These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#121 - 2013-01-16 05:34:34 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Well, if you all insist there is nothing wrong, lets see how far we can take it.

I propose all jump ranges be increased ten fold.

How does that sound?


That's like saying "you say that Hurricanes don't need a nerf? Well what if they did 10 times their DPS?"


"Fine as is" != "Needs a ridiculous increase"

The phrases don't even have the same number of words.

It doesn't matter really. Anytime one of the PPP (Power Projection Protectors) is backed into a corner you evade the question, change the subject or simply jump out of a window. Anyone that provides a solid argument is dismissed due to the alliance they are in, sov they control, how long they have been playing the game, how many vowels in their name. Anything to keep you from having to actually discuss the subject.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#122 - 2013-01-16 05:43:05 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Well, if you all insist there is nothing wrong, lets see how far we can take it.

I propose all jump and bridge ranges be increased ten fold.

How does that sound?


A tenfold increase in their range would be just as excessive a buff as removing jump bridges and the Jump Drive Cal skill entirely would be an excessive nerf. That said, I did not say "I think CCP is stupid and shouldn't change it", I said "If CCP thinks it needs to be changed, I'd work with them on it but stand by the fact that a range nerf is a stupid approach."

And actually backing myself up a bit, a range nerf for the purpose of helping smaller entities is what's stupid, really. If you just want to nerf everyone's ability to project power via capital ships, it's actually not a completely terrible way of doing it.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#123 - 2013-01-16 05:48:12 UTC
mynnna wrote:
And actually backing myself up a bit, a range nerf for the purpose of helping smaller entities is what's stupid, really.

I gotta wonder if the objective is to make it easier for smaller entities to hold sovereignty, then why not attack the issue directly and make it harder for large entities to hold sovereignty? For example, have sovereignty bills scale by the number of pilots in the holding entity and aggressively by the number of systems held. Fewer systems held by large entities ought to allow smaller entities to move in, yes?

MDD
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#124 - 2013-01-16 05:48:44 UTC
Without getting too mushy, I really do appreciate the non-retreds who have taken time out of their lives to do CSM stuff, especially because their non-retrededness means they likely have many other interesting options. Topics like this where every jagoff with a keyboard has an opinion frighten me because these same people or people like them might actually end up in a room with CCP, giving input on topics like this.

Never again.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#125 - 2013-01-16 05:53:24 UTC
MailDeadDrop wrote:
mynnna wrote:
And actually backing myself up a bit, a range nerf for the purpose of helping smaller entities is what's stupid, really.

I gotta wonder if the objective is to make it easier for smaller entities to hold sovereignty, then why not attack the issue directly and make it harder for large entities to hold sovereignty? For example, have sovereignty bills scale by the number of pilots in the holding entity and aggressively by the number of systems held. Fewer systems held by large entities ought to allow smaller entities to move in, yes?

MDD


That's really the whole point of the response to the original silliness. If you want to change the dynamics of nullsec, power projection is a fart in the wind compared to more fundamental issues (which are available to be discussed in depth, and have their own extensive and developed discourse for almost 2 years now).

Power projection IS an issue, but it's meaningless on its own, and only affects a small slice of much bigger issues.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#126 - 2013-01-16 06:01:06 UTC
MailDeadDrop wrote:
mynnna wrote:
And actually backing myself up a bit, a range nerf for the purpose of helping smaller entities is what's stupid, really.

I gotta wonder if the objective is to make it easier for smaller entities to hold sovereignty, then why not attack the issue directly and make it harder for large entities to hold sovereignty? For example, have sovereignty bills scale by the number of pilots in the holding entity and aggressively by the number of systems held. Fewer systems held by large entities ought to allow smaller entities to move in, yes?

MDD


Do that, and you get Goonwaffe1, Goonwaffe2, etc all holding the "optimum" amount of space (comparing Sov bills with Alliance maint fees), with Goonwaffe holding no sov and all the members.

"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
#127 - 2013-01-16 06:04:17 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Marlona Sky wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Well, if you all insist there is nothing wrong, lets see how far we can take it.

I propose all jump ranges be increased ten fold.

How does that sound?


That's like saying "you say that Hurricanes don't need a nerf? Well what if they did 10 times their DPS?"


"Fine as is" != "Needs a ridiculous increase"

The phrases don't even have the same number of words.

