These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Allow Jump Bridges in Hi-Sec
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Angeal MacNova
Holefood Inc.
Warriors of the Blood God
#1 - 2014-09-04 20:25:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Angeal MacNova
So, hear it out.

If such a thing were to happen, moons closer to the hubs would become prime real estate. The owning corp/alliance can be war dec'ed and the POS would be targets. I believe that we would see more wars with the intent of destroying POS. It's been suggested that corps need something worth defending and that aggressing corps need something worth going after with regards to war dec's. The suggestion has been for a new corp asset but the POS could be that asset.

Farther away from the hubs, the moons become less sought and you may even find free moons but now you have to use the existing corridors in and out of the market hubs which can still be camped.

Corps need two POS set up which comes with costs. The jump bridges themselves cost fuel. These cost would increase a bit as the demand increases as a result of such a change.

Jump bridges exist outside the POS shields. This makes it possible to scout out and camp bridges that get used often.


So I see three benefits

1. Reduces the tedium of long travels.

2. Running multiple POS is something that is more worth doing and these POS become more worth targeting/defending.

3. It opens up new camping grounds, new opportunities, for gankers.

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/goodnight-sweet-prince/

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/the-untold-story/

CCP's true, butthurt, colors.

Because those who can't do themselves keep others from doing too.
Petre en Thielles
Doomheim
#2 - 2014-09-04 20:53:20 UTC
Angeal MacNova wrote:
So, hear it out.

If such a thing were to happen, moons closer to the hubs would become prime real estate. The owning corp/alliance can be war dec'ed and the POS would be targets. I believe that we would see more wars with the intent of destroying POS. It's been suggested that corps need something worth defending and that aggressing corps need something worth going after with regards to war dec's. The suggestion has been for a new corp asset but the POS could be that asset.

Farther away from the hubs, the moons become less sought and you may even find free moons but now you have to use the existing corridors in and out of the market hubs which can still be camped.

Corps need two POS set up which comes with costs. The jump bridges themselves cost fuel. These cost would increase a bit as the demand increases as a result of such a change.

Jump bridges exist outside the POS shields. This makes it possible to scout out and camp bridges that get used often.


So I see three benefits

1. Reduces the tedium of long travels.

2. Running multiple POS is something that is more worth doing and these POS become more worth targeting/defending.

3. It opens up new camping grounds, new opportunities, for gankers.


There is already a thread this belongs in:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=272809

All this would do is fill in the inner circle of the blue doughnut, allowing major alliances to muscle control over high sec systems. If anything, we need less Jump Bridges in the game, not more.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#3 - 2014-09-04 20:55:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
EDIT : Read post wrong

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Celthric Kanerian
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2014-09-04 22:53:16 UTC
No, for same reasons as the quote "You don't ****, where you eat".
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#5 - 2014-09-04 22:59:59 UTC
No.

Petre en Thielles wrote:

All this would do is fill in the inner circle of the blue doughnut, allowing major alliances to muscle control over high sec systems. If anything, we need less Jump Bridges in the game, not more.


This is why.

Overhaul Dscan!
w3ak3stl1nk
Hedion University
#6 - 2014-09-06 02:47:21 UTC
I think covert cyno should be allowed. But I guess that misses the point.

Is that my two cents or yours?
Angeal MacNova
Holefood Inc.
Warriors of the Blood God
#7 - 2014-09-06 03:09:37 UTC
w3ak3stl1nk wrote:
I think covert cyno should be allowed. But I guess that misses the point.


I would have an issue with any cyno being allowed in hi-sec. Although I'm sure the gate campers would.

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/goodnight-sweet-prince/

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/the-untold-story/

CCP's true, butthurt, colors.

Because those who can't do themselves keep others from doing too.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#8 - 2014-09-06 03:41:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
Nope. No jump bridges in highsec. That's a nullsec thing. Why go to nullsec at all if you can have all the benefits of null in hi-

... oh wait, I forgot that nullsec is a bipolar renter cesspool. My mistake.

Still, jump bridges should remain a nullsec thing just like POSes require you to be in a player corp.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#9 - 2014-09-06 04:06:21 UTC
Angeal MacNova wrote:
w3ak3stl1nk wrote:
I think covert cyno should be allowed. But I guess that misses the point.


I would have an issue with any cyno being allowed in hi-sec. Although I'm sure the gate campers would.


I think most ppl would have an issue with covert cynos in hs would be hell on any newbro corp in a random dec could stop gankers in there tracks and be rely hard for any group with low sp to counter

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#10 - 2014-09-06 04:56:10 UTC
I think any active gate should be it's own cynical beacon. That's what it's doing.

Don't allow cynical beacons to be lit, just allow the use of the static ones already running.