EVE General Discussion

No, it isn't a horrific nerf, but it did make things a headache for logistics people and in no way accomplished its stated goals, and in fact, hindered them.

That's the problem. This was looked at strictly from the side of low and high sec small gang folks who see fights as "gates" and didn't realize that there are dozens of other ways of engaging people in null, even with the bridges. It's a complete "unintended consequences" thing that made life worse for nearly ALL of null sec, made logistics harder, made fueling bridges harder (Though it was partially offset with the increase in fuel capacity) and really didn't improve what it intended to improve. They thought that they'd be able to go deep into fountain and set up bubbles undetected on a gate and catch ship after ship. Reality and intelligence obviously said otherwise.

The correct response is to run as or vote for a candidate on a platform of disbanding the CSM.

But most people who are against the CSM are against it on the basis of unsupported assumptions that are almost always directly contradicted by the evidence, and often by their own assumptions.

You know, like people who say that the CSM is powerless and irrelevent, then in the same breath blame the CSM for things like the jump bridge nerf.

Can I write in a vote?

Cause.... yech!

5 votes for sale!

And yet by voting for a candidate who (a) won't win or (b) wins but is ineffective, your voice remains equally weak while the others get stronger simply by your addition to the legitimacy of the system.

Of course that's kind of irrelevant if your reason for abstention is the belief that the system has no power at all.



Hey, I voted as I believe the system has (some) value. I can just really see why someone wouldn't - neither CCP nor this current CSM have done a hell of a lot to convince anyone that the CSM is worth participating in. Telling those people who aren't buying what's being sold the equivalent of "just shut up and vote already" is the worst possible way of effecting any actual change (if anything, you're just going to galvanize their opinion).

But I've been paying for votes since the day endorsements opened. And the offer remains open until voting closes.

So.... does this mean MY check is in the mail?

I don't want to threadjack this anymore, so I'll leave it at this.

The purpose of the change was to promote more PVP by promoting more gate travel. It didn't.

To state that null sec entities are overextended would almost be a logical argument except for the fact that a lot of combat in null happens for the sake of combat, not for sovereignty. Fatal Ascension doesn't roam to Fountain because we want fountain. We roam to fountain because we want to blow up ships in a fun way. I'd argue that over 95% of fleet fights (of all sizes) in null sec have absolutely nothing to do with sov. The largest null sec entity fight in recent memory (Asakai) had *ZERO* to do with sov.

What it did do was make FiS more tedious and less exciting as you had to go further for fights. And it made reacting harder as you couldn't move as quickly to the other side of your space.

The fact is, when it comes to sov warfare, you can remove every single jump bridge and it will still occur. Holding that space *IS* valuable, otherwise it wouldn't be done.

When it comes to skirmish fights, and other "fun", the jump bridge change has had a negative impact. It was a failure. The unintended consequence was greater negative then the positive it was supposed to promote.

There is a difference between what looks good on paper and what actually happens. What actually happened if that the jump bridge change (which I was all in favor of) ended up putting a damper on some pvp activities. The old scheme was flawed and let people skip across the stars, but it was realyl useful for defense fleets and offered some amazing advantages if you wanted to catch up to a enemy roaming gang.

Nowadays if the gang we're chasing gets more than 3 jumps ahead and we have to use more than 1 JB to 0" close the door", the window of oppurtunity is so much smaller, because jumping from a gate, going to another gate, jumping, then going to the next bridge takes so much longer than the old scheme of just warp to the other bridge in system.

In other words, fight to would have occurred under the old scheme don't happen as much now. For a game that needs pvp losses to drive it's economy, that's just not a good outcome.

Philosophically it was the right idea (the JB nerf), but view more practically, it's been IMO a net negative. Because when I was in Raiden and we'd joined with the Russians to fight the old NC Empire, the fact that they could move sub-caps so fast meant lots of great fights for us. Since that time I've been in other alliances and other conflicts and it just seems like the lost sub-cap mobility has put a damper on the tempo of null sec warfare.

Interesting... then by that arguement James 315 would not have been a Hi Sec candidate & extended further HE IS NOT THE TRUE SAVIOR OF TRUE HISEC