Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 27 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1850
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 19:50:00 -
[31] - Quote
Mike deVoid wrote:CCP recently stated that the NEX store should have been filled with stuff current players wanted - ship skins and corp/alliance logos - rather than clothes and monocles ( http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6339021/microtransaction-missteps-in-eve-online ) Once CCP make good progress through, or complete the V3 upgrade process for ships they will be able to begin to implement custom ship skins and corp/alliance logos. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J42F4WkeFQ4#t=203s ) Where do you stand on this functionality being available through the NEX store - I.E. someone has to pay AURUM at some point. If CCP don't introduce this via the NEX, arguably they will have missed the opportunity to ever do so. There are really 2 angles to consider here, so I will ask 2 separate questions: 1. Where do you stand as a player on requiring AURUM for shipskins/logos? High cost but 'indestructable' - ala current NEX items? Low cost but destructable? Would not stand for any AURUM cost? 2. How or when should CCP approach attempting re-utilise the NEX store/AURUM for a purely vanity feature like this?
1. I don't mind CCP making money on vanity items as long as it doesn't impact the sandbox. Ship skins will actually generate capital for CCP unlike ~high fashion~.
If CCP actually gets some business sense they'll probably opt for a range of options with some skins being cheap and destructible, some being permanent but expensive, etc.
2. I want ship skins. I don't give a crap about clothes. I want my Taranis to look like my Ares, I want Kaalakiota paintjobs on basically everything, I want to never see another godawful orange/brown Lai Dai ship in one of my hangars.
I'm not a kneejerk anti-Aurum, anti-microtransactions zealot because this is EVE, and if I want to have a ship skin I'll sell a gullible idiot a Titan made of vapor and buy PLEX off the market. I haven't given CCP any of my actual money in years. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Poetic Stanziel
Arrakis Technology
224
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 19:53:00 -
[32] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Ideally I'd like to see a completely new war system, but I haven't given it much thought as this is firmly outside the realm of most of my constituents. Nullsec does not live in a bubble (so to speak.) New Eden is a complex ecosystem, where what affects one area of the game has a ripple effect throughout the rest of the game.
Make highsec safer, less risk for more reward, then people will start to migrate to highsec, this in turns lowers the population of nullsec (and w-space and lowsec.) This in turn increases ISK in the system, causing inflation. Etc. Etc. Etc.
You cannot ignore one area of the game thinking it has no downstream effects on the area you're most interested in.
Attempt to have a larger world view, Mittens.
Blow Me Up Good Contest --áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=29295&find=unread |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1850
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 19:57:00 -
[33] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:Has the CSM seen any figures on WHspace population changes in the last 6-8months?
I seem to recall being shown a chart somewhere that indicated the population of w-space was gradually increasing over time, but I don't remember when or where I saw it.
Quote:My point? I believe highsec Incursions are killing WH space by misappropriated risk/reward.
More likely, you're seeing less population in w-space because fewer people are playing EVE across the board, because CCP went on some lengthy, deluded vision quest which resulted in their core product being neglected for years.
The misappropriation of risk and reward in hisec isn't Incursions, in my view, but L4 Missions being run by bots. You're more likely to at least lose a ship in an Incursion than in a L4.
Quote:Would you/the CSM support tweaking the incursion dynamic so you could earn the same ISK/hr, have the same (or better) experience, but not be able to grind them all day, every day?
It's not really something I'm going to champion or expend political capital on, sorry. There's bigger issues and sucking chest wounds that have to be addressed. I like Incursions. I think they're the best spaceship content we've had in 2 years, which isn't really fair because it's basically the /only/ spaceship content we've had in 2 years. Ugh. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1850
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 19:59:00 -
[34] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote: I disagree that the L4/Q20 buff was significant. "Serious" mission runners were already using the highest quality agents, the only people who saw increased income were casual missioners and players grinding their way up to Q20 on a new faction...and they only got there a few weeks early. It's not a huge difference.
It's a huge difference because the distribution of agents means it's much easier to hide bots. Previously one could pinpoint them in the L4Q20 areas and police them, potentially; now with them spread about willy-nilly, that 'report bot' function isn't going to get used much.
