it would make it more difficult or not isn't the question. The chance to try is already removed with current mechanics.

I'm sorry that's horrible.

You'rae suggesting arbitrary limitters.
If one group has 100 guys in the fleet, the other group can't bring more than 300? This EVE, not WoW, not EQ2, not Rift, not DAoC. ******* EVE!

NO.
CCP gives us the ability to put thousands of people in a single corp, if you can't grow, you don't succeed. CCP shouldn't give you leg up because you don't want to play on the same level as the big boys.

What a horrible idea.



That's my point! It wasn't me who is suggesting arbitrary limiters, but you. Kept using smaller and smaller numbers to represent someone who wasn't in a large powerbloc. I was using those words to an effect. Also was saying that null is only diplomacy, which we all know that guns are the "diplomatic norm" as it is.

Thank you for proving my original point =)

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.