It doesn't matter really. Anytime one of the PPP (Power Projection Protectors) is backed into a corner you evade the question, change the subject or simply jump out of a window. Anyone that provides a solid argument is dismissed due to the alliance they are in, sov they control, how long they have been playing the game, how many vowels in their name. Anything to keep you from having to actually discuss the subject.


In what way have I avoided the subject? You set up a strawman* to argue against, and I'm simply refusing to bite.

*Unless you can show where someone involved in this conversation (besides you) has suggested a 10 fold jump range increase. Quote and Link, please, and I will respond to the "proposal."

"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
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#128 - 2013-01-16 06:09:14 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
MailDeadDrop wrote:
mynnna wrote:
And actually backing myself up a bit, a range nerf for the purpose of helping smaller entities is what's stupid, really.

I gotta wonder if the objective is to make it easier for smaller entities to hold sovereignty, then why not attack the issue directly and make it harder for large entities to hold sovereignty? For example, have sovereignty bills scale by the number of pilots in the holding entity and aggressively by the number of systems held. Fewer systems held by large entities ought to allow smaller entities to move in, yes?

MDD


I believe that the general concept of farms and fields would help the matter, yes. The moon system as it currently stands is an incentive to take and hold large swathes of space around those moons that an alliance and its members will otherwise not really make use of. I do not, however, think that a system of pure disincentives (more aggressive scaling of costs) is the best answer though, especially if we're getting into things like exponential scaling per system claimed. There will naturally be larger alliances, and for any given achievable level of player density, they'll need more space. Punishing them proportionally more simply for requiring more space is sort of silly. However, there are plenty of ways to punish an entity that takes a bunch of space and then never uses it.

RubyPorto wrote:
MailDeadDrop wrote:
mynnna wrote:
And actually backing myself up a bit, a range nerf for the purpose of helping smaller entities is what's stupid, really.

I gotta wonder if the objective is to make it easier for smaller entities to hold sovereignty, then why not attack the issue directly and make it harder for large entities to hold sovereignty? For example, have sovereignty bills scale by the number of pilots in the holding entity and aggressively by the number of systems held. Fewer systems held by large entities ought to allow smaller entities to move in, yes?

MDD


Do that, and you get Goonwaffe1, Goonwaffe2, etc all holding the "optimum" amount of space (comparing Sov bills with Alliance maint fees), with Goonwaffe holding no sov and all the members.

There's also this, which is another reason to focus more on making it so an alliance doesn't "need" to take a whole bunch of space and less on making it so they can't.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#129 - 2013-01-16 06:10:49 UTC
MailDeadDrop wrote:
mynnna wrote:
And actually backing myself up a bit, a range nerf for the purpose of helping smaller entities is what's stupid, really.

I gotta wonder if the objective is to make it easier for smaller entities to hold sovereignty, then why not attack the issue directly and make it harder for large entities to hold sovereignty? For example, have sovereignty bills scale by the number of pilots in the holding entity and aggressively by the number of systems held. Fewer systems held by large entities ought to allow smaller entities to move in, yes?

MDD

RubyPorto wrote:
Do that, and you get Goonwaffe1, Goonwaffe2, etc all holding the "optimum" amount of space (comparing Sov bills with Alliance maint fees), with Goonwaffe holding no sov and all the members.

Assuming CCP doesn't call that an exploit (and I'm reasonably confident CCP would do no such thing), to prevent that behavior you'd have to make it inconvenient. And offhand I can't think of a way to do that.

MDD
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#130 - 2013-01-16 06:22:16 UTC
MailDeadDrop wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Do that, and you get Goonwaffe1, Goonwaffe2, etc all holding the "optimum" amount of space (comparing Sov bills with Alliance maint fees), with Goonwaffe holding no sov and all the members.

Assuming CCP doesn't call that an exploit (and I'm reasonably confident CCP would do no such thing), to prevent that behavior you'd have to make it inconvenient. And offhand I can't think of a way to do that.

MDD


Making it sufficiently inconvenient for large groups would almost certainly be crippling to small groups, or groups that would be painted with the same brush as alt alliances (renters).

Oh, and harsh penalties for holding space and having people would hit non-Tech alliances much, much harder than Tech holding ones (because they rely on the rent from many people in many systems to provide their income).

"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
C DeLeon
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#131 - 2013-01-16 06:44:48 UTC
I'm gonna just quote myself from daMITTANIdotCOM:

Quote:
Not the tools for power projection are the real problems. The conflict drivers are. Its easier to just eliminate all small and relatively independent entities during a huge invasion to get rid of future threats and to guarantee more safety for pve activities. I think unused systems should have insanely high bills to prevent that while used systems should be still profitable. That is one of the main reasons why I think the farms and fields concept is a good direction (and not further nerfing). And/or making possible to live in enemy territory when a coalition is over expanding and taking unnecessarily huge amount of unused space (for example with that cloaky pirate base thingy they mentioned in the last CSM minutes). CCP shouldn't remove the ability to project power effectively. They should remove the need to do it.


Quote:
Before Test decided to go bigger, a lot of small somewhat independent alliances lived in their neighbourhood (Walltreipers and Omega Vektor just to mention a few or the last year's delve thunderdoom is a perfect example). Of course setting foothold close to big entities' staging systems would be hard but there are a lot of backwater systems which noone cares about. The only reasons why big alliances taking those because there is no reason to leave blind spots in the middle of their blue ocean.

If big entites would go for systems only with strategical importance and good resources, than there would be too many unclaimed systems to care about and it would be hard to keep away everyone all the time. They would rather try to find diplomatic solutions with those small entites which could lead to another blueball but that kind of blueballs would be a lot more vulnerable than the current ones with a lot more drama, backstabbing and metagaming which is exactly what nullsec needs more.

But even if a big entity would decide to keep away others from those unclaimed systems, thats where that cloaky pirate base comes to the picture. Just think about that cloaky pirate base with jump drive what a dev mentioned in the CSM minutes at the pos section. I can't get out of my head the idea to be able to live in the middle of a hostile territory (of course with limited options but still). If seomeone's home system is under heavy attack they could just retreat to hidden POSes and wait till they leave and than taking back everything.

I think something like that could work without the need to nerf power projection. Small and large entities living side by side with conflicts every day but without the ability to threaten each others existance.


Nerfing jump drive or titan bridge wouldn't do anything about the current sov map. It would just put more work in the hands of the few who organizing logistics.

If we are talking about jump drive nerf we should talk about it in the context of a more self-sufficient nullsec from industrial point of view.

If we are talking about jump bridge nerf we should talk about it in the context of encouragig more roaming tactics and discouraging baiting/hotdropping tactics.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#132 - 2013-01-16 07:06:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Il Feytid
RubyPorto wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Well, if you all insist there is nothing wrong, lets see how far we can take it.

I propose all jump ranges be increased ten fold.

How does that sound?


That's like saying "you say that Hurricanes don't need a nerf? Well what if they did 10 times their DPS?"


"Fine as is" != "Needs a ridiculous increase"

The phrases don't even have the same number of words.

It doesn't matter really. Anytime one of the PPP (Power Projection Protectors) is backed into a corner you evade the question, change the subject or simply jump out of a window. Anyone that provides a solid argument is dismissed due to the alliance they are in, sov they control, how long they have been playing the game, how many vowels in their name. Anything to keep you from having to actually discuss the subject.


In what way have I avoided the subject? You set up a strawman* to argue against, and I'm simply refusing to bite.

*Unless you can show where someone involved in this conversation (besides you) has suggested a 10 fold jump range increase. Quote and Link, please, and I will respond to the "proposal."

The point I was making was if nerfing jump and bridge ranges would only really hurt the smaller entities in the game as some in this thread claim, then what if we increase the jump and bridge ranges so it will help the smaller entities. Based on the proclamation they claim, then it should work right? Blink
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#133 - 2013-01-16 07:15:41 UTC
If nerfing jump drive range actually helps smaller groups, wouldn't buffing it harm them instead?

See, we can both play dumb logic tricks with each other's argument.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#134 - 2013-01-16 07:32:29 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Marlona Sky wrote:
The point I was making was if nerfing jump and bridge ranges would only really hurt the smaller entities in the game as some in this thread claim, then what if we increase the jump and bridge ranges so it will help the smaller entities. Based on the proclamation they claim, then it should work right? Blink


Nerfing jump range would hurt both large and small groups. But it hurts small groups more because they don't have the manpower and capital to easily cope.

Buffing jump range would help both large and small groups. It helps the logistics wings of small groups more, because they have more to gain from having a wider choice of midpoints. It helps the combat mobility of small groups relatively more, because they don't have the manpower and capital to keep cyno alts and fuel depots everywhere. But the buff would also increase the ease of combat mobility for large groups by (what I think is) an unacceptable amount.