Not like it's easy to tell when a missionrunner is bot or not to begin with, since missionrunning is such a skullcrushingly awful activity. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
44
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 19:59:00 -
[35] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:Do you support the de-risking of HighSec? CCP has effectively removed wardeccing as a mechanic for aggression (since alliance hopping and super-sized inexpensive decshields are now allowed.) Hilmar has expressed a desire to beef up CONCORD.
Since the CSM (with you as Chairman) were presented with the wardec policy change and approved them, I wonder if the sandbox (outside nullsec) means anything to you?
I think you've done a pretty good job this year as CSM chairman, but I wonder why you'd let such an obvious game-changer, with respect to the PvP sandbox, get by you, even if it was focused on protecting carebears in HighSec space. Even a blind man can identify your well-known and rather obsessive stalking of Eve University and penchant for freaking out at anything that benefits them. Your question is full of hyperbole and you should feel bad about it; only the largest hisec entities have the intelligence and organization to manage dec-shields. I think dec-shields are dumb; I think the entire corporate war mechanic as it stands is dumb. Hell, I miss the Privateers days where you could wardec hundreds of corporations and not care. When CCP mentioned changing the policy I noted that I didn't like it, but it wasn't worth dealing with the endless petitions the existing system was spawning - since the GMs are usually overloaded anyway. Ideally I'd like to see a completely new war system, but I haven't given it much thought as this is firmly outside the realm of most of my constituents. Hilmar's random tweets don't concern me. As for your fears of 'carebears' and your obsession with Eve-Uni, if I truly felt that they were spawning weakness and not teaching people how to PvP, I'd just wardec them myself. However, around the time of the dec-shield change, I investigated their practices and Kelduum is running a solid shop with lots of PvP training opportunities - and I expect to see him on CSM7, so get your tinfoil badposts ready.
Removing the dec shield question, which i agree requires a lot of effort to maintain and is therefore balanced, perhaps you'd like to address the other aspects of the GM War Dec Ruling besides without pointing to the EVE UNI straw man?
This change has made highsec POS effectively invulnerable for all but sov holding alliances and nearly crippled mercenary corps (partic those younger ones not able to start alliances or compete for 0.0 work) ability to complete contracts.
Still simply not worth your time to object to or just wasn't considered by the CSM? If it was considered did CCP respond and how?
www.noirmercs.com Now Recruiting |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1850
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 20:03:00 -
[36] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: Removing the dec shield question, which i agree requires a lot of effort to maintain and is therefore balanced, perhaps you'd like to address the other aspects of the GM War Dec Ruling besides without pointing to the EVE UNI straw man?
This change has made highsec POS effectively invulnerable for all but sov holding alliances and nearly crippled mercenary corps (partic those younger ones not able to start alliances or compete for 0.0 work) ability to complete contracts.
Still simply not worth your time to object to or just wasn't considered by the CSM? If it was considered did CCP respond and how?
I said it was dumb, they did it anyway. vOv
Contrary to popular belief, I don't actually possess orbital mind control lasers. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Poetic Stanziel
Arrakis Technology
224
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 20:05:00 -
[37] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Contrary to popular belief, I don't actually possess orbital mind control lasers. People say you're a frickin' shark, though. ;)
Blow Me Up Good Contest --áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=29295&find=unread |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1850
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 20:09:00 -
[38] - Quote
Bagehi wrote:I remember a certain roundtable where null sec's farm/field issues were discussed. If I recall correctly, you shot down most, if not all, of the ideas. I was wondering what ideas you have or have seen that you would support if CCP asked CSM for input on that issue. Assuming they haven't already.
Roundtables are full of dumb ideas. I don't remember specifics of what I shot down, though; since I've spent a lot of time championing the concept of Farms and Fields, I doubt you.
In May we spent a lot of time brainstorming with CCP on Farms and Fields, as discussed in the May minutes. It's a very high priority for CSM6: not just making nullsec worthwhile in terms of risk/reward, but providing targets for smaller entities to set fire to. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Sephiroth CloneIIV
Vitriol Ventures BLACK-MARK
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 20:53:00 -
[39] - Quote
When are you going to get voted out like Finis Valorum Chancellor of the galactic republic in episode one?
