Player Features and Ideas Discussion

You mean to say jump bridges arent used strategically?

there is no way to differentiate between moving a ratting carrier and hotdropping an enemy force. They are both essentially the same exact action.

Perhaps jump bridges can get another look come rhea-

-Remove fatigue on jump bridges
-Change the Jump Formula for Jump Bridges
-prevent caps from using them (i don't think it would hold enough fuel for caps anyways).

The idea behind this being that one small logistics team couldn't keep an entire network fuelled for fleets to pass through. If a fleet wanted to move a large distance to defend territory, each member of the fleet would have to carry enough fuel to jump through multiple jump bridges, which would not be likely.

This would have the effect of allowing casual use to be easy and allow jump bridges to be a major benefit to holding sov space. This would also allow faster response from defenders in the immediate area of your space. This change would prevent large fleets from being able to freely bounce from Deklein to Delve via jump bridges because of the amount of logistics that would be required to keep the jump bridges fueled. This would also save ice from the inevitable crash that is coming.

Rather than just taking the axe to jump bridges, which is basically what is happening now, you are giving the player a choice- spend more isk on fuel and carry it around with them, or take gates and save a huge amount on fuel.

(Also, I'm available for hire if you want to bring on someone with more Good Ideas to CCP )

Edit: after looking at the formula, making a change instead of just a flat 3/4x increase.

Instead of: (500 * Jump distance in LY) * (ship mass / 1,000,000,000))
Change to: (250 * Jump distance in LY) * (ship mass / 10,000,000)
Change: Liquid Ozone size from .4 m3 to .1 m3

This formula could use a little more work (the ship mass piece), but this is just my napkin math version. This increases the cost to jump by a significant amount- allows ships to carry enough fuel for a few simultaneous jumps, but would prohibit fleets or groups of ships from moving more than a few jumps without some serious logistics.

I used the Ishtar as an example. One max range jump currently costs 27.75 liquid ozone (about 7k isk). The new formula would cost 1387.5 liquid ozone (roughly 347k isk) and take up 138.8 m3. An Ishtar has 560m3, so if it carried only fuel, it would be able to make a max of 4 jumps at a cost of roughly 1.39 million isk before having to refuel at a station or otherwise have some logistical support.

I am even inclined to suggest a more harsh ship mass modifier, but that leads to the problem of requiring too much m3 of fuel to be able to jump for many ships.

Edit2: The ship mass would have to be better balanced for battleships, but you get the picture. Using a raven, it couldn't carry enough fuel itself for one 5ly jump. That would be a balance call on CCP's end.

Maybe I didn't say it clearly enough either, there is no Casual use of jump anything. A jump is a jump regardless of the destination or intention. The only exception to this use is with industrials. It was only allowed because nullsec is not in a position to handle its own production yet. Once that is solved it is likely to go away too.

When you are saying things that are about as correct as saying that fire is wet, the issue is very rarely that you didn't say it clearly enough.

How does a pilots intentions change the effects of a jump? Is there a menu that asks whether you are here for business or pleasure? And now that the pilot has successfully convinced customs that he is here to enjoy the sites, what's to stop him from shooting anything he wants?

You may think it's a casual use, but there is no difference in what you can do. Unless you consider hot dropping regions away as casual use then I guess that's part of the issue.

There are too many dumb questions in here to really give a coherent response while addressing all of them so I'll be brief.

How a pilots intentions change the effect of a jump is so obvious even a small child should be able to understand it: it changes what they will do after they complete the jump.

Now, it is so obvious that it is beyond all reasonable dispute that many jump bridge uses are for casual, not strategic, reasons. That's just an obvious fact that anyone who has been in nullsec and used jump bridges knows. Your (dumb) argument is that the jump bridge itself cannot know those intentions, and from there you leap to those intentions don't exist. That's dumb, and we will ignore those arguments going forward because your babbling does not grasp what the actual conversation is about.

What the casual jump bridge use argument says is that certain uses of jump bridges merely improve quality of life without conferring a strategic benefit. As those make the game better without causing balance issues, they should be preserved if possible. So what people propose are mechanics that permit casual use and penalize strategic use through in-game heuristics that are obviously effective. For example, casual use will have very small groups going through it at once, vs strategic will have a small gang at a minimum, so you can make mechanic changes that depend on people going through in a short time. Or, as has been done, you can look at the ship itself that's going through.

And I'm going to ask again, how do you plan to stop abuse of this? If you can shoot rats at your destination what's to stop from shooting players or structures?

I keep asking these questions because you won't answer them. Just snide remarks about "duh they're different. Everybody knows that". Yes jump bridges provide better QoL, but how do you plan to prevent that change from being abused for unintended purposes? Apparently it's so obvious that nobody brought it up in the last 400+ pages of discussion that preceded phoebe.

So please, educate my ignorant self.

you appear to believe your ignorance islimited to that you do not know the proper mechanics proposals

it's not

what the best solutions are is a thing we (omni, other people, apparently not you) can discuss and weigh the pros and cons of various proposals

you, on the other hand, blank on a proposal and then use that to deny not only that such a proposal can exist, but also to deny even basic concepts any normal human can understand (such as intent) exist

that's just moronic and means there's not anything to be gained by discussing mechanics issues with you because you've defined away the whole problem to escape having to think

What is the difference in mechanics between when a jump drive is used for strategic purposes and when it is used for anythin non-combat? I don't care what actually happens after or before the jump, since that is completely up to the pilots ever changing objectives. How does the jump bridge/drive itself change its behavior between the two scenarios?

Here's why we are disregarding you and determining that none of your input is useful: no answer to these questions (even the answer you think is true, that there are none) does not affect in any way that causal jump bridge use exists. It merely challenges the idea that it is possible to design mechanics that differentiate between the two.

That you have such difficulty comprehending the difference between reality as we percieve it, and our ability to program the game to recognize reality

suggests that a discussion with you will not be fruitful. That said, we have already answered your question: the number of people going through the jump bridge in a short amount of time is a very useful heuristic for determining if the purpose and effect is strategic or casual.

Fundamentally changing the isotope consumption formula to increase the costs by a significant percent (see: more than tenfold) would be a much better change overall for the game than jump fatigue. Increasing the cost of jumping means that each jump requires more isotopes, which can only be stored in a limited space on each given ship or Jump Bridge. Thus, at a certain point, it becomes basically impossible to facilitate large fleet movements over regions because of the amount of manpower or logistics to keep all the caps/bridges fueled in each direction.

address projection change, while not completely destroying casual usage.

I explained a few pages back that there is no difference between casual and any other descriptive use of a jump anything. Casually using something does not make it casual as you would like it to be defined. Before phoebe people were dropping carriers everywhere and jumping around all the time. Simply saying you are trying to protect casual use does not make it better in any way. Especially when there is a claim to keep it relatively possible compared someone using it explicitly for strategic purposes. Thats why I kept asking the difference.