Nobody's claiming that it would *only* hurt small groups. Just that it would hurt small groups so much more than it would hurt large groups, that the hurt that large groups would feel (oh no, another cyno alt in a friendly station, all is lost) is barely (or not) worth mentioning.

"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
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#135 - 2013-01-16 07:32:30 UTC
mynnna wrote:
If nerfing jump drive range actually helps smaller groups, wouldn't buffing it harm them instead?

See, we can both play dumb logic tricks with each other's argument.

I see my sarcasm flew right over your head. Allow me to recap for you.

Some players have said that jump and bridge range needs to be shortened.

Others have proclaimed that such a change would harm smaller alliances instead of hurting the power blocks. The blocks would work around it with ease.

So, with that logic, if the jump and bridge range were to be increased, it would be a buff to smaller alliances while the large blocks remain unaffected.

I of course don't think any of this addresses one of the core issues at all. There is something that was a natural balance to things which was taken away when jump drives, bridges and cynos were introduced and replaced with something vastly inferior and irrelevant in most cases to maintaining some balance to force projection. Blink
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#136 - 2013-01-16 07:38:01 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Well, if you all insist there is nothing wrong, lets see how far we can take it.

I propose all jump and bridge ranges be increased ten fold.

How does that sound?

Hooray fallacies.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#137 - 2013-01-16 08:26:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Il Feytid
Here is some facts.

Average time to go from hitting undock button to end of session change: 16 seconds
Average time to jump, load system and at the end of session change to be able to dock: 14 seconds
Average time to go from hitting dock to loading in station: 5 seconds

So that is 40 seconds to go from undocking in one system, jumping and docking in another if the cyno was on station. It may take a couple extra seconds for those with slower machines/connections, but there you have it.

Going from MN5N-X in Fountain (west side of the map) to K-MGJ7 in Curse (east side of the map) using gates is 57 jumps. The time it takes to do that varies dramatically depending on ship you take, hostiles you encounter and if you live or not. Only including the time to take the gate and load the next system is a total of 798 seconds or a little over 13 minutes. Again this does not include the time it takes to warp from gate to gate, which is dramatically more.

Taking a carrier with jump drive calibration 5, cynos in place and fuel ready in your hanger will take you 5 total jumps to cross the galaxy in a blistering 200 seconds or a little over 3.5 minutes. Sure we can round it up a bit if you want for time to drag fuel to your fuel bay, which is super easy. Lets just call it an even 5 minutes.

Cynos on the station, with virtually no risk only exposing yourself a total of 10 times. Anything bad outside station you simply dock up. So while an interceptor, renown for being an agile and fast ship, has to take 13 minutes in just loading systems, a capital ship can make the complete journey about 4 times avoiding all danger. The largest ships in the game are faster than what is supposed to be 'the fastest ships' in the game.

Let us also not overlook all the systems that I was within jump range of along the route. Systems that could very well be a destination to hot drop someone. I didn't have time to go over systems that would be in range twice or more on a few jumps, but the total systems is over 2,650. I guess we could cut that in half or something to say it was in range on a previous jump or something. So say like 1,325 systems. This does not include high sec and I didn't have time to nit pick about any systems that were cyno jammed. Anyways, all those systems under 4 minutes.

I know what you are saying, "No... no... that's not true. That's impossible! Nooooooooooo....", but it is very possible for those who have the route prepared. I have been on these lightening fast deployments. Granted not as fast as what I described above due to everything not being prepared, but with the ease of logistics and a number of other things. It can be done. So even though I laid out these facts, like I mentioned before, decreasing the jump and bridge range is not the core issue.

Did I mention I brought an assortment of ships and supplies to use on the other side of the galaxy with me on my carrier too?
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#138 - 2013-01-16 08:38:26 UTC
Now here's the part where you explain what's actually wrong with that.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#139 - 2013-01-16 08:45:20 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Now here's the part where you explain what's actually wrong with that.

Which is what?
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#140 - 2013-01-16 08:50:50 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Now here's the part where you explain what's actually wrong with that.

Which is what?

You've basically just said "jump drives can take you farther than gates".
Naturally as a consequence of that you can indeed travel faster than subcaps.
But you haven't explained why that's actually a problem.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)