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Finis_Valorum
Pubbie ice miner -"I was not elected ceo in my corp to watch my miners suffer and die while you discuss the gallente industrial blockade in a committee. If this body is not capable of action, I suggest new leadership is needed. I move for a Vote of No Confidence in CSM chairman Mittani's leadership." |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
247
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 21:21:00 -
[40] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:I'd also like to see exploration expanded and made more interesting. More variety in sites, more profit in neglected professions like archaeology, hacking, etc, and a big boost to this behavior in null. Exploration-based income is also more difficult to automate.
Make that happen, and I'll vote for you from now until the end of time. I'll also have your manbabies.
The Mittani wrote:It's not really something I'm going to champion or expend political capital on, sorry. There's bigger issues and sucking chest wounds that have to be addressed. I like Incursions. I think they're the best spaceship content we've had in 2 years, which isn't really fair because it's basically the /only/ spaceship content we've had in 2 years. Ugh. I'm curious what you think of my proposal of diminishing returns for farming incursions. It's an attempt at a "best of both worlds" solution where the initial payout is high, but the economic incentive is geared toward getting sansha out of the constellation in a reasonable time, not to keeping them there as long as possible.
The Mittani wrote:It's a huge difference because the distribution of agents means it's much easier to hide bots. Previously one could pinpoint them in the L4Q20 areas and police them, potentially; now with them spread about willy-nilly, that 'report bot' function isn't going to get used much. Ahh, I understand now. I agree that missionbots are a problem, but for the non-bots missioning wasn't affected much with the Q20 change, except it became a lot more user-friendly. I think the solution is to introduce SOMETHING that would require a thinking human response to start/continue/complete the mission. Even a captcha every 3-5 missions wouldn't be out of the question so long as CCP did a good job of explaining it in-game for those who don't read the news updates. |
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Important Internet Spaceship League
12
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 21:23:00 -
[41] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Bagehi wrote:I remember a certain roundtable where null sec's farm/field issues were discussed. If I recall correctly, you shot down most, if not all, of the ideas. I was wondering what ideas you have or have seen that you would support if CCP asked CSM for input on that issue. Assuming they haven't already. Roundtables are full of dumb ideas. I don't remember specifics of what I shot down, though; since I've spent a lot of time championing the concept of Farms and Fields, I doubt you. In May we spent a lot of time brainstorming with CCP on Farms and Fields, as discussed in the May minutes. It's a very high priority for CSM6: not just making nullsec worthwhile in terms of risk/reward, but providing targets for smaller entities to set fire to. Did anything come of that discussion? Anoms are getting an isk boost, something about pellets for POSs... but I haven't really heard anything more about that for the winter expansion. Is there more coming soon TM? |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1851
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 21:31:00 -
[42] - Quote
Bagehi wrote:The Mittani wrote:Bagehi wrote:I remember a certain roundtable where null sec's farm/field issues were discussed. If I recall correctly, you shot down most, if not all, of the ideas. I was wondering what ideas you have or have seen that you would support if CCP asked CSM for input on that issue. Assuming they haven't already. Roundtables are full of dumb ideas. I don't remember specifics of what I shot down, though; since I've spent a lot of time championing the concept of Farms and Fields, I doubt you. In May we spent a lot of time brainstorming with CCP on Farms and Fields, as discussed in the May minutes. It's a very high priority for CSM6: not just making nullsec worthwhile in terms of risk/reward, but providing targets for smaller entities to set fire to. Did anything come of that discussion? Anoms are getting an isk boost, something about pellets for POSs... but I haven't really heard anything more about that for the winter expansion. Is there more coming soon TM?
Can't break the NDA to discuss undisclosed, nonpublic plans which may or may not exist; I felt it was a productive discussion, though. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
260
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 22:12:00 -
[43] - Quote
This is truly the best mittens ever.
Finally seeing the type of communication I like from a CSMer.
Issler |
Poetic Stanziel
Arrakis Technology
224
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 22:17:00 -
[44] - Quote
Issler Dainze wrote:This is truly the best mittens ever.
Finally seeing the type of communication I like from a CSMer.
Issler Once he gets re-elected, you can expect him to communicate again in Nov 2012.
Blow Me Up Good Contest --áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=29295&find=unread |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
260
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 22:19:00 -
[45] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Issler Dainze wrote:This is truly the best mittens ever.
Finally seeing the type of communication I like from a CSMer.
Issler Once he gets re-elected, you can expect him to communicate again in Nov 2012.
I hope you aren't right but if history is any indication.....
Issler |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1853
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 22:47:00 -
[46] - Quote
Issler Dainze wrote:This is truly the best mittens ever.
Finally seeing the type of communication I like from a CSMer.
Issler
As a megalomaniac and/or a narcissist, I should have made this thread ages ago, but I was pretty busy ramming my head into a CCP-shaped brick wall. With the refocusing won and Winter looking to be a smooth and excellent expansion for once, I guess I have more time. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Mike Azariah
Gallente Benevolence Association
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 23:32:00 -
[47] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:This thread is to provide a consolidated place for my constituents to ask questions and receive personal responses from me.
Out of curiosity, whom do you currently consider to BE your constituents?
You are currently talking a very good game now that CCP has indicated that something is happening but we heard little to nothing of what was going on UNTIL CCP gave the winter news. Do you also take credit for the changing of the tides and the setting and rising of the sun?
I agree with Issler in that the communications would have been far better if it had been a steady thing and not a sudden blessing once the battles are over.
Will you be running again and will this be your communication standard or will we be looking forward to you being what you have been for a very very long time, a (self proclaimed) sadistic bastard who does not care what anybody else wants or needs?
m |
Raid'En
Apprentice Innovations
95
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 02:48:00 -
[48] - Quote
1) people always says small alliances can't make a place on nullsec, do you agree ? if so, do you have an idea on what to do ?
2) do you consider this expansion enough to fix your beloved nullsec, or will you still concentrate your efforts on nullsec on priority for the next one ? for example, you didn't though about FW, but did you though about how to make lowsec a more interesting place ?
3) with the new nebulaes and new battlecruisers, the winter expansion will have a lot of shiny with its fixes, while the first goal was to fix things. was it CCP who wanted shiny, or a common agreement ?
4) are the establishements out for a long time, or may they come back on the next espansion ? would you go for a closer or more far release of incarna related content ?
5) you obviously like the possibility of non consensual pvp on high sec, but do you consider the insurance for loss against concord a good thing ?
6) does your action against miners have a link to your position on ice being available so easily on high sec ? |
Myxx
Atropos Group
129
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 04:05:00 -
[49] - Quote
I wrote some stuff in regards to my opinion on how highsec is pretty crappy and could be worthwhile to make less safe in general, they're over here if you want to read them. Thoughts on any overall changes to highsec/concord/station games/wardec mechanic that might be needed? |
Che Biko
Humanitarian Communists
26
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 04:43:00 -
[50] - Quote
I would like to know how you think about this stuff mentioned by Hilmar in that Eurogamer interview.
Quote:But some of my concerns right now relate to whether the CSM is maybe focused on a particular aspect of the game and I'm starting to get feedback from players that they worry the CSM is too pre-occupied by a certain playstyle. That might mean we may need to change the structure, but definitely the CSM has worked as a feedback tool greatly throughout the years. Do you see any way the CSM could benefit from a change in structure? Do you think the CSM is adequatly representing all players? |
|
BiaXia
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 04:57:00 -
[51] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:The Mittani wrote:This thread is to provide a consolidated place for my constituents to ask questions and receive personal responses from me.
Out of curiosity, whom do you currently consider to BE your constituents? You are currently talking a very good game now that CCP has indicated that something is happening but we heard little to nothing of what was going on UNTIL CCP gave the winter news. Do you also take credit for the changing of the tides and the setting and rising of the sun? I agree with Issler in that the communications would have been far better if it had been a steady thing and not a sudden blessing once the battles are over. Will you be running again and will this be your communication standard or will we be looking forward to you being what you have been for a very very long time, a (self proclaimed) sadistic bastard who does not care what anybody else wants or needs? m
I'm not really sure what you want. Until CCP actually announces anything, it's under NDA and none of the CSM members can't talk about it without being so vague it's meaningless. CCP just announced a large amount of things, so now the CSM can talk a bit more freely with the playerbase and show the fruits of their efforts. Until CCP actually tells you what they plan on doing, the CSM members really can't say anything other than "STUFF IS HAPPENING. I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT, BUT I ASSURE YOU, IT IS HAPPENING," which really doesn't make anyone happy.
The NDA these guys are operating under is pretty strict. The moment they talk about even considering a certain feature, it's protected and can't be discussed publicly. So of course the CSM is going to take credit for new features when they're announced. It's pretty much their only chance.
Really, the communications of this CSM have been very good. Most of them maintain blogs giving their views in-depth on pretty much everything. If you wanted to ask Mittani a question, then you can very easily just catch him on twitter and ask him a question. If it's not stupid, he might even respond. There have also been things like the fireside chats, which have never been done by any previous CSM.
|
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
110
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 08:12:00 -
[52] - Quote
There is currently a rather large imbalance between the effort needed (manpower + coordination + logistics + skills + money + etc.) and profits to be made in manufacturing common items (not talking about caps/supers) locally in 0.0, and the effort needed and profits to be made in simply importing them via freighters/JFs from Jita. Do you think this is an issue? If so, do you have an idea of a solution?
What would you think of a hypothetical scenario where 0.0 is still mostly dependant on highsec import for supply of low-level materials (minerals, datacores, decryptors, TI mods...), but most of high-level construction happens locally? What game mechanics could be changed, added, or removed to make this happen?
How do you like the new cyno effects? |
Temba Ronin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 08:21:00 -
[53] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:
I'd also like to see exploration expanded and made more interesting. More variety in sites, more profit in neglected professions like archaeology, hacking, etc, and a big boost to this behavior in null. Exploration-based income is also more difficult to automate.
I am quite happy to hear a CSM actually supporting making another part of this game more interesting. Towards that end i would like to solicit your response and hopefully your support of an idea i posted in another forum:
"The goons have taken matters into their own hands to address bots mining ice in Gallente space but what about the rest of New Eden?
I would like to propose that the hacking skill be upgraded to "hijacking" to allow a pilot to eject a bot or afk pilot from any ship and send the now empty ship to a location somewhere in that same system as the property of the hijacking pilot. Giving him the opportunity to remove it from bot mining and sell it on the open market. Level 5 Hijacking skill would allow the ship to auto pilot thru gates to a destination set by the hijacker up to five gates.
The hijacking defense could be as simple as typing in the name of the pilot targeting your ship and the name of his corp before the hijack timer is successful something like 5 minutes. Additionally once successfully ejected the bot capsule would begin a 20 minute timer at the expiration of which it would become a legit target (Red) for any pilot with positive sec status with no penalty sec status hit for the extermination of a bot.
This way every human pilot can become a part of the solution to the bot problem and not just the goons. These are my thoughts as to an interactive multi-player way to address something that puts legit players at a market disadvantage when bots can mine non-stop 23/ 7 365. "
I would really appreciate your response to this idea or perhaps a better developed variation that could empower more active players to help exterminate the bots.
I think your thread here is a very good idea .... hearing directly from the Chairman who is also an experienced player i believe will be beneficial for players, the CSM, and CCP. Additionally i know the temptation is great because we all value our own opinions but this thread would be stronger longer if people other then "The Mittani" did not answer the questions put to our Chairman. I would like your opinion on that caveat as well Mr. Chairman. |
Rer Eirikr
Clearly Compensating The Dark Triad
50
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 08:44:00 -
[54] - Quote
How do you feel about the recent changes to PI Customs Offices?
Do you feel this falls under the 'Farms & Fields' discussion you had previously?
Do you feel this will be a successful way for smaller entities to generate ~gudfites~ and 'fight the man' of larger Sov Holding Entities?
Your thoughts on the player created taxation, the office's eHP values, etc. etc. yadda yadda?
And yes, I actually like the clickfest that is PI. Guilty pleasure.
Also, what happened to the so called "Fireside Chats" we had a ways back from CSM6? This thread is great but I enjoy hearing from all of the CSM Members, yes, even Trebor. |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1858
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 09:04:00 -
[55] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote: Out of curiosity, whom do you currently consider to BE your constituents?
My typical voters appreciate war, murder, and cunning. They can be nullsec warriors, spies, gankers, scammers. Most of my efforts go towards fixing nullsec issues, as those are both the most broken in the game currently, and those closest to the hearts of 'my people', but I generally advocate on behalf of grief, conquest and terror.
Quote:You are currently talking a very good game now that CCP has indicated that something is happening but we heard little to nothing of what was going on UNTIL CCP gave the winter news. Do you also take credit for the changing of the tides and the setting and rising of the sun?
Let's cut to the chase: you're a nutter. I encountered your ultra-serious roleplaying blog during your failed run for CSM. There's really no point in answering your questions about me 'taking credit' for things. Why mince words?
Even if you were half-serious in your question, you should have some vague conception of a what a NDA is.
Quote:Will you be running again and will this be your communication standard or will we be looking forward to you being what you have been for a very very long time, a (self proclaimed) sadistic bastard who does not care what anybody else wants or needs?
Odds are that I will run for Chair in CSM7 again. I've got a pretty good relationship with the staffers at CCP who actually make EVE, even if I think their upper management eats paste. My constituents do not doubt me, and I've already delivered more than anyone expected me to accomplish in their wildest pipe-dreams. Hell, the term is only a little more than half over; there's still more CSM6 can accomplish yet.
I don't have a 'communication standard'. I'll try to keep this thread regularly updated as time permits, but things happen.
If you doubt my sadism, you've probably been spending too much time blogging with your sockpuppets and not paying much attention to the rest of EVE.
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1858
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 09:20:00 -
[56] - Quote
Raid'En wrote:1) people always says small alliances can't make a place on nullsec, do you agree ? if so, do you have an idea on what to do ?
Nerf supercaps and boost anomaly income, as well as provide more sources of isk for starting alliance by buffing exploration and fixing the Tech problem.
Looks like we've already got the supercap thing and the anomaly thing in motion.
Quote: 2) do you consider this expansion enough to fix your beloved nullsec, or will you still concentrate your efforts on nullsec on priority for the next one ? for example, you didn't though about FW, but did you though about how to make lowsec a more interesting place ?
Winter is a start, but only that. I half suspect that the supercap nerfs will not go far enough (Titan guns blapping BS with ease) and the sov system is a disaster. The Winter expansion will triage a lot of EVE's sucking chest wounds if implemented properly via TiDi and cap rebalances, but there's still a lot which is wrong that doesn't reach the level of 'fix this or your subscriber numbers will plummet'.
I'm not a lowsec guy. I think it needs fixing, but most 'lowsec voters' throw in for Meissa, who lives there. My idle opinion is that lowsec is so borked that it'd require an entire expansion to fix it and revamp it, not just a few tiny tweaks here and there. But there's a huge difference between 'my idle opinion' and 'things I expend political capital on'.
Quote: 3) with the new nebulaes and new battlecruisers, the winter expansion will have a lot of shiny with its fixes, while the first goal was to fix things. was it CCP who wanted shiny, or a common agreement ?
This seems like a false dichotomy. There'a a demographic from failheap that loves to howl about 'shiny'. New art tends to improve the game, I didn't pay much attention to the nebulae as a CSM but my jaw dropped when I logged into SiSi today.
The winter expansion is full of critical fixes, and those fixes address the most grevious of sucking chest wounds: Supercaps, Lag, Pos Misery, and a bunch of other things which I can't announce because ~NDA~.
Quote:4) are the establishements out for a long time, or may they come back on the next espansion ? would you go for a closer or more far release of incarna related content ?
NDA on details. I personally don't trust CCP to implement WiS content after the Incarna disaster. I'm against wasting time on non-spaceship content while EVE itself is at risk.
Quote:5) you obviously like the possibility of non consensual pvp on high sec, but do you consider the insurance for loss against concord a good thing ?
6) does your action against miners have a link to your position on ice being available so easily on high sec ?
5: I think that the people in hisec who think that removing insurance from Concord losses will protect them would be in for a nasty, nasty surprise if that comes to pass.
Vile Rat and I would like to see insurance removed from Concord losses, because the isk involved is trivial to the gankers, and I suspect that the suffering from the victims will be ever more delectable if they cannot rationalize the gank as an economic act.
6: I'm a big fan of ice belts in hisec. The CCP guys on the alliance tournament video commentary just sort of popped out with the 'remove hisec ice' idea. I will be very, very, very unhappy if hisec ice is removed, because I enjoy having belts full of docile, entitled victims to torture at my leisure.
Suggesting that I have a 'position' on hisec ice is exactly why I made this thread; I don't support removing hisec ice at all. Glad to clarify the random misconception.
7: Another problem with these forums is only being able to use five quotes in a post. That's dumb. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1858
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 09:26:00 -
[57] - Quote
Myxx wrote:I wrote some stuff in regards to my opinion on how highsec is pretty crappy and could be worthwhile to make less safe in general, they're over here if you want to read them. Thoughts on any overall changes to highsec/concord/station games/wardec mechanic that might be needed?
Mostly as Chair I spend my time working on what I call the 'sucking chest wounds' of gameplay, things that are actively ruining EVE as we know it.
There are a lot of things that sort of quietly truck along not doing very well, but this CSM is a triage organization. We spend our time trying to get CCP to fix the worst aspects of the game, or otherwise prevent the management from driving the game off a cliff in a fit of irrational exuberance.
So while Hisec has a lot of crappy things about it and might be too safe, and I might agree with your points, they aren't a priority while there are sucking chest wounds need to be attended to.
My opinions about issues that I'm not in a position or willing to act on don't much matter at the end of the day.
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1858
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 09:31:00 -
[58] - Quote
Che Biko wrote: Do you see any way the CSM could benefit from a change in structure? Do you think the CSM is adequatly representing all players?
I think the CSM needs one change only for CSM7: a minimum signatures requirement to be added on the ballot. Something relatively minor, like 100 signatures.
CSM6 had 50+ candidates. 20 of those were 'real' candidates with actual support. The rest were random no-names who swung only a handful of votes, and thus the votes they received were wasted.
Siloing proposals are dumb if you exercise a modicum of intelligence to analyze them. I'm technically a hisec representative right now, as I spend much of my time in hisec killing miners or in Jita killing pods and frigates. Many nullsec players have the 'majority' of their characters in hisec doing this or that.
The CSM, like all democratic bodies, represents those interests which care enough about their issues to get off their asses and vote in an organized way. This means that the unorganized and unmotivated are completely unrepresented, just like in the real world. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1858
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 09:35:00 -
[59] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:There is currently a rather large imbalance between the effort needed (manpower + coordination + logistics + skills + money + etc.) and profits to be made in manufacturing common items (not talking about caps/supers) locally in 0.0, and the effort needed and profits to be made in simply importing them via freighters/JFs from Jita. Do you think this is an issue? If so, do you have an idea of a solution?
What would you think of a hypothetical scenario where 0.0 is still mostly dependant on highsec import for supply of low-level materials (minerals, datacores, decryptors, TI mods...), but most of high-level construction happens locally? What game mechanics could be changed, added, or removed to make this happen?
This problem was discussed at length the May summit, and what can be disclosed is in the minutes.
Nullsec's dependence on Jita is something that disgusts just about every nullsec rep on the CSM. We want to build empires of our own in the outer reaches, and not be forced to rely on wretches slaving away in the hisec Veldspar Mines.
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1858
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 09:46:00 -
[60] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote: I would like to propose that the hacking skill be upgraded to "hijacking" to allow a pilot to eject a bot or afk pilot from any ship and send the now empty ship to a location somewhere in that same system as the property of the hijacking pilot. Giving him the opportunity to remove it from bot mining and sell it on the open market. Level 5 Hijacking skill would allow the ship to auto pilot thru gates to a destination set by the hijacker up to five gates.
I think hijacking is an amusing idea, but entirely new features like this are likely to drop below the sucking chest wound threshold of political action so I'm not likely to make a formal thread about it in the CSM forums or rally support for it in a summit session.
I might toss it into Skype in the CCP/CSM channel, or mention it while drinking with the devs after-hours. Beer and Skype can make magical things happen outside of the normal order of development.
That doesn't mean your idea will survive beyond an initial sniff test. (How do you balance it with people who are afk on gates, not bots? Do we want people to be afraid to use autopilot for fear of having their freighters and orcas hijacked? I might, but it might not be worth the potential loss of subscribers to CCP. How hard is it to code such a thing? How many sprints would it take? Is there something else more broken than this to deal with first? Aren't belt-bots being policed by gankers already? Aren't mission and anomaly bots more a problem, and this wouldn't impact them, would it? Why have the ship follow yours, why not have the hijacking have their pod eject from their hull, so you're forced jump from your hijacking ship to the stolen hull? etc etc etc. In fact, the more you ask these questions, the less solid your idea becomes.) The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 27 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |