Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Axexut
Caldari AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 00:49:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Axexut on 25/04/2010 00:55:46
New features in a game might help it become more popular for a while. Maybe not.
Fixing and expanding existing features in an already good game can make it legendary.
ThatÆs what my Candidacy for CSM is all about.
IÆve lived in Empire and in 0.0. In Empire, I ran missions and dealt with the frustrations like some of you do now. In 0.0, IÆve been lucky enough to fly with a great group of pilots in an Alliance against many other good players and Alliances, and dealt with CCPs apparent lack of concern for nullsec pilotsÆ existences. Just like the rest of you.
And I get frustrated at some of the failings of CCP to fix what is broken, and their history of limited implementations of other much desired features.
- Those 0.0 issues like lag (if you already arenÆt tired of hearing about it, you will be by the time this election is over), the failure to balance some classes of ships or break others in some ham-handed attempt, and the ability of some Alliances to live like a King with the right type of moons and rats while other Alliances live in 0.0 holes (I wasnÆt expecting many IT or NC votes anyway).
- Those Highsec issues like can-tipping, greater penalties for ganking (wasnÆt expecting many pirate votes either), and greater variety of missions and rewards geared specifically to Highsec miners / ratters / missionrunners.
- Those issues effecting us all, like the ultra-fragile Alliance structure where one player can dismantle an entire Alliance with the press of a button, to so many other ôgame-playö mechanics hacks and exploits (oops û just lost the GoonsÆ votes) that ruin the game for the rest of us.
DonÆt get me wrong: IÆm not against new features and functionality. I like the idea of gate- and station-guns for our Nullsec pilots. I like the idea of removing ôAggression Timersö when jumping through a system where you have Sov (for 0.0) or a high standing with the local NPC (in Highsec). I like the idea of out-of-pod missions if / when Ambulation (or whatever it is being called this week) is implemented. And Dust looks like it is going to kick arse. But I believe we should fix whatÆs broken before we go crazy putting in some new ôfeature.ö
Please ask any questions you may have about ideas and issues important to you and I'll answer them as fast as possible.
Thank you for reading this, and IÆm asking for your vote for CSM!
(Web site link to come with more details)
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 01:36:00 -
[2]
Quote: hacks and exploits (oops û just lost the GoonsÆ votes)
If past history is any guide, there will be either 1 or 2 Goons on the 9-member CSM. Also, it is important that the CSM be able to work together and keep a united front when proposing things CCP is not eager to do if you are to have any hope of pushing them through. Given that, do you think it's a good way to kick off a campaign to insult as many as a quarter of the people you hope to be working with by calling them cheaters?
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 02:05:00 -
[3]
Quote: I like the idea of gate- and station-guns for our Nullsec pilots.
you are dreaming?
Quote: I like the idea of removing ôAggression Timersö when jumping through a system where you have Sov (for 0.0) or a high standing with the local NPC (in Highsec).
why should the aggression mechanic have anything to do with sov? penalize roaming gangs?
So far you are not really convincing.
|
xena zena
Comparative Advantage
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 03:11:00 -
[4]
Quote: ability of some Alliances to live like a King with the right type of moons and rats while other Alliances live in 0.0 holes
You want mechanics that allow crap alliances to complete with competent strong ones without becoming better at playing eve? Some alliances are ment to be pets and chew on the bones of the bigger alliances... to change that you get stronger and have the ability to become one of the masters at the table. Please explain _exactly_ what you had in mind when you made that statement.
Quote: Highsec issues like can-tipping
How is this an issue? Please explain what ideas you have in mind to solve what you perceive as issue needing new mechanics to fix.
Quote: fix whatÆs broken before we go crazy putting in some new ôfeature.ö
List your top 5 things you think is most broken in eve that needs fixed before new features are added.
|
Axexut
Caldari AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2010.04.27 13:55:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto If past history is any guide, there will be either 1 or 2 Goons on the 9-member CSM. Also, it is important that the CSM be able to work together and keep a united front when proposing things CCP is not eager to do if you are to have any hope of pushing them through
IRL I have been lucky enough to run three smaller companies. Those experiences have taught me that even if you are sitting across the table from someone with a radically different view or goal from your own, there are ways to reach common grounds and get things done.
In game, like you, we have many friends who have moved on to other Alliances, including some who may be red to us now. DoesnÆt necessarily make them less of friends. Just means you get to shoot at them once in a while and then laugh about it later.
Though I did joke about a couple of groups above, and believe a little levity is a good thing from time to time, I am not kidding when I say that CSM can and does make a difference in the game we all spend so much of our free time playing. And you deserve someone who will work to make it better for all of us.
Originally by: darius mclever why should the aggression mechanic have anything to do with sov? penalize roaming gangs?
The idea in question was an idea we were thinking of to add to the benefits of Sov ownership / high standing with the local NPC.
There is already a defensive bonus to holing Sov in 0.0 (the added defenses of the system in the IHUB timers) and in having a good standing with the local NPC in Empire (keeps those with bad standing to the NPC or Concord from entering your system unchecked û if at all).
But there is not presently a tangible OFFENSIVE bonus to holding Sov or having those high standings. Giving the pilot the chance to jump through a gate to give chase to a fleeing non-aggressed, non-Sov holding fleet or to jump through a friendly gate to avoid a hostile camp . . . Could be worth considering. And remember that while it hurts the roaming gang while in hostile territory, it helps the roaming gang in its own backyard . . . so balanced by design.
More crucial: That was an idea that was being kicked about. The central point to my post and candidacy is that I am more concerned about fixing what is already out there. CCP certainly has a world of new features it wants to put in game. I am most worried about fixing what is in game and what is yet to come.
Originally by: xena zena You want mechanics that allow crap alliances to complete with competent strong ones without becoming better at playing eve? Some alliances are meant to be pets and chew on the bones of the bigger alliances... to change that you get stronger and have the ability to become one of the masters at the table. Please explain _exactly_ what you had in mind when you made that statement.
Will do.
I completely agree that living in 0.0 is a test of will and strength. And that, like RL, there are benefits that come from being strong and surviving.
But, unlike RL, this game provides a few non-exhaustible resources that, once secured, allow for reserves to be built that ensure continuance. Look at the historic BoB / Goon conflict. For so long a stalemate or proxy war. Only when both groups were taken by other tactics then combat did they each fall.
IF you employ the exhaustible nature of resources here, then I agree with you that it is for the smaller alliances to grow or die in 0.0 lands. BUT if you create a never-ending supply of localized top-end resources, then you have to create some footing for the other Alliances to build on.
|
Axexut
Caldari AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2010.04.27 14:05:00 -
[6]
Originally by: xena zena List your top 5 things you think is most broken in eve that needs fixed before new features are added.
You donÆt have to look far for things that need fixing.
From recent exploit where someone can avoid appearing in Local until they choose to attack, to Grid-Fu, to wardec uses of neutrals, continued UI problems (including the lack of a more customizable multi-monitor environment) to upcoming adjustments to insurance that do seem to address T2 insurance, but leave alone insurance to high-sec gankers and squash supercap insurance (what was it? 10% of mineral cost for a Titan) . . .
There is a lot to cover.
Thank you Sirs for your questions. Hopefully I have answered them, but if not, please feel free to convo me in game and we can talk more about them all.
|
xena zena
Comparative Advantage
|
Posted - 2010.04.27 14:10:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Axexut Though I did joke about a couple of groups above, and believe a little levity is a good thing from time to time, I am not kidding when I say that CSM can and does make a difference in the game we all spend so much of our free time playing. And you deserve someone who will work to make it better for all of us.
It didn't quite seem like a joke...
Originally by: Axexut And remember that while it hurts the roaming gang while in hostile territory, it helps the roaming gang in its own backyard . . . so balanced by design.
This statement makes me think you have no understanding of pvp combat, roaming or balance. This idea is utter fail.
Originally by: Axexut The central point to my post and candidacy is that I am more concerned about fixing what is already out there. CCP certainly has a world of new features it wants to put in game. I am most worried about fixing what is in game and what is yet to come.
So how is breaking pvp combat and GREATLY favoring the 0.0 isk farming carebear alliances (Like IRC) FIXING an existing mechanic? Your so far proposed fixes makes worried should you actually get enough votes to secure a seat on the CSM.
Originally by: Axexut I completely agree that living in 0.0 is a test of will and strength. And that, like RL, there are benefits that come from being strong and surviving.
But, unlike RL, this game provides a few non-exhaustible resources that, once secured, allow for reserves to be built that ensure continuance. Look at the historic BoB / Goon conflict. For so long a stalemate or proxy war. Only when both groups were taken by other tactics then combat did they each fall.
IF you employ the exhaustible nature of resources here, then I agree with you that it is for the smaller alliances to grow or die in 0.0 lands. BUT if you create a never-ending supply of localized top-end resources, then you have to create some footing for the other Alliances to build on.
So you ment that you think all 0.0 regions should be about equal in terms of resources. I.e. get rid of truesec and make everything -1.0 or something along those lines? That's probably the single worst idea I've heard in a long time. Suggesting it shows your lack of understanding of balance and how the game is designed.
|
Axexut
Caldari AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2010.04.27 14:20:00 -
[8]
Wow. Guessing I can count on your vote.
But to be clear:
Originally by: xena zena
Originally by: Axexut I completely agree that living in 0.0 is a test of will and strength. And that, like RL, there are benefits that come from being strong and surviving.
But, unlike RL, this game provides a few non-exhaustible resources that, once secured, allow for reserves to be built that ensure continuance. Look at the historic BoB / Goon conflict. For so long a stalemate or proxy war. Only when both groups were taken by other tactics then combat did they each fall.
IF you employ the exhaustible nature of resources here, then I agree with you that it is for the smaller alliances to grow or die in 0.0 lands. BUT if you create a never-ending supply of localized top-end resources, then you have to create some footing for the other Alliances to build on.
So you ment that you think all 0.0 regions should be about equal in terms of resources. I.e. get rid of truesec and make everything -1.0 or something along those lines?
So - not at all. Just enough to get a footing. Not enough to become the next powerblock. That has to be done, like everything else, through risk aka expansion to areas with greater resources.
Thanks again Xena and again please feel free to convo me ingame.
|
xena zena
Comparative Advantage
|
Posted - 2010.04.27 14:29:00 -
[9]
I don't agree, I think there should be MORE very poor 0.0 areas and LESS high value 0.0. This would create a more dynamic 0.0 environment, make war more likely, plus more low-end 0.0 gives the noob alliances more places to get established.
And I _completely_ disagree with your assertion that the poor regions in 0.0 are not profitable. Look at Providence, hands down the poorest region in the game when it comes to true sec. But look at how many stations and wealth those alliances was able to produce when unmolested by bigger power blocks.
Look at how stupidly rich your own CEO can get completely raping his member's off of simi-decent 0.0 space. I think your argument is very flawed on profitability. Low end 0.0 is less fought over, because any real power block will go after high end. It's also vastly more profitable then most empire activities, and can attract a lot of carebears to farm it.
Your idea is to soften the edges between poor 0.0 and rich 0.0, so the poor more profitable and closer to the rich 0.0? This is definitely the wrong approach for 0.0 imho.
|
Axexut
Caldari AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2010.04.27 14:48:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Axexut on 27/04/2010 14:49:19
Originally by: xena zena I think there should be MORE very poor 0.0 areas and LESS high value 0.0. This would create a more dynamic 0.0 environment, make war more likely, plus more low-end 0.0 gives the noob alliances more places to get established.
That would work as well. Sadly, the repercussions of stripping many of the better areas of their higher-end moons and (soon) planets, and reducing their chances for officer spawns and 10/10 plexes . . . . not sure it is viable. Pandora's box kind of thing.
As far as the rest of it goes . . . convo me in-game please.
|
|
xena zena
Comparative Advantage
|
Posted - 2010.04.27 14:53:00 -
[11]
Why wouldn't it be possible, it's been done before.
Also entirely possible add additional 0.0 regions that are heavy on the poor space kind.
I also don't tend to think decent moons count, since a crap alliance likely would be renting or unable to defend them therefore would not be in control of them anyway. High end moons are controlled by powerful alliances or VERY high paying renters. Weak alliances get pushed aside and them taken away from them.
The crux is, true security status of systems. More regions like Providence would open up more 0.0 to more care bears and more weak alliances able to get a foot in the door. This ultimately would be a win-win for 0.0 and the game imho.
But your idea seems to be to buff all the weak regions... leveling the playing field... this would have the opposite effect, less 0.0 competition, less alliances entering 0.0 and more power blocks.
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.04.27 18:27:00 -
[12]
you already got plenty advantages of holding sov. (cyno jammer/jump bridges)
gate/station guns or changed aggression mechanics are over the top imho